SailNet Community banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
It really depends on what you're trying to do. Multihulls have some advantages and disadvantages compared to monohulls, and a lot of how severe those advantages/disadvantages are depends on the exact design you're looking at.

For instance, a lot of the charter market catamarans have trouble sailing in light air and have trouble tacking. This is because these boats were designed with the charter market in mind and are fairly low performance designs, with smaller sailplans and relatively high windage to accommodate a floating condo interior.

Compare them to a high-performance cruising catamaran like a Chris White Atlantic 48 or Gunboat 48, and you'll see some serious differences in the design and performance characteristics of the boats.

What are the advantages of a cruising multihull?
  • They sail flatter, which means they're more comfortable in many conditions and often safer. It is harder to fall off a 20' wide catamaran that heels less than 10˚ than it is to fall off a monohull that is 12' wide and heeling 25˚.
  • They're often faster than comparable LOA monohulls
  • They often haver far more cabin space than comparable LOA monohulls
  • They generally have a quicker motion than monohulls-which some people tolerate better
  • They're often designed to be close to unsinkable, since the materials they're made of are often lighter than water.
  • They often can gunkhole and sail/anchor in shallower waters than comparable LOA monohulls due to having relatively shallow draft.
Disadvantages of multihulls:
  • They can't support as much food, water, cargo or equipment as monohulls of equal LOA.
  • They're more weight sensitive than monohulls-when you're carting around several tons of lead, what does a couple hundred more pounds of gear matter. :)
  • Badly designed ones don't sail well in light winds or tack well.
  • Badly designed ones generally don't sail faster than comparable LOA monohulls
  • They don't self-right-however, monohulls sink-this is basically a wash, with an advantage to the multihull, since I'd rather be on a floating upside down boat, than a boat that is right-side up and sitting on the bottom of the ocean
Myths:

There is a long-standing myth that multihulls can't sail to windward or tack well. This is obviously false. The Polynesian islanders explored most of the southern Pacific, and much of it to windward. Also, Dennis Conner's Stars and Stripes pretty much put the whole idea that multihulls can't point and can't tack to bed.

There's also a myth that catamarans or trimarans are less expensive boats than monohulls of comparable LOA. That's basically pure crap. Think about it, you're building two or three hulls and the structures to connect them. A multihull can often be a less expensive boat for a given performance specification, but given the same LOA, the multihulls are generally more expensive, not less.

As an example, my relatively slow cruising trimaran often passes 40' monohull sailboats. The monohull sailboats that are as fast as my 28' trimaran are many times the cost of it. However, compared to some of the boats with comparable LOA, it is probably slightly more expensive.

Then there's the myth that multihulls aren't seaworthy. This is also pure crap. A properly designed and constructed multihull is very seaworthy. If you don't believe that, see the most recent speed records for sailing around the world and see what they were set by. Most of them are set by trimarans. This myth comes from the period when many were home-built, using cheap materials and poorly constructed. Many of the multihulls from that time were and are junk.

Different types of multihulls:

There are basically three types of common multihulls. They are the proa, the catamaran and the trimaran.

The Proa:

The least common of these is the proa. A proa is a boat that consists of a main hull with a single smaller ballasted outrigger. Most do not have a bow or stern in the traditional sense, since the outrigger is kept to windward. The boat is not tacked, but shunted, where what was formerly the bow becomes the stern and the rudder is moved from one end of the boat to the other.

Generally, the proa has a crab-claw sail and the mast, by design is in the center of the main hull. A crab-claw sail looks very much like an oversized lateen rig with a boom added.

The Proa generally has the least cargo carrying capacity of the three designs.

The Catamaran:

Catamarans are boats that have two equal size hulls and a bridgedeck connecting the two hulls. The hulls are often asymetrical mirror images of each other and can have shallow keels, centerboards, daggerboards or a combination of keel and board of some sort. They generally have dual rudders, one on each hull, and in the case of large cruising catamarans, often have dual engines and props.

Catamarans, generally, have the most space of the common sailing designs-monohull, catamaran and trimaran. However, they are weight sensitive, and utilizing all the stowage space they provide can hinder the boat's performance.

