Why Cal ?

[fullkeel]

Dream boat!!! Know of any others out there for sale? (I am aware of the one in Alaska and the one in Mexico)

[Seafarer24]

Mine was destroyed in Tropical Storm Debby

There is another one, same year, make and model (73 Cal Cruising 35) for under $20k across the state from me. Since I'm salvaging lots of custom parts off my destroyed boat... I am thinking they would fit nicely on another one just like it!

We'll see what is available after I recover from the Tropical Storm of Debt this disaster has thrown me into.

[Kettlewell]

Fast. Slow. Relative to what? I always get a chuckle about that because it really comes down to relative waterline length when you're talking about heavy cruising boats, almost all cruising boats get heavy whether or not they start out that way. Out cruising I see very little difference in speed between different boats. Besides, a lot of the time you adjust course for greater comfort in the wave conditions, or you need to slow up to not arrive off a tricky entrance in the dark, or there isn't enough wind and you need a boat that can ghost along and keep moving at 1 knot. Flat out sailing speed is fine on a race course or in a race boat with a full crew that can milk every tenth of a knot. But cruisers need to maintain a comfortable average speed that gets you where you want to go in a reasonable amount of time. What you want is great sailing characteristics, and Cals have that nailed down.

[capngeo]

More CF Moderators own CALs than any other brand..... Troof!

[Azul]

A Cal 35 (cruiser) displaces 5500 pounds more than a Cal 34 (racer-cruiser designed similar to the 40.)

This is a picture of a Cal 40 racer, it seems to fly.

[CnC40sailor]

Originally Posted by LifeIsAReach

Another factor to consider with Cal boats is that they are slow beasts. The only Cals that get under 100 PHRF are the 48, the 44 shallow draft, and one of the 39s. And the best of them is only 87 (Eastern Long Island Sound rating). I know a lot of cruisers don't care about speed, but when you're trying to get out of the way of a front or make good time, you'll need the speed.

So, back to your idea of a used racer-cruiser

There's a lot more to a boat than PHRF. I would take a cal 40 against a first 40.7 and probably stay right on the first's transom. Then take into account the cals overly high rating, and you have a boat that still is a competitive racer, decades later.

[CnC40sailor]

Originally Posted by capngeo

I can push my C28 to 7 kts.... That's slow for a 28' mono?

He just doesn't know anything more about boat speed than a rating. My boat, when on about 60 degrees in 20knots, hits 9-9.5 easy. She really outsails her handicap, as do the cals, which is really more impressive and important than a lower rating.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by LifeIsAReach

Another factor to consider with Cal boats is that they are slow beasts. The only Cals that get under 100 PHRF are the 48, the 44 shallow draft, and one of the 39s. And the best of them is only 87 (Eastern Long Island Sound rating). I know a lot of cruisers don't care about speed, but when you're trying to get out of the way of a front or make good time, you'll need the speed.

So, back to your idea of a used racer-cruiser

Using PHRF to predict relative performance is problematic at best. People racing pushing their boats hard to win. Races are called off for lack of wind and skippers tend to withdraw when the wind becomes too much so the PHRF results don't represent those conditions well.

If you assume the First 40.7 runs at hull speed for 24 hr (190nm) PHRF predicts that the Cal 40 will be 25nm behind.

In real life few skippers will push their boats as hard as they do racing to get out of the way of a storm. Breaking a boat with no one around to help and getting caught in the storm you were trying to outrun is way worse than just getting caught in it. Given that the Cal40 is built heavier than the First40.7 and it's mast looks significantly heavier, I would expect a Cal 40 skipper to drive significantly harder and the difference in distance made to be a lot less or even no difference at all.

A better comparison would be Evans Starzinger/Beth Leonard's regression of the passage histories from a lot of the boats they met cruising gave them this formula:
Average daily run = 24*(2.62 + 0.066*SA/D+ 0.051*LWL)
This regression formula is based on a lot of cruising history rather than the racing history PHRF is based on.

Using the regression formula the Cal40 would average 129nm/d and the First would average 139nm/d giving a 10nm difference.

The difference in hull speeds between the 2 boats is 0.5 kt giving a difference of 12nm/d.

