Advice on a Rawson 30

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Well you could with a cored one too. The upper skin was less than 1/8" and the skin under 1/16" if you were lucky. The core was a foam checkerboard around 3/8".
I had to laugh, when on the Rawson board (Yahoo), some one called Ron Rawson a "Sage". I blew coffee all over the screen with that one. William Garden designed a fair boat for it's day but to call Rawson a Sage was way over the top. The boats were rough at best with a few corners cut...as I mentioned earlier...there is no other reason for using cement in a keel other than to save a few bucks. There have been a few problems with that ballast. Such as water and oil getting between the F/G keel sides and the rock. Not even covered with F/G to prevent it.

You seem to have an axe to grind here?

For the price, then and now, these were and are good boats. Many boats use cement in the keel. I have a lead keel and turn my own nose up at anything but lead--we all have our preferences

Even so--the Rawson 30 remains a great boat and typically at a low price today. If someone is on a budget for a capable ocean going vessel, though small, this one will be a good choice.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

You seem to have an axe to grind here?

For the price, then and now, these were and are good boats. Many boats use cement in the keel. I have a lead keel and turn my own nose up at anything but lead--we all have our preferences

Even so--the Rawson 30 remains a great boat and typically at a low price today. If someone is on a budget for a capable ocean going vessel, though small, this one will be a good choice.

Yep, mine took me thru some pretty rough stuff just fine. Not elegant, but utilitarian! And as I said earlier, the driest boat I ever had... including my 47 footer!

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Ours built in 1966 was solid deck but thin on the foredeck. We actually laminated up a deck beam to place under the tail of the bowsprit and windlass because the foredeck was so thin.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

You seem to have an axe to grind here?

For the price, then and now, these were and are good boats. Many boats use cement in the keel. I have a lead keel and turn my own nose up at anything but lead--we all have our preferences

Even so--the Rawson 30 remains a great boat and typically at a low price today. If someone is on a budget for a capable ocean going vessel, though small, this one will be a good choice.

No more so than yourself and others. How is it an axe when the facts are the facts? Should a buyer pay a cheap price for something that has flaws like these? Most first time buyer would probably not pay a $500 survey for a $9000 boat. Most first time buyers would thing the boat is ok with cement unsealed in the bilge. Would you have taken a boat with a flexy deck offshore? I doubt it. I had one of these. I wasn't impressed. The OP should have all the facts and opinions of former owners, don't you think?
The other problem I see (not from you) is people on these threads giving high praises to boats without setting foot on one let alone owning one. Usually based on what was heard from a friend 3rd. hand.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

No more so than yourself and others. How is it an axe when the facts are the facts? Should a buyer pay a cheap price for something that has flaws like these? Most first time buyer would probably not pay a $500 survey for a $9000 boat. Most first time buyers would thing the boat is ok with cement unsealed in the bilge. Would you have taken a boat with a flexy deck offshore? I doubt it. I had one of these. I wasn't impressed. The OP should have all the facts and opinions of former owners, don't you think?
The other problem I see (not from you) is people on these threads giving high praises to boats without setting foot on one let alone owning one. Usually based on what was heard from a friend 3rd. hand.

I said axe to grind because there appears a lot of negative energy in your posts about this.

While we are fortunate to not have concrete ballast (remember ours is a 1931 original build date wooden boat) many, many boats similar to ours carry a lead (or iron) keel and then have concrete inside ballast. Our inside ballast is also lead while the keel is lead. I know it was quite popular to use concrete (unsealed) in the 1960's when many Rawsons were built.

Friends of ours who love (LOVE) their Atkins designed (wooden) mid-30-some-ft schooner built in the 1960's have lovingly restored every aspect of it and kept it's fine concrete ballast with no complaints.

