Does Anyone Know Westsail Sailboats ?

[GWB]

A little more on this design from an old discussion on the woodenboat forum:

http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11748

Excuse me, but I just noticed the "Double-Ender" entry, and read the replys.
I just can't resist:
To begin with, Scott Russel was the Englishman whose "Wave Line Theory" Colin Archer read, believed part of, and revised as he felt necessary. That theory, and Russels's, mainly go on the presumption that since a moving vessel makes a bow and a stern wave, it would allow the vessel to move more easily if the volumes of the ends corresponded to the increased water pressure due to the wave buildup along the hull at the ends; in other words, make the vessel fit the hills and holes in the water that vessel itself causes by its movement. This makes sense to me, even in the year 2000, but more impressive is that boats designed to comply with the theory do move slightly faster, and with less horsepower expended while moving the same displacement than their non-wave form theory sisters. I leave the tank-testing of John Hannah's "Caroll" and the design that later became the "Tahiti" ketch hulls, against comparable Archer hulls, to others. I know it works, and that's good enough for me. My own North Sea Fisherman, built in 1917 in Risor, Norway, utilizes the same principle, as do most of the boats of the period built on the South Coast of Norway.
To those who say there is no difference in seaworthiness provided by the double-ended shape, I can only say that I very much doubt whether they have experienced a real North Sea storm in such a vessel, when the waves are vertical, breaking, and from three directions at once. Then it isn't just how the vessel is shaped to the waterline, because the effective waterline is often nearer the deck than where is usually is. The North Sea is a place like no other, at such a time, and anyone who has seen it like that would know it again. The double-enders were shaped to try to live in those conditions, and live they usually do. Many other designs often do not. That such a stern better facilitates leaving the side of a larger vessel, or a quay, is a spinoff. The real reason for the shape is seaworthiness, and I maintain that the sort of boat LFH and the others designed has little to do with that shape, except that both are at least somewhat pointed at both ends. I think William Atkin and William Garden came the closest, with"Eric", the two "Bullfrog"s and "Seal". The others, in my opinion, aren't very close in concept.
It isn't just the shape that makes the difference, but the blend of shape, displacement, and disposition of weight both vertically and longitudinally that make similar vessels differ. Archer, like everyone else, designed boats for particular jobs, and with very different priorities. His pilot boats would have been a bit more seaworthy for the average cruising sailor had they been, on the average, a little fuller in the stern. They were not intended to be cruising boats for the average cruising sailor. They were intended to be fairly seaworthy, but for professionals whose livelihood depended upon getting to the ship to be piloted first, before the other pilots beat them to it.
And get there first they very often did, making them very successful pilot boats, and safe enough, usually, in the hands of professionals. The obvious morale is, " If you want a good cruising boat, design a boat to do that. If you want something else, design that. Don't generalize about a shape, without talking about the other factors involved with that shape, and don't expect shape alone to solve the seaworthiness problem." I also maintain that the double-ended shape, be it full enough where it counts, and fine enough where that counts, when coupled with the correct amount of correctly-located weight and total displacement, is the best solution to the seaworthiness problem, in very severe conditions.
Those who say that double-enders lack volume in the ends haven't really experienced a North Sea fisherman---my boat, with a deck length of 49 1/4', must have eighteen tons of just ballast, distributed well strung-out, also toward the ends, just to keep her from pitching one off the foredeck in a head sea. Volume she has, in the freeboard of the ends, much more than most, and yet is quite fine underwater. For her 45-ton displacement, she is remarkably easily driven. Archer concentrated the ballast of his Redningskoytes toward the center of buoyancy, and in the keel, so that they would pitch unmercifully in ultimate conditions, and have great righting moment, but keep their decks as free of green water as possible. That's great for the North of Norway in the winter, but very tiring for the usually small crew of a cruising sailboat. Again, design the boat for the job. And trust a heavy, well-designed double-ender, when the sea becomes really windy and lumpy. They survive, as do their crews. I have owned two of them, for a total of over forty years, 32' and 49+' on deck, mostly in the North Sea but also in the Caribbean and Eastern U.S., and found the above to be true when it really counted, every time.
Cheers, Jeff Lane

[cburger]

Jeff,

Interesting post, would love to see some pictures of your vessel.

CB

[gonesail]

if you can find one .. the Crealock designed westsail 43 is said to be a good offshore boat. they are old boats and would need to have been restored but also are a classic design that will not go out of style.

[dkall]

The 42 and 43 have the same hull, differnt cabin configuration.

