Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Polux]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Based on the real-world passages I have made, the Tayana would be much faster in most of them, slower on only the short ones. The Cigale 16 has only 400L of tankage. On a boat like that, this represents about 400nm of motoring range. In my experience, one needs to motor, on average 40-50% of the time offshore. ..

My point is that the Cigale, as I understand it, is not a viable distance cruiser, and certainly has no advantage in passage speed over a (handicapped) Tayana.

Do you mean that to cross the Atlantic you motor half the time? We are talking about passage making and that normally refers to Ocean passages.

Regarding motoring any good motorboat of the same size will be much faster. We are talking about sailing passages not about half motoring passages.

We are not discussing your tastes on boats neither what you consider "a viable distance cruiser".

The Cigale was designed as long range fast passage making by one of the best NA of the XX century and he designed it for himself several decades ago. Many have been built after that and the main use is long range cruising and fast passage making.

This is how Finot describes the boat:
Aller loin, Aller vite, Avec des manœuvres faciles, Avec suffisamment de confort Avec peu de gîte, En toute sécurité ...Est le rêve de tout plaisancier.

And this the original Speed Polar. Today the new model is probably faster:

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Sandero

What is the length distribution of the members' boats on this forum... or the average cruiser... or the average live aboard?

I don't know the lengths, but the majority (over 70%) of the responding member on the forum own a 20+ year old boat. If you think about it, it explains lots of opinions about boats here.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Polux:Note they are not using any spinnacher and that this is a charter boat.
They don't need to go at over 20k or near it to be much faster. They can go at half that speed in all comfort and be much faster than a 40ft old displacement boat of the same size like a Tayana or a Vailant 40.

You and I obviously have different definitions of comfort.
Can the pogo go faster? Yes. Would I cruise with it? Not if I had a choice of it or a Valiant/Tayana.

All you have proven is that your priorities and tastes in a cruising boat are very different from mine.

If you understood that I was trying to impose any particular taste regarding any type of boat you misunderstood me.

I only was saying that a Pogo 40 on passage is much faster than a Tayana 42, not telling you that the interior comfort is the same or that the fun of sailing the two boats is the same.

As you agree the Pogo will go faster the point was made.

I am not saying that you would like more to do a passage on a Pogo than on a Tayana 42 neither saying that the Pogo is a better or worse boat than the Tayana.

Preferring one over the other it will depend on personal tastes, some would like more one boat, others will prefer the other.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Believe in what you want. This discussion makes not any sense for me or any that knows modern boats and something about boat design.

Do you really believe that this boat on passage with identical skilled sailors will go at the same speed of a Valiant 40 or a Tayana 42?

Note they are not using any spinnaker and that this is a charter boat.
They don't need to go at over 20k or near it to be much faster. They can go at half that speed in all comfort and be much faster than a 40ft old displacement boat of the same size like a Tayana or a Vailant 40.

And logically if both boats with the same length can have completely different sailing speeds, a smaller light semi planing boat cab be as fast as a much bigger heavier displacement boat.

And if the load is maintained reasonable that has nothing to do with the boat being loaded or not, I mean the max speed will be affected but the average speed will still be much bigger than the one of a displacement heavy boat. These guys are going to Azores, a lot of them on a small fast passagemaker (35ft) and look at the speed they go:

Do you really think that an heavy displacement 35ft boat could go at that speed? Or that they are not doing a passage as fast as considerably bigger heavy displacement boat?
Note that is on the trade winds on medium to strong winds, on lighter winds the difference would even be bigger.

Do you really believe a Tayana 58:

Will be at a passage as fast as a smaller Cigale 16:


As I said, if evidence does not convince you, I will not try anymore but I can only say that your opinion about this is clearly biased.

I specifically mentioned Pogo as a boat which can be fairly easily driven above its hull speed. And I also mentioned that this is an exceptional case.

The Cigale 16 is NOT "smaller" than the Tayana 58 -- it has a 52' waterline, 8' more than the Tayana.

I think you read too many magazines. Read Evans Starzinger's exhaustive statistical study of real life passage speeds for real facts on this issue.

