Visit our Popular Forums

ess105 · 16-01-2007, 03:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat man do

Here come the men with the white suit's and the butterfly net.

Dave - I'm pretty sure PotEs original message, and the one to which you posted this response, are very blatent attempts to demonstrate how easy it is for people to mix truth and fiction and how easily people fall for it. It's a shallow ploy but it's no different to the way you appear to be approaching this discussion.

cat man do · 16-01-2007, 04:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ess105

Dave - I'm pretty sure PotEs original message, and the one to which you posted this response, are very blatent attempts to demonstrate how easy it is for people to mix truth and fiction and how easily people fall for it. It's a shallow ploy but it's no different to the way you appear to be approaching this discussion.

You may think it's a shallow ploy on my part, except I'm using published data for my argument with no emotion.

I've seen core samples of survey vessels compared to non survey.

I'm just looking at numbers, and sailing characteristic's of boat's that I have sailed on and near.

Sure not Lagoon's as such, but reasonably heavy, charter cat's that don't sail as well as maybe they could if they were lighter.

All had a lighter displacement than the Lagoon

I don't just blindly believe what brochures, and possibly cash for comment magazine articles say.

No fiction on my part. I have supplied links or at least said where the information came from on everything I've said.

No one from the lagoon camp has yet to post anything stating why these cat's are heavier than other similar cat's.

No one has yet to post any numbers why these cat's would be faster than other vessel's designed with the same purpose [charter] in mind.

That is all i've ever asked.

So again

Someone said 800kg heavier for the battery option, 2 extra shower/toilet, let's be generous and say another 800kg.

That's 1600kg

As posted, a Fusion 40,12.8 metre 42 ft cat built to survey for charter, has a stated displacment to the DWL of 12680lb or 5750 kg.

+ 1600 kg for another 2 shower/toilet's and batteries = 7350kg

Lagoon 42 actualy 41.4 ft has a stated displacement to DWL is 31800lb or 14420kg.

The difference here on two charter cats is 7070kg, nearly an entire other boat .

As for performance I would have thought that with 157m2 of main and headsail for the Fusion, compared to 97.92 m2 for the Lagoon, that the Fusion is obviously a quicker boat.

As I said, both charter, both around 42 ft.

No emotion from me, purely looking at published numbers.

Dave

Factor · 16-01-2007, 05:53

I think Ive worked it out - the septics all way a couple of hundred kilos each, it s the only way I can explain the variance.

Frank Artville · 16-01-2007, 06:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by planetoftheapes

For the 100 plus L420 buyers that objective is:
1. Comfort and luxury for family and guests at a reasonable price.
2. Consistent 7-8 knots of boat speed in most conditions at a reasonable price.
3. A hybrid catamaran backed by a major manufacturer for a reasonable price.
Why do you think you can have all three ?
Yes, you and I finally agree. The Lagoon 420 is the best compromise between speed, comfort and economy available in the market, not to mention the advantages of the hybrid system.
Yes, you are right, with the Lagoon 420 you really do get all three.
I knew you would eventually see the light. Welcome to the Lagoon family.

---------------------------------------
Gentlemen,

Please refer me again to the REAL experiences of REAL people who REALLY sailed the Lagoon 420! Are they somewhere here in this thread?

This thread is 22 odd pages, of which 18 seems to be Lagoon sales people & owners patting eachother on the back for the wonderful catamaran and the hybrid system. You mean Lagoon finally got it to work??

Hello REAL owners, can you report on your findings? Hello REAL boat testers can you give us the real scope on the boat, without taking the advertizing revenue from Lagoon into consideration.

So far, I have not heard anything about from a live aboard, ocean crossing owner, or a charter guest on Lagoon 420. Please correct me if I am wrong. Unbiased opinions please.

