At The Risk of Starting WWlll

[sy_gilana]

Originally Posted by smj

I wonder if a fiberglass mono would have survived or would it have met the same fate as the Privilege catamaran. What if the Privilege were built out of steel? I don't see the fate of these boats having anything to do with whether they are mono or multi, but what materials they were built of.

Actually IMHO a glass mono would have survived that particular grounding because his keel would have grounded in the sand before the hull hit the rock.

The 6o+ foot cat built in steel would not float, there just is not enough displacement - Archimedes.

Fact is the cats had more windage, and broke loose, in some cases ripped the cleats off the deck, in others lines parted, or anchors dragged.

For cats to be as good as they are speed wise, they have to be lightly built, far lighter than an equivalent mono, its just one more compromise. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting everyone should dump cats in favour of steel or ally monos, far from it. I am just saying that IF you have a lagoon 380 for example, you better learn to not touch anything with your hull. If you own a Catana 47 and your mate has a Compass 47 mono, and there is a hurricane a-coming, and you are anchored in Tobago Cays the Catana will probably be in Trinidad before it strikes, while the mono will have to deal with TS force winds as he passes Grenada.

SMJ, my point is, there is no "Better" boat.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by colemj

Fair enough - that wasn't evident on your refit thread, and hull peeling/reglassing seems pretty severe for just a "change".

So now you are saying that the boat you bought was not the one that fit your needs/wants, but >$100,000 in work gets it there?

I still don't see how your price point argument works.

Mark

For some people like myself (and Minaret?), tearing up a perfectly usable boat for rebuilding/improving is undertaken "because it is there"

Steve

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by sy_gilana

Actually IMHO a glass mono would have survived that particular grounding because his keel would have grounded in the sand before the hull hit the rock.

The 6o+ foot cat built in steel would not float, there just is not enough displacement - Archimedes.

Fact is the cats had more windage, and broke loose, in some cases ripped the cleats off the deck, in others lines parted, or anchors dragged...

First, a most excellent previous post, making a good point for why such a large % of boat owners choose a monohull, ultimate survive-ability. This is a big one, for me.

-----devil's advocate----

A 60' aluminum cat could be a truly awesome machine, retaining most of the benefits of steel, while being lightweight enough to provide high performance.

The cat's greater windage is an unfortunate flaw offset by its solar power capacity.

[smj]

Originally Posted by sy_gilana

Actually IMHO a glass mono would have survived that particular grounding because his keel would have grounded in the sand before the hull hit the rock.

The 6o+ foot cat built in steel would not float, there just is not enough displacement - Archimedes.

Fact is the cats had more windage, and broke loose, in some cases ripped the cleats off the deck, in others lines parted, or anchors dragged.

For cats to be as good as they are speed wise, they have to be lightly built, far lighter than an equivalent mono, its just one more compromise. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting everyone should dump cats in favour of steel or ally monos, far from it. I am just saying that IF you have a lagoon 380 for example, you better learn to not touch anything with your hull. If you own a Catana 47 and your mate has a Compass 47 mono, and there is a hurricane a-coming, and you are anchored in Tobago Cays the Catana will probably be in Trinidad before it strikes, while the mono will have to deal with TS force winds as he passes Grenada.

SMJ, my point is, there is no "Better" boat.

There's also been quite a few case's where a multihull would get minor damage crossing a reef because of its shallow draft and the mono was trashed because of it's deeper draft, getting stuck on the reef. Six of one half dozen of another I consider them pretty much equal.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[smj]

Originally Posted by Panope

For some people like myself (and Minaret?), tearing up a perfectly usable boat for rebuilding/improving is undertaken "because it is there"



Steve

From Minarets thread he states he had to replace 9 bronze gate valves because they were turning pink. He had to peel the bottom as he felt if he didn't it would have led to delamination in the near future. Also he had to grind over 80% of the laminate of in the rudder to get to good laminate before he could re glass. This from the first two pages of the thread. I sure wouldn't consider that boat good to go if it had a new set of sails, but I'm sure once it's completed it will be better than new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[minaret]

Originally Posted by smj

From Minarets thread he states he had to replace 9 bronze gate valves because they were turning pink. He had to peel the bottom as he felt if he didn't it would have led to delamination in the near future. Also he had to grind over 80% of the laminate of in the rudder to get to good laminate before he could re glass. This from the first two pages of the thread. I sure wouldn't consider that boat good to go if it had a new set of sails, but I'm sure once it's completed it will be better than new.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep, those thru hulls did need replacing. Pretty standard stuff and didn't cost much. Everything else didn't need to be done, rudder was dry and sound inside. I just didn't like the chop matt and had to make room for my intended heavy layup of carbon fiber. HAD to peel the bottom is stretching the truth as I stated it a bit, as you guys so often do. It had a bit of gelcoat pox, but would have been fine for another five or ten years. And no, no reglassing was required. No one ever said delamination in the near future was a concern. I just preferred to make her like new now. And, once again, just so ya know, we are in the water and looking good right now. In fact, looking much better than any cat I've ever seen! And with heavily overbuilt everything, something which just isn't possible on a cat...

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Panope

For some people like myself (and Minaret?), tearing up a perfectly usable boat for rebuilding/improving is undertaken "because it is there"

Steve

That's how you make a boat your own, right?

[Panope]

Originally Posted by minaret

That's how you make a boat your own, right?

