Which is better going to weather on a long passage?

[Capt Phil]

Sounds like I touched a multihull nerve...
He, he
Phil

[smj]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Sounds like I touched a multihull nerve...
He, he
Phil

Nah, most multihullers have a good laugh over the ignorance[emoji1303]. Keep em coming Capt Phil[emoji16]

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by smj

Nah, most multihullers have a good laugh over the ignorance[emoji1303]. Keep em coming Capt Phil[emoji16]

Just as long as he recognizes that we're laughing, but not WITH him...

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

I have never delivered a multihull north but the experience in several mono’s leads me to believe that a multi could well break up in the worst of the weather like the washing macine just north of Cortez Island!

I assume that by "Cortez Island" you mean "Cedros Island"?

Your logic reminds me of a conversation I had with a broker at a boat show. When he found out I had a cat he said he had never sailed on a cat and never would because a friend of his on a mono was washed out of his cockpit by a following sea, breaking some ribs in the process. I pretended my wife was calling and moved on.

The alternative route you mention is well known as the "clipper route". You are the only one I have heard of who has done it who would do it again. Jim Effers, who has probably done the Bash more times than anyone, has some good comments on it in his book "The Baja Bash II".
https://www.amazon.com/Baja-Bash-Cap.../dp/096384704X
He points out that, while it is often possible to sail most of the way, not only does it add at least a week to the trip, but if the weather turns sour there is no place to hide and no rest. On the coastal route you are free to pull into a nice cove nearly every night. If the weather is wrong you can go ashore for a taco and maybe even a surf.

I suppose the downside to the coastal route is that you must pick your way through the wreckage of all the multihulls, but life is full of risk.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by fatherchronica

When bashed to Ensenada from San Jose del Cabo we found that all but one of the other bashers that had fin keels had delivery crews and that all of the full keeled boats had their owners at the helm. Just another aspect of beating in poor conditions.

I realize that heavy full keel boats are generally better for bashing to windward but how much of your statistics are a function of the wealth of the owners.

Not many recently built full keel boats around. Most full keel boats are older cheaper boats...presumably owned by less wealthy owners, so the cost of a delivery crew is not an option. If they had the money and jobs that limited their free time to transport the boats would a lot of the full keelers hire crews (or move up to a newer boat)?

There will be exceptions on both sides but I suspect wealth is more the determining factor on if they use a crew.

[Morph]

Both monos and cats are uncomfortable for that length of time on the nose. If you're going for a cat and enjoy sailing, go for the Catana or Outremer (or Schionning if you're OK with non production boats) The common factor is that these boats all sail well especially to windward--both speed wise and height--because they have daggerboards and are designed to sail. The limiting factor we find when hard on the wind is comfort. These cats can do 9-10 knots at 42-45 deg, however in waves that speed is bloody uncomfortable, so reef and slow down to 6-7 knots at night and speed up during the day.



If you want a floating condo--go Lagoon et al but you won't get the sailing ability and you'll need to motor sail (and miss the joy of sailing ...in my opinion) but they have a stack of space.



Ignore the "cats break up" stuff, the real world evidence clearly shows cats can handle pretty much anything--certainly more than us humans

[UpOnStands]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Sounds like I touched a multihull nerve...
He, he
Phil

Recommend you stick to monos. No point in learning anything new is there?

[eastlands]

I have no experience on boats of this size but do own a smaller Hanse and recently crewed on a catamaran across the Great Australian Bight on the fringes of the southern ocean.
Whilst catamarans do seem very popular choices as live-aboard or long term cruisers (especially in Australia where things can get remote) I would always choose a mono for sailing ability. I have no problems living on my own boat for 4 months of the year.
I have been based at the Hanse yard for the last 3 winters and have looked over several of their larger models which offer amazing accommodation. Keels in excess of 2m may limit marina choices, but then again your marina options are very limited in a cat.
The sailplan of the Hanse with large main and self tacking jib makes it very easy to handle solo (with electric winches on larger boats) and I will certainly fly upwind, tacking through 80 degrees on flat water. 1st reef on my own boat is required at about 17kts true (24kts apparent). With the small jib a spinnaker of some sort is needed for lighter winds...
My summary is that a mono is always the best choice for sailing ability, but cats make better "homes" is you spend more time in lower than at sea.

