Monohull or Multihull Sailboat?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Is that the one from Kingfisher Bay?

It is minus a cabin if I remember correctly, so that would give her more room and save a few hundred kg as well.

You are right about not performance, more like a modern Inspiration 10.

Nice and comfy.

Dave

Actually Blue Dolphin 2 does have a cabin. It is a bit more "practical" in fitout (for it's application) than a standard C35 though, for sure. Probably a few kilo's lighter too, but not hundreds I would think.

[CaptainK]

If I had it my way. It would be a trimaran.

Something like a Piver for starters!! :cubalibre

[Steve Rust]

Sailorman
I don't know what stuff you remember reading but the old wives tale about multihulls breaking up is just that. Let's start by setting aside the racing boats because about the only thing they have in common is the number of hulls. In one of Jim Brown's books he writes about the early days with Piver in San Francisco building boats on a shoe string and taking them out in the bay and beating the hell out of them. They came back with broken masts, broken rudders, broken centerboard/daggerboards, sometimes all three,but the boats always held together. One of the problems in the early days was the lack of detailed building plans that caused some builders to make their own modifications. One of Brown's aims in designing the Searunner was to provide very detailed building plans to eliminate this possibly dangerous practice. The instances I know of involve a Searnner 31 A frame breaking a weld on the forward aluminum truss frame most likely due to faulty welding. The boat held together and the crew made port safely from several hundred miles out at sea. A Piver Lodestar of the coast of Panama losing a section of ama due to (what I could surmise for the account I read) improper loading of heavy stuff in the ama. Maintanence and build quality unknow but the crew made port safely. A Nicol design losing an entire ama in the Gulf of Alaska and eventually the crew made it back to the Seattle area. I think some of the Nicol desgns did have a reputation for a flimsy connective structure but this boat had also completed a circumnavigation. Many of these early boats were built by people of varying skill level and I am sure some were very poorly built but that is not the fault of the design. If properly built even these early boats did not come apart. Of course poorly built, designed, or maintained monohulls have never broken up at sea in heavy weather.

[Sailormann]

I like to think of a centre hull for accomodation etc and the outriggers as lightweight floats for stability.

Any comments?

Comments ?? Uhmm.... Training Wheels ???

....the old wives tale about multihulls breaking up is just that...

Well remember, I did suggest that I might be a bit of a luddite at the start of the post....but you also go on to agree that things have happened to multihulls at sea. I am not suggesting that they happen to all multihulls, just that the information I read (in the mid to late seventies) about actual occurences made me decide that, personally, I prefer a monohull.

Badly built boats break, regardless of what they are. I just think that the opportunity for that to happen is greater with multihull than it is with a mono. I also think they are more work to sail, more expensive to dock, more work to maintain and more expensive to purchase.

Not suggesting that people should not buy them, and not disputing that they offer some significant advantages in room, speed, comfort - just that my needs are best served by a different boat.

[44'cruisingcat]

Multihulls have changed massively since the 70's. More work to sail? I can't see how that would be. They are more expensive to keep in a marina. Maintenance cost comparisons are difficult. You cant compare a 40 foot cat to a 40 foot mono, or even a tri. They are much bigger boats, even though they are the same length. But for boats of similar volume, maintenance is probably similar. Except cats do have 2 engines (usually) of course. There would be less underwater area on a cat or tri, compared to a mono of similar volume. (Because they weigh less) So antifouling is less expensive. And a lot of cats are easy to beach, so haulout costs can be reduced. (depending on where you are)

[northerncat]

how can a cat be more work to sail? it has the same basic sail plan as most monos, i would actually say they are easier to sail due to the fact that you can work upright and not on an angle, ditto for the maintainence same basic setup as a mono except that there is more room to work on things, the only thing there is more of is motors but if you are clever and use outboards the cost of two of these is usually less than your diesel and you can take these off easily for someone else to repair 8-)

[henryv]

