# All purpose sailboat



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

HI all,
Bit of a dilemma in choosing a sailboat. I've narrowed my search down to the following:
Alberg 29, 30
CS 27, 30
Bristol 29, 32


In addition to leisurely sails, my buddies and I like going out when its blowing over 20 knots and want something that can handle "white knuckle" sailing. On the flip side, I want something that will be comfortable for "non-sailor" guests (1 or 2) for overnight/weekend stays and has good motion at sea. 

I'll be cruising the great lakes for now but if all works out, I'd like to head south to Florida and eventually the Bahamas. 

Previously you've recommended Catalina 30, Grampian 30 but I've read that these boats don't like being out there when it gets rough. I've also read that the Albergs tend to heel more than other boats - this may be of some concern for the non-sailing guests on board. Any general thoughts on Albergs' sailing characteristics that you know of? 

And any thoughts on other boats that I should consider for this suppose? My budget is around $20k with some more saved for updates. 

Cheers


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Bristol 32 is a nice boat. That would be my pick from your list. You should be able to get a decent one for 20K. You could add Cape Dory 30 to that list.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

With all due respect, the Albergs and the specific Bristols mentioned are comparatively miserable heavy air boats. Of the all of the boats on the list presented, I would only consider the CS-30 if I was looking for a boat that sailed well across a broad spectrum of conditions. If I were to add an affordable Bristol in that general size to the list, I would suggest the Herreshoff designed Bristol 33/34 which would be good choice for what you are considering. They typically sell for similar prices to the 32's in equal condition and are far superior boats in all ways. I had a lengthy chat with an owner who had gone through the Carribbean, South America with one and had nothing but praise for the boat. Here is some info and ads (some out of date) which should provide more information on these boats. 
http://www.bristolsailboats.org/?page_id=108
http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=1406
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/38143
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/57402
http://sailingtexas.com/201301/sbristol33101.html

Jeff


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Hi Jeff, 
Some Bristol 33/34 boats have their engines deep in the bilge, where the risk of flooding seems high, but also lowers boat's center of gravity. What is your take on that?


----------



## Pendragon35 (Jun 26, 2014)

Curious...as the owner of an Alberg 35...what the reasoning behidn your comment that "Albergs are lousy heavy air boats" is?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

krisscross said:


> Hi Jeff,
> Some Bristol 33/34 boats have their engines deep in the bilge, where the risk of flooding seems high, but also lowers boat's center of gravity. What is your take on that?


I have had mixed emotions about that. The one that I looked at most closely had great access to work on the engine, but looked a bit vulnerable. The concern that I has was that that boat had a keel stepped mast and so there was water in the bilge, but in talking with the guy who had cruised his all over, he had not run into any problems with this.



Pendragon35 said:


> Curious...as the owner of an Alberg 35...what the reasoning behidn your comment that "Albergs are lousy heavy air boats" is?


It probably comes as no surprise to any one who has read my comments on Alberg's designs, but having spent a lot of time sailing his designs, I am not a fan of the way the majority of his designs sail. In heavy going, they tend to be very tender. This was done on purpose in order to increase the waterline when heeled, but in a breeze it makes for a hard boat to sail. The rig proportions require an early reef and then an early headsail change if you are going to carry a genoa with enough sail area to sail in lightish conditions. If you use a small enough genoa that it can be furled down to a reasonable size for a 20 knot breeze, the sail is too small and heavy for more moderate conditions, say under 8-10 knots of wind.

I find their motion very uncomfortable. While the motion is slower than some designs that followed them, they tend to rotate through much larger angles in all rotational motions (pitch, roll, and yaw). In particular they tend to pitch (hobby horse) miserably in a chop and the full bows tend to hit harder with each wave than finer bowed boats like the Bristol 34 mentioned above. That slows their speed and the deceleration is uncomfortable. Their comparatively round bottom combined with their low dampening and stability means that they roll a lot as well. Their short waterlines mean that they tend to hunt and yaw excessively especially in quartering seas.

The full bows also tend to bring a lot of spray and green water aboard depending on the wave size and shape, but much worse than boats with flare rather than the flam that Alberg favored in order to try to beat the Universal and CCA rule.

They tend to develop wicked weather helms if you carry enough sail area to drive through a seaway, but lose a lot of speed if you shorten sail in order to reduce weather helm.

So when the OP says that he wants a boat to sail in 20 knots of wind, and which has a comfortable motion, that would pretty much eliminate the Albergs or the particular Bristols on the list.

Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I would be curious to know what your source is for Grampian 30's being bad heavy air boats. Definitely not a G30 owner, because they are decent heavy air boats (I'm a former G30 owner), the reason I sold mine was because I wasn't a big fan of the atomic 4, and the multiple leaks when it rained, but they are strong boats that track and sail reasonably well in heavy weather.

Of your list, I would tend to favour the CS 27 and CS 30, just because of the modern layout and the diesel inboards for your stated all around purpose.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Thanks Jeff. Very interesting observations. I haven't sailed an Alberg so my conclusion was drawn from the various threads here and other forums. It made me think they can cut through waves better due to their short beam and heavy displacement. Perhaps the misinformation is due to the fact that their owners love their boats so much that they just can't speak negatively of them. 

Bristol 34 would have been nice but I can't go over 32 feet due to my marina's slip limitations. 
Hoping to sail differnet boats in the upcoming season since it seems that it's hard to choose one just by reading. 
Thanks for the info...


----------



## mikel1 (Oct 19, 2008)

Ericson!


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Bristol 29 is a Halsey Herreshcoff design, and the 32 is a Ted Hood design.

Do yourself a favor and do a google search for opinions other than Jeff's, which is contrarian to any owners comments I have ever heard or read about a Bristol 29 or 32. They are built like tanks, take heavy conditions in stride, are confortable at sea, and many have been used for offshore cruising and passages without incident.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

As a CS 30 owner, Ill try and not be too biased.:grin Its a more modern design, pluses are fast under most conditions shorten sail and she screams in 20kt winds, don't over power and you will be rewarded. High quality Selden rig I cant say enough about the rig package, aft led lines (2) spin halyard shutes, bendable masthead rig etc. Very nice down below, double aft berth unheard of in a 30 footer nav station etc. High build quality in general and moderately proportioned less beam than a lot, including C-30 and nicely detailed.
If she has minuses the transom gets some slap tied up with a sea coming from the rear quarter (minor) annoyance, they tend to be pricey, and the slack bilge can be a bit annoying there is just no room for any stray water to collect at all, no good sump for a bilge pump. Cruising storage is a bit lacking.
They can be a bit hard to find and there are lots of older Boats out there more affordable but I think they are worth the premium.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Boxerz123 said:


> Thanks Jeff. Very interesting observations. I haven't sailed an Alberg so my conclusion was drawn from the various threads here and other forums. It made me think they can cut through waves better due to their short beam and heavy displacement. Perhaps the misinformation is due to the fact that their owners love their boats so much that they just can't speak negatively of them.


I don't think that's it. People buy different boats for different reasons. Price is often a factor, aesthetics are often a factor. Their local sailing conditions are often a factor.

The boats you are describing are very different boats, any of which can be sailed in 20 knot winds by a competent crew and I would think people would buy them for different reasons.

I don't think this which boat is better yard stick exists since their are so many factors at play and personal preferences and experiences play such significant role.

There are boat designs that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole and boats that I couldn't touch because they are too expensive, but other people are perfectly happy sailing them because that boat works for them.


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

We had friends with a Bristol 29. They were disappointed to always be the last ones in to a harbor because the boat is so slow. In rough weather they seemed pretty tender to us, wet, and bouncy. In light wind... they motored. Down below was cramped because of the narrow beam. Have you considered any J/boats? A J/28 is more cruise-oriented than most of their line, but still moves in light air. A J/30 might also work. The cockpit isn't super comfy, but it has most of what you seem to want, including pricing, and would be pretty quick. They seem to revel in heavier conditions. J/32's are also more cruise-oriented, if you can find one in your price range. Worth perhaps checking out.


----------



## olson34 (Oct 13, 2000)

As suggested by another poster, check out Ericson's. Strong, fast, and easy to sail.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

You may want to take a look at some of the C&C sailboats which are similar designs to the CS.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

CS 30 is probably one my favs. at the moment. Although the ones I've seen are a bit over my budget. 

Can you explain what you mean by "transom gets some slap tied up with a sea" and the Slack Bilge problem? Sorry it's been a steep learning curve. 

As with the C&C's, I sailed the 25 footers in the summer and really liked them. But I'm not in love with the dinette seating in the 30 footer. Are there ones made with typical settee on bother sides? 

