Passage Speed

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by deckofficer

I'd rather fly a kite.

Not sure how that would work on a close reach though.

[deckofficer]

It doesn't. Downwind replacement for a spinnaker. Just combine the kite with all these solar panels.....

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

From the link you posted:

"Just about everybody in our group did really well — even the little 'three M's' — because everybody moved along pretty much as fast as they could. The most wind we had was 25 to 30 knots for a short time, which wasn't bad, because we need a lot of wind to move. Best of all, we were able to sail straight for our destination. When the wind did calm down, we immediately fired up the engine and motored as quickly as we could. As a result of averaging 140 miles a day, we and most of the boats in our group were able to sneak down to New Zealand between the low which clobbered the Fiji fleet, and the much stronger second low which caught Salacia and Freya, two boats at the tail end of our group."

You need to read the whole thing: Salacia is also reported to have been becalmed for four days between the two lows, during which time Fritz either couldn't or didn't want to motor. We've also been told that Freya, which was behind Salacia, had arranged to give her a tow — until the wind came up first.

[In any case, my point is that what's talked about in these post-mortems is only the boats that called a mayday. Most seem to have got through just fine - a few didn't.]

[sneuman]

By the numbers: "'It's unclear exactly how many boats were caught in the core of the June '94 storm"

"... but nine boats with a total of 24 crew issued maydays. ... two of the nine boats that issued maydays were catamarans. In addition, there was a third catamaran, a 39-footer, on the periphery of the core."

So, the author says there's no way of knowing how many boats there were, but mentions a third catamaran that didn't call mayday. The way this is written, it sounds to me like the author doesn't know the total number of boats, but does know that it was a total of three catamarans. In addition, there were almost certainly many more monos than just those that made a distress call. The author certainly suggests as much.

Instead of drawing conclusions about monos here, you might be justified instead (although I certainly wouldn't from the limited information and the small number of data points) in drawing conclusions about the catamarans. If we take what we see here at face value, it does not look any better for them than it does for the monos. It appears that 2/3 of them called maydays. That's surely a much higher "distress rate" than for the monos.

[Kettlewell]

Something I know a bit about is the Queen's Birthday Storm as I was the editor of Tony Farrington's book, Rescue in the Pacific--well worth reading I might add. The storm was not a cyclone or a typhoon. It was labeled a "bomb" storm by Bob McDavitt of the New Zealand Met Service. The storm was actually relatively small, with very tight isobars on the south side, so people and boats separated by not that many miles may have experienced very different conditions. That is why it is hard to compare what happened to the nine boats that issued May Day calls and others that may have been in the vicinity. It is like saying that because I was out on my boat at the same time, though in North Carolina, I went through The Perfect Storm.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Kettlewell

Something I know a bit about is the Queen's Birthday Storm as I was the editor of Tony Farrington's book, Rescue in the Pacific--well worth reading I might add. The storm was not a cyclone or a typhoon. It was labeled a "bomb" storm by Bob McDavitt of the New Zealand Met Service. The storm was actually relatively small, with very tight isobars on the south side, so people and boats separated by not that many miles may have experienced very different conditions. That is why it is hard to compare what happened to the nine boats that issued May Day calls and others that may have been in the vicinity. It is like saying that because I was out on my boat at the same time, though in North Carolina, I went through The Perfect Storm.

Good point. Like I said, from what I have read, I wouldn't attempt to draw any conclusions from that storm, but I don't think anyone else is in a position to either. And as I have said repeatedly over the years - I have probably done as many sea miles on catamarans (in Asia on deliveries) as monos. I'm not anti-cat.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by sneuman

By the numbers: "'It's unclear exactly how many boats were caught in the core of the June '94 storm"

"... but nine boats with a total of 24 crew issued maydays. ... two of the nine boats that issued maydays were catamarans. In addition, there was a third catamaran, a 39-footer, on the periphery of the core."

So, the author says there's no way of knowing how many boats there were, but mentions a third catamaran that didn't call mayday. The way this is written, it sounds to me like the author doesn't know the total number of boats, but does know that it was a total of three catamarans. In addition, there were almost certainly many more monos than just those that made a distress call. The author certainly suggests as much.

Instead of drawing conclusions about monos here, you might be justified instead (although I certainly wouldn't from the limited information and the small number of data points) in drawing conclusions about the catamarans. If we take what we see here at face value, it does not look any better for them than it does for the monos. It appears that 2/3 of them called maydays. That's surely a much higher "distress rate" than for the monos.

I happen to know there was at least one other cat (over and above the 3 in the core area) at sea in that area at the time.

So at worst it's 50% of cats that called mayday, and no deaths, no capsizes and no sinkings. Worse than the mono's?

You admit to not knowing how many mono's were there, but ASSUME it was a lot more. And fact is you don't know how many cats were there either, but still say we "might be justified in drawing conclusions about (them)".

Anyway, despite your efforts, this should not be yet another cat vs mono thread. It's about speed on passage. You're trying to deny that being able to cross oceans quickly is a safety feature, even though your own evidence contradicts that.

To me, it's simple - the less time you spend on passage, the lower the odds you'll encounter severe weather. And that means you're safer.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I happen to know there was at least one other cat (over and above the 3 in the core area) at sea in that area at the time.

