Jump to content

Talk me out of buying this Santa Cruz 50


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

When pointing high, you are exhausting most of the energy and just riding on the edge of making horsepower out of it.  When a gust hits, the boat doesn't respond by transitioning the extra energy into go-forward mode and accelerating. Instead only the slightest bit of energy is absorbed, the helm under your fingers doesn't pull in response, you might feel it on the ears but only a wee percentage is felt under the fingers. 

It's maddening when you can crack off 5 or 10 degrees and then the boat comes alive and is much more linear in response to the wind.

We even have a word in French for this : "Prés océanique" (Ocean close hauled), common wisdom is that racing in open sea it is sometimes faster and that cruising in open seas it is a no brainer in most cases as in the worst case you gain so much in comfort for a small VMG loss.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well the first two points are somewhat location specific - which is where the boat is. I don't know your profession, but a lot more people are mobile now, and my point was that there are better p

Everything is relative to your own situation of course, but in general the question is simple. There are two instances:  You are lucky enough to have a bank balance that is healthy month to mo

Well, that case was a fuck-up of the first order on my part . . . I did not mention that we were beating into that wind among a collection of poorly charted rocks (they were on the charts but Chile ha

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Panoramix said:

We even have a word in French for this : "Prés océanique" (Ocean close hauled), common wisdom is that racing in open sea it is sometimes faster and that cruising in open seas it is a no brainer in most cases as in the worst case you gain so much in comfort for a small VMG loss.

in the true open ocean with a long leg and shit ton of sea room all around, often there is a weather shift you can sail toward. Leaving NZ south island going east, usually you get following westerlies, but occasionally you get and we got a low coming down over the top of NZ above us creating easterlies head winds along our course.  We looked at the routing to determine the best point to pass behind and then get above it, and then sailed at 40 degree apparent angles to accomplish that (which was 'cracked off to close reaching' on that boat), to get to the favorable shift as fast as possible.  Similarly when we sailed south from Iceland, we actually waited for a low to be going across just south of us and 'sling shot-ed' around behind it but there was a short section of close reaching needed to get the timing correct.  No point to stay close hauled, and definitely slower, in those situations.  But that is because of 'strategic options'.  At least for the boats I have sailed - if you had a uniform (upwind) wind field with no 'strategic options' to sail toward - then close hauled would be the answer to minimize time and discomfort (although do note as I mentioned above your 'rough sea state polar' close hauled would be several degrees wider than your 'flat water' polar).

The cases I mentioned above (going south in Argentina and going south from Newfoundland), we had a shore line somewhat close to one side (and which would be the side the shift would come from), and the legs were relatively short which would prevent the 'strategic' freedom, so again, close hauled was the 'right' answer.

Often for cruisers who are faced with long distances of upwind work - like coming back across the pacific in the tropics against the trades, and going north up the Chilean channels . . . the answer is actually the opposite of cracking off - it is rather motor sailing at slightly closer than close hauled  (22 apparent worked well on our boat) with just a mainsail tight sheeted.  ofc that strategy requires some fuel capacity . . . but you can do it with relatively little throttle/thrifty consumption.

I guess as with most things . . .this is a bit more complicated than it might first appear and sound bite answer can't really cover it.

Edit:  I also guess there is a personality attribute at play here - how much is banging your head against the wall slightly less hard worth to you. For some people they will take a vmg loss to get even slightly less head banging and for others it is all head banging to them so they might just as well get it over with as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

But that is because of 'strategic options'.  At least for the boats I have sailed - if you had a uniform (upwind) wind field with no 'strategic options' to sail toward - then close hauled would be the answer to minimize time and discomfort (although do note as I mentioned above your 'rough sea state polar' close hauled would be several degrees wider than your 'flat water' polar).

I think we agree on the thinking, we just don't say it the same way. The word just exists because offshore you tend not to sail as closed hauled as inshore. Even if the difference is just a tiny 5-7º - for the sake of argument as that value will change from boat to boat - there are 2 words because this small difference matters a lot. On a reach you don't need to differ between 80º and 90º AWA, it is just 2 different headeings in the same mode.

As for the motorsailing, IME that only works on some boats that don't slam too much. The smell, noise plus running the risk of having to prime a diesel engine at 3am because you shook to death what's inside the tank is not everybody's idea of fun! But then I haven't tried much so may be there are ways to make it work...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panoramix said:

I think we agree on the thinking, we just don't say it the same way.

yes, we certainly agree there are very definitely times that you should go wider than your 'flat water upwind angles'.

And on motor sailing - yes 'it depends'.  Generally, when I have seen people 'fail' at this they are trying to use the motor too much and the sails too little.  The boats I have used will go both way faster and slam way way less doing the 'a bit tighter than close hauled but, still sail providing significant drive, motor sailing with slight throttle' than trying to motor more directly into it with motor at full throttle and the sail not doing much.

And yea, tank crud is a potential problem - but not really for those of us who use our boats a lot, in waves a lot - we cycle our fuel frequently enough and the tanks are stirred up enough than crud does not really build up.  I also had a port in my tanks designed so each winter I could pump directly off the bottom of the tank sump - checking for and removing any water and other crud.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, estarzinger said:

I also had a port in my tanks designed so each winter I could pump directly off the bottom of the tank sump - checking for and removing any water and other crud.

 

This is a great idea.  I started planning for a day tank this winter...started a thread here to gather ideas...and this is really nice supplementary part of a good fuel system, it seems to me.

How did you ensure, or get access to a lot of the bottom area of your tank(s)?  Trying to see what might apply to my situation - I’ve got a keel tank, with a maybe 10” x 4-6” wide inspection port- but the tank is baffled, and six feet down, so I’m not sure/haven’t thought through how I’d efficiently/effectively stir up crud/water on the bottom to remove it with a tank sump.

That and a day tank are something I want to put a bit more thought into.  (But I like the simpler idea now of no day tank and periodic tank bottom pump out instead...maybe...what did you have on Hawk?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

This is a great idea.  I started planning for a day tank this winter...started a thread here to gather ideas...and this is really nice supplementary part of a good fuel system, it seems to me.

How did you ensure, or get access to a lot of the bottom area of your tank(s)?  Trying to see what might apply to my situation - I’ve got a keel tank, with a maybe 10” x 4-6” wide inspection port- but the tank is baffled, and six feet down, so I’m not sure/haven’t thought through how I’d efficiently/effectively stir up crud/water on the bottom to remove it with a tank sump.

That and a day tank are something I want to put a bit more thought into.  (But I like the simpler idea now of no day tank and periodic tank bottom pump out instead...maybe...what did you have on Hawk?)

yea, we had both a header day tank and the ability to pump off the bottom of the main tanks - the tanks had bottoms which sloped aft and then in the aft inboard corners they had small sumps (a couple inches deep) so the water and crud would drift aft and end up in these sumps.  We then had a small port in the tank top directly above those sumps - normally sealed/closed with a threaded pipe plug and I had a second plug with a long brass tube which would screw into that port and put the tube bottom right near the sump bottom, and I would just pump say a liter of fuel from there into a clear bottle.  Leave it to settle in the bottle. Usually it would be clear with no water or crud.  But occasionally it would pick some thing up, at this point you could just pump more until it came clean, but I had a fuel polishing system I could toggle which ran it from the tanks thru a secondary filter into the day tank and then overflow from the day tank back into the main tanks.   I did not invent any of this . . . just copied from various other boats I had seen - I guess with google you could find quite good discussions and descriptions about the best options. I would not be surprised if DDW here had great thoughts on fuel systems.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, estarzinger said:

after the navy cutter got done with us (which started very tense but ended well - they commented that we were better equipped than they were) . . they went and got the Italian boys and took them and dropped them off at the edge of Argentine waters and told them never to return - which seemed light handed treatment but I'm sure they had no interest in the cost involved in potentially detaining them.  And they changed their paperwork procedure so that they actually had to get direct personal confirmation from the reported support vessel before letting such a venture proceed.

The part I felt sorry about was the german's.  Probably they were lost in any case and nothing could be done.  It was a pretty hard frontal system. And I guess they were rolled and down flooded and sank and died rather quickly. But it put rather an emotional damper on things.  How that played out was they let off an epirb and then about 10 minutes later we called in on VHF (in our broken not so good spanish) saying that we were all safe but had to anchor in an unapproved spot.  So, the Chileans mistakenly thought that we were the germans who had let off the eprib, and that we were now safe, so they never launched an SAR.  When the cutter came out to see us, they initially thought we were just denying we had let off the eprib because we thought we would have to pay SAR costs.  But We managed to convince them that #1 our epirb had never been fired and #2 that it had a different code and nationality than the one which had been fired, and #3 that our boat was in perfect shape, and that #4 if we had gotten in trouble we would have called them on our sat phone (we showed them we had their sar number in speed dial). So they then launched an SAR but by then it was way way too late.

It is a hard part of the world and the chilians were doing their best - I believe I was told that these cutters were actually only rated for 40kts in offshore condition.

Wow, what a story. One I wouldn't care to experience in my 40' performance cruiser, much less single handing in a 50'er.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, estarzinger said:

yea, we had both a header day tank and the ability to pump off the bottom of the main tanks - the tanks had bottoms which sloped aft and then in the aft inboard corners they had small sumps (a couple inches deep) so the water and crud would drift aft and end up in these sumps.  We then had a small port in the tank top directly above those sumps - normally sealed/closed with a threaded pipe plug and I had a second plug with a long brass tube which would screw into that port and put the tube bottom right near the sump bottom, and I would just pump say a liter of fuel from there into a clear bottle. 

....

I would not be surprised if DDW here had great thoughts on fuel systems.

I did exactly what you did. Made sure the bottom of the tank had a slope, then at the low point a small vertical walled sump (mine are about 6 x 6 x 2" deep).  An NPT plug directly above. I remove the plug and stick a tube down there using the oil change vacuum pump, pump some out. In addition, the dip tube to feed the fuel system is located directly above this sump, even with its top. This allows use of all the fuel except for the pint or so in the sump, which is assumed to be dirty. Very easy to keep the tank clean, and also much easier and more effective to polish it if you ever need to as all the crud will wash to the sump.

I had the tanks made from 5052 aluminum. I insisted they fillet weld them inside on the bottom and sides rather than outside (actually they did both). The reason for this is that the other side of an aluminum weld is pretty ugly, crevices and knobs that not only can trap gunk, but also where the corrosion will start. Many/most tanks that I've looked inside of were welded from the outside - it is a lot easier and looks better - and display this problem. A fillet weld done on the inside is much cleaner. Once you get to the top you kinda have to weld it from the outside, but stuff never collects on the top joint. 

Tanks are often set on sleepers or just on a shelf, that is a large area against the active tank plating which you can assume will shortly get wet and never dry. I've had tanks corroded through from the outside from that and I'm not alone. For these tanks, I had an aluminum channel welded on the bottom which bore on stringers to mount. The distance from darkness to daylight under the mounts was less than an inch everywhere, so very good chance to dry, you can hose under there to remove salt. And if they do corrode, it isn't part of the active plating so cannot cause a leak, and can be replaced if needed. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

WoW!! The information on this thread is amazing and fun and let's not forget the best part, it's not about explaining the realities of a dream to  some numbnut, It's fun because someone (you), more knowledgeable than many, is asking experienced and qualified sailors if this dream that rings a bell with many of us,... If you give up on a it  now, will you ever?!! Personally I like the "idea" of the Santa Cruz 50', it's not a Big 50 footer. There is at least one here in the 808 and she regularly does the transpac, and is well maintained, when hauled out on the hard, she is most impressive with her lack of girth and area under the waterline. I've watched them cross the Diamond Head buoy neck & neck with sister ships SC 52's & J 145's and the 50's just look great!! The dream of shorthanding something like that through Pacific Island waters with fair winds and following seas is like that great four iron on a long par three, or the perfect corner drift in that Sacks powered centrifical clutch racing cart back in the day :D!!

But what a dream, and I commend you for it. I like the idea. I hope you look at the boat, if it is  a money pit walk or run away... If you don't look at it you will always wonder, what if?...  When I bought my 1st boat and asked my dad for advise, his reply was "if not now?.. When?  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Moore Play said:

 When I bought my 1st boat and asked my dad for advise, his reply was "if not now?.. When?  

Reminds me of a pic my dad sent me a while ago.

When he bought his first car, at around 21 or so, back in the 1950s, it just *had* to be this little MG he had found for sale.  His cautious, conservative southern Virginia bus driver dad cautioned him against it.  “Don’t buy that car, son!  It’ll be trouble. Mark my words.”  Naturally, he didn’t listen to the advice.

Somewhere in the Midwest US, driving across the country (maybe as a young Air Force guy; can’t recall), the cylinder head froze and cracked.  Back in the ‘50s, Kansas (or wherever...) mechanics didn’t know what in the hell to do with a British sports car...and so started the hunt for a new cylinder head, after they had returned to the east coast by bus.  Incredibly, he  eventually found a replacement head for sale in the classified ads of the Washington Post, had it shipped out, then installed on the car, eventually returning east before heading to the air base at Guam...

All that to say...what?? Embrace the unknown (maybe even purposely seek it out...) and the adventure :-)  (my dad on the right below, looking pretty happy!  He never looked back, owning a succession of little MGs for years after...I remember the one where the gear shifter would simply pop out if you pulled it...fine British engineering... :-) )

2E56F8F1-BDE2-4266-9E1E-E4DA75B39C14.jpeg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have a lot of time on SC50's and know Bill Lee pretty well over the years. I was looking for a smaller ULDB in the late '70's but a SC 27 was too small for my purposes and ended up with a Wildy 30 instead. Still, my relation with Bill Lee going on over the years and raced with Rain Man with his buddies SC 50, on and off, for years. Then I was racing with the "50's" fleet in Seattle where we had 14 - 50's in that class at one point.I was with one or the successful SC 50's out there with the "Delicate Balance" program. With notable sailors like Jonathan McKee, Charlie McKee, Keith Lorence etc (pic below). That said: Bill had a minimalist streak with him and his motto "Fast is Fun" rang true over the years. The boats were really designed to get from California to Hawaii and the the Tequila dashes down the coast.But frankly, with modern sails and gear they started to compete with more IORish designs when it couldn't do it before. They still are just a point off for that now. For a cruising?I wouldn't even think about it. Better than any 4 knot shit box cruising boat that can't get out of it's own way! Some would say that a heavy displacement cruiser is safer etc, etc, etc. But opinions are like assholes - everyone has one! Besides, Bill and his crew understood that the boats were designed for long distance so you can but your groceries away. enough water etc.If you find a good deal on an older SC 50 they can come back as the quality & ability is there.         

001.jpg

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

I do hope the OP comes back.

Be interesting to hear about this SC50's condition.

And his current thinking.

Perhaps he showed this thread to the wife and they had a 'frank discussion' ^_^

 

I haven't gone to look at the boat. But it also has not gone pending again yet. I don't think I am realistically in a position to offer right now. I still like the idea of a santa cruz 50. I sent the yachworld link to my wife. She just said what money would you use to buy it? And it is true. I could write a check for 70k but then my balance would be zero. So now I am just fantasizing about what I would rename it to. I don't like the name "Main Squeeze." The original name was "Flank Speed." That is OK, I guess. My first idea is "Dark Rosaleen." Second idea is "Dawn Patrol." But realistically, I am probably not going to buy this boat unless it is still for sale in 6 or 9 months when I expect some other assets will be liquidated and free up more money.

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

I have a lot of time on SC50's and know Bill Lee pretty well over the years. I was looking for a smaller ULDB in the late '70's but a SC 27 was too small for my purposes and ended up with a Wildy 30 instead. Still, my relation with Bill Lee going on over the years and raced with Rain Man with his buddies SC 50, on and off, for years.

 

I saw a boat listed with Bill Lee as the contact (it was a Dehler). Point being that the ad has his phone number. I didn't know he was still selling boats. I thought he was retired. But I live in Santa Cruz. Do you think Bill Lee would be upset if I called him to ask him about the boat that started this thread? It is the Santa Cruz 50 originally called "Flank Speed" and now called "Main Squeeze." Hull number 18. I thought I would ask him if he recollects anything about that boat in particular, and also his thoughts on how one would evaluate and/or repair a SC 50 with blisters.

I definitely don't want to disturb the man. But I figure he may just plain enjoy talking about boats.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Borracho said:

Yes, call Bill. He can be chatty. He has been a boat broker for a long time.

Probably. I hadn't talked to Bill since the Chicken Coop cratered. I had a visit there and a week or two later it folded. I still have the line drawings of the SC 72. The 72 was fashioned for the 52 for more cruisier boats than the 50 and the 70s. Hence the problem doing the 72 I believe. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I didn't completely give up on this yet. The boat has not sold yet. I went to look at it a few days ago. It looks old and worn, but it is not disastrous as far as the little things. Latches and stuff work. The motor has very little rust on it. There is no hour meter, though. The oil filter had something written on it (maybe a date... couldn't read it). All the winches spin. It is not dirty. The main feels stiff and good (did not hoist it, just reached under the cover). The profurl extrusion spins easily by hand, which is reassuring.

The mast may need to be painted. It seems like the most serious problem for sure is the blistering and delamination in the hull.

Also, the foredeck felt more flexible than I would have thought. Not sure if it is damaged or if it is just built that light. The deck is very thin in the foredeck area (you can see the thickness clearly in some places where there are penetrations). Would like to hear from anyone who knows whether the flex is normal.

It seems like there is a buyer who made an offer. It is not entirely clear if the offer has been accepted. There is some stuff I can't get into in a public forum, so don't ask about that, please. But in a few days I think it will become clear if the boat is sold or not.

So this is just an update.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The foredeck is soft enough on a sound SC 50 to distress a chunderbeast aficionado. Mostly near the corners of the hatch. Not an indication of anything but incipient speed. There seems to be plywood down the centerline. Half inch balsa elsewhere. 
 

The skins are thin enough that wet balsa is quite obvious. Very likely around stanchion bases or if some go-slow idiot mounted cleats. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Borracho said:

The foredeck is soft enough on a sound SC 50 to distress a chunderbeast aficionado. Mostly near the corners of the hatch. Not an indication of anything but incipient speed.

 

I don't think there is anything is wrong with the foredeck then.  Thanks for chiming in!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/30/2021 at 10:11 PM, mckenzie.keith said:

I didn't completely give up on this yet. The boat has not sold yet. I went to look at it a few days ago. It looks old and worn, but it is not disastrous as far as the little things. Latches and stuff work. The motor has very little rust on it. There is no hour meter, though. The oil filter had something written on it (maybe a date... couldn't read it). All the winches spin. It is not dirty. The main feels stiff and good (did not hoist it, just reached under the cover). The profurl extrusion spins easily by hand, which is reassuring.

The mast may need to be painted. It seems like the most serious problem for sure is the blistering and delamination in the hull.

Also, the foredeck felt more flexible than I would have thought. Not sure if it is damaged or if it is just built that light. The deck is very thin in the foredeck area (you can see the thickness clearly in some places where there are penetrations). Would like to hear from anyone who knows whether the flex is normal.

It seems like there is a buyer who made an offer. It is not entirely clear if the offer has been accepted. There is some stuff I can't get into in a public forum, so don't ask about that, please. But in a few days I think it will become clear if the boat is sold or not.

So this is just an update.

I stumbled upon your post and this thread.  It's a small world with only about 28 SC50's floating around out there.

I'm the "sale pending" buyer at the moment.  My offer and deposit have been accepted but a complication has come up in the 11th hour and the broker is trying to straighten it out with the seller's lawyers.  I had a haul out and survey date come and go because of this "complication".  Seems a bit strange but it may take another week or two after the legal mess is taken care of to schedule another haul out and survey.  I'll keep you posted.

MOF1a

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, MalibuSurfer said:

I stumbled upon your post and this thread.  It's a small world with only about 28 SC50's floating around out there.

I'm the "sale pending" buyer at the moment.  My offer and deposit have been accepted but a complication has come up in the 11th hour and the broker is trying to straighten it out with the seller's lawyers.  I had a haul out and survey date come and go because of this "complication".  Seems a bit strange but it may take another week or two after the legal mess is taken care of to schedule another haul out and survey.  I'll keep you posted.

MOF1a

Yeah. I heard some of what is going on from the listing agent. No improper details, just an outline of the situation. Would love to get updates on how things go for you! I am emotionally invested in this boat now. LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MalibuSurfer said:

I stumbled upon your post and this thread.  It's a small world with only about 28 SC50's floating around out there.

I'm the "sale pending" buyer at the moment.  My offer and deposit have been accepted but a complication has come up in the 11th hour and the broker is trying to straighten it out with the seller's lawyers.  I had a haul out and survey date come and go because of this "complication".  Seems a bit strange but it may take another week or two after the legal mess is taken care of to schedule another haul out and survey.  I'll keep you posted.

MOF1a

Are you going to rechristen the boat? I am not fond of the name "Main Squeeze" or the original name "Flank Speed." I was thinking "Dawn Patrol" or "Prime Mover" or "Rosa Negra". Feel free to steal those names if you like them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mckenzie.keith said:

 Feel free to steal those names if you like them.

we liked 4 letter names (Hawk and Silk) which were easy to say over the radio . . . and thought we might name the next one Work (because they are so much ...) :)

 

MalibuSurfer is doing you a favor here, you should thank him (lol)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/8/2021 at 2:48 PM, MalibuSurfer said:

Seems a bit strange but it may take another week or two after the legal mess is taken care of to schedule another haul out and survey.  I'll keep you posted.

MOF1a

Hey, @MalibuSurfer, on Yachtworld it is still "pending." Any update? Have you managed to do the survey/sea-trial yet? Or is it still tied up in red tape or whatever?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, mckenzie.keith said:

Hey, @MalibuSurfer, on Yachtworld it is still "pending." Any update? Have you managed to do the survey/sea-trial yet? Or is it still tied up in red tape or whatever?

Yes, it is still pending.  Waiting on the judge presiding over the bankruptcy trust case to approve the sale.  It's a waiting game at this point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2021 at 9:35 AM, estarzinger said:

yea, we had both a header day tank and the ability to pump off the bottom of the main tanks - the tanks had bottoms which sloped aft and then in the aft inboard corners they had small sumps (a couple inches deep) so the water and crud would drift aft and end up in these sumps.  We then had a small port in the tank top directly above those sumps - normally sealed/closed with a threaded pipe plug and I had a second plug with a long brass tube which would screw into that port and put the tube bottom right near the sump bottom, and I would just pump say a liter of fuel from there into a clear bottle.  Leave it to settle in the bottle. Usually it would be clear with no water or crud.  But occasionally it would pick some thing up, at this point you could just pump more until it came clean, but I had a fuel polishing system I could toggle which ran it from the tanks thru a secondary filter into the day tank and then overflow from the day tank back into the main tanks.   I did not invent any of this . . . just copied from various other boats I had seen - I guess with google you could find quite good discussions and descriptions about the best options. I would not be surprised if DDW here had great thoughts on fuel systems.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I noticed this post.  I have an identical system in my boat (without the day tank - the fuel just returns from the filters to the tank) and I am wondering when I should use it.  After the winter?  After any time the tank is filled?  After sailing in big waves that might stir shit up in the tank?

If I run it and my filters get clogged with shit, don't I then have to change the filters right then and there?  

Any advice appreciated.  Yes, I'm pretty ignorant, this is my first diesel engine boat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rain Man said:

I am wondering when I should use it.  

If you are cruising/getting fuel from 1st world fuel docks, or 2nd/3rd world high volume fuel docks (like where where there is an active fishing fleet) . . . . the fuel is almost always very good.  If you ar egetting fuel from a suspect dirty source (like rusty 55g drums) - I would try hard to filter it before it gets to the tanks, but if you have to put it in the tanks straight, or after a winter layup, and after a bumpy sail which may have stirred long standing stuff off the bottom - are times it might be worthwhile to do this - I would pull a bit of fuel off the bottom and let it settle in a glass jar and look at it to decide.  Another time worth thinking about doing it is just before you are going to routinely change the fuel filters (annual or engine hours service routines) - since you are about to change/toss the filters might as well make them work.  

If I run it and my filters get clogged with shit, don't I then have to change the filters right then and there?

Well, with a day tank you have a reservoir of known clean fuel and you are all good (for however long the day tank lasts).  But if you don't have a day tank, and you really had a ton of shit in the tanks, you can theoretically choke the filters and starve the engine and have to change the filters.  If I did not have a day tank, I would consider getting one of the nice dual filter units, which allows you to throw a lever and bring a new filter on-line and you can then wait to change the clogged filter whenever you want.   

With a sail boat, in typical cruising, I personally would not over think this - fuel and diesel engines are damn reliable . . . .  and you can always sail.  With a power boat, having an absolutely bulletproof system is more critical.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2021 at 9:01 PM, Rain Man said:

Sorry for the thread drift, but I noticed this post.  I have an identical system in my boat (without the day tank - the fuel just returns from the filters to the tank) and I am wondering when I should use it.  After the winter?  After any time the tank is filled?  After sailing in big waves that might stir shit up in the tank?

If I run it and my filters get clogged with shit, don't I then have to change the filters right then and there?  

Any advice appreciated.  Yes, I'm pretty ignorant, this is my first diesel engine boat.

The only feedback I have for you is that clogged filters are a common problem on sailboats, and they often clog at very inconvenient or even dangerous times. I love the idea of a day tank with known good fuel. In any system I would try to change the filter as quickly as practical so that I don't forget, and also so that I don't start to create a problem which can become part of a cascade of problems that causes me to crash later. But the day tank would reduce the urgency of changing the filter, and that is a good thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 8/28/2021 at 9:38 PM, MalibuSurfer said:

Yes, it is still pending.  Waiting on the judge presiding over the bankruptcy trust case to approve the sale.  It's a waiting game at this point.

So what happened?

Curious to hear if you bought the boat and how the progress has been...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the uncovering of the boat being part of a bankruptcy trust it's been a lost cause.  The listing broker did give us the lawyers contact info and after that dropped all contact with me and after several attempts to reach the law firm we've moved on.  The whole thing seems somewhat suspicious and maybe for the better.  The brokers are truly incompetent and low level as stated earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2021 at 12:52 AM, AnotherSailor said:

So what happened?

Curious to hear if you bought the boat and how the progress has been...

I was never in contract on the boat. But the way the broker explained it to me was that either the listing agreement was not signed prior to the bankruptcy, or it was signed and deemed invalid because of the bankruptcy. In either case, the owner had no authority to sell the boat, so the agreement (if any) was not valid. The broker told me he thought he might be able to have the bankruptcy trustee sign a listing agreement. But I guess that didn't pan out. So basically the boat can't be sold at the moment. Maybe a buyer could attempt to directly contact the bankruptcy court. I don't know. I would think a bankruptcy trustee would be amenable to selling the asset if possible. But maybe be burdened by due diligence concerns. One approach might be to seek permission to have an independent appraisal done, then pay the appraised amount to purchase the boat. The other issue I can imagine is that maybe this is only a small part of the estate, and so it is a low priority for both the owner and the court. If millions of dollars worth of assets are at stake they may just have zero fucks to give about a < 100k boat.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mckenzie.keith said:

they may just have zero fucks to give 

it does sound like a situation where if you had the patience to figure out how to unravel it, you might possibly be able to get a real steal. Someone sometime in that situation is going to need to turn it into cash, and may not care or know what its actual full value is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, sledracr said:

When did Horizon go on the market?

1983 Santa Cruz 50 Racer for sale - YachtWorld

Lotta money, but a lotta track record too (of course the listing price might also be one of those "I don't really want to sell the boat but I promised I would after transpac, not my fault nobody wants to pay what I'm asking" things...)

Yeah that sounds about right. I think Horizon has been on the market for at least 3 months but I don't remember exactly. Too expensive for me. I couldn't even afford a lowball offer on it. LOL. Also, Horizon should probably be sold to someone who wants to race.

Deception changed hands recently I think. It was listed for around 180k if I remember right. It went pending and now it is not listed anymore so I assume it sold. Of course the actual sale price could be different from the asking price. That was also a bit over my budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mckenzie.keith said:

Yeah that sounds about right. I think Horizon has been on the market for at least 3 months but I don't remember exactly. Too expensive for me. I couldn't even afford a lowball offer on it. LOL. Also, Horizon should probably be sold to someone who wants to race.

Deception changed hands recently I think. It was listed for around 180k if I remember right. It went pending and now it is not listed anymore so I assume it sold. Of course the actual sale price could be different from the asking price. That was also a bit over my budget.

I took a look at the listing.  I’d forgotten how small those boats are inside.  They look and feel small, for a 50’er.  Is it a function of the design from that long-ago era?  The dark wood? Or that it’s primarily a race boat crammed with gear? Or that it’s only 12 feet of beam for a 50’er?  Except when sailing, when it accelerates and you feel the immense power of the rig —truly a big boat feel— it feels quite small below.

Curious why a SC 50 for cruising?  Surely there must be similar fast boats of this size out there?  (That said, I get it - but am just curious if you’ve looked at other options.  An old Class 40? Etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Curious why a SC 50 for cruising?  Surely there must be similar fast boats of this size out there?  (That said, I get it - but am just curious if you’ve looked at other options.  An old Class 40? Etc)

The SC50 is small. They are the length they need so be for the sailing they do: “Spinnaker life-support system.” Not for furniture. More like a 35 footer inside, furniture-wise. Indeed there is 12 feet forward and 8 aft that is only for carrying sailboat fuel.

Other 50-ish foot options tend to be even rarer. One can peruse the Hawaii race rosters for the occasional boat from the other woke designers of the era.

Dollar per foot for a first-class boat is comparatively low. Dollar per stateroom not so much.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

I took a look at the listing.  I’d forgotten how small those boats are inside.  They look and feel small, for a 50’er.  Is it a function of the design from that long-ago era?  The dark wood? Or that it’s primarily a race boat crammed with gear? Or that it’s only 12 feet of beam for a 50’er?  Except when sailing, when it accelerates and you feel the immense power of the rig —truly a big boat feel— it feels quite small below.

Curious why a SC 50 for cruising?  Surely there must be similar fast boats of this size out there?  (That said, I get it - but am just curious if you’ve looked at other options.  An old Class 40? Etc)

I had not been considering an SC 50 until main squeeze (ex flank speed) came on the market. Initially I was looking at True Blue Water Cruisers. Then I started looking at Catalina 42's. Then I saw flank speed. Now I am kind of looking at J/120's and J/130's (but fretting over keel issues) and hoping that a perfect SC 50 will pop up at $125k, but that is probably not going to happen (I don't mean perfect like it is turnkey cruiser, I just mean that it is mostly in good shape, and maybe needs attention in only one major system (motor or sails or hull or rig but not all four). I can always go back to the Catalina 42 idea. There are lots of them, so not hard to find. There is also a J/40 in Santa Barbara. I generally only look at California boats.

I have not seen a class 40 listed in California, but the J/120 and J/130 are much lighter than the typical cruiser. Especially the J/130.

Since I am comparing the SC 50 against 40 - 43 footers, it doesn't seem that small inside. Also, even though the wood is somewhat dark, a lot of light comes in through the non-opening ports and there are several opening ports, too. It is not nearly as dark as a lot of True Blue Water Cruisers I have looked at. But I think the main problem with it is that it is so narrow. Also, the far forward area of the boat and the far stern are not very accessible or much used, which makes sense to keep the ends light. The box near the settees also breaks up the space and makes it feel smaller.

Cruisy 50 footers would be too big for me. The rigs are hard to manage and heavily loaded, and you need to carry full sail to go at hull speed. I think the SC 50 would be constantly single or double reefed short-handed in the trades, which is fine by me. If I can do 8+ knots with one or two reefs I will be pretty happy.

A lot of these lighter boats aren't well set up for anchoring, and that is something I will have to address somehow. I love the idea of putting the windlass back near the mast. But I can easily imagine that if a boat already has a windlass and forward anchor locker I will probably try to live with it. I can still stow the anchor and rode somewhere else on long passages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, estarzinger said:

it does sound like a situation where if you had the patience to figure out how to unravel it, you might possibly be able to get a real steal. Someone sometime in that situation is going to need to turn it into cash, and may not care or know what its actual full value is.

Yes, perhaps... there is not enough money in this for a broker to figure it out (and these fuckwits seem pretty incompetent anyway). I assume the bank, or whatever financial institution owns it, eventually will want to get rid of it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mckenzie.keith said:

I had not been considering an SC 50 until main squeeze (ex flank speed) came on the market. Initially I was looking at True Blue Water Cruisers. Then I started looking at Catalina 42's. Then I saw flank speed. Now I am kind of looking at J/120's and J/130's (but fretting over keel issues) and hoping that a perfect SC 50 will pop up at $125k, but that is probably not going to happen (I don't mean perfect like it is turnkey cruiser, I just mean that it is mostly in good shape, and maybe needs attention in only one major system (motor or sails or hull or rig but not all four). I can always go back to the Catalina 42 idea. There are lots of them, so not hard to find. There is also a J/40 in Santa Barbara. I generally only look at California boats.

I have not seen a class 40 listed in California, but the J/120 and J/130 are much lighter than the typical cruiser. Especially the J/130.

Since I am comparing the SC 50 against 40 - 43 footers, it doesn't seem that small inside. Also, even though the wood is somewhat dark, a lot of light comes in through the non-opening ports and there are several opening ports, too. It is not nearly as dark as a lot of True Blue Water Cruisers I have looked at. But I think the main problem with it is that it is so narrow. Also, the far forward area of the boat and the far stern are not very accessible or much used, which makes sense to keep the ends light. The box near the settees also breaks up the space and makes it feel smaller.

Cruisy 50 footers would be too big for me. The rigs are hard to manage and heavily loaded, and you need to carry full sail to go at hull speed. I think the SC 50 would be constantly single or double reefed short-handed in the trades, which is fine by me. If I can do 8+ knots with one or two reefs I will be pretty happy.

A lot of these lighter boats aren't well set up for anchoring, and that is something I will have to address somehow. I love the idea of putting the windlass back near the mast. But I can easily imagine that if a boat already has a windlass and forward anchor locker I will probably try to live with it. I can still stow the anchor and rode somewhere else on long passages.

Thanks. I didn’t quite grasp what cruising a boat like that shorthanded would be like - and how it’s so different from a cruisey  50’er - but it’s clearer now.  Interesting concept single or doublehanded, provided you can live like a monk (italics à la Borracho :-) :-) True story: at one point in his life, among the richest men in the world, Steve Job’s mansion contained literally no furniture.  Gotta respect that.)

I think I’d like to have the experience of cruising a boat like that some day - as many other types, just for the experience.  I’ve reached a stage where my house has appreciated like crazy and I could sell it, buy a boat like the SC50, and live and cruise off the proceeds for a good long while.  But I’d have to consult my partner about that move :-)

Different type of boat entirely, but for the kind of speed you want, how about a simple catamaran?  By simple, I mean like a Richard Woods design, epoxy and ply, and with just an outboard motor, not twin diesels.  This one has sailed far. (Vancouver-Mexico-Hawaii-Vancouver)  Seems to me you’d get a lot more living space, and good speed, and certainly for a lot less money. (Moorage would be more expensive, of course.)  They are available for sale (i.e., you don’t have to build one).

https://www.time-for-a-catamaran-adventure.com/light-wave-woods-32-37-sailing-catamaran/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole time I was reading this, I was thinking J/120 or J/130 and then you said it at the very end. We bought a J/120 ten years ago for fast cruising and feel like we made a great decision. We ended up selling the boat almost 2 years ago because we found racing to be more fun than cruising.  If I wanted to go cruising again, I’d first try to buy our boat back, and then start looking for other J/120s. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

J130 was at the top of our list six years ago but my wife and I couldn’t swing it financially and ended up with a Beneteau 40.7. No doubt about it, the 130 is lots faster but, as I look at the one on yacht world, I am very glad with our choice. The 130 is just too spartan for us and our growing grandkid menagerie and the 120 is even more so. 
 

