# Cheoy Lee Offshore 40



## Ganderbay (Dec 19, 2002)

I am currently looking to buy this boat and I am very interested in views of other boat owners or others familiar with this boat.
It has been recently upgraded (new mast, standing rigging, engine etc.
Thanks.
Ernie.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

Nice boats, but that can be a lot of teak.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

These were a reworked version of the Rhodes Reliant. I had the priviledge of spending a fair amount of time sailing one of these in Miami in the early 1970''s. These are absolutely beautiful boats to look at both above and below decks. The one that I knew had the same layout as the Reliant which was an aft cockpit/Aft cabin layout that had two companionways. This was a very practical layout and resulted in some nice features but also resulted in some strange features such as having to walk on deck to get to the main cabin companionway and a very strange vee berth if I remember correctly. The one that I sailed was a yawl but over the years I have seen some sloop versions as well. 

As to sailing ability, even in their day these were slow boats. The story that went around, and was told to me by the owner of the boat that I sailed on, was that the interiors of these boats so far exceeded Rhodes'' design weights that the boats really gave up a lot of performance. To get them back on their lines, the ballast weights were reduced some and so was the sail plan. This resulted in a boat that was undercanvased and really poor in light air, and pretty tender in a breeze. They also had very short waterlines which really limited thier performance in moderate breezes as well. Not a good combination. 

In the short wave patterns off of Miami these boats had a tendancy to pitch a lot, making work on the foredeck pretty uncomfortable. They were also pretty rolly, although I understand that the boats with the lighter aluminum rigs were less prone to rolling through as wide an angle.

I some times see these boats refered to as "full keel". They are not by any reasonable definition a full keel. They are really are approaching being fin keelers with attached rudders (by the classic definition of a fin keel being a keel that is 50% or less than the length over all or the length of the sailplan.) This means that they really do not really offer the advantages of either keel type (i.e. the tracking, rudder protection or ease of haul out of a full keel, or the manueverability, speed, and light helm of a fin keel boat.) 

Build quality was a mixed bag. The owner of the boat that I knew, a boat that was less than 10 years old when I was sailing on her, complained about all kinds of quality issues. There were all kinds of deck leaks and with the Teak over plywood decks this was a very serious concern to him. Much of the hardware was made by Cheoy Lee and while beautiful to look at, replacement parts were non-existant and items like winches were somewhat undersized for the loads involved. Not that they would fail but they really required alot of strength to use in any breeze at all. He also had a number of electrical, dissimilar metals/electrolysis (had to replace a number of seacocks and throughhulls) and plumbing problems. His boat had a mix of iron and ss tanks if I remember right. Imagine these will need to be replaced if they haven''t been.

From all of this you may get the impression that I don''t like these boats. That is not the case. These are really beautiful old boats to sail. By now many of the original construction''issues'' have probably been sorted out. They are an interesting slice of history and would make a neat boat to own if speed is not a concern and you lived in an area with predominantly moderate winds. Sailing these old boats offers a very different aesthetic than more modern designs and that aesthetic can be very appealing. 

Good luck,
Jeff


----------



## furasta (Nov 5, 2008)

*53 nautical miles*



Jeff_H said:


> These were a reworked version of the Rhodes Reliant. I had the priviledge of spending a fair amount of time sailing one of these in Miami in the early 1970''s. These are absolutely beautiful boats to look at both above and below decks. The one that I knew had the same layout as the Reliant which was an aft cockpit/Aft cabin layout that had two companionways. This was a very practical layout and resulted in some nice features but also resulted in some strange features such as having to walk on deck to get to the main cabin companionway and a very strange vee berth if I remember correctly. The one that I sailed was a yawl but over the years I have seen some sloop versions as well.
> 
> As to sailing ability, even in their day these were slow boats. The story that went around, and was told to me by the owner of the boat that I sailed on, was that the interiors of these boats so far exceeded Rhodes'' design weights that the boats really gave up a lot of performance. To get them back on their lines, the ballast weights were reduced some and so was the sail plan. This resulted in a boat that was undercanvased and really poor in light air, and pretty tender in a breeze. They also had very short waterlines which really limited thier performance in moderate breezes as well. Not a good combination.
> 
> ...


