From: greg@netcom.com (Greg Bullough)
Subject: Re: Catalina 30 (WAS: Request for advice ... Cruising sailboats)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:27:01 GMT

In article <15993@mindlink.bc.ca> Bill_Gardner@mindlink.bc.ca (Bill Gardner) writes:
>We have a lot of Cat 30's on the west coast and they seem to wear well.  In
>walking the Marina floats though I see a lot of hairline cracks around the
>chain plates and minor cosmetic blemishes.  They seem to be serviceable for
>faimily cruising and not to aggressive sailing.
>
>By the way, I own a 1987 C&C 30 and of course woudld say their is no
>comparison to quality and durability .

True on both counts. The Catalina 30 has "worn well" in a number of
different ways; the boats themselves seem to be standing up quite
well over the years, and the design seems to be holding up.
 
The Catalina 30 fills a particular niche, in that it is the "largest"
30-footer that you can purchase for the money, and still get acceptable
quality in a fair-weather coastal cruiser.
 
But they are a compromise. With apologies to Wayne, the Catalina line
is just not what I'd call an acceptable vessel for blue-water 
cruising (yes, I know it's been done, but a lot of people have
survived blue water in inappropriate vessels, or spent small
fortunes in modifying vessels to make them appropriate).
 
The 30 trades off seaworthiness in its hull form for space below.
In order to achieve that cavernous main saloon, with its dinette
that makes into an orgy-bed, the boat has been given a terminal
case of nautical thunder-thighs.
 
It sails well, if kept flat, in spite of this. To the credit of
the designers.
 
When Catalinas first appeared, they were the economy-class leaders,
and were the logical successors to Columbia, Coronado, and that
ilk. They were clearly understood to have economy as their prime
virtue. And they were taking the 'economy thing' a bit farther
than the existing lines of inexpensive boats. Below them were 
the Venture boats (now called MacGregor) and the Clipper Marine
series, which were a bit lower than most folks were willing to
sink (rightly so, IMHO).
 
Now, of course, the "bottom" of the barrel in "reasonable" boats
has gotten a little deeper. Hunter and Lancer have built boats
which strike me as (carefully chosen words) "less good" than
Catalina. And either standards have dropped or Catalina has
gotten better.
 
This whole thing strikes me as analgous to the Bayliner debate.
When buying a boat, you have to look at:
 
  1. What you need and plan to do with it
  2. What makes you happy
 
For most of us (1) will be met by a boat that is less than bulletproof.
(2) may not be. Many of us would rather cruise the bay in a Hans
Christian than a Catalina. On the other hand, we may not want to
pay for it. That's the decision I had to make when I bought my
Ericson 27. I wasn't ready to live with a Catalina, but I couldn't
justify a Pacific Seacraft boat for the purpose, either.
 
So what it comes down to is this; for their intended purpose, (most)
Catalinas are just fine. They are not Swans, Pacific Seacrafts, 
nor Hans Christians. And they don't try to be.
 
Greg