Hunter vs. Beneteau vs. Jeanneau
vi...@ibm.net
Hi!
I am a sailing neophyte and I am considering buying a new or used sailboat
to liveaboard in the northeast. I am looking for a boat between 35 and 40
feet, around 100K and no more than eight years old. I have done some
research into the three boats listed above and had the following questions
someone might be kind enough to give me some input on. I will be mostly
coastal cruising, though I would like some bluewater cruising capability
built in also...
1. People seem to think the Hunters are cheaply built, though I have found
their below-deck layouts to be excellent...should I even consider a new or
slightly used Hunter?
2. Beneteaus seem to be better built, though their interior layouts aren't
nearly as good. Any experience with Beneteaus out there? Durable and
reliable, or not?
3. Jeanneaus, I have come to understand, have no hull liners and are
therefore structurally more sound for offshore cruising. Any opinions here?
4. I am considering the Moorings/Beneteau yachts because they are so much
cheaper...any thoughts on these cheap, though well-used late model charter
yachts as compared to their regularly marketed Beneteaus?
Any opinions will be GREATLY appreciated...I thank everyone in advance!
Vito
MastHed
Consider that the better built boats have a lot less volume for comforts and
make a choice. I'd forget the Hunters...I've heard to many horror stories...
If you intend to stay coastal, a Catalina 400 or 42 will also do the trick. But
if you're going offshore, you'd best look elsewhere and expect less room
sacrificed for structural integrity. Of the three you mentioned, the Jeanneau's
have the best reputation. Other great boats: Tartan 40, Caliber 40, Alerion
37....or get their first in a J-42 or or Saga 43. Talk to surveyors and yards
and listen to what they have to say about various construction methods and
repairs needed for each. I love the Caliber's robust looks and build, dream of
the J-Boat's speed and check out that huge bed in the aft of the Catalina 400
(no headroom though!).
Good luck and take lots of time!
Robert B.
Cat27/Bayside NY
gary tapp
What Hunter horror stories? Ive heard mentions of horror stories but never
heard the horror stories themselves. Do they break up or what?
MastHed wrote in message
<199805262144...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
Jeff Thompson
There's a few Hunter rudder stories here -
http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/Hunter.htm
MastHed wrote:
> <<What Hunter horror stories? Ive heard mentions of horror stories but never
> heard the horror stories themselves. Do they break up or what?>>
>
> I've heard that their larger designs and serious flexing troubles. Some boats
> were recalled. Two surveyors called the construction "very cheap." 2nd hand
> stuff, I admit...so take it or leave it.
>
> Robert B.
> Cat27/Bayside NY
MastHed
bbr...@usa.net
In article <356b3...@news1.ibm.net>,
I won't get into a big discussion about any of the three boats brands
mentioned. I've had all of them offshore on deliveries to Caribbean charter
companies. My job was to get them here dry and in one piece. It can be done
but it's a job not recreation. Within that If you are willing to get into a
project there is the older Hunter 37. A well laid out little cruiser, cutter
rigged and not to bad looking. Easy to identify as I believe it is the only
Hunter ever built with a keel stepped mast. It was their one "bluewater"
boat.
The other is the older Beneteau 37 often referred to as one of the Idyll
series. The Moorings did have a number of these in their fleet. They are
older than your required 8 years but they are sound, well built boats,
(probably because Beneteau didn't build them, Beneteau was the producer and
they were built by the Chantier yard.) They are a German Freres design and
quit quick for a shoal draft cruiser. I once beat a Beneteau First 42 in one
from Bermuda to Newport. The charter version rigs were a bit lightly done
but all of the stations were on the mast and deck for runners, inner forestay
etc.
As far as Catalinas go I'll just shut up now.
Good luck
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
bbr...@usa.net
In article <356b3...@news1.ibm.net>,
<vi...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I am a sailing neophyte and I am considering buying a new or used sailboat
>
Mark Armstrong
gary tapp wrote:
>
> What Hunter horror stories? Ive heard mentions of horror stories but never
> heard the horror stories themselves. Do they break up or what?
>
Mid 80's Hunters were built very cheaply. The fiberglass on the upper
part of the hulls is very thin. I think this was a major problem on the
larger boats.
The quality of todays Hunters have improved but it is still a
"production" boat. You get what you pay for.
I bought a Hunter before the market dropped out (1986). I paid 32K for a
year old 28.5 Hunter, a three year old C&C was on the market here for
45K. Once again, you get what you pay for. In todays market, I would
find an old C&C (lots of them around here).
Mark
Steve McAlister
Ditto in the 80's Hunter made nothing but junk. Today Hunter is
probably the best made production boat, in the states anyway. I never
had in inclination that Catalina was a cored hull until the boat yard
pointed that out to me in a Catalina 30 they were working on. I use to
like Catalina until I took a tour of the factory when in LA for
business. Don't know much about the Benateaus or Jeanneaus, some people
call them them same then I have heard some people call them French
Hunters. Question is what do you want and how much do you want to
invest in the toy then you can decide production boat or custom made.
Bronson/Tate
Hi Steve,
Are you sure about the cored hull?
I always thought the hulls were solid and the decks were cored.
I would like to hear about your factory visit.
Doug
> I never
> had in inclination that Catalina was a cored hull until the boat yard
> pointed that out to me in a Catalina 30 they were working on. I use to
> like Catalina until I took a tour of the factory when in LA for
> business.
