Catamaran Comparison (SA/D vs D/L)

[Escape_Velocity]

Originally Posted by tankersteve

Any thought to adding Catana to your chart? From my perspective, Catana has always been the 'production cat with performance'. Narrower hulls, daggerboards, the new ones are supposedly 'light-weight' due to extensive use of carbon fiber.

Tankersteve

Catana certainly belongs on a chart like mine for comparison purposes and it would undoubtedly do well (I'll see about adding later). But, there's a personal preference thing at work here that caused me to exclude it initially. I had looked at Catanas, and actually chartered one last fall. My problem is that the aft helms on Catanas (and Nautitechs) make them a no-go for me due to visibility and shelter. Likewise, flybridges are a no-go because of the pitching and height of the boom. All of the boats I've got listed and have looked at seriously have semi-raised helms that are protected (or could easily be) with decent visibility and put you within easy reach of the boom. Anyway, that's why it's not there ... I have fun chartering a Catana 42, but the helm positions and way the lines are led (they get in everyone's way) made me decide against pursuing it.

[yeloya]

Originally Posted by Escape_Velocity

Catana certainly belongs on a chart like mine for comparison purposes and it would undoubtedly do well (I'll see about adding later). But, there's a personal preference thing at work here that caused me to exclude it initially. I had looked at Catanas, and actually chartered one last fall. My problem is that the aft helms on Catanas (and Nautitechs) make them a no-go for me due to visibility and shelter. Likewise, flybridges are a no-go because of the pitching and height of the boom. All of the boats I've got listed and have looked at seriously have semi-raised helms that are protected (or could easily be) with decent visibility and put you within easy reach of the boom. Anyway, that's why it's not there ... I have fun chartering a Catana 42, but the helm positions and way the lines are led (they get in everyone's way) made me decide against pursuing it.

It has been discussed at length the helm position of Catana and Nautitech's; many people hate it.. I fully agree the with the visibility issue but disagree with the exposure issue. Anyway, back to topic, as one OP said, the definition of performance is different for everyone. For me it's the ability to sail in light winds. After 20 kts true, every cat will make from 8 to 13 kts, but most won't sail until at least 10 kts true and most of the time the winds are in the range of 6 to 12 kts.
In my view, hull beam to lentgth ratio is the single most important factor determining the performance. I've sailed quite a bit range of cats with the exception of Aussi designs, Catana's and Outremer's for me are winners when you combine payload and overall performance. Nauthitech open 40 and 46 may be the follower. The trouble is that Catana and Outremer cost 20 to 40 % more compared to same length Leopard, FP or Lagoons. (Rough numbers ; Catana 47 : K 820 €, FP Soana: 47 K 650 €, L 450 K 500 €, Outremer 51 K 880 €, FP Helia 44 : 500 €)

Cheers

Yeloya

[Escape_Velocity]

Originally Posted by yeloya

It has been discussed at length the helm position of Catana and Nautitech's; many people hate it.. I fully agree the with the visibility issue but disagree with the exposure issue. Anyway, back to topic, as one OP said, the definition of performance is different for everyone. For me it's the ability to sail in light winds. After 20 kts true, every cat will make from 8 to 13 kts, but most won't sail until at least 10 kts true and most of the time the winds are in the range of 6 to 12 kts.
In my view, hull beam to lentgth ratio is the single most important factor determining the performance. I've sailed quite a bit range of cats with the exception of Aussi designs, Catana's and Outremer's for me are winners when you combine payload and overall performance. Nauthitech open 40 and 46 may be the follower. The trouble is that Catana and Outremer cost 20 to 40 % more compared to same length Leopard, FP or Lagoons. (Rough numbers ; Catana 47 : K 820 €, FP Soana: 47 K 650 €, L 450 K 500 €, Outremer 51 K 880 €, FP Helia 44 : 500 €)

Cheers

Yeloya

All good points. Do you know the load capacity for an Outremer 51?

[sailjumanji]

Here is how the Seawind models plot on the chart. (Had to hand plot them as I didn't have the base graph, but should be pretty close.) See attached.

[cwjohm]

This is an excellent point to keep in mind. You seem to like the Helia 44 a lot. I do too, it's clearly a top performer for a production boat with great load carrying capacity, though I am also drawn to the Saba 50 (which ironically has a slightly lower load carrying capacity and lower SA/D vs D/L ratios).

I do like the Helia but I sold it as I wanted a better performing boat.

What is the load capacity of the Outremer 51? Have you been on one? I need to give them a second look as I've only been on a 45. I was not impressed with the finishing of Outremer 45, however.