[GWB]

Originally Posted by Liam Wald

Sometimes derisively refered to as "WETSNAIL 32", one of these boats actally won the Pacific Cup on corrected time. I think that it might have been in 1992.
They are not fast and do not point very well but are very very strong and track like a freightrain.
During my years as a broker I sold six of these. With wind at 10 knots the boat will only make about two knots. Wind at 20 and she will do five and a half and that is just about it. You won't do much reefing unless the wind gets to thirty plus.
The cockpit is really small and uncomfortable with no backrests. But then the cockpit wouldn't hold much water if pooped.
Also, some were factory finished and some were owner completed. Not all of the owner completions were good. The factory finished boats are quite nice.

You must not know how to sail or have never been sailing on a Westsail 32. My boat will easily do 4.5k in 8k and 7k in 20k wind on a reach.
And I am not an experienced or knowledgeable sailor....

[cburger]

Great to see a fellow Westsailor standing up against the naysayers

[endoftheroad]

Originally Posted by cburger

Great to see a fellow Westsailor standing up against the naysayers

He says he's not experienced or knowlegeable.
Perhaps he doesn't know a good sailing boat?

Btw, I happen to admire the W32 and am not dissing.

[doug86]

I've sailed on this boat:
Yacht Fiona Home Page - Yacht, Fiona, Forsyth, Sailing, Sail, Voyage, YachtFiona, Ocean Cruising

The owner has gone everywhere, and seen everything on this Westsail 42. He finished the interior himself.

Antarctica (twice!), the Horn, 'round the world, many Atlantic crossings, and last year the Northwest Passage.

Needless to say, these boats are willing to go anywhere you point them. The 42 is pretty darn sea kindly. The 32 is a tad slower, but completely bullet proof. I had some friends with a factory 32 with a "tall rig", and they almost kept up with my 41' ketch on a beam reach.

[GWB]

Originally Posted by endoftheroad

He says he's not experienced or knowlegeable.
Perhaps he doesn't know a good sailing boat?

Btw, I happen to admire the W32 and am not dissing.

Are the numbers I quoted not respectable for a 32' sailboat?

[GWB]

Here is something from Bob Perry that might explain his agenda and the origin of the "Wetsnail" moniker. Seems Mr. Perry had not sailed on a W32 but decided to pass judgement anyway.

(SAILING MAGAZINE. May 1986. It deals with a design
analysis and it is by Robert H. Perry. Here are some points
Mr. Perry brings out.)
'In my youth I argued long and hard against the Westsail
type in order to attract attention to my own 'performance
cruiser' goal. I felt certain that the Westsail
suocess...was created by a myth ...... I remember one sunny day
reaching back from Catalina in a well known and performance
respected 40-footer. we slowly overtook a W32. we had about
20 knots apparent and the apparent wind was at about 65
degrees. This Westsail had a big drifter reacher up and it
was really moving along. It took us a painful long time to
pull clear ahead. I earned a new respect for the that, little
'Wetsnail'. `
(Mr. Perry goes on to explain that the modern cruising
boat owes alot to the Westsail line. The line produced a
movement in sailing that was not there previously. Here was
a boat that could make dreams come true. A boat that could
be sailed anywhere.)

[endoftheroad]

Originally Posted by GWB

Are the numbers I quoted not respectable for a 32' sailboat?

Close hauled?

[dkall]

The numbers you quoted were way off. You need to begin to reduce sail on a 32 at 20kts. At 10 kts true in our 32 on the wind we were doing quite often 6 kts and off the wind we would slow to 4-5. Like any boat; with the right sails they are a delight, with the wrong sails they're pigs. They're not day sailors, they're not the best for a dockaminium, they're made for cruising and made for offshore work. They excel there.

[GWB]

Originally Posted by endoftheroad

Close hauled?

The 4.5k was in 8k true at 60 degree apparent, but only the main and yankee up

[GWB]

Originally Posted by dkall

The numbers you quoted were way off. You need to begin to reduce sail on a 32 at 20kts. At 10 kts true in our 32 on the wind we were doing quite often 6 kts and off the wind we would slow to 4-5. Like any boat; with the right sails they are a delight, with the wrong sails they're pigs. They're not day sailors, they're not the best for a dockaminium, they're made for cruising and made for offshore work. They excel there.

Yes, the 7k was with staysail and reefed main in 25k wind. The 4.5k was with yankee and main only (in 8k true)

[barnakiel]

westsnail? ..... ? yes, rings a bell ...

WESTSAIL 32 Sailboat details on sailboatdata.com

;-)
barnie