# 37' Peterson IOR Sloop



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

Writing from Seattle, WA and a new resident to Sailnet. Glad to be here. I'm considering a 1979 37' Peterson IOR Sloop, which as been kept in wonderful condition by the current owner. She is a beautiful vessel, very clean from my first impressions. I'll be getting a survey done later this month, and as well as a sea trail. I have some coastal sailing experience, yet looking to buy a all around good ship which has the potential to sail off-shore - as well as to live aboard for the next decade. 

I've attempted to do my own research on Peterson design, and have found little about the 37' IOR history or even discussion threads specific for the smaller Peterson boats. Yet, considering the decent price range of these smaller Kelly Petersons (less than 50K) i find these boats very attractive, yet i'm unfamiliar with it's reviews 

Can anyone who has experience with these boats provide some feedback on the early Peterson's and weather this could be a good buy for what my needs? I've considered other 35'-37' boats, including the Islander, C&C, Morgan, yet having difficultly comparing the major pro's & con's. 

Michael


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

I'm no expert on all the different designs that Doug Peterson has made, but a 37 foot Peterson is an eighties thing IIRC. Can you provide more details on the specific vessel?


----------



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

Viking - 

Have to post two (2) to forward a link.....hold on.


----------



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

1977 Peterson IOR Sloop Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Hull shape and general outline looks like his other designs from that period, such as a Contessa 35. Those boats won a lot in those days, and IMHO sail great. Others will disagree with me, but they're seaworthy and works nicely shorthanded. Currently I own a Contesa 35 and single- and/or short-hand (man and wife crew) her. If the build quality is great, and nothing major is found in a survey, it would probably be a great boat for you. Hope this helps, even though I do not know the specific model.

/Joms


----------



## Dick Pluta (Feb 25, 2006)

IOR boats have a checkered past. In the early days many were rule beaters that sacrificed seaworthiness for ratings and many were considered "unsafe". '79 was a pivotal year, since that was the year of the Fastnet disaster and lots of rule changes resulted. There is a good discussion of the IOR rule on this site labeled "Design effect from IOR rules". Of course, "unsafe" pushing the limits in Force 10 and "unsafe" cruising are two very different issues. One thing is for sure, they weren't big, fat comfy cruisers. She may be a fine boat for what you want but I'd look further into it.

Dick Pluta
AEGEA
On the hard in Florida


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

Dick Pluta said:


> IOR boats have a checkered past.


That's true, but a heck of a lot of those IOR boats is still going strong and are very seaworthy. The MAJOR learning from the '79 Fastnet disaster was that you should step up into your liferaft. Some (not just IOR) boats capsized, but rigted themselves afterwards, and today we know that ALL vessels will capsize if caught by a wave of the right (wrong) size.

There are other drawbacks, such as manageability when shorthanded. Our solution to that is a smaller headsail on a roller furler complemented by a Genakker for light winds. So while they're not perfect, they're also not as bad as their reputation.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

"IF" you're going to sail either racing or cruising here in the grearter puget sound region either in Wa or up to BC, an IOR boat of that style will not have the issues of themid 70's pre fastnet designs like the one you are looking at. Even some of the early 80 IOR post fastnet boats like my Jeanneau have some of the rounding up issues etc, even tho it does not look too IOR.

marty


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

She looks great in the pictures, this boat will be quite similar to JV's Contessa. Not of the "Kelly Peterson" line though. The only question mark to my mind would be the builder - looks like typical asian woodwork (quite nice) but perhaps the construction itself needs a careful check.

These old IOR beasties actually give you a lot of boat for the money, you just need to be prudent about flying the spinnaker esp shorthanded, and you have to realize that with the large genoas the sheet loads and winching duties can get pretty heavy. These designs have most of their power in the headsails. Even so, as a family cruiser you'll find that sailing with a 100% jib will work very well in all but the lightest breezes. The good news, too, is that usually the deck gear is very good and overspecified unlike many mainstream production boats.

We sailed a similar vintage IOR 40 footer for 12 years and enjoyed a lot of boat for a reasonable investment - and excluding the cost of maintenance/refits along the way managed to sell her for the same price!

If this proves as cherry as the pics indicate, you'll have a good boat!


