Hidden Cat agenda?

[oceanfroggie]

Is there some hidden Cat agenda going on?

There seems to have been an unusual no of threads started in recent days on cats! The dogs won't be pleased.

 

[rickp]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there some hidden Cat agenda going on?

There seems to have been an unusual no of threads started in recent days on cats! The dogs won't be pleased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think its much the same as the Garmin and Broom agenda....

Rick

 

[hobiecat]

Actually, over the last ten years I have noticed an unusually large number of posts on funny single hulled boats. It is good to debate about beam width, weight, looks, planing and displacement etc on proper boats with the right number of hulls for a change. I notice Broom have gone over to fake teak. Just maybe they will add a catamaran to their range one day.............. I can only imagine the splutterings from the diehards who wish to resist obvious changes for the better.

 

[Sundays_Child]

At the time of writing: 50% say "way to go". I'm actually surprised.

It very much depends on your boating. If you go marina-to-marina, then a cat can be an expensive inconvenience... certainly one that outweighs its gph benefits.

Here in HK, we go marina-to-anchorage. That would be the case in pretty much all of Asia.

Horses for courses. In the UK, unless I was doing serious hours as Gludy plans, I would avoid a cat.

If I were messing about the Philippines, a suitable cat would be at the top of my list. Maybe even an enlarged local "banca" outrigger.

 

[hobiecat]

I have never paid any extra mooring fees on my cat as they are only a little beamier than many monos. Actually I save money on moorings because I am often on the beach at places like Bembridge and find nooks and crannies that only a shallow draft boat can explore. I dont understand what you mean by an expensive inconvenience.

 

[kcrane]

With our sailing cat (Broadblue, 38ft length, 19ft beam) over the last two seasons we had no problems with berthing (Solent and Channel Islands), despite being a visitor to places like Yarmouth, Beaulieu, Lymington Town Quay, St Peters Port etc. We were charged more at some marinas, but not all, and probably around the same amount as we would have paid had we turned up in a 45ft monohull (similar space, less comfort). We didn't try on bank holiday weekends and mid-August of course, but then I would have avoided that in a 30ft mono never mind the cat /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Gludy]

I know someone with a 43 foot Cat 21 foot beam who has had no problems and only extra charges in some South Coast marinas. In fairness to the Marina that does charge 50 per cent more the boat is about that much bigger.

A Cat of such length provides accommodation nearer to that of a 60 footer and can crusie at say 18 knots returning say about 1.63 MPG. A 60 foot Mono will return more like 0.6 MPG at that speed.

The little, occasional extra cost there may be in marinas is claimed back many fold with the cost of even one trip.

At £7 per gallon ()IMHO a price we will reach with a few years) - just look at an 80 mile trip from Swansea to Padstow and back in my last planing boat a Squadron 59 at her 32 knot cruising speed..
160 miles at 0.5 mpg = 320 gallons = £2240
44 Cat at 18 knots - foot 98 gallons costing £686. The extra charge in that case for berthing is nothing.

In practice you could travel in the Cat at 8 knots and do the trip using about 50 gallons or £350.

I must also take issue with Victor who seems to be anti wide ratio cat. The type of Cat I have talked about with a 44 foot length/21 foot beam has not only no berthing problems but can visit drying out harbours as well - or even dry out on a beach.

Victor, you are doing the case for cats no good by propagating myths. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am please that the majority of votes support the future for Cats.

As regards the main subject of the thread - why so many cat posts, I simply answer by asking the author of the thread why he added another one? /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Whitelighter]

Those are good figures paul, but you and I both know that 32knts is pretty much WOT for a squaddy 59 and we also both know that effficient speed for a planing boat is about 70% of WOT.

I can still see that the cat is more efficient, I know it is, but to be fair you should really represent data for the squaddy at a more realistic cruise of 22-24knts - the cat would still be less, but not by so much of a margin.

 

[Gludy]

Jez
The gave the figures for the Squaddie at 23 to 26 knots so I did as you asked. The Squaddie would have done the 80 mile trip about 20 per cent faster. So I was being totally fair.

 

[Whitelighter]

OK, but you did say in your previous post

[ QUOTE ]
At £7 per gallon ()IMHO a price we will reach with a few years) - just look at an 80 mile trip from Swansea to Padstow and back in my last planing boat a Squadron 59 at her 32 knot cruising speed..

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe a typo. No worries

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

[ QUOTE ]
Those are good figures paul, but you and I both know that 32knts is pretty much WOT for a squaddy 59 and we also both know that effficient speed for a planing boat is about 70% of WOT.

I can still see that the cat is more efficient, I know it is, but to be fair you should really represent data for the squaddy at a more realistic cruise of 22-24knts - the cat would still be less, but not by so much of a margin.

[/ QUOTE ]

total on point
bingo @ 22 knots the Squaddie will give double MPG especially if it had MAN 680s, which consume very less at around 1700 rpm, and I am sure the Squadron hull is best rated for 20-30 knots range as many crusiers is, going 30+ will started making it a bit inefficent

 

[Gludy]

It should have read 23 knot cruising - I inverted the figures - she had twin 600 hp Volvos in her.

 

[PowerYachtBlog]

[ QUOTE ]
It should have read 23 knot cruising - I inverted the figures - she had twin 600 hp Volvos in her.

[/ QUOTE ]

definitly small for the 59, I think if clean would do 28 knots max
the Sqaud 56/59 is good with MANs 680 which give her 32 knots clean here in med, may be a knot more up north,
I think the MANs at 23 knots would consume less then the Volvo, but I dont have official figures to back this, but MANs HP with HP vs Volvo consume more

 

[Gludy]

Clean bottom I topped her at 31 knots.
Clean bottom cruising 23 - 26 knots.
@ ribs etc on board so some weight there as well.

 

[Nick_H]

[ QUOTE ]
IA Cat of such length (44 feet) provides accommodation nearer to that of a 60 footer (mono)

[/ QUOTE ]

and cabins the size of a 19' cuddy /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Gludy]

That is not always true - some cabins span both hulls.

I have just spent a day with dealers and everyone reports that the UK scene is dead - Euro sales are totally driving the market. There are changes coming, my posts are designed to open up a wide discussion on the issues.

I am personally considering all options from a bespoke designed power cat to a bespoke designed large sailing cat with decent engines. In between are many other options.

 

[hobiecat]

I am a firm supporter of wide beamed catamarans for sailing. They need extra beam to support the rig. It is not necessary for a motor cat to be wide and impractical for berthing in marinas - which is the main practical objection. Most motor boats want 20knots ++ so there is a debate as to what is the ideal beam. 15 knots is usual efficient displacement speed for a cat. Wider beam is less efficient at higher speeds as there is additional weight to be carried (all high speed planing cats tend to be narrow). Comfort at higher speeds is reduced with wider beam as there is limited air cushioning between the hulls.

The debate is similiar to planing versus displacement monos. Full displacement cats are better off wide beamed which you seem to be attracted to. Planing cats are better off narrow.

Now what about in between ie semi displacment cats in upper 20 knot region. If we had more data we could debate the ideal beam for a given set of criteria. To say I am against wide beam is too simplistic. 3:1 length to beam ratio seems a good compromise just like semi displacement monohulls.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

[ QUOTE ]
I know someone with a 43 foot Cat 21 foot beam who has had no problems and only extra charges in some South Coast marinas. In fairness to the Marina that does charge 50 per cent more the boat is about that much bigger.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is not just the charges. Ok, my cat is in a different league, 14 ft beam, but I have a few issues with marinas and the way we can be treated.

Price, we have been charged double, Milford Haven!, but not Neyland. Liverpool and Aberystwyth also charged double. It does seem that the double charges are slowly disappearing as cats become more common, I expect to go to the European standard where everyone is charged length x breadth, that at least will be fair.

But the price is only a small part of my irk. If you turn up with a cat, in any marina you will always be given a berth many miles from the walkway, or life in general. Though I am sure owners of big mobo's will be all to used to this, we are only 26ft and put with the 50ft mobos and the like.

It is actually easier for me to use a mooring and come in by dinghy than stay in most marinas. How daft is that?!

 

[Nick_H]

If the cabin spans both hulls then it takes space from the saloon, so little net increase in interior space over a mono of similar length. I agree that the cockpit and fly will be bigger.

 

[Nick_H]

.. and that's the big issue. Paying half as much again is not such a burden if you have deluded yourself that your boat has tardis's for hulls and therefore has half as much space again as a mono of the same length. But the problem is wherever you go you either need a vacant DOUBLE berth, which is virtually unknown on the south coast in season (and the marina wouldn't rent it to you even if there was), or you need a hammerhead or alongside pontoon, which hugely limits your chances of a marina berth.