So at worst it's 50% of cats that called mayday, and no deaths, no capsizes and no sinkings. Worse than the mono's?

You admit to not knowing how many mono's were there, but ASSUME it was a lot more. And fact is you don't know how many cats were there either, but still say we "might be justified in drawing conclusions about (them)".

Anyway, despite your efforts, this should not be yet another cat vs mono thread. It's about speed on passage. You're trying to deny that being able to cross oceans quickly is a safety feature, even though your own evidence contradicts that.

To me, it's simple - the less time you spend on passage, the lower the odds you'll encounter severe weather. And that means you're safer.

You missed the point completely. I'm not trying to draw any conclusions - there simply is not enough information. I said that repeatedly. I wasn't the one who brought it up, nor was I the one who made sweeping (and inaccurate) generalizations as to what it might mean.

[Captain Jeffry]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

To me, it's simple - the less time you spend on passage, the lower the odds you'll encounter severe weather. And that means you're safer.

Could not agree more.

[donradcliffe]

For those who want real data on passage speeds, the current ARC boat tracker shows 17 catamarans in a fleet of 220 boats spread out across the Atlantic.

World Cruising Club - Fleet Viewer

The tracker has different icons for cats and monos, so it is easy to see their relative performance at a glance. The lead cat is a Catana 431, which is 40th overall, while the tail-ender is a Lagoon 440 at 191st overall. In 9 2/3 days, the Catana has come about 1400 miles for a 6 knot average, while the Lagoon has made 1000 miles for a 4.3 knot average. There is a 40 ft mono with a 9 knot average, but its a race boat and they went the right direction.

There are well sailed boats and not-so well-sailed boats, but by and large the cats are keeping pace with similar sized monos. IMHO these results bust the oft repeated myth that cats are faster.

Look at the link in the next few days, as I've never been able to get archived data from the tracker...

[Barra]

Re the ARC i too have been watching the fleet tracker with interest as potentially looking at doing this myself next year.

If you take out the racing boats and invitational cruisers the catana is actually leading all cruising boats including some 80 footers so not sure it actually dispells the myth about cats being faster at all...

What it does show is that VMG in the order of 6 knots on a long pasage like this is actually pretty realistic and not the 8 plus knots that sometimes gets extrapolated from shorter journeys.

One thing to watch on that ARC tracker too is that most of the cruising boats elected to delay their start by 2 days due to adverse winds whereas the racers all left as scheduled so in effect have a 2 day head start. Would have been a wild ride on that 40 footer leading the fleet thats for sure....

[donradcliffe]

Thanks for setting me straight on the delayed start. In that case, the Catana 431 has averaged a respectable 7.6 knots, and the Lagoon 440 is up to 5.5 knots.

I don't have the time to go through a lot of boats, but I still don't see the cats running away from the monos. For example, I looked around the #2 cat which is a Lagoon 560, and it is running alongside a Beneteau 50 and a Swan 48 in the cruising division.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Thanks for setting me straight on the delayed start. In that case, the Catana 431 has averaged a respectable 7.6 knots, and the Lagoon 440 is up to 5.5 knots.

I don't have the time to go through a lot of boats, but I still don't see the cats running away from the monos. For example, I looked around the #2 cat which is a Lagoon 560, and it is running alongside a Beneteau 50 and a Swan 48 in the cruising division.

The Lagoon 440 Chilicat had problems and went back for repairs, it's in a totally different weather pattern.

A Forum member Roelf Oetter is doing very well on his '450 Next Life', his boat gives a good guide when comparing it to the Catana.

No Lagoon will streak away from such a mixed fleet due mainly to the comfort they are enjoying...

Go "Next Life".....

[Barra]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Thanks for setting me straight on the delayed start. In that case, the Catana 431 has averaged a respectable 7.6 knots, and the Lagoon 440 is up to 5.5 knots.

I don't have the time to go through a lot of boats, but I still don't see the cats running away from the monos. For example, I looked around the #2 cat which is a Lagoon 560, and it is running alongside a Beneteau 50 and a Swan 48 in the cruising division.

No worries. I actually agree with you in that a cat loaded up for cruising isnt typically that much faster than slightly bigger monos in all round conditions. Lightly loaded though thats a different story....

Looking at the weather ahead of the fleet the "winning" cruising boats are going to be the ones that decide to motor through the sub 5 knots winds. Hopefully then we will have another "cat fight" between the motoring lagoons and the catana ala 2011

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I still don't see the cats running away from the monos. For example, I looked around the #2 cat which is a Lagoon 560, and it is running alongside a Beneteau 50 and a Swan 48 in the cruising division.

You shouldn't expect to see that - what I would expect to see is a lagoon running away from a Mono which has similar windage to a Lagoon.

The reality is that the desirable features of a Lagoon are her ABOVE water features - which leads to windage.

Conversely, it is the mono's BELOW water features that make her undesirable to the cat-crowd - and which avoids the windage, but (hypothetically) increases water resistance

Compare a catamaran with similar top-deck vs. low-deck features to those of a mono, and I would expect to see that the cat is equal or better on nearly all points of sail, especially if it has daggerboards, primarily because of the lack of additional ballast and the need for a very deep keel.