For some reason I keep coming back to the Alberg 29/30s. something about their looks that I just love even though they seem to have a very low free board which may scare off my non-sailing guests. Any thoughts on this? 

Regardsless, Jeff's comments about their sailing characteristics have cast some doubt but I'll still try and sail one in the summer to find out for myself. 
To me they're the perfect mix of size, price, looks. 

Thanks everyone for your comments. This is very helpful


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Here is my take on Albergs 30's for your purposes. You live in mid town Toronto and for the immediate future plan on sailing in Toronto and on Lake Ontario.

Alberg 30's were designed by a Torontonian for racing in Toronto and on Lake Ontario and built 1/2 hour outside of Toronto. They are a popular boat locally with an active class association. Not only that, but they were such a such a well designed and built boat they earned an international reputation and are appreciated by budget minded long distance sailors around the globe.

If you find their look and feel speaks to you on an emotional level, you could do a lot worse, especially given your location and home waters.

If it was me, I would probably look for one that has been upgraded to a diesel engine. I say go for it if you like them.


----------



## SHNOOL (Jun 7, 2007)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around 20 knot winds being white knuckle. Sorry I am here mostly for comic relief. I've found Jeff's insights into boat design to be pretty damned spot on, again, just my unasked for opinion.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Before I reply to Arcb's comment, I would like to apologize for an error in my earlier post. I had mistakenly panned the Bristol 29. I had mentally thought the question was about the Bristol 29.9 rather than earlier the Bristol 29.

The Bristol 29 should actually a reasonably nice boat for the original poster's purpose. These were unusual boats for their day in that they had a little longer waterline relative to overall length, higher stability, a little less superfluous weight, finer bow, and flatter run than was typical for boats of that era. It meant that they were easier boats to sail and do better in a chop than was the norm for the era.

In response to Arcb's comment : 


Arcb said:


> Here is my take on Albergs 30's for your purposes. You live in mid town Toronto and for the immediate future plan on sailing in Toronto and on Lake Ontario.
> 
> Alberg 30's were designed by a Torontonian for racing in Toronto and on Lake Ontario and built 1/2 hour outside of Toronto. They are a popular boat locally with an active class association. Not only that, but they were such a such a well designed and built boat they earned an international reputation and are appreciated by budget minded long distance sailors around the globe.
> 
> You don't need to ask any one who sails in different waters with a different sailing style what kind of boat you like for sailing in your home waters.


That might be useful information it if was accurate, but its not. The design for the Alberg 30 was commissioned by Annapolis yacht importer George P. Walton for a syndicate of Annapolis Yacht Club based racers. Walton wanted the boat designed by Phillip Rhodes who had designed the Chesapeake 32 for Walton a few years earlier. At the request of the syndicate, Walton also approached Rhode Island based yacht designer Carl Alberg about the design. Walton and the syndicate chose to hire Carl Alberg because he was less expensive and more readily available than Rhodes to take on the project.

The Annapolis syndicate requested that the boat be designed to be more competitive than the Triton under the CCA racing rule and optimized for the light air of the Chesapeake Bay.

According to a conversation that I had with one of these original syndicate members, Carl shifted from the hollow bow of the Triton to a fuller bow on the Alberg 30 which Carl believed would more effectively increase waterline length at the large heel angles that these boats were intended to be raced at. The syndicate had requested the shift from the Triton's fractional rig to the Alberg 30's masthead rig under the belief that the masthead rig allowed a larger amount of unrated genoa and spinnaker sail area under the CCA rule, which was intended to help in lighter air sailing.

Because the Alberg 30 was designed to heel a lot in order to stretch their waterline lengths, and they were going to be raced in the relatively light air of the Chesapeake, the Alberg was purposely designed to be heeled more easily than the Triton. That purposefully reduced stability came both in the form of less ballast (A30 37% vs T 43.5%) and in the shape of the hulls, with the Triton having firmer bilges for a little more form stability.

When it came time to choose a yard to build the Alberg 30, Walton bid the construction to three yards: Whitby, who had built the Walton 25/Continental 25 for him, Grampian who had built the Classic 31 and Classic 37/Walton 37 for him, and the Danish yard who built the Chesapeake 32.

Walton wanted to use Grampian, who he thought did better work than Whitby, but Whitby offered a better deal and the Syndicate chose to go with Whitby. Depending on who you talk to, the original 14 boats (some say up to 17 boats) were sold to members of Annapolis Yacht Club. the boats sold well in Canada in large part because in those days Canada had large tariffs on boats entering Canada.

When I came time to name the boat, Whitby wanted to call it a Whitby 30, Walton wanted to call it a Walton 30, and the AYC syndicate wanted to call it an Annapolis 30. Alberg 30 was chosen as a compromise in part because it was thought that it would be better for marketing purposes.

So in reality, Alberg 30's were designed by a semi-retired yacht designer from Rhode Island, for racing in Annapolis, Maryland for the light air of the Chesapeake and built by the low bidder boatyard a 1/2 hour outside of Toronto. Decades ago, A-30's were a popular race boat locally on the Chesapeake. They do have a cult following as cruisers but in terms of having "an international reputation and are appreciated by budget minded long distance sailors" the Alberg 30 gets recommended as a cruiser because you can buy these boats very cheaply, and with a mix of proper maintenance and restoration, they make a better cruising boat than many similar priced boats. But that in no way makes them a particularly good choice for the requirements of the original poster.

Having spent a lot of time sailing Alberg 30's in a variety of venues, these are not great boats to sail in heavy conditions. With modern reef gear, and decent properly sized headsails, they can be sailed in 20 knots of wind, but not as easily and comfortably as other better designs such as the Bristol 29 mentioned above.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Jeff_H said:


> Before I reply to Arcb's comment, I would like to apologize for an error in my earlier post. I had mistakenly panned the Bristol 29. I had mentally thought the question was about the Bristol 29.9 rather than earlier the Bristol 29.
> 
> The Bristol 29 should actually a reasonably nice boat for the original poster's purpose. These were unusual boats for their day in that they had a little longer waterline relative to overall length, higher stability, a little less superfluous weight, finer bow, and flatter run than was typical for boats of that era. It meant that they were easier boats to sail and do better in a chop than was the norm for the era.
> 
> ...


This article does not support your chronology of events.

BoatUS - Boat Reviews - Alberg 30

Or this one:

http://www.canadianyachting.ca/boat-reviews/sail/849-alberg-30-sail-boat-review

Why did a yacht importer commission the design?

"That might be useful information it if was accurate, but its not. The design for the Alberg 30 was commissioned by Annapolis yacht importer George P. Walton for a syndicate of Annapolis Yacht Club based racers."


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

I like the "Syndicate" story. Sounds shady!


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Good info on the history of Albergs. I'm puzzled as to how they are so popular as cult classics and budget offshore boats based on Jeff's comments. Nothing against Jeff....he's speaking of experience which is very valuable. I will have to do the same to reach my own conclusions. 

I tend to agree with arcb in that the boat needs to have an emotional appeal. And Albergs truly do. Having said that, in terms of similar boats what else would you recommend? Similar as in classic lines and one that can be found on a budget. 
Something about super racy looking boats that turn me off. I need character. Mix that with seaworthiness and good sailing characteristics and I think I'll myself a boat.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Take Jeff's comments with a grain of salt (as you should anybody's opinion). He is against popular opinion on this issue.

As for the story of the Alberg 30 - it is known here on the west coast that the Alberg 30 design was originally contracted by a group of SF sailors and was originally called the "Odyssey". Then the design was sold to Whitby who changed the cabin top, and lowered the ballast ratio despite Alberg's objections (went from lead to iron for cost). 

The original Odysseys were extremely well built with heavier ballast (as Alberg originally conceived), no deck core, glassed together hull/deck joint etc. They are rare and worth seeking out if you can find one and like the Alberg 30.


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Also, read about the remarkable solo circumnavigation (through the roaring 40's) by Yves Galinas aboard "Jean du Sud" an Alberg 30, and his comment that "40 years later, I would still choose an Alberg 30".

Jean is still sailing the worlds oceans, not some day racer on the Chesapeake. I would take his comments much more seriously regarding the suitability of the Alberg for offshore heavy weather conditions.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Arcb said:


> This article does not support your chronology of events.
> 
> BoatUS - Boat Reviews - Alberg 30
> 
> ...


