Places only a monohull can go?

[wingssail]

How about beating off a lee shore (in the bight of a bay) in 25 knots of wind.

I love the windward ability of my monohull. I know that certain performance cats can do this also, though I have not seen it, but a performance cat sort of scares me; I'm not sure me and my spouse are good enough sailors to keep the attention level required to avoid capsizing a high performance cat.

And a low performance boat of any type does not appeal to me at all.

We cruise and live aboard our performance monohull and race it against some very good cruising catamarans. Aside from the 50' footers sailing on a blast reach, we beat them. Upwind we kill then all.

But if it is a condo you want, a cat will be much better, and it will go closer to shore. I really can't think of where I can go that you could not in a big cat.

Oh, Marinas. In our marina they are complaining abut the loss of income because of all the cats coming now. Where 10 boats could fit before, now they can put 5 cats, and the cat owners complain about the higher price for their boats. As the trend shifts to more cats, expect the prices for cats to go up.

[smj]

Originally Posted by wingssail

How about beating off a lee shore (in the bight of a bay) in 25 knots of wind.



I love the windward ability of my monohull. I know that certain performance cats can do this also, though I have not seen it, but a performance cat sort of scares me; I'm not sure me and my spouse are good enough sailors to keep the attention level required to avoid capsizing a high performance cat.



And a low performance boat of any type does not appeal to me at all.



We cruise and live aboard our performance monohull and race it against some very good cruising catamarans. Aside from the 50' footers sailing on a blast reach, we beat them. Upwind we kill then all.



But if it is a condo you want, a cat will be much better, and it will go closer to shore. I really can't think of where I can go that you could not in a big cat.



Oh, Marinas. In our marina they are complaining abut the loss of income because of all the cats coming now. Where 10 boats could fit before, now they can put 5 cats, and the cat owners complain about the higher price for their boats. As the trend shifts to more cats, expect the prices for cats to go up.

I would suggest you stick to your lower performance mono and leave the performance cats to the experienced.

[bdav21]

Get a Corsair Folding Trimaran and have the best of both worlds. Get there faster and don’t spill the wine.
Comfortable, sea worthy and they’ll get to weather much faster than a monohull.
The hulls fold in and the mast comes down easy for canal cruising.
You’ll love it.
Bill D.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by bdav21

Get a Corsair Folding Trimaran and have the best of both worlds. Get there faster and don’t spill the wine.
Comfortable, sea worthy and they’ll get to weather much faster than a monohull.
The hulls fold in and the mast comes down easy for canal cruising.
You’ll love it.
Bill D.

Corsairs are great fun, I raced on an F31 for a couple of years, but in any singificant sea state you are definately gonna spill the wine!

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by bdav21

Get a Corsair Folding Trimaran and have the best of both worlds. Get there faster and don’t spill the wine.
Comfortable, sea worthy and they’ll get to weather much faster than a monohull.
The hulls fold