Transom Steps on Catamarans

[s/v Jedi]

I like the one with the very big/long lower step best. This allows you to pull a (unconscious) MOB back aboard. The lower the better and the more room on it the better. Same for more fun things like cleaning fish, scuba diving etc.

For handholds... how about integrated in an arch? We have separate hand holds on the stern (mainly for MOB). You need to try climbing aboard to find out how and where you need handholds. Same for the person helping you out. You can't just look at the stern and decide, practical tests are needed.

cheers,
Nick.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I like the one with the very big/long lower step best. This allows you to pull a (unconscious) MOB back aboard. The lower the better and the more room on it the better. Same for more fun things like cleaning fish, scuba diving etc.

Heres a nice set
Good spot to park a dinghy on the inside as well

[Southern Star]

Actually, I think there is still an argument to be made for having the diesels, charging systems, etc. accessed from the interior. Yes, access from the aft steps/deck is perfect in harbour (albeit the accessibility is generally less than from under an aft berth). However, I would not want to be bleeding or servicing diesels from the aft steps while underway in any conditions apart from a sunny day in the doldrums.

Why would you need to service the diesels when underway? Firstly, in boisterous conditions the motion of the boat is far more apt to stir up injector plugging sediment, or to create air locks in the fuel lines from fuel sloshing about in partially filled tanks. To suggest that this would only plague one of the diesels is just not so. Indeed, those who have needed to bleed a diesel when underway (hands up!) can tell you that even after an initial bleeding, it is not uncommon to have to repeat the procedure again almost immediately.

Secondly, if you do want to make use of your diesels in heavy conditions to assist in making harbour before a storm sets in, or to get away from a lee shore before it worsens, etc., you will obviously be better off with the thrust of both diesels, rather than one. Heck, even if you have just decided to use 'The Gentlemen's Guide' approach to the 'thorny path' in the Caribbean by motorsailing at night, you might still need to service/check fluid levels of the diesels etc. while underway.

Apart from the risk of losing tools, or worse - of being thrown or washed overboard, you must also consider the risk of spray, or rain soaking the starter motor, alternator, voltage regulators, etc. In addition, the increased motion of the boat towards the ends and the smaller access openings increase the risk of injury to the mechanic. Frankly, I think it is kind of hard to beat sitting down on the interior bridgedeck with your legs down by the diesel in the hull, assisted by overhead lighting and having complete 360 degree access to the diesel, saildrive, cooling system, exhaust system, fuel filters etc. I have no fear of servicing my diesels when underway, regardless of the conditions. It may be that I will never have to do it again in boisterous conditions, but if I do I will not have the safety concerns that I would with an aft exterior access.

Brad

[Southern Star]

Cat man do you are right - a brilliant looking arrangment. Not that it is in my current 'snack bracket', but what kind of boat is it?

Brad

[colemj]

Originally Posted by muskoka

On the other hand, it puts the engines where they belong, in a dedicated engine compartment.

This "proper" place for engines is never a debate on monohulls, where no one sees any problem with having them in living spaces. Only multihulls seem to have stinking, leaking, hot, noisy engines that need sequestering in external compartments lest the boat becomes dangerous or unlivable.

Mark

[s/v Jedi]

Stirring up sediment in fuel tanks?! Nah, serious cruisers have no sediment in their tanks, so nothing to stir up. Weekend warriors don't need extensions anyway. My diesel at the moment is 4 years old and still 100% without moisture/sediment/bacteria or whatsoever.

Engines should be placed where their weight is best carried and the props haft or lower unit can also be worked in as good as possible. If that is a spot where some interior design f&g*t planned to put some seat or whatever then he needs to be corrected and change the interior so that it accommodates the engine in the right spot while giving optimum interior comfort too. Nobody said it would be easy.

Agree that modern diesels should give no trouble in interiors. However, for reasons of regular maintenance not wanted in the salon by the admiral, and the engine noise while underway under power, I'm happy to have a separate engine room. I have seen cats that converted aft cabins into engine-rooms with additional feature like workshop on one side and storage room on the other side.

cheers,
Nick.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by colemj

This "proper" place for engines is never a debate on monohulls, where no one sees any problem with having them in living spaces. Only multihulls seem to have stinking, leaking, hot, noisy engines that need sequestering in external compartments lest the boat becomes dangerous or unlivable.

