Fulmar & Twister Owners: Opinions please!

Status
Not open for further replies.
geem said:
He isn't looking for a holiday boat. He is after something to take him safely long distance. He mentions ocean sailing. That probably why he is so specific and not mentioned anything with a B in it😅
Click to expand...
I beg to differ. But only a little.

He wants a boat to go cruising on now. He has dreams/aspirations of ocean sailing one day.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, the chances are by the time he’s lived with either a Twister or a Fulmar for a few years and he decides it’s time to go ocean sailing he’ll be looking for a bigger boat.

In practice either boat will serve him well but the Fulmar will be more comfortable, go faster and still look after him.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
No the Northney was not a development of the Twister.
You've said this several times over the years and been corrected but don't want to learn.
Click to expand...
The Twister was designed by Kim Holman in 1963, the Rustler 31 in 1965 and Shaker the wooden design was launched in 1965 this design became the Northney 34. The Rustler was an enlarged Twister and Shaker was a Rustler with a counter transom. As all designs were done by hand, each was a development or evolution of Kim Holman's earlier designs. In the same way the Stellar was the fore runner for the Twister. May be you should read some of the old Yachting Worlds from the early 1960's or provide clear evidence that there was no link other than it was the same designer.
 
Concerto said:
The Twister was designed by Kim Holman in 1963, the Rustler 31 in 1965 and Shaker the wooden design was launched in 1965 this design became the Northney 34. The Rustler was an enlarged Twister and Shaker was a Rustler with a counter transom. As all designs were done by hand, each was a development or evolution of Kim Holman's earlier designs. In the same way the Stellar was the fore runner for the Twister. May be you should read some of the old Yachting Worlds from the early 1960's or provide clear evidence that there was no link other than it was the same designer.
Click to expand...
No.
Shaker was a North Sea 24 with a counter. Rustler was a development of the North Sea 24.

Not Twister derivatives.
The clue is in the LWL.
I have drawings of them all and have done a great deal of research being a Twister owner.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
No.
Shaker was a North Sea 24 with a counter. Rustler was a development of the North Sea 24.

Not Twister derivatives.
The clue is in the LWL.
I have drawings of them all and have done a great deal of research being a Twister owner.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should read this thread which was about the Northney 34 - before either of us was a member of the forum.

M

Thread 'Northney 34'

I have recently aquired a Northney 34. It seems little is known about these boats, but I have found that it's a Kim Holman design and 21 were built at several yards until the mould were lost in a fire in June 1970, which possibly makes Mar Azul the last one. I'm sure you would have read the article about C R Holman in this months CB which bares this out. But does anyone out there have any more information about these boats or do you know where any are berthed so that I may be able to track down their owners. Any titbits of info would be welcome no matter how small Thanks David
 
Concerto said:
Perhaps you should read this thread which was about the Northney 34 - before either of us was a member of the forum.

M

Thread 'Northney 34'

I have recently aquired a Northney 34. It seems little is known about these boats, but I have found that it's a Kim Holman design and 21 were built at several yards until the mould were lost in a fire in June 1970, which possibly makes Mar Azul the last one. I'm sure you would have read the article about C R Holman in this months CB which bares this out. But does anyone out there have any more information about these boats or do you know where any are berthed so that I may be able to track down their owners. Any titbits of info would be welcome no matter how small Thanks David
Click to expand...
A thread on here is not an authoritative source.
 
john_morris_uk said:
I beg to differ. But only a little.

He wants a boat to go cruising on now. He has dreams/aspirations of ocean sailing one day.

As I think I mentioned in an earlier post, the chances are by the time he’s lived with either a Twister or a Fulmar for a few years and he decides it’s time to go ocean sailing he’ll be looking for a bigger boat.

In practice either boat will serve him well but the Fulmar will be more comfortable, go faster and still look after him.
Click to expand...
I agree. But either of the boats he has a liking for would take him offshore now. I am surprised how many 20 somethings we have met doing stuff we didn't do until later in life when we had better funds.
A small cruiser as a first bost makes some sense. Even as a competent dinghy sailor, there are some boat handling challenges when moving up to something weighing tonnes not kg. Better to knock the corners off a small cheaper boat, then maybe you won't knock the corners off a bigger, more expensive boat later on
 
Buck Turgidson said:
Wheels?
It's like comparing an MG B to a Ford Cortina and saying the MG has nicer wheels! 65 MGB 79 Cortina, completely different era.
The cortina will take you down the road a little faster but you wouldn't notice one if it passed you.
To be honest I wouldn't recognise a Fulmar if I ever saw one.
Click to expand...
You are right of course. The Fulmar is a most forgettable piece of mediocrity that is never going pull the heart strings. As you say, much like the cortina.
 
potentillaCO32 said:
You are right of course. The Fulmar is a most forgettable piece of mediocrity that is never going pull the heart strings. As you say, much like the cortina.
Click to expand...
My ghast is regularly flabbered by some of the ‘opinions’ punted on these forums.
 
potentillaCO32 said:
Stops it being boring....
Click to expand...
Funny but I’ve never met a Fulmar owner who thought their boat was ‘boring’.

On a more serious note. I’ve owned and sailed long keeled boats. I found their sailing characteristics rather boring.

It was suggested by someone that the OP should buy a boat because of its ‘row away’ factor. That’s like telling someone to buy a vintage Morgan as their every day drive. Lovely to look at but a complete PITA to use daily. (And before you ask, we’ve had three Morgans of various ages; two of which I attempted to use as a daily drive and learned my lesson.)
 
Chiara’s slave said:
And row away factor, if you’re into that, is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. It also has nothing to do with whether a boat suits you or not. Very few people would consider a Catalac a thing of beauty, but ours suits us. She's not the boat we'd have if we won the lottery, but she works.

I used to crew for someone who had a twister. He chopped it in for a Starlight 35, OK, a significantly bigger boat, but what a difference to be aboard in all weathers, and a good bit quicker.

Each to his own, but I don't think the Fulmar is bad looking - far better than plenty of AWBs
 
Chiara’s slave said:
Long keels are like classic British motorcycles. Nobody wants to see them extinct, to disappear, but owners are often completely blind to the fact that things have moved on, for the better. And row away factor, if you’re into that, is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

The "Times have moved on for the better" gag has exactly the same logical flaw as: "The old ones are the best" line.

For either statement a single example of how things have not got better or how a new boat is an improvement over the old, destroys the case.
Point at hand, it is easy to think of ways most people would describe a Twister is a better boat and ways in which the Westerly is seen as a better boat. If this is accepted, both statements are shown to be logical fallacies and we can move on.

Quite apart from matters of logic they are both silly, dogmatic statements which any experienced sailor would spot as having no real meaning and not take seriously.

.....except of course on a forum :)

.
 
doug748 said:
The "Times have moved on for the better" gag has exactly the same logical flaw as: "The old ones are the best" line.

For either statement a single example of how things have not got better or how a new boat is an improvement over the old, destroys the case.
Point at hand, it is easy to think of ways most people would describe a Twister is a better boat and ways in which the Westerly is seen as a better boat. If this is accepted, both statements are shown to be logical fallacies and we can move on.

Quite apart from matters of logic they are both silly, dogmatic statements which any experienced sailor would spot as having no real meaning and not take seriously.

.....except of course on a forum :)

.
Click to expand...
I agree. The reality is that there have been some stand out examples of excellent boat from the past. At the same time, there were some epic dogs.
Saying all new boats are bad and all old boats are good is a stupid as saying new boats are better. Better at what, needs to be factor in.
Long keel boat have been around longer than marinas. Not being able to reverse into a marina berth would not have been high on the designers list of attributes🙂
Times change. Some people buy a boat and marina berth because it's cheaper than a holiday home by the sea
 
This winter in Glasson there was a Beneteau First 44 being commissioned for launch on Windermere. Windermere is 11 miles long and 1 mile wide.
Is there an doubt that it has been bought as a holiday home?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top