Hey Jeff. just bought one, a 1967, several days ago. Yet to ascertain exactly what is what about her yet but with 12 knots pushing me through following seas in the Chesapeake Sunday, we reached 7.9 knots and a fair steady 7.2 with only a genoa flying. (a 160% mind you) Of course, I just sold a beamy 70year old wooden 57' Dbl Ender (Atkins Ingrid one-off) so she seemed fair quick to me. Those were the read-outs from a plotter.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Congratulations- I always like hearing of these boats being sold to a good home. If you owned a 70 year old wooden boat, you probably know what you are up against. 

Quick is almost always in the mind of the beholder. 7.2 with burts to 7.9 is a very respectible speed for these boats. I think you will certainly have better performance than your Atkins Ingrid but you may miss the Ingrid's comparatively comfortable motion. 

To put my comments regarding speed in perspective, my comments were based on boat for boat performance back in their day when compared to similar sized boats of that era. But also, to further put the relative speed into perspective, Sunday on the Chesapeake, in the same conditions, the GPS showed my 38 footer typically moving at around 8.5 knots with bursts up into the mid- 9's (with a reefed main and blade jib). Of course, a more modern boat than mine would have shown even higher readings than we saw. (Also depending on when and where you were on the Bay there seemed to be a lot of current flowing with the winds from the heavy rains up north. And also, at least where I was, the apparent wind was roughly 12 knots but the true wind was gusting into the low 20 knot range at times. )

Still, there are few boats that are prettier than the Reliant. Enjoy your new boat....

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*cl40 rhodes reliant design*

having owned a bunch of cheoy lees, i can attest the decks were NOT underlaid with plywood. the entire hulls of the rhodes and luders were fiberglass. jeffH does not know what he is talking about. the rhodes and luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders. jeffh must either be making up his stuff or mistaking cheory lees for cal boats.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

The decks of the Rhodes Reliant / Offshore 40 were wood cored fiberglass. Plywood was typically used as coring material under high load areas such as winches. While the Reliant was supposed to be built using end grain balsa as the core, other woods such as lauan were used in at least some of the boats. It would not surprise me in the least if a number of boats have plywood as the main core material.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I would point out that blanket statements like this, especially against a well-respected member of the forum who has been here a long time, aren't going to do you much good. I'm fairly sure that Jeff knows the difference between a Cal and a Cheoy Lee.

I'd point out you'd be far more credible if you spelled Cheoy Lee correctly. 



reed1v said:


> having owned a bunch of cheoy lees, i can attest the decks were NOT underlaid with plywood. the entire hulls of the rhodes and luders were fiberglass. jeffH does not know what he is talking about. the rhodes and luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders. jeffh must either be making up his stuff or mistaking cheory lees for cal boats.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I can't speak specifically about the Offshore 41 because at least some of them appeared to have glass decks and cabin-sides, or speak to every boat in the entire Cheoy Lee line but at least on the Cheoy Lee's from the same era as the Rhodes Reliant that I personally watched having their deck rebuilt, the deck and cabin were constructed pretty much as you would build a wooden boat with wooden deck framing, let into carlins at the cabin, and clamps at the hull. Unlike traditional wooden boat construction there was plywood laid over the frames, which was then glassed and the teak was laid over that plywood. 

On the Cheoy Lee that I did the drawings for during the time that I was with Charlie Wittholz, Charlie had specified end grain balsa for the sub-deck, but Cheoy Lee insisted on using plywood, which was they said was their usual practice since it held fastenings better than the balsa. 

Cheoy Lee's hulls were solid glass, but whatever internal framing that they elected use was typically glassed in wood as well. 

