Trimarans and Catamarans - 37ft - 45ft

[beau]

I actually bought a Telstar from Tony in England when he was there and imported it to Australia. I then modified it and extended the length from 26-29 ft I Called it a Manta 29.
Great boat, fast and shallow draft, Ok for day or weekend sailing but a little cramped inside. Unusual hull design, the centre hull was quite narrow but the outriggers were quite wide.

[multihuler]

Originally Posted by orsailor

I am just starting to do my purchase homework and would like to know users experience with the various trimarans and catamarans in the 37ft - 45ft range. Specifically, with trimarans I would like to know the pros and cons of the following designers:

Brown, Cross, Horstmann, Kelsall, Piver, White.

As for catamarans, I'm willing to give up the cruising condominum models for better performance, but as I will be living aboard I don't want an all-out racer.

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Gary

I have owned 32 different multihulls, a true sickness with no known cure, I now own a 40 Harris,38 Cross,23 Stiletto and windrider,for anyone looking to experience the difference I am sailing from Georgia to Jersey in the next couple months and would be willing to share the ride. Stephen.multihuler@aol.com

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Steve Rust

Tony Smith at Performance Cruising has reintroduced the Telstar, David so you have another shot at it.

I came accross them when Googling a while back. Also didn't realise a Telstar 35 was made.........

[Mike Banks]

I have only owned one trimaran and I still own it--it is a Piver built in the seventies but has modifications which allow me to sail it much closer to the wind than a standard Piver and to beach it more safely. Compared to other Trimarans it is a slug--but it still sails at ten knots in a good breeze and I like to think of her as a tri-hulled motor-sailor. On a small 30 HP Yanmar diesel it uses about as much fuel as a medium 4WD fir the same distance. Of course if one loads it heavily that performance is reduced a tad. Piver designed the hull to be as close as possible to a laminar profile while still being suitable for amateur construction. Mine os the pro version, but I am long gone in the morning while other have to wait until the wind gets up a bit. It is a delight to sail and if one suffers mal-de-mer this boat is a good one to own. I have had it in some horrible seas too--and it performed well but get the sails reefed early. The boat feels very safe all of the time and that I think is why people have managed to capsize them. My mast is shorter than most too--the gut who owned it previously sailed in strong conditions all of the time so reduced the mast and sails so he did not have to sail reefed. It does not make all that much difference and since I am not interested in extra speed for the other knot or so I would prefer the added safety margin. Even so--I take in another reef when the wind reaches twenty knots. I can stooge along at about six knots on the head sail alone. She is sloop rigged, about twelve metres in length. OK--now for the bad stuff.

It is hard to get insurance for a Trimaran in Australia, so you need a big dinghy as a lighter to haul diesel and water to your vessel since you will not be permitted entry to any marina. This means a fair outboard motor as well--so you need to pull the damn thing behind you or have davits to get boat and outboard on deck--then decide where you can stow it--there is not as much room as one might think. I stowed it under the mainsail boom, but once it got free and flew in the air like a kite. Even when lashed down securely--extra weight you do not need. The hulls take a lot of paint and anti-fouling. Wooden boats are prone to rot, and I am gradually replacing wood with fibreglass in areas where it has rotted. Deck stanchions are bad news and if you have them they will eventually cause trouble. Proper rails are far superior and easier on the genoa. Trimarans love to skate at anchor because if the two tunnel,s under the wing decks--dragging a drogue settles them down a bit though. Only surefire way is to anchor fore and aft with long ropes, but not many places you can do this, so you need to rig a set of fair leads or use a bridle to keep your drogue handy--unless you do not mind the endless circling and the anchor warning going off all hours of the night.

I do love the boat though--I am a lot cosier and more comfortable than most of my pals. It could use a bigger galley though--

[sparau]

Originally Posted by Mike Banks

It is hard to get insurance for a Trimaran in Australia, so you need a big dinghy as a lighter to haul diesel and water to your vessel since you will not be permitted entry to any marina.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the review, it seems hard to find much tri information on the web (apart from the encyclopaedic searunner thread, wish other tri owners were so garrulous).

e.g.: i noted from 2007 multihuler saying he owned a harris, that is the first mention from an owner i have seen online about one and gives absolutely nothing more !

Oh, and the point of the quote is wow, that is so annoying and seemingly unjustified by the insurance companies. Is it just wooden tris? Or is it age related, so a 20 y.o harris with foam core would be in the same trouble?

Cheers
Shane

[Mike Banks]

No, Shane it is any trimaran. One other you might consider is the Roger Simpson designed Liahona--one if the best trimarans ever designed. There are a few still around in foam sandwich or solid glass--either is good but I like solid glass below the waterline. Thru-hulls and reinforcing the area around them is a bastard--solid glass solves the problem. Foam elsewhere is good. but I also like solid glass around the rudder and the anchor points for the rudder tube. Another reasonable trimaran is the Lock Crowther designs, and some fast cruising tris were designed but the amas were very narrow--whereas in my Piver I could sleep four people in the amas. Narrow amas means easier turning though--I forgot to say what a bastard a trimaran is in a crosswind at low speed on the engine when you are trying to berth it. The prop wash on only one rudder when there are three hulls to turn is a bit limiting. I go in reverse alongside and let the wind blow me on--but some nimble footwork is required if I am alone. I also keep a rubber padded long pole handy to fend off any other vessel if she goes in a bit skewed. A good deck hand is a huge asset when berthing a trimaran like a Piver.

