Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Nice "pot or kettle" post.

I certainly wouldn't call this topic "complex" at all. It is really very simple, get the boat you like.

Sure, get the one you like but that's like saying "marry the love of your life" when you don't know who that is. Presumably the OP didn't fully understand the options. That's the whole point of these discussions.

Given the number of very experienced cruisers on this thread who've made the mistake of going back to direct length to length comparison, it's probably complex for someone with less experience.

If we aren't allowed to respond (or defend as you refer to it), it's hard to have a meaningful discussion as the last respondent can say whatever they like and there is no way to correct anything that we disagree with.

Again, if you don't like the discussion, the best way to make it go away is not to add to it.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Again, if you don't like the discussion, the best way to make it go away is not to add to it.

If you don't like my comments - stop responding!

Told you it was simple.


Far as size of cats I bet the smaller sizing has as much to do with sales prices and demand as anything else.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes but the point here is that big breaking waves don't happen without wind, but huge gusts can happen with no significant waves in several situations.

I think you are arguing over a point we agree on...waves by themselves are a non-issue. Another poster was saying that they were.

The reason most cat brands begun at over 36ft is because it is at around that size that is possible to make them with offshore potential. I am talking about modern cats in production not about old hugely heavy cats.
There are plenty of smaller coastal cats, not approved as class A boats. It comes to me as a surprise they only exist in Europe. They are a nice coastal cruising option. Some of my favorites on that size:

All of them Class B boats and unsuitable to be approved as Class A.

Here I guess you didn't understood what I mean. I agree that probably a boat like the Aventura 33 has more or less the same interior space as an Oceanis 38 but a 33ft cat is a coastal boat.

Those are all heavily weighted towards the high performance end of the spectrum. For an apples to apples comparison, you have to look at the high performance end of the mono world and most of those in the low 30' range won't be good offshore boats.

I don't believe for a second that cats have moved up to the upper 30' range for entry because they need to be sea worthy. It's because they are more profitable. If you have production facilities that can put out 20boats per year, do you do 20 small boats with less profit or 20 large boats with higher profit. This isn't like an auto company with dozens of plants and they will simply have different plants for different models.

That one I don't get it. The reason why cats have, while doing long range cruising, have a similar performance to monohulls is because they have to be sailed more conservatively.

Agreed performance for cruising is mostly marketing but where cats really shine is at the destination which is where the vast majority of cruising boats spend 95% of their time.

Even if we talk about a performance monohull the risk of a really strong gust in the night is a broach, that has nothing to do with destruction, more of an inconvenience. A cat can be capsized by a really strong gust so at night, or even during the day without a crew at the lines, ready to let go, it has to be sailed in a more conservative way. That is pretty evident.

I suspect a high performance mono under full sail hit by a random gust strong enough to flip a cat is going to be slightly more than inconvenienced but I suspect you've made up your mind.

I know it's a few years old but someone did a study that found a steady creep up in boat size where the typical cruiser has crept up from the low 30' range to the low 40' range. This is a general pattern of ever increasing size for all cruisers not just cat cruisers, so the fact that cat manufacturers are pushing larger boats is not surprising and not evidence you need to be upper 30' range before you can safely cross oceans.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

If you don't like my comments - stop responding!

Told you it was simple.


Far as size of cats I bet the smaller sizing has as much to do with sales prices and demand as anything else.

Who said I had a problem with your comments? I was merely answering you question.

Agreed regarding size. If you can sell big expensive ones, you build big expensive ones.

[andreavanduyn]

Nobody mentions the TRIMARAN as the best choice; quite another animal as the catamaran.....

Why not?

The Neel 45' has proven this is a step up from the cats concerning safety and comfort with similar if not higher speed.......

Nobody?

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by andreavanduyn

Nobody mentions the TRIMARAN as the best choice; quite another animal as the catamaran.....



Why not?



