Catalina 250
 

Does anyone have opinions on the Catalina 250 wing-keel?
Any issues with the balsa-reinforced cabin top?
How does she sail? Thanks for any info.

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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.

Here's some advice you can actually use.
The Merit and Olson are fast race boats with a fine history, but lack the
Catalina's cruisable nature. They are also not suitable for safe and relaxed
family sailing, if that's what you're looking for. Consider that the Merit
rates much like a J24, while the Catalina clocks in with a slow rating of
around 240, far less performance, but a stiff and stable platform for family
daysailing and weekend cruising. The Olson and Merit have interiors that are
something less than inviting, but then cruising is not what they're about. That
said, people have taken long trips on even smaller boats.
There's nothing wrong with the 250, if it fits your needs. Ignore the negative
types who will try to tell you to buy the boat "they" like.
Good luck!

RB
C&C 32
NY

Catalina 250
 

The Merit and Olson are fast race boats with a fine history, but lack the
Catalina's cruisable nature. They are also not suitable for safe and relaxed
family sailing, if that's what you're looking for.

Dipwad, not suitable for safe sailing? A Merit 25 has been safely sailed to
Hawaii singlehanded. I wouldn't try that on the Catalina. Check the numbers.
To the original poster I encourage you to look at the 3 boats. None of them
are designed for extended cruising but the Merit and Olson have fine "camping"
interiors every bit as servicable as the slug Catalina so why not buy the
better made and better sailing boat that will provide the most fun. Both the
Merit and Olson are dual purpose boats. The Catalina is a single purpose boat
and it ain't sailing.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

Dipwad, not suitable for safe sailing? A Merit 25 has been safely sailed to
Hawaii singlehanded. I wouldn't try that on the Catalina.

I said safe and relaxed for a family. A j24 wouldn't be a great idea either.
You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand that not
everyone wants a racing boat, so you hand out the same dumb advice again and
again.
The Catalina 250 is a fine little cruising boat, FAR more comfortable for a
family.

RB

Catalina 250
 

The Catalina is a single purpose boat
and it ain't sailing.

What an idiot.

RB

Catalina 250
 

And here's another opinion, which agrees with mine. It also gives a good idea
of what the loco character deems important in a boat, which is not to be
ignored either taken with a grain of salt.

http://old.cruisingworld.com/ssbk/catabrem.htm

Good luck. Don't let blowhards like Loco tell you what kind of boat to sail, No
one can determine what's right for you except YOU.

RB

Catalina 250
 

You don't understand that not
everyone wants a racing boat, so you hand out the same dumb advice again and
again.

You should take a look at the Olson 25 interior dipwad or maybe do a little
research by reading an old review. Everybody called it a dual purpose boat.
If you knew the boat you would know that the slug Catalina offers nothing over
the Olson or Merit. They all have basic accomadations. Does the Catalina
offer pressure water? no. Does the Catalina offer a marine head? no. Does the
Catalina offer an oven? no. Just what does the Catalina offer over the two
other better boats? Answer: nothing. In fact it offers less sail area, less
stability, less quality and less of anything else you could come up with. It's
not even as good looking as the Olson or Merit. Go away .... YOU KNOW NOTHING
ABOUT BOATS.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

You should take a look at the Olson 25 interior dipwad or maybe do a little
research by reading an old review.

Bwahahaha! It has maybe half the volume of the 250.
Not even close. Go buy a speedboat. You just don't get than not everyone wants
a "performance" boat. Some people just want to get their families on the water.
As we've learned, you generally sail alone.

RB

Catalina 250
 

They all have basic accomadations. Does the Catalina
offer pressure water? no. Does the Catalina offer a marine head? no. Does the
Catalina offer an oven? no. Just what does the Catalina offer over the two
other better boats? Answer: nothing.

Good lord, Loco.
Most 250's have a marine head and it's enclosed! Pressure water...yup. (ANY
boat can have these!) A large cabin that's better than the Olson's coffin? Yup!
A pop-top cabin for more room for a family. Walk through transom...yup. A huge
cockpit with stern seats...yup. It's a FAMILY boat, Loco. Get it through that
raisin sized brain of yours.
Here's the 250 interior:
http://www.texassailor.com/c250bro99b.jpg
Now....here's what you claim has the SAME interior....
http://newimages.yachtworld.com/1/0/8/5/2/1085203_2.jpg

Case closed!

Capt RB

Catalina 250
 

A huge
cockpit with stern seats...

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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" :)

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Catalina 250
 

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

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote:

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


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.



Yes, it does.

(actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway)

Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the
boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the
center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is)
and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and
therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit
because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off
with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle?

People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also
"heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply
not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope
on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the
upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in
air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the
water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself
- the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever.

Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is
still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force.
Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it
increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened.

