# Can a Bristol 32 Circumnavigate?



## mmcdan

I am considering buying a Bristol 32 sloop to circumnavgate with my fiance. I would appreciate any advice about this boat--specific to cruising, or just general observations/information. Thanks very much!


----------



## paulk

People have circumnavigated in Cal 29''s after a bit of beefing up at the yard, so that isn''t the issue, after you''re confident in the boat and rig. I would want to confirm that the boat has enough storage for all the food and water you''ll need on long passages. The Bristol isn''t known for great speed, so your supplies will need to take that into account. More supplies will slow you down further.... Welcome to the balancing act that is sailing!


----------



## jack_patricia

Dan:

Your (generic) question appears frequently and the (generic) answer is usually pretty much the same. Older/smaller/cheaper production boats designed for coastal sailing MAY support long-range, offshore cruising but they come with a long list of caveats and cautions, not to mention a lot of upgrades for safety purposes if no other.

When folks specify a specific boat in the kind of question you pose, it''s usually because they''ve spotted a certain boat that, for some reason, has managed to connect the dots between their dreams on the one hand and their financial circumstances and aesthetic needs on the other. Put another way, your question is predicated on the boat rather than the goal (the voyage). A lot of folks have jump-started the process of fulfilling dreams with a boat they dearly love, but I''d respectfully suggest you ask a different question and see if you come up with a Bristol 32 as one of the answers. I''d state the question as something like this: ''If I want to circumnavigate (aka: sail long offshore distances to remote areas while living aboard long term with my partner), what SHOULD my boat look like?'' In this case, ''look'' means all those characteristics critical to the safety, sailing, comfort and carrying capacity of an offshore cruiser.

''What should my boat look like?'' That''s a good place to start. One resource I''d encourage you to read carefully & thoughtfully is on John Neal''s website (http://www.mahina.com/cruise.html). Also note the brief summary comments on many boat types at the article''s end. John now has close to 400,000 offshore miles, most of it instructing would-be cruisers in offshore sailing. His seminars are highly regarded and his widely respected advice well-earned. I''d encourage you to start there, add whatever other info you find helpful to you (another excellent resource in answering this question is Nigel Calder''s latest book, The Cruising Handbook) and then try to answer your original question (about the Bristol 32) as you see it. That''s the opinion that counts.

Jack


----------



## manateee_gene

Can a duck swim and fly, yes!
The 32 will do the job if your up to it yourself?
gENE


----------



## manateee_gene

Jack: You and I both know that almost any boat can be a circumnavigator!( If a Cal 25 can do it what cannot)Its not the boat! It is the crew, their knowledge, experience, and ability to make do and improvise as the conditions require.Oh! lets not forget prepare. I guess that falls under two of the above!
Gene


----------



## Jeff_H

I have a different take on this....While a lot of pretty poorly suited boats can and have gone around the world, that does not mean that it makes sense to plan to go around the world in a poorly suited boat. To me the Bristol 32 is a pretty pooly suited boat. 

These boats were originally intended as CCA era racing rule beaters. They were not very good sailboats even when compared to other boats of that era. While later Bristols offered very good construction quality, the earlier Bristol 32''s were just not all that well constructed. They have cramped interiors with minimal storage. With their short waterline lengths they are pretty slow and do not tolerate as much weight as a longer waterline design. The waterline length also means that they are pretty slow and miserable in a chop. 

So while a really knowledgeable sailor probably could sail one around the world, a really knowledgeable sailor probably wouldn''y choose to sail one around the world. 

Jeff


----------



## windship

Hi Jeff,
Ummm...excuse me, but aren''t a hell of alot of very experienced sailors doing just that in just that kind of boat?
Most people around here already know that you can''t stand the CCA boats and refer to them as abominations.I,for one,grow weary of these unfair opinions.I''m sorry.
What bothers me is you always leave alot of info on these boats out when giving opinions or advise.
Like this time, about the waterline length. Sure they might have short waterline lenths but when the boat heals over the waterline length greatly increases. It''s just not the problem that you make it out to be. 
As far as the rest of it,I''m not sure about construction mabey you''d like to offer some facts on this but they are cramped and do lack storage space. Alot of people own these boats and are very happy.
Now I''m no expert but I''ve always read and figured that a performance type boat with a long waterline and lighter displacement will not take weight on and retain it''s sailing abilities as well as a higher D/L boat will unless it''s a large boat. Jeff, your the only one I''ve ever heard say that.It makes sense to me that if you add weight to something that is already relitively heavy it will have alot less effect than adding weight to something relitively light and expect the same performance.
Sailing into a chop can be done well with any boat that doesn''t have full ends. I''ve seen plenty of higher D/L boats with a fine enough bow that would do well enough into a chop. And it''s well known that a boat with a full bow will have a larger, more comfortable vee birth and more reserve boyancy.
In your opinion, what would a Bristol thirty-two be well suited for?

Dennis


----------



## Jeff_H

My criticism of the Bristol 32 comes from spending many hours sailing on board them, around them and against them. While I generally do not like the aberations that occured in yacht design as a result of the CCA rule, there were few production boats for which the impact was more harsh. 

To address your points, while many CCA boats were designed so that their waterlines would lengthen dramatically, the shape of the bow and stern on the Bristol 32 (narrow stern with sharp exit angle) somewhat limited this as compared to other well known CCA rule beaters such as the designs by Bill Tripp and Halsey Herreshoff. In sailing Bristol 32''s it took a very large heel angle to get much to get even a small increase in speed which is why the smaller Halsey Herreshoff designed Bristol 29 rates significantly faster than the Bristol 32 and the Cal 25 of the same period rates equal. In this case, based on my experience with these boats, the short waterline is exactly the problem that I make it out to be, unless passage times just do not matter to the person who originally asked the question. After all, I point out that these boats are slow even compared to many of their contemporaries but I leave it to the person asking the question to determine whether that bothers them. 

Beyond that, as I mentioned it takes a large heel angle on the Bristol 32 to have much impact on speed, as heel angles increases so does leeway. But if we look at the original question, (i.e. is the B32 suitable for a circumnavigation) these larger heel angles would make them less suitable as an offshore boat than a boat that did not need to sail at such large angle of heel to have reasonable performance.

As to the weight carrying issue, you really need to look at the factors that influence the impact of carrying weight on a boat. D/L really is a very small determinant. In reality, it is true that there is some relationship between the amount of carry capacity and the dry weight weight of the boat. As a rough rule of thumb, most boats can carry approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of their dry weight in gear, supplies and tankage without having an extremely adverse affect. In that sense a heavier boat in theory can carry more weight. 

BUT there are other very significant factors as well. One of the big factors is waterline plane. (The physical area, not volume, of the boat at the waterline.) The larger the area the less the boats will settle in the water for a given load added. Boats that achieve a high D/L by having a short waterline can either achieve the high D/L by having a lot of waterline beam, full ends or a deep canoe body. Boats with lots of waterline beam tened to have quick motions and are therefore not very good for offshore work. Boats with full ends tend to be wet and slow and very poor to windward. And boats like the Bristol 32, which have neither a lot of waterline beam or full ends, tend to have deep canoe bodies which means that they have comapatively small waterline plains. That means they tend to immerse more quickly and pick up drag more quickly than a boat with an equal displacement but a longer waterline. For an equal displacementa boat with a longer waterline will tend to have less waterline beam, finer ends, shallower canoe body and a greater waterline plain. This is the reason that traditional watercraft that worked offshore (as well as more modern designs) had very long waterlines compared to race boats (such as the Bristol 32) of the CCA era. 

So, in general, if you take two 32 foot boats of equal dry weight displacements and one had a 21 foot waterline and the other a 27 foot waterline, the boat with the 27 foot waterline will have far superior ability to absorb additional weight with less negative affect on speed, stability and motion than the boat with the shorter waterline. 

Another factor that affects how much weight a boat can absorb is sail area to displacement. Boats of the CCA era were disproportionately penalized for stability and working sail area. As a result they carried less sail area for a given displacement and were comparatively tender when compared to more traditional or more modern designs of equal displacement. If you add weight to a boat with a low SA/D there is proportionately less sail area to overcome the inertia of this greater weight. 

You are right that there are plenty of boats out there that have high D/L''s that are good in a chop. These are generally comparatively long waterline boats when compared to the CCA era race boats. This longer waterline reduces pitching and when combined with a finer bow, reduces the bow''s impact with waves. Boats like the Bristol 32 tend to hobby horse when dealing with a chop which is neither comfortable for the crew nor is it conducive to good speed through the water. 

