# Thoughts on WestSail 32



## tuco (Nov 25, 2002)

We have been reading articles on these boats for a while. Are there other boats that are comparable in price, space, strength, and displacement?
We like these boats, but would like to keep an open mind to other possibilities.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

In my opinion, here is the deal with the Westsail 32''s. There are lots of boats that offer equal or better space, strength, seaworthiness and carrying capacity for essentially the same price. Most of these sail on a longer waterline and have a longer overall length. In a general sense that results in better speed, ease of handling in a blow, and a more comfortable motion. The other issue is that many of these boats were kit built by amateurs and while build quality of the home builts can be quite good, it often isn''t. I have mentioned before an amatuer finished version which has concrete and steel ballast that was substantially lower in weight and density than the design called for. 

These boats do have their big fans but to me, depending on how you look at it they are short, expensive to buy and maintain, cramped, not especially seaworthy or offering comfortable motion when sized by their displacement and only look roomy and seaworthy when sized by their length on deck. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Here''s another view, of a specific W32 which I think is very representative, that underscores Jeff''s points:

My boat is currently moored outboard a W32 that''s been taken to Europe & back; it''s clearly capable of the kinds of sailing for which it was supposedly built. (So are many others). My boat is the same displacement, same LOA, same sail area (altho'' I have more sail carrying options in light winds, since mine is a ketch), same mast height. My boats LWL is 33'' (vs. 27'' for the W32), my beam 13'' (vs. 11''), has 3 sea berths (vs. 1), a sit-down nav station (vs. stand-up right at the companionway), an additional large cabin, and a stand-up separate shower stall (vs. tiny head modified to take a shower faucet).

My cockpit is large (too large, some would think) with coamings that provide backrests on all sides. A fair amount of protection is provided on the wind by the dodger and cabin trunk. A bimini provides good overhead sun protection, altho'' it can be ''reefed'' when sail handling and/or sail trimming must be done. The W32 cockpit has no backrests nor any barriers to water sloshing down the side decks sweeping under the crew''s bottoms before entering the cockpit well. The bimini possible on this boat is by necessity very small. In cold weather, there is virtually no protection except for one person to sit on the companionway bridge-deck, just under/behind the small dodger. Stowage space aft is at a minimum due to the pointed stern. (How these unsuitable features were not viewed in total contrast to the advertised view of the boat is IMO because W32''s were marketed in South Seas/tropical cruising venues, as tho'' protection from the cold, the sun, the wind and the occasional angry wave were unimportant).

This W32 was owner completed. The current owner, a very technically competent fellow, has spent huge amounts of time (tho'' not lots of money) to correct wiring, mechanical and other problems. The cosmetic problems remain to be addressed. This was done as part of a total refit. While I''ve added many systems to my boat related to offshore sailing, the basic boat (hull, deck, interior) remain untouched except as care & maintenance have required.

From a design standpoint, it''s hard to understand where the interest in a W32 comes from. But then, we all know the answer: it''s the romanticized view of our boat - any boat - that seems to shape our view, and this boat does have the sizzle in some folks minds, even if it''s light on the steak.

Jack


----------



## welch (Aug 5, 2002)

Jack,

I thought you had a Pearson 424 ketch. Do you still have this boat?
Dave


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Dave:

Yup, a ''79 Pearson 424. All the comparisons I gave above reflect WHOOSH as she sits in Satellite Beach, FL today.

Jack


----------



## GeoffR (Aug 7, 2001)

Jack and Jeff
On people's gratuitous views of some types of boats, such as the Westsail 32, please keep in mind that in all things, one man's meat is another man's poison. 
I find it quite offensive that so many people, without any first hand knowledge of a boat feel unconstrained in making venomous pronouncements about the virtues, or more frequently, the lack of virtues of certain types of sailing boats.
Here are some quotes that spring to mind - from people who have a far greater right to make pronouncements: 
"But some (sailing) people will tell one almost anything. I do not so much mind them telling me such nonsense, but I do think it is unreasonable of them to expect to be believed." Eric Hiscock. 
And, more pertinent:
"Due to circumstances or mood, a man may call his ship a mean ***** or a wet brute, but he will not stand for such liberties from the beach. If he understands and makes allowances for her shortcomings, then a special relationship exists, and a vessel will sometimes give an extra quality that there is no name for."
Charles A. Borden, _Sea Quest_. 
So - keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

GeoffR,

So by quoting someone that sailed 30 years (or more) ago, Jeff and Jack's vast knowledge is suddenly uninformed opinions?
Jack Laurent Giles who design two of the Wanderers sailed by the Hiscock's was an early adopter of fin-keels and spade rudders


> Laurent Giles described as part of his design philosophy that a yacht should have
> the utmost docility and sureness of maneuvering at sea, in good or bad weather


From John Laurent Giles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Interesting boats by him are John Guzwell's Trekka and Myth of Malham.


----------



## donradclife (May 19, 2007)

Every boat is a series of compromises. Back in the heyday of the W32, it was heavily promoted as a rugged, safe boat, and its price reflected the heavy promotion. Even then, it was known as the wetsnail 32, and it appealed more to safety conscious sailors than to performance oriented sailors. 

The boat is notoriously slow to weather. I remember the delivery crew who took 30 days to do the 800 mile baja bash under sail when the engine conked out. I also knew a man who had to be rescued when he could not make the 80 mile sail from Trinidad to Greneda when the wind went northeast. OTOH, a W32 did well in the downwind races from California to Hawaii, and most cruisers minimise thier time spent going to weather anyway. BTW, the Pearson cruisers are also pretty slow to weather, and some posters still like them...

They are tough little boats--I know of one which bounced across the reef into the lagoon in New Caledonia--boat survived, but unfortunately the skipper was washed off and lost. However, I do know one which was lost at sea with all hands in a blow off Madagascar.

I haven't priced W32's in a while, but if the premium prices over comparable boats have disappeared, they could be a reasonable purchase.

Boats are like women--some prefer skinny blondes, some prefer curvy redheads.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

Jack -
I think it would be more appropriate to compare your Pearson to vessels of similar LOD, not LOA. The Westsail has a mile of bowsprit and boomkin which contributes nothing to waterline length or accommodations.
Geoff R -
By your standards I guess I should take offense at your comments regarding Jeff & Jacks knowledge? Or do you have some first hand experience regarding that?
JomsViking -
How did Laurent Giles get in here?


----------



## SaltyMonkey (May 13, 2010)

FSMike said:


> Jack -
> I think it would be more appropriate to compare your Pearson to vessels of similar LOD, not LOA. The Westsail has a mile of bowsprit and boomkin which contributes nothing to waterline length or accommodations.


FSMike, I almost choked when I read that comparison by Jack. So way off base, I cannot go into here without getting banned!

Westsail 32 is a good boat and I would consider one for HIGHER LATITUDES where there is fair amount of wind and weather. She is a horn bagger, not a coconut/milk runner.

The major problem I see with her is that most of them out there have teak decks, which is a maintenance nightmare $$$. They come in all prices but some can be had very nicely. They are slow but will get you there.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

FSMike said:


> Jack -
> JomsViking -
> How did Laurent Giles get in here?


Because Eric Hiscock asked Giles to design his boats, and I'm pretty sure that if he had had one designed a few years later than he did, it would have been more like Jeff's boat than a Westsail.
Hal Roth (who died recently) also discusses the Westsail in one of his books, and is pretty clear that he dislikes it. He said something along the lines that any decent boat could sail figure eights around a Westsail IIRC.
So while some of us (and Hal Roth) have personal preferences, I wanted Tuco to realize that Jeff_H knows a heck of a lot about boats, and should consider the tradeoffs mentioned VERY carefully.
And even though Jeff has said some things about my current boat (early IOR design) that hurt her feelings, he's not uninformed  but You and I agree that he's not


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Hey guys,

This is a pretty darn old thread that just got dredged-up. 

Jack ("whoosh") hasn't been around for quite a while so isn't likely to step in and explain himself anytime soon. So I will just say that I don't find his dimensional comparisons altogether inappropriate (he did say "LOA", after all.) Besides the performance advantages, I think another unstated point may have been that he pays the same mooring fees as a Westsail 32 and yields the benefit of a much more commodious boat. That's a valid point, in my opinion.

As for the Westsail's perfomance: Many owners readily admit that sailing to weather is not the boat's strongpoint. 

But these boats could be sailed fairly advantageously on a reach and downwind through the trades. My sailing mentor sailed his W32 to NZ and back (from California). When they reached harbor in the Marquesas after a long run over from San Diego, they compared passage notes with the dozen or so other boats in the anchorage that had come via the same route. As it turned out, they were the smallest boat by several feet (with a few Peterson 44s among them). But they had clocked the shortest passage time -- by a margin of several days. 

No, they hadn't all departed at the exact same time, but this anecdote does show that there's more to passage speeds than just a boat's performance specs.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I agree it is an old thread but the comparison by Whoosh is valid as both his Pearson and the Westsail do have almost the same displacement (the Pearson is 1500 lbs heavier), a valid comparison between designs. There are both a Pearson 424 and a Westsail 32 in my marina and I recently did some electrical work on the Westsail. Slow as we all know and not my type of boat but it's construction was hard to fault. And I was everywhere from the engine bilge to most lockers and the main bilge. The rig is solid and the bulwarks add about 8" to the lifeline height for more security. I can see how Snider Vick (promoter of the Westsail in its heyday) was so successful. He sold dreams as much as boats and the Westsail certainly fits the dream.
I do agree with Jeff that construction of the home builts was all over the place, as with most any home finished boat.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

This is an interesting thread for me, as I am looking for a 'westsail32-type' boat. I won't be in the market for about 6 more months, but when I get there, I plan to buy.

Would anybody be able to list boat types that are similar, in addition to the pearson 424? There are a few posters who mention that such boats are common, but my knowledge of boats ends about the time they graduate past trailer sailors.