----------



## JimsCAL (May 23, 2007)

The rap against IOR boats of the era are that they go great upwind but are bears to handle downwind, especially in stronger winds with a spinnaker up. The small mains and big headsails meant you needed to carry a range of genoas to cover the wind speed range. The pinched sterns mean no aft cabin (coffin?), only a narrow quarterberth. That said, as you note they are great values if you find a well-maintained one.

My Cal 9.2 is a Ron Holland design based on his IOR boats of the same era. It is a delight to sail - easy to balance, responsive and lively. I have learned not to get overpowered and reduce sail early if the wind builds.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

First of all, from a yacht design, robustness and build quality standpoint, there is no resemblance between a Kelly Petterson 44/46 and the boat in question. The Kelly Peterson was designed to be an offshore cruiser. The Peterson 37 was designed to an IOR rule beater at the heart of the period when the IOR produced its worst boats. The Peterson 37 in question is a second generation iteration of the Ganbare, Peterson 34 type. Compared to the Peterson 34's this second generation were further distorted by the rule with lesser ballast ratios (I seriously question the ballast and displacement shown in the ad since sisterships that I have seen had very different ratios. The Peterson 34's and Contessa 35's had published ballast ratios approaching 47-48% while these second generation boats typically had ratios in the low 40% range.) and more fragile construction.

I respectfully disagree with JomsViking when he says "The MAJOR learning from the '79 Fastnet disaster was that you should step up into your liferaft." While there are a whole bunch of reasons that the Fastnet disaster happened, from a vessel design standpoint, after nearly 30 years of studying the issues identified as a result of the Fastnet Disaster, boats like these (with pinched ends, deep canoe bodies, high vertical centers of gravity, poor roll and pitch characteristics resulting in miderable motion, centers of buoyancy located far foward in the hull, hard to handle rig proportions and so on) have been shown to be the absolute wrong way to go in terms of safe and easy to handle offshore vessels. 

This was a period when the IOR rule was changing yearly and the boats were seen as virtually disposable. They were being pushed to the limit in terms of lighter construction and distorted hull forms with deeper bustle sterns and even more pinched ends than the earlier versions. This shift in thinking and design distortions mean that rthe obbustness and sailing characteristics would have very little relationship to the Contessa 35 which is a first generation Peterson 34/Ganbare derivative. 

Boats like the Peterson 37 were designed to be sailed by very big crews, especially in heavy going and make miserable offshore boats in terms seaworthiness and motion comfort. Their rigs which featured in-line spreaders and single lowers were a little fragile as compared to the earlier Peterson 34's and Contessa 35's but not as bad as the boats that followed a few years later. Their rig proportions and reliance on a baby stay to prevent pumping make these hard boats to handle short-handed and boats that require a very large sail inventory and frequent sail changes (and, no, a furler does not change this issue.) 

Sailing capabilities wise, these boats were pretty good upwind but were very squirrely and very hard to steer downwind or in power reaching conditions. 

Under sail, these boats do not tolerate a lot of weight on board so make terrible live-aboards. 

In other words, this would be close to the last boat that I would suggest that a person buy who has asperations of living on board or going offshore. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Depending on the survey, I'd call this a lovely boat giving plenty of enjoyment for the money. It is a boat for sailors. The year says 1977, btw, not 1979. Some of the recent upgrades show sensible and incremental improvements by owners who obviously used the boat. You may try to ask about the displacement/ballast figures as Jeff mentions; it is not unlikely that more ballast has been added along the way - perhaps 900lbs? It is not so uncommon in similar boats. Also, they have added backstay adjustment - perhaps other aspects of the rig are modified as well.

Why did I say "lovely"? Sorry, can't help it, these shapes look purposeful and graceful, IMHO. Despite the ifs and buts, those IOR designs offer great fun and a real sailing feel - less so downwind, as others have said. In the rough stuff and following seas the cockpit gets a bit wet - though the oft-touted "pooping" takes more than your afternoon gale.

