[C320-list] New Splash guard

[Adam Weiner]

Oh, sorry, my bad hearing again.  Well, that would certainly explain how
the rating wouldn't change.  Too bad.

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Heyman
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 6:21 PM
To: 'C320-List'
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard


Adam,
I understood him to say they changed the way the transom is bonded to
the hull.  Our boats were made with a two step, manual process where the
hull and transom were bonded together. The II is made in a single step,
single mold but no change in geometry or dimension.  The changes on the
transom are in the area of the deck to transom transition.  It should
now be safer to let your small children, grandchildren and small dogs
head for the cat bird seats without watching them do the water world
slide of the back of the boat and into the drink. If you rounded up in
the old boat my guess is you will round up in the new one. IMHO. Bruce
Somerset 671 SoCal

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Adam Weiner
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:56 PM
To: 'C320-List'
Cc: CraigEneboe at aol.com
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard

Yes, I heard him say all of that.  However, the original C320 (the ones
without the splash guards) have big butts that with beam seas or seas
directly aft tend to make steering difficult and contribute to found ups
in certain wind conditions.  A reconfigured rear end although maybe not
affecting class rules would seem to have the POTENTIAL to improve the
handling characteristics in some conditions.

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Bill Culbertson
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:29 PM
To: C320-List
Cc: CraigEneboe at aol.com
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard


It IS funny that we're tire kicking just as you say.

In the audio which Jeff Hare posted on the 320 website, Gerry says:
    The hull is the same shape
    The weight is the same
    The weight distribution is the same
    The sailplan is the same
and I think he summarized the above to say that performance is the same.
And he said that was done to preserve the one-design characteristics of
the class.

Presumably the transom changes are above any expected waterline if they
are to have no effect

 -bill
 Harmony #859


----- Original Message ----
From: Adam Weiner <esquirecatering at rcn.com>
To: C320-List <c320-list at catalina320.com>
Cc: CraigEneboe at aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 7:24:10 PM
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard


Do you realize that we all (including me) sound like a bunch of newbies
at a boat show?  The only thing we haven't asked is "How many does it
sleep?"  We have talked about splash guards, hanging lockers, head room,
etc.

What about performance?  What does the new stern due for performance,
steering, handling, etc?

Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com
[mailto:c320-list-bounces at catalina320.com] On Behalf Of Koen Bennebroek
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:23 PM
To: catalina at thehares.com; C320-List
Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard


Bummer, I need 2 more inches in the main cabin...that would have made
the boat perfect. I don't care about headroom in the aft cabin. You only
sit or lie down there anyway. Same goes for the head, especially without
a hook to hang the shower head.

-Koen

On 10/13/06, Jeffrey Hare <catalina at thehares.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, I think he mentioned that the headroom was increased in the 
> aft cabin standing area, over the aft cabin bed,  and I believe in the

> head. Don't recall him saying the main cabin headroom was increased.
>
> -Jeff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Koen Bennebroek [mailto:koen.bennebroek at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 7:53 PM
> To: C320-List
> Subject: Re: [C320-list] New Splash guard
>
> So you're saying headroom actually _decreased_ ? On the audio 
> recording I thought I had heard Gerry say it increased by 2-3 
> inches...
>
> On 10/13/06, Ronniew326 at aol.com <Ronniew326 at aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can't believe that having read several opinions on the new 320 
> > that no  one has mentioned the headroom issue.  When I stood in the 
> > galley the top  of my head on my six foot body was touching the 
> > headliner. Not so on my  1996 #326; I have an inch or inch and a 
> > half to spare. Didn't anyone else notice that?
> >
>
>
>