Lets see whether we can clear this up a little. In the 1960's, it was very typical for boat dealers and importers to commission designs and have boats built. In that era many of the brands that we are familiar with were commissioned by such dealer/importers as LeCompte, Van Breems, Seafarer (Brian Ackworth), Europa Yachts, Concordia (Howland), and so on. As late as the 1980's, my mother who was a boat importer commissioned the designs, bid them and had them constructed in her two different lines of Asian built power boats.

Walton was very visible in those days bringing in a variety of boats from Europe and Canada. He worked with a broad range of designers (from memory) including S&S, Phillip Rhodes, Ralph Wiley, Peter Van Dyne, Tord Sundén, and Carl Alberg. Walton was involved in the development of some very popular wooden designs of the prior era like the Kings Cruiser that he helped develop and then imported. He had worked on that project with Tord Sundén, who designed the Folkboat.

Also syndicated designs were very common in those days as well. Groups of sailor would get together and commission a design and then bid it out. There were dozens of these classes which began as a group of folks getting together and having a boat designed and then having a dozen or so of these boats built. Many of these syndicated designs were simply small one design classes like the Resolutes, Knickerbockers, Long Island Sound One Design. But this was also how boats like the Coastwise Cruiser, Hinckley Pilot and Bermuda 40 came into being. This was not a new idea. Boats like the Herreshoff designed Bar harbor 31, Buzzards bay 15, NY-30 and NY40's, and so on were examples of earlier syndicates commissioning new designs.

The reason that the Annapolis Yacht Club Syndicate would have gone to George Walton was that he was very experienced at managing these types of projects and he was an Annapolis Yacht Club member. By 1961, he would have done dozens of these projects, and had a lot of connections in various yards around the world. The AYC syndicate had approached him right after he had commissioned the Walton 25/Continental 25 which were folkboat derivatives and which is at least one connection between the Folkboat and the Alberg 30. I have never heard of the 6 Toronto Folkboat owners before the Canadian Yachting article but they also may have been around and come aboard early in the process.

A while before Jack Horner's article came out, George Walton's grandson had worked as a draftman for me. He knew I was interested in his grandfather and brought in some things that his family had, including showing me a number tubes of his grandfather's drawings. These included a roll of prints for the preliminary design for the Alberg 30 which was titled as "A 30 foot CCA racer for Annapolis Yacht Club" and listed George Walton as the client. It was also around the time that I had met one of the original syndicate members and had asked him about drawings that I had seen, and he said that he had the same drawing and conveyed the story that I repeated in my post.

Jack Horner and I discussed the origin of the Alberg 30 shortly after the Alberg 30 article came out and I referred him to the original syndicate member. Jack apparently had researched it and the next time I saw he confirmed that the story that I had conveyed saying that his article got it wrong. He had also seen a copy of the same or a similar preliminary design drawing that I had seen which that described the design as a 30 foot CCA racer for Annapolis Yacht Club and listed George Walton as the client.

Both of the linked articles refer to that original group of Annapolis Yacht Club members ordering the first boats, they simply have the sequence off a little bit at least as evidenced by Carl Alberg's own drawings.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

JeffH, whether the published sequence of events in the articles I presented or the sequence of events you present is accurate, I don't think matters much. Chesapeake Bay and Lake Ontario are fairly similar bodies of water. They are both long bodies of water, of more or less similar size and shape. They are 2 very formative bodies of water in the sport of inland sailing in the Americas. I would think a boat that is a suitable racer for one, would be a suitable racer for the other.

However, these boats did something many other racers never did and never will do, they became popular with long distance budget cruisers. 

Not just any boat can do that on the Merritt's of price alone.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Maybe I can explain it this way.....
The significance of a CCA boat optimized for the prevailing 5-8 knots of light air typical of summer racing on the Chesapeake Bay is that the stability was purposefully reduced and the sail area developed around huge head sails. Generally, the Great Lakes Region races in a prevailing wind range the 8-12 knot range than we do here on the Bay and so a boat for that region is usually designed with more stability. But more to the point the OP was asking about a boat where his "buddies and I like going out when its blowing over 20 knots and want something that can handle "white knuckle" sailing." 

I have spent a bunch of time racing Alberg 30's in those conditions and it is a miserable boat for that purpose. So my core point is that when you look at the choices that he is proposing the CS and the Bristol 29 are far superior choices. 

As to the reason that people use them for distance cruising is precisely because they are affordable and a better choice than many of the options in that general price range. But also because a few of them have made successful distance voyages they have gotten the patina of somehow being good cruisers. 

But the fact that a few examples have made successful voyages does not make them an optimum choice for someone who wants to go distance cruising. I usually give this example to explain my point on this. When I was restoring my Folkboat back in the early 1970's, an elderly Australian fellow ended up on the hard next me. He had sailed his boat all the way from Australia. The boat was a crudely built, hard chine, plywood 20 something footer. It had a poured concrete bolt on keel that was rusting from every pore. The topsides were a series of patches of scavenged plywood nailed with ring nails. The sails were more patch than sail. The rigging was rusting galvanized steel. He had no instruments except a clock, compass and sextant. He started out a seagull motor which did not run and ditched somewhere. The boat sailed poorly by any reasonable standard failing to tack through the wind reliably. And yet this guy had sailed this thing half way around the world. I seriously doubt that the vast majority of us would very say that this is an ideal boat for a long distance voyaging and yet because some anachronism of a plastic fantastic successfully completed a long distance voyage they are suddenly elevated to the position of an ideal blue water cruiser. 

And before I get blasted as being out of step because my experiences and the science (I'll explain the science another time) do not lead me (or most others with a broad range of experience with these types of boats) to feign buying into the mythology, I would like to point out that in any period there are better and worse designs and better and worse built boats. Its a kind of a spectrum and in its era the Alberg 30 wasn't at the worst end of the spectrum. But there were boats from that same era that sailed better in a broad range of windspeeds and which are better built and better suited for the distance voyaging. The Bristol 29 being but one example of a better designed better built boat than the Alberg 30, and certainly would be a better boat to go out distance cruising on. And that is my point. 

When you too have tried beating in an Alberg 30 in a building breeze off the coast Georgia where the Atlantic waves build steeply over the shelf, you can come back and explain to me why think that the extreme rolling, and pitching motion of these boats, (a motion which hurled crew violently across the cabin no matter how braced they were) make them a good distance cruiser. And if you really want to understand that motion, watch closely the motion of the J-24 that sailed up to your stern from to leeward and kept on going rolling and pitching through half the angle the Alberg is describing. 

Respectfully,

Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Arcb said:


> Of your list, I would tend to favour the CS 27 and CS 30, just because of the modern layout and the diesel inboards for your stated all around purpose.


I am not sure why you think I am disagreeing with you. I have quoted my first post in this thread above. I would chose the CS27, and not by a small margin either, but I am not the OP and people like what they like.

I have been sailing on Lake Ontario since I was a wee lad and I know an Alberg 30 can more than handle 20 knot winds on Lake Ontario.

Keep in mind, L.O. is laid out East-West, the prevailing wind is westerly and Toronto is only 25 miles or so from the Niagara Escarpment at the West end of the lake, big waves are relatively uncommon during the summer in Toronto, which is likely one of the reasons it's such a popular sailing destination.



Jeff_H said:


> And before I get blasted as being out of step because my experiences and the science (I'll explain the science another time)
> 
> Snip
> 
> When you too have tried beating in an Alberg 30 in a building breeze off the coast Georgia where the Atlantic waves build steeply over the shelf, you can come back and explain to me why think that the extreme rolling,


1) I studied Nautical Science, so, I am comfortable with the science.

2) In my opinion; preparedness, humility and knowledge seem (to me) to have a bigger influence on who gets into trouble on the water than boat choice.

My point was simply, if he likes that boat, it would work. It would not be my first choice, but it would definitely work, and liking your boat is a pretty important part of this recreational sailing stuff.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Boxerz123 said:


> CS 30 is probably one my favs. at the moment. Although the ones I've seen are a bit over my budget.
> 
> Can you explain what you mean by "transom gets some slap tied up with a sea" and the Slack Bilge problem? Sorry it's been a steep learning curve.
> 
> ...


