The Cons of Owning a Catamaran

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Ontos45

Further to last post, Sue holds duel nationality, Oz/US, would that help in buyinga boat in USA?

only if you want US flag

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by minaret

I hate to tell ya but, this is the CRUISERS FORUM, not the multihull or monohull forum. Start a forum for multis only if thats what you want and then you can tell us all to slag off.

It's the "Multihull sailboats" part of the forum. I just wonder why so many monohull sailors find it neccessary to spend so much time here telling us how much better their boats are.

As far as I've seen, the reverse - multi sailors going into the monohull section and saying mono's are unseaworthy, poorly built "mcmansions" - happens very rarely if ever.

Who is REALLY being defensive?

[Highland Fling]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It does say "HIGH PERFORMANCE cruisng catamarans" though. Implicit in that is the requirement for a competent crew - as it would be on a high performance monohull. The real fast mono's need attentive crews in heavy weather also.

Further i think you might even admit that a Sundeer is a high performance monohull designed for long distance fast sailing (trade wind reaching ) BUT is designed to be crewed by a couple I would even go so far as to suggest that apart from the number of hulls the same sort of people would be interested in both boats (without getting into a monohull multihull bias discussion) For sure a Sundeer monohull and an Atlantic Catamaran the 48 foot one maybe even the A46 LR are up there on my desirable boat list (money being no object)

[minaret]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It's the "Multihull sailboats" part of the forum. I just wonder why so many monohull sailors find it neccessary to spend so much time here telling us how much better their boats are.

As far as I've seen, the reverse - multi sailors going into the monohull section and saying mono's are unseaworthy, poorly built "mcmansions" - happens very rarely if ever.

Who is REALLY being defensive?

Since we are discussing the cons of multihulls only in this thread, only one side can logically be on the defensive. You can call me offensive if you like, but you certainly won't be the first to do so!
And you'll note that I made no posts here until AFTER 8 pages of smarmy multihuller posts about how the only con to a cat is that your sausages dont roll off the grill! If you guys were trying to be honest and forthright about it in here we wouldn't have to step in and apply a dose of reality.

[44'cruisingcat]

Oh yeah, the Sundeer is an incredible boat. (Literally) Could place third in the Sydney-Hobart on a BAD day! Surely on a good day it could leave Wild Oats XI (along with it's large professional crew) for dead!

(And you talk about hype with cats)

And no doubt it could cross the Pacific on less than 10,000 litres of fuel!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by minaret

Since we are discussing the cons of multihulls only in this thread, only one side can logically be on the defensive. You can call me offensive if you like, but you certainly won't be the first to do so!
And you'll note that I made no posts here until AFTER 8 pages of smarmy multihuller posts about how the only con to a cat is that your sausages dont roll off the grill! If you guys were trying to be honest and forthright about it in here we wouldn't have to step in and apply a dose of reality.

So you're saying you've READ the first 8 pages of this thread, and the only negative mentioned is the JOKE about the sausages?

Either you can't read, have poor comprehension skills or are not being honest.

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Highland Fling

NASTY....I have absolutely no problems with your motive or thread but your post was like i said just pissing into the wind never a good idea

You wrote - And as little as I know, surely you cannot suggest that a monohull is less likely to sustain a knock-down or capsize than a multihull in like conditions............

Actually i do - so take your own advice and read slowly and carefully

In a squall a monohull will look after you it is self tending it will heel over and probably round up till equilibrium is met.............in a Cat you had better be ON THE BALL (read below to see how even an experienced multihull owner got caught out) or you will be UPSIDE down in a flash

DONT believe me of course read here..............

Press Chris White Designs High Performance Cruising Catamarans

Read ALL OF IT from a Multihill expert and designer - Yes a 57 foot cat flipped and a monhull would have had an interesting moment or two no doubt about that but it would have kept on sailing once the squall was past. If you come here to learn then dont post silly suggestions slagging off others...........also go do some real reading - get a copy of the multihull bible The Cruising Multihull by Chris White

Amazon.com: The Cruising Multihull (9780070698680): Chris White: Books

Not really into the mono versus multi debate but in this situation the crew were inside and not managing this high performance cat.
Personally I reef for my comfort and risk aversion. I do not like it on the edge and it is plenty fast enough - and I think safer in nearly all situations.
"...A mono-hull "will" look after you...". I've never sailed one, but I do not believe it.
A mono could have, and may have, done anything such as being de-keeled, dis-masted, sunk, killed or injured crew during knock down during the same situation.
Or just capsized like these similar high performance monos driven by Isabelle Autisier, and Steve Bullimore..
Isabelle Autissier - Averting Disaster
Tony Bullimore is rescued by the navy - Telegraph
cheers

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It's the "Multihull sailboats" part of the forum. I just wonder why so many monohull sailors find it neccessary to spend so much time here telling us how much better their boats are.

As far as I've seen, the reverse - multi sailors going into the monohull section and saying mono's are unseaworthy, poorly built "mcmansions" - happens very rarely if ever.