The formally stated load capacity is not really that important. The point is that the performance of the boat decreases with significant loading.

Not for me, but I think your ultimate point is that in this size range it's all "about the same." I'm not sure that's true, but I respect your view.

That is not what I said. What I said was that there in this size range to all intents and purposes most production boats are similar in performance. Helia, Saba, Lagoon, Leopard and so on and so forth. Then you have the group with better performance like Seawind and Outremer, and finally you have the top performers like some Schionnings, Crowthers, privately built boats like 44Cs, and their newer European equivalents.

For me, analysis paralysis on performance in deciding on a production boat is futile. Better to spend the time making the subjective decision on what boat is best for you (or your wife) based on a whole lot of other factors. If you have more money than sense (like me) then you may opt for a faster boat then some degree of analysis may be justified but it may well be that the performance of the boat outstrips your own sailing capacity so in fact your decision should be more pragmatically what is the highest performance you are capable of handling. In this regard I am somewhat fortunate that a lot of these high end performance boats are designed for short people and I simply cannot stand up in them, and the 55'+ performance boats I can stand up in are $2 mill +. Cost restrictions combined with performance criteria restrict me to a selection of a small number of 50' boats where again, further analysis reveals little ,and more subjective analysis comes into play.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Be careful here though, because IMHO the calculated "load carrying capacity" has even less rigor than the manufacturer's published displacement number. And I've never found that putting 3,000 lbs on a fast boat makes it slower than a boat that was already high D/L (i.e., slow) before adding the same amount of weight. And when I get home from cruising sabbatical, I can always remove that weight and have a fun boat to day sail or competitively race.

EXACTLY! Everyone on here seems to think that if you load up a fast boat it suddenly becomes an extremely slow one! Simply not the case.

The numbers that put our boat off the chart are actually based on us being over the original design displacement by 1/2 a tonne.

[cwjohm]

EXACTLY! Everyone on here seems to think that if you load up a fast boat it suddenly becomes an extremely slow one! Simply not the case.

So who is "Everyone on here". I have not seen anyone say this, and I do not know of anybody who would say this.

The reality is that if you spend the significant $ to get a boat that is supposed to perform 50% above a production boat (say) and when you load it up it only performs 30% above a production boat, this is likely to cause some angst, the response being "I was disappointed in the performance once I loaded the boat up" rather than "the boat is now extremely slow".

Similarly, with production boats, all of the analysis paralysis can lead to disappointment. I still remember picking up the Helia from the ship completely unloaded and sailing from Sydney to Brisbane, and thinking this boat sails really well. Completely different story when I added 2 tons+ of weight on the boat. Still even then, I did not think the boat was slow, but rather it was "as advertised".

I think the problem with overloaded performance boats is that whilst they still perform well they are not necessarily "as advertised" when loaded for cruising. Sure you can lighten them up and many do prior to going to racing, but for cruising purposes all the analysis in the world is not going to make them faster. IMO it is a matter of "buyer beware" in this regard.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

MU

Edit: ran the numbers, our boat is off the chart, to the upper left...

SA/D is 28, D/L is 69.5.

Well you are right on the trend line of the Outremer 51, Privilege 585, Seawind 1600 and Seawind 1190 Sport. (If you look at the chart I sent earlier, with the Seawind data.)

Just to check, if your LWL is 44 ft, then your displacement is 13,260 lbs and upwind sail area 980 ft2. (If I back-calculate from the SA/D and the D/L ratio you quoted.) It's a light weight - and I have seen lighter specs and LWL vs weight trends so I know it's feasible - but impressive nonetheless.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

So who is "Everyone on here". I have not seen anyone say this, and I do not know of anybody who would say this.

I have read this, or similar. Something akin to "load up a performance cat for cruising, and it becomes a dog." But usually not as witty!

Originally Posted by cwjohm

I think the problem with overloaded performance boats is that whilst they still perform well they are not necessarily "as advertised" when loaded for cruising.

But the same is true for the "non-performance" boats, for lack of a better term. The manufacturers still advertise SA/D and DLR, and consumers look at those and think they are going to sail decent. And then when they load them up, they don't.

Originally Posted by cwjohm

Sure you can lighten them up and many do prior to going to racing, but for cruising purposes all the analysis in the world is not going to make them faster.

Unless you put on larger, synthetic main and jib. That usually makes them faster! (As for analysis, look at what is possible by changing the sails and therefore the SA/D ratio.) But if you are sitting in a cockpit that is 12 ft off the water and the boom another 6 ft higher than that, there's not a lot of room for significant SA addition.

Also, put a decent-sized spinnaker on them. It's amazing how many people measure in with 1,100 ft2 spinnakers on 41-43 ft cruising cats. The Corsair 31R carries almost that much racing, and dousing conventionally. Now with continuous furlers, people should be running larger spinnakers because that system makes them so much easier to douse. They will probably find times they actually sail downwind rather than run the engine!

You want to make your boat go faster, point higher - look at your sails. BS on dacron lasting longer, and the only sail material for "cruisers". Whatever. Look at "performance life", not how long the sail stays white.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Well you are right on the trend line of the Outremer 51, Privilege 585, Seawind 1600 and Seawind 1190 Sport. (If you look at the chart I sent earlier, with the Seawind data.)

Just to check, if your LWL is 44 ft, then your displacement is 13,260 lbs and upwind sail area 980 ft2. (If I back-calculate from the SA/D and the D/L ratio you quoted.) It's a light weight - and I have seen lighter specs and LWL vs weight trends so I know it's feasible - but impressive nonetheless.

Pretty much right. The LWL is just a shade under 44'.
The bare boat would have weighed around 4100kg. For not a lot more money, I could have built it well under 4000, by using foam and glass where I used plywood for furniture.

The wisdom of hindsight.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Pretty much right. The LWL is just a shade under 44'.
The bare boat would have weighed around 4100kg. For not a lot more money, I could have built it well under 4000, by using foam and glass where I used plywood for furniture.

The wisdom of hindsight.

You wouldn't be the first person I know who ripped out furnishings and built his own of vacuum bagged foam. Ditto for floorboards.

[cwjohm]

But the same is true for the "non-performance" boats, for lack of a better term. The manufacturers still advertise SA/D and DLR, and consumers look at those and think they are going to sail decent. And then when they load them up, they don't.

Do they? Based on my experience they are more interested in the way the boat is fitted out, or has air-con and a generator, or an island bed, than SA/D and DLR. I would suspect that if you quizzed the average "non-performance" boat buyer about these ratios they would not have a clue what you are talking about. In a similar vein to published "polars" which generally I find these buyers have no interest in. This is of course the polar opposite of the small minority interested in performance boats such as represented in this thread.

Everyone's experience is different I guess. You know people that say something akin to "load up a performance cat for cruising, and it becomes a dog". I have never heard this. Obviously, we move in different circles, or perhaps I just subconsciously ignore statements that are not based on some sort of supportive evidence.

[sailjumanji]

You are right in that there is a consumer that places more value on interior fit out then the way a boat sails. They are probably the majority. I looked at those boats in Miami, and chose to upsize to a Seawind 1160 Lite because of sailing performance and comfort, and my experience with Seawind 1000 ownership of the last 12 years. Many of those other consumers will probably step aboard my Lite, and say its sparse compared to a Lagoon, etc. No problem, I place more value on the way a boat sails. I had 12 years of competitive Corsair trimaran racing prior to buying the last Seawind. I like to sail. I like a boat that awards good sail trim. I like to get to the next island sooner. I don't care that there's not paneling everywhere in cabins, which most time to me looks like Ikea and cramped. I suspect I am not the typical consumer. But no problem.

[cwjohm]

Just for interest sake I used these units on a number of 50' boats available right now for DLR

Seawind 1600 93 As per Sailjumanji's data
Chincogan 520 64
Grainger 48 Ext 83
Crowther 63
Schionning GForce 53
Balance 526 79

Who knows whether these displacements are actually correct. I actually know a couple of the faster boats and they perform exceptionally and in fact more than I would ever want. Some, like the Balance and the Seawind I have not yet been on, but I would suspect, whilst not the speed machines like the others, would meet my criteria of a performance boat, and offer significantly more comfort and load capacity.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by cwjohm

Just for interest sake I used these units on a number of 50' boats available right now for DLR

Seawind 1600 93 As per Sailjumanji's data
Chincogan 520 64
Grainger 48 Ext 83
Crowther 63
Schionning GForce 53
Balance 526 79

Who knows whether these displacements are actually correct. I actually know a couple of the faster boats and they perform exceptionally and in fact more than I would ever want. Some, like the Balance and the Seawind I have not yet been on, but I would suspect, whilst not the speed machines like the others, would meet my criteria of a performance boat, and offer significantly more comfort and load capacity.

I would say that given my experience with boat weights and rating others that the Seawind numbers are reasonable for an empty boat. Manufacturing is resin infused and carbon used in some high load areas like beams. And the Seawind 1600 is a daggerboard boat that should help upwind performance. That doesn't show up in SA/D and D/L ratios.