Quiet Riot 420 · 16-01-2007, 07:34

Factor,

At their home page, click on sail in the top menu, then click on the 1160 button on the top right. When the pic of the 1160 come up, click on specification. The Aussie model comes up with a draft of 3'2", but if you scroll down and click on the "pdf" file labeled American version, you will see that indeed the US version says 3'9" draft.

Fair Sailing _(\_
Quiet Riot 420

planetoftheapes · 16-01-2007, 07:51

Frank,

The 100 plus present and future 420 owners did not have real life owners and testers to rely upon for direction. We made a major decision based on the information available. It’s excellent education discussing these issues without objective result. You learn about multi-hull design philosophy’s and you get to see who’s predictions were correct.

There is really not much of a dispute here.

1. Catamando feels the L420 is heavy for her length. We admit this is likely.

2. Catmando can’t understand where the extra weight is located. We say the Lagoon 420 is a very high volume 42 foot catamaran. Small increase in volume result in large increases in surface area. This surface area in made of hull and deck material that results in boats of similar volume weighting about the same. Then, add 2-3K for batteries.

Aside - this reminds me of the Manta 38. The Manta 42 started as the Manta 38. Now is this catamaran a heavy 38 footer or a light 42 footer because they added a couple of hundred pound transom extensions?

If we added two hundred pound transom extensions to the L420, Bob Oram often does to his designs, would the L420 weight then be inline?

It is all about volume. Given similar manufacturing techniques, boats of similar internal volume will weigh about the same.

3. Catamando says light catamaran are faster. We admit this as well, but at what price? It is well known that cruisers overload there light and fast catamarans and they become dangerous (lose bridge deck clearance and reserve buoyancy and increase already high wetted surface) dogs.

Now nothing is black and white. If you build light enough you can have good load carrying capacity but this is increases costs rapidly.

4. Catamando says charter cats don’t sail well and can’t point without dagger boards. We generally agree with this as well but things have improved dramatically.

The charter cats from just a few years ago were too heavy for their design. If your cat is built heavier than your design specs you are toast. Production manufacturers are now resin infusing and using a different design philosophy.

Consider this, take two performance monohulls, remove the keels, attach them together, adjust the sail area to weight ratio for the two keeless hulls to be the same as the original. Physics says this new “multi-hull” will sail similar to the separate boats in monohull form. It is just power to weight. This combination will still not sail at 15 knots as the hulls are too wide to break the theoretical hull speed barrier, but this “multihull” will sail good and be able to tolerate loading.

It is simply a different way to do things. Both way have their advantages. I feel the high volume cat is more appropriate for the family cruiser.

5. Catamando believes his light 42 foot cat fully loaded will make significantly faster passage times. I believe that on a family voyage he will sail more consistently near theoretical hull speed but I will not be too far behind, in more comfort, with a better motion in a seaway.

Everything is a trade-off. Let me say, I really like the Fastcat 435 on a non-aesthetic basis. Light and fast. This boat will coat me 150K more for smaller accommodations and a knot or two extra speed.

6. Catamado says the L420 is under powered. We also agree with this. I personally feel they should use the L440 rig on this boat. She will not be a rocket just a bit better than ½ wind speed.

Best wishes,

John

Quiet Riot 420 · 16-01-2007, 08:26

Cat,

You seem to have missed a very important point in your love of the "Fusion boat". Yes it is very light, but then look at the spec for payload. Now you can see the difference between the hull designs. The fusion spec's say you can have a 4040 lb. (1850 Kilos) of payload, while the 420 have a payload of 7120 lbs. or almost twice a much. I can see why you are so concerned about weight, as the narrow hulls on the Fusion can't support much of it. It mentioned 4 layouts available, but I could not find a picture of any!

No one has mentioned the fact that a heavy displ boat will have much less pitch than a lighter one, and have a smoother sea motion.

Also, as Nick said in the last newsletter, they will be doing test sails off of Lauderdale starting about now. During these trials they will attempt to get a handle on the boats polars. I was able to talk to the Captain of the 420 at the last demo days in Lauderdale, and up until he lost a motor will coming back to the dock, he said the boat handled great and was impressed with the instant response of the electric motors. He also mention the gentle sea motion of the boat, as they sailed between 7 and 8 knots in 15 knots of wind.

