I am curious if any owners or fans of these boats recall the scathing commentary on the 54 by Bob Perry (of Valiant fame) in Soundings, mid-1982. This was a joke and I wrote and told him so. The unmitigated gall of the man served for him to condemn the boat without even sailing one. The fact is the 54 began as Warren Luhrs' singlehanded ocean-racer and was heavily influenced by (but NOT copied from) Strongbow, a British 55-footer from about 1972. The very awkward execution of the marketed 1980 Hunter product is in stark contrast to the very clever, useable ketch that was originally planned (and designed). I only wish more people knew this stuff. Anyway it is nice to see that this site exists and that the work of a wonderful designer is not forgotten. As curator of my late father's archives I welcome EMail questions on the designs and their heritage and am constructing a Web site to provide answers and foster more discussion. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org. JComet@aol.com
- Status
A note in return
We are honored to have Mr. Cherubini in our forum, and I have asked (offline) that he not be a stranger here. ph.
We are honored to have Mr. Cherubini in our forum, and I have asked (offline) that he not be a stranger here. ph.
Mr. Cherubini.........
I am very interested in the work of your father, especially as it relates to cruising boats. I look forward to future postings to and from you. I have lived aboard my 1981 37c for twelve years, and have made many personal modifications. I am continually impressed with the design features and executions your Dad drew into this "modest production cruiser". Thanks. P.S. I will have to monitor those posts from abroad though, as we are taking off for Mexico and points South in January.
I am very interested in the work of your father, especially as it relates to cruising boats. I look forward to future postings to and from you. I have lived aboard my 1981 37c for twelve years, and have made many personal modifications. I am continually impressed with the design features and executions your Dad drew into this "modest production cruiser". Thanks. P.S. I will have to monitor those posts from abroad though, as we are taking off for Mexico and points South in January.
A lot of happy Cherubini Hunter owners
John, I't s a pleasure to read your note. I wasn't aware of the Bob Perry review; I was sailing small boats then so this is the first I've heard of it. Interesting. I live on a 1980 H37c, and previously I owned a 1979 H30. What great boats; beautiful lines, sail well, functional, spacious, sturdy and affordable. They've made it possible for a lot of us to enjoy countless hours sailing. Across the way from me is another frequently used H37c. Down the dock earlier this season was an H27 that had just returned to Connecticut from Florida. Your father's work has caused a lot of sailors to be happy and proud owners of a Cherubini Hunter. My sense is that people who have these boats are out sailing more often than most. We'd be very interested in hearing more about your father's designs and thinking during that period of his career. Sincerely, John Reid Cheese 'n Crackers
John, I't s a pleasure to read your note. I wasn't aware of the Bob Perry review; I was sailing small boats then so this is the first I've heard of it. Interesting. I live on a 1980 H37c, and previously I owned a 1979 H30. What great boats; beautiful lines, sail well, functional, spacious, sturdy and affordable. They've made it possible for a lot of us to enjoy countless hours sailing. Across the way from me is another frequently used H37c. Down the dock earlier this season was an H27 that had just returned to Connecticut from Florida. Your father's work has caused a lot of sailors to be happy and proud owners of a Cherubini Hunter. My sense is that people who have these boats are out sailing more often than most. We'd be very interested in hearing more about your father's designs and thinking during that period of his career. Sincerely, John Reid Cheese 'n Crackers
The 54 remains an underrated boat
Mr. Cherubini: I first learned about the H54 at this website. The word was that the boat didn't sell well because it was ahead of its time. Features such as the sugar scoop transom were considered radical at the time, although it's quite common today. I've heard that Cherubini designed the hull only on the 54. I am completely unaware of the history of its design, other than the general background that it was Warren Luhr's idea for a single-handed ocean racer. I'd love to know more about the original design of the H54, and the story of how it evolved into the final design. I bought one recently (hull #42), and my overall assessment is that it's a fast boat. I'd love to see the Soundings article from 1982 if you have a copy. Eric Lorgus s/v Impulse 83H54 GVIEric@AOL.com
