Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Certainly not the cheap seats! What do those boats sell for?

I visited the new model when it was launched some few years ago and I was surprised by the relation quality/price (aluminum and all) only possible because the boat is made by a big Industrial shipyard, the same that makes the OVNIS (Alubat).

If I remember correctly the price of a fully equipped price was something like 600 000 euros, but I am talking about the Cigale 16 (52.5ft), not the 14 and that included French VAT (20%). That was back in 2009/2010 but it seems the price is about the same, 475 000 euros for the standard boat at the factory without tax.

The 14 is still the old boat, they have a new 18 and a 22m boat (on the poaper yet). It seems that the ones that want those boats have money for them and want bigger. The 18 (59ft) is already on the water and it is a beautiful boat (750 000 euros ex factory no vat, no extras).







If someone wants to try one of these babies these guys chart Cigales:
Cigale 18
Great site to see pictures of the boats.

[robert sailor]

Great pic's Polux

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I don't think it is any different from cruising because it's exactly what cruisers do. They sail when they can and when they can't they often motor. No one asks what speed do you motor at do they, only engine hours. What if I motor at 7 knots and you motor at 5 knots? At the end of the day you will be ahead of me by 48 miles and if I motored a couple of days I'd be ahead close to a hundred miles. What will you learn about the sailing performance in a situation like that, answer "nothing" With your racing background you do know exactly what a race is so why not call the ARC what it is...a rally.

In the event that both boats needed to motor the whole way, you would learn that the one that motors faster made the passage faster. Not only is motoring allowed when cruising (without penalty, too), but also one is racing against no one (although occasionally against weather). The time to finish is traded off against comfort, safety, sleep, or costly mechanical failure. This is why performance under cruising situation (motor allowed, finish time doesn't matter) cannot be accurately predicted under completely different conditions (motoring not allowed, or penalized; finish time is second to none).

Similarly, how a boat performs in racing trim is a poor predictor of how it performs laden with 10-15,000# of cruising gear.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by accomplice

In the event that both boats needed to motor the whole way, you would learn that the one that motors faster made the passage faster. Not only is motoring allowed when cruising (without penalty, too), but also one is racing against no one (although occasionally against weather). The time to finish is traded off against comfort, safety, sleep, or costly mechanical failure. This is why performance under cruising situation (motor allowed, finish time doesn't matter) cannot be accurately predicted under completely different conditions (motoring not allowed, or penalized; finish time is second to none).

Similarly, how a boat performs in racing trim is a poor predictor of how it performs laden with 10-15,000# of cruising gear.

Why do I feel like I'm debating with my wife? Your first point..yes of course which is why it's not a race. Second point yes I agree cruising boats are usually heavily laden and racing boats are as light as possible. Very seldom does a good race boat make a good cruiser no matter how you load it.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Certainly not the cheap seats! What do those boats sell for?

I would reformulate your correct already phrase and state good price/quality point.

Think of boats like Morris or Hinckley. There are no cheap seats when quality enters the picture.

We sail what we pay for.

b.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Guess who is the joker?

The post I quoted you wrote Atlantic 51 without Wasa and X not Xp. Be precise please..

BR Teddy

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

You men you like. Regarding what the forum likes, most like old designed boats since it is what they have and it seems to exist a strong bias regarding looking at other boats as the one that is owned as the best reference.

No, I specifically did not mean what I like personally. These tastes are specifically geographical, and relate to conditions in which people sail, and the type of sailing they do.

Your idea is that "modern" boats are all wedgie sleds, and that anything else is just old-fashioned, and people only like boats which are not wedgie sleds, because they only like boats which are similar to the obsolete old boat they already have. This is pernicious nonsense.

There is a very large difference between the types of boats predominantly built and predominantly sold in Northern Europe, to those sold predominantly for use in the Med. It has nothing to do with bias towards old boats -- it has to do with the different conditions and different type of sailing.

Every type of boat has its advantages and disadvantages, and believe it or not, people who do not prefer "wedgies", might not prefer them despite fully understanding what they are, and not because they are merely ignorant. And likewise might not prefer a performance cruiser/racer, even if they like to sail fast (as I do).


