# J Boats J-29?



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Hi All,

My wife and I are in the market for a used boat. I crewed on a 28' Pearson for a couple seasons, 25 or so years ago. (Didn't learn as much as I could have, as the owner/captain pretty-much kept the helm to himself.) Mostly casual sailing w/some informal racing. My wife had several years experience on a 7-meter keel-less centerboard boat her and her oldest brother owned, when she was younger. (We're both in our 50's now.)

We _think_ we'd like something in the 27' to 30' range. We both want a tiller. We'd both like a boat that's "reasonably" fast and responsive. Because there'll usually be just the two of us, two-handed handling, even one-handed in a pinch, is important. (To this end: I think a roller-furling jib would be A Good Idea.) Because we'll be motoring against 4 kt currents 32 and 40 miles upstream (Detroit and St. Clair Rivers), I think an in-board diesel engine would be desireable. (Tho a gasoline engine wouldn't be a show-stopper.)

Reading this thread, and particularly Jeff H's comments, it looks like the Laser 28 might be perfect for us, but those appear to be few & far between, and likely beyond our budget, in any event. (The goal is to keep it under $10k if we can. But SWMBO has indicated a willingness to go higher if The Right Boat appears.)

It's tricky finding a well-built, "fast," responsive racer/cruiser, with a tiller, but at the same time having a big enough birth to accomodate my 6'4" frame, in good condition, while staying w/in budget. I'm thinkin' some compromise will be in order, here .

Found a '83 J-29 in the area that might be do-able. I was wondering how that compared to the J-28 vs. the J-30's that Jeff H mentioned in that thread?

In addition, I've got print-outs here for a '79 Albin 8.5, '79 Hunter 30, '74 Sabre 28 and a '76 Pearson 30. Any thoughts on those?

Thanks in advance,
Jim


----------



## Sabre66 (Feb 3, 2007)

I like the Sabre and the Pearson the most out of that list. The early hunters were poorly built. The J-29 has a deep draft(I don't know where your sailing) and might be on the, tender, side for two people, definitely the fastest boat on your list.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Laser 28's were not produced in large numbers. There are very few of them left. They have a reputation for being very lightly built, as they were primarily intended for racing - you will find that they are about as durable as Hunters. I only know of one in the Toronto area, owned by someone who is extremely careful with it.

There is a boat called the Kirby 30 that is in the same class as the Laser 28, performance-wise. They were built by Mirage, who have a great reputation for high-quality glass work. There is also the Abbot 27, which is slightly less-stripped down, but still fast around the cans. The issue with all of the older performance boats though is that a lot of them have been subjected to abnormal amounts of stress, having been raced and used hard.

A particular area of concern with the fractional rigs is the amount of force that has been exerted longitudinally and compressively through the tightening of the backstay. This frequently flexes the hull itself. Fibreglass is completely inelastic. So when you hear that crunching/splintering sound when a boat bangs it's topsides hard against a dock, it is the sound of the boat being permanently weakened in that area.

Hence, a boat that has been subjected to high degrees of backstay stress is often a bit weaker under the keel step than it otherwise would be. In some cases this bending has the effect of causing the internal stringers to crack, or separate from the hull. If you are looking at a boat and notice these cracks, it is often an indication of a previous life as a racer.

The boats that weather this stress best are the full-keel, older, and unfortunately, slower boats. The additional glass underneath serves to reinforce the boat making it much more able to withstand the bending loads placed on it.

Some of the earliest C&C's may be suitable for you, as you will find they have tillers, sail nicely and are close to your price range. While they are not necessarily the fastest boats on the water, when you sail them well, they still perform decently on a corrected time basis.

Another boat to consider would be the Aloha 8.5. These are strong hulls that are surprisingly fast and offer a lot of room and comfort for their size.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

The J-29 came in two versions, fractional and masthead rigs. Masthead was far more common. They are much more racing-oriented than the J-30, with a minimal interior. I would call the J-29 a "club-racer" with modest interior accommodations. 

