Moody 33, Westerly 33, or Westerly Discus

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 Jul 2009
Messages
3,311
Location
Bristol Channel
Visit site
I will be replacing my boat for either one of these: Moody 33, Westerly 33 or Westerly Discus; bilge keel. Over the years, there have been many reviews about these boats, on here and other places. I know the weaknesses of the Westerlys such as bilge keels spreading out. The Moody 33 is a lighter weight with less ballast. The Westerly 33, being ketch, would have the inconvenience of the additional mast. Which one is likely to be the overall winner. I have not sailed any of these boats myself, I would appreciate your comments.
 
Last edited:
We had a W33 centre cockpit ketch with fin keel for 14 years, superb boat. Ours was cover picture and written up in a big spread in a PBO 'roadtest' We put top quality sails on and got her quite a performer in all weathers. We sailed a good few miles in company with a rtwin keeled one that had to motorsail to keep up upwind. had a bad downwind gale from L'Aberwrac'h to Guernsey one year with 50+kts over the deck whilst surfing and making 10kts over the ground in big seas and still the twin keeler was left behind. Discuss is nice but owner cabin cramped (We used forecabin double with infill on our center cockpit and stern cabin for stowage). Usual engine was 42hp Mercedes OM635 but we replaced with Volvo MD22L 50hp.when original seized after oil pump shaft sheered.
 
Unlikely to find a Moody bilge keel. Only a handful made. All capable boats, but Moody usually significantly cheaper to buy. Good looking one (Mark 11) for sale in Bristol asking £15k.
 
Having signal difficulties replying, so sorry, for brief answer..

I've owned all 3, and did significant passages in them all.

All v capable, easily handled, boats.

Condition and inventory, more important than model.

Personally, ceteris parabus, I wouldn't go for ketch or separated stern cabin.

I'd very happily have another Discus.
 
Whenever I think of a Moody 33 two thoughts are up front. The Moody 33 turned turtle of the coast of USA filled sank which drowned the designer Angus Primrose.
The second thought was to examine the Moody 34 which replaced the Moody 33 to check what difference the new designer Bill Dixon made to the basic numbers to prevent such a thing that killed his boss from happening again.

Compare the Moody 34 to the Moody 33 to see any significant change. I can't see any.
 
I’m also a bit biased, as we have a fin-keeled Discus. Lovely boat, dry and sea-kindly with a very comfortable motion. Happily makes 6kn on passage (We did Dartmouth to Roscoff, 100NM in 16hrs) and provides v comfortable accommodation for a family. The aft cabin is a small double, but big enough for two, whilst also being secure for single occupancy at sea.

We find the bridge deck very useful and this arrangement allows you to get to the aft cabin without going outside, which is necessary in the W33 ketch. That’s said, the W33 and Discus share the same excellent hull. Built v v strongly.

If you’re ever in the area then pm me and if I’m free I’ll gladly take you out .
 
BurnitBlue said:
Whenever I think of a Moody 33 two thoughts are up front. The Moody 33 turned turtle of the coast of USA filled sank which drowned the designer Angus Primrose.
The second thought was to examine the Moody 34 which replaced the Moody 33 to check what difference the new designer Bill Dixon made to the basic numbers to prevent such a thing that killed his boss from happening again.

Compare the Moody 34 to the Moody 33 to see any significant change. I can't see any.
Click to expand...

The accident happened in extreme conditions in shallow water and not sure that the design of the boat had anything to do with it. He made a mistake.

Anyway - the difference with the Dixon designs was a tendency towards heavier displacement, deeper hulls and slightly higher ballast ratio (40% rather than 36%). However subsequently ballast ratios fell, particularly on his smaller boats which were more performance orientated.

Although stability data is not available I expect both boats would be much the same and well exceed the minimum for Cat A. Angus was a very thoughtful person and the 33 design was ground breaking and the forerunner of today's hull forms.
 
Last edited:
BurnitBlue said:
Whenever I think of a Moody 33 two thoughts are up front. The Moody 33 turned turtle of the coast of USA filled sank which drowned the designer Angus Primrose.
The second thought was to examine the Moody 34 which replaced the Moody 33 to check what difference the new designer Bill Dixon made to the basic numbers to prevent such a thing that killed his boss from happening again.

Compare the Moody 34 to the Moody 33 to see any significant change. I can't see any.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly the same could have happened to many other boats: we don't know exactly what occurred, apart from prolonged severe weather in an area where the Gulf Stream can kick up some pretty horrible conditions.

My take on Moody vs Westerly as coastal cruisers, which is what they were designed as, not ocean passage-makers, is that there's not much difference in hull strength/quality. Moody decks I feel are slightly better moulded than Westerlys, as they get older Westerly gelcoats seem to suffer.

Moody joinery is sometimes a bit more prone to getting tired, but Westerly headlinings are a nightmare.

If a cockpit-access aft cabin suits you, and you like the huge full-width heads, the Moody 33 is a good boat. So are the two Westerly Discus versions and the 33. Somehow the 33 seems beefier than the Discus, but probably isn't. The only advantage to my mind of a ketch rig on a 33-footer is the "quick deep reef" of dropping the main entirely.
 
KAL said:
I’m also a bit biased, as we have a fin-keeled Discus. Lovely boat, dry and sea-kindly with a very comfortable motion. Happily makes 6kn on passage (We did Dartmouth to Roscoff, 100NM in 16hrs) and provides v comfortable accommodation for a family. The aft cabin is a small double, but big enough for two, whilst also being secure for single occupancy at sea.

We find the bridge deck very useful and this arrangement allows you to get to the aft cabin without going outside, which is necessary in the W33 ketch. That’s said, the W33 and Discus share the same excellent hull. Built v v strongly.