We were sailing a 33 foot monohull and decided we would like to move up for a little more comfort. At first we considered moving to a 42 foot monohull however with an eye to some skinny water concerns we looked at catamarans. In the end we bought a 32 foot cat which gave us accomodations equal to the 42 foot mono while keeping draft to just over 3 feet. The boat is a breeze to sail as sail area is similar to what we had on the 33 mono ( lighter boats don't need big sails) , we have a small self tacking jib, and horizontal decks to work on. Hoisting the gennaker is especially easy when you have a 16 foot wide trampoline / foredeck to launch from. The boat fits our old slip so there was no change in marina cost. Our purchase cost was less than the 42 we had considered. Maintenance is not much different than our old monohull. Add in faster sailing, no need to strap things down when leaving the dock, better control in the marina ( two engines ), tranquil nights without the side to side roll when seas are on the beam, I could go on.... we are certainly extremely happy with our choice.

[Sailormann]

I'm not trashing your respective boats - really - I understand that you made choices and are happy with your craft. Just not the right boats for me. It would be a pretty boring world if we all liked the same things wouldn't it ??

[northerncat]

neither are we having a go at you just some of your assumptions seem a little wrongas for it neing a boring world if you like it and i like it whats boring about that, also if everybody bought cats theyd be cheaper to buy8-)

[Sailormann]

Ahhh ... so what was posted as an innocent question regarding cruising preferences was actually a skillfully crafted plot to attempt to convert us to purchasers of multihulls in order that you folks can more easily satiate your need for an abundance of hulls

I am so used to heeling when I sail that I find it difficult to walk upright anymore. While I guess it might be nice to sail flat - I think I'd miss the 'action' and excitement of my boat leaning into the wind. Not to mention that the average catamaran doesn't sail quite as close to the wind as a comparable monohull (though I'm not sure how we could really compare...) In my mind (and I speak under correction) the added speed of the multi is negated by the increased distance sailed upwind.

While I do not have a lot of experience on multihulls, I have sailed on a few. I can remember having problems tacking on two of them, basically getting caught in irons and having to power up to get out of the situation. It seemed to happen much more easily on the catamarans than on a regular boat. When it does happen on a monohull, it is a simple thing to backwind the jib and get underway again.

The cost issue is also a consideration. While I'm not poor, I still find it costs me a significant amount of money every year to pay marina fees. Where I am, you pay extra for additional beam, both in the water and for winter storage. The idea of having two engines frankly scares me - one is enough of a headache.

Also - and now we get into truly subjective territory, I am used to boats that "look like boats". I am just getting comfortable with the more modern (which to me means anything newer than 1970) monohull profiles. I find the bulk of boats manufactured today to be pretty unattractive. There are a couple of catamarans that I have seen that look "interesting" (Stilletto maybe ???), but none that have ever looked truly nautical. And I really don't want to offend anyone with those remarks, I guess I am really just the product of an earlier era...

So, if you have a multihull and find it works well for you, then good. The important thing is that you are on the water and feeling content. I like the fact that you are sailing something different. But at this point in my life, I am afraid you can't count on me for my support in your efforts to broaden the market and lower your costs per unit.

[44'cruisingcat]

Sailorman I don't think anyone is trying to change your mind. I certainly am not. It's just that some of what you said about multihulls is really based on 1970's designs, and while cruising mono's are pretty much the same now as they were then, multihulls have changed a lot, and for the better. These days good cruising cats will sail at apparent wind angles in the 30's, and tack quickly and easily. Even production cats such as the seawind 1170 will sail round in circles, with absolutely no intervention, (self tacking jib) if you leave the helm over.

While the thought of having 2 engines might scare you, it actually gives an extra measure of safety - you have a fully redundant propulsion system. You also have 2 rudders, so losing one isn't the end of the world, by any means. (I know of a cat that lost one rudder completely, and half of the other, and all they noticed was that the autopilot didn't seem to be working as well as usual.)

The heeling is something I do think I will miss - on a daysail. Doing it for more than half a day, trying to cook and eat while beating, having stuff falling around the boat, starts to get trying though.