The J-30 has a fractional rig. It's an all-around nice boat, with a much more accommodating interior. I would call it a "racer-cruiser". However, it has one serious design flaw that for me is a show-stopper: The heaviest helm you will likely ever encounter. Having steered this boat in Key West Race Week, I would not want to cruise extensively on it, certainly not short-handed. Shorter distances would be okay, but still tiresome in moderate to heavy air. (The problem is a transom-hung, unbalanced rudder.) Some folks have gone so far to modify the rudder, but this is a DSQ for class-racing.

If you are primarily going to be club racing with crew, the J-29 would probably be the better choice (this boat likes meat on the rail). If you don't think you'll have much crew, you might consider the J-27. But if you expect to cruise as much as race, the J-30 would be the better choice, if you can live with the tiresome helm.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have to say, with all due respect, I completely disagree with much of what Sailormann wrote above and especially his assessment of the Laser 28. There were a little over 400 Laser 28's built. At least locally these boats have been sailed extremely hard and have held up quite well. While they were light boats they were not lightly built. Their weight savings came from a carefully engineered structure, Kevlar-vinylester vacuum infused construction. a lack of interior liners and in every case very careful decisions about the materials and methods used to create these boats. Lightness breeds lightness. If you can keep the weight down you can use smaller rig and therefore lighter rigging, deck hardware and ballasting. You can use a lighter engine and carry less fuel. Much of the weight savings came from high tech materials, proprietary details, and careful workmanship. 

I owned one for 14 years and have raced on quite a few Laser 28's have always been impressed with how tough these boats really were. The engineering was amazing on these boats such that they exhibited little flex even when pushed hard, and stood up to impact amazingly well. (Here in Annapolis there was a well known topside to topside collision, both boats swinging head to wind to avoid a teabone collision, between a Laser 28 and an Alberg 30 in which is was the Alberg that sustained fiberglass damage.) 

I also owned a Kirby and while I really enjoyed sailing the Kirby it was nowhere near as well built a boat or rugged a boat as the Laser 28. The Kirby 30 was also 12 seconds a mile slower. 

You are also mistaken about fractional rigs and the amount of strain placed on the hull. Because fractional rigs are generally designed with flexible spars, they actually place considerably lower loads into the hull than masthead rigs. Because of the flexible spars and rig geometry, the high compressive loads that can be developed in a stiffer masthead spar, cannot be developed and are not necessary to develop in a fractional rig. The loads are much smaller in order to have the ease of handling advantages that come with a bend controlled spar. To control headstay sag, masthead rigs with their huge headsails actually need much greater headstay tensions and therefore backstay tensions for a given sail area and therefore also develop much higher mast compression loads. Also, on a fractional rig, the leverarm between the masthead and the forestay allows the headstay to be tensioned with a proportionately lower backstay tension. 

This is the reason that even comparatively large fractional rigged boats can use a cascade backstay tensioner, while similar sized masthead rigs must go with hydraulics. 

The requirement for extreme backstay tensions and mast compression goes up expodentially when a masthead rig tries to mimic the controlled bend of a fractional rig. In a masthead rig controlled bending is obtained through the use of controlled buckling of the spar, in other words compressing the mast until it springs out of column which requires much higher loads than the moment induced by the Masthead backstay being opposed by the partial height forestay. 

Just for the record, I would also suggest that it a misleading to say that Fiberglass is inelastic. Actually one of the problems with fiberglass is that its highly prone to flexure and does recover from large defelections. In other words by the definitions typically used in structural engineering it is an elastic material. That said, it is a fatigue prone material and so a life of fiberglass is greatly shortened by repetative flexing and concentrated loadings. The hitting the dock example is a case of a concentrated load breaking down the bond between the comparatively brittle resin and the fiber. 

I also want to comment on the maststep issue. This is simply an engineering problem. If a boat is designed to be sailed with high rig loads then the mast step needs to be designed for these loads. While it may seem counterintuitive, cruising boats with their oversized rigging, stiff spars, and exposure to higher winds speeds actually produce higher maststep compressive loads but rarely recieve the kind of careful engineering and load distributing components (transverse and longitudinal framing systems for example) that are typical on a well designed raceboat or performance cruiser. 

