# CS 33 vs Catalina 30 TRBS



## ichorniy (Apr 26, 2006)

I currently have C&C 24 and thinking to update to Catalina 30 mark II with tall rig and BS or CS 33. I would like a bigger boat to spend time on great lakes. I would be doing mostly weekend sailing with occasional 2-3 week cruises. I have selected these two boats because they seem to be of proper size for intended use. Both are of the same displacement. Both have decent size diesel engine to get me home if there is no wind and I need to get to work next day. They also seem not to be light boats that heel to every path of the wind that will make my first mate happy. Catalina 30 has a lot of reviews but there is no owner review for CS 33. CS seems to be faster and would be my fist choice the only problem is that selection of CS 33 is smaller and they seems to be pricier from Catalina 30. I do handicap racing on weekdays but having faster boat is nice to have but not top priority. I am looking for any advice comment to make more information decision.


----------



## Johnrb (Sep 21, 2002)

Here is a review of the CS 33 from the CS owners' association website. The review was originally published in Canadian Yachting's series of used boat reviews. The author, Pat Sturgeon, is currently a yacht broker in the Toronto area and I believe he used to work for CS yachts.
http://closereach.com/csoa/cs33.htm


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Having owned both Catalina's and CS's*

This post is OPINION based on personal experience with both brands:

Having owned both Catalina's and CS's I can assure you there is no comparison when it comes to build quality.

While Catalina's are fine boats they are not anywhere near as solidly built as Canadian Sailcraft. It makes sense that the CS costs more as they were built to compete with higher end brands like Sabre & Tartan not Catalina or Hunter.

Our CS has been from South America to Newfoundland and everywhere in between and with with well over 50,000+ nm on her she shows little to no signs of wear or stress.

I've owned three Catalina's a 30, 36 & a 310 and they all began to creak and groan in winds over 25 knots. This is probably due to the lack of tabbing on the bulkheads that actually secure them to the hull and cabin top and in general the fact that they are built as coastal cruisers.

Our 1979 CS-36 has never made a peep and we've had her in 45 knots+ and 8 to 10 short steep seas. Under the previous owners she weathered many tropical storms including the remnants of two hurricanes..

If you can find a well kept CS-33 for anywhere near the price of a Catalina 30 buy it!

Having stated the above a C-30 is fine & more than adequately built for your intended use..

P.S. Raymond Wall designed the CS-33 and had previously been the chief designer for Camper & Nicholson in Europe before joining CS yachts in Canada. Camper & Nicholson's are very, very high quality boats (closer to Morris or Passport) designed to handle the rigors of the North Seas and are true blue water boats. Ray Wall designed the CS line very similarly to the Camper & Nicholson line in terms of layup and build construction.

With a Catalina you get in-house design, which is not bad for bay or coastal cruising but you don't get a highly regarded & pedigreed designer like Raymond Wall if you buy a Catalina. Ray Wall designed the CS boats to handle the worst yet still turn out good speed and still track straight!


----------



## Plumper (Nov 21, 2007)

Ditto Halekai36.

CS boats are well made and proven.


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

Ditto Plumper's ditto of Halekai and I want to add that you might want to check out the CS30. If speed is a concern, thats the one to get. Lots of them out there, lots of them raced. I do like the 33 too, nice boat.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Ditto cubed...


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

I saw a couple outfit their CS33 for retirement cruising in the Caribbean, and I don't mean huddling up a creek until the wind goes sub-15 knots. It's an excellent, proven boat, and I consider 33-35 feet the ideal size for the Great Lakes, not only because it's just big enough to consider living aboard for weeks at a time, but it's strong enough and dynamic enough to use higher winds and waves to move smartly, or to simply hove to, if preferred.

I have a Viking 33, and I've sailed it in 40 knots sustained on Lake Ontario, and loved every wet, if perfectly stable, second. I judge the entire CS line to be generally good to very good quality.

Catalina 30s are what they are: Chevys. Nothing wrong with that, but if the wind pipes up, I don't want to be on something that skittish with that wide a companionway (that gaping maw scares me, frankly: it's twice the size of the entrance to my pilothouse on my 40 footer.)


----------



## ichorniy (Apr 26, 2006)

Thanks for information! I knew CS quality is highly respected but it was nice to hear feedback from people who owned and sailed them.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

ichorniy said:


> I would like a bigger boat to spend time on great lakes. I would be doing mostly weekend sailing with occasional 2-3 week cruises. I have selected these two boats because they seem to be of proper size for intended use. Both are of the same displacement.


