Visit our Popular Forums

deckofficer · 27-02-2012, 20:07

Holy moly, that is a lot of square meters worth. Waterski anyone?

**Ex-Calif** · 27-02-2012, 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highland Fling

.

I have been sailing a long long time - how any heavy weight displacement boat can sail Direct Down Wind at 9 knots in 18 knots TWS is magical i would say totally impossible as your BS = the APWS. 18 knots true with 9 knots directly away from the TWD leaves you with just 9 knots AWS to give 9 knots BS I dont think so - not even a Sundeer could do that i suspect - not that they would try as they are designed to sail on a reach. I thought it was well understood that DDW sailing is the slowest point of sail that is why we reach off for better VMG's and i was sure that every cat owner knew this and would not even think about sailing DDW.

Can we talk about DDW faster than the wind. We haven't done that in a couple of years...

Be a nice change from anchoring and guns...

ty.gregory · 27-02-2012, 20:53

I challenge some brave soul to introduce a new thread named:

'Explanation for the decrease in Multihull Popularity'

Lagoon4us · 27-02-2012, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by ty.gregory

I challenge some brave soul to introduce a new thread named:

'Explanation for the decrease in Multihull Popularity'

Why challenge? Do it yourself is best....

downunder · 27-02-2012, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by ty.gregory

I challenge some brave soul to introduce a new thread named:

'Explanation for the decrease in Multihull Popularity'

I think thead would have to be "The decrease in Monohull populatity" seeing that by participating in this thread you have accepted there has been an increase in Multihull populatity.

Go for it.

markpierce · 28-02-2012, 00:46

I suppose many of you believe this is the ultimate purpose of a single-hulled boat.

markpierce · 28-02-2012, 00:49

If nothing else, it doesn't lean.

Southern Star · 28-02-2012, 14:29

'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 ASSYMMETRICAL 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.

6. Most 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 fixed rudder and keel heels or rolls, the rudder and keel 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!

Cheers!

Brad

Lagoon4us · 28-02-2012, 14:37

+1000

SearenitySail · 28-02-2012, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Star

'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...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!

Cheers!

Brad

Brad,

Don't get so worked up--it's time to bail out of this thread; you can see where it headed.

I suspect Highland Fling is either really a multihull "wannabee" or is so pissed off at himself for his decision to buy the monohull he presently owns that he would like others to share in his misery by convincing them not to buy a multihull.

According to some of his other posts on Cruisers Forum, it appears he has sailed more catamarans than most of the members on the multihulls 4 us forum.

Interestingly enough, despite being single-minded, more than 25% of his 80+ posts have been made in multihull threads!

Go figure!

Can't wait to see his next post!

Marshall

FWIW, here's a good reason for buying a multhull:
http://www.2hulls.com/archive/Gen%20...lthlovers.html

smj · 28-02-2012, 15:14

Brad I never want to get in a debate with you. Well said.

Factor · 28-02-2012, 15:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highland Fling

AYE RIGHT

Now who is into thread drift

I have yet to be passed by any production cruising cat out sailing - On passage from Nevis to Montserrat i was catching a Catana 472. It was blowing 25+ knots and the point of sail was a tight fetch. I was going to pass him to leeward but just for fun i lined up to windward of him. as we got closer to them the helmsperson decided to have a pointing contest and they hardened up - so did we - till we were both close hauled..............their boat speed went down the pan and we romped past them to windward - common sense finally got through the red mist and they bore away onto to a reach and disappeared into the distance...............BUT when we got to Montserrat and dropped the hook in Little Bay i was surprised that there was no sign of them - then about a half hour later we see them motoring dead into the wind - they anchored well away from us outside Little Bay which was rather sad as i would have loved to chat with him as the 471/472 Catana is a boat i like a lot and is almost the fastest cat i have sailed on 25 knots - exceeded only by 30 knots that we got on an Erik Lerouge Inoui 48 - almost if not actually flying a hull in flat water.

In seven years of sailing in the Caribbean I have never had a problem out performing any of the Lagoon Fountaine Pajot Robertson and Caine or Voyage cats and yes even a L440. The only cruising cat that i have had 'problems' with was a Chris White Atlantic 48 which was fast AND very appealing BUT at around ten times the cost of the 461 it XXXXXX should be. I have not yet met an Outremere out sailing but i would expect them to be fast too NOT that i would have one except in a gift. I do like the new Moorings 4600 but never had a problem sailing past one.

Wow, i'm impressed, and all this on a boat with sails that need replacing particularly the 11 year old main sail and a rig that hasn't been inspected lately. Who did your sails, they must be great to hold any shape after that time.

Quote:

Highland Fling is 11 years old now soon 12 The engine 54HP N/A Yanmar has 7000+ hours and is a sweet as it could be. The sails need replaced especially the 11yo mainsail but i reckon that will wait for another year or two. I suppose i should climb the mast and have a good close look at the rigging

deckofficer · 28-02-2012, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by smj

Brad I never want to get in a debate with you. Well said.

Make that two of us. Well, I don't want to get in an debate with anyone, but after Southern Star's post, I be sure not to tangle with him. After his earlier post, I decided to see what kind of boat he has and did some research. I really liked it, and the market price. A lot of nice wood fit and finish in a classy way, and a whole lot of boat for the coin.