[UpOnStands]

Originally Posted by eastlands

Keels in excess of 2m may limit marina choices, but then again your marina options are very limited in a cat.

Being able to beach most cats or moor in 2 feet of water makes the "limited marina options" seem rather quaint.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Morph

Both monos and cats are uncomfortable for that length of time on the nose. If you're going for a cat and enjoy sailing, go for the Catana or Outremer (or Schionning if you're OK with non production boats) The common factor is that these boats all sail well especially to windward--both speed wise and height--because they have daggerboards and are designed to sail. The limiting factor we find when hard on the wind is comfort. These cats can do 9-10 knots at 42-45 deg, however in waves that speed is bloody uncomfortable, so reef and slow down to 6-7 knots at night and speed up during the day.



If you want a floating condo--go Lagoon et al but you won't get the sailing ability and you'll need to motor sail (and miss the joy of sailing ...in my opinion) but they have a stack of space.



Ignore the "cats break up" stuff, the real world evidence clearly shows cats can handle pretty much anything--certainly more than us humans

I have lagoon and really enjoy sailing it. It helps that I keep it relatively light, around 3 T below max load. Have tested catana and did not like it - this was the only time in my life I got seasick. Movement of catana (and assume other light cats) is like one is on a perpetual slide in Seaworld. Not for me.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by eastlands

My summary is that a mono is always the best choice for sailing ability, but cats make better "homes" is you spend more time in lower than at sea.

ALWAYS? Seriously?

The reality is that some monos sail like pigs. Some catamarans sail superbly. In the 1987 Americas cup, New Zealand decided to enter a 120 foot monohull that they billed as the fastest sailing boat on earth. Until they learned the Yanks were bringing a catamaran. A 60 foot catamaran.

It was the most one sided Americas cup ever. It was a massacre. The catamaran didn't even need to use it's downwind sails, it had such a lead after the upwind legs.

So no, a mono isn't always the better choice for sailing.

In this instance where it's a near 60 foot Bavaria compared to a 42 foot Lagoon, for a long windward sail, I'd agree, the mono is a better choice. If it was downwind, not so much.

[mark_morwood]

Originally Posted by eastlands

My summary is that a mono is always the best choice for sailing ability,

To use a colloquial expression - this is a "crock of ****".

Given that the claim is "always" I feel justified in providing a counter "proof" with a single counter-example.

We sailed roughly in company with friends from the Mediterannean to Australia via the Atlantic and Caribbean and S Pacific. Some passages we left at the same time, some within a couple of weeks of each other. They were on a Discovery 55, a great, solid, good performance luxury cruising mono-hull, probably worth $3/4 million plus. We were on an older Catana 48 catamaran, a very comfortable but performance oriented cruising catamaran, worth approx a third of their boat in dollars. The skippers on both boats were both very experienced sailors with extensive racing and cruising experience and somewhat competitive, but focused on getting their families safely and happily across oceans. Both boats kept their crews (2 adults, 2 kids) comfortable and dry and happy, albeit in a little more luxury on the Discovery. Both boats were quite happy in anything that was dished up in those 18 months. I would argue we were more comfortable on the catamaran and they would probably argue they liked the motion on the mono-hull better, however only one crew ever mentioned considering changing their number of hulls, and that wasn't the catamaran crew. But this may have had something to do with cockpit size for parties :-)

Now with respect to cruising performance, we were both surprised to find that overall both boats performed about the same - over the 18 months we spent the same time on passage to within a day or so. They would have to motor in light winds when we could still sail, but they had the fuel capacity for that. They were a bit quicker in heavy air, we were quicker in light winds. Without a doubt, there was no clear "this boat is obviously a better boat than that boat" based on number of hulls in this case. We certainly sailed a little more than they did, but they could definitely push it harder upwind when the winds got higher. I could however, but won't, make an argument that in this particular case that we had better sailing performance per dollar spent!

I have stayed out of this mono v catamaran discussion, because it is fundamentally a waste of time, but it does get very tiring when people who don't have relevant experience make blanket statements that are just false and misleading. I can tell you as someone who has owned and cruised across oceans on both mono-hulls and catamarans that there is no right answer. Every boat is by necessity a compromise between cost, performance, comfort, windward performance, downwind performance, ... and whatever other factor is important to you. Some boats are good at sailing and some are not, some boats look after their crew and some do not, some boats like heavy winds and some boats don't, some boats like light wind and some don't.