But "ballast"? No.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

I'm going to print this out and read it thoroughly, but, overall, I'm
going to disagree.
Filling a fuel tank or beer cooler, down low in the hull, will
DEFINITELY increase stability. It's a question of added weights to the hull.
Water Ballast, is a great way to add draft as well as stability, to a
hull (unless you leave the tank slack, in which case, the "free surface"
can outweigh the additional stability).

otn

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote:

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:



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.




Yes, it does.

(actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway)

Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the
boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the
center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is)
and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and
therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit
because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off
with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle?

People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also
"heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply
not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope
on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the
upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in
air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the
water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself
- the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever.

Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is
still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force.
Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it
increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened.

But "ballast"? No.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Catalina 250
 

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

Lloyd if you new anything you would know that the Merit and Olson are nothing
like the Martin and the Hotfoot. By the way the displacement of the Catalina
250 is not far off from the Merit or Olson so there goes the rest of your
argument.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

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

So are you saying that the Catalina comes into her own under these conditions?


S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

Loco enjoys bashing boats and anyone who doesn't like what he likes.


LOL.................. Your the main boat basher. I just offered an opinion
on some better alternatives in 25' boats.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

PS Add weight to the hull and you change stability. Add it high, you
lessen stability, add it low, and you increase stability. The
type/composition of the weight, is immaterial.

otn

otnmbrd wrote:
I'm going to print this out and read it thoroughly, but, overall, I'm
going to disagree.
Filling a fuel tank or beer cooler, down low in the hull, will
DEFINITELY increase stability. It's a question of added weights to the
hull.
Water Ballast, is a great way to add draft as well as stability, to a
hull (unless you leave the tank slack, in which case, the "free surface"
can outweigh the additional stability).

otn

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote:

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:



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.




Yes, it does.

(actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway)

Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on
the
boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the
center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel
is)
and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and
therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit
because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off
with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle?

People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also
"heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply
not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a
rope
on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the
upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in
air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the
water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself
- the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever.

Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward
force is
still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force.
Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it
increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened.

But "ballast"? No.

Lloyd Sumpter
"Far Cove" Catalina 36

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also
"heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply
not the case.

True enough, but totally irrelevant. Which weighs more, a ton of feathers or a
ton of lead?

You are totally off base and your physics is wrong. Sorry to be so blunt. You
have no concept of what produces rightning moment; I suggest reading a good
simplified text on naval architecture, such as Robert Perry's book or Skene's
Elements of Yacht Design. Read the section on "metacentric height' two or
three times.

You point out that lead sinks and water does not. It seems to me that the
point is to increase stability of the boat, not to sink it. Wouldn't water
ballast be better, then?

If you like to paint imaginary scenarios illustrating how water functions as
ballast, then picture the following: a big ice chest full of cold beer. Take
it aboard your boat. The boat sinks a little deeper as the weight of the
cooler comes aboard, it's displacement has increased. In other words, the boat
is supporting the weight of that cooler & it's contents, wether those contents
are feathers or depleted uranium.

Now hoist that cooler to the top of the mast and try heeling the boat. Of
course, stability has been reduced, it will take less force to heel the boat
to any given angle. Now lower the cooler and place it as low as possible
against the bottom of the hull. Try heeling the boat again, of course you'll
find that stability has been improved. It will take more force to heel the
boat to any given angle.

Taa Daa!

A cooler full of ice & beer, which is absolutely lighter than water and does
not sink, has become ballast.

You're welcome.

Doug King

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

anony,

Everyone knows they are anti-flotation devices.

Regards, Ron

Catalina 250
 

Your the main boat basher. I just offered an opinion
on some better alternatives in 25' boats.

No, you didn't. Your post is below. It's bashing a boat you've never sailed.

Great for camping. If you want to sail buy a Merit 25 or an Olson 25.

The Catailina 250 is a fine boat for someone who's seeking greater comfort and
a more forgiving platform for a family. You must also think Doug's boat was
dumb as well. Why not challenge his comments about the 250? Problem is, Loco,
you're a coward and a fool.
Calling the Catalina a "camping" boat that can't sail only proves it. You're
probably just upset that like me, the fellow will have a modern boat while you
sail a dead design dinosaur.

truth

RB

Catalina 250
 

the fellow will have a modern boat while you sail a dead design
dinosaur.

I guess that's why we are first to cross the finish line so often.


S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

the fellow will have a modern boat while you sail a dead design
dinosaur.

I guess that's why we are first to cross the finish line so often.

How often? There were very few built. Most people never heard of it. Catalina's
of the same vintage have better value and are worth more. So do O'Days. Look it
up.

RB

Catalina 250
 

How often? There were very few built. Most people never heard of it.
Catalina's
of the same vintage have better value and are worth more. So do O'Days. Look it
up....

Once again you prove that you have dyslexia. In my post I said we. I sais
we were first to cross the finish line often. I can't account for other boats.
I can tell you that 2 different Express 30s have been high point champions on
the Chesapeak Bay 5 different times. The C&C 34XL or any other version of that
boat have never won that award once. Suck it up dipwad.
BTW many people don't race 1 design since any of the popular boats in their
area may not fit their needs in other respects. Your such a putz.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

Catalina's
of the same vintage have better value and are worth more.