So what other hulls fit that westsail32 concept? I'm thinking, specifically, of a price range in the 35K-45K range (asking.. these days, price is always negotiable, of course), moderate to heavy displacement, 32-ish feet (comfort for a cozy crew of two), cutter rigged, tiller steering, full or nearly-full keel, and generally designed to be a friendly sailing and live-aboard vessel.

I also like that the rudder is transom hung, though obviously most boats are sporting skeg-hung rudders much past that 28 foot range, right?

Anyway, I'd love a list of other boats to check out/look up if you guys have time.

Thanks!


----------



## CrazyRu (May 10, 2007)

I think that anyone considering Westsail 32 should read "Rescue in Pacific"
Amazon.com: Rescue in the Pacific: A True Story of Disaster and Survival in a Force 12 Storm&#8230;

or just look at this year "Pacific puddle jump" 
Pacific Puddle Jump News

3 Westsail 32 entered, one sunk, one dismasted and abounded, one reported missing deadline, arrived later.

No bashing here, just some food for thoughts.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

CrazyRu
And then there is Satori, the Westsail that survived the Perfect Storm. Everybody left via the Coast Guard but the boat survived without them. And Robin Knox Johnson's Suhaili, the boat in which he circumnavigated non-stop singlehanded (the first to do so), a boat very similar to a Westsail built in wood.

CapTim
The Pearson 424 is not much like the Westsail. About the only thing they have in common is a similar weight and that they are both boats. The Pearson is 11' longer, 6 1/2' longer on the waterline, 2' beamier, and has a displacement/length ratio of 243 vs 429 for the Westsail, and has a rudder on a skeg. The Pearson also probably has twice the cubic area inside. But it is an interesting comparison of 2 very different boats that weigh more or less the same. The reason it is an interesting comparison is that if you are getting a boat built they tend to price by the pound if similarly equipped and built of the same materials.

Why do you want a boat like a Westsail? Just asking.

A boat that is really similar to the Westsail but larger would be the Alajuela 37
The Westsail is based on the Kendall 32 but they are quite rare, and it was based on Atkin's Eric. Other similar boats are Hans Christian, Lord Nelson, Union Cutters, Tayanas, Prairie Cutters, and Babas. Probably one of the better performing of this type, the Pacific Seacraft 31, was designed by Bill Crealock, the designer who really developed the Westsail (Kendall) from Atkin's Eric. 
Here's a link to a Westsail site WESTSAIL - WORLD CRUISER YACHT CO. with a lot of information about them.
Here's a review of the Westsail Westsail 32 Review : Bluewaterboats.org

As nicely done as some of the Westsails are, I personally like a lighter boat with the beam not carried as far forward. On Wikipedia the Westsail is described as roomy because of this and it also suggests that the weight of a large amount of supplies doesn't affect the performance. I think the design itself limits performance and a few thousand pounds more makes little difference.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Forgot the picture.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> ...Probably one of the better performing of this type, the Pacific Seacraft 31, was designed by Bill Crealock, the designer who really developed the Westsail (Kendall) from Atkin's Eric...


Brian,

Those are good comments. Just a couple points of clarification:

I would not agree that the Pacific Seacraft _Crealock _31 is much similar to these other boats you listed, certainly nothing like the Westsail 32.

This is a frequent source of confusion, probably due to Pacific Seacraft's earlier 31-footer model, called the Mariah 31. The Mariah 31 in fact WAS very similar to these boats and is often mistaken for a Westsail 32, since it shares the double-ender hull form with very close dimensional measurements.

The more recent Crealock 31 design has a traditional wine-glass transom, with a fin-keeled, skeg-hung rudder underbody, as compared to the Mariah's (and Westsail's) full keel, double-ender configuration. The Mariah was a Henry Morschladt design and, like the Westsail, was tremendously "bulkier" than the later Crealock 31. I don't have figures at my fingertips, but I seem to recall the Mariah displacing about 16K lbs as compared to the Crealock 31 at 11K lbs, with the Crealock on a longer waterline, too!


----------



## SaltyMonkey (May 13, 2010)

Whats anyones opinion about the Westsail 28?


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

John
I was actually thinking of the PSC 37, a boat that has some of the looks of the Westsail but as far as I know none of its vices. 
Yes the Mariah was very similar to the Westsail. A lightweight version. Pacific Seacraft Mariah 31, In Brief : Bluewaterboats.org
I forgot to mention the Southern Cross 31 which is also similar in looks to a Westsail.
I guess it boils down to whether one wants a boat that fits their image of a solid seaworthy cruiser in looks - eg canoe stern, bowsprit, bulwarks instead of a clean deck edge, and cutter rig - of which there are several that sail quite well. Or they are in love with the Westsail itself with its deficiencies.

Even though I was wrong about the Crealock PSC 31 it does have some of the "offshore look" of the Westsail while being a much better sailing boat.

William Crealock thought there was a market for "10 or 12" of the Kendall 32. But with the promotion of Westsail itself and help from Ferenc Mate's "From A Bare Hull" they sold about 830 of them.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

SaltyMonkey
It's smaller. 
In numbers almost the same as the 32, slightly higher disp/length ratio and a bit more sail area. All Westsails from the 28 to 42 are very similar in concept.
WINDFALL - W28 A Westsail 28 for sale.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> ....Even though I was wrong about the Crealock PSC 31 it does have some of the "offshore look" of the Westsail while being a much better sailing boat....


Brian,

We prefer to say "mistaken".  

Seriously though, I definitely wasn't trying to prove a point with you. I just have this little crusade going to help clarify the difference between PSC's Mariah 31 and the Crealock 31 -- partly because I get so many e-mails and PMs from folks asking me about these boats.

Toward that end, I will link to both boats from that excellent resource you are using, so folks can see them side-by-side as it were:

Pacific Seacraft Mariah 31

Pacific Seacraft Crealock 31

I will also mention that, something about the profile view leads many folks to assume the Crealock 31 has a canoe stern like its bigger sisters. Instead, it has a wine-glass transom, which allows for a larger cockpit and fuller stern sections -- a good thing in a boat this size.

Anyways, always good to hear form you, Brian.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

Very nice.. now I've got some homework to do. Always fun to learn about new boats 

As to wanting a Westsail.. it's not so much that I want a westsail, as I want a boat that does many of the things that Westsail's reputation claims it can do.

I plan to move aboard with my wife, spend a few years tooling around, and eventually make my way over to the other side of the big pond. But the catch is that, while I can earn money, I don't really want to. I've spent a long time living so that I can work.. now I'm looking to turn that around.

So, I figure a conservative, safe, comfortable, easy-maintainable boat is where I should look. In the great balancing act that is sailboats, I'm willing to give up some speed to gain comfort, give up some size to decrease expenses, give up some 'prettiness' to not have to varnish everything I look at, and look for work as I go so I don't have to wait another 10 years to build up a cruising kitty.

So I'll need a boat that does great at anchor, holds enough supplies that I don't have to shop every 10 minutes, can carry enough parts and tools that I don't find myself paying double because of location, and is simple enough in design that I can handle most of the work myself.

But that canoe-shaped stern.. I hear a lot of debate over whether it's really all that much safer than something that carries the beam a little further aft... but there's really no debate over whether or not a canoe stern destroys storage space. So I'm not sold on that shape, for sure. Or the weight.. I'm all for heavy displacement, but ... that's super-heavy, there.

So it's not that I have my heart set on the westsail, it's just that the westsail seems to be a good compromise. Now I have other boats to look at, though.

Thanks 

[/hijack]


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

CapTim
I am of the belief that the shape of the hull below the water is more important than that above the water. Avoiding fat ass extremes of course. Most boats will rise to a sea, although the Westsail with its weight maybe not so much. A moderate displacement boat like the Pacific Seacraft 31 is not handicapped by having a transom in my opinion. I can't think of too many canoe stern boats currently being built - if it made that much difference there would surely be more. 
I have never seen a Westsail that didn't have a lot of exterior wood to varnish or cetol.
Go to Boats for Sale, Yachts for Sale, Used Boats, Power Boats, Motor Yachts and search by size, price or whatever and look for ideas - a good resource.


----------



## CrazyRu (May 10, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> CrazyRu
> And then there is Satori, the Westsail that survived the Perfect Storm. Everybody left via the Coast Guard but the boat survived without them. And Robin Knox Johnson's Suhaili, the boat in which he circumnavigated non-stop singlehanded (the first to do so), a boat very similar to a Westsail built in wood.


Mitiempo, in my opinion, no matter how you slice the story of Satori, it is a story of failure and it is not the story of success. I didn't recommend "Perfect Storm" book because of so much controversy, albeit it is a must read for potential buyer, I recommended reading a story about Queen Elizabeth storm, about 70 boats caught, 9 needed rescue, two out of nine are of same design of our interest.
Sahaili, in my opinion, is very different boat than Westsail 32. First, it is lighter, second, it has external ballast, third, it has much smaller dog house and it has real cockpit, fourth it has different ballast to displacement ratio, and, fifth, it is a ketch. All this little differences are playing huge role actually, in my opinion, I believe Jeff_H summed it all up already.

SaltyMonkey.
Here is a page of former Westsail 28 owner
Doug's sailing page
I found it very informative when I was researching my cruising boat&#8230;


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The story of Satori is a failure - but not of the boat.

As I posted earlier I am not a Westsail fan, but I do not consider them unsafe. Obviously a home finished boat can be iffy but if well done they are more solid than most and well suited to offshore use.

As far as Suhaili vs the Westsails in the Queen Elizabeth storm, the weather Knox-Johnson met in his circumnavigation was severe at times as well. Maybe the difference is the sailors?


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

JohnRPollard said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> So I will just say that I don't find his dimensional comparisons altogether inappropriate (he did say "LOA", after all.) Besides the performance advantages, I think another unstated point may have been that he pays the same mooring fees as a Westsail 32 and yields the benefit of a much more commodious boat. That's a valid point, in my opinion.
> 
> ...


