Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I never said that two boats are a statistically valid sample. But it's an interesting coincidence, isn't it, that the two fastest boats, one of which is a cruiser-racer, and the other of which is a blue water pure cruising boat, with much worse ratings, sailed exactly according to their LWL, and not according to their rating?

You will find the same thing if you analyze lots of long ocean passage -- as Evans Starzinger actually did. Maybe there's a valid way to parse the ARC results -- I don't know. I would be interested to see if someone wants to try.


But Polux, your problem is that you live inside the world of magazine articles, polar diagrams, and advertising blurb, and not inside the world of ocean passage making. These are such different worlds.

I can show you the difference if your mind is open to it. In fact, I'll make it worth your while.

If you will bring your boat up to Cowes on 1 October next autumn, I'll race you from there to the Fastnet Rock and back (or to Plymouth if you want to imitate the Fastnet Race route). Your boat has a higher rating than mine. My boat is very much like the Discovery, modest SA/D (16.5), fully equipped with heavy duty generator (1000cc three cylinder), washer/dryer, etc., etc.

If you beat me, I'll give you a prize of 10 000 euros.

If I beat you, you'll give me a prize of taking me and my crew to dinner at the RORC in Cowes.

In fact, we can say that "beating you" means by at least 6 hours. If you even come within 6 hours of me, we'll call it a draw.

Pretty good odds, wouldn't you say? So how about it? This will be a real test of rating vs LWL in real ocean conditions.

Here would be the rules:

Crew of only 2 on each boat, no pros
White sails only
No limitation on poles
Motoring penalty as per RORC
Abort or delay with any forecast per either Met Office or Passageweather.com of F9 or more, but not otherwise.

Depending on the weather, but in a wide range of conditions from F4 to F8, I will make Plymouth in about 3 days and 6 hours, plus or minus 6 hours. Together with my washer/dryer and all my cruising gear. A long beat to windward in F7 or more will make it longer, as will any winds of F3 or less, but otherwise -- that's how long it will take.

How about you?

Total awesomeness DH. I am gobsmacked.

[barnakiel]

While it may be true that many mono boats are easily driven to 1 sqrt lwl (NOT their hull speed, which could be another 20 to 40 % faster) we must think about some facts. Fact one is that few long open water passages are made with optimum wind angles (reaching). One look at ANY polar diagram shows dramatic speed loss once deep broad reaching and running. Now deep broad reaching and running is how many long ocean shots are sailed. Hence actual data from ocean rallies shows many boats sailed at a good percentage of their polar NOT at a good percentage of their hull speed.

It is neither my fault nor yours that so many of us are attempting to sail long downwind passages in boats designed for downwind upwind work or for round the cans scenarios. Meanwhile the new and actually better optimised hulls like new Benes and the rest of the paper built crowd get bashed for being crap boats. They may be, but at least they are meant to sail the coconut milk run in comfort speed and style. If you do not like Bene please type over and spell it Cigale.

So, to stay within the thread, I would opt for the following: the best reason to stay mono is to buy a Bene Sense 55 from a fellow dealer we know here and who promised me 5% share in every sale he makes to people I can bring in. It just makes Sense!

And seriously now, I am not sure people sailing Amels need any reasons to stay mono. They clearly are people of reason. That's why they are sailing Amels.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I don't think this case is proven.
....
Second, as we discussed at the beginning, the ARC is probably not a good laboratory for this, because it is theoretically a race, even the cruising division...

Come on, a race on the cruising division where engines can be used? The ones that want to race go on the racing division.

"The ARC is a ‘must do’ for many sailors, and attracts over 200 boats and 1200 people every year to sail 2700 NM across the Atlantic from Gran Canaria to Saint Lucia.
The ARC is for everyone; families with children, tough racers, cruising couples, big boats and modest boats. Crossing the Atlantic together, but having their own adventures."

The classification is there on the cruising division for the fun of it and nobody takes seriously the classification on the cruising division. Most do the ARC on the cruising division because it is more fun to cross the Atlantic with a lot more boats and because of the added security.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

....One other thing, concerning "sail power" -- some people erroneously believe that the size of the rig, and SA/D of the boat, is equivalent to the horsepower of an engine in a car. This is not true.....

