Delusion in the older Multi-Hull Market

[Sos]

Hpe you don't mind but I have taken your list (and added my own boat!) and
added the Bruce number, taken from the Multihull Dynamics website, as another way of looking at performance -

BN - Bruce Number: The Bruce Number is a power-to-weight ratio for relative speed potential for comparing two or more boats. It takes into consideration the Displacement and Sail Area of main and jib (100% fore-triangle only), no overlapping sails.
Chris White, "The Cruising Multihull", (International Marine, Camden, Maine, 1997), states that a boat with a BN of less than 1.3 will be slow in light winds, and a boat with a BN of 1.6, or greater, is a boat that will be reefed often in offshore cruising.
Derek Harvey, "Multihulls for Cruising and Racing", International Marine, Camden, Maine, 1991, states that a BN of 1 is generally accepted as the dividing line between so-called slow and fast multihulls.
BN = SA^0.5/(Disp.*2240)^.333


Catana 431 (1998) -- 18,000 30.87 1.39
FP Casamance 45 (1985) -- 18,000 24.55 1.25
Norseman 440 (2001) -- 20,000 23.82 (430) 1.24
Oceanis 45 (2013) -- 21,00- 22.67 ?
Leopard 40 (2015) -- 20,000 22.07 1.04
Saga 43 (1996) -- 20,000 20.86 ?
Catana 43 (2004) -- 24,000 20.63 (431) 1.39
Lagoon 400 (2009) -- 22,000 18.18 1.04
Lagoon 40 (2017) -- 24,000 16.00 0.95
FP Lucia 40 (2015) -- 20,00 13.78 ?
Woods Flica 37 (1989) – 8,960lbs 17.02 1.03


To get another idea of performance, have a look at the ARC tracker to see how boats are performing. I know some will be motoring, and all the other variables, but it gives some real world idea. The performance cats/tri are in front, the fast monos are just behind, the average multis and monos are generally together but the slow multis are in front of the slow monos. Sure I will get shot down for many reasons over this

[Simon B]

I've bought an older 94 Prout Event. They asked $50k I offered $35k got it for $37 about half the price here in Europe. I'll end up spending the difference and maybe more. Koop een boot en werk je dood, Dutch expression meaning Buy a boat and work yourself dead! 😜

[tamicatana]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

It's interesting to see the degradation in performance over time -- the Catana fell from 30.87 to 20.63, the Lagoon from 18.18 to 16.00, the FP (yes, different sizes) from 24.55 to 13.78.

Yeah? Try finding a Crowther Catana, ergo from 1988-1990, to compare to that Casamance and Norseman. While you’re at it, compare the Danson designed Outremers to them as well.

Performance left production cats in the mid-90s. That’s why prices stay high, bc the older boats are better

[chris mac]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

There is MUCH more to performance than a single number, but weight and SA/D (sail area to displacement) are strong indicators. Some weights and SA/D from sailboatdata.com, ranked in decreasing SA/D:
Catana 431 (1998) -- 18,000 30.87
FP Casamance 45 (1985) -- 18,000 24.55
Norseman 440 (2001) -- 20,000 23.82 (Note, this is for the Voyage 440 -- not sure the differences, but Sailboatdata doesn't list the Norseman).
Oceanis 45 (2013) -- 21,00- 22.67
Leopard 40 (2015) -- 20,000 22.07
Saga 43 (1996) -- 20,000 20.86
Catana 43 (2004) -- 24,000 20.63
Lagoon 400 (2009) -- 22,000 18.18
Lagoon 40 (2017) -- 24,000 16.00
FP Lucia 40 (2015) -- 20,00 13.78


It's interesting to see the degradation in performance over time -- the Catana fell from 30.87 to 20.63, the Lagoon from 18.18 to 16.00, the FP (yes, different sizes) from 24.55 to 13.78.


But, to my point about the Norseman 440 and Casamance -- They are #2 and #3 in this list, higher than either of the cruising monohulls I list (we'll agree to disagree on my Saga -- I see her as a "fast cruiser," not a "cruiser/racer"), and head and shoulders above most of the other cats listed after the old Catana (20% or more).