Fair Sailing _(\_
Quiet Riot 420

Intentional Drifter · 16-01-2007, 09:36

RE: Seawind specs, Quiet Riot is correct, Seawind does give the US draft as 3'9". Are they different? As a matter of fact, with their published displacement of 15,400 lbs (doesn't say if this is light, max, or what) and lwl of 37', the Seawind is actually heavier (in terms of pounds per foot of lwl) than the Lagoon 410 and is about the same weight as a Privilege 435, Prout 39, and only slightly lighter than a (gasp) Lagoon 440! Where's all that weight coming from? I bet it doesn't include extra batteries to supplement the 400 amp/hrs that come standard, or an extra fuel tank to get her beyond the 80 gallons, standard. Now, before someone says I'm bashing the 1160, I'm not. I happen to like the boat, even though it didn't meet my needs. It also has two characteristics that I find too irritating: (1) the decks slope too much (hey, I'm older and not as agile as when I was 30 -- I like my decks broad and flat), (2) they put lots of the running rigging along the decks, just where I can step and/or trip on it.

RE: Fusion, another cat that I seriously considered, it looks like a boat that can be flexibly outfitted and still maintain a reasonable cost. I liked the Fusion people I talked with in Miami. They seem to be working hard to build a broader presence. I ultimately eliminated them from consideration because they are still a small company (therefore, vulnerable to not being here in 2 or 3 years) without presence in Europe and the Americas. Like others, I was also concerned about the boat's ability to take the loads I would likely be putting on it. But, if kept light, it looks like it could really sail and be lots of fun.

As I mentioned above, I really don't see where anybody needs to get snippy, offended, sarcastic about all this. We're all simply trying to make the best decisions, for our purposes, based on the information we have. Lighten up, folks. To use an analogy, If you want to buy or build a sports car, go ahead. Have fun. I'll probably look on with some envy. For our purposes, an RV fits us better. Can't corner as well, won't have as high a top speed, and may even be somewhat more dangerous in certain situations (even though I'm likely to more careful about trying to avoid such circumstances). But, when it comes to driving across the country, both will go at the speed limit and we would probably arrive at close to the same time. I just will be more comfortable during the trip and be able to carry more momentos. You will have more fun pulling .8 g's around those twisty mountain roads. We will both have wonderful memories and stories to tell our grandkids.

ID

Intentional Drifter · 16-01-2007, 10:03

Hi, Frank, and welcome to the forum (sorry I didn't say that, earlier).

Your comments are good ones, and point to the nature of the problem at this point in time. We don't know. The only experience I've seen that is not from either Lagoon or a magazine in which Lagoon is a major advertiser, is that from forum member Peter Cronk, earlier in this thread. As time goes on, experience will accumulate, but even Peter's could be subject to criticism, since he is a buyer.

As a buyer myself, I am certainly hoping for the best -- wouldn't we all? I'm sure CatManDo is counting on his boat meeting his expectations when it hits the water and I hope for the same. But, some of those differences may come in the form of our personal expectations for the boat we buy or build. Mine are likely to be different from yours, at least in some respects.

I have found the emphasis on weight in this discussion to simply not be productive. Again, we don't know. There are many reasons to suspect the numbers that have been reported to either (a) not having been obtained in the same manner, and/or (b) not having included all the same types of equipment. Such circumstances render direct comparisons fraught with uncertainty.

Apparently, African Cats makes a fine boat, from what I can tell. I would love to buy one of their FastCat 43 Hybrids, even though it probably isn't as comfortable as the 420. It seems, on the face of it, to have the potential to outperform it, possibly by quite a margin. But, that advantage is outweighed by another: a similarly outfitted FastCat costs $250K more than a 420 - that’s 60% more. For my income, at least, that’s a whopping big number and puts the FastCat over my budget. Even if it wasn’t, I would need to see some significant advantages for one versus the other.

