Best 34 foot blue water cruiser
Bob Whitaker
Been thinking of moving up to the 30-34 foot range, ideally a sailboat
that would provide safety in open waters, extended cruising
situations. Would love to get a Pacific Seacraft Crealock 34, but "The
Admiral" won't let me, and the bank won't either... I would prefer a
project boat (I would actually enjoy it). Heard great things of Cal
34's. What other boats do folks recommend. Goal is extended coastal
cruising, crossing Gulf of Mexico (Corpus Christi, TX to FL), keys,
Bahamas, maybe extended Caribbean cruising.
Thanks,
Rob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
DSK
sound like you want to be the Tidy Bowl man.
Bob Whitaker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Been thinking of moving up to the 30-34 foot range, ideally a sailboat
> that would provide safety in open waters, extended cruising
> situations. Would love to get a Pacific Seacraft Crealock 34, but "The
> Admiral" won't let me, and the bank won't either... I would prefer a
> project boat (I would actually enjoy it).
Not a good idea IMHO, but diff'rent strokes etc etc. Most boats sold as
'project boats' are bad deals, since the cost & labor to complete are
tremendously more than the buyer realizes. Most soak up huge amounts of
time & money and never get into the water. But a cruiser must enjoy
working on his boat, it's a prime requirement... so you might as well
get that pleasure if you can't get the rest of the package.
> ... Heard great things of Cal
> 34's.
From where? Cals are nice enough but are run-of-the-mill mass-produced
boats. I happened to cruise a Cal 34 (somebody elses, it was far more
boat than I could afford at the time) up and down the East Coast in the
late 1970s. Lots of fun, but not on my short list for taking offshore.
> ... What other boats do folks recommend. Goal is extended coastal
> cruising, crossing Gulf of Mexico (Corpus Christi, TX to FL), keys,
> Bahamas, maybe extended Caribbean cruising.
How much are you hung up on name brands? A Pearson of older vintage
might be a good deal, or a Cape Dory, for slightly more $$ you get a
Bristol or Tartan; or if you wanted a well built boat with more pep, an
Ericson or an Islander. My recomendation would be something more off the
beaten track like a Sabre or an Oyster, or one of the Scandanavian
boats. A J-32 would be nice but you're not likely to find one in the
bargain bin. You never know until you start looking.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Frank Maier
I'm a big fan of the Freedom line; so, my recommendation would be an
early 80s Freedom 32, with a sugarscoop added to make it a 34.
Frank
Bob Whitaker
> My first advice is to drop the phrase "blue water cruiser." It makes you
> sound like you want to be the Tidy Bowl man.
>
My apologies... those of you in the toilet cleaning business may have
misinterpreted what I meant. Doug "Fresh Toilet" King is apparently
referring to the disinfectant tablets you drop in toilet tanks, which
apparently is the first thing that comes to his mind when he hears the
term "blue water". When he hears the term "green water" he probably
thinks it's the competing brand of disinfectant. I, on the other hand,
was using the term to refer to cruising in the open ocean as opposed
to coastal cruising... When I hear the term "blue water cruiser" I
immediately conjure up images of a sailboat designed for extended
offshore passages, rugged construction, heavier displacement than
modern racing designs, good reserve buoyancy at the bow, small
cockpit, stern that will hold it's own on a following sea, good
control while surfing, a strong skeg-mounted rudder or one that's
attached to the keel, and a boat that will hold up to getting pooped
with "green water" (and no Doug, I'm not talking about _THAT_ kind of
"poop").
But, you see Doug, saying all that is quite a mouthful, and it
wouldn't have fit on the subject line to boot. So, I opted for the
more concise term "blue water cruiser"... Sorry if it caused confusion
in your mind. If you read the original post carefully, you will notice
that I did not use the term in the main body, where I stressed "safety
in open waters"... Perhaps you missed that point? I know that our
personal experiences in life tend to make us predisposed to sometimes
misinterpreting other people's comments, sometimes with embarrassing
results, as was apparently the case when you misinterpreted "blue
water" for toilet disinfectants. But don't worry, Doug, we won't hold
it against you.
> Not a good idea IMHO, but diff'rent strokes etc etc. Most
> boats sold as 'project boats' are bad deals
>
Ohhh boy... here we go again?!?!?! My heartfelt advice to you Doug is
to please consider taking people's comments at face value. Who
knows... Some people may actually mean what they say... By the way,
when I wrote: "--I would prefer a project boat." I actually meant it.
Also, in case you just glossed over that sentence, when I said: "--I
would actually enjoy it." I meant that too.
> A Pearson of older vintage
> might be a good deal, or a Cape Dory,
> an Ericson or an Islander.
>
OK... now you are talking... Thanks for answering the original
question!!! Yipe-dee-doo!!! Now we can finally get back to the main
topic. I've also heard very positive comments about Cape Dorys, but I
haven't had the chance to sail one yet. I would be interested in any
opinions you may have on them. Oh... yes... and please do us all a
favor and stay on topic this time?
> Cals are nice enough but are run-of-the-mill
> mass-produced boats.
>
What I like about Cals is that they sail great and that they are
really tough boats by all accounts! I also like that they were
mass-produced because the laws of supply and demand dictate that
"project" Cals are inexpensive to acquire.
Now, Doug, wouldn't it have been a lot nicer if you had just answered
the original question politely rather than trying to be snotty with
your post? You are apparently a smart man. My advice to you is to let
other people recognize that about you by the quality of your posts,
not by your failed attempts at belittling others.
Fresh Toilets -- Bob Whitaker
P.S. Oh, and I also meant it when I said I'd be interested in hearing
your comments about Cape Dorys.
DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:<tyl4c.16877$p77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
JAXAshby
people do.
A Cal 34 is actually considered a rather decent boat for its size, and far more
than decent for the dollar.
Good luck to you.
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen
34. Both are similar in concept, if not in execution, to the Cal.
Tartan 34's have a good reputation and thus a higher price,
but Morgan owners love their boats too.
Some others to consider that haven't been mentioned yet:
Allied Luders 34, Seawind
Alberg 30, 37 (Alberg designed some of the Cape Dories or is it Cape Dory's)
C&C's are decent boats, and some are centerboarders
Douglas 32
Ericson 35 is a decent boat if a foot too long
Fuji 35 is pretty shippy
Mercator 30
Nicholson 32
Newport 33
Pearson Alberg 35
Ranger 33
Santana 30 (not the 30/30)
Yankee 30
Most of these can be had for decent prices (sub $30k) and are a little
more conservative in design, a lot of them have centerboards.
Matt
"Bob Whitaker" <capn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:27dcd52b.04031...@posting.google.com...
DSK
> Now, Doug, wouldn't it have been a lot nicer if you had just answered
> the original question politely rather than trying to be snotty with
> your post?
Well, Bob, I wasn't really trying to be snotty. Sorry if I made you cry.
Just go right on believing that Cals are magnificently constructed
boats, and that anybody saying otherwise is just being snotty. Pardon me
for treading on your illusions.
Bye
Doug King
DSK
> A couple of boats that come to mind are the Tartan 34 and Morgan
> 34. Both are similar in concept, if not in execution, to the Cal.
> Tartan 34's have a good reputation and thus a higher price,
> but Morgan owners love their boats too.
The Morgan would be a good tough cruising boat. A lot of people have
unreasonable prejudices against centerboards, though. At one time, all
of the working sailing vessels and most of the yachts on the east &
gulf coasts had them, so they can't be all bad.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Brian Whatcott
the pseudonymous posters who want to let rip in this way?
Brian Whatcott
On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:09:22 GMT, BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:32:58 -0500, DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
>>
>>>...A lot of people have
>>unreasonable prejudices against centerboards, though. At one time, all
>>of the working sailing vessels and most of the yachts on the east &
>>gulf coasts had them, so they can't be all bad.
>>
>Of course, if they were "all good" they would still be in the majority, dimwit.
> At one time, oxen pulled plows to cultivate fields. At one time, buggy whip
>manufacturers had a marketable product. At one time, Sails were all made of
>heavy canvas.
>
>Tougboat, you are the king of all nitwits.
>
>BB
Don White
Brian Whatcott <bet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:djv950hcus56dnuga...@4ax.com...
> I find the tone of the following post, offensive. Why is it always
> the pseudonymous posters who want to let rip in this way?
>
Our 'friend' probably thought he was still over in the rec.boats newsgroup.
At that sire jabbing other posters is the main sport.
Brian Whatcott
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:51:40 GMT, Brian Whatcott
<bet...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
I find the tone of the following post, offensive. Why is it always
the pseudonymous posters who want to let rip in this way?
Brian Whatcott
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:45:01 GMT, BinaryBillTheSailor@Sea++.com wrote:
>
>Maybe usenet is not the right place for you. DSK (aka Tougboat) is a human butt
>plug.
>
>BB
///
Texan
>On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:32:58 -0500, DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote:
>
>Of course, if they were "all good" they would still be in the majority, dimwit.
>
> At one time, oxen pulled plows to cultivate fields. At one time, buggy whip
>manufacturers had a marketable product. At one time, Sails were all made of
>heavy canvas.
>
>Tougboat, you are the king of all nitwits.
>
>BB
Considering that the poster said he was out of Corpus Christi and
most of the bays and anything out of the channel in that area is ultra
shallow, having a centerboard boat is an excellent idea. If you look
on a chart you will note that the Texas coast is almost all protected
by barrier islands and once inside most areas are less than 3 feet
deep. Inside those islands it's not an "if" but rather a "when" you
run aground. Depending on where you are, getting to a channel through
the islands can take many hours.