--
~;
,/|\,
~SAILING~ ,/' |\ \,
,/' | | \
,/' | | |
./' |/ |
./__________|-----' ,
___.....-----''-----/
jgs \ /
~~-~^~^~`~^~`~^^~^~-^~^~^~-~^~^
~-^~^-`~^~-^~^`^~^-^~^`^~^-~^
The art of getting wet and becoming ill
while slowly going nowhere at great expense.
http://members.xoom.com/midwestsail
Doug, Frances & Sons
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Art Work By |
|http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/7373/index.html#home|
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
Terry Schell
Bronson/Tate <dlb...@swbell.net> writes:
Doug is correct. New Catalina's have solid glass hulls with cored
decks and new Hunters have solid glass below the waterline and cored
topsides and decks. There may be some exceptions to this, but I don't
know of any.
Both companies have made thousands of hulls and have substantially
changed construction along the way. You will get a lower level of
craftsmanship in these boats than in a more expensive boat. OTOH,
you will get the advantage of having a design/construction that has
been "tweaked" to address the problems that cropped up in the first
1000 hulls. You will also get the price advantage of a boat that is
produced on an assembly line.
I think a more important question than "which production cruiser
should I buy" is "do I really need a new boat?"
Sincerely,
Terry
Terry Schell
tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) writes:
>Doug is correct. New Catalina's have solid glass hulls with cored
>decks and new Hunters have solid glass below the waterline and cored
>topsides and decks. There may be some exceptions to this, but I don't
>know of any.
<snip>
After reading Al's post it is clear that at least some of the smaller
Catalina's have cored hulls. I wonder if this is for some of their
trailerable designs?
Tim
I read the web site and am also amazed at the willingness of people to take
a small Hunter offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in equal measure.
This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and other more expensive boats. All
of these boats are intended as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers
would recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would cover it.
The point is, small offshore boats should be built like trucks: small
cockpits, short heavy rigs, small companionways, no transom platforms,
protected high drag rudders, slow full keels, heavy fiberglass lay-up, etc.
Can you sail offshore in a more commodious small boat with less wetted
surface and do OK? Of course. You take your chances that a rogue wave won't
slap the side of your spade rudder, your fin keel won't go aground, and
other mishaps just won't happen. On the otherhand, what the heck most people
care about how a boat performs offshore is beyond me. Offshore has nothing
to do with how 99.99% of people use their sailboats.
In my last boat buying experience, I was looking for a reasonably fast,
reasonably sturdy boat on a budget. I was heavily biased against Hunter. I
looked at 1980's era O'Days (undersized standing rigging), Pearsons (slow
and comfy or fast with keel and rudder problems), Catalinas (several with
evidence of oil-canning hulls up near the bow), Tartans (virtually all had
major deck delamination and cracking gelcoat), Bristols (cheap hardware) and
most others on the market. Virtually all major production boats had serious
issues.
I ended up looking at a 1981 Hunter 30 because it was in a slip next to a
Catalina I wanted to look at. I thought the Hunter was ugly. But frankly, it
had a higher quality of hardware and construction than the other boats I was
considering. It was probably not typical of all Hunters; the hardware had
been upgraded and it was a more expensive tall rig version of the boat. The
standing rigging was much heavier than the boat in the next slip, the hull
to deck was an aluminum extrusion through bolted, the keel was external lead
on 6 1" stainless bolts, a hull plug showed a thick hand-lay-up, and the
chain plates were about half as thick as my smallest finger. The winches
were oversized and all the deck hardware was Wichard or other equally high
quality. It was Cherubini design with a PHRF handicap around 170 and the
asking price was about $5k under most of the others. I bought it and have
sailed it in virtually all spring/summer/fall weather with no major failures
over the last 9 seasons. I even like the looks of it now. I'd recommend the
pre-1983 Hunter's to anybody doing real-life coastal cruising.
Read some boat construction books, look at lot of boats, don't listen to the
brokers, and get an independent surveyor to produce a guaranteed, 7-10 page
survey that doesn't use vague terms like "cheap construction" or disclaimers
about how this $300 document is only an uninformed opinion.
Just some first hand opinions and sorry if I criticized your boat.
Tim
Jeff Thompson wrote in message <356B933D...@earthlink.net>...
>There's a few Hunter rudder stories here -
>http://home.earthlink.net/~jkthompson/Hunter.htm
>
>MastHed wrote:
>
>> <<What Hunter horror stories? Ive heard mentions of horror stories but
never
>> heard the horror stories themselves. Do they break up or what?>>
>>
BLUEMOONU2
I currently own a beneteau and have owned a catalina (mid 80's) and have a good
friend with a simular hunter. The bene. is a much better constucted and
designed boat. It out performs the hunter and is better suited for racing and
cruising. The hunter and cat. have more room, but the is no storage for
equipment and personal gear. Hunter and cats are set up more for areas with
lighter wind. It does take more wind for the bene. to get up to speed. But it
will out point both boat in and conditions.
If you look at bene. in the mid 1980's watch out for blisters there is a
problem with them. Even if the hull has been peeled and re-gelcoated there
could still be a problem depending on the quality of the repair.
Peter
Frank Yaskin
I have the speed and depth hole plugs from my 86 Cat 27, AND my 89 C30
from forward of the keel and alongside it, and they are both solid. No
core. The 27 is just slightly less than 1/2" thick and the 30 is
slightly moere than 1/2 .
