At The Risk of Starting WWlll

[Dockhead]

The only difference between cat and mono is taste. The other differences are largely mythical. To wit:

1. Cats are more expensive. Nonsense. Only if you compare length for length, which is not relevant, since cats have -- guess what! -- two hulls. If you compare volume for volume, they cost about the same.

2. Cats are faster. Nonsense. Not regular cruising cats. Light performance cats which are kept light by keeping off all the junk we cruisers cruise with (and I'd love to have one!) are a different story, and not the standard here. Also, if you compare like to like (see point 1 above), cruising monos are the same or perhaps even faster, especially with any kind of a load. Just like in Point 1 above -- you can't compare a 45 foot cat with a 45 foot mono. Compare it to a 55' mono, which costs the same, has the same interior volume, and has about the same passage speed (or even a bit better).

3. Cats won't go to weather. Not in my experience. Cruising monos with a load don't go to weather either. Just like in point 2 above -- performance light monos with laminate sails are not the standard. Compare a regular cruising mono with a regular cruising cat and you'll see about the same fairly disappointing performance to weather.

4. Monos are safer in rough weather, because cats will capsize. Nonsense! Capsizes of cruising cats are very rare. Statistics show about the same (very low) statistical rate of disasters between cats and monos, which is why insurance rates are the same.


So if you eliminate all the mythical factors, it just comes down to taste -- do you like the motion? Cats don't roll at anchor like monos do (but that's why God created flopper-stoppers ). But cats have an odd twitching motion at sea which mono sailors don't like. Cats don't heel -- a major plus. Cats have a different layout -- you either like it or you don't.

So you just pay your money and make your choices. It's a pure matter of taste.

I'm a mono guy myself, but if I had a second boat (if I were foolish enough to take on yet another hole in the water you pour money into), it would be a very light high performance cat or tri. Maybe a Dragonfly. All the junk I'd keep in my mono

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by oceannavigator

It was a cat or an rv for me

Well, I already have an rv, but it doesn't float very well.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Hey, this thread hasn't resorted to nastiness - yet. Cats have a different aesthetic than monohulls for obvious reasons, but I actually have come to like the sort of spaceship inspired look of some cats. Those with huge windows and flying bridges - not so much.

Then again, I love the look of a traditional monohull with a sweet sheer, some overhangs, relatively low freeboard and a low coachouse. Many of the new monohulls, however, sport high freeboard, flat sheers, huge windows, incongruous lines and are even less attractive, IMO, than many cats.

Yes, I prefer the motion of some monohulls in heavy seas/a chop to that of some catamarans. That being said, many 'modern' monohulls are designed with very little rocker, significant beam and flat sections aft. Unlike many older designs, they too can pound while going to windward.

Really, its trite but true that it is largely a matter of different horses for different courses. This is true not only with respect to the of type of boat - mono or multi, but also with respect to the design and construction of each mono and each multi.

As has already been pointed out, do a search - there are a number of threads on this topic that contain virtually unlimited opinions. Some are balanced, while others contain incorrect generalizations. Some attempt to be enlightening, while others attempt to denigrate all multis or all monohulls.

Brad

I know aesthetics mean a lot to a lot of people, but to me, form follows function. I look back at the big fins on 50s cars and just laugh at how ridiculous they look. Yet, at that time they were the "in" thing.

I have a friend who agonized over which diesel truck to buy, and his big deciding factor was: the look of the grill. Seriously. I asked him how often he could see the grill while he was driving it. Does the grill tow the trailer? Does the grill determine how well the truck rides? LOL

I picked my truck based on the power and the transmission features, there was nothing comparable at the time. The grill could have looked like a 57 Caddy for all I cared, I bought it for towing ability.

I look at boats the same way. The differences in appearance don't make as much of a difference to me as safety, sailing ability, comfort, room, ease of maintenance.

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

...aesthetics mean a lot to a lot of people, but to me, form follows function...

To the trained eye "aesthetics" are another way of confirming the design is right--when it looks right, it is right.

[socaldmax]

For you, maybe.

But not everyone has a trained eye. I know exactly what you mean, I can look at an offroad vehicle's chassis and suspension and the well designed ones look "right" and the poorly placed tubes and poorly designed suspensions look all wrong to me. But I've met hundreds of guys who get all caught up in the bright powdercoated panels and the shiny billet parts and chromed shocks and want to buy the chrome plated turd because they honestly don't know any better. I've spent hours pointing out good and bad examples of every aspect of the vehicle, and they look right at it and still don't get it. They drool and say, "Ooooohhh, shiny parts!!"

I imagine the finer points of boat building are even harder to discern. For every one that's built right, there are several others that corners were cut, compromises were made. That's why I read these threads to learn what to look for, because I'll be the first to admit I don't have a trained eye.

[Capt Rottnest]

The difference is you can roughly tell a boat's sailing performance by looking at it while a truck you couldn't.
OTOH the external appearance of trucks is to reflect the owner's testosterone levels right?

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by SailFastTri

... it has all the feel of a mono, with limited heel you know how hard your pressed, but neutral helm....

I like anything well-designed and recognize that it is all about preferences. However, this hints at a common misconception:

Cats have perfectly obvious feel... to cat sailors. To say otherwise is to display inexperience with catamarans. I always know how hard my boat is pressed and how she's going, without looking up from my book.

I could proclaim that monohulls have an unpleasant mushy feel, that they are all heel an no go when a gust hits. That any message is delayed, and that I don't need to be on my ear to know the pressure increased.

