# New Catalina 385



## Yamsailor

Hi All,

I was at the Annapolis boat show a few weeks ago. I am usually a big Catalina fan. I saw the new Catalina 385. Has anyone else seen it? I am curious as to what others think of the boat because personally I don't like the boat at all. 

Anybody else have any opinions?


----------



## armandolio

What did you dislike about it? I think that would help the discussion.


----------



## Donna_F

I, too, would be interested in knowing what you didn't like about it. It's on my (very) short list of Catalinas to move up to in ten years when it's in the used market. I wanted to get to the show to see the original before owners start mucking stuff up inside but we didn't make it.

What caught my eye in the description put out by Catalina was "large chart table." So many manufacturers are getting rid of chart tables in favor of tables just large enough to hold a laptop and I was happy to hear this.


----------



## Faster

While we haven't seen the 385 yet, we were most impressed with the 455 at a recent show... not so much because of the size, but because compared to the offerings from Bene, Jeanneau, and Hunter, the Catalina had good storage ideas, a much more 'traditional' nautical finish and joinery (other new boats seem to be getting too "Ikea" for our tastes) The clever two-way folding table is another thing we liked.

It will be interesting to see if the new line sells as well as the Catalina Classics since they are quite different from what's on offer from the other major builders.


----------



## MikeinLA

I saw the 385 in Annapolis and I liked it. The cockpit is HUGE and the interior is not quite as "condo-like" as many of the other current offerings.

Mike


----------



## Yamsailor

armandolio said:


> What did you dislike about it? I think that would help the discussion.


The interior set up. I did not like the way the nav station was designed. The head does not have a separate shower stall the way the Cat 380s/387 were designed. The aft cabin can only be design as athwartships berth. I prefer the option of a centerline berth. The couch on the starboard side seems shorter than the Cat 387. The V-berths seemed more narrow.

I do like the 445, in fact it is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, production boats. I also like the 355 despite the fact it does not have a separate show stall. The interior of the 385 seemed off. I also did not like the anchor locker design--it seemed a little weird. Also not a lot of places to hold on to when in a seaway.


----------



## emoney

While I haven't been on the boat yet, I am hoping it makes it to St. Pete this winter. From the videos I've seen on Youtube, however, I really like the looks of the boat. Seems to be very, very roomy with tons of storage. From the sailing video, looks like it has a pretty smooth ride as well. I guess as they say, "to each his own", but I tho't the head had a shower stall??


----------



## PalmettoSailor

Yamsailor said:


> The interior set up. I did not like the way the nav station was designed. The head does not have a separate shower stall the way the Cat 380s/387 were designed. The aft cabin can only be design as athwartships berth. I prefer the option of a centerline berth. The couch on the starboard side seems shorter than the Cat 387. The V-berths seemed more narrow.
> 
> I do like the 445, in fact it is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, production boats. I also like the 355 despite the fact it does not have a separate show stall. The interior of the 385 seemed off. I also did not like the anchor locker design--it seemed a little weird. Also not a lot of places to hold on to when in a seaway.


I was in boat show rush mode and my memories of the different boats seem to mesh together, so I can't tell you at this point exactly what it was about this boat that didn't resonate with me, but I do remember thinking I liked the 355 better.

My wife said the same, but caveated that with the observation that the 355 didn't have enough gallery counter space for her. (ie less than our 1991 C36).

Even if I were in the market for a coastal cruising boat in this price range I think I'd choose a used C400 over the new 385.


----------



## dermott

We took delivery of a new Cat 375 three weeks ago - ironically, just as the 385 was being launched at Annapolis. That came as a complete surprise to us! No mention of it beforehand in Oz. It seems there is very little difference indeed between these two boats and of course we're wondering what on earth happened to the 375 which doesn't seem to be mentioned now - though it's still on the Catalina website.

From an aesthetic pov, I don't like the 385's interior either. Stainless steel grab rails instead of beautiful moulded teak ones; plain Ikea-look cupboard doors instead of the beautiful, warm, louvred timber ones; white laminate on the engine cover instead of the nicer timber-look one on the 375. The cushions are more squared and the chairs appear shorter-backed. And we don't personally like the fold-up style cabin table. 

There seems to be a loss of that warm, "gentleman's club" feel you get from lovely timberwork and cosy, plush, leather chairs. Maybe that's what's on your mind.

We are actually very happy with our 375. We chose the pedestal table rather than the one that folds on the wall, and the cream ultraleather. The timberwork has a lovely golden colour and the whole thing's a delight to be in.

We moved from a 380 to this, which stressed me as I lost my aft island bed, my 3-burner stove, and my separate shower - but I'd have to say, the v berth bed's great to sleep in and the bathroom works very well for us. Galley's a bit tight to manouevre in but the selling point for the boat is the massive cockpit lockers and lazarettes. We have just had to adjust to putting a lot of stuff that was inside the 380, out into the cockpit locker. Result is a far less cluttered looking boat which appeals to me.

Of course these are girly things - it seems a friskier boat to sail. Sailing ability would need a comment from the captain, but so far he's really happy especially with the in-mast further and better positioned winches.


----------



## chef2sail

One of the characteristics of the Catalina 385 which struck me was the narrow gunwales to the point you ad to walk one rot in front of the other, and the stays were in the way when going forward. Also the cabin top was rounded and sloped at an odd angles so you could not get a good footing or stable base when on top of it working on the boom, mast.

These two are safety concerns for me.

Dave


----------



## mgmhead

At the Annapolis show the only boat I went aboard was the 385 as I was too busy buying equipment and materials for our trip down the ICW. As I stepped aboard I thought the swim platform was very well executed. In the cockpit I was impressed with the beautiful table she was equipped with, an option I'm sure and not standard equipment. Below I was totally underwhelmed. Dare I say I thought it looked very Beneteau-esque. Not taking a shot at Beneteau's but their look is different than the traditional Catalina styling. I didn't like the forward head and thought it quite small. Also didn't like the aft berth which lacked a center-line bunk and appeared to not have room for one if it was offered. Most disappointing was engine access. On my C387 I can access the entire engine, front, rear and both sides by removing the companionway steps and a cowling over the rear of the engine. The 385 rear engine access was through a couple of removable panels. I hate working on things I can't see.

I attended the show on Friday afternoon and there were plenty of people visiting the 385 which limited the ability to really check out storage space. 

As we left, my wife and I agreed we were very happy indeed to have a 387 with a center-line berth in the aft cabin. Oh, I think my cockpit is still larger than the 385 too.

Other than that I'm sure it's a fine boat for those that want it...MGM


----------



## Yamsailor

Faster said:


> While we haven't seen the 385 yet, we were most impressed with the 455 at a recent show... not so much because of the size, but because compared to the offerings from Bene, Jeanneau, and Hunter, the Catalina had good storage ideas, a much more 'traditional' nautical finish and joinery (other new boats seem to be getting too "Ikea" for our tastes) The clever two-way folding table is another thing we liked.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if the new line sells as well as the Catalina Classics since they are quite different from what's on offer from the other major builders.


I agree with you about the 445.


----------



## Yamsailor

dermott said:


> We took delivery of a new Cat 375 three weeks ago - ironically, just as the 385 was being launched at Annapolis. That came as a complete surprise to us! No mention of it beforehand in Oz. It seems there is very little difference indeed between these two boats and of course we're wondering what on earth happened to the 375 which doesn't seem to be mentioned now - though it's still on the Catalina website.
> 
> From an aesthetic pov, I don't like the 385's interior either. Stainless steel grab rails instead of beautiful moulded teak ones; plain Ikea-look cupboard doors instead of the beautiful, warm, louvred timber ones; white laminate on the engine cover instead of the nicer timber-look one on the 375. The cushions are more squared and the chairs appear shorter-backed. And we don't personally like the fold-up style cabin table.
> 
> There seems to be a loss of that warm, "gentleman's club" feel you get from lovely timberwork and cosy, plush, leather chairs. Maybe that's what's on your mind.
> 
> We are actually very happy with our 375. We chose the pedestal table rather than the one that folds on the wall, and the cream ultraleather. The timberwork has a lovely golden colour and the whole thing's a delight to be in.
> 
> We moved from a 380 to this, which stressed me as I lost my aft island bed, my 3-burner stove, and my separate shower - but I'd have to say, the v berth bed's great to sleep in and the bathroom works very well for us. Galley's a bit tight to manouevre in but the selling point for the boat is the massive cockpit lockers and lazarettes. We have just had to adjust to putting a lot of stuff that was inside the 380, out into the cockpit locker. Result is a far less cluttered looking boat which appeals to me.
> 
> Of course these are girly things - it seems a friskier boat to sail. Sailing ability would need a comment from the captain, but so far he's really happy especially with the in-mast further and better positioned winches.


Why did you move from the 380 to the 375?


----------



## JimMcGee

I got a chance to look at the boat in the yard at Riverside before it went down to the show, then again comparing it to other boats at the Annapolis show. There was one other couple on board who own a 375. Like an earlier post they commented they like their boat better than the 385 and down below I definitely share that impression.

The salesman said the 385 is more of a performance hull than the 375, a little less beamy and a bit faster.

I definitely like the cockpit layout. It's not unusual for me to be single handing while my wife relaxes. The winch and control locations make it easy to single hand. Lounging in the cockpit talking with the other couple it was obvious this would be a comfortable space.

Below I had some issues. You're going to put a flat screen on the bulkhead and it's pretty uncomfortable leaning back against the nav desk. The aft berth did not look like a comfortable space. I'm a big guy and standing in the shower my shoulders were wider than the shower stall. The cabinets in the v-berth look like something from Walmart and waste a lot of potential storage space. The power switch to raise the back of the v-berth for reading is gimicky.

But what really struck me is how cheap the boat looks down below. My 1995 Catalina has a lot of real teak in the cabinet doors and trim work. It's held up very well over the years. It was also one of the things that kept me in a Catalina versus a Bene or Hunter when we bought her. Looking at boats of a similar age the interior of the Catalina had held up better than the Bene's and Hunters.

The new Catalina's really don't offer much difference now from Bavaria, Beneteau or Jeanneau. They all have that Ikea feel below now, and that makes me wonder where else Catalina has cut corners.

Sail away price on this boat is around $270k to $280k if I remember correctly (~$200k base).

Pride of ownership is *IMPORTANT* when you're spending that kind of money. I don't want a boat that looks like cheap knock down furniture. A $3,500 price difference won't make you buy one boat over another. There are too many intangibles. But $3,500 spent on quality wood cabinets *WILL* make me buy one boat over another. The warm feeling imparted by real wood makes a huge difference, and modern CNC machines reduce fabrication costs. If teak is too expensive switch to cherry as some other brands have done. At least offer upgraded cabinetry as an *OPTION*.

We're looking at moving up to a boat in this range sometime in the next few years. So for us this isn't idle chat. We spent a lot of time that afternoon over at the Fleet Reserve talking about this, then went back and looked at Jeanneau, Bavaria and Catalina again -- and came away feeling disappointed.

Jim


----------



## Yamsailor

JimMcGee said:


> I got a chance to look at the boat in the yard at Riverside before it went down to the show, then again comparing it to other boats at the Annapolis show. There was one other couple on board who own a 375. Like an earlier post they commented they like their boat better than the 385 and down below I definitely share that impression.
> 
> The salesman said the 385 is more of a performance hull than the 375, a little less beamy and a bit faster.
> 
> I definitely like the cockpit layout. It's not unusual for me to be single handing while my wife relaxes. The winch and control locations make it easy to single hand. Lounging in the cockpit talking with the other couple it was obvious this would be a comfortable space.
> 
> Below I had some issues. You're going to put a flat screen on the bulkhead and it's pretty uncomfortable leaning back against the nav desk. The aft berth did not look like a comfortable space. I'm a big guy and standing in the shower my shoulders were wider than the shower stall. The cabinets in the v-berth look like something from Walmart and waste a lot of potential storage space. The power switch to raise the back of the v-berth for reading is gimicky.
> 
> But what really struck me is how cheap the boat looks down below. My 1995 Catalina has a lot of real teak in the cabinet doors and trim work. It's held up very well over the years. It was also one of the things that kept me in a Catalina versus a Bene or Hunter when we bought her. Looking at boats of a similar age the interior of the Catalina had held up better than the Bene's and Hunters.
> 
> The new Catalina's really don't offer much difference now from Bavaria, Beneteau or Jeanneau. They all have that Ikea feel below now, and that makes me wonder where else Catalina has cut corners.
> 
> Sail away price on this boat is around $270k to $280k if I remember correctly (~$200k base).
> 
> Pride of ownership is *IMPORTANT* when you're spending that kind of money. I don't want a boat that looks like cheap knock down furniture. A $3,500 price difference won't make you buy one boat over another. There are too many intangibles. But $3,500 spent on quality wood cabinets *WILL* make me buy one boat over another. The warm feeling imparted by real wood makes a huge difference, and modern CNC machines reduce fabrication costs. If teak is too expensive switch to cherry as some other brands have done. At least offer upgraded cabinetry as an *OPTION*.
> 
> We're looking at moving up to a boat in this range sometime in the next few years. So for us this isn't idle chat. We spent a lot of time that afternoon over at the Fleet Reserve talking about this, then went back and looked at Jeanneau, Bavaria and Catalina again -- and came away feeling disappointed.
> 
> Jim


Jim,

You have articulated exactly what I thought. I like the exterior and do not like the interior at all! I also think the price is way too high for a boat of this type expecially given the cheap-looking interior and space design.

I would never purchase this boat.


----------



## MikeinLA

Yamsailor said:


> I would never purchase this boat.


The 385 does seem to make an excellent case for buying a used 42, doesn't it?

Mike


----------



## JimMcGee

MikeinLA said:


> The 385 does seem to make an excellent case for buying a used 42, doesn't it?
> 
> Mike


It sure does. And that's not a good thing for Catalina.

I have to think they've been hit hard by this economy, but I'm questioning if this is the right decision as it goes directly to the perceived value of the boat.

Jim


----------



## Faster

Agree... Among all the euro/ikea interiors earlier this year the 445 stood out as still having attractive joinery and plenty of storage. If Catalina is joining this trend I wonder if that will prove a good move. Even with the 355, which I also quite like, it did not 'win out' over a neighbouring late model 36 exc perhaps in the aft cabin area.


----------



## PCP

I have a puzzle for you guys:

This two boats have similar keels to the 385 and a close but a slightly older designed ruder. They are a bit older:



















This is the Catalina 385 and I am referring to the fin performance keel:










This one has a similar ruder, a not very different fin keel, but more modern, with almost all the ballast on the bulb, lowering the gravity center and diminishing the needed ballast weight. The hull is also not very different:



















What boats are these and the year they were designed?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

Paulo,

I am gathering from reading, that for many on here, the hull shape, speed of the boat etc is not as important as the interior bling! ie how the wood etc looks and feels. This new design does not follow typical Catalina look and feel. THen again, I did not feel the new Jeanneaus from about 3-4 yrs ago had the same feel as older models when they went with a teak look, yes still real teak, but shards that were made to look like teak. So the base uses less teak than the veneer covered plywood.

This is what I am hearing folks say. I have yet to see a comment about the hull itself other than in passing.

Marty


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I am gathering from reading, that for many on here, the hull shape, speed of the boat etc is not as important as the interior bling! ie how the wood etc looks and feels. This new design does not follow typical Catalina look and feel. ...
> Marty


Yes I now that Marty and I consider the Catalina well built boats, but an interior you can find it in a condo, in a camping car or in many places that are used for living, in this case small spaces.

But what makes a sailing boat different from the other interior spaces is that it is part of a sailing boat and a sailing boat is made to sail and what sails is not the interior, but the boat: The hull, the rig and the sails.

The hull design is a fundamental part of any sailing boat, regardless of the interior, unless you are going to let it tied to the marina, and the Catalina owners sail their boats more extensively than many other mass production boats (at least that is the impression I have).

So, *will you take a guess at least about when those three hulls were designed?*

The last one is not only similar to the 385 on the hull, the outside cabin design is also very similar, only the openings ("windows") are different, all the rest is remarkably similar, with the exception of the bulb.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Donna_F

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I am gathering from reading, that for many on here, the hull shape, speed of the boat etc is not as important as the interior bling! ie how the wood etc looks and feels. This new design does not follow typical Catalina look and feel.
> This is what I am hearing folks say. I have yet to see a comment about the hull itself other than in passing.
> 
> Marty


The "typical look and feel" was why we were considering another Catalina as our next boat. We bought our current boat knowing that she's a tub (said with affection) and speed was not a priority. The Catalina owners that I know spend a lot of time on their boats sailing, sailing to raft ups, entertaining while on raft ups so yes, the interior and how comfortable it is is important. It's not about bling, none of them have bling in my opinion but neither do I expect fake wood at that price.

And for the most part, I at least, assume that each new Catalina will have the same hull quality as the last as their reputation has been built on making the next boat equal to or better than the last. It was why we weren't afraid to buy such an old boat as our first Catalina.


----------



## JimMcGee

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I am gathering from reading, that for many on here, the hull shape, speed of the boat etc is not as important as the interior bling! ie how the wood etc looks and feels. This new design does not follow typical Catalina look and feel. THen again, I did not feel the new Jeanneaus from about 3-4 yrs ago had the same feel as older models when they went with a teak look, yes still real teak, but shards that were made to look like teak. So the base uses less teak than the veneer covered plywood.
> 
> This is what I am hearing folks say. I have yet to see a comment about the hull itself other than in passing.
> 
> Marty


Marty,
I would express it a little differently. All boat designs are a compromise. The balance you strike is based on the boat's target market. My wife and I are probably pretty typical of Catalina's market. Coastal cruisers who live aboard a couple of days a week and have occasional guests for day sails.

A boat that sails well and has a comfortable motion is very important. But I don't have any aspirations to become a racer. I wouldn't want a boat that's a complete dog. But by the same token I wouldn't want the spartan interior of an all out performance boat.

Because we live aboard a couple of days a week I want comfortable corners both above and below decks to curl up with a book. That's important to me. I want a galley where I can prepare real meals - not just something out of a can. I want a fridge that can hold a couple of days supplies.