Lauri Tarkkonen
In <6khitb$9ca$1...@ndnws01.ne.highway1.com> "Tim" <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>The point is, small offshore boats should be built like trucks: small
>cockpits, short heavy rigs, small companionways, no transom platforms,
>protected high drag rudders, slow full keels, heavy fiberglass lay-up, etc.
>Can you sail offshore in a more commodious small boat with less wetted
>surface and do OK? Of course. You take your chances that a rogue wave won't
>slap the side of your spade rudder, your fin keel won't go aground, and
???????????????????????????????
>other mishaps just won't happen. On the otherhand, what the heck most people
>care about how a boat performs offshore is beyond me. Offshore has nothing
>to do with how 99.99% of people use their sailboats.
How deep fin keel do you have to be able to hit the ground OFF SHORE.
I had the idea, that the Oceans are deep OFF SHORE and shallow IN SHORE.
My limited experience tells me that some nautical miles from hte shores
my echo sounder is showing blank and it shows nicely anything less than
120 meters. Some finns you guys have.
The idea of the waves hitting your rudder and not your topsides is
interesting as well. You care to elaborate.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
Terry Schell
"Tim" <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>I read the web site and am also amazed at the willingness of people to take
>a small Hunter offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
>Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in equal measure.
>This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and other more expensive boats. All
>of these boats are intended as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers
>would recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would cover it.
Well, here you are wrong. Every major insurance company will cover
these boats. Furthermore, some of them are certainly marketed for
offshore work (including touting ABS and EU "unlimited offshore"
certification).
Anders Svensson
I think the issue at hand is like this:
If someone who is not an engineer is going to look at a boat and judge it's
strenght, he/she will tend to favor thick before thin, short before long
and lots of fastenings before few. That is, IMHO, how the layman (non
specialist) will look at almost any structure, be it a car, a house or a
boat...
The good thing with this (prejudiced) attitude that it will most often (but
not always) lead you on the right track, as almost anything simple and
straightforward that is big, thick and more compact is also "strong".
The bad thing is that more refined and optimized ways of constructing
things will lead this intuitive judgement process astray. It is not easy
for anyone to tell exactly where forces appear in a boat hull by just
looking at it - it is sometimes not easy even for specialists.
There is nothing in particular that says that fin keels and spade rudders
need to be weaker or less strong, if they are correctly dimensioned. If you
choose a boat (or boat builder) that doesn't care about proper
construction, any setup can be weak.
Remember, a boat can usually be just (any) two of these three: Cheap, Light
and Strong. Pick any two...
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
PS:
Obviously, this guy was thinking less about oceans and more about the
destination... In a well known Swedish chandlery catalogue is a small
mountaneering gadget for sale. It is a crevice anchor, that every
Scandinavian sailor need for tying up the boat to bare rocks. The sales
pitch for this gadget says "and with this crevice anchor, you will manage
all kinds of situations, even on the ocean..." It is refreshing to see that
even professionals sometimes start their mouth/similar without engaging the
brain...
Lauri Tarkkonen <tark...@cc.helsinki.fi> skrev i inlägg
<6khuiv$k...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
Bronson/Tate
Very enlightening.
Thanks,
Doug
Al Gunther wrote:
> I can testify that my '82 Catalina 27 hull is cored with a high density
> foam, at least where I used a holesaw to cut the new hole for my
> depthsounder. The outer layer of glass/gelcoat is just over 1/16" thick,
> the core 5/16" and the inner layer 3/16" to 1/4" thick. I'm writing this
> with the core and my ruler in hand.
>
> In article <356C2222...@swbell.net>, Bronson/Tate
> <dlb...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Steve,
> > Are you sure about the cored hull?
> > I always thought the hulls were solid and the decks were cored.
> > I would like to hear about your factory visit.
> > Doug
> >
> > > I never
> > > had in inclination that Catalina was a cored hull until the boat yard
> > > pointed that out to me in a Catalina 30 they were working on. I use to
> > > like Catalina until I took a tour of the factory when in LA for
> > > business.
> --
> Al Gunther, Kingston, WA <---- 47° 52.7'N, 122° 30.9'W
> Please remove the "z" in my return address to reply.
Greg Jackson
The cores from installation of my speed sensor (ahead of keel) and from
my depth sounder (behind keel) are both in excess of 3/4" of solid
laminate on my little Catalina 25, built in 1989. I did not expect it
to be that thick. I have also crawled around under V-berth lockers
under heavy pounding conditions and was surprised to find very little
flex of the hull.
G Jackson
Compass Rose
Greg Jackson
Al Gunther wrote:
>
> Nope, my C27 is a full keel. Some of the 25's are towed, but not normaly
> the 27's. Catalina must not have liked the coring, as both the earlier
> ones and the later ones are apparently solid, unless I'm the only one who
> recognizes dense foam coring when I see it. It is pretty hard stuff and
> was layed up in two layers and very well bonded. The plug I cut out is
> like a light weight rock. I'm guessing they quit using it because it cost
> more to build that way.
> --
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty certain the core from my 1989 C25 hull
is solid. It looks like roving on the inner and outer layers with heavy
mat in between. The core taken out for cockpit/bulkhead mounted
instruments is quite different. It looks like a very heavy mass of
Bondo style filler between the liner and outer mouldings.
G. Jackson
Al Gunther
In article <6khg8e$3s3$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu
(Terry Schell) wrote:
> tsc...@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) writes:
>
> >Doug is correct. New Catalina's have solid glass hulls with cored
> >decks and new Hunters have solid glass below the waterline and cored
> >topsides and decks. There may be some exceptions to this, but I don't
> >know of any.
>
> <snip>
>
> After reading Al's post it is clear that at least some of the smaller
> Catalina's have cored hulls. I wonder if this is for some of their
> trailerable designs?
Nope, my C27 is a full keel. Some of the 25's are towed, but not normaly
the 27's. Catalina must not have liked the coring, as both the earlier
ones and the later ones are apparently solid, unless I'm the only one who
recognizes dense foam coring when I see it. It is pretty hard stuff and
was layed up in two layers and very well bonded. The plug I cut out is
like a light weight rock. I'm guessing they quit using it because it cost
more to build that way.
--
Paul Kamen
Tim <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>...what the heck most people care about how a boat performs
>offshore is beyond me...
Why people would want to go anywhere by sailboat is equally irrational.
But there is a very real aesthetic appeal to a boat that is fast,
responsive, and fun to sail in the ocean. If you don't have much
experience with ultralights it's easy to see how this concept might not
seem to make any sense.
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
rmillan
Hello,
I realize that I have not had time to read everyone's response to the
question you posed; however, I will tell you of my very first hand
experience with a mid 80's Hunter 40 with a spade rudder and mod - fin keel
and a very tall rig - 63 feet.
I have personally sailed the boat in the Gulf of Mexico in everything from
flat water to more than 60 knots of wind in a squal line for more than 4
hours. I also took the boat on 4000 miles of ocean cruising to Tinidad and
back in a little over two years. I will admit to a great number of mod's to
satisfy my sailing style and racing in TORC. On my trip I used a small head
sail and a reefed main most of the time execpt when I few a 1600 sq foot
spinnaker for more than 36 hours on the way home. During the trip the only
problems I had with the boat were self induced and had nothing to do with
the construction of the boat. If you want to plow through a reef buy an
icebreaker. If you was to go slow buy a 25 year old "blue water cruiser"
which has so little sail area it wont go fast enough to hurt anything.
My point is you need to understand your boat, what you want to accomplish
and be prepared to sail in conditions suited to your boats performance and
capabilities. I have seen boats as small as 35 feet with 2 adult and 2 kids
for crew which sailed from England to Trini and was headed to the Pacific -
so pick your boat based on your wants and understand what you purchased.
Then sail away in to the deep blue you'll love it.
vi...@ibm.net wrote in message <356b3...@news1.ibm.net>...
>Hi!
>I am a sailing neophyte and I am considering buying a new or used sailboat
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
You can just about pick any part of a boat and there's a Hunter horror
story about it. Take 'em with a grain of salt, though. Any and every
sort of boat is prone to trouble, and many folks enjoy complaining more
than they like sailing.....
gary tapp wrote:
> What Hunter horror stories? Ive heard mentions of horror stories but never
> heard the horror stories themselves. Do they break up or what?
For the record, I currently own a small Hunter, which we bought new. The
workmanship (or lack thereof) convinced me that I'd never, ever buy
another Hunter at any price. Wouldn't take a free one! However, we have
enjoyed the boat very much and intend to keep it for some time.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Russ Turpin
-*-------
Doug King writes:
> For the record, I currently own a small Hunter, which we bought new. The
> workmanship (or lack thereof) convinced me that I'd never, ever buy
> another Hunter at any price.
I was quite happy with my '86 Hunter 23 as a daysailor. She
wasn't built for bigger things, but that also was not her use.
She sailed well around the lake, and that was the use to which
I put her. A bit cramped for overnighting, but we did that
only on occassion.
Russell
--
This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge
among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end, with bells and trumpets
and clock and wires, ... she can call voices out of the air of the waters to
con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep Thou lightly. It has not yet
been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea. -- Rudyard Kipling
Tim
I amazed at the willingness of people to take
a small Hunter offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in equal measure.
This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and other more expensive boats. All
of these boats are intended as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers
would recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would cover it.
The point is, small offshore boats should be built like trucks: small
cockpits, short heavy rigs, small companionways, no transom platforms,
protected rudders, full keels, heavy fiberglass lay-up, narrow beam, etc.
Not too
much looking around at the boat show or marina shows how rare these are.
Can you sail offshore in a more commodious small boat with less wetted
surface and do OK? Of course. You take your chances that a rogue wave won't
slap the side of your spade rudder, your fin keel won't go aground, and
other mishaps just won't happen. On the otherhand, what the heck most people
care about how a boat performs offshore is beyond me. Offshore has nothing
to do with how 99.99% of people use their sailboats. (IMHO, 25 miles to
Nantucket
is NOT offshore although preparing like it is, is wise.)
In my last boat buying experience, I was looking for a reasonably quick,
reasonably sturdy boat on a budget. I was heavily biased against Hunter. I
looked at 1980's era O'Days (undersized standing rigging), Pearsons (slow
and comfy or fast with keel and rudder problems), Catalinas (several with
evidence of oil-canning), Tartans (virtually all older examples had
major deck delamination and cracking gelcoat), Bristols (poor quality
hardware) and
most others on the market. Virtually all major production boats had serious
issues for anything like offshore use. Exceptions, like Pacific Seacraft,
cost
some pretty serious money.