With respect to the comment, "the Rhodes and the Luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders", I would ask which do you think they are, "full Keel" or "cut away keel" , because I would suggest that the two terms are mutually exclusive. In the case of the Rhodes Reliant, I would politely suggest that they were cut-away keels that were cut away to the point that they had roughly the same surface area (relative to their lengths on deck) as many fin keel boats of that era. In my personal experience steering them in a breeze was like trying to steer with a trimtab. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*no way*

either your photo is a very old one, or your dreaming. i worked in hong kong back in 1971 and visited the yard often. had a cadet back then. later, in 1986 back in u.s. we cut up an old cl-40 after it was gutted by fire. the decks were solid glass with channels filled with continuous solid teak. no end grain balsa anywhere. not even sure back then it was used by any asian yard. yes, ply was used as embedded backing plates for high load area.


----------



## sailortjk1 (Dec 20, 2005)

reed1v said:


> either your photo is a very old one, or your dreaming. i worked in hong kong back in 1971 and visited the yard often. had a cadet back then. later, in 1986 back in u.s. we cut up an old cl-40 after it was gutted by fire. the decks were solid glass with channels filled with continuous solid teak. no end grain balsa anywhere. not even sure back then it was used by any asian yard. yes, ply was used as embedded backing plates for high load area.


Welcome aboard Reed.
Nice way to start your first two post here, a lot like steeping on board with your left foot. Is it not possible to state your side of the story or your experience with the boat with out insulting another member? I'm just saying...


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*nope*

no. i am old and real tired of misinformation people disseminate out there about boats. especially when a bunch of young folks think they know what happened before they were born. and someone claiming to work with charlie W. well that is interesting since charlie is dead for almost twenty years and stopped working about 20 years before that. the other issue is that cheoy lee shipyard is a contract operation. they built to specs back then. now the richards and perry stuff may be nothing but plywood with some glass thrown on them, but the luders and the old offshores were a whole different breed. back in the 60s most of the sailboats were sold to navy officers(us and brits)who could really tailor what went into their boats: thick or thin teak, lead or iron ballast, american or brit stainless fittings, etc. the only ply was either backing or bulkheads. and back then the hulls were laid up in one piece, not glued together. the chainplate attachments were fiberglass extention of the hulls. no one can afford to make boats today that way. if you do some history about the "queens birthday" storm down in the straits between nz and aus, the luders clipper did real well while boats like the hans christian simply sank out of sight. but i suppose your right, i should be more diplomatic when erroneous information is so often offered up on the internet. btw: lizzie meyer was curious why someone would call her j boat "full keeled" using whats-his-name definition. likewise a westsail would be called a fin keeled. not sure the 50% definition makes much sense. us oldtimers made the distinction between a keel that was simply an extention of the hull verses something that was added to the hull(elem of y. design). ie full keel being a structural component of the hull rather than being attached to it. but guess the new age of "define it as you may" rules.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Nice, now you're calling Jeff_H a liar...  



reed1v said:


> no. i am old and real tired of misinformation people disseminate out there about boats. especially when a bunch of young folks think they know what happened before they were born. and someone claiming to work with charlie W. well that is interesting since charlie is dead for almost twenty years and stopped working about 20 years before that. the other issue is that cheoy lee shipyard is a contract operation. they built to specs back then. now the richards and perry stuff may be nothing but plywood with some glass thrown on them, but the luders and the old offshores were a whole different breed. back in the 60s most of the sailboats were sold to navy officers(us and brits)who could really tailor what went into their boats: thick or thin teak, lead or iron ballast, american or brit stainless fittings, etc. the only ply was either backing or bulkheads. and back then the hulls were laid up in one piece, not glued together. the chainplate attachments were fiberglass extention of the hulls. no one can afford to make boats today that way. if you do some history about the "queens birthday" storm down in the straits between nz and aus, the luders clipper did real well while boats like the hans christian simply sank out of sight. but i suppose your right, i should be more diplomatic when erroneous information is so often offered up on the internet. btw: lizzie meyer was curious why someone would call her j boat "full keeled" using whats-his-name definition. likewise a westsail would be called a fin keeled. not sure the 50% definition makes much sense. us oldtimers made the distinction between a keel that was simply an extention of the hull verses something that was added to the hull(elem of y. design). ie full keel being a structural component of the hull rather than being attached to it. but guess the new age of "define it as you may" rules.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Reed: For whatever reason you seem to have a bone to pick with me that is assuming that by "young folks" you mean me. I will accept that part of your comments as the most accurate portion of your diatribe since mentally I still feel like a young folk. But to set the record straight, I started sailing in 1961 and have owned and sailed boats nealy continuously since. I started designing boats in the mid-1960's. 

