65ft aluminum mono vs 50ft cat

[Jim Cate]

No personal experience, but we have several friends with aluminium yachts... and there is one aspect that plagues them and that has not been mentioned here: anti fouling!

In their combined experience, there is not an aluminium-safe paint that performs as well as the copper based ones, and this leads to more frequent slipping/painting, more frequent cleaning and more miles sailed with a dirty bottom. There are alleged miracle cures around, and barrier coatings that should allow copper based paints to be used, but so far none have proved out for any of t hem.

I dunno if I would let that force me away from the alloy hull, bt it would surely enter into my thoughts.

Jim

[jmh2002]

Originally Posted by Capdave360

Ktz - one difference that may not be obvious is scale. Wind and waves have a certain scale to them (why old navy movies shot in a swimming pool with models don't look right), and on a milk run circumnavigation most of those winds and waves will be under 12 ft and 30 knots the vast majority of the time. For cats, 50ft. is a decent breakpoint on scale, but you're going to really feel the top end of that range. The 65' mono is an entire scale step above that - it's going to shrug off those conditions that would feel tough in the cat at that high end. The next step up for cats is around 60'. The next step up for monos is around 75'. These aren't black & white numbers - depends on displacement, hull and rig, etc., etc., etc.

With the right deck gear and being smart about sea room I think a couple can sail almost any size boat - the trick is to let the boat do the work. Otherwise you just hurt yourself. Aside from budget, the limit is really how much boat you want to keep clean and nice before you need crew to do it. For me, I reach my janitorial tolerance right about where I am - 57' cat. Mono is a bit bigger, but more than 65' gets endless. You might think - oh I'll get day labor to help me in harbor, but it's way harder than it sounds; and your insurance company will puke all over it.

Over to specific boats; yes they really are all a compromise. I looked pretty carefully at the more performance oriented cats when choosing mine - basically Outremer & Catana on the production side, and Switch & Atlantics on the semi-custom side. Also looked at a variety of one-offs, but too risky from various perspectives. There are a bunch of new contestants entering the production performance cat market, but too soon to tell which will survive.

Obviously I could accept the compromises in the Atlantic 57. We doubted the galley down, and it does sometimes get old passing everything up and down - but we love having both a bigger galley and a bigger salon than is possible with galley up - and it's nice not to live in the kitchen all the time. Absolutely love the pilothouse - I'm way too old to stand outside and take it. We dress for the weather, and step out when we need to, but don't have to stay out! Love the safety of the forward cockpit - nearly zero exposure, sailing the boat from a rib high pit a long way from the edge.

On interior finishing, Atlantics are semi-custom boats, every one is different. I've been aboard five of them, and seen extensive photos of two more, all quite different. It's a thin market - you either like the ones for sale or you don't. There might be another one for sale next week, or in two years.....Chris usually has a feel for that.

On visibility you can see both sterns from the inside steering station. You can see directly astern well from outside, and get a pretty decent idea where the corners are. The original owner of my boat spent three years in the Med with stern-moors, and never bothered to hook up the roving throttle/power steer unit he bought. Me neither. In practice the easiest way to put the boat on the dock alongside is get the bow close, pass a line, and then use the twins to walk it in, so visibility aft is a complete non-issue.

Cerulean for sale in Grenada is about 1,000 meters from me right now, on the hard. Professional captain sailed her around the world, and is now running her replacement, an Atlantic 72. It's a beautifully built boat that has been very well cared for. When we were looking, the price was a lot higher. At the current price we might, maybe, have bought her instead.

Comparing cats and monos?? I don't always love the higher frequency/lower magnitude cat motion, but it's way safer - the risk of getting thrown across the cabin and breaking a rib is pretty much nil. I actually have come to really like not heeling or rolling, especially not rolling. The Atlantic 57 will sail rings around the Oyster 61 on any point of sail in any weather, and is a waaaaaaay more comfortable platform to live on in general. We love the walking around room, and the on-deck feel of the salon, and the lack of a companionway ladder. Going up and down that ladder on a mono gets very old. I used to run an 87' ketch, and my boat has more elbow room than that boat did! Though she was a couple steps up on scale and would completely shrug off conditions that make us slow down. For live-aboard cruising I'm not at all interested in going back to a mono in this general size range.