Many people are first introduced to catamarans in the form of sport beach cats, like the Hobie Cat. This is somewhat misleading, as the characteristics of a beach sport cat and a cruising catamaran are very, very different. A sport cat has a very high sail area to displacement ratio and is extremely easy to capsize. They go like a bat out of hell, and capsize if you look at them cross-eyed. A cruising catamaran, especially the larger ones have extremely high initial stability and righting moments and are very, very difficult to capsize if sailed properly.

There are basically two different schools of thought for cruising catamarans. The first is like those designed by James Wharram, one of the catamaran design pioneers. Most of his catamarans have little or no structure on the bridgedeck that connects the main hulls. In many cases, his boats are designed with two hulls that are connected together in a somewhat flexible manner. All of the accommodations are in the two hulls.

These boats often have fairly decent sailing characteristics, since they don't generally have the windage created by a bridgedeck cabin. Stars & Stripes was designed much along these spartan lines, but with a very rigid bridgedeck and hull structure for performance reasons.

The other school of thought is the solid bridgedeck design with a cabin over the bridgedeck. This can be taken to extremes that result in very poor performing boats. However, most modern catamarans come from this school of thought. Compromises have to be made to balance performance and accommodation. Things like sufficient bridgedeck clearance, beam, cabin height, draft, and such are all important and need to be balanced depending on the design's intended use.

Some boats have a solid bridgedeck from bow to stern. However, this is less common in modern designs, since having an open design for the forward third of the bridgedeck seems to have significant benefits-so you'll generally see some form of nets or trampolines forward of the main cabin on many more modern designs.

The beam of a modern catamaran is often 50-60% of the LOA. Generally, the smaller the LOA the higher the beam to length ratio is, but there are exceptions, like the Tony Smith designed Geminis, which have a relatively narrow 14' beam. This was done to help allow the Geminis to be kept in a single slip, rather than requiring them to use two slips or an end slip.

The Trimaran:

The trimaran consists of a large main hull and two smaller outriggers. Often, the outriggers or amas, have sufficient buoyancy to float the entire vessel in and of themselves. The hulls on a trimaran tend to be fairly long and narrow, and as such, the trimaran often has the least space of the three common designs, less than monohulls of equal LOA. They also tend to be more weight sensitive than catamarans and monohulls.

The trimarans are basically divided into two categories, IMHO. There are racing designs and cruising designs. The racing designs are often designed to have one of the two amas airborne when under sail. They're often very light and very fast, with little in the way of amenities. The cruising designs generally aren't designed to have any of the hulls leave the water, and are a good deal slower due to the greater wetted hull surfaces.

A good example of the two different design philosophies are the Corsair 28 and the Telstar 28. The Corsair 28 is about the same LOA as the Telstar, but has a much smaller and lighter cabin. The Corsair 28 doesn't have standing headroom in its cabin, and is designed with a portapottie and camping stove as standard accommodations. The Telstar 28 on the other hand has almost 6' of headroom throughout most of the cabin, a head with holding tank, and a proper propane stove/broiler, optional refrigerator and sink. The Telstar also has a bit less sail area than the lighter Corsair 28. One is clearly a racer and the other a cruiser.

Of the cruising trimarans, there are basically two different schools of thought. One, like the older Jim Brown designed Searunners, has accomodations in the wingdecks that connect the main hull to the amas. These boats are far heavier and have much more windage than the more modern designs, like the Chris White Hammerhead 54, which has all the accommodations in the main hull. There are some boats that bridge these two designs, like the Dick Newick designs, which have much smaller solid wingdecks with very limited accommodations and space contained within.

Trimarans, often have better sailing and performance characteristics than do catamarans. They generally sail a lot more like monohulls, since they heel a bit more and can often pivot on their main hull.

Many of the smaller sport designs, like the Corsairs and the Telstar, fold to allow them to be trailerable without disassembly. However, the folding design generally sacrifices interior space.

The beam on most trimarans is about 60-75% or so, but there are extreme examples, like BMW-Oracle's new trimaran which has essentially a square footprint, with a beam to length ratio of 100%. :)
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Quorning and M&M both make a nice boat... the GB66 is wicked fast but costs two arms and a leg. The Quorning DF1200 is a nice boat, and only costs a leg. :)
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
I've been lucky enough to get a ride on a Gunboat 48... I'd love to try a GB62 out, but they're just ridiculously expensive. Quorning makes a really nice boat, probably the nicest of the production sport trimarans...but they're priced to match. :) I've spent a long time sailing and researching multihulls. :)
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Osmund—

Glad to help. I try to write a fairly balanced post, as I've sailed on both Monohulls and Multihulls, and like some of each.