Remember most folks sail a whole lot more in their home waters than
they do on the big adventure trips.
BB be care full when you call others names because all to often it
backfires.
JAXAshby
>pompous pope DSK, who likes to pontificate and spew absolutes for all
>occasions based on his extensive reading of old magazines.
>
>BB
hey, bill. dougies also trailered his boat down 275 miles of Interstate 95 and
staunchly referred to it as "cruising", an experience he insisted set him apart
from those people who merely sail a few dozen miles every weekend.
DSK
>>pompous pope DSK, who likes to pontificate and spew absolutes for all
>>occasions based on his extensive reading of old magazines.
>>
>>BB
>
> hey, bill. dougies also trailered his boat down 275 miles of Interstate 95 and
> staunchly referred to it as "cruising", an experience he insisted set him apart
> from those people who merely sail a few dozen miles every weekend.
Or those "people" (using the term loosely) such as yourself and
BittyBill, who hate & belittle everyone who has actually accomplished
anything in real life.
DSK
DSK
> Considering that the poster said he was out of Corpus Christi and
> most of the bays and anything out of the channel in that area is ultra
> shallow, having a centerboard boat is an excellent idea.
True also for most of the southern East Coast.
My opinion is that shoal draft can be an excellent safety feature,
because of the wider area available for anchoring. You can get clear of
other vessels and choose your holding ground. Also, if you're not
squeamish, you can wade around the anchor and dig it in by hand (or foot).
However most people have picked up the curious idea that any boat with a
centerboard cannot possibly be "seaworthy." It doesn't fit in with the
fantasy image of sailing around Cape Horn. And so if any voyaging, such
as to the Bahamas where shoal draft is again a blessing, they choose a
deep draft vessel. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Fresh Breezes
Doug King
JAXAshby
>BittyBill, who hate & belittle everyone who has actually accomplished
>anything in real life.
such as "cruising" a sailboat down Interstate 95 and claiming it to be a more
accomplished sailing experience compared to those who sail a few dozen miles
every weekend?
>DSK
JAXAshby
so and not feel ashamed of yourself?
Armond Perretta
>
> I find the tone of the following post, offensive. Why is it
> always the pseudonymous posters who want to let rip in this way?
>
> Brian Whatcott
It isn't _always_ the anonymous posters who let fly. I myself do so from
time to time, as do many others who publish under their own name. Usually
it takes persistence and effort to draw these responses out of me, but
sometimes it doesn't. There doesn't seem to be any discernable pattern.
Also, what one individual finds "offensive" is just that: one person's view.
I cannot understand what else one might expect on Usenet.
I hope I haven't offended you, Brian.
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/
Gould 0738
>pontificate
>so and not feel ashamed of yourself?
Sorry to interrupt the insult-slinging fest with a boat question.
How does the Nimrod differ from other small sailing vessels, such as a Sunfish?
May seem like a simple question, and it probably is, but as a dyed-in-the-wool
stinkpotter I can always learn something about the wind-driven school of
boating.
JAXAshby
term used to describe Elmer Fudd(?) the cartoon hunter who hit a barn from the
side.
dougies, used to trailer his 19 foot Hunter down the Interstate and claim to
one and all that he was actually "cruising" and thus his "experience" was more
valuable as an "expert" than those who sailed merely dozens of miles every
weekend.
"Sunfish, classic model without the sissy footwell" is a metaphor for a
sailboat that is sailed often.
Gould 0738
>uncommon for someone who buys one of these non-sailor sailboats to
>eventually buy a diesel trawler with a fake smoke stack.
>
>BB
>
Like mine?
By the way, that's not a "fake smokestack", it's a functioning propane locker.
:-)
The smokestack motif looks a little better on the cabin top than a big FRP box
might, expecially with "PROPANE" emblazoned on the side.
DSK
> such as "cruising" a sailboat down Interstate 95 and claiming it to be a more
> accomplished sailing experience compared to those who sail a few dozen miles
> every weekend?
No, obviously it would be better to hunch in front of a keyboard for years,
building a reputation as the world's most obnoxious and yet at the same time,
most ignorant, usenet denizen.
But hey, at least you're famous.
DSK
DSK
> The smokestack motif looks a little better on the cabin top than a big FRP box
> might, expecially with "PROPANE" emblazoned on the side.
What I really like about the smokestack is the way it attracts the attention of
all the envious cretins who will never be able to afford a boat with one.
Fair Skies
Doug King
Gould 0738
>have propane without needing a fake smoke stack.
>
>BB
Propane, being heavier than air, must be allowed to find an unobstructed path
down and overboard if there should be any leakage. On a boat with high gunwales
and deck drains rather than conventional scuppers (I would have been happier
with conventional scuppers, btw,) that about eliminates almost any location
except a cabin top. Nothing below the top of the gunwale will do.
Under ABYC regs, a propane locker must have a top that can be "blown off" in
the unlikely event of an explosion.
The fake smokestack/propane locker, with a vent at the base, meets all the
essential standards.
Is there anything on your sailboat that is modified to look a little better
than the plain, functional, minimalist appliance might? Any portion of a system
that is cosmetically concealed? My best guess would be, "of course."
You are entitled to your opinion about "tacky" by the way. People disagree on
what's good looking, vs. not. Ever have a buddy who raved on, non-stop, about
the gorgeous new gal he was dating......
and then when you finally got to meet this
purported "10" you personally figured her for about a 5 1/2? Seems like it's
always that way with boats. You don't have to like mine. It merely shows our
tastes are different, rather than objectively defining those tastes as superior
or inferior.
(Human nature, of course, will dictate that we each consider our own taste
superior).
DSK
> ... There is nothing on my sailboat that pretends to be
> something else.
Except the "skipper."
DSK
DSK
> ... You are the one who was
> such a failure at sailing that you had to by a waterborne SUV.
I'm a failiure at sailing? That's going to come as a big surprise to the
people I've raced with & against. Does this mean I have to give all that
silver back?
From the viewpoint of a bitter & poverty stricken (in more ways than
one) keyboard jockey, maybe I am a failure. Y'know what? It doesn't
bother me, BittyBill.
The most ironic thing is that I got started in this thread to give some
advice to somebody who was asking specifically about a boat I've sailed
quite a lot, and know well. If I'm a "failure" then I guess it's a good
thing he didn't listen anyway!
DSK
JAXAshby
>thing he didn't listen anyway!
>
>DSK
and, so it goes.
DSK
> You haven't sailed any boat "quite a lot". That's for sure.
Wrong again. Congratulations on your perfect record.
I've poured more salt water out of my shoe than you've sailed over. In
fact, more than you and Jax together....
Why are you here again? To talk sailing? Doesn't look that way.
DSK
Gould 0738
>put on their bicycles so they could pretend they have a motorcycle.
>
>BB
>
I am *so* wounded........ :-)
JAXAshby
>fact, more than you and Jax together....
they got a lot of salt water in rest stop parking lots on Interstate 95?
bb
>What I really like about the smokestack is the way it attracts the attention of
>all the envious cretins who will never be able to afford a boat with one.
My $.02, I like the fake smoke stack. Great storage area, and it
makes the boat look salty to boot. It's sorta like the utility shed
out back that looks like a horse barn. Sure, you coulda just put up a
shed with four walls, a roof and a door, and it would have done the
same thing, but a shed with some character, imo, is a little better.
Do I have horses in my back yard? No. Do I prefer a utility shed
that looks like a barn rather than a utility shed? Yes.
bb
DSK
> Please provide something that can be verified. From your postings, it doesn't
> appear that you have done more than sail a few times on someone else's boat. You
> are a classic armchair sailor.
heh heh heh
Glad you think so, sock puppet master.
Tell us about some of *your* sailing experiences. I have told about
enough of mine that the real sailors in the crowd can make up their own
minds.
DSK
Bob Whitaker
> I'm a big fan of the Freedom line; so, my recommendation
> would be an early 80s Freedom 32, with a sugarscoop added
> to make it a 34.
>
Hello Frank,
Thanks for the input. What are the features you like most about them?
Is it their sailing characteristics? Is it your familiarity with them
and loyalty to your first love? (a perfectly valid reason :o) Is it
their strength? Workmanship? Have you been caught in nasty weather in
one? How did it handle? I know that this is a question without a
single answer. There's probably as many answers to this question as
there are 34 foot models out there. But it would be fun compiling a
list of the top 10, and the reasons why their owners felt that way. I
may try to post another thread one of these days, seeing as the
original post quickly turned to a mud-slinging festival.
Thanks,
Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
Bob Whitaker
> Most of these can be had for decent prices (sub $30k)
> and are a little more conservative in design, a lot of
> them have centerboards.
>
Hello Matt/Meribeth,
Wow, impressive list of boats! Thanks for the post! I'd be interested
in knowing which of these you liked best and which you've had the
opportunity to sail under reduced sail and how they handled. I'm very
interested in your comments, specially about pros and cons of
centerboards. I just thought it might be yet another thing that could
break down so I wasn't considering centerboard boats for my dream trip
(even if it meant missing out on shallow anchorages). I may start a
new thread on this topic one of these days, seeing as the original
post turned into mud-slinging central.
LaBomba182
>From: jaxa...@aol.com (JAXAshby)
>such as "cruising" a sailboat down Interstate 95 and claiming it to be a more
>accomplished sailing experience compared to those who sail a few dozen miles
>every weekend?
Is that true! LOL
Capt. Bill
JAXAshby
>enough of mine ...
... 275 miles down Interstate 95 is a "sailing experience"?
well, for Nimrof 19 owners, maybe
>... that the real sailors in the crowd can make up their own
>minds.