I ended up looking at a 1981 Hunter 30 because it was in a slip next to a
Catalina I wanted to look at. I thought the Hunter was ugly. But frankly, it
had a higher quality of hardware and construction than the other boats I was
considering. It was probably not typical of all Hunters; the hardware had
been upgraded and it was a more expensive tall rig version of the boat. The
standing rigging was much heavier than the boat in the next slip, the hull
to deck was an aluminum extrusion through bolted, the keel was external lead
on 6 1" stainless bolts, a hull plug showed a thick hand-lay-up, and the
chain plates were about thick as my smallest finger. The winches
were oversized and all the deck hardware was correctly backed Wichard or
other equally high
quality brands. It was Cherubini design with a PHRF handicap around 170 and
the
asking price was about $5k under most of the others. I bought it and have
sailed it in virtually all spring/summer/fall weather with no major failures
over the last 9 seasons. I even like the looks of it now. I'd recommend the
pre-1983 Hunter's to anybody doing real-life coastal cruising.
Are there weaknesses? Sure. The skeg on the rudder could be stronger, the
ports have plastic frames and had to be rebedded, the drive shaft skeg only
allows a
small prop, the keel to hull joint should be faired in, etc. Mostly, the
boat is cheaper
because the interior is fairly plain. Lots of white plastic. But for me, I'd
rather spend the
time sailing than oiling teak.
Read some boat construction/survey books, look at lot of boats, don't listen
vi...@ibm.net
What a great thread! I never dreamed I would've learned so much from all
the responses my questions garnered...thanks to all for their participation.
Vito
Michael T Kennedy
Tim wrote:
>
> I amazed at the willingness of people to take
> a small Hunter offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
> Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in equal measure.
The Dove, which circumnavigated, was a Lapworth 24, the precursor of the
Cal boats. The Cal boats above 30 feet are very well built and could go
very far offshore,and have, with small modification. Somebody posted a
comment on self-steering gear from a Cal 29 in Tahiti. C&C and Pearson
are similar. Catalina is not.
> This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and other more expensive boats. All
> of these boats are intended as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers
> would recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would cover it.
>
> The point is, small offshore boats should be built like trucks: small
> cockpits, short heavy rigs, small companionways, no transom platforms,
> protected rudders, full keels, heavy fiberglass lay-up, narrow beam, etc.
This is nonsense and a sign only of personal preference. It is an
uninformed comment.
Mike Kennedy
yacht Audacious
Rich Byrnes
I agree! We currently have a 1977 Catalina 27 and a 1978 Hunter 27 and we are
torn about which one to sell. We're leaning towards keeping the Hunter for all
the creature comforts it provides. There is TONS more storage in the Hunter,
instead of a dry locker it has a sink with lots of storage behind and
underneath. The beam is about 7" wider, the V-berth is longer and taller (I can
actually sit up in the Hunter V-berth), the hatch and 2 forward windows open up
in the V-berth FINALLY providing some ventilation, the walkway around the top is
much wider (important for the kids). Both boats sail almost identical so all
things perdormance wise being equal, the Hunter will probably be a keeper
Anyone wanna buy a used FULLY LOADED Catalina 27 in the lake St Clair area??
Rich Byrnes
Paul Kamen
Tim <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>I amazed at the willingness of people to take a small Hunter
>offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
>Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in
>equal measure. This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and
>other more expensive boats. All of these boats are intended
>as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers would
>recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would
>cover it.
And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
reason.
>The point is, small offshore boats should be built like
>trucks:...
No, they should be built like boats.
Tim
A this still has nothing to do with how 99.99% of people use their boats.
BTW, my news feed is missing most of this thread so sorry if my comments are
not keeping up.
-Tim
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
> Tim <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>
> >I amazed at the willingness of people to take a small Hunter
> >offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
> >Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in
> >equal measure. This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and
> >other more expensive boats. All of these boats are intended
> >as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers would
> >recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would
> >cover it.
>
>And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
>are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
>being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
>reason.
The needs for typical 30 - 37 foot (my idea of small) offshore cruiser
carrying the life stores for a crew of 2 people is very different than the
needs of a typical large, offshore ocean racer with a large heavy crew and a
destination port almost in sight. How many offshore racers are there below
40 feet? How many have a crew less than 6 or 8 or more? How many races last
longer than a week or two? The need is different so the design is different.
Rod rigging, titanium hardware, fragile fiber reinforced sails, no ground
tackle, tall complex standing rigging with light weight spars, stripped out
interiors, no head, and small water tanks are all good reasons that an ocean
racer might make a lousy offshore cruiser. Never mind the spade rudders,
narrow fin keels, and "wet" cockpits.
Also look at the entries in the Newport-Bermuda race at
http://www.bermudarace.com/YachtDiv.html. A quick count shows 2 boats <37
feet and maybe 8 other boats <40 feet. I bet most of these have been
"beefed" up from how they left the production line. And this is a race with
a long tradition of having a "cruising" nature to it.
>
> >The point is, small offshore boats should be built like
> >trucks:...
>
>No, they should be built like boats.
>
No, built like trucks in the sense of durability and design to a purpose
which is not exclusive to being a good boat.
