A huge
cockpit with stern seats...

Way cool dude. Stern seats. LOL.........
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Case closed!...

You have me on the floor laughing once again dipwad. Nice try with the 2
photos. You show a link to a Catalina factory photo where a 18mm wide angle
lense was used and compare that to some owner's closeup of a sailbag on the
floor of his Merit.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

You show a link to a Catalina factory photo where a 18mm wide angle
lense was used and compare that to some owner's closeup of a sailbag on the
floor of his Merit.

I've seen both interiors. In person. Never saw the olson. If you're claiming
that the Merit and the 250 have the same (or even close to) the same interior
volume, you're a troll and liar.
In anycase, let the fellow look for himself. He won't find the accomodation
(above or below) remotely close.
Stern seats can be a nice item at times, Loco. If you ever gave women on board
you'll learn that too.
You'll note that I don't have to bash a boat to make a point. I can see that
the 250 has it's own specific advantages and market, So do the nimble Olson and
Merit. You can't simply because you're stupid and angry.
I know...the truth hurts. It's all personal for you and you always come up the
loser.
Watch for the report on my test sail of the wonderful 34XL, which we had today.
Sad times for you, Loco!

Bwahahahahaha!

RB

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 20:02:22 +0000, SAIL LOCO wrote:

Does anyone have opinions on the Catalina 250 wing-keel?

Great for camping. If you want to sail buy a Merit 25 or an Olson 25.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

OK...take your basic Merit/Olsen/Martin/Hotfoot/J and:

1. lose the $10K kevlar racing sails and put on dacron cruising sails
2. put roller furling on the headsail and MAYBE a "cruising spinnaker"
(AKA "downwind floppy genoa")
3. Add 1500 lb or so of "cruising gear": 2 anchors, chain, etc. dishes,
water tank, holding tank, BBQ, crabtrap... (I had all this and more in my
Cal 25)
4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull

Now, sail it "cruising style": steer with your foot while you eat, tack
when you've finished lunch, leave the traveller centered, undercanvas so
you don't heel too much...

And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it. Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive. For instance, they're not designed to sail downwind with a
genny. Many have very fine entries which work great when racing, but screw
up when there's 100lb of anchor gear in the bow.

Now, I do notice that the C250 has one thing I HATE: "water ballast". Last
I checked, water is NOT heavier than water so IMHO does not constitute
"ballast" in a boat (it would in an airplane...). Seeing Mac 26Xs heel
excessively (and slip like hell!) in light winds, even with that dinky
mast, is proof enough for me.

If you HAVE to trailer, get a swing keel. It's a compromise, but not as
bad as "water ballast". If you're not trailering, get a fin keel!

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36
previously:
"Starsend" Cal 25 (fin keel)
"Determination" Mac 22 (swing keel)

ps
We Cruisers have a name for the likes of you: we call you
"Sammich-anna-6-Pack Sailors"

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


OK...take your basic Merit/Olsen/Martin/Hotfoot/J and:

1. lose the $10K kevlar racing sails and put on dacron cruising sails

Why? If you've already got them, why not use them?


2. put roller furling on the headsail and MAYBE a "cruising spinnaker"
(AKA "downwind floppy genoa")
3. Add 1500 lb or so of "cruising gear": 2 anchors, chain, etc. dishes,
water tank, holding tank, BBQ, crabtrap... (I had all this and more in my
Cal 25)
4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull

Again, why? That's just plain neglectful and stupid. Especially on a small
boat that can be scrubbed with no great effort or time sunk.



Now, sail it "cruising style": steer with your foot while you eat, tack
when you've finished lunch, leave the traveller centered, undercanvas so
you don't heel too much...

And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it.

If the C25 was sailed under the same circumstances, not at all likely.


Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive. For instance, they're not designed to sail downwind with a
genny. Many have very fine entries which work great when racing, but screw
up when there's 100lb of anchor gear in the bow.

Actually, the finer bow is likely to be slowed down less by weight forward.

This kind of argument is common, but it's pure ignorance and wishful thinking.
FOr example, you know that Michael Jordan can jump higher than you, so that
suggests (by your logic) that you can therefore carry a heavier weight up a
hill.

If a Catalina 25 is trialed against a Merit 25, with both of them light or
both of them loaded, the Merit is going to prove faster.



