Monohull or Multihull Sailboat?

[Kapena]

Nicely said by cruising cat. Also don't understand how Sailormann thinks a monohull, with the entire crew leaning over the side, heaving overboard due to motion sickness, makes for a better picture then a couple of bikini clad woman sunning on the tramp as I sail past him.

[slomotion]

In simplest terms, 'conventional' cruising cats are faster than monohulls because they can support comparable sail rigs with much less weight. An FP Athena 38 displaces about 12,000 lbs. A light/moderate weight, mass-produced, cruising monohull like a Hunter 38 displaces 17,000 lbs and carries 5,500 lbs of ballast. If you add 3,000 lbs of cruising gear and provisions to the Hunter you maybe raise the water line an inch or two and you lose a couple 10ths of a knot in speed. Add the same stuff to the FP and it will handle it just fine, but the performance hit will be much greater.

Of course, there's always a third choice - the Neutrino power raft:

cbs13.com - Stockton Man Makes Raft For Cross-Pacific Voyage

[AnchorageGuy]

Cruising monohull, Hunter 38?

[Sailormann]

...it is a circular argument...for each point raised on one side, a point may be raised on the other side...so I guess the best thing to do is just realise this and let's just all, for the sake of world peace and intra-marina harmony, put our personal prejudices aside and agree to agree that monohulls are indeed superior craft

[slomotion]

OK, just for Chuck:

Leopard 40 - 17,000 lbs displacement

Mariner 40 - 26,500 lbs displacement + 9000 lbs ballast.

And yes, an H38 is a "light/moderate weight, mass-produced, cruising monohull."

[Tropic Cat]

I know it's been mentioned many times, but I'll mention it again. I think where you sail has a lot to do with selecting either a mono or a multi hull. My sailing area is Florida and the Islands. In my opinion, a catamaran is the perfect compromise here. If I planned to sail to Europe, I imagine I would go in another direction.

One other comment. When loading a cat for long distance (especially my small pocket cruiser) , keeping the weight off the ends of the boat is important.

Rick in Florida

[db8us]

Originally Posted by rickm505

. If I planned to sail to Europe, I imagine I would go in another direction.

Rick in Florida

Hi Rick,

you just stated a new thread: "Why should cat-owners in Europe be wrong ?"
No, just kidding.

For example in the north sea last year i loved my cat, no matter if it was around the UK or along the german and dutch coast with all the islands and the ripping tides or in bad conditions in november. Just sometimes finding a berth was a bit tougher than on a mono but we always managed.
Now the prices in the high-season in the med might be another challenge

Greetings

Michael

[sneuman]

I have sailed both, and in fact probably sailed more cats than monos in the past few years. I still prefer monos.

I have a lot of concerns with the cavernous companionways in many modern cats I've seen. One good wave over the transoms and ...

I also take issue with the waste and duplication between the two hulls.

As far as seawortiness goes, I think the biggest problem is that a multi robs one of many of the options in heavy weather: no heaving to, no riding to a sea anchor, no lying ahull. I think running with a drogue is a good option under most circumstances, but with a cat it is the ONLY option. That worries me.

[schoonerdog]

I've talked with the owner of paratech regarding sea anchors, he mentioned that catamarans ride better than mono's to a sea anchor. One of the main reasons is most of our structure is aft, causing the boat to naturally point towards weather at anchor. In many mono's the higher foredeck structure can constantly cause the wind to want to turn the boat. One gentlemen here has ridden to a sea anchor in his privilege 39 catamaran in a heavy storm in the pacific and remarked that it was a remarkably comfortable experience.

As to lying ahull, centerboard cats do that more effectively than any other type of boat because with their boards raised they provide no resistance whatsoever to wave action and can simply ride up and down the waves like a duck. Even centerboard mono's can't ride that easily.