If you ask me what a Bristol 32 is good for, I would say that they are good for what they were designed to be, coastal cruisers in areas with typical winds in the 10 to 20 knot range for a person who is on a limited budget and does notcare about speed. I still sail on boats of this era, and find them fun to sail as long as we are not trying to get somewhere too far away. Going around the world is too far away for this boat in my book. 

So as to the unfair opinion, I too am getting weary of having my opinions judged unfairly, without you stopping to analyze what has been said or why I said it. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## windship

Good Morning Jeff,
I DO analyze. That should be obvious.
I just think that giving your stature on this board, you should give more facts and numbers and less on the opinion side. Give the whole story, fair and balanced.That should apply to everyone.
Eg.You could have compaired hull speeds,the heal angle or that the B32 also comes in a centerboard model.
Myself, I wouldn''t choose the B32 either but thats not what this is about.
Anyway,nuf said.
Good day,

Dennis


----------



## TSOJOURNER

My dad has had a Bristol 40 (full keel version) since 1972. We have put untold miles on her. From Nova Scotia to Bermuda. The hull shape of the 32 is very similar. There were centerboard and full keel models.

We have weathered gulf stream gales with 50 knots of wind with 12-20 foot seas. No problems! 

Very few production boats were or are built to the same standards.

This boat is not slow except downwind where all full keels suffer. She points very well, screams on a reach, and does not require a tremendous amount of sail area. Handles easily, never runs out of rudder. Small foretriangle with small headsails means easy handling!

I am a fan so I guess I''m biased but after 30 yrs.


----------



## paulk

Let me be the first to concur that the Bristol 40 is a nice boat. It is not a fast boat. We passed one in a 10kt breeze - a yawl under full sail and engine full ahead - in our 36 foot sloop under sail alone. We went by him to leeward, and so fast that the owner almost choked when he saw our exhaust had nothing coming out of it. The Bristol 32 is not a 40; as mentioned above, even the Bristol 29 has a faster rating.


----------



## dtfm

I was in my local bookstore yesterday reading a book about small crusing boats (forget the exact name). They talked in the book about a guy who circumnavigated in a Catalina 27. Sure, he made a lot of modifications (which are detailed in the book), but his reason for chosing the boat was simple: he couldn''t afford anything else. His choice was make this boat work, or never make the trip.

Just something that caught my eye because I don''t think a Catalina 27 would top anyone''s list of blue water cruisers.


----------



## 30bristol

As a past Bristol 32 Yawl owner that sailed in New England for a number of years I would say that the Bristol 32 will certainly circumnavigate and be safe in the process. Bristol 32''s have logged a number of offshore trips with success. The qualities that stand out in my memory was the quality of hardware used, & the fact that the boat was well made and put together. 
Yes by current standards it is tender but it has a gentle motion which is really important for cruising.
Yes it does hobbie horse in choppy waves. But so do many other boats.
In this size and probably price range the bristol 32 is probably one of the better choices of whats'' available.
My opinion.


----------



## seabreeze_97

Something doesn't fly here. The B32 was never marketed as a race boat. That implies something more along the lines of , say, a J-boat. It was marketed as a cruiser/racer, with the emphasis on comfort. So the B32 is slow. We're talking about 6 knots, plus/minus 1 knot as compared to other 10 meter boats. It would seem to me that delays and re-routes because of weather, damage and subsequent lay-ups for repair, theft, temp.-work for money to pay for repairs and buy supplies, would all cause much greater delays than a knot of average speed. Also, the B32 is more heavily built, requiring fewer repairs in hull-related issues. 
CCA boats are inherently more stable that dinghy-hulled boats.
The narrow stern Jeff criticizes also minimizes rounding up, an all-too-prevalent issue in wide-strern boats. 
Hobby-horsing? Get real. Does anyone really think that in the middle of the ocean, a 5ft difference in hull waterline (B32 vs newer 10 meter design) is going to make a difference in rough seas? Either will hobby-horse.
Comparing race course speed to sea-going ability is dangerous. Check the capsize risk. Dinghy-hulls have high initial stability, but actually slow down when heeled dramatically. CCA boats live in the buried-rail range. Excessive heeling? Hah! Some racers actually add lead ballast to their lighter "advanced" newer hulls. Why? Added stability. They can run more canvas, and sail more aggressively, thus more speed, and they can actually finish the race. The B32 has a nice low-slung lead-filled keel. That means low CG, even full loaded. Load up with supplies in a newer design, you have a higher much higher CG, meaning higher instability, and it will sit lower in the water, despite having longer waterline length, so it will slow down just the same because the entire wetted length increases. In the B32 in particular, as she sits lower in the water, her net waterline length increases, which increases speed. This increase would be partially offset by increased wetted area, but slow the boat down? 
Jeff must live in a race world because he keeps referring to race situation. The CCA boats were penalized and ran less sail area..... Hey, real world here. Have a CCA boat? Run more sail! CCA boats are much less sensitive to larger rigs than the dinghy-hulls. Lay on all the sail you can and get max speed for a given situation. If speed is what you want, a big rig and steep heeling will deliver. After all, it's racing, right? In rough conditions, you must pull the sails back sooner in a newer dinghy hull, but you need momentum to maintain directional stability. Kinda working against yourself there, huh? CCA boats hang in there longer, and will track better, especially when topping a wave. Stern-mounted rudders pop out of the water and a newer boat will suddenly be 45 degrees off course in a heartbeat. But a CCA boat should be the coastal cruiser? 
It would seem Jeff advocates getting a longer boat to deal with rough water, but not everyone can handle the cost of a 50ft cruiser. So, while he says the short B32 is rough, everyone else I've read states the spoon-shaped bow, and sculpted stern contributes to a smooth, comfortable ride. 
The newer hulls are great in lighter air, no doubt, but to run one in stiff winds, you need a well-trained crew ready to deal with a sudden variable gust, or rogue waves. 
Stick with sea-friendly, forgiving manners and ease of handling.


----------



## Jeff_H

Seabreeze, 

While I don't want to get into a point by point debate with you, your post unfairly characterized my earlier posts on this topic and is so full of inaccuracies that I feel that I need to address to at least some of them. 

I'll start with your very first sentences. I am sitting here with an original piece of literature on the Bristol 32 dated 12/65. It was picked up at Northrop & Johnson of Conn in 1965 when my family was in the market for a 32 footer. The headline on the first page says, Bristol 32, "a new CCA racer for the whole family". While the literature describes the virtues of fiberglass and of family sailing, clearly the focus included a strong emphasis on performance on the race course. 

The Bristol 32 was what a hot race boat of that era looked like. When she was designed the CCA rule was the racing measurement rule of choice and the CCA rule of the day unfairly penalized waterline length and mainsail area resulting in designs that were a side step from the path to the deveopment of seakindly, easy to handle boats. Both the Bristol 32 and 40 were loosely based on Ted Hood's race winning Robin of that era. To the deficit of the Bristol 32, Robin and Bristol 40's were far less radical race boats than the 32 with its extremely short waterline length, pinched stern sections, and dependence on very large genoas even in moderately high windspeeds. The rule also over penalized stability, and this combination resulted in a boat that was tender and unable to stand to its sail plan as conditions worsened and yet were also very hard to shift gears. While it is true that these boats would tolerate higher heel angles than 'dinghy style' hulls, they would develop the kind of weather helm that would quickly grind down a helmsman. Sailing at these large heel angles meant lots of water in the cockpit, and was an uncomfortable way to go sailing. With the companionway sill just a few inches above the cockpit sole, even in the case of an errant wave, let alone a knockdown, sailing at high heel angles also meant a lot of water down below. The helm of the centerboard versions of these boats could be partially balanced by partially lowering the board, but the centerboard versions were even more tender than the keel versions. While many longer keel boats will track quite well, the Bristol 32 was not one them. In boats of this size, dynamic balance is far more critical to tracking ability than keel length, and the one thing about Bristol 32, especially the sloop rigged, keel version was that it did could not be dynamically balanced in a seaway. (The yawl and centerboard versions were easier to balance.)