So far, I haven’t seen any.

I appreciate your desire for objective, unbiased opinions, I really do. Here's one of those things you can put on stone tablets or write in the clouds: Objective, unbiased opinions don't exist. Everyone can be seen in one way or another as having a bias.

I'll tell you my wife and I did, though. Before last year's Miami show, we spent uncountable hours doing our due diligence. We read, talked, got books, read test reports, talked/emailed with owners, did as many daysails on different cats as we could beg (unfortunately, not very many here in the PacNW), and put together our list of criteria. We arrived in Miami with a list of 14 possibles that were either at the show or had used boats in the area. Not one of them was a Lagoon.

We spent 7 days before and during the show looking, measuring, taking pictures, arguing, bumping our heads, stubbing our toes, crawling through spaces, and asking many, many questions. By day 6, we had still not even looked at the Lagoons, but had cut our list of possibles down to 4. (By the way, we were only looking at boats from 38 to 46 feet and less than $600K US.) We looked over at the Catamarans.com area (which we had avoided due to the very apparent salesmanship, gimmicky, showy, lots of tarts look to it) and said to each other, "well, let's at least look at them, just so we can say we did."

We did our best to suspend our judgment about their sales methods and applied our criteria and did our thing with the boats. That's when we discovered that, for our needs and criteria, the Lagoons sure looked like they had the best combination of compromises within the things that we absolutely had to have. We still didn't sign any papers.

We then came home and talked to a couple of local owners, as well as the local dealer (not Catamarans.com). Went out on a day sail on a 380. Poked and prodded some more. Thought about it a lot and talked to each other even some more. Then, we decided on the 420.

Yes, it is somewhat of a leap of faith. I really, really don't like buying something that expensive without even one of them having actually hit the water. But, I figured that Group Beneteau has a far bigger stake in this boat being successful than I do. I guess we still have to wait and see. So far, though, I'm still OK with the decision. As discussed earlier in this thread, if this boat is what we hope, then we will have saved lots and lots of money by making that leap of faith. (We couldn't, or at least wouldn't, have paid the current asking price and, if making the decision today, the 420 would likely be eliminated because of the extra $120K of cost between then and now.) So, stay tuned. I promise you that when I have actual experience with the boat, I will tell you what I think, as fairly as I can.

ID

planetoftheapes · 16-01-2007, 12:03

Guys,

Given the matrix of interdependent variables, selecting a catamaran is inherently difficult.

It is fun to discuss a design without hindsight bias.

May I state for the record, I will cancel my order if the L420 does not sail reasonably well. I have an emotional stake in my decision making process and logic but not in this boat. Hell, I may still buy a Sunreef 62.

I am not a professional boat designer. I do have a UCLA mechanical engineering degree. I have designed cruising catamarans. I’ve spent hundreds or thousands of hours building scale models. I’ve also done a great deal of hands on composite work. I work too many hours now to enjoy this hobby. I know well enough not to start a boat building project.

I’d come to the conclusion, some time ago, that the fast cruising catamaran of our dreams did not really exist in real life (at an affordable cost). If you load narrow hulls you will bury and slam in a seaway. If you don’t have narrow hulls, breaking through theoretical hull speed is not readily achieved. So you either spends loads of money for an ultra light, have small accommodations or give in.

Now, after 20 years of following catamaran evolution, working on my own designs and looking for my dream catamaran, I stumbled on the L420. I took one look at this design and was hooked. She was very similar to the accommodation, hull/beam, displacement, performance monohull, high buoyancy hull type I was using in my designs (the SA/D is too low).

I came to the conclusion that if you decide to give up the dream of cruising 15 knots in a 40 foot cat, accept theoretical hull speed as a limit (as is the case in the monohull world) and accept that multi’s are not the best for close windward work (due to windage, small under water foils and slamming), a new compromise world opens up.

