awol
Well-Known Member
One of this year's surprises at WHYW run under YTF instead of the tried, tested and much derided CYCA handicaps was that the CO32 gave time to a Fulmar (full keel, folding prop). We came 2nd!
Is a Contessa 32 basically a man cave for Boomers longing for the halcyon days of the 70s?
- Thread starter Baggywrinkle
- Start date
Poignard
Well-Known Member
My wife and I invited a British couple from a large modern yacht over to our Twister for drinks. Their boat was one of these wide, fat transom yachts with twin wheels in a huge cockpit.
The husband and I talked boats and politics in our cockpit and, it being a cold evening, the womenfolk (how sexist that sounds nowadays!
) went below.
After they had gone my wife told me that the woman had confessed to her that she hated their boat, and would much prefer one like ours. She said ours seemed cosy and safe whereas theirs frightened her. It was too big, and she didn't feel safe in the massive cockpit. But her husband had insisted on buying it.
I couldn't help thinking how happier they could have been had they chosen a boat together; and reached a compromise. Not necessarily a Twister, they certainly weren't short of money and could have had whatever they wanted.
As it was, she was unhappy and looked for excuses not to sail and, I suppose, he was unhappy because he couldn't understand why she was.
The husband and I talked boats and politics in our cockpit and, it being a cold evening, the womenfolk (how sexist that sounds nowadays!
) went below.After they had gone my wife told me that the woman had confessed to her that she hated their boat, and would much prefer one like ours. She said ours seemed cosy and safe whereas theirs frightened her. It was too big, and she didn't feel safe in the massive cockpit. But her husband had insisted on buying it.
I couldn't help thinking how happier they could have been had they chosen a boat together; and reached a compromise. Not necessarily a Twister, they certainly weren't short of money and could have had whatever they wanted.
As it was, she was unhappy and looked for excuses not to sail and, I suppose, he was unhappy because he couldn't understand why she was.
Last edited:
doug748
Well-Known Member
So if those boats were quicker, on the day, or roughly comparable.
Have you shown that it is fair to call the Contessa a slow boat?
.
wr068650
New Member
I absolutely agree! I know 3 people who have owned Contessa 32 & all three of them had issues with osmosis, some had significant issues with rudder failures & all admit that the Contessa is a wet boat, with not much room down below. I accept that that is not a statistically valid sample, nevertheless, the Contessa 32 is certainly not a fast boat in my experience sailing in Company with them, however, I accept that they don't need to reef frequently, because of the tiny sail area, which lots of boats of that era suffer from.The September Issue of yachting monthly contains 14 pages dedicated to the Contessa 32, and it's not the first time considerable coverage has been given to this and other classics from the 70s. The question I ask is why? Isn't there enough from the last 25 years to fill the pages of YM?
I get the nostalgic appeal, my Dad would have killed for one when we were cruising our Kingfisher 20 and Albin Vega around the West coast of Scotland in the 70s/80s. A Contessa 32 was an aspirational boat at the time, and obviously they still have a strong following. They were near the top on my list too when it came to buying my own family cruiser almost 20 years ago. That was until I actually went to see one. My significant other looked at me as if I was mad, and vetoed it immediately.
We are a family of 5 and I must admit, I was somewhat disappointed by the concept when I saw it in the flesh. Nostalgia is a funny thing .... lusting after a Contessa 32 from the cockpit of an Albin Vega in the 80s is a completely different experience to viewing a decades old example in 2010, after having just chartered a nearly new Oceanis 393 a few weeks earlier. When it comes to getting your wallet out and taking the plunge, nostalgia becomes a very poor argument indeed. There was no way in this world I was going to persuade my family to spend 3 weeks cooped up on a Contessa, despite having enjoyed even smaller boats as a kid. I wasn't completely dissuaded though, but after looking at a few other boats I had lusted after from the confines of our Vega, my nostalgia bubble well and truly burst. I came to the conclusion that offerings from the 70s/80s simply don't cut it by modern standards, and most are floating sheds in need of major renovation, the few remaining good, serviceable ones are in use and not for sale.
