Westsail 32 - Opinions Needed !

[malbert73]

[QUOTE="s/v Jedi"]Well not just aircraft carrier of course. Why such exaggeration? We do an easy 8 knots upwind at a 50 degree true windangle. That is close to 200 mile days. At 40 knot wind speeds we need to go down to 7 knots boatspeed for comfort. Pretty sure I do the trip in half the time. Motoring I do it in 4 days.


i am sure this is the case if you say so! Full disclosure you should tell us the waterline length of your very nice (big) boat for comparison....

[malbert73]

Sorry, somehow my reply got shaded in with Nick's post....


i am sure this is the case if you say so! Full disclosure you should tell us the waterline length of your very nice (bigger) boat for comparison....

Mike

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Sorry, somehow my reply got shaded in with Nick's post....


i am sure this is the case if you say so! Full disclosure you should tell us the waterline length of your very nice (bigger) boat for comparison....

My waterline is 64' and my hull speed is 12 knots. Much less than an aircraft carrier !!

EDIT: I also think that a 50 footer sailed by somebody with the same enthusiasm as the guy on the W32 can do it in 6 days. In other words: I don't think those 12 days to sail 800 miles upwind is anything special. The conditions in which it was done were not "survival-grade" where the sturdy qualities of the W32 were needed to make it happen. These tough upwind trips are everywhere and done by all kinds of boats incl. the Bavaria's etc. without much mishap. Most don't even write about it because it is not so special. I have been on the thorny path and saw 20' boats do it too and all arrived in Paradise

cheers,
Nick.

[GWB]

This is a very good letter written a few years ago by a Westsail owner. Please take the time to read an explanation about waterline lengths and and why they are not all created equal.
Nick, I think you are either being obtuse or are a troll.

From latitude 38:
Latitude 38 Letters - May 2004

NOT ALL 30-FT WATERLINES ARE CREATED EQUAL

I made an error in challenging Max Ebb and Lee Helm. [See the Letter entitled Prismatic Coefficients and Hull Speeds in the February issue.] It was my honest belief that they would accept the challenge and attempt to help explain why some boat performance numbers do not seem to fit the proverbial profile. Very few people have the ability, as in, intellect, education, and experience, to comprehend and challenge conventional wisdom. Max and Lee have that ability. In a misplaced attempt at humor, I tried to goad them into tackling a different explanation for boat performance, as it applies to some boats. No disrespect was intended.

With that said, once again Lee Helm has made some wrong and misleading statements concerning my favorite boat, the Westsail 32, by my point of view. (Please note - and this is important - my point of view is from that of the cruising sailboat while cruising). Lee stated, "So even if you have the right prismatic for the top end of hull speed (as in, like running with the trades) multiply by the weight of your crabcrusher and you're still slow compared to a lighter boat, even one with a hull shape optimized for the slower speeds of upwind sailing."

This is a false statement if applied to the smaller sizes of voyaging sailboats in the real world of cruising. Please note just one of many examples possible. I refer to the September issue of Latitude, page 161. This is data from the 2003 Puddle Jump. There were two Westsail 32s listed in the 28 boats. They were the smallest of the fleet. The average length of all boats in the fleets except for the Westsail 32s was 45.7 feet. The average crossing time was 23 days. One of the Westsails, singlehander Bill Andrew's Quest, crossed in 22 days. The other did it in 28 days. What does this prove? Nothing. It is just an example of the Westsail crossing an ocean faster than many other more modem and lighter and longer boats.

Lee has asked me, "Now, where are all those more modern 32-ft boats that the Westsail is supposed to be able to beat?" One answer is, look at the boats on the list of 2003 Puddle Jumpers. Notice the boats represented: Newport, Pacific Seacraft, Kelly-Peterson, Cal, Caliber, C&C, Islander, Gulfstar, and so forth. How many examples does she need? The list is long.
In order to make a point, Lee stated the Westsail 32 rating was the "same as a Ranger 23," and that "PHRF does a pretty good job" in the ratings. Max suggested on page 168 of the September issue that "peculiarities of the handicapping system" are one explanation for the Westsail's Pacific Cup victory. Well what is it? Is PHRF "pretty good" or is it "peculiar"? My point of view is that the PHRF rating is embarrassing, erroneous, and another example of the numbers not fitting.
It really is necessary to end this numbers game. Lee is right that there is no reason to start a urinary Olympiad over these things. The Westsail 32 deserves more respect than the designers want to give it though, and I am defending what I know to be one of the best and potentially fastest small cruising boats ever put into production.