Now, the other boats that were on our short list might be worth the OPs consideration: 1. J40, 2. C&C 37.5+, C&C 41 and the Jeaneau built Lacoste 40. I have no idea if any examples are available but those would be options to look out for. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Roleur said:

The whole time I was reading this, I was thinking J/120 or J/130 and then you said it at the very end. We bought a J/120 ten years ago for fast cruising and feel like we made a great decision. We ended up selling the boat almost 2 years ago because we found racing to be more fun than cruising.  If I wanted to go cruising again, I’d first try to buy our boat back, and then start looking for other J/120s. 

I wanted your boat. 

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

J130 was at the top of our list six years ago but my wife and I couldn’t swing it financially and ended up with a Beneteau 40.7. No doubt about it, the 130 is lots faster but, as I look at the one on yacht world, I am very glad with our choice. The 130 is just too spartan for us and our growing grandkid menagerie and the 120 is even more so. 
 

Now, the other boats that were on our short list might be worth the OPs consideration: 1. J40, 2. C&C 37.5+, C&C 41 and the Jeaneau built Lacoste 40. I have no idea if any examples are available but those would be options to look out for. 

Out of curiosity, what does “lots faster” actually mean?  A Beneteau that’s 41 ft long (that’s what 40.7 means?) vs. a J/130 (13 meters =  42 ft, 8 in).  Just curious - I wouldn’t have thought that much of a speed difference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Roleur said:

The whole time I was reading this, I was thinking J/120 or J/130 and then you said it at the very end. We bought a J/120 ten years ago for fast cruising and feel like we made a great decision. We ended up selling the boat almost 2 years ago because we found racing to be more fun than cruising.  If I wanted to go cruising again, I’d first try to buy our boat back, and then start looking for other J/120s. 

You had Shearwater right?  That beauty is on my dock.  I see her every time I go out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Out of curiosity, what does “lots faster” actually mean?  A Beneteau that’s 41 ft long (that’s what 40.7 means?) vs. a J/130 (13 meters =  42 ft, 8 in).  Just curious - I wouldn’t have thought that much of a speed difference.

 

I haven't sailed on a J/130 or a first 40.7. I would think in cruise mode there would not be a huge difference between the two most of the time. But the J/130 SA/D ratio is 25, which is fairly turbo. D/L is 120. LWL is 38.2.

 

Beneteau first 40.7 SA/D is 21 and D/L is 160. LWL is 34.8.

 

So the J/130 will probably make slightly faster passages in cruise mode with its longer waterline and more SA/D to keep speed up in light wind.

The J/120 and beneteau first 40.7 might be a closer comparison (at least from sailboatdata.com stats).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jud - s/v Sputnik said:

Out of curiosity, what does “lots faster” actually mean?  A Beneteau that’s 41 ft long (that’s what 40.7 means?) vs. a J/130 (13 meters =  42 ft, 8 in).  Just curious - I wouldn’t have thought that much of a speed difference.

 

Reasonable expectation but doesn't take into account marketing departments' nomenclature. My 40.7 is actually 39.25 ft LOA so go figure. San Diego PHRF rating is 54 sec/nm with a 150% genoa: J130 is 24 and that's 30 sec/nm in one design trim with a 110% blade jib and even faster with a 150% genoa. J120 is 51 sec/nm in one design trim. The J boats are wonderful sailing machines but just too spartan for my family's purposes. The 40.7 is no slouch either but three private double cabins and more standing headroom for a 6-4 guy like me comes at a price to performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bene 40.7 and J/120 typically rate about the same.  That said, I'm not clear at all what is more spartan about the J/120 (J/130 for that matter as they are very similar down below) versus the 40.7.   The J/120 has a shower, oven, pressure water, fridge, big v-berth, biggish quarterberth, etc.  

Regardless, given the OP was looking at an SC50, I'm not seeing why they would care of the differences in "spartaness" of a 40.7 and J/120.  

Biggest difference between the J/120 and 40.7 performance wise is the 40.7 is faster upwind and the J/120 is faster downwind.  The J/130 is faster than both upwind and marginally faster than the J/120 downwind.  

Other big difference between the J's and a 40.7 or SC50 is the sprit, which to my mind makes shorthanded downwind sailing so much more enjoyable.  We DH'ed our J/120 across the Atlantic and to Hawaii and then a bunch of DH races in the PNW with some reasonable success even against fully crewed boats.  

Yes, Shearwater was our boat.  Super happy to see the new owners are enjoying the boat.  They just won their division at Round the County a few weeks ago, the most competitive race we had in the region this year.  Apparently, they bought it to go fast cruising (as did we), but it is so fun to race, and such a good all around boat that it is hard not to be competitive with a competent crew onboard.  

If this works, that's a pic of me singlehanding Shearwater between Nanaimo and Vancouver.  One the best sailing days I've ever had.

 

 

11411988_10202958592244943_6447394312101427916_o.jpeg

  • Like 6
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.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...