# Alberg 30 thoughts



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Hi everyone,

I'm shopping around for my 1st sailboat. My primary cruising grounds will be in lake ontario but would like to be able to trailer up to the north channel if I decide to change cruising grounds.

I've pretty much fallen in love with the Alberg 30. Judging by previous posts, its a good boat but a bit on the smaller side inside. 
I'm somewhat conflicted about the cockpit. I've sailed mostly on boats with a wheel and kind of like the protection it brings. You can grab something if heel excessively whereas an A30 would be open. But the A30 is a proven heavy weather boat so maybe my concern is unfounded. 

I also considered C&c 30, cs 30 as well but these are more expensive than the alberg. essentially i wanted something that relatively simple (for single handing), can accommodate 2-3 people cruising and be able to take on heavy weather if we get stuck out there and need to weather out a storm. 

IF there's any other boats you can think of feel free to let me know.

Thanks in advance and happy sailing.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Beautiful boat, hate the way they sail. 
Dark, narrow and uncomfortable down below especially underway. 
Spent a decent amount of time on one, worked on it and rigged it every year for the last 4 summers. Been right across from me at the marina since I moved my boat there.
Would not want to try single handing that one. Would need thousands in upgrades for that. Then there is the fun of trying to dock it in anything other than perfect conditions. At slow speeds it will eventually do what you want it to do, maybe - if the wind doesn't blow it around first.

C&C, Catalina, CS....all would come long before an Alberg for me. First choice would be a C&C for an older boat, what I own now for sailing Lk Ontario. Most summer days it's light air sailing.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I agree with Tanski, except the "hate the way they sail" part. I don't like the way they sail, but I wouldn't say I hate it. Like all Alberg and Alberg-inspired designs, the boat is easy to love by looking at it, so I get the attraction. But a "proven heavy weather boat"? No. Just because it is a full keel design with an attached rudder doesn't make it a heavy weather boat.

I remember the boat to be really tender; she would go over to the rails in relatively moderate conditions. She would stiffen there, but if comfort or security during heavy weather is a concern of yours, then I would look at other designs.

And yeah, under power, especially backing up, is an adventure. If you will be on a mooring, that's not as big a deal as if you will be pulling into or out of a slip on a regular basis. But oh man, my friend who had an Alberg 30 would be white-knuckled pulling away from the dock every time.

And the boat was difficult to control sailing downwind.

You've identified some other drawbacks to the boat yourself, and my guess is your thread will bring out others with less than complementary things to say about the boat too. Our own Jeff H is no fan. However, this is your boat, you have to love it. Every boat is a series of compromises, and if after considering the facts, you decide this is the boat for you, then go for it. BTW, many Alberg 30's have wheel steering, so that shouldn't be a deal killer for you.

As for other possibilities, I think the C&C would be a great choice. Generally speaking, they were better made and are more modern designs than the Alberg 30. I also think the ubiquitous Catalina 30 would also fit the bill for you. Not sure what the availability is where you are, but the Oday 28 and 30 would also be a good value. All of those choices would be more comfortable to cruise on, sail better and be a better long-term value than the Alberg. But not one of them looks as good, at least in my humble opinion.

Boat buying is rarely a completely rationale exercise, but I wouldn't ignore the part of your brain that is trying to tell you that the Catalina is a "better" boat for a lot of reasons.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Thank you for quick replied. All good points. 
I sail a c&c 29 Mk ii through my club and while its a great boat, I'd be hesitant cutting across lake Ontario. To me it doesn't feel as rugged as I'd like my boat to be. 
I read that the CC30 is a stiffer boat and maybe a better choice than 29. And Catalinas - thought the proverbial best bang for the buck- I feel is also not boat you'd want to get stuck in heavy weather. A friend owns one and though its a great boat for most cases, he doesnt' like being in it when it blows north of 20. 

My view of the Alberg (apart from Aesthetics) is that it has circumnavigated many times and it seems like a simpler, more rugged boat than the ones mentioned above. I'm going to play it smart and try and sail as many different boats as possible before committing to buying one myself.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Boxerz123 said:


> ....
> I also considered C&c 30, cs 30 as well but these are more expensive than the alberg. essentially i wanted something that relatively simple (for single handing), can accommodate 2-3 people cruising and be able to take on heavy weather if we get stuck out there and need to weather out a storm.
> 
> IF there's any other boats you can think of feel free to let me know.
> ...


Ditto to Tanski's comments.

Having owned both a C&C 30 Mark I and a CS 36T, both brands offer some excellent model choices, choosing depends on your budget.

The C&C 30 Mark I is a wonderful sailing boat, fast yet sturdy and stiff. Limitations are down below is a little basic and probably includes a gas engine, but for $15,000 you should be able to get a very nice example to enjoy.

The CS 30 is also a nice sailor, faster than the C&C and more featured down below (propane stove, pressure hot water, more room...) and with a diesel, you should be able to a very nice example for $30,000 or so.

I loved my C&C 30, and would be happy to be sailing one again, but for any cruising a boat like the CS30 is well worth the extra money...if you can swing it.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Plenty of boats have circumnavigated that I wouldn't really say were fit for the task. A Catalina 27 being one that springs to mind. Also wouldn't really want to do it on a Contessa 26 but a few have.
I'd take a well cared for C&C 29 anywhere on Lk Ontario without a second thought.
An Alberg is not simpler than any other boat out there, they are just as "complex" as any other similar sized boat with similar systems.
I'd also argue about them being better built. I'd rather a balsa core in a deck than compressed paper (masonite) Also not a big fan of an encapulated iron keel. Watch out for the laminated deck beam in Pre 70 models.
There is also chain plate issues. My friends was dismasted before she bought it due to failed chain plates. This could just be due to age and lack of maintenance, not 100% sure. Did some looking into them when I did a bit of work on hers. Due to deck leaks the galley had rotted out.
Unless the winches have been replaced with self tailing ones, has a tiller pilot installed and a roller furler and all lines lead aft I'd also be looking for another boat to sail solo. Would be expensive upgrades.
Oh ya also be careful of rudder rot on older models, was another repair done to this one.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

I did week-long sailing course on a CS 30. there were 4 of us on the boat and it was pretty comfortable and was great for cruising/living. Wasn't a bad sailor either from what I remember. Problem is they start from $30k upwards. My budget is around $15k-20k plus another $5 for upgrades. CS would put me way over. Love the 36T.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Boxerz123 said:


> I did week-long sailing course on a CS 30. there were 4 of us on the boat and it was pretty comfortable and was great for cruising/living. Wasn't a bad sailor either from what I remember. Problem is they start from $30k upwards. My budget is around $15k-20k plus another $5 for upgrades. CS would put me way over. Love the 36T.


If a C&C 30 is what you can afford, than go for it...don't complicate the effort thinking about CS30's...In that price range, the only other model I'd consider is a Tartan 30...