I also want a place to mount a 12v flat screen w/DVD and a comfortable spot to watch a movie. I want air conditioning. And when I'm sitting aboard listening to music and typing on the laptop as I am now I want to look around and think "I like this boat". And I want that feeling when I look back at her from the dock or the dinghy. That's what I mean by pride of ownership.

Warm colored wood below gives me that feeling, so that's important to me. Not at the expense of all those other things, but it IS important.

One of my projects today is to build templates for v-berth cabinets and some additional woodwork I'm making to our boat. I'll get the teak and build them in my shop over the winter; and that will pretty much finish a complete refit of our boat.

I would not be comfortable going to a larger boat that "_felt_" cheaper by comparison. Based on what I've read here and what I heard from some others at the show I'm not alone.

If so that could be a problem for Catalina. We're on our second Catalina and it's not unusual to meet people who are on their third, fourth or fifth.

Jim


----------



## JimMcGee

PCP said:


> Yes I now that Marty and I consider the Catalina well built boats, but an interior you can find it in a condo, in a camping car or in many places that are used for living, in this case small spaces.
> 
> But what makes a sailing boat different from the other interior spaces is that it is part of a sailing boat and a sailing boat is made to sail and what sails is not the interior, but the boat: The hull, the rig and the sails.
> 
> The hull design is a fundamental part of any sailing boat, regardless of the interior, unless you are going to let it tied to the marina, and the Catalina owners sail their boats more extensively than many other mass production boats (at least that is the impression I have).
> 
> So, *will you take a guess at least about when those three hulls were designed?*
> 
> Paulo


OK I'll bite 

The third boat looks like a 90's Beneteau to me but it's hard to tell. I'm not sure about the other two. 

I agree the hull design is important but only one of many factors. According to one of the sales guys I talked to there's about a half knot difference in boat speed between the 375 and the 385. I don't know which gives a more comfortable ride in a chop or if the sales guy was accurate.

Now if the Catalina 375 and 385 were the only two boats in the world I would trade that half knot of boat speed for what I think is a more comfortable interior in the 375. Others would think that trade foolish. But if we're sailing along with friends sharing snacks and conversation that half knot isn't the most important thing.

Jim


----------



## PCP

JimMcGee said:


> OK I'll bite
> 
> The third boat looks like a 90's Beneteau to me but it's hard to tell. I'm not sure about the other two.
> 
> I agree the hull design is important but only one of many factors. According to one of the sales guys I talked to there's about a half knot difference in boat speed between the 375 and the 385. I don't know which gives a more comfortable ride in a chop or if the sales guy was accurate.
> 
> Now if the Catalina 375 and 385 were the only two boats in the world I would trade that half knot of boat speed for what I think is a more comfortable interior in the 375. Others would think that trade foolish. But if we're sailing along with friends sharing snacks and conversation that half knot isn't the most important thing.
> 
> Jim


Alright Jim, on the mouche in what regards the last design, the one that looks like the Catalina, it is a 20 years' old design by Finot (1991), a Benetau Cliper 40. The two other two were very modern designs on their time, a Farr 38 and a Luffe 37. Both designs are more than 30 year's old.

Modern design has to do with better sail boats, but that does not apply only to racing or performance boats. There are things in the design of the Catalina that have nothing to do with comfort or sea motion, for instance:

The keel without a bulb is responsible for a unnecessary heavier boat, probably more 300 or 400kg that serves nothing and make the sailing performance poorer.

The bow and stern design that are responsible for a smaller LWL. Again the design compared with a modern one serves no purpose and makes the boat slower.

The Keel exaggerated area serves no purpose and makes a bigger wetter surface increasing drag and diminishing speed.

I am not comparing it with racing boats, but with cruisers, even very conservative cruisers like the Halberg Rassy:



















Or with the X cruising 38:










and I could go one because on the European market the competition is so big that even if someone has a well made boat, if it is not only a well made boat but also a boat designed to the state of the art, the boat would not sell.

Bottom point I think the Catalina are well made boats handicapped by old designs. I guess that it has to do with the fact that the builder and the designer are related (it is the same guy?).

Catalinas would be much better boats if the company commanded the boat design to any of the several good architects that are on the market and I am not talking about the interior. That is a personal choice, performance under sail for boats that serve the same purposes is not. Nobody wants a boat that is as comfortable and seaworthy but slower.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee

PCP said:


> Modern design has to do with better sail boats, but that does not apply only to racing or performance boats. There are things in the design of the Catalina that have nothing to do with comfort or sea motion, for instance:
> 
> The keel without a bulb is responsible for a unnecessary heavier boat, probably more 300 or 400kg that serves nothing and make the sailing performance poorer.
> 
> The bow and stern design that are responsible for a smaller LWL. Again the design compared with a modern one serves no purpose and makes the boat slower.
> 
> The Keel exaggerated area serves no purpose and makes a bigger wetter surface increasing drag and diminishing speed.
> 
> I am not comparing it with racing boats, but with cruisers, even very conservative cruisers like the Halberg Rassy:
> 
> ...
> 
> Bottom point I think the Catalina are well made boats handicapped by old designs. I guess that it has to do with the fact that the builder and the designer are related (it is the same guy?).
> 
> Catalinas would be much better boats if the company commanded the boat design to any of the several good architects that are on the market and I am not talking about the interior. That is a personal choice, performance under sail for boats that serve the same purposes is not. Nobody wants a boat that is as comfortable and seaworthy but slower.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,
I think you've touched on some differences in the North American and European markets.

There are some pros and cons to the bow overhang and a fin/bulb design versus a heftier keel for a cruising boat, but this thread is more about aesthetics.

"Traditional" is an aesthetic that is popular here, while it seems all the European designs I see have a more "modern" aesthetic. I think some of those designs are attractive, but I'm drawn more to a boat that has some amount of overhang. It's more pleasing to my eye.

After all these are not practical necessities. They're boats. They're objects of desire.

Bringing this back to this thread's topic; Catalina has always been very conservative in it's designs. They tend to make evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. So a change from their traditional aesthetic is bound to make some of their existing customers unhappy.

Jim


----------



## PCP

JimMcGee said:


> Paulo,
> I think you've touched on some differences in the North American and European markets.
> 
> There are some pros and cons to the bow overhang and a fin/bulb design versus a heftier keel for a cruising boat, but this thread is more about aesthetics.
> 
> "Traditional" is an aesthetic that is popular here, while it seems all the European designs I see have a more "modern" aesthetic. I think some of those designs are attractive, but I'm drawn more to a boat that has some amount of overhang. It's more pleasing to my eye.
> 
> After all these are not practical necessities. They're boats. They're objects of desire.
> 
> Bringing this back to this thread's topic; Catalina has always been very conservative in it's designs. They tend to make evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes. So a change from their traditional aesthetic is bound to make some of their existing customers unhappy.
> 
> Jim


Jim, I understand what you say but this is not only about aesthetics but about modern boats that represent the state of the art in what represents sailing and hull design. The hull and the keel stay inside the water, you don't see it. They have nothing to do with aesthetics but with efficiency.

Look at the Halberg Rassy, they manage to look traditional, but they did not stop to change and to include, with some retard, that's true, all the modern hull design characteristics. Yes some retard but not 20 years

I understand what you say about aesthetics and Americans being traditionalists but let me say, not so much as the British

And so traditionalists that they have finished with almost all its naval pleasure boats industry, making boats that only they bought and even so not all of them.

One of the very few survivors was the Southerly, a good boat, but so old fashioned, heavy and slow that only some British bought them and the company had not much success.

Half a dozen of years ago their boats were like that:





































Then they called a NA with a racing pedigree, Stephen Jones and the things had changed, of course, he had not done racing boats for Southerly but applied the knowledge he had learned while doing winning racing boats to make excellent and fast cruisers :





































Well, did those traditional British stop to buy Southerlies? Hell no, southerly never been so well, not only the British buy them as also the other Europeans and some Americans.

Don't get me wrong I, as many Europeans know that the Catalina is a good and seaworthy boat, I just think that it is a pity that the quality is not served by a more modern design, and I am not referring to aesthetics

Yacht magazine tested recently the 375. They have said that it is a good boat, good quality, good interior ...but they, as me don't believe that many sailors here are going to buy a boat with a design that is old.

A nice video from the test, with lot's of wind:

Catalina 375: Entspannung bei 6 Beaufort - YACHT-TV*|*YACHT.DE

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee

LOL, well my German is pitiful at best. What I got from the video is there was a good bit they liked about the boat, especially the way she handled 27 knot winds and a bit of chop. 

They were less enamored of some dated elements in the design and of some "production boat" issues with fit and finish. 

I get what you're saying about more modern hull designs. But I don't think it's a concern for most Catalina buyers. 

It's like talking turbo chargers to someone looking at a Honda Accord and off topic for this thread. 

I wouldn't mind taking this conversation off to a different thread though.

Jim


----------



## Arpegecap

There may be some merit in more conservative designs. The modern European boats all seem to be influenced by the Open 40/60 boats which are built for pure speed driven by pros. Comfort at sea is a secondary consideration.


----------



## dermott

Yamsailor said:


> Why did you move from the 380 to the 375?


Sorry for the delayed reply but we've just returned from our first offshore trip.

The 380 was a 1999 model. The short answer is that we looked at the 375 and the captain loved it! I was less impressed.

Faced with deciding between a new 387 and the 375, the Captain decided it made more sense to go with the newer design which he quite liked. He preferred the new boarding ladder arrangement; the winches closer to the helmsman, and a few minor tweaks like that. He felt that opting for the older 387 styling would "date" the new boat and impact on its resale value, given the good press that the 445, 375 and 355 were getting. Our intuition, too, was telling us this new direction might mean the cessation of some of the older models (and at that stage there wasn't even a whisper about a 385). I liked some of the 375's features better than the 387's - not so cavernous and a better set of steps in the cabin; stuff like that - so that's where we ended up.


----------



## blt2ski

Jim and Donna,

You two have described the typical owner of many brands, be it a Catalina, Hunter, Bene, jeanneau etc that are production built boats. These are the more common current made ones here in NAmerica. If you go to Europe, there are a LOT more options. I actually wish I lived over there from a boat buying perspective frankly. 

With that in mind, while I may not have described the what I was reading correctly, I think I did. Basically, the new look is not what the old owners like. I've seen the same comments on the Jeanneau-owners site too, as far as how the new interiors are made vs old ones. 

If I can figure out how to buy a new boat in the mid 30 foot range, Catalina would not be in the mix. Yeah, well built boats for what they are, but, I would probably shoot for a Bene 1st, Elan has some nice interior designed boats, that are way quicker, handle just as well in slop etc as Catalina's, even my 30 yr old Jeanneau. 

I have not been on the new model Catalina, nor have I been on the newest Jeanneau versions, but the sailing part of the new ones are getting rave revues. There is a 350 on my dock, wife likes the outside look......big mother for a 35' boat! Not my style or look for a boat!

Marty


----------



## Yamsailor

blt2ski said:


> Jim and Donna,
> 
> You two have described the typical owner of many brands, be it a Catalina, Hunter, Bene, jeanneau etc that are production built boats. These are the more common current made ones here in NAmerica. If you go to Europe, there are a LOT more options. I actually wish I lived over there from a boat buying perspective frankly.
> 
> With that in mind, while I may not have described the what I was reading correctly, I think I did. Basically, the new look is not what the old owners like. I've seen the same comments on the Jeanneau-owners site too, as far as how the new interiors are made vs old ones.
> 
> If I can figure out how to buy a new boat in the mid 30 foot range, Catalina would not be in the mix. Yeah, well built boats for what they are, but, I would probably shoot for a Bene 1st, Elan has some nice interior designed boats, that are way quicker, handle just as well in slop etc as Catalina's, even my 30 yr old Jeanneau.
> 
> I have not been on the new model Catalina, nor have I been on the newest Jeanneau versions, but the sailing part of the new ones are getting rave revues. There is a 350 on my dock, wife likes the outside look......big mother for a 35' boat! Not my style or look for a boat!
> 
> Marty


I don't have any issues with the exterior of the 385. My issues are with the interior and the price.


----------



## JimMcGee

Yamsailor said:


> I don't have any issues with the exterior of the 385. My issues are with the interior and the price.


I don't have an issue with the price. Yes I wish it were less expensive, but it's in line with other production boats so I have to assume that's in line with the cost of production.

My issue is with what I percieve as the cheapness of the interior fixtures and cabinets for that price point.

Jim


----------



## blt2ski

Jim,

The issue you describe is pretty common unfortunately. IE trying to keep things at a given price point, yet have it look feel and be what it was that is now due to many factors, higher than one can do to keep at the price point in which the manufacture wants to sell in. So they have to go to other look means of manufacture to keep the costs in line, so they make a reasonable but normal ROI........Vicious cycle of building/manufacturing etc

The other that might be going on too, Catalina is realizing that while they may have a lot of people buying there 3rd, 4th and 5th boats, How many have bought ALL NEW boats? They may be running out of new boat buyers due to old stagnant designs if you will. And realize, that they need to change in order to attract more "new" boat buyers, or a broader range of buyers. Or have what happened to Cascade boats among one I am thinking of, they were still building and selling the same boat designs that were 30 yrs old, trying to compete with a 200-300K new boat cost, when one could buy a used one for 30-60K, put another 30-60K into it, and for the most part, have a new boat! It did not make sense/cents to buy the new one. Could Catalina be in this relm of things? hence why changing out some of the how they do things.

Other things that make me not buy them. There is a 34 down the dock from me. The mainsail halyard goes thru the deck orginizer, around, yes AROUND touching the riser for the mainsail traveller, to the rope clutch, to the winch. Talk about major amount of drag pulling the rope around the fiberglass. This is on both sides actually. When hoisting the owner up one day, not sure how much more pull we needed to get around this friction. They have been building boats long enough, that this type of issue should not be part of the equation buying a Catalina. Nothing on the boat had been modified. 

But I do have to deal with the spouse on newer models, she does like the interiors on some models, others, turns her head on entering and say EEEEEW, and walks out. oh well.......

Then could Gerry realize he is also older, needs to sell the company before kicking off, and is modernizing the line to allow it to be sold for a higher price? 

Please not, some of my typing are thoughts, and hypothesizing only, I could be very wrong, or very right!

Marty


----------



## Faster

Interesting, Marty... Could be that Catalina is taking the tack of more directly competing with the 'new' competition rather than offer the so-called traditional alternative.. and that they are starting with interiors rather than hulls.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.. plenty of boats are 'sold' on the strength of their 'on-the-even-keel-boat-show-appeal' factor. Just stand and watch a typical boat show crowd.. most everyone dashes straight below. Should you see someone slowly walking/inspecting the deck layout then you know that's a sailor!


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> ..
> 
> The other that might be going on too, Catalina is realizing that while they may have a lot of people buying there 3rd, 4th and 5th boats, How many have bought ALL NEW boats? They may be running out of new boat buyers due to old stagnant designs if you will. And realize, that they need to change in order to attract more "new" boat buyers, or a broader range of buyers. Or have what happened to Cascade boats among one I am thinking of, they were still building and selling the same boat designs that were 30 yrs old, trying to compete with a 200-300K new boat cost, when one could buy a used one for 30-60K, put another 30-60K into it, and for the most part, have a new boat! It did not make sense/cents to buy the new one. Could Catalina be in this relm of things? hence why changing out some of the how they do things.


Marty, as you know what matters in what regards hull speed is not the size of the boat but the length of LWL and that is a major factor in a sailboat performance. Looking at the hull we can see that the LWL is pretty bad compared to the size of the boat and I was trying to see how bad.

I thought that probably the LWL of the 385 corresponded to the one of a 36ft modern designed sailboat and I was to their site to have a look, but surprise, they say everything about the boat except the LWL

I never saw a boat file without the LWL but there are a first time for everything. I don't think that is by accident that they don't give the information. I looked everywhere, out of the site, but in all sites that have information about the boat the LWL is not there. Simply the shipyard does not give that number. They Give the LOA, the Hull lenght, but no LWL.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

Paulo,

I do nto have time right now to try and look and see if I can find some LWL's for the boats. but may later in the weekend.

CD may have a bit more insight to what is or is not going on with in Catalina. It would not surprise me that they are changing some things to avoid losing market share etc, as their designs are a bit dated. locally, jeanneau, beneteau and hunter are selling more NEW boats than catalina. Especially the DS models from Jeanneau.

marty


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> Paulo,
> 
> I do nto have time right now to try and look and see if I can find some LWL's for the boats. but may later in the weekend.
> 
> ....marty


That is not the point Marty, the point is that they are just giving, well, I would say some misleading information, not wrong but misleading and not given some straightforward information like the LWL.

The LWL is an objective measure that has a direct incidence on the boat performance, the B/D ratio, that they provide on their informative page, is an information that to be meaningful has to be assessed for someone that knows something about boat design, and that is not the case with most consumers.

However there are a common misconception that a superior B/D is always better than a lower one and the Catalina 385 has a big one (33.5%) if we compare it to European boats or to more modern designs.

European cruisers has for around 2m draft a B/D between 26% and 30%, that is a lot less than on the Catalina 385. At a first glance costumers would think that the Catalina is a more stiff and seaworthy boat.

But wait a minute, the Catalina with shallow draft was a remarkably bigger B/D than the fin keel (37.6% to 33.5%) that would mean that the shallow boat is more stiff? Of course not, the boat has to have more ballast to compensate the higher CG of its keel.

But all the European boats have keels with bulbs and that would not make them having a much lower center of gravity?

Of course. A bulbed keel will need about 30 or 35% less ballast than a keel like the one on the Catalina. While the CG of the Catalina keel is on the half of its draft or even less, the one of a bulbed keel is on the last 2/3 or 3/4 of the keel, depending if it is lead or iron that is used as ballast.

If we take for example the new Jeanneau 376 that has 6700kg of displacement for a Ballast of 1775kg we will see that the B/D is only 26.5%, a low value if compared with the 33.5% of the Catalina 385. But if we correct the value, taking into attention the bulbed keel and join more 30% to the Jeanneu ballast, the comparable value will be 34.4% a more or less similar value.

