# Refurbishing CCA boats



## seaner97

Jeff and I have been having a discussion on the B34 and T34c threads that I thought deserved its own spot. 

Starting from the acknowledgment that nothing lasts forever, newer hulls are faster and more commodious, but far more expensive than those that are on the market from the CCA era of the 60s, I began asking about the 'Moderate build quality' tag that gets thrown onto some boats (Pearsons and Bristols, mostly) from that era. Jeff pointed out two U.S. Brands that he felt were superior in their glasswork- early Grampians and Tartans, but had no experience with others he could speak to. I posit that all makes from that era are essentially handmade items and exposed to similar QI issues, making them hard to really compare, and that as there is no universally recognized system, this seems somewhat unfair to the Pearson cousins as they seem to get singled out with this, with rarely any other U.S. company other than Hinkley, and now the two above (although only in Jeff estimable opinion, which I don't doubt) ever gets mentioned as superior. 
Thoughts from the rest?
Also- if you were to attempt to make a FRP boat from this era last forever, how do you do it(setting aside those of you that would say why bother- this isn't meant as a referendum on their value. Suffice that many of us like these old, slow, pretty boats and want to play caretaker to these antiques.)? And what structural upgrades could you retrofit to make them 'superior'?


----------



## SloopJonB

Grampians were Canadian.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Grampians were Canadian.


Of course they were. My bad on my attempted summary of the multiple prior posts.


----------



## hriehl1

Mine is not a first-hand knowledgeable opinion. But when I had my 1968 Hinterhoeller HR28 professionally surveyed 4 years ago after I bought it, the surveyor gushed several times as to how ruggedly-built it was. He was very impressed not just at the condition, but at the overall heavily-built design.

Hinterhoeller was a well-regarded builder of C&Cs , Niagara's and Nonsuches, but his earlier Sharks and HR28s may also be deserving of some respect.

I am a happy HR28 owner.


----------



## killarney_sailor

George Hinterhoeller left C&C because he got fed up being told by MBAs how to build boats. He took his share of the company and created the second incarnation of Hinterhoeller Yachts (Nonsuchs and Niagaras and a Frers design). Excellent boats. I am sure his earlier boats were about as good as the knowledge of that time would allow.


----------



## killarney_sailor

I think it makes sense for this thread to deal with rebuilds on older f/g boats in general. CCA was a rating rule for racing and not all boats of the time were built with an eye on this rule.


----------



## desert rat

What else would you, could you, should you, do for these boats other than the obvious.
I fear that my future holds a major re fit on my first boat.
Fix rot and de lamination in deck and cockpit, over drill and re bed deck hardware.
Seal and glass hull deck joint.
Re seal ports and hatches.
Replace repair and re bed chain plates.
Replace repair and re bed keel bolts and keel.


----------



## seaner97

killarney_sailor said:


> I think it makes sense for this thread to deal with rebuilds on older f/g boats in general. CCA was a rating rule for racing and not all boats of the time were built with an eye on this rule.


Yes, but I intentionally limited it to these because it effectively hit the spot I'm interested in late 50s-72 glass boats. I think 72-86 had different issues, and 86-present are vastly different in construction. 
What made a boat superior in the 60s? For one that isn't or wasn't, what can you do to make her so today?
Further, other than watching for stress cracks and blistering, is there some way to tell your laminate is giving up the ghost?


----------



## SloopJonB

Stress cracks are usually just the gelcoat and blisters are rarely more than a cosmetic issue, seldom going deeper than the external mat layer.

Fiberglass that is truly "giving up the ghost" will become flexible and audibly crunch under pressure or flexure. Glass that is overstressed and failing will turn white as well.


----------



## mstern

If you want to know what types of upgrades/improvements can or should be made to a classic plastic, I highly recommend that you review Tim Lackey's work. Tim's business is all about restoring classic sailboats from that era, and his website is a wonderful resource for those who are asking themselves the exact same questions you are asking. Lackey Sailing LLC | Restoring and Rebuilding GreatÂ* Boats. Tim documents each job with photos and detailed explanations of what he is doing. I'm not affliated with or even a customer of Tim's; just a very interested observer.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Stress cracks are usually just the gelcoat and blisters are rarely more than a cosmetic issue, seldom going deeper than the external mat layer.
> 
> Fiberglass that is truly "giving up the ghost" will become flexible and audibly crunch under pressure or flexure. Glass that is overstressed and failing will turn white as well.


Then why all the consternation over work hardening and stress cycles. If you inspect well before voyage, reinforce your tabbing and address your rigging and hardware, should last forever, right? And if not- then when SHOULD a boat be called old and tired?


----------



## seaner97

mstern said:


> If you want to know what types of upgrades/improvements can or should be made to a classic plastic, I highly recommend that you review Tim Lackey's work. Tim's business is all about restoring classic sailboats from that era, and his website is a wonderful resource for those who are asking themselves the exact same questions you are asking. Lackey Sailing LLC | Restoring and Rebuilding GreatÂ* Boats. Tim documents each job with photos and detailed explanations of what he is doing. I'm not affliated with or even a customer of Tim's; just a very interested observer.


Saw that. Great work, nice site. One man's (informed) opinion. More info always better, and doesn't address the 'moderate build quality' thing. More. More. Cmon guys, I know there is more out there.


----------



## smurphny

I've owned two boats of this vintage, including my present A35. Both boats were/are covered in gelcoat spider cracks which are completely cosmetic, requiring either grinding off the old gel coat or covering with epoxy primer and recoating with Awlgrip every ten years or so. The best fix would likely be to grind it all off from keel to gunwale and then laminate a completely new layer of thin epoxy/glass as a barrier coat. I haven't had the energy to do that yet The major structural cost issue is the commonly rotted deck core. There ain't no easy way to repair it. It's a nasty, messy, time consuming job. If it needs to be done by a boatyard, it would be very costly. I've had to drill a number of new thru-hull holes. They are all solidly laminated and very thick as compared to newer layups. 

Water intrusion into bulkheads under chainplates seems to be a common problem. I moved my chainplates outboard for this reason after replacing rotten bulkheads. Once water is into wood below and trapped inside the tabbing, it's just a matter of time before the bulkheads rot. The basic design of these thru-deck chainplates is flawed because sometime water IS getting down there.


----------



## hellosailor

You could say that the old 60's FRP boats were all the same, the same way you could say all the 60's Detroit cars were the same. No CD player, no seat belts, no rear defroster....

But they weren't all the same. Each company made different choices and built to different standards. Sure, none of them had the same new zinc-clad rust resistant fenders and they all had chrome which is now heavily pitted.

The boat builders were the same. They all hired help (more likely full-time experienced workers instead of the cheap labor often picked up in the 80's or 90's) but some looked for more experienced help. Some had a name for using balsa, for Bruneel ply, or marine plywood, or even simple exterior grade ply in their coring. Some used plastic foams.

I'd suggest turning away from the computer and getting Practical Sailor's books of old boat reviews. They discuss models in detail, with as many owners as they could find, to get firsthand information on what is or isn't holding up. Then there are other publications on classic boats, and more on surveying an old boat, and each will bring more light to the subject, often naming names.

And of course, a "better" boat isn't necessarily better than a lesser boat that has been pampered for the last 50 years. Then again, you might want one that is known to be sea-kindly, with outstanding balance and a gentle motion, rather than either of those others.

Try to bum rides, and see what you'd really like to have after you've spent some time on it.


----------



## seaner97

hellosailor said:


> You could say that the old 60's FRP boats were all the same, the same way you could say all the 60's Detroit cars were the same. No CD player, no seat belts, no rear defroster....
> 
> But they weren't all the same. Each company made different choices and built to different standards. Sure, none of them had the same new zinc-clad rust resistant fenders and they all had chrome which is now heavily pitted.
> 
> The boat builders were the same. They all hired help (more likely full-time experienced workers instead of the cheap labor often picked up in the 80's or 90's) but some looked for more experienced help. Some had a name for using balsa, for Bruneel ply, or marine plywood, or even simple exterior grade ply in their coring. Some used plastic foams.
> 
> I'd suggest turning away from the computer and getting Practical Sailor's books of old boat reviews. They discuss models in detail, with as many owners as they could find, to get firsthand information on what is or isn't holding up. Then there are other publications on classic boats, and more on surveying an old boat, and each will bring more light to the subject, often naming names.
> 
> And of course, a "better" boat isn't necessarily better than a lesser boat that has been pampered for the last 50 years. Then again, you might want one that is known to be sea-kindly, with outstanding balance and a gentle motion, rather than either of those others.
> 
> Try to bum rides, and see what you'd really like to have after you've spent some time on it.


As I just said in another thread, I often ask questions I've read extensively on or have experience in already either because I disagree with the general conclusions (60s boats are bulletproof due to their thick lay ups and the Pearson/Bristol 'moderate build quality' being examples) or because the discussions that ensue add markedly to those data that are already out there. I generalized to CCA boats exactly so one could say "Grampian did this better, but Cheoy Lee was really good at that", and further, you can fix X on a Pearson this way, and you should because...
But was attempting to limit it to boats in their 50s as I think the industry as a whole hadn't gone down the 70s tubes yet.


----------



## aelkin

This is a great thread topic!
I own a 1971 C&C 35 Mk I that was built at the Hinterhoeller yard.
Not sure if it's exactly in the category you're talking about, but close enough, in my opinion.

Improvements could be in all sorts of areas, to make the boat 'superior', but since the intent of the OP seems to be in the structural arena, I'll focus there. 

1. remove all bottom paint, repair blisters, re-bed keel 'smile', repaint with Barrier coat, sand very smooth.
2. As Desert Rat stated - rebed all deck hardware by over-drilling and filling with epoxy slurry, before bedding with butyl tape. Seal all ports and hatches with butyl tape.
3. Review and reinforce the chainplate attachments below decks.
4. reinforce rudder post tube at deck and hull joints to eliminate possibility of water ingress.
5. Improve my own maintenance of the engine (A4, in my case) to eliminate nasty fluid buildup in the bilge.
6. Use Spar-Tite at mast partner to severely minimize or eliminate water ingress and movement of the rig.

In other areas, I think the obvious improvements to classic boats like this are the installation of such equipment as:
Roller furling
adjustable backstay (hydraulic or otherwise)
if necessary, a re-designed (balanced) rudder

Andy


----------



## seaner97

As the OP, I intended and welcome all sorts of thread wander. I generally have heard people split into pre1972 and post 72 for build quality, but if you have a compelling argument about that, let's hear that, too. 
But three things I'd really like- 
1. 'Superior build quality' 60s boats and why. Names, makes, years, tabbing done this way not that, etc.
2. How would you make a 'moderate build quality' boat into one that rivals a superior one?
3. All the rest of the mods you've made that you think are improvements (which is where people mostly have focused so far)


----------



## mstern

seaner97 said:


> As the OP, I intended and welcome all sorts of thread wander. I generally have heard people split into pre1972 and post 72 for build quality, but if you have a compelling argument about that, let's hear that, too.
> But three things I'd really like-
> 1. 'Superior build quality' 60s boats and why. Names, makes, years, tabbing done this way not that, etc.
> 2. How would you make a 'moderate build quality' boat into one that rivals a superior one?
> 3. All the rest of the mods you've made that you think are improvements (which is where people mostly have focused so far)


I can't answer 1 any better than has already been described here; I just don't know enough.

I don't understand the distinction you are making between your questions 2 and 3. You can't make a moderate quality boat into a superior quality boat any more than you can make a Chevy into a Lexus by modifying the Chevy. The basic infrastructure of the hull can't be changed. The layup is what it is. Isn't everything else (upgrades to electrical and plumbing systems, cabinetry, etc.) the same as the mods you describe in your question 3? You can pimp out an Oday all you want, but in the end, its still a pimped out Oday, not a Hinckley.


----------



## seaner97

mstern said:


> I can't answer 1 any better than has already been described here; I just don't know enough.
> 
> I don't understand the distinction you are making between your questions 2 and 3. You can't make a moderate quality boat into a superior quality boat any more than you can make a Chevy into a Lexus by modifying the Chevy. The basic infrastructure of the hull can't be changed. The layup is what it is. Isn't everything else (upgrades to electrical and plumbing systems, cabinetry, etc.) the same as the mods you describe in your question 3? You can pimp out an Oday all you want, but in the end, its still a pimped out Oday, not a Hinckley.


Ah- that is the heart of it. Is it really all about the glass work of the hull? Or are there other things? And how do you determine other than reputation that YOU got a good or bad hull from that era? Jeff threw out Tartan as a superior builder, but then pointed out that their quality control declined to that of Pearson and Bristol so that the Pearson may actually have been better at some point, then Tartan came back, but Pearson didn't. If they're all handmade, who knows if your Tartan is better built than my Pearson? And was Hinkley all that I the 60s, or did they just do really nice interiors and if I'm a custom cabinet maker, can I pimp it to the point that my boat is better than a Hinkley (setting aside resale- I want to talk apples to apples quality, not resale) if that was really all there was to it. I've not seen or read anywhere a complete answer to this question, and most of the time it has come back to the interior finishings, which have next to nothing to do with sailing, and even less to do with build quality(unless the cabinetry is integral reinforcement and is structural).
The car boat analogy is often used, and may be not be accurate. If you're in a CCA era boat, you're not in a sports car of boats. And you're probably more worried about reliability and the thing not coming apart around you, as well as some design aesthetics, otherwise you'd be in a J, or an Island Packet if you just wanted a floating condo.


----------



## hellosailor

"You can't make a moderate quality boat into a superior quality boat any more than you can make a Chevy into a Lexus by modifying the Chevy. "
Au contraire!
There are people who have intentionally bought bare racers, so they could refit an interior without ripping out the old one first. People who have modified their boats by removing the furniture in the forepeak, and laying up extra layers of carbon fiber, or steel tire belting, to harden the bow against collision damage.
And of course, I'd bet that a C&C owner could permanently get rid of the C&C smile by engineering better attachment of the keel, perhaps widening the entire keel/hull joint as well as adding bolts. Or at least, rebidding with 5200.

The only real question is, how far does one want to go? To what expense, and to what degree?


----------



## seaner97

Let your imagination run wild. What would you do?and why? Are you fixing a known or perceived deficiency? And is that deficiency essentially industry wide at that time, and if not, who did it right or better?


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> Then why all the consternation over work hardening and stress cycles. If you inspect well before voyage, reinforce your tabbing and address your rigging and hardware, should last forever, right? And if not- then when SHOULD a boat be called old and tired?


I disagree with the consternation. Work hardening and stress cycles are a result of flex. If the boat is rigid enough it won't flex enough to matter. Glass flexes by breaking down microscopically - you can hear it if you severely flex a piece of glass - it makes a crunching sound.

If it doesn't reach that point in service, it's life is quite simply unknown - certainly longer than ours. The early glass cruising boats are 60 Y.O. now and going strong unless they haven't been maintained - look at Jerry Litton's Islander in Thailand - 50 in a year or so and it looks nicer than most new stuff.

Don't worry about some intrinsic lifespan of the material - no-one knows if there is one or if so, how long it is. Decide how much restoration work you are willing to do and find a boat that needs that much work.


----------



## GeorgeB

My only experience with boats of this vintage is a 1965 Cal 40. The hull does a fair amount of twisting and flexing. We can bend the hull with 2,500 # of backstay tension. The owner was thinking of lowering the cabin sole to give more clearance in the main saloon. He opted against this because it was thought that the new framing would create hard points where the [flexing] would develop cracking. Out here on the West Coast, people usually buy Cal 40s for $30-$60K then spend an additional $100-120k to get them race ready. I always thought that the big break in the 1970s was the Arab Oil Embargo where the cost of fiberglass and resin doubled or trebled.


----------



## seaner97

The oil embargo was 1973. C&C burnt in late 1972 or early 1973. I think people put the cut off at 1972 for those two events. 

So, which boats flex a lot? On just this site since I joined I've heard that Valiants flex, hinkleys flex and pop tabbing, Cals flex, C&Cs flex. I've heard about unreinforced lenses in Pearsons and bristols. I've heard of Hinterhollers flexing. I've not heard of any of them breaking up. 
So- what makes a boat a 'superior build' from that era?

JonB- Jerry and my approach is very similar, except I don't have his yard in Thailand to do my work. Most is done by me with limited amounts farmed out to pros. 

Do the rigging, watch and do the decks. Chainplates. I threw out reinforced tabbing. None of these things is out of the realm of the average boat owner, and a total cost of maybe 15k. What else? Creature comfort wise I've re varnished the interior, pulled the crap original floor and put down a real Brazilian Teak and maple sole, so I think those are neat, but they as much about taste and pride than anything else. 
What else?


----------



## seaner97

hriehl1 said:


> Mine is not a first-hand knowledgeable opinion. But when I had my 1968 Hinterhoeller HR28 professionally surveyed 4 years ago after I bought it, the surveyor gushed several times as to how ruggedly-built it was. He was very impressed not just at the condition, but at the overall heavily-built design.
> 
> Hinterhoeller was a well-regarded builder of C&Cs , Niagara's and Nonsuches, but his earlier Sharks and HR28s may also be deserving of some respect.
> 
> I am a happy HR28 owner.


I like Hinterhollers, as well as many other boats, but I've heard surveyors gush over the 'sturdy build' of many boats of that era due to their 'bulletproof thick layups' and '1" thick solid glass hulls'. Jeff_H and others will point out the flaws in that from an engineering standpoint. I've also heard that engineering is the art of knowing which corners to safely cut to bring a product out on time and within budget while still meeting the demands of the market (which during the 60s was a 'go anywhere, travel the world in a boat, and do a little racing on the side' ethos- at least according to their brochures). So, was Hinterhoeller that much better than Clint Pearson/Bill Shaw, and if so, why? What did they do better?
And are those things that owners of C&Cs, Pearsons, Bristols, Albins, etc. adapt to their boats so that their children and potentially grandchildren may still enjoy these boats, much like some of the wooden Herreshoff designs that are still being updated and refit.


----------



## mstern

fiberglass does stress and does lose strength over time. I recall seeing study that quantified what that loss was. I don't recall the specific numbers, but do remember that the results made me think that my 1979 boat had lost a significant chunk of it's inherent strength due to age. I'll see if I can find the reference to that work.

Getting back to sean's question, I have to respectfully disagree with those who think you can really change a moderate boat into "superior boat". Maybe we're talking semantics here, but I don't think that if you take an Oday, structurally reenforce the bow, relocate the chain plates to newly reinforced loctions, tab the bulkheads, beef up the rigging, replace the deck fittings, portholes and hatches, rip out the interior and replace it with teak, etc., etc., etc., you don't get the "equivalent" of a Hinckley. You get a pimped out Oday. It may be the functional equivalent of a Hinckley for certain purposes, but under all of that bling, it's still an Oday.

I guess it all comes down to an individual's perception of what makes a boat "superior". If it's the glasswork in the hull itself, then there is nothing that anyone can do to upgrade the moderate quality boat to superior. If it's the overall design of the boat, then again, no, you can't change basic hull lines; at least not without major surgery, and if that's the case, I think we're just being ridiculous. However, if its things like the interior joinery, the electrical system or the quality of the deck fittings or the finish on the hull, then yes, you can reasonably upgrade those things to a high quality.

There have been some famous examples of people taking very pedestrian boats and turning them into capable world class cruisers. Check out the Pearson Triton "Atom" Atom Voyages - The Sailboat Atom. On a more coastal note, check out what Tim Lackey did to renovate and upgrade his Triton Pearson Triton #381 Glissando | Restoring, Maintaining, and Cruising a Plastic Classic on the Coast of Maine. You may think that after the work done on these boats, they now constitute a "superior" boat, upgraded from a boat of "moderate" quality. I would disagree; despite the fact that both of these boats are now much better boats (for their respective purposes) than they were when they left the Pearson factory, to me, they're still Tritons. Pimped out and upgraded to be sure, but still Tritons.

You say potato, I say potato....


----------



## seaner97

mstern said:


> fiberglass does stress and does lose strength over time. I recall seeing study that quantified what that loss was. I don't recall the specific numbers, but do remember that the results made me think that my 1979 boat had lost a significant chunk of it's inherent strength due to age. I'll see if I can find the reference to that work.
> 
> Getting back to sean's question, I have to respectfully disagree with those who think you can really change a moderate boat into "superior boat". Maybe we're talking semantics here, but I don't think that if you take an Oday, structurally reenforce the bow, relocate the chain plates to newly reinforced loctions, tab the bulkheads, beef up the rigging, replace the deck fittings, portholes and hatches, rip out the interior and replace it with teak, etc., etc., etc., you don't get the "equivalent" of a Hinckley. You get a pimped out Oday. It may be the functional equivalent of a Hinckley for certain purposes, but under all of that bling, it's still an Oday.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to an individual's perception of what makes a boat "superior". If it's the glasswork in the hull itself, then there is nothing that anyone can do to upgrade the moderate quality boat to superior. If it's the overall design of the boat, then again, no, you can't change basic hull lines; at least not without major surgery, and if that's the case, I think we're just being ridiculous. However, if its things like the interior joinery, the electrical system or the quality of the deck fittings or the finish on the hull, then yes, you can reasonably upgrade those things to a high quality.
> 
> There have been some famous examples of people taking very pedestrian boats and turning them into capable world class cruisers. Check out the Pearson Triton "Atom" Atom Voyages - The Sailboat Atom. On a more coastal note, check out what Tim Lackey did to renovate and upgrade his Triton Pearson Triton #381 Glissando | Restoring, Maintaining, and Cruising a Plastic Classic on the Coast of Maine. You may think that after the work done on these boats, they now constitute a "superior" boat, upgraded from a boat of "moderate" quality. I would disagree; despite the fact that both of these boats are now much better boats (for their respective purposes) than they were when they left the Pearson factory, to me, they're still Tritons. Pimped out and upgraded to be sure, but still Tritons.
> 
> You say potato, I say potato....


Love it. It gets to the heart of the one of the questions I was asking- what is a 'superior build'. 
My (increasingly informed) opinion: One that the original owner paid more for, and therefore have a higher resale value. I've yet to see anything that convinces me that Hinkleys don't have unreinforced lenses, nor Tartan's, etc. so I don't think it can be the intrinsic hull layups. But I'm open to evidence- just haven't seen any. I don't disagree that there are many boats of the era that are prettier, more appealing, etc., but that is always in the eye of the beholder. There are 63 Hinkley Burmuda 40s out there for 145K. They still have 50 year old systems that either have or need to be replaced. Jeff had a second hand experience with one that the tabbing had come loose when it was NEW, so it can't be that that was all that much better. The decks don't have as many issues is the only thing that I think has been reliably documented as being better than a Tartan/Pearson/Bristol/Albin/etc (although that may just be that there are fewer of them, and who is going to admit that their Hinkley had to have it's deck recored?). Does that make it 4-5x the boat? Does it even make it 'superior'? Or does it just make it a boat that resales higher (and is more expensive when YOU buy it as well)?


----------



## seaner97

aelkin said:


> This is a great thread topic!
> I own a 1971 C&C 35 Mk I that was built at the Hinterhoeller yard.
> Not sure if it's exactly in the category you're talking about, but close enough, in my opinion.
> 
> Improvements could be in all sorts of areas, to make the boat 'superior', but since the intent of the OP seems to be in the structural arena, I'll focus there.
> 
> 1. remove all bottom paint, repair blisters, re-bed keel 'smile', repaint with Barrier coat, sand very smooth.
> 2. As Desert Rat stated - rebed all deck hardware by over-drilling and filling with epoxy slurry, before bedding with butyl tape. Seal all ports and hatches with butyl tape.
> 3. Review and reinforce the chainplate attachments below decks.
> 4. reinforce rudder post tube at deck and hull joints to eliminate possibility of water ingress.
> 5. Improve my own maintenance of the engine (A4, in my case) to eliminate nasty fluid buildup in the bilge.
> 6. Use Spar-Tite at mast partner to severely minimize or eliminate water ingress and movement of the rig.
> 
> In other areas, I think the obvious improvements to classic boats like this are the installation of such equipment as:
> Roller furling
> adjustable backstay (hydraulic or otherwise)
> if necessary, a re-designed (balanced) rudder
> 
> Andy


Is your rig fractional? Mine is masthead, as many others of the era were, and I've been rather unimpressed that an adjustable backstay on a masthead rig adds enough to be worth it. Tell me I'm wrong and why.


----------



## SloopJonB

If you strip a quality moulded hull down to the glass and rebuild it with Hinckley quality fittings, fixtures and craftsmanship then you will indeed have a high quality boat.

You just won't be credited with such so you better plan on keeping it.


----------



## smurphny

Trying to stick to the original theme of this thread, the CCA era boats seem to all have some particular weaknesses. One other Alberg/Pearson weakness is that they used core under the deck-stepped mast. These all need to be cut away and laid up solid in any restoration. The underlying header is also worth beefing up so as to eliminate any deflection. I glassed and laminated the beam and removed the balsa core under my mast step. These are not huge jobs but worth mentioning for anyone thinking about buying a boat of this era.

One thing I don't consider a weakness is that these boats are narrow and tender. If you don't enjoy living at thirty degrees of heel with the gunwale in the water, these ain't for you


----------



## seaner97

smurphny said:


> Trying to stick to the original theme of this thread, the CCA era boats seem to all have some particular weaknesses. One other Alberg/Pearson weakness is that they used core under the deck-stepped mast. These all need to be cut away and laid up solid in any restoration. The underlying header is also worth beefing up so as to eliminate any deflection. I glassed and laminated the beam and removed the balsa core under my mast step. These are not huge jobs but worth mentioning for anyone thinking about buying a boat of this era.
> 
> One thing I don't consider a weakness is that these boats are narrow and tender. If you don't enjoy living at thirty degrees of heel with the gunwale in the water, these ain't for you


Yeah- that was disconcerting at first, but once you realize that they 'lock in' at 20-30 degrees, they're a blast to sail.

I second the deck stepping glass issue. Some of them used a compression post that went through the deck, so the balsa is around rather than under the deck step, so 'fixing' it only involves grinding out around and reglassing a small area around that.

I also added a Hunter style plate to get the wires out the side of the mast and allowed all connections to be moved into the head so the mast goes up and you don't have to screw with connection making while the thing is hanging from the crane. My yard loves me and actually gives me a discount for that feature.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> If you strip a quality moulded hull down to the glass and rebuild it with Hinckley quality fittings, fixtures and craftsmanship then you will indeed have a high quality boat.
> 
> You just won't be credited with such so you better plan on keeping it.


Meaning the thru hulls or the interior cabinetry? Thru hulls are all bronze and have mostly been all replaced in the last 10 years. Most other boats of this era that are operational are probably same. If you're talking interior cabinetry, does that really make it a better boat, or a better condo? Well, not a better condo, really, but a better small beach house with lots of neighbors.


----------



## SloopJonB

Meaning everything - cabinetry, finish work, deck hardware, through hulls, seacocks, engine installation - everything that makes a Hinckley or Swan what they are.

FWIW at one point Hinckley bought 38' hulls from Hughes in Ontario and then finished them to their usual standards while Hughes did the same to THEIR usual standards (good and approved by Rod Stephens but not Hinckley quality).

I fail to see how a Hughes boat stripped to the mouldings could not be built back up to a Hinckley standard but many or most people would still say it was just a pimped out Hughes.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Meaning everything - cabinetry, finish work, deck hardware, through hulls, seacocks, engine installation - everything that makes a Hinckley or Swan what they are.
> 
> FWIW at one point Hinckley bought 38' hulls from Hughes in Ontario and then finished them to their usual standards while Hughes did the same to THEIR usual standards (good and approved by Rod Stephens but not Hinckley quality).
> 
> I fail to see how a Hughes boat stripped to the mouldings could not be built back up to a Hinckley standard but many or most people would still say it was just a pimped out Hughes.


Exactly my point. It's a pimped out Hughes (or O'day, or Islander, or Tartan, or Pearson, or C&C) but does that mean it's a lower build quality inherently? The deck hardware and seacocks/through hulls are all replicable items that came from a third party, and modern ones MAY even be better. Many, if not all, of the boats from this era have been repowered already, and if not, most of the same people that say "but it's a Hinkley!" would also turn their noses up at an original engine from 50 years ago. So if it's really just the cabinetry, plumbing and the faucets... I can take any Pearson, Tartan or the like and put her back together to better than new (and maybe Hinkley or better) for a (very small) fraction of that 150K (or 1 mil for a new one). Worth it to someone else? Maybe not. Certainly aren't getting your money back out of it- but I started off saying this wasn't about is it 'worth it' from a resale point of view. I don't view my boat as a monetary investment anyway, just a hell of alot cheaper than therapy, which is also money you're never getting back.
Other stuff that would set them apart? Other systems upgrades that you would do to a boat of this era?
For example (although I didn't intend this to be about my boat- more general than that), some things I've done in the last 3 years or am going to do this offseason that I can remember off the top of my head:
Bottom paint (yearly chore)
Standing rigging/chainplates/keel compression step (this season)
Lifelines (this season)
The rest are done-
Pull the engine and compression test
New prop/shaft/cutlass/alignment
Rehab the boom outhaul
Pull and redo most of the thruhulls and seacocks
New propane lines, tank and box
Pull the floor, reinforce the stringers, new subfloor and new Teak and Holly (Brazillian Teak and Maple to be exact) cabin sole
Some new wiring, and adding mast wiring changes
New masthead light and spreader lights
New battery switch, increase house bank to 400AH with separate start battery.
New Starter
New Fuel pump
Recore much of the deck, new paint and antiskid
Lots of varnish
New loops
New push switches for the engine and a throttle rehab
New bilge pumps and a nuisance water pump of my own design
Varnish much of the interior
Add solar on the cockpit hatches to keep banks topped up
Duo charger (bought and in box, just need to hook up at some point)


----------



## smurphny

seaner97 said:


> Yeah- that was disconcerting at first, but once you realize that they 'lock in' at 20-30 degrees, they're a blast to sail.
> 
> I second the deck stepping glass issue. Some of them used a compression post that went through the deck, so the balsa is around rather than under the deck step, so 'fixing' it only involves grinding out around and reglassing a small area around that.
> 
> I also added a Hunter style plate to get the wires out the side of the mast and allowed all connections to be moved into the head so the mast goes up and you don't have to screw with connection making while the thing is hanging from the crane. My yard loves me and actually gives me a discount for that feature.


Absolutely. Glad you mentioned the mast wiring. Whoever thought of burying a wire harness like that was thinking only about appearance and not at all about serviceability. I did away with that connector as well and have all the wiring accessible.


----------



## SloopJonB

I just thought of a good example of my attitude that you CAN upgrade a boat to a level of quality beyond what it was originally and not just "pimp it out".

Check out lackeysailing.com and go through his documentation of his restoration of his personal Fisher 30. It was raised from the bottom of the Hudson and he took it down to the mouldings and rebuilt it to a standard that is pretty much the equal of anything out there - far, far better than the way Fisher built them. From what I could see the only thing that could have been done better or more elaborately was the cabinet type work - he kept it fairly plain. It was a brand new boat in every way but the strict legal definition of the term.

He was asking $125K for it so the buyer got a hell of a buy IMO.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> I just thought of a good example of my attitude that you CAN upgrade a boat to a level of quality beyond what it was originally and not just "pimp it out".
> 
> Check out lackeysailing.com and go through his documentation of his restoration of his personal Fisher 30. It was raised from the bottom of the Hudson and he took it down to the mouldings and rebuilt it to a standard that is pretty much the equal of anything out there - far, far better than the way Fisher built them. From what I could see the only thing that could have been done better or more elaborately was the cabinet type work - he kept it fairly plain. It was a brand new boat in every way but the strict legal definition of the term.
> 
> He was asking $125K for it so the buyer got a hell of a buy IMO.


Yeah, he does nice work. Wonder if someone bought it? 125k for a Fisher 30 is kind of steep, even with a full refit, on the market. Not that it couldn't be worth it to someone, but just because you dump 100k into a boat doesn't make it a 100k boat on the used market. There is a Hinkley B40 in NS right now that looks in just as rough shape for 100k. Put 100k in and it's still a max 150 boat.


----------



## SloopJonB

That's my point - the market does not value boats like that fairly or properly - what would a new Fisher 30 cost if they were still being made?

I daresay a lot more than $125K and it wouldn't be as good as Lackey's boat.

What a boat is (or can be) and how the market recognizes it are two different things. This seems to be at its most extreme in the boat market - restored cars can bring as much or more than their cost while boats have that $0.10 on the $1 mentality going re: upgrades and improvements.

By the way, he sold it and pretty quickly too.


----------



## krisscross

Quality is remembered long after the price has been forgotten (or at least gotten over the initial pain).


----------



## Jeff_H

THE PROBLEM WITH CCA ERA BOATS:

I already know that this is an absurdly long post. It is strung together from articles, and posts that I had written for other purposes, but if someone is really interested in this topic, here is a detailed discussion on many of the issues associated with CCA era boats.

If you spend enough time on the sailing websites, sooner or later you will encounter someone who asks about inexpensive boats to go offshore voyaging, and universally, there will be some responder who will recommend the usual list of 1960's era, CCA rule- beater type forms; touting them as serious offshore cruisers. Anyone who has read any of my posts on this topic knows that I strongly disagree with the CCA typeform for serious cruising. Having grown up sailing these boats and having continued to sail on them for well over 50 years, I have a very difficult time understanding why people think that these old CCA era boats are particularly suitable for the rigors of offshore voyaging. So, given the chasm between the court of common wisdom and my own views, I thought that it might be helpful to discuss the basis of this disagreement on the suitability of CCA era boats for serious cruising.

A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON, 
I think it might be helpful to the discussion to start with a little history, and perhaps a description of the characteristics of the CCA typeform. Similar to today, the period leading up to the development of the CCA rule was a time when boats had become very specialized. It was a time that was marked by dedicated offshore cruising designs, dedicated inshore racing designs and dedicated offshore racing boats. The racer-cruiser or cruiser-racer, as we have come to know it, was not yet a popular concept.

At that point in time, cruising boats were predominantly derived from working water craft. They had short overhangs, (long waterline lengths relative to their lengths on deck) and comparatively wide beam, with that beam carried well into the ends of the boat. Depending on their size, before the CCA rule cruising boats generally had low aspect ratio rigs, typically rigged as fractional rigged sloops, multiple headsail sloops (what we would call a cutter rig today), cutters, ketches or schooner rigs.

They had truly full keels, meaning that the keel would start where the forefoot met the stem met at the point of entry and run back to a fairly vertical rudder post that was at typically at the aft point of immersion. There might be a minimally cut away forefoot, and a steeper pitch rudder post, but the bottom of the keel represented a large percentage of the length on deck of the boat. Some cruising boats did have centerboards but most were simple full keels. They were heavy displacement for their length, but usually not all that heavily ballasted.

Inshore race boats of that era had evolved into extreme rule-beaters that had limited utility as cruisers or for offshore racing. To understand these boats it's important to understand what the term 'rule beater' refers to. When you talk about measurement type racing rules, (which these early rating rules all were) the rating of the boat was derived from a limited number of measurements. By the very nature of a measurement rule, the way the boat was measured and the way the numbers were applied would mean that relative to the speed or sailing ability that they produced, some factors would be over valued, while other factors were under valued. In these early rules, waterline length, beam and displacement were seen as being perhaps too important to speed, and sail area and ballast ratios not important enough.

Designers quickly learned that they could cheat the rule, make the boat seem slower than it was by designing boats with very short waterline lengths relative to their overall length, but since the waterline length was measured with the boat upright, the boat was designed so that the waterline length that would increase with heel angle. Similarly the typical race boat of that era also had a narrow beam, and a huge sail plan carried in low aspect ratio fractional or multiple-headsail sloop or cutter rig, and very large ballast ratios. These boats were intended to be sailed at very large angles of heel so as to extend their waterline lengths. To increase ballast ratios these boats had light scantlings and so were a bit fragile and short lived.

It is important to understand how boats shaped by these rule-beating design characteristics compare to boats that were designed with no concern for any rule. There is tendency for traditional boat types to think of small working watercraft design as a kind of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest design in effect. And on that basis, traditional boat types sometimes make statements like, 'the sea hasn't changed over the centuries so why should boat design change'. And there is some validity to statements like this, in that many traditional designs evolved to be enormously seaworthy and often easy to handle given the technology of the day.