Now, I do notice that the C250 has one thing I HATE: "water ballast". Last
I checked, water is NOT heavier than water so IMHO does not constitute
"ballast" in a boat

Another example of ignorance.

Water is heavy. It doesn't have to be "heavier than water" to be ballast, it
just has to be below the boats center of gravity, or even below the boats
metacenter.

Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in
the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full
of ice & beer?



If you HAVE to trailer, get a swing keel. It's a compromise, but not as
bad as "water ballast".

Depends on one's priorities, and of course, on one's knowledge & skill. I have
owned & sailed a water ballasted trailerable for years and found it very
satisfactory.


If you're not trailering, get a fin keel!

Why not a full keel?

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Now, I do notice that the C250 has one thing I HATE: "water ballast".

The C250 the fellow was talking about was NOT a water ballast. They have wing
version now.

RB

And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it. Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive.

Well said. And the 250 will have the better interior and cockpit for a family
while you're at it.
Loco enjoys bashing boats and anyone who doesn't like what he likes. Catalina
builds fine family boats and some can really be great serious cruisers. My
first boat was a Cat27, a great boat!

RB

Depends on one's priorities, and of course, on one's knowledge & skill. I have
owned & sailed a water ballasted trailerable for years and found it very
satisfactory.

According to Loco, Doug, you're a fool, as he's suggesting that the Catalina
with a standard wing is not suitable for anyone.
Perhaps you should talk with him!
I like the Merit and Olson, but I can see the value in your old Hunter and a
new 250.

Capt RB

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:28:48 +0000, DSK wrote:

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


OK...take your basic Merit/Olsen/Martin/Hotfoot/J and:

1. lose the $10K kevlar racing sails and put on dacron cruising sails

Why? If you've already got them, why not use them?


1. If you're buying new, you'd have to buy them, adding $10K to the
purchase price. Something cruisers don't do.
2. If they're used, the RACING concept would be to replace after a year to
two - again an expense most cruisers aren't will to accept.


2. put roller furling on the headsail and MAYBE a "cruising spinnaker"
(AKA "downwind floppy genoa")
3. Add 1500 lb or so of "cruising gear": 2 anchors, chain, etc. dishes,
water tank, holding tank, BBQ, crabtrap... (I had all this and more in my
Cal 25)
4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull

Again, why? That's just plain neglectful and stupid. Especially on a small
boat that can be scrubbed with no great effort or time sunk.

How many times do you haul the boat?? If it's a racing boat, it often gets
hauled after every race, or at least many times in one year. Cruising
boats typically get hauled once a year. This is my point of "racing" vs
"cruising" mentality.



Now, sail it "cruising style": steer with your foot while you eat, tack
when you've finished lunch, leave the traveller centered, undercanvas so
you don't heel too much...

And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it.

If the C25 was sailed under the same circumstances, not at all likely.


Hasn't been my experience. Many Martin 242's have been "converted" to
cruising boats, and they're not noticably faster than comparably-equipped
C25, C&C, US25, etc.


Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive. For instance, they're not designed to sail downwind with a
genny. Many have very fine entries which work great when racing, but screw
up when there's 100lb of anchor gear in the bow.

Actually, the finer bow is likely to be slowed down less by weight forward.

I was referring to weight distribution. A lighter boat will suffer more
from "incorrect" weight placement than a heavier boat. Also, lack of
bouyance fwd WILL be more affected by weight fwd.

This kind of argument is common, but it's pure ignorance and wishful thinking.
FOr example, you know that Michael Jordan can jump higher than you, so that
suggests (by your logic) that you can therefore carry a heavier weight up a
hill.

Nope. My logic is more like "MJ can jump higher than an NFL lineman
because the lineman's way heavier. Make MJ the same weight as the lineman,
and I'll bet he couldn't jump as high as the lineman."

If a Catalina 25 is trialed against a Merit 25, with both of them light or
both of them loaded, the Merit is going to prove faster.


Totally "like for like"? Maybe. But noticably? In a race, 1/4 knot is VERY
significant, but cruising, 1/2 knot is nothing.



Now, I do notice that the C250 has one thing I HATE: "water ballast". Last
I checked, water is NOT heavier than water so IMHO does not constitute
"ballast" in a boat

Another example of ignorance.

