# Bayfield 32C vs Niagara 35



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Hello all;

Well it seems that I have finally managed to sort through the thousands and thousands of potential boats available. I set a budget of $35,000 - $40,000 and that didn't help at all whittle down the selection as I was flooded with C&C's, Cal's, Watkins, Ericson's, Morgan's, Columbia's... I did my research hear and across the internet and since I wanted a blue water cruiser I used the Updated Offshore list here as well as Atom's site to pear down the list. I then used PHRF ratings and reviews to close up the list a little more and cross referenced with the basic equipment and design concerns (Common engine's, keel design, port holes, head setup, cockpit placement...) to pull the list into a final couple boats.

My criteria was a stable and quick single hand blue water cruiser. Something that would be easy to handle myself when needed, stable at sea and able to deal with some weather if needed. Once I narrowed down the choice of boat I could worry about the electronics, ground tackle, rigging's, galley... and after 4 months of comparing and researching I think I have narrowed it down to a pair of boats.

The Bayfield 32C (1981 - 1987) Vs the Niagara 35 (1981 - 1983).

The Niagara is faster not only because of the LWL 26' 9" vs 23' 3" but because from what I can gather it points better and can better take advantage of light airs. The PHRF rating on the Niagara 35 is 159 vs. a 240 on the Bayfield 32C. There is a little more space on the Niagara and it is well laid out. The problems on the Niagara seem to be watching out for some of the older saildrives. It looses points to the Bayfield on Keel design and rudder setup...

I really like the look of the Bayfield as it is a unique boat. They seem to be built to last and to take whatever is thrown at them. I like the sail plan of the Cutter setup as it gives more options depending on conditions. I like the shallow draft, and the full keel will add to stability and keep her pointed easier. The only real draw back I can find on the Bayfield is the speed.

Both boats are readily available in my area and since this is Canada I can find a quality fresh water boat that has been hauled for 6 months out of the year. This will make a great platform to outfit and spend the next 5 years of my life on.

I know that there are other options and since I am not looking to buy for a few more months I might find another boat to add too my short list but I would like some feedback on these two models. Am I missing something on either of these boats that will preclude it from taking me around the world safely and in a bit of comfort? Being a loaded question, is there a boat I should consider in my price range and why would I add it to my list?

Thanks for any info;

Krozet


----------



## Gary M (May 9, 2006)

While I think both boats have their place, for offshore cruising I would take the Niagara in a minute over the Bayfield. I know it was designed and built for off shore sailing. not so sure about the Bayfield. The Niagara is substantially bigger and is very robust, one of my favorite cruising boats.

good Luck


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I second what gary said. What makes you think a full keel is more stable? There are many factors that give stability besides keel, such as waterline beam, hull form, allast ratio, type of ballast (lead or iron), depth of ballast being a few. A seaworthy boat should be reasonably fast and thr PHRF on each will give you a clue to that. While of these two I would take the Niagara, there are others that deserve merit. Here are two I found on Yachtworld that I would look at - both in Ontario and within budget.

1984 Sparkman & Stephens H31 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
1982 Contessa 32 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com

They both look to be in good shape, are well equipped and the Contessa 32 is renowned for its abilities offshore. The H31 is a S&S design and I think would compare.
Maybe Jeff will chip in - I'm pretty sure he's not a Bayfield fan.
Brian


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

No comparison - the Niagara is the way to go. It is a superior boat in almost every way compared to the Bayfield. The keel/rudder arrangement on the Niagara gives you more control and better handling and the speed difference is huge. I have friends who took a Bayfield 32 to the Caribbean for the winter and ended up having it trucked back to Toronto from Florida because they could not face the ICW with the poor handling and lack of power in the Bayfield.

One significant problem though - with your budget the only Niagaras you are likely to be able to afford are going to be pretty tired. Prime boats are likely to be in the $50k+ range. Later boats may not have saildrives although the option tends to be a V-drive and that has its own problems. I would worry less about the saildrive and more about the fact that some of the early boats are underpowered with a 23 hp engine. For both of these boats make sure your surveyor is good at identifying core damage in the deck. It is very common with balsa-cored decks. A little is not too hard to fix but a lot can be a significant and costly problem.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*Of these you might consider the Contessa*



mitiempo said:


> 1984 Sparkman & Stephens H31 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 1982 Contessa 32 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 
> They both look to be in good shape, are well equipped and the Contessa 32 is renowned for its abilities offshore. The H31 is a S&S design and I think would compare.
> ...


