# Fin keel offshore cruisers



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Jeff H. made the point that ..."Properly engineered and designed, a fin keel can be a better choice for offshore work. Here though is the rub. Few fin keelers in the size and price range that most people are considering are engineered and designed for dedicated offshore cruising."

can anyone give me some examples of such boats in the 35'-38' range that one could get for less than a hundred thousand dollars?

Would the pretorien 35 or the CS36T or the valiant 37 qualify?

Thanks


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

When it's rough, a long way from home, at night, and getting rougher, and the wind is whistling, it's a full keel for me every time, with a keel mounter rudder....none of those skeg things.

Nothing is stronger.

Leave the others to their deep fins and spade rudders.... not for me, my friend.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Its more about the hull design, displacement, and ballast, than it is about the keel type.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You could probably buy a Contessa 32 for that. It is a very solid bluewater fin keel design. It was one of the few boats to survive the Fastnet disaster of 1979. However, it is a bit smaller than you asked... 

Part of the problem is that most fin-keeled bluewater boats, tend to be more expensive than their more common coastal cruising brethren. The Hallberg-Rassy's and Nauticats are also good fin-keeled bluewater boats. You can probably get an older Hallberg Rassy in your budget range.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

bestfriend said:


> Its more about the hull design, displacement, and ballast, than it is about the keel type.


I usually think about keel design as an integral part of the hull design, displacement and ballast question. Its all part of the same thing and you can't have a fin on a hull that would be from a full keel boat and you can't have a full keel on a hull that comes from a fin keel boat.

Both types of keels have been used successfully offshore and it's all a matter of what you grew up with and how you want to sail.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

*No market*



castoff said:


> Jeff H. made the point that ..."Properly engineered and designed, a fin keel can be a better choice for offshore work. .... Few fin keelers in the size and price range that most people are considering are engineered and designed for dedicated offshore cruising."...Would the pretorien 35 or the CS36T or the valiant 37 qualify?
> 
> Thanks


You won't find many if any production boats that are engineered for "dedicated offshore cruising.." as the demand for such a type would be small. The PO of our CS 36T did take the boat offshore cruising for five years, so the boat is capable and suitable of such use, but I would not consider it a design dedicated to such use. It is equally happy coastal cruising or racing around the bouys in the bay...


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Tartan34C said:


> I usually think about keel design as an integral part of the hull design, displacement and ballast question. Its all part of the same thing and you can't have a fin on a hull that would be from a full keel boat and you can't have a full keel on a hull that comes from a fin keel boat.
> 
> Both types of keels have been used successfully offshore and it's all a matter of what you grew up with and how you want to sail.
> All the best,
> Robert Gainer


I agree Robert. I think the point I was so poorly trying to make is you need to take a close look at the shape of the hull etc, and not just the keel design. Its a basic lesson in physics and motion.


----------



## sharkbait (Jun 3, 2003)

1


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I believe that would be Liz Clark, the surfer, who is quite pretty and her website about her travels on Swell is located *here*.


sharkbait said:


> Cal 40's won the Transpac several times.I'd say they are fin keelers doing offshore work quite well.I've also been reading in Latitude 38 about a young lady cruising the pacific coast in a Cal 40


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

What some of us overlook is that on a really long haul, you won't want to go to weather for long. 

It is terribly wet, exhausts the crew and beats the heck out of the boat.... like a single wave impact cost me about $3000 to fix... I mean it.

Few of will do that for long, so long haul sailors don't often try to make use of high-pointing keels as the ship gets beaten senseless anyway.

Off Grand Banks once, a stiff easterly over the Gulf Stream and having to go east to get home was bloody awful and we had to rest the crew it was so bad. My boat absolutely hated it and the bow was slowly weakening, the toilet doors would not close, and gaps were opening up in the internal finishings. It's very hard on the boat, and she is a lady after all.

It's quite one thing to have to go to weather, but I am not the type of masochist to buy a ship that will go to weather better in heavy seas as going to weather is so bloody awful anyway. It's different in club racing, certainly, but very different in deep water.

But, off the quarter, the long keel will excel and it needs a big sea to get the rudder to feel vague.

I am a long keel devotee, and even better with a double-ender....they are where it's at for me.

To each his own.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Rockter said:


> What some of us overlook is that on a really long haul, you won't want to go to weather for long.
> 
> **************Snip*****************
> 
> ...


Sometimes you don't have a choice and you need to claw off a lee shore. It sounds like your boat wouldn't be up to the task if times got bad and you had to work to windward in extreme conditions. That would make me very uneasy and I would be looking for a different boat instead of taking chances and hoping for a passage that only had good weather.

