=== Pearson 30 Coaster = Vs. = Vanguard / Alberg - Page 2 - SailNet Community

   Search Sailnet:

 forums  store  


Quick Menu
Forums           
Articles          
Galleries        
Boat Reviews  
Classifieds     
Search SailNet 
Boat Search (new)

Shop the
SailNet Store
Anchor Locker
Boatbuilding & Repair
Charts
Clothing
Electrical
Electronics
Engine
Hatches and Portlights
Interior And Galley
Maintenance
Marine Electronics
Navigation
Other Items
Plumbing and Pumps
Rigging
Safety
Sailing Hardware
Trailer & Watersports
Clearance Items

Advertise Here






Go Back   SailNet Community > On Board > Boat Review and Purchase Forum
 Not a Member? 


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 01-24-2010
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Posts: 711
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 0
seabreeze_97 is on a distinguished road
An invitation.....

I invite you to read a little something at this link:
The Pearson Vanguard Page
Click on the "American Beauty" bullet on the left side of the page. In the article, you will see things like, "He designed the Vanguard to the Cruising Club of America racing rule, which produced the prettiest yachts since World War II, as well as more seaworthy and seakindly vessels than many of those emerging from factories today." Hmmmmm.
Just a fair counter-point to certain other opinions you have already received.

"Practical" and "sailing" don't normally belong together in the same paragraph, but the Pearson Vanguard is an exception. Do you want to cruise the coast in a responsive boat now but know that you could chuck your job and cross an ocean tomorrow? This boat is a practical solution to that sailing situation. It isn't a dockside condo, it's a real sailboat."
Just goes to show, opinions vary, and everybody has one. Considering that the CCA was the rule-making body in the US for some 50 years, I tend to think they were doing something right.

Last edited by seabreeze_97; 01-24-2010 at 01:12 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #12  
Old 01-25-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
conquistatadore is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by seabreeze_97 View Post
I invite you to read a little something at this link:
The Pearson Vanguard Page
Click on the "American Beauty" bullet on the left side of the page. In the article, you will see things like, "He designed the Vanguard to the Cruising Club of America racing rule, which produced the prettiest yachts since World War II, as well as more seaworthy and seakindly vessels than many of those emerging from factories today." Hmmmmm.
Just a fair counter-point to certain other opinions you have already received.

.... This boat is a practical solution to that sailing situation. ..... It isn't a dockside condo, it's a real sailboat."
----------
seebreeze;

I completely agree!
facts and opinions can easily get mixed up.

Even facts are based on opinions quite often, and even so one cannot be concrete. Once you pass judgment rather than presenting thoughts to shed light on objects or ideas, then you have molded and frozen it in the mind and it becomes static and dead which loses its dynamic ability to improve upon which then becomes useless and frowned upon

I remember reading about this guy "Juggernaut" that circumnavigated the globe on a Catalina 27 that everyone considers a light wt. boat only good for day sailing ... amazing !

so much for that;
Like i had mentioned earlier, old Pearson boats like Triton, Alberg and vanguard are known by almost every sailor i have met to be an ICON of OLD blue water sailing regardless, despite their old design and narrow beam...
I know of many people personally whom have sailed these off shore in very long passages across.

I honestly would much rather be in an Alberg or a vanguard in the ocean instead of a small fin keeled Tartan 27 (and also every one i have spoken to does agree and i have not seen any one that considers T27 a real off shore, ...T30 yes.), even though i think T27 is really a great boat and if some one really wanted, could take it any where!
so obviously Jeff has his likes and dislikes which is perfectly ok with me, its just his opinion.
As far as most other facts he is correct and i highly respect that, but again, only in the non-concrete version ...

considering these Pearson boats have a DL ratio over 350 and capsize value around 1.7 (compared to 1.94 on a Tartan 30 or 1.81 on venerable Bristol 30, 1.76 on Bristol 29) there is hardly any boats that can match them for off shore!

Well, numbers are numbers and math is math.


according to the calculator below bristol 29 has a motion comfort of 28 vs. 34 of Vanguard..
Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!

this is the coolest tool i have found that calculates the numbers..! check it out...

Sail Calculator Pro v3.53 - 2000+ boats


Having said that i would NOT race one of these pearsons to win any trophies...!

There is absolutely no doubt that technology has changed much and so have boat designs.
The newer boats have much better handling, more comfort,... etc... no doubt.

