Multihulls- ?the way forwards.

Thats pretty well on the money. Have sailed a Solaris in cruising trim and they are very wall matched to the Snowgoose Elite for performance. 6 knots to windward in any sort of sea (up to say 30 knots of wind) and about 10 knots off the wind in perfect safety. Nice comfy boat!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Yes! You just need to put up with it. If you want a smooth pitching movement THROUGH the waves buy a long keeled monohull. Nearly all cats will slam. Everything comes at a price

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I am writing this reply on board my 32ft catamaran Eclipse. I am in a marina in Guatemala, Central America having sailed here from the UK, via a few other places! Next week we head south, Panama for Christmas and next year into the Pacific and north to British Columbia.

PBO readers will have seen the articles on my Eclipse and my trip so know that not all multihulls are the same.

Multihull stability is becoming less of an issue. Partly through better design, mainly because of a better understanding by crews. You can see more about stability on the articles pages of my web site

So the main perceived disadvantage is lack of windward ability. In the 2002 Round the Island Race we beat the 10m Dragonflies round the course but what pleased us more was that we also beat the leading Mumm30's to windward, as David Harding will attest. Most people think those boats go to windward pretty well. So lack of windward ability is a perception, not a fact.

What is a fact, however, is that catamarans under 11m cannot carry the weight most people want to take when cruising. I am just as guilty as anyone in that respect.

Its one of lifes ironies that a catamaran has the space but cannot take the weight, a monohull can be loaded up but hasn't the room. Having said that, we do have a solid fuel stove, rigid dinghy in davits, watercooled fridge freezer, watermaker, hundreds of books , CD's and DVD's etc. Also a sewing machine, generator etc.

There are 2 of us on board, and I think 32ft is the minimum for comfortable living. If we were 3 or 4 then I would want a 35-38fter. I don't think anyone going cruising as a family needs a catamaran over 40ft. Remember that most French and S African catamarans are built for the charter market. You don't live in a hotel, you live in a house. Its the same with charter boats versus cruising boats. They are not designed for long term living on board.

Having said that I think the best of the French boats is the Belize, so I suspect the Athena is good as well. I haven't been impressed with any of the S African boats (I sailed a Norseman 43 in the Capetown to Rio race)

I have seen a number of Gemini's cruising (there is one in this marina for example) but all are the old version. Most people agree with Tony Smith that the 105 has too low a bridgedeck for offshore cruising.

A good boat that should be more popular is the Twins 36 built by the Multihull Centre. It got good reviews in PBO and sails much better than its predessors.

I am currently drawing a 38ft version of Eclipse, called Transit. I decided to draw a bigger boat mainly because it will take more weight. 2 plans have been sold and moulds are being made at the Multihull Centre.

I hope this helps the discussion.



<hr width=100% size=1>Richard Woods of Woods Designs for quality sailing catamaran designs
www.sailingcatamarans.com
 
Put them that way round solely cause I have seen the FJ whereas the BB is still only lines on the web site. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Multihulls, the way forwards, or sideways?nm

sorry Mike, tongue in cheek. Years ago when our kids were young we converted to a cat, an Aristocat 30 with u section hulls and drop keels. She was quite fast even to windward in our notorious short east coast chop. We used to reduce the pundits to despair with what was termed our "deck cargo" ie 2 bikes with kiddy seats, dinghy, canoes, pushchair etc etc. Even groaning under this lot she made quite good speed but the probems came when trying to drive this lot to weather. So much sail was needed to overcome the windage that the windward hull came quite gently unstuck on a few occassions, but that was my fault not the boat's. On the other hand with the kids at that age we just couldnt cope with passages in a mono and would have given up sailing had it not been for the cat. They were 5 very happy years for all 4 of us, a sort of mobile marine activities centre par excellence.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hi Mike

Yes I am aware of the sea conditions around the UK, but a particular difficulty here is distance to refuge, especially for oceanic voyages but for coastal too. For example if we head north from Wellington along the coast the next refuge of any sort whatsoever is 220nm on the East Coast and 180 nm on the West with no shelter whatsoever in between on rocky or surf coast. Going South, apart from the refuges across the top of S Island on the other side of Cook Strait, the distances are larger (down the West Coast of South Island there is approx 350 nm with only two refuges neither of which one could enter in adverse sea conditions - people have drowned trying to do so).

To put that in UK perspective I think the shortest of those legs is roughly the same as the distance from Southampton to Brest or to Rotterdam. Or going up the West Coast of Great Britain about the same as from Lands End to Anglesey.

So, a point of all that, is no one has asked what Dr Alex's extended cruising means. Is it world girdling or relatively localised with no oceanic crossings or if so, simple trade routes. I, for example, would never own a cat in NZ unless just Hauraki Gulf or similar sailing or just dayboating. Nor would I if I planned to sail anywhere from NZ as the minimum distance to the next lumpy bit is at least 1,200 nm of quite temperamental sea (I actually prefer to fly /forums/images/icons/frown.gif).

But for the Mediterranean, Queensland Coast, Pacific Islands local, Caribbean, etc I would seriously consider a cat. For your own plans, for example, it would seem to me that a cat is ideal.

As we have some common touch stones in the power cat world, I am sure you will back me up if I am accused of being a cat hater /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

Regards

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.
 
Hi Richard

While I rush to first say that I am in agreement that the stability issues with cats are far over dramatised, it is perhaps fair to point out that your stability comparisons with monohulls on your internet site are a little biased. Grimalkin, which because of its 1979 Fastnet experience is often given as an example of poor monohull stability (usually in comparison to the much better performing, stability wise Contessa 32 in the same race), and the Volvo boats are hardly valid stabilty examples relevant to cruising monohulls.

Is rather the same as if comparing a cruising monohull with poorly performing (stability wise) cats of 25 years ago, or with current on the edge race cats, and saying that monohulls stability is far greater. That would also be a fallacy.

Hope my previous post makes clear I am not anti cat - just that there is a place for both monohulls and cats and that depends somewhat on what ones purposes are.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>I am the cat but I am only 6.
 
The discussion so far has centered around performance, stability and accommodation. But no one has mentioned the fact that cats are UGLY!

...or is it just me that thinks that?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thank goodness there is one person out there who disagrees with the rest of us multihull lovers /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I didn't put that in my original post, but it is one of the criteria- I agree and although the Prouts are lovely to live on, they're not the best lookers in the marina. The Woods one I nearly looked at looked nice, as did this Beneteau that I saw- counts for a lot for the definative boat- you have to love it in all respects.

<hr width=100% size=1>Just enjoy it.
 
In 1979 I sailed from Antigua to the Med via Bermuda on a Swan 55. A few weeks later I sailed a Frers 1-tonner in Cowes Week.
The owner was very keen to do the Fastnet race that year, but we eventually disuaded him saying the boat was not seaworthy enough. Many of his friends had boats that we felt were equally unseaworthy. Sadly, (but to us, not unexpectedly) it was some of those boats that were lost.

I wrote the basis of the stability articles in the early 1980's when the Fastnet was fresh in people's minds. One problem then was that all monohull sailors thought that all monohulls were uncapsizable. The Fastnet changed that.

Grymalkin was chosen as an example as it was one of the few monohulls that had a published stability curve. Nowadays they all have of course. Things have changed.

But one thing that hasn't changed is that fact that there are still a lot of monohulls out there with dubious stability. I feel that all 40ft cruising boats (irrespective of hull number) should be stable enough to easily meet Category A requirements, but quite a number of monohulls are only in B. Whereas I can't think of any multihull over 40ft that is in B.

I am glad to hear you think my designs look nice. As you say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Its probably more polite to say some boats have a distinctive style. The French FPajots and new Lagoons certainly need getting used to.

When Beneteau bought out their catamaran about 20 years ago everyone got very excited. Especially as it was designed by Briand. So they sold a lot until the first one was launched. I don't think they sold any more after that. It was a dog of a cat. It was small inside, it didn't sail well, the bridgedeck slammed and it squeaked and groaned a lot in a seaway.

<hr width=100% size=1>Richard Woods of Woods Designs for quality sailing catamaran designs
www.sailingcatamarans.com
 
whether a cat looks stylish or ugly is entirely in the eye of the beholder. i think the previous generation of prouts looked well from losing the massive cabin height by using the underslung nacelle though i never got used to the headsail-biased rig. others get rid of the cabin altogether like the wharrams. some people think the F-Ps are elegant in a 'starship enterprise' way, a bit like putting a lotus elise or bmw z3 alongside an e-type: they don't have the classic beauty but they have a style of their own.

one thing most people agree on is that some amateur efforts can look truly hideous.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hi Richard!
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head there. I agree entirely about windward performance. We could both name cats that have a horrible hull shape and insufficient keel to do so but a properly designed boat where the crew know how to sail her should go to windward well. Size I think is also critical. Where I would expand a little on your post for clarity would be that at around 11 metres it becomes possible to have enough reserve bouyancy in the design to take all the cruising gear we would like, where at under this size it is too big a percentage of the displacement. This is why I think 11-12 metres is ideal for two people. My own boat, which is a Snowgoose Elite was chosen with loadbearing in mind. I also wanted a boat that would go through the French canals which she will with 6ins to spare! She ain't fast of course and I would prefer more bridgedeck clearance., but she is safe as houses and still goes to windward well, all 6 tonnes of her! But then I built her myself and have a double diamond mast which is 1.5 metres higher than Prouts normally fitted to compensate to a degree.
Look forward to seeing your 38 ft design at some point. Keep up the good work and enjoy the rest of your trip.....sounds great. I have sailed in BC myself (used to build boats for a living in San Diego) You will not believe the scenery...it's awesome! Good sailing (even to windward!)

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder my friend! I have not seen your photo so can't comment further!! :-)

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Why not give it a go?

I've chartered multi's from Victory Yacht Charters in Hasler, Gosport. I've no connection to them.

The real advantages are well covered here already. I'd add. You might not get a production cat up wind like a decent mono but quite a lot of mono's don't go up wind all that well.

Your passage times should average out about 20% quicker over the season.

Speed under power is often quite high and you've often got two engines.

Space, both inside and out is superb.

At anchor, there is a much more comfortable motion.

You can anchor in shallows, dry out flat and carry a quality dinghy on davits with ease.

The raised saloon is a great place to travel and to navigate. While at the bridgedeck nav table you can see most of a 360 degree arc on many modern cats.

The down side would be. Lifeless steering, a "different" motion and increased marina costs. Many home marinas will find ways to get the cost down though.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Hi John!
You are right of course within the limits of your statement and I respect your view. Where I think a long keeled blue water designed monohull will always win is in really atrocious conditions going to windward. What I don't agree on is that multihulls are inherently unsafe in these conditions. It depends on the design, quality of construction and as Richard Woods states very clearly in his post, the ability of the crew. I know of lots of monohulls that are totally unsafe by design, either in terms of normal stability, damaged stability (many will go straight to the bottom with minor damage) or indeed in terms of constructional integrity (especially keels and rudders) So it's a choice.
There was once a light hearted debate at Lymington Yacht club between two designers whom I am sure you will recognise. Tony Castro I remember made the point that while catamarans may be more inherently bouyant than monohulls due to the lack of ballast to keep them upright, they cannot recover from capsize. Nigel Irons replied that while monohulls might recover from capsize if you are lucky they don't recover very well from sinking. Point made very eloquently I thought!
The inherent safety of a "platform" that will retain its bouyancy even when inverted is a consideration which many disregard when talking about cats and is important for blue water cruising. Sorry. I would still choose a well found cat any day and having had the misfortune to spend 72 hours in a liferaft once I don't ever intend getting in one again. There are many examples (Bullimore for one) who would never have survived to tell the tale if their boat had had one hull with a gert big lump of cast iron bolted to the bottom!
It must be very boring down there in Kiwiland with no catamarans and all them sheep...... :-)

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Why not give it a go?

You could also add you have to constantly defend your choice to a load of smelly soggy "traditionalists" that live in squalid conditions at a constant angle of 30 degrees to the vertical..... :-)


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Didn't Tony Bullimore's boat have one hull and a big lump bolted to the bottom that fell off in the Southern Ocean, leaving him inverted.? That's the one he had to swim out of when Aussie rescuers arrived.

<hr width=100% size=1>Just enjoy it.
 
If you are right I remembered it wrongly. I thought it was a catamaran. Nevertheless if you are right it only makes my point in that monohulls can capsize too and rudder and hull integrity is an issue!


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top