Westsail 33 or Sparkman & Stephens 36?

[chasfgr]

S&S every time - classic design, excellent sailer and safe!!


But you're getting a lot less weekend cottage for your buck.

[Ramona]

I have never sailed a Westsail 32 but I have watched them go no where at sea in light conditions. Their nickname Westsnail is well deserved. I have an SS34 so I'm biased towards the S&S but I would point out that this SS36 has running backstays. Just something that normally keeps the asking price down.

[Scaramanga F25]

I think you should be looking in another marketplace.

[Wayfarer1008]

Ramona
Wet Snail is a very common term for a Westsail 32 especially if its overloaded or the crew is not active enough to change out the sails for the conditions. Too keep these boats movng youve got to grab every bit of wind you can.

Both the West sail and the S&S sail best with a fresh suite of sails which is another pet peeve of mine in that people who own Westsails seem to be pretty hesitant about replacing sails when they yurn into rags.

Hearing the S&S has running backs to me is a plus in that I to this day love sailing on the old IOR battle wagons.

[Jim Cate]

Being that Ann and I cruised for 17 years and 86,000 miles in a fairly similar IOR design, I have an obvious prejudice towards the S&S. She would be fun to sail, seaworthy enough for any reasonable exposure and a reasonable platform in general.

A few things I noted in the ad:

It appears to have a tabernacle mounted mast. This could be an advantage, but I wonder if it was in the rig's original design? If not, one wonders who did the calculations on the modification?

It sports a kero stove. Some folks like them, but I would not want to have one on a cruising boat. Adding a propane system and new stove would cost a bit.

The electronics appear to be original and kinda sketchy. They may or may not work (our old instruments still work fine) but many people would want to modernize those systems, again expensive. There is no info on the autopilot, hinting that it is a wheel pilot rather than a below decks design. Again, not optimal for a cruiser with no windvane.

Tankage is fairly small for a cruising boat of that size.

The engine, as others have mentioned, is not known for long term reliability, and if the stated consumption is correct (3 l/hr at 5 knots), rather thirsty. That's only 40 hours at cruise speed... Access looks fair but not great. Depends somewhat upon where the bits that need working on are located.

To me, the interior layout looks crowded, but that may just be an artifact of the photography.

The manual windlass requires kneeling in an awkward posture to operate... would be a problem for me. Anchors and rodes not described well... who knows what they are. Can be expensive to upgrade to cruising standards.

The overall impression I'm left with is that the boat hasn't been upgraded much along the way. Sometimes that is an indication that she ain't been loved... a personal inspection will perhaps reveal how she has been maintained.

As to the Westsail... I'm just not a fan of this type of boat, so won't try to evaluate her or to make comparisons.

Good luck in your search and decision making.

Jim

[JPA Cate]

I am well aware the Westsail has a reputation for seakindly, and yet, I watched some friends of ours' rolling gunwale to gunwale for days in the harbor at Atuona, in the Marquesas. So, despite the reputation, I have to kind of question it. I'm pretty sure it's safe enough, but they were the only boat in there at the time with such an extreme rolling, of about 20 boats in the outer harbour.

I saw the "Green Death" engine in the S&S. Saw many Volvos' boats waiting expensively for more expensive parts.

So, there you go, with your winking icon for the thread, were you perhaps looking for stimulating contrary opinions?

Seriously, though, condition is everything. The mast tabernacle one on the S&S 36 is something you could have an engineer check out.

Ann

[Don C L]

Hard to imagine comparing those two. Get the S&S. Even with the Volvo, risk it.

[Seymore]

Westsail 32s are very specialized boats. They are designed and built to cross oceans, and they do that very well--perhaps better than any other design.

About every five or ten days on the ocean, it's rough so that waves come over the bow. They fill the cockpit, which is designed tiny for this very reason. On my Westsail 32 the full cockpit drains in 42 seconds. Further, the bottom of the main companionway hatch is above the top of the cockpit, so that when the cockpit fills with water and the companionway hatch is open, the water doesn't go into the boat.

Inside, it's all closed in with storage. There's all the storage in the world.

There are handholds everywhere inside, so that when the boat heels suddenly in a storm, you just mindlessly reach out and grab a handhold. That little shelf that runs around the boat under the portlights isn't for spices and stuff, it's a handhold.

The whole boat is designed like that, for going on the open ocean. The Norwegian stern tends to split strong waves, which tend to throw a flat, square stern to one side. The underwater shape is derived from Viking longboats on which, for example, the angle of the bow fits the bow wave, making for easier driving along, just like the v-flock of geese and ducks migrating, who put a strong flier at the apex of the v, where he creates a (bow) wave that makes it easier for the rest of the flock to fly along--that's why they fly in a v.

Westsail 32s have been race prepared and won their share of races, including the Annapolis to Bermuda race and the Pacific Cup, from San Francisco to Hawaii. This last, Westsail 32 Saraband won in 1987 with a very good rating, so the disgusted race committee raised her rating by 50%! She entered again in 1991, and came in third overall and first in class, with a 175 mile day--that's hull speed for 24 hours, folks--and another 175 mile day on the sail home.

They are derived from Eric, a boat built in the 1920s that copied Colin Archer's 1890s pilot boat designs. Eric was designed as an out and out stripped down racing boat and won its fair share of races on Long Island Sound.