I worked for Charlie Wittholz in the early 1980's. At that time Charlie had several projects going for Cheoy Lee. You are mistaken if you think that Charlie retired 40 years ago. Charlie continued to work until the day he died, which was in the early 1990's. There is public record of my involvement with Charlie that can be found in published drawings that I drafted during the period that I worked with Charlie. Amoungst the other projects that I worked on for Charlie, I did a number of Charlie's presentation drawings which were reproduced in Yachting Magazine, and Woodenboat, and all of these drawings have my name lettered either parrallel to the bottom of the keel (the canoe yawl in WoodenBoat Issue 56 page 130) and on other drawings in the pocheting of the bootstripe. 

I am not precisely certain where you were going when you say that the hulls were laid up in one piece, but I would agree that the huills of most of the designs that Cheoy Lee built in the 1960's were molded in one piece. The decks and houses were built separately. Having replaced a rotten deck carlin on 1960's Cheoy Lee Bermuda 30 assure you that the carlin was wood, and the sub-deck was plywood and that the hull to deck joint was a glass in-turned flange with a wooden clamp/shelf to which the deck frames were attached and to which the plywood sub-deck was attached. This matched the construction that I observed on a trunk cabin version of the Frisco Flyer, and on the Robb Lion. 

You are not the first person to object to the definition of a fin keel that I refered to and which was in use when I was a kid. Frankly, I see this as a semantics issue that has little bearing on the behavior of the boat in question. 

But to discuss this in a bit more detail, since you mentioned Elements of Yacht Design, I do not know which version of Skene's you are referring to, but you would be hard pressed to find any definition of a fin keel within Skene's Elements of Yacht Design at least I couldn't find a definition in the four editions in my collection. 

The definition of a fin keel as a keel whose bottom was 50% of its LOA was in popular use on the US east coast in the 1960's when I began sailing and that definition seemed to be was used in marketing literature for boats with short-waterlines, cut away forefeet and sharply raked rudder posts during that era. 

In fairness to the dicussion, other people have asked me to document that definition in the past and the only published sources that I have seen within my collection for this definition were pre-WWII books on yacht design and sailing, an early article by Marchaj, and a 1960's era intro to yacht design in Skipper magazine. 

I do think that you may be reading my definition backwards of the way it was written. By the definition that I grew up with, I would say that Liz Meyer's J-Boat is a fin keel with an attached rudder and a Westsail is the quintessential full keel, as were my 1939 Stadel Cutter and 1949 Folkboat. 

While I am not sure that this matters to this discussion, I am not really comfortable with your definition of a full keel i.e. "a full keel being a structural component of the hull rather than being attached to it." The problem with that definition is that a Cal 40 would be considered as having a full keel. I am reasonably certain that neither of us would consider a Cal 40 to have a full keel. 

But more to the point of this thread, semantics aside, no matter what you chose to call it, a boat whose waterline is 3/4's of its LOD and whose keel has a forefoot that is cut away another 10-15% and whose rudder post rakes so that the bottom of the keel ends up being less than 50% of its LOA, that boat will not track as well as boat which has a reasonable length waterline, and a full-length keel. And if you hang the rudder on the aft end of that keel, course corrections will be more difficult to make. And unlike a full keel, that boat will not stand on its keel without falling forward. And if the bottom of the rudder is within a few inches of the bottom of the keel then it is more prone to damage in a grounding than a full length keel or a properly designed fin keel which typically has a rudder that is significantly shallower than its keel for that reason. And that was my point above when I say that these boats have neither the merits of a full length keel or a fin keel, but generally have the liabilities of both.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*hum???*

