Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Stumble]

I just went and pulled it up... A Pogo 50 did the ARC in 2012 and had a rhumb line average speed of 12.64kn over 2680nm. This on a boat with a nominal hull speed of 9.47kn.

Admitedly with a very good crew on board however.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Stumble

I just went and pulled it up... A Pogo 50 did the ARC in 2012 and had a rhumb line average speed of 12.64kn over 2680nm. This on a boat with a nominal hull speed of 9.47kn.

Admitedly with a very good crew on board however.

I specifically mentioned Pogos, at the very beginning of this discussion, as boats of extreme performance which fall outside the general rule. Well sailed and with a good wind, they will fly beyond their hull speed, and what is impressive, on different points of sail.

This case is not just a good crew, working hard, but a very specific type of boat, which has nothing to do with normal cruising boats. As a matter of physics -- this requires behavior of the hull which is surfing or like surfing. Modern full-on racing boats can do this.

The other case I specifically mentioned as falling out of the general rule are very heavy boats, say with D/L of 300 or more.

But my thesis is that in between those extremes, when there is decent, consistent wind (like trade winds situation, or high latitudes), passage times of cruising boats will strongly tend to fall in line according to LWL, and not according to their racing ratings.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Personally I think Polux's points are well made as my personal experience is that the lighter weight boats with large sail areas do better in light air conditions and there is more than enough light air when passage making. We can do very well against even larger boats if we have a decent breeze but light air sailing offshore is not our boats strong point. All that said a day here or a day there doesn't amount to a heck of a lot in the whole scheme of things, especially if you have a boat that is really comfortable to both sail and live on.

I certainly agree with this. Naturally, in light wind where many boats are not approaching their hull speeds, lighter and more sail area will be faster. I think that's pretty obvious.

Another thing is -- of course -- different boats of similar LWL may have radically different ability to sail upwind.

But on long ocean passages these qualities have less influence on passage speeds than LWL.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

What kind of statistically valid information do you hope to get comparing one single boat of each type, a modern medium weight cruiser (Discovery 55) and a single performance cruiser, not so modern (First 44.7)?

One of the boats can have been very poorly sailed and the other very well sailed or vice versa. A comparison between two single boats of different types will not provide you any valid statistic result and it is a waste of time.

Go to the several recent ARC, get the 10 best sailed performance cruisers (the fastest), get the 10 best sailed medium weight performance cruisers (the fastest) and compare the performances in what regards the LWL and you will have some statistically valid results since those 10 of each category are not the only 10 but the best 10 among many others.

That will give an idea of what a well sailed boat in each category is able to do excluding the poorly sailed boats. I have been doing that for years and the results are pretty clear: On an Atlantic crossing the average difference between those 10 best boats of each category is of about 2 days.

I never said that two boats are a statistically valid sample. But it's an interesting coincidence, isn't it, that the two fastest boats, one of which is a cruiser-racer, and the other of which is a blue water pure cruising boat, with much worse ratings, sailed exactly according to their LWL, and not according to their rating?

You will find the same thing if you analyze lots of long ocean passage -- as Evans Starzinger actually did. Maybe there's a valid way to parse the ARC results -- I don't know. I would be interested to see if someone wants to try.


But Polux, your problem is that you live inside the world of magazine articles, polar diagrams, and advertising blurb, and not inside the world of ocean passage making. These are such different worlds.

I can show you the difference if your mind is open to it. In fact, I'll make it worth your while.

If you will bring your boat up to Cowes on 1 October next autumn, I'll race you from there to the Fastnet Rock and back (or to Plymouth if you want to imitate the Fastnet Race route). Your boat has a higher rating than mine. My boat is very much like the Discovery, modest SA/D (16.5), fully equipped with heavy duty generator (1000cc three cylinder), washer/dryer, etc., etc.

If you beat me, I'll give you a prize of 10 000 euros.

If I beat you, you'll give me a prize of taking me and my crew to dinner at the RORC in Cowes.

In fact, we can say that "beating you" means by at least 6 hours. If you even come within 6 hours of me, we'll call it a draw.

Pretty good odds, wouldn't you say? So how about it? This will be a real test of rating vs LWL in real ocean conditions.

