FS: 1994 Corsair F-27 trimaran
Mike Maurer
1994 Corsair F-27 Tri Dreamin’
$56,500
Dimensions:
LOA: 27'1
Beam: 19'1
Displacement: 2600 lbs.
Draft: 4'11 or 12"
Bridge Clearance: 41'
Hull Material: Composite Fiberglass
Details
- Honda Engine Model: 9.8 hp. New in March 1999
- Electronic start with new fwd/rev levers – new in March 1999
- Fuel: 6 gallons
- Propane (not Origo) counter top stove..
- The head compartment currently has a Porta-Potti. Less weight fewer
hassles.
- Autohelm Tridata system that features Speed, depth, timer, knot log,
trip minder, and water temp.
- Bulkhead hung Suunto compass.
- VHF radio with masthead antenna
- Stereo system. – new in March 1999
- Autohelm ST1000 with Handheld remote
- Windex
- Battery - new in March 1999
- 2 additional 12 volt accessory sockets.
- 2 additional cabin lights. Main cabin lights are also red.
- A 22-watt solar panel.
All of the sails are in good condition.
- North Sail pinhead mainsail with cover
- Hank-on North Sail jib and Genoa, each with a sail bag
- Smyth Asymmetrical spinnaker on bowsprit.
- A brand new, additional Screecher halyard has just been installed.
(Oct/99)
- All halyards and spinnaker tack line are new within the last 6 months
- New interior settee fabric installed 4 months ago. (Blue and gray
interior)
- Full spinnaker package with winches on the combings.
- Self-tailing primary winches. 5 Winches in total. Lifting eyes. Bow
Pole for the screecher. 2 winch handles.
- 5 deck mounted rope clutches.
- Tiller Lock mounted on tiller handle.
- New Black high grade Sunrise Bow/Wing nets installed 4 months ago.
- Aft cabin hatch canvas cover.
- Engine cover
- Pacific Galvanized tandem axle trailer, with surge brakes and flush
kit.
- New brakes and master cylinder installed 3 months ago.
- New outer trailer bunks installed 4 months ago.
- Trailer mast support. Trailer lights.
- Complete anchor system.
- Aft cabin opening transom port.
- Boarding ladder.
- Docklines and fenders
- Documented
- Lots of extra’s
--
Mike Maurer
mau...@earthlink.net
P) 760 732 5951
N.B. It is forbidden to use this address for mailing lists or any
other kind of unsolicited publicity.
SAIL LOCO
"Trains are a winter sport"
Bobsprit
Yea, but you'd still be slower!
Robert B
P30 NY
Douglas King
> > I could buy an Express 35 for that kinda mola.>>>
Bobsprit wrote:>
> Yea, but you'd still be slower!
Maybe, maybe not. Only a simpleton or a zealot will assume that a
multihull is automatically faster than a mono. It's certain that there
are conditions where the Express 35 would leave an F-27 behind. Upwind
in light air and chop, for example. It's also certain that the Express
35 is a LOT roomier and more comfortable. The only unequivocal benefit I
see for the multihull is shallow draft.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
Bobsprit
see for the multihull is shallow draft.>>
The F27 can top 15 knots and has been known to approach 20 knots. Add that to
shallow draft and you have a thrill that can't be matched by the 35. Some
people are willing to pay for that. Apples and Oranges on this one, I'd say.
That said, I would also take the Express, but I sure would like to try out an
F27!
Robert B
P30 NY
Jesse Deupree
> > SAILOCO wrote
> > > I could buy an Express 35 for that kinda mola.>>>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:>
> > Yea, but you'd still be slower!
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Only a simpleton or a zealot will assume that a
> multihull is automatically faster than a mono. It's certain that there
> are conditions where the Express 35 would leave an F-27 behind. Upwind
> in light air and chop, for example. It's also certain that the Express
> 35 is a LOT roomier and more comfortable. The only unequivocal benefit I
> see for the multihull is shallow draft.
>
Boy that's bait for an F27 owner, especially one proud to be a zealot.
First I agree about the speed- multis are not fast in all conditions, and
your upwind scenario is quite true. Then again, a glance at PHRF numbers
will tell you that the expected average speed of an F27 is closer to a
J44, and those numbers make sense up to about 12 knots breeze and then the
F boat pulls away from that rating.
The real advantage is that the F boat gets its speed easily with a crew of
two- no panic or strain on a tight reach and no rail meat, so in the real
world beyond day racing you get the comfort for the crew necessary to get
the speed.
You also get for your money the shallow draft you mention and more
important, ease of launching and hauling (and no fees), do it yourself
boat work (take the boat to your house) and most important, the ability to
cruise at 55 mph.
Because you get "less" boat for the money, remember also that all your
costs are less, sails cheaper, engine work is on a 7 horse outboard, lines
are smaller etc. The storm anchor weighs 20 lbs.
In effect you trade annual maintenance costs for your mortgage, and so far
that has been a great trade-off, selling prices staying very stable at
around $50,000, and the new price in 94 was very close to that.
Every boat is a compromise, and the F boat trades initial cost and below
decks room away for its benefits, but they are a lot more than shallow
draft.
Jesse Deupree
F27 ION
Portland Maine
trying to spit the bait out, but you set it pretty deep.
Douglas King
> > Maybe, maybe not. Only a simpleton or a zealot will assume that a
> > multihull is automatically faster than a mono. It's certain that there
> > are conditions where the Express 35 would leave an F-27 behind. Upwind
> > in light air and chop, for example. It's also certain that the Express
> > 35 is a LOT roomier and more comfortable. The only unequivocal benefit I
> > see for the multihull is shallow draft.
Jesse Deupree wrote:>
> Boy that's bait for an F27 owner, especially one proud to be a zealot.
Yes well, being a zealot is not necessarily a bad thing. It's that
mindless zealotry that tends to lead one astray, like, say, into some
sort of Inquisition ;)
> First I agree about the speed- multis are not fast in all conditions, and
> your upwind scenario is quite true. Then again, a glance at PHRF numbers
> will tell you that the expected average speed of an F27 is closer to a
> J44, and those numbers make sense up to about 12 knots breeze and then the
> F boat pulls away from that rating.
I'd never question the multihulls speed advantage on a reach, and the
harder the wind blows, the greater that advantage gets. However, speed
around a closed course, or as likely in cruising, some arbitrary
direction (baloney, the wind is always on the nose when we're cruising)
is another thing entirely. And the multihulls speed advantage is
lessened or disappears entirely dead downwind or to windward. I'd like
to compare PHRF numbers, but for some reason my bookmarked ratings site
is down.
> The real advantage is that the F boat gets its speed easily with a crew of
> two- no panic or strain on a tight reach and no rail meat, so in the real
> world beyond day racing you get the comfort for the crew necessary to get
> the speed.
I think you'd be surprised at how fast and how easily large fast
monohulls reach their speed. You do have an advantage in less heel, if
one finds heeling disagreeable (I'm sort of used to it). Furthermore the
tri would have the advantage of either not needing to reef or using the
option to reduce sail and maintain a higher speed. The tri also has a
much bumpier ride.
> You also get for your money the shallow draft you mention and more
> important, ease of launching and hauling (and no fees), do it yourself
> boat work (take the boat to your house) and most important, the ability to
> cruise at 55 mph.
Sorry, I've seen people trailer F-27s. Far too much work. You forget I
am a trailerable zealot... err, I mean "advocate"... myself. Tell you
what: let's race. I'll race my Hunter 19 around any course or any
distance up to ten miles, point-to-point or there and back. We start
from the trailer, secured for the highway. Waddaya wanna bet!
> In effect you trade annual maintenance costs for your mortgage, and so far
> that has been a great trade-off, selling prices staying very stable at
> around $50,000, and the new price in 94 was very close to that.
Your point about the reduced maintenance is very true, but then it's a
smaller simpler boat. As for "stable price," wait till the next
recession. I'll be pleasantly surprised if the used multihull market
doesn't crash, but then I'm not gambling on it.
> Every boat is a compromise, and the F boat trades initial cost and below
> decks room away for its benefits, but they are a lot more than shallow
> draft.
I said "unequivocal benefits" meaning not a severe trade-off in any
other way. F-boats are stable, and they go to windward quite well; those
are the trade-offs associated with draft. And the other characteristics
you like to tout *do* have trade-offs, some can get pretty harsh.
Seriously, it's great that you love your boat so much, but it isn't the
perfect answer for everybody.
> trying to spit the bait out, but you set it pretty deep.
I practice catch and release. Now where's Jon Alvord....
Actually I was trying to remind Bobsprit that this isn't alt.sailing.asa
which seems kinda hopeless. Oh yes, and please remind the fellow who
started this thread that you can't post ads here....
Fresh Breezes- Doug "Multihulls! Grr-rrr!" King
Bobsprit
which seems kinda hopeless. >>
Doug, my response was well measured and civil. Yours is not.
Robert B.
P30 NY
Jon Alvord
Rock which I believe is around 3kn. It was a hell of fun ride! This was with
Main and Genoa, no screacher, no spinaker and 6-8 swells.
Jon
Bobsprit wrote:
> The only unequivocal benefit I
> see for the multihull is shallow draft.>>
>
Jesse Deupree
> I'd never question the multihulls speed advantage on a reach, and the
> harder the wind blows, the greater that advantage gets. However, speed
> around a closed course, or as likely in cruising, some arbitrary
> direction (baloney, the wind is always on the nose when we're cruising)
> is another thing entirely. And the multihulls speed advantage is
> lessened or disappears entirely dead downwind or to windward. I'd like
> to compare PHRF numbers, but for some reason my bookmarked ratings site
> is down.
I don't want to beat this horse too hard (oh hell, I guess I kinda do),
but here's an example. Last summer, in a 24 mile windward leeward race
(once around) in a 10-15k breeze, I started 10 minutes behind the mono
fleet. By the windward mark I caught everyone but a J130 and an NM two
tonner. This included a well sailed Hinckley 51 and other 40'+ monos. On
the downwind leg we passed the rest easily. In winds over 14k, I'll easily
see speeds over 10k tacking in 80 degrees to windward. I usually sail at a
phrf of 25, some fleets at 0.
>
> Sorry, I've seen people trailer F-27s. Far too much work. You forget I
> am a trailerable zealot... err, I mean "advocate"... myself. Tell you
> what: let's race. I'll race my Hunter 19 around any course or any
> distance up to ten miles, point-to-point or there and back. We start
> from the trailer, secured for the highway. Waddaya wanna bet!
>
I think I'd try this race, with a few caveats. My boat is set up to
trailer 3-4 times a year, so its a little complicated. F-27s set up to
launch weekly can be rigged in 1/2 hour. How much would I be spotting you
at the start? Besides, you wouldn't want to sail your Hunter 19 in the
Grand Manan channel in a 30k breeze. And how long do you cruise in it. The
point of the F27 is not that it trailers and sets up super easily, but
that a boat with this room and performance trailers at all, and launches
from a shallow ramp with no crane or hoist.
>
> Seriously, it's great that you love your boat so much, but it isn't the
> perfect answer for everybody.
>
I'd never say it was- its not even the perfect boat for me. Now an F31
with the aft cabin and the race spar and........... now you're talking.
Douglas King
> I don't want to beat this horse too hard (oh hell, I guess I kinda do),
> but here's an example. Last summer, in a 24 mile windward leeward race
> (once around) in a 10-15k breeze, I started 10 minutes behind the mono
> fleet. By the windward mark I caught everyone but a J130 and an NM two
> tonner. This included a well sailed Hinckley 51 and other 40'+ monos. On
> the downwind leg we passed the rest easily. In winds over 14k, I'll easily
> see speeds over 10k tacking in 80 degrees to windward. I usually sail at a
> phrf of 25, some fleets at 0.
25 is pretty fast. I didn't know they rated that low. To look at the
contrary case, I have seen F-31s beaten from scratch by J35s on a
windward-leeward course. And on the Olson 30 I raced on one season,
18-knot reaches were common. In 14 knots true it couldn't hit ten knots
to windward, but it could break eight. A hot-rod 40-footer should be
able to break ten.
