# Cape Fear 38



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Anyone seen or sailed the new Cape Fear 38? Have seen a number of adds in magazines and they seem to be getting some good press. I''d also be interested in what anyone knows about the company. 

Thanks..........RGS


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I was on the Cape Fear at the Annapolis Boat Show and had a long chat with Bruce Marek, the boat''s designer. In many ways, I thought this was very close to my idea of the perfect boat. Reasonable displacement and very low center of gravity ideal for good motion, lots of stability and ease of handling. Reasonable draft for a 38 foot performance boat. Nice easily driven hull without a large amount of form stability again for good speed under sail, ease of handling and comfortable motion. Nicely proportioned and detailed fractional rig allowing easier short handled sailing and few sails and sail changes. Vinylester resin with kevlar reinforcing in critical areas for a highly durable and sturdy hull. Foam cored desks for longevity. An interior layout that places the head, galley and chart table near the companionway minimizing the amount of motion for these critical tasks and providing easy access for the on deck watch without dragging water the the rest of the boat. Nice big sail locker accessible from on deck or from down below.

On the negative side, I would have liked a smaller deck area in the main salon and a single passage forward which would have resulted in more usable and lower storage and perhaps a pilot berth. (Although the settees in the main salon were easily converted to a seaberth the lack of which is normally a complaint I have with many other boats that bill them selves as so called ''blue water cruisers''.)

The Cockpit was also an area that left me less than perfectly thrilled. To me a cockpit need to be comfortable for ''hanging out''. I spent a lot of time on deck on the Cape Fear 38. The cockpit looked like a good place to be a racer but the cockpit lacked the comfort that I would have liked to have seen on a performance cruiser. As a contrast look at the Beneteau First 40.7''s convertable cockpit. I am racing on a 40.7 this summer and this is a super cockpit to race in and yet a really nice place to hang out afterward. 

In talking with Bruce Marek it was clear that Cape Fear is in a position to customize individual boats, within reason, to a specific owner''s needs. If I could afford a boat in that general price range a customized version of the Cape Fear would be close to the top of my list. 

Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Whatever a Cape Fear 38 is, it isn''t a cruising-capable boat (as claimed by the company)...and I continue to tire at boat builders who choose the ''racer/cruiser'' label for such self-enriching purposes.

This boat appears meant to be sailed from marina to marina. ''Cruising'' is not synonymous with weekending a few miles down the Bay. Electrical generation & storage for liveaboard needs while on the hook? Anchors (that''s more than one...), chain + nylon rodes, windlass...where do they go? A saildrive for extended cruising? Right. Is there a neat little space for the watermaker, given scant tankage. Lots of room for jerry jugs since the fuel tank is most likely also small? Geesh...

If you''ve walked around Bald Head Is. (where the owner of the yard and the guy who wanted a custom design for himself, then thought he''d start a boat building company, too), you might get the impression that''s not where experienced cruising sailors retire to, nor where clever designs suitable for cruising sailboats originate. However, it might be a likely place to find a few Marketing guys who like to write creative marketing copy because they think it will sell boats.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jack, obviously you have never seen one of these boats in real life. They are not intended to be liveaboards and frankly that is one of the best things about them. When you look at how most people use their boats, live aboards and distance cruisers are a very small minority. Most people cruise their boats on weekends with perhaps a longer cruise of two during the season. There''s nothing worng with that and nothing wrong with a quality built boat designed specifically for that market.

What they are designed to do is sail well in a very wide range of conditions. They are designed to sail well in lighter conditions. They are far more capable of cruising offshore than many so called blue water boats.

These boats are constructed on a semi-custom basis with several different rig, engine and interior configurations. The boat at the Annapolis Show which is the boat on the website, was slanted toward racing with a pretty spartan interior. In talking with the designer there are options which would allow more storage, a larger engine and charging capacity. There is a fairly large engine room compartment and sail locker which would allow the addition of the types of electronic support that are popular today, such as a watermaker. Additional tankage was optional as was a more cruising oriented interior. While I too am not a big fan of saildrives, many highly respected builders of expensive cruising boats use them (Hallberg Rassey, Oyster, Trinetella) so I don''t think that having a sail drive excludes this boat from calling itself a cruiser. This boat comes with an anchor locker and a bowsprit to handle the anchor. On a boat this size a windlass is not necessary (I don''t have one on my 38 footer) but the anchor locker is big enough to install a windalss should some one want one. 

I guess its like this, there are a lot of equally valid ways to go cruising. While some seem to think that the only valid way to go cruising is to live aboard full time, to have every whizbang gizmo and to sit in one spot for months at a time then motor up and down the intercoastal, to me it is equally valid to have a cruising boat that is intended to voyage under sail; that is simple enough to be easy to maintain, that is biased toward a good turn of speed and which is properly engineered to be both light and strong. To me this has far more validity than the so called blue water boats that are being sold to newbie cruisers who will never actually venture offshore but will spend most of thier time motoring their unsuitable boats down the Bay from marina to marina.

One thing we do agree about is that I do agree that the website has too much hype and not enough facts about the boat.
Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Jeff & the group:

My post was generated by reading the CF 38 website and finding the boat described as being suitable for racing or cruising. I think I was clear I had not seen the boat. Based on that, I''ll stick by my comments.

Cruising is not weekending, which is synonymous with how I would suggest Jeff describes ''cruising'' in his post above. I agree that many, many folks sail their boats locally and that, for them, that constitutes ''cruising''; that''s fine by me. Perhaps my gripe in part is how watered down the term gets, and therefore how unhelpful it is when ''cruising'' and ''cruising sailboats'' are discussed.

If a boat of this size/displacement is to be cruised, it means - to me, at least - that it must be capable of being handled *safely* in a self-sufficient manner in the range of condtions which at least coastal waters can present and while offering reasonable accommodation and services to the crew who are, after all, living aboard.

