Association Forum - Water Ballast

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

Water Ballast

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Bob Jack
1st Mate

Member Avatar

USA
58 Posts

Initially Posted - 07/23/2005 : 19:56:37

Owned,cruised in, and raced a wonderful catalina22 in Daytona Bch for 10 yrs (79-89).....Moved to the Fl west coast and went to power boating for the next 15 yrs...Kids are grown and in college and I'm now chomping at the bit to buy a bran new Catalina 250 and go back to Sailing...I need the shallow draft of the swing keel and I love what I see in the pictures but I am worried about this water ballast stuff and the absence of the lead keel...Does the boat still handle well? Can it handle some seas...I may get an urge to shoot down to Key West or up to Captiva and I don't want to be caught out in the gulf wallowing around ...Please..I'm sitting on go and just need to know what you all have to say about (what is to me) a completely new concept.

Bob

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2984 Posts

Response Posted - 07/23/2005 : 20:34:08

Bob,

The 250 water ballast can handle coastal cruising and in fact offers a very good ride in a short choppy seaway. Unfortunately however, all center board boats suffer increased maintenance issues in salt water.

Having said that, there are many water ballast center board boats sailed in salt water.

The criteria for choosing the water ballast is usually easy trailering as the difference in draft considering the rudder depth the same is equal. Catalina is not offering a beaching rudder right now, and for coastal cruising you would want the longer of the two blade offerings so the draft would be the same. Of course, an aftermarket beaching rudder is available which would reduce the draft of the water ballast about a foot.

Unless trailering ease is needed, I'd suggest the wing keel, especially in salt water. If your thinking used and a good buy exist for a water ballast, I'd likely go for it and commit to the extra maintenance.

The wing keel has about 9 inchs more headroom in the cabin, though both have standing room only at the pop top area so I don't consider headroom any deciding factor.

The wing is faster in light air as it is the lighter and can carry more headsail... the water ballast is limited to a 110 and sits 3-4 inches lower in the water.

The water ballast probably enjoys a better balanced helm as the board can be raked aft enough to balance the boat quite well whereas the wing must be kept fairly flat to avoid weather helm.

There are further comments at
http://www.stewartfam.net/arlyn/yes_no.html
http://www.stewartfam.net/arlyn/trailercruiser.html

Edited by - on

Gloss
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
1916 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 08:36:49

Hi Bob,
Last April I was part of a 3 boat flotilla which sailed from Key West to the Dry Tortugas. We had two 1989 Catalina 25's with wing keel, and one Hunter 26 water ballast. I noticed that the Hunter wallowed and pitched lots more than we did. It also heeled more.

That's my opinion and observation, I may be wrong.

Edited by - on

Rich G
Navigator

Members Avatar

226 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 08:45:04

Frank,

Do you think that was a characteristic of the water ballast, or Hunter vs. Catalina (or all of the above)?

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2984 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 09:53:26

Rich, I can speak partially to your question. I've no experience either real or observations from others about a Hunter 26 but I can pass on observations from a San Francisco Bay sailor who first owned a C250 water ballast and then traded it for a C25. His account said that the water ballast was more tender but had a much better ride in a sea way and pitched far less than the C25. And, btw... he traded back when the handling problems of the 250 suffered from inadequate rudders.

My personal observations from many cruises on the Great Lakes support that conclusion. I've cruised both a Catalina 30 and my water ballast 250 and found the c30s pitch motion to be significantly more. I've also on numerous occassions talked to cruisers with larger boats after coming into a harbor and they offer a similar question, "didn't you get beat up out there today, we decided to stay put?"

There is little doubt in my mind that a trait of the c250 water ballast is a resistance to pitching compared to a boat with a weighted keel mid boat. In fact I've some video that supports my belief. Look at it and see if you think a C25 would have been pitching more.

The video is shot on Lake Huron about thirty miles from Canada on a ninety mile crossing to Michigan. The boat is moving smartly in a 15-18 mph wind and 2-3 feet seas leaning to the lesser as the seas are not strongly white capping which occurs at about three feet. This is a bit unusual in itself as Great Lakes seas generally are closer to a foot of seas for every five miles of wind speed, so conditions are offering a little less seas for wind conditions than normal.

I feel fortunate to get the video during the fastest speeds my boat has sustained. It was shot during the boats second Great Lakes cruise. Speed of 7.3 knots was sustained for several hours until winds built and a reef had to be taken in the main. In the video, there are two turns of reef on the 110 jib and the outhaul and cunningham are very hard on the main. Unfortunatly, I've never obtained those sustained speeds since, probably because of increasing weight of the boat with more cruising gear. btw, the helm is locked and the boat self steering her course... she did this for one two hour period with not one attention to the helm.

I've ten minutes of video but cropped this section for an online clip. Careful attention to seperate the wind noise in the mic will reveal a very prounounced swoosh at reaching each sea but the bow doesn't dig deep causing a wet boat (the companionway is even open) as on a pitching boat. I was quite surprized at the speed, and believe that the degree of chop and wind were in ideal relationship for the go fast conditions.

There are those who debunk the slot theory, suggesting an overall foil made of both sails offers the best power a boat can realize from the sail plan, whatever it is... I had it this day like never before or since. And.... my point, I don't think those speeds would have been obtained were she digging in deeper as well as experiencing disruption of air flow over her sailplan by a pitching motion.

[url="http://www.stewartfam.net/arlyn/c250_3.wmv"]lake huron crossing[/url]

I don't think any one should be surprized by this. With ballast concentrated amidship and confined to a small area of keel, the seas are free to pitch a boat around this axis of weight concentration. Once she is pitching, she'll be caught at times with pitching momentum driving her bow deep, slowing her and making her wet and uncomfortable. Sailors who read cruising accounts note the comments of full keels being desirable in a seaway, not withstanding the often heard comments to avoid putting weight in the bow to avoid making a boat wet which is certainly applicable to a boat which is once given to a pitching moment.

A water ballast shares identity with a full keel in that the ballast weight is spread from bow to aft so she enjoys the trait of less pitching and a smoother dryer ride. Having a center board however, she doesn't suffer the full keel's poor manuverability.

As to tenderness... no question about it... the water ballast is more tender. I broached a C30 once... and it was a big event. The straining of the rig could be felt as she fought against the keel. Broaching a 250 water ballast is almost a non-event (worst part is being out of control for a moment), as there is little strain as she promptly rounds up to the wind.

This leaves reefing important but I've come to wonder about which of the two 250 models has a greater reefing issue and I've come to believe by the great quantity of comments over the years that reefing might be more critial to the wing keel. Here's why. Though the wing has a deeper ballast offering greater righting arm, it doesn't enjoy the ability to balance the helm by moving the CLR (raking the center board aft) and will suffer a round up at less heel than will a water ballast. Often carrying more canvass the wing keel is subject to a restrictive window where the rounding up point is closer than the point of which large amounts of power can be spilt by heeling.

A water ballast with a deep high aspect ratio rudder can withstand heeling to 45 degrees and hold her course spilling great amounts of power from the sails. I've not heard claims that the wing keel can aproach 45 degrees and hold her course. If I'm wrong, then set me straight.

Edited by - Arlyn Stewart on 07/24/2005 13:12:18

Mark Loyacano
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
247 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 10:20:32

Arlyn, don't water balasted boats require different techniques than boats with a lower cg?
For example, de-power sooner?, sail flatter?
I've never been in one, but I've heard that they can be overpowered easier and that made folks think they were less stable.
Thanks.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2984 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 12:03:41

Mark,

Exactly... there is no doubt that a 250 water ballast is more tender than a c25 and will need increased reefing dicipline. I've read accounts from C25 owners who claim to never have reefed, I doubt that will be true of 250 owners.

I was editing my above post and added a section on which 250 I think needs the greater reefing dicipline about the time you posted this so see further comments above.

Having a bearing on the discussion of pitching is the C25 swinger. In the early 90's I was enjoying and hooked on some Great Lakes cruising retreats on a friends C30. Locally in Texas I owned a C22 and when the C30 was sold, I started looking for a trailer sailor to haul from Texas to the Great Lakes. Most all the ramps in the area I wished to launch couldn't launch more than a swing keel but my friend warned me not to consider the C25 swinger for cruising because the pitch motion on the great lakes was a known sinker with the keel hammering the trunk.

<hr noshade size="1">
btw, for those who might be interested in how I made my choice.

I marked time for two years thinking that the mac 25 was my only good choice but couldn't quite make the move because it would mean a move to what I felt was less quality than my C22 and it too had what I felt was a poor trailer for long hauls. I'd determined that the C22 wasn't overall suitable in part because it had no lifelines and had only a single axle trailer with no brakes and not suitable for long hauls. The boat itself might have been ok for the North Channel but my plans including coastal sailing and even crossing (90-100 miles)Lake Huron to fetch the North Channel.

Then, Catalina introduced the 250 in '94 with I think the first model year being a '95. I decided to wait a full year to get a '96 model year in hope that initial bugs would be worked out and in Dec of '95 ordered a '96 model for delivery late in March. A few days after ordering, I received a call from my dealer telling me that as I had vasilated a little about the wheel option but decided on the tiller, that a wheel option and otherwise identical to my order '96 model was nearing completion and could be had for the price of the tiller I'd ordered. I accepted to discover later that my boat #224 was more likely the last of the '95 year model run as a few changes took place in seriel numbers just after that including the release of the first wing keels around hull number 230. The only cosmetic hull change was a coaming step and if I recall other changes were movement of the fresh water tank and change to a cockpit locker mounted propane tank.

It might be that the stern seats were a '96 model year change as well and if I'd waited for the tiller boat would have had them, I don't recall for sure when that change was made. In the end, I'm glad for not having the stern seats or propane locker. The stern seats caused a very restrictive backstay problem for the wheel equipped boats and would rarely if ever have been used. The propane locker took up valuable locker realestate for a cruiser and I've found the coleman cannisters to be very easy to use and convenient.

