Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by accomplice

A glowing magazine review ... it must therefore be a great boat?

I'm not arguing it isn't, and I certainly respect Bob Perry as a cruising boat designer, but I question the impartiality of the process. If I were employed by a magazine to review boats, and the magazine received advertising revenues, I would make very sure not to say anything negative about any boat, or to balance it with strong praise for some aspect, or to point out why boats of this type always are challenged by X, etc. I haven't read all of his reviews, but reading the subtitles, it is clear that he is looking for the positive and the strengths in any design he reviews (A fine characteristic in a human, to see the good in other). How many magazine reviews are, on balance, negative? Or are we all simply the beneficiaries of an industry where every product is above average? I suggest, then, that magazine reviews are ways to identify the relative strengths of different designs, not as a rating.

I am in no way maligning Perry -- to his credit, he always seems to be able to find something nice to say -- and he has designed many beautiful and functional cruising sailboats. IMHO, he has deftly navigated the line between retaining credibility and not biting the hand that feeds. But one should not interpret his kind words about a boat to mean that it is the right boat for every cruiser.

Couldn't have put it better. From time to time the British writers will post negative comments on new boats mixed in with lots of positive ones but never the American publications, it's always positive. Yup the advertisers rule in America. I do like the Pogo myself but that's beside the point.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...
But you have some very fundamental confusions. I don't have much hope that you will actually learn anything from the several different higher latitude sailors who have all told you the same things, but here goes.
...

Maybe you can learn with these guys that some prefer to cruise worldwide in light performance cruisers (that you call med boats) while others prefer to cruise in medium displacement boats?

Their next destination: Alaska

Originally Posted by Polux

scott, Donna, Nathan, and Celeste circumnavigated from 1988 to 1996 on Bluejay, a J-36, then a fast performance cruiser and today still a fast cruiser.


Regarding the choice of the best boat to cruise extensively, taking into consideration their vast experience they said:

"We have always believed in the phrase, “a fast passage is a safe passage”. We have always had borderline racing boats. A teak interior is beautiful but you are going to want to move without running an engine constantly, choose a boat that can sail. "
H20Notes - community weblog - Sailing


They changed boat in 2009 and the choice show that their convictions remain, they had chose a recent and very fast Tripp 47 and the reasons had to do with the kids that are now grown ups and need more space and privacy to receive friends.
[/COLOR]



You can follow them here:

Sailing with Celestial's Tripp

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Maybe you can learn with these guys that some prefer to cruise worldwide in light performance cruisers (that you call med boats) while others prefer to cruise in medium displacement boats?

Their next destination: Alaska

I know guys myself who do that sort of thing. It's an extreme sport. People also take rowboats and Hobie Cats across the Atlantic. Neither is the way 99% of sailors would choose to do it. I have been in hot racing boats in big sea conditions and I do not ever want to do it short handed, or for more than a few hours max. It is -- like I said -- an extreme sport.


One thing I do agree with, however, is -- "a fast passage, is a safe passage".

We're wandering off the topic (drift from the drift), but I do not personally sign up to the idea of bobbing around in a small, slow, very heavy boat while heavy weather just rolls over you, which is the way some people up here approach it, lying ahull, or lying to a para anchor, or sailing very slowly. My heavy weather tactic is to run off, under bare poles if necessary, trailing warps if necessary -- the active approach. I suppose I might be forced to take passive measure -- I've never been through a hurricane at sea, for example -- but the idea horrifies me, especially lying ahull. Here a larger boat is enormously helpful, and better somewhat larger than what I have, so you can trade a bit of D/L for speed -- but just a bit. For this, a boat needs to be extremely strong, needs to have a powerful rudder, needs to track well, and needs to have not too much windage, and not too big a rig.

My own boat is just a little light (D/L 190) for this, but is strong enough, and has the right underbody form so tracks well, and has a very large rudder. The in-mast furling, which is brilliant from F5-F7 becomes a liability from F8 because of the windage and weight aloft.

In really bad weather, I like to get the speed back down below hull speed to give a reserve of control, but I like to keep the speed up to as much as is prudent. The rudder has more authority and the boat is generally more controllable at 9 - 10 knots than at 5 - 6.

So yes -- a fast passage is a safe one; I agree with that. Speed is life, as the pilots say.

[lifeofreilly57]

Re: Reasons to stay "Monohull"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
...
But you have some very fundamental confusions. I don't have much hope that you will actually learn anything from the several different higher latitude sailors who have all told you the same things, but here goes.
...
Maybe you can learn with these guys that some prefer to cruise worldwide in light performance cruisers (that you call med boats) while others prefer to cruise in medium displacement boats "QUOTE"

I liked my performance cruiser (racer/cruiser) which was once a racer/cruiser that would be considered a performance cruiser by today's standards, my wife didn't, guess who won?
At the same time the lighter, faster boat was more work to sail in rough conditions, still safe but definitely more work. SO I do have to say that the current boat is much less fatiguing than the previous boat and gives a smoother ride. Maybe I'm showing my age?
My main reason for staying with a heavier monohull? It's got a smooth ride, stores everything we need and most of all, it's paid for. Usually a boat that's fully paid for is my favorite.

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by lifeofreilly57

[...]Usually a boat that's fully paid for is my favorite.

Mine too. But the sailing industry would collapse without generating demand for the latest and greatest.

As an ex-racer, now cruiser, I see your points and completely agree.

[44'cruisingcat]

You guys found a reason yet?

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

You guys found a reason yet?

Hey 44, why don't you see if Dockhead's 10,000 Euro offer would apply to you?

Don't know if you could find a cat at Cowes to hire though.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Hey 44, why don't you see if Dockhead's 10,000 Euro offer would apply to you?

Don't know if you could find a cat at Cowes to hire though.

There are no cats in Cowes -- not one. Nor anywhere on the Medina River. There are three on the Hamble River, out of about 7000 boats. I know all three well. One is a three or four story micro cruise ship, a Lagoon sixty or seventy something, which has never been seen with sails up, or for that matter, out of her berth, at Port Hamble. One is a smaller Lagoon, called "My Half" ( ), which is up at the top of the river near my mooring. I believe a divorce settlement is alluded to. The third is the interesting racing cat Dazzla, which sports its Fastnet stickers year round, moored at the crotch of the last reach, my signal to put the fenders down.

The challenge was specifically issued to a certain 41 foot cruiser/racer with a slightly higher racing rating than my boat, for the specific purpose of demonstrating that those ratings are right out the window, when you're talking about somewhere like the Irish Sea in October, as opposed to a buoyed race course in controlled conditions. For the edification of anyone who thinks that racing ratings determine performance in all conditions.

There are plenty of cats which would kick my ass on that route, for example, the Chris White Atlantic 57, which I believe in average conditions (F7, well developed wave train) would get into Plymouth about 6 to 8 hours ahead of me. That's a boat which might reach a 300 mile day, and which will do 250 mile days not rarely; compared to a boat (mine!) which might do a 230 miles day, and 200 miles days not rarely. The Atlantic 57 might need to be sailed with some intensity and skill, towards the Fastnet Rock and back, but would definitely kick my whatsit, since the inherent speed potential far exceeds what I can do, and under any conditions, unlike certain small light racer cruisers with good ratings.

That prodigious performance potential, in the widest range of conditions, intrigues me about that boat, despite all the inherent cat disadvantages. In fact the Chris White Atlantic 57 was the last series-produced boat remaining on my list for what will be my next boat, after elimination of the Halberg Rassey 64, having ticked more boxes than any other boat which is made in series.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

You guys found a reason yet?

Today, Alan, you win the internet.

THE funniest thing I've read on the internet today!

[TheThunderbird]

In the Med, we speak of a "Med-rigging"... and in northern Adriatic boats are a class apart, with possibily even a taller mast, to chase light airs

[Polux]

Just a quick one:

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I know guys myself who do that sort of thing. It's an extreme sport. People also take rowboats and Hobie Cats across the Atlantic. Neither is the way 99% of sailors would choose to do it. I have been in hot racing boats in big sea conditions and I do not ever want to do it short handed, or for more than a few hours max. It is -- like I said -- an extreme sport.

That guy circumnavigated with the family on a very long circumnavigation (on a performance boat) and it is not an extreme sailor, just a very experience one that prefers performance cruisers.

Your idea that there are no cats in UK or that British skippers don't use performance sailboats because the sea is worse and they are high latitude sailors makes no sense as your bias regarding light performance mono hull cruising boats or cats to do extensive cruising even on high latitudes.

There are a British experienced skipper doing right now a circumnavigation on a First 44.7 (with his wife), one that he sailed and raced extensively on UK waters, having crossed the Atlantic several times on that boat.

Regarding cats, one of the few sailboat boat brands in UK that actually selling some boats is a cat brand that does performance cruisers, most of them offshore ones and guess who is buying them? or where most are sailing?

The reason there are less cats and less performance boats in UK than for instance on the Atlantic coast of France has to do with British conservatism, nothing more. They are now discovering the French performance voyage boats (just some few years back) and say "AH!!!!! that's nice" while the French say "DUH!!!!! we are sailing them around the world on the past 20 years".

Have a nice light cat aluminum designed for the same kind of high latitude exploring cruising than the same monohulls from the brand (Garcia).

Originally Posted by Dockhead

One thing I do agree with, however, is -- "a fast passage, is a safe passage".
.....
My own boat is just a little light (D/L 190) for this, but is strong enough, and has the right underbody form so tracks well, and has a very large rudder. The in-mast furling, which is brilliant from F5-F7 becomes a liability from F8 because of the windage and weight aloft.
..

I thought you had a different boat. I thought you had a Moody 54 that has a D/L of 201 and a rather small SA/D of 16.9.
MOODY 54 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

By the way for the D/L is the LWL that is used not the LOA.

Regarding the in mast furling, not to mention the possibility of a jam. I have heard of some delivery skippers that refuse or are afraid of making long deliveries (ocean crossing) with boats with in mast furling. Certainly an exasperation but also an added risk, the in mast furling.

That's a good thing performance cruisers don't have them, by the two reasons.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I thought you had a different boat. I thought you had a Moody 54 that has a D/L of 201 and a rather small SA/D of 16.9.
MOODY 54 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

By the way for the D/L is the LWL that is used not the LOA.

Regarding the in mast furling, not to mention the possibility of a jam. I have heard of some delivery skippers that refuse or are afraid of making long deliveries (ocean crossing) with boats with in mast furling. Certainly an exasperation but also an added risk, the in mast furling.

That's a good thing performance cruisers don't have them, by the two reasons.

From the designer himself, and calculated for my particular boat, not the series -- D/L 190, SA/D 16.5.


Concerning in-mast furling -- this has been discussed in great detail on this site.

The advantages and disadvantages of in-mast furling are very complicated, and these comments are exceptionally superficial. To go into it here would be too much drift even for this drifty thread, but what you write -- which is just a simplistic sneer -- reflects a lack of even basic knowledge about in-mast furling.

I will probably have a normal full batten main on my next boat, but it was a very hard decision, as in-mast furling has several tremendous advantages for sailing short handed in strong conditions, which is why it's so popular up here (actually, just about universal on large cruising boats in these areas, surely more than 90%). I suppose more than 90% of Oysters, HR's, and even Swans are now delivered with in-mast furling rigs (or in-boom on boats over 75 feet). For me, however, the deciding factor was windage, something I'm being fanatical about for the next boat.


The advantages of in-mast furling are less useful in mild latitudes, where at the same time mainsail performance becomes more important because of the light winds, and this combination is why in-mast furling is less often seen there. And in-mast furling is not used on mass produced boats simply because it is expensive.


I didn't want to go into it, but here goes -- a full batten, slab reefed main with a good roach has much more power than straight leech or hollow leech, unbattened, furling main, and the difference is much greater than the difference in area, because it's the leech area of the main which provides most of the drive. So in light wind there's a big difference in performance. HOWEVER, once you start reefing them, the advantage disappears. In-mast furling mains are cut flat to begin with, and become flatter and flatter as they are reefed. Except for the windage of the much fatter mast, in-mast furling mains are really good, in really strong conditions, and you don't even need a trysail if you have in-mast furling. Jamming is not an issue with quality systems (Selden), properly used, but loss of performance in light air, is a big drawback.


Failure to see the nuances in this question, and the reason why different people make different choices, is from the same opera as your failure to see why people cruising in high latitudes rarely choose racer/cruisers for the conditions specific to those latitudes. That's not just the British, but the Dutch, Norse, Scots, New Zealand, etc., many of whom have spoken up on this issue, saying exactly the same thing.

There are many nuances here, and different conditions drive different choices, and of course taste and preferred style of sailing. But it's your right to think whatever you want, so keep living in your simplified world, and thinking that people making different choices, in their cruising area, than the ones you would make, in yours, do so only because they are ignorant, or "conservative", and that there is no complexity in these questions.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding the in mast furling, not to mention the possibility of a jam. I have heard of some delivery skippers that refuse or are afraid of making long deliveries (ocean crossing) with boats with in mast furling. Certainly an exasperation but also an added risk, the in mast furling.

That's a good thing performance cruisers don't have them, by the two reasons.

They may turn them down but 'afraid' is a bit strong..
I consider them a Grand PITA but.. they can be worked around once the makers quirks have been mastered.. so one may say 'Oh F$*£.!!' but I doubt it would be/is a deal breaker..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

They may turn them down but 'afraid' is a bit strong..
I consider them a Grand but can be worked around once the makers quirks have been mastered.. so one may say 'Oh F$*£.!!' but I doubt it would be/is a deal breaker..

Spoken by a veteran delivery skipper.


Many delivery skippers do have a fear of in-mast furling, but as explained to me by one of them -- it's because they are all the time delivering boats which haven't been used in a few years, where the sail has hardened inside the mast and jams when it's first pulled out. That same guy told me he has no problem delivering in-mast furling boats, but he insists that the boat to be delivered has been sailed recently and the in-mast furling has been exercised.

[robert sailor]

delivery skippers turning down all boats with in mast furling would start to make his/her business pretty skinny. I don't know about systems that have been sitting but while this is our first experience with in mast furling after close to 10,000 miles of use its never given us a single problem but like anything it needs to be operated properly. I agree with DS that without the roach area you do give up performance in light airs but because you can always put out exactly the right amount of main while underway, with ease on any point of sail you tend to sail quicker on longer passages. We never reef at night while most of our friends with conventional main sails do because it is a pain reefing at night when your short handed, wake up the off watch etc.
Either one of us can reef the sail from the cockpit in less than a minute and don't need help so we sail powered up all the time. On a personal level I much prefer a big roached main but after using this system my wife will not make the change back so I have to get to like it.