Hi we seem to have our heart set on a hylas, but I just saw an irwin 43 that I really liked. Anybody can tell me the pro's and con's between a hylas and an irwin thanks a lot conny
- Status
night vs day
Hylas is generally considered to be one of the finest semi-production boats ever made (and still true today). Other than interior volume, I would say there is NO comparison. If someone is selling a Hylas for a value equivalent to that of an Irwin, PLEASE tell me so I can buy it.
Hylas is generally considered to be one of the finest semi-production boats ever made (and still true today). Other than interior volume, I would say there is NO comparison. If someone is selling a Hylas for a value equivalent to that of an Irwin, PLEASE tell me so I can buy it.
oh I see
Hi thanks for getting back with this info. Yep I was scared of this. We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing. Any idea how well this boat will sail? thanks again conny
Hi thanks for getting back with this info. Yep I was scared of this. We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing. Any idea how well this boat will sail? thanks again conny
Agree with Don.
Conny: I would have to agree with Don. Some of the Irwin's had some severe structural problems. I do not know which models, but I am sure you can find some into if you do some research. If you heart is set on a Hylas, then your heart is in the right place.
Conny: I would have to agree with Don. Some of the Irwin's had some severe structural problems. I do not know which models, but I am sure you can find some into if you do some research. If you heart is set on a Hylas, then your heart is in the right place.
thanks
thanks for the reply, yes we do feel safe with a hylas. But our budget is more irwin. I will do some research into problems with the 43. I do like their layout. there is a hylas in our budget range but it is in mazatlan and we would like to start in the carib. thanks again
thanks for the reply, yes we do feel safe with a hylas. But our budget is more irwin. I will do some research into problems with the 43. I do like their layout. there is a hylas in our budget range but it is in mazatlan and we would like to start in the carib. thanks again
As others have said..
The Hylas and Irwin's are leagues apart in structural and fit and finish build quality. It's like comparing a pair of "Pay-Less" men's dress shoes to a pair of hand made Cole Haan's.. For large cruising sail boats Hylas is in the top third of the quality and construction spectrum and Irwin probably falls somewhere in the bottom tenth percentile. The Irwin should be fine for the Carib but is not the best choice for extended open ocean voyaging..
The Hylas and Irwin's are leagues apart in structural and fit and finish build quality. It's like comparing a pair of "Pay-Less" men's dress shoes to a pair of hand made Cole Haan's.. For large cruising sail boats Hylas is in the top third of the quality and construction spectrum and Irwin probably falls somewhere in the bottom tenth percentile. The Irwin should be fine for the Carib but is not the best choice for extended open ocean voyaging..
YOu guys said it so much nicer than I would have...
I read this post this morning, and was going to reply then. I stepped back and came back to it tonight, and thankfully you all replied much better than I could have. I was going to compare porsches to pontiacs. Both fine autos, but obviously leagues apart.
I read this post this morning, and was going to reply then. I stepped back and came back to it tonight, and thankfully you all replied much better than I could have. I was going to compare porsches to pontiacs. Both fine autos, but obviously leagues apart.
Ouch, You've cut me to the quick
I have an Irwin made Barefoot 37 CC which is a custom built boat from the Irwin 37 molds, and even though my Irwin is a better quality, and I take no issue with the fact that the Hylas is a much better boat, the irwin is not as poor a boat as being in the bottom tenth percentile. In 1980 for example, the Irwin 37 cost $15,000 more than the hunter 37 and #15,000 less than the Tartan 37 and the quality was somewhat proportional to the cost. So it was pretty much in the middle of the pack. The Hylas quality may be better than the Tartan but if it is, it isn't by that much. Most Irwins are praised for their layouts and accommodations; and they make great coastal cruisers. Mine points well enough but is not as quick upwind, but it is fine off or down wind. I'm not trying to quarrel with anyone's comparison here, because I too believe the Hylas is a much better quality boat, But I think the Irwin is a much better boat than many of you contend. I have sailed for over 50 years and sailed on many quick boats and owned a couple myself. One actually was an Irwin Competition 30 which had to give time to all kinds of 30 footers, and still wiped them up. Such is life Joe S
I have an Irwin made Barefoot 37 CC which is a custom built boat from the Irwin 37 molds, and even though my Irwin is a better quality, and I take no issue with the fact that the Hylas is a much better boat, the irwin is not as poor a boat as being in the bottom tenth percentile. In 1980 for example, the Irwin 37 cost $15,000 more than the hunter 37 and #15,000 less than the Tartan 37 and the quality was somewhat proportional to the cost. So it was pretty much in the middle of the pack. The Hylas quality may be better than the Tartan but if it is, it isn't by that much. Most Irwins are praised for their layouts and accommodations; and they make great coastal cruisers. Mine points well enough but is not as quick upwind, but it is fine off or down wind. I'm not trying to quarrel with anyone's comparison here, because I too believe the Hylas is a much better quality boat, But I think the Irwin is a much better boat than many of you contend. I have sailed for over 50 years and sailed on many quick boats and owned a couple myself. One actually was an Irwin Competition 30 which had to give time to all kinds of 30 footers, and still wiped them up. Such is life Joe S
Sorry Joe..
