| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Bart wrote:
Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" g -- This outgoing message has been scanned by AVG Anti-Virus 7.0. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
We have only been charged one time for our bowsprit and boomkin and windvane.
That was on a face dock, they also only charged for 35 feet (westsail 32 that is 43 feet overall). Rich |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
On Sun, 09 May 2004 15:46:35 GMT, Gualtier Malde
wrote: Bart wrote: Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" You said they had no experience, so "every type of condition they could imagine" means nothing. All responsible studies of bad weather problems have concluded that for any given displacement, the longer the safer, as long as it is structurally sound. I wion't offer an opinion. I don't think anyone should make such a choice based on internet opinions. Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a Ask not with whom the buck stops . . . |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
I have to admit I really like the looks of the Tayana. I don't like
the teak decks and long bowsprit though. I believe the Union also has both of these. There is one in San Diego that appears ready to go anywhere for $89k. I just don't know how to get it up to Seattle and am not positive if its the type of boat we want this time around. We use to have a Fuji 36 that is very similar. Your story is very interesting. There is a young couple here in Juneau, Alaska that brought a Union 36 from Saipan back around 2001. Did your daughter move to Alaska by chance? On Sun, 09 May 2004 15:46:35 GMT, Gualtier Malde wrote: Bart wrote: Are boats like the Tayana 37 still popular and still a good choice for ocean crossings? I've crawled in and out of a few boats during the past couple weeks and it looks to me that the heavy displacment boats are just built a lot better than the mid to light displacement ones. This is especially true in the price range I can afford (less than $100k). Most of the heavy displacement boats also have more storage because the tanks are usually located in the bilge leaving the settees free for storage. This appears to be another plus. When comparing open ocean vessels, Is the performace between a heavy and mid displacment boat really all that much different? If not, then maybe I wouldn't get bored with a lower performance heavy displacment vessel. I'm not sure about this and would like comments. Most heavy displacement boats have bow sprits. If a boat has a 5' bowsprit, do you add that into the total length of the boat when computing moorage charges? It would be ashame to get charged for 42' when the boat is only has 37' on deck and 37' of living space. As you can see, I'm still having trouble finding a suitable boat. I want something to liveaboard here in Alaska and in 3 years take off and at least sail the S. Pacific if not farther. Our daughter and son-in-law worked in Saipan for 5 years. During that time they bought a very badly maintained 36' Union and worked hard to make it livable and seaworthy. In Seattle, I was telling a sail boating friend about the purchase and the product and he put on a disappointed face, saying "I hate to see kids buying a boat like that." I was alarmed but, in a flash, realized he was a racing sailor for whom nothing was as important as that. And he confirmed it as he went on: "The damn things are like Hans Christians - they can't get out of their own way in less than a full gale." He must have seen my anxiety, because he seemed to relent and finally said: "Of course, no matter how bad it gets, she'll bring her crew home". Our kids had previously had no significant blue water experience, maintenance and surveying on Saipan was minimal, and I was terribly worried about their planned crossing to Seattle in the summer of 2001. We got reports from Pacific Seafarers' Net, but worried constantly. We could tell they were having some trouble with equipment - the Saipan fuel congealed in the cold weather of the north Pacific, the water maker stopped working... All through those months I clung to those words like a mantra: "She'll bring them home". And she did. Our daughter told us later that they experienced about every type of condition they could imagine, and not once had any concern for their safety. My vote is: "Heavy" g -- This outgoing message has been scanned by AVG Anti-Virus 7.0. http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Norm,
I am very prejudiced towards the Tayana 37, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. You should know though that not all of them have teak decks. One of the main selling points when we bought Tricia Jean was that it had teak back in the cockpit area, but the side decks and foredeck are pure unadulterated plastic. I like the look and feel of the teak back in the cockpit, but it just never made sense to me to take a nice waterproof plastic boat and drill thousands of holes in it then expect the water to stay exclusively on the outside. As far as performance goes, we were pleasantly surprised with it (and absolutely love the asym. spinnaker we recently bought). Of course, you've got to understand that our previous boat was a Catalina 30 - a nice boat and we sure had good times with it, but when we took it to Baja in the '99 HaHa, we were one of the last boats to arrive at every stop. Fair winds - Dan Best p.s. Did I mention storage? That's what REALLY sold us on the boat. We've had it 2 1/2 years and I still have 3 drawers that have nothing in them. Norm wrote: I have to admit I really like the looks of the Tayana. I don't like the teak decks and long bowsprit though. I believe the Union also has both of these. There is one in San Diego that appears ready to go anywhere for $89k. I just don't know how to get it up to Seattle and am not positive if its the type of boat we want this time around. We use to have a Fuji 36 that is very similar. -- Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448 B-2/75 1977-1979 Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean" http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heavy displacement vs Medium Displacement for Ocean Passages
Dan Best wrote in
news:WXZnc.23973$536.4637926@attbi_s03: We've had it 2 1/2 years and I still have 3 drawers that have nothing in them. WOW! You are certainly an inspiration. I've lived on a boat since I was 5 (I'm now 25) and I'm still too much of a packrat. Aaron |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