Some of the faster "racer-cruisers" I've sailed are the Olson and the
Express 37, and both outdistance most cruising multihulls *easily*. The
F-27 is a different animal. I think that point could be made to other
multihull zea... umm... enthusiasts.
> doug...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Sorry, I've seen people trailer F-27s. Far too much work. You forget I
> > am a trailerable zealot... err, I mean "advocate"... myself. Tell you
> > what: let's race. I'll race my Hunter 19 around any course or any
> > distance up to ten miles, point-to-point or there and back. We start
> > from the trailer, secured for the highway. Waddaya wanna bet!
> I think I'd try this race, with a few caveats. My boat is set up to
> trailer 3-4 times a year, so its a little complicated. F-27s set up to
> launch weekly can be rigged in 1/2 hour. How much would I be spotting you
> at the start?
If you can really go from highway to underway in 30 minutes, you'd spot
me twenty minutes. Not enough, even if you let us use our motor. Our
PHRF rating, if we had one, would probably be about 290. Maybe I should
specify that we have to drive some distance, including on the
interstate, then start from the parking lot? I need a bigger lead...
In the F-27 video, they claim "15 minutes" and it is obviously a crock
to the knowledgable observer. All the tie-downs mysteriously vanish in a
flash and all the bolts magically thread themselves, etc etc.
> ... Besides, you wouldn't want to sail your Hunter 19 in the
> Grand Manan channel in a 30k breeze.
Not on purpose, but I wouldn't panic if we got caught. I've crossed
Tangier Sound on a day of a 35-knot northerly as an alternative to
missing a day of work. We've also crossed Pamlico Sound on days of 25-30
knot blows and there were Alberg 30s and the like huddling in port. My
wife thought it would have been more fun to sail the Johnson 18
(pictured in sig file).
> ... And how long do you cruise in it.
The longest we've gone is about ten days. We go on week-longs several
times a year.
Sorry, but I've sailed F-27s and the Hunter is more comfortable inside
and out (to me at least, and part of that is that I dislike sitting on
nets). It's not as well built, and it's not as much fun to sail (but
it's at least as much fun as, say, a Flying Scot or Rhodes 19). It's
comfy, it's easy to trailer, and it cost about 1/8 as much.
> The point of the F27 is not that it trailers and sets up super easily, but
> that a boat with this room and performance trailers at all, and launches
> from a shallow ramp with no crane or hoist.
It's a good feature, granted. Dependence on boatyards is a good thing to
avoid if you don't pay a higher price some other way.
> > Seriously, it's great that you love your boat so much, but it isn't the
> > perfect answer for everybody.
> I'd never say it was- its not even the perfect boat for me. Now an F31
> with the aft cabin and the race spar and........... now you're talking.
Why an aft cabin?
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> > I'd never say it was- its not even the perfect boat for me. Now an F31
> > with the aft cabin and the race spar and........... now you're talking.
>
> Why an aft cabin?
Not as bouncy? Last extended trip I took, the guys in the forward
stateroom were flying all over the place while I was nice and comfy in
the aft stateroom.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
David Smalley
>
> > doug...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > Maybe, maybe not. Only a simpleton or a zealot will assume that a
> > > multihull is automatically faster than a mono. It's certain that there
> > > are conditions where the Express 35 would leave an F-27 behind. Upwind
> > > in light air and chop, for example. It's also certain that the Express
> > > see for the multihull is shallow draft.
> > You also get for your money the shallow draft you mention and more
> > important, ease of launching and hauling (and no fees), do it yourself
> > boat work (take the boat to your house) and most important, the ability to
> > cruise at 55 mph.
>
> Sorry, I've seen people trailer F-27s. Far too much work. You forget I
> am a trailerable zealot... err, I mean "advocate"... myself. Tell you
> what: let's race. I'll race my Hunter 19 around any course or any
> distance up to ten miles, point-to-point or there and back. We start
> from the trailer, secured for the highway. Waddaya wanna bet!
Oops, argument lost!
Compare with the hunter 27 on this one; You know the yacht not the
dingy.
8^)
David Smalley
>
> > SAILOCO wrote
> > > I could buy an Express 35 for that kinda mola.>>>
>
> Bobsprit wrote:>
> > Yea, but you'd still be slower!
>
> multihull is automatically faster than a mono. It's certain that there
> are conditions where the Express 35 would leave an F-27 behind. Upwind
> in light air and chop, for example. It's also certain that the Express
> 35 is a LOT roomier and more comfortable. The only unequivocal benefit I
> see for the multihull is shallow draft.
Don't forget;
Lack of heeling,
Positive buoyancy,
Easy to trailer,
Faster to motor....
Jesse Deupree
>
> If you can really go from highway to underway in 30 minutes, you'd spot
> me twenty minutes. Not enough, even if you let us use our motor. Our
> PHRF rating, if we had one, would probably be about 290. Maybe I should
> specify that we have to drive some distance, including on the
> interstate, then start from the parking lot? I need a bigger lead...
>
> In the F-27 video, they claim "15 minutes" and it is obviously a crock
> to the knowledgable observer. All the tie-downs mysteriously vanish in a
> flash and all the bolts magically thread themselves, etc etc.
>
I haven't seen the video, but I have seen boats set up for it do the 30
minute launch from full highway setup. It takes two knowledgeable people
and a boat that is organized with proper tiedowns- and who have not added
the kind of stuff that slows you down, like mast head instruments and
wiring harnesses, etc. The designer has been timed doing the 15 minute
thing, but I don't think its a realistic number (hell I spend more than 15
minutes talking to the curious each time, but then you can tell I'm an
eager unpaid salesman). The eight bolts do thread themselves though- the
folding part does take seconds and is ridiculously simple. Its moving the
mast from highway position to the tabernacle and doing the hoisting and
rigging that takes time.
>
> Why an aft cabin?
>
The original F27 layout is to me, still the best for any kind of offshore
work, and makes the most intelligent use of the long narrow trimaran hull.
The center cockpit means you step right from the cockpit to the netting,
instead of having to cut the corner as you do with the aft cockpit. Center
cockpit also means the traveler is positioned correctly for the roller
furling setup, which is the thing most people love on F boats after the
speed and sailing flat. Full battens make roller furling work again, if
you don't need a vang.
The center cockpit also gives you a wonderful berth, reached from an aft
cabin and extending under the cockpit where the auxiliary would be if the
boat didn't go 7 knots with a 6 horse outboard. This berth is a great sea
berth, large and in the most comfortable part of the boat. Combined with a
berth on each side of the main cabin, you have a wonderful pocket cruiser
setup. I've never been a fan of double berths on boats.
I know you said you don't like nets, but I will say that sitting in the
forward windward net (which is dry and soft like a beanbag chair) watching
your bow wave cut the water, is one of the most magical places I've ever
been on a sailboat. I'll run a string from the tiller up to that spot at
anything less than full chat and steer from there- way cool.
Jesse Deupree
F27 ION
Portland Maine
Glad to keep beating this horse, and noticing it gets easier with time.
Remember there are now 2,000 Farrier folding tris around, so more and more
people have been passed by one and maybe thought "now that doesn't look so
stupid......"
Pat Nolan
people have been passed by one and maybe thought "now that doesn't look so
stupid......"
>>
Actually I believe I read somewhere that the Navy is experiementing with
tri-hulls.
The spirits of your fathers
Shall start from every wave--
For the deck it was their field of fame,
And the ocean was their grave
--Thomas Campbell (1777-1844) "Ye Mariners of England"
Douglas King
> I haven't seen the video, but I have seen boats set up for it do the 30
> minute launch from full highway setup. It takes two knowledgeable people
> and a boat that is organized with proper tiedowns- and who have not added
> the kind of stuff that slows you down, like mast head instruments and
> wiring harnesses, etc. The designer has been timed doing the 15 minute
> thing, but I don't think its a realistic number
I don't either.
> ....The eight bolts do thread themselves though- the
> folding part does take seconds and is ridiculously simple.
The folding akas are ingenius. However, bolts do not "thread
themselves." Nor is there a Tooth Fairy. Bzzzt! "Thank you for playing."
>
> Doug King wrote:
> > Why an aft cabin?
> >
> The original F27 layout is to me, still the best for any kind of offshore
> work, and makes the most intelligent use of the long narrow trimaran hull.
Why? It seems to me that to place the cabin in the biggest part of the
hull makes more sense.
> The center cockpit also gives you a wonderful berth, reached from an aft
> cabin and extending under the cockpit where the auxiliary would be if the
> boat didn't go 7 knots with a 6 horse outboard. This berth is a great sea
> berth, large and in the most comfortable part of the boat. Combined with a
> berth on each side of the main cabin, you have a wonderful pocket cruiser
> setup. I've never been a fan of double berths on boats.
I am. But then I am still a newlywed.
> I know you said you don't like nets, but I will say that sitting in the
> forward windward net (which is dry and soft like a beanbag chair) watching
> your bow wave cut the water, is one of the most magical places I've ever
> been on a sailboat. I'll run a string from the tiller up to that spot at
> anything less than full chat and steer from there- way cool.
Sorry, that might work in light air, but any sort of wind and chop there
is no (repeat *no*) dry spot in the netting on an F-27. In fact there
are few dry places anywhere on the boat except down in the cabin.
> Glad to keep beating this horse, and noticing it gets easier with time.
> Remember there are now 2,000 Farrier folding tris around, so more and more
> people have been passed by one and maybe thought "now that doesn't look so
> stupid......"
Speed ain't everything. And since you brought up looks, the aesthetics
of multihulls are another issue. Keep right on "beating this horse" if
it pleases you. The price, the lack of room, and the awkwardness
trailering (admittedly there are monohulls which are just as awkward)
outweight the speed and the lack of heeling for my own usage.
Why are multihull sailors so often vigorous proselytizers? Jesse, you
aren't that bad, but many deal in wild exaggeration and outright
untruth. The main benefits are speed, lack of heeling, and shallow
draft. The F-27 is usually given a PHRF rating around 50 to 60, and
there are monohulls available in their price range that are roomier and
faster. That leaves flat sailing and shallow draft. If that's not
enough, maybe you need to beat the horse some more!
Bobsprit
there are monohulls available in their price range that are roomier and
faster. >>
I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27. For performance per foot
it's pretty much unbeatable. If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
touch it.
Robert B
P30 NY
Douglas King
> I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27.
Sorry you see my posts as "bashing."
> ... For performance per foot
> it's pretty much unbeatable.
True. But there are a number of monohulls which are almost as fast. If
you look at speed/$$$ rather than speed/LOA multihulls don't look so
good.
> ... If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
> want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
> touch it.
Yeah, if you're willing to spend the $$$.
My intent is more an honest appraisal of plus/minus than "multihull
bashing." Much of the praise of multihulls is hyperbole, some is
outright untruth, little of it ever gets challenged. All boats are a
compromise.
Bobsprit
you look at speed/$$$ rather than speed/LOA multihulls don't look so
good.>>
What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
Robert B
P30 NY
Jesse Deupree
> The folding akas are ingenius. However, bolts do not "thread
> themselves." Nor is there a Tooth Fairy. Bzzzt! "Thank you for playing."
Touche- I should have been clearer. The eight bolts are large thread and
held captive in the aka. When the aka drops down on the hull you just put
your wrench on the bolt and start turning. The nuts are held captive in
the hull sockets so the bolts do "thread themselves". One person job, only
tool required one socket wrench. (and the bolts only hold the akas down
until the cap shrouds are tightened, at that point they can be unscrewed.
Just hand tight is actually fine.)
> > The original F27 layout is to me, still the best for any kind of offshore
> > work, and makes the most intelligent use of the long narrow trimaran hull.
>
> Why? It seems to me that to place the cabin in the biggest part of the
> hull makes more sense.
If you do this, there is no easy way to utilize the space under the
cockpit, so its a net loss, and remember the center cockpit is nicer and
dryer to sail from.
> Why are multihull sailors so often vigorous proselytizers?
I think for some, its a defense mechanism from being challenged all the time.
I noticed your other thread about the Stone Horse, a boat I've long
admired and coveted for years. Actually, I think the F27 makes a perfect
modern Stone Horse. And just read L Francis Herreshoff sometime. He would
be one bad multihuller today, dude.
1) "Easy to Handle". I singlehand (cruise and race) all the time with no
autopilot, just a tillertamer. Boat sails to weather perfectly balanced
with tiller tied off. (If I hurry, I can do most anything I need to on any
point of sail with the tillertamer, depending on how well I set the tamer,
and how fast I can get done what needs doing- same as most boats) The
screecher is essentially a roller furling spinnaker, although I set the
chute alone easily. Anchor weighs 15-20 lbs. Shallow draft and sails flat
so safe and easy to move around on.
2) "Comfortable". Again sails flat and roomy on deck. I haven't found the
boat to be wet compared to a mono in similar conditions. Sit out to
windward and you'll be quite dry in quite extreme conditions. I do
remember pounding to windward, wet and banging in big seas in heavy air
one time. I was disappointed until I realized I was going 12k. Backed off
to 8k by pinching and smooooth. Tight below but enclosed head, galley and
room for three. Full headroom under hatch. Matches up with a Stone Horse
quite well here.
3) "Seaworthy". I'd go anywhere you would go for fun. The boat is
extremely well built and sturdy.
4) "fast" duh. I went from Biddeford Pool to Monhegan last summer in three
hours. 42 miles. Alone. (But I couldn't make dinner and taking a pee was a
challenge.)
5) "Beautiful" This was the hardest thing for me to adapt to. I grew up on
traditional wooden boats and the F27 is kind of an appliance for sailing.
I've never thought it was pretty to look at, but the first time I sailed
it I realized it was VERY pretty to sail on, because in a sense you get to
watch yourself sail. The ama cutting the water is very pretty. From the
forward nets you get to watch your own bow wave, the sense of mtion and
speed is really a joy. So I get to enjoy it myself, even if others just
get to look at the transom, which I will admit is butt ugly. Relax, It
will receed from your view quickly :-)
All boats are compromises, and the F27 ain't for all. You spend alot for
not much room down below. But I can't think of any other boat for the
money as fast for two people to sail, or a boat as fast that sails as
easily at most any price, or any other trailerable boat that combines
speed, seaworthiness and ease of handling (on land and water) as well.
Thats what I wanted, and I think the net cost of 5-10 years ownership
after selling will be very reasonable, with the upfront cost balanced by
low maintenance.
Jesse Deupree
F27 ION
Portland Maine
Long winded as usual, but I figure anyone bored moved on long ago.
Portland Maine
Jon Alvord
are. I only have four. I also have the roller Furling Genoa, and it
takes me about 20-30 min to step the mast, 45 if buy myself and I have to
make multiple trips on deck to deal with the roller furling unit. As for
speed, heck ya this is a fast boat. Last month I had it going 20 kn on
the gps against Race Rock current with full sails (and you could add 3-5
kn for the current). It was awsome! Lets see a 25-35 foot mono do this.
I am not overexagerating this!
Everytime I go to a race I learn one more thing that I could do to make my
launch time faster. So I figuire I am getting closer and closer to the
15-20 min mark!
I will also have to agree with Jesse on the Forward Tramps it is quite the
exhilerating ride, more so when someone else is at the helm and I can sit
up there and just float above the water and stay dry. It is much drier
than I expected! Yes there is the occasional splash but when its 80+
degrees out there it is welcome.
If the race is ever done, Jesse you can give me a call I would love to be
part of it!
Jon Alvord
Paul Kamen
>What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard).
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Bobsprit
Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard). >>>
Right. So as I said, the F-27 is unmatched as a cruisable high speed 27 foot
boat.
Robert B
P30 NY
Douglas King
> > Why? It seems to me that to place the cabin in the biggest part of the
> > hull makes more sense.
Jesse Deupree wrote:>
> If you do this, there is no easy way to utilize the space under the
> cockpit, so its a net loss, and remember the center cockpit is nicer and
> dryer to sail from.
Depending on the hull profile, the space under the cockpit can be used
for storage, or an engine, or a tucked-away bunk. I don't think it needs
to be considered a "net loss."
As for drier, I suppose that depends on the boat and the point of sail.
> > Why are multihull sailors so often vigorous proselytizers?
>
> I think for some, its a defense mechanism from being challenged all the time.
Y'know, it's funny, but I hear a lot more multihull sailors attacking
monohulls than vice versa. The chorus of "multihulls aren't safe
offshore" seems to have almost died out, whereas most multihullers will
say "monoslug" without batting an eye. Most multihullers will heatedly
deny the existence of boats like the 18-footer skiff, or the E-Scow, or
the new keel sportboats, which in many cases will outrun a similar-sized
cat or tri. Heck, I've blown past Hobies and Nacras on my Johnson 18 and
gotten some *really* irrational reactions, from pissed off to "that
didn't happen."
> I noticed your other thread about the Stone Horse, a boat I've long
> admired and coveted for years. Actually, I think the F27 makes a perfect
> modern Stone Horse. And just read L Francis Herreshoff sometime. He would
> be one bad multihuller today, dude.
I dunno. L. Francis was kinda reactionary. Now his dad, Nathaniel, was a
bad multihuller. In fact the New Yawk yachting mafia banned his
"contraptions" after he humiliated them a few times- although they did
let him keep on building AmCup racers.
I don't like the looks of some multihulls and agree with the epithet
"condomaran," But I think the F-boats are gracefully proportioned. I
like the Katanas, too.
> ..... So I get to enjoy it myself, even if others just
> get to look at the transom, which I will admit is butt ugly. Relax, It
> will receed from your view quickly :-)
See what I mean about multihullers being condescending? If I was in a
Stone Horse, yes, but then I wouldn't care. OTOH gimme a Melges 30,
you'd be looking at my transom receding rapidly. And I'd still have more
stowage than you (nyaa nyaa). :)
> All boats are compromises, and the F27 ain't for all. You spend alot for
> not much room down below. But I can't think of any other boat for the
> money as fast for two people to sail, or a boat as fast that sails as
> easily at most any price, or any other trailerable boat that combines
> speed, seaworthiness and ease of handling (on land and water) as well.
> Thats what I wanted, and I think the net cost of 5-10 years ownership
> after selling will be very reasonable, with the upfront cost balanced by
> low maintenance.
In many cases I agree that buying a high-dollar boat is less expensive
in the long run, because you recoup more of your money. However the
marketplace is an uncertain thing, and the current fad for multihulls
and "bluewater cruisers" might not be sustained into the next recession.
It's probably a better bet than buying an old racer with an
already-bottomed-out market value which you end up abandoning. Unless
you factor in the gains made investing the money you didn't spend on a
boat....
BTW good answer to the fellow asking about F24s-28s.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
This post was longer than necessary 'cuz I didn't want to snip some of
Jesse's well-made points for brevity. Apologies offered where due.
Douglas King
> > True. But there are a number of monohulls which are almost as fast. If
> > you look at speed/$$$ rather than speed/LOA multihulls don't look so
> > good.
Bobsprit (who does not attribute his quotes) wrote:
> What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
Umm, there's a large number of 18-footers that can break 20 knots
easily. In fact they've been clocked at 35. Of course, they're even more
expensive, much wetter, and have less stowage than an F-27.
All boats are a compromise ;)
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Jim Pearson
(Paul Kamen) wrote:
> Bobsprit <bobs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
>
> Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard).
And, boy!, is it a hoot!
Sailboard may get us by a -bit-, but, it's hard to have a party on a
sailboard. [1] ; )
Jim
{Crew, not Owner}
[1] There were 22 people on Cascade at the Jazz Cup party... quite a
party, quite a site.
Jim Pearson
bobs...@aol.com (Bobsprit) wrote:
> >What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
>
> Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard). >>>
>
>
> Right. So as I said, the F-27 is unmatched as a cruisable high speed 27 foot
> boat.
... quite a lot of room down below on the Antrim... but now I'm starting
to sound like a salesman, and I hate that. [1]
Where's Rich Ray?
Jim
[1] And I don't even own one, nor have anything to do with their
production and sale!
Jonathan Ganz
Jonathan
In article <7vvcqm$pgg$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
Paul Kamen <fish...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Bobsprit <bobs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
>
>Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard).
>
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
>http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
--
Jonathan Ganz
jg...@sailnow.com
http://www.sailnow.com
Marv Shirley
friends think I'm crazy. My boat's got all the bells and whistles, But
if you have never sailed on a F-24 or F-27 don't knock it. They are
unbelievable. On a windy day you look aft and you think you're on a
motorboat! As far as going to weather in light winds against a mono hull
while racing, all you do is crack off a few degrees. They will still get
to the weather mark before you do. A lot of multi hull sailors with new
boats are beginners, and a competent mono hull sailor might out sail
them. It's like going day sailing, a racer is always passing larger
cruisers, but get in a race and everything changes. While I'm shopping
for my next boat, I usually ask why are you selling your boat? The
answer invariable is, "I'm getting a new F-28, or F-31". They can't all
be wrong. Marv
Paul Kamen
>I dunno. L. Francis was kinda reactionary. Now his dad, Nathaniel,
>was a bad multihuller. In fact the New Yawk yachting mafia
>banned his "contraptions" after he humiliated them a few times-
>although they did let him keep on building AmCup racers.
LFH would be a windsurfer, no question about it. He writes that he began
his boating career being wheeled aboard giant steam yachts in a baby
carriage, and ended it in a kayak.
One of my fantassies, though, is to build a replica of the Herreshoff
cat and enter it in the SF Bay Master Mariners' Regatta, in the division
for 100-year-old gaffer designs. (On the other hand, history would
probably repeat and I'd be summarily banned form the event.)
Paul Kamen
>Right. So as I said, the F-27 is unmatched as a cruisable high
>speed 27 foot boat.
Are you saying that the Antrim 27 is not cruisable?
SAIL LOCO
other opinion though is they are the most overpriced thing on the water. They
are small and crude. The 30 footer offers about the same comfort as one of
those fold up campers you tow behind your car.
"Trains are a winter sport"
Jon Alvord
Give us all a break, I have never seen an Antrim 27 so i can't speak on
that but how many sailboard, let alone 27' sailboard do you see cruising?
Jon Alvord
>
> >Antrim 27 (or just about any sailboard).
> >
> >
> >--
> >fish...@netcom.com
> >http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
> >
> > -"Call me Fishmeal"-
>
Terry Schell
Bobsprit wrote:
>
> The F-27 is usually given a PHRF rating around 50 to 60, and
> there are monohulls available in their price range that are roomier and
> faster. >>
>
> I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27. For performance per foot
> it's pretty much unbeatable. If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
> want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
> touch it.
>
Foot for foot the Farrier boats are the fastest production boats you can
find. However, while they are fast for boats their length, they aren't
much faster than most other $60,000 used boats... and they are certainly
less roomy than any other production boat in it's price range. If all
you care about is speed... and price/accomodations are little object,
then you should run out and buy one. If you have some more complicated
tradeoff between price/speed/accomodation, the answer may not be so
clear cut.
Terry Schell
Bobsprit wrote:
>
> True. But there are a number of monohulls which are almost as fast. If
> you look at speed/$$$ rather than speed/LOA multihulls don't look so
> good.>>
>
> What 27 foot monohull can do 20 knots?
>
Read before you respond.
While few, if any, 27 foot mono's can match the F-27's speed... there
are quite a few other boat in the same price range that will average the
same speed over some range of conditions. Look at speed/$ and the
Farriers are no longer clear cut winners.
Bobsprit
Farriers are no longer clear cut winners.>>
When you consider relative boat age and cost of ownership, the F27 remains the
winner.
