# === Pearson 30 Coaster = Vs. = Vanguard / Alberg



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

Any info on Pearson 30 Coaster 1966-1968 (same as wanderer, but fixed keel) ..?

looking at one for off shore and coastal cruising, like to get some info. since there is virtualy nothing in the net 

here is some very usefull info i have dug out so far;

these boats (all including vanguard have a capsize value of around 1.7 (one of lowest in industry) and excellent DL ratio which is pretty amazing!)

Alberg 35 being one of the best in the chart!

http://www.seidelmann-owners.com/SailSpecs.htm

Apparently the Coaster is very similar to Alberg 30 and vanguard / wanderer.

Here is a link i found about the Alberg 30 on sailing magazine ;

Sailing Magazine | Alberg 30



> .........It is safe to say that the Alberg 30 traces its roots to the Scandinavian Folkboat, as most of Alberg's designs do, and the hull shape represents the transition that was taking place as builders switched from wood to fiberglass construction. The Alberg 30 may not be the quickest boat afloat, especially in light air, but don't be misled by the specs. With slack bilges and just 8 feet, 9 inches of beam, the boat is initially tender. The short waterline increases as the boat heels and the Alberg 30 finds its stride when other boats are being overpowered. The boat has a seakindly motion, although it can hobbyhorse in a seaway. The Alberg 30 is a proven blue water cruiser; indeed, Yves Gelinas circumnavigated in one by way of Cape Horn in his Alberg 30 Jean de Sud.


Thanx much ..

:thewave:  :thewave: :laugher :thewave:


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

gee, no info ?!?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

All right, If I have to...

I know the Wanderer, Coaster, Vanguard and Alberg 30 quite well. My family owned a Vanguard back in the 1960's and have sailed and worked on them at various points since. When we considered buying the Vanguard, we visited the Pearson plant and looked at how Coasters and Wanderers were being built, did a sail trail, and I have sailed on and been aboard these boats quite a few times since including racing a Coaster back in the 70's. I also know the Alberg 30 quite well, have sailed on them quite a bit and helped maintain one in exchange for being able to use the boat. 

Of the bunch, I like the Coaster best in terms of sailing ability and motion comfort. The Coaster was designed to the MORC Rating rule of the day, which produced reasonably wholesome boats in terms of moderately longer water lines than was the trend for that era and more efficient underbodies and higher ballast ratios than was typical for the more popular CCA rating rule derived designs such as the Alberg 30 or Pearson Vanguard. 

In the case of the Coaster the hull shape was also an improvement over either the Vanguard and Alberg, offering a slightly finer entry, more powerful sections and a cleaner run. This was noticable in a short chop, light air, or in windy reaching conditions. 

In terms of build quality, all three were built fairly similarly. All three were pretty crudely built. The glass work on all three, while moderately thick, was laid up with resins, glass and laminating techniques that were inferior to the current techniques. These techniques have resulted in hulls which began life not as strong as they may appear and have lost strength over time. Adding to this these boats were built with minimal internal framing and the lack of internal framing further reduces thier robustness. 

Beyond the hull, there are other construction issues that relate to the period during which these boats were built. Some of these items are easily recitified, and may have been addressed by previous owners. For example, in that era, tinned wiring was pretty rare, and connections were often soldered. Even when these boats were new, the electrical systems were often a pain in the butt to maintain. Obviously with time, these early wiring systems would need replacement if they are to remain reliable. 

There are other issues as well. Depending on the year and option, all three boats were built with formica faced plywood bulkheads (I should note that I have sailed on both Alberg 30's and a Coaster which had naturally finished mahogany plywood builkheads that I can only surmise must have been an option, I don't know what was the relative proportion of A-30's and Coasters with formica vs natural ply). Formica faced plywood was a nice option in terms of being easy to keep clean and low initial maintenance, but a poor choice over time, the bulkheads can rot out behind the formica, nearly undetected until there is a structural failure. I looked at a Vanguard that had much of its bulkheads floating free of the hull where the plywood had held moisture against the rotting plywood behind. The nice thing about varnished mahogany plywood is that it can be observed for deterioration and issues addressed before they become more serious. 

The Coaster was a later design than the other two and so employed more molded liner and interior components than the other two. This is good in many ways but it does make access a bit harder.

In terms of your proposed use, none of these three boats are especially good offshore cruisers. They were all intended as inshore racer cruisers. While I know that all of these boats have been taken offshore, in my mind they would all be a poor choice. I would say that of the three the Coaster would probably be my choice as an all around better design. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

*30*

thanks, that was very helpfull Mr: H 

Wow! I am impressed, you seem to know alot about these.
What is your background? Are you a designer or just been sailing alot?
Just wondering.

Its funny how every one talks about how great the older Pearson ie; "Vanguard and Alberg, triton, etc"... are in off shore and capable of circumnavigation and doing circles around the globe!

But you are saying they arent really!

What would you consider a good Coastal / off shore cruiser in budget (under $15k) ?
Not looking to sail around the world, but just cruising around N. & South. Ca. Coast/ mexico and may be a trip to Hawaii perhaps at some point.

Currently i have a well setup catalina 27 and looking to upgrade.

Thanx again.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have been sailing since 1961 and at one time I studied yacht design and at various times in my life I worked as a yacht designer. I am actually an architect (buildings). 

I grew up sailing boats like the Vanguard, Alberg 30, and Triton. These were the race boats of that era. I have continued to sail on them since. Then as now, I aways considered these designs as being compromised by the racing rule of the day in ways that hurt their abilities as cruisers. 