To me this includes for example:
1. Having a safe way to deploy & retrieve a suitable anchor and chain/rope rode when conditions turn sour in a now unprotected anchorage, perhaps also in the presence of some current. That requires a windlass for this size boat. That certainly can be bolted on but is the boat''s foredeck designed with this in mind? Designed with an eye to that combined weight being acceptable in the bow? Allowing safe deployment & retrieval without dinging the bow? (And a lot more...) It didn''t appear so, to me.
2. Being motored, off and on over a period of time, for more than a 100 hours before needing to be hauled with a travel lift so the hypoid gear can be changed. I''m unimpressed with the fact that other ''quality'' boats install sail drives, as they do so to maximize interior space, simplify installation, reduce build cost and are incented to do so by engine manufacturers who make a bigger sale (vs. the bits & pieces of a conventional system being purchased from other vendors by the builder). A huge amount could be written on this topic. E.g. notice Jeff''s builder examples - boats built and principally sold in seasonal climates to upscale buyers who typically haul each fall and may not cruise in more remote areas (which N Europe certainly isn''t). H-R is clueless about why this is an issue for cruising sailors and had to go to Volvo to answer some of my questions, while some smaller H-R boats who are out cruising struggle with zinc replacement and gear oil change issues. I could go on...
3. It''s easy to look at systems needed by a cruising boat individually and miss the combined impact they have on the space consumed, weight added, and therefore the importance of a boat being designed with these needs in mind, up front. I realize some boats are cruised long distances with few, simple systems but IME far more boats - and especially newer and more costly boats -have substantial 12V power requirements (and need the storage & generating capacity to provide it), have signficiant water tankage (and/or watermaking capability), hundreds of miles of fuel endurance, multiple anchor & rode combinations, significant food storage capacity, sun and wave protection integrated into the cockpit design, and so forth. Most boats being cruised, even smaller ones, have these items because their use potentially requires it of them, even if ''cruising'' means waterway travel inside U.S. coastal waters. It''s my impression the CF 38''s design does not reflect these needs seriously. To the extent the boat may be semi-customized to offer some of these features, great. But the basic envelope does not lend itself to this, performance & handling will be impacted moreso than in designs where this is taken into account, and inevitable compromises will result in access, absence of space for other needs, and most especially in cost (which always zooms as boat''s are ''modified'' by a builder).

Again, I think my gripe is more about builders unfairly (unethically?)claiming ''cruising'' capability than about this boat...and maybe my gripe is also about how we all use the term ''cruising'' on these BB''s. I also happen to agree with Jeff on several points where his post suggests we differ. For example, performance is a HUGE benefit to and should be a primary consideration of crews picking a cruising boat. (In my view, primarily because it increases crew safety in multiple ways). And yes, we agree inexperienced buyers sometimes buy "cruising" crab crushers because they go after volume and gadgets, and so these boat choices also fail as role models to the rest of us. And if we want to beat up on such folks further, then yes, many then fail to use their boats as intended and never even discover how inappropriate were their choices.

But let''s not overreact by suggesting that boats clearly designed for racing and weekending lend themselves nicely to realistic cruising demands. And let''s not let builders get away with it, either.

Jack


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Jeff & the group:

My post was generated by reading the CF 38 website and finding the boat described as being suitable for racing or cruising. I think I was clear I had not seen the boat. Based on that, I''ll stick by my comments.

Cruising is not weekending, which is synonymous with how I would suggest Jeff describes ''cruising'' in his post above. I agree that many, many folks sail their boats locally and that, for them, that constitutes ''cruising''; that''s fine by me. Perhaps my gripe in part is how watered down the term gets, and therefore how unhelpful it is when ''cruising'' and ''cruising sailboats'' are discussed.

If a boat of this size/displacement is to be cruised, it means - to me, at least - that it must be capable of being handled *safely* in a self-sufficient manner in the range of condtions which at least coastal waters can present and while offering reasonable accommodation and services to the crew who are, after all, living aboard.

To me this includes for example:
1. Having a safe way to deploy & retrieve a suitable anchor and chain/rope rode when conditions turn sour in a now unprotected anchorage, perhaps also in the presence of some current. That requires a windlass for this size boat. That certainly can be bolted on but is the boat''s foredeck designed with this in mind? Designed with an eye to that combined weight being acceptable in the bow? Allowing safe deployment & retrieval without dinging the bow? (And a lot more...) It didn''t appear so, to me.
2. Being motored, off and on over a period of time, for more than a 100 hours before needing to be hauled with a travel lift so the hypoid gear can be changed. I''m unimpressed with the fact that other ''quality'' boats install sail drives, as they do so to maximize interior space, simplify installation, reduce build cost and are incented to do so by engine manufacturers who make a bigger sale (vs. the bits & pieces of a conventional system being purchased from other vendors by the builder). A huge amount could be written on this topic. E.g. notice Jeff''s builder examples - boats built and principally sold in seasonal climates to upscale buyers who typically haul each fall and may not cruise in more remote areas (which N Europe certainly isn''t). H-R is clueless about why this is an issue for cruising sailors and had to go to Volvo to answer some of my questions, while some smaller H-R boats who are out cruising struggle with zinc replacement and gear oil change issues. I could go on...
3. It''s easy to look at systems needed by a cruising boat individually and miss the combined impact they have on the space consumed, weight added, and therefore the importance of a boat being designed with these needs in mind, up front. I realize some boats are cruised long distances with few, simple systems but IME far more boats - and especially newer and more costly boats -have substantial 12V power requirements (and need the storage & generating capacity to provide it), have signficiant water tankage (and/or watermaking capability), hundreds of miles of fuel endurance, multiple anchor & rode combinations, significant food storage capacity, sun and wave protection integrated into the cockpit design, and so forth. Most boats being cruised, even smaller ones, have these items because their use potentially requires it of them, even if ''cruising'' means waterway travel inside U.S. coastal waters. It''s my impression the CF 38''s design does not reflect these needs seriously. To the extent the boat may be semi-customized to offer some of these features, great. But the basic envelope does not lend itself to this, performance & handling will be impacted moreso than in designs where this is taken into account, and inevitable compromises will result in access, absence of space for other needs, and most especially in cost (which always zooms as boat''s are ''modified'' by a builder).