But statements like this ignore that working watercraft, like all good tools, have evolved for a specific purpose and to the limits of the technologies available at the time. The implications of the specific purposes and technologies can shape a boat far more than the need for seaworthiness or speed. So it is that some working watercraft had deep dips to their sheers so that they could haul their nets or traps aboard more easily, some had elliptical transoms to prevent trawls from fouling, while others might be designed for speed to be the first to market or to put a pilot aboard, and while still others were designed to be burdensome, since load capacity was far more important than getting there first. And some were evolved for so specialized a purpose that seaworthiness did not matter as much as shoal draft and the ability to sail in the light air of the season (the New Haven Sharpie comes to mind here).

If we compare offshore cruising designs of the era leading up to the CCA rule, by and large they were based on working watercraft designs that were highly regarded for their seaworthiness and generally types that were not overly burdensome. But when we look at inshore racing boats of that era, they deviated sharply from the wisdom gained over the centuries in terms of seaworthiness and speed for that matter.

An in an absolute sense, for all their length and complexity, these inshore raceboats just were not all that fast on a boat for boat basis. They were only competitive after the rating rule 'corrected' their finish times for their rating.

Offshore race boats at the beginning of this era were derived from the faster models of offshore cruisers, and might look like the Alden schooners, which did really well in the early Bermuda races. Or they might look like, Jolie Brice, an early 20th century English pilot cutter. These were boats that thrived in the point to point reaching races that were so popular in that era. At some point, designers like Olin Stephens with 'Dorade' and William Fife with "Hallowe'en" showed that modified forms of inshore racers beefed up with heavier scantlings could be adapted for offshore racing and can make very good showings.

It is in response to the interest in these beefed up inshore racers that the CCA (Cruising Club of America) on this side of the Atlantic and the RORC on the other side began developing racing rules aimed at racing boats that could be taken offshore. This is very different than trying to create a rule that created an offshore cruiser that can be raced. This rule came into effect at a time when there was a big demand for dual purpose boats, boats which could be raced and which could be cruised. What resulted was a compromise that was not fully optimized for actual performance in term of speed, or cruising ability.

Under the CCA rule the shape of the hulls and proportions of rigs were generally heavily influenced by trying to beat the rule rather than to produce fast, seaworthy boats. To beat the rule, the typical CCA design had very short waterlines, short masthead rigs with huge genoas, relatively (when compared to earlier traditional craft) smaller mainsails, often yawl rigs, shoal draft, and were very moderately over- weight compared to earlier and later boats. It is important to understand that these attributes were not chosen because they make a good sailing boat. They were not! They were chosen to beat a rule, pure and simple, and the rule penalized attributes that made for fast and seaworthy boats.

Probably one of the best things about the CCA rule was unintended consequence of over-benefitting centerboard boats so that that the design advances were made on keel/centerboard boats. During this period, the design concepts around keel/centerboard designs received a lot of attention and produced in my mind what was probably the single advance in yacht design directly attributable to the CCA rule. That said, many of these advances were simply a scaling up of earlier advances made on MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) rating rule boats.

Today I often hear people say these boats were an extension of centuries of traditional design. As explained above, they were not! The boats that we think of as CCA types were an aberration to the general design principals used to design offshore craft prior to this period. They have some relationship to inshore and offshore race boats in prior eras (Universal and International rule [not to be mistaken for the IOR]). But they bear no relation to the design of working craft or cruising craft of the era. The CCA boats were designed to be good race boats under a specific artificially derived rule and quite frankly in many key ways ignored the lessons of the sea.

All of that said, where things get even more confusing is that many people lump almost any traditional boat from the 1950's and 1960's into the category of CCA designs. It's not that simple. Even during this period there were still more wholesome designs built. Tradition based cruising designs continued to be produced, one design classes often marched to their own drummers, and other rules, such as the MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) produced more wholesome designs that were also much faster than similar length CCA boats and way more seakindly and seaworthy as well.

So back to the original point of this discussion, which is the merits and disadvantages of CCA designs, and more specifically whether CCA designs are suited as serious cruisers.

THE GOOD NEWS:
CCA boats are really beautiful to look at. For the most part they have graceful sheerlines and ends. Visually, some of the prettiest boats of all time were designed to the CCA rule. Many of the boats of this era were well built and will be around for many years to come. They often had simple no nonsense interiors that I personally prefer to many of the newer more exotic 'open floor plan' layouts. People have sailed these boats to most navigable corners of the world. They have become popularly held in high esteem and have a strong following amongst many traditionalists. They are akin to the proverbial beautiful dumb blonde, very attractive but perhaps not the smartest choice.

THE BAD NEWS:

Short waterlines, poor underbody and keel shapes, inefficient rigs, tight interiors space, mediocre fiberglass work, poor structural engineering and detailing, old engines and poor hardware. Some of these can be addressed with money but most can't.

More specifically:

Short waterline lengths:
Short waterlines length does a lot of things, the most obvious being it makes a boat slow. It does this in a number of ways. There is the obvious reduction in hull speed that occurs with shortened waterline length. The CCA boats were often designed to pull the bow wave forward and stern wave aft as the boat heeled. This gave them a longer sailing length when heeled and as such more speed than they were rated to have. As a result they were designed to be sailed heeled over. It means that to get speed you are constantly sailing with larger heel angles than you would on a more modern design.

Both tank testing and empirical observation has shown that in reality this longer sailing length does not produce a reliable speed increase as designing a the same length boat that has its displacement spread out over a longer static waterline.

In order to carry the boat's displacement on a short water line, the hull has to be comparatively full. This fullness creates a lot of drag that would not be there in a longer waterline length boat. The evidence of this is found in comparing more traditional cruising boats or MORC boats of this era with the shorter waterline CCA Boats. In their day, the more traditional cruising type boats and MORC boats were generally faster boats on all points of sail than the CCA boats, they just could not correct out in racing over the CCA boats. A good example of this might be a boat like 'Ticonderoga', which set quite a few elapsed course records that remained in effect for years if not decades, or MORC boats like the Dolphin 24 and Tartan 27 which would do horizon jobs on similar sized CCA boats.

Inefficient underbodies:
But the short waterline really impacts other sailing characteristics as well. These are heavy boats by any standard and, as mentioned above, all of that weight is carried over a short waterline, which requires a very full canoe body. In the CCA boats this displacement is often carried into the submerged ends and into a deep canoe body. These shape factors effect the performance of the boat in a number of ways. It results in a stubby underbody and it means that relatively little keel area with the majority of this keel is operating in the disturbed area adjacent to the hull. The result is fairly large amounts of leeway. (It's not hard to observe this.)

Sail up to the stern of any CCA era boat on a on a modern design. Set your course parallel to the CCA boat and sight on an object on shore. As you watch the amount of leeway becomes pretty apparent. Do the same with modern boats and after a while you get a very real sense of the relative leeway individual boats. These CCA era keelboats really slide a lot. Many of the CCA centerboard boats were much more comparable to modern boats (sometimes better) and with modernized rigs, are quite potent to windward. In my experience it does not matter whether you are in rough conditions or flat water these observations hold true. (The piece of the equation I don't have is whether this matters to you. In fairness it may not.)

Fin Keel with attached rudders:
One of the main reasons that these boats make so much leeway is their keel forms. Most of the 'venerable' CCA era boats had what I personally would call a long fin keel with an attached rudder. There are many on this forum who would disagree with this term and that is fine. When I was growing up, by definition any boat on which the bottom of the keel is less than 50% of the boat's LOA had a fin keel, and that is why I call these long fin keels with attached rudders. You may disagree with the semantics but whatever you chose to call these, the reality is that typical CCA keel had a similar profile area to the fin keel boats of that day.

When you look at many of the popular CCA influenced production boats of the era, the water line was often 75% of the LOA. They typically have a deeply cut away forefoot and rudder post that was steeply raked to the point that there is relatively little keel length. If you look at the keel on one of these CCA era boats with an attached rudder and compare the length of the keel with fin keel with detached rudder of that era (Cal 40 or Islanders of that era) you'll see that there is little difference in keel length between the two.

In my experience, there is nothing worse than a fin keel (even a long fin keel) with a rudder attached. It will have few of the advantages of either full or fin keels and all of the disadvantages. And while these days people tend to refer to these CCA era keels as full keels they are not. Based on my experience they neither tracked like a genuine full keel nor had the maneuverability or lightness of control of a detached rudder. They tended to develop a lot more weather helm and with the rudder being closer to the center of rotation required greater steering angles and therefore created more drag for the amount of turning accomplished.

This combination makes these boats more tiring to steer. They can be dynamically balanced to reduce weather helm and improve tracking but this comes with real penalty in speed, and often the added effort needed to more frequently change sails for the conditions which I would suggest is less than ideal for a cruising boat. The high helm loads and lack of tracking results in higher energy use by autopilot as well.

Lack of motion comfort:
These short waterlines result in more pitching. This phenomena also is easily observable watching a mixed fleet of boats going to windward. Not only is this motion uncomfortable for the crew, but the extent of the motion saps speed. But also the deep rounded hull forms made these boat real rollers. It can be argued that all those these boats roll through wide angles, the motion is slow and therefore a bit more comfortable. That is true when dealing with a few isolated waves (like a power boat wake) but in a repetitive wave train, those large roll angles means that the boat tends to get out of sync with the wave train and so experiences greater impacts with each wave.

Rig Proportions:
Then there is the typical rigs on a CCA boats. The CCA rule under penalized headsails and over penalized standing sail area. This resulted in lower aspect ratio rigs with smaller than traditional watercraft mainsails and which heavily depended on huge jibs for drive in anything below moderate winds. In theory day, CCA era boats were designed for 170% to 180% genoas on boats that already began with very big foretriangles. It also meant huge spinnakers as well. Modern CCA boat owners try to get by with smaller headsails, maybe 140 % to 150% genoas, but their small standing sail plans mean that CCA era boats give up sailing ability at the low end of the wind range. The CCA rule discouraged beam and in order to get the boat heeled to extend the waterline, CCA boats also tended to lack stability, (especially relative to drag). CCA rigs were short but the spars were very heavy. This resulted in a further reduction in stability and the overly stiff spar eliminates being able use mast bend as a tool for sail shaping in order to change gears without changing sails or reefing.

That lack of stability relative to drag means that to sail at their best CCA era boats end up needing a larger inventory of sails to accommodate changes in wind speed. While roller furler headsails help up to a point, in reality partially furled headsails have very inefficient shapes, tending to cause a lot of side force (encouraging heeling, leeway and weather helm) relative to drive. Working against using a furling sail across a wide wind range are the limitations on fabric. To perform halfway decently in light to moderate winds the sail cloth needs to be light enough to fill and hold its shape. That light weight cloth is too light to stand up in prolonged heavy air. Furled sails work for a short stint in heavy air, but in more extreme and lasting conditions, chafe and creep will result and will ultimately damage the sail.

Structural Issues:
Approximately 10 years ago there were a series of studies done on older fiberglass boats. The most comprehensive of these was done by the insurance industry, but other studies were performed as part of the research for the EU's Small Craft Directive. The insurance industry resulted from the fact that industry-wide marine insurance companies were experiencing hull failures and much greater impact damage in older boats than the forces would seem to suggest. The problem was seen as being serious enough that the industry funded a comprehensive study.

The study analyzed a large sampling of panels taken from actual boats. The panels were analyzed for strength, failure mode, fiber orientation and type, resin ratios, types of resins used, additives and so on. Where possible factory records were reviewed and interviews with knowledgeable individuals were conducted. As a broad generality, the report concluded that by and large the laminate in boats of the era studied started out weaker, and lost strength more rapidly and more extensively than boats that were built with the benefit of better engineering practices, materials and methods which followed.

Resin and glass fabric manufacturers had developed proper mixing, resin ratio, and fabric handling procedures, which were the norm being employed in other industries. The report did find very big differences between some of the boatbuilders who more carefully controlled their manufacturing methods in accordance with these recommended procedure and the more prevalent practices within the larger production yard of the era.

Some of these early boat builders who were cited as more closely following manufacturer's recommendation included many of companies building higher performance racing dinghies, and some companies producing cruisers such as Allied Boatworks, Beetle Boat Co., Cal, Cape Cod Shipbuilding, de Vries Lentsch, Douglass & McLeod, Halmatic, Hinterhoeller, Hughes, Grampian, Jensen Marine, LeCompte, Ray Greene, Sailmaster, and Seafarer.

I know that the insurance study would seeming fly in the face of commonly held beliefs which is based on the theory that earlier boat hulls were perceived as having thicker hulls in part because they were often heavier. But these boats were heavier for a lot of reasons beyond simply having thick hulls.

To explain this issue in more detail, simply focusing on the hull for a moment. There are really several things that determine the strength of the hull itself. In simple terms it is the strength of the unsupported hull panel (by 'panel' I mean the area of the hull or deck between supporting structures) itself, the size of the unsupported panel, the connections to supporting structures and the strength of the supporting structures.

On its own, Fiberglass laminate does not develop much stiffness and it is very dense. If you simply try to create stiffness in fiberglass it takes a lot of thickness. For marketing reasons, many early fiberglass boat builders tried to simply use the skin for stiffness with wide spread supports from bulkheads and bunk flats. This lead to incredibly heavy boats and boats that were comparably flexible. (In early designs that were built in both wood and fiberglass, the wooden boats typically weighed the same but were generally stiffer, equal strength, and had higher ballast ratios)

Fiberglass hates to be flexed. Fiberglass is a highly fatigue prone material and over time it loses strength through flexing cycles. A flexible boat may have adequate reserve strength when new but over time through flexure fiberglass loses this reserve. All other things being equal a thicker panel should have more stiffness than a thinner panel, but typically due to the materials of the day and the lack of framing, these early thickened panels were just not that stiff and as a result they are prone to losing more strength over time.

Adding to the problem, these boats were not made from same polyester resin and fiberglass used in today's boats. While the basic chemistry is the same, there is a lot that makes up polyester resin.

Prior to the fuel crisis in the 1970's polyester formulations were different and were comparatively brittle (but more resistant to blisters). That meant that resin was more likely to weaken due to fatigue or microcracking due to minor impacts. Overtime this greatly reduces the strength and stiffness of the laminate.

As a result of the fuel crisis, the resin formulations used in marine applications were altered, and they were altered again in the early 1980's as a result of the acute blister problems caused by the 1970's reformulation.

Beyond that, there is the way that resins were handled with in the larger value oriented companies. In the 1960's, within value oriented companies, the mixing proportioning, temperature control and even apply resins was pretty haphazard within this portion of the market. Various additives were pretty casually added to the resins, such as extenders, bulking agents and accelerators. Each of these offered some cost advantage, but did nothing for strength.

Probably the worst offenders were wide spread use of accelerators, which increases the brittleness of the resin and weakens it over time. The idea behind accelerators is that tooling for boats (molds) are expensive. The quicker you can pop out a hull the more frequently you can use a mold. In the 1960's fiberglass normally took a period weeks to reach a state of cure (i.e. reaching a level of curing that was approaching full strength) that was acceptable to remove the hull and not risk distortion. If you simply over catalyze the resin it will cure more quickly but it will also go off too quickly to have a useful pot life. So in the 1960s accelerators were used to allow a reasonable pot life but speed up the cure time.

The other component in the laminate is the actual reinforcing fabrics. In its infancy, fiberglass fibers were quite short, brittle and needed to be handled very carefully to avoid damage to the individual fibers. In the majority of value oriented production facilities in the 1960's, this was simply ignored and so fabrics were cut and folded into tight little bundles. If in the 1960's, you walked into a plant like Columbia, Islander, or Pearson you would see stacks of these tightly folded and carefully labeled fiberglass fabric bundles around the perimeter of a boat being laminated.

Then there was the cloths themselves. Woven fiberglass is comparatively stretchy and weak because in the weaving process the geometry results in fibers that are kinked over each other and need to elongate in order to really absorb a big load. Fiberglass fabrics also take the greatest stress in the direction that the fibers are oriented. In the 1960's there was no effort to minimize the use of materials that reduced the stretch of the fiberglass fibers because of the way that the fabric was woven and there was little or no effort to orient the fibers to the direction of maximum stress.

In order to build thickness cheaply, poorer to moderate quality builders of the 1960's tended to use a larger percentage of non-directional fabrics (mostly mat). Most older boats contain some mat to bridge between the courser laminates like roving, but the value oriented yards tended to use a larger percentage of non-directional materials. Non-directional materials are generally a little more prone to stretch but are a lot more prone to fatigue, and impact failure.

Then there is the ratio of fiberglass and resin. Except in compression, resin is a very weak material. Resin is very poor in tension, can't stand elongation and is not too good in sheer. Resin is only there to glue the fibers together and to keep the fibers in column so that the laminate does not fail. The ideal fiberglass resin has no more resin than is absolutely necessary to hold the fibers together and not a tiny bit more.

This was known in the early days of fiberglass boat building but resin and labor was cheap so it was easier to just pour a little more in and avoid dry spots. When I have examined coupons taken from older boats, I have generally been amazed how much resin compared to cloth I have found, certainly as compared to later boats. But it is not just my observations. According to the insurance study, lenses of unreinforced resin, and dry glass were far more prevalent within the industry than ideal or found in later boat building.

To remedy the inferior glass work, you might be tempted to think, "No problem, just beef the hull up by adding more glass". But, as I am sure a lot of people are tired of hearing me say, weight does nothing good for a boat. In and of itself weight does not add strength, or seaworthiness, or comfortable motion, but it sure adds additional stresses to every working part of the boat, and it certainly slows a boat down. In the case of these older CCA boats, there is no way to reinforce the laminate itself since this is where the problems lie.

In the long run, the insurance study referred to actual failures in areas that had been subjected to concentrated loadings (impacts from wave action or from hitting solid objects). With the study, areas adjacent to and parallel to the hull to deck joint, bulkheads, knees or where there were rows of fastenings, as was often the primary connection for hull to deck joints, were cited as experiencing catastrophic failures.

Compounding the structural problems with the laminate of the era, were poor choices in the detailing of these boats. For example, in order to market fiberglass boats as having more room down below than wooden boats, fiberglass boat builders directed the designers to eliminate any internal framing. As described above, this resulted boats which tended to flex more than later designs with internal framing, and which concentrated much higher loads at 'hard spots' such as hull to deck joints, the turn down at keels, and adjacent to locations where engine beds, bunk flats and bulkheads touch the hull. The mix of weaker laminate and over time these higher concentrated loading were shown to greatly weaken the laminate in these areas.

Similarly, many manufacturers chose to use encapsulated keels as a cost savings measure. But encapsulated keels require a lot more care than was generally give to them. To begin with, it is very difficult to get a proper wet out and layup working in the narrow confines of the encapsulation envelope. Consequently, the glasswork at the bottom and lower sides of the keel envelope was often the worst in the whole boat with poor overlaps, resin rich and resin starved lay-ups. Given the difficulty of a worker in to physically reach these areas during lay-up, it was extremely difficulty to avoid this. Having been involved in quite a few repairs to the leading edge of keels from this era, these conditions are far more common than rare.

Adding to this problem was the way that the ballast keels were installed. The ballast keels were generally cast off the boat and then inserted into the envelope after the envelope or ballast was coated with a polyester slurry. This was an imprecise process that left many voids. Polyester is a poor adhesive and so the bonds between the ballast and the envelope were questionable at best. Over time, these bonds often fail due to impacts, and in northern climates due to freeze thaw of water within the keel cavity.

This places a side load on the encapsulation envelope, which would be fine if the membrane at the top of the ballast had adequate structural capacity and there was adequate transverse framing. But that was rarely the case. In my family's Pearson Vanguard the membrane at the top of the keel was a single layer of roving, and there was no transverse framing, which is similar to my observations on other value oriented boats of this era. (It is thought my family's Vanguard was lost due in part due to the combined contribution of failure of the glass on the keel bottom, the reduced strength of the bond on the sides of the keel, and the failure of the encapsulation membrane which ultimately lead to the loss of the ballast keel.)

It was also during this period that manufacturers introduced the outward facing flange hull to deck joint. (In fairness, this questionable detail continues in modern value oriented boats.) Outward facing flanges have several issues. First of all, by their very design the joint is in bending rather than sheer. (The load path is trying to tear the laminate apart rather than simply slice through it.) Because of their location on the hull, they need to be thinner laminate and have a smaller contact area. This concentrates the connection into a smaller area, increasing the tendency for fatigue and a failure line across the load path. It is also a harder joint to seal.

In many cases, early boatbuilders also constructed their toe rails by molding them into the deck. It is very had to get a proper lamination when dealing with the sharp changes in direction required to form something like a toerail. This often inferior glass work occurs at or near the hull to deck joint in the zone where loads are most concentrated. The insurance study cited several cases where the failure mode was though to originate in this area and spread out from there.

Another questionable detail was Formica covered bulkheads. While easy to maintain, the Formica conceals the plywood cores of these often structural elements, and can trap moisture as within the plywood preventing it from drying out. This allows rot to occur in the bulkhead and spread undetected.

This problem was made worse by the fact that many of the less expensive boats of this era used exterior grade plywood rather than marine grade materials for their interiors.

A final area of concern noted in the insurance report was tabbing methods. Tabbing is the method of bonding components of a boat that consist of layers of fiberglass laminate that span between the components. Properly done, tabbing consists of multiple layers of cloth which taper in width from a wide first layer so that there are not hardspots formed where the two components join. (Hardspots greatly concentrate the loads and can damage the strength of the laminate over time.) Ideally, tabbing is continuous around the two components being joined. During the early years of boat building, on poor to moderate quality boats, the tabbing was often discontinuous and a single lamination or two.

Heavy weight:
Then there is the weight issue. The combination of the CCA rule and the boat building techniques of the era resulted in boats that were comparatively heavy but carrying that weight in areas of the boat (hulls, interiors, and rigs) where it does not help the boat. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, in and of itself weight does nothing good for a boat. Many of these boats were heavy in ways that really did not help comfort, or carrying capacity, or stability, or strength. They were just heavy. In many cases this works against comfort, or carrying capacity, or stability, and strength.

Spray and green water on deck:
I have always found CCA Boats wet when compared to more modern designs. The low freeboard and full bows tended to put a lot of water on the deck. The full bows were a fad that resulted from an effort to extend the sailing length at smaller heel angles. These comparatively blunt bows do poorly in a short chop or big seas and send a lot of spray and green water on board. In my mind the bigger problem of the two is this tendency to take solid water aboard.

Accommodations:
Even CCA fans acknowledge the lack of room on board these old boats so I will skip over that point.

Original Hardware:
The hardware of the era could be quite solid but was very primitive in design compared to modern gear. There was often much greater friction and less mechanical advantage. If the boat has not been upgraded the hardware may be out dated or unsafe by modern standards. Even good hardware has a limited lifespan. Much of the hardware of the day was inferior to modern gear and some like reel winches are just plain dangerous. (Want to feel my improperly healed broken ribs?)

But also the wiring and plumbing techniques and materials had a finite lifespan and often would not be consistent with modern standards or handle the kinds of electronic systems that have become the norm today.

The good news is that many of these older CCA era boats have already had these systems upgraded over time.

Carrying capacity and storage:
One of the worst knocks against CCA era boats is the lack of carrying capacity and useful storage. In simple terms, two main factors which control carrying capacity are the waterline plane and the displacement of the boat. For the most part displacement comes into play because carrying capacity is generally thought of in terms of a percentage of the overall displacement of the boat, such that a heavier boat for its length can generally carry more than a lighter boat. But that size of that percentage is directly related to the waterline plane of the boat since the rate of emersion with added weight is controlled by the area of the waterline plane.

So while CCA era boats were comparatively heavy for their length overall, because of their short waterlines, they had very small waterline planes, and could tolerate proportionately little excess weight relative to their displacement before becoming immersed to the point that seaworthiness, and performance are compromised.

Similarly, while these were long boats on deck, they are comparatively narrow, and when combined with their short waterlines had comparatively little volume below decks. Much of that volume, which might have been useful storage area, is in the ends of the boat, extended out past the waterline, where added weight compromises motion comfort, seaworthiness and performance.

Economics:
Then there is the economics of these older boats. No matter what you do to a CCA era boat, it will only be worth much. During a previous discussion on this topic, I talked guys who objected to my analysis. In the most extreme case one fellow described the changes that he (and prior owners) made to his boat. He described changing the rig to a carbon spar (Taller and double spreader), all new standing and running rigging, all new deck hardware, new sails, repairs to the deck and topsides where "time had taken its toll", Awlgripping the topsides and deck, modern electronics, replacing an atomic 4 with a diesel, replacing the pressure alcohol stove with a propane stove and new propane system, refinishing the interior including replacing a rotted bulkhead, new wiring and plumbing, and replacing the cushions. He went on to tell me that he thought his boat as good as any modern boat. Well it may be in many ways but he spent a lot of money upgrading a 35-year-old boat and he is still stuck with an outdated rule beater hull design.

For most people the limitations created the distortions of a CCA era hull and rig limit their value, and when you can buy better designs which were also better constructed from later periods in similar condition, it becomes very difficult to make a case for putting that kind of time and money into a CCA era boat.

The reality is that most people would not do half the things this guy described. But when you look at these boats there is rarely less than $10 to $20 thousand between a really super boat with everything done and a project boat. Do even a quarter of the items on that list and you can easily eat up that gap. Unless you intend to live with the boat more or less as it is, the sheer economics of buying a project boat is seriously questionable. But even a reasonably good boat from this era can be very expensive to own.

Lastly, I want to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the guys who love these old CCA boats. I appreciate their love for their boats and the effort that it takes to keep these old girls looking nice. I admire the seamanship that it takes to get the most out of these boats and when I see one that is well sailed I can only doff my cap to a true sailor.

Respectfully
Jeff


----------



## SloopJonB

Jeff, that's not an absurdly long post, it's a thesis. :wink

By the way, your degree is granted.


----------



## krisscross

I printed it out. 19 pages on size 12 font (to avoid using reading glasses)


----------



## seaner97

Jeff, 
Do you have a reference for the insurance study? Several google searches return you referencing it here multiple times and the excellent Paul Miller j/24 hull failure study from 2001, but I am unable to locate the study you refer to. 
Regards,
Sean


----------



## Jeff_H

I do not have a reference for you on the study. I had originally heard a presentation on the insurance study at a small boat conference the year it was released. The study used to be available online and there were links to it in some of the discussions at the time. 

In recent years, I have searched for it myself and not been able to find it. Much of the material that I had written above was actually written when the report was still available for me to use as a reference. If I had to guess the report dated to the late 90's or perhaps as late as 2002 or 3. 

There were similar studies of older boats done by the Committee who worked on the CE Directive for Small Craft and some of those studies were available. Those studies had a different focus, were broader in focus, and in some ways were less detailed than the insurance study. The CE research papers were available online last time that I looked. 

Lastly, I was told that there ABS did a similar but less extensive study when they reworking the design heads for Yachts, Chapter 2, Sections 1 & 2 in the early 2000's. I never saw that report, but it was referenced in a SNAME conference around that time. Those research papers may be available through ABS.

Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> I do not have a reference for you on the study. I had originally heard a presentation on the insurance study at a small boat conference the year it was released. The study used to be available online and there were links to it in some of the discussions at the time.
> 
> In recent years, I have searched for it myself and not been able to find it. Much of the material that I had written above was actually written when the report was still available for me to use as a reference. If I had to guess the report dated to the late 90's or perhaps as late as 2002 or 3.
> 
> There were similar studies of older boats done by the Committee who worked on the CE Directive for Small Craft and some of those studies were available. Those studies had a different focus, were broader in focus, and in some ways were less detailed than the insurance study. The CE research papers were available online last time that I looked.
> 
> Lastly, I was told that there ABS did a similar but less extensive study when they reworking the design heads for Yachts, Chapter 2, Sections 1 & 2 in the early 2000's. I never saw that report, but it was referenced in a SNAME conference around that time. Those research papers may be available through ABS.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks. I don't doubt your credibility, but have some research credentials myself, I always like to see the source data and original publication. I've seen too many 'misrememberings', and presented data that doesn't stand the test of peer review. I'll do some digging and see if I can find it. Do you have any idea what insurance entity commissioned or published the original, more specific, study?
Regarding the rest of your assessment of the CCA boats- couldn't agree more, and have never really argued anything but. I've pointed others to sites that list CCA era boats as 'bluewater capable' but I do believe I've always said many of them are a bit older and not designed for it. Could you? Sure- people have. Are there better boats if you have money? No doubt. Are they a pretty decent, albeit slower, boat for not much, particularly if you find one that is well cared for? I think so. When you're talking 25K for a 35-39 foot boat and to upgrade to modern designs is at least 2x, and more often closer to 4x? For those of us with modest means (even not so modest means), 100K is a LOT of money.


----------



## hriehl1

Jeff:

That was very instructive, thank you. Though clearly, your boat-sense resides mostly in the left side of your brain. For some, boat-ownership is a right-brain function, more emotional than objective.

For me, the appeal of CCA-era designs has way less to do with sailing performance than it does simply being in what makes me feel good. My sailing skills and ambitions are very modest... I just like getting out with friends and family and trying to miss the buoys in a boat that has some "style".

In the same vein, offer me a choice between well-preserved 1964 Dodge Dart convertible and a 2010 Dodge Stratus convertible. By all objective standards the Stratus is the faster, more-efficient, safer and overall "better" car. I'll take the Dart.

Often unsaid when discussing older boats is that many of us with older boats get as much pleasure working on them as we do sailing them. In my case, the 400+ hours over 2 years I spent refitting a giveaway Hinterhoeller HR28 was very gratifying; I enjoyed the work simply as a hobby to get me off the couch. And I now have a boat with all-new electrics, plumbing, portlights, standing and running rigging, 6-layer barrier coat and more. Financially, it was probably a wash as it is probably worth about what I've spent on it (~$10K). But I know every system and every inch.

I moor in Salem MA, a harbor with probably a couple hundred sailboats in it. 90% of them are newer, faster and worth more than mine. But so many of them, to me, just look bloated and ordinary; like a 2010 Stratus. But when I see an Alberg design or similar CCA design, I keep looking.


----------



## seaner97

Ok, So if you own a Grampian, you're probably pretty pleased right now, and if you own a Hinkley that wasn't sourced from one of those above companies as a bare hull, you may be heading out to your boat with a sounding hammer. I shall consider the above the best we can currently find on 'superior' build quality of the hulls until I can find the original study and tear the methodology to shreds or concede it was done very well.
Jeff's thesis leads me to believe that, short of remolding the hull, inspecting, redoing tabbing, decks and bulkheads along with the standard rigging, chainplates and maintenance items would be the most likely way to up the 'build quality' of the boat, and could be done as a decent DIY. 
On to the Pimp my Islander/Pearson/Bristol thread!


----------



## seaner97

hriehl1 said:


> Jeff:
> 
> That was very instructive, thank you. Though clearly, your boat-sense resides mostly in the left side of your brain. For some, boat-ownership is a right-brain function, more emotional than objective.
> 
> For me, the appeal of CCA-era designs has way less to do with sailing performance than it does simply being in what makes me feel good. My sailing skills and ambitions are very modest... I just like getting out with friends and family and trying to miss the buoys in a boat that has some "style".
> 
> In the same vein, offer me a choice between well-preserved 1964 Dodge Dart convertible and a 2010 Dodge Stratus convertible. By all objective standards the Stratus is the faster, more-efficient, safer and overall "better" car. I'll take the Dart.
> 
> Often unsaid when discussing older boats is that many of us with older boats get as much pleasure working on them as we do sailing them. In my case, the 400+ hours over 2 years I spent refitting a giveaway Hinterhoeller HR28 was very gratifying; I enjoyed the work simply as a hobby to get me off the couch. And I now have a boat with all-new electrics, plumbing, portlights, standing and running rigging, 6-layer barrier coat and more. Financially, it was probably a wash as it is probably worth about what I've spent on it (~$10K). But I know every system and every inch.
> 
> I moor in Salem MA, a harbor with probably a couple hundred sailboats in it. 90% of them are newer, faster and worth more than mine. But so many of them, to me, just look bloated and ordinary; like a 2010 Stratus. But when I see an Alberg design or similar CCA design, I keep looking.


Same experience I had. Mine wasn't a giveaway, but it was way cheaper than anything more modern. And, as I pointed out above, you NEVER should buy a boat expecting to get anywhere near the money out of her that you put into her, no matter what you spend initially. I don't care if it's Bobs Carbon Cutter Armada. You sail that sucker off the dock the first time, you're looking at 25% less when you try to sell her. Mine, I'll probably see about .5-.6 on the dollar if I try to sell her in the next 5 years, but as long as she floats, I'll probably keep her another 30. If I wanted to get somewhere fast, I wouldn't be sailing.


----------



## seaner97

And Jerry, better not hit anything in your pimped out Islander. Lobster pots might hole the thing....


----------



## shananchie

Reading the long screed, I can imagine James Baldwin seeing it and exclaiming, "Oh my god. If only I knew then what I know now. I never would have sailed my unsuitable and unseaworthy Pearson Triton twice around the world.

"Even worse, I have been telling people that older CCA boats are great for doing what I have done, and in fact have been helping people prepare these boats for voyages. Who knew? After all, I'm not an expert. I'm just a guy who has been sailing CCA boats across oceans for a couple of decades."

Armchair admiraling aside, thousands of CCA-style sailboats have crossed oceans, circumnavigated the world and endured big storms over the last 40 years or so. If in fact they were as bad as claimed, an easily discernible pattern of disaster would have emerged.

It hasn't. In fact, many of the sailors who have done long voyages on them rave about their capabilities. (See also Yves Gelinas and Jean du Sud, an Alberg 30, among many others.)

Attached rudders are bad? What kind of rudders regularly break and fall off sailboats? How about the newer-style detached rudders?

Even if the glass work was only OK and not perfect, the fact is that many of these boats have aged very well. Many have seen little stress while daysailing and coastal cruising. How often do you hear of these old boats breaking up? And put things in perspective, even mediocre glasswork is in most cases far more reliable than the wooden sailboats of old. 

Most of the stories I see have to do with problems on newer, highly engineered and underbuilt sailboats that fail in bad weather. 

My old CCA Bristol 30 has a seakindly motion and handles rough weather beautifully, much better than any IOR boat I've been on. Don't like a 35-degree heel? Reduce sail. That's how you manage these boats.

Weather helm? I can walk away from the wheel, go down below for a drink and return with the boat still on its course. Try that on a newer sailboat.

Enclosed ballast is bad? What about all of the fin keels that leak and fall off?

Ever try heaving to on a boat with a fin keel and detached rudder? It's much easier on a CCA boat.

When talking about flawed designs aimed at increasing speed, don't forget flat-bottomed fin-keelers with too much beam and freeboard, vulnerable rudders and not enough bulkheads inside. (After all, they would detract from the ambiance in a dockside condo.)

The fact is that there are many CCA sailboats at sea right now proving you wrong. If you don't like CCA sailboats, that's fine. Just don't confuse personal preference with seaworthiness.


----------



## SloopJonB

I agree with a lot of what you posted, particularly the keel & rudder problems that have become almost commonplace.

Jeff did point out something that is often overlooked on the topic of CCA designs - he made the distinction between true CCA boats, designed to beat the rule and CCA *era* boats which while similar in many ways, particularly in looks or general configuration are actually fairly different in terms of seaworthiness.

The Alberg 30 is a case in point - it was actually commissioned by a group of Folkboat sailors to be a bigger & more comfortable replacement for their minimal boats, not as a CCA rule beater.


----------



## shananchie

albergsailboats.org seems to think that Carl Alberg designed all of his boats to the CCA rule. In fact, it says they were all basically the same boat, stretched or shrunk to fit the demands of various builders. 

In any event, I would be interested in hearing about the design differences between CCA rule-beaters and CCA-style boats. The Alberg 30, for example, is similar in design, specs and appearance to my Bristol 30, which was originally designed as a 1960s CCA racer.

An interesting side note to these sailboats is that while they don't appeal to people who sail in five knots of wind, they actually can go like hell once the wind gets over 12 knots. 

I can reach 6.6 knots in 12 knots of wind in flat water with a 130 jib and a scrubbed bottom (Boca Ciega Bay, just off Tampa Bay) and have reached 7.6 knots carrying full sail in more than 20 knots of wind. (Of course, I was heeled WAY over , not for the faint of heart.)


