[C320-list] PHRF Ratings

Tue Oct 10 10:52:04 PDT 2006

Joe,

You can add the 380/387 to your list. The base rating for those is 120.

Wes

"Joe Barrett" <joe at dolphinmortgage.com> 
Sent by: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
10/10/2006 10:51 AM
Please respond to
joe at dolphinmortgage.com; Please respond to
C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>

To
"'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
cc

Subject
[C320-list] PHRF Ratings

Great info Wes, I'll never complain about my rating ever again! Actually
West Florida PHRF used the SoCal model when figuring ratings as it is the
belief that the wind conditions are very similar in West Florida to SoCal.
Here are the West Florida base ratings for Catalina's
Catalina 320 base rating =165
Catalina 34 SM WK =156
Catalina 34 TM MKII =150
Catalina 36 MK1 =144
Catalina 36 MK11 =153
Catalina 36 MK11 TM = 147
Catalina 36 SM WK+ 153
Catalina 350+ 144???
I think we have the 350 rated wrong while they've been very generous with
the 320 at 165 base.
I am on the rating Committee for West Florida PHRF and I get almost as 
many
emails daily from them as I do this list!
Please confirm again the base rating in SoCAL for the 350.
Thanks,
Joe Barrett

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of
Orlando.Duran at AveryDennison.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:50 PM
To: Catalina 320 List
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard

In So Cal, the 36 is at 144...320 at 150...
----------------------------------
Regards,
OD

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----
From: Wes.Giles
Sent: 10/10/2006 09:39 AM
To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard

I believe the 36 has the same base rating as the 320 in So Cal, 150.

Wes

"Jeff Church" <jjemail at comcast.net>
Sent by: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
10/10/2006 09:38 AM
Please respond to
C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>

To
<joe at dolphinmortgage.com>, "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com> cc

Subject
Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard

Joe,

It has been a while since I was involved in racing, but I seem to recall
that newer boats are usually rated a bit fast in order to protect the 
fleet.
I could be wrong, it's been 15 years. How does the 350's rating compare to

the 36?

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Barrett" <joe at dolphinmortgage.com>
To: "'C320-List'" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard

> West Florida PHRF has 3 Catalina 350's in the database. Their base
rating
> is
> 144 versus a base rating of 165 for a Catalina 320. However on top of
that
> they also gave the boats +12 seconds per mile for the roller furling 
> mainsail.
> Is that why you feel they are underpowered?
> Joe Barrett
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com 
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of 
> Orlando.Duran at AveryDennison.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:11 AM
> To: Catalina 320 List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
> That is a slug of a boat--slow, badly layed out down below, etc.--they
are
> having problems in selling that thing...
> ----------------------------------
> Regards,
> OD
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bryan Campbell" [bcampbell at valp.net]
> Sent: 10/10/2006 07:38 AM
> To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
> Why wouldn't you consider a 350?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com 
> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com]On Behalf Of Jeff Church
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:20 AM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
>
> The changes to the 320 seem to be a mix of good and bad. Nice salon
lamps,
> some storage improvements, smaller settee, nav panel that you can't 
> see
or
> reach from a seated position, questionable reefer upgrade. The only
thing
> they really needed to do with the 320 was to add some storage. 
> Catalina should have put the effort into upgrading the C36. I'd like 
> to move up
to
> the 36 (won't consider the 350) but it needs a total interior upgrade.
For
> a
> boat of its size it is very cramped, dark, and awkward for 2 people to 
> move around in.
>
> What they really should do is build a 370 with the same basic design 
> and performance characteristics as the 320. If they don't do something
pretty
> soon, I might seriously consider going over to the Dark Side, Beneteau.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Culbertson" <billculb_a2 at yahoo.com>
> To: "C320-List" <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:54 AM
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
>
> Herb,
>
> I might have had to look twice to notice the splash guard.  What 
> really caught my eye in picture #5 is that they've scrunched up the 
> port salon shelf considerably.  With the full height instrument panel 
> aft and the hanging locker forward, it looks more like a 310.  One big 
> thing my wife

> and
> didn't like about the 310 was that the main cabin was so scrunched.
>
> -bill
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "hcreech at comcast.net" <hcreech at comcast.net>
> To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:14:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
>
> No, I really wasn't all that impressed. The splash guard is an obvious
add
> on, the 387 had a corian splash guard as part of the countertop, very 
> nice.
> I think Catalina picked up the new slash guard at home depot.  The new 
> hanging locker deminised the area where my flat screen TV is located, 
> it

> was
> the first thing my wife noticed.  And she doesn't notice anything. 
> Since

> I
> can't really afford the 387 yet I might have considered  trading my 99"
> 320
> for a new 320 but no midship cleats sealed it.  I'll wait for the 387.
>
> Sincerely,
> Herb Creech
> Cloud Chaser #606
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Bruce Heyman" <BruceHeyman at cox.net>
>> Herb,
>> Thanks for the photo's!  Do you have any others of the boat :-) ?
>>
>> Can't say I'm impressed with the guard.  IMHO it seems like it should 
>> be higher, still too likely to splash water onto the lap top on the 
>> chart table.
>>
>> I do like the lamp under the glass holder and the larger area for 
>> electronics.
>>
>> Bruce
>> Somerset 671 SoCal
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com 
>> [mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of 
>> Hcreech at comcast.net
>> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 8:39 AM
>> To: C-320 Catalina
>> Subject: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>>
>> The random shots of the splash guard on the new C-320 are now posted 
>> on the web-site.
>> Sincerely,
>> Herb Creech
>> Cloud Chaser #606
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude/F-Prot Virus]
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity 
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or 
> other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this 
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient 
> is prohibited. If you
received
> this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any
> computer.
>
>
>

--------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

--------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer.

--------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or
other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the
sender and delete the material from any computer.