Edited by - Arlyn Stewart on 07/24/2005 12:56:51

Mark Loyacano
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
247 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 12:25:55

Thanks, Arlyn.
I have had to reef my '78 swing keel.

The "refit" of my C25 keeps leading me to a same conclusion(s)...I would be happier with a more portable, highway and launch ramp friendly boat. A way to explore new sailing areas and yet something to teach grandkids basic water science, too.
The C25 has been a great boat to sail and own for six years though. I'm thinking of parting it out and keeping the trailer.

My family won't even "put a toe" into filthy Lake Cheney resevoir. (the Zebra Muscles didn't want to stay there, either).

Edited by - Mark Loyacano on 07/24/2005 12:47:55

Waterboy
Navigator

Members Avatar

USA
204 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 15:22:19

I have a 1995 250WB (#048). My sailing experience is largely limited to J24's (in US Sailing courses), the WB, old wooden 'X' boats in MN as a child, and a smattering of sunfish types. I love the WB. While it certainly sails differently (and slower) than the J24, for what we want it's perfect. We do not race. We sail inland lakes (often shallow) predominantly (I'm just not enough sailor to do coatal Pacific cruising yet ... "A man's got to know his limitations!"), and often spend one or more nights aboard. The combination of trailerability, the roomy open cabin, and perfectly adequate sailing characteristics make the 250WB ideal. Arlyn and others have mentioned the adaptations one makes in WB sailing technique - mainly reef sooner and sail flatter. I do think the WB heels earlier than a lead keel, but as Arlyn mentioned the pitching seems less pronounced in choppy waves, I think because the ballast is spread from for to aft rather than concentrated in the middle. If I weren't trailering, I'd certainly consider the wing keel model.

my 2 clams ... Greg Widner, Klamath Falls OR

Edited by - Waterboy on 07/24/2005 15:27:07

ddlyle
Captain

Members Avatar

302 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 16:09:05

There is a very good buy at the swap meet for a C25 wing keel in the keys now. (at least the boat was still listed yesterday).
Buy it in the keys and take it north.

Edited by - on

Dave Bristle
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Djibouti
10005 Posts

Response Posted - 07/24/2005 : 23:47:15

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Arlyn Stewart
 ...Though the wing has a deeper ballast offering greater righting arm, it doesn't enjoy the ability to balance the helm by moving the CLR (raking the center board aft) and will suffer a round up at less heel than will a water ballast.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
When I was considering the 250, I noticed in the brocure drawings that the wing keel was centered well aft of the fully-lowered centerboard, suggesting to me that one might want to rake the board aft to get similar balance to the wing. So, I wonder if wing keel owners have experienced as much weather helm as WB owners... (Rounding up is more a function of loss of rudder purchase at some degree of heel, although heavy weather helm will make the roundups more severe.)

Good point about the advantage of rounding up following a broach--it will certainly allow the boat to recover much more quickly, although you should probably fall off a little as soon as possible to keep going and maintain control.

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 07/25/2005 : 00:39:58

Although Arlyn has very eloquently related the ins and outs of the WB, I will add my $.03 having been there and done that. To put my observations in perspective I will state that I owned a C30 before, and a C42 after the 250 WB. I will also add that I sailed the 250 on the Chesapeake in winds as high as 40 knots, and in Florida coastal waters, East as well as West coast.

The ride is surprisingly stable. Indeed the boat must be kept relatively flat, 15-20 degrees is the limit of efficient sailing. Truth is, it is for most boats. Although exciting, "burying the rail" is not efficient at all. Thus sail reduction starts early (15 knots) and progresses from there. I must add that I had the last boat with the outside shrouds and thus the 110 jib. In no way does this take away from speed. The boat sails at design hull speed throughout the wind regime, and will exceed same under the right conditions. It also does particularly well in light air. (I did have an unpainted super clean bottom... :) )

The "third generation" rudder that comes with the boat is just adequate when the boat is in trim, but is unforgiving of out of trim scenarios, and inadequate in low speed motor manoeuvering. Although they now do not offer it with a new boat, Catalina at one time offered a beaching rudder. They had a lot of warantee issues with it as a result of improper use. (torqueing it with anything other than blade full down) They still make the rudder and will sell it to you if you push them. Insist, it is a great rudder for the boat. You might have to relinquish the warrantee on it.

IMHO the above observations re. the Hunter are a design issue, not a generic WB issue. I believe the 250 to be a far superior sailing boat to the like sized Hunter. Although I have not sailed the Hunter, I did blow their socks off a few times....

Edited by - on

Bob Jack
1st Mate

Members Avatar

USA
58 Posts

Response Posted - 07/29/2005 : 22:35:17

Thanks guys...You've made my day...I really wanted to hear that the 250 water ballast was a respectable boat... because... all of its other features had already won me over...Then I heard the phrase "water ballast" and, having been out of sailing for 16+ years, wondered just what in the world that would be like.
I look forward to purchasing a new one as soon as i sell the stink pot that is currently occupying my lift.It will be used in salt water but I have no plans to paint the bottom ....I look forward to rejoining the Catalina family
Bob

Edited by - on

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.