The Neel 45' has proven this is a step up from the cats concerning safety and comfort with similar if not higher speed.......



Nobody?

I love trimarans. But CF seems full of monohull or cat devotees who are willing to argue to the death. Maybe the tri folks are put off by all that.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[sailorboy1]

there doesn't really seem to be a lot of tri choices

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

there doesn't really seem to be a lot of tri choices

Now you've said it...!!!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Not on the ones I've been on, unless you count the useless empty space.

But unlike so many here it doesn't matter to me what boat someone else wants. I just keep wondering why so much effort goes into justifying it to a forum.

Because people ask the question! Then other people, through either ignorance or bias, provide incorrect answers.

What makes me wonder is why, if it bothers you so much, you keep reading and posting in these threads?

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you take comparable boats, there aren't a lot of situations where a cat would be a poor choice once you take cost out of the equation (and even that tends to get overstated) assuming we compare equivalent boats.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. In my case, a cat would have been a poor choice. Although I only spend several weeks a year offshore on 1500nm+ passages, it is important to me that the boat be optimized for those, as opposed to optimized for swinging from a mooring or doing coastal sailing. Even within monohulls, I have chosen a design optimized more for crossing oceans than hosting cocktail hour.

People have crossed oceans in open rafts and dugout canoes -- one can certainly do it in any modern sailboat, but I prefer the comfort, safety, motion, appearance, automation, sail-handling, etc. of the boat I have chosen.

In many regions catamarans make a lot of sense. If I lived on the west coast of Florida and were interested in entertaining large parties and doing mostly day sails, a deep draft monohull with large tankage, cutter-rig, and small cockpit might not be my best choice. There's a reason why in mid-coast or downeast Maine catamarans are rare, even for coastal cruisers -- and it isn't that local sailors are stupid. There's a reason that many of the charter fleets in the BVI are dominated by catamaran's that offer many berths and mediocre sailing performance, and it is not because those firms and owners are stupid.

With respect to the issues you raise, yes some catamaran's have tankage to motor 500-1000nm. I prefer more tankage. I get more nervous when I'm down to my last 100 gallons. I have never felt my tankage was too large.

Even moving the anchor locker aft, cats have a harder time (for the same size?!?) handling heavy ground tackle. My mono- stores two anchors on the bow, one with all chain (300') and other with half chain. Yes, multi-s can anchor in shallower water, if it is available, but in many areas it is not available, so a prudent cruiser would carry sufficient chain for all anchoring conditions they might encounter. Some anchorages are "flatter" -- others are deep until you're ashore. I don't prefer to anchor in 50', but there are times I've had to -- times when a shallower draft wouldn't have changed things.

I don't deny they exist, but I haven't been on any cats with interior finishes that even come close to the teak joinery found in many mono-s. I've done the boat-show and brokerage-show thing for decades, talked to my sailing neighbors and toured their boats, and viewed more than my share of online boat-porn, but I haven't seen great finish work on even high end cats. You may call some of the mono- brands I mentioned high-end, but these are production boats -- high end full-custom boats are often even nicer below decks, and can carry bigger sticker prices. I understand that exposed plastic saves money and weight, but it isn't what I prefer.

With respect to knock-downs and rolls, I don't know first-hand the effects of big, steep waves on cats. I've been out in moderate (3-4 meter) conditions on a mid-size cat and found the experience drier than my expectation, but the motion violent and the progress motoring to windward slow. The boat would almost feel it came to a stop with every sizable oncoming wave. This adversely affected sailing performance even on a reach. I'm not sure how it relates to the OPs question of reasons to stay mono-, but IMHO the seas are worst when it first starts blowing hard, and after it stops blowing hard. Once it has been blowing for a while the waves are biggest, but they're more organized and my mono-, at least, gets into a groove and stabilizes (under sail) -- the most uncomfortable motion, and the one that feels the most destabilizing, is when the waves haven't yet absorbed the wind energy, the tops blow off, and seas are, for lack of a better description, confused. Much the same thing happens on the tail end of a blow, but one can generally take comfort in knowing the situation will improve. Perhaps I'd feel different after experiencing force 11+ on a cruising cat, but I have taken great comfort in the solidity and confidence in my mono- under those conditions. Maybe I'm wrong and I would have been no more likely to roll in a multi-hull, but perception of safety and security is important too. When the wind builds from force 8 to force 11, knowing that I might risk a shredded sail, but not a roll, from not getting another reef in fast enough, is worth the more limited cockpit seating to me. Yes, I may experience those conditions only once every few years if I am lucky, far less often than I could benefit from a larger cockpit -- but that is the tradeoff I choose to make (optimize for the 10% of time at sea, not the 90% at anchor; optimize for occasional heavy weather). Not everyone uses their boat the same way, and not everyone makes the same tradeoffs -- that's why there are different boats.

If I did one type of sailing, I might wonder why not everyone has a boat optimized for those conditions. The one-design racer must wonder why us crazy cruisers make the trade-offs on tankage and ground tackle that we do. The owner of a charter-boat might puzzle at why cruising boats don't cram more berths into the same space. The more I sail, and the farther afield I go, the more I realize people can make perfectly optimal decisions for them that are not optimal for someone else.

I'll leave you with a short story to illustrate this point. My boat, originally commissioned in 2005, has about 1,700 hours on its genset. Many cruisers go far and wide without any genset (and some without even an auxilliary!). When I recently had our genset serviced by a company that usually works on charter boats, they were astonished at the low hours, telling me that their charter boats put that many hours on a genset in a single year. Who is wrong -- the charterer running his genset non-stop for A/C? me, who uses it, if at all, under an hour a day, or the simplicity-oriented cruiser who has no genset at all? None of us are wrong for our situations.

Peace.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by accomplice

You're certainly entitled to that opinion. In my case, a cat would have been a poor choice. Although I only spend several weeks a year offshore on 1500nm+ passages, it is important to me that the boat be optimized for those, as opposed to optimized for swinging from a mooring or doing coastal sailing. Even within monohulls, I have chosen a design optimized more for crossing oceans than hosting cocktail hour.

People have crossed oceans in open rafts and dugout canoes -- one can certainly do it in any modern sailboat, but I prefer the comfort, safety, motion, appearance, automation, sail-handling, etc. of the boat I have chosen.

In many regions catamarans make a lot of sense. If I lived on the west coast of Florida and were interested in entertaining large parties and doing mostly day sails, a deep draft monohull with large tankage, cutter-rig, and small cockpit might not be my best choice. There's a reason why in mid-coast or downeast Maine catamarans are rare, even for coastal cruisers -- and it isn't that local sailors are stupid. There's a reason that many of the charter fleets in the BVI are dominated by catamaran's that offer many berths and mediocre sailing performance, and it is not because those firms and owners are stupid.

With respect to the issues you raise, yes some catamaran's have tankage to motor 500-1000nm. I prefer more tankage. I get more nervous when I'm down to my last 100 gallons. I have never felt my tankage was too large.

Even moving the anchor locker aft, cats have a harder time (for the same size?!?) handling heavy ground tackle. My mono- stores two anchors on the bow, one with all chain (300') and other with half chain. Yes, multi-s can anchor in shallower water, if it is available, but in many areas it is not available, so a prudent cruiser would carry sufficient chain for all anchoring conditions they might encounter. Some anchorages are "flatter" -- others are deep until you're ashore. I don't prefer to anchor in 50', but there are times I've had to -- times when a shallower draft wouldn't have changed things.

