Sigh...
I've said before, these boats are dirt simple and the interiors should be thought of as more of a blank canvas than a finished design. But those are upgrades any older boat will likely need.
I completely agree that as designed the Vanguards were very simple boats. This makes them easy to work on, update and maintain. if you are handy its is pretty easy to return one to original condition or upgrade it with modern hardware and amentities. Where you and I may disagree is that there are a lot of boats in the same general size and price range which can be purchased with all of the updates already onboard and operational. I also believe that if you are the one doing the upgrading, it is very hard to get even a reasonable percent of your dollars spent on the upgrades out of the boat when you are done since the prices on these boats are somewhat limited by the broader limitations of their age and design.
Phil Rhodes was a pretty well regarded naval architect at the time he designed the Vanguard. Boat design is a blend of many compromises. Vanguards are slow by todays standards, but if you work with the design attributes they sail well. For example, they don't need to sail at a heel beyond fifteen degrees, nor were they ever intended to. If you heel over to twenty, put a reef in and she will sit right up. She will not go beyond twenty easily.
I would agree, Phillip Rhodes was one of the top design offices in the world at the time that he designed the Vanguard. In conversations with Phillip Rhodes about the Vanguard, he made it clear that Pearson compromised the design when they were building the boat the main one being leaving out some of the ballast. You and I would agree that the Vanguard can be sailed quite comfortably at a heel angle of 15 degrees and that if you reef early (12 to15 knots of wind depending on the choice of headsail) she will stand back up and have a comparatively balanced helm. Where we might disagree is that the rule of thumb to get the most speed out of the Vanguard was to sail her with her toerail approximately a foot above the water, which I believe was closer to 20 degrees, and perhaps over that. There is a tendancy to talk about these long overhang boats increasing their waterline and therefore their speed with heel. If you stand them up, you are theortically are giving up speed. It may be that by standing the boat up some, that lost speed may be made up by a smaller leeway angle and therefore and better VMG. It would be fun to experiment with that using modern instruments.
I sail all over New England and never felt the need for anything larger than a 135 on a furler. I sail on the open Atlantic, not the Chessie where air does tend to be lighter, but I regularly do 6 knots continuously off the wind and average 5-5.5 into the wind if I don't pinch. That is with four crewmembers and provisions for a week of cruising. With one reef in, the helm is almost neutral and you do need to reef at 15 knots. The second reef goes in at 30 and you will switching to a storm jib. I sail often when nobody else will go out.
I think that you and I are actually in agreement here too. If you sail in a venue where the predominant winds are in the 10 to 15 knots you can probably do well with a 135%- #2 genoa. I do seem to recall that there is a geometry problem with the sheet lead on #2 genoas (125% to 140%) ( a conflct between sheeting inboard of the lifelines and outboard of the shrouds for which there needed to be a jib track and car added on the deck, or using the outboard jib track on the toerail and sheeting outboard of the lifelines without having the foot distorted on the bowpulpit and forward lifeline, or dropping the forward lifeline to the deck) that limits the size of a #2. But that said, I would think that a #2 could have a pretty wide range on a boat like the Vanguard. And also, reefing the main before reducing headsail size goes a long way towards taming the Vanguard's weather helm. As you note, when you start sailing these boats in venues with lighter winds, say winds much below 10 knots, you really need a larger much genoa, and those larger genoas are a pain to sail with, especially with the original hardware. But then you are faced with ideally swapping for a #2 genoa in winds around 12-15 knots, which then gets swapped for a #3 or working jib as you approach 20 knots. These are comparatively narrow windspeed ranges compared to more modern designs and that was all that I was saying.
The rig came with a roller furling boom-switch to slab reefing at a cost of $50 and you won't regret it.
I am not sure how you change to slab reefing for a cost of only $50 but I completely agree that slab reefing would be a major improvement.
The mainsheet benefits from a traveler upgrade to help shape the main and dump a little wind up top when the breeze picks up. Cost about $250. The decks are wide, simple and clean. There is a real 2" toe rail to keep you aboard, not a half inch square of teak or an aluminum extrusion. The side decks are unobstructed by inboard shrouds, so she may not point as high, but deck work is easier, safer and more secure.
Similarly, I am not sure how you add a traveler and control lines for a cost of only $250 but I completely agree that a traveller would be a major improvement on a boat with as little initial stability as the Vanguard.
That large underwater hull profile translates into more living space below. I have 6'2" of headroom. I've cruised extensively with my wife and kids and we always felt safe and comfortable, if a little cramped as they got larger. The bunks are roomy. The boat does not pound or sound like a resonating drum as it beats to windward. Flex in a Vanguard hull is unheard off. The deep vhull and mass combine to yield a much quieter and more comfortable ride. The boat tracks well, is not squirrely at all downwind or running in a sea. She heaves to easily, forereaching only slightly under backed jib and centered main. Speaking of the underwater profile, we have bazillions of lobster pots up here-folks won't even attempt a night passage in some parts due to all the lines. The attached rudder has a very well protected prop in an aperture which has never tangled in twenty years of cruising through thousands of pots.
I agree with most of this, but that 6'2" headroom is only in the doghouse. Where we might disagree is that the full bow sections hit harder in a chop than the fine bow on a well designed modern boat, and a well designed modern boat does not pound or boom like a drum when beating. I disagree that a Vanguard hull does not flex. The ones that I have sailed to weather tend to have their head doors stick when going to weather because the boat is flexing. If you sit on the trunk portion of the house with your feet on the deck you can actually feel the flexure.
Someone mentioned the Farr 37 above. I agree with that comment that they do tend to pound. The Farr 37 was an IOR design and so has comparatively flat botton which can slap and pound pretty badly. That is one of the things which would discourage me from buying an IOR era design, but that is another story. (I own a Farr 38 which was not an IOR boat and which has vee shaped sections forward)
The A4 is a fine and elegantly simple engine. I rebuilt mine a few years back for $1500 and expect it to last another forty years. I can order you a block, a crank ,a cam-virtually any part you would conceivably need in fifteen minutes or less from multiple sources on the web. Would I like a diesel? Sure, but for $8000 I'll save my money for now. For long distance cruising, the A4 is limited in power and range given the inefficient power curve and the limited tankage. For coastal cruising, it's smooth, quiet and has adequate power. Mine pushes me upriver regularly against the outgoing tide of the Merrimac River which ebbs at 1.5 knots. A Beta diesel upgrade would give a cruising range under power of a couple hundred miles-which for a small boat is not terrible. Many Vanguards have already had a diesel upgrade.
I actually like the Atomic 4. I agree that they are easy and comparatively inexpensive to work on and if maintained are quite reliable. I must apologize for my comments above about parts availability. That was written approximately 10-12 years ago and there seemed to be more problems getting Atomic 4 parts than there are today, as long as you don't mind updating to newer (and more reliable) style parts.
It is true, I guess, that you can cross oceans in just about anything, but it is extraordinary how many long voyages have been made in Vanguards. Three college grads circumnavigated on a Vanguard after graduating college. A couple from Maine went as far as Indonesia-I know several who have crossed the pond multiple times and I know one that races in the PACCup which is 2070 miles. I've spoken or corresponded with most of them and they all tell me the boat was safe, dependable and easy to handle in a seaway. We see them all over the coast of Maine where they are very well regarded. There is a very active users group on yahoo where you can correspond with hundreds of happy Vanguard owners and learn of virtually any upgrade you can imagine.
You and I agree on most of that. If you are a good seaman and in decent condition, and you have a Vanguard that is in good shape and well maintained, it would certainly be possible to take one distance cruising and do so on a budget. By the same token as these boats age, it takes a diligent effort to make one safe and reliable. Certainly chainplates, fuel and water tanks, and rudders can be replaced. Bulkheads can be stripped of the formica, repaired or replaced as well. Longitudinals and transverse framing can be added were needed. The hull deck joint can be beefed up where fatigue has taken its toll. And when you are done you have a boat that can probably go the distance. But my point in these discussions is not whether it can be done, but whether the Vanguard really makes sense for that purpose, or whether a person considering a lot of offshore sailing would not be better served by a boat design which began life as a distance cruiser, rather than a boat like the Vanguard which began life as a race boat and coastal cruiser.
The thing is, every newer design I look at does not look 1/2 as pretty as my Vanguard in profile. Every time I row away from her, I take one more look to take her in-I am having a really hard time imagining letting her go.
And you and I agree on this as well. Where we might disagree is my belief that a boat is a tool, a very sophisticated tool, but a tool none the less. And to me, no matter how beautiful a tool may be, I sstill judge it on its effectiveness for my purposes. For my purposes, ease of handling, speed and seaworthiness come first. And how ever we each may view this, I respectfully suggest that for my particular set of preferences, the Vanguard does not do all that well compared to other options within its general price range. But we each chose the boats we do in response to our own needs, tastes, goals and budgets. And in that regard there is no one right answer that suits all of us equally. If your Vanguard makes your heart soar and your days bright, then it is the exact right choice for you. And that is all that counts.