Waste and duplication between hulls? For families who want their 3 kids to have their own rooms, there is none. For smaller families and those who have one kid, they all convert one of the rooms into an office or a workshop or both. My tools are hanging from the wall of our aft cabin and the former birth is a workbench.
Cavernous companion way: In the bridge deck I could see that as a fair criticism of some cats. Our particular boat has the settee table within reach of the counter top on the opposite side, so there's no place where you can't reach for support inside or in the cockpit.

Pooped: Because we're light and our cockpit is far off the water we lift on waves and don't have them go over us. Even were we to be pooped our drainage goes directly from the cockpit below to the water through 4 inch wide drainage tubes. No mono has such direct and large water drainage ports. I'm sorry, I know lots of catamaran owners, and they simply haven't had to ever worry about being pooped. But I personally have been popped on monohulls.

And "Sailed them both", may I presume you've been chartering them both? Those I know who've made dozens of tranoceanic passages on both have all clearly preferred the catamarans specificly for those reasons you mention, not ever getting pooped or wet. As to those who've lived aboard boats for several years, again, great visibility, lots of light, abundant accomodations, and privacy of seperate hulls for kids and guests all win out.

Originally Posted by sneuman

I have sailed both, and in fact probably sailed more cats than monos in the past few years. I still prefer monos.

I have a lot of concerns with the cavernous companionways in many modern cats I've seen. One good wave over the transoms and ...

I also take issue with the waste and duplication between the two hulls.

As far as seawortiness goes, I think the biggest problem is that a multi robs one of many of the options in heavy weather: no heaving to, no riding to a sea anchor, no lying ahull. I think running with a drogue is a good option under most circumstances, but with a cat it is the ONLY option. That worries me.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I have sailed both, and in fact probably sailed more cats than monos in the past few years. I still prefer monos.

I have a lot of concerns with the cavernous companionways in many modern cats I've seen. One good wave over the transoms and ...

I also take issue with the waste and duplication between the two hulls.

As far as seawortiness goes, I think the biggest problem is that a multi robs one of many of the options in heavy weather: no heaving to, no riding to a sea anchor, no lying ahull. I think running with a drogue is a good option under most circumstances, but with a cat it is the ONLY option. That worries me.

If you prefer monohulls fine - plenty of people do, but please don't quote as fact, entirely false reasons for doing so.

There are just about as many heavy weather options with a multi as there are with a mono.

Maybe a cat won't heave-to. Maybe. Riding to a sea anchor is probably the most universally accepted method of dealing with really severe weather in a multihull. Lying ahull is just as possible in a multihull as it is with anything else. It's not usually regarded as the best option regardless of the boat you are in. Running with a drogue will work too.

Fast multi's also present another possibility: that of using speed to avoid the worst of the weather altogether.

[captnknopf]

I would pick mono hull for a small boat(under 25 feet) as they are fun at that length and multihull boats do not work that short. For longer distance pasages, there is no choice. IF you like walking on the wall, watching your soda slide off all surfaces, get a monohull, but for comfortable, fast cruising, there is only one choice. We just sailed from Virgin Gorda to Grenada on a FP Bahia 46. I do not thik I could have done it on a monohull. The wind and waves for the first 200 miles were bad, (10 foot, 30 knott), but were ok. I can not imagine doing that in a monohull. Once we got a bit south and could sail, it was wonderful. The only bad part was at ten knots, it did not seem like you were really moving. The glasses stayed on the table, yoy walked around the boat at maybe 3 degrees tilt, maybe did not have the rail in the water excitment a monohul does, but.....it was nice.

[jaydh]

Just curious....has anyone else tried heaving-to in their cat?

I never even bothered in my first, but the second would do it ok. Never tried it in really heavy weather as I've never encountered it, but have played around in 30-35 knots open ocean stuff.

If I had the no-roach main up and just pulled it in tight the boat would slowly go backwards, but point straight into the waves/wind. Tried this off Australia where the waves can get fairly big from the wind from against the current.