This is contrary to the case of stability where, you are right, more is always better, and the deep, higher aspect keels and rudders of performance boats are a big advantage in all conditions -- and this is probably the only one advantage of high performance boats which really works in all conditions.

Stability on a sailing boat equals power. Stability in a sailboat is directly proportional to the sail area a sailboat can sail on a given moment.

On performance cruisers the stability/weight ratio is just bigger meaning that they are more powerful boats and that they can carry more sail area regarding their own weight and that makes them faster.

A performance cruiser is necessarily a light boat but not all light boats are performance cruisers since not all have a bigger stability/weight ratio regarding medium displacement cruisers.

Normally the SA/D is a good indicator of how powerful a sailboat is because on a correctly designed sailboat sail area is proportional to boat stability.

If a NA wants to put more sail area on a more sportive version of the same boat (and that sometimes happens on a more sportive version) it has to increase boat stability (increasing power for the same or less weight).

That is made by increasing draft with the same ballast (lowering the CG), increasing ballast with the same draft (lowering the CG) or most commonly making the hull lighter (with better materials), increasing draft and maintaining or diminishing slightly the ballast, but maintaining B/D ratio.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

......

It is neither my fault nor yours that so many of us are attempting to sail long downwind passages in boats designed for downwind upwind work or for round the cans scenarios. Meanwhile the new and actually better optimised hulls like new Benes and the rest of the paper built crowd get bashed for being crap boats. They may be, but at least they are meant to sail the coconut milk run in comfort speed and style. If you do not like Bene please type over and spell it Cigale.

So, to stay within the thread, I would opt for the following: the best reason to stay mono is to buy a Bene Sense 55 from a fellow dealer we know here and who promised me 5% share in every sale he makes to people I can bring in. It just makes Sense!

And seriously now, I am not sure people sailing Amels need any reasons to stay mono. They clearly are people of reason. That's why they are sailing Amels.

b.

I was thinking nobody had noticed that modern beamy hulls are designed just for what you say...and also because when most cruisers want to go directly upwind they just turn the engine on.

Two Beneteau Oceanis 54 made a very fast passage on the last ARC and a Sense 50, an heavier boat known not to be very fast, has done well to. I am sure a Sense 55, a more modern and powerful boat would have made better. In fact I have to say the Sense series makes a lot of Sense in what regards living aboard even if an occasional ocean passage is to be made.

Few monohulls offer so much living space, so much storage space and and so agreeable transition between cockpit and saloon, but I do find those 5% on the low side as a commission

So what's the point to design cruising upwind maximized boats? A crazy minority (where I am included) that actually likes to sail upwind does not justify medium displacement cruising boats designed for them. They can have performance cruisers if they want to do that.

By the way, modern Amels are designed just like Beneteaus in what concerns to be maximized downwind and they have proven that they can go fast on those conditions. Any way the old narrower ones never had been very good upwind, so why insist?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Come on, a race on the cruising division where engines can be used? The ones that want to race go on the racing division.

"The ARC is a ‘must do’ for many sailors, and attracts over 200 boats and 1200 people every year to sail 2700 NM across the Atlantic from Gran Canaria to Saint Lucia.
The ARC is for everyone; families with children, tough racers, cruising couples, big boats and modest boats. Crossing the Atlantic together, but having their own adventures."

The classification is there on the cruising division for the fun of it and nobody takes seriously the classification on the cruising division. Most do the ARC on the cruising division because it is more fun to cross the Atlantic with a lot more boats and because of the added security.


Stability on a sailing boat equals power. Stability in a sailboat is directly proportional to the sail area a sailboat can sail on a given moment.

On performance cruisers the stability/weight ratio is just bigger meaning that they are more powerful boats and that they can carry more sail area regarding their own weight and that makes them faster.

A performance cruiser is necessarily a light boat but not all light boats are performance cruisers since not all have a bigger stability/weight ratio regarding medium displacement cruisers.

