[C320-list] Upwind performance

[Andrew Santangelo]

I can speak with experience on this topic.  Originally Dawn Treader had the Wing Keel.  It was fine for cruising and all, but we did seem to be disadvantaged with the wing keel racing wise.

Three years later I had the wing keel removed, and the fin keel installed.  The difference was profound.

I could point substantially better (I want to say up to a +10 deg improvement), and she was certainly quicker on all points of sail.  Carrying less weight certainly did help.

Our PHRF way back when changed from 156 to 150, but then it was upped back to 156!  Basically a sailor was punished with the wing keel.  Once this move was made - along with the hydraulic backstay, auto prop, racing sails, etc. we placed or won in almost every race series.  Our last big race before moving to SFO was the Queen's Cup and we placed 3rd in our division.  C320 is a very competitive boat.  Another C320 seemed to win it almost all the time.

And yes, Dawn Treader is moving back to the Great Lakes this summer, and I hope to be racing again this fall out of Holland again.

FYI - with the fin keel DO MIND the depth!


Andrew Santangelo

C320 "Dawn Treader"
#333
San Francisco, CA

J22 "Blitzkrieg"
Elephant Butte, New Mexico



On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Rick Thompson wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> My wife and I are seriously considering purchasing a C320 for cruising and racing phrf on Lake of the Woods, Ontario. 
> We just sold our first keelboat , a Mirage 25,  the past week.
> 
> We like the huge interior and  2 separate cabins and swim transom.
> 
> Because LOW is in the Canadian shield there are definite low water  hazards. Most are well charted.
> 
> I was wondering if you racer/ cruisers could give me feedback on the C320 performance with both wing and fin keel?
> I've also noticed that the Catalina's seem to be heavier than similar length boats, also. Heavier construction? More material due to carrying more beam?
> Upwind performance is important because LOW has many islands so you  always seem to be beating the wind to get around them.
> How would the performance of a C320 compare to say a C&C32? The C&C has a similar phrf at 150, narrower beam and lighter at about 9800lb.
> Of course it's the older traditional design, without the open transom, 2 cabins etc.
> Thanks,
> Rick Thompson 
> 
> R Thompson