But I will simply say they are different and that the attentive will have little trouble with either.


---

A bunch of silliness.

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by Capt Rottnest

the external appearance of trucks is to reflect the owner's testosterone levels right?

Hahahahahaha....I work in the trucking industry. I see that all the time.

[SkiprJohn]

Originally Posted by Razoo

I'm fairly sure I won't be around in another 50 years or so. That would make me over 100 and there's no one in my family tree that has gotten over 89.

No, we won't see this one played out. Egyptian pyramids had some drawings of dhows with lateen sails on them. They were monohulls. Then Polynesians have been using catamarans nearly as long. I nearly owned a Piver 28 trimaran once because it was for sale for $500. Only one ama was leaking.

I don't think any of us on this thread knows which is best for another contributor's purposes. I just know what I want for my purpose because I've experienced the others as well as the ones that I like.

Now it's time to break out the anchor thread so folks can argue about that for awhile and cover all the same old ground we've covered before. I've got a CQR, a Fortress, a Yachtsman and a Navy anchor. All old school. They all work well so I won't be buying a new style for many years if ever.

[Razoo]

Originally Posted by SkiprJohn

Now it's time to break out the anchor thread so folks can argue about that for awhile and cover all the same old ground we've covered before. I've got a CQR, a Fortress, a Yachtsman and a Navy anchor. All old school. They all work well so I won't be buying a new style for many years if ever.

Like I said on another thread. I'll save a war here and build my own. Got lots of 5 gal buckets laying around, some 1" rebar and a few bags of cement. Once it hardens up I could peal off the bucket and take my brand new Razoobilt Anchor down to the shop and get it chromed! Maybe mass market it and become the Anchor King of the high seas!

[GrowleyMonster]

I could maybe see myself living aboard a big cat, yeah. Lots of room, not much motion in protected slips or anchorages. The shoal draft can be a plus. As others have pointed out, some cats will sail pretty tight, close hauled. Depends on hull shape and keel configuration. But my first choice will always be a monohull. With a cat, initial stability is off the charts, but once it does go over, it stays over. A turtled cat has only one thing going for it... it will probably remain floating till the second coming. Most monos will eventually point their keels back toward the bottom of the ocean after a knockdown or even a rollover, even if full of water. If you still have a mast and some sail, putting things to right and continuing the voyage at least to the nearest harbor is generally possible. A cpsized cat far from port is not much more than just a hazard to navigation. Monos are more "boat-like" to me, too. Just seems RIGHT, somehow. I don't put anybody down for having and enjoying a muli. Nothing wrong with that.

I just don't speak to them.

LOL! Not really. But I don't see myself ever changing to a cat driver, now that I think of it.

[ty.gregory]

I'm so confused... Can we talk about anchors now?

[jostalli]

Originally Posted by GrowleyMonster

I could maybe see myself living aboard a big cat, yeah. Lots of room, not much motion in protected slips or anchorages. The shoal draft can be a plus. As others have pointed out, some cats will sail pretty tight, close hauled. Depends on hull shape and keel configuration. But my first choice will always be a monohull. With a cat, initial stability is off the charts, but once it does go over, it stays over. A turtled cat has only one thing going for it... it will probably remain floating till the second coming. Most monos will eventually point their keels back toward the bottom of the ocean after a knockdown or even a rollover, even if full of water. If you still have a mast and some sail, putting things to right and continuing the voyage at least to the nearest harbor is generally possible. A cpsized cat far from port is not much more than just a hazard to navigation. Monos are more "boat-like" to me, too. Just seems RIGHT, somehow. I don't put anybody down for having and enjoying a muli. Nothing wrong with that.

I just don't speak to them.

LOL! Not really. But I don't see myself ever changing to a cat driver, now that I think of it.

Finally the capsize comment comes up! I guess we can close the thread now. Cats capsize so monos are better.

[stevensuf]

We were knocked down by a mini tornado off the coast of africa, we let the sheets go and bounced back up, later we found out a french flagged pajot 43 belize or bahia was lost with 4 crew killed, the cat later washed up in morocco, the incident took place on the same day, nearly the same location.
5kn to 65+ kn of wind almost instantly and out of nowhere.

Statistics may say one thing, but statistics may be biased by a huge number of cats in charter fleets that go nowhere far.

A cat flipped at anchor in greece a couple of years back, by some freak squall.

Now on the opposite hand most cats are supposedly unsinkable, and many monos have sank enroute, 2 rudders /2 engines are handy, ive suffered 900nm with no engine and the loss of a rudder 300nm from the azores, both would have been no issue in a cat with 2 of each.

Though i would probably be dead like the french cat crew if id have set sail on the route i did in a cat.

I love cats at anchor, the lack or roll would have saved many a tortuous sleepless night,where you would have been more comfortable under passage than at anchor.

Everything is a personal choice, but I do believe the safety aspects of a cat are overstated especially if short handed or no constant watch. I would not feel safe doing an ocean passage in a cat without an experienced crew with a constant watch.

I did consider a cat for future travels, but my wife would not step aboard, strangely enough its usually the wives who love them.

As for statistics, remember the vast majority of claims come from boats sinking /catching fire at the dock, not under way, a cat wont sink at the dock!!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

Statistics may say one thing, but statistics may be biased by a huge number of cats in charter fleets that go nowhere far.

Presumably you haven't noticed the huge number of mono's in charter fleets that go nowhere far? Or perhaps you think they have no effect on statistics?

Or maybe it's more accurate to say that statistics may tell a different story to the odd isolated incident?