Thomas I really don't have the energy to get into a long debate with you about the meanung of 'is' but I will try to give you an answer two the two points that you raise.
With regards to motion comfort on the Vanguard. Based on conversations with Phillip Rhodes during the era that we owned our Vanguard in the mid-1960's, the Vanguards had 10% less ballast than Rhodes had expected them to recieve. Rhodes had expected Pearson
to include 10% additional ballast as 'trim ballast' as was the practice with wooden and metal boats of that era. This simply was not done with fiberglass
boats. Rhodes actually directed us where and how to place this additional 600 lbs or so of ballast and it helped with the motion some. As Rhodes had explained, the Vnguards (like most Pearsons and fiberglass
boats of that era accoding to Rhodes) came in substanially over thier design weights. According to Rhodes most of that extra weight was in interior
fit out and the rig. The combination of the two resulted in a boat with a higher VCG than Rhodes ever envisioned and way higher than the wooden versions upon which the Vanguard was based and which had more ballast that was also placed lower since they had bolt on keels.
Agrevating this problem was the tendancy to store fairly heavy things higher in the boat than anticipated. As designed the Vanguards had a pilot berth to post and a pipe berth to starboard. Most Vanguards used for cruising have converted these to storage
and in doing so has further raised the VCG.
The result was a boat that rolled through very wide roll angles. In its day the Vanguard was also a boat that attempted to be 'beamier' than other 32 footers of the era. Compared to earlier Rhodes designs the Vanguard had a compartively hard turn of the bilge
. This gave it more form stability so that when the Vanguard heeled she would sort of 'lock in' at a fairly high heel angle. Unlike earlier Rhodes she would "roll out" as she heeled rather than "roll down" as is more typical of traditional working water
craft and earlier Rhodes and Alden designs. The affect of this was a lurch that would occur at the end of the roll as the boat dug that tighter bilge
in and lifted the windward bilge. When combined with the Vanguard's larger roll angles and this lurch at the end of the roll, this was a miserable motion to live with.
The Vanguards had reasonably long waterlines for that era but they were quite short by modern or traditional boat standards. In their basic form they tended to pitch
more than is desireable but mush less than many boats of this era. That said, the Vanguard's were designed for a predominantly rope anchor rode
, a single
16 lb danforth anchor
stored on the cabin
top, and no windlass
. As these boats are being equipped to go cruising they are being equipped with a windlass
and an all chain rodes and heavy duty anchors stored on a stemhead fitting. The additional 300-400 lbs of chain and anchor really right in the eyes of the boat really increases pitching dramatically on these boats. (We used to be able to notice the difference when my 100 lb brother was up on the bow.)
The Alberg 35 shared the higher than expected VCG of the Vanguard and so had very similar roll charactistics but in the Alberg the deep canoe body further aggravated the roll angle issue. The Alberg 35 also had a proportionately shorter waterline and so had far worse pitching problems. (the oral tradition explaining the reason that the later designed Vanguard had a proportionately longer water
line is often cited as being because the Pearsons wanted to avoid the pitching problems that they had with the earlier Alberg 35.) Adding to the pitching problems on the Alberg 35 is thier 'apple cheeks'. Albergs designs going all the way back to his time with Alden (during his tenure at Alden the bows of Alden designs prepared under Alberg's lead when from slight hollows as was traditional on the western Atlantic to the fullness associated with boats designed on the eastern Atlantic) tended to follow his Nordic
traditions of a lot of fullness at the bow just above the waterline. This means when the Alberg 35 pitches it fetches up short, and when it collides with a wave it really collides. The combination of poor pitching and rolling problems result in a boat that by any objective standard has a miserable motion.
It really means nothing to me that someone has chosen to sail some model boat around the world. Whenever someone tells me that a boat is suitable for offshore work because someone has sailed the same model around the world, I think of a boat that I knew when I lived in the south. The boat was owned and built by an Australian who had sailed her from Australia
to the US and Europe
. he had crossed much of the South Pacific
before turning westward again. The boat was essentially a dory built of plywood
and had a poured concrete fin keel
. The boat had been damaged or suffered rot
of the plywood
in numerous locations and had been patched with pieces of plywood ringnailed over the hole. Much of the patches came from pieces salvaged from his interior
or from shore and so in some cases were interior plywood that had itself begun to delaminate.
Would anyone cite this as an ideal offshore vessel? No! but she had sailed most of the way around the world and the guy had a seamanship manual he was writing extolling this design as the ideal offshore cruiser.
As to the Alberg 30, I have sailed on a lot of these boats, although not much in the last 10 years. If you look at the race
fleet in Annapolis
almost all of these boats have been significantly beefed up and updated at least once in thier lifespan to keep them in useable condition. Compared to going offshore on a distance passage
, this coastal cruising and racing
is very light duty. While Yves Gelinas may enjoy sailing his boat after it did it's circumnavigation
, I still would like to know how much beefing up and updating it has taken to keep his Alberg 30 in decent sailing sailing condition. I know a guy who sails
a Galaxy 32, one of the first fiberglass cruisers ever built. He has had to disassemble the boat down to the raw hull
and build it back. Ihave followed his saga and the costs involved. To be frank he could have bought a ready to go boat for much less and been out there already.
When you talk about getting one of these 25-40 year old boats ready to go offshore, it is not unusual to hear of these early boats requiring replacement or reconstruction of their chainplates and chainplate attachment, standing and running rigging
systems, partial bulkheads and tabbing, anchor rodes and windlasses, electronics
and interior hardware
, engines and tankage, not to mention incidentals like cushions
, this is no small undertaking and as I said before the costs are more likely to wildly exceed the original poster's budget