Under some conditions, I'd have a hard time running down Gui's DC1200, but I could easily pick a course where I'd kick his butt... a few 6' deep sandbars would guarantee that... given his 10' draft. :) I won't have the interior space of Cam's Tayana barge, but could probably run it down in most conditions... :) So, you really have to consider what you're looking for in a boat. For some people, a multihull just won't do...for others it is going to be the best choice.

And yes, my legs are very expensive.... :D
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
I'm not surprised, the Aussies and Kiwis have had a fairly strong showing in the multihull contingent. I can't comment on the Seawinds, except in a general way, as I've not sailed on one. They seem to be fairly well regarded boats, not of the floating condo variety, and seem to have fairly decent sailing performance. I've had a chance to walk about a Seawind 1000XL a couple of years ago, and liked the fit and finish of the boat... but didn't get a chance to sail it. If you look at the specifications, and the photos, you'll see that they don't have the massive freeboard of some of the floating condo-type boats.

Here's an image of the Seawind 1000xl and 1160 courtesy of the Seawind site.





and compare it to the Lagoon 380, photo courtesy of Lagoon Catamarans:



and you'll see what I mean about the difference in profiles... the windage on the Lagoon starts with the hulls, which have pretty high freeboard. The windage on the Seawinds is really mainly the bridgedeck, which is pretty far aft. This means that the Seawind will likely tack far more readily than the Lagoon. BTW, the Seawind 1100 is about 32' LOA, the Lagoon 380 and the Seawind 1160 are about 38' LOA.

ImASonOfaSailor,

You will be pleased to know that down here in OZ, the Multi's are getting a pretty fair deal. The last Sydney Boat Show was full of the damned things. I recall several multi's showing, Seawind, Lightwave, Perry and Tasman are 4 that spring immediately to mind i am sure there were others. Seawind particularly nearly had more going on than Beneteau.

SD Great Post. I have often just dismissed Multi's as an option for low to mid budget cruising, I have been looking around however and found a few interesting boats, do you know of or have anything to say about the Seawind 960?
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
There are far too many variables in design to allow anything like a simple comparison of displacement to load capacity and engine power...

Even among monohulls, there is a very broad range of weight bearing and performance characteristics for a given displacement. A high performance, foam-cored construction racing boat with a high aspect keel with bulb may have the same displacement as a much shorter LOA full-keel, heavy displacement solid glass laminate boat. However, the former might have greater load carrying capacity due to the greater water plane area and still offer much higher performance.

This is even more complex when you consider multihulls. For instance, on a catamaran, given the exact same hull configuration, one may be a full-bridgedeck with salon and pilothouse and the other could be a open bridgedeck with all accommodations in the hulls like a Wharram design, and the two boats would have very different load carrying and performance characteristics.

Likewise, you could take two identical sets of 34' hulls and build one boat with a narrow beam, similar to an Iroquois or Gemini catamaran, and the other with a much wider beam, and the two boats would have very different characteristics.

Some multihull designs do not tolerate overloading to any significant degree, where others seem to do fairly well when loaded down.
Hello, everyone!

I'm new in general. I have been looking around and found lots saying about stability and speeds but nothing about comparing displacements. So how do the hull designs compare in terms of:
-dead weight to full load weight with same total loading capacity and same power or engine.

If you can link to some papers, that would be great also.
Sorry, if this has been asked before.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
No, because weight or mass for the sake of mass is not necessarily a good thing. For instance, making a solid glass hull thicker adds strength and a lot of mass, but you could get the same strength for much less mass by going with a cored-laminate instead of solid glass.

Yes, a heavier boat is often more stable...but if the weight is added in the wrong place, then it can make the boat far less stable. As an example, one of the posters on this forum has a steel boat that has the water tanks located just under the deck. This boat is far less stable than it would have been if the tanks were located just above the keel, since the mass of the water has effectively shifted the center of gravity upwards.