You noticed that it is meant to be sailed - it is not as laid back and steady as some cruisers, there'll be some steering involved. But as far as safety is concerned, I'll stick my neck out and say "no worries." In racing trim with the fullest sails it is not a stiff boat, but the hull itself is shaped to handle offshore and to do so with relative smoothness; a whole host of similar boats have circumnavigated. Jeff's comments on the rig are valid enough, but you should not generalize from that to robustness and seaworthiness in general.

Oops, I said, "circumnavigate": you obviously knew this is not its purpose; the tank capacities for water and fuel speak for themselves. Drawbacks? It's narrow, especially in the cockpit, and it heels; it wouldn't appeal to multihull types. Still, if I had to go for a boat from the 70's, this would be high on the list. Jeff doesn't agree, but that's just how it is 

P.S. I had a hunch: the designer here claims to have been a draftsman for Doug Peterson in 1976 - he may have some information?

About Alan Andrews & Sylvana Yachts Inc.


----------



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

OsmundL, Jeff_H, etc. - thanks for all you replies and feedback with the IOR consideration. I'm not a surveyor, so.... If one is considering a late 70's to early 80's IOR vessel, can a survey look at specific elements of the boat that may pertain to your concerns? You brought the point that there may be a discrepancy regarding the displacement and ballast on the ad: can a surveyor make a judgment on any modifications done to correct the 'rule breaking' nature of IOR? Can the displacement and ballast be measured prior to purchase? You guys are a great help with this?


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

mmcauley said:


> ... can a survey look at specific elements of the boat that may pertain to your concerns? You brought the point that there may be a discrepancy regarding the displacement and ballast on the ad: can a surveyor make a judgment on any modifications done to correct the 'rule breaking' nature of IOR? Can the displacement and ballast be measured prior to purchase? You guys are a great help with this?


Very quickly and incomplete: Normally, the surveyor would not calculate ballast and displacement - although if asked to look into it, he might. The issue is really only the ballast, and this is an opportunity to seek maintenance logs from the owner. A responsible owner(s) should have recorded serious modifications, and it is indeed a matter of interest to his insurer. As an aside: the "rule-breaking" IOR isn't per se breaking safety rules; it is a case of designing hulls and sail areas to slip in as much useful sail power as possible within a rigid class framework. Without accusing anyone, I sense similar tendencies in some of the modern adaptations of carbon in masts and hulls; light, wonderful material, but with some aspects of breakage as yet untested over time.

Over the years, IOR has acquired a reputation, ignoring that there have been subsequent enquiries of similar nature, e.g. after the disastrous Sydney-Hobart race. IOR was for racing boats, and the calamities in Volvo Ocean Race and Vendee Globe under less spectacular weather conditions do not exactly point to the sharp end of racing taking fewer risks today.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I am having deja vu. Didn't a woman come on here about six months or so ago and ask about this very same boat?? 

I feel like I have previously read Jeff's comments on this boat, and seen the photos in the link.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I cut my teeth racing CCA and then IOR era race boats and have continued sailing and racing the far superior designs that have been developed in the years since. I need to very respectfully disagree with OsmundL when he says_," the "rule-breaking" IOR isn't per se breaking safety rules; it is a case of designing hulls and sail areas to slip in as much useful sail power as possible within a rigid class framework."_

In the various studies that have taken place in the era since, many of which specifically focused on IOR boats of this era, it has been clearly shown that the designer's responses to IOR rule of that era produced hull forms, weight distributions, and rigs that were inherently dangerous in heavier conditions especially without the big, highly skilled crews that it took to push these boats around. By any standard compared to the boats that followed, these boats were brutes to sail and as you got into high winds were dangerous to push around short handed.

Their rig proportions pushed the very limit of safety, counting on huge headsails in moderate breezes, and frequent sail changes to avoid going imposible slow when sailed with smaller than the windspeed dictated headsails. Even a delivery of any length on one of these boats meant a big crew doing multiple headsail changes or else vast amounts of motoring. Part of the problem was that the standing sail plan of these boats was quite small, and with high vertical centers of gravity these IOR era boats were tender, but as soon as they were psuhed hard, the distortions in their hull forms meant that they would wipe out if pushed anywhere near their limits of heel.