>
>DSK
JAXAshby
Bob Whitaker
> Considering that the poster said he was out of Corpus Christi and
> most of the bays and anything out of the channel in that area is
> ultra shallow, having a centerboard boat is an excellent idea.
>
Hello fellow "Texan",
Thanks for your input! Even though I have sailed in Corpus Christi
it's unfortunately not my home turf (but my dream adventure would
probably start out of Corpus or Houston). I read an explanation about
why Corpus bay is so shallow. As a fellow Texan you probably already
know this, but it turns out that at the end of the last ice age what
is now the bay was just the flood plain for the Nueces River. As the
Ice Age ended the ocean level rose, filling the plain and creating the
bay. Pretty neat I thought when I read that! I currently have a boat
with a 4 foot draft that allows me to get by, specially on my home
turf. I would be interested in your views on centerboards. As you
mentioned, these are definitely a must on Corpus... but how about for
extended passages? They are great if you want to anchor in the
shallows, but I'd hate to have one more thing that could possibly
break? One of these days I may start a new thread to see if we have
better luck seeing as the original post has unfortunately turned into
a mud-slinging debacle.
Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
Bob Whitaker
> I find the tone of the following post, offensive.
> Why is it always the pseudonymous posters who want
> to let rip in this way?
>
Hello Brian,
Most newsgroups have many long standing feuds, and
"rec.boats.cruising" appears to be no exception. Such a shame.
Consider, if you will, my innocent sounding post of a few days ago. I
was really looking forward to a good exchange of pros-and-cons of
different sailboats. I can't sail them all, but I was really looking
forward to sharing knowledge with other sailors. I wanted to know what
different people liked about different boats. But out of more than 30
posts, only 3 posts so far were on-topic (thanks to Frank, Matt, and a
fellow "Texan"). The rest of the bandwidth has been consumed by
long-standing rivals trying to outdo one another. It makes it really
difficult to wade through the noise. Such a shame... Such a waste of
human knowledge... One of these days I may start a new thread to see
if we have better luck.
Bob Whitaker
> Well, Bob, I wasn't really trying to be snotty.
> Sorry if I made you cry.
>
OK Doug, I'll take your word for it. I accept your apology. Also,
thanks for your genuine concern for my emotional well-being. But let
me allay your fears by confiding in you that I am actually quite
amused by your posts. Defeating you at your own game provides for
great sport even if it's not very challenging.
> Just go right on believing that Cals are magnificently
> constructed boats, and that anybody saying otherwise
> is just being snotty.
>
Sorry Doug but you are once again mistaken. I already explained this
to you in great detail in my previous post, but let me explain it
again, and this time I'll try to use small words. Since you are
obviously confused, let me point out again that the snotty part of
your post was when you tried to poke fun at my usage of the term "blue
water" by saying that it made me sound like "Tidy Bowl" man. You have
already acknowledged above that you were not trying to be snotty, and
I'll take your word for it. If you were not _trying_ to be snotty,
then perhaps being snotty comes naturally to you without even trying?
Can you please elucidate? (Oh... sorry... I promised to use small
words... that means "clarify"). If you were not being snotty, then the
only other possible explanation is that you were being genuine when
you confused the term "blue water" with toilet disinfectants. As
stated previously, perhaps your life experiences have made you
predisposed to making this embarrassing association? If you were truly
not being snotty, then far be it from me to poke fun of you for making
this genuine mistake.
> Pardon me for treading on your illusions.
>
Sigh! ... Wrong, _AGAIN_ Doug. You are not treading on my illusions.
You are actually reinforcing the impression I already had from your
previous post. You are also reinforcing the old cliche about one
rotten apple spoiling the whole barrel. And that's a shame because it
seems like you have many things of value to say. It seems that (if you
wanted) you could be a contributor whose opinion people respected and
someone whose posts are always read eagerly by other members. It's a
shame you choose not to be.
It seems like you have long-standing feuds with many group members,
and that's OK... By all means you should stand your ground and fight
"the-good-fight". But don't burn your bridges, Doug. My advice is that
you turn the "snot-meter" _WAY_ down when replying to other members
with whom you are still in good standing, or when replying to unknown
entities.
Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker
P.S. I already extended you an olive branch last time. Even though I
was disappointed you didn't take it, I will do so again by offering
once more to change the topic. All you have to say is: "--Touche!" and
bow gracefully and I'll consider it water under the bridge... In that
spirit, have you had a chance to sail on a Cape Dory? What did you
like and what didn't you like about the boat? Someone in my club has
one but I haven't had a chance to sail on it yet.
DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:<ZC35c.6529$zP2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> Bob Whitaker wrote:
> > Now, Doug, wouldn't it have been a lot nicer if you had just answered
> > the original question politely rather than trying to be snotty with
> > your post?
>
> Well, Bob, I wasn't really trying to be snotty. Sorry if I made you cry.
>
> Just go right on believing that Cals are magnificently constructed
> boats, and that anybody saying otherwise is just being snotty. Pardon me
> for treading on your illusions.
>
> Bye
>
> Doug King
bb
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:51:27 GMT, bb <blac...@home.com> wrote:
>I think you should reserve judgement until you see a picture of Doug's boat. The
>smoke stack looks like a cheap tacked on accessory, not part of the design. His
>boat looks like a River Queen houseboat, and the fake smoke stack is way out of
>proportion to the rest of the boat.
I thought you were discussing Chuck's boat. What kind of boat does
Doug have that you find so offensive?
bb
DSK
JAXAshby wrote:
> yes, dougies said that.
It's as true as the rest of Jax's posts.... ie only a fantasy...
Ask Jax about the scary rocks around Cape Hattaras, or submarines
attacking Seattle.
DSK
DSK
> I thought you were discussing Chuck's boat. What kind of boat does
> Doug have that you find so offensive?
Same as Chuck's.
Of course, BittyBill has never seen it in real life. This makes him an
expert... as much as all the rest of his non-real-life crapola.
BTW here are some pictures
http://community.webshots.com/album/63279185YQtgSA
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Brian Whatcott
wrote:
>Brian Whatcott wrote:
>
>> I find the tone of the following post, offensive.
>> Why is it always the pseudonymous posters who want
>> to let rip in this way?
>>
>Hello Brian,
>
>Most newsgroups have many long standing feuds, and
>"rec.boats.cruising" appears to be no exception. Such a shame.
....
>Bob Whitaker
>"Free Spirit"
My problem arises because I had access to arpanet-style newsgroups
fifteen years ago, for a spell. People mis-spoke then, as now.
But when they did, you can be sure that people spoke up and let their
distaste be known. So the level stayed civilized.
I don't feel the need to invite guttermouths into my study even now,
but when they arrive, I believe I would be well-served as would you,
to let them know how I feel about their stuff.
Brian Whatcott Altus OK
DSK
perhaps a mistake to treat "JAXAshby" and "BinaryBill" as deserving any
reply, for reasons that they make obvious.
>(Bob Whitaker)wrote:
>>Most newsgroups have many long standing feuds, and
>>"rec.boats.cruising" appears to be no exception. Such a shame.
>
>
> Brian Whatcott wrote:
> My problem arises because I had access to arpanet-style newsgroups
> fifteen years ago, for a spell. People mis-spoke then, as now.
>
> But when they did, you can be sure that people spoke up and let their
> distaste be known. So the level stayed civilized.
>
> I don't feel the need to invite guttermouths into my study even now,
> but when they arrive, I believe I would be well-served as would you,
> to let them know how I feel about their stuff.
The problem here is that these two clowns (if indeed they are two
different people, my suspicion is that they are both sock puppets) are
more entertained by outraged & offended reactions. My intention was to
try and pretend it was a serious discussion and maybe some good would
come of it all. Best thing to do with trolls is ignore them though.
DSK
bb
>bb wrote:
>> I thought you were discussing Chuck's boat. What kind of boat does
>> Doug have that you find so offensive?
>
>Same as Chuck's.
Seems ok to me. Actually makes a lot of sense. Wish I had one and
just might some day.
bb
JAXAshby
miles (you were specific as to miles) and that you considered this a feat of
derring do?
tipping the cups last night, were you?
LaBomba182
>yes, dougies said that.
>
Labomba 182 wrote
Gottja! See below.
>From: JAXAshby (jaxa...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: A good NG gone bad
>View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.boats
>Date: 2004-03-13 06:53:51 PST
>100 a day?
>I don't open any political post, seldom >read anything by Harry, never
anything
>by LaBomba182,
That was to easy.
So, tell us again how you NEVER see any thing by me?
Capt. Bill
Dan Best
From the vitriolic exchange that has been flying back and forth the
last couple of days, I thought it was gonna be something **UGLY**. It's
certainly not something I'd put on my boat, as it just looks too fake
(something about the wide open cabin directly underneath it), but it's
hardly anything worth wasting band width or raising your blood pressure
over.
You guys need to go play with your respective boats. Are they still
covered in snow where you live or something?
> bb wrote:
>
> BTW here are some pictures
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/63279185YQtgSA
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>
--
Dan Best - (707) 431-1662, Healdsburg, CA 95448
B-2/75 1977-1979
Tayana 37 #192, "Tricia Jean"
http://rangerbest.home.comcast.net/TriciaJean.JPG
Gould 0738
>pacer when he wasn't moonlighting for Fisher Price.
The Sundowner line, (30, 32, 36), was drawn by Jack Sarin.
Here's a link where you can view some of the other AMC Pacers he has been
turning out.........
DSK
>>pacer when he wasn't moonlighting for Fisher Price.
>
> The Sundowner line, (30, 32, 36), was drawn by Jack Sarin.
>
> Here's a link where you can view some of the other AMC Pacers he has been
> turning out.........
>
> http://www.jacksarin.com/sarin/index.html
Thanks for the link Chuck... never saw this before.
That Guardian 85 is a very cool looking boat. I wonder what it's fuel
consumption is? It is interesting that he has done so many gov't service
and commercial vessels... much more demanding IMHO
Doug King
LaBomba182
From: labom...@aol.com (LaBomba182)
Date: 3/16/04 9:21 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20040316092134...@mb-m14.aol.com>
otnmbrd
otn
Gould 0738
>careful not to mention them, even briefly, on his website. Very smart
>on his part. T
The Sundowners were designed over 20 years ago. The site features his more
recent work.
>The Sundowner pilot house looks like a late 1950's
>California fast food joint. All it needs is a little neon framing the
>windows, and maybe some golden arches for the deluxe model. Would you
>like some fries with that? LOL!
Thank Providence I'm only cursed with a morphodite boat. A person may not
always own what he currently owns, but he will always be what he is.
You did say, "Supersize me?" :-)
Frank Maier
Without doing a Ph.D. dissertation length post, I'll state that, as a
class, I don't like heavy displacement cruisers. In your subject line
you allude to "blue water cruisers." That's what got you and Doug King
at loggerheads. From reading his posts over the years, I find that I
tend to agree with Doug much of the time. You also meantioned the
Crealock 34, a boat which, IMHO, falls into this category, a boat
which I would *hate* to sail on. So, those are my prejudices for you
to factor into my comments.
Also like Doug, the idea of a "project boat" is anathema to me; but I
understand that we're all different; and if it's something you enjoy,
then good for you.
The boat which owns my heart, my "Platonic ideal" best boat, is the
Freedom 38. I fell in love with Freedoms after about 20 years of
sailing, both racing and cruising. When Garry Hoyt/Freedom/TPI
produced these boats, it was, for me, an epiphany. Holy shit! Why
hasn't this been done before? Well, it sorta had been. Catboats have
been around for quite a while. Just materials, like carbonfiber masts,
and specifics of design were the innovations which Hoyt gave us with
the Freedom line. To give you a "sales pitch" for the idea of buying a
Freedom 32...
The single "best" feature of Freedoms is their single-handing ability.
Even the 'chute can be flown by one person, launched and doused from
the cockpit. Their construction is second to none (built by TPI). They
have no standing rigging, which means no holes through your deck to
admit water, nothing to break, and nothing to replace every decade or
so. I've never sailed a 32 specifically. I've been in pretty nasty
squally weather on a 30 and a 36 (which is the 38 without the
sugarscoop). Thye use single-line reefing, which again speaks to
convenience for a single-hander and makes it easy to respond swiftly
to deteriorating conditions. (Or easy to catch up if you kinda stay
overcanvassed too long and get behind. Something which I have a
tendency to be guilty of.)
There are a lot of fine boats out there; but Freedom is at/near the
top of my personal list. However, like I said, given my prejudices,
the Crealock, Cape Dory, et al. are boats which are nowhere near my
list, not even at the bottom, although you and many others find them
attractive.
Good luck,
Frank
Frank Maier
...snip...
> Best thing to do with trolls is ignore them though.
Of course, this is the best advice; but we're (all) only human. It may
be cruel; but sometimes I just *hafta* comment/respond when it comes
to Jax et al.
I mean, without Jax, we wouldn't know that dead reckoning is illegal,
that the Gulf Stream is extremely difficult to find, that you can sail
upwind under bare poles because of "vectors," and on, and on.
For me, the amusement value is worth the price of admission (cluttered
bandwidth). Mostly.
Frank
Frank Maier
...snip...
> Best thing to do with trolls is ignore them though.
That is, of course, the best thing to do; but we're (all) only human.
Cruel as it may be, I sometimes just *hafta* reply to something Jax or
one of the other loons says. Ya gotta love 'em.
How else would we know that it's illegal to use dead reckoning? Or
that the Gulf Stream is extremely difficult to find? Or that you can
sail upwind under bare poles because of "vectors?" And an endless
stream of other outre bits.
Frank
DSK
> You have one beautiful boat.
Thank you, WaIIy. It's a great boat, a bit more varnish than ideal, but
we are having a marvelous time with it and genuinely appreciate all
compliments.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
DSK
> Bob Whitaker wrote:
>>Thanks for the input. What are the features you like most about them?
Frank Maier wrote:
> The boat which owns my heart, my "Platonic ideal" best boat, is the
> Freedom 38. I fell in love with Freedoms after about 20 years of
> sailing, both racing and cruising. When Garry Hoyt/Freedom/TPI
> produced these boats, it was, for me, an epiphany. Holy shit! Why
> hasn't this been done before? Well, it sorta had been. Catboats have
> been around for quite a while. Just materials, like carbonfiber masts,
> and specifics of design were the innovations which Hoyt gave us with
> the Freedom line.
Are you talking about the late 1980s Freedom 38? IIRC that one was a
Gary Mull design. A lot of the same concepts from the original Freedom
40 (one my favorites despite a dislike of 'crab crushers') were carried
forward, and the Freedoms were all quite solidly built.
Here's one with the "cat-sloop" rig, they also came as cat-ketches.
http://www.sanjuansailing.com/charters/sparrow/
> ... To give you a "sales pitch" for the idea of buying a
> Freedom 32...
>
> The single "best" feature of Freedoms is their single-handing ability.
> Even the 'chute can be flown by one person, launched and doused from
> the cockpit. Their construction is second to none (built by TPI). They
> have no standing rigging, which means no holes through your deck to
> admit water, nothing to break, and nothing to replace every decade or
> so. I've never sailed a 32 specifically. I've been in pretty nasty
> squally weather on a 30 and a 36 (which is the 38 without the
> sugarscoop). Thye use single-line reefing, which again speaks to
> convenience for a single-hander and makes it easy to respond swiftly
> to deteriorating conditions. (Or easy to catch up if you kinda stay
> overcanvassed too long and get behind. Something which I have a
> tendency to be guilty of.)
>
> There are a lot of fine boats out there; but Freedom is at/near the
> top of my personal list. However, like I said, given my prejudices,
> the Crealock, Cape Dory, et al. are boats which are nowhere near my
> list, not even at the bottom, although you and many others find them
> attractive.
The PSC Orion (also called a Crealock 32 IIRC) is pretty nice sailing
boat. Some of the heavyweights can move, but they still suffer in
handling and all-around ability & weatherliness. In general, I keep in
mind John Paul Jones dictum: "Give me a ship that sails *fast*"
especially to windward (but not at the cost of downwind squirelliness,
as many 1970s era racing boats tend to). Getting to windward reliably,
and sharp consistent handling are the two most underrated
characteristics of 'seaworthiness' IMHO... missing stays, getting caught
in irons, being unable to tack without the motor running, etc etc... all
are anti-seaworthiness traits.
I don't know if they are likely to be found in Bob's price range, but
the older Freedom 33 cat-ketch is a nice boat. The centerboard model of
course. It's not as nice as the Freedom 40 cat ketch but it's a good
smaller sister.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Frank Maier
> (some snippage for brevity)
> Are you talking about the late 1980s Freedom 38? IIRC that one was a
> Gary Mull design. A lot of the same concepts from the original Freedom
> 40 (one my favorites despite a dislike of 'crab crushers') were carried
> forward, and the Freedoms were all quite solidly built.
>
> Here's one with the "cat-sloop" rig, they also came as cat-ketches.
> http://www.sanjuansailing.com/charters/sparrow/
...snip...
Yes. The Gary Mull design. It's interesting to me that you included
this particular link. This boat is/was "Nereid" and recently sold here
in Seattle for less than $60K. Broke my heart to pass it up. (Note:
most F38's are asking over $100K up to around $125K.) Nereid's
previous owner purchased a F44 (kind of a stretched 40 with a fin
rather than centerboard and a skeg-hung rudder rather than the
stern-hung of the 40) in New Orleans and is currently working on that
boat in preparation for "heading out." His website is
http://www.brigup.com if you're interested in his experiences.
I took a hard look at both this boat and the F44 in New Orleans before
we made a family decision to RV around the U.S. for a couple of years
now, before going cruising; so it was an interesting karma-type thing
for me that the New Orleans F44 was bought by the Seattle F38 guy. We
have two kids, so the roominess of the 44 is attractive.
> The PSC Orion (also called a Crealock 32 IIRC) is pretty nice sailing
> boat. Some of the heavyweights can move, but they still suffer in
> handling and all-around ability & weatherliness. In general, I keep in
> mind John Paul Jones dictum: "Give me a ship that sails *fast*"
> especially to windward (but not at the cost of downwind squirelliness,
> as many 1970s era racing boats tend to). Getting to windward reliably,
> and sharp consistent handling are the two most underrated
> characteristics of 'seaworthiness' IMHO... missing stays, getting caught
> in irons, being unable to tack without the motor running, etc etc... all
> are anti-seaworthiness traits.
Here's one of those areas where I agree with you, in opposition to
"conventional cruising wisdom." When people like the Pardeys start
with a heavy, slow boat and then recommend that you use a roachless,
battenless main to power it... Ack! I just gotta cringe.
> I don't know if they are likely to be found in Bob's price range, but
> the older Freedom 33 cat-ketch is a nice boat. The centerboard model of
> course. It's not as nice as the Freedom 40 cat ketch but it's a good
> smaller sister.
Agreed. Much as I'm anti-crabcrusher, I agree that I'd be willing to
have a F40, although I do prefer the design after Halsey Herreshoff
helped Hoyt clean up that "pirate ship" look of his prototype 40 a
bit. I think we've touched on this a bit before, maybe in
alt.sailing.asa?