Which brings me to the last point I want to cover. In theory the statement that "The boats that weather this stress best are the full-keel, older..." should be true, but in practice it is not. In theory, a full keeled boat should distribute its keel loads over a larger keel root area and therefore impart smaller concentreated loads and so in theory be stronger. 

In wooden boats, this is clearly the case (although the higher concentrated loads from a fin keel can be engineered around to achieve a similar strength for a similar weight). 

The same cannot be said for the methods used and designs employed in fiberglass construction. First of all comparatively few true full keeled fiberglass boats were constructed. Today, what people call 'full keels', historically would have been called long fin keels with attached rudders. The root area of these so called full keels just is not that much larger than that of fin keels of the same era.

The root of the keel on an Alberg 35, for example was very close to the length of the root of the keel on a Cal 36. In terms of load distribution, the better internal framing on the Cal 36 easily offsets any root area advantage that the same era Alberg 35 might have had. 

But more to the point, most of these older designs suffer from poorer engineering practices, and weaker laminates. Few of these older designs had any internal structrure resulting in much higher flexure than is acceptable in modern yacht design. Early glass layup was very poor. The fiberglass laminating materials were handled poorly breaking down the fiber before placement, laminate schedules included very high percentages of non-directional materials, and lay-ups were very resin rich. These panels started out with weaker layups and have been further degraded by 20-40 years flexure induced fatigue. 

An insurance industry study of actual older hull panels found that despite their heavier thicknesses, the actual strngth of these older heavier layup boats did not compare well with more modern panels in terms of flexural strength, fatigue resistance, and more significantly with regards to impact. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

The problem with the J-29 for cruising is the minimal headroom. A J-30 is a much better choice for cruising, but will will be well above your $10K budget. You might find a 70s vintage Pearson 30, Tartan 30, etc. for that, but will likley have an Atomic 4 gas engine in need of work or replacement. If you raise your budget to $20K, the options will improve significantly.


----------



## Quickstep192 (Jan 6, 2001)

You mentioned the desire to have an inboard; to my knowledge, the J-29 has an outboard. I crewed on a J-29 for a few races. On the one I raced, the outboard was mostly just to get to the course and was removed when under way. If not removed, it dragged in the water on starboard tack. The J-29 has a somewhat large sail area for a boat that size and benefits from some rail meat. The J-30 has an inboard, but, in my opinion, a limited cockpit. It's small to me and has the shin buster traveler across the middle. The interior accomodations are better than the J-29. If you're interested in a J-30, a friend of mine has one for sale.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Three replies already, and after only a short night's sleep. Thanks, guys!

I'm starting to get a better idea of what SWMBO is looking for (she's the one driving this, primarily): She wants something that's both quick and responsive (tho she _says_ we're not going to race) _and_ suitable for cruising; with things such as a capable galley, a head, and the ability for us to sleep side-by-side w/o me having to assume the shape of a pretzel.

Addressing the individual comments made so far...

Lake St. Clair, Sabre666, for the 1st season. Many shallow areas and, IIRC, some shifting shoals. Yeah, I had noted the draft. That would put the J-29 at a disadvantage. I'll keep in mind your recommendations.

SailorMan, I thought it was the later Hunters that weren't regarded as being as well-built as the earlier ones? You're saying even the late 70's and early 80's Hunters aren't well-built? And the Lasers about the same? Yeah, I've looked at some of the C&C's. From what I've seen so far, they seem to be on the more expensive end of the spectrum. What I found that met our other criteria were all out of our price range. I'll keep looking, of course. I'll check out the Aloha. Thanks for those other tidbits. (We will, of course, be contracting with a reputable, experienced surveyor.)

I've since read-up a bit more on the J-29. Very low cabin (5'4") and the one picture I saw indicates it has no galley? Looks like something oriented a bit too much toward racing for us. Sounds like, from your comments on the other J Boats, John, that these aren't for us.