Another example-adding an in-mast furling system adds weight aloft. Say adding one to a boat adds 100 lbs aloft and the mast is 60' high. That means that the 100 lbs. aloft adds about 3000 ft.-lbs. of torque when the boat is rolling. If the keel is 5' below the waterline, and the center of gravity is roughly at the waterline, to offset the addition of this furling system, you'd need to add 600 lbs. of mass to the keel-or the boat will be more tender with the in-mast furling system than it would have been without it.

Also, the scantlings on a multihull are going to be somewhat different than the same LOA monohull, especially since the multihull doesn't have to support the mass of a heavy metal keel.

As for a multihull with four hulls in a diamond configuration... doesn't make much sense at all. First, the load carrying capacity would be much lower than one with two full length hulls (a catamaran) or one with a full length hull and two smaller outriggers (a trimaran). Second, the engineering would be a nightmare, since your dealing with a greater number of forces in more directions than if you have two or three substantially similar hulls-you'd give up a lot of rigidity for very little benefit.

It is pretty easy to badly engineer a multihull... look at the "Tin Can" trimaran. From this top-down view of his concept-it is obvious that David Vann is an idiot.



The crossbeams (or akas) on his trimaran are primarily an "X-shaped" set that meets in the center of the main hull. This means that the amas (or outriggers) have about ten times the leverage, since the crossbeams are about 30' apart at the ama and only about 3' apart at the main hull, and that any twisting force on the boat will likely cause the akas to fail at the point they attach to the main hull-which is indeed the problem Vann ran into.

If you look at most other trimaran designs, the crossbeams are generally parallel and spaced as far forward and aft on the main hull as is reasonable, reducing the leverage the amas have on the main hull to close to one-to-one, as seen in these images:







Finally, I'd point out that many multihull capsizes are actually not capsizes per se but caused by the boat pitchpoling after stuffing the bows into the back of a wave. This is one reason it is generally wise to leave a multihull a bit aft-heavy.

On cruising sized multihulls, pure wind powered capsizes are very rare and generally are caused by human error more than anything else. They're generally caused by the captain and crew pushing the limits of the boat and having her overcanvassed for the given conditions.

Multihulls, unlike monohulls, generally reef for the AVERAGE PEAK WIND SPEEDS, not the average wind. The reason for this is very simple-a multihull CANNOT bleed off much of the excess wind power of a gust by heeling, only by accelerating-so it must have the sails configured for the average peak wind speeds. However, unlike a monohull, a multihull is generally pretty light and doesn't have the inertia to resist accelerating during a gust, so it is a huge disadvantage to have the slightly lower amount of sail area up.

Cruising sized multihulls also have enormous initial stability... an order of magnitude greater than that of a similarly sized monohull. This tends to damp out any but the greatest movement. For instance, in an anchorage, if the wave period is just right, you can often get monohull boats rolling side-to-side a considerably amount. This doesn't happen on cats and tris in the same anchorage as they can't "store" the energy of the rolling waves in their keels.

This lack of inertia often works against multihulls under certain conditions, especially when the conditions are heavy, short period chop with very light winds. The chop tends to stop a multihull because there isn't enough inertia or wind for the multihull to power through the chop.

I see but isn't structural mass still a good measure?

I saw multihulls are said to capsize forward, as I understand it this is because of the sail and mast. This is rather a mechanical problem and design of a specific ship. For example if the mast is much taller than ship length than it will capsize in the direction of the wind. A solution would be making the ship longer or maybe devide the center hull into forward and aft hulls (diamond).

I wonder are there actually any ships in diamond configuration?
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Here's a illustration of a monohull pitchpoling... not quite the same as what happens on a multihull, but close enough to give you an idea

 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
While this is possible in theory, it would probably make for a pretty pathetic sailboat. Having so much weight concentrated in the deck structure would tend to raise the center of gravity and make the boat less stable to begin with-which is probably why there are no four-hulled boats out there.

The main hull on a trimaran provides a pretty solid foundation for the crossbeams when properly designed. The bridgedeck on a catamaran is also relatively easy to engineer properly. I'd point out that some catamarans have a very rigid bridgedeck, especially the full-bridgedeck designs, but other catamarans, like the older Polynesian based designs are a bit more flexible.

Well, if the hulls are used as feet for deck structures like the SWATH....
So they all could be of the same design, and with the big deck structure it's easier to have them rigidly fixed. Virtually a big ship on four feets. I guess it would be very big for better deck to hull structure ratios, and many tension structures.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Multihulls, especially catamarans with dual engine setups, can be very maneuverable. A large catamaran with dual engines can spin almost in place by skid-steering with one engine in forward and the other in reverse. Under sail, the dual rudders help with steering, but the dual hulls can make turning a bit more difficult.

Trimarans tend to turn and handle much like monohulls, as they tend to pivot around the central hull, much like a monohull.

An arrow configuration for a trimaran would be a disaster. The three hulls must be essentially parallel and generally located athwartships from each other. Some designs, which had shorter amas, which were mounted aft of the bow of the main hull, had a greater tendency to pitchpole, since they had insufficient buoyancy in the bow.

On many trimarans, the forward buoyancy is really supplied by the amas, not the main hull. The Dragonfly 28 is an extreme case of this, and it has the amas actually starting forward of the main hull's bow. This is probably due to the very high mast and amount of sail area the Dragonfly 28 was designed with.

 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Just curious as to which Corsair 36 had a beam of 29.5'. IIRC, the Corsair 36 had a beam of 25' 7". Also, why do you consider the Corsair 36 a hybrid trimaran?

I have a kind of hybrid trimaran, a Corsair 36, which I have fitted out as a liveaboard. Space is a bit tight at times, and docking does have to be carefully arranged, due to my 29.5-foot beam, as CBinRI alluded. It has been a bit of work to make it a liveaboard, as I have hull 16, but I think it has been worth it, and it is nice to be able to sail in small puffs of wind when others are motoring their sailing vessels. There are some other features that have not been mentioned about trimaran handling, which I have learned through experience. Since there is not much hull under water, turning at speed is great with the daggerboard cutting into the water, but at low speeds, you are at the whim of the currents and wind, since there is not much area directing the steering. Also, at anchor, my trimaran moves with the wind, not the current, so at places like St. Augustine, as the other boats orient north-south, I found that I was oriented east-west, and other boaters do not anticipate this when anchoring nearby. Also, I tend to sail a hull at 7 knots, and at 16 knots the windward ama is about 3 feet out of the water, which means that anything not tied down is in the passageway. I really enjoy her, and every day is a learning experience.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Yes, I own a Telstar and one reason I do is the Corsair 28 has a ridiculously small cabin-given that I'm only 5'4" and I can't stand up in the cabin of Corsair 28.

In some ways, the cabin of the Telstar is bigger than that of the Corsair 31CC, primarily because of the difference in where the head is. In the Corsair 31CC, the head is amidships, in the Telstar it is forward. That allows the main cabin on the Telstar to be much larger than that of the Corsair. However, Corsair 31CC does effectively have two cabins to sleep in-the v-berth forward and the aft cabin.

If you're serious about getting a trimaran in the mid-30' range, I'd recommend you look at a semi-custom one like the Chris White designed Hammerhead 34, which I posted a drawing of above.

The Hammerhead 34 has an aft cabin with a double berth, and a forward cabin with a single, as you can see here. The head is all the way forward, which might make it a bit uncomfortable to use heavier conditions, but it looks like a reasonable compromise. IIRC, it is design to be folded for trailering and storage, but I don't know the specifics of the design. I actually am hoping to speak with Chris regarding the boat for a friend of mine.



dog you own a telstar and i dont know if you have been in a corsair 28, but it looks like they have more room in the corsair. do you feel the same?

now i do like the tri look but the space issue is a turn off for me. i would love to see performance sailing give the telstar a v berth. heck my 27 foot hunter is a lot bigger inside. i saw the corsair is a alot pricier, but i would think if PS made a 31 or 32 footer with a v berth ( basicly a more mono hull interior layout ) and could keep the price under a 100k the would sell the heck out of them. what do you think the extra 3 or 4 feet would add to the cost?
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
According to a recent e-mail from Chris, the Hammerhead 34 runs somewhere between $70-100k as a rough estimate. :)

Saturday should be nice, but a bit cool.

i do like the layout of his design. do you know what they run?

as for for being 5'4" that makes you a sailing puppy ;)

also i will be up your way this weekend, i have to go bury my grandmother in yarmouth. how is the weather?
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
Have just spent a few weeks wafting around Jervis Bay (south of Sydney) where the only all weather anchorage is up Curumbin Creek with less than 1.5 metres over the bar at times. Not surprisingly there are an awful lot of multis in that neck of the woods.

