Nicholson 32 - sailing performance upwind and in heavy weather

[lw395]

....
Surely nobody is bothered about sailing speed? I have a theory about people with "fast" sailing boats. They're wannabe mobo owners who can't afford the fuel, and don't actually like sailing as they seem to want to make the sailing bits as short as possible

Sailing speed, particularly in lighter weather, matters a great deal to me, for the opposite reason, I want to sail and not use the engine.
If you have a boat that will make good progress upwind in 5 or 6 knots of breeze, there is much less pressure to stick the motor on in order to get somewhere.

Trimming a couple of hours off a channel crossing may be irrelevant to true cruising folk, but to the weekender it makes the difference of getting home for last orders and a good nights kip on Sunday, ready for work on Monday.

Also, fast, responsive boats are often more pleasant to actually sail than heavy old tubs where you may just want to stick it on autopilot and put the kettle on.

Boats of the Nicolson era are probably optimised for higher windspeeds than many modern boats. That's great if it matches the way the boat will be used.

If you want guidance about performance, you can do worse than look at ratings and times in the Round the Island Race over the years as a starting point.

 

[Adrian_]

Please let's not turn this into a full keel heavy disp vs fin keel light boat
Each design has it's merits/shortcomings and I'm well aware of them.

 

[FWB]

Please let's not turn this into a full keel heavy disp vs fin keel light boat
Each design has it's merits/shortcomings and I'm well aware of them.

Yes but full keel, heavy displacement boats are so much better

 

[Tranona]

Yes but full keel, heavy displacement boats are so much better

If that is the case, just wonder why nobody makes them any more and most people don't buy them!

Are they ALL wrong?

Does not help the OP as the only boat he can afford for his intended use is of this type - ie old and cheap!

 

[FWB]

If that is the case, just wonder why nobody makes them any more and most people don't buy them!

Are they ALL wrong?

Does not help the OP as the only boat he can afford for his intended use is of this type - ie old and cheap!

Sense of humour failure ?

 

[Seajet]

If that is the case, just wonder why nobody makes them any more and most people don't buy them!

Are they ALL wrong?

Does not help the OP as the only boat he can afford for his intended use is of this type - ie old and cheap!

Well Rustler and Vancouver are under the mistaken impression they're selling long keel boats; plenty available, just not mass market.

 

[Tranona]

Sense of humour failure ?

No. Full of humour and good cheer. Just wonder why somebody could be so dogmatic about something that is so patently not true - so just thought I would inject a bit of humour.

Sorry if we don't have the same sense of humour.

BTW I own a long keel heavy displacement boat, and have done for over 30 years , but would never claim that it is "better" - than what?

 

[FWB]

No. Full of humour and good cheer. Just wonder why somebody could be so dogmatic about something that is so patently not true - so just thought I would inject a bit of humour.

Sorry if we don't have the same sense of humour.

BTW I own a long keel heavy displacement boat, and have done for over 30 years , but would never claim that it is "better" - than what?

Was not being dogmatic,was supposed to be light hearted,isn't that what is for

 

[jwilson]

I'm seriosly considering a Nicholson 32 but so far my knowledge of the boat is purelly theoretical.
So, before moving forward with the purchase, I could use some advice about how she sails upwind and in heavy wather.

Hopefully there are a few Nicholson 32 owners here that can help me.

thanks a lot

In 1963/64 when they were first built, they were designed as cruiser-racers, not just as cruisers. They were never an out and out racer, but are not that slow, given enough wind to get going. Have sailed one in up to about F7, very solid reassuring boat, gets there to windward, albeit not as fast as a modern cruiser-racer will. Offwind steering a bit heavy, but controllable unless you drive her far harder than needed.

I would rate a Rival 34 (especially the deep keel version) as a slightly better boat all round, and faster in most conditions. This is another boat I have sailed and liked, though the Nic 32 is almost certainly more heavily built. Drilled a hole in the bottom of one once, took a long time to get through the GRP.

If you want to go high-latitudes or very long-distance cruising on a tight budget, the Nic 32 or Rival 31/32/34 is a good choice. For ordinary coastal cruising with occasional offshore forays you can get faster boats with much better accommodation for similar money.

Jonic is right in saying that the Nic 35 is so much better, and the one he is offering looks good. We sold another immaculate Nic 35 last year - looked like it was at a boat show - http://www.yachtsnet.co.uk/boats/s49411/s49411.htm

But once you get into good Nic 35 territory in money you open up a lot of other fin and skeg choices.

 

[Adrian_]

I definitelly don't have money for a Nic 35 (selling a good one for my budget would be close to a donation ) but Tranona's affirmation isn't correct either:

Does not help the OP as the only boat he can afford for his intended use is of this type - ie old and cheap!

I can easily find something like a well equipped Beneteau First within my budget (still old, but not that old, and of "modern" design). But I just don't want one, all things considered.
IMO, if choosing between a 20+ years boat and a 30+ years boat what matters first is which one was better maintained and second which one was strongly built. There's no doubt that a Nic 32 or Rival 32 (or a similar boat) is FAR stronger built then any Beneteau of Jenneau (or the like). So this pretty much ends the debate for me.

 

[Tranona]

I definitelly don't have money for a Nic 35 (selling a good one for my budget would be close to a donation ) but Tranona's affirmation isn't correct either:



I can easily find something like a well equipped Beneteau First within my budget (still old, but not that old, and of "modern" design). But I just don't want one, all things considered.
IMO, if choosing between a 20+ years boat and a 30+ years boat what matters first is which one was better maintained and second which one was strongly built. There's no doubt that a Nic 32 or Rival 32 (or a similar boat) is FAR stronger built then any Beneteau of Jenneau (or the like). So this pretty much ends the debate for me.

Not sure about that. For your intended use you are looking in the right area. Very few, if any modern designs at that price point would be as suitable. It is only when you move up the price scale that other alternatives come in.

 

[Tranona]

Was not being dogmatic,was supposed to be light hearted,isn't that what is for

Sorry. Not into icons. Always found words (correctly used) perfectly adequate for conveying meaning. After all civilisation moved from icons to words a long time ago because of their lack of precision!

 

[angelsson]

Yes but full keel, heavy displacement boats are so much better

+1

I sail a Nic 38, (1973) can only comment as to the CN reputation for quality build, which I know extends to all their models, so much so it became uneconomical to continue production.
They have a blue water pedigree, and are always near the top of the list of desirable boats.

Mine hates light airs, but loves a close reach when she will lift her skirts and get 8 knots.
Very sea kindly, I am not into gales but have been caught in heavy weather and she looks after me very well.
Does not have the beam a modern boat insists on now, but plenty of room and beautifully finished below.

 

[Tranona]

Well Rustler and Vancouver are under the mistaken impression they're selling long keel boats; plenty available, just not mass market.

Well, I don't think a Vancouver has been built for at least 5 years and suspect that the number of Rustler 36 built recently would not challenge your fingers.

 

[lw395]

I definitelly don't have money for a Nic 35 (selling a good one for my budget would be close to a donation ) but Tranona's affirmation isn't correct either:



I can easily find something like a well equipped Beneteau First within my budget (still old, but not that old, and of "modern" design). But I just don't want one, all things considered.
IMO, if choosing between a 20+ years boat and a 30+ years boat what matters first is which one was better maintained and second which one was strongly built. There's no doubt that a Nic 32 or Rival 32 (or a similar boat) is FAR stronger built then any Beneteau of Jenneau (or the like). So this pretty much ends the debate for me.

Although those old boats were heavily built, they were low tech.
Also they are now quite old, often with a great deal of old, worn equipment.
Although it's true of any boat more than a few years old, you need to be sure that every part of the boat has had the maintenance or replacement it needs.

There was a bloke in my club had a Contessa 32, certain people were always banging on about how seaworthy those boats are, but last time I raced against him, some old fittings failed before he got out of the Solent, game over. How seaworthy is that?
How often do these modern less 'strongly' built boats have hull failures? Pretty rare, even when abused and raced by careless charter crews in my view.

You may prefer the handling and sea keeping manners of the older style of boat, that is a valid point.

But to answer your question, in performance terms a Co 32 gets a significant handicap allowance (0.870) over an Impala 28 (0.889).
A modern 32foot boat like an X-332 is around 0.98
I think a Nic 32 is a bit slower than a Contessa 32?

I do quite like some older boats, but I tend to the view that in both performance and useful space, you need to compare a modern boat against a long keel boat a good few feet longer. Of course to some people neither performance or interior space matter in the same way, because they use their boats differently to me.

 

[Goldie]

Dragged from the dark depths of memory, Clare Francis raced Gulliver G and I seem to remember her commenting that the boat went best upwind when trimmed slightly by the bow. You might find more info in one of her books. Not much to add to the discussion, but hope it adds something!

 

[Koeketiene]

If that is the case, just wonder why nobody makes them any more and most people don't buy them!

Most people don't buy them because they are not being made any more.
They are not being made any more because these days if volume builders want to survive they have to go down the cheap and cheerful route.
To build proper boats costs money.

 

[matelot]

I know the website of the association, but it's not that rich in this kind of info.
However I was able to dig up the info about the AZAB 2011 where a Nic32 finished the second round with a very impressive result. http://www.azab2011.co.uk/sites/default/files/Prov results by class 17 July 1700.pdf

Tho it's diffcult to figure out what were the modifications made to the boat for the race, it testifies about the Nic 32's capability to sail at decent speed.

On handicap there were only 4 boats slower than the Nic - an Ebbtide, a Sunbird and a Rival. The race results give no reason for thinking the boat sails fast - to the contrary if anything - but they do say that the boat was sailed well to her handicap.

Neither Nic 32 finished the combined legs. But as an illustration of speed Quaker girl took 9 days for the second leg whilst the fast boats took 6.5
So yes she is a slow boat. But there's nothing wrong with that - the OP may be perfectly happy with that speed.

But I do wish that people wouldnt just reel off handicap race results as an indication of speed which they most certainly are not.

 

[lw395]

...

But I do wish that people wouldnt just reel off handicap race results as an indication of speed which they most certainly are not.

They are an indication, but that's all. If you want to understand the full picture, you need some narrative of the race, like was it a beat/round-the-cans/reach, weather conditions etc etc. The RTI results usually have a spread of entries comparable to most boats you can think of, so comparisons can be made over the years.

I don't know how else we can reasonable compare boats for speed without totally relying on opinion and anecdotal evidence?
Handicaps are based on predictions of boat speed over a range of conditions, using a great deal of accumulated knowledge and the odd performance prediction algorithm. It's not the whole story, but its data not to be dismissed IMHO.

 

[matelot]

They are an indication, but that's all. If you want to understand the full picture, you need some narrative of the race, like was it a beat/round-the-cans/reach, weather conditions etc etc. The RTI results usually have a spread of entries comparable to most boats you can think of, so comparisons can be made over the years.

I don't know how else we can reasonable compare boats for speed without totally relying on opinion and anecdotal evidence?
Handicaps are based on predictions of boat speed over a range of conditions, using a great deal of accumulated knowledge and the odd performance prediction algorithm. It's not the whole story, but its data not to be dismissed IMHO.

Use the handicaps rather than the corrected race results. Maybe I didnt make myself clear or you didnt read carefully, but thats what I was trying to say.