Seawind (1260) cabins - pitching (weight) and comfort issues?

[Peter Dot]

Recently I stumbled upon the Seawind 1260 and I am really puzzled about the cabin arrangement and location. As to my understanding, there are very good reasons why cabins in other catamarans are mostly located straight inside the hull shape in water line.

So what effects does the arrangement of the Seawind 1260 cabins have on:

1.) pitching and weight
As to my understanding, the less weight there is in front of the mast and the more the weight is distributed low and near the sterns, the better. As this would lower the effect of pitching or "hobby horsing". Is the 1260 pitching more than other comparable cats in that size class?

2.) comfort
How does the location of the cabins in front effect the comfort? What is it like to have the master bed perpendicular to the water line?

3.) noise
I assume that there is more noise by splashing waves in the front cabins than in master cabins that are located in the stern, like e.g. in an arrangement like the Outremer 45.

Any Seawind 1260 owners here that may share their long term experience about the cabins?

Thanks!
Peter

[NevilleCat]

What is unusual about the cabin placement?
This is the way most catamarans were set out before designers made the hulls as fat as small monos to carry their own weight and therefore able to fit decent berths in the hulls.

[Chotu]

I’m also wondering what makes you think a cabin is a source or weight.

It’s an empty space you control the weight in.

But NevilleCat is absolutely correct. The cats with fat hulls (unless flared above the waterline) will be worse performance than the seawind.

[Peter Dot]

Thanks for your suggestions. I see that the performance might be better as the hulls can be more narrow compared to a queen size bed that has to fit into the aft cabin of the hull.

My questions were more related to the pitching effect and the comfort of the cabins in front.

I think there is a major difference of having a bed in an aft cabin inside the stern (that sits in water mostly permanent) vs. a bed that is located in the bridge deck.

I am interested in the direct comparison of these two cabin concepts.

[Matt Johnson]

The issue is the bridgedeck length forward of the mast which wouldn't be there if it weren't to accommodate transverse berths. Just having more structure in that area brings weight forward. It also can add to slamming due to reduced bridgedeck clearance, a tight radius at the turned up section, and for being closer to the initial wave.

But that's all just generalities. I can't imagine Seawinds doesn't do a better job of this than the typical boats. The have a good reputation for a reason.

Matt

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Peter Dot

Thanks for your suggestions. I see that the performance might be better as the hulls can be more narrow compared to a queen size bed that has to fit into the aft cabin of the hull.

My questions were more related to the pitching effect and the comfort of the cabins in front.

I think there is a major difference of having a bed in an aft cabin inside the stern (that sits in water mostly permanent) vs. a bed that is located in the bridge deck.

I am interested in the direct comparison of these two cabin concepts.

Well, you’re certainly onto something there. Your instincts are correct.

Underway, sleeping in forward areas isn’t going to be as comfortable with pitching.

Sleeping at the fore/aft centerline is best or slightly aft of that. No pitching there.

My boat has the same as the seawind because it’s a performance boat. Narrow hulls, good prismatic coefficient, etc. My personal plan if it’s too bouncy in the forward berths? Just sleep on the bridge deck in the pilot berth/settee.

At anchor, none of that much matters.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by Peter Dot

Thanks for your suggestions. I see that the performance might be better as the hulls can be more narrow compared to a queen size bed that has to fit into the aft cabin of the hull.

My questions were more related to the pitching effect and the comfort of the cabins in front.

I think there is a major difference of having a bed in an aft cabin inside the stern (that sits in water mostly permanent) vs. a bed that is located in the bridge deck.

I am interested in the direct comparison of these two cabin concepts.

Everything typical rotates around the center of the boat. So it seems that the transverse berth would have less actually movement than sleeping aft. But I've always preferred the motion of the aft to midship on passage (personal preference on monohull).


The bridgedeck is also a great area to carry weight as it is close to the center of the boat. That's why it's often where water tanks and generators are housed.

Matt

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by Chotu

My boat has the same as the seawind because it’s a performance boat. Narrow hulls, good prismatic coefficient, etc.

My hull ratio is narrower than yours and we have aft queens on a 42' boat. It's the same thing Outremer has been doing for years- raise the bed up to the chamfer panel to get the width.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

My hull ratio is narrower than yours and we have aft queens on a 42' boat. It's the same thing Outremer has been doing for years- raise the bed up to the chamfer panel to get the width.

What is your hull ratio?

[Matt Johnson]

We're 13.1:1, and if I remember correctly, GRIT - which I think is the same hulls as Chotu - saying his is 11.7:1 So at the waterline we are 40" and GRIT/Chotu is 51".

We gain the width by having a large chamfer from the hull to bridgedeck joint where the queen bed sits.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

We're 13.1:1, and if I remember correctly, GRIT - which I think is the same hulls as Chotu - saying his is 11.7:1 So at the waterline we are 40" and GRIT/Chotu is 51".

We gain the width by having a large chamfer from the hull to bridgedeck joint where the queen bed sits.

Nice, should be a great performer.

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by smj

Nice, should be a great performer.

If we can keep the weight down... or we'll be just narrow and deep

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

My hull ratio is narrower than yours and we have aft queens on a 42' boat. It's the same thing Outremer has been doing for years- raise the bed up to the chamfer panel to get the width.

They’re not in the hulls then. Must be on the bridgedeck. My hulls are narrower than a queen bed’s measurements are at the spot you’d put one.

Man, what kind of multihull guy am I? I don’t have a clue as to my L/B ratio for an individual hull. Ha ha ha. I’d have to look that up to see.

I think it really only matters at the waterline(ish) area anyway. Where the hydrodynamic forces are at play.

Edit: I somehow missed the last paragraph. Yes. Up at the bridge deck/chamfer panel makes sense. I follow you. That’s way WAY up on my boat. Chest high from the cabin sole in the hull. Steps would be mandatory to get in/out. Is yours like that with a lot of steps to get into the berth at bridge deck level? I assume you have a good amount of bridge deck clearance as well.

My berths have steps too. The whole berth is up on the bridgedeck.

[Davo666]

I've chartered quite a few cats and definitely prefer a Seawind if available, they are more fun to sail.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

If we can keep the weight down... or we'll be just narrow and deep

Our 40’ cat has a hull ratio of 13.98:1 and we’ve been living aboard for 3 years. We keep the boat simple and have been really happy with the performance. I was surprised that she would sail as well as she does with a cruising load.