 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / June 2006choate 41 for cruising
I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. Interested in the seaworthiness of these designs. It seems some say they can be squirrely to steer downwind, but others say that applies mostly to racing situations where the boats being driving hard. Have heard all the Fastnet stories, but this boat is post-Fastnet vintage (very early eighties I believe, but may be very late seventies.) Former owner did the Baja HAHA and Bash. My immediate crusing plans would be SF Bay, Mexico, Hawaii, and eventually the wild blue yonder. Would love to circumnavigate the Pacific. Thoughts, opinions, slander, or wild conjecture about the suitability of such a boat for bluewater cruising? Thanks, - Ari > I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My > interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Ari I looked at that boat also. I'm not that familiar with the Choate, but it seemed quite solid. It didn't seem very comfortable below, but I suppose that's fixable. I recall that there were problems with water damage of cabin sole... some kind of water damage, and it would be wise to figure out why. Also, the owner (nice guy) told me that the cracks in the portlights seem to keep coming back. Sure seems like it could be due to excessive flexing. Maybe that's minor and expected or not. Damn big wheel. Nice hardware.. nice looking standing rigging. My biggest complaint was the chopped up interior. If you want to chat, drop me an email.  Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My > interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > heard all the Fastnet stories, but this boat is post-Fastnet vintage > (very early eighties I believe, but may be very late seventies.) In that case, it's unlikely to be a full-fledged broach coach. The mid-70s designs with the high pinched transoms were the worst for that. The worst characteristic of the IOR broach-coaches was their handling in following seas, doesn't really seem to matter how hard they're being driven. OTOH the flip side is that on any course above a broad reach, they steer like they're on rails. Sweet. > Former owner did the Baja HAHA and Bash. My immediate crusing plans > would be SF Bay, Mexico, Hawaii, and eventually the wild blue yonder. > Would love to circumnavigate the Pacific. > > Thoughts, opinions, slander, or wild conjecture about the suitability > of such a boat for bluewater cruising? Take a good hard look at the rig. These boats were designed to be sailed by a large, strong, skilled crew. It may be that this one can be fairly easily set up to be handled by a smaller crew, or that some steps in re-rigging have already been taken. Hope this helps. Fresh Breezes- Doug King >> I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My >> interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Fresh Breezes- Doug King From what I saw, it was set up nicely to be handled by two people. Signature"j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com > I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My > interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > - Ari I did some long distance racing on one 20 years ago, and delivered it back, better than 1,000 miles each time. We saw some really bad stuff many times. Maybe 5,000 miles total on that boat. Well built, fairly comfortable. Lots of usable room inside. Good sea bunks. Not the ultimate design for cruising, but not bad. The worst I remember was 70 knots off Southern Baja. The boat did very well. Very economical delivering it up the Baja bash. Something like a quart an hour at 6 knots. My memory isn't perfect. You could make a far worse choice. A better choice might be a pilot house, like a Cal 35. I finished a similar trip last year on a Swan 38, down the west coast from Seattle, the HAHA, 7 months in Mexico, then Hawaii and back to Portland. I heard a lot of people say they were susceptible to broach, not good in following seas and not good for a Monitor wind vane. My experience was very different, we had 30kt off cape Mendocino, and pretty big waves, it seamed to handle great and the wind vane was no problem. I had my family with me and never put of the tri-radial or the cruising spinnaker up in anything over 25kt. So pushing it in high winds and seas may have had different results. In light winds coming over the Pacific high, we left the asymmetrical up for 48 hours with the monitor, and it handled great. I think its great to cruise in a boat with good sailing characteristics, and that design was great. It was not so comfortable for reading in the cockpit, and if our friend were in a Halberg Rassy, were more likely to hang out on their boat. But compared to the price of most cruising boats, it seems like a great way to go. John > I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My > interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thoughts, opinions, slander, or wild conjecture about the suitability > of such a boat for bluewater cruising? It's a 1979, apparently. Former racers make indifferent offshore boats due to their lack of capacity to sail well heavily loaded. I admit the concept of skimming along at 8 kts in a light breeze while other boats drudge along barely moving is attractive. However, a water capacity of 50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'. I may be wrong here, but I think if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south pacific, it'd sail terribly. There is a reason offshore types gravitate to heavy boats. They're not stupid. aroostifer wrote: > I'm interested in a Choate 41 (2 ton IOR) for sale in the Bay Area. My > interest is NOT in racing but rather in long-distance cruising. Dennis builds race boats, not cruising boats. BTW, his yard is in the neighborhood and always seems to be busy. Lew >However, a water capacity of >50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'. I may be wrong here, but I think >if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south >pacific, it'd sail terribly. Those are good points. Another thing to consider is that virtually all racing boats are designed to sail with a lot of crew weight on the rail (movable ballast). Without that extra stability, most if not all will have trouble carrying full sail in any kind of breeze, and will lack power going to windward. >>However, a water capacity of >>50 gallons is thin for moving 'beyond'. Is it impossible to put in a bigger tank? For potable water, bladder tanks work fine. >> ... I may be wrong here, but I think >>if you