# santana 30 or j30?



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

i was wondering what others thought of the santana 30 versus the j30. thoughts on construction, cruisability, racing, bluewater cruising etc. and comparison in general.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Very different boats... Either would make a decent coastal cruiser, neither would be considered 'blue water' boats..

The Santana is more of an IOR influenced masthead rig design with a high aspect main and larger jibs, genoas and spinnakers. The J is a fractional rig boat with more power in the main and smaller headsails. The Santana might be 'cruisier' from a living aboard perspective but the J will likely be a bit more fun to sail and will be better behaved overall. The smaller headsails will make the boat more manageable esp for a couple.

Both are decent boats... try to get on board each and see which one 'speaks' to you. Either will need close inspections/survey with a view to identifying any issues with delamination and wet core in the decks, and I believe the J has a (at least partially) cored hull too. Not a bad thing unless things have gone badly from undetected leaks here and there.

Good luck... Lake sailing, I presume?.. I'd probably lean toward the J if it's a good one.. but I'm partial to fractional rigs...


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

Note - this post has been heavily edited by Jeff H. ; anyone can read the sailing world links about the respective boats and judge for themselves.....WDS

Note- That is correct, this post was edited to correct grossly misleading statements made by WDSchock in violation of forum rules. Those edits have been noted. Jeff_H

The S30 will *not (J_H)* sail better in light airs. The S-30 rates about 30 seconds a mile (slower J_H) than the J/30 (144 vs 174 in most regions, with a bigger spread in light air regions like the Chesapeake and Long Island Sound J_H). The J-30 is also a stable boat in heavy breeze, and will surf easily. The S30 hull is solid fiberglass, so no core issues there (except for notorious deck problems on the Santanas of this era J_H). Ask Newport Newbie about his S30. He posts here quite a bit. Or check this review http://www.sailingworld.com/sailboats/santana-3030

The J30 was built by a contract manufacturer called TPI (which is still in business after a name change which occured due to the retirement/death of one of the partners, and which is still highly regarded as one of the higher quality contract composite fabricators for a company which is also still in business and still uses this same contract fabricator J_H). This review (does not J_H) imply that the J/30 a pig in light and medium winds - but does say that it is excellent in heavy breeze. http://www.sailingworld.com/sailboats/j30

So - depends on the prevailing conditions in your location.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

as some of you know, i have a santana 525 hull #227. i love the boat. i love w.d. schock and their products. there are people here that consider their designs to be cheap and flimsy for racing and protected waters only. 
i do not consider myself expert on design and construction of boats, but if given the chance, i would jump at the opportunity to build schock boats!
it is generaly believed that the j30 is over built this is why they were able to be single handed during the famous fastnet race without any damages.
i am looking for a 30 footer for cruising and all that goes with that. and the s30 and j30 are within my affordability.
i feel any boat will work as long as it is deployed durring an appropriate weather window for that boat.
for that matter, my 525 could be employed to great extent if used durring environmental conditions that are within the envelope of boats capability.
i just am looking at these 30 footers for their creature comforts as opposed to my beloved 525.


----------



## Sabreman (Sep 23, 2006)

No way the J could be considered a cruiser in any sense, regardless of the marketing. Flat deck, lots of water on deck and in the cockpit makes for a relatively wet boat. And the mast running through the center of the head is humorous. I can only imaging maneuvering around it in a seaway. And the curtain into the V berth is a compromise due to the presence of the mast and lack of clearance.

If you are looking for an offshore cruiser, there are better choices. if you are looking for a club racer, this is a nice boat, IMO.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

I regularly sail on a friend's J30. It's one of the later ones with a real cockpit (no sitting on the deck like a J24) and a pretty decent interior. I would have not problem going coastal cruising in it with my wife.


----------



## anthemj24 (Aug 24, 2011)

I have always been partial to J Boats, and would go with the J30 given those choices. It is true that two of those boats made it through the storm that wiped out the fastnet fleet, one of them singlehanded. Neither of the boats you mentioned are cruising boats in the traditional sense, but I am sure you already know that. The J 30 certainly can be cruised. For how long and with how many people really depends on your needs and wants more than the boat. 