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I have spent quite a bit of time around the Alberg designs, I had a neighbour who lived aboard a 30 and I have a brother that trailer sails his 22 successfully, with wife and 2 kids, although I think they limit their trips to just a couple of nights when its the whole gang. I kind of like them personally.

They do heel over a lot, but they are intended to. It was a design feature that was intended to over come an obsolete racing rule that favored short waterlines, I'm sure some one may correct me on that, but I think that's the basic principle. Once they are heeled over though, they seem to sail well enough to me. They can be a bit wet an unnerving for the uninitiated, but they seem to do what they were designed to do to me.

I don't think an Alberg 30 would be a perfect fit for your situation, based on what you put above though. Here are my thoughts.

-Trailering an Alberg 30, I know its possible, but they are big boats for that sort of thing. Maybe a guy who tows things for a living would be good with it, but it would terrify me, even just from Toronto to Midland.
-They aren't the best upwind performers, which I think would be a pain in southern Georgian Bay. The channels between the islands are just so narrow in places, I think youd be motoring a lot.
-Most of the more affordable Alberg 30s seem to have atomic 4s, which are gas in boards and they are old gas in boards. They aren't the worst (I had a G30 with one) but gas inboards aren't my, or a lot of other peoples favourite motors.

If you want something that can be loaded on a trailer, that sails upwind okay, can handle a bit of weather and are cheap as dirt in southern Ontario, two boats come to my mind. A Grampian 26 and a Tanzer 26. Check them out, they might have almost as much interior space as an Alberg 30 too.


----------



## Arsen02 (Nov 25, 2017)

hello mY name is Arsen) I am a new member here )) thanks for your post , nice to meet you all here, in this web site


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Boxerz123 said:


> I sail a c&c 29 Mk ii through my club and while its a great boat, I'd be hesitant cutting across lake Ontario.


Why would you light out for Rochester without checking the forecast first?

Plenty of 26' and smaller sailing the lake (even in nasty 4' chop - not saying that I enjoyed it...). What made you feel less-than-secure in the C&C 29?


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

The wine glass, slack bilged hull shape is initially tender but stiffens up as the boat heels to 20 degree or so. They have way better ultimate stability than modern flat bottom boats. They are smaller interiors for the overall length than more modern boats but then a modern boat is actually a longer boat with the ends chopped off. Above all else, what makes a good cruising boat interior is storage. The newer boats have wide open spaces but it's just a bunch of air with minimal storage. In a seaway, all that open space actually becomes dangerous. The additional wetted surface of the full keel hurts light air performance but the will still in light air, just not as fast as a boat with less wetted surface with equal sail area. With a bit more wind they will equal newer boats and often leave them in the dust when the wind pipes up. Because these types of boats are usually heavier and lines softer, they are way more comfortable in rough conditions.

I don't know the engineering of the chain plates on the Alberg 30 but Yves Gelinas of Cape Horn self steering fame lost the mast because of a chain plate failure on his A30. This was after sailing half way round the world. The boat was rolled beyond 90 degrees which usually results in a dismasting, in any case. Yves had redone all the standing rigging except the chain plates. Don't know whether the failure was because they were not anchored well in the hull, crevice corrosion resulted in a fracture or what. Might try and get hold of him to pin this down especially if you are concerned about how the plates are supported. FWIW, Yves repaired the mast and chainplate and finished the circumnavigation. AFAIK he's still sailing the boat. His video of his cruise is well worth the cost of purchase, btw. http://capehorn.com/sections/Pages/30ansAng.htm

Full keel boats are not as 'turn on a dime' maneuverable as fin keel boats. takes a bit more planning and boat handling skills to fit them into small spaces with limited maneuvering room. With practice and using prop torque, you can learn to put them where you want. Have not found any full keel boat fun to back. They tend to go where they want to and you just have to live with it. They do tend to be easier to keep on course as the full keel is more directionality stable.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

for sure will be checking forecast for any crossing. I found the cc29 to be a lighter "feeling boat" and it can easily get over powered if not reefed when wind picks up. But it just doesn't give me the feeling of ruggedness so I woudn't want it to be pounding for hours. 
yes you can always plan around weather but I'd like to know that if I need to get somewhere the boat can get me there regardless of weather. of course not talking about going out in gale force but don't want to be a fair weather sailor.


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Boxerz123 said:


> for sure will be checking forecast for any crossing. I found the cc29 to be a lighter "feeling boat" and it can easily get over powered if not reefed when wind picks up. But it just doesn't give me the feeling of ruggedness so I woudn't want it to be pounding for hours.
> yes you can always plan around weather but I'd like to know that if I need to get somewhere the boat can get me there regardless of weather. of course not talking about going out in gale force but don't want to be a fair weather sailor.


I think that balance is the key - "sporty" conditions are fun, but too much is too much. Lake Ontario can be dangerous to anything floating.

A few further thoughts: a) For comfort, there is no substitute for displacement and LWL - only one of which the Alberg has b) A more modern design will pound more to weather c) A C&C 29 will out-point and out-sail an Alberg 30 in any weather on any point of sail.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

I always find the responses to boat types very amusing on sailnet. I almost feel like everytime an OP considers a boat, there are many who say "there are better boats for the job than the one the OP is considering". I think even if one of the "better boats for the job" was originally considered, some would still say there are better boats for the job. 

having said that, I'm still open to other models of boat with these considerations in mind in no particular order:
1) needs to be able to handle heavy seas
2) relatively comfortable for cruising for a couple
3) easy to setup for single handing
4) under $25k
5) around 27 - 30 ft

I'll take out the need for trailer-bility as I think it'll limit the size to 26 feet which I find to be too much on the cozy side


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Boxerz123 said:


> having said that, I'm still open to other models of boat with these considerations in mind in no particular order:
> 1) needs to be able to handle heavy seas
> 2) relatively comfortable for cruising for a couple
> 3) easy to setup for single handing
> ...


Just a few that are all better options than an Alberg 30 (or any other CCA-era design) and all local to southern/central ON:

1981 Pearson 32 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1976 C&C 30 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1976 C&C 30 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

1982 Ontario 32 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

Searching Yachtworld for 29-32' boats under 25k in the Great Lakes turned up 14 pages of results. I'm not saying any of the above are in good condition. I'm just saying for your needs and budget you have piles of excellent options.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I think I follow the type of feeling you are going for. You want something forgiving, a little less sporty. I can't think of a good reason not to buy an Alberg if that's what you like, the full keel gives them a less twitchy feel. There waterline is only Super short when they are sitting upright in dead calm conditions, but when they are heeled over, which is how they are supposed to be sailed, the waterline gets quite a bit longer, so I wouldn't focus too much on waterline length in isolation.

They aren't that bad to back, but they do have to be backed up like traditional boats rather than like cars, so, it can take some practice and more planning in and out of dock.

Have you checked out this link, it's very good for used boats in Ontario.

Sailboats in Canada - 24' to 27' models

A couple of boats that might be a good fit for what you describe in that range might be Aloha 27, and CS27. However, I wouldn't necessarily rule out alberg if you like them and Can find one in decent shape. There are certainly no shortage of Alberg getting the job done on Lake Ontario.

Ps. If we all bought boats based on forum recomendations alone, we would all be sailing around in million dollar canting full keel CE category Class A blue water racing cruisers.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

I considered the cs27. Nice boat...a previous member here had one and told me he was happy with it for the most part except the smallish cockpit. Its a bit roomier with the tiller but once you have a wheel you lose a lot of space. I haven't sailed one so don't have first hand experience. I also think the headroom is under 6 feet? I'm 6 feet myself so having standing headroom is important. 

the c&c on yachworld seem decent. not as pretty as the alber. i guess part of the attraction to the alberg is just the looks. all other boats look like cookie cutter designs where they all look the same. I really like the classic looking boats which is why I'm so hung up on the albergs. I know the bristols look similar.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

You're sailing Lk Ontario not rounding the horn!
Been sailing and racing that lake for decades. 99% of the time you are going to be wishing for more wind and a faster light wind boat!
This summer was particularly bad I probably motored back to the marina 50% of the time in dead calm by mid/late afternoon.
When it does get bad you head for the nearest marina, not try to fight your way someplace.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

I've sailed and worked on an Alberg 30. Slow as molasses - PHRF is slower than a San Juan 24. Very tender - sailed rail down in any breeze at all. It had the heaviest weather helm I've ever experienced - would have given you blisters after a few hours on the tiller if you could hang on to it that long. To be fair, the one I knew had a very old main so that was part of the helm problem. Cramped interior with a Rubiks cube of a door to the head & forward cabin.

The only thing I liked about it was its looks.

People get all misty eyed, almost cultish about them but AFAIAC it is one of the most overrated boats ever built.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Boxerz123 said:


> I'll take out the need for trailer-bility as I think it'll limit the size to 26 feet


Nor Sea 27

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303266


----------



## Pendragon35 (Jun 26, 2014)

I sail an Alberg 35. Let's see, taking some of the points made...
Yes... she does heel right away, mine goes to about 25 deg, rub rail just out of the water. Then she just sticks there. I guess if I was dumb enough not to reef or whatever she might heel farther but that's true of any sailboat.
Yes... it took a while to learn to handle her docking and undocking. Full keel boats are like that. she doesn't turn like my Tanzer 22/fin keel did. I took me a season to learn to undock without being tense and I still like a hand docking, since I usually single hand. But then who doesn't get nervous docking a 35' boat alone?
Yes.. she tends to roll going down wind. So it goes. It's what she does. 
yes..she doesn't have lots of space like a Catalina
Yes.. she isn't as fast as other boats. If I wanted to be fast, I'd get a power boat.
Yes..she can be single handed. I don't hae any fancy equipment: old electric autopilot, halyards and reefing at the mast, roller reefing jib. I plan to install lazy jacks but I've been sailing without them for two years. 

So having said all that...I love my boat. I love how she sails, I love how she looks. I don't need a lot of space below; I seldom have more than me on board and when I do it's my wife and we like being close. She's a great, tough boat, sails like a dream and makes my heart warm. 

Get the boat that makes you smile and turn around when you walk away!


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

On reflection, I feel Boxerz123's pain. The C&C 29/30 may be fast and offer great accommodation, but they are a little ungainly (an aside: "classic" full-keel wineglass-profile boats get to drop the narrow cabin sole down lower, gaining headroom - that's why pocket-size C&C's and many others have awkward cabin tops).

I own a Dolphin 31, a boat that's arguably no beauty contest winner. High freeboard, and an ahead-of-its-time bulged cabin trunk that leaves an oddly shaped foredeck. But (almost) any boat looks good out there and sailing - I'm attaching two photos of a sister ship to prove it.

But row-away factor is important. So Boxerz123, here's a recommendation for what I think is a classic East-coast-vibe boat that marries pretty lines and more modern hull and interior design: 
TARTAN 33 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

They usually go for above $30k, but there are two on Yachtworld under $20k.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Another boat that comes to mind is a Grampian 30.

It's also a Canadian built boat, very common and very inexpensive (decent one for around $10k or less) in the Toronto area. They are a bit heavy, like the alberg, good sea boats, but they sail flatter than an Alberg, have more space and have over 6 ft of head room.

I am biased, because I lived on one full time in Toronto. I would take mine out in nearly any conditions, I actually sought out high wind days in the spring and fall on that boat. I thought she was a fantastic boat.

Here's a pic of my old G30 coming in to Toronto Island.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Thanks all for the recommendations. Alberg 30 is getting the least amount of love but I get it. Tartan 33 may be too much of a boat for me as a 1st time buyer. Ideally I want to keep it in the 30 foot max range to keep the maintenance and docking cost down. And Grampian looks like a good low price boat in that length although I must admit I'm not in love with its looks. 

I've come to conclude that my intended use is 70% day sailing and 30 percent weekend or week-long trips. So with that in mind, I think best to have a boat I can hop on and cast off. I'm of the mindset of simple is better...at least until I'm able to leave for weeks at a time. 

So the short list of boats is now:

C&C 30 MKi
C&C 29 MKii
Alberg 30
Tanzer 26
Tartan 30
I'd like to add cape dories to the mix but not too many on sale on lake ontario.

I'm not in a huge rush to buy as I have access to club boats so will stay patience until I'm 100% sure what boat I want and wait for one in good condition to come up.


----------



## slap (Mar 13, 2008)

zedboy said:


> On reflection, I feel Boxerz123's pain. The C&C 29/30 may be fast and offer great accommodation, but they are a little ungainly (an aside: "classic" full-keel wineglass-profile boats get to drop the narrow cabin sole down lower, gaining headroom - that's why pocket-size C&C's and many others have awkward cabin tops).
> 
> I own a Dolphin 31, a boat that's arguably no beauty contest winner. High freeboard, and an ahead-of-its-time bulged cabin trunk that leaves an oddly shaped foredeck. But (almost) any boat looks good out there and sailing - I'm attaching two photos of a sister ship to prove it.
> 
> ...


I'll second the Tartan 33 - Ajax_MD has one and I see him out on the Chesapeake every so often. It's a great looking boat.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

slap said:


> I'll second the Tartan 33 - Ajax_MD has one and I see him out on the Chesapeake every so often. It's a great looking boat.


The Tartan 33 would have very much intimidated me as a first time buyer/new sailor. I understand the OP's concern.
I will say that they are set up well for singlehanding though.

If you feel the T-33 is too much, the T-30 is a solid boat that should suit your purposes. I agree that the Cape Dorys are also very tough.


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> If you feel the T-33 is too much, the T-30 is a solid boat that should suit your purposes.


Just beat me to it Ajax :grin almost as pretty as the 33, and it has teak toerails. None listed in Ontario, but lots available in the US and they are cheap. Question is do you pay extra for one repowered with a diesel.

All the 29-31 footers listed in Ontario are C&Cs, Mirage 29s, or Alberg 30s.

Thoughts about size: at 31' I am about the same displacement at a T-30, almost exactly 4T (and the T-33 only weighs 500 K more). Set up for singlehanding, it can be reasonable if you're very comfortable docking, but I wouldn't love it even on a finger pier. It's just too much boat to easily wrestle onto the dock alone - a 26' boat at half the displacement is much easier for that. But if you have crew (even relatively inexperienced), jumping aboard and getting out quickly is no problem. I step aboard, unlock the cabin, check oil/water, start the engine, look for cooling water, slip the lines and go, <5 minutes.

From where I was in Thornhill, getting to Lake Simcoe was as fast as Lake Ontario, and the calmer conditions were much easier on my guests. Ideal for a 26' or so. If you're already over looks and considering a Tanzer 26, add the Grampian 26 to your list. Plenty of people sail that size on the big lake but expect green guests...

The cheapest of the cheap I found was Lake Scugog but they only allow up to 24'....which means you have to find the prize of all McGruer designs, the dreadful Georgian 23 (but standing headroom and an enclosed head in 23'!!). I think it was under $1k for a slip there. I was lucky enough to get into Jackson's Point, also very cheap, but never any space for bigger boats.


----------



## Tanski (May 28, 2015)

Wouldn't get too hung up on looks for a first boat. You will either sell it in a couple years for another or to get out of boating.
Look for a quality name brand boat for a reasonable price that has most of the systems in as good a shape as can be expected for your budget. 
Forget about storm keeping qualities or whatever, you are sailing Lake Ontario, plenty of marinas and very good weather forecasting. You are going to be withing 5 km of shore just about all the time anyway. Nothing out in the middle of the lake anyway....
C&C's CS's, Grampions etc have been sailing the great lakes for close to 50 years. Think about it for a second of they weren't "strong" enough why are there so many of them still out there actively sailing and racing Lk. Ontario. I'm one of those with a 43 year old C&C that is still going strong. Tabbing is all intact, keel is still on, original mast and boom. Can't really ask for much more from a boat that has been raced 95% of it's life. Everything else has been replaced - but it should be on a boat that age, if it's not then count on doing it.
Most things over 10 years old on a boat are probably about ready to be replaced.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Of your list of boats, there is one that stands out from the rest in terms of simplicity and ease of maintenance; Tanzer 26's are very simple boats. 

There is almost nothing to go wrong on a Tanzer 26. 

-They have very little wood inside and out, and if there is one thing I have learned about old boats is that wood is a pain in the neck. It needs varnishing, it needs sanding, it absorbs water and it rots. Used to love wood on boats, but after owning two 70's vintage live aboards, I have decided I am done with it. GRP, you just wipe down with a cloth.

-Outboard rudders. Transom hung rudders are much easier to get at for maintenance items, and its one less through hull for water to get into the boat from.

-Outboard motors, some folks hate them because they can cavitate in rough weather, but maintenance wise they are super easy, pop them off, take them to a mechanic, work on them in your garage over the winter, if you get ticked off and decide you don't want to fix it, sell it and buy a new one. If you get a really messed up old inboard, as often as not it can mean scrapping the whole boat rather than just going to the local power sports dealership and buying a new outboard (or on Kijiji). There are no linkages to worry about, no internal fuel tanks, no oil in the bilge, no through hulls for cooling, no stuffing box. Besides, these boats sail well, so motoring in choppy conditions should be minimal. 

-They have tiller steering, which is again, simple, very little to go wrong.

Of course, all the other boats on the list are bigger, which means comfort. I am not saying the Tanzer 26 is better, I am just saying from a cost and maintenance perspective, they have a lot going for them.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

And should also be trailerable without getting special permits. 

Too small for a (close) couple to live aboard?


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

I see a couple of recommendations for the Tartan 30. 
I really like the way those boats sail, and they are beautiful. Be aware that the keelbolts on them tend to rust out, and they are difficult to access if they need replacing. Also, unless you are very short, when you sit on the settees in the cabin, your head hits the upper cabin before you can lean back - was a deal breaker for me when I looked at them. 

As for the Alberg, I like them and would feel safe in a passage on one - they are slower and sail on their ear, however. Certainly are beautiful.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

john61ct said:


> And should also be trailerable without getting special permits.
> 
> Too small for a (close) couple to live aboard?


2 people full time living aboard a Tanzer 26? Just my opinion, but i dont really think so, too small i think. They have everything, a private Vberth, a private head, a little galley, a dinnette, but the dimensions are just kind of small. The vberth isnt bad. My wife and i have slept in the v berth of a tanzer 22, And even it is surprisingly comfortable (she thinks so too, my wife loves tanzers because theyre so easy to keep clean).

I would say the main salon, galley and storage would be pretty small for two folks full time.

However, if by live aboard, you are thinking seasonal, I think it would definitely be okay for a few months in a warm climate. They arent really much smaller inside than an Alberg 30.

I agree that they are trailerable, even behind a stock half ton, theyre only 4400 ish pounds and shallow draft to boot- 3ft10. They will be much more weight sensitive than an Alberg, so you can carry less stores and less stuff.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Oop wrong thread


----------



## FreeAgent (Apr 19, 2017)

Boxerz123 said:


> I'm still open to other models of boat with these considerations in mind in no particular order:
> 1) needs to be able to handle heavy seas
> 2) relatively comfortable for cruising for a couple
> 3) easy to setup for single handing
> ...


How about an Ontario 32? Very well built. Excellent sailing characteristics. Offshore capable. Most have diesel power (unlike C&Cs) Roomy and well finished down below, If mine wasn't under it's winter cover, I would invite you up to see it  With C$ where it is US$25k would buy one.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

An Ericson 33 just sold in my area for about 23K... You ought to look around for a similar one.
An Ericson 32-2 would do everything you need and has a stronger hull-to-deck joint than many of the other production boats of that era or any other.

On your budget, a later model E-30+ would be a fine choice also.


----------



## dmdelorme (Jun 18, 2016)

Hi, Have you thought about a Tanzer 26 or larger there are a lot of them in your area. I bought one last year. very tough, easy to sail, Cheap.
down side not for people over 6ft. most did not come with inboard. I have the new style rudder and have not noticed any weather helm that was quite an issue with the old style. Sorry no wheel but i prefer a tiller.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

olson34 said:


> An Ericson 33 just sold in my area for about 23K... You ought to look around for a similar one.
> An Ericson 32-2 would do everything you need and has a stronger hull-to-deck joint than many of the other production boats of that era or any other.
> 
> On your budget, a later model E-30+ would be a fine choice also.


Are you familiar with the earlier 30's?

Apparently there may have been a short-run 8'6" beam version, possibly explicitly designed for offshore passage making.

I'm not interested in the 9'3" beam version.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

john61ct said:


> Are you familiar with the earlier 30's?
> 
> Apparently there may have been a short-run 8'6" beam version, possibly explicitly designed for offshore passage making.
> 
> I'm not interested in the 9'3" beam version.


I think that the cruising oriented Ericson was called the Independence and it was a 31 footer. They were nice boats for that size and purpose.

Jeff


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

No, specifically looking for a 30' from the very beginning, apparently a 8'6" beam, maybe not even put into production, certainly not officially listed anywhere. 

There's a derelict one for sale a couple hours from me, I'll have a look when I get the chance.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

john61ct said:


> No, specifically looking for a 30' from the very beginning, apparently a 8'6" beam, maybe not even put into production, certainly not officially listed anywhere.
> 
> There's a derelict one for sale a couple hours from me, I'll have a look when I get the chance.


I remember Ericsons from their very beginning. That does not sound like any model that I remember, but I do warn that the earliest Ericsons were really poorly built and were pretty mediocre designs (mostly splashed from older designs) that would not remotely fit the description of an offshore cruising boat. Once Bruce King got involved the build and design quality got a lot better.

Jeff


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

john61ct said:


> No, specifically looking for a 30' from the very beginning, apparently a 8'6" beam, maybe not even put into production, certainly not officially listed anywhere.
> 
> There's a derelict one for sale a couple hours from me, I'll have a look when I get the chance.


Those are generally called the E-30 mk1. There is actually one in our YC, fully rebuilt and restored. Early Bruce King design. While it's a decent design for its era, I see no advantage over the later models. 
Your money, your choices.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

olson34 said:


> Those are generally called the E-30 mk1. There is actually one in our YC, fully rebuilt and restored. Early Bruce King design. While it's a decent design for its era, I see no advantage over the later models.
> Your money, your choices.


OK, great. Can you confirm it has actually got a 8'6" beam, not larger? That's much narrower than his other designs, and is (for me) its advantage.

I understand the later models were designed for coastal cruising more than offshore, perhaps a bit less robust construction?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

john61ct said:


> OK, great. Can you confirm it has actually got a 8'6" beam, not larger? That's much narrower than his other designs, and is (for me) its advantage.
> 
> I understand the later models were designed for coastal cruising more than offshore, perhaps a bit less robust construction?


The Ericson 30-1 has a 9-6" beam.

I know Ericsons pretty well. Almost from the beginning, Ericson built mostly racer cruisers. You have the build quality chronology backwards. The early Ericson's were not all well built but by the early very late 1960's but more by the early 1970's, Ericson greatly upped their game, being a real pioneer in introducing a proper internal framing system. Like most companies Ericson had it's ups and downs, but the general trajectory was that the build quality of the early boats were total junk that progressively became extremely high quality near the end of the company.

Ericson did build a series of more cruising oriented designs as well that included a 31 footer, and a 36 footer. And while the 41's have done some serious cruises, the majority of the Ericsons never were decent distance cruisers. That is especially true of the 30-1.

Jeff


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

john61ct said:


> OK, great. Can you confirm it has actually got a 8'6" beam, not larger? That's much narrower than his other designs, and is (for me) its advantage.
> 
> I understand the later models were designed for coastal cruising more than offshore, perhaps a bit less robust construction?


I would respectfully disagree. By the later 70's and into the whole 80's, the Ericson's were engineered and built for open ocean use. I know of an E-35-2 with trips from CA to Hawaii and back, an E-32-3 with a roundtrip solo, and an E-381 with a roundtrip solo. And then there are the later 80's Olson 34's with multiple Hawaii trips. And the several E-39 and E-29 models that have crossed oceans. 
Ericson was one of few builders to join their hulls and decks on the inside with roving and make a one-piece structure out of it. 
Nothing wrong with liking a narrower vessel just for the esthetics, but the beam-length ratios of the Ericson's were intended for sailing offshore.
Of course there is a point on the graph where the wider boat get harder to push thru water and wind, but these boats are still near the center.
(Apropos of whatever, I once did a rough delivery on a 14 foot wide big Catalina against a stubborn ocean that was showing us "7 by 7" seas for a long long day. Forward progress was depressing but not hazardous. Just a frustrating day...)

My 34' boat, at 10 feet beam, is more comfortable in the ocean than the "ultra wides" currently being marketed to what I see as a second home market. :frown

All boats are compromises, so just be sure that you understand what any given model is giving to you... and what has been withheld.

Fair winds.


----------



## roverhi (Dec 19, 2013)

I heard it from a reliable source, he owned one and did glass work on the mold, that the Erickson 35 Mark I hull mold was actually the Pearson Alberg 35 mold. The molds were supposed to be destroyed and trashed but somehow ended up in Erickson hands when Pearson closed there plant in NorCal. They could have also picked up the 30' Pearson mold which I believe was called the Wanderer.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

OK that's a pity then I guess someone doesn't know what they've got.

I'm limiting myself to 8'6" beam, and even if they were super stout I can't see going all the way down to 25'.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

roverhi said:


> I heard it from a reliable source, he owned one and did glass work on the mold, that the Erickson 35 Mark I hull mold was actually the Pearson Alberg 35 mold. The molds were supposed to be destroyed and trashed but somehow ended up in Erickson hands when Pearson closed there plant in NorCal. They could have also picked up the 30' Pearson mold which I believe was called the Wanderer.


I think that it is unlikely that Pearson Wanderers or Coasters were ever built on the west coast. It is possible that Ericson built rebadged Tritons. (8-3" beam).

Ericson started out building boats for other companies, mainly Columbia. The first Ericsons were rebadged Columbias. They may have built Tritons for Pearson when Aeromarine stopped production as well.

The west coast Tritons were mast head rigs vs fractional rigs. They also had their decks cored with Masonite rather than plywood, and so were more prone to deck core rot.

Ericson did build a version of the Alberg 35 that had a post hung rudder instead of the keel hung rudder on the east coast boats.

The Triton was about as narrow as a boat that length can get and that came at the price of really poor stability and sail carrying capacity.

Jeff


----------



## BillFalls44 (Dec 11, 2017)

good thoughts here.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> The west coast Tritons were mast head rigs vs fractional rigs. They also had their decks cored with Masonite rather than plywood, and so were more prone to deck core rot.


Jeff -

Small correction - west coast Tritons had NO deck coring - just fiberglass, for the decking. They flex a bit, but have zero core rot in the deck, as the deck isn't cored.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> Jeff -
> 
> Small correction - west coast Tritons had NO deck coring - just fiberglass, for the decking. They flex a bit, but have zero core rot in the deck, as the deck isn't cored.


Based on other discussions that I have seen, I am not sure that either of us have this 100% correct. I know that you are at least partially correct.

Here is my understanding, I had always heard that some of the early West Coast Tritons did not have cored decks and years ago said that in a discussion. But then a person with a West Coast Triton, who claimed to own one with the masonite deck weighed in and claimed that the West Coast builders fairly quickly changed over to Masonite. He had originally thought that his decks were not cored because the masonite core was only a 1/4" thick and so the decks seemed too thin to be cored, but he eventually ended up replacing a lot of his masonite coring where it had rotted out.

So, if this is truem and if Ericson built a few Tritons, it would have been very late in the West Coast Triton production run, so I would have to assume that these would have been built with the masonite deck coring.

Jeff


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff, 

I've never heard of nor read of a Triton (West Coast) having coring whatsoever, nor have I ever seen one with cored decks (I've worked on 4).
I have read much, however, of pre 1970 Alberg 30's as having masonite cored decks. Maybe you are confusing the 2?
I know on the Triton forums it is accepted information that the West Coast ones have no coring - it is considered one of the virtues of the WC run. 
Maybe you can find the information you have and share. Even googling "Triton Masonite Core" I cannot find a reference to such a beast.......


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I've never heard of nor read of a Triton (West Coast) having coring whatsoever, nor have I ever seen one with cored decks (I've worked on 4).
> I have read much, however, of pre 1970 Alberg 30's as having masonite cored decks. Maybe you are confusing the 2?
> ...


I cannot argue it one way or another. I too did a search and could not find it either. I think that the discussion was on the old Cruising World site.

The gist of this guy's claim was that the uncored decks on the early West Coast Tritons was very flexible, especially in the foredeck and cockpit. He claimed that early on the West Coast factory tried glassing in some hat sections on some of the boats. He said that the Masonite was Alberg's idea since it had worked on the Alberg 30.

I do believe that you are right that some, or many, or most of the West Coast Tritons did not have cored decks, but then there was this guy.

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

didn't the west coast Tritons have fiberglass coamings too?


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

mstern said:


> didn't the west coast Tritons have fiberglass coamings too?


Yes they do. Very little exterior wood to take care of - many prefer them because of this and the solid fiberglass decks with no core to rot out.
The west coast models were generally better built as well.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

How does the Pearson Ariel fit in that regard? 

I'm keeping to beam 8.5' or lower, so Alberg 30 is 3" too wide, and even Pearson 27 is out.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

john61ct said:


> How does the Pearson Ariel fit in that regard?
> 
> I'm keeping to beam 8.5' or lower, so Alberg 30 is 3" too wide, and even Pearson 27 is out.


A Triton has an 8'-3" beam which is narrower than the 8'-6" beam limit that you have set. Frankly, the Ariel was a really crummy design, but it has a beam of 8'-0". The Tartan 27 is a much nicer design than either of the Triton or Ariel, and the Tartan was also much better built and has a 8'-6 1/2" beam. The Bristol 26 (AKA Sailstar 26) was also a superior design to the Ariel and it also has an 8'-0"

What I don't understand is why you are limiting the beam to 8'-6". That makes no sense to me at all. Its too wide to trailer without a wide trailer permit in many states, and too narrow to provide decent sailing characteristics in boats over 27 or so feet in length. Boats like the Laser 28 with a 9'-6" beam are routinely trailered interstate, I certainly did mine, but of course with a wide trailer permit.

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

john61ct said:


> How does the Pearson Ariel fit in that regard?
> 
> I'm keeping to beam 8.5' or lower, so Alberg 30 is 3" too wide, and even Pearson 27 is out.


How does it "fit" in what regard? The Ariel is really the "Triton Jr", a scaled down version of her big sister. I've never heard of a west coast version of the Ariel. If you want the specs, there's an association website, and of course, sailboatdata.com.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Thanks for those details 


Jeff_H said:


> What I don't understand is why you are limiting the beam to 8'-6". That makes no sense to me at all. Its too wide to trailer without a wide trailer permit in many states


My understanding is 8'6" or under requires no permit in any state.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

mstern said:


> How does it "fit" in what regard? The Ariel is really the "Triton Jr", a scaled down version of her big sister. I've never heard of a west coast version of the Ariel.


Opinions on build quality, relative seaworthiness among these being discussed, and in general cruising boats with less than 8'6" beam.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

john61ct said:


> Opinions on build quality, relative seaworthiness among these being discussed, and in general cruising boats with less than 8'6" beam.


Aha. thanks for the clarification.

I've been on an Ariel once, briefly, several years ago. I remember two things: I found the boat to be uncommonly pretty, and uncommonly uncomfortable below. I didn't sail on her, but my impression from looking at the drawings is that she would act like other Alberg designs and be initially tender, but stiffen up a relatively high heel angle. Fun to sail for a short time, but very tiring to be on your ear for hours-long stretches. I think they marketed the boat as a midget ocean racer, but with that low freeboard and wineglass shape, that is going to be a wet ride. Probably as "safe" as any 24 foot boat would be, but definitely not comfortable in a blow. And despite the doghouse coach roof, limited headroom and quite cramped below. Very limited storage and tankage.

As I mentioned, I did find the boat to be beautiful; so much so that I actually started looking around for one about 10 years ago. I didn't see much availability; they weren't nearly as popular as the Triton. And for those examples I did see advertised, they were all "project" boats. Any example you see now will be around 50 years old. Be prepared.

IMHO, the Ariel is the kind of boat you buy when you are "boatstruck"; the very look of the boat creates an irresistible tidal wave of emotion. I don't think it's the kind of boat that you would choose based on an objective list of criteria.


----------



## blowinstink (Sep 3, 2007)

I won't wade into the broad discussion of Albergs other than to say I disagree with a lot of what has been written by non Alberg sailors. They are good boats with strong suits and others not so strong -- I don't regret my Cape Dory 330 and know plenty of happy CD sailors. If your budget is $25K, look at the Cape Dory 30's and 33's. They are newer, more modern and likely to have been better kept than the Alberg. Trailering a 30' full keel boat is a nonstarter as far as I am concerned but otherwise, I think they could fit your needs perfectly (I singlehand all the time).


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Alberg certainly drew some beautiful boats, and I would feel confident going offshore in many of them mentioned in this thread. I like they way they slip through the waves instead of pounding. The negatives I don't like about them (in general) are they typically sail on their ear, and often have weather helm that is hard to balance out. These two aspects seem to be common on every Alberg design I have sailed on.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I spent a lot of time on Ariels and Commanders back when these boats were in their prime. I basically echo many of the comments about these being really pretty boats that sail on their ear. I do want to comment on a few points mentioned in this thread.

First of all, someone said that the Ariel was simply a smaller Triton. I would disagree with that. I would say that the hull modeling was quite different between these boats even if their profiles were similar. 
For example the Triton had a proportionately longer waterline than the Ariel/Commander hulls, and the Tritons had a hollow entry with flare to the topsides forward. This made the Tritons a boat that handled a steep chop much better than the Ariel/Commanders and drier boats as well. The Tritons had slightly former bilges as well making for more noticeably comfortable roll characteristics (although some of that may have been the Triton's bigger size)

The second thing that I would like to comment on is this quote:


mstern said:


> I think they marketed the boat as a midget ocean racer, but with that low freeboard and wineglass shape, that is going to be a wet ride. Probably as "safe" as any 24 foot boat would be, but definitely not comfortable in a blow. And despite the doghouse coach roof, limited headroom and quite cramped below. Very limited storage and tankage.


With all due respect, I would suggest that the Triton and Ariels were not designed as, nor marketed as MORC boats (midget ocean racing). They were very much state of the art CCA rating rule boats. Without rehashing in detail the long discussions of the two rules and their implications that appear in other threads, the MORC rule was specifically drawn to produce small seaworthy offshore boats and to counteract the excesses and liabilities of the CCA rule in terms of accommodations and seaworthiness.

If you compare the CCA rule boats Triton and Ariel to MORC rule boats like the Tartan 27, New Horizons 25, and Bristol 26 you will find that the MORC boats typically had proportionately longer waterline lengths (CCA LWL/LWL around 70-75% and MORC LWL/LOA 80-85%) , finer bows, more powerful sections, and as a result could carry more sail area in a given breeze and had larger carrying capacities relative to the length on deck or displacements.

My experience with MORC vs CCA boats of this era is that MORC boats tended to sail better all around, were stiffer and drier, and tended to be be better boats in light air and when things got nasty. If I had to pick a small boat from the 1960's that I was going to take offshore I would try to find one designed around the MORC rule rather than the CCA rule.

Another side benefit of the MORC rule was that the rule included minimum accommodation requirements and scantling requirements. This accommodations requirements touched on such items as headroom, and the Percentage of the boat that was required to have that headroom, number and side of berths, tankage, galley and so on, which tended to make MORC boats a little more liveable as well.

Jeff


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Jeff_H said:


> If I had to pick a small boat from the 1960's that I was going to take offshore I would try to find one designed around the MORC rule rather than the CCA rule.


Excellent points, thanks.

What smaller seaworthy boats were designed for safety, comfort, liveability, all those things and **no** consideration for racing rules at all?


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Jeff_H said:


> The second thing that I would like to comment on is this quote:
> 
> With all due respect, I would suggest that the Triton and Ariels were not designed as, nor marketed as MORC boats (midget ocean racing). They were very much state of the art CCA rating rule boats. Without rehashing in detail the long discussions of the two rules and their implications that appear in other threads, the MORC rule was specifically drawn to produce small seaworthy offshore boats and to counteract the excesses and liabilities of the CCA rule in terms of accommodations and seaworthiness.
> 
> ...


I always learn something when Jeff posts; as I mentioned in my post, I've never sailed on an Ariel, but even if I had, I would bow to Jeff's superior experience and knowledge. And I certainly don't want to dispute Jeff's assertion that the Ariel was designed as a CCA, not MORC boat.

When I wrote my earlier post, I had it in the back of my mind that I had seen some actual Pearson marketing material for the Ariel that showed it as an MORC boat. After seeing Jeff's response, I started to doubt my memory. So I went back and found an old website that I had discovered when I was temporarily mesmerized by the Ariel and considered buying one. Yep, Pearson did indeed market the boat as a "spirited MORC racer/cruiser".

Check out this 1962 Ariel marketing brochure, especially the first and second pages:

Pearson Ariel: 1962 Ariel Sales Brochure

Not a lot of ambiguity there.

Did they really mean that it was strictly designed or built to MORC rules, or just maybe inspired by them? Was this an example of less-than strictly true marketing?

And I'm at work so I can't check it, but I also have this vague recollection of a quote in "Heart of Glass" from someone at Pearson who said that they commissioned the Ariel because they wanted a smaller version of the Triton to fit a lower price point. I take it on faith that Jeff's analysis of the differences between the Ariel and Triton designs is right on target, but it may be that those distinctions were less important to the marketing guys at Pearson; maybe they really did just want the Triton Jr.

Looking at that 1962 brochure is a real trip. Damn, that's a pretty boat.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

mstern said:


> Yep, Pearson did indeed market the boat as a "spirited MORC racer/cruiser".
> 
> Check out this 1962 Ariel marketing brochure, especially the first and second pages:
> 
> ...


I very much stand corrected on whether Pearson marketed the Ariel as a MORC boat. Thank you for sharing that. I always appreciate the 'live and learn posts and this is certainly one of 
those. That Brochure really is interesting and very different than I ever would have expected. (I think that I still have Ariel literature from around that time, I would be interested in digging it out since that is a different brochure than the one I remember.)

To put this into perspective, 1962 is around the time that I first started sailing and my parents looked at an Ariel for our first boat. I read anything about sailing that I could lay my hands on. At that point, CCA was the predominant racing rule on Long Island Sound. It was the grand prix racing rule, and was the rule used for the Wednesday night bear can racing and for the bigger U.S. long distance races of the day.

The sailing press and people like Olin Stephens was pretty hard on the CCA rule, writing editorials absolutely blasting it. At the same time, MORC was being held up as a model that was producing sensible designs. MORC had a real cachet in those days; much the same way that something like a Mini-transat or Figaro Class has in Europe today. And they were doing comparatively long distance races with these boats as well (at least as compared to CCA boats of a similar size.) In races where there were CCA and MORC starts, the MORC boats were often finishing with larger CCA boats and were heralded as 'giant killers'.

There was a lively debate about these issues in the magazines of the day. On one side there was a fear that altering the CCA rule would make CCA boats obsolete and would therefore be bad for the sport since CCA racer-cruisers were the predominant race boat of the day.

But the thing that has me most shocked about that literature calling the Ariel and (also in that link the Electra) a MORC boat is the designs themselves look nothing like the MORC Boats from other designers. MORC boats of this era were all pretty similar designs no matter who designed them and pretty much all were very different in shape than that of the Ariel and Electra no matter, who designed them.

To Illustrate this point, some of the more typical MORC boats of that era would have included boats like the: 
S&S design Dolphin 24: DOLPHIN 24 (S&S) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com 
S&S Designed Seafarer Kestral: SEAFARER 23 KESTREL (CRUISE) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Bill Shaw designed Shaw 24: SHAW 24 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Charlie Morgan's Morgan 24/25: MORGAN 24/25 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com 
Bill Soverel/Daniel McCarthy/W.Walters designed Soverel 28: SOVEREL 28 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Cyrus Hamlin, Farham Butler designed Amphibi-Con AMPHIBI-CON sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Cyrus Hamlin, Farham Butler designed Controversy 27: CONTROVERSY 27 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Robert Henry Designed Oxford 400 OXFORD 400 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
Halsey Herreshoff designed Bristol Caravel:BRISTOL 22 CARAVEL sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com and Courier 26 COURIER 26 (SAILSTAR) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

While these were all keel-centerboard boats, there were also longer keel and fin keel MORC boats in this era as well. The thing that is distinctive about these as compared to CCA boats was the relative stiff hull forms, proportionately lighter weight, and proportionately longer waterline lengths. They also tended to have finer entries as well.

Jeff


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

I certainly see your point on the similarities among the examples you show, and the differences between them and the Ariel. Maybe it was just a marketing thing? In any case, if I was able to point you to some information you didn't have before, then I'm about 1/1000 of the way towards paying you back for all of the knowledge that you've passed along to me on this site.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

[[/I]


mstern said:


> Maybe it was just a marketing thing? .


The CE Cat A of 1962 irateraft:

Op John, i think the list of small weatherly, trailerable, non racing oriented production boats is fairly short. Westerlies, Norseas, G26s have been pretty well covered between this thread, and your other threads here and on CF.

The other thing you could try is looking at custom/homebuilt designs.

Wharram has a 24 footer d3signed specifically to be trailerable. Should be weatherly, fast, trailerable and has no keel to get in the way of things.


----------



## john61ct (Jan 23, 2017)

Arcb said:


> Westerlies, Norseas, G26s


By that last you mean Grampian? I haven't gotten that far in my notes consolidation.

And thanks I'll check out Wharram, but I certainly won't be looking for anything new, never bought a new car even.

And PS I'm not OP here, sorry if this is a derail?


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

john61ct said:


> By that last you mean Grampian? I haven't gotten that far in my notes consolidation.
> 
> And thanks I'll check out Wharram...
> 
> And PS I'm not OP here, sorry if this is a derail?


Yes, Grampian,

Well used wharrams can be found cheap, maybe not the 24 though. You can also build one, not sure if that is something that inteests you. Plywood construction, so i dont think you need to be an expert builder. I think they are super cool boats.

Oops, that was my mistake, dont think it matters if you were op or not.


----------



## ddiesel (Apr 23, 2014)

I also sail Lake Ontario. I have a Viking 28 in very good condition. If any one is familiar with this boat and would appreciate their input as to how this boat would compare to the others mentioned and if they would think this is a fit boat for crossing the Lake. Thanks


----------



## Sailor Stan (Dec 20, 2013)

Two questions. Is standing headroom important and is the V birth long enough for you?
I bought a Grampian 26 for these two reasons. They have the room of a much larger boat inside and they are not too big to sail single handed. The fixed keel version has 40% ballast ratio and the swing keel version has 46% ballast ratio. I have a diesel engine and I have been very happy with it.
If you want to go up north it only takes a week to sail there.


----------



## ddiesel (Apr 23, 2014)

I agree with both comments; but, the boat handles like a sports car. It seems well built and very reponsive. Just curious if it would be considered suitable for sailing across lake ontario


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

ddiesel said:


> I also sail Lake Ontario. I have a Viking 28 in very good condition. If any one is familiar with this boat and would appreciate their input as to how this boat would compare to the others mentioned and if they would think this is a fit boat for crossing the Lake. Thanks


There is no reason that a Viking 28 in good condition can't cross Lake Ontario. But of course that should be caveated by saying you want a decent weather window and the right sails for the conditions. That and as long as the skipper and Crew are up to it.


----------



## ddiesel (Apr 23, 2014)

Thanks for your input. Boat really seems well build; but, I don't have anything to compare it to.


----------



## dmdelorme (Jun 18, 2016)

Arcb said:


> 2 people full time living aboard a Tanzer 26? Just my opinion, but i dont really think so, too small i think. They have everything, a private Vberth, a private head, a little galley, a dinnette, but the dimensions are just kind of small. The vberth isnt bad. My wife and i have slept in the v berth of a tanzer 22, And even it is surprisingly comfortable (she thinks so too, my wife loves tanzers because theyre so easy to keep clean).
> 
> I would say the main salon, galley and storage would be pretty small for two folks full time.
> 
> ...


I agree i own a Tanzer 26 old one. I don't find it too weight sensitive but it is kinda like a boler trailer ...great for two people in love. The newer models have a bit better layout nicer and better placed windows. built like a tank.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

ddiesel said:


> I agree with both comments; but, the boat handles like a sports car. It seems well built and very reponsive. Just curious if it would be considered suitable for sailing across lake ontario


Yes, Viking 28's are nice, I've looked at a few now and then, never sailed one.

Maintained and with appropriate crew I would say they would handle Lake Ontario crossings nicely. Figure 5-10 ish hours crossing the lake depending where.


----------



## tedpope (Oct 20, 2016)

Boxerz123 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm shopping around for my 1st sailboat. My primary cruising grounds will be in lake ontario but would like to be able to trailer up to the north channel if I decide to change cruising grounds.
> 
> ...


The Alberg 30 is a great seaworthy design. For the area in which you plan to sail I might suggest you look for a Soverel 30, either the Mark II or Mark III. I have a 1974 Mark III and it is a terrific boat for my wife and I, cruising the Gulf of California.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

A suggestion considerably outside the concept box described by the OP:
At about 30' and desiring a strong boat, and adding in a lot of valuable speed and sailing ability........
Find a 70's Ericson 32-2, a late-70's Ericson 31C, an 80's Ericson 30+, or an 80's Olson 911S.


(Cranking up the cruising blasphemy machine three clicks!)


----------



## tedpope (Oct 20, 2016)

I meant to suggest the Soverel 30 designed by Bill Soverel, not the design by his son Mark Soverel which is a lighter, very fast design more suited to racing and indeed outside the parameters of the original post. Bill Soverel's designs were quite different, intended for cruising, relatively fast, strong, and very trailerable with the shoal draft/swing keel combination. I first sailed the Soverel 30 Mk II on Lake Superior, where it was used by as sailing club for offshore training. However they may be hard to find, as only about 200 of the Mark III were produced before Bill Soverel died in 1988.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

tedpope said:


> I meant to suggest the Soverel 30 designed by Bill Soverel, not the design by his son Mark Soverel which is a lighter, very fast design more suited to racing and indeed outside the parameters of the original post. Bill Soverel's designs were quite different, intended for cruising, relatively fast, strong, and very trailerable with the shoal draft/swing keel combination. I first sailed the Soverel 30 Mk II on Lake Superior, where it was used by as sailing club for offshore training. However they may be hard to find, as only about 200 of the Mark III were produced before Bill Soverel died in 1988.


Although if you found a Mark Soverel designed Soverel 30 without running back-stays the Mark Soverel 30 might be a nicer boat to own as a first boat on the Great Lakes shifting gears more easily and being a stiffer and easier to handle boat all around.


----------