Normally the SA/D is a good indicator of how powerful a sailboat is because on a correctly designed sailboat sail area is proportional to boat stability.

If a NA wants to put more sail area on a more sportive version of the same boat (and that sometimes happens on a more sportive version) it has to increase boat stability (increasing power for the same or less weight).

That is made by increasing draft with the same ballast (lowering the CG), increasing ballast with the same draft (lowering the CG) or most commonly making the hull lighter (with better materials), increasing draft and maintaining or diminishing slightly the ballast, but maintaining B/D ratio.

Two propositions here worthy of comment:

1. More stability = more power. AGREED COMPLETELY. Also don't forget hydrodynamic performance of keel and rudder -- of great importance to windward performance.

2. More SA/D "normal equals more power". NOT NECESSARILY. You are right that a boat with more stability can carry more SA/D, but different amounts of sail area on the same boat is more like being in different gears -- higher gear does not always mean more speed. High performance boats optimized for racing struggle in wind speeds higher than what they are optimized for. This can be partially fixed with changeable hank-on sails but not completely, because a big rig will still be taller and with more windage.


I've always known this, but am always amazed at the extent to which it's true. Last year I had a carbon blade jib made, 30% smaller in area than my principle headsail, for sailing upwind in 20 to 30 knots true, a common situation at this latitude. Absolutely amazing how much faster and easier to sail the boat becomes, with this sail, in those conditions. Actually I expected it to only be interesting upwind, but the blade is better on all points of sail, once the wind is over 20, even, remarkably, DDW.

Sailing upwind is a fight between lift and drag, and drag comes from windage as well as drag characteristics of the sail. An overly large rig kills your power upwind, in strong conditions. Furling headsails are in general a curse in this respect -- a good suit of hank on headsails would make a large difference.


This year I'm going to be even better upwind, because I've carried out a davitectomy and have replaced my large RIB tender with a folding one. I need to get a couple hundred kg of heavy chain out of my anchor locker, but I fear that's next year.


By the way, one thing I don't like about the Discovery 55 is the Solent rig, which has an entirely parallel forestay with a second furled sail on it. Ick! Convenient, but hugely destructive of headsail performance and large amount of extra windage. They might have at least made one of them hank-on.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Polux

So what's the point to design cruising upwind maximized boats? A crazy minority (where I am included) that actually likes to sail upwind does not justify medium displacement cruising boats designed for them. They can have performance cruisers if they want to do that.

When the designer has an office in London, they only sail (if at all) on the weekend. And so everybody else is expected to sail Solent only and on the weekend only. This implies hurry. This implies the wind can be from any direction. Or no wind. The boat must then sail upwind well. And a huge engine is a must: 5 hp per tonne as a minimum. ;-)

When the designer has an office in Marseilles ... they will have a summer house in St Pierre (this is a small village on Martinique). They will have Mediterranean mentality (=loooooong holidays, big families) and they will use the holidays to sail their boat with their seventh wife, eight children et all to cast their anchor just opposite their Caribbean villa (beware, bad drop off there). And so the French boat will be beamy aft and with huge mainsail proportion and her many kites will be all of the top down furling style.

The French, being French, is smart, and will sell his boat to a US holidaymaker in the West Indies. Hence no need for upwind work ;-) And you can get a newer, better boat when you come to Martinique next year, with another wife and more children.

And so in a humorous way we can explain why the good downwind designs crop up on some desks while not on the others. Horses for the courses and blood is thicker than water.

If I were forced to stop being such a monkey at the forum, I would admit the best upwind upchop I ever had was in another "too beamy, too light, too modern boat" (a Farr 40). It is an old design though and I am sure newer too light too beamy too modern boats can actually be even better for upwind work. Forget the +16 knots we easily made on a weekend ride down the harbour (kite up, all guys on the stern quarter). Going 7 plus knots upwind thru very steep hard waves of the bay is what truly got my attention and admiration.

Bueno bueno, well well well. Boats are our stew. I know a few.

