Originally Posted by yeloya
My experience is that (apple to apple) same size and type (cruiser to cruiser, racer
to racer) and for the same water length, cats are 10 to 25 % faster depending on sea state, AWA and wind force.
The same was confirmed by the GB 62 skipper
that I had met. He said "we were never overtaken in any race by a monohull shorter than us, including Volvo
I believe you were talking about Zenyatta a Gunboat 62 that makes a lot of racing, as a experienced racing skipper
a basic very experienced crew and accept "guests" as extra "crew" ?
They had made the 2013 ARC so let’s have a look at that one: I was not impressed with their performance and impressed with the performance of a Knierim 65, a monohull performance cruiser of about the same size of the Gunboat 62 (more 3ft) that beat it by almost 5days
!!!while a much smaller Marten 49 (13ft smaller), another monohull performance cruiser only lost
about 10 hours for the Gunboat 62.
Off course these are all very expensive Carbon boats but I would say that the ones that really impressed me was the results of much less expensive non carbon boats, like a X50 that only lost
25 hours to the Gunboat 62 and the first 40ft to arrive (cats and monohulls) a production performance cruiser, a Pogo 12.50 that arrived about two days after the Gunboat 62. Fact is that the 40ft inexpensive performance cruiser (Pogo 12.50) was faster than all the 34 catamarans doing the ARC, with exception of the Gunboat 62, and the Explorer 60 but off course the Pogo did not use the engine
while the Explorer 60 motored for 52 hours, without that the 40ft Pogo cruisers would only be beaten by the Gunboat 62. All the cats, with the exception of a single Lagoon 380
were much bigger than the 40ft Pogo, mostly between 45ft and 60ft.
That was not the only relatively small monohull that was very fast, a Dufour
45e, A Grand Soleil 43 and a Wauquiez 45, all a mass production performance cruisers, lost not much for the Pogo 12.50 (a very fast boat), respectively 27 hours, 26 hours and 11 hours. They beat all the cats of similar size and in fact almost all of then. And if we discount the engine hours (none for the monohulls, 45 for the Tournier Freydis 49 and 29hours for the Catana 48) probably they would be right behind the much bigger Lagoon
560, that used the engine for 31 hours.
Regarding multihulls the most impressive result was maybe the one of a Lagoon 560. That is true that while the monohulls and the Gunboat did not touch the engine the Lagoon motored during 31 hours but only lost 2 days 5 hours to the Gunboat 62 and an Explorer 60 that even if motoring a lot (52hours) only took more one day and a half to do the crossing.
If we look now at the Handicap rating of the boats (boats by arriving order) and their performance on the ARC that performance don’t look strange, in fact with few exceptions, like on the ARC+, they are performing according with their attributed rating. The only exceptions are the Ocean explorer 60 (Cat), that seems a bit over rated to me and the Lagoon 560 that seems very well sailed to me and the Catana 58 that should have done better.
Knierim 65 GER 1.518
Gunboat 62 USA 1.354
Marten 49 FRA 1.238
X-50 ITA 1.161
Ocean Explorer 60 1.336
Grand Soleil 56 1.162
Hanse 575 1.164
Pogo 12.50 GBR 1.176
Lagoon 560 POL 1.088
Tournier Freydis 49 1.184
Catana 58 1.238
Wauquiez Cent. 45s 1.109
Grand Soleil 43 1.079
Dufour 45E 1.104
I am not saying (at all) that cats are slower then monohulls, or the opposite, just saying that you have to look at each boat (cat and monohull) and at their comparative downwind ratings to have a fair idea of each boat potential. Saying in generic terms that Cats (or monohulls) are faster the multihulls proves again not to make sense.
On the 2013 and 2014 ARC editions they have proved that the guys that are attributing the ratings are doing an excellent job and that, in what regards well sailed boats (the fastest) they have a performance close to the one predicted by the rating.