Bradj
New member
Does that mean that you can't sail the boat?
Would it be an expensive job do you think please?
thanks,
Brad
Would it be an expensive job do you think please?
thanks,
Brad
Westerly Corsair v Conway
- Thread starter Becky
- Start date
Black Sheep
Well-known member
Hi Bradj, welxome to the forums & apologies for hijacking your post earlier (there's been some discussion on whether it's OK to resurrect old threads, and a doubly-resurrected one was too much for my warped humour to resist!).
If you're looking at a particular boat, the surveyor's report should tell you whether there is a problem with that boat, and give an indication about fixing. If you're more generally thinking about a Conway, try a question on the Westerly Owners Association forums – Stay Safe! Your 3226 friends at WOA
I don't know about the Conway, but it's normal for a boat with deck-stepped mast to have a compression post underneath, to transfer the loads to the keel. As long as that's sufficiently stout & still straight, there shouldn't be a problem. Replacing it if necessary shouldn't be a large task in the scale of things. The only big problem is if the compression post had failed, and the cabin roof had also thus failed. That would be tricky, and for most people a deal breaker.
If you're looking at a particular boat, the surveyor's report should tell you whether there is a problem with that boat, and give an indication about fixing. If you're more generally thinking about a Conway, try a question on the Westerly Owners Association forums – Stay Safe! Your 3226 friends at WOA
I don't know about the Conway, but it's normal for a boat with deck-stepped mast to have a compression post underneath, to transfer the loads to the keel. As long as that's sufficiently stout & still straight, there shouldn't be a problem. Replacing it if necessary shouldn't be a large task in the scale of things. The only big problem is if the compression post had failed, and the cabin roof had also thus failed. That would be tricky, and for most people a deal breaker.
SaltyC
Well-known member
May be totally irrelevant but..... Back in the late '70's at college in Southampton we used to charter yachts from Lymington. RYA certification in it's infancy experience / the patter got you a boat.
After chartering an Elizabethan 31, Rival 34 over previous years we took a Conway - What a revelation! SPACE! a walkthrough aft cabin and sailing performance was beyond belief.
Please bear in mind, these were experiences relevant to the time and current boats. Performance we felt was exceptional, achieving 9 Knots on the log up the Solent. OK, Gung Ho Teenagers / early 20's probably (Definitely) carrying too much sail, dodgy 70's instruments but she flew and felt really safe and was definitely forgiving!!!!
No she doesn't have the beam and volume of todays boats, rose tinted glasses may colour the view but sorry I would take a good well maintained example anywhere in preference to a modern lightweight plastic fantastic.
After chartering an Elizabethan 31, Rival 34 over previous years we took a Conway - What a revelation! SPACE! a walkthrough aft cabin and sailing performance was beyond belief.
Please bear in mind, these were experiences relevant to the time and current boats. Performance we felt was exceptional, achieving 9 Knots on the log up the Solent. OK, Gung Ho Teenagers / early 20's probably (Definitely) carrying too much sail, dodgy 70's instruments but she flew and felt really safe and was definitely forgiving!!!!
No she doesn't have the beam and volume of todays boats, rose tinted glasses may colour the view but sorry I would take a good well maintained example anywhere in preference to a modern lightweight plastic fantastic.
pvb
Well-known member
You're falling into the trap of believing all that "heavily built" rubbish! Modern boats are very similar in weight to older things like the Conway.
pvb
Well-known member
Many boats with wooden or metal compression posts also have wooden pads in the coachroof structure, between the compression post and the mast step. It's usually these wooden pads which degrade, often due to water leaking in through the screws which hold the mast step in place. This happened on my old Hallberg-Rassy 352 - the wood rotted, allowing the mast step to sag down, distorting and cracking the fibreglass coachroof. It's not a cheap job to fix it; the mast has to come off, then there's a need for careful fibreglass repairs to match the finish.
Black Sheep
Well-known member
Ah yes, if the pad rots you have problems. Once the GRP starts cracking because of compression failure, that's when things start to get complex and pricey.
Kelpie
Well-known member
As stated above, it's much more likely to be the wooden pad within the deck, or possibly one at the foot of the compression post, than the post itself.
You might get away with a small amount of compression/deflection, and just make sure you keep the rigging tight. It's almost certainly not a 'walk away' issue, but maybe a good bargaining chip to consider in your offer.
You might get away with a small amount of compression/deflection, and just make sure you keep the rigging tight. It's almost certainly not a 'walk away' issue, but maybe a good bargaining chip to consider in your offer.
Graham376
Well-known member
Our Centaur had a rotten pad and it was an easy DIY job to cut it out and refinish from above deck.
SaltyC
Well-known member
PVB a little presumptuous that it is all 'the heavily built nonsense', if you look over the decades I have experience of, the hull form has changed, displacement depends on actual boat in any era.
1970's Elizabethan 31 - 5080 Kg Long keel, narrower beam, deep forefoot. In my experience a fantastic sea boat but by modern standards slow - but a seaway didn't stop her and she had a comfortable reassuring sea kindly motion.
1990's Hallberg Rassy 31 - 4500kg, Fin and spade, larger beam, double aft (quarter) cabin with beam carried aft but not extreme (deep rudder never had a problem) moderate forefoot with rounded sections, dry foredeck and minimal occasional slamming. VERY fast compared to above, generally expected 1 - 1.5knot higher passage speeds. Coped with heavy weather and comfortable.
2000's Jeanneau Sun Oddysey 32 - 3800Kg, fin and spade, large beam carried aft low sugar scoop waves 'slapped' at anchor making sleep difficult aft, minimal forefoot immersion at rest, bow sections flat. Did not like any sea ie F4 and above to windward, slammed on every wave uncomfortable and 'hard work'
So yes, slight differences in displacement, becoming lighter but the difference in comfort was incredible. Coast hopping in good weather, day sailing the Jeanneau had more space and passed muster if you didn't 'enjoy' sailing, main culprit cheap standard fit sails with 'stretched' genoa. HR, the best of both worlds? modern accommodation (but not extreme), modern passage speeds and comfortable in a sea way. Liz 31 in its day fantastic, comfortable never gave cause for concern coped with everything but was not ( as I have since read ) fast - by modern standards.
Based on those criteria not 'heavily built' but comfort and reassurance I made my comment re the Conway, a major step forward in performance and accommodation from the Liz, yet still a good and comfortable sea boat in a big sea.
pvb
Well-known member
Not presumptuous at all. You claimed that you would always take the Westerly Conway in preference to "a modern lightweight plastic fantastic".
Well, the Conway weighs 7315kg, including 3251kg ballast, so has a hull weight of 4064kg.
The slightly shorter Benteau Oceanis 35.1 currently available weighs 5966kg, including 1559kg ballast, so has a hull weight of 4407kg - about 10% heavier than the Conway.
So what do you mean by "lightweight"?
Kelpie
Well-known member
Seems fairly obvious to me. He means total weight, rather than hull weight minus ballast.
Perhaps one of you is using the term 'lightweight' as a short-hand for flimsy construction, and the other is meaning it in the context of sea-kindliness?
pvb
Well-known member
I don't think so, the standard position of fans of old-school boats is to claim that they are "heavily built". They're not.
Kelpie
Well-known member
But he didn't say anything about whether one type of boat was more or less likely to fall apart, he was specifically talking about their motion at sea.
Graham376
Well-known member
Old boats generally have a much thicker layup and I would bet they resist impact better. More modern boats have greater volume/larger hull area so the same weight is spread over a larger but thinner layup area.
pvb
Well-known member
Maybe thinner sometimes, but stronger due to properly calculated lay-up specifications. Old boats were built in quite a haphazard way, one of the reasons why most Westerly Centaurs have had to be reinforced to stop the keels falling off.
Concerto
Well-known member
pvb would you run aground on hard sand doing 6 to 7 knots? It seems very common practice that any modern construction yacht is almost immediately lifted to check for keel damage, but may also have movement in the internal moulding. Ye,s a modern yacht is better designed for the natural environment of sailing in water, but in my opinion not strong enough to hit something solid at speed. Dehler did a test with one of their db1 or 34 to hit a groin at 6 knots, which was filmed, but had no damage. I challange you to do the same with your boat. Running aground is a feature of sailing that a boat must be able to withstand.
I know a number of owners of AWB's who are petrified of grounding or drying out against a wall or even having their boat chocked in a yard. AWB's may be well designed, but many owners know differently. Opposite my berth are some sailing school boats by Jeaneau. The former maintemance guy said they all flexed and the interior squeaked in rough weather, but the newest was by far the worst.
You do continually try compairing hull weight as quoted here.
"The Conway weighs 7315kg, including 3251kg ballast, so has a hull weight of 4064kg.
The slightly shorter Benteau Oceanis 35.1 currently available weighs 5966kg, including 1559kg ballast, so has a hull weight of 4407kg - about 10% heavier than the Conway. "
Slightly shorter is an understatement its hull measures 32ft 9in according to the company brochure compared to 35ft 9in for the Conway.
The beam is 12ft 2in compared to 11ft 2in.
I expect the freeboard of the Oceanis is higher and the beam is certainly carried further aft to make a high volume hull.
The shape of the hull allows for a much lighter keel to be fitted. The deep 6ft 4in keel weighs 3436 lbs compared to the 6ft 0in Conway keel weighing 7167 lbs. Iwould love to see a righting curve of both boats compared.
These designs are chalk and cheese. The first Conway was built in 1974 and the Oceanis from 2015 - only a 41 year difference. The concept of each design is so different. The Conway was designed for sailing in waters round Britian as a safe and comfortable yacht in any weather. Many have traversed the globe and returned to the UK. By comparison the Oceanis is designed around maximising the interior space in the shortest hull length. It's intended use is in warmer water than the UK, but certainly not in all weathers. Read the brochure as see what is said about the sailing quality of the Oceanis, it is all about the interior and the colour choices. https://www.beneteau.com/sites/defa...it/PDF/BEN_Brochure_OCEANIS_35.1_web_en_0.pdf
You continually keep mentioning the Centaur keels falling off. There have been many boats with bilge keels that had problems. They were designed to sail in shallower water, but were then kept on drying moorings. The twice a day grounding on hard sand or sitting in sticky mud caused stresses that exceeded the original design requirement. By comparison the Pembroke had no problems as it was a fin keel Centaur. I could easily mention the yacht that lost its keel in the Channel Isles on a charter and some weeks later it was found to be missing. Luckily the later charters did not try sailing her as she seemed tippy. How the charter company did not spot the keel was missing beggars disbelief. Then the keel lose of the yacht returning from the Caribbean with all the crew drowned or the big Oyster that lost its keel, or even the racing yacht Drum, or........................the list could go on.
So get off your soapbox as you are getting very close to breaching ybw rules 4.3 and 4.4 in this thread and a number of others. Keep it up and I will report your posts.
pvb
Well-known member
That's untrue; no rules have been broken. These forums are for free exchange of differing views. You may not like my opinions, as I dislike some of your views, but it's not up to you to decide whether I post them.
doug748
Well-known member
I may not go that far but he does seem to have one subject close to his heart. On the East Coast forum he was moaning about other people's opinions even before they had been posted:
"It's intriguing that the usual Moody/Westerly/Colvic fans have been conspicuous by their absence so far...."
So if you don't post he wants to know why, and if you do post, you are, of course, wrong : -)
.
Graham376
Well-known member
Centaurs are up to 50 years old and many have had a hard life. I also hear of much newer production line boats having keel problems and failures. If I were to hit something fairly hard with the keel, I would rather be in an older Westerly/Moody/HR etc., with low aspect fairly long keel than a modern high aspect one, which is very unlikely to survive the impact. One thing which amused me with Bavarias and the like, was being able to see people walking along the pontoon, through the very thin hull behind the cushions.
pvb
Well-known member
I could see daylight through the hull on my old Hallberg-Rassy 352...