Association Forum - Seaworthiness of Catalina Yachts

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

Seaworthiness of Catalina Yachts

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Member Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Initially Posted - 01/26/2004 : 11:26:20

In browsing sailnet and the Catalina website, I came across some interesting information to pass along to you. The various models of Catalina yachts are designed to the standards indicated on the following Catalina website:

http://www.catalinayachts.com/certif.cfm

(I tried to insert a copy of that webpage here, but the formatting was all messed up.)

The International Marine Certification Institute established a set of minimum standards for the construction of small yachts, depending on how they are intended to be used. A lengthy but somewhat informative conversation about these standards, as applied to Catalinas and other yachts, is taking place on sailnet.com in the “boat buying” category, and I thought some of you would be interested. If you go to that site and read the posts, you will notice that virtually all of the participants are biased in favor of or against Catalinas, but, if you take it all with a big grain of salt, it is an informative discussion.

The pro-Catalina people believe the standards prove that Catalinas are well designed for their intended purpose, and that the Catalina yachts that are certified as conforming with “CE Class A Ocean” meet, at the very least, the minimum standards for an ocean-going yacht. The anti-Catalina people contend that the standards themselves are inadequate, and should have been more stringently drawn. Personally, I think the experts who drafted and agreed upon the standards considered them to be the minimum standards required for a yacht that is reasonably safe to sail in the prescribed conditions. As for the people who think the standards are inadequate, I suspect they are representative of a minority of the experts, whose views did not prevail at the conference where the standards were promulgated. I don’t believe the Institute would have announced a set of standards for ocean-going yachts, and other yachts, if the majority of them didn’t believe the standards were at least nominally sufficient. That doesn’t mean a Catalina is an ideal choice for blue-water sailing. It just means that it at least meets the minimum standards that a group of yacht design experts consider necessary for an ocean-going yacht.

When some ill-informed dock crawler with three beers in him starts crowing about the inadequacies of Catalinas, a reference to these standards ought to stop him in his tracks. The anti-Catalina people also point out that the certification only means that the design of the boat meets the standards, but that the standards do not provide any assurance that the boat was actually built as shown in the plans. However, if Catalina falsely advertised that their yachts meet the CE Class A Ocean standards, but didn’t build them according to the approved designs, and if someone bought a Catalina yacht in reliance on those false representations, and was killed or grievously injured, Catalina would be setting itself up to lose a lawsuit that might result in the demise of the company itself. I have never seen an indication that Frank Butler is that short-sighted.

C-250 owners should take note that both the wing keel and water ballast versions are certified to be in compliance with CE Class “C,” which means that they are designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes, rivers and canals where conditions up to, and including wind force 6 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights up to, and including 2 meters may be experienced.

Steve Milby J/24 "Captiva Wind"
previously C&C 35, Cal 25, C25 TR/FK, C22
Past Commodore

Edited by - on

JimB517
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
3285 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 13:11:07

When I am offshore in tough conditions, Frank Butler is not responsible, I am. Responsibility for one's own actions is a lesson people have a hard time learning these days. Some days I make the responsible decision to stay at the dock and walk on the beach because my experience (or crew) is not up to the conditions.

27 knots of wind and 6.5 foot seas would be a load for a C25/250. The boat could probably handle it but I'd be overwhelmed. I know some of our experienced members have sailed the C25s in "B" conditions. I believe that is how they got to be "experienced".

The big market Catalina enjoys helps us - all the flaws are known and fixes are readily available.

Cool to know that the C30 Mark III is "A" rated. It's probably the most blue water boat available for the money. A C30 was out yesterday playing with me in very tough conditions (I was on my friend's Cal 28).

