Trimaran - Especially Searunner - Owners

[rossad]

Nice Drew 23

[rossad]

Dunno how good those DC 3's are... kinda look a bit flimsey with the folding arma's for Blue water.

[Boatguy30]

They certainly aren't offshore boats, Marples did the mods on the CC 35 to supposedly sail to Europe and then cruise the canals folded. He told me he did not really think it was strong enough.

[Mark Johnson]

WHOAA there guys!

I never inferred that the DC3 was anything but what it is... an offshore "capable", but relatively short range "expedition" boat. These were the parameters of the Wooden Boat International Design Challenge, for which this design won. The folding system is not at all the weak link, btw, and it would not be a "flimsy" boat, just really SMALL. I'd personally consider it a weekender. Bear in mind, none of these have been built. It is just a design concept at this point, so has no track record. The folding mechanism has been built and proven, however, on other designs.

DC-3 Trimaran Model Wins WoodenBoat Design Challenge III
Listen to John's audio here. He suggest that an offshore voyage with the DC3, from Ca to Hawaii, would be well within the capabilities of the boat. This makes it "offshore capable".

I was merely pointing out that all things considered, this is a far more "practical" size & design (among self built designs INTENDED for "regular" trailering), than the MUCH larger Searunner 31 which was designed for one time assembly, with more serious cruising in mind.

In MY neck of the woods... The DC3 would certainly be capable of sailing out of our Beaufort NC inlet, and going offshore along the east coast for 4 days to the Bahamas, then after cruising there... 5 more days offshore to Isla Mujeres Mexico, down the coast to Belize, then Guatemala and up the Rio Dulce. It would be quite an expedition!

Even more serious voyages have been made in slightly larger sized tris, like my old SeaClipper 28. Thor Jansen and Mark Hassle sailed Thor's SC 28 (in three legs) from NY to Bermuda, then to Jamaica, and then to the Rio Dulce (Guatemala). They even tangled with a hurricane in route! Mark, who had previously circumnavigated in his Searunner 37 (read... Love For Sail), said that THIS trip was even scarier! Nevertheless, they survived with no injuries or breakdowns.

The limiting factor in such a small tri is room, payload, and their OBNOXIOUS bouncy motion when going to windward in a choppy seaway. My SC 28 was REALLY fast, but SOO intense. While making an ill fated Gulf Stream crossing once, at night, in 35+ knots of NORTH wind... I "flew" off of 20' waves while sailing in the upper teens, only to pass THROUGH the next! I was remote steering from inside my observation bubble, and counted several seconds until we were above water again! Yes, it scared the **** out of me, and I kissed Terra Firma when we arrived in the Bahamas! Like I said... For two people, we found living space, payload, and too abundant a motion to be the deal breakers, NOT seaworthiness. After that cruise, we got married, built a house, and started the Delphys project. My perfect SC 28 was only perfect for ONE person!

John's DC 3 design was not really meant for ocean crossing, and "I" wouldn't do it, but for the reasons given. I also, however, wouldn't be concerned that the folding mechanism was an issue. The similar sized F-27 production tri is another example of an easily trailered boat that I wouldn't cross oceans in. If I WAS going to do it, however, I'd feel safer in the DC3 than an F-27. Also, It looks drier. My aft cockpit SC 28 was like being blasted by a fire hose at times.

An expedition is quite different from actually "living the cruising" life. For that, sailing in a small tri for two, the Searunner 31 is certainly a better choice. It has WAY more room and a nicer motion.

TriSailor's folding mechanism may be just like the original ones that failed and later got re-engineered. I don't know? I suspect, however, that since he has consulted John about the hinging "weak link" issue, this caveat has been taken into account. It still lacks the "demountable version's" proven track record, but may well be strong enough. (Knock wood)! Those original A frame boats that did break up at sea, (and I knew one personally), said it didn't happen totally or all of a sudden, but gradually. This gave them the option of sailing to port somewhere "on the opposite tack", for repairs.

Imo... The Searunner 31 is definitely not a practical frequently trailerable boat, as I originally said, (except for in Tri Sailor's case), when compared to the smaller designs that were intended for frequent trailering and quick set up. Once both boats ARE trailered and set up for sea, however, the SR 31 is a true long range cruiser that can practically and comfortably take a couple anywhere in the temperate zone. It would obviously be better for that, just not for the trailering and set up pre-cruise drill, which, for the 31, is intimidating to say the least.