And I should say, it's really pretty exciting sailing a boat that in the right conditions will go into the teens and stay there. We have seen sustained bursts into the 20's. Fast is Fun!!!

Sorry if that's all a bit random, but it's what came to mind.

Hope this helps.

^^^ That post is full of plain old fashioned full fat good sense and advice - clearly it's written from experience

[s/v Jedi]

At your budget I would opt for a 60’ catamaran rather than a 50’ catamaran even if that means buying one that is not new or older to meet the budget.

[Jef & Marin, Netherlands]

I think the St Francis 50 is a nice boat, although an already older design.
The performance is good, however upwind it will not match a daggerboard catamaran of comparable sail area / displacement.
One issue I'd like to mention: the limited bridgedeck clearance, so you will have more slamming. This is annoying, especially for the crew off-watch trying to sleep.
Seeing the Covid-19 crisis and many countries closed, you might consider a 2nd hand and spend a year refitting, hoping that after that countries open again (vaccine?). It saves you the depreciation of a new boat.

[Manateeman]

Captain Cate. Please forward this suggestion to your friends with aluminum hull vessels. Anti fouling paints are not required for sailing. If you have an aluminum hull, you can apply several coats of epoxy which will accomplish the following.
First, it will help to keep your hull zincs to remain the only connection to seawater. Self explanatory. Next, you will get some health benefits from swimming as you scrape the bottom and you will be less likely to scratch the aluminum as you can see the epoxy. If you don’t use scuba for the first few feet, your lungs will benefit too. As an additional health benefit, you will sleep better knowing you are not leaving in your wake, a trail of toxic material. This is especially true if your vessel voyages to communities who are trying to protect their delicate marine environment from pollution from metals. Lastly, it will reduce your total carbon footprint. Hauling, sanding and repainting all require energy that all too often is carbon based. Slowly but surely, the true environmental costs and destruction of antifouling will result in legislative action.
I enjoy slowing down a bit within a world fixated on speed. I remember a book years ago...something like ‘ polluting for pleasure’ wherein the author set out the case of the total costs of going fast in boats. Well, if you feel the need, the need for speed, paint on. Please remember not everyone believes you have the perfect right to do so.
Mark, trying to follow the way of the manatee.

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Manateeman

Captain Cate. Please forward this suggestion to your friends with aluminum hull vessels. Anti fouling paints are not required for sailing. If you have an aluminum hull, you can apply several coats of epoxy which will accomplish the following.
First, it will help to keep your hull zincs to remain the only connection to seawater. Self explanatory. Next, you will get some health benefits from swimming as you scrape the bottom and you will be less likely to scratch the aluminum as you can see the epoxy. If you don’t use scuba for the first few feet, your lungs will benefit too. As an additional health benefit, you will sleep better knowing you are not leaving in your wake, a trail of toxic material. This is especially true if your vessel voyages to communities who are trying to protect their delicate marine environment from pollution from metals. Lastly, it will reduce your total carbon footprint. Hauling, sanding and repainting all require energy that all too often is carbon based. Slowly but surely, the true environmental costs and destruction of antifouling will result in legislative action.
I enjoy slowing down a bit within a world fixated on speed. I remember a book years ago...something like ‘ polluting for pleasure’ wherein the author set out the case of the total costs of going fast in boats. Well, if you feel the need, the need for speed, paint on. Please remember not everyone believes you have the perfect right to do so.
Mark, trying to follow the way of the manatee.

images.jpg Views: 75 Size: 8.3 KB ID: 221048" style="margin: 2px" />

[Na Mara]

I’ve had monos and I’ve had a multi. I would never go back a multi.