If you contrast these boats with better cruising boats of that era, say something like a Folkboat, Seawind, or even a Tartan 27 of that same era, you can see some of the compromises in terms of hull form and rig. Of course, there have been huge improvements in boat building and yacht design in the years since these boats were built, 

Now then, when you talk about a less than $15,000 cruising boat for a offshore work, I would say there is no boat that is ideal for a offshore cruising in that price range. Which is not to say, that you cannot buy a boat for $15,000 and with huge amounts of sailing skill and boat maintenance and rebuilding skill, enormous care, vast amounts of luck, and huge efforts at rebuilding along the way, that you can't find some older boat that permits you to go offshore. 

If I were in your shoes, and wanted to go offshore in a less than $15,000 boat, some of the boats that personally would look at in that prioce range might include the Allied Seawind, C&C Corvette, Cal 2-30, Morgan 30, Bristol 29 (1960's era and not the 29.9), H-28, Tartan 27 
(With the Tartan 27 and Bristol 29 as my first choices on the list). 

Of course any of these boat that were actually available in your price range are likely to require a lot of work (and money) to make them robust enough, properly equipped, with adequate consumable capaciuties, and in the necessary shape to reliably make the kinds of passages implied when you talk about safely and reliably doing long distance, off-shore cruising. 

Jeff


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

*boats*

Architect! Cool.

I am fairly new to the sailing world, but i love it already...!

I studied aeronautics, so i am familiar with the power plants and structural things (metal rather than wood!). but Boats are quite different beasts, and you have salt water rather than misty air to deal which i found out is a pretty amazing eating machine!

I understand that with older boats there are tons of stuff that can fail or weaken over time.

This boat has had a lot of work done to it already including a newer diesel, rigging, sails, etc...thats why i liked it.
but the interior on them is absolutely terrible and this one is not that great! .. 
I really like Islander 30 boats, C&C and tartan, not familiar with other makes you mentioned, but will keep an eye for them indeed.

PS;
i did miss a great deal on a nice Corvette 31 ..

thanx alot.

:thewave: :thewave: :thewave:


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Jeff_H is a fount of information and really seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of many, many boats. He has been on and around cruising boats for far longer then you or I have and is the 'resident expert' on boat designs and he is also a moderator here so you should be glad that he took the time to post such an insightful reply. You can tell by his reply that he also has worked in the boat building/design biz in one way or another.
Jeff_H generally does not seem to be partial to many of the older boats and he has laid out his reasons well succinctly in other threads. If you search the forums for 'IOR' & 'CCA' something should come up. You could also click on Jeff_H's avatar and view all his posts.
One boat in particular comes to mind for your intended purposes is the Nor'sea 27' but I'm not sure you'll find one for <$15k. Other brands to look into might be Pacific Seacraft and CS (Canadian S..).
There are also a bunch of other similar threads where folks are asking: "What's the best boat for ...". A search of the forums for 'best boat' would probably find you a whole mess of these you could peruse for ideas on other models to consider.

Good luck.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

*boat*

It appears boat hunting is no easy task!

But Jeff's detailed reply certainly has shed a lot of light on the subject and he sure knows his stuff, it all about experience.

One thing i have already realized looking at so many boats in the last year is how well the boat has been kept up rather than what model it is.

Most boats i have seen seem to be neglected, at least in $20k and under category, since they are older boats i guess and people just forget they even own them after a while ... 

And the nice ones sell very quickly!

thanx.


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

el conquistadore,

Since I have a boat of this vintage (1967) and one of the few models Jeff_H seems to moderately like (Tartan 27') I'll chime in again.

Some things to watch out for on this vintage of boat are: 
- chain plates, water intrusion rots wood core and weakens chain plate
- soft decks, again from water intrusion. Decks were usually made with wood cores
- engine age/hours
- rigging age and condition

Even though Jeff_H mentioned the model of sailboat I have I can tell you that I would not take it to Hawai'i (or Bermuda for that matter) in its current condition. Before I headed out to anywhere like that I would want to:
- re-build all chain plates
- replace all standing rigging
- re-power with a newer diesel (current A4 is 42 years old)
- re-core the few soft sections on my decks
And that is just the short list that does not include extra gear for blue water (radar, ssb/sat phone, life raft, EPIRB ...) useage.

That said, our boat was well maintained by the previous owners and is in good shape for a boat her age and just fine for near coastal use. We also got lucky that the PO had already bought himself a larger boat (Irwin 32') and was tired of paying 2 yard fees so we paid $4k.

I agree with you that how well the boat has been kept up is key to older boats. They do not even maintain book values for boats older then 1975 as each boat is unique in how it was maintained.

What model it is determines it's best usage. A Catalina 27' is always a C27, right?
check out this link: The Ultimate Catalina 27


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

thanx for info;

...i like this Caty ! may i'll try a double decker myself....:laugher 

------------------------
quote; ...

"....What model it is determines it's best usage. A Catalina 27' is always a C27, right?
check out this link: The Ultimate Catalina 27"


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

*An invitation.....*

I invite you to read a little something at this link:
The Pearson Vanguard Page
Click on the "American Beauty" bullet on the left side of the page. In the article, you will see things like, "He designed the Vanguard to the Cruising Club of America racing rule, which produced the prettiest yachts since World War II, as well as more seaworthy and seakindly vessels than many of those emerging from factories today." Hmmmmm.
Just a fair counter-point to certain other opinions you have already received.

"Practical" and "sailing" don't normally belong together in the same paragraph, but the Pearson Vanguard is an exception. Do you want to cruise the coast in a responsive boat now but know that you could chuck your job and cross an ocean tomorrow? This boat is a practical solution to that sailing situation. It isn't a dockside condo, it's a real sailboat."
Just goes to show, opinions vary, and everybody has one. Considering that the CCA was the rule-making body in the US for some 50 years, I tend to think they were doing something right.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

seabreeze_97 said:


> I invite you to read a little something at this link:
> The Pearson Vanguard Page
> Click on the "American Beauty" bullet on the left side of the page. In the article, you will see things like, "He designed the Vanguard to the Cruising Club of America racing rule, which produced the prettiest yachts since World War II, as well as more seaworthy and seakindly vessels than many of those emerging from factories today." Hmmmmm.
> Just a fair counter-point to certain other opinions you have already received.
> ...