The terminology is all coming back, now. Wow, it's been all of that 25 years or so since I heard or read "fast around the cans." I really enjoyed sailing. I shouldn't have let my colleague and I parting ways at the time stop me. Really looking forward to getting back on the water.

Here's a bit of fate I'm sure y'all will find interesting: I had no idea, at the time I married her, that my wife enjoying sailing, much less that she'd once co-owned a sailboat. Many women (and some men) have trouble with the boat heeling. My wife thrives on it .


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> I have to say, with all due respect, I completely disagree with much of what Sailormann wrote above and especially his assessment of the Laser 28.


Yeah, I read-up as much as I could find on-line about the Laser 28 after reading your comments in that 2001 thread. The design and build engineering that went into them looked interesting. Unfortuneately, as I said, there aren't many of them to be found and, of those that I found that had been for sale, they appear to be well out of our price range .



Jeff_H said:


> I also owned a Kirby and while I really enjoyed sailing the Kirby it was nowhere near as well built a boat or rugged a boat as the Laser 28.


Would you not recommend we add this one to our initial list?

Any (updated) thoughts on the others on our initial list?

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

JimsCAL,

Yeah, I noticed the cabin headroom issue after my initial post here. (I was a bit too quick on the trigger, there, it seems.) All things considered: I'm thinking the J Boats are going to be out of the running at this time.

There is a Pearson on my list, it does have a gasoline inboard, and it's not too awfully far away. (Tho getting it home might be more of a challenge than we'd be up for on an initial cruise, given our lack of recent experience.)

Quickstep192,

Initially, yes: The J-29 came only w/an outboard. Later they added the inboard as an option, and the one I have a for sale posting on is one of those.

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I basically agree with much that has been said in this thread about the J-29 and J-30. Both are pretty good boats. The J-30 is a bit brutish but if used for coastal cruising it can be sailed with a #2 or #3 which helps reduces heeling and helm issue.

Of the two the J-29 is the better racer but lacks creature comforts and I think that you would be hard pressed to find a used one for under $10k. The Kirby 30 was a good boat in a lot of ways, I think of it as being somewhere between the J-30 and J-29. Again I doubt that you will find a good one for under $10k. 

Frankly sub-$10k 30 footers are pretty hard to come by and when you do find one they tend to be pretty beat up. A decent sailing and build quality 30 footer will typically be on the high side of $15K. Of the bargain 30 footers my favorite is the Tartan 30. I like Pearson 30's well enough and the post 1979 Hunter 30 was a surprisingly good boat. If the Albin 8.5 is the same as the Albin Cumulus my recollection is that the Cumulus is a very nice boat although I have not seen one in a very long time. 

Good hunting,
Jeff


----------



## NOLAsailing (Sep 10, 2006)

I am the recent owner of a J30 and it is an excellent boat. I think it is the best racer/cruiser in its price range and, depending on where you live, you may be able to race one design. As Jeff mentioned, it is very well behaved with the main and the #3 - you can make surprisingly good time and the boat is very easy to sail. If you fly the #1 in breeze, it can be a handful if you're shorthanded. 

However, you will not be able to fit it into a budget around $10,000. 

The J/29 is a fun boat too, but it has almost no cruising amenities. I would consider it to be almost purely a race boat.

The Pearson 30 is a good all 'round (but plain) boat. Also, a basic, but quick boat is the S2 7.9. Both would fit your budget.


----------



## drynoc (Jul 17, 2001)

*Jeffh*

Sorry to change the subject, but I'm glad to see JeffH back. He hasn't been contributing that much lately, at least not that I've seen.


----------



## tenuki (Feb 11, 2007)

If you are looking at jboats, what you really _need_ is a J109. 30k is about right for a down payment on that I think..?