I've never sailed on an S&S and shouldn't comment. However, I look at the picture of that cockpit and I cringe.... 8^)

[Seymore]

The derogatory term Wetsnail was originated by Bob Perry to sell his newly designed Valiant in the face of the Westsail 32's overwhelming competition.

[JPA Cate]

Funny. We knew one W32 with an emblem of a snail in its shell on the genoa: she was called, "Escargot". There was a joke common at the time, with the punch line, "Look at that little "S" car go!

Ann

[oregonian]

Hello Knocker,
You have asked for opinions. I have never sailed a Westsail 33 but as a delivery skipper I have delivered 12 different Westsail 32's totaling around 25,000nm. I have not sailed an S&S36 but have sailed many very similar designs. My preference for long distance cruising is the Westsail 32. If I was not planning on really going anywhere then I may chose the S&S as it has no bowsprit.
May I say I have enough experience to literally laugh at many of the aforementioned remarks. Paul Howard says "trying to motor into a steep chop the boat (W-32) would hobbyhorse..." Well, you know what? So will a Swan 39. Romona says "I have never sailed a Westsail but I have watched them go no where at sea in light conditions". Well, quess what? I have watched dozens of "fast" boats go nowhere in light conditions. Jim Cate says "I'm just not a fan of this type of boat". Is it a surprise that I am not a fan of the smaller IOR boats for serious cruising? JPA Cate observed a Westsail rolling at anchor when other boats were not. So have I. I have also observed a number of times when almost everyone was rolling at an anchorage or mooring EXCEPT the Westsail. It totally depends on the swell period and direction as to which boats will be affected the most.
Boat speed is mentioned frequently as a Westsail negative. The average speed difference between a standard W-32 and a racer/cruiser 36 (when cruising) is less than 1/2k. About half of the W-32's I delivered were stock. The other half were modified by fairing the hull to the rudder thus closing the 2" gap between those parts, and also making the aperture smaller. The gain in average speed is greater than 1/2k, This modification currently costs about $600.us in materials and takes approximately 8 man days of labor. All less than the cost of a new sail. A W-32 or W-33 thus modified will sail with any other 36' cruising boat when both boats are loaded for cruising. And all of that time it will be the more comfortable boat, for most people. Good luck with your choice Knocker.

[Curmugeon]

Has to be the S&S. Look at the engine location, you can work on it!!!!

[Lohengrin]

Boy am I tired of the cheap shots at the Westsail.
Rude comments about speed.
I own a Swan and love it but raced to Hawaii on a Westsail that kicked butt.
The multiple 160 plus days were nice but we did over 180 one day.
Look it up in the records of the Pacific Cup.

When things get ugly out there I would rather be on a solid Westsail than almost any other boat.

I doubt if there are any other boats that have more ocean miles than the Westsail 32.

[Alan Brookes]

Originally Posted by Lohengrin

Boy am I tired of the cheap shots at the Westsail.
Rude comments about speed.
I own a Swan and love it but raced to Hawaii on a Westsail that kicked butt.
The multiple 160 plus days were nice but we did over 180 one day.
Look it up in the records of the Pacific Cup.

When things get ugly out there I would rather be on a solid Westsail than almost any other boat.

I doubt if there are any other boats that have more ocean miles than the Westsail 32.

I tend to concur with the positive views on the W33. Circumnavigated in one many years ago. As you can imagine, many sea conditions were encountered, North Atlantic was the worst, Gibraltar to Azores, huge seas tops breaking from north. 3 days out, tired, wife below with Bub, I hove to. Slept then checked position in morning and found she had clawed some miles north assuring us we could make the southermost Island Santa Maria in safety. Sailing with all makes and sizes of yachts across the Pacific, we matched for day runs.

[thataway41]

Not a thing wrong with boats this age, as long as all is in good shape. This means not only the hull, which is probably fine in both. But the rigging--should be replaced every 12 years or so. Sails (Thousands of dollars to get good sails, if these are blown out--sure can be recut..but). Instruments, etc-systems. All have to be brought up to date.

What do you want to do with the boat? Sure the S & S can circumnavigate. But if in a major storm, you will not only be more uncomfortable but potentially in some danger.

I spent 20 or so years racing fin keel boats both coastal and offshore. I built an "ideal world cruiser"--fin keel, skeg hung rudder--120 gallons of diesel, Control-able pitch prop, Saab 18 hp diesel, freezer and refrigerator, it was a great boat--fast--but even with a good dodger, it could be wet in rough conditions. I sold that boat, upon the "advice of my very bright wife".

I went to a full displacement boat for long distance cruising (40,000 miles in 4 years). My Atlantic crossing times were as fast as any fin keel boat of similar size--but I good sails, used a spinnaker (later cruising chute), and knew how to make a boat move. The back up was that I had a boat which would cross an ocean under power if necessary. I had tankage of 250 gallons of water along with the water maker.

If coastal--the S & S. If you want to seriously long distance cruise, especially in high latitudes or areas with potential storms--the full displacement. My final sailing boat--a compromise--a Cal 46, (long fin, with spade rudder) which we modified the stern, to include an inset swim step, cutter rig with running backs for the forestays sail, more fuel tankage. A boat which could do 200 miles under power or sail.

Personally the S & S is very reminiscent of IOR designs of a few years before that boat was built and some of the issues with those boats...

Look around and decide what you want to do.