[C320-list] FW: Re: New Splash guard (Actually PHRF ratings)

[Karl Mielenhausen _/)]

My PHRF here is 159 base rating (135% genoa, non-spinnaker) with +6 for the 3 blade fixed prop making it 165. 



Karl Mielenhausen

2000 C320 Hull#690 "Silver Lining"

New Bern, NC

http://members.cox.net/mielen/From: Lachance, Michael B (ISD, IT) [mailto: MLaChance at thehartford.com]

To: c320-list at catalina320.com

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:57:24 -0400

Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard (Actually PHRF ratings)



Quentin,<br>In PHRF, a lower number is faster, thus 150 for spinnaker, 186 for non-spinnaker. Personally I think 150 for my wing keel 320 is a tad too low. Btw, that 150 rating assumes folding prop<br>Mike<br>--------------------------<br>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>To: C320-List<br>Sent: Tue Oct 10 13:15:26 2006<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard (Actually PHRF ratings)<br><br>Mike:<br><br>Your boat is PHRF rated using a higher number for spin, whereas in another<br>email the 350 is described as slower than the 320 but the PHRF rating for<br>the 350 is 175 and for the 320 is 150.  Let's presume that PHRF ratings<br>should be the same everywhere except for slight variations with the<br>individual boat (sail size or condition, props, etc) and possibly the<br>measurer.  So how come the spin rating on your boat has a higher number than<br>the non-spin? 
 Something does not add up here, unless the C350 is a rocket<br>in disguise.<br><br>Quentin<br>Celtic Know #667<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Lachance, Michael<br>B (ISD, IT)<br>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:28 PM<br>To: c320-list at catalina320.com<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br><br>Connecticut PHRF is 150 spin, 186 non-spin<br>Mike LaChance<br>--------------------------<br>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld (www.BlackBerry.net)<br><br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>To: joe; Catalina 320 List<br>Sent: Tue Oct 10 11:47:39 2006<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br>Not just underpowered but plain slow...here in So Cal 320 phrf is 150 and<br>for 350 it's 175<br>----------------------------------<br>Regards,<br>OD<br><br>Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<br><br><br>----- Original 
Message -----<br>From: "Joe Barrett" [joe at dolphinmortgage.com]<br>Sent: 10/10/2006 08:40 AM<br>To: "'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com><br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br>West Florida PHRF has 3 Catalina 350's in the database. Their base rating is<br>144 versus a base rating of 165 for a Catalina 320. However on top of that<br>they also gave the boats +12 seconds per mile for the roller furling<br>mainsail.<br>Is that why you feel they are underpowered?<br>Joe Barrett<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of<br>Orlando.Duran at AveryDennison.com<br>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:11 AM<br>To: Catalina 320 List<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br>That is a slug of a boat--slow, badly layed out down below, etc.--they are<br>having problems in selling that thing...<br>----------------------------------<br>Regards,<br>OD<br><br>Sent from my 
BlackBerry Wireless Handheld<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Bryan Campbell" [bcampbell at valp.net]<br>Sent: 10/10/2006 07:38 AM<br>To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com><br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br>Why wouldn't you consider a 350?<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Church<br>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:20 AM<br>To: C320-List<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br><br> The changes to the 320 seem to be a mix of good and bad. Nice salon lamps,<br>some storage improvements, smaller settee, nav panel that you can't see or<br>reach from a seated position, questionable reefer upgrade. The only thing<br>they really needed to do with the 320 was to add some storage. Catalina<br>should have put the effort into upgrading the C36. I'd like to move up to<br>the 36 (won't consider the 350) but it needs a total interior 
upgrade. For a<br>boat of its size it is very cramped, dark, and awkward for 2 people to move<br>around in.<br><br>What they really should do is build a 370 with the same basic design and<br>performance characteristics as the 320. If they don't do something pretty<br>soon, I might seriously consider going over to the Dark Side, Beneteau.<br><br>Jeff<br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Bill Culbertson" <billculb_a2 at yahoo.com><br>To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com><br>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:54 AM<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br><br>Herb,<br><br>I might have had to look twice to notice the splash guard.  What really<br>caught my eye in picture #5 is that they've scrunched up the port salon<br>shelf considerably.  With the full height instrument panel aft and the<br>hanging locker forward, it looks more like a 310.  One big thing my wife and<br>didn't like about the 310 was that the main cabin was so scrunched.<br><br> 
-bill<br><br><br>----- Original Message ----<br>From: "hcreech at comcast.net" <hcreech at comcast.net><br>To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com><br>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:14:05 AM<br>Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br><br><br>No, I really wasn't all that impressed. The splash guard is an obvious add<br>on, the 387 had a corian splash guard as part of the countertop, very nice.<br>I think Catalina picked up the new slash guard at home depot.  The new<br>hanging locker deminised the area where my flat screen TV is located, it was<br>the first thing my wife noticed.  And she doesn't notice anything.  Since I<br>can't really afford the 387 yet I might have considered  trading my 99" 320<br>for a new 320 but no midship cleats sealed it.  I'll wait for the 387.<br><br>Sincerely,<br>Herb Creech<br>Cloud Chaser #606<br>-------------- Original message ----------------------<br>From: "Bruce Heyman" <BruceHeyman at cox.net><br>> Herb,<br>> Thanks for the photo's!  Do you 
have any others of the boat :-) ?<br>><br>> Can't say I'm impressed with the guard.  IMHO it seems like it should<br>> be higher, still too likely to splash water onto the lap top on the<br>> chart table.<br>><br>> I do like the lamp under the glass holder and the larger area for<br>> electronics.<br>><br>> Bruce<br>> Somerset 671 SoCal<br>><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com<br>> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of<br>> Hcreech at comcast.net<br>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:39 AM<br>> To: C-320 Catalina<br>> Subject: [C320-list] New Splash guard<br>><br>> The random shots of the splash guard on the new C-320 are now posted<br>> on the web-site.<br>> Sincerely,<br>> Herb Creech<br>> Cloud Chaser #606<br>><br>><br>><br>><br><br><br><br>---<br>[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]<br><br><br><br><br>---<br>[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot 
Virus]<br><br><br><br><br>--------------------------------<br>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to<br>which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged<br>material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or<br>taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or<br>entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received<br>this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any<br>computer.<br><br><br><br><br><br>--------------------------------<br>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity<br>to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or<br>privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or<br>other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this<br>information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient<br>is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact 
the<br>sender and delete the material from any computer.<br><br><br><br><br><br>*************************************************************************<br>This communication, including attachments, is<br>for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary,<br>confidential and/or privileged information.  If you are not the intended<br>recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is<br>strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify<br>the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and<br>destroy all copies.<br>*************************************************************************<br><br><br>

_______________________________________________