If you do decide to go with the J, one thing to watch for is a soggy bottom and transom. The diesel exhaust had a habit of leaking water into the core, and if not corrected early enough it would spread from the transom to the bottom. It is repairable, but at this point you should be able to find a boat that has already been corrected and is dry. Again, you may already know about this, but I feel I would be remiss in not pointing it out.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

I have a S30 and love it. I singlehanded all the time and the boat is a dream to sail. It's quite responsive and built like a tank! Had it out of the water for inspection and bottom paint and in all this time there was NO damage to the hull. No blistering or anything of that nature. I am sure the boat you get depends on the wind and conditions in your area. Here in the pacific the S30 is perfect for my needs. It also has a very nice and roomy layout below. If you are ever in SoCal I'll take you out on mine. Fun boat!


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

The S30 has a solid hand laid up hull - no core in the hull to get soggy or wet.


----------



## anthemj24 (Aug 24, 2011)

WDSchock said:


> The S30 has a solid hand laid up hull - no core in the hull to get soggy or wet.


Yes, you already pointed that out. Of course it does have a cored deck which is fully capable of becoming soggy.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

as i already pointed out, i am in love with the schock products. but... i was really impressed that on the j30, every piece of rigging the designer called for, mr johnson upgraded to the the next size bigger. i believe this is why the boats in the fastnet race came thru without problems. 
so here is a good question, do you think the santana could have done the same thing? it sounds like the santana might have a stronger hull, but is its rigging as strong as the j30's rigging? 
what wire sizes are used in each boat etc?


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

S30 was built with Navtec rod rigging - not wire.

Here are the original design sizes:

Headstay/Backstay/Upper and Lowers #8 cold headed stem rod (min breaking strength 8,200 lbs)

Intermediate shrouds #4 cold headed stem rod (4,700 lbs)

this appears to be typical WD Schock build approach, do the engineering but then make sure "_entire boat can be picked up from any one main shroud plus add in a factor of safety_"

from the J/30 owners site - http://j30.us/blog/?page_id=322
uppers, lowers, and forestay are "1/4" diameter which the Navtec chart has a 6mm 1x19 (with breaking strength of 6,350lbs)

backstays at 3/16" would have breaking strength in the 4,500 lb range.

Didn't realize there was such a big difference - thanks for asking (wait for the J-bots to start a flame war over this) 
(at the shop on Saturday trying to complete year end inventory)


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

i have no doubt that the j30 is a real badass. but i had no clue that the santana was anywhere near comparable. i adore my 525 and will prolly pick up a s20 just because. i just never considered any schock design for any real cruising or island hopping campaign. 
it is generally said, that schock designs are made for weekend warriors in protected waters. they are not made well enough to take anywhere beyond the SF Bay because of light design and shotty construction.
i really need to learn about your S30 and S35 designes. what are the differences between S30 and Schock 30 boats? and S35 and Schock 35? are they the same?


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

Mike,


Our competition has done a great job of creating the false impression that our boats are under engineered, but the J/30 vs S30 shroud example cited above is a perfect example of the reality vs. marketing hype. 

The S/30 shrouds are some 30% stronger, but somehow word on the street was that the J/30 had some super extraordinary over built shrouds.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

I am not so sure that j boats hyped ad much as there is not much known about Schock as there are fewer out there.
One thing i am impressed with is the fact that there is a factory presence right here on this debate. Schock has nothing to lose or gain here. These boats have been out of production 30 years. Who cares?
Obviously Schock does. 
They care about this boat as much today as they did three decades ago when they built the last one!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The reality is that the J-30 is a better sailing boat all around. While I personally am not a huge fan of J-boats for a variety of reasons not relevant to this particular model, the J-30 was one of the best all-around racer/performance coastal cruiser of its era. And while I am fan of many of Schocks offerings; Santana 35, Shock 30/30, Schockwave 30, the 525 (I'd buy a 525 any day before I would buy a J-24) being some of them,* having personally spent a fair amount time on both of these boats*, the J-30 is clearly the better built and better sailing of the two, and certainly much more forgiving and easy to handle.

That said, the cored decks on the Schock and the cored hulls and decks on the J-30 need to examined carefully, since both were built at time when cored composite construction techniques were still quite crude.

This thread has a number of misleading discussion points. The first has to do with relative rigging sizes. Conceptually the rig designs of these two boats come from very different worlds. The rig on the Santana 30 derives from the IOR era, and is a mast head rig. Masthead rigs of that era relied on very stiff spars held in column and so produced extremely high rigging loads on the attachment points and hull. Going upwind in a breeze the loads inparted into the attachment points could be 3-4 times the displacement of the boat.

The J-boats has a fractional rig which is actually a more traditional rig, by which I mean the cruising rig that was popular before rating rules like the IOR rule corrupted rig proportions and sail plans. Fractional rigs in general inpart less load into the hull and attachment points than a mast head rig, and this is especially true in the case of a rig like the J-30's which employs an intensionally flexible mast to permit quick depowering. The size of rigging components and deck hardware, therefore do not reflect a reduction in the margin of safety, but only reflect that the lower forces that result from the difference in design concept between the two boats.