my only beef with you is in regards to the luders (clipper and luder 36 sloop) and the old offshore 40(reliant design). the other cheoy lees may or may not be constructed out of compressed cardboard. i personally would never buy a richards or a perry model of anything. did not know charlie died with his boots on. more power to him. thought his major design efforts in fiberglass were in the 50-70s. 
to sum up: you can not judge a boatyard that produces contract work in a cavalier manner. the 60s were times of cheap teak and mahog. compressed wood products were more expensive back then. plus there was not the mass boat market as existed in the 70s-90s. you tended to get real quality boats that do not seem to be produced today(boatpox anyone). plus the hong kong yard had the pick of the best craftsmen since the end of ww2 resulted in lots of workers looking for work(in asia). by the mid 70s things had changed dramatically in the hk area and in the boat market in the us.
as far as your keel definition goes, i have heard the definition before. that only begged the question as to how one defines "keel". the rhodes keel starts its run downwards not quite forward of the first shroud and runs right back to the mizzen. now do you measure the keel from its initial turn from the interior hull space(floors) or do you measure it in terms of its foot?

but i do need to apologize to you about one thing: sorry, i should not have referred to skene's eoyd. i meant chapelle's yacht design and planning book. 
his definition as such is where the rudder is placed abaft from the keel. he aludes to using the 1/4 definition but is not firm about it. so much for memory loss.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

It sounds like we are more in agreement than not, which I suggest probably works well for both of us.

On the keel terminology, I would agree with you that it would be hard to define the precise point at which the keel bottom begin. That was why I originally chose to describe these as "approaching being fin keelers with attached rudders" rather than as true fin keel.

The discussion about the deck construction yesterday got my curiosity up and so I did a little research. There is a great website that is dedicated to Rhodes Reliants and Offshore 40's.

Included on that website is a maintenance manual prepared by a fellow who has owned a Reliant since new. http://astro.temple.edu/~bstavis/rr/handbook1.doc

Within that manual is a discussion of the deck construction on the Reliant. (see below) While somewhat different than the smaller Cheoy Lees that I knew well, it is in general consistent with what I would have expected for an Asian boat with teak decks from that era in terms of having the teak set in a setting bed, and screwed into place over fiberglass sheathing over a wooden core. I would think that the Luan planking (as compared to the plywood found on smaller Cheoy Lees) would be more prone to having rot move more rapidly along its length, but not as rapidly across the plank.

I also found it interesting that on the Rhodes Reliant, (unlike the smaller Cheoy Lees that I knew) the cabin sides were a comparatively thin teak veneer (inside and out) screwed and glued to a fiberglass cabin side. Live and learn.

Jeff

*"Decks<o></o>*
<o></o>

_Probably the biggest single project in our thirty-year maintenance cycle is deck restoration. The teak decking was essentially a surface treatment over a very strong and complete fiberglass cored structure. The underlying fiberglass deck was molded to a fine finish; indeed, when we bought the boat, the "standard" boat came with the fiberglass decks and the teak overlay was an optional extra (that most people ordered).<o></o>_

_The top fiberglass deck is about 3/8" thick. Then there is a core. Rhodes specifications were for 1/2" end grain balsa, but on my boat and I think others, lauan planks were used for the core, roughly 9/16" x 3 1/2" planked fore and aft. The lauan may be a bit heavier than the specified balsa, but, at least on my boat, it did not rot and deteriorate when it got wet. There is plywood under the winch pads. (Some boats may have other materials in the core. My guess is that there is more variability in the Offshore 40 than in the Reliant.) Below the wood core is another layer of fiberglass, roughly 1/8" thick.<o></o>_
<o></o>

_The teak was about 3/8" thick, machine screwed (wood screws on some boats) to the fiberglass. David Toombs said that some boats bought 1/2" decking at extra cost, and at least one (SHIBUI) originally had decks ordered extra thick (3/4"), so its decks can be expected to last longer. Certainly on the standard 3/8" deck, there was not much wood between the top of the screws and the surface of the deck, and we all learned that teak decks wear down, faster if cleaned often and vigorously, until the plugs are thin and fall out. We have gone through the challenge of making thinner and thinner plugs (I have made shavings 1/32" and epoxied them on) or trying other techniques to cover the screws._

_It may have been the intent that the machine screws would not penetrate through the fiberglass deck, so that leaks would not reach the wood core; I doubt, however, that construction was perfectly uniform in this regard. The teak was bedded to the fiberglass in thiokol (same as the seams), and over time this adhesive seal failed. Ultimately it was possible for water to penetrate through the teak, either between the seams in the teak decking or near deck hardware and chainplates. The water could migrate around under the teak, find its way through some screw holes that hold the teak down, and reach the wooden core. Water in the core froze in winter, expanding and delaminating the core structure and affecting the core and creating more waterways. When TAKE FIVE was about 10 years old, Nick Litchfield was able to cure deck leaks by drilling the teak, screwing in zerc fittings, and pumping Dolphinite under the deck. Whether this approach might extend the life of 30 year old decks, I do not know.<o></o><o></o>

It is possible that the wear and tear on the teak decks is affected by climate. Probably if the boat is left exposed to the elements and if there is frequent rain, the teak will not dry out and will stay tight. If, however, the boat is hauled out and is wintered in a dry, heated shed, the teak will dry out somewhat and pull at the seam compound. Probably baking under a winter cover in the summer heat does similar things. According to this analysis, the Puget Sound boats will probably need deck restoration. 

Last. Of 49 boats for which I have data, 28 have undergone deck restoration. On 18 boats, teak was put down again on the fiberglass deck, and 10 finished the original or a new fiberglass deck (although some have teak on the bridge deck or a few other places). Of the 21 still with original decks, at least 4 need deck restoration soon."<o></o>
_


----------



## eolon (Feb 5, 2008)

My Offshore 33 deck is cored with Teak. No, really. It is. I think they used scraps of teak they had laying around the yard. The nice thing is it will never rot. The bad thing is it can delaminate due to the oily nature of teak and its dislike of sticking to polyester.

The teak deck was very thin when the boat was new, and has only gotten thinner. Most of the bungs have fallen out - but for whatever reason the core isn't wet and the decks are solid. No substitute for luck.

Best Regards,

e

.::.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Not sure why you think teak core will never rot???



eolon said:


> My Offshore 33 deck is cored with Teak. No, really. It is. I think they used scraps of teak they had laying around the yard. The nice thing is it will never rot. The bad thing is it can delaminate due to the oily nature of teak and its dislike of sticking to polyester.
> 
> The teak deck was very thin when the boat was new, and has only gotten thinner. Most of the bungs have fallen out - but for whatever reason the core isn't wet and the decks are solid. No substitute for luck.
> 
> ...


----------



## eolon (Feb 5, 2008)

Compared to balsa, teak won't rot.

heh


Best Regards,


e

.::.


----------



## eolon (Feb 5, 2008)

btw, if you really wanted a core that won't rot you would use european larch. The foundations of the city of Venice were built of larch logs, and they have survived being under seawater for 800 years.

Best Regards,


e

.::.


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*venice?*

and venice smells as such. btw: most wood that grows well in bogs resist rot. i forgot which company use to put iron stringers in their fiberglass hulls to stiffen them up a bit. great idea except glass, like concrete absorbs water. was not a good idea as it turned out. remember dick fisher use to fuss about what to fill the whaler shells with because invariably water will get in there. btw: the old whaler pic where the boat was sawn in half. that was his son. dicy shot. sure would not sink but would tip over.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that most woods won't rot all that well when submersed in SALT WATER... however, the wood in your deck would likely have more fresh water than saltwater getting to it, unless you like sailing with the boat inverted. This is one reason old wooden ships used to keep blocks of salt in the bilge... 

I'd be a lot more impressed if Venice was in fresh water, since you're comparing apples to oranges.



eolon said:


> btw, if you really wanted a core that won't rot you would use european larch. The foundations of the city of Venice were built of larch logs, and they have survived being under seawater for 800 years.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> ...