Edited by - on

Douglas
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

1595 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 13:23:54

All the information you have provided is very nice. I dont understand the point of posting it all though. I have sailed open ocean. Would I take a C-25 to sea for a long voyage (No). Can it be done (Yes). Would I be ok with the risk involved (No).
If you want to sail to the Bahamas Im fine with that or to Catalina Island. OK . (BUT) and its a big but if you are up to taking these riska and do get caught in rough weather you will find yourself close to God in a hurry. I have been there and it scared the hell out of me. I have seen the outboard motor swing in a 12 to 14 foot arc going weightless and crashing against the stern in both directions until I thought it would tear off. I have heard the flat bottom of the boat pound so hard I wondered if the fiberglass might fracture or the keel seperate. I have seen a mast whip through the air so far it was unimaginable. I as well as my crew were scared to death. We only had one course and that was to deal with it and save ourselfs. I would never do it again. I would never put my wife or family in that much danger ever again. So its all well and good for someone to argue about the Catalina being sea worthy or a manufactuer to say they are so they can sell boats. Take it from someone who has done it and DONT. There are a lucky few who tempted fate and got away with it because the storm didn't find them. Be a prudent and wise sailor and dont go out there unless you have a vessel well equiped and designed for the purpose. Don't rely on the Coast Guard to rescue you if you do go.
I have been there since but I sold my lovely little Catalina and bought a heavy displacement boat designed for it. I did get caught in a very bad storm and yes I still got scared. The boat I had was designed to handle the conditions and it realy helped. I knew I would be safe. It wouldn't be the boat that might let me down just my sailing skill. I did fine and Im confident I can do it again if needed. I wont do it on purpose. I would never do it in a C-25.
So yes you can rate a boat as seaworthy or not. Its a selling point from a dealers view.
I loved my Catalina and if I were inclined to stay in my local pond I would go back to a Catalina. They are great boats. They aren't intended for the ocean.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 14:06:38

Steve,

That's some pretty good info, thanks for posting it.

Doug,

Steve was posting information on the construction standards used in the building Catalina boats and, according to that information, Steve stated...

"C250's are certified to be in compliance with CE Class “C,” which means that they are designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes, rivers and canals where conditions up to, and including wind force 6 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights up to, and including 2 meters may be experienced."

In this text, I don't see where anyone is suggesting that it is okay to go open ocean cruising in a 25 foot boat, so I don't exactly know what you are reacting to?!

Edited by - dlucier on 01/26/2004 14:19:03

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 14:29:08

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I loved my Catalina and if I were inclined to stay in my local pond I would go back to a Catalina. They are great boats. They aren't intended for the ocean.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Catalina builds a full line of yachts, from daysailers to 47' cruisers. Some are intended for ocean sailing and some clearly are not. The standards that are published by Catalina don't apply to the C-25s, because the standards were only promulgated in 1994, after Catalina stopped building C-25s. But, I agree with you that the C-25 is a coastal cruiser.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So its all well and good for someone to argue about the Catalina being sea worthy or a manufactuer to say they are so they can sell boats.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The CE standards were not promulgated by Catalina just to sell boats. They were devised by an international group of yacht designers, who wanted to create reasonable minimum standards for the design of ocean-going and coastal cruising yachts. I'm sure there were some who wanted more stringent standards in some respects, and others who wanted less stringent standards, but the CE standards represent the collective judgment of the group. It's possible that the majority were corrupt, or were bought off by the industry, but (call me gullible) I don't believe that. The industry (especially the companies like Island Packet and Pacific Seacraft) has an interest in establishing reasonable and universally accepted standards for yacht design. It prevents companies from marketing cheap, poorly designed boats as seaworthy. The well-designed boats that can meet the standards have some measure of protection from their poorly-designed competitors that cannot meet the standards. The good designers can advertise that their boats meet the standards, and the bad competitors cannot.

Also, the people who promulgated the standards aren't recommending that we take our boats out in the maximum rated conditions. They're just saying that the boats are designed so that they are reasonably capable of coping with those conditions. Like you, my practice is to never sail in heavy weather if I have a choice, even if the boat is clearly up to the task. But, I was a little surprised at the design ability of the C-250, for example, and people who get caught in a little bad weather might not be so inclined to panic

if they know that the boat is designed to take even higher winds or bigger seas.

It's good to know the capability of your boat, even if you don't intend to use it that way.

Edited by - on

Raskal
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
162 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 17:47:40

It's my understanding that an item listing as "CE" ("Certification Europeenne"?) conforms to standards developed by the European Union for purposes of trade done within its member states. You will see many imported electrical appliances in our stores with the "CE" stamped on parts: it would be the equivalent of our "UL" certification. The "CE" standards for yachts were probably constructed on the old Lloyd's scantlings and other European national standards; the countries involved have active shipping and shipbuilding industries (unlike America, where our government sees seafaring as an anachronism unworthy of attention in the jet age)and probably put together some very serious standards for all vessel types. I doubt American builders had much say in its development and when one compares the solid construction of even the smallest European yachts it would be a good sign if an American builder can claim to meet them.

Rich Kokoska

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 18:45:58

Thanks Steve for sharing this here....very interesting.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 20:47:32

Interesting stuff... I agree that the captain is responsible, but I don't necessarily agree that the captain knows how the construction of his/her boat prepares it for adverse conditions. We need standards prepared by experts to establish the basic parameters and help us, the laymen, to select a boat for the use we have in mind. Personally, I require a vessel that is suitable for considerably more than I expect to ask of it, and given my conservative tendencies and "inshore" sailing grounds, I'm confident I found it in the C-25. But I've been around boats for 50+ years, and feel confident in my instincts. Nonetheless, I welcome standards and measurements against them. The C-250 measures quite well.

Edited by - on

ClamBeach
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

3072 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 21:33:57

There are so many variables when it comes to 'seaworthiness' in regards to 'coastal' and 'offshore' ratings. One of the worst situations you can get caught in is being inshore in shallow water with current running contrary to wind. This produces short period breaking waves that give a boat a terrible pounding.

Unfortunately, this is also a very likely scenario for a 'coastal cruiser'.

I think the most important part of the rating is the ability for an offshore boat to take an extended beating and survive. The coastal boat still needs be able to take a good amount of abuse too... at least for awhile.

Bottom line, don't go further from shelter than your confidence in the weather forecast and the ability of your boat to reach shelter in the amount of time allowed by that forecast.

Edited by - on

Douglas
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

1595 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 22:24:17

Sorry: I get all excited when I read between the lines. Someone thinking about sailing their C-25 around the world. You know they are out there. It's a great boat but like I said if there is a good storm your goose can be cooked in a Texas minute. 50Kts of wind and 12 foot waves can come on you in just a few minutes. Add in a tidal change and have the two opposing each other and you have what we call here in Puget Sound Point Wilson. Coastal water is a very vague term. Coastal is often worse that being out past the shelf. I think what they are trying to say without realy saying it is stay close so you can run when the weather breakes.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 23:25:13

According to the boat design categories as defined by the Institute Recreational Craft, I've had my C25 out in Category "A" winds (over 40 knots) and Category "B" waves.

Question: Does this make my boat a B+ or A-?

Edited by - on

Leon Sisson
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1893 Posts

Response Posted - 01/26/2004 : 23:40:45

Re: "Someone thinking about sailing their C-25 around the world. You know they are out there.--Douglas

You talkin' to me?!

Now calm down, I'm not that crazy yet.

I agree that a more standardized definition of "coastal cruising" would be helpful. I've heard suggestions of:<ul>
<li>Within two-way VHF range (realistic, but varies considerably with antenna height and geographic location.</li>
<li>Less than 24 hours from a sheltered harbor (probably the best, when combined with a reliable VHF and weather forcast).</li>
<li>Within reach of shore based helicopter rescue without resorting to mid-air refueling. (Perhaps a bit over dramatic, but gets right to one of the core issues).</li>
<li>And then there's one nit-wit I know who insists on saying he's "off shore" while still within sight of the inlet breakwater he just left.

Maybe his definition would be, "Not yet in water over my head."

</li></ul>

ClamBeach and Douglas's points about how bad conditions can be close to shore are good ones. On my Bahamas trip last spring, the worst waves I encountered were within a mile of returning to Florida, and were between me and my intended port. As a result, I'm now even more confident that my C-25 can take a bit of pounding.