You universalize your own type of sailing, and it seems you can't imagine that it's very different, at different latitudes (and distance from land). The kind of boats you like, are practically unknown up here, and that's not because sailors up here are ignorant.

Irrespective of latitude, there are plenty of cruisers who don't care much about sailing performance, and many of them buy boats like Island Packets and Rustlers. More power to them -- people should sail the way they like, and not the way someone else thinks they should. But even among those who, like me, like to sail fast and care a lot about performance, there are big differences at different latitudes, and the degree to which people sail offshore in strong conditions. One type of high performance boat does not suit all types of fast sailing. If I were sailing predominantly in the Med, or in mild latitudes, I would definitely want a lighter boat with a much larger rig. I might well go for some kind of wedgie -- would be a blast to sail. Or maybe a performance cat. But not up here.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by accomplice

In the event that both boats needed to motor the whole way, you would learn that the one that motors faster made the passage faster. Not only is motoring allowed when cruising (without penalty, too), but also one is racing against no one (although occasionally against weather). The time to finish is traded off against comfort, safety, sleep, or costly mechanical failure. This is why performance under cruising situation (motor allowed, finish time doesn't matter) cannot be accurately predicted under completely different conditions (motoring not allowed, or penalized; finish time is second to none).

Similarly, how a boat performs in racing trim is a poor predictor of how it performs laden with 10-15,000# of cruising gear.

I have already said this but you seem not to have understood: the boats on the ARC that motored more are also the ones that took more time doing the passage, for instance among the ones that motored more an Amel 54 that motored for almost 4 days has done the passage in almost more 5 days than a X562, lost more than 3 days for a Grand Soleil 52 and more than two days for a small Wauquiez centurion 40s and none of these performance cruisers touched the engine (all on the cruising division).

And a old slow 41 Westerly Oceanlord that used also the engine for about 4 days lost to the 40ft Wauquiez 8 days and the Wauquiez centurion 40 did not use the engine. The Wauquiez 40 is not even properly a cruiser racer but a performance cruiser with a great quality interior:


If you have a fast performance sailing cruiser, that sails well on light winds you don't need to touch the engine on the trade winds and on medium and stronger winds the boat goes faster sailing than motoring and that explains why the ones that motored are slower: they cannot go at full motoring speed because for motoring 4 days they have to go more slowly, not wasting too much fuel.

If you want to go faster motoring have some thing like a motor Dashew, or a Nordhavn, not a sailboat motoring.

Regarding that LWL story about speed of a sailboat on passage to be proportional to the LWL, I forgot about that Luffe 37 performance cruiser, that arrived 6 hours ahead of the two fastest medium displacement cruisers, a Halberg Rassy 54 and a Discovery 58. None of the boats used the engine except the Discovery for some few minutes.

[barnakiel]

Has anyone mentioned beauty yet?

I think beauty is a fine reason to stay mono. Attached you may see two images. One representing a 1965 monohull boat, the other shows a modern multihull boat. I know the saying goes it is all in the beholder's eye, but ...





The beauty image attribution:
http://www.denphillipsphotos.co.uk/d...15&ProductId=4

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, I specifically did not mean what I like personally. These tastes are specifically geographical, and relate to conditions in which people sail, and the type of sailing they do.

Your idea is that "modern" boats are all wedgie sleds, and that anything else is just old-fashioned, and people only like boats which are not wedgie sleds, because they only like boats which are similar to the obsolete old boat they already have. This is pernicious nonsense.

The bold part on the quote is a good example of you attributing my bias in a ridiculous way. Why? Because I like narrow boats, I told you that I was interested in a Wasa Atlantic 51, I was also interested on the Luffe (narrow performance cruisers, been on Luffe shipyard to talk with the boat designer and boat builder and to test a Lufe 40.04. I do loved the boat but my wife did not want to her about it due to the quite small interior.

