SailNet Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio Reply to Thread
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:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


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.

  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)
03-23-2004 10:48 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

...and Jeff, I could be overly critical of that T34 cockpit, too. That''s why I encouraged Gary to come to his own conclusions. But what I remember was a mainsheet/traveler across the middle of an overly narrow cockpit sole with straight-backed, low wooden coamings and, as we''d all expect for a boat of that era and heritage, not a curved surface in sight. The most vivid part of my recollection was how one person wanting to move meant 3 other pairs of legs needing to be adjusted. Another time, when I sailed on this boat, it was a comfy, light-wind day down the Severn and off the mouths of Spa and Back Creeks...but put the boat on its ear in bouncy water and things would have been more awkward, I would think...

Let me hear what you think if/when you get the chance...but try for the ''30 minute test''! <g>

03-23-2004 05:24 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Jack, I do plan to cruise some distance offshore, I want to at least make Bermuda and/or the eastern Carib. Truth be known, I really want to cross the Atlantic, but we''ll see how far my Mate is willing. I would expect to, among other upgrades, beef up the rig of any boat in my size/price range before going that far offshore. But I don''t have 9 years to spend at it! Point well taken on experiencing the ergonomics as much as possible before purchase.
Jeff, I have not considered the P323 because of the 4 1/2 foot draft, the area in which we are resettling this winter, the Pamlico Sound, is very shoal, and I am trying to stick to 4 ft or less. Thus my desire for a centerboarder. I am very aware that the offshore/shoal draft compromise is a sticky one.
Once again, thanks v. much gentlemen.
Best wishes
03-23-2004 05:06 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Jack, my friend, now you have me thinking that I need to find a Tartan 34 cockpit to lounge in. I just don''t remember them being that uncomfortable compared to other boats of that era, but now you have me wondering. Like I really need one more thing to do with my time! 8^)


03-23-2004 06:35 AM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Gary, a friend has just left on an open-ended cruise in his Seafarer 34 and the pics he sent me were wonderful...but the catch is that he spent +/- 9 long years rebuilding it in his front yard. This sometimes happens when you start out wanting something ''right'' and, as you peel the onion, you discover one necessary ''fix'' after the next. He ended up with what looks to me to be a very affordable (labor excluded, of course), functional boat, but at a huge personal price. He was not a Seafarer fan, as you would suspect.

Jeff and I have disagreed before about the Tartan 34 - in many respects, it''s a boat that''s easy to like. Beautiful at anchor, a nice sailing boat, variable draft, and ohhhh wouldn''t it be great if every engine offered that much access. I personally think the rig is inadequately stayed for lengthy cruising (only a single in-line lower) but perhaps your cruising plans are somewhat limited re: big water. But before you fall in love, I''d encourage you to assemble everyone who''ll be sailing with you in that cockpit and all stay put for half an hour...and then see how you feel about that single most used space (on a cruising boat, especially). Boats are compromises, as you surely know, but there are a few things that in my mind are absolutes (one of which is a functional, comfy cockpit) and trying to get comfortable, and move about just a very little bit, for a short time on a friend''s Tartan 34 was, at least for Patricia and I, a real eye opener. But the point is: see what you think. Perhaps your needs and expectations are different than ours.

You are looking for a cruising boat, as I recall, so I''d encourage you to compare overall capacity, draft requirements, storage, cockpit comfort, nav table and overall ''finish'' between the Pearson 323 and 33. I think one is much more suitable for cruising needs than the other, but see what you think. (BTW in many boats, the second most used place on a cruising boat these days seems to be the nav station/chart table...assuming it has a comfy seat and the ergonomics work for your body. So I''d encourage you to put a little ''extra'' emphasis on that piece of the puzzle).

03-23-2004 02:37 AM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

BTW, in that same general price range, have you looked at a Pearson 323? These might be more suitable for distance cruising than the two you mentioned.

03-23-2004 02:35 AM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Seafarer started out in the 1960''s as an importer of very high quality, Phillip Rhodes designed Dutch boats. For some reason, when the Common Market was formed in the 1960''s, Seafarer ceased importing boats and built its own facility in Huntington, New York. I was pretty familiar with that facility because when I was 13 or so, I ordered an eight foot Seafarer sailing dinghy for my first boat. They never were able to deliver it.

The first boats that Seafarer built in the U.S. were a series of McCurdy and Rhodes (not Phillip Rhodes but his son)designed CCA era racer/cruisers. Build quality had slipped dramatically from the quality of the Dutch boats, and continued to slide down hill from there. The 34 that you mention was probably one of these CCA era keel centerboarders. That boat was offered either as a K/Cb or as a fin keeler, sloop or yawl, traditional or dinette layout.

While not terribly robust or well finished, they were pretty nice sailing boats for that day. By modern standards they are pretty slow boats and with thier long ends, they are not very good in a chop and do not have a lot of weight carrying capacity.

