At The Risk of Starting WWlll

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Problem is that for almost everyone price is an issue. There is another thread about battery monitors (to me not really that leading edge) where it is obvious decisions are being made on price. Even if someone has reasonable assets there is what I call a price/benefit issue. I had no problem getting a top of the line battery monitor. On the other hand I chose not to upgrade from flooded batteries to gels, knowing that I will have to keep an eye on the water level in the flooded batteries.

I would point out that I am going old school in terms of soft shackles instead of the metal one I not have, on the advice of a cat owner who I consider one of the most leading edge guys I know.

It is true there are guys like Jedi that seem to have the money to get a multihull but choose a monohull. If the truth be known there are conditions where I would get a monohull. But I am basically a modified coastal cruiser, Florida Keys and Bahamas South to Georgetown but not out in the thorn patch. There is really no need to make a passage more than maybe 80 miles (easily done in daylight) and good weather windows are easy to get in these areas. If I intended to round the great capes or sail in the Southern Oceans in general I would look at something like a steel hull monohull.

While you can never take all of the risk out of life given where am sailing and how I do it I feel quite comfortable on my cat. Not just from a risk perspective but in the big open salon/cockpit where even a light breeze that would make most monohulls too hot to be enjoyable. Most folks do agree at anchor in reasonable conditions a cat is more comfortable than a monohull and quite frankly I spend more time at anchor than sailing in the open ocean.

The biggest mistake I see people making is getting boats for what they want to do as opposed to what they really will be doing. If you will be cruising in the Keys or Bahamas I can't think of a better boat than a cat like mine.

Tom,

I suspect you underestimate the seaworthiness of your Seawind. I must say I have only had a week on one but that time suggested to me it was an extremely forgiving and well built vessel capable of much worse conditions than most of us would choose. The real issue for me would be the fuel range of the vessel with outboards would preclude somewhere like Patagonia rather than seaworthiness.

With its build quality I would rate it in a different class to the Gemini.

Cheers

[smj]

Originally Posted by downunder

Tom,

I suspect you underestimate the seaworthiness of your Seawind. I must say I have only had a week on one but that time suggested to me it was an extremely forgiving and well built vessel capable of much worse conditions than most of us would choose. The real issue for me would be the fuel range of the vessel with outboards would preclude somewhere like Patagonia rather than seaworthiness.

With its build quality I would rate it in a different class to the Gemini.

Cheers

I completely agree. In fact didn't one weather a cat 5 cyclone in Australia?

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by DoubleWhisky

I'm far from talking You out of Your choice
I think particularly Gemini can be a nice boat for cruising.
But - You are looking into catamarans of about 33 - 35 ft.
Comparable monhull is about 40 ft., so Your observations from 27 ft. mono are not valid at all.

Wish You to choose a proper boat for You

Cheers,

Tomasz

My observation was of my 27' mono is compared to it's own lack of roominess for me and not compared to any other mono. I have always been looking for a Cat because that is what I need for cruising the Barrier Reef off Belize. I bought the mono to sharpen sailing and Mr. Fixit skills. So far it has served me well in both of those areas, but way too small for me to live aboard. Life at 25 degrees for 20-40 days or more might be your cup of tea, but that's not for me for what I want to do.

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by Scot McPherson

Well that is on the smaller end of the spectrum of cruisers you realize?

Yes I realize that. I was just saying 27' is far too cramped below deck for me to live aboard.

[minaret]

Another quick point about the comparison of comparably priced mono to multi: big monos have almost as much beam as the smaller, but comparably priced, cats. This means stability is actually much more similar than some suggest. Obviously the motion is totally different, but my mono has 15.5' of beam. That's not too much less than a similarly priced cat. It takes some pretty big waves to make her roll at all, motion is completely different than that produced by a smaller mono. Weight contributes to comfort factor at sea as well, not only does the bigger mono roll much less, approaching the stability of a cat, but it will pitch less than the cat does by a significant margin. I think people who are concerned about "tippy" monos have probably never sailed a really big boat.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Because I paid less for my 59' mono than most cats worth cruising on, and it has way more room than anything else in its price range. I have several neighbors with mid 40' cats I have been aboard, and they are tiny compared to my boat. Which I paid less for.

Your boat has been out of the water for over a year (two years?) needing a total refit including peeling and reglassing the entire bottom, stripping all hardware, removing the teak decks, grinding, recoring and reglassing the decks, replacing all trim, rebuilding the entire cockpit, rebuilding the rudder, all new thruhulls, etc. Basically, you are building a new boat.

A major and extensive project with very high expense - something most people would not want to get involved with, could not get involved with, and would gladly pay a higher price to have a boat in better condition that they can use right away.

You are a professional with all the equipment and storage, so the costs for you are mitigated to a large extent. I suspect you have at least a $100,000 job there that you are not accounting for when you talk about price. Probably higher than that.