Again, I think my gripe is more about builders unfairly (unethically?)claiming ''cruising'' capability than about this boat...and maybe my gripe is also about how we all use the term ''cruising'' on these BB''s. I also happen to agree with Jeff on several points where his post suggests we differ. For example, performance is a HUGE benefit to and should be a primary consideration of crews picking a cruising boat. (In my view, primarily because it increases crew safety in multiple ways). And yes, we agree inexperienced buyers sometimes buy "cruising" crab crushers because they go after volume and gadgets, and so these boat choices also fail as role models to the rest of us. And if we want to beat up on such folks further, then yes, many then fail to use their boats as intended and never even discover how inappropriate were their choices.

But let''s not overreact by suggesting that boats clearly designed for racing and weekending lend themselves nicely to realistic cruising demands. And let''s not let builders get away with it, either.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Jack and the ''Group'', first off I want to commend and thank Jack for a well written and thoughtful response. I think this is a very interesting dialogue on a very interesting topic. 

At the risk of sounding ''Clinton-esque'', some of this discussion centers on how we each define the term ''cruising'' and some does not. To me cruising would include weekend overnights as well as longer passages. I see this as distinct from voyaging or living aboard. (It would appear that you and I agree on the point that living aboard is not the same as cruising or voyaging, although certainly an equally valid use of a boat.)For me,voyaging in my mind is a state of prolonged cruising with folks like the Pardeys or Anne Hill being good examples of voyagers. I think that generally voyaging perhaps requires a different boat than might work for cruising. 

When I look at the cruising rather than racing version of Cape Fear 38, I see a boat that could work well as an extended cruiser but which is clearly not intended to be a voyager. I think that we both agree that implies that to be called a cruiser "it must be capable of being handled *safely* in a self-sufficient manner in the range of condtions which at least coastal waters can present and while offering reasonable accommodation and services to the crew who are, after all, living aboard." I personally think in that the cruising version of this boat with its larger tankage and increased storage would work well well within that definition. I personally would feel that a couple (like my wife and I) could be very comfortable leaving the Chesapeake Bay, sailing out to Bermuda and hanging a right and sailing down to and through the Bahamas for a couple months or heading north to Maine for the summer in a boat like this. To address the key points of Jack''s post, 

1. Anchoring:
These boats come standard with a welded bowsprit that serves as a anchor platform and tack point for their assymetrical spinackers. They have both and anchor locker and a chain loocker below. While I would not expect that they can carry 300 to 400 feet of chain (which is what I would expect to carry on a boat intended for voyaging) I would expect that they could easily carry the 80 or so feet of 5/16 chain that a boat this size would carry for prolonged cruising. If I remember the anchor locker correctly (and I must admit that I was on a lot of boats at the Annapolis Show and my recollections may be mistaken here) here is room to install a windlass in the anchor locker if one was desired. I am not completely convinced that one is necessary. If you think of the size of this boat by its displacement of 11,500 lbs or so rather than by length, by weight this is roughly the same displacement as many dedicated 30 to 32 foot cruisers. I would not expect to have a windlass on a 30 to 32 footer any more than I expect to have a windlass on my current 38 footer. 

2. Saildrive:
I basically agree with you on the saildrive. I think it is clearly aimed at boats that will be hauled out every year or two. I had one on my last boat. Changing zincs was no harder than changing the strut zincs on a conventional propshaft. On the smaller saildrive gearbox on my last boat, you had to haul out to change the tranmission fluid. This was required every two years or 250 hours. On some of the bigger Yanmar saildrives that I looked at it would appear that you can do the fluid change through the dipstick port and that they had a similar lifespan between changes. 250 hours is pretty consistent with the lifespan of the transmission fluid in the conventional Yanmar transmission in my current boat. Still, I agree that a sail drive makes less sense for serious offshore cruising than a conventional shaft drive. 

3. When I look at this systems and tankage capacity on the cruising version of this boat, they seem more than adequate, especially when compared with my current boat. While I do not hold my boat out to be everyone''s idea of the perfect cruiser, the similarities in size and displacement between the two makes this a useful point of comparison. (I emphasize that I do not see my boat as an ideal voyager but I do believe that they are reasonable distance cruisers. My boat was single-handed in from South Africa where she was constructed and sisterships of my boat are off voyaging with a fair degree of frequency. They are routinely cruised out of Capetown, S.A where there is a big fleet and where the prevailing conditions are brutal. A sistership of my boat came through Annapolis last fall. That boat was singlehanded from Capetown to the Carribean, spending the first 10 days in 30 to 50 knot winds and averaged over 150 miles a day even including passing through the duldrums. He cruised the Carribean with his family before sailing up to Annapolis. I know of at least four sisterships that are serving as distance voyagers with one planning a Cape Horn rounding later this year. So while not necessarily ideal, I think they are reasonably adaptable as distance cruisers and certainly useful for the sake of comparason for this discussion.) 

As I understood it, the cruising version of the Cape Fear was designed to carry more water than my boat''s 60 gallon capacity and more fuel than my boat''s 20 gals of diesel. With my Yanmar 3GM 30''s 1/2 gallon an hour at cruising speed consumption that is about 40 hours of engine time. The fellow who single-handed from Capetown to the Carribean reported roughly 15 hours of engine time for the whole trip. He like many distance cruisers carried a few gerry cans of extra fuel and on my boat I would add a 20 gal fuel bladder where the original design showed the ''optional extra fuel tank''. I think that compared to most 11000 lb boats, 80 to 100 gallons of water and 40 or so gallons of fuel is a lot of each. 

There is a mechanical ''room'' below the cockpit that could easily house additional battery banks, a water maker and those types of niceties. If I remember correctly the boat I looked at was tiller steered but had a below decks heavy duty autopilot. A very nice set up when compared to the ''wheel pilots'' on a lot of so called offshore boats.

With this boat''s higher performance I would expect less motoring time. I somewhat disagree that the Cape Fear was not designed for this kind of useage. In talking with the designer at the show, it sounded about this sounded well thought through for the Cape Fear 38. Perhaps more so than in my boat. I do think that the website seems to reflect the more stripped out racier version possibly because that was the version built for the prototype. I don''t agree that performance will drop with the cruising version (except that the cruising version does not have a carbon mast and has a little less sail area to compensate.) Remember that racing versions are typically set up to carry huge crews (probably 8 to 10 or so folks on a boat this size and all of their gear and necessary supplies) which actually weighs more than most couples need to carry when going cruising so I don''t think that carrying capacity is a problem. 

Cost is another matter. It was my understanding that the cruiser version was less expensive than the racer version but still I am overwhelmed by the price of new boats today. When basic 31 or 32 foot value oriented cruisers cost over $100,000 I just have to wonder. I make a pretty good living but I couldn''t imagine ever being able to afford the cost of a new cruiser in the size range of the boat we are discussing. 

In any event, the term cruiser/racer is an old term that goes back as long as I have been sailing. It has almost always implied a boat that was neither a dedicated cruiser nor a dedicated racer; a boat that does both reasonably but certainly not as well as a boat intended to be exclusively either. In that regard I think that the boat in question fairly falls in that category and perhaps is more of each than historically that term might have implied. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## magnusmurphy (Jul 7, 2000)

Jeff

As an expat South African currently living in Canada and looking for a boat, I''m very interested in hearing which boat you actually own.

Also, I would like to ask your opinion on the Tartan 372. I want to cruise coastally in the Pacific Northwest, as well as summer trips to Alaska and to Hawaii and back. My wife and I have two children; 6 and 9 years old.

Magnus Murphy


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I own a Farr 11.6 (Farr 38) which was built in Capetown in the early 1980''s. I understand that these boats are reasonably common down there with something over 50 of them built to varying degrees of finish. I understand that at least some were sold as kit boats and finished as stripped out racers but the ones that I have seen up here in the States that were factory finished from Capetown, my own boat included, were nicely finished as a long distance cruisers and racers. When I began researching these boats I kept finding almost contradictory references to how these boats were being used but all seemed to suggest that these boats were being sailed in tough venues and holding quite well.

As to the Tartan 372, Tartans of the early 1990''s were reasonably well built coastal cruisers. I really do not know that specific model very well. I raced against one with my last boat, a Laser 28. They seemed to sail pretty well in a medium breeze and were at their best on a beat. The boat was well sailed but I generally beat them boat for boat. That is actually good performance in the lighter stuff we raced in for a 37 foot boat with as nice and interior as the 372. I like the layout of the 472 with the head, nav station and galley aft. But they are not exactly my kind of boat. I personally also think that I would stay away from the shoal draft (4''9") keel model as that is too shallow for decent comfort of motion or speed for a 37 footer but I''ve never sailed one so I could be surprised. 

Good luck,
Jeff


----------



## magnusmurphy (Jul 7, 2000)

thanks Jeff

You''re correct I have heard of the Farr 38. Interesting how the South African boat building industry has made a name for itself over the last years. There are very good boats being built there and they are now getting the recognition. I know that Moorings has most if not all of their cats built in Cape Town, and another Cat has won this year''s Cruising World BOTY competition.

I have found the perfect boat, but it is in Cape Town and financing is a problem from here for a boat registered offshore. Thus my ongoing search and question regarding the T372, one of which is for sale in the PNW. It seems nicely appointed.

You mention "coastal cruiser". Although I will be doing mostly coastal cruising, I absolutely want a boat that can take me to Hawaii and back safely and without having to worry whether she is up to it.

M. Murphy


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

South Africa has an excellent reputation for reasonably priced composite and metalurgical work these days. I have been very impressed with the workmanship on my boat although the factory finished S.A. boats are a little heavier than the original design weight while the New Zealand built boats seem to be closer to the original weight. Several of South African Dudley Dix''s monohull designs have also won boat of the year awards here and abroad.

I think, in principle, that you probably could safely cruiser to Hawaii and back on a boat like the Tartan. By that I mean that the build quality should be adequate. I am not sure about the interior layout and whether there would be adequate storage for that kind of passage. I would think that there would be a fair amount of fit ouT required with such items as a stove crash bar, weather cloths for the settees, storm sails and so on.

BTW, I did not find that it was that hard to finance an offshore boat. At one point I looked into buying a S.A. Farr 11.6. It involved financing the boat twice but it wasn''t that hard. The bank was willing to issue a letter of credit in the amount of the purchase (I had to deposit my 25% of the purchase price with the bank). I had to have the boat insured for 100% of the amount of the loan which was not that hard or expensive (pre 9/11). The boat had to be U.S. Documented prior to shipping. Once the boat was in the States I first had to get permanent financing. Shipping was not cheap but it was not that hard as there are boat yards that specialize in preparing boats for shipping in S.A. The Farr 11.6''s in S.A. were substantially less expensive then the ones I found in the States, but with shipping and everything they were close to the same price. 

Jeff


----------



## MMurphy (Jun 29, 2002)

Thanks Jeff

I''m trying to arrange the import of a Shearwater 39. This is really a boat after my own heart. No problem going to Hawaii in that!

