Page 1 of 3 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 80

Thread: AWOL v. CS 17

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    234

    Default AWOL v. CS 17

    I love the sail and row threads, but I wanted to ask a question about speed. Both the CS 17 and AWOL are designed to be single handed and have similar numbers, weight, size, etc. If you where going to line up in a race like the Everglades Challenge which would you prefer and why?

    AWOL:




    Core Sound 17:


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I['ve raced PHRF on a local lake against a CS 17, and she is quite fast; I would guess she has more sail than the AWOL except for the reaching headsail rig.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    911

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    awol any day with that asymmetric spinnaker on a reach to down wind she would fly?

    James

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    2,969

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    CS-17 for its unstayed masts (easy up and down) and cat ketch rig (easy to tune for self-steering). Neither of those reasons are speed-related, though.
    It will all be OK in the end...so if it's not OK, you're not at the end.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Interesting choices. I like both boats. AWOL is probably a bit faster. CS can fly a mizzen staysail on reaches. CS 17 is more comfortable for a multi-day event. Don't discount the importance of the comfort aspect. I don't think either is suitable for single handing in the EC. Way too much probability of adverse conditions that need a second hand and hiking weight in a boat like these. CS is likely easier to handle in adverse conditions.
    Tom L

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    234

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I'll start by agreeing with everyone (keeping everyone happy in the process). I like speed, it's an addiction I've had since I was old enough to walk. Boats, cars, planes, heck, I fly a jet for a living, speed is good, speed is right, speed works. I will say though, I like simple speed and to that end there is a lot to be said about the CS 17. The twin mast, sprit rig setup makes for and easy to manage if no always easy to reef boat. AWOL too has simple speed. It's a powerful hull form, you can roller reef the jib and launch the gennaker out of a tube or bag. The gaff though isn't my favorite and I'd be very tempted to use a full batten, square headed design to keep the sail area, but lessen the hardware. It's a tricky comparison though I think and though I feel the CS series are a more simple build, I am still very tempted to order plans for AWOL. Of course it's all personal preferences, but I love the concepts behind these boats, simple, fast and capable of some really fun coastal cruising.

    Micheal: AWOL actually spreads a bit more sail, just a bit, no more. 4 square feet I think, not counting the staysails or reachers etc, just the working everyday stuff.

    Beams: AWOL 6'4'' CS17 5'10'' CS20 6'3''

    As far as I know, there's still only a single AWOL sailing and Dave claims it quite a fast little boat. Does anyone know of any other builds taking place?

    Brent

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,725

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I would choose the AWOL. I think its a much more capable boat. I don't care for the mast in the center of the CS.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the river, Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,748

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
    I'll start by agreeing with everyone (keeping everyone happy in the process). I like speed, it's an addiction I've had since I was old enough to walk. Boats, cars, planes, heck, I fly a jet for a living, speed is good, speed is right, speed works. I will say though, I like simple speed and to that end there is a lot to be said about the CS 17. The twin mast, sprit rig setup makes for and easy to manage if no always easy to reef boat. AWOL too has simple speed. It's a powerful hull form, you can roller reef the jib and launch the gennaker out of a tube or bag. The gaff though isn't my favorite and I'd be very tempted to use a full batten, square headed design to keep the sail area, but lessen the hardware. It's a tricky comparison though I think and though I feel the CS series are a more simple build, I am still very tempted to order plans for AWOL. Of course it's all personal preferences, but I love the concepts behind these boats, simple, fast and capable of some really fun coastal cruising.

    Micheal: AWOL actually spreads a bit more sail, just a bit, no more. 4 square feet I think, not counting the staysails or reachers etc, just the working everyday stuff.

    Beams: AWOL 6'4'' CS17 5'10'' CS20 6'3''

    As far as I know, there's still only a single AWOL sailing and Dave claims it quite a fast little boat. Does anyone know of any other builds taking place?