If you’re ever in the area then pm me and if I’m free I’ll gladly take you out .
Click to expand...

Very kind of you, thank you
 
jwilson said:
Quite possibly the same could have happened to many other boats: we don't know exactly what occurred, apart from prolonged severe weather in an area where the Gulf Stream can kick up some pretty horrible conditions.

My take on Moody vs Westerly as coastal cruisers, which is what they were designed as, not ocean passage-makers, is that there's not much difference in hull strength/quality. Moody decks I feel are slightly better moulded than Westerlys, as they get older Westerly gelcoats seem to suffer.

Moody joinery is sometimes a bit more prone to getting tired, but Westerly headlinings are a nightmare.

If a cockpit-access aft cabin suits you, and you like the huge full-width heads, the Moody 33 is a good boat. So are the two Westerly Discus versions and the 33. Somehow the 33 seems beefier than the Discus, but probably isn't. The only advantage to my mind of a ketch rig on a 33-footer is the "quick deep reef" of dropping the main entirely.
Click to expand...

I don't know what happened either. All I know is that the boat went upside down long enough for it to fill then sank. Thats enough info for me. I also think that it would not happen to the likes of a Nicholson 32. I suspect that the crew would be lounging in the cockpit with a chunk of freshly baked bread looking for the ducks to feed. OK OK I get carried away sometimes.

I would love to know why you (and tranona) consider that the Moody and Westerly boats of the OP choice are not designed for ocean use. I respect both your opinions, for instance, what design feature is missing to make them Ocean ready.

Don't say size please.
 
BurnitBlue said:
I would love to know why you (and tranona) consider that the Moody and Westerly boats of the OP choice are not designed for ocean use. I respect both your opinions, for instance, what design feature is missing to make them Ocean ready.

Don't say size please.
Click to expand...


Don't think I have ever said that they are not suitable for ocean crossings as the evidence says exactly the opposite. Many from both makers have circumnavigated successfully and are still in demand for this use. They maybe were not intended for that originally, perhaps because that market for new boats for ocean voyaging was (and still is) very small. However people quickly noted that they were quite capable and had one very big advantage over the old style boats such as the Nic 32 - that is space. So ocean cruising became possible in more comfort with the ability to carry more stores, space for a separate sleeping cabin. In others word caravaning rather than (slow) camping.

Traditional boats like the Nic are not immune from capsizing or otherwise foundering and it is really naive (in my view) to suggest that the loss of Angus in circumstances you admit to not knowing is an indicator that the boat is not safe for ocean crossing.

Just as an aside suggest you look at the Golden Hind. This is a shallow draft boat with high topsides - the very opposite of a narrow deep long keel boat like the Nic. Yet in the same period (1970s, 80s) around 40 made verified circumnavigations.

While of course different designs have different characteristics, just like people, but to focus on such a narrow aspect which for most people is never actually an issue seems odd to me.
 
BurnitBlue said:
I don't know what happened either. All I know is that the boat went upside down long enough for it to fill then sank. Thats enough info for me. I also think that it would not happen to the likes of a Nicholson 32. I suspect that the crew would be lounging in the cockpit with a chunk of freshly baked bread looking for the ducks to feed. OK OK I get carried away sometimes.

I would love to know why you (and tranona) consider that the Moody and Westerly boats of the OP choice are not designed for ocean use. I respect both your opinions, for instance, what design feature is missing to make them Ocean ready.

Don't say size please.
Click to expand...

Not size, AVS. Probably not published, but both could have substantial inverted stability. The Discus might well be a bit better than the Moody in this respect. Having been inverted in the North Atlantic I am a bit sensitive about this. The smaller the boat the more AVS matters.

Doesn't mean these boats CANNOT do ocean crossings, just that was not the design intention. All sorts of unsuitable boats make all sorts of passages. Several of the same class as my present modern 35 ft Jeanneau AWB have done transatlantics: I wouldn't choose this boat for the job, though it's a very good coastal cruiser. I'd rather go long-distance in a Contessa 26 or a Vancouver 27 - though an absolute preference would probably be a Dashew "Beowulf" or Sundeer type.

If you don't know - https://www.setsail.com/beowulf-the-ultimate-short-handed-cruiser-updated-march-2014/u
 
Thanks for the replies. I understand that most boats are capable of Ocean cruising from Shane's Caprice to that 19 foot flimsy JOG boat Sopranino. However a professionally designed and built cruising yacht turned upside down and sank. And I agree, that could happen to anybody and that is what bothers me. Not the risk I can accept that. In fact it is part of the challenge. J Wilson is a well respected yacht broker unless I have the wrong Wilson) and he stated that the boats in question were not designed for ocean. I was curious if he saw something in the design. He did answer with AVS and that I agree with 100%.

Tranona in an earlier post mentioned ballast ratio and that is the same thing and gives AVS (I think) I know that any yacht which is stable upside down is inherently at risk. The capsize ratio is published for many boats as good below a figure of below 2.0 for the parameters used in the formula. The Moody 33 and 34 and 346 are above that number. Lots of boats are well below the 2.0 estimate for capsize. I believe the Westerly boats a just below that number.

You do not have to sail Ocean to meet the conditions Angus Primrose sailed into. He was USA coastal I believe. Perhaps a day sail or two from a USA marina. How about the Portland race in the wrong time.

It seems I am making a big deal of this but I got my answer and I thank you sincerely. The answer is simply AVS from Ballast ratio and depth of ballast. The old designs were around 50% and 2 metres deep the new are around 35%. and 1.8 metres deep. Something had to pay for all that internal space, it did not come free.

Sorry to Hi-jack the thread. It was almost on topic though. Thanks again we agree (I think) that the ballast arrangement defines the yacht.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top