If you are interested in offshore work I would stay away from the Hughes 31s. They are not particularly well-built and were never intended for offshore. The Contessa might work well but there are a couple of caveats. Many were bought as a hull and deck for owner completion. This can be very good or very bad. Also they are quite trim. I am just under 6' tall and find my head bumping on the deck in most of the interior other than right ont he centerline.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

The Contessa 32 in the link was custom built for the owner of JJ Taylor, the Canadian builders of the Contessa 32 & 26, and I don't recall kits ever being available for the 32 or 26.
Brian


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Hello;

My budget is based on the following:

$35,000 - $40,000 for the boat.
$12,750 for upgrades.
$25,000 left for cruising, this money is set in an investment account with a mix of stock and bonds. The account is yielding 10.5% annually.

The back story in a nut shell is that ever since I was a kid I have always wanted to wake up in exotic places, to learn about weather, the stars and even do battle with mother nature if necessary all from tiller of a sail boat. This past May I took my first sailing lessons (ASA 101, 103, 104, 105 & 106) and I have been hooked. I have spent the last ten years living cautiously and saving my pennies, I am thirty and I am planning to take 5 years off. Maybe 5 years will turn into 10 or 15, who knows.

The Plan is to purchase the boat this winter / next spring and move aboard her. I like my job and have had it for 10 years, I will live on my boat and continue working while taking her out into Lake Ontario next summer / fall whenever I can. If I am comfortable enough, after hurricane season i will head south and spend the winter in the islands. If not I can haul her out and store her for the winter and start the process over again in spring. I can spend winters in the islands for a couple years and sail back to Brockville, Ontario where my parents live in the spring / summer / fall to work and build my cruising kitty if need be. This will give me a few years of ICW sailing and island hopping experience.

I know that there will be people criticizing my decisions because I do not have enough experience but I could spend the next ten years thinking about doing it and finding reasons not to. I am careful by nature and a quick learner, I am very meticulous and always want to know what I am doing before I do it. I love to research and am always learning and most importantly I feel that this is something I want to do.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Gary M said:


> While I think both boats have their place, for offshore cruising I would take the Niagara in a minute over the Bayfield. I know it was designed and built for off shore sailing. not so sure about the Bayfield. The Niagara is substantially bigger and is very robust, one of my favorite cruising boats.
> 
> good Luck


Thanks for the feedback. I know the Bayfield is build for blue water cruising but it definatly has it's drawbacks vs. other boats. I have been to see two Bayfields and they seem very sturdy if not a little quarky.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

mitiempo said:


> I second what gary said. What makes you think a full keel is more stable? There are many factors that give stability besides keel, such as waterline beam, hull form, allast ratio, type of ballast (lead or iron), depth of ballast being a few. A seaworthy boat should be reasonably fast and thr PHRF on each will give you a clue to that. While of these two I would take the Niagara, there are others that deserve merit. Here are two I found on Yachtworld that I would look at - both in Ontario and within budget.
> 
> 1984 Sparkman & Stephens H31 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> 1982 Contessa 32 Sail Boat For Sale - www.yachtworld.com
> ...


Sorry, I have been doing a lot of reading maybe i got my wires crossed on the Keel. John Vigor's book The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat talks about the advantages of a full keel, I guess I was looking at one component of the whole boat when it comes to Stability.

I have done some digging on the Contessa 32 and they are nice boats. I had not passed on the idea of owning one but was up in the air on it. When push came to shove though the narrow beam dropped it off the final two list. That's not to say I wont fall in love with a Contessa and end up sailing with her. In fact I have seen that boat on Yacht World.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

killarney_sailor said:


> No comparison - the Niagara is the way to go. It is a superior boat in almost every way compared to the Bayfield. The keel/rudder arrangement on the Niagara gives you more control and better handling and the speed difference is huge. I have friends who took a Bayfield 32 to the Caribbean for the winter and ended up having it trucked back to Toronto from Florida because they could not face the ICW with the poor handling and lack of power in the Bayfield.
> 
> One significant problem though - with your budget the only Niagaras you are likely to be able to afford are going to be pretty tired. Prime boats are likely to be in the $50k+ range. Later boats may not have saildrives although the option tends to be a V-drive and that has its own problems. I would worry less about the saildrive and more about the fact that some of the early boats are underpowered with a 23 hp engine. For both of these boats make sure your surveyor is good at identifying core damage in the deck. It is very common with balsa-cored decks. A little is not too hard to fix but a lot can be a significant and costly problem.


Hello killarney_sailor;

My hope is to find a solid Niagara without all the bells and whistles. If I am going to spend time on the ICW and Caribbean do I really need solar panels, water makers, radar... I can add these as I need them and when cruising starts to take me farther and farther from easy shores. I have been surprised at the drop in prices though as motivated sellers seem to be lowering the cost across the market. If need be though I could push off launch for a full year and sock away another $12,500 bringing my boat purchasing budget closer to $55,000.

I have noticed that the engine seems to change depending on the seller, everything from a 14HP Volvo to a 50 HP Westerbeke. For the Niagara's displacement of about 7 tonnes and looking at 4 HP per tonne (The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat by John Vigor) I would be looking at a 28 HP or greater engine?


----------



## johnshasteen (Aug 9, 2002)

Many years ago, I owned a Bayfield 29 and make no mistake, the Bayfields are seaworthy and they handle well in a blow - the guy I sold it to took it on a world circumnavigation - and, yes, he made it all the way around and came back to Texas. However, the upkeep on all the wood is very time consuming. 
I sailed a few times aboard a Niagara 35 that was down the dock from us - nice boat - I'd go with the Niagara.


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

I for one don't criticize your intentions. I think you can daysail for years and still not be prepared for real offshore sailing. A cruise south harbor hopping and watching weather windows will easen you into it. You will of course have experience in Lake Ontario, a fairly large lake .
As far as design, a boat that is not as beamy and fat assed as some will sail better in most cases and gripe less when heeled a bit. The Contessa is a bit less roomy below than other 32' boats, but is a solid boat that can take what comes its way. See "Fastnet 79" by John Rousmaniere - the Contessa 32 was amongst the smallest survivors. Several have circumnavigated as well.
Brian


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

johnshasteen said:


> Many years ago, I owned a Bayfield 29 and make no mistake, the Bayfields are seaworthy and they handle well in a blow - the guy I sold it to took it on a world circumnavigation - and, yes, he made it all the way around and came back to Texas. However, the upkeep on all the wood is very time consuming.
> I sailed a few times aboard a Niagara 35 that was down the dock from us - nice boat - I'd go with the Niagara.


Hello johnshasteen;

The Bayfield 29 was the first boat I considered buying, I almost bought one before I even took my ASA courses in the Virgin Islands. It was everything I wanted plus the unique and roomy head was a plus. Then I got to thinking, with any wave action isn't using a head at the bow of the boat going to be a challenge? Funny images of me being tossed from the head in a storm bounced in my brain for a bit... That is why I started looking at the 32C, good offshore pedigree with a more normal setup below. The 29 carries a nice amount of sail for it's size.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

krozet said:


> Hello killarney_sailor;
> 
> My hope is to find a solid Niagara without all the bells and whistles. If I am going to spend time on the ICW and Caribbean do I really need solar panels, water makers, radar... I can add these as I need them and when cruising starts to take me farther and farther from easy shores. I have been surprised at the drop in prices though as motivated sellers seem to be lowering the cost across the market. If need be though I could push off launch for a full year and sock away another $12,500 bringing my boat purchasing budget closer to $55,000.
> 
> I have noticed that the engine seems to change depending on the seller, everything from a 14HP Volvo to a 50 HP Westerbeke. For the Niagara's displacement of about 7 tonnes and looking at 4 HP per tonne (The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat by John Vigor) I would be looking at a 28 HP or greater engine?


Good luck with your search. You never know what you might find if you have cash in hand and the asking prices are only that. You need to check around to find the truly motivated seller. One suggestion, you may find that you get a better deal in an area where a particular boat is less well known. For example, I boat my N35 in Nova Scotia and did much better than if I had bought a similar boat in Ontario where they are much more popular. Hinterhoeller also had a very successful dealer in Essex, CT so there are lots of Niagaras and Nonsuches on Long Island where prices are firmer than elsewhere. It has also been my experience that boats in saltwater locales have had the exposure to salt to consider but have had more money spent on them - eg new engines, upgraded winches and the like. Remember if you are buying a Mark I (Encores are much more expensive) that it is likely more than 25 years old so updated, needed equipment is a real plus and much cheaper to get with the purchase than to put on yourself.

Let me know if I can help you will this in any way.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Note that Niagaras have cored hulls. The least expensive ones frequently have wet cores. Be careful. It is extremely expensive to repair a cored hull.

Good Luck !


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

I was really trying to subscribe to the go small, go now philosophy but if I am looking at spending $60k to $70k on my boat it might be a few more years before I can cast off. The other worry was that I was prepared to insure the boat for the first two years as I sailed on the great lakes and get use to the boat but then go sans insurance. If the boat's value was low it would have made no difference but that's a lot of money to be spending on a hole in the water to not insure it.

I was prepared to put in some sweat-equity but if the issue is going to be a wet core well there is very little I can do about that. I knew that the Niagara had a cored hull and was not foolish enough to buy without a survey but it makes sense. If the resale value is high, and I have found some beautiful Niagara's for up to $100k then one selling at $40k must have a reason; motivate seller or not.

Decisions, decisions....


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

*Wet hull core is relatively rare; deck core is common*

Niagaras are built with solid glass anywhere a hole needs to go through the boat (eg for thruhulls). The exception to this is on boats with a rub rail. Generally if the cored area has not been compromised it should not be wet. In contrast, there are several dozen holes through the core in the deck. If the bedding has not been looked after here there can be a problem here.

The reasons for the huge price differences include one or more of the following:
- Encore or Mark I design; this is tied to the age of the boat, the Encore model was introduced late in the boat`s run
- sellers not realizing how much the market has changed; if you paid $100k for the boat five years ago and spent quite a bit of money on it since it is hard to accept that your boat is now worth $60k
- fundamental differences in the boat value eg new engine, updated sail wardrobe and electronics
- seller motivation

If don`t want to wait, you might want to go with something like a Contessa (better than the Bayfield in my view). You might also look for two other related boats - Niagara 31 - looks like a 35 but different designer (Frers) and the Aloha 32 (Mark Ellis design - quite like a N35). These boats are not all that common but good boats.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Not in a hurry, I wasn't planning on buying a boat for another 5 months. The plan was to buy next February - April. I am just trying to get my head wrapped around the last bit of the detail work. I had not scratched the surface of what could be wrong with a boat, I was going to get a survey done and when the time was closer I was going to start doing more research on what to watch out for. Right now I was just narrowing down what I was looking for. I suppose buying a boat is like nothing else, you really can't do that much research. you can have an idea of what you want but in the end you might be looking for a Niagara and end up on an Aloha, Alberg or even a Grampian (well probably not a Grampian). 

Maybe its the excitement of it all, I am finding the hardest part of looking to be just not running out and buying something.


----------



## Branko (Nov 25, 2009)

*Bayfield or Niagara*

Hi to all.You all have missed one boat that is better than any of the ones that you have mentioned.It is Alberg 37.More seaworthy than all those otherones put together and on top of that faster too if that is of interest to you.I am a owner and the only reason that I am writing this is because wife and kids changed their minds and the boat is kind of too big for me to sail mostly alone.It is for sale.Location is Bayfield on lake Huron.Dockage is paid for 2010 season at Harbou Lights Marina.Boat is listed on (_Deleted as an advertisment which is not permitted by forum rules. JHH)_

Hope you read this.All the best.
Good discussions.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I basically agree with the general direction that this discussion has taken (i.e. the Bayfield is a very poor second to the Niagara as an offshore cruiser) but have a couple comments: 
-While the Contessa 32 is often cited as a reasonably good offshore cruiser and has a reasonably good track record, the reality is that these boats are very long in the tooth and have a variety of design issues related to rig and hull form that make them less than ideal as distance cruisers that will spend a lot of time offshore. I personally view them as coastal cruisers which can be taken offshore. That said, I would definitely prefer a Contessa 32 to a Bayfield as a blue water cruising boat. 

- My assumption about Branko's love of the Alberg 37 is clouded by his desire to sell it. My sense is that it may be faster and more seaworthy than the Bayfield, but would not be faster or more seaworthy than the Niagara or Contessa 32. But more to the point, the hull design and rig proportions make it less suitable to the OP's needs than the boats that he has targeted. 

- Having owned one, Grampians do not have the build quality to qualify as a blue water cruiser.

-While Hughes did build some designs that would make a reasonably good blue water cruiser, the Hughes 31 (which began life as as a Columbia Widebody 31) certainly isn't one of them.

Jeff


----------



## Branko (Nov 25, 2009)

*Alberg vs Niagara*

I have to respond to Jeff.First to clarify as to why I am selling.Basicaly I can't afford the boat any more.I bit off mor than I can chew.Second I am sailing it most of the time by my self and I have 3 kids.As much as I love sailing I want the kids with me so I have to change activities.As for seaworthiness let's use Corbin 39 as a starting point.Corbins motion comfort number is 42.7.Cherubini 44 is around 44.Now take Contessa 32 which is only 27.52.Niagara 35 is 30.71 and now Alberg 37 is 39.3.I would say Alberg is in very good company.D/LWL Alberg 398,Contessa 307,Niagara 348.Capsize ratio:anything under 2 is good.Lower the better-Alberg 1.59,Contessa 1.79,Niagara1.85.All these numbers were taken from sailboat calculator so you can check for your self.I think they speak for them selves.I should also point out that owning a boat ,any boat is very subjective.Don't you notice that no matter what boat you sail on you kind of like yours better.Why I like mine so much.I never vent out if it was blowing more than 15kn.Than one day last summer I went out before I heard the forecast.It was a perfect day.Started with 10 to 12 kn.It did built up but I didn't know how much till I came back to the dock.I ended up sailing that day in 20-25kn of wind and I was by my self.I flew full main and 135% jib and never even burried the rail.I didn't think the wind was even up to 20kn let alone 25kn.You come back a different person from a sail like that.I just sat in the cockpit for quite a while contemplating what I just experienced.If I had heard the forcast that morning I wouldn't even have gone out.What do you say about a boat that just showed you how good it realy is.And yes it does make for a good selling point because the boat is worth every word and more.Ask other A37 owners.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