The one odd data point is the Leopard 40. I'm not going to say the numbers are wrong. But it sure makes you ask, "WTF?" It looks to be a condo cat, competing tightly in the market with Lagoon and FP. One would say "Lagoon/Leopard/FP" in much the same way one would say "Catalina/Benne/Jeaneau." But the SA/D is in another universe! If I were shopping, I'd take a second look at Leopard! (compare the 40' 2015 designs from Leopard and FP, and the SA/D is almost double).


Oh, lest someone question my objectivity in my selection of boats. Yes, biased! I own a Saga 43, a friend owns a Oceanis 45, I did a delivery on a Catana 431, I came close to buying a Norseman, I lusted after a Casamance, hence those are on the list. But in general, a 40' cat is comparable to a much larger mono, so I think comparing a 40' cat to the two monos is fair (actually, they are closer to a 45-50 foot mono, but I don't sail those monos!). And I don't think cats below 40 "work well" so I don't want to include 38' cats -- they are out there, their owner's love them, but I really think 40' is the entry for extended time on a cat.

Add in a 1993 lagoon 42 TPI
16,550,. 27.67

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Sos

Hpe you don't mind but I have taken your list (and added my own boat!) and
added the Bruce number, taken from the Multihull Dynamics website, as another way of looking at performance -


To get another idea of performance, have a look at the ARC tracker to see how boats are performing. I know some will be motoring, and all the other variables, but it gives some real world idea. The performance cats/tri are in front, the fast monos are just behind, the average multis and monos are generally together but the slow multis are in front of the slow monos. Sure I will get shot down for many reasons over this

The Bruce number is an excellent way to compare cats, but as you noticed, it isn't calculated on monos... LOL. But, the outcome is about the same. The exception is the Catana, but I'm pretty sure you had the same number on two boats (the 431 is the old boat, the 43 is the new slower model).


I've often proposed the ARC as a real-world assessment of distance sailing performance, and it doesn't look good for modern production cruising cats. But as you anticipate, the pro-cat group will give 1000 reasons why it unfairly compares cats to monos (the cats are all having fun, the monos (even the Benes and Jens) are all sailed by aggressive race crews).

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by chris mac

Add in a 1993 lagoon 42 TPI
16,550,. 27.67

Which proves my rule of thumb -- cats designed before 2000 (regardless of actual model year) are fast, even in the production/charter market.

[smj]

[QUOTE=sailingharry;3530011]Which proves my rule of thumb -- cats designed before 2000 (regardless of actual model year) are fast, even in the production/charter

Most of the production cats are following what the market is seeking, a home on the water. They increase interior space which increases weight and to support the extra weight they have to increase the beam width at waterline.
There are still some production cats being built that have performance.
SA/DIS. BN
Outremer 4x 30.43. 1.38
Dazcat 1295. 28.72. 1.34
ORC/TS 50. 39.82. 1.58

[Cloroxbottle]

Originally Posted by Sailing August

We checked out a Pop Yachts...

First mistake. In my opinion, the used car dealers of the boating world.

[sailingharry]

I've heard bad things about Pop Yachts. And, I finally went to their site. How do they get buyers? I took 4 or 5 random boats they had listed, and went to Yachtworld. Not a single one showed up. While I don't like the fact that to sell a boat, you basically HAVE to have a broker to get listed on YW, I recognize that buyers don't look anywhere else. I now understand that when I was looking at boats, I should have also looked at Pop -- if only to have more inventory to see. As a seller, you are missing 90% of the buyers if you use Pop!


Using Pop is like paying a broker and getting FSBO marketing.



Crazy.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

There is MUCH more to performance than a single number, but weight and SA/D (sail area to displacement) are strong indicators. Some weights and SA/D from sailboatdata.com, ranked in decreasing SA/D:
Catana 431 (1998) -- 18,000 30.87
FP Casamance 45 (1985) -- 18,000 24.55
Norseman 440 (2001) -- 20,000 23.82 (Note, this is for the Voyage 440 -- not sure the differences, but Sailboatdata doesn't list the Norseman).
Oceanis 45 (2013) -- 21,00- 22.67
Leopard 40 (2015) -- 20,000 22.07
Saga 43 (1996) -- 20,000 20.86
Catana 43 (2004) -- 24,000 20.63
Lagoon 400 (2009) -- 22,000 18.18
Lagoon 40 (2017) -- 24,000 16.00
FP Lucia 40 (2015) -- 20,00 13.78


It's interesting to see the degradation in performance over time -- the Catana fell from 30.87 to 20.63, the Lagoon from 18.18 to 16.00, the FP (yes, different sizes) from 24.55 to 13.78.


But, to my point about the Norseman 440 and Casamance -- They are #2 and #3 in this list, higher than either of the cruising monohulls I list (we'll agree to disagree on my Saga -- I see her as a "fast cruiser," not a "cruiser/racer"), and head and shoulders above most of the other cats listed after the old Catana (20% or more).


The one odd data point is the Leopard 40. I'm not going to say the numbers are wrong. But it sure makes you ask, "WTF?" It looks to be a condo cat, competing tightly in the market with Lagoon and FP. One would say "Lagoon/Leopard/FP" in much the same way one would say "Catalina/Benne/Jeaneau." But the SA/D is in another universe! If I were shopping, I'd take a second look at Leopard! (compare the 40' 2015 designs from Leopard and FP, and the SA/D is almost double).


Oh, lest someone question my objectivity in my selection of boats. Yes, biased! I own a Saga 43, a friend owns a Oceanis 45, I did a delivery on a Catana 431, I came close to buying a Norseman, I lusted after a Casamance, hence those are on the list. But in general, a 40' cat is comparable to a much larger mono, so I think comparing a 40' cat to the two monos is fair (actually, they are closer to a 45-50 foot mono, but I don't sail those monos!). And I don't think cats below 40 "work well" so I don't want to include 38' cats -- they are out there, their owner's love them, but I really think 40' is the entry for extended time on a cat.

Not sure where you got the Leopard 40 (2015) numbers but the owner's manual list lightship at 23215 lbs. The previous generation with the same sail area is listed at 16820 lbs.

I've never heard anyone say the 2nd generation Leopard 40 is a good sailing cat.

Maybe I'm biased as we own the first generation L40 and wouldn't trade for the second.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Not sure where you got the Leopard 40 (2015) numbers but the owner's manual list lightship at 23215 lbs. The previous generation with the same sail area is listed at 16820 lbs.

I've never heard anyone say the 2nd generation Leopard 40 is a good sailing cat.

Maybe I'm biased as we own the first generation L40 and wouldn't trade for the second.

The same thing seems to have happened across the board for the so called big three and a few other brands.

[tamicatana]

In no wise, by any manufacturer, are lightship numbers to be believed.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by tamicatana

In no wise, by any manufacturer, are lightship numbers to be believed.

You can't trust them compared to other manufacturers but I'd trust them when comparing two of their own.
16820 vs 23215 is a 38% increase with only a 1.7% increase in waterline.
All that living space comes with a serious weight penalty.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Not sure where you got the Leopard 40 (2015) numbers but the owner's manual list lightship at 23215 lbs. The previous generation with the same sail area is listed at 16820 lbs.

I've never heard anyone say the 2nd generation Leopard 40 is a good sailing cat.

Maybe I'm biased as we own the first generation L40 and wouldn't trade for the second.

I pulled all the numbers from sailboatdata.com. They are a good reference, but probably less than 80% accurate -- I've seen errors before. I did find the conclusion (SA/D, compared to other boats) to be startling, so I'm not surprised the data was wrong.

[Nani Kai]

Originally Posted by Factor

I am continually amazed by threads like this. There is no law that says sellers have to be realistic or sensible anymore than there is a law that buyers should be sensible. Here is a thought. Don’t like it don’t buy it.

OP is just commenting on how unrealistic some owners can be about their possessions. How hard it is to realize their dream has deteriorated so badly that it is now worthless. More of an observation about individual perspective than it is complaining about the owner's refusal to accept a particular offer. At least that's how it struck me.

I'm usually on the other end of the binoculars. Once something I invested time and money in is obviously not going to see completion I want it out of my life. Here, take it, get it out of my yard, off my work bench, out of the garage. If i charge anything at all it's usually way below it's value. Lost a few dollars like that over the years but gained so much freedom it was well worth the expense.

Possessions are like anchors. Unless they're being regularly used all they do is keep you tied to one spot.