Cal 2-34 Thoughts

[Greenman]

I know 34 is ``too big`` for sailfar, but I am looking for thoughts really more in general on the Cal boats. I have read so many mixed reviews I don`t know what to think. I do know that based on the boat we have looked at so far I think 34 will be about as small as my better half will be willing to go.

She had her heart set on an O`Day 37 but my hopes are to someday head to the South Pacific and the O`Day - Irwin 37s seems limited to very close to home. She just loves the aft cabin I guess (I snore like a banshee) and needs to get away from me when I am sawing logs.

Anyways, there are a few Cals out there, would they be suitable for the south pacific..

[LooseMoose]

I have a 1969 CAL 34 and all I can say about the design is that Bill Lapworth sure knew what he was doing when he designed it.

While small by a lot of peoples standards these days the CAL 34 is still a lot of boat and as big as most couples might need once they get used to the whole sailing gig. One thing to keep in mind is that the CAL 34 interior like a lot of boats can be altered and modified as much as you want/need to. We changed around the interior a bit..Pulled out the Atomic 4 and replaced it with an electric propulsion system ( which added a lot of stowage space by the way) but otherwise pretty much kept it more or less stock.

We've had ours for six years and five of those have been full time cruising. Bottom line is we are still happy after fifteen thousand miles or so...We are just getting the boat ready for a sail up to Newport RI from St Thomas as a direct shot and looking forward to it!

All the best
Bob
SV So It Goes (CAL34)
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/

[mrb]

Welcome Greenman and LooseMoose

Appears as if LooseMoose May have given your best answere to cruising and Cals.

Just add Cals have made many far voyages. One couple had and raised two children on a 28ft or so.  He did a rebuild before voyaging.

Good luck
mrb

Nice site LooseMoose

[Godot]

I'd like to hear more about the electric propulsion.

[Greenman]

I spent a fair bit of time on Loose Mooses webpage, it seems the electric drive would be a great option, unless you anticipated "motoring??" for more than 20-30 nm. Then again I am sure that all depends on your recharge rates and original capacity.

I think it would not be practical for someone who had to travel up and down the ICW, but great for someone who could get out of their marina and be in open water in a short distance.

I liked the idea myself and think it could be a very possible option on a re-power. Think of all the storage/weight advantage you would gain, even if you added extra battery capacity and a a small backup Genset.

[LooseMoose]

Greenman pretty much got it right...

Electric propulsion is certainly not for everyone but for those folks who don't need to motor a lot it makes all the sense in the world. The tipping point I think is whether you have a sailboat that you motor mostly or a sailboat that you sail. we like passage making and the idea of doing the ICW is not so much fun by comparison...Motoring from one marina to the next is not our idea of what cruising is. All power for those who like it but we'd rather sail the blue water routes whenever possible as it has worked for us since the mid 80's.

Over the years we have found a lot of people tell us they need to motor yet we tend to travel the same places in the same conditions. The fact is the more we sail the better we get at it and the less we feel the need to turn on the motor...A positive spiral if you will!

I've been sailing since I was a kid and I am still learning to sail better and electric propulsion really raised the bar on my sailing ability...But then again so would going engine less which is even cheaper and takes up less room!


Bob
SV So It Goes (CAL34)
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/

[AdriftAtSea]

The only problem I see with electric propulsion at this point is that it is highly range limited, especially if you're looking at systems that are appropriate for smaller boats.  There may be times where you need to motor for extended periods of time, and having that as an option makes a boat safer than not having it.  That said, I would personally prefer not to motor if it is at all avoidable. :D

[LooseMoose]

Just to play devils advocate...I don't really buy in to the engine as safety device. In fact 90% of rescues and tows are for boats whose engines have failed them in some way or other. Sails seldom quit working.

For those who have to do extended passages under power...Again maybe the boat for those people is not a sailboat but a power boat.

One of the reasons I really like this forum is because it is for people who want to sail far...An important point as when you come down to it a lot of choices that make for successful voyaging has to do with a few shifts in how we think...

In a bunch of years of cruising I have never met anyone cruising to a schedule who was having a good time. Seriously the whole New York Minute way of looking at things really impairs the enjoyment of cruising. Do you really need to get to such and such an island before 5:00 or do you choose a comfortable point of sail and get there when it happens? It may not seem important but all the really successful cruisers ( and by successful I mean enjoying themselves) all have this common trait of being comfortable without a schedule.

Where small boats are concerned its even more important to have a get there when it happens approach. For most though adopting such a thing is the most difficult learning process in cruising.

Bob
SV So It Goes (CAL34)
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/

[Captain Smollett]

Very good points, Bob...grog for that post.

[AdriftAtSea]

Bob—

Unfortunately, nowadays, there are places that require motoring for long distances.  The most prominent one that comes to mind is the Panama Canal.  Many smaller boats would want to do a canal passage rather than round the Horn....and the Canal Authority requires you to motor the canal. 

On a lesser scale, there are places like the ICW, where sailing much of it is not really feasible.  While motoring isn't required, it is not practical to sail many parts of the ICW.

[CharlieJ]

Yeah- like eastern Texas and the whole western half of Louisiana from Bolivar Roads to New Orleans. You BETTER be able to motor at least 150 miles on the fuel you have aboard, or stay outta that area because from Galveston, Texas to Intercoastal City, La, there AREN'T any small boat fuel stops on the ICW. And going offshore to get past Louisiana is a LONG slog, dead to weather, amidst THOUSANDS off offshore oil rigs

This will give you an idea of what that part looks like-

[AdriftAtSea]

Charlie—

That water looks really, really flat... must be dead still air there. :)

BTW, the Cape Cod Canal requires you to motor, and while it isn't much of a distance, the current can be pretty fast, and many electric-powered boats would have trouble with it for that reason alone.

[CharlieJ]

Well, that shot was done right at sunrise, but often, because of the trees, the wind funnels straight down the ditch- usually ( of course) right in your face. East bound the prevailing SE winds do that a lot.

Many stretches of the GICW will run for 40, 50 miles like a rifle barrel. You'll see a bridge coming, four hours later you go under it, and four more hours down the ditch, it fades from view. ;D

Also, and I say this after having done all but 45 miles of the entire ICW from Norfolk Va to the tip of Texas, the stretch between Galveston and New Orleans is, bar none, THE busiest section for barge traffic in the entire length. So you'll be looking at this 20, 25 times a day on average. And they run 24/7. NOWHERE on the east coast do they have this kind of traffic on a day to day basis.



Now when we are coming home, westbound, we do tend to go offshore often, since then the winds aren't on our noses the entire trip ( USUALLY). For example, our last trip we came out at Intercoastal City ( SW pass of Vermillion Bay) and came in at Freeport Texas 2 1/2 days later. We had intended to stay offshore until we reached our home bay ( Matagorda) but the timing would have put us at the jetties at midnight on a full bore outgoing tide. So we ducked in early. Cost us one day of running the ditch, but an outgoing tide at Matagorda is not to be messed with. Of course we COULD have hove to and waited til morning, but we didn't have our tiller pilot at the time, the winds were such that we couldn't use the sheet to tiller since I hadn't rigged for offwind yet so we had had to hand steer all night, across the Galveston channel entrance and through the big ship mooring fields 25 miles out ( plus the oil rigs) so we were both very tired.

[LooseMoose]

I agree that there are places that require motors...The reason I have one albeit an electric one.

That said there is a lot of difference in "cruising" vs the commute (having to motor to get someplace to sail or get back from someplace you just sailed). Cruising is a whole different ball game and for people who want to sail far on small boats its all about the cruising game.

Believe it or not half the sailing down here in the Caribbean is dead to windward as well  ( I believe that it is a universal truth) and every time I sail between the Virgin Islands to St Martin it is 20 knots on the nose but that is why God gave us the ability to tack...

As far as the Panama canal goes ( even I am not dumb enough to sail 8000 miles out of my way to avoid a couple of days under power!) there is no reason not to use an electric drive as it is well within the range of my battery bank and small gas generator onboard to handle, Though right on the edge but then again it is still doable.

But again I'm not saying that electric drive or no engine is for everyone, just that if you sailed more you'd use the engine less and the more you sail the better you get so you need the engine less and less and so it goes...

If you really want to get into someone who makes a lot of sense on the no engine thing you should check out the Podcast on Furled Sails with Jay Fitzgerald http://furledsails.com/article.php3?article=772 He is a smart guy and makes a good case. Thinking outside the box is a good thing from time to time...

Bob
SV So It Goes (CAL34)
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/

[CharlieJ]

 ;D ;D

I have two of his books, used to spend a good deal of time on the Oarclub site and have listened to his Podcasts.

Jay is really an opinionated fella about engineless sailing. I agree with much of what he says, and also on the "cruising mentality" aspects. But in the Carribbean ( or the Bahamas) you aren't beating through a mine field of oil rigs for 250+ miles ;)

There is no one on this planet who detests running that engine any more than my wife does. We've been sailing to get to an anchorage and made 15 to 20 tacks to beat in , rather than start the engine and power. And I'm almost as bad. so I'm with you there.

We always REALLY loosen up once we get under that Florida Avenue bridge in Industrial Canal in NOLA. Cause from there we can sail ;D. No more locks, no more bridges and Lake Bourne and Mississippi Sound in front of us.

Having said all that, on the matter of the engine- we started with a 2 stroke. After using WAY more fuel than we should, we went to the 4 stroke we now have. IMMENSE difference. Something like 1/3 the fuel usage at the same boat speed.  And MUCH quieter too.

Sure made that day after day grind  ( and it IS a grind- we both hate that part of the trip) getting across Louisiana a far cheaper and simpler and a bit more pleasant thing :D