Mr. Cherubini: I first learned about the H54 at this website. The word was that the boat didn't sell well because it was ahead of its time. Features such as the sugar scoop transom were considered radical at the time, although it's quite common today. I've heard that Cherubini designed the hull only on the 54. I am completely unaware of the history of its design, other than the general background that it was Warren Luhr's idea for a single-handed ocean racer. I'd love to know more about the original design of the H54, and the story of how it evolved into the final design. I bought one recently (hull #42), and my overall assessment is that it's a fast boat. I'd love to see the Soundings article from 1982 if you have a copy. Eric Lorgus s/v Impulse 83H54 GVIEric@AOL.com
Good to have some insight
I am not ashamed to admit that I vowed never to own a hunter, as I grew up sailing agianst the Legends and then seeing the newer sailboats that look like powerboats, have not interested me. When I went to buy my own boat I ran across a 33' Cherubini hunter with a sloped deck. I had never seen one and thought is sailed and resembled a C&C 32, but this one was conciderably cheaper. I will say that Hunter has made a mistake by not continueing this line of boats, I don't like the hard cabined ones but this one I love. Its handled 50 knots of wind just fine and sails great in the lighter stuff as well, the sloped deck allows for the waves to wash off before they reach the cockpit. I plan on moving up to a 54 in the future so you guy's that have them now, please take care of them so there is one left for me in 8 years or so. Ben Braden s/v Mary I
I am not ashamed to admit that I vowed never to own a hunter, as I grew up sailing agianst the Legends and then seeing the newer sailboats that look like powerboats, have not interested me. When I went to buy my own boat I ran across a 33' Cherubini hunter with a sloped deck. I had never seen one and thought is sailed and resembled a C&C 32, but this one was conciderably cheaper. I will say that Hunter has made a mistake by not continueing this line of boats, I don't like the hard cabined ones but this one I love. Its handled 50 knots of wind just fine and sails great in the lighter stuff as well, the sloped deck allows for the waves to wash off before they reach the cockpit. I plan on moving up to a 54 in the future so you guy's that have them now, please take care of them so there is one left for me in 8 years or so. Ben Braden s/v Mary I
Cherubini
What a nice thing for Mr. Cherubini to do for us. I don't sail my 27 every day but do visit for awile even in the cold rain we've been having for the past few days. Thankyou Mr. Cherubini and Hunter for a wonderful looking and sailing boat.
What a nice thing for Mr. Cherubini to do for us. I don't sail my 27 every day but do visit for awile even in the cold rain we've been having for the past few days. Thankyou Mr. Cherubini and Hunter for a wonderful looking and sailing boat.
Addendum on the 54
I made a stupd mistake here and said the Bob Perry article was in Soundings. It was actually in Sailing, what we used to call 'that really big magazine' –it's published in Wisconsin. I have lately learnt that Bob Perry still writes on other people's designs in his column at Sailing– going on 20 years now I guess. At the time (mid-1982) I wrote to the magazine making the point that to have a commercial yacht designer critique the work of other commercial yacht designers is an inappropriate conflict of interest. I mean OF COURSE Perry is going to prefer the Valiant 40 to the Cherubini 44! –though that's a little like comparing a Ford Explorer to a Bentley R2. The kicker was that whilst condemning the Hunter 54 on design parameters he admitted in the article that he had never actually sailed one. I won't go on about it here but this went all round the Cherubini family and Perry's name has been Mudd ever since. The fact is that even the production version of the Hunter 54 was a watershed design for the early '80s and at the asking price has never been equalled. I understand Sailing still has copies of the article available for the asking. J Cherubini II
I made a stupd mistake here and said the Bob Perry article was in Soundings. It was actually in Sailing, what we used to call 'that really big magazine' –it's published in Wisconsin. I have lately learnt that Bob Perry still writes on other people's designs in his column at Sailing– going on 20 years now I guess. At the time (mid-1982) I wrote to the magazine making the point that to have a commercial yacht designer critique the work of other commercial yacht designers is an inappropriate conflict of interest. I mean OF COURSE Perry is going to prefer the Valiant 40 to the Cherubini 44! –though that's a little like comparing a Ford Explorer to a Bentley R2. The kicker was that whilst condemning the Hunter 54 on design parameters he admitted in the article that he had never actually sailed one. I won't go on about it here but this went all round the Cherubini family and Perry's name has been Mudd ever since. The fact is that even the production version of the Hunter 54 was a watershed design for the early '80s and at the asking price has never been equalled. I understand Sailing still has copies of the article available for the asking. J Cherubini II