----------



## Missingyou

I've contemplated the idea of whether refurbishing older boats was a viable business prop. However it really is a challenge for me. For example I'm not sure I would agree with sinking a lot of money into the likes of an old C&C , talk to a Surveyor, they had some rough patches. Dare I say it but by the time you got done spending money on the older boat a newer (90's) Beneteau or certainly a Catalina is probably a smarter choice. I know your heads are about to explode, but some of this talk is more driven by nostalgia and not common sense when it comes to these older boats. Why bother.

I overheard a gentleman that I had gone sailing with as a group on a Catalina talking behind our backs about our plastic fantastic boats. Mine is a Beneteau of course. However he owned an old Pearson, the father of plastic fantastic and the production boat. Incidentally we weren't sailing in his boat because he was still trying to get it seaworthy after some refit.


----------



## smurphny

Business prop and sailboat probably shouldn't be in the same sentence. Old, new, in-between---all holes in the sea into which one pours money


----------



## SloopJonB

Missingyou said:


> I've contemplated the idea of whether refurbishing older boats was a viable business prop.


A handful of people are able to make a living doing it on a "to order" basis - Tim Lackey has been succeeding at it for years now. Trying to do it on spec would almost certainly be a financial disaster. There is a deeply ingrained attitude that a rebuilt old boat is still just an old boat no matter how much reconstruction has been done.

Columbia tired it not long ago with an old 50 - took it indoors and completely remanufactured it from what I could see. Don't know how well they did or even if they sold it but I'd be very surprised if it was a winner for them.

Most people are fixated on the $0.10 on the $1 "rule" with restored boats. Maybe it will change but not anytime soon IMO.


----------



## shananchie

Most of the old sailboats being offered for a couple of thousand dollars are junk and deserve to be hauled off to the landfill. You would need to sink 15-20K and many hours of sweat into one of them to begin to have a decent sailboat after decades of neglect. 

You're right that you could buy a much better boat for the same or even less money.

The sweet spot for older sailboats seems to be between $8 and $20K. That's where you find older sailboats that have been properly maintained and updated by loving owners. 

They should be worth more, but the main problem is that no one will write loans on old sailboats, so they have to be mostly cash deals. The number of sailors with $30-40K sitting around is limited, but many people can come up with $10-15K.

There is also no shortage of people who mistakenly think that fixing up old, neglected sailboats can be done for a few thousand dollars, so that reduces the demand for the better sailboats that are worth buying.

The owner's loss is your gain because the value in an older sailboat is in the equipment, not the mast and hull. 

For say $10-12K, you get a boat with a diesel worth 5K, roller furling worth 2K, sails worth 3K, an autopilot worth 1K, interior cushions worth 2K, 2K worth of lead in the keel, assorted gear worth several thousand dollars, and on and on and on. 

You get the mast and hull for free.


----------



## albrazzi

shananchie said:


> Most of the old sailboats being offered for a couple of thousand dollars are junk and deserve to be hauled off to the landfill. You would need to sink 15-20K and many hours of sweat into one of them to begin to have a decent sailboat after decades of neglect.
> 
> You're right that you could buy a much better boat for the same or even less money.
> 
> The sweet spot for older sailboats seems to be between $8 and $20K. That's where you find older sailboats that have been properly maintained and updated by loving owners.
> 
> They should be worth more, but the main problem is that no one will write loans on old sailboats, so they have to be mostly cash deals. The number of sailors with $30-40K sitting around is limited, but many people can come up with $10-15K.
> 
> There is also no shortage of people who mistakenly think that fixing up old, neglected sailboats can be done for a few thousand dollars, so that reduces the demand for the better sailboats that are worth buying.
> 
> The owner's loss is your gain because the value in an older sailboat is in the equipment, not the mast and hull.
> 
> For say $10-12K, you get a boat with a diesel worth 5K, roller furling worth 2K, sails worth 3K, an autopilot worth 1K, interior cushions worth 2K, 2K worth of lead in the keel, assorted gear worth several thousand dollars, and on and on and on.
> 
> You get the mast and hull for free.


All true, I think the old adage "all boats cost the same" applies even (especially?) to the really tired ones. I'm firmly in the 15-20K range and expect to like my last Boat in the 10K range to sell for what I paid for it easily, but with no consideration for the money and improvements made along the way. I see them everywhere, surely more than 15 years ago just sitting, the only dif is the ones in the water have another drain with slip rent. It will be interesting to see the next 10 years with even more falling by the wayside. Without the weekly CPR any boat will die.
I got the newest one I could easily afford Cash, not for a loan but for Insurance, even that was harder than 15 years ago.

So if you're going to do it get a good mast and hull.


----------



## Jeff_H

shananchie said:


> Reading the long screed, I can imagine James Baldwin seeing it and exclaiming, "Oh my god. If only I knew then what I know now. I never would have sailed my unsuitable and unseaworthy Pearson Triton twice around the world.


It is important to remember that James Baldwin did a huge amount of work to beef up Atom. He added bulkheads and flats which stiffen the hull, he glassed the hull to deck joint, changed the rig, and so on. If you consider all that he did to make Atom work as a distance cruiser, even discounting the value of his labor he could have started with a design that was better suited for his purpose, and probably ended up with a better boat and made out better financially.

Which gets to the heart of the matter from my perspective. There are a very large number of boats whose prices will always be constrained because the general marketplace views these older boats as 'obsolete' in terms of sailing ability, and accommodations. The price range on these boats is pretty narrow with examples that are well equipped, updated and in really sound condition selling in below the low $20K range, while totally trashed versions, (versions with negative value) can be picked up for nearly nothing (or free sometimes), when you add up the cost of refreshing the hardware, adding sails, reworking the plumbing and electrical systems, adding even minimal electronics, perhaps rebuilding the engine, these nearly free boats will ultimately cost more than simply buying the updated boat in really good condition, and letting the seller take the loss.

My central point in all of this being, that if you are buying an older boat arguing that they are less expensive to buy, then at least buy one that has a particularly good design, and which is in sound shape and ideally is reasonably well equipped.

The other point is that there are models within any period which are better designed and/or constructed than most. Shananchie's Bristol 30 (like most of Halsey Herreshoff's designs during this era) was one of those designs which broke from the CCA norm in terms of having a comparatively fine bow, proportionately larger mainsail, a slightly longer waterline length than was typical under CCA, and straighter run and more powerful sections than most designs. The 29 foot centerboard version if this boat is one of my favorite boats from this era.

Similarly hriehl1's Hinterhoeller 28 was an especially advanced design for its era, again with a comparatively modern keel and rudder, slightly more powerful hull sections, higher ballast ratio, and lighter weight than was the CCA norm.

To me, choices like these make a lot more sense. But there are also boats from this approximate period which are typically a just plain better boats than the majority if their general size. The Bristol 33/34 that started this discussion on another thread is an excellent example of a design which produced better boats than the norm, as is the Galaxy 32, or the Tartan 27. There are also boats within this same price range from slightly later periods which are exceptional designs in all ways. An example of that might be something like the Tartan 30, and the Tartan 30 was better built than most of the CCA era boat and was also a very far superior design in terms of motion comfort, seaworthiness, and performance as well.



shananchie said:


> Attached rudders are bad? What kind of rudders regularly break and fall off sailboats? How about the newer-style detached rudders?


Actually, rudder failures are quite common on these older boats. Since fewer of these older boats are being taken offshore we hear less about that, but if you talk Seatow or with the repair yards, rudder failures have become extremely common on these older boats. It certainly is possible to replace the rudder on a boat. For example Atom actually has a new rudder, but a couple years ago I spoke with a fellow chainsawing a good old boat and disposing of it. He was doing so because his rudder had failed, and he believed that the cost of a new rudder was more than the boat was worth.



shananchie said:


> Ever try heaving to on a boat with a fin keel and detached rudder? It's much easier on a CCA boat.


I frequently hove to in a broad range of conditions with my boat which has a very small fin keel and a post hung rudder. Having tried to hove to on a number of CCA designs, I can tell you that many of them do not heave to very easily.

You could not get my family's Vanguard to heave to if your life depended on it, and Alberg 30's do not heave to very well either. Tritons will heave to with their working jib but won't reliably heave to if you are flying a genoa. Whereas my boat with its very small fin keel heaves-to very reliably and far better than the CCA era boats that I have owned.



shananchie said:


> The fact is that there are many CCA sailboats at sea right now proving you wrong. If you don't like CCA sailboats, that's fine. Just don't confuse personal preference with seaworthiness.


The fact that there once were a number of CCA era boats at sea proves nothing. There was a time when there were enormous numbers of wooden working water craft at sea. The losses were enormous, and these days most knowledgeable cruisers would consider these to be safe to take to sea, at least without a major rebuild and modernization. If numbers of boats out cruising was any kind of proof, there are far more later designs at sea than there are CCA era boats, which probably proves nothing to either of us.

The example that I give when people try to say that this or that type of boat was successfully used for long distance cruising is proof that a particular boat is a good cruiser is a fellow I knew in the 1970's who sailed from Australia, across the Indian Ocean, rounded Cape Hope the wrong way, sailed up the cost of Africa and through the Med, then on to the Caribbean and South America, and finally to Miami, Florida where I met him. He did this in a home built plywood boat. The boat was a mess with patched sails and patched rigging. The hull was patched in a dozen or more places with pieces of salvaged plywood that were ring nailed in place. The keel was concrete with steel mixed in that bolted to the boat with badly rusted galvanized bolts. He had not instruments and his clock was not a chronometer, and his almanac was bought used and was missing pages. Yet he sailed this boat 3/4 of the way around the world. Did he prove that this was an ideal boat for the purpose? I would say that he merely proved that with skill, resourcefulness, and luck it could be done.

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## smurphny

Gotta agree with Jeff here. As with everything else, there has been real progress in sailboat design. To deny that is silly.Many retired people like me who own old CCA boats do it for the challenge of working on the boat. The project is the thing as much as sailing. If sailing were my primary goal when I decided to own a cruising sailboat, it would have been a whole lot easier to just buy one that was in good shape already. There are/were plenty of them around. Some of us are just gluttons for punishment

I do not like the idea that keels and rudders seem to fall off some newer designs at an alarming rate and spade/aft hung rudders are extremely vulnerable to all sorts of damage but in general, newer boats are better in so many ways. I think a little research should tell buyers of the newer boats about the few to stay away from.


----------



## seaner97

Ah, so Jeff finally admits it CAN be done, just at a cost that exceeds what he personally thinks it's worth. Thank you. That was EXACTLY what I was saying. 
Ok. So reglassing the hull to deck joint has been added to the list of good to dos if you're taking her offshore. Could add that to innumerable modern designs as well. Probably to Smackers Hunter, to boot.


----------



## shananchie

I think the term "newer boats" needs a better definition here.

The bulk of mass production sailboats designed from the '70s through the '90s under the IOR rule sacrificed seaworthiness for speed and interior comfort. (See the Fastnet report for more details.) 

Last night, I was reading an account of how, while IOR sailboats were sinking in the Fastnet race, some cruisers in a Pearson 35 were lying ahull in the same storm, playing cards in the cabin.

The reasons generally are that the IOR boats have flatter bottoms, wider beams, fewer bulkheads, less weight, thinner fiberglass layups, interiors unsuitable for rough weather, vulnerable rudders, etc.

You can read many threads on Sailnet and other forums in which owners of mid-sized Catalinas and Hunters from that era concede that these boats are not meant for offshore work. You won't find many owners of CCA boats making the same concession.

From the '90s on, mass production sailboats are a different animal entirely. 

There's a thread on the Internet now in which people are seriously arguing that a Hunter 42 Passage should not be considered a bluewater boat. Really? A 42-foot coastal cruiser? I'll bet it has nice accommodations below.

I have two Hunter 27s on my dock. One is an old Cherubini, the other a newer model. The differences are startling. The Cherubini is a solidly built boat that could take some rough weather. The newer one? Even the owner admits it's a fair-weather daysailer.

Of course, there have always been solid, costly sailboats built that contradict these observations. I'm talking about mass production sailboats. 

I have a theory about newer sailboats.

Sailboats built in the '60s and '70s were constructed like tanks, virtually indestructible, unlike wooden boats that tended to fall apart after 20 years and/or a couple of years of neglect. They were so tough that people would take 22-footers across oceans.

This, of course, led to the downfall of much of the sailboat industry in the '80s and '90s. Who wants to spend money on a new boat when there are all of these beautiful, like-new used ones on the market?

So the lesson the surviving mass-production builders learned was planned obscelesence. Most of the latest sailboats are lightly built dockside condos, not solid bluewater sailers.

Smaller sailboats are limited in their abilities and not likely to last 50 years. With thinner layups and fewer bulkheads, even the larger sailboats are going to show their age and vulnerabilities if they venture out into big seas and strong winds. 

At the same time, the accommodations below are more like a small apartment than a seagoing sailboat. This is a big selling point because relatively few sailors do much more than daysailing and coastal cruising. 

They are also cursed with many of the same design problems as the earlier IOR boats that make them unsuitable for difficult crossings.

Would you rather take one of these offshore or an old CCA-style sailboat? I know what my answer is.


----------



## hriehl1

I think we're all agreed that performance-wise, newer boats rule. And refurbing an older boat is an act of love with dubious financial returns (though for some of us, the gratification goes beyond dollars).

But then there is the issue of "character". Newer boats I've chartered (Beneteaus, Jenneaus), to me, have none. Their shiny fiberglass interiors, flimsy plywood locker covers with stapled upholstery and huge "Euro" windows do nothing for me. 

But, just as the newer designs do nothing for me, my older Hinterhoeller 28 might be a total turn-off to some with its dark, all-wood stick-built interior that is admittedly very small by modern standards. Some could not imagine having only a single-battery 12-volt setup, tiny head with no shower and a pressure kerosene 2-burner stove... while I relish the simplicity.

The fun of it is that there's something suitable out there for everybody, whatever your preferences.


----------



## Jeff_H

seaner97 said:


> Ah, so Jeff finally admits it CAN be done, just at a cost that exceeds what he personally thinks it's worth. Thank you. That was EXACTLY what I was saying.
> Ok. So reglassing the hull to deck joint has been added to the list of good to dos if you're taking her offshore. Could add that to innumerable modern designs as well. Probably to Smackers Hunter, to boot.


I admit that it *could have been *done. If you bought one of these boats perhaps 20 years ago, gutted it, added internal framing and generally removed excess weight and beefed up the structure, that boat would still be serviceable today. That is not the same as taking a 50 year old boat and assuming that the same thing can be done with the same results.

Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so Jeff finally admits it CAN be done, just at a cost that exceeds what he personally thinks it's worth. Thank you. That was EXACTLY what I was saying.
> Ok. So reglassing the hull to deck joint has been added to the list of good to dos if you're taking her offshore. Could add that to innumerable modern designs as well. Probably to Smackers Hunter, to boot.
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that it *could have been *done. If you bought one of these boats perhaps 20 years ago, gutted it, added internal framing and generally removed excess weight and beefed up the structure, that boat would still be serviceable today. That is not the same as taking a 50 year old boat and assuming that the same thing can be done with the same results.
> 
> Jeff
Click to expand...

Seems arbitrary. Where is the line? 20 years? 30? 32? The new glass, resin, plywood, etc is all the same

Don't get me wrong- if I could afford or justify a Hinkley SouWester or a Morris 42 or 42x, I'd buy one of those but o Nd many others here see no reason to scrap a perfectly good boat if you can replace parts and keep it going.


----------



## hellosailor

It would be so much simpler to remember George Washington's hatchet. You know, the famous one he chopped down the cherry tree with?

Oh yes, this is THE real genuine hatchet, same one George used to chop down the cherry tree. Of course, the head has been replaced three times and the handle five, but it still is _the same _hatchet.

At a certain point you are just using an old hull as a convenient "mold" for your new boat. Kinda like mistaking a NASCAR entry for "the same" body panels on a showroom car. Nothing else is the same.


----------



## seaner97

hellosailor said:


> It would be so much simpler to remember George Washington's hatchet. You know, the famous one he chopped down the cherry tree with?
> 
> Oh yes, this is THE real genuine hatchet, same one George used to chop down the cherry tree. Of course, the head has been replaced three times and the handle five, but it still is _the same _hatchet.
> 
> At a certain point you are just using an old hull as a convenient "mold" for your new boat. Kinda like mistaking a NASCAR entry for "the same" body panels on a showroom car. Nothing else is the same.


Except you can't switch out the hull. Pieces of it, sure, but not the whole thing.


----------



## smurphny

To try to parse out the points of contention--(as McLaughlin would say)-Issue 1:Comparative hull design and performance. Issue 2: Comparative glass technology and durability. Issue 3: Comparative aesthetic appeal. Issue 4: Comparative comfort and amenities.
Issue 5: Comparative QC in production and design. On issue 1, new wins hands down. Issue 2, New wins(with proper QC). Issue 3, Old wins hands down. Issue 4, New wins hands down. Issue 5: A draw. Lousy, ill designed boats have always been produced.


----------



## seaner97

smurphny said:


> To try to parse out the points of contention--(as McLaughlin would say)-Issue 1:Comparative hull design and performance. Issue 2: Comparative glass technology and durability. Issue 3: Comparative aesthetic appeal. Issue 4: Comparative comfort and amenities.
> Issue 5: Comparative QC in production and design. On issue 1, new wins hands down. Issue 2, New wins(with proper QC). Issue 3, Old wins hands down. Issue 4, New wins hands down. Issue 5: A draw. Lousy, ill designed boats have always been produced.


With the exception that we don't KNOW ( we think, but are not certain) that the new post 1995 boats will be as durable. Until they are 50 years old and Jeff is telling us to retire them because they all suck, we won't know for sure.


----------



## krisscross

Maybe it would be good to provide examples of very specific boats in that broad "CCA Boats" category that are better than others, and thus worth restoring, buying, and sailing under more challenging conditions. IMO Bristol 34 is one of such boats for the following reasons: good initial design, reasonably well built, reasonably fast, pretty to look at.


----------



## Jeff_H

seaner97 said:


> With the exception that we don't KNOW ( we think, but are not certain) that the new post 1995 boats will be as durable. Until they are 50 years old and Jeff is telling us to retire them because they all suck, we won't know for sure.


If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion, then don't grossly distort what I said. 

I specifically did not say," retire them because they all suck." What I did say is if you are going to go through the trouble of doing a project on one to try to pick the better designs and better built boats from the era.

What I did say is that despite the ill-informed opinions of court of public opinion, a large percentage of these boats never were 'tanks' and did not begin life any heavier constructed or stronger than modern boats, and frankly through careful testing have been shown to have lost a significant amount of their original strength.

What I did say is that while these boats make decent coastal cruisers in venues with predominantly moderate conditions, they are far from being ideal if your goal is long distance, long term cruising, especially when there are fare more suitable boats available for the price.

I tried to give you specific brands that were considered to be more careful in their glass-work and engineering. I tried to give you a list of building details to watch out for because they are less than ideal.

I did not say," retire them because they all suck."

Jeff


----------



## JonEisberg

seaner97 said:


> With the exception that we don't KNOW ( we think, but are not certain) that the new post 1995 boats will be as durable. Until they are 50 years old and Jeff is telling us to retire them because they all suck, we won't know for sure.


Well, the owner of this 2007 Beneteau Oceanis sure didn't have to wait 50 years to find out how "durable" his rudder assembly is...

Trust me, you don't have to understand Dutch, to get the general drift... ;-)

Absolutely mind-blowing, is all I can say... No need to watch more than the first 2 minutes or so, it's pretty clear from the beginning ;-)

Here's a rough translation of some text that accompanies the vid:

_"This video shows how the rudder is attached to the Steady, a 2007 Beneteau Oceanis 43 from Lelystad. The construction is as strong as its weakest link..in this case one millimeter thin top layer of the plywood (plywood) in which the rudder with the rudder tube is attached. This is glued with polyester on the plywood. In force on the rudder may go tearing plywood as my boat is happening. On the Bay of Biscay with depths up to 4,000 meters was found that only the rudder was still stuck to a flange in the storage locker. The stirring of the fixing sleeve was torn so that the rudder could fall at any moment of the boat resulting in a trough hole in the boat so that it would sink in a few moments. Fortunately a French port location where the Steady could be lifted. "_


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the exception that we don't KNOW ( we think, but are not certain) that the new post 1995 boats will be as durable. Until they are 50 years old and Jeff is telling us to retire them because they all suck, we won't know for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion, then don't grossly distort what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically did not say," retire them because they all suck." What I did say is if you are going to go through the trouble of doing a project on one to try to pick the better designs and better built boats from the era.
> 
> What I did say is that despite the ill-informed opinions of court of public opinion, a large percentage of these boats never were 'tanks' and did not begin life any heavier constructed or stronger than modern boats, and frankly through careful testing have been shown to have lost a significant amount of their original strength.
> 
> What I did say is that while these boats make decent coastal cruisers in venues with predominantly moderate conditions, they are far from being ideal if your goal is long distance, long term cruising, especially when there are fare more suitable boats available for the price.
> 
> I tried to give you specific brands that were considered to be more careful in their glass-work and engineering. I tried to give you a list of building details to watch out for because they are less than ideal.
> 
> I did not say," retire them because they all suck."
> 
> Jeff
Click to expand...

No, you didn't. And you did give a list of the companies the insurance study said were better. And you gave a general idea of better designs by herreshoff. I appreciate that. I was joking, and obviously oversimplified your statements. But you didn't answer what your arbitrary cut off for how old is too old is. 
Also, searching yacht world for boats in the NE area 30k and under didn't bring up many "far more suitable boats for the price".
I think I counted 4. Maybe.
And of those, most (all?) were IOR boats that don't have spectacular offshore reps.


----------



## smurphny

It's impossible to generalize when comparing new vs old boats. As Jon has hinted, there are some new designs that are downright dangerous. The engineering is just simply defective for the environment boats inhabit...period. But, there were undoubtedly older boats with equally disastrous engineering as evidenced in the Fastnet tragedy. When considered overall, with new vacuum glassing techniques, long waterlines, better chemical formulation, and less race-rule madness, the newer boats have definitely progressed the art of boat building.


----------



## seaner97

This looks to be a bargain if its anywhere near as good as it looks, and might meet Jeff's qualifications. 
But it's the only one of the 44 that wasn't either a CCA type design or built to really be a coastal boat (to my eye). 
http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/198...0396/Portsmouth/RI/United-States#.VeYZZmb3bCQ


----------



## shananchie

A funny story about the strength of these old Bristols:

About a year ago, I was visiting my daughter in Michigan when the staff at the Gulfport (Fl.) City Marina where I keep my Bristol 30 called.

It seems there was an odd combination of wind and tide, and the two-inch-thick teak anchor platform on the bow of the boat had gotten stuck under the dock.

"We can't get it out, and it looks bad because the tide is rising. You better call one of your friends to come over here and deal with the damage to the boat."

A couple of hours later, I get a second call.

"It's high tide, and you won't believe it. The entire stern of your boat is out of the water and pointing toward the sky. Something has to break. There's tons of pressure on that bow platform. We'll let you know."

A couple of hours after that, a third call.

"The tide has gone down, and we've freed your boat. You're not going to believe it, but there doesn't look like there's much damage."

In fact, the only real damage was a broken SS, 1/4-inch bolt that ran through front of the teak platform to hold the bow roller in place. The teak platform also had a nasty crack in it. It took about an hour to fix.

What held the bow platform in place was four 1/4-inch SS bolts with large washers as backing plates. The fiberglass on the foredeck supported tons of weight without showing the slightest crack or stress. There were no leaks or other problems on the hull-deck joint.


----------



## seaner97

shananchie said:


> A funny story about the strength of these old Bristols:
> 
> About a year ago, I was visiting my daughter in Michigan when the staff at the Gulfport (Fl.) City Marina where I keep my Bristol 30 called.
> 
> It seems there was an odd combination of wind and tide, and the two-inch-thick teak anchor platform on the bow of the boat had gotten stuck under the dock.
> 
> "We can't get it out, and it looks bad because the tide is rising. You better call one of your friends to come over here and deal with the damage to the boat."
> 
> A couple of hours later, I get a second call.
> 
> "It's high tide, and you won't believe it. The entire stern of your boat is out of the water and pointing toward the sky. Something has to break. There's tons of pressure on that bow platform. We'll let you know."
> 
> A couple of hours after that, a third call.
> 
> "The tide has gone down, and we've freed your boat. You're not going to believe it, but there doesn't look like there's much damage."
> 
> In fact, the only real damage was a broken SS, 1/4-inch bolt that ran through front of the teak platform to hold the bow roller in place. The teak platform also had a nasty crack in it. It took about an hour to fix.
> 
> What held the bow platform in place was four 1/4-inch SS bolts with large washers as backing plates. The fiberglass on the foredeck supported tons of weight without showing the slightest crack or stress. There were no leaks or other problems on the hull-deck joint.


And yours was built when the glasswork was supposedly at it's nadir.


----------



## seaner97

Looked a little into that Helmsmann, and it has the characteristic full midships and more pinched ends of the IOR designs as well, so maybe not, although it got here from Germany somehow...


----------



## Pendragon35

I have a 1965 Alberg 35, purchased a year ago, berthed in Baltimore, MD; I believe it was there for 5-10 years before last summer when she began owning me. I generally concur with what smurphny says. The boat has various spiderweb cracks that are cosmetic. At some point the cockpit was painted; the paint is peeling and needs replacement. The hull itself appears rigid and tight and I have only found one possible leak, where a chainplate penetrates the deck. That will be addressed soon. No evidence of rot so I take it this is recent and simply needs rebutting. 

She likes to sail, as stated elsewhere, at about 30 deg when she's on the wind; just below the point where water actually comes over the gunwale. She's quick to get there but once there, runs on rails. I don't know what would happen with more wind as about that point I reef if I haven't done so already. Actually, we commonly sail with one reef in, which helps deal with the notorious weather helm of these boats.

Previous owners repowered with a Yanmar 3gm30 (500 hours when I bought it), rewired, added a battery charger, inverter, and various other electrical things (no instruments though). The running rigging works but is tired. The sails are in good shape; they were bought (used) about two years ago and didn't see much service. A PO built a lovely chart table on the port side and created a single berth in the forward cabin; I'm going to take it back to a double (directions from the firsts mate). On the whole, she's beautiful.

That's the thing, isn't it?—the reason we are even discussing these boats. I've had a Catalina 22 and a Tanzer 22; we dock next to a Catalina 36 which has three times the space. I'm sure for what we paid, we could have found a boat with more space below. But then, there are only two of us, sometimes just me. And she's beautiful. 

I read with great interest the long post. Thank you to the poster; so much time to give us such great information! That took real dedication and I appreciate it. A35s have a cutaway keel, although I've never heard anyone suggest it's a fin keel; they have attached rudders and probably the fact that it's severely raked makes things even worse. I get that modern boats are better in so many ways: better lay up, more scientific design, faster, perhaps stronger. 

But this is the boat I wanted; I'm 64 and it's the sort of boat I always wished for when I was learning to sail on a Sunfish. And while everyone is right, I'm sure, dead right about all those studies there is one other thing. In our immediate dock area, there are two Catalina's in the 30+ range, an O'Day 30, and a J29. No one stops to look at them. But people commonly walk by and stop to look at mine. She's beautiful.

That's worth something. After all, there's no real reason for us to go sailing; it's an outmoded technology. The only real reason is because it stirs us, because of an aesthetic. Because it feels beautiful.


----------



## smurphny

At least there are two of us left who understand I had to replace a bulkhead that rotted from water getting in and decided to do away with the through deck chainplates. Moved them outboard and beefed them up a bit. If you find out you need to replace a bulkhead, I found a method that minimizes the rip-out damage.


----------



## seaner97

I think there are at least 6 based on this thread. I'm in a P35, which replaced the A35. In my harbor alone, there is a B35, a Tartan 34, an Ariel, a Wanderer, a Vanguard, a Cape Dory27 (Alberg), a couple Cheoy Lees, a Tayana 37 (pretty, seaworthy, not a CCA or IOR boat, and not exactly fast) as well as a few Hunters, a few Catalinas and a smattering of other boats of various designs. The ones that get rowed or motored around by people on their way to or from their boats? The old, pretty ones.


----------



## smurphny

It seems there are more good old boats the farther Downeast you get. To me they sure are prettier than a mooring field full of cats. Not that there's anything wrong with cats


----------



## seaner97

smurphny said:


> It seems there are more good old boats the farther Downeast you get. To me they sure are prettier than a mooring field full of cats. Not that there's anything wrong with cats


I think it's probably due to the short season- not as much wear on the boats, so not as likely to go looking for the newest and greatest. Also, Mainers tend to be frugal and appreciate the aesthetics more, both of which lend themselves toward good old boats.


----------



## JonEisberg

seaner97 said:


> Looked a little into that Helmsmann, and it has the characteristic full midships and more pinched ends of the IOR designs as well, so maybe not, although it got here from Germany somehow...


I think way too much is often made of the supposed liabilities of the "pinched ends" that were characteristic of the IOR era... That Helmsman looks pretty sweet to my eye, the problem with that boat for me would be her tumblehome, which is a real PITA in a cruising boat - at least if you care what the boat's topsides look like after awhile... 










Pretty much everyone concedes that one of the all-time legendary offshore voyaging yachts in that size range is the S&S 34, but many seem to forget how 'extreme' her pinched ends are...










Hell, after 9 circumnavigations, Jon Sanders still favors a hull shape that appears no less 'extreme' than that Helmsman...

;-)


----------



## seaner97

C'mon Jon, at least a little credit for picking her out. The IOR influence with the pinched ends is overdone, just like the CCA short water line hobbyhorse thing. There is truth in there that gets overblown. But as someone is fond of pointing out the boat takes a backseat to the sailor at some point.


----------



## smurphny

seaner97 said:


> I think it's probably due to the short season- not as much wear on the boats, so not as likely to go looking for the newest and greatest. Also, Mainers tend to be frugal and appreciate the aesthetics more, both of which lend themselves toward good old boats.


Yes, and the SUN down south is very hard on everything as I've discovered. Up on Champlain, the boat got covered for many months every year and freeze-dried in place for a long time.


----------



## mstern

seaner97 said:


> The ones that get rowed or motored around by people on their way to or from their boats? The old, pretty ones.


This is so true.

When I was looking for my first boat, I came across an Oday Tempest. If you've never seen one, the Tempest is a Philip Rhodes-designed 23 footer. A fin keel and separate rudder, but above the waterline, a very traditional looking boat. Moderate but distinct overhangs. Very small cabin and a huge cockpit. In short, a boat that looks very much like a modern "throwback" daysailer (like an Alerion or Morris M series boat), but can be had for a song.

Anyway, I show the boat to my wife (who by the way is an interior designer and appreciates good design), and she is less than thrilled. "It looks like Popeye's boat" is her reaction. "Yes!" I scream, "It's a classic look!" I love the boat, but this particular boat is a gawd-awful mess and I pass on it. But man, do I feel the tug from the Alberg-CCA-Rhodes look.


----------



## seaner97

mstern said:


> This is so true.
> 
> When I was looking for my first boat, I came across an Oday Tempest. If you've never seen one, the Tempest is a Philip Rhodes-designed 23 footer. A fin keel and separate rudder, but above the waterline, a very traditional looking boat. Moderate but distinct overhangs. Very small cabin and a huge cockpit. In short, a boat that looks very much like a modern "throwback" daysailer (like an Alerion or Morris M series boat), but can be had for a song.
> 
> Anyway, I show the boat to my wife (who by the way is an interior designer and appreciates good design), and she is less than thrilled. "It looks like Popeye's boat" is her reaction. "Yes!" I scream, "It's a classic look!" I love the boat, but this particular boat is a gawd-awful mess and I pass on it. But man, do I feel the tug from the Alberg-CCA-Rhodes look.


So is she a Benehunterlina fan?


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> I posit that all makes from that era are essentially handmade items and exposed to similar QI issues, making them hard to really compare, and that as there is no universally recognized system, this seems somewhat unfair to the Pearson cousins as they seem to get singled out with this, with rarely any other U.S. company other than Hinkley,
> 
> Thoughts from the rest?
> Also- if you were to attempt to make a FRP boat from this era last forever, how do you do it(setting aside those of you that would say why bother- this isn't meant as a referendum on their value. Suffice that many of us like these old, slow, pretty boats and want to play caretaker to these antiques.)? And what structural upgrades could you retrofit to make them 'superior'?


I think you're right, many of the more popular old (mostly CCA era design) boats were largely hand built and are hard to compare. But the hulls seem to be well enough built(so far, so good).

A Hinckley was probably built better than most. And Hinckley did use high quality parts that help the boats endure.

But I think it is the design of a B40, or many of these older boats, that has held their popularity, not a(perceived by some)superior structural quality.

The more popular older boats I'm aware of are still strong and don't need structural upgrades. They benefit greatly by new systems, especially sail handling, to get the most out of them, and endless cosmetics.

You're right, again, on the 'caretaker' remark: many of the more popular CCA glass boats have had many owners. Those of us that own them today may not even be the middle owner.

Some designs -new and old- aren't likely to endure this same test of time, no matter how well they are(or aren't) built.


----------



## mstern

seaner97 said:


> So is she a Benehunterlina fan?


I get mixed messages. When we go to the boat show, she ooohs and aaaahs over the modern looking catamarans, I think because of the spaciousness. And she seems to really like the "modern" features of the Benehunterlinas, especially the scoop sterns and lots of room. She really liked the Benetau Sense boats. But she also really liked the Friendship 40 and the Morris M series boats too. I guess she can deal with the Popeye design sensibility if some luxury is involved.

Fortunately, she also approves of my dream boat, the Seaward 32RK. Enough retro design for me, and enough modern design for her. Unfortunately for both of us, too expensive. That is of course unless my long term financial planning is effective (win the lottery or have an unknown rich relative die and leave me their estate).


----------



## seaner97

mstern said:


> I get mixed messages. When we go to the boat show, she ooohs and aaaahs over the modern looking catamarans, I think because of the spaciousness. And she seems to really like the "modern" features of the Benehunterlinas, especially the scoop sterns and lots of room. She really liked the Benetau Sense boats. But she also really liked the Friendship 40 and the Morris M series boats too. I guess she can deal with the Popeye design sensibility if some luxury is involved.
> 
> Fortunately, she also approves of my dream boat, the Seaward 32RK. Enough retro design for me, and enough modern design for her. Unfortunately for both of us, too expensive. That is of course unless my long term financial planning is effective (win the lottery or have an unknown rich relative die and leave me their estate).


Mmmmmm- Morris 42. Ahhhh. Or Hinkley Sou'wester. Both awesome throwbacks. I see you've got my financial planner, as well.


----------



## seaner97

I had my old Pearson 35 out today and got her to a very comfortable 6.7 knots on a close reach in 12-14 knot winds. Unfortunately it started out like this.


----------



## Jeff_H

seaner97 said:


> I had my old Pearson 35 out today and got her to a very comfortable 6.7 knots on a close reach in 12-14 knot winds. Unfortunately it started out like this.


I think this is a good illustration of the point about the performance differences between CCA era boats and more modern designs. This weekend I had very similar conditions sailing home from the Chester River, close reaching in roughly 12-14 knots of wind. You did not mention sea state, but for me that meant close reaching into a small (around 1-1.5 foot) but steep and short chop.

Our two boats weigh approximately the same.The P-35 is a little heavier, but not much and most of the difference is in ballast with the P-35 having a bit more ballast but carried in a shallower draft. I had nearly full tanks. The Farr 11.6 carries a little more water and a little less fuel than the Pearson 35. The Farr 11.6 which was designed in the late 1970's post-Fastnet, is not particularly fast as compared to a more modern designs, but was pretty fast for her era.

We passed by quite a few boats on the way back of a wide variety of ages and designs, and what was also obvious was that the boats with waterlines which proportionately shorter compared to their overall lengths were visibly pitching and rolling a lot more than the more moderate waterline boats and generally having a harder time in those conditions.

In those conditions, which were like yours, in other words close reaching, I was doing a very comfortable speeds in the 7.4 to 7.8 knot range with speeds well over 8 knots and approaching 9 knots in the gusts. To put that in perspective, the Pearson 39, which had been ahead of us at Love Point, had only sailed the 6 miles to the Bay Bridge by the time we had sailed over 10 miles and were entering the mouth of Whitehall Bay. That same Pearson 39 was seen motoring past our cove around the time that we walked into the house with our boat put to bed, just a few minutes before the thunderstorms rolled through.

