HH 44 by the Wynss

[CarlF]

I also don’t like the helm design. Although almost all the new “performance” catamarans are doing something similiar.

The covered helm location makes you look through two layers of glass and the cabin furniture to see where you are going. And from there the view of the sails is terrible.

When sitting scrunched on the rail you can see the sails better but only one side of the boat and are out in the sun, wind, and rain. My wife has had skin cancer and would never use a helm location without sun protection.

I don’t get why this style has become popular among the new designs.

[3cdad]

Originally Posted by fxykty

On another thread there was a linked video to a ‘performance cat comparison’ that worked through the numbers, both engineering and financial. The HH44 and Seawind 1370, both relatively new boats recently selected by two sets of vloggers, scored very low on most measures; effectively over-priced, overly heavy and consequently under canvassed.

Certainly the videos show that the 1370 sails like a dog and the boiling white water behind her immersed wide sterns does not bode well for light and medium air sailing ability. The new owners have already realised that their hidden bulkhead helms are unusable for visibility - looking though several sets of glass just doesn’t work. The size of the engines (50 hp!!!) indicates that the boat was designed for motor sailing.

The HH44 in the mini keel version also has fat, fully immersed sterns and a lot of wetted surface area. Good luck with that.

Where to begin...

First, the engines on that particular boat are an upgrade option. The standard engines are 40hp. Many are opting for the upgrade because it's the same engine block so there's little weight penalty. With the 57s, you can run lower RPMs using the overdrive prop.

Second, it sails very well in light winds. I was on one in Thailand recently, doing about 8-9 knots in 12-14 AWS off the beam.

Third, helm visibility in any cat is a tradeoff between protection, visibility, and center of effort. To each his own. The helm on the H44 is great for day sails but I would not want to do passages on it. The raised helms on production cats raises the boom and the center of effort, leading to other issues. Visibility forward and aft are good on the 1370. Sail visibility is not as good as on the HH44, obviously. To gain better sail visibility on the 1370, one must sit on the deck, adjacent to the helm, which is what many do on its smaller sister model - the 1260 - just fine.

I would not quantify the 1370 as a performance cat - it's a much higher quality build than you'll find from the "big 3" and it sails much better than them, while still being very comfortable at anchor. The HH44 will sail better, most likely, but the hulls are narrow and the interior space is much less. Only one fridge/freezer too. Not my choice, but it is a beautiful boat.

[Bowdrie]

"A face only a mother could love".
I guess some would think an Aardvark is "pretty".
Sorry, no matter what it has or how it sails, it has the aesthetics of something that was designed to be a cartoon boat on a kids show.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by kaz911

The digital switching if done right is much better than old style. No longer having current carrying wires to a switch and THEN onto the load is much better and safer. The on/off switches can be simple "low power" rated with no issues. If water gets in a low power switch (happens often) - nothing bad really happens. On a higher powered switch - corrosion is expedited. Wires for the On/Off switches are smaller and easier to route.

Wires go in "multi star" vs "single star" - so you don't have a complete rats nest at the main switchboard.

The weight saving on a 45' monohull done right is more than 100-200 kg of cable.

OK, I'll bite...How does this save 100-200kg of cable? you still have to cable power to all the devices. All you are really doing is changing the switching from analog to digital. If you take your example of star switching, you then have to run a single heavier cable to thta switching point (to account for the possibility that all loads will be running at the same time) not really seeing a significant weight savings here.

[3cdad]

Originally Posted by pcmm

OK, I'll bite...How does this save 100-200kg of cable? you still have to cable power to all the devices. All you are really doing is changing the switching from analog to digital. If you take your example of star switching, you then have to run a single heavier cable to thta switching point (to account for the possibility that all loads will be running at the same time) not really seeing a significant weight savings here.

I've just been through this decision on a new boat I have on order. Digital switching does save some weight - cable runs are directly from the source (batteries) to the load, without having to take a detour to the switch panel. Much smaller wires run from the digitial panel to the digital switch on the load. That said, at least on a 45' cat, the weight savings was not that significant, and it is not the motivating factor, given the $9k installed cost. The digital switching system does create the opportunity for better monitoring of energy use, and more modern control (ie., using an app, or controlling systems remotely).