Here would be the rules:

Crew of only 2 on each boat, no pros
White sails only
No limitation on poles
Motoring penalty as per RORC
Abort or delay with any forecast per either Met Office or Passageweather.com of F9 or more, but not otherwise.

Depending on the weather, but in a wide range of conditions from F4 to F8, I will make Plymouth in about 3 days and 6 hours, plus or minus 6 hours. Together with my washer/dryer and all my cruising gear. A long beat to windward in F7 or more will make it longer, as will any winds of F3 or less, but otherwise -- that's how long it will take.

How about you?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Personally I think Polux's points are well made as my personal experience is that the lighter weight boats with large sail areas do better in light air conditions and there is more than enough light air when passage making. We can do very well against even larger boats if we have a decent breeze but light air sailing offshore is not our boats strong point. All that said a day here or a day there doesn't amount to a heck of a lot in the whole scheme of things, especially if you have a boat that is really comfortable to both sail and live on.

Yes, unless one sails a really slow boat and I am talking about really heavy boats, many of them full keelers, regarding medium weight boats and light performance boats on the trade winds the differences on a long passage, as an Atlantic crossing as you say will be of one or two days and that will not make any substantial difference in what regards cruising.

On other sailing situations, out of the trade winds with weaker and upwind winds the differences will be much more substancial and the time one has to use the engine is much bigger on a medium weight cruiser than on a light performance boat.

Most that have those boats don't have them for the need to arrive 1 or to days sooner on an Atlantic crossing or everyday one or two hours earlier on a coastal daily passage but for the fun to sail them, for the pleasure to catch and overtake other boats and just because they like the sensation of sailing a fast and responsive sailboat and most of all to sail more and motor less.

Anyway the cruisers that chose these boats, being them multihull or monohull are a small percentage regarding cruisers so they are not very common, but common enough to justify a small market of builders dedicated to make them for that type of sailors.

That has little to do with cruising much more with sailing pleasure while cruising.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I never said that two boats are a statistically valid sample. But it's an interesting coincidence, isn't it, that the two fastest boats, one of which is a cruiser-racer, and the other of which is a blue water pure cruising boat, with much worse ratings, sailed exactly according to their LWL, and not according to their rating?

You will find the same thing if you analyze lots of long ocean passage -- as Evans Starzinger actually did. Maybe there's a valid way to parse the ARC results -- I don't know. I would be interested to see if someone wants to try.


But Polux, your problem is that you live inside the world of magazine articles, polar diagrams, and advertising blurb, and not inside the world of ocean passage making. These are such different worlds.

I can show you the difference if your mind is open to it. In fact, I'll make it worth your while.

If you will bring your boat up to Cowes on 1 October next autumn, I'll race you from there to the Fastnet Rock and back (or to Plymouth if you want to imitate the Fastnet Race route). Your boat has a higher rating than mine. My boat is very much like the Discovery, modest SA/D (16.5), fully equipped with heavy duty generator (1000cc three cylinder), washer/dryer, etc., etc.

If you beat me, I'll give you a prize of 10 000 euros.

If I beat you, you'll give me a prize of taking me and my crew to dinner at the RORC in Cowes.

In fact, we can say that "beating you" means by at least 6 hours. If you even come within 6 hours of me, we'll call it a draw.

Pretty good odds, wouldn't you say? So how about it? This will be a real test of rating vs LWL in real ocean conditions.

Here would be the rules:

Crew of only 2 on each boat, no pros
White sails only
No limitation on poles
Motoring penalty as per RORC
Abort or delay with any forecast per either Met Office or Passageweather.com of F9 or more, but not otherwise.

Depending on the weather, but in a wide range of conditions from F4 to F8, I will make Plymouth in about 3 days and 6 hours, plus or minus 6 hours. Together with my washer/dryer and all my cruising gear. A long beat to windward in F7 or more will make it longer, as will any winds of F3 or less, but otherwise -- that's how long it will take.

How about you?

I Like It.... A+1..
Could this be the start of the (future) CF Fastnet Cup...

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But my thesis is that in between those extremes, when there is decent, consistent wind (like trade winds situation, or high latitudes), passage times of cruising boats will strongly tend to fall in line according to LWL, and not according to their racing ratings.

This was a good definition of the claim.

I note that ARC is already a somewhat competitive event, and a race to Fastnet Rock would be even stronger so.

The claim above talks about cruising, not about racing. Someone said that the presence of other sailboats almost automatically means competition. The definition should maybe assume that there are no other boats in sight, nor in radar or in AIS. And of course all the cruising equipment will be onboard, and crew is not professional, and wants to make the passage nice and easy for themselves.

So we have sailing styles from lonely long distance cruising at open sea to short distance racing in protected waters. And we have observed speeds from LWL related speeds to racing ratings related speeds (assuming sufficient winds to reach these levels). The question is how accurately these two measures correlate.

One could extend the studies to cover also light winds and motoring to get even more information for people (and the OP) planning to buy some sort of a boat for cruising.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...


But Polux, your problem is that you live inside the world of magazine articles, polar diagrams, and advertising blurb, and not inside the world of ocean passage making. These are such different worlds.

I can show you the difference if your mind is open to it. In fact, I'll make it worth your while.

If you will bring your boat up to Cowes on 1 October next autumn, I'll race you from there to the Fastnet Rock and back (or to Plymouth if you want to imitate the Fastnet Race route). Your boat has a higher rating than mine. My boat is very much like the Discovery, modest SA/D (16.5), fully equipped with heavy duty generator (1000cc three cylinder), washer/dryer, etc., etc.

If you beat me, I'll give you a prize of 10 000 euros.

If I beat you, you'll give me a prize of taking me and my crew to dinner at the RORC in Cowes.

In fact, we can say that "beating you" means by at least 6 hours. If you even come within 6 hours of me, we'll call it a draw.

Pretty good odds, wouldn't you say? So how about it? This will be a real test of rating vs LWL in real ocean conditions.

Here would be the rules:

Crew of only 2 on each boat, no pros
White sails only
No limitation on poles
Motoring penalty as per RORC
Abort or delay with any forecast per either Met Office or Passageweather.com of F9 or more, but not otherwise.

Depending on the weather, but in a wide range of conditions from F4 to F8, I will make Plymouth in about 3 days and 6 hours, plus or minus 6 hours. Together with my washer/dryer and all my cruising gear. A long beat to windward in F7 or more will make it longer, as will any winds of F3 or less, but otherwise -- that's how long it will take.

How about you?

And again you are saying that the knowledge I have regarding the difference of speed on passage between medium weight sailboats and light weight performance boats has to do with magazine knowledge and not real experience

For the 10th time I tell you that has nothing to do with magazine articles but with treating statistically real information of many hundred of sailboats regarding real time on transatlantic passages, comparing the times of many conformance light performance boats, with the performance of medium weight cruisers and heavy cruisers.

Information taken from several hundred of cases with statistic relevance on the world of passage making.

What you are proposing is quite the opposite of statistical evidence and not different from what a owner of a performance cat once proposed to me regarding sailing to Australia to race with him, kind of mine is bigger than yours

Anyone that deals with data and statistics to get information knows that the worst thing that can be made regarding having impartial information is to contribute personally for that information. That introduces always a bias even when it is not intentional. If you want to have a real valid perspective about something you cannot make it a personal case, as you insist in doing.

I will be sailing this year toward the Sporades, North of Greece and North of Turkey, maybe Istambul or even the black sea, one of the few parts of the med I don't know. If you go to those parts I will be glad to sail with you, but you have to sail alone since I solo sail my boat.

And besides that you are implicitly agreeing with me. We are talking about boats with the same size (performance cruisers also have maximized LWL regarding medium weight cruisers) and the fact that you think that it will prove something regarding boat average speed not to be limited only by LWL, a 54 ft (yours) being faster than a 41ft boat (mine) tells it all, if it is faster at all.

It will depend on the conditions and on the boat crew but considering all the sailing conditions the average should not be very different and that is why the IRC handicap of both boats are not very different and again that says it all because the LWL of my boat is much smaller than yours.

If you really want to see personally your value as sailor and what your boat is capable of doing regarding smaller performance cruisers with a duo crew the best you have to do is to do the Fastnet on the duo division.

Not really needed in what regards comparative boat performance because that information is already available regarding other boats of both types but it would be interesting for you, regarding comparative sailing abilities.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Juho

This was a good definition of the claim.

