Motion: full keel vs small catamaran.

[pianopraze]

Originally Posted by Wandering1

We went from a Prout 37 to a Trintella 44 ketch. The Prout weighed 5.5 tonnes. We always kept it super light. It had foam core bunk bases, doors tables etc. All to keep the weight to a minimum. The Trintella weighs 18 tonnes. The comfort on the Trintella is amazing compared to the Prout.
The Trintella is better in every way. Faster, drier, bigger, we can carry everything we want onboard without a performance penalty. The Trintella is fin and skeg with 6 tonne of lead in the keel. Sails like a dream. My wife used to get seasick in the cat. She is a lot less prone to seasickness on the monohull I think because the motion is so much slower.
We have done Atlantic crossings on both boats, so lots of time to compare the differences

Thank you.

I’ll let her read this

Not going to be able to afford one of those. And none in US.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by pianopraze

Lol.

Easy to find a full keel around 40k, not so much a good well built blue water cat.

Well, cruising solo isn't so bad..........

[Renegde_Sailor]

Originally Posted by pianopraze

We will look if still available next year. By that time the price will hopefully be more negotiable

I really think she will like a full keel at sail even more than a Cat. She’s pretty insistent at the moment we get a Cat.

Marriage, like mentioned above about boat building, is a series of compromises.

Here is the winning argument on that one, a Cat is wonderful when the weather is good, a cat is terrible when you get into a bad sea state and everything starts getting thrown around because any beam sea has to go under two hulls which turns the boat into a see saw.

A good full keel monohull will ride better and feel much safer in bad conditions. As well I have seen Catamarans have their bows completely ripped off when they hit something in the water, where a good ole heavy built mono is going to be far more robust.

There was a couple that came in here about 3 years ago with a cat that hit something in the open Pacific 1200 nm out of Hawaii, it ripped the starboard bow off their boat and she started taking on water.

They got lucky that another boat was on a similar course that had a pretty bad ass swimmer onboard who was able to retrieve some floating garbage and stuff it into the bow and secure it with a piece of fishing net.

Then they hammered cloth in around the severed bulkhead and pumped the hull dry.

The way the front of that hull exploded terrified me seeing it. The skin on her was so thin, about 1/8" on the inside and 3/15" on the exterior with a foam core.

Conversely the stem on my boat is 2" thick solid laminate, and the hull in that area is around an inch thick.

I have had another boat run into me and do serious damage smashing in his hull (it was a chop-strand runabout) where all I received was superficial scratches.

Helping your wife understand the safety factor that comes with a well built monohull like that will certainly help your case.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Renegde_Sailor

Here is the winning argument on that one, a Cat is wonderful when the weather is good, a cat is terrible when you get into a bad sea state and everything starts getting thrown around because any beam sea has to go under two hulls which turns the boat into a see saw.

A good full keel monohull will ride better and feel much safer in bad conditions. As well I have seen Catamarans have their bows completely ripped off when they hit something in the water, where a good ole heavy built mono is going to be far more robust.

There was a couple that came in here about 3 years ago with a cat that hit something in the open Pacific 1200 nm out of Hawaii, it ripped the starboard bow off their boat and she started taking on water.

They got lucky that another boat was on a similar course that had a pretty bad ass swimmer onboard who was able to retrieve some floating garbage and stuff it into the bow and secure it with a piece of fishing net.

Then they hammered cloth in around the severed bulkhead and pumped the hull dry.

The way the front of that hull exploded terrified me seeing it. The skin on her was so thin, about 1/8" on the inside and 3/15" on the exterior with a foam core.

Conversely the stem on my boat is 2" thick solid laminate, and the hull in that area is around an inch thick.

I have had another boat run into me and do serious damage smashing in his hull (it was a chop-strand runabout) where all I received was superficial scratches.

Helping your wife understand the safety factor that comes with a well built monohull like that will certainly help your case.

The cat that got the bow damage was a Seawind, no chance of the boat sinking……the ultimate safety factor.

[Renegde_Sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

The cat that got the bow damage was a Seawind, no chance of the boat sinking……the ultimate safety factor.

While she was on the hard here I went over and examined her, while yes the boat is supposed to be positively buoyant, I could see her getting torn to pieces in a collision with my boat that left mine unscathed. And that is not to say that she was not a nice boat, as she was.

On the flip side I have hit a few logs out sailing at night, ran aground in Canada, still haven't damaged her. Doing the same in a Catamaran could have meant a lot of very expensive repairs.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Renegde_Sailor

While she was on the hard here I went over and examined her, while yes the boat is supposed to be positively buoyant, I could see her getting torn to pieces in a collision with my boat that left mine unscathed. And that is not to say that she was not a nice boat, as she was.

On the flip side I have hit a few logs out sailing at night, ran aground in Canada, still haven't damaged her. Doing the same in a Catamaran could have meant a lot of very expensive repairs.

Some boats are built like tanks, they sail like tanks and sink like tanks. Not my cup of tea, but I respect those that appreciate them.

[pianopraze]

Originally Posted by smj

Some boats are built like tanks, they sail like tanks and sink like tanks. Not my cup of tea, but I respect those that appreciate them.

My Prout was built like a tank and I loved her.

Yeah I couldn’t point very well but I could beach with no worries.

[Renegde_Sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

Some boats are built like tanks, they sail like tanks and sink like tanks. Not my cup of tea, but I respect those that appreciate them.

Mine is built like a tank but sails like a banshee and loves to point to windward, I can point her all the way to 28 degrees in fairly calm conditions. She is an upwind machine that loves to reach and does not bash with impeccable manners to windward and thus has the option of taking nasty weather on the bow which I quite love.

The best speed I have seen through the water on her (according to the old signet knot log FWIW) is 9.3 knots.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Renegde_Sailor

Mine is built like a tank but sails like a banshee and loves to point to windward, I can point her all the way to 28 degrees in fairly calm conditions. She is an upwind machine that loves to reach and does not bash with impeccable manners to windward and thus has the option of taking nasty weather on the bow which I quite love.

The best speed I have seen through the water on her (according to the old signet knot log FWIW) is 9.3 knots.

Best speed we saw on our last cat was slightly over 17, though the previous owner had her up to 26.5. Like I said, different strokes for different folks.

[Wandering1]

Originally Posted by Renegde_Sailor

Here is the winning argument on that one, a Cat is wonderful when the weather is good, a cat is terrible when you get into a bad sea state and everything starts getting thrown around because any beam sea has to go under two hulls which turns the boat into a see saw.

A good full keel monohull will ride better and feel much safer in bad conditions. As well I have seen Catamarans have their bows completely ripped off when they hit something in the water, where a good ole heavy built mono is going to be far more robust.

There was a couple that came in here about 3 years ago with a cat that hit something in the open Pacific 1200 nm out of Hawaii, it ripped the starboard bow off their boat and she started taking on water.

They got lucky that another boat was on a similar course that had a pretty bad ass swimmer onboard who was able to retrieve some floating garbage and stuff it into the bow and secure it with a piece of fishing net.

Then they hammered cloth in around the severed bulkhead and pumped the hull dry.

The way the front of that hull exploded terrified me seeing it. The skin on her was so thin, about 1/8" on the inside and 3/15" on the exterior with a foam core.

Conversely the stem on my boat is 2" thick solid laminate, and the hull in that area is around an inch thick.

I have had another boat run into me and do serious damage smashing in his hull (it was a chop-strand runabout) where all I received was superficial scratches.

Helping your wife understand the safety factor that comes with a well built monohull like that will certainly help your case.

Something doesn't stack up. Your boat is 42ft but only weighs 8.5t. You suggest the hull is 1" thick with a stem 2" thick but your boat only weighs 8.5t. My 44ft boat weighs 18t. 10t more than your 42 ft boat so how is your boat built out of 1" thick laminate and so light?
A Prout snowgoose weighs 5.5t. It has no lead ballast so if you knock off the 3t of ballast from your boat, your 42ft mono is actually fat lighter than the 35ft cat that the OP is talking about

[Renegde_Sailor]

Originally Posted by smj

Best speed we saw on our last cat was slightly over 17, though the previous owner had her up to 26.5. Like I said, different strokes for different folks.

True you can get a lot more speed out of a cat, but you have to put up with several other disadvantages, mainly the rigging costing more because it needs to be stronger without the boat heeling acting as a shock absorber, then there is the moorage where you get stuck paying for a double width berth.

So in that there is a lot of hidden cost to go faster, especially when talking performance as those forces increase, let along the initial purchase price of a boat.

With the cat you get the speed and the room for sure, but you get the cargo limitation, and they are not particularly good in big seas to my understanding. Granted all the cat sailing I have done has been in Puget Sound where it was well protected so all I have is the word of the skippers of those boats to take for it.

But both I went out with were animate that they were not a high latitude boat.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Renegde_Sailor

True you can get a lot more speed out of a cat, but you have to put up with several other disadvantages, mainly the rigging costing more because it needs to be stronger without the boat heeling acting as a shock absorber, then there is the moorage where you get stuck paying for a double width berth.

So in that there is a lot of hidden cost to go faster, especially when talking performance as those forces increase, let along the initial purchase price of a boat.

With the cat you get the speed and the room for sure, but you get the cargo limitation, and they are not particularly good in big seas to my understanding. Granted all the cat sailing I have done has been in Puget Sound where it was well protected so all I have is the word of the skippers of those boats to take for it.

But both I went out with were animate that they were not a high latitude boat.

I think the rigging on most cats is a larger diameter than the rigging on most monohulls, but there’s also a lesser number of wires. On our last cat we had a 55’ rotating carbon fiber mast with a total of seven 8mm dyform wires, not very large. But you are right, a wind gust on a cat is transformed into power as she doesn’t heel.
In the 32 years that we’ve owned catamarans we’ve never been charged more for a slip because of our wide beam, but we don’t spend a lot of time tied up in a slip. I do agree that the common trend nowadays is to charge a premium for the wider beamed catamaran.
I agree about the cargo limitation, depending of course on the cat as they aren’t all created equally.
Our last cat was designed and delivered in Norway where most of them still live and sail, would that be considered high latitudes?
Don’t get me wrong, I started off on monohulls and love the looks of the classic mono. I really wish I could handle one because let’s face it, a huge difference in cost to buy. But I’m unable to handle the pendulum like motion, and at this point couldn’t deal with the performance of the vast majority.

[Wandering1]

Originally Posted by smj

I think the rigging on most cats is a larger diameter than the rigging on most monohulls, but there’s also a lesser number of wires. On our last cat we had a 55’ rotating carbon fiber mast with a total of seven 8mm dyform wires, not very large. But you are right, a wind gust on a cat is transformed into power as she doesn’t heel.
In the 32 years that we’ve owned catamarans we’ve never been charged more for a slip because of our wide beam, but we don’t spend a lot of time tied up in a slip. I do agree that the common trend nowadays is to charge a premium for the wider beamed catamaran.
I agree about the cargo limitation, depending of course on the cat as they aren’t all created equally.
Our last cat was designed and delivered in Norway where most of them still live and sail, would that be considered high latitudes?
Don’t get me wrong, I started off on monohulls and love the looks of the classic mono. I really wish I could handle one because let’s face it, a huge difference in cost to buy. But I’m unable to handle the pendulum like motion, and at this point couldn’t deal with the performance of the vast majority.

Having owned catamarans and monohulls. We wouldn't go back to a cat.
Lots of reasons why. It's no one thing They cost more to store in a boatyard. Finding somewhere to lift out can be problem. If you buy a charter type cat with mini keels the performance is poor. They are too heavy and generally don't out sail a reasonable mono on any point of sail. Up wind they are motorboats.
If you go for a high performance cat, by definition they are lightly constructed. For long distance sailing they tend not to be durable. You need a big one to be able to carry toys and maintain any performance. Cost goes through the roof.
By comparison, a good deep draft bluewater monohull of 45ft can carry all the toys and still provide good performance in all point of sail, sufficient space for a couple and plenty of comfort both in the ocean and at anchor.
Running costs are substantially lower. In a storm in the ocean, a good monohull will look after you. You have to look after the catamaran.

[smj]

Originally Posted by Wandering1

Having owned catamarans and monohulls. We wouldn't go back to a cat.
Lots of reasons why. It's no one thing They cost more to store in a boatyard. Finding somewhere to lift out can be problem. If you buy a charter type cat with mini keels the performance is poor. They are too heavy and generally don't out sail a reasonable mono on any point of sail. Up wind they are motorboats.
If you go for a high performance cat, by definition they are lightly constructed. For long distance sailing they tend not to be durable. You need a big one to be able to carry toys and maintain any performance. Cost goes through the roof.
By comparison, a good deep draft bluewater monohull of 45ft can carry all the toys and still provide good performance in all point of sail, sufficient space for a couple and plenty of comfort both in the ocean and at anchor.
Running costs are substantially lower. In a storm in the ocean, a good monohull will look after you. You have to look after the catamaran.

Our last catamaran is a 40’x25’ cat that weighs 6700lbs. She’s 23 years old and was raced hard by the first owner, shows no signs of stress in the structure and passed a survey with zero delamination or voids.
No doubt she won’t hold the load of a 45’ deep draft monohull, but why would anyone look upon a deep draft as a positive? To me more restrictive than trying to find a haulout for the wide beamed monohull.
Plenty of stories out there about catamarans taking care of themselves in ocean storms.
What kind of catamaran did you own?
As I stated before, all about personal preference and needs.
On edit: I see you owned a Prout Snowgoose, any other catamaran?

[Wandering1]

Originally Posted by smj

Our last catamaran is a 40’x25’ cat that weighs 6700lbs. She’s 23 years old and was raced hard by the first owner, shows no signs of stress in the structure and passed a survey with zero delamination or voids.
No doubt she won’t hold the load of a 45’ deep draft monohull, but why would anyone look upon a deep draft as a positive? To me more restrictive than trying to find a haulout for the wide beamed monohull.
Plenty of stories out there about catamarans taking care of themselves in ocean storms.
What kind of catamaran did you own?
As I stated before, all about personal preference and needs.
On edit: I see you owned a Prout Snowgoose, any other catamaran?

Deep draft gives the ability to sail a tight angle to windward. It's a good measure of windward performance.
What cat do you own?
We have never found any problems lifting out.
Have you sailed your cat on long ocean passages. Just wondering how you got on. We don't see many cats doing the West to East Atlantic leg. Monohulls out number them 10:1.
Quite different to the milk run in the East To West direction where is all down wind. Like you say, horses for courses.