# westsail 32



## sdwyer (Jun 20, 2002)

Thought on westsail 32 would be appreciated. I like the sailing charecteristics and the offshore work capabilities it has. The boat will be used for full time ocean voyaging. Thought and comments will be much appreciated. Thank you


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

One thing that you can say about the Westsail 32’s, they are not all that easy to discuss in an objective way. They have a strong following amongst those that love them and they are the butt of jokes by people who don’t. There is so much hyperbole and derision surrounding these boats that it is hard to really tell where the truth starts and the emotion ends. Here’s how I see them.......

To begin to understand the Westsails you need to look at where they came from. In a general sense, the Westsail 32 pretty closely based on the Atkin’s designed ‘Eric’. The ‘Eric’s’ were a 1930’s era design. They were heavily
constructed as wooden boats with gaff rigs. Atkins was a master of adapting various burdensome (able to carry large loads) working craft designs, into smaller lighter yacht forms. He was a master of modeling hulls so that these extremely heavy vessels (heavy even for their day) sailed reasonably well as compared to a what you would have expected in that era from a boat of this type. In the case of the ‘Eric’, Atkins based his design on a Colin Archer sailing yacht that was based on the world famous Colin Archer Rescue Boats. The ‘Eric’s’
carried enormous sail plans and really took some skill to sail. To stand up to that enormous sail plan, the ‘Eric’s’ were heavily ballasted with external cast lead ballast. That combination gave them reasonable performance (for a heavy cruiser of their day) in a pretty wide range of conditions.

When the ‘Eric’s’ were adapted to fiberglass there were a number of changes made. To begin with the fiberglass hulls actually weighed more than the wooden hull of the Eric. This was partially because the freeboard was raised and a high bulkhead included as a part of the fiberglass work. They were also not
quite as strong and stiff as the wooden hulled ‘Eric’s’. To help the boats float on their lines, the Westsails had less ballast than the ‘Eric’s’. This made them comparatively tender (when compared to the Erics) and as a result their sail plans were reduced in size dramatically from the ‘Eric’s’.

This ballast and sail plan change had a dramatic affect on the sailing ability
as well. Although the Westsails still carry huge sailplans compared to most 32
footers and/or most boats with their waterline length, they are next to useless as sailboats in winds under 8 or so knots. They are also not as good as the ‘Eric’s’ in heavier conditions either. This is because the Westsails still have equal hull drag through the water to the Erics, and they have greater windage, a higher center of effort in their sail plans. To over come thatr esistance they need to carry essentially the same sail area as the ‘Eric’s’ but since they have comparatively less ballast that means that they end up heeling more.

This ballasting issue is further complicated by the fact that the Westsails had internal ballast (which reduces the volume and height of the ballast) and that many of the home built Westsails had lower density ballast in the form of iron set in concrete, which further raised the center of gravity pretty dramatically. Even further exacerbating this situation is the fact that while many of these boats were factory-built, a lot were sold as kits and some were sold without ballast. The kit built boats varied hugely in terms of ballasting.

They also varied quite widely in terms of layouts down below and the quality of work being done. This variation resulted in a pretty wide range of sailing characteristics and a pretty wide variation in the amount of weight in gear and tankage that the boats can tolerate. They also seem to vary pretty widely in the quality of their equipment and their plumbing and electical systems.

Their sailing abilities are pretty well documented. By any objective standard
they are incredibly slow and do not point very well or sail well dead downwind. They tend to be very rolly and generally when fully equipped, do not like a chop. They were often equipped with Yanmar 2GM''s and 3GM30''s which are just not up to pushing around the weight and high drag of a Westsail.

All of that is somewhat offset by the fact that many Westsails have successfully gone offshore. They have a nearly admirable record as offshore boats and have been used successfully as live aboards by people looking for the biggest 32 footer they could find. 

I find some of this last logis a little bogus. I think that there is a trap in thinking of boats as being sized by length on deck. As I have said here often, it really makes a lot more sense to think of boats by displacement. When you think of the Westsail as a 20,000 lb boat, suddenly the Westsail is a very small boat for a 20,000 boat. It is also not especially seaworthy or comfortable for a boat of that displacement. For a 32 footer, a Westsail''s 20,000 lbs requires a lot of physical energy to handle and frankly makes for a very tiring boat to sail in changeable conditions. When you
think that you pay dockage for the 40 foot length from the tip of the bowsprit to the tip of the boomkin, then you are also paying a lot of slip costs for a very small boat. At least that is how I look at these things.

When you talk about sailing ability, it has been argued that few Westsails have ever had
properly cut sails and that contributes to their poor reputation. That may be true but their high wetted surface and low aspect ratio rigs can never be made as efficient as a more modern rig (even when compared to a boat with the minor rig and hull shape improvements like the Tayana 37).

Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

Jeff, what happened to Bill Crealock in your account of the design evolution of the W32? Seems like he deserves at least a ''mention'' since he''s credited with the design, no matter how many iterations proceeded him.<g>

I can''t think of a popular boat more deserving of the ''displacement'' viewpoint, rather than Length on Deck. As I''ve said before, when I side-tie to our friend''s W32 we almost match up like twins: mast height, LOA, beam, displacement, draft all very similar, yet our boat is about twice the size & functionality inside and much faster despite being tubby.

For those surprised by Jeff''s comment that the critical dimension is displacement, think about the commonly accepted boat-comparison measurements (SA/D ratio, B/D ratio, etc.) - what prime measurement do they all use? It surely isn''t LOA or LOD.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have never been completely certain about the Crealock connection. Depending on whose version you believe Crealock supposedly redrew Atkin''s lines using Atkin''s offsets and then raised the sheer, reworked the rig and ballasting and developed the original Westsail interior. Some versions mention Paul Johnson as well. So I am sure where he really fits in. 

To me it''s a little like a Lawley dinghy I helped to build some years ago. The owner wanted the boat to row better in a chop than the original 9''6" (I believe) foot Lawley. So I added several inches between each station and rolled the bow outboard to deflect spray a bit. The completed boat was nearly 11 feet. long and had a more graceful stem than the nearly plumb bow of the original Lawley. I also designed a Sliding Gunther rig for her. Yet, we always referred to her as the Lawley Dinghy because I did not design her if you see what I mean. 

Jeff


----------



## Nereus32 (Jun 23, 2002)

Hi Jeff_H

I''m not sure where you get your facts from, but I have never heard of a Westsail with concrete and steel ballast. Ballasts, whether all lead or lead and steel, were fiberglassed in place.

