I'm about twice as far west as I am north. So all of the Illinois locations you mention are about an equal distance from me. I have also thought about Wisconsin, but right now, getting a boat is the first priority .

Ok, now I remember who you are. What boat are you looking for?
There are a few N6.0 for sale on the CRAW website.
Or you can go to http://cathouse1.com/ and see what they have.
If you are thinking about racing you should look for I20 or F18 because most people in CRAW and CRAM sail those boats.

If you get the boat let me know we can go sailing together. Or just come to Racine Yacht Club (Wisconsin) and we can have some fun on my N6.0 See attachment so you know what boat to look for.

Kris

I can attest to Mark Biggers' Cathouse up in Saginaw, MI. We bought a used Nacra 5.8na there in 200. We took the time to drive up from Chicago to his place to pick up the boat. Our boat, as advertised, was in absolutely excellent condition and extremely well fine-tuned for racing (having been owned by a racing couple who switched to an I-20). To this day, we are very happy with the boat that is very fast, and in certain moderate wind conditions has outsailed a Tiger, a Tornado, and a Nacra 6.0 (not na, though, but an Euro rig), We are no racers, but we love the boat for recreational sailing.

Thanks for the advice. I pretty much have my heart set on an F16, sooner or later and finances permitting. As far as I know there aren't any in the area at present, but I think the basic concept of the class is pretty compelling and with Blade production coming on-line I think there is going to be strong growth there in the future.

I know this is an old thread, but since it just played out in court yesterday, I thought some would be curious of the results. The plaintiff acknowledged in court he was paid $336.88 by his insurance company against a claim for $436.88. In addition, he was paid $110 from a second offending boat for items included in his insurance claim. The plaintiff's inability to produce an itemized receipt of the damaged parts and the plaintiff's supporting documents of a picture showing the defendant's boat leaning against an adjacent boat with no contact with his own boat and a letter from CatWoman's "hubby" saying all of the damage was inflicted by the second boat and not the defendant's were not helpful in making his case.

In the end, the judge basically said that this was quite petty considering it was the anniversary of 9/11 and had each pay their own court cost of about $200 for the plaintiff and $130 for the defendant. During the mandatory mediation before the trial, the defendant acknowledged if the plaintiff hadn't cheated the sailing club by racing for 3 years when only paying the yearly social dues ($35) instead of the racing dues ($110), the defendant would have paid the requested $212 in the first place.

For some background, the three major items of damage were the main traveler car, a rudder cover and a kinked shroud. The plaintiff tried to get the local shop to say the mast was totaled because of a couple of small scratches but the shop refused to go along.

So hopefully, this mini-war is finally over. Time will tell if the beach recovers.

I use 2 3' long iron stakes driven in at 45degrees basicly an X, and tie a rope around the tramp to the stakes. We have a few in the fleet that us long cork screw type stakes and tie off to the dolphan striker. I like going around the tramp to prevent any movement.

Jamie, Jamie, you can't let it rest, you pedantic little man.

Jamie, you're full of it, to say the least! You're just defending your exclusionary little sailing club (actually the drinking club with a sailing problem), nothing more!

You're full of it - especially since you were NOT at the beach right after the storm, I was!

Catwoman's "hubby"? What are you talking about? What letter from my "hubby"? My husband hasn't been on the Wilmette beach in at least 8 years - so be careful about the false assertions you proclaim in public cyber space.

And, since you're out of town, where you actually there after the storm to see the damage? I was there, and so were at least 4 or 5 others from Wilmette who saw the offending boat on top of the aggrieved party's boat. Yes, with our own eyes! The offending boat WAS touching this boat, otherwise it would not have come to a halt after it tumbled quite a ways.

Sorry, your "friends" from the club were totally negligent in not tying down their boat. Funny, now that they have a new boat, it's tied down, front and back. First you and your friends from the club tell me that the storm damage was an "act of God", then you proclaim somewhere else on this website that you're an atheist. What is it now? Make up your mind! An "act of God" evidently seems to be a green light for your negligence, right? Evidently you don't trust your boat to God either, otherwise you wouldn't tie it down so securely, correct?

