![]() |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Well I spent last weekend down in Seattle - boat shopping. Initially
my wife and I were looking at boats between 36 and 38' but somehow we ended up in the 40+ boats and of course we fell in love with one. After we got home, we figured out how much the thing was going to set us back including maintenance, needed upgrades, insurance and moorage and decided against it. The boat was a beautiful Passport 40 but it was old (1980) and needed a lot of work (wood decks to boot). The work doesn't bother me as much as the expense in upgrades. Boat was $120K+ and then add a bunch of other stuff on top just to get it ready to go to Alaska (+$10k) and we were just out of our affordability range. Now we're trying to get refocused and once again looking for a well built sailboat in the 35-38' range that is capable of offshore passages, performs fairly well (don't really want a slug) & something that isn't so old that everything needs to be replaced before cruising. We can put down $60k and still have another $10k for extras and getting it back up to Alaska. I don't mind taking out a little loan if the price is up around 80$ for the boat, but I really don't want to have to borrow so much that I'm tied to the dock and a job paying the thing off. Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Any recommendations on what boats to focus on? |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
|
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Wayne.B wrote:
The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot. That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too much about it for cruising. Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference. BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant? Prob'ly not to most cruisers. ... Most cruisers spend more than half their time motorsailing anyway unless they have a boat that performs very well in light wind (and that rules out the vast majority of cruising boats). Sure, but then most cruiser chose the most barn-like boat they can find, in hopes of approximating the same comfort they'd get in a suburban home (without the lawn to mow). Then they rationalize like crazy the boat's sailing shortcomings, and carry lots of jugs of diesel fuel tied on deck. ... The difference between a 36 and a 40 can mean a lot more room below however depending on the boat. A 40 is a lot more boat for two people to handle which is another consideration, but a 40 can be a lot more comfortable in moderately rough conditions. Everythings a tradeoff. Excellent advice. Remember that a boat's size is more accurately measured by it's cubic than it's length; or it's displacement. And the costs go up exponentially with size. For example, price out the replacement running & standing rigging & sails for 36 & 40 footers of similar type. The bigger boat will cost almost double, usually. But the bigger boat will also be much more roomy and much more capable (all else being equal). ... Have you looked at a Pearson 365? It's very roomy for the length and I know several people who have cruised and lived aboard on them. Also Pearsons were pretty well built boats. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
"Norm" wrote in message ... Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Any recommendations on what boats to focus on? Well, the Passport isn't really a slug for a cruising boat. It'll feel different than the CD, and be faster and more comfortable to boot, but will probably take more effort to sail since it's a heavier boat. It won't be like sailing a J/120, that's for sure, but it all depends on what you want with the sailing experience. A big heavy cruising boat will feel more stately compared to a lightweight fin keel rocket. There really aren't any bad boats, but there may be wrong boats for your purpose. Take the slug comment with a grain of salt. Also, you plan on taking her back to Alaska, where are your cruising grounds going to be? Will you be in the Gulf and exposed, or will you have access to shelter along the coasts and fjords? I went to the Yachtworld web site, opened up the length range to 36-41 feet, included WA and BC and came up with this list of boats that I think are "good boats". I kind of narrowed the list to more "wholesome" cruisers, with that CD type look, and also some more modern "performance" cruisers like the Passport. Cal 40 (rates 129). Did you like the Morgan 382 (rates 132) The Gulfstar 37 (152) is a nice cruiser, and it looks like it's ready to go. Sceptre 36 (135). There's a couple of Ericson 41s that are decent boats. They look somewhat like the CD but don't command the price (rates 145). Bristol 40s are nice boats too (prolly rate about 180-200ish) Ohlson 38's have a good rep for sailing (rate 165) The Reliance 37 is a mini Passport 40 w/o aft cabin (rates 152) Santana 37 (rates 145) There's a Cape George cutter that almost makes the price cut (rates about 165) I think the Gulfstar 37 and Reliance 37 might fit your bill, but they are more modern looking. I kind of sense that you love the looks of the CD, but are enamored of the interior space you get with shorter overhangs and more beam. It's not an easy compromise, and the ones that look good, have decent interiors, and sail well can get pretty expensive. You might also fall in love with the Ericson. Did this help? Matt |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
"DSK" wrote in message . .. Wayne.B wrote: The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot. That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too much about it for cruising. Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference. BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant? Prob'ly not to most cruisers. Or about one full day on a 2,000 mile transpacific hop. Paul www.jcruiser.org |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Thanks Matt & all of the others who responded.
