SetSail.com - the serious cruising sailor's website

I have recently seen a Macgregor 65 which has been set up for cruising for two people with a smaller rig and deeper draft. I am wondering if you have any knowledge of the capabilities these boats have for cruising. This boat has only been used for cruising the West Coast of America and Baja. Hope you can help. Thanks in advance. Bye for now. Brent G.

PS - I would be using this boat mostly for cruising between Australia and New Zealand and to the South Pacific Islands.

Hi Brent: The Macgregor 65 is an interesting concept. Assuming that there is sufficient ultimate stability to get you back upright after a capsize, the only question I would want to examine closely was structural integrity.

You are cruising in the best part of the world, but also in one of the areas with the worst weather. The coasts of Australia and the Tasman Sea can develop truly awful weather very quickly - as I'm sure you know. So, you will want a boat that can deal with adversity and get you home safely. The length to beam ratios make the Mac 65 an easy boat to drive and it should track better than fat boats. But you need to make sure of the structural capability of all of the elements which contribute to your safety! - Steve

We are considering buying a Gulfstar 47 Sailmaster and are interested in your comments concerning the Sailmaster 50. I.E. that it was never intended for world cruising and its lack of performance. Friends that own these 47's claim the boat sails great (at least the sloop rig) and it does quite well in heavy weather. Any comments regarding sloop versus ketch rigs? Please be specific about why you feel this way as I'm very interested in this boat - as you said, there is massive space and livability.

Hi Gordon: Tough question. Without seeing a stability curve for the Sailmasters I'd be hard pressed to comment on their suitability. And then there is the whole question of what is your definition of heavy weather? I would guess that as long as you had no structural or systems problem, i.e., the boat was under control and sound, that you could deal with moderate heavy weather. But I suspect that the range of positive stability might not be as great as might be ideal for severe conditions. There's a lot of boat up high and not a huge amount of draft or ballast to offset it.

On the performance front, the boat will be slow to weather, and sluggish in light airs. But that definition fits a lot of cruising boats. So it's a question of if you want to trade the space for the performance. For local sailing, maybe doing the East Coast, and working your way down island this is not going to be a huge problem.

One of my concerns would be the basic structure, keel, steering, and rig integrity. As you pointed out, these boats are typically not thought of in context of thousands of blue water miles. A good survey, and a check of the history of the boats will shed some light on this subject.

To get the same interior space and good heavy weather ability plus boat speed you would need to go longer. So there are some benefits to the configuration. It is just a question to how you weigh the pros and cons. Good Luck! - Steve

Dear Dashews: A quite wonderful website. The most interesting and informative I have ever come across in any field of interest. I shall certainly be buying some or all of your books. In the meantime, a word of advice, if you have time: I noted your comments about one of the Beneteau designs.

First question: do you have a view as to the suitability of the Oceanis 473 for deepwater cruising? It seems to me to be quite a lot of boat for the money in this part of the world (UK) - compared for instance with the clearly excellent but extremely pricey Hallberg-Rassey equivalent.

Second question: conceivably you might think single-handed offshore cruising to be inadvisable, but would the 473 lend itself to that, if suitably set up?

Third question: do you rate the boom furling equipment now available? - I am thinking in particular of a New Zealand design the name of which I have forgotten but have seen in action. It seems pretty handy and of course permits a a fully-battened main with a decent roach.

With kind regards and deep admiration, Neil

Hi Neil: 1-All of the high volume light displacement (charter inspired) designs have certain advantages and shortcomings. On the plus side, they cost less to build and offer a lot of interior room - and they don't sail that badly in protected waters. However, in heavy weather they are difficult to control, and often have problems with capsize recovery. There are a couple of reports from the MAIB in the UK in our Surviving the Storm on this subject. I'm not sure I would want to be stuck in a fall gale in Biscay or a Norther in the Gulf Stream in one of these boats. But good seamanship (and luck) will overcome a lot.

2-We look at single handing and sailing as a couple in the same light - one person has to be able to do it all. You can easily do this without getting overly fancy - we prefer slab reefing to any of the integral systems - on a boat of the size range you are discussing (or substantially larger).

3-I have no direct experience with in boom or in mast furling gear, and have been able to dissuade all of our clients from going in that direction. However, there are apparently some good systems out there. But you do need to use it carefully or fouls will result (boom angle to the wind and the horizontal angle are both important). Good Luck - Steve