Unless you are caught very near the center of a rotating storm 10 or 12nm won't make a significant difference in the conditions experienced, and even 25nm won't have majorly different conditions.

On the other hand if you are caught near the center of the storm those distances will be very significant in the conditions experienced, but it will also mean that you probably were trying to run the wrong way and the slower boat will be further from the center and in better conditions.

Going with a lighter boat in an effort to be fast enough to outrun bad weather is not an effective strategy offshore. Until you get up around 55-65' boats can't make the 225-275nm/d that they need on a consistent basis for the tactic to work. While you probably will manage to miss bad weather sometimes, say 1/20 or 1/10 times, that leaves the other 18 or 19 storms out of 20 that you have to ride out in a boat that is more lightly built.

[daddle]

One major difference: Having raced on both First 40.7 and Cal 40, the First 40.7 downwind in a blow will be a scary beast to steer. The Cal 40 will be in clover. Also the Cal is what, one-tenth the cost?

[justwaiting]

Never have been on either boats and not intersted in racing so a couple novice question.

How do the two boats stack up to carrying a cruisers load?
How do they compare to try and set up for short handed sailing?

Thanks

[daddle]

I would guess the First would have a much greater load capability. The Cal is meant to be light. The current fad in cruising is to carry a huge load: gen sets, massive anchoring systems, huge dinghies, etc. the Cal will not like it. Completely different design goals on the boats. The First was designed to look good to the wife at a boat show. The Cal to win races like the Transpac.

[sarafina]

In Blue pelican the other day, our handy local recycled chandlery, in search of the perfect set of self tailer at the perfect price, when a gentleman next to mne asked what I would be putting them on. "Cal28" says I, and he smiles and says cheerfully "Cal34, myself".

We fall into a conversation about our boats and their relative similarities and differences. A guy around the corner pops his head out and says "Cals? I sail a Cal29" and steps over to join us. Lively chat ensues about the characteristics of the three Lapworth designs. They both agree that selftailers, at the perfect price, would be an excellent addition to my gear, or theirs for that matter. We all 3 love our boats, and they both wish their designs had the interior space mine does.

A fourth guy enters and overhears the topic and joins in. "I used to sail a 28. Man... that boat has a sweet PHRF... I used to clean their clocks in that girl."

We all look at each other an nod and the Cal34 says, yep, makes for a good darkhorse race!

A few more moments of friendly chat and we parted ways.

I thought it was interesting. Four Cal owners, one a previous, all sailing boats that were 40 plus years old, all pretty passionate about their boats. How often would you find that with any other make? To have enough of the hulls still on the water and active all these years later? Just says something about the boats, I think.

And that rating? It does NOT tell the whole story, by any means!

[CnC40sailor]

Originally Posted by sarafina

I thought it was interesting. Four Cal owners, one a previous, all sailing boats that were 40 plus years old, all pretty passionate about their boats. How often would you find that with any other make? To have enough of the hulls still on the water and active all these years later? Just says something about the boats, I think.

Cough cough..... C&C has the same blessing! There are still so many of them out there, and their owners more passionate (like cals) than so many other brand owners! Then, to top it all off, in 2010 an American family sailed from the U.S. down to Sydney to compete in the Sydney hobart race! In the same model as my boat! How many boats can make a sail like that at 30+ years old to compete in one of the worlds most prestigious races? That pays the utmost respect to the REAL C&C, and really shows the kind of people that own them.

Now to the continued use for the 40.7 as a comparison, I'm not sure if people thought I was trying to make the cal look bad. Really, I was contradicting that to every point. I was attempting to prove that handicap is only impressive when boats, such as the cals, out sail them. That cals, because they sail so well to their rating, scare my crew and I more than any new boat. I was trying to say that they are without question still one of the most competitive boats out their.

[Cheechako]

I have raced on a Cal 40 some. They were great old boats. I think one did pretty good in the Pac cup this year...? Having said that, in semi rough weather, the hull oil canned up forward some on the one I raced on. No biggy, but not sure I'd select a Cal 40 for my offshore voyager. It may be because of limited bulkhead support.

[sarafina]

Might be cause of a compromised steel beam? Or broken tabbing?