I did look at the Morgan 382 in Seattle. lots of rot and the floor was pretty bad. Not sure if its considered an offshore boat. I also looked at a Tartan 37, but it was pretty beat. Same with the Gulfstar 37 - Offshore vessel? I'll be looking at all the suggestions once I get home tonight. I have to admit, the Passport sure looked nice. I just wish it was a bit less expensive. Not sure if I'd ever get it paid off & get all the extra stuff it needed before I was too old to go. On Tue, 04 May 2004 22:26:16 GMT, "Matt/Meribeth Pedersen" wrote: "Norm" wrote in message ... Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Any recommendations on what boats to focus on? Well, the Passport isn't really a slug for a cruising boat. It'll feel different than the CD, and be faster and more comfortable to boot, but will probably take more effort to sail since it's a heavier boat. It won't be like sailing a J/120, that's for sure, but it all depends on what you want with the sailing experience. A big heavy cruising boat will feel more stately compared to a lightweight fin keel rocket. There really aren't any bad boats, but there may be wrong boats for your purpose. Take the slug comment with a grain of salt. Also, you plan on taking her back to Alaska, where are your cruising grounds going to be? Will you be in the Gulf and exposed, or will you have access to shelter along the coasts and fjords? I went to the Yachtworld web site, opened up the length range to 36-41 feet, included WA and BC and came up with this list of boats that I think are "good boats". I kind of narrowed the list to more "wholesome" cruisers, with that CD type look, and also some more modern "performance" cruisers like the Passport. Cal 40 (rates 129). Did you like the Morgan 382 (rates 132) The Gulfstar 37 (152) is a nice cruiser, and it looks like it's ready to go. Sceptre 36 (135). There's a couple of Ericson 41s that are decent boats. They look somewhat like the CD but don't command the price (rates 145). Bristol 40s are nice boats too (prolly rate about 180-200ish) Ohlson 38's have a good rep for sailing (rate 165) The Reliance 37 is a mini Passport 40 w/o aft cabin (rates 152) Santana 37 (rates 145) There's a Cape George cutter that almost makes the price cut (rates about 165) I think the Gulfstar 37 and Reliance 37 might fit your bill, but they are more modern looking. I kind of sense that you love the looks of the CD, but are enamored of the interior space you get with shorter overhangs and more beam. It's not an easy compromise, and the ones that look good, have decent interiors, and sail well can get pretty expensive. You might also fall in love with the Ericson. Did this help? Matt |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
|
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Can someone help a plastic stinkpotter like me? What does PHRF stand for? thanks |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Richard Malcolm wrote:
Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Can someone help a plastic stinkpotter like me? What does PHRF stand for? thanks Performance Handicap Racing Fleet. It is the most commonly used handicapping method for club racing. It is based on boat performance on windward-leeward courses. The lower the number, the faster the boat. The Schock 35 on which I crew has a PHRF of 72. A slug compared to what? Unless you are going to race the boat, I suggest that you ignore the PHRF rating. |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel
capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be a lot more. on a short voyage, you turn on the motor when boatspeed goes below your chosen figure. on a long passage, you might find yourself sailing in awind that you otherwise might motor in. jeff Paul L wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . .. Wayne.B wrote: The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot. That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too much about it for cruising. Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference. BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant? Prob'ly not to most cruisers. Or about one full day on a 2,000 mile transpacific hop. Paul www.jcruiser.org |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan
wrote: the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be a lot more. ====================================== Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance, once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so. It's important to note that motorsailing is usually done at low engine revs and is fairly fuel efficient. If you're range limited however you don't have much choice except waiting fot the wind to cooperate. |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan wrote: the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be a lot more. ====================================== Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance, once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so. It's important to note that motorsailing is usually done at low engine revs and is fairly fuel efficient. If you're range limited however you don't have much choice except waiting fot the wind to cooperate. One of the dirty little secrets of long-distance cruising, among others, is that they spend more time under power than you might think. Of course, some of it is just taking advantage of the time spent recharging batteries, might as well get some extra speed out of that time. John Cairns |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Most long distance cruising boats are poor sailing performers, requiring
lots of wind to make them move. If they were better performers then they would probably be sailed a lot more often rather than motored so much. Paul www.jcruiser.org "jeff feehan" wrote in message ink.net... the problem with extending this reasoning to a long voyage is that fuel capacity limits how far you can motor. to the extent that the PHRF difference reflects differing light air performance, the extra time could be a lot more. on a short voyage, you turn on the motor when boatspeed goes below your chosen figure. on a long passage, you might find yourself sailing in awind that you otherwise might motor in. jeff Paul L wrote: "DSK" wrote in message . .. Wayne.B wrote: The difference between PHRF 140 and 180 is less than half a knot. That's a huge difference to a racing sailor but I wouldn't worry too much about it for cruising. Agreed, but it should also be noted that the difference in windward performance could be bigger than the PHRF rating difference. BTW one way to figure the difference in boats by their PHRF ratings is that each point lower equals approx one second per mile. So a difference of 40 means about half an hour over 45 miles. Is that significant? Prob'ly not to most cruisers. Or about one full day on a 2,000 mile transpacific hop. Paul www.jcruiser.org |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 May 2004 16:26:56 GMT, jeff feehan wrote: Even starting off with a boat that has decent light air performance, once you load it down with cruising gear, fuel and water, performance goes out the window in most cases. Add in a 3 blade fixed prop, a slightly dirty bottom and heavily built cruising sails, and you might as well figure on motor sailing in anything under 12 kts or so. I have a different take on this. I race on a moderately heavy 42'er (24k lbs ~11k kg). I have been on this boat both when she was loaded down for a trip around South America and also racing light. She sails really well in all conditions no matter what her load. I think the big thing here is that she has plenty of sail area to keep her moving (SA/D is around 20). I have also seen boats like an ultralight Olson 40 loaded down with a couple thousand pounds of crew and they still go upwind and down like a scalded cat. Of course, in cruising mode they won't go upwind quite as well unless you want to move the Dinty Moore to the windward rail at each tack. But downwind and reaching they'll still be fast. Slower than if she was not burdened with a bunch of extra weight, but it will still walk away from the Baba 40, with a lot less effort to boot. If you take a light boat and don't give her enough sail power, then when you load her down she may fall into the poor performance range. Personally, I think one of the reasons people don't sail in the light stuff is that their boats don't have enough sail area to keep going without the hassles of a big overlapping genoa. But if you have a relatively high SA/D ratio, then when you make all the compromises for your cruising sails (like a high clew and less overlap) you still have enough power left over to actually make light air sailing rewarding. But I also think that if you have a decent performing boat then you're more likely to pay attention to things like dirty bottoms (and take care of that), and are less likely to put a three blade prop on the boat. The skipper of the 42'er considered a two blade fixed prop for the trip up the coast from Califonia to Washington because he thought he might need to motor against the wind a lot. He never did it though, he's too much of a sailor at heart and kept the old folding prop on. He couldn't stomach the half knot hit on the sailing performance. |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Ok. It sounds like a mid performance boat would be a lot more fun to
sail as well as something that I might actuall sail more often rather than revert to motoring every where. With that in mind, are there many boats that are fairly good performers and something that is still safe enough to cross the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? I've also noticed that the lighter weight boats usually have smaller tankage and since there isn't a huge bilge to place the tanks, they are usually placed under the settees and therefore eat away at the available storage. Tons of compromises aren't there? I sure like to find something without blisters, no deck rot, good deck layout, a U shaped dinette that makes into a double, a settee that makes a good sea berth, good storage, no teak decks, traveler on the coach roof, cockpit seats just long enough to sleep on, minimum of 100 gal water & 50 gal fuel, no bowsprit, good galley with good storage and with the ice box not against the engine compartment, head with maybe a separate shower, fairly fast and yet safe enough to take anywhere. ...... Damn, I feel like I'm asking too much!!! On Tue, 04 May 2004 16:55:06 GMT, (Norm) wrote: Well I spent last weekend down in Seattle - boat shopping. Initially my wife and I were looking at boats between 36 and 38' but somehow we ended up in the 40+ boats and of course we fell in love with one. After we got home, we figured out how much the thing was going to set us back including maintenance, needed upgrades, insurance and moorage and decided against it. The boat was a beautiful Passport 40 but it was old (1980) and needed a lot of work (wood decks to boot). The work doesn't bother me as much as the expense in upgrades. Boat was $120K+ and then add a bunch of other stuff on top just to get it ready to go to Alaska (+$10k) and we were just out of our affordability range. Now we're trying to get refocused and once again looking for a well built sailboat in the 35-38' range that is capable of offshore passages, performs fairly well (don't really want a slug) & something that isn't so old that everything needs to be replaced before cruising. We can put down $60k and still have another $10k for extras and getting it back up to Alaska. I don't mind taking out a little loan if the price is up around 80$ for the boat, but I really don't want to have to borrow so much that I'm tied to the dock and a job paying the thing off. Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Any recommendations on what boats to focus on? |
Boat shopping - but got off course.
Norm:
Get ready for a lot of laughs, jeers, and hee-haws. I have a Westsail 32 that will soon be on the market. It'll get you anywhere you want to go, comfortably, safely....and slowly. Skipper Dick "Norm" wrote in message ... Well I spent last weekend down in Seattle - boat shopping. Initially my wife and I were looking at boats between 36 and 38' but somehow we ended up in the 40+ boats and of course we fell in love with one. After we got home, we figured out how much the thing was going to set us back including maintenance, needed upgrades, insurance and moorage and decided against it. The boat was a beautiful Passport 40 but it was old (1980) and needed a lot of work (wood decks to boot). The work doesn't bother me as much as the expense in upgrades. Boat was $120K+ and then add a bunch of other stuff on top just to get it ready to go to Alaska (+$10k) and we were just out of our affordability range. Now we're trying to get refocused and once again looking for a well built sailboat in the 35-38' range that is capable of offshore passages, performs fairly well (don't really want a slug) & something that isn't so old that everything needs to be replaced before cruising. We can put down $60k and still have another $10k for extras and getting it back up to Alaska. I don't mind taking out a little loan if the price is up around 80$ for the boat, but I really don't want to have to borrow so much that I'm tied to the dock and a job paying the thing off. Yesterday I was looking at a 36' Cape Dory on Yachtworld, but the thing has a PHRF of 180. The Passport has a PHRF of 140 and most people said that it was a slug. Now I'm confused. Any recommendations on what boats to focus on? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com