DEAR STEVE, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME HANS CHRISTIAN MARK 2 CUTTERS, AND HAVE COME ACROSS A VESSEL 21 YEARS OLD, REFITTED WITH NEW RIGGING AND ELECTRIC'S PLUS RADAR ETC. IN 2001, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. (VERBAL! BUT INVENTORY PLUS SURVEY IN 2001 ON ITS WAY.) SHE WAS BUILT FOR THE PRESENT OWNER. THE PRICE IS WITHIN MY RANGE BUT SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN MANY OF HER STABLE OF THE SAME VINTAGE. INFORMATION LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THAT SHE'S IN EXCELLENT CONDITION ( A NEW SURVEY WOULD BE FIRST ON THE LIST). I'VE GONE THROUGH THE Q & A AND SO ON BUT NO MENTION OF HANS CHRISTIAN'S. YOUR ENCYCLOPEDIA PLUS CD IS ON ITS WAY AND THERE SHALL PROBABLY BE SOMETHING IN IT. HOWEVER YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND I CAN'T WAIT. I'M SURE YOU'VE COME ACROSS THEM IN YOUR TRAVELS. THEIR A RARITY IN OZ, MAINLY DUE TO THEIR COST (OZ SHOULD'VE STAYED ON THE GOLD STANDARD ! AYN RAND WAS RIGHT !) PLUS THE FACT THAT ONLY 900 HAVE BEEN BUILT SINCE THE COMPANY'S FORMATION IN 1980.

MY QUESTION IS IN 2 PARTS.
(1) WHAT DO YOU THINK OF HANS CHRISTIANS ?
(2) SHE IS IN THE NORTH-WEST AND I'D LIKE TO HIRE A SKIPPER TO DELIVER HER TO SYDNEY AND TRAVEL MYSELF AS SUPER CARGO. I'D NO DOUBT LEARN SOMETHING AND MAY EVEN BE OF ASSISTANCE. (MY HEALTH IS STILL VERY IFFY). WHAT WOULD THE CHARGE FOR A PROFESSIONAL TO DO A JOB LIKE THIS ? A MEDIAN FIGURE ?
EVEN A BALL PARK FIGURE! WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE SOME IDEA. HOPE YOU'VE TIME TO HELP ME WITH THIS AS I'VE ALWAYS LOVED THE OLD WORLD CHARM OF THESE BOATS. CHARM DOESN'T FLOAT !

REGARDS TO YOU, ANTONY M

Hi Anthony: We've seen a number of the HCs out cruising - there have been a lot of them built. The basic issue is structural and system soundness. If that is OK, and you love the design concept, and the price is right, the boat should be fine.

That said, this design type is not what I would select. TOo much external wood which is non-functional, and heavy. It is just there for appearance. And I prefer a more modern underbody and fins.

But the key thing is to go cruising, and do it in a boat which is not only sound, but which makes your heart sing when you look at her.

Re delivery skippers, costs vary all over. I would guess you should expect to pay anything from $1.00 a mile up to maybe $2.00. But I am not very up on this service. I would also check on shipping as deck cargo. In the end, this might turn out to be less costly, when you consider the wear and tear aspects of the journey on cost. Good luck - Steve

Hi Steve, I've read your Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia and Surviving the Storm ( both are fantastic) and have some questions about a particular boat I'm considering. It's a 78 Doug Peterson design, 43' IOR. It's beamy (13' 3"), 7' 9" draft, 17,500 #'s with 9,000#'s ballast, fin keel, spade rudder. No trunk cabin or pilothouse. I read in the encyclopedia your warnings about "later" IOR boats......does this qualify? I've been unable to personally view the boat and can only rely on pictures, but it seems to have more in common with your designs in terms of hull shape and lines than, for instance, Neil Hunter's Farr 40 Around Alone boat (it was for sale awhile back). Not near as shallow as the Farr. The Peterson has what appears to be a relatively fine bow/entry angle, a bit more overhang there than I'd like though. The big draw for me is the fact that it's aluminum construction (the interior is somewhat spartan/exposed, and resembles the longitudinal and athwartships framing from your designs) and would afford me more piece of mind in terms of any changes and/or additions I would make in the future. It also appears to have more in the way of topsides than later IOR's. I have a number of other questions, but I'll stop for now. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Jeff

Hi Jeff: This sounds like one of the boats built by Carl Eichenlaub? By early IOR I typically refer to the first generation S and S boats, and similar. These boats had displacement-length ratios closer to the CCA designs, deeper canoe bodies, and modest beams (albeit beamier than CCA) and hence relatively balanced lines.

I don't clearly recall the shape of the early Peterson boats, but my recollection is that they had a reputation for being tough to control downwind in strong breezes. I could be wrong on this.

Probably a good boat in light to moderate conditions--most race boats of this era were optimized for light airs. However, it would be hard for me to comment accurately on the boat in a blow without seeing her or sailing on the boat. - Steve

I recently looked at a 1972 Hardin Force 50 to purchase. She has seen considerable blue water and appears to be a comfortable liveaboard. Some cosmetic work is needed, along with new sails. While I intend to have a complete survey done, I want to learn what I can about the vessel construction and/or design before jumping in. There doesn't seem to be much info out there--can you help me? Thanks.

Hi Patricia: Be sure to get a very thorough and detailed survey, including all of the structure, systems, and rigging. Many of these older Taiwanese builds left a lot to be desired in the quality and detail department. This is usually reflected in the price. Just be sure you know what you are getting into, and that the boat is suitable for your needs. Good Luck - Steve

Dear sailor friends, I recently saw a lovely 36 foot Formosa Ketch I am dreaming to acquire and get sparkling again. The woodwork needs some care. The hull looks sound as far as I can see above water. But before I get the boat hauled out, do you know of any problems with this boat, that was apparently built in 1980 in Taiwan, with 1-inch-thick fiberglass. Do you know anything about this type of boat, since I found no information in all my books and very little on the web. Thank you, Helmut S

Hi Helmut: With any boat that is 25 years old you have to do a careful survey. These vessels were built at the beginning of the boat building learning curve in Taiwan and the Taiwanese vessels in general of that era had many quality issues. These may have been corrected by previous owners. Or they may be waiting for you. Take care!

One area to look at in detail is the quality of the timber and plywood. There used to be a lot of low-grade glue in some of the ply and structures and dry rot problems.

In the end, it comes down to price, condition, and how much time (or money) you are willing to put into the project--and if they balance out. Good Luck - Steve

Dear Steve: A question if I may, in regards the suitability of the "Bruce Roberts designed Spray 40" (Joshua Slocum) for coastal and world cruising? Since I know more about lock & key's I cannot cross-reference the design style to other brands your Q & A page refers to. I have just received your Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia as an ideal Christmas gift, which is how I come to visit your site. We have already taken our 12-year plan and crunched it into an "ASAP" plan as a result of a sad loss, and I have elected to take some advice given out on your site by joining a local race club, which leads myself to second question if I can push my luck. Can a person who knows more about lock & key's, and has no sailing experience at the age of 45, safely pursue a circumnavigation dream with a family? With Thanks, David

Hi David: I am not familiars with the details of Joshua Slocum's Spray beyond having read his wonderful book many years ago. The Spray shape generates a lot of volume in a short length. However, this is not going to be as easy to self-steer, or handle in heavy weather as a longer, narrower design. Nor will it be as weatherly as a boat with a more developed keel (or deeper draft).

Now as to your second question--of course you can safely pursue offshore sailing and a circumnavigation. The main thing is to devote sufficient time to getting yourself up-to-speed on seamanship and weather skills.

There is always a conflict between getting your personal lives in order and the boat ready, with the skills which are essential. Usually the latter get short-shift. Our own feeling is that those skills, which will have a big impact on your success, should be put at the top of the list! Seamanship and weather--and then learning how to handle your boat in heavy weather.

One final thought--spend as little as possible and keep the boat as simple as possible to start. Then, once you have real world experience, start to decide what you really want on board. Almost everything you decide in the absence of real world experience will turn out to be wrong! Good Luck - Steve

Dear Steve and Linda, At the end of summer 2004 I plan to leave on an extended cruise/possible circumnavigation on a 25-foot Hunter. It's an older version, around 1984 or so, with the solid keel at four feet draft and not the plastic trailerable type hunters of today. God willing, I will sail from Lake Erie to the Atlantic, through the Erie Canal and Hudson River, through the Intra-coastal down to the Keys, and eventually through the Panama Canal into the South Pacific. My question is one of concern for the seaworthiness of the boat. She handles lake conditions well but I fear her light displacement might cause some due risk if ever caught in severe open ocean weather. I am 28 and hold a Captain's License for unlimited tonnage and have long since looked at righting moments and different load plans for the trip. I was hoping you could provide some experienced insight and opinion on whether or not this particular boat may be considered a safe passage maker. Thank you very much for your time. - Gunar

Hi Gunar: I am not familiar with the Hunter 25. However, security is much more an issue of seamanship than the boat, as I am sure you know. For a boat in this size range I would look to something with a proven track record offshore, like a Virtue, or even a Cal 25--heavily beefed up--as the SetSail correspondents Dave and JaJa Martin circumnavigated with. Good Luck - Steve

Steve: I bought a 22-year-old C&C 34 a little over a year ago. Had her surveyed and she was sound. Since then I have refitted her from stem to stern and from top to bottom. New rigging (standing and running), all new ground tackle, full electrical upgrades (wiring, batteries, etc), and the list goes on and on. I have brought aboard safety equipment that I feel is absolutely necessary (e.g. Winslow life raft, GAPER, several GPSs--two are chart plotters--etc, etc.).

With all of this I still have the nagging feeling about my boats survivability under adverse conditions. I feel confident in my skills, but still the feeling exists about my boat. If you are not familiar with the C&C 34, she is 33'6" in length, 11' at the beam, medium height single spreader rig (again, with all new rod rigging), a 20 hp Yanmar diesel that works every time. But still, I have this feeling about her, even though I've had her out in 20-30 knot winds and she's brought me back every time.

I use her for coastal cruising and plan some small coastal trips to Mexico. If you know, what's your opinion of C&C's, and especially my C&C 34? I would be most grateful to hear your response. Martin

Hi Martin: The most important thing in heavy weather is the skill mix of the crew. A long way after this on the list comes the boat. Lots of cruising folks with poor heavy weather skills have gotten into trouble in well built, well equipped boats. And lots of good sailors make it through horrible weather in inadequate boats.