In other words, because these boats had high vertical center of gravities and distorted hull forms, they would quickly go from barely enough sail area to keep going to way over powered in perhaps a 5 knot wind range. Modern design (and more traditional designs) typically have windranges for any indvidual headsail that might approach 15-18 knots or more.

For short handed cruising this meant that you would be switching up and down between the number 1, 2, 3 and 4 just to keep the boats moving and but still under control. Because of the hull forms of these boat you could progressively heel and then suddenly they would hit a max acceptable heel angle, lose control and wipe out. With perhaps 2500 lbs of crew weight on the rail and skilled crews playing the sails this could be minimized, but that is not an option short-handed.

Roller Furling really does not solve this problem. You can at best roll perhaps 10 to 15% of the sail area and still maintain a decent sail shape. Rolling more than that you end up with a powered up shape that quickly produces more heeling than drive. 15% is less than the change in sail area between a #1 and a #2 and these boats of this size were typically raced with #1, #2,#3,#4's, a 90-95% jib and a storm jib.

There is a reason that the hardware on boats like these look huge; the headsail loads were enormous compared to modern designs. Winches of that era were evolving but they were still pretty crummy compared to the gear that followed in the mid-1980's. While three speed winches were in existence, they were rare, and the kind of three-speed self-tailers that you would want to short-hand a boat like this pretty much non-existent. (There is a very good reason that jib and spinnaker trimmers of this era were nick-named Moose and Animal, and were often recruited from football field rather than the sailing world.)

When we look at the IOR era round-the world-race boats, they were purposefully adapted from the normal IOR boats of the era for that purpose and sailed by crews that dwarf the 12 man crews who sail modern 70 footers.

In the wake of the Fastnet disaster, it is true that many of these boats have had thier internal ballast removed and had bulbs or extensions added to their keels. On a boat this size they could add a bulb or extension of perhaps 400-500 lbs max, (a surveyor may be able to detect an extension) but given the comparatively shoal draft of this boat and the absense of a bulb, my best guess is that additional ballast was not added.

My main point in all of this is, when you can sellect a boat from all the choices that are out there, ideally you should pick a boat that somewhat meets your needs. In the hands of a skilled sailor and with careful modification, this boat could posibly be made to marginally suit the needs that the original poster describes, but he does not own this turkey and has the chance to find a boat that is more forgiving, easier to sail and more seaworthy. His original post contains misassumptions about the relationship of this design to a design that better suits the uses that he proposes. So taking his orignal post at face value, I need to ask why he would buy a boat like this when there are boats that actually suit his needs?

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

Jeff_H said:


> I need to very respectfully disagree with OsmundL


... and I bow to your judgment, Jeff. To be honest, we agree on the fundamental characteristics of these boats. We differ in that your advice is sound, while mine is - dare I say it? flavoured by the view that they are rather fun   

"Fun like putting an outboard on a bathtub," you'll say, but even you would call that an overstatement? I've seen many cautious cruisers loving these boats, and as Jomsviking says, a good many are in use today.


----------



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

JohnRPollard said:


> I am having deja vu. Didn't a woman come on here about six months or so ago and ask about this very same boat??
> 
> I feel like I have previously read Jeff's comments on this boat, and seen the photos in the link.


John - funny you mentioned that - the broker of this boat mentioned that two women were in escrow boat six month earlier. Will attempt to find the past within sailnet.


----------



## mmcauley (May 14, 2009)

Jeff_H - thank you sir for you follow up with my concerns. I do want a easy sail, a comfortable sail, and a safe sail. yet on the other hand, I wouldn't want to pass up a good boat when it's practically sitting in my front yard. Your knowledge regarding the hx of IOR sloops of that era has help greatly.


----------



## jgeissinger (Feb 25, 2002)

Please don't beat me up for insensitivity or whatever, I just remember reading this a few years ago. " Q. What's the difference between IOR boats and slavery? A. In some places in the world you can still sell a slave."


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

JeffH, 
I stand corrected. From looking at the ad it just "felt" very much like a 37' Ganbare or Gumboots. Btw Gumboots is still sailing and winning in Germany. You also do not have to respectfully disagree with me, just disagree, and provide the great insight you do 
It still might be a fun boat to own, and provided the ballast ratio and draft (6'6?) is correct, it might prove to be a really fun boat? And depending on the number of inhabitants, also quite liveable?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

JomsViking said:


> It still might be a fun boat to own, and provided the ballast ratio and draft (6'6?) is correct, it might prove to be a really fun boat? And depending on the number of inhabitants, also quite liveable?