krozet said:


> Not in a hurry, I wasn't planning on buying a boat for another 5 months. The plan was to buy next February - April. I am just trying to get my head wrapped around the last bit of the detail work. I had not scratched the surface of what could be wrong with a boat, I was going to get a survey done and when the time was closer I was going to start doing more research on what to watch out for. Right now I was just narrowing down what I was looking for. I suppose buying a boat is like nothing else, you really can't do that much research. you can have an idea of what you want but in the end you might be looking for a Niagara and end up on an Aloha, Alberg or even a Grampian (well probably not a Grampian).
> 
> Maybe its the excitement of it all, I am finding the hardest part of looking to be just not running out and buying something.


DO NOT buy a balsa cored hull in Canada February - April ( unless the myth of global warming comes true). The boat must be above freezing for a minimum of 48hrs for moisture meters and percussive soundings to be reliable.


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

I can only speak as to the Niagara 35. A solid built boat yes.... BUT I've sailed on two of them and they Hobbyhorse quite a bit. And this was on Chesapeake Bay in fairly benign conditions. I NEVER get queasy on the upper Bay, but I was feeling a little squirrely on both of these boats. 

Just my personal observation.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Just as an aside, this thread's OP recently ended up buying a Contest 31 and had another thread running on it.


----------



## krozet (Nov 29, 2008)

Faster said:


> Just as an aside, this thread's OP recently ended up buying a Contest 31 and had another thread running on it.


Like I said earlier, the hardest part was not running out a buying something.  I failed...

BUT!!! I own a boat and I am happily planning her return voyage to Canada in the spring.

Robert


----------



## mitiempo (Sep 19, 2008)

Faster
If they're enjoying the debate let them continue.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

mitiempo said:


> Faster
> If they're enjoying the debate let them continue.


Absolutely! Carry on!


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I want to touch briefly on Branko's points about the Alberg 37 in his post, First of all 20 knots of wind with gusts to 25 is not all that much wind for a well found 37 footer. With an SA/D of 15.75 the Alberg 37 starts life grossly undercanvased as compared to a more typical sa/d which would ideally fall between 19 and 23. The Alberg 37's low SA/D is especially low given its high drag hull form. So, with a 135 % genoa it would only have about as much sail area as a more normal design sailing with a 105-110% working jib and a single reefed mainsail. In 20 knots of wind any 37 footer should be able to stand to that sail plan. 

The problem with under-canvased boats like the Alberg 37 comes at the lighter end of the windspeed range (say under 8 or so knots) where a very large overlapping genoa is needed just to maintain anything resembling a reasonable boat speed. 

Branko also quotes Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index for a variety of boats and says that the numbers speak for themselves. It may be true that the numbers are speaking but they do not tell us anything useful about any of the boats in question. 

Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the . And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about thereality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous. <O</O
<O</O

Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight distribution and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy (or even ballast to displacement), neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution of the hull both below and above the waterline, the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize. <O</O
<O</O

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 500 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 500 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth. <O</O
<O</O

And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks over plywood core and bulwarks with trak caps, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have much greater resistance to capsize, and a much more comfortable mortion dispite the results of the two formulas. 

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Johnhr (Jul 18, 2009)

krozet said:


> Hello all;
> 
> Well it seems that I have finally managed to sort through the thousands and thousands of potential boats available. I set a budget of $35,000 - $40,000 and that didn't help at all whittle down the selection as I was flooded with C&C's, Cal's, Watkins, Ericson's, Morgan's, Columbia's... I did my research hear and across the internet and since I wanted a blue water cruiser I used the Updated Offshore list here as well as Atom's site to pear down the list. I then used PHRF ratings and reviews to close up the list a little more and cross referenced with the basic equipment and design concerns (Common engine's, keel design, port holes, head setup, cockpit placement...) to pull the list into a final couple boats.
> 
> ...


Have you looked at an Ontario 32 for comparison?


----------

