Association Forum - c250 sail reduction

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

Catalina 250 Specific Forum

c250 sail reduction

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Page: of 2

osmepneo
Past Commodore

Member Avatar

USA
1420 Posts

Initially Posted - 02/10/2004 : 06:44:11

I have started reading, with more interest, the threads on the 250 forum. From what I've learned, 250 are fairly tender, and one ought to think of reefing fairly early. Can y'awl share some thoughts on when to reef a 250 with a 110 foresail? Does the keel configuration matter?

I'm going to be sailing on 250 for Nationals so this is a question of interest. Thanks Fleet 94 for your dating service.

Don Peet, C25/250 2004-2005 National Association Commodore
The Great Sacandaga Lake, NY

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2004 : 13:26:22

110 jib, Water Ballast. First reef comes in above 15 knots. After 20 its time for either a second, keep the jib full, or start reducing the jib. I still haven't decided what is better. Initially I was leaning towards reducing headsail, untill 25-30 when the second reef came in. However, I hate looking at a boogered, wrinkled, partially rolled head sails, it just doesn't look right, and it puts stress in the wrong places. So the last couple of sails I've put in the second reef and kept the jib full. Seems like it handled better. Probably because it brought the sail area further down the mast=less heel=less weather helm. (See Arlyns explanation of changing hull shape -when heeling- contributing to weather helm/rounding.)
Of course now I have a better rudder, so I'll have to see what happens next.

Oscar

Lady Kay 250 WB #618
In the driveway in Behtlehem, PA ready to go anytime.

Edited by - on

Derek Crawford
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3320 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2004 : 16:03:31

Don - I think that the keel config does matter. I've sailed on both Steve's WK and Bren's WB. Steve's is definitely the more tender (I think he reefs at 10 knots). Both styles are infinitely more subject to heeling than our C25's.
Derek

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2004 : 18:37:07

My reefing schedule aligns exactly with Oscar's numbers. I have found however that the most go fast condition on my boat is with full main even though the jib may be furled a bit. I've never exceeded hull speed with any reef in the main though I have with less than full jib.

My boat however has become so laiden with cruising gear, that I'm not sure it would break hull speed again.

Don, much will depend on which rudder the water ballast boat is carrying. If its the 3rd generation, it is given to stalling if heeling very much and as it goes into stall it will produce tons of drag. Got to keep the boat flat. Also, the c250 will experience a lot of leeway if heeled too far... in my opinion because the hull actually starts lifting to leeward. In fact, I also think it lifts to leeward in higher winds even when flat...

The long 2nd generation rudder doesn't stall... It would likely break your arm or the tiller handle before it stalls so drag is not a problem with it and the occassional puff which lays it over will be of less detriment.

Unless equipped with the 2nd generation... ya gotta keep your hand on the mainsheet...cuz if ya don't ease it quickly in a strong puff... you'll spin into your upwind neighbor.

In my opinion in light air... if the mark is dead down wind... then bite the bullet and sail it wing and wing poled out. Its not my experience that the 110 can make up the difference by sailing a reach.

Also, in light air, make it heel enough (get meat to leeward) to give it a little weather helm when working to weather. If you don't set the angle of attack of the centerboard and rudder... the freeboard will kill ya.

The c250 doesn't have a backstay tensioner... so your stuck with the pre race settup. If its breezy... harden the forestay. A baggy forestay will be very slow with a boat overpowered and suffering too much heel. Most c250s are set up this way. However, in light air a firm forestay is slow and if the race is expected to be light air... spend the time necessary to slacken the rig. This will include slackening the downhaul on the jib.

While your fooling with the downhaul...if its heavy air... the jib should be set low and if light air it should be set high. The halyard on the CDI is good for hauling the sail up...but not tensioning it. So in light air... slacken the downhaul tack and haul the halyard fully up and then tension with the downhaul to suit. In heavy air... haul to the top, then back it off 10 inches which should leave about the right space to firm the luff very well and have the tack close to the furling drum. This reduces pressure aloft and heeling. I am assuming here that the tack line is a very light line that can be reeved several times through the furling drum slot and the tack so as to offer a purchase to tension the luff.

Wow.. I got carried away.

