Do Multihullers Ever go Back?

[Dulcesuenos]

The cat sailors have to slow down to mix chocolate martinis and make sure the beef wellington is cooked properly. Anything above 10 knots makes it hard to do this. Also going too fast makes the chocolate mousse lopsided, I thought you would have known.....

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Did you look at the engine hours? I think only the Gunboat thought it was a race. Without knowing whether the motored because of dead air or bad weather, we don't know much. Also, on a long race, routing is huge.

But most of us never said the cat thing was about speed. It's about doing the sort of sailing we like; in my case, multihulls are great for coastal cruising and shallow waters. All of my favorite coves are 5-6 feet deep. They cured my wife's motion sickness. I have no interest in crossing an ocean and would be a great fool if I bought a boat with that as a consideration--but that relates more to the silly circumnavigation dreamer's thread.

Go back to mono? Yes, if I moved to a place where that were a better tool for the job.

I was just being provocative

Yes I saw the engine hours and everybody has them, the cats and monohulls. May not be your case but many multihull sailors like to emphasize the speed of their cats even when they are not fast (most of them are not).

Yes I thing the right way to look at it is that one sails a multihull because it likes it better and that's all. It can be because it is a better condo (I don't see nothing wrong with that), it can be because some like a faster boat (some multihulls are faster) it can be because the wife does not like to sail with heel or gets seasick on a monohull. All the reasons are good and I am not kidding.

Regarding guys that change from cats to a monohull I remembered two cases, that changed their raid cats for a mini class racer and are circumnavigating on it (together).

Very interesting what you say regarding motion sickness. Can I know what was the boat you have before?, the one where your wife get seasick? I have heard about some studies regarding motion sickness that say that some are more susceptible to longer period more ample motion and others to less ample shorter period sharper movements. It may relate with that.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Fair question... but wrong.

I've owned a mono and have sailed on many.

The PO of mine had a mono first. And they have bought another (larger) boat.

My 2 dock mates that have cats had monos.

---

And yes, some do start with cats. I'm not sure I think that is wise, unless they have small cat experience. Of course, I would say that about any boat, since I believe dingies are the best teachers.

I believe boatman is referring to new inexperienced sailors that start with cats. I know some and I heard talks about people discussing the boat for the retirement days. Many just hire someone to help them to sail the boat to Greece and then they stay always around the same spot. Again nothing wrong with that, but the Cat is chosen in this case because it has more space and because it sails without heel, nor for the sailing characteristics because they sail very little.

In Europe many charter boats and only buy the boat for the retirement days, Sure they charted mono-hulls and cats (with friends) but most never had made any significant amount of sailing before neither they are going to do it in the future.

[ShaktiGurl]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its my impression from reading CF a lot of Multi-hullers have NEVER owned a Mono.. they went straight from Zero to Hero..
Only thing to go back to is dirt.. and I believe quite a few have..

We actually own a mono now. Started on a 30ft Hunter about 6 years ago. Almost moved aboard her when we moved to FL but circumstances changed and ended up with our current cat. We still go sail the 30 because she is fun and has everything we need and is paid for in case our house of cards goes tumbling down. But, we really should sell her. Too much worry and maintenance with both.

[caradow]

After racing monohulls over 30 years to include numerous national and world championships and offshore events as well such as Bermuda and Halifax I find it ludicrous when discussions about which boat is faster comes out of the ARC results. Those results are totally irrelevant.
Even the so called "fast boats" can be slow in the wrong hands and then you throw in the ability to motor, varying conditions, the use of an AP and not steering waves etc.etc. it becomes irrelevant. Simply steering waves can put miles between competitors in a short period of time.
Also not to offend anyone but I am not really sure how qualified these sailors are in the first place. Why in the world would you want to come across the atlantic with a 100 other boats anyway other than giving you some sort of reassurance that it is ok to cross an ocean? I do not know anyone who has actually done the ARC but have been in Rodney Bay when they arrived and it was carnival time and not my idea of cruising.
I personally cruise for the freedom and I race for the competition....both which the ARC lacks.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by caradow

...
Also not to offend anyone but I am not really sure how qualified these sailors are in the first place. Why in the world would you want to come across the atlantic with a 100 other boats anyway other than giving you some sort of reassurance that it is ok to cross an ocean? I do not know anyone who has actually done the ARC but have been in Rodney Bay when they arrived and it was carnival time and not my idea of cruising.
I personally cruise for the freedom and I race for the competition....both which the ARC lacks.

Some go to the ARC for reassurance but many go for joining a Transat with the spirit of friendly racing others for serious racing. There is a racing division with some racing boats and professional crews. We are talking about 300 boats, most of them recent and fast boats.

Regarding performance on the 300 boats many cruising crews are fast and some have made the ARC several times, for the fun of it and to do the Atlantic circuit. Certainly nobody will want to stay behind.

If you have a past of racing you surely know that crossing the Atlantic in 8 days and 12 hours even on a Gunboat 62 is a honorable racing performance and they did not use the engine as did not any on the racing division. The boat that arrived first in real time was a Knierim 65 , contrary to the Gunboat a racing boat with 5 days 6 hours, the second a Volvo 70, 3rd a Nauta 78 (all racing boats). The first monohull performance cruiser to arrive, just on the tail of the bigger Gunboat 62, was the much smaller Marten 49 with 9 days and 3 hours.

But contrary of what you say I think that in 300 boats the average results on the cruising division are more interesting in what regards the average performance of a given sailboat for a cruiser. The boats are loaded for a season on the Caribbean, the crews are average and they are using the engine for charging batteries and to go when the wind is in-existent, for short periods. They give the hours each boat used the engine so you can compare.

If you want you can take away the exceptionally good results and the exceptionally poor results and you will stay with a good idea of what a given type of boat will do on the hands of an average crew.

And yes, on the last ARC the Cats results were particularly poor, worse than on the previous years. It was an year with irregular winds and not always the trade winds appeared as it was supposed. That has not prevented the winning boat to beat the time record for the ARC.

https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...s%20211213.pdf

Are you one of those that think that all the cats are fast?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Fair question... but wrong.

I've owned a mono and have sailed on many.

The PO of mine had a mono first. And they have bought another (larger) boat.

My 2 dock mates that have cats had monos.

---

And yes, some do start with cats. I'm not sure I think that is wise, unless they have small cat experience. Of course, I would say that about any boat, since I believe dingies are the best teachers.

I have been selling boats for a while now, and every client bar one had a mono prior to their Multi.

[Coops]

Looking at that slightly askew, then one could say that 99% of multi owners never buy another one.

Coops.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Its my impression from reading CF a lot of Multi-hullers have NEVER owned a Mono.. they went straight from Zero to Hero..
Only thing to go back to is dirt.. and I believe quite a few have..

With only one exception, everyone I know who owns a cat, has owned at least one mono first.

However, it could more accurately be said that a lot of mono-hullers have NEVER owned a multihull. They go straight from zero to umm.... negative numbers?

At least they have the option of moving forward....

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Polux

Some go to the ARC for reassurance but many go for joining a Transat with the spirit of friendly racing others for serious racing. There is a racing division with some racing boats and professional crews. We are talking about 300 boats, most of them recent and fast boats.

Regarding performance on the 300 boats many cruising crews are fast and some have made the ARC several times, for the fun of it and to do the Atlantic circuit. Certainly nobody will want to stay behind.

If you have a past of racing you surely know that crossing the Atlantic in 8 days and 12 hours even on a Gunboat 62 is a honorable racing performance and they did not use the engine as did not any on the racing division. The boat that arrived first in real time was a Knierim 65 , contrary to the Gunboat a racing boat with 5 days 6 hours, the second a Volvo 70, 3rd a Nauta 78 (all racing boats). The first monohull performance cruiser to arrive, just on the tail of the bigger Gunboat 62, was the much smaller Marten 49 with 9 days and 3 hours.

But contrary of what you say I think that in 300 boats the average results on the cruising division are more interesting in what regards the average performance of a given sailboat for a cruiser. The boats are loaded for a season on the Caribbean, the crews are average and they are using the engine for charging batteries and to go when the wind is in-existent, for short periods. They give the hours each boat used the engine so you can compare.

If you want you can take away the exceptionally good results and the exceptionally poor results and you will stay with a good idea of what a given type of boat will do on the hands of an average crew.

And yes, on the last ARC the Cats results were particularly poor, worse than on the previous years. It was an year with irregular winds and not always the trade winds appeared as it was supposed. That has not prevented the winning boat to beat the time record for the ARC.

https://www.worldcruising.com/conten...s%20211213.pdf

Are you one of those that think that all the cats are fast?

Yes, very convincing numbers. I don't see what engine hours has to do with comparing cruising performance either. Some boats have the load capacity for large tanks and big engines to help them cross oceans, some don't. That's an integral part of each design. If a given boat has the tankage and/or fuel efficiency, why should they be penalized for using it? Only those who don't have that capacity would even suggest it...

[snort]

I think I've read all the posts now on this thread, and in summing things up, it seems like the only one who's gone back to a monohull was a Dick.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

With only one exception, everyone I know who owns a cat, has owned at least one mono first.

However, it could more accurately be said that a lot of mono-hullers have NEVER owned a multihull. They go straight from zero to umm.... negative numbers?

At least they have the option of moving forward....

If you think about it.. you may remember how many folk post on here... "Never sailed but thinking of buying a 50' catamaran.. I have a plan.."
I can think of at least 4 threads this year along those lines.. not counting the one running right now.. and I can think of a coupla 3 cats over the years I've delivered where the owners had crewed on mono's but never owned one..
Not having a pop.. or trying to put anyone down.. just saying..
Man you guys got no sense of humour

[snort]

That didn't come out right.....it was a Jean Pierre Dick.

[caradow]

Well Polux I want to thank you for your data and I did take a quick look at it and guess I am too dumb to appreciate it's importance but lets just say we agree to disagree.
However I would never use that data to help choose my next boat (which will be a cat). I have my own criteria.
And no I do not think all cats are fast, that would be silly. In fact some are fat pigs that I would never go to sea in even if they were comfortable.
On a more personal level, for the money I had to spend at the time I have been very happy with my Voyage 440. We consistently click off over 200 mile days while my better half makes delicious fresh chocolate croissants in our breadmaker. Something we never did on any multihull I ever owned.
By the way I also own and race a Starboat but when it comes to cruising I could never go back despite owning a Little Harbor 50 prior to my cat purchase.

[smj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Yes, very convincing numbers. I don't see what engine hours has to do with comparing cruising performance either. Some boats have the load capacity for large tanks and big engines to help them cross oceans, some don't. That's an integral part of each design. If a given boat has the tankage and/or fuel efficiency, why should they be penalized for using it? Only those who don't have that capacity would even suggest it...

I think they were discussing cruising performance under sail.