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> Of the two the J-29 is the better racer but lacks creature comforts and I think that you would be hard pressed to find a used one for under $10k. The Kirby 30 was a good boat in a lot of ways, I think of it as being somewhere between the J-30 and J-29. Again I doubt that you will find a good one for under $10k.
> 
> Frankly sub-$10k 30 footers are pretty hard to come by and when you do find one they tend to be pretty beat up. A decent sailing and build quality 30 footer will typically be on the high side of $15K.


Yeah, we'd already pretty much come to that conclusion, ourselves. Started out looking for a sub-$10k 27-footer and are now up to sub-$15k 28-to-30-footers.



Jeff_H said:


> Of the bargain 30 footers my favorite is the Tartan 30. I like Pearson 30's well enough and the post 1979 Hunter 30 was a surprisingly good boat.


Okay, I'll add Tartan to the initial list and do some research. Pearson was already there.

But I'm confused about Hunter. Somewhere I read that the "early" Hunters were well-designed and of good construction, but the "later" Hunters are not. Where is the temporal dividing line?



Jeff_H said:


> If the Albin 8.5 is the same as the Albin Cumulus my recollection is that the Cumulus is a very nice boat although I have not seen one in a very long time.


It's listed as an "Albin 8.5 Cumulus sloop." It's about 2-1/2 hours or so away. With all we have to choose from here in S.E. Michigan, I don't know as we'll go that far unless we come across something absolutely too good to pass up. Part of the problem being neither of us having recent experience. Unless we had somebody to help, getting it home could be a bit of a challenge .



Jeff_H said:


> Good hunting,
> Jeff


Thanks, Jeff. And thanks very much for your extensive comments. I have an engineering bent, and I appreciate excruciating detail.

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

NOLAsailing said:


> I am the recent owner of a J30 and it is an excellent boat. I think it is the best racer/cruiser in its price range and, depending on where you live, you may be able to race one design. As Jeff mentioned, it is very well behaved with the main and the #3 - you can make surprisingly good time and the boat is very easy to sail. If you fly the #1 in breeze, it can be a handful if you're shorthanded.


Welllll, ok: If we see one w/in our (new) budget limit we'll go give it a look.



NOLAsailing said:


> However, you will not be able to fit it into a budget around $10,000.


I think $10k is history. After better than a week of searching, Friday night on into 3 o'clock in the morning, we've pretty much accepted that the $10k limit will have to go if we're going to have any chance of meeting the other criteria. Not that we won't still _try_, mind you .



NOLAsailing said:


> The J/29 is a fun boat too, but it has almost no cruising amenities. I would consider it to be almost purely a race boat.


Yes, that one is definitely off the list.



NOLAsailing said:


> The Pearson 30 is a good all 'round (but plain) boat.


What do you mean by "plain?"



NOLAsailing said:


> Also, a basic, but quick boat is the S2 7.9. Both would fit your budget.


Ok, we'll give it a look.

Thanks for your comments.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> I have to say, with all due respect, I completely disagree with much of what Sailormann wrote above and especially his assessment of the Laser 28. There were a little over 400 Laser 28's built.


And most of them are no longer sailing... 



> At least locally these boats have been sailed extremely hard and have held up quite well.


 I won't dispute that, but I will say that in the Greater Toronto Area, they are very infrequently seen, and not considered durable.



> While they were light boats they were not lightly built. Their weight savings came from a carefully engineered structure, Kevlar-vinylester vacuum infused construction. a lack of interior liners and in every case very careful decisions about the materials and methods used to create these boats. Lightness breeds lightness. If you can keep the weight down you can use smaller rig and therefore lighter rigging, deck hardware and ballasting. You can use a lighter engine and carry less fuel. Much of the weight savings came from high tech materials, proprietary details, and careful workmanship.


And when the wind pipes up and the seas get big the lighter rigging is just not as able to deal with the forces at work as the heavier stuff is.



> I owned one for 14 years and have raced on quite a few Laser 28's have always been impressed with how tough these boats really were. The engineering was amazing on these boats such that they exhibited little flex even when pushed hard, and stood up to impact amazingly well. (Here in Annapolis there was a well known topside to topside collision, both boats swinging head to wind to avoid a teabone collision, between a Laser 28 and an Alberg 30 in which is was the Alberg that sustained fiberglass damage.)