Will let you know how things turn out

Magnus


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The Shearwater looks like a nice boat. It won Cruising World Boat of the Year a few years back and the article should be available on the Cruising World magazine Website.
http://www.cruisingworld.com/cw_index.php. Cruising World is running a series of articles from an editor who is cruising a Sheerwater 39 (Log of Ithaka). Very revealing.

I exchanged email with Dudley Dix <[email protected]> , the designer of the Shearwater series, who was most helpful to me when I was researching the Farr 11.6. I am a big fan of his DIDI 38. I don''t think that the Shearwater offers the same level of sailing performance that you might expect from the Tartan but sure looks like a neat boat.

I also exchanged email with Jannie Ruppersberg at International Yacht Brokers in South Africa <[email protected]> . I thought that they were extremely professional and responsive. To some extent,it was primarily because of their professionalism that I even considered trying to put a deal together on a boat that was in South Africa. In the end my partner in the deal was quite nervous about trying to pull this together and while he was mulling this all over a Farr 11.6 came up for sale in Maine and we bought that one.

All of that said, the absolute best deals on neat boats were in New Zealand. The problem there for me was shipping them to the U.S. east coast. In the Pacific North West, you might do better with a boat from NZ. The New Zealanders have an extremely good reputation for their boat building skills and tend to design and build boats that offer a wonderful balance of good performance and offshore ability.

Good luck,
Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Jeff & the group:

I agree with Jeff that this discussion about what kind of boat deserves to be called ''crusing compatible'' is an important one; we should probably all be over on the ''Cruising'' forum, which is my error and one I''ll further compound by adding a few more thoughts here.

First, I nominate Jeff to rewrite the Cape Fear 38 ad copy as he''s done a far, far more convincing job of earning the ''cruising/racing'' label for them than their web site. In fact, I still can''t find any evidence there even exists a ''cruising version'' at their site. I retain significant reservations about this boat being considered ''cruising capable'' (see why below...) but I haven''t seen the boat while Jeff has, and that leaves me at the edge of my ''response envelope'', so to speak. I''ll just add one further comment to illustrate my hesitation - in a cruising sense - about the design: However functional the cockpit is for racing, it appears to me to be the opposite of what a cruising couple would want. I recognize this was also one of Jeff''s reservations about the design, but I feel it more strongly. Rather than offering protection and supplementing the space allotted to the interior, it appears designed for rapid crew movement fore & aft, steals significant interior space and to my mind doesn''t seem to recognize that a crew would ever want protection. As for safety, unless my wife were very, very careful when in this cockpit offshore, I think she could be crippled if thrown off balance. Please understand, I''m not saying the cockpit is a ''bad design'', just that it reflects the racing heritage of the design and is dysfunctional in cruising terms. IMO it''s a good visible example of what happens when you seek to adapt a racing design to other functions...or perhaps I''m just over-sensitive, having learned over and over how important a functional, safe and comfortable cockpit is to a cruising crew.

The thrust of this later discussion is about ''cruising'' and what we mean by that label. To recap Jeff''s definition, accurately I hope, I hear him carving out two, somewhat distinct ''on the ends'' alternatives (marina hopping while ''weekending'' and sailing long distances in ocean waters while ''voyaging'' from a wide middle ground of ''cruising'' that could include the family 2-week vacation in coastal waters but also an offshore passage to ''Bermuda & the Bahamas''. We''re pretty close but don''t fully agree, as in my mind the ''voyaging'' aspect is not distinct from but really just a subset of that large ''cruising'' middle ground; here''s why: Voyaging implies longer durations but imposes few other requirements on a boat and its crew than cruising as we''ve defined it. At least if we really do mean by cruising: "capable of being handled *safely* in a self-sufficient manner in the range of conditions which at least coastal waters can present and while offering reasonable accommodation and services to the crew who are, after all, living aboard."

On Jeff''s hypothetical cruise to Bermuda and beyond, he''s going to be as conscientious about carrying important spares for his critical systems (few systems on boats are not critical when offshore) as a Pacific voyager. This is because of the long passage times and the remote nature of the vast majority of Bahamas islands, and because few things are worked as hard and relentlessly as boat systems while cruising. He''s going to have a windlass and lots of chain on his #1 rode for the same reason the 32 footer does (with whom Jeff compares the CF 38) - because you add crew, groceries, gear & spares, liquids and personal effects and you''ll end up with a 7-8 ton boat...and you can''t safely handle the anchor tackle in an anchorage gone sour with nothing but two human hands while shouting over your shoulder to the helmsperson. Because the pocketbook always intrudes on how we''d like to do things (and especially after we had to lay out the bucks this boat probably costs), the cook will be stocking up on canned goods, grains & pastas, seasonings and beverages, and a hundred other things before we left, because Bermuda costs are half again those of the local Walmart. (And the cook will also be trying to find enough places to put all these foodstuffs, in lockers that are quickly disappearing or in other areas from which these foodstuffs don''t get launched when offshore). The Bahamas islands that follow will only be able to add very little to the ship''s larder but whatever they have will cost dearly - even more incentive to load up before heading out, and to have a place to put it. Choices about everything from propane (2 bottles?) to chandelry bits will be weighed carefully, while the boat''s boot top disappears. Bermuda may only be 5-8 days away but a front could still rip thru on passage that will require sails capable of handling 40-50 kts of wind, more than some circumnavigators ever see. Do we carry a drogue in case we''re caught in the Gulf Stream? Where did we stow the wx fax paper? And so it goes...

To backtrack just a bit, many of the demands placed on a boat "only" doing coastal cruising can look quite similar. Oriental, NC sailors heading for holiday on the Outer Banks, Newport sailors planning to sail to Maine, Pac NW sailors heading for Desolation Sound and California sailors looking forward to tasting margaritas below the border all face many of the same logistics, safety, heavy weather and fix-it challenges that we''ve saddled Jeff''s family with as they visit Bermuda & the Bahamas - it''s just that the duration involved is less.