Now, then, for many people speed, accommodations, carrying capacity, and motion comfort are just not as important as visual appearance. I would certainly say that the Pearson 39 is a lot prettier boat than mine.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H

TomMaine said:


> I think you're right, many of the more popular old (mostly CCA era design) boats were largely hand built and are hard to compare. But the hulls seem to be well enough built(so far, so good).
> 
> A Hinckley was probably built better than most. And Hinckley did use high quality parts that help the boats endure.
> 
> You're right, again, on the 'caretaker' remark: many of the more popular CCA glass boats have had many owners. Those of us that own them today may not even be the middle owner.
> 
> Some designs -new and old- aren't likely to endure this same test of time, no matter how well they are(or aren't) built.


Tom,

The one thing that I wish to note is that you had one of the best constructed boats of that era. Halmatic, who I believe built your hull, was one of the best glass fabricators from that era.

Halmatic worked closely with the fiberglass companies to develop best practices for mixing resins and handling laminate fabrics. Illustrations in manuals from that era showing how to properly work with fiberglass were often photographed in the Halmatic plant. Even in the US, we were widely aware of their quality and quality control procedures, which we were told originated with their initial involvement with Uffa Fox and constructing very early one-design race boats.

Halmatic initially molded hulls for Le Compte as well. Much of Le Compte's legendary ideas on quality control originate with his involvement with Halmatic.

But the glass quality found in your boat is not the same as that of the more value oriented boats from this era, especially those built in the US by companies that tended to be no where near as rigorous in their choice of resins, additives, and laminating techniques.

Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had my old Pearson 35 out today and got her to a very comfortable 6.7 knots on a close reach in 12-14 knot winds. Unfortunately it started out like this.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good illustration of the point about the performance differences between CCA era boats and more modern designs. This weekend I had very similar conditions sailing home from the Chester River, close reaching in roughly 12-14 knots of wind. You did not mention sea state, but for me that meant close reaching into a small (around 1-1.5 foot) but steep and short chop.
> 
> Our two boats weigh approximately the same.The P-35 is a little heavier, but not much and most of the difference is in ballast with the P-35 having a bit more ballast but carried in a shallower draft. I had nearly full tanks. The Farr 11.6 carries a little more water and a little less fuel than the Pearson 35. The Farr 11.6 which was designed in the late 1970's post-Fastnet, is not particularly fast as compared to a more modern designs, but was pretty fast for her era.
> 
> We passed by quite a few boats on the way back of a wide variety of ages and designs, and what was also obvious was that the boats with waterlines which proportionately shorter compared to their overall lengths were visibly pitching and rolling a lot more than the more moderate waterline boats and generally having a harder time in those conditions.
> 
> In those conditions, which were like yours, in other words close reaching, I was doing a very comfortable speeds in the 7.4 to 7.8 knot range with speeds well over 8 knots and approaching 9 knots in the gusts. To put that in perspective, the Pearson 39, which had been ahead of us at Love Point, had only sailed the 6 miles to the Bay Bridge by the time we had sailed over 10 miles and were entering the mouth of Whitehall Bay. That same Pearson 39 was seen motoring past our cove around the time that we walked into the house with our boat put to bed, just a few minutes before the thunderstorms rolled through.
> 
> Now, then, for many people speed, accommodations, carrying capacity, and motion comfort are just not as important as visual appearance. I would certainly say that the Pearson 39 is a lot prettier boat than mine.
> 
> Jeff
Click to expand...

No doubt there are faster boats. I will also admit to being a lazy rig tuner and am not a habitual sail tweaker. Probably could have easily gotten her over 7 if I tried. But the key was comfortable. 20 deg heal, some pitch, but nothing uncomfortable, 3 foot seas w 5 sec period. No real discernible roll except in gusts and far less than my 84 Cat22 had. Least comfortable was confused seas at the mouth of the river, but any boat hates those. I think Bob Perry has noted that these boats are for the "gentile" segment (SAIL boat reviews by Perry) and I'd agree. No argument you'll get better performance out of a modern underbody. But Perry, King and others have demonstrated you can create boats that feed the soul and sail fast. But I do believe I gave you, at the beginning, that newer designs were faster.


----------



## TomMaine

Jeff_H said:


> Tom,
> 
> The one thing that I wish to note is that you had one of the best constructed boats of that era. Halmatic, who I believe built your hull, was one of the best glass fabricators from that era.
> 
> Halmatic worked closely with the fiberglass companies to develop best practices for mixing resins and handling laminate fabrics. Illustrations in manuals from that era showing how to properly work with fiberglass were often photographed in the Halmatic plant. Even in the US, we were widely aware of their quality and quality control procedures, which we were told originated with their initial involvement with Uffa Fox and constructing very early one-design race boats.
> 
> Halmatic initially molded hulls for Le Compte as well. Much of Le Compte's legendary ideas on quality control originate with his involvement with Halmatic.
> 
> But the glass quality found in your boat is not the same as that of the more value oriented boats from this era, especially those built in the US by companies that tended to be no where near as rigorous in their choice of resins, additives, and laminating techniques.
> 
> Jeff


Hi Jeff. I confess I only read the OP first post and was responding to that. I personally haven't had an experience or knowledge of any major problems with any of the older hulls in the category mentioned.

Here in Rockport Maine, I'm surrounded by wooden boats of similar age(it's funny but the original glass hulls are beginning to be older than some of the classic wooden hulls). Many of the wooden hulls in the 50+- year old group, have had major structural renovations. even many of those wooden hulls with intensive care by the owners have reached that stage of, "she's getting tired,...".

Conversely, while they have all kinds of problems as they age, glass boats of medium quality-and up, seem to have no major hull problems, yet. It's quite amazing, really! I haven't heard of any Pearson hull having reached structural time related wear.

What I wonder is, while a 60 + year old Concordia yawl(ever popular) can be rebuilt perpetually(George Washington's axe), what is the solution for the glass hull that turns to mush?

Likely, if it's a Bermuda 40, they'll figure out a way. Other boats(mine included likely, for lack of notoriety), may be scrapped, as most boats will(same as the less popular wooden designs).

But where is the half-way point of these mid range on up-quality glass hulls?


----------



## seaner97

Similar to the question I asked earlier- what's your cut off for how old is too old? Clearly, as I said in the OP, nothing lasts forever, but I've seen no reason so far that a glass boat that is now nearly 50 years old won't still be sailing the Penobscott bay in another 40, as long as my son or daughter wants it to. So what SHOULD be done to make that happen?


----------



## seaner97

Great pics, BTW, Tom. Always jealous when you post new ones.


----------



## TomMaine

Jeff_H said:


> Now, then, for many people speed, accommodations, carrying capacity, and motion comfort are just not as important as visual appearance. I would certainly say that the Pearson 39 is a lot prettier boat than mine.
> 
> Jeff


My attraction to CCA era boat isn't just the look of the era, but that is a huge reason.

As for accommodations, the extra size and 'dwelling' design of newer boats (post CCA era) aren't appealing to me.

Big broad saloons, wide aft berths, 'kitchen's as opposed to galley's all take me away from the real boat feel that appeals to me in older designs. I prefer the feel of a traditional boat both above and below deck. Small berths, galleys, passages, heads, are all about what appeals to me on the water. I admit I'm not mainstream on this and I don't live onboard(my boat would be a poor liveaboard).

Ondeck, wide decks greatly enhance my time sailing and at anchor. You give up alot for them below but for me, that's more than worth it. And again the smaller accommodations are partly the result of lower decks. It's true that the lower deck look of CCA era boats has a huge visual appeal for me. But there are other benefits to these lower freeboard boats such as easy boarding for folks getting on a bit. I see that often with older less agile guests. There's not much or any step onto a dock. You take that step-dinghy/dock, often, as a coastal sailor.

Load carrying,... I guess you're right. I've learned over the years, these old boats are much better sailors if you don't load them down on their lines. Newer boats may not suffer as much.

The motion comfort I can't compare that much to newer boats. But the idea of rolling is a red herring in my experience. Under sail, these boats are stiff and ride waves as if equipped with a gyroscope. Under power in a nasty sea, these older boats will likely pitch more, but not under sail(all the more reason to sail vs power).

If you're pitching in any kind of sailboat you should adjust course(fall off a bit) and or sails,... you're doing something wrong.

As to speed, newer boats rule. However, I sometimes gauge the speed improvement in the last 50 years as to how it pertains to a family of 4 coastal cruising(which is where my experience lies). Sure, new boats are faster, but the speed increase in the last 50 yrs., for that family of four, hasn't been a game changer for me.

For instance, I used to sail with a good friend on a J35(more a racer than racer/cruiser), a much faster boat(a minute+/ a mile phrf).

We all had fun though and for regular coastal sailing, in typical coastal sailing from anchorage to anchorage, I could beat him by raising my anchor sooner or maybe raising my centerboard and taking a short cut.

For some, speed is what it's all about, and I get that. My friends J35 was a great boat. J's are one of my favorite contemporary boat lines. I'm torn at times but not for the top speed as much as better all around sailing I could get in a J35, especially light air - my favorite sailing.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> Clearly, as I said in the OP, nothing lasts forever, but I've seen no reason so far that a glass boat that is now nearly 50 years old won't still be sailing the Penobscott bay in another 40, as long as my son or daughter wants it to. So what SHOULD be done to make that happen?


I think you're doing it. Taking our sons, daughters, their friends, sailing on Penobscot Bay(and any other coast-sea), is what will keep these old boats sailing, indefinitely.


----------



## smurphny

Unless crossing an ocean, I don't really see where speed makes a lot of difference and even then only if you're trying to stay ahead of typhoon season. Not too many of us doing that. With a 6 knot hull speed, you plan for that. Has no importance whatsoever in the bigger scheme of things. The downside of the 6 knot hull is being passed by those reckless, speed demon 7 knot boats


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> Jeff_H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, then, for many people speed, accommodations, carrying capacity, and motion comfort are just not as important as visual appearance. I would certainly say that the Pearson 39 is a lot prettier boat than mine.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> My attraction to CCA era boat isn't just the look of the era, but that is a huge reason.
> 
> As for accommodations, the extra size and 'dwelling' design of newer boats (post CCA era) aren't appealing to me.
> 
> Big broad saloons, wide aft berths, 'kitchen's as opposed to galley's all take me away from the real boat feel that appeals to me in older designs. I prefer the feel of a traditional boat both above and below deck. Small berths, galleys, passages, heads, are all about what appeals to me on the water. I admit I'm not mainstream on this and I don't live onboard(my boat would be a poor liveaboard).
> 
> Ondeck, wide decks greatly enhance my time sailing and at anchor. You give up alot for them below but for me, that's more than worth it. And again the smaller accommodations are partly the result of lower decks. It's true that the lower deck look of CCA era boats has a huge visual appeal for me. But there are other benefits to these lower freeboard boats such as easy boarding for folks getting on a bit. I see that often with older less agile guests. There's not much or any step onto a dock. You take that step-dinghy/dock, often, as a coastal sailor.
> 
> Load carrying,... I guess you're right. I've learned over the years, these old boats are much better sailors if you don't load them down on their lines. Newer boats may not suffer as much.
> 
> The motion comfort I can't compare that much to newer boats. But the idea of rolling is a red herring in my experience. Under sail, these boats are stiff and ride waves as if equipped with a gyroscope. Under power in a nasty sea, these older boats will likely pitch more, but not under sail(all the more reason to sail vs power).
> 
> If you're pitching in any kind of sailboat you should adjust course(fall off a bit) and or sails,... you're doing something wrong.
> 
> As to speed, newer boats rule. However, I sometimes gauge the speed improvement in the last 50 years as to how it pertains to a family of 4 coastal cruising(which is where my experience lies). Sure, new boats are faster, but the speed increase in the last 50 yrs., for that family of four, hasn't been a game changer for me.
> 
> For instance, I used to sail with a good friend on a J35(more a racer than racer/cruiser), a much faster boat(a minute+/ a mile phrf).
> 
> We all had fun though and for regular coastal sailing, in typical coastal sailing from anchorage to anchorage, I could beat him by raising my anchor sooner or maybe raising my centerboard and taking a short cut.
> 
> For some, speed is what it's all about, and I get that. My friends J35 was a great boat. J's are one of my favorite contemporary boat lines. I'm torn at times but not for the top speed as much as better all around sailing I could get in a J35, especially light air - my favorite sailing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this Tom. A far better expression of how I also feel about them than I've done. There are just so many aspects of being a caretaker/rescuer of older era things that it's hard to describe them all in these posts. I also have never really understood an obsession with speed when on a sailboat (it is by definition slow; nothing goes to windward like a 747). The motion comfort thing is also very individual. As an example- far more mal de mer on the Tayanna 37, which is generally thought of as a more seakindly design than my 'hobbyhorse', at least in my family. And my wife has found it very steady with less discomfort than when on a Tartan 37, Freedom 44 and J/42. I'm sure some of that is my "gentile" approach as those were skippered by more aggressive sailors, but even when I've sailed mine on its ear she's been less likely to have issues. 
So yes, some is looks and row away value, all is personal preference, and I'm not saying my approach is right for everyone. Just that I'd like to keep some of these away from a landfill for as long as possible. And for something that most of us get to do so infrequently, I think some acknowledgment that a soul feeding design is part of it isn't a bad thing. But most importantly, a method of upkeep and maintenance for our lesser 'value oriented' makes would be helpful, which is why I started this in the first place. So far, other than molding a new hull (which I'm not sure is actually needed- still no response to inquiries on that article) I've got inspection and retabbing bulkheads properly as the only real structural enhancement. All the others are maintaining any boat. And Tom's point of getting the family out and enjoying. Is everything else really just pimping my pinto?


----------



## Jeff_H

I actually understand the 'stewardship' issue. My career is as an architect (buildings) and a large portion of my work has involved historic preservation. Philosophically, I believe that within historic cities and settings, it is as important to preserve simple vernacular buildings as it is to preserve the grander residences and structures if we are going to fairly present the past. In preserving the past, we ideally end up with a deeper understanding of how we got to where we are. I also understand that preserving these older buildings (and boats) takes a real commitment. I am very appreciative of anyone willing to make that commitment. 

In my life, I have restored a 1959 plywood Ok Dinghy, 1949 Swedish built wooden lapstrake Folkboat and a 1939 Stadel Cutter. 

I think where the gap is between the thrust of this thread and my position lies is in how these historic artifacts are viewed and used. To me, part of understanding these older designs is to fairly understand them for their virtues and their weaknesses. It is in that regard that I try to keep their relative sailing abilities and capabilities in perspective relative to boats which came before and after. And a part of that is understanding that these boats are not as strong as the court of common wisdom likes to think. There is no way to set some arbitrary 'use by date' because as has been explained there were big variations in quality from model to model, manufacturer to manufacturer, with the use that one boat received compared to another identical boat. 

The best advice I can give is to understand that these old girls are old objects, with brittle bones. That they began life not as well built as newer even value oriented boats of today, and that they have had a long life which has weakened them from their original condition. My main point is that hopefully this will result in a more prudent use of these boats, and prevent the kind of hubris that results in disasters. And just for the record these boats are failing with a fair degree of regularity. It is becoming increasingly common to see them being chainsawn and disposed of with major structural damage from impacts which should not have done that much damage. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Most of the ones I've seen meeting the chainsaw are either 70s and 80s or for soggy decks, not hull failures. Maybe it's just where I live and sail, but I'm not seeing scrapped 60s CCA boats.
But I agree with the hubris thing. Nothing is indestructible.


----------



## hriehl1

I think Jeff's appraisal is fair. They are old and better suited to light duty.

I sail my 1968 Hinterhoeller like I would drive a 1968 Dodge Dart convertible down the boulevard... Easy as she goes and hey, look at me! They all wave as they go by... and they do... But we get a lot of thumbs up which I'd like to think are a respectful homage to keeping an old girl on the water.


----------



## seaner97

So your 'superior' build quality boat (as I think Hinterholler was one of the insurance study's better boats IIRC) is just as fragile as my 'moderate' then? Also basically what I was saying. 
But more importantly, what have you done to yours to maintain and upgrade her?


----------



## hriehl1

In the last 2 years:
New standing rigging
New running rigging
New sails
Roller furling
All new wiring
All new plumbing
New lifelines
6 layer barrier coat after soda blasting and prep
All exterior wood multi coated with Cetol
More inside but not related to performance or safety.

My topsides is drab, but I don't see it from the cockpit. I love my boat, I am lucky.


----------



## hriehl1

I have perhaps 300 hours work (enjoyment in its own right for me) and $11 K total in her.

Works for us.


----------



## seaner97

hriehl1 said:


> I have perhaps 300 hours work (enjoyment in its own right for me) and $11 K total in her.
> 
> Works for us.


Absolutely. And that is what is important.

And, I'd point out that everything you've done is replaceable parts, and not structural, as my argument was and is (and always has been) that the 'moderate build quality' thing is a very subjective and potentially misleading thing. A 'superior' would lead one to think that it is well made, well designed and up for anything, where a 'moderate' tag makes you think more about where you take her and use her. Totally wrong. All the replaceable parts need replacing at the same rate on all boats. But some of these boats (including Pearsons and Bristols) are sailing oceans (not just coasts) and still doing ok (presumably not on all their original parts except the hulls). Best boats out there? NO WAY. But, partly due to the 'moderate build quality' reputation they may actually be the best bang for the buck out there. Just as a quick comparison, I looked up 80s Bristol 35.5s. 55-60K. Late 70s P35s? 25-35K. That's a 2x change, and closer to 3x when you get into late 60s to early 70s (which may actually have been better constructed). Different boats, but not so different that I'd be willing to trade 3 of mine for one of those. But what works for me, may not for you.


----------



## Jeff_H

seaner97 said:


> So your 'superior' build quality boat (as I think Hinterholler was one of the insurance study's better boats IIRC) is just as fragile as my 'moderate' then? Also basically what I was saying.


You are oversimplifying to make your case. As I noted in my comment that you are referring to: "There is no way to set some arbitrary 'use by date' because as has been explained there were big variations in quality from model to model, manufacturer to manufacturer, with the use that one boat received compared to another identical boat."

hriehl1's Hinterhoeller is a good example of that. He is replacing easily replaceable parts. In that regard he is doing what I would consider normal long term maintenance. Many of the items which has has done, I have done on my 33 year old boat. But what he has not had to do was major structural repairs. That may be because his boat was better built than the moderate quality boats from that era, or it may be that his boat simply was not abused. I can tell you that in the past year or so, I have seen two Columbias, a Coronado, an Alberg 30, several Pearsons, and an Eastwind all being disposed of, all with major structural issues, and all from the 1960's. (That does not include boats that were destroyed because they have negative value, or which are zombie boats, as in, too expensive to replace the mast or engine so they are as good as dead, which I see as a separate issue with these older boats).



seaner97 said:


> And, I'd point out that everything you've done is replaceable parts, and not structural, as my argument was and is (and always has been) that the 'moderate build quality' thing is a very subjective and potentially misleading thing. A 'superior' would lead one to think that it is well made, well designed and up for anything, where a 'moderate' tag makes you think more about where you take her and use her. Totally wrong. All the replaceable parts need replacing at the same rate on all boats.
> 
> But some of these boats (including Pearsons and Bristols) are sailing oceans (not just coasts) and still doing ok (presumably not on all their original parts except the hulls). Best boats out there? NO WAY. But, partly due to the 'moderate build quality' reputation they may actually be the best bang for the buck out there. Just as a quick comparison, I looked up 80s Bristol 35.5s. 55-60K. Late 70s P35s? 25-35K. That's a 2x change, and closer to 3x when you get into late 60s to early 70s (which may actually have been better constructed). Different boats, but not so different that I'd be willing to trade 3 of mine for one of those. But what works for me, may not for you.


As to the issue of moderate build, vs cost, vs the value of older boats, you are mixing a variety of issues in a way that I suggest does not fairly represent the issues. Within any price range and any era there will be better built and better designed boats. Their value is diminished because there is a smaller market for those designs and because the cost of maintaining these older boats is proportionately huge (relative to their purchase price and resale value) as compared to maintaining a newer boat. If the goal is buy an older boat then buying one that is a better design and better built makes sense since they can be purchased for the same price as a moderate quality boat, which is what TomMaine and hriehl1 wisely did.

That is a separate issue from whether it makes sense to buy a newer higher quality boat rather than an older moderate boat as would be the case of buying a Bristol 35.3 vs a Pearson 35. In the case of the Bristol 35.5, you have a boat that the marketplace understands and places value on the fact that the Bristol started out as being more robustly constructed and with a more sophisticated design and which is seen as being a more capable boat in all ways. If you are planning to do something that uses those capabilities, then the higher price may be worth it, and whatever you put into that boat, your are more likely to get out of it because of that market perception.

On the flip side, the market value of these older moderate build quality boats, at least in part, reflects the perception of what they are. So buying one at their price point makes sense if they are understood and used accordingly. Dumping money into one makes sense you plan to own one for a long time, or your hobby is restoration. At the heart of my points, if your goal is to use one of these moderately designed and constructed boats as your 'daily driver', as you might a better built or better designed boat, then you are increasing your risks and perhaps ignoring the gorilla in the room which is you can put all the upgrades on that old sow, but it's still only putting lipstick on a more fragile, poorer sailing pig.

In the end you can add more internal framing, beef up the hull to deck joint, redo rigging, electrical and plumbing systems, rebuild an engine, add new sails, but you are still stuck with a weaker hull, and a poorer design,and no amount of 'fixing up' is going to change that. If that reality is acceptable to you, that is your business, but it is still the reality.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> You are oversimplifying to make your case. As I noted in my comment that you are referring to: "There is no way to set some arbitrary 'use by date' because as has been explained there were big variations in quality from model to model, manufacturer to manufacturer, with the use that one boat received compared to another identical boat."
> 
> hriehl1's Hinterhoeller is a good example of that. He is replacing easily replaceable parts. In that regard he is doing what I would consider normal long term maintenance. Many of the items which has has done, I have done on my 33 year old boat. But what he has not had to do was major structural repairs. That may be because his boat was better built than the moderate quality boats from that era, or it may be that his boat simply was not abused. I can tell you that in the past year or so, I have seen two Columbias, a Coronado, an Alberg 30, several Pearsons, and an Eastwind all being disposed of, all with major structural issues, and all from the 1960's. (That does not include boats that were destroyed because they have negative value, or which are zombie boats, as in, too expensive to replace the mast or engine so they are as good as dead, which I see as a separate issue with these older boats).


Respectfully, Jeff, the mashing of issues is in response to the fact that they aren't easily separable. Also, I tend to use the mobile app, and thesis aren't usually easy to put up via that keyboard.

The issue of moderate build vs superior build is one that there seems to be buckets that people put them in that are not as easily defined as many seem to want to make them, and potentially of less import than should be ascribed to them. Further, I do believe that I have attempted to pull them out as single entities with little success to now by asking, repeatedly, other than glass handling, what makes a boat build superior, with, to now, no answer other than a vague reference to skip tabbing, which was an issue in some 'superior' built boats as well, so it can't be just that. Also, for the edification of all, it would be interesting to know what the "major structural issues" of those boats were. Are we talking holes, flexed hulls, rotten bulkheads?



Jeff_H said:


> As to the issue of moderate build, vs cost, vs the value of older boats, you are mixing a variety of issues in a way that I suggest does not fairly represent the issues. Within any price range and any era there will be better built and better designed boats. Their value is diminished because there is a smaller market for those designs and because the cost of maintaining these older boats is proportionately huge (relative to their purchase price and resale value) as compared to maintaining a newer boat. If the goal is buy an older boat then buying one that is a better design and better built makes sense since they can be purchased for the same price as a moderate quality boat, which is what TomMaine and hriehl1 wisely did.


Again, with respect, Tom's sistership is listed on Yachtworld right now for 55K. That's not in the same ballpark, monetarily. And a H28 may be a nice boat, but it's more akin to a P30 than a B35 or a P35. And it is priced accordingly in the marketplace.



Jeff_H said:


> That is a separate issue from whether it makes sense to buy a newer higher quality boat rather than an older moderate boat as would be the case of buying a Bristol 35.3 vs a Pearson 35. In the case of the Bristol 35.5, you have a boat that the marketplace understands and places value on the fact that the Bristol started out as being more robustly constructed and with a more sophisticated design and which is seen as being a more capable boat in all ways. If you are planning to do something that uses those capabilities, then the higher price may be worth it, and whatever you put into that boat, your are more likely to get out of it because of that market perception.
> 
> On the flip side, the market value of these older moderate build quality boats, at least in part, reflects the perception of what they are. So buying one at their price point makes sense if they are understood and used accordingly. Dumping money into one makes sense you plan to own one for a long time, or your hobby is restoration. At the heart of my points, if your goal is to use one of these moderately designed and constructed boats as your 'daily driver', as you might a better built or better designed boat, then you are increasing your risks and perhaps ignoring the gorilla in the room which is you can put all the upgrades on that old sow, but it's still only putting lipstick on a more fragile, poorer sailing pig.
> 
> In the end you can add more internal framing, beef up the hull to deck joint, redo rigging, electrical and plumbing systems, rebuild an engine, add new sails, but you are still stuck with a weaker hull, and a poorer design,and no amount of 'fixing up' is going to change that. If that reality is acceptable to you, that is your business, but it is still the reality.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Jeff


Finally, some of this is reflected in the market, and some of this is just the fact that some of these boats cost more to begin with and therefore the market reflects that. I'm not seeing any boats that haven't followed typical depreciation. And while there are designs that are more well respected, much of that is also opinion. All you have to do is look at the P39 thread to see that you liked the P30 and Bob Perry liked the P35, both Shaw designs. Who is right and who is wrong? Maybe you're both right. So I would, again respectfully, say that your reality isn't, clearly, the only one.

To my original points-

1. A superior build quality boat has still not been clearly defined beyond fibreglass handling, and while I'll give you the single study (although I've still not seen it or the data), you seem to have come around to my point of view that these are all handmade and used variably over the years, so one that started out as superior may now be more used up than one that started as moderate. I'm going to put words in your mouth here and paraphrase what I see as your major thrust, which is that NO boat of this era is likely to be up to hard use any longer. I'm not sure that I disagree with that, but I also don't see that there is definitive data to that effect.
2. Putting money into any boat is sunk money. Replace your rig, mast, chainplates, sails, etc because you want to use them. Not doing so decreases the value of your boat, but doing so does NOT increase it's value. If I go buy an Ohlson 38 for 120K, do all that and put it back up, it's still a 120K boat. Maybe you can market it better and get her up to 130, but probably not. No different for a 7.5K P30. The only difference is the percentage of the original price that you're spending. But it's all sunk cost. Boats aren't real estate unless they are wooden or of a truly special provenance, and then they are usually out of the reach of the average person wanting to sail, anyway.

I took awhile to think this through as I didn't want to just come out responding to your tone, and I do mean the above with great respect. I think your point of view is a valuable one, and clearly well informed regarding design and construction, but in many ways I think it is colored by your obvious distaste for the CCA era boats and for Pearson (and to a lesser extent Bristol, Cal and Columbia) in particular. You are clearly not alone in that feeling, but there are those of us that really don't like the modern "sailing pizzas" and/or can't (or won't) drop 60-150K or more into a more "modern" design, so these old "sows" do us just fine. I was hoping for more of a discussion of what we COULD do to beef them up so that they could sail forever, but feel like we've ended up back at the 'don't bother, they should have been chainsawed from the beginning' (paraphrased, not quoted, clearly) part of the narrative.:frown

Truly respectfully, and sadly,
Sean


----------



## seaner97

How about a thought experiment? All boats up to 30k on yacht world in North America 33ft loa and up that are "worthwhile" designs and well built. I'm interested in opinions in addition to Jeff's as well. I think this could be both interesting and enlightening.
Maybe we can get Bob Perry to play, although usually he gets paid for this.
Hell, maybe we end up playing matchmaker for a couple of members in the process.


----------



## seaner97

If people want to link other boat sites, cool on that as well.


----------



## Minnesail

Huh. So I went to yachtworld and did a search on used sailboats 33' and longer, from $1000 to $30,000. Then I sorted by year so I could see the newest boats first.

Lots and lots of steel.

It looks like the value of steel boats falls off pretty quickly.


----------



## seaner97

Minnesail said:


> Huh. So I went to yachtworld and did a search on used sailboats 33' and longer, from $1000 to $30,000. Then I sorted by year so I could see the newest boats first.
> 
> Lots and lots of steel.
> 
> It looks like the value of steel boats falls off pretty quickly.


Maybe we should put this on the BS/BP grudge match thread?


----------



## Minnesail

seaner97 said:


> Maybe we should put this on the BS/BP grudge match thread?


The Steel vs Fiberglass thread? Yikes, I don't wanna get any of that on me.


----------



## seaner97

Maybe these are "worth it"?

1973 Ericson Racing Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1976 Morgan Starrett Jenks Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1975 Thivent ROC129 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1973 Britton Chance 42 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1970 Morgan 42 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1969 C&C Crusader Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1963 LeComte Northeast 38 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Just as a sample of the 38 and up crowd. There are a ton of C&C 38s as well, but I'm not sure how they figure into build quality. Personally, the aesthetics of the Lecompte, the Crusader and the Morgan are the ones I'd stop to look at. The rest the Admiral took one look at and said "ugh".


----------



## krisscross

Minnesail said:


> Lots and lots of steel.
> 
> It looks like the value of steel boats falls off pretty quickly.


Most of these cheap steel boats have been badly neglected over the years (as in: rust bucket) and thus require lots of time and money to bring back. I looked at a few of them over the years and got thoroughly scared of such boats.


----------



## seaner97

krisscross said:


> Most of these cheap steel boats have been badly neglected over the years (as in: rust bucket) and thus require lots of time and money to bring back. I looked at a few of them over the years and got thoroughly scared of such boats.


Yeah, I limited my search to Fibreglass. Notable seems to be that the northeast (where I live) seems to have higher prices for older boats.

An example:

http://www.yachtworld.com/boats/1967/Islander-37-2733522/Boston/MA/United-States#.VfivdrRGUn8


----------



## krisscross

seaner97 said:


> Personally, the aesthetics of the Lecompte, the Crusader and the Morgan are the ones I'd stop to look at. The rest the Admiral took one look at and said "ugh".


She is not just a pretty face. LeComte Northeast 38-1 was a well built boat and a good design. At that price it looks like a good value.


----------



## seaner97

There are these:

1981 Tayana Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1968 Nautor Swan 36 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

If you want to deal with teak decks...not sure if I'd rather those or a "moderate build quality" that might blow up on me if I sneeze on it wrong.


----------



## seaner97

1976 1976 FUJI Sailing Yacht 4-108 35ft Ketch Sail Boat For

Pretty- don't know anything about these.


----------



## seaner97

Nice boat. Would probably cost as much to get it to me....

1981 Niagara 35 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1971 Bristol 34 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
(this one is for you Kriss- I'm not posting 'moderate build quality boats')


----------



## krisscross

I like the other B34 more, as it has traveler in the cockpit and better general condition. The Swan 36 is a kickass boat but at that price it likely has some serious issues, like leaky teak deck. These boats go for 60 grand when they look nice and survey well.


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> Yeah, I limited my search to Fibreglass. Notable seems to be that the northeast (where I live) seems to have higher prices for older boats.


Less use due to the short season and lots of respect for tradition.

Great Lakes boats seem to fetch high prices in the same way - short season and fresh water there.


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> Maybe these are "worth it"?
> 
> 1973 Ericson Racing Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


An Ericson 46 for $25K? I'd want that surveyed *very* carefully - the coffee grinders are worth that.

I have always lusted after those boats, ever since they were new but I've seen blogs of what they can need - like new bulkheads for starters. You could drop $100K in very short order even doing the work yourself.

Not exactly a short handed boat either - IIRC they raced with 12 crew.

And it's in Fla. so it'll be sunburned on the outside too.


----------



## miatapaul

1963 LeComte Northeast 38 Sail Boat For Sale - Boats for Sale - New and Used Boats and Yachts - YachtWorld.com is beautiful! as is the Niagara

Not a CCA boat but is really cool for the money:
1978 Valiant 32 sailboat for sale in Vermont


----------



## seaner97

I didn't limit to CCA boats intentionally as Jeff said 'better designs for the money' (or something close- I'm tired of trying to be precise when there isn't a substantive difference). I, frankly, don't really know what that means and think it is very subjective. One person might want the lowest PHRF, another might rank by capsize screen, another aesthetics. I think they're all valid as long as they are valid for the owner. 
The Swan might be exactly what he was talking about. A boat well under market that you could make spectacular. It certainly wasn't for sale 5 years ago or I'd have looked at it.


----------



## TomMaine

SloopJonB said:


> Less use due to the short season and lots of respect for tradition.
> 
> Great Lakes boats seem to fetch high prices in the same way - short season and fresh water there.


I was thinking, my location could be the reason I haven't seen any(that I recall) 60's on up built hulls from the production builders, being scrapped for strutural reasons. I'm only considering larger sailboats beyond say 26 or 27 feet.

I have seen a few smaller ones scrapped for simple none value. It's amazing how low prices have gone on some neglected and less popular designs, some newer than you might expect.

Those being scrapped may be in warmer areas where they end up in the water year round. That plus lack of maintenance could be aging the glass faster?

That may be one way to extend the life of an older boat-use it seasonally which allows it to dry out for the half the season? Blisters for instance, are more prevalent in year round use areas.


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> SloopJonB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Less use due to the short season and lots of respect for tradition.
> 
> Great Lakes boats seem to fetch high prices in the same way - short season and fresh water there.
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking, my location could be the reason I haven't seen any(that I recall) 60's on up built hulls from the production builders, being scrapped for strutural reasons. I'm only considering larger sailboats beyond say 26 or 27 feet.
> 
> I have seen a few smaller ones scrapped for simple none value. It's amazing how low prices have gone on some neglected and less popular designs, some newer than you might expect.
> 
> Those being scrapped may be in warmer areas where they end up in the water year round. That plus lack of maintenance could be aging the glass faster?
> 
> That may be one way to extend the life of an older boat-use it seasonally which allows it to dry out for the half the season? Blisters for instance, are more prevalent in year round use areas.
Click to expand...

There is also the UV degradation issue, which is less prominent up here both because people tend to wax as a yearly prep ritual and because they are under cover for 6-7 months. Doesn't change the way they were built, however.
I do wonder if stated reasons for scrapping are like death certificates- you have to put something down but it's rarely the whole story. That's why I wondered what the major structural issue was. Are we talking cracks in the hull that could have been repaired, but wasn't "worth it"? Or catastrophic failure of the deck to hull joint? Or totaled by insurance but could have been rehabbed if the market wasn't so depressed? I'm sure Jeff will be back to tell us at some point.


----------



## SloopJonB

I've seen a couple of "good" boats cut up - a Cal 25 for one - that were simply too scruffy to use and no-one stepped up in time to save them from the villainous boatyard owner who wanted the space back for paying customers.

Most have been too far gone to save though - went on the rocks, collision damage etc. I actually haven't seen many boats cut up that I would be willing to take on and I'm a major sucker for an orphan in need.


----------



## seaner97

I don't actively hang around yards enquiring about derelict boats, but have only seen a couple 80s Catalinas and Hunters go bye bye unless you start talking about little daysailers.


----------



## miatapaul

seaner97 said:


> I don't actively hang around yards enquiring about derelict boats, but have only seen a couple 80s Catalinas and Hunters go bye bye unless you start talking about little daysailers.


I have seen quite a few in the 30 foot range in some of the local boat yards back lots. Some are too far gone to even think of doing, and one that was for sale for like 3 years even caught fire (Hunter 31) and I think damaged another member's boat here. But have not seen them get cut up, but likely will before too long. Soft decks being the leading cause along with moldy rotted interiors. One C&C 28 from the mid to late 80's was for sale, and I looked at it and the owner had not been there since Hurricane Sandy and it had had the companionway blown open. Know what a boat with an open companionway open for two and a half years smells like?!?!!eek I believe it has been cut up since.


----------



## seaner97

How about it, Jeff? Reasons? Ideas on the thought experiment? 
Anyone else?


----------



## seaner97

Seems Jeff has disengaged. Anyone else know of boats that have been scrapped for "major structural issues" and what they were/how they happened? I have since found out about three- all soggy decks that no one thought was worth the effort. That happens to all boats of the era.


----------



## Tanski

Mid 70's C&C 27 scrapped due to soggy decks, I looked at this boat, when you walked the deck brown water would squish upthrough the cracks. Don't think the owner was impressed when I offered to take it off his hands but I wouldn't give him any money for it. I looked at it in the spring, by fall it was in a dumpster/sold for scrap metal.