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*logs bogs mud*

depends on the oxygen level of the waters. anerobic conditions will leave almost any organic materials unaltered, salt or no salt. your right about salt boxes. my task as a child was to fill the salt boxes aboard my grandfather's schooner in the summers. we also salted the bilges. but then again, his boat did not have much iron. only trunnels, wooden spikes, and interlocking beams.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL... yeah, salt and iron don't play well with each other.


reed1v said:


> depends on the oxygen level of the waters. anerobic conditions will leave almost any organic materials unaltered, salt or no salt. your right about salt boxes. my task as a child was to fill the salt boxes aboard my grandfather's schooner in the summers. we also salted the bilges. but then again, his boat did not have much iron. only trunnels, wooden spikes, and interlocking beams.


----------



## reed1v (Apr 24, 2010)

*which reminds me*

yup. there are a lot of "boat building" schools up here in maine. just dont understand why they teach kids to screw, nail, and glue stuff together to make a wooden boat. boats should be flexible and made of wood, not some cheap solution. if they wanted to teach real history and making real boats that last, they should study the old dories and skiffs. of course maybe building as they did 130 years ago is not de rigueur today. 
kinda like mast tuning. some folks keep their standing rigging so tight, and then they wonder why stress cracks appear in their decks. duh. on wooden boats that will kill a ship quicker than a rocky shore.


----------



## thalassa2444 (Jun 11, 2010)

I own a Cheoy Lee Offshore 40. They don't make them like that anymore. But unless the boat has been restored professionally you'll have a heck of a project. I purchased mine in 2007, and have been "restroing" her through the winters and sailing in the summers. This summer I'm not launching. I'm spending a year out of the water to complete the restoration.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Jeeze--

Talk about Thread Drift/High jacking...

To get back to Ganderbay's question:



Ganderbay said:


> I am currently looking to buy this boat and I am very interested in views of other boat owners or others familiar with this boat. It has been recently upgraded (new mast, standing rigging, engine etc.
> Thanks.
> Ernie.


We sailed a 1963 Rhodes Reliant in San Francisco for quite some while in the early to mid-70's. She was a beautiful yacht and very well built (teak decking over glass). There was, however, a heck of a lot of brightwork and the maintenance requirement was terrific. The yacht sported a yawl rig (frequently called a ketch but the mizzen was aft of the rudder post so properly a yawl) and on a broad reach with all sails flying, including the mizzen staysail (more a spinnaker), she'd move right along but, with a 27' water line, really pretty slow for her size. She didn't point worth a darn so a close reach was the hardest we'd push her.

We loved feel and look of the boat but finally gave her up for a somewhat smaller, more simple, easier to maintain 1976 Cal.

FWIW...


----------



## jandrade (Apr 30, 2009)

I just tore off the teak deck on my 72 Luders 36.. had delamination on the staboard side and bow but not the port side. I ended up taking up the laminate and here is what I discovered: Login | Facebook

2 1/2" planks.. I though they were teak but when they dried out it seemed more like pine.. I'd love an opinion on what they actualy are... althought.. as of last week I now have a healthy, closed-foam cored new deck on top of the old one, which I fixed anyway... and a nice glass skin ready for awlgrip and nonskid...

and you can jump up and down on the deck and the boat moves on the stands more instead of flexing the deck...still would like to know what kind of wood you think that is.


----------



## dancamp (Aug 20, 2007)

I've owned a Cheoy Lee built Offshore 40 sloop rig sailboat now for almost 4 years and absoulutely adore it in all respects. And she sails (points) into the wind beautifully so don't worry about that. The teak upkeep is a little daunting, but well worth it. 
I've started a forum particularly dedicated to the Cheoy Lee Offshore 40 and the Rhodes Reliant that you may find interesting and informative. Hopefully you will join in and contribute.
Rhodes Reliant & Offshore 40 forum :: Index


----------



## QuickMick (Oct 15, 2009)

There has been a 41' for sale at the marina ive been climbing around. lots of wood to maintain. Extremely roomy and cozy cabin. very pretty lines too. If she needs much work someone had mentioned to me that a lot of the parts (ie the winches stamped CL) were custom made for the yard and can be a PITA to replace if you want matching origianl stuff, but the user who is doing the resto could probably help you out there. 

I think she is a real beauty.

oh, and imho venice is a magical place, though for beauty i prefered the almafi coast, isle of capri and lake como--but its tough to top rome


----------