Also, Westsails came with three engine options, the Volvo MD2B (which is too small), Volvo MD3B (plenty adequate), or Perkins 4-108 (plenty hefty). 

Crealock was commissioned by Larry Kendal to recreate the boat in fiberglass for cruising in a time when everyone (including Crealock) was building boats for racing. Kendal built 36 beautifly finished and stout boats with flushed decks. After he went under, the molds were purchased and Westsail Corporation began building boats with a new trunk cabin design that we all know of today as the Westsail 32.

Another point worth mentioning is modifications to the sail plan can greatly improve performance, even in lighter air. With a hull speed of just over 7 knots, it doesn''t take as much as one might think to get it up there and maintain it, no matter what the data sheet says. Agreeably, the more wind the better.

It is built like a tank and tough as nails, another fact a safety minded individual might be interested in.

For a boat that everyone likes to point out a worthless, there sure are a lot of people out there who love them. Many have been around the world. I don''t think those circumnavigators would have done it if it was as horrible boat as you make it out to be.

I question whether you have actually sailed one or if you are just interpreting the numbers.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

As I have mentioned before, I had helped a fellow who was building one in the 1970''s. His had concrete and steel ballast. It was poured into the keel stub and was lightly glassed over. He also used conventional exterior plywood throughout the boat and skip tabbed bulkheads in with thickened polyester resins. 

Yes I have sailed on them and have also seen gobs of them underway in a wide range of conditions. I have never seen one doing anything approaching 7 knots.

I don''t believe I ever said they were worthless, just useless as sailboats in light winds. I too agree that a lot of folks really love thier Westsail 32''s. While you are right that many have gone around the world, there has also been a lot of really junky boats that have sailed around the world as well. 

As I started out my post, these are controversial boats. They obviously have thier fans and thier detractors. I am glad that you like yours. Every pot has its lid. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

As a former yachtbuilder, I read with interest the discussion on the Westsail 32. When I was building the Acapulco 40''s I used the same laminator (Crystaliner) as Westsail and therefore had the opportunity to observe their construction. I have to say the fiberglass work was excellent and the boats that were factory finished were good. As to how they sailed, that may be open to interpretation. I must admit I have never been a fan of double enders. The ends are too symetrical and they generally have very slack bilges. I have to agree with a statement Robert Perry made some time ago: "hobby horses belong in the nusery". Yes, I have sailed Westsail 32''s. 

While I have never gone bonkers over fin keel/spade rudder cruising boat designs, I do feel a proper cruising yacht will have pleasant overhangs, ample reserve buoyancy in the ends, good performance to weather and the ability to hold a course downwind. There are, of course, additional attributes such as decent light air performance and the ability to sail somewhat "on her lines". I believe these things are necessary requirements for a safe cruising boat. It is possible to design a low wetted surface, semi-full keel/attached rudder boat that meets this criteria. I used to build them. Your comments are most welcome.

Garry L. Powell


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*crealock and the westsail 32*

Crealock designed the cabin house. Before that, the boats were flush decked (kendall 32)

rich sv jasmine
westsail 32 "Jasmine"


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> One thing that you can say about the Westsail 32's, they are not all that easy to discuss in an objective way. They have a strong following amongst those that love them and they are the butt of jokes by people who don't. There is so much hyperbole and derision surrounding these boats that it is hard to really tell where the truth starts and the emotion ends. Here's how I see them.......
> 
> To begin to understand the Westsails you need to look at where they came from. In a general sense, the Westsail 32 pretty closely based on the Atkin's designed 'Eric'. The 'Eric's' were a 1930's era design. They were heavily
> constructed as wooden boats with gaff rigs. Atkins was a master of adapting various burdensome (able to carry large loads) working craft designs, into smaller lighter yacht forms. He was a master of modeling hulls so that these extremely heavy vessels (heavy even for their day) sailed reasonably well as compared to a what you would have expected in that era from a boat of this type. In the case of the 'Eric', Atkins based his design on a Colin Archer sailing yacht that was based on the world famous Colin Archer Rescue Boats. The 'Eric's'
> ...


Jeff - I have read this cut and pasted rundown on the Westsail 32 by you on many message boards and wondered how you can reconcile what you write about the sailing performance with real world sailing results. Did you own a Westsail at some point?
Thanks for your input.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Jeff_H said:


> As I have mentioned before, I had helped a fellow who was building one in the 1970''s. His had concrete and steel ballast. It was poured into the keel stub and was lightly glassed over. He also used conventional exterior plywood throughout the boat and skip tabbed bulkheads in with thickened polyester resins.
> 
> Yes I have sailed on them and have also seen gobs of them underway in a wide range of conditions. I have never seen one doing anything approaching 7 knots.
> 
> ...


Here is some actual real world information about the light air performance of the W-32. These pictures were taken in Puget sound last month. The pictures show the sail configuration and the apparent wind conditions, as well as the speed of the boat through the water.
Upwind:

















Downwind:


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

With all due respect, Jeff has an incredible base of knowledge and has written eloquently on a number of topics, but also has very strong opinions about particular designs. The argument about the Westsail doesn't differentiate between home built, particially home built, and production models, a la the 'someone put concrete in the keel so they're all bad'. 'IOR rule generated designs are all lousy' is another favorite, and while true for many boats, cannot be applied universally by any means. 

Like any boat, if it works for your budget, fits your 'narrative', you love looking at it in the slip or on the hook, and you find a well constructed well cared for example, you'll be happy whether its a Westsail 32, a Rhodes 19, or a TP 52.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> With all due respect,* Jeff has an incredible base of knowledge and has written eloquently on a number of topics, but also has very strong opinions about particular designs*. The argument about the Westsail doesn't differentiate between home built, particially home built, and production models, a la the 'someone put concrete in the keel so they're all bad'. 'IOR rule generated designs are all lousy' is another favorite, and while true for many boats, cannot be applied universally by any means.
> 
> Like any boat, if it works for your budget, fits your 'narrative', you love looking at it in the slip or on the hook, and you find a well constructed well cared for example, you'll be happy whether its a Westsail 32, a Rhodes 19, or a TP 52.


And that is precisely why the misinformation Jeff has posted has to be corrected. His opinion carries a lot of weight around here and what he has posted about the W32's sailing characteristics is just plain wrong.
And this W32 was home built.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> Here is some actual real world information about the light air performance of the W-32. These pictures were taken in Puget sound last month. The pictures show the sail configuration and the apparent wind conditions, as well as the speed of the boat through the water.


Yikes, you can try to beat the drum for reasons to like these vessels, but sailing performance certainly is not the road to take with any credibility. To reference an independent authority, PHRFNE PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps rates the W32 at 222, classing it as a few seconds faster than a Hunter 25.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> Yikes, you can try to beat the drum for reasons to like these vessels, but sailing performance certainly is not the road to take with any credibility. To reference an independent authority, PHRFNE PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps rates the W32 at 222, classing it as a few seconds faster than a Hunter 25.


Please post similar pictures for a better performing cruising sailboat in similar wind conditions


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

sailingfool said:


> Yikes, you can try to beat the drum for reasons to like these vessels, but sailing performance certainly is not the road to take with any credibility. To reference an independent authority, PHRFNE PHRF New England - Handicapping - Base Handicaps *rates the W32 at 222, classing it as a few seconds faster than a Hunter 25.*


Two boats with very different narratives. While the Westsail is not a boat I would consider for myself, given the choice to cross an ocean in that or a Hunter 25, well yeah, I think most here would chose the Westsail, no?


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

GBurton said:


> Please post similar pictures for a better performing cruising sailboat in similar wind conditions


Saga 43, Cal 39, etc....  It's great to see you out sailing your boat with enough sail area to make it go, but realistically, most heavy displacement cruising boat owners aren't going to invest in the canvas and patience to rig and fly a symmetrical spinnaker, etc... that you have.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Saga 43, Cal 39, etc....  It's great to see you out sailing your boat with enough sail area to make it go, but realistically, most heavy displacement cruising boat owners aren't going to invest in the canvas and patience to rig and fly a symmetrical spinnaker, etc... that you have.


Pictures please. Remember that this is a 32' boat.

That is not my W32.. but here is a picture of my W32 leading a race...IN LIGHT AIR


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

puddinlegs said:


> Saga 43, Cal 39, etc....  It's great to see you out sailing your boat with enough sail area to make it go, but realistically, most heavy displacement cruising boat owners aren't going to invest in the canvas and patience to rig and fly a symmetrical spinnaker, etc... that you have.


Aaahh so its the person sailing the boat that makes the difference...?
I agree.


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

GBurton said:


> Please post similar pictures for a better performing cruising sailboat in similar wind conditions


Seems like a discussion not worth having...


----------



## CrazyRu (May 10, 2007)

Why on earth anyone want to handle sailarea of modern 50 footer on 32 ft platform? I mean, isn't sailing about relaxing underway?


----------



## BMLipiec (Feb 3, 2009)

I have to agree with Jeff in that Westsails invoke strong opinions, both for and against. I've never understood the intensity of the detractors though - most of which have never owned one. 
Over 800 boats were built, which is no small number for a production sailboat, and a much larger run than most models. 40 years later a huge number of those boats are still sailing and circumnavigating. 
I owned a Westsail for 4 years and sold it only because I had to relocate to the East Coast. The Westsail 32 was our first boat. Before that the biggest boat we had sailed was a Catalina 25. The learning curve was steep on the 32, but the boat was forgiving and not too difficult to handle. Although, coming in or out of the slip was sometimes exciting. No, she wasn't going to win races in light air, but she was built like a tank and inspired confidence when the wind picked up.
If all I wanted was a coastal cruiser I would probably get something else for less money. However, if I wanted to cross oceans on a budget you could do much worse than a Westsail.
However, don't you think this is really just a case of personal preference? It is sort of like arguing whether sport bikes are better than Harleys. 
It comes down to what you want in a boat. Personally, I think the modern spaceship looking raceboats are ugly. I don't really care that they will sail circles around me, or point higher, or back into a slip easier. Speed is not at the top of my priority list. What I liked about the Westsail is that I felt safe on it, knew that it was tougher than I was, and liked her traditional look. Most importantly, it made me smile everytime I sailed her or saw her sitting in the slip.


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

GBurton said:


> Pictures please. Remember that this is a 32' boat.
> 
> That is not my W32.. but here is a picture of my W32 leading a race...IN LIGHT AIR


Local boats off the top of my head that will go faster that are near your overall LOA? Several, most in fact, though all are more in the racer/cruiser category. That said, it's great you're getting your Westsail out and keeping everyone in your rating band on their toes. It's always a pleasure to see a boat like yours sailed to its potential. Where are you racing in Puget Sound? If you're near Edmonds, sign up early in the AM and do Foul Weather Bluff. First start is 10:00am. Should be light!


----------



## puddinlegs (Jul 5, 2006)

GBurton said:


> Aaahh so its the person sailing the boat that makes the difference...?
> I agree.


Exactly. Hey, if you're a live aboard and near Seattle, there's a 'race your house' event scheduled for Oct. 15... Info's here:

http://styc.org/


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

So, two myths have been disproved. The W32 can point and can sail in light air. In fact the boat sails very well in light air.


----------



## CaptTony (May 22, 2011)

Wow! What an impressive range of technical information and opinions. So it is with some trepidation that I offer my tidbit.

I delivered a Westsail 32 some years ago. We picked it up in the Turk & Caicos after the owner decided he had had enough. I remember two things the most about the delivery. First, after leaving St. Thomas and rounding the east end of St. Croix, we didn't touch the self steering wind vane until reaching Margaritta Island, Venezuela four days later. It was a beautiful, trouble free sail. 

The second thing I remember and still cringe at today is how wet we got in the cockpit. When the rail dips into the water or a wave slaps the hull and comes onboard, the water flows unimpeded to the cockpit. That made for a wet and uncomfortable sail if you sat on the lee side, which was the best place to spend a watch - usually.

I've looked at other Westsails since and I've never seen this issue addressed.


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

*About the Westsail 32*

About the W-32. I regret that I was not able to respond to sdwyer 9 years ago. This thread was just now brought to my attention. It is very regrettable that there is so much misinformation out there about some boats. Jeff H has been a huge source of that misinformation as have many others. This is an open forum and the people asking questions deserve honest answers. It is a violation of this forum's rules to push some other agenda as Jeff H has done.
Very simply put, the Westsail 32 sails just as well as any other boat that is of similar size and playing the same game in the same conditions. Some boats may be a little better at times but those same boats may be way worse at other times. For what the Westsail 32 was designed to do, it does it much better than most other boats.
Sailing performance is always mentioned as a negative aspect of the W-32 by some people. But not by the people who sail them. Although racing records are scant on this boat, there is enough data to easily see that it's performance is very satisfactory. The only reason to even mention racing in context to the Westsail is because in some of those races the boats are in the same conditions, equally prepared, and equally crewed. Boat for boat results clearly show where a Westsail can perform - light wind or heavy.
This forum has the potential to be a great source of information. It is important to keep the information accurate. I think a little more policing is in order here.
Thankyou, Dave


----------



## sailingfool (Apr 17, 2000)

Oregonian said:


> About the W-32. I regret that I was not able to respond to sdwyer 9 years ago. This thread was just now brought to my attention. It is very regrettable that there is so much misinformation out there about some boats. Jeff H has been a huge source of that misinformation as have many others..... I think a little more policing is in order here.
> Thankyou, Dave


Hey, a pretty ad hominem post for a first timer. But then you are taking a position somewhat preposterous on its face...