Unfortunately, the number that would be liveable on the boat is probably not enough to properly crew her from Jeff_H's description of her.


----------



## JomsViking (Apr 28, 2007)

LOL obviously I cannot count  

As Jeff have sailed on 37' Peterson i will not start arguing that it requires a large crew. However I know for sure that many other IOR boats are sailed shorthanded with none of the issues discussed extensively here.



sailingdog said:


> Unfortunately, the number that would be liveable on the boat is probably not enough to properly crew her from Jeff_H's description of her.


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

I am not going to challenge *Sailingdog*, I am not the expert on IOR. Still, I did some hunting around for views, and found one at Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site. Is it cheating to bring in views from other sailor sites?  It seems that there are many opinions on the theme, as with most boating issues. Lord, why did you not provide us with a facit?  

Member CT 249 had this to say:
"I started ocean racing as a kid at the same time as the Fastnet and I really don't think the change in design and the Fastnet were greatly related. Only one of the Admiral's Cup fleet suffered a roll. None of those killed in the Fastnet sailed a masthead rig leading-edge IOR boat. Boats of a general type very similar to the boat that lost the most lives (the fairly heavy Carter 3/4 tonner Ariadne) have been sailing in ocean racers in numbers ever since. They are now regarded as solid and safe. Berrimella sailed two-handed around the world under the three great capes, and got rolled and dismasted yesterday on the way back from the Sydney-Hobart. One could surmise that a boat that has done about 10 Hobarts (winning class in one of the nasty ones) and sailed 2-up around the world is fairly safe, yet stuff happens. One could also assume that designs that have sailed singlehanded around the world via the southern ocean are fairly safe, yet three of them (Cole 43, Farr 40 IOR, S&S 34) rolled with problems in the '98 Hobart. Only one was an IOR boat. Sometimes life happens. As the Fastnet report pointed out, there weren't enough old-style boats in the race to know how they would have survived. Plenty of the Contessa 32s spent time with their sticks in the water."


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

mmcauley said:


> John - funny you mentioned that - the broker of this boat mentioned that two women were in escrow boat six month earlier. Will attempt to find the past within sailnet.


That sounds right. If I'm not mistaken, they had simply decided that the sailing life would be a nice way to spend their time. No sailing experience, etc.

This broker will come to fear Jeff H. You are the second prospective purchaser he has dissuaded!  

P.S. I did a very quick search but couldn't find the other thread. I vaguely recall that the poster had come across an older thread that discussed this model, and revived it after reading some unfavorable comments that gave her pause. It's there somewhere!


----------



## sassafrass (Jun 27, 2006)

West coast ior boat owner here...

i would say in the racing circuit in the PNW Peterson has a great reputation. i have a Heritage one ton, and JeffH and others have put a lot of information out there on this site concerning early, mid, and late series IOR boats (you can do a search). as you know by now JeffH does not care for these designs. however, they are inexpensive, and i feel if you select from the first generation or IOR 1 boats i feel your needs may be met.

for sail area cruising around these parts, i find that a 135% or so is fine; most people motor in under 5-8 knots around here as in such winds there are large dead areas (incidentally, most would say the Yanmar in this boat is underpowered for a cruising boat). also i would add most people stay in harbor with winds over 20 knots or so. however, i am not most people, and perhaps you like to sail as well (the shoulder seasons of spring and fall provide the best conditions). 

the boat will be looking for power up to 13-14 knots, after that you will be depowering. without furling you will be changing down to a 100% at around 20 knots, and to a fractional headsail at 30 knots+. at least that is how my boat is, but i have more balast, more draft and more beam plus a semiflush deck. all of those add to stability. i have been wishing to find a stability curve for my boat but have been unable to do so. incidentally, i have recently installed a furler on my boat, and with Harken, you really need to get the unit 2 for these sized boats as the headsail is so large (going back to what was said about deck gear). i can't tell what is on the boat in question by the photos but it looks small.