Just because a boat sails well to windward doesn't mean she doesn't sail well downwind. The Cal 40 for instance sails like a rocket downwind and does very well to weather. Why not have the best of both worlds instead of just bouncing around with a heavy double-ended that takes a beating from the weather without making progress. As you say, to each his own and in my case a moderate approach with a cut away forefoot and a separate rudder on a skeg is better then an the extreme example represented by a heavy full keel double-ended that drags half the ocean after her while running from a storm.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sharkbait & Robert...the post I made the other day about sea kindly motion in an offshore yacht was taken directly from LIZ CLARKS latest website entry and about her CAL40. 
Apparently she feels quite differently about the Cal40 after getting pounded while trying to make progress to windward in 15-25 knots in the ocean. So...while the boat may be quite well built and quite capable of making great sea mileage and pointing high to weather...it apparently is not much fun to be on while it is pointing so nicely! 
Like Robert...I like moderate fin keels and nicely protected skeg rudders but a seakindly design involves the entire hull and sailplan.


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

IMy wife and I would like to spend two seasons on Lake Ontario getting used to our new boat, which we don't have yet, and then sail south. If all goes well we would like then to sail to the Med. 

We have a budget of $100K to buy and prepare our boat. I do not want a boat with a cored hull. I need 6' + headroom. 6'+ berth length. I'm thinking in the 36'-37' range. I dont want a teak deck. 

My feeling is that we don't need a full keel because the crossings will not make up a large percentage of our cruising schedule. I am favoring a fin keel or a modified full keel.

Can I do any better than a Valiant 37?


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> Sharkbait & Robert...the post I made the other day about sea kindly motion in an offshore yacht was taken directly from LIZ CLARKS latest website entry and about her CAL40.
> Apparently she feels quite differently about the Cal40 after getting pounded while trying to make progress to windward in 15-25 knots in the ocean. So...while the boat may be quite well built and quite capable of making great sea mileage and pointing high to weather...it apparently is not much fun to be on while it is pointing so nicely!
> Like Robert...I like moderate fin keels and nicely protected skeg rudders but a seakindly design involves the entire hull and sailplan.


Yes, I agree that bashing to windward is uncomfortable in a Cal 40 and in fact I think it's uncomfortable in any boat but it's necessary sometimes. More then that I think it's important to have a boat that can go to windward when necessary because getting set onto a lee shore can be a life threatening experience at times.

What I find interesting is the number of people that support full keels and or double-enders because of the romantic appeal and history instead of real experience offshore. I know there are well designed and well built examples but so far my personal experience with the type has been bad so I am not in a rush to promote the type. Like a lot of things to do with boats you are trapped within your own background and experience and can only judge a boats qualities by your own yardstick. To put it into the language of the internet, your mileage may vary and all opinions expressed are those of the author and may not represent universal truth.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> We have a budget of $100K to buy and prepare our boat.





> Can I do any better than a Valiant 37?


I think you are going to find it dificult to buy a Valiant 37 in decent shape and equip it to sail offshore safely on this budget. Could happen that you'll find one under 100K, but refit is expensive.


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Sailormann, it may well be that the Valiant is just outside our price range. Are there any other fin keel boats that I should consider?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

If I wanted to go cruising offshore and I had a budget of 100K, I would look for an Alberg 37 with a hull and mast that were in decent to good shape. It should be possible to get this for 50K. I would spend the other 50K refitting her.

If I couldn't find an Alberg, I would look for a Bayfield 36 or a Cape Dory 36. I would not get a boat that did not have a fair curve to her bilge and a nice fine entry to her bow. I would not get a boat with a spade rudder. The shape of the keel is less important that making sure that the bottom of the boat is not flat, anywhere, at all.

I would not expect to find a boat that was safe and comfortable, that was also a speedster.

Look for Sparkman and Stephens designs, Carl Alberg designs, maybe Ted Brewer or Lyle Hess designs. There is no real science to it. If the boat looks like a big comfy tub, then it is going to sail like one. Conversely, if the boat looks like a pared down stilletto that wil slice along the top of the water, it's going to do just that. If you are going to be out in the middle of the ocean for a couple of weeks at a time - you want a big, comfy tub.

You need to be able to carry lots and lots of stuff with you, so get something that makes a big enough hole in the water to let you do so. Don't get something that is long and lean and shallow.


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks Sailormann.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

A Nicholson 35 might also be a good choice.  

However, I'm partial to the list Sailormann has posted.. Lyle Hess, Carl Alberg, Ted Brewer and S&S all made beautiful monohulls that were capable of going pretty much anywhere.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

I wonder what Liz's experience in the open ocean had been before this. She may not have much, and the Cal40 may not be that bad, just bad to her. She commented about having to eat out of cans and not changing her shirt for days like it really bothered her or that it was a first for her. I have suffered through much worse, not sailing mind you, but on other adventures, and I enjoyed it. I don't think anyone really enjoys being below in mixed seas going to weather, its just not fun.