Love and pace urbi et orbi,
b.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

. . .
So what's the point to design cruising upwind maximized boats? A crazy minority (where I am included) that actually likes to sail upwind does not justify medium displacement cruising boats designed for them. They can have performance cruisers if they want to do that. . . .

The other people who need boats which can go upwind are hard core blue water cruisers. If you need to get 1500 miles upwind, you have to sail unless you have a huge engine and huge fuel tanks. For those people, a performance cruiser is unlikely to be the answer.

Just that job -- 1500 miles against the prevailing winds (from Russia to the UK), and mostly F6 and over -- is what stimulated me to start working on my boat's upwind ability, starting with new sails last year.

Sailing lots of miles upwind, especially in strong wind, is really hard -- it's a real test of the boat and of the crew.

It's so hard, and requires such different qualities than other points of sail, that I do agree that it's probably worth it only for a fairly small number of people.

And a different solution which is maybe more rational, is to have the tankage and engine to motor in that situation, and have a rig which won't go upwind much but which is perfect for everything else offshore -- namely a ketch.

[robert sailor]

I've done the return trip from Hawaii 4 times and all under sail which means at minimum 5 days of sailing hard on the wind in strong trade winds each time. These days it would be a real tough job to sell me on making a 1500 miles journey all upwind in a stiff breeze. Upwind sailing is nothing but fun when your racing but offshore it's a very wet and rough journey.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I've done the return trip from Hawaii 4 times and all under sail which means at minimum 5 days of sailing hard on the wind in strong trade winds each time. These days it would be a real tough job to sell me on making a 1500 miles journey all upwind in a stiff breeze. Upwind sailing is nothing but fun when your racing but offshore it's a very wet and rough journey.

Yep.

But sometimes you gotta do, what you gotta do . . .

Keep in mind that on top of everything else, it's cold.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The other people who need boats which can go upwind are hard core blue water cruisers. If you need to get 1500 miles upwind, you have to sail unless you have a huge engine and huge fuel tanks. For those people, a performance cruiser is unlikely to be the answer.

Just that job -- 1500 miles against the prevailing winds (from Russia to the UK), and mostly F6 and over -- is what stimulated me to start working on my boat's upwind ability, starting with new sails last year.

Sailing lots of miles upwind, especially in strong wind, is really hard -- it's a real test of the boat and of the crew.

It's so hard, and requires such different qualities than other points of sail, that I do agree that it's probably worth it only for a fairly small number of people.

And a different solution which is maybe more rational, is to have the tankage and engine to motor in that situation, and have a rig which won't go upwind much but which is perfect for everything else offshore -- namely a ketch.

For that Polish guy in a Maxus 22 sailing non-stop from RSA to Canary Islands - how many miles are there from the top of the ITCZ to Canaries? All in prevailing upwind tradewind conditions. Now look at his timing. And Maxus 22 is clearly a performance cruiser, even if a very wee one. I will dare to propose the same job would be easier in a 42' or 52' performance cruiser.

Not to take anything from your position, which I find equally legitimate.

I think difficult upwind work can be done well in more than one style of a boat, much as some boats are clearly not up to the job. I mean mostly relatively beamy and voluminous hulls with inefficient sails that seem to constitute the major part of what can be seen as the one sigma of all blue water cruisers. Perhaps the hardcore of this crowd are like 3 sigma. But then there are also plenty of 3 sigma hardcore boats for this population.

Just musing. Given my experiences from sailing upwind in various boats, given enough money, I would buy something like Zaal's Atlantics - hardcore blue water performance cruiser.

To sum up, in line with the thread, I suggest a Dick Zaal's Atlantic, if you have one, is a valid reason to stay mono.



Upwind, happy and smoking.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Or get the cat and sail a little bit on the conservative side for ocean passages and match the monos and push her hard for coastal sailing.

All this talk of speed misses the point. Speed claims are fun for bragging at the bar (or on an internet forum) but there is a very limited market for true speed demons and mono or cat they take far more effort than most cruisers want to put in to get those speeds on passage. If you want to talk about mono racing sleds doing double digit speeds, you have to put them up against high performance cats like gunboats which also claim double digit speeds.