    Brent
    36 sets of plans sold to date, I know of three finished but dont have pics.
    All else being equal AWOL will be quicker upwind and downwind than the CS`17, the CS with its cat ketch rig may be quicker on a reach. But as for hull shape we'd never know without racing them against each other. With Grahame Byrnes at the helm the CS17 won a couple of ECs which is impressive.
    Note that AWOL was designed to be eligible for classic boat regattas hence the gaff rig which was the critical factor. A square head main of slightly more area wouldnt hurt her as she was designed for David who singlehands his boat a lot.
    She is also set up to sleep two, and can do that under way which would be helpful on long distance events like the Everglades Challenge.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    John,

    I spent most of my sailing life racing, daysailing or cruising in sloops and only lately got onto cat ketches. No doubt a well designed sloop has proven to be of superior speed when all courses are considered, especially when a spinnaker is available. Handling of the unstayed mast cat ketch is what makes it so attractive for daysailing. If I were looking for a sloop in this size range, AWOL would be right at the top of the list.
    Tom L

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    129

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Besides the difference in rigs, if I undestood correctly from Mr Perillo's build log, AWOL is designed to have a steel centerplate, while CS17 is meant to have a wooden one (maybe one could modify it to have a heavy plate too?). Don't know how heavy AWOL's plate is, but that should be a plus for single-handing.

    I think you have to be an excellent sailor to single hand a sloop with the spinnaker up in anything above relaxed conditions, and the setup is a bit more complicated and needs to run very smoothly in order to do what it needs to when the weather changes the mood. If one is't going to hoist a spinnaker often, the sloop rig doesn't make sense.

    I too, like both boats. In my eye AWOL has a bit prettier hull shape, but the simplicity of CS hull is nice in it's way too. On this day I would choose the CS as my current boat is more similar to AWOL so the chage would make life more interesting.

    As a sidenote, Mr. Byrnes seems to have updated the CS20 design (CS20 MkII) with raised floor for self-draining, and water-ballast possibility.

    All the best,
    m

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the river, Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,748

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by matoi View Post
    Besides the difference in rigs, if I undestood correctly from Mr Perillo's build log, AWOL is designed to have a steel centerplate, while CS17 is meant to have a wooden one (maybe one could modify it to have a heavy plate too?). Don't know how heavy AWOL's plate is, but that should be a plus for single-handing.

    I think you have to be an excellent sailor to single hand a sloop with the spinnaker up in anything above relaxed conditions, and the setup is a bit more complicated and needs to run very smoothly in order to do what it needs to when the weather changes the mood. If one is't going to hoist a spinnaker often, the sloop rig doesn't make sense.

    I too, like both boats. In my eye AWOL has a bit prettier hull shape, but the simplicity of CS hull is nice in it's way too. On this day I would choose the CS as my current boat is more similar to AWOL so the chage would make life more interesting.

    As a sidenote, Mr. Byrnes seems to have updated the CS20 design (CS20 MkII) with raised floor for self-draining, and water-ballast possibility.

    All the best,
    m
    Handling an assymetric spinnaker / gennaker on a prod and fitted with a retrieving line is, while not a piece of cake for a raw beginner, easy enough once you get some practice under your belt. Its not really any different to setting a jib flying, way more simple than a double luff kite with pole. I've cruised and raced with both, have designed and sailed specialist single handed ocean racers and suggest that a little boat like AWOL is not going to be any trouble to manage, spinnaker or no.
    She was designed though as a two handed racer, but as she was going to be cruised a lot singlehanded the rig and systems had to be manageable by one.

    As a pure racer she'd have another 40 sq ft of sail, a lot less interior furniture and straighter lines underwater, that (hypothetical) boat would be serious fun in a bit of a breeze but not the worlds best daysailer.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Cushing, Maine
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Note the outboards on the transoms of both boats. Dropping the rigs or setting them up underway would be a challenging.
    Ben Fuller
    Ran Tan, Liten Kuhling, Tipsy, Tippy, Josef W., Merry Mouth, Imp, Macavity, Look Far, Flash and a quiver of other 'yaks.
    "Bound fast is boatless man."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by matoi View Post
    Besides the difference in rigs, if I undestood correctly from Mr Perillo's build log, AWOL is designed to have a steel centerplate, while CS17 is meant to have a wooden one (maybe one could modify it to have a heavy plate too?). Don't know how heavy AWOL's plate is, but that should be a plus for single-handing.