Re: your boat in particular, very few production boats are built for heavy weather. They are typically built for the average conditions in which they sail 99.99% of the time. I am not familiar with the C&C 34 itself, but if you are talking about dealing with a really severe storm with potential rollovers involved, your instincts are probably correct. - Steve

Hi there, I am currently going through the selection process of a boat for a three-year circumnavigation by way of the canals. Given a limited budget of £60,000 for a boat capable of sleeping four friends (as opposed to two couples!) I keep coming back to ex-charter Beneteaus, Jeanneaus and Bavarias. I have read your comments about the high centre of gravity etc. But if you had to select from one of these makes which model would you consider most suitable for cruising? Many thanks in advance for your reply. - Will

Hi Will: I would not select any of them. Rather, for your budget I'd buy an older, heavier, narrower, and longer design, which would have a more comfortable motion and be safer in heavy going. There would be less space in which to live, but that is one of the trade-offs with which you are faced.

Having said this, there are people who make successful voyages in all sorts of boats. The skill of the crew in handling the boat in heavy weather is equal to or more important than the design. Good luck with whatever you do! - Steve

Hi, I am deciding between a Newporter 41 & an Islander Freeport 41. My boyfriend & I plan to cruise around the Caribbean for a fairly extended period & both of us have heard mixed reviews about the sailing capabilities of each (spanning...sails pretty good, handles like a dog, porpoises through the water, handles well for a cruising boat). We're not interested in a high performance racing boat, but we will want to be able to head up into the wind in rough weather. I've found basically no info on the Newporter 41, & not too much on the other. Can you help? - Barb

Hi Barb: If we are talking about the same boats, the Newport 41 is a very nice sailboat, and will go uphill reasonably well for a boat of its size and configuration. The Freeport 41 is no designed or built as an open ocean boat. But has lots of space. Better for the Bahamas and ICW, but I would not want to make uphill passages aboard against the Caribbean trades. Steve

Hi Steve, I'm reading Offshore Cruising Enc. at the moment, which is excellent. We are a couple in the mid 30's and plan to set sail along the Tradewinds on a Columbia 43 (MK I - 1970) we have seen and plan to buy. As you started in a Columbia 50, we would appreciate your feelings about Columbia 43's for Tradewind sailing (and maybe more in future). We are not too happy with the deep draft and the unprotected rudder, however, she seems safe, comfortable, with lots of room and most importantly, she would be in line with our budget for that size of waterline! Any thoughts? Thanks a lot !!! Stephan

The first time I was aboard a Columbia 43 I thought "what a clever design". High volume hull and interior, reasonable fins, not a bad cruising cockpit. This was many, many years ago, and Bill Tripp Sr., the designer, was in his prime.

The only thing I didn't like was the high freeboard, in the context of getting back aboard if someone went over. I still don't know the answer to that one--except a good system for hoisting. But then this is now a feature of all modern boats and the freeboard doesn't look so high any more!

Assuming the boat is structurally sound--something you will want to check with a thorough survey--there is no reason not to go cruising in a Col 43. They offer a lot of boat for the money. The spade rudder does not bother me, again as long as it is sound, and offers good control. Draft can be a problem in some areas, but you probably know those trade-offs. And there is no substitute for draft when it comes to performance.

Just be sure to carefully survey the boat, paying attention to the keel, rudder, rig, bulkhead connections, chain plates, and all the other usual items. Good Luck--Steve

Steve: Are there two versions of the Sundeer 60, a shorter 56 and a longer 60? With a 60ft is this perhaps why the owner of TOUCAN moved the rudder further aft? Would it make sense to do it, i.e. would it improve control, say, downwind; are there any drawbacks? Have other 60's done the same? I'd be interested in your thoughts; haven't been able to speak with the owner. In advance, thanks...Peter

Hi Peter: The rudder was moved aft to make room for a bigger engine/prop on TOUCAN. It would help steering, but then we've never heard any reports of the normal rudder position being a problem in heavy going.

The hull was drawn at 60'--then shortened three feet to make the 57-footer (Sundeer 56).--Steve

I am now interested in a 40 foot Newporter that seems to be in great shape. I'm the guy from Alaska and wanted a motorsailer. Do you know anything about these boats? There was 122 made, an older model but appears to have nice lines to her. The only thing I might wonder about is the freeboard. She is nice and heavy at 30,000# 5600 in the keel. I happened to love wooden boats. This is a cold mold with fiber glass. I anxiously wait your response. Cheers, Spike

Hi Spike: I first sailed on a Newporter in the mid 1950s--it was a radical boat in those days. I like the lines. Not sure if they are suited for heavy weather as it depends on the center of gravity for range of positive stability. But if that is OK, the boat should do OK. Other issue is structure--so you need to check the boat carefully looking for all the usual telltale signs. Certainly for hanging out in the AK and Can. channels with that nice pilot house it would be hard to go wrong! Steve

Another question to add to "The Right Boat" category, if you have a moment. I would certainly appreciate a comment or two regarding Gulfstars as a sailing boat, specifically the cutter-rigged Gulfstar 44. Anticipated use would be primarily coastal cruising and island-hopping in the Caribbean.