But not everyone can afford a $100,000 Beneteau either.. and so be it ... nothing wrong with that


here is a very detailed and good link of best off shore boats, designs, req. etc... :
(has a boat list on the bottom)

Mahina Expedition - Offshore Cruising Instruction

ok, time to sail that bath tub...



Last edited by conquistatadore; 01-26-2010 at 01:22 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #13  
Old 01-25-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
kenster is on a distinguished road
Check the Bristol Owners web site. B-32 models have solid decks, but I can confirm that Any older boat in the 15k price range is going to need upgrades.
Also there two Yahoo groups for people interested in Bristols.

And Yves G [of Cape Horn Wind Vanes ] took his Alberg 30 around the world in 1983, and has owned the same boat for 37 years.

Good hunting, Ken S
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #14  
Old 01-25-2010
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,668
Thanks: 5
Thanked 103 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
Two quick points here, the article on the Pearson Vanguard by Tom Dove was based on his single sail on a Vanguard in 8 to 12 knots of wind on the Chesapeake.

Obviously, Tom never owned a Vanguard and, never tried to deal with one in winds over 20 knots, or sailed one in a short chop, or on a delivery in the Atlantic, or sailed one of these in light conditions especially in a left over ocean swell. I have literally hundreds of hours on Vanguards, boats with new sails and great crews and boats that were beat to death. If the person writing the American Beauty review had actually spent some time with these boats, his review would not talk so positively about the seaworthiness or motion comfort of these boats. If he sailed one and then the next day sailed a Coaster in tough going, his review would not be all that glowing.

I also want to make a critical point about the inaccuracy of the quote that says,
"Considering these Pearson boats have a DL ratio over 350 and capsize value around 1.7 (compared to 1.94 on a Tartan 30 or 1.81 on venerable Bristol 30, 1.76 on Bristol 29) there is hardly any boats that can match them for off shore!

Well, numbers are numbers and math is math.

according to the calculator below bristol 29 has a motion comfort of 28 vs. 34 of Vanguard..Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!"

I would like to point out that neither the capsize screen formula or the motion comfort index tells you a thing about either the likelihood of a capsize or the motion comfort of the boat in question. I have included an explanation of why I say this below.

But also, even L/D is misleading in the case of these older CCA era boats because they had such a short waterline length relative to their overall length. If you calculate the L/D the normal way, it is true that the 32'4" Vanguard (with a 22'-10 LWL 1'-5" shorter than the Tartan 30's 24'-3" lwl) appears to have a L/d of 431 vs the Tartan 30 at 274.

But if you compare these boats by D/length on deck, (which highlights the shortcoming of using LWL in a comparason between a normal LOA/LWL and the extreme short waterline lengths of the CCA era) the Vanguard comes only slightly heavier at 154 vs 146. But the real significance to the behavior of the boat is in how that weight was distributed. In the case of the Tartan 30 the vertical center of gravity was much lower than the Vanguard due to its deeper keel and better ballast ratio.

During the period that we owned the Vanguard, ours was scary it was so tender. We spoke to Phil Rhodes about the problem. Mr. Rhodes acknowledged the problem and explained that the boats were supposed to have 400 lbs of 'trim' ballast but that they as built they exceeded the estimated weight so that they were already sitting on their lines but where under ballasted. We added quite a bit of additional ballast which helped some but made the boat even more of a roller than she had been.

Its seems that as soon as someone posts a question about the seaworthiness of some particular boat, that a well meaning responder sends them to Carl's Sail Calculator to look at the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index. And no sooner than poster questions the seaworthiness of some boat, that someone cites the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index in that vessel's defense or prosecution. But as I have explained many times in the past, (and I am about to explain yet again) these surrogate formulas tell almost nothing about how the reality of a boat's likelihood of capsize or its motion comfort. In fact they provide so little indication of a boat's behavior that to rely on them in any way borders on the dangerous.
Both of these formulas were developed at a time when boats were a lot more similar to each other than they are today. These formulas have limited utility in comparing boats other than those which are very similar in weight and buoyancy distribution to each other. Neither formula contains almost any of the real factors that control motion comfort, the likelihood of capsize, or seaworthiness. Neither formula contains such factors as the vertical center of gravity or buoyancy, neither contains weight or buoyancy distribution (of the hull both below and above the waterline), the extent to which the beam of the boat is carried fore and aft, and neither contains any data on dampening, all of which really are the major factors that control motion comfort or the likelihood of capsize.