How much offshore do you plan to do? Will it be island to island across the pond around the horn type of thing, or the once every three years to the Bahamas type of thing?


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Oh Tartan, yous is wrong my friend. Yous is wrong.

You will not want to go to weather in deep ocean. I trust you have tried it? Beware of doing it in a Tartan too, from what I hear recently of them. Oh man.

As for the lee shore argument, well, lee shores normally have one overwhelming advantage over deep ocean... you can make use of, and take heed of, a weather forecast. It's normally a coastal problem, a shore that is.

And deep ocean... well, you have to take what you get, and you hope for favourable wind direction, first, then strength of wind second.

The old ship, a Union 36, took me from Houston Tx, to Cork Ireland and faced some rough stuff.

We all speak in defence of a ship that has served us well, but I hope, when you speak disparagingly of heavy double enders, that you have seen them at their best. The long keel does drag a fair bit, but it is designed to... you need that drag often. Not in light airs... most 36 ft ships leave me standing.... but you do need the weight, and the drag, in the big seas.

We are going to have to agree to differ, as this argument is oft' discussed. I have sailed on performance ships though, and long hours on my own double ender. The performance ship will leave me standing in competition, and I respect them, but I say, with a smile, "you wait for the big seas, and the long haul, we will do allright then".

Fair winds to you there Tartan.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Rockter said,
“Oh Tartan, yous is wrong my friend. Yous is wrong.”

I prefer to think that I just have a different opinion then you do. If it’s a question of one being right then the other must be wrong and it isn’t as clear cut as that.

Rockter then says,
“You will not want to go to weather in deep ocean. I trust you have tried it? Beware of doing it in a Tartan too, from what I hear recently of them. Oh man.”

Yes, I have gone to weather “in the deep ocean” and done it more then once in boats ranging from a 22 footer on my first sole trans-Atlantic to a 100 ton West Country Ketch serving as the Sailing Master on a trip fro England to Brazil. As far as sailing in a Tartan 34C goes I have found that each model and year from a given manufacturer may vary and you can’t say a boat built in 1972 is bad just because a boat from the same builder in 2007 is bad.

Rockter then continues and says,
“As for the lee shore argument, well, lee shores normally have one overwhelming advantage over deep ocean... you can make use of, and take heed of, a weather forecast. It's normally a coastal problem, a shore that is.”

I don’t think a lee shore ever has anything to recommend it compared to the safety of being well offshore. And it definitely isn’t just a coastal sailing problem. With only one exception all of my crossings have both started and ended along the shore. Since sailing began a lee shore has been a problem and many a ship has been lost because of the Masters arrogance, ignorance or just plan bad luck. Even today a lee shore is to be avoided and especially during times of poor visibility and bad weather. It’s usually a better plan to heave-to offshore if that option is available to you rather then close with a coast when conditions aren’t favorable.

And then Rockter adds this thought,
“And deep ocean... well, you have to take what you get, and you hope for favourable wind direction, first, then strength of wind second.”

You take what you get but if the route and time is selected carefully you have a better chance of favorable conditions. But you will get caught out if you spend enough time offshore so select a boat that will survive the worst even if the worst only lasts 3 days in your entire career offshore. If you chose poorly then you will surely be dead forever even if the boat was suitable for 99% of your time offshore. It’s a mistake to select a boat and say that because I will only spend a short time crossing oceans and most of my time coastal I can pick a good coastal boat and cross only when the weather looks good.

Now Rockter says,
“The old ship, a Union 36, took me from Houston Tx, to Cork Ireland and faced some rough stuff.”

The ocean has been crossed by both suitable and unsuitable boats. Sometime you get lucky and make it with a poorly built boat and sometime you get unlucky and don’t make it in the best built boat. I think the opinion of someone that has experience with both types of boats is worth more then the person who has limited experience with nothing to compare to even if that person has crossed an ocean once. 

Rockter starts to wind it up by saying,
“We all speak in defence of a ship that has served us well, but I hope, when you speak disparagingly of heavy double enders, that you have seen them at their best. The long keel does drag a fair bit, but it is designed to... you need that drag often. Not in light airs... most 36 ft ships leave me standing.... but you do need the weight, and the drag, in the big seas.”

I have seen the double-ender at their best and worst. Some are better then others and I would go to sea in some but not many. For the most part they are not very good and in addition to being slow drag the ocean with them and scare me when running in big seas. A winter gale in the North Atlantic is not the place to be in romantic Hollywood version of the Colin Archer style of boat. A strong honest boat is what you need and that can be found in both a full keel and a fin keel version if you pick the right boat.

Rockter does wind it up by saying,
“We are going to have to agree to differ, as this argument is oft' discussed. I have sailed on performance ships though, and long hours on my own double ender. The performance ship will leave me standing in competition, and I respect them, but I say, with a smile, "you wait for the big seas, and the long haul, we will do allright then.

Fair winds to you there Tartan.”

You describe lots of damage to your boat from just one wave. I have seen first hand what winds greater then 90 knots will do and when the seas are higher then you mast (45 feet) I don’t think you want to be out in a boat that received significant damage from just one wave.
May the wind be always at your back and all the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Your tone is slipping there Tartan. The quotes are accurate enough, but the interpretation has Tartan34 written all over it.

It's good you've never been out in a ship that's been damaged by a rogue wave. You didn't see the wave. I could see right through it, you know, one of the tall silent ones you can look right through, before the smash and the crack and the cry to check below.

I would go back to deep water in the old ship, but further discussion of keels, the likes and dislikes, is getting nowhere here.

Perhaps it's best to look up why anyone ever used a long keel... they have been around a while.... and cast into the glass, they are not too bad. The double-ender concept preceeded us, andI reckon the double ender concept will survive us both.


Hey, tell me about your 90 kt experience. Was it in the Tartan34?


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

So, Rockter and Tartan 34C, can you suggest a boat that might fit my criteria. Sailormann suggested the Alberg 37, Bayfield 36 and Cape Dory 36. How do you feel about those boats?


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

The boat for you is the SouthernCross 35. It has a modified full keel with a skeg hung rudder. They are beautiful boats but there are only 2 for sale on yachtworld right now! It can handle anything you want to go through. The one in Falmouth has been for sale for a while so you could probably get it in the md 50's then spend the rest of your money outfitting it. Then there's the 39.....


----------



## southerncross31 (Sep 16, 2006)

If you imagine a fin keel boat, looking straight at the bow.....the hull of the boat will have a gentle curve to it...a U shape. The hull of most full keel boats will have more of a V shape to them. When beating into the wind, pounding over waves and crashing down into the water the fin keel hull will tend to pound as it drops into the water, sometimes causing the hull to shudder. This is what causes seasickness in most people. A well designed full keel will plow through the waves more and when it drops off of one it doesn't pound or shudder, it is a much more fluid feeling. This is counteracted though, in the opposite direction, heading downwind, when the excess weight near the ends of the boat cause it to hobbyhorse and rock back and forth more (as i was yesterday with a seasick wife and daughter in the lovely short steep chop of Buzzards Bay  ). Some people are better off with the pounding and some deal with rolling better (i have yet to get seasick)...like everything in sailing it comes down to personal taste. Well designed full keel boats are less likely to be damaged from grounding, they usually draw 1-2 feet less per size of the boat, they are slower and can't point as high into the wind (although i can do VERY well with my SC). You are less likely to suffer prop damage, or snag a line, and i would much rather run into a container or log with my full keel. My favorite part of a full keel/ cutter rig though is setting/balancing all 3 sails and walking away from the tiller......if properly tuned they will sail themselves!


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

His criterion is FIN keel. Why can't people just respond to his question. 
Here's one...PEARSON 38


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cam-

The Nicholson 35 is a fin keel with skeg mounted rudder. Probably a bit nicer at sea than the Pearson, though probably not as roomy. The P38 has a motion index of 25.7, the N35 one of 36.1.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Rockter ,
Let me back up a step and say something that was inadvertently left out. I consider your boat to have a canoe stern instead of being a true double ender such as the Westsail 32. Bob Perry designed your boat (the Hans Christian 36, Mariner Polaris 36, and the Union 36 are all the same boat but from different builders) and he has had great success with the type and I have enjoyed sailing on some of his boats. A lot of my comments are directed to double-enders and not towards your boat. I do however wonder about the quality of construction of your boat. A lot of the yards were fast and loose with the details and the quality of the finished boats varied quite a bit from boat to boat. We won’t agree on a lot of things because our basic sailing style is so different but that’s OK.

Rockter said,
“Perhaps it's best to look up why anyone ever used a long keel... they have been around a while.... and cast into the glass, they are not too bad. The double-ender concept preceeded us, andI reckon the double ender concept will survive us both.”

You want to look back and see how things became the way they are? The fin keel was on invention of Nathanael Greene Herreshoff in 1891 and was first used on Dilemma. The keel had changed very little over the proceeding 400 years and the fin was more revolutionary then evolutionary. 

The full keel in a boat like a Redningsselskapet, or sailing lifeboat, designed by Colin Archer and made famous to us by William Atkin with his 32 foot copy of the Redningsselskapet which he called Eric had a shape that was dictated by how wood could be bent over molds. Colin Archer studied the design of the hull and understood how the water flowed so his boats worked unlike some modern copies but the bending of the planks had a lot to do with the final shape. Fiberglass permitted the fat rounded shape that came later in the form of the Westsail and others of that style. The type’s popularity was further cemented by the success of boats like Robin Knox-Johnston's Suhaili. The full keel had been used for a long time before Archer but he created the keel we know today as a full keel double ender so the shape has only been around for less then 150 years and only took off less then 80 years ago when Atkin designed Eric. 

The fin didn’t get popular until Bill Lapworth started designing wining boats such as the Cal 40 in 1963. The idea of a fin didn’t work well in wooden boatbuilding so it had to wait until fiberglass came along and someone like Lapworth blended the old idea of Herreshoff with the new building material fiberglass.

But you are right and old ideas hang around a long time. You can still ride in a buggy behind a horse but the car is the way to go today. You have a profile that dates back to the 1850’s and I have a profile that dates back to the CCA days of the 1960’s. Each profile and keel shape works so who’s right? Different ships different long splices is all I have to say.

Rockter also said,
“Hey, tell me about your 90 kt experience. Was it in the Tartan34?”

The worst weather I have seen was 550 miles east of Porto Rico during Hurricane Gloria with 90 Knots wind speed and 45 foot (or better, its hard to tell) waves in October of 1976. I owned an Allied built Chance 30/30 at the time. It was a great boat to sail but had a few problems offshore if you get into very bad weather. Admittedly you wouldn’t make it a habit to sail in a hurricane but it gives you a very good idea of what a boat is capable of in cruising. To the north of me was the 590 foot 15,028 ton Sylvia L Ossa with a crew of 37. She sank with a loss of all hands sometime between the 13 to the 15 of October. 
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

southerncross31 said:


> The boat for you is the SouthernCross 35. It has a modified full keel with a skeg hung rudder. They are beautiful boats but there are only 2 for sale on yachtworld right now! It can handle anything you want to go through. The one in Falmouth has been for sale for a while so you could probably get it in the md 50's then spend the rest of your money outfitting it. Then there's the 39.....


Southern Cross 35, a Thomas Gillmer designed boat and a very nice able one at that.
All the best,
Robert Gainer.


----------



## sevseasail (Jan 15, 2007)

*question not sugestion*

How about Dickerson 37?
Would this fit Castoff's criteria?


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

castoff said:


> So, Rockter and Tartan 34C, can you suggest a boat that might fit my criteria. Sailormann suggested the Alberg 37, Bayfield 36 and Cape Dory 36. How do you feel about those boats?


Castoff,
This thread started out with your search for a fin keel boat to take offshore. I am not as comfortable offshore in a boat like that nowadays and have nothing to recommend. There are a lot of boats that are strong enough but the physical comfort is lacking and I won't put up with the type of things now that I found acceptable forty years ago. And I am not as familiar with the newer boats as I am with the ones I grew up with so I can't say too much about the current crop of boats.

But when you ask about the Alberg 37, Bayfield 36 and Cape Dory 36 I do have an opinion. I like the Alberg 37 but the other two have shortcomings that kill it for me. Keep in mind that this is very much an opinion and everybody will have different likes and dislikes. You need to listen to everything and blend everything together and pick a boat that works with your style of sailing and your own sense of what's beautiful.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Tartan 34C
You said:
"It’s a mistake to select a boat and say that because I will only spend a short time crossing oceans and most of my time coastal I can pick a good coastal boat and cross only when the weather looks good."

That is exactly what I was saying. If I were to rethink the fin keel would the cut-away full keel be a good compromise, and if so could I do any better than the Alberg 37?

Thanks again.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Have you looked at the Nicholson 35? The Hallberg Rassy's are also good choices.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Robert...*the other two have shortcomings that kill it for me.*
..the CD36 or its more recent incarnation as a RobinHood has always been one of my favorite smaller bluewater boats. It could be that I am merely wearing rose colored glasses due to the beauty of the design...so tell me what you don't like about them.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

castoff said:


> If I were to rethink the fin keel would the cut-away full keel be a good compromise, and if so could I do any better than the Alberg 37?


Yes, a cut-away forefoot is a nice way to go and you can do better then an Alberg 37. The Alberg is an older boat with less space then some more modern boats because she is narrow compared to others. Also she draws a lot of water which is why I don't own one. I needed shoal draft for my next trip so I bought a Tartan 34C which is an offshore capable centerboard boat.

There are a lot of different boats and that means a lot of combinations of length, beam, draft and different styles of both the interior and hull form. When I am shopping for a boat I use the system L. Francis Herreshoff suggested with a bit of modernization. It's a point system with each characteristic getting a plus or mines depending or how it adds or detracts to the overall package. He describes it in one of his books, The Common Sense of Yacht Design. It's a good way to think about boat selection because there are so many variables.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> Robert...*the other two have shortcomings that kill it for me.*
> ..the CD36 or its more recent incarnation as a RobinHood has always been one of my favorite smaller bluewater boats. It could be that I am merely wearing rose colored glasses due to the beauty of the design...so tell me what you don't like about them.


Cam,
She is beautiful isn't she. I don't know about the Robin Hood version so my comments are only about the early Cape Dory 36. And this is without looking at notes so it's a quick incomplete overview.

The chainplates in the early production boats were bronze pads bolted to STEEL angle iron pieces imbedded into the hull deck joint. I never liked the idea of only two bolts in tension holding the shrouds but using steel is unforgivable in this application.

The rudder was made of a lot of separate components with no connection between the heel and the rudder shaft. Also the parts underwater that made up the rudder assembly were a collection of mixed metals such as a stainless shaft with bronze casting for the heel etc. The mix was somewhat odd.

The spreader base was a casting that looked too light given the job it had to do and it was rigid so any movement of the spreader would crack the casting instead of swinging or even bending if it was the more common weldment. The boat didn't have running backstays but instead had some drift to the aft lower for the inner headstay.

She had more draft and less beam then I wanted to see but that's mostly nitpicking and the numbers weren't all that unusual for a CCA boat at the time. But she is not a fast boat and given the amount of sail area that was a problem for me. I think she was heavier then Alberg intended and the sail plan wasn't as efficient as a cutter so she would have been better rigged as a sloop without the short bowsprit. And I don't like short bowsprits. If you want a bowsprite make it long enough to be real instead of just a way to copy a style from someone else.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Well, Perry didn't design the Union 36... he told me by e-mail (now on word of honour that one!), but the rest made good reading. 

I have always defended the long keel, probably because I have one and it's worked for me and because I really do not like deep fin ships apart from when having to point in light to moderate airs. The long keel is, to me, inherently stronger,and the ship does not slam so much with that big V section coming down.

I still maintain that beating to weather in a big sea is an awful place, and no-one wants to do it, the right side of sanity. Being able to point higher in it seemed to be worse somehow.

The Tiawanese boats have build shortcomings, some of them dreadful... I am the first to complain about that, and loudly. I spent a whole winter fixing a stainless water tank welded with steel rods (can you imagine!!!!), but the keel design is not a fault, per se. Even Tartan are in the news for what seems a dreadful shortfall. Not as frequently as the Tiawanese ships perhaps, but they are not error free.

To each his own. There is not a perfect ship.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Rockter said:


> Well, Perry didn't design the Union 36... he told me by e-mail (now on word of honour that one!), but the rest made good reading.


This is a copy of something I received from a friend and I take it at face value. It is an e-mail to a Website owner, Terry Bingham, to include in his web page about his boats history. I haven't talked to Bob Perry or Terry Bingham about any of this so I don't have firsthand knowledge either way but this sounds convincing to me.

A message from Bob Perry:

"I'll just tell you the story and let you pass it on. I've only met one 36 owner who actually had the story right. (I questioned him at the dock without telling him who I was!) Before I designed the Valiant 40 I designed the Hans Christian 54. HC battled with the yard and that boat became the CT 54 and over 100 were built. Shortly after that project began, I was asked by HC to design a 34'er. I did. Time went by and I heard nothing of my 34'er but I was getting consistent reports of a Robert Perry "36'er" being built in Taiwan.

Finally, I called HC in Taiwan and asked what was going on. They told me they used my drawings for the 34'er and expanded them into a 36'er. I said great and told them I was looking forward to the double royalties. HC informed me that I would not be getting any royalties on the 36'er. (At the time (1973) I was working for another designer and bringing home $173 a week. I said, fine screw me over, but I'll be back. I came back with the Tayana 37 design aimed directly at the HC 36 and I think you know how many TY 37's they built, over 600! I had my revenge.

Meanwhile, as usual, HC (actually a Long Beach shop teacher named John Edwards) had his typical war with the yard and he lost control of the HC 36 project. The yard (Union Yacht Co) went on to continue building the boat but they marketed it under whatever name the individual broker wanted so that's why you find the same boat with so many names. It's all the same boat. They even tried to pay me royalties in order to get me to lay claim to the design, but it wasn't true so I told them they could say "based on a hull design by RHP." My arrangement with the yard did not work as they did not want me to tell the correct story. I remained friends with the yard, Bengt Ni was the yard owner, but we never did business together. His son Eric marketed the boats in San Francisco for some time and continued to connect my name to the boat and even paid a few royalties.

So there you have it:

Hans Christian 36
Mariner Polaris 36
Union 36
EO 36
All the same boat.

Mao Ta 36 is a variation on the same hull but built by a different yard. I know this boat well. I made a point to get acquainted with it when my name began to be connected with it. It's a very good boat and in every way very similar to most of my early double enders. It's a bastard child of mine and I will continue to feel like the father.

Bob"

As I said I don't have firsthand knowledge of this snippets origin so I allow for mistakes in this matter.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## Freesail99 (Feb 13, 2006)

Great factual email, Robert, Thanks for sharing.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Robert...thanks for the additional info on the CD36!! You might be interested in seeing what a new one looks like...Robin Hood Marine in Maine has been custom building them in 36 and 40' for some time now but understandably they are not cheap! 
http://robinhoodmarinecenter.com/aaa/robinhood36.html


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Tartan....

Ah yes, I have seen that script.

BUT my olde deck leaks were troubling me, and I e-mailed Robert Perry the Brave for advice, and he e-mail told me he did not design the Union 36 and to take boat to boatyard instead.

So ancient Chinese proverb say... "Ask only he what who design boat directly before saying boat designer is this or that. Use e-mail if you want. Then you can read it again and again if someone say anything else".


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

"Silver"]Jeff H. made the point that ..."Properly engineered and designed, a fin keel can be a better choice for offshore work. Here though is the rub. Few fin keelers in the size and price range that most people are considering are engineered and designed for dedicated offshore cruising."

can anyone give me some examples of such boats in the 35'-38' range that one could get for less than a hundred thousand dollars?

Would the pretorien 35 or the CS36T or the valiant 37 qualify?

so, my original question has produced the following list of boats to consider:
Cal 40, Cape Dory 36, Bayfield 36, Alberg 37, Nicholson 35, Pearson 38. ( I believe the Southern Cross 35 has a cored hull so does not meet my criteria)
And *no* comments on the three boats that I mentioned.

Any further thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## Capstan (Apr 30, 2004)

*Island Packet*

You can get a nice IP 32 and sometimes an IP35 for under $100K. These are "full keel" but they are foil shaped and carry to windward fairly well. They have large spade rudders hung well aft of the Keel deadwood and are very agile in tight spaces as well as needing very little autohelm corrections to make course adjustments.

All older boats have issues and IP is no exception but the factory is still in business and they still support older models with gear and advice. I recently bought a Rudder Bearing for a 1991 IP 35 from them- they had it in stock. Actually they are very nice people to deal with. The boat was probably never intended as a pure "Blue Water" vessel but I know of several 35's that have made impressive voyages (including one eastward circumnavigation aound the southern oceans and a round trip Brazil to Portugal- Andre Homen de Mello of Sao Paulo Brazil). I own an IP-35 and am prepping it for a New York- Bermuda- St' Thomas trip in 2009.


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks Capstan, i'll take a look.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Castoff...the CD36 has a cutaway full keel as does the Bayield as does the Alberg so all of those violate your parameters.
The Nicholson fits and has an encapsulated fin keel and if I remember correctly you don't like those. You are correct about the Southern Cross and a fully cored hull. 
The Valiant fits. The CS fits but I consider it more of a well built racer/cruiser than a comfortable bluewater cruiser (also check the draft), The Praetorian fits based on what I can find...but seems to use an old Volvo sail drive which is a killer for me. Tankage is weak too. 

So...it looks to me like Valiant, Pearson, and maybe the Nicholson, CS and pretorian are candidates depending on how you feel about my comments on them. You might also take a look at some really old Hinckleys.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Castoff,

I would add the Pacific Seacraft Crealock 34 and 37 to your list. They are canoe sterned, with cruising fins and skeg-hung rudders. Older examples of the 37 (20-25 years old) can be had in your price range, as well as somewhat newer examples of the 34 (15-20 years old). They have solid hulls (except in very rare instances beginning around 1992, when a balsa cored hull was available as an option that very few owners chose), and beginning around '89/'90, the outer skin of the FRP lay-up was completed with vinylester resin for improved blister resistance. These are strong, seakindly hulls, worth a look. Good luck with your search.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

Rockter said:


> Tartan....
> 
> Ah yes, I have seen that script.
> 
> ...


I did ask Bob Perry and this is his response in an e-mail this morning.

"Robert:
The Union 36 was never my design. I have always been associated with that design but it did not originate in my office. Unless you can draw a direct line from the work I did on the HC 34 to the HC 36 to the Union 36.

Get the book. It tells all.
Bob Perry"

The "book" is something that he mentioned in an earlier e-mail. At this point it looks like some of his work was appropriated by Union and changed to create the Union 36. He feels he isn't the designer so that's that. He has the last word.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

PS
I sent a copy of what I posted on this site to Bob after Bob Perry said in an e-mail this morning that he didn't design the boat and he responded by saying "That excerpt is pretty much right on." So it does look like the design is a derivative work.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Thanks Cam./John.
I will read on. 

Kindest regards.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

I'm puzzled by those who would only consider a full-keeled boat for offshore use. Nautor's Swan, for example, has been making off-shore capable boats with fin keels (many of them S&S designed) for many years that sail with a beautiful motion and are stiff and fast. I understand going with the full keeled boat because there are more of them available in a reasonable price range. But to go for the full-keeled boat merely because it has a full keel seems more than a bit rigid to me.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> I'm puzzled by those who would only consider a full-keeled boat for offshore use. Nautor's Swan, for example, has been making off-shore capable boats with fin keels (many of them S&S designed) for many years that sail with a beautiful motion and are stiff and fast. I understand going with the full keeled boat because there are more of them available in a reasonable price range. But to go for the full-keeled boat merely because it has a full keel seems more than a bit rigid to me.