Hi George: The Gulfstars were generally heavily built. We've had several friends cruise extensively on the Gulfstar 50. The 44, 50, and 53 typically offer a lot of boat for the money. They won't be as fast as more modern designs, but you get a lot more interior space and storage space for the $$$. As usual, be sure and get a thorough survey! Steve

Steve, I wonder if you have had a look at the Aerodyne 47 with regard to use for bluewater cruising. I also wonder if the hull can take the bumps and knocks from extended cruise. Thanks, Howard.

Hi Howard: I have only seen the press data on this boat, so I don't have an opinion. Friends who have sailed aboard report the boat does perform well. As to structure, I would ask Roger Martin (designer) about the factors of safety--and how she will do when hitting a coral head or rock at speed. Also, what the stress level in rudder is when grounded and when sailing at high speed. Steve

I am struggling to form a view on the suitability of the CSY 44 (1980 vessel with longish keel, but cut away at front I believe) for offshore cruising with a 4'11" shoal draft. A Cruising World article of 1997 said that the shoal draft (deep is 6'6") has a significantly reduced righting moment and recommended the deep keel for offshore. I am interested in: 1. Stability/righting moment (this is important to me) and 2. Sailing ability for world cruising--i.e. how much harder is the shoal keel, the impression I am getting is that it is not good for that sort of cruising--to the point of not being suitable at all? Many thanks

Hi Barbara: There is no way to know for certain what the range of stability will be with any boat, unless you have detailed design data, or do an inclining test to determine stability and couple this with the hull shape and weight to work up the figures. Most US magazines tend to not print negative comments--so if there is something along the lines you mention in Cruising World, I would give it some weight (of course they often make mistakes too). Another approach is to check with insurance carriers for the record of losses on the boat type you are considering. If you like everything else about the shoal draft version, but not the LPS, you can always add lead to the bottom of the keel to improve the righting moments and LPS. This is not a big deal on most boats--especially if they have external lead. Good luck--Steve

I got a Hylas 44 surveyed as part of my purchase of that boat. I want the boat (1989) to take it to the South Pacific with my wife. Do you know that design? Do you think is a good boat for that trip? Thanks!

Hi Pablo: Almost any boat will do as long as it has a good range of positive stability and is in good condition. Much more important than the boat is the skills of her crew. The Hylas 44 is a nice looking craft and I would imagine it should be OK, if it is in good condition. Steve

I am looking at a 63' 1985 aluminum hull Deerfoot. Could you tell me more about her? Thank you Bruce

Hi Bruce: Sorry about being so late in answering--been cruising. I assume the boat you are looking at is a sister-ship to our own Intermezzo 11--about which there are a lot of details in our Offshore Cruising Ency. I have not seen this boat for 15 years or so, so I am not very up to date on her systems. Originally, she was a very nice boat. Steve

Hi Steve. Recently, we talked about a Cal46-2 as a cruising boat for a retired couple. What do you think about the CSY-44? It looks like there are more of those out there and they are priced in my price range. Sidney

Hi Sidney: The CSY 44 will not be as fast or do as well in heavy weather as the Cal 2-46, but the key is to go cruising sooner rather than later--so if the boat fits your needs, and the price is right, go for it. Steve Dashew

I HAVE NARROWED MY SEARCH...CAL 2-46, CAROFF GALAPAGOS 50 STEEL KETCH, GARDEN PORPOISE 50 OR WELLINGTON 47. I AM GOING TO CRUISE THE SOUTH PACIFIC FOR 2-3 YEARS. ALL CAN BE OUTFITTED TO GO FOR ABOUT THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT. I LIKE THE LOOKS OF THE WELLINGTON,BUT HAVEN'T A CLUE AS I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE. I WILL INSTALL MAXSEA-YACHT. PLEASE TELL ME ABOUT WELLINGTON YACHTS AS I CAN'T FIND THEM ON THE INTERNET. ALSO WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR CHOICE OF THE FOUR BOATS GIVEN THAT THEY ARE EQUAL IN ELECTRONICS, SAILS ETC. THANK YOU GARY

Hi Gary: Sounds like you have some good choices. We've seen several Wellington 47's--as I recall they had positive buoyancy, and a lo t of interior volume. Both good features. Also, very shallow on draft. On the other hand, the beam, shallow draft, compromise performance. I am not familiar with the 50' steel ketch, but metal is very nice from a security standpoint. A key here is the condition of the hull and paint job. The Cal 2-46 is a great boat too. Bill Garden is a great designer, but the odds are the Porpoise 50 was built in Taiwan on the early part of the Taiwanese learning curve, and I'd be leery of the construction and structural details. If I had to make a decision--and assuming the hull and fin configuration was comparable on the steel boat, I'd go with the metal. I think I'd go to the Wellington second, and the Cal2-46 third--but the decision would be close, and most of it would be based on what I thought of the boat's condition. Good luck with your choice--sounds like you have some good ones--Steve Dashew

I agree with the waterline length as being very important...both to speed and comfort. On a limited budget does either a Hunter 54 or a Columbia 50 make sense as a safe and reliable cruising sailboat? Their main sailing areas will be the Caribbean and, hopefully, the Mediterranean. Other options are a Lubbe Voss 42 and a Valiant 40. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Ian

Hi Ian--that's an interesting grouping. There is no easy answer to your question--much depends on cost, and more on the skills of the crew. The Col 50 is a typical CCA design, inefficient hull, unbalanced lines which generate weather helm, but hey, if the price is right...we pushed one around the world. The Hunter 54 would be much quicker, easier to handle boat, but of course much smaller inside and perhaps a bit more bouncy as it is much lighter. Valiant 40's are nice--but costly. I guess of the three, I'd go for the H54, assuming I got a good price and the boat was sound structurally--but you could do well with any of them... Good Luck--Steve

I believe your first cruising boat (Intermezzo) was a Columbia 50? Knowing this boat a little, what were the traits about it that you really liked, and really disliked? Thanks for your reply,

Hi Norm: There's a bunch of data on this design in our Offshore Cruising Ency. Briefly, in its day, it was a good boat in light airs, awful uphill against any sort of sea, and quite reasonably priced for the end product. Also, if you like the "CCA" look, they are a pretty boat. But those long overhangs and unbalanced hull form (when heeled) make the boat a bit difficult to steer. It took the full efforts of our Aries wind vane to keep intermezzo on track in a breeze--but the Aries did the job. Note that Intermezzo had a deeper keel, more lead, a taller rig, and a much bigger rudder than the stock designs. Steve

There is a 1985 Deerfoot 72 on the market, apparently built by Dencho Marine. This design is not listed in your "Milestones." Is this one of your boats? Any info on quality or issues? Even though it is newer, it is priced considerably less than Wakaroa (it is clear from the pictures that the interior finishes are not nearly of the same quality). Thanks for any info you can provide. Mark

Hi Mark: This is the only boat to our designs that we did not build. When she originally went into the water we sailed on her with the Owners (friends) and she was quite quick downwind--which is what she was optimized for. She has since done a circumnavigation. Her original interior fit-out and systems were not to our standards, and she has been refit numerous times since her original build, so I cannot give you much information. I do know that she has sold in the past at a substantial discount to the boats on which we controlled the build, so she might offer a lot of performance and space for the money. Regards--Steve Dashew

Folks, Love your site, I have it bookmarked for future reading and have the Encyclopedia and Surviving the Storm on my Christmas list. My question also has something to do with a Christmas list, as I certainly have a Sundeer on it, but don't expect Santa to deliver it any time soon, nor a BEOWULF, as the case may be.

So, what examples are there for Early IOR/Late CCA boats that you mention in regard to "Bang for the Buck"? I don't need specific recommendations, just some models that exemplify your point. I'll do the research on what I can afford and what's available, but I do need more than "early IOR/Late CCA", as all I'm coming up with is an awful lot of editorials, criticisms, opinions, etc...about the rating systems and not about the boats themselves. Also, I haven't seen any mention, so, have you thought about licensing the manufacture of a smaller design to a top quality builder? Thanks, Kip

Hi Kip: There are so many boats from which to choose it is hard to make specific recommendations. However, here's a partial stab from the US late 60s, early 70s. Cal 40s, 48s, and 2-46s; C and C 48; Bounty 2s; Pearson Vanguard; Erickson 41s. However, there are obviosly lots more than these! Re: a smaller production boat of our own design, we've always built our own boats (with one exception) and not sold our designs. This has given us control over the end product. The problem with turning a boat builder lose with a design is the designer never knows how it will turn out. I guess we've been to control oriented to face this problem. Regards, Steve

Can you provide any special/unique info on DEERDANCER, a 1993 deerfoot 67'? Thanks.

Can't help much with details on DEERDANCER. She was designed by Ulf Rogeberg, and built at Samples in Maine by the folks that bought the Deerfoot business from us. I have not seen her, but understand she was nicely done. Regards--Steve Dashew

(top)

Hello from Andrew and Sue on MYSTIC. Just in case you cannot recall the boat, it is a 52ft aluminum "Shark 50" with a 7.3ft draft & relatively light displacement. It has been awhile since we last saw you in Bequia--at the time you said if we ever needed any help to get in touch, so here goes. Sue has decided she would rather be fixing up an old house than sailing so we are planning on putting MYSTIC up for sale. We were already planning to spend the winter in Annapolis and so are planning at least initially to put her up for sale there. Our basic questions come out of the fact that MYSTIC is fairly unique, we are not sure what she is worth, where is the best place to sell her, etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, Andrew and Sue on MYSTIC

Hi Andrew and Sue: MYSTIC has a lot going for her design and construction. She is fast, relatively easy to handle the way you have her set up, and, being built of aluminum, is tough. The downside is she is an unknown (in the US) design. So, what you need to do is get her in front of folks interested in a serious cruising boat. Her uniqueness then becomes a strength. Some specifics: To establish value you will need to look at other boats on the market and find out what they are selling for (not the asking price!). Compare based on living space, equipment, performance, and quality of build. You will need to look at a lot of boats. To market the boat there are two approaches. One is to make her available to all brokers, sending each a detailed listing with lots of photos and a very detailed equipment list. The second is to advertise the boat yourself in magazines which cater to cruisers such as Cruising World, Bluewater Sailing, and Latitude 38--using a small ad in the classifieds. Good luck with the new land-based life! Steve

Sir, I am considering the purchase of a 1992 Beneteau Oceanis 440. My ideal boat would be around 38-40 ft., but since the 440 appears to be offered at a substantial discount, both the longer waterline and the extra budget room for refit attract me.