The newest Freedom offerings, designed by Pedrick, are, IMO, growing
back toward mediocrity and away from Hoyt's innovation. I mean, you
can now get 'em with running backs in order to fly gennys. That's not
the Freedom concept. And at the prices, I could just as well buy a
nice used Swan, if I want a boat with standing rigging.
And that's my $.02,
Frank
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen
"Bob Whitaker" <capn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:27dcd52b.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Wow, impressive list of boats! Thanks for the post! I'd be interested
> in knowing which of these you liked best and which you've had the
> opportunity to sail under reduced sail and how they handled. I'm very
> interested in your comments, specially about pros and cons of
> centerboards. I just thought it might be yet another thing that could
> break down so I wasn't considering centerboard boats for my dream trip
> (even if it meant missing out on shallow anchorages). I may start a
> new thread on this topic one of these days, seeing as the original
> post turned into mud-slinging central.
I think the Morgan 34 (and the CCA era M33, not the Out Island) are
pretty good boats. The Tartan has a nice reputation but the
centerboard doesn't kick up if you run aground and it can
be hard to repair the mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
The Morgan 34 CB doesn't kick up either, but if you do break
something it is relatively easy to fix since it's a cable mechanism.
I have sailed on the Alberg 35, Ericson 35, C&C 34 (deep keel),
Ranger 33 and Yankee 30. All of them are decent boats but the C&C
is more squirrely than I like going dead downwind. I think the
Ranger 33 is probably the best sailing boat of the bunch, it really
has no vices. I extensively crewed on a Ranger 33 for a number
of years, racing in all weathers. It was my first experience with a
keel boat that stayed on its feet in heavy air downwind.. A friend
who owned one swears by them..
You might get arguments from owners of the Ericson 35 that they
are just as good as the Ranger, but I don't have the heavy air miles
on one to confirm the opinion ( and I'm thinking of the Bruce King
designed Mark II version here). The Yankee 30 also has a good
rep but again my only experience with them is in relatively light
air. They are popular in San Francisco, which tells me they
do pretty well in a breeze. I do like the Ericson 35 a little more
for cruising than the Ranger, the interior and engine access is just
marginally enough nicer that it tips the scales to the Ericson.
All the boats listed will not be a floating condo - don't expect a lot of
room, and some may seem even smaller than the Cal 34.
Random thoughts on the boats I haven't sailed:
The Allied Seawind was the first fiberglass boat to do a circumnavigation,
and I like Tom Gilmer as a designer so it's got to be a good boat ;)
The Luders 34 and Alberg 37 are really pretty boats, but I can't comment
on their handling.
I haven't sailed on the Douglas 32 but it's reportedly a good light air boat
and I think Ted Brewer thought it was one of his better designs.
I have a friend with a Mercator 30 who has taken it to Alaska several
times. Nice boat, enormous V-berth, has a little weather helm.
They are not well known outside of the Pacific Northwest, but at least
one has done a circumnavigation. They could use a little more sail
area, but do make nice cruisers.
The Nich 32 is stout, lots of room for a 32'er and even with her bluff
bow will do pretty well going to windward.
As far a centerboard boats go, for a trip in the Gulf/Florida/Bahamas
I think it's almost a requirement. Not so much for some of the Caribbean.
The big disadvantage is of course the added maintenence of the board
and it's raising/lowering mechanism. That and they can clunk around
in the slot in a seaway, which I always found disconcerting. They
do help you go to windward if your sails are up to it, but there
are many people who glass the board in place and forget about
sailing close winded. I wouldn't, but then I hate sailing boats
that don't go to weather well.
Of course, seaworthiness is always an issue with centerboard boats.
Deep keels have more favorable wieght distribution for resisting
and recovery from capsize. A competent, well prepared crew
should be able to make a centerboarder work for the type of trip
your thinking of though. It wouldn't be my choice for a
circumnavigation, but would be for for Gulf cruising.
AFter the Fastnet storm of 79, there was a lot of research done
on characteristics that help or hinder capsize. One fallout of that
was a capsize screen formula. It is
Beam (feet) divided by displacement^.3333 (displacement to
the 1/3 power, displacement in cubic feet). The result of
this formula should be a value less than 2. I have always
argued that the formula is a little simplistic because it doesn't
take into account ballast placement (you could have 4000
pounds of lead at the top of the mast and the formula would
say you have a seaworthy boat). However, for the boats
under discussion it should give good results.
That's about it for now. Follow up if you'd like, and hopefully
the discussion won't go off track like an IOR boat in a breeze again.
Matt
Marc
structural and/or condition questions that determined the low price or
was it market and/or timing?
Marc, F36
DSK
> I think the Morgan 34 (and the CCA era M33, not the Out Island) are
> pretty good boats. The Tartan has a nice reputation but the
> centerboard doesn't kick up if you run aground and it can
> be hard to repair the mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
> The Morgan 34 CB doesn't kick up either, but if you do break
> something it is relatively easy to fix since it's a cable mechanism.
> You might get arguments from owners of the Ericson 35 that they
> are just as good as the Ranger, but I don't have the heavy air miles
> on one to confirm the opinion ( and I'm thinking of the Bruce King
> designed Mark II version here).
Pretty comparable boats in many ways, but IMHO the Ranger is a little
better looking and the Ericson is better built. The Ranger is more
likely to be found at the lower end of the price range, too (not a
judgement on them).
> As far a centerboard boats go, for a trip in the Gulf/Florida/Bahamas
> I think it's almost a requirement. Not so much for some of the Caribbean.
> The big disadvantage is of course the added maintenence of the board
> and it's raising/lowering mechanism.
Sure the centerboard is a maintenance item, and some are easier & more
reliable than others. IMHO it is well worth the added capability... when
we talk about cruising with people who have deep draft boats, they
usually say "We can go anywhere we want" dismissively... but then it
turns out that there is a long long list of nice places that they "don't
want" to go...
I also consider it a safety issue, in that you have more options with
less draft.
> ... That and they can clunk around
> in the slot in a seaway, which I always found disconcerting.
That can be fixed relatively easily, depending on the board design.
> ... They
> do help you go to windward if your sails are up to it, but there
> are many people who glass the board in place and forget about
> sailing close winded. I wouldn't, but then I hate sailing boats
> that don't go to weather well.
Agreed. Getting trapped on a lee shore is guaranteed bad day.
>
> Of course, seaworthiness is always an issue with centerboard boats.
> Deep keels have more favorable wieght distribution for resisting
> and recovery from capsize. A competent, well prepared crew
> should be able to make a centerboarder work for the type of trip
> your thinking of though. It wouldn't be my choice for a
> circumnavigation, but would be for for Gulf cruising.
The big issue I see here is the Center of Gravity (specifically, where
it is located vertically) and it's impact on the Limit of Positive
Stability. It's a lot easier to get a good LPOS if you can put the
ballast nice and low. But the old fashioned centerboarders, somewhat
narrow by modern standards, with strong sheer and narrow sterns, can
have a better LPOS in practice than a modern boat with high sides and
wide transom.
That's in theory... in practice, when this is an issue, it's more
important to make sure you don't get conked in the head by a flying soup
can... not on most people's list of seaworthiness issues ;)
>
> AFter the Fastnet storm of 79, there was a lot of research done
> on characteristics that help or hinder capsize. One fallout of that
> was a capsize screen formula. It is
>
> Beam (feet) divided by displacement^.3333 (displacement to
> the 1/3 power, displacement in cubic feet). The result of
> this formula should be a value less than 2. I have always
> argued that the formula is a little simplistic because it doesn't
> take into account ballast placement (you could have 4000
> pounds of lead at the top of the mast and the formula would
> say you have a seaworthy boat). However, for the boats
> under discussion it should give good results.
Yes, the point of the capsize screen formula (or ratio) is to compare
similar boats... not to scale seaworthiness. In the absence of more
detailed data, the CSR and the ballast/disp ratio can tell a lot about a
boats hardiness for rough weather. And there are so many other
seaworthiness considerations... the rig, the hatches, the stowage, etc
etc... that it's easy to give this too much weight.
BTW I noticed that nobody has yet mentioned "small cockpits" or
recommended double enders...
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Frank Maier
> Nerieid is a 1986 F36 with the add-on sugar scoop stern. Were there
> structural and/or condition questions that determined the low price or
> was it market and/or timing?
>
> Marc, F36
Hi, Marc,
I did not see a survey for Nereid; but I did do a pretty thorough
personal walk-through. She seemed to me to be in excellent shape. My
opinion is that the owner was sinking money into his new project much
faster than he had hoped and was simply desperate to sell Nereid. And,
unlike the East Coast, the Northwest is a geographically self-limited
market.
Frank
Frank Maier
...lotta good commentary snipped for space...
Of the boats Matt mentions, I'd enthusiastically support the Ranger or
the C&C. I owned a Ranger 29 for a coupla years and a C&C 34 for a
coupla years. Either one would make my list of "boats I'd be willling
to own." Guess I should add "again" to that statement.
Matt also alludes to the bad designs which were spawned under the IOR
rules of the 70s and which culminated in rule changes after the
Fastnet disaster. Remember, however, that it wasn't just fin-keeled
IOR freak designs which were eaten by that storm. Lotta "blue water
cruisers" fared poorly, too. Conversely, there were two J-30s in that
storm and they survived easily; one was a single-hander. I doubt
anyone would consider the J-30 as a "blue water cruiser;" but
considering its performance in those circumstances, compared to a lot
of other designs, ya gotta give it snaps. Pretty low on the "creature
comforts" scale, however.
Of the others, I have no experience with some he mentions; but most
are not boats which I personally favor. Alberg, Allied, and Nicholson
are all boats which would completely fail to make my personal list;
too heavy for my taste. And I'd debate the windward ability of the
Nicholson. Oh, and while the sailing ability of the Newport is good
because the basic design is by C&C, their build quality is, IMO, the
worst in the business. That'd drop Newport off my list.
But at this point I'm quibbling from my prejudices. Matt has
contributed some great info here and I appreciate reading his comments
and opinions. Threads on Usenet almost always go squirrelly; but the
good ones retain a core of useful information and reasoned debate.
Frank
Frank Maier
...snip...
> BTW I noticed that nobody has yet mentioned "small cockpits" or
> recommended double enders...
After all that worthwhile discussion, there you go starting shit
again! <grin>
You're incorrigible. Couldn't we discuss double entendres, instead? IF
we did that, I'll bet we could somehow work in the phrase "small
cockpit."
Frank
JAXAshby
not with dougies in the discussion loop.
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen
"Frank Maier" <PVM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eebbe34e.04031...@posting.google.com...
Great idea. I love the Southern Cross 31 (although I think
it could use a little more stick), and the SC39 is a nice boat.
The Valiant 40 is a great all round cruising boat (so is the
Esprit 37). Both are really well mannered. Bob Perry
owned and raced a 37 for a number of years and got
killed by a well sailed Cal 33 with a gift rating, but hey
they had fun.
I could go for a Tayana 37 as a cruising boat (the ketch rig
on this design is better than a cutter, as much as it pains me
to say it). If your tastes for teak run higher there is always the
Tashiba/Baba/Tayanas. And don't forget the Fast Passage 39.
Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
ender parting the waves? Actually, they typically do have
good balance between fore and aft volume, so that should help
in running off. But, if you're being overtaken by an eight foot
breaking sea I don't think it matters what the stern shape
looks like, your boots are going to get wet.
The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong). But it's interesting
that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.
Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.
Matt
Dan Best
secure small cockpit. When I settle into it on a warm summer night,
there is no better feeling.
I think I'd better stop. I'm starting to excite myself.
Fair winds - Dan Best
--
Bob Whitaker
> Without doing a Ph.D. dissertation length post
>
Hello Frank,
Well, your post may not have earned you a Ph.D., but it may qualify
for a Masters! Thanks for the post. You mentioned ease of sailing, and
the fact that you had been on a Freedom 30 and 36 on pretty nasty
weather. That's exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to get
started. One of the items on my seaworthiness list is that the boat
not have a tendency to lay abeam to the wind. Do you know what the
Freedoms do under bare poles? Do they go bow to the wind, stern to the
wind, or lay abeam? I know that this may be hard to answer unless you
have been in that exact situation, so that's OK if you don't know.
That's the beauty of Usenet, that there are thousands of human beings
willing to share their knowledge. Maybe somebody out there knows the
answer.
Some of the other "top" items on my list are being able to beat to
windward under reduced sail (get yourself away from a lee shore),
being able to withstand getting pooped (strong hatches and portholes
with positive locking from the inside, small companionway, sealed
lazarette lockers that don't lead into the main cabin, well-drained
small cockpit, etc.), and good surfing characteristics (positive
steering when going downwind, good reserve buoyancy up front, etc.)
I think I'll reformulate my question one of these days and offer a
punch-style list of desirable characteristics as a starting point for
people to expound on the benefits of different boats. For example,
Matt Pedersen wrote that (of his list) the Ranger 33 was the best boat
of the bunch. He also mentioned the Ericson 35 but he said he didn't
have the high wind mileage on the Ericson to compare with. That's the
beauty of newsgroups! Somebody out in Usenet land has that experience!
Wouldn't it be great if they shared it with us, furthering human
knowledge?
> In your subject line you allude to "blue water cruisers."
> That's what got you and Doug King at loggerheads. From
> reading his posts over the years, I find that I tend to
> agree with Doug much of the time.
>
Well, Frank, since you brought it up, I feel compelled to reply. It
seems, that Doug could be a good contributor if he wanted to. My first
impression of Doug happened actually about a year ago. I was
researching trailers for my Cal-25 and I encountered a thread on
"alt.sailing.asa". I reproduced the quote below for your amusement.
You can search for it on Google:
> Ron said about Doug "You are really stupid, a real know-nothing.
> NOBODY puts a boat, especially a Cal 25 on a flatbed. Bigger boats
> go on low-boys."
What's up with this guy "Ron", I thought to myself? So this other guy
"Doug" said "flatbed" when he really should have said "low-boy".
What's the big deal? Hardly a point worth arguing about. I remember
reading that quote and wondering what kind of person elicits that kind
of response?
Of course, all it took was _ONE_ post on "rec.boats.cruising" for me
to find out! A scant few hours after my first post, Doug King
proclaimed his presence and trumpeted right into my newsreader calling
me "Tidy Bowl" man. Kind of amusing, I must admit, but hardly
appropriate. No wonder this newsgroup gets so cantankerous once in a
while...
As I mentioned to Doug in my last post, it's a case of a few rotten
apples spoiling the whole barrel. He spouts off, complaining about
other members and their beligerent posts, and he seems blind to his
own behavior. He really needs to take a hard look in the mirror and
acknowledge and accept the consequences of his actions. Such a shame.
Such a waste of human knowledge. He seems to be knowledgeable, but
many people probably dismiss his contributions because he tends to
wake up on the wrong side of the bed from time to time. Maybe he was a
pleasant person to have an exchange with 15 years ago, but many years
of Usenet have taken their toll and by now he has probably developed a
Pavlovian response everytime he logs onto a newsgroup. Like I told him
on my last post (that he hasn't responded to), I don't expect him to
drop his weapons when he gets blindsided by one of his many enemies.
On the contrary, I told him to keep fighting the good fight because
most of the time the attacks lashed on him seem to be unfounded. His
many enemies are ready to pounce at the slightest imperfection in
order to get "back" at him. Case in point "flatbed" versus "low-boy".
Doug just needs to take a good look in the mirror and realize he's
become one of them.
Thanks for your posts Frank, I want to reply to Matt now who also has
been a great contributor to this thread.
Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
PVM...@hotmail.com (Frank Maier) wrote in message news:<eebbe34e.04031...@posting.google.com>...
Bob Whitaker
> The Tartan has a nice reputation but the centerboard doesn't
> kick up if you run aground and it can be hard to repair the
> mechanism if you ground hard and bend something.
>
Hello Matt,
Thanks for your great contributions to this thread. I enjoyed pouring
over the many details you provided. I'm glad I'm not the only one with
some reservations about centerboards. The fact that they can break,
and the reduced righting moment are almost deal breakers in my mind.
Granted there will be many places I won't be able to go, but the list
of places I _WILL_ be able to go to is already endless so I don't
think I'll run out of places to go :o) My main concern is safety...
under some circumstances a centerboard may be "safer" but overall I
think the balance tips towards a fixed keel.
As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
experience in this?
Thanks,
Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
"Matt/Meribeth Pedersen" <pede...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<csR5c.44149$aT1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
Lime Cat
Marc
choice of future boats lies only within the Freedom family. I don't
have any idea how this degree of brand loyalty compares with other
makes and owners, but it is vociferous, myself included, and
noteworthy due to the radically different rig and construction
methods.
FredB
http://www.mahina.com/cruise.html#anchor30535563 for his comments and list
DSK
>>You're incorrigible. Couldn't we discuss double entendres, instead? IF
>>we did that, I'll bet we could somehow work in the phrase "small
>>cockpit."
As long as I don't start getting spam about how to enlarge it....
>
> Matt/Meribeth Pedersen wrote:
> Are we going to talk about the Moses theory of a double
> ender parting the waves?
If running with a drogue, sure. IMHO your idea about the balance between
reserve bouyancy fore & aft is right on.
>
> The Norwegians came up with the seaworthy
> double ender for their pilot boats (I was going to type
> Redniskote but I'm sure I'd spell it wrong).
Far be it from me to criticize anybody's spelling. The Redningskoite
originated as a fisheries service & rescue boat, developed by a Scotsman
named (fanfare of trumpets) Colin Archer.
http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Sail/Ingrid.html
The funny thing about the Colin Archer designs is that most people who
profess to love the type don't really know anything about them... for
example, extolling heavy displacement and moderate reserve bouyancy
aft... whereas these boats were built as light as possible for the
strength required, given the technology of the day, and one of the big
changes Colin Archer made in previous design was to dramatically
increase reserve bouyancy.
The Valiant series is an interesting case study... they are not in any
way related to the Colin Archer type, having wall sides, snubbed canoe
sterns, and fin keels. Bob Perry once said in an unguarded moment that
the Valiat resulted when he took a moderate displacement fin keeler and
had fun making it look like a pirate ship. But not to hold that against
them, they are good boats and darn well built. And to the superficial
glance, they do *look* like a Colin Archer....
The Westsail 32 is another boat often hailed as a modern Colin Archer,
but isn't even close.
> ... But it's interesting
> that the British, under nearly identical sea conditions came up
> with their plumb stemmed, long waterline cutters for their
> pilot service. I guess that just goes to show you that a good
> boat is a good boat, no matter what her fanny looks like.
One thing to keep in mind is that those old timers had a lot more
patience than we do, and a much higher tolerance for user-unfriendly
systems. These boats sail more like submarines than a modern sailor is
likely to put up with.
>
> Oh, and as for small cockpits, I've always thought that it's
> easier to remedy a too big cockpit than a too small one.
> Whatever you do, don't forget to put big drains in.