That said, we decided to stay with "old school" switching. The value proposition did not seem compelling enough for us. And we preferred to keep it simple. I did not want to load the boat up with technology that seemed unnecessary.

[Letterkenny]

Originally Posted by 3cdad

Where to begin...

First, the engines on that particular boat are an upgrade option. The standard engines are 40hp. Many are opting for the upgrade because it's the same engine block so there's little weight penalty. With the 57s, you can run lower RPMs using the overdrive prop.

Second, it sails very well in light winds. I was on one in Thailand recently, doing about 8-9 knots in 12-14 AWS off the beam.

Third, helm visibility in any cat is a tradeoff between protection, visibility, and center of effort. To each his own. The helm on the H44 is great for day sails but I would not want to do passages on it. The raised helms on production cats raises the boom and the center of effort, leading to other issues. Visibility forward and aft are good on the 1370. Sail visibility is not as good as on the HH44, obviously. To gain better sail visibility on the 1370, one must sit on the deck, adjacent to the helm, which is what many do on its smaller sister model - the 1260 - just fine.

I would not quantify the 1370 as a performance cat - it's a much higher quality build than you'll find from the "big 3" and it sails much better than them, while still being very comfortable at anchor. The HH44 will sail better, most likely, but the hulls are narrow and the interior space is much less. Only one fridge/freezer too. Not my choice, but it is a beautiful boat.

I like the design and solar capacity of the HHs and maybe the 52 is a better option as (I believe) that one has the ability for a forward helm. I just don’t like how narrow the hulls are up to the 66. If you could tuck in a full beam master bed like they do on the 1370 or the Gunboat 68, that would be ideal for me.

[kaz911]

Originally Posted by pcmm

OK, I'll bite...How does this save 100-200kg of cable? you still have to cable power to all the devices. All you are really doing is changing the switching from analog to digital. If you take your example of star switching, you then have to run a single heavier cable to thta switching point (to account for the possibility that all loads will be running at the same time) not really seeing a significant weight savings here.

Power run directly from a "star" to the consumption device. Each individual device consumption does not pass through a main switch board - and it does not pass through any "on/off switches" - so theoretically you can manage with a single "high amp" DC (+/-) backbone running throughout the boat.

Then you put digital distribution devices along the backbone for "consumption" devices.

To transport 12v/5A 10m - you need minimum AWG12 (4mm2) cable.

If you need to run it through a separate on/off switch - you probably need to roughly add at least 50% to the cable run - so 15m needed (30m roundtrip)

Suddenly you need minimum AWG10 (6mm2) for the same end-device.

So not only have you added cable thickness - you have extra length via the switch.

With digital switching done right - your cable run from the DC bus distribution point might still be 10m but usually a lot shorter.

It does not take long to save 100kg of cable...

Old style EACH device:
From Battery -> Big fuses -> Fuse-board -> Switch -> consumption device - full cable length to support complete consumption.

So if you have a 10amp consumption device - you have 10 amp running through your on/off switch. (Unless it has a relay actuator like a bow-truster or anchor winch) - The 10amp cable need to be large enough to not have a big voltage drop - so the longer the cable pull the bigger the cable you need to have.

To wire in a new consumption device - you usually need to run wires all the way back to the switchboard and then through any on/off switch.

People then tend to run multiple items on a single fuse/switchboard - like all "navigation" instruments through one fuse to then either lots of individual cables or via a single busbar - then with inline fuses for each device.

New style:
From Battery -> Big fuses-> Distributor -> Consumption device.
One "common" big DC cable to digital distributor - and from distributor only short "lower amp" cables.

And then ALL "on/off Switches" are only "tiny" cables as they don't have to carry any current at all. Easy to pull - easy to modify. AWG#26 is usually more than enough for each switch. Sometimes custom "multicore" cables are used for "advanced" switches with lights and indicators. But they are still very lightweight vs a 5a 15m run cable. And it is so much faster to fault find.

Now, you can still do "busbar" for all electronics on a single fused output.

But the better way is to split consumption devices out on individual "digital switch outputs" - removing the need for hidden inline fuses. All fuses are then in "known" easy(er) to access locations. It gives you the opportunity to switch items off on a granular level.

Fuses in switchboards generally are there to protect the boat. Inline fuses are there to protect the end-device. With digital switching you get the combination as you can program fuses to the exact specs of the end-device.

If done right - the digital switching makes it a pleasure to service boat electrics and not an absolute PITA.

The ONLY point where I find digital switching a PITA - is the manufactures different standards of "setup and deployment" - and some of their shenanigans of protecting their dealers by "locking down" systems.

I would never buy a boat with an electronics system I could not modify or change without involving a dealer.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by kaz911

And then ALL "on/off Switches" are only "tiny" cables as they don't have to carry any current at all. Easy to pull - easy to modify.

Even better. The switches can be wireless. Just stick them to the wall where you want them. Several builders are already doing this.

The switches use "energy harvesting" so do not need batteries. The press is enough to produce the minute current needed to send of a signal.

This has been used in buildings for two decades already. Now also available for yachts. Scheiber for example makes this, and French Cat builders are installing it.

[Snowgoose35]

Or you do as I did and wire 10mm cable from batteries to each hull - just two fused for maximum load. Then from the hub in each hull we have two smaller distribution nodes on 6mm cable and finally small wires out to each circuit. Every wire to a device is fused at the node with an actual fuse and every device has its own switch on the device. Lights are touch on and off and dim and colour change just by touching the light. No separate switch . We have a remote control switch for the main saloon lights

I saved every possible ounce in cabling whilst still being completely safe and functional and have just 11 main switches (well 12 but one is unused still) on my main switch panel for a 50 foot cat . These cover things like 12v sockets, radar, instruments and water pumps . If a fuse blows anywhere I can find where in seconds . I need no screens, no programming , no expensive parts - just planning and forethought and the best materials for the job. All services run back to a single power closet which has the LifePo batteries, the fusing, inverter, bus bars, switch panels and so on all in one place with minimal cable between.

I'm sure digital switching is very clever but for me it seems to be solving a problem of bad design from manufacturers in an expensive and potentially unreliable way , when good design and tried and tested equipment can do the job but you do have to wire the boat yourself I guess

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by Kinkircating

I’m always cautious to say “never”, I agree with today’s technology the hybrid is the correct choice if you want some level of e-propulsion. When I requested from HH the cost to upgrade their HH55 to this same parallel hybrid the cost was $100k. So in this case the payback was 35 years before it would have paid for itself after factoring in fuel and maintenance savings. Basically longer than any of the components / systems would last.

Now if you were to integrate a system yourself like MJ sailing is doing on their catamaran build you could realistically have it make sense. Maybe I’m not considering something in the equation? The big thing is performance cats sail so well, you are motoring much less.

For 100k$ i buy a tiny house in a great location as tax residency...

I say never because the 30 years i am alive and can sail nothing is on the horizon till now that has the potential to be in regular mass production with economical prices with anything called e that give me the security and cost effectiveness off a diesel for bluewater.
I see potential with beta having diesels with big alternators that also work as motors for short range that share the battery with house. Means i set threshold e-engine takes max till 40%SOC, the rest if for house but if you need less or more you can modify the threshold.
Derivates eg a beta hybrid in one hull, a electric engine in the other.
This especially in the 40 till 45ft class as you can get away with small 3 cylinder diesel in 30hp and small 8 till 10kw motors and if you use an extended house bank for the 30min short range use. On low rev long distance motoring/motor sailing you can never environmentally be better with an e-drive, the small volvo or yanmar you get away with 2l per hour if a light cat.

[CaptainRivet]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

Even better. The switches can be wireless. Just stick them to the wall where you want them. Several builders are already doing this.

The switches use "energy harvesting" so do not need batteries. The press is enough to produce the minute current needed to send of a signal.

This has been used in buildings for two decades already. Now also available for yachts. Scheiber for example makes this, and French Cat builders are installing it.

I had the same idea and was actually trying to source this wireless "energy harvesting" switches but
A) i couldn't find anything in 12V or 24V sender and receiver
B) the 230V i found the receiver looses the programming for the sender if 230V is cut means anytime i switch off the inverter and then on i would have to reprogram the receiver. Would use them for eg water heater, electric galley.

So if you could give me a link to 12V and 230V ones that actually work without the receiver is loosing the programming when you cut the power.
Have a Lavezzi and switches are in bad position and i partly rewired it but these wireless energy recovery one would be perfect.

[kaz911]

Originally Posted by Snowgoose35

Or you do as I did and wire 10mm cable from batteries to each hull - just two fused for maximum load. Then from the hub in each hull we have two smaller distribution nodes on 6mm cable and finally small wires out to each circuit. Every wire to a device is fused at the node with an actual fuse and every device has its own switch on the device. Lights are touch on and off and dim and colour change just by touching the light. No separate switch . We have a remote control switch for the main saloon lights

I saved every possible ounce in cabling whilst still being completely safe and functional and have just 11 main switches (well 12 but one is unused still) on my main switch panel for a 50 foot cat . These cover things like 12v sockets, radar, instruments and water pumps . If a fuse blows anywhere I can find where in seconds . I need no screens, no programming , no expensive parts - just planning and forethought and the best materials for the job. All services run back to a single power closet which has the LifePo batteries, the fusing, inverter, bus bars, switch panels and so on all in one place with minimal cable between.

I'm sure digital switching is very clever but for me it seems to be solving a problem of bad design from manufacturers in an expensive and potentially unreliable way , when good design and tried and tested equipment can do the job but you do have to wire the boat yourself I guess

Have you done power loss calculations on 10mm2?

You probably don't have less than 5-6 meters wire-run from "main split" to "sub-board"? 10mm2 on 12v only gives you 22-27A max consumption per "split" group.

That is not a lot - of course dependent on what is in there. A 12v DC car "plug" is nominally peak 10A by itself. A sump pump is about 3a (shower/sink). 2 mile LED port or sb lights are usually about 1A. It adds up quickly. So the drain "peak limit" has to be taking into the consideration at the design stage to be ABYC or similar "approvable". (important for insurance coverage)

You can say it is unlikely that you will have > 22-27A consumption but are your split lines then fused to 25A each? (or what ever the right amount is for the cable distance)

Anyway - that is beside the point. Your setup might work great for you as you know the setup.

I prefer wiring to 150-200% of potential max consumption to stay within the limits.

And I do prefer the absolute flexibility of digital control systems. It is so easy to make even large change if done right.

My current boat run on old 2006'ish CZone surplus stock switches I put in last year. It took a while to "rebuild" the rats-nest the builder hat put in but I'm slowly getting there. (Still have 1 more high amp switch to put in to manage windlass and macerator)

My dashboard wires look almost like Hallberg-Rassy did it - and not a french "production yacht" company. And I have an enormous amount of clear space behind the dashboard - that was not there before.

I know exactly how much juice each part is consuming and can flick a single (normal carling) switch - and the whole boat goes into "anchor" mode with only 1 small chart-plotter "alive" for anchor watch, VHF and fridge running. No power worries at all.

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by kaz911

Power run directly from a "star" to the consumption device. Each individual device consumption does not pass through a main switch board - and it does not pass through any "on/off switches" - so theoretically you can manage with a single "high amp" DC (+/-) backbone running throughout the boat.

Then you put digital distribution devices along the backbone for "consumption" devices.

To transport 12v/5A 10m - you need minimum AWG12 (4mm2) cable.

If you need to run it through a separate on/off switch - you probably need to roughly add at least 50% to the cable run - so 15m needed (30m roundtrip)

Suddenly you need minimum AWG10 (6mm2) for the same end-device.

So not only have you added cable thickness - you have extra length via the switch.

With digital switching done right - your cable run from the DC bus distribution point might still be 10m but usually a lot shorter.

It does not take long to save 100kg of cable...

Old style EACH device:
From Battery -> Big fuses -> Fuse-board -> Switch -> consumption device - full cable length to support complete consumption.

So if you have a 10amp consumption device - you have 10 amp running through your on/off switch. (Unless it has a relay actuator like a bow-truster or anchor winch) - The 10amp cable need to be large enough to not have a big voltage drop - so the longer the cable pull the bigger the cable you need to have.

To wire in a new consumption device - you usually need to run wires all the way back to the switchboard and then through any on/off switch.

People then tend to run multiple items on a single fuse/switchboard - like all "navigation" instruments through one fuse to then either lots of individual cables or via a single busbar - then with inline fuses for each device.

New style:
From Battery -> Big fuses-> Distributor -> Consumption device.
One "common" big DC cable to digital distributor - and from distributor only short "lower amp" cables.

And then ALL "on/off Switches" are only "tiny" cables as they don't have to carry any current at all. Easy to pull - easy to modify. AWG#26 is usually more than enough for each switch. Sometimes custom "multicore" cables are used for "advanced" switches with lights and indicators. But they are still very lightweight vs a 5a 15m run cable. And it is so much faster to fault find.

Now, you can still do "busbar" for all electronics on a single fused output.

But the better way is to split consumption devices out on individual "digital switch outputs" - removing the need for hidden inline fuses. All fuses are then in "known" easy(er) to access locations. It gives you the opportunity to switch items off on a granular level.

Fuses in switchboards generally are there to protect the boat. Inline fuses are there to protect the end-device. With digital switching you get the combination as you can program fuses to the exact specs of the end-device.

If done right - the digital switching makes it a pleasure to service boat electrics and not an absolute PITA.

The ONLY point where I find digital switching a PITA - is the manufactures different standards of "setup and deployment" - and some of their shenanigans of protecting their dealers by "locking down" systems.

I would never buy a boat with an electronics system I could not modify or change without involving a dealer.

So basically you are traing off a bunch of light gauge wiring in favour of several heavy gauge cables. On a 40ft Cat I get it as the distances are great, but on a 40ft mono you're just adding complexity with little reward and you are certainly not saving 125-250lbs. The thing to remember is most loads these days are way under 5 amps. I can turn every light on in my 40ft mono interior and not draw 5 amps total. Most wiring can be done with 16awg cable now (minimum abyc) So really you are in some caes trading out a bunch of 16awg runs in favour of a larger 8awg run and losing redunancy in the process.

But to each their own. My switch panel happens to be in the center of my boat so it makes sense to stick with tradition and have the redunacy and save on the cost and complexity of digital switching. It has its place just focuses more on the gadgetiness in my view.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by CaptainRivet

I had the same idea and was actually trying to source this wireless "energy harvesting" switches but
A) i couldn't find anything in 12V or 24V sender and receiver
B) the 230V i found the receiver looses the programming for the sender if 230V is cut means anytime i switch off the inverter and then on i would have to reprogram the receiver. Would use them for eg water heater, electric galley.

So if you could give me a link to 12V and 230V ones that actually work without the receiver is loosing the programming when you cut the power.
Have a Lavezzi and switches are in bad position and i partly rewired it but these wireless energy recovery one would be perfect.

Be aware that a lot of the 230V enOcean stuff will be using 806Mhz, as that is the European frequency for this kind of stuff. In the US the frequency is 902Mhz, so you are technically in violation of FCC regulations if you crosse the Atlantic.

However there is now also stuff that uses BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) at 2.4Ghz, and that is permitted worldwide. One company that produces those is Scheiber: www.scheiber.com
They are French, and thus unsurprisingly you will already find them on French boats.

This is probably what you are looking for:
https://www.scheiber.com/light-air-switch?lang=en

[kaz911]

Originally Posted by pcmm

So basically you are traing off a bunch of light gauge wiring in favour of several heavy gauge cables. On a 40ft Cat I get it as the distances are great, but on a 40ft mono you're just adding complexity with little reward and you are certainly not saving 125-250lbs. The thing to remember is most loads these days are way under 5 amps. I can turn every light on in my 40ft mono interior and not draw 5 amps total. Most wiring can be done with 16awg cable now (minimum abyc) So really you are in some caes trading out a bunch of 16awg runs in favour of a larger 8awg run and losing redunancy in the process.

But to each their own. My switch panel happens to be in the center of my boat so it makes sense to stick with tradition and have the redunacy and save on the cost and complexity of digital switching. It has its place just focuses more on the gadgetiness in my view.

You don't need 16AWG for SIGNAL only carry cables. (ABYC exception) Only "load" carrying cables have a minimum cable size. The only load offset in a digital on/off switch cable is due to cable resistance or a LED (<20mA)

Just FYI - NMEA OneNet ("ethernet") can do power delivery (POE) and should be ABYC approved by now. That happens on 8xAWG23.