It's the platform for living that sells cruising cats and that is why you see the rise of the condomaran and you see some monos adapting cat features where they can. As much as purists revile them, the condomarans usualy keep up just fine on a tradewind passage and the crew arrives in more comfort. Yeah, you can come up with the odd situation where a mono is perferable but it's the odd sitation not the typical situation.

I cannot agree more with a slight precision: A cat to be fast have to be more light and more light on a cat means less stability so if one wants a fast cat for ocean passages a relatively big one is needed to maintain safety margins, even if smaller than a Gunboat.

With monohulls it happens the opposite: performance boats have not to be necessarily lighter than other relatively light boats (mass production boats) but they have to have more stability to have more power and they get that by a bigger B/D ratio (lighter hull, more ballast with the same weight), more efficient keels and more draft.

Some relatively small ones are lighter but on those (that have to have a very light hull) a considerably bigger B/D ratio is mandatory as well as a big draft ( the formulas for calculating the AVS to pass RCD Class A and to pass STIX requirements implies that).

That allows the possibility of having considerably smaller performance monohulls with passage making potential.

I agree however with you that performance cruisers in what regards monohulls or cats are a small percentage probably even less in what regards cats than monohulls (because they need to be bigger).

Also agree that a boats like a Lagoon are a nice compromise between space and sail-ability, particularly in what concerns passage making on the trade winds where the performance is good even sailing the boat carefully.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

For that Polish guy in a Maxus 22 sailing non-stop from RSA to Canary Islands - how many miles are there from the top of the ITCZ to Canaries? All in prevailing upwind tradewind conditions. Now look at his timing. And Maxus 22 is clearly a performance cruiser, even if a very wee one. I will dare to propose the same job would be easier in a 42' or 52' performance cruiser.

Not to take anything from your position, which I find equally legitimate.

I think difficult upwind work can be done well in more than one style of a boat, much as some boats are clearly not up to the job. I mean mostly relatively beamy and voluminous hulls with inefficient sails that seem to constitute the major part of what can be seen as the one sigma of all blue water cruisers. Perhaps the hardcore of this crowd are like 3 sigma. But then there are also plenty of 3 sigma hardcore boats for this population.

Just musing. Given my experiences from sailing upwind in various boats, given enough money, I would buy something like Zaal's Atlantics - hardcore blue water performance cruiser.

To sum up, in line with the thread, I suggest a Dick Zaal's Atlantic, if you have one, is a valid reason to stay mono.



Upwind, happy and smoking.

b.

For sure but if he can carry that much sail the winds are not on the nasty side, those conditions are OK but of course we would all rather be going downwind

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The other people who need boats which can go upwind are hard core blue water cruisers. If you need to get 1500 miles upwind, you have to sail unless you have a huge engine and huge fuel tanks. For those people, a performance cruiser is unlikely to be the answer.

Just that job -- 1500 miles against the prevailing winds (from Russia to the UK), and mostly F6 and over -- is what stimulated me to start working on my boat's upwind ability, starting with new sails last year.

Sailing lots of miles upwind, especially in strong wind, is really hard -- it's a real test of the boat and of the crew.

It's so hard, and requires such different qualities than other points of sail, that I do agree that it's probably worth it only for a fairly small number of people.

And a different solution which is maybe more rational, is to have the tankage and engine to motor in that situation, and have a rig which won't go upwind much but which is perfect for everything else offshore -- namely a ketch.

A performance cruiser optimized for upwind sailing will not only be the more comfortable and the best performer on those conditions as the more comfortable regarding sea motion. The finer entries, the narrow beam, the big keel, the boat extra power are all factors that increase performance upwind and even comfort, if you sail at the same speed and same wind angle.

Off course those can sail with more speed and at a better wind angle and taking the waves more on the bow would not contribute to comfort but that is a choice you have with that type of boats and you can opt to open the course to the same angle an heavier good middle weight boat will be able to d
o and will go with more speed and comfort. No choice on the heavier boat.