Reminds me of the lawyer's stratagem "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names."


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

sailingfool said:


> Hey, a pretty ad hominem post for a first timer. But then you are taking a position somewhat preposterous on its face...
> 
> Reminds me of the lawyer's stratagem "When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, call the other lawyer names."


I dont think you can call Daves post ad hominem because he is the owner and skipper of the boat that won the 1988 race and placed 3rd overall in 1990 (beating every other boat in his class on *elapsed* time)
But, it is par for the course around here to insult without consideration.
So he has been there and done that. No need to argue with fact.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

sailingfool said:


> Hey, a pretty ad hominem post...


Actually, he didn't use any ad hominems at all. He called out one individual for posting misinformation, but he never called that individual any names.

On the other hand, the individual he called out was simply expressing his opinion--exactly the same thing that Oregonian was doing. The fact that you don't agree with someone else's opinion is hardly a good reason to ask for them to be "policed."

So, maybe we should all get back to discussing the Westsail 32, rather than discussing other posters.

And in that vain... Yes, lots of people are critical of the Westsail 32, usually accusing it of being unreasonably slow, sometimes discussing the wet cockpit. There are things that can be done to fix the wet cockpit--building coamings, for example. I've seen boats modified that way, but not very many. Most Westsail owners seem to complain about the wet ride, but choose not to do anything about it. One has to wonder why.

As for the speed of the boat, let's face it, it is slower than pretty much all of the modern coastal cruisers and racer/cruisers with fin keels and flat bottoms. But then it is NOT a fin-keel boat with a flat bottom! If you buy a Westsail thinking that you are getting a modern racer/cruiser... Well, I'm sorry but it is YOUR OWN FAULT that it is not as fast as you expected it to be.

If, on the other hand, you buy it thinking that you are getting a full-keel boat that might not be the fastest in the anchorage, but has a kindly sea motion and is capable of comfortably taking you around the world... Congratulations! You got exactly what you expected.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

denverd0n said:


> Actually, he didn't use any ad hominems at all. He called out one individual for posting misinformation, but he never called that individual any names.
> 
> On the other hand, the individual he called out was simply expressing his opinion--exactly the same thing that Oregonian was doing. The fact that you don't agree with someone else's opinion is hardly a good reason to ask for them to be "policed."
> 
> ...


Personally, I dont think its a wet boat. If you have too much sail up and the rail is in the water it does get wet, but what boat wouldn't.... I don't consider it a big enough problem to install coamings.
Have you had much time on a W32?


----------



## CrazyRu (May 10, 2007)

denverd0n said:


> has a kindly sea motion and is capable of comfortably taking you around the world... Congratulations! You got exactly what you expected.


Really? Just look at last year Pacific puddle jump. Three w32 entered, one missed float plan, one sank, and one dismasted and abounded.
Or, if you want real details how the boat behaves in real storm, read,let's skip Perfect Storm, and start with

Rescue in the Pacific: A True Story of Disaster and Survival in a Force 12 Storm 
Tony Farrington 
$14.95 $11.98

Where out of 9 boats featured two are westsail and westsail-alike.
For me there are enough FACTS to stay away from the boat and enjoy it from a distance. Like, it looks really salty.


----------



## kwaltersmi (Aug 14, 2006)

CrazyRu said:


> Really? Just look at last year Pacific puddle jump. Three w32 entered, one missed float plan, one sank, and one dismasted and abounded.
> Or, if you want real details how the boat behaves in real storm, read,let's skip Perfect Storm, and start with
> 
> Rescue in the Pacific: A True Story of Disaster and Survival in a Force 12 Storm
> ...


Wow, first time I've ever heard of any of these accounts. Were the boats at fault or the skippers?

I've never sailed on a W32, but there's two for sale nearby here on Lake Michigan that I'd love to consider if I had the cash. The darn things seem to hold their value (~$50k) for as old as they are. I'm personally interested because speed is very far down my priority list, whereas strength, interior volume/LOA, and salty looks are all high on my list. I think a W32 would make a good family boat for a few years while my daughters still sail with my wife and I. Then she'd be a good "sail away" boat when the kids are grown. My biggest concern would be the small cockpit when not on a bluewater passage.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

I think there is a lot of hubris and totally wrong comparisons being made about 'cutters' that is introduced by 'sloop only' jockeys, especially with reference to 'pointing ability'.

1. Most cutter rigs have 'power bows' or more 'blunt bows' that increase the reserve buoyancy and to increase load carrying capacity. Sloops typically have 'fine' entry bows. The net result is that the cutter will typically have an increased bow 'entry' angle (~10+degrees greater angle than a 'fine entry' bowed sloop) and the 'bow entry angle' will help determine how a boat will point ... or not.

2. More importantly .... A cutter has TWO stays in front of the mast, a sloop only one. Therefore with only one 'backstay' reacting to the sail/wind loading acting on the two forward stays these forward stays will be operating AT LESS than the tension that keeps the luff leading edge shape close to the boats centerline (pointing ability as a result of sail geometry/shape at the 'entry' to the luff, etc. ... artificially induced 'luff hollow' which causes 'draft aft, decreased angle of attack and hooked up leech, etc.). Sloop jockeys dont know this based on their single forestay experience. 
So, when beating with a cutter rig all one has to do is operate the FORESTAY - the stay directly in front of the mast - with the least amount of tension so that the 'reaction load of the backstay transfers primarily to the HEADSTAY (headstay now operating at proper tension to affect proper topsail luff shape and closer to the boats center line) and the cutter rig will now "point like a banshee" ...... but at a slightly less beating angle because it normally has a greater bow entry angle. When beating, the staysail 'under' will not be SEEN 'drawing' anyway, but IS redirecting the aerodynamic flow TO the topsail as well as reducing mast turbulence and thus increasing the aerodynamic efficiency of the MAINsail and topsail .... NOT 'drawing' but making the other two sails more aerodynamically efficient and therefore does not NEED the forestay tension simply because it isnt becoming as 'windloaded' as the headsail !!!!!!!! ... so just 'relax' the forestay strain, which automatically transfers to tension to the headstay .... and watch the disbelief that you see in the faces of sloop jockeys sailing nearby as you 'point like a banshee' (but at about 10deg. less pointing angle of a sloop because of the 'bow shape'). 
If you dont consider this 'differential play' on forestay/headstay tension youll only get as low as 90-100 deg. tacking angle on a CUTTER RIG, something that 'sloop jockies' have absolutely NO idea about. A well set up cutter rig (rigging tensions) with 'dead-on' differential headstay/forestay tension 'can' easily sail as high as 30 deg. 'apparent' and NOT be 'pinching'.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

CrazyRu said:


> Really? Just look at last year Pacific puddle jump. Three w32 entered, one missed float plan, one sank, and one dismasted and abounded.
> Or, if you want real details how the boat behaves in real storm, read,let's skip Perfect Storm, and start with
> 
> Rescue in the Pacific: A True Story of Disaster and Survival in a Force 12 Storm
> ...


Oh BS, just look at how many sloop rigged Westerly boats that broke up on the first 'round the world' race. That purpose built 'blue water' boats break up in EXTREME conditions is a function of maintenance or the forces generated exceeded the design FACTOR OF SAFETY limitations o f the structural design. Westies and most 'Perry Boats' typically have a FS greater than 3.5.


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

*About the Westsail 32*

I made one honest response and was accused of making an "ad hominem post" and a "somewhat preposterous" statement. Also that what I said was my "opinion". I can see where some of you are coming from. Everthing I referred to concerning the Westsail-32 is verifiable and published. I can understand not liking a particular boat, but to make things up about it, on occasion lieing about it, shows a complete lack of integrity. This forum owes it to the people who are honestly looking for information to deliver that information honestly.
The Westsail-32 is a much better sailing boat than most people give it credit for. I have delivered 8 of them over the years. I have also delivered more than 140 other sailboats.
CrazyRu pointed out some verifiable negative facts about the W-32. I could add to his list. I also could produce a list showing Ericksons, Hunters, J boats, S-2s, Santanas, Etc,Etc,. Westsails are "out there doing it" and **** happens. CrazyRu has enough FACTS for him to stay away from the boat. I have enough FACTS to stay away from a number of other boats too.
Thankyou


----------



## CrazyRu (May 10, 2007)

RichH; said:


> purpose built 'blue water' boats break up in EXTREME conditions is a function of maintenance or the forces generated exceeded the design FACTOR OF SAFETY limitations o f the structural design. Westies and most 'Perry Boats' typically have a FS greater than 3.5.


See, it is an issue I'm having with w32 proponents. Most of their proclamations are faith based. Like the one above.
How's about first 100 or so of w32 on which hull connected to deck via wooden board. Yes, I mean it. There wooden board in which deck and hull screwed in. And there is a big crack to let water into wood. Sure is it safety factor of 3? Especially now, 40 years after a boat built? Or boomkin's chainplates, which are( were) inadequate from the beginning, and believed to be number one reason of rig failure.
And I can keep going. Get the facts, guys


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

CrazyRu said:


> See, it is an issue I'm having with w32 proponents. Most of their proclamations are faith based. Like the one above.
> How's about first 100 or so of w32 on which hull connected to deck via wooden board. Yes, I mean it. There wooden board in which deck and hull screwed in. And there is a big crack to let water into wood. Sure is it safety factor of 3? Especially now, 40 years after a boat built? Or boomkin's chainplates, which are( were) inadequate from the beginning, and believed to be number one reason of rig failure.
> And I can keep going. Get the facts, guys


.... and please return to the statement of MAINTENANCE (implies correction of developing design flaws, etc.) one could EASILY include corroding keel bolts, fiberglass fatigue, etc. etc. etc. etc. in 'other' such designs. The Law Of Entropy cant be avoided .... the entire Universe is 'winding down', and that includes the inevitable 'weakening' of any man-made structure. Maintenance (and a functioning brain) extends the 'service life'. Service-life or useful life isnt strictly based on 'boat brand' or 'style' or 'preference'.


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

CrazyRu said:


> See, it is an issue I'm having with w32 proponents. Most of their proclamations are faith based. Like the one above.
> How's about first 100 or so of w32 on which hull connected to deck via wooden board. Yes, I mean it. There wooden board in which deck and hull screwed in. And there is a big crack to let water into wood. Sure is it safety factor of 3? Especially now, 40 years after a boat built? Or boomkin's chainplates, which are( were) inadequate from the beginning, and believed to be number one reason of rig failure.
> And I can keep going. Get the facts, guys


I think what you are trying to say is that a lot of people buy boats based on faith.. and may be a bit misguided?
Yes I would agree with that. Some people buy boats based on an idea. That is not the boats fault however. If you buy a 40 year old boat and proceed to take off across the Pacific without replacing things like chainplates, rigging, wood that has become rotten over those 40 years, and other maintenance issues that would be the same on any other boat regardless of design you are acting foolishly. 
But that is not the boats fault.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I'd listen to Oregonian if I were you.

Rich also has it right. BS is rampant here.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Yikes .... "The Master" has spoken .... silence will soon follow. 

Thanks for being the referee, "Mr. Perry"


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Thank you Bob Perry and Dave King


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

When speaking of Satori, the Westsail 32 in the so-called perfect storm, it must be noted that this particular boat would represent the best of the breed, as it were. The original owner was extremely experienced as a Captain, and specified extra heavy rigging and gear on his factory-finished boat - not all were. He also maintained a strict maintenance schedule and the boat received refits every, I think it was every 3 years. I mean re-bedding windows, deck hardware, the works. He had absolute confidence in his boat and knew what he was doing. ANY boat can be overwhelmed, and a well-maintained design can fare better than a poorly maintained brilliant design. Just some things to consider.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I agree. In those conditions all the ratios and righting moments in the world are not going to save your fanny. The big variable is the skill of the skipper and the condition of the boat.