I most certainly will not miss the rolling. At sea, and at anchor, rolling is unpleasant at best. We've been out at sea on days that should have been beautiful, with breezes around 5 knots, but a residual swell and not enough wind for the sails to steady the boat, has made life unbearable - if you have sails up they slam, and if you lower them you roll almost gunnel to gunnel. The cat I'm building will actually sail in 5 knots or less.

So anyway, enjoy your mono, we'll give you a wave as we cruise past, and maybe we can have a beer in our 10 foot by 15 foot cockpit when you finally arrive at the anchorage.

[Sailormann]

That would be nice - may your hulls always point in the same direction !

[Kapena]

Just a note...
Catamarans aren't a "new" thing. Polynesians were sailing catamarans across the ENTIRE Pacific ocean long before the Europeans, or Vikings, would venture farther then a few miles offshore. The Hawaiians were making regular voyages to Tahiti and the Marquesas about 100 AD until "discovery" by Captain Cook in the late 1700's. It wasn't a big deal to the Hawaiians, in their catamarans, though the distance is about 2600 miles. If you have never seen an ocean going waka you will be surprised as to how large it is.
The length/beam ratio used, about 2:1, remains the best ratio today. The monohull limited the Europeans, taking many months to make journeys that a catamaran might take just a week or so. The catamaran was a better design then and this remains true today. Faster, safer, more space, better riding, shallower draft and far more reliable then a monohull due to the redundancy of many systems....including 2 engines. I can't imagine ever owning just half a boat again.

Design wise....why design a boat to be twice as heavy, have half the space, go slow and is unstable unless nearly on it's side?
JMO

[Sailormann]

why design a boat to be twice as heavy, have half the space, go slow and is unstable unless nearly on it's side?

Hmm..let's see here "twice as heavy" - well there is a pretty broad range of displacement in monohulls. Some of the Ultralights weigh less than multihulls of comparable length. Generally, the heavier ones are designed that way so that when they get loaded down with tons of stores, they still float and sail nicely ... thought I might have read somewhere that this is a bit of an issue with the multihull genre - now where was that - oh yes - right here in this forum

"half the space" certainly half the deckspace, as there is no trampoline or similar structure, but what are you out there for - to sail or to play tennis ?? As far as USABLE interior volume goes...I think you'll find a 40 foot displacement monohull has a bit more than a forty foot cat with two six foot wide hulls.

"go slow" well if we were really in a rush then we'd all be buying powerboats wouldn't we ???

"unstable unless it's nearly on its side" well - this is not the case - the monohull certainly develops more righting moment as it heels, usually well past the point that even the best-designed multihull would have turned turtle and trapped the poor, unfortunate crew under the trampoline ( ), their stability is greatest when they are sailing flat.

As far as the actual why goes ... well because they are much better looking boats naturally

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Sailormann

Hmm..let's see here "twice as heavy" - well there is a pretty broad range of displacement in monohulls. Some of the Ultralights weigh less than multihulls of comparable length. Generally, the heavier ones are designed that way so that when they get loaded down with tons of stores, they still float and sail nicely ... thought I might have read somewhere that this is a bit of an issue with the multihull genre - now where was that - oh yes - right here in this forum

The only monohulls that would weigh less than a similar length multi would be dinghies - boats with no ballast. Although if you compare a purpose built carbon fibre racing mono to a production cruising cat, you might have a case. (of something)

"half the space" certainly half the deckspace, as there is no trampoline or similar structure, but what are you out there for - to sail or to play tennis ?? As far as USABLE interior volume goes...I think you'll find a 40 foot displacement monohull has a bit more than a forty foot cat with two six foot wide hulls.

This shows that you have never even been on a bridgedeck cat. But you feel qualified to comment on them anyway, it seems. In fact, a forty foot cat with hulls six foot in beam would be huge. And it would probably sail nearly as badly as a monohull.
However a 40 foot bridgedeck cat with hulls closer to 3 feet in beam would still have vastly more useable space than a 40 foot mono. Inside as well as out.

"go slow" well if we were really in a rush then we'd all be buying powerboats wouldn't we ???

In some conditions, fast sailing cats can actually acheive comparable speeds to powerboats

As far as the actual why goes ... well because they are much better looking boats naturally

Pity about the crew.....