Bristol 29 opinions sought (K/CB especially!)

[Rachel]

Hi folks,

Still in boat shopping mode, and considering a few alternatives to the Triton. Has anyone any comments on a mid-60s Bristol 29? The one I'm thinking of has a keel/centerboard arrangement, which, if my research to date means anything, was much less common than the fixed keel.

I tend to think that more moving parts underwater is a bad thing, but you do get a little shallower in the draft department (precious little though, really - I mean if it were 2 1/2 feet or something I'd be all over it). I wonder if the centerboard could be used - in some situations - to adjust for weatherhelm by moving the COE.

I've had similar thoughts about the Tartan 27, but it's much easier to get solid information on that boat. I just didn't get excited about the Tartan enough to buy one though.

So, has anyone here sailed one a B-29? Heard anything through the grapevine? I have been to the Bristol site and have also "Googled" but been unsuccessful in finding out much. I know it's a Halsey Herreshoff design and am reasonably happy with the boat's looks, so that's a starting point. I imagine they have the same hull/deck joint as the Bristol 27, which can tend to leak - at least that's the way it's described in the brochure; the language is the same as that describing the 27's joint.

Thanks all,

--- Rachel

[JetStream]

Rachel-
I think you'll find the deck joint to be different than the 27. I recently examined both the 27 - an Alberg design, and the 26 - a Halsey H. design. I found them to be night and day different. If you are in that size range, why don't you look at the Alberg 30? It is pleasing to look at and not that expensive.

[Rachel]

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for the input; I guess I will not assume they are the same, although the text from the Bristol brochure for the 29 mentioned in inward turning hull flange that the deck rests on, which sounded very similar to the 27s joint. I guess if I get to the point of looking at one in-person, it's something I'll double check. Unless anyone else knows ... ?

I would still be very interested to know how they sail compared to the Alberg designs.

I am very fond of the Alberg 30, but in my shopping experience, you can expect to pay nearly double what you would for a similar Triton. But you're definitely right that I'd like one :-)

--- Rachel

[Tim]

There are many ways to actually execute an inward hull flange-type hull/deck joint, and since brochures are typically extremely high-level (to say the least) in covering actual construction details, I wouldn't go only on that.

Somewhere around here I have some info kicking around on a Herreshoff B-29 or 30, one of the two (I don't remember offhand which). I might have some photos of the joint, unless they were among those lost when I had my computer crash a year ago.

Not sure about the B-27, though I have heard of several instances where the joint was actually failing. Those boats leave a bit to be desired, in my opinion.

[Figment]

A number of years ago i sailed a few beercan races on a CB Bristol 29. Based on that limited experience, I thought it was a fine boat. At the time I thought that the skipper spent too much effort fussing with CB position to balance his helm (rather than using sail trim), but perhaps this is just a quirk of the boat.

[Rachel]

At this point I guess I just won't make any assumptions about the B-29's hull/deck joint.

I agree that the B-27 joint is something to watch out for - I looked at two B-27s last summer; one had a bunch of caulk globbed on the outside of the joint (since when has that *ever* worked) and streaks running down the inside indicating leakage. The other one looked fine, but I'm not sure how much it was sailed heeled over.

Tim, if you happen upon the photos, great, but don't put yourself out. I'm not making a huge effort with the B-29 at this point, but am keeping an open mind about it.

Figment, thanks for your impressions.

--- Rachel

[David]

Bristol Yachts made two versions of the B29: the tall rig and a centerboard version with a shorter rig. IMO i would look for a tall rig, I think the shorter rig and the board would detract from her windward abilities. Other than that the B29 is a great sailing boat.

[Rachel]

David and forumites,

I'm curious about the fact that you said the centerboard B-29 would be less weatherly. Now I know you said that you thought it had a shorter rig - and I could see that making a difference - but I always thought that a centerboard boat would probably be better to windward, if anything.

Of course there are many variables, but, for the sake of discussion, lets say that two boats had the same design, rig, sails, etc. -- but one had a long keel and the other had a long keel/centerboard. Wouldn't the centerboard-equipped boat make less leeway with the board down, thus be better to windward?

Or, in the case of board-up condtions, couldn't it also be faster (not necessarily to windward) because of less wetted surface area below?

Just wondering,

--- Rachel

PS How about all that snow in Maine? Must be a Winter Wonderland today, and perfect weather to putter in a heated boatshop :-)

[David]

Rachael,

In the case of the CB rig on the B29, the mast is some 4' shorter because the boat is more tender, less sail area for the same waterline length, a shallower rudder with less bite, and lacking the sleek underbody and foil of the deeper keel of the tall rig. All in all I would say you would see the most difference in performance hard on the wind. The board would lite you balance weather helm better, but if she is more tender, that might be counter productive. Halsey designed the B29 as a full keeled boat with a cutaway forefoot. The CB version is an adulteration of that design.

David

[Figment]

All other things equal (impossible, but whatever), the cb version of the boat will have diminished windward ability simply because it's harder to achieve the same righting moment ("stiffness") without having that deep ballast.

To achieve equal righting moment on a shorter arm, the designer must add ballast. Increasing ballast will increase displacement, and then you're really talking about a whole other boat.

Anyway, windward ability is compromised because she just can't stand up to the puffs like the deep-keel version can.

In board-up conditions, yes, the reduced wetted surface could translate to greater speed, BUT you're working with a depowered rig to begin with, so it's probably a wash.

[Rachel]

Thanks for both those replies. I understand exactly what you're saying and it makes sense to me.

I guess my feeling is that if I were going to go with a K/CB boat, I would want one that was designed that way, such as the Sparkman & Stephens Tartan 27. I didn't realize that the B-29 K/CB was a later modification to the original design.

At any rate, the B-29 K/CB still draws nearly four feet (IIRC, I can't remember where I saw this spec and the Bristol owner's page only mentions the draft of the keel model: 4'6"), so it's not like it's super shoal draft anyway.

This is exactly the kind of information I love, and I can't thank you enough for sharing it on the forum. It would really bug me to buy the boat, and *then* find out that it had a shorter rig that was not part of the original design.

That said, I understand that it's still a good boat - and the one I saw for sale had a newish Yanmar and was reasonably priced - but I don't think that I will pursue it.

Thanks again --- Rachel

[Tim]

I have no problem with centerboard boats--after all, I now own one, and spent many of my formative years sailing on another (the C&C 40). While I might not actively seek a centerboard boat, I think that they make sense in many instances for cruising, where deep draft might be a limitation. My artificial draft limit is around 5'; any deeper starts to become a limiting factor. So once fixed draft starts to exceed this, the centerboard becomes about the only way to consider larger boats. The existence of a draft-reducing board makes many larger boats suddenly more viable. I think it's important, though, that the boat was at least partially conceived as a centerboarder in the first place.

The C&C centerboarder was always a great boat, and when we raced we would beat the deep keel (and 2' taller rig) versions as often as not. When we didn't, it wasn't because of any inherent lack of windward ability or righting moment.

That said, it's almost universally known that a keel/centerboard boat will produce somewhat less lift than the same boat with a regular (and deeper) keel. The difference is more pronounced when you're talking about a fin keel design versus a full keel type centerboarder, since deeper fin keels are more efficient at producing the lift that actually pulls a sailboat along.

However, we're talking a matter of incremental amounts, the sort of difference that is usually (from a practical standpoint) more than offset by that slightly blown-out sail, or improper sail trim, or slightly mis-tuned rig. In the real world, the centerboard boat can do just as well as its deeper-keeled sistership.

While a certain windward ability is crucial for any sailboat--for example, to allow the boat to beat away from a lee shore, or some such--there seems to be a vast overconcern in the general sailing, non-racing public about this silliness surrounding windward ability. All of the boats we end up discussing on this forum have more than sufficient windward capability for the cruising sailor. You're not going to beat the J-boat around the mark, but then we're not trying, either.

Deeper ballast definitely increases righting moment, all things being equal, and a centerboard boat naturally has shallower ballast than a deeper-keel counterpart might. I feel this is less of an issue with full keel centerboarders, as most full keels have shallower drafts--and therefore ballast--than a typical fin keeler anyway; therefore the difference between making one a centerboard design with, say, 3'-10" draft, versus what the boat's draft might have been had she not been a boarder (maybe 5') is much smaller than turning an 8' fin keel into a 4' centerboard.

That said, I fail to see the benefit of a centerboard design when it only reduces draft by a small amount, like 6". One of the main justifications of a centerboard design is the shallower draft; when you're talking a beginning draft of under 5' in the first place, there is little reason to make it shallower by only 6" or so, particularly if it involves cutting down the rig.

Note that many of the older CCA boats were designed as centerboarders because the rule actually encouraged shallow draft (along with stubby rigs and long booms and overhangs). A well-designed centerboard boat, one which is intended from the getgo, has, in my opinion, few practical drawbacks. S&S designed some of the best centerboarders under the CCA rule.

(As an aside, the designers of the Seabreeze--MacLear & Harris--were alums from S&S, and worked on such designs as the famous Finnesterre during their tenure there. Hence, I feel good about the design pedigree of this particular centerboarder.)

Shortened rigs are one of my least favorite things. I don't ever see a reason to knowingly depower a rig, and usually I dream of ways to increase the available power (with the design constraints of the boat, of course). All the charter boats now have these ridiculous stubby rigs on them to help "save" the clueless operators from having to actually know how to sail. This makes the boats inherently poor in many ways, I think, because the boats don't truly have enough rig for some conditions.

Before anyone points out the apparent dichotomy in my statements above (if anyone's still reading), allow me to note that I feel a deep keel version of a design could have a taller rig than the centerboard version (as in the C&C), but it makes a difference depending on how tall the rig is in the first place. When you're talking about an already significant rig on a centerboard, going slightly higher on deeper keel version is not the same as cutting down an existing rig to accommodate a centerboard version.

A 4' change in mast height on a relatively short-rigged 29-footer is significant, and the fact that this was required leads me to believe that the conversion to centerboard was ill-advised, and obviously was driven by bad marketing decisions, i.e. "let's make this boat have a centerboard too, since that's all the rage now...oops, that might make her too tender... guess we'd better lop off 15% of the rig, too.".

[David]

Tim:

<<there seems to be a vast overconcern in the general sailing, non-racing public about this silliness surrounding windward ability. All of the boats we end up discussing on this forum have more than sufficient windward capability for the cruising sailor. You're not going to beat the J-boat around the mark, but then we're not trying, either. >>

Not sure what you mean by silliness by the non-racing public. That public for the most part seems to be clueless about windward ability or they would be buying something besides Island Packets, Hunters, Catalinas and Benetoys that are definitely not designed for sailing upwind. IMO windward ability is probably the most important measure of a boat's pure sailing abilities: to point high she has to be stiff, have a powerful rig, have an underbody designed to provide lift, be sea kindly so she doesn't get pushed to leeward or stopped altogether, have a good balance of rasonable weather helm, have a powerful rudder, etc. Sure all those attributes apply to racing hulls, but not exclusively.

[Tim]

I feel windward performance is a very important attribute for any boat, and did not mean to imply otherwise. Any boat can sail downwind; the measure of any design is effiency upwind. Some are better than others, obviously. I grew up racing, and raced for over 20 years. It's in my blood to sail well, but one must keep it in perspective, also.

However, to clarify, what I meant was that I feel too many ordinary sailors seem overly concerned with the theory behind pointing and upwind performance, and sometimes get hung up on the information they glean from magazine and online articles, or some such--even when those sailors don't really have the boathandling and sailhandling skills that would benefit them far more than these elusive tacking angles and such. All this information is great, but if it means one tries to make their aging cruiser perform like a modern go-fast, based on a general misunderstanding of pointing ability or upwind sailing, it can lead to even poorer performance.

When cruising, exactly how important is it whether you manage to point to 45 or 49 degrees apparent? Either boat in this example certainly has the requisite windward ability to sail away from dangers, and to make progress upwind without a frustratingly large number of tacks. Obviously there are many pigs out there that can't sail upwind to save their lives. People who buy those boats don't tend to really enjoy sailing anyway, and are unlikely to even bother trying to trim their sails correctly (if they ever set them). But this isn't what I meant by my earlier statement.

Many of us enjoy trying to get the most out of our boats at all times under sail. But worrying about what my tacking angle is will not help do this, and may even mean that the boat performs less well upwind.

The point I'm laboring to make here is that each skipper should strive to get the best from their specific boat, without overreliance on general information that might be irrelevant in their particular case. For some boats, the best is only going to be 50 degrees apparent; for others, it may be 35 degrees apparent. But nothing in the world will span that gap.

To the public I say: go out and sail. Learn to trim your sails, and learn what the consequences of various sail adjustments are. Read all the magazines you want, but don't try to pattern your sailing existence after those glossy articles.

Sorry for any confusion.