Lagoon 380 - Post-Charter Review

[meyermm]

If you read my posts I have not bagged multihulls just the owners who persist in telling me that my mono hull,s keel is about to fall off a little hard to imagine as it did not have a bolt on keel but why let a little fact get in the way of a good story. It has not sunk so far and has been in the water since 1976 having been around the world 1.5 times. Oh and I am now a moron for owning a jet ski which I purchased to allow me some on water time in between boats.

[TaoJones]

Alright, folks, things are getting a little bit testy in this thread (again) so, rather than closing the thread, I'll just ask everyone to give some thought to how your words might be received by someone else who can't see your wink or see your tongue planted in your cheek. It would be a shame to have to close this thread.

Thank you for your cooperation.

TaoJones

[sigmasailor]

I do not really understand the debate. Monohulls and cats are two completely different things, each with their own pro's and con's.
Yes both are designed to get from A to B and stay at A or B. It is a little like comparing car's: sports cars and pickup trucks both get you from A to B but cannot be compared.

After sailing monohulls all my life we tried a cat and found firsthand that staying at A or B on a Cat wins hands down from a comparable mono. On the other hand I like the sailing part of the mono more than a cat. We ( even my wife) both missed the 'real' sailing sensation as on mono's on the cat. In two weeks we sailed some 350 Nautical miles; that is about 2 and a half days of sailing time; the rest (12.5 days)was at anchor. Very hard to choose.

[hummingway]

My feeling is that boats are or should be purpose designed and it is worth discussing the purpose of a particular design. In my marina there is 600 boats and one of them is a tri with folding outriggers. I'm sure there are cats in the area but it is hard to find mooring for them. We don't have rolling seas here and from what I've read here and elsewhere the sort of short period chop we get might be uncomfortable in a cat unless it is quite large and then you have the moorage problem. My pilothouse sloop was designed for these waters. Again, from descriptions of I've read here, I think it's 6' 7" draft would be a real disadvantage in the Carribean and the pilothouse glass in warm water and hot sun might not be such a great feature where as a lovely big cockpit would be wonderful. Up here a smaller one is great for much of the year.

In times, long before the internet let us argue about such things, boats evolved to suit their surrondings. New ideas migrated from one area to an other very slowly and likely any improvements had to challenge "the way things are done" to recieve acceptance. Now not so much.

We can insult others and pointlessly defend our own choices but it is also possible to reasonably discuss things without forcing TaoJones to wave his magic wand and make us go away.

[Tropic Cat]

Originally Posted by hummingway

My feeling is that boats are or should be purpose designed and it is worth discussing the purpose of a particular design.

A point of view which is impossible to refute.

Originally Posted by hummingway

We can insult others and pointlessly defend our own choices but it is also possible to reasonably discuss things without forcing TaoJones to wave his magic wand and make us go away.

Unfortunately, others don't see the wisdom of this remark. It is at this point I must remind readers that multihull guys do not attack the decision of anyone who chooses a monohull. Instead, we are often forced to defend our choice in boats.

I welcome TaoJones's magic wand...yet I have to wonder why it hasn't been utilized already.

In this thread, there hasn't been even one disparaging word typed against a monohull. Words typed in jest, of course, but no attack. Once again, this forum has allowed a multihull attack to go unabated and management only appears when we are forced to defend our choice of boat design.

A reoccurring bias which has frustrated me for years.

[meyermm]

Originally Posted by Tropic Cat

A point of view which is impossible to refute.



Unfortunately, others don't see the wisdom of this remark. It is at this point I must remind readers that multihull guys do not attack the decision of anyone who chooses a monohull. Instead, we are often forced to defend our choice in boats.

I welcome TaoJones's magic wand...yet I have to wonder why it hasn't been utilized already.

In this thread, there hasn't been even one disparaging word typed against a monohull. Words typed in jest, of course, but no attack. Once again, this forum has allowed a multihull attack to go unabated and management only appears when we are forced to defend our choice of boat design.

A reoccurring bias which has frustrated me for years.

So you start winding people up again with comments like "there hasn't been even one disparaging word typed against a monohull"

I hope this thread does get closed for ever!!

[Ocean Girl]

egads folks, lets hug and make up .

a lot of great points here and we love our boats so things can get bit heated but at the end of the day (cue music playing kumbayah) as the sun sets in the west, (enter little sailor boy with flower in his hand) we can look at our common ground
we all want to float
we all want to go places
we all enjoy the water
the rest is academic.

whatever floats your boat
Erika

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sigmasailor

After sailing monohulls all my life we tried a cat and found firsthand that staying at A or B on a Cat wins hands down from a comparable mono. On the other hand I like the sailing part of the mono more than a cat. We ( even my wife) both missed the 'real' sailing sensation as on mono's on the cat. In two weeks we sailed some 350 Nautical miles; that is about 2 and a half days of sailing time; the rest (12.5 days)was at anchor. Very hard to choose.

Fair point. I'd suggest it may be more related to the particular designs of boat, both mono and multi, that you sailed though. Because my experience has been exclusively with perfomance oriented cruisng catamarans, I've always found them to be more responsive and enjoyable to sail than my old heavy displacement steel mono.

The responses are different: in gusts the cats I've sailed accelerate, whereas the mono would just heel a little. There has generally been less weather helm on the cats, and little tendency to round up, almost no tendency to broach.

So probably less helm feel, and less visual cues. But I can live with that, I like the way acceleration feels more than heeling.

At anchor (where most cruisers spend the vast majority of their time) it's not really a contest.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by meyermm

So you start winding people up again with comments like "there hasn't been even one disparaging word typed against a monohull"

I hope this thread does get closed for ever!!

Absolutely no need to close the thread. It was going fine until you appeared.

Questions were being asked, and answered. Which is the point of a forum isn't it?

[meyermm]

Would I buy a cat? Yes if the price was compareable and if I was only doing coastal cruising. No for long term cross ocean work. Most who sail cats do not buy them to cross oceans. Speed again is an interesting subject, there is no doubt that Cats are faster when set up for short term coastal work but once fitted out for long distance work the speed advantage diminishes, before the usual have a go at me this info came from Cat owners not Mono owners. But above all is the cost, for those well healed souls this is not an issue but for the vast majority of world cruisers they are on a budget that a cat would be out of the question. I have read some cat owners saying that the safety aspect of two motors was a bonus and I would not disagree except that most of us again those long term long distance cruisers do not have the capital to purchase and maintain two motors just in case? Every one likes space but space costs and a long distance cruise cat vs mono is much more expensive. Marina space cost still effects cat vs mono descision even for long distance folk as although you try to avoid them there are those periods they are required for maintenance fit out etc. If cats were compareable in price then I think most would go that way for short term coastal bay work. Which ever your preference no one is going to say that they dislike space, love the boat heeling, hate the shorter leg times but all that comes at a price and no amount of talk can camouflage the fact. As for the safety factor I would rather a mono in big seas, yes I agree they are to be avoided no matter what you sail but anyone who thinks they can predict the weather that accurately always are kidding themselves. As for out running a weather front sometimes yes most times no.

[smj]

Originally Posted by meyermm

Would I buy a cat? Yes if the price was compareable and if I was only doing coastal cruising. No for long term cross ocean work. Most who sail cats do not buy them to cross oceans. Speed again is an interesting subject, there is no doubt that Cats are faster when set up for short term coastal work but once fitted out for long distance work the speed advantage diminishes, before the usual have a go at me this info came from Cat owners not Mono owners. But above all is the cost, for those well healed souls this is not an issue but for the vast majority of world cruisers they are on a budget that a cat would be out of the question. I have read some cat owners saying that the safety aspect of two motors was a bonus and I would not disagree except that most of us again those long term long distance cruisers do not have the capital to purchase and maintain two motors just in case? Every one likes space but space costs and a long distance cruise cat vs mono is much more expensive. Marina space cost still effects cat vs mono descision even for long distance folk as although you try to avoid them there are those periods they are required for maintenance fit out etc. If cats were compareable in price then I think most would go that way for short term coastal bay work. Which ever your preference no one is going to say that they dislike space, love the boat heeling, hate the shorter leg times but all that comes at a price and no amount of talk can camouflage the fact. As for the safety factor I would rather a mono in big seas, yes I agree they are to be avoided no matter what you sail but anyone who thinks they can predict the weather that accurately always are kidding themselves. As for out running a weather front sometimes yes most times no.

I would agree with a lot of what you said except for a cat only being good for coastal cruising. I had the same opinion as you before I did a lot of research before buying our first cat in 1992. As it turned out the insurance companies considered cats a better risk as there safety record was better, all this in 1992. I believe the design of cats since 1992 has improved a lot therefore making them a much better choice for offshore work today. Can't argue stats.

[meyermm]

Originally Posted by smj

I would agree with a lot of what you said except for a cat only being good for coastal cruising. I had the same opinion as you before I did a lot of research before buying our first cat in 1992. As it turned out the insurance companies considered cats a better risk as there safety record was better, all this in 1992. I believe the design of cats since 1992 has improved a lot therefore making them a much better choice for offshore work today. Can't argue stats.

Interesting but could that be because most cats are much newer than the bulk of cruising craft. Some of the cruising mono's I have seen are lucky to stay afloat at a marina due to age and lack of maintenance. Were those statistics based on ocean or coastal I ask that because most marine insurance companies here will only insure within 200kn miles of coast line.

[Gordon]

Hi Meyermm,
When comparing cost you must compare same with same,ie when we looked at the Orana the comparable mono for volume for this size of cat would have been around 60' and cost wise not a big difference.
Gordon

[downunder]

Hi Meyermm

I really don't think the offshore ability of the new generation 42 -50 ft cats can be questioned. Many of those cats are delivered transocean as it is.

To see where you are coming from I had a quick look at the Peterson 44-46's on the second hand market and found price ranges from US $100,000 to US$200,000 built between 1975-1989. There was a nice 1976 - 44 for AUS $125,000 in NSW and a 1989 46 ft for AUS $225,000.

Comparing 20-30 plus year old monos you can find 1980's built cats around similar prices AUS$ 90,000 to $200,000. There are as you said old monos and cats as well I would not want to cross oceans in.

The Petersons certainly read well if you are in the market for a $150,000 monohull vessel with a good ocean going reputation..

Certainly more monos are on the market which helps pricing. The good modern cats unfortunately from a buyers perspective are holding their price too well.

Gordon's and others point is that purchasing a new 44 ft + cat versus a similar volume mono the cost diferential is not as clear cut.

To purchase the cat I want will require winning the casket tommorrow or working for a few years longer.

These days the bigest impedenent in getting into the new design cats is price. May be more accessible in 20 years time but that will be too late for me.

I think in reality we all agree we would prefer not to be constrained by our budget.

Must rush off and buy another casket ticket.

Cheers

[Talbot]

I do get tired of people comparing prices of similar length cats and monos. That is like comparing milk with washing powder.

There is no agreed comparison, but using internal sqm of floor space would probably be a start. Unfortunately, that dimension is not available!

Using length x breadth does not provide an accurate figure because it ignores the losses of space in a mono at the ends, but is at least a number that is readily available

for example a 40ft x 23ft cat = 920 sq ft

a mono of 15ft wide = 61 ft (= 920 sq ft)

If you do cost comparisons for these, the difference is not large.