... but back to the articles. The new version "as tested" was £580,000- and I noticed there was no "Alternatives to consider" section ... not even YMs most die-hard old salt could manage the mental gymnastics and "man maths" required for that price tag to make sense. There is a customer for it somewhere, for whom money is no object, and nostalgia is the only reason they need I guess. I also noticed that despite waxing lyrically about its offshore credentials, the water capacity was quoted as 75l and fuel at 60l, these seem woefully inadequate for a serious offshore boat (at 5l per person per day you've got 5 days of water for a crew of 3 - with no reserve - and you ain't going to get very far in 5 days) - I guess cult boats get a free pass for fear of upsetting owners associations, so are never going to get a critical review from the mainstream press.
My conclusion after reading all 14 pages is that a Contessa 32 is actually a perfect man-cave on water, a floating potting shed for single blokes to retire to, so they can re-live their youth, escape the family, and have minor adventures re-living the '79 Fastnet in their heads. Maybe with the company of a like minded masochistic crew. Got to celebrate the diversity of the sailing community even if you don't "get it".
I will never forget that several people lost serious money when the constructor went bust, so I must agree, in my humble opinion, the Contessa is a boat from the past, that should be left in the past, with great memories for some, I concede. I certainly cannot understand people spending half a million pounds on yesterday's boat, however, if some people want to do so, good for them & I hope that they enjoy themselves.
flaming
Well-Known Member
That’s what the IRC rating does to be honest.
Put it this way, if the CO32s didn’t have their own start at Cowes they’d be in the second slowest IRC class, class 6. They’d also be the slowest boats in that class, and the largest by some margin. Most of the rest of the class being ¼ toners and impalas.
steveeasy
Well-Known Member
Yawn yawn. I’ve no osmosis, not particularly wet and my rudder is fine. Must be a one off!!!. Now I was going to get one of those super cool MGB roadsters to have some fun in, but definitely and thing of the past.
You’re killing me. I thought life was fun but clearly deluded and living in the past.
Happy days
Steveeasy
doug748
Well-Known Member
You may have come in half way through the discussion.
The original poster said the Contessa was slow. He would not tell us what boat he sails by comparison, it may well be a Bavaria 44 vision.
The only one of that type in the race under scrutiny got round in c9 hours 50min, it would be about 20th out of c23 in the Contessa class. An hour behind the leading Contessa.
Looking at the broader picture for statistical purposes, no Bavaria, of any size, in the 60 boat fleet came within a margin of the top third of the Contessa fleet. Lower down the fleets the disparity was similar.
I ask the question - does this justify his claim - or maybe his boat is similarly slow, or slower?
.
flaming
Well-Known Member
The OP never mentioned speed that I can see? He was talking about space and tankage mainly.
I think the issue in using the RTI results to compare the CO32 to similar sized cruising boats is that the crew and boat prep disparity is huge. There are some very good sailors in the CO32 fleet, and the extra challenge of close boat on boat racing undoubtedly pushes them harder and makes them faster. And they'll be right on top of their rig tuning etc.
The cruising boats on the other hand are not crewed by people for whom racing is their main concern. The level is unquestionably lower. Doubt many of them have looked at mast rake etc, might have a cruising chute....
I have no doubt whatsoever that the top Contessa sailors, if dropped onto a Bavaria Vision 44 and able to equip it with a decent kite, could make it go around the island significantly faster than the rest of the Contessa 32 fleet. I equally have no doubt at all that the typical Bavaria RTI crew, if dropped onto a Contessa 32 for the RTI would be doing well to avoid being last Contessa.
Equally if you gave the top Contessa crew a Bavaria 32, or a Hanse311, Or an Oceanis 30.1, equipped with a decent kite and the gear, they'd also be well clear of the rest of the contessa fleet at the end of the race. It isn't actually arguable that those boats are faster than a Contessa, they just are. All of them have longer waterline length, set more sail, have better form stability and weigh less....
But anyway, you're still comparing a boat that was designed and sold as a cruiser racer to boats which are only sold as cruising boats. That this is even a debate that's had just shows how far design has moved on.
I think when you look at where the Contessa sits in the IRC ratings, you start to realise that this really isn't a very fast boat. Remember, the CO32's rating is not a gift, they don't walk everything when they enter IRC events...
But they currently rate circa 0.857
Sigma 33 current rating is 0.906
Laser 28 0.901
Hanse 291 0.875
For reference, 0.001 rating difference equates to 3.6s per hour. So a Sigma 33, a boat from a similar era, owes a Contessa 32 over 3 minutes per hour...
And if you then look at the boat that is available for sale now that is probably closest to the original Contessa's design brief. I.e competitive racing, fastnet suitable and comfortable enough to cruise. That's probably the J99. Which currently rate about 1.015. Which is nearly 10 minutes per hour faster.
But none of that is at all surprising. The Contessa is 20cm shorter and over 50cm narrower than the J99. But weighs half a tonne more, The 99 sets 25% more upwind sail of a mast that's 3m taller on a hull with less wetted area, more form stability, deeper draft and nearly 1.5m more waterline length. The Contessa's spinnaker is circa 60sqm. The J99's Over 100sqm....
potentillaCO32
Well-Known Member
you can't argue with any of this. A bit like comparing a ww2 spitfire with a typhoon. I'm currently in La Trinite and seeing what I think are the latest beneteau 40 foiling boats which make most current cruiser racers look like a typhoon up against an f35.
But I think the appeal, at least for me, is a bit like the appeal of the spitfire. Looks, character, charisma, a story etc etc and still a really decent boat to take out for a sail.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I'm astonished that we'd be scrabbling around for race results when sailing (uniquely among sports?) provides us with an effective and unbiased way to compare boat speeds. Whether you want to label it as "slow" or "fast" we know exactly how fast a CO32 is - it's 0.857.
I don't hear CO32 owners complaining that handicap racing is too easy for them and demanding a higher handicap.
Maybe someone can provide polars if we want to compare different points of sail in different wind strengths.
None of which has any bearing on the general desirability of CO32s. They are desirable, people love them. (I certainly do.)
Last edited:
flaming
Well-Known Member
Well exactly. There clearly is an appeal to the Co32. They still get decent fleets, and their owners rave about them. And at the end of the day it's a boat. It is by definition a good thing.
But it always amuses me when you see items like that review with an owner who states as fact that his boat is faster than modern boats upwind. Well no, it isn't... The combination of you and your boat might have overtaken the combination of that sailor and that boat on that day, but that doesn't make your boat intrinsically faster.
After all, I race a lot in mixed handicap fleets. On occasions we've been the slowest boat entered, and the 1st to the windward mark. That doesn't suddenly make the boat faster than the others, it means that on that day we sailed better than the competition on that leg by a percentage that was greater than the difference in the speed potentials of our boats.
It does seem to be a phenomenon almost unique to CO32s though, that wildly unrealistic claims of performance are so frequently made - very often referencing more modern boats disparagingly. And very often not made by owners!
awol
Well-Known Member
I don't rave about mine, have no illusions of its performance, just enjoy sailing it whether cruising or racing. Now, on the other hand if it was an Anderson 22 .................
flaming
Well-Known Member
We can all dream....
Chiara’s slave
Well-Known Member
Most of our aspirations are not that lofty
doug748
Well-Known Member
You keep hammering away at the same point. We know.
How far in front does a boat have to be before we all admit it's silly to call it slow?
Maybe the boat one hour behind could sail one hour faster with a strong crew. A draw. Would that be enough to call it slow?
Maybe the boat behind, given a crack crew, could make up two hours and be up with the Elans and some J classes. That might be enough to brand it slow but is it likely?
All sorts of red herrings are being trailed about here. Contessa 32's hack around at similar speeds to a whole slew of middle of the road cruising boats ancient and modern
That's it, that's all, there is no more. To pick them out as being in some way particularly slow is misleading.
.
flaming
Well-Known Member
But we literally have the IRC rating. So we know exactly where it fits. That being the entire concept of a rating, a way of comparing the inherent speed of a design.
And nobody is branding the Contessa as particularly slow. All I've ever tried to do is push back a bit on the narrative from some that they are some sort of wonder design that sails rings round all modern cruisers. That isn't true.
Baggywrinkle
Well-Known Member
The point was that crew, equipment and boat preparation are also a huge part of how fast a boat gets round a race course. Using the same crew, with a boat prepared to the same standard, then a modern boat will be faster. The only real-world info on a boats "speed" are their ratings. As stated in multiple posts, the Contessa IRC Rating is not that great.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
Well, there are polars, of course.
Baggywrinkle
Well-Known Member
Very true... forgot about them.
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
I had too. Popped in to my head 17 pages in.
I still think handicap is as good, if not better, in determining how fast a boat is in this context.
