Advice on the Schionning 1750

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Stumble

My experience is US specific, .

I think it's a very different situation here in Australia. Thank goodness!

[cwjohm]

Depends whether you want offshore cover. Within 200nm they are pretty relaxed, but when you go offshore their requirements are greater.

I would assume that when you went to the New Cal, you had amassed a reasonable amount of experience by that time.

[cwjohm]

I think it's a very different situation here in Australia. Thank goodness!

Yes, and No.

The difference here is that the fine print clearly states that the operator of the vessel must be suitably qualified and experienced. This is an open criteria that is only tested if you have to make a claim. Sadly, there are cases whereby claims have been denied as a result of the operator not being suitable qualified and experienced, even though the insurance was accepted and payments were made.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

Yes, and No.

The difference here is that the fine print clearly states that the operator of the vessel must be suitably qualified and experienced. This is an open criteria that is only tested if you have to make a claim. Sadly, there are cases whereby claims have been denied as a result of the operator not being suitable qualified and experienced, even though the insurance was accepted and payments were made.

Chris, I have heard of denial of claim where quals are deficient - eg where the skipper didn't have in Queensland a Recreational Ship Masters Licence, I have never heard of a sustained rejection based on experience?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

Yes, and No.

The difference here is that the fine print clearly states that the operator of the vessel must be suitably qualified and experienced. This is an open criteria that is only tested if you have to make a claim. Sadly, there are cases whereby claims have been denied as a result of the operator not being suitable qualified and experienced, even though the insurance was accepted and payments were made.

People I know who have made claims have NEVER had their experience questioned. Their only qualifications have been recreational boating licenses. (Which is the only qualification legally required.)

[WildFireAus]

Originally Posted by Stumble

My experience is US specific, but on a number of boats I worked on insurance was dependent on the resume of the on board Captain. The companies simply wouldn't insure the boat on a standard owner/named basis. Typically they were looking for a pretty minimal boating resume, but for the largest boat even as a 100 ton captain w/ sailing endorsement and 20 years of sailing experience I could only motor it around, if I put up a sail the rig was uninsured. It made for some pretty slow deliveries when the Skipper decided to fly and we had to motor it a couple hundred miles on perfect sailing days.

Interesting - going to check this out with my broker tomorrow, but I have noticed US appears to be more restrictive than AUS in relation to insurance. Thanks for the info👍

[cwjohm]

Insurance is a complex subject and thread drift but :

Within 200nm provided person in charge of the boat holds a boating licence and any damage is not due to negligence then ok, hence why majority of claims are no problem.

If damage caused by negligence or poor seamanship (especially in regard to third party claims) then experience of the skipper is very much examined. I know of claims where insurance rejection has occurred on these grounds, not to mention cases where criminal negligence may apply in the case of injury or death.

Outside 200nm it is a requirement of Pantaenius and Club Marine (I do not know about others) to submit CV of qualifications and experience. They state that should this information not be accurate then claims may not be honoured and they may decline coverage if such a CV is not acceptable. Here again I was told that qualifications alone was not sufficient and experience was also germaine.

In any case where there is doubt in my experience insurance companies will always deny and the onus is on you to chase them down.

[Limpet]

This 1750 has been listed a long time as stated previously. I remember reading a description that is different than the one now.

One thing that catches my eye is that the schionning website claims that a heavy 1750 should be about 9K KGS, yet this one is 13K KGS.....44% heavier. I did notice that this one has interior liners on the inside surfaces, whereas most schionnings I have seen are just painted fiberglass. If true, this added weight could significantly defeat the performance of the design.

Also, there does not appear to be any forward visibility inside the saloon. The helms have no benches and the forward visibility from the helm also looks poor.

There is some mention of draft relative to rudders down....Does this mean the rudders can be retracted on this boat?

One thing I look at is that when a boat becomes larger, generally over 50', the rigging and sails become difficult to handle. I personally always want the option of single handing it if I can.

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Seriously? I mean you're joking, right?

In reality, you'd SAIL the Schionning far more. Because it will sail, when the others have to motor sail. Yes, you'll reef it in less breeze. And still be going faster than the others even if they're motorsailing. And a boat like a Schionning will sail faster under working sails than the heavyweights will sail under a spinnaker.

Which is actually easier and safer. Less apparent wind, and no jumping around the foredeck trying to douse an out of control spi.

Is there any reason a Schionning can't sail on autopilot when an Orana can? No. None whatsoever.

I don't know which boat you have but it looks like a light and fast cat. Have you sailed any other cat in the Ocean long enough ? particularly boats like Orana and the like ? I've sailed all kind, from huge condo's to Gunboat 62, some less, some more..
My experience (you may disagree and I respect yr view) is that light and fast catamarans require more attention. As a general rule, whether it's a mono or cat (fast or condo), after 30 kts true, I helm, never let on AP. The two Chris White design went capsized while both were on A/P.
See below his own remarks.

https://chriswhitedesigns.com/25-new...anna-s-capsize

I am not saying that Orana and the like are safer , just the opposite. But they are more forgiving. Secondly, they are not too sensitive to trimming, they go slow anyway.. whereas fast cats excel when properly trimmed; when you sheet or lack any line it makes 1 kt of difference in speed. When Orana makes 9 kts, fast one would make 14-15 kts and that certainly requires more attention. Actually that's the real fun of sailing. However, on 20 days of passage and singlehanded, it will be more demanding. That's all I am saying.

Cheers

Yeloya

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by yeloya

I am not saying that Orana and the like are safer , just the opposite. But they are more forgiving. Secondly, they are not too sensitive to trimming, they go slow anyway.. whereas fast cats excel when properly trimmed; when you sheet or lack any line it makes 1 kt of difference in speed. When Orana makes 9 kts, fast one would make 14-15 kts and that certainly requires more attention. Actually that's the real fun of sailing. However, on 20 days of passage and singlehanded, it will be more demanding. That's all I am saying.

Cheers

Yeloya

So a poorly trimmed fast boat will be doing 13-14 knots while the well trimmed Orana is doing 9.... and then you could put a couple of reefs in the fast boat and still be doing 10-11, poorly trimmed, while the well trimmed Orana is still stuck at 9... and the poorly sailed, over reefed fast boat gets there 2 days earlier...

BTW we regularly sail our boat in + 30 knots on autopilot. Sailed in 35 up to 48 knots for 4 days on autopilot. Seems you can't do that on your Orana? I'd have thought having to hand steer was much more demanding.

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So a poorly trimmed fast boat will be doing 13-14 knots while the well trimmed Orana is doing 9.... and then you could put a couple of reefs in the fast boat and still be doing 10-11, poorly trimmed, while the well trimmed Orana is still stuck at 9... and the poorly sailed, over reefed fast boat gets there 2 days earlier...

BTW we regularly sail our boat in + 30 knots on autopilot. Sailed in 35 up to 48 knots for 4 days on autopilot. Seems you can't do that on your Orana? I'd have thought having to hand steer was much more demanding.

Where did I said "poorly trimmed fast cat" ? I just said fast cats are more sensible to trimming. This is like driving a large heavy SUV vs. a Porsche.
To be more specific, apple to apple, an Outremer 51 would be 30-50%, Catana 47 probably 20-30 % faster compared to Orana or Helia on almost every wind directions. Moreover, with these latters you would need min 8-9 kts of true wind for sailing whereas Catana 47 an O51 can sail with 5 kts of wind. I should also add that most of the fast cats are with technogical sails whilst FP and Lagoons would have mostly dacron sails and out of shape..

I only had winds over 48 kts twice. Once with Orana in the Ionian upwind for 36 hours. We had always someone sitting on the helm, occasionally on AP but ready to disengeage it when it was gusting. The second one was on a 43 ft mono, steady 50 kts, gusting 52-55 kts and I helmed for 6 hours under shower in the middle of the night, heeled 30 degrees, it wasn't fun. Remember that mono's are much more dangerous under these conditions, if the AP gives away, you can easily broach which is much more difficult for in the cats..

I am generally not considered as a prudent sailor, I push the boat as much as she can take. If you sailed the way you described on AP, I would say "not for me". After all I am not criticising anybody; this is yr life, yr boat, good luck.

Cheers

Yeloya

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So a poorly trimmed fast boat will be doing 13-14 knots while the well trimmed Orana is doing 9.... and then you could put a couple of reefs in the fast boat and still be doing 10-11, poorly trimmed, while the well trimmed Orana is still stuck at 9... and the poorly sailed, over reefed fast boat gets there 2 days earlier...

BTW we regularly sail our boat in + 30 knots on autopilot. Sailed in 35 up to 48 knots for 4 days on autopilot. Seems you can't do that on your Orana? I'd have thought having to hand steer was much more demanding.

I think the real problem for the OP is not poor trim leading to poor speeds. That's fine, and no harm done. What concerns me is a big powerful and fast catamaran that is poorly sailed right into the back of a wave at high speeds. The amount of kinetic energy in a fast boat is exponentially higher than a slow boat Ke=mass*V^2. So a 20,000lb boat at 8kn has about 1.25m units of kenetic energy, the same boat traveling at 20kn has 8m units of kenetic energy.

Knowing how to contain that force, how to drive the boat to minimize risks, and how to slow it down enough to be safe are real issues.


As for autopilots.... something like 99% of the Vendee Globe driving is done by autopilots and the big maxi tri's pretty much are always driven by the auto pilots. In fact autopilots were driving during almost all of the major speed records. If you don't feel comfortable with them then either you have the wrong one, or don't recognize its capability.

About the only conditions where a human driver is consistently better is upwind in medium wind and lumpy seas. Where a human driver can (should) drive to the next wave rolling in the autopilots can only sense the wave it is on.

The performance offshore sailing school responsible for the Figaro class actually uses the autopilot to teach student how to drive in heavy conditions. You hold the tiller while the autopilot drives and learn to match what it does.

[cwjohm]

I think there is no better example than Big Wave Rider. The owner bought the boat because it was a fast boat. He was relatively experienced. Bruce warned him it would be hard to handle.

Sure enough it flipped in a wind gust with full sail compliment. This would never happen with a slower boat.

I totally agree with Yeloya. Fast boats like the GForce (which by the way is a very different boat to that which the OP is interested in) take way more attention than a slower production boat (nothing to do with the inherent safety of the boat) because they are significantly more responsive to changes in wind conditions. I believe the A/P issue is a bit of a red herring as a good A/P should work on all boats in most conditions.

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by Stumble

I think the real problem for the OP is not poor trim leading to poor speeds. That's fine, and no harm done. What concerns me is a big powerful and fast catamaran that is poorly sailed right into the back of a wave at high speeds. The amount of kinetic energy in a fast boat is exponentially higher than a slow boat Ke=mass*V^2. So a 20,000lb boat at 8kn has about 1.25m units of kenetic energy, the same boat traveling at 20kn has 8m units of kenetic energy.

Knowing how to contain that force, how to drive the boat to minimize risks, and how to slow it down enough to be safe are real issues.

The performance offshore sailing school responsible for the Figaro class actually uses the autopilot to teach student how to drive in heavy conditions. You hold the tiller while the autopilot drives and learn to match what it does.

Thank you. You explained my experience in a more scientific way..

I have to disagree however on yr comments about AP's. There are couple of issues , first is the one you mentioned; the waves. In the Med in particular, the waves heights and direction are almost never stable on coastal sailing and or between islands. I know you can play around response times, etc. but most AP's can not deal with this variable. Secondly, the wind direction and strength may vary very fast. 5 years ago I was about to capsize a very modestly rigged Lipari with a sudden gust. (from almost zero to 30+ knots) I flew one hull up 30 degrees, on AP of course. Lastly, I am not talking about Vendee Globe boats neither am I qualified to race in Figaro. Most if not all of the AP's on a production boats are underrated, they simply give away and happened to me couple of times. It can happen either because of mechanical failure or sometimes when the voltage goes down or too much force on the rudder to deal with.. If it didn't happen to you, trust me it's scaring if it happens particularly on coastal sailing when you don't have enough sea space to react...
For mono's it's even worse, they heel and half of the rudder is out of water. You need to steer towards the wind to depower the boat or you easily broach in strong winds. I have less experience on mono's but I wonder how do they deal with that on Figaro boats.(twin rudders ??)

Again, this is my opinion based on my own experience.. maybe you won't agree but Chris White who designs very light and fast cat does:

"The autopilot is indispensable for short handed cruising. I love the autopilot on Javelin and use it almost all the time. It steers the boat very well, better than most helmsmen. But the autopilot is a dumb machine. It cannot see the black squall line coming nor the water being whipped white by the leading edge of a gust front. It does not deduce that since the wind velocity has increased from 20 to 30 knots in 6 seconds that it may shortly increase to 50 knots. The autopilot has no survival instinct. The autopilot cannot anticipate the future. It has severe limits and sometimes,
The Autopilot must be turned off!! "

I have a lot of respect for this guy and had chance to shortly sail one of his 48's long ago. Well, you might say, 2 of his Atlantic 57's have capsized, a terrible statistic as there aren't thousands of boats made. How many FP's or Lagoons have capsized ? Not many that I recall.
That's why I am saying light and fast cats requires more attention and more seamanship.


Cheers

Yeloya

[WildFireAus]

My observation of this thread is those that own or sailed a Schionning love them and don't find them to be a challenge or flighty. For us the only catamaran we have seen upside down in the Mediterranean was a lagoon. The Schionning that Niecy is talking about was designed by Jeff Schionning and to date based on my knowledge no Jeff Schionning boat has capsized.

Rereading the original post and Niecy's husband has a Porsche, a car capable of speeds over 200 kilometers an hour, just because of its capability doesn't mean you have to drive it dangerously. Surely when you are out sailing you make the same calculated decisions. With the thread drift to Auto pilot you use it sensibly on the Schionning just like you would on any other boat. With a 104 square meter main sail, it can be reefed right down, drop the headsail and put up the storm jib, throw out the drogue and now you have a pussy cat doing a well controlled 7 knots in a strong blow. You have a lot of choices on these boats.

Going back to Niecy's original question we believe it's a well made boat and offered at a very competitive price. Yes it is a little tight in some dimensions but I guess so is the Porsche.

We all have our different points of view and that is what makes this forum great, our experience is that Schionning's are a joy to sail, graceful and fast and easily controlled: a boat designed by a sailor for people who love sailing and going far afield. The down side of them is that they are not intended to be a condo cat tied up in a marina and they are a bit more technical because they are designed to be sailed rather than motored. Here is the thing - there are many varieties of boats out there each with salient attributes, we make our choices to suit ourselves, but hopefully this process is based on relevant facts rather than spurious opinions.

A combined effort by Captain Clint and Admiral Gaye.

Keep safe out there and have a great day 😊😊😊