The statement, _"The S/30 shrouds are some 30% stronger, but somehow word on the street was that the J/30 had some super extraordinary over built shrouds." _seems to me to be a classic case of a manufacturer (not J-boat) hyping their product with a misleading statement. The S-30 may have heavier shrouds but their narrower shroud base, stiffer spar, and masthead rig make this necessary if the same margin of safety is to be maintained.

The second gross misstatement is that somehow a solid hull is stronger than a cored hull. While this is a broad generality, Cored hulls are generally several time stronger and stiffer than an equal weight non-cored hull. Cored hulls are less prone to fatigue as well and so in the absense of of core rot (a big 'if') retain more of thier strength over the life of the boat. In the case of the Santana 30 and the J-30, which have similar ballast to weight and hull weight (the Santana Hull and interior being approximately 250 lbs heavier) I would expect the J-30 to have a substantially stronger and stiffer hull than the Santana, and with its more sophiticated internal framing system and lower keel and rig stresses, I would expect the J-30 to hold that strength longer. But of course this is dependent on the hull coring being intact. And that is a big item. Any boat with a cored hull needs to be inspected more carefully by an extremely competent surveyor. (Unlike a deck) if the hull is relatively free of core problems after all these years it will in all probabilty remains so in the future. But if it has problems, the repairs are expensive and likely to be problematic if ignored.

The reality is that the J-30 remains as a popular one design class so there are a lot of J-30's out there which were or are still raced. Many if not most of these boats have been structurally maintained and upgraded over the years. You can find J-30's very reasonable prices with well maintained hulls, modern sail inventory, electronics and deck gear. The same cannot be said of the Santana 30's.

The third mistatement is that the J-30 does not sail well in light air. Like any boat of this era, the J-30's light air performance is not as good as the better designs which followed.

In the _Sailing World _review of the J-30 they said,

"The J/30 is noted for heavy-air performance. It holds its own in moderate and light air as well, but really excels when it's windier. The boat has several cruising amenities (standing headroom, enclosed head, large icebox, and hot water) for those who want to dual-purpose."

"Holding its own in light air" is not the same as "being a pig in light air". In fact its the opposite. Having raced a Santana 30 and against Santana 30, I would take the J-30 any time across the entire wind range, but especially at the light and heavy ends of the range.

Lastly as a cruiser, one of the really nice things about the J-30 is that the J-30 starts out being much easier boat to sail short-handed than the Santana, and it can be set up with a cruising sail inventory which allows minimally overlapping heads sails capable of extremely wide wind ranges, making it even easier still.

In contrast, the rig proportions of the Santana result in a dependancy on huge overlapping genoas in lighter air and therefore result in the need for more headsail changes to obtain performance in higher winds due to the headsails being the primary driver in this rig. In a heavier breeze, changing down to a #2 becomes more critical to carry enough sail for drive and still not overwhelm the Santana's significantly lower stability. In my opinion, this makes the Santana 30 a clearly inferior cruising boat from a sailing standpoint. There is virtually no useful difference between the interior layout of these boats except that the J-30 has a little more room and slightly more headroom in the main cabin and slightly less headroom in the forward cabin.

As someone who knows both these boats well, and who does not have a horse in this race, a J-30 in good shape is a no-brainer winner, hands down over a boat like the Santana 30 in equal condition.

Jeff


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Mike,

There is a 3030(?) here in seattle that had a recent rebuld for lack of better term, then the owner found out he has Alziemers....boat is for sale, overall decent shape. Not sue of the overall differences between the 30 and 3030. 

The main issue i would see, no matter the makes, is the interior designed to a spec you want and need, same with hull etc. One can get what would appear to be a STRONG boat, lets use a Westsail 32 as an example. but reality is, it will not work for where you sail, will be sailing etc, as it is "too strong/heavy" if that is the right way to put it. 

Reality, there may be some better boats for what you want to do, sail etc than these two. Not to say that either is a bad boat. I looked at some J30's before I bought my Jeanneau, the J is a bit bigger, alot in reality, but the Jeanneau is working as well or better for how I sail and use the boat. Altho a 35' version would be nicer. If I do go that size, I'll opt for a mid 90's to early 0x design, or if I can afford one, new. Even tho I could probably get a S35 or equal, the design is older than I want. There are a few on Puget Sound that race/cruise and are quick for there size, and race in a "level 72" class of boat, that include the express 37 and J35, C&C 115 also IIRC, B36.7 is in that range also.