The real answer to this question is this:

Waterline length rules, and practically determines practical passage speed in a wide range of conditions, excluding only very light wind and very fast downwind sailing. We're talking about normal passage making when the crew is sailing for endurance, and not pushing hard trying to make speed.

The other exception to this rule will be boats at the extreme ends of the range of boat design -- very heavy especially long keel boats, on the one hand, and superlight rockets like the Pogo, on the other, which will have speed "grooves" which deviate from this broad norm.

Once crews start to work hard for speed, THEN is when a fast boat for her waterline length starts to distinguish herself.


This is the simple truth, and is explained by a simple fact of physics -- the force needed to get a boat within a knot of her hull speed, and especially above, goes up geometrically, and that is true with any boat slow or fast. And generating the force required demands not only certain qualities in the boat, but a certain level of effort of the crew, quite difficult to maintain over a long passage.

And that explains the cold, hard facts in Starzinger's study. That's why long passages are nearly always sailed in boat's "grooves" a knot or two below hull speed, whether the boat is relatively slow or relatively fast, unless the crew is racing or quasi-racing (ARC) or pushing it for some reason.

Sorry, but that's just the simple truth, even though it contradicts what the makers of high performance boats spend a lot of advertising money trying to make you believe.


EDIT: N.B. that I have always been excluding light wind. I admit that that does kind of reflect a higher latitude point of view -- where there is almost always as much wind as you can use.

Passage speed will start to be greatly influenced by SA/D and by the weight of the boat, in lighter winds, than what we have up here.

That's why Evan's formula includes a factor for SA/D.

Up here, a high SA/D will make you slower, unless you have a suit of hank-on headsails of varying sizes. Because you have to reef earlier which ruins headsail performance on a roller furling rig.

[four winds]

Originally Posted by Goosebumps

no response to my question if anyone knows cat owner downgrafing to monohull I take as confirmation no such cat iwner exists

There was a thread on this subject recently. I would provide a link but the search function doesn't work on my phone for some reason.

I believe the title stated upgrade to monohull however, for what it's worth. Clearly a matter of perspective. I do recall several posts indicating a decision to go back to a monohull, so it has happened.

BTW, it's not a matter of imagination that I have lived full time on a thirty two foot monohull for six years and counting. Two at marinas and four on the hook.

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Polux

Do you mean that to cross the Atlantic you motor half the time? We are talking about passage making and that normally refers to Ocean passages.

What else would you have me do when the wind stops blowing? Launch the longboats and order my crew to row faster under pain of the lash!? (I bet I'd be single-handing my next passage.) Really... what do you do when you're hundreds of miles from your starting point, hundreds of miles from your destination, and the sea turns into glass -- or winds are 5-10 from astern with a sloppy left over sea -- do you not motor?

My experience is limited (< 20knm offshore), but I have found that sometimes the wind blows and sometimes it doesn't. On some of the passages we joked that the only time the wind blew at all, it was right on the nose. I have done 640nm passages where the only ripples on the water the whole 76 hours were my own wake. I have had other ~1000nm passages where I didn't turn on the motor until we were arriving in the harbor. It really does vary. In my experience, on average, one has conditions for adequate VMG for sailing 50-60% of the time, absolutely insufficient wind to sail for 30%, the middle 10-20% is questionable. So, yes, I would fully expect that on an offshore passage such as an Atlantic crossing I would motor 40-50% the time. Some passages would be more, some less, but that is my expectation born of my experience. Is your experience different? Please share.

Regarding motoring any good motorboat of the same size will be much faster. We are talking about sailing passages not about half motoring passages.

Perhaps there are purists who, when the wind dies, refuse to turn on their auxiliary propulsion and instead go for a swim. To each his own. I wouldn't call that a fast way to make a passage, though. I prefer to sail -- I greatly enjoy sailing, and furthermore it is quieter than motoring, much more comfortable than motoring alone (motor sailing is another conversation), and consumes no resources that are limited on the boat. But I embark on an offshore passage to deliver my boat (safely) from one place to another -- I, and I am not alone, have found that the fastest (and therefore safest) way to get a sailboat across an ocean is some combination of wind and diesel power. I don't need to prove my manhood or sailing qualifications by declaring the auxiliary is off limits. (There are real and very valid debates regarding use of the motor in survival storms, but that is another matter).

My copy of Beth Leonard's book is a couple of thousand miles away from me, or I'd quote her exact statistics on frequency of wind strength and direction and the percentage of time auxiliary propulsion is employed for different types and sizes of sailboats, but I recall they were pretty close to what I had observed personally.

We are not discussing your tastes on boats neither what you consider "a viable distance cruiser".

No? Ok, then, you address how a Cigale could be applied to the long distance cruising that I do. If I were to "trade up" to the Cigale, where do you suggest I mount the dinghy davits? Do the performance numbers you mention include loading of 400-500# worth of dinghy and motor, 1000#+ of ground tackle, 300#+ pounds of tools, 200#+ of spare parts and lubricants, my wife's kayaks, or my five kids' toys? 500# of fresh provisions? Some amount of adult beverages, etc. How does the addition of a washer-dryer, dishwasher, and my precious espresso machine influence the light air performance or the windspeed at which the boat goes "on-plane?" Don't fret, I don't have a full dive compressor and tanks to stow, just a hookah setup. Where do you suggest solar and wind generation are attached? There are lots of things on a cruising boat -- even a life raft has some weight -- it all adds up. I doubt I'm the only cruiser who has these needs. My needs may be beyond the "typical", but they're not that different from other cruisers I've met.

The Cigale was designed as long range fast passage making by one of the best NA of the XX century and he designed it for himself several decades ago. Many have been built after that and the main use is long range cruising and fast passage making.

I wonder what the correlation is between a manufacturer's advertised polar charts and real world, long-distance cruising. The Cigale is certainly a wonderful boat, but it strikes me as not geared towards passage making in the context of cruising. Most cruisers don't always push for 100% of possible speed for a myriad of reasons. When you push the boat, things are more likely to break -- and that creates a safety issue. I'm not the only cruiser who often tucks in a reef as the sun is setting. No one should have to sacrifice seamanship for speed.

Here's another way to think about fast passage times. In November 2014 we made the ~900nm trip from BDA to SXM in 4.5 days. In 2015, when faced with the same journey, my wife offered to take time off of work to meet me in SXM when I got there. I knew what day the crew was arriving BDA. I had the challenge to plan the trip and tell my wife which days to take off from work and when should she her book flight? Of course, if I am not comfortable with the weather forecast or the state of my vessel or crew, it is up to me to decide to reschedule or delay -- and she would have to try to reschedule her trip, not take it at all, or vacation without me. The conditions typically are very light winds the first half of the trip and the tradewinds usually fill in for the second half of the trip. Later in the winter the boat was to cruise with up to 8 kids and 6 adults, and needs all the toys and creature comforts to support their fun. Of course, if a low has just come through you'll have wind at the start of the trip too, but that is low-probability on any particular day. The boat must carry all its own supplies -- an escort vessel is not an option. Tell me, please, what is your approach to planning this trip? How many days do you plan for? Which boat would you rather do it in? Why?

This is how Finot describes the boat:
Aller loin, Aller vite, Avec des manœuvres faciles, Avec suffisamment de confort Avec peu de gîte, En toute sécurité ...Est le rêve de tout plaisancier.

Finot is responsible for the design they praise so highly. Again, I'm sure Cigale is a great boat, but for a design house to vouch for its own work does not carry a lot of weight with most people. No one is going to argue that speed is bad, but the two boat examples you've shown me are, imho, not good examples for long distance cruising.

The other thing I've observed is that voyages can end up significantly longer than the rhumb line. You head this way to miss a developing gale, chart a course off the rhumb line to take advantage of prevailing winds and currents (consider a Hawaii -> San Francisco trip), only to find that you're out of luck and neither wind nor current is behaving as expected. When sailing a passage that would be a 900nm straight-line distance, you might cover 901nm, or it might take you 1200nm, but it rarely takes 900nm.

There's a further issue that warrants mention. If fuel may not be sufficient to motor most of the way, imperfect decisions are likely regarding when to motor. If you don't know that the wind will blow favorably for the next week (do you trust an offshore forecast 7 days out?), do you put on the auxilliary today even though you could make, say, 5.5kts under sail? There's no right/wrong decision, but imperfect knowledge of future weather and the ultimate route can make deliveries even slower than a limited tankage might otherwise imply.

Again, I don't mean to bash Cigare, but I doubt it is much faster in real cruising scenarios than its waterline would predict. A 60' monohull ought to be able to take a couple and 5 kids (or some other, similar mix) across the seas and around the world in comfort and style. Do you know of any families who have done extended distance cruising in a Cigare? How often did they exceed hull speed? What was their average passage making speed? If you want to argue that this fine boat is the ultimate in long distance cruising and fast passage-making, and make your argument based on data, please provide the relevant data. I simply don't have experience sailing one of those fine boats.

[stillbuilding]

Originally Posted by Goosebumps

I notice few here real liveaboards to post! liveaboard 10 years on monohull on the hook me in my 34 foot cat cant even imagine possible, unless of course a +50 footer that cant be singlehanded

Heresay. Chatting with an airline pilot recently who discussed informatively his experience of a larger cat which he used to sail up and down the Australian cat. He liked what the cat offered but found it frustrating to sail or motor up wind to and from Sydney to Whitsundays (wind here always seems to be like that for me too &#128515 and sold the cat to buy a 45' mono to do a RTW over couple of years. His complaint was that the cat did not have the engine or sail power to punch into the waves and would just travel too slowly to be suitable passage maker. Is now based near Bundaberg and has a high powered fishing boat. Changed his partners too. Horses for courses.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forums lily hhrn

[barnakiel]

I do not think there will be much choice in speed, when we think of same length and style mono vs. multi. BUT there may be major differences in comfort at the same speed. I have sailed multis 'fast' and they were nearly OK. Comparable monos seem to be way more noisy and lively at the same speeds.

Some people say multis tire you more when you sail a lot of beam passages in big waves. I do not have enough experience to say how much this is true. We always sailed either up or downwind legs and when there were beam seas they never exceeded ordinary 7 to 10 feet maybe. These were short passages only though.

So this cannot be much of a reason to stay mono.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I specifically mentioned Pogo as a boat which can be fairly easily driven above its hull speed. And I also mentioned that this is an exceptional case.
...
Sorry, but that's just the simple truth, even though it contradicts what the makers of high performance boats spend a lot of advertising money trying to make you believe.
...

I get it, boats are limited by hull speed, except the exceptions and the exceptions are fast cruisers

Have a look again at the Cigale 16 Polar, another exception and remember that all this has to do with a owner of a Tayana 58 saying that his boat was maximized for fast passage making and me saying that it was not, that a boat like the Cigale or Pogo or Django are passagemakers maximized for fast passages.


Regarding light monohulls top be limited to hull speed, the LWL of mine is 8k speed and downwind, that is what we are talking about, with a typical trade wind I never go slower than 8k, most of the time between 8.5 and 12K.

Here with only 15/16k wind, with the boat under canvassed for making a movie, with the boat on autopilot, the speed is well over hull speed (8.6/8.8).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyZkwbb6tiE

After the movie I shook out a reef and went to the wheel having some fun with the boat doing between 9 and 10.5K. And yes the boat was fully loaded for 4 months of extensive cruising.

So much about reading too much magazines. Maybe you should get a fast performance cruiser to understand better what I am talking about

Downwind my boat is not on the same league as a Pogo, a Rm, a Django, a JPK38 or a Cigale (it's better upwind) and on those boats the difference of speed over hull speed downwind over 16k wind is bigger. Those boats are also more pointed for passage making and long range cruising than mine and that's probably why downwind performance is privileged.

That performance on my boat is nothing special and quite common. With a bit more wind, but not much more, even light mass production boats can go easily slightly over hull speed. Here you have a RM1260 chasing a Jeanneau 409, both over hull speed. The speeds are very similar, just a bit bigger on the RM. With more wind the RM would be way faster than the Jeanneau:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWG3...&nohtml5=False

Off course with stronger winds, that are common on the trade winds, the difference of speed over the hull speed will be much bigger.

Here a RM 10.50 way over hull speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEYkuHU_MB4

And a JPK 38 at planing speeds:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sor7XrqySY

Note that I am not defending or promoting these fast passage makers, just saying that they obviously can do what I have said they can do: Sailing easely slightly over hull speed and some even get to real planing speeds with a stronger wind.

These are small passage makers and those are the ones optimised fast passage making. Probably you don't like them, some do, but that is not the point, the point is that a fast passage maker is way faster size by size compared with an heavy displacement monohull like a Tayana that is limited by hull speed.

A Cigale 16 or a Pogo 50 are, like these smaller ones, cruisers maximized as fast passage makers. The Tayana 58 it is not and it is a much slower boat.

The difference is that the Cigale 16 and the Pogo 50 can go easily some knots over hull speed and given enough wind can go to planing speeds while the Tayana is limited to hull speed, not to mention the huge difference in what regards hull speed and the much lighter wind that is needed for the Pogo and the Cigale to reach close hull speed.

Both the Cigale and the Pogo can go over wind speed with 6k wind. It makes any sense to believe that the Tayana 58 is as fast or even close????

[accomplice]

Originally Posted by Polux

A Cigale 16 or a Pogo 50 are, like these smaller ones, cruisers maximized as fast passage makers. The Tayana 58 it is not and it is a much slower boat.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong

There certainly are boats that are faster at long passages than our Tayana 58, but neither of those boats you chose are fall into that category. The dirty little secret of deliveries is that you motor half the time if you want to make time. Boats that allow you to do that will, on average, be faster than boats that don't.

[barnakiel]

I think since so few boats get on plane, the far more interesting area for our cruising investigations is they grey matter from 1.0 to say 1.20 of sqrt lwl. Attainable but hardly ever attained.

Most cruising boats do not have enough SA to drive them to and beyond 1.0 sqrt lwl in typical ocean broad reach and run conditions. The same boats will easily make it when beam on in the Windwards!

It is amazing thing to see how few boats crossing the oceans are actually optimised for the routes they intend to sail.

Another interesting area is light wind performance. Most boats stay put as soon as the wind is less than 10 knots. A VOR boat can sail up to 12 knots in the same conditions ...

And how does it all relate to staying mono? Well, multis tend to have two engines; in a mono you may actually end up sailing. ;-)

A valid reason to stay mono: it is so uncomfortable when you stop that you may try to keep on moving and become a better sailor in the process.

b.

[Ribbit]

Cruising is like touring on a motorbike, to me.

The best touring motorbike I ever owned, by a clear margin, was what in America is a Honda 919. The old Blade engine with fuel injection, in a street frame. My best distance day with it, was over 1,100 miles, and it was done comfortably, and economically.

For comparison, the best day I managed on my BMW touring bike, was just over 300 miles. It wasn't a comfortable bike to travel on, and after 300 miles, I was worn out. On my Kawasaki's I could occasionally manage 700 mile days. A distance I frequently managed on my 919, very comfortably.

No matter the bike I was on though, I enjoyed the journey. What I didn't enjoy, was arriving at the destination maybe in no fit condition to carry on the next day. When this happens, it is seriously annoying, and always inconvenient, and you might not be able to manage to exploit a good weather window for more enjoyable travelling, as a result.

So to me this whole hull speed matter has a strong correlation with touring, and is particularly pertinent to cruising, as a result.

If you push the boat too hard, things break, and they wear out a lot faster. But if you push people too hard, they break and wear out as well.

So there's a lot of sense in making haste slowly, and in comfort, with economy of wear and tear, when cruising. Because indeed, you might not just get where you are going just as quickly, but by being fresh and rested each day, instead of being constantly worn out, you will probably get there a lot faster too.

I think somebody wrote a popular story that covered the situation rather well - something about a Hare and a Tortoise if I remember right.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I think since so few boats get on plane, the far more interesting area for our cruising investigations is they grey matter from 1.0 to say 1.20 of sqrt lwl. Attainable but hardly ever attained.

Most cruising boats do not have enough SA to drive them to and beyond 1.0 sqrt lwl in typical ocean broad reach and run conditions. The same boats will easily make it when beam on in the Windwards!

It is amazing thing to see how few boats crossing the oceans are actually optimised for the routes they intend to sail.

Another interesting area is light wind performance. Most boats stay put as soon as the wind is less than 10 knots. A VOR boat can sail up to 12 knots in the same conditions ...

And how does it all relate to staying mono? Well, multis tend to have two engines; in a mono you may actually end up sailing. ;-)

A valid reason to stay mono: it is so uncomfortable when you stop that you may try to keep on moving and become a better sailor in the process.

b.

Performance monohulls reach close hull speed with 10k speed. Boats like Pogo 50 can go at hull speed with 10k and at 12K can go 1k over hull speed.

Cats like Outremer 51 have probably not a so good performance on light winds but a even better performance in stronger winds.

As important to performance as those extra k speed that performance boats do easily over hull speed is the little wind they need to reach hull speed.

These two factors more than true planing performance, as well as pointing ability upwind are in what regards cruising what makes performance cruisers much faster than heavy cruisers, assuming an identical performance by the ones that sail them.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by accomplice

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong

There certainly are boats that are faster at long passages than our Tayana 58, but neither of those boats you chose are fall into that category. The dirty little secret of deliveries is that you motor half the time if you want to make time. Boats that allow you to do that will, on average, be faster than boats that don't.

I once said to the fan cat crowd that the guys with older or (and) heavier monohulls can be as biased regarding performance cruisers monohulls as they can be biased towards cats. They did not believe it, maybe they believe it know

Saying that a Cigale 16 or a Pogo 50 are not faster than a Tawiana 58 in long passages makes not any sense and it reveals a deep ignorance regarding other types of boats than your own.

Two Pogo 50 made the ARC in two different years, the first one was in 2012 and that one was not properly racing hard but almost. The crew was not big and besides the owner, the boat designer, the boat builder included two racers (one of them a lady). The average speed over the 2680nm was 12.64K.

No, they did not use the engine and if they had used they would not gain anything with it since I don't believe the boat can do over 12.6k with the engine. Here they are doing it in a casual way:
https://vimeo.com/63087458

The other it was on the last edition, this one with a cruising crew and on the cruising division (not on the racing one). The ARC attributes a classification to all boats anyway, based on the boat rating and time and theirs was not good, they only made 53th and that puts them at the middle of the cruising division.

But even if the boat was sailed very far away from its potential they made it on the head of the transat (fast boat) taking 14 days 1 hour and 40m to cross the Atlantic at an average speed of 7.84k (and they did not use the engine).

A poor performance if compared with the well sailed Pogo 50 that made it some years back, with an average speed 4.6K superior, but even so with a Tayana 58 limited to a hull speed of 9K you would have to motor almost all the way to be faster and I doubt you have tankage for crossing the Atlantic motoring.

Anyway we are not talking here about motorboats but about sailingboats and if you want to motor there are better boats for doing that than a Tayana 58 that is a good sailboat even if not fast for the size.

But that is no reason to motor 50% on a passage. If you do that maybe you don't have the right boat, we sail because we like it and as the Dashew found out, a motor boat is more efficient.

[Stumble]

Accomplice,

I really think you need to get some time on a modern performance hull. If you think motoring in 10kn of breeze is the only way to achieve reasonable passage times then you are just wrong. My fat Beneteau will clock six knots easy in 10kn true going close to DDW. A performance monohull is going to be closing in quickly on 10kn boat speed and probably 8kn vmg. There is the advantage of a performance boat, you put up the kite turn on the auto pilot and let the apparent wind start to clock forward.

I have spent years on a boat very similar to yours, if anything it sailed worse, but it simply is not representative of what a modern performance cruiser can do.