# 39 soverel..location michigan



## kcrk (Mar 1, 2011)

any advise or opinions on this boat,,,the asking price is $69k


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

My 33 is a scaled down 39 , both designed by Mark Soverel. very fast responsive off shore race boat. the 39 carries a lot of sail area for a 39' boat and most were race equiped. it does take a crew to sail one with the running back stays and check stays. the ones made at soverel were lighter then the latter Tartan model. the Tartan model has more interior finish work. the price sounds a little high for a late 80's 39 but if it has been maintained and has a full compliment of newer sails it may be worth it. great boat if you want a offshore racer or coastal cruser but a blue water boat it is not. it has a low boom and cabin, the cockpit does not fit a dodger or that type of crusing equipment very well. If one comes up for sail here in the west coast I just might move up to a 39


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

While there are similarities between the Soverel 33 and the Soverel 39, these are significantly different boats. The Soverel 33 remains one of my favorite PHRF race boats of all time. These are well rounded boats that sail really well in almost all conditions. They are moderately forgiving and in the hands of a reasonably skilled crew are a joy to sail. Unlike the Soverel 39, the Soverel 33, which began life as the Soverel 30, was designed under the MORC rule. The MORC of that era produced well-rounded designs that were very good boats even when no longer leading edge MORC race boats. 

The Soverel 39 on the other hand was designed as a grand-prix IOR race boat. Compared to the S-33, they were fragile and tricky boats to sail well. The prototype, _Locura_, was built to compete in the SORC back when the SORC was still a big deal that attracted world class boats from all over the planet. It is a classic three plane IOR hullform. In its original form, _Locura_ was lighter, deeper, more heavily ballasted and carried a lot more sail area than the later production boats and so sailed much better than the production versions. <O

By the time that Soverel 39's hit production, the IOR rule had changed and the boats were not as competitive as _Locura_ had been. Unlike the MORC, the IOR did not produce well rounded boats. In an effort to make the boats more appealing to a broader audience, a nicer coastal cruising interior was added and the rig detuned from its original design. The added weight of the interior was deducted from the reduced draft keel. While this made the boat more comfortable down below, this took an already cranky sailing design and made it far harder to sail well. The Tartan versions began life more expensive as compared to other less obsolete raceboat designs of that era, such as the Express 37, J-35, Farr 37, or Frers 38. 

I notice that the boat in Michigan has had wings added to her keel, but any increas in stability may be in part offset by her shallower than stock draft which I believe was 7'-2". Any comment on whether she has better or worse stability would be sheer speculation on my part. <O

I have came close to buying both _Locura_ (_Avalon_ at $26,500) and also considered one of the Tartan versions (in really nice shape for less than $50K). These were highly charismatic designs for me. I really like the fractional rig and I loved the Soverel 33 and so expected the S-39 to knock my socks off. But unfortunately, like so many obsolete race boats, its hard to find a niche that these boats fit in. You have not said why you are looking at this boat but as a race boat, (and unlike the Soverel 33) they are too tender and lack adequate sail area to stay at speed consistently. As a cruising boat, they are too tender and have such a narrow groove that it requires quite a bit of skill and attention to sail in changeable conditions, and while they can be reasonable acceptable light air boats, they were not as good as I would have expected based on the 33 and also require just the right sail for the conditions. The flats forward also mean that they pound your teeth out in a chop. 

<OI had an interesting discussion with the PHRF measurer in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com







Charleston</ST1</st1:City> about these boats. Locura ended up down there and has been heavily optimized and yet can't sail to her rating. The problem is that she is a fast boat in a narrow range of conditions and when sailed by a highly skilled crew. The problem is that outside of those conditions these boats fall flat and so have a hard time competing. Typical of many IOR boats of that era, when they lose speed due to something like a powerboat wake or chop, they have a hard time getting back up to speed. 

<OIn the end, I have followed a few of these boats on the market over the years. Most have remained on the market for many years. There was one boat that sold last year which I looked at before I bought my boat back in 2000- 2001. Near as I can tell, they have all sold for far less than $69K, fecting something less than a similar year J-35 somewhere in the mid to high $40K range. 

Although you have not stated a purpose for considering this boat, if your goal is to buy an IOR one tonner, you might look at something like a Garratt 40, or J-41. Other better rounded racer-cruisers in that price and size range might include the Frers 36, Tripp 38, Express 37, Farr 37 or 38. 

Respectfully,
Jeff<O


----------



## kcrk (Mar 1, 2011)

*39 soverel*

thanks to both of your responses...this boat would mainly be cruised on the great lakes...i understand that this is not the ideal cruiser, but the speed also intreages me..i have not seen the boat yet, but the description does sound good..this is a one owner boat, with 30 k in upgrades in the last 10 years..this boat is very sexy to me, im not sure if it will be the right move, its a lot of money for me, i will take my time to make the right choice,,your in put is helpful...thanks again...ken


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

If you are looking for a performance cruisier for the Great Lakes, I would like to suggest that you also look at this Farr 38. 
1981 Farr 38 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

This is a sistership of my current boat, which I bought after considering the Soverel 39. While the Tartan in Michigan appears to be in nicer condition and it probably has a 6 seconds a mile faster PHRF rating than the Farr 38, the Farr 38 is a lot more forgiving and is easier to keep at speed. I have had a pretty easy time sailing her to her rating in a wide range of conditions. The Farr 38 also has a little nicer interior laid out (although the Michigan boat appears to have a beautifully maintained and upgraded interior).

The South African versions of the Farr 38 like this one and mine were optimized for the light air of Capetown harbor racing and the very heavy air and sea conditions of the south Atlantic. They are surprisingly robust for a light boat and they have a great offshore record. (My boat was single-handed in from South Africa on her own bottom and I have cruised her extensively in a very wide range of conditions) You should be able to buy The Farr for quite a bit less than the Soverel and she should serve you well.

Jeff


----------



## kevlarpirate (Jul 17, 2006)

jeff, You say it is surprisingly robust??? does that include the two keel separations and sinkings as a result of fender washers ripping through
only one centimeter of skin thickness ?
Not to mention that 3 people died? I would not call that robust. and i seriously doubt the build spec is much different between any of these boats, unless this deficiency was discovered early on and then all boats were recalled by their individual builders, however many that was


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I am glad that you brought this up. As I believe you and I have discussed in the past, the boat that sank in Australia killing two people, a boat called _Rising Farrster,_ was an Australian redesigned version of the Farr 38 that was built without consultation with Bruce Farr's organization. This was a very different boat than the South African built standard design Farr 11.6 that I referred to as being "surprisingly robust".

To explain for those coming late to this, in 2002 (I believe) a boat that was identified as a Farr 38, being used by a sailing school, lost its keel and a large piece of its hull, sinking in less than half a minute and killing two out of the 6 crew members. There was a 2003 Coroners evaluation of that boat which concluded that the sinking occurred because the structure of this boat was not up to reasonable standards. While the boat was identified as a Farr 38 in the report, this boat had a significantly different keel, rig, and internal structure than the standard Farr 11.6 (Farr 38) as they were designed by Farr's office and as most of them were constructed.

To explain the differences in more detail, the normal Farr engineered Farr 11.6's (Farr 38's) have an elaborate system of hand glassed-in stringers and transverse framing. They have a deep sump with very deep hand laid up transverse frames extending to the bottom of that sump and approximately 5" to 7" above the hull on either side, and which extend far up on to the topsides and which are tied into stringers, bulkheads and flats on either side of the hull. The keelbolts on the standard design are clustered two to three bolts per sump bay and connected with 8 mm S.S. backing plates which then have fender washers above that.

The laminating schedule for the glass below these backing plates consisted of overlapping laminate from of the two hull sizes, as well as over laps of the the transverse frames resulting in approximately 40 to 56 mm of thickness below the bearing plates (approximately 1.5 to 2 times the thickness required by ABS 1996 amendment) depending on the particular sump bay. The stardard 11.6's had a 6'-4" draft fin keel without a bulb, with more keel bolts, and a larger contact area as compared to _Rising Farrster._ The South African versions, like the boat in question had slightly heavier scantlings (mostly wider tabbing and more hand work) and weighed a little more than the New Zealand, Australian, Swedish, or Canadian standard versions of the boat.

_Rising Farrster_ was built off of a heavily customized set of molds which was modified by eliminated the sump and skeg altogether. The internal framing was also greatly reduced from the Farr 11.6. Instead of the deep transverse frames that were hand glassed over the keel sump, _Rising Farrister_ had no sump and very shallow transverse frames which minimally lapped onto the keel area and did not cross the portion of the hull where the keel bolts were physically located. _Rising Farrster _had thinner hull skins than the stock Farr 11.6's. The hull skins passed across the bottom of the boat, rather than the double lap at this point found in stock Farr 11.6's, resulting in a skin thickness quoted in the Cornoners Report as being 5.5 mm approximately 10-15% of the hull thickness at this point that would be actually present in standard Farr 11.6's.

Further adding to the problem, _Rising Farrster_ was fitted with a slightly heavier than a stock 11.6 custom keel, which had a bulb rather than straight fin and had greater draft (which has been variously quoted as having 7'-2" to 7'-6 draft) and so concentrated the loads lower increasing the loads on the keel bolts. Adding to this death wish design, in comparison with the stock 11.6's, _Rising Farrster_ had fewer keel bolts, which had small bearing plates which did not tie the keel bolts together (effectively behaving as fender washers as you note) and a smaller keel contact bearing area.

The amazing part of this is that _Rising Farrster_ lasted a long as she did. Then again the Coronor's report indicated that even with all of that there was a 1.5 safety factor, but of course that is less than the safety factor of 2 required by the ABS and essentially a quarter of the safety factor in the standard Farr 11.6.

In actual service the standard version of these boats have held up extremely well. As recently as 4 years ago, there was a still a one design class of Farr 11.6's in the Heineken Capetown to Rio Transatlantic race, a race that spent the first week in 40-50 knot winds and ended in light air on the South America. Pretty good for roughly 25 year old race boats some of which had done this race on a regular basis. This last running of the Capetown-Bahia race had a single Farr 11.6 which was 31 years old. I think that you would have to agree that this track record is 'surprisingly robust' considering the grueling conditions that the South African based boats are routinely race in.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## kevlarpirate (Jul 17, 2006)

Jeff your detailed report actually is just a delusion
These boats are all simply under built, truth be told
just like the J-44 they very most likely lost their keels as a result 
of thin underbelly and high dynamic stress exceeding tensile strength
This is just simple math. too thin a hull , , no amount of words can explain this away. 

To get speed, (what buyers are addicted to ) means reducing strength to make a lightweight hull

And guess what , BOATS SINK , and hope you are not inside when it happens


----------



## kevlarpirate (Jul 17, 2006)

Jeff
also , please reference your specific statements with links, I never came across
these detailed claims you make, 
being an engineer with structures and materials background I investigate all keel failures so I am interested to see these reports.

The only report I found was the one that sank was the one out of Texas
on it's way to Isla Mujeres? Interesting there are two cases. Thanks


----------



## kevlarpirate (Jul 17, 2006)

Oh and one more thing you mention is that these were optimized for the light air of Capetown harbor racing and the very heavy air and sea conditions of the south Atlantic. 

Please explain how a boat, any boat can possibly be optimized for both light and very heavy air. ? This seems just too good to be true.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Kev,

Let me see if I can clear up your confusion. The boat from Texas A&M that sank on it's way to Isla Mujeres was a Cape Fear 38. The Cape Fear 38 was a Bruce Merek design and had no relationship to the Bruce Farr designed Farr 11.6 or Farr 38's. I am not sure what the J-44 that you mentioned has to do with this discussion but they are of a very different construction technique.

Just for the record, the Coast Guard inquiry on the Cape Fear 38 sinking concluded that it lost its keel due a combination of factors, none of which were considered to be directly related to how the boat was built. The Coast Guard's independent structural analyis indicated that the probable cause of the failure was due to a grounding which delaminated the laminate at the forward end of the keel and which was poorly repaired by students under the direction of the sailing team manager. The problem was exacerbated by storing the boat in a slip where it was aground at low tide and pounded with each passing wake. The thrust of the Coast Guard report pointed the finger at Texas A&M for the failure to properly address these issues. (I have a copy of the full report but the report is summarized in this article. Report: Grounding caused yacht's keel failure)

Regarding _Rising Farrster_, the "Farr 38" which sank in Australia, here is a link to the Coroner' Report on _Rising Farrster_. It describes in some detail how the _Rising Farrster_ was constructed. Updated - Implications for Yacht Owners Arising from the NSW Coronial Inquest into the Deaths Aboard the Yacht Rising Farrster The figures quoted above which describe _Risng Farrster_ came from that report. I have a more detailed version of that report in my files.