    As a sidenote, Mr. Byrnes seems to have updated the CS20 design (CS20 MkII) with raised floor for self-draining, and water-ballast possibility.

    All the best,
    m
    Many, including me, add enough weight to the CB to sink it but that hardly affect ballast at all.

    I've sailed the ballasted CS20 and like it very much as a single hander while I would not try the unballasted version in other than moderate conditions.
    Tom L

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Cushing, Maine
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Steel plate foils are notoriously inefficient.
    Ben Fuller
    Ran Tan, Liten Kuhling, Tipsy, Tippy, Josef W., Merry Mouth, Imp, Macavity, Look Far, Flash and a quiver of other 'yaks.
    "Bound fast is boatless man."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the river, Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,748

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Fuller View Post
    Steel plate foils are notoriously inefficient.
    There are pluses and minuses in flat plate centerboards, and yes they are not as efficient in terms of lift per area. But by drawing the centerboard a little larger in area and using a thicker plate for weight with the bonus that the leading edge can be properly radiused the benefits of improved stability outweighed the slight disadvantage that the "plate" has in terms of theoretical efficiency.
    In this case, with the high aspect ratio blade jib, the fully battened mainsail luff in a track and the full width traveller powering a lifting body hull AWOL doesnt give anything away to the conventional bermudian rigged boats of her size on any point of sail.
    I've had some theories of how to make a gaff rig really work well, and AWOL was a chance to try them for real, and yes, they work.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Shore, Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,625

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Fuller View Post
    Note the outboards on the transoms of both boats. Dropping the rigs or setting them up underway would be a challenging.
    there's a bit of a clue as to the performance of these craft, I know from 1st hand experience with a CS 20 vs my Alpha dory, the wider planeing type sail boats like the CS excell off the wind and in strong wind conditions, both combined are best, going to windward the displacement type sail and oar Alpha was faster than the CS20 in wind up to 15-20, off the wind the CS was faster than the Alpha at wind of 15+ with wind speed below that the sail and oar type hull was markedly faster... there was a Thistle sailing with us also that was always faster than everything... really depends on how much you want to sail hard vs conserve energy for the endurance aspect of the race.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I always wonder why people don't consider proven one-design dinghies for these events. Would a Windmill set up for reefing and rowing work for such an event?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    11,895

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I have sailed next to a Core Sound 17 for a day in Rowan in winds of about 10 kts, and I have to say my observations were much the same as Dan Noyes. In those winds, I was faster on every point of sail by a considerable amount. Had there been enough wind to plane, the CS would likely have been able to take off, but not that day, not at all.

    I think I'd rather have the CS than the AWOL for myself if I had to choose one of those two, because I like unstayed and two-sticks, but. I'm afraid neither of them a really a good match for my mission.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I ran across a CS 17 in an 8-10 knot breeze and the Snipe I was sailing was considerably faster. I realize the boats are designed for quite different missions, but I'm skeptical of whether the CS 17 is relatively fast around a triangular course. Distance races have more reaching, of course.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    The above observations of relative boat speed could well be right but the element of relative sailor skill is not known. The CS series is under rigged by comparison with practically all one design boats of similar size and they were not designed for racing. The mention of a Windmill brings it a bit in focus as I have a lot of experience with them. A windmill is lighter smaller and has more sail area on an arguably more efficient rig than a CS17 for most courses. With the same sail area and size, a Snipe is heavier and will be a bit slower on most courses. A Thistle is relative over canvassed and one of the fastest boats of its type around but was beaten by a Windmill in a "heavy weather" one-of-a-kind regatta on San Fransisco Bay, sponsored by One Deign and Offshore Sailing Magazine. In this regatta, no race was counted if the wind dropped below 15kts. The Windmill was first over all classes that participated.

    My current small boat is a Lapwing, a lapstrake version of the CS15. It is slower than all of the mentioned boats but might win a long race due to greater ease of handling versus a Windmill or Snipe. I put very little faith in claims of speed based on single encounters of boats on the water.
    Tom L

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop View Post
    The above observations of relative boat speed could well be right but the element of relative sailor skill is not known. The CS series is under rigged by comparison with practically all one design boats of similar size and they were not designed for racing. The mention of a Windmill brings it a bit in focus as I have a lot of experience with them. A windmill is lighter smaller and has more sail area on an arguably more efficient rig than a CS17 for most courses. With the same sail area and size, a Snipe is heavier and will be a bit slower on most courses. A Thistle is relative over canvassed and one of the fastest boats of its type around but was beaten by a Windmill in a "heavy weather" one-of-a-kind regatta on San Fransisco Bay, sponsored by One Deign and Offshore Sailing Magazine. In this regatta, no race was counted if the wind dropped below 15kts. The Windmill was first over all classes that participated.

    My current small boat is a Lapwing, a lapstrake version of the CS15. It is slower than all of the mentioned boats but might win a long race due to greater ease of handling versus a Windmill or Snipe. I put very little faith in claims of speed based on single encounters of boats on the water.
    I'd like to find an account of that regatta.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    John,

    "One Design", as we knew it then was THE sailing magazine in the USA in the 1960s. I don't know where the article on that regatta could be found but I did find an article on the Windmill website. My memory did fail me on at a couple accounts as the wind was required to be above 25kts rather than 15kts and the event was sponsored by Yachting Magazine.

    The Windmill is a favorite boat to me and I have been in the Class since 1966. In the 1990s, I did a redesign of Clark Mill's original for the Windmill Class so the boat can now be built in a female mold as a plywood/fiberglass/epoxy composite form to meet Class rules and tolerances. Most home built Windmills now use the handbook I wrote for new boats.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Story of the Windmill

    The story of the Windmill begins soon after Clark Mills designed the popular Optimist Pram. In response to a demand for a boat to bridge the gap between the Pram and the Olympic racing classes, Mills designed the Windmill in 1953. She was conceived as a performance boat that could be constructed very inexpensively by amateur builders, such as a father and son project, without professional tools. The result was a lightweight displacement planing hull, a novelty at the time, coupled with a high aspect ratio daggerboard, that performed beyond the designer's goals. Its appeal soon spread from Florida and by the mid-60's over 500 'Mills were sailing in 42 states, Canada, and Finland.

    Performance Record

    There were doubters of this upstart boat which claimed high-performance from home construction, especially one that did not have a spinnaker or trapeze. These doubts were well dispelled in 1963, when Yachting magazine sponsored a One-of-a-Kind regatta in which every one-design class was invited to compete under a simple handicap formula covering length, sail area, etc. Held in Miami in 26 plus knot winds, 'Mill skipper Dave Posey finished 3rd in the non-trapeze center-board class, bested only by the 3-man Thistle and Olympic Finn!

    In 1966 the event was repeated, this time Ron Krippendorf finished 1st over 32 other one-design boats in the non-spinnaker class. The 'Mill had come of age-but the best was yet to come.

    To the surprise of many, (because the 'Mill has no foredeck), she is an outstanding specialist in heavy weather sailing. This fact was brought forcefully home in 1967, when Yachting sponsored the Heavy Weather One-of-a-Kind Regatta on San Francisco Bay. The ground rule was no racing unless the wind was at least 25 knots. Incredibly, in winds gusting to 40 knots, the Windmill, skillfully skippered by Ray Drew, slogged through high seas, dodging capsized and dismasted competitors, and won the regatta!

    Just to prove this was no fluke, Denis Fontaine again topped the best centerboard, non-trapeze contestants to take another first in the 1977 One-of-a-Kind Regatta.

    The last two times the Windmill was raced in this regatta, Dave Ellis finished third in 1982 and fourth in 1985, in a now 30 year old design, proving that three decades had not diminished this fast sloop's reputation. Some would argue the fastest one-design for the price and a boat that is really fun to sail. There is no argument that she is the only high-performance one-design that can be home-built.

    With a sharp forebody and an after planning section, the boat goes on a plane in about a ten knot breeze. Only those who have experienced the exhilaration of a screaming plane can truly understand the expression. Windmill sailors understand!

    Thus from her introduction by a thoughtful designer bent on capturing the interest and enthusiasm of young sailors, the Windmill has grown to be accepted by sailors of all ages as an exciting boat, equally desirable for inland or coastal sailing in light or heavy winds.
    Tom L

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Yes I was reading the magazine back when Bruce Kirby was editor, but the only one of a kind regattas I ever read about were those sponsored by Yachting. I'd read the brag on the Windmill site, but haven't found the full article about the regatta.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    129

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Perhaps it would be much easier to compare the boats and judge which one is more suitable for a certain use and personality if we had the polar diagrams available along with all other data. I've never seen such thing published for very small boats - is it so because the performance of small boats is too sensitive to variables like crew weight, sitting position etc...?

    Even though my sailing skills are not far from a raw beginner when compared to experience of people like Mr Welsford or McMullen and many others on this forum, I've managed to walk away from much more powerful sailboats (Wayfarer vs. Seascape 18 for example). That too was mostly in light winds and on upwind courses. But I've sailed both boats in stronger winds and know from that experience that the other boat is generally by an order of magnitude faster on all courses (it's also obvious by just comparing the specifications of the two boats). It just needs to be sailed properly and the wind needs to blow just a little bit stronger. Small boats both penalize mistakes and reward good handling much more than big ones... and it must be that sometimes even my mate and I get lucky with our sail trim :-)

    So without being able to try the boats personally or look into some 'scientific' data, I'd be inclined to rely on statements of satisfaction given by experienced sailors like Perillo and Mr. Lathrop who sailed extensively different kinds of boats in their lives along with the particular boats in question, and of course on repeatedly good results in races like EC, rather than on a few 'incidents' where we do not know if the 'defeated' boat was poorly maintained/setup or the crew just took things leasurely or didn't know how to handle it properly. (I'm sure it needs not be mentioned here that good handling implies a few more things then just being able to read the tell tales.)

    Regarding the asymmetric
    I agree it's a wonderful thing, and enjoy my own when I've got a companion willing to do a bit of work. I've got mine in the first place as a 'get me home' sail to save me from buying and carrying the outboard. But I think using it singlehanded on a unballasted dinghy and on a ballasted boat are two very different things. Mini Transat boats are very fast, but are absolutely much more forgiving. They almost cannot be inverted, and if they do invert they come back quickly. Many dinghys invert relatively easily, and don't come back themselves. So, hoisting a spinaker, even if it's of the simpler asymmetric kind, when cruising solo in a light dinghy, in gusty conditions and away from rescue services, would in my mind be poor seamanship. Especially when you take into account that a boat laden with gear for cruising, tacking downwind at broader anlges due to nature of the asymmetric, is not going to gain as much in VMG as one might expect or wish. But still, there are excellent sailors who seem do it easilly. A nice video by one of such kind (using the traditional spin):

    http://vimeo.com/29220930

    Re plates and boards
    I did't find the data on how heavy AWOL's plate is, so couldn't estimate where on the scale between a light dinghy and a keelboat the AWOL design might lie. From photos it seemed as a not too heavy a thing, so I thought it to be in nature closer to unballasted dinghies...
    But I'd like to support what Mr. Welsford said on the subject of flatness. My boat has a flat plate, rounded at the leading edge and simply tapered at the back. No NACA sections. And here is a GPS plot of the windward course which I think proves that even such a shape is quite efficient:

    https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/pLSyrQVtKirK6U8sUzB6TRXoqphoeWX9O8NtiNHcRGU?feat=d irectlink

    That of course is course over ground, and I'm happy with it enough that once I get to build my own wooden boat I'm not sure I'll be spending the time on NACA-shaping…

    All the best,
    m

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Fiddletown, on Vineyard Lane
    Posts
    3,521

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    The hull somehow looks better to me on AWOL. Perhaps it is a combinations of subtle elements. I have got myself cured of gaff rigs.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,725

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I always wondered why John added the asymmetric spinnaker since a Gaff rig does so well downwind already. I am sure the boat would do well without it for those not interested in the additional complexity and expense.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    On the river, Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,748

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by KMacDonald View Post
    I always wondered why John added the asymmetric spinnaker since a Gaff rig does so well downwind already. I am sure the boat would do well without it for those not interested in the additional complexity and expense.
    As a racer the kite adds considerable speed reaching and running, but if the boats not going to be raced the kites not a compulsory part of the equipment.

    John Welsford
    An expert is but a beginner with experience.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    2,209

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Never sailed it but chatted with an owner a lot. The awol is not as seaworthy a cruiser as the navigator if youre sailing in a windy area i.e. regular 20-30 kts but much better than a CS 17, you have to be more cautious, mind you Ive sailed with a CS 17 in a 40kt squall in the harbour and he was lucky to survive, but survive he did, I would definitely not recommend that boat for a windy area.
    I think that a conventional rig would work pretty well too on awol as I think the complications and extra weight of the gaff could easily be eliminated with a big roach and a gaff batten, theres plenty of 2nd hand rigs off racing dinghys of similar size and could be got for a song. Of the 2 my vote would be the awol definitely, better looking, more fun to build, roomier, ultimately faster and unique.
    whatever rocks your boat

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    230

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul G. View Post
    Never sailed it but chatted with an owner a lot. The awol is not as seaworthy a cruiser as the navigator if youre sailing in a windy area i.e. regular 20-30 kts but much better than a CS 17, you have to be more cautious, mind you Ive sailed with a CS 17 in a 40kt squall in the harbour and he was lucky to survive, but survive he did, I would definitely not recommend that boat for a windy area.
    I think that a conventional rig would work pretty well too on awol as I think the complications and extra weight of the gaff could easily be eliminated with a big roach and a gaff batten, theres plenty of 2nd hand rigs off racing dinghys of similar size and could be got for a song. Of the 2 my vote would be the awol definitely, better looking, more fun to build, roomier, ultimately faster and unique.
    What is it about the CS 17 that makes it much less seaworthy than AWOL?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul G. View Post
    Never sailed it but chatted with an owner a lot. The awol is not as seaworthy a cruiser as the navigator if youre sailing in a windy area i.e. regular 20-30 kts but much better than a CS 17, you have to be more cautious, mind you Ive sailed with a CS 17 in a 40kt squall in the harbour and he was lucky to survive, but survive he did, I would definitely not recommend that boat for a windy area.
    .
    I am very surprised at your statements. There are a lot of wind speed claims and I find sailing either of these boats in 40kts to be highly suspect. That is survival conditions. Its common so I'm not knocking you in particular. With 50 years as a sailor under my belt, I think your conclusions are backwards. It will take an expert to weather 40 kts without capsize single handed (or two up) in any of these boats and any sane sailor will stay ashore in those conditions. With its split rig, less sail area, lower CE sails and harder bilge, the CS will be seaworthy compared to AWOL. This is not a knock on fine boats like AWOL either, just an educated judgement.

    Edited to add: In 40 kts, or even 30kts, in any of these boats, it is the skill of the sailor far more than the boat as to which performs better or survives in good shape.
    Last edited by Tom Lathrop; 02-04-2013 at 11:44 AM.
    Tom L

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    171

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Lathrop View Post
    I am very surprised at your statements. There are a lot of wind speed claims and I find sailing either of these boats in 40kts to be highly suspect. That is survival conditions. Its common so I'm not knocking you in particular. With 50 years as a sailor under my belt, I think your conclusions are backwards. It will take an expert to weather 40 kts without capsize single handed (or two up) in any of these boats and any sane sailor will stay ashore in those conditions. With its split rig, less sail area, lower CE sails and harder bilge, the CS will be seaworthy compared to AWOL. This is not a knock on fine boats like AWOL either, just an educated judgement.

    Edited to add: In 40 kts, or even 30kts, in any of these boats, it is the skill of the sailor far more than the boat as to which performs better or survives in good shape.
    I think I've heard about the incident that Paul is referring to, and would first point out that 40 knot line squalls are not unknown on Aucklands main harbour on a summer afternoon, and that if its the happening that I head about, Paul was out there in his JW Pathfinder at the time. He's an experienced sailor so at the very least he had a good idea of the force of the wind at the time. If not 40 knots you can be sure that it was blowing way beyond normal survival condition for small open boats.
    I'd point out too that with the jib down and the main reefed right down the center of effort on AWOL will be much closer to where it should be than if a cat ketch has one sail down and the other reefed so may well be easier to control in really heavy conditions.

    Cedric Rhyn

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Oriental, NC USA
    Posts
    4,736

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric Rhyn View Post
    I think I've heard about the incident that Paul is referring to, and would first point out that 40 knot line squalls are not unknown on Aucklands main harbour on a summer afternoon, and that if its the happening that I head about, Paul was out there in his JW Pathfinder at the time. He's an experienced sailor so at the very least he had a good idea of the force of the wind at the time. If not 40 knots you can be sure that it was blowing way beyond normal survival condition for small open boats.
    I'd point out too that with the jib down and the main reefed right down the center of effort on AWOL will be much closer to where it should be than if a cat ketch has one sail down and the other reefed so may well be easier to control in really heavy conditions.

    Cedric Rhyn
    Interesting but speculation about the condition of the boats at the time. Given equal experience of sailor and equal preparation of the boats for the conditions, I stick by my statement. Still, this is no negative claim of either boat, or any judgement of Paul's abilities, just experience with both rigs and types. I know what these cat ketches are capable of and have not sailed an AWOL but do have tons of experience in small sloops in all kinds of conditions, including beyond 40kts, but only by accident.
    Tom L

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric Rhyn View Post
    I think I've heard about the incident that Paul is referring to, and would first point out that 40 knot line squalls are not unknown on Aucklands main harbour on a summer afternoon, and that if its the happening that I head about, Paul was out there in his JW Pathfinder at the time. He's an experienced sailor so at the very least he had a good idea of the force of the wind at the time. If not 40 knots you can be sure that it was blowing way beyond normal survival condition for small open boats.
    I'd point out too that with the jib down and the main reefed right down the center of effort on AWOL will be much closer to where it should be than if a cat ketch has one sail down and the other reefed so may well be easier to control in really heavy conditions.

    Cedric Rhyn
    Doesn't the CS 17 have a third mast step where you can put one reefed sail in tough conditions?

    Not that I'd care to go out in either boat in 40 knots. Sometimes you can't avoid a squall, of course.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Cushing, Maine
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    My favorite way of dealing with really big winds is to do the classic sea boat thing: get the mast down and hang out in the bottom of the boat. Neither of these boats are especially well suited to this. Best thing about a lug rig is that the sail comes down right now, and the mast is ready to drop. I remember once a regatta in the Chesapeake with a line squall where boats were going over even if they had struck their sails; I think the Lightnings were ok but anything smaller was over.
    Ben Fuller
    Ran Tan, Liten Kuhling, Tipsy, Tippy, Josef W., Merry Mouth, Imp, Macavity, Look Far, Flash and a quiver of other 'yaks.
    "Bound fast is boatless man."

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    24,699

    Default Re: AWOL v. CS 17

    I guess we're back to Rowan being the perfect boat, then.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •