SailNet Community - Reply to Topic

   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 > Peterson
 Not a Member? 


Thread: Peterson Reply to Thread
Title:
  

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

Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Click here to view the posting rules you are bound to when clicking the
'Submit Reply' button below


Topic Review (Newest First)
08-23-2005 06:30 PM
Jeff_H
Peterson

The Wiggers built Peterson 37''s were a much later design than the 34''s and were in many ways much more advanced designs in terms of ease of sailing and boatspeed. They were still quite dependent on larger crew size and sail inventories than the more modern designs that replaced these more venerable IOR era boats.
08-18-2005 07:19 PM
paulk
Peterson

Am not familiar with Peterson 36''s, but was quite impressed by a Wiggers-built Peterson 37. (1980''s) Major sailhandling equipment and all sorts of strings to pull for tweaking the max out of the sails and spars both up and downwind. Liked the Peterson 34 as well - a bit more cruiser-oriented, but still reputed to be very quick.
08-18-2005 01:54 PM
catamount
Peterson

I think both Johns and Jeff_H are correct. The Peterson 34 is both a good fast cruiser and a relatively slow hard-to-handle boat -- it all depends on what you are comparing the boat to. As a racing boat, the Peterson 34 is pretty clearly obsolete, but I think it may have a lot to offer as a performance cruising boat relative to more traditional heavy cruisers (assuming you can outfit the boat with the right suite of sails and set it up appropriately). I just bought one, so I guess time will tell.

Regards,

Tim
08-17-2005 07:15 PM
Jeff_H
Peterson

The problem with the Peterson 34''s like most IOR boats that were derived from them was that they tended to be tender, wipe out when heeled, and downwind very slow and difficult to sail. Compared to newer lightweight boats, they have a comparatively uncomfortable motion. They were also designed to be sailed with quite large crews compared to newer boats requiring far more ''rail meat'' than contempory designs. Their sail plan proportions require comparatively large sail inventories and are a pain in the butt sail short-handed. While pretty fast compared to earlier designs, on an absolute scale, they are not particularly fast when compared to newer boats like the C&C 99, J-109 or the Beneteau 36.7. Still and all they were good boats for their day.

Jeff
08-17-2005 07:00 PM
sidney777
Peterson

Here is a couple of fresh water boat dealers on Lake Michigan.
http://www.larsenmarine.com/searchengine/searchResults.aspx?type=0.980889610937279&surl=www .larsenmarine.com&site_type=dealertemplate
http://www.torresen.com/ --as well as good diesel parts and info.
ALL Quoted information----"It''s aluminum. Here''s why:

Aluminum combines light weight, high strength, easy workability, and acceptable cost in one package. Steel is less expensive as a raw material, but by the time the extra dollars associated with handling it, forming the plates, etc., are factored-in, much of that advantage disappears. Steel takes longer to weld than aluminum an increases labor costs. It must be sandblasted before priming and painting, another expense; it''s high- maintenance, which translates to increased operating costs; and it''s heavy, so less displacement is left over for the 1,001 other things that must go into a first-class yacht-- things like engines, systems, and fuel. Steel isn''t a serious player in this league--leave it for only the largest yachts or commercial boats.

Fiberglass usually means a skins-and-core composite that creates panel stiffness without excessive weight. Cored composites are relative newcomers in the custom- yacht field and vary in quality from excellent to abysmal. Trouble is, you don''t know which level you''re getting because it''s impossible to analyze a composite laminate thoroughly without destroying it. You have to rely on the reputation and track record of the builder, and hope that everyone is having a good day when they lay up your hull.

In the hands of expert craftsmen working in climate-controlled shops, using high-tech autoclaves, post-cure ovens, and exotic fabrics, cores, and resins, composite FG produces a strong, light laminate. The aerospace industry uses lots of carbon fiber and epoxy; supersonic fighter planes, airliners,and the Stealth Bomber soar on carbon. Laminate costs soar, too, often 20 times higher per pound than boat-builders are willing to spend, and yacht buyers willing to pay, for marine composites.

And you get what you pay for: Composites assembled by even the best yacht builders can suffer delamination, incomplete cure, resin starvation, water absorption and heat deformation. Finish your hull in Flag Blue or another dark color, and it can lose up to 75% of its strength under the hot Florida sun. According to one classification-society engineer, it''s likely that cored-composite yachts built with bottom-of-the-barrel raw materials like E-glass fabric and polyester resin will have water in the core within five years. Even more troublesome is secondary bonding: the attachment of bulkheads, stringers, floors and other structural members to the cured hull. Secondary-bonding failure is a major cause of composite boat owner''s headaches. Composite fiberglass is floating Russian roulette--do you feel lucky?

Boat-building in aluminum doesn''t involve luck. It''s a straightforward process using easily tested, time-proven materials and methods. On a weight-for-weight basis, aluminum alloy is stronger than steel. Strength-for-strength, it weighs about half as much and is 10 times more resilient. Collisions that would puncture steel or composite hulls often just dent aluminum ones. Rather than starting the pumps, the skipper has the yard cut out the dimple and weld-in a new plate the next time its'' there for routine maintenance. Nobody takes an unplanned swim, nor does the yacht suffer any downtime.

Aluminum, as defined by SOLAS standards, is non-flammable and non-combustible. Because of this, aluminum yachts can be made to comply to new, more strict I.M.O. commercial boat rules that are nevertheless appropriate for all oceangoing vessels. These rules demand structural fire protection (containment of fire in a particular compartment by the vessel''s structure only without help from firefighting systems) and multiple watertight compartments. While watertight bulkheads can be built in composite yachts, structural fire protection is problematic, since composite cannot meet the relevant standards. While these new rules are mandatory for high-speed commercial boats in international service only, a yachtsman planning long cruises far from land can see the advantage of a yacht that''s sink-and-fire-resistant.

The 5000-series alloy used to build modern aluminum boats consists of aluminum and magnesium, with a trace of silicon. Sailboat masts and spars are usually anodized 6061 alloy and contains a little copper, as well. Copper increases strength but reduces corrosion resistance: The copper in the 6061 reacts with the aluminum when salt water, or even salty dampness, is present to serve as an electrolyte. This causes bubbles to form wherever there''s a break in the paint film and salt gets underneath. The result: Lifted paint, powdery white corrosion pockets, and other maintenance nightmares. Unfortunately, many yachtsmen carry this image with them when they think about building an aluminum boat, but the 5000-series alloys are much more corrosion- resistant because they contain no copper.

At Palmer Johnson, a 78-year-old custom yacht-building firm in the tight-knit community of Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, they insulate every dissimilar metal fitting and fastening from the aluminum with bushings and pads of Delrin or another inert plastic. Preventing direct contact between the metals is the key to defeating corrosion. Below the waterline, an array of sacrificial zinc anodes will prevent galvanic corrosion; their service life is predictable, and replacing them becomes a part of regular maintenance. Owners especially concerned about galvanic corrosion can specify an on-board metering system that constantly measures corrosion potential. Checking the meter daily will immediately warn the crew of unusual circumstances underwater. However, most aluminum boats enjoy a corrosion-free life after decades of service, protected only by zinc anodes.

The earliest modern aluminum hulls, built right after World War II, were riveted. When thin plating is
08-17-2005 06:48 PM
sidney777
Peterson

Date: Aug. 17 2005 9:37 PM
Author: johns
Yes, any of the Peterson 34''s that I looked at a few months ago did NOT have same specs as SAILCALC. Below is one that I looked at.

For me they seem fast, beamy, great displacement to balast ratio. They look like a very good fast cruiser with volume; there must be alot I do not know because (except for deep draft), long waterline,high pecent of balast,room below, and saying they are WELL built, 32 Peterson looks like a boat that Jeff H says is very good??
Information:
Builder/Designer
Builder: Peterson - Island Yacht Corp Designer: Doug Peterson
Dimensions
LOA: 33'' 11" LWL: 29'' Beam: 11''3"
Displacement: 10,800 Draft: 6''3" Ballast: 5,100 lbs
Engines
Engine(s): Single diesel Yanmar Engine(s) HP: 15 Engine Model: 2QM15
Tankage
Fuel: 12 gal Water: 15 gal NEED MORE !
HOW about an Aluminum Palmer Johnson instead of the Peterson ? (for the above purchaser)





©1994-2005, SailNet ®, All Rights Reserved. Copying without permission is expressly forbidden.
SailNet · 3864 Leeds Avenue · Charleston SC 29405 · USA
08-17-2005 06:37 PM
sidney777
Peterson

Yes, any of the Peterson 34''s that I looked at a few months ago did NOT have same specs as SAILCALC. Below is one that I looked at.

For me they seem fast, beamy, great displacement to balast ratio. They look like a very good fast cruiser with volume; there must be alot I do not know because (except for deep draft), long waterline,high pecent of balast,room below, and saying they are WELL built, 32 Peterson looks like a boat that Jeff H says is very good??
Information:
Builder/Designer
Builder: Peterson - Island Yacht Corp Designer: Doug Peterson
Dimensions
LOA: 33'' 11" LWL: 29'' Beam: 11''3"
Displacement: 10,800 Draft: 6''3" Ballast: 5,100 lbs
Engines
Engine(s): Single diesel Yanmar Engine(s) HP: 15 Engine Model: 2QM15
Tankage
Fuel: 12 gal Water: 15 gal--NEED MORE !!
08-16-2005 05:10 PM
catamount
Peterson

My curiosity is piqued, so I''ve taken another look at the old IOR and PHRF certificates I inherited with my boat.

The IOR measurements were done May 21, 1984 by Mr. Gregory Nulk (who is still listed as a measurer in Salem, MA).

DSPL = 9614 (can''t find ballast or anything that looks like it).


Now the 2001 Mid Atlantic PHRF certificate has the following values:

DISPL. = 10000
BAL. = 5000


The USYRU Performance Package, IMS Hydrostatic and Theroetical Stability Calcualtion, run on March 7, 1988 for a PET 34, lists the measurement trim (no crew) displacement as 11122 lbs, and the sailing trim displacement (with crew) 12850 lbs. The pounds per inch immersion is given as 853. I think this is for the Peterson 34 as a production class, and might not represent my customized lighter boat.

I don''t remember where I came up with the 10800 or 5100 figures I previously cited; I think it was on the Broker''s listing sheet, maybe the "published" figures for the regular production version.

So now we know that my boat weighs somewhere between 9614 and 11122 pounds, and has a ballast ratio is somewhere between 45 and 53%

Regards,

Tim
08-16-2005 01:43 PM
Jeff_H
Peterson

Displacement is such a funny number for boats. Other when a boat is measured for IMS or some one design class like the J-22''s there really isn''t a very consistent way to verify the weight of a boat. Some Travelifts have weight read outs but they are not very accurate showing as much as a 1500 lb difference in the weight of my boat between one Travelift and another. The other funny thing was that my boat once showed a roughly 500 lbs of weight gain between the readout at hauling and launch using the same travelift, even though she floated higher when she was launched.

And then there is the matter of whether a boat is measured dead empty (IMS) or in sailing condition (IOR) or half load (the traditional method for cruising boats) or at maximum capacity (as allegedly was popular with some cruising boat builders who were promoting their boats as heavier duty than perhaps they were, and perhaps a bit unethically).

In any event, 10,600 is still a very light weight for a 34 footer of that era.

Jeff
08-16-2005 12:35 PM
catamount
Peterson

The measurements I posted may be rounded off, and as listed, I compiled them from several sources. I haven''t actually taken a tape to measure my own boat yet. I do have an old IOR measurement certificate for my boat, but don''t really know how to interpret all the funny parameters listed there. I also have a couple Mid Atlantic PHRF Certificates for the boat, which have some of these values. Finally, I have the USYRU''s IMS Performance Prediction Package report for the boat, although I haven''t found an actual IMS measurement certificate anywhere among the ship''s papers.

In general, in comparing measurements among boats, displacement always seem to be the most questionable value. I''m not sure where my figure of 10800 came from. My boat was customized to be lighter than the typical production Peterson 34 -- by 1000 lbs. according to one claim. So I don''t really know how much she really weighs.

Tim
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

 
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:53 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.