I end up choosing a Comet 41s, a performance cruiser with a moderate beam with a Lenght/Beam ratio very similar to your own boat (3.4 to 3.3) and you say about me "Your idea is that "modern" boats are all wedgie sleds, and that anything else is just old-fashioned, and people only like boats which are not wedgie sleds".

what sense has your statement? Obviously none since I would not have a sailing boat that I would consider old fashioned and certainly would not have boats that I did not like and I would certainly have a beamy boat if that was I wanted regarding a sailing boat.

Contrary to me regarding narrow boats your constant use of the word "wedgies" in a pejorative way, to denominated beamy boats, is a clear indication of your bias towards that type of boats.

However that does not make me ignorant in what regards contemporary boat design neither biased regarding beamier boats, boats different from the ones I prefer and more adapted regarding downwind sailing and solo sailing and is in that regard that I said:

No, you are attributing me bias when you are the one biased regarding all types of boats other than the other you prefer that are medium weight cruisers with a moderate beam.

Originally Posted by Polux

...
What makes sense as a boat for that function (relatively fast passagemaker with a spacious interior and a godd load ability) is a boat designed with an optimization for downwind sailing but a boat capable also of a decent performance upwind, a beamy boat but with narrow entries with a hull with all beam pulled aft, a boat that will prevent rolling downwind and allow to sail with little heel angles, carrying a decent load.

That is why almost all contemporary designs for that use (by the best NA) have that type of beamy hull, from the Boreal, to the Allures, OVNI, Amel, Cigale, Halberg Rassy and so on. Even the new Rustler are like that ...

Basically since the performances are not very dissimilar, beamy boats are a much better option for cruising because they offer not only a much bigger interior but also because they sail with much less heel. That is why you see almost all cruising boats opting for a beamy hull.

Regarding downwind sailing fast beamy boats, with all beamy pulled back are not substantially faster downwind but they are much easier to sail at the point near the limit and that constitutes a big speed advantage, specially in what regards ocean sailing and short crews.

Regarding sailing upwind fast very narrow boats have not a substantial advantage and sometimes none regarding fast beamy boats.....unless waves are involved, special big or steep short period type of med waves.

Then when the wave passes the boat, the wet surface becomes much bigger on a beamy boat (what is called wave drag) and a beamy boat starts to become slower even if not slow because their bigger power allows them to pass in force, but not in a very comfortable way.

Regarding comfort is not as bad as it seems since while a narrow fast boat will have a better performance closer to the wind (and catching the waves more frontally) a beamy fast boat will have a better performance on a more open course (even if he can get closer to the wind) going considerably faster than the narrow boat (but not faster on VMG), precisely to avoid wave drag. In the end the difference in comfort are relative.
..

And that is all pretty obvious and has nothing with personal preferences regarding types of boats. Of course I do prefer more narrower boats, kind of what today are moderate beam sailboats but I do not want to sail, except sporadically, on the trade winds and I don't want a boat optimized for voyaging.

If I would decide to voyage extensively I would try to get a boat more suited for it, an easier boat to sail than mine and a boat more optimized for downwind sailing since it is mostly what you get on the trade winds.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is a very large difference between the types of boats predominantly built and predominantly sold in Northern Europe, to those sold predominantly for use in the Med. It has nothing to do with bias towards old boats -- it has to do with the different conditions and different type of sailing.
...
You universalize your own type of sailing, and it seems you can't imagine that it's very different, at different latitudes (and distance from land). The kind of boats you like, are practically unknown up here, and that's not because sailors up here are ignorant.
...

That does not make also no sense at all and shows some ignorance regarding the boats that are built in used on Scandinavia.

Offshore performance cruisers, used for cruising for the ones that like to cruise on that type of boats are similar in characteristics being them built and sailed on the med or on the North of Europe.

There is not a significant difference between a Solaris (italy) or a Arcona (Sweden), between a XP yacht (Denmark) and a Salona (Croatia), between Wauquiez centurion (Britanny) and a Comet (Italy).

I guess that when you talk about "here" you mean UK? In fact UK is a particular case of conservatorism regarding sailing boats unparalleled in Europe, being it Northern of Europe or anywhere else. That conservatism was responsible for the lamost death of the British yacht Industry, once as rich as the French, Italian or German one.

Design evolution happened everywhere but on UK the old dinosaurs take time to dye, supported by a small but very conservative clientele. It seems that has finished know and the surviving brands in UK make aligned with the rest of Europe in what regards design and even old dinosaurs like Rustler try to survive proposing modern beamy passage makers (with the beam pulled back) that have nothing to do with older outdated designs (the last one):




And regarding those seas not being suited for cats you seem to ignore that one of the surviving British brands is a cat brand that it is sold mostly in Britain to British sailors and they are not heavy cats, quite the contrary they are very light performance cats, very well designed ones. Nice sailing boats adapted to the waters they were designed for

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, I specifically did not mean what I like personally. These tastes are specifically geographical, and relate to conditions in which people sail, and the type of sailing they do.

Your idea is that "modern" boats are all wedgie sleds, and that anything else is just old-fashioned, and people only like boats which are not wedgie sleds, because they only like boats which are similar to the obsolete old boat they already have. This is pernicious nonsense.

The bold part on the quote is a good example of you attributing me bias in a ridiculous way. Why? Because I like narrow boats, I told you that I was interested in a Wasa Atlantic 51, I was also interested on a Luffe (narrow performance cruiser), been on Luffe shipyard to talk with the boat designer and boat builder and to test a Lufe 40.04. I do loved the boat but my wife did not want to hear nothing about it due to the quite small interior and to what was for her excessive heel.

I end up choosing up a Comet 41s, a performance cruiser with a moderate beam with a Length/Beam ratio very similar to your own boat (3.4 to 3.3) and you say about me "Your idea is that "modern" boats are all wedgie sleds, and that anything else is just old-fashioned, and people only like boats which are not wedgie sleds".

What sense has your statement? Obviously none since I would not have a sailing boat that I would consider old fashioned and certainly would not have boats that I did not like and I would certainly have a beamy boat if that was I wanted regarding a sailing boat or if it was the only ones I considered updated.

Contrary to me, regarding narrow boats, your constant use of the word "wedgies" in a pejorative way, to denominated beamy boats, is a clear indication of your bias towards that type of boats.

You are attributing me bias when you are the biased one regarding all types of boats other than the ones you prefer, that are medium weight cruisers with a moderate beam. I have not any bias regarding medium displacement sailboats that are the right option for the ones that like them but that is not the point.

The point is that you consider that only that type of boats are designed to do extensive voyaging ( and that is obviously false) as want to make us believe that those boats on passage are as fast as performance cruisers and that is also obviously false.

The fact that I like narrow sailboats and sailboats with a moderate beam does not make me ignorant in what regards contemporary boat design neither biased regarding beamier boats, boats different from the ones I prefer and more adapted regarding downwind sailing and solo sailing and that is why I said:

Originally Posted by Polux

...
What makes sense as a boat for that function (relatively fast passagemaker with a spacious interior and a good load ability) is a boat designed with an optimization for downwind sailing but a boat capable also of a decent performance upwind, a beamy boat but with narrow entries with a hull with all beam pulled aft, a boat that will prevent rolling downwind and allow to sail with little heel angles, carrying a decent load.

That is why almost all contemporary designs for that use (by the best NA) have that type of beamy hull, from the Boreal, to the Allures, OVNI, Amel, Cigale, Halberg Rassy and so on. Even the new Rustler are like that ...

Basically since the performances are not very dissimilar, beamy boats are a much better option for cruising because they offer not only a much bigger interior but also because they sail with much less heel. That is why you see almost all cruising boats opting for a beamy hull.

Regarding downwind sailing fast beamy boats, with all beamy pulled back are not substantially faster downwind but they are much easier to sail at the point near the limit and that constitutes a big speed advantage, specially in what regards ocean sailing and short crews.

Regarding sailing upwind fast very narrow boats have not a substantial advantage and sometimes none regarding fast beamy boats.....unless waves are involved, special big or steep short period type of med waves.

Then when the wave passes the boat, the wet surface becomes much bigger on a beamy boat (what is called wave drag) and a beamy boat starts to become slower even if not slow because their bigger power allows them to pass in force, but not in a very comfortable way.

Regarding comfort is not as bad as it seems since while a narrow fast boat will have a better performance closer to the wind (and catching the waves more frontally) a beamy fast boat will have a better performance on a more open course (even if he can get closer to the wind) going considerably faster than the narrow boat (but not faster on VMG), precisely to avoid wave drag. In the end the difference in comfort are relative.
..

And that is all pretty obvious and has nothing with personal preferences regarding types of boats. Of course I do prefer narrower boats, kind of what today are moderate beam sailboats but I do not want to sail, except sporadically, on the trade winds and I don't want a boat optimized for voyaging.

If I would decide to voyage extensively I would try to get a boat more suited for it, an easier boat to sail than mine (more fit for solo sailing) and a boat more optimized for downwind sailing since it is mostly what you get on the trade winds.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

There is a very large difference between the types of boats predominantly built and predominantly sold in Northern Europe, to those sold predominantly for use in the Med. It has nothing to do with bias towards old boats -- it has to do with the different conditions and different type of sailing.
...
You universalize your own type of sailing, and it seems you can't imagine that it's very different, at different latitudes (and distance from land). The kind of boats you like, are practically unknown up here, and that's not because sailors up here are ignorant.
...

That does not make no sense also at all and shows some ignorance regarding the boats that are built and used in Scandinavia, namely in what regards performance cruisers, that seems that is what you have a problem with.

Offshore performance cruisers, used for cruising for the ones that like to cruise on that type of boats, are similar in characteristics being them built and sailed on the med or on the North of Europe.

There is not a significant difference between a Solaris (italy) or a Arcona (Sweden), between a XP yacht (Denmark) and a Salona (Croatia), between Wauquiez centurion (Britanny) and a Comet (Italy).

I guess that when you talk about "here" you mean UK? In fact UK is a particular case of conservatorism regarding sailing boats unparalleled in Europe, being it Northern of Europe or anywhere else. That conservatism was responsible for the almost death of the British yacht Industry, once as rich as the French, Italian or German one.

Design evolution happened everywhere but on UK the old dinosaurs took time to die, supported by a small but very conservative clientele. It seems that has finished now and the surviving brands in UK are aligned with the rest of Europe in what regards design and even old dinosaurs like Rustler try to survive proposing modern beamy passage makers (with the beam pulled back) that have nothing to do with older outdated designs.
http://www.rustleryachts.com/53.php

And regarding those seas not being suited for cats you seem to ignore that one of few surviving British brands, the only one that purposes fast performance cruisers is a cat brand that it is sold mostly in Britain to British sailors and they are not heavy cats, quite the contrary they are very light performance cats, very well designed ones. Nice sailing boats adapted to the waters they were designed for

[ArmyDaveNY]

I hope I don't divert the conversation any further however I would also add that while there is a bit of a shift and the cats are becoming more accepted as time progresses, so to is the market in sailing shifting. By this I mean that even if we consider only monohulls, the market is shifting in the type of monos for sale. The market is much more oriented towards high end and there are far fewer boats available for the "average" Joe. In particular, you can see this at the boat shows. The prices and amenities are much more lavish than they ever were.


If you think of it this way, it is no surprise that the charters and even the general market has and continues to embrace cats on an increasing basis. The cat has many advantages (no, I am not advocating for one over the other and indeed I generaly prefer the monos, but then I prefer paper charts over electronic charts too!) for this type of market. Add to this shift electric winches, ever increasingly sophisticated and complicated chart plotters (actually more electronics suites), ever more and higher end amenities and I think we can all see where the bulk of the marketing is going. I have even talked to some manufacturers and some are now including espresso makers as standard equipment.


Certainly there will always be a niche market for more traditional sailing whether on a mono or a cat, but there certainly seems to be a shift in the broad market towards more luxury.


