Given the choice of either what would you choose and why.
I'm looking at both for day sailing and some coastal cruising.

Good question. Look at the design before looking at the boat.

The Cavalier 32 according to sailboatdata.com was designed by Laurie Davidson in collusion with Bob Salthouse which is a good pedigree.

sailboatdata.com/sailboat/cavalier-32

The Cavalier 28 was designed by Laurie Davidson and is a completely different style of hull. I was under the impression that the Northshore 33 is also a Laurie Davidson design but according to the listings I have looked at it is a Hank Kaufman design. No sailboatdata record.

Cav 32. Dated IOR style hull with only a 24 ft water line length and underslung rudder and much overhang fore and particularly aft.

Northshore 33. A more modern design overall. More length overall and waterline = more speed. More beam = more room below and maybe more stability. Transom hung rudder = lighter steering due to distance between keel and rudder = easy to fit home made wind vane self steer = easier to repair.

You know where I am at. Northshore over the Cav any day.

This is not a Northshore. It is a Lotus 9.2 with the same style of hull as the Northshore.

I would go Northshore. I would think you would pay more for the Northshore. My father had a CAV 32 which sailed to windward good, but a pig down wind. That said the Cav is usually good value for money.

Skeg hung rudder v transom ?
Lead v cast iron ?
Different hull shape ,different performance up and down wind .
I think you you should look at what catches your eye first and then work from that.

Select to expand quote

Capt_Newmo said..
Given the choice of either what would you choose and why.
I'm looking at both for day sailing and some coastal cruising.

Very different boats. The Cav 32 is a much older design with an encapsulated lead keel. Northshore more modern with a cast iron keel. The cast iron keel is the weak point as far as I'm concerned and will add to the maintenance cost after a few years. The choice is very much down to where you are in life. The Cav's have a very comfortable interior, seaworthy and a bit slow for a 32 footer. They will be cheap to maintain. The Northshore is a more up market harbour racer that would probably suit your needs but I think there are a lot of better boats out there for the same money.

Thanks for your views.
I'm leaning towards the CAV.
I do like the lines of the CAV with the encapsulated lead keel and skeg hung rudder, the cast iron keel of the 33 is a bit off putting for me with regards to possible maintenance/rust issues in the future. The Cav has excellent standing headroom and they are well priced at around $40K.
I'm on the look out for something around 32 foot as I said for some day sailing and some coastal cruising so sing out if you have any ideas

Capt N

Seeing you are going down that road ,have look at a Swanson 32 with a glass deck , if you can find a good one ?
Magpie 34 again finding a good one .

Duncanson 34's are often well under 40 grand now.

The more I look and research the more confusing it gets.
I guess a faster more modern design would be preferable to the older IOR style. Better to get where your going and relax.
Im hoping some CAV and Northshore owners wade in to add to the confusion. I should say budget is around 40k and swing mooring will take up to 33 foot.

Select to expand quote

Capt_Newmo said..
The more I look and research the more confusing it gets.
I guess a faster more modern design would be preferable to the older IOR style. Better to get where your going and relax.
Im hoping some CAV and Northshore owners wade in to add to the confusion. I should say budget is around 40k and swing mooring will take up to 33 foot.

My personal preference is for a boat that's pleasant to sail with and easy sea motion. A yacht that I can jump aboard and sail off to Lord Howe with no qualms. The boat needs to be handy. Something you can sail by yourself and you have to be confident it will look after you. 33 feet and under 40 grand there is a very wide choice. I would be taking my time, the choices are increasing all the time. My preference would be for a moderate displacement, lead keel and a good history of offshore racing.If the design has competed in a Sydney Hobart it gets on my list. This brings you back to IOR designs.
Slightly over 33 feet and in no particular order these are my choices. UFO34, Duncanson 34, SS34, Carter 33, Cole 32. I would consider a centre cockpit Carter but would prefer an aft cockpit.

Take your time.

I have a Cav 32 (975).
We were on a budget and it was the best value for money at the time.
What sold us was the interior space and layout. Our particular boat had a few extras like almost new sails, roller furler, sail cover and lazy jacks, solar and bimini with side curtains. These are things that I wouldn't have to put my hand in my pocket for.
You have to buy the vessel that ticks the most boxes for you.

Pros for the cav are,
Solid built boat, very sea worthy.
Good interior space for 32 footer.
Skeg hung rudder.
50% ballast ratio makes it relatively stiff and stable.
Sails to windward very nicely, nicely balanced and tracks straight.
Appear to have held up well for age.

Cons are,
Small cockpit by todays standards.
Short waterline length makes it a bit pitchy downwind.
Small forward cabbin.

Despite the dated IOR design and (on paper) drawbacks, I have found our Cav to perform quite well and she offten keeps up with more modern vessels of similar length.

GG
The early IOR yachts like yours, the rating worked well ? IMS is introducing poorly designed yachts and I'll even go as to saying dangerous ! The 70's and 80's yachts where designed to work and to sail down wind by tacking and gybing not running square . The modern day yachts are the opposite ! Yachties these days like the large open cockpit and the open feel cabin space below which is not the best layout for offshore in lumpy conditions. The idea behind the small cockpit was if swamped by waves the cockpit didn't become a swimming pool and you and your crew had less of a chance of being swept out basically they were designed to work in no entertain ! .Below was designed so you didn't get thrown around and there was always something to grab.
Most yachts of this vintage can be sailed single handed without having to leave the helm ,as the traveller and sheet winches are all central,and the rigs are of modest proportion .Not to mention stability .
The modern designs I suppose are fantastic for entertaining and cruising in good conditions ,but I still like the 70's and 80's

Select to expand quote

jbear said..
GG
The early IOR yachts like yours, the rating worked well ? IMS is introducing poorly designed yachts and I'll even go as to saying dangerous ! The 70's and 80's yachts where designed to work and to sail down wind by tacking and gybing not running square . The modern day yachts are the opposite ! Yachties these days like the large open cockpit and the open feel cabin space below which is not the best layout for offshore in lumpy conditions. The idea behind the small cockpit was if swamped by waves the cockpit didn't become a swimming pool and you and your crew had less of a chance of being swept out basically they were designed to work in no entertain ! .Below was designed so you didn't get thrown around and there was always something to grab.
Most yachts of this vintage can be sailed single handed without having to leave the helm ,as the traveller and sheet winches are all central,and the rigs are of modest proportion .Not to mention stability .
The modern designs I suppose are fantastic for entertaining and cruising in good conditions ,but I still like the 70's and 80's

An excellent analysis. As is Ramona's above.
A few Seabreezers have been to and from Lord Howe on my S&S34, Morning Bird. They can vouch for what jbear and Ramona say.
These boats are tough and reassuring in heavy weather, fast enough to get to the destination in reasonable time, point well, easy to move around in and hard to get tossed too far if you miss a hand hold. Simple to sail, wind vane steering works very well, good cruising speed on relatively small and economical engines.
They are a bit cramped compared to newer designs but it is rough out there. Wide open cockpits and cabins are not an advantage for ocean cruising on these small boats. No matter how stable, and the S&S has an angle of vanishing stability over 140 degrees, they will get tossed around. The big open spaces are great when you get there, but you have to get there first and if it is too difficult you won't go.
I would add the S&S to a Cav 32/Northshore33 comparison (and the Brolga too). They are actually just over 33 ft LOA and will outperform either of the other two yachts. The pedigree speaks for itself.

There is a Northshore 33 and Cav 32 listed for sale at Royal Brighton Yacht Club. Could be handy to see them side by side.

www.yoti.com.au

www.yoti.com.au/listing/cavalier-975-strathtay

There is no denying above comments on the virtues of the IOR yachts of the era. Near bullet proof.

I still favour the Northshore 33 design concept. The two main drawbacks I see with them are the cast iron keel and lack of a skeg in front of the transom hung rudder such as on the Lotus yachts.

Wheel steering on yachts of this size I see as a hinderance especially with narrow cockpits.

Transom hung rudders lend themselves to having very efficient, simple and inexpensive trim tab/wind vane self steerers.

www.diy-wood-boat.com/Wind_vane.html

I have a friend with a Cav 32. Just recently failed in his third attempt at Lord Howe. This is a trip that will invariably give you an arse kicking at least once. Nice accommodation and a little slower than my Currawong.

I have a Norshore 27, very well built boats. Sail nicely upwind etc. It has a cast iron keel, it needs a bit of a sand and prime every couple of years but it hasn't given me any problems. Not as nice as an encapsulated lead one but not a huge con when looking at comparisons. You could grind it back to bare metal and give it coat of epoxy if necessary.

Select to expand quote

jbear said..
GG
The early IOR yachts like yours, the rating worked well ? IMS is introducing poorly designed yachts and I'll even go as to saying dangerous ! The 70's and 80's yachts where designed to work and to sail down wind by tacking and gybing not running square . The modern day yachts are the opposite ! Yachties these days like the large open cockpit and the open feel cabin space below which is not the best layout for offshore in lumpy conditions. The idea behind the small cockpit was if swamped by waves the cockpit didn't become a swimming pool and you and your crew had less of a chance of being swept out basically they were designed to work in no entertain ! .Below was designed so you didn't get thrown around and there was always something to grab.
Most yachts of this vintage can be sailed single handed without having to leave the helm ,as the traveller and sheet winches are all central,and the rigs are of modest proportion .Not to mention stability .
The modern designs I suppose are fantastic for entertaining and cruising in good conditions ,but I still like the 70's and 80's

With all respect J Bear, you might want some more experience before you make such comments.

In particular you might want to sail a modern high stability boat in a gale.

Trick question which has more stability on any measure (AVS or otherwise), an S& S 34 or a Mumm/Farr 30 one design?

Or say a Sydney 38 or a Cav 32?

IMS also through the scantling requirements brought a level of reliability that could not have been imagined with much of the IOR era.

As to interior design, that is not borne out. Unless of course you consider a French production boat a IMS boat.

By way of proportion, an IMS boat generally has less sail than a IOR boat of the same length.

lastly, the comment about tacking and gybing downwind, really!

You might want to have look at the polars for say a Farr 40 IOR and Sydney 38.

sorry.

Dear Lydia ,you know nothing about my experiences, nor do you know what I have sailed and in what conditions ? Like I know nothing about yours.

HI Team
Thanks very much for all your input into the discussion and it has helped greatly.
I think we can now call it a day on this topic and move forward.
Cheers

No capt_newmo i quite like this topic im also keen to up grade to one about this size
And a dumb question what does IOR and IMS stand for?

Select to expand quote

sunycoastguy said..
No capt_newmo i quite like this topic im also keen to up grade to one about this size
And a dumb question what does IOR and IMS stand for?

they are two of the older handicapping systems for racing yachts. the design of many yachts was influenced by efforts to try and gain the best advantage from the rating systems of the day...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Offshore_Rule
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Measurement_System

This may take a while.
IOR : International Offshore Rule was a measurement based formula rule which went through 5 major versions and yearly amendment.
Stability was measured by inclination and as stability equals speed this was penalized.
Boats where quite seaworthy in the right hands as for the most part did not fast enough to hurt themselves.
For instance Hobart winner Ultimate Challenge struggled to right itself from 90 degrees.
The AVS was most likely less than 100 degrees.
The rule gave the best close racing in the history of yachting and the best fleet numbers by far.
Even in Australia we used to hold national championships for 1/4 ton 925 foot), 1/2 ton (30 foot), 3/4 ton (34 foot) and one ton ( 36 then 40 foot).

IMS: international Measurement System was the first VPP based rule to be widely used.
You start with a hull file for the boat (hull shape) and with rig measurements the computer predicts how fast your boat should go.
It allowed for constructed courses where the boats handicap changed with the course construction.
He who beats the computer most wins.
Constructed course never gained wide acceptance in Australia however.
IMS measured stability as well and so many early IMS boats where quite tippy as less stability less handicap.
It did however give rise to most modern hull shapes we still have today.
The boats are very fast, light, don't load up and are easy to sail.
IMS also required a hull plan to be lodged and adopted ABS scantlings which resulted in very reliable construction.
In short most boats were overbuilt for the weight of the boats.
Rigs became more reliable as people got better at making carbon rigs.
High lift low CG keels also became the norm thank goodness.
IMS boats were expensive however.

The abuse a well built IMS boat can take as sea in a proper gale defies belief.
They have speed, stability and strength.

Many good IMS boats also do well under IRC.

IMS became ORCi which is really just a newer version of IMS.

hope that helps

Select to expand quote

lydia said..
This may take a while.
IOR : International Offshore Rule was a measurement based formula rule which went through 5 major versions and yearly amendment.
Stability was measured by inclination and as stability equals speed this was penalized.
Boats where quite seaworthy in the right hands as for the most part did not fast enough to hurt themselves.
For instance Hobart winner Ultimate Challenge struggled to right itself from 90 degrees.
The AVS was most likely less than 100 degrees.
The rule gave the best close racing in the history of yachting and the best fleet numbers by far.
Even in Australia we used to hold national championships for 1/4 ton 925 foot), 1/2 ton (30 foot), 3/4 ton (34 foot) and one ton ( 36 then 40 foot).

IMS: international Measurement System was the first VPP based rule to be widely used.
You start with a hull file for the boat (hull shape) and with rig measurements the computer predicts how fast your boat should go.
It allowed for constructed courses where the boats handicap changed with the course construction.
He who beats the computer most wins.
Constructed course never gained wide acceptance in Australia however.
IMS measured stability as well and so many early IMS boats where quite tippy as less stability less handicap.
It did however give rise to most modern hull shapes we still have today.
The boats are very fast, light, don't load up and are easy to sail.
IMS also required a hull plan to be lodged and adopted ABS scantlings which resulted in very reliable construction.
In short most boats were overbuilt for the weight of the boats.
Rigs became more reliable as people got better at making carbon rigs.
High lift low CG keels also became the norm thank goodness.
IMS boats were expensive however.

The abuse a well built IMS boat can take as sea in a proper gale defies belief.
They have speed, stability and strength.

Many good IMS boats also do well under IRC.

IMS became ORCi which is really just a newer version of IMS.

hope that helps

I will say upfront I know little about racing rules.
I need to understand better your comment on IOR rules that "Stability was measured by inclination and as stability equals speed this was penalized."
The S&S34 was a very successful IOR design yet it has one of the best stability ratings with an AVS over 140 degrees, depending on fitout and configuration.
Was the S&S34s favourable IOR handicap achieved through other means?

Hi MorningBird

The link below might help us to understand ?




svrover.com/2016/09/15/the-late-1980s-the-golden-age-of-yacht-design/1980s-the-golden-age-of-yacht-design/

Cheers

Let me put in a word for the Garry Mull designed Ranger33. Pre IOR so no quirky design features, just a fast comfortable seaworthy and seakindly little boat. Only drawback I can find is a rather narrow side deck and limited water storage (80 l). Probably disqualified because there are very few here in OZ.

www.latitude38.com/features/bomRanger33.htm

Show me a real Ct with an AVS of over 140 for an S&S 34 please.
Think you will find most are in the low 120s.
A Currawong is about 119 or a bit higher AVS, Ramona should have an IMS ct for that.

Also there two separate concepts here, righting moment and AVS.
Righting moment equal speed, hence 100 foot canters, max righting moment and minimum weight.
AVS is simply the angle where the boat no longer wants to go upright but would rather go upside down.

Also the S&S 34 is not actually an IOR boat but a CCA boat and don't have that much righting moment.
In any event when they did well it was before IOR Mark 3 (about 1972)
By 1975 it was all over for them.

I'm loving all this technical talk although it's a foreign language to me. I love that there
are guys out there who know the technical stuff to the Nth degree, but please don't let
this discussion escalate into an argument. We're all friends...remember !!.

One the great things about IMS was the Certificates gave everyone so much accurate information about the boats.
A lot of widely held beliefs about certain boats got blown way with the precision.
Also a whole lot of cheater boats got exposed as the information on the Cts was public and people would work out what could not be right.
I will get an ORCi ct and post it.

Select to expand quote

lydia said..
Show me a real Ct with an AVS of over 140 for an S&S 34 please.
Think you will find most are in the low 120s.
A Currawong is about 119 or a bit higher AVS, Ramona should have an IMS ct for that.

Also there two separate concepts here, righting moment and AVS.
Righting moment equal speed, hence 100 foot canters, max righting moment and minimum weight.
AVS is simply the angle where the boat no longer wants to go upright but would rather go upside down.

Also the S&S 34 is not actually an IOR boat but a CCA boat and don't have that much righting moment.
In any event when they did well it was before IOR Mark 3 (about 1972)
By 1975 it was all over for them.

I can't vouch for that AVS, it is a figure often used by owners and it obviously varies with each boat. Alex Whitworth and Alan Fenwick have used such figures with me. I'll chase up someone who has a proper AVS calculation.

The following is useful support for a 140 degree AVS.

There is an account here from Alex Whitworth that his Brolga 33 had an AVS of 136 degrees. https://reader.bookshout.com/reader/9780071813198/preview

This link notes an AVS of 150 degrees not being uncommon on older boats.
https://reader.bookshout.com/reader/9780071813198/preview

Some very interesting information on boat seaworthiness and stability by reading the full link.

Anyway, irrespective of the actual AVS my point is that the S&S34 is an extremely stiff boat with a high ballast ratio (2480kg 6ft deep keel on a 5500kg boat), strong righting moment and high resistance to capsize. Irrespective of the actual AVS figure (varies by boat anyway), the S&S34 is a very stable boat and yet it rated well in IOR. It seems that high stability did not disadvantage them.

PS. Interesting that it was all over for them by 1975. Huckleberry did very well in the 2007 S2H (28th overall, 3rd Div E) as did Azzurro in the 2015 race (3rd overall, 1st ORCi4 - and a bit of wind in the Derwent she would have won). A bit earlier in 1993 Marrara came 3rd overall. Blondie, a new S&S34, was winning everything in the west. In the right conditions, strong headwinds, they still do very well.

Azzurro is not really an S&S 34 anymore.
Keel modification, rudder post moved aft, foam deck etc.
It is a well prepared boat however.