Tri Sailor sounds like he has done his homework well, he only does the drill once a year, and is perfectly OK with the huge amount of work, expense, risk, and stress involved. Sounds like it was definitely the right choice for him!

Mark

P.S.
My old SeaClipper 28, btw, was drawn to be "demountable" for transport. She took about a week for three guys to assemble and launch, then a couple more months to rig up stantions, nets, load with gear, etc.
She was designed to be all bolted together, and meant to be done so with caulk at all connectives, for future inland transport if necessary. I didn't envision that, and previous versions of the 28 had had some nuisance leaking at the connectives. For this reason, along with the bolts, I "glued up" all mating surfaces making it PERMANENT, rather than used caulk. She was truly built like a tank!

[rossad]

All Good stuff Mark. Shows you what ever you write everyone is reading......

[tomvandyke]

I hope its OK if I post a link to some photo galleries including one of the rebuild for my Searunner 31 "En Pointe." We are currently in Tonga heading west having sailed about 6500 miles from where I started in Santa Cruz, California.

En Pointe | Photo galleries from a small trimaran sailing westward

The boat has performed awesomely even though its loaded down to pretty near the upper limit of the payload. We aren't as fast as before adding all the cruising gear but the boat is stable and steers itself under autopilot 98-percent of the time.

[rossad]

I enjoyed every photo tomvandyke
Your Tri looks amazing.
Obviously so was the adventure

[Doggone]

Originally Posted by tomvandyke

I hope its OK if I post a link to some photo galleries including one of the rebuild for my Searunner 31 "En Pointe." We are currently in Tonga heading west having sailed about 6500 miles from where I started in Santa Cruz, California.

En Pointe | Photo galleries from a small trimaran sailing westward

The boat has performed awesomely even though its loaded down to pretty near the upper limit of the payload. We aren't as fast as before adding all the cruising gear but the boat is stable and steers itself under autopilot 98-percent of the time.

Welcome to CF, beautiful photos, thanks for sharing. Greg

[Boatguy30]

Looks awesome, congrats. Can't wait to get back that way myself.


A vent wing 31, super cool. Doesn't look bad load wise at all in the pic from behind the dinghy.

[md7a]

Originally Posted by tomvandyke

En Pointe | Photo galleries from a small trimaran sailing westward

Those are some great photos - I have a 31 A-frame and am studying them for ideas and warnings. If you have time it would be cool to hear a bit more about building the outboard sled and the transom rebuild.

[dale d]

Tom:
thanks for breathing some life into the list. It's nice to see where all this boat work leads too. Please share more, even your day to day that you think is boring would probably inspire most folks on the list. Loved all the shots, would love to hear a story or two.

[slowbat]

Originally Posted by dale d

Tom:
thanks for breathing some life into the list. It's nice to see where all this boat work leads too. Please share more, even your day to day that you think is boring would probably inspire most folks on the list. Loved all the shots, would love to hear a story or two.

I so agree. It is good to see a Searunner out searunning. The photos are reminders and motivation for me to keep plugging away with my 40/20 hour weeks. 40 De$k / 20 restoration. I would love some stories too.

[Mark Johnson]

TOMVANDYKE:
GREAT photo slide show! I really enjoyed it, and the cruising adventure part made me pine for the "good ol days". The boat work part... not so much. By all means, keep us posted, as your stories are welcome here.

Your boat looks very special indeed. The vent wing version of our Searunners is my favorite version. They have the strength and walking area advantages of a full wing boat, with some of the less pounding advantages of an "A" frame Searunner.

I see that your crew member has found, as we did, that the best berth at sea is on the sterncastle floor. It puts one's head, (= their inner ear), closest to the center of gyration. When going to windward in a gale, we even wedge ourselves in there with pillows!

Your re-build looks extraordinary. Very smart that you got advice from John Marples, AND assembled a group of master craftsmen to do much of the work, that understood the "strong but LITE" principal. MOST TRADESMEN DO NOT! When we all build or repair these boats, we have to remember that every pound she's over weight at launching time, from hundreds of pounds of extra glass/resin, design refinements, or accouterments, is one pound less "payload" that we can carry. My wife and I even made all of our interior flat panels out of honycomb composites, to make up for some of the "overbuilt" weight damage.

A tip about your OB motor:
When it's kicked up and the sled is raised, be sure that the shaft is no higher than horizontal. Meaning... that the prop should never be higher than the head, or sea water can run backwards into the engine, and corrode up its innards. You could lower the sled a tad to accomplish this, or use a wedge to change the angle of the sled's transom. Just a thought...


CRUISING DISPLACEMENT:
Since this subject was mentioned, I thought I would add what I can, and Tom, this is not directed at you, but a generality for all on this thread. Your launching photo with no rig looks VERY lite, but some cruising photos looked dangerously overloaded. Thing about photos being observed by a third party, however, is one never knows the circumstances, like... Was there a sterncastle full of crew? Was it a temporary condition? etc...

SPEAKING IN GENERAL:
All of our boats were drawn with the true "light" cruising WL being right at the bottom plank, where it meets the transom. That's right, "0" immersion! Now... even for local sailors, VERY few of the hundreds of Searunners that I've seen, actually accomplish this in any sailing mode. We only floated there with no rig, and prior to installing or loading much of anything accept the engine & drivetrain. Others did better than this on launch day, so this was when we attempted to lighten her up, before weighing her down. We actually re-built some of the interior, but in a lighter way. Over 2 more years of building, every piece added was chosen with lighter weight in mind!

The true WL being at the Vaka transom to bottom plank junction was a worthy goal to set, (for a design with a fairly low payload in the first place), but cruising at 2 or 3" of Vaka transom immersion when fully loaded is actually quite good. For full time liveaboards, as we were for 12 years, loading to almost twice this may even be the reality. Unfortunately, it was for us. Luckily, the SR 34 is the most forgiving Searunner of overloading due to it's ample wing clearance, and she starts out with a payload very close to that of the 37!

Contrary to logic and all of the sayings, WE DO GO TO WINDWARD. Sometimes a cruise was mostly to windward, and sometimes in a strong current during a gale! This is the cost of making lots of one or two day hops between islands, when no better weather was forecast... With 40 years of living and breathing these boats, trying to pay heed to the designers wishes, and observing what I have gotten away with for 18 years on Delphys... This is MY opinion on "how heavy is TOO heavy". For sure, the designers have suggested that we go far lighter than this on the plans and in print, but I don't know their current position on the subject.

MY OBSERVATIONS, BOTTOM LINE:
IF you are NOT talking about just living on the hook and daysailing locally, but you're really going to sea where you may need to beat off of a lee shore in 40 knots of wind, then: I would "shoot for" no more that 4" of Vaka transom immersion, with the amas' "elbows" being WAY out of the water. (This is trimmed level, with no crew in the sterncastle).
IF like us... as decade + long liveaboards, this just can't be accomplished, then a maximum of 5 or even OMG... 6" MAY be tolerated, with the amas' elbows still 2 or 3" out of the water. BEAR IN MIND... This much immersion often = carrying TWICE the designed max payload, requires that you keep the bow light when going to windward, and that you reduce sail when she tells you to! With our 34s extra wing clearance, we do just fine, but I will NOT go even ONE pound heavier. You have to draw the line somewhere! If I want to add something nice that weighs 20 pounds, I must take 20 pounds off somewhere else, first.
My early years of bicycle touring and backpacking were useful here. I never actually drilled holes in the handle of my toothbrush, as was advised back then, but I came close.

On Delphys, we tear out the redundant pages in Japanese from the engine's operators manual, limit reading materials (doing frequent swaps instead), carry ONLY the wrenches & sockets that have a mating nut or bolt on the boat, build accouterments of light weight composites when practical, and drill it full of holes when its not, etc, etc...
Also... We totally unload & reload her each year, culling as we go, and We REALLY limit weight that is more than 12' up the mast, like the radome, TV antennae, mast steps, RADAR reflector, etc. All of this crap is down low on Delphys, to reduce pitching moment.

With our little trimarans, the important "you're TOO overloaded" issue is not about loss of speed, stability, or steering ability. The real issue here is about safety. After a point, when beating off of a lee shore or to make shelter in NASTY square waves during a gale, FOR DAYS... you can beat these boats to pieces! It has happened to many a small multihull from overloading, and I knew several personally. 35 years ago I did a 6 month long under wing re-build of the first SR 37, (which had been grossly overloaded) when it encountered these harsh Caribbean conditions. It had previously sailed, mostly off the wind, around the world without incident, just NOT in a grossly overloaded condition.

We ALL want to carry more stuff, and the best bet is to start out with a light boat at launching, followed by outfitting her and loading her with light weight in mind. Then, the extra shoes, books, etc. will be within the design payload, or at worst... NO MORE than twice the design payload. Remember, fluids, extra engines, ground tackle, tools, etc, are payload, NOT boat. WE'RE ALL OVERLOADED, but by how much?

Face it... For really taking it with you, you need the Searunner 40! It can carry twice our payload, and STILL be within its design payload. For those that choose or can only afford the smaller boats, I suggest that we ALL set an absolute limit on loading her down, (= transom immersion). I have described where mine is, and I consider it to be the absolute maximum allowable amount, for the often windward sailing that I do.

For sure, (trimmed level), ALL of our Searunner amas' "elbows" should always be a couple of inches out of the water, imo, or you may well be closer to 300% of the boat's maximum designed payload, not just 200%. YIKES!

Hope this helps with this really important issue that we all ponder, but have little quantitative information to go on, except for how she floats.

Mark

Photos: Just launched as a bare hull, & Delphys in fully loaded cruising mode.

[Boatguy30]

Mark
Nice post as always. I recall the "payload" of the sea runner 34 as 2000 lbs or cruising "displacement" of 8000 lbs. it would seem to me if you doubled that and had a 10,000 pund sea runner 34 you would have the AMA transoms in the water for sure.

anyway, his pic didn't look too bad to me but he for sure wants to sail as light as possible if he's heading for NZ

BTW, based on Richards numbers the Vardo should still have 2" of clearance on the bottom panels at 11,000 and I figure I'm using around 30 sheets less ply than in a SR 37.

but back to REAL Searunners!

[Mark Johnson]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Mark
Nice post as always. I recall the "payload" of the sea runner 34 as 2000 lbs or cruising "displacement" of 8000 lbs. it would seem to me if you doubled that and had a 10,000 pund sea runner 34 you would have the AMA transoms in the water for sure.

anyway, his pic didn't look too bad to me but he for sure wants to sail as light as possible if he's heading for NZ

BTW, based on Richards numbers the Vardo should still have 2" of clearance on the bottom panels at 11,000 and I figure I'm using around 30 sheets less ply than in a SR 37.

but back to REAL Searunners!

Truthfully, Jeff... I have never had one of these HUGE travellifts we use that could weigh our little boat with any accuracy, it's too light for a 200T lift's scales to read... So, I don't know our weight. It may approach 10,000 fully loaded, but I don't really know. I hope it's a bit less.

What did I base my estimates on??? I seem to remember from a conversation with John Marples, that the early SR 34 immersion numbers started out at 700 pounds = 1" inch, and the weight number goes up with increasing immersion, as the main hull gets wider and amas get immersed a bit. At that rate 5" more immersion may well = 4,000 pounds of extra weight, after the "ideal" true waterline goes under. I was guessing as I said, but suspect that it was a close guess.

The Searunner 34s "listed" maximum payload of 2,000 lbs is way lower than what it CAN carry, and usually does. John was WAY over his payload when he won the transpac on his SR 37...
I still think that regardless of the boat's accurate cruising weight = "displacement", my immersion limits should not be exceeded, in the name of good seamanship.

For a better payload (in trimarans), one needs a fatter hull shape, like a Cross. Searunners excel at other things, but NOT payload. The SR 40 achieves it purely by virtue of its size.

The SR 34 has "proportionately" more payload for its length than the other Searunners, btw, due to having far less minikeel, and far more chesty/deeper a Vaka. It works!

If your Vardo still has 2' of wing clearance at 11,000 pounds displacement, that sounds GREAT! I didn't know that she had so much less materials in her, but I'm not surprised from looking at the plans. The real payload advantage of a similar length cat to a tri, however, is that with a cat, both hulls hold up the boat's weight, where as with a tri, only the Vaka does. Their amas are just dangling there at rest. A trimaran having a main hull with a displacement equal to the sum of the TWO hulls of a similar length cat, would be a very FAT hulled trimaran indeed.

Boats like our Searunners were designed for something else besides payload. I still prefer them to a similar sized cat, as I like looking at the ama and INSTANTLY knowing how hard pressed the boat is. Having said that Jeff, I still like your Vardo design. It fits your plans and requirements quite well.

Mark