Help? Contessa 32, Sadler, centurion??

Justin Wood said:
Absolutely right Yellow Ballad. I have a 1973 Centurion and a) the lines are perfect to my eyes (why are all these AWBs built with a hideous vertical bow and fat stern? ...just to minimise marina charges!) b) the Centurion like virtually all IOR era designs sails beautifully to windward and will cope comfortably with typical Channel conditions. For me, I'd rather eat worms than change my boat for one with hideous lines and a keel that could snap off at any moment!
Click to expand...

For what its worth i bought a hideous AWB, its keel hasnt fallen off and it didnt instantly explode in a F8 either.

(its a great boat btw and i couldn't be happier with my choice)
 
As usual with the usual discussions re the merits of the alternatives to a contessa 32 come up.The Centurion is a much roomier boat nice lines and performance.The fulmar has merits but an old one will need work on the interior.My choice would be a Sigma 33 a basically faster boat ,a really good sail and having been out several times in f8-9 including going to windward felt safe and got from A to B.Properly sailed will be faster than Contessa 32,centurion32,sadler34,Sadler 29,sadler32,fulmar.There have been several well refurbished Sigmas for under 30k avoid the well raced examples,the toilet doors do not shut,or ones with multiple shunts.Theymake excellent cruising boats if you reef early and under full sail will require less recourse to engine in light weather,much more interior space than a contessa.7/8 rig is easier to handle than masthead rig with large genoa.There are Sigmas as young as 1985 out there.
 
Last edited:
Contessas are undoubtedly nice looking boats but you don't actually see the fine lines from the cockpit so I would avoid one unless you like cramped accomodation and getting wet going to windward.
 
Tranona said:
With respect, what a load of rubbish. I just wonder how how those thousands of people with modern boats cope with sailin back and forth across the channel, or round the world (as many do) if they are so awful and keels drop off.

Nothing wrong in liking you own boat - most of us do, but also recognise you are in a tiny minority that prefers boats like yours - and there is no need to disparage the choice of others, particularly using untruths on the way!
Click to expand...

Hi Justin, welcome to the forum! You'll find the Average White Boat vs Manky Auld Boat debate is a constant source of amusement/frustration. Much like anchors, for some reason.
Btw I would generally side with you in that I prefer a boat that is, by design, inherently simple and robust. So no narrow chord keels, no sail drive, no spade rudder, no in mast reefing. All things that can be perfectly acceptable if the boat is maintained and operated correctly, but as you say it's about margin.
 
Have a look at the Gladiateur another Holman and Pye which followed on from the Centurion. Very nice to sail, lead keel, full teak interior, GRP moulded head linings and huge amount of cockpit stowage in 5 separate lockers. I get two full size bikes, liferaft, dinghy and outboard in mine and still there's plenty of room for fenders fuel etc. Try that in an AWB and you can pick them up very cheaply.
 
Daydream believer said:
& sometimes you get the " Holman Roll" down wind thrown in for free!!!
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of. The old IOR boats have a massive foresail and a 'handkerchief' for a main. If I have a long downwind passage I often use just the genniker and don't bother with the main; one less thing to handle since I mostly sail solo.
 
Tranona said:
With respect, what a load of rubbish. I just wonder how how those thousands of people with modern boats cope with sailin back and forth across the channel, or round the world (as many do) if they are so awful and keels drop off.
Click to expand...

With the greatest and most profound respect, Justin's post is not "a load of rubbish". People who choose boats with some modern design features, such as narrow chord keels, are accepting a level of risk that perhaps others may be uncomfortable with. Of course their voyages are mostly successful, but you cannot then conclude that the design is therefore as robust as the more traditional hull form. To do so is merely conflation.
 
steve350 said:
With the greatest and most profound respect, Justin's post is not "a load of rubbish". People who choose boats with some modern design features, such as narrow chord keels, are accepting a level of risk that perhaps others may be uncomfortable with. Of course their voyages are mostly successful, but you cannot then conclude that the design is therefore as robust as the more traditional hull form. To do so is merely conflation.
Click to expand...

It is not what people are comfortable with, but stating that "keels snap off" is simply an untruth and not supported by evidence.

I don't have any problem with people making different choices, and as it happens I also own a long keel boat, but I resent people justifying their choice by stating untruths. There are perfectly good and rational arguments for the choice, but in my view there is actually no reason to justify further than explaining why the choice was made without any reference to alternatives. I note that the poster has owned or sailed the same design of boat since the 1970's. I just wonder what experience he has of modern boats.
 
Fair call, Tranona. Yes, I have mostly sailed older school GRP yachts...the rare John Butler design (see http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=4484 ) Westerly 28 back in the early 70s, the Centurion (my late father's and now my one), Contessa 32, Hurley 22 (fin keel), Salar 40 motor-sailor, Nicholson 55 and the slightly wacky Wyliecat 30 (see http://www.wyliecat.com/models/wylie_30.html) which in effect has a massive windsurfer's rig. As you say, it is a matter of choice and for my money the compromise, hull shape-wise, of the IOR influenced '30-something' yachts is almost ideal. I much prefer a 'fin and skeg' configuration on the basis of good windward performance but ability to dry out alongside reasonably safely. Notwithstanding the sound point that a keel failure is extremely rare in a modern designs, from an engineering point of view an extremely small keel to hull joint surface area is bound to massively focus the various forces into a small part of the hull...I wonder how much is known about the effect of fatique in these structures as boats get old? Personally I'd rather not have that concern when thrashing to windward in a gale or taking the ground alongside a Brittany quay!
 
In the MAB v. AWB debate the ability safely to dry out is often not mentioned. From experience I know the Centurion will: I leave it to others to extol the abilities of other designs. Whilst I think the risk of keels falling off AWB’s is minimal I am not so sure that their hulls will support a narrow keel spread without damage when dried out.
 
If you can afford to have a boat that it's new enough not to worry about things like keel or rudder attachment, and you get a lift out every time you need to do work on the hull, and you keep on top of maintenance of sail drives or in mast furling systems, and you don't generally worry about hitting rocks, then there's nothing wrong with an AWB.

But if you were to design a boat from scratch that is inherently as robust and low cost to maintain as possible, then it probably wouldn't look very much like an AWB.

But people who want that in a boat have no influence on what is actually built.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

I
Sadler 32
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
3K
Mark-1
Mark-1
C
Being offered a free Mystere 26
Replies
17
Views
716
Concerto
Concerto
Irish Rover
Compact Binoculars 8 x 32
Replies
13
Views
558
Egret
E
Frogmogman
My next boat.
2 3
Replies
40
Views
1K
fredrussell
F
M
Genoa size?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Refueler
Refueler

Share this page

Top