Regarding taking the Rawson offshore -- other than where the previous owner had installed a bowsprit improperly on the (IMO too thin) foredeck, the solid fiberglass (not cored) boat deck was/is quite capable of handling sea and rig loading required for extensive passagemaking. In our case, we installed a deck beam (under deck) to support the foredeck, bowsprit foot, and windlass and were quite happy. There's nothing wrong (deck wise) with taking a properly maintained Rawson 30 offshore. By design, they were capable of it from day one. I would change the securement of the cockpit sole-hatch before going offshore and probably change the doors we had so there were a couple fixed boards or even a tiny bridge deck to keep water ingress at bay with that relatively large companionway. Many other boats have those issues too.

I can think of several boats that are intended for ocean sailing (take the Hans Christians for example) and very well built that, after years of leaking teak decks have poor deck cores and aren't up to the loading of rig and seas without extensive working, leaking, and perhaps even failure. I can think of at least one Hans Christian that I know of whose deck failed to perform as it should in only slightly challenging conditions. Maintenance--whether the Rawson 30 or another boat-- is really important to having a boat be seaworthy.

[Cheechako]

I'll take the Rawson over a Cat, Bene, etc anyday....Cement/Iron Punchings in the keel and all. .. and did. :>) I don't know how much # were actually in the keel, but the boat didn't heel much and sailed itself going down much of the west coast.... winds to 45 and seas to 20 ft.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

I said axe to grind because there appears a lot of negative energy in your posts about this.


Regarding taking the Rawson offshore -- other than where the previous owner had installed a bowsprit improperly on the (IMO too thin) foredeck, the solid fiberglass (not cored) boat deck was/is quite capable of handling sea and rig loading required for extensive passagemaking. In our case, we installed a deck beam (under deck) to support the foredeck, bowsprit foot, and windlass and were quite happy. There's nothing wrong (deck wise) with taking a properly maintained Rawson 30 offshore.

Yes...It's difficult to give a positive statement about a negative attribute as open cement ballast which can not bond to the side of a fiberglass keel. I have known two owners who had to impact out concrete and do it right and encapsulate it.
In your case I see how you gave a positive opinion of the weak deck with having to add a deck beam to a weak deck, yet it is perfectly ok for offshore work...got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Yes...It's difficult to give a positive statement about a negative attribute as open cement ballast which can not bond to the side of a fiberglass keel. I have known two owners who had to impact out concrete and do it right and encapsulate it.
In your case I see how you gave a positive opinion of the weak deck with having to add a deck beam to a weak deck, yet it is perfectly ok for offshore work...got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I feel slammed and slightly violated. A well designed bowsprit (which our previous owner - added bowsprit was not) has a very strong structure supporting it--usually a pin going through the sprit side to side. When properly tensioned the bobstay and the forestay keep the sprit balanced so that the only loading is actually compression (aft pushing) against that pin. The "strong structure supporting the bowsprit" is not usually the deck but instead a set of bits or other structure that extends down through the deck to the keel, stem knee, or another structure like a structural bulkhead. Our little Rawson 30 sprit had none of that but rather just had an oversize windlass sitting atop the bowsprit foot about 2' back from the stem head. The "proper" repair or install might have been to put bits in place but we weren't intent on doing that so instead we did something we'd seen on another boat--put in an oversized laminated beam across the foredeck to support the sprit and windlass. Done.

I suppose we could have removed the sprit and then though I'd have though the deck a bit thin it would have been fine-- but as many people have noted the Rawson has a bit of weather helm and the small bowsprit was just the thing to get rid of it.

The deck is important to take the loading of the rig--on our Rawson 30, the deck was very strong midships--quite thick actually--but for some strange reason, thin at the very forward part of the foredeck.

I hope your attitude improves. Snarky isn't nice.

[Celestialsailor]

I didn't think I was slamming you at all. I was not addressing bow sprit or how it is installed but rather the shortcoming in Rawson's scantlings. The deck is thin and unsupported as we have both stated. Then I went on and mentioned the unencapsulated cement ballast. That's when you called me negative. So lets let it go at that.

[Schooner Chandlery]

I must be misreading what you wrote about the foredeck. It is easy to do that when folks are writing.