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
>http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
Of course, I went to your web site and followed the link for the San
Francisco-Hawaii race and the mix of boats was very different than for the
Newport-Bermuda. How come? Is it because the left coast is kinda' crazy and
the right coast is kinda' old fashioned? I don't know much about California
sailing. Are the conditions much different? Is the weather more reliable?
You just don't see anyone doing 2k mile offshore racing on the Atlantic in
25 footers.
-Tim
Paul Kamen
Tim <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>...this still has nothing to do with how 99.99% of people use
>their boats.
Well, here on the Left Coast it's much more usual to go offshore. We
don't have an ICW and we have long stretches of fully exposed coastline
between harbors. So here it's more like 95%, not 99.99. But we're talking
about that 5% who go offshore, and "intended purpose" of the design and
construction is the issure.
>The needs for typical 30 - 37 foot (my idea of small) offshore
>cruiser carrying the life stores for a crew of 2 people is
>very different than the needs of a typical large, offshore
>ocean racer with a large heavy crew and a destination port
>almost in sight.
Not as different as you might think. Take off that boatload of deck apes,
and you have quite a weight budget to work within before you're above
design displacement.
>How many offshore racers are there below 40 feet?
Lots!
>How many have a crew less than 6 or 8 or more?
Many!
>How many races last longer than a week or two?
There's a big one every year - Pacific Cup from SF to Hawaii in even
years, Transpac from L.A. to Hawaaii in odd years. Plus a bunch of
1,000- 1,200 mile Mexico races...
>The need is different so the design is different.
Absolutely. Boats intended for ocean racing have to be engineered to be
strong and light and have to be built out of high quality marterials under
good quality control. They are essentially proof-tested in their first
couple of seasons, and the deficiencies are highly visible and will get a
lot of press. Boats for the cruising market, on the other hand, just have
be successful as consumer products...
>Rod rigging, titanium hardware, fragile fiber reinforced
>sails, no ground tackle, tall complex standing rigging with
>light weight spars, stripped out interiors, no head, and
>small water tanks are all good reasons that an ocean
>racer might make a lousy offshore cruiser. Never mind the spade
>rudders, narrow fin keels, and "wet" cockpits.
Wanna take these one at a time? The rod rigging is arguably not
inappropriate, although there's nothing requiring that it be retained
for cruising. And certainly no-one says you have to use kevlar cruising
sails. But if you buy a used racer it usually comes with bags and bags of
cruisable sails. Nothing wrong with a tall light rig either, unless maybe
you're sailing a late-'70s IOR beast where there's some capsize risk.
One person's "stripped out" interior is likely to be another's "open
arrangement" with more room for sailboards, SCUBA gear, and other stuff.
Much better than a cabin filled up with chincy joinerwork. And it *is*
chincy from all but the very top-end builders.
Heads, water tanks, etc. are all required by racing rules for the long
races. Again, this stuff is all designed to work at sea, not at the boat
show. And there's nothing about race boat cockpits that make them wetter
than cruising boat cockpits (except possibly the fact that the race boat
is likely to be going faster). The wide beam and high freeboard
characteristic of many race hulls tend to work in your favor.
The fin keel/full keel thrash has been beaten to death here - it all
depends on what you like about sailing. There is a price to be paid in
draft, though, and that's the main downside to the race boat as a cruiser.
>Of course, I went to your web site and followed the link for
>the San Francisco-Hawaii race and the mix of boats was very
>different than for the Newport-Bermuda. How come?...
Mostly cultural, I'd guess. Too much old money back east, compared to
lots more entry-level sailors here. And we have very few good places to
cruise to that don't involve open ocean. So after you've spent a summer of
weekends at Angel Island, Hawaii or Mexixo are the next obvious
destinations.
In my own one-design fleet, four of the Merit 25s have sailed the 2,070
mile Pacific Cup, and one of them went twice. Nothin' to it.
Mark B Fay
Paul Kamen wrote:
.
>
> And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
> are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
> being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
> reason.
>
> >trucks:...
>
> No, they should be built like boats.
>
Well "SERIOUS" offshore competition boats have spartan
interiors. Minimum head, galley and bunks on the bulkheads. And
lots & lots of sail storage space filled with sails. Cruisers
tend to like their comfort. Air cond./heat, microwave, toaster
oven, hot water, showers & blow dryer. And above all a comfortable
bed. That sort of thing. I like my autopilot, nav aids & radar. You
don't find many TV/VCRs on competition boats either.
--
Mark Fay
Home OS/2 Merlin User ISDN & BitSurfer Pro
S/V Enough Morgan 44 CC No. 1051223
Glenn Ashmore
> And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
> are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
> being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
> reason.
I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out racer didn't fall
apart between the finish line and the dock, it was over designed.<g>
Glenn
Myles J. Swift
You need to look inside RAGE. If you think of the goodies you would put in
your maximum 35 foot cruiser, they don't take up a lot of space in a 70 foot
race boat.
Myles
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
This is one of those debates that can go on endlessly. It can certainly
work, a lot of people are currently using former racing yachts as
cruisers. I've done it myself in the past- it works a lot better than
trying to race a cruising yacht
> Fishmeal wrote:
> > And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
> > are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
> > being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
> > reason.
As far as the newsgroup is concerned, the problem is that there are a
lot of very opinionated people who cannot seem to accept anyone else
cruising in a boat they themselves don't approve of.