I recognize I''m assuming the best for Jeff''s hypothetical boat & cruise. If we were sitting around WHOOSH''s cockpit having this discussion, we no doubt could all offer some pretty funny but also sobering stories about boats that were being ''cruised'' to places or across waters they shouldn''t have been. It''s truly amazing, to me at least, with what some folks have managed to arrive in Paradise. But that''s not how we''ve chosen to define it and, in reality, we wouldn''t want Jeff''s wife or child to accept the risk and also fear that an inadequately built & prepped boat forces onto a crew when...ahem, here it comes...they are out there, ''cruising''.

Looks like I''ve got one more reason to attend the Annapolis show this Fall - to scope out the CF 38 and see just how well that windlass will fit. <g>

Jack


----------



## BruceMarek (Jul 31, 2002)

To Jack, Jeff, et al: Designer''s Comments

Thanks for all of the great comments on your individual perceptions of the Cape Fear 38. While signing up to get access to send this message, it was interesting that SailNet had a distinctive category in areas of interest for long distance voyaging. I think that Jeff has it closer to right in what the purpose of The Cape Fear 38 is, as either a racer/cruiser or fast coastal cruiser. And maybe I should give Jack a bit of credit for pointing out that the Cape Fear 38, as configured, is not a world voyager, although from a construction standpoint, the 38 is capable of ocean passages and even a circumnavigation. If Robin Lee Graham was able to successfully singlehadedly sail around the world in the late 60''s in a Lapworth 24, I can''t imagine with today''s technologies why someone couldn''t figure out how to have enough space/electronics/sailhandling and safety gear to make it around the world, in more comfort than Dove did.

However, rather than get too far into the debate on marketing terminology of what a cruising boat is, or what a racer/cruiser is (I even found on one computer search that a Westsail 42 was listed as a racer/cruiser. Everyone has their own opinions!!), maybe in our next revision to the web site (www.capefearyachtworks.com) we will be be able to better address some of the points brought up on this bulletin board.

For the boatshows this fall, Cape Fear Yacht Works will be displaying a wheel version that has a partially enclosed transom (ie. transom seats with a walk thru through the center, down to the swim platform.) This version will be at the Newport and Annapolis Boat Shows. Additionally, at the Annapolis Show this year will be a "Regatta Version" of the boat, which has a Kevlar Hull, deeper keel (7'' or 7''-9" drafts will be available, the boat at the show will have 7'' draft), and a retractable pole for the assymetric spinnaker.

Marketing a sailboat is a difficult proposition. There is no governmental or world wide standard for terminology, and even if someone could define a standard, that wouldn''t/couldn''t guarantee that the the buying public would find the boat attractive and/or meeting their purposes.

If you walk down the dock and take a look at any boat, you will have your own opinion on whether you like the way the boat looks. Then you wonder what it is like down below. and then you have to resolve if you are just admiring the boat (or not) or if you are truly an interested, qualified prospect for such a boat. There are many megayachts that I admire or find fault with, but I know that they are out of my price league -- ever. When I have bought boats (of course being biased to my own designs), the question still remained on appearance, and if the boat was able to meet (or be close enough to meet) my purposes at that time in my life. The Cape Fear 38 definitely has shown itself to be an attractive, fast, comfortable racer/cruiser and coastal cruiser (my biased opinion of course).

Check out the above mentioned Fall Boat Shows, come visit us in Wilmington for a boat tour, check out the Website, or contact Cape Fear Yacht Works for more Information.

We are still developing a second deck layout, which will address certain cockpit seating issues, and most likely allowing us to create an enclosed cabin for the aft quarterberth. We have still not reached critical mass in production to go forward with the new mold, so at this point, someone interested in such a version could have a chance to give us some input to their likes and dislikes (no guarantees, but we do like to listen to constructive opinions and ideas.)

In regards to the small shop atmosphere of being able to allow customer variations. The boat is now offered with 2 rig plans, both wfractional rigs with swept back spreaders, no runners, and both fractional & masthead spinnaker halyards. The standard rig is a 2 spreader fractional rig (47''I, 13.75''J,45''P, 16.25''E) with continuous rigging (all shrouds) going to the deck, and Regatta rig (50''I, 13.75''J, 48''P, 17.2''E) has triple spreaders and discontinuous rod rigging (spreader tip cups & tip turnbuckles). On both boats the cap shrouds go to just inboard of the sheer, and the D1''s (lower diagonal shrouds) are now attatched to the cabin house side, giving more room for walking along the deck. Our standard set up is for our 2'' stainless bow sprit(16'' J) which accomodates the assymetrical spinnaker tack line and/or a roller furling assymetrical reaching spinnaker, as well as having an anchor roller. The Regatta Version has the retractable pole, for a 4.5 ft extension (18.5'' JSL/SPL). And for the more traditional sailor, the boat can be purchased with traditional spinnaker pole or downwind pole, and no sprit or strut.

There is still the availability for solid laminate hulls or fully or partially cored hulls. For the real world cruiser, as an option we can add a few more laminates to bring the boat up to anybodies own perception of what they think is a thick enough hull.

Standard Keel is 6'' draft: 5'', 5 1/2'', 7'' and 7''10" are also available.

I could go on, but best is to contact Cape Fear Yacht Works for more details.

Hope that answers most of the discussions. If not, feel free to e-mail me at [email protected]


Bruce Marek
Marek Yacht & Design
Wilmington, NC


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

Mr. Marek: 

Thank you for taking the time to talk to some of the issues raised in the above discussion. I did have two additional items that I thought were valid points of concern. 

1. When I was on board talking to you we had a discussion about an option of reducing the opening to the forward cabin and then creating a U shaped or L shaped dinette that would provide room for additional storage and tankage. I could not find tankage capacities on the website and so I was working from memory, a memory somewhat clouded by a long day looking at a lot of boats at the show. If you don''t mind, could you touch on the storage and tankage options. 

2. I think that Jack''s point about anchoring is valid as well. It seems to me that there was an anchor rode locker but could you talk about how you view the anchor storage, rollers, and windlass situation on the CF38. 

I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation at the show and appreciated the time that you spent talking with me. As you can probably tell I was extremely impressed with the Cape Fear 38. Thank you again.

Respectfully,
Jeff Halpern


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Since I''ve already written this reply once before (does anyone else have their text disappear thanks to Sailnet servers?), I can only give the short version this time due to time.

Applause to Mr. Marek. It may be the first time that a boat builder would take the time to show up on a BB to discuss his boat. Boy, is that refreshing.

The comment about Graham and the DOVE is a red herring. Just like the Cal 27 that finished a circumnavigation recently with no structural issues, this doesn''t mean diddly about what a good boat choice might be for cruising. Besides, I''m sure Mr. Marek isn''t marketing his boat to satisfy singlehanded males on shoestring budgets. That really doesn''t speak to the issues as we''ve discussed them.

If I read Mr. Marek''s comments correctly, they recognize the need to change the deck mold so that the cockpit can accommodate the cruising-oriented (non-racing) audience they''d like to attract...and they need that audience to fund the new mold. That''s a suitable illustration of the point I was trying to make.

Can this boat go offshore? Around the world? Sure; the Cal 27 did. Does the boat deserve to be billed as a cruising boat? Incrementally, as they modify the boat to accommodate these needs, that will obviously help. OTOH builders who like to use the ''racing/cruising'' label are IMO trying to cover lots of bases and may be doing so for marketing reasons, not as a result of the original design brief. Buyers need to look closely at whether one size really fits all.

Jack


----------



## BruceMarek (Jul 31, 2002)

Tankage on the Cape Fear 38 is approximately 60 gallons of fuel and 50 gallons of water. Also, there is plenty of space in the starboard aft "mechanical room" for a watermaker or an additional tank.

To Jack - it is always tough to guess which model will do best first. When I was involved with the Morgan 45, they ended up selling 7 race deck versions, and about 52 cruising deck versions. Morgan introduced them simultaneously at the 1982 Annapolis Show. It was great. If someone on the cruiser wanted more performance, they were sent over to the racer, and vice versa. I think 15 boats were ordered at the show.

On the Santana 30/30 the racer cruiser came first, and a year later the Grand Prix 30/30 was introduced. About equal numbers, I think 45 of each were sold. On the Schock 34, the Grand Prix boat came first, selling only 3 boats. The next year, the Performance Cruiser came out, selling 30 something boats.

If it can''t be done simultaneously, then maybe the more racier version should be first. We definitely seem to be getting feedback onto what our boat should have. Hopefully when these changes get implemented, the boat will interest you for your next cruising/voyaging adventures.

To Jeff - The anchor well was a little small on the prototype boat at the show last year. We have since angled the top of the Anchor Locker Bulkhead aft about 10 degrees, which gained us about 8" in the anchor well and its lid, with virtually no noticeable change to the foreward stateroom size. I believe we are also a few inches deeper, making the addition of a windlass more credible. I have only had to anchor once with the boat, and the bow sprit/bow roller seemed to work fine. The 2'' sprit does keep the anchor from dinging up the shapely plumb bow. 

To Jack (or any other interested buyer)- I am also a structural engineer in addition to being a longtime yacht designer. If you buy a Cape Fear 38, and have particular strength concerns, I would be glad to sit down with you and go over loads and safety factors with you. 

Bruce Marek


----------



## BruceMarek (Jul 31, 2002)

Tankage on the Cape Fear 38 is approximately 60 gallons of fuel and 50 gallons of water. Also, there is plenty of space in the starboard aft "mechanical room" for a watermaker or an additional tank.

To Jack - it is always tough to guess which model will do best first. When I was involved with the Morgan 45, they ended up selling 7 race deck versions, and about 52 cruising deck versions. Morgan introduced them simultaneously at the 1982 Annapolis Show. It was great. If someone on the cruiser wanted more performance, they were sent over to the racer, and vice versa. I think 15 boats were ordered at the show.

On the Santana 30/30 the racer cruiser came first, and a year later the Grand Prix 30/30 was introduced. About equal numbers, I think 45 of each were sold. On the Schock 34, the Grand Prix boat came first, selling only 3 boats. The next year, the Performance Cruiser came out, selling 30 something boats.

If it can''t be done simultaneously, then maybe the more racier version should be first. We definitely seem to be getting feedback onto what our boat should have. Hopefully when these changes get implemented, the boat will interest you for your next cruising/voyaging adventures.

To Jeff - The anchor well was a little small on the prototype boat at the show last year. We have since angled the top of the Anchor Locker Bulkhead aft about 10 degrees, which gained us about 8" in the anchor well and its lid, with virtually no noticeable change to the foreward stateroom size. I believe we are also a few inches deeper, making the addition of a windlass more credible. I have only had to anchor once with the boat, and the bow sprit/bow roller seemed to work fine. The 2'' sprit does keep the anchor from dinging up the shapely plumb bow. 

To Jack (or any other interested buyer)- I am also a structural engineer in addition to being a longtime yacht designer. If you buy a Cape Fear 38, and have particular strength concerns, I would be glad to sit down with you and go over loads and safety factors with you. 

Bruce Marek


----------



## DuaneIsing (Jul 10, 2001)

Kudos to all involved for this interesting, well-reasoned, and polite discussion.

Jack, whenever I''m going to post a lot of text via a web site, I always compose the message off-line in a text editor. I can then save it often as I go. When ready, I copy/paste the text into the message I''m posting.

That saves me the frustration of losing a lot of work if/when there is a cyber-hiccup. It also allows me to spell check, if desired, but you don''t seem to need that feature.