The fact that these boats are tender and yet relied on very large headsails made them a bear to sail in changing conditions. The high drag and comparatively ineffective rudders just aggrevated the situation. Having sailed these boats in rough offshore conditions, what would have been something of a rough ride in a better design, became a fight for our lives, leaving us soaked, bruised and battered. While you may not think that hobby-horsing makes a difference offshore, besides for incapacitating this otherwise experienced crew due to seasickness, the hobby-horsing was a serious issue in gusty conditions, because the large pitching angles would knock these boats to a near stop, leaving them flat footed and more prone to knock downs, and as I mentioned knock downs meant downflooding, and made working on the foredeck in a chop more of a swim than one would experience in a more moderate design. The comparatively small shallow bilge on the centerboard version meant water everywhere throughout the interior, fore and aft, and transversely. 

I really don't know what makes you think that these boats had a low center of gravity. With their heavy spars, shallow draft, comparatively low ballast to displacement ratio. When compared to other boats of that era, or even slightly later designs, these boats had comparatively high vertical centers of gravity. There is no comparason between the Bristol 32 with its deep center of buoyancy and high center of gravity to modern offshore cruising designs. (NOTE: I am not comparing the Bristol 32 to modern race boats.)

Perhaps to further clarify my point, I would like to compare the Bristol 32 to the Halsey Herreshoff designed Bristol 33/34 that replaced it. The 33/34 was roughly 18" longer, but (depending on version) had nearly a 4 foot longer waterline. Also depending on the version, the 33/34's had between 500 and 900 lbs additional ballast in a one foot deeper keel. This resulted in a boat with a more much more stability, a more comfortable motion, and greater carrying capacity. 

I am perplexed on some of the items that you eroneously characterize as my position. You can go back and read my posts, I have never advocated 50 footers or dinghy style hulls (at least not for a couple or family who would be looking to sail around the world short-handed). I do believe based on the studies that I have read, and my experience sailing on boats of that era and better later designs, the single most critical factors that control seaworthiness and motion comfort for a given displacement, are sailing length, vertical center of gravity, and a rig and hull form that can quickly adapt to changeable conditions. The Bristol 32 and later IOR era boats are the poster children for undesireable characteristics for offshore cruising.

I don't why you felt compelled to dredge up this 2 1/2 year old thread at this point in time, but at least you and I agree entirely on your last sentence, "Stick with sea-friendly, forgiving manners and ease of handling." which is precisely why I don't recommend the Bristol 32 for a circumnavigation. Spend some time on one of these boats, and other raceboat derived designs of that era like the Vanguard, Luders 33's, C&C Corvette, and compare that to a more moderate 32 footer of that era or one that was actually designed for offshore cruising like the Seawind, then lets talk again. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97

"a new CCA racer for the whole family"
Am I the only one who sees the cruiser aspect of that statement? It's a way to get dad to buy the station wagon (hey, look at that big V8), but not feel totally cheated because he'd rather have the Porche. 
On the hobby-horse issue. Take the C&C Corvette. Explain to me how this CCA boat, also with a 22ft waterline, weighing considerably less, is going to be more stable, and less of a hobby-horse. Speaking of mis-characterizing statements, I didn't say hobby-horsing didn't matter. I said 5ft at the waterline wouldn't matter.
Also, a clarification. The B32 was in production from 1966-1983.
The Bristol 33 ran from 1968-71, then became the 34 in '71, and ran til 1978. Yet, you claim it replaced the B32. That's a neat trick. Is it superior for rougher conditions, and speed? No doubt, but it didn't replace the '32.
On the 50 footer deal, must be that new math. I, for one, can't see any other way to get some seriously longer waterline numbers in a hull, unless you get a longer hull. The 50ft number was just a choice. Could've just as easily been 52, or 48, or 70 for that matter.
I don't know, man. It almost seems personal to you. Everywhere else, granted there's not a lot out there, but the others talk about the comfortable ride of the spoon-shaped bow, and the gracefully tapered stern giving a gentle motion as she comes down into the sea. I have also been in contact with a B32 owner that has been in rough conditions and he made no comment of it being a bear in the situations similar to what you mention. 
Now, allowing for the fact that some designs are better at some things than others (meaning the '32 isn't the best for offshore), I still have to wonder how much of your bad experiences weren't so much the boat, as it was the skipper, and his decisions. In that the B32 is so different from other designs (according to your own statements), perhaps it should've been sailed differently so that these issues were taken into consideration. Don't know, wasn't there, don't know who the skipper was. Not trying to take a cheap shot on him. Maybe it's just me, but I thought being in rough conditions meant getting beat up and wet, regardless of the boat, especially when not sailed to its best advantage.


----------



## seabreeze_97

Oh, forgot to touch on the CG question. You mention the heavy spars on a B32. This would be the aluminum spar I can lift by myself? And I'm no powerlifter. Ironically, I was moving the spar for a C&C 29 recently, and despite alleged improvements, and a smaller footprint, damned if the thing didn't actually feel noticeably heavier. Matter of fact, when I lowered the B32 mast I did it myself handling the rope by hand, but with the C&C mast, my dad and I were very nearly whipped by the 29's mast, and we needed to use one of the 29's winches to lower the thing to the ground. That sucker was a lot heavier now that I think about it! I'm wondering just how much lighter the spars are for the other boats. They can be made only so thin, and still have to be an appropriate length (and yes, I know there are some ways to get away with a slightly lighter mast, keel mounting being one way). Maybe I'm confused on the CG issue, but with 2 tons of lead in the keel (about as low as it can be placed) to constantly act on the righting moment, seems to me, the vertical CG would be pretty good (I'm also aware of the heavier decks due to an absence of balsa wood). If balsa had been used, the vertical CG would be slightly better, but not dramatically. Granted, I have seen one owner move his battery bank into the cabin to improve trim on a B32. I have actually moved one of these boats on a trailer, and there's no doubt (for me) where the weight and CG are.
The low companionway sill isn't just a B32 sin. It is, however, a relatively simple thing to remedy, and if going offshore, just another item on the "to do" list. 
Now, on shifting gears.....how hard is it to pull back as conditions dictate? Are you saying that in the heat of the moment, when you're already in trouble, it's difficult to change gears? Reef points? Storm jib? Why? Because the boat is being tossed? Were the situations you've mentioned the result of racing a stock boat, where it really could have benefitted from some better equipment, i.e. racing equipment? Regardless, you're alive, and I take it the boat didn't sink, and you haven't mentioned anything about broken equipment since I popped in, so it must be a pretty decent little boat. That brings up an interesting question. Have you ever been in a sinker? What boat was it, if so, and what caused it?


----------



## seabreeze_97

*Twins....*

Okay, regarding the reference to the Pearson Vanguard being better for offshore, I have to ask. Have you ever looked at these two boats? Do a couple quick searches and look at the hulls. Can they be any more alike? In that Clint Pearson was involved in both, it's pretty obvious. Also, look at the numbers:
http://image-ination.com/sailcalc.html
Select the two boats, and compare. How much closer can they be? But, one is good for offshore, and the other isn't? Again, substantiate your claim.


----------



## sailingfool

Seebreeze,
You are defending the indefensible above. Jeff's scholarly explanation of the shortcomings of the B32 offered reasoned opinions based on experience. Your responses remind of the defense lawyers' tricks, if you don't have much to say, then shout, if you don't have facts on your side, attack the person. Yikes. 
The B32 is a sloth. It rates 228, about the same as a Rhodes 19, slower than a Ranger 23. I'd call that painfully slow. You may like it, good for you, but as I suspect experienced boaters say 'amen" to all of Jeff's comments.

Your allegory about the C&C 29's mast weight reflects how confused your commnets are. The 29's mast steps on its keel, the only way anyone ever lifted one is with a hoist, if you ever lowered something with a winch, it was not a mast from a C&C 29. 
Yikes again.


----------



## seabreeze_97

The C&C 29 mast had already been removed and lashed to the deck. I'd appreciate it if you didn't tell me I didn't do something you weren't there to witness for yourself. As for the facts, where is it written that this was ever about speed, except to you and Jeff? On the facts, I'm taking an example Jeff cites (the Vanguard), and comparing it to the B32. The boats are virtually identical in every spec, and hull design. Why then, is the Vanguard so good for offshore, and the B32 is not? As for my tactics, they'd be of a good lawyer. Your plea, in fact reminds me of someone cornered and crying foul, when in fact, there has been no foul. But that's okay. It's nice to see Jeff's girlfriend stick up for him.


----------



## seabreeze_97

Oh lookie, lookie. I just got a reply from one Ted Brewer. He was so kind to take the time and answer my email. You see, with all these so-called informed opinions, I decided to ask a really experienced, proven professional. Proven....you know. America's cup boats, literally hundreds of other designs. Stuff like that. I asked him to give me his honest opinion, and that he not be concerned, that I would not be offended. This is his take on things.

"The Bristol 32 appears to be a very typical design of the mid-late 1960s, not unlike my Douglas 31 in many ways. I understand that the Bristols were quite well built and I feel that, given good condition, she should be able to undertake blue water voyages in safety and reasonable comfort. Good luck with her."

Fair Winds
Ted Brewer

Do a search and look up his credentials. I'd say he more than qualifies. Why dredge up a 2 1/2 year old thread? This is the first time I've looked. Why make it active? To set the record straight....with a little help from someone infinitely more qualified than myself. Can ya feel that? Huh? HUH?!?! *HUH!??!?!*


----------



## Ronbye

After reading all of the discussion on the Bristol 32, I checked out the lines of the Bristol 32 and also checked the owners site. I have a 1975 Rival 32, and the differences between the boat appears to be minimal. I would say mostly in the build quality. The Rival 32 is an excellent offshore boat and quite a number of them have circumnavigated. It would be reasonable to assume that the Bristol 32 should be capable of doing a circumnavigation, however, any sailboat of that vintage and mine is no exception should be thoroughly checked out and upgraded/repaired to a standard that allows for a safe offshore passage. So I say, why not.


----------



## Jeff_H

Seabreeze,

I must say that you have laid out a partiularly vacuous pile of vitriol and creative misreading. That said, I would like to see if we can get back to the original question and my answer, without creative misinterpretation, . The original question was "*Can a Bristol 32 Circumnavigate?" **and my answer was** "**While a lot of pretty poorly suited boats can and have gone around the world, that does not mean that it makes sense to plan to go around the world in a poorly suited boat. To me the Bristol 32 is a pretty poorly suited boat." *

I am very familiar with Mr. Brewer's work and, in fact, I am a big fan of Mr. Brewer's designs (although I have never agreed with the reverence that people seem to feel for his Comfort Index, a topic for another discussion) . My enthusiasm for his work led in part to my family buying one of his 12.8's, a design that I have nothing but praise for.

In almost all ways, Ted Brewer's response is in line with my explanations of why I proffered the opinion as quoted above. I do not disagree at all that he is right that someone could make an offshore passage in a Bristol 32 that was in decent shape, but the real question was whether the Bristol 32 really a good boat for a circumnavigation, or more to the point, for the money aren't there much better boats for that purpose?

I think that Mr. Brewer's cited example helps explain what I have been trying to say about the Bristol 32 Mr. Brewer refers to his own design for the Douglas 31 as a point of comparison. While I agree with Mr. Brewer that in many respects there are similarlities between the Bristol 32 and his Douglas 31/32, I respectfully disagree with the extent to which it can be said the Bristol 32 is all that similar to the Douglas. In fact, there are a number of very significant differences between the Bristol and the Douglas that shine a light on the issues that I have experienced first hand sailing on Bristol 32's and have tried to explain in the earlier posts above. 

One key difference is, for example, that although the Douglas 31 is shorter on deck, it has 2'-6" more waterline length (in fact roughly 2/3 the length of the overhangs on the Bristol) .But it is not just the length of the overhand that affects pitching. Like most of Mr. Brewer's designs, compared to the pinched transom and steep counter exit angle of the Bristol, the counter on the Douglas is at a comparatively flat angle as it leaves the water and has comparatively full stern sections allowing for a more positive and progressive pitch dampening, greater resistance to squatting, and getting pooped. The shorter bow overhang on the Douglas allows the Douglas to better carry the heavy ground tackle that a circumnavigation would imply. 

With regards to stability, although the Douglas is a slightly lighter boat, than the Bristol, it has considerably more ballast (4500 vs. 4100) and the Douglas carries that ballast at a deeper draft (4'10" vs. 4'6") . The drawings that I have of the Douglas shows a considerably longer lateral plane which should help it track better than the Bristol as well. 

In my mind, Mr. Bewer's Douglas 31/32 is precisely the type of boat that I was referring to when I said that there are much better suited designs out there if someone were looking to go distance cruising in a boat from that era. 

Mr. Brewer's cruising designs really illustrate the point that I have been trying to make over the years about trying to elevate the stature of CCA era race boats to the status of offshore cruisers. While CCA era race boats were truly closer to dual purpose boats (by which I mean coastal cruisers as well as racers) than many of the race rule derived designs that followed them, by any reasonable standard, these boats were distorted to beat a rule in ways that diminished their seaworthiness, motion comfort and carrying capacity as compared to more wholesome designs that were truly intended to be offshore cruisers. Mr. Brewer's portfolio is full of designs that were uncompromisingly designed to be good offshore boats first, with clearly no attention paid to the fad racing rule du jour. Years later his designs are still well suited to their original purpose. Whereas a boat like the Bristol 32 that has been heavily compromised to beat a racing rule, remains neither a good race boat or as good a cruiser as it could have been once the race rule in question becomes extinct. 

Which brings me around to the original question, if I were going to circumnavigate in an 11,800 Lb boat, I would want it to be as good a boat as I could afford. My only point at the start of this discussion was that there are a whole lot of better boats out there in the same general size and price range which would make far better choices for a circumnavigation than the Bristol 32. 

I do want point out that you apparently misinterpreted the meaning of my sentence "Spend some time on one of these boats, and other raceboat derived designs of that era like the Vanguard, Luders 33's, C&C Corvette, and compare them to a more moderate 32 footer of that era, or to one that was actually designed for offshore cruising like the Seawind, then lets talk again." 

That list of boats was intended to talk to the problem of CCA era designs as a group. No Kidding the Vanguard was not a great sea boat. My family owned one for many years when I was growing up. I have slugged it in heavy going in these old girls just like I have in Bristol 32's. While I firmly believe that Phillip Rhodes did a better job on the Vanguard than Brown-Thread-Ted Hood did on the Bristol 32 in a modeling a hull that would not pitch as harshly, as compared to boats intended to be cruising boats, of that era or later, these two were miserable boats to take offshore. My point in that sentence therefore was to say, spend some time sailing these old girls in rough going (or light air for that matter) and let me know how suitable you really think they are for a circumnavigation.

Brief points on your spar weight, and vertical center of gravity comments. Designers during the period when the Vanguard, Bristol 32 or C&C 29 were designed generally tried to achieve the stiffness of the wooden spars that they were used to. By and large the calculations for mast sections were backed into using empirical data from wooden spars. This lead to very heavy masts and standing rigging compared to the lighter spar sections and rig designs that were developed and employed starting in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Simple things like tapering were pretty much unheard at the time (even Island Packet tapers their spars today). For the record, as a brief correction, Bristol 32's like Pearson Vanguards had balsa cored decks. C&C Corvettes (along with the C&C designed Grampian Classic 22) had one of the first foam cored decks. 

Brief point on shifting gears on the Bristol 32, these boats were designed to be sailed with 180% genoas in breezes up to about 12 knots, at which point you did a sail change down to a 155% jib until somewhere around 18 knots of wind at which point you changed down to a 130% jib, until things got over 20 something at which point they were sailed with a working jib. For budget reasons many of these boats would go with the 180, and eliminate the 155% and 135% genoa and go with something in between. Because of the sail plan proportions and the relative tenderness of these boats, these big genoas had a very narrow wind range. Reefing was bear. As originally equipped they came with roller reefing booms and reel winches. I don't know if you have ever tried to reef with these archaic pieces but if ever there were a pair of widow makers, it was that pair. There was nothing fast about that system, and in the end the reefed sail was miserable as a heavy weather sail. Changing gear in building conditions meant crawling out on a bow that was buried under water to change a jib and trying to release the load on the main halyard by holding all of its load without a ratchet and backing it off a turn at a time. While jib furlers and modern slab reefing would go a long way towards improving the ability of these old girls to shift gear, the need for disproportionately large genoas makes sail changes in changeable conditions far more frequent than I would consider ideal. And yes while a lot can be done to improve these boast, wouldn't it perhaps make sense to start of with a more suitable boat to begin with. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Jeff, I always enjoy your unemotional, rational opinions. thanks for your continued input. Jim


----------



## Johnrb

Jeff:
Re: "Designers during the period when the Vanguard, Bristol 32 or C&C 29 were designed .."

C&C 29? Is this a misprint or are you actually referring to the Corvette (31 ft.)?


