Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Kim Klaka]

Thanks for the kind words. Before commenting on the stability matter, I add two points about objectivity:
1. Buying a boat isn't a purely objective process. As has been stated earlier in this thread, you (one) tend to choose your boat then try and justify it after.
2. Aesthetics does play a big part. i couldn't bring myself to buy an ugly boat, no matter how well it met my technical criteria.

So, onto the capsize v sink issue. i don't know how many monos have survived a full 180 roll, but there are many. Some monos sink after a capsize/rollover, others do not, it depends not only on the design but also the environment and the way the boat has been operated ( e.g. if the seacocks are open when the boat is inverted, air can escape and the boat is more likely to sink). i think we ned to look further than the capsize likelihood. Risk is about both likelihood and consequence, so the debate should extend to the suitability of the boat for survival once the catastrophe has occurred. Clearly some monohulls will sink, so they are not a suitable platform for survival, but what about those that remain afloat? They have to be fairly stable, yet not be awash with waves. These are two conflicting requirements in terms of hydrostatics, requiring careful design to obtain a satisfactory compromise. If a mono is fairly stable once it pops upright, and isn't awash, then it is a suitable platform. If it is awash, then it is dangerous. Many people criticised the crews who abandoned their boats in the 1979 Fastnet race because their boats were subsequently found afloat, thus "proving" they had made the wrong decision. What got lost in the noise was the clarifying statement from some of those crew, that it was too dangerous to stay on board the awash boat - they were getting seriously injured from being thrown around.
If the mono does not right itself, it can still be a survival platform, but it is less than wonderful (e.g. the Tony Bullimore Southern Ocean episode c 1996)
So the monohull can be a suitable platform for survival, but not all that often.
Multihulls rarely sink after capsize (but it has happened), and there are things you can do to make them habitable when inverted. however, they are purely a survival platform where you sit and wait rescue, whereas a righted mono has a modest chance of setting a jury rig and getting to a harbour of refuge (e.g. Tzu Hang)
so the multi is usually a better survival platform than the mono, but cannot get itself to safety. It is also (arguably) a bit more likely to capsize and a lot more likely to stay capsized.
When you put all these factors together, the question " which is better, mono or multi?" becomes rather meaningless, as it depends so much on the boat, the crew, and the environment. And that's why there are both monos and multis used for sailing the oceans successfully. Unless of course all the above is a smokescreen put up by naval architects in order to keep themselves employed :-)
Kim Klaka MRINA

[Polux]

Originally Posted by tuskie

....

One point that you didn't directly address was the oft stated argument against catamarans that has already come up on this thread that goes ; "Catamarans aren't safe for blue water passages as in they aren't self righting, monohulls are." Your article touched on capsize, stability, sinking etc. but I'd be very interested to know how many monohull cruisers could actually survive a roll versus how many would fill up through a companionway or hole caused by rig failure, etc and plummet towards the bottom.
.

Rolled yachts are relatively rare compared with capsizes on yachts and even those are rare. A capsize is normally like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0TxpxCyMno

I have read about several boats rolled but among those very few that sunk. A broken mast if the roll is very violent is the nastier effect. Many times the boat makes a full roll and come to his feet again and not much water goes in even if the companionway is open, not enough at least to sink the boat.

Some boats have been known to have been capsized and been several minutes upside down before coming to his feet again. Some water come in but nothing that put the boat near a sinking situation. An important point regards having the seacocks closed but I guess that is just a basic precaution taken by any careful sailor when he leaves port.

[nortonscove]

Originally Posted by Stumble

A Lagoon 400 has a LOA of 39'3" and a bean of 23'9" for a total square footage of 932.18 sq foot.

A Beneteau 57 has a LOA of 57' and a beam of 16.33 for a total square footage of 930.81 sq foot.

So what are your prices for a 40' cat versus a 57' monohull?

Sure the cat is more than the monohull, and it should be. But that doesn't mean relative to their size they are that much more.

Reread my post and think of your response. I was speaking of beam because if it simply doesn't fit into the slot from which I can pick it up with the lift ain't no point in showing up. And yes the 57 footer would do so with room to spare and thanks for helping with the point.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Polux

Rolled yachts are relatively rare compared with capsizes on yachts and even those are rare. A capsize is normally like this.

I have read about several boats rolled but among those very few that sunk. A broken mast if the roll is very violent is the nastier effect. Many times the boat makes a full roll and come to his feet again and not much water goes in even if the companionway is open, not enough at least to sink the boat.

Some boats have been known to have been capsized and been several minutes upside down before coming to his feet again. Some water come in but nothing that put the boat near a sinking situation. An important point regards having the seacocks closed but I guess that is just a basic precaution taken by any careful sailor when he leaves port.

People we know were rolled 360' in Bass Strait. They lost their mast, the use of their engine (their batteries broke loose, which meant their engine wouldn't start) and their steering was severely damaged. The husband suffered a fractured skull, severe concussion and broken arm, the wife a broken wrist and torn shoulder ligaments.

[robert sailor]

Yes rolling is a very violent thing to do in a sailboat. Many of the new pizza boats are lightly ballasted and some are quite happy to stay inverted until a lucky wave pushes them back. Very few monos actually sink so if you have a decent boat it wouldn't be something that keeps me awake nor would I lose sleep worrying about a cat flipping, especially these days with such small rigs. If I were comparing cats and monos I'd be looking at a lot more stuff that which one would sink or flip.

[Driftwood09]

Hi, the question of ... Mono vs Multi, was in my case a question between " life and death " lol( so to speak ) . I love sailing ... and before I owned a sailing boat, I used to crew on Mono's ( Adams 10 etc ).AND, I used to get violently sea-sick, so bad, that once sailing in a race between Dover and France, I became delirious and lost all orientation etc.
But, I would not give up, and luckily I discovered " Multi-Hulls " ( Trimarans & Catamarans )...

1) I have NEVER been sea-sick since! And, I have raced & cruised them ( both ) single-handed in anything from Bay to Ocean Racing !It has to do with the completely different motion ( like a raft, rather then rocking from side to side ).

2) The exhilaration of speed and constant alertness ( mainsheet & headsail trimming ) it feels like a racing car and less forgiving ( a mono just leans over & rounds up ... ). I would have my breakfast @ 6 am @ anchor , when the Mono's have left @ 4 am for the day's trip, I would pass them and be @ the next anchorage a couple of hrs ( in daylight ) earlier. Sure speed is not all, but when the weather suddenly changes, I like the option ...

3) Where you want to sail ( very important ) Coastal Cruising ... IDEAL, you can beach the Cat or Tri or anchor in knee-deep water ( I am close to Fraser Island & Qld Coast) and you have easier access to shallow River & Bar entrances ...
Serious Ocean voyaging I would prefer a Multi 12m+ ( even so much smaller ones have ventured O/shore ).

4) More room, and more privacy ( if required ) even on a small Cat ( 9.2m Grainger ), compared to a same size Mono, hands down.

Sorry, to be so " long-winded ", but I did a lot of research ... & this of cause is just my personal opinion , Good Luck in your search

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

.. Many of the new pizza boats are lightly ballasted and some are quite happy to stay inverted until a lucky wave pushes them back. ....

There is a lot of misconceptions about that. Basically the AVS is the single most important measure in what regards the ability of a boat to re right itself and most pizza boats you talk about have an AVS around 120º, some slightly less but very few lower than 115º.

Do you know the AVS of your boat? Maybe you would be surprised, I only now the one of the Moody 56, that has 120º, the same as a Vailant 40 that is considerably more than a Catalina 42 or a Sabre 402, that are no pizza boats.

Regarding the AVS it is not only the ballast that counts but draft and the efficiency of the keel and pizza boats have very efficient keels and a considerable draft and almost all the monohulls, including yours will stay inverted till a wave puts them back on their feet.

The difference is that the size of the wave needed to put him back on his feet is typically 1/3 of the size of the one that has capsized him and it has not to be a breaking wave.

[lifeofreilly57]

Where do you plan to sail? Really? If I were looking to live in the Caribbean the living amenities of a cat would be very attractive. But our plans take us further afield so a monohull fit our needs. We have a 47' mono and feel it's plenty of room for our family of 4, in fact our house has one bathroom and the boat has 2 heads, so it's even a bit more liveable than the house. Not sure why you'd need a 50' mono for a couple. If it were the wife and I we'd probably be at 38'-40' because of the lower maintenance cost and ease of handling.
Part of the reason for cruising is to reduce the amount of stuff you have, and focus more on the time you have, boats force you to really determine what is important to you, which is something dirt level living rarely does. I am currently in the mode of stuff reduction and find I don't miss the stuff I've tossed. The bigger it is, the more time you spend maintaining it, the more stuff you haul along the more time you spend moving it, cleaning it, stowing it and generally not using it.
Something to consider.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by lifeofreilly57

Part of the reason for cruising is to...

Part of YOUR reason for cruising... We all have different reasons for doing what we do.

While it is a reasonable generalization to state that living in a smaller space (e.g. small boat) forces one to reduce "stuff" that doesn't mean reducing stuff is a part of everyone's reason for going cruising. We all have different reasons, different goals, different resources, different paths.

[felixshmak]

For me, it's the tolerance in big gust. Monohull will turn back onto it's feet when broached, if you not turtled. A multigull won't of no external help.

I learned that a hard way on a F16, single handed 😑

Sent from my Mi 4i using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Andrew Grace]

Originally Posted by geoleo

I have owned both. Cats are much harder to maintain. 2 engines-huge areas of deck to clean the bird dung from. Ditto inside. Dockage costs much more and can be very hard to find. They don't lean as much but also don't usually go into wind much. Also don't have much of a 'in the grove" sailing feel. Also cost more initially. However monos are not the end all be all either.

So True, Double of everything, and berthing is Double, and berthing I get charged the same rate as a 80 foot monohull!!!

[Kim Klaka]

Originally Posted by Hudson Force

I'm pleased at how reasonable this thread remains when I think back of some former topics comparing monohulls to multihulls and how at other times some people become very emotional about their position and the significance of the debate.

I carefully read Kim Klaka's article above considering the "true and false" responses to some common traits used to compare monohulls and catamarans. I like the objective analysis of each question, but then for many of us these questions start to sound like, "Do you ride the bus to work or pack a lunch box?"

Let me apologize to Kim Klaka in advance as I'm about to make fun of these questions from the article and I'll repeat,- If you have a serious interest in these questions, then the article is very good.

True or False:

1. Catamarans capsize, monohulls don't.
2. Monohulls sink, catmarans don't.

Sailboats can be operated in a conservative and safe manner or with reckless danger. People can succeed with safety or suffer catastrophic loss with any sailboat.

3. Catamarans are more expensive than monohulls.

There is no limit to the amount of money that people can be subject to spending on their attempts at maintaining a boat! By luck or skill some people tend to get by with far less than others on board any choice of vessel.

4. Catamarans are faster than monohulls.

Jet planes and rockets are fast. Sailboats a slow. Everybody knows this!

5. Catamarans make you seasick.

Some people suffer from motion sickness riding in a car and some people don't have motion sickness in cars, boats or carnival rides.

Yes, the whole monohull vs catamaran question remains a little silly to me.

Couldn't agree more! The art of problem-solving lies in asking the right questions.
Kim Klaka

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by lifeofreilly57

Where do you plan to sail? Really? If I were looking to live in the Caribbean the living amenities of a cat would be very attractive. But our plans take us further afield so a monohull fit our needs. We have a 47' mono and feel it's plenty of room for our family of 4, in fact our house has one bathroom and the boat has 2 heads, so it's even a bit more liveable than the house. Not sure why you'd need a 50' mono for a couple. If it were the wife and I we'd probably be at 38'-40' because of the lower maintenance cost and ease of handling.
Part of the reason for cruising is to reduce the amount of stuff you have, and focus more on the time you have, boats force you to really determine what is important to you, which is something dirt level living rarely does. I am currently in the mode of stuff reduction and find I don't miss the stuff I've tossed. The bigger it is, the more time you spend maintaining it, the more stuff you haul along the more time you spend moving it, cleaning it, stowing it and generally not using it.
Something to consider.

Good post

[Lizzy Belle]

Question about marina fees for cats after reading the article Kim Klaka wrote:

So, for a given price, the cat is: * Shorter - helps offset the marina fees.

That is definitely not true where I am - since cats usually are wider then mono's (depending on which cat, obviously) they usually take up more then half the slips width. Most marinas here charge 1,5 - 2 times the length prices for cats.

We just had this situation happen since our marina was sold to a new owner (catamaran left today):

- Big steel, 50' x 16,5' steel powerboat, charged for 50' length = € 3.740
- Prout Snowgoose, 37' x 15', charged 1,5 times 37' length = € 3.570
(Length price for 37' is € 2.380)

Note the "monohull" motorboat is wider then the cat, but only the cat has to pay the special cat price. In both cases, they fit a narrow boat next to them so both slips are fully occupied by 2 boats.
Since the motorboat is 50', they can only rent out the slip across from him to a 30' max boat, anything longer and he can't get out of his slip anymore ... No such problem with the Prout.

Not sure how other countries deal with cats, but as far as the Dutch marinas go, just the fact that you have a cat means you pay 1,5 - 2 times the length prices, regardless of your beam. Mono's simply pay the length price, regardless of their beam.

(We used to be one of the few marinas that simply charged by length x width, which was a fair system for cats too. Which is why we had 2.)

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Andrew Grace

So True, Double of everything, and berthing is Double, and berthing I get charged the same rate as a 80 foot monohull!!!

With a 35ft cat you pay the price of a 80ft mono? That seems vastly exaggerated and I never saw that. on the med more and more marinas adopt a policy that makes sense charging for the square meter, well kind off, what it is obtained by multiplying beam by length and in what regards that cats pay about the double for the same length.

A 80ft mono would have a big beam so it is kind of strange that it would pay the same as a small cat.

Regarding this:

"So, for a given price, the cat is: * Shorter - helps offset the marina fees. "

It seems to me not true and a vast exaggeration on the other sense: Considering the same length a catamaran has not the double interior space of a modern beamy monohull.