Niagara 35 or Alberg 37?

[Jim Cate]

^^^^^

Good post, Fred... I think yours is a good summary of the factors involved, and folks should read it carefully.

Jim

[DNS1324]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Hi DNS1234, Since you mentioned my views in your comment above I guess I should answer you.

Hi Wingsail! Thank you for your detailed, and I'd say more constructive and informative response this time. I must say that I may have perceived a touch of arrogance and paternalism in your previous response ("I don't care which boat you select, but you are being led by the nose...", "... then just get a tub."). Sorry if I misinterpreted you. It's all fine.

Thanks for the photo that compares the Island Packet, Jeanneau and Cal20. I think it illustrates fairly well your point, although with the low angle perpective it’s not obvious to tell what the difference really is. Are we talking about 5 degree difference? Perhaps 10 or 15 degrees? Hard to tell. But I believe you when you say that this difference in angle, whatever the value is precisely, could end up being hours of difference at the end of a day sailing continuously upwind.

Now, extrapolating this to a long 30 day passage during which several different wind conditions are encountered, assuming some days sailing upwind, should in principle result in several days ahead for the sailboat that performs better upwind.

As you pointed out, the Alberg 37, with its long keel, should not go to weather like the Niagara 35. Let’s stick for now to these two boats since they’re the main subject of this thread and also because they’re quite different in shape and apparent performance.

This brings me to post #21 (see above) made by Adelie. She made an interesting theoretical calculation that compares the average speed of these two boats over long periods of sailing. The results of that calculation suggest that, after a 30-day long passage, the Niagara would, in theory, arrive only 6 to 18 hours earlier than the Alberg 37. Over a month-long passage, this difference appears to me to be negligible. Isn't? If this calculation is approximately right, it tells me that for someone not interested in racing but interested in crossing oceans and travelling the world, the upwind performance of a sailboat may not be such an important criterion because at the end of the month not much seems to be gained anyway. At least, theoretically.

What do you think of this sort of conclusion? How can this be reconciled with your observations?

And this brings me to Ainia’s comment (post #86) which seems to also make a lot of sense: "For most cruisers the ability to go somewhere between a close reach and hard on the wind is all you want."

Cheers

[AiniA]

There are too many factors at play to suggest what the arrival difference would be for two boats. We did a NYC with our Niagara and a friend on a Moody 34. They had a much more experienced crew including one guy who had won the Bermuda 1-2 race. The two boats had PHRF ratings within 3 and the conditions were sporty. We got there in a bit less than 4 and a half days, which I think is outstanding for a boat that size. We expected to find them tied up when we got in but they were about 16 hours later with neither boat having equipment issues.

When we moved step-by-step along the coast of South Africa in our Bristol 45.5 there were a number of smaller boats (27 to 31') doing the same. The distance between harbours (Richards Bay-Durban-East London, etc to Cape Town ranges from something like 90 nautical miles to 350 miles. There are no places to bail out along the way and conditions can be nasty. The calculus about whether the forecast was good enough varied enormously for us (PHRF 111) to a Vega (222 as a guess). BTW, Vegas are wonderful little bluewater boats. So speed can matter, it is not just an extra day on a long passage. Going faster is better and perhaps we should all be cruising in an X 50 (PHRF -9)

[DNS1324]

Originally Posted by AiniA

There are too many factors at play to suggest what the arrival difference would be for two boats. ...

Thank you AiniA. It's always a pleasure to read your comments and learn from you.

[Jim Cate]

FWIW:

PHRF ratings are derived from accumulated statistics of RACE results. Most, but not all race courses have both windward and off-wind legs. Thus, using PHRF ratings to estimate cruising passage speeds is not really valid, and in the postulated all upwind trip could be well in error and show quite optimistic times. Equally, in an all downwind passage (like we cruisers hope for!) the boat would arrive well in advance of the prediction.

Additionally, some boats speeds rely upon "rail meat" helping keep the boat on her feet and making her best speed... conditions that a racing skipper understands and strives for... and that is reflected in her rating. In a cruising situation, with only a couple aboard and likely not keen to sit on the rail when off watch, sailing up to the boats rating is difficult, and passage predictions subject to error. And, of course, few cruisers are as attentive to trim as are racers!

However, for many boats the PHRF rating is the only objective measure of performance available to the buyer and can be used to roughly compare the overall speeds likely to be achieved by a cruiser.

Jim

[AiniA]

Jim, I agree with you. PHRF has its limitations but it is better than nothing. I suspect it gives a more accurate idea of speed on heavier cruising boats where a) rail meat is less likely to have been used in determining the rating and b) rail meat is less crucial in any case.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by DNS1324

...This brings me to post #21 (see above) made by Adelie. She made an interesting theoretical calculation that compares the average speed of these two boats over long periods of sailing. The results of that calculation suggest that, after a 30-day long passage, the Niagara would, in theory, arrive only 6 to 18 hours earlier than the Alberg 37. Over a month-long passage, this difference appears to me to be negligible. Isn't? If this calculation is approximately right, it tells me that for someone not interested in racing but interested in crossing oceans and travelling the world, the upwind performance of a sailboat may not be such an important criterion because at the end of the month not much seems to be gained anyway. At least, theoretically.

What do you think of this sort of conclusion? How can this be reconciled with your observations?...

Most ocean passages are down wind, usually broad reaches, because this is more pleasnt sailing. Cruisers plan routes in that way.

Upwind ability is not a factor in that type of passage, waterline is.

So if you can count on always going off the wind then upwind ability is not important.

I am not looking at Adelie's example but I will point out that a difference of 1-2 minutes per mile, well within the PHRF range of some similarly sized boats, on a 2000 mile crossing, is 33 to 66 hours. To truly understand the speed potential of a boat it is good to obtain and study the polar diagram for the vessel. My vessel typically makes 175mile days. Many non-performance boats plan on 100-125 miles a day, and higher performance boats can often see 200 mile days. In this case the 2000 mile passage can take five days longer, or more, on one boat than another. Many people do not consider that an issue, they are not in a hurry, they say, but shortening your time at sea means you are less exposed to the arrival of new weather systems. So some people view this as a safety thing.

However, as other have mentioned, (read Jim Cate's comments) cruising is not always about downwind ocean passages. There are often inter-island trips which are upwind, and sometimes a downwind passage turns into an upwind with the advent of unusual weather (often it's really not that unusual).

Then there is the time when you need to beat off of a lee shore. I recall one occasion when we entered into a bay in Papua, from a shallow river mouth into a stiff breeze on a heavily overcast day, it didn't look good but we really wanted to go. The bay was enclosed on three sides, and open to the sea and the weather on the 4th side. The wind was 20+ and it was choppy and reefs surrounded the shoreline. Wow! What a lee shore situation. But we beat out of that bay and off that shore. Three tacks and we were in open water. Yes you can motor, but I really don't like to have the last option be my only option.

Last and not least, for some of us, there is a joy of sailing a responsive boat. It comes alive in a light or fresh breeze and makes you smile. You want to take the helm. A performance boat which will do that will also be a good upwind boat.

[sailingdom]

Read up on the, I think I have this right, R the W trip by the Niagara 35' boat 'Treasures Await'.

Originally Posted by DNS1324

We're a couple looking for acquiring a decent "blue water" sailboat on a budget. We currently have two opportunities:
1) A Niagara 35 (1983)
2) An Alberg 37 (1975)

Both seems to be in very good shape and the asking prices are very similar. Both are considered to have blue water capabilities according to this site: Mahina Expeditions - Selecting A Boat for Offshore Cruising

The Niagara, although shorter, is more roomy and probably more confortable to live aboard over a long period of time. It doesn't have a full keel and has a spade rudder. The Alberg is narrower, has a full keel and is slower but has proven blue water capabilities.

Let's say you were to travel the world, cross oceans and live aboard for a few years on one of these two boats. Which one would you choose and why?

Thank you for any advice and opinions!

[Adelie]

You revived a thread that has been moribund for almost 4yr. Don't feel bad, I've seen threads revived after 14yr and even 1 after 20yr.

[sailingdom]

LOL! Sorry. It was in my feed!