----------



## Oregonian (Oct 4, 2011)

*About the Westsail-32*

About the Westsail 32.
I'm not finished. For many years I have kept my hand on the tiller. It is more comfortable than a mouse. I only recently have seen this stuff on the internet even though some post go back to 2002. Concerning the Westsail-32. What- A- Bunch- of- Crap! Where in the world are you guys coming from? 
I will be brief:
Myth #1) The W-32 can't point. In fact, under exactly identical conditions, it will point equal to the average 30' racer cruiser. Does this mean 30'ers can't point? I have sailed to Hawaii 7 times on W-32's (" it means nothing, it is all down wind"). I have sailed back to the West coast on W-32's 8 times. I can assure you that sailing back cannot be done without going to weather in stout head winds. Two returns (different boats) were under 19 days. If you don't think this is respectable, ask anyone who has returned from Hawaii in a 35' boat.
Myth #2) The W-32 can't run. In fact it runs faster than most 36' racer cruisers.
Myth #3) "You'll never see 7 knots" In fact, 7 knots is no big deal. Anybody with some real Westsail experience can verify this. I have made good 1641 nm in 10 consecutive days. 1774 nm were sailed in those same days. Do The Math. These numbers are all filed away in about 50 different boats log book. (For the skeptics - there was no current the first half of that run and about ¼ knot of current the second half)
Myth #4) It hobby horses. Not a myth, but not a problem. All boats will hobby horse in some conditions. The old Swan 39 could have won the Kentucky derby for hobby horses. Trim is always important on any boat.
Myth #5) All that other stuff. Get Real JeffH. Is any boat perfect? Is it really that bad? Why do so many W-32 owners love their boats?

I fully understand some of you not liking the W-32. No one boat is for everyone. It is time to end this ridiculous ridicule of the boat. The reason for the very strong opinions on this boat is precisely because the proponents are trying to counter the outrageous comments, often made-up, often lied, about the boat. It is difficult to see what FACTS the opponents are trying to establish. Maybe some of you can't see past the D/L ratio, or the SA/D ratio, or the Prismatic Coefficient, or whatever. Well, the answer is: there is more that affects the movement of a boat than you seem to know.
I have observed in just the past several days that you guys are obviously quite knowledgeable about boats, with a phenomenal combined intelligence. I fully appreciate that. Many of you in the quest for knowledge have erroneously picked up some inaccurate information. All humans have done this. My request is that you modify your knowledge with some of the above data. An apology to the W-32 owners is also in order.
All future boat owners can benefit from our experiences. Boat designers need correct, accurate data to design better boats. The "numbers" don't always tell the full story. There is too much that is unknown at this time. Innuendos, falsehoods, rumors, hearsay, denigrating nicknames, and other agendas, do not produce better boats. Real, comparative, data does.

I need to get back to the tiller. I have a Catalina 30 to take up the coast.
Thankyou,


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

That would explain the PHRF rating of 216.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

I don't have a horse in this race, but here's tidbits to keep this 9 year old discussion running... errr... beam reaching.

A good read for those that haven't caught up: Sailing Vessel 'Satori' : 1974 Westsail 32

Unreated to the above...

I've always admired the looks of the Westsail 32 and was lucky enough to spend some time with my Contessa 26 in the slip beside another fellow's W32 this summer; Both of us having a similar story of delivering our respective boats home via the long way through the Great Lakes. Over the few days, we compared notes and swapped stories over lunches, wine and sweets. We had visited the same ports, experienced the same weather and sailing conditions and taken roughly the same route.

We had wine and sweets on their boat; The cockpit is larger but much less comfortable than my own. The W32 interior was gorgeous; Woodlined, warm, welcoming and cavernous. We never reciprocated because our cabin is too small and jammed full of everything we needed for a 6 week journey.
Their capacity allowed them to pack more 'necessities', were they necessary? Perhaps. More clothes, an oven, rigging cutters, plenty more tools and spares... all things to make life nicer and perhaps a bit safer that we simply can't bring with us on the Contessa. They had a classic rowing dinghy rigged for sailing up on deck, compared to our inflatable, deflated and stored in the v-berth; It required using a boom to get it back onboard, I can lift mine up on deck by its painter. His companion was requesting roller furling for their headsails as a Christmas present, my budget easily permitted roller furling. His engine had seized enroute and was stranded, unable to find a crane in that area large enough to haul out his boat to put it on a truck... My Contessa would not have had such constraints.

Because I admired the W32 quite often during those few days, my wife asked me if that was going to be our next boat (yay! She thinks we're going to get another one some day!!)... but I had to think about it. I certainly admired it for all of the beauty, and character and so-on, but I was quite content to sleep in my barebones Contessa that night; I couldn't imagine having to haul such a big boat around with me, or how I would manage to fill all that space below decks or why I would need to... I'm sure the fellow thought the same thing about my boat; He admired her looks but I can imagine them saying, "How do they live in such a small space? Where do they store ____? How do they cook on a single burner?" etc.

At the end of the day, you have to understand your boat's strengths and weaknesses and determine if they fit your lifestyle. At the end of the day, if you want a light boat, buy a Melges or some Farr design. If you want a classic double-ender, then buy a Westsail 32. If you want plastic? Pick one of many production boats. *shrug*

p.s. As a side note, we compared speed figures; My Contessa, in my clumsy hands, easily makes hullspeed at 6.3+knots under normal conditions (we've hit a maximum of 15.6kn SOG during a BFS with 14' short/steep waves on Lake Erie). The Westsail was quite happy to achieve over 6kn and was definitely working to push that figure over (up to?) 7kn - they were faster than us, but not by much. The difference is not the top speed but how long you could keep it there and how hard it was to reach it. We both admitted we were the slowest boats on the Lakes.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

I find this whole discussion about PHRF ratings rather humorous. The base ratings (Northern California YRA) for the Westsail 32, Valiant 32, and Valiant 40 are 216, 168, and 132, respectively. Based on those numbers, and everything being equal, we could expect all three boats to sail from San Francisco to Hawaii and finish within about two days of one another, after sailing for about two weeks. BFD. With the exception of bragging rights, does a cruising sailor really care if it takes sixteen days, rather than fourteen days, to complete such a long passage?


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

I thought the V32 had a PHRF of 189. Not sure where Bob is coming from with the PHRF either.


----------



## JordanH (Dec 13, 2008)

SlowButSteady said:


> BFD. With the exception of bragging rights, does a cruising sailor really care if it takes sixteen days, rather than fourteen days, to complete such a long passage?


True, on a long passage, probably not a big deal.
However, if you could average 6knots instead of 5knots on a 60 mile crossing, that makes for a 10 hour day instead of 12 hours... and yes, there is one sailor that would care as my wife calls it quits at a 10 hour day. Anything over, and I'm withdrawing from my goodwill-and-favour piggy bank.

Point being, it may only be a knot, but it's still 20% faster.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

bobperry said:


> That would explain the PHRF rating of 216.


Bob, since the majority of PHRF races are relatively short, around the cans basically, would that rating be affected greatly by poor acceleration compared to it's steady state speed, once achieved?

The reason I ask is that my old quarter tonner "Fred Again" had a PHRF rating of 195 but couldn't make much over 6 knots on its best day. It would achieve hull speed in anything over 7 or 8 knots of wind though.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

I think in any discussion about boat speed the PHRF rating is a good tool. It's not perfect but it's better than guessing. I got the 218 for the W32 out of the NCPHRF Base Rating Report and I really doubt it is based on round the buoy race results for W32's. Whens the last time you saw a W32 campaigned in a round the buoys series? That's the only rating I cited. I did not take into account the "enjoyment" factor. I used the NCPHRF rating because their report lists the boats by type. It was convenient.

If you take the time to read my previous posts in this thread they were never about boat speed. I'm a Westsail fan and have defended them for years and recommended them to many potential buyers. I'm not sure anyone buys a W32 looking for boat speed.
There are a lot of ways to measure the enjoyment of a boat but I can't think of any that are objective and that's just fine. The love of sailing is anything but objective.

But if someone turns the subject to BS (call it "boat speed") then a little accuracy can't hurt. Reaching speeds are fun but upwind VMG's are also important.

As for "does it matter if it takes 14 or 16 days" I would think that would depend upon the weather for those extra two days and how the food was holding out.

I should know better than to get into a Westsail debate.
I think I'll go over to the hi-fi sites and get involved with a tubes vs transistors argument. I like tubes but I cover both bases by having two systems, one tube powered and one solid state. Want to argue about it? There are reams of numbers proving that SS is better than tubes but in the end the preference is subjective, i.e. individual ears, and the numbers only tell a small part of the audio story. 

Kind of like boats.


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

And this is why revisiting old threads IS a good thing. I, for one, am lovin' this.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Yep, it's all fun.
As a famous sailor once said, "I'm sailing! Look Dr. Marvin I'm sailing!"


----------



## Strait Shooter (Sep 28, 2011)

Good quote Bob!

I saw this on a tee shirt the other day and it reminded me of some of these conversations.

"It's all fun and games until someone comes home with a cone on their head."


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

My pal Special Ed used to wear a T shirt that said, "Don't you wish stupidity was painful".

I think I have worn the cone home a couple of times myself.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

bobperry said:


> "Don't you wish stupidity was painful".


Where can I get one of those.  Actually, it can be pretty painful, as anyone who has worked much on boats can attest.


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

bobperry said:


> I think I'll go over to the hi-fi sites and get involved with a tubes vs transistors argument. I like tubes but I cover both bases by having two systems, one tube powered and one solid state. Want to argue about it? There are reams of numbers proving that SS is better than tubes but in the end the preference is subjective, i.e. individual ears, and the numbers only tell a small part of the audio story. Kind of like boats.


Bob, your tubes comment reminded me of my sister - she was one of those people who took a perverse pride in some Luddite tendencies. When CD's first came out I was playing one for her and she started going on about how she preferred the "warmer" sound of vinyl records. I went to my amp and switched on the 12 Khz filter and, voila - her preferred warmer sound. I then explained to her about how the frequencies above that were destroyed by the first playing of a vinyl record.

I'm just a little too young to have experienced much tube stereo but somehow I think there is a similar principle happening there. However, you're the musician and I'm not so........

Also, since I can't hear past 10 Khz any more, it's all a bit moot to me now.


----------



## patience w32 (Oct 9, 2011)

Boats are like mates and thankfully we have more than a few to choose from. Your mate would not be right for me any more than mine for you. Having owned my westsail 32 for 18 years I can truthfully say that she is the right boat for me. She gets in a groove on ocean passages that can not be described but has to be felt. I'm almost dissapointed at the end of a passage because I have to stop for food and water. My boat is loaded heavy for cruising but still manage 140 mile plus days not racing just cruising while reading a book or baking bread. In 1997 I ran from hurricane Guillermo under storm staysail only for two days in 25 foot seas with the tiller lashed midship thinking I was glad not to be in a lesser boat. I hope you find that perfect boat for you because they are rare indeed. Lee W32 Patience


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

JohnB:
I listen to tubes in the office and I love them. I listen to solid state downstairs and I love that too but I most certainly prefer the sound of a well pressed lp to a cd. I'm not after "warmth". I'm after transients and dynamics. I want to hear the music between the dots.

I have a very nice cd player upstairs and an even more nice one downstairs (NAIM) but my ears like vinyl. I do not have a turntable in the office. I can't be jumping up and down flipping over record while I am working.

The tubes vs ss vs digital vs analog war rages on. It's all fun for me.

And it's so much fun hunting thru used record stores.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

bobperry said:


> There are a lot of ways to measure the enjoyment of a boat but I can't think of any that are objective and that's just fine. The love of sailing is anything but objective.
> ....
> I should know better than to get into a Westsail debate.
> ...


I could not agree more

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

Well. I'm glad some of the myths concerning the W32 have been laid to rest.
I think Bob said it best all those years ago



> 'In my youth I argued long and hard against the Westsail
> type in order to attract attention to my own 'performance
> cruiser' goal. I felt certain that the Westsail
> suocess...was created by a myth ...... I remember one sunny day
> ...


I changed the bolded word.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

G:
I forgot that but now you bring it up I remember that day well.

That was the day after I learned what a "sand line" was.
"Grab the what?"


----------



## GBurton (Jun 26, 2007)

bobperry said:


> G:
> I forgot that but now you bring it up I remember that day well.
> 
> That was the day after I learned what a "sand line" was.
> "Grab the what?"


Is that like a traffic cone?


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

More or less. More like a parking lane.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

NorCal YRA uses the straight regression formula for calculating PHRF. Very few boats outside the custom builds have highly modified numbers. I usually don’t see boats more than six seconds off of their calculated number. In my experience, the speed potential for “high number” boats drops off significantly when the winds lighten – much more so than the lower PHRF numbered boats. I think the issue is one of weight (other than ballast). Which I think is also the root cause of the complaint “my boat doesn’t sail to its number”.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

George:
I think you are correct. And that light auir advantage of the lighter boat is reflected in the lower, i.e. faster rating.

Over the last 35 years I have been consistantly surprised at just how close most initial, "provisional" PHRF ratings are to the actual performance of the boat. The data bank is huge now.

Please check out my new blog entry at:
Yacht Design According to Perry

or:
http://perryboat.sail2live.com


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Thanks for the input. I don't race and my boats aren't rated. But I observe that the modern fin keel boats that pass my heavy full keel ketch in light air struggle to keep up in a fresh breeze. They are also getting tossed about then while I'm making a sandwich with the helm lashed. I also enjoy quick lively boats, my first keelboat was 20', one ton, lots of fun. But the ketch is way more comfortable.


----------



## emoney (Jun 2, 2010)

For the record, and just so we're all clear, tubes absolutely smoke solid state, when it applies to the response given to my Les Paul. There's nothing left to discuss.


----------



## bobperry (Apr 29, 2011)

Money:
I have two bass amps. One, John Eden, has tube pre amp and the other, my back up, a big Peavy lets you chose between either ss or tube pre amp stage. The Eden is so good I never use the Peavy but my son preferred it. For many years I used a big ol' Ampeg bass amp, SV, with all tubes. That amp still sells 40 years later.

For my office hi-fi amp I bought some exotic, American, "new old stock" tubes to replace the Russian tubes, Sovtec, that came stock. Not sure the Russian tubes were not superior but I left the fancy tubes in anyway. I should switch back some day and see if I can still hear a difference. It's all fun.


----------



## emoney (Jun 2, 2010)

@Bob
I'm a huge "Eden" mark, but never owned one. As to the Ampeg, however, it was my #1 back in my bass playing days. I still, however, use my Peavey tuber every week with my LP. That thing is soooo hard to kill. As for the great "tube debate", I wouldn't know a Sovtek from a 60's RCA if I was staring at both! All I know is if they are glowing red or not. Even that is up for debate in some circles, lol.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 27, 2012)

sdwyer said:


> Thought on westsail 32 would be appreciated. I like the sailing charecteristics and the offshore work capabilities it has. The boat will be used for full time ocean voyaging. Thought and comments will be much appreciated. Thank you


Such a simple question, such a circuitous discussion. So much talk of speed, but there's so much more to a boat. Having lived with - and on - a Westsail 32 for 18+ years, here are my thoughts. Let's get the speed issue out of the way first. When you've got a lot of drag, as any heavy, full-keel boat does, you've just got to overcome that, which means piling on the canvas when the wind is down. With only the working sails, the 32 is indeed a slug except when going to windward in 20 knots. I carry two Genoas - "large" and "larger", and am very happy with both upwind and downwind performance in light air. I may not pass the faster boats, but it's surprising how often I can keep up with them. And yes, she points as well as most other cruisers, a few degrees off of the sport boats. The downside is that it's easy to get overpowered upwind with that much sail, so it's either change sails or go with just the staysail and main, which is comfortable but does not perform very well. Many of the 32s I see are fitted with sails built for durability and not performance (ie: cruisers), and are carrying fixed 3-blade props, especially those who are not out cruising.

I saw a few comments on handling those big sails. Other than getting the Genny around the forestay without hanging up (it's all in the timing), I don't find that a problem, and I'm still on human-tailed winches. What I don't find mentioned is the load on the tiller. The 32 is NOT a well-balanced boat, and that is NOT a balanced rudder. I like the feel and responsiveness of the tiller, but can't imagine not having that strong Monitor vane doing the work. And yes, she is initially more tender than you'd expect, but once she settles in she's very stable. I don't find that she rolls more than any other boat in her class, and while she hobby-horses quite a bit at anchor, it's not a problem under way. She's happiest when anchored a few degrees off-center with a bridle - takes care of the wandering and the pitching.

The comments about the lack of coamings are valid. Spray will work it's way along the windward deck and dribble across the bridge deck; also the person sitting to leeward will occasionally get surprised by a boarding wave. Overall, though, she is not a wet boat, and does not generate a lot of spray under normal conditions. I have seen boats with coamings added, but that infringes on the already minuscule cockpit. I once delivered one with boards fitted between the bulwark and the aft edge of the cabin, and that was effective. And that gets to the most unique characteristics of the Westsail, in my opinion - the cockpit and the cabin top. The cockpit is really tiny. On the one hand, it makes for a larger cabin, is perfect for single-handing, and is fine for one or two people; but if you're planning on having a few guests aboard, or stretching out yourself, count on using the deck area. Fortunately, the deck is the most comfortable I've found yet, other than a flush deck. It's flat, fairly free of hardware, and well protected by the bulwarks - perfect for a snooze or a working platform. I look at the more modern boats and it seems you have to spend all your time in the cockpit, and forget about going forward in bad weather. I might add that I am so used to being able to reach everything in the cockpit while handing the tiller, that when I am in some other boats I feel that they were designed strictly for two or more people. Who's idea was it to put that giant wheel between the helmsman and the winches?

The comments about Westsails being lost on the Puddle Jump is way off base. I've not heard the stories, but am fairly sure those boats didn't just break up! On another note, you can lay these things down on a beach, and as long as there are no big waves, she'll come back up without the deck even getting wet. (Don't ask how I know. . .) Having seen other owners deal with difficult projects - tearing tanks out through the keel or by removing the galley, for instance - I can also appreciate the accessibility of traditionally-built boats, and shudder at the thought of a one-piece fiberglass liner.

But the bottom line is that, if you're going cruising, the Westsail will deliver a safe, durable, & comfortable ride, carry plenty of provisions, and give very little fuss, as long as there are only two or three of you. And for less cash than anything else in it's class (my first choice was a Perry 37-40, but they were 2-4 times the price at the time). If you're paying for a slip and plan on socialising a lot, less bowsprit and more accommodations might work out better.


----------



## endoftheroad (Jan 13, 2011)

Poor ventilation?

My 1974 W32 factory finished boat has 14 portlights.

6-8"
6-6"
2-4" (viewing foredeck and bowsprit)


----------



## fenchurch9 (Feb 8, 2011)

On Maka Le'a, our W32, we have a hefty chunk of teak where the cockpit meets the cabin top corner. This block, about 2 inches thick and 5 inches high keeps the water from running into the cockpit. Also, because we have a teak cockpit and fiberglass decks, the cockpit is a bit higher than the side decks. With this in mind, there is a whole cut into the teak block which allows water to flow out but, because it is raised from the level of the side deck, prevents a good sum of water,from flowing in. It's a very simple and elegant fix for a problem that so many complain about. 
Erika
Maka Le'a 
W32 #55


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

For anybody out there who has been dreaming of owning a Westie, there are currently 3 of them advertised on Bellingham (Washington) Craigslist.

Asking prices are $9,200, $20,000 & $27,000

The cheap one is an estate sale of a factory built boat that needs a lot - bowsprit, engine not running etc.

http://bellingham.craigslist.org/bod/3373707852.html

http://skagit.craigslist.org/boa/3356689349.html

http://bellingham.craigslist.org/boa/3279168285.html


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

None of them for you, Jon?


----------



## SloopJonB (Jun 6, 2011)

Faster said:


> None of them for you, Jon?


If we had adequate wind here I'd seriously consider one - they do tug at the heartstrings.  I'm sure one could do something re: cockpit comfort.


----------