loaded this boat up with what most folks take to hit the south >>pacific, it'd sail terribly. Why? > Those are good points. Another thing to consider is that virtually > all racing boats are designed to sail with a lot of crew weight on the > rail (movable ballast). Without that extra stability, most if not all > will have trouble carrying full sail in any kind of breeze, and will > lack power going to windward. If true, that is a good point. But it's still quite possible that the boat will develop enough power to sail to windward quite capably and better than at least 75% of "cruising" boats. A lot of older racing boats have had improved bulb keels added, which makes a huge difference. One thing to bear in mind is that racing boats are generally designed to be easily driven and to steer relatively well while driving hard. They will sail effectively under shortened sail and the more efficient rig is less work. The other strikes me as foozling around on the edge of almost-logic, looking hard for an excuse to dislike something you already hate. Why would Boat X, much faster than Boat Y when both are in normal sailing trim, suddenly become much slower than Boat Y when both are heavily loaded? It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a boxy hull that was heavier to begin with. Fresh Breezes- Doug King >It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built >boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a >boxy hull that was heavier to begin with. It really boils down to what is the impact of your cruising gear on a light displacement boat vs heavy displacement. Let's for the sake of argument say that you've got 4,000 lbs of cruising "stuff", e.g., extra water, extra fuel, larger batteries, extra anchors, chain, windlass, solar panels, cruising canvas, food, refrigeration, tools, spares, dinghy, motor, etc, etc. On a 10,000 lb boat, that is a 40% increase, a considerable amount which will no doubt adversely affect performance. Same gear on a 20,000 lb boat is only a 20% increase. Assuming both were the same speed to begin with, the lighter boat will be more severely impacted. >>It seems more sensible to me that a light, strongly built >>boat with a fast hull, would carry loads much better than a >>boxy hull that was heavier to begin with. > It really boils down to what is the impact of your cruising gear on a > light displacement boat vs heavy displacement. Agreed. But I think it's easy to overgeneralize in a way that reinforces one's prejudices. > ... Let's for the sake of > argument say that you've got 4,000 lbs of cruising "stuff", e.g., [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > On a 10,000 lb boat, that is a 40% increase, a considerable amount > which will no doubt adversely affect performance. > Same gear on a 20,000 lb boat is only a 20% increase. Except that it doesn't quite work that way. What you need to know is how the load will affect the center of gravity and the wetted surface area, mostly... lighter weight boats generally have higher ballast displacement ratios and more reserve stability, and have so much less wetted surface than a crab-crusher that the increase from loading is negligible. A useful figure would be the pounds-per-inch-immersion for each hull. Just a percent of gross displacement isn't going to say anything that can be generalized about how the two boats sail, comparatively. > Assuming both were the same speed to begin with, the lighter boat will > be more severely impacted. Well, show me two boats of the same LWL with the same PHRF rating, one at 10k and the other at 20k! Another factor is that the heavier hull will have a lot more volume and tend to be more heavily loaded. And the faster boat will have more sail area, so the SA/D ratio isn't going to take such a hit (given equal increases in disp). Of course, my prejudices tend towards performance boats and so I work towards justifying that.... but there is a good bit of logic along with some real world experience in the justification also. Fresh Breezes- Doug King >Of course, my prejudices tend towards performance boats and >so I work towards justifying that.... but there is a good >bit of logic along with some real world experience in the >justification also. I did two Newport-Bermuda races on a nice fast Frers 41 displacing about 10,000 lbs give or take. No extreme conditions encountered, just typical offshore 15 to 20 kts, fast reaching through 6 to 8 footers. The boat was extremely uncomfortable with a fast squirrelly motion that defies explanation, but in my view totally unsuited to extended cruising in those conditions. On two other N-Bs with a custom Ron Holland 50 displacing over 40,000 lbs, and in far worse conditions, we had a very comfortable ride. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison because of the length difference, but two very valid data points nevertheless. It's one thing to go out for a couple of days on a light weight boat and bash around a race course, but an entirely different proposition to take off for 6 months or more of serious liveaboard cruising. > I did two Newport-Bermuda races on a nice fast Frers 41 displacing > about 10,000 lbs give or take. No extreme conditions encountered, > just typical offshore 15 to 20 kts, fast reaching through 6 to 8 > footers. The boat was extremely uncomfortable with a fast squirrelly > motion that defies explanation, but in my view totally unsuited to > extended cruising in those conditions. understood... and to a large extent agreed... a boat can be relatively light and not be bouncy though. It's a combination of straight D/L ratio, PPI, reserve bouyancy, CG, and weight distribution. It may be that this very same bouncy uncomfortable boat would change it's motion noticably if about 2 tons of cruising were added, and the weight distributed to dampen the bounciness. > On two other N-Bs with a custom Ron Holland 50 displacing over 40,000 > lbs, and in far worse conditions, we had a very comfortable ride. Not > exactly an apples to apples comparison because of the length > difference, but two very valid data points nevertheless. It's possible that the D/L ratios of the two boats were not that different. Size alone makes a big difference... aircraft carriers give an extremely smooth ride. > It's one thing to go out for a couple of days on a light weight boat > and bash around a race course, but an entirely different proposition > to take off for 6 months or more of serious liveaboard cruising. As you pointed out, it wouldn't be a light weight boat then ;) Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.