# 1979 S2 7.3 or 1986 Hunter 23?



## rogerss (Jul 19, 2010)

1979 S2 7.3 or 1986 Hunter 23?
After quite a bit of sailing, tons of research and looking at boats, and thinking about what we really want, we have narrowed the field to a 1979 S2 7.3 and 1986 Hunter 23. Both have been well-maintained. We have sailed the S2 and loved it. (The Hunter is not presently in the water.) We are active 50+ adults who have dreamed of sailing for decades. Now we're ready to "live the dream."

We do not intend to trailer the boat much, if at all. We live within 30 minutes of two terrific bodies of water (Green Bay and Lake Winnebago) and will find a marina slip to keep it in.

We see both boats as "can't lose" (reasonably priced and well cared for by their owners) but...

1) We were planning to have a marine surveyor take a close look at the boat we choose. Some people have told us that's not common for a boat this size, but we'd like to catch any real problems that we may not have noticed? What do you think?

2) Is there a clear cut winner between the two boats assuming they're both in good sailing shape?

Your collective wisdom is most appreciated


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

Well, the part I seem to be focusing on is that you don't plan to trailer your boat much.

The hunter is designed for trailering. Light displacement, wing keel, flat bottom. The earlier 23's were designed with a lead-ballasted swing keel.. I would wonder if the one you are looking at is one of those? I'm pretty sure the '86 was a wing keel.

Either way, the 23 is definatly a light-air boat. Very tender. The wide, flat bottom combined with a fin keel and light displacement made for great low wind performance, but around 12 or 15 knots things get dicey. Reef early, reef often.

The S2, on the other hand, is a little over 1000 pounds heavier, as a fin keel which draws an extra 16" or so, and carries an extra 5 or 6 hundred pounds of ballast. It also has a 3 foot taller mast, which allows for a larger sailplan (though it still has a smaller sail area/displacement ratio).

Both boats have an 8' beam, but the S2 is a foot shorter on the waterline (due to a larger bow overhang). This is a mixed bag, as the S2 will have a lower hull speed (though not by much) but won't dig it's bows in as aggressively when heeled over.

the last note I would make is that the Hunter has a transom-hung rudder, which is quite convenient for a lot of folks. The S2, on the other hand, is a spade rudder. I'm a fan of the transom rudder, as it is easier to repair and less susceptible to damage in the first place (especially in the case of a well-made kickup design). Spade rudders also suck up a fair amount of cockpit sole, as the rudderpost has to come through somewhere, and the floor-sweeping tiller takes away a fair amount of foot space.

Overall, though, I keep coming back to the fact that the Hunter made a lot of design decisions with emphasis on making an easily-trailerable boat. The S2 is not as easy to trailer (not even close, if comparing it to a swing-keel version of the Hunter). But, since you won't be trailering...

The S2 is a more robust boat, carries more ballast and displacement, can hoist more sail, draws more water (but still only 4 feet), and probably costs significantly less than the hunter. On the other hand, the spade rudder is going to reduce apparent size in the cockpit and [often] requires a haul-out to repair. Of course, a haulout on a 23 foot boat is as easy as bringing in the trailer... so that's probably not a big deal.

So that's my thought. I'm not against hunters (I own one, after all) but I think in this case you wouldn't be using the hunter for it's best strength: ease of trailerability. (is that even a word?)


----------

