# C&C or Catalina



## Sailing_C&C (Sep 23, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

I am going to buy a new Boat to cruise the NE coast of USA sometime between Sail Expo and early March.

I have been impressed by what I have read about the Catalina 350. It seems like it is a lot of boat for the dollar. They are on hull #230(ish) and the boat was just introduced in 2002.

Now.. I love the look and style of the C&C 110. It is about 25K more than the Catalina. It seems like is just an awsome vessel in so many respects in terms of construction, design and speed. 
I am looking for input here although I know that I will end up going with the boat that "grabs" me after it is all said and done.

Thanks


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

These boats are so far apart on the sailing spectrum that I guess I would have to ask,
"How do you plan to use this boat?" and
"How much do you know about sailing?"

The C&C is about as well built a production boat as there is out there right now. It is also a very high performance boat. It is set up so that with a proper sail inventory these boats could sail safely in any conditions that the boat may encounter. These are pretty serious boats. Like most boats designed to sail well, the C&C has comparatively small accomodations for its length but big accomodations for its displacement. They are also quite deep.

The Catalina 350 is designed to do two things be cheap and offer a lot of room. All else is secondary. For marina hopping on Long Island Sound they are Okay. For making a jump out and around Cape Ann beating in a blow, they are not a very good choice.

I would also suggest that you look at the Beneteau First 36.7. These boats offer the sailing ability of the C&C nut with much better ventilation, should be easier to handle by a couple than either boat, offer a better build quality than the Catalina and are closer to the price of the Catalina than the C&C.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## doubleplay (Nov 9, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

To start with C&C 110 is not 25K but close to 50K more expensive than Catalina 350 given the fact that they are both new and similarly equipped.
Jeff already explained the differences between the two boats but if you are looking for a performance cruiser you can not go wrong with brands like C&C,Beneteau First series,Dehler,etc...
Good Luck


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

Not even a close call, the Tartan 3500 or C&C 110 are the best! Full disclosure I bought a new Tartan 3500 last fall from LI yachts after looking at other production boats. worth every extra penny. The epoxy hull,15 year warranty,great speed and looks.


----------



## Sailor-man (May 11, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

As noted these are very different boats ...with different purposes in mind. If you''re interested in a Performance Cruiser, in addition to the Beneteau First, check out the new Dufour Performance Series. Take a look at the Dufour 34. Unlike the Ben First 36.7, is available in a 2 cabin layout ... Closer to the Catalina 350 pricepoint, but comes with vacume bagged hull, 10 year blister warranty, and injected deck. It''s getting some rave reviews in Europe.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

The statements made by Jeff H are obviously self serving regarding Catalina Yachts. Unless he is the designer, he has no basis other than personal opinion, to make the following statement:

"The Catalina 350 is designed to do two things be cheap and offer a lot of room. All else is secondary. For marina hopping on Long Island Sound they are Okay. For making a jump out and around Cape Ann beating in a blow, they are not a very good choice."

It is a simple fact the the International Association of Yacht Builders has designated the Catalina 350 as CE- A - Ocean Rated. Benateau has removed it''s "Oceanis" designation from many of its yachts in the same size range. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

TJR and the group:

Catalina''s 350 - and every other U.S built boat sold in the U.S. - is not CE rated. CE ratings relate to a Recreational Craft Directive developed by a body commissioned in turn by the European Union, are awarded to a builder (usually for 2 year period) by a Notified Body that the builder hires, and the rating is awarded without a single boat being ''surveyed''. (An interesting tidbit from the recent London Boat Show is that Bavaria formed a firm of its own, had it accredited as a Notified Body, and that''s who awards Bavaria''s CE ratings. Given the competitive nature of boat building here - high volume, large employers, highly automated and with an emphasis on building to a price - this was probably inevitable). U.S.-built boats that are CE Rated in Europe may in fact be similar or identical here in the States, but the critical issue is not the rating but rather the process by which the rating is applied. No regulatory entity here has endorsed the process nor suggested it produces boats with the capaibilities claimed.

As best I can make out, the CE Rating Scheme is driven by the intention for EU products to be similarly capable (for a given rating), to insure a similar competitive environment within the EU for manufacturers from all member countries, and to place a compliance hurdle for all non-EU built boats, so that they too must compete comparably. As with much else about the EU''s current political form - and somewhat in line with the cultural nature of Europe generally, IMO - the emphasis is more on bureaucracy, paperflow and protectionism, and less about building boats that truly are, as the RCD states for ''A'' rated boats, capable of Force 8 PLUS winds and 4 Meter PLUS seas (my caps).

This suggests almost unlimited stability and structural capability (one of my main gripes about how the ''A'' rating is represented), when in reality a look at some (most) of the boats would suggest a more reserved view of their abilities.

To get a feel for the RCD, spend a little time reading the content at http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=31994L0025&model=guichett. You''ll find much comment on the paperwork process, and you''ll find comfortable generalisms about boats being suitable for their intended purpose, being built in ways to help people from falling overboard, having thru-hulls that close, etc. but you will find little in this RCD overview (this is only a summary of sorts) that suggests a true understanding of sailing offshore.

To go back to the original post, it''s interesting to me that the Catalina 350 has received so much attention here - the archives probably offer a wealth of editorial comment on it. During the periods I''ve been able to read posts here, I''ve yet to read about one 350 being sailed out of one coastal port, at least over night, Before arriving at another port. (Or obviously, an account of the boat being taken offshore). The positive comments about the boat''s performance underway all seem related to the boat being used in protected waters, which leaves me wondering how certain owners can be of its ultimate sailing and sail handling ability, about how well it suits a crew who must sleep, cook and navigate at sea, or about its structural capabilities. I don''t see this as a criticism of the boat...but it does give me a perspective on its positive reception by the recreational sailor and helps to account for its successful sales record. I suspect those accounts do exist and it would be refreshing to hear a few cruise accounts from owners who have sailed their 350 outside the breakwater for a few hundred non-stop miles.

I don''t think I''ve seen anyone claim Frank Butler and Catalina didn''t know how to build a boat to a market.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

I have been criticized for a lot of things in life but being "self-serving" isn''t one of them. I can''t see at all how my comments on the Catalina 250 serve me one little bit. I have nothing to gain or lose by providing as accurate an opinion as I can. In forming my opinion, I don''t have to design the boat or work for Catalina, I just have to read and listen to what Catalina wants to tell me about the boat.

The position that I presented came straight from the horse''s mouth, Catalina. If you go to the Catalina website and look at how they chose to describe the boat it is solely about accomodations and features:
http://www.catalinayachts.com/yachts.cfm?act=model&id=48

There is no mention anywhere in their description of the boat''s sailing ability or seaworthiness.

As to how I came to the price part, that is how Catalina sales folks were apparently instructed to describe the 350 at the last Annapolis Boat Show/ At the last Annapolis Boat Show I looked at the 350. There was a Salesman on the dock and I mentioned that Catalina appeared to be building three nearly identical sized boats (34 II, 350, 36 II) and then I asked him what was significant about the 350. He told me great price first and then about the sheer amount of room that was on the 350. I asked about the seakeeping of the boat, and was told to talk to the person who was down below since he was "involved" with 350''s and knew them well.

So I waited my turn and went below and asked the same question about what is significant about the 350 he started out by commenting on the 350''s great price and then explained that the 350 offers the best accomodations for the dollar. So I asked how does she sail. And he talked about how comfortable the cockpit was and the halyards lead back to the cockpit and price again. So I asked about the boat''s seakeeping ability, here he gave me an explaination of how all boats are a compromise but for the amount of room down below, the 350 sails pretty well. Both the salesmen and the Catalina literature talk in great detail about price and all kinds of other items(engine, type of varnish, wood veneers being used, etc) but not a word about seaworthiness or sailing ability.

When I came off the boat, the first salesman asked how I liked the boat. We talked for a while. Then I commented to him that I thought that it was interesting that he said almost the same things that the salesman down below had said he explained that he was not familiar with the 350 before the show and so had been briefed to focus on the price and accommodations.

Now, I much admit that the part about being designed for marina hopping was my own conclusion. I drew this conclusion by layout down below which featured a lack footing , a lack of seaberths and a Vee berth that has been compromised as a ''pedestal queen'' vee with its head forward and no restraints to keep you in that bunk under way, galley space given over to a microwave, and so on that promotes comfort at the dock but not underway.

I also came to my own conclusion about beating into the short chop around Cape Ann looking at the hull form of the boat. Its high freeboard, blunt bow angle, large beam,and high wetted surface are less than desirable features for beating into a steep headsea.

As to your comments about the CE certifications, virtually all Hunters, Beneteaus and Catalina over 30-32 feet have achieved a Class A CE certification. As Jack has been researching and discovering that has little to do with whether the boats are actually intended for offshore use. Also with regards to Beneteau, Beneteau has produced a number of lines of boats over the years. They still produce the Oceanis Serises but the latest cruiser line is thier ''number'' series. That said, I don''t see what bearing that has on Catalinas.

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## paulk (Jun 2, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

I''d agree with Jeff, and opt for taking the C&C (and maybe even a Beneteau) around Cape Ann, Cape Cod, Cape May, Cape Henlopen, and on down to Cape Canaveral. It sounds like the Catalina would be really comfy (and roomy) for the ICW. It depends what you want to do, and how you want to do it.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

Just four days ago, I attended the AC Sail Expo and stood next to a cut -away hull display at Catalina''s display area.. It clearly and plainly stated that the Catalinas (above 30'') were CE - A rated for open ocean cruising at Force ? wind and wave conditions. I repeat - CE-A means that a boat is rated for "Open Ocean Cruising". I attended the same show last year and was disappointed that the Hunters in the low 30'' category were rated only CE-B. I maintain that the original statement by Jeff is pure opinion and not based on the design ratings. Contrary to what has been posted here by others, all boats are not CE-A rated. That rating has to be achieved by design, construction, materials, and testing. The following statement is not accurate based on the current advertising and ratings put out by Catalina Yachts..

"The Catalina 350 is designed to do two things be cheap and offer a lot of room. All else is secondary. For marina hopping on Long Island Sound they are Okay. For making a jump out and around Cape Ann beating in a blow, they are not a very good choice."


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

This may help explain what the CE rating system is or isn''t. It comes from a website of a Florida dealer of Island Packet yachts.

What are CE standards?
Since June 1996 all boats sold in the European community have had to meet this set of standards covering design, materials, construction and stability. Island Packet Yachts underwent inspection and were given Category A ratings (for unlimited offshore use) by the International Marine Certification Institute (IMCI) and were the first US sailboat builder to be so certified.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

As I understand it that is not precisely true. It is my understanding that Hunter was the first US manufacturer to have its a boat certified as a Cat A.

Jeff


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

As I understand it that is not precisely true. It is my understanding that Hunter was the first US manufacturer to have its a boat certified as a Cat A.

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

Here is further clarification on what it means to be rated CE-A. This comes from a review of Gib-Sea 41. The Beaufort scale is referenced here and I apologize for not being able to remember what the Catalina display reference to the beaufort scale in an earlier posting, but here it is. Force 8 and waves of 13''. This is what the CE-A rating that the C350 has, means. It''s not opinion, it is fact.

Here''s the quote.

"We did hit the wave troughs with a thud now and again, but the Gib''Sea 41 is built with offshore seas in mind. The design carries a Category "A-Ocean" rating from the CE, their highest offshore rating. Briefly, the boat must be designed for extended, self-sufficient offshore voyages with winds in excess of Force 8 and wave heights in excess of 13 feet."


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

As you recall, Hunter was the first CE -A rated US sailboat. (All of a sudden CE- A ratings carry some weight) Do you have anything to substantiate that claim? Let''s see it! I am not an expert on this, I just pulled CE rating stuff from a Google search. The Island Packet advertisement speaks for itself. Do you have a comparable Hunter advertisment? As far as I know, the advertisement is true , otherwise the dealer is deceiving the public in a big way. What proof do you have to that the IP was not the first US CE-A rated sailboat? I have no way of knowing. I do however, believe the statements of Catalina which I have seen in person. The C 350 is CE-A rated. It can easily beat around your cape. It can withstand Force 8 winds and 13'' waves.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Whether it''s rated offshore or not is rather immaterial. One need only look at the absence of anything usable as a seaberth, and the minimal tankage for a boat that size to realize it is not meant for extended offshore sailing.

Any boat is only as capable as her skipper and crew, but after a year of boat searching, it seems apparent to me that the "Big 3" production builders are building for the "casual" sailor. They stress ammenities and liveablity, and sacrifice seaworthiness to that end.

I own a Hunter 26, and while I like the boat, and enjoy it, that''s because I use it as it was intended. And while the "Big 3" may make boats certified for offshore, I really don''t believe that is their intended purpose. All boats are a compromise, but in the case of the "Big 3" I believe they compromise on the side of "at rest", rather than "in motion".

Fair winds,

John


----------



## jbarros (Jul 30, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

First, a disclaimer, I''ve been acused of all types of things by "real" sailors for my defense of Catalina''s. I''m in love with the 270, and I''ve spent more time on assorted Catalinas then any other boat (and the boat I own is NOT a Catalina) So, I''m a fan. That being said:

-- Quote --
Unless he is the designer, he has no basis other than personal opinion, to make the following statement: "The Catalina 350 is designed to do two things be cheap and offer a lot of room. All else is secondary. 
-- End Quote --

Forget about the 350 specificly, and lets look at the entire line: 
http://www.catalinayachts.com/about.cfm

From Mr. Buttler: 
"When I founded Catalina Yachts in 1970, my goal was not to become the largest sailboat builder in the United States. My goal was, and still is to build good boats that are a good value for our customers. "

He builds boats that will stand up to more than 90% of people will throw at them, and he builds them cheap enough that working stiffs can afford a new one without selling their home landside. They''re not the offshore yacht of choice, and there are thousands of stronger boats out there. Catalinas are built to a price point.

I live not 10 miles from the Catalina Factory. I know people who work there. They''re proud of the products they make. Most of them own catalinas. It''s like people who got scoffed at for owning a Tin Lizzy. You know what, it wasnt the best car of the time by FAR. but it''s something "real people" can afford, and it''ll do more than most people want. No boat does everything well.

So, as much as I love Catalina''s, I''ve gotta back JeffH up on this. One of the main reasons I love the Catalinas is that they give the accomidations I want, in a package I can handle, at a price I can afford. And that IS their primary focus.

I''m also happy to say that I''ve never had any of the people I''ve delt with try to convince me elsewise. When talking to them about a 23.5, of which they only made three, but they do still have the molds, they were frank with me. They said if I wanted to do that type of sailing, I should look at companies that do that.

I''m happy with them. But neither I nor anyone I know in their organization would pretend that they''re anything more than a good value for what alot of people will realy end up doing.

-- James


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

James,
I am glad you aspire to a Cat 27. Unfortunately they are not rated CE -A Ocean. The C350 is rated as such and therefore is built to withstand Force 8 winds and 13'' waves. They are the facts, your opinion is interesting. I need more than opinion.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

John,
Your Hunter 26 may be rated for its "At rest" characteristics, but a CE-A rating for Catalinas bigger than 30'' is more about "at sea" characteristics. I have been studying the big 3 for almost 2 years and I have come to the undisputed conclusion that Catalina is the way to go. Benes rust and don''t match US parts(Replacement wise). Hunters are wimpy. CE- ratings are much more than comfort levels. Can your Hunter 26 take force 8 winds and 13'' seas? Thats what CE-A means. Maybe your boat is CE- B.


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

TJR and the group:

I fear some of us are beating a dead horse at this point because a simplistic definition of a CE ''A'' rating has been put into print and, consequently, it''s very inviting to hang one''s hat on it without looking at either the history of the rating''s development or the standards with which ''A'' rated boats must comply. Don''t confuse me with facts, my mind''s made up.

To step away from the the deep end of the issue (What ARE the standards with which a builder must comply?), I think the post above about IP yachts is quite telling: let''s look at it.

"Island Packet Yachts underwent inspection and were given Category A ratings (for unlimited offshore use) by the International Marine Certification Institute (IMCI) and were the first US sailboat builder to be so certified."

There are some learnings to be had here. First, it was IPY that underwent the inspection; no boats are inspected nor is there a guarantee that each boat of a given model will be built the same, nor that the methods used in a model''s construction won''t change over time. Second, the IMCI is the Notified Body I mentioned earlier. They are hired by and paid by IPY to conduct this inspection, mostly of design info and product-related paper flow. NB''s walk a difficult line, as they are in competition with other NB firms and, if they earn a ''too tough'' rep, they will not be hired by other manufacturers. Yet OTOH they must seek to verify compliance. And of course, while they may visit the factory floor their focus is going to be on paper, processes, QA systems and design specs. This is not a bad thing but it isn''t what we''re led to believe they are certifying. (To those who think there''s a *guaranteed* correlation between a design and the factory''s end result, I offer the analogies of the Easter Bunny and Father Christmas). Third, the statement about the builder being certified is overly general and misleading. IPY is not now blessed to put a CE Rating on anything that ships from the factory floor. Instead, they''ve vetted specific designs as specifically built, equipped and sold within the EU. Even if we put great stock in the CE rating, we need to understand the builder is free to do anything - that''s ANYTHING - in the way of equipment changes, structural changes, etc. he wishes for his North American product.

But IMO all of this is secondary to the critical issue: the ''A'' rating enjoys a lot of attention NOT because of what it actually means, NOR because potential buyers and boat nuts like us understand what it means, but simply because there is an absence of any other standard which must be uniformly followed by builders and which ties - however obliquely - to the boat''s actual use on the water. Into this vacuum the EU has inserted a generic, mostly meaningless standard which the major builders have highly influenced from its inception, and which their marketing groups now enjoy leveraging. And generally, we just suck it up.

It is not by accident that not a single boat broker with whom I''ve spoken here in the UK about their ''A'' rated boats can answer questions about the ''A'' rating standards. The entire market - factory reps, brokers, vendors & equipment suppliers, and most of all customers - lack an appreciation for what the ratings truly mean, but we''d rather be lazy and accept comfortable assurances rather than pushing for the detail, doing our own homework and challenging the builders'' claims.

The only good news in all this is that, in general, it seems most of these ''A'' rated boats are not used in ''A'' rated fashion. Put another way - since the tread started WRT a Catalina 350 - perhaps it''s the perfect boat for the typical buyer. Lots of room at a great price just about sums it up. Let''s just not think we''d actually be able to use that chart table offshore in F8+ winds and 4M+ seas, let alone move about the cabin to get to it.

Jack


----------



## Yodagwb (Nov 10, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

I do find it interesting that the new Island Packet 37 is the Catalina 350 layout.

What were they thinking?


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

tjr3c,

You asked why I believe that Hunter was the first US company to have a boat certified by the CE. Several years ago, I was asked to moderate a discussion between the participants on the Cruising World Bulletin Board and Hunter Marine. There had been a lot of negative opinions of Hunters expressed by people who really did not have a lot experience with Hunter. Over a period of a couple weeks questions were emailed to me, and I forwarded them to Hunter Marine. Jim Bohart who was working in the Reseach and Development Department at Hunter was kind enough to answer these questions for the CWBB''ers. Here are two of the questions and answers.

"The EU STIX standards only examines the potential of a boat to sustain a knockdown and the likelihood that a boat will survive a knockdown should one occur in the conditions included in its rating range. While the current draft version of the proposed standards attempts to rate the structural elements of the boat, it really does not address construction standards in any real detail or the type of structural requirements that would be necessary to survive a major knock down. [This question is aimed at such items as the large Plexiglas panels used in late model Hunters and the resultant large cut outs in the deck and house that these require. This question is also aimed at such vulnerable areas as the hull to deck joint, cockpit and deck areas, as well as, the general hull design standards.] There has been a lot of new data being gathered on the real loads encountered at sea. Does Hunter feel that they have designed the structure of their boats to withstand the kind of massive loads implied in the kind of pounding a boat can take in a storm?"

And their answer was as follows:
We feel that the design and construction of more than 27,000 boats has given us experience and knowledge that is incomparable. The severity of a storm is of course somewhat subjective and varies from observer to observer. Take it that we design and test our boats to meet and be safe at any time. I am sure that those that have survived the sinking of a craft thought that their vessels was the safest thing afloat...then it happened. We do test for that sort of thing. Steve Pettengill's job title is: Director of Offshore Testing. He does try to break the boat. I know of no better person to do so. Remember he spent one Thanksgiving upside down in Great American off Cape Horne in 100kt winds and 75' seas and has more offshore experience in very light weight boats than most. We will discuss construction further when we get to those specific questions you asked later so as not to be redundant.

Question: Will Hunter submit their boats for certification under the new EU standards?

" Answer, Hunter was actually the first American company to have a boat given an Class 'A' rating under the new CE Directive for Recreational Water Craft. Hunter participated in a preliminary program that took place during the Directive development process. The program was intended to test the proposed standards on boats that were actually in production. We were the only American company that chose to participate in this pilot program. We submitted all of the supporting data on one of our boats that was then in production and were the first US produced boat to receive a Class 'A' Open Ocean rating. It should be noted that some sections of the Directive have been watered down since then. Currently, all of our non-trailerable boats over 30 feet are capable of meeting the CE Open Ocean rating."

Granted this came straight from someone at Hunter reseach and development and not from an advertising person at Island Packet (a company that feels it must lie in its ads about the sail area of their boats.)

You may have come to the "undisputed conclusion that Catalina is the way to go" so let me dispute it. In a casual survey of marine surveyors here on the Chesapeake Bay, Catalinas came in third on build quality issues. According to these surveyors, Beneteaus built in the past 10-12 years and Hunters were seen as doing a better job of producing boats that meet current UL, ABYC and ABS standards. Catalina was seen as a third place finisher.

Last year I was severely criticized for saying that in helping a couple friends who were looking to buy used boats, I was on a bunch of 10 year old Hunters,Beneteaus and Catalinas, and of the three the Catalinas really seemed to show thier age worse than the other two. After that chastisement, I spoke to a number of brokers and marine surveyors. I asked them all the same question, "You folks see a lot of boats over the years, how do the big three boats seem to hold up over time if you compare say a 10 year old Hunter to a similar age Beneteau or Catalina?" And what came back was pretty much in agreement with my statement that Catalinas did not seem to hold up as well as the other two manufacturers with at least two brokers saying that they had a harder time getting older Catalinas to pass survey. (In fairness there was some criticism of Beneteaus sprayed on interior finishes which are hard to refinish and so can look a little beat up after a while. Then again Catalina has just gone to as similar finish.)

So tjr3c, while I personally have no horse in this race, it seems to me that your attacks on anyone who is critical of Catalina really strikes me that if anyone is being ''self-serving'' here it is you and that you do not really have an understanding of what a CE certification really means and how a boat manufacturer gets one. The standards are available on line. You should at least read the ''purpose'' section. The CE certifications do set a minimum set of standards for boats intended to venture into the four levels of exposure, but it does not actually certify that a boat is suitable for use in the exposure for which it is rated in much the same way that US milage ratings do not guarentee that your particular car will get that mileage or that it will be comfortable to drive while doing so.

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

Jeff,
What prompted me to enter the fray to begin with, were your unkind remarks about the seaworthiness of the Catalina 350. Your comments were in direct contradiction to everything I have seen in print. Many boat manufacturers use the CE rating as a selling point. It says something about what the boat can withstand. I have shown ads, articles about Island Packet''s CE -A rating, the Gib''Sea 41'' CE-A rating and of course, the Catalina CE-A rating. I have shown that the CE-A rating means "Open Ocean rated". I have shown that it means "Can handle a minimum of Force 8 winds and 13" seas". You are entitled to bash Catalinas if you want, but I am entitled to point out the facts about the CE-A rating that they have. Now, in terms of the Hunter spokeperson that you quoted, let us examine his words to see if he was perhaps, fudging it a bit. Here is an exerpt of what he said in your last posting-

"Currently, all of our non-trailerable boats over 30 feet are capable of meeting the CE Open Ocean rating."

Notice that he says "capable". That does not mean that they HAVE the rating of CE-A. As a matter of fact, I just went to the Hunter Marine site, and did a lookup of the specs of the 306, and it is listed as having a CE-B rating. Was your spokesperson talking through his hat? Was he lying? Ws he bluffing? Go see for yourself. At least when Catalina says they have the rating, they really do! Hunters are nice boats. I have studied them to a certain degree and I have been aboard and have admired their interiors.
In the last series of boat shows, I boarded both Hunter and Catalina. One thing that jumped out at me was the sheer number and size of winches offered on Catalina as compared to the Hunter. I was also taken by the massive construction of the Catalina as compared to the Hunters. Maybe those factors have something to do with off shore ratings( among other structural things). In this months issue of "Sail" magazine on page 35, Hallberg -Rassy also touts it''s CE-A rating and I quote;

"Hallberg-Rassy CERTIFICATION: Each boat is delivered with a CE certification and a CE plaque for Category A (unlimited Ocean Voyages)."

Obviously they are quite proud of their "A" rating by CE. This is the same rating that the Catlaina 350 has (not just capable of). I rest my case.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

I probably should have explained that the online discussion (from which was the quote in my prior post was taken) took place 6 months to a year before the EU finalized the Directive and actually began certifying boats. At that point in time the only boats that were certified were boats that were submitted during the pilot program, At that point in time Hunter beleived that they were the only US company that submitted a boat to the pilot program. I attached that quote to answer your question regarding why I thought that Island Packets claim that they were the first US company to obtain a CE Open Ocean rating was bogus.

So to answer you questions, "Was your spokesperson talking through his hat? Was he lying? Was he bluffing?" To begin with, this was not a salesman but one the top people within Hunter''s research and development department. He was not talking through his hat, he was not lying, he was not bluffing, He was stating the facts as they existed at the time, which were that he believed that all non-trailerable Hunters over 30 feet were capable of meeting the then current standards. They were not certified because you could not get a whole line of boats certified yet. The 306 is a very new model and did not exist at the time of this discussion. While this may be splitting hairs, Mr. Bohart said that all Hunters over 30 feet were qualitified and if you look at the literature, the 306 is actually under 30 feet in length.

I sincerely suggest that you look at the actual CE Directive for Recreational Water Craft for yourself instead of relying on hype from boat builder advertising. From your statements it would appear you clearly do not seem to understand what the EU certification process is intended to do.

I also think that you are mistaken when you characterize my comments as ''unkind''. I don''t think they were unkind at all, they simply reflected the reality of the design philosophy expounded by Catalina and the realities of the Catalinas relative to C&C''s.

Jeff


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

TJR:

I''m afraid you''re missing the point. Regurgitating marketing info that a boat is CE ''A'' rated, when you can''t articulate what that means about how the boat is built and/or sails, isn''t clarifying anything for anyone. I''m sure you want to believe the 350 is a capable offshore boat, and yes, we can all see that Catalina and legions of other builders hold CE ''A'' ratings for some hulls. It''s the linkage of what that rating means to what the boat is capable of that is missing...and your posts aren''t getting us any further along on that issue. Did you look at the suggested link?

Ratings aside - and since we can''t all go out and test boats together - note the above post that suggested looking at how the 350 is laid out vs. how a boat needs to be used, offshore. To my knowledge, the CE rating system makes no requirements on the functionality of a chart table, mandates no level of utility for a galley, requires no specific criteria be met on the location and/or suitability of a head, and stipulates nothing about the number of seaberth vs. number of crew...or what even qualifies as a seaberth. How one navigates, sleeps, cooks and relieves him/herself are all relevant to offshore sailing in my experience, but not insofar as obtaining a CE rating is concerned.

Jeff:

Just in case you''re beginning to wonder, your posts are clear and on-topic, even if you and TJR are hollering past one another on the issue.

Jack


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

Jack,

This reminds of a funny incident that occurred when Ayn Rand was being interviewed by William F. Buckley many years ago. Ayn Rand and Mr. Buckley were actually having a fundimental difference of opinion on a topic. After the intellectual equivilent of ''hollering past each other'' on the topic, William F. Buckley politely said, "Miss Rand, Per the current vernacular expression, ''we seem to be having a failure to communcate''".

Ayn Rand looked him squarely in the eye, and said, "Mr. Buckley, I am communicating perfectly adequately. You are simply failing to comprehend."

That said, I do feel som frustration at not being able to explain the issue in a way that Tjr sees where you and I are coming from. As we have discussed in our offline correspondence on the topic of CE standards, while the standards are intended to quantify certain ''quantifiable'' aspects of what makes a vessel safe to venture offshore, it fails to actually set the kind of comprehensive standards that would completely define all aspects of what makes vessel suitable to venture offshore. It also fails to have the kinds of checks and balances that guarentees that what appears on the forms actually occurs in the specific boats being built.

I can''t recall if I had given this example in our exchange on this topic or if I was talking with someone else on this topic, but the CE standards are somewhat akin to the old Lloyds standards. You would routinely see references to boats being designed "to Lloyds Standards", which mean that the design met LLoyds standard. You would also see boats that claimed to be ''A100 approved'' which meant that drawinsg were subitted to Lloyds and these drawings were approved. The vessel was then supposedly built to the approved Lloyds A100 standard. Lastly, you would see boat that had been Lloyds A100 certified, which meant that the design had been approved by Lloyds in advance and that a Lloyds certified inspector had observed the construction and certified it as being in accordance with the Lloyd Standards and the approved set of design documents.

The EC directive is the equivilent of being Looyds approved but not certified (despite the word confusion that might occur here),

Best wishes,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

This discussion goes on and on and I have read these threads for sometime and held back from posting but I think it is time I chimmed in. Two summers ago I sold our previous boat and went into the mode of boat search. Over the course of a 3 month period I had accepted offers on a Cat 380 (deal fell through between two independent people (no Brokers) because PO was difficult to work with)and Beneteau 381 failed survey due to delam rudder and PO wouldn''t replace as needed (boat did survey well other than this issue.

After the Beneteau deal fell through we looked at a Hunter 356 and ultimately bought one. Part and parcel of this purchase was a contingency that it pass survey. Boat came in and not only flunked survey it was so bad Hunter took the boat back to Fl and off the dealers hands. There were more voids in the deck than solid areas. I might say Hunter was GREAT about this and supposedly cut it open and determined the problem was due to bad resin. As a result of this experience I opened my search again and looked at a Cat 350, which didn''t impress me mostly due to the layout. The build quality looked fine but my wife and I just didn''t like the boat. While shopping we looked at a Cat 36 MKII which we did like. After trying unsuccesfully to get an acceptable deal on a 36 from our dealer we relucktanly agreed to try another 356 after many assurances from Hunter that my previous experience was not the norm. 356 #2 comes in and although the deck was much better there were still some voids 15-20 mostly deep in the laminate, but their were three or four voids under the surface of the non skid. The dealer agreed to fix them and Hunter agreed to double the warrantee and we were ready to go ahead and I lost my job. As a result the dealer graciously let me out of the deal.

We ultimately bought a used 36 MKII. This long drawn out experience gave me a lot of insight into the big three.

My thoughts:

as for stuctural quality I would rate them Cat/Ben/Hunter. Cast Iron keels played a huge inpact on this rating and the overall design of the boat and rig had a major influence.

Systems design/accessability Hunt/ tie Ben/Cat. I must say this is based on my boat not on the 350 or newer designs, the newer models of the cats seem better and on these boats I would say they equal the Beneteau''s. Hunter was far superior as to the basic systems design, very well thought our and innovative.

Interior finish/workmanship Ben/Cat/Hunter, Hunter has made major inroads in this area in the last few years, But overall still lags behind alittle.

Rigs and Hardware: Cat/Ben/Hunter without a doubt Catalina''s rigs are beefer and the hardware is bigger and better on the cat.

With all this said, you are getting what you paid for, a MASS PRODUCTED PRODUCTION BOAT THAT IS MADE TO A PRICE POINT. Don''t loose sight of this, if you like the B&R rig, arches and creature conforts go Hunter (just get a survey before you close. Imagine how I would have felt down the road when a buyer had the boat surveyed at resale!!!!!) Like mahogony and lots of wine racks and a more European look go Beneteau. If you are more traditional in your taste go Catalina. It all boils down to what you like and want out of your boat. I for one would not want to take any of them out in the ocean alone CE rated or not.

Moral of the story GET ANY BOAT YOU PURCHASE NEW OR USED SURVEYED!!!!!!!! My dealer tells me 1 in a 100 new boat buyer surveys a boat. Boy 99 idiots out there.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

http://www.ays.com/certification.htm

http://www.thehullcompany.com/newyachts.htm

Jeff and Whoosh,
I do understand what you are trying to say. I have visited the website you refer to. It appears to be a bad translation of something that is peripherially related to our discussion and goes on and on , page after page. I simply do not agree with your position and the run -on web-site did not help. It almost seems to be someones private analysis of what they think CE means. It looks like a legislative draft, not meant for prime time. It is a pity that you put all your eggs in that deplorable basket. You seem to be saying that the International CE rating system is a sham rating system. I understand that you disagree with their ratings (unless they apply to boats you like). I refuse to accept that you two guys somehow have become your own international rating Association with no credentials and no formal testing of the boats you so hate to admit- are good boats. Your credibility evaporates when you assert that Hallberg- Rassy, Gib'Sea, Island Packet, Catalina are not seaworthy. That is essentially what you are saying when you discount the CE-A rating. Many boat manufacturers are proud of the CE rating along with the other Certifications that are available, such as ABYC and NMMA. Catalina of couse, has been certified by all of the above. Apparently the only certification Catalina has not achieved, is the personal opinion of Jeff and Whoosh. I understand that you opine that the 350 is a fat, interior designed boat. It also passes international and national muster as an ocean rated vehicle. Catalina manages to do it without misleading the public too. I will allow Jeff to retract his earlier statement that all Hunters over 30' were CE -A rated. I went to Hunter's website and found that the Hunter 306 was CE -B rated. Jeff quickly adjusted saying that the Hunter 306 is really under 30 feet. I can't subscribe to the Jeff/Whoosh system of rating boats on personal opinion and manufacturer lies, (like the Hunter 306). Instead, I prefer to rely on National and International agencies like the CE rating, ABYC, and NMMA. You can continue to operate under the "Ostrich Manuever" if you like. Bury your heads in the sand, and pretend that national and international boat rating standards don't exist, and that the only rating system worthy of belief, is the Jeff/Whoosh system of personal opinion, personal bias, and total ignorance of international and national ratings. I ain't buying what you are selling. It just doesn't hold water. In light of recent discussions and discoveries, let me ask you the follwing question. Based on what we now know about national and international ratings, manufacturer hype, and advertising, which boat would you rather take across the Atlantic, a Catlaina 350 (with its CE-A rating) or a Hunter 306 (with its CE-B rating)? Would you also choose the Hunter 306 over an Island Packet and a Hallberg -Rassy? If so, you are hoplessly close-minded and in need of brain transplants. As I understand it, Hunter and Jeff claimed that all Hunters over 30' were CE-A rated, only to find that Hunter falsely advertises that the 306 is really not 30' 6", but actually closer to 29'. When I buy a boat, I want to know that its dimensions are as advertised. Obviously 306 means something to buyers. I wonder how many buyers actually thought they were getting a 30' 6" boat that was CE-A rated. You can poo-poo the CE rating but at least it is something that a buyer has to set basic parameters. Otherwise, all prospective boaters will have to contact you two experts. I doubt that would work and I doubt that your advice (based on the propaganda espoused thus far) would be reliable. Check out the websites at the top of this posting to gain further information about rating systems.


----------



## PBzeer (Nov 11, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Again, you miss the whole point. Ratings, at best, say what the rated object is CAPABLE of, they have nothing to do with what it is INTENDED for.

Perhaps you would care to share some of your sailing qualifications with us. Most who read this BB are aware of JeffH''s and Jack''s. What might your''s be?

Fair winds,

John


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

new boats, used boats -- we''ve got your boat

home boats for sale boat loans insurance warranty services boat spec find a builder marine directory product store myboats

fishing power sailing

The Lloyds Standards 
Understanding the Lloyds yacht rating systems

1998
by Chris Caswell

There is probably no nautical topic where more myth, fable and outright misrepresentation exists than in the "classification" of yachts. You''ve probably seen the advertisements that proudly state that a yacht is "Lloyd''s +100A1" or "ABS-classed," but even the owners of these yachts often don''t fully understand what it all means.

Lloyd''s (Lloyd''s Register of Shipping) and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) are two of the most prominent of the dozen classification societies in the world. In essence, these societies are independent technical organizations that establish and administer standards for the design, construction and periodic re-survey of ships and other marine structures as diverse as oil rigs and bridges.

To fully understand what these societies provide and how they operate, you must understand that the terminology in this field is exacting, and not always what it may seem. First of all, classification of a yacht warrants that it has met all the standards of a society, both before, during and after construction as well as passed rigorous ongoing surveys during the life of the vessel. Other levels of approval are called certification, which involve fewer areas that are examined, or do not include ongoing surveys. Classification continues throughout the life of the yacht (unless it fails a survey), while certification attests to the condition only at the time of delivery.

Lloyd''s Register of Shipping is the oldest classification society in the world and, because it is usually referred to simply as Lloyd''s, is often confused with Lloyd''s of London or a variety of other financial institutions bearing the name Lloyd''s. It does share a common starting point with these others, however: the 18th century London coffeehouse owned by Edward Lloyd that became a gathering place for businessmen and shipowners who would arrange to independently insure cargoes and vessels against loss on the high seas. From these beginnings came the Lloyd''s of London insurance operation, but an entirely separate entity was Lloyd''s Register of Shipping, a classification society that set standards for ship construction to aid in the insurance process.

Founded in 1862, the American Bureau of Shipping is no newcomer and, though also founded to reassure insurance companies, it was originally intended only to promote "a high degree of efficiency and character" among the masters and officers of sailing ships. To that end, tests were developed and "commissions of competency" were issued by what was then called the American Shipmasters'' Association. Within a few years, however, the Association had adopted a system for rating, surveying and registering vessels to assure that they were structurally sound and mechanically fit to safely carry crew and cargo.

A classification society is, in essence, a professional third party that assures the owner or buyer of a yacht that the vessel is built to an accepted standard. Everyone else - seller, builder, designer, broker - has something to gain from the construction or sale of the yacht and, therefore, is not to be entirely trusted, particularly when it comes to betting your life at sea. "Regardless of the intended purpose for the yacht," says Bill Crawford of ABS, "we review the plans and survey the yacht with the 100-year-storm in mind."

Let''s look at classifications first, since these top ratings tend to be fairly similar regardless of the society, while the various certifications vary widely. A Lloyd''s classified yacht is said to be Maltese 100A1, which is usually written +100A1, while ABS offers two separate designations. An ABS-classified sailing yacht is ABS Maltese A1 (+A1) while a motoryacht is termed Maltese A1-AMS (+A1-AMS), the difference being the surveying of the main propulsion system on the motoryacht, or annual machinery survey (AMS).

Each of these classifications requires that a full set of plans be submitted for review and approval, and a surveyor is present during most of the construction process as well as for the sea trials. All material used in the boat is tested and, in the case of aluminum or steel yachts, each plate must have a society approval stamp and each welder must pass rigorous tests. During construction, samples of random welds will be X-rayed and, if a weld does not meet society approval, the plate is removed and a replacement is done correctly. For fiberglass yachts, the surveyor takes careful note of material storage methods, lay-up procedures, curing times, and then performs hardness tests on sample sections.

To keep a yacht "in classification," it must be inspected on a regular basis, usually annually, or whenever changes or damage to the yacht might affect the classification. For the yacht owner, it is a continuing assurance of compliance to standards and it serves as an independent check on his captain and crew, but it is not an inexpensive undertaking.

For owners who simply want to assure themselves that the yacht was properly designed and constructed, most societies offer lesser ratings.

The Lloyd''s "Building Certificate" and "Hull Construction Certificate" do not involve ongoing classification surveys. ABS, on the other hand, offers a "Hull Certificate" in which they duplicate the classification process up to the point of delivery, at which time ABS involvement ends. Unlike Lloyd''s, ABS also offers a "Plan Review" that takes the same hard look at the hull design and construction plans that they use for a full classification, but no construction surveys are performed and machinery systems are not included. All Sabre yachts have undergone ABS plan review, and several other builders have had plan review on selected production boats.

Lloyd''s does not offer approvals of any builder''s plant, while ABS will certify a builder to be "ABS-quality." Tillotson-Pearson, for example, is ABS certified, although the yachts they produce are still carefully monitored during construction before the ABS +A1 classifications are awarded. Christiensen Yachts is the only U.S. builder of megayachts to ABS classify every yacht (except one that went with Japanese NKK society classification to that country) and they keep a furnished office for the ABS surveyor who is almost constantly on hand. Dave Christiensen estimates that the added cost is about 3 percent of the total, and probably adds 300 to 400 manhours of engineering time to prepare extra drawings and plans.

A relative newcomer on the American yachting scene is Det Norske Veritas, a Norwegian classification society that has an extensive background in small pleasure boats in Scandinavia. Since 1969, the company has issued small craft type certificates, much like those provided by the American Boat & Yacht Council, in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. These certificates assure that the craft meets certain construction and design standards, as well as the legal requirements of the Scandinavian countries. More than 600,000 small craft have been type certified, involving 1,300 different models from 400 builders.

DNV offers the same full classification as Lloyd''s and ABS and, like ABS, they offer an "Approval In Principal" of plans, which is neither a classification or certification, but simply attests that the plans meet the DNV rules, a procedure that is growing popular in Australia.

The differences between the various societies in ships, where insurance is unavailable unless the vessel is classified, usually are minimal and shipowners often select their national society for ease of access and service. In yachts, however, the differences are not so clear and it usually boils down to which society will give you the best service.

One noted naval architect, who asked not to be mentioned by name for obvious reasons, said that ABS is easier to deal with than Lloyd''s if you want to try an unusual design or construction process. If you can back up your idea with facts and figures, ABS will approve it while Lloyd''s tends to take a more conservative view of any deviation from the norm. Part of this, of course, may be due to the distance involved, since all plans must be approved at the Lloyd''s offices in England, while ABS is based in New Jersey.

ABS has also made a concerted effort to reach the yachting market, and ABS representative Bob Curry worked extensively with the Offshore Racing Council''s Technical Committee and several naval architects, notably Gary Mull and Olin Stephens, to devise fair and realistic scantling rules for offshore racing yachts. The result is a comprehensive guide, "Building And Classing Offshore Racing Yachts," that is both up-to-date in terms of technology as well as in a simple engineering format for designers to use.

It''s obvious that the classification societies exist in the shipping industry for insurance purposes to provide a uniform worldwide standard, but why is this needed in yachts where a normal surveyor could provide much the same service at far lower cost? For one thing, yachts have become small ships with all the myriad systems and complexities that would be beyond the grasp of any single surveyor and, second, with the growing variety of materials and techniques, the societies provide an information service that shares the success of certain methods and remembers the failures of others.

Very few European large yachts are built without classification, simply because yacht buyers abroad are often involved in shipping, so classification is a way of life and they are comfortable with the procedures.

For that same reason, American builders have been slow to encourage the use of classifications because buyers aren''t familiar with them and, almost to a man, they all claim to build better boats than required by the societies. Whether that is true or not is just as debatable as whether a buyer would want a boat built to society standards. One well-known builder noted that it is impossible to build the high-speed motoryachts, now so popular, to classification because of the sacrifices necessary to keep the weight to a minimum. The societies, on the other hand, point out that they have been classing high-speed patrol craft and other speed-oriented vessels for many years, and suggest that the builder is probably cutting many corners in search of an extra knot or two.

Does a classification help sell or insure a yacht? Maybe and maybe not, depending upon the circumstances. One Florida yacht broker agreed that having a Lloyd''s- or ABS-classified yacht would encourage most insurance companies to offer lower rates but, at the same time, the owner would pay more than he saved in maintaining the classification and having the annual survey so the ultimate out-of-pocket expense would be higher.

At the same time, brokers seem divided on the resale value of a classification. "If I''ve got a yacht that is classified, then it''s a real important feature. But if the yacht I''m selling isn''t classified, then it doesn''t matter," one confided frankly. Several brokers, however, did point out that it''s very difficult to sell a large yacht in Europe without a classification or, at the very least, an original certification.

One area where a classification can be of real value is in a lawsuit or a dispute over insurance settlements. If you lose your yacht and it was classified, the courts tend to listen to the testimony of a centuries-old classification society that has been intimately familiar with the vessel from the plans stage, and which has surveyed it regularly.

Whether you need classification or not on your yacht will depend on your needs and budget. But knowing exactly what classification or certification means will keep you out of deep water, too


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

new boats, used boats -- we''ve got your boat

home boats for sale boat loans insurance warranty services boat spec find a builder marine directory product store myboats

fishing power sailing

The Lloyds Standards 
Understanding the Lloyds yacht rating systems

1998
by Chris Caswell

There is probably no nautical topic where more myth, fable and outright misrepresentation exists than in the "classification" of yachts. You''ve probably seen the advertisements that proudly state that a yacht is "Lloyd''s +100A1" or "ABS-classed," but even the owners of these yachts often don''t fully understand what it all means.

Lloyd''s (Lloyd''s Register of Shipping) and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) are two of the most prominent of the dozen classification societies in the world. In essence, these societies are independent technical organizations that establish and administer standards for the design, construction and periodic re-survey of ships and other marine structures as diverse as oil rigs and bridges.

To fully understand what these societies provide and how they operate, you must understand that the terminology in this field is exacting, and not always what it may seem. First of all, classification of a yacht warrants that it has met all the standards of a society, both before, during and after construction as well as passed rigorous ongoing surveys during the life of the vessel. Other levels of approval are called certification, which involve fewer areas that are examined, or do not include ongoing surveys. Classification continues throughout the life of the yacht (unless it fails a survey), while certification attests to the condition only at the time of delivery.

Lloyd''s Register of Shipping is the oldest classification society in the world and, because it is usually referred to simply as Lloyd''s, is often confused with Lloyd''s of London or a variety of other financial institutions bearing the name Lloyd''s. It does share a common starting point with these others, however: the 18th century London coffeehouse owned by Edward Lloyd that became a gathering place for businessmen and shipowners who would arrange to independently insure cargoes and vessels against loss on the high seas. From these beginnings came the Lloyd''s of London insurance operation, but an entirely separate entity was Lloyd''s Register of Shipping, a classification society that set standards for ship construction to aid in the insurance process.

Founded in 1862, the American Bureau of Shipping is no newcomer and, though also founded to reassure insurance companies, it was originally intended only to promote "a high degree of efficiency and character" among the masters and officers of sailing ships. To that end, tests were developed and "commissions of competency" were issued by what was then called the American Shipmasters'' Association. Within a few years, however, the Association had adopted a system for rating, surveying and registering vessels to assure that they were structurally sound and mechanically fit to safely carry crew and cargo.

A classification society is, in essence, a professional third party that assures the owner or buyer of a yacht that the vessel is built to an accepted standard. Everyone else - seller, builder, designer, broker - has something to gain from the construction or sale of the yacht and, therefore, is not to be entirely trusted, particularly when it comes to betting your life at sea. "Regardless of the intended purpose for the yacht," says Bill Crawford of ABS, "we review the plans and survey the yacht with the 100-year-storm in mind."

Let''s look at classifications first, since these top ratings tend to be fairly similar regardless of the society, while the various certifications vary widely. A Lloyd''s classified yacht is said to be Maltese 100A1, which is usually written +100A1, while ABS offers two separate designations. An ABS-classified sailing yacht is ABS Maltese A1 (+A1) while a motoryacht is termed Maltese A1-AMS (+A1-AMS), the difference being the surveying of the main propulsion system on the motoryacht, or annual machinery survey (AMS).

Each of these classifications requires that a full set of plans be submitted for review and approval, and a surveyor is present during most of the construction process as well as for the sea trials. All material used in the boat is tested and, in the case of aluminum or steel yachts, each plate must have a society approval stamp and each welder must pass rigorous tests. During construction, samples of random welds will be X-rayed and, if a weld does not meet society approval, the plate is removed and a replacement is done correctly. For fiberglass yachts, the surveyor takes careful note of material storage methods, lay-up procedures, curing times, and then performs hardness tests on sample sections.

To keep a yacht "in classification," it must be inspected on a regular basis, usually annually, or whenever changes or damage to the yacht might affect the classification. For the yacht owner, it is a continuing assurance of compliance to standards and it serves as an independent check on his captain and crew, but it is not an inexpensive undertaking.

For owners who simply want to assure themselves that the yacht was properly designed and constructed, most societies offer lesser ratings.

The Lloyd''s "Building Certificate" and "Hull Construction Certificate" do not involve ongoing classification surveys. ABS, on the other hand, offers a "Hull Certificate" in which they duplicate the classification process up to the point of delivery, at which time ABS involvement ends. Unlike Lloyd''s, ABS also offers a "Plan Review" that takes the same hard look at the hull design and construction plans that they use for a full classification, but no construction surveys are performed and machinery systems are not included. All Sabre yachts have undergone ABS plan review, and several other builders have had plan review on selected production boats.

Lloyd''s does not offer approvals of any builder''s plant, while ABS will certify a builder to be "ABS-quality." Tillotson-Pearson, for example, is ABS certified, although the yachts they produce are still carefully monitored during construction before the ABS +A1 classifications are awarded. Christiensen Yachts is the only U.S. builder of megayachts to ABS classify every yacht (except one that went with Japanese NKK society classification to that country) and they keep a furnished office for the ABS surveyor who is almost constantly on hand. Dave Christiensen estimates that the added cost is about 3 percent of the total, and probably adds 300 to 400 manhours of engineering time to prepare extra drawings and plans.

A relative newcomer on the American yachting scene is Det Norske Veritas, a Norwegian classification society that has an extensive background in small pleasure boats in Scandinavia. Since 1969, the company has issued small craft type certificates, much like those provided by the American Boat & Yacht Council, in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland. These certificates assure that the craft meets certain construction and design standards, as well as the legal requirements of the Scandinavian countries. More than 600,000 small craft have been type certified, involving 1,300 different models from 400 builders.

DNV offers the same full classification as Lloyd''s and ABS and, like ABS, they offer an "Approval In Principal" of plans, which is neither a classification or certification, but simply attests that the plans meet the DNV rules, a procedure that is growing popular in Australia.

The differences between the various societies in ships, where insurance is unavailable unless the vessel is classified, usually are minimal and shipowners often select their national society for ease of access and service. In yachts, however, the differences are not so clear and it usually boils down to which society will give you the best service.

One noted naval architect, who asked not to be mentioned by name for obvious reasons, said that ABS is easier to deal with than Lloyd''s if you want to try an unusual design or construction process. If you can back up your idea with facts and figures, ABS will approve it while Lloyd''s tends to take a more conservative view of any deviation from the norm. Part of this, of course, may be due to the distance involved, since all plans must be approved at the Lloyd''s offices in England, while ABS is based in New Jersey.

ABS has also made a concerted effort to reach the yachting market, and ABS representative Bob Curry worked extensively with the Offshore Racing Council''s Technical Committee and several naval architects, notably Gary Mull and Olin Stephens, to devise fair and realistic scantling rules for offshore racing yachts. The result is a comprehensive guide, "Building And Classing Offshore Racing Yachts," that is both up-to-date in terms of technology as well as in a simple engineering format for designers to use.

It''s obvious that the classification societies exist in the shipping industry for insurance purposes to provide a uniform worldwide standard, but why is this needed in yachts where a normal surveyor could provide much the same service at far lower cost? For one thing, yachts have become small ships with all the myriad systems and complexities that would be beyond the grasp of any single surveyor and, second, with the growing variety of materials and techniques, the societies provide an information service that shares the success of certain methods and remembers the failures of others.

Very few European large yachts are built without classification, simply because yacht buyers abroad are often involved in shipping, so classification is a way of life and they are comfortable with the procedures.

For that same reason, American builders have been slow to encourage the use of classifications because buyers aren''t familiar with them and, almost to a man, they all claim to build better boats than required by the societies. Whether that is true or not is just as debatable as whether a buyer would want a boat built to society standards. One well-known builder noted that it is impossible to build the high-speed motoryachts, now so popular, to classification because of the sacrifices necessary to keep the weight to a minimum. The societies, on the other hand, point out that they have been classing high-speed patrol craft and other speed-oriented vessels for many years, and suggest that the builder is probably cutting many corners in search of an extra knot or two.

Does a classification help sell or insure a yacht? Maybe and maybe not, depending upon the circumstances. One Florida yacht broker agreed that having a Lloyd''s- or ABS-classified yacht would encourage most insurance companies to offer lower rates but, at the same time, the owner would pay more than he saved in maintaining the classification and having the annual survey so the ultimate out-of-pocket expense would be higher.

At the same time, brokers seem divided on the resale value of a classification. "If I''ve got a yacht that is classified, then it''s a real important feature. But if the yacht I''m selling isn''t classified, then it doesn''t matter," one confided frankly. Several brokers, however, did point out that it''s very difficult to sell a large yacht in Europe without a classification or, at the very least, an original certification.

One area where a classification can be of real value is in a lawsuit or a dispute over insurance settlements. If you lose your yacht and it was classified, the courts tend to listen to the testimony of a centuries-old classification society that has been intimately familiar with the vessel from the plans stage, and which has surveyed it regularly.

Whether you need classification or not on your yacht will depend on your needs and budget. But knowing exactly what classification or certification means will keep you out of deep water, too


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

Sigh...

Let me just try to clarify my view of the CE Rating system in ''real world'' terms:

I have taken a Hallberg Rassy offshore (5000 NM +/-) and would probably take ANY of their boats across an ocean. This is not because they are ''A'' rated but because of how they are designed and built, and because of how they sail. More importantly, I think the history of this brand demonstrates clearly that they would be building the same kind of boat if the CE Rating system did not exist.

I would not take a Catalina 350 (or one of the other B/C/H models discussed in this thread) offshore in confidence simply BECAUSE it was ''A'' rated, since the rating does not assure me of that kind of intended use. And this is my judgement (yes, my opinion...) because a) the standards don''t address all the issues relevant to offshore sailing, b) I don''t see the end product being suitable for that purpose (see my comments on berths, galley, head, etc.), and c) because in the anecdotal reports we have of these boats being used to cross an ocean suggest that they can have problems (see e.g. www.equipped.org/0698rescue.htm).

Just about any size and type of boat has been taken across an ocean so, in that sense, the CE rating will be seem validated over time by some boats having made some passages offshore. The overarching issue is whether a boat being ''A'' rated insures the owner it is suitable for that type of use. I''m sorry if TJR disapproved of the CE Rating System''s summary overview but that''s from the EU-authorized body developing the rating system we''re discussing. Welcome to the multi-lingual world of EU regulating, standarizing and administering. If reading that link leaves one underwhelmed,why would one find confidence in the rating generated by those guidelines?

''Nuf from me.

Jack


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Enough of the pissing contest. I think that Jeff and Jack have given a fair assesment of the ratings. Probably better as a marketing tool then as a recommendation to sail off into the open ocean.

I did not see where either of them suggested that they would be taking a Hunter or Catalina across the pond so do not know where that came from. As to the Hunter 306 not being a 30''6" boat I don;t find that strange at all. Just a quick look at literature shows the 350 in this discussion being 36''5", the Catalina 34 being 35''8", the Ben 331 33''11", and the Ben 373 36''11". As a Catalina and Beneteau fan I don''t find this an issue. However, I would not buy anything in these price ranges without a good understanding of it''s true spec''s so they can call it whatever they want. The ratings would be a nice to have for insurance purposes, but the boat still has to be designed for your purposes. When and if I ever decided to do off shore I would be looking for the HR for the comfort and safety.


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Enough of the pissing contest. I think that Jeff and Jack have given a fair assesment of the ratings. Probably better as a marketing tool then as a recommendation to sail off into the open ocean.

I did not see where either of them suggested that they would be taking a Hunter or Catalina across the pond so do not know where that came from. As to the Hunter 306 not being a 30''6" boat I don;t find that strange at all. Just a quick look at literature shows the 350 in this discussion being 36''5", the Catalina 34 being 35''8", the Ben 331 33''11", and the Ben 373 36''11". As a Catalina and Beneteau fan I don''t find this an issue. However, I would not buy anything in these price ranges without a good understanding of it''s true spec''s so they can call it whatever they want. The ratings would be a nice to have for insurance purposes, but the boat still has to be designed for your purposes. When and if I ever decided to do off shore I would be looking for the HR for the comfort and safety.


----------



## c25 (Sep 14, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

tjr3c,

I think Jack & Jeff have made a reasonable presentation here. You''ve put words in their mouths or misrepresented what they''ve said in the attempt to support your own opinions. Both of these fellows have a well known base of experience they pull from & offer it freely. Many benefit from their thoughts on various topics.

So far you''ve demonstrated you have a mouth and ample talent to reference marketeers as sources of truth. The success of the infomercials that fill the airwaves do not prove what they hawk are great products...rather their success fullfills H.L. Mencken''s view that "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." As a previous poster has asked...What is your experience in all things sailing? Do you just parrot marketeers or do you have some personal knowledge and insight here? Does your "game" go beyond your keyboard?


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

Ok, I''m not a naval archetect, but I have spent thousands of miles in the north atlantic, albeit on some pretty darn nice boats. Each one had its own characteristics, how it handled a blow, how it moved through the water and waves, how it handles a knockdown. The interior layouts either worked well for the ocean or didn''t. Most of my time was spent on the hoary old IOR boats of the 70''s, where broaching while running in a following sea was just another daily maneuver.

All things being equal, I bet with a little ingenuity I could modify a bathtub to pass the CE-A rating. It''s just a set of standards. It has nothing to do with the comfort of the boats motion in a seaway, how easy is it to set a reef, how dry is it going to weather. Are the bunks livable with proper lee cloths, can you use the galley during a storm. Are there handholds below that are strong enough to hang from and placed throughout the cabin. The list goes on and on.

I am amazed at the floating condos that are being mass produced by the industry today. I look at the aft cabin berths stuffed under the cockpit sole and wonder how they would be out at sea. With their placement out at the end of the boat, their movement would be much greater than those that would be situated in the cabin. And with all that space to roll around in, how comfortable would they be anyway? Where are the setees and pilot berths of old? The pilots have given way to entertainment centers. The setees are now unique dinettes for entertaining. Look around at the galley, where are the pad eyes for strapping yourself in. How about handholds, when at a boat show, I asked the sales rep about them, and he pointed out some delicate looking wood trim, when I tried to hang from them he asked that I please stop as I was bound to break them. Ever been below in 35 - 45 kts of wind and 15 - 20 foot waves? I have, and there are times when you were hanging on with all your weight from the handholds. And bulheads, doors and hardware should be able to stop an NFL linebacker without breaking apart. I was below when a boat I was on pitchpoled, I slammed into the salon''s forward bulkhead and door, ouch, but the thing is, it didn''t come apart. No splintered wood or twisted hinges, just a sore shoulder. I wonder at the small wood screws holding the bulkhead doors together on the big three boats I see at the shows.

So lets all get over the "Who''s boat is CE-A and did it first" stuff. Todays big three are building the boats that the majority of the new boat buyers want. They sail nicely for their intended purpose and will probably survive the occasional blow. You want a real world circumnavigator? They are out there, but just not at the price point that the big three are selling to. That is why the real ocean going boats are about two or three times the price of the same length boat built by the big three. That is the "Fringe market" as far as they are concerned. Not their focus.

Most buyers of today''s mass produced boats are looking for a little adventure, a nice place to hang out in over the weekend. I mean come on... cup holders in the cockpit? Get real...


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

Ok, I''m not a naval archetect, but I have spent thousands of miles in the north atlantic, albeit on some pretty darn nice boats. Each one had its own characteristics, how it handled a blow, how it moved through the water and waves, how it handles a knockdown. The interior layouts either worked well for the ocean or didn''t. Most of my time was spent on the hoary old IOR boats of the 70''s, where broaching while running in a following sea was just another daily maneuver.

All things being equal, I bet with a little ingenuity I could modify a bathtub to pass the CE-A rating. It''s just a set of standards. It has nothing to do with the comfort of the boats motion in a seaway, how easy is it to set a reef, how dry is it going to weather. Are the bunks livable with proper lee cloths, can you use the galley during a storm. Are there handholds below that are strong enough to hang from and placed throughout the cabin. The list goes on and on.

I am amazed at the floating condos that are being mass produced by the industry today. I look at the aft cabin berths stuffed under the cockpit sole and wonder how they would be out at sea. With their placement out at the end of the boat, their movement would be much greater than those that would be situated in the cabin. And with all that space to roll around in, how comfortable would they be anyway? Where are the setees and pilot berths of old? The pilots have given way to entertainment centers. The setees are now unique dinettes for entertaining. Look around at the galley, where are the pad eyes for strapping yourself in. How about handholds, when at a boat show, I asked the sales rep about them, and he pointed out some delicate looking wood trim, when I tried to hang from them he asked that I please stop as I was bound to break them. Ever been below in 35 - 45 kts of wind and 15 - 20 foot waves? I have, and there are times when you were hanging on with all your weight from the handholds. And bulheads, doors and hardware should be able to stop an NFL linebacker without breaking apart. I was below when a boat I was on pitchpoled, I slammed into the salon''s forward bulkhead and door, ouch, but the thing is, it didn''t come apart. No splintered wood or twisted hinges, just a sore shoulder. I wonder at the small wood screws holding the bulkhead doors together on the big three boats I see at the shows.

So lets all get over the "Who''s boat is CE-A and did it first" stuff. Todays big three are building the boats that the majority of the new boat buyers want. They sail nicely for their intended purpose and will probably survive the occasional blow. You want a real world circumnavigator? They are out there, but just not at the price point that the big three are selling to. That is why the real ocean going boats are about two or three times the price of the same length boat built by the big three. That is the "Fringe market" as far as they are concerned. Not their focus.

Most buyers of today''s mass produced boats are looking for a little adventure, a nice place to hang out in over the weekend. I mean come on... cup holders in the cockpit? Get real...


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

Silmaril, I assume that I can take that to mean that you are in agreement with the point that Jack and I have been trying to make about the CE standards, which is, just having a CE Open Ocean rating does not mean that a boat is suitable to spend a lot of time out there.

Jeff


----------



## Silmaril (Feb 22, 2003)

*C&C or Catalina*

Jeff, EXACTLY my point...


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

I think you are all missing a very important point, and I''ll admit that my knowledge of yacht design is somewhat limited, but I do have knowledge in a similar field, i.e., building construction standards. Uniform building codes have been developed to govern the construction standards for homes and commercial buildings. They have generally been adopted by each state, and usually modified somewhat from state-to-state (to meet local needs). However, they are understood to be the *minimum* acceptable standards for the construction of buildings that are safe and hygienic for people to occupy.

If you will inquire further into the origin of the CE Standards, I expect you will find that a bunch of yacht designers got together and formulated the CE standards as *minimum* standards for the construction of any yacht that was reasonably safe to go to sea. In other words, a yacht that meets those standards might not meet everybody''s notion of the perfect sea boat, but it is regarded by the experts who devised those standards to be at least nominally fit to go to sea. That is not to say that a boat cannot be built to higher standards. Needless to say, many yachts are built to higher standards than Catalinas and Hunters, but I haven''t heard either Jeff or Jack or any knowledgeable person, for that matter, suggest that anyone who puts to sea in a Catalina 36 or 38 or 42 or 47 has a death wish. If you folks don''t regard them as fit for sea, the yacht designers who formulated the *minimum* standards obviously disagree with you.

I don''t hear the Catalina owners claiming that their boats are ideal sea boats, but this constant drumbeat, suggesting that they are unfit, is unfair. The suggestion is chanted by the detracters of the big three that they are "built to a price point," as if that''s a bad thing. In truth, a company that can build a variety of boats, from dinghies to seagoing yachts, that are reasonably safe and that perform reasonably well, and that can market them at prices within the reach of a mass of people, is good for the industry generally, good for the sport of sailing, and it''s certainly good for the customers. I don''t hear Catalina owners suggesting that their boats are superior blue water boats, but a huge number of them, built over the past 25+ years, have been proven to be reasonably good, sound and durable boats, and it''s no wonder their owners resent their unfair denigration.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

As a full time architect and sometimes yacht designer, I spend a lot of time dealing with codes, regulations and standards and I think that Sailormon''s analogy is very helpful in perhaps clarifying this discussion once and for all. If you look at building codes, they are developed by a ''building code congress'' which effectively includes building code regulators, architects, engineers, fire specialists, and attorneys. When a new code is developed or an old code revised, this congress looks at previous codes and standards, as well as any new data that may have come in since the prior codes were developed. Over the past 10 years there has been a move to develop a single building code that would replace all of the regional codes that had previously existed in the U.S. In doing so, the IBC congress basically adapted all of the most stringent requirements that existed in each of the earlier codes that were being merged. In developing this unified code, every attempt was made to make it comprehensive and as stringent as it needs to be to protect the public. Even with that the IBC makes it clear, as Sailormon pointed out, that the code is only a minimum, and that local authorities have the right to adopt more stringent measures.

That is very different than what happened in the development of the Directive for Recreational Watercraft. Quoting from a paper presented by Dr. Peter Van Oossanen (Dr. Van Oossamen was chairman of the Netherlands contingent who was working with Working Group 22 technical committee 88 in developing the ISO standards that became the EU Directive for Recreational Watercraft). This paper was presented at the January of 1997 Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Thirteenth Chesapeake Bay Sailing Yacht Symposium:

"In Europe efective barriers to trade exist due to the fact that some countries impose technical requirements based on national legislation, involving approval of all recreational craft. Particularly France and Italy impose such regulations. In other member states, technical standards exist, not backed by national legislation, thereby not creating obstacles but since these are not enforced, no guarentee exists against the production and sale of potentially dangerous boats and yachts."

For these reasons, the International Council of the Marine Industries Associations (ICOMIA) in 1988 decided to propose to the European Commission that a Directive on Recreational Boats be prepared, to remove existing barriers to trade and to ensure that all recreational craft comply with certain technical requirements."

Comment: Similar to the goals in developing the IBC building code, the EC Directive was developed to reduce trade barriers while establishing minimum standards that could be accepted by all member nations. The author of this paper described in detail the process of developing the standards.He described a detailed analysis of a wide range of data that was clearly a highly scientific method and which produced an understandable body of data. As the paper goes on to explain:

"Late in 1995 and early in 1996 it became apparent to all members of Working Group 22 that unanimous agreement on the required minimum values for each of the important stability parameters, as given in the previous paragraphs, was unattainable [These paragraphs delineate the results of the reseach and make recommendations for a minimum standard, JHH]Where one country, for example wanted a moderate minimum value of vanishing stability, and a high minimum value for downflooding, another country a relatively high minimum value of vanishing stability, and a moderate minimum value for downflooding."

As the author went on to explain a working committee was formed to develop a compromise set of standards, which were approved by the larger Working Group. These standards were later held hostage to France''s threat of a veto if they were not scaled back to be in keeping with France''s existing regulations. Certain aspects that were identified by the working group as key factors, were stripped from the final version because inclusion was seen as being to onerous for some of the EU member states.

In other words, unlike the IBC which literally took the most stringent standard from all of the constituent regional codes, the EC Directive for Recreational Watercraft only included those standards that could be agreed to by all member states and in doing so often took the most lienient standard, or deleted whole category of requlation as being too contriversial and un resolveable. With this scaling back, anyone who has read the Directive would agree that it should should not be viewed as a comprehensive set of standards.

Which brings us back to the topic at hand, what that means to me, and I believe is at the heart of Jack''s point is that the design of a boat that has a Class A Open Ocean rating has met the minimum standard in those categories that are still contained within the Directive BUT because the Directive is not comprehesive in its scope, in part due to the political nature of the process, there are areas that are not defined by the Directive which are still factors in determining whether a vessel is suitable for its rated use and because there is no inspection of vessles to review the execution of the design individual examples may not even come close to meeting the minimum requirements of the Directive.

TJR3c: 
Sir, your own credibility evaporates when you make such distorted representations as your statements like,

"Now that Jeff H retracted his statement on all Hunters over 30 feet having Open Ocean Ratings." 
(I never retracted any of my statements about Hunters. First of all it was not my statement that you are referring to but a quote from a member of Hunter''s research and development team, a statement that was made before boats that had not participated in a pilot program could certify, and second I pointed out that the model that you mentioned did not exist at the time the statement was made, and third, it was less than 30 feet long.)

Or such rediculous statements on your part as:
"Your credibility evaporates when you assert that Hallberg- Rassy, Gib'Sea, Island Packet, Catalina are not seaworthy."

No one said anything even vaguely like "Hallberg- Rassy, Gib'Sea, Island Packet..... are not seaworthy". TJR your statement grossly distorts and misrepresents the point that most of us have been trying to explain to you. I think that most of us who have participated in this discussion would agree that any boat that we used for offshore distance cruising should ideally meet the Directive Class ''A'' Open Ocean rating standards as a minimum, BUT the point that we have been trying to get you to understand is that simply having a EC Class A Open Ocean rating does not in and of itself mean that a boat is suitable for offshore use even in Beaufort Force 8 and 4 meter significant wave heights.

No one has suggested that having an Open Ocean rating excludes a boat from being suitable but neither does it assure that a boat is totally suitable either.

Having a Class A Open Ocean rating only means that those aspects of the vessel that are regulated are capable of withstanding those conditions. Other key aspects that reasonably determine whether a boat is suitable for prolonged exposure to open ocean conditions are not so regulated. Since the Class A Open Ocean ratings do not look at motion comfort, suitability of the hull form and rig for offshore work, hold downs for locker lids, and a whole raft of other issues that have been identified in the discussion above, simply being rated as Class A Open Ocean does not in and of itself mean that a particular vessel is desirable for prolonged offshore exposure.

TJR to summarize, NO YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND EVEN SLIGHTLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SAYING. You are trying so desperately to defend your precious love of Catalinas that you are missing the point that a CE Open Ocean rating does in and of itself produce a boat that is suitable for open ocean use. The very preamble of the section of the Directive that describes the ratings (to which you have been referred several times) says that quite clearly.

Look, if you want to take your Catalina 350 offshore that''s your business, but if someone asks if the Catalina 350 is an ideal vessel for cruising offshore on the New England coast (which after all was the orginal point of this thread), I still stand behind my statement that the Catalina 350 is not ideal for this kind of offshore work and has accommodations clearly designed for protected anchorages. And I base this on a careful study of the current reseach on desireable caracteristics of offshore vessels. I think once you have taken the time to learn about this topic you too will agree with what we have been trying to explain to you.

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

What a bunch of pompous portholes. We are living in a world that rates the products that we use. We, as consumers should be grateful that someone is looking out for us. The plywood we use in our homes, the fire-stopping resistence of sheetrock, the mpg rating of our cars, the energy rating of our appliances, the amperage ratings of circuit breakers, the load, heat, and tread ratings of the tires on our cars, and a million other ratings are established to protect us and to guide us in our decisions as consumers.

Now, we are being told by self-proclaimed experts in the field of sailing, to discount the ratings that have been established to protect and help us in our decision making about buying a sailboat. I can only deduce that those alleged experts are offfended that their "pet boat companies:", have not been able to achieve the best rating, so they torpedoe the whole system. Instead, we are supposed to believe their own private rating system based on opinion and personal bias. Experts like these need to go back to school and get educated in modern boat building practices and standards, instead of relying on old (1996) information.

Again, I ask this question: If you had to cross the north Atlantic in a sail boat, and you had to choose between a CE-A rated boat and a CE-B rated boat, which would be your first choice? My guess is that the pompous portholes out there will generate fantasy reasons why the CE-B boat is somehow a better choice, but that only goes to prove my point. (I don't think any of them ever answered the question) We rely on ratings for what the capability is. We do assume an intended use, and we do assume, that in a pinch, the capability rating will match the use. For that reason, I would choose the CE-A rated boat over the CE-B rated boat. The assertion that the rating only tells what the capability is, and not the intended use is bogus. I buy half inch sheet rock because it is capable(rated) to stop fire for one hour (that is the intended use). I buy circuit breakers with certain amperage ratings to protect my home from electrical fires. The amperage rating is the level of amperage that the breaker is capable of handling. It is intended to be used to protect circuits of the same amperage loads. We rely on ratings in our daily lives constantly and they have made our lives safer by virtue of their existence. Why you three gentlemen insist that the CE ratings should not be relied upon flies in the face of logic.

If a tire is load rated to carry 1000 lbs., you can safely load it up to 1000 lbs(but do not exceed that level).
If a laminated beam is rated to support certain weight over a certain span, it can safely be used for that purpose. The ratings should not be exceeded.
If a boat is rated CE-A (can withsand Force 8 winds and 13' seas- unlimited open ocean), then the consumer has some idea of what the boat can withstand and should not be exceeded. 
If a boat is rated CE-B, then the consumer knows that the boat can withstand certain winds and seas, but not quite up to the levels as those rated CE-A.

It is not rocket science. This all started when one of those self-proclaimed experts on ratings claimed that a Catalina 350 should not be used to round Cape Anne. That is his opinion, but it is not based on the facts. The facts are, that all Catalinas over 30' are CE-A rated. With that rating, one could assume that if Cape Anne is surrounded by ocean, and that if the winds were not greater than force 8, and that if the seas were not greater than 13', that the 350 could make it around Cape Anne. Anybody who would go out in those conditions, would of course need to have their head examined. The point is simply that a Catalina 350 can round Cape Anne, or Cape May, or Cape Horn (on a good day). What the gentleman was really saying, is that he doesn't like Catalina 350's. When I pointed out their ratings, the rest of you jumped on my back trying to make the case that the CE rating could not be relied upon, yet I was able to show you that manufacturer after manufacturer use this rating and advertise it proudly, if their boats have been able to earn the CE-A rating. The fact the the gentleman quoted old Hunter information, is not my problem. If he is such an expert, he should have known that his Hunter quotes were not accurate. The fact is that the Hunter 306 is not CE-A rated. That is not my problem either. Don't state it on the web as if it is gospel, as part of the case you are making, and then come back and dismiss the mistake, while at the same time, ridiculing me for stating the facts.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

Fishboat,
I stand by my words. I have not had to retract any of them. The facts are the facts. The admitted opinions are the opinions. I have not put any words in their mouths and have not misrepresented what they have said as you have stated. If you believe what you say is true, please cite one or two examples if you can. (You can''t) If anyone has had to retract part of his story, it was Jeff with the OLD Hunter quotes. What I have been saying is simply the truth. Catalina''s over 30'' are CE - A rated. Where is the misrepresentation? The misrepresentation appears in Jeff''s postings about Hunter''s (which he posted, not me- and now he blames the inaccuracy on Hunter). I believe I have answered the previous question about my sailing experience. What is your''s ?(not that it really matters- everyone is entitled to opinion - since that is all Jeff and Jack are using) Anybody can state personal opinion and I don''t object to that. Jeff and Jack and others want their personal opinions to out -weigh the fact that C-350''s have ratings that exceed their personal opinions. I am no expert, but I have sailing experience and I rely on consumer ratings as we all do (and as I have pointed out). I have been asked to abandon the reliance on the CE-A rating by those who only cite their own personal opinion(and they admit it!!!!) and outdated quotes to bolster their positions. Your question - "Does your game go beyond your keyboard?" Does yours? Or are you so beholden to those ancient and revered self-proclaimed experts, that you can''t think an original thought for yourself?


----------



## magnusmurphy (Jul 7, 2000)

*C&C or Catalina*

I''m going to try and be a conciliator. I must say I''ve enjoyed this discussion tremendously and have had a few laughs at imagining some red angry faces behind the impersonal computer screens.

However I think we should move on. You guys are starting to talk past each other.

Here is a summary as I see things:

tjr3c is stating:

Consumer ratings are there to help and inform and set standards that products have to comply to. In the case of a sailboat it should mean that the boat is capable to withstand the rated conditions.

Jeff and some others are stating that a certain rating doesn''t make a boat the ideal vessel for that specific usage.

You guys is not necessarily disagreeing. Your personalities and the wish to have the final say is clouding the fact that you are not.

It seems obvious to many of the silent readers of this discussion that a certain rating doesn''t make a boat the ideal boat for any specific use, including offshore sailing, which is the discussion on hand(that is just logical, with so many different designs out there?). However, it seems obvious that the rating does have meaning, and even if it means the boat satisfies the minimum requirements, it is saying something.

By example, some PG 13 movies I''ll let my 11 year old daughter see, and others I definitely will not. Just goes to show that one persons ideal is another''s bad dream.

If I had all the money in the world, I''ll buy the perfect offshore sailboat. In the real world I''ll have to settle for one I can afford, and that is at least rated for conditions I''m likely to encounter.

Get past your egos and lets move on.

M Murphy


----------



## SailinJay (Dec 6, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Tjr3c stated, "What the gentleman was really saying, is that he doesn't like Catalina 350's." That''s it in a nutshell. Jeff H''s disdain for Catalinas is well documented on this message board.


----------



## bob-m (Oct 30, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

tjr3c

I have been following this discussion with interest and feel that you have a general misunderstand as relates to standards and how they are developed. I am a structural engineer and owned a large commercial construction business. I sat on two committees that developed, reviewed and approved state building codes.

I will try to sugar coat this as much as possible. Most of the individuals that develope codes rarely know their #*&@ from a hole in the ground. Half of the committee usually consists of lawyers, developers (wolf watching over the flock), and architects who would have trouble building a treehouse. The other half are code officials, engineers and architects that have actually had hands-on-experience. The entire process is as much political as it is substantive.

What comes out of these committees is a watered-down standard that is "minimal" at best and in some cases they make no practical sense. It is very naive to think that politics and special interests are not involved in building codes or boating standards. Do you really think that the boat manufacturing industry had no input into the standards.

I have nothing against Catalina. If I were in the market for a lake or bay boat, they would be on the top of my list. I have crewed on several and find them to be excellent boats for casual use. But when looking for a bluewater boat I must ask myself; "do I want to go to sea in a sailboat that is built to minimal standards?" For me, the answer is no. You may answer that question in the affirmative.

Jeff, Jack & others are trying to offer everyone practical advise based on their experiences. After cruising full-time for more than a decade, I''m still learning from their advice and opinions. While I don''t always agree with what they are saying, in this case they are correct.

cordially
bob-m


----------



## jbarros (Jul 30, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

When trying to teach a pig to sing, 
You are more likley to just waste your time and piss off the pig than to actualy teach it anything.

I''ll leave who the pig is up to personal perception.

I''m not quite 25 (a few days left) so I definatly dont have the life experience of most of the members of this board, but I''ve been doing the same job profressionaly for 9 years and been doing it as a hoby for 10 years before that (a little math on your part may show a rather young starting age for programming, but hey, I liked it)

I like it most of the time and know what, I''m DAMN good at it. That being said, there are some people as good as me or better that disagree with me on things. There are also people with less (and more) experience whom I''ve met, and tried to help, and they''ve ignored or gotten pissed off by my advice. I trust that they will either learn for themselves or not.

I respect JeffH more than I thought I could respect a man I''ve never met in the flesh, and apreciate his advice imensely. That being said there are some things I disagree with him on. Some from experience, and more without experience. I''m sure there will be a few of them where I''ll learn the hard way that he''s right, and I wouldnt be supprised if I find that somethings he didnt like work out ok for me.

Either way, ourselves and our crew are the ones who profit or perrish from our decisions. So take the advice you get, think long and hard about it, and then do what you feel is best with the information you have. In the end, your life depends on it.

-- James


----------



## rjwright (Apr 1, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Jeff...

This does bring up a question that I have wondered about regarding the Catalina marketing and sales. Do you, or anyone else, have any idea how the 350s have been selling relative to the 36IIs? I have a friend who has the 36II, but he seems convinced that the market is going to heavily favor the 350. He may be right, but there is no way that I would take a 350 over a 36II. The recent Practical Sailor review of the 350 stated that Catalina had pushed the envelope, perhaps too far, in an emphasis of the accomodations relative to sailing performance. While they didn''t say it sailed like a pig, they clearly inferred that it did, and, having seen one of those dockominiums, I would be shocked if they sailed at all To me, the 36II is such a better boat, I can''t see the appeal of the 350, but I may be in the minority.

The idea that this is a "bluewater boat" is laughable, but they clearly are not designed, built or marketed for that purpose. I don''t own a Catalina, but I would consider one for the purpose for which they are intended. I wouldn''t try to kid myself that I have anything other than a lake boat or coastal cruiser, though.

In any event, are the 350s the "future" for Catalina in this size range?

Thanks

As always, I enjoy and appreciate your perspective.

Randy


----------



## Yodagwb (Nov 10, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Randy

With reguards to sales, the 350 has been a very popular boat, probably the most popular in Catalina''s recent line. I have a 350 (shame on me) and I fully agree this is not the boat of choice to take accross an ocean, however, your ability to past judgement on it sailing ability or lack there of, without ever even being out on one I find amazing. Many people seem to feel they do quite well. Rest assured a c36 isn''t walking away from a 350. However if your definition of a good (costal)sailboat is to have a narrow, tubular feel, well then I guess the 350 is trash. The whole this is such trash that IP virtuly duplicated it with its new 370, and I am sure that doesn''t sail either.


----------



## jack_patricia (May 20, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

Folks who have long since found this thread tiresome might want to read the current Practical Sailor review on the 350. I found it interesting, balanced, and quite consistent with both the widespread praise provided here by owners AND the reservations expressed here about how it sails and what it''s intended uses are, given its design.

Jack


----------



## rjwright (Apr 1, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

I have seen the boat, been aboard one and read the Practical Sailor review. I am happy you like your 350 and I am sure it serves a market niche among boat buyers, particularly Catalina buyers. I was simply curious how well it was doing in the Catalina marketplace, particularly in comparison to the 36II. Sorry to have been as direct, or rude, perhaps, as I was in my analysis, but I just can''t imagine choosing a 350 over a 36II. Sorry. The 350 is so extremely beamy, and with it''s almost 7'' of headroom, it just has the graceful lines of a refrigerator box and I can only suspect that it sails about as well as one.

That said, Catalina has managed to do what many other boatsuilders have not...they have survived and profited in a tough industry. I happen to think that this boat was more as Practical Sailor described it, a "dockside getaway" that "sails ok". The review went on to say that the people who bought the boat were happy with the accomodations, but none even considered or mentioned the performance.

Different boats for different folks. Catalina obviously knows their market better than I do


----------



## Yodagwb (Nov 10, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

Randy
We came out of Kent Narrows Bay Bridge/Magothy MD at 6am and motored sailed into Riverside NJ at 8:30pm, we picked up a C36 at the Sasafrass and played tag to Philadelphia. His full batten main did finally get me when the wind stiffened and thats the trade off for the furling main. But how slow can it be?


----------



## rjwright (Apr 1, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

That is a good point about the full batten main. The Practical Sailor review made mention of the fact that the 350 they test sailed was a bit handicapped by having a furling main that left that particular boat underpowered.

I apologize for my tone about the 350. I am the first to recognize that boats are built for different purposes. Lots of folks buy boats primarily based on the comfort and accomodations of the boat, and that is certainly a reasonable perspective. In fairness to Catalina, they have admirable customer loyalty and lots of satisfied customers. The hardware that Catalina is putting on their boats these days seems to be good quality and appropriately sized. That is certainly a positive thing, particularly in comparison to older boats that may have been equipped with winches that were too small, etc. I think a lot of thought goes into these boats.

Over the years I have observed that Catalina buyers/sailors seem to place a great premium on accomodations. At the same time, they are often ordering boats with tall rigs, wing keels, fixed three bladed props, one headsail, usually no smaller than a 150, and hanging dinghy davits, complete with dinghy and outboard, off the stern of 36 foot boats. Now the result of all these decisions usually result in a boat that isn''t going to sail well, particularly when the conditions are a bit challenging. I personally believe that the 350 just pushed the "accomodations at the expense of performance" too far...for me. When I look at that boat, I just see too much beam and too much freeboard...for me.

Sailing is individual. I remember the first time I took the helm of a Bermuda 40 and felt how well balanced and comfortable that boat felt in a breeze, it was a bit of an awakening. My last boat was a C&C 33 and it was a great sailing boat. My current boat is a Sabre 34, and I think it sails well. I, personally, would be happier with the 36II than the 350, but that is a decision based on my own preferences and priorities. (Not that I am in the market for a boat). I was just curious how the marketplace was sorting through that question.

I am glad that you are pleased with your boat. That is what counts


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

*C&C or Catalina*

a year ago I was in the market for a 35-36 boat. We looked at the 350 and ultimately choose the 36 MKII. It did more for my wife and I than the 350, contrary to some beliefs we think the layout is quite poor. What intrigued us was the centerline forward berth. Once we realized that the head of the bed was 28" and not wide enough for two pillows that ended and further consideration for us.

I tend to think the 36 is way over sold by the 350. People that buy these boats want the conforts of a floating cottage and it does provide more of these as compared to the 36. It is too bad that catalina does not upgrade its boats as markets change, the example I will give is the refrigeration system on the 36, pretty poor. But with that all said, the 36 sails like a dream, tracks well and very balanced and that was important to us.


----------



## Bluesmoods (Jul 8, 2001)

*C&C or Catalina*

Ok .. Just whwn I thought I have heard it all.. This has all been most interesting.

To the individual who questioned the seaworthiness of the Catalina 350 at the Annapolis show .. Here are your answers.

I own a very early hull number 350. I keep it an an ocean port and only take the boat off shore sometinmes on long journeys, overnight, port to port.

Have I been many miles off shore with winds in excess of 35 kts? (thunderstorms included) Yes.. How did the boat perform? No complaints.. Very well indeed.

Have I been in ocean conditions with swells in sxcess of 7''? Yes. How did the boat perform? No complaints again.. Very well.

Have I had the rail in the water? yes.. in and out doing 7.8 knots.

Have I and others slept while underway miles out in the ocean with 4''-6'' swells..? Yes, Pretty darn comfortably too.

I could go on but I think you all get the point.

Now, is the Catalina 350 anywhere near the boat a C&C 121 or C&C 110 is? No... I knew that getting into it. The one C&C 99 that seems to sail in the same "ocean circles" that I do leaves me in his wake at all points of sail. The C&C is a different boat and maybe even appeals to a different boater. Maybe someday I will be able to afford one but in the interim, the Catalina 350 has proven itself to me time and time again to be to be a very safe, dependable boat that offers it''s owners pretty good saling performance and a lot of boat for the dollar off shore, in the bay, in the lake or at the dock.

To the person who started this at the very top: The Catalina 350 will provide you with a lot of features and creature comforts included in the price of the boat. It is a good boat.

C&C is a stronger, faster and better built vessel. It also seems to have greater value down stream. It will not give you the same living accomodation boat for boat that the 350 will.


----------



## SailinJay (Dec 6, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

To the poster who asked how the 350 has been selling vs. the 36 Mk. II, I have no idea of the number of 36s, but I am aware of Catalina being up to Hull #248 on the 350. The boat was introduced in January 2002 in Atlantic City, so that''s roughly 250 per year. Catalina manufactures the boat in Florida, and started a second production line based on the demand.

I too am a 350 owner, sailing on the middle Chesapeake Bay. I chose the fully battened main and also have an asymmetrical spinnaker, which pushes me along quite nicely on light air days. I had 31 weeks of sailing available to me last year and I was out on the water---not sitting in the cockpit at the dock---one or more days for 28 of those weeks.

I have to laugh at all the vociferous debate about the 350 on this message board ever since the boat was introduced. Run it down if you want to, don''t buy it if you don''t like it. Who cares? I sure don''t.


----------



## SailinJay (Dec 6, 2002)

*C&C or Catalina*

My message sent on Friday, February 6, contained an error. In stating how many Catalina 350s have been manufactured, instead of about 250 per year, it should have read "about 125 per year."


----------



## hamburking (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: C&C or Catalina*

You have done your research well...they are both excellent boats. It may come down to personal preference and style.

The C&C will definitely be faster and more stylish.


----------



## doogymon (Apr 6, 2008)

*Re: C&C or Catalina*

Keep it going hamburking.....the C&C's are frequently mentioned last in a "which boat" because they aren't apple pie! Somewhere in the Sailnet forums you'll see the best quote of them all...."Damn those C&C's"....lol


----------



## hamburking (Mar 13, 2010)

*Re: C&C or Catalina*

Doogymon:

That would explain why the C&C's are so much less expensive in the USA than here in Canada, where they fetch premium prices. When the canadian dollar was very low about 10 years ago, all the good boats went south, seriously depleting our inventory of good used sailboats. Now the trend is the other way, as American made boats move north again, with the canadian dollar near parity. Even my own Pearson 30 is from the US east coast.

I've owned 3 C&C's...and sailed many more. Good boats. But some of the most popular models have terrible layouts below. Plus hull blisters, and soft decks. And by now most of the older ones should have had new standing rigging...and new engines. ....uh...why do I like them so much again????


----------