----------



## Jeff_H

That sentence responded to the Seabreeze's comments about the relative weight of a C&C 29 mast vs a Bristol 32 mast. I assume that Seabreeze was talking about the mid-1970's era C&C 29 MkI (rather than the later Mark II), which was designed just before the next generation of lighter weight spar sections were introduced to the marketplace and designers began to move toward lighter bendier rigs. Obviously, a Corvette would have a similar weight spar to the Bristol as well, and the rigs would be subtstantially heavier than most rigs that were designed after that period. 

Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97

mmcdan said:


> I am considering buying a Bristol 32 sloop to circumnavgate with my fiance. I would appreciate any advice about this boat--specific to cruising, or just general observations/information. Thanks very much!


For any doubts, see this intrepid fellow's page. He's a seasoned blue water sailer, and he's doing it in a Bristol 22!
http://www.laurig.com/articles/bill/frameset.html


----------



## seabreeze_97

The C&C 29 I'm referring to is a '78 vintage. I don't know if it is the original mast, but the walls aren't quite as thick as the Bristol's. The C&C mast has a thicker ridge inside, on what would be port and starboard sides. The Bristol's mast, despite being older, retains a brighter appearance, while the C&C's appears more like weathered aluminum (note, I'm not referring to the anodized treatment, rather, the appearance of the metal along the un-treated edge of the mast foot). Not sure if that's due to some different aluminum alloy or what. It's not a scientific test, but I did it again today, and the C&C mast feels heavier...not by a big margin, just enough to notice. Anyway, the C&C setup will be going on the Bristol since the Bristol's mast was damaged in hurricane Katrina. Ironically, the donor C&C's belly was peeled open like a sardine can in the same storm. Both boats were in New Orleans, and weathered the same conditions. I can only speculate as to their individual mooring arrangements, but the Bristol got some minor hull scars, and no water. I know which one I'd rather be on when things turn ugly.


----------



## seabreeze_97

To those with an open mind, meaning open to the possibility that they might be wrong, check out the following words from Ted Brewer in the article at:
http://www.boatus.com/goodoldboat/ratingrules.htm

"Small Yachts, by C. P. Kunhardt, published in 1891 and republished by WoodenBoat Publications, Brooklin, Maine, in 1985, shows a number of these narrow beamed, plank-on-edge cutters. One of my favorites is the Spankadillo (what a grand name!), which was 36 feet overall, 30 feet on the waterline, 5 feet in beam, and 6 feet 2 inches in draft. You may be wondering how these skinny cutters could stand up to their tremendous press of sail in a breeze, but the answer is simple: heavy displacement and lots of lead down deep. "Spanky" displaced 19,000 pounds and 12,300 pounds of that was lead - a 65-percent ballast ratio!"
A high ballast, and 5ft beam. Tender? Gotta love it.

"Another example, shown in great detail, is the Watson-designed Madge, 46 feet overall x 39 feet 9 inches LWL x 7 feet 9 inches beam x 7 feet 7 inches draft, displacing 39,000 pounds and carrying a lead mine of 23,500 pounds (63.5 percent ratio) on her keel! Unlike many modern yachts, Madge was much more stable right side up than upside down, although her accommodations left a bit to be desired!"

And finally, the comments of a B32 racer, well known in the B32 community.

"I race my Bristol 32 on years when not crewing on other boats. Last
season we raced with two new crew in NFS (genoa) division.
I won all three series and in some races finished ahead of boats with
PHRF numbers 100 points lower than the Bristol.

When our regional PHRF results were tabulated (I'm a local
handicapper) I found that statistically my Bristol sailed a 169 while
the boat is rated as a 243(PHRF=243, Calc ASP=169). We beat C&C 29-2
real-time in several races(PHRF=170, Calc ASP=171).
The boat will point if you have good sails and set them correctly.
This means don't pinch, power up in rough water, stay in clean air,
and use your mass to the fullest. I find I need to keep my 150%
about 9 inches off the spreaders, trimming as the boat accelerates,
adjusting the main to the genoa. (genny sets first main sets the
draft)

If I find myself being headed up I will usually power up the sails,
head down a touch and then ease the main (which opens the leach)to
dump that huge gob of air into their jib.

We won all three series (1st, 1st, 1st)and I have lots of silver on
the mantle from distances races too.

Never blame the boat... It is typically the skipper that is slow."

Doug Axtell
"Glad Tidings"

I love that last statement. Sounds a lot like what I was saying a few entries ago. 
And Jeff, you're missing the point. Any boat....ANY BOAT....small enough to be called a boat, in seas rough enough, will pitch. Obviously, shorter waterlines lead to more pitching (within reason, everything is relative), but while this would seem to be an endorsement for a 50-ft or larger boat, $$$ dictates something else. Larger boats also, often require more than 2-person crews.
Now, as for starting with a better boat. Look, you can peel that banana so many ways. Often times, the path is determined by how much $$$ one has to start with. Older un-modified boats tend to cost less. Gaining experience in the boat, and upgrading equipment go hand-in-hand. Not everyone can go out and buy the perfectly equipped, ready-to-go circumnavigator. You even indicated that $$$ is a factor in the sail choice, leading to inadequate sails for the situation, " For budget reasons many of these boats would go with the 180, and eliminate the 155% and 135% genoa and go with something in between." So, again, seaworthiness, in this case, isn't so much of an issue for the boat as it is the skipper's pocketbook. And, if we can infer, it would appear the B32's you were on were trying to do something they were ill-equipped to deal with, meaning inadequate sails, no roller reefing, etc, and as I said before, perhaps a skipper not well versed in running the B32, and say, perhaps, trying to run it like a newer type, i.e. where you mention
.."and in the end the reefed sail was miserable as a heavy weather sail." Probably should've powered up, not down, as stated by Mr. Axtell. Heavy boat, maintain power. That would tend to oppose the effect of being slammed to a stop.
Regarding the balsa core question. Since I have yet to actually drill a B32 deck, and I wasn't there when they were made, I can only refer to what is in print at this point. I have never actually seen it for myself. At some point, I'm sure I will. I could be wrong, but til then:
"Hull & Deck: Molded high-impact fiberglass reinforced polyester resin ... largely woven roving ...hand laid up,strongest material available and the best construction available. Hull and deck thicknesses vary to suit structural demands. No fillers are used."
http://www.bristolowners.org/32/bristol32.html


----------



## Jeff_H

Seabreeze,

I am not sure what your point is with the Brewer quote regarding the plank-on-edge cutters. I have actually sailed on a replica plank-on-edge cutter at a wooden boat regatta. These 'lead-mines' were amazing boats to sail. They were extremely challanging in shifty or gusty winds. It was the mainsail trimmers full time job to keep from her from sinking as each gust would roll her decks into the water and the cockpits were not self bailing. The long deep keels and small rudders meant that they tracked well through a gust but the helmsman had no chance to feather up quickly enough in a gust. They were absolutely thrilling to sail though, offering the absolute best windward performance of any gaff rigger that I have ever sailed. They were not very fast reaching or dead downwind. 

The plank-on-edge cutter were very successful as race boats under the rating rule of that era. They represent another example of racing rule beaters producing boats with compromized sailing ability and seaworthiness. They were replaced by the "compromize cutters" which were much more moderate designs that offered good performance on all points of sail and which were reasonable offshore boats as well. 

Touching on the other points: to some extent I agree with Mr. Axtell's quote," Never blame the boat... It is typically the skipper that is slow". On the other hand I am not sure that his string of victories in the non-spinacker class really tells us much about the relative performance of the boat. Older designs like the Bristol 32 trend to get rated for the average performance of one in unenhansed condition. If you go through and upgrade the hardware and sails, and put a racing bottom on one, those ratings can be a real gift especially in a non-competative class like a non-spin class is like to be. 

While I have sailed on Bristol 32's with inexperienced skippers, the skipper and most of the crew that I referred to above had sailed that particular Bristol 32 since it was a new boat in the 1960's and had successfully raced the boat during the CCA era, and less so throughout the 1970's and early 1980's as the boat was no longer competitive against well sailed and prepped modern boats under PHRF. 