Seawind factory is not far from JB and there are a fleet of them down there. Certainly they look the goods from a distance, give every indication that they sail quite well and that they have more than adequate accomodation.

Now I am not specifically anti multihull. Yes, all my boats have been mono but if I felt a multi suited my needs I'd have no worries going with one.

My major negative is that many (if not most) of the modern multis have interiors that are horridly plastic. Imagine2Frolic's is one of the nicest I've ever seen but some of the others...blech !!
Chris White's designs have fairly nice interiors...this is the interior of one of his Hammerhead 34 trimarans.



I'd think also that one of the multis biggest drawbacks is size. It seem from what I read that anything much under mid to late thirties (feet) is not all that desirable. A forty foot cat for two people is an awful lot of boat, a large part of which is simply taken up by a plethora of berths which you cannot use for storage due to the need to keep weight out of the bow. Any comments of that ?
Yes, the problem of weight and all that stowage space is a common one. Having the space tempts one into filling it...causing the boat to be seriously overloaded. Restraint is key to keeping the boat light.

Specifically to you Dog......ignore the fact you own a tri......if money was no issue....Cat or Tri ? I am talking live aboard cruising here...not for a weekender, not for a marina bound floating condo.
I'd probably go for a Chris White designed Atlantic 42 catamaran. Its a beautiful boat with lots of space and moves like a bat out of hell. The pilothouse design gives a very sheltered interior helm position, and the cockpit, located just aft of the mast, gives a very secure location to operate the boat from, even in heavy conditions.

If I didn't want such a large boat, I'd probably go with the Hammerhead 34, which is designed to be foldable for trailering, primarily to allow simplified winter storage.

Generally.....why don't multis have gimballed stoves ? I realise that they don't heel like a mono but even so I would have thought that on any small craft a gimballed stove would still be a good idea. Thoughts ?
They really don't require it from what I've seen.

Last but not least there is also a distressing tendency for cruising cats to have curved settees in the saloon. Useless horrid damn things they are. OK so when you are tied up to the dock they might be tolerable but I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can get seriously comfortable on a curved settee. Maybe it is just me but I like to to be able to lie down not sit on a boat other than when eating. I may be bent but I am not curved. :)
The multihulls I like don't have a curved settee...not a one. :) For instance, the Gemini 105Mc has a U-shaped settee and it happens to be my favorite spot to sleep aboard one, since it allows me to keep an eye on what's going on in the cockpit on night watches.
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
It is, but the A48 is just too big. 26.25' wide... Not too many travelifts can handle that.

Dog and I have a shared affliction for those Chris White Designs, especially the Atlantic series. I find them almost bewitching. I much prefer the forward cockpit design, too.

If I ever switched over, and could afford it, I'd be looking for a Chris White designed cat. My current favorite is the A48, which is the smallest one to offer the aft deck (last I checked).
 

·
Telstar 28
Joined
·
992 Posts
There is nothing surprising about this at all. It is a very well known fact that multihulls require much heavier standing rigging than monohulls. This is also the reason the sails on a multihull are usually heavier weight than similarly sized sails on a monohull. This is less the case on trimarans, which will heel a bit more and aren't as stiff as catamarans in general.

Regular inspection of the rigging is a must...but some commerical entities often skimp on it, not realizing the importance of it. I would guess that the rigging on those you mention failed at the bottom, not at the top. The top rigging is often in far better shape than the lower rigging, since it isn't exposed to constant spray and salt the way the lower rigging is.

On catamarans. There is an interesting article in Soundings about the USCG finding a number of rig failures on registered passenger carrying catamarans and ordering extra inspections. The speculation is that most of the cats in question are in warm climates, like Hawaii, get a lot of year round use and rarely have the mast dropped for inspection of the standing rigging. The part that was nost interesting to me is that the CG thought one issue is that on monohulls the heeling of the boat will ease the stress on the standing rigging, whereas multihulls are so stiff that the stresses are higher. It seems like a problem as much of maintenance as design and curable by building heavy enough rigging and inspection, but I never would have thought about requiring stronger rigging in cats before I read the article.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top