----------



## Jeff_H

Sean,
I have not intentionally disengaged. I have had a lot going on this week and will get back to you when I come up for air.
Jeff


----------



## seaner97

Jeff_H said:


> Sean,
> I have not intentionally disengaged. I have had a lot going on this week and will get back to you when I come up for air.
> Jeff


That's great. I fully understand. I've been the same except for this thread. Had seen you pop up elsewhere and thought you might have decided to leave the discussion. I've certainly done that when I've not felt I had anything further to add


----------



## seaner97

So Bob Perry posted a pic of a 60s Morgan on the Steel/fiberglass thread. Seems that guy thinks it's worth it. Wonder what he's done to her?


----------



## bobperry

That guy is Tom and I ran into him on Cruising Anarchy. He keeps that boat in mint condition. It is 47 years old and is still very actively raced. It's shoal draft, centerboarder designed by Charlie Morgan. To my eye it's ideal.


----------



## aeventyr60

Geez, Imagine that, a GOB plying the waters still, the keel hasn't fallen off, the hull isn't shredding fiberglass layers, and the owner is having the time of his life. How can it be? Me thinks a bit of elbow grease and a passion for keeping the old gals running. Nice!


----------



## bobperry

The owner of the Morgan is taking some flack over on CA for being so much "in love" with his boat. Probably just a case of jealousy as far as I can tell. There is always someone ready to get pissed off over something. I really like it when someone bonds so closely with their boat. If this boat went up for sale there would be a line of buyers down the dock. I could be in that line. The boat is kind of like an MG sports car from the 60's. I had two MG's. There were a few genetic flaws with both of them but when they were running right they were great cars to drive, totally out of date by today's performance standards, but still fun. The "flaws" were more like "cute idiosyncrasies". Kinda.


----------



## seaner97

Bob, 
Love it. If you have some time, read back through the rest of the discussion. You are probably as or more knowledgeable about the building practices of the day than anyone else on here. For those of us with GOBs (at least we think they are) that want to make them sail as long as practicable, having your insight and experience to help would be invaluable.


----------



## bobperry

I'll give it a shot 97 but I was probably 20 years old when that boat was built and while working had to learn my design skills I was not plugged into the building practices of Florida builders. But you know me. If I can contribute, I will.


----------



## Jeff_H

Sean,

I have only a few minutes here so I still owe you answers to your question but I want to touch on the Morgan in the picture, which appears to be a Morgan 30. Our conversation about CCA era boats started with the Bristol 34 which I noted was an exceptionally good design for this era and in one of the posts related to that topic, I commented that in any era, there are better designs and less successful designs, when viewed with the luxury of hindsight. 

To me, the Morgan 30, Morgan Tiger Cub (28) and the Morgan 24/25 were exceptional designs. These were boats that offered excellent preformance for their day. They had proportionately longer water lines, comparatively powerful sections, and more moderate sail plans than many of the boats of that era. The centerboard gave them very good upwind performance for that era, and when combined with their big chutes, very good downwind performance if you did not mind raising the board. They were a little heavy by the standard of the day, but that is what it took to get very good stability for a shoal draft boat. 

Its hard to comment on the build quality of these boats. I was at the factory in the 1970's but I was there after Charlie had left, and things were pretty sloppy by then. I had always heard these early Morgans were basically well constructed but can't say from direct experience. 

Jeff


----------



## hriehl1

Bob's MG example is the exact same sentiment I expressed earlier about preferring to own a 60's convertible to one made today. Its not only about performance, it can simply be no more complicated than what makes you feel good to own.

I'm gratified by Jeff's earlier comments about my Hinterhoeller HR28 being one of the better small keelboats from the late 60s. While I am under no illusion it is faster, roomier or even sturdier than a modern design... it has a certain "style" that just pleases me.


----------



## bobperry

hriehl1:

It's one thing to race for trophies. I love doing that. But for the simple joy of sailing I want a boat that reflects how I see myself on the water. The difference between 4 knots and 6 knots won't change my day. Both speeds are dismally slow by any standard. I can walk briskly at 4 knots. Fast boats today go 35 knots or better. If I were in the boat buying mood again I might go for a Cape Cod Catboat. If I wanted a "fun"car I'd probably look for an old Jag or maybe a 1955 Oldsmobile like I had in high school. Things don't have to be perfect to be enjoyable. The foibles can be part of the fun.


----------



## hriehl1

I agree foibles can be fun, but with a Jag, when you are talking Lucas electrics, you are past my threshold for patience. Old Bosch, yes but Lucas, no.


----------



## CLOSECALL

I owned several '60's era MGB's. I never worry about getting caught out after dark in my '66 Wanderer.


----------



## mgiguere

Well, I have a CCA fiberglass boat built by Chris Craft and designed by S&S that's been everywhere, won races and never had blisters that I keep in the water year round in the Chesapeake Bay. It's called an Apache 37 and was designed after Intrepid. Sails great and this year is my 31st year sailing it. Fin keel, draws 6 feet and drives like a soling.


----------



## seaner97

Sweet boat


----------



## SloopJonB

bobperry said:


> I had two MG's. There were a few genetic flaws with both of them but when they were running right they were great cars to drive, totally out of date by today's performance standards, but still fun. The "flaws" were more like "cute idiosyncrasies". Kinda.


As long as you have one of these on hand.


----------



## seaner97

When I'm old and bald enough I'm getting an MG. Or a 60s Jag.


----------



## seaner97

Just noticed Jon Eisenberg had no comments so far. He's usually good for some design elements. Maybe we can drag him in here?


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> When I'm old and bald enough I'm getting an MG. Or a 60s Jag.


Are you after that "Original owner" look?


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Are you after that "Original owner" look?


Nah. But by the time it's even marginally practical, I'll be both.


----------



## seaner97

I find it interesting that I've seen the moderate build quality rag on Sabres as well. Also described as "doctors boats for New England". I always thought of Sabres as high quality boats. But I guess I'm their target demographic if the above is correct.


----------



## PCP

Not much interested in this type of discussions but since you asked my opinion I would say that it is very similar to the one expressed by Jeff but even if I am an Architect too (and I agree with him regarding the example he gives) I think that a better example could be given with other vehicles.

Nobody would recover a 40 year old car or airplane expecting it to perform better than a new one. In fact the new one would perform incomparably better. No one would recover a 40 year old car or airplane (unless by its rarity and quality it has an inherent historic value) expecting to gain value on that recovery. I am talking about bringing the car or the airplane close to its new condition.

With the boat it is pretty much the same. If you recover an ordinary old boat to almost new specs and sell it after you would lose a huge amount of money.

Of course if you by any reason like a particular boat you can be more happy recovering it and sailing it than having a newer and better boat with all the money you have spent on the old one, even if significantly newer one will sail better and will have a better and bigger cruising interior.

But the option of recovering an old ordinary boat has nothing to do with rationality or boat value (that is a rational thing) but with loving it.... and who said that love was rational?


----------



## seaner97

PCP said:


> Not much interested in this type of discussions but since you asked my opinion I would say that it is very similar to the one expressed by Jeff but even if I am an Architect too (and I agree with him regarding the example he gives) I think that a better example could be given with other vehicles.
> 
> Nobody would recover a 40 year old car or airplane expecting it to perform better than a new one. In fact the new one would perform incomparably better. No one would recover a 40 year old car or airplane (unless by its rarity and quality it has an inherent historic value) expecting to gain value on that recovery. I am talking about bringing the car or the airplane close to its new condition.
> 
> With the boat it is pretty much the same. If you recover an ordinary old boat to almost new specs and sell it after you would lose a huge amount of money.
> 
> Of course if you by any reason like a particular boat you can be more happy recovering it and sailing it than having a newer and better boat with all the money you have spent on the old one, even if significantly newer one will sail better and will have a better and bigger cruising interior.
> 
> But the option of recovering an old ordinary boat has nothing to do with rationality or boat value (that is a rational thing) but with loving it.... and who said that love was rational?


I would expect you to agree with Jeff regarding sailing character of newer boats. No doubt it's better. I wouldn't ever even attempt to make that argument. Only someone who thinks the world is only 5k years old could have the mental fortitude to ignore that much evidence and keep that one going. I also don't think ANY boat is a good "investment". Any money you put in is a sunk cost, for the most part. I would gladly hand the lines of my boat over in exchange for a new or nearly new Morris or Hinkley or Perry custom but that wasn't the point.


----------



## SloopJonB

Talking about boats in any context as investments is absurd - they are lifestyle expenditures. Does anyone ever speak about "investing" in ski lift tickets or trips to foreign countries? At least with boats you do have a hard asset with some value, not just memories.


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Talking about boats in any context as investments is absurd - they are lifestyle expenditures. Does anyone ever speak about "investing" in ski lift tickets or trips to foreign countries? At least with boats you do have a hard asset with some value, not just memories.


Although nothing wrong with just memories. But still, unless the hull is as fragile as an egg, everything else can be changed and upgraded. So the questions were: 
1- are they really that fragile? And if anyone has a copy of that insurance article, I'd love to see it. Still can't locate. 
2- what makes a superior quality build vs a moderate one, and what boats would you put in these categories?
3- what Could or should or have you do(ne) to upgrade and maintain your old girl that doesn't involve a chainsaw?


----------



## scubadoo

I’ve been working on re-finishing / furbishing a 1969 Pearson Wanderer. It’s been a great experience for someone with very little keel boat time. Before I had acquired the vessel I spent a lot of time perusing this forum and came away with the impression that I really should know the boat inside and out before dropping it in the water.

In retrospect I think I should have taken the previous owner’s advice to just put the thing in the water and start sailing! That way I could have discovered where the real need for upgrades and repairs were. Just sitting there in the yard it’s difficult to determine the weak links….sure there are obvious items, but until you stress the rigging, motor, rudder, life lines, you’re really just speculating. Of course many of us on the forum seem to be professional speculators! It’s a sport we enjoy! Don’t get me wrong, there is a ton of invaluable information here also….just have to be diligent.

Re-finishing an aging vessel is a great educational experience….that may be where the true investment pays dividends. In 2 years, after bumping off docks, running aground, coping with cross currents, I hope to sell her and move into something made in this century! But in my mind, I have not “earned” that privilege just yet.

Best,
doo


----------



## seaner97

scubadoo said:


> I?ve been working on re-finishing / furbishing a 1969 Pearson Wanderer. It?s been a great experience for someone with very little keel boat time. Before I had acquired the vessel I spent a lot of time perusing this forum and came away with the impression that I really should know the boat inside and out before dropping it in the water.
> 
> In retrospect I think I should have taken the previous owner?s advice to just put the thing in the water and start sailing! That way I could have discovered where the real need for upgrades and repairs were. Just sitting there in the yard it?s difficult to determine the weak links?.sure there are obvious items, but until you stress the rigging, motor, rudder, life lines, you?re really just speculating. Of course many of us on the forum seem to be professional speculators! It?s a sport we enjoy! Don?t get me wrong, there is a ton of invaluable information here also?.just have to be diligent.
> 
> Re-finishing an aging vessel is a great educational experience?.that may be where the true investment pays dividends. In 2 years, after bumping off docks, running aground, coping with cross currents, I hope to sell her and move into something made in this century! But in my mind, I have not ?earned? that privilege just yet.
> 
> Best,
> doo


What all have you done and what surprises have you found?


----------



## SloopJonB

If you are planning to buy something built in the new Millennium you better be very picky and have a fat wallet.


----------



## Shockwave

There are good old boats with good bones that are built to a level of quality that allows them to be a potential refurbishment candidates. There are tired old boats that were originally cheaply made that have not been maintained and are better consigned to the dumpster. If you are not very sure of what you are looking at you better hire a good surveyor and LISTEN to what they say. An unfinished refurbishment will result in a complete loss of your investment. Pick the correct boat to refurbish, make sure you understand the TOTAL cost of said refurbishment and make sure you have the funds to complete the refurbishment.

Shock out.............


----------



## seaner97

Shockwave said:


> There are good old boats with good bones that are built to a level of quality that allows them to be a potential refurbishment candidates. There are tired old boats that were originally cheaply made that have not been maintained and are better consigned to the dumpster. If you are not very sure of what you are looking at you better hire a good surveyor and LISTEN to what they say. An unfinished refurbishment will result in a complete loss of your investment. Pick the correct boat to refurbish, make sure you understand the TOTAL cost of said refurbishment and make sure you have the funds to complete the refurbishment.
> 
> Shock out.............


I've had TWO that have gone over her and pronounced her in "above average to excellent" condition from a mechanical and sailing standpoint, and have commented on how stoutly "these old boats were built" and how they are "far better than the crap built today". (Direct quotes as I recall them). That would fly in the face of the discussion we have been having, so, while a surveyor may be helpful, it probably isn't the end all.
But there is certainly wisdom in what you've added.


----------



## scubadoo

seaner97 said:


> What all have you done and what surprises have you found?


The bad:

After removing 46 years of bottom paint&#8230;literally about an 1/8" thick&#8230;I discovered 2 large areas of bondo, approximately 18" in diameter. No visible damage from the inside, not too sure what to make of it?

46 years of DYI wiring&#8230;.there are maybe 12 legitimate working connections, out of 60 plus wires. No-one removed the old ones when there was a short, they just ran a new one!

Fiberglass "tubes" for the scuppers and sink drain that terminate below the water line!

Leach almost completely blown out and severely tattered on the mainsail.

The good:

3" hull reinforcement ribs (stringers) at 5' on center originally installed by the factory.
No sag in the deck stepped mast support. It was designed with a steel plate spanning between 2 forward bulkheads.

Solid rudder.

It is a little cliché, by now, but the surveyor actually said (when looking at the hull thickness, full keel layup from the inside, engine mount and the stringers ) "they don't built them like this anymore!" Good or bad, several people in the yard are also made similar comments.

Appears to be fairly "idiot proof"&#8230;..good thing!! :laugh


----------



## SloopJonB

scubadoo said:


> TFiberglass "tubes" for the scuppers and sink drain that terminate below the water line!


As long as they are very solid (like as solid as the hull) having the scupper drains done like that is no bad thing - they provide reinforcement for the cockpit and eliminate through hulls, hoses & hose clamps, all of which can fail. It's fairly common in metal boats.

The sink drain not so much - too much potential for flex.


----------



## scubadoo

SloopJonB said:


> As long as they are very solid (like as solid as the hull) having the scupper drains done like that is no bad thing - they provide reinforcement for the cockpit and eliminate through hulls, hoses & hose clamps, all of which can fail. It's fairly common in metal boats.
> 
> The sink drain not so much - too much potential for flex.


Great to know!! (I was a bit worried there)

The sink has a black rubber hose connecting to the fiberglass tube above the water line...hopefully will ease the stress on the tube?

Crazy thing is someone (I don't think it is stock) connected one of the bildge pumps to that little extension of rubber hose....I'm thinking when the bildge pump turns on the contents are going to take the path of least resistance and come flying up through the sink drain. If I'm moving, I suppose there may be a siphon effect, but if I'm at the dock, I'm picturing bildge water dripping from my cabin ceiling!


----------



## albrazzi

SloopJonB said:


> Talking about boats in any context as investments is absurd - they are lifestyle expenditures. Does anyone ever speak about "investing" in ski lift tickets or trips to foreign countries? At least with boats you do have a hard asset with some value, not just memories.


True Dat! I rationalize it as two separate things. The "parked money" used to own the Boat and "upkeep" money, maintainence, upgrades, dockage, out and about money. I had a friend who owned a Ferrari for a while until the $800 spark plug wires got to be too much then he got his "parked" money back from the sale.
Even this has to be right one to appreciate but just recouping the purchase price however tough can be maintained by the upkeep money.
But then I don't have a restoration Boat (or the Ferrari for that matter), that would skew the whole thing.


----------



## seaner97

As the winter season approaches, my list for this offseason includes standing rigging/chainplates, a couple electrical gremlins, replacing the old compression post step with a block of g10 and new lifelines. I'm half done with a new salon table and have a bunch of black locust (New England teak) to make a cockpit grate. Anything the experts would recommend I do/look at at the same time?


----------



## seaner97

Jeff- been awhile.

I've contacted a couple guys I know that insure boats. They have never heard of that study and couldn't find it. Their personal experience contradicted it. Any other leads on it?


----------



## bobperry

I read the thread. You guys seem to have this covered pretty well.

I'll say this. In the early 60's no one knew much about "engineering" laminate schedules so they compensated by building thick. I think the original Rhodes Reliant has shrouds attacked to u bolts in the deck. Chainplates are over rated! Thick works. I am not advoctating bolting your shrouds to the deck!

Thick really works if you are rebuilding an old boat. Your shell should last maybe forever? We just don't know. Cored decks can be a problem. But solid lam hulls are going to be around a long time.

That's it for me. If I had to chose one boat that has been mentioned here I;d have to say I have always had a soft spot for the C&C 35 MK 1. What a sweeeeeeeet boat.


----------



## seaner97

Thanks Bob. Really nothing to add regarding areas that could have been done better in the 50s-70s era that would have made the boats more bomber? Maybe PCP is REALLY full of it if there isn't much we could do to reinforce them or make them better as owners.
And yeah, the C&C 35 always looked like a sweet boat.


----------



## turboduck

SloopJonB said:


> I disagree with the consternation. Work hardening and stress cycles are a result of flex. If the boat is rigid enough it won't flex enough to matter. Glass flexes by breaking down microscopically - you can hear it if you severely flex a piece of glass - it makes a crunching sound.
> 
> If it doesn't reach that point in service, it's life is quite simply unknown - certainly longer than ours. The early glass cruising boats are 60 Y.O. now and going strong unless they haven't been maintained - look at Jerry Litton's Islander in Thailand - 50 in a year or so and it looks nicer than most new stuff.
> 
> Don't worry about some intrinsic lifespan of the material - no-one knows if there is one or if so, how long it is. Decide how much restoration work you are willing to do and find a boat that needs that much work.


So I'd like to add my two cents worth since I am a proud owner of a rock solid 1962 Columbia 29, but in reading through the thread I hit on the name Jerry Litton. Hey, who is he? Perhaps a long lost relative of mine? (I'm Donald Litton) Maybe good old boats are in our bloodline... There is only one weakness in mine, the mast base support and I'll be working on that soon. But she is still sailing strong (6-7 knots at the usual at 20-25 degrees of heel typically).
BTW I may have missed it but if you go to bluewaterboats.org and look at the Pearson Rhodes 41 you will see links to huge album of a total refit of one that is absolutely beautiful. Those old hulls are WORTH refitting. That 41 is on my short list of dream boats...
Here is album 3 they posted there: 
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741971.100001444621152&type=1&l=c007ac6e98


----------



## SloopJonB

Jerry is on here as jerrylitton


----------



## seaner97

And he's got a kicka** Islander that was refurbed professionally in Thailand. Pics on several threads to make you jealous.


----------



## bobperry

Yeah, I've seen Jerry's boat. It's a keeper. It's an Islander pretending it's a Hinkley.


----------



## mstern

Any one interested in refurbishing plastic classics should check out Tim Lackey's website lackeysailingdotcom. Tim fixes up some beautiful CCA inspired boats and makes them better than new. He also documented a spec project: the complete rehab of a derelict Pearson Triton into a modern "classic" daysailer.


----------



## chris95040

bobperry said:


> I think the original Rhodes Reliant has shrouds attacked to u bolts in the deck. Chainplates are over rated! Thick works. I am not advoctating bolting your shrouds to the deck!


Hey I've got a Rhodes Reliant. Early build, too. It actually has regular chainplates, attached to knees on the hull. Its original.

I have seen exactly what you mention on some other boat, though.


----------



## bobperry

Chris: I think there were some variations on the Rhodes Reliant theme. It could have been an original Bounty that I saw.


----------



## turboduck

I would argue that restoring a 60s boat is not analogous to restoring an old car. I had a 64 Valiant (car, slant 6) and loved it, and would love to find a convertible with push button transmission again, but once restored it will never compare to even the cheapest of modern cars in even basic performance characteristics, except perhaps reliability. But the CCA boats, restored, next to a modern boat, can certainly still compete in many ways, especially in terms of value. But in our boats you need to use the reef points, you need to know how to load them and you need to understand that sailboats are supposed to heel. BTW if anyone is interested I posted the letter from Olin Stephens to the original owner of my boat regarding metacentric height on the Columbia 29 in my album.


----------



## hellosailor

I've seen some British boats, intended for the North Sea, where the shrouds did come down to "U bolts" on the deck.

But their purpose in doing that, was because the U-bolt is welded onto a flat plate, and then a matching piece is installed under the deck. The two are joined by four heavy bolts in the plates, so the only "deck penetration" is for four plain well-sealed bolts holes. That way is is very unlikely the chainplates [sic] will leak. And they're easily replaced.

The u-bolts inside the cabin were tied to the keel or the floor beams, as I recall. So the strain was really well controlled, and all parts easily accessed.


----------



## bobperry

I saw a boat at Shilshole, a Cascade 42 I believe. It's shrouds came down to shackles in the holes in the aluminum toe rail! I walked by that boat for years. I never did see it out. Just as well.


----------



## turboduck

seaner97 said:


> Jeff and I have been having a discussion on the B34 and T34c threads that I thought deserved its own spot.
> 
> Starting from the acknowledgment that nothing lasts forever, newer hulls are faster and more commodious, but far more expensive than those that are on the market from the CCA era of the 60s, I began asking about the 'Moderate build quality' tag that gets thrown onto some boats (Pearsons and Bristols, mostly) from that era. Jeff pointed out two U.S. Brands that he felt were superior in their glasswork- early Grampians and Tartans, but had no experience with others he could speak to. I posit that all makes from that era are essentially handmade items and exposed to similar QI issues, making them hard to really compare, and that as there is no universally recognized system, this seems somewhat unfair to the Pearson cousins as they seem to get singled out with this, with rarely any other U.S. company other than Hinkley, and now the two above (although only in Jeff estimable opinion, which I don't doubt) ever gets mentioned as superior.
> Thoughts from the rest?
> Also- if you were to attempt to make a FRP boat from this era last forever, how do you do it(setting aside those of you that would say why bother- this isn't meant as a referendum on their value. Suffice that many of us like these old, slow, pretty boats and want to play caretaker to these antiques.)? And what structural upgrades could you retrofit to make them 'superior'?


OK, back your original post: specifically for my (Columbia 29) and Tritons, with deck-stepped masts, new arches spanning the bulkheads or some other support needs to be added/replaced. The only place in my boat that needs work is the mast support. Tritons may need a new rudder too, originals were wood I believe. Old wooden hatches need replacing and the main hatch on mine needs to be redesigned with better tracks. I will someday upgrade my rig to run 2 lowers instead of singles and put chainplates through-bolted on the hull. Mine don't show any problems, no leaking and chainplates on bulkheads are still fine, I just thought it might be a good idea and it will eliminate the "pumping" of the mast. I have one spot in the deck where it seems the glass may have separated from the ply core, but there is so much glass I am not concerned about it one iota.


----------



## seaner97

Pulled the rigging and the chainplates. Can you say crevice corrosion? Definitely worth doing. The head refurb (cosmetic) may need to wait until next year.


----------



## seaner97

Jeff responded off forum as he hadn't fleshed out his outline. I thought it was pretty darn good as it was. I'm going to cut and paste the whole thing out of my email. I got distracted by attempting to talk sense into someone on another thread.


----------



## seaner97

seaner97 said:


> 1. A superior build quality boat has still not been clearly defined beyond fibreglass handling, and while I'll give you the single study (although I've still not seen it or the data), you seem to have come around to my point of view that these are all handmade and used variably over the years, so one that started out as superior may now be more used up than one that started as moderate. I'm going to put words in your mouth here and paraphrase what I see as your major thrust, which is that NO boat of this era is likely to be up to hard use any longer. I'm not sure that I disagree with that, but I also don't see that there is definitive data to that effect.
> Sean


Sean,
I think that the above thread should be useful in exploring the issues surrounding early fiberglass boats constructed during the 1950's through the early 1970's. At this point, reading your comments, I agree that your view of this has ended up much closer to mine than when this thread began. 
In the quote above, I definitely would not say that there are "that NO boat of this era is likely to be up to hard use any longer." What I would say that the majority of boats in this era (like in most eras) were built to be affordable rather than of a high quality, and that to keep costs down the larger builders of this era cut corners that impacted the strength and overall lifespan of the boat. While some of these cost saving measures can be reversed, albeit at a cost which might not make these 'bargain boats' much of a bargain, some of these issues are 'baked in' in ways that cannot be reversed. 
I do think that the emphasis on the term "hand-made" may present an incomplete understanding of this issue. While it is true that the lamination of these boats was predominantly 'by hand', in the better factories of the era resin formulations were carefully measured out, and quantities of resins were carefully monitored as well. Lay-up procedures were standardized and performed carefully by skilled technicians, vs factories who employed the lowest cost labor and poorly monitored the quality of their work. Even within a hand-made item, there can be very large differences in the level of care and the quality of the item produced.
And while even a higher quality boat may have been subjected to harder use and poorer care than a inferior made boat, and therefore not have much life left in it, as a broad generality, more expensive boats tend to be bought by people who can afford to put a little more care into their maintenance and updating and so may actually be in better shape than for no other reason than that. Which gets to my central point in most of these discussions. If a person is looking to purchase a boat in any given general price range there are better built, better laid out and sailing designs, and better maintained boats. Given the options, in my mind it only makes sense to steer away from the more poorly constructed, inferior designed, or badly worn out versions. 
But to get to the thrust of your question, I think it may be helpful to differentiate 'better practices' vs. 'questionable practices' and sort them into categories of 'those which cannot be reversed' vs. 'those which are very hard to reverse', vs. 'those which may be considered long term maintenance or updating'. And while not all of these may apply to any single boat, some may apply to most boats from this era, and all may apply to the worst examples.
Questionable practices which cannot be reversed:
•	Carelessly mixed resin and catalyst: 
Mixing procedures varied but they were pretty casual in many of the value oriented plants. Not enough catalyst was not a problem long term, but too much resulted in a brittle matrix. I have no information on which factories were careful and which were careless other than a single story that I heard from a fellow who did laminating at Columbia who claimed that they were careless enough that they literally had a pot catch fire it got so hot (too much accelerator). That is not a verifiable story and so I would not hang my hat on it, but when I worked at the boat show in 1965, I was privy to a discussion between the folks at Hinterhoeller and Grampian about measures they were going through to be more precise in their metering procedures in which they were talking about sloppy practices at Paceship. 
•	Accelerators: 
Accelerators were very common during the 1960's and into the 1970. The popular accelerators helped the manufacturer in two ways, they retard the initial reaction of the resin to allow a longer working time and also cause the resin to achieve a higher portion of its ultimate compressive strength sooner. To explain this second aspect, resins cure over a comparatively long period of time and the sooner they reach a higher portion of their ultimate strength the sooner the boat can be removed from the molds. Molds are a significant portion of the cost of producing a boat so the quicker the boat can be removed from the mold the quicker the mold could be reused. Ironically, accelerators actually gave the workers a longer pot life to do the lay-up since they altered the cure curve on the set time. 
•	Resin rich/ resin lean laminate:
The importance of proper resin ratios was not fully accepted in this era. It took time, skill, and care too properly wet out the laminate with just the right amount of resin. When there is too little resin, (lean or dry glass) the laminate was not properly adhered creating an area with minimal compressive strength and ripe for delamination due to horizontal sheer, impact, or fatigue. But the good news is that dry glass was fairly obvious visually and so was comparatively rare. More common was resin that was resin rich. Resin does poorly in sheer and tension, so resin rich laminates tend to brittle, create a failure plane for a sheer failure, are more prone to fatigue, further reducing the strength of the laminate. When resin was cheap, resin rich lay-ups were common since they were a quick way to bulk up the laminate and assure that there was a complete saturation with less expensive, less skilled, and less motivated workers. 
•	Lack of internal framing: 
Early value oriented fiberglass boat manufacturers avoided having internal framing largely so that they could rightly claim that their boats had larger interior volumes than similar design wooden boats. They chose to use thicker hulls to make up for some of the stiffness lost to wooden boat construction. They were trying to achieve largely 'monocoque' construction with the shell taking the bulk of the loads axially. Because fiberglass is so much denser than most wood planking materials, and is not all that much stronger per unit of area, and is not much stiffer per unit area, a compromise was made in the thickness of the hull that matched or slightly exceeded the strength of a fully framed wooden boat, but did not match the stiffness or lighter weight of most planking.

The net result is that the panels of these boats flex a lot more than the framed hulls on the better built boats of that era and in the eras that followed. Fiberglass is a fatigue prone material and so losses strength by the cyclical flexing which takes place in all boats, but is especially prevalent in unframed boats.

The better builders of that era included comparatively closely spaced hat-frames and hand-glassed frames that reduced the panel size and reduced flexure. This was especially popular with British boat builders and in the Commonwealth countries. It was also a very labor intensive way to build a boat.

•	High ratios of non-directional fabrics:
Pretty much all production boats have some non-directional fabrics in them. Non-directional fabrics (mat) are used to hide the courser fabrics from showing through the gelcoat, but structurally more importantly to bridge between the individual layers of courser roving. It does not take much mat to bind the layers together, and the better manufacturers would use ¾ oz. mat for that purpose. But mat was a cheap way to build bulk in the laminate and cheaply get thickness without the higher cost of woven roving. Mat was seen as acting like the web in a I beam and so it was thought that its inherently greater weakness was not a problem. Value oriented factories would use 1 ½ and multiple layers of matt within the middle of the matrix.

•	Poor reinforcing fabric handling practices: 
•	Poorer quality fiberglass: (Length of fibers, brittleness, edge condition)

Description of how these items impact the life of the boat and why they cannot be reversed.

Questionable practices which are very hard to reverse:
•	Encapsulated ballast (non-structural bilge encapsulation, delamination and water intrusion) 
•	Plastic laminate encapsulated bulkheads
•	Inadequate width, depth and continuity tabbing
•	Mast supporting structure, mast step/ mast heel, deck to bulkhead tension connections, and mast hold downs on deck stepped masts
•	Roll-out hull-to-deck joints and shoe box deck joints or deck joints through core materials. 
•	Glassed in tanks
•	Lighter than currently required standards for rudder posts especially on keel hung rudders (plus fatigue, crevice corrosion, and connection issues) 
•	Steel and stainless steel keel bolts
•	Poorly constructed deck cores and deck core materials (plywood) 
•	Use of non-marine grade materials on interiors
•	Failed gelcoat

Items which can be relatively easily repaired, upgraded or reversed and which may be considered as long term maintenance or updating: (discuss minor and elective nature of some of these items vs. safety and long term maintainability of others) 
•	Chainplates and standing rigging, running rigging
•	Mast hardware such as sheaves, wooden spreaders, and failing component connections on masts and booms
•	Roller reefing Booms and mainsails
•	Replacement and upgrading of sail handling gear and other missing or out of date hardware due to sizing, ease of use, and convenience (reefing, winch sizes and gearing, control lines and positions), and safety issues. (jack line strong points, engine fire extinguisher ports) 
•	End of life steering gear
•	Engine installations which do not meet current Safety standards
•	End of life sails, and/or engines
•	Localized damage to the laminate (Lifeline bases, cleats, impact damage, etc) 
•	Electrical systems which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
•	Past their use by date plumbing systems and components or which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
•	Normal safety measures such as latch down hatches and lashed down batteries
•	Instrumentation and other electronics
•	Galley and cooking equipment
•	Backing plates and reinforcing of high stress areas
•	End of life exterior wooden trim items
•	Aesthetic issues (Gelcoat crazing, fading, worn out non-skid, interior finishes, upholstery, etc.)

Discussion of boats with construction related damage beyond repair:
•	Pearson Ariel- Torn topsides and hull joint failure
•	Coronado: Keel area failure in glasswork
•	Article in 'Sail' about the Triton whose hull tore parallel to the hull deck joint.
•	Alberg bow failure

Concluding summary discussion of the economic and physical lifespan of a boat
•	Physical limitations vs economic limitations on these older boats. 
•	First cost vs 'improved cost' vs long term cost
•	Discussion of best bargain in the short and long run 
•	'Like working on boats' vs buying a boat as a perceived 'deal' and sweat equity
•	Cost of boat during restoration process (immediate restoration vs long term restoration vs use as is)
•	The argument for 'cheap boats' vs better quality cheap boats. Given similar pricing buying the best designs, why it only makes sense to buy the boat with the best build, and best condition from an era vs buying a mediocre design with mediocre build quality, or a boat in poor condition, and why the argument that 'I can't afford to buy better' rarely makes sense, except from an upfront purchase price. 
•	Accepting the risks vs mitigating the risks, the role of personal tastes vs the science, vs the more general marketplace. 
•	Painting the bilges white.


----------



## seaner97

I had to ask about the white bilge thing.

This was his response:

The "white bilge thing" is an old joke between my Dad and I. Years ago we got close to buying an old boat that on closer inspection turned out to be a wreck. But when we did our first look, we both were amazed to see the bilges were spotless and painted white. We agreed this must be an owner who really loved his boat so much that he painted his bilges white. Whenever things look close to hopeless, we say, " its getting time to paint the bilges white." Years ago I wrote this up as;

"And finally if you buy an old fiberglass boat, paint the bilges white. It does nothing for the boat, but if you ever have to sell the boat, then someone may look in your bilge and say “Lets buy her because any owner who would love a boat so much that he went through the trouble to paint the bilge white must have enjoyed this boat and taken great care of her no matter what her age.”

I had planned to add that paragraph at the end of my discussion.


----------



## turboduck

Reading through the long list of things that need attention in our older boats I feel pretty good about my own boat and think I was right to look for a Columbia early in its run, even though they all seem to have come out really well. My Mark 1 C29 is dry and solid still BUT the mast base support, it is true, needs replacing. I have heard that the MK 2 had some hull to deck joint issues (leaking) but I have zero so far. And I am going to get a gallon of bilgekote, brilliant white, and start painting!


----------



## seaner97

I'm working on a detailed post regarding my view on that, but in the interim- I've decided to do the compression step on mine while I'm doing rigging and lifelines this year.


----------



## TomMaine

TomMaine said:


> A Hinckley was probably built better than most. And Hinckley did use high quality parts that help the boats endure.
> 
> But I think it is the design of a B40, or many of these older boats, that has held their popularity, not a(perceived by some)superior structural quality.
> 
> The more popular older boats I'm aware of are still strong and don't need structural upgrades. They benefit greatly by new systems, especially sail handling, to get the most out of them, and endless cosmetics.
> 
> Some designs -new and old- aren't likely to endure this same test of time, no matter how well they are(or aren't) built.


I've acquired another 60's era CCA sailboat that I think proves my point: It's the design that will be sending many old glass boats to the landfill long before structural build issues make them unsalvageable.

Our son is a natural sailor. Now in college, he's sailed with us since birth. He and friends bang around Penobscot Bay in a 22 or 23' sloop just like many of us did, 'messing about in boats' at that age.

So when the O'Day Outlaw moored next to us came up for sale, we took a look. It was listed for 2k. I know the owner and have seen the boat sailed regularly for over a decade. It's a boat that everything works on, sail ready.

I didn't even consider paying 2k for it as it's cosmetically a near basket case. But then another friend contacted me to see if I knew anything about a boat in my harbor on Craigs list, listed for FREE. I got on the phone to the owner and was told if I checked it out before 10 am the next day(several had lined up to view), it was ours.

A signature and one dollar later, SKAL was my liability....

I was pleasantly surprised with a fall sail before haul out. The outboard worked flawlessly(shop maintained), sails while older set well in good repair, and best of all, she was a delightfully nimble sailer in the light air that day. The enormous 8' cockpit is the perfect daysailer size for a bunch of kids. The cabin is small(the result of a cockpit priority sailer) but quite an upgrade from the smaller boat my son and friends have been sailing.

Gliding along in the October light feeling like I'm in the water instead of high above, she is the true CCA boat that I so love, in a very small package. Philip Rhodes designed, no surprise.

I've never owned an O'Day build. This one is surprisingly stout. Decks, cockpit sole, are all stiff. No soft spots. While the glass finish below is coarse(painted), parts like cockpit hatches are strong-well built- and not in need of replacement or repair. Upon haul out, I was relieved to find the hull is also strong as new-sound, no problems.

Hmmm,.... What is her fate? Not good, I fear. It doesn't matter that the hull is sound(no problems at all with deck stepped mast step). It should matter that the boat is a good sailer, but I fear it doesn't. Simply this 26' boat is lumped into a group of boats which are flooding the used boat market. It's popularity is slim, the design never became an icon of the era.