-- Leon Sisson

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 10:52:43

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that a more standardized definition of "coastal cruising" would be helpful.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
We are always looking for the simplest, clearest guidelines, Leon, but I don’t think it is possible to give a fixed definition of “coastal cruising,” because it varies with the time, place and circumstances. It’s easier to define what coastal cruising is not. You are not coastal cruising when you are unable to get to shelter before the conditions deteriorate beyond the capability of the boat. When you are unable to get to shelter without assistance, and have to withstand anything the wind and waves throw at you, you are bluewater sailing. Coastal cruising presumes that you will (1) check the weather carefully before you go offshore each time, (2) keep a sharp weather eye out for any deterioration in the conditions, (3) stay close enough to shelter that you will be able to get there before the conditions become serious, and (4) head for shelter at the first sign of trouble. If you allow yourself to get caught offshore in a storm, you had better be in a boat that is up to the task. One of the variables is the boat itself. A fast boat will get you to shelter quicker than a slow boat. A big boat can generally withstand worse conditions than a small boat.

Let’s consider the suggested definitions that you have heard discussed:

(1) Within two-way VHF range – This implies that it’s o.k. to sail farther offshore, as long as we stay within radio range and can get the coasties to come out at great personal risk and save our sorry as*es. I think a coastal cruiser should stay within range of shelter so that he can get there before the worst of the weather arrives, and so that he doesn’t need the coasties to come get him

(2) Less than 24 hours from a sheltered harbor (probably the best, when combined with a reliable VHF and weather forcast). – If you are 24 hours from shelter and don’t have a reliable weather forecast, you aren’t coastal cruising. You need to be prepared for anything that might come along. If you have good weather information and are sailing in a relatively “safe” season of the year and are otherwise well equipped, I think you can consider this coastal cruising. This would enable small boat sailors to sail to the Bahamas, for example. A lot of small boats have been doing it safely for many years. But, time and place are important variables. You wouldn’t make the same crossing in a season when weather is highly volatile. As Doug points out, you also wouldn’t do it in the Pacific northwest in winter.

(3) Within reach of shore based helicopter rescue without resorting to mid-air refueling. – (See # 1, above.)
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ClamBeach and Douglas's points about how bad conditions can be close to shore are good ones. On my Bahamas trip last spring, the worst waves I encountered were within a mile of returning to Florida, and were between me and my intended port.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Those who haven’t done much coastal cruising might think that, if they can just get to an inlet, they will be safe. They don’t realize that the inlets are often much rougher than the open seas, and are probably the most dangerous place to be. Because of tidal currents and shoaling water depths, the waves become much steeper and higher at the inlets. That’s why good sailors with solid, ocean cruising boats go offshore to ride out a storm, and it’s why you shouldn’t wait until the conditions offshore are really bad before you decide to go in. The conditions at the inlets will probably be much worse. You want to get into sheltered waters before the inlets become dangerous.

Edited by - on

svmoxie
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
331 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 11:34:15

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...you shouldn’t wait until the conditions offshore are really bad before you decide to go in. The conditions at the inlets will probably be much worse. You want to get into sheltered waters before the inlets become dangerous.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How true it is. And how sad the number of sailors that have died learning that particular lesson.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 12:08:52

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How true it is. And how sad the number of sailors that have died learning that particular lesson.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Previously on this forum, I've told about an incident some years ago when I was heading north on the Intracoastal Waterway during a storm, and saw a 27 foot sailboat that had rolled over as it came through Boca Grande Pass. The skipper, an elderly gentleman, lost his wife in the incident. Sailing parallel to the coast a couple of miles offshore is great, and it's safe, as long as you use good judgment and planning and don't push your luck.

Edited by - on

Leon Sisson
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1893 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 12:48:06

Steve M,

Thanks for you added insight. I completely agree about the irresponsible "... can get the coasties to come out at great personal risk and save our sorry as*es" implications of coastal cruising definitions (1)&(3). As an aside, the (4) "... 'off shore' while still within sight of the inlet breakwater ..." individual argued repeatedly that the only modifications required to extend the cruising range of a coastal boat into blue water were an EPIRB and liferaft.

By keeping an eye (or should I say ear?) on the weather forecasts, I had no problem avoiding scary sailing conditions on the 750nm trip. The worst gap in VHF weather forecast coverage seemed to be around Grand Bahama, between Florida and the Abacos. There, I could just make out bits and pieces of U.S. NOAA broadcasts of questionable relevence, and couldn't pick up any of the transmitters for the morning Abaco Cruisers Net. By making a pit stop at Old Bahama Bay on Settlement Point, I was able to get a detailed weather forecast supplimented by local knowledge from a well seasoned Bahamian marina manager who, like every Bahamian I met, was a really pleasant, helpful, and all around nice person.

-- Leon Sisson

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 14:06:09

Leon,

Your trip proves that our little boats can go a long way if we take it in small steps and plan well. Have you written an account of your trip? If so, I'd like to read it. I'd be especially interested in a fairly detailed description of how you navigated the crossing over and back. Also, I'm sure it would make an excellent Mainsheet article.

Edited by - on

Leon Sisson
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1893 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 14:42:10

Steve M,

Re: "Have you written an account of your trip? If so, I'd like to read it. I'd be especially interested in a fairly detailed description of how you navigated the crossing over and back."

Yes, about 12,000 words so far in MsWord format, and between 100 and 200 photos (not all of which are worth seeing

). If you think you have the patience and stamina, you're welcome to read it. I anticipated some specific interest about how I crossed the Gulf Stream in such a small boat, and I so took careful notes on that in particular.

Re: "... I'm sure it would make an excellent Mainsheet article."

That is currently under discussion. One stumbling block is the 2,000 word limit the Mainsheet imposes on such submissions. Cramming a 750nm, month long adventure into one page will require some painful editing.

-- Leon Sisson

Edited by - on

ClamBeach
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

3072 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 15:33:10

"Cramming a 750nm, month long adventure into one page will require some painful editing"

Multiple installments ! That will give us something to look forward to...

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 21:34:29

Boy, you can tell it's winter. Everybody gets all excited and types long diatribes...

Still I'd like to contribute my own rules. In addition to certain build quality requirements and engineering/design features I'd say light to medium displacement boats are fit for coastal cruising.

Medium to heavy displacmemt boats are needed for any trip that does not let you choose your own weather.......

Oscar
250WB#618 Lady Kay on the Chesapeake

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 01/27/2004 : 22:19:31

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Oscar
 Boy, you can tell it's winter. Everybody gets all excited and types long diatribes...

Medium to heavy displacmemt boats are needed for any trip that does not let you choose your own weather.......
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Winter it is... We're heading toward a foot+ of new stuff tonight.

Along with heavy displacement usually come high bridge decks and companionways, large cockpit scuppers, wide side-decks, double lifelines on tall stanchions, keel-stepped masts, redundant forestays, no "pop-tops", longer keels (to prevent broaches in following seas), keel-hung or skeg-hung rudders, inboard engines (of course), etc., etc... When you step aboard one of these boats, you see the difference. When you sail it, you feel the difference.

On the subject of inlets, one of the biggest problems is the phenomenon called "standing waves" where reflected waves (from breakwaters and seawalls) meet each other from opposite directions, doubling the amplitude and looking like pistons going up and down. Expect much bigger chop in an inlet at any time.

Edited by - Dave Bristle on 01/27/2004 22:23:05

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2004 : 09:07:26

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Cramming a 750nm, month long adventure into one page will require some painful editing.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yeah, I had the same problem when I wrote an article. Rather than butchering a good article, why don't you break it up into segments, and submit just the description of the Gulf Stream crossing, or tell about an especially interesting or exciting incident that happened along the way. That way, you can tell the story in depth about one "chapter" of your trip, instead of trying to cram it all into 2000 words. If you try to get it all into 2000 words, you'll cut the heart out of the article.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2004 : 12:03:07

Two seasons ago, while out on a cruising vacation I did what was, for me anyway, a hard thing to do,...I...I...I decided to end my cruising vacation early.