I am keen on performance, and the 440's hull is the same of its First 45S5 sister, both designed by Farr. I don't like the high centre of gravity of the boat, and consider changing the keel (currently 1.7 m) to a deeper, lead-bulbed one, as the draft on a similar size performance boat would easily reach 2.2-2.5 m. Later on, I will upgrade the rig. I understand the boat is capable of handling the extra loads.

My question is: Would you recommend such an operation? In other words, is it worth the trouble? I reckon the keel upgrade can be achieved with a budget of circa Usd 5000, because a preventive anti-osmosis treatment already is getting me close to the keel base, thus I am only counting the cost of the new keel and installation. However, especially for lighter wings I presume only a larger sail area will make a substantial performance change over present, and on a boat of this size I assume I will get pretty close to Usd 13000-15000 for a new bigger rig.

First, on the economics of what you are doing, in general, when you upgrade a well known "class" of boat you don't normally significantly increase the value as the prices tend to be established by other boats. This is like owning the most expensive house on the block. However, when the time comes to sell, yu can usually get a price at the top of your boat's price range, and the boat will usually sell faster than her less well set-up sister ships.

Bottom line--don't look at this as an investment per se. Better to approach it as a way to get what you want at an efficient price.

If you lower the vertical center of gravity by putting on a deeper keel--a good theoretical idea with the type of boat you have as it will help with your limit of possitive stability--you are also increasing the righting moment and therefor the loads on the hull, keel floors, bulkheads, rig, and rigging. This applies when sailing, and when running aground (the latter as the keel will have a longer lever arm).

I cannot answer the question about the boat's ability to handle the increase loads. You need to sort that out with the design team or the builder, or an engineer who has a feel for these things. But, it is definitly worth checking into.

Hi--I'm planning to buy a boat for cruising round the world in the next year and have just ordered your Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia. I'm interested in prices for your range of yachts--probably looking at 60--65 ft but BEOWULF does look interesting. I would be grateful if you can send me at least budgetary figures for the base boat with basic fit-out (no instruments) and working sails. Many thanks Mark

Hi Mark: We are not building these boats any longer. There is an active brokerage market (prices seem to run from US$500/800,000) Good Luck with your hunting--Steve Dashew

Hi Steve, I have been researching the used boat market for monhulls in Florida and am looking for a 40-45 foot monohull. I have a budget of 70,000 for a used boat and then know that it may take another 30000-40000 to complete the process to have all that I would want to be safe and comfortable to take off for 5 years.

I wanted to get your advice on some hulls that I have found. First is the cost effective Morgan 41-415 and 416 years 1976 and 1978. A lot of boat for the money. But I know it is slow and the quality may not be desirable. Second is a 1977 Halberg Rassey 41. A blue water boat, a center cockpit. I feel it is solid and quality built. Has all the room we need. Third is a 1974 Soverel 48. A long water line fast boat with a hull and keel design similar to your yachts.

All the boats I look at that are aft cockpit in this size have small master cabins. The center cockpits have big master cabins. A big cabin is important to us. I know you don't like center cockpits. If I could get some advise on the above boats or if you could recommend some yachts I should be hunting for with aft cockpits that you would buy if you had my budget and size requirement. This would be most helpful to start my process right. I am trying to follow all your advise but must start with an older used yacht. Thank you so much. Good luck. Corey

Hi Corey: I think the Halberg Rassey or Soveral would be good choices design-wise. The Morgans are OK for coastal work. I'd be a little concerned offshore in a blow. Another good boat would be the Cal-48, or Cal 2-46. As to the tradeoffs between center and aft cockpits, and the master cabin size associated therewith, our own feeling is that a small master cabin and large saloon are a better use of space. This is based on the assumption that the saloon/galley area is used when we're awake, and the sleeping cabin primarily for sleeping and/or at night, when the space is not as important. With your budget, there are lots of choices. So take your time, look at tons of boats, and eventually you will find just the right situation. The main thing is not to allow the brokers to rush you... Good Luck--Steve Dashew

Hi Steve, [What are your] opinions on the Formosa design and is it a capable bluewater vessel i.e. circumnavigator. Regards, Scott

Hi Scott: That's a tough question. There are several issues. The first is the seaworthiness of the design, and I don't know enough about the boat to comment on that. The second is how well the boat is built. There are a lot of excellent boats built in Taiwan. Some yards there do work as good as the good yards in the US. But there is also a lot of unbelievable garbage that's been produced. Bottom line--a good skipper and crew can make it around in almost anything. And a crew lacking in basic skills can get in trouble in the newest, best built boat in the world. I guess I have not really answered your question--problem is, there are no easy answers here. Good Hunting--Steve Dashew