[sparau]

I realised i should qualify my question, you only need 3rd party to enter a marina, so you are saying the insurance companies think that a tri is more likely to sink / cause injury at dock than a mono...

[Mike Banks]

Third party property damage would be fine but that is nit available either. I used to have cover--but it got cancelled. Although I had been through two cyclones without a claim (I had never made a claim on marine insurance) they simply told me they were no longer covering trimarans, but a cat was OK. I suggested they consider it a cat with a large engine pod--but that did not work. All companies are the same--they conspire to stuff things up. I think there is a quiet policy in the recesses of our "democracy" to get all of us off the water by stealth. I could not recommend anyone in Australia buy a trimaran--you need two marina berths to park it even if you do get insured. I only entered marinas to get fuel and water.

[sparau]

Originally Posted by Mike Banks

I suggested they consider it a cat with a large engine pod--but that did not work.

AFAIK there's more chance of a cat sinking from one hatch being left open than a trimaran (let alone a mono). even in my smallish research i have come across 2 incidents of people massively holing their centre hull and sailing on, 1 to a port, another to a beach.

when you add to it that most 3rd party insurance claims would be at port due to docking it makes no sense to single out trimarans.

i can understand one idiot company doing this, i can't work out all of them doing it.

[Mike Banks]

Yes--It makes little or no sense. There is quite a bit of size to a trimaran, and size to some extent equates to safety--if one imagines an under nourished Wharram Tangaroa with a racing type slim hull such as a Spencer 42 feet long sandwiched between the hulls with about two metres to spare each side you begin to get some idea of the stores carrying capacity of a Lodestar. A well built one would cross the pond with stores and fuel to spare if sailed intelligently. The same goes for a Horstmann.

[Mark Johnson]

Originally Posted by orsailor

I am just starting to do my purchase homework and would like to know users experience with the various trimarans and catamarans in the 37ft - 45ft range. Specifically, with trimarans I would like to know the pros and cons of the following designers:

Brown, Cross, Horstmann, Kelsall, Piver, White.

As for catamarans, I'm willing to give up the cruising condominum models for better performance, but as I will be living aboard I don't want an all-out racer.

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Gary

Brown/Marples Searunners are clearly the best of the older "cruising" trimarans. They struck the perfect balance between comfort/accommodations, performance, and seaworthiness. The newer Marples CC series Tris are even better. They have the SR accommodations, but on a longer WL... and are much less complicated, so require less maintenance.

Crosses were among the better (older) designs. They did, however, have keels, so might have 4 or 5' draft, (depending on size). They were not quite as weatherly as Searunners... This, and the lack of a SRs "variable draft centerboard", are their biggest down sides. If the draft is not an issue, they're also in the middle, and good safe boats!

Horstmans are PALATIAL, "roomerans", that can only be considered a good seaworthy cruiser, for those who commit to sailing predominantly in moderate weather, on off the wind passages. TOO MUCH WINDAGE! The XRs were exceptions, but are not cruisers.

Pivers are totally obsolete! They are too narrow, have poor hull shapes, and lack either keels OR centerboards. They do NOT go to windward well at all.

Kelsall tris were fine high performance boats, but in general, he did not concentrate as much on the "perfect combination cruiser", as on the performance end.

Chris White's designs are very extreme! There is the old 54' Juniper design, which goes on record as the smallest boat on the inside, for its size on the outside, of any boat out there. Lately, he has drawn mostly VERY high performance boats, that retain seaworthiness, but either sacrifice accommodations to performance, or cost more than any one off designs out there. For the rich & famous, they're nice boats, but are not right in that "perfect compromise area", like Brown/Marples boats are.

The best 5% of the older "one off" Tris that are out there, (those built in the WEST system & LP painted), are by far the best "deals" in multihulls!

M.

[Mike Banks]

Pivers are totally obsolete! They are too narrow, have poor hull shapes, and lack either keels OR centerboards. They do NOT go to windward well at all.

You obviously did not read my post. My Piver has been modified and will tack through 90 degrees. Lots of room on board but the big amas do slow her a bit. A Searunner of the same length would outperform her no doubt--a centre board is a useful adjunct. Mine has a long keel and ama keels--easily fitted to any Piver. For the money a good west system Piver (which mine is) is as good as you will get for twenty grand. Be prepared for maintenance in any wooden vessel--but you can buy a good Piver for what the mast, sails and engine is worth. Hard to beat for value were it not for the insurance problem.