Edited by - on

frankr
Captain

Members Avatar

256 Posts

Response Posted - 02/10/2004 : 20:10:43

Having only had our C250K for 1 year, we haven't gotten into any really heavy air. I do the first reef at 15 kts - before leaving the dock. Once we were out in 18-23 kts with just one reef. It was a little exciting - the admiral didn't like it much (heeling and spray). I felt things were in control just a lot of work trying to keep a steady course. I let the main sheet out (beam reach) to reduce power but the heeling tended to put the end of the boom too close to the water for comfort. I wasn't about to dance on the deck and do the second reef (will modify before it hits the water this year - not happy with the single line - need both reefs brought back to cockpit) so I rolled up the jib. This reduced the heeling except for the puffs. Only had one round up before furling the jib.

Edited by - frankr on 02/10/2004 20:14:32

cathluk
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
513 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 08:11:14

On our WK tall rig w/ 110 jib we usually tuck in the first reef around 10-12 knots. We've had 2 reefs in before, but I have no idea what the wind speeds were - maybe around 20? We've found that furling the jib will depower the boat quite a bit & usually do that before tucking in a 2nd reef in the main. Unfortunately the roller furling jib losing shape if you furl it too much. Keep a hand on the mainsheet so any gusts don't surprise you! Also, the C250 likes to be sailed relatively flat - if you're heeling more than 15degrees flatten her out & you'll gain speed.

I have found that the boat is so light that the direction of the waves & sea state relative to the boats direction of travel often has more effect on control than the winds (at least in the choppy Chesapeake). We've had 3-4' waves actually change the boat's direction!

Hope you enjoy your C250 experience at Nationals.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 14:27:41

From reading past threads on the need to reef the C250 relatively early and comparing the ballast for the C250 wing (1,050lbs) to my C25 (1,900lbs), I'm wondering if Catalina Yachts engineered enough ballast into the C250's since the two boats have relatively the same sail area, length,...etc.

What do you think? Yes, no, maybe so?

Edited by - on

osmepneo
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
1420 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 15:21:58

Good point, Don. And, I have to cop out and take the middle ground, maybe.

The "sensitivity" of the boat is a combination of several variables - sail area, keel type and depth and weight, shape of the bottom, etc. How these work together in design is the job of the naval architect, and frankly I have no idea how that all comes out in the end.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5882 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 15:55:11

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm wondering if Catalina Yachts engineered enough ballast into the C250's since the two boats have relatively the same sail area, length,...etc.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The C25 weighs 4550 lbs. and has 1900 lbs of ballast.
The C250 weighs 4200 lbs. and has 1050 lbs of ballast.

Therefore, the C250 weighs 350 lbs. less and has 850 lbs. less ballast than the C25. The difference in the weight of the two boats probably accounts for about 175 lbs. of the difference in keel weight.

However, the draft of the C250 (3'5") is almost as deep as the draft of the (iron) keel C25 (4'). Also, the C250's (lead) fin keel design gets the weight much lower, which means that the 1050 lbs has the same effect as if it was a heavier conventional fin keel. The deep fin keel design of the C250 also accounts for quite a bit of the difference in keel weight. (I'm not a boat designer, but it wouldn't surprise me if it makes up for all but a couple hundred pounds of the difference in keel weight.)

The sail area of the C250 is 265 sq. ft., and the sail area of the C25 is 270 sq. ft.

The result is what you would expect it to be. The C250 is more tender than the C25, but, it is nevertheless a good performer if you sail it with its design differences in mind. And Arlyn and others have shown that it can stand up to fairly strong wind and seas.

I think the answer is in the eye of the beholder. If you like a stiffer boat, and can't adjust your steering and sail trimming to suit a more tender boat, then you won't like the C-250. If you are a new sailor, with no predispositions along those lines, or, if you can adjust to a different type of boat, then you'll like the C-250.

I think Catalina designed the C250 for relatively new sailors, who have no predispositions, because that's who is likely to buy the boat. In a few years, everyone will prefer the light and lively C-250, and only us dinosaurs will still like our C25s.

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 16:42:04

To add to the numbers in the previous dissertation:

The 250 WB weighs 3600 or so pounds and 1200 of it is water....of course the "arm" of the water as a ballast force is much different from the WK.....

Oscar

Lady Kay 250 WB #618
In the driveway in Behtlehem, PA ready to go anytime.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 17:29:22

I think that a great deal comes into play when considering your question.

The used market offered 6,000 C25s and the last two years of their production...sales for new had been very slow. Catalina Yachts was hanging on.... barely, while many yacht makers had bitten the bullet. Strategy became important to survival.

Bill Holcomb tells us that at this point, Catalina visioned that the Capri 26 which it had picked up in the Morgan/Capri deal would serve to offer a better performer than the c25 which might compete against the used C25 market.

At the same time, another niche market had been opened by Roger McGregor. Catalina designed the c250 to get its market share of a mid twenty footer with the primary focus of easy trailerbility and launch. Of course there would be trade offs for such a design. One of those was, that it had to be a water ballast design and internal ballast requires also additional form stability. Additional righting stability was also needed for the internal ballast so the side decks were given up.

It's important also to remember, that when the c250 was designed... I doubt that the wing keel was a part of the plan with the Capri line intended to fill that need of a traditional keel boat designed to be slipped or moored as it was a better performer than the C25.

In my opinion some shift in interest played into things here as well with racing giving way to family sailing, trailer cruising and pocket cruising.

Finally to the crux of Don's questions. A wing was added to the 250 line after about hull # 230 and in my opinion was offered for two reasons. 1. To save the c250 as the handling problems had destroyed its initial sales activity, with the blame going to water ballast. 2. The Carpri 26 line wasn't doing great either. Part of the problem was likely that the Catalina name had more sales weight than anticipated or it could have been that the performance Capri just didn't have enough camping aboard appeal as the C25 and as stated, performance had become less of an issue.

When the wing was introduced, no doubt Catalina was optimistic about its abilities. A fixed keel on a hull with a lot of form stability ought to be able to handle a lot of sail. Catalina jumped out and produced a tall version, and offered a 150 genoa. Very shortly that optimism faded and the tall rig and 150 genoa were discontinued as they produced a boat far too tender.

A great benefit of the wing keel addition however was that the blame on water ballast was vindicated, and the true reasons for the handling problems discovered, as inadequate rudder to compensate for weather helm caused by form stability.

The c250 then is not a redesigned C25. It is an entirely different design with different goals. The only similarity is that they are both 25 foot. Oooooops, there is one more, the c250 wing keel with a 135 head sail has the same SD number as the tall rig fin keel C25 with a 150 genoa. We know that the C25 tall rig with 150 is also very tender.

Interestingly, after handling problems of the c250 were solved by redesigned rudders and sales picked up especially of the wing keel, the Carpri 26 was indeed discontinued. I'll bet a gold guinea that the Capri 26 would have continued had the c250 not found success with a wing keel offering.

The bottom line, is that the C25 and C250 have to be compared in light of their design goals. The same is true for the C250 center board and wing keel. They are more dissimilar than C25 versions, mostly because their SD ratios differ so greatly.

This may be a good time to mount my soap box and say that its hard for me to appreciate how the C25 group can understand and value a different racing class between the C25 tall and standard rig but yet not appreciate that the C250 centerboard and wing keel have a greater SD difference than exist on the C25 versions. So, like Don ... "I'm wondering". Am I the only one who sees this? Am I flat wrong about the SD difference being greater? Why don't standard rig C25s want to compete against tall rigs? They have less SD variance than C250 versions. Before I step off the box... it may seem that I've hammered this issue a lot... if I was a racer... I'd be hammering it a whole lot more. Ok... off da box. Whew

Edited by - Arlyn Stewart on 02/11/2004 17:45:48

Derek Crawford
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
3320 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 18:09:06

Arlyn - as a racer I heartily agree with your position that the C250 WK and WB should not have to race against each other, they are indeed disparate boats. I'm sure that if enough 250's turned up in Portland that Gary B. would be delighted to fleet them separately

. However, until there are enough of both types racing, necessity becomes the mother of invention...
Derek
P.S."We know that the C25 tall rig with 150 is also very tender"
Funny - I've never noticed that, and I run a full cut 155%!

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 18:28:19

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The 250 WB weighs 3600 or so pounds and 1200 of it is water<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Did you mean to say 3600 + 1200?

As Steve outlines above, the wing keel at 4,200 lbs compared to those given by Oscar for the centerboard at 4,800 lbs with ballast makes the centerboard the heavier of the two and restricted to less sail area... hence the differing SD numbes of 16.29 for the wing and 19.32 for the centerboard. Again... this is a greater spread than exist for the C25 tall and standard rig.

I must confess... that I don't know to what degree the SD numbers come into play (if any) when calculating racing handicaps. I do know from my one design racing days on a Hobie 18... that on light air days, the winner could almost be predicted to be the boat that carried the lightest crew. Also in one design racing, the predicted consistant winners of C22 class association will be the lightest hulls. Serious C22 racers will not carry an extra dime in their pocket.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 19:14:13

Derek... I've followed this forum for eight years now... and its been proposed very many times that the c25 tall rig is tender by voices within the c25 community and should be chosen if the sailing venue is mostly lighter airs.

I'd agree however that tender is a relative term. The c25 tall rig compared to the C250 wing keel is likely pretty stiff.

I agree in part to the racing situation for the C250's. Getting enough boats to show is a problem. But, as I've stated here before...c250s have been turning out for the Nationals in greater percentages than the C25s... so I think the rhetoric that they need to get out is to some extent unfair as it implies that they are under represented compared to the c25s which of course is not true.

And... I don't buy the argument that the two should be classed together and race heads up because of numbers. If there are not enough boats for one design for each type...then they ought to race handicap with appropriate numbers that reflect their SD variance.

Also, as I've related, the water ballast models have a much higher ratio of distance hauling. There numbers in racing might increase if they could get a fair shake. I recall a few years ago... the discussion on this board with Mark Melchoir... who had planned to go the Nationals in Southern Michigan... but backed out when he found that he would have to compete heads up against wing keels.

The center board boat by design is limited to less sail than the wing keel and by design is interior ballasted and thus considerably heavier than a wing keel. So more weight and less sail does not equal a fair race between the two... Period.

Let me say it this way. If 10 tall rigs show up for the Nationals and one standard rig... will they sail as one class with the poor standard rig having to compete heads up against the tall rigs? I doubt it. And they have less variance of SD than do the C250s.

Lets put it another way... only one tall rig shows up and ten standard rig C25s. Are the 10 standard rigs going to allow the tall rig to sail heads up? I doubt it. I bet I hear them hollaring all the way to Texas for a handicap to be asessed.

The problem is simple.... I'm the only one squawking... and I'm not racing so its an issue that doesn't need dealt with. That logic however is inconsiderate of those who show up and race just for the fun of it... even if they don't squawk.

I'm saying... a fair number ought to be on the table before the Nationals.

Edited by - on

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 19:19:43

No, I meant 2400 + 1200 = 3600 as per owners manual.....(not including motor/watertank etc. etc......) Sail area listed at 271 sqft....SD listed at 19.9, but I can't make the numbers jive, (comes out to about 13) can you Arlyn?
(main listed as 137.5 "standard" jib as 133.5) However, that would make the jib about the same size as the main, and that does not sound like a 110% sail. The page in my manual is not quite up to date (surprise

) as it lists the water capacity at 5 gallons...) So with the 110% jib the SD is probably something more reasonable....If I take 133/135=98.5*110=108 sq feet + 137.5 (main) = 245.5 That would make SD 14.7....

I give up.

Oscar
250WB#618 Lady Kay on the Chesapeake

Edited by - Oscar on 02/11/2004 19:34:05

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 19:27:11

Oscar... those numbers would have the water ballast 600 lbs lighter than the wing keel but yet it sets 4 inches deeper in the water. Welcome to Catalina numbers.

Those numbers were likely rabbits out of the hat to avoid the necessities of various state laws. In Texas for example... a trailer needs no title if hauling under 3,000 lbs. Other states have brake issues required for both axles over 3,000 lbs... so Catalina simply gives some numbers that sound good.

The actual numbers by those who have weighed the boats come in a lot higher. Catalina confesses a figure of probably 3,450 for the boat without ballast. And, they have also confessed the ballast probably goes more like 1450.

Edited by - Arlyn Stewart on 02/11/2004 19:59:25

Oscar
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2030 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 19:38:10

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">it sets 4 inches deeper in the water<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You sure 'bout that? It looks to me like the 4" is extra at the top of the winger, where it meets the deck. But I'd have to see two together.

Oscar
250WB#618 Lady Kay on the Chesapeake

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 19:57:52

I think the boot stripes are the same... the 4 inches is a quote from an owner in Ohio who emailed me his observation about a year ago.

Lets hear it from those who have their boats in the water... how much between the water and the top of the boot stripe?

Up the thread we see Derek's comment
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've sailed on both Steve's WK and Bren's WB. Steve's is definitely the more tender<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Which to some extent is explained by Steve having a 135 and Bren a 110. We've had many reports however relating the water ballast model having greater discplacement than the wing keel.

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5882 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 20:19:07

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We know that the C25 tall rig with 150 is also very tender.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I disagree that the tall rig is very tender. It is a little more tender than the standard rig, but that just means that the tall rig has to reduce sail area slightly before the standard rig. In light air, the tall rig is much faster than the standard rig. As the windspeed increases, the difference between the two decreases. When the windspeed is such that the tall rig has to reduce sail area, its advantage disappears, and the standard rig is actually a little faster going to windward. In high winds, the tall rig has more weight aloft, and heels more readily than the standard rig. Downwind, the tall rig probably still has a very slight advantage.

In the 2001 C-25 Nationals, the first day of racing was done in winds that forced us to decide between flying a 110 and a 150. As I recall, almost all the boats (tall and standard rigs) changed down to their 110s after the first race. A well-sailed, well-prepped standard rig boat consistently beat all the tall rigs in those conditions. He couldn't have done that in lighter air, but we couldn't beat him in those windy conditions.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do know from my one design racing days on a Hobie 18... that on light air days, the winner could almost be predicted to be the boat that carried the lightest crew. Also in one design racing, the predicted consistant winners of C22 class association will be the lightest hulls. Serious C22 racers will not carry an extra dime in their pocket.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> It is advantagerous to carry extra weight if you use that weight to make the boat go faster, or to keep it going. It's only a disadvantage to carry extra weight when the extra weight isn't helping you in some way. On a windy day, it wouldn't hurt to stow your toolbox in the bilge, or to put extra crew on the rail. In light air you can use extra crew to force the boat to heel, which helps keep the sails driving and reduces wetted surface.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I heartily agree with your position that the C250 WK and WB should not have to race against each other, they are indeed disparate boats.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> That might be true, but I haven't seen clear proof that there is all that much difference between the two types of ballast. I think the problem arises more as a result of the sizes of sails that the various rigs can carry. But, I agree with Derek that time will tell. It sure would be nice if a well-prepped and sailed WB and a well-prepped and sailed wing would show up at the nationals. It would help solve the mystery.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Catalina visioned that the Capri 26 which it had picked up in the Morgan/Capri deal would serve to offer a better performer than the c25 <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't know what's wrong with the Capri 26. Overall it's a nice boat, but none of about four at our lake have been able to compete with the C-25s, especially the tall rig C-25, even when the Capris have been well-sailed. Maybe they would do better in heavier winds.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 21:04:21

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I disagree that the tall rig is very tender. It is a little more tender than the standard rig,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thats fair... I should have said more tender than the standard.

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/11/2004 : 21:36:01

Oscar... I don't know where Catalina gets its numbers. The ones posted on their site are different than the ones you just called out.

I think Mark Melchoir or Bren or someone in Austin visited the Catalina factory and while there, they clarified the weight I think to be about 3450 for the water ballast + ballast. The ballast number of 1200 lbs I think was also light and was updated to be about 1400. If those numbers are good, then were looking at about 4,850 against 4,200.

If the sail areas are correct... they outline a total of 265 with the main being 135 which would leave 130 for a 100% foretriangle... so I have to agree that those numbers don't seem right. Like you, I doubt that a 100 % jib is within 5 of the mainsail.

Who knows?

Oh yeah....that 5 gal number was the fresh water capacity of the original settup. There was a 5 gal plastic bottle that stowed in a cuttout of the plywood floor in the galley cabinet.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 02/12/2004 : 00:21:27

When I questioned the amount of ballast on the C250 WK, I wasn't trying to get into that old, tired, and pointless topic of C25 vs C250 because we all know that is an apples and oranges comparison with some people liking apples and others oranges. Additionally, just because a C25 owner asks a question on the C250 forum doesn't automatically mean he's cutting down the current product...so get over it.

I was just wondering if the C250 WK could use a little more ballast since the ballast on the C250 WK is 25% of total displacement whereas the ballast on my boat is 41% of total design displacement and the Hunter 260 WB is 40%, Beneteau 25 = 40%, Mac 26X = 37%, Tanzer 22 = 43%, Cape Dory 25 = 42%, S2 8.0 = 39%, Hunter 25 = 41%....

Now, I'm by far, no yacht designer and I know that stiffness is affected by a lot of things (hull shape, sail area, displacement, keel design,...etc), but it seems that when you start talking about sailboats and stability, the first thing mentioned is ballast.

Additionally, I believe some C250 owners have been adding ballast (sandbags and the like) to the bow to enhance performance.

And lastly, I own a C25 because I can't afford a C250.

Edited by - dlucier on 02/12/2004 00:23:06

Gary B.
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
969 Posts

Response Posted - 02/12/2004 : 03:32:39

I have done a little bit of digging and have come up with little information on the differences in the versions of the 250 by which to determine a handicap number. Until there is a decent number of races sailed between the two, as someone has suggested, there is little more than a guess as to which boat is faster, and by how much.

As for 250s showing up in greater percentages than C-25s? That may be the case, but the fact remains that one needs AT LEAST THREE boats to make a One Design class, and to my knowledge that has not yet happened for the different versions of 250s. I am trying hard to encourage 250 owners to come to this year's Nationals, but thus far I am not succeeding all that well. IF, in fact, the WB especially is designed to be easily trailerable, I would think there would be MORE of them willing to come to Portland this summer.

While, at present, we plan to run the C250s together, I can assure you that if we got a decent number of both configurations, and one design was dominating, we would change things up or split classes in the interest of fairness.

In our local one design regatta here in Portland, we HAVE raced the Tall Rigs and Standard rigs heads up, as we only have had one Tall Rig out there. So far, he has yet to win a race, but that is more a factor of experience and sail inventory than anything.

Please be assured that I, personally, want as many 250s to show up as possible. Perhaps with a decent data-base of information as to their relative speed in varying conditions we could actually devise a fair way to judge them or handicap them in the future. Right now, it seems all conjecture based on little evidence, whereas the C25 has a significant racing history....

The fact is that the purpose of a National Championship Regatta, as much as possible, is to run a ONE DESIGN regatta with equal boats sailing heads up, not a PHRF race complicated with handicaps. Heck, I'll race the tall rigs! I just hope there is LOTS of air....if it was a drifter, I'd get creamed.

Just trying to make all this work with a "One Design" regatta with several very different boats! If someone thinks things are "unfair" this summer, we'll seriously consider making adjustments. This should be about enabling folks and learning as much as "winning".

Gary B.
Vice Commodore

Edited by - on

osmepneo
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
1420 Posts

Response Posted - 02/12/2004 : 07:21:28

In Syracuse last year, the three championship fleets started together, and were separated as to their design for the finish. So all the boats raced the same course at the same time. One advantage of that happening is that allows the potential of developing a database for assessing relative performance. To most fairly accomplish thias that means starting all fleets together. So we could have 20 to 30 boats on the line for the start. That would be exciting!

Edited by - on

Arlyn Stewart
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
2980 Posts

Response Posted - 02/12/2004 : 08:27:24

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">just because a C25 owner asks a question on the C250 forum doesn't automatically mean he's cutting down the current product...so get over it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don, Your question was reasonable and I never thought for a second that you were cutting down the 250... and don't think that I answered in a way that projected that I viewed the question as a cut down. You have a longstanding reputation of logic... and are greatly respected by this sailor for that.

The heart of my answer which I admit probably got buried in extra mish mash... was that the c250 wing keel relies on form stability more than the other boats you list because it inherited a hull from the water ballast model that was designed for interior ballast.

It seems obvious from historical realities that Catalina thought that the combination of the keel weight it was given and the form stability would provide a stiff boat but that they were surprised.

Now surprised...what do they do? Do they up the weight of the keel and risk a possible demand to retrofit all previous boats? Or complicate the one design even greater by changing the keel weight in production? They chose to pull the tall rig and 150 genoa and in effect say, this boat is not a tradionally ballasted boat.

As to the sand bags... whether they benefit the boat by adding ballast is a good question. My theory is given at
http://stewartfam.net/arlyn/cause_of_weather_helm.html

Keep in mind that the section where this treatise resides has a disclaimer... These articles offer my perspectives on various sailing dynamics and should be considered in the category of one mans opinions.

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 02/12/2004 : 10:06:54

As the 2005 host site for our nationals I would like to continue a precedent of a single start. We should be realistic also, our regattas would be more competitive by using a handicapping system and letting everyone race against each other. RACING IS FUN, we do not need "one design" to make our nationals FUN, we are a very tight nit group and I believe we would all enjoy an overall champion. In truth, for me the low turn out makes the titles for all of the classes seem almost frivolous. If, for the next few years we need to continue the one design record keeping so as to come up with our own handicap bases then so be it. I for one wish we would move to a handicap system as soon as possible, I think it would encourage participation and make the event more valid. After all we really do need more people to show up.
Also, I expect the 2004 regatta to be much more successful than others due to the venue's obvious drawing power, 2005 will be more like a circuit event and if everyone is racing against everyone else it will be a better event.
Matbe we should move this issue to the general forum.

Edited by - Frank Hopper on 02/12/2004 10:11:39

Page: of 2

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.