When tied in my slip, in a rare souwester breeze rollers will come in and slap under the transom a bit, the Boat has no overhang just a small area that at rest has an air gap. At anchor or under way there is nothing to notice. This Boat has a very flat bottom the bilge is about 3.5" deep through the whole Boat, the bilge pump just cant keep it dry. Some use dripless packings and though I stay pretty dry some water will sneak in the keel stepped mast and the stuffing box. Just need to stay mindfull and pull the boards often and dry it out with a shop vac. Neither are issues that are more than just things to talk about certainly not negatives in my mind. If you get serious anbout one I will be glad to share more. AL


----------



## Pendragon35 (Jun 26, 2014)

Thanks for the description of sailing Alberg designs. I haven't had mine long enough or out in storms enough to be able to say what she's like. I can say that motoring at 6 knots into wakes or a 2-4 chop on the Bay, she tends to shed water. I've seen water over the deck but it's rare. She does heel early and yes weather helm can be an issue; you learn to reef early, often at the dock before going out. Not sure about the storm motion. Again, thanks for your experience.


----------



## Waterrat (Sep 8, 2007)

Two boats you may like. Tartan 27 and Tartan 30. Both would fit your stated categories. 
TARTAN 27 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
TARTAN 30 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Looks do play a role in boat choice but is subjective and in the eye of the beholder. I married a pretty women and looks are important to me but looks were far down my list of important traits. Sailboats are very similar to partners in that looks are important but should be considered further down the list of required traits. I have meant many physically beautiful women that lost all appeal to me after a five minute conversation. I have also meant other people not so beautiful physically that after a 5 minute conversation became spectacularly beautiful. It seems to me sailboats are very similar. Find one that makes your heart sing and is not just an infatuation. Take some time to get to know them and let the rose colored classes clarify.

Most sailors such as my self, only have experience sailing a few different boats. Few have extensive experience on more then 10 boats. One theme I have observed is that anyone who has lots of experience on lots of sailboats generally think Alberg 30 and Tritons and most other boats specifically designed to CCA and IOR rules are dated designs and genrally poor sailors. That is a very broad generalization and does not mean there are no exceptions. Some love these sailboat even to cult like following. That is fine we all have our own tastes but that does not make them great sailboats. There are many pros and cons when choosing any sailboat so weigh what is important to you and love the one your with.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Arcb said:


> I am not sure why you think I am disagreeing with you. I have quoted my first post in this thread above. I would chose the CS27, and not by a small margin either, but I am not the OP and people like what they like.
> 
> I have been sailing on Lake Ontario since I was a wee lad and I know an Alberg 30 can more than handle 20 knot winds on Lake Ontario.
> 
> ...


I apologize profusely for the tone of my comments yesterday. I had a bad couple days and my mood showed in my comments. I also conflated your comments with someone else's, which again was not fair to you at all.

I do think that we have a lot of points that we agree on. I agree with you that the CS 30 would be a far better boat in all ways given the OP's intended purposes. I also agree that people buy boats for all kinds of reasons and that all that matters is that the person who owns the boat likes what he bought. I also agree preparedness, humility and knowledge seem (to me) to have a bigger influence on who gets into trouble on the water than boat choice.

Where I am not sure we have agreement may be on is the purpose of the discussion. To me, when someone comes on SailNet looking for assistance with a boat choice, they may in part be looking for input on specific models that are considering, but they may also be looking for other suggestions as well. In this case, since the list included boats as wildly different in behavior as the CS 30 and Bristol 29 at one end, and the Alberg 30, and Bristol 32 at the other, in my mind that also implies that the OP floundering a bit, did not have a firm direction and was looking for other suggestions as well. And since he was suggesting that he planned to sail when it was windy then heavy air capability was important to him as well.

My comments are not meant to say that an Alberg 30, or Bristol 32 for that matter are unsafe in 20 knots of wind. I readily acknowledge that a knowledgeable sailor with the right sails and gear can sail a decently maintained version of either boat in those conditions. But compared to either the CS 30 or the Bristol 29, (or the Bristol 34), the Alberg 30 would be much more of a pain in the butt to sail in those conditions.

Waterrat's recommendation of a Tartan 27 or Tartan 30 would also be much nicer boats to own and both of which are much better boats to sail across broad range of conditions.

When I say better boats to sail, I mean that they have better motions, do not have bad habits like hobby-horsing or extreme weather helm, can stand up to their sail plans in a building breeze and so on. I also mean basic things like the ergonomics of the deck plan is such as is there a place to put your feet to grind the winches without being in some tortured position while trying to avoid the helmsman's legs.

As to my view of Carl Alberg's work, Carl designed a lot of boats in his career; some were good designs like the Malabar Jr.s and some pretty miserable boats to sail like the Alberg 30 and 35. When I worked for Charlie Wittholz, who worked beside Carl Alberg at John Alden's back in the day, Charlie and I would talk about Carl's work and the reverence that Carl seemed to have garnered near his passing. Charlie's insight was that Carl's early career was designing International Rule (not to be mistaken for the later IOR) and Universal Rule race boat designs. Those were boats with extremely short waterlines, sometimes as short as 50% of the length of the boats.

In order to beat these racing rules, Carl's designs for these International Rule and Universal Rule race boats were purposely compromised in terms of motion comfort, ease of handling, and overall performance, being designed with very full bows and long narrow counters and transoms. From that time on, when Carl designed a race boat, they had short waterlines and full bows. You can pick Carl's work out from Alden himself and from the work of others at Alden by those characteristics.

This was very much in contrast with Carl's designs for purpose built cruising boats, which generally had fractional rigs, proportionately longer waterlines, more powerful sections, and finer bows. (You can see the finer bows on his Seasprite, or Kitiwake, and to a lesser extent in the Triton. You can see the full bows and narrow sterns boats more race oriented boats like the Coastwise Cruiser, and the Alberg 30 and 35.) Those compromises did nothing good for those boats.

And its not like there aren't better choices out there which remains my point entirely. I have sailed these boats a lot and experienced this in person. But even in the era when longer overhangs were a popular way to beat this now defunct racing rating rule, there were designers who understood the negative impact of fuller bows and finer sterns on motion comfort, seaworthiness, tracking, and performance. To give a couple contrasting examples I would suggest that people who are reading this look at Bill Tripp's 1957 design for the Galaxy 32 or (to a lesser extent) for the 1962 LeCompte Medalist 32, or Halsey Herreshoff's Bristol 33/34 all of which had comparatively fine bows, shorter overhangs and more powerful stern sections with runs that exit the water at comparatively flat angles for that era. In their day these boats were a revelation.

I suggest that you compare the bows, sterns and cross sectonal properties of those boats to the bows and sterns on boats like Hood/Dieter Empacher's Bristol 32 or Alberg's Alberg 35, and if you understand the science, it is pretty easy to visualize the physics and understand why the Galaxy or Bristol 33/34 would have a better motion comfort and sail better across a broad range of conditions.

And I understand that my view of Alberg's work may seem out of step with many members in the court of public opinion. Maybe its because, I grew up sailing in a time when these were new designs and have sailed these boats for over 50 years and in all kinds of conditions and can compare them back to back to a very wide range of other choices from their same era or the periods that follow.

I readily acknowledge that in part my view may be colored by studying yacht design and yacht designers during the 1960's. Back then when I was a kid, Alberg was understood to be a second tier designer a large step behind the greats like Sparkman and Stephens, Starling Burgess, Bill Tripp, Bill Lapworth, L.Francis, Sidney DeWolf and Halsey Herreshoff, Cuthbertson & Cassian, Phillip Rhodes, Bill Luders, German Frers, Tord Sundén, and the like. And although he was certainly respected during his tenure in John Alden's office, by the time that the Triton and Alberg 30's were designed he had been retired from yacht design for a number of years and was designing fiberglass ammo. containers for the military.

But disregarding the history for a moment, my belief, (and the basis of my prior comments), is that there are much better cruising designs out there. And while some folks may see my opinions as out of step with their points of view, my views are not out of line with the current nearly universally held understanding of what makes a good cruising boat design. If you look at the work of nearly every reputable cruising boat designer or look at virtually every purpose built distance cruiser in recent decades, the trend is obvious. To see this consensus look at portfolios of cruising designs by folks like Bob Perry or Chuck Paine. Look at the recent Hallberg Rasseys, or recent Amels.

Ignoring the higher performance designs derived from Open Class style race boats whose shapes are compromised for speed over comfort, and the semi-late semi-lamented Island Packet line, by and large the consensus seems to be that a proper cruising boat hull form will include short overhangs, a fine bow, and a moderate beam, Vee shaped hull sections forward merging into elliptical hull sections aft, with a deep bulb keel and a tall comparatively light rig. These choices were made in large part to improve motion comfort, ease of handling, and seaworthiness. The result has also been a much faster boat in all conditions that tracks well and is a lot easier to handle than the more traditional a heavier displacement full keel cruisers, or the long over-hanged CCA era boats which proceeded them.