Mark

Everything about a boat is a compromise, it's a given that keeping EXCESS weights out of the ends assists with reducing 'hobbie-horsing' amongst other things however good design steps in and allows the weights to be placed aft (ideally)...
My position is one of a sailor ie i use sails, as long as i'm clear of the land the motor can wait. I have 100% redundancy in that i have two serviced engines in SEAWORTHY condition, yes i might lose one and i well know about MURPHYS LAW however there are many who have NO engines and they get by quite well, tending to rely on SEAMANSHIP.
For now OUR choice is to have a setup with engines divorced from the accomodation, WHY? There's nothing that's more seasick inspiring than the SMELL of a warm diesel engine.
It's all well and good to criticise a boat based on IDEAL'S however it would be so interesting to collect data based on what typically our boats do in a given year??? Somehow i think most sit parked.........

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Stirring up sediment in fuel tanks?! Nah, serious cruisers have no sediment in their tanks, so nothing to stir up. Weekend warriors don't need extensions anyway. My diesel at the moment is 4 years old and still 100% without moisture/sediment/bacteria or whatsoever.

Engines should be placed where their weight is best carried and the props haft or lower unit can also be worked in as good as possible. If that is a spot where some interior design f&g*t planned to put some seat or whatever then he needs to be corrected and change the interior so that it accommodates the engine in the right spot while giving optimum interior comfort too. Nobody said it would be easy.

Agree that modern diesels should give no trouble in interiors. However, for reasons of regular maintenance not wanted in the salon by the admiral, and the engine noise while underway under power, I'm happy to have a separate engine room. I have seen cats that converted aft cabins into engine-rooms with additional feature like workshop on one side and storage room on the other side.

cheers,
Nick.

AGREE....

[Southern Star]

Nick, my current boat was 13 years old when I bought it and yes, there was sediment in the tanks. After a flush I am hopeful that the problem is alleviated, but hey - I'm just a weekend warrior, right? Also, I don't need extensions? That is a different thread, but nevertheless, based upon your extensive experience in catamarans I appreciate your opinion, even if it is thread drift.

Cheers!

Brad

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

Everything about a boat is a compromise, it's a given that keeping EXCESS weights out of the ends assists with reducing 'hobbie-horsing' amongst other things however good design steps in and allows the weights to be placed aft (ideally)...
My position is one of a sailor ie i use sails, as long as i'm clear of the land the motor can wait. I have 100% redundancy in that i have two serviced engines in SEAWORTHY condition, yes i might lose one and i well know about MURPHYS LAW however there are many who have NO engines and they get by quite well, tending to rely on SEAMANSHIP.
For now OUR choice is to have a setup with engines divorced from the accomodation, WHY? There's nothing that's more seasick inspiring than the SMELL of a warm diesel engine.
It's all well and good to criticise a boat based on IDEAL'S however it would be so interesting to collect data based on what typically our boats do in a given year??? Somehow i think most sit parked.........

A design that allows for a lot of weight in the ends is never a good design - mono or cat. It is a compromise design to allow for a feature that the builder/owner/marketer wants. In the case for your boat, the feature is a larger stateroom with the compromise of the engine outside, fatter hulls to support it and the propeller behind the rudder at the very stern. That is great, and one may wish to choose a boat based on this compromise, as you did (although I seriously doubt you chose the boat solely on that feature ).

Please don't think I am arguing for or against any method of engine placement. I was just pointing out how rabid cat owners get over this issue and how it is solely a cat thing (thanks for helping me make my point ) .

I didn't criticize any boat or engine placement and I challenge you to find where I did. Again, I just pointed out where this is never a debate with mono owners. And by making that point, I was implying that this isn't really a good debate at all. The only reason it comes up is that cats, by their very design nature, allows this choice more than mono designs.

Except for big boats like Nick's, where engine rooms are practical and common. The same exists for larger catamarans, where engine rooms are the norm (and are accessed from INSIDE the boat). To be fair and put this issue in proper perspective, no mono design that I know of has external engine access, and I suspect no mono owner would want to crawl out on their transom to access their engine. But they would never need this design compromise, so it is never an issue.

When you get out cruising (I can do the implication thing also), I think you may find that there are several things more seasick inspiring than a warm engine (a backed up head or a night of rum comes to mind!)...

Mark

[Southern Star]

PS If you had read my post, you would also have read that I acknowledged that I may never have to bleed the diesels again in boisterous conditions (I am hopeful that flushing the tanks will have had the desired result, but cannot be fully condfident that no other sediment will come off the bottom/sides of the tanks again if the going gets really rough). Nevertheless, I suspect that other 'weekend warriors' will be buying used boats and may have similar experiences. Obviously, 'serioius cruisers' buy only new boats, or ones where there is no build-up of sediment in the tanks. Obviously, 'serious cruisers' never get air locks because they are never out with low tanks in boisterous conditions. Heck, obviously 'serious cruisers' like youself and Lagoon4us don't even need to know how to bleed diesels, because they will never have the need! But sv/Jedi, if there are no advantages to having good access to the diesels and being able to service them from inside, why are you happy you have a separate engine room?