I don't ever plan on owning a multihull, but you people are being babies about
admitting that the design is incredibly FAST. Going up 7-10 feet to match is
not really a very good point to make, nor is the mentioning of one or two super
ULDB's that can't do it with anything near the comfort and confidence offered
by the F27. If your only point is the $$$, then just buy a 1978 J-24 and be
done with it.
Robert B
P30 NY
Jonathan Ganz
area comfort. It's hard to make the comparison, but possibly there's
more room on an equivalent sized mono. Of course, there is a lot
more heel on the mono, with all the inherent issues associated with
that. Above deck, however, there's no comparison. This is even more
true with the F-24. I could not see doing a long trip on something
that size (even a weekend would seem tight but possible to me), but
above deck it's incredible. The new F-28s have enclosed heads just
like you'd expect on a similarly-sized mono.
Jonathan
In article <19991107125431...@ng-xb1.aol.com>,
Terry Schell
Bobsprit wrote:
>
> <<Look at speed/$ and the
> Farriers are no longer clear cut winners.>>
>
> When you consider relative boat age and cost of ownership, the F27 remains the
> winner.
> I don't ever plan on owning a multihull, but you people are being babies about
> admitting that the design is incredibly FAST. Going up 7-10 feet to match is
> not really a very good point to make, nor is the mentioning of one or two super
> ULDB's that can't do it with anything near the comfort and confidence offered
> by the F27. If your only point is the $$$, then just buy a 1978 J-24 and be
> done with it.
>
I completely fail to understand your perspective. You think that
speed/foot is a useful comparison for a boat buyer, but speed/dollar
isn't. I think most buyers have the opposite orientation. They would
rather have a fast large boat than a fast small boat if the prices where
the same.
I have spent a couple of days on a F-27 . It cost the owner the same
amount to buy this boat as for J105 that was 1 year newer.
The J105 was slower in anything above ~12 knots of wind... but was
definitely faster in lighter air. The J was newer. It had at least
three times as much cabin space. It has standing head room in the cabin.
It had a real head and holding tank. It had a larger and more
comfortable cockpit. It had usable bunks for seven people. Storage for
significant amounts of gear. It was drier in bad weather and no trickier
to sail than the Farrier.
You are right that the J105 won't regularly sail above 10 knots... but
the *average* passage times are close to the same under normal
conditions. If you are interested in looking at speed per dollar, the
Farriers are great boats... but they are not the hands down winner as
people seem to claim. If you are interested in comfort or
accommodations per dollar I would certainly give the edge to the J-boat
(unless you have a heeling phobia).
Douglas King
> ..... Above deck, however, there's no comparison. This is even more
> true with the F-24. I could not see doing a long trip on something
> that size (even a weekend would seem tight but possible to me), but
> above deck it's incredible. The new F-28s have enclosed heads just
> like you'd expect on a similarly-sized mono.
Sorry, I'm calling you on this one. "Deck" does not equal "netting."
While some folks find the netting fine, I don't like it (personal
opinion) and after watching folks at the Boat Show, it seems a lot of
people don't find it anywhere near as secure as solid deck. Furthermore,
the new F-28, while it does have an enclosed head, has about the same
interior space available as a Catalina 22. And less "deck" area.
In fact, a good friend was recently turned off completely on the whole
idea of an F-boat by this very point. Previously he was very excited
about them, hunting for used bargains etc etc. A bouncy afternoon
daysail on an F-31 changed his mind completely. "I couldn't take my
family out on a boat like that," were his exact words.
So, while a mild distaste for tramps and netting is a completely
subjective and personal evaluation, it seems I'm not the only one.
Being completely objective, however, one would have to conclude that net
* deck. Therefore the claim to have far more room than any similar size
boat is spurious. A cheap shot.
BTW we have friends who do week-long cruises on an F-24.
Jon Alvord
Douglas King wrote:
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > ..... Above deck, however, there's no comparison. This is even more
> > true with the F-24. I could not see doing a long trip on something
> > that size (even a weekend would seem tight but possible to me), but
> > above deck it's incredible. The new F-28s have enclosed heads just
> > like you'd expect on a similarly-sized mono.
>
> Sorry, I'm calling you on this one. "Deck" does not equal "netting."
> While some folks find the netting fine, I don't like it (personal
> opinion) and after watching folks at the Boat Show, it seems a lot of
> people don't find it anywhere near as secure as solid deck. Furthermore,
> the new F-28, while it does have an enclosed head, has about the same
> interior space available as a Catalina 22. And less "deck" area.
What do you call deck. Hey I strap things to the nets all the time. I walk
on the nets, I lay on the nets, I take naps on the nets, I sail from the
nets. We server hordervs on the nets. I own lifelines, but never use them
because they are not needed on the boat. What do you do on your "deck"? I
can't imagine having a boat that has more "deck" space than an F-27/28/31.
What would that cost $$$/foot beam, seems that even the $200K boats that are
nontrailerable only have a max beam of 15'. I think you need to look for
another argument here. I have seen, and been on multihulls that have what
you are calling "Deck" and they are non-trailerable, hard and really serve
no purpose other than stabilization of the ama as well as berth space. They
also tend to be what I call ugly. Maybe you should check out some of the
larger Tri's, let say Lakota, any of the Formula 40/60 tri's. Ian has
designed a great set of boats that are well worth the investment for the
little time that must be spent to step the mast, load the trailer, and drive
home.
Jon
Jonathan Ganz
You're right to call me on it. I did use the two interchangably
and shouldn't have. I happen to like the net arrangement, and
I also think that the above (not sure what to call it now) area
in general is superior to a smiliar size mono. I certainly agree
that the net is not best for walking on a lot, but it's a heck
of a lot more comfortable to sit on, pillow under head of course. :-)
Jonathan
In article <382591...@mindspring.com>,
Douglas King <doug...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>> ..... Above deck, however, there's no comparison. This is even more
>> true with the F-24. I could not see doing a long trip on something
>> that size (even a weekend would seem tight but possible to me), but
>> above deck it's incredible. The new F-28s have enclosed heads just
>> like you'd expect on a similarly-sized mono.
>
>
>Sorry, I'm calling you on this one. "Deck" does not equal "netting."
>While some folks find the netting fine, I don't like it (personal
>opinion) and after watching folks at the Boat Show, it seems a lot of
>people don't find it anywhere near as secure as solid deck. Furthermore,
>the new F-28, while it does have an enclosed head, has about the same
>interior space available as a Catalina 22. And less "deck" area.
>
>In fact, a good friend was recently turned off completely on the whole
>idea of an F-boat by this very point. Previously he was very excited
>about them, hunting for used bargains etc etc. A bouncy afternoon
>daysail on an F-31 changed his mind completely. "I couldn't take my
>family out on a boat like that," were his exact words.
>
>So, while a mild distaste for tramps and netting is a completely
>subjective and personal evaluation, it seems I'm not the only one.
>
>Being completely objective, however, one would have to conclude that net
>* deck. Therefore the claim to have far more room than any similar size
>boat is spurious. A cheap shot.
>
>BTW we have friends who do week-long cruises on an F-24.
>
>Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>--
>This is what we look like when we're at our best:
>http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
Jonathan Ganz
who I'm defending... :-) Anyway... pressing on:
I think the quoted difference in passage time (somewhere else in another
thread?) was something like 3 kts (mono) to 4 kts (tri) - correct me if
I'm wrong on the exact number - but that's a fairly sizeable diff.
Something like: 1000 miles = 14 days (mono speed) vs 10-1/2 days (tri speed).
Seems like a big difference to me.
Jonathan
Jon Alvord
>
> We got a whole fleet of 'em here. Local designer. PHRF=78. Has a small but
> nice cabin (just like the F), and while they probably don't hit 20 as
> often as the F-27, that wasn't the question. My guess is that it gets
> around the typical windward-leeward race course at about the same speed as
> the F-27, probably with less variation between upwind and downwind speed
> made good. Of course it's also kind of expensive for its size (just like
> the F).
What is the draft on this boat? Does it require a hoist?
Jon
Not about to buy an Antrim since I just bought a Freeskate Ice Board and it is
snowing and I want a nice big, trailerable F-31R.
Paul Kamen
>Give us all a break, I have never seen an Antrim 27 so i can't
>speak on that
We got a whole fleet of 'em here. Local designer. PHRF=78. Has a small but
nice cabin (just like the F), and while they probably don't hit 20 as
often as the F-27, that wasn't the question. My guess is that it gets
around the typical windward-leeward race course at about the same speed as
the F-27, probably with less variation between upwind and downwind speed
made good. Of course it's also kind of expensive for its size (just like
the F).
>but how many sailboard, let alone 27' sailboard do you
>see cruising?
Hey, it was a parenthetic remark. No-one said they had to be cruising
boats!
Paul Kamen
>I don't ever plan on owning a multihull, but you people are being
>babies about admitting that the design is incredibly FAST. Going
>up 7-10 feet to match is not really a very good point to make, nor
>is the mentioning of one or two super ULDB's that can't do it with
>anything near the comfort and confidence offered by the F27. If
>your only point is the $$$, then just buy a 1978 J-24 and be
>done with it.
That's why the Antrim 27 is a useful benchmark for comparison. It costs
about the same, has about the same useable interior volume, and gets
around the course at about the same speed.
Paul Kamen
>I think the quoted difference in passage time (somewhere else in
>another thread?) was something like 3 kts (mono) to 4 kts (tri) -
>correct me if I'm wrong on the exact number - but that's a fairly
>sizeable diff.
But Terry was controlling for value, and for degree of performance
orientation of the design. That 3-knot average for monos probably includes
some real slugs.
BTW it's good to see a mono/multi thrash, for once, that doesn't revolve
around the mostly pointless "capsize or sink" meme.
SAIL LOCO
definitely faster in lighter air. The J was newer. It had at least
three times as much cabin space. It has standing head room in the cabin.>>>>>>
Standing head room for who.....a 12 year old! The J105 is a 34' bend over down
below boat or did they introduce a "cruise" version that I haven't been on
board yet?
SAIL LOCO
I could add a few bucks and buy a Tabago 35 cruising cat that is 10 times the
boat as the F31. Oh it might not go as fast.
SAIL LOCO
find. >>>>>>>>>
Don't think so. As far as I know the Condor 40 is the fastest production boat.
It ia a Tri also by the way.
Bobsprit
come to no good end. Both have unique strengths and weaknesses. Examining price
is equally silly as nothing is dumber than buying a sailboat with the possible
exception of crack!
Anyone want to compare a Grand Banks 40 trawler to the Ericson 39 flush deck?
Robert B
P30 NY
Paul Kamen
>What is the draft on this boat? Does it require a hoist?
It's got a deep, but retractable, bulb keel. Not sure if it can be set
up to sail in shallow water with foils retracted, but my impression is
that it can match the F boats in ramp launching.
Jonathan Ganz
and more than one hull. :-)
Jonathan
In article <19991107220927...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
SAIL LOCO <sail...@aol.com> wrote:
>Consider this: For about the same money that I have seen F 31s advertised for
>I could add a few bucks and buy a Tabago 35 cruising cat that is 10 times the
>boat as the F31. Oh it might not go as fast.
>"Trains are a winter sport"
Jon Alvord
SAIL LOCO wrote:
> <<<<<<<Foot for foot the Farrier boats are the fastest production boats you can
> find. >>>>>>>>>
>
> Don't think so. As far as I know the Condor 40 is the fastest production boat.
> It ia a Tri also by the way.
> "Trains are a winter sport"
Probably needs a little clarification, Fastest production, trailerable,
mulitihull. Which the Condor is not trailerable.
Jon
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Bobsprit wrote:
> >
> > <<Look at speed/$ and the
> > Farriers are no longer clear cut winners.>>
> >
> > When you consider relative boat age and cost of ownership, the F27 remains the
> > winner.
> > admitting that the design is incredibly FAST. Going up 7-10 feet to match is
> > not really a very good point to make, nor is the mentioning of one or two super
> > ULDB's that can't do it with anything near the comfort and confidence offered
> > by the F27. If your only point is the $$$, then just buy a 1978 J-24 and be
> > done with it.
> >
>
> speed/foot is a useful comparison for a boat buyer, but speed/dollar
> isn't. I think most buyers have the opposite orientation. They would
> rather have a fast large boat than a fast small boat if the prices where
> the same.
>
> I have spent a couple of days on a F-27 . It cost the owner the same
> amount to buy this boat as for J105 that was 1 year newer.
If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including depreciation,
maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F boat would beat the
mono hands down. It's speed advantage wouldn't even been needed in the
speed/dollar comparison because the dollar part would be enough to give
the F boat the advantage.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com * The Internet's Discussion Network *
* The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! *
Terry Schell
Jon Alvord wrote:
<snip>
> Ian has
> designed a great set of boats that are well worth the investment for the
> little time that must be spent to step the mast, load the trailer, and drive
> home.
>
<snip>
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this point. I think the
Farriers are some of the best designs in the last couple of decades.
However, they are clearly a niche design. They do some things
exceedingly well, but do other things quite poorly. People who advise
others to buy these boats regardless of the stated boating goals seem to
be blind to the limitations of these designs.
Jon Alvord
Terry Schell wrote:
Nobody has said that there aren't tradeoffs to these boat. We advise people of
them and we get nothing out of it. We tell them about them because there are
people out there that think they want a Mac 26 so they can go fast, trailer, and
sail a little. Generally most people here despise the Mac 26, can't imagine why?
The only limiting thing on the F-27 is in the eye of the beholder and that is
storage space. I can admit to that but it is not a deterent. How hard is it to
stop in a harbor ever 2-3 days to resupply while coastal sailing, not very hard!
Showers are actually easy with a solar shower, and ask any Multihuller how hard it
is to find a shower in a harbor and I bet they can name one in every harbor they
have been to.
I look at F-Boats/Trimarans like one who rides a Motorcycle. If you are a biker
you know this to be true. If you ride down the road on any Motorcycle 99% of
those passing you the opposite direction will wave, not true in a car/truck. Look
at the Tri's and you will find that the community is very friendly whether you are
on a F-boat, Condor, or any other Tri. People just tend to go out of their way to
be friendly. My experience in the past has been this, and I have been able to meet
many new people that I would not have met in a Monomoran.
Jon
Terry Schell
I think the F-27 regularly rates between 20 - 45 sec/mile faster than a
J105. (and the F-27 owners complain bitterly that their rating isn't
fair under most conditions, but is the result of anti-multihull
prejudice).
So if the the Farrier is 15 sec/mile faster, it would save about 5.6
hours on a 1000 mile trip. If it is 45 sec/mile faster, it would save
about 12.5 hours. This diffences is really "small change" in the grand
scheme of things... and not very close to the 84 hours you estimated
(which would correspond to 300 sec/mile difference!).
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> Being in an awkward way defending bob... :-) Actually, I'm not sure
> who I'm defending... :-) Anyway... pressing on:
>
> I think the quoted difference in passage time (somewhere else in another
> thread?) was something like 3 kts (mono) to 4 kts (tri) - correct me if
> I'm wrong on the exact number - but that's a fairly sizeable diff.
>
> Something like: 1000 miles = 14 days (mono speed) vs 10-1/2 days (tri speed).
> Seems like a big difference to me.
>
> Jonathan
>
> In article <3825CBA6...@uwf.edu>, Terry Schell <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bobsprit wrote:
> >>
> >> <<Look at speed/$ and the
> >> Farriers are no longer clear cut winners.>>
> >>
> >> When you consider relative boat age and cost of ownership, the F27 remains the
> >> winner.
> >> I don't ever plan on owning a multihull, but you people are being babies about
> >> admitting that the design is incredibly FAST. Going up 7-10 feet to match is
> >> not really a very good point to make, nor is the mentioning of one or two super
> >> ULDB's that can't do it with anything near the comfort and confidence offered
> >> by the F27. If your only point is the $$$, then just buy a 1978 J-24 and be
> >> done with it.
> >>
> >
> >I completely fail to understand your perspective. You think that
> >speed/foot is a useful comparison for a boat buyer, but speed/dollar
> >isn't. I think most buyers have the opposite orientation. They would
> >rather have a fast large boat than a fast small boat if the prices where
> >the same.
> >
> >I have spent a couple of days on a F-27 . It cost the owner the same
> >amount to buy this boat as for J105 that was 1 year newer.
> >
> >The J105 was slower in anything above ~12 knots of wind... but was
> >definitely faster in lighter air. The J was newer. It had at least
> >three times as much cabin space. It has standing head room in the cabin.
Terry Schell
SAIL LOCO wrote:
>
> <<<<<<<Foot for foot the Farrier boats are the fastest production boats you can
> find. >>>>>>>>>
>
> Don't think so. As far as I know the Condor 40 is the fastest production boat.
> It ia a Tri also by the way.
> "Trains are a winter sport"
What part of "foot for foot" was unclear? Of do you consider 40 feet the
same as 27?
Fabbian G. Dufoe
: Bobsprit wrote:
: > I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27. For performance per foot
: > it's pretty much unbeatable. If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
: > want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
: > touch it.
: find. However, while they are fast for boats their length, they aren't
: much faster than most other $60,000 used boats... and they are certainly
: less roomy than any other production boat in it's price range. If all
: you care about is speed... and price/accomodations are little object,
: then you should run out and buy one. If you have some more complicated
: tradeoff between price/speed/accomodation, the answer may not be so
: clear cut.
I wonder how a 27' Stiletto catamaran compares with the F-24 and
F-27 for performance. My guess is the Stiletto is faster.
--
Fabbian G. Dufoe, III
350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South | email: sf6l...@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 |
727-823-2350 Fax: 530-509-6919 | 27 deg 44.5 min N, 82 deg 38.3 min W
Terry Schell
SAIL LOCO wrote:
>
> <<<<<The J105 was slower in anything above ~12 knots of wind... but was
> definitely faster in lighter air. The J was newer. It had at least
> three times as much cabin space. It has standing head room in the cabin.>>>>>>
>
> Standing head room for who.....a 12 year old! The J105 is a 34' bend over down
> below boat or did they introduce a "cruise" version that I haven't been on
> board yet?
Perhaps I was overstating the case by calling it standing head room
since it is only 65". However, that is nearly twice the 34" you claimed
and noticably taller than a F-27.
The if you want to imagine the interior of the F27, think of a J24 and
imagine it 2 feet narrower on deck with no storage under or behind the
settees.
Terry Schell
Jon Alvord wrote:
>
> Terry Schell wrote:
<snip>
> > People who advise
> > others to buy these boats regardless of the stated boating goals seem to
> > be blind to the limitations of these designs.
>
<snip>
> The only limiting thing on the F-27 is in the eye of the beholder and that is
> storage space. I can admit to that but it is not a deterent. How hard is it to
> stop in a harbor ever 2-3 days to resupply while coastal sailing, not very hard!
<snip>
How hard it is to stop into a harbor every 2 days depends on the type of
cruising you do.
More importantly, the lack of storage is only one of many limitations of
this design. Your statement that it is the *only* limitation just
demonstrates my point about being blind to its limitations.
Additional limitations relative to other boats in its price range:
small number of adult bunks
no privacy for more than 2 people
small and poorly equiped galley
no enclosed head with holding tank
limited electrical capacity (small batteries, smaller alternator)
limited water and fuel tankage
small cockpit
much more difficult to dock
Wetter ride upwind
Limited headroom
Limited anchor storage and handling gear
No inboard engine option
These things aren't necessary for cruising, but many people would
certainly find them limitations for cruising.
Jonathan Ganz
with the positives and I'd like to hear something objective (if that's
possible without it degenerating into a sink/won't sink diatribe) about the
negatives.
Jonathan
In article <38270960...@uwf.edu>, Terry Schell <tsc...@uwf.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Jon Alvord wrote:
><snip>
>> Ian has
>> designed a great set of boats that are well worth the investment for the
>> little time that must be spent to step the mast, load the trailer, and drive
>> home.
>>
><snip>
>
>I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this point. I think the
>Farriers are some of the best designs in the last couple of decades.
>
>However, they are clearly a niche design. They do some things
>exceedingly well, but do other things quite poorly. People who advise
>others to buy these boats regardless of the stated boating goals seem to
>be blind to the limitations of these designs.
Jonathan Ganz
gave all kinds of waves. Even got a girlfriend that way...saw me on
the road, flagged me down.... :-) Perhaps this is another advantage
to a F tri. :-)
Jonathan
In article <382712BA...@Valley.net>,
Jon Alvord <Jon.A...@Valley.net> wrote:
>I look at F-Boats/Trimarans like one who rides a Motorcycle. If you are a biker
>you know this to be true. If you ride down the road on any Motorcycle 99% of
>those passing you the opposite direction will wave, not true in a car/truck. Look
>at the Tri's and you will find that the community is very friendly whether you are
>on a F-boat, Condor, or any other Tri. People just tend to go out of their way to
>be friendly. My experience in the past has been this, and I have been able to meet
>many new people that I would not have met in a Monomoran.
>
>Jon
>
>
Jon Alvord
imagine it 2 feet narrower on deck with no storage under or behind the
settees."
Not true! I have storage behind both port and starbord settees, also under them and
also aft of them. I have storage under the cockpit, in the bow when not being used.
If I had drybags I would lash them to the tramps if needed.
Terry Schell wrote:
> Jon Alvord wrote:
> >
> > Terry Schell wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > People who advise
> > > others to buy these boats regardless of the stated boating goals seem to
> > > be blind to the limitations of these designs.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > The only limiting thing on the F-27 is in the eye of the beholder and that is
> > storage space. I can admit to that but it is not a deterent. How hard is it to
> > stop in a harbor ever 2-3 days to resupply while coastal sailing, not very hard!
>
> <snip>
>
> How hard it is to stop into a harbor every 2 days depends on the type of
> cruising you do.
>
> More importantly, the lack of storage is only one of many limitations of
> this design. Your statement that it is the *only* limitation just
> demonstrates my point about being blind to its limitations.
>
> Additional limitations relative to other boats in its price range:
> small number of adult bunks
two double berths, one aft-cabin, one main berth pull out, also starboard settee has
berth extention.
>
> no privacy for more than 2 people
Aft-cabin is private, or do you want doors closed, no body to hear you talk. Good luck
on any boat.
>
> small and poorly equiped galley
Hey I cook when at home and when on the boat, and I think the galley is equipped
nicely. Last trip out I even cooked corn beef and cabbage in the galley. Did some
cornbread on the grill. Come to think of it I have also boiled lobster for the last 3
times I have been out. Then sat on the ama's in the Sunset with the kids on the nets
and had a feast. Cleans up easily to!
>
> no enclosed head with holding tank
Mine has both of these, although living inland I would prefer to have a portapottie
>
> limited electrical capacity (small batteries, smaller alternator)
One battery, solar charger, altenator on outboard, all instruments run on electricity,
never had any problem with this, also have shore power hook up if I decide to rent a
slip for the night, but I prefer not to since I generally get close enough to shore
without needing a dock.
>
> limited water and fuel tankage
15 gallons of H20 is more than enough for me, actually I generally only take 4-5
gallons. Fuel, I like to sail. I carry a 3 gallon for daysailing or less for racing,
and 6 gallon for cruising.
>
> small cockpit
Perfect for kids, and singlehanding, washing dishes.
>
> much more difficult to dock
Only when going really really slow! of course I got better with time
>
> Wetter ride upwind
Here it is again. If it is windy, 15-20 I move to the windward ama or the cockpit, and
it is very dry. The nets stop most of the water, and I like the occasional wave over
the bow when sailing.
>
> Limited headroom
This is true, there is limited headroom and I will agree, whole heartedly with you and
is the only reason, I am selling mine to move up to a F-31, however, I raise the poptop
and put on the cover and I have standing room, plus the boom box(radio) sits on the
deck under the cover, out of the way, along with other items.
>
> Limited anchor storage and handling gear
I have two 14lb Danforths that fit great in the anchor well with 10 feet of chain on
each and 150 feet of rode for each. I have carried a 50lb bruce in the ama but then
went back to the Danforths, (Long story, don't want to go there). I consider this to
be adequate since I usually get to anchor in less than 3 ft. In two years only once
had I had to anchor in 20' and that was in Burlington VT and the lake was down 7 ft
which put the usually anchorage out of reach for us.
>
> No inboard engine option
Don't need it! 8 hp pushes the boat at 7 kn, is easy to repair, take off, store,
raise (very important because it creates drag when it is down. Unless you want to
Motor Cruise, in which case you should buy a motorboat.
>
>
> These things aren't necessary for cruising, but many people would
> certainly find them limitations for cruising.
That said I will see you all later, this could go on and on and on! but like someone
said earlier, at least it hasn't gotten to the sinking, capsizing part yet! Time for
another Multihuller to jump in!
Jon Alvord
F-27 SilverBear
Douglas King
> : > I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27. For performance per foot
> : > it's pretty much unbeatable. If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
> : > want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
> : > touch it.
> Terry Schell (tsc...@uwf.edu) wrote:
> : Foot for foot the Farrier boats are the fastest production boats you can
> : find. However, while they are fast for boats their length, they aren't
> : much faster than most other $60,000 used boats.
Fabbian G. Dufoe wrote:
> I wonder how a 27' Stiletto catamaran compares with the F-24 and
> F-27 for performance. My guess is the Stiletto is faster.
Not to mention the RC-27.
There are enough faster multihulls around that the F-boats aren't really
remarkable for speed, as far as multis go.
And the fact is, there are faster monohulls, too.
Fresh Breezes- Doug "Here, Let Me Help You Beat That Horse" King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
SAIL LOCO
same as 27?>>>>>>
DUH Just going by your rules Bub. Foot for foot the Condor 40 is the fastest
PRODUCTION boat. You said "foot for foot" not "fastest 27 footer"
Douglas King
> If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including depreciation,
> maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F boat would beat the
> mono hands down. It's speed advantage wouldn't even been needed in the
> speed/dollar comparison because the dollar part would be enough to give
> the F boat the advantage.
IT would be interesting to look at the Total Cost of Ownership for
different types of boats. I'm not conviced the F-27 or any of the
COrsair tris would be a hands-down winner, especially starting from "new
boat." The depreciation is much steeper than a big luxury "blue water"
cruiser. It may be the winner in the trailerable category.
What factors should be included in Total Cost of Ownership?
Purchase price minus resale price, plus all slip & storage and haulage
fees, plus all equipment included when boat is sold, plus maintenance,
plus repairs, plus upgrades/renewal of equipment (or only a percentage
of upgrades?). There are a lot of things tha nibble away....
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Bobsprit
remarkable for speed, as far as multis go.
And the fact is, there are faster monohulls, too.>>>
Ya know. This discussion has dropped to dopey-ville. The original point was
made and defended after someone spoke of a F-27 for sale. Following that, some
pinhead said he'd rather have an Express 35. The two boats are worlds apart is
design, let alone the 7 LOA!!!
The F boats are remarkable within their design constraints. A few people here
don't want to give credit where credit is due. Somehow, they are actually
threatened by newer hulls. The discussion has now come down to comparing the
F27 to OTHER multihulls, since no one could come up with a list of boats that
were comparable for speed and cruisability at 27 feet....I saw the Antrim 27
and it's cabin is worse than the F-27. Also; the Antrim is NOT as fast and will
feel like a sport boat when it's doing 15 knots. The F does 15 in its sleep.
That's pretty cool. A 27 foot boat that goes faster than most monohulls under
40 feet, doesn't heel and can be cruised by a couple. I'm not bashing the
Antrim as it was not built for this!
Robert B
P30 NY
Paul Kamen
>If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including
>depreciation, maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F
>boat would beat the mono hands down. It's speed advantage
>wouldn't even been needed in the speed/dollar comparison because
>the dollar part would be enough to give the F boat the advantage.
Don't forget the cost and maintenance of the tow vehicle, if we're
comparing dry sailing to wet.
Also, if this is F-27 to J-105, maybe we shold divide all costs for the
the J by three - because it cruises with three times as many people at the
same comfort level.
Douglas King
> There are enough faster multihulls around that the F-boats aren't really
> remarkable for speed, as far as multis go.
>
> And the fact is, there are faster monohulls, too.>>>
Bobsprit (who cannot attribute previous posts) wrote:
> Ya know. This discussion has dropped to dopey-ville. The original point was
> made and defended after someone spoke of a F-27 for sale. Following that, some
> pinhead said he'd rather have an Express 35. The two boats are worlds apart is
> design, let alone the 7 LOA!!!
But similar in price, which was the point you apparently missed.
> The F boats are remarkable within their design constraints.
True.
> ... A few people here
> don't want to give credit where credit is due. Somehow, they are actually
> threatened by newer hulls.
Not really. I just don't like to see a lot of mindless hype (such as
"does 15 knots in its sleep" see below) when people are trying to get an
honest assessment of different boats.
> .... The discussion has now come down to comparing the
> F27 to OTHER multihulls, since no one could come up with a list of boats that
> were comparable for speed and cruisability at 27 feet....I saw the Antrim 27
> and it's cabin is worse than the F-27. Also; the Antrim is NOT as fast
That's not true. The Antrims regularly beat the F-27 on race courses.
That would indicate to most impartial observers that it's faster. And
how is the cabin "worse" exactly?
> ..... and will
> feel like a sport boat when it's doing 15 knots.
OK, what does a "sport boat" feel like, and how is this bad?
> ... The F does 15 in its sleep.
> That's pretty cool. A 27 foot boat that goes faster than most monohulls under
> 40 feet, doesn't heel and can be cruised by a couple.
Provided the couple 1- are rich, 2- don't mind the lack of space and
stowage, 3- think that nets are a suitable substitute for decks 4- don't
mind folding their boat up every time they put it away.
In short, while I agree with some of the superlatives applies to the
Farrier multis including the F-27s, my experience with them has
indicated a number of disadvantages rarely acknowledged by their
advocates.
Every boat is a compromise.
Now Bob, please tell us exactly how much tiller time you have on an F-27
(or any multihull) and on a sportboat?
Bobsprit
But similar in price, which was the point you apparently missed.>>
A point that was as stupid as the day is long. Might I point out that you could
also buy a nice Lexus for the same price?
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
"does 15 knots in its sleep" see below) >>
If you've seen or sailed these boats at 15 knots you know well what I mean,
Doug. There's a difference is ride when the Antrim is planning at 15 knots and
the F boat is relatively relaxed at that speed.
No, I haven't sailed either boat, but there's a F-27 in my area that passes
everything but Jetski's and does so with little bother. The F-27 has flown past
my buddies J30 with one person on board drinking coffee...or drinking something
that he was SIPPING. On the J30, we were heeled over and hanging on.
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
That would indicate to most impartial observers that it's faster. And
how is the cabin "worse" exactly?>>
I concede I may be in error about the Antrim's speed advantage. As for the
cabin, please visit the Antrim website and take a look. It's only a bit bigger
than the cabin of my friends Typhoon!
While I don't care for the F's interior, it looks to be bigger and even has an
enclosed head. There's even an F-28 version with an aft sleeping area (just saw
this at the Norwalk boat show).
Again, I'm NOT bashing the Antrim. I'd LOVE to try one, but it's much more of a
dedicated racer than the F boat.
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
stowage, 3- think that nets are a suitable substitute for decks 4- don't
mind folding their boat up every time they put it away.>>
You have to be rich to own a boat between 50K and 100K?? We must have very
different ideas of what "rich" is.
I see the nets as an age issue. I know that most of my young friends would love
the nets, while my father would certainly hate them. At 36 I'm not sure what
I'd think over the long term, but I prefer the looks of monohulls far too much
to buy a F boat anyway.
Robert B
P30 NY
Jon Alvord
Douglas King wrote:
> > : Bobsprit wrote:
> > : > I don't know why Doug is determined to bash the F-27. For performance per foot
> > : > it's pretty much unbeatable. If you want incredible speed under 35 feet and
> > : > want something less than a long range cruiser, there is no monohull that can
> > : > touch it.
>
> > Terry Schell (tsc...@uwf.edu) wrote:
> > : Foot for foot the Farrier boats are the fastest production boats you can
> > : find. However, while they are fast for boats their length, they aren't
> > : much faster than most other $60,000 used boats.
>
> Fabbian G. Dufoe wrote:
> > I wonder how a 27' Stiletto catamaran compares with the F-24 and
> > F-27 for performance. My guess is the Stiletto is faster.
>
>
> Not to mention the RC-27.
While the Stiletto is trailerable, I think the F-boats go from trailor to water much
easier. I don't know if the RC's are trailerable but they sure don't have the
accomadations that the F-boats have, unless you like to set of a tent on the tramp and
take it down every day. You guys are reaching here because you have lost the battle.
Jon
>
>
> There are enough faster multihulls around that the F-boats aren't really
> remarkable for speed, as far as multis go.
>
> And the fact is, there are faster monohulls, too.
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug "Here, Let Me Help You Beat That Horse" King
Bobsprit
(or any multihull) and on a sportboat?>>
Fastest boats I've sailed are J's. No real "sportboat" experience beyond a
quick ride on a Olson 30, but that's even too heavy to meet the criteria.
Nope...haven't sailed the F-27 yet, but I expect to this summer. The one in my
area is simply faster than just about anything except a J-160 that flies
through from time-to-time. The strengths of the F far outweigh the weaknesses
IF you don't have a problem with the price. I don't.
Hey! For the same kinda money you could pick up a Fisher 30!!!
Makes sense, right?
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
battle.>>
Exactly. Next they'll compare the F boat to a Miata! Theirs an undefinable
anger about multihulls and it's evident in the tone of many of the posts here.
What can you do?
Sail on, sail faster!
Robert B
P30 NY
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff <shel...@averstar.com> wrote:
>
> >If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including
> >depreciation, maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F
> >boat would beat the mono hands down. It's speed advantage
> >wouldn't even been needed in the speed/dollar comparison because
> >the dollar part would be enough to give the F boat the advantage.
>
> Don't forget the cost and maintenance of the tow vehicle, if we're
> comparing dry sailing to wet.
Sure, why not. Just take the cost of the tow vehicle per mile and
multiply by the number of miles towed. I think you'll find that if
you're only towing from the ramp to your backyard, the cost it less than
moorage/dockage fees. And if you're towing cross-country, the cost is
less than sailing the boat a similar distance.
> Also, if this is F-27 to J-105, maybe we shold divide all costs for the
> the J by three - because it cruises with three times as many people at the
> same comfort level.
You'd have to do that in order to come close.:)
Steven Shelikoff
To be "foot for foot" the fastest, the Condor 40 would have to be 1.5
times faster than an F-27. Is it?
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including depreciation,
> > maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F boat would beat the
> > mono hands down. It's speed advantage wouldn't even been needed in the
> > speed/dollar comparison because the dollar part would be enough to give
> > the F boat the advantage.
>
> different types of boats. I'm not conviced the F-27 or any of the
> COrsair tris would be a hands-down winner, especially starting from "new
> boat." The depreciation is much steeper than a big luxury "blue water"
> cruiser. It may be the winner in the trailerable category.
If you're gonna compare the depreciation of an F-27 to a big luxury blue
water cruiser, you have to compare all the other costs to that boat as
well. Remember, TCO.
> What factors should be included in Total Cost of Ownership?
> Purchase price minus resale price, plus all slip & storage and haulage
> fees, plus all equipment included when boat is sold, plus maintenance,
> plus repairs, plus upgrades/renewal of equipment (or only a percentage
> of upgrades?). There are a lot of things tha nibble away....
Yes there are, for every boat type. The question is whether they nibble
away any more or less at the F boats or the monohulls that are as fast
as them. Remember, the original question was comparing speed/$$$.
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> The F boats are remarkable within their design constraints. A few people here
> don't want to give credit where credit is due. Somehow, they are actually
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just one comment: Multihulls have been around a lot longer than
externally ballasted monohulls. Thousands of years longer.
Jesse Deupree
I'm not trying to hide. Natch it was me that posted the long reply to
Terry in defense of the F27.
Jesse Deupree
F27 ION
Portland Maine
Jesse Deupree
>
> More importantly, the lack of storage is only one of many limitations of
> this design. Your statement that it is the *only* limitation just
> demonstrates my point about being blind to its limitations.
>
> Additional limitations relative to other boats in its price range:
> small number of adult bunks
> much more difficult to dock
> Limited headroom
>
> These things aren't necessary for cruising, but many people would
> certainly find them limitations for cruising.
Having started some of this thing, its been interesting watching for a
while. Everybody, not just me, is getting defensive, or on the offense as
the case may be. Its obvious the boat arouses strong emotions, pro and
con. I'll respond only to the above, because there are errors in it.
The F27 is very expensive for the below decks room, I think it is really a
two person or three person boat, or a couple with small children. Given
this limitation, the boat has plenty of storage, with three proper adult
bunks.
It does offer privacy in the aft cabin and in the enclosed head forward.
The galley is small though perfectly adequate for cooking for three. The
only "equipment" missing is a propane stove, I've seen them installed
easily. You do need to do some creative inexpensive work to improve the
stock equipment and space.(folding counter, racks for storage etc.- I
switched to two butane stoves from the origo- The butane heats well and is
very simple and inexpensive and the fuel bought in cases at oriental food
stores is not outrageous).
The enclosed head forward has a holding tank- are you thinking of the F28?
I had two batteries on my boat, took one out as unnecessary (I would have
kept it had I kept the radar). I have a solar panel and all the lights,
instruments and stereo you could want. The alternator is tiny- the demand
on it is tiny. I stayed with pull starting on my outboard. I've never
killed the battery cruising or racing.
My boat carries 20 gallons of water in the permanent tank and up to
another 20 in jugs stored low inside- again for the number of people on
board, perfectly adequate. Fuel tankage is limited- if range was important
to me I'd get a four stroke. Its doesn't have the range of a diesel
auxilliary, but I only use the engine for harbor entrances- etc. You just
never power this boat, if you want to, its not the right boat (I'll put
the inboard option here too- If you want an inboard on this shoal draft
boat, you don't want this boat).
Small cockpit- this is fine by me, fits the two or three people that sail
it. It is easy to singlehand because the cockpit is small so controls are
easy to reach. And I have taken 10 adults and kids for an afternoon
daysail. Under most conditions the nets are great.
Difficult to dock- agreed but you don't get in much trouble because the
boat doesn't weigh anything and is easy to hold off and push around by
hand.
Wetter ride upwind- wetter than what. One of the things that surprised me
was how dry the boat is, especially at double digit speeds. Upwind most of
the typical windward spray is knocked down by the nets and the flare in
the hull, and you can always take the extension tiller and sit to windward
of everything. I did find I switched from wearing a jacket in heavier
conditions to wearing a one piece suit with the upper part tied around my
waist most of the time. The sitting parts of the boat will get wet. All in
all I've found the boat drier for a given pace than a mono.
Limited headroom- Yes- you have to go to the F31 to get any headroom. I
have a dodger made for the pop top hatch that gives full headroom in the
galley, and can be left up in any conditions sailing or not, so there is a
solution, but yes for the dollar, your money is not in iinterior cabin
space.
Limited anchor storage- I don't get this one. There is an anchor well
forward for two rodes and chain. I take the anchors to the ama storage to
get the weight off the bow. Remember we are talking 15 and 20 lb anchors
here. There is no reason to carry a heavy plow and all chain rode. I carry
enough gear and varied anchors to keep me in place anywhere I find myself.
Remember this boat draws 13 inches with the board and rudder up. I'm
usually anchoring with almost no rode in very protected places. (Aside
here- I did drag one night on a 180 degree wind shift when the anchor
fouled in seaweed - woke up and began to row another anchor out in the
dinghy (heavy mono thinking) till I realized the solution was to grab the
rode and jump into the two foot deep water pulling the boat off the shore
by hand easily, walk out till I found the fouled anchor in the three foot
deep water, pull it up, clean it, set it with my foot and walk back to the
boat and climb aboard. Not the best swim I've ever had, but no damage and
easily done).
Douglas King
> > > If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including depreciation,
> > > maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F boat would beat the
> > > mono hands down. It's speed advantage wouldn't even been needed in the
> > > speed/dollar comparison because the dollar part would be enough to give
> > > the F boat the advantage.
> Douglas King wrote:
> > IT would be interesting to look at the Total Cost of Ownership for
> > different types of boats. I'm not conviced the F-27 or any of the
> > COrsair tris would be a hands-down winner, especially starting from "new
> > boat." The depreciation is much steeper than a big luxury "blue water"
> > cruiser. It may be the winner in the trailerable category.
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> If you're gonna compare the depreciation of an F-27 to a big luxury blue
> water cruiser, you have to compare all the other costs to that boat as
> well. Remember, TCO.
Well, the resale value *can* be an overpowering component. An
acquaintance of mine recently bought a big crab-crusher "blue-water"
cruiser for about $190k, spent about $15k outfitting it, and then sold
it because he didn't like the way it sailed. After fourteen months of
ownership, he got $210k for it. Slippage for that time cost ~$2,200.00
which is insignificant. Unfortunately, now the guy thinks it's easy to
sell any boat for more than one paid for it....
> > What factors should be included in Total Cost of Ownership?
> > Purchase price minus resale price, plus all slip & storage and haulage
> > fees, plus all equipment included when boat is sold, plus maintenance,
> > plus repairs, plus upgrades/renewal of equipment (or only a percentage
> > of upgrades?). There are a lot of things that nibble away....
>
> Yes there are, for every boat type. The question is whether they nibble
> away any more or less at the F boats or the monohulls that are as fast
> as them. Remember, the original question was comparing speed/$$$.
Oh, I thought we were comparing TCO as a component of overall utility.
Well, speed/$$$ looks pretty good for the F-boats, as I agreed last
time. Of course, one could divide that by the number of crew, which
helps out the bigger boats. But it's a sure bet that the F-boats would
be faster with old blown-out sails, and would be less likely to be foul.
Although with a higher wetted surface/disp ratio, if they were foul,
they'd lose more speed than a fast mono. Still, if you were to spend $0
on maintenance for X years for as F-boat and a mono of comparable speed
and price, the F-boat would come out faster in most conditions.
Especially on a reach.
Actually, I like the speed/$$ ratio of an old, fully-depreciated racing
boat. I've seen forty-footers going in the mid-twenties, about half what
you'd pay for a 2nd-hand F-27 and about a fifth of new. Here you can
count on low resale value, but it's a higher percentage of what you
actually lay out. Count on getting lots of equipment and sails
practically free. Can carry a lot of people, so that leverages the thing
up the scale. And if you keep it at the same boatyard it's been parked
at, unloved for years, the yard owner may cut you a good deal. Of
course, there's the risk that he'll hit you up for years of unpaid
storage....
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Douglas King
> While the Stiletto is trailerable, I think the F-boats go from trailor to water much
> easier. I don't know if the RC's are trailerable but they sure don't have the
> accomadations that the F-boats have, unless you like to set of a tent on the tramp and
Battle? What battle? If it's a "battle" to make most people see the
benefits of the F-27 then you've won easily, as those are not disputed.
If it's a "battle" to make you see the disadvantages of the F-27, then
you've won because you are blind to them. Or is it that you've lost
because you're blind to them? Anyway, if it's a "battle" to discuss the
relative advantages and disadvantages of F-27s specifically and small
multihulls in general then everybody has won (except Bobsprit, who seems
to think this is alt.sailing.asa and behaves accordingly) because this
is exactly what has happened.
BTW the RCs are trailerable. It looks like a bit of a job, though. Have
you ever seen a Stilletto rigged and launched from a trailer? I have.
IMHO it's every bit as much of a PITA as the F-27, and takes about as
long. Of course, it doesn't have the accomodation the F-27 has.
All boats are a compromise. Some are more compromising than others!
Bobsprit
to think this is alt.sailing.asa and behaves accordingly) >>
As I said, Doug, You are the only one being combative here. Please stop
trolling and return to Alt.Sailing. There you can indulge in childish rampages.
You're apparent frustration with this topic is even more aparent when you bash
me for having an opinion and and voicing it in a civil manner. You should learn
to do the same.
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
you've won because you are blind to them.>>
That's very nice, Doug. The owners of the F-27 have been VERY clear on the
disadvantages. Unlike you, they have been also accurate regarding the specific
features of the F-boats. They DON'T agree with your belief that they are
overpriced or that a Antrim 27, Express 35 or Buick LeSabre is a good
replacement for the F boat.
Can you stand that, Doug? Can you let someone enjoy what they have, even if it
fails to meet your view of what $$$ vs. Speed vs. Comfort could be? Can you do
that WITHOUT resorting to nasty posts and backhanded compliments to the F27?
Let's see.
Robert B
P30 NY
Al Gunther
> Well, speed/$$$ looks pretty good for the F-boats
My only experience with F-Boats is sailing past them on light air days in
a momohull of about the same length. Is the assumption that they are
faster in all conditions? I see none out in gale conditions and they don't
go anywhere in light air. Is this all considered in the speed/$$$
equations?
--
Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 48.1'N, 122° 30.0'W
http://www.silverlink.net/~agunther/
Steven Shelikoff
>
> doug...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Well, speed/$$$ looks pretty good for the F-boats
>
> My only experience with F-Boats is sailing past them on light air days in
> a momohull of about the same length. Is the assumption that they are
> faster in all conditions? I see none out in gale conditions and they don't
No, this is not the assumption. My assumption is that, in general, an
F-boat will cream a monohull of the same size in the average, around the
marks, race. Also, if you take heeling into consideration, the F-boat
will be more comfortable doing it. There definitely are conditions
where the good monohull can be faster.
> go anywhere in light air. Is this all considered in the speed/$$$
> equations?
Yes.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> > > Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > > > If you look at TCO (total cost of ownership including depreciation,
> > > > maintenance, storage/moorage/dockage, etc.) the F boat would beat the
> > > > mono hands down. It's speed advantage wouldn't even been needed in the
> > > > speed/dollar comparison because the dollar part would be enough to give
> > > > the F boat the advantage.
>
> > Douglas King wrote:
> > > IT would be interesting to look at the Total Cost of Ownership for
> > > different types of boats. I'm not conviced the F-27 or any of the
> > > COrsair tris would be a hands-down winner, especially starting from "new
> > > boat." The depreciation is much steeper than a big luxury "blue water"
> > > cruiser. It may be the winner in the trailerable category.
>
> Steven Shelikoff wrote:
> > If you're gonna compare the depreciation of an F-27 to a big luxury blue
> > water cruiser, you have to compare all the other costs to that boat as
> > well. Remember, TCO.
>
> Well, the resale value *can* be an overpowering component. An
> acquaintance of mine recently bought a big crab-crusher "blue-water"
> cruiser for about $190k, spent about $15k outfitting it, and then sold
> it because he didn't like the way it sailed. After fourteen months of
> ownership, he got $210k for it. Slippage for that time cost ~$2,200.00
> which is insignificant. Unfortunately, now the guy thinks it's easy to
> sell any boat for more than one paid for it....
And I could sell my boat now for more than I paid for it. But it's not
very fast and costs me $3000/year in slip fees. It is possible to sell
any boat for more than one paid for it, depending on how good you are at
negotiating. Brokers do it all the time.
> > > What factors should be included in Total Cost of Ownership?
> > > Purchase price minus resale price, plus all slip & storage and haulage
> > > fees, plus all equipment included when boat is sold, plus maintenance,
> > > plus repairs, plus upgrades/renewal of equipment (or only a percentage
> > > of upgrades?). There are a lot of things that nibble away....
> >
> > Yes there are, for every boat type. The question is whether they nibble
> > away any more or less at the F boats or the monohulls that are as fast
> > as them. Remember, the original question was comparing speed/$$$.
>
> Oh, I thought we were comparing TCO as a component of overall utility.
No. I said that if you want to compare the speed/$$$ ratio, the fact
that the F-27 is so fast doesn't even need to come into play because the
TCO is so low.
> Well, speed/$$$ looks pretty good for the F-boats, as I agreed last
> time. Of course, one could divide that by the number of crew, which
[...]
That's all I need to hear.:) I don't even have a F-boat. But I do
appreciate the design and the fun factor, especially having learned the
finer points of sailing on a cat.
Terry Schell
Bobsprit wrote:
>
<snip>
> I'd think over the long term, but I prefer the looks of monohulls far too much
> to buy a F boat anyway.
>
<snip>
The ironic thing is that you, who would not own a Farrier, are defending
it. While I, who have been actively looking for one to buy, am pointing
out its limitations.
I am interested not by its speed per se, but by its ability to sail in
shallow draft regions (like here in Pensacola) and still be fun to sail.
It is very difficult to find a boat at any price that has good sailing
characteristics, cruising potential, and less than 30" of draft. This is
why the F-27 is on my list of boats to look at.
However, it has a number of limitations that are making it hard to buy.
Chief among the problems for me is that it costs twice as much as any of
the other boats I am looking at. While shallow draft is great, I am
still not sure I am willing to compromise enough in the space/$ to buy
one. I am *not* one of those people who say "it holds 15 gallons of
water and that is plenty", "the outboard alternator provides plenty of
power", "the anchor well is plenty big if you have a 15 lb anchor", "I
enjoy taking a wave over the bow", etc. I have seen the lack of galley
space. I have seen what passes for storage under the settees. I have
crouched in the cabin for a whole day when it rained. I consider these
to be serious disadvantages relative to other boats in its price or size
class and am not convinced they are compensated by the speed and draft
advantages.
Finally, people who argue that the Farriers are actually cheaper than
typical 30' monohulls have not run the numbers. A $75K Farrier will
still depreciate as much as a $40K Catalina 30 expressed as a dollar
figure rather than a percentage of value, plus it will cost me $10,000+
in additional interest payments over the life of the loan (assuming I
make the same down payment and monthly payments for both boats). On the
plus side, I live in an area where the Farriers are very common and
quite a few come on the market. I may yet find a bargain.
Terry Schell
Bobsprit wrote:
>
> take it down every day. You guys are reaching here because you have lost the
> battle.>>
>
> Exactly. Next they'll compare the F boat to a Miata! Theirs an undefinable
> anger about multihulls and it's evident in the tone of many of the posts here.
> What can you do?
> Sail on, sail faster!
>
<snip>
Neither personal insults nor declaring yourself the winner actually
strengthen your argument. I pointed out a series of limitations of the
F-boats relative to monohulls of either their price or their length. I
don't hate them, indeed, I dearly *want* one. That doesn't mean that I
turn a blind eye to the compromises inherent in the design. You give up
a whole lot of cruising amenities with a F-boat compared to a monohull
with a similar cost of ownership. I don't see how you can deny this.
Where is the "undefinable anger about multihulls" you speak of? Am I
demonstrating this anger when I shop for a multihull or when I charter
one for a vacation?
Terry Schell
Steven Shelikoff wrote:
<snip>
> No. I said that if you want to compare the speed/$$$ ratio, the fact
> that the F-27 is so fast doesn't even need to come into play because the
> TCO is so low.
If you can find some of these really cheap F-27's would you please let
me know. I have been looking for one for a while.
And while depreciation is an important part of the TCO... you need to
look at the actual dollar cost of depreciation (not the percentage) and
the capital costs when comparing boats of different prices. That high
initial cost of a farrier *is* a problem... at least for me.
Bobsprit
shallow draft regions (like here in Pensacola) and still be fun to sail.
It is very difficult to find a boat at any price that has good sailing
characteristics, cruising potential, and less than 30" of draft. This is
why the F-27 is on my list of boats to look at.>>
I think that the F's most outstanding quality is performance. If the speed is
not a factor, why not find a used Catamaran that has a better interior and
range...?
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
a momohull of about the same length. Is the assumption that they are
faster in all conditions?>>
What kind of light air are you speaking of??? 1 knot? Of course I'm only
talking J-Boats (24 and 30), but the 27 in my area is always faster.
I never see it out in hard weather, but perhaps the owner is just a good sailor
who's careful with his investment.
Robert B
P30 NY
Bobsprit
it. >>
How is this ironic? I could easily speak well of a Swan 47, though only by way
of observation and study. So what?
Robert B
P30 NY
Jon Alvord
Al Gunther wrote:
> doug...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Well, speed/$$$ looks pretty good for the F-boats
>
> My only experience with F-Boats is sailing past them on light air days in
> a momohull of about the same length. Is the assumption that they are
> faster in all conditions? I see none out in gale conditions and they don't
> go anywhere in light air. Is this all considered in the speed/$$$
> equations?
Thats funny, I was out last month in 25-35 kn winds and had a heck of a sail,
with my two children sleeping in the aft cabin. Also was out sailing at 8 kn
with 7kn winds for 20 miles from Burlington to Mallets Bay, VT and past
several Mono around 30-35' that had left 30 min-1hr prior.
Douglas King
> Terry Schell wrote:
> > Additional limitations relative to other boats in its price range:
> > small number of adult bunks
Yeah, but who want to "sleep 8" in a 27 footer?
> > no privacy for more than 2 people
Actually I think the aft cabin improves privacy. I don't like aft
cabins, but they do have this advantage.
> > small and poorly equiped galley
> > no enclosed head with holding tank
> > limited electrical capacity (small batteries, smaller alternator)
> > limited water and fuel tankage
These last two can be overcome if you don't mind adding weight.
> > small cockpit
> > much more difficult to dock
Ding ding ding!
> > Wetter ride upwind
Ding ding ding! (again, sorry to be repetitive)
> > Limited headroom
> > Limited anchor storage and handling gear
> > No inboard engine option
IMHO the limited anchor stowage is just a part of the overall limited
stowage. The lack of an inboard is one factor lowering the potential
return on resale, OTOH an outboard is far less of a PITA when it doesn't
work.
Jesse Deupree wrote:>
> The F27 is very expensive for the below decks room, I think it is really a
> two person or three person boat, or a couple with small children. Given
> this limitation, the boat has plenty of storage, with three proper adult
> bunks.
Sorry, but IMHO (and Terry's apparrently) the stowage is scanty even for
two people.
> It does offer privacy in the aft cabin and in the enclosed head forward.
Agreed.
> The galley is small though perfectly adequate for cooking for three. The
> only "equipment" missing is a propane stove, I've seen them installed
> easily. You do need to do some creative inexpensive work to improve the
> stock equipment and space.(folding counter, racks for storage etc.- I
> switched to two butane stoves from the origo- The butane heats well and is
> very simple and inexpensive and the fuel bought in cases at oriental food
> stores is not outrageous).
Why butane? I'm no big fan of propane, but my wife and I cruise for a
week at a time with a one-burner alcohol Origo. Warms the cabin nicely,
too. While I don't have any specific complain agains the F-boats galley,
I do think that a boat of their size and cost should have better.
> I had two batteries on my boat, took one out as unnecessary (I would have
> kept it had I kept the radar). I have a solar panel and all the lights,
> instruments and stereo you could want. The alternator is tiny- the demand
> on it is tiny. I stayed with pull starting on my outboard. I've never
> killed the battery cruising or racing.
>
> My boat carries 20 gallons of water in the permanent tank and up to
> another 20 in jugs stored low inside- again for the number of people on
> board, perfectly adequate. Fuel tankage is limited- if range was important
> to me I'd get a four stroke. Its doesn't have the range of a diesel
> auxilliary, but I only use the engine for harbor entrances- etc. You just
> never power this boat, if you want to, its not the right boat (I'll put
> the inboard option here too- If you want an inboard on this shoal draft
> boat, you don't want this boat).
Agreed. However, we use a four-stroke outboard and really appreciate the
economy and the cleanliness. We motor a fair bit, especially in light
air or against tidal currents. It's not unusual for us to burn less than
5 gallons in a weeks cruise.
> Small cockpit- this is fine by me, fits the two or three people that sail
> it. It is easy to singlehand because the cockpit is small so controls are
> easy to reach. And I have taken 10 adults and kids for an afternoon
> daysail. Under most conditions the nets are great.
This kinda gets back to the nets vs deck debate. Matter of personal
taste.
> Difficult to dock- agreed but you don't get in much trouble because the
> boat doesn't weigh anything and is easy to hold off and push around by
> hand.
Hmm, it still weighs enough to mash your hand or foot if you get them
caught between the boat and a dock. In my experience, boats with
outboards and daggerboards are plenty maneuverable under power *if* you
allow for windage, of which the F-boats have more than their share.
Maneuvering under sail is only slightly less handy than a mono.
> Wetter ride upwind- wetter than what.
Than a mono of comparable speed and cost, of course.
> .... One of the things that surprised me
> was how dry the boat is, especially at double digit speeds.
Ah, there you go mentioning the S-word again!
> .... Upwind most of
> the typical windward spray is knocked down by the nets and the flare in
> the hull, and you can always take the extension tiller and sit to windward
> of everything. I did find I switched from wearing a jacket in heavier
> conditions to wearing a one piece suit with the upper part tied around my
> waist most of the time. The sitting parts of the boat will get wet. All in
> all I've found the boat drier for a given pace than a mono.
Jesse, most big boat sailors will not want to sail wearing a dry suit or
a dinghy suit! It's a matter of personal taste again, but just because
you say it doesn't bother *you* doesn't mean that the disadvantage isn't
there.
> Limited anchor storage- I don't get this one. There is an anchor well
> forward for two rodes and chain. I take the anchors to the ama storage to
> get the weight off the bow. Remember we are talking 15 and 20 lb anchors
> here. There is no reason to carry a heavy plow and all chain rode.
Agreed. But rather a PITA don't you think?
> .... (Aside
> here- I did drag one night on a 180 degree wind shift when the anchor
> fouled in seaweed - woke up and began to row another anchor out in the
> dinghy (heavy mono thinking) till I realized the solution was to grab the
> rode and jump into the two foot deep water pulling the boat off the shore
> by hand easily, walk out till I found the fouled anchor in the three foot
> deep water, pull it up, clean it, set it with my foot and walk back to the
> boat and climb aboard. Not the best swim I've ever had, but no damage and
> easily done).
I've done the same thing a few times. Including stepping over a drop-off
with an anchor chain draped over my shoulder at 2AM. Not fun. But it
beats the hassle a similar scenario would involve in a bigger boat.
The big problem is that you're getting a camper cruiser at big-boat
prices. The TCO may be good even for a camper cruiser, and it's a damn
fast camper cruiser, but it's still a compromise that not everybody will
like all the way around.
I've considered replacing our trailerable cruiser with an F-24, but the
problem is the lack of stowage and the difficulty in trailering (which
is how we do 100% of our sailing). Cost is less of an issue, although
I'd rather keep the money in the stock market. Bottom line is that my
wife and I don't like some of the compromises of the F-boats. A B-25 or
one of the Kiwi pocket-rockets is a more likely choice. I fully realize
they're nowhere near as fast.
Terry Schell
Well, performance is a concern... just not the only one. I want
"fun-to-sail" rather than fast in an absolute sense. I have been looking
at other cruising capable multi's and haven't found too many in my
anemic price range.