Again, this whole high potential speed is a non-issue for cruisers because almost everyone sails passages below theoretical hull speed anyway. What was the average speed of the Gunboat 62 on the long trip from South Africa? 10-11 knots?

I like to think of the L420 as an SUV as opposed to an RV. Big accommodations, high buoyancy, reasonable performance at a reasonable price (remember the dollar has fallen 40% in value over the last 3-4 years). Put 7000lbs on the L420 and 7000 lbs on a Fusion 40 and the L420 will out sail the F40.

This cat is the best compromise I’ve found and the only production electric/diesel option.

cat man do · 16-01-2007, 14:39

I can totally see where you are all coming from with the above post's.

My only concern on some of the comment's is you all seem to think that a multihull is some sort of weight absorbing sponge.

From day one of multihull design it has been acnowledged by every designer that if you want to carry tons of gear, a multi is not a good choice of vessel, unless you want to go up in size.

A couple of questions:

Why do you think this rule can suddenly be changed ?

Will you ever really carry 3230 kg worth of gear ?.

And Where on a 42 foot cat do you store 3230 kg worth of gear ?

Dave

planetoftheapes · 16-01-2007, 15:37

African Innovation's voyage Durban - Miami

Fastcat 435

Durban - Miami average speed 8.81 knots

http://www.africancats.com/resources...Miami09-02.pdf

Sailed by the builder wanting to show off the speed of his new model for sales purposes.

Theoretical hull speed @ 43 ft = 8.79 knots

What would the average speed have been if sailed by me and my family? Maybe 7.8 knots?

How much faster is this than the lagoon 420? The report is the L420 can sail 7-8 knots in 15 knots of wind.

I post this to illustrate how the ultra fast, light weight catamaran story is a bit of a myth.

With some motoring in the light stuff and gennaker, I’ll wager my family and I could approach that passage speed (7.8 kts) with the Lagoon 420 in total comfort.

No doubt the Fastcat is capable of much higher top end speed than the L420, but is that bit of average speed or light air performance really worth living in a smaller cat with a harsh/quick motion and handing over and extra 200K?

With its extended range under power, the L420 may beat the FC435 if becalmed for any extended period. Given the L420’s range she may be the fastest extended passage maker there is in this size range.

The main point: In the real world, sailing long distances above theoretical hull speed doesn’t usually happen without a racing crew and even then not as often as one might think.

Please, I know much of this post is speculation, but if the Fastcat 435 can sail 21.5 knots so easily, why does the log show it going over 9 knots so few times?

It is better to try and make decisions based on reality rather than hype.

cat man do · 16-01-2007, 15:52

I have to ask POTA, have you actually done miles on a performance cat, or any cat, or are your comment's just what you have read ?

Dave

Intentional Drifter · 16-01-2007, 16:53

I'd like to answer Dave's questions.

Q: Why do you think this rule can suddenly be changed?

A: I don't. I well recognize that overloading a cat results in far greater costs in performance than with a monohull.

Q: Will you ever really carry 3230 kg worth of gear?

A: I certainly hope not, but you don't know my wife.

Q: And Where on a 42 foot cat do you store 3230 kg worth of gear?

A: The 420 has lots of storage area, I have no doubt it could be done.

Seriously, though, having done some weight analysis, part of this is lost in the extra fuel tank and extra water tank (to get the fuel capacity up to 160 gallons and water also up to 160 gallons). Some more is lost to the higher capacity genset (about 100 kg). Scuba gear, enough for 3, there's at least 100 kg. You get the picture and I won't go through the whole list. I have us tilting the scales after fitout, fueling and watering with about 2500 kg over the so-called "empty" displacement of 25000 lbs (11363 kg), including 4 people and provisions. That should still put us at about 740 kg under the loaded displacement weight. If Lagoon should be successful at incorporating the Lithium batteries in time (which might happen), then they say that could save another 1100 lbs (500 kg).

ID