SailNet Community banner

401 - 420 of 577 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I've never seen that before! Cool!



I clicked on one of the hits that produced, thinking it might be the article I referenced earlier. No joy in that sense, but I think this particular article encapsulates a lot of what you all have been saying about the pros and cons of cats vs. monos in a very concise, readable format.



https://www.cruisingworld.com/sailboats/why-cat


good article!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
I wonder if M&M actually like designing the new Leopards? I’m sure it’s a paycheck but at the end of the day you have to look at what you’ve done and feel some pride.
Funny, I have thought the same thing. M&M seem to have work coming out their ears, with radical new designs, expensive performance models, and an active professional racing design group. I was surprised to see them start to do production catamaran design, but maybe that payed exceptionally well or let them expand. Similarly, VPLP have been doing Lagoon design forever, while maintaining their well-known performance and racing work.

Maybe for both, it is the bread and butter that allow them to have the gravy.

M&M's Leopard work seems to actually be trying to do something right. VPLP's recent Lagoon work makes me think they somehow lost the rights to their name/company.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,048 Posts
It’s interesting to me you see the same dichotomy in power and mono design as in cat. In power you see massive wide heavy trawlers like Norhavn, Selene, Cape Scott and Seaton but on the other side FPBs from newly retired Dashews, LRC 58s, Ed Joys Lyman Morse Ranger and the like. Narrow and light so easily driven versus heavy and wide built like a brick ****e house. Monos with the pizza pie above water profiles but these boats are really narrow at water plane and light once heeled versus the brick outhouse mentality of “classic” design. Sure there are outliers like the narrow heavy cherubinis but you get the gist of what I’m saying. Given all boats are comprimises you either stay in the water and carry three sets of spares, huge tankage, enough tools to build a boat let alone fix it or float on the water and forgo the museum furniture wood interior and a few toys.
Same dichotomy occurs with ride. Been on heavy displacement trawlers and monos in a seaway. They shoulder the waves aside and don’t stall smacking into them but they do roll. Very different on performance multis or modern long range narrow aluminum trawlers where your feet go airborne if you’re not prudent. Still think the wide hulled multis are the worst of both worlds.
Have had occasion to be in a seaway on the light boats. Without ever recalling any banging into things when you strip you find black and blues on out side of arms, legs and hips. Admittedly I’m a klutz but it’s a different mindset when moving around. Neither is better just different. We were loaned a tri from a friend who owns a multihull dealership in Wareham for a week. I loved it. Wife hated it. The above links mentioned noise down below but she found the singing of the rigging when going at speed most disconcerting when on deck. Different strokes for different folks and different boats for different sailors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
We were loaned a tri from a friend who owns a multihull dealership in Wareham for a week. I loved it. Wife hated it. The above links mentioned noise down below but she found the singing of the rigging when going at speed most disconcerting when on deck.
Was it synthetic rigging? We were recently anchored next to a new catamaran with all synthetic rigging and that stuff howled in the wind. I thought they were running a loud generator or engine. The owners said at times it was so loud in the aft staterooms that they slept in the smaller forward bunk. This doesn't seem right to me, and something that should be addressed, but maybe it is the nature of synthetic rigging? We have dyneema runners that sing when loaded, but they are just bare dyneema. The catamaran had a shroud of some type over their rigging.

Otherwise, I don't see why normal steel rigging would make more noise on a trimaran or catamaran than a monohull. Ours doesn't, and I've never heard it from others.

On the other hand, if it was normal whistling due to wind speed because the boat was going very fast, then that is probably just inherent with going fast.

Mark
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
Going back to our earlier conversation about rig design with capsize limits in mind...this is from the Cruising World article linked by someone above. It's from a guy who has done 14K miles on his Dolphin 460...

That said, one must exercise prudent seamanship when heading offshore in a cat. Harriet and I know that it's "game over, wait for rescue" if we're stupid enough to flip the boat. However, on Hands that would mean flying a full main and jib, sheeted tight, in 50-plus knots of wind on the beam-but note that the main shroud is designed to fail before the boat can be overturned. And let's get real: If our seamanship is that bad, we shouldn't be out there. On any boat.
So at least Dolphin cats apparently DO design the shroud strength with capsize forces in mind.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
There was also criticism from observation of a monohull sailor (either in this thread or another) about how uncomfortable cats "look" at anchor. Here is that question answered in this same CW article from above from a guy who actually knows for sure...

3 Questions We Wish People Would Ask

1. How's a cat at anchor?
Considering that most cruisers spend 99 percent (OK, maybe only 98 percent) of their time at anchor, this isn't a dumb question. The simple answer is: Cats shine at anchor. They don't roll; when the dinner plates go flying on the monohull next door, the worst you'll get is a waddle. At anchor or on a mooring with a bridle led to the tip of each bow, cats barely "sail" like a monohull can. On Hands, we rode out a gale on a mooring to leeward of a 44-foot performance cruising monohull. While they tacked continually through 140 degrees, sailing back and forth, heeling to each gust, we tacked through only 30 degrees and stayed flat. Also, all cats have a safe-at-sea, convenient, out-of-the-way spot between the sterns for hoisting and stowing the ship's tender. And finally, the "loading dock" cutaway-stern design of modern cats means that tender-to-boat access is superior to that of most monohulls.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
And finally, this...

3. Would you go back to a monohull?
No-and we haven't met any cat sailors who would. The first time Harriet and I went long-distance cruising, in the 1980s, we sailed a 15,000-mile route three-quarters of the way around the Pacific on board a heavy-displacement, full-keeled cutter. When we decided in 2006 to go cruising again, we approached the question of which type of boat to get with an open mind. After a lot of research that included hands-on testing, we chose two hulls-and we're glad we did. But since then, we've found that there's an inevitable one-two combination of ignorance and prejudice that cat owners run up against. Ours occurred when a veteran cruiser took a tour of Hands-during which he referred to our hulls as "pontoons"-and ended up announcing, "I could never get a cat. They just aren't real boats."

But the majority of monohull sailors are indeed curious, if cautious, about cats for cruising. They wonder, while trying to sift through anti-cat myths and pro-cat hyperbole, about these odd-looking craft. Cat sailors, meanwhile, have already discovered that there's another way to go cruising. They know that it's possible to sail flat and fast and safe and to cruise with all the comforts of home. So is it crazy for cruising sailors to consider buying two hulls instead of one? The journey starts with an open mind.
https://www.cruisingworld.com/sailboats/why-cat

Yep - I'll take the word of those who know. It's enough for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
anti-cat myths and pro-cat hyperbole
Perfect description of 80% of this thread.
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
There are many other axes of boat motion than sideways heeling. I won't go any further with this line of reasoning, because I've never slept on a cat. Have you? If so, share your actual experience. If not, then you're just adding internet speculation (just like me in this case, which I fully admit).

On the topic of sleep comfort, I think only those who have owned or chartered a cat are qualified to speak.
Yes and I didn't find I got any better rest either. the factory supplied mattresses on the Lagoon 38 are painfully thin. The ventilation sucks in the tropics. We had to go out and sleep on the trampoline for a few hours until it cooled down. With only one fan and the small opening port it was
unbearable. The herky jerky motion is also discomforting. The slap slap of water against the hulls was not soothing either .

The tiny little cabinets in the head would barely hold my shaving kit. Not sure how women visitors would get along in the claustraphobic sized head either. If your gal is a plus sized she is not going to be able to fit through the doors either. Might not be able to sit down..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
So at least Dolphin cats apparently DO design the shroud strength with capsize forces in mind.
No. This belief is unfounded, but it is one that is propagated often, and deeply believed by many. However, it is a faith, and not an engineering design.

I have met many people who believe their rigging is designed to go before the boat tips over. When asked why they believe this, I have yet to hear, or be pointed to, anything that could be considered valid. Most just say that is the way cruising catamarans are designed. Some say that their dealer/broker told them this, and further their conviction by pointing out that their dealer/broker has been in the business for many years. Being a magazine contributor, or having sailed X number of miles, doesn't shield one from this, nor provide knowledge.

Nobody has ever directed me to actual manufacturer information or engineering data saying this, and I have never found any on my own. I hear it most from brokers and dealers, but when pressed, they only tell me that "everyone knows this", or point out their many years in the business.

It is quite possible that a rig can fail before the boat capsizes, but this is just by chance, a weak component, or lack of maintenance. Similar to a rig failing on a monohull when rolled - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Again, the reasoning comes down to how the rig would be designed to fail this way, and what the risks are. Rigs don't just magically pop off and go away. A dismasting can be a fatal event, and at minimum a potentially very dangerous one. It could be argued that a dismasting has more potential to kill or harm someone than a capsize. It could also result in the boat sinking outright instead of staying afloat inverted. Manufacturers would be on the hook for a purposeful failure design that killed or harmed someone. There would at least be a disclaimer clause somewhere in a contract addressing this.

In the other direction, capsize can be caused by a combination of wind and waves without undue stress on rigging components. It also is rarely caused by full sails sheeted tight in high winds on the beam (the author's case for failure). In these (more common) potentials for capsize, the rigging doesn't come into play at all.

But let's say it is engineered this way. Then the question is how and when do you want that failure to occur? Do you want the mast to fall forward and potentially trip the boat over, or backwards and potentially kill the people in the cockpit, or sideways and hole a hull and potentially cause the boat to sink? Should it fail right as a hull begins to lift - where one has ample time to correct the situation and avoid a problem, or should it only fail when one has lost control and the boat is going over anyway? The middle ground between those two points when a rig failure could help is a very short time and would require precise engineering of many, many components working together.

And this isn't even putting on an engineer's hat (I'm not an engineer). Those that are can probably immediately see the multiple issues with taking many rigging components with broad ranges of working and breaking loads, each that handles different forces in different directions and different ways, and putting them all together in a package that has a precisely defined and implemented "fuse" point. Keeping in mind the normal manufacturing variances of both the rigging components and the boat itself.

Of course, once the boat and rigging is finally setup this way, one could never change any aspect of the boat - like taking on extra water or provisioning, or adding extra crew members. And then when it became time to re-rig or get new sails, the engineering would have to start all over again.

I would personally be very happy to discover that this old saw was indeed true and backed up by engineering design and rationale. I know for a fact it isn't the case for our boat, but might be willing to redo the rigging with an engineer if it could be made to fail only at the critical moment and not at any other time.

But so far logic and reasoning leads me to believe otherwise. Of course, I am very open to changing my mind on this, because finding it true would impact our lives in a favorable way. So if anyone does have different information, or can point me to relevant data, I would be appreciative.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
There was also criticism from observation of a monohull sailor (either in this thread or another) about how uncomfortable cats "look" at anchor. Here is that question answered in this same CW article from above from a guy who actually knows for sure...
Yeah, I just let that comment pass. It was absurdly unfounded. Two days ago we were in an anchorage with catamarans and monohulls and a small swell worked its way in. Us three cat owners were on a boat together and only noticed the swell because we saw the monos rolling like metronomes. Within minutes, the monos were pulling anchor and heading out to somewhere more calm for them. We experience this situation time and time again.

The single anchoring condition where a catamaran is worse than a monohull is a strong wind opposite a strong current. In this situation, most monohulls sit to the current quite happily. Most catamarans don't know if they are fish or bird, and will swing wildly back and forth between the two directions. Once, anchored off Charleston SC, we were in these conditions and it was like being on a Tilt-O-Whirl.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
Yes and I didn't find I got any better rest either. the factory supplied mattresses on the Lagoon 38 are painfully thin. The ventilation sucks in the tropics. We had to go out and sleep on the trampoline for a few hours until it cooled down. With only one fan and the small opening port it was
unbearable. The herky jerky motion is also discomforting. The slap slap of water against the hulls was not soothing either .

The tiny little cabinets in the head would barely hold my shaving kit. Not sure how women visitors would get along in the claustraphobic sized head either. If your gal is a plus sized she is not going to be able to fit through the doors either. Might not be able to sit down..
None of this has anything to do with catamarans in general - only a specific catamaran model, how it was equipped, and how you personally reacted to it.

Mark
 

·
Junior Member
Joined
·
3,506 Posts
None of this has anything to do with catamarans in general - only a specific catamaran model, how it was equipped, and how you personally reacted to it.

Mark
I'll cry BS on that! This is a discussion on catamarans correct? My reaction? Yes, based on actual experience. I know your more comfy with the cut and paste guys, and heaven forbid if anyone had a less then steller review or experience on any sort of catamaran.

Particular model? Of course and a very popular one at that. How else could any one evaluate a particular model of any boat with out mentioning how is was equipped? Should me and my gal have just sweated it out in a kleenex box sized cabin? Her feelings and opinions not important?

Why talk generalities? I think chall and smack have talked about a lot of specific design features. What gives with you? Out of your comfort zone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
I only meant to point out that the conversation about the degree of restfulness on catamarans was a general one, and was brought into question. You were even the poster that made the topic general, and postulated that there was no difference, and catamarans attract a lower level of experience and need for rest.

Above, you mentioned an experience with a specific model, which I merely pointed out was not a general quality of catamarans in this regard. You seemed to have presented it as a general quality, and not a specific design feature of one model.

Not sure what of my statement you find BS - the part about how your statement wasn't about catamarans in general, or the part about it being related to a specific model and your personal reaction to it. Both seem accurate to me. You seem to be offended about something there, but I didn't mean anything offensive, and don't see what that could have been.

As for this being a rah-rah thread, look back and you will see me pointing out what I think are bad qualities and poor designs of catamarans. There are general qualities that exist, like motion, and most of the questions/opinions so far have been around these generalities. There have also been some around specifics, like helm position. Both generalities and specifics are valid topic areas.

Your response would have been clearer as specific to the Lagoon 380, and not as an answer to the general question of sleep comfort underway - which was the original postulate, and the one you quoted.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
I remember years ago Chuck Kanter telling me the heads on the French built charter catamarans were big enough to do your business in but not big enough to take care of the paperwork afterwards.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
No. This belief is unfounded, but it is one that is propagated often, and deeply believed by many. However, it is a faith, and not an engineering design.

I have met many people who believe their rigging is designed to go before the boat tips over. When asked why they believe this, I have yet to hear, or be pointed to, anything that could be considered valid. Most just say that is the way cruising catamarans are designed. Some say that their dealer/broker told them this, and further their conviction by pointing out that their dealer/broker has been in the business for many years. Being a magazine contributor, or having sailed X number of miles, doesn't shield one from this, nor provide knowledge.

Nobody has ever directed me to actual manufacturer information or engineering data saying this, and I have never found any on my own. I hear it most from brokers and dealers, but when pressed, they only tell me that "everyone knows this", or point out their many years in the business.

It is quite possible that a rig can fail before the boat capsizes, but this is just by chance, a weak component, or lack of maintenance. Similar to a rig failing on a monohull when rolled - sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Again, the reasoning comes down to how the rig would be designed to fail this way, and what the risks are. Rigs don't just magically pop off and go away. A dismasting can be a fatal event, and at minimum a potentially very dangerous one. It could be argued that a dismasting has more potential to kill or harm someone than a capsize. It could also result in the boat sinking outright instead of staying afloat inverted. Manufacturers would be on the hook for a purposeful failure design that killed or harmed someone. There would at least be a disclaimer clause somewhere in a contract addressing this.

In the other direction, capsize can be caused by a combination of wind and waves without undue stress on rigging components. It also is rarely caused by full sails sheeted tight in high winds on the beam (the author's case for failure). In these (more common) potentials for capsize, the rigging doesn't come into play at all.

But let's say it is engineered this way. Then the question is how and when do you want that failure to occur? Do you want the mast to fall forward and potentially trip the boat over, or backwards and potentially kill the people in the cockpit, or sideways and hole a hull and potentially cause the boat to sink? Should it fail right as a hull begins to lift - where one has ample time to correct the situation and avoid a problem, or should it only fail when one has lost control and the boat is going over anyway? The middle ground between those two points when a rig failure could help is a very short time and would require precise engineering of many, many components working together.

And this isn't even putting on an engineer's hat (I'm not an engineer). Those that are can probably immediately see the multiple issues with taking many rigging components with broad ranges of working and breaking loads, each that handles different forces in different directions and different ways, and putting them all together in a package that has a precisely defined and implemented "fuse" point. Keeping in mind the normal manufacturing variances of both the rigging components and the boat itself.

Of course, once the boat and rigging is finally setup this way, one could never change any aspect of the boat - like taking on extra water or provisioning, or adding extra crew members. And then when it became time to re-rig or get new sails, the engineering would have to start all over again.

I would personally be very happy to discover that this old saw was indeed true and backed up by engineering design and rationale. I know for a fact it isn't the case for our boat, but might be willing to redo the rigging with an engineer if it could be made to fail only at the critical moment and not at any other time.

But so far logic and reasoning leads me to believe otherwise. Of course, I am very open to changing my mind on this, because finding it true would impact our lives in a favorable way. So if anyone does have different information, or can point me to relevant data, I would be appreciative.

Mark
Great explanation, Mark. Since that article I had been looking around to see if I could find any reliable info on how they'd pull off such a design and had seen anything. Your explanation makes sense to me.

The problem is - this would be a powerful marketing tool to those who are afraid of capsize...but could actually make things much more dangerous for those people if they are counting on that. So it certainly shouldn't be perpetuated without facts. I'm going to see if I can contact that author and ask where he got his information.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,467 Posts
I'll cry BS on that! This is a discussion on catamarans correct? My reaction? Yes, based on actual experience. I know your more comfy with the cut and paste guys, and heaven forbid if anyone had a less then steller review or experience on any sort of catamaran.

Particular model? Of course and a very popular one at that. How else could any one evaluate a particular model of any boat with out mentioning how is was equipped? Should me and my gal have just sweated it out in a kleenex box sized cabin? Her feelings and opinions not important?

Why talk generalities? I think chall and smack have talked about a lot of specific design features. What gives with you? Out of your comfort zone?
Aev - why are you so aggro? I agree with Mark's statement in that you were talking about an experience you had on a single Lagoon 38. And it was this list of observations...

-factory supplied mattresses sucks
-ventilation sucks
-only one fan and the small opening port
-herky jerky motion
-slap slap of water against the hulls
-tiny little cabinets in the head
-not sure how women visitors would get along in the claustraphobic sized head
-fat chicks can't use the bathroom

I didn't address this post of yours above because it is your own experience being on a Lagoon 38. And that's valuable.

But, to Mark's point, I see only one item that is truly multi related. The rest are things someone might have said about our Hunter too. Or they are things that could easily be modified/improved if it were your own boat. So I dismissed a lot of it too as just personal preference. I thought exactly what Mark thought.

But now you start throwing the typical Posse shade about me being a "cut and paste" guy? And you hint toward the same accusation of being "attacked" if you post something a certain poster disagrees with ("heaven forbid if anyone had a less then steller review or experience on any sort of catamaran")? That's just not right.

You need to understand that the flip side of this accusation is that one should be able to say anything they want, right or wrong, and not be challenged on it. And if they are challenged - it's the challenger, not them that is in the wrong because they are not "allowing criticism" of whatever they are advocating. I don't think that's the way it works. These discussions should be fact-based and reasoned as much as possible. That's the only way they are helpful for readers. And, personally, it's readers I care about most because this is how I learned from forums in the beginning...Googling and finding great, informative threads about the topic I was interested in.

As for me, you guys can call me a cut and paster all you want (it was started by a dude who's no longer here). I have no problem with it. In fact, I take it as a compliment (as you can see in my sig). It means I do my research and present published facts and first-hand expertise. I don't just say stuff and expect people to take it as gospel or I'll get angry. That characteristic seems to be in a few of those who criticize us cut and paste guys.

So, let's just ratchet this stuff down a few notches. Jeff made that rule in his OP.

I personally appreciate your input on the Leopard 38, aev. It always helps to get first-hand accounts. But I also agree with Mark that it's of somewhat limited value in the overall discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

Mark - sorry you seem to be getting pulled into this stuff too.
 
401 - 420 of 577 Posts
Top