I appreciate overbuilt boats-and you probably do too. There are loads of boats that are not overbuilt but that will successfully travel many thousands of ocean miles. That's good for us both to know and acknowledge.

Fair winds.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[OneLeggedParrot]

We're actually looking at a Rawson 30 as well, and came across 3-4 around the Pacific Coast here. I found Celestial Sailor's comments, and original one about the cement ballast (which in 25+ years I'd not encountered in person) to be HIGHLY informative, as in all my years living and working on boats, I've simply NOT ever encountered concrete as a ballast (it's not that heavy all things considered).

The top TWO of these stout little Rawson's we're looking at -one is a beater and has an encapsulated lead keel. The other one, 2x the price, nicer topsides, well maintained, has horrible looking chalky cement in the bilges -which INSTANTLY got my attention. Seller glossed over it, but I really didn't like it. I actually came to the forums here today to SEE if anyone had asked this question.

BINGO!


The 1/s price boat is actually a FAR better deal everything else considered. Anyone can sand and paint some topsides and put in new cushions. Replacing ballast in a keel is a real serious PITA.

So thanks.
And I think any ruffled fur or misunderstandings in the forum above are mostly MOSTLY due to simply how things "type" on the internet. CelestialSailor is right- we were not going to bother getting a 2rd party opinion on a boat that's around $10k when we're fairly experienced ourselves with this sort of thing. I saw lay out the strong opinions for those of us who are seeking any and all information.

Thanks again.
Now hopefully the OP isn't trying to buy the same boat we are, eh?

[robwilk37]

i would echo "utilitarian". sailed one in mexico many years ago, stout little boat but not going to win any races. bilge had been repaired and glassed over. took seas well and was surprisingly weatherly. but at 6'3" it was just too much of a head-banger for me long term. if youre not supremely confident in your boatwright skills than a survey is mandatory, no matter the asking price...

[Celestialsailor]

Not too many boats out there in the $10K range for sure but there are some. Personally, I would look hard at an Allied 30, Yankee 30.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by OneLeggedParrot

We're actually looking at a Rawson 30 as well, and came across 3-4 around the Pacific Coast here. I found Celestial Sailor's comments, and original one about the cement ballast (which in 25+ years I'd not encountered in person) to be HIGHLY informative, as in all my years living and working on boats, I've simply NOT ever encountered concrete as a ballast (it's not that heavy all things considered).

The top TWO of these stout little Rawson's we're looking at -one is a beater and has an encapsulated lead keel. The other one, 2x the price, nicer topsides, well maintained, has horrible looking chalky cement in the bilges -which INSTANTLY got my attention. Seller glossed over it, but I really didn't like it. I actually came to the forums here today to SEE if anyone had asked this question.

BINGO!


The 1/s price boat is actually a FAR better deal everything else considered. Anyone can sand and paint some topsides and put in new cushions. Replacing ballast in a keel is a real serious PITA.

So thanks.
And I think any ruffled fur or misunderstandings in the forum above are mostly MOSTLY due to simply how things "type" on the internet. CelestialSailor is right- we were not going to bother getting a 2rd party opinion on a boat that's around $10k when we're fairly experienced ourselves with this sort of thing. I saw lay out the strong opinions for those of us who are seeking any and all information.

Thanks again.
Now hopefully the OP isn't trying to buy the same boat we are, eh?

I thought the Rawson's with cement had steel punchings in the cement. They would get them from the Ironworks in Seattle. It's not only cement ballast. According to Ron Rawson they did. I bought some parts from him at auction including the modern rudder etc. Of course they were mostly custom so anyone who wanted lead could have it also.
There are other sailboats with Cement ballast filler, trying to remember the little 31/32 ft double ender built in asia and sold in Seattle for a while. It did, and of course a multitude of commercial fishing boats had it.
The early decks had no core, so there was a bit of flex in places, especially the foredeck where it's wider. But no problems with wet core! The later ones were cored.