Hi Steve, Thanks for the input on the SD 60. Ever set one up as a ketch? Also, somewhere in my readings of your work, I believe you stated that you calculated displacement differently than most boats so that an allowance for the typical load of stuff that offshore cruisers carry is in the total displacement figure for the boat. Does this mean that the figure usually given for most boats, say on a PHRF certificate, is not the same as the number for displacement for your designs? Also, what kind of ratings would your SD 60 or DF 58 get under the various handicap systems, not to be used to judge the boat but to see how I might fare in a race. Thanks for your help, Crawford

1-The smallest split rigs we've done have started in the 65' range.
2-Our design displacements have almost always been at full cruising payload. However, we've seen over the years that some clients can actually cram in more "stuff" than we think possible!
3-PHRF is a comittee rule and I have no idea how the boats would fare. I know that under the Caribbean handicap rule you would do OK on the reaching races--but around the buoys, with a lot of upwind/downwind work, you would not do well due to the shallow draft. IMS should be OK against like cruisers, but you would need to be sure the ends of the boat were lightened up for pitching motion. A key factor, of course, is your sail inventory.

In general, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make a boat with the attributes of a good cruiser into a race boat(i.e. good steering characteristics in heavy going, shallow draft, modest rig proportions). On the other hand, the boats you are talking about will make much faster short-handed passages than any of the race boats which might be faster on handicap or elapsed time around the race course. It is simply a case of deciding what you want to optimize for...Steve

Hi Dashews--After many months of research and viewing, we have found our first boat! We are buying a 1964 Cal 40 in mostly lovely condition for about 50K. I would like your opinion on a couple of concerns I had about the boat.

1. We had an engine survey done and the V-drive needs replacing--what other mechanical systems would V-drive failure affect? Stuffing box? Prop? etc?

2. I have been trying to find out specifics on the hull construction (I was told it was made of 5 hand-laid layers of fiberglass & would be thrilled to find out if that's true!) but am not having much luck. Are there any non-destructive tests that can be done on hulls to check the condition & thickness of the fiberglass?

3. I have done enough research to know that the tabbing on the Cal 40s is weak and that there are some concerns with the deck-hull joint. Will a surveyor specifically check the bulkheads and the d-h joint for signs of weakness as a matter of course or do I need to instruct him as to what exactly I want inspected?

4. There is some minor decay on the bridge beam--what's the best way to stop it? Any info at all would be appreciated--we set sail for the first time ever in June!! Thanks, Erin

Re V-drive failure, this would not specifically create any other problems. However, you may want to upgrade to a modern "dripless" stuffing box. Also, check the shaft for alignment, remove and replace the prop-to-V-drive coupling, checking it for wear, and be sure to check the pressure plate on the flywheel.

The pressure plate is a tricky situation. You want to be sure that it is the correct plate for the engine/transmission. This is not so much an engineering issue as what works over time.

Easiest way to check hull construction is to take a small core--of course, then you need to fill the hole. The core can be checked for laminate, glass-to-resin ratio, and moisture. I think the Cal 40s were all mat and woven roving--no core in the hulls.

As to the survey, it always helps to give the surveyor a heads up on what you want checked--and to double-check yourself. For bulkheads tabbing, check it all the way around on all bulkheads. This will take a little extra work, but is not that difficult. Any loose tabbing needs to be re-bonded of course. The hull-to-deck joint is more difficult. It needs to be checked of course, but what you are looking for is signs of past leakage. This will also get you into how the toe rail, deck hardware, stanchions, and chain plates are bedded. If the boat has not been sailed hard, she might have leaks (probably will have leaks) and they won't show.

To get a handle on all of the potential leaks spots around the perimeter you are going to have to remove any hull coverings, empty lockers, etc. I am not familiar with the "bridge beam" you mention. GIve me a more detailed discription and I will try and respond. Regards--Steve Dashew

Hi Steve: I have been admiring your crafts for some time now, and probably like everyone else, I am a big fan of your brilliant designs...speaking of brilliant designs have you stopped production on the Sundeer 64 and if not what are the price tags on one of those? I found a charter service online that uses one of these great cruisers and hope to charter it soon if I can get the chance. I would love to get a feel for it! thanks Michael L

Hi Michael: Production Sundeers are no longer being built...and thanks for the nice comments. Steve

Dear Steve and Linda, I've been in the process of looking for a used boat to spend the next number of years sailing...everything from long offshore passages to time in the Caribbean. For many years, in the late 70's and early 80's, I built very traditional wooden boats, sailed mostly traditional boats.

While looking at a 31' Camper Nicholson the other day, I spied an older Freedom 33' Cat ketch. She was really beautiful, and I remembered how fascinated I was the boats when they were first introduced. I know that you and Linda have pushed the edges of innovation in designing and sailing offshore boats. What's your opinion of the boat as an ocean passagemaker? Thanks for your opi

"The Right Boat" Q & A