Cheoy Lee Offshore 40 - SailNet Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 30 Old 02-03-2003 Thread Starter
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
Cheoy Lee Offshore 40

I am currently looking to buy this boat and I am very interested in views of other boat owners or others familiar with this boat.
It has been recently upgraded (new mast, standing rigging, engine etc.
Thanks.
Ernie.
Ganderbay is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 30 Old 02-03-2003
Senior Member
 
paulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: CT/ Long Island Sound
Posts: 2,605
Thanks: 4
Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts
Rep Power: 16
 
Cheoy Lee Offshore 40

Nice boats, but that can be a lot of teak.
paulk is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #3 of 30 Old 02-04-2003
Moderator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,904
Thanks: 5
Thanked 152 Times in 124 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Cheoy Lee Offshore 40

These were a reworked version of the Rhodes Reliant. I had the priviledge of spending a fair amount of time sailing one of these in Miami in the early 1970''s. These are absolutely beautiful boats to look at both above and below decks. The one that I knew had the same layout as the Reliant which was an aft cockpit/Aft cabin layout that had two companionways. This was a very practical layout and resulted in some nice features but also resulted in some strange features such as having to walk on deck to get to the main cabin companionway and a very strange vee berth if I remember correctly. The one that I sailed was a yawl but over the years I have seen some sloop versions as well.

As to sailing ability, even in their day these were slow boats. The story that went around, and was told to me by the owner of the boat that I sailed on, was that the interiors of these boats so far exceeded Rhodes'' design weights that the boats really gave up a lot of performance. To get them back on their lines, the ballast weights were reduced some and so was the sail plan. This resulted in a boat that was undercanvased and really poor in light air, and pretty tender in a breeze. They also had very short waterlines which really limited thier performance in moderate breezes as well. Not a good combination.

In the short wave patterns off of Miami these boats had a tendancy to pitch a lot, making work on the foredeck pretty uncomfortable. They were also pretty rolly, although I understand that the boats with the lighter aluminum rigs were less prone to rolling through as wide an angle.

I some times see these boats refered to as "full keel". They are not by any reasonable definition a full keel. They are really are approaching being fin keelers with attached rudders (by the classic definition of a fin keel being a keel that is 50% or less than the length over all or the length of the sailplan.) This means that they really do not really offer the advantages of either keel type (i.e. the tracking, rudder protection or ease of haul out of a full keel, or the manueverability, speed, and light helm of a fin keel boat.)

Build quality was a mixed bag. The owner of the boat that I knew, a boat that was less than 10 years old when I was sailing on her, complained about all kinds of quality issues. There were all kinds of deck leaks and with the Teak over plywood decks this was a very serious concern to him. Much of the hardware was made by Cheoy Lee and while beautiful to look at, replacement parts were non-existant and items like winches were somewhat undersized for the loads involved. Not that they would fail but they really required alot of strength to use in any breeze at all. He also had a number of electrical, dissimilar metals/electrolysis (had to replace a number of seacocks and throughhulls) and plumbing problems. His boat had a mix of iron and ss tanks if I remember right. Imagine these will need to be replaced if they haven''t been.

From all of this you may get the impression that I don''t like these boats. That is not the case. These are really beautiful old boats to sail. By now many of the original construction''issues'' have probably been sorted out. They are an interesting slice of history and would make a neat boat to own if speed is not a concern and you lived in an area with predominantly moderate winds. Sailing these old boats offers a very different aesthetic than more modern designs and that aesthetic can be very appealing.

Good luck,
Jeff
Jeff_H is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #4 of 30 Old 04-20-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
53 nautical miles

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
These were a reworked version of the Rhodes Reliant. I had the priviledge of spending a fair amount of time sailing one of these in Miami in the early 1970''s. These are absolutely beautiful boats to look at both above and below decks. The one that I knew had the same layout as the Reliant which was an aft cockpit/Aft cabin layout that had two companionways. This was a very practical layout and resulted in some nice features but also resulted in some strange features such as having to walk on deck to get to the main cabin companionway and a very strange vee berth if I remember correctly. The one that I sailed was a yawl but over the years I have seen some sloop versions as well.