Marty


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

I LOVE these posts debating boats and putting down boats from people who have NEVER been on one...My Lexus IS350 was faster in a straight line than my 911 Carrera 4....it doesnt mean that it was more fun to drive...quite the contrary. So if you are interested in a boat...GET ON ONE! Also dont buy a boat thats great for wind in the Chesapeake when you are sailing in the Pacific Southwest. Also ask WHERE YOU ARE what a good boat would be...talk to the locals. This also helps when getting parts, people to work on the boat, and things of that nature. If you buy something no one knows about then getting help with an older boat may be harder. The San Francisco Bay has very different conditions than the conditions outside Newport Harbor. Since you mentioned blue water cruising, I take it you are near the coast. The S30, is a sturdy and dream of a boat to sail in the Ocean in the conditions I have been in. In rough conditions, its been solid and took more of a beating than I wanted to at the time...lol...In calm conditions, its smooth as butter...I dont plan to be in conditions that sunk a fleet of racing boats....so thats not THAT important to me. Also I would bet that those boats that made it, had some luck and skill of the crew to thank, maybe not really the boat itself....


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

And I love boat-builders and newbie boat owners who are defensively defending their boat against someone with no horse in the race, and who has sailed both boats and fully understands their comparative differences based on first hand personal experience with both.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Defending???? Did I say ANYTHING that wasn't accurate or from MY experience? I just gave some advice as asked by the original poster...


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> The rig on the Santana 30 derives from the IOR era, and is a mast head rig. Masthead rigs of that era relied on very stiff spars held in column and so produced extremely high rigging loads on the attachment points and hull. Jeff


Jeff, I beg to differ on this point. The IOR boats from IIIA on (at least) had wet noodle rigs that required expertise just to keep them up - have you forgotten the "oil derrick" 3 and 4 spreader rigs from the late 70's on? The C&C design Evergreen, a two tonner built for the Canada's Cup required the onboard presence of Tim Stearn (the mast builder) just to keep the rig UP. The Santana under discussion is, I believe, the 30-30, not the 1/2 ton derived 30 from the mid 70's.

My own 1975 custom 1/4 tonner was built for the Corpus Christie Worlds in 76 and it had HYDRAULICS on the backstay & headstay as well as running backs, without which the top 1/2 of the mast would "wow" to leeward about 4 or 5 inches. When the backstay & babystay were pumped up, the rig looked like it came from a Finn! 

Hardly a focus on "stiff" or "In column".


----------



## Sanduskysailor (Aug 1, 2008)

I've sailed on and/or raced all 3 boats. As usual Jeff H is right. The best of 3, for all around conditions, is the J-30. Unfortunately a good J-30 is hard to find with core problems in the transom and deck being the most common problem. The Santana 30-30 comes in 2 versions the GP model and the standard model. Both are great light air boats for racing, cruising- not so much. The S-3030 has a nasty habit of losing flow on the rudder and auto tacking in puffs. Construction quality is average. Boat was designed for MORC and meets that target nicely. The Santana 30 is an older IOR design that it is pretty stiff. Unfortunately it is slower than a Catalina 30 and is a little touchy downwind in high wind and waves. Just slightly more cruisier than the J-30. Good luck.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

hey fellas, noone is trying to bash either boat. they are both exceptional boats. i have asked questions that were answered by experience as well as hard proven facts. on both designs. so there is no need to feel the need to retaliate or defend. we are all sailors here. regardless of experience or monitary level. i posted this comparison to learn about both designs. lets not forget, the product of the final choice here could be a life or death difference in safety. 
all though none of us plan to end up in the fastnet conditions, (niether did they), we would be foolish to not prepare and train for such. 
if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. that is the nature of this discussion.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

*Choices and Options*

Both models used to race in local club races. Both seem fast. One metric that should be stressed is actual livability, i.e. below decks. 
When we spent a year, 1994, seeking our next (last?) boat, we were focused on boats in the 30 to 32 foot range. With several friends being very happy with their J-30's, we really wanted to like that model!

Problem was... even with the later cruising upgrade to the interior it would never have enough head room for a 6'2" guy, and even if I could adjust to the main cabin, the head compartment was way too cramped. When spending two to four weeks on board, this stuff is kinda important. 

As a secondary concern, we both wanted a cockpit with backrests for the seats. While I would agree in general with the advertising from J Boats that it was designed to be a "fast cruiser" (or words to that effect), we finally had to back off for the above reasons. Great sailing boat and I would still recommend one to anyone, with those caveats.

Having spent a prior decade cruising and racing a Niagara 26, we really wanted to continue with the transom rudder, aft traveler, and fractional rig. We just needed more "living" room inside.

Nothing wrong with the Sant 30 (and similar designs) but we knew we wanted another boat with a large main and manageable fore sail sizing. We liked the smaller chute you get with a fractional rig a lot.
As fate would have it we searched for a year and finally found our Olson 34. Rig is balanced between J and E, but is of course a mast head rig. Everything's a compromise, I guess. 

So, please let's dial down the conflict level. No one here is going to have the final definitive word on any comparison, anyhow. Take it all with a grain of salt, especially what I say!
Happy new year, and fair winds to you all.


LB


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

SloopJonB said:


> Jeff, I beg to differ on this point. The IOR boats from IIIA on (at least) had wet noodle rigs that required expertise just to keep them up - have you forgotten the "oil derrick" 3 and 4 spreader rigs from the late 70's on?


Jon B;

You are correct, I should have qualified my earlier statement and said, "early IOR boats had masthead rigs that depended on very stiff spars and very high rigging loads." As you rightly note, the IOR eventually went to highly flexible spars which depended on very complex rigging geometries to keep them up. Thank you for the reminder.

In a separate matter, the question came up as to where I came up with the statement that a J-30 rates 30 seconds a mile faster than a Santana 30. Below is a link to PHRF Long Island Sound, PHRF New England and PHRF California. In New England the J-30 rates 144 and a Santana 30 rates 174. On Long Island Sound the J-30 rates 141 and the Santana 30 rates 180. In southern California the J-30 rates 138 and the Santana 30 (referred to as San 30-1) rates 180.

PHRF New England: http://www.phrfne.org/page/567[/URL]
PHRF Long Island Sound: http://www.pipeline.com/~wayneb/phrflis.htm#j
PHRF Southern California: http://www.phrfsocal.org/lookup/lookup.php?key=2

Jeff


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

happy 2012 everyone! can anyone here post any pics of these venerable battle worthy sailing vessels? i love to see pics of the boats in theater all around the world.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Here are the pics and here is a link to outfitting a J30 for extended cruising.
Extended Cruising


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Here is my S30....


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

man fellas, those are some sexy pics! i really appreciate you guys sharring. if you get the chance post some interior pics. i love these boats!


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

if you go to
New & Used Sailboats for Sale in Seattle and the Northwest

they have an S3030 IIRC for sale, altho they list it as a 30 not a 3030. It does not look like the S30 newport newbie posted. hence why I think it is a 3030. I could be wrong too!

Marty


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

That's a plain old s30. Not a 3030. Mine is exactly the same as that.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Here's a 30/30... quite a different beast, much beamier aft with fuller sections with a uniquely distinctive transom profile.


----------



## overbored (Oct 8, 2010)

Santana 30 and Santana 3030 are very different boats. the 3030 is a faster boat. The phrf rating tell the story. 30 = 180 and 3030 =117, that is 63 seconds per mile thats a big difference. the 3030 has more sail area and a taller rig. with a longer J so the spinnakers are larger also. the 30 is a 70s boat and the 3030 is an 80's design


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

here is a question for the schock rep. what are the differences between the s30 and the s30/30 and the schock 30? also the schock 35 and the s35?


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

The Santana 30 and 30/30 are different boats from different designers - the 30 was done by Shad Turner, the 30/30 by the Nelson/Marek team. The S30, as mentioned above is a IOR influenced design, whereas the 30/30 is a mid 80s design that got away from that era and is likely more a MORC based design if anything.

The Santana 35 (Shad Turner) and the Schock 35 are partially the same boat. The deck molds are the same, but they differ in bow sections and the rig. The waterline was pulled forward and the bow more plumb in the Schock 35 (allowing more of a V berth) and the fractional rig of the Santana was replaced with a masthead rig. The Schock 35 rates considerably faster and until recently commanded a much higher price. Probably still does but the base line has dropped in the past few years, so most used boats are costing less.

As far as I know there's no 'Schock 30', but the original Santana 30 may well be referred to as such now and then.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

NewportNewbie,

I apologize for my harsh reply to your post above. I was responding to two of your comments:



NewportNewbie said:


> I LOVE these posts debating boats and putting down boats from people who have NEVER been on one...
> 
> Also I would bet that those boats that made it, had some luck and skill of the crew to thank, maybe not really the boat itself....


I took the first to be a jab at me since my post was directly above yours, and took the last sentence as sounding a bit defensive in light of the fact that the crews in the Fastnet disaster fleet were largely experienced race crews and that one of the J-30's was being single-handed. That said, I apologize because my response was unnecessarily brusk.

Jeff


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

it's ok sweet pea. we still love you.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

overbored said:


> Santana 30 and Santana 3030 are very different boats. the 3030 is a faster boat. The phrf rating tell the story. 30 = 180 and 3030 =117, that is 63 seconds per mile thats a big difference. the 3030 has more sail area and a taller rig. with a longer J so the spinnakers are larger also. the 30 is a 70s boat and the 3030 is an 80's design


YOWZA that 30-30 is FAST - my Columbia 43 is not exactly a slug and it rates 111. May I assume the 30-30 surfs easily downwind?

Too bad the old 30 looks so much better!


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

Jeff_H said:


> NewportNewbie,
> 
> I apologize for my harsh reply to your post above. I was responding to two of your comments:
> 
> ...


No prob...my responses were not directed at you...they were directed to the general thread...I don't take personal shots at people, if i=I disagreed with what you said, I would specifically call attention to that. I also have NO direct knowledge of the Fastnet incident, only that the type of boat may not be the only factor in a boat coming out of that. I have never been on a J/30, but I have heard great things about them. I like my S30 a lot...


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

What is funny about looks......I look at newports boat, or the white S30, I feel like the S30 is a pretty nice looking boat. Look at GE, ie the boat I linked for sale......HIDEOUS with the orange and goldish stripes on it! Oh well......lol

Not sure why I thought it was a 3030, but thought the info from the YC showed it to be a 3030, it shows it to be an S30. 

Speed wise, obviously the later 3030 is quicker, and a J30 is quicker than the S30. I can sometimes beat GE boat for boat with my 28' boat with my fs base of 189. GE has a 201 nfs 182fs base phrf-nw rating. J30s IIRC are 138 or 141. Not sure what a 3030 off the top of my head is rated at locally. 

Marty


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Not to hijack the thread or anything, but what got WDSchock banned?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

SlowButSteady said:


> Not to hijack the thread or anything, but what got WDSchock banned?


Ditto - is it permanent or did he just get sent for "re-education"?  He provided a lot of good info. Did get a mite testy over any perceived slighting of his old boats.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

what i saw was, there was a discussion. he provided input with references. someone did not like the input. now he is gone. 
every forum has guys that know everything. usually there is some title under their avatar. if any person fractures their all knowing status, they get rid of that person. 
of course this only works within a micro environment, one like a forum such as this.
but out in the real world, this would not happen. i think i would put my money on the guy that had built thousands of boats over the last 60 years versus some johney come lately internet guru. but thats just my observation on what i can see from my house.
prolly get banned for stating the obvious. some people are very insecure.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Don't quote me, but some others here have asked him at times to defend, but not "DEFEND" the old santana boats. I'm also not positive whom within santana was posting. Was it an employee for lack of better term or was it the new owner ie with in the last 12 or so months that bought the company from the original owners. Then again, it COULD be one of the original owners for all I know.

I do know right or wrong, there are a number of forums that disallow owners or reps from posting, as they can, right or wrong, will pull the sales strings for their product if you will. Sometimes miss rep some things....if one will.....ie earlier posting the wire strength of the rigs. While yes 30'ish% stronger if measure one way, in reality both are probably equal in ability, due to as JeffH points out, differences in design. Also similar to a single spreader rig, one can say due to the mast being literally larger diams, thicker walled it is a stronger rig vs a double spreader. But the double or triple in some cases, allows the wall thickness, and/or tube diam to be smaller, hence a lighter rig overall as the wires take a lot more of the force from the sails than a single spreader rig will. Their might be some other bigger/smaller issues in my mast example, or I might not be 100% right, only 60 or 70......but hopefully the person reading understands the what my examples and comparisons to which ultimately is better, best or some such thing. When reality is, both options work, both have plus's and minus's.

marty


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Guys... the mods do not generally comment on any bannings - but for the record Schock's temporary vacation is due to a violation of the posted rules that every member agrees to abide by on signup, not for his opinions, just like any other member might be.

Those rules, in case you're interested - or want to know what you've agreed to, are accessed from the 'click here' link directly below the quick reply box.


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

which rule was it?


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Mike,

I see a few of the rules that may have been broken. Along with we do not know if a lace PM was not sent to and from the mod who wrote earlier and santana. Probably better to leave alone and not know the real cause.

marty


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

doesnt look good.