Water is heavy. It doesn't have to be "heavier than water" to be ballast, it
just has to be below the boats center of gravity, or even below the boats
metacenter.

Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in
the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full
of ice & beer?


Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics
if you feed me beer. In the meantime, try this experiment: fill a bottle
with water and see if it sinks.


Why not a full keel?

Too slow!

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


1. lose the $10K kevlar racing sails and put on dacron cruising sails

Why? If you've already got them, why not use them?


1. If you're buying new, you'd have to buy them, adding $10K to the
purchase price. Something cruisers don't do.

If you're going cruise, or race non-seriously, you can get 'normal' Dacron sails for
a Merit 25. The increased longevity of high tech sails usually makes them worth
having for somebody that sails a lot, though.... even cruising.....


2. If they're used, the RACING concept would be to replace after a year to
two - again an expense most cruisers aren't will to accept.

That doesn't make the Merit a slower boat than the Catalina 250... just that a Merit
with old sails is slower than a Merit 25 with new ones.



4. Add 6 mos accumulation of marine growth on the hull

Again, why? That's just plain neglectful and stupid. Especially on a small
boat that can be scrubbed with no great effort or time sunk.

How many times do you haul the boat?? If it's a racing boat, it often gets
hauled after every race, or at least many times in one year. Cruising
boats typically get hauled once a year. This is my point of "racing" vs
"cruising" mentality.

My point is that both are small boats. You can swim around them and scrub the bottom
two or three times a year and don't worry about hauling. Besides, if you're talking
about trailerables, then 'hauling' is a stupid thing to worry about.


And you'll find these pocket rocketships don't go so fast. In fact, the
C25 may even beat it.

If the C25 was sailed under the same circumstances, not at all likely.


Hasn't been my experience. Many Martin 242's have been "converted" to
cruising boats, and they're not noticably faster than comparably-equipped
C25, C&C, US25, etc.

In that case, I'd suspect that the boat has been more than just 'loaded to cruising
trim' and I'd also suspect that the skipper wasn't up to sailing fast anyway.




Why? The racers are designed to sail LIGHT and with
a lot of drive. For instance, they're not designed to sail downwind with a
genny. Many have very fine entries which work great when racing, but screw
up when there's 100lb of anchor gear in the bow.

Actually, the finer bow is likely to be slowed down less by weight forward.

I was referring to weight distribution. A lighter boat will suffer more
from "incorrect" weight placement than a heavier boat. Also, lack of
bouyance fwd WILL be more affected by weight fwd.

No it won't. The shape will still go through the water faster.

Basically, what you're trying to say is "This boat will beat that one under X
circumstances, so therefore the other boat will be faster under Y circumstances." As
though life were fair. It isn't. Just because Wayme Gretsky can beat you at hockey
doesn't mean you can automatically beat him at basketball.



.... My logic is more like "MJ can jump higher than an NFL lineman
because the lineman's way heavier. Make MJ the same weight as the lineman,
and I'll bet he couldn't jump as high as the lineman."

And you could still be wrong.



If a Catalina 25 is trialed against a Merit 25, with both of them light or
both of them loaded, the Merit is going to prove faster.


Totally "like for like"? Maybe. But noticably? In a race, 1/4 knot is VERY
significant, but cruising, 1/2 knot is nothing.

That depends on how far you're going. Each 1/2 knot is 4 miles further for every 8
hours sailing; which could mean getting to the same anchorage earlier or it could
mean getting to the next further anchorage. Besides, a boat with a more efficient
sail plan & underwater foils, such as the Merit or the Martin, is going to get to
windward at an increased margin over a 'cruising' boat.

Bottom line is, the Cat250 is roomier, but that doesn't automatically make it a
'better cruising' boat. And it darn sure doesn't make it faster with a load.


Tell me, is your boat's stability increased by filling a fuel tank down low in
the hull? Fuel is definitely lighter than water. How about a big cooler full
of ice & beer?


Compared to AIR, yes. Compared to lead, no. I'd show you the mathematics
if you feed me beer.

Math, huh? Do you do numbers any better than you do logic?

So... because lead ballast is better, as ballast, does that mean water cannot
function AT ALL as ballast?

No. Of course not.

So.... for a trailerable boat, where the weight of the ballast is a disadvantage at
specific and significant times, water is a pretty good choice for ballast.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King