So if your comment where you say_" These boats are all simply under built, truth be told they very most likely lost their keels as a result of thin underbelly and high dynamic stress exceeding tensile strength. This is just simple math. too thin a hull_ " is referring to _Rising Farrster_, the Australian Coroner's report and I agree with you. But the deficiencies in the construction of _Rising Farrster_ has little to do with the Farr 11.6 in question.

Shortly after the results of the Coroners report was issued, I was in contact with a number of Farr 11.6 owners around the world. As you might imagine we were concerned about the possible implications of the findings and how they related to how our boats were built. Since I live in Annapolis where Farr's offices are located, I agreed to see what I could find out and so met with Graham Williams at Farr's office. Graham was a project manager involved with the Farr 11.6's and was tone of the liasons between Farr's office and the Australian Coroner's investgation.

Graham was kind enough to show me the construction documents for the production Farr 11.6's and was the one who explained the differences in construction between _Rising Farrster_ , as described in the report, and the standard Farr 11.6's. When you saw the pictures of the interior of structure on _Rising Farrster_ particularly the area around the floor frames (transverse frames) and compared it to the stock Farr 11.6 the differences are readily apparent. Graham showed me the laminate schedule in this area of the stock boat and explained the sequence of construction. I ended up with a copy of the drawing, which showed the laminating schedule and thickness in this area. (If you are seriously interested you can order that drawing from Farr's office)

About this time one of the US west coast Farr 38 owners unbolted and rebedded his keel. He already had a copy of the drawings. He took measurements of the glass thickness at the bottom of the sump and his measurements were consistent with this drawing. The description above of the standard Farr 11.6 construction came from that drawing and those discussions.

In terms of being South African versions being optimized for the both heavy and light air. The Farr 11.6's start out as an easily driven hullform with a moderate amount of form stability and a lot of ballasted stability. In its stock form the Farr 11.6 starts with a modestly generous standing sail area (SA/D around 22-23). In light air mode, 11.6's carry penalty poles and over-height spinnakers (5 feet higher hoist position than the jib). This results in very good light air reaching speeds. With proper light air genoas these boats are also excellent upwind in light winds, especially for a boat of this era. (The later IMS and IRC designs have less wetted surface and relatively larger SA/D's and so will beat us at the very lightest end of the wind range.)

The South African Farr 38's heavy air optimization was both structural and in the sail handling gear and sail inventory. The South African boats had a number of differences from the boats built elsewhere. The structure was beefed up with simple items such as wider tabbing with an extra laminate layer, or longer chain plates with one extra row of bolts. The structure as executed on the South African boats is quite labor intensive. Instead of molded frames and stringers, the frames and stringers were all hand-glassed directly to the hull as part of the hull lay-up while the boats were in the mold. Some modifications were easy additions such as the South African boats have a solid glass crush block at the forefoot, which fills the area from the stem back to the first bulkhead to above the waterline. The South African boats have one extra transverse bulkhead at the aft end of the cabin and galley area and another extra transverse bulkhead forward of the rudder post instead of a second set of knees or a transverse frame at this location. The decks on my South African boat are not cored but have a series of closely spaced glassed in frames.

On deck the S.A. boat's portlights were thicker plexiglass, with a smaller panel area, and were thru bolted over the cabin side rather than glued into a recessed aluminum frame as was done on the NZ and Aus boats. While not as pretty, it should be more robust.

The normal 11.6's had cockpit lockers, which open to the interior and which serve as sail lockers. To reduce the risk of heavy weather downflooding, on the South African boats this cockpit locker is simply a shallow tray molded continuous with the deck and which has its bottom above the height of the cockpit sole with drains into the cockpit.