I certainly don't dispute this, however it, like my statement(s) are an opinion...



> I also owned a Kirby and while I really enjoyed sailing the Kirby it was nowhere near as well built a boat or rugged a boat as the Laser 28. The Kirby 30 was also 12 seconds a mile slower.


Again, the Lasers are not around much anymore - the Kirbys are... reinforced to be sure, but still here.



> You are also mistaken about fractional rigs and the amount of strain placed on the hull. Because fractional rigs are generally designed with flexible spars, they actually place considerably lower loads into the hull than masthead rigs. Because of the flexible spars and rig geometry, the high compressive loads that can be developed in a stiffer masthead spar, cannot be developed and are not necessary to develop in a fractional rig.


I believe that if you'll read the post, the mention was specifically related to the increased load placed on the keel step area through the increase of backstay tension, which happens more frequently with boats that are sailed by people who enjoy racing - which I think you'll have to concede, and had nothing to do with the difference between the loads imposed by a masthead versus a fractional rig



> The loads are much smaller in order to have the ease of handling advantages that come with a bend controlled spar.


 The loads are affected by the construction of the mast, the amount of force exerted by backstay, wind, seastate, rake, location of stress loading, to name just some of the many factors at work ....



> To control headstay sag, masthead rigs with their huge headsails actually need much greater headstay tensions and therefore backstay tensions for a given sail area and therefore also develop much higher mast compression loads. Also, on a fractional rig, the leverarm between the masthead and the forestay allows the headstay to be tensioned with a proportionately lower backstay tension.


The headstay is rarely, if ever adjusted during the course of the average race by the average crew.



> This is the reason that even comparatively large fractional rigged boats can use a cascade backstay tensioner, while similar sized masthead rigs must go with hydraulics.


Still exerts stress on the hull, amplifying information but extraneous to the subject...



> The requirement for extreme backstay tensions and mast compression goes up expodentially when a masthead rig tries to mimic the controlled bend of a fractional rig. In a masthead rig controlled bending is obtained through the use of controlled buckling of the spar, in other words compressing the mast until it springs out of column which requires much higher loads than the moment induced by the Masthead backstay being opposed by the partial height forestay.


True - but the degree of difference varies depending on mast wall thickness and point of bending load

QUOTE]Just for the record, I would also suggest that it a misleading to say that Fiberglass is inelastic. Actually one of the problems with fiberglass is that its highly prone to flexure and does recover from large defelections. [/QUOTE] I think you need to do a bit more research here. It MAY return to it's original shape, but when the little glass fibres that run inside have had their little heads crushed - it's permanent.



> In other words by the definitions typically used in structural engineering it is an elastic material. That said, it is a fatigue prone material and so a life of fiberglass is greatly shortened by repetative flexing and concentrated loadings.


 It is fatigue prone BECAUSE of it's inelasticity. The molecular structure of fibreglass is extremely brittle. The polyester resin in which the fibreglass is suspended is less brittle, but dependent upon the fibreglass for it's structural integrity. Flexing, impact, shear, all crush the fibreglass, and weaken it.



> The hitting the dock example is a case of a concentrated load breaking down the bond between the comparatively brittle resin and the fiber.


It PERMANENTLY changes the physical struture of the fibreglass



> I also want to comment on the maststep issue. This is simply an engineering problem. If a boat is designed to be sailed with high rig loads then the mast step needs to be designed for these loads. While it may seem counterintuitive, cruising boats with their oversized rigging, stiff spars, and exposure to higher winds speeds actually produce higher maststep compressive loads but rarely recieve the kind of careful engineering and load distributing components (transverse and longitudinal framing systems for example) that are typical on a well designed raceboat or performance cruiser.


 This did not enter into the original post. The fact remains that boats designed to be raced, when raced, are subjected to greater degrees of force and stressed to a greater degree than the weekend cruiser.