I note that ARC is already a somewhat competitive event, and a race to Fastnet Rock would be even stronger so.

The claim above talks about cruising, not about racing. Someone said that the presence of other sailboats almost automatically means competition. The definition should maybe assume that there are no other boats in sight, nor in radar or in AIS. And of course all the cruising equipment will be onboard, and crew is not professional, and wants to make the passage nice and easy for themselves.

So we have sailing styles from lonely long distance cruising at open sea to short distance racing in protected waters. And we have observed speeds from LWL related speeds to racing ratings related speeds (assuming sufficient winds to reach these levels). The question is how accurately these two measures correlate.
...

You seem not to understand the ones that sail performance cruisers. As I explained already on another post those sailors don't have performance boats as a convenience to sail faster from point A to point B, but for the pleasure to sail more time (when heavier slower boats have to motor) and the pleasure to sail a more enjoyable responsive and fun to sail boat.

A owner of a performance boat will be all the times messing around with sail trim controls (that are in much bigger number than on a non performance boat) to get the better performance out of a sailboat, not because there is another boat in sight but because they like to sail the boat as fast as it can go, having safety has only limit.

Off course, catching and overtaking sailboats is fun but that does not change the way they sail their boats.

Typically a medium heavy cruising sailboat has the rigging as simple as it can possible be to allow a decent speed with the less possible hassle. A performance cruising boat is besides to be a cruising boat a sail machine and in what regards rigging it has all possible sail trim controls not to make it a boat simpler to sail but to allow it to be sailed on the best possible way, with the sails with the best possible trim.

Going 0.2 or 0.3k faster it will not mean nothing to a medium weight cruising boat skipper, it means fun to a skipper of a performance cruising boat, I mean not fun with the extra speed but with the ability to manage that.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

. . .
And besides that you are implicitly agreeing with me. We are talking about boats with the same size (performance cruisers also have maximized LWL regarding medium weight cruisers) and the fact that you think that it will prove something regarding boat average speed not to be limited only by LWL, a 54 ft (yours) being faster than a 41ft boat (mine) tells it all, if it is faster at all.

It will depend on the conditions and on the boat crew but considering all the sailing conditions the average should not be very different and that is why the IRC handicap of both boats are not very different and again that says it all because the LWL of my boat is much smaller than yours.

So it's no? Too bad. But a wise decision on your part.

IRC handicaps are accurate predictors of performance under racing conditions -- full crew, controlled non-oceanic conditions.

So around the buoys your boat will be slightly faster than mine, both boats having good crews, at least in medium to lighter conditions. Your boat has LWL of only 36 feet, but the Comet is a hot cruiser racer with an illustrious racing record, faster than Bene Firsts, comparable to Salonas. I know and admire the Comet 41.

My whole point, which you still fail to see, is that your IRC handicap becomes increasingly meaningless in real ocean conditions, short handed, and over long distances.

Shorthanded and in real ocean conditions (Irish Sea in October!!!), my boat will average hull speed minus one, and yours will too, as long as there are no long beats and nothing under F4.

In F6 and above, other than on a beat, my boat will reach and exceed hull speed and I will make 200+ mile days, 220 or even 230 on a good point of sail. Short handed. You've never had a 200 mile day on your boat -- did I guess right? Because my rig is much smaller, I will reef later, and I have less windage, so the more wind, the bigger the gap in performance between us. As the sea gets up (as it is wont to do in the Irish Sea ), your boat will start to struggle, but mine is just hitting her stride in F6.

In F7 or more and in an ocean sea state, I will be averaging two or more knots faster than you, although there is only 1.2 knots of hull speed difference between our boats, other than on a run, where your boat has a special advantage by surfing much more easily. But shorthanded and in real ocean conditions, you're not going to be surfing much -- too dangerous -- so even this advantage will tend to fall away.

So in F4, the "Cruisers Forum Fastnet LWL Challenge" would be a close race. In F3, you will definitely win with your large SA/D. In F5 or above, I will definitely beat you, and in F6 or more by 6 hours or more.


I regret we won't try it in real life. It would have been a good demonstration of what we've been discussing.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by Polux

You seem not to understand the ones that sail performance cruisers. As I explained already on another post those sailors don't have performance boats as a convenience to sail faster from point A to point B, but for the pleasure to sail more time (when heavier slower boats have to motor) and the pleasure to sail a more enjoyable responsive and fun to sail boat.

A owner of a performance boat will be all the times messing around with sail trim controls (that are in much bigger number than on a non performance boat) to get the better performance out of a sailboat, not because there is another boat in sight but because they like to sail the boat as fast as it can go, having safety has only limit.

Off course, catching and overtaking sailboats is fun but that does not change the way they sail their boats.

Typically a medium heavy cruising sailboat has the rigging as simple as it can possible be to allow a decent speed with the less possible hassle. A performance cruising boat is besides to be a cruising boat a sail machine and in what regards rigging it has all possible sail trim controls not to make it a boat simpler to sail but to allow it to be sailed on the best possible way, with the sails with the best possible trim.

Going 0.2 or 0.3k faster it will not mean nothing to a medium weight cruising boat skipper, it means fun to a skipper of a performance cruising boat, I mean not fun with the extra speed but with the ability to manage that.

The original data was collected from real life cruisers, the end results were probably intended to refer to typical cruisers, and the boats were expected to have sufficient wind to reach their typical speed with sails. When talking about that study we should thus talk about typical (or average) cruisers on typical passages, not that much about how much faster some boats might travel if they really try.

My point was that the racing ratings may quite well reflect the speed of different boat types in typical races, but that it is quite credible than on long (cruising oriented) passages boats may well typically reduce speed to something that correlates more with the LWL. We heard that some collected data supports this. It would be interesting so see more studies, to see how strong that correlation is.

This correlation does not rule out the possibility that some sailors would travel with light load, would sail competitively also during night and in all weather, and would keep the sails in best possible professional trim every minute of the passage.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I specifically mentioned Pogos, at the very beginning of this discussion, as boats of extreme performance which fall outside the general rule. Well sailed and with a good wind, they will fly beyond their hull speed, and what is impressive, on different points of sail.

This case is not just a good crew, working hard, but a very specific type of boat, which has nothing to do with normal cruising boats. As a matter of physics -- this requires behavior of the hull which is surfing or like surfing. Modern full-on racing boats can do this.

The other case I specifically mentioned as falling out of the general rule are very heavy boats, say with D/L of 300 or more.

But my thesis is that in between those extremes, when there is decent, consistent wind (like trade winds situation, or high latitudes), passage times of cruising boats will strongly tend to fall in line according to LWL, and not according to their racing ratings.

A thesis that is easily proved wrong. Let's then consider medium heavier cruisers like yours, with a D/L between 200 and 300 and have a look at how they compare on the ARC with performance cruisers with a D/L till 150.

Let's leave out of it the boats on the racing division, that are being raced, and let's only look at the boats in the cruising division, that are being cruised.

According to your theory, that says that the ratting of the boat is not meaningful but only LWL is relevant on long ocean passages made by cruisers, all the medium weight boats should have much better results on compensated time since their boats have a lower rating, close related with their LWL, while performance cruisers have a much higher one, not directly related with the LWL, typically having a smaller performance cruising a rating similar to a much bigger medium weight cruiser.

By other words, on the cruising division medium weight cruisers should be much easily sailed to their rating (having a better compensated classification) while light performance cruisers would have a much worse classification since without a racing crew they could not be sailed near their rating, that is not directly related with the LWL.

Facts prove you wrong, not only on the last ARC but in all (considering averages).

Just looking at last ARC, on the cruising division, the one 6 first ones in compensated time are all performance cruisers, only after that it appears the first medium displacement cruiser and after that there are mixed results but with a clear preponderance of boats with a D/L lower than 200.

https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...%20Overall.pdf

Meaning that performance cruisers on the cruising division were not only the faster ones (by far) but the ones that were sailed more close to their high rating.

So we can conclude that your thesis is wrong and that boat rating is more relevant to performance on a long passage than boat LWL.

Note that a lighter boat is not necessarily a performance cruiser. A performance cruiser is also about superior stability and sail power.

[Sandero]

These discussions look like:

https://www.facebook.com/15619226874...4105127537191/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

A thesis that is easily proved wrong. Let's then consider medium heavier cruisers like yours, with a D/L between 200 and 300 and have a look at how they compare on the ARC with performance cruisers with a D/L till 150.

Let's leave out of it the boats on the racing division, that are being raced, and let's only look at the boats in the cruising division, that are being cruised.

According to your theory, that says that the ratting of the boat is not meaningful but only LWL is relevant on long ocean passages made by cruisers, all the medium weight boats should have much better results on compensated time since their boats have a lower rating, close related with their LWL, while performance cruisers have a much higher one, not directly related with the LWL, typically having a smaller performance cruising a rating similar to a much bigger medium weight cruiser.

By other words, on the cruising division medium weight cruisers should be much easily sailed to their rating (having a better compensated classification) while light performance cruisers would have a much worse classification since without a racing crew they could not be sailed near their rating, that is not directly related with the LWL.

Facts prove you wrong, not only on the last ARC but in all (considering averages).

Just looking at last ARC, on the cruising division, the one 6 first ones in compensated time are all performance cruisers, only after that it appears the first medium displacement cruiser and after that there are mixed results but with a clear preponderance of boats with a D/L lower than 200.

https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...%20Overall.pdf

Meaning that performance cruisers on the cruising division were not only the faster ones (by far) but the ones that were sailed more close to their high rating.

So we can conclude that your thesis is wrong and that boat rating is more relevant to performance on a long passage than boat LWL.

Note that a lighter boat is not necessarily a performance cruiser. A performance cruiser is also about superior stability and sail power.

I don't think this case is proven.

First of all, the data is not parsed. You cannot tell just from glancing at the table.

Second, as we discussed at the beginning, the ARC is probably not a good laboratory for this, because it is theoretically a race, even the cruising division, so some boats have full crews trying hard, while others are short handed and just cruising. Possibly there is data which would allow us to correct for that, but without a correction you can't compare a cruiser racer -- sailing in the cruising division -- with 6 muscular racers on board, with a pure cruising boat sailed by mom and pop.


I do agree with you, that a heavier, lower rated boat will be easier to sail to her rating, and in fact that's kind of the whole point. Longer passages short handed in oceanic conditions make it harder and harder to use the performance potential of a performance oriented boat. And that's exactly the equalizer, I'm talking about. I didn't say the rating is meaningless -- I said that its correlation with passage speed, will fall and at some point be overshadowed by LWL for long, short handed, ocean passages.


One other thing, concerning "sail power" -- some people erroneously believe that the size of the rig, and SA/D of the boat, is equivalent to the horsepower of an engine in a car. This is not true. The power output of a car's engine, no matter how powerful, can be modulated almost infinitely, and a powerful engine is no disadvantage in situations when less power is needed. A large rig is definitely not like this -- it's an advantage up until you have to start reefing, and then the windage and weight aloft of a larger rig become a disadvantage, even if you can change hank-on sails, but especially with roller furling, where performance of reefed headsails is greatly compromised.

This is contrary to the case of stability where, you are right, more is always better, and the deep, higher aspect keels and rudders of performance boats are a big advantage in all conditions -- and this is probably the only one advantage of high performance boats which really works in all conditions.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Nice summation Dockhead. I really appreciate your experience and perspective re Hull Speed -1 for ocean passages.
I suspect the OP might want to stick with mono if planning ocean passages but look at the cats if sticking to coastal sailing.

Or get the cat and sail a little bit on the conservative side for ocean passages and match the monos and push her hard for coastal sailing.

All this talk of speed misses the point. Speed claims are fun for bragging at the bar (or on an internet forum) but there is a very limited market for true speed demons and mono or cat they take far more effort than most cruisers want to put in to get those speeds on passage. If you want to talk about mono racing sleds doing double digit speeds, you have to put them up against high performance cats like gunboats which also claim double digit speeds.

It's the platform for living that sells cruising cats and that is why you see the rise of the condomaran and you see some monos adapting cat features where they can. As much as purists revile them, the condomarans usualy keep up just fine on a tradewind passage and the crew arrives in more comfort. Yeah, you can come up with the odd situation where a mono is perferable but it's the odd sitation not the typical situation.