Rowing back from that delightful sail, I ran into a friend getting their Pearson Ensign ready for a day sail. Alongside in my dinghy, I marveled at the Ensign alongside(and at that delightful same low CCA era height above the water). An Ensign will likely have a following for the foreseeable future. It's a delightful sailor for a group or family. It's still racing in classes. And likely most of all, it's pretty on the water.

Our son is over the moon owning the O'Day and 'can't wait to sail it'(he's overseas and won't see the boat until Xmas break). He will sail the dickens out of the boat. It has a tremendous amount of sailing left in it. Will he 'restore' the boat? Who knows, we tend to love our boats in this family. But I've had quite a bit of experience restoring old boats, their value, their costs. I may not encourage too much time$ investment in the boat over another more popular design which are available at very low cost.

This sailboat however, due to cosmetic repair, has hit the zer0-value point. Many more less popular designs-in sound structural condition-are approaching the non value mark.

In the meantime, check out SKAL. Philip Rhodes had a great eye.










Ghosting along in under 5 knots of wind. A delightful light air sailer.










How about this cockpit! This was designed when sailing-not dwelling space-was priority in 26'










Yeah, she needs 'work'. But SKAL is a sail ready boat, capable of many summers sailing the coast of Maine, and she is worth $0.


----------



## seaner97

Hard to believe that boat is free when I've seen 90s trailer sailers for upwards of 7k. Little difference in cosmetics, and not all their systems were functioning. Lunacy.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> Hard to believe that boat is free when I've seen 90s trailer sailers for upwards of 7k. Little difference in cosmetics, and not all their systems were functioning. Lunacy.


Our local YMCA has been holding an annual boat auction for many years. They take donated boats(donators receive a tax credit), and re-sell them. They turned this boat(1968 O'Day), down. The reason given was they have too many similar boats in their inventory right now.

When you consider their inventory is for a spring sale, they must be well stocked all ready.

I know the hauler that moves their boats. He said many of the boats sell for less than he charges to haul them. 

I think the trend is that value-zero boats, are growing in size. A few years ago, the less popular small trailer sailers(20-24' or so) that were neglected started to become impossible to sell(hence our local YMCA's large inventory). Today that size is into the mid 20 'ers.

As so many of these boats were built in the 60's, 70's and 80's, I don't see an end to the inventory of neglected small sailboats, for some time.

This is all opinion from my area on the coast of Maine. We may have a glut of these sailboats here. The bright side: most designs that have some following and familiarity in our area, if reasonably equipped(sail-away) and cosmetically cared for(this is key for prospective sellers), sell quickly.

A buying sailor can get real value for their money in these boats.


----------



## seaner97

Oh, it definitely IS, just seems crazy and a total market inefficiency. If you can get SKAL for free (or even 2k) and a little elbow grease, why buy an aleron 30 (which looks every bit the sweet daysailing boat) new? They do the same thing, almost equally as well. For the cash you put into SKAL you'd lose more than that in your first year of depreciation on the 30. I mean, if you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead, but I don't get it. But I also view sailing like vacation- money in isn't coming back.


----------



## bobperry

To my eye SKAL is a far better looking boat than any Alerion.


----------



## Jeff_H

The Outlaw has always struck me as a lovely daysailer. While it goes without saying that I am not a fan of CCA era boats as distance cruisers, I do think that they made very nice daysailers. The first boat that I owned when I moved to the Cheaspeake was a 1965 Grampian Classic 22, which was very cheap to buy and a wonderful boat for daysailing and PHRF racing. CLASSIC 22 (GRAMPIAN) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Like Sean, I really don't understand why boats like the Outlaw or Commanders are almost seen as disposable, while people spend the money that they do for a Harbor 20 or on an Alerion. I sometimes hear young people talk about how expensive it is to get into sailing, but in recent years I have heard about boats being given away for free (or nearly given away) that are as diverse as a J-22, Continental 25 (f.g. Folkboat), Catalina 27, Bristol 28, Pearson Ariel, and a Morgan 22. And while in some ways these boats have a negative value, in that they would require more money to put into Bristol condition than they would ever possibly be worth, these are still really nice boats that could be owned and enjoyed very cheaply for a number of years. If the owner fell in love with the boat they could slowly bring it back to shape a bit at a time, and if not, then keep any time and money invested to a minimum knowing that they will probably give the boat away when they are done.

Jeff


----------



## seaner97

bobperry said:


> To my eye SKAL is a far better looking boat than any Alerion.


No argument there. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I wouldn't claim my way of evaluating it is the only one.


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> I've acquired another 60's era CCA sailboat that I think proves my point: It's the design that will be sending many old glass boats to the landfill long before structural build issues make them unsalvageable.
> 
> Our son is a natural sailor. Now in college, he's sailed with us since birth. He and friends bang around Penobscot Bay in a 22 or 23' sloop just like many of us did, 'messing about in boats' at that age.
> 
> So when the O'Day Outlaw moored next to us came up for sale, we took a look. It was listed for 2k. I know the owner and have seen the boat sailed regularly for over a decade. It's a boat that everything works on, sail ready.
> 
> I didn't even consider paying 2k for it as it's cosmetically a near basket case. But then another friend contacted me to see if I knew anything about a boat in my harbor on Craigs list, listed for FREE. I got on the phone to the owner and was told if I checked it out before 10 am the next day(several had lined up to view), it was ours.
> 
> A signature and one dollar later, SKAL was my liability....
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised with a fall sail before haul out. The outboard worked flawlessly(shop maintained), sails while older set well in good repair, and best of all, she was a delightfully nimble sailer in the light air that day. The enormous 8' cockpit is the perfect daysailer size for a bunch of kids. The cabin is small(the result of a cockpit priority sailer) but quite an upgrade from the smaller boat my son and friends have been sailing.
> 
> Gliding along in the October light feeling like I'm in the water instead of high above, she is the true CCA boat that I so love, in a very small package. Philip Rhodes designed, no surprise.
> 
> I've never owned an O'Day build. This one is surprisingly stout. Decks, cockpit sole, are all stiff. No soft spots. While the glass finish below is coarse(painted), parts like cockpit hatches are strong-well built- and not in need of replacement or repair. Upon haul out, I was relieved to find the hull is also strong as new-sound, no problems.
> 
> Hmmm,.... What is her fate? Not good, I fear. It doesn't matter that the hull is sound(no problems at all with deck stepped mast step). It should matter that the boat is a good sailer, but I fear it doesn't. Simply this 26' boat is lumped into a group of boats which are flooding the used boat market. It's popularity is slim, the design never became an icon of the era.
> 
> Rowing back from that delightful sail, I ran into a friend getting their Pearson Ensign ready for a day sail. Alongside in my dinghy, I marveled at the Ensign alongside(and at that delightful same low CCA era height above the water). An Ensign will likely have a following for the foreseeable future. It's a delightful sailor for a group or family. It's still racing in classes. And likely most of all, it's pretty on the water.
> 
> Our son is over the moon owning the O'Day and 'can't wait to sail it'(he's overseas and won't see the boat until Xmas break). He will sail the dickens out of the boat. It has a tremendous amount of sailing left in it. Will he 'restore' the boat? Who knows, we tend to love our boats in this family. But I've had quite a bit of experience restoring old boats, their value, their costs. I may not encourage too much time$ investment in the boat over another more popular design which are available at very low cost.
> 
> This sailboat however, due to cosmetic repair, has hit the zer0-value point. Many more less popular designs-in sound structural condition-are approaching the non value mark.
> 
> In the meantime, check out SKAL. Philip Rhodes had a great eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghosting along in under 5 knots of wind. A delightful light air sailer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this cockpit! This was designed when sailing-not dwelling space-was priority in 26'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, she needs 'work'. But SKAL is a sail ready boat, capable of many summers sailing the coast of Maine, and she is worth $0.


I'd also say it looks like she needs a good wash and either strip and let weather or re varnish the brightwork, and otherwise she's in better cosmetic condition than 50% of the boats in MY harbor, and probably better than 75% in the yard I'm in.


----------



## roverhi

The hulls are usually not the problem but the decks are. Water in the core rots the balsa and makes the decks springy. They can still be sailed with core rot issues so not fatal but costly to fix. Extensive core rot repair done by a professional can easily exceed the value of the boat. If the core is still solid and you are going to keep the boat, rout out the core around ALL the fasteners that go through the core, fill with thickened epoxy and redrill the holes. The epoxy seals the core and prevents compression from over tightened fasteners.

I use a dremel 199 bit to rout out the core. Make the initial cut as close to 90 degrees as possible so you mess up as little of the gel coat as possible and then run the bit around the hole vertical till the core is gone. Squirt straight epoxy into the puka after sealing it from the under side with duct tape. Suck the resin out and mix with West 404 filler or equivalent and refill the puka. Redrill the holes. The hardware should hide any damage to the original hole.

SS that goes through the hull/deck or fastened to the hull like chainplates will often develop crevice corrosion where they pass through the deck because of water leakage. Pull that type of hardware and inspect. Any pitting and it's time for new pieces. Chain plates are easy to fabricate and could be done by you with a drill press. Biggest pain is polishing the new SS.


----------



## albrazzi

seaner97 said:


> Oh, it definitely IS, just seems crazy and a total market inefficiency. If you can get SKAL for free (or even 2k) and a little elbow grease, why buy an aleron 30 (which looks every bit the sweet daysailing boat) new? They do the same thing, almost equally as well. For the cash you put into SKAL you'd lose more than that in your first year of depreciation on the 30. I mean, if you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, go ahead, but I don't get it. But I also view sailing like vacation- money in isn't coming back.


I've heard this argument many times. Its just as ridiculous every time I hear it. With this logic nobody would ever buy a new car they would just find a used one to move around in. Truth is people want new, that's not a bad word. Disposable income, remember that its something we all had in the 80s.


----------



## SloopJonB

albrazzi said:


> Disposable income, remember that its something we all had *until* the 80s.


Fixed.


----------



## Shockwave

Owning an old boat can be many things. It might be an inexpensive way of spending time on the water or it could be a fun refurbishment project if you like that.
I like older boats and believe they are prettier and generally better built. There are opportunities to buy some very good boats for a fraction of new. Today we are lucky to have the choice of purchasing new or old boats that meet or likes and pocketbooks.


----------



## seaner97

albrazzi said:


> I've heard this argument many times. Its just as ridiculous every time I hear it. With this logic nobody would ever buy a new car they would just find a used one to move around in. Truth is people want new, that's not a bad word. Disposable income, remember that its something we all had in the 80s.


Wow. That's some loaded statement.


----------



## Shockwave

I don't really relate cars to boats, cars are a requirement in today's world, a tool we all need. Boats are for pleasure unless we earn a living with them. That changes the calculus.


----------



## SloopJonB

albrazzi said:


> With this logic nobody would ever buy a new car they would just find a used one to move around in. Truth is people want new, that's not a bad word.


That's exactly what I do - I much prefer nicer to new. I like letting someone else eat that huge bite of initial depreciation. I bought my wife a lowish mileage Jag XJR for less than the sales tax on a new one. When I bought my last Corvette it was barely broken in and cost about the same as a new Honda Fit - $40K less than new.

A friend is in a group that bought a new Hunter 38 a few years ago - it has depreciated more than the combined cost of all the boats I've ever owned

The only things I *must* have new are food & underwear.


----------



## JimPendoley

Seldom post here, but can't resist given my infatuation with CCA era designs. After 20 years of ownership and "unreasonable" expeditures on restoration, bought a newer design and gave my 1966 Vanguard to my daughter. Over the years, I've rebuilt the A4, insulated the hull, reinsulated and installed refrigeration, solarized and installed new battery bank, paneled over the old formica finish, laid a teak and holly floor, installed a furler and traveller, slab reefing, washdown pump,holding tank, new head, shower and hotwater, a propane oven, converted to LEDs, built a seahood,paid for a superb dodger, new interior and exterior cushions bookcases, new countertops-it has been endless...and fun new upgrade every season.- the whole time I sailed Moonraker all around the New England coast from Cape Cod to Castine Maine. I lived aboard for ten years.

I bought a Pearson 365-bigger, roomier, faster and honestly, easier to sail than my Vanguard. I believe the glasswork is probably better, certainly thinner and requiring more stringers, but the level of finish in glasswork seems better. I will need to do similar amounts of upgrading on Troipicbird as shes old and tired.The bulkheads seem too thin coming from the Vanguard.

But, I have first right of refusal if my daughter tires of Moonraker. I gave it to her because I couldn't bear to sell the boat. Through all kinds of weather, that little Vanguard kept my crew safe. The interior is small enough below that finding a bracing spot was easy. The little cabin heater made heating it a snap and we were always warm and dry. The boat is dead simple, good on a reach or run- uncomplicated and actually sails well enough. Unlike Jeff, I found she hove to quite well. I don't see my new 365 pointing much higher at all and the 365 is slower under 10 knots. There is no disputing the 365 is more comfortable and carries more water and stores, but she also costs a lot more. If and when I go cruising, if I go solo, I may have to buy Moonraker back.

Year after year, the local paper features a photo of Moonraker on the front page as a herald of the oncoming boating season. Both boats are on my own moorings side by side, but when I row away, its the Vanguard my eyes are drawn to-the 365 looks blocky and monolithic alongside the Vanguard. And while I paid a low price for the 365, I could buy three Vanguards for the price-and all of that saved money could be put into upgrades. 

In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure. 

Faster is not always better.


----------



## albrazzi

SloopJonB said:


> That's exactly what I do - I much prefer nicer to new. I like letting someone else eat that huge bite of initial depreciation. I bought my wife a lowish mileage Jag XJR for less that the sales tax on a new one. When I bought my last Corvette it was barely broken in and cost about the same as a new Honda Fit - $40K less than new.
> 
> A friend is in a group that bought a new Hunter 38 a few years ago - it has depreciated more than the combined cost of all the boats I've ever owned
> 
> The only things I *must* have new are food & underwear.


To be clear I did mean "Some" people. That's why I don't think you can group all thoughts together.

If people didn't buy some new stuff from time to time we wouldn't have all these nice used boats to choose from.


----------



## seaner97

My thoughts on this-



seaner97 said:


> Sean,
> I think that the above thread should be useful in exploring the issues surrounding early fiberglass boats constructed during the 1950's through the early 1970's. At this point, reading your comments, I agree that your view of this has ended up much closer to mine than when this thread began.
> In the quote above, I definitely would not say that there are "that NO boat of this era is likely to be up to hard use any longer." What I would say that the majority of boats in this era (like in most eras) were built to be affordable rather than of a high quality, and that to keep costs down the larger builders of this era cut corners that impacted the strength and overall lifespan of the boat. While some of these cost saving measures can be reversed, albeit at a cost which might not make these 'bargain boats' much of a bargain, some of these issues are 'baked in' in ways that cannot be reversed.
> I do think that the emphasis on the term "hand-made" may present an incomplete understanding of this issue. While it is true that the lamination of these boats was predominantly 'by hand', in the better factories of the era resin formulations were carefully measured out, and quantities of resins were carefully monitored as well. Lay-up procedures were standardized and performed carefully by skilled technicians, vs factories who employed the lowest cost labor and poorly monitored the quality of their work. Even within a hand-made item, there can be very large differences in the level of care and the quality of the item produced.


True. But as someone that has been the purchaser, maker or QI person involved in many handmade goods, I can tell you that the quality coming out of any handmade place varies by the artisan. The casualness of monitoring increases the risk of a cruddy product, but does not insure it. The flip side is that the closer the monitoring when trying to cut costs on materials would insure the lower quality of a product. It is always easier to force a product to be poorer than to force people to make one better when you are talking about hand made goods.



seaner97 said:


> And while even a higher quality boat may have been subjected to harder use and poorer care than a inferior made boat, and therefore not have much life left in it, as a broad generality, more expensive boats tend to be bought by people who can afford to put a little more care into their maintenance and updating and so may actually be in better shape than for no other reason than that. Which gets to my central point in most of these discussions. If a person is looking to purchase a boat in any given general price range there are better built, better laid out and sailing designs, and better maintained boats. Given the options, in my mind it only makes sense to steer away from the more poorly constructed, inferior designed, or badly worn out versions.


Agree, if there is a similarly priced, higher quality option on the market. My 'thought experiment' earlier in the thread pointed out that that isn't always as easy as this is made to sound.



seaner97 said:


> But to get to the thrust of your question, I think it may be helpful to differentiate 'better practices' vs. 'questionable practices' and sort them into categories of 'those which cannot be reversed' vs. 'those which are very hard to reverse', vs. 'those which may be considered long term maintenance or updating'. And while not all of these may apply to any single boat, some may apply to most boats from this era, and all may apply to the worst examples.
> Questionable practices which cannot be reversed:
> •	Carelessly mixed resin and catalyst:
> Mixing procedures varied but they were pretty casual in many of the value oriented plants. Not enough catalyst was not a problem long term, but too much resulted in a brittle matrix. I have no information on which factories were careful and which were careless other than a single story that I heard from a fellow who did laminating at Columbia who claimed that they were careless enough that they literally had a pot catch fire it got so hot (too much accelerator). That is not a verifiable story and so I would not hang my hat on it, but when I worked at the boat show in 1965, I was privy to a discussion between the folks at Hinterhoeller and Grampian about measures they were going through to be more precise in their metering procedures in which they were talking about sloppy practices at Paceship.
> •	Accelerators:
> Accelerators were very common during the 1960's and into the 1970. The popular accelerators helped the manufacturer in two ways, they retard the initial reaction of the resin to allow a longer working time and also cause the resin to achieve a higher portion of its ultimate compressive strength sooner. To explain this second aspect, resins cure over a comparatively long period of time and the sooner they reach a higher portion of their ultimate strength the sooner the boat can be removed from the molds. Molds are a significant portion of the cost of producing a boat so the quicker the boat can be removed from the mold the quicker the mold could be reused. Ironically, accelerators actually gave the workers a longer pot life to do the lay-up since they altered the cure curve on the set time.
> •	Resin rich/ resin lean laminate:
> The importance of proper resin ratios was not fully accepted in this era. It took time, skill, and care too properly wet out the laminate with just the right amount of resin. When there is too little resin, (lean or dry glass) the laminate was not properly adhered creating an area with minimal compressive strength and ripe for delamination due to horizontal sheer, impact, or fatigue. But the good news is that dry glass was fairly obvious visually and so was comparatively rare. More common was resin that was resin rich. Resin does poorly in sheer and tension, so resin rich laminates tend to brittle, create a failure plane for a sheer failure, are more prone to fatigue, further reducing the strength of the laminate. When resin was cheap, resin rich lay-ups were common since they were a quick way to bulk up the laminate and assure that there was a complete saturation with less expensive, less skilled, and less motivated workers.
> •	Lack of internal framing:
> Early value oriented fiberglass boat manufacturers avoided having internal framing largely so that they could rightly claim that their boats had larger interior volumes than similar design wooden boats. They chose to use thicker hulls to make up for some of the stiffness lost to wooden boat construction. They were trying to achieve largely 'monocoque' construction with the shell taking the bulk of the loads axially. Because fiberglass is so much denser than most wood planking materials, and is not all that much stronger per unit of area, and is not much stiffer per unit area, a compromise was made in the thickness of the hull that matched or slightly exceeded the strength of a fully framed wooden boat, but did not match the stiffness or lighter weight of most planking.
> 
> The net result is that the panels of these boats flex a lot more than the framed hulls on the better built boats of that era and in the eras that followed. Fiberglass is a fatigue prone material and so losses strength by the cyclical flexing which takes place in all boats, but is especially prevalent in unframed boats.
> 
> The better builders of that era included comparatively closely spaced hat-frames and hand-glassed frames that reduced the panel size and reduced flexure. This was especially popular with British boat builders and in the Commonwealth countries. It was also a very labor intensive way to build a boat.
> 
> •	High ratios of non-directional fabrics:
> Pretty much all production boats have some non-directional fabrics in them. Non-directional fabrics (mat) are used to hide the courser fabrics from showing through the gelcoat, but structurally more importantly to bridge between the individual layers of courser roving. It does not take much mat to bind the layers together, and the better manufacturers would use ¾ oz. mat for that purpose. But mat was a cheap way to build bulk in the laminate and cheaply get thickness without the higher cost of woven roving. Mat was seen as acting like the web in a I beam and so it was thought that its inherently greater weakness was not a problem. Value oriented factories would use 1 ½ and multiple layers of matt within the middle of the matrix.


No argument that these are not current practice and that some factories got these better done even in that era. My concern is that the data on the handing of these is, at this point, hearsay and in the spirit of Smack, not fully supported by the data (sparse as it is) of boat hull failures.



seaner97 said:


> •	Poor reinforcing fabric handling practices:
> •	Poorer quality fiberglass: (Length of fibers, brittleness, edge condition)
> 
> Description of how these items impact the life of the boat and why they cannot be reversed.


I won't do this as much justice as Jeff would- 
In addition to not paying attention to directionality of the stranding and alternating the direction, thereby increasing the force distribution where beneficial, or aligning them when the forces were more often to be seen in a single plane, the fibers were often folded (sometimes intentionally) into squares, which would 'break' them on a microscopic level and therefore limit their ability to disperse the forces, or force the binding resin to perform in a more structural role than intended. This was exacerbated by the shorter, more brittle fibers in the woven cloth of the era, and poorer manufacturers would pay less attention to the 'frayed' edges where the loss of directionality and 'fuzziness' of the fibers would exacerbate this issue.

These issues certainly make a layup less than ideal, but some would consider them to be more theoretical than practical issues depending on how much stress you are placing on the structure. There is no guarantee that this stuff didn't slip through in some of the better yards, either.



seaner97 said:


> Questionable practices which are very hard to reverse:
> •	Encapsulated ballast (non-structural bilge encapsulation, delamination and water intrusion)
> •	Plastic laminate encapsulated bulkheads
> •	Inadequate width, depth and continuity tabbing


First two are almost impossible, but not death to any boat. They are certainly still used in some currently produced boats and can have the same issues. They do warrant very close survey. The bonus is many (most?) of the boats of the era at least used lead, so not as much issue with the dreaded 'iron expansion delam' issues. The last can be dealt with, not easily, but certainly not insurmountable.



seaner97 said:


> •	Mast supporting structure, mast step/ mast heel, deck to bulkhead tension connections, and mast hold downs on deck stepped masts
> •	Roll-out hull-to-deck joints and shoe box deck joints or deck joints through core materials.


Not sure about this one. Most of the more modern deck stepped rigs I've seen seem similar in construction to the older ones I've seen. Bob Perry pointed out in another thread that the hull to deck joints thing may be a bit overdone. While I'll agree these things aren't optimal, many of the current production boat practices are either the same, similar or variants of these practices, so other than being less aged, aren't necessarily better. Some of the boats that were 'better' builds (Allied being one that comes to mind) have the same issues.



seaner97 said:


> •	Glassed in tanks
> •	Lighter than currently required standards for rudder posts especially on keel hung rudders (plus fatigue, crevice corrosion, and connection issues)
> •	Steel and stainless steel keel bolts
> •	Poorly constructed deck cores and deck core materials (plywood)
> •	Use of non-marine grade materials on interiors
> •	Failed gelcoat


Can't fix the tanks. The rudder posts could be fixed by a decent machine shop when and if they become an issue, but even in the 'moderate build quality boats', I've not seen that as a repeatedly reported issue either in my asking around to other sailors and surveyors or in poking around on the internet. I would think it might be more of an issue up here where the boats are out of the water for half the year.
The keel bolts would be big for me. One of the reasons I like the CB models. Those add pennants and winches, but are surprisingly easy to repair and maintain.
The deck cores are what gets most boats, but recore or selective deck maintenance and doing what Roverhi suggests really does work. Messy and a pain, but not overly skill intensive to fix.
The interiors shouldn't be that much of an issue if the boat has been dry, and much of them are elbow grease related issues.
Failed gelcoat is a problem on some older boats, but seems to be worse during the 73-86 years.



seaner97 said:


> Items which can be relatively easily repaired, upgraded or reversed and which may be considered as long term maintenance or updating: (discuss minor and elective nature of some of these items vs. safety and long term maintainability of others)
> •	Chainplates and standing rigging, running rigging
> •	Mast hardware such as sheaves, wooden spreaders, and failing component connections on masts and booms
> •	Roller reefing Booms and mainsails
> •	Replacement and upgrading of sail handling gear and other missing or out of date hardware due to sizing, ease of use, and convenience (reefing, winch sizes and gearing, control lines and positions), and safety issues. (jack line strong points, engine fire extinguisher ports)
> •	End of life steering gear
> •	Engine installations which do not meet current Safety standards
> •	End of life sails, and/or engines
> •	Localized damage to the laminate (Lifeline bases, cleats, impact damage, etc)
> •	Electrical systems which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
> •	Past their use by date plumbing systems and components or which do not meet current Safety standards or patterns of use
> •	Normal safety measures such as latch down hatches and lashed down batteries
> •	Instrumentation and other electronics
> •	Galley and cooking equipment
> •	Backing plates and reinforcing of high stress areas
> •	End of life exterior wooden trim items
> •	Aesthetic issues (Gelcoat crazing, fading, worn out non-skid, interior finishes, upholstery, etc.)


I'd put all the above in the category of any boat older than 15 years.



seaner97 said:


> Discussion of boats with construction related damage beyond repair:
> •	Pearson Ariel- Torn topsides and hull joint failure
> •	Coronado: Keel area failure in glasswork
> •	Article in 'Sail' about the Triton whose hull tore parallel to the hull deck joint.
> •	Alberg bow failure


Add the Allied Seabreeze or Seawind or whatever that was abandoned by an author on an attempted Atlantic crossing earlier this year (see the rescue by the MMA articles) due to reported hull to deck joint failure. The Catalina smile would be similar to the Coronado issue. The fact that the hulls tore on the Ariel and the Triton are interesting and indicate that the hull to deck joint was stronger than the hull, so either they were victims of the shoddy practices of Pearson or the above worries about the hull to deck joints are misplaced. I'd be interested to know what the bow failure was on the Alberg. One of the issues I could see is how the rig strapping is attached to Alberg bows. 
But this isn't just an old boat thing, and while they are examples that could be related to the above, they do not impugne the entire class of the boats of the era.
There are numerous reports of cleats ripping out sections of deck, dismastings, or other structural issues on newer boats, some pointed out with a bit of perverse glee by people in other threads on this site.



seaner97 said:


> Concluding summary discussion of the economic and physical lifespan of a boat
> •	Physical limitations vs economic limitations on these older boats.
> •	First cost vs 'improved cost' vs long term cost
> •	Discussion of best bargain in the short and long run
> •	'Like working on boats' vs buying a boat as a perceived 'deal' and sweat equity
> •	Cost of boat during restoration process (immediate restoration vs long term restoration vs use as is)
> •	The argument for 'cheap boats' vs better quality cheap boats. Given similar pricing buying the best designs, why it only makes sense to buy the boat with the best build, and best condition from an era vs buying a mediocre design with mediocre build quality, or a boat in poor condition, and why the argument that 'I can't afford to buy better' rarely makes sense, except from an upfront purchase price.
> •	Accepting the risks vs mitigating the risks, the role of personal tastes vs the science, vs the more general marketplace.
> •	Painting the bilges white.


I think this is where we've been for a few pages now. The one thing I'd point out is the 'I can't afford to buy better' thing may be that the initial price that gets you out on the water where you can then gradually bring the boat back to Bristol is different for everyone, and there is no guarantee in these old boats that a more expensive boat, a better reputation of boat, or a 'better' design will have an entry price that will allow you to do the latter. If someone can put in 15K and then spend another 15 over 3-4 seasons, they may end up with a better boat than one they could buy now for 30, at a price they can better afford. You've got 100? Maybe the H B-40 is your cup of tea. Maybe you want a newish Hunter. But we're talking cash, not financed. It makes a difference. Maybe you like new and soulless. Maybe you've got Bob bucks (but I doubt you're reading this if you do) and you can buy whatever you want. More power. I suggest a new Morris or Hinkley or get Bob to do a CC. But for those of us either daysailing, short to moderate coastal cruising, or that want a heck of a boat for short money that we can gradually bring back and be happy with for decades more, this sure seems like a good way to do it.


----------



## TomMaine

JimPendoley said:


> In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure.
> 
> Faster is not always better.


This is a very nice post. While the OP was about the build quality of older boats, CCA era boats have a passionate following that comes out when old boats are talked about.

I get how you feel about your families Vanguard. It came with history and you've added your own. And now your daughter is adding more and it doesn't look like she'll be the last owner.

It takes special qualities beyond top speed(which is important) for a sailboat -new or old design- to grow this type of history.


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> This is a very nice post. While the OP was about the build quality of older boats, CCA era boats have a passionate following that comes out when old boats are talked about.
> 
> I get how you feel about your families Vanguard. It came with history and you've added your own. And now your daughter is adding more and it doesn't look like she'll be the last owner.
> 
> It takes special qualities beyond top speed(which is important) for a sailboat -new or old design- to grow this type of history.


Absolutely. And how you feel about your Vanguard is how I hope I feel about my P35 when the time comes to hand it off to my kids (a long time from now). Perhaps I will change my mind and decide to sail a newer design, perhaps I will sell this one and buy a different older design, but one thing I can almost assure is that unless I win the lottery, I won't be buying a new boat, and even if I did, I certainly would be buying one that has lines that harken back to or is reminiscent of the CCA rule era.


----------



## seaner97

JimPendoley said:


> Seldom post here, but can't resist given my infatuation with CCA era designs. After 20 years of ownership and "unreasonable" expeditures on restoration, bought a newer design and gave my 1966 Vanguard to my daughter. Over the years, I've rebuilt the A4, insulated the hull, reinsulated and installed refrigeration, solarized and installed new battery bank, paneled over the old formica finish, laid a teak and holly floor, installed a furler and traveller, slab reefing, washdown pump,holding tank, new head, shower and hotwater, a propane oven, converted to LEDs, built a seahood,paid for a superb dodger, new interior and exterior cushions bookcases, new countertops-it has been endless...and fun new upgrade every season.- the whole time I sailed Moonraker all around the New England coast from Cape Cod to Castine Maine. I lived aboard for ten years.
> 
> I bought a Pearson 365-bigger, roomier, faster and honestly, easier to sail than my Vanguard. I believe the glasswork is probably better, certainly thinner and requiring more stringers, but the level of finish in glasswork seems better. I will need to do similar amounts of upgrading on Troipicbird as shes old and tired.The bulkheads seem too thin coming from the Vanguard.
> 
> But, I have first right of refusal if my daughter tires of Moonraker. I gave it to her because I couldn't bear to sell the boat. Through all kinds of weather, that little Vanguard kept my crew safe. The interior is small enough below that finding a bracing spot was easy. The little cabin heater made heating it a snap and we were always warm and dry. The boat is dead simple, good on a reach or run- uncomplicated and actually sails well enough. Unlike Jeff, I found she hove to quite well. I don't see my new 365 pointing much higher at all and the 365 is slower under 10 knots. There is no disputing the 365 is more comfortable and carries more water and stores, but she also costs a lot more. If and when I go cruising, if I go solo, I may have to buy Moonraker back.
> 
> Year after year, the local paper features a photo of Moonraker on the front page as a herald of the oncoming boating season. Both boats are on my own moorings side by side, but when I row away, its the Vanguard my eyes are drawn to-the 365 looks blocky and monolithic alongside the Vanguard. And while I paid a low price for the 365, I could buy three Vanguards for the price-and all of that saved money could be put into upgrades.
> 
> In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure.
> 
> Faster is not always better.


You should post more often. We need more posters with your passion and thoughtfulness.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> .... but one thing I can almost assure is that unless I win the lottery, I won't be buying a new boat, and even if I did, I certainly would be buying one that has lines that harken back to or is reminiscent of the CCA rule era.


Even if you win the lottery, you can spend some serious money on CCA rule boats. Sparkman Stevens BOLERO has those lines you mention. Nice sheer, low-super wide decks, small, low cabin house, lovely overhangs, clean lines. A classic boat.

Sure BOLERO is huge but I think the scale of this boat would work at half this length.


----------



## Bleemus

Bolero is IMHO one of the prettiest boats I've ever seen. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bleemus

S&S drew some beautiful boats. If you can't afford Bolero you can get an S&S Apache in fair condition for about 7-10k.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TomMaine

Bleemus said:


> Bolero is IMHO one of the prettiest boats I've ever seen.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It's looks as good out of the water as in. Here it is after the rain stopped.


----------



## seaner97

Yeah, BOLERO is pretty, but she's slow, a wet ride, and probably has substandard glass work. Just kidding. I love her. DROOL.


----------



## Faster

JimPendoley said:


> ......
> Faster is not always better.


Now.... wait a sec!!


----------



## seaner97

seaner97 said:


> Yeah, BOLERO is pretty, but she's slow, a wet ride, and probably has substandard glass work. Just kidding. I love her. DROOL.


Oops- forgot she was wood. Olin Stephens pre glass days. So I guess the hull layup wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## mitiempo

seaner97 said:


> Yeah, BOLERO is pretty, but she's slow, a wet ride, and probably has substandard glass work.


Doubt you would find much glass work. Bolero was built in 1949 by Nevins. Over 100,000 bronze screws though.

Classic Boat Special: Bolero | Yachting Magazine


----------



## turboduck

JimPendoley said:


> Through all kinds of weather, that little Vanguard kept my crew safe. The interior is small enough below that finding a bracing spot was easy. The little cabin heater made heating it a snap and we were always warm and dry. The boat is dead simple, good on a reach or run- uncomplicated and actually sails well enough.
> In the end, boats are not investments. For some they are machines to get you from point A to point B. For others, they are vehicles for our passions, our artistic sensibility married to our sense of adventure.
> 
> Faster is not always better.


Yep, thanks for that. Boats like ours just inspire a longing and affection that is just inexplicable... like the love for the sea itself.


----------



## TomMaine

Bleemus said:


> S&S drew some beautiful boats. If you can't afford Bolero you can get an S&S Apache in fair condition for about 7-10k.


This is my favorite S&S CCA era design. FIDELIO is a sistership to FINESSTERRE, the Carleton Mitchell owned centerboard yawl that won 3 Bermuda races back in the 50's. Another woodie(pre glass days like BOLERO) but these boats are time capsules in boat design. FINESSTERRE inspired several similar designs that are still popular today.

These boats aren't built anymore but many of the design elements(like them or not), live on. This S&S design is near perfect to my eye. Plus this boat is terrific sailer and very competitive in classic boat races.


----------



## seaner97

Always thought it odd that a good wooden boat looked totally fair to the point you can't tell it's wood, and then some plastic ones intentionally molded in fake 'lines' along the hull to make it look like it was 'wooden'.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> Always thought it odd that a good wooden boat looked totally fair to the point you can't tell it's wood, and then some plastic ones intentionally molded in fake 'lines' along the hull to make it look like it was 'wooden'.


 I picked up some of my ideas from the wooden boat pros in my harbor, on how to treat my- now 54 year old- fiberglass CCA era yawl.

Gel coat is a faint memory on boats of this age(many owners are in denial,...). For some old boats, that will mark a cross road in it's future(or lack of). A professional glass topsides paint job with state of the art coatings is a big investment. In some cases(and these casing are growing), more than the value of the boat. Skilled labor $ is headed to the moon(I'm in the home design/build field and witness the rise daily).

The wooden boats nearby that I've been studying for a couple of decades, have a different way of treating topsides. Even modestly maintained wooden boats get a brush applied coat of paint fairly regularly. That's because a 'coat of paint' is easy and cheap both in cost and time.

The carte blanche woodies I photograph get a more involved 'coat of paint'. There's an ongoing fairing program that simply seals topsides seams and new dings. That takes a bit of time, but it's nothing in $ compared to the typical 'awlgrip' investment of a glass boat that's gelcoat has seen it's last wax job. In fact, I've watched the pros brush(not even roll and tip) apply a finish coat to a 40'er in about 5-6 hours, with a resulting quality, that is simply unbelievable!

So I've picked up the wooden boat topsides treatment for my old glass hull. No, I don't get anywhere near the quality of these wooden boats. But my process of staging, light sanding with an orbital sander, taping-a roll and tip coat of single part enamel, is a relatively easy 2 day system. The actual coating takes about 4 hours(I actually enjoy it painting with a brush) and 2 quarts of paint.