I have a list of boats for consideration in an eventual move to permanent live aboard and later open ocean cruising use. The Westsail 32 was on my list, until I had to ask myself how long a boat it was. I'd need at least a 40' slip locally for it, that bowspirit counts in terms of physical space, and there's a lot of interesting boats I could fit into a slip that big. Worse yet, where I want a slip the difference in waiting time between a 35' & 40' slip is 5 years.

On the other hand if I was walking down dock G and asked to pick out any sailboat as a gift, I would at least pause in front of the Westsail. They can and do cross oceans, win long downwind races, and have good room inside for the hull length.

And there are a lot of them around. Some of the more vaunted offshore boats I never see come on the market on the West Coast, or at no where near prices I could consider. But there are always a few Westsail 32s around to be passed on to the next world traveler.


----------



## rjg23 (Apr 1, 2006)

CapTim,

Someone mentioned earlier as an alternative to the Westsail is the Southern Cross 31. About 6K lighter but with all of the other characteristics you listed. Wife and I looked at one yesterday and were both very impressed. Many circumnavigations/crossings and a great owners site (but requires membership to get to the good stuff).

Good luck.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

cool.. thanks for the heads up. What's a reasonable price for a southern cross 31?


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

CapTim
Here are the ones listed on Yachtworld. Some are the heavier Mariah which is older and almost the same as a Westsail.
pacific seacraft (Sail) Boats For Sale


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Another alternative is the Elizabethan 30 or 33.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Or Contessa 32 and Hustler 30


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> CrazyRu
> And then there is Satori, the Westsail that survived the Perfect Storm. Everybody left via the Coast Guard but the boat survived without them. And Robin Knox Johnson's Suhaili, the boat in which he circumnavigated non-stop singlehanded (the first to do so), a boat very similar to a Westsail built in wood.
> 
> CapTim
> ...


Just FYI - there is no such thing as an Alajeula 37 although there is a Alajuela 38... an Atkins Ingrid. Beautiful powerfull boats.
The Westsail 32 IS large inside for its length, comparing it to a Southern Cross 31, the Westsail is cavernous compared to the SC 31. I know because I looked at one before I bought my W32.

Also - the reports of the W32 being slow etc etc are from people who either dont know how to sail or just regurgitated internet heresay. They are very comparable performance wise to other similar boats whern sailed well.
The most recent noteworthy performance by a W32 was in the single handed transpac a few weeks ago where a W32 placed second overall after breaking the main boom 700 or so miles from the finish.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

GBurton said:


> Also - the reports of the W32 being slow etc etc are from people who either dont know how to sail or just regurgitated internet heresay. They are very comparable performance wise to other similar boats whern sailed well.
> The most recent noteworthy performance by a W32 was in the single handed transpac a few weeks ago where a W32 placed second overall after breaking the main boom 700 or so miles from the finish.


A PHRF rating of 216, kinda documents that they are slow and only wins on corrected time. We have the folkboats winning everything on corrected time here. Just because I like those (and have sailed them a lot) I wouldn't call them fast, comfortable or have a great motion in heavy weather.
Love the boat you own, but respect that a lot of things have happened since Colin Archer designed Norwegian Rescue boats.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> J..... the reports of the W32 being slow etc etc are from people who either dont know how to sail or just regurgitated internet heresay. ....


think so...I remember well beating up Naraganett Bay on a blustery day in an original Cal 25, working jib with a reef, and sailing over a W32 on the same point of sail. She looked soooooo lovely with tan-bark yankee, staysail and full main flying...but 20 minutes later she was no longer in sight.

Just a personal observation.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Westsails have earned their reputation for being slow honestly...they are. Winning on corrected time doesn't mean the boat is fast or competitive....what were the unadjusted times... and how much was the Wetsnail gaining on handicap?


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

They will get you around the world safely many times over though.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

If the discussion is only about speed then sure - you should proabably consider another means of transport, like maybe a plane? 

Seriously, if it was all about getting somewhere fast then why buy a sailboat?

The Westsail had a 199 PCR for this race and took 17 days 3 hours to get to Hawaii while the winning boat took 14 days 9 hours with a PCR of 99.

After viewing the accomodations of both boats, I know which boat I would rather be on for 14 or 17 days 

This same Westsail has had nine 1000 mile cruising weeks.

The name calling is a little tasteless sailing dog. I could call your boat a toy but what would that achieve?


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> think so...I remember well beating up Naraganett Bay on a blustery day in an original Cal 25, working jib with a reef, and sailing over a W32 on the same point of sail. She looked soooooo lovely with tan-bark yankee, staysail and full main flying...but 20 minutes later she was no longer in sight.
> 
> Just a personal observation.


Is it possible that the people on the Westsail were new sailors and you being the instructor that you are had a little bit more knowledge about sailing?

No one is suggesting that the Westsail is an Americas cup winner, just that the boat is often unfairly judged.


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

Westsails are pretty slow. If the Pacific were a parking lot I could ride a bicycle to Hawaii faster than sail there on a W32, but I think I'd pop for a plane ticket.

Real sailing speed looks something more like this










BUT it's still really slow compared to any other modern transportation. If you're racing across the open ocean worried about time, more power to you, but to some degree is ultimate speed missing the point?

Even the folks Transpac'ing, competitive as they are, if it were really mostly about speed, wouldn't they all gravitate to the same, fastest sailboats? How much of that experience is about soaking in a thousand odd miles of blue ocean? Maybe someone on here who races open ocean can provide some insight into what that experience is really about.

I don't see myself in a Westsail, but I wouldn't rule it out either - a vessel for high adventure for sure, and some are sailed quite well...


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

JomsViking said:


> A PHRF rating of 216, kinda documents that they are slow and only wins on corrected time. We have the folkboats winning everything on corrected time here. Just because I like those (and have sailed them a lot) I wouldn't call them fast, comfortable or have a great motion in heavy weather.
> Love the boat you own, but respect that a lot of things have happened since Colin Archer designed Norwegian Rescue boats.


Well sure, boat design is a constantly evolving thing like anything else.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Alajuela 38 (37 was a typo)

Westsails are slow, but on an ocean crossing few race anyway. 100 to 125 or so miles a day is considered good by many. And the ones I have seen and worked on are well built. They are roomy for their length but the engine is a bit tough to work on. But they are not my type of boat. 

And yes, boat design and construction both move on. Remember the Westsail is a fiberglass version of a very old design no matter how good they look.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> ...No one is suggesting that the Westsail is an Americas cup winner, just that the boat is often unfairly judged.


You are welcome to your opinion about the W32, and to share it, but it adds nothing to the credibility of your opinion to cut down those who dis-agree. The judgers are knowledgeable sailors sharing their real-world experiences...and may be judging very fairly. How's the following fit your fairness standard?


GBurton said:


> .....Also - the reports of the W32 being slow etc etc are from people who either dont know how to sail or just regurgitated internet heresay. ...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have to say that I agree with Geoff R in this respect, _"I find it quite offensive that so many people, without any first hand knowledge of a boat feel unconstrained in making venomous pronouncements about the virtues, or more frequently, the lack of virtues of certain types of sailing boats."_

Voicing opinions without first hand knowledge can be misleading and iaccurate. Having spent a lot of time sailing, surveying and repairing these boats, and having owned similar designs from this era, I stand by my so-called venomous pronouncements about the lack of virtues of the Westsail 32.

The reality is that the Westsails and boats like them have a vast amount of blue water miles under their keels. If you find one that hasn't been cobbled together by some under-budgeted and unknowing owner, for a knwledgable skipper they are in many ways a very good short-handed boat for sailling the trade winds.

But for the dollar and for the displacement, I strongly stand by my early statement that there are much better choices out there.

And lastly, the only thing worse than a person who provides misleading comments without first hand knowledge is someone, whether through self serving interests or self-delusion, who should know better and still makes misleading statements. That kind of 'negative knowledge' is just plain dishonest and dangerous.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> You are welcome to your opinion about the W32, and to share it, but it adds nothing to the credibility of your opinion to cut down those who dis-agree. The judgers are knowledgeable sailors sharing their real-world experiences...and may be judging very fairly. How's the following fit your fairness standard?


Have you ever sailed a W32? Honest answer please

And as far as cutting down someone who disagrees with me - I dont think I was doing that, just defending what I think is an unfair attack (including namecalling) of a boat that I happen to own.

Sorry if it came across that way


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

mitiempo said:


> Alajuela 38 (37 was a typo)
> 
> Westsails are slow, but on an ocean crossing few race anyway. 100 to 125 or so miles a day is considered good by many. And the ones I have seen and worked on are well built. They are roomy for their length but the engine is a bit tough to work on. But they are not my type of boat.
> 
> And yes, boat design and construction both move on. Remember the Westsail is a fiberglass version of a very old design no matter how good they look.


If you do the math you will realise that a 1000 mile week equates to 142 mile days... not too shabby.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> I have to say that I agree with Geoff R in this respect, _"I find it quite offensive that so many people, without any first hand knowledge of a boat feel unconstrained in making venomous pronouncements about the virtues, or more frequently, the lack of virtues of certain types of sailing boats."_
> 
> Voicing opinions without first hand knowledge can be misleading and iaccurate. Having spent a lot of time sailing, surveying and repairing these boats, and having owned similar designs from this era, I stand by my so-called venomous pronouncements about the lack of virtues of the Westsail 32.
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree Jeff. For the money (most sell in the $40000 range) a Westsail 32 is a very good value cruising boat. Of course there are some that were cobbled together (sounds like you had an experience with one - you mentioned that you helped build a W32) and those should be avoided. Likewise, there are many other owner completed boats of other brands out there that should also be avoided.

There is no perfect boat and a Westsail is not a bad choice.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

CapTim said:


> Would anybody be able to list boat types that are similar, in addition to the pearson 424? ...Anyway, I'd love a list of other boats to check out/look up if you guys have time.