Who is REALLY being defensive?

You, endlessly and over and over. I can tell you it happens both ways though the monohullers seem to lack the noisy champions defending there on and on honour .

So let's drop it.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by hummingway

You, endlessly and over and over. I can tell you it happens both ways though the monohullers seem to lack the noisy champions defending there on and on honour .

So let's drop it.

Dropped.

[Highland Fling]

Originally Posted by AllezCat

Not really into the mono versus multi debate but in this situation the crew were inside and not managing this high performance cat.
Personally I reef for my comfort and risk aversion. I do not like it on the edge and it is plenty fast enough - and I think safer in nearly all situations.
"...A mono-hull "will" look after you...". I've never sailed one, but I do not believe it.
A mono could have, and may have, done anything such as being de-keeled, dis-masted, sunk, killed or injured crew during knock down during the same situation.
Or just capsized like these similar high performance monos driven by Isabelle Autisier, and Steve Bullimore..
Isabelle Autissier - Averting Disaster
Tony Bullimore is rescued by the navy - Telegraph
cheers

NOW that IS a SILLY Comparison Chris White Atlantic's are Cruising Cats - talk about apples and pears

A multihull owner who said i have not sailed on one then goes on to pontificate on what could have may have happened to a monohull in a gust/squall OWELL

[AllezCat]

Originally Posted by Highland Fling

NOW that IS a SILLY Comparison Chris White Atlantic's are Cruising Cats - talk about apples and pears

A multihull owner who said i have not sailed on one then goes on to pontificate on what could have may have happened to a monohull in a gust/squall OWELL

they are things that happen - fact.
you say they would not have happened - I think is disingenuous...
planes sometimes crash - never flown one - but it is fact...

[deckofficer]

Come on folks, we all know how cats don't heel and sail flat, right? lol

[smj]

Originally Posted by Highland Fling

Well i have done about everything you can do with a Dart 18 flipped to windward leeward and pitch-poled it a few times BUT i was thinking of cruising cats first generation home built plywood cruising cats then the odd R McD cat Iroquois Cherokee and Apache - way back then masthead floats became the norm

I don't think any Cherokees or Apaches have flipped.

[smj]

Originally Posted by hummingway

Certainly you can. The design of the boats is very different. A mono designed for heavy weather will right itself under conditions that a cat won't. Catamarans are reefed for the gusts whereas monohulls are reefed for the sustained winds.

The boats are sailed differently. It's no great revelation.

Insurance stats state that the chance of flipping a cruising cat is about the same as the chance of a cruising mono sinking. The diffrence is there are statistically less deaths on flipping cats than sinking monos. Those are the facts.

[Notpopeye]

the facts are that a wave 55% the size of the LOA will knock down a monohull. This is Not the least size wave, it is the size that will likely result in the knock down. A knock-down being defined as a 90 degree heel wherein the mast touches the water without necessarily dipping below.
A capsize is defined for a heel that exceeds 90 degrees and the mast dips below the water.
I have ordered two Catamaran books - Chris White's book and Gregor Tarjan's book - and hope to get them in a week or so (amazon shipping can be slow even if they ship the same day you order).
Maybe in the two catamaran books a rule of thumb will be offered as to what wave will knock-down or capsize a catamaran but I have not seen or read anything to offer such, as of yet.
The difference in a knock-down or capsize for a monohull and catamaran is that the monohull will right itself whereas a catamaran likely will not (at least not that I know of or have heard of)
Formulas such as ballast to displacement ratios, angle of vanishing stability, and the capsize screening formula are used to ascertain seaworthiness of monohulls. for multihulls, is there a set of formulas to ascertain vessel seaworthiness?
And yes, the skipper and crew can add or subtract greatly but all things being equal, the formulas determine a monohull's ability to right itself, resist knock-downs and capsizes.
When I stated that in like sea conditions, a monohull is more likely to sustain a knock-down or capsize than a multihull, I was considering the beam of the vessels and how it would effect such an event.
Narrower beam monohull veesels generally are quicker to heel but more resistant to knock-downs, newer model, wider beam vessels resist heel but can be knocked-down easier than the narrow beam designs.
This is why, among other things, the Alberg 30 is a much more capable bluewater cruiser than a new Beneteau Oceanis 323. And I am deliberately eliminating factors such as ballast displacement ratios, size and shape of keel, etc.
I have stated I know little about multihulls and that is why I posed a question here. But, I have sailed, know how to sail; albeit, I am not an expert, and have a pretty decent knowledge of monohull boats, designs and principles that make them bluewater seaworthy or not. I certainly would not criticize someone for selecting a monohull nor would I scoff at someone who selects a multihull. I want to know what makes each the better boat and what deficiencies make them the lesser boat.
Lastly, this does not take into account the boats, that could in no way be considered seaworthy, have crossed oceans. Webb Chiles did it in an open 18 foot boat. But I doubt if I will ever meet anyone that adventurous.