Thanks for the encouragement
I am impressed by the nice encouragement people have been giving. It's been a long time since I was a 'whippersnapper' looking at my dad's work upside-down from the other edge of the drawing board and it's nice to think what I say still has some value to people. I often think people think I am arrogant for stating opinion. But I sort of grew up with this stuff and by the time was 16 or 17 I was doing design work myself (i.e., interiors of the 25 and 30). I don't mean to be cocky and make this a personal forum or anything. I honestly mean it when I say the most pleasure I get out of stating my mind in here is when it's helpful to someone else in a real way. If that sounds too much like there's a halo over my head then remember what my name is! [laugh] JC
I am impressed by the nice encouragement people have been giving. It's been a long time since I was a 'whippersnapper' looking at my dad's work upside-down from the other edge of the drawing board and it's nice to think what I say still has some value to people. I often think people think I am arrogant for stating opinion. But I sort of grew up with this stuff and by the time was 16 or 17 I was doing design work myself (i.e., interiors of the 25 and 30). I don't mean to be cocky and make this a personal forum or anything. I honestly mean it when I say the most pleasure I get out of stating my mind in here is when it's helpful to someone else in a real way. If that sounds too much like there's a halo over my head then remember what my name is! [laugh] JC
Okay, some history on the 54.
Because people seem interested, here is some history on the Hunter 54. As you may know the original boat was to be a one-off cutter for Warren Luhrs to sail single-handed in the major ocean races, Observer, One-Two, and so forth. (He already owned a Cherubini 44, the first cutter-rigged one now at Tortola, painted green and known as Hiawatha.) The 54 was sort of styled after the 55-ft Strongbow, a British ocean racer from about 1974. Strongbow had the rig of a 37-ft boat on a dinghy hull with fin keel (like a big J-27) and weighed next to nothing. I would not term either this or the Hunter 54 an 'ultralight' boat although they were both heavily influenced by that California/Bill Lee movement of the time (as opposed to the IOR which we never cared about). But if weight does influence selling price, remember in a time when the 29,000-lb Cherubini 44 was going for about $140k, the Hunter 54 hit the market at $109k. It was like half-price for a boat of that LOA. As far as I know my dad designed the whole boat of the original racing 54, called 'Tuesday's Child' (as in '–is fair of face') which was displayed at the Hunter exhibit at Annapolis in 1977. It had a structural tube frame inside, like a drag-racing car. People came aboard and saw all the tubes and said, 'Oh, this must be for racing' because it didn't have what you'd call a marketable interior! There was no engine, no toilet, no deck hatches and no thru-hulls (the sink pumped up into the tiny cockpit). A tiller at the end of the midships cockpit was connected by cable on deck back to the outboard rudder on the transom about 14 ft aft. I think there were four winches. When people asked what all the tubing was for my dad told them, 'To hold the boat together.' Then they'd ask what the fibreglass was for and he'd say, 'To keep the water out'. Some people even asked why it was even in the show, but hey– it was Warren's money. We all laughed because no one got it. The contribution of Lars Bergstrom's X-shrouded rig may have come because Warren wanted to 'soup up' the 'production model'. He had met Bergstrom somewhere and they sort of hit it off I guess. The pure version of the Bergstrom rig has double spreaders set at about 120 degrees to the centreline and X-braced with wire so as to become panels– the mast gets to be like a business card folded lengthwise, stood on end. It does NOT require a standing backstay and I do not know my dad or Warren to have ever accepted that– the production Hunter and 'Tuesday's Child' both had standing backstays (though the Cherubini 48 schooner does not). The sad truth is that my dad's original idea for the cruising ketch (about as 'cruising' as a Corvette is a 'passenger car') was FAR better than the one that materialised with the input of Hunter marketing. The 'scoop transom' I would say was not one of the better features. There is really little seaworthiness call for one except for looks and they can be profoundly dangerous, as on the idiotic 64-footers now being used as a class for the Whitbread series. Anyone going to sea in an open-transom boat ought to have his head examined. The original 54 had a pretty, old-fashioned plumb transom just kissing the water (like the J-27) with either an outboard rudder– excellent for control on a long fast boat– or a spade rudder set about 18in forward. The silly dinghy 'garage' was a bad joke with a 'spring-loaded' door (we liked to say it was eminently 'poopable' –floodable with sea water, which could be catastrophic. In a bad storm I can imagine the weight of enough water cracking the butt end of the boat off). I guess in the Gulf where the marketers live there is rarely any real weather. But what's up with wasting 9ft of hull length on a boat with already so much deck space that you could store three 8-ft prams in a row in plain sight? Worst of all, the 'garage' necessitated putting the rudder post 9 ft forward of the transom where it was designed to be, and in combination with the low gearing of the helm system made the poor boat steer like a shopping-basket going backwards. This was one of the points Bob Perry (designer of the Valiant) got wrong in 1982 when he wrote about it in Sailing. He was very severe on the production boat's overall configuration and suggested the rudder so close to the fin keel (eerily reminiscent of Nat Herreshoff's 1898 Star, actually) made it too skittery. I think the problem was mostly exacerbated by the helm gearing. But Perry admitted in his article he had never sailed one. My brother had only that month sailed a friend's 54 and reported he had to cycle the wheel to and fro the whole while. It was nasty. You have to refit a smaller quadrant or take some length out of the cables I guess. I told Hunter about it and they were like, 'oh well'. But the helm-gearing problem fueled Perry's argument and we all resented his uninformed opinion going to print. (I don't know if I should say this but at the '82 Annapolis show Perry was stealthily listening in at the Cherubini 44 exhibit as my cousin Lee told some enquiring visitors what an '[expletive deleted]' he thought Perry was for the article. So Perry laughed, put out his hand and said, 'Lee, I'm Bob Perry.' Lee the ex-Marine just turned coldly from the guy's hand and said, 'Good– saves me from having to see you again to tell you!' –ha!) Anyway I wish it were more widely known how terrific my dad's own 54 ideas were. The best incarnation I have seen in the archive drawings (never built, though I'D build it like this) is a racing ketch version dated 1979 with a standing forestay on the mizzen, very tall high-aspect rig, 6-ft-deep fin keel with a VERY ahead-of-its-time streamlined bulb on the bottom, and an utterly beautiful sleek deck layout including a double aft cockpit and a low 'blister' cabin (like the original 25) that makes the Concorde look slow. He painted the hull with black India-ink on the Mylar drawing (something he did a lot) and it looks FANTASTIC. My dad was like that– even at 58 he was still devising hot-rod versions of every 'stock' boat he ever drew. I could tell you about the 'souped-up' H-25 show boat of 1975– but that's another story! I realise I have my own opinion of my dad's work, but I guess I know it better than anyone. It's very gratifying to hear of other people enthusiastically admiring his stuff for the right reasons too. Till the book comes out one day you may consider me available to answer your questions here or in EMail. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org. JComet@aol.com
Because people seem interested, here is some history on the Hunter 54. As you may know the original boat was to be a one-off cutter for Warren Luhrs to sail single-handed in the major ocean races, Observer, One-Two, and so forth. (He already owned a Cherubini 44, the first cutter-rigged one now at Tortola, painted green and known as Hiawatha.) The 54 was sort of styled after the 55-ft Strongbow, a British ocean racer from about 1974. Strongbow had the rig of a 37-ft boat on a dinghy hull with fin keel (like a big J-27) and weighed next to nothing. I would not term either this or the Hunter 54 an 'ultralight' boat although they were both heavily influenced by that California/Bill Lee movement of the time (as opposed to the IOR which we never cared about). But if weight does influence selling price, remember in a time when the 29,000-lb Cherubini 44 was going for about $140k, the Hunter 54 hit the market at $109k. It was like half-price for a boat of that LOA. As far as I know my dad designed the whole boat of the original racing 54, called 'Tuesday's Child' (as in '–is fair of face') which was displayed at the Hunter exhibit at Annapolis in 1977. It had a structural tube frame inside, like a drag-racing car. People came aboard and saw all the tubes and said, 'Oh, this must be for racing' because it didn't have what you'd call a marketable interior! There was no engine, no toilet, no deck hatches and no thru-hulls (the sink pumped up into the tiny cockpit). A tiller at the end of the midships cockpit was connected by cable on deck back to the outboard rudder on the transom about 14 ft aft. I think there were four winches. When people asked what all the tubing was for my dad told them, 'To hold the boat together.' Then they'd ask what the fibreglass was for and he'd say, 'To keep the water out'. Some people even asked why it was even in the show, but hey– it was Warren's money. We all laughed because no one got it. The contribution of Lars Bergstrom's X-shrouded rig may have come because Warren wanted to 'soup up' the 'production model'. He had met Bergstrom somewhere and they sort of hit it off I guess. The pure version of the Bergstrom rig has double spreaders set at about 120 degrees to the centreline and X-braced with wire so as to become panels– the mast gets to be like a business card folded lengthwise, stood on end. It does NOT require a standing backstay and I do not know my dad or Warren to have ever accepted that– the production Hunter and 'Tuesday's Child' both had standing backstays (though the Cherubini 48 schooner does not). The sad truth is that my dad's original idea for the cruising ketch (about as 'cruising' as a Corvette is a 'passenger car') was FAR better than the one that materialised with the input of Hunter marketing. The 'scoop transom' I would say was not one of the better features. There is really little seaworthiness call for one except for looks and they can be profoundly dangerous, as on the idiotic 64-footers now being used as a class for the Whitbread series. Anyone going to sea in an open-transom boat ought to have his head examined. The original 54 had a pretty, old-fashioned plumb transom just kissing the water (like the J-27) with either an outboard rudder– excellent for control on a long fast boat– or a spade rudder set about 18in forward. The silly dinghy 'garage' was a bad joke with a 'spring-loaded' door (we liked to say it was eminently 'poopable' –floodable with sea water, which could be catastrophic. In a bad storm I can imagine the weight of enough water cracking the butt end of the boat off). I guess in the Gulf where the marketers live there is rarely any real weather. But what's up with wasting 9ft of hull length on a boat with already so much deck space that you could store three 8-ft prams in a row in plain sight? Worst of all, the 'garage' necessitated putting the rudder post 9 ft forward of the transom where it was designed to be, and in combination with the low gearing of the helm system made the poor boat steer like a shopping-basket going backwards. This was one of the points Bob Perry (designer of the Valiant) got wrong in 1982 when he wrote about it in Sailing. He was very severe on the production boat's overall configuration and suggested the rudder so close to the fin keel (eerily reminiscent of Nat Herreshoff's 1898 Star, actually) made it too skittery. I think the problem was mostly exacerbated by the helm gearing. But Perry admitted in his article he had never sailed one. My brother had only that month sailed a friend's 54 and reported he had to cycle the wheel to and fro the whole while. It was nasty. You have to refit a smaller quadrant or take some length out of the cables I guess. I told Hunter about it and they were like, 'oh well'. But the helm-gearing problem fueled Perry's argument and we all resented his uninformed opinion going to print. (I don't know if I should say this but at the '82 Annapolis show Perry was stealthily listening in at the Cherubini 44 exhibit as my cousin Lee told some enquiring visitors what an '[expletive deleted]' he thought Perry was for the article. So Perry laughed, put out his hand and said, 'Lee, I'm Bob Perry.' Lee the ex-Marine just turned coldly from the guy's hand and said, 'Good– saves me from having to see you again to tell you!' –ha!) Anyway I wish it were more widely known how terrific my dad's own 54 ideas were. The best incarnation I have seen in the archive drawings (never built, though I'D build it like this) is a racing ketch version dated 1979 with a standing forestay on the mizzen, very tall high-aspect rig, 6-ft-deep fin keel with a VERY ahead-of-its-time streamlined bulb on the bottom, and an utterly beautiful sleek deck layout including a double aft cockpit and a low 'blister' cabin (like the original 25) that makes the Concorde look slow. He painted the hull with black India-ink on the Mylar drawing (something he did a lot) and it looks FANTASTIC. My dad was like that– even at 58 he was still devising hot-rod versions of every 'stock' boat he ever drew. I could tell you about the 'souped-up' H-25 show boat of 1975– but that's another story! I realise I have my own opinion of my dad's work, but I guess I know it better than anyone. It's very gratifying to hear of other people enthusiastically admiring his stuff for the right reasons too. Till the book comes out one day you may consider me available to answer your questions here or in EMail. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org. JComet@aol.com
Sour Grapes?
I sense a chip on your shoulder toward Bob Perry about an article he wrote 18 years ago about the 54. Tote a resentment that long and it affects all sorts of things and can distort your perspective. After all this time, perhaps a look at the designs that Perry penned before and since '82 gives him some authority to critique others' designs. I see no conflict there. Who better to critically look at sailboat design than a designer? Some of Perry's boats have met great acclaim in the market and in the oceans of the world. The Valiant 40 was one of the first medium displacement yachts to challenge the idea that a blue water boat had to have a D/L over 350 to be safe at sea. A Valiant 40 right out of the box won an early '70's Singlehanded TransAt. It wasn't a one-off tube frame design prototype that never saw commercial success in large numbers - it was a production boat. I believe another V40 won it's class in a Whitbread around-the-world race. It has been estimated that more Tayana 37's have circumnavigated than any other production sailboat. These were just two of the many designs he has drawn, from heavy full keelers to light displacement fin keel designs. Not all have been successful, but will be remembered for designs like the V40 that changed the face of production cruising sailboats. Now, what can you say about Cherubini design? That the marketing department from Hunter has turned out large numbers of boats best known for low cost, ie., cheap construction? Or that Hunter brought to market large numbers of models known more for low cost than outstanding sailing qualities? Bill Phish
I sense a chip on your shoulder toward Bob Perry about an article he wrote 18 years ago about the 54. Tote a resentment that long and it affects all sorts of things and can distort your perspective. After all this time, perhaps a look at the designs that Perry penned before and since '82 gives him some authority to critique others' designs. I see no conflict there. Who better to critically look at sailboat design than a designer? Some of Perry's boats have met great acclaim in the market and in the oceans of the world. The Valiant 40 was one of the first medium displacement yachts to challenge the idea that a blue water boat had to have a D/L over 350 to be safe at sea. A Valiant 40 right out of the box won an early '70's Singlehanded TransAt. It wasn't a one-off tube frame design prototype that never saw commercial success in large numbers - it was a production boat. I believe another V40 won it's class in a Whitbread around-the-world race. It has been estimated that more Tayana 37's have circumnavigated than any other production sailboat. These were just two of the many designs he has drawn, from heavy full keelers to light displacement fin keel designs. Not all have been successful, but will be remembered for designs like the V40 that changed the face of production cruising sailboats. Now, what can you say about Cherubini design? That the marketing department from Hunter has turned out large numbers of boats best known for low cost, ie., cheap construction? Or that Hunter brought to market large numbers of models known more for low cost than outstanding sailing qualities? Bill Phish
Perhaps of Interest
John, Thanks for your input to our forum. I am the proud owner of a 1979 25 footer and continually voice my accolades of "Whisper" as well as the other Cherubini designed Hunters. The reason I am posting this, however, is to let you know that there is an article coming out by Donald Bodemann on the Cherubini Hunters in a forthcoming issue of "Good Old Boat" magazine (I believe that it will appear in the Jan/Feb issue). Also there is a photo journal of the Cherubini Hunters (thanks to Carl) located within the confines of this Web.
John, Thanks for your input to our forum. I am the proud owner of a 1979 25 footer and continually voice my accolades of "Whisper" as well as the other Cherubini designed Hunters. The reason I am posting this, however, is to let you know that there is an article coming out by Donald Bodemann on the Cherubini Hunters in a forthcoming issue of "Good Old Boat" magazine (I believe that it will appear in the Jan/Feb issue). Also there is a photo journal of the Cherubini Hunters (thanks to Carl) located within the confines of this Web.
Good Old Boat magazine
I have corresponded with Don Bodemann about the article and look forward to seeing it in print. JC
I have corresponded with Don Bodemann about the article and look forward to seeing it in print. JC
Good Old Boat magazine
I have corresponded with Don Bodemann about the article and look forward to seeing it in print. JC
I have corresponded with Don Bodemann about the article and look forward to seeing it in print. JC
Sour grapes
Re: Mr Phish's comment I never meant to– nor ever actually DID– take anything away from Bob Perry's work. No one can deny the impact of the Valiant 40 either as a design or as a product on the boating industry. Perry's produced some very nice designs and has had enough marketing savvy to get his stuff built often, for long production runs, and in many corners of the globe. Perhaps most importantly his designs have a very high reputation for being eminently seaworthy (often at the expence of speed, but that's often a good thing). The problem is that as a commercial designer his objectivity as a critic can most definitely be compromised. It stung hard in 1982– and the idea, if not the actual words, of the circumstance still does sting– to think that because of his clout as a published critic, his uninformed personal opinion on another commercial designer's boat can have more weight than lesser-known fact. Perry stated outright in the article that he had never sailed a 54, yet he made the point very firmly that based on what he saw (an advertising brochure, NOT the plans) a yacht very unlike any of his own work would indeed sail as he claimed. The fact is that it did not, and other problems than what he asserted created another problem which I described. I think it's important to separate how an artist works in his artistic medium and what he says about others' art, which by definition he does not know as well as his own. The fact is that many artists, including yacht designers, can be particularly opinionated rather than open-mindedly objective. Imagine a designer from Ford writing on why the latest Chevy is or is not a good car. I've said a lot of stuff about marketers but would prefer to see someone who knows the industry from a customers' standpoint, or even someone like Larry Pardley or Dennis Conner as a critic. By the same token I will readily grant Mr Phish that I probably should NOT be a critic on boats other than what my dad designed– but then that has never been my intention and I don't recall EVER negatively criticising Bob Perry's work anywhere. I only pointed out the inaccuracies of his article which in a way stands as historical record on a boat I know better than he does. I apologise if that sounds like I'm getting personal. J Cherubini II
Re: Mr Phish's comment I never meant to– nor ever actually DID– take anything away from Bob Perry's work. No one can deny the impact of the Valiant 40 either as a design or as a product on the boating industry. Perry's produced some very nice designs and has had enough marketing savvy to get his stuff built often, for long production runs, and in many corners of the globe. Perhaps most importantly his designs have a very high reputation for being eminently seaworthy (often at the expence of speed, but that's often a good thing). The problem is that as a commercial designer his objectivity as a critic can most definitely be compromised. It stung hard in 1982– and the idea, if not the actual words, of the circumstance still does sting– to think that because of his clout as a published critic, his uninformed personal opinion on another commercial designer's boat can have more weight than lesser-known fact. Perry stated outright in the article that he had never sailed a 54, yet he made the point very firmly that based on what he saw (an advertising brochure, NOT the plans) a yacht very unlike any of his own work would indeed sail as he claimed. The fact is that it did not, and other problems than what he asserted created another problem which I described. I think it's important to separate how an artist works in his artistic medium and what he says about others' art, which by definition he does not know as well as his own. The fact is that many artists, including yacht designers, can be particularly opinionated rather than open-mindedly objective. Imagine a designer from Ford writing on why the latest Chevy is or is not a good car. I've said a lot of stuff about marketers but would prefer to see someone who knows the industry from a customers' standpoint, or even someone like Larry Pardley or Dennis Conner as a critic. By the same token I will readily grant Mr Phish that I probably should NOT be a critic on boats other than what my dad designed– but then that has never been my intention and I don't recall EVER negatively criticising Bob Perry's work anywhere. I only pointed out the inaccuracies of his article which in a way stands as historical record on a boat I know better than he does. I apologise if that sounds like I'm getting personal. J Cherubini II
Is Perry's the lesser sin?
It certainly sounds like Perry missed the ball on this review. But it also seems the 54 suffered some boneheaded changes between the elder Cherubini's original design and the production boat that finally resulted. Were I a designer, or someone worried about his legacy, the latter would smart more than the former. The actual boat refutes any foolishness a reviewer writes. But in same spirit, it blemishes what the designer intended, if not built to his standard. In this vein, I hope it was Hunter marketing or accounting, and not your father, who designed the 37C's holding tank so that a sawzall is required to replace it. I saw a newer Cherubini last month. Beautiful boat.
It certainly sounds like Perry missed the ball on this review. But it also seems the 54 suffered some boneheaded changes between the elder Cherubini's original design and the production boat that finally resulted. Were I a designer, or someone worried about his legacy, the latter would smart more than the former. The actual boat refutes any foolishness a reviewer writes. But in same spirit, it blemishes what the designer intended, if not built to his standard. In this vein, I hope it was Hunter marketing or accounting, and not your father, who designed the 37C's holding tank so that a sawzall is required to replace it. I saw a newer Cherubini last month. Beautiful boat.
Been there
I would say that you have it right on the 54 in toto. The first poster I'll make available is that stillborn prototype. You'll see what I mean about how far the boat came and decide if it's for better or for worse. On the tank thing– unfortunately not every decision a designer makes is a good one– some are not his alone, though that can seem a lame excuse. Tank location for sailboats can be a tricky business of compromise. I visited Viking Yacht once where they told me they do not design those behemoths to ever have the engines removed. They simply rebuild them in situ. Sadly it seems many sailboat builders and designers think the same of tanks. In the late '70s a trend was afoot to go to 'integral tankage'– i.e., just bulkhead off a section of bilge and fill it with diesel fuel. NOT the best solution!! –though it's been used often, even for fresh water. In a certain sense you've got to admit that jamming an aluminium container into a slightly bigger fibreglass container can seem superfluous. I am not entirely familiar with the particular installation in question but though I hate to say it, a Sawzall may not be a bad way to go. It doesn't even matter how you go in. The beauty of fibreglass is that it is not as directional as people think. In most cases, given good bonding and careful lay-up, even a large patch from the outside properly faired in can have little effect on the structural rigidity and strength of the boat. It's only breathing and wearing that 'white death' of the sawdust that is so awful. Then again maybe you can avoid work. What precisely is wrong with the tank? Is the clean-out plate accessible enough to get an arm and cleaning solvent into it? Can it be pumped by hand? Or, if it just plain leaks, can a flexible rubber tank be inserted into it and used instead? If you gauge your sizes right you may not even lose much capacity. JC
I would say that you have it right on the 54 in toto. The first poster I'll make available is that stillborn prototype. You'll see what I mean about how far the boat came and decide if it's for better or for worse. On the tank thing– unfortunately not every decision a designer makes is a good one– some are not his alone, though that can seem a lame excuse. Tank location for sailboats can be a tricky business of compromise. I visited Viking Yacht once where they told me they do not design those behemoths to ever have the engines removed. They simply rebuild them in situ. Sadly it seems many sailboat builders and designers think the same of tanks. In the late '70s a trend was afoot to go to 'integral tankage'– i.e., just bulkhead off a section of bilge and fill it with diesel fuel. NOT the best solution!! –though it's been used often, even for fresh water. In a certain sense you've got to admit that jamming an aluminium container into a slightly bigger fibreglass container can seem superfluous. I am not entirely familiar with the particular installation in question but though I hate to say it, a Sawzall may not be a bad way to go. It doesn't even matter how you go in. The beauty of fibreglass is that it is not as directional as people think. In most cases, given good bonding and careful lay-up, even a large patch from the outside properly faired in can have little effect on the structural rigidity and strength of the boat. It's only breathing and wearing that 'white death' of the sawdust that is so awful. Then again maybe you can avoid work. What precisely is wrong with the tank? Is the clean-out plate accessible enough to get an arm and cleaning solvent into it? Can it be pumped by hand? Or, if it just plain leaks, can a flexible rubber tank be inserted into it and used instead? If you gauge your sizes right you may not even lose much capacity. JC
- Status