----------
seebreeze;

I completely agree!
facts and opinions can easily get mixed up.

Even facts are based on opinions quite often, and even so one cannot be concrete. Once you pass judgment rather than presenting thoughts to shed light on objects or ideas, then you have molded and frozen it in the mind and it becomes static and dead which loses its dynamic ability to improve upon which then becomes useless and frowned upon :hammer

I remember reading about this guy "Juggernaut" that circumnavigated the globe on a Catalina 27 that everyone considers a light wt. boat only good for day sailing ... amazing ! 

so much for that;
Like i had mentioned earlier, old Pearson boats like Triton, Alberg and vanguard are known by almost every sailor i have met to be an ICON of OLD blue water sailing regardless, despite their old design and narrow beam...
I know of many people personally whom have sailed these off shore in very long passages across.

I honestly would much rather be in an Alberg or a vanguard in the ocean instead of a small fin keeled Tartan 27 (and also every one i have spoken to does agree and i have not seen any one that considers T27 a real off shore, ...T30 yes.), even though i think T27 is really a great boat and if some one really wanted, could take it any where!
so obviously Jeff has his likes and dislikes which is perfectly ok with me, its just his opinion.
As far as most other facts he is correct and i highly respect that, but again, only in the non-concrete version ... 

*considering these Pearson boats have a DL ratio over 350 and capsize value around 1.7 (compared to 1.94 on a Tartan 30 or 1.81 on venerable Bristol 30, 1.76 on Bristol 29) there is hardly any boats that can match them for off shore!

Well, numbers are numbers and math is math.

according to the calculator below bristol 29 has a motion comfort of 28 vs. 34 of Vanguard..
Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!

this is the coolest tool i have found that calculates the numbers..! check it out...

Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2000+ boats*

Having said that i would NOT race one of these pearsons to win any trophies...!

There is absolutely no doubt that technology has changed much and so have boat designs. 
The newer boats have much better handling, more comfort,... etc... no doubt.

But not everyone can afford a $100,000 Beneteau either.. and so be it ... nothing wrong with that 

here is a very detailed and good link of best off shore boats, designs, req. etc... :
(has a boat list on the bottom)

Mahina Expedition - Offshore Cruising Instruction

ok, time to sail that bath tub... :laugher

:thewave: :thewave: :thewave:


----------



## kenster (Jan 26, 2009)

Check the Bristol Owners web site. B-32 models have solid decks, but I can confirm that Any older boat in the 15k price range is going to need upgrades.
Also there two Yahoo groups for people interested in Bristols.

And Yves G [of Cape Horn Wind Vanes ] took his Alberg 30 around the world in 1983, and has owned the same boat for 37 years.

Good hunting, Ken S


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Two quick points here, the article on the Pearson Vanguard by Tom Dove was based on his single sail on a Vanguard in 8 to 12 knots of wind on the Chesapeake.

Obviously, Tom never owned a Vanguard and, never tried to deal with one in winds over 20 knots, or sailed one in a short chop, or on a delivery in the Atlantic, or sailed one of these in light conditions especially in a left over ocean swell. I have literally hundreds of hours on Vanguards, boats with new sails and great crews and boats that were beat to death. If the person writing the American Beauty review had actually spent some time with these boats, his review would not talk so positively about the seaworthiness or motion comfort of these boats. If he sailed one and then the next day sailed a Coaster in tough going, his review would not be all that glowing.

I also want to make a critical point about the inaccuracy of the quote that says, 
*"Considering these Pearson boats have a DL ratio over 350 and capsize value around 1.7 (compared to 1.94 on a Tartan 30 or 1.81 on venerable Bristol 30, 1.76 on Bristol 29) there is hardly any boats that can match them for off shore!*

*Well, numbers are numbers and math is math. *

*according to the calculator below bristol 29 has a motion comfort of 28 vs. 34 of Vanguard..Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!" *

I would like to point out that neither the capsize screen formula or the motion comfort index tells you a thing about either the likelihood of a capsize or the motion comfort of the boat in question. I have included an explanation of why I say this below.

But also, even L/D is misleading in the case of these older CCA era boats because they had such a short waterline length relative to their overall length. If you calculate the L/D the normal way, it is true that the 32'4" Vanguard (with a 22'-10 LWL 1'-5" shorter than the Tartan 30's 24'-3" lwl) appears to have a L/d of 431 vs the Tartan 30 at 274.

But if you compare these boats by D/length on deck, (which highlights the shortcoming of using LWL in a comparason between a normal LOA/LWL and the extreme short waterline lengths of the CCA era) the Vanguard comes only slightly heavier at 154 vs 146. But the real significance to the behavior of the boat is in how that weight was distributed. In the case of the Tartan 30 the vertical center of gravity was much lower than the Vanguard due to its deeper keel and better ballast ratio.

During the period that we owned the Vanguard, ours was scary it was so tender. We spoke to Phil Rhodes about the problem. Mr. Rhodes acknowledged the problem and explained that the boats were supposed to have 400 lbs of 'trim' ballast but that they as built they exceeded the estimated weight so that they were already sitting on their lines but where under ballasted. We added quite a bit of additional ballast which helped some but made the boat even more of a roller than she had been.

Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous. 
Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize.

<OI typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 1000 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 1000 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth. 

<OAnd while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.