I get 3 years out of the coating. I could improve the result and duration with better prep, better skill and a two part paint. But I will never forget the nightmare of removing the failing awlgrip from my hull 15 years ago(never! but that's a different post altogether).

So while I don't think there is much needed for these old hulls in structure, even 50 years on, I do think 'cosmetics' will send some hulls to the landfill that might be saved by this 'wooden boat' process of painting.


----------



## SV Siren

TomMaine said:


> Even if you win the lottery, you can spend some serious money on CCA rule boats. Sparkman Stevens BOLERO has those lines you mention. Nice sheer, low-super wide decks, small, low cabin house, lovely overhangs, clean lines. A classic boat.
> 
> Sure BOLERO is huge but I think the scale of this boat would work at half this length.


I have to say that I have appreciated reading this thread. I am just beginning a refit of my old CCA rule beater. I have found her to be overbuilt like no other I have seen..... For a 47 year old good old boat she still has fantastic bones, and her structural integrity is surprising. She is a fast boat, for her age, and will do 12 knots, but will average 9.5-10 over longer periods of time.

I purchased her for many reasons, but the biggest factors were the build quality, aesthetics, and the space below was what I desired. Sure, I could have gone with a smaller boat with more interior space, but that was not the point for me. I love older designs...the row away factor for me was huge. From the comments I have received just in the last week, many people share my sentiments on her looks.

That said, vive la difference...everyone has their own favorites, and reasons for liking their boats, but for me I will stick with what I have..naysayers aside.


----------



## TomMaine

Landcruiser said:


> I purchased her for many reasons, but the biggest factors were the build quality, aesthetics, and the space below was what I desired. Sure, I could have gone with a smaller boat with more interior space, but that was not the point for me. I love older designs...the row away factor for me was huge.


That is a beautiful boat(Columbia 50?) It certainly is related to BOLERO in design.

I'm with you on the smaller spaces that are part of these older designs. You give up space you could gain with many newer boats (and that's great if space is what you prioritize) but I prefer the dedicated spaces below on many of these old boats. My old boat would be a poor choice for a live aboard boat. I love the difference between a boat and a place I would call home.

Just my personal preference.


----------



## SloopJonB

Landcruiser said:


> I will stick with what I have..naysayers aside.


That must have been a *really* hard decision for you. :wink

The Col 50 has been one of my faves ever since I got interested in sailboats.

I could probably get by with a Constellation if there were more than 6 or 7 of them built.


----------



## SV Siren

I do have to say, like most CCA inspired designs, it is the smallest 50'er I have come across when it comes to interior space. It is a simple boat, but everything can be accessed pretty easily, unlike many others, like the Bristol 40, Columbia 40, or Hinckley Bermuda 40, and a host of other boats. 

Worth a refit? That can be very subjective, and brand/model specific, but it's a boat, you rarely ever make money on one. I did have a hard time deciding, I actually walked away the first time, someone else bought it, and they sold it to me six months later(we just got it... and they went broke). I'll let you know if it was worth it. Today, while on the hard, we removed 50+ doors and drawers in a snowstorm for refinishing during the winter months...and right now it's literally 5'oclock, so time for a beverage...


----------



## TomMaine

Landcruiser said:


> Today, while on the hard, we removed 50+ doors and drawers in a snowstorm for refinishing during the winter months...and right now it's literally 5'oclock, so time for a beverage...


I hope you keep us posted with your refit on this thread, Landcruiser. Like many, my boat is on jack stands over the winter. I always have a few winter projects.

I go to great lengths figuring out how those projects can be removed and performed in a warm shop(like your 50 door and drawer project).


----------



## seaner97

Likewise. I measured, cut and fit most of the cabin sole so that it was a faster install. Still ended up with a table and chop saw next to the boat in the spring for a day, but must of it was pre cut and only needed minor trimming to fit.


----------



## SV Siren

TomMaine said:


> I hope you keep us posted with your refit on this thread, Landcruiser. Like many, my boat is on jack stands over the winter. I always have a few winter projects.
> 
> I go to great lengths figuring out how those projects can be removed and performed in a warm shop(like your 50 door and drawer project).


Tom, We just purchased her, so there is everything to do, and I went for the low hanging fruit. The interior is just a mess, as is everything else. I will be pulling off the dorades, wood cockpit locker hatches, and deck hatches as well, and either refinishing, or remaking new ones, as the PO put deck stain on all the exterior brightwork..argh. Once done, new cowl vents as well to replace the cheap old plastic ones. I am lucky to have the shop to work in, I just wish the boat would fit! LOL. I guess in time (years), anything and everything that can be removed and restored over the winter will be.

I might start a new thread for my project if anyone is interested, but will be starting a blog for sure just to chronicle, for my sake at least, the project. Later I will publish into a book, for me to have as a hard copy, something like shutterfly can do.

You have to really love your boat to do something like this. I know a few people who see their boat as a tool and treat it as such, personally I just can't let things be that way. Whether you have an old boat, or a new one, they are works of art, love, and labor, that move, and should be treated as such.

The work is not all indoor fun..sometimes you have to make lemons out of lemonaid 
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1270258286333062&set=a.778071342218428.1073741825.100000467088014&type=3&theater


----------



## Jeff_H

Landcruiser said:


> Tom, We just purchased her, so there is everything to do, and I went for the low hanging fruit. The interior is just a mess, as is everything else. I will be pulling off the dorades, wood cockpit locker hatches, and deck hatches as well, and either refinishing, or remaking new ones, as the PO put deck stain on all the exterior brightwork..argh. Once done, new cowl vents as well to replace the cheap old plastic ones. I am lucky to have the shop to work in, I just wish the boat would fit! LOL. I guess in time (years), anything and everything that can be removed and restored over the winter will be.
> 
> I might start a new thread for my project if anyone is interested, but will be starting a blog for sure just to chronicle, for my sake at least, the project. Later I will publish into a book, for me to have as a hard copy, something like shutterfly can do.
> 
> You have to really love your boat to do something like this. I know a few people who see their boat as a tool and treat it as such, personally I just can't let things be that way. Whether you have an old boat, or a new one, they are works of art, love, and labor, that move, and should be treated as such.
> 
> The work is not all indoor fun..sometimes you have to make lemons out of lemonaid
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1270258286333062&set=a.778071342218428.1073741825.100000467088014&type=3&theater


I personally would like to encourage you to post as much of your restoration process in your own separate thread as you feel comfortable doing. These threads are useful in kicking around general concepts, but nothing tells a story more than watching the step by step realities that we have been discussing in broad generalities.

I would also comment that your choice of boats to restore is a good illustration of the points that I have tried to make in my comments. While Columbia was not one of the better builders of this era, several of their models were very advanced designs constructed using better building techniques than many of their other models. The Columbia 50 is a good example of this. The 50 was seen as being marketed to a more upscale market than the smaller Columbias. They were an extremely advanced design for their day with more form stability, straighter lines through their run, slightly larger proportion of waterline to deck length, and employed more expensive to build details such as a more robust hull to deck joint than the smaller boats. They sail exceptionally well for a boat of this period.

In my mind, this makes them a better candidate for restoration than something like the Coronado 45 which while actually roomier than the Columbia 50, were no where near as nice a design, nor as well constructed and therefore a poorer choice than the 50 in my mind.

I wish you the best of luck with bringing back this fine design.

Jeff


----------



## XSrcing

Just stopped by to say that the hull shape on Bolero is sexy as ****.


----------



## TomMaine

XSrcing said:


> Just stopped by to say that the hull shape on Bolero is sexy as ****.


Here's a couple more then. I live just up the hill from Rockport Marine and have seen the most beautiful boats in the world launched in the, near two, decades.

While taking photos, I've come to notice how people react to seeing these beautiful boats. Boats are everywhere in a harbor like this, but a few stick out. BOLERO was one of those. I never saw a single person walking by that didn't lock their eyes on the shape of this lovely hull -change their direction - and walk toward her, as if they were hypnotized.

On (re)launch day, she drew a big crowd.










When they lowered the slings, BOLERO settled into the water, perfectly.


----------



## TomMaine

As long as we're in this era and S&S design, here's another favorite of mine. Their Nevins 40 yawls.

The decks of these boats are only a few inches higher than the floating docks.


----------



## SloopJonB

TomMaine said:


> Here's a couple more then. I live just up the hill from Rockport Marine and have seen the most beautiful boats in the world launched in the, near two, decades.
> 
> While taking photos, I've come to notice how people react to seeing these beautiful boats. Boats are everywhere in a harbor like this, but a few stick out. BOLERO was one of those. I never saw a single person walking by that didn't lock their eyes on the shape of this lovely hull -change their direction - and walk toward her, as if they were hypnotized.
> 
> On (re)launch day, she drew a big crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When they lowered the slings, BOLERO settled into the water, perfectly.


Funny how a beautiful, perfectly kept, multi million $ boat will do that


----------



## seaner97

SloopJonB said:


> Funny how a beautiful, perfectly kept, multi million $ boat will do that


I'd point out that there are other multimillion dollar boats around that are well kept, but in a more modern euro design aesthetic. They don't collect a crowd like BOLERO.


----------



## SloopJonB

Here's a descendant of Bolero that I think is every bit as beautiful - just look at that line from the stem into the forefoot and then keel.


----------



## turboduck

Landcruiser said:


> Tom, We just purchased her, so there is everything to do, and I went for the low hanging fruit. The interior is just a mess, as is everything else. I will be pulling off the dorades, wood cockpit locker hatches, and deck hatches as well, and either refinishing, or remaking new ones, as the PO put deck stain on all the exterior brightwork..argh. Once done, new cowl vents as well to replace the cheap old plastic ones. I am lucky to have the shop to work in, I just wish the boat would fit! LOL. I guess in time (years), anything and everything that can be removed and restored over the winter will be.
> 
> I might start a new thread for my project if anyone is interested, but will be starting a blog for sure just to chronicle, for my sake at least, the project. Later I will publish into a book, for me to have as a hard copy, something like shutterfly can do.
> 
> You have to really love your boat to do something like this. I know a few people who see their boat as a tool and treat it as such, personally I just can't let things be that way. Whether you have an old boat, or a new one, they are works of art, love, and labor, that move, and should be treated as such.
> 
> The work is not all indoor fun..sometimes you have to make lemons out of lemonaid
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1270258286333062&set=a.778071342218428.1073741825.100000467088014&type=3&theater


I mentioned these in an earlier post. Pretty impressive record of a job well-done. These 3 links come from the bluewaterboats.org posting of the Rhodes 41. If you haven't seen them already, they show a complete refit of a Rhodes 41. They might help give you some ideas and inspiration. That Columbia 50 is a beauty and is a boat worth restoring too!

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741890.100001444621152&type=1&l=54dcd7dc0b

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741922.100001444621152&type=1&l=bf016aab90

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741971.100001444621152&type=1&l=c007ac6e98


----------



## TomMaine

turboduck said:


> I mentioned these in an earlier post. Pretty impressive record of a job well-done. These 3 links come from the bluewaterboats.org posting of the Rhodes 41. If you haven't seen them already, they show a complete refit of a Rhodes 41. They might help give you some ideas and inspiration. That Columbia 50 is a beauty and is a boat worth restoring too!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741890.100001444621152&type=1&l=54dcd7dc0b
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741922.100001444621152&type=1&l=bf016aab90
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/...073741971.100001444621152&type=1&l=c007ac6e98


Those photos are impressive! What a massive project. And unless I missed something, I don't think it involved any major structural repairs to the hull. In my experience, that's what you can expect from a reasonably well built 50 year old fiberglass hull.

In contrast, the wooden boats of this vintage often have had-or now need-structural rebuilding.

But when all is said and done, the rebuild you posted is a major project both in time(massive)and $ investment. And the results as we see in these photos, are well worth it.


----------



## seaner97

Land- post here or start your own. All good from my standpoint. I'd find it interesting as you go what upgrades/structural things you fix, and that would play in well with the original discussion. I'm sure you'll put more into the boat than you can then sell her for, but I, personally, think that is a specious argument, as any money you put into any boat is probably going to have negative returns. I bet even BOLERO would have trouble getting 60% out of what her refit cost, nevermind the acquisition price. And we've already established the depreciation curve for the new boats, so you're not getting your money out of them either. So the point is more, how long can they last, and how long will you sail them without wanting to 'move up', not what are they worth when you're done.
Read several articles/links Jeff sent with his outline. One very interesting one was a paper looking at GRP strength/lifespan from the early 80s when they were looking into using it for wind turbine blades. They cut open a hull of a patrol boat from the 60s that was 20 + years old at that point, had just been retired from constant coast guard use and it had lost less than 20% strength. Based on that, and the fact that those boats take way more beating than most sailboats, I'd posit that most sailing boats that are GRP from the early to mid 60s are in early midlife of their possible service. Kinda like me.


----------



## albrazzi

TomMaine said:


> Those photos are impressive! What a massive project. And unless I missed something, I don't think it involved any major structural repairs to the hull. In my experience, that's what you can expect from a reasonably well built 50 year old fiberglass hull.
> 
> In contrast, the wooden boats of this vintage often have had-or now need-structural rebuilding.
> 
> But when all is said and done, the rebuild you posted is a major project both in time(massive)and $ investment. And the results as we see in these photos, are well worth it.


These are truly beautiful examples. I just realized why I hate(d) gloss finishes, its because if its not done like this why bother. Better off with something that doesn't show the imperfections of old refinished stuff or just the glopping on of shiny varnish.


----------



## miatapaul

TomMaine said:


> I picked up some of my ideas from the wooden boat pros in my harbor, on how to treat my- now 54 year old- fiberglass CCA era yawl.
> 
> Gel coat is a faint memory on boats of this age(many owners are in denial,...). For some old boats, that will mark a cross road in it's future(or lack of). A professional glass topsides paint job with state of the art coatings is a big investment. In some cases(and these casing are growing), more than the value of the boat. Skilled labor $ is headed to the moon(I'm in the home design/build field and witness the rise daily).
> 
> The wooden boats nearby that I've been studying for a couple of decades, have a different way of treating topsides. Even modestly maintained wooden boats get a brush applied coat of paint fairly regularly. That's because a 'coat of paint' is easy and cheap both in cost and time.
> 
> The carte blanche woodies I photograph get a more involved 'coat of paint'. There's an ongoing fairing program that simply seals topsides seams and new dings. That takes a bit of time, but it's nothing in $ compared to the typical 'awlgrip' investment of a glass boat that's gelcoat has seen it's last wax job. In fact, I've watched the pros brush(not even roll and tip) apply a finish coat to a 40'er in about 5-6 hours, with a resulting quality, that is simply unbelievable!
> 
> So I've picked up the wooden boat topsides treatment for my old glass hull. No, I don't get anywhere near the quality of these wooden boats. But my process of staging, light sanding with an orbital sander, taping-a roll and tip coat of single part enamel, is a relatively easy 2 day system. The actual coating takes about 4 hours(I actually enjoy it painting with a brush) and 2 quarts of paint.
> 
> I get 3 years out of the coating. I could improve the result and duration with better prep, better skill and a two part paint. But I will never forget the nightmare of removing the failing awlgrip from my hull 15 years ago(never! but that's a different post altogether).
> 
> So while I don't think there is much needed for these old hulls in structure, even 50 years on, I do think 'cosmetics' will send some hulls to the landfill that might be saved by this 'wooden boat' process of painting.


Sounds like the process I plan on using this spring. I was watching a Jamestown video and could not help wonder what kind of finish he was going to get on his wooden boat.






What paint do you use?


----------



## turboduck

TomMaine said:


> Those photos are impressive! What a massive project. And unless I missed something, I don't think it involved any major structural repairs to the hull. In my experience, that's what you can expect from a reasonably well built 50 year old fiberglass hull.
> 
> In contrast, the wooden boats of this vintage often have had-or now need-structural rebuilding.
> 
> But when all is said and done, the rebuild you posted is a major project both in time(massive)and $ investment. And the results as we see in these photos, are well worth it.


Somewhere in the links there is a note from the builder commenting on how there was no structural repair needed and he commented on how thick the hull was when he pulled out a through-hull. (You won't find 'em built like that anymore.) The boat has been made like new again. How much would it cost to build one of those new? Your Columbia 50 is of a similar vintage and same practice of many hand laid up layers of fiberglass I believe.


----------



## TomMaine

miatapaul said:


> Sounds like the process I plan on using this spring. I was watching a Jamestown video and could not help wonder what kind of finish he was going to get on his wooden boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What paint do you use?


Great video, I just skimmed it but will watch it when I have more time. I've watched pros like this work and learned a lot more than I could trial and error. He will get an unbelievable finish from just brushing, he has the knack. With the major fairing job over, a seasonal or bi-seasonal top coat is an easy job(for him).

I've been using Petit Easypoxy. It works pretty well but I'd use another one part oil enamel, like Brightside, if it was on the shelf. I can't get the same result as the wooden boat with the ladder photo I posted but the finish I get makes me happy. Truth is, my old glass hull is not that fair and would need lots more work for a perfect surface. For that reason, I've mixed a quart of high gloss with a quart of semi gloss. That is a bit more forgiving and glossy enough for my eye.

Our boat takes a beating with kids and dinghys, raft ups, etc. Not expecting more than a few years out of each coating, I'm not that worried about the abuse.


----------



## JimPendoley

I've used the Interlux Perfection product and its absolutely fantastic. Stunning results on my 50 year old Vanguard. Very hard to tell it was not sprayed. The prep the first year was a bear, but the results were awesome-and that was Flag blue over a previously white hull with a grey primekote. That was six or seven years ago. I have painted it once since with similar results and the prep is easy after all of the first year prep. In my experience (and with my docking skills) the paint holds up very well. In fact, if not for the occasional scrape, I would not need to repaint. The paint is very durable. It's fussy to thin, but done once it's easy. I actually look forward to repainting-its that easy


----------



## turboduck

JimPendoley said:


> I've used the Interlux Perfection product and its absolutely fantastic. Stunning results on my 50 year old Vanguard. Very hard to tell it was not sprayed. The prep the first year was a bear, but the results were awesome-and that was Flag blue over a previously white hull with a grey primekote. That was six or seven years ago. I have painted it once since with similar results and the prep is easy after all of the first year prep. In my experience (and with my docking skills) the paint holds up very well. In fact, if not for the occasional scrape, I would not need to repaint. The paint is very durable. It's fussy to thin, but done once it's easy. I actually look forward to repainting-its that easy


Any photos of her? I have been thinking of taking my white Columbia to dark blue also. I know the prep will be the hard part. Mine already has a coat of some kind of less than durable enamel. What did you use to fair and fill the hull?


----------



## SloopJonB

The best filler I've ever used was a tip given to me by an old German plasterer who owned the local boatyard.

Epoxy thickened with talc - dirt cheap - I bought a cement sack of talc for $20. You can mix it to the consistency you want, it sands beautifully and doesn't even suffer from pinholes unless you over-thicken it.

It even leaves your hands feeling nice.


----------



## seaner97

Wasn't planning on painting the hull this year. You're making me think about it.


----------



## SV Siren

SloopJonB said:


> The best filler I've ever used was a tip given to me by an old German plasterer who owned the local boatyard.
> 
> Epoxy thickened with talc - dirt cheap - I bought a cement sack of talc for $20. You can mix it to the consistency you want, it sands beautifully and doesn't even suffer from pinholes unless you over-thicken it.
> 
> It even leaves your hands feeling nice.


I have heard about using talc, a couple people have used it and highly recommended it, as opposed to the alternatives.

All this talk about painting led me to a pic of a sister boat to mine, that was painted black, and looks gorgeous, and being a northern clime I don't have to worry about the interior getting too hot due to hull color....and I need to repaint everything inside and out anyways.

I will start a new post if anyone is interested in what will be a long term restoration of my C-50...with some as bought pictures to tease ya'll with. :devil


----------



## Faster

Black and Flag Blue IMO are the most attractive colours esp for these kinds of boats with the overhangs and sheerlines. Offset by strongly contrasting cove and boot stripes they are simply stunning (Gold or Red, I think, for the stripes) A deep rich varnish on the wood trim finishes the picture.

There is one downside, however, if on the briny. We have a friend with a very nice Sceptre 43 in deep blue.. he spends a lot of time wiping/washing the salt off after a day on the water. Granted he's a bit anal, but the dried salt does stand out on a dark hull. On the plus side you tend to get rid of it.. on a white hull it's hard to notice.

Our last boat was in Whisper Grey with black striping.. kind of neat because at a distance it looked more or less white, but alongside the other 'bleach bottles' it stood out.


----------



## mstern

The Admiral also admires the flag blue boats. I have warned her that even here in CT, it gets hot enough to make a dark-hulled boat uncomfortable. And any imperfections in the hull surface really show up under a dark paint. While I agree that few things look better than a CCA-style hull in flag blue, it just ain't gonna happen for me: too much prep work, and too hot!


----------



## TomMaine

Faster said:


> Our last boat was in Whisper Grey with black striping.. kind of neat because at a distance it looked more or less white, but alongside the other 'bleach bottles' it stood out.


A little darker, but this is a nice grey. Brushed on one part enamel.


----------



## JimPendoley

No photos currently. There is a Vanguard website where about 400 owners catalog there various restoration efforts. I would caution that painting it blue does make the interior insufferably hot. Even in New England. I insulated my interior as I was living aboard, but I'd not consider painting an uninsulated boat black or blue. Think 100 degrees in the cabin if not insulated.


----------



## SloopJonB

Landcruiser said:


> I will start a new post if anyone is interested in what will be a long term restoration of my C-50...with some as bought pictures to tease ya'll with. :devil


Absolutely.


----------



## TomMaine

This is my simple set up for painting the topsides. This is one coat of white Easy Poxy:I've just applied red boot top and cove. This year, I went with straight semi-gloss. I'll probably go back to a 50/50 mix of semi and gloss.

Taping off is a large part of the job. Believe it or not, the actual sanding with 220 in a 6" RO sander and the painting, doesn't take that long.

I thin the paint and with a foam roller and a good brush, I'll roll and tip down one side, re-set the staging, and roll and tip the other in about 3 hours of pleasant(if I thinned correctly and the weather cooperates).

Usually, about 3' of area is what gets rolled-tipped, then move down the staging. The trick or knack is in the thinning, the timing and the airs effect on the paint.

Looking at this, I can see why the wooden boat style often includes no boot top and sometimes the cove stripe(if there is one) gets painted the same as the body. The reason; much less work to be done.










One important thing I've learned. I don't get too hung up on perfection in the boatyard. I still get a run-sag or two. And working outside, a few bugs will land in the paint, some bozo will drive by at 30 mph, etc.

Don't drive yourself crazy(unless you're a perfectionist). Once the boat is launched, there is no angle to see the same detail in the finish. The light, reflected off the water, hides most everything. And there's always next time, to do a better job.


----------



## miatapaul

TomMaine said:


> This is my simple set up for painting the topsides. This is one coat of white Easy Poxy:I've just applied red boot top and cove. This year, I went with straight semi-gloss. I'll probably go back to a 50/50 mix of semi and gloss.
> 
> Taping off is a large part of the job. Believe it or not, the actual sanding with 220 in a 6" RO sander and the painting, doesn't take that long.
> 
> I thin the paint and with a foam roller and a good brush, I'll roll and tip down one side, re-set the staging, and roll and tip the other in about 3 hours of pleasant(if I thinned correctly and the weather cooperates).
> 
> Usually, about 3' of area is what gets rolled-tipped, then move down the staging. The trick or knack is in the thinning, the timing and the airs effect on the paint.
> 
> Looking at this, I can see why the wooden boat style often includes no boot top and sometimes the cove stripe(if there is one) gets painted the same as the body. The reason; much less work to be done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One important thing I've learned. I don't get too hung up on perfection in the boatyard. I still get a run-sag or two. And working outside, a few bugs will land in the paint, some bozo will drive by at 30 mph, etc.
> 
> Don't drive yourself crazy(unless you're a perfectionist). Once the boat is launched, there is no angle to see the same detail in the finish. The light, reflected off the water, hides most everything. And there's always next time, to do a better job.


While the paint may not be perfect, the shape and look sure is! You are getting me excited about spring work, as I was really dreading the painting, as most magazines make it sound like a real chore. I think the deck is likely harder as it is not flat with lots of bends and curves. I am thinking I will use a lot of Kiwi grip on the deck, as it will hide a lot of imperfections.

Anyone have any experience with Total Boat wet edge. Not sure who makes it for them, as I doubt the make it themselves. Jamestown seems to have good support if I run into any issues. Pearl grey looks nice in the Pettit.


----------



## Faster

"Far from perfect, but perfect from afar".... the DIYer's mantra


----------



## seaner97

Faster said:


> "Far from perfect, but perfect from afar".... the DIYer's mantra


I recall that being a buddy's Saturday night criteria in college....


----------



## JimPendoley

We need a moratorium on spring commissioning references, I'm going to want to paint and relaunch in December! I will add to Tom's description of painting though. Early morning is best just after the dew has evaporated off the hull, but before it heats up in the sun. Have an old piece plate glass or a mirror to roll and tip as a test to see what ratio of thinner gives the best flow. Properly thinned, the two part urethanes will flow almost like baby oil and tipping it will allow it to flatten any roller marks. I rolled a three foot section then tipped as I moved down the staging. Also, you want staging down one whole side because you don't want to start moving your platform halfway through the process-the solvent will flash or the hull will warm in the sun and then you have a mess on your hands. Roll on horizontally and tipped vertically. I use a foam brush and get great results. It's not uncommon to need to adjust the mix as the paint pail gets less full. The solvent flashes off so that the remaining paint drags a bit, in which case its time to thin a little more.

The painting takes me twenty minutes a side on my 32 foot not worth restoring Vanguard. The initial prep for the base primer took....many days. My gel coat was crazed and required sealing with epoxy before priming. That and the 50 years of accumulated nicks and dings took a long time to repair, but once done subsequent finish work is a snap.
Jim


----------



## miatapaul

In one of Jamestown's videos they suggest having the yard putting the boat in North-South orientation, that way in the morning one side is in the shade, then later that afternoon the other side is.


----------



## TomMaine

miatapaul said:


> In one of Jamestown's videos they suggest having the yard putting the boat in North-South orientation, that way in the morning one side is in the shade, then later that afternoon the other side is.


Would help. My boat more of less faces Southwest. The hill to the east blocks the sun until about 11 am. I can paint the southeast side before the sun hits, then move staging to the west side. It will be mid afternoon before the sun hits that side.

You can't paint in the sun and if it catches you, you're screwed! A breezy dry day is tough too even if overcast.


----------



## seaner97

Polished out my hull in preparation for splash today and noticed that the line where the wrap ended had way more scuffing than prior years. Yard noted this on several boats as well. They think the plastic was either stiffer or formula changed from prior years. May have to try this technique next year. But I am getting closer to saloon table being done. Head cabinet redo next offseason and then we are into the small nice to do list.


----------



## seaner97

The next upgrade. Certainly worth it to me.


----------



## seaner97

And she's in for the season. Upgrades included new chainplates, standing rigging, rewire of mast, head replumb with new toilet, new holding tank alarm and tank reseal, some wiring rework. Bought a new vhf that I still need to install and the new bilge pump came today as the starboard one died this winter. Got new garhauer adjustable Genoa cars, but haven't installed yet. Put on some new fairleads for the furler, too.
Not as impressive as Tom, but we can't all be that ambitious.


----------



## seaner97

As she's the only sailboat in the harbor I also think she certainly wins for best row away value, at least right now. Probably not when she was on the floats next to the two Hinkleys, though.


----------



## seaner97

Getting there. In the meantime, three generations on our good old boat.


----------



## seaner97

Same sail


----------



## seaner97

And progress on the project. 3 coats Le Tonk Original.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> And progress on the project. 3 coats Le Tonk Original.


Nice work! Is this a cabin table?


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And progress on the project. 3 coats Le Tonk Original.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice work! Is this a cabin table?
Click to expand...

It is. Used the old Formica as a template, and has a fold out leaf that will be supported by two locking spring hinges from Rockler. Rhodesian teak and maple for the woods. I replaced the cabin sole with Brazilian teak and Maple three years ago. Reinforced the stringers at that time as well.


----------



## nhsail

> here are 63 Hinkley Burmuda 40s out there for 145K. They still have 50 year old systems that either have or need to be replaced. Jeff had a second hand experience with one that the tabbing had come loose when it was NEW, so it can't be that that was all that much better. The decks don't have as many issues is the only thing that I think has been reliably documented as being better than a Tartan/Pearson/Bristol/Albin/etc (although that may just be that there are fewer of them, and who is going to admit that their Hinkley had to have it's deck recored?). Does that make it 4-5x the boat? Does it even make it 'superior'? Or does it just make it a boat that resales higher (and is more expensive when YOU buy it as well)?


Well my B-40 is a 1962 and we paid a bit less back in 2000, so maybe this will not be applicable:

I can tell you that my deck is not cored, it has half round tubes glassed in for reinforcement in the foredeck and side walks, and the cabin top is pretty solid layup. You can bounce on the foredeck you thud on the cabin.

All fittings are tapped into the glass, and then backed with washers & nuts .

The deck/hull joint is legendary, 6" flange on hull, and all the bulkheads and joinery are in place before the deck is fitted, epoxy and through bolts, with chain plates extending through to bulkheads. The centerboard has been bent once, and the lifting tackle replaced once when the 50 yr old bronze strap corroded through.

When we installed the interphase scanning sonar they had to counter bore from inside as the layup was thicker than the 4" sonar threaded stem.

The systems were state of art in '62 and have now been obsoleted/replaced multiple times. The custom tapered mast has massive sheaves and external halyards, it gets laughed at by the racers, then again their sticks don't have 50 yrs of service and we had carbon booms from Spruce trees back then, and replaced the main with Alum in 2002. Mizzen still spruce.

The interior joinery is partially converted to Herreshoff finish where the nicks and scars made the varnish too beat up, but the teak and holly sole is going strong.

Tanks for freshwater, shower sump, and reserve fresh water are stainless. Fitted a holding tank this year and gave up the lockers under port V-berth. (all 6 berths have lee boards, there are 4 hanging lockers and the freezer/refrigerator were air and water cooled, not to mention the diesel heater being forced air, the stereo was am/fm/cassette)

She's been repowered 2x, most recently in 1991, and at a few hundred hours a year the westerbeke W46 is going for a long time. Next go-round will possibly be electric with a small genset and LiPolymer batteries, but waiting for that to settle down. 
The fuel tank is Monel, and placed under the engine.

We just did a re-spin of the electronics after 15 yrs and have replaced the old filament 12V lights with LEDs.

She was peeled and barrier coated from waterline down in 2000 and has been awlgripped multiple times on topsides and deck.

remaining significant work: Peel/grind deck and cabin to glass, fair and paint. 
Re-wire, removing 50 yrs of accumulated dead ends and upgrade power panel to reflect modern use. 
Replace 6V golf cart batteries with LiPolymer 
Re-power with Electric drive and prop set for generation.


----------



## mrock

Has anybody done any work on a 1961 Palmer Johnson Challenger 38' Yawl named Whisper out of Quissett Harbor? My husband's family had it built in 1961 and he grew up sailing on it. Its original name was Kuwi. For fun we are trying to track it down.


----------



## TomMaine

mrock said:


> Has anybody done any work on a 1961 Palmer Johnson Challenger 38' Yawl named Whisper out of Quissett Harbor? My husband's family had it built in 1961 and he grew up sailing on it. Its original name was Kuwi. For fun we are trying to track it down.


The last owner was Rick O'Connell and sadly, here's his obituary. He has many posts on the owners website for the Alden boats like the Challengers. He loved WHISPER. I'd be interested in any info may give me about your husbands family having it built. Thanks!

949 - a forum for Alden yachts ? View topic - Rick O'Connell's obit


----------



## seaner97

Very cool. Wish I could find some info on POs on my Pearson. 
Off season list for this year is shorter- install saloon table, new dodger and main cover, soda blast and barrier coat for her bottom and a new steering cable. Maybe some new cushions if the budget holds.


----------



## longjonsilver

auction of boats in Toronto. A Hughes 38 (with incorrect specs heh heh) named SV Sturm Vogel to be auctioned off. Probably will go for the minimum $25. Who can rescue it?
jon


----------



## roverhi

longjonsilver said:


> auction of boats in Toronto. A Hughes 38 (with incorrect specs heh heh) named SV Sturm Vogel to be auctioned off. Probably will go for the minimum $25. Who can rescue it?
> jon


I can't rescue it but someone might if you posted where to find out about the boat


----------



## longjonsilver

https://www.bidspotter.com/en-us/auction-catalogues/timed/bscdslin/catalogue-id-danbur10019

Lot # 37

teak decks, mast up, a4 engine, dark green, frame for winter cover, interior in reasonable shape

jon

edit: 475 Unwin Avenue
Toronto
ON
M4M 3M2
Canada


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> Off season list for this year is shorter- install saloon table, new dodger and main cover, soda blast and barrier coat for her bottom and a new steering cable. Maybe some new cushions if the budget holds.


My off season list is shorter this year, too. The cockpit I built the winter before has been given a good test for a season. I'm very pleased with the results. It's going gray.

One project I'll do this off season is move the mainsheet. I've researched the move, inspected a ton of old boats - mostly CCA era - and even did a few mock-ups to try different arrangement. I've settled that there is no perfect mainsheet arrangement.

The one I have now (as designed 61') works. But I'm tired of several problems with it. A lot has to do with how one sails.










This is basically what I'll do. But my boat budget won't allow a control line traveler or a self tailing winch(maybe later). I'll re-use the cabin top 2 speed winch - keep the old traveler - and cleat the mainsheet.


----------



## seaner97

TomMaine said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Off season list for this year is shorter- install saloon table, new dodger and main cover, soda blast and barrier coat for her bottom and a new steering cable. Maybe some new cushions if the budget holds.
> 
> 
> 
> My off season list is shorter this year, too. The cockpit I built the winter before has been given a good test for a season. I'm very pleased with the results. It's going gray.
> 
> One project I'll do this off season is move the mainsheet. I've researched the move, inspected a ton of old boats - mostly CCA era - and even did a few mock-ups to try different arrangement. I've settled that there is no perfect mainsheet arrangement.
> 
> The one I have now (as designed 61') works. But I'm tired of several problems with it. A lot has to do with how one sails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is basically what I'll do. But my boat budget won't allow a control line traveler or a self tailing winch(maybe later). I'll re-use the cabin top 2 speed winch - keep the old traveler - and cleat the mainsheet.
Click to expand...

Whole bunch of Barlow winches on eBay that Hutton will convert to self tailing and fully refurb for 1/4 price of new.


----------



## seaner97

Well- Soda Blast and barrier coat turned into a bigger grind and fair job than anticipated as some PO yahoo had just rolled resin on instead of the barrier coat that we thought was there. But at least it's getting done right. Some of the other 'upgrades' are going to get put off as this ate into the budget for them.


----------



## seaner97

Well- she's back in the water. Shots of the salon table and interior. Definitely not done, but getting closer to it.


----------



## SloopJonB

Looking good.


----------



## seaner97

Thanks. As it went through the process of stripping the fiberglass down because of the prior poor bottom job, I was impressed with the lack of major osmotic damage. There were some minor blisters and cracks, but all were easily ground out and filled and faired. The bottom and hull were otherwise quite solid. My personal experience is that these old boats seem to be able to take a bit of a licking and neglect and are still quite solid.


----------



## albrazzi

seaner97 said:


> Well- she's back in the water. Shots of the salon table and interior. Definitely not done, but getting closer to it.


Like the floor, the little bit of color mix is quite attractive.


----------



## TomMaine

Nice work!

Except for a new exhaust (which was a success!), this was mostly a 'lipstick' year for my 56 year old classic plastic.

There was a little rotted wood surgery(there's always some of that,..)



















Then there was a lot of painting, which my daughter gave me a hand with:










My son has a good eye, so he lines up the stars on Xmas: Here in 2002-










And just a couple weeks ago, in 2017(note the new exhaust outlet):










The dog always helps. Last winter we built a couple of replacement dorade boxes with Lexan tops (adds dead lights below).










It all came together - patching and painting - as it always does when you have good help.










This is our storage. Working on your boat outside on the coast of Maine, is challenging. Between rainstorms, we got the paint and varnish on.


----------



## Faster

Looking awesome, Tom!

Your crew too!