I prefer the motion of a mono , and find that all things considered they are generally as fast under sail as a cat once load and VMG’s are taken into account. Finally, whilst you might be able to avoid most bad weather in a cat anyone can get caught out and in a survival situation my money is on the mono every time.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Manateeman

Captain Cate. Please forward this suggestion to your friends with aluminum hull vessels. Anti fouling paints are not required for sailing. If you have an aluminum hull, you can apply several coats of epoxy which will accomplish the following.
First, it will help to keep your hull zincs to remain the only connection to seawater. Self explanatory. Next, you will get some health benefits from swimming as you scrape the bottom and you will be less likely to scratch the aluminum as you can see the epoxy. If you don’t use scuba for the first few feet, your lungs will benefit too. As an additional health benefit, you will sleep better knowing you are not leaving in your wake, a trail of toxic material. This is especially true if your vessel voyages to communities who are trying to protect their delicate marine environment from pollution from metals. Lastly, it will reduce your total carbon footprint. Hauling, sanding and repainting all require energy that all too often is carbon based. Slowly but surely, the true environmental costs and destruction of antifouling will result in legislative action.
I enjoy slowing down a bit within a world fixated on speed. I remember a book years ago...something like ‘ polluting for pleasure’ wherein the author set out the case of the total costs of going fast in boats. Well, if you feel the need, the need for speed, paint on. Please remember not everyone believes you have the perfect right to do so.
Mark, trying to follow the way of the manatee.

Well, Mark, this is an astonishing manifesto, one so bizarre that it defies understanding.

I dunno if you have ever done any long distance sailing, but when at sea for extended periods there are quite serious effects of fouling. You might read the saga of our friend Susanne on Nehaj (aluminium cutter) who, participating in the "Longue Route" reinactment of Motoiessier's circumnavigation+ had to go overboard for several hours on each of three days to scrape off goose neck barnies who had attached on her antifouling which was only a few months old. This wasn't in your local bay, this was near Cape Horn, and the water was bone chillingly cold, rough and populated with big sharks. So, yeah, nothing to worry about, and oh-so-good for your health... who wouldn't be keen to do this environmentally beneficent act?

So, I will agree that there is an environmental cost to use of anti fouling. There is such a cost to every damn thing a human does in his lifetime. Some are more costly than others, but compared to a typical urban lifestyle, I reckon antifouling is a vanishingly small increment. And when applied to folks who span oceans, keeping exotic species from attaching to the hull and being introduced into new areas is far more important than the environmental costs of producing and applying antifouling paint.

You, of course, are welcome to use the technique that you espouse. But to suggest that it is optimal for long range cruisers (or anyone else) is ignorant of the realities of such activities. And to attempt to shame those who use (in tiny amounts compared to commercial shipping) such measures is reprehensible IMO.

Your assuming the identity of an endangered species does not make you their representative, nor does it imbue you with wisdom... apparently.

Jim

[Factor]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

but the right 60+ monohulls are truely spectacular machines in a way that a 50 foot production cat cannot hope to emulate.

Of course that is my take. YMMV.

You havent been or the right 15 - 16 Metre Cat. EG an Outremer 51 or a seawind 1600.

[Manateeman]

Captain Cate. You opened the subject of antifouling and aluminum vessels.
Your response to my post was ad hominem. A fallacy of logic wherein the character, motive or some other attribute is attacked rather than the substance of the argument. I will return to the subject at hand which is biofouling.
Aluminum vessels ought to seem an excellent platform for ultrasonics which have been proven to reduce barnacle attachment. The power to drive aluminum is better than steel and fiberglass. Barnacles walk but avoid several frequencies.
Please see the journal Acoustica for further study. Ultrasound is routinely used in cell disruption and research and field trials are underway to assist ships in efforts to prevent unwanted transfer of biological. Small vessels can use solar or wind to supply the power to drive the transducers. One can also eat gooseneck barnacles from a hull free of toxic antifouling. The damage to reefs by antifouling is a proven fact. Pointing to commercial vessels is poor justification for personally fouling someone’s home waters. Again, antifouling paint is not a requirement for sailing.
Mark, a toxin free manatee.

[Capdave360]

Originally Posted by Factor

You havent been or the right 15 - 16 Metre Cat. EG an Outremer 51 or a seawind 1600.

On the way to buying my boat I looked closely at the Outremer 51, and had a chance to crew a delivery from Tortola to Hampton, VA. I fell in love with the boat, it was fabulous. Simple & elegant, sails like a witch, incredibly comfortable cockpit, just enough of what you need everywhere but not too much. Compared to our old 38 ton Oyster 61, sails better, less maintenance, but definitely at least a half scale-step below in terms of coping with tougher conditions. Definitely a way smaller boat in so many ways, including no 8.5' draft!

And in the end, not quite big enough for us - my wife is a serious guitarist and plays 3-5 hours/day. She needs a place for that, ideally in the salon for light and air, with her books and music stand and tripod to record herself and etc. I guess we could have made the table fold over or something....but still just too tight. The Atlantic 57 salon is perfect, she gets the whole port aft corner.

One seemingly minor yet significant issue for the O51 is that fabulous cockpit - the design maximizes the square feet of seating, so even with the hardtop it's quite exposed to sun and rain as the top has no overhang. Fine for holiday sailing or maybe the occasional passage, but gets old very fast living aboard. Every shower the seating gets soaked; you have to haul the cushions in quickly before, then dry everything after, then put them back out. Aside from midday the sun slants in and fries somebody. So then you wind up living inside a tent, which isn't very charming, and besides it's still hard to close up the passage between the house and the cockpit. Devil is always in the details.

The design mission of the O51 was to attract French racing sailors by adding enough "WAF" (Wife Appreciation Factor, as explained to me by Outremer rep) so they could get their wives to do a one year Atlantic Circle with them - the classic European cruise to the Caribbean and back. It's a great boat for that, and many people are stretching it way further than that - really hit a sweet spot in the market. In a few years there will be lots for sale, and the prices are already starting to rationalize.

[pbmaise]

Your post contains the word girlfriend....

Girlfriends tend to say they are interested in sailing...but the moment they discover heeling and getting tossed back and forth they tend to flee.

I would consider the Neel 47 that is wider than a 50ft cat, provides greater living space and only has one engine to maintain.

https://www.caribbean-multihulls.com...arans/neel-47/

If you buy new...request a shorter rig. The shorter the rig the better.

It would still be twice as fast as a monohull even with a shorter rig. I so so so much appreciated changing my big monohull to a shorter rig and sails I could easily handle. I still did 10 knots of speed using just the foresail. There is no reason in my book for a cruising sailor to go faster.

A gaff pole that rides up and down the mast eliminates all the high maintenance batten pockets in the sail. The battens also make a main harder to raise/lower.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Ktz

start a round-the-world trip with my girlfriend and friends occasionally.

I could buy a new St. Francis 50 Or a used aluminum monohull like Nordia 65'

What's your opinion?

Well . . . my honest opinion reading this is that these boats are most probably too big and too complicated for you. They will be rather more work to sail and more work to maintain than you expect. You will motor more than you expect, you will be more limited in marina/docking selction than you expect, and you will be waiting around for contractors and parts to fix stuff than you expect.

I think you are letting your ego and social status and desire to maintain your shore comforts drive your decision. I suspect that is a mistake. You would be better off, have more fun and less work in the under 45-50' range, and you can be perfecatly absolutely comfortable. I guess (but you dont say) you are thinking of world cruising because you want to do something a bit different than you have in your shore life so embrace that. Dont try to drag your whole shore life to sea.

Yes there are some folks happy in the bigger boats. But they do tend to have unique skill sets and mental attitudes (both dashew and jedi here are examples - they have the skill sets and the detail oriented mechanical/engineering mindsets and significant experience). More folks new to bluewater who we know who bought big boats ended up selling them pretty quickly than being happy wth them.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

(...)



I would consider the Neel 47 that is wider than a 50ft cat, provides greater living space and only has one engine to maintain.


(...)

Imho - Neel 47 has less usable space than a same sized cat.


Also, some will see two engines a benefit rather than a disadvantage.


b.

[Na Mara]

I second the point about size-fun curve being like the income-wellbeing curve. Beyond a certain point more of the former just decreases the latter. However, the correct measure of size in the boat world is displacement rather than length. The perfect size of yacht for a cruising couple to my mind is in the 8-15 ton range. The great thing about cats is you can get a lot of real estate for that displacement. But I also know some ultralight displacement monos in the 60-65 ft range within this bracket as well. Any of these would be a lot of fun. However, I have extensive experience of a mono in the 20ton range And I can safely say that it’s a lot less fun for a cruising couple than my present boat (11 ton lightship)