There are some better indicators of a vessel's likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the 'AVS', 'limit of positive stability', 'LPS', or 'Latent Stability Angle' ):<O</O
_Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )_<O</O
_Where; <O</O_
_BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )_<O</O
_HD: Hull </ST1Draft _<O</O
_DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula: _<O</O
_Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168_<O</O
_The Beam and Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation._<O</O
_Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )_<O</O
<O</O
There is a convenient calculator at http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__avs.htm<O></O>
<O</O

It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return. <O</O
<O</O
<O</O


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

*Avs*

Jeff,

Again we are talking cheap ol' boats, not newer boats that have low disp. and wide beam in modern design that reduce both CSF and AVS at lower wt.

So that limits the choices... 

Thanx for the info though.

The search continues....

:chaser


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety 
If you're gonna insult someone, at least spell it correctly.
As for Tom Dove, he was very clear on the conditions. He has to have owned one to comment on a day sail? I don't believe he's ever sunk one either. Man, he just doesn't know anything, does he Jeff?


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

Seebreeze;

Not sure who you're talking about here, but no one intended any insults here for you or any one, and nothing that was written by me was towards you either... just opinions ... and if anything i was supporting the "Vanguard" and its potentiality...



(never mind that, Jeff cleared it up)


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I think that Seabreeze's comments were directed at my poor choice of wording and spelling. I apologize for using the word "naive" (now editted out) and the fact that I mispelled it. Typing in haste, I did not mean the word to be an insult as much as to say, that within the design community, these surrogate formulas are seen as being outdated, overly simplistic, providing little or no useful knowledge.

My comment about Tom Dove's experience with the Vanguard is that in the article he says things like, "It should be well-mannered in big waves and a chop", "It tracks far better than a modern fin-keel designs" and "the hull form that makes the Vanguard tender should make her seakindly". None of those statements match my experience with the boat especially in rougher conditions, and my point is that if Mr. Dove had more experience with the boat, he would find that the boat is not well manner in big waves or a chop, does not track well at all, and has an uncomfortable motion, rolling though very wide angles before snapping to a stop as she suddenly builds buoyancy on her topsides. 

Seabreeze's other comment about Mr. Dove never sinking one refers to the fact that my family's Vanguard was sunk in December of 1969. We had left her with a boat yard to haul her for the winter. There was a nor'easter coming in, and the yard mistakenly told us that she had been hauled out. I was away at college, so my dad went down to check her on the cradle only to discover that she had not been hauled and had been left on a mooring. By the time that had been figured out, she had chafed through the mooring line, had broken free, and ended up a total loss on the beach near the rocks at Ft Toten. 

I also want to comment on the RM chart that Conquistadore posted. This is very out of date. Modern IMS and IRC derived designs have much larger AVS's and require a lot more energy to capsize than traditional heavy displacement boats. And when the chart refers to a "Narrow Heavy Displacement Hull" this is not referring to a CCA type hull form. This is referring to the traditional long water line cruisers. 

Which gets to the central point that I was trying to make, even in the era when CCA race boats were popular, there were boats being designed and built specifically for the purpose of going cruising rather than for the racing/coastal cruising purposes of a boat like the Vanguard. And these boats cost little or no more than a boat like a Vanguard, but their basic design had substantially longer waterline lengths relative to their length on deck, more suitable rigs for offshore cruising, better motion comfort, more stability and more robust construction than the CCA era race boats and so would be better suited for your asperations. 

My advise was not intended to suggest that you buy a modern boat, it is simply that if you are looking for an offshore cruising boat, then buy an offshore cruising boat, and not a 50 year old race boat. But I would also that you spend a little more time, understanding hull forms and the negative impact that short waterline lengths have on motion comfort, seakeeping, carrying capacity, and overall sailing ability. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

Wow, Mr; H.

You sure did blow me away ... :batter 

I appreciate your complete and well analyzed argument.
And i simply have to say....
"i rest my case" 

Obviously you know your subject very well, and it would be merely wise for me to take your advice in to serious consideration and placement towards my decision.

Here is my thoughts and you can perhaps give me one last word...if you would please!

The coaster i am looking at has; " new: mast, rigging, diesel motor, bottom paint job, sails, roller furler..." 
Interior is the weak point in this case.

Thats what interested me in first place!
Not too many OLD boats you can find with those updated features that cost a ton of money!!!

So its not just the boat brand, but also how well it was maintained that narrows the choices.

BTW; my friend sailed a triton to japan with no trouble at all !

thanx again.


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

conquistatadore said:


> ----------
> 
> Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!


I spent the formative years of my sailing career aboard an Alberg 35.
In my experience, that design is very slow and under powered
in light air, yet sails at excessive heel angles in a breeze.
It also generated a tremendous weather helm and was difficult to
maneuver in reverse under power.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

Very interesting mr; Cool.

yes, its around 13000 lbs, full keel, and was built 40 years ago !
Not too many boats in that era (even newer full keel ones) were built to be FAST by today's std. 
I don't think any 13000lb full keel would be a good light air boat, but it will hold its own in the heavy air.
Most of what you just described though is very typical in most boats i have sailed, with the exception of newer boats that dont have so much prop-walk.
My Catalina is a total nightmare to back out!
I hate it when it comes to reverse uke ....

Nevertheless i think the Alberg is still a great boat for what it is, and so do many people, and that's why they still have a big following. I know people personally that have sailed them all over the world!

I kind of understand their capabilities (strong and fairly stable) and as well as their short comings (old and narrow beam + old design).

But if you dont like them, i quite understand and thats fine too... 
But at least you should put what you liked also (unless it was just a real piece of crap,... i highly doubt it)

My thinking is just so, that any boat can be a great boat if you spend the time to make it one and know its weaknesses and strength.

I raced motorcycles for many years and i went through the same dramas we i am doing here.
I eventually learned the good riders rode fast and well no matter what bike they rode on (most were on older bikes even) , and the bad ones just rode bad and stupid no matter what bike they had.

Off course a nice newer bike will make you go faster indeed and handles much much better.

It was just about fun for me, NOT winning. And i had the most fun on a Ducati 748, that was a pretty slow bike (100HP vs. 170hp on newer 1000cc bikes which i had one of those too!), simply because it was sooo much fun to ride! Easy and manageable, but it was the feel of the bike that was the best part (that Italian finesse and craftsmanship, but dont ask me about the temperamental aspect! ... small price to pay, hey she's IItalian... vat ya expekt !)

Boats are very much the same.
Its no different in sailing except speed is not the goal here (or you would buy a freaky power boat unless you are in a deserted island and have no choice), but just enjoying the sail without getting yourself thrown out or sunk in a crappy boat!

I love any sailboat no matter what as long as i sail and if all i can get is a $500 boat then be it. I dont want to think about what a piece of junk it is, since then i wont enjoy the sail.

It seems people can get very harsh about boats here that they dont like and it gets ugly..:gunner 
:chainsaw 
its pretty funny...

I really doubt there are many boats that are just all BAD! 
I am just not very interested in one sided reviews, that's all.
That will only piss off a lot of owners like Seebreeze.. that love their Pearson
or did or whatever...
(i dont own a Pearson yet...so..),
but if i do some day i will be after you guys ...hehe..:laugher 
:hammer 
just kiddin...

One needs only to go to some of these poor countries and see the junks they sail all over the place in the sea and much BETTER than most of you think or can do (since they do it daily unlike us), to realize what i am talking about. But we are just too spoiled here ...

so;
having said that, it comes down to skills and experience of sailing, NOT what you ride, (unless its a show) but off course i'd not turn down a nice Beneteau or a Tartan... :laugher

Indeed i like to get a descent sailboat, and i appreciate all the feedback, specialy Mr; H 
he sure knows his stuff...

My favorites so far are Islander, Cal, Tartan, and Pearson.
Seen a nice cascade too.
But its hard to find one that was well kept and fits in the budget.

Happy sail..

...here is what i call a real sailboat that has a 2 cyl. engine..


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Actually Jeff, I was referring to your statement of ownership, taking it to the next level. Do I have to sink a boat to know that THAT sucks? I have no knowledge of your family sailing history.

What's particularly weird now is how I'm being called one-sided by the O.P. Whatever.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

Mr; Seebreeze;

Just wondering, have you owned a Pearson?
Curious about your point of view of the vessel...if you did!


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

conquistatadore said:


> yes, its around 13000 lbs, full keel, and was built 40 years ago !
> Not too many boats in that era (even newer full keel ones) were built to be FAST by today's std.


Fair enough, among its contemporaries, designed in the
early '60s, nearly 50 years ago, the A35 was a good boat.
I think it is a fairly attractive design. The problem with boats 
of that period is that they were just beginning to evolve
from the hull designs that were required to build a boat out
of wood. The fact remains however that only a few short
years later, production fiberglass boats made a quantum leap
in handling and performance. I cringe when people gaze
upon older designs and gush about how they make for better
and safer cruising boats than boats built a few years later.
After the family Alberg 35 was sold, it was rolled 360 and
dismasted on its delivery North to San Francisco.
Our next family boat was a Cal 40, while only designed a
couple years after the Alberg, it was a much better sailing
and cruising boat. If some one is considering an old 30' 
boat for purchase, there is no compelling reason to go with
a boat that has poor sailing characteristics. The Cal 2-30
came out in the mid '60s and is a great boat as are early
'70s designs such as the Columbia 30 and Islander 30 II.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

mr; Cool;

I like the Cal boats and Islanders alot.
Columbia is good too, just not my style!

Almost bought a nice Cal 34, but it was out of town and sold before i got to it.

I'd love to get a nice Cal.!

How are the Cal 29? see alot of them for sale.
is it similar to 30?


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

+1 el Conquistadore!
You typed: "It seems people can get very harsh about boats here that they dont like and it gets ugly..."
This always seems to happen to MacGregor 26 owners but when the hairs get split finely enough someone always feels put down.
Jeff_H's dispassionate analysis of this or that boat design standard has more then once raised the dander of the owner of an 'X' or 'Y' brand/model boat that was lower ranked then an 'A', 'B' or 'C'. 
When we bought our Tartan 27' (1967) 7 years ago I had only done some minor research on the subject and did not even know that sailnet.com existed much less Jeff_H. In other words, I stumbled upon this little old boat and wanted it despite the advice of some friends saying it was too old and would need sooo much work. Instead, I bought the boat since it was in good condition (for it's age), entirely functional, appealed to me, was in my price range and appeared to be a high quality product in it's day (from my limited research 7 years ago).
When we race our T27 now I am certain that the owners of such boats as the Melges 24 among others really enjoy forcing us into foul air and extra tacks for no reason other then 'they can'. One day we may 'inadvertantly' t-bone one of their fast scows and have to rescue them from the water!
We also race against a Pearson 30' that always does well in our division. I have never sailed on a Pearson of any length but I have always admired them. There is a 26' Pearson that looks for all the world like my T27 with its full keel and dog house but minus the center board we have. Kind of like a not too distant cousin from the same era. The Pearson boats have a solid reputation, are well made and had I stumbled upon one that appealed to me that was in my price range I would have bought a Pearson instead. 
I have a friend who bought a MacGregor 26 'S' model water ballast sailboat. While it is hardly up to the build quality of my sturdy old Tartan it is not the motorboat/sailboat crossbreed that can do 20 knots with a 50 HP engine (the 'X' and 'M' models - no offense intended to owners of these models). His Mac can only take a 9.9 HP and it sails nicely and faster then my old Tartan if a bit tender in a blow over 20k. 
In fact there are many threads where people bash the MacGregor 26 as a lightweight half breed but I suspect that none of those posters ever set foot on one or even are aware that not all Mac 26's are the same boats they pretend to dislike. 
It is really all about what floats your boat; whether it is a Lateen rigged Haitian work boat that can carry a heavy duty dump truck or a Melges 24 that is a menace! Every boat is a compromise as are most things in life that one must live with no matter what the 'hot rod' across the dock or street thinks about your ride.
Pearsons are good boats - coming from someone who is not an architect or has any credentials in the boat building world. Heck, the Allied Seawind ketch I was on was a nice boat that I was on and would be happy to call my own too. 
For now I'll stick with what I've got no matter what anyone else thinks or says about it.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

CalebD

thank you for the great feedback, i think you understand my pain.. :laugher 

First off i love your signature;
"The cure for anything is salt water~ sweat, tears, or the sea." ~Isak Denesen

Not sure who this ISak is, but he's on to something.
2nd;
I have gone through this "Dilemma" with motorcycles like i said;
(i found a great def. in wikipedia; 
A dilemma (Greek δί-λημμα "double proposition") is a problem offering at least two solutions or possibilities, of which none are practically acceptable. 
"being between a rock and a hard place"

except in race bike forums no one really dared to go that far (these racers are crazy people...except me off course ...:laugher )
I think sailors are a bit more mature perhaps...:hothead (i hope there are no MC. racers here... :laugher )

...anyhow, Reason is a razor that can cut in any direction, so one has to be careful on what one is cutting.

Jeff has his academic reasons and they are just as valid as any and i have learned something indeed. One needs to learn from others experience so we dont have to keep repeating the mistakes!

But, If you come to think of it, why would any one sail in their right mind?
It makes no sense at all, since it isnt done for any good practical reasons!
Its not like we are Vikings and need to go somewhere with it to fish or kill or explore on a slow a-ss sailboat !
Its dangerous, bad for your pocket (very very bad actualy), its super sloooow (i often laugh when i see a motor boat pass us at 30k while we crawl) and it has no practical use whatsoever (except some ladies find it romantic, so thats good..) 

Its just fun, therapeutic in this crazy age to keep us crazy MEN (and nice ladies) sane, is somewhat nature friendly...and i am sure there are other good reasons (like your friend Isak)

ok, just my 2cents here... 
and i have taken the thread into the cape horn by now, but oh well... 


enjoy the sail;

:thewave: :thewave: :thewave:


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I only have a minute here but I think that it is a huge mistake to say, _"My thinking is just so, that any boat can be a great boat if you spend the time to make it one and know its weaknesses and strength."_ Given your goals this is a huge mistake, the kind that can get you killed out there.

I road raced bikes back in the 60's and 70's. Like bikes, boats are designed for a particular purpose, and if used for that purpose work perfectly acceptably buit could be a killer if pushed beyond its capabilities. Back when I raced, guys would buy some street bike and put gummy tires on them and try to go racing. While these bikes were only merely slow on the straightaways, when it came to the high load turns their suspensions were so unpredicable that they would suddenly lose several feet of track often wiping out themselves or adjacent riders. Now then a really good rider might survive that unpredictable behavior, but in the hands of a normal driver, the result was road rash. Similarly, the street brakes of the era would overheat and suddenly leave the driver without brakes and haybales coming their way.

Also like bikes, over time our understanding of what makes for safe and reasonable risk has shifted. Not that long before I started racing biked, they did not wear leathers or full face helmits, they used drum brakes, exhaust systems were unshielded, without spark arresters and ran next to your calf or thigh. No one would consider it safe race on a bike like that today.

When you talk about doing serious offshore sailing in something like an alberg 35, you can think of it as racing at Daytona with a 1960's era road bike in blue jeans and piss-pot helmet. I'm sure that there are some excellent riders who could pull that off safely, or some moron whose loss no one would mourn, but for the rest of us mortals, its kinda like playing russian roulette with a gun that you picked up and did not even check to see how many bullets are in the cylinder.

You are new to this sport, and as I read your words this lack of experience comes across loud and clear. That is perfectly alright, we all had to start somewhere. My concern is the sense that this is all acedemic. Its not.

In any dangerous endeavor a reasonable person takes a while to learn and develop well reasoned opinions. Before you jump to conclusions, I strongly suggest that you slow down, do a bunch of sailing on a wide variety of boats, read everything you can, including up to date material, and then hopefully, you can come to a decision that makes sense to you, which may lead you in some totally new directions or may lead you back to the boats that you currently seem drawn to but at least at that point you would understand the risks.

Lastly, I want to comment on where you say, "Jeff has his academic reasons". I may express my opinions in an academic manner, but I have lived with and sailed on these kinds of boats in a wide range of conditions and my comments are based these experiences.

And just like bikes, when someone tells you can't use 1960's era drum brakes in a 100 mile road race, or someone tells you an Alberg 35 is a miserable boat in heavy going, perhaps beyond boarderline dangerous, especially when loaded to go cruising based on slugging it out in conditions that would not even be all that bad in a better design, you might want to pay attention whether it sounds merely academic or not.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

conquistatadore said:


> How are the Cal 29? see alot of them for sale.
> is it similar to 30?


The Cal 29 is actually very good boat,
they sail well in a wide range of conditions.
My one beef is that it is difficult to see over the 
cabin house while sitting in the cockpit.
Cal built a series of 30'ers, Cal 30, 2-30, and 3-30.
I like the 2-30, which has a more powerful hull shape 
than the 29 and is better in stronger winds.
The original Cal 30 is actually surprisingly fast despite
its more traditional design. And the 3-30 is a faster
boat upwind but Lapworth's hull designs of that period
started to show some influence of the IOR, which 
produced a stern treatment that is less favorable
for reaching and running in a breeze.
The Cal 34 is generally a great boat for the money,
it is almost just a 30'er with long overhangs added
and is not much faster than the 29 or 30s. But it
is a good sailing boat that has a lively, responsive
feel for its size.