I typically give this example to explain just how useless and dangerously misleading these formulas can be. If we had two boats that were virtually identical except that one had a 1000 pound weight at the top of the mast. (Yes, I know that no one would install a 1000 lb weight at the top of the mast.) The boat with the weight up its mast would appear to be less prone to capsize under the capsize screen formula, and would appear to be more comfortable under the Motion Comfort ratio. Nothing would be further than the truth.

And while this example would clearly appear to be so extreme as to be worthy of dismissal, in reality, if you had two boats, one with a very heavy interior, shoal draft, its beam carried towards the ends of the boat near the deck line, a heavy deck and cabin, perhaps with traditional teak decks and bulwarks, a very heavy rig, heavy deck hardware, a hard bottomed dingy stored on its cabin top, and the resultant comparatively small ballast ratio made up of low density ballast. And if we compare that to a boat that is lighter overall, but it has a deep draft keel, with a higher ballast ratio, the bulk of the ballast carried in a bulb, its maximum beam carried to a single point in the deck so that there was less deck area near the maximum beam, a lighter weight hull, deck and interior as well as a lighter, but taller rig, it would be easy to see that the second boat would potentially have less of a likelihood of being capsized, and it is likely that the second boat would roll and pitch through a smaller angle, and would probably have better dampening and so roll and pitch at a similar rate to the heavier boat, in other words offer a better motion comfort....And yet, under the Capsize Screen Formula and the Motion Comfort Index it would appear that the first boat would be less prone to capsize and have a better motion when obviously this would not be the case.

There are some better indicators of a vessel’s likelihood of capsize. The EU developed their own stability index called STIX, a series of formulas which considered a wide range of factors and provides a reasonable sense of how a boat might perform in extreme conditions. Unfortunately meaningful results require a lot more information than most folks have access to for any specific design. The Offshore Committee of US Sailing developed the following simplified formula for estimating the Angle of Vanishing Stability (Sometimes referred to as the ‘AVS’, ‘limit of positive stability’, ‘LPS’, or ‘Latent Stability Angle’ ):
Screening Stability Value ( SSV ) = ( Beam 2 ) / ( BR * HD * DV 1/3 )
Where;
BR: Ballast Ratio ( Keel Weight / Total Weight )
HD: Hull Draft
DV: The Displacement Volume in cubic meters. DV is entered as pounds of displacement on the webpage and converted to cubic meters by the formula:
Displacement Volume in Cubic Meters = ( Weight in Pounds / 64 )*0.0283168
The Beam and Draft in this formula are in meters. These values are entered in feet on the webpage and are converted to meters before SSV calculation.
Angle of Vanishing Stability approximately equals 110 + ( 400 / (SSV-10) )

There is a convenient calculator at http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__avs.htm>>


It should be noted that the AVS is only one indicator in evaluating the likelihood of capsize, meaning it only predicts the point at which the vessel wants to turn turtle. It does not predict the amount of force that would be required to heel the vessel to that limit, nor does it predict how the shape of the boat might encourage wave action to roll the boat closer to the angle at which it no longer wants to return.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay

Last edited by Jeff_H; 01-26-2010 at 09:13 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #15  
Old 01-25-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
conquistatadore is on a distinguished road
Avs

Jeff,

Again we are talking cheap ol' boats, not newer boats that have low disp. and wide beam in modern design that reduce both CSF and AVS at lower wt.

So that limits the choices...

Thanx for the info though.

The search continues....










Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #16  
Old 01-26-2010
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MS Gulf Coast
Posts: 711
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Rep Power: 0
seabreeze_97 is on a distinguished road
naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety naivety
If you're gonna insult someone, at least spell it correctly.
As for Tom Dove, he was very clear on the conditions. He has to have owned one to comment on a day sail? I don't believe he's ever sunk one either. Man, he just doesn't know anything, does he Jeff?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #17  
Old 01-26-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
conquistatadore is on a distinguished road
Seebreeze;

Not sure who you're talking about here, but no one intended any insults here for you or any one, and nothing that was written by me was towards you either... just opinions ... and if anything i was supporting the "Vanguard" and its potentiality...



(never mind that, Jeff cleared it up)

Last edited by conquistatadore; 01-26-2010 at 06:09 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #18  
Old 01-26-2010
Jeff_H's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,668
Thanks: 5
Thanked 103 Times in 79 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about Jeff_H has a spectacular aura about
I think that Seabreeze's comments were directed at my poor choice of wording and spelling. I apologize for using the word "naive" (now editted out) and the fact that I mispelled it. Typing in haste, I did not mean the word to be an insult as much as to say, that within the design community, these surrogate formulas are seen as being outdated, overly simplistic, providing little or no useful knowledge.