In addition to others already mentioned in this thread (Westsail 28, Mariah 31, SC 31/28, etc.) you may also consider the following as "comparable" to a W32:

Island Packet 31
Baba 30/35
Ta Shing 31
Halberg-Rassy Monsun 31 & Rasmus 35
Valiant 32
Allied Seawind 30 & Princess 36
True North 34
Willard 8 Ton
Fantasia 35
Union 36
Hans Christian 33/34
Fuji 32/35
Shannon 28/38
Pan Oceanic 36
Tayana 37
Dreadnought 32
Alajuela 33/38
Liberty 28
Ingrid 38
Mariner 32/40
Rafiki 35/37


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Jeff_H said:


> But for the dollar and for the displacement, I strongly stand by my early statement that there are much better choices out there.


I often hear it said that there are "better choices" than a W32 for the money, but what are they? Considering that many W32's list/sell in the $40k-$50k range, what's a better world cruiser for that kind of money? In my previous post I listed several comparable boats, but many are more expensive and share the same characteristics as the W32. So again, what's a better world cruiser than a W32 for $40k to $50k?


----------



## casioqv (Jun 15, 2009)

kwaltersmi said:


> So again, what's a better world cruiser than a W32 for $40k to $50k?


I've seen plenty of Catalina 38s (S&S designed) for $30-40k.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

casioqv said:


> I've seen plenty of Catalina 38s (S&S designed) for $30-40k.


So have I, but for $40k I'd rather have a W32 than a S&S C38 for a world cruise. I'm sure the C38 is faster but the two I've seen in person were not rigged as stoutly as most W32's I've seen for blue water sailing. The hull may be worthy, but I'm not so sure about rigging and hardware. I realize these were I"O"R (ocean) designed boats, but they wouldn't be my choice for extended bluewater duty.

In any case, I love the tumble-home look of the flared beam on the C38...pretty boat.


----------



## casioqv (Jun 15, 2009)

kwaltersmi said:


> So have I, but for $40k I'd rather have a W32 than a S&S C38 for a world cruise. I'm sure the C38 is faster but the two I've seen in person were not rigged as stoutly as most W32's I've seen for blue water sailing. The hull may be worthy, but I'm not so sure about rigging and hardware.


I'm just "bench sailing" since I've never been on either boat, but it sounds like the W32 might be so massively over-rigged and heavy even for crossing oceans, that it doesn't sail well. The C38 is a stoutly rigged bluewater capable boat with excellent sailing performance.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

casioqv said:


> The C38 is a stoutly rigged bluewater capable boat with excellent sailing performance.


I'm not so sure I agree. I'm guessing the factory wire standing rigging would need to be upsized for serious offshore work. Additional offshore liabilities for the C38 include: bulkheads that are not glassed to the hull liner, a huge companionway opening, large cockpit, exposed spade rudder, and smallish tankage (when compared to the W32).


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

*W32 => C38?*



casioqv said:


> I've seen plenty of Catalina 38s (S&S designed) for $30-40k.


Aha! My thinking has led me to think a Catalina 38 might be the ticket. The design certainly has a great pedigree.

Questions though - does a Catalina 38 rate as a bluewater cruiser? That is, would you feel comfortable relying on it for long passages, crossing oceans, cruising the world?

Is the construction robust enough?

It's fast and efficient I hear, but does the design also lend itself to the considerations that crops up in unplanned weather 1,000 miles from the nearest Coast Guard?

Sincerely wondering, as the Catalina 38 seems to be the apple of my eye at present...


----------



## casioqv (Jun 15, 2009)

kulokoo said:


> Questions though - does a Catalina 38 rate as a bluewater cruiser?


The Pardeys seem to think so:

An Interesting and Affordable Cruising Boat Choice | Sailing Blog | Lin & Larry Pardey


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

casioqv said:


> The Pardeys seem to think so:
> 
> An Interesting and Affordable Cruising Boat Choice | Sailing Blog | Lin & Larry Pardey


I have no where near the experience, clout or expertise that the Pardeys clearly have earned, but I disagree none-the-less for all the reasons mentioned in my above post.


----------



## kulokoo (Feb 19, 2010)

Now that the Pardeys (whom I admire) have weighed in positively on the Yankee/Catalina 38s... they'll be few available in a few years, and all at a premium. Hahaha oh well. Interesting they liked it


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I have spent some time and sailed aboard the S&S Catalina 38. They can be a good choice/value for coastal club racing/cruising. 

It is certainly capable of long-distance coastal cruising and island hopping in the Caribbean. But I would not choose one for an itinerary that included extensive off-shore passagemaking. In fact, I would choose a modern Catalina 38 well ahead of it. 

Bear in mind that while the exaggerated tumblehome is easy on the eyes, it is also a liability when coming alongside a dock or pier -- making it very tricky to position fenders to protect the topsides.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

The very design of the C38 seems to flies in the face of what I know about the Pardey's choice of boat. They picked a full keel, heavy displacement, keel hung rudder, cutter rigged traditionally styled small cruiser. 

They suggest the S&S C38 as an "interesting and affordable" choice because of the designers (S&S) pedigree, windward performance and ballast-to-displacement ratio. I agree, so long as several modifications to the C38 are done, including glassing the bulkheads to the hull liner, making the drop boards secure and watertight, modifying the cockpit so that it has adequate drainage and increasing tankage (water, fuel, waste). There's nothing you can do about the spade rudder and fin keel, which the Pardeys admit are compromises for offshore sailing. I also have concerns about the large portlights on the C38, which may be a liability offshore. Furthermore, I'd prefer the simplicity and robustness of tiller steering in an offshore boat of that vintage, as would the Pardeys if s/v Serafin can be used as evidence.


----------



## johnseattle (Jun 21, 2009)

This looks as though it could be interesting and in Westsail style. An Ingrid 38 : Seven C's Sailing Web Log


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

kwaltersmi said:


> I often hear it said that there are "better choices" than a W32 for the money, but what are they? Considering that many W32's list/sell in the $40k-$50k range, what's a better world cruiser for that kind of money? In my previous post I listed several comparable boats, but many are more expensive and share the same characteristics as the W32. So again, what's a better world cruiser than a W32 for $40k to $50k?


I was also curious about this. What boat in this price range is better value for money than a Westsail 32?


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

GBurton said:


> I was also curious about this. What boat in this price range is better value for money than a Westsail 32?


The closest comparable boat (size, capabilities, space, price, etc.) I've run acrossed is the PSC Mariah 31. Still, I don't think it's quite as roomy as the W32 and it's much less common on the market. I don't know how well it sails, but the numbers and design lead me to believe it would sail similar to a W32.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

yup, only one way to settle this. .. sailboat demolition derby. what we will do is get em goin as fast as they can and you know the rest. wonder how long it would take to mortally wound one?


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

GBurton said:


> I was also curious about this. What boat in this price range is better value for money than a Westsail 32?


The Downeast 32 is pretty similar to the Westsail below the water line, performance (both good and bad) and in build quality. Actually, some of the last Westsails built were built in the Down East Yachts facility. (Westsail went under about a year or so before Down East Yachts.)

When I was looking, it seemed like the Westsails were a bit more expensive, but that as 6 years ago.


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

The Height of Hypocrisy
Quote #1 from Jeff H: “And lastly, the only thing worse than a person who provides misleading comments without first hand knowledge is someone, whether through self serving interest or self-delusion, who should know better and still makes misleading statements. That kind of “negative knowledge” is just plain dishonest and dangerous.”
Quote #2 from Jeff H: (Regarding a Westsail 32) “Since they are not routinely raced, if you carefully prep them, and happen to race in a race where the wind dies near the finish, stopping the leaders dead in their tracks, and then fills in from astern, you can win a distance race, as was the case with the widely quoted Pacific races.”

Quote #2 by Jeff H was fabricated by him in order to reinforce one of his opinions. The scenario he tried to create did not exist.
The verifiable fact is that the Westsail 32 finished 1st in it’s class, Boat for boat, in the 1990 pacific race. If Jeff H’s fabrication was true then it was the Westsail that would have been “stopped dead in it’s tracks”, giving the other 15 boats plenty of time to catch up.
Please Jeff H, your Quote #2 is a violation of this forum’s rules. Please keep to the facts.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Well said Oregonian! If the respected people around here are posting made up stories to suit their agenda, what does it say about the credibility of Sailnet?


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Oregonian said:


> ...
> Quote #2 by Jeff H was fabricated by him in order to reinforce one of his opinions. The scenario he tried to create did not exist.
> The verifiable fact is that the Westsail 32 finished 1st in it's class, Boat for boat, in the 1990 pacific race. If Jeff H's fabrication was true then it was the Westsail that would have been "stopped dead in it's tracks", giving the other 15 boats plenty of time to catch up.
> Please Jeff H, your Quote #2 is a violation of this forum's rules. Please keep to the facts.


You and GBurton sure get excited about this silly subject.

I have no idea how accurate Jeff_H's account is as to why a verifiability slow W32 once won a race in 1990. But his stated premise would sensibly lead to the described result. If you want to go after the facts of his premise, go for it, but then who cares?

Don Quixote and Sancho live, right here on SN.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> You and GBurton get so excited about this stilly subject that you can't to read a few sentences without turning them inside out.
> 
> I have no idea how accurate Jeff_H's account of how a verifiability slow W32 once won a race in 1990. But his stated premise would sensibly lead to the described result.
> 
> Don Quixote and Sancho live, right here on SN.


So its ok to lie to suit your agenda then?  This just gets better and better haha


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

What sailingfool has posted illustrates a classic trend on some of the sailing forums. Real world results and simple facts are ignored because they don't fit the "theoretical idea" that some have on boat design and performance. 
So make up a story to better suit your view.

And who is the real Don Quixote then?


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

Refresh my memory, was this the 1990 race the Pacific Cup or the SSS Single Handed Transpac? The Pac Cup has changed their rating formula which I think no longer favors a Westsail. Besides, the Hawaii races are all about weather routing and navigation (trading between distance sailed and boat speed). I wouldn’t stake everything on a single race. Don’t get me wrong – I like the Westsail and for you, on the Oregon coast, you probably couldn’t pick a better boat for the money, it is just not the fastest boat in the marina.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

No matter where we go, there is always a westsail 32 being sailed by an intrepid cruiser. Yep, not the fastest boat in the marina, and the owners don't give a rats ass about a PHRF rating or sailing around buoys. Funny how nobody can come up with anything comparable by waterline for a stout little affordable cruising vessel. Funny thing, but the marinas, boatyards and advertising are full of "windward" capable boats, sitting and rotting away because the owners don't have the stones to get out there and do it, either downwind or upwind.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The Westsail is a good stout cruiser, but there are other good cruisers with the same waterline or slightly less - Cape Dory 36, Alberg 37, Allied Princess 36 to name 3.