incidentally i have three speed self tailer's and i would say for cruising they are overkill. the extra speed is very fast and really only noticed as an improvement if you have a sail larger than 135% and have someone cranking as you come head to wind. they are much harder to overhaul, but otherwise i see no disagreement with them.

my boat has a long history racing out of Port Angeles. this is right off the straight, and they generally have two types of wind there, little to none or big with seas. i did my test sail in 12' seas and 35 knots of wind; i do not find the motion as JeffH describes, the foredeck was awash on occasion about every 5th wave, but on a few buckets made it back to the pit area on the uphill battle home. downwind with a poled out 120% we were flying and the boat was fine steering wise and totally dry. you do not want to steer these boats dead downwind but off around 160% apparent. most boats prefer that anyway (better vmg) however on these boat it is important not just for seas but for motion comfort/safety in big air. the big issue with these boats is too much sail area up high downwind, that would only happen in pressing a spinaker. this pushes the bow down too much and these boat are pretty narrow up there with overhangs. for solo sailing with spinaker, i would suggest either two poles or dowse and reset as a technique for dealing with jibing. pressing a spinaker or even using a spinaker is not generally a cruising man's habit around here. most people motor, in fact everywhere regardless of wind conditions. i have had no issues pressing the boat on a spinaker reach or power reaching other than excessive weather helm. i have not rounded this boat up yet (but have other ior or other boats) and i attribute this to its very deep rudder, just a few inches short of the keel in depth (a good feature on an IOR boat). my boat has done a ton of swiftsures, and won on a heavy weather year. i have had it in over 35 knots of wind on many occasions, several single handed. i tack through 90 degrees in 35 knots of wind with the typical sound 3-4' breaking seas that will come with such air. one wants to change down headsails first on these boats, i would say all the way to fractional headsail, before reefing the main. the boat balances better this way, and really goes to weather better than reefing the main early.

other than these performance related items, you will of course realize the difficulties of dealing with a racing boat interior in terms of cruising.

best,
tom


i think getting enough weather helm to help your underwater foils get you to weather (more of a racing man's issues) is generally an issue with these boats. as such, putting the stick further aft, longer headstay and some mast rake, main with full battens and roach up high; mast head crane modification to increase roach on main, and longer boom may all be things to think about.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Challenge me all you want about the IOR era boats... I don't know jack about them...  I think you're confusing me with our esteemed colleague Jeff_H. 



OsmundL said:


> I am not going to challenge *Sailingdog*, I am not the expert on IOR. Still, I did some hunting around for views, and found one at Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

In the end tho, either this boat tugs at you, or it does not! I am now recalling seeing this boat at shilshole while I was down there for one of the races last spring. Probably the CYC CSS. As I motored from edmonds to the O dock for the STYC BRBR. 

If you look at different marina's, you will see live aboards on ALL kinds of boats. From typical old shoe full keel tubs to possibly a few striped race boats, and obviously all style in between! Heck there is even a fellow on S dock living on an equal to my 29' Jeanneau Aracadi, and it has no shower! so he has to shower in the on shore facilaties only! 

With a ~45-50% ballast/disp ratio, this boat should be on the stiff side. Then again....... For around here, there a lots of IOR boats being cruised raced etc. Lady Bug a Peterson 30 is still clobbering folks on a regular basis. Especially in lighter winds. 

She looks well taken care of, etc. it is really up to you.

marty


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

When I insert the word, 'respectfully' in one of my posts where I disagree with another poster, I do so in earnest. All too often disagreements between posters become personal battles, and when in truth, from each person's experience and perspective, they may in fact both be right to one degree or another if their point of views are properly understood. 

This discussion is a very good illustration of that point. As it has evolved we have all tried to explain our perspectives. As has been pointed out, with a decent crew, the very twitchiness of these boats can make the fun to sail. (One of the reasons that I still enjoy sailing boats of all periods is that they each have their own sailing characteristics and I enjoy the challenges and lessons that occur out of these differences.) 

Boats like this make sense if one sails in a venue with stable wind conditions such as San Francisco Bay so that sail changes are minimized. Or where the boat is used as a daysailor/overnighter. 