How about an open transom? Can't get much more drain area than that. The
issue is to keep the reserve bouyancy figures similar.
> Bob Whitaker wrote:
> Well, Frank, since you brought it up, I feel compelled to reply. It
> seems, that Doug could be a good contributor if he wanted to.
Dear Bob-
You take yourself, and me, and probably everybody else far too seriously.
As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an advertising phrase.
Most sailors who actually cross oceans call their boats passage makers,
and there is a tremendous amount of discussion (informed and otherwise)
on what characteristics make for a desirable passage making sailboat. It
appears to me that the most important feature is between the skippers
ears, all else is a matter of familiarity, prejudice, and personal taste.
People have crossed oceans in waterproofed refrigerator crates, so a
real sailboat would have to be pretty bad before it couldn't do it. OTOH
you will find a large number of people with some experience in a given
type of boat who will vigorously proclaim that this is the ONLY type of
ocean capable boat. YMMV
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Frank Maier
> There are ,anecdotally, a large percentage of Freedom owners who's
> choice of future boats lies only within the Freedom family. I don't
> have any idea how this degree of brand loyalty compares with other
> makes and owners, but it is vociferous, myself included, and
> noteworthy due to the radically different rig and construction
> methods.
I understand this comment and agree that it's likely, if somewhat
unprovable. Unfortunately, as I said in another comment, I find the
newest (Pedrick) designs, the 35 and 40/40, less attractive (less
"Freedomish"?)than the earlier ones. So, I wonder what the future
holds for the Freedom line/concept.
I chartered a F35 for two weeks a coupla years ago just to see how I
liked it compared to previous types, like the Mull 36/38. It was
certainly fun, and still more attractive to me than most "standard"
sloops; but I much prefer the Mull 36/38. And, because the 36/38s are
older, they're cheaper. Cool!
Maybe Freedom just needs a new motto: Once you've sailed a Freedom,
you'll never go back!
I pretty much agree with that.
rhys
wrote:
>As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
>curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
>winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
>your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
>don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
>that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
>whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
>experience in this?
OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
era at 15'.
Why mention it? Because the guy who got me into sailing lived aboard a
Ranger 33 and claimed that my boat was very similar in handling and
sea-keeping. Certainly the stats of the two boats are not far removed.
So, maybe my answers will help. I would add the Viking 33 to your
list, but it's got low freeboard and not a lot of beam compared to
modern boats...the qualities that make them fast Great Lakes and
coastal cruisers mean they would be a little fatiguing and short of
stowage on the big briny. Or so I think. I know a lot of 'em went from
Lake Ontario down south as far as Trinidad, so maybe I'm wrong.
Anyway:
Will they go bow to wind?
Because of the small main and the long J, I find lashing the storm jib
down and fiddling with the tiller can allow me to crab when the wind's
too grim to safely proceed.
stern to wind? If I'm running, I run, in broad reaches if possible.
Dead downwind is tricky and not particularly fast and can get wet.
or lay abeam?
With 4500 lbs of keel on a 10,000 lb. boat, she stays on her feet
pretty well. But boats like mine and I would think the Ranger 33 do
exhibit an unpleasant "whip" in beam seas. So I tend to avoid them
where possible. It won't hurt the boat, but it's hard on the crew,
something that could be said of a lot of C&C designs.
I
>don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
>that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
>whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
>experience in this?
I have been out under reefs in sustained 40 knots in the square waves
of Lake Ontario (9-10 feet and breaking). I have never thought it
politic to stay still in such weather, and find that my boat sails
well and safely under reduced sail, although I have been quite glad
for the buoyancy in the bow surfing off some of those waves.
Boat characteristics are to a point of far less importance than the
ability of the skipper to sail effectively and with proper seamanship.
These days, it's not necessary in most cases to "get caught" by the
weather, and very few situations are "survival". There's a big
knowledge gap, however, in that a lot of recreational sailors come in
around the 20-25 knot mark, because of comfort or fear issues. Between
25-40 knots is in my mind where the best sailing and passagemaking is
found. If you can learn how to keep the boat going without busting
things in that, the make and model becomes less important. Modern
boats are made to provide "fun times" in relatively benign conditions.
I've found that older styled boats lose on this score because
potential buyers see them poking along in 10 knots, instead of the 30
knots of the open ocean with which they leap to life. Figure out the
type of sailing and the area in which you think you are going, and go
from there. Under 35 feet there are real "blue-water" bargains,
because that's too small for a lot of modern tastes, too cramped, too
free of amenities. It's a very manageable size for a single-hander or
couple, however, and is easier to manage in terms of sail wrangling.
But nice seakeeping designs at 30-35 feet tend to look pokey or low or
pudgy and not like the fridge-shaped Hunters and so on that look great
at dock and give me the willies when I think of them in a proper blow.
Good luck and hope this helps.
R.
Wayne.B
>Heard great things of Cal
>> 34's.
====================================
I owned a Cal-34 for many years. We cruised and raced it for
thousands of miles and had a great time.. It's very roomy for its
size and genre and is very fast off the wind, especially on a breezy
spinnaker reach. With an inexpensive tiller autopilot it can be
easily sailed by one or two people. Those are the major good points
other than being relatively easy to work on.
On the down side, the boats are getting old and need to be carefully
surveyed for structural issues. Weak points are the deck stepped
mast, the wood supporting column below decks, the chainplates, mast,
spreaders, and the fibreglass keel shell. Many older boats have
addressed some of these issues out of necessity, others have been
lucky, and more still have lurking issues as do most 30+ year old
boats. Most have either been repowered already or are badly in need
of it. Diesel is the way to go for serious cruising.
People have crossed oceans in Cal-34s but it's real strength is as a
coastal cruiser, preferably down wind. There are very few sailboats
under 45 feet on which I'd want to spend more than a day or two in
offshore conditions.
Matt/Meribeth Pedersen
"rhys" <rh...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:555k50tch90pd3hg6...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Mar 2004 01:26:21 -0800, capn...@yahoo.com (Bob Whitaker)
> wrote:
>
> >As I mentioned to Frank on a previous post, one of the things I am
> >curious about is how different boats behave under bare poles in heavy
> >winds. Do you know how the Ranger 33 behaves? Or the other boats on
> >your list? Will they go bow to wind? stern to wind? or lay abeam? I
> >don't have that much experience under bare poles but I read somewhere
> >that most designs that lay bow to wind tend to have full keels,
> >whereas most modern designs will tend to lay abeam. Do you have any
> >experience in this?
>
> OK, here's some stuff out of left field. I own a Viking 33, a C&C
> design commissioned by Ontario Yachts, who did the Niagara 31 and 35s.
> This is a well-built racer-cruiser that looks like a C&C 34 on a
> strict diet. Beam 9' 10, LWL 27'. and the typical enormous J of the
> era at 15'.
I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.
The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
keelers of differing aspect ratios). I haven't done much
cruising in bad weather (that's what heaters, blankets, books, and
anchors are for as far as I'm concerned), and my blue water work has
all been with bigger crews (4 minimum), so we always actively sailed
through the tough stuff.
Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
the
wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
Way too much windage too far forward.
I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com
Bob Whitaker
> I owned a Cal-34 for many years.
>
Hello from a fellow Cal owner. I have a Cal 25, but even though Dave
and Jaja Martin sailed theirs (heavily modified) around the world, I
don't think I'll be attempting the same feat :) I belong to a list of
Cal owners, and when asked which Cal they would consider for extended
offshore cruising, most votes came in for the Cal 34 (medium size) and
the Cal 40 or 46 (larger size).
> Weak points are the deck stepped mast, the wood supporting
> column below decks, the chainplates, mast, spreaders, and
> the fibreglass keel shell.
>
I actually prefer a deck stepped mast, but I think you are referring
to the wood below, right? Yes, my ideal boat would be a fiberglass
shell and I would re-build the interior completely. I'm not quite
ready to build my own hull, but there's this guy Glenn Ashmore who is
building his own from scratch (www.rutuonline.com). He is something of
a hero to me.
> There are very few sailboats under 45 feet on which I'd want
> to spend more than a day or two in offshore conditions.
>
Just out of curiosity, which "small" boats make your short list, and
why? :)
Thanks,
Bob Whitaker
"Free Spirit"
Wayne.B <WayneBatR...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aklk50hvacqd7bomi...@4ax.com>...
Bob Whitaker
> Dear Bob-
> You take [...] me [...] far too seriously.
>
Thanks for pointing that out... I'll try not to make the same mistake
in the future :)
> As for "Blue Water Cruiser" that is strictly an
> advertising phrase.
>
And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
rude to anyone who uses the term, right? How is that _ANY_ different
from the other rude behavior which we see in this newsgroup? Or is it
OK for _SOME_ members to be rude but not others? Maybe it takes an
outsider to tell it like it is, Doug, but once in a while you tend to
behave in the same manner as the creatures you despise. My Mom told me
once that: "--Only your mother will tell you if you have bad breath."
and Doug, sometimes you have bad breath. Everybody is entitled to make
mistakes and you made a mistake. Whether you recognize it or not is a
different matter and remains to be seen. I will assume that deep down
inside you truly regret your snotty comment which opened this entire
thread and that you would take it back if you could (even if you are
loath to admit it). Please advise if my assumption is correct or
mistaken.
Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time."
DSK
> And the fact that it's a "marketing term" makes it acceptable to be
> rude to anyone who uses the term, right?
Oh grow up.
Fresh Breezes
Doug King
Wayne.B
wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, which "small" boats make your short list, and
>why? :)
==================================================
There's no substitute for length and displacement if you want to be
even halfway comfortable offshore. If you like the old Cal's, I'd
probably pick the 40.
JAXAshby
>even halfway comfortable offshore.
unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.
unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.
unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
on a BIG boat.
JAXAshby
Bob Whitaker
> Oh grow up.
>
There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
his own words. All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude." That's all he needed
to say Ladies and Gentlemen. But, instead, when coming face to face
with his rude behavior his response is: "--Grow up." I wonder who's
the one that needs to do some growing up around here? That's too bad,
Doug, as we were really rooting for you on the sidelines. We were
really hoping you were truly different from the riff-raff you are so
fond of pontificating against. I guess you have shown your true mettle
(or lack thereof).
Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker
"Disinfecting the world, one toilet at a time... but I guess there's
some outhouses that are just festering cesspools and should be filled
in rather than disinfected."
DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:<MLA6c.63758$p77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
DSK
> There you go, Ladies and Gentlemen, Doug "The Fresh Toilet King" in
> his own words.
In your own words, you seem to be obsessed with toilets.
> ... All he had to say is: "--Yes Bob, you are right. I was
> just trying to be funny. I'm sorry I was rude."
But I have no need or desire to apologize. If I was rude, it was rather
mild. Your reaction has been on a scale with BittyBill and Jax... both
of whom are buffoons. Do I care about their opinions? Should I care
about yours?
In your first post, you displayed a number of prejudices regarding
offshore sailing, and that you weren't really interested in advice
unless it was either agreed with your prejudices or was offered ever so
humbley.
I *did* offer some good advice, although without any apology whatever
for disagreeing with your prejudices. You got all pissy because I popped
your balloon. Life is tough sometimes.
DSK
DSK
>>even halfway comfortable offshore.
>
> JAXAshby wrote:
> unless, of course, you have to change out a 600 square foot mainsail or 800
> foot genoa in building sea and wind conditions.
That's when skill & forethought, and having the proper equipment in the
first place, come into play.
>
> unless, of course, your back is wrenched from hauling up the 45# anchor and
> 300# of chain by hand because the windlass battery crapped out.
That's when proper design, installation, and preventative maintenanc
come into play.
>
> unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
> on a BIG boat.
Whatsamatta Jax, you hate everybody that can afford a bigger & nicer
boat than you?
Clearly you don't think ahead enough to realize that many of these types
of problems can be avoided by thinking ahead. But that doesn't mean it
applies to everybody.
DSK
JAXAshby
JAXAshby
>I have no need or desire to apologize
and explains thusly:
>I was rude, it was rather
>mild.
and continues:
>Should I care
>about yours (opinion)?
>
>
>DSK
JAXAshby
on the bay gives advice on offshore sailing thusly:
DSK
> dougies, who found himself too old and weak to continue to sail his Nimrod 19
> on the bay gives advice on offshore sailing thusly:
That's odd, if I were too old and weak to sail a small cruising boat I
probably wouldn't be doing this
Jax, meet fact. Fact, meet Jax. Now try and stay acquainted, y'hear?
DSK
Bob Whitaker
> But I have no need or desire to apologize.
>
Need, my dear friend, yes. Desire? It has been well established you
don't.
> In your first post, you displayed [...] that you
> weren't really interested in advice
>
Is that so? Then why would I post a question in the first place? Maybe
you've forgotten my first post. Why don't you re-read it. Why on earth
would I say: "--What other boats do folks recommend?" if I wasn't
really interested in their advice? I'm sorry but it's just too easy to
pick your arguments apart Doug :)
> I *did* offer some good advice,
>
Yes, you did offer _SOME_ advice. I'll grant you that. For those who
may not have seen the first post, I show Doug's "good" advice below:
On a message dated: 2004-03-12 08:31:43 PST Doug "The Fresh Toilet
King" wrote:
>>My first advice is to drop the phrase "blue water cruiser."
>>It makes you sound like you want to be the Tidy Bowl man.
>>
By his own account Doug King is a bit confused and thinks that people
who use the term "blue water" are talking about toilet disinfectants.
As stated earlier he probably thinks that the term "green water"
refers to the competing brand. Who knows what he thinks when he hears
the term getting "pooped".
I'm sorry Doug, but you are just too easy a target. You were rude.
Admit it. In your own words you said: "--If I was rude, it was rather
mild." And I will grant you that as well. It was rather mild and it
was rather entertaining at that. But rude nonetheless.
> You got all pissy because I popped
> your balloon.
>
Wrong, again! I'm rather entertained by the whole brouhaha. Soundly
defeating you at your own game is rather entertaining if not very
challenging. It seems like you are the one getting all pissy because
somebody has called your bluff.
Since we are offering each other advice, here's some advice for you:
My advice is for you to stick to sailing in your posts. You are smart,
knowledgeable and experienced. People could benefit from what you have
to say, instead of just dismissing posts signed by "DSK". Try to let
people come to respect your opinion by the quality of your posts and
don't try to get snotty with strangers. The world would be a better
place for it.
Fresh Toilets- Bob Whitaker
DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message news:<EXH6c.63881$p77....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
JAXAshby
Jax
capn...@yahoo.com (Bob Whitaker) wrote in message news:<27dcd52b.04031...@posting.google.com>...
BinaryBillThesailor@Sea++.com BinaryBillThesailor@Sea++.com
melted from the welding.
BB
DSK <dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<4055F9A6...@bellsouth.net>...
> Gould 0738 wrote:
>
> > The smokestack motif looks a little better on the cabin top than a big FRP box
> > might, expecially with "PROPANE" emblazoned on the side.
>
> What I really like about the smokestack is the way it attracts the attention of
> all the envious cretins who will never be able to afford a boat with one.
>
> Fair Skies
> Doug King
BinaryBillThesailor@Sea++.com BinaryBillThesailor@Sea++.com
BB
jaxa...@aol.com (JAXAshby) wrote
>
>
> and, so it goes.
Wayne.B
>unless, of course, you are short of bux and worrying because you spent the wad
>on a BIG boat.
======================================================
I have no problem with small boats but no one should ever be misled
into believing that they are adequate offshore cruisers. There's no
question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
and down wind conditions.
rhys
<pede...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I'll second that one. Forgot about the Viking 33 but it is a good boat too.
I stumbled on a bit of a deal, despite the extensive restoration and
refitting I am gradually doing. I only found out after I learned to
sail it that it's a bit of a hot rod, and yet built "old school"
enough to take pretty brutal conditions. Or, at least, the blessedly
brief, but still significant seas Lake Ontario can generate. A line
squall here is as bad as anywhere, and you want a tough boat if you
decide to stay out for the filling-in wind that follows.
>
>The advice given later in the post is right on. I've never laid under bare
>poles except as an experiment on deliveries, and the boats I've done this
>in all seemed to end up lying abeam to the seas (they've all been fin
>keelers of differing aspect ratios).
It's appropriate for the kind of boats that are pretty rare these
days. I would lie abeam in a Contessa 26 if I thought it would help,
because it's got a hull like a fortune cookie. Fin keelers get slapped
around too much and if they are carrying sail, they can tip brutally.
>
>Bare poles always seemed to be a technique used only in desperate
>situations. Whether a boat lies bow to the wind (this being a relative
>term, I think you mean something above maybe 60 degrees or so) is
>mostly a function of windage. More windage aft and you will lie closer to
>the
>wind, but I can guarantee that if you have a roller furling headsail or high
>freeboard at the bow and low freeboard aft you will never do so.
>Way too much windage too far forward.
I agree. I prefer active sailing with a reefed staysail (ideally) or a
storm jib tacked low or on a short (3-5 foot) pendant. For my boat's
design, this is a good tactic. For others, it would be wrong. I find
reading old cruising narratives (Hiscocks, Roth, Moitessier, etc.) and
even racing stuff from the '60s (Chichester, Rose, Knox-Johnson,
Taberly) has helped to shape my heavy-weather ideas. I carry enough
line for warps off the stern, but have never had to slow the boat down
that much. Which I count as a Good Thing.
>
>I think the current thinking is that laying under bare poles is a pretty
>risky technique. Most boats tend to lie beam to the seas and this is
>the most vulnerable position (Van Dorn says if you are beam to
>a breaking wave approximately the beam of your boat you are likely to
>be capsized and tank testing has confirmed that). I think the choices
>are either active sailing (many boats can actually sail upwind in
>big wind and waves under autopilot if the waves are relatively
>consistent and the wind doesn't fluctuate too much), or using some
>sort of drag device. The Drag Device Database is a good place to
>read up on that - lots of good true stories about what works and
>what might not. I think the author has a web site at www.dddb.com
Thanks. Even in theory, this stuff gets filed for future reference,
and I do intend to world cruise one day. Odds are, if I recall, only
circa 5-10% that I'll encounter 40 knots plus sustained in any given
passage (I forget where I heard this), and some people cruise for
years and years without ever getting seriously whacked by weather, but
I remember the Scout motto when I am at the tiller...<G>
R.
>
>
>
DSK
> ... Soundly
> defeating you at your own game is rather entertaining if not very
> challenging.
If you're repeating yourself, you're defeating yourself.
And it looks as though you are entertained by toilets.
Tell us again why you're interested in sailing? It seems to take a back
seat to kindergarten squabbling.
DSK
Dick
>question that people can, and do, go offshore in small boats. That
>doesn't mean it's a comfortable sail however. It's more like spending
>a week in a washing machine unless you are blessed with fair weather
>and down wind conditions.
Depends on the boat. Our Orion 27 (made by Pacific Seacraft) is pretty
comfortable in rough conditions. It can keep up with bigger boats (about 35 to
40 feet) both into and downwind in those rough conditions too.
I am defining rough conditions as over 25 knots.
Dick