Sorry Joe but I have to call them as I've personally seen them. I've witnessed some fairly bad structural build issues on Irwins. This in NOT to say they were ALL built this way however and I am in NO WAY insinuating they all have structural issues. I actually saw, had my hands on and poked at what was supposed to be a glassed in stringer that had been tabbed only then coated with resin. The wooden stringer was cracked and rotted because it had never been fully glassed over. I would have to guess that this was simply an over site at the factory or maybe a Monday "hangover" boat but I've witnessed this sort of stuff more than once, mostly on Citations, and not as much on the 37's and up. As I stated one would make a fine boat for the Carib and coastal cruising but just not extended blue water as the original post stated they may want to do a "crossing". I am going to post some direct quotes for those other than me on Irwin's so I'm not the one taking the heat.. These are direct quotes from various forums un-edited. In regards to a question about using an Irwin for blue water from a previous owner of a 44: "Robby...I owned an Irwin 44 which is essentially the same hull and build standard...and have been on Irwin 43's. They are great live aboard boats, and decent performing coastal cruisers. We cruised happily all the way up and down the East Coast of the US and Bahamas twice in ours. They are completely NOT blue water boats as there is too much flex in the hull in big seas. I would look at Kelly-Peterson44's and Whitby/Brewer42's for CC boats near the 100k range at the sacrifice of some living space. You will be looking at older boats in these models to hit your price point." From a guy looking at an Irwin 41CC: "I am currently looking at the 41 CC. The use would be coastal and blue water (New Zealand, Australia and Pacific). The boat has had one owner since 1983, who has lovingly looked after her. She was a centre board type, but after BREAKING two centre boards, it was removed and the "hole" replaced with lead." From a fiberglass guy hired to do a "keel crack" repair: "Am looking at an Irwin 39 that has cracking around the keel and hull joint that the current owners have started to grind out. They have owned the boat since new, it''s an ''80/''81 vintage and said they''ve never noticed any cracking until last winters haul-out for storage. This is a keel/centerboard set-up and I''m not familiar with this keel hull attachment. It seems that the ballast centerboard housing is bolted directly to the bottom of the hull with a flange extending about 4" out from the vertical sides of the keel. The bolts appear to be spaced about 4"-5" apart down the length of the keel. While feeling under the cabin sole, it seems that there might be a double row of bolts in the flange on both sides. Is this correct? It would certainly explain why they appear to me to be undersized (3/8"?). What it looks like to me is that the whole keel unit/flange assembly is bolted to the bottom of the hull in what should be a heavily laminated, possibly recessed area, and then faired in to the bottom of the hull with resin and fairing compounds. Does any Irwin owner out there have any experience with this set-up? Is my estimation of the situation far off the mark? The owners have asked me to repair this but I''m reluctant to start anything until I have an understanding of what''s involved. Any info or help in finding info would be greatly appreciated." From another previous Irwin owner in regards to cruising: "I owned and cruised for 5 years aboard an Irwin. While the boat served our needs and we knew the original owner (he kept the boat in emaculate condition) I would caution you. Irwins, in general, are not the best built boats out there. Things to look for: leaks at hull/deck, stantions, and chain plates. Original ports were cheap (but most have probably been replaced), deteriation of rudder post, steering assembly was undersized on ours, original running rigging undersized. Method of fastening interior joinery was marginal. A good surveyor will be aware of other items. bob-m" From a guy who's friend has lost two centerboards: "I''ve sailed on an Irwin 42CC before (or about that size anyway -- it''s been a few years), and the owner has lost 2 centerboards -- one off Hatteras and one in Annapolis harbor of all places. He said he wasn''t going to replace it after the second time because of the work that would be needed to beef up the pivot point to keep a third one on. He likes the boat, but in general, Irwin''s are a bit down the food chain in terms of quality and reputation." Another quote from an Irwin owner: "I can only speak for my own boat, which the original owner ordered with beefed up stern and bow as well as oversized chain plates. Having been aboard lots of boats, I find mine to be feel quite solid except for an area on the cabin top aft of the mast which I am going to beef up this summer. The interior is marginal in construction quality. I have a pan which flexes a bit on the floor. Locker interiors are crude at best. Windows suck. Hatches are marginal. Seacock were all gate valves, etc. etc. Deck hardware was not back plated including cabin top handrails. I can find other shortcuts like print through on gel coat." Here's a short list of some 43-46 foots boats under 200k: Amel Beneteau Brewer Catalina Formosa/Peterson Hunter Morgan Gulfstar Hardin Fuji Jenneau Liberty Ta Shing Panda Alden Bowman C&C Cheoy Lee CSY Freedom Hylas JBoats Nordic Noresman Reliance Endeavour Bruce Roberts Hans Christian Lafitte Mason Nauticat Oyster Slocum Wauquiez Baltic Barberis Halberg-Rassy Moody Pearson Passport Swan Sabre Tartan Tayana Vagabond Whitby
Sorry Joe but I have to call them as I've personally seen them. I've witnessed some fairly bad structural build issues on Irwins. This in NOT to say they were ALL built this way however and I am in NO WAY insinuating they all have structural issues. I actually saw, had my hands on and poked at what was supposed to be a glassed in stringer that had been tabbed only then coated with resin. The wooden stringer was cracked and rotted because it had never been fully glassed over. I would have to guess that this was simply an over site at the factory or maybe a Monday "hangover" boat but I've witnessed this sort of stuff more than once, mostly on Citations, and not as much on the 37's and up. As I stated one would make a fine boat for the Carib and coastal cruising but just not extended blue water as the original post stated they may want to do a "crossing". I am going to post some direct quotes for those other than me on Irwin's so I'm not the one taking the heat.. These are direct quotes from various forums un-edited. In regards to a question about using an Irwin for blue water from a previous owner of a 44: "Robby...I owned an Irwin 44 which is essentially the same hull and build standard...and have been on Irwin 43's. They are great live aboard boats, and decent performing coastal cruisers. We cruised happily all the way up and down the East Coast of the US and Bahamas twice in ours. They are completely NOT blue water boats as there is too much flex in the hull in big seas. I would look at Kelly-Peterson44's and Whitby/Brewer42's for CC boats near the 100k range at the sacrifice of some living space. You will be looking at older boats in these models to hit your price point." From a guy looking at an Irwin 41CC: "I am currently looking at the 41 CC. The use would be coastal and blue water (New Zealand, Australia and Pacific). The boat has had one owner since 1983, who has lovingly looked after her. She was a centre board type, but after BREAKING two centre boards, it was removed and the "hole" replaced with lead." From a fiberglass guy hired to do a "keel crack" repair: "Am looking at an Irwin 39 that has cracking around the keel and hull joint that the current owners have started to grind out. They have owned the boat since new, it''s an ''80/''81 vintage and said they''ve never noticed any cracking until last winters haul-out for storage. This is a keel/centerboard set-up and I''m not familiar with this keel hull attachment. It seems that the ballast centerboard housing is bolted directly to the bottom of the hull with a flange extending about 4" out from the vertical sides of the keel. The bolts appear to be spaced about 4"-5" apart down the length of the keel. While feeling under the cabin sole, it seems that there might be a double row of bolts in the flange on both sides. Is this correct? It would certainly explain why they appear to me to be undersized (3/8"?). What it looks like to me is that the whole keel unit/flange assembly is bolted to the bottom of the hull in what should be a heavily laminated, possibly recessed area, and then faired in to the bottom of the hull with resin and fairing compounds. Does any Irwin owner out there have any experience with this set-up? Is my estimation of the situation far off the mark? The owners have asked me to repair this but I''m reluctant to start anything until I have an understanding of what''s involved. Any info or help in finding info would be greatly appreciated." From another previous Irwin owner in regards to cruising: "I owned and cruised for 5 years aboard an Irwin. While the boat served our needs and we knew the original owner (he kept the boat in emaculate condition) I would caution you. Irwins, in general, are not the best built boats out there. Things to look for: leaks at hull/deck, stantions, and chain plates. Original ports were cheap (but most have probably been replaced), deteriation of rudder post, steering assembly