> Glenn Ashmore wrote:
> I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out racer didn't fall
> apart between the finish line and the dock, it was over designed.
That depends on whether the designer and builder wanted any repeat
business! This sort of thing is often joked about, but boats that break
down loose races. And create unhappy customers...
The real question is what sort of boat you want, what sort of cruising
you intend to do, and what sort of gear you intend to take. Many people
approach the whole subject with lots of unrealistic preconceptions.
If you have budget constraints, an older racing boat (in good shape but
no longer in demand by the hotshots) makes good sense. A wreck is going
to be expensive and troublesome to get into condition, no matter what
type it is (sometimes it's worth the trouble, though). If you want to
make fast passages, they also make sense. If you want to take a lot of
"stuff" along, it may be cheaper to buy a BIG former racer than a
smaller heavy-displacement boat- and it will carry the load faster, too.
As for bringing along electronics, refirgeration, air conditioning,
rear-projection TV etc- how are you gonna keep all that stuff in working
order on top of the regular boat maintenance?
My suggestion is to simplify!
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Lauri Tarkkonen
In <35770F...@acpub.duke.edu> kpk...@acpub.duke.edu writes:
>This is one of those debates that can go on endlessly. It can certainly
>work, a lot of people are currently using former racing yachts as
>cruisers. I've done it myself in the past- it works a lot better than
>trying to race a cruising yacht
By the way, I think that Ted Turner converted an old 12-mR yacht
American Eagle, who starded her career as a American cup daysailer,
to a succesfull off shore racer and then it was converted into a
great cruiser, with a couple of Atlantic Crossing in her present
resume.
>> Fishmeal wrote:
>> > And yet, the advice we so often hear is that ocean racers - boats that
>> > are designed, built, and sold with the intention of going offshore and
>> > being driven hard - are not adequate as offshore cruisers for some
>> > reason.
>As far as the newsgroup is concerned, the problem is that there are a
>lot of very opinionated people who cannot seem to accept anyone else
>cruising in a boat they themselves don't approve of.
I suppose, you do not have the stomach to tell them what kind of boats
are good for us and what kind of boats we should enjoy, to get the
ultimate cruising satisfaction. If you enjoy the livelines of the boat,
if it manouvers impeccably and if it encourages you to do some tweaking
of the sheets, cunningham and outhauls or jib sheat fairleads to get
some performance out of it, and especially if it is responding to this
immoral treatment, then you got it all wrong. Even if you happened to
reach your desired destination, you did it wrong way and your cruise
is disqualified.
>> Glenn Ashmore wrote:
>> I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out racer
>> didn't fall apart between the finish line and the dock, it was
>> over designed.
>That depends on whether the designer and builder wanted any repeat
>business! This sort of thing is often joked about, but boats that break
>down loose races. And create unhappy customers...
In the seventies, when the IOR ton-cup regattas still allowed for a
discard, the designers were cutting the corners. I had a long discus-
sion with the Swedish designer Peter Norlin, who made himself famous,
by breaking the IOR-bank, by winning five Half-ton cups with develop-
ments of his Scampi design, and he told that if there are no structural
failures in the regatta where there are numerous boats of the same
design, it is too heavy (strong). After some disastreous quarter ton
cups (five Manzanitas broke their mast and some other misshaps) the
ORC decided that discards are not allowed, as the idea of the off shore
yacht was to come home on her own keel using her own rig. This happened
somewhere in the late seventies. After that much more emphasis has been
placed on the structural integrity of the IOR yachts. We should remember
that a number of boats abandonded in the famous Fastnet race demanding
a number of lives, were recovered afloat. Some people died unnecessarily
while trying to escape from a sound and floating sailing yacht to a
life raft and they missed the jump.
>The real question is what sort of boat you want, what sort of cruising
>you intend to do, and what sort of gear you intend to take. Many people
>approach the whole subject with lots of unrealistic preconceptions.
As I have said earlier, the people do much less analysis of the
properties of their yachts and they do have much less options in
their choice of their boats. The most important parameters are:
They can afford it, they happen to own it. There are plenty of
sailors, who would sail another type of boat than they do at the
moment, if there were not handicapped by some financial issues.
>If you have budget constraints, an older racing boat (in good shape but
>no longer in demand by the hotshots) makes good sense. A wreck is going
>to be expensive and troublesome to get into condition, no matter what
>type it is (sometimes it's worth the trouble, though). If you want to
>make fast passages, they also make sense. If you want to take a lot of
>"stuff" along, it may be cheaper to buy a BIG former racer than a
>smaller heavy-displacement boat- and it will carry the load faster, too.
This is one of the realities of life. You can afford the boat and you
can find it on the market.
>As for bringing along electronics, refirgeration, air conditioning,
>rear-projection TV etc- how are you gonna keep all that stuff in working
>order on top of the regular boat maintenance?
You are suprised how many boats have semifunctioning gear on board.
>My suggestion is to simplify!
Some people like to tinker with some electronic toys. If it makes their
life more interesting, let them keep on doing that.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
NVAcV
Hey Fishmeal,
I must admit as a "Mid-Coaster"(Gulf Coast) I enjoyed your
comments......regardless of the topic.
I also like the "cultural" aspect of West Coast sailors.....never thought
of it that way before. Glad to see your perspective and website....like the
idea of a well prepared 25 footer doing the WEst cup race.......way to go!
Nate in TEXAS....
PS- I am still looking for a classic boat to restore......any leads?
>You just don't see anyone doing 2k mile offshore racing on the Atlantic
>in<BR>
>25 footers.<BR>
>
Mike
"if the boat doesn't fall apart after the race, it was over*built*. Big
difference.
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu wrote in article <35770F...@acpub.duke.edu>...
Paul Kamen
gash...@mindspring.com writes:
>I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out
>racer didn't fall apart between the finish line and the dock, it
>was over designed.<g>
And applying the same (facetious) logic, if a cruiser doen't fall apart
between the starting line and the first mark, then it was over designed.
Craig P. Earls
fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen) writes:
> gash...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> >I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out
> >racer didn't fall apart between the finish line and the dock, it
> >was over designed.<g>
>
> And applying the same (facetious) logic, if a cruiser doen't fall apart
> between the starting line and the first mark, then it was over designed.
Actually using the same logic for a cruise yields, " if a flat-out cruiser
doesn't fall apart the instant all it occupants are on the pier after
driving across the Pacific through a hurricane, it is over designed."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig P Earls, LT U.S. Navy cpe...@mit.edu
MIT Course XIII-A Missile Subspecialty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Armstrong
Mike wrote:
>
> "if the boat doesn't fall apart after the race, it was over*built*. Big
> difference.
>
I wouldn't mind owning a Whitbread 60 but would pass on those AC boats
in San Diego.
Mark
Mark Armstrong
Paul Kamen wrote:
>
> gash...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> >I think some big name designer once said that if a flat out
> >racer didn't fall apart between the finish line and the dock, it
> >was over designed.<g>
>
> And applying the same (facetious) logic, if a cruiser doen't fall apart
> between the starting line and the first mark, then it was over designed.
>
Around here, most racers are cruising boats with the cushions stuffed in
some minivan and the water tanks empty.
Mark
Jeff Thompson
There's a difference between being driven hard and being beaten hard -
weather, coral, other boats etc can be hard on flimsy construction and you
could be in situations where you can't control the beating you're getting.
Second point - when 2 to 3 or 4 people go cruising for more than 2-3 weeks -
they typically take more food, fuel, water, clother, dive gear, and on and on
than ULDB types like to carry or have easy room for. It would be fun to take
a trip from San Fran to Salt Lake in a Ferrarri convertible, but there's
restaurants, gas stations and hotels in easy access all along the route.
Trips like San Fran to Nome up the Alaska Highway, or San Fran to Panama thru
Mexico and the Pan American Highway are totally different. Only an
inexperienced person or an idiot would try do those trips in a Ferrarri.
Paul Kamen wrote:
> Tim <XXXt...@mediaone.netXXX> writes:
>
> >I amazed at the willingness of people to take a small Hunter
> >offshore without major upgrades. Of course the same goes for
> >Beneteau, Jeanneau, Pearson, O'Day, Cal, C&C and Catalina in
> >equal measure. This is also true of Sabre, J, Bristol, and
> >other more expensive boats. All of these boats are intended
> >as coastal cruisers. None of the manufacturers would
> >recommend it offshore and no decent insurance company would
> >cover it.
>
Glenn Ashmore
> Actually using the same logic for a cruise yields, " if a flat-out cruiser
> doesn't fall apart the instant all it occupants are on the pier after
> driving across the Pacific through a hurricane, it is over designed."
...and a crusier built for bareboat charter should fall apart after 5 years
somewhere between Tortola and Ft. Lauderdale.<g>
Glenn
Brian Grant
Hmmmm, they are built to a much more rugged standard than that. Most
will also survive 3-4 years in the secondary bareboat market before
trying to get to the states :-)
kpk...@acpub.duke.edu
Jeff Thompson wrote:
> There's a difference between being driven hard and being beaten hard
Yup.
But no matter how strongly a boat is built, the elements can destroy it.
The designer and builder cannot foresee just exactly how hard you're
going to hit that rock, nor how long you're going to bang against it
with every wave.
> weather, coral, other boats etc can be hard on flimsy construction and you
> could be in situations where you can't control the beating you're getting.
Jeff, you seem to have a hang-up about "flimsy." Many boats marketed as
"blue-water cruisers" are heavy *and weak*. Just a lot of chopper-gun
and slurry, sometimes poorly catalyzed. Boats that are built to race
have much better quality control, and are better engineered using
stronger materials, than 95% of boats intended as cruisers. Just because
they are a LOT lighter does NOT make them "flimsy."
I just finished reading about Sir Ernest Shackleton's expedition.
Endeavor was the strongest wooden ship ever built. Three months in the
Antartic crushed her anyway. I've read a lot of accounts of steel boats
getting smashed up, along with all brands of "blue-water" cruisers.
There are some accidents that no boat can possibly withstand. So don't
go there!
> Second point - when 2 to 3 or 4 people go cruising for more than 2-3 weeks -
> they typically take more food, fuel, water, clother, dive gear, and on and on
> than ULDB types like to carry or have easy room for.
Depends on the size of the boat. I can't imagine that 4 people would
overload a 70-foot sled even if they brought their cars. OTOH if they're
in a light-displacement 40-footer, four people could probably crowd it
quite a bit. But do you really think they'd be better off carrying the
same load in a 30-footer? Or even a heavy-displacement 35-footer?
Compare the PPI for just about any 35 vs 40 footer...
Fresh Breezes- Doug King