I don't deny they exist, but I haven't been on any cats with interior finishes that even come close to the teak joinery found in many mono-s. I've done the boat-show and brokerage-show thing for decades, talked to my sailing neighbors and toured their boats, and viewed more than my share of online boat-porn, but I haven't seen great finish work on even high end cats. You may call some of the mono- brands I mentioned high-end, but these are production boats -- high end full-custom boats are often even nicer below decks, and can carry bigger sticker prices. I understand that exposed plastic saves money and weight, but it isn't what I prefer.

With respect to knock-downs and rolls, I don't know first-hand the effects of big, steep waves on cats. I've been out in moderate (3-4 meter) conditions on a mid-size cat and found the experience drier than my expectation, but the motion violent and the progress motoring to windward slow. The boat would almost feel it came to a stop with every sizable oncoming wave. This adversely affected sailing performance even on a reach. I'm not sure how it relates to the OPs question of reasons to stay mono-, but IMHO the seas are worst when it first starts blowing hard, and after it stops blowing hard. Once it has been blowing for a while the waves are biggest, but they're more organized and my mono-, at least, gets into a groove and stabilizes (under sail) -- the most uncomfortable motion, and the one that feels the most destabilizing, is when the waves haven't yet absorbed the wind energy, the tops blow off, and seas are, for lack of a better description, confused. Much the same thing happens on the tail end of a blow, but one can generally take comfort in knowing the situation will improve. Perhaps I'd feel different after experiencing force 11+ on a cruising cat, but I have taken great comfort in the solidity and confidence in my mono- under those conditions. Maybe I'm wrong and I would have been no more likely to roll in a multi-hull, but perception of safety and security is important too. When the wind builds from force 8 to force 11, knowing that I might risk a shredded sail, but not a roll, from not getting another reef in fast enough, is worth the more limited cockpit seating to me. Yes, I may experience those conditions only once every few years if I am lucky, far less often than I could benefit from a larger cockpit -- but that is the tradeoff I choose to make (optimize for the 10% of time at sea, not the 90% at anchor; optimize for occasional heavy weather). Not everyone uses their boat the same way, and not everyone makes the same tradeoffs -- that's why there are different boats.

If I did one type of sailing, I might wonder why not everyone has a boat optimized for those conditions. The one-design racer must wonder why us crazy cruisers make the trade-offs on tankage and ground tackle that we do. The owner of a charter-boat might puzzle at why cruising boats don't cram more berths into the same space. The more I sail, and the farther afield I go, the more I realize people can make perfectly optimal decisions for them that are not optimal for someone else.

I'll leave you with a short story to illustrate this point. My boat, originally commissioned in 2005, has about 1,700 hours on its genset. Many cruisers go far and wide without any genset (and some without even an auxilliary!). When I recently had our genset serviced by a company that usually works on charter boats, they were astonished at the low hours, telling me that their charter boats put that many hours on a genset in a single year. Who is wrong -- the charterer running his genset non-stop for A/C? me, who uses it, if at all, under an hour a day, or the simplicity-oriented cruiser who has no genset at all? None of us are wrong for our situations.

Peace.

nice post. I will only discuss part where you say your boat is optimised for fast & safe passages as this is my agenda too.

Although my cat can weight up to 15T, i puprosely keep it below 11,500kg. I may have to add another 500kg when living full time. That makes lots of difference in movement and stress on boat. It is true windward sail or motor directly in building seas beyond 1.5m is rougher on cat and I like avoiding it. Best approach is to motorsail windward in such conditions, if have to, i found so far to minimise stress on boat and avoid danger of boat stopping or even going back.

I like cats and this will not change. So I have to do with what I have.

However, what I learned is that optimising sailing/trimming skills make lots of difference on speed, boat movement and boat stress.

Optimally trimmed sails can give you extra 20% speed vs what is normal default setting.

my point is that i believe cruising cat can also be optimised for fast and safe passage making.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Polux

You are wrong regarding me as a monohull guy. I look at sailing boats as sailing boats and I like them all. I do follow the cat scene as a part of racing and cruising sailing and the prove is that I can remember more than 10 flips on the last 15 years. Only on the last 5 I can remember more than half of that number and from those several without any live loss, or just one among a crew and it is why I think your 50% is exaggerated regarded fatal causalities.

Regarding the size of a breaking wave needed to capsize a monohull you are considering beam alone as generating stability, ignoring the fact that a cat gets its stability from beam and weight while a monohull gets its stability from beam, ballast (lower CG) and weight and monohulls are heavier length by length than most cats.

Even if regarding the same size monohulls have normally a smaller overall stability the difference is not almost the double as your 4 to 7 meters wave example makes suppose.

And most of all you forget that cats, contrary to monohulls can be capsized by wind alone and many are capsized basically by big gusts, without any significant wave intervention. As you know there are cats that have been capsized at anchor.

you win

your arguments are rock solid as always.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

you win

your arguments are rock solid as always.

I don't want to win, but thanks anyway

[Polux]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

nice post. I will only discuss part where you say your boat is optimised for fast & safe passages as this is my agenda too.
.....
my point is that i believe cruising cat can also be optimised for fast and safe passage making.

Compared with a Tayana 58? Sure, the Tayana 58 regarding is length is a slow boat. Price for price you can get a much faster cat, not to mention a faster monohull, if what one likes is to have a boat optimized for fast passage making. Now regarding the quality of the interior woods I don't know. Most boats don't use anymore that type of interior and it is really a question of taste.

Regarding being safe all is relative, the Tayana skipper talks about sailing safely on a F11. In what concerns me someone that let himself be caught on a F11 is not doing something right and is on the wrong place at the wrong time of year. Even if there are boats more safer than others on a F11 there is no warranties that a small yacht (and 58ft is small for a F11) will survive.

Someone thinking that his boat is the best type boat to do something, being it cruising extensively, fast passage making or coastal cruising is certainly wrong because different sailors would have different preferences and would chose different best types of boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I know it's a few years old but someone did a study that found a steady creep up in boat size where the typical cruiser has crept up from the low 30' range to the low 40' range. This is a general pattern of ever increasing size for all cruisers not just cat cruisers, so the fact that cat manufacturers are pushing larger boats is not surprising and not evidence you need to be upper 30' range before you can safely cross oceans.

It seems that we are agreeing on most things and that are news to me. I agree regarding cats to excel on anchor but on what regards the need of a bigger and much more expensive boat to go cross Oceans safely (if a cat is the option) we seem to disagree and all the Na and Ne (and they were many) that defined the stability characteristics that would make a boat minimum suited to do that, in what regards the RCD classification, agree with me.

From those cats with 33 ft I posted, all class B, only two were more sportive, the Aventura 33 is not a performance cat neither this other one, Lady Hawke 33, also a class B boat.
LadyHawke 33 | Lady Hawke - Eng

Fact is that you will not be able to find a 33ft modern cat on the market that can pass the minimum stability requirements for class A, while almost all 33ft monohulls pass those requirements and contrary to what you think not only heavy ones but very light performance monohulls even smaller than 33ft.

They can do that because contrary to cats they can increase the stability not only through beam but also through a bigger B/D ratio and through a bigger draft, generating more stability. That is the case of the small light ones that are approved in class A . They are also normally insubmersible.

On the case of the Pogo 30 they join the cats on their ability to approach land for a better wind and sea protection, since they have a swing keel.

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

Off course, comparing with one of the 33ft cats, specially the less sportive ones, the Pogo is Spartan and at anchor a less agreeable and convivial boat with a much smaller interior but that is not what count for the ones that will chose one of these but the possibility to sail far shores on a fast, relatively safe and inexpensive boat.

There is tastes for everything, only saying that small modern cats (the ones you find on the market) are not an option for offshore boats, small monohulls are and since for the same length cats are much more expensive, regarding an inexpensive choice to cruise offshore, cats are not an alternative to monohulls even if they are regarding many other cases and situations.