Long keel 28/32 ft?

[BC Mike]

I have put a plug in for Cascade a couple of times. Usually for the 36 which seem to cost about $3500- US some more some less. The 29 is referred to as a go anywhere boat by the folks at Cascade. It has some similarities to our boat.
BC Mike C

[29cascadefixer]

A 36 Cascade,huh. Does yours have the shrouds attached to the toe rail. When I heard about that, my jaw dropped. Then I saw the drawing of the toe rail. I guess it's like , a half inch thick extruded aluminum, curves down over the deck to hull joint 4 inches and has a mounting screw or throughbolt every 8 inches. I read that the Cascade yard regularly lifts the whole boat by using it as a lift point. Man , thats GOTTA be strong.

[Jeff H]

On the matter of the Bristol 32/35 or the Morgans, the Bristol 32 is not what I would consider a very good offshore boat. The 35 is a much better boat for your purpose. Morgan built a 32 and a 38 that were designed by Ted Brewer. Both are considered to be OK as offshore boats.

Jeff

[BC Mike]

I do not have a Cascade, I have a Tanzer. The Cascade 29 has some similarities to our Tanzer. I have info on the 36 including a letter from a guy who has been all the way around. I have not seen one to kick the keel but the boat does seem capable. They advertise them as the affordable circumnavigator or words to that effect. BC Mike C

[Thos]

Remo,
Keep checking e-bay, both USA and Germany. Sometimes people need to sell things quickly and will take whatever they can get.

Has anyone here bought a boat on e-bay?

I've read that sellers using regular methods, brokers and ads, will generally accept an offer 1/3 less than they are asking.

Does that sound about right to you long time boaters?

[Jeff H]

That does not ring true to me. The few boat sales that I have tracked on Ebay generally end up at a price that is about what the boat would probably sell for through a broker or else they have failed to meet their reserves. I have yet to see a really good deal on boats on EBay. There are boats that sell cheap but these were generally boats in rough enough condition that even the cheap ones were not good deals.

Jeff

[Thomas Stone]

Jeff H , Im glad Yves Gelinas did not listen to you , or he would have never sailed around the world and perfected his windvane( Cape Horn) and I would never had the chance to own one. Funny he has different comments on his Alberg 30. I dont think I ever heard him say it has miserable motion and bad build quality. I guess he is one lucky sob. -thomas

[Jeff H]

I am glad that Yves Gelinas and I are in full agreement. If you had bothered to read my post, I don't think I said that the Alberg 30 has a miserable motion and bad build quality. I said that about the Alberg 35 and the Vanguard. I am sure you can find folks who have sailed these two boats long distances but that does not make the build quality any better or the motion any more comfortable.

While the Alberg 30 can be pretty uncomfortable on a beat or beam reach in a short chop (at least when compared to longer waterline/ finer bow craft of the same weight), I would not classify it as having miserable motion or a bad build quality. On the other hand most Alberg 30's are 30-40 years old and would need a major refit to make the kind of passages that Yves Gelinas made with his Alberg 30 roughly 25 years ago and that level of rebuild would place the Alberg 30 well outside the price range of the original post.

As to Yves Gelinas, you are probably right that he is one lucky SOB. I don't know him as well as I know the Whitby Alberg 30, the Pearson Vanguard, or Alberg 35 so it is hard for me to say.

Mostly Respectfully,
Jeff

[Thomas Stone]

What is miserable motion? It could be totally different things to different people. For some just stepping on a boat is miserable motion. You saying theses boats have miserable motion is just to vague . Too many people are cruising on Vanguards and Alberg 35 's for me to believe they are of bad build quality as well . In fact the opposite.True Yves's circumnavigation was a while ago but he still has his boat and cruises with it till this day. I think a year or two ago he crossed the Atlantic with his wife. You can check out his comments on the Alberg 30 on the Cape Horn website. Staying within the original post I think it would be tough to find the Alberg for 20,000 grand but the Vanguard I think you could . regards mostly-thomas

[Jeff H]

Thomas I really don't have the energy to get into a long debate with you about the meanung of 'is' but I will try to give you an answer two the two points that you raise.

With regards to motion comfort on the Vanguard. Based on conversations with Phillip Rhodes during the era that we owned our Vanguard in the mid-1960's, the Vanguards had 10% less ballast than Rhodes had expected them to recieve. Rhodes had expected Pearson to include 10% additional ballast as 'trim ballast' as was the practice with wooden and metal boats of that era. This simply was not done with fiberglass boats. Rhodes actually directed us where and how to place this additional 600 lbs or so of ballast and it helped with the motion some. As Rhodes had explained, the Vnguards (like most Pearsons and fiberglass boats of that era accoding to Rhodes) came in substanially over thier design weights. According to Rhodes most of that extra weight was in interior fit out and the rig. The combination of the two resulted in a boat with a higher VCG than Rhodes ever envisioned and way higher than the wooden versions upon which the Vanguard was based and which had more ballast that was also placed lower since they had bolt on keels.

Agrevating this problem was the tendancy to store fairly heavy things higher in the boat than anticipated. As designed the Vanguards had a pilot berth to post and a pipe berth to starboard. Most Vanguards used for cruising have converted these to storage and in doing so has further raised the VCG.

The result was a boat that rolled through very wide roll angles. In its day the Vanguard was also a boat that attempted to be 'beamier' than other 32 footers of the era. Compared to earlier Rhodes designs the Vanguard had a compartively hard turn of the bilge. This gave it more form stability so that when the Vanguard heeled she would sort of 'lock in' at a fairly high heel angle. Unlike earlier Rhodes she would "roll out" as she heeled rather than "roll down" as is more typical of traditional working water craft and earlier Rhodes and Alden designs. The affect of this was a lurch that would occur at the end of the roll as the boat dug that tighter bilge in and lifted the windward bilge. When combined with the Vanguard's larger roll angles and this lurch at the end of the roll, this was a miserable motion to live with.

The Vanguards had reasonably long waterlines for that era but they were quite short by modern or traditional boat standards. In their basic form they tended to pitch more than is desireable but mush less than many boats of this era. That said, the Vanguard's were designed for a predominantly rope anchor rode, a single 16 lb danforth anchor stored on the cabin top, and no windlass. As these boats are being equipped to go cruising they are being equipped with a windlass and an all chain rodes and heavy duty anchors stored on a stemhead fitting. The additional 300-400 lbs of chain and anchor really right in the eyes of the boat really increases pitching dramatically on these boats. (We used to be able to notice the difference when my 100 lb brother was up on the bow.)

The Alberg 35 shared the higher than expected VCG of the Vanguard and so had very similar roll charactistics but in the Alberg the deep canoe body further aggravated the roll angle issue. The Alberg 35 also had a proportionately shorter waterline and so had far worse pitching problems. (the oral tradition explaining the reason that the later designed Vanguard had a proportionately longer water line is often cited as being because the Pearsons wanted to avoid the pitching problems that they had with the earlier Alberg 35.) Adding to the pitching problems on the Alberg 35 is thier 'apple cheeks'. Albergs designs going all the way back to his time with Alden (during his tenure at Alden the bows of Alden designs prepared under Alberg's lead when from slight hollows as was traditional on the western Atlantic to the fullness associated with boats designed on the eastern Atlantic) tended to follow his Nordic traditions of a lot of fullness at the bow just above the waterline. This means when the Alberg 35 pitches it fetches up short, and when it collides with a wave it really collides. The combination of poor pitching and rolling problems result in a boat that by any objective standard has a miserable motion.

It really means nothing to me that someone has chosen to sail some model boat around the world. Whenever someone tells me that a boat is suitable for offshore work because someone has sailed the same model around the world, I think of a boat that I knew when I lived in the south. The boat was owned and built by an Australian who had sailed her from Australia to the US and Europe. he had crossed much of the South Pacific before turning westward again. The boat was essentially a dory built of plywood and had a poured concrete fin keel. The boat had been damaged or suffered rot or delamination of the plywood in numerous locations and had been patched with pieces of plywood ringnailed over the hole. Much of the patches came from pieces salvaged from his interior or from shore and so in some cases were interior plywood that had itself begun to delaminate.

Would anyone cite this as an ideal offshore vessel? No! but she had sailed most of the way around the world and the guy had a seamanship manual he was writing extolling this design as the ideal offshore cruiser.

As to the Alberg 30, I have sailed on a lot of these boats, although not much in the last 10 years. If you look at the race fleet in Annapolis almost all of these boats have been significantly beefed up and updated at least once in thier lifespan to keep them in useable condition. Compared to going offshore on a distance passage, this coastal cruising and racing is very light duty. While Yves Gelinas may enjoy sailing his boat after it did it's circumnavigation, I still would like to know how much beefing up and updating it has taken to keep his Alberg 30 in decent sailing sailing condition. I know a guy who sails a Galaxy 32, one of the first fiberglass cruisers ever built. He has had to disassemble the boat down to the raw hull and build it back. Ihave followed his saga and the costs involved. To be frank he could have bought a ready to go boat for much less and been out there already.

When you talk about getting one of these 25-40 year old boats ready to go offshore, it is not unusual to hear of these early boats requiring replacement or reconstruction of their chainplates and chainplate attachment, standing and running rigging, electrical and plumbing systems, partial bulkheads and tabbing, anchor rodes and windlasses, electronics, deck and interior hardware, engines and tankage, not to mention incidentals like cushions, this is no small undertaking and as I said before the costs are more likely to wildly exceed the original poster's budget.

Respectfully,
Jeff

[Thomas Stone]

Im not at all trying to be Bill Clinton here and asking for a definition of is or it. I am just trying to point out there really is no right answer to miserable motion or build quality. Theses are generalized terms and can have many definitions to many different people.
I think most people know when they are refitting a 40 year old boat they are not going to get the money back out of it . I agree that sometimes that 10-20 k boat is not always a good deal and in fact can be the exact opposite by the time you are done making it right. Actually that goes for alot of boats. The trick is is to buy the boat that somebody has already done the refitting.
Yves has done alot to his boat over the years but it is still an Alberg 30 and always will be. (never going to be worth a whole lot). That goes for the Vanguards as well. I see plenty for sale in the 20k range and less that have recent diesels, roller furling ,etc. regards-thomas

[nopollution]

Thank you all for your precious answers. I see that one thing is to think "ok, I buy a boat to sail just for funny" and another thing is to buy a boat "to face the ocean". A plenty of details must be considered but thanks to you all I have been starting to have a better idea.
In this period I'm in Japan and, of course, I walked in different harbours to see what kind of sailing boat are present in this country. Speaking with the people I have seen that the Fuji 32 and Fuji 35 models are considered bluewater sailing boats. Do you know anything about them?

Thanks again,

Remo

[Jeff H]

The Fuji's are poorer quality, oriental built, 'character boats' loosely based on traditional design principles. In good condition, upgraded to meet some resemblance of modern marine standards, and with the 'decks done' these boats typically cost somewhere in the $40,000 - $50,000 plus range. Trashed you sometimes see them as give ways.

Known problems are that these boats originally came with wooden spars that were poorly constructed and so are prone to rot and delamination. Most came with teak decks over plywood and are ready to have a complete deck job. By that I mean removing the teak decking and plywood understructure. Replacing rotted deck beams and then relaying a plywood subdeck and glassing over it. I have never heard of anyone putting teak decks back on these boats but that does not mean that I hasn't happened. Wiring, at least on the one that I knew, followed the 1960's era Oriental practice of using single conductor wire which is prone to breaking down over time.

Much of the hardware on these boats were oriental knock offs of American and Australian name brands. It was reasonably well made but parts were not readily available. Other than that unless the previous owners has repaired and upgraded the boat, you can expect the usual old boat set of needs but in spades.

While these are not my idea of what I would want to take offshore but comparatively speaking, in good shape these are probably more suitable than some of the other CCA era racer cruisers that you proposed earlier.

Jeff

[BC Mike]

The first problem is the original request was for a long keel boat. So a Southern Cross 31 fits the description. Do a search using Southern Cross+31 and you will find a lot of info. Stories about circumnavigation and so on. The heavy boat long keel fans write favourable stuff about these boats. As for me they are too heavy for a 25 foot LWL. I would get a Cascade 36 in a flash in preference to any of the long keel boats but that's me. If I could not afford a 36 then the 29 would be atractive. BC Mike C

[29cascadefixer]

I received Chichesters "The Romantic Voyage" for Christmas. In it he describes the leeway Gypsy Moth V made ( lost?) when She was on the wind. Like 18 degrees. I was wondering if this is normal for a fin keel as compared to a long keel. Do fin keels stinketh going to windward ?