So I know some people have a particularly strong emotional attachment to what they are used to or what they have invested in, but there is no need for them to try and justify that by blindly suggesting that all other choices are not as good. It just devalues whatever else they might have to contribute. So it would certainly be nice if posters could keep to offering advice and opinions based on actual experience or knowledge, rather than regurgitating uninformed or out of date opinion.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by mark_morwood

To use a colloquial expression - this is a "crock of ****".

Given that the claim is "always" I feel justified in providing a counter "proof" with a single counter-example.

We sailed roughly in company with friends from the Mediterannean to Australia via the Atlantic and Caribbean and S Pacific. Some passages we left at the same time, some within a couple of weeks of each other. They were on a Discovery 55, a great, solid, good performance luxury cruising mono-hull, probably worth $3/4 million plus. We were on an older Catana 48 catamaran, a very comfortable but performance oriented cruising catamaran, worth approx a third of their boat in dollars. The skippers on both boats were both very experienced sailors with extensive racing and cruising experience and somewhat competitive, but focused on getting their families safely and happily across oceans. Both boats kept their crews (2 adults, 2 kids) comfortable and dry and happy, albeit in a little more luxury on the Discovery. Both boats were quite happy in anything that was dished up in those 18 months. I would argue we were more comfortable on the catamaran and they would probably argue they liked the motion on the mono-hull better, however only one crew ever mentioned considering changing their number of hulls, and that wasn't the catamaran crew. But this may have had something to do with cockpit size for parties :-)

Now with respect to cruising performance, we were both surprised to find that overall both boats performed about the same - over the 18 months we spent the same time on passage to within a day or so. They would have to motor in light winds when we could still sail, but they had the fuel capacity for that. They were a bit quicker in heavy air, we were quicker in light winds. Without a doubt, there was no clear "this boat is obviously a better boat than that boat" based on number of hulls in this case. We certainly sailed a little more than they did, but they could definitely push it harder upwind when the winds got higher. I could however, but won't, make an argument that in this particular case that we had better sailing performance per dollar spent!

I have stayed out of this mono v catamaran discussion, because it is fundamentally a waste of time, but it does get very tiring when people who don't have relevant experience make blanket statements that are just false and misleading. I can tell you as someone who has owned and cruised across oceans on both mono-hulls and catamarans that there is no right answer. Every boat is by necessity a compromise between cost, performance, comfort, windward performance, downwind performance, ... and whatever other factor is important to you. Some boats are good at sailing and some are not, some boats look after their crew and some do not, some boats like heavy winds and some boats don't, some boats like light wind and some don't.

So I know some people have a particularly strong emotional attachment to what they are used to or what they have invested in, but there is no need for them to try and justify that by blindly suggesting that all other choices are not as good. It just devalues whatever else they might have to contribute. So it would certainly be nice if posters could keep to offering advice and opinions based on actual experience or knowledge, rather than regurgitating uninformed or out of date opinion.

This post should be framed. Everytime this stupid debate (I use the word debate loosely) comes up the above post should be reposted.

Thanks for posting.

[Zzmeyer]

I just completed my fourth Baja Bash in my 50 foot monohull. You will not be sailing. In a cumulative 3,000 nautical miles I didn't sail more than 2 hours total. You are heading against wind and seas that are terrible. My first suggestion is to buy the boat you want, sail it down to the Sea of Cortez and mainland Mexico and when you are ready to bring it back sink it and collect the insurance money. I just placed an order on a Saona 47 which I will take delivery in Florida and sail it through the canal and as far north as Cabo San Lucas. When I get to Cabo I may just turn around and head back. If you must do it, do it with the boat with the longest waterline, the most fuel and have lots of time. This year, with waiting took us six weeks from Puerto Vallarta and at times we still had 30 knots of wind on the nose. An option I would seriously consider is to continue to sail down to Costa Rica and ship it to Ensenada. Expensive, but I've spent a lot fixing stuff from the Bash.

[reed1v]

Which is why real blue water sailors follow the old hydrographic office charts and follow the trade route to get anywhere. Sail out to Hawaii, turn left, go down to the Societies, turn left and head to Mexico. A bit longer mileage, but about the same time wise and way more comfy.

20 years of sailing the globe. Never had problems following the old British HO charts. If you are in a rush, why sail in the first place?