AMI Renaissance 320 catamaran

[Dulcesuenos]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

BTW, I believe the Eclipse in the pics is also the one on the for sale page; looks very heavy with heater, twin diesels, stainless winches.

....Richards designed displacement of about 6500 for the Sagitta hulls.
.

First off the bottom paint in the picture of his "eclipse" is well above the knuckle, the scumline is almost at the knuckle, are you saying he didnt design his boat to handle this load?
These are two very different boats, built completly differently
The Hull designs used for the AMI are the Eclipse , not the Sagitta why do you reference comparing the the Sagitta weight vs the AMI , or is this more missdirection?
All you've done is try to discredit a great sailing well thought out sailing cat, in defense of your chosen designer.
I personaly think this thread should be deleted as its not based on anything factual other than the Eclipse with twin diesels sits about the same in the water if not lower, than the AMI does.

[Boatguy30]

While, I've been involved in some threads that have been deleted; nothing but fact is presented here. (By me)

when did AMI start building boats? I'm pretty sure prior to the Eclipse design circa '97-'99 I think. Richard told me they were Sagitta hulls that were lengthened I guess. A south African builder did the same thing. You can see the problem with this type of pirate design with a builder that is no longer in business and a bunch of spec sheets that don't add up.

As I said, the issue is not with a design mistake, but a boat packed with too much "stuff" by a builder. Whether it be AMI, the home builder of the Eclipse, etc. And who knows, maybe that boat took on water a week before it was hauled?

I'm glad the boat sails well so overloaded, it must certainly be a good base hull shape. You can see for yourself the AMI builder lists displacement at 6300 in the info you posted. This is almost exactly the Sagitta displacement. The Eclipse displacement is around 8500. When Richard lists a displacement that is meant to be the fully loaded waterline weight. Most, owners, builders, buyers do not understand this.

To do some simple math, my boat is designed displacement of 10,875 lbs. The dry weight with outboards and sailing gear should be about 7000 lbs. The difference is the payload. At 11,000 the transoms will still be clear of the waterline not require bottom paint on the transoms aft face like most small cats.


anyway, the OP asked for info. I was provided what I know. I still find it curious the few that are around are so frequently for sale.

[Dulcesuenos]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I still find it curious the few that are around are so frequently for sale.

Mine was owned by the same owners for almost 18 years, not sure how that adds up to " So Frequently for sale" again babble you use to try to make it look like something is wrong....
One in Pensacola was owned by the same owners living aboard for years and they finally were able to move up in size as well.
Two other ow.ers have had theirs for 10+ years that I know.
We are simply selling after 15 months of ownership as our plans have changed from just the two if us to more than that, and our cruising grounds have expanded because we love life aboard so much. And we have a decent opportunity at a very large cat at this moment. If you'd seen our posts on multihul4 us. We wernt planning to sell for another two years but this opportunity presented itself. The seller if the other AMI has decided (to the best if my knowledge, not putting words in anyones mouth) they want a 41' + cat.

[Dulcesuenos]

Actually i was mistaken the hull design originated as the Symphony, and Richard said is kind of a mixture / cross of Symphony, Sagitta, Eclipse designs and the builders in Fl lengthened it two ft. And made some other changes to be more appealing such as better and wider transom steps. Without a doubt it should have had a higher displacement than the Sagitta's and no it wouldn't be the first time a builder was off on their displacements. The Symphony photos I found showed waterline well above both transom edges and knuckle. And I Found two more photos of Different eclipses with their knuckle midships right at the waterline making it pretty common for them apparently

[Boatguy30]

Way to go man. there were never any symphonies built and Richard was unwilling to sell me a set of plans for it 2 years ago.

these little cats are compromises. I just hope I don't want a 41' cat also in a few years time!

[Dulcesuenos]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Way to go man. there were never any symphonies built and Richard was unwilling to sell me a set of plans for it 2 years ago.

these little cats are compromises. I just hope I don't want a 41' cat also in a few years time!

There was a company that made 4 symphonies before the closed. Two of them were owned by authors of multihulls intl. Here is a picture of one of them.
Im sure you will want a 41'er in a few years. The question will you build it or buy it?

[Dulcesuenos]

And front view, great looking boat and he said had a great layout.

[Boatguy30]

Where were they built England? I thought Richard told me he sold 3 sets of plans, but thought no boats had been built.

anyway, I have no special affinity for Richard, the Vardo was just the only design available that fit my needs.

I think I'll build a few houses next time and buy the bigger boat with the money.
?but you never know.
Jedf

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Epiphany

I had noticed the knuckle. I assume it is intended to increase the interior volume above the waterline while reducing the wetted surface. If so it seems ahead of its time on a 20 year old design. Having it so close to the waterline does seem a bit problematic. I assume Woods designed to hulls to carry a simpler and lighter super structure. I am curious as to how you boat turned out. Can you post a photo?

LOLOL....
They had a 'Knuckle' on Catalac's and they were built in the early 70's....

[Boatguy30]

That hull shape is quite a bit different, but I suppose along the same lines.

[Epiphany]

Originally Posted by boatman61

LOLOL....
They had a 'Knuckle' on Catalac's and they were built in the early 70's....

Finally a response related to my original inquiry. I guess I have paid enough attention to hull design in the past. Anyone else got any input about the boat?

[Boatguy30]

Hey, if you can't follow the math: you sound like a perfect prospect.

[Epiphany]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Hey, if you can't follow the math: you sound like a perfect prospect.

What was that supposed to mean? If you were put off by my "Finally a response related to my original inquiry." comment. Please accept my apology. I guess I grew weary of you attacking a boat you've never seen while Dulcesuenos defended a boat he's trying to sell. There were so few of them built and the design is a little "different." I was hoping that some folks with experience with the boat might have some insights. Though I found it intersting I was hoping for more.

[Boatguy30]

I saw both of them when they were for sale here in St Augustine 2 years ago. A looked the one over quite closely from my whaler and decided it wasn't the boat for me so didn't bother the broker.

I was more just mainly sharing my detailed reasons for passing on the boat and not looking to attack anyone personally. For me there is no important element than the base hull design. I would never build a Winnebago on a VW Beetle.

[Epiphany]

I stand corrected. I now remember you saying tht you look at one. Thank you for your input.