It is natural that the clients don't know that but I am quite sure that the guys from Catalina know this, so why to make public the B/D value, a misleading value in what regards the competition since all other (including Hunter) use bulbed keels?

I bet the Catalina dealers point to their clients the high B/D ratio of their boats regarding the competition as a superior feature instead of explaining that the boat is unnecessarily 650kg heavier because it uses a 20 year's old keel design

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee

PCP said:


> That is not the point Marty, the point is that they are just giving, well, I would say some misleading information, not wrong but misleading and not given some straightforward information like the LWL.


Paulo,
I think it has more to do with the newness of the 385. Compare the spec for the 375 with the specs for the 385. There's a LOT more information on their site for the older boat.

JIm


----------



## JimMcGee

blt2ski said:


> Jim,
> 
> The issue you describe is pretty common unfortunately. IE trying to keep things at a given price point, yet have it look feel and be what it was that is now due to many factors, higher than one can do to keep at the price point in which the manufacture wants to sell in. So they have to go to other look means of manufacture to keep the costs in line, so they make a reasonable but normal ROI........Vicious cycle of building/manufacturing etc
> 
> The other that might be going on too, Catalina is realizing that while they may have a lot of people buying there 3rd, 4th and 5th boats, How many have bought ALL NEW boats? They may be running out of new boat buyers due to old stagnant designs if you will. And realize, that they need to change in order to attract more "new" boat buyers, or a broader range of buyers. Or have what happened to Cascade boats among one I am thinking of, they were still building and selling the same boat designs that were 30 yrs old, trying to compete with a 200-300K new boat cost, when one could buy a used one for 30-60K, put another 30-60K into it, and for the most part, have a new boat! It did not make sense/cents to buy the new one. Could Catalina be in this relm of things? hence why changing out some of the how they do things.
> 
> Marty


I think you're right. As I said earlier, I can only imagine there are tremendous pressures to cut costs right now.

But I think cutting costs here is a bad idea. An alternative cost cutting measure would be to switch from teak to cherry. My supplier charges $25 per board foot for teak, but only $5 per board foot for cherry. That's an 80% savings on materials. There is however more labor involved versus prefinished sheet goods. Even if the pieces are CNC cut, they have to be assembled, spray lacquered and baked.

My point is I would gladly pay that extra cost, and I think many other buyers would as well. At least offer an interior upgrade as an option and let the buyers decide.

The reason I think this is so important is the use of real wood in the interior was something that set Catalina off from its competitors. Folks like Paulo probably wouldn't buy their boats anyway over one of the European competitors as he and they are more concerned with performance designs. That's not a criticism. Different people look for different things.

Market differentiators are part of a brand's identity. And I've heard more than one Catalina owner comment on the difference in their interior designs. If you become the same as the compitition you can ONLY compete on price. Brand loyalty goes out the window and Catalina has invested heavily in building brand loyalty.

The touch and feel of the interior are part of the emotion people feel for a boat. You can't plug that into a spreadsheet but it can sure as hell influence sales.

Marty, you raise some interesting points about the total market size for these boats. We went down the new versus used road ourselves and opted for a late model Catalina 30 (MKIII) over a 309 because there are things we like better about the older design.


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> But all the European boats have keels with bulbs and that would not make them having a much lower center of gravity?
> 
> Of course. A bulbed keel will need about 30 or 35% less ballast than a keel like the one on the Catalina. While the CG of the Catalina keel is on the half of its draft or even less, the one of a bulbed keel is on the last 2/3 or 3/4 of the keel, depending if it is lead or iron that is used as ballast.


I was quite suprised when I read this Paulo.. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catalina wing keel mass in the wing is considerably more than any bulb of equivalent boat size. The Catalina wing is a huge structure typically the thickness of a comparable bulb, however, it is probably between 3 and 4 feet wide. I would guess the Catalina wing (not keel) is 30-35% heavier than the typical bulb. I know my wing dwarfs the typical bulb on boats of similar size.



> If we take for example the new Jeanneau 376 that has 6700kg of displacement for a Ballast of 1775kg we will see that the B/D is only 26.5%, a low value if compared with the 33.5% of the Catalina 385. But if we correct the value, taking into attention the bulbed keel and join more 30% to the Jeanneu ballast, the comparable value will be 34.4% a more or less similar value.


It gets even worse for the Jeanneau than even you point out here. Consider that the Jeanneau has an iron keel and the Catalina has a lead keel.

density of lead is 11340 kg/m^3
density of iron is 7870 kg/m^3
density of water is 1000 kg/m^3

For 11340 kg, lead takes 1 cubic meter
For 11340 kg, iron takes 11340/7870 or 1.44 cubic meter

The weight of lead in water is 11340-1000 or 10340 kg or 91.18%
The weight of iron in water is 11340-1000*1.44 or 9899 kg or 87.29%

We have lost 91.18%-87.29% or 3.89% of the weight in water by using iron.

So now to the Jeanneau keel with inferior (weight) bulb, lower weight keel, you loose an additional 4% of ballast weight.



> I bet the Catalina dealers point to their clients the high B/D ratio of their boats regarding the competition as a superior feature instead of explaining that the boat is unnecessarily 650kg heavier because it uses a 20 year's old keel design
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


The benefit of the bulb keel is not its greater weight. Rather, the benefit is less drag. The way I see it, if we want to make the 385 like a Jeanneau, just drop about 1000 pounds of lead off the keel. But then we wouldn't have a Catalina anymore.


----------



## jorgenl

blt2ski said:


> Jim,
> 
> The other that might be going on too, Catalina is realizing that while they may have a lot of people buying there 3rd, 4th and 5th boats, How many have bought ALL NEW boats? They may be running out of new boat buyers due to old stagnant designs if you will. And realize, that they need to change in order to attract more "new" boat buyers, or a broader range of buyers. Or have what happened to Cascade boats among one I am thinking of, they were still building and selling the same boat designs that were 30 yrs old, trying to compete with a 200-300K new boat cost, when one could buy a used one for 30-60K, put another 30-60K into it, and for the most part, have a new boat! It did not make sense/cents to buy the new one. Could Catalina be in this relm of things? hence why changing out some of the how they do things.
> 
> Marty


I think maybe that's what happened to Valiant. Why pay 500K when you can buy a used (exactly the same design) for 250K?


----------



## blt2ski

jorgenl said:


> I think maybe that's what happened to Valiant. Why pay 500K when you can buy a used (exactly the same design) for 250K?


There are a number of brands with this issue frankly, Pacific Seacraft went belly up a few yrs back, still trying to sell designs from 20-25 yrs ago, Granted someone bought some of the molds......but why as noted, why by a Dana 24 at 15K when you can get one used for 30-60K!

Some boats buying new is not an issue with a 20+ yr old design, say an El Toro, or optimist, Laser as examples. Sooner or later these just plain wear out, sometimes going new is better than old. Yeah I could buy used for 1/4-1/2 the cost of new, but $2500 for an El Toro new vs 500 used and how many hrs to repair, new sail etc......of an opti for 4-5G if you have a child that is very competitive in the class....if you have the funds, not a big deal. BUT, $200K+ for a 35-40' boat, nuther issue.

I would not be surprised that Mr Douglas is seeing some of this type of writing on the wall if you will.

Jim, I would agree, going to cherry vs teak is an option, "IF" the client wants cherry, or maple or ________!

Marty


----------



## blt2ski

Bryce,

You would not only need to drop the lead to iron on the wing keel, but make the keel a DEEPER keel too! For those that like the wing, especially on the east coast or where it is shallow, a wing/bulb style keel is the way to go. Meanwhile, some one here in Puget ound/salish sea area, or med like paulo, a DEEP keel with a smaller bulb frankly gets you the lower CG, better off set of wt in the keel to handle a bigger SA, keel the boat on its feet better, longer, faster etc. I will admit, with my older Jeanneau, I do wish I had a lead vs iron keel for the extra 300-400 lbs I would have below. If I could afford a new one, frankly I would go with a combo iron/lead bulb. This would/should save a few $$ over all lead, as not sure the % more, but lead is more expensive than iron, especially in Europe with many of the lead mines are empty vs here in NA. 

Hopefully for all, my comments are not to say bad things per say about catalina. I know many folks with them, they ALL like them overall.......but as mentioned by many, not always ones cup of tea. For paulo and myself, not my style of boat. A few tweaks, and I could see considering one.

Marty


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> Bryce,
> 
> You would not only need to drop the lead to iron on the wing keel, but make the keel a DEEPER keel too!
> 
> Meanwhile, some one here in Puget ound/salish sea area, or med like paulo, a DEEP keel with a smaller bulb frankly gets you the lower CG.


The standard draft (5') 379 Jeanneau compared to the wing keel 385 Catalina I suspect is quite clear. The wing keel Catalina with its considerable weight advantage (2300 lbs + 150), lead keel and wing is going to be more more stiff than the Jeanneau by a wide margin.

On the other hand, dropping the weight lower makes a difference. Then we need to compare the 385 fin with the deep keel Jeanneau.. you may be suprised.

In that case, the higher density lead fin keel results in lower volume of 0.208 m^3 compared with the Jeanneau 0.225. This 10% volume decrease means less drag for the Catalina.

Furthermore, the bulb keel of the Jeanneau has more drag just due to being a bulb keel. That adds further drag to the Jeanneau.

Next, the Catalina fin is heavier by 1300 lbs + 150 pounds lost by iron in the Jeanneau.

At a total weight advantage of 1450 lbs in the keel and less drag, the benefits of the Catalina keel are now sounding considerably better than you guys make them out to be.

Clearly in light wind, the lower drag advantage of the Catalina will be more beneficial.

All I say is do not underestimate the advantage of the Catalina lead keels. 
Bryce


----------



## JimMcGee

*We May be Missing Something*



jorgenl said:


> I think maybe that's what happened to Valiant. Why pay 500K when you can buy a used (exactly the same design) for 250K?


Jorgen, Marty,
I was thinking about the whole new vs. used market share argument.

For some people buying a used Model X over a new, nearly identical Model X makes sense. After all a used boat typically comes with some gear and you can always upgrade electronics and make repairs as needed right?

Umm maybe not.

For a significant portion of the sailing public that may not be the case. And that's the portion of the public that the builders depend on. There are some good reasons not to buy used:



"_I want a new boat and I can afford it_".

I don't want to live with someone elses problems and/or mistakes.

I work long hours every week so I want to spend my time sailing, I can't afford to spend all my time fixing up a boat.

They simply don't have the mechanical, electrical, woodworking and fiberglass skills necessary to fix up an older boat.

etc., etc.

I think this is especially true for buyers of production boats.

In my case I'm looking at going new because of time constraints. I have the skills and have done numerous upgrades to our boat. But there's been more than one day that I've been at the dock, tools in hand, that I'd have rather been out on the water.

Jorgen, I would think the Valiant buyer is a different breed of cat. That's a boat you're taking out cruising the ocean. So that owner is more likely to posses the skills necessary to take on the repairs of an older boat.

Jim


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> I was quite suprised when I read this Paulo.. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catalina *wing keel mass in the wing is considerably more than any bulb of equivalent boat size.* The Catalina wing is a huge structure typically the thickness of a comparable bulb, however, it is probably between 3 and 4 feet wide. I would guess the Catalina wing (not keel) is 30-35% heavier than the typical bulb. I know my wing dwarfs the typical bulb on boats of similar size.


I don't know what age has your Catalina, but here you have the wing Keel of a recent 387:










and here you have the bulbed wing keel of the Jeanneau 379.










Jeanneau - VOILE

it is obvious what is the keel that has more mass down and lower CG.

Of course, a wing keel that has a low draft was to have much more weight and to be bigger than a deep draft keel to produce the same effect, the same way that a non fin bulbed keel has to be more heavier than a bulbed keel with the same draft.

On the Catalina the difference of weight from a fin deep keel and the winged keel is of about 500kg, that would be about the difference between a fin keel an a bulb keel, just to do exactly the same work. More unnecessary weight on a sailboat means the need to more sails and less speed. Unnecessary weight is always a bad thing in a sailboat.

Take a look at a modern bulbed keel and see how practically all weight is on the bulb:












BryceGTX said:


> It gets even worse for the Jeanneau than even you point out here. Consider that the Jeanneau has an iron keel and the Catalina has a lead keel.
> 
> density of lead is 11340 kg/m^3
> density of iron is 7870 kg/m^3
> density of water is 1000 kg/m^3
> 
> For 11340 kg, lead takes 1 cubic meter
> For 11340 kg, iron takes 11340/7870 or 1.44 cubic meter
> 
> The weight of lead in water is 11340-1000 or 10340 kg or 91.18%
> The weight of iron in water is 11340-1000*1.44 or 9899 kg or 87.29%
> 
> We have lost 91.18%-87.29% or 3.89% of the weight in water by using iron.
> 
> So now to the Jeanneau keel with inferior (weight) bulb, lower weight keel, you loose an additional 4% of ballast weight.
> 
> The benefit of the bulb keel is not its greater weight. Rather, the benefit is less drag. The way I see it, if we want to make the 385 like a Jeanneau, just drop about 1000 pounds of lead off the keel. But then we wouldn't have a Catalina anymore.


Here you get me confused. A bulb in a keel with the same surface increases drag, that is more than compensated by the weight you save.

And about lead and iron, its true that the iron is about 30% lighter but the weight you will need would be the same, in Iron or lead if you don't lower the CG.

With lead if you have a bulb the difference will be that it would be a smaller bulb (with the same weight) that would produce less drag. On an all lead continuous fin keel, like the one on the Catalina 385, the center of gravity will be on the same place of a iron one. The difference would be that the keel would be less thicker and would produce less drag.

For lowering the center of gravity it would have to be a mixed keel, with a hollow steel structure on top and the lead all on the bottom in a kind of bulb. That's what you see for instance on the cruising X yachts, but that is not what happens on the 385 that has a continuous all lead keel.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

About the Catalina:

I love boats for a long time and Catalina were boats that I respect and considered as solid modern well made boats. At the time they were the modern option versus other good quality American boats but with older designs.

Than Catalina, while maintaining its quality did mot improved significantly their hull and keel/ruder design over the years and now things have inversed and Catalina is not anymore the modern option, but the older design option.

I would love to continue to see Catalina has a superior quality American boat but I guess that for that it has to change and to assume again on the market the same place that make it famous: A well built modern designed boat.

There is a place for such a boat on the American market, more now with all those quality and financial problems Tartan has been experiencing, but it would has to be a modern boat even if with a traditional flavor, at a fair price, otherwise I don't believe it will survive....and it will be a shame

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> it is obvious what is the keel that has more mass down and lower CG.
> 
> Paulo


Sounds like an interesting theory.. lets see how it stands up in the numbers:

We canot calculate exactly, but we can get really close. The Jeanneau 379 has a significant weight disadvantage in the keel. And its keel is iron. I assume the bulb is a pure cylinder almost 10 inches in diameter and 59 inches long. This is most likely quite a bit bigger than reality; however, the Jeanneau has small wings that I have no dimension for.

Jeanneau 379 weighs 6700 kg with keel 1775 kg
Mass of keel lost in water is 1775kg / 7870 kg/m^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 is 225 kg
Mass of keel in water is 1775 kg - 225 kg = 1549 kg
Effective mass in water is 1549 kg / 1775 = 87.27%

Draft is 1.5 m or 59 inches. 0.46 m or 18 inches from water to top of keel

Bulb is 0.24 m (9.45 in) diameter by 1.5 m (59 in) long (Pure cylinder)
Volume in bulb is 0.12^2 * 3.14 * 1.5 m = 0.0679 m^3
Mass in bulb is 0.0679 m^3 * 7870 kg/m^3 = 534 kg

Bulb mass is centered at 1.5m - 0.12m or 1.38 m below surface
90 degree righting moment is 1.38 m * (534 kg * 0.8727) * 9.807 = 6306 Nm

Strut is 1775 kg - 534 kg or 1241 kg
Strut length = 1.5 m - 0.24 m - 0.46 m = 0.8
Center strut mass is 0.80/2 + 0.46 = 0.86 below surface
90 degree righting moment is 0.86 m * (1241 kg * 0.8727) * 9.807 = 9134 Nm

*Jeanneau total 90 degree righting moment = 9134 Nm + 6306 Nm = 15440 Nm*

-----------------------------------------------------

The Catalina has a considerably heavier lead keel with quite thick wings. The wings on my boat are considerably bigger, so I scaled the 385 wings down.

Catalina 385 weighs 7484 kg with wing keel of 2812 kg and 802 sq ft sail
Mass of keel lost in water is 2812 kg / 11340 kg/m^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 = 247 kg
Mass of keel in water is 2812 kg - 247 kg = 2564 kg
Effective mass in water is 2564/2812 = 91.18%

Draft is 1.42 m or 56 inches. Suppose 0.46 m or 18 inches from water to top of keel

Volume in wing = 3' x 3' x 6" = 0.9144 m x 0.9144 m x 0.1524 m = 0.1274 m^3 (Rect box)
Mass in wing = 0.1274 m^3 * 11340 kg/m^3 = 1445 kg

Wing mass is centered at 1.42 m - 0.0762 m = 1.3438 m
90 degree righting moment is 1.3438 * (1445 kg * 0.9118) * 9.807 = 17363 Nm

Strut is 2812 kg - 1445 kg = 1367 kg
Strut length is 1.42 m - 0.1524 - 0.46 = 0.8076
Center strut mss is 0.8076/2 + 0.46 = 0.8638 m below surface
90 degree righting moment is 0.8638 * (1367 kg * 0.9118) * 9.807 = 10558 Nm

*Catalina total 90 degree righting moment is 17363 Nm + 10558 Nm = 27921 Nm*

The righting moment of the Catalina is almost double the righting moment of the Jeanneau. So whats the difference? Clearly the Catalina wing is huge. This places a significant weight even lower than the bulb. Second, the Catalina keel is considerably heavier.

So what does this righting moment mean? It means that with the same heeling force on the sails, the Catalina is heeled at almost half the heeling angle. When the sails are heeled, they produce less driving force.

Heeling angles for the same wind force.

27921 * sin(Catalina_Heel_Angle) = 15440 * sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle)

Catalina_Heel_Angle = ArcSin(15440/27921 * sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle))

When the Jeanneau is heeled at 20 degrees, the Catalina will be at 10.9
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 30 degrees, the Catalina will be at 16
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 45 degrees, the Catalina will be at 23
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 60 degrees, the Catalina will be at 28

Which boat do you prefer to be in when the Jeanneau is heeled at 30 degrees and the Catalina is at 16 degrees?


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> And about lead and iron, its true that the iron is about 30% lighter but the weight you will need would be the same, in Iron or lead if you don't lower the CG.


*Iron has a worse problem, it has 44% more volume than lead*. This extra volume causes drag problems. Note that the 379 keel losses 225 Kg of weight when you put it in water. An equivalent lead keel would have lost only 156 kg.



PCP said:


> On an all lead continuous fin keel, like the one on the Catalina 385, the center of gravity will be on the same place of a iron one. The difference would be that the keel would be less thicker and would produce less drag.


Sorry, that is not the only difference, the weight in water would be greater, that results in a higher righting moment. That is in addition to the less drag.



PCP said:


> For lowering the center of gravity it would have to be a mixed keel, with a hollow steel structure on top and the lead all on the bottom in a kind of bulb.


I cannot imagine using a hollow structure. That adds boyancy. Exactly the opposite of what we want. If we are going to make the strut of metal, make it the most dense material.. just like the rest of the keel.

The problems with your argument is that you are trying to make a cruising boat into a race boat. If you want a race boat, just go but a Benneteau First. However, consider that you will get a boat that is less forgiving in rough water.

No offense to you or Jeanneau, but the Catalina 385 is going to be better than the Jeanneau 379 in heavy winds and rough water. With double the righting moment, the Catalina 385 will heel less and its heavier weight will be more comfortable. It as I have said, a much stiffer boat.

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Than Catalina, while maintaining its quality did mot improved significantly their hull and keel/ruder design over the years


Is this really true???

The 387 is a well respected classical design that handles the rough water quite well. It is narrow beam and heavy weight.

On the other hand, the Catalina 400 is a more modern design with more flat bottom than the 387/380 models. But it retains the heavier weight.. YES 

The Catalina 350, 375 and 385 continued the modern trend by widening the beam and reducing the weight.

Not sure what you are refering to. If you say that Catalina should using an iron keel and reduce the weight.. Not sure how that is going ahead.

I quite frankly am completely baffled as to why anyone would use iron in the keel. Oh wait .. reduce cost???
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> Is this really true???
> 
> The 387 is a well respected classical design that handles the rough water quite well. It is narrow beam and heavy weight.
> 
> On the other hand, the Catalina 400 is a more modern design with more flat bottom than the 387/380 models. But it retains the heavier weight.. YES
> 
> The Catalina 350, 375 and 385 continued the modern trend by widening the beam and reducing the weight.
> 
> Not sure what you are refering to. If you say that Catalina should using an iron keel and reduce the weight.. Not sure how that is going ahead.
> 
> I quite frankly am completely baffled as to why anyone would use iron in the keel. Oh wait .. reduce cost???
> Bryce


I guess you did not read all I have said.

As I have said one of the most important technical characteristics on a sailboat is LWL. That determines hull speed and in a non planning boat is a major factor in what regards speed. They don't say what the LWL is but looking at the hull that has a length of 38.2ft would mot be very different from the one from the 387 that has a hull with 38.9ft.

The LWL of the 387, that is a *39ft* boat, is *32.5ft*. The one from the Jeanneau 379 that has a hull length of 36ft and is a* 36ft* is *34*ft.

A modern designed 36ft has has a 1.5ft bigger LWL than an old designed 39ft, in this case the Catalina 387, and it does not seem to me that the 385 has a bigger LWL. Well, when we buy a bigger boat we expect it to be faster than a much smaller boat and that as to do mainly with the smaller LWL of the smaller boat.

Regarding lead there is no question that it is the better material for a keel, but not used alone. It should be used with steel. Lead is heavy but has poor mecanical qualities. Lead should be used on the bottom as ballast but the upper part of the keel should be a hollow steel structure (or filled with some lighter plastic material).

I do not question the quality of the materials used on the Catalina but its design. A good material badly used can give worse results than an inferior material well used and in that case the good material is just wasted.

On the Catalina case, as I have explained they use an all lead fin keel and that will not give better results (in what regards RM) than a well designed steel keel with a steel bulb, quite the opposite. The result will be an heavier boat, even with a lead keel.

Of course if the the Catalina had a keel with a steel structure with a lead bulb it would be better because the bulb would be smaller would make less drag and the CG would be slightly better, but that is not the case.

I am just talking about design, not build quality or used materials.

A more beamier boat does not make a hull boat more modern. Some modern boats have moderated beams but modern hulls: The J boats, the Luffe, the Grand Soleil are just some examples of modern hulls with moderated beam.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> IAs I have said one of the most important technical characteristics on a sailboat is LWL.


LOL.. I had to laugh when I realized what you are referring to..
Definitely, the vertical bow is modern. Is it best?? Depends on who you ask.



PCP said:


> The LWL of the 387, is 32.5ft. The one from the Jeanneau 379 that has a hull length of 36ft and is a 36ft is 34ft.


Check the specifications of the Catalina 375.. Then check the specifications of the 385. They are identical except LOA.. The 375 has a LWL of 34.5'. Presumably, the 385 is the same. That puts the Catalina 385 longer than the Jeanneau 379 correct?



PCP said:


> A more beamier boat does not make a hull boat more modern.


History has shown that production sailboat hull designs have become flatter and wider. Not sure how you can say that is not modern. I guess everyone has their own opinion.

Now apparently you like a squared off bow. I like a bow with shear. They can have the same LWL, but the boat with shear will be longer.. I don't see the problem. Do you??
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Regarding lead there is no question that it is the better material for a keel, but not used alone. It should be used with steel. Lead is heavy but has poor mecanical qualities.


Lead has poor mechanical properties? Lead keels have been around for how many decades and suddenly we now find they have poor mechanical properties? I have thought lead keels have great mechanical properties. I know my keel has yet to fall off.. yet it is lead. 

Apparently, Jeanneau is concerned.. sometime between last night and noon today Jeanneau removed every keel mass from their website.
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski

BryceGTX said:


> .............Apparently, Jeanneau is concerned.. sometime between last night and noon today Jeanneau removed every keel mass from their website.
> Bryce


Really?!?!?!?!
http://www.jeanneau.com/medias/CMS/...edias_SO379-409-439_Inventaire_08-2011_GB.pdf

That link has info for the 379, 409 and 439 on it.

Also as I mentioned earlier, and you finally implied, iron is cheaper, hence why some builders use it. It may be better from a density standpoint, but some of the literal "LEAD" mines in Europe are out of lead, so the price is prohibitive as compared to Iron.

If I had a choice, it would be an iron fin with a lead bulb. You could not give me a wing keel! nor a shoal keel! Then again, in an area with 12-14' tides, sailing typically in 600+' of water......shoal keels are useless, If you want to get into the shallower estuary's, you had better have a bilge keel or CB setup, otherwise, even a shoal draft will be grounded in many instances! Hence most will go with a deep keel in the area of the world I sail.

Marty


----------



## Frederick32




----------



## PCP

*First of all I would like to apologize to all Catalina owners this senseless bitter discussion. I reaffirm again that I consider the Catalina a well built boat with a good interior I just only wished that they had a more modern hull and keel design. Even if they are still good boats the aged design makes them lesser good sailboat, meaning they could be a lot better*

I have no desire to denigrate the boat neither to piss the ones that own them or like them.

I just cannot let someone like BryceGTX got away with a lot of untrue data and statements. I think we all are responsible to contribute to the reliability of the available data on this forum.

I am sorry for the log post, I hope it will be clear and has I consider that I had contributed enough on this matter, I will not post more on this thread.

I have just not time neither disposition for it. You believe in who you thing it knows more of what he is talking about.



BryceGTX said:


> Sounds like an interesting theory.. lets see how it stands up in the numbers:
> 
> We canot calculate exactly, but we can get really close. ..
> 
> Jeanneau 379 weighs 6700 kg with keel 1775 kg
> &#8230;..
> 
> Bulb mass is centered at 1.5m - 0.12m or 1.38 m below surface
> 90 degree righting moment is 1.38 m * (534 kg * 0.8727) * 9.807 = 6306 Nm
> &#8230;&#8230;.
> *Mass in bulb is..= 534 kg
> Strut is 1775 kg - 534 kg or 1241 kg*
> ..
> Center strut mass is 0.80/2 + 0.46 = 0.86 below surface
> 90 degree righting moment is 0.86 m * (1241 kg * 0.8727) * 9.807 = 9134 Nm
> 
> Jeanneau total 90 degree righting moment = 9134 Nm + 6306 Nm = 15440 Nm
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> The Catalina has a considerably heavier lead keel with quite thick wings. The wings on my boat are considerably bigger, so I scaled the 385 wings down.
> 
> Catalina 385 weighs 7484 kg with wing keel of 2812 kg and 802 sq ft sail
> &#8230;.
> Wing mass is centered at 1.42 m - 0.0762 m = 1.3438 m
> &#8230;..
> *Mass in wing = &#8230; = 1445 kg
> Strut is 2812 kg - 1445 kg = 1367 kg*
> &#8230;&#8230;
> 
> Catalina total 90 degree righting moment is 17363 Nm + 10558 Nm = 27921 Nm
> 
> *The righting moment of the Catalina is almost double the righting moment of the Jeanneau.* &#8230;.


What is truly amazing in all that nonsense is that you fail to understand the enormity of your mistake. When someone make a calculation and find that the result makes not any sense most people just goes back and look at where the mistake was made. It seems that you don't know enough to see that your results don't make any sense.

The Catalina 385, that is a 38ft, has 74.5m2 of sail area and the Jeanneau 379, that is a 36ft, has 70m2. This indicates that the 385 has a slightly bigger RM, since cruising boats have approximately the same righting moment for the same sail area.

*"The righting moment of the Catalina is almost double the righting moment of the Jeanneau"*.

This should be the point where you should went back to your calculations to see what was wrong and if you couldn't find it ask what was wrong with them.

The first amazing thing (and very wrong) is that you calculate the total righting moment of both boats based on the keel righting moment and inferred the heel of the boat regarding to those values. That does not make any sense.

Great part of the RM used for sailing comes from hull form stability (that contributes to generate the RM). You completely disregarded that as well as the boat mass distribution and weight to the calculus of the arm length (GZ) that should have been multiplied by the total mass of the boat to give the RM.

That arm (GZ) is 0 when the boat is at rest and increases with heel till a certain point (Max GZ) that happens at about 60º of heel and then decreases with heel till 0 that is the heel point that corresponds to the boat of AVS, or LPS.

At that heel point the boat is not making any force to right itself up. Past that point the boat goes turtle and you have negative GZ.

*The GZ is NOT the arm of the keel but the distance at any point of heel between the center of buoyancy and the center of the gravity (the boat center of gravity, not the keel center of gravity).*










Here you can have some basic information about it:

http://newboatbuilders.com/docs/stability.pdf
Sailtrain: Yacht stability: Righting levers.

This is the most obvious mistake among many. Some others are:

*You considered wrongly that the ballast of the bulbed wing keel of the Jeanneau is 1775kg. It is not, it is 2039 kg,* a difference of 284kg that is very considerable because it goes all to that bulb situated down below.

*You considered that both structures (to hold the wing keel) had an approximated weight (1367 to 1445kg)*.

That makes no sense. The Yield strnght of cast lead is ridiculous low when compared with the one from the cast iron, about 25 times lower. Even when a high proportion of antimony is joined (8%) that difference is still huge, about 7 ( 700%) times bigger for cast iron. *This means that the difference in thickness between the structure to hold the wing has to be huge and therefore much heavier on the Catalina. *

That will have as result that, contrary to the Jeanneau Iron keel, the most part of the Catalina ballast will be on the holding structure and not on the keel, as we can clearly see here:










BryceGTX, you considered the opposite, that most part of the 385 ballast was on the winged part of the keel while on Jeanneau the biggest part was on the structure:

*Catalina:
Mass in wing = &#8230; = 1445 kg
Strut is 2812 kg - 1445 kg = 1367 kg

On the Jeanneau he considered that the biggest part of the ballast was on the structure:
Bulb mass&#8230;534 kg .
Strut is 1775 kg - 534 kg or 1241 kg*

This is does not make any sense, even not considering that you got the wrong ballast an that the Jeanneau has more almost 300kg all on the bulb.

*All this means that has the Jeanneau has most of the keel mass on the bulbed keel, opposite to what happens to the one from Catalina. All considering the center of gravity of the Jeanneau keel will be considerably lower than the one from the Catalina, non notwithstanding the fact that the one from the Catalina is all lead and the one from Jeanneau is all iron.*

Even in what regards drag the extra volume needed on the lead keel by the need of more weight to compensate the higher CG compensate the more 30% volume of the Iron regarding the lead.

Lead is a better material for keels but only when used with steel or at least iron, to take the best use of the proprieties of both metals.

To finish this subject let me remind that I had not said that the Jeanneau had a bigger or equal righting moment compared with the Catalina. *I have said that probably they have a similar GZ (arm). *

The Catalina will have a slightly bigger RM because it is a heavier boat. That does not mean that it is a stiffer boat because he has to carry more sail for the same speed and needs more righting moment (because he is heavier and has to carry more sail).

In the end, as I have said, *there should not be a significant difference in stiffness, but there will be a difference in weight *and that should make the Jeanneau a faster boat in light and medium winds, considering that they have both an approximated LWL.

* We should not forget that we are comparing a 36ft with a 38ft sailboat*.



BryceGTX said:


> LOL.. I had to laugh when I realized what you are referring to..
> Now apparently you like a squared off bow. I like a bow with shear. They can have the same LWL, but the boat with shear will be longer.. I don't see the problem. Do you??
> Definitely, the vertical bow is modern. Is it best?? Depends on who you ask.


Of course it has problems in the superior price of the boat and in the marina where you pay for the hull length or LOA (depending on the marina).

Besides the LWL there are other advantages in a modern bow (like less pitching for example). What is no doubt about is that modern bows have a lot less shear than older ones and maximize LWL.

Old designed bows are only used when the looks have more importance than efficiency, like in true classic boats.



BryceGTX said:


> LOL.. I had to laugh when I realized what you are referring to..
> Check the specifications of the Catalina 375.. Then check the specifications of the 385. They are identical except LOA.. The 375 has a LWL of 34.5'. Presumably, the 385 is the same. That puts the Catalina 385 longer than the Jeanneau 379 correct?


I have done better than that:










The 385 LWL is about the same has the one from the Jeanneau 379: 34.06ft to 34.00ft.

That means that a 38ft "modern" Catalina has about the same LWL of a modern 36ft jeanneau. That's a huge difference, as I had said before and it will contribute significantly to make the potential speed of the 38ft boat similar to the one of a 36ft boat.



BryceGTX said:


> History has shown that production sailboat hull designs have become flatter and wider. Not sure how you can say that is not modern. I guess everyone has their own opinion.
> Bryce


I guess that by flatter you mean with less rocker and that's true but in what regards beam the major difference is that the beam has been brought aft instead of being amidships.

In some extent sailboats have also increased beam (I am talking of the last 30 years) but what I have said is that contrary to the keels or bows, that had an almost universal change (ballasted bulbs on the keels and less shear on the bows), that is not the case with beam.

You can still find modern cruisers, and many race boats , that have opted for maintaining a moderate beam (with the beam brought aft) with increased B/D ratio to compensate the loss of form stability.

The main reason that makes these the minority are costs, because they are more expensive to build and also heel, because they sail with proportionally more heel than beamier boats, not to mention the bigger interior space.

But moderately beamed boats also have positive points: they generate less wave drag and therefore are more comfortable passing waves and have generally a better reserve stability with a better AVS and practically always, less inverted stability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JimMcGee

PCP said:


> *First of all I would like to apologize to all Catalina owners this senseless bitter discussion. I reaffirm again that I consider the Catalina a well built boat with a good interior I just only wished that they had a more modern hull and keel design. Even if they are still good boats the aged design makes them lesser good sailboat, meaning they could be a lot better*
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo,
I'm glad you clarified your position. I for one was quite offended by your remarks! 

This thread reminds me of the guys who debate Ferrari vs. Porsche supercars. They go on about absolute horsepower, ceramic brakes and g-forces. But the fact is those differences have little to do with how you drive a car in the real world.

Let's take the example of a plumb bow versus a bit of overhang in the real world. The 385 is 38 feet LOA and 35.5 feet LWL. The SO 379 is a foot shorter LOA, with her plumb bow her waterline length is approximately 1.3 feet less than her LOA. To keep the comparison fair, let's upsize her LOA and LWL by a foot; that gives us 38 feet LOA and 35.4 feet LWL! I can only assume the Sun Odyssey has a bit more stern overhang than the Catalina (these numbers are taken from the link in Marty's earlier post). So theoretical boat speed would be the same!

Since we're playing with numbers let's say a given plumb bow design gives you an extra foot of waterline. On a 38 footer that translates to 1/10th of a knot boat speed. Now that's a BIG deal to a racer. Doesn't mean squat to me out sailing in the real world because I'm too busy enjoying the day, going below to make sandwiches and enjoying conversation to keep my sails tweaked to maintain that 1/10th of a knot difference.

Now as for deep fin/bulb keels versus more "traditional" keel designs. From what I understand the more traditional design has more wetted surface and more drag and that the deep fin/bulb. The fin will also point a bit higher. Again, important for racers but in the real world I'm more concerned by the fact that the deep fin/bulb will have a more abrupt motion which means more chance of queasy passengers. It's kind of like the guy who buys the sports car with the harsh ride because it goes faster around the track, but rattles your teeth on the roads we really have to drive on. Nothing wrong with buying that sports car if it gives you a rush, but don't tell me my Acura is inferior because the ride is more comfortable at highway speeds.

I am VERY happy raising a glass to the guys on the go-fast boat as they edge past us, frantically cranking winches, shifting bodies to windward and trying to read the puffs. They're having a blast! I'll enjoy the spectacle while snacking on a cracker and listening to some mellow music. And at the end of the day I'll enjoy the sight of how the shear sets off the lines of my boat. 
Hell, I'll even listen to everyone tell lies at the bar about how fast you were going if you buy the first round.









Jim


----------



## Donna_F

My head hurts.


----------



## blt2ski

DRFerron said:


> My head hurts.


ME TOO!

As far as Jim's keel styles who wants what......not sure I would say it is a cruiser vs racer issue as much as a "WHERE" one sails at! As I have pointed out in MANY threads, for me, 100yd/M off shore I am usually in 100-300+ feet of water, most of the time my depth sounder does not read! so for me, a traditional wing, shallow or equal is not really a needed item. Now if you sail in the Chesapeake Bay......that 1-2' difference may be worth gambling on the lesser sailing ability of a shoal/wing keel.

Granted I do race weekly in the summer with my kids and some others. I would even if I sailed on the east coast with a shoal keel! or here for that matter. BUT< I personally do not see the reason with loading my boat down with another 500-1000 lbs of lead/iron wt, less pointing ability etc when depth is not an issue for me. Even when I bought the boat 5 yrs ago, I did not realize I would race it as much as I have, and ALL shoal keel boats were passed over! Even I quit racing tomorrow, went on a around the world cruise, I would not look at a shoal draft boat, it would be the deepest keel I could get. As most of the time, the depth sounder would not register when in the middle of the ocean.

The two C42mk2's in the YC I belong to, BOTH have the 7.5 keel option! A J 44 next to one of them has IIRC an 8.5' keel. They have grounding issues about 12 days of the year when we have some -3+ tides, so they move to the guest dock where it is at minimum 15' on these LOW tide days.

Marty


----------



## PCP

JimMcGee said:


> Paulo,
> I'm glad you clarified your position. I for one was quite offended by your remarks!
> 
> This thread reminds me of the guys who debate Ferrari vs. Porsche supercars. They go on about absolute horsepower, ceramic brakes and g-forces. But the fact is those differences have little to do with how you drive a car in the real world.
> 
> Let's take the example of a plumb bow versus a bit of overhang in the real world. The 385 is 38 feet LOA and 35.5 feet LWL. The SO 379 is a foot shorter LOA, with her plumb bow her waterline length is approximately 1.3 feet less than her LOA. To keep the comparison fair, let's upsize her LOA and LWL by a foot; that gives us 38 feet LOA and 35.4 feet LWL! I can only assume the Sun Odyssey has a bit more stern overhang than the Catalina (these numbers are taken from the link in Marty's earlier post). So theoretical boat speed would be the same!
> 
> Since we're playing with numbers let's say a given plumb bow design gives you an extra foot of waterline. On a 38 footer that translates to 1/10th of a knot boat speed. Now that's a BIG deal to a racer. Doesn't mean squat to me out sailing in the real world because I'm too busy enjoying the day, going below to make sandwiches and enjoying conversation to keep my sails tweaked to maintain that 1/10th of a knot difference.
> 
> Now as for deep fin/bulb keels versus more "traditional" keel designs. From what I understand the more traditional design has more wetted surface and more drag and that the deep fin/bulb. The fin will also point a bit higher. Again, important for racers but in the real world I'm more concerned by the fact that the deep fin/bulb will have a more abrupt motion which means more chance of queasy passengers. It's kind of like the guy who buys the sports car with the harsh ride because it goes faster around the track, but rattles your teeth on the roads we really have to drive on. Nothing wrong with buying that sports car if it gives you a rush, but don't tell me my Acura is inferior because the ride is more comfortable at highway speeds.
> 
> I am VERY happy raising a glass to the guys on the go-fast boat as they edge past us, frantically cranking winches, shifting bodies to windward and trying to read the puffs. They're having a blast! I'll enjoy the spectacle while snacking on a cracker and listening to some mellow music. And at the end of the day I'll enjoy the sight of how the shear sets off the lines of my boat.
> Hell, I'll even listen to everyone tell lies at the bar about how fast you were going if you buy the first round.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim


Jim, since it is to answer to you I open an exception

I don't know were you got that value of 35.5ft for the 385 LWL but it is not that number. I have measured it with CAD having has reference the boat design, the LOA and the Hull length and the result was *34.01ft*. Believe me I work professionally utilizing this kind of stuff and the difference will not be more than more than one or two inches for more or less.










So if we want to make that calculation of yours, the Jeanneau has a hull with 36ft and has a 34ft LWL, to be even we will would had to add to the Jeanneau 2ft at the hull length and 2 ft to the LWL.

The difference of a Catalina 385 with the actual bow design and with a modern bow design would be 2ft in the LWL, one would have a LWL of 34.01ft and the modern one would have 36.00ft: this represents a difference in hull speed of 0.23.

You may not find it important but it represents 5.52 miles a day. In a Transat of 22 days it will represents 121.44 nm. Considering an average of 5.5K it will represent almost a day, more precisely 22 hours. And it cost you nothing.

Regarding the Catalina keel, an old design non bulbed one, versus a modern bulbed keel the difference would be bigger on the fin keel Catalina. On that one a modern keel with a steel structure and a bulb (or even with an iron thinner keel on the top and a bulb on the bottom), the difference would be between 400 and 600kg for the same effect. That is about the difference you would experiment with a boat with both tanks full, or both tanks empty. It is a noticeable difference.

If you want to see it other way, the boat will have more 500kg of load capacity.

In what regards this:

"Now as for deep fin/bulb keels versus more "traditional" keel designs. From what I understand the more traditional design has more wetted surface and more drag and that the deep fin/bulb. The fin will also point a bit higher. Again, important for racers but in the real world I'm more concerned by the fact that the deep fin/bulb will have a more abrupt motion which means more chance of queasy passengers".

I am talking about a modern cruising bulbed keel with the same draft as the wider fin keel non bulbed keel of the Catalina.

There would be no difference in pointing ability, the wider surface of the Catalina keel would have more wetter area but probably the extra drag from the bulb would make things even (I am not talking about a torpedo keel, but about a cruising bulbed keel).

There would not have any difference in the boat motion. The boat would not be more stiff and the keel effect would be the same being bulbed or not. The only difference would be those extra 500kg.

I know, that this would not be very important for a cruiser. The boat would not be much faster with less 500 kg, probably more faster some insignificant 0,23K or so.

That would give on that 22 days Transatlantic crossing (considering also the gain with the two LWL extra feet) 243nm and that at an average of 5.5K would be almost 2 days, of course, that would not make any difference to a cruiser....or maybe after all it would make some difference, at least for some cruisers and it eventually can mark the difference between escaping to bad weather...or not

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Paulo, you are “lifting” your dimensions off of an artist’s rendering, not a scale drawing. If you want any accuracy at all, you need to contact Catalina’s engineering department and get a real scale drawing, not something that comes from Sharon Day’s marketing department. All things being equal, care to give us a little treatise on reserve buoyancy?


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I just cannot let someone like BryceGTX got away with a lot of untrue data and statements. I think we all are responsible to contribute to the reliability of the available data on this forum.
> 
> I have just not time neither disposition for it. You believe in who you thing it knows more of what he is talking about.
> 
> What is truly amazing in all that nonsense is that you fail to understand the enormity of your mistake. When someone make a calculation and find that the result makes not any sense most people just goes back and look at where the mistake was made. It seems that you don't know enough to see that your results don't make any sense.


There is a good reason that I did not show the complete calculation. The weight of the keel on the Jeanneau is so critical, that a few hundred pounds can have a difference. We call such a problem sensitivity in the calculations. At your insistance, I have included all the extra weight in the bulb for the Jeanneau 379. In my mind, this sensitivity is an indication that the Jeanneau 379 is running at the edge.

Note, that although I have not included the flat hull, that inclusion will not make the Jeanneau look better than the Catalina. Rather, it will change both.

However, since you want to see the complete calculations that adds all the moments, here it is.. enjoy.

Your simple COG picture shows the basic view of how the moment works. However, to calculate the moment, we need a more sophisticated model. There are 4 moments to add:
1) Righting moment of the bulb/wing
2) Righting moment of the keel strut
3) Righting moment of the hull below water line
4) Heeling moment of the hull above water line.

For me, the interesting thing is that these two boats are so close in size and mass. The only real variable is the keel.

----------------------------------------

Jeanneau 379 weighs 6700-1775+2039= 6964 kg 15352 lbs with keel 2039 kg 4495 lbs
Mass of keel lost in water is 2039kg / 7870 kg/m^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 is 259 kg
Mass of keel in water is 2039 kg - 259 kg = 1780 kg
Effective mass in water is 1780 kg / 2039 = 87.29%

Draft is 1.5 m or 59 inches. 0.46 m or 18 inches from water to top of keel

Bulb is 0.2934 m (11.55 in) diameter by 1.5 m (59 in) long (Pure cylinder)
Volume in bulb is 0.147^2 * 3.14 * 1.5 m = 0.1014 m^3
Mass in bulb is 0.1014 m^3 * 7870 kg/m^3 = 534 + (2039-1775) = 798 kg

Bulb mass is centered at 1.5m - 0.12m or 1.38 m below surface
90 degree righting moment is 1.38 m * (798 kg * 0.8729) * 9.807 = 9427 Nm

Strut is 2039 kg - 798 kg or 1241 kg
Strut length = 1.5 m - 0.24 m - 0.46 m = 0.8
Center strut mass is 0.80/2 + 0.46 = 0.86 below surface
90 degree righting moment is 0.86 m * (1241 kg * 0.8727) * 9.807 = 9134 Nm

** Total 90 degree righting moment of keel = 9134 Nm + 9427 Nm = 18561 Nm
Total volume of keel 2039/7870 = 0.259 m^3

Volume of boat below water line:
v1 = MassBoat/WaterDensity - VolumeOfKeel = 6964/1000 - 0.259 = 6.705 m^3

Volume of boat above waterline
v0 = Beam * LWL * FreeBoard * 0.5 = 3.76 * 10.40 * 1 * 0.5 = 19.52 m^3

Mass of Boat minus keel = 6964-2039 = 4925 kg
Mass of boat below waterline
m1 = MassBoat * v1/(v0+v1) = 4925 * 6.705/(19.52+6.705) = 1259 kg

Mass of boat above waterline
m0 = MassBoat * v0/(v0+v1) = 4925 * 19.52/(19.52+6.705) = 3665 kg

Assume distance of below waterline COG = TopOfKeel/3 = 0.33 * 0.46 m = 0.1518 m
Assume distance of above waterline COG = Freeboard/2 = 1/0 = 0.5 m
Righting moment below water line = 0.1518 * 1259 * 9.807 = 1874 Nm
Heeling moment above water line = 0.5 * 3665 * 9.807 = 17975 Nm
** Total righting moment of hull = 1874 kg - 17975 kg = -16101 Nm
**** Total righting moment of Jeanneau 379 = 18561 Nm - 16101 Nm = 2460 Nm*

-----------------------------------------

Catalina 385 weighs 7484 kg with wing keel of 2812 kg and 802 sq ft sail
Mass of keel lost in water is 2812 kg / 11340 kg/m^3 * 1000 kg/m^3 = 247 kg
Mass of keel in water is 2812 kg - 247 kg = 2564 kg
Effective mass in water is 2564/2812 = 91.18%

Draft is 1.42 m or 56 inches. Suppose 0.46 m or 18 inches from water to top of keel

Volume in wing = 3' x 3' x 6" = 0.9144 m x 0.9144 m x 0.1524 m = 0.1274 m^3 (Rect box)
Mass in wing = 0.1274 m^3 * 11340 kg/m^3 = 1445 kg

Wing mass is centered at 1.42 m - 0.0762 m = 1.3438 m
90 degree righting moment is 1.3438 * (1445 kg * 0.9118) * 9.807 = 17363 Nm

Strut is 2812 kg - 1445 kg = 1367 kg
Strut length is 1.42 m - 0.1524 - 0.46 = 0.8076
Center strut mss is 0.8076/2 + 0.46 = 0.8638 m below surface
90 degree righting moment is 0.8638 * (1367 kg * 0.9118) * 9.807 = 10558 Nm

Total 90 degree righting moment of keel is 17363 Nm + 10558 Nm = 27921 Nm
Total volume of keel 2812/11340 = 0.248 m^3

Volume of boat below water line:
v1 = MassBoat/WaterDensity - VolumeOfKeel = 7484/1000 - 0.248 = 7.236 m^3

Volume of boat above waterline
v0 = Beam * LWL * FreeBoard * 0.5 = 3.99 * 10.40 * 1 * 0.5 = 20.75

Mass of Boat minus keel = 7484-2812 = 4672 kg
Mass of boat below waterline
m1 = MassBoat * v1/(v0+v1) = 4672 * 7.236/(20.75+7.236) = 1207 kg

Mass of boat above waterline
m0 = MassBoat * v0/(v0+v1) = 4672 * 20.75/(20.75+7.236) = 3464 kg

Assume distance of below waterline COG = TopOfKeel/3 = 0.33 * 0.46 m = 0.1518 m
Assume distance of above waterline COG = Freeboard/2 = 1/0 = 0.5 m
Righting moment below water line = 0.1518 * 1207 * 9.807 = 1796 Nm
Heeling moment above water line = 0.5 * 3464 * 9.807 = 16985 Nm
** Total righting moment of hull = 1796 kg - 16985 kg = - 15190 Nm
**** Total righting moment of Catalina 385 = 27921 Nm - 15190 Nm = 12731 Nm*
----------------------------------------------

Heeling angles:

12731 * sin(Catalina_Heel_Angle) = 2460 * sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle)

Catalina_Heel_Angle = ArcSin(2460/12731 * sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle))

When the Jeanneau is heeled at 10 degrees, the Catalina will be at 2
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 20 degrees, the Catalina will be at 3.8
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 45 degrees, the Catalina will be at 8
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 60 degrees, the Catalina will be at 10
These heel angles will be modified somewhat because of hull shape.

No doubt we can play with the Jeanneau 379 numbers. However, it is very sensitive to the keel dimensions and weight distributions.
Bryce

BTW.. Forgot to state the obvious.. A complete calculation shows the Jeanneau 379 at a worse disadvantage.


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> That makes no sense. The Yield strnght of cast lead is ridiculous low when compared with the one from the cast iron, about 25 times lower. Even when a high proportion of antimony is joined (8%) that difference is still huge, about 7 ( 700%) times bigger for cast iron.


The yeild strength is inappropriate for typical cast iron. I suspect you wanted to say tensile strength. Nevertheless, the critical issue with cast iron is its lack of ductility, not its tensile stength. To compensate for almost no ductility, the parts must be considerably more massive than the tensile strength would indicate.

If you want to get an idea what I am referring to, just take a stroll though a marina with the boats on the hard and compare sizes of the vertical strut of cast iron and lead.
Bryce


----------



## JimMcGee

DRFerron said:


> My head hurts.


*C'mon Donna Geek Out !*


----------



## JimMcGee

BryceGTX said:


> When the Jeanneau is heeled at 10 degrees, the Catalina will be at 2
> When the Jeanneau is heeled at 20 degrees, the Catalina will be at 3.8
> When the Jeanneau is heeled at 45 degrees, the Catalina will be at 8
> 
> These heel angles will be modified somewhat because of hull shape.


Getting past the equations, these few lines are the most important part of Bryce's post.

The Catalina is designed to sail on its feet. While some may find that less exciting, it's more comfortable. My boat definitely likes to be sailed on her feet and I understand that's true of most Catalina designs.


----------



## JimMcGee

PCP said:


> I don't know were you got that value of 35.5ft for the 385 LWL but it is not that number. I have measured it with CAD having has reference the boat design, the LOA and the Hull length and the result was *34.01ft*. Believe me I work professionally utilizing this kind of stuff and the difference will not be more than more than one or two inches for more or less.


Paulo, you can only get so much accuracy from a small drawing that may or may not be to scale. An earlier poster said the 375 & 385 had the same LWL so I used the figures from the 375. I'd be surprised if the 385 had a shorter waterline



PCP said:


> ... this represents a difference in hull speed of 0.23.
> 
> You may not find it important but it represents 5.52 miles a day. In a Transat of 22 days it will represents 121.44 nm. Considering an average of 5.5K it will represent almost a day, more precisely 22 hours.


I would have to disagree. This is where calculations get you into trouble in the real world.

Whether we use my figure of 1/10th knot or your 2/10th figure it assumes all else is equal in a perfect world.

Many factors, from crew attentiveness to how much stuff your wife brings for the weekend will effect boat speed by a tenth of a knot or more. And after all once your sails are a couple of years old you'll lose at least that much boat speed 

And don't forget most of us will never cross the Atlantic. These boats are designed for coastal sailing not cracking off 200 mile days.



PCP said:


> There would not have any difference in the boat motion. The boat would not be more stiff and the keel effect would be the same being bulbed or not. The only difference would be those extra 500kg.


I don't have a lot of direct experience here. I'm going by what others have described on this and other forums. But Bryce's numbers on healing angles would seem to bear out a difference in comfort. Even so I'd bet that if you talked to Catalina, Beneteau and Jeaneau owners most would be happy with their boats.

*All that said I think this discussion of Catalina versus other brands hull designs drifts away from the original topic of "Have Catalina's design decisions had a negative impact on the boat's percieved value?"*

Jim


----------



## PCP

JimMcGee said:


> Getting past the equations, these few lines are the most important part of Bryce's post.
> 
> The Catalina is designed to sail on its feet. While some may find that less exciting, it's more comfortable. My boat definitely likes to be sailed on her feet and I understand that's true of most Catalina designs.


*Originally Posted by BryceGTX 
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 10 degrees, the Catalina will be at 2
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 20 degrees, the Catalina will be at 3.8
When the Jeanneau is heeled at 45 degrees, the Catalina will be at 8

These heel angles will be modified somewhat because of hull shape.*

Jesus Jim, I thought you would understand that does not make any sense, like all those calculs

As I have said only someone that does not understand the more basic stuff about stability and sailing can post someone like this...and only someone that does not understand nothing about boat stability can believe in them

But I guess that if I add some simple comments that has to do with your sailing experience you can understand the enormity of those numbers:

As I have already noted the Catalina 385 and the Jeanneau 376 have a similar sail area, just a bit bigger on the Catalina. Nobody sails with a 45º heel but I would say, based on similar boats, that the Jeanneau will take the first reef with about 25º/30º of heel (going upwind) with about 17/18k wind.

The boat will reef because he can sail faster with less heel and less sail, but you can persist and over heel the boat, going with a lot of drag. Even the short keel boat will permit you to have control on the boat due to its twin rudders. Let's say that the boat will be heeled at 45º with 25k wind, that should not be very far away.

Can you imagine going in your Catalina, or for that matter any monohull, in 25K wind, upwind with full sail making 8º of heel

Everybody knows, well almost everybody, that the sailboats need to heel to get righting moment and that at small heel angles, like 8º, almost all the righting moment comes from hull form.

This kind of nonsense and the lack of knowledge from most people to understand what are huge errors and simple truths is the reason I have decided long ago not to post anything technical about stability on an open forum. I don't know how I has dragged to this, but as I have said, it has already stopped, I mean arguing with someone about stability on the technical side.

Well, for understand what I have said above you don't need to understand anything about stability, you just have to have some small sail experience.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Donna_F

JimMcGee said:


> *C'mon Donna Geek Out !*


Didn't they recently disprove Einstein's theory? I heard a segment about it on NPR last month.

Wake me when you people figure it all out and someone let me know if I should buy the boat. My prior choice was the 355. 

I swear, this thread alone would turn me off the 385.


----------



## blt2ski

Donna, 

There is a 355 kiddy corner from me at my dock, not a bad looking boat from the outside frankly! Altho it looks bigger than Dodenja's CS36 merlin! Way bigger than my Jeanneau that is about the same size as a C28mkII! Then again, the C28 has more interior than my boat too.........

Marty


----------



## Donna_F

blt2ski said:


> Donna,
> 
> There is a 355 kiddy corner from me at my dock, not a bad looking boat from the outside frankly! Altho it looks bigger than Dodenja's CS36 merlin! Way bigger than my Jeanneau that is about the same size as a C28mkII! Then again, the C28 has more interior than my boat too.........
> 
> Marty


We boarded the 355 last year. I have yet to go on the 385. However, now that we have to do a total repower of the 30 we may keep it longer and skip the 355/385 and go straight to the final boat, which will be neither.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Paulo, you are "lifting" your dimensions off of an artist's rendering, not a scale drawing. If you want any accuracy at all, you need to contact Catalina's engineering department and get a real scale drawing, not something that comes from Sharon Day's marketing department. All things being equal, care to give us a little treatise on reserve buoyancy?


Yes, but if the LOA and the Hull length are right (and they are) and serve as reference you will not get any significant error. Besides that is an artist's rendering made OVER the original design and I don't see how the proportions can be wrong.

Regarding reserve buoyancy, I prefer to call it reserve stability, I don't know enough for a book, much less a treaty and even what I would know I will not post it or discuss it on an open forum by the reasons I have told in a previous post.

However it is very easy to access that from a RM stability curve and all the boat builders have them, at least the ones that certificate the boats for Europe (RCD), and Catalina does that.

Most of them don't like to give objective information about the boat stability so you will have to say that you will not buy the boat without see that...and then the RM curve (most probably a GZ curve) will appear rapidly

Basically the area behind the positive part of the RM curve (till the 0º heel line) represents the energy needed to overcame the RM and to capsize the boat.

With 0º heel, the energy is represented by all the area that are under the positive part of the curve. At 90º the energy needed is the one represented by the the area from the 90º to the AVS point.

Take a look here and you will understand better what I am talking about:

Polar diagram for 430 ? - myHanse - Hanse Yachts Owners Forum - Page 3

For understanding the difference between a GZ and a RM curve, take a look here:

http://www.maloyachts.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hzHfm/XKzyc=&tabid=134&mid=723

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Yamsailor

Gentlemen,

I was the one who started this thread. In no way was it meant to bash one manufacturer or another. Indeed there are many Catalina models I very much like. As someone pointed out a few pages ago, these boats are designed for weekend cruising. I just do not find the interior space design pleasing to my taste and I think the cost of the boat is way too high for how it has been built. In my opinion the overall Cost/Benefit ratio is too high. I think the 355 and the 445 are designed well. I think the cost of the 355 is too high. I don't think boaters need gadgets like electic tilting beds. I do think the 445 is price more competitively.


----------



## Donna_F

Yamsailor said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I was the one who started this thread. In no way was it meant to bash one manufacturer or another. Indeed there are many Catalina models I very much like.


I think this was a train that you could not have stopped. 



Yamsailor said:


> I don't think boaters need gadgets like electic tilting beds.


Maybe we just don't _realize_ we need beds that tilt on our boats. 
I agree, however. It did seem like an odd feature.


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> However it is very easy to access that from a RM stability curve and all the boat builders have them, at least the ones that certificate the boats for Europe (RCD), and Catalina does that.
> 
> Most of them don't like to give objective information about the boat stability so you will have to say that you will not buy the boat without see that...and then the RM curve (most probably a GZ curve) will appear rapidly
> Paulo





PCP said:


> As I have said only someone that does not understand the more basic stuff about stability and sailing can post someone like this...and only someone that does not understand nothing about boat stability can believe in them
> Paulo


Paulo.. you do realize that these RM and GZ curves are calculated using computer models correct?

And the way the calculations are performed is by calculating the mass, determining the COG of each mass and calculating a moment using that cog, mass and a moment arm correct? Then the moments are added.

Now all computer simulations perform these calculations pretty much the same way.

So the fundamental basis of the RM numbers come from these moment calculations. So the *basic stuff about stability and sailing* as you say comes from these moment calculations.

Now you also realize that I calculated my moments in the same way correct?

The fact that the RM values are calculated from basic moment calculations should provide you insight into how the RM numbers are derived.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you where the RM numbers came from?

Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

JimMcGee said:


> Getting past the equations, these few lines are the most important part of Bryce's post.
> 
> The Catalina is designed to sail on its feet. While some may find that less exciting, it's more comfortable. My boat definitely likes to be sailed on her feet and I understand that's true of most Catalina designs.


Yes, you are absolutely right. That is what I have found with my boat.

I expected that not everyone would understand the barrage of equations; I am glad the heel comparison gave good indication of the difference.

I am not dissuaded by the rhetoric as I am intimately familiar with the computer based calculations for these moments.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

Yamsailor said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I was at the Annapolis boat show a few weeks ago. I am usually a big Catalina fan. I saw the new Catalina 385. Has anyone else seen it? I am curious as to what others think of the boat because personally I don't like the boat at all.
> 
> Anybody else have any opinions?


Getting back to the original question:

Yes, wife, I and friends were also was at Annapolis. We saw the 385. It appeared to me classical Catalina, so I felt comfortable. The boat was laid out much like the 375. And we have always felt the 375 was a beautiful boat.

The way I see it, the 385 is a more modern design hull much like the 350 and 375. Its weight has been reduced from the 387 model that it presumably replaces. I was unsure about the effects of the weight reduction when looking at the 385 compared to the 387.

I have always liked the standing rigging of the bigger Catalinas. Typically 6 or 8 shrouds along with backstays and conventional full fore stay. The 385 is no exception. The shrouds go through the cabin top and anchor to huge structures glassed into the hull. As far as I am concerned, as good as it gets.

After having twin wheels, I would much prefer twin wheels in any boat we get in the future. The benefit I see is the ability to move unimpeded through the cockpit without bumping into the wheel. Both under sail and at anchor. Although the 385 seem to provide sufficient clearance for a single wheel.

Another thing if I remember correctly is the 385 has a slotted extruded aluminum toe rail. I really like this on our 400 Catalina as it provides numerous places to lash things down. IIRC, the 375 does not have an extruded toe rail.

We wanted to see the 470, but it didn't make it to Annapolis.

We looked at all the boats, IP, Tartan, Catalina, Hunter, Benneteau, Jeanneau, Hylas, Dufor, Bavaria.... we looked at boats from 30 to 70 (??). And of course we saw the big Cats.

As you said, sticker shock seemed to be a problem with all boats.
Bryce


----------



## JimMcGee

DRFerron said:


> Didn't they recently disprove Einstein's theory? I heard a segment about it on NPR last month.
> 
> Wake me when you people figure it all out and someone let me know if I should buy the boat. My prior choice was the 355.
> 
> I swear, this thread alone would turn me off the 385.


That was kinda the point. Guess the sarcasm missed the mark...


----------



## blt2ski

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRFerron View Post
Didn't they recently disprove Einstein's theory? I heard a segment about it on NPR last month.

Wake me when you people figure it all out and someone let me know if I should buy the boat. My prior choice was the 355.

I swear, this thread alone would turn me off the 385.......

That was kinda the point. Guess the sarcasm missed the mark...

Who is Einstein?

I'm still trying to figure out the figures Byron and paulo are arguing over! nor can I come up with any figures on stability index's to equal these figures....then again, they all seem to be using a different measuring system. I look up RM at C&C, they use ft lbs at 1 degree, Jeanneau for a 36i is using something else, not that I can read french, but it is HERE

In the mean time, as I mentioned earlier, They meaning Catalina, has maybe done some surveys of potential new boat buyers, wanting what the new boats look and feel like, current owners want what is older, maybe even some of the current owners want what is the look of the new boats!

Then comes the, as pointed out by a few, cost is pretty high. one way to delete a few bucks is going to an iron keel vs lead! as Hunter did a few yrs back. J and B had to do that a few yrs back farther, as Lead is some what hard to get in Europe vs iron. So manufactures make due with what is readily available, and keeps there product at a price point they want to be at. Some will offer options, that can make a product go up. Such as Swans Club 42, base price had to be under 500K to NYYC members, BUT, most ended up in the $700-1.1M USD range by the time members outfitted the boats they way they wanted, majority around $7-800K.

So Jims option of an upgrade interior is something maybe Catalina needs to look at. Then again, they are a production builder, so they want things to be as simple, no changable as possible to keep the cost down. A semi production outfit like Swan, can have pages of options.

marty


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> Quote:
> ...
> I'm still trying to figure out the figures Byron and paulo are arguing over! nor can I come up with any figures on stability index's to equal these figures....then again, they all seem to be using a different measuring system. I look up RM at C&C, they use ft lbs at 1 degree, Jeanneau for a 36i is using something else, not that I can read french, but it is HERE
> 
> ..
> marty


Marty, I am not arguing with nobody and I hope that at least you have understood that sailing explanation regarding the 8º heel of the Jeanneau corresponding to 45º degrees on the Catalina, or was the other way around?

Regarding European stability curves, when you see values inferior to 1 (m), for most small boats, they are talking about arms and that is a curve with arms lengths that correspond to each point of heel (GZ curve). Normally they are measured in m.

The one you provided the link is a RM curve, a moments curve and they in Europe came normally in Kgf*m and that's the case with the Jeanneau or in Kn*m, like this one from the malo 37:

http://www.jeanneau-owners2.com/specifications/id314.htm

http://www.maloyachts.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JqXlAvauXNM=&tabid=134&mid=723

I join a converter but just to get a rough idea you can divide by 100 to pass from the Jeanneau unit to the Malo Unit. Sometimes it is also used N*m and for getting K*m you have to multiply by 1000. It can be measured also in Tf*m and in this case for getting Kf*m you have also to multiply by 1000.

Hope this helps:

Moment of Force Conversion - FREE Unit Converter

Regarding the units used by Bryce they are N*m or Nm.

Converting what he calls:

*Total righting moment of Jeanneau 379 = 18561 Nm - 16101 Nm = 2460 Nm*

* Total righting moment of Catalina 385 = 27921 Nm - 15190 Nm = 12731 Nm*

On the same units used of the Jeanneau Stability curve that would give:

*Total righting moment of Jeanneau 379* = 2460 Nm = *250.9 Kgf*m*

*Total righting moment of Catalina 385* = 12731 Nm = *1298.2 Kgf*m*

Regarding about what he calls *Total righting moment* is more difficult because I don't know what is going on is head. I understand what he has made, or tried. He tried to calculate the righting moment at 90º and then used that value to estimate the heel angle of the boats while sailing.

On the value for the the Jeanneau righting moment of the jeanneau at 90º angle the error factor is more than 1000%. You can see that the 36 has at 90º a RM of about 2500 Kf*m and the 379, that is a more modern design, it will have probably a slightly better value.

But that huge error is not the worse. The worse is that he is using the RM at 90º as the RM the boat is making at 10º, 20º, 45º and 60º.

As you can see on that Jeanneau 36 curve the values are these:

*10º 1100 Kgf*m = 10787 Nm
20º 1800 Kgf*m = 17652 Nm
45º 2950 Kgf*m = 28930 Nm
60º 3100 Kgf*m = 30401 Nm*

For all these different righting moments generated at different heel angles Bryce considered instead the (wrong) value he had found for 90º heel : *2460 Nm*

Well Marty, I guess you own me a beer for the explanation 

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

OUCH!

OK, now that my head is pounding more......what style, type, brand of beer should we be drinking? or vino? or Port?.....I guess this means I need to get a silverbird ticket over the NP to the other side of the world too eh!

Ok, now I see the metric equal, not to figure out the C&C RM at 1degree, the 115 is 1200 ft lbs, the 121 is 1534 ft lbs......Now to convert to newtons per Meter? or nanonewtons or some such thing per meter.....ouch!....dang it, pulled a brain electron again.....time to quite!

Time for some sleep on the left side of this here continent, or close to it in about 3.5 hrs or there about any who!

I still think most of not all of the difference in the Catalina's interior, is them having to do as Jeanneau and Beneteau, make all the interior of plywood, prevarnished in machines, cut with lasers, assembled on pallets at the plant, shipped to the hull manufacturing plant, in the case of the GBene boats, either the pallet(s) stay in France, or get shipped to the US in North Carolina, installed in the hull with in say 40 hrs, vs 400 if they have someone make ea and every individual piece of wood, savings of 360 hrs lets say from an example standpoint, at $100 per hour or euro per our or whatever currency figure one wants to use, savings of 35K currency units for a mid 30' boat.........now make the keel in iron vs lead, another 10K of savings........

All adds up in the end to a lower price point boat, so more can be sold etc. Hence why at least locally, one reason Jeanneau and beneteau, even Hunter is in the 10 units to 1 catalina sold! 10 yrs ago it was probably the other way around! If Gerry Douglas has not taken note, he WILL BE sooner than later! Current owners may not liek the look or feel of the interior......but if they want the other flavor, figure on another 50K to get the feel/labor etc of solid wood!

Marty

edit,

Now that I relook at paulos figures, it would be Kilograms per meter.......


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> He tried to calculate the righting moment at 90º and then used that value to estimate the heel angle of the boats while sailing.
> 
> But that huge error is not the worse. The worse is that he is using the RM at 90º


Look closer.. when you multiply the Sin of the heel angle times the distance between the COG and the moment application point, you get exactly the moment arm you are looking for.

A significant reason for calculating the distance between the COG and the moment point is that we often want to calculate the moment of inertia. And as you know the moment of inertia then becomes simply the same distance squared (that confusing distance to you) times the mass.

Since we have the same value, that same distance becomes the hypotneuse for the sin calculation when we calculate the moment.

The values are correct.. think about it for a moment.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> As you can see on that Jeanneau 36 curve the values are these:
> 
> 10º 1100 Kgf*m = 10787 Nm
> 20º 1800 Kgf*m = 17652 Nm
> 45º 2950 Kgf*m = 28930 Nm
> 60º 3100 Kgf*m = 30401 Nm


No way are these values in are Kgm... No self respecting European engineer is going to calculate a moment in Kgm. I have dozens of Collegues in Europe and if I ever showed these to them they would think someone is on drugs.

Even if you didn't realize that, you would have to realize those values are ridiculously high.

More likely, the correct values would in fact be:
10º 1100 Nm
20º 1800 Nm
45º 2950 Nm
60º 3100 Nm

And these values are much more consistent with my 2450*Sin(angle). Now we only need values for the 37.

Now if you had checked the Mal 37, you would have noticed the unusual units of kilo-newtons (kN). If you were confused by the Nm values, you are going to be really confused about the kilo-newton values of the Mal 37.

For me, the absolute numbers are not nearly so important as the comparative values between Jeanneau 379 and Catalina 385.
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the figures Byron and paulo are arguing over! nor can I come up with any figures on stability index's to equal these figures....then again, they all seem to be using a different measuring system. I look up RM at C&C, they use ft lbs at 1 degree, Jeanneau for a 36i is using something else,


This is a considerable problem with all the different plots supplied by many different sources. I have seen RM curves in a huge variety of units. Look at the units supplied in the Mal (kilo-newtons) and the Jeanneau with Nm. The Mal plot makes an assumption about the moment arm. I would hope the moment arm is constant. However, we don't know what it is from this plot.

Polar plots seem to be similar problem.

The situation no doubt has its roots hundreds of years ago. They show a few unusual plots. The terms used RM, G, Z, M all come from definitions created centries ago. These are not modern concepts. I have a book from 1877 that describes the moment calculations similar to the way I did it here.

I use the correct SI units of Nm. Even though I live in the states. Nm are easier to calculate. Now consider this: The Europeans use SI units. The units of angle are radians. Yet these plots use degrees.

Consider also, the SI units for rotational speed is radians/sec. However, every tachometer is in rpm.
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski

Nm is equal to ???? newtons per Meter? not an engineer, physics was way back 30 yrs ago in HS. then maybe I will be less confused.......NAH!LOL

a something per meter i am swag'ing

For me, frankly when one gets into this stuff, I am sure others are like me, we need to get it down to simple terms etc.....now if we want to talk plants, soil types etc........I can do ok being as that is my background!