And so while there may be reasons to chose to cruise in a used boat with longer overhangs or fuller ends, motion comfort, ease of handling, adaptability to changing conditions, performance, and seaworthiness would not be among those reasons. Which is why virtually no one is building cruising boats that look anything like an Alberg 30. And while I also understand that few of us can afford these newer designs, and taht they do not appeal to everyone, if someone asks my opinion I will try to steer them towards the designs that are the best designs from any given era, in any given size, and any given price range. I don't lose sleep if they choose something else or if someone disagrees, but I do try to explain the basis of my opinions so that others can explain theirs as well. At least that is how I see it.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

The reason I haven't suggested any other boats is because, in my opinion, he needs look no further than a CS27 

As you likely know, I am in the market for a used boat in the same neighbourhood as the OP right now. Same budget, but I'm looking for something smaller than him.

The biggest brokerage in Toronto for this type of boat is probably Pat Sturgeon Yachts, sorry, I can't link, but it's easy to google. A quick review of the inventory reveals the following boats that are in his price range that I would consider appropriate:

A C&C 27 Mark V
A Mirage 27
An Aloha 28 
And not 1 but 5 CS27's.
There are 2 CS 30's but they are way over his budget.

5 CS27's represents pretty good choice for him to pick and chose from, I think it's his best option, this is the second thread I have told him this in. I already pointed out the draw backs with an Alberg 30 in his thread "how much does it cost to keep a boat in Toronto". No point in repeating myself.


----------



## Barquito (Dec 5, 2007)

Jeez guys. I think you are totally off. Obviously the Bristol 27 is the best boat every made, followed closely by the Valiant 32. 

Seriously however, the Bristol 27 (and maybe some of the other Alberg designs) sails way more comfortably than my Catalina 22 sailed... which is the third best boat ever made. He, he, he.

Regarding heeling and scaring land-lubber friends. I find boat that is initially a little tender then hardens up strongly to be comforting. If the guests don't like heeling, reef more, or don't go out with them on windy days.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Barquito said:


> Jeez guys. I think you are totally off. Obviously the Bristol 27 is the best boat every made, followed closely by the Valiant 32.
> 
> Seriously however, the Bristol 27 (and maybe some of the other Alberg designs) sails way more comfortably than my Catalina 22 sailed... which is the third best boat ever made. He, he, he.
> 
> Regarding heeling and scaring land-lubber friends. I find boat that is initially a little tender then hardens up strongly to be comforting. If the guests don't like heeling, reef more, or don't go out with them on windy days.


I actually like the Bristol 27. I have spent a bunch of time daysailing on one back in the early 1980's. While there were a mix of pluses and minuses, she was an enjoyable boat to mess around with. She belonged to a friend of mine. One of the stories that i loved about that boat was that Bob had decided to sail her to Bermuda. He had accumulated some time off and thought he could make it to Bermuda hang out a bit and then sail her back. It was not as fast passage as had been planned and so less than a day out of Bermuda he made the tough decision to turn around and sail her back home.

I must say that your asking price seems like a real bargain for an inboard version of this boat in the apparently nice condition that you have Cirque in.

Your comment about the Catalina 27 vs the Bristol 27 is an interesting one. It is a good example of the idea that there is a broad spectrum of choices out there that might appeal to different people for different reasons. By any objective point of view, the Bristol 27 is a much better built boat with a nicer motion and would be a better choice than the Catalina for cruising in a venue with winds that are predominantly in the 10-15 knot range.

On the flip side, the Catalina is a little faster and much roomier down below. They are a kick to race one design since they are so evenly matched for speed, but in a racing fleet like the one that is in Annapolis, it takes a lot to optimize these boats for racing and frankly the optimization of a large roach mainsail (which needs the halyard dropped and rehoisted in each tack so the leech can clear the backstay) makes them more work to sail than some other boat design. But more generally on the down side, they have a corky motion, are crudely built and can require a lot of effort to keep in shape.

But clearly there is a lid for every pot and so for one buyer the Bristol would be perfect and for another the Catalina would be preferred option.

The Bristol 27 is a good example to look at relative to my points about Alberg. If you compare the Bristol 27 (or Cape Dory 25) to the Alberg 30 or Ariel, you can see that the bow is finer, the water line proportionately slightly longer and the bilges a little firmer on the Bristol than on either the Ariel or Alberg 30. In other words, Carl Alberg pushed the Bristol 27 closer to his more cruising oriented designs like the Cape Dory 25 than the other two designs.

Lunch is over and I better get back to work.

Good luck selling Cirque,
Jeff


----------



## Peter Janker (Nov 19, 2012)

I would second the recommendation that you add 25-33 foot Cape Dories to your search. As already stated its also an Alberg design, pleasing to the eye and while it is tender in heavy wind that can be easily fixed by reducing sail with little or no reduction in speed.

They are tough little boats with some faults (well known and fixable with a little elbow grease) and have a user forum which welcomes all new owners. They will and have been proven to be able to handle conditions that most owners would rather avoid.

I am the owner of a Cape Dory 28 and Cape Dory 30b so I am of course bias.

V/r

Pete


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Boxerz123 said:


> HI all,
> Bit of a dilemma in choosing a sailboat. I've narrowed my search down to the following:
> Alberg 29, 30
> CS 27, 30
> ...


As people have said, seems like an odd short list to me since there are such differences in the boats you have chosen. Are you picking the boats that are best for your needs or the ones that are best among those that are readily available in the local market? I keep my boat in Whitby harbour about 400 m from the factory, but I have never been a huge fan of the Alberg 30. They are tough boats and several from the Whitby YC, my club btw, have made summer trips to Bermuda, but that does not mean they were/are ideal for the purpose. I would go for a Grampian 30 over the Alberg (haven't owned either). I think I earlier suggested you look for a Niagara 32, a very nice Frers design. If you like a more traditional look, the Classic 31 is a very pretty boat. We have one in our club that the owner converted to a yawl for no good reason except it makes the boat look nice. A friend bought an average CS 27 a few months ago for CA$5000 so there are good bargains to be had.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Boxerz123 said:


> Regardsless, Jeff's comments about their sailing characteristics have cast some doubt but I'll still try and sail one in the summer to find out for myself.
> To me they're the perfect mix of size, price, looks.


1. Jeff likes fast boats.
2. Albergs are not fast.
3 Jeff has no use for Albergs. Or any other not fast classic-type boats. This is a pattern.

No offense to Jeff, love his insights, but these sorts of threads tend to wind up with a line drawn in the sand between those who like fast sailboats (fast sailboats are still slow. If you want to go fast, I've got a jet ski to sell you.) and those who don't care too much. These two crowds speak different dialects of the same language and spend a lot of time waving their hands around and scratching their heads.

Sail on different kinds of boats first and decide what you like.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Barquito said:


> Jeez guys. I think you are totally off. Obviously the Bristol 27 is the best boat every made, followed closely by the Valiant 32.
> 
> Seriously however, the Bristol 27 (and maybe some of the other Alberg designs) sails way more comfortably than my Catalina 22 sailed... which is the third best boat ever made. He, he, he.
> 
> Regarding heeling and scaring land-lubber friends. I find boat that is initially a little tender then hardens up strongly to be comforting. If the guests don't like heeling, reef more, or don't go out with them on windy days.


I don't think my Boat fits into that category but wholeheartedly agree. I place crew on the low side regularly in lighter winds whether racing or not. I don't know if its as beneficial as it feels but Im convinced.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

amwbox said:


> No offense to Jeff, love his insights, but these sorts of threads tend to wind up with a line drawn in the sand between those who like fast sailboats (fast sailboats are still slow.


I think you are missing the points he was making with regards to the above mentioned Alberg designs having poor motion characteristics given higher wind speeds and larger waves. I find them to be spot on and rather instructive. Some sailors have cast iron stomachs and have no problem being subject to prolonged experiences of six degrees of freedom on a sailboat. Others are not so lucky and try to pick boats that help them keep their breakfast where it belongs.
Boat design details (like narrower bow and fuller stern Jeff mentions) do make a difference in how the boat moves through waves. Speed is part of it too. When boat stalls, it's movement often becomes more problematic for the crew, especially when sea conditions are rougher.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

Speaking of Grampian 30's, here is my last boat a 1974 Grampian 30 sailing in Toronto in about 20 knots of wind.

She is handling the conditions just fine, and she was big enough that I lived aboard full time.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

This threat has become more interesting than I imagined. To answer some of the questions, I need something that I can stand in (6' tall). and agree that CS 27 are more popular around lake ontario so the options are plenty. Although one of the members here mentioned that he found the cockpit to be on the smaller side for a 27 footer since it gets a bit pinch at the stern. I haven't actually been on one so will have to judge to see how much of a negative affect that may have. 
the Cape Dory's and Bristols as well as the grampian 30 will now be included in my search but it seems like they're not too common north of the border. 

Thanks again for all your recommendations and heated discussions. I've learned lots and will definitely research all the mentioned boats.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Don't ignore the possibility of buying a boat in an adjacent part of the US. Obviously the south shore of Lake Ontario is dead easy, but Lake Erie (and above) are not a problem. Going downstream in the Welland Canal is quite easy and will cost you $240. Even Long Island Sound is quite doable and involves no really challenging bits although there are something like 30 locks on the way back. When you get back to Canada you just call into Customs and say you are importing a boat - you need a bill of sale and proof of deregistration in the US. With a US or Canadian boat you pay HST. With a foreign boat there is a 9% duty as well. I have found that boats on the ocean are typically better equipped and have a better inventory. On the Great Lakes you find a lot of boats that have the same electronics they came with in 1981.


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

Killarney sailor thanks for the great tip. I was under the impression that buying from US would be too much of a hassle so I had narrowed the search to norther shores of lake ontario. This will open things up to 100s of more boats. Having said that, how does one optimize the # of visits down south? I'm assuming I need to narrow down my search to 1 or 2 boat models and see where they pop up. But I'd hate to drive down to long island and realize the boat is a total mess and then have to drive back - only to go back down if something else comes up. (hypothetical scenario) What is the best way to go about choosing a boat that isn't exactly in my sailing area?


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Boxerz, there was a thread somewhere here where people would volunteer to take a look at boats in their area for you. Could be very useful  

Unrelated: can someone explain to me why our beautiful province of Ontario charges sales tax not just the first time a vehicle comes into the province, but every time it changes hands thereafter? (Solution: keep new Toronto-ported boat far from Canadia...)
Even the EU doesn't do that!!


----------



## zedboy (Jul 14, 2010)

Boxerz123 said:


> This threat has become more interesting than I imagined.


Majorly. Many thanks to JeffH, Arcb, and everyone else who has added insight.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

amwbox said:


> 1. Jeff likes fast boats.
> 2. Albergs are not fast.
> 3 Jeff has no use for Albergs. Or any other not fast classic-type boats. This is a pattern.
> 
> ...


Cute! But while I understand that this is not meant as a slam, I would like you to understand that while I typically have owned moderately fast boats in recent years, my comments on the Alberg designed boats are not even slightly based on their speed, but solely on how poorly they sail relative to better designs from their same period or from later periods.

Amwbox, one of the problems with the internet is that it is pretty easy to form false impressions about who other denizens are and what they are like. Clearly, from your comments you don't much about me or the basis of my comments.

When you say that "Jeff has no use for Albergs. Or any other not fast classic-type boats." it ignores that two of my favorite boats of all the boats that I have owned (please see the pictures below of my 1939 Stadel Cutter and 1949 Folkboat which we owned for over a decade between them) and which would be considered classic by any normal definition. Or that I continue to enjoy sailing antique sailing craft including gaff riggers. 




As a student of small craft design, and its history, what I don't like are boats which have designs whose motion comfort, carrying capacity, seaworthiness, ease of handling, the ability to quickly adapt to changing conditions, and performance have been badly compromised to beat some defunct racing rule. In my mind Alberg's designs which were intended as CCA era race rule beating race boats fall deeply into the category of badly compromised. Alberg's cruising oriented designs are generally better boats all around.

But more to the point, as I said above, there are always better and worse boats in any given era, in any size and in any price range. This is not at all about speed, it is about these factors (motion comfort, carrying capacity, seaworthiness, ease of handling, the ability to sail well in a broad range of conditions, the ability to quickly adapt to changing conditions, and performance) which in my mind make nicer boats to own and sail.

It was on that basis that I recommended boats like the Bristol 29 or Tartan 27 over the Alberg 30, or the Bristol 33 and Galaxy 32 over the Bristol 32.

I also think that it might be helpful to understanding my points about the shape of bow on Alberg's racing designs if we compare some images of other boats from this same ear.

Here is the bow of an Alberg 35. 

And here is the bow on the Halsey Herreshoff designed Bristol 33 from this same era: 


And here is the bow on Tripp Designed Galaxy 32 which is an earlier design than the Alberg 35.


If you can visualize a wave hitting all three bows, the Alberg would be more prone to coliding more harshly with each wave, throwing water onboard, jerking upwards, and decelerating sharply, while the other two would slice into these wave and throw the water to the sides rather than on board.

Jeff


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Fair enough. Thanks for setting the record straight. We all have our preferences and our exceptions. As you said, no offense intended. My misconceptions came merely as a result of a few years of prowling boating forums, as opposed to knowing you personally and your history. I've observed your tendency to shoot down particular designs, such as those by Alberg and Crealock, off the top of my head, and have generally appeared to be part of the performance set. Which is fine, but I've come to naturally resist the "out with the old" mentality when it comes to sailboats. Personally, I learned to sail on an old Alberg. So I have good memories (other than trying to back the bloody thing) and really don't recall having been mercilessly thrown about by that boat, at least not along the Oregon coast, which isn't exactly known for idyllic conditions. What you describe as miserable I remember being actually pretty happy about. But you clearly have a far greater breadth of experience on different boats than I and are almost certainly more discerning, so I'll defer.


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Boxerz123 said:


> Killarney sailor thanks for the great tip. I was under the impression that buying from US would be too much of a hassle so I had narrowed the search to norther shores of lake ontario. This will open things up to 100s of more boats. Having said that, how does one optimize the # of visits down south? I'm assuming I need to narrow down my search to 1 or 2 boat models and see where they pop up. But I'd hate to drive down to long island and realize the boat is a total mess and then have to drive back - only to go back down if something else comes up. (hypothetical scenario) What is the best way to go about choosing a boat that isn't exactly in my sailing area?


It can be difficult. When we were looking for our current boat we looked at boats from Maine to the Chesapeake and made three trips. Some of the boats we looked at were not at all like the photos in the listing - perhaps they were ten years old. I think you need to focus on 2 or three models for starters. Your list at the top of this thread suggested you are not close since the boats were so different in design and purpose.


----------



## Pendragon35 (Jun 26, 2014)

I don't claim a long acquaintance with Albergs. However, I thought in the interest of discussion, it might be well to post another viewpoint from someone who does. Pearson Alberg 35


----------



## Boxerz123 (Sep 14, 2016)

You're absolutely right. I seem to be even further based on the knowledge shared on this thread. I've only been on two different types of sailboats so far: C&C 25 and Catalina 30. Neither of which I'd want to jump into right now. Though C30 had the space that I'd be happy with-including the head room.

I really like classic looking boats so hoping to make some new friends this summer at my club and possibly crew. I sailed the CC 25 fifty times this last summer So I know all about its sailing characteristics. Just wish I could do the same on all others...this way I'd be confident about my decision. Not realistic obviously. 

I hate the fact that we're hibernating indoors as its winter outside here in Toronto. I'd be actively looking and sailing if I was somewhere warm. 4 more months...sigh.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

amwbox said:


> Personally, I learned to sail on an old Alberg. So I have good memories (other than trying to back the bloody thing) and really don't recall having been mercilessly thrown about by that boat, at least not along the Oregon coast, which isn't exactly known for idyllic conditions. What you describe as miserable I remember being actually pretty happy about.


I think that this goes to something that rarely gets talked about which is the contemporary impression of sailing on boats at any given time, vs. a broader comparison of how those boats behave compared to broader spectrum of boat designs over time, including the boats which came before and those which came after. In the 1960's, when racing on boats like the Hinckley Pilot, Pearson Vanguard, Allied Seabreeze, Morgan 34, and so on, there was a sense that yacht design had advanced enormously. With the introduction of light weight nylon spinnakers, dacron miter cut genoas, geared winches, the improved sail cloths, and hardware made it seem like boats had really reached a pinnacle that would be hard to surpass. I loved sailing those boats back then.

But suddenly the Cal 40's and 36's came along and it seemed like everything we knew about boats changed. The breakthroughs on these boats were a mix of lower drag, much greater stability, and with that a greater ease of handling and livability.

At the same time, people like Olin Stephens and Bill Tripp were writing articles decrying the negative impact of the CCA rule on the design of boats. They were pushing for racing rules which promoted more seaworthy and faster boats. The initial intent of the IOR rule, was in large part to reverse the excesses of the CCA rule.

I remember sailing on the early IOR boats like the Tartan 41, C&C 39, and Ericson 35-2. Compared to the CCA boats that preceded them these boats were a revelation. They had enormous stability, and powerful sail plans. We were using multispeed winches and wire halyards and sheets to minimize stretch. Compared to the boats which proceeded them they seems to have wonderfully comfortable motions, pointed incredibly high, were incredibly easy to push hard, were amazingly dry and amazingly fast.

I have told the story elsewhere of coming back from a race on a Tartan 41 in the mid-1970's and the crew sitting around waxing poetic about how super that boat sailed, and saying things like, "I cannot imagine how a boat's design can ever be improved beyond this." But the knowledge of better use of materials, and what it takes to produce a seaworthy, motion comfortable, higher speed design has advanced enormously and been incorporated into newer designs to produce boats which have advanced in pretty much every single way conceivable.

My point being, in the moment that we can find joy when we are sailing almost any boat that sails half way decently. In the moment, that boat you are sailing seems to be marvelous. It is the reason that I continue to enjoy sailing on boats of designs whose origins range throughout a broad history of our sport.

But that is different than these kinds of discussions which in my mind are asking about the relative attributes of various designs. When someone comes on SailNet asking about any particular design, or any list of designs, I try to think of how that boat behaves relative to all of the options that are out there of a similar size, similar cost, and sometimes similar era. It is in that relativistic light, that I consider some of Carl Alberg's designs to be inferior to the designs by S&S, Tripp and Halsey Herreshoff mentioned above and would recommend the S&S, Tripp and Halsey Herreshoff designs over Alberg, or why I would similarly be down on something like Crealock's Pacific Seacraft 37 which in most regards I consider to be an inferior design to something like Bob Perry's Esprit 37, or even more preferably, something like Bob Perry's Mariner 39, if that makes sense.



Pendragon35 said:


> I don't claim a long acquaintance with Albergs. However, I thought in the interest of discussion, it might be well to post another viewpoint from someone who does. Pearson Alberg 35


The description in the article (see below) basically agrees with much of what I say about that these boats, but tries to put a relatively positive spin on it. For example, when he says: _"its narrow beam and slack bilges also makes it a tender boat, in spite of all the ballast it carries."_ or _"In a moderate breeze to windward it quickly heels to an angle of about 30 degrees, with its lee rail just awash, and then sticks there. " _what he does not say is that, 30 degrees of heel makes moving about the boat much more difficult, and it means that you are reefing sooner than other boats, and that you are switching headsails to a smaller jib sooner as well. And while these boats do become much stiffer as their rails approach the water, what he does not say, is that a gust or a wave will quickly push the boat beyond that point, and as the deck immerses, that peak stability seems to drop quickly. While in and of itself, these are things that can be lived with, they do not make for a particularly good boat if you are sailing in a venue with changeable conditions, or if you like sailing in stiff breezes which often include gusty conditions.

Or when he says,_ "I can attest they have a very seakindly motion and make excellent ocean boats, but they are a bit wet in strong conditions, thanks to their low freeboard."_ This may be speculation on my part, but I am assuming that by seakindly motion he is referring to a classic description of seakindly which referred to a boat with slower motions through larger angles of rotation. In that regard, this is true of the Alberg 35 except in a steep waves, in which case, they tend to have a harsher motion since due to that slower motion, they tend to get out of phase with the wave train, and so experience more forceful starts and stops due to their fuller bows in pitch, and that sudden hardening up in roll that is referred to earlier.

And while we agree that the Alberg is a very wet boat to sail, we don't fully agree on why. It is far more than the low freeboard that creates this problem. The long overhangs mean that there is solid water passing over the bow close reaching or beating into a steeper sea. The combination of short waterline and fuller bow means that the boat collides harder with each wave throwing more spray as well. While the freeboard is lower than many of the newer boats that are out there, it is essentially within a few inches in height to boats like the C&C's through the mid-1980's or my 30 year later designed boat for that matter.

Similarly, when he says " the Alberg 35 does sail a good bit faster than its abysmal D/L ratio suggests, but its narrow beam and slack bilges also makes it a tender boat, in spite of all the ballast it carries." That is absolutely true, that solely judged on its D/L the Alberg 35 would appear to be much slower than it is in reality. In fact, that was who the Alberg 35 beat the CCA rule since the CCA grossly over-penalized waterline length, stability, and light displacement. But by any objective comparison, the Alberg 35 is incredibly slow compared to later designs of the same length, same displacement, or same waterline length.

_"Performance under sail is typical for a classic CCA design. Thanks to its long overhangs and cutaway keel the Alberg 35 does sail a good bit faster than its abysmal D/L ratio suggests, but its narrow beam and slack bilges also makes it a tender boat, in spite of all the ballast it carries. In a moderate breeze to windward it quickly heels to an angle of about 30 degrees, with its lee rail just awash, and then sticks there. Having spent a couple years roaming the North Atlantic aboard Crazy Horse, I can attest they have a very seakindly motion and make excellent ocean boats, but they are a bit wet in strong conditions, thanks to their low freeboard. The mainsail is quite large relative to the foretriangle, and with its rudder so far forward an Alberg 35 can develop some strong weather helm, particularly when reaching. Some owners ameliorate this by putting on short bowsprits to enlarge the foretriangle; others choose to shorten the rather long boom and shrink the main a bit. The downside to making the mainsail smaller, however, is that you may lose the ability to sail the boat under main alone, which often comes in handy. Note, too, the long overhangs and forward rudder position make it hard to back down under power." _


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> They were pushing for racing rules which promoted more seaworthy and faster boats. The initial intent of the IOR rule, was in large part to reverse the excesses of the CCA rule.
> 
> I remember sailing on the early IOR boats like the Tartan 41, C&C 39, and Ericson 35-2. Compared to the CCA boats that preceded them these boats were a revelation. They had enormous stability, and powerful sail plans. We were using multispeed winches and wire halyards and sheets to minimize stretch. Compared to the boats which proceeded them they seems to have wonderfully comfortable motions, pointed incredibly high, were incredibly easy to push hard, were amazingly dry and amazingly fast.
> 
> [/I]


Again you seem to prove your point that what you mainly enjoy in a boat is speed. IOR boats were extreme rule beaters that appeared pregnant in the middle with pinched ends and often tumblehome. This was all based on the fact that a boats weight under IOR was based on a calculation of measuring at the middle of the deck, so that boats could be built lightly and still have a heavier rating (rule beating).

From the keyboard of Ted Brewer: _"The problem with the rule, in my opinion, is that it produced unseaworthy yachts. The CCA boats received a credit for heavy displacement and a credit for moderate ballast. This ensured yachts that were strongly constructed, as weight in the structure was not penalized. Indeed, this helped to lower the rating! The IOR, on the other hand, did nothing to encourage husky construction and, due to their light weight, the boatshad insufficient strength and stability. The result was yachts that could not stand up to heavy weather, as was shown in the Fastnet Race in 1979, when so many yachts capsized or foundered, and sailors died."_

Indeed the IOR was abandoned directly as a result of the Fastnet and conclusions that it produced very unseaworthy designs, tumblehome, etc. This is widely accepted knowledge.

Furthermore, IOR designs are the wettest, most uncomfortable boats I have ever been on in quartering seas, and are very difficult to control when running downwind. They aren't easy to control when cresting a wave either due to the pregnant middle, and typically have very shallow bilges (a bad offshore attribute). They are lightly built, but not that well and the hulls often "oilcan" when hit by waves.

I have read C.A. Marchaj's book, "Seaworthiness--The Forgotten Factor" about the problems of IOR rule and seaworthiness, and you cannot convince me that IOR rule somehow developed more seaworthy designs than the CCA did.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> Again you seem to prove your point that what you mainly enjoy in a boat is speed. IOR boats were extreme rule beaters that appeared pregnant in the middle with pinched ends and often tumblehome. This was all based on the fact that a boats weight under IOR was based on a calculation of measuring at the middle of the deck, so that boats could be built lightly and still have a heavier rating (rule beating).
> 
> From the keyboard of Ted Brewer: _"The problem with the rule, in my opinion, is that it produced unseaworthy yachts. The CCA boats received a credit for heavy displacement and a credit for moderate ballast. This ensured yachts that were strongly constructed, as weight in the structure was not penalized. Indeed, this helped to lower the rating! The IOR, on the other hand, did nothing to encourage husky construction and, due to their light weight, the boats had insufficient strength and stability. The result was yachts that could not stand up to heavy weather, as was shown in the Fastnet Race in 1979, when so many yachts capsized or foundered, and sailors died."_
> 
> ...


It actually sounds like you were agreeing with my point in mentioning the IOR era boats in the first place. You and I are in 100% agreement that by and large the IORs produced boats which were heavily compromised to be extreme rule beaters. But my point was that at any moment in time, whatever contemporary design that we may be sailing, at that moment that design may seem like an improvement on what came before. But with the benefit of passage of time, these same designs can be found very deficient when viewed through the lens of history and increased scientific knowledge.

In that discussion please note the end of that discussion of the IOR boats in which I say, "_(relative to the IOR boats of the day being discussed)_.... the knowledge of better use of materials, and what it takes to produce a seaworthy, motion comfortable, higher speed design has advanced enormously and been incorporated into newer designs to produce boats which have advanced in pretty much every single way conceivable."

The reality is that I am not a fan of most IOR era boats for the same reason that you don't like them and which coincidentally is the same reason that I don't like CCA era boats. But the reason that I don't like them is exactly as you note, they have compromised seaworthiness, ease of handling, stability, motion comfort and so on, in order to beat a defunct rating rule. And depending on the specific era of the IOR, I probably like these boats way less than you probably would. But whatever my feelings towards these boats it has nothing to do with their speed or lack there of.

If someone wants to comment on the IOR they need to understand that the IOR was not a single rule but a succession of rules that went through a series of major and minor rewrites. Ted Brewer's quoted comments are directed at the middle period IOR boats of the Fastnet era which were particularly lightly constructed and also very lightly ballasted, but which did not have tumblehome. (Just for the record the IOR rule continued to be popular for roughly 10 years after the Fastnet and in most ways produced better boats as the lessons of the Fastnet were incorporated into the rule. Ask Faster who owns an IOR boat from that post Fastnet era.)

And so if you are going to complain about IOR boats, then you can't try to pick elements of one IOR era and combine them with features of another era and then try to generalize in this way _" IOR boats were extreme rule beaters that appeared pregnant in the middle with pinched ends and often tumblehome. This was all based on the fact that a boats weight under IOR was based on a calculation of measuring at the middle of the deck, so that boats could be built lightly and still have a heavier rating (rule beating)"_

The early IOR boats were known for the extreme tumblehome, but were also very heavily built. Their transoms were often less pinched than CCA boats like the Bristol 32 that proceeded them. My point in mentioning these boats had to do with the reality that if you had spent much time sailing them at the time that they were introduced, they were big improvements over the earlier CCA era boats in terms of motion, stability, hardware, balance and so on.

While they could be a real handful downwind, (on the day that the crew waxed poetic over they Tartan 41, we had gotten crossed up in a steep faced 15 foot wave and death rolled, but so had a CCA era Morgan 45 on that same day), without the frame of reference of some of the better modern designs that were to follow, they seemed like incredibly good boats. They were actually dry boats compared to similar sized CCA era boats. (Look at something like an Ericson 35-2 vs something like the Alberg 35 discussed above.) Of course, the extremes of the IOR that Brewer and Marchaj are so rightly critical of were still nearly a decade away .

And while these early IOR boats were a vast improvement of the boats that preceded them, seen in hindsight, there is no doubt that they certainly were not the be all-end all. Which was the basis of my point in the first place....

Jeff


----------



## Lazerbrains (Oct 25, 2015)

Jeff_H said:


> There you go again firing half cocked.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff - discussion aside, please refrain from negative characterizations and insult. 
I don't see where I was impolite anywhere. I do value this discussion with you.
(and I am typically only half cocked by 9pm after my third beer)


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Lazerbrains said:


> Jeff - discussion aside, please refrain from negative characterizations and insult.
> I don't see where I was impolite anywhere. I do value this discussion with you.
> (and I am typically only half cocked by 9pm after my third beer)


Point taken, I de-snided my comments.


----------



## Arcb (Aug 13, 2016)

I'm not sure very many dedicated race boats from any era make very good all around boats because their compromises all tend to favour performance. 

In the same fashion a full keeled heavy displacement cruiser like I sail doesn't really make the best all around sailboat. Like racing boats they are purpose built to do one thing or two things really well.

When I think all around boat, I think family cruisers, some of which tend towards heavier and slower and some tend towards lighter and faster.

If I was to pick an all around boat for under $20k, I'd be looking towards forgiving family cruisers, these are your Grampians, your Hunters, Beneteaus cruising oriented boats, your CS 27's and 30's, catalinas. I wouldn't recommend he go with any boat built to thoroughbred racing standards for his stated purpose.

I was talking to a guy this summer, young guy but a good sailor, but not terribly experienced boat owner. He had owned two boats. His first was a Contessa 26, which is a boat that does what it does well, but cruising around with a family of 4 isn't what it does well.

His second boat he figured he would go performance oriented and went with a Beneteau First 29, which he described as being too "twitchy". If he had shot right down the middle in the first place he might still be on boat number one rather than thinking about boat number 3.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

Regarding importing from U.S., I bought my CS 27 in Rochester. It had well documented online presence of its refit, so it was an easy decision. It was the most expensive CS27 available at $13,500, but worth it. I drove down in winter of 2015 and spent 2 hours looking at it and then bought it then and there. 

I took the train to the boat in the spring and sailed it over to Toronto, with the lake at that time of the year, all to myself.

Upon arrival I called customs from a payphone at Outer Harbour Marina and declared the importation of 7 cans of beer, and a 1977 CS 27. They took my Visa info over the phone for the tax. There was no duty/tariff under NAFTA as the boat was made in Canada. 

And that was that. In some cases they may want you to stay by the boat and wait for an inspector to drive out to the marina. Not sure what precipitates that decision.

The plethora of CS27's around here make it a good buyers market for them. Look at them all, and pick the best one. Then go sailing. Done. 

Yes, the cockpit is smallish, if you opt for one with a tiller, that opens up room. I have a wheel, while it has it pluses, it does impede movement around the cockpit.

I've attached 3 pics - Original viewing. Pick up in spring. Cockpit. And yes, the hull is really that clean.


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Ninefingers said:


> Regarding importing from U.S., I bought my CS 27 in Rochester. It had well documented online presence of its refit, so it was an easy decision. It was the most expensive CS27 available at $13,500, but worth it. I drove down in winter of 2015 and spent 2 hours looking at it and then bought it then and there.
> 
> I took the train to the boat in the spring and sailed it over to Toronto, with the lake at that time of the year, all to myself.
> 
> ...


They figured you had 7 beers left from that trip and you weren't going to be any trouble:laugh
Nice polish on the hull. Those cheek blocks are massive, bigger than my 30 footer.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

albrazzi said:


> They figured you had 7 beers left from that trip and you weren't going to be any trouble:laugh


They figured that if he started with a 12-pack that meant he only drank five beers and is a good, responsible citizen.

On the other hand if he started with a case that means he drank 17 and they don't want anything to do with him!


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

Minnesail said:


> They figured that if he started with a 12-pack that meant he only drank five beers and is a good, responsible citizen.
> 
> On the other hand if he started with a case that means he drank 17 and they don't want anything to do with him!


I started with a case. Actually I think I had 18 left, so I lied to the border folks . It was also Budweiser, so not a lot of temptation there.

It took 3 days to sail from North of Rochester to Toronto- 8 hours per day, about 120 miles hugging the coast for the most part. Despite not belonging to a yacht club, and therefore having no reciprocal privileges, Pultneyville, Brockport and Tuscorora Yacht clubs let me stay for free as they had barely launched their fleet yet, and literally no one was there. By no one, I mean each yacht club was vacant after 5 o'clock and all of them said "here's the kitchen, here's the washrooms, here's the wifi, we'll leave the door unlocked for you".

Bloody awesome. Brockport is pretty much miles from anyone, so it was a bit surreal come sunset.


----------



## Ninefingers (Oct 15, 2009)

Forgot a pic of Brockport


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Ninefingers said:


> It was also Budweiser, so not a lot of temptation there.


You know the old joke: Budweiser is like sex in a canoe. It's f***ing close to water


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Minnesail said:


> They figured that if he started with a 12-pack that meant he only drank five beers and is a good, responsible citizen.
> 
> On the other hand if he started with a case that means he drank 17 and they don't want anything to do with him!


That's nothing I can drink 17 myself after the Thursday night regatta.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

albrazzi said:


> That's nothing I can drink 17 myself after the Thursday night regatta.


And Canadian customs would want nothing to do with you!


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Minnesail said:


> And Canadian customs would want nothing to do with you!


My Boat is from Canada so I think Id be OK:|


----------