----------



## conquistatadore (Nov 4, 2009)

*cal boats*

Mr; Cool,

based on what i have seen, Cal boats seem nice. The 34 was specially nice but missed out on that  
I like Islanders too. (it looks like you own one). I looked at a 30 also that i was interested in buying.. very solid boat. As i was busy looking at it, another guy bought it... unseen...! :laugher 
can you believe it ... .... ?!? 
What a jerk ...hehe...:clobber

It seems a good boat is like a hot woman... everybody wants them!
Lot of nice boats out there for sure...

-------

As for Mr; H comments;

again i have to agree that you have certainly valid points i cannot argue with in regards to safety specially.

its stupid to race an old junky bike at 150mph! No doubt.
That wasnt my point at all and i never did (my race bike was actually brand new). In racing you never see a bike thats older than 2 years old max (but then you gotta see these vintage class racers, and you'll be surprised....)
But on the track, you see bikes that range all over and some of these oldies can kick some butt, trust me i have seen it a 100 times.
I have also seen how older race bikes break down as pieces start falling off or leak fluids while mid track... scary! (specialy if you are following one...)

But then i have seen so many of these OLD Pearsons being sailed all over the world, and how people brag about their integrity, so then again we are back to where we started... and thats old subject, so we'll leave that behind us and move on...

Anyhow, your point is well taken and understood and i thank you indeed for your safety concerns> I will certainly incorporate it into my decision in terms of safety and integrity of the boat. I really dont have any immediate plans to drown myself yet, or my friends, but i will certainly let you know if that changes in the future ..:laugher

Sincere regards.

:thewave: :thewave: :thewave:


----------



## COOL (Dec 1, 2009)

conquistatadore said:


> based on what i have seen, Cal boats seem nice.
> I like Islanders too. (it looks like you own one). I looked at a 30 also


Yes, I have an Islander 30 II , designed by Robert Finch
who also designed the Catalina 27. It has turned out to
be a very nice sailing boat. I would say that the build
quality of Islander and Cal boats is equal.
The Islander 30 & 36 are two of the best production boats
of the early '70s.


----------



## smurphny (Feb 20, 2009)

The boats designed by Carl Alberg have proven themselves time and again. An A35 lay ahull in the same storm that killed, what was it, 14 sailors in the Fastnet Race in '79. They had the "newest" IOR designs, many of which were and are difficult or impossible even to get to heave-to, forcing them to run with a storm down the faces of breaking waves--a REALLY BAD idea. Modern boat designs with fin keels, retractable keels, multi-hull, etc. are certainly faster and more convenient than a classic full displacement hull but to equate the safety of this proven design to an old broken bike is ridiculous. Many of your most popular modern boats are built as cheaply as possible with thin glass, keels that fall off, spade rudders that catch every piece of debris in the water, and many mechanical contraptions to break down... but they have pretty galleys and impressive equipment for sitting at docks. All the technical parameters such as capsize ratios and comfort ratings show the Alberg (and other)type full keel designs to be among the safest.


----------



## dell30rb (Jul 16, 2008)

I own a coaster. Hull 9. Its a very solid boat. Lots of original equipment still on it. I have the last 30 years worth of receipts and the original sail and deck plan. Its also been surveyed thoroughly in the two years I've owned it. With the exception of the rudder, which I have had the yard repair, I've never had to do any serious work on it. The deck is original and very stout. The chainplates and rigging are in great shape and my atomic 4 is still running like a top.

I have yet to do any serious offshore work with the boat, but I have extensively sailed it around the chesapeake. I like the boat's design. Its a very classic and solid feeling sailboat. Very easy to handle the sails and strong and fast when the wind picks up. With a good paint and varnish job she will really turn heads. 

Compared to my pop's 2003 beneteau 423 the pearson is a much better sailor. Also the beneteau has a tendency to pound and shudder. The pearson rarely pounds and when it does it never has the shudder. And as the previous poster suggested it will easily heave to.

The heaviest weather I've had the boat in was 35kts sustained out in the chesapeake. I had experienced crew with me; reefed and made appropriate sail choices; and the boat handled admirably. The 6 or 7 foot sea in the bay was especially nasty but the hull tracked very well and it was easy to hold a course. Take my opinion with a grain of salt because I'm no expert; but its my understanding that a well maintained coaster with a few offshore improvements like a companionway and larger cockpit drains would be a relatively safe ride as long as the skipper handles her well and makes good choices. I would never consider something Luke an Atlantic crossing , but a shorter offshore trip with good planning; good weather forecast and a prepared and competent crew should be no problem for the coaster

Fyi my boats previous owners have sailed it all over the place.. mostly down to the virgin islands and vicinity..


----------



## Rad56 (Jul 9, 2010)

*Considering 1967 Pearson Coaster*

Dear Jeff,

We are considering purchase of one of these and saw your excellent post.
The boat in question was thoroughly gone through and updated by a previous owner, a retired submarine electrician. The boat seems to be very well maintained. We will use our next boat for coastal cruising and don't plan to use it offshore plant all. I have a few questions regarding your post below.

1. Regarding hull strength (or lack of) and insufficient framing you mentioned below, what can be done, if anything, to improve this? Will this vintage boat hold up in a blow, seeing as we are not going to be offshore?

2. The mast is supported on a deck beam that's picked up by 2 transverse beams/bulkheads in the cabin, instead of standard compression post. What are your thoughts?

3. There are 2 house batteries beside the engine, with a separate starting battery elsewhere. These batteries in other older boats I've seen are usually farther from the engine. Is this safe? Also, the previous owner put the 2 house batteries under plexiglass cover. Thoughts, comments?

Your comments are quite thorough and impressive, as is your experience. Thanks for any further input you may have.

--Rad



Jeff_H said:


> All right, If I have to...
> 
> I know the Wanderer, Coaster, Vanguard and Alberg 30 quite well. My family owned a Vanguard back in the 1960's and have sailed and worked on them at various points since. When we considered buying the Vanguard, we visited the Pearson plant and looked at how Coasters and Wanderers were being built, did a sail trail, and I have sailed on and been aboard these boats quite a few times since including racing a Coaster back in the 70's. I also know the Alberg 30 quite well, have sailed on them quite a bit and helped maintain one in exchange for being able to use the boat.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I would have no problem recommending a Coaster that has surveyed in good condition for coastal use. They are reasonably good boats for that purpose. Assuming that the boat has been maintained in terms of rigging, and chainplate replacement, and that the wooden structural components have not rotted out behind the Formica, I would expect these boats to do fine in the kinds of conditions normally experienced by the typical coastal cruiser. While not as easy to handle in a blow as many more modern design, they are none the less reasonably seaworthy designs. If all you are doing is coastal cruising, you would not be expected to spend days at a time riding out gale force winds or being thrown from wave tops into the trough (as you might offshore) and so assuming the original structure is intact you should not have to beef things up. If it hasn't been done by prior owners, I would consider sounding out the decks for delamination and adding backing plates on the winches and major cleats. 

The original mast supports were reasonably robust on the Pearsons. If the original mast support structure is intact and does not show signs of movement or deterioration, it is probably perfectly fine for coastal use. 

The battery question comes down to several factors that you do not mention. If these are traditional lead/acid batteries you will need to be able to service them, and they should be in a vented compartment where the gases produced by charging cannot be ignited by sparks from the electrical system. The efficiency and durability of these batteries are also impaired by heat. Sealed batteries obviously do not have the same maintenance or explosion issue. 

Jeff


----------



## Rad56 (Jul 9, 2010)

Dear Jeff,
Thank you for all responding--this is invaluable as we investigate the boat further. Many thanks again,
Rad


----------



## oaklandsailor (Mar 24, 2010)

Dear fellows: 

I cannot get into chewing on any of the technical bones that several of you seem confident of. I am neither a marine engineer nor naval architect or even a lifetime world cruiser. I've read the entire thread, which is full of food for thought. But I do have a comment: If there's a boat you like and you can find owners who actively cruise and enjoy theirs and who prosper by their ownership, you can have reasonable hopes of doing the same. 

For example, I have immersed myself in the internet obsessively for the last ten days or so due to my interest in an Alberg 35 that I am considering. A poster above stated that "when someone tells you an Alberg 35 is a miserable boat in heavy going, perhaps beyond boarderline dangerous, especially when loaded to go cruising based on slugging it out in conditions that would not even be all that bad in a better design, you might want to pay attention whether it sounds merely academic or not". 
This opinion sounds perfectly authoritative, almost intimidatingly so, but I intend to take it with a grain of salt. Maybe two of them.

Earlier today, yes, this very day, and I am not making this up, I spoke with a sailor who has spent 15 years on his 1961 A35 single handing in and out of the SF Bay, cruising the boat from SF to Florida and back again with his wife, sailing home from Mexico trapped for several days in heavy weather with nowhere to put in. Sick and eager to be somewhere else, yes, but not fearful nor in any perceived peril at any time. His report, undramatic though it was, never mentioned their feeling unsafe or wishing he'd been in a Swan 43 or similar.

Earlier in the week I traded emails with husband/wife cruisers about their experience sailing their A35 to/in the S. Pacific, who stated they are happy with their A35 sloop and felt confident and safe in all the weather they've encountered. Friends, I am not speaking of master mariners or retired shipwrights but middle aged men and woman who've bought the best boat they could afford and then pushed off. Perhaps the reports are out there but I didn't come across any that mentioned lost or capsized A35's. Again, they may exist but I have not seen them.

Last is this online review authored by a sailor known as PortMaine, which I culled from the internet yesterday saying:
"This is a great cruising boat. Fast and sea kind. Sailed from New England to Australia via Panama. The boat performs very well in heavy weather and handled 50 knot winds and 10 foot seas crossing to Gulf Stream to Bermuda and 35 knot winds and 12 foot following seas leaving Easter Island in the Pacific. Needs a large headsail to perform well in light winds, but her narrow beam lets her slice through the water. We beat many 50 - 60 foot vessels across long passages. You can't beat this boat for a combination of off-shore speed and comfort at all points of sail. The raised transom makes cruising the trade winds and following seas very comfortable....."

and "The hull is as solid as steel and over 1" thick below the waterline. We bounced off several rocks and reefs and never had any damage (even one grounding at 5+ knots ~ I won't bother to explain...). This is a vessel that you can feel safe and secure in...."

and "Best performance with a large head sail push out on the spinnaker pole. We rattled off several 160 - 180 NM noon runs...." 

and he or she ends the review of their boat by saying "I would take another Alberg to sea in a heartbeat. The 35' was a good size for our 3 adult crew. Beautiful lines and even better performance"

This is not the first glowing report on the A35 I've read. Call me crazy, but cruising a boat that is repeatedly honored as a sound voyager seems like a very good bet. I have yet to see this boat trashed, maligned or dismissed anywhere on the internet except in this thread. And so, very respectfully, I ask: WHAT THE EFF!

Thank you.
OS


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

Abso-fragging-lutely!


----------



## kenster (Jan 26, 2009)

I am the proud owner of a Bristol 32, and say 'Right-On' to OaklandSailor !!!!


----------