The way I see it, the CS is nearly 3 feet longer, so is in a bit different class and therefore more expensive. However, either boat would be fine on the Great Lakes as long as you consider weather.

I do not agree that Catalinas need glassed in bulkheads for any type of cruising. Their standing rigging is anchored deep in the hull. Rather than tied in the hull through chain plates. This means Catalinas do not depend on bulkheads to transfer forces from the rig to the hull unlike the chain plate design.

This is quite different from many of the blue water or otherwise boats that have chain plates. In my opinion, the Catalinas have the superior standing rigging to most others.

One of my all time favorite Catalina 30s is the 310 with the centerline berth.. A pocket cruiser with inter spring mattress.. Centerline!!
Bryce


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, the CS is nearly 3 feet longer, so is in a bit different class and therefore more expensive. However, either boat would be fine on the Great Lakes as long as you consider weather.
> 
> I do not agree that Catalinas need glassed in bulkheads for any type of cruising. Their standing rigging is anchored deep in the hull. Rather than tied in the hull through chain plates. This means Catalinas do not depend on bulkheads to transfer forces from the rig to the hull unlike the chain plate design.
> 
> ...


Well not having them tabbed in certainly makes them creak more, weather that makes them less strong is up to debate, but certainly makes one have less confidence due to the noise.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

BryceGTX said:


> The way I see it, the CS is nearly 3 feet longer, so is in a bit different class and therefore more expensive. However, either boat would be fine on the Great Lakes as long as you consider weather.
> 
> I do not agree that Catalinas need glassed in bulkheads for any type of cruising. Their standing rigging is anchored deep in the hull. Rather than tied in the hull through chain plates. This means Catalinas do not depend on bulkheads to transfer forces from the rig to the hull unlike the chain plate design.
> 
> ...


We owned a C-310 and had some rather unsettling problems with the v-berth bulkhead. The lower chain plates are fully supported by this screwed in bulkhead. When the boat flexed in rough seas on an off shore trip the bulkhead torqued and the screws bent. We fixed it but we sold the boat shortly afterwards. Our C-36 was a much better built Catalina IMHO.


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

Maine Sail said:


> We owned a C-310 and had some rather unsettling problems with the v-berth bulkhead. The lower chain plates are fully supported by this screwed in bulkhead. When the boat flexed in rough seas on an off shore trip the bulkhead torqued and the screws bent. We fixed it but we sold the boat shortly afterwards. Our C-36 was a much better built Catalina IMHO.


It's interesting that these are referred to as chain plates. I suppose I don't view the pass throughs as chain plates. Although I know many call them as such. Rather I view chain plates as the anchors for the shrouds in the more classical sense. Traditional chain plate anchors are high in the hull. And they depend on the bulkheads to hold hull shape.

The equivalent anchor point for the shrouds in the 310 is not what you refer to as chain plates. Rather the anchor point is deep in the hull. The way I see it this is a much better design than the classical chain plate design. It does not depend on the bulkhead to hold hull shape.

No doubt the c36 is better than the 310.. It is a different class of boat.. In the same way the cs33 is a different class of boat than the Catalina 30.

On the other hand I see your concern about the center shroud attachment to the bulkhead.

Myself.. I would not hesitate to get the centerline 310 as a pocket cruiser. IMO
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

We are answering a post from 2008 because why?!?!?!?!

anyway, someone must have been bored going back that far!

Marty


----------



## BryceGTX (Sep 7, 2011)

blt2ski said:


> We are answering a post from 2008 because why?!?!?!?!
> 
> anyway, someone must have been bored going back that far!
> 
> Marty


I am trying to figure this one out.. It showed up on the first page of the review and purchase forum.. Didn't go back to find this..

Must be a bug in the forum software

Thanks for pointing this out!
Bryce


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

BryceGTX said:


> It's interesting that these are referred to as chain plates. I suppose I don't view the pass throughs as chain plates. Although I know many call them as such. Rather I view chain plates as the anchors for the shrouds in the more classical sense. Traditional chain plate anchors are high in the hull. And they depend on the bulkheads to hold hull shape.
> 
> The equivalent anchor point for the shrouds in the 310 is not what you refer to as chain plates. Rather the anchor point is deep in the hull. The way I see it this is a much better design than the classical chain plate design. It does not depend on the bulkhead to hold hull shape.
> 
> ...


Only the uppers and intermediates attach via a rod down low in the hull. This part is a good design on the 310. Sadly the lowers, like on many Catalina's, are supported only by the deck and non-tabbed screwed in bulkheads.

The 310 makes a decent coastal cruiser but is not as well suited to sailing in demanding conditions.


----------