Yep.

And I'd wager that if you had a multihull, even a newish one, that you would find many areas to improve or personalize.

Steve

[smj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Yep, those thru hulls did need replacing. Pretty standard stuff and didn't cost much. Everything else didn't need to be done, rudder was dry and sound inside. I just didn't like the chop matt and had to make room for my intended heavy layup of carbon fiber. HAD to peel the bottom is stretching the truth as I stated it a bit, as you guys so often do. It had a bit of gelcoat pox, but would have been fine for another five or ten years. And no, no reglassing was required. No one ever said delamination in the near future was a concern. I just preferred to make her like new now. And, once again, just so ya know, we are in the water and looking good right now. In fact, looking much better than any cat I've ever seen! And with heavily overbuilt everything, something which just isn't possible on a cat...

My apologies, it was the rudder that had the de lamination. And you had to remove 80% of the laminate to get to the good stuff.
The bottom you said wasn't to bad yet but would have gotten worse pretty soon.
As far as looking better than any cat you've seen, that's very subjective. And you are right, a well designed cat doesn't gain from being heavily overbuilt if built correctly the first time.
I'm not a big fan of motor sailers but I can understand the need for them being that your located in the Pacific Northwest. I'm sure you are very proud of your boat as you should be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Panope

Yep.

And I'd wager that if you had a multihull, even a newish one, that you would find many areas to improve or personalize.

Steve

Yep! Except that, based on much work done in the past, I couldn't possibly afford the changes I'd want to make to a cat.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by colemj

It is probable that 44C ended up with a brand new catamaran with similar living space (less storage and cave spaces, though) and better performance for less total money than yours.


Mark

I concede that this is possible, though I doubt it. However, we may never know. We are talking about my build because I've posted detailed close up pics of every stage for all to see. Haven't seen any pics of his build process, though I'd love for others to do as I have. Of course, we'd have to figure all of his hours at the going rate for comparison, especially since we'd be comparing a home build to a high end semi custom production boat.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by smj

There's also been quite a few case's where a multihull would get minor damage crossing a reef because of its shallow draft and the mono was trashed because of it's deeper draft, getting stuck on the reef. Six of one half dozen of another I consider them pretty much equal.

Lol.... that's like saying you were only half pregnant in a birth control argument... )

Structurally the mono with the heavily reinforced and balasted keel will take more of a pounding in that one strong area, thus localizing the damages.

A multi will be faced with a variety of leverage stresses as the 2 hulls jam and pivot on the reef in heavy wave action.

Metal has more malability so will bend and locally tear rather than develop long structurally failed cracks and joint failures of a laminate.

As others have said.... all these arguments are moot when you are personally deciding on your own choice.

There is only one winner.... and that is the boat YOU choose.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Lol.... that's like saying you were only half pregnant in a birth control argument... )

Structurally the mono with the heavily reinforced and balasted keel will take more of a pounding in that one strong area, thus localizing the damages.

A multi will be faced with a variety of leverage stresses as the 2 hulls jam and pivot on the reef in heavy wave action.

Metal has more malability so will bend and locally tear rather than develop long structurally failed cracks and joint failures of a laminate.

As others have said.... all these arguments are moot when you are personally deciding on your own choice.

There is only one winner.... and that is the boat YOU choose.

My guess is the mono will fail in its weak spot, the hull to keel joint causing the boat to flood. If the catamaran was well designed it would also fail in the hull to keel joint. Difference being the keel was designed to be breakaway not allowing the boat to flood. Also with the draft now reduced to about 18" the catamaran will probably float of the reef pretty much intact. Of course I am saying this just to be argumentative. I'm sure we could come up with different scenarios and we could argue the advantages of our own boats coming out unscathed but in the end there is only one winner....and that is the boat YOU choose
Now tell me, if the steel and aluminum monos are so superior to fiberglass, why do most people choose fiberglass?

[minaret]

Originally Posted by smj

My guess is the mono will fail in its weak spot, the hull to keel joint causing the boat to flood. If the catamaran was well designed it would also fail in the hull to keel joint. Difference being the keel was designed to be breakaway not allowing the boat to flood. Also with the draft now reduced to about 18" the catamaran will probably float of the reef pretty much intact. Of course I am saying this just to be argumentative. I'm sure we could come up with different scenarios and we could argue the advantages of our own boats coming out unscathed but in the end there is only one winner....and that is the boat YOU choose
Now tell me, if the steel and aluminum monos are so superior to fiberglass, why do most people choose fiberglass?

Hull/keel joint-a weak point?! Lol! That's the most massively overbuilt part of a mono, something you can't do with the far more delicate parts of a cat, like the crossbeams and their attachment points. Most monos are designed to sit on their keels, holding the full weight of the boat. What happens if you put a big cat on only one hull, with the other suspended?


Perhaps because there are so few production alloy boats? And the added maintenance concerns?

[smj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Hull/keel joint-a weak point?! Lol! That's the most massively overbuilt part of a mono, something you can't do with the far more delicate parts of a cat, like the crossbeams and their attachment points. Most monos are designed to sit on their keels, holding the full weight of the boat. What happens if you put a big cat on only one hull, with the other suspended?





Perhaps because there are so few production alloy boats? And the added maintenance concerns?

So why all the talk lately about monos with hull to keel joints separating?
All cats are able to sit on their keels AND remain upright when the tide goes out!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk