Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 0
"a new CCA racer for the whole family"
Am I the only one who sees the cruiser aspect of that statement? It's a way to get dad to buy the station wagon (hey, look at that big V8), but not feel totally cheated because he'd rather have the Porche.
On the hobby-horse issue. Take the C&C Corvette. Explain to me how this CCA boat, also with a 22ft waterline, weighing considerably less, is going to be more stable, and less of a hobby-horse. Speaking of mis-characterizing statements, I didn't say hobby-horsing didn't matter. I said 5ft at the waterline wouldn't matter.
Also, a clarification. The B32 was in production from 1966-1983.
The Bristol 33 ran from 1968-71, then became the 34 in '71, and ran til 1978. Yet, you claim it replaced the B32. That's a neat trick. Is it superior for rougher conditions, and speed? No doubt, but it didn't replace the '32.
On the 50 footer deal, must be that new math. I, for one, can't see any other way to get some seriously longer waterline numbers in a hull, unless you get a longer hull. The 50ft number was just a choice. Could've just as easily been 52, or 48, or 70 for that matter.
I don't know, man. It almost seems personal to you. Everywhere else, granted there's not a lot out there, but the others talk about the comfortable ride of the spoon-shaped bow, and the gracefully tapered stern giving a gentle motion as she comes down into the sea. I have also been in contact with a B32 owner that has been in rough conditions and he made no comment of it being a bear in the situations similar to what you mention.
Now, allowing for the fact that some designs are better at some things than others (meaning the '32 isn't the best for offshore), I still have to wonder how much of your bad experiences weren't so much the boat, as it was the skipper, and his decisions. In that the B32 is so different from other designs (according to your own statements), perhaps it should've been sailed differently so that these issues were taken into consideration. Don't know, wasn't there, don't know who the skipper was. Not trying to take a cheap shot on him. Maybe it's just me, but I thought being in rough conditions meant getting beat up and wet, regardless of the boat, especially when not sailed to its best advantage.
Last edited by seabreeze_97; 05-21-2009 at 03:01 AM.