Mr. Axtell's strategy works very well in a short steep chop and steady winds, albeit taking a lot or water aboard. He had already peeled down to his 150 suggesting that he was descibing winds in the 12 to 18 knot range. At the upper end of that range a reef is necessary to maintain reasonable speed and control, as the weather helm becomes extreme. Without a reef the mainsail either needs to be flagged, which does not give enough drive to power through waves, or else there is a tendancy to pinch. I absolutely agree with Mr. Axtell that these boats do not want to be pinched into a short chop. In gusty conditions past the upper end of this wind range or in big seas where there is a lot less wind in the trough, these boats are a bear to sail as they really need a further reduction in headsail size in the higher wind speeds but then lack the drive to deal with the seaway in the lulls (or troughs). 

With regards to the discussion on pitching, all I can say is that you obviously have very little experience sailing on boats of equal displacements and lengths, but with differing waterline lengths, and differing weight and bouyancy distributions. Yes, all boats pitch but the differences in motion comfort and seaworthiness can be dramatic between a wholesome design and something with an extremely short waterline and poor dampening qualities like the Bristol 32's in question. 

Which brings me to my last point. You keep talking about 50 footers and I don't know where that is coming from. At the heart of it, over the years, I have consistently advocated the traditional 2 1/2 to 5 (long) tons of displacement per person for a distance cruiser. This means a boat of roughly 5,500 to 11,000 lbs per person or 11,000 to 22,000 lbs for a couple. I have also suggest that 30 feet is a very practical minimum waterline length of for a couple (with 32 to 35 feet offering a more comfortable motion, and a bit more preformance.) This translates to boats minimally in the roughly 35 foot range and more realistically in the 38 to 40 foot range. Since ease of handling, and purchase and maintenance costs are predominantly controlled by displacement and not length, these slighlty longer boats (or even equal length boats to the Bristol 32 but with more moderate overhang lengths) should be comparable to own and purchase and certainly be much more suitable for a circumnavation. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97

"I am not sure what your point is with the Brewer quote regarding the plank-on-edge cutters."
Why am I not surprised? You drone on about beam and length, and how heavy displacement is bad, so I'm not surprised you fail to grasp (or refuse to concede) what was being said there. Denial is a *****.
You have yet to explain how you are the only one to make the claim that the B32 is not seaworthy..."motion comfort and seaworthiness can be dramatic between a wholesome design and something with an extremely short waterline and poor dampening qualities like the Bristol 32's in question."
I, for one, want to know what boats you are comparing it to, and by what measure you come up with your claims of poor motion damping when the capsize ratio and motion comfort ratings are some of the best out there.
"You keep talking about 50 footers and I don't know where that is coming from." Hey, answer your own questions,"....and more realistically in the 38 to 40 foot range." Is 50 really that far away? Like I said, what are you comparing the B32 to?


----------



## seabreeze_97

And whatever you do, don't tell these people
http://www.uteatlarge.blogspot.com/
that their boat is unsuitable for blue water adventures. In several of the pics you can see their B32, now taking them through the Panama Canal.


----------



## Jeff_H

The Bristol 32 is the perfect example of why the Capsize Screen formula and the Motion Comfort Index tells nothing about any given boat's resitance to capsize or motion comfort. I know that I have explained this on this forum before but here it is again, both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats. 

Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or bouyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the primary factors that control motion comfort or likelihood of capsize. Weight alone has no bearing on motion comfort or stability, yet both of these formulas use displacement as a surrogate for the real controlling factors. 

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast but teak decks, heavy decks, heavy aluminum, wooden or steel spars can easily have that kind of impact.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. But in reality, nothing would be further than the truth, because the weight at the top of the mast would dramatically reduce stabilty and increase roll angle. That is why I see these formulas as being worse than useless. 

Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97

Okay, let's throw all the formulas out. They're useless, even as a trending guide. We can all just ask Jeff what's best, despite what so many others have done with designs, etc. I mean, even the Alberg 30 would be a bad bet according to you, Jeff. One can only imagine your take on a Westsail 28.
And again, you have not answered one simple question. What are you comparing the B32, specifically, and CCA boats in general, to, for overall superiority in rough, bluewater conditions?


----------



## Jeff_H

I assume that you are asking which low cost cruising boats I would recommend as being a better choice for a circumnavigation than the Bristol 32. (I already mentioned a few above.) In many ways this is not a simple question because like most things in sailing, there is no one right approach to selecting a boat for distance cruising. Each of us approach boat selections based on our own goals, experiences, tastes, and fears, which would push one person towards one category of cruiser, but another person to a different type of cruiser. In other words, I think that there are four categories into which I would group the possible choices for a circumnavigation; Traditional Cruiser, CCA era, Moderate displacement cruiser, and higher performance cruiser. 

Even setting the price range for the list is not that cut and dried. You can buy beat to death versions of a Bristol 32 for as little as $9K, but I think that a fairer way to look at the price range would be the cost at the time that the boat was ready to go to sea, equipped and upgraded to go. More or less, a circumnavigation is roughly the equivalent 20 to 30 years of normal coastal cruising and I would want the boat to be as fresh as possible before leaving. 

If I were making a recommendation or doing this for myself, I would strongly suggest fitting out fully before leaving and would probably recommend buying the boat and fitting out in the States, New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa. Bought and fit out in the U.S., I would expect that one would have somewhere between $50,000 and $80,000, or more, into a Bristol 32 that was fully fit out, ready to go, depending on how much of one's own labor one put into the prep. Of course one could go less prepared for less money, doing less upgrading, but the money would be spent doing the repairs and upgrades somewhere out there, and personally I would prefer the reliability of fitting out before going. So I tried to stick with boats that I thought could be purchased and be ready to go in that same general price range. 

I don't intend this to be a comprehensive list every good choice that is out there as much as a sample of the boats that I think are useful to show that there are a whole lot of very good options that are out there. I have not included custom or semi custom boats because they vary so widely. That has somewhat reduced the choices of material. In a general sense I am not a big fan of steel boats, but there certainly are metal designs that make a lot of sense for distance cruising, especially in the Pacific. When I was working with Charlie Whitholz I worked on a small steel cruiser that I thought would be a spectacular little cruiser if one really wanted a simple steel cruiser. Dudley Dix has a number of metal designs that really appeal to me as well. 

Also for my own use, I personally am not a big fan of traditional boats for long distance cruising. I still enjoy sailing traditional boats, but after owning, cruising and restoring a 1939 Stadel cutter and a 1949 Folkboat. I personally prefer more modern designs. That said, from my perspective, there is a lot that can be said for the better traditional designs in terms of motion comfort, robustness, and ability to take to ground with minimal damage. 

In putting together a list of traditional boats that are suitable circumnavigators I would also include some designs that are not strictly traditional circumnavigators. In fact, in the price range in question, my first choice for a circumnavigator for a couple would probably be the Bob Perry designed Valiant Esprit 37. Rounding out the list of traditional boats that I see as better choices than the Bristol would be: 
Allied Seawind Mk 1 and Mk 2: (31' and 32' respectively),
Allied Princess 37,
Atkins Eric (32'): Atkins was a genius at modeling heavily displacement cruising boats that were based on traditional working craft. His boats sail very well for their very heavy displacement. Quite a few versions of the Eric have been built in fiberglass. Westsail 32, a Crealock redesign of the Eric, is probably the best know version. I personally prefer the versions that are closer to the original Erics in freeboard, displacement and ballasting. 
Atkins Ingrid: This is another beautifully modeled traditional design and probably would be one of the best choices on this list to slug it out in the most extreme heavy going. There have been dozens of versions of these as well, but the best known is probably the Alejuela 37.
Bristol Channel Cutter 28 (These have suddenly gotten very expensive but you still see older partially finished hulls around within the price range in question) ,
CSY 37,
Loud 32,
Pacific Seacraft 31,
Southern Cross 31, and the
Tayana 37 (Ideally a fiberglass decked version).