Several times at night got sick of tacking in rain and squalls at night and did the normal heave-to. It angled off nicely to the waves, would go forward a bit at 2 knots, then drop off and drift a little, etc. I think we ended up within 3/4 of a mile where we started....the gps showed a nearly straight line on one direction for five miles or so and then nearly tracked back right on that line. This was in the Philippine Sea and was with the roached main double reefed and the genny maybe a 1/4 way out back-winded. I'm pretty sure both daggers were all the way down.

If anyone else has played with it, I'd love to hear how it worked.

thanks,
Jay

[Tropic Cat]

Originally Posted by sneuman

As far as seawortiness goes, I think the biggest problem is that a multi robs one of many of the options in heavy weather: no heaving to, no riding to a sea anchor, no lying ahull. I think running with a drogue is a good option under most circumstances, but with a cat it is the ONLY option. That worries me.

Lying Ahull works just fine in a Catamaran. This is a quote from the Queen's birthday storm disaster. Many monohull's were lost in 30 meter waves, but this 41 foot Catalac catamaran did fine.

".......When the autopilot couldn't handle it any longer, the skipper finally learned how to steer, working desperately to prevent waves from slewing the stern in front of the bow. Eventually, both engines went down and lines fouled both rudders. They tied off the helm to port and slid sideways down waves. Despite being "captapulted" through the air on many occasions and being knocked onto one hull several other times, she endured. ....."

[maxingout]

Jay,

We heaved-to only one time in our Privilege 39 catamaran, Exit Only.

We were sailing south of Sri Lanka after the global tsunami, and there were giant trees floating in the water all over the place. In the daytime, we could see the trees, but at night it was impossible to pick them out. Those people who sailed on in the darkness (the steel yachts) would hit the trees and sail right over them making a big bang in the night. Some of those trees were a meter thick and more than fifty feet long - a real navigational hazard.

When we got in the worst of the post-tsunami debris, we hove to about 30 miles south of Galle, Sri Lanka. I didn't use a head sail, but I used a triple reefed main that I oversheeted to windward so that it was totally stalled out. That stopped Exit Only dead in its tracks. I threw some paper towels in the water to see if we were making headway, and we were pretty much drifting sideways with the debris in the water. We did that all night long - drifting through the shipping lanes - ready to turn on an engine if a ship got too close.

Drifting with the debris hove-to was much better than sailing through it blind. The wind was no more than twenty knots, and I don't know how it would have worked if there had been a strong wind blowing.

I never tried going hove-to when the wind was blowing fifty knots. One time we ran off trailing drogues, and one time we put out the parachute, but we have never been hove-to in wind that strong. I suspect that if we were in winds that strong again, we would do the drogues or parachute rather trying to go hove-to.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

If you prefer monohulls fine - plenty of people do, but please don't quote as fact, entirely false reasons for doing so.

There are just about as many heavy weather options with a multi as there are with a mono.

Maybe a cat won't heave-to. Maybe. Riding to a sea anchor is probably the most universally accepted method of dealing with really severe weather in a multihull. Lying ahull is just as possible in a multihull as it is with anything else. It's not usually regarded as the best option regardless of the boat you are in. Running with a drogue will work too.

Fast multi's also present another possibility: that of using speed to avoid the worst of the weather altogether.

I realize there is a certain amount of subjectivity here, but I would refer back to two items to bolster my admittedly subjective opinion:

a) Multihull pages

Richard Woods Abandons Ship. Wood, a cat designer, says many of the same things I have said.


b) The thread "multi-hull storm tactics" (which I started) here on cruisersforum. Much disagreement overall, but plenty of cat owners that share my concerns (and those of Woods) about the use of certain heavy-weather tactics.

As for lying ahull, it is a dodgy and last-resort tactic, IMHO. But it only seems obvious that with such a reduced angle of vanishing stability as is inherent in any multihull that the strategy is considerably more dicey than with well-heeled monos. That's just common sense.