As to sailing ability, even in their day these were slow boats. The story that went around, and was told to me by the owner of the boat that I sailed on, was that the interiors of these boats so far exceeded Rhodes'' design weights that the boats really gave up a lot of performance. To get them back on their lines, the ballast weights were reduced some and so was the sail plan. This resulted in a boat that was undercanvased and really poor in light air, and pretty tender in a breeze. They also had very short waterlines which really limited thier performance in moderate breezes as well. Not a good combination.

In the short wave patterns off of Miami these boats had a tendancy to pitch a lot, making work on the foredeck pretty uncomfortable. They were also pretty rolly, although I understand that the boats with the lighter aluminum rigs were less prone to rolling through as wide an angle.

I some times see these boats refered to as "full keel". They are not by any reasonable definition a full keel. They are really are approaching being fin keelers with attached rudders (by the classic definition of a fin keel being a keel that is 50% or less than the length over all or the length of the sailplan.) This means that they really do not really offer the advantages of either keel type (i.e. the tracking, rudder protection or ease of haul out of a full keel, or the manueverability, speed, and light helm of a fin keel boat.)

Build quality was a mixed bag. The owner of the boat that I knew, a boat that was less than 10 years old when I was sailing on her, complained about all kinds of quality issues. There were all kinds of deck leaks and with the Teak over plywood decks this was a very serious concern to him. Much of the hardware was made by Cheoy Lee and while beautiful to look at, replacement parts were non-existant and items like winches were somewhat undersized for the loads involved. Not that they would fail but they really required alot of strength to use in any breeze at all. He also had a number of electrical, dissimilar metals/electrolysis (had to replace a number of seacocks and throughhulls) and plumbing problems. His boat had a mix of iron and ss tanks if I remember right. Imagine these will need to be replaced if they haven''t been.

From all of this you may get the impression that I don''t like these boats. That is not the case. These are really beautiful old boats to sail. By now many of the original construction''issues'' have probably been sorted out. They are an interesting slice of history and would make a neat boat to own if speed is not a concern and you lived in an area with predominantly moderate winds. Sailing these old boats offers a very different aesthetic than more modern designs and that aesthetic can be very appealing.

Good luck,
Jeff
Hey Jeff. just bought one, a 1967, several days ago. Yet to ascertain exactly what is what about her yet but with 12 knots pushing me through following seas in the Chesapeake Sunday, we reached 7.9 knots and a fair steady 7.2 with only a genoa flying. (a 160% mind you) Of course, I just sold a beamy 70year old wooden 57' Dbl Ender (Atkins Ingrid one-off) so she seemed fair quick to me. Those were the read-outs from a plotter.
furasta is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #5 of 30 Old 04-20-2010
Moderator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,904
Thanks: 5
Thanked 152 Times in 124 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Congratulations- I always like hearing of these boats being sold to a good home. If you owned a 70 year old wooden boat, you probably know what you are up against.

Quick is almost always in the mind of the beholder. 7.2 with burts to 7.9 is a very respectible speed for these boats. I think you will certainly have better performance than your Atkins Ingrid but you may miss the Ingrid's comparatively comfortable motion.

To put my comments regarding speed in perspective, my comments were based on boat for boat performance back in their day when compared to similar sized boats of that era. But also, to further put the relative speed into perspective, Sunday on the Chesapeake, in the same conditions, the GPS showed my 38 footer typically moving at around 8.5 knots with bursts up into the mid- 9's (with a reefed main and blade jib). Of course, a more modern boat than mine would have shown even higher readings than we saw. (Also depending on when and where you were on the Bay there seemed to be a lot of current flowing with the winds from the heavy rains up north. And also, at least where I was, the apparent wind was roughly 12 knots but the true wind was gusting into the low 20 knot range at times. )

Still, there are few boats that are prettier than the Reliant. Enjoy your new boat....

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

Last edited by Jeff_H; 04-20-2010 at 10:00 AM.
Jeff_H is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #6 of 30 Old 04-27-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: southport, me
Posts: 27
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
cl40 rhodes reliant design

having owned a bunch of cheoy lees, i can attest the decks were NOT underlaid with plywood. the entire hulls of the rhodes and luders were fiberglass. jeffH does not know what he is talking about. the rhodes and luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders. jeffh must either be making up his stuff or mistaking cheory lees for cal boats.
reed1v is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #7 of 30 Old 04-28-2010
Top Sekret Ninja Sailor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Somewhat near Naptown
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 8
 
The decks of the Rhodes Reliant / Offshore 40 were wood cored fiberglass. Plywood was typically used as coring material under high load areas such as winches. While the Reliant was supposed to be built using end grain balsa as the core, other woods such as lauan were used in at least some of the boats. It would not surprise me in the least if a number of boats have plywood as the main core material.
slap is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #8 of 30 Old 04-28-2010
Telstar 28
 
sailingdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 43,290
Thanks: 0
Thanked 15 Times in 12 Posts
Rep Power: 14
         
I would point out that blanket statements like this, especially against a well-respected member of the forum who has been here a long time, aren't going to do you much good. I'm fairly sure that Jeff knows the difference between a Cal and a Cheoy Lee.

I'd point out you'd be far more credible if you spelled Cheoy Lee correctly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed1v View Post
having owned a bunch of cheoy lees, i can attest the decks were NOT underlaid with plywood. the entire hulls of the rhodes and luders were fiberglass. jeffH does not know what he is talking about. the rhodes and luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders. jeffh must either be making up his stuff or mistaking cheory lees for cal boats.

Sailingdog

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Telstar 28
New England

You know what the first rule of sailing is? ...Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take
a boat to the sea you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turning of the worlds. Love keeps
her going when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home.

—Cpt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity (edited)

If you're new to the Sailnet Forums... please read this
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Still—DON'T READ THAT POST AGAIN.
sailingdog is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #9 of 30 Old 04-28-2010
Moderator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 6,904
Thanks: 5
Thanked 152 Times in 124 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
I can't speak specifically about the Offshore 41 because at least some of them appeared to have glass decks and cabin-sides, or speak to every boat in the entire Cheoy Lee line but at least on the Cheoy Lee's from the same era as the Rhodes Reliant that I personally watched having their deck rebuilt, the deck and cabin were constructed pretty much as you would build a wooden boat with wooden deck framing, let into carlins at the cabin, and clamps at the hull. Unlike traditional wooden boat construction there was plywood laid over the frames, which was then glassed and the teak was laid over that plywood.

On the Cheoy Lee that I did the drawings for during the time that I was with Charlie Wittholz, Charlie had specified end grain balsa for the sub-deck, but Cheoy Lee insisted on using plywood, which was they said was their usual practice since it held fastenings better than the balsa.

Cheoy Lee's hulls were solid glass, but whatever internal framing that they elected use was typically glassed in wood as well.

With respect to the comment, "the Rhodes and the Luders are full cut away keels with attached rudders", I would ask which do you think they are, "full Keel" or "cut away keel" , because I would suggest that the two terms are mutually exclusive. In the case of the Rhodes Reliant, I would politely suggest that they were cut-away keels that were cut away to the point that they had roughly the same surface area (relative to their lengths on deck) as many fin keel boats of that era. In my personal experience steering them in a breeze was like trying to steer with a trimtab.

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

Last edited by Jeff_H; 04-28-2010 at 11:03 AM.
Jeff_H is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #10 of 30 Old 04-28-2010
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: southport, me
Posts: 27
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 0
 
no way

either your photo is a very old one, or your dreaming. i worked in hong kong back in 1971 and visited the yard often. had a cadet back then. later, in 1986 back in u.s. we cut up an old cl-40 after it was gutted by fire. the decks were solid glass with channels filled with continuous solid teak. no end grain balsa anywhere. not even sure back then it was used by any asian yard. yes, ply was used as embedded backing plates for high load area.
reed1v is offline  
Quote Quick Reply 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:
OR

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
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bluewater defined? dch Learning to Sail 44 07-29-2009 07:20 PM
what determines a coastal cruiser??? troyaux Boat Review and Purchase Forum 18 02-14-2007 11:39 PM
Reflections of an Offshore Passage Bermuda Seamanship & Navigation 4 07-23-2006 08:03 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio garyp Boat Review and Purchase Forum 9 03-23-2004 10:48 PM
JeffH - Question on cutters el General Discussion (sailing related) 6 09-05-2003 06:50 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome