Jump to content

J/160: is there a better fast, large, short handed cruiser?


Recommended Posts

Everyone has opinions.  But only the guy with the $$ can make the final decision knowing what they need/want.

Re original poster asking for comparisons of J160 to SC52 -- If this guy (x racer) wants fast/sporty in a cruiser - ignoring the ratings - just looking at the specs the SC52 is 10,000 lbs lighter than the J160.  The design spec for the SC52 wasn't for downwind only.  They go upwind very well.  10,000 lbs lighter (30%) will be noticeable upwind and downwind.  Especially if the J160 is the regular 7' draft version.  I cant say which one will win more often on handicap but I can guess which one will get there first.  Faster ocean cruising means quicker passages.  10,000 lbs lighter = reduced loads.

SC52 9' draft may be an issue for cruising destinations.  The deep keel J160 is 8.8' also might be a problem.

SC52 doublehanded with main and #3 is easy and pretty fast. Use the tack fitting on the bow for cruising A kite.

Re runners - most of the rigs are racer/cruiser aluminum spec and not full race noodles.  Day sailing you can pull runners forward - you wont need them unless you are beating into a swell or big chop and the mast is pumping more than you like.  Gybing with runners forward is also ok unless its honking.  Some of the SC52's have newer taller rigs so runners may be more of an issue / requirement.  Make sure you know.

Not knocking the J160.  Its a beautiful boat.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cruisin Loser said:

Does the J160 meet the 75' air draft requirement? On 47' of waterline? 

The one for sale on the Chesapeake with 7' draft claims 76'5" to the tip of the antenna so pretty iffy.  The bridge I'm thinking of on the Severn at Rt 2 is listed as 76' clearance mid span (at high water, of course) so you would be sucking wind since out normal tide range is about 2'.  If you dropped the antenna for a non masthead, you might squeeze it down to under 75'.  Just watch for powerboat wakes......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

The one for sale on the Chesapeake with 7' draft claims 76'5" to the tip of the antenna so pretty iffy.  The bridge I'm thinking of on the Severn at Rt 2 is listed as 76' clearance mid span (at high water, of course) so you would be sucking wind since out normal tide range is about 2'.  If you dropped the antenna for a non masthead, you might squeeze it down to under 75'.  Just watch for powerboat wakes......

Except for right now, because the US 50 bridge has scaffolding down to 70’. But yes MD 450 is the bridge he usually needs to clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cashelmore said:

SC52s are gorgeous boats, but how easy are they to sail single handed? E.g., can you go upwind in 10, 20, or 30 knots without a ton of weight on the rail? How does singlehanding them compare to the J160 and J46?

I suspect based on opinions and information in this thread as well as other things I’ve read about the SC52 that it might be a bit of a handful by yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Cashelmore said:

SC52s are gorgeous boats, but how easy are they to sail single handed? E.g., can you go upwind in 10, 20, or 30 knots without a ton of weight on the rail? How does singlehanding them compare to the J160 and J46?

 

1 hour ago, Alaris said:

I suspect based on opinions and information in this thread as well as other things I’ve read about the SC52 that it might be a bit of a handful by yourself. 

Not sure where anyone said a SC52 would be any more of a handful than a J160 or J145.  Those three boats are big and pretty close in size.  Most likely sailed with #3 and main when single handing.  I cannot comment on the singlehanded ergonomics of the three but none of them were originally designed to be singlehanded.  A good functioning autopilot is needed.

Reducing sail area on any light or ultralight boat keeps them on their feet, upright and they just go, even upwind in a blow.  Loads on a a lighter boat will be lower.

Back to the original request - a racer/cruiser for an ex racer that will be fast.  10,000 extra pounds is a lot to drag along.  If that 10,000 lbs gives you the luxury items you want go for it.

All three boats are great.  All three have compromises - make a list, pros and cons - pick one.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yoyo said:

 

 

Not sure where anyone said a SC52 would be any more of a handful than a J160 or J145.  Those three boats are big and pretty close in size.  Most likely sailed with #3 and main when single handing.  I cannot comment on the singlehanded ergonomics of the three but none of them were originally designed to be singlehanded.  A good functioning autopilot is needed.

Reducing sail area on any light or ultralight boat keeps them on their feet, upright and they just go, even upwind in a blow.  Loads on a a lighter boat will be lower.

Back to the original request - a racer/cruiser for an ex racer that will be fast.  10,000 extra pounds is a lot to drag along.  If that 10,000 lbs gives you the luxury items you want go for it.

All three boats are great.  All three have compromises - make a list, pros and cons - pick one.  

 

Considering that J touts all of their modern boats as easy to shorthand, I’d put money on a 160 being easier than a SC 52. Sure you *can* ignore the runners, but only in some conditions. And the SC is not set up from the factory for an asym but that is easily enough rectified. I’ve always liked the SC 52. I just think it would be more difficult to sail by yourself (yes, with an autopilot I even use one on my 34 footer) than the same length J/Boat with a sprit. Maybe not by a lot. But by some measures. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jono said:

In NZ we have the Elliott pilot house cruisers. They go fast and are easily sailed. Range of sizes from 40-50 feet.

Always liked Greg's designs.  Never heard of one so I had to look - https://www.elliott-marine.com/elliott-fleet/elliott-1550-tourer/

Pretty cool design.  Is the displacement number right 3,500 kg (7700lbs) for a 15.5m (51ft)?  If so I could see how it would be fast.   

main-Kiwi-Coyote-Elliott-1550-Tourer-yacht-designH01.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, yoyo said:

Pretty cool design.  Is the displacement number right 3,500 kg (7700lbs) for a 15.5m (51ft)?

Pretty sure there is a typo, the smaller 14.5m is listed at 10500 kg, my guess is that the 15.5m is at 13500 kg.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yoyo said:

Always liked Greg's designs.  Never heard of one so I had to look - https://www.elliott-marine.com/elliott-fleet/elliott-1550-tourer/

Pretty cool design.  Is the displacement number right 3,500 kg (7700lbs) for a 15.5m (51ft)?  If so I could see how it would be fast.   

main-Kiwi-Coyote-Elliott-1550-Tourer-yacht-designH01.jpg

15.5m and this is the saloon no thanks.

112C2FBA-62E1-4D47-9C66-0B2F35D5B933.jpeg.5e9cc7e6e968ef4f21a2ad9fa7ab039f.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2020 at 4:56 PM, ChrisJD said:

Some people like the way cats look and feel, some don’t. It’s like skiing and snowboarding. You’re likely not going to convince someone to change their mind on this.

Those fucking knuckle draggers :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...