was undersized on ours, original running rigging undersized. Method of fastening interior joinery was marginal. A good surveyor will be aware of other items. bob-m" From a guy who's friend has lost two centerboards: "I''ve sailed on an Irwin 42CC before (or about that size anyway -- it''s been a few years), and the owner has lost 2 centerboards -- one off Hatteras and one in Annapolis harbor of all places. He said he wasn''t going to replace it after the second time because of the work that would be needed to beef up the pivot point to keep a third one on. He likes the boat, but in general, Irwin''s are a bit down the food chain in terms of quality and reputation." Another quote from an Irwin owner: "I can only speak for my own boat, which the original owner ordered with beefed up stern and bow as well as oversized chain plates. Having been aboard lots of boats, I find mine to be feel quite solid except for an area on the cabin top aft of the mast which I am going to beef up this summer. The interior is marginal in construction quality. I have a pan which flexes a bit on the floor. Locker interiors are crude at best. Windows suck. Hatches are marginal. Seacock were all gate valves, etc. etc. Deck hardware was not back plated including cabin top handrails. I can find other shortcuts like print through on gel coat." Here's a short list of some 43-46 foots boats under 200k: Amel Beneteau Brewer Catalina Formosa/Peterson Hunter Morgan Gulfstar Hardin Fuji Jenneau Liberty Ta Shing Panda Alden Bowman C&C Cheoy Lee CSY Freedom Hylas JBoats Nordic Noresman Reliance Endeavour Bruce Roberts Hans Christian Lafitte Mason Nauticat Oyster Slocum Wauquiez Baltic Barberis Halberg-Rassy Moody Pearson Passport Swan Sabre Tartan Tayana Vagabond Whitby
Irwin Issues
If you decide on an Irwin, have a knowledgeable friend go over the boat in its entirety. Make sure you dont find and 'deal killers' before you pay a surveyor. One of the most serious issues with Irwins is the caulking. Usually it was done very poorly and Irwins have a reputation for soggy decks and rotten plywood bulkheads especially where the chain plates attach. If the original owner was aware of this, he may have addressed these issues. If you are seriously thinking of an Irwin, get on the Irwin owners site and ask this same question. You will get really good advice as to what to watch out for. Tony B
If you decide on an Irwin, have a knowledgeable friend go over the boat in its entirety. Make sure you dont find and 'deal killers' before you pay a surveyor. One of the most serious issues with Irwins is the caulking. Usually it was done very poorly and Irwins have a reputation for soggy decks and rotten plywood bulkheads especially where the chain plates attach. If the original owner was aware of this, he may have addressed these issues. If you are seriously thinking of an Irwin, get on the Irwin owners site and ask this same question. You will get really good advice as to what to watch out for. Tony B
Awe..
Quote: "He REALLY hates Irwins.." Awe c'mon I hate Irwins about as much as I hated the THREE Catalina's I owned!!
I don't hate them and as I said they are FINE coastal cruisers, as my three Catalina's were, but the OP asked about blue water voyaging or "crossings" what I translate as blue water.. If he had asked about an Irwin for strictly coastal I would have said they are perfect for that as Catalina's Bene's, O'day's, Hunter's, Bavaria's and Jenneau's are.. I have yet to meet an Irwin owner under 44 feet or so that will say their boat is blue water and even you stated so too. He was comparing to Hylas and you can't compare the two in terms of build quality any more than you could compare a Catalina, Hunter or Bene to a Hylas. I'm very surprised to see Spartan Marine seacocks in your boat as a factory install. That's very nice and you usually only see those in super high end vessels like Shannon's. I've never seen them before on the 5 or so Irwin's I have been on or in the bilges of. I do agree that when Ted was at the helm of the company things were MUCH better. If buying an Irwin one might want to find out the build years when Ted actually ran the company? I suspect SR's boat was built under the watchful eyes of Ted Irwin.. About the only mass production boat I've been on that I would consider for blue water would be some, not all, of the German Frer's Beneteau First series boats as they are built to a different and more robust level.. Again, for the Carib the Irwin will be a great boat and more roomy than most of the blue water designs..! As Tony said survey and thoroughly inspect ANY boat you investigate. I would also be concerned about a Hylas priced anywhere near an Irwin, Hunter, Catalina etc. as they sold new for LOTS more. Why is the Hylas so inexpensive is what I would want to know..?
