Road to Damascus - why liveboards need a catamaran

[tcm]

I had chat with stingo who explained why all liveaboards should have a catamaran.

Aren't catamarns a bit rubbish sailing to windward, i asked? Yes, said stingo. And aren't they pig uglyand slap slap slap on the waves in the middle bit and cost a fortune in a marina? Yes yes, said stingo. So why have a blimmin rubbishy cat, then?

Well, said stingo, fact is, liveaboard is not like having a sailing boat in normal life where you go down to the boat for a week or a fortingight or a weekend, whizz out of the marina and splash around: the most common daily activity for fulltime world(ish) crusing liveaboard is "Not Going Sailing" : even fairly active liveaboards only actually sail less than a quarter or a fifth of the days in a year - he said he's done 50-60 days in fifteeen months and it felt a bit too much. In "sell up and sail", the coopers recorded that they had done 88 days at best, but less once they had circumnavigated.

Hence the performance at anchor becomes proportionally more important.

In most places in the world, as stingo reports, the wind doesnot come the same direction as the waves. So, at anchor, the monohulls roll around, daren't kedge as it reduce the effectiveness of the main anchor. Which means they soon have to go into a marina just to get a decent kip. Finally, the big catamarans are nice and roomy for large fun get togethers, and can go up the beach, and draw less.

So, it all makes sense to have a pig ugly catamaran, which are relatively cheap esp in the US where dozens are ex-charter.

 

[CharlesM]

now you tell me

...having my (monohull) survey done today

hold thumbs

 

[snowleopard]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

once you've owned a multihull for a while they start to look better. it's just that making a decent-looking cat is a lot harder than making an AWB look reasonable. I'll grant you that some look awful and very few amateur designs are fit to be seen in daylight.

once you've experienced stepping out into the cockpit through a door rather than climbing a ladder and having 25 people round for a party you'll never go back /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[AndrewB]

\"Having 25 people round for a party\"

... whether you wanted to be the guest boat, or had a headache. Thanks for reminding me why I really prefer a monohull! /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[pragmatist]

Re: \"Having 25 people round for a party\"

Absolutely ! Those of us of of an anti-social disposition feel a cockpit which accommodates no more than 6 is a positive advantage !

 

[Alastairdent]

Re: \"Having 25 people round for a party\"

U don't want a cat, u want a barge.

Berths for 12, table that seats 16 . . .

 

[Talbot]

Re: \"Having 25 people round for a party\"

[ QUOTE ]
a cockpit which accommodates no more than 6 is a positive advantage

[/ QUOTE ]
Trouble is that as soon as one of these miniscule cockpits is being used to windward, the space in the cockpit suddenly is only suitable for 3 people and the others have to sit on the rail and move around the boat every time you tack.

My little boat (<30ft) has had 13 people in the cockpit whilst I cooked a barbecue for that number (at one stage during a Cowes firework event I had another 10 adults on the foredeck). I can sit 6 people with ease around saloon table, and at a pinch expand that to 8 adults, and I have sleeping space for 7 (+2 austerity), doesnt go to windward very well (but I did achieve the round the Island in 10.5 hours last year)

The Catalac design will never win any beauty awards, but is a spacious boat for its size (and cost) and a pleasure to live aboard.

 

[Benbow]

[ QUOTE ]
So, it all makes sense to have a pig ugly catamaran, which are relatively cheap esp in the US where dozens are ex-charter.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I am convinced,can someone point me to these bargain US cats ?

 

[miki_b]

Snow leopard and Talbot know their cats well. I will only add that when you do get to sail long stretches you are upright all the time and that makes for less fatigue. Also your beer (or coffee, tea etc.) is not sliding all over the place when you leave them to go inside for a while. As for where to find - look up 2hulls.com and in the UK the site of Multihulls world and Multihull Maven.

 

[Stingo]

Also try a google search for "catamaran"

 

[Stingo]

Once I've sold Stingo and bought my cat, I'll let you know where I got it - we don't need two of us chancing the same boat; that really would put a smile on the face of the broker I am using.

 

[roly_voya]

One thing most cat supporters fail to mention is weight, they may have plenty of space but dont like being loaded which spoils performace and can cause stability worries in lightweight designes. Every cat owner I have met has a constant battle to stop it getting overloaded - not good for a liveaboard.

 

[davidbains]

A multi also allows enough space for a bit of privacy when you need it. A boat can get pretty claustrophobic after a while, especially with non family crew!
The difficulties in marinas are offset by being able to anchor in shallow water often nearer the dinghy spot. There's more room for the dinghy on board too. It is definitely less tiring on a multi, and the less keen sailors hate being on a pemanently heeled boat. It sometimes surprises me that all the internal furniture is vertical when the mono rarely is.
You'll see that speed is rarely mentioned because cruising multis aren't that fast.
They are valued for the other reasons. My tri is 25ft wide yet I have never even considered a mono, I'd rather give up sailing.

 

[Guest]

Post deleted by danfoley

 

[Talbot]

A tri will probably have less accomodation than a mono of the same length, but will be much faster!.

An earlier post about weight and liveaboard cats is valid. The two are mutually incompatible, however those cats used for long distance cruising will normally already be designed to take that extra weight and the speed penalty will stil be less than an equivalent mono. Dont forget that weight on a modern go faster mono will also be important.

Average liveaboard useage is less than 20% actually at sea, so the living accomodation requirements will become more important, than being an ocean greyhound. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[BrendanS]

Where does the <20% live aboard useage come from, and what does that mean?

 

[tcm]

Re: 20% useage

he means the overall percentage of days during which you go somewhwere in the boat. The other 80% is spent at anchor or in harbour or otherwsie not axshully travelling. From talking to peeps it seems a fair number. Do you think it too high/low?

 

[snowleopard]

Re: 20% useage

20% is a fair estimate for something like a 1-year atlantic circuit. for less rushed cruising and long-term liveaboard, probably no more than 10%

 

[zefender]

So you want a party boat? Well, if you're at anchor, everyone will have to travel to you by dinghy, which is a bit of a bore (unless the party is really v. good and therefore worth the sodden tafetta). Plus, when at anchor, you'll have to put up with all that whirr, whirr, put-put of a generator which is possibly just as irritating as the roly rolys. And this is not to mention all the grinning tuts tuts about the aesthetic challenges involved in having two boats tied together. Catermarans are also loa for loa v expensive when compared to a mono. So I'd favour getting a mono and using the money saved for a pontoon, basking in the squeals of delight when others catch a glimpse of your utterly luvverly mono and having more frequent parties with smaller gatherings of friends you can talk to as opposed to saying hello and goodbye to people you've otherwise not spoken to, who have gatecrashed your do and made off with your best china.