In the "old" days at the Wilmette sailing beach, people were going by a gentleman's agreement--if your boat damages another you pay for it. It had been done like this for decades, I've been told.

The judge' verdict does not prove that the offending party was not at fault, it only proves that the aggrieved party (unfortunately) was not able to provide sufficient proof that it was indeed the offenders' boat that landed on his boat. He should have gotten a letter from the Park District who sent their staff to the beach immediately after the storm to remove tumbled boats, take pictures and notes. Unfortunately with their rather sloppy evidence-taking, they only took one picture, and that was not too detailed. They should have left the evidence and not tampered with it. The offenders actually lied in court, claiming it was not their boat, and the aggrieved party was unable to prove otherwise. Again, had he done his homework better and gotten a written report from the Park District, and/or some eye witnesses to testify, the case might have ended in his favor.

Why are you so interested in healing the rift? Between whom? Your club is the one that promoted this cliqueish and judgmental attitude to begin with. You only welcomed members to your club that YOU thought were acceptable to you, the rest you ignored. That's why no one wants to join this club. That's why you don't have a proper racing fleet anymore.

Plus you consitently flaunt all the beach rules, with your dogs & alcohol parties. You seem to be good friends with the Park District managers, I hear - probably because you chummy up to them at Meyers Tavern. Strange, because the Park District managers should be accountable to the Wilmette tax payers more than you out-of-towners.

Contrary to some of Jamie's club members & friends, it's nice to see that someone is actually interested in tying down their boat, and be considerate to your fellow man.

Woopee! Through friends in the NL, I am in the process of buying a used Taipan 4.9 in excellent shape from a Dutch dealer. I'm going to Europe for a long weekend in December to pick it up & put it in storage in Frankfurt (hopefully we'll use it next fall). That's good enough for me at least.
No racer here, just dilettantic dinking around in old age. Beats basket-weaving and rocking chairs.

One more comment, Jamie "Know-it-all", I'd like to make about this remark (see quote): What the heck are you talking about regarding the court date? This court date was given to the concerned parties weeks before. By the court system! They had no say about the date at all, this date was set by the small claims court. Should all legal activity cease because it was the 5th anniversary of 9/11? If the judge didn't want to sit on the bench on that significant date, why was the court in session? I didn't know this was a national holiday.

And "petty"?? Excuse me? Hello? This was a SMALL CLAIMS court!!

Jamie, maybe you should limit your comments to the technically obsessive Blade H16 forum, you're doing much better there, instead of publishing personal "Wilmette Sailing Association" vendettas in a public place.

This was a dead thread, and I'm sure no one lost sleep over the outcome of this case. I started this thread a long time ago because I wanted to know how other sailing clubs handled such internal disputes.

Thank you Gabby for expanding my horizon and making me look up a term that is not even in my old hardback Webster dictionary. The "pendatic" may be a stretch, but being 5' 7", the "little man", I'm willing to accept.


Sorry, when I must have made a mistake when you said "hubby" in the post of:

Catwoman's hubby reference

I assumed, it was Bill, that you were talking about. Please excuse me if your relationship during May of 2005 was not with Bill.


Yes, I thought it was over too. I only posted the results in an interest of catsailor members considering legal actions if the same should occur. As for a dead thread, over 3 weeks after my post, you have made 4 posts on the same day, within roughly 3 hours, making personal attacks on me and which have nothing to do with the situation. I wouldn't have know of your posts until your direct email to me. I refuse to drag this out in the forums where it clearly does not belong, so I will respond to your email and save the rest of the forum from this petty difference.

You should maybe use the Complete Oxford Dictionary instead-- anyway, I think the term fits you. Hey, it's not necessarily an insult, and pedantry comes in handy for Blade owners who need to be extremely detail-oriented (if just to eek out another nanosecond of speed).

And please do not use people's personal names on the forum. Wow, and you managed to misspell my name anyway.

And no, legal actions shouldn't have to be necessary between club members.