'Highland Fling', you are engaging in revisionist history
in an effort to justify your ill- considered attack on not only my post, but my boat.
1. I did not say that my boat would do 9 knots direct downwind
in 18 knots of wind; what I said was that she would "run/reach"
at 1/2 wind speed. Like most sailors of cats (and many monohulls), I virtually never run dead downwind, even with a symmetrical chute. Can my boat reach those speeds while 'running/reaching'? As SMJ points out, he was able to achieve and better those speeds in his Cherokee 35 before the waterline length was extended by 5 feet to create the Sunstream 40. The hull speed
of my boat is 8.19 knots (LWL of 37'3") and like most boats, she is able to exceed that quite readily. Common sense
tells you that these speeds are not only achievable, but quite readily. Your suggestion, therefore, that my posted speed is "true fantasy" is not only wrong, but insulting and obviously intended to be the same.
2. Again, your suggestion that my boat has "little appeal to the ladies" was made for what reason? It advances the debate about the reason for the increased popularity of multihulls how? It didn't, it was merely another effort by yourself to insult me and my boat. I am sorry if all that I could afford to budget
for my boat, including an extensive refit
, was $150,000.00 No, it may not be as sexy as some "more modern" cats. When did I say that it was?
3. Ditto with respect to your suggestion that my particular boat was "for sure an acquired taste" - again, offensive and irrelevant to the discussion of why multihulls in general
have become more popular.
4. You suggest that it is as easy to jibe/gybe a symmetrical spinnaker
on a monohull
as it is on a multihull, because you do not need a pole on either. As 'proof', you cite the ATN Tacker - a device which on its own site, is specified for use with AS
SYMMETRICAL spinnakers, which do not typically need a pole. It seems I will have to explain some basics to you, Highland Fling. On monohulls, Symmetrical
spinnakers need to attach the tack of the sail to a spinnaker
pole extended out from the mast
to windward in order to maintain their symmetrical
shape. On a catamaran
, however, symmetrical spinnakers do not need a pole because by attaching the tack to the windward bow, the sail is held out a comparable distance from the boats centerline as it would be with the pole on a monohull. Do you understand now?
5. Your suggestion that my boat has (or will develop) delamination
of the bulkheads from the hull
is also offensive and irrelevant. I indicated that I am not aware of any
of the 14 Solaris Sunstream 40's that have had this problem and asked for you to give hull
numbers. Your lame "I saw a couple of Solaris 15-20 years ago with this problem" tells the whole story. Even if true, As SMJ points out, there were various models of Solaris yachts. Which was it? When were they manufactured? You obviously don't know. What is more, even if
a couple of Solaris Yachts had this problem (and the 42's dated back to 1972 and were a very different boat, as were the 36's and 32's and 24's...), so what? It would be like attacking your particular model of Beneteau
because an unknown model of Beneteau
, of an unknown vintage, of unknown history
(accident, storm damage?) had bulkhead delamination
15- 20 years ago! How is that relevant to anything? Indeed, even if my boat had a problem with delaminated bulkheads (and it does not), how does that relate to the subject of the increased popularity of multihulls in general? It doesn't any more than would an attack by myself on Beneteau's because they use cheap
, cast iron keels even though they corrode and weigh less for volume and surface area than lead. It is irrelevant because not all monohulls and not all multihulls have the same problems. No, once again, your sole effort was a pathetic one at making a baseless attack on my choice of vessel that was irrelevant to the thread.
monhulls sail better off the wind than most
monohulls was a tempered comment by myself that reflects vessel dynamics and the ability to use a symmetrical spinnaker without a pole (as already discussed). In the area of vessel dynamics and the reduced tendancy to roll or broach off the wind, consider the following:
- all things being equal, a catamaran
will heel (and therefore roll) less than a monohull (if you don't accept this, I don't know where to begin). This is because increased beam increases the resistance to heeling and therefore rolling.
- When a boat with a single
heels or rolls, the rudder
swing up from their deepest point of penetration and therefore become less effective.
- When a boat is hit on the rear quarter by a sea there is pressure exerted that will tend to cause the boat to heel or roll; this effect will be greater on a monohull (because it has less resistance to heeling than a catamaran).
- When the monohull heels as a result, its rudder and keels will also tend to swing up, reducing their effectiveness and increasing the risk of a broach.
- In these conditions, because a Catamaran will heel and roll considerably less (due to its increased beam), its twin rudders and keels will also continue to operate more effectively, as they will swing up less from their maximum penetration; indeed, short of flying a hull, as the windward one goes up, the leeward one goes down.
Think of it this way: in order to get monohull off a shoal, persons tend to take a halyard
off the mast
and extend it out to a dinghy
in order to induce heeling, thereby reducing the draft
of the keel and rudder. Any argument? Try the same with a catamaran!
Why do you think that Open 60 monohulls carried their beam well aft and used twin rudders? These were boats that were intended to circumnavigate with the trade
winds and hence, were designed to do most of their sailing off the wind. The increased beam aft and the twin rudders tended to counterract the very effects I am speaking about above - and they did so, albeit with less beam than a catamaran, by mimicking to some degree, those aspects of the design of catamarans - increased beam aft and twin rudders.
Why do you think that Beneteau, the manufacturer of your own boat, is currently producing the Sense 43 and 50? Again, these boats carry their beam much further aft than usual and make use of twin rudders. Do you think it is because it makes good advertising hype, even though there are no practical advantages (something you suggest as being one of the two main reasons for the increased popularity of multihulls)? I think not. It is primarily because it reduces heeling and rolling and the impact of the same. They will make better boats off the wind. Full stop.
I had attempted to encourage other owners of multihulls to tell us why they purchased their current
multihull - i.e., what features encouraged them to buy their boats and how that was relevant to their intended use. I believed then (and now) that this would have been extremely relevant to this thread, as it would have given us actual reasons for purchase
, rather than mere speculation.
Unfortunately, I suspect that you and others have succeeded in heading off any further posts on the subject. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to baseless and irrelevant attacks on the construction, appearance, sexiness and utility of their boats? Bravo Highland Fling for destroying the tenor of yet another multihull thread!