There are things that can mitigate some of the issues with these boats. For a few years now I have been exploring the use of sails optimized to increase their wind range for cruising. The idea is to have headsails made that are slightly fuller and slightly smaller than normal but which are made of a high tech-low stretch sail cloth. 

The theory behind this is that normal sails are cut flatter and made of a heavier fabric than would be ideal for the light end of their wind range because if they weren't, they will stretch and be too full at the higher end of their wind range. 

The low stretch composites are much lighter in weight so they hold their shape in light air and reduce the amount of stretch at the higher end of the wind range. Using the backstay adjuster I can further flatten my headsails by reducing headstay sag. This results in sails with a very wide range of windspeeds. One short coming of these smaller sails is that their smaller sail area becomes a problem broad reaching and running in light to moderate conditions and so I fly my spinnaker if I have any distance to cover. That is no problem because of the smaller spinnakers that are used on my fractionally rigged boat are pretty docile and can be end for end jibed. But that would be a problem on these old IOR boats where the chutes are huge and need to be dip pole jibed. 

Anyway these wide wind range sails have proven to be great sails for the kind of short-handed inshore cruising that I tend to do. But they are very expensive compared to a dacron sail, and I am not convinced that they are suitable for offshore use. They also take a sailmaker who understands what you are trying to accomplish and works with you to produce sails that meet your needs. 

I suppose with a careful sail program and updated deck hardware the behavior of these old IOR boats could be improved some, but again I am not sure that these improvements would ever result in a boat that was particularly well suited for short-handed or offshore use. 

I would also note that I somewhat disagree with CT 249's comments on the Fastnet Disaster, while it is true that Grimalkin which was the poster child for what went wrong with the IOR rule was one of the newer lighter sparred, fractionally rigged Holland designs, the majority of the boats that got into trouble were of the heavier sparred masthead style rigs. The causes of the Fastnet Disaster are many; poor crew experience in extreme conditions, poorly equipped vessels in terms of storm sails and the like, but at the heart of it, there has been a lot of study of the impact of the yacht design principles that resulted from the IOR that have concluded that a major factor was the compromised seaworthiness of these boats. Marchaj's pivotal work on Seaworthiness clearly focuses on these shortcomings in great detail, and to a great extent, the direction of yacht design for the past 30 years has been an evolution away from these misguided practices. 

Jeff


----------



## OsmundL (Nov 11, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> Challenge me all you want about the IOR era boats... I don't know jack about them...  I think you're confusing me with our esteemed colleague Jeff_H.


I am indeed    Sorry JeffH.
It is the tyranny of responding directly in the Reply window - you cannot see and forget who you're talking to. From now on, it's strictly write replies into a text sheet first from me


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

There's no doubt that boats of this species and era can be "twitchy" - many of the mainstream production boats that bought into the IOR concepts behaved the same way.. The Ranger 28 was a broach machine esp compared to her cousin the 29 - same designer, different brief.

But still, handled appropriately these boats can offer a lot of value for the money. You can buy a 40 footer with good gear at prices well below those for a new production 30 footer and you'll sail circles around it. True, often interiors are rough or sparse, and you have to be sure to get one that hasn't been bashed and beaten, and one that was well built in the first place.

Not the "perfect" boat, perhaps, but still a viable option that can provide a lot of enjoyment.


----------



## sahara (Dec 15, 2006)

What are you going to use the boat for? If for cruising, I sure don't see much in the way of anchor handling gear on the nose of that boat.

The arguments over the seaworthiness of IOR boats can be endless, but as a cruiser, I wouldn't carry anything bigger than a 110% jib just so that tacking is easier.

A lot of IOR boats were intentionally destabilized by placing ballast high and forward to reduce the rating. The idea was that, when racing, a large group of burly guys sitting aft to windward would hold the stern down and the rudder in the water. From the interior shots, this doesn't look like a skinned out racer. IOR boats got to be a handful powered up. Cruisers reef earlier and drive for fun and comfort.

I like the wood interior of that boat, like the sit down nav station, would gladly trade one quarter berth for a big cockpit locker. The head looks a little tight. Racers like the traveler in the cockpit, I don't for cruising. I like the nice big rudder, I'll bet it's a lot of fun to steer upwind. 

Unless you intend to go ignore weather forecasts, I would not worry too much about the hull shape and IOR characteristics, and think more about how suitable this boat is for its intended use. If you're going to cruise, you'll want a hefty bow roller, windlass and heavier cleats than they show. That'll put more weight in the bow which isn't good. Where do you stow cruising gear? We throw our inflatable in a cockpit locker, does this boat have big ones? 35 gallons of fresh water won't get you very far with a couple of women on board. 

How far into the pointy end does the vee berth go? How big is the chain locker and is it well drained? Is the cabin top at a nice angle to lean against to read a book at anchor?

I think it looks like a nice boat. It has more bunks than my 42', but that's a race boat. A quarter berth could probably be converted into significant stowage pretty easily.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Sassafras raises a good point. It is easy to paint all IOR boats with a single brush, but even with my dislike of IOR boats, I acknowledge that is not always fair. The Heritage one ton was a bit of an annomoly. Perhaps because of his background as a sailmaker, Charlie Morgan had a real eye for the way a molecule flows around a moving object. The Heritage One tons were seemingly optimized for the heavy slogs into a short chop typical of sailing in the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulfstream and as such were surprisingly well rounded boats for that era. Unlike the Morgan One ton, they were simply and sturdily built and so have held up surprisingly well. They are still reasonable PHRF boats in skilled hands. 

If you look at thier lines, they have much more rounded sections than the Petersons, and so do not have that flop-snap, flop-snap motion normally associated with mid-1970's IOR designs. 

Jeff


----------



## sassafrass (Jun 27, 2006)

Jeff_H,

well i think that is as best a recommendation of an IOR boat that might come from you. you have always proven to be open minded and re-examine your position. highly commendable!

i do agree with you that the heritage one ton has very rounded sections, more so that others of this era generally have. i believe, though do not know, that other IOR boats may also have good enough sections for other uses than originally intended, especially the early ones. the other issues of race to cruiser still exist. 

however, most people crusing in PWN never get out of protected water, never go in high winds/seas, and even, dare i say, rarely sail anywhere without the motor on. as such SA/D, ballast ratio, etc... as well as even the lines of the boat, may not matter too much. 

best,
tom


----------



## Lom (2 mo ago)

Realizing this is a massively old thread, but I am wondering what happened of this boat as we are in the PNW area now and also cruising on a Peterson 37. Does anyone remember the boats name or even its color from the yacht world listing? 

It's a long shot but I thought I'd try!


----------



## OntarioTheLake (4 mo ago)

Dunno but I’d like to see some photos! You’re on the boat, enjoy and post photos!


----------



## Lom (2 mo ago)

Lol okay! We have been amidst a pretty extensive refit over the last year, new bulkheads glassed in with carbon fiber reinforcements, all new rod rigging, new sails, new paint, all new electrical, an entire ground tackle setup, new lifelines, and the boat still looks tired! Lol but we are hoping to venture out of the PNW next year as the boat and we get more comfortable. But the boat sails like a dream in a multitude of weather conditions. We don't fly the spinnaker in over 10 or so knots and our primary genoa is like a 105% instead of the 150+ they used when these got wild, so the boat is quite balanced. She'll even sail through decent sized waves totally straight with no autopilot or any tending to the tiller.


----------



## SchockT (May 21, 2012)

That's a good looking boat! It is nice that Doug Peterson didn't use the extreme tumblehome that some boat of that era had. 

The PNW is a good area for the old IOR boats because the wind and wave conditions don't get too extreme. They are also good light air boats.

Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


----------



## Lom (2 mo ago)

SchockT said:


> That's a good looking boat! It is nice that Doug Peterson didn't use the extreme tumblehome that some boat of that era had.
> 
> The PNW is a good area for the old IOR boats because the wind and wave conditions don't get too extreme. They are also good light air boats.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G981W using Tapatalk


Thanks! And ya we don't have any of those extreme bulging sides as some boats of the era do. It is a beamy boat with a somewhat narrow transom but not nearly as wild as some others. There seems to be quite a lot of boats from this era in the area! Its like all the IOR boats from around the world want to retire here and hang out as cruising boats.


----------

