YM's Review of Catalina 42

[dulcibella]

YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

The YM review (March 2005) of the Catalina 42 Mk 2 expresses the opinion that this boat "should prove a sound and reliable coastal and offshore cruiser". On the same page of the review, the stability curve shows an AVS of 105 degrees and the length/beam ration (2.55) sounds more suitable for a sauceboat than a sailboat. Couldn't it be considered a teeny bit irresponsible not to raise any questions about stability in the entire review? Perhaps the reviewers mean that it should prove a sound and reliable coastal and offshore cruiser provided there aren't any big waves about?

 

[ColdFusion]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

[ QUOTE ]
Couldn't it be considered a teeny bit irresponsible not to raise any questions about stability in the entire review?

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer has to be a categorical 'yes'.

See here for a discussion on the Scuttlebutt forum for further info.

 

[Colvic Watson]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

It's funny how every review of a new Yacht ends with something like "well, I personally wouldn't have put the pan hooks quite so close to the tea towel hooks; but overall she's a safe, fast, comfotable yacht which will suit the family or singlehander alike".

But then how 'independent' is any boat review going to be when you are being paid several thousand pounds a month in advertising revenue by the company whose product you are reviewing?

 

[Peppermint]

Re: It\'s the reviewers opinion.

We all know that what you feel and what the numbers say isn't always the same thing. JJ has sailed a few boats in his day and probably trusts his instincts.
Is it a tippy thing like the numbers say or a reassuring old warhorse like the reviewer and sales indicate. The real answer is likely to be both or neither or somewhere in between.

 

[jimi]

Re: It\'s the reviewers opinion.

In these reviews there's usually a few subtle phrases which bring out the the "real" opinion. It is a shame they cannot be more overt .. the word "coastal" sprung out at me in this review??

 

[Birdseye]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

Independant reviews have to be a bit more subtle these days particularly with US companies whose attitude to the law is perhaps more aggressive than we are used to. But I am not so cynical as to believe that you will be told a bad boat is good just for the sake of a bit of advertising revenue. Apart from the personal ethics issue (and most people are honest in my experience) advertisers only pay money to mags who sell, and misled punters arent going to buy. So the mags first loyalty has to be to us rather than the advertisersIMHO.

As a potential customer for the OVNI and also with a tech background, I have puzzled long and hard over the AVS issue. I am still not sure I have a real handle on it, but there are some obvious points to make. The first is that the large majority of ocean going vessels have an AVS below 90 deg namely the big commercial ships. It has also been said that modern broad beamed cats have survived conditions that laid low their mono equivalent, so clearly there is more to the issue than simply the AVS. Weight and size are obvious issues - if energy transfer from a breaking wave is the basic mechanism of capsize, then the more energy required to rotate the boat (ie area under the curve) in relation to the size of the boat the better. And the less the grip on the water, the better. And somewhere in there must be the roll frequency of the boat in relation to the wave frequency.

A research project done for the USCG showed that all monos could be capsized if broadside on to a reasonable (I think it was wave height = boat beam) breaking wave and that in extremis, the only good strategy was a drogue from the stern. Google USCG and you should fuind the report.

But perhaps more to the point we need to be realistic about the conditions we are out in. Most new boats are family boats chosen in part with a wifely eye to the accomodation. And their use is in sheltered coastal waters, not the Southern Ocean. Whats more, we have good weather forecasts available, and lots of ports of refuge. So why do we need to sail in the modern equivalent of a Contessa, with not enough room to swing a cat, an alarming inclination to roll downwind, and poor accomodation.

Arent we doing the marine equivalent of buying a Chelsea tractor?

 

[Colvic Watson]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

I don't think that they would deliberately give a bad boat a good review. But the pressure to be positive is amplified by the company whose products you are reviewing being your paymaster!

I agree about the Contessa argument - boat design has moved on and you get vastly more volume for your linear foot than you used to. Jeremy Clarkson is very unsentimental about old MGB's, we think they have character (I had one and I thought so), he also says they were crap designs mechanically (I had one and I thought so as well!).

Having said that, something has been lost in the development of the AWB. In between the AWB and the 40 year old narrow beamed long keel design has to be room for individuality. But I suspect that with the almost complete death of the British sailboat industry, we will see the AWB follow the Dell computer model of products becoming commodities with nothing to strive for but reduced build costs and the 'innovative' being confined to small production run niche products

 

[ColdFusion]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

[ QUOTE ]
Arent we doing the marine equivalent of buying a Chelsea tractor?

[/ QUOTE ]
But did the magazine review say that it was fit for purpose as a Chelsea tractor or did it paint an altogether different picture?

 

[jonjo]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

I take JJ' side on this. The design has a 40% ballast ratio and a 6ft keel, this should put it ahead of most AWBs in terms of offshore handling. The hull also has a pleasant shape although the wide beam might explain the high inverted stability.

The low AVS does not make sense and in another thread JJ said he is asking for clarification from the designers.

The review is interesting for another reason, I think someone was slipping happy pills into JJ's porridge. I particularly liked the following extract "the sails turned gold by the evening sun. The dark mud banks lining the creek were speckled white with wading birds".

 

[alant]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

Delivered a Catalina 42 down to Gibraltar a few years ago. Didn't feel tender, bit like a Westerly in build quality. this boat had a big fully battened main (in boom furling) & sailed extremely well. Took heavy weather ok & cockpit remained dry (although I was concerned by the size of this & how shallow it was)- I made it madatory for the first washboard to be fitted whenever at sea, to prevent any possible water slopping down companionway.
Main problem according the the Hamble Agent (who seems to have vanished), was that the build quality made them too expensive compared with the Austrian Navy AWB.'s, even considering £/$.

 

[dulcibella]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

Nice range of views. Perhaps I should have made my question a bit more precise - I was thinking about ability to right after a knockdown/rollover rather than "stability", which may well be high for the Catalina because of its extremely broad beam. I hope that JJ will come back with what he gets from the designers.

 

[Birdseye]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

One other issue you should bear in mind when looking at AVS. Once the boat gets to 90deg or even less, stability is being heavily influenced by the volume of the topsides. So a flush deck low topsides boat will have a worse AVS (all other things being equal) than a high topsides boat with (say) a deck saloong. Which do you think would truly be more seaworthy? And this will undoubtedly be one factor in the Catalina figs if they are indeed correct.

Incidentally, AVS is measured by inclining a boat with weight by one degree to establish the c of g and them calculating the rest of the curve using a yacht design program. Short of guessing, its difficult to imagine a method with more potential for error. How accurately can you measure one degree inclination? What about loads shifting as you roll? What about loads at all? What about changes in profile lengthwise (ie a boat wont roll parallel to the ground anyway)? And what about things like bagged sails, radar reflector, scanners etc all of which will add up.

I would happily take the figure as a guide, but I wouldnt attach any importance to the difference between 110 and 120 - not without a naval architect giving me chapter and verse as to why the numbers are precise and my gut feeling is wrong.

 

[alant]

Re: YM\'s Review of Catalina 42

More importantly, may not recover at all if any hatches open, particularly companionway.
Unless conditions are severe, how many boats are ever completly battened down?
Fore/Saloon hatches are usually ok, but would your companionway hatch even if closed, survive a roll over?
How secure are the pretty B&Q deadbolts fitted by the builders/previous owner?
Are washboards properly lashed in?
The Titanic probably had some great statistics, but---

 

[Polux]

..
As a potential customer for the OVNI and also with a tech background, I have puzzled long and hard over the AVS issue. I am still not sure I have a real handle on it, but there are some obvious points to make. The first is that the large majority of ocean going vessels have an AVS below 90 deg namely the big commercial ships. It has also been said that modern broad beamed cats have survived conditions that laid low their mono equivalent, so clearly there is more to the issue than simply the AVS. Weight and size are obvious issues - if energy transfer from a breaking wave is the basic mechanism of capsize, then the more energy required to rotate the boat (ie area under the curve) in relation to the size of the boat the better. And the less the grip on the water, the better. And somewhere in there must be the roll frequency of the boat in relation to the wave frequency.

A research project done for the USCG showed that all monos could be capsized if broadside on to a reasonable (I think it was wave height = boat beam) breaking wave and that in extremis, the only good strategy was a drogue from the stern. Google USCG and you should fuind the report.

..

Yes I agree, also in what regards stability and not only on motor ships, traditional sailing ships also have an AVS a lot less than 90º and that 's why some were lost recently. You cannot sail them like modern yacht, more like cats. They are ships and have a huge stability (due to weight) and therefore sailed with care (the sail ships) are probably not knocked down on practically no circumstance and when knocked-ed down they sink.

That is not the same with a sailboat that can be knocked down on difficult circumstances but not extremely rare ones. I agree also in what regards a really big breaking wave to be able of roll any kind of boat but not all are really big waves and regarding boat safety is very important to have a boat that recovers very rapidly for a knock down. When the boat is knocked down (and is flat on the water) the energy needed to roll it is much smaller the energy needed to capsize it when it is sailing at a small angle of heel. Most sailboats capsized by waves have been by two breaking waves that come closer, one knocks it down the second one roll it. For Dynamic stability it is very important that a boat has a big RM at 90º, probably more important than a big AVS if that one is at least 115º.

Regarding OVNI on the last years they have improved AVS (also by more demanding RCD regulations) and even if the fact that they can put centerboards up give them a better dynamic stability, I would not have one with the AVS at around 100º as some old ones used to have. Allures makes the same type of boat with a much better stability (and AVS) due to using a lighter composite cored deck (instead of aluminium) and for having most ballast not inside the boat, like OVNI, but below the hull on a kind of small fixed skeg. The AVS of Allures yachts is average even when compared with keel modern boats.

 

[dom]

Yes I agree, also in what regards stability and not only on motor ships, traditional sailing ships also have an AVS a lot less than 90º and that 's why some were lost recently. You cannot sail them like modern yacht, more like cats. They are ships and have a huge stability (due to weight) and therefore sailed with care (the sail ships) are probably not knocked down on practically no circumstance and when knocked-ed down they sink.

My god man this is resurrecting an old thread! Looks like you really ate your Weetabix this morning

Edit: Good points though to fair.

 

[pvb]

Did it take you 10 years to think that reply up?

 

[Polux]

No, it seemed an interesting topic to me and I have found it when I was looking for the AVS of the Catalina 42. I remembered that stability curve was bad regarding final stability but did not remember the right AVS. Anyway I don't know if birdseye is still around but his post was an interesting one and nobody replied to it. Better later than ever

 

[johnalison]

I regard the reviews as part of the entertainment section of YM and pay little heed to the personal comments except when they refer to matters of obvious fact. What I do take note of are the figures relating to the hull, along with such items as bunkerage, batteries and sail handling equipment. Over the years, I have found that I can readily choose a suitable boat for me just by walking round one on land and a quick tour.