Isn't this like shopping for a pickup truck? If that's what you want then you don't look at motorcycles do you. I think the real question is why do you prefer a full keel boat. Of course I like a boat with a cutaway forefoot and separate skeg hung rudder so I am not the one to answer the question.
All the best,
Robert Gainer
Program Director
Hudson Fisheries Trust
www.fisheriestrust.org


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Good question CB. I think with so many boats available, folks look for things that are important to them to help narrow the choices. One would hope they would have some experience in this valuation rather than simply reading someone else's opinions. (i.e...have been in open water at the helm of a full keeler and fin keeler, have docked them etc. ) 
My own criteria was center cockpit, ICW compatible, blue water build quality and tankage, protected rudder (either via skeg or keel) and 47+ feet and within our budget AFTER outfitting properly for cruising. Took 1.5 years of looking to find her, but sticking to our criteria helped insure our happiness. I can certainly understand people having things they really want that are different than what we wanted. (Still don't understand why someone would want a trimaran wink wink!) So if someone has tried full keelers and likes them best...who are we to judge. There's + & - to EVERY keel type.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

For a given length a full keeled vessel will carry more weight/stores fuel and water than an equivalent fin keeled, due to the greater displacement. So if this is a given that could by why a full keeled boat is considered a better cruising vessel to cover greater distances and cross oceans.


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

a full keeled boat will not point as high as a fin keel, true; but if you were caught on a lee shore even a full keeler could sail off and any way you if you were that worried you would kick the noise maker in the guts and power off.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

SimonV-

This isn't always true... many full-keeled designs are much narrower than fin-keeled designs of the same LOA, and as such have a much smaller water plane and a much lower PPI number. For instance: compare an Alberg 37 with a Hallberg Rassy 36. The A37 has a PPI of 960, where the HR36 has a PPI of 1196, yet the A37 is 36.96' vs. 37.1' for the HR36-a difference of less than three inches. The A37 displaces 16619, and the HR36 16535... yet IMHO, the HR36 is probably the better bluewater cruiser in terms of being able to carry fuel/stores/water.



SimonV said:


> For a given length a full keeled vessel will carry more weight/stores fuel and water than an equivalent fin keeled, due to the greater displacement. So if this is a given that could by why a full keeled boat is considered a better cruising vessel to cover greater distances and cross oceans.


----------



## garymcg (Jun 19, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> The Praetorian fits based on what I can find...but seems to use an old Volvo sail drive which is a killer for me. Tankage is weak too.
> 
> So...it looks to me like Valiant, Pearson, and maybe the Nicholson, CS and pretorian are candidates depending on how you feel about my comments on them. You might also take a look at some really old Hinckleys.


Not all Pretoriens have a saildrive, many have a standard shaft drive. Frankly you would be hard pressed to find a better built 35 footer, it's a proven circumnavigator (Hal Roth sails one) built to Lloyds standards. Read the Practical Sailor review if you have access to it. Tankage is limited but can always be increased. (Full disclosure: I'm biased because I own one.)

The Valiant 37 is not nearly as attractive as it appears in photos for a number of reasons, and I have an email from Bob Perry (we hired him as a consultant when we were boat shopping) stating that the 37 has "too much weather helm for my taste." The CS is nice but has shallow bilges. The Nicholson is a nice boat. You could also probably find and equip a Hallberg Rassy 35 (sloop not ketch) for 100k.

My $.002


----------



## Rockter (Sep 11, 2006)

Here is a good article on keels.

I liked reading it... my own "modified full" gets a reasonable write-up....

http://www.boatus.com/goodoldboat/keeldesign.asp


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> SimonV-
> 
> This isn't always true... many full-keeled designs are much narrower than fin-keeled designs of the same LOA, and as such have a much smaller water plane and a much lower PPI number. For instance: compare an Alberg 37 with a Hallberg Rassy 36. The A37 has a PPI of 960, where the HR36 has a PPI of 1196, yet the A37 is 36.96' vs. 37.1' for the HR36-a difference of less than three inches. The A37 displaces 16619, and the HR36 16535... yet IMHO, the HR36 is probably the better bluewater cruiser in terms of being able to carry fuel/stores/water.


SD
I should have used the term "Generally" at the start of my observation.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL... most generalizations have serious problems with them. 


SimonV said:


> SD
> I should have used the term "Generally" at the start of my observation.


----------



## castoff (Jan 19, 2007)

Was just wondering if Jeff H. had any comments on the subject as the thread developed from one of his observations?


----------

