Jump to content

Farr 38 as a liveaboard cruiser...


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tp#12 said:
1 hour ago, Al Paca said:

The chicks aren’t gonna dig that. 

Well that's got me fucked. :wacko:

Sounds more like you will be not fucked

Link to post
Share on other sites

Design 72 or 172?

We tried to find a Farr 38 (for a 6 month cruise for a family of 4) 5 years ago. Didn't end up finding one at a price I wanted to pay, but it was one of the few that made the shortlist after a bunch of research kicking tyres. This was a design 72, with the forward head - and 'er indoors did think the head was a little on the small side. In QLD, we mostly ended up showering on deck when anchored anyway. Rest of the design is typical racer cruiser, they sail pretty well and are easy enough to single hand once set up. No nasty traits, you could probably add an asym for easy single handing

There were some issues with keels on the Binks Farr 38s... not sure if they were serious or just scuttlebutt.

The design 172 with the rear head I liked even more on paper, but have never seen one in the flesh. (and we ended up buying a boat with that layout). I really like the rear head for both room and ease of storing wet gear.

For a liveaboard, it would have just enough storage space, just enough water and just enough range under power. Fun sail for a keel boat. Shallow enough to make it through the great sandy straits, deep enough keel that it will go to windward. It's pretty good in that size / price range, and better than most - I'd happily have one to sail around east coast AU for a year or two. 

If you are paying for marina's by the metre, then it'd make a good compromise. If cost no object, then something in the 42 - 45 ft range would give a lot more room, better boatspeed, but still small enough that the sails / anchor etc can be handled manually. Perhaps a Farr 1220...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Design 72 or 172?

We tried to find a Farr 38 (for a 6 month cruise for a family of 4) 5 years ago. Didn't end up finding one at a price I wanted to pay, but it was one of the few that made the shortlist after a bunch of research kicking tyres. This was a design 72, with the forward head - and 'er indoors did think the head was a little on the small side. In QLD, we mostly ended up showering on deck when anchored anyway. Rest of the design is typical racer cruiser, they sail pretty well and are easy enough to single hand once set up. No nasty traits, you could probably add an asym for easy single handing

There were some issues with keels on the Binks Farr 38s... not sure if they were serious or just scuttlebutt.

The design 172 with the rear head I liked even more on paper, but have never seen one in the flesh. (and we ended up buying a boat with that layout). I really like the rear head for both room and ease of storing wet gear.

For a liveaboard, it would have just enough storage space, just enough water and just enough range under power. Fun sail for a keel boat. Shallow enough to make it through the great sandy straits, deep enough keel that it will go to windward. It's pretty good in that size / price range, and better than most - I'd happily have one to sail around east coast AU for a year or two. 

If you are paying for marina's by the metre, then it'd make a good compromise. If cost no object, then something in the 42 - 45 ft range would give a lot more room, better boatspeed, but still small enough that the sails / anchor etc can be handled manually.

Design 72 is the one I've been looking at. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tp#12 said:

Design 72 is the one I've been looking at. 

Plenty of people have enjoyed crusing them, and I'd happily live on one for a year or two if I had nothing else to do. As I said, they are considered a pretty good option in that size and price range.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tp#12 said:

Design 72 is the one I've been looking at. 

We have one where I live. A friend owns it. It's an amazing boat. The owner still mops up with it on the race course regularly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Se7en said:

Design 72 or 172?

We tried to find a Farr 38 (for a 6 month cruise for a family of 4) 5 years ago. Didn't end up finding one at a price I wanted to pay, but it was one of the few that made the shortlist after a bunch of research kicking tyres. This was a design 72, with the forward head - and 'er indoors did think the head was a little on the small side. In QLD, we mostly ended up showering on deck when anchored anyway. Rest of the design is typical racer cruiser, they sail pretty well and are easy enough to single hand once set up. No nasty traits, you could probably add an asym for easy single handing

There were some issues with keels on the Binks Farr 38s... not sure if they were serious or just scuttlebutt.

The design 172 with the rear head I liked even more on paper, but have never seen one in the flesh. (and we ended up buying a boat with that layout). I really like the rear head for both room and ease of storing wet gear.

For a liveaboard, it would have just enough storage space, just enough water and just enough range under power. Fun sail for a keel boat. Shallow enough to make it through the great sandy straits, deep enough keel that it will go to windward. It's pretty good in that size / price range, and better than most - I'd happily have one to sail around east coast AU for a year or two. 

If you are paying for marina's by the metre, then it'd make a good compromise. If cost no object, then something in the 42 - 45 ft range would give a lot more room, better boatspeed, but still small enough that the sails / anchor etc can be handled manually. Perhaps a Farr 1220...

What boat did you end up buying after looking at the 72?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 10:01 PM, tp#12 said:

Design 72 is the one I've been looking at. 

A mate has recently sold his 11.6 after singlehanding the Qld coast for a number of years.  He had racing sails for Airlie and Hammo, but mostly they stayed ashore in a storage unit and he sailed with just a No 2 and often a reef in the main - the boat is easily driven and doesn't need to be pushed.

Another mate has sailed his 11.6 from Darwin to PNG and around Rajah Ampat several times over a number of years.  He had a heavy SS structure built to hold diving tanks, dinghy in davits and solar panels.  A dive compressor went in the liferaft locker in the cockpit floor.  All told, the transom dragged by about 2 inches, but sailing performance didn't suffer.  He shortened the boom as full size main wasn't needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 9:49 PM, Se7en said:

Perhaps a Farr 1220...

Thanks everyone; it seems the 11.6 is a good boat and will do what I want it to do. 

I missed the quoted comment the first time around, though, and so I've spent the last hour'ish looking at the 1220. It looks like a great boat and will do what I want it to do with a bit more storage and space. Anyone got any comments on the 1220?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1220 is a similar speed to a Farr 38 in the breeze, slightly faster in moderate due to the m/h rig. As you say a bit more spacious for cruising. All are wheels vs mostly tiller on the 38.  In NZ you are paying around NZD 150k for a good one vs $100k for a Farr 38.

If purely sailing go the 38. if liveaboard with easy sailing go the 1220

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2021 at 8:12 PM, Caecilian said:

1220's are deluxe barges, much better liveaboard.  The 38 can have keel issues, dont buy one with a steel frame in the stub.

The early 11.6s had an issue where the "spiderframe" supporting the keel would break the tabbing to the hull and wander around - Moonraker's keel fell off, not sure if any other 11.6s suffered the same fate.  Binks was pretty diligent about making them good.  

When my mate in Darwin decided to go extensive cruising on his 11.6, he thought it would be a good idea to drop the keel off and check the bolts.  He removed the keel nuts and lifted the boat with a travellift, but the keel stayed attached to the hull.  Further examination showed it had been bonded with 5200, and was going nowhere, even without the bolts doing any work.  Still he wanted to know, so out came the piano wire and the cutting started. The little areas adjacent to the bolts were hard to get to, and even with the rest of the bonding sliced through, the keel stayed attached.  Finally, cutting the remaining patches around the bolts, the keel dropped - it still took quite a lot of fibreglass with it.  The glass repairs took a week or more, and the bolts were in perfect condition!

Interestingly, those keel bolts were thin - about an inch from memory, and there were 8 of them, all on the centreline.  My smaller boat with lighter keel used more and thicker bolts - 1 1/4", paired except for the most forard and the trailing edge. 

The mate who cruised his 11.6 for years in Qld had a modified keel, by David Lyons IIRC, with a different support structure and no keel stub.

Another 11.6 which used to be in Darwin hit a submerged rock and punched the training edge of the keel so far into the boat that the hull ripped open almost from waterline to waterline beneath the water - it was something of a miracle that they got her out of the water before she sank.  She was repaired and I last saw her at RQ.

Other 11.6 stories include rot in the main bulkhead adjacent to the mast and shower compartment, and a NZ built one had the capshroud chainplate rip up through the deck after the bulkhead went soft.

The IMS 38's built by Binks essentially from the same hull mould (I think this was design 172)  had a couple of issues where the glass thickness at the hull to keel joint was too thin and gave way.  At least one boat lost the keel and IIRC, people died.  I understand the early boats were rectified, but don't know the details.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Recidivist said:

Interestingly, those keel bolts were thin - about an inch from memory, and there were 8 of them, all on the centreline.  My smaller boat with lighter keel used more and thicker bolts - 1 1/4", paired except for the most forard and the trailing edge. 

His bolts may have been a higher performance alloy than the ones on your boat.  Silicon bronze or 316 stainless, which are the most common materials for keel bolts, have a yield strength of around 175 MPa (25k psi) while Aquamet 22 and Monel K-500 will be around 725 MPa to 800 MPa (105k-115k psi) respectively.

  • Like 1
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...