> Which brings me to the last point I want to cover. In theory the statement that "The boats that weather this stress best are the full-keel, older..." should be true, but in practice it is not. In theory, a full keeled boat should distribute its keel loads over a larger keel root area and therefore impart smaller concentreated loads and so in theory be stronger.
> 
> In wooden boats, this is clearly the case (although the higher concentrated loads from a fin keel can be engineered around to achieve a similar strength for a similar weight).


Stress in wooden boats is transmitted form board to board at the point of fastening. The only thing holding a "traditionally" constructed wooden boat together are the screws and/or nails. The various pieces of wood do not develop some metaphysical affinity for each other during constrution and decide to stick together for all eternity. Wooden boats are nowhere near as strong as fibreglass boats.



> The same cannot be said for the methods used and designs employed in fiberglass construction. First of all comparatively few true full keeled fiberglass boats were constructed. Today, what people call 'full keels', historically would have been called long fin keels with attached rudders. The root area of these so called full keels just is not that much larger than that of fin keels of the same era.


 What's your point here ??? A full keel is not a fin keel with an attached rudder. No-one is disputing this or suggesting otherwise.



> The root of the keel on an Alberg 35, for example was very close to the length of the root of the keel on a Cal 36. In terms of load distribution, the better internal framing on the Cal 36 easily offsets any root area advantage that the same era Alberg 35 might have had.


 Both of which are going to flex less than a Laser 28



> But more to the point, most of these older designs suffer from poorer engineering practices, and weaker laminates. Few of these older designs had any internal structrure resulting in much higher flexure than is acceptable in modern yacht design. Early glass layup was very poor. The fiberglass laminating materials were handled poorly breaking down the fiber before placement, laminate schedules included very high percentages of non-directional materials, and lay-ups were very resin rich. These panels started out with weaker layups and have been further degraded by 20-40 years flexure induced fatigue.


You cannot make any kind of blanket statement like this with credibility. The quality of layup and engineering practices are entirely dependent upon the standards of practise established by the builder in question.



> An insurance industry study of actual older hull panels found that despite their heavier thicknesses, the actual strength of these older heavier layup boats did not compare well with more modern panels in terms of flexural strength, fatigue resistance, and more significantly with regards to impact.


 There are materials and resins that are used by some manufacturers today that are indeed far superior in all three of these areas. Unfortunately, not all, or even most of the folks making production boats these days are using vinylesters, aramids or carbons. (The latter two materials listed also come with a host of their very own issues and structural liabilities.)

I think it's important to remember that we all come to this sport/activity/lifestyle through different routes, and while we can only draw conclusions and develop our precepts through our direct experience, the only immutable when it comes to sailing, are the laws of physics. Those laws may be argued, examined, cursed and railed against, but they won't go away.

Comments and opinions regarding build quality are just that - comments and opinions. The experiences that each of us has had informs our priorities, standards and determinations and I venture that no two sailors view things identically. It's important to discuss, diagree and debate. This is how we learn and hopefully, open our minds a bit. However, it's important to make it clear that we are all advancing opinions and not uttering the final and factual word on anything...


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

Well, we got a close look at a '75 Sabre 28 that's on the hard yesterday. We *really* liked pretty much everything we saw. Great cabin layout, in particular. And it's got a tiller instead of a wheel. (All the others we've seen for sale so far have wheels. We want a tiller.) Looked like I could sleep my 6'4" frame on either the port or starboard side with room to spare. Has a nicely laid-out galley. Setup of the head is kind of unusual. Has lots of room with the doors closed, which is nice, but hope nobody needs to get between cabin a v-berth when it's in-use.

Unfortunately, as it's been on the hard for about 1-1/2 years, leaks in the mainstay chain plates had gone undetected and there's damage to the deck core. There's some cosmetic damage, at least, to the starboard head bulkhead and you can see the beginning of water damage along several inches of the top edge of the port head bulkhead. The owner, an agent, is going to have all that fixed before selling it. The rest of the boat needs some TLC, but my wife is of the opinion that it mostly just needs a good scrubbing, polishing and some of the wood work refinished. Some of the brightwork has some corrosion (pitting). Looks like it'll need a new depth gauge head. The port compass (it has two) might need replacing, as the glass is pretty cloudy, making it difficult to read. Some of the engine gauges might need replacement. The tachometer looked to be stuck, for example.

Not certain what's going on with the two doors for the head. Neither one latched closed and I noticed the aft door, in particular, was striking the top of the frame--almost as if the door was a bit cocked in the frame. Don't know what's going on there.

I think I might have detected a bit of a soft spot on the forward starboard side of the deck above the cabin, but I'm not certain.

But, other than all that, it seemed like just what we're looking for.


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

The Sabre 28 is a nice boat, but it sounds like this one has some issues. I would want an independent survey to determine how bad the deck core problem is. I wouldn't rely on the agent/owner to tell me it's "fixed". The problem with the head doors not closing also points to structural issues. I would be very careful.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jun 9, 2007)

JimsCAL said:


> The Sabre 28 is a nice boat,


Yeah, we're kind of zeroing-in on this model. Not that we won't keep looking, to see what else is available that might meet our needs.



JimsCAL said:


> but it sounds like this one has some issues. I would want an independent survey to determine how bad the deck core problem is. I wouldn't rely on the agent/owner to tell me it's "fixed".


Most definitely! But thanks for the advice just the same .



JimsCAL said:


> The problem with the head doors not closing also points to structural issues. I would be very careful.


It's not so much that they don't latch. Wood ages and can warp. It's the _way_ in which the aft door didn't latch--with the outside top edge hitting the top of the frame, and not just a little. I'm no cabinet maker, but I do know something of wood and cabinetry, and this gave me a bad vibe. I think the forward door likewise had the latch on the door out-of-line with the part in the frame into which it's supposed to latch--in the same direction.

These and some other things gave me the impression the boat had been neglected--perhaps for some time. Would never know it from the on-line pictures. Looks beautiful in those.

Btw: Since my original comments on this boat, my wife ran across a completely different sales posting about the same boat, by a different agent, for $4k more.

Things that make you go "Hmmm..."


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

SEMIJim said:


> Hi All,
> 
> My wife and I are in the market for a used boat. I crewed on a 28' Pearson for a couple seasons, 25 or so years ago. (Didn't learn as much as I could have, as the owner/captain pretty-much kept the helm to himself.) Mostly casual sailing w/some informal racing. My wife had several years experience on a 7-meter keel-less centerboard boat her and her oldest brother owned, when she was younger. (We're both in our 50's now.)
> 
> ...


Of your list, I like the Pearson 30 best. Solidly built. Reasonably stiff. Also, a fair PHRF rating, if I remember correctly, in case you get into racing. I have a friend with a 36 from that era that is going strong. I once owned a Pearson Ensign from the mid sixties that is still being sailed.


----------



## resdog (Mar 29, 2006)

You can't touch a J29 for $10,000. It would have to be really beat and then you wouldn't want to consider it. It's a day sailor at best as far as accomodations. Personally I love the boat, it's fun and fast.

If your budget is really $10k, you're going to be looking at older boats needing quite a bit of work. Bump that number up to $15,000 or so and your choices get a little larger.

S2 7.9 is fast, has a spartan but weekend-able cabin. Centerboard so you can just about beach it. Most that I've seen that are not rats are in the $12-$16,000 range on a trailer.

Pearson 26. It's deceptively fast when sailed well. Tiller steering, outboard in a well. Lots of them around for under $10k.

C&C 26. Old, but again it's a sleeper and can be a quick boat. Tiller steering and usually a 1 cyl diesel. Typical tight C&C cabin from the 70's.

You might be able to find an old tired Tartan 10 up on the Great Lakes around your budget number.

Colgate 26. Probably over $10k.

Merit 25. Definitely can find them for under $10k. Weird looking fast little boat.

I've seen Hobie 33's and Olson 30's at the mid teens mark.

Good luck


----------