----------



## Towguy

I must comment....that's a fine looking boat!!....good to see your kids are right into it,helping out,can't put a price on what that is worth to all involved.....Ralph


----------



## Jeff_H

Tom, I want to echo what was said about how wonderful it is that your children are involved. My Dad and I worked on the boats together from the time when I was a pre-teen. We built a friendship, and ease in talking with each other, and a trust that has lasted our entire lifetime. Dad is now 90 and I am in my mid-60s, but I still think our relationship was strengthened by the times we shared when I was a kid. It is a wonderful thing that you are doing and you should be very proud of yourself, your daughter, and your son (and I assume your wife). 

Jeff


----------



## longjonsilver

Great lookin boat, Tom. My wife and i were in Rockport last weekend in April. We had a wonderful time. We loved the area in spite of doing a brake job in the rain. We are going back next year, and hopefully soon in our plastic classic after that!
blessings
jon


----------



## TomMaine

Jeff_H said:


> Tom, I want to echo what was said about how wonderful it is that your children are involved. My Dad and I worked on the boats together from the time when I was a pre-teen. We built a friendship, and ease in talking with each other, and a trust that has lasted our entire lifetime. Dad is now 90 and I am in my mid-60s, but I still think our relationship was strengthened by the times we shared when I was a kid. It is a wonderful thing that you are doing and you should be very proud of yourself, your daughter, and your son (and I assume your wife).
> 
> Jeff


Thanks, Jeff. Boats and sailing are a part of our family. Both our children are very capable thanks to them always having an interest.

My daughter who now lives in Brooklyn and works in Manhattan took the week off to visit. She wanted to help me with boat work, as well. Attaching hand rails and dorade boxes - with me below and she above - was a breeze. We rolled and tipped our 38'er in 2 1/2 hours(prep was significantly more).










Our son, as well as some of his friends, own a few older (60's era) glass boats that are free these days. They have to do everything themselves to save money.

Our family had a hoot building a mast crane so we can step their masts for free from the public landing. Testing the crane in the driveway:










It worked the trick on our sons boat. He helped a friend with a similar old boat, blast out rotted deck core re-set leaking stantions, pulpits. I didn't get involved (all my tools did,...) They even stepped that mast with the crane, alone. When I pointed out his friends outboard was angled 20 degrees out of square to the waterline, he quickly built a stout new mount of wood - adding angle with a cleat - and bolted it through the old mount, in a couple hours. I was impressed(and told him so).










Whenever I read a typical millennial rant; kids glued to their devices, I think to myself, it's true. But they're doing everything we did, and texting a friend at the same time.


----------



## TomMaine

*Rhodes Reliant.*

Speaking of 60's era boats, Philip Rhodes - who's career spanned over 50 years - was one of the pioneers in the wood to fiberglass boat design, revolution.

His 41' Rhodes Reliant - designed much as a wooden boat - took advantage of the 'new space age material' fiberglass, for the Reliant's hull. The idea then; the beauty of wood, the lower maintenance of glass.










But the Reliant was different. A center cockpit? Two dodgers? What's going on?

The Reliant is in fact, an aft cockpit boat.










But below, it has an aft cabin with two snug quarter berths. Those berths can be separated from the saloon. The off watch enjoys the quiet while the active watch can move to the saloon for meals, breaks. What a great idea for a sailboat designed to sail(not a good live-aboard design).










He made that possible with a forward companionway. Rhodes drew a nice visual trick, hiding the companionway in the coamings and lines. It's also pretty well protected. But you always have the main companionway if conditions warrant.


----------



## Faster

TomMaine said:


> Thanks, Jeff. Boats and sailing are a part of our family. Both our children are very capable thanks to them always having an interest.
> 
> ........


It's extremely gratifying, isn't it, when your offspring grab onto and carry on with a passion of your own.

So many kids drift away, and most are young enough to start that they had 'no choice'.. they went with Mom and Dad. For them to take to sailing & boating and stay with it, as yours (and ours) have, is a wonderful thing.


----------



## seaner97

albrazzi said:


> Like the floor, the little bit of color mix is quite attractive.


Thanks. Brazilian Teak and Maple for the floor, Rhodesian Teak and maple for the table.

Tom- your work always puts me to shame. Darn good looking boat. And family.


----------



## TomMaine

seaner97 said:


> Thanks. Brazilian Teak and Maple for the floor, Rhodesian Teak and maple for the table.
> 
> Tom- your work always puts me to shame. Darn good looking boat. And family.


I don't think so, your boat looks great. I love the design.


----------



## SV Siren

I have just about finished sanding the decks, with the exception of around the cockpit and lazarette. Right now I am stripping the last of all the deck hardware in preparation of filling and fairing.








[/URL]Untitled by Scott Ehrich, on Flickr[/IMG]

Yesterday, I spent a good chunk of the afternoon stripping off the old rotted coamings, seating, and the original traveler. I was hoping to be able to use the original wood as a template, but soo much of it is gone to use it as I had hoped. There are 49 years of PO holes, and such that need filling...I love a good project.

[URL=https://flic.kr/p/VGxZEi]Untitled by Scott Ehrich, on Flickr[/URL]

And after.








[/URL]Untitled by Scott Ehrich, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## seaner97

Wow. Brave man, but she'll be awesome when she's done.


----------



## Michael Bailey

Jeff_H said:


> THE PROBLEM WITH CCA ERA BOATS:
> 
> I already know that this is an absurdly long post. It is strung together from articles, and posts that I had written for other purposes, but if someone is really interested in this topic, here is a detailed discussion on many of the issues associated with CCA era boats.
> 
> If you spend enough time on the sailing websites, sooner or later you will encounter someone who asks about inexpensive boats to go offshore voyaging, and universally, there will be some responder who will recommend the usual list of 1960's era, CCA rule- beater type forms; touting them as serious offshore cruisers. Anyone who has read any of my posts on this topic knows that I strongly disagree with the CCA typeform for serious cruising. Having grown up sailing these boats and having continued to sail on them for well over 50 years, I have a very difficult time understanding why people think that these old CCA era boats are particularly suitable for the rigors of offshore voyaging. So, given the chasm between the court of common wisdom and my own views, I thought that it might be helpful to discuss the basis of this disagreement on the suitability of CCA era boats for serious cruising.
> 
> A BRIEF HISTORY LESSON,
> I think it might be helpful to the discussion to start with a little history, and perhaps a description of the characteristics of the CCA typeform. Similar to today, the period leading up to the development of the CCA rule was a time when boats had become very specialized. It was a time that was marked by dedicated offshore cruising designs, dedicated inshore racing designs and dedicated offshore racing boats. The racer-cruiser or cruiser-racer, as we have come to know it, was not yet a popular concept.
> 
> At that point in time, cruising boats were predominantly derived from working water craft. They had short overhangs, (long waterline lengths relative to their lengths on deck) and comparatively wide beam, with that beam carried well into the ends of the boat. Depending on their size, before the CCA rule cruising boats generally had low aspect ratio rigs, typically rigged as fractional rigged sloops, multiple headsail sloops (what we would call a cutter rig today), cutters, ketches or schooner rigs.
> 
> They had truly full keels, meaning that the keel would start where the forefoot met the stem met at the point of entry and run back to a fairly vertical rudder post that was at typically at the aft point of immersion. There might be a minimally cut away forefoot, and a steeper pitch rudder post, but the bottom of the keel represented a large percentage of the length on deck of the boat. Some cruising boats did have centerboards but most were simple full keels. They were heavy displacement for their length, but usually not all that heavily ballasted.
> 
> Inshore race boats of that era had evolved into extreme rule-beaters that had limited utility as cruisers or for offshore racing. To understand these boats it's important to understand what the term 'rule beater' refers to. When you talk about measurement type racing rules, (which these early rating rules all were) the rating of the boat was derived from a limited number of measurements. By the very nature of a measurement rule, the way the boat was measured and the way the numbers were applied would mean that relative to the speed or sailing ability that they produced, some factors would be over valued, while other factors were under valued. In these early rules, waterline length, beam and displacement were seen as being perhaps too important to speed, and sail area and ballast ratios not important enough.
> 
> Designers quickly learned that they could cheat the rule, make the boat seem slower than it was by designing boats with very short waterline lengths relative to their overall length, but since the waterline length was measured with the boat upright, the boat was designed so that the waterline length that would increase with heel angle. Similarly the typical race boat of that era also had a narrow beam, and a huge sail plan carried in low aspect ratio fractional or multiple-headsail sloop or cutter rig, and very large ballast ratios. These boats were intended to be sailed at very large angles of heel so as to extend their waterline lengths. To increase ballast ratios these boats had light scantlings and so were a bit fragile and short lived.
> 
> It is important to understand how boats shaped by these rule-beating design characteristics compare to boats that were designed with no concern for any rule. There is tendency for traditional boat types to think of small working watercraft design as a kind of Darwinian evolution, survival of the fittest design in effect. And on that basis, traditional boat types sometimes make statements like, 'the sea hasn't changed over the centuries so why should boat design change'. And there is some validity to statements like this, in that many traditional designs evolved to be enormously seaworthy and often easy to handle given the technology of the day.
> 
> But statements like this ignore that working watercraft, like all good tools, have evolved for a specific purpose and to the limits of the technologies available at the time. The implications of the specific purposes and technologies can shape a boat far more than the need for seaworthiness or speed. So it is that some working watercraft had deep dips to their sheers so that they could haul their nets or traps aboard more easily, some had elliptical transoms to prevent trawls from fouling, while others might be designed for speed to be the first to market or to put a pilot aboard, and while still others were designed to be burdensome, since load capacity was far more important than getting there first. And some were evolved for so specialized a purpose that seaworthiness did not matter as much as shoal draft and the ability to sail in the light air of the season (the New Haven Sharpie comes to mind here).
> 
> If we compare offshore cruising designs of the era leading up to the CCA rule, by and large they were based on working watercraft designs that were highly regarded for their seaworthiness and generally types that were not overly burdensome. But when we look at inshore racing boats of that era, they deviated sharply from the wisdom gained over the centuries in terms of seaworthiness and speed for that matter.
> 
> An in an absolute sense, for all their length and complexity, these inshore raceboats just were not all that fast on a boat for boat basis. They were only competitive after the rating rule 'corrected' their finish times for their rating.
> 
> Offshore race boats at the beginning of this era were derived from the faster models of offshore cruisers, and might look like the Alden schooners, which did really well in the early Bermuda races. Or they might look like, Jolie Brice, an early 20th century English pilot cutter. These were boats that thrived in the point to point reaching races that were so popular in that era. At some point, designers like Olin Stephens with 'Dorade' and William Fife with "Hallowe'en" showed that modified forms of inshore racers beefed up with heavier scantlings could be adapted for offshore racing and can make very good showings.
> 
> It is in response to the interest in these beefed up inshore racers that the CCA (Cruising Club of America) on this side of the Atlantic and the RORC on the other side began developing racing rules aimed at racing boats that could be taken offshore. This is very different than trying to create a rule that created an offshore cruiser that can be raced. This rule came into effect at a time when there was a big demand for dual purpose boats, boats which could be raced and which could be cruised. What resulted was a compromise that was not fully optimized for actual performance in term of speed, or cruising ability.
> 
> Under the CCA rule the shape of the hulls and proportions of rigs were generally heavily influenced by trying to beat the rule rather than to produce fast, seaworthy boats. To beat the rule, the typical CCA design had very short waterlines, short masthead rigs with huge genoas, relatively (when compared to earlier traditional craft) smaller mainsails, often yawl rigs, shoal draft, and were very moderately over- weight compared to earlier and later boats. It is important to understand that these attributes were not chosen because they make a good sailing boat. They were not! They were chosen to beat a rule, pure and simple, and the rule penalized attributes that made for fast and seaworthy boats.
> 
> Probably one of the best things about the CCA rule was unintended consequence of over-benefitting centerboard boats so that that the design advances were made on keel/centerboard boats. During this period, the design concepts around keel/centerboard designs received a lot of attention and produced in my mind what was probably the single advance in yacht design directly attributable to the CCA rule. That said, many of these advances were simply a scaling up of earlier advances made on MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) rating rule boats.
> 
> Today I often hear people say these boats were an extension of centuries of traditional design. As explained above, they were not! The boats that we think of as CCA types were an aberration to the general design principals used to design offshore craft prior to this period. They have some relationship to inshore and offshore race boats in prior eras (Universal and International rule [not to be mistaken for the IOR]). But they bear no relation to the design of working craft or cruising craft of the era. The CCA boats were designed to be good race boats under a specific artificially derived rule and quite frankly in many key ways ignored the lessons of the sea.
> 
> All of that said, where things get even more confusing is that many people lump almost any traditional boat from the 1950's and 1960's into the category of CCA designs. It's not that simple. Even during this period there were still more wholesome designs built. Tradition based cruising designs continued to be produced, one design classes often marched to their own drummers, and other rules, such as the MORC (Midget Ocean Racing Conference) produced more wholesome designs that were also much faster than similar length CCA boats and way more seakindly and seaworthy as well.
> 
> So back to the original point of this discussion, which is the merits and disadvantages of CCA designs, and more specifically whether CCA designs are suited as serious cruisers.
> 
> THE GOOD NEWS:
> CCA boats are really beautiful to look at. For the most part they have graceful sheerlines and ends. Visually, some of the prettiest boats of all time were designed to the CCA rule. Many of the boats of this era were well built and will be around for many years to come. They often had simple no nonsense interiors that I personally prefer to many of the newer more exotic 'open floor plan' layouts. People have sailed these boats to most navigable corners of the world. They have become popularly held in high esteem and have a strong following amongst many traditionalists. They are akin to the proverbial beautiful dumb blonde, very attractive but perhaps not the smartest choice.
> 
> THE BAD NEWS:
> 
> Short waterlines, poor underbody and keel shapes, inefficient rigs, tight interiors space, mediocre fiberglass work, poor structural engineering and detailing, old engines and poor hardware. Some of these can be addressed with money but most can't.
> 
> More specifically:
> 
> Short waterline lengths:
> Short waterlines length does a lot of things, the most obvious being it makes a boat slow. It does this in a number of ways. There is the obvious reduction in hull speed that occurs with shortened waterline length. The CCA boats were often designed to pull the bow wave forward and stern wave aft as the boat heeled. This gave them a longer sailing length when heeled and as such more speed than they were rated to have. As a result they were designed to be sailed heeled over. It means that to get speed you are constantly sailing with larger heel angles than you would on a more modern design.
> 
> Both tank testing and empirical observation has shown that in reality this longer sailing length does not produce a reliable speed increase as designing a the same length boat that has its displacement spread out over a longer static waterline.
> 
> In order to carry the boat's displacement on a short water line, the hull has to be comparatively full. This fullness creates a lot of drag that would not be there in a longer waterline length boat. The evidence of this is found in comparing more traditional cruising boats or MORC boats of this era with the shorter waterline CCA Boats. In their day, the more traditional cruising type boats and MORC boats were generally faster boats on all points of sail than the CCA boats, they just could not correct out in racing over the CCA boats. A good example of this might be a boat like 'Ticonderoga', which set quite a few elapsed course records that remained in effect for years if not decades, or MORC boats like the Dolphin 24 and Tartan 27 which would do horizon jobs on similar sized CCA boats.
> 
> Inefficient underbodies:
> But the short waterline really impacts other sailing characteristics as well. These are heavy boats by any standard and, as mentioned above, all of that weight is carried over a short waterline, which requires a very full canoe body. In the CCA boats this displacement is often carried into the submerged ends and into a deep canoe body. These shape factors effect the performance of the boat in a number of ways. It results in a stubby underbody and it means that relatively little keel area with the majority of this keel is operating in the disturbed area adjacent to the hull. The result is fairly large amounts of leeway. (It's not hard to observe this.)
> 
> Sail up to the stern of any CCA era boat on a on a modern design. Set your course parallel to the CCA boat and sight on an object on shore. As you watch the amount of leeway becomes pretty apparent. Do the same with modern boats and after a while you get a very real sense of the relative leeway individual boats. These CCA era keelboats really slide a lot. Many of the CCA centerboard boats were much more comparable to modern boats (sometimes better) and with modernized rigs, are quite potent to windward. In my experience it does not matter whether you are in rough conditions or flat water these observations hold true. (The piece of the equation I don't have is whether this matters to you. In fairness it may not.)
> 
> Fin Keel with attached rudders:
> One of the main reasons that these boats make so much leeway is their keel forms. Most of the 'venerable' CCA era boats had what I personally would call a long fin keel with an attached rudder. There are many on this forum who would disagree with this term and that is fine. When I was growing up, by definition any boat on which the bottom of the keel is less than 50% of the boat's LOA had a fin keel, and that is why I call these long fin keels with attached rudders. You may disagree with the semantics but whatever you chose to call these, the reality is that typical CCA keel had a similar profile area to the fin keel boats of that day.
> 
> When you look at many of the popular CCA influenced production boats of the era, the water line was often 75% of the LOA. They typically have a deeply cut away forefoot and rudder post that was steeply raked to the point that there is relatively little keel length. If you look at the keel on one of these CCA era boats with an attached rudder and compare the length of the keel with fin keel with detached rudder of that era (Cal 40 or Islanders of that era) you'll see that there is little difference in keel length between the two.
> 
> In my experience, there is nothing worse than a fin keel (even a long fin keel) with a rudder attached. It will have few of the advantages of either full or fin keels and all of the disadvantages. And while these days people tend to refer to these CCA era keels as full keels they are not. Based on my experience they neither tracked like a genuine full keel nor had the maneuverability or lightness of control of a detached rudder. They tended to develop a lot more weather helm and with the rudder being closer to the center of rotation required greater steering angles and therefore created more drag for the amount of turning accomplished.
> 
> This combination makes these boats more tiring to steer. They can be dynamically balanced to reduce weather helm and improve tracking but this comes with real penalty in speed, and often the added effort needed to more frequently change sails for the conditions which I would suggest is less than ideal for a cruising boat. The high helm loads and lack of tracking results in higher energy use by autopilot as well.
> 
> Lack of motion comfort:
> These short waterlines result in more pitching. This phenomena also is easily observable watching a mixed fleet of boats going to windward. Not only is this motion uncomfortable for the crew, but the extent of the motion saps speed. But also the deep rounded hull forms made these boat real rollers. It can be argued that all those these boats roll through wide angles, the motion is slow and therefore a bit more comfortable. That is true when dealing with a few isolated waves (like a power boat wake) but in a repetitive wave train, those large roll angles means that the boat tends to get out of sync with the wave train and so experiences greater impacts with each wave.
> 
> Rig Proportions:
> Then there is the typical rigs on a CCA boats. The CCA rule under penalized headsails and over penalized standing sail area. This resulted in lower aspect ratio rigs with smaller than traditional watercraft mainsails and which heavily depended on huge jibs for drive in anything below moderate winds. In theory day, CCA era boats were designed for 170% to 180% genoas on boats that already began with very big foretriangles. It also meant huge spinnakers as well. Modern CCA boat owners try to get by with smaller headsails, maybe 140 % to 150% genoas, but their small standing sail plans mean that CCA era boats give up sailing ability at the low end of the wind range. The CCA rule discouraged beam and in order to get the boat heeled to extend the waterline, CCA boats also tended to lack stability, (especially relative to drag). CCA rigs were short but the spars were very heavy. This resulted in a further reduction in stability and the overly stiff spar eliminates being able use mast bend as a tool for sail shaping in order to change gears without changing sails or reefing.
> 
> That lack of stability relative to drag means that to sail at their best CCA era boats end up needing a larger inventory of sails to accommodate changes in wind speed. While roller furler headsails help up to a point, in reality partially furled headsails have very inefficient shapes, tending to cause a lot of side force (encouraging heeling, leeway and weather helm) relative to drive. Working against using a furling sail across a wide wind range are the limitations on fabric. To perform halfway decently in light to moderate winds the sail cloth needs to be light enough to fill and hold its shape. That light weight cloth is too light to stand up in prolonged heavy air. Furled sails work for a short stint in heavy air, but in more extreme and lasting conditions, chafe and creep will result and will ultimately damage the sail.
> 
> Structural Issues:
> Approximately 10 years ago there were a series of studies done on older fiberglass boats. The most comprehensive of these was done by the insurance industry, but other studies were performed as part of the research for the EU's Small Craft Directive. The insurance industry resulted from the fact that industry-wide marine insurance companies were experiencing hull failures and much greater impact damage in older boats than the forces would seem to suggest. The problem was seen as being serious enough that the industry funded a comprehensive study.
> 
> The study analyzed a large sampling of panels taken from actual boats. The panels were analyzed for strength, failure mode, fiber orientation and type, resin ratios, types of resins used, additives and so on. Where possible factory records were reviewed and interviews with knowledgeable individuals were conducted. As a broad generality, the report concluded that by and large the laminate in boats of the era studied started out weaker, and lost strength more rapidly and more extensively than boats that were built with the benefit of better engineering practices, materials and methods which followed.
> 
> Resin and glass fabric manufacturers had developed proper mixing, resin ratio, and fabric handling procedures, which were the norm being employed in other industries. The report did find very big differences between some of the boatbuilders who more carefully controlled their manufacturing methods in accordance with these recommended procedure and the more prevalent practices within the larger production yard of the era.
> 
> Some of these early boat builders who were cited as more closely following manufacturer's recommendation included many of companies building higher performance racing dinghies, and some companies producing cruisers such as Allied Boatworks, Beetle Boat Co., Cal, Cape Cod Shipbuilding, de Vries Lentsch, Douglass & McLeod, Halmatic, Hinterhoeller, Hughes, Grampian, Jensen Marine, LeCompte, Ray Greene, Sailmaster, and Seafarer.
> 
> I know that the insurance study would seeming fly in the face of commonly held beliefs which is based on the theory that earlier boat hulls were perceived as having thicker hulls in part because they were often heavier. But these boats were heavier for a lot of reasons beyond simply having thick hulls.
> 
> To explain this issue in more detail, simply focusing on the hull for a moment. There are really several things that determine the strength of the hull itself. In simple terms it is the strength of the unsupported hull panel (by 'panel' I mean the area of the hull or deck between supporting structures) itself, the size of the unsupported panel, the connections to supporting structures and the strength of the supporting structures.
> 
> On its own, Fiberglass laminate does not develop much stiffness and it is very dense. If you simply try to create stiffness in fiberglass it takes a lot of thickness. For marketing reasons, many early fiberglass boat builders tried to simply use the skin for stiffness with wide spread supports from bulkheads and bunk flats. This lead to incredibly heavy boats and boats that were comparably flexible. (In early designs that were built in both wood and fiberglass, the wooden boats typically weighed the same but were generally stiffer, equal strength, and had higher ballast ratios)
> 
> Fiberglass hates to be flexed. Fiberglass is a highly fatigue prone material and over time it loses strength through flexing cycles. A flexible boat may have adequate reserve strength when new but over time through flexure fiberglass loses this reserve. All other things being equal a thicker panel should have more stiffness than a thinner panel, but typically due to the materials of the day and the lack of framing, these early thickened panels were just not that stiff and as a result they are prone to losing more strength over time.
> 
> Adding to the problem, these boats were not made from same polyester resin and fiberglass used in today's boats. While the basic chemistry is the same, there is a lot that makes up polyester resin.
> 
> Prior to the fuel crisis in the 1970's polyester formulations were different and were comparatively brittle (but more resistant to blisters). That meant that resin was more likely to weaken due to fatigue or microcracking due to minor impacts. Overtime this greatly reduces the strength and stiffness of the laminate.
> 
> As a result of the fuel crisis, the resin formulations used in marine applications were altered, and they were altered again in the early 1980's as a result of the acute blister problems caused by the 1970's reformulation.
> 
> Beyond that, there is the way that resins were handled with in the larger value oriented companies. In the 1960's, within value oriented companies, the mixing proportioning, temperature control and even apply resins was pretty haphazard within this portion of the market. Various additives were pretty casually added to the resins, such as extenders, bulking agents and accelerators. Each of these offered some cost advantage, but did nothing for strength.
> 
> Probably the worst offenders were wide spread use of accelerators, which increases the brittleness of the resin and weakens it over time. The idea behind accelerators is that tooling for boats (molds) are expensive. The quicker you can pop out a hull the more frequently you can use a mold. In the 1960's fiberglass normally took a period weeks to reach a state of cure (i.e. reaching a level of curing that was approaching full strength) that was acceptable to remove the hull and not risk distortion. If you simply over catalyze the resin it will cure more quickly but it will also go off too quickly to have a useful pot life. So in the 1960s accelerators were used to allow a reasonable pot life but speed up the cure time.
> 
> The other component in the laminate is the actual reinforcing fabrics. In its infancy, fiberglass fibers were quite short, brittle and needed to be handled very carefully to avoid damage to the individual fibers. In the majority of value oriented production facilities in the 1960's, this was simply ignored and so fabrics were cut and folded into tight little bundles. If in the 1960's, you walked into a plant like Columbia, Islander, or Pearson you would see stacks of these tightly folded and carefully labeled fiberglass fabric bundles around the perimeter of a boat being laminated.
> 
> Then there was the cloths themselves. Woven fiberglass is comparatively stretchy and weak because in the weaving process the geometry results in fibers that are kinked over each other and need to elongate in order to really absorb a big load. Fiberglass fabrics also take the greatest stress in the direction that the fibers are oriented. In the 1960's there was no effort to minimize the use of materials that reduced the stretch of the fiberglass fibers because of the way that the fabric was woven and there was little or no effort to orient the fibers to the direction of maximum stress.
> 
> In order to build thickness cheaply, poorer to moderate quality builders of the 1960's tended to use a larger percentage of non-directional fabrics (mostly mat). Most older boats contain some mat to bridge between the courser laminates like roving, but the value oriented yards tended to use a larger percentage of non-directional materials. Non-directional materials are generally a little more prone to stretch but are a lot more prone to fatigue, and impact failure.
> 
> Then there is the ratio of fiberglass and resin. Except in compression, resin is a very weak material. Resin is very poor in tension, can't stand elongation and is not too good in sheer. Resin is only there to glue the fibers together and to keep the fibers in column so that the laminate does not fail. The ideal fiberglass resin has no more resin than is absolutely necessary to hold the fibers together and not a tiny bit more.
> 
> This was known in the early days of fiberglass boat building but resin and labor was cheap so it was easier to just pour a little more in and avoid dry spots. When I have examined coupons taken from older boats, I have generally been amazed how much resin compared to cloth I have found, certainly as compared to later boats. But it is not just my observations. According to the insurance study, lenses of unreinforced resin, and dry glass were far more prevalent within the industry than ideal or found in later boat building.
> 
> To remedy the inferior glass work, you might be tempted to think, "No problem, just beef the hull up by adding more glass". But, as I am sure a lot of people are tired of hearing me say, weight does nothing good for a boat. In and of itself weight does not add strength, or seaworthiness, or comfortable motion, but it sure adds additional stresses to every working part of the boat, and it certainly slows a boat down. In the case of these older CCA boats, there is no way to reinforce the laminate itself since this is where the problems lie.
> 
> In the long run, the insurance study referred to actual failures in areas that had been subjected to concentrated loadings (impacts from wave action or from hitting solid objects). With the study, areas adjacent to and parallel to the hull to deck joint, bulkheads, knees or where there were rows of fastenings, as was often the primary connection for hull to deck joints, were cited as experiencing catastrophic failures.
> 
> Compounding the structural problems with the laminate of the era, were poor choices in the detailing of these boats. For example, in order to market fiberglass boats as having more room down below than wooden boats, fiberglass boat builders directed the designers to eliminate any internal framing. As described above, this resulted boats which tended to flex more than later designs with internal framing, and which concentrated much higher loads at 'hard spots' such as hull to deck joints, the turn down at keels, and adjacent to locations where engine beds, bunk flats and bulkheads touch the hull. The mix of weaker laminate and over time these higher concentrated loading were shown to greatly weaken the laminate in these areas.
> 
> Similarly, many manufacturers chose to use encapsulated keels as a cost savings measure. But encapsulated keels require a lot more care than was generally give to them. To begin with, it is very difficult to get a proper wet out and layup working in the narrow confines of the encapsulation envelope. Consequently, the glasswork at the bottom and lower sides of the keel envelope was often the worst in the whole boat with poor overlaps, resin rich and resin starved lay-ups. Given the difficulty of a worker in to physically reach these areas during lay-up, it was extremely difficulty to avoid this. Having been involved in quite a few repairs to the leading edge of keels from this era, these conditions are far more common than rare.
> 
> Adding to this problem was the way that the ballast keels were installed. The ballast keels were generally cast off the boat and then inserted into the envelope after the envelope or ballast was coated with a polyester slurry. This was an imprecise process that left many voids. Polyester is a poor adhesive and so the bonds between the ballast and the envelope were questionable at best. Over time, these bonds often fail due to impacts, and in northern climates due to freeze thaw of water within the keel cavity.
> 
> This places a side load on the encapsulation envelope, which would be fine if the membrane at the top of the ballast had adequate structural capacity and there was adequate transverse framing. But that was rarely the case. In my family's Pearson Vanguard the membrane at the top of the keel was a single layer of roving, and there was no transverse framing, which is similar to my observations on other value oriented boats of this era. (It is thought my family's Vanguard was lost due in part due to the combined contribution of failure of the glass on the keel bottom, the reduced strength of the bond on the sides of the keel, and the failure of the encapsulation membrane which ultimately lead to the loss of the ballast keel.)
> 
> It was also during this period that manufacturers introduced the outward facing flange hull to deck joint. (In fairness, this questionable detail continues in modern value oriented boats.) Outward facing flanges have several issues. First of all, by their very design the joint is in bending rather than sheer. (The load path is trying to tear the laminate apart rather than simply slice through it.) Because of their location on the hull, they need to be thinner laminate and have a smaller contact area. This concentrates the connection into a smaller area, increasing the tendency for fatigue and a failure line across the load path. It is also a harder joint to seal.
> 
> In many cases, early boatbuilders also constructed their toe rails by molding them into the deck. It is very had to get a proper lamination when dealing with the sharp changes in direction required to form something like a toerail. This often inferior glass work occurs at or near the hull to deck joint in the zone where loads are most concentrated. The insurance study cited several cases where the failure mode was though to originate in this area and spread out from there.
> 
> Another questionable detail was Formica covered bulkheads. While easy to maintain, the Formica conceals the plywood cores of these often structural elements, and can trap moisture as within the plywood preventing it from drying out. This allows rot to occur in the bulkhead and spread undetected.
> 
> This problem was made worse by the fact that many of the less expensive boats of this era used exterior grade plywood rather than marine grade materials for their interiors.
> 
> A final area of concern noted in the insurance report was tabbing methods. Tabbing is the method of bonding components of a boat that consist of layers of fiberglass laminate that span between the components. Properly done, tabbing consists of multiple layers of cloth which taper in width from a wide first layer so that there are not hardspots formed where the two components join. (Hardspots greatly concentrate the loads and can damage the strength of the laminate over time.) Ideally, tabbing is continuous around the two components being joined. During the early years of boat building, on poor to moderate quality boats, the tabbing was often discontinuous and a single lamination or two.
> 
> Heavy weight:
> Then there is the weight issue. The combination of the CCA rule and the boat building techniques of the era resulted in boats that were comparatively heavy but carrying that weight in areas of the boat (hulls, interiors, and rigs) where it does not help the boat. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, in and of itself weight does nothing good for a boat. Many of these boats were heavy in ways that really did not help comfort, or carrying capacity, or stability, or strength. They were just heavy. In many cases this works against comfort, or carrying capacity, or stability, and strength.
> 
> Spray and green water on deck:
> I have always found CCA Boats wet when compared to more modern designs. The low freeboard and full bows tended to put a lot of water on the deck. The full bows were a fad that resulted from an effort to extend the sailing length at smaller heel angles. These comparatively blunt bows do poorly in a short chop or big seas and send a lot of spray and green water on board. In my mind the bigger problem of the two is this tendency to take solid water aboard.
> 
> Accommodations:
> Even CCA fans acknowledge the lack of room on board these old boats so I will skip over that point.
> 
> Original Hardware:
> The hardware of the era could be quite solid but was very primitive in design compared to modern gear. There was often much greater friction and less mechanical advantage. If the boat has not been upgraded the hardware may be out dated or unsafe by modern standards. Even good hardware has a limited lifespan. Much of the hardware of the day was inferior to modern gear and some like reel winches are just plain dangerous. (Want to feel my improperly healed broken ribs?)
> 
> But also the wiring and plumbing techniques and materials had a finite lifespan and often would not be consistent with modern standards or handle the kinds of electronic systems that have become the norm today.
> 
> The good news is that many of these older CCA era boats have already had these systems upgraded over time.
> 
> Carrying capacity and storage:
> One of the worst knocks against CCA era boats is the lack of carrying capacity and useful storage. In simple terms, two main factors which control carrying capacity are the waterline plane and the displacement of the boat. For the most part displacement comes into play because carrying capacity is generally thought of in terms of a percentage of the overall displacement of the boat, such that a heavier boat for its length can generally carry more than a lighter boat. But that size of that percentage is directly related to the waterline plane of the boat since the rate of emersion with added weight is controlled by the area of the waterline plane.
> 
> So while CCA era boats were comparatively heavy for their length overall, because of their short waterlines, they had very small waterline planes, and could tolerate proportionately little excess weight relative to their displacement before becoming immersed to the point that seaworthiness, and performance are compromised.
> 
> Similarly, while these were long boats on deck, they are comparatively narrow, and when combined with their short waterlines had comparatively little volume below decks. Much of that volume, which might have been useful storage area, is in the ends of the boat, extended out past the waterline, where added weight compromises motion comfort, seaworthiness and performance.
> 
> Economics:
> Then there is the economics of these older boats. No matter what you do to a CCA era boat, it will only be worth much. During a previous discussion on this topic, I talked guys who objected to my analysis. In the most extreme case one fellow described the changes that he (and prior owners) made to his boat. He described changing the rig to a carbon spar (Taller and double spreader), all new standing and running rigging, all new deck hardware, new sails, repairs to the deck and topsides where "time had taken its toll", Awlgripping the topsides and deck, modern electronics, replacing an atomic 4 with a diesel, replacing the pressure alcohol stove with a propane stove and new propane system, refinishing the interior including replacing a rotted bulkhead, new wiring and plumbing, and replacing the cushions. He went on to tell me that he thought his boat as good as any modern boat. Well it may be in many ways but he spent a lot of money upgrading a 35-year-old boat and he is still stuck with an outdated rule beater hull design.
> 
> For most people the limitations created the distortions of a CCA era hull and rig limit their value, and when you can buy better designs which were also better constructed from later periods in similar condition, it becomes very difficult to make a case for putting that kind of time and money into a CCA era boat.
> 
> The reality is that most people would not do half the things this guy described. But when you look at these boats there is rarely less than $10 to $20 thousand between a really super boat with everything done and a project boat. Do even a quarter of the items on that list and you can easily eat up that gap. Unless you intend to live with the boat more or less as it is, the sheer economics of buying a project boat is seriously questionable. But even a reasonably good boat from this era can be very expensive to own.
> 
> Lastly, I want to make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the guys who love these old CCA boats. I appreciate their love for their boats and the effort that it takes to keep these old girls looking nice. I admire the seamanship that it takes to get the most out of these boats and when I see one that is well sailed I can only doff my cap to a true sailor.
> 
> Respectfully
> Jeff


Interesting point of view. A similar view could be made at most of the IOR influenced boats that followed.


----------



## Jeff_H

Michael Bailey said:


> Interesting point of view. A similar view could be made at most of the IOR influenced boats that followed.


Yes, you are correct, many similar critiques can be made of the IOR Rule beaters that followed. But the OP was mainly concerned with the CCA rule. (Please see post #8 in this thread)

Jeff


----------



## mstern

Careful Jeff. The Zombie Thread is trying to eat your brain.


----------



## Jeff_H

mstern said:


> Careful Jeff. The Zombie Thread is trying to eat your brain.


LOL- Yes I saw that.


----------



## Michael Bailey

Jeff_H said:


> Yes, you are correct, many similar critiques can be made of the IOR Rule beaters that followed. But the OP was mainly concerned with the CCA rule. (Please see post #8 in this thread)
> 
> Jeff


Thanks for referring me back to the early postings - I too have become a man who is restoring an old fiberglass sailboat in the way that I have wooden boats. I find that the lack of seams everywhere makes it easier and last longer. Years ago I decided most boats aren't worth it but I'm still at it. Thanks again for the reading material. Here is my project boat. "Baloo"


----------