Quote: "He REALLY hates Irwins.." Awe c'mon I hate Irwins about as much as I hated the THREE Catalina's I owned!!
I don't hate them and as I said they are FINE coastal cruisers, as my three Catalina's were, but the OP asked about blue water voyaging or "crossings" what I translate as blue water.. If he had asked about an Irwin for strictly coastal I would have said they are perfect for that as Catalina's Bene's, O'day's, Hunter's, Bavaria's and Jenneau's are.. I have yet to meet an Irwin owner under 44 feet or so that will say their boat is blue water and even you stated so too. He was comparing to Hylas and you can't compare the two in terms of build quality any more than you could compare a Catalina, Hunter or Bene to a Hylas. I'm very surprised to see Spartan Marine seacocks in your boat as a factory install. That's very nice and you usually only see those in super high end vessels like Shannon's. I've never seen them before on the 5 or so Irwin's I have been on or in the bilges of. I do agree that when Ted was at the helm of the company things were MUCH better. If buying an Irwin one might want to find out the build years when Ted actually ran the company? I suspect SR's boat was built under the watchful eyes of Ted Irwin.. About the only mass production boat I've been on that I would consider for blue water would be some, not all, of the German Frer's Beneteau First series boats as they are built to a different and more robust level.. Again, for the Carib the Irwin will be a great boat and more roomy than most of the blue water designs..! As Tony said survey and thoroughly inspect ANY boat you investigate. I would also be concerned about a Hylas priced anywhere near an Irwin, Hunter, Catalina etc. as they sold new for LOTS more. Why is the Hylas so inexpensive is what I would want to know..?
good enough for what he plans
"but the OP asked about blue water voyaging." Never read that! Actually, what he asked was: "We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing." For his stated purpose, there is nothing wrong with a well surveyed Irwin. Island hopping and liveaboard is expressly the design goal of these boats. How this got into a debate about what is a blue water boat, whatever that REALLY is, is irrelevant here and is a discussion usually found on Sailnet where everyone is an expert.
"but the OP asked about blue water voyaging." Never read that! Actually, what he asked was: "We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing." For his stated purpose, there is nothing wrong with a well surveyed Irwin. Island hopping and liveaboard is expressly the design goal of these boats. How this got into a debate about what is a blue water boat, whatever that REALLY is, is irrelevant here and is a discussion usually found on Sailnet where everyone is an expert.
Sorry Don..
Perhaps I misunderstood?? When Conny said "some sort of crossing" I, and many, would assume it means the pond or a large span of ocean that is not coastal.... Not coastal or a "crossing" is generally considered blue water voyaging.. The reason I interpreted this as blue water is because of the semantics. As Conny said they would be "hanging around the Carib" meaning they are already there "maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing".. I read this as a crossing from the Carib to somewhere far away not Carib Island hoping. Perhaps I read it wrong.. "We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing." Please remember what I said in my first post. I DID NOT mean to turn this into a blue water discussion just to answer the question as posted..: "The Irwin should be fine for the Carib but is not the best choice for extended open ocean voyaging.. " I said "not the BEST choice for EXTENDED open ocean voyaging". I did not say it can't be done! Most would agree that for a crossing there are some more suitable choices available. As I said before if they stay coastal and Carib it's MORE than adequate exactly as you said....
Perhaps I misunderstood?? When Conny said "some sort of crossing" I, and many, would assume it means the pond or a large span of ocean that is not coastal.... Not coastal or a "crossing" is generally considered blue water voyaging.. The reason I interpreted this as blue water is because of the semantics. As Conny said they would be "hanging around the Carib" meaning they are already there "maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing".. I read this as a crossing from the Carib to somewhere far away not Carib Island hoping. Perhaps I read it wrong.. "We are planning on probably just hanging around the carib. and maybe in the future (real maybe) do some sort of crossing." Please remember what I said in my first post. I DID NOT mean to turn this into a blue water discussion just to answer the question as posted..: "The Irwin should be fine for the Carib but is not the best choice for extended open ocean voyaging.. " I said "not the BEST choice for EXTENDED open ocean voyaging". I did not say it can't be done! Most would agree that for a crossing there are some more suitable choices available. As I said before if they stay coastal and Carib it's MORE than adequate exactly as you said....
- Status