My final comment is this: In a publication with a deservedly large readership, Lee said I was "BZZT wrong" about my assessment of prismatic coefficients and how they affect the theoretical hull speed. She misinterpreted what I was saying. What I was trying to say is this: The P.C. can reflect on the effectiveness of the waterline length. Not all 30-ft waterlines are created equal. This quality affects the wavemaking ability of the boat, whereby two different boats will make two different waves and therefore go two different speeds. This is what I was saying when I simply shortened the explanation to "theoretical hull speed." In the context that I was inferring, the statement was correct.

David King
Saraband, Westsail 32
Portland, Oregon

[Target9000]

HAHAHA, I love that Lee Helm called the W32 a "crabcrusher". That would be a great name for a W32.

[sneuman]

Lee Helm and Max Ebb.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by GWB

Nick, I think you are either being obtuse or are a troll.

oh, we're now at insulting phase. Well, go ahead and have your fun. Your posts have become completely incoherant so it doesn't make much of a difference anyway.

cheers,
Nick.

[Tinman 13]

Troll might not be too far off.........
There must be some trolling going on to get over 4,000 posts!

I wonder if there is any correlation between number of posts on either side of the issue? In looking back over the posts the Westsail camp seems to not spend nearly as much time posting on the net!

Come on Westsailors get with the program so we can have more credibility on here.......

It is interesting how a thread about the poor preforming Westsail can have 8164 views isn't it!

Sorta sounds like stirring the pot for the sake of numbers, could it have anything to do with advertising revenue?

I would like to think this will be my last post here but something tells me it won't!

[GWB]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

oh, we're now at insulting phase. Well, go ahead and have your fun. Your posts have become completely incoherant so it doesn't make much of a difference anyway.

cheers,
Nick.

Nick, I should know better than to respond. How on earth do you consider it a fair comparison when your boat has a waterline of 64' ?

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by GWB

Nick, I should know better than to respond. How on earth do you consider it a fair comparison when your boat has a waterline of 64' ?

Who brought up the aircraft carrier?

cheers,
Nick.

[GWB]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Who brought up the aircraft carrier?

cheers,
Nick.

I Wasn't calling your boat an aircraft carrier! honest!

[UnlikelyVoyager]

One funny thing about Westsails, every thread that starts with the innocent question, 'what do you think about the Westsail 32?' end in an argument. It's amazing that this boat can still stir such passion. That alone is a testament to it's enduring importance to the sport.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by GWB

I Wasn't calling your boat an aircraft carrier! honest!

You brought it up. You should also read my post a bit better and might find that I also compared with a 32 footer. It might even get clear that I was quiet favorable of the W32 in that post and in fact only mentioned my boat in relation to the aircraft carrier you brought up as the only thing that would beat a W32. Yet you turn and twist my words in order to find ground to insult me. Who is the troll? Often the one who starts calling others troll.

cheers,
Nick.

[barnakiel]

Reading about the Westsnail and racing on the same thread makes me think of old farts.

b.

[GWB]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

You brought it up. You should also read my post a bit better and might find that I also compared with a 32 footer. It might even get clear that I was quiet favorable of the W32 in that post and in fact only mentioned my boat in relation to the aircraft carrier you brought up as the only thing that would beat a W32. Yet you turn and twist my words in order to find ground to insult me. Who is the troll? Often the one who starts calling others troll.

cheers,
Nick.

Nick.
Where did I say that an aircraft carrier was the only boat that could beat a Westsail? I think you must have entirely missed the point.
Please go back and re-read my postings. You will find that one of the points I was trying to make, was that a lot of people say the Westsail is slow because it cant beat a bigger, longer, newer, more better, super duper, wizbang, ultra cool, more scientific, more modern, faster looking, more expensive, scoobie dowow, boat.

Well of course not.