LOL................ Easy answer. That's because performance boat buyers are
usually more savy. The same guy who buys Consumers report to determine what
toaster to buy buys a Catalina or Hunter. The Catalina or Hunter arn't worth
more their buyer just pays more.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

I can tell you that 2 different Express 30s have been high point champions on
the Chesapeak Bay 5 different times. The C&C 34XL or any other version of that
boat have never won that award once. Suck it up dipwad.

Poor Loco. Sailing handicapped is a joke. Sail boat to boat, one design and
maybe you prove something. I see more Catalina's winning in the USA than
Express by a HUGE margin!

RB

Catalina 250
 

The Catalina or Hunter arn't worth
more their buyer just pays more.

Which makes them worth more, dopey!

Bwahahahaha!

RB

Catalina 250
 

The C&C 34XL or any other version of that
boat have never won that award once. Suck it up dipwad.

Are you saying that the 34R is not a winning boat? Are you aware that the XL is
that design outfitted to a cruisable version?
Shall I link you to the hullform/spec comparison? I guess If I wanted to race,
I'd buy a 34R. No thanks! Enjoy your ancient boat!

You lose...AGAIN!

RB

Water ballast (WAS: Catalina 250)
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:50:58 -0700,
Lloyd Sumpter wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:02:00 +0000, DSK wrote:

Lloyd Sumpter wrote:


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.



Yes, it does.

(actually, it's physics, not math, but you owe me a beer anyway)

Draw a diagram if you like. Now, the keel imparts a righting moment on the
boat because it exerts a downward force offset (in the x-dir) from the
center of rotation by the distance from the CofR (ie how deep the keel is)
and the angle of heel. Problem is, a water-filled keel does not sink and
therefore exerts NO downward force in water! (actually it does sink a bit
because the fibreglass the keel is made from sinks. You'd be better off
with a solid fibreglass keel...) Remember the water-filled bottle?

People think that because water is "heavy" in air means that it's also
"heavy" (ie exerts a significant downward force) in water. This is simply
not the case. Imagine this: get a boat with no keel and a mast. Put a rope
on the mast and pull on it, giving the boat heel. Now, put a boom out the
upward side with a bucket filled with water. As long as the bucket is in
air, it exerts a righting moment against the rope. But when it's in the
water, the only righting moment from the bucket is from the bucket itself
- the water exerts no righting moment whatsoever.

Now, having a water-filled keel that exerts virtually no downward force is
still preferable to an air-filled keel, which exerts an UPWARD force.
Also, water in the keel will help the boat's "stability" in that it
increases the overall mass (F=ma) so movement is dampened.

But "ballast"? No.


How is that not ballast?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/mHFOd90bcYOAWPYRAsQGAJ9jKSRTL3qVQyBqecQI2WWfiS3Dtg CgkVfe
AZCfVbS1dK8vR/vA1xm4W3k=
=5Qgc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Hello, and thank you for calling MicroSoft technical support. May I
ask what version of Code Red your server is running?"

Catalina 250
 

Poor Loco. Sailing handicapped is a joke. Sail boat to boat, one design
and
maybe you prove something. I see more Catalina's winning in the USA than
Express by a HUGE margin!..

What a stupid comment. 80 Express 30s were made comparied to how many
Catalinas? The other stupid part about your comment is if your seeing a bunch
of Catalina wins it's because of the 27. Many people race the 27. I have
NEVER seen a Catalina 30 on the race course except with the possible exception
of some non spinnaker fun race.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

Are you saying that the 34R is not a winning boat? Are you aware that the XL
is
that design outfitted to a cruisable version?

**** you don't even know anything about the boat your (?) buying. The XL stood
for Extra Light. It was C&Cs attempt to combine some of the features of the R
with features of the cruise model to make a better dual purpose boat. A race
boat. I know the boat. Also I never said it wasn't a "winning" boat. Go back
and read again. You always have to do that lately. I said it (in any version)
has never won high point on the Chesapeak Bay. A tough feat to accomplish.
But hey Express 30s have won the award 5 times and a 35 has won more than once.
Maybe the 34R, XL or whatever - has been a winner in your little corner of the
world. The Chesapeak is pretty competitive. Bring that thing down here. Oh
that's right you only "race" people who don't know they are racing.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
Trains are a winter sport

Catalina 250
 

What a stupid comment. 80 Express 30s were made comparied to how many
Catalinas?

80 boats!!! Bwahahahahaha! So you bought a boat that can only race handicap,
yet you "claim" it comes in first all the time, wins more races and so on!
What a joke. I had no idea the boat had been such a failure. I have a lot of
friends who race loco and do so year round. They ALL own boats that can race
and do race one design.
You just can't win!

RB