Cheap Multis and Projects

[owly]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

For about a nanosecond I thought, "WOW ! A Wharram with dagger boards, and FOUR of them ! Is it a foiler ?


In the second nanosecond, I realized they were just open hatches.

[IMG]https://api.ning.com/files/OoN9q1jyhUVTToL-9yIBrTSxLO-k4t84M3H2OzA1gqPBgnWYzzjsfPWc*BGbEfWO*RF-bKMgfXzeHU15EjbPTQlC3ra2mXGL/tikiderive.jpg[/IMG]


Oops..... the two other photos didn't come through (single daggers). You can cut and paste the links to see them........


[IMG]https://api.ning.com/files/nhHDy1eLksWeewDRx3V82o1fvA9OKJe2EFO-*x8JJiqIlK79LMDcuqI2lw*MVcACEXVw02EBDlNQFTUZHsMiIN ztl8bxekfu/daggerboard.JPG[/IMG]

[andres]

It is not a Tiki. The shape of the hull is of the classic designs. It looks more like an enlarged Tangaroa. It also seems to have a narrow overall beam than the Tangaroa MK4, it does not seem to be a good idea.

[owly]

The photos didn't all come through..... let's try that again..... If not you can click the links.


H.W.



http://api.ning.com/files/OoN9q1jyhU...tikiderive.jpg


[IMG]http://api.ning.com/files/OoN9q1jyhUVTToL-9yIBrTSxLO-k4t84M3H2OzA1gqPBgnWYzzjsfPWc*BGbEfWO*RF-bKMgfXzeHU15EjbPTQlC3ra2mXGL/tikiderive.jpg[/IMG]



https://api.ning.com/files/nhHDy1eLksWeewDRx3V82o1fvA9OKJe2EFO-*x8JJiqIlK79LMDcuqI2lw*MVcACEXVw02EBDlNQFTUZHsMiIN %20ztl8bxekfu/daggerboard.JPG



[IMG]https://api.ning.com/files/nhHDy1eLksWeewDRx3V82o1fvA9OKJe2EFO-*x8JJiqIlK79LMDcuqI2lw*MVcACEXVw02EBDlNQFTUZHsMiIN %20ztl8bxekfu/daggerboard.JPG[/IMG]

[owly]

Originally Posted by andres

It is not a Tiki. The shape of the hull is of the classic designs. It looks more like an enlarged Tangaroa. It also seems to have a narrow overall beam than the Tangaroa MK4, it does not seem to be a good idea.

Are you referring to the boat in the photo above with the leeboards? It also looks like it has transoms....


H.W.

[andres]

Originally Posted by owly

Are you referring to the boat in the photo above with the leeboards? It also looks like it has transoms....


H.W.

No, I am referring to post #238. The problem was that the above post appear before my answer, but I realized that after posting it ...


I am attaching two pictures, one is of a Tangaroa MK4 (35'6") and the other is of a Tiki 38 (38'). If you look carefully you will see that the shape of the bow is very different between them. I think this is related with the differences between the construction methods of the classics and the tikis.


The one with leeboards seems to have rounded hulls, but Wharram does not have any design with this hull shape, so I think it is not a Wharram. It looks more like a "Wharram inspired" catamaran.

[owly]

Originally Posted by andres

No, I am referring to post #238. The problem was that the above post appear before my answer, but I realized that after posting it ...


I am attaching two pictures, one is of a Tangaroa MK4 (35'6") and the other is of a Tiki 38 (38'). If you look carefully you will see that the shape of the bow is very different between them. I think this is related with the differences between the construction methods of the classics and the tikis.


The one with leeboards seems to have rounded hulls, but Wharram does not have any design with this hull shape, so I think it is not a Wharram. It looks more like a "Wharram inspired" catamaran.

It's interesting that the Tangaroa shows no beam lashings, while the Tiki 38 does. I understood that all Wharram designs used flexible beam connections. I'm a bit curious about this. In addition to the rounded hulls you mentioned on the boat with the leeboards, it also lacks the canoe sterns..... The huge absurdly shaped leeboards make it visually "interesting". It seems to me that foil shaped boards mounted on the inboard side would make more sense however. The rounded hulls probably make them necessary.



H.W.

[andres]

Originally Posted by owly

It's interesting that the Tangaroa shows no beam lashings, while the Tiki 38 does. I understood that all Wharram designs used flexible beam connections. I'm a bit curious about this. In addition to the rounded hulls you mentioned on the boat with the leeboards, it also lacks the canoe sterns..... The huge absurdly shaped leeboards make it visually "interesting". It seems to me that foil shaped boards mounted on the inboard side would make more sense however. The rounded hulls probably make them necessary.
H.W.

The Tangaroa is one of the classic designs, it uses metal brackets and a high compression rubber blocks to attach the beams to the hulls. In the Tangaroa picture they are hidden by the bulwarks, but it can be seen in the attatched picture. Al the classics have this arrangement. The lashings were introduced with the Pahi designs, and from then almost all Wharram designs use lashings. I think they are simpler and safer than the classic method, and many classics have changed to this method.

The rounded hull needs some type of boards to go to windward, but I don't know if the leeboards are effective when sailing at high speed in a catamaran.

[owly]

Originally Posted by andres

The Tangaroa is one of the classic designs, it uses metal brackets and a high compression rubber blocks to attach the beams to the hulls. In the Tangaroa picture they are hidden by the bulwarks, but it can be seen in the attatched picture. Al the classics have this arrangement. The lashings were introduced with the Pahi designs, and from then almost all Wharram designs use lashings. I think they are simpler and safer than the classic method, and many classics have changed to this method.

The rounded hull needs some type of boards to go to windward, but I don't know if the leeboards are effective when sailing at high speed in a catamaran.

I can definitely see where the lashings are a better more serviceable solution in many ways. Since I posted the other day, I've been reading and looking at photos and drawings, and it seems that there are a number of variants. Personally I would prefer non flexible connection..... Rigid connection has proven itself, and is virtually universal on catamarans aside from Wharram designs. lashings and joints have a single virtue... You can dismantle and move the works easily. Beams tied into bulkheads and internal furnishing, etc, and even the bulkheads themselves serving as beams as has been done in a number of designs makes good sense, and it allows a decent bridge deck cabin that spans the hulls providing an integrated safe dry space that you can transit without having to go out into the fury of the storm.



looking at the various photos of the catamaran I sent the link to, I'm thinking that it may have the beams rigidly attached. There are plywood bulkheads across the boat attached to both hulls, which suggests no flex. Normally on a Wharram, the structures on the bridge deck are not connected to the hulls solidly.


The list doesn't seem to be allowing me to post images anymore.... perhaps I've abused the privilege ;-( Here is a link to a photo of one of these bulkheads:
https://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/78094


H.W.

[andres]

Originally Posted by owly

I can definitely see where the lashings are a better more serviceable solution in many ways. Since I posted the other day, I've been reading and looking at photos and drawings, and it seems that there are a number of variants. Personally I would prefer non flexible connection..... Rigid connection has proven itself, and is virtually universal on catamarans aside from Wharram designs. lashings and joints have a single virtue... You can dismantle and move the works easily. Beams tied into bulkheads and internal furnishing, etc, and even the bulkheads themselves serving as beams as has been done in a number of designs makes good sense, and it allows a decent bridge deck cabin that spans the hulls providing an integrated safe dry space that you can transit without having to go out into the fury of the storm.

looking at the various photos of the catamaran I sent the link to, I'm thinking that it may have the beams rigidly attached. There are plywood bulkheads across the boat attached to both hulls, which suggests no flex. Normally on a Wharram, the structures on the bridge deck are not connected to the hulls solidly.

The list doesn't seem to be allowing me to post images anymore.... perhaps I've abused the privilege ;-( Here is a link to a photo of one of these bulkheads:
https://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/78094


H.W.

There is another virtue of the flexible connections, it gives a very soft ride. But your reasons for prefering a fixed connection are very valid and I am not going to argue against that.


I agree, for the same reasons as you, that the catamaran in the link must have rigid connections.

[longjonsilver]

i don't know who posted this link here on this forum, but that is where i found it, and i have enjoyed this link very much. So whoever has put this website together: Thank you!

Here it is: https://www.trimaranforsale.com/2019/02/

jon

[Shaneesprit]

Hmm the Trimaran list above would be good if it started with Prices - not sure it really shows cheap multihulls

i cant believe someone hasn't bitten this guys arm off

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sailing-C...53.m1438.l2649

[Captainrawn]

Heres a nice tri in florida 65k


https://miami.craigslist.org/mdc/boa...829142192.html

[captqrunch]

Posted to wrong board, I think, $65k and the trimaran still needs "remasting," whatever that may mean. Is this boat really cheap?

[longjonsilver]

Originally Posted by captqrunch

Posted to wrong board, I think, $65k and the trimaran still needs "remasting," whatever that may mean. Is this boat really cheap?

And twin outboards on a 50' boat? hmmmmm
jon

[ausnp84]

Originally Posted by captqrunch

Posted to wrong board, I think, $65k and the trimaran still needs "remasting," whatever that may mean. Is this boat really cheap?

Depends if it’s just the mast that needs replacing, or the whole rig. Workmanship looks good though and 50ft is a hell of a lot of boat.

And depending on displacement, two outboards will be fine for pushing it along.

N