I would say the better boat for that would be a thing like the Wasa Atlantic 51, long, narrow light and powerful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e8KqxKXbWk

Or if you want to have a bigger interior (even if the one of the Wasa is small but very nice) something like a Luffe 48 will do:

As well as a Xp 55:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEe-bSXkPVI

These are the type of boats that go better upwind but obviously that does not mean that you like this type of boats even if some are used to circumnavigate. It has all to do with the way a sailor likes to sail. On a slightly different approach you have more comfortable performance cruisers like the Solaris or the Comet RS and many others. They have also a superior performance upwind regarding a middle weight good cruising boat.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

A performance cruiser optimized for upwind sailing will not only be the more comfortable and the best performer on those conditions as the more comfortable regarding sea motion. The finer entries, the narrow beam, the big keel, the boat extra power are all factors that increase performance upwind and even comfort, if you sail at the same speed and same wind angle.

Yes -- I agree that the fine entry and narrow beam are what you need -- but low latitude performance boats typically have more beam and flatter bottoms for more form stability, and this is not good up here where pounding is a real concern.

Hard core blue water cruisers up here want -- and its reflected in the designs -- the boat to be immensely strong even at the expense of some extra weight, they want a bit of forefoot, and they don't want the flared aft sections. They certainly do not want the large rig of a low latitude performance boat -- it's a liability up here for the reasons I have explained.

My next boat will be a bit longer (about 60 - 62 feet, about 52 -- 54 foot waterline), will be narrow (no more than about 15 feet vs. 16 of my present boat), will have light, empty ends, and will have a deeper somewhat higher aspect keel (about 2.70) with a lead (or in my fantasies, tungsten) bulb, but massively strong and not so high aspect like a performance boat. It will be metal with multiple watertight compartments, and will have a moderate cutter rig with SA/D of about 16 - 17 and very low windage with a thin mast, maybe carbon, not too tall, maybe 75 - 80 feet.

It will not be a racing boat and will not look like low latitude performance boats, but should be able to get upwind with comfort and speed. It will have a small windage-optimized pilothouse and a large engine -- 150 hp Yanmar six. A boat which would be totally out of place in Florida or in the Med. Will have less accommodation volume than my present boat, but tons of technical and storage space, and plenty of good sea berths.

It will be a really good boat for cruising Greenland and Iceland, or for a run over the top of Norway to the Barents Sea. Or for a quick run around Fastnet Rock in October

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But Polux, your problem is that you live inside the world of magazine articles, polar diagrams, and advertising blurb, and not inside the world of ocean passage making. These are such different worlds.

I can show you the difference if your mind is open to it. In fact, I'll make it worth your while.

If you will bring your boat up to Cowes on 1 October next autumn, I'll race you from there to the Fastnet Rock and back (or to Plymouth if you want to imitate the Fastnet Race route). Your boat has a higher rating than mine. My boat is very much like the Discovery, modest SA/D (16.5), fully equipped with heavy duty generator (1000cc three cylinder), washer/dryer, etc., etc.

If you beat me, I'll give you a prize of 10 000 euros.

If I beat you, you'll give me a prize of taking me and my crew to dinner at the RORC in Cowes.

In fact, we can say that "beating you" means by at least 6 hours. If you even come within 6 hours of me, we'll call it a draw.

Pretty good odds, wouldn't you say? So how about it? This will be a real test of rating vs LWL in real ocean conditions.

Here would be the rules:

Crew of only 2 on each boat, no pros
White sails only
No limitation on poles
Motoring penalty as per RORC
Abort or delay with any forecast per either Met Office or Passageweather.com of F9 or more, but not otherwise.

Depending on the weather, but in a wide range of conditions from F4 to F8, I will make Plymouth in about 3 days and 6 hours, plus or minus 6 hours. Together with my washer/dryer and all my cruising gear. A long beat to windward in F7 or more will make it longer, as will any winds of F3 or less, but otherwise -- that's how long it will take.

How about you?

Ha Polux, I'm backing Dockhead to win this race. You'd have to up the wind speed limit to F10 if it was Southern Oceans. Keep your light-weight boats in the tropics and away from big swell.