Having said this, I'm not sure I would consider an espresso maker an essential piece of sailing kit, but certainly a bottle of rum is! Oh wait, should this be a different thread?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Has anyone mentioned beauty yet?

I think beauty is a fine reason to stay mono. Attached you may see two images. One representing a 1965 monohull boat, the other shows a modern multihull boat. I know the saying goes it is all in the beholder's eye, but ...





The beauty image attribution:
Den Phillips Photography - Classic Boats - Classic Yachts - East Coast

b.

You are very mean and I remember not long ago you salivating for a cat, a Lerouge design that made a hell of a passage on the ARC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgcuG8Q5SbE

An interesting article about cats on the ARC:
http://www.sailmagazine.com/multihul...-with-the-arc/

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Has anyone mentioned beauty yet?

I think beauty is a fine reason to stay mono. Attached you may see two images. One representing a 1965 monohull boat, the other shows a modern multihull boat. I know the saying goes it is all in the beholder's eye, but ...





The beauty image attribution:
Den Phillips Photography - Classic Boats - Classic Yachts - East Coast

b.

In an attempt to assist and calm the passions, here are average mono and cat crews

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

That does not make also no sense at all and shows some ignorance regarding the boats that are built and used in Scandinavia, namely in what regards performance cruisers that seems that is what you have a problem with.

Polux, you are not wise to throw around the word "ignorance". Really. Have you ever sailed in Scandinavian waters? Not once -- did I guess right? Have you even ever been in Scandinavia altogether? As a matter of fact, I am a legal resident of one Scandinavian country, and only keep my boat in the UK in the winter (when the Baltic is frozen! ). I believe I know just slightly more about it than you do.

When I wrote "up here", I was thinking about Northern European Atlantic nations, UK, Netherlands, Scotland, Norway, BUT -- the same culture in New Zealand and other places of similar latitude, maybe also BC and the PNW of North America. I was not actually thinking about the Baltic, which is yet another different sailing culture.

I've never seen an X Yacht in the Baltic -- not a single one. X Yachts are made in Denmark for nouveau riche Russians (70% of their clientele AFAIK) who use them in Biscay and the Med. That is not a Scandinavian boat in any possible interpretation. A Scandinavian boat is a Swan, a Malo, a Sweden Yachts, a Najad, a Finnish Baltic Yachts, a Finngulf. I don't really count HR any more, as this is a company aspiring to make Beneteaus sold for high end boat prices -- a different conversation.

A Scandinavian boat, used in the Baltic (and not for export to Russians or French), is very different from what we use elsewhere. The main thing about it compared to ours, is that it is -- small. In Scandinavia, yachting is an everyman's sport (and that's great!!), with millions of small yacht clubs with annual berthing under 1000 euros and great fellowship. But a boat of 40 feet is already considered antisocially large. I am forgiven the to them outlandish (!) dimensions of my yacht only because I'm a foreigner, and still I am mostly relegated to commercial harbors, as I simply don't fit in their marinas. A normal Scandinavian yacht is 30', and 32' is already considered a decent size. 36' is luxury.

Besides the Swedes, Danes, and Finns, there are a lot of Poles and Germans sailing in the Baltic. The Poles favor self-built boats, some of them quite ingeniously constructed, or old Russian boats from the Soviet era. The Germans are almost 100% in Swedish boats. Why they don't sail their own Dehlers and Bavs, I don't know, but you don't see them in the Baltic. The typical German, cruising in the Baltic, has an HR 36 in impeccable condition.

There are no ocean conditions in the Baltic, so none of this should surprise anyone. The Baltic would probably be an ok place to have a wedgie, but for whatever reason, they do not exist there. Never seen a single one in four complete transits of the Baltic from one end to the other, from Kiel to Vyborg in Russia and back.

But if you were to head out through the Kattegat, and make your way up the Northern coast of Norway -- ah, those are different, far different waters, and there you will find more North Atlantic type boats. Still no wedgies, probably 0.0, none, and certainly no poser X Yachts, which you, deeply mistaken, consider emblematic of Scandinavian yachts.

[/QUOTE]