In terms of sail handling details and sail inventory, the South African boats came with tracks that extend further onto the foredeck, which are intended for use with a heavy weather blade and the storm jib, and a dedicated track on the mast for the storm trisail. On my boat there is a glassed in solid glass stringer below the foredeck track with a continuous aluminum backing plate below. (I discovered that detail when I replaced the foredeck track with an adjust on the fly system) The heavy air sail inventory included bullet proof heavy air blades, and the usual storm sails. On my boat, I have a 109% kevlar lapper, which was designed for a very wide wind range. I use it in winds down to around 5 knots and up to the high 20 knot range with gusts above that. At the upper end of that range, I have a single reef in the mainsail. My boat came with a 95% kevlar blade that was an amazing sail and which could be carried into very high windspeeds with a single-reefed mainsail.

Also in terms of optimizing the interior for heavy air, on the interior there are sturdy grab bars at shoulder level, non-skid rolled into the varnish on the cabin sole, narrow passageways with good footholds, and seaberths for half the racing crew on each side of the boat. On the flip side the floor area of the head and galley are tight so you can get good traction, but it means that both the head and galley are a little tight for my taste and cramped as compared to more modern coastal cruisers.

I would agree with you that the Farr 38 is a light boat but her light weight did not come at the price of strength. Her structural scantlings are on a par with much heavier boats. (The hull is similar thickness to many heavier cruising boats and Farr included a lot of internal framing which is pretty rare even on much heavier boats.) Much of the weight savings came through careful engineering and a whole lot of hand labor, and careful workmanship in the layups. It did come at the price of a simple and lightly detailed interior with a minumum of liners, almost no teak, and some details which frankly are not as pretty as those on more dedicated cruisers. The light weight also came at the price of a small fuel tank and small holding tank. These boats carry 70-80 gallons of water, but not all that much fuel or poop.

Hopefully, this addresses your concerns.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I had a few more moments to track down the more detailed Coronors Inquest Report online.

Here is a link to the detailed report. http://www.yachting.org.au/site/yachting/ayf/downloads/Technical/Flying%20Fish%20Report%20-%202003.pdf

According to the report, _Rising Farrster_ was built by Binks who also built the Farr 11.6's in Australia. It was intended by Binks to be an updated model to be called an IMS 38.

Pages 11 through 16 discusses some of the differences between the Farr 11.6 and the IMS 38 as designed and as Rising Farrster was actually built.

The second to last paragraph on Page 12 summarizes the modifications to the Farr 11.6 design, (which I described in more detail above); including the elimination of the sump, the different keel bolt arrangement, different floor frames (transverse and longitudinal framing changes are discussed in more detail further down the document) and different laminate schedule.

The last paragraphs on Page 13 confirms that the keel was heavier than designed, and that the shell laminate was thinner than designed, that floor framing was omitted, and that the weight was added to the bottom of the keel.

Since the Corroner's Inquest Report was not intended as a comparison between the 11.6 and IMS 38, it does not explain in great detail the specific design differences between the IMS 38 and the 11.6, but does describe the differences between the IMS 38 as Farr's office designed it and the boat in question. If you wish to perform a more detailed comparison between the Farr 11.6 and the boat in question, and do not want to take my word for them, I would suggest that in your efforts to investigate all keel failures you might want to order the 11.6 hull construction pages from Farr and compare them to the descriptions in the report. The differences are very dramatic and enlightening.

Having read the report, the findings do not sound like a delusion to me....

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Just for clarity and comparison, below is a _Synergy_ which is a stock South African Farr 11.6.










And below this is an IMS 38 similar to _Rising Farrster_. Although these are not the best shots of each, I think that you can see the larger footprint where the keel meets the 11.6's hull and the bulb on the IMS 38 which is absent on the 11.6.


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

Not to hijack your hijack but concerning the Soverel 39 the boat he is looking at has been raced in Grosse Ille Michigan for a number of years. The keel was cut down and wings added because of shallow water in the area. I'm pretty sure this boat was one of the Tartan built Soverels. The PHRF-LE rating for the boat is 78 which is pretty competitive in local conditions. Pros- Pretty boat, quality build, nice interior. Cons- You need a big crew to race. Interesting downwind performance in a blow. I'm pretty sure the boat's current name is Hellion.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Sandusky: 

You are right about Kev and I highjacking this thread. I am sorry about that. I can split this thread into its original discussion and a discussion of lost keels if you and/or Kcrk think that is more appropriate.

Your description of Hellion pretty much matches my own experience with these boats. 

Jeff


----------