Again while I am not a fan of CCA era boats, there were boats designed during this era that I think are more suitable than the Bristol 32. Probably my favorite CCA era racer/cruiser of that era is the Tartan 34, an S&S designed K/Cb'er. I have already mentioned the Brewer designed Brewer 32 and Bristol 33/34 which are also boats that I also like a lot from this era. One thing about boats from this era, the differences in sailing ability could not always be found in the 'numbers' as different designers were modeling hulls very differently and these differences resulted in very different performance, seaworthiness and motion comfort. Most of these began life as coastal cruisers and will need a lot of effort to make them into decent offshore capable boats. They are also all 35 to forty year old boats with designs that are even older. A list of some of the better CCA era boats would include: 
Bristol 33/34,
Nicholson 32 (1960's era rather than the later Ron Holland design),
Cal 34,
Cheoy Lee Luders 36,
Chris Craft Apache,
Creekmore 38,
Douglas 31/32,
Hughes 38 Mk II (1969),
Invicta 38 (although not one of my first choices) ,
Lecompte Northeast 38,
Morgan 38,
Niagara 35 (the Ellis Design),
Nicholson 32 (1960's era rather than the later Ron Holland design),
Nicholson 38,
Tartan 30,
Tartan 34 ,
Tartan 37, and the
Tumlaren 32 (These were a fairly limited production of the earlier wooden boat)


I think that later more moderate designs are better boats for longer distance cruising. Like the CCA era boats many of these were oriented towards coastal cruising and so would need adaptation. Some better examples in this price range might include:
Aloha 34,
Bristol 35.5,
Caliber 33
Cheoy Lee Pedrick 35,
CS Merlin 36,
Endeavour 38,
Ericson 38 (early 1980's era),
Hallberg Rassey Rasmus 35 (1970's era),
Hughes 40 (Hughes 2040),
Hunter 37 Cutter (early 1980's),
Landfall 38,
Moody 36,
Morgan 382-384,
Niagara 31,
Niagara 36,
Ontario 32
Pearson 323,
Pearson 365,
Rival 34,
Sabre 34,
Westerly Conway 36 (aft cockpit version), and the
Westerly Falcon 34

Although they come with their own compromises, I personally prefer higher performance boats. Some of these will need some serious beefing up, but some possibilities in this price range (albeit at the top of the range) might include:

Albin Novell (Nova) 
Beneteau 345
Dehler 34
Dehler 37 (1980's)
Farr 11.6 (Farr 38)
Heritage One Ton 37
J-36
J-34c/35c
Sabre 34 (Mk I)
Sigma 33
Wauquiez Hood 35 and Hood 38


Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H

One last point, you asked a question that seems to suggest that you did not think that there was much of difference between boats in the 38 to 40 foot range and 50 footers. I think that there is a huge difference between a 38 to 40 footer and a 50 footer. Yacht designers usually describe the increase in cost and size of a boat, all other things being proportionate, as being somewhere between the square and the cube of the percentage increase in length. A 50 footer is 125% longer than a 40 footer and so would be somewhere between 1 ½ and twice as large a boat as measured by displacement, engineering loadings, and volume. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER

Jeff, thanks for a great list. I'm sure the original poster will appreciate it, and it will be an excellent departure point for many others in their own search.

As for this abrasive Seabreeze fellow, I can't believe you gave him the time of day. Your patience is outstanding

Gary
P323 "Dragonfly"


----------



## Faster

Amen to that, GaryP!


----------



## Jeff_H

Thanks for the kind words,

While Seabreeze clearly has a confrontational writing style, and seems to have a bone to pick with me personally, I think that he/she is asking legitimate questions, or making statements that at least provide a basis for a meaningful discussion. I agree with one point that seems to be at the core of Seabreeze's posts. My viewpoint is not consistent with the main stream view of CCA era cruising boats, or heavy displacement cruisers for that matter. 

I come by viewpoint from a different set of life experiences than a lot of very experienced sailors. I grew up sailing CCA era boats when these were new designs, but I also had a strong interest in the more traditional designs that preceded them. I studied yacht design during the period when CCA boats were the norm and have tried to stay current as the science behind yacht design has grown expedentially. I have been very lucky to have been able to own and sail on boats that predate and post date the CCA era and in any given year to be able to sail on boats of a lot of eras back to back, giving me a chance inform my decision by experiencing their relative virtues and liabilities first hand. 

I don't claim that mine is the only correct point of view, but I do think that it helpful to have some comparative dialogue when discussing of boats designed at different times and using differing design philosophies. Like so much in sailing I know that there is no one universally correct answer to almost any sailing question and that a good sailor can make do with almost any boat, and a bad sailor can get in trouble no matter how good the equipment. I think that discourse helps all of us understand the diversity of view points that are out there, which should be useful to the opinion formation of someone like the original poster. In doing seeing diverse views aired, our assumptions are challenged and either reinforced, adjusted or outright corrected. Not a bad thing. I come here to learn and be helpful where I can. Sometimes I learn from other people's opinion and sometimes I learn by researching a response to someone's confrontational post. 

Its all okay.
Jeff


----------



## seabreeze_97

Well that's quite a list. Why stop there? How about the Volvo 70. Go ahead. You know you wanna. Notice how there are exceptions, etc., in the form of at least some of them needing upgrades to be suitable, but I guess the B32 isn't afforded any such allowance. Also, nearly all of them are significantly longer. Some might consider that an unfair comparison. If waterline is so important, why not compare it to other boats with similar waterline? Still, other CCA boats, you say, are okay. It's just the B32 you dog, yet there are several examples on blue-water excursions right now, and funny, they're experienced in many different models, yet they don't complain of the things you villify the B32 for.

On the motion comfort statement....Where do you get a 500lb at the top of the mast as an example? Comparing it to a heavy deck? I can see where you use it to illustrate a heavy deck for simplicity, but the motion comfort factor favors heavy boats with overhang and narrow beam. How are you factoring a heavier deck (all else being equal) into that equation. While the added weight would factor into the displacement as favorable, the formula isn't wrong. Sure, the weight would increase roll, but you're mis-interpreting. The weight would increase the roll, and slow righting of the boat, but you have to gauge this against the bulk of the displacement with the narrower beam. It will right itself, as opposed to a dinghy, that won't right itself when inverted. Get it? The weight would slow the upright return, meaning, less violent. That's all the motion-comfort formula says, less violent response to waves. Displacement, overhang, and narrow beam..."are all factors that slow down the boats response in violent waves. This design philosophy is contrary to many modern racer/cruisers, but (now pay attention) it is based on a great deal of *real blue water data*, not just what looks good in a boat show."

As for those newer designs and their dinghy-shaped hulls, all I can say is FASTNET 1979.

All of this it seems, to get the obvious out of you, "Although they come with their own compromises, I personally prefer higher performance boats." Performance....speed....don't make a boat seaworthy. From the start, all you've done is go on about performance. Your initial reply was about how long it'd take. And that really wasn't the question. And instead of just saying that in your opinion, the B32 would need some upgrades, you denigrate, not only the boat, but the man and the choice he made. The fact that you wrote essays to say it doesn't make what you did any less "abrasive".....in my opinion.

You missed the point again on length. My point is, you repeatedly bemoaned the 22ft waterline on the B32, and kept emphasizing more waterline. I pluck the "50" out of the air and you go off in another direction about cost-per-foot.

Basically, you come off like you can not be wrong, and, hate to shatter that world, but your "opinion" flies directly in the face of some of the best-known, and accomplished legends in the sailing world who all state the same thing regarding the CCA designs. The CCA rules "ensured yachts that were strongly constructed, as weight in the structure was not penalized." You have stated the B32's weren't well-built, which is an out-and-out lie.

Now, I know I can't change your mind, and it wasn't my intention. I don't need to "save" the world. I have to say, it's been really enlightening seeing how tender-skinned these so-called men of the sea really are. Guess I'll be the pirate of the bunch.


----------



## TSOJOURNER

A Bristol 40 is not a Bristol 32. You have a lot more displacement and waterline on your 40. They are beautiful old boats and good sailors (accepting the trade offs associated with full keel). As with all the old designs, she probably has less room below that a newer 35 footer, but I would take the 40 anywhere. I would not say the same for the 32. Yes, there are plenty of sailors doing it, but if that was my current plan, I would look further. There are, IMO, better choices.

Larry


----------



## seabreeze_97

Yeah, there are better choices, depending on what your criteria are. Probably best to not take what has been called "a bear" in rough weather. Best to just let the retirees (http://www.kestrelboat.com/index.html) deal with the difficult ones, and let the youngsters have the easy boats. They really don't make 'em like they used to.


----------



## Ele5

*Can my Boat Circumnavigate?*

Hi Dan,
Can a Bristol 32... ?? shure you can! You also could take a rowingboat to cross the Atlantic and survive or navigate the Titanic and drown. The question is rather "How much risc are you accepting with that specific Boat for the desired purpose.?" 
The fact is that non of this plastic vessels are truly suitable for circumnavigation-despite of whatever their manufacturer will tell you! As long as you are aware of this facts and your decisions concernes just yourself, you may do whatever you whant to do. But having your fiencée with you burdens you on a tremendous responcability.
Both of you must be in full knowledge of the possible riscs and be willing to prepare yourself for that challenge. Don't count on all that gigs and toys offered in the pleasure sailmags. It's allways perfectly gilt-edged but mostly merchand business and not worth a Penny. While daycruising and building up your skills read all about "Practical Seamanship, Mariner's Weather Handbook, Offshore Cruising Encyclopedia, Surviving the Storm (all by Editor & Autors Dave & Linda Dashew). Ifthen you still whant to start with that same boat- well - setsail!

good luck
elena


----------



## sailingdog

BTW, I believe Elena means Steve and Linda Dashew, as the authors of the books mentioned. Another excellent book is the Adlard Coles' Heavy Weather Sailing, which has been a standard reference for many years.


----------



## paulk

So.... any word from Dan, who has now had ample time, since starting this thread in OCT 2002, to complete his circumnavigation even if he did pick a slow pig to do it in? There may even have been enough hot air from some quarters on this thread for him to have gone around twice by now. Dan? ...Dan?... That's not you tied up on that OI40 in Tampa, is it? Cheers!


----------



## seabreeze_97

Hot air? Now, don't be so hard on yourself.


----------



## leehaefele

I owned a Bristol 32 and cruised 1 year NY-FL-Bahamas-FL-NY. A solidly built boat, very slow, lacked space and modern comforts. Tended to leak under toerail into lockers. This model had upper storage lockers with doors, some models had shelves. With the doors, storage was very good. The small stern did not allow a quarter berth, normally used as storage. Sail lockers would just fit Dahon folding bikes. Some things I would require on ocean xings: EPIRB, SSB tranceiver for weather reports and filing float plans, Life Raft.
Suggest that you look at a variety of boats, speed is actually a safety issue, including speed under power to make port & outrun weather.


----------



## JaimesBeam

*Most Illuminating!*

Dang that was the most illuminating thread I've read in a long time.

Jim.


----------



## miles1865

i love my b32


----------



## intrepidseas

Interesting thread! I love my B32, too and have done some pretty serious sailing with her already. Planning to go even further now and maybe even try to circumnavigate. Not worried if she's the right boat, I'm only worried that I'll have too much fun cruising the Pacific and won't want to continue into the Indian Ocean!

It's like what some government official once said: "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had."

-Greg

s/v Intrepid, Bristol 32e
www.Intrepid-seas.com


----------



## rkgleason

*Bristol 32*

Having owned a Bristol since 1991 I believe I know them. The construction is better than a Cal, in fact Pearson may have made the hull too heavy. With good maintenance these boats can last a lifetime. The boat loves to reach, but upwind in certain kinds of short chop light-med wind requires bearing off 5 degrees to stop hobby horsing (she does have a very short footprint), otherwise she sails fine. Below she has more storage than most boats of her size. Real drawers, more storage under the drawers, lockers port and starboard, shelves and cabinets. Unlike some boats, there are catches for sea duty. Our cabin is actually quite nice for a production boat, with mahogany bulkheads and white cabin liner, lots of light and ventilation, plenty of headroom and good visibility. Actually I don't really understand why there is such negative comment about Bristol 32's. They are a classic CCA hull designed by none other than Ted Hood. They move easily through the water, are quite dry and they get you there.

Rick


----------



## Firebir1

Ken and Katie's Voyages Aboard Sand Dollar

Here is the latest position of Sanddollar,the Bristol 32 which has been sailing around the world. A beautiful and well made boat.


----------



## DonBland

owlmtn said:


> Jeff, I always enjoy your unemotional, rational opinions. thanks for your continued input. Jim


Woo hoo baby ! 
is that perfectly phrased or WHAT ! 
" It appears he's DEAD Jim "

:cut_out_animated_em


----------



## DonBland

*Re: Bristol 32*

Agreed Bristol 1966 I have removed seacocks, ( Wilcox-Crittendens ) the bloody hull is over an inch at that level thick! FRP no coreing mat'l , eh?
at 50 my entire yacht is in better , sound condition than most I've crewed upon , Salute to the shop guys back at the old Franklin St. shops! (Bristol . RI, USA ) !!!
\


----------



## mainebristol

Well, I've got a 1976 one. Just love her completely. I've had her in a short, tight, nine foot sea off the coast of Maine near Petit Manan during a blow. Had my family onboard, wife and young daughter. I never, not for a second, doubted that Eider would take care of all of us, as long as I cared for her. She is weatherly and seaworthy, and can stay at sea in a good solid nor'easter, if you're silly enough to get caught out. (ask me how I know) Yes, she leans over. Are we sailors or stinkpotters? I mean really. So she heels twenty degrees. Did you mean to go down to the ocean, or what?
We hope to sail to Newfoundland in a year or so, and we want to check out Labrador. We won't trade our old CCA boat in for one of those modern fin keel rigs. Ever run aground, accidentally? I have. Nothing like a (mostly) full keel to make up for a human's mistakes. But if you look at the belly of almost ANY of those fin keel jobs on the hard in winter, you'll see all kinds of wrinkles. Not on my boat. That Jeff guy doesn't talk about THAT.
That having been said; what would I trade her for? A Pacific Seacraft 34, or better yet, a 37. But that's real money. Much more than I can raise. Lacking a lottery win, I'll stick with my forty year old, solid, beautiful (does anyone enjoy looking back at their clorox bottle from their dingy? Really?) weatherly and safe B32, Eider. And come up and cruise Maine. It's nice up here. Let me know if you need a mooring.

Oh, and the previous poster is right on. When I had to replace the depth sounder, I needed to special order one with a long stem. That was the only way to get through the thick layup. My boat has enough extra glass to make a good sized daysailer. Might slow her down a tenth of a knot or so. Reread bit about wife and daughter. Thank you Bristol crew: We owe you for one damn solid boat.


----------



## sojourner02

Hi,
I've just come across this thread. I had a Bristol 32 Ketch for 15 years, sailed the California coast and San Francisco to Hawaii and back. The worst mistake I made in my life was selling her. The Bristol 32 is a fantastic offshore boat. Anyone who says anything different clearly hasn't been offshore in one. I hit the tail end of a hurricane. Sustained winds over 50 knots for 14 hours and 30-40 ft seas. She rode the swells, endured the breaking waves and kept my crew and I safe. No, the Bristol 32 isn't the fastest boat around, but I would rather be in a heavy displacement boat with a shoal draft keel rather than a faster, lighter boat. It's all about where you're sailing, and what your experience is. It's also about your reason for sailing the deep blue. If you're all about getting to the next landfall, take a 747. If it's about the journey, then the Bristol 32 is a wonderful boat on which to make the trip.
I wish you all fair winds.


----------



## StevenHs

jack_patricia said:


> Dan:
> 
> Your (generic) question appears frequently and the (generic) answer is usually pretty much the same. Older/smaller/cheaper production boats designed for coastal sailing MAY support long-range, offshore cruising but they come with a long list of caveats and cautions, not to mention a lot of upgrades for safety purposes if no other.
> 
> When folks specify a specific boat in the kind of question you pose, it''s usually because they''ve spotted a certain boat that, for some reason, has managed to connect the dots between their dreams on the one hand and their financial circumstances and aesthetic needs on the other. Put another way, your question is predicated on the boat rather than the goal (the voyage). A lot of folks have jump-started the process of fulfilling dreams with a boat they dearly love, but I''d respectfully suggest you ask a different question and see if you come up with a Bristol 32 as one of the answers. I''d state the question as something like this: ''If I want to circumnavigate (aka: sail long offshore distances to remote areas while living aboard long term with my partner), what SHOULD my boat look like?'' In this case, ''look'' means all those characteristics critical to the safety, sailing, comfort and carrying capacity of an offshore cruiser.
> 
> ''What should my boat look like?'' That''s a good place to start. One resource I''d encourage you to read carefully & thoughtfully is on John Neal''s website (Boat Selection Consultation Service). Also note the brief summary comments on many boat types at the article''s end. John now has close to 400,000 offshore miles, most of it instructing would-be cruisers in offshore sailing. His seminars are highly regarded and his widely respected advice well-earned. I''d encourage you to start there, add whatever other info you find helpful to you (another excellent resource in answering this question is Nigel Calder''s latest book, The Cruising Handbook) and then try to answer your original question (about the Bristol 32) as you see it. That''s the opinion that counts.
> 
> Jack


The Bristol is on John Neal's list of blue water boats.


----------