And Lagoon4us, if both diesels failed I too could rely upon 'seamanship' and get by without auxilliaries. On the other hand, to me good seamanship includes being able to service your boat, including your diesels, while underway.

Cheers!

Brad

[colemj]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

However, for reasons of regular maintenance not wanted in the salon by the admiral, and the engine noise while underway under power, I'm happy to have a separate engine room. I have seen cats that converted aft cabins into engine-rooms with additional feature like workshop on one side and storage room on the other side.

cheers,
Nick.

Ah, but those of us with too many hulls don't have our engines in the salon - leaving us with a galley and living room separated by 20' and a different height level from the engines - and since we only run one engine when motoring, we have a complete stateroom in the other hull to sleep in with the engine running in another boat!

mmmm...satay and ribs...

Mark

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by colemj

A design that allows for a lot of weight in the ends is never a good design - mono or cat. It is a compromise design to allow for a feature that the builder/owner/marketer wants. In the case for your boat, the feature is a larger stateroom with the compromise of the engine outside, fatter hulls to support it and the propeller behind the rudder at the very stern. That is great, and one may wish to choose a boat based on this compromise, as you did (although I seriously doubt you chose the boat solely on that feature ).

Please don't think I am arguing for or against any method of engine placement. I was just pointing out how rabid cat owners get over this issue and how it is solely a cat thing (thanks for helping me make my point ) .

I didn't criticize any boat or engine placement and I challenge you to find where I did. Again, I just pointed out where this is never a debate with mono owners. And by making that point, I was implying that this isn't really a good debate at all. The only reason it comes up is that cats, by their very design nature, allows this choice more than mono designs.

Except for big boats like Nick's, where engine rooms are practical and common. The same exists for larger catamarans, where engine rooms are the norm (and are accessed from INSIDE the boat). To be fair and put this issue in proper perspective, no mono design that I know of has external engine access, and I suspect no mono owner would want to crawl out on their transom to access their engine. But they would never need this design compromise, so it is never an issue.

When you get out cruising (I can do the implication thing also), I think you may find that there are several things more seasick inspiring than a warm engine (a backed up head or a night of rum comes to mind!)...

Mark

All good no criticism directed or intended... Just my point of view for what it's worth. Oh yer why is the rum always gone????


Frank.

[beiland]

Originally Posted by muskoka

Exactly! The whole point of a TWO engined boat is redundancy - if one fails you can forget about it until you're back in harbour.

Actually in most cases it is more for manuerability that twin engines are sought after....and the very fact that you have two hulls to put them in. What about the trimaran guys??

The worry of having to fix both engines offshore in dire conditions is a straw man argument. If it's that windy you sail, and if one engine fails you've got a backup. Transoms are swim platforms and anyone who's standing on them offshore without being clipped in has a death wish.

I can think of many cases you might use this area of the vessel while underway...including pissing, not into the wind ...so it is not a death wish. i had typed up a long neccessary experience of accessing an engine under way, but i lost it before posting it by hitting the wrong key....and I'm not interested in reyping it...suffice it to say there are those times, and I really don't like this VERY rearward placement of engines under the rear steps if avoidable.

The only downside of the transom engine configuration is that it means you must have sail drives. And the transom gets fatter to prevent squatting under load (hence the lovely boat show steps). On the other hand, it puts the engines where they belong, in a dedicated engine compartment. It's a pretty reasonable compromise.

The fatter transom may be needed to support that extra weight all way in the stern, but it does not neccessily keep the sterns from squating under power...misconception

The more you place heavy objects in the extreme ends of the vessel, the more you increase the tendancy for the vessel to excessive pitching...which in turn greatly reduces your capabilty to go forward under sail,...particularly when you are trying to claw off a lee shore in a short steep chop.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Nick, my current boat was 13 years old when I bought it and yes, there was sediment in the tanks. After a flush I am hopeful that the problem is alleviated, but hey - I'm just a weekend warrior, right? Also, I don't need extensions? That is a different thread, but nevertheless, based upon your extensive experience in catamarans I appreciate your opinion, even if it is thread drift.

Cheers!

Brad

You're a weekend warrior because your 13 year old boat had sediment in it's fuel tanks, and I don't live aboard because nobody bought my lawn mower... I think that's logical to people who believe that several tonnes of lead will keep their boat afloat?