I did this because weather radio was predicting a weather front would be in the area on the day of my scheduled departure and, not wanting to subject my wife and kids to weather that might put an end to my cruising days, I made the decision to leave a day early and return to our home port.

On the day we left, the skies were blue and the sun was shining. There was so little wind that a feather could have rode on the cabintop undisturbed and the water was eerily like a sheet of glass.

After motor-sailing for most of the day we were within 6 or 7 miles of landfall when, in a heartbeat, conditions went from zero wind and waves to 50mph winds and very steep close waves. To make matters worse, the wind and waves were coming directly from the direction I was heading.

With bare poles and hatches secured, we fought the conditions while watching the time-to-destination numbers on the GPS go from a rather short 50-55 minutes to an unimaginable 9-12 hours. As the boat rode over and through the waves, the hull would come crashing down sending out a splash like those created by a breaching whale.

Fortunately, this scenario only lasted an hour (according to my wifes watch, an eternity), then we were back to dead calm wondering, "What the hell was that!"

Even though I was...

<ul><li>within range of both VHF and several Coast Guard stations, </li>
<li>near a safe harbor (6 miles)</li><li>monitored weather reports and altered cruise plans accordingly</li></ul>
I still got caught in conditions that one might consider bluewater like, and I was extremely happy with the way the C25 both performed and behaved, and truly believe that my previous boat, a less substantial 25ft Venture, probably wouldn't have done so well.

Edited by - dlucier on 01/28/2004 12:04:01

deastburn
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
334 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2004 : 00:24:57

No question the C25 is, within its own parameters, a tough little boat. My question is, why would anyone want to do anything more than lake or protected coastal water cruising in this boat? It is at is best in light to moderate winds and relatively calm seas, when it points and runs and beats well, can hold a large cockpit full of people. Older versions are cheap to buy and cheap to maintain. Parts are redily available (as is advice, thanks to this forum!).

There are lots of good boats that will take you safely farther afield for not a great deal more money. Alright, you can drop close to $200,000 for a Bristol Channel Cutter, but most of us would be miserable in the cramped cockpit, small cabin with its low roof and narrow beam, and trying to maneuver it in close quarters in your average marina.

Decide where you want to sail, with whom, and when, then buy the most boat you can (or want to afford) for accomplishing that mission. But don't ask a swing- or fin-keel boat to do something it was never conceived to do. I could (and can) afford my C25 because it was manufactured simply in great numbers.

It is also good to remember that most of us are sailing today because of a revolution called fiberglass. A few people (Frank Butler among them) saw the potential of the new material to make sailboats that would be strong and cheap, affordable for non-trust-funders, and people who don't use neckties to hold up their summer khakis.

I hope soon to move on to a heavier and slightly larger boat. But I will probabaly keep my C25 for the grandchildren, and for taking out friends and family in near-coastal waters for a long day sail.

Edited by - on

deastburn
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
334 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2004 : 00:24:59

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5897 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2004 : 09:48:56

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No question the C25 is, within its own parameters, a tough little boat. My question is, why would anyone want to do anything more than lake or protected coastal water cruising in this boat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nobody is suggesting that a C-25 should be used for anything other than coastal cruising. This thread isn't about C-25s. It's about the whole array of boats manufactured by Catalina since 1994 (when the CE standards were established), and the fact that Catalinas over 30' are certified as meeting at least the minimum standards for a CE Class "A" ocean-crossing yacht. American boat buyers apparently don't know much about this certification, but it is highly regarded by European boat buyers, many of whom would not buy a boat whose design was not certified for its intended use.

Don and others who have been in their C-25s in heavy weather aren't recommending that we do the same. They're just telling us about how they got caught out in bad conditions

, despite their conscientious efforts to avoid it, and their boats were able to stand up to those conditions.

Edited by - on

Page: of 2

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.