My comment about Tom Dove's experience with the Vanguard is that in the article he says things like, "It should be well-mannered in big waves and a chop", "It tracks far better than a modern fin-keel designs" and "the hull form that makes the Vanguard tender should make her seakindly". None of those statements match my experience with the boat especially in rougher conditions, and my point is that if Mr. Dove had more experience with the boat, he would find that the boat is not well manner in big waves or a chop, does not track well at all, and has an uncomfortable motion, rolling though very wide angles before snapping to a stop as she suddenly builds buoyancy on her topsides.

Seabreeze's other comment about Mr. Dove never sinking one refers to the fact that my family's Vanguard was sunk in December of 1969. We had left her with a boat yard to haul her for the winter. There was a nor'easter coming in, and the yard mistakenly told us that she had been hauled out. I was away at college, so my dad went down to check her on the cradle only to discover that she had not been hauled and had been left on a mooring. By the time that had been figured out, she had chafed through the mooring line, had broken free, and ended up a total loss on the beach near the rocks at Ft Toten.

I also want to comment on the RM chart that Conquistadore posted. This is very out of date. Modern IMS and IRC derived designs have much larger AVS's and require a lot more energy to capsize than traditional heavy displacement boats. And when the chart refers to a "Narrow Heavy Displacement Hull" this is not referring to a CCA type hull form. This is referring to the traditional long water line cruisers.

Which gets to the central point that I was trying to make, even in the era when CCA race boats were popular, there were boats being designed and built specifically for the purpose of going cruising rather than for the racing/coastal cruising purposes of a boat like the Vanguard. And these boats cost little or no more than a boat like a Vanguard, but their basic design had substantially longer waterline lengths relative to their length on deck, more suitable rigs for offshore cruising, better motion comfort, more stability and more robust construction than the CCA era race boats and so would be better suited for your asperations.

My advise was not intended to suggest that you buy a modern boat, it is simply that if you are looking for an offshore cruising boat, then buy an offshore cruising boat, and not a 50 year old race boat. But I would also that you spend a little more time, understanding hull forms and the negative impact that short waterline lengths have on motion comfort, seakeeping, carrying capacity, and overall sailing ability.

Respectfully,
Jeff
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #19  
Old 01-26-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
conquistatadore is on a distinguished road
Wow, Mr; H.

You sure did blow me away ...

I appreciate your complete and well analyzed argument.
And i simply have to say....
"i rest my case"

Obviously you know your subject very well, and it would be merely wise for me to take your advice in to serious consideration and placement towards my decision.

Here is my thoughts and you can perhaps give me one last word...if you would please!

The coaster i am looking at has; " new: mast, rigging, diesel motor, bottom paint job, sails, roller furler..."
Interior is the weak point in this case.

Thats what interested me in first place!
Not too many OLD boats you can find with those updated features that cost a ton of money!!!

So its not just the boat brand, but also how well it was maintained that narrows the choices.

BTW; my friend sailed a triton to japan with no trouble at all !

thanx again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
  #20  
Old 01-26-2010
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 235
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 6
COOL is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquistatadore View Post
----------




Alberg 35 pretty much did set the standard on these numbers back in the day and is just an amazing boat!
I spent the formative years of my sailing career aboard an Alberg 35.
In my experience, that design is very slow and under powered
in light air, yet sails at excessive heel angles in a breeze.
It also generated a tremendous weather helm and was difficult to
maneuver in reverse under power.
__________________
Islander 30 II 'COOL'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message Share with Facebook
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

 
Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pearson Coaster value? AGENDASAILOR Pearson 1 06-24-2010 02:24 PM
Pearson 10M . am I crazy? This is not a fat keel boat Jasper Windvane Boat Review and Purchase Forum 8 03-31-2010 03:33 PM
1966 Pearson Coaster whwilson Boat Review and Purchase Forum 4 11-04-2009 08:51 AM
Pearson 36 vs C&C 37 dnr Boat Review and Purchase Forum 1 11-16-2002 05:07 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Add to My Yahoo!         
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012

The SailNet.com store is owned and operated by a company independent of the SailNet.com forum. You are now leaving the SailNet forum. Click OK to continue or Cancel to return to the SailNet forum.