It is probable that 44C ended up with a brand new catamaran with similar living space (less storage and cave spaces, though) and better performance for less total money than yours.

So to compare your boat with others based on purchase price is not telling the whole story.

Mark

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by downunder

Tom,

I suspect you underestimate the seaworthiness of your Seawind. I must say I have only had a week on one but that time suggested to me it was an extremely forgiving and well built vessel capable of much worse conditions than most of us would choose. The real issue for me would be the fuel range of the vessel with outboards would preclude somewhere like Patagonia rather than seaworthiness.

With its build quality I would rate it in a different class to the Gemini.

Cheers

Conventional wisdom is that most boats are much more seaworthy than their skippers and crew. That is certainly the case with me.

I looked at a Gemini (and several other boats) before getting a Seawind. While I do like the sturdy build of the Seawind I have never really been in any conditions I would consider extreme. I was anchored on the lee shore of Bush Key when the rangers recorded a 47 knot gust. Also went out when Andrea's bands produced 20 knot winds and 10-12 foot seas, but I went out with the main reefed and the working jib with no problems. But I tend to be very careful about weather windows.

On the other hand I noticed a big difference in the Seawind's level of comfort. My Seawind does have the sugar scoop extensions which to me makes it much easier to get back on the boat after a swim/dive. It also has the ladder between the nets forward which makes getting on the boat easier. The cockpit/salon area is much bigger, has better ventilation, and nice lighting compared to not only the Gemini but other boats I looked at.

I keep coming back to the need to choose a boat based on what you will be doing with the boat, not what you think you want to do. What I do is sail in easy weather windows in skinny water in the Keys and Bahamas.

[sneuman]

As others have suggested, the cost issue is getting short shrift here:

For the record, I have done relatively short passages (in Asia) on two large cats (an FP Bahia and the other, quite frankly, I can no longer remember).

It's a different kind of sailing, to be sure -- less tactile. More speed, but only on the right points of sail. Lots of room, of course. Not that great upwind. A lot of hobby horsing in a swell, but great under power. And, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but (as I mentioned before), to my eye, 90 percent are, let us say, less than aesethically appealing. All my (subjective) observations, all from 10 years ago.

So, it's a compromise and one that I might be prepared to live with if it weren't for the price. The price of a *decent* multihull makes all those other pros and cons a moot point.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Conventional wisdom is that most boats are much more seaworthy than their skippers and crew. That is certainly the case with me.
I keep coming back to the need to choose a boat based on what you will be doing with the boat, not what you think you want to do. What I do is sail in easy weather windows in skinny water in the Keys and Bahamas.

I will have to agree with Tom on this one.
Buying a boat is one thing. Buying a boat fit for the purpose in mind is the sane thing.
I coastal hop in a Centaur.. great boat, handles it well. The Vessel will take a bit of a storm no problem. But... it if was storm weather more often, I want a different vessel, or I dont want to be out there in that boat.
Toms criteria for the Seawind fits the Seawind perfectly. On the other hand if he were cruising in Britain, or northern latitudes, he might not want the Seawind. Will it handle it? Of course...... but its not the best vessel for the conditions.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As others have suggested, the cost issue is getting short shrift here:

For the record, I have done relatively short passages (in Asia) on two large cats (an FP Bahia and the other, quite frankly, I can no longer remember).

It's a different kind of sailing, to be sure -- less tactile. More speed, but only on the right points of sail. Lots of room, of course. Not that great upwind. A lot of hobby horsing in a swell, but great under power. And, I'm not trying to be insulting here, but (as I mentioned before), to my eye, 90 percent are, let us say, less than aesethically appealing. All my (subjective) observations, all from 10 years ago.

So, it's a compromise and one that I might be prepared to live with if it weren't for the price. The price of a *decent* multihull makes all those other pros and cons a moot point.

yes.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by colemj

Your boat has been out of the water for over a year (two years?) needing a total refit including peeling and reglassing the entire bottom, stripping all hardware, removing the teak decks, grinding, recoring and reglassing the decks, replacing all trim, rebuilding the entire cockpit, rebuilding the rudder, all new thruhulls, etc. Basically, you are building a new boat.

A major and extensive project with very high expense - something most people would not want to get involved with, could not get involved with, and would gladly pay a higher price to have a boat in better condition that they can use right away.

You are a professional with all the equipment and storage, so the costs for you are mitigated to a large extent. I suspect you have at least a $100,000 job there that you are not accounting for when you talk about price. Probably higher than that.

It is probable that 44C ended up with a brand new catamaran with similar living space (less storage and cave spaces, though) and better performance for less total money than yours.

So to compare your boat with others based on purchase price is not telling the whole story.

Mark

Just so ya know, our boat was fine when we hauled and required nothing. We chose to make some changes, that's all. The only thing she really needed when we bought was new sails.

[sy_gilana]

Every boat is a compromise. Each have their weak and strong points. The reason that this debate is never ending, is because there is no winner in the Cat vs. Mono debate. We can provide statistics, numbers, and anecdotal evidence, and all of this is to no good because, you have to choose whats is right for you and your style of sailing.

I love cats, I own a mono. When we bought Gilana, Cats were nothing better than rafts. Now they have come a long way.

My best friend bought a Catana 521, I went to help him take delivery and move the boat to another island. He sailed it across the Atlantic to Mallorca where we did a lot more work on it. He also owns a Halberg Rassey 53, which he put up for sale when he bought the Catana. He has since sailed the cat back across the Atlantic, and decided to keep the HR53. The cat has now crossed the Pacific and is in NZ, and he cant wait to go and sail his HR. I have intimate knowledge of the cat, technically, but have never been in a big sea.

I love the cat, at anchor, in shallow water, in seas up to 10' I don't know how I would feel in seas of 40-50' which we experienced in the Southern ocean, and winds of 70 knots on the beam where we have sailed our 66,000 pound monohull with storm jib and 3 reefed main.

For the average cruiser, a cat is just fine, bordering on perfect. My friend that I spoke of, has probably 23 or 24 Atlantic crossings under his belt on monos, and the majority single handed, even he could not make the decision to commit to one or the other and he now owns both.

From an engineering standpoint a sailing cat has to deal with immense structural demands when compared to a similar sized monohull. Just look at the stability range graphs further back on this thread. That is why I think the limit of design size of cruising cats is about the 70' range, you just do not see any/many sailing cats of 100' and up, but there are many monos that size.

If you are interested in survivability in extremes, I will post some photos. Here, a 2.5 million cat (Privilege 651) is reduced to matchsticks in 3 hours, I saw it happen, and tried to save it. In the other pictures you can see a couple of steel monos in the 50-100,00 $ range, that are still sailing today after being craned off the rocks back onto the sea. Finally a Lagoon 380 which lasted 30 minutes from impact to total loss in 4 ft waves.

The debate is moot, one is not better than the other, never will be, they are different, very very different, and have different characteristics, all of which are a compromise to each other in every single attribute of cruising.

[smj]

I wonder if a fiberglass mono would have survived or would it have met the same fate as the Privilege catamaran. What if the Privilege were built out of steel? I don't see the fate of these boats having anything to do with whether they are mono or multi, but what materials they were built of.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by sy_gilana

Every boat is a compromise. Each have their weak and strong points. The reason that this debate is never ending, is because there is no winner in the Cat vs. Mono debate. We can provide statistics, numbers, and anecdotal evidence, and all of this is to no good because, you have to choose whats is right for you and your style of sailing.

I love cats, I own a mono. When we bought Gilana, Cats were nothing better than rafts. Now they have come a long way.

My best friend bought a Catana 521, I went to help him take delivery and move the boat to another island. He sailed it across the Atlantic to Mallorca where we did a lot more work on it. He also owns a Halberg Rassey 53, which he put up for sale when he bought the Catana. He has since sailed the cat back across the Atlantic, and decided to keep the HR53. The cat has now crossed the Pacific and is in NZ, and he cant wait to go and sail his HR. I have intimate knowledge of the cat, technically, but have never been in a big sea.

I love the cat, at anchor, in shallow water, in seas up to 10' I don't know how I would feel in seas of 40-50' which we experienced in the Southern ocean, and winds of 70 knots on the beam where we have sailed our 66,000 pound monohull with storm jib and 3 reefed main.

For the average cruiser, a cat is just fine, bordering on perfect. My friend that I spoke of, has probably 23 or 24 Atlantic crossings under his belt on monos, and the majority single handed, even he could not make the decision to commit to one or the other and he now owns both.

From an engineering standpoint a sailing cat has to deal with immense structural demands when compared to a similar sized monohull. Just look at the stability range graphs further back on this thread. That is why I think the limit of design size of cruising cats is about the 70' range, you just do not see any/many sailing cats of 100' and up, but there are many monos that size.

If you are interested in survivability in extremes, I will post some photos. Here, a 2.5 million cat (Privilege 651) is reduced to matchsticks in 3 hours, I saw it happen, and tried to save it. In the other pictures you can see a couple of steel monos in the 50-100,00 $ range, that are still sailing today after being craned off the rocks back onto the sea. Finally a Lagoon 380 which lasted 30 minutes from impact to total loss in 4 ft waves.

The debate is moot, one is not better than the other, never will be, they are different, very very different, and have different characteristics, all of which are a compromise to each other in every single attribute of cruising.

+1. Couldn't agree more with every bit of that.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Just so ya know, our boat was fine when we hauled and required nothing. We chose to make some changes, that's all. The only thing she really needed when we bought was new sails.

Fair enough - that wasn't evident on your refit thread, and hull peeling/reglassing seems pretty severe for just a "change".

So now you are saying that the boat you bought was not the one that fit your needs/wants, but >$100,000 in work gets it there?

I still don't see how your price point argument works.

Mark