At The Risk of Starting WWlll

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Me neither. I think much of it is just human nature...a tendency to view anyone/thing in a different sub-group from "yours" negatively.

Actually I do believe it is a "kindergarten boy syndrome"....

My toy is better than Yours!
No, no, my is better, my!!!

Some people are in great need to grow up at least

[boatman61]

Now lets bring this down to MY... and I think many sailing folks realities...
For EU 5,000 I can buy this...


Or this...


So don't blather on about space on Cats....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

There is one very big difference between a monohull sailboat and a multihull, and that is ballast, or lack of it, in a multihull. Someone new to sailing might not understand that a monohull doesn't tip over when it sails because it has literally TONS of dead weight at the bottom to keep it upright. A multihull is very wide and therefore doesn't need this ballast, and is therefore lighter. That is a difference that is fundamental. This also makes a multihull able to still float when flooded, as it does not have to keep afloat all that ballast weight like a monohull. And therefore a multihull can go faster, because it CAN be lighter. It also can have a much taller mast and therefore bigger sail, because the rigging mounts are farther apart and thus has more angle to hold up a taller mast.
And a multihull has more room, because it has two hulls, but then the bridgedeck area as a wide open area. And a multihull CAN have narrow hulls which makes it go faster than fatter hulls of a monohull and still have a lot more room.

These are characteristics that are fundamental to the design, and not specific to any particularly boat. It is like a motorcycle vs a car. Sure some cars are faster than some motorbikes, but a motorbike can always be lighter and therefore faster than a car,
in fact the landspeed record cars are really not 'cars' because they have three wheels and not four like a 'car'.
However, as monohulls get larger and larger, they get wider and wider, and therefore become more like a multihull.

Really, I see no advantages at all for a monohull, except tradition and they can be very beautiful boats, mostly from a distance.

Except that cruising cats are not faster than cruising monohulls, as proven by statistics: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ers-31216.html

Evans Starzinger has done an extensive study of passage speeds and has shown that they are strongly correlated to waterline length and that there is no difference between the average mono and average cat of the same waterline length.

The ARC results analyzed in the cited thread show cats slightly faster than monos of the same LOA, but if you compare the same LWL, the average speeds are the same.

This indicates that comparable monos will actually be faster than comparable cats, because they will be longer. A cat of the same volume and cost will be quite a bit shorter than a mono, and the shorter LWL will bring down the speed. Beating a dead horse a bit -- you cannot compare a 45 foot LOA cat to a 45 foot LOA mono -- the cat is 90 feet of hulls divided into two and mounted side by side. A 45 foot cruising cat is comparable to a roughly 55 foot mono -- similar hull volume, similar cost. But the 55 foot mono has the advantage of a longer waterline, and so in average cases of real cruising boats will be faster. This disadvantage can be partially compensated by using narrow hulls in a cat, but this makes the cat even more sensitive to loads -- more about below.

Obviously we are talking about average cases here -- you can't compare a hot mono with a pudgy Lagoon, for example, or an Outremer with an Island Packet.

The absence of ballast in cats is not an unambiguous speed advantage. Theoretically, you can achieve a better SA/D ratio in cats because of the higher form stability and lack of ballast. And a lighter boat means less buoyancy needed so less wetted surface -- also good for speed. But you have to be more conservative in designing sail plans of cats because of the capsize risk* -- you can push a mono harder without risk. Besides that, a given amount of load will affect a lighter multi more than a ballasted mono, and any speed advantage disappears fast as the sinks down on her lines -- a ton of water and fuel is 5% of a 20 ton boat, but it will be 10% of a 10 ton boat and 20% of a five ton boat. The proof of this is the real life passage speeds as studied by Evans and others.



* A mono sail plan spills wind as the boat heels -- a self-regulating mechanism which allows mono sail plans to be designed more aggressively.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Except that cruising cats are not faster than cruising monohulls, as proven by statistics:

You have a strange view of what constitutes statistical proof.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Factor

You have a strange view of what constitutes statistical proof.

When comparing like for like -- like internal volume, like cost, like raciness -- they definitely are not.

The statistics cited are a couple of good studies -- ARC race results; and a very extensive study of passage times done by Evans Starzinger.

A not too heavily loaded cat might be faster downwind than a comparable mono, but the mono will usually be faster upwind in terms of VMG to windward because of less leeway, than a cruising cat without daggerboards. Even in the ARC, which is mostly downwind, you see that the cruising cats are not faster than comparable monos - compare, say 45' cats and 55' monos.

P.S. for the avoidance of any doubt, I am not saying "monos are better". I specifically stated above that I believe that neither is objectively better than the other.

[Phantoms]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

And yet amazingly the high powered trimarans seem to keep setting new singlehanded RTW records without constantly flipping. (Which can't be said for the mono's)

Cruising, we simply reduce sail at night.

Looks like a tri to me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvmDoQirLzg

[nimblemotors]

One can't compare 'real life' cruising boats, because this has little relationship to the inherent designs, actual boats built and bought have huge unrelated factors, looking at all the 'condomarans' built and average them up and the meaning is useless to describe a multihull compared to the history of monohulls built for 'racing'.

OK, c'mon lets get the war going, it was getting dull.

To say a multihull is slower because it must be throttled down to be safer and a monohull is faster because it can have a crappy captain is not very compelling.

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

And yet amazingly the high powered trimarans seem to keep setting new singlehanded RTW records without constantly flipping. (Which can't be said for the mono's)

Cruising, we simply reduce sail at night.

Originally Posted by Phantoms

Looks like a tri to me

Looks like the key phrase in 44'cruisingcat's post is: seem to

[GrowleyMonster]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Now lets bring this down to MY... and I think many sailing folks realities...
For EU 5,000 I can buy this...


Or this...


So don't blather on about space on Cats....

ROTFL! So true! My boat cost me $2000 and came with 10 sails and pretty much everything needed to live aboard and sail away except a running engine, which I promptly supplemented with a 6hp outboard while I unfroze the Katrina-drowned Atomic and got it running. For $2k I could probably get a hobie cat with no sails, maybe no mast lol! A poor working stiff has a lot more options in monohulls, yeah.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Phantoms

Looks like a tri to me

That was a Frenchman.

When was the last time you saw one who wasn't surrendering to someone?

[socaldmax]

In all seriousness, the right boat for each individual is based on what they want - space, speed, sleek looks, low cost, luxury, getting splashed in the cockpit while heeled over 15*, etc.


I wish Hyundai would get into the catamaran building business, they've done pretty well in readjusting the price/quality/luxury curve. I'd love to have a 50' cat with all of the bells and whistles for $100K!

[Phantoms]

Originally Posted by Razoo

Looks like the key phrase in 44'cruisingcat's post is: seem to

I know, was just poking a little fun.

[GrowleyMonster]

Heres the only cat I can afford right now. BUT... its electric drive.

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

Attachment 79653

Heres the only cat I can afford right now. BUT... its electric drive.

lol awesome! I found 0 cats in Canada and 4 cats in the USA which are in my budget of up to $50K, but am learning the process of buying from the USA is a lot of crap to go through. Here you give the owner your money and re-register the boat. Not sure why it has to be so complicated south of the 49th.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

To say a multihull is slower because it must be throttled down to be safer and a monohull is faster because it can have a crappy captain is not very compelling.

Certainly not what I said. I said that cruising multihulls are throttled down compared to their theoretical potential. Didn't say that made them slower than anything in particular. An average cruising cat is probably a little faster than an average cruising mono of the same LOA, and probably simply because the average cruising cat has much shorter overhangs so more LWL. An average cruising cat is probably a little slower than a comparable (hull volume, cost) average cruising mono.

Now the theoretical advantages of cats -- I mean, less weight, more form stability, less wetted surface -- start to really shine if you can get the boat to be really really light. So if I have little interest in average loaded down cruising cats (simply because they are not to my taste, not because they are worse), I am very much titillated by high performance cats, like the Gunboat. That's something quite unique, and what sailor wouldn't want one, if he won the lottery? I sure would.