anybody sailed a moody 33?

[sailbadthesinner]

the mid cockpit job is one we are looking at
any comments appreciated.
How does mark I compare to mark II?


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>By 'eck the sun is out</font color=red>

 

[Skyva_2]

You could try the MOA site - Infoexchange at

www.moodyowners.org.uk

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

ta for that found the review
most useful.
know where i can get photos of the interior?
or even better get to crew on one?

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>By 'eck the sun is out</font color=red>

 

[Skyva_2]

There are M33 interior pictures and a full review at Dave Snooks site:

http://moodywaters.users.btopenworld.com/

You could try contacting Dave?

Keith

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

missed the internalshots jumping around so much. thanks for that
skyva2. Will have speak to dave end june as have no free time till then

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>By 'eck the sun is out</font color=red>

 

[webcraft]

I've sailed the aft cockpit version, if that is of any interest Sailbad. I think the centre cockpit version accommodation layout is quite different, but the sailing characteristics must be similar.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

No the aft cockpit would be considered. Any comments would be useful.
the centrecockpit layout IS an appealing characteristic. To be honest the centre cockpit 39 (circa 80's version) is REALLY appealing but price is an issue.

I have sailed on a couple of big moodies and forgotten how nice they were until last April when i went on another one (a 39).

Am i to assume the 33 is continues the tradition of good sea boat or is the boat ( partic the centre cockpit) a bit more tender than i might expect.?

was looking at saddlers and nichs but the moody seems to offer good interior which whilst not top ofmy list , is a factor for swmbo.


<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>By 'eck the sun is out</font color=red>

 

[mickp]

See PM

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mickp]

See my PM

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Neal]

I lived on a MK1 for 18 months....

That was 13 years ago. Ours was a fin keeler.

She sailed very well indeed and surprised many with her turn of speed. Good to windward.

We found her a reassuring boat in bad weather too.

Very easy to handle ahead and astern under power.

Centre cockpit was great in the sun, but makes the main saloon seem small. Heads and shower on the Mk1 is really luxurious.

Overall, then, nothing bad to say about them.

Later on we had aWesterly Discus which was very simliar in many ways. On balance, I think we preferred the Westerly - its looks, the finish and we like the bridgedeck cockpit and stern cabin, but they are generally a bit more expensive.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[warrior40]

Aren't they the ones that sail sideways on a god day..?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[warrior40]

Aren't they the ones that sail sideways on a good day..?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeteMcK]

Owned one since \'94

Mk 2. Wanted a Fulmar but couldn't afford it; the Moodys were about 10k less at the time. Sails well (ignore Warrior's sneering, they're as fast upwind as Contessa and Sadler 32s and, with a huge waterline length and flattish aft sections, very much quicker off the wind - check their respective IRC Ratings). They're far from tender - optimum upwind heel angle is 17 degrees. That means we reef the main at about 32 knots, progressively changing down headsails from 150% No 1 at about 18/20 to blade jib No 4 at 28. I sail from March till December every year - they're excellent sea boats. My IRC Certificate gives a safety screening number almost identical to the Contessa's and a couple of easily attainable points away (e.g. carry a liferaft) from being "eligible for ocean races of up to 1000 miles in all weather conditions". I'd offer you a sail but you're about 300 miles away.
The 33 Mks 1 and 2 and the 33-S have identical rigs, keels and, near enough, displacements. The 333 (i.e., Mk 3) is probably quicker with about 2 ft more on the mast and 4 or 5 inches on the keel but all within the same displacement (I suspect its deck moulding is cored to save weight - the older ones are solid GRP).
Mechanically, most have a 38 hp Thornycroft which just goes on and on provided it's cared for; note, all parts are easily and reasonably cheaply available. Very early boats - about 20 - have a 40 hp Perkins; the 33-S might be very slightly underpowered on, I think, a 20 hp Bukh. I'm beginning to think about looking for a 333 myself; either that or it will have to be the quicker, equally robust but much more expensive 336, different, I know, but with all the attributes.
The layouts are very different from type to type with progressively more wood and less Formica being used; Moody's website has a plan of each in the archive. The 333 is the only walk-through version. For safety, I don't like the idea of the offset companionway of the Mk 1 and - more so - the 33-S.
All were built by Marine Projects bar the first small number (9 or so?). There are some unanswered questions regarding the quality of construction of these very early boats; see the Tech Library on the owners' association website. The rest, i.e., somewhere towards 1000 of them, appear to wear better than most boats of their age. The Mk 2's deck moulding has cleaner lines than the Mk 1's, whilst that of the 333 is quite fresh and modern even now. Similarly, the Mk 2 brought a significant improvement to the internal layout. Go for a 2 or, for 7 or 8k extra, a 333 (but get there soon!).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeteMcK]

Warrior 40

And I meant to add that the various Warriors, Voyagers, Challengers etc., were all Angus Primrose designed, just like the. er.... Moody 33.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[chas]

Great boats. Safe, comfortable and viceless to sail. Vast cockpit (larger on mk1 than mk2) is dry, thanks to flared bow. Good sized saloon can seat 8+. Surprisingly fast (last weekend we covered 30 miles in just over 4 hrs in a force 4) and point well if the jib is well cut. Built like the proverbial (recently changed the heads inlet about 5 ft from the bow and found the hull to be 1.25 in thick). Good tankage (45 gall diesel and 50 water). In heavy weather have the weight to punch through the sea and keep the way on.

Come for a sail if you are in the wet country.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Sailed about 600 miles on one in the 70\'s

Great accomodation. Big for a 33 foot boat. Went upwind like a grand piano more leeway than a magistrates court. Pretty good on other points of sailing though.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[squidge]

Moody 33 centre cockpit is ideal for someone with a young family,my two young boys love the boat and i am happier with them being a little safer in the cockpit.I think you would be surprised with the performance for a cruiser,as the ratings show.As the previous post suggested have a look at Moody Waters she is one of the finest around.The owners club is very friendly and put on some superb events (you dont have to own a moody to join)./forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bedouin]

Re: Owned one since \'94

Now I like the Moody 33 (almost bought one a couple of years ago) but even allowing for owner preferences your posting is going just a little too far.

Firstly, IRC is a measurement based rating system, not a results based system. So comparing IRC ratings does not enable you to compare boat speeds.

There is no way that a comparatively broad-bowed design like a Moody can out point the finer entry of a Contessa 32, and with a comparatively shallow keel she must also make more leeway than the deeper, lead keeled boats.

Putting two and two together, would you be any connection to the Pete MacKenzie whose (v enjoyable) account of a 2-handed race last year is on the ClydeSailing website?

and any boat that doesn't need its first reef put in until 32 knots must be significantly underpowered in light airs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldsalt]

Re: Owned one since \'94

Spent a weekend sailing on one a few years ago. Loads of room inside, adequate performance on a reach, but upwind..agghh! Slow, poor pointing, no feel. The broad bow means that waves stop you dead. It's a nice boat, but treat it as a motor-sailor and you won't go wrong.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeteMcK]

Re: Owned one since \'94

I am surely he!

I'm glad to hear someone else agree we get screwed in IRC- some people believe it's infallible. But for what it's worth, the West of Scotland CYCA subjective/performance system says we're 15 seconds in the hour slower than the Contessa and Sadler - thanks to which we're branded as bandits! It's a case of when you win, you just can't win! The Moody was especially popular around here and many were very actively raced until the early '90s, and a couple are still set up for racing; that CYCA handicap is based on a lot of inputs.

In racing terms, the Moody cannot compete upwind in very light winds (i.e., ghosting), but it can hold its own in building and moderate winds and anything you can throw at it above that; they're rotten in left-over slop. Its wide sheeting angle means it can't point as high as more race oriented cruisers of that era (but we're talking about roughly 3 degrees of difference here). However, progressively, from 10 knots apparent in flat water, it's VMG matches and exceeds that of the Contessa; you just sail off a bit free and fast (incidentally, a YM test from the early '80s matched the then new Sadler 32 against the Moody in a race and confirmed the same point). Sure, the keel is long and shallow - our target is 6 degrees of leeway; that equates to about 17 degrees of heel at 6.6 knots close-hauled (tell me how bad that is, I honestly don't know). If we're slower and heeled more than that, we reduce sail, but as far as possible, for pointing, jib first. Downwind that stable keel configuration works in its favour. In five attempts at the non-handicap Scottish Islands Peaks Race (see e.g., http://homepages.strath.ac.uk/~ccas24/3peaks/story99.html) which covers about 200 logged miles of extremely mixed conditions, we've always competed against Contessas and my honest assessment is that the boats are very closely matched - latterly we've had the edge since we started carrying a Mylar No 1.

As for reefing the (rather small) main at 32, I'm talking racing here, with someone dumping and feathering all the time. Other mastheads we race against regularly, e.g., 336s and an S&S 34 have taken to doing the same; the last racing Contessa in the club doesn't and it gets stuffed. I'd rather have more canvas - and that's why I think the 333 is probably a significantly better boat. On the other hand, the 333 rates almost the same as a Fulmar in IRC (about 0.6% slower in fact); no 333s race here so I've no idea whether they can sail up to anything like that.

The problem the Moody 33 has is that most of them are sailing around with 2 or more tons of extraneous cruising junk inside that enourmous internal volume (and don't forget 100 gallons of diesel and water), all under baggy roller headsails and dragging 3-blade propellers. Naturally they'll sail like dogs, but the owners seem to be happy! If you want to use it as a motor sailer, i.e., like most cruisers let's face it, it's a perfectly good boat for that.

All I'm trying to say is that the Moody 33's all round sailing performance - where I sail - is comparable with that of the Sadler and Contessa. That is, it can be, if you want it to be, and I relish taking them on. If you're thinking of buying one, that's how to gauge it. The boat goes, even if it doesn't look like it should, and I know that surprises/rattles many people. Last year's Scottish Series preliminary offshore race gave us a 1st in class, our twin took 3rd; the previous year we took 3rd overall in the six day series (our discard was a 4th), our twin took 2nd, all of this against S31s, 336s, Sadlers, various UFOs, MGs, Impalas, Boleros etc., etc. There's loads more evidence out there.

Take it or leave it.

<hr width=100% size=1>