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> Nm is equal to ???? newtons per Meter? not an engineer, physics was way back 30 yrs ago in HS. then maybe I will be less confused.......NAH!LOL


Very close, you kinda got the idea.. Nm is Newton Meter. When you multiply the force value in newtons times the radius arm the force is operating on, you get newton meter. Think of it as a torque.

If you had divided the force in Newtons by a distance, you would get Newtons/Meter or newtons per meter. N/m would be similar to a linear density using weight instead of mass.
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski

ok, so equal to ft/lbs but different measuring system ie metric in this case. 

now trying to read something on wikipedia to remember all this crappola!


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> ok, so equal to ft/lbs but different measuring system ie metric in this case.
> 
> now trying to read something on wikipedia to remember all this crappola!


Yes.. you got it..

Wikipedia is a good place to read some of this stuff.. no doubt also if you want to get some very good insight into all of these different numbers.. go to google books and search for sailboat designs or something similar. Then select show only free books.

You will find hundreds of books that describe these calculations to any level of complexity you want. The most interesting thing I find with the older books is that they often describe the concepts in terms that is much easier to follow. More words and less equations.
Bryce


----------



## blt2ski

Some of the issue is, not being an engineer or equal, contractor actually, one needs to figure out the when talking in metric measure if you will, what is it equal too for lack of better term in SAE. ie Nm is more or less equal to ft/lbs which is what I am used to using for torque measures. or using feet vs Meters or other equal, Then getting the brain to say "ok", 1M is equal to approx 3.1 feet.......... then move on from there!

In the Jeanneau 36i case, that is where I knew I could find some stability index's at least on older Jeanneaus, and could compare a shoal to a std to a deep keel to see how they compared in the same model........for me any how, the numbers do not mean as much, as a picture of the RM/stability charts make more sense to me! again, one needs to get the measure used, all to be equal, be it metric or sae units it does not matter. From a math point of view and an engineer, yes, using metric or divisions of 10 is a lot easier to use than fractions of an inch to a foot etc. When doing grades in yards etc, I use feet and tenths and hundredths of a foot as surveyors use, much easier to figure things out with a calculator or in the brain.

marty


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> for me any how, the numbers do not mean as much, as a picture of the RM/stability charts make more sense to me! again, one needs to get the measure used, all to be equal, be it metric or sae units it does not matter.
> 
> marty


I know what you mean. A picture is worth a thousand words.

We see that the maximum value of heeling moment I calculated as 2460 Nm for the Jeanneau 37. Consider the Righting moment diagram for the 36i peaks at 3200 Nm. The 379 weighs 20% more, so lets suppose the Jeanneau 379 peaks 20% more than the 36i or 3840 Nm.

We know that our moment calculation does not factor in the righting moment due to hull design. So the additional moment due to hull design must be approximately 3840-2460 = 1380 Nm.

Since both the Catalina 385 and the Jeanneau 379 are quite close in hull
design, we add the righting moment due to hull design to each boat:

Jeanneau 379 righting moment = (2460 + 1380) Sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle)
Catalina 385 righting moment = (12731 + 1380) * sin(Catalina_Heel_Angle)

Now as a first order correction for zero to 130 degrees, we multiply the angle and plot from zero to 130 degrees. In reality, I would use a different moment calculation for near 90 degrees and past 90 degrees. But as a first order estimation:

Jeanneau 379 righting moment = 3840 * sin(Heel_Angle*180/130)
Catalina 385 righting moment = 14111 * sin(Heel_Angle*180/130)

So as you say, when we compare the two plots, we see the Catalina 385 has a greater righting moment by a large margin.
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> I know what you mean. A picture is worth a thousand words.
> 
> We see that the maximum value of heeling moment I calculated as 2460 Nm for the Jeanneau 37. Consider the Righting moment diagram for the 36i peaks at 3200 Nm. The 379 weighs 20% more, so lets suppose the Jeanneau 379 peaks 20% more than the 36i or 3840 Nm.
> 
> We know that our moment calculation does not factor in the righting moment due to hull design. So the additional moment due to hull design must be approximately 3840-2460 = 1380 Nm.
> 
> Since both the Catalina 385 and the Jeanneau 379 are quite close in hull
> design, we add the righting moment due to hull design to each boat:
> 
> Jeanneau 379 righting moment = (2460 + 1380) Sin(Jeanneu_Heel_Angle)
> Catalina 385 righting moment = (12731 + 1380) * sin(Catalina_Heel_Angle)
> 
> Now as a first order correction for zero to 130 degrees, we multiply the angle and plot from zero to 130 degrees. In reality, I would use a different moment calculation for near 90 degrees and past 90 degrees. But as a first order estimation:
> 
> Jeanneau 379 righting moment = 3840 * sin(Heel_Angle*180/130)
> Catalina 385 righting moment = 14111 * sin(Heel_Angle*180/130)
> 
> So as you say, when we compare the two plots, we see the Catalina 385 has a greater righting moment by a large margin.
> Bryce


My good, you are hopeless

Can't you see that those curves don't make any sense?

In what regards righting moment less than 4000nm for the Jeanneau, more than 14000 for the Catalina 385, incredible!!!!!!

They should have invented something to multiply RM, that is completely awesome. You are saying that the 385, with a weight of 7031 kg has a lot more righting moment than a Malo 47 that weights about two times more (14100 kg).

*You say that the max righting moment of the Catalina 385 is 14111Nm while, for instance, the one from the Malo 47 is a lot less, only 11500 Nm.
*
http://www.maloyachts.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=54sJy56/EjA=&tabid=134&mid=723

Specifications

But of course we all know that the* Malo 47* is a very badly designed boat and even if *it weights two times more, has a bulb on the keel with about the same draft as the Catalina and almost all the total weight of the Catalina 385 as ballast,* that is not enough to compensate in RM the one that the Catalina manages to miraculously have

Jesus Man, I try to be polite but you are wearing my patience!

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> You say that the max righting moment of the Catalina 385 is 14111Nm while, for instance, the one from the Malo 47 is a lot less, only 11500 Nm.
> Paulo


You need to re-read the Malo 47 righting moment diagram you posted..

The malo 47 righting moment peaks at 115kN which is 115,000 N presumably at 0.8 m. *This calculates out to 92,000 Nm or about 6 times greater than a Catalina 385.*

You are confusing N with Nm... Kilo is 1000.. You need to look at units carefully when you look at these righting moment diagrams.
Bryce


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> You need to re-read the Malo 47 righting moment diagram you posted..
> 
> The malo 47 righting moment peaks at 115kN which is 115,000 N presumably at 0.8 m. *This calculates out to 92,000 Nm or about 6 times greater than a Catalina 385.*
> 
> You are confusing N with Nm... Kilo is 1000.. You need to look at units carefully when you look at these righting moment diagrams.
> Bryce


I guess that those two ridiculous stability curves left me confused. Of course you are right about the conversion. The 115KN for the the max moment of the Malo give 115000Nm but you should not multiply it by the max GZ (0.8) because on a RM curve the values are already the product of the GZ (arm) by the Mass.

That value stated is Kn just to simplify, but it is really Kn*m (any unit for measuring moments force is always a force unit* length unit).

Moment of Force Conversion - FREE Unit Converter

So after all the Malo 47 is a great boat that has a *Max righting moment 8 times bigger than the Catalina and 30 times bigger than the one from the Jeanneau 379*

This don't strike you as odd? How can the Malo 47 that weights about the double of the Jeanneau 379 have a Max RM 30 times bigger?

As the Max Righting moment is obtained by the product between the Max. ARM (GZ) and the boat mass, that would mean that the Max GZ (arm) of the Malo 47 would have to be 15 times bigger the one from the Jeanneau 379 and that, of course, is ridiculous.

In fact we have both RM curves, the one from Jeanneau (not really the 379 but the previous model that has a slighlty worse one) and the one from the Malo, so we can see what is the max righting moment from both boats and compare it:

http://www.maloyachts.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=54sJy56/EjA=&tabid=134&mid=723

SF35 and SO36i data

*Malo 47 Max righting moment: 11 727 kgf*m

Jeanneau 379 Max righting moment: + 3 300 Kgf*m

That is, the Malo 46 has a 3.6 bigger max righting moment than the Jeanneau. That is normal for a boat that is 2.5 times heavier and has a much bigger beam and therefore a better GZ
*

But that better GZ (arm) is no more than 0.2m, something like an arm 1.3 times bigger, not 15 times bigger

Of course* this would mean that the Max righting moment of the Jeanneau would be a bit bigger than 3300 Kgf*m = 32 362Nm*

*This is about 3 times bigger the Max moment that you have calculated for the Catalina 385 (14 111 Nm).*

Of course, the Jeanneau has not a 3 times bigger righting moment than the Catalina 385, but an approximated righting moment. The difference should be between 5% to 7% favorable to the Catalina due to its bigger weight.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> Of course this would mean that the Max righting moment of the Jeanneau would be a bit bigger than 3300 Kgf*m = 32 362Nm
> 
> This is about 3 times bigger the Max moment that you have calculated for the Catalina 385 (14 111 Nm).


You're close.. we are almost there.

Lets consider the Jeanneau righting moment diagram is in kgm in spite of the norm.

From my extrapolation before, the peak righting moment for the Jeanneau 379 is 3840 kgm or 37632 Nm. Subtracting the mass righting moment of 2460 Nm, we get the hull righting moment of 35172 Nm.

To adjust this hull righting moment for the Catalina 385, we need an adjustment for the additional 1 foot of beam of the Catalina. The calculation for hull righting moment is proportional to the beam, so we multiply the 35172 Nm by 13'1"/12' to get 38347 Nm.

So the Catalina 385 peak righting moment is the Hull righting moment plus the Catalina 385 mass righting moment of 12731 Nm or 51078 Nm.

The Catalina 385 righting moment is 36% greater than the Jeanneau 379.
If we plot the two righting moment diagrams we get:

Bryce


----------



## PCP

*So, in what regards comparison of the righting moments between the Jeanneau 379 and the Catalina 385, you pass from this:
*










*to this:*










*and you say to me:*



BryceGTX said:


> *You're close*.. ...




It seems to me that it is you that start to see that you have been posting a lot of non sense

If you really have doubts about the stability of any of those boats ask the stability curves to the boat manufacturers. Since you seem to be interested on the 385 and it is always good to compare the stability of a boat in what we are interested with the stability of similar boats, even if in this case one is a 38ft and the other a 36ft. The comparison could be interesting.

I never said that the Catalina 385 had a bad stability. What I have said is that keel is badly designed and that the boat could have about less 400/500kg of ballast (and overall weight) if it used a modern bulbed keel.

I have heard that does not matter because to Catalina does not mind with the weight (or speed) they are just stronger and heavier boats.

Well, if we take out the weight of the keels *we have that the Jeanneau hull and cabin is heavier than the Catalina one (4925kg to 4672kg) and considering that Jeanneau uses injection techniques (that permit a lighter and as strong hull) that the Jeanneau is smaller and that the interior wood work is lighter and both boats use the same building materials, all evidence indicates that the Jeanneau has a stronger hull.*

If we look at the Catalina 387 that was more 18cm in length but less 23cm in beam we will see that the hull and cabin weights 5534 kg, more 662kg than the Cabin and hull from the 385.

*If the idea of Catalina was to made a faster and lighter boat (the 385 is lighter and faster), instead of making a lighter and less strong hull to save weight, it would be in my opinion far better to have a modern bulbed keel and safe weight there, instead of saving weight in the hull. *

But there are something that puzzles me. Why do you have considered the AVS or LPS of both boats as 130º?

Sure, on the last 36ft from Jeanneau, the boat that the 379 is replacing, the AVS was 132º even if that one is particularly high for a jeanneau they normally have an AVS between 122º and 130º, but that is not what I have seen on the Catalina.

For example both the Catalina 42 and the 42MKII (finn keel) have an AVS of 105º. I remember to have seen that stability curve just because I found the AVS too low for a B/D of 40%, but then of course, I saw the boat had not a bulb and probably there is some difference in the way the AVS is calculated, but even if we consider that not a ISO RCD value but a ORC value, even so it is a low one when compared with the Jeanneau.

Why do you think the Catalina 385 with a lesser B/D ratio (31.5% to 40.1%) and with a similar non bulbed keel would have a remarkably better AVS (or LPS) than the catalina 42 MKII ?

Regarding the 36% more max righting moment for the Catalina 385 over the Jeanneau 379, it is not a huge nonsense as the 517% that you stated before, but even so it seems exaggerated if we take into consideration that the boats have only a 4.7% difference in weight and a 5.8% in beam.

I think that the max RM from the Catalina is probably a bit exaggerated and the max RM from the jeanneau 379 is certainly bigger than what you say.

* I have been utilizing the stability curve from the Jeanneau 36I, to show that those 517% of deference in RM between both boats, that you talked about, were a complete nonsense*, but now that you have come to less surrealistic numbers, it is worth to remember that the Jeanneau 36I has as displacement 5700kg while the Jeanneau 379 has 6700 kg.

Even considering that the GZ (arm) of both jeanneaus are similar (even if surely the one from the 379 is slightly better) that extra 15% in mass will make that the Max righting moment of the Jeanneau 379 15% bigger than the one from the 36i.

with this obvious correction we will have an approximated Max righting moment for the 379 of about 3795kgf*m. The true value will be a bit higher, probably around 4000, taking into account the difference of beam between the two jeanneau and the bigger contribution of form stability to that max RM.

Considering the 4000kgf*m value and converting to Nm = 39227 Nm and that should not be far to the Jeanneau 379 max RM.

*Regarding the max RM of the Catalina 385, as I have said, it should be bigger because it is a bigger boat (36ft to 38Ft) an heavier boat (6700kg to 7031kg) and beamier boat (3,76 to 3,99). I believe that it should be of about 10% anyway it will be an insignificant comparing with the 500% difference you said it was, that was what led me to this discussion.*

*A small difference in RM is natural and does not reflect on the boat stability since the Catalina 385, because it is heavier and beamier will have to carry more sail than the 379 for the same performance and needs for that more RM.*

That's why the Catalina 385 carries more sail than the Jeanneau 379 even if that will not probably make it a faster boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

Bryce,

I would believe the 2nd graph before the first graph as to how things are. The first seems like way too much difference for two boats of reasonably similar size. While the 2nd one is within what "I" would call reasonably difference for boats of equal size and shape, depending upon the few differences of hull shape, how the ballast is done, ie bulb vs no bulb, depth of the keel etc.

I'm not going to get into the units of force/torque etc being used, as that is beyond my knowledge if you will to debate on a reasonable level, other than to say, I probably know enough to get into trouble, but not out!

Marty


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> .. I probably know enough to get into trouble, but not out!
> 
> Marty




Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I never said that the Catalina 385 had a bad stability. What I have said is that keel is badly designed and that the boat could have about less 400/500kg of ballast (and overall weight) if it used a modern bulbed keel.


So lets see if what you say makes sense. The picture below shows the "badly designed" as you say wing keel. Compared to the "modern" designed bulb keel. Both keels are 1000 lbs. Both keels have the exact same draft.

The wing keel moment is greater than the bulb keel moment by 250 ft lbs. Clearly, the "badly designed" wing keel shows a significant advantage over the "modern" design bulb keel.

Now just take this advantage that Catalina has, then add 2000 pounds of additional mass, then place the complete keel on a fiberglass keeel below the hull, thereby dropping the total mass even further and then you get 12,731 Nm of additional righting moment over and above the Jeanneau.

In this case "modern" cannot be associated with "better".
Bryce


----------



## BryceGTX

blt2ski said:


> Bryce,
> 
> I would believe the 2nd graph before the first graph as to how things are.
> 
> Marty


Lets put some names on the graphs to emphasize the difference and tweak the one just a bit.


----------



## PCP

BryceGTX said:


> Lets put some names on the graphs to emphasize the difference and tweak the one just a bit.


I give up


----------



## BryceGTX

PCP said:


> I give up


Wise choice



PCP said:


> It seems to me that it is you that start to see that you have been posting a lot of non sense
> 
> Paulo


Interesting comment.. you and I have a radically different view on what is going on in this thread. For me, I have been presenting the concept of moments by looking at the various moments of these boats. These moments are righting moments and heeling moments. Sorry you do not understand.

The first thing I looked at was the calculation of the righting moments of the keels. Then I added the heeling and righting moments of the hull mass. The last thing I presented was the hull righting moments created by hull design.

I can calculate moments for anything on the boat. As I have said, the Stability diagrams you hold so dear are calculated with moments. And if you want to get additional insight into the difference between these two boats, you must look closer at the moments.

The two basic moments I am interested in are the hull righting moment and the mass moments. The sum of these two moments give us your Stability diagram. In the previous post I have clearly labeled these two diagrams so you understand the difference.

So now lets look at the mass moment diagram.


----------



## BryceGTX

This diagram shows the mass moments. It is the sum of the moments that define the righting moments created by the masses for the two boats.

In my earlier calculations I was concerned about these two moments. The reason was that the Jeanneau mass moment is very close to zero (2460 Nm). The Catalina mass moment is considerably higher at 12731 Nm.

So what does this mean?

The predominant righting moment of almost all boats is created by the hull righting moment created by the hull shape. I suspect that Jeanneau (and Beneteau) actually designed the mass moment to be zero or near zero. They then depend entirely on the hull righting moment of the hull shape to provide all the righting moment in the stability diagram.

On the other hand virtually all other manufacturers of sailboats add considerably righting moment in the keel to provide a significant amount of mass righting moment. And the Catalina is no exception.

So what!! You might say. The stability diagram that we have shows considerable righting moment. So who cares about any additional righting moment in the keel. As Paulo says.. its just extra weight.

The problem comes when this boat gets in rough water. Now the hull starts coming out of the water and it looses some of its hull righting moment. On the other hand, additional mass righting moment in the keel of other boats provides the righting moment should the hull come too far out of the water and loose all its hull righting moment.

At that point, you will be thankfull that you have a reserve mass righting moment in your keel. And that is why I feel the mass righting moment (mass moment diagram) is important.

Bryce


----------



## Alden68

BryceGTX said:


> The predominant righting moment of almost all boats is created by the hull righting moment. I suspect that Jeanneau (and Beneteau) actually designed the mass moment to be zero or near zero. They then depend entirely on the hull righting moment to provide all the righting moment in the stability diagram.
> 
> On the other hand virtually all other manufacturers of sailboats add considerably righting moment in the keel to provide a significant amount of mass righting moment. And the Catalina is no exception.
> Bryce


Yikes


----------



## Yamsailor

OK-so the consensus is what? Would you purchase the Catalina 385 or not and why?


----------



## blt2ski

yam

would I or not......

with out being on one, I would say not, main reason, I prefer the 2cabin floor plan of the 387, so that would be first choice from that angle. BUT, that 387 at 4K lbs more than a 385.....heavy SOB for a additional foot of length at best!

I also have to admit, the Catalina's generally speaking do not have the sport factor I am looking for in a boat. For that, a Bene 1st or equal would be my choice from what one might call a mass produced boat line. The only Jeanneau I like in current production is the SF3200. Altho the new 375 might fit, the 36i is close.....altho I prefer the previous version which would be the SF35 in that line.

Marty


----------



## MJBrown

FWIW my wife and I delivered the 385 to the Annapolis Show. While we're Beneteau owners we thought the new model would appeal to current Catalina owners. Apparently we've missed the mark on that one. The trip to the show is a 2 day run of apx 6-7 hrs each day. The first day is down the Delaware River, the 2nd down Chesapeake Bay from the C&D Canal. Day one was motoring with some motor sailing at times. I didn't have the genoa cars far enough back to properly trim the 150 that's on the boat so it remained rolled up. We used the main instead. She handled very nice with good stability. Wakes from passing ships, especially one container ship doing 20+kts, didn't phase her. Docking was easy with a bow thruster and very predictable handling in close quarters. No surprises in forward or reverse. Since we ran with the tide all day long it was hard to determine speed thru the water. I don't believe the speed log had been commissioned so it was GPS speed for reference. We caught the tide and saw 8-9kts all day long.
Day two saw 10-12 kt winds. Not enough to sail and make good time so it was once again motor sailing. I thought I had moved the genny cars back far enough that AM but it wasn't so. Since I don't like going out to adjust the cars while under way on a boat that's new to me (and the wife at the wheel) I ran with just the main again. The boat tracked quite well with minimal prop wash against the rudder. That is unless of course I had the RPMs pushed up. I always vary engine speed since they're new engines and we like to break them in properly. Exhaust noise was resonable and not an issue. I'd estimate speed through the water at apx 6 3/4 to 7kts. Pretty much what you'd expect from a 38' boat. No issues with the furling gear on either the main or genny. Also appreciated the Catalina canvas package as it was a bit chilly both days.
We thought that down below was very comfortable. The leather they used on the salon seats was absolutely some of the softest we've ever sat on. Matter fact once you were on them you didn't want to get back up. The salon had indirect lighting that we liked. We left it on throughout the night and it seemed just about right to keep from killing yourself on those mid night runs to the head. The mattress in the forward berth was without a doubt very comfortable. Slept like a log and no back pain issues in the AM. No we didn't use the tilt/reading position feature. Not sure I would ever use it but perhaps maybe the wife might. The salon was one of the roomiest I've seen in that size boat. I think it was due to the folding table. Which BTW had a finish you could shave in. Don't know what their process is but the cockpit table was just a nice. While the head was roomy with some reasonable storage I didn't care for the modern sink. Not sure it was the right style for this boat. I also didn't like the head being forward either preferring it to be located as near the companion way as possible. I like my visits to be as short as possible. Some days there's too many trips, especially on a cold day if you know what I mean. We thought the cockpit was pretty roomy as well. No problems getting past the wheel or around the cockpit in general. It was also pretty easy to get comfortable while sitting at the helm. You have to stretch a bit to see the chartplotter but unless you're in a tight area like the ICW there's usually no need to stay focused on it constantly anyway. Other than using the fridge we didn't use the galley so no input on that. Likewise we don't use the heads either. Porta Pottys are the order of the day. Don't want to leave any odors in the tank for all the people at the show to sniff 
Well I think that's about it. As I said she's a pretty nice boat and certainly handles very well. Only time will tell if she'll be a hit or not. No idea if they're selling well or not.
Mike


----------



## TakeFive

Unfortunately I joined this thread late, and am just now getting caught up. I was going to respond to something that Jim McGee said early on, but decided to follow forum etiquette and read all the responses first. 11 pages and an hour later, my head hurts so much (partly because I do understand the calculations :hammer ) that I almost forgot what I was going to say....

..oh, yeah, woodwork! Some people do care about that stuff. It's not the only thing to consider, but if you're going to spend a lot of $$$ on a boat and enjoy some time down below, it does matter to some. I offer no apologies for that.



JimMcGee said:


> ...But what really struck me is how cheap the boat looks down below. My 1995 Catalina has a lot of real teak in the cabinet doors and trim work. It's held up very well over the years. It was also one of the things that kept me in a Catalina versus a Bene or Hunter when we bought her. Looking at boats of a similar age the interior of the Catalina had held up better than the Bene's and Hunters.
> 
> The new Catalina's really don't offer much difference now from Bavaria, Beneteau or Jeanneau. They all have that Ikea feel below now, and that makes me wonder where else Catalina has cut corners.
> 
> Sail away price on this boat is around $270k to $280k if I remember correctly (~$200k base).
> 
> Pride of ownership is *IMPORTANT* when you're spending that kind of money. I don't want a boat that looks like cheap knock down furniture. A $3,500 price difference won't make you buy one boat over another. There are too many intangibles. But $3,500 spent on quality wood cabinets *WILL* make me buy one boat over another. The warm feeling imparted by real wood makes a huge difference, and modern CNC machines reduce fabrication costs. If teak is too expensive switch to cherry as some other brands have done. At least offer upgraded cabinetry as an *OPTION*...


I'll point out that I complained about this same issue in the Catalina 309 after the 2010 Annapolis show. Here's what was said in that thread:



RhythmDoctor said:


> ...I was quite disappointed by the Catalina 309 they had on display. Bulkheads, doors, and cabinetry were all fake woodgrain laminate. This is the first time I've seen this on any Catalina. In the 309 they also took a big step backwards with Formica laminates countertops and cooler hatch instead of the Corian-like composite that I had come to expect at this price point. After seeing this, I became obsessed with it and looked for it on every boat I saw. Hunter, Bene, and Hylas all had the low-grade materials on the particular models I saw. HR and Hinckley all were top-tier - no surprise there. Also the Catalina 355 had higher grade hardwood doors and bulkheads and Corian-like counters, making me wonder if this has become an extra-cost upgrade on new Catalina boats.
> 
> I know that quality winches, portholes, and other hardware are much more important than wood vs. laminate, so it's kind of silly that I obsessed on this. But it does say something about how much production builders may be trying to cut costs.





BoxedUp said:


> Are you sure about the doors and cabinetry? They used to be solid teak. On the Hunters & Benes, they're all veneers.





RhythmDoctor said:


> I did a double-take. I am sure about the doors and some of the bulkheads. Less sure about the cabinetry (except the cooler hatch, which am sure about). I looked specifically at the edges/corners of the head door, and at the edges/corners of the cooler hatch. It was very disappointing to me to see this. Even my lowly C250 has real wood on the head door exterior. Interior of my head door is white laminate on the interior of the door, but edge wear is prevented by teak trim.
> 
> Edges and corners of doors and cooler hatches are high stress items, and I would have concerns about how they would hold up over time. This is especially true of the cooler hatch, which is subjected to condensation and temperature fluctuations, which can easily lead to delamination in a few years.
> 
> I absolutely hate fake woodgrain laminate. If you're going to do laminate I'd prefer to just make it white like they did for the interior of my head door and my dinette table.


----------



## jameso

interesting thread, to be sure, not sure about the physicis involved. One thing I feel pretty confident in saying, you would use cast iron to save on cost. Also, when push come to shove I would prefer real wood, at least in high wear areas


----------



## BryceGTX

Alden68 said:


> Yikes





jameso said:


> interesting thread, to be sure, not sure about the physicis involved.


For me, the interesting thing is the comparison between the two boats in terms of the mass righting moment versus the hull righting moment.

When we consider the two boats on a wave, we see the effects.

Consider the Jeanneau 379 with the calculations showing little or no mass righting moment. Such a boat depends on hull righting moment to stay upright. No big deal.. power boats depend on the hull righting moment to stay upright.

If we put the boat beam to waves in heavy seas, we see the boat just simply follows the waves as shown below.


----------



## BryceGTX

Now consider the Catalina 385 with significant mass righting moment. To calculate its heeling angle on a wave, we need a calculation that determines heeling angle on a wave. Unfortuneately, the stability diagram is useless.

The calculations defining this can be approximated as follows:

HullRightingMoment = MaximumHullRightingMoment * cos(WaveAngle) * sin(HullAngle)
MassRightingMoment = MaximumMassRightingMoment * sin(HeelAngle)
HullAngle = WaveAngle - HeelAngle


----------



## BryceGTX

Most of you will recognize there is no closed form analytical solution to the above equations for heeling, so we must resort to numerical analysis to get the heeling angle.

The resulting heeling angle calculation for the Catalina 385 is shown below:


----------



## BryceGTX

Now we compare the two heeling angle versus wave angle.

This brings up the interesting point that two boats can have similar stability diagrams but behave dramatically different in heavy seas.

Although I have read the multitude of posts describing what makes a blue water boat, if I had to pick a number that describes the rough water capability of a boat, I would chose the ratio of the mass righting moment to the hull righting moment.

Or give me a diagram as shown below that shows me what happens to the boat on a wave.

A stability diagram is virtually useless to determine what a boat does in rough water. What this diagram shows is the Catalina with its significant mass righting moment is probably going to heel considerably less in rough water. The Jeanneau will probably act more like a power boat.
Bryce


----------



## TakeFive




----------



## JimMcGee

*Reality Check*



RhythmDoctor said:


>


Thanks Rick, A picture really is worth a thousand words.

With all due respect to Bryce and Paulo the whole discussion of righting moments, keel designs and 1/4 knot differences in hull speed pretty much hijacked *a thread about a significant change in Catalina's direction in INTERIOR accomodations*. I gave up on this thread after trying to steer it gently back on course. 

Look, I don't give a rat's ass about racing or squeezing the last 10th of a knot out of my boat. This argument about differences in righting moments between keel designs is pure mental masturbation.

I'm not sailing in the North Sea. I am perfectly content to admit that under conditions in which I'm likely to sail, any of these boats will take more punishment than I can. Frankly the whole argument misses the &#@%$#! point.









MJ, thanks for your observations on bringing the boat down to Annapolis. Your post highlighted the kinds of things that are important to most Catalina buyers and to most of us who are sailing for relaxation and spending some time living aboard: ride comfort & motion, handling in close quarters, handling under power and sail and comfort living aboard.

Good. Now I can go back to snarling into my coffee...


----------



## TakeFive

JimMcGee said:


> ...With all due respect to Bryce and Paulo the whole discussion of righting moments, keel designs and 1/4 knot differences in hull speed pretty much hijacked *a thread about a significant change in Catalina's direction in INTERIOR accomodations*. I gave up on this thread after trying to steer it gently back on course.


Back to the original subject, over the holidays I was purging some old literature from the 2010 Annapolis show, and I came across spec sheets for the Catalina 309 and either the 355 or 375 (can't remember which right now). Before pitching them I had a final look, and both of them listed woodgrain laminate interiors. So it appears that there has been a deliberate decision to move all of their boats (or at least those in this size/price range) to cheaper interiors like Hunter and Bene. It's a shame to see Catalina lose this one really nice touch that differentiated them from their closest competitors.


----------



## blt2ski

RhythmDoctor said:


> Back to the original subject, over the holidays I was purging some old literature from the 2010 Annapolis show, and I came across spec sheets for the Catalina 309 and either the 355 or 375 (can't remember which right now). Before pitching them I had a final look, and both of them listed woodgrain laminate interiors. So it appears that there has been a deliberate decision to move all of their boats (or at least those in this size/price range) to cheaper interiors like Hunter and Bene. It's a shame to see Catalina lose this one really nice touch that differentiated them from their closest competitors.


This is probably due to a cost issue. IE they were losing sales to the lower cost boats, ie jenneau, Beneteau, and Hunter. I would also not be surprised if sales were lacking to some degree, with newer boat buyers wanting something sexier than the way the boats look currently too. Potentially even in the speed department. I have to admit, neither of these brands I mentioned have the speed part of the look I am wanting in a boat.

Marty


----------



## PCP

JimMcGee said:


> ...
> 
> With all due respect to Bryce and Paulo the whole discussion of righting moments, keel designs and 1/4 knot differences in hull speed pretty much hijacked *a thread about a significant change in Catalina's direction in INTERIOR accomodations*. I gave up on this thread after trying to steer it gently back on course.
> ...


That is not nice neither fair. My last post on this thread was made 36 days ago. After that I did not reply to any of Bryce 6 posts, but if what you really want is a comment about changes in Design of this Catalina regarding the older models, that is pretty easy to see and I have just done that at the beginning of this thread:

This boat is more beamy and has a smaller B/D ratio than older Catalinas. It is lighter but at the cost of a smaller weight of the hull and that happened without the introduction of any new technique or material that could justify that, so it is faster but probably not as stronger as older models.

The overall design has some resemblance with a late 80's Benetau (I have posted comparative drawings on a previous post) and the keel is a non bulbed one, increasing unnecessarily the needed ballast and the weight of the boat.

The boat design is more close to what is the modern mass production typical 38 cruiser (more beam, less B/D ratio) even if the design is a bit dated (longer waterline, keel design, beam not carried aft).

About the interior I can only comment on the set up that does nor seem very different from the 387 with the difference of more interior space (more beam).

I would say that I think that making the Catalina a boat more like the others mass produced boats, just with a more dated design as difference, is a commercial mistake but time will tell.

I find the 387 a more balanced boat.

Fair enough?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## BryceGTX

JimMcGee said:


> With all due respect to Bryce and Paulo the whole discussion of righting moments, keel designs and 1/4 knot differences in hull speed pretty much hijacked *a thread about a significant change in Catalina's direction in INTERIOR accomodations*.


This thread is about *INTERIORS*:laugher

I missed the first first post where it said this thread is about interiors. It seems that is your interpetation about what this thead is about.

Quite frankly, the biggest single issue I have between the Jeanneaus/Beneteaus versus the Catalina/Hunter is the significant weight difference. That clearly highlights my issues with these boats. As a result my posts will be oriented toward what I feel is important.

Now if you only think interiors are important.. then thats fine.. thats your opinion. From an asthetic standpoint (your standpoint), it seems clear the Jeanneau/Benneteaus have decidedly European flair. However, the 385 is clearly Catalina Classic as far as I am concerned. And I actually saw the 385 at Annapolis.

The discussion about veneers versus solid teak seems to completely ignore the fact that a veneer covered plywood bulkhead will be considerably stronger than a solid teak bulkhead. My bigger concern about veneers would be that it must not be veneer covered composite such as particle board. So from a strength standpoint, veneer covered plywood is the preference.

Now also let me remind you that it was in fact probably *YOU* that started the debate about Catalina versus Jeanneau/Beneteau in post #14 where you say:



JimMcGee said:


> The new Catalina's really don't offer much difference now from Bavaria, Beneteau or Jeanneau. They all have that Ikea feel below now, and that makes me wonder where else Catalina has cut corners.


Now regarding Catalina hull and keel design... Catalina uses a proven wing keel which has clear advantages over the bulb keel as I have pointed out. Catalina has resisted the temptation to use inferior iron keels as a simple cost savings and instead produces a superior keel using well proven lead material. This design results in a hull/keel design with superior rough water capability as I have shown. Once again Catalina uses proven designs and has not caved in to the racing fanatics by reducing the keel weight to the point of being ineffective.

The superior advantage of the wing keel is well known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_keel
Interestingly enough sail boat racing rules often discouraged the use of the wing keel by including girth measurements or by including specific rules that baned the wing keel.

The 385 hull design is clearly made for the crusier by incorportating a shear on the bow providing 2 feet extra interior space compared to the vertical cutoff bow as seen on other boats. This shear space provides room for the anchor locker with no additional LWL increase. Presumably the sawed off bow of other boats is meant to give the image of a racing boat while reducing the boat manufacturing costs. Infact providing no useful benefit. Some loosely refer to this as "Modern" hull design.

The 385 hull design provides the best of both worlds incorporating a relatively flat hull for speed combined with a heavy lead keel to provide superior rough water capability as I have shown.

The 385 is a dramatic change over the 387. The 385 is a closer cousin to the 375. However, the hull/cap design is more along the lines of the 400 incorporating an aluminum toe rail that I find extremely useful for lashing items down. Being the hull/cap design is like the 400, many would consider the lines to be more pleasing than either the 387 or 375 because there is no separate hull/cap line that interrupts the hull.

Bryce


----------



## JimMcGee

Sigh.

Can we shift the topic to something less controversial?

What's the best anchor to mount on a Catalina 385?


----------



## blt2ski

You know Jim,

Anchor topics create as much or more consternation new boat topics! As you got the where are you anchoring, types of anchors, size of anchor all vs partial chain/rope rode, scope.....ALL for one boat no matter the type, at least with this new boat, you cn only hash over so much before you repeat, unlike it seems with anchors! and anchoring techniques........


----------



## JimMcGee

blt2ski said:


> You know Jim,
> 
> Anchor topics create as much or more consternation new boat topics! As you got the where are you anchoring, types of anchors, size of anchor all vs partial chain/rope rode, scope.....ALL for one boat no matter the type, at least with this new boat, you cn only hash over so much before you repeat, unlike it seems with anchors! and anchoring techniques........


Aww, c'mon Marty didn't you see the smiley?

People get emotional about chosing a boat. They get down right religious about choosing an an anchor!!!

:laugher


----------