----------



## mikehoyt (Nov 27, 2000)

A couple of comments.

Olson 34 had a Niagara 26 and wanted more interior. We had a Niagara 26 and find the change from N26 to J27 makes the Niagara seem like a palace.

J30 has a pretty nice interior by my standards. Pretty close to standing headroom - moreso than our former Niagara 26 - and seems well laid out for weekending or longer. If nothing else provides good comfort for crew who must overnight between races etc ... also they do serve Rum on many J30. Downside of the J30 I have been on is the cockpit layout - it is small and there are no seat backs. Of course the small cockpit is the tradeoff for a usable interior.

I have docked behind a Santana 3030. The owners cruise it. it is a sexy looking boat and looks beamy and light like a J29 if I am recalling the correct boat. Was not inside. not sure if they drink Rum on board

We race our J27 against a group of J/30s. They seem to hold their own against us in a breeze. I cannot fault the sailing ability of the J30.

Back to the cockpit. our J27 has a nicer cockpit. The J30 has a nicer everything else.

Mike


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

There was a scorching red J30 in my marina a few years back - VERY good looking and fast looking boat. I always thought it would have looked better with some cockpit coamings - the cabin top ended pretty abruptly.

I understand all the reasons for NOT having them, but from a purely appearance standpoint they were "missing".


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mikieg said:


> what i saw was, there was a discussion. he provided input with references. someone did not like the input. now he is gone.
> every forum has guys that know everything. usually there is some title under their avatar. if any person fractures their all knowing status, they get rid of that person.
> of course this only works within a micro environment, one like a forum such as this. but out in the real world, this would not happen. i think i would put my money on the guy that had built thousands of boats over the last 60 years versus some johney come lately internet guru. but thats just my observation on what i can see from my house. prolly get banned for stating the obvious. some people are very insecure.


As my fellow moderator, Faster, noted, we do not discuss the specific details that form the basis for banning an individual member except with the member who was banned. This banning was due solely to rules violations and had nothing to do with the technical disagreements discussed above. It should be noted that all of the moderators and the site administrator reviewed the violations and unanimously agreed to the actions taken.

But I did want to discuss the technical matters on which there was a disageement and wanted to wait until all had posting priviledges restored and could respond. W.D.Schock disagreed with my characterization of fractional rigs as requiring smaller stays and shrouds, and also objected to my assertion that cored hulls are generally significantly stronger and stiffer than an equal weight non-cored hull. I thought it might be useful for me to explain why I believe my statements to be true and present this for an open discussion on these points.

REQUIRED SHROUD SIZES BEING SMALLER ON A FRACTIONAL RIG VS MASTHEAD RIG....
In terms of the fractional vs masthead rig discussion, When you actually calculate and compare the loads on rigging, you quickly become very aware that the diagonals of fractional rigs of this era (and most eras) tend to have a flatter angle than masthead rigs of that same era. To calculate the tension on a shroud, the side force load needs to be resolved through vectors into an axial force along the shroud. The steeper the angle of the diagonal, the higher the axial load relative to the horizontal load and because of that the axial tension load can easily be several times greater than the horizontal load.

So the typically flatter angles of the diagonals on a fractional rig means that the axial tension is significantly smaller relative to the side force involved. Again if the axila load is smaller on the shroud, there will be a smaller the axial compressive force imparted into the spar potentially allowing a relatively smaller cross sectional area spar section as well, and with smaller axial load, a smaller area spar section which can also tolerate more bend without buckling.

The smaller loads on fractional rig shrouds and stays also cumulatively result from a collection of other factors which include:

Actual forestay loads are proportionate to the overall the size of the headsail and are magnified by the catenary action of the forestay which in turn is impacted by the relative amount of forestay sag tolerated in the rig design.

While not so great for pointing ability, fractional rigs generally have a greater headstay sag relative to their headstay length. That greater sag (deeper catenary) means a smaller tension stress on the stay relative to the overal side force.

In addition to the load reduction due to proportionally greater sag in a fractional rig's headstay relative to a masthead rig, fractional rigs generally have smaller headsail area.

Since there is a substantially smaller forestay tensional load, the backstay has a smaller force to resist. But there is also a relatively large reduction in backstay loads on a fractional due to the leverage provided by the portion of the mast above the hounds. The larger mainsail, and threfore higher mainsheet forces also help reduce the force that the backstay is required to exert.

