# Columbia 34 Just bought Anyone else have one?



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Just bought a 1971 Columbia Mark II 34. Anyone out there have one and want to share information, tips and whatall?


----------



## Jim H (Feb 18, 2006)

*A '74 of the same model*

You may want to read the posts here:

http://forums.projectbluesphere.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=63

He bought a '74 of the same model. Consider searching for other posts by the same user at that site, because I believe he started a blog about his restoration projects and process. He definitely liked the headroom...

Jim H


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

From an earlier discussion on the topic, I have some experience with the Columbia 34 Mk II having helped a friend fix one up and then delivering it back to Savannah and daysailed on her in a range of conditions. Columbias (especially during this period) were the Hunters of their day. In other words these boats were designed to provide a lot of space for a low price. Build quality on these boats was quite shoddy. Glass work was heavy by modern standards but because of the sloppy workmanship, laminate schedule and choices of resin was not especially sturdy. 

There are several serious vulnerabilities in the design of these boats. The 'scimitar' design of the rudder places more than usual loads on the rudderpost and the rudder posts of that era tended to be smaller than are used today on post hung rudders of today. Fatigue in the rudderpost would make it very suspect. 

The other known problem is with the keel bolts. Many if not all of these boats had galvanized iron keel bolts. If these have not been replaced by a prior owner, the keel bolts are well past their useful lifespan. On the boat that I worked on there were issues with the fiberglass adjacent to the keel bolts that had a serious set of flexure cracks radiating from each bolt. (Invisible to the surveyor at the time of survey but which showed up when the keel bolts were replaced.) 

Even for their day these were very mediocre sailing boats with a very uncomfortable motion. The rig proportion results in a boat that is not very easy to sail shorthanded and which requires a comparatively large sail inventory. Standard hardware simply was not up to the task of handling the large headsails required for light air performance. These are difficult boats to sail in breeze but especially when the winds are gusty. The full bow and high freeboard resulted in boats that were especially poor in a chop. 

The website that was linked mentioned the probelem with insuring older boats. This is a very real issue. Several years ago the insurance industry noticed disproportionately large claims on damaged older boats. The industry had noticed that impact damage to the hulls of older fiberglass boats was far more extensive than would normally be anticipated. In the study, sections of actual hulls from older boats were distruction tested for strength. The results of this extensive testing showed that the techniques and materials used during this era were partiaularly prone to fatigue and lacked the strength of more modern laminates. While the results varied with manufacturers, for the more common high production builders (Columbia was specifically cited) the choice of accelerators, large proportion of non-directional laminates, and resin rich ratios, resulted in a particularly poor initial impact resistance (despite the thickness of the laminate), which was shown to deteriorate dramatically over time.

This makes it especially important to inspect high load areas for flexural fatique damage.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## FrankLanger (Dec 27, 2005)

*Jeff, given your last post on Columbias/age of boats....*

Jeff, you mentioned that older boats (and I don't know if you were referring only to columbias or also to other boats of that era) were vulnerable to fibreglass problems due to the layup process.

Aside from getting a good survey of an older boat before purchase, do you have an opinion, based on your experience, as to what age becomes suspect in an older boat--ie. should one avoid buying a boat built before 1975, for example, because of these kind of problems. I am asking because one often reads that fibreglass boats if well cared for can last almost forever; however, others have written that all fibreglass boats absorb water over time, and will gradually deteriorate/delaminate.

I have been looking at 1970s and 1980s boats for my next purchase--Ericson, Aloha, C&C, Crown are high on my list of possibilities. While I would prefer to get a 1980s in really good condition, there are some very nice 1970s with rebuilt engines, replaced standing rigging & sails, that have tempted me--should I be staying away from these in your opinion? I also welcome the opinions of others, if others want to comment.

Thanks,
Frank.


----------



## thomas1 (Aug 3, 2013)

I also bought a 1971 columbia 34 mkii trying to fiind out info on v drives


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

It's probably a Walters - it was on my 43 and every engine shot I've seen of that series of boats had the same looking V-drive.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

SloopJonB said:


> It's probably a Walters - it was on my 43 and every engine shot I've seen of that series of boats had the same looking V-drive.


I have a Columbia 32 from about the same area (1976) and it has a Walter V-drive, too. Works great.

For all questions, Columbia, look at columbiasailingyachts : Columbia Sailing Yachts


----------

