Sigma 36 vrs She 36

Quote:"I just liked his quote and thought it was appropriate considering the tone this thread has taken"..

Well put.

Now, does anyone know if the OP Phideaux went and bought either a She or a Sigma?
I see there's a very nice example of the former currently for sale on the south coast. And this thread was started over a year ago..
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Tranona,

you are full of it, as is Quandary however spelled.

I haven't relayed any 'secondhand observations of what my mates saw' which shows your accuracy.

Bog off and stick to something you might know about, whatever that is; it certainly doesn't include cockpit engine wells. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sounds like the advice is good even if the facts are questionable, ever consider taking it yourself?
While perhaps not relevant to this thread about Sigmas and Shes I do have some experience of cockpit wells having owned an Achilles 24, the following boat a Trapper 300 initially had an outboard on a sliding bracket on the transom (I still have it if anyone wants it) I do remember the fug in the Achilles which diiscouraged motoring in light following winds.

I had been reluctant to comment on the Anderson 22s as my only experience of them was quite some time back, an optimistic guy who used to turn up to the odd race, I recall it had a boxy appearance and there were no side decks so the crew had to scramble over the top to tend the spinnaker. Did not go very well to windward either, the lack of side decks meant the weight was well inboard and its upwind progress was comparable with a hot air balloon, the Sonatas which had their own class starting 10 mins later were through it by the first windward mark.
However, the engine in the cockpit will compensate for that and the massive coachroof must give stacks of headroom inside. I was talking to a young guy, a beginner, a few months back who had just bought one for less than £2k, seemed good value at that price and he was well pleased with it.
 
Seajet said:
I haven't relayed any 'secondhand observations of what my mates saw' which shows your accuracy.
Click to expand...

No, it just shows how easily you forget what you write. This is the reference you made (and Quandray responded to) in an earlier post in which you said a Sigma was no good on the basis of your mate seeing one where the deck had pulled off the hull. Ranked alongside your advice to somebody not to buy a Moody on the basis of one you saw damaged 25 years ago where you thought the hull was thin. This of course is on a boat built to Lloyds specification by one of the most respected builders in the country. In the same thread you argued that a Fulmar was faster than a Moody 31 - even after it was pointed out that the PY ratings showed exactly the opposite (and of course speed and racing performance was not even an issue in the person's choice of a boat). As to engine wells - so yours works, but every time the subject comes up others report that they do not always work, which is exactly what I discovered when I was involved in such matters in my job - some work and some don't and often it is difficult to determine why there should be a difference. Of course such ambiguities are lost on you - the Seajet way seems to be the only way.

So, perhaps now you might see why people have difficulty in taking some of your observations seriously - they simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
 
Blueboatman said:
Now, does anyone know if the OP Phideaux went and bought either a She or a Sigma?
Click to expand...
I met up with Phideaux around a year ago and I think he was putting his boating activities on the back-burner for a while. He hasn't posted here recently anyway.

Blueboatman said:
I see there's a very nice example of the former currently for sale on the south coast.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a better looking example than some I've seen. Not cheap though, I think a UFO 34 is 90% of the boat for 50% of the price...

Boo2
 
Quandary said:
Sounds like the advice is good even if the facts are questionable, ever consider taking it yourself?
While perhaps not relevant to this thread about Sigmas and Shes I do have some experience of cockpit wells having owned an Achilles 24, the following boat a Trapper 300 initially had an outboard on a sliding bracket on the transom (I still have it if anyone wants it) I do remember the fug in the Achilles which diiscouraged motoring in light following winds.

I had been reluctant to comment on the Anderson 22s as my only experience of them was quite some time back, an optimistic guy who used to turn up to the odd race, I recall it had a boxy appearance and there were no side decks so the crew had to scramble over the top to tend the spinnaker. Did not go very well to windward either, the lack of side decks meant the weight was well inboard and its upwind progress was comparable with a hot air balloon, the Sonatas which had their own class starting 10 mins later were through it by the first windward mark.
However, the engine in the cockpit will compensate for that and the massive coachroof must give stacks of headroom inside. I was talking to a young guy, a beginner, a few months back who had just bought one for less than £2k, seemed good value at that price and he was well pleased with it.
Click to expand...

"I had been reluctant to comment on the Anderson 22s as my only experience of them was quite some time back, an optimistic guy who used to turn up to the odd race, I recall it had a boxy appearance and there were no side decks so the crew had to scramble over the top to tend the spinnaker. Did not go very well to windward either, the lack of side decks meant the weight was well inboard and its upwind progress was comparable with a hot air balloon,"

So, you rate them then!:D
 
the lack of side decks meant the weight was well inboard

How does that work then, Quasimodo ?

If there's one thing the A22 isn't, it's 'boxy', have another try, you're clearly just grabbing at any offensive term that comes to your tiny mind with no attempt at reality...:rolleyes:
 
Seajet said:
the lack of side decks meant the weight was well inboard

How does that work then ....
Click to expand...

A crew sitting out on the side deck around the beam compared to the crew sitting out from the cockpit.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
A crew sitting out on the side deck around the beam compared to the crew sitting out from the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Breaking news; she's a cruiser / racer and I don't think the prat had crew weight in mind, anyway posers can sit out on the cabin top or side decks if they feel like it; with a lot of form and ballast stability she doesn't really need it but feel free.

Here's a truly radical thought; how about discussing She 36's and Sigma 36's ?

I apologise on behalf of the idiots homing in on me for the distraction.
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
Breaking news; she's a cruiser / racer and I don't think the prat had crew weight in mind, anyway posers can sit out on the cabin top or side decks if they feel like it; with a lot of form and ballast stability she doesn't really need it but feel free.

Here's a truly radical thought; how about discussing She 36's and Sigma 36's ?

I apologise on behalf of the idiots homing in on me for the distraction.
Click to expand...

Actually, crew weight is exactly what I was thinking of, essential for boats that can be raced. I liked the Quasimodo better than being called a prat but I do not mind idiot, I have been called that by better men than you. A bit of a rude description but not unexpected, I would not call you that in print regardless of my opinion.
If my next boat is an Anderson 22 I will have to call it after the hunchback.
 
I have read this thread carefully and checked out what has been said.

The references to an earlier discussion are in a thread called 'David Thomas' from April this year.

I will say that Seajet's story about the Sigma 36 there is the same as the one here, since Quandary implied that he changed it.

Also, despite Tranona saying the Sigma 36 story is second hand, Seajet has said at least twice that he met the crew of the boat on which it occured.

This makes me think Seajet has been rather wronged on this thread.

Although perhaps not so much on the Anderson one, where the intensity of evangelism for outboards in wells has been a little scary.
 
Merry Girl,

thanks, BTW nothing scary about outboard wells, the only way to go; you and your hubbie / partner are welcome along next season.

A chum at my club who doesn't want an Anderson 22 ( I specify as there was also a 26 though only about 13 were sold before Anderson Rigden & Perkins went bust ) as he is non mechanically minded and doesn't fancy a lifting keel is still adamant that his next boat must have an outboard in a well.

Quasimodo,

when someone like you or the other idiot home in on anything saying 'Anderson 22' with no interest in the boat just aiming to have a pop at me, I'll call you anything I feel like !

BTW Thanks for all the free publicity. :)
 
Quasimodo responding again Seajet; you entered the thread to repeat a story you first told about a Sigma 33 but this time you could not resist using it to denigrate the sigma 36. When challenged you admitted you could not tell the difference so blamed it all on David Thomas, hardly a demonstration of even basic knowledge of the subject. I notice you also referred to the authors of the tale as 'idiots' and with all the others you have identified on the forums there must be a lot of us about. You should be more responsible and if you postulated your opinion on subjects you have some direct knowledge of you might gain some respect.
The reason I disbelieve the story you were told, is because having owned two Sigmas for a total of 20 years, and sailed on others, I understand how they are put together and in neither of the boats is the rig supported by the deck, (in fact it is rare in any boat), the chainplates extend to reinforcing stringers in the hull, In the 38 there is massive segmented tray moulding under the floor with beams about 8" deep and the chainplates go right down to it. Because most Sigmas are fractional and were designed in the days of relatively stretchy Dacron sails the mast shape needed to be adjusted frequently therefore rig tensions are high and to resist them the hull is very stiff. If a chainplate came away (and it has not happened in the class yet) it might take part of the hull with it but will cause minimal deflection to the deck, by then the mast will be in the sea.
I am taking the trouble to spell this out for those interested in Sigmas as I appreciate that you may not be willing or able to understand it.

With regard to the 'free publicity'
I have read the Anderson 22 thread where you posted frequently, on the way castigating an unfortunate owner who turned out to be one of you 'subjects' for asking a sensible question on here without referring it to you first. You had a good old dig at him and went on to repeatedly insult the owner of a TS 240 who dared to disagree with you. The way you conducted yourself on that thread and others recently makes you come across as an arrogant but miserable know all who can not resist expostulating on subjects you know very little about. That is not a good image to promote but you persist with it. I admit I did find your sillier posts amusing, though I know I should not because it seems possible you might be suffering from a personality disorder or at least a problem with temperament. You would do well to go and see some one for help, explain to them how you feel about things like the Anderson 22 and how you view every other boat as rubbish, how the world is so full of prats and idiots and why you feel it necessary to continuously preach to them and confront them.
The 'shrink' will help you to come to terms with life and you will feel less miserable.
Good luck.
 
Just for the record Webb Chiles wrote the whole story of the sinking (scuttling) of his beloved She 36 in a book that at this distance in time I cannot name. It was (as written) a deliberate and long-considered attempt at suicide in which he removed some through-hull fittings and over a period of hours sat there watching the boat slowly fill and eventually sink beneath him. He wrote a lot of philosophical ramblings about why he did it and I recall that the perfection of the boat was something to do with it - he'd found the pinnacle of sailing perfection in the She and it could only be downhill from there as I recall and he he was doing it s some kind of sacrifice. Very weird indeed. As said above he had second thoughts once she had gone and pulled off a somewhat extraordinary night in the water and managed to get rescued - in the middle of an otherwise empty ocean - by a fishing boat that conveniently passed by just as he was hallucinating and going under in the last of his strength.

I have to say I found the story chilling and creepy as the poor guy was clearly completely bonkers and remain highly sceptical of its veracity. Anyone mad enough to have even thought trough a suicide as slow and calculating as that is surely mad enough to have invented the whole thing.

Shame as his writing is wonderful and gives little inkling of such freakish instability up to that point.
I hope he came to terms with life, he must have been a fascinating character for all that.

And for the record the thought of owning a She 36 has me sweating like a priest in a scout camp, and even a Bowman 40 doesn't have that effect!
 
Last edited:
Webb Chiles

wasn't this the chap who sailed a Drascombe across the Pacific and got swamped ?

There are various stories of singlehanders 'losing it' and trying to destroy their boats, Robin Lee Graham of 'Dove' fame being another example; stories worth recounting but irrelevant to the boats' attributes.

Quasimodo,

please forget your distortions, this thread is about the She 36 & Sigma 36, I can rather easily tell one from another, the tale of the transatlanic trip are true and if that's uncomfortable for you, tough.

I know good design and build quality when I see it, I'm a qualified engineer and sailor, how about you ?

I'd go for a She 36 like a shot, understanding she might require updating and a refit.

Sigma - no thanks !

It's called seamanship and taste, ideas which are clearly foreign to you. :)
 
Seajet said:
Webb Chiles

Sigma - no thanks !

It's called seamanship and taste, ideas which are clearly foreign to you. :)
Click to expand...

With all due respect, to be so dismissive of Sigmas puts you out of step with vast sector of the real sailing comunity and so just a tad lacking in taste yourself.
Still different strokes for different folks I suppose, even Hobbits have to sail something.
 
doris said:
With all due respect, to be so dismissive of Sigmas puts you out of step with vast sector of the real sailing comunity and so just a tad lacking in taste yourself.
Still different strokes for different folks I suppose, even Hobbits have to sail something.
Click to expand...

Doris,

fair enough, maybe my view is coloured after hearing from the transatlantic berks, and a chum who crewed a 33 racing inc a Fastnet when they had a fair few breakages.

I'm sure the Sigma is fine for general sailing, but going up against a She 36 will be tough for any boat !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top