The Pacific Seacraft 37 has a waterline 3" longer than a Westsail 32 does.

If you are talking about newer boats, none will be in the same affordable category as a Westsail 32.


----------



## Siamese (May 9, 2007)

They only made 800 and some odd of the darned things, and the last one was produced 32 years ago. Amazing how much they get discussed.

Considering they've ended up all over the world, even more amazing is that the last time I looked, there were at least two, in good condition, for sale within an hour of me here in West Michigan.

I routinely see on out sailing when I'm out. _Somebody_ likes 'em.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

Siamese said:


> Considering they've ended up all over the world, even more amazing is that the last time I looked, there were at least two, in good condition, for sale within an hour of me here in West Michigan.


I've seen both of the Lake Michigan boats to which you refer and have been aboard one of them. Wish they were in my price range, as I think they'd fit my cruising style just perfectly. My biggest complaint would be the small cockpit for family cruising.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Siamese said:


> _Somebody_ likes 'em.


That's obvious. What I don't get is why so many people seem to be so emotionally invested in hating them. Every time they come up for discussion there will be one or two (often more) who go on endlessly about how awful they are. These people seem to think it is their mission in life to convince everyone else that the Westsail 32 is the worst boat that has ever been built.

Like, maybe their mother was frightened by a W32 while they were in the womb, and now they have an obsessive need to bad-talk the boats whenever they can.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Talk about hypocrisy and talking through his hat, Oregonian at the time that I made the comment on David King's victory in the 1988 Transpacific race, I had read a detailed description of the race and an article in which the skipper, David King talked about prepping his boat. I just tried to find that article but I could no longer find it online. The general description of the race from another source is below which generally supports my comment.

Based on the description of the race that I read at the time that I made the quoted comment below. Saraband had a really strong first couple days and chose to use them to get south of the high. Most of the leader boats went further to the north along the rhumb line where they were slowed by an usual pattern to the Pacific high and had to sail a lot more distance at a slower speed, and in some cases even sail away from the finish to get back to where the wind was, allowing Saraband to sail around many of them and correct out ahead of them.

This certianly shows both good seamanship and tactics on David King's part, and it does talk to the idea that a knowlegeable seaman on a slower boat, can often beat an unskillful or unlucky sailor on a faster boat. But to me this does not say that a Westsail 32 is a fast boat.

My other quote, "Since they are not routinely raced, if you carefully prep them" is also based on a comments by David King and others familiar with his boat. His boat has been heavily optimized for single-handed racing and benefits from a rating based on Westsail 32 fleet ratings. As has been said by other W-32 fans, few people who buy a boat like the Westsail 32 optimize its performance. And I would agree that this in part feeds thier reputation as being slow. I also agree that there are significant performance gains that can be made by having a proper sail inventory, carefully distributing weight on board, and trimming the sails properly, which is rarely the case with most heavy displacement cruisers.

But the rating for any boat is based on how the fleet does, and since few heavy displacement cruisers are routinely raced, the racing results and therefore the rating in part reflects this general fleet lack of preparation. In the piece that I had seen, David King talked about prepping his boat with a proper racing bottom and a carefully developed racing sail inventory, sailing the boat hard; just as hard at night as daytime. These are normal racing strategies and he should be commended for it. but this is not how single-handed race boats of that era, or normal Westsails are sailed. And so while he sailed the boat well and deserved the win, still, by the same token, he and his boat do also benefit from a rating based on average race results for the unprepared W-32 fleet average. And that is all that is all that I am saying in that quote.

I also believe that race results for any distance race like the single-handed Pacific race often have a lot of lessons, but these lessons are not always obvious or easy to broadly apply. To make this point, I have also included a quote below about Hank Dekker, a blind sailor, who skippered his Laser 28 to a third place in class around the same time. I owned a Laser 28 and there is no way that I would use Hank Dekker's race results to suggest that these are decent distant racers, or even that Laser 28's belong making transPacific passages. Similarly, I would not say that its a great idea for the average cruiser to try to cross oceans single-handed and blind, and yet Hank Dekker has shown that it can be done, and it can be done quite successfully.

My point here is that these linds of anecdotes are useful to a conversation and shed a light on what may be possible, but not necessarily what should be the expected norm.

Which gets me back to the central point of this thread. I never have or never would say, that the Westsail 32 was the worst boat ever, as someone mischaracterized my comments. What I did and would say is that the ones which were built properly are good solid cruising boats with an enviable cruising record. They have worked for many who have taken them distance voyaging under sail.

But that said, there are some very poorly built examples out there, and frankly, if one cares about performance, there are similar displacement designs which offer much better performance with a lot less work, and similar seaworthiness, and better motion comfort. On this last point, I have said that I personally do not like the motion of the Westsail 32 which tends to roll and pitch more than I would like. On the other hand while the roll and pitch angles are large, the Westsail 32 has a slow roll rate and the motion is not as jerky as many boats which are out there, and for some that is their ideal. Its just not mine.

So Oregonian before you get on your high horse and make wild charges about hypocrisy, I would suggest that you do a little homework.

Respectfully,
Jeff

History of the Pacific Cup | Pacific Cup
_"In 1988 winds were lighter than usual at 15 to 22 knots, and the seas were smooth. With the Pacific high pressure stretched out in an east-west oval, boats that started out on the rhumb line soon began to fear that they were too close to the high, and by fourth day most boats had turned more to the south. The winner on corrected time was Saraband, a Westsail 32 that had sailed a consistent pace for 14 days, 17 hours elapsed time, an amazing feat in relatively light winds. Second and third places went to the veteran boats Wild Goose and Magic Carpet, while Kathmandu took first in IOR after her competition got caught too far north and suffered from light winds."_

Quote 2:
"The '86 race, like the '80 version, established a number of firsts. Hank Dekker, a blind sailor, skippered his Laser 28 Outta Sight using braille charts, a braille compass, and a talking loran and clock. Not only did he complete the race in 17 days and 19 hours, but corrected out for a third place trophy in Division I."



Oregonian said:


> The Height of Hypocrisy
> Quote #1 from Jeff H: "And lastly, the only thing worse than a person who provides misleading comments without first hand knowledge is someone, whether through self serving interest or self-delusion, who should know better and still makes misleading statements. That kind of "negative knowledge" is just plain dishonest and dangerous."
> Quote #2 from Jeff H: (Regarding a Westsail 32) "Since they are not routinely raced, if you carefully prep them, and happen to race in a race where the wind dies near the finish, stopping the leaders dead in their tracks, and then fills in from astern, you can win a distance race, as was the case with the widely quoted Pacific races."
> 
> ...


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

GeorgeB: In answer to your question. Yes, the races were the Pacific cups. The 1988 and 1990. Also the 2010 SHTP (Single handed Trans Pac) gets thrown in there, as all were the same boat and all the same equipment. Also, Yes, the PHRF rating on the W-32 was changed from 216 in 1988 to 199. This new rating is called the PCR (Pacific Cup Rating). Many people have said something like “I wouldn’t stake everything on a single race”. I assure you that no one from the Westsail camp is. But I will stake a little bit on the 60,000nm I have sailed the W-32‘s. (I have delivered 8 of them) 
Your final comment said a lot about where you are with the W-32. “it is not the fastest boat in the marina” The people who know Westsails wonder why you added that. An EQUAL comment would be something like “One thing about a C&C is that they will never be the fastest boat in the marina”. Though equally true, it is simply not said, partly out of respect for the C&C’s.
The question that should be answered around here does not concern the speed of the Westsail-32. The question should be “why do all the more modern boats sail so much slower when they are used for serious cruising.” Or, “why are the more modern boats of (equal size) slower than a Westsail when they are used for cruising”. 

Denverdon: Your last comment was extremely well put. Thankyou


----------



## jvfocha (Feb 16, 2005)

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted on any boards other than the Westsail site because I got tired of dealing with all the misinformation, sometimes just plane lies about the boat. The last time I posted here was 2005. I was just made aware of some of the posts still being made so I read through them and have found that not much has changed, but I’ll try to show what a great cruising boat a Westsail really is. You can really see the bias when the discussion offers only negative critiques, nothing positive. We have owned our boat for eighteen years, cruising the Pacific coast, including Mexico and never regretted our choice once.

The biggest myth/lie is what a slug they are. Complete nonsense! We have often sailed in the company of other boats almost always larger than us and never had trouble keeping up with them. Coming down the Baja Coast we were with twelve plus boats. We were usually the last to leave an anchorage but always in the front of the pack when arriving at the next, once easily first. Postings like (a delivery crew took thirty days to do the 800 mile Baja bash when their motor conked out) mean absolutely nothing. We did the Baja Bash and it took us fourteen days motor sailing in horrendous conditions, four days at 30+ knts., eight days at 20+ knts., on the nose only two in calm conditions. Another Westsail posted on this site did the same passage but they sailed the clipper route (offshore) faster then we motored and that’s sailing to windward. I don’t like to use anecdotal evidence but since that seems to be the norm here, here’s two. We left Cabo for PV with a Fuju 45 and a Hunter 41. We stayed with the Fuji and left the Hunter behind. The second is when we left Cabo on the Bash and immediately got hit by 30 knts. on the nose. A Catalina 38 left with us and after two attempts gave up and a month later hired a delivery crew. Does it prove we’re a faster or a better boat? Of course not. But it does show it’s as up to the task as any. I have dozens of examples but I think you get the point. These boats make more than decent passages and I have found our times to be average for a 35/40’ boat, not a boat under 35’. Cursing is the great equalizer; the fastest boat doesn’t always make the fastest passages. So if looking at a Westsail, speed is the last thing to worry about if you’re a decent sailor. 