The sail handling gear had a number of options and upgrades with the base gear being totally inadequate for a boat with sails the size of the 34. The one that I knew up in Charleston, had the original basic winches and I helped the fellow swap them out for adequately sized cockpit winches in the late 1970''s.

The one that I knew had a dinette layout. It was severely storage challenged except that it had a very large set of cockpit lockers. These boats have a very cramped interior layout for a 34 footer, providing the space of perhaps a more modern 28-30 or so footer.

The Pearson 33 is a very similar boat except that build quality was a little better and perhaps they would be a little better offshore boats as well. Finishes were not as nice on the Pearson but if I remember correctly storage was a bit better on the Pearson.

03-22-2004 09:39 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Thank you gentlemen. You have helped me narrow my list.
Jeff, if you are still following this thread: you have, both directly and indirectly, pointed me pretty strongly in the direction of the Tartan 34 and the Bristol 34K/CB, advice which I feel confident about. I also received a good report from the Pearson e-mail list on the Pearson 33-1. A similar boat (keel/centerboard, separate skeg/rudder) is the Seafarer 34. I would very much apreciate comments from anyone on this boat; I know nothing about the Seafarer line.
Thanks very much.
03-21-2004 07:27 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Gary, I echo each of Jeff''s comments. CL built low-tech boats that put a lot of weight up high, sought low cost methods without much understanding of sailing or seagoing (one of CL''s principals told me he''d never sailed out of Hong Kong Harbor), and tried as best they could to impersonate ''real'' marine hardware with their own castings. Most of the hardware has probably been changed out on a CL33 by now except perhaps the winches and masthead sheaves. (I wonder about those chain plates...).

Where CL did put their emphasis was in the appearance of their boats. Lots of varnished teak and spars, of course (more weight...) and hardware that looked identical to e.g. Barient products, a big name at the time. I suspect Bill Luders really did author the design, as both Robert Perry and Ray Richards were contracted in the normal fashion for later designs.

Good friends cruised a CL Clipper 33 up/down the East Coast and always comment on how its cute appearance attracted all kinds of attention...but in which there was little room for anything - and this was when they were young, poor and didn''t have much! IMO it is a poor offshore choice...and yet we crossed portions of the Atlantic with an Offshore 33 model that was being singlehanded by a new sailor, and aside from the lack of space for things, he had no major complaints about the boat. I would put this into the context that a) it was his first boat and he didn''t appreciate how different life can be, and b) we had good weather for most of the crossing. When I would step aboard to visit Peter, the amount of heel I would experience on this 33'' loaded down boat was, for me, alarming. I remember, the first time this happened, soon asking him what his draft was...and found the answer to give me add''l cause for concern. Of course, his CL now sits in the Med and he has no horror stories to tell (yet) so here''s yet another example of an unsuitable boat that, coincidentally, has proven acceptable on a major passage.

03-21-2004 03:56 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

Cheoy Lee has not had the best track record for ballasting their boats. In the mid-1960''s we looked at a new Cheoy Lee Frisco Flyer that seemed to be floating high of her lines. In discussions with the factory Cheoy Lee, the Dealer was told that there tended to be rather large variations in ballasting as Cheoy Lee was ballasting with iron boiler punchings and concrete. The Flyer was a variant of the Folkboat using the same hull lines but ended up being roghly 800-1000 lbs heavier with considerably less ballast than the Folkboats.

The Clipper and the Offshore 33 were somewhat different designs both credited as being from the boards of Bill Luders design. They were intended to have a traditional character and to be comparatively shoal draft. The Clipper had a clipper bow and a very traditional and nostalgic feel while the Offshore was a simplier and more down to earth in character.

I have very little experience with the Clipper but the Offshore 33 was notably tender. One capsized flooded in a downdraft off of Back Creek in Annapolis Harbor in the 1980''s drowning the wife of the owner. Not many cruising boats capsize on the Chesapeake so this was a big deal at the time.

One of the things that has come out of the decades of study after the Fastnet Disaster is that many shoal draft heavy displacement cruising boats have a comparatively low ballast ratio and tend to have comparatively high vertical centers of gravity. This is especially true of oriental boats which tend to have heavy spars and deck structures and use low density ballast. These are less than ideal offshore boats.

That said, people take all kinds of boats offshore and make it back again.

03-21-2004 12:51 PM
Cheoy Lee ballast/displacement ratio

I am interested in the Cheoy Lee Offshore and Clipper 33 models. Both of these boats have a reputation for offshore abilities, including circumnavigations. Both have ballast/displacement ratios which vary according to source and individual boat, but mostly run in the 25-30% range. I realize they have low aspect ketch rigs, but still this seems like a meager amount of ballast for an offshore boat. Comments please?

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

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