The cantilevering of the spar end above the hounds on a fractional rig adds one extra panel to the spar, and the ability to taper the end of a fractional rig spar more agressively due to smaller axial loads, allows the force distribution to more evenly match the section properties of the spar and greatly reduces the combined bending/axial unit load in the spar.

While not included in the shroud load calculations, the higher axial loads in a masthead rig, mean that less mast deflection can be tolerated and therefore, indirectly there is a tendancy to design masthead rig shrouds for less elongation than is tolerated in a fractional rig, which encourages the use of rod rigging for a similar sized load.

While it may be argued that the greater flexure in a typical fractional rig vs masthead, (especially during the period of the S30 and J30) is not all that great for pointing ability, it does have an impact on the rigging size requirement and contributes to the reason that masthead rigs need large shrouds.

Because it is more critical to control flexure in a masthead rig, shroud elongation becomes more of an important design criteria. The amount of elongation is determined by shroud length, and the proportion of load to the load capacity of the shroud material. Since masthead rigs have proportionately longer shrouds, have higher tension on their shrouds (as explained above), and tolerate less elongation, their shroud sizes on a masthead rig need to be larger. And all of this is the basis for my point about the rigging sizes needing to be larger on a masthead rig.

If you think I have any of this wrong, feel free to comment. I have placed it here in order to hear how and why.

STRENGTH OF CORED VS NON-CORED PANELS:
All other things being equal, for any given weight a cored panel will have significantly more bending strength and greater stiffness, and depending on the core material, will have similar if not greater sheer strength. The basic concept in this is that a cored hull behaves like a 'I' beam, with the skins acting as the flanges and the core acting as the web. In engineering terms the greater depth of the panel increases the section modulus and moment of inertia by increasing the depth between the axially loaded flanges of the member.

The only area where the question of relative strength of cored vs uncored sections is controversial is in puncture. There is not one universally right answer here because there are so many variables between how any given cored hull vs any give non-cored hull may be constructed, and these variables have a profound effect on the actual resistance of any hull to impact.

That said the current theory, which is supported in a number of published studies over the past decade or so, suggests that a cored hull still makes sense if you are designing a hull panel for impact. The operative theory is that while the outer skin of a cored hull may be more likely to be penetrated by a concentrated impact, this is offset in part by the core absorbing a percentage of the impact force, but more significantly the core will distribute the load to a larger area of the interior skin reducing the likelihood that the inner skin will be be breached. The real life reality of this theory, is heavily dependent on the core material, the bonding of the skin to the core, the amount of non-directional laminate in both panel designs.

Coring was also shown to be a factor in the percentage of strength retained over the life of the panel. As you may know, Fiberglass composites have a tendancy to lose a significant amount of strength and ductility over their service life due to flexural fatigue. The greater panel stiffness of a cored panel will generally result in less flexure and so less fatique. Similarly, all things being equal, the greater panel thickness of a cored panel means a lower unit load on the skin and so also less fatique.

Of course, where this theory breaks down is in cases where there has been core rot or the core loses its bond with the skins.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## WDS123 (Apr 2, 2011)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

WDSchock said:


> The lady doth protest too much, methinks


Welcome back, you naughty boy you.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

WDSchock said:


> The lady doth protest too much, methinks


Does this mean you is a she, not a HE! we need more SHE's posting frankly.........


----------



## mikieg (Oct 29, 2010)

welcome back Schock. i'll try to not make you speak truthful things that hurt the feelings of others.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Great to see you back WD.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

Well, I just stumbled across this thread...Interesting discussion! I think it is a bit of an odd comparison between boats of completely different eras; an IOR half-tonner originally designed in the early 70's (or late 60's even? Don't know when Turner actually started drawing the boat up.) Up against a J-boat that is clearly from a younger generation!

I do find it mildly concerning that a moderator would use his powers to edit another person's post and interject his own opinions. I am a moderator on another sailing site, and I would never DREAM of doing that! There it is considered an abuse of authority. But hey, I am new here, and if that is how this community likes it...so be it I guess.

The unfortunate side effect of such a policy is that I, as a late comer, do not get to hear what WDS123 has to say about the boat that I own. I honestly think that as long as the connection to the original manufacturer is declared, most of us can take statements made with the appropriate grains of salt! If someone, even a moderator, disagrees with their statements they are welcome to make their rebuttle in their own post. Using their powers as mod to squash someone's opinion hardly seems fair.

Just my humble opinion!

More on the Santana 30 later perhaps...now that I know WDS123 is an industry insider I would love to find out a few things about the design and construction of my boat. (when I am not supposed to be at work!)


----------