These are solid well built boats capable of safely and easily going anywhere in the world. The three boats mentioned in a post about the puddle jump have a story behind them that I won’t go into now, but it wasn’t the fault if the boats. Yes some of the home built ones are poor quality, but most are pretty decent and those built by shipwrights are stunning. I don’t know of any hull separation problems, there might be but I have never heard of any. I do know the first Westsail built and it is rock solid with no problems. Our first year in the Sea of Cortez, four boats went aground. One I don’t remember the kind, the other two were Catalina’s, were lost. A Westsail went on the rocks leaving La Paz when the owner died. It was towed back with little damage and sold. 

Uncomfortable? Not to us. This is the most comfortable small cruising boat I’ve been on when it gets crappy and that’s the norm here on the Pacific coast. When it gets rough, we go down below with the one on watch sticking their head up and checking every 10 min or so, the other sleeps like a baby. My wife told me once that while on her watch some waves broke over the cabin top, I wouldn’t know I was sound asleep.

These are one of the best boats under 35’ you can select for true long distance voyaging, with storage and carrying capacity equal to a larger boat, especially when considering dollar/pound. There are a lot of good boats under 35’, but most are lighter in displacement. Displacement is important because that equates to carrying capacity, very important when cruising. Our Westsail has all the storage we need and is small enough my wife can handle it. She brought the boat back from So, Cal, as I was injured and couldn’t walk. A valid point can be made about paying for a bowsprit. But we only pay $230/month here in Calif. We rarely stay in a marina while cruising, but on two occasions in Mexico we were charged documented length. Comparing them to a Pearson 424 is ridiculous, they’re two different boats. A fairer comparison would be to a Westsail 42/43, a boat with a third more carrying capacity than the Pearson at the same length.

When I see comments like “It’s Westsail like but a sails better” I cringe. We’ve never seen any boats less than 35’ loaded with cruising gear that would stay with us while cruising, but then we were staying with 35/40 footers. It’s important for people to get a fair opinion on the boats not the one based on ignorance. This weekend a couple looking for a boat came by and we had long discussion in which I pointed out the good and the short comings as well. I’m not saying we’re fast, but as a cursing boat we can be. 

One of the last posts shows how far someone will go to demean the boat. True they don’t race often but when they do and do well they should get credit. Not cherry picking a few loose facts to support a contrived argument. Fact-Saraband won, others sailed the same course and lost. Fact-Saraband placed second last year in SHTP only because of a broken boom, with old sails and not being really race ready. Against some boats that were built for that race. When it comes to Westsails this author has no credibility with me. Everything done to Saraband to ready for the Transpac was no different than the other boats. “Getting the facts straight”, the author didn’t even get the skippers name right.
JIm


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Well, you corrected one of your mistakes Jeff but are wrong on several other points as well. 
I do not want to speak for Dave King but I do know that the majority of the sails on the boat including the mainsail are 20 years old.
And his boat is not "optimized for single handing" unless you call a spinnaker sock and autopilot "special single hander modifications"...

I'm surprised that you know more about this race than Oregonian.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JohnRPollard said:


> Brian, We prefer to say "mistaken".


I always preferred Ron Ziegler's "the former statement is no longer operative".

:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Note to Oregonian et.al. re: comments about Jeff H's opinions, statements etc.

That term "Super Moderator" under under his name is Virginia slang for "don't mess with ME". Not only is he more experienced and knowledgeable than most on this board but he also has his hand on "The Button".

Your tones are approaching that which is reserved for the PRWG forum.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Is it not allowed to challenge Jeff_H's opinion and postings on this forum because he is a "super moderator"?

If some of you haven't figured it out yet Oregonian is Dave King. If he cannot straighten out what others have said about the performance and tactics as well as weather conditions during his racing days then what has this place come to?

I did notice that in Jeff_H's last post that he has softened his rhetoric on the W32 slightly. What used to be


> Although the Westsails still carry huge sailplans compared to most 32 footers and or most boats with their waterline length, they are next to useless as sailboats in winds under 8 or so knots


 is now


> I never have or never would say, that the Westsail 32 was the worst boat ever, as someone mischaracterized my comments. What I did and would say is that the ones which were built properly are good solid cruising boats with an enviable cruising record. They have worked for many who have taken them distance voyaging under sail.


That is the first time I have ever heard anything remotely positive from Jeff_H on this boat.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

JomsViking said:


> Because Eric Hiscock asked Giles to design his boats, and I'm pretty sure that if he had had one designed a few years later than he did, it would have been more like Jeff's boat than a Westsail.
> Hal Roth (who died recently) also discusses the Westsail in one of his books, and is pretty clear that he dislikes it. He said something along the lines that any decent boat could sail figure eights around a Westsail IIRC.
> So while some of us (and Hal Roth) have personal preferences, I wanted Tuco to realize that Jeff_H knows a heck of a lot about boats, and should consider the tradeoffs mentioned VERY carefully.
> And even though Jeff has said some things about my current boat (early IOR design) that hurt her feelings, he's not uninformed  but You and I agree that he's not


Oddly enough, Hiscock's advice on having a boat designed would be some of the LAST advice I'd take. I've read all his books and with the exception of Wanderer III, he had MAJOR design problems with his boats. The last one - the 38' cutter, was almost unmanageable due to the rudder being so badly designed. The whole back end of the boat had to be redone to make it steer.

There were things like that mentioned all the time in his books - serious design flaws, not just detail changes. He & Susan were such consummate seamen that they always overcame and/or corrected them but in a custom designed & built boat I'd expect a lot better. The fact that it happened more than once leads me to believe he (they) was at least partly to blame in some way - overriding the designer or something.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Folks, folks, folks.... can we cool this one down a bit?

(Moderator's hat off): I don't know of anyone else on this forum that tries to avoid offending anyone personally more than Jeff H. He has (strong) opinions on what is an ideal boat, as obviously do the W32 crowd, as do I, and pretty much anyone else. All of our opinions are formed by the type of sailing we do, the waters we sail in and the various aspects of the sport that appeal most. For example Jeff and I disagree on the suitability of older IOR boats as good-value coastal cruisers... I love the shippy look of the Westsails, but wouldn't own one here in the predominantly upwind-or-downwind-and-not-much-in-between world we sail in here in the PNW. They are not the right boat for me but obviously not everyone feels that way; and that's fine.

To the W32 crowd, I think you need to work a little on growing a skin more like the thickness of your sturdy boats' hulls.... and maybe just be grateful you don't sail a Buccaneer!

It's clear that many, many more W32s have done significant ocean voyages, doubtless much more than the typical Farr 38 or run-of-the-mill production boats.. nobody's denying or belittling that.
(Hat on)
I'm sure that Jeff is more than willing to debate this topic, but let's all keep it cool and leave the personal angle out of it. Jeff clearly has the respect of most on this forum, his moderator duties have nothing to do with that. We are all allowed our opinions, and no one has ever been banned here for properly stating their opinions.


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

*An open letter about Westsail-32's An opinion*

This is an open letter to anyone who has any interest at all concerning Westsail-32's. The critics have had much to say. That is their right, but remember, bigotry and lies cross the line. An opinion is an acceptable statement on this forum. There are a number of "Experts" on this forum. I can respect that. I do not respect the word of an "Expert" when he/she does not have enough experience in the field to be suggesting what is best to a person who is honestly looking for information.
It is well documented that JeffH knows a lot about boats. He IS an expert on many things nautical. He appears to be an expert in the theory of sail boats and how they are supposed to work. It appears, however, that he is seriously lacking in real ocean voyaging experience. That is only my opinion. There are many kinds of boats out there that behave differently in the ocean than in smooth water. Also there is a huge difference in how boats behave when they are ladened versus unladened. After sailing many heavily ladened boats it becomes obvious that theoretical performance no longer applies and other qualities take over. This will never be learned without experiencing it. I'm sorry. A thousand day sails on a thousand different boats or a single passage on one type does not produce an expert on long distance voyaging boats.
An example of an opinion: JeffH does not like the slow easy motion of the Westsail-32. "I have said that I personally do not like the motion of the Westsail 32 which tends to roll and pitch more than I would like"
Oregonians opinion: I favor the slow easy motion of the Westsail-32, which never pounds, over the more flat bottomed boat that does pound. Pounding to weather for an hour is one thing, but pounding to weather for 800 miles is something that very few cruising sailors can tolerate.
The point here is that theory takes a back seat to reality.
Sailing performance is always the biggest single quality the critics mention. They will always tell you how almost anything is faster than a Westsail. They "prove" it by sighting PHRF ratings, and using the word "modern".
I am embarrassed to repeat this to them: The PHRF ratings are for EMPTY boats. Racer/cruisers and Performance/cruisers when loaded will sail quite a bit slower, in all directions when loaded. The full displacement cruisers speed is affected much less when loaded. The result of this loading is that the Racer/cruiser or performance/cruiser can easily become slower than the full displacement cruiser. An "expert" that states otherwise is obviously lacking in experience.
It is very easy to look at numbers and formulas and determine the best boat theoretically. It is much much harder to bugger on out there and test those theories on a 20 day passage on an over loaded cruising boat. Add a little bad weather and you are left only with the reality.
I do not claim to be an expert on anything, but in addition to the 60,000nm I have on W-32's, I also have more than 100,000nm on over 140 different sailboats. All deliveries have been 100nm or more. Yes, I have certainly seen the many modern boats. I have sailed them empty and full. The unfortunate fact is when they are ladened they are slow and uncomfortable. More slow and uncomfortable than a Westsail-32. But that is just my opinion.
Thankyou


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

GBurton said:


> Is it not allowed to challenge Jeff_H's opinion and postings on this forum because he is a "super moderator"?
> 
> If some of you haven't figured it out yet Oregonian is Dave King. If he cannot straighten out what others have said about the performance and tactics as well as weather conditions during his racing days then what has this place come to?