I''ll look forward to seeing the CapeFear 38 at Annapolis in Oct, as well. Fair winds all. 

Duane


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Bruce, gald to see you over here in the Sailnet forum. I had the opportunity this week to see hull number one in Wilmington and look forward to seeing the new r/c version in Annapolis. She has beautiful lines and looks like a real speedster. I was also pleasently surprised with the looks below. Now to convince the wife...

Thanks,

Rick Payne


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sail with you later guys. I''m weighing anchor.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

WHOOSH said:


> Whatever a Cape Fear 38 is, it isn''t a cruising-capable boat (as claimed by the company)...and I continue to tire at boat builders who choose the ''racer/cruiser'' label for such self-enriching purposes.
> 
> This boat appears meant to be sailed from marina to marina. ''Cruising'' is not synonymous with weekending a few miles down the Bay. Electrical generation & storage for liveaboard needs while on the hook? Anchors (that''s more than one...), chain + nylon rodes, windlass...where do they go? A saildrive for extended cruising? Right. Is there a neat little space for the watermaker, given scant tankage. Lots of room for jerry jugs since the fuel tank is most likely also small? Geesh...
> 
> ...


 I had to bump this and add to it. Jack is SPOT ON !!!!! I was contacted by the designer Feb 1999 to meet with an owner of a 30/30 who wanted a 31 ft "sportboat". Owner wanted to race with his young children in stable comfort. He also owned a Sabre 42 and claimed to be a lover of great ocean cruising as well. His family owns an island(Balh Head notice the BHR hasnt YET posted results!!!) and he is an architect with FANTASTIC vision and ability to sketch anyones thoughts with the skills of a vetran police scetch artist. 
I agreed to sign on and months of waiting for drawings and finalization of contracts etc. I wanted to move back to Wilmington, love building boats(my weakness)and was willing(apparently) to sell my soul to do so. To make what this horrid experience short, lets just say the "drawings" never ever ever ever appeared..........only stations, developed by "Owner" and "designer" based on the combination of SEVERAL hull forms. The result is the bigle shaped confused hull. After a meeting at the plug I was approached and talked into stretching the length to make the stern more asthetic!!!!!!!!!!! This process stopped several months later when the boat had reache a staggering 38 ft all in one foot attempts, EACH time modifying the plug to accept these new shapes.(not one single staion presented by the duo worked NOT ONE!!) 
The deck "rendering" I was shown was that of a nice sporty shape. THEN they dumped the truth of this mess.........."Owner" claimed the boat MUST have 6'3" standing head room!!!!!!!!!! @#$%^&*@($ They actually had me REMOVE the stations around b-max from the strongback and hold them against the shop wall and trace them. THEN they drew HUGE cabins on the deck cambers!!!!!!!!!!!!!(this meant taking the plug apart!!!!!) Go to my photos in Photobucket under Cape Fear 38 to see the cartoons on the wall Tynaje/Cape Fear 38 - Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting , TOTAL LUNACY!!!! (you gotta wonder where my head was at for allowing this nonsence)
My contract gave me ownership of the toolong for future production( I am a one off builder-------the industry does NOT need another run of the mill production builder!!!!!!!!) I built the deck,cabin and cockpit without a SINGLE drawing!!!!!!!!!!!! The cabin was done by "owner" and interior was in sketch form........... "designer" did in fact draw the mast and blades......Given this thing was meant to race ,I built that racing cockpit. I was SOO embarrased and ashamed of that horrible cabin and absolute confused purpose I had to remove myself from the equation. I greed to complete the tooling but not one step beyond. I built the boat over a hard plug, inside laminate, core, outside laminate and fairing. This lead to the smooth interior of hull #1, no need for heavy liners etc.( I HATE liners) Hull #1 was rolled over interior structure and structural furniture etc. 
THEN (this is where Jack hit the nail on the head) "Owner" and "designer decide they want to become a boatbuilding company. NOT ME , I wanted NO part of the direction this group was headed. I rolled the boat back over, hired several people and formed Cape Fear Yachtworks. The project was completed by Peter Ross Yachts while allowing CFY to use my accounts to establish themselves(DUMB DUMB MOVE.)
After purchasing a chopper gun the tooling started and in 10 days two molds were done and so was I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is a perfect example of a barstool sailor with too much money to burn, gets the bug to better his barstool buddies. Oh and a note on the need for his head room based on his size.........what good does headroom do if you are sick in your bunk day in and day out..........
That poor confused boat........it really is a mess and would have been fantastic with 6 inches off the sheer, rid that massive clump of glass cabin, taper a proper rig, correct keel and STOP using vinyester resin backed by epoxy(passed off as an epoxy boat)(oh and I NEVER put a single piece of carbon OR kevlar in #1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Creative marketing YES oh YES indeed VERY "creative" indeed. 
I have waited several years to blurt this for many reasons, mostly to wait til I calmed down a tad.........this IS calmer, also to make certain they were DONE !!!!!!!! I do love building boats and this experience really got my goat , I never saw the "setup" coming("ownwer" and "designer" clearly intended to create a boat co and needed a hothead builder to start and walk away)
Sorry for the rant but this is so much what the industry does not need.... The bit about "sailors building boats for sailors" is a JOKE, not one of them is capable of taking aboat away from the doack alone, not one of them. This shocked me most. I actually drove 800 miles home EVERY weekend just to sail on a real boat with REAL sailors!!!!!!! 
Good Luck Kent and Bruce


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I deleted my post about this boat. If it still exists, would a moderator please repost it here? I deleted the post instead of doing a spelling edit. I think the tone of the rant and some points made in that post should be read, since this thread has been mentioned and linked elsewhere. 
I think it's important to note that the prototype was the boat used to sell, at that time, the incomplete production boats.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Post #23 by PRoss undeleted as requested.


----------