Did you miss the  ?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

I've been reading opinions, worship, trash talk and experiences of and about Westies for more than 30 years - all the way back to when they were still being built. All of it has sounded very much like THIS thread, so apparently few if any minds have been changed by all that syntax.

I have never sailed one but I have seen many, including Ferenc Mates "Warm Rain" - my own boat is in the boatyard he refers to in one of his books as being "next door" to his house. I live in a wet, light air area, so even though I really love them, I just can't see owning one here. Anywhere the wind blows, I'd very seriously consider one, just for the "pirate" factor they offer, if nothing else. 

IMHO, there is only ONE real reason to buy a Westie - when you are walking down the dock and see one and you stop in your tracks and start dreaming as you look it over. Very few boats shout "Little Ship" like they do. They push ALL those buttons with labels like "warm", "cozy", "shippy", "sturdy", "confidence inspiring", "solid", "seagoing", etc. etc.

If it pushes those buttons hard enough for you, it's love - you should buy one and probably won't ever regret it.

If, on the other hand, you start noticing things like the tiny footwell cockpit and think "uuhhh - no back support", or the bluff bow and think "short chop???" and so forth then your logic and design knowledge have won out and you should not buy one because you don't have the emotional hit, or not enough of it and will never be satisfied with the tradeoffs made for its kind of performance and the other things it offers. 

That's the sum total of what I've learned from more than 3 decades of spectating people duking it out over these boats - they engender a special passion in some (many) people. For better or worse, they are largely an emotional choice, not a logical one. Since ALL sailboats fall basically into that situation, forget about trying to convert anyone.

Or was that old "Westsail the World" just the best advertising campaign the world has ever seen and we are STILL being affected by it subliminally?


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Oregonian said:


> This is an open letter to anyone who has any interest at all concerning Westsail-32's. The critic have had much to say. That is their right, but remember, bigotry and lies cross the line. An opinion is an acceptable statement on this forum. .....


It's great that you and GBurton love your boats, and want to prosletyze for them. If you want to start a tread that agrues the tradeoffs present in the W32 make it a creditable long distance cruising boat, and that folks looking for such should consider one, if they accept its tradeoffs, well go for it...

But this tread is the performance thread...the claim that the W32 performs just like any other 32 footer, as in:


GBurton said:


> J......
> Also - the reports of the W32 being slow etc etc are from people who either dont know how to sail or just regurgitated internet hearsay. They are very comparable performance wise to other similar boats whern sailed well....


 an argument always supported by attacking the knowledge or integrity of those with different opinions.

So the boat won a race or two in its fourty years of life. Good for it and for the talented sailor who pulled that rabbit out of the hat. To attack others who question your claim that relative slowness is not one of its tradeoffs reflects the desperation of a truely hopeless case. One so silly its not worth arguing.

Love your boats but dont get so ugly when others say slow is well...slow.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> It's great that you and GBurton love your boats, and want to prosletyze for them. If you want to start a tread that agrues the tradeoffs present in the W32 make it a creditable long distance cruising boat, and that folks looking for such should consider one, if they accept its tradeoffs, well go for it...
> 
> But this tread is the performance thread...the claim that the W32 performs just like any other 32 footer, as in:
> an argument always supported by attacking the knowledge or integrity of those with different opinions.
> ...


SloopJonB has written that he has never sailed on a W32. Have you?


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Hey, what happened to the like button on this thread and what happened to page 7?
Maybe some of you folks should be out sailing instead of waxing on and on about the westsail 32...maybe a few more sea miles will cure what ails ya!


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> SloopJonB has written that he has never sailed on a W32. Have you?


As the Great Communicator once said "There you go again!".

This thread has been nasty and ugly, and about nothing.

I'll quote http://www.phrfne.org/page/handicapping/base_handicaps:
BOAT...............Handicap
WESTSAIL 32.......222

If you don't think 222 is slow, well I agree to dis-agree and leave you the subject as you are more than welcome to it.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> As the Great Communicator once said "There you go again!".
> 
> This thread has been nasty and ugly, and about nothing.
> 
> ...


I have asked you this question twice and both times you have declined to answer......I'll have to take that as a "no"

So you are comfortable judging a boat solely on its (old) phrf rating? Do you think that is fair?



> You are welcome to your opinion about the W32, and to share it, but it adds nothing to the credibility of your opinion to cut down those who dis-agree. The judgers are knowledgeable sailors sharing their real-world experiences...and may be judging very fairly. How's the following fit your fairness standard?


Yes, I own and sail a Westsail 32.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> ......
> So you are comfortable judging a boat solely on its (old) phrf rating? Do you think that is fair?....


That is the current W32 rating. The heading of the page at PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps
is "PHRF-NE BASE HANDICAPS 23 October 2011".

My personal experience with thirty something years of racing under PHRF New England is that the handicappers do a remarkably good job of valuing the performance of boats, so I think it fair and reasonable to reference their rating.

(Caveat:I do believe that boats with unusually slow ratings like the W32 generally have trouble sailing to their ratings outside blustery conditions, which I think is the reason, outside the fun races, you very rarely see anyone trying to push boats like these around a course...but that is just my opinion)



GBurton said:


> ....
> Yes, I own and sail a Westsail 32.


Enjoy! To each their own.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> That is the current W32 rating. The heading of the page at PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps
> is "PHRF-NE BASE HANDICAPS 23 October 2011".
> 
> My personal experience with thirty something years of racing under PHRF New England is that the handicappers do a remarkably good job of valuing the performance of boats, so I think it fair and reasonable to reference their rating.
> ...


Thanks, I do enjoy my boat!

The rating I was referring to was the PCR (199) but your base rating is correct......for round the buoys racing.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

sailingfool said:


> My personal experience with thirty something years of racing under PHRF New England is that the handicappers do a remarkably good job of valuing the performance of boats, so I think it fair and reasonable to reference their rating.


Here I have to agree in part with the W-32 crowd. As I was trying to explain above, boats of a type that are not normally raced, or which are mostly raced casually, often have ratings which are slower than a well prepped and well sailed boat of the same design is capable of sailing. PHRF ratings are adjusted to fleet results, and while they are supposed to reflect a well prepared boat, in the case of a distance cruiser like the Westsail, where few owners carry and use racing sails, or have racing bottoms, or the kind of adjust on the fly deck hardware that you would expect out of a boat that is intended to be raced, the fleet results will make the boat seem slower than it really is capable of sailing if well sailed and properly prepped.

And for what it is worth, I also agree with the point, that performance boats do sail slower proportionately slower than their ratings when fully loaded, especially when similar length boats are compared.

Where I disagree with this would be in the case where we are comparing equal displacement boats of different lengths, especially where the waterline lengths are substantially different. There may be other reasons that you might chose one or the other, but a longer length waterline boat should easily out perform a shorter water line length boat with equal displacement boat, no matter how they are loaded.

For example, if we compare a boat like the Westsail 32 with something like the new Malo 40 (and this is not intended as an endoursement for the Malo or knock on the Westsail), whatever their other virtues or liabilities, these boat's published displacements are within a few hundred pounds of each other but the Malo sails on a 33'-6" waterline and the Westsail on a roughly 28 foot waterline.

When talking about carrying capacity and its impact on performance, immersion relative to added weight becomes a key component. In this example, the Malo imerses 1" for every approximately 1500 Lbs as compared to the Westsail imersing 1" for every 1060 or so.

While these are rough estimates using Carl's sailcalc, the relative proportion would suggest for an equal weight in gear and consumables, the Westsail would immerse considerably further. In a broad general sense, the impact on performance of adding weight is proportinate to the weight added relative to the design displacement of the boat, (since sail area is usually proportionate to displacement and stability), and the amount of added immersion (which impacts both induced and surface drag).

Since the Malo in this example has a similar displacement, and would immerse less than than Westsail for a given carrying cpacity, you would expect that it would not lose any more speed than the Westsail as it is loaded equally. Since the Malo starts out with a PHRF rating down around 132, no matter which rating you use for the Westsail 32, this would suggest that the Malo for an equal displacement would start out and remain significantly faster no matter how was added.

In the end, I fully believe that it is hard to have an apples to apples discussion on speed when comparing boats like the Westsail. If your goal is to sail the tradewinds on smallish boat, as measured by length on deck, then a good case can be made for Westsail offering reasonable performance. If your goal is focused on coastal cruising, or even if your goal was distance cruising but with performance in mind, within reason, then a longer boat for its displacement will offer a lot more preformance and frankly, will be more easily driven and so be easier to handle as well. And if you sail in a venue with truly light air, it is very hard to make a case for any high drag, low SA/D boat.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> Here I have to agree in part with the W-32 crowd. As I was trying to explain above, boats of a type that are not normally raced, or which are mostly raced casually, often have ratings which are slower than a well prepped and well sailed boat of the same design is capable of sailing. PHRF ratings are adjusted to fleet results, and while they are supposed to reflect a well prepared boat, in the case of a distance cruiser like the Westsail, where few owners carry and use racing sails, or have racing bottoms, or the kind of adjust on the fly deck hardware that you would expect out of a boat that is intended to be raced, the fleet results will make the boat seem slower than it really is capable of sailing if well sailed and properly prepped.
> 
> And for what it is worth, I also agree with the point, that performance boats do sail slower proportionately slower than their ratings when fully loaded, especially when similar length boats are compared.
> 
> ...


Just for laughs I googled the Malo 40 and came up with one advertised on yachtworld. The price? $696 500

yip, good comparison. NOT.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

GBurton said:


> Just for laughs I googled the Malo 40 and came up with one advertised on yachtworld. The price? $696 500
> 
> yip, good comparison. NOT.


_Jane, you ignorant slut!_

Serious, I agree with you that the comparason would not be a good one if the purpose were comparing boats based on price instead of displacement, which is why I felt compelled to say, "this is not intended as an endoursement for the Malo or knock on the Westsail), whatever their other virtues or liabilities,".

To be clear, I chose the Malo because its displacement was approximately the same as the Westsail, and I was able to easily find a PHRF number for it. A new Malo 40 lists for $ 470,050

I will go out on a limb here and say that a Westsail could probably easily beat the Malo when considered on a Knots per Dollar basis.

Jeff


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> _Jane, you ignorant slut!_
> 
> Serious, I agree with you that the comparason would not be a good one if the purpose were comparing boats based on price instead of displacement, which is why I felt compelled to say, "this is not intended as an endoursement for the Malo or knock on the Westsail), whatever their other virtues or liabilities,".
> 
> ...


_Harry, you sanctimonious good old boy you!_ 

Hey, I can do this too! But seriously, comparing the Westsail 32 to a Malo 40 is a stretch. People don't go looking at Westsails because they are looking for a cutting edge boat with looks and price to match.

Why not compare the Westsail to boats of similar displacement, vintage and cost? That would be more of an apples to apples comparison.

The Westsail is a budget cruiser that does its intended task well, better than what some would have others believe.

I read somewhere that you are a naval architect. Is that true?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

No, I am not a naval architect. I am a licensed architect with my own firm designing buildings (HALPERN ARCHITECTS - Annapolis, Maryland - Custom Residential and Commercial Architecture)

I have worked in the yacht design industry though. At various times in my life, I worked with yacht designers and designed a number of boats myself. For example, I worked with Charlie Wittholz in the early 1980's. At other times, I worked running the drafting room for naval architect designing an ocean going tug and have done consulting work for yacht repair yards doing design and engineering. My mother started a couple companies that built power boats in Asia, and I did consulting work with her. I also used to do some yacht interiors and deck layout design for a guy who had a business gutting older fiberglass boats and modernizing their layout, but that work dried up nearly 20 years ago.

My own yacht design projects covered a pretty wide range, from adapting a Lawley dinghy to be a pulling boat for a square rigger, to a small trimarran designed to built in a fellow's living room, to a small cold-molded MORC race boat, up to a traditional schooner designed to be deep-long liner (preliminary sail plan image below)

But all that said, I really consider myself an amateur when it comes to yacht design.

(BTW the _"Jane, you ignorant slut" _comment was aimed at myself and not you as a way of acknowledging the point that I had chosen a much more expensive design. )

Jeff








[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> No, I am not a naval architect. I am a licensed architect with my own firm designing buildings (HALPERN ARCHITECTS - Annapolis, Maryland - Custom Residential and Commercial Architecture)
> 
> I have worked in the yacht design industry though. At various times in my life, I worked with yacht designers and designed a number of boats myself. For example, I worked with Charlie Wittholz in the early 1980's. At other times, I worked running the drafting room for naval architect designing an ocean going tug and have done consulting work for yacht repair yards doing design and engineering. My mother started a couple companies that built power boats in Asia, and I did consulting work with her. I also used to do some yacht interiors and deck layout design for a guy who had a business gutting older fiberglass boats and modernizing their layout, but that work dried up nearly 20 years ago.
> 
> ...


Interesting! Thanks for sharing.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

A westsail doing 6.5 k to weather:


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

GBurton said:


> Why not compare the Westsail to boats of similar displacement, vintage and cost? That would be more of an apples to apples comparison.


As I proposed earlier, I think the PSC Mariah 31 makes for a fairly comparable boat, though I can't offer an opinion since I've never been aboard one. Any feel for how the two compare? Build quality? Sailing characteristics? Design?

GBurton - Great photo! I'd love to see a larger version of this image.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

kwaltersmi said:


> As I proposed earlier, I think the PSC Mariah 31 makes for a fairly comparable boat, though I can't offer an opinion since I've never been aboard one. Any feel for how the two compare? Build quality? Sailing characteristics? Design?
> 
> GBurton - Great photo! I'd love to see a larger version of this image.


I have not been aboard one either. Looking at the numbers only:

LOA MkI: 36′ 0″
LOA MkII: 37′ 0″
LOD: 30′ 11″
LWL: 25′ 0″
Beam: 10′ 8″
Draft: 4′ 5″
Displacement: 16,000 lbs.
Ballast (lead): 6,000 lbs.
Sail Area: 596 sq. ft.
Headroom: 6′ 5″
Base PHRF 242

It looks like it is a very similar boat to the W32 but a bit lighter and slower.

edit: from Oregonian


> I have worked on and sailed a Mariah. The build quality is equal to or better than a Westsail. I consider all the differences as preferences of the owners.


A Mariah between two Westsails


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> think so...I remember well beating up Naraganett Bay on a blustery day in an original Cal 25, working jib with a reef, and sailing over a W32 on the same point of sail. She looked soooooo lovely, staysail and full main flying...but 20 minutes later she was no longer in sight.
> 
> Just a personal observation.


slightly edited for purposes of making a point..

Was the Westsail you passed the same one in the picture that I posted SailingFool?

I remember well blowing by a 53' ketch with all sails flying at a local round the buoys race here where I live on my W32

What does that prove? Nothing.


----------



## jvfocha (Feb 16, 2005)

Let’s try this one more time. Maybe we can have an intelligent discussion that will help someone to make a decision, even if the decision is that a Westsail is not for them. I’m the first to admit a Westsail isn’t for everyone, as most people reading this will never go cruising. I for one think that that for causal sailing most would be better off with a modern fin keel boat. But if you really want a bullet proof voyaging boat in that size and price range, you couldn't be better served then by a Westsail. 

You can’t blame Westsailors for becoming indignant when the same falsehoods are regurgitated year after year, that they know from experience to be untrue. Here’s an example of how that misinformation can be so misleading. Nineteen years ago we were about to purchase a new Crealock 37, a recession hit, so we decided to go to the used boat market. At the same time the “Wetsnail” controversy arose in Latitude 38. We quickly decided that this would not be the boat for us. Fortunately we became friends with an older cruiser who had owned several boats and now had a Westsail. He convinced us to take another hard look at them. We’re glad we did. Had we listened to all the negative hype, we would have missed out on a great cruising boat. The real danger of this type of hyperbole is persuading someone not to even consider a boat that might be right for them, based on ignorance, not real world experience. To put it another way, you can’t make good decisions with bad information.

That said, here are a few Pros.

Affordability – For a true voyaging boat I believe them to be the best value on the market for their size and type. They’re a lot of boat for the dollar, one you can confidently take anywhere in world.

Sail ability – No doubt about it waterline rules and there’s no way around it. But they do sail quite well and are great at passage making. They’re awesome in heavy weather, but they really do sail best in 10/15 Knts. Forget the ratings game that doesn’t apply to cruising. The Sea of Cortez is notorious for light air. We did as good as any and better than most. Check the other post on this site “1000 miles to windward”. It’s not uncommon for a delivery captain to take 10 days for the average 35/40 footer to get to Ensenada. He got to San Diego in 12 and that’ a tough trip to weather. 

Carrying Capacity – Tons of storage, the ability to carry a large load. The Crealock 37 which I still consider one of finest cruising boats there are, has a longer waterline but is still 4,000# lighter. A lot of 35/40 cruising boats have less carrying capacity than a Westsail. But this is still closer to a real world comparison than a Malo, especially when considering cost. We were next to a Malo in La Cruz, Mexico and they are awesome. Sailors that have come aboard remark that we have more storage and many times they had a larger boat.

Hull strength – 1” thick and bullet proof

Full keel – Some would consider this a liability and it is for around the buoy racing. But when surfing down a 30’+ wave, a boat that tracks like a train is a godsend. We know this firsthand.

Rudder – No rudder post or chain two worry about. A direct cause of several lost boats in the Pacific recently. The tiller is tied off with no binnacle in the way.

Engine access – Is really quite good on most boats. For routine maintenance access is through a door in the cabin, for repairs and extensive service the cockpit floor easily comes out for access to everything, 

To be “fair and balanced” here are some cons, even though the critics have covered them well.

Cockpit – Even we call it the second most uncomfortable cockpit in a boat. But really not that bad with some thought.

Teak – There is a lot of teak to care for. Not much of a problem until it gets away from you and then it’ a *****, which is why our boat is methodically maintained. Keep in mind some fine yachts still have a lot of teak such as Cabo Rico, Island Packet, Crealock and others.

Bomkin stays/tangs - Most boats have already gone to larger tangs but you still need to keep an eye on the stays especially if the exhaust drains on them. Some boats just remove the bomkin completely and run double stays to the hull. 

No Westsailors I know believes they have the best boat, except for them, or the fastest. But we do know how wrong the critics are, especially without firsthand experience. Speaking of experience, I see thirty years here, thirty years there posted about experience. There’s no doubt there is a vast amount of knowledge and experience here. I also have a few “boat years “, but only considered myself an expert in a couple areas. When you talk about experience, Oregonian’s is hard to match. He has a lifetime working on boats, cruised the South Pacific several times on his Westsail, delivered 140 boats logging @160,000 nautical miles. That many ocean miles on that many boats, gives someone a perspective and real world experience that very few of us will ever attain.

I do know a Mariah 31, a burgundy trimmed beauty that’s an eye catcher. But I would still pick a Westsail owing to more carrying capacity and passage making ability. We don’t feel qualified to bash other boats even with a few “boat years”. Just the opposite, I can’t remember a cruising boat that we’ve been on that there wasn’t something we thought was “ way cool”. There’re very few boats under 35’ that will do as well as a Westsail in the real world of cruising, especially when considering carrying capacity, passage making and comfort. These opinions do not come from armchair pontificating, but from putting thousands of miles under our keel.

We are now preparing for our next voyage, Pacific Central America.

Jim


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

kwaltersmi said:


> As I proposed earlier, I think the PSC Mariah 31 makes for a fairly comparable boat, though I can't offer an opinion since I've never been aboard one. Any feel for how the two compare? Build quality? Sailing characteristics? Design?
> 
> GBurton - Great photo! I'd love to see a larger version of this image.


Here you go! The photo credits and copyright belong to Dave's wife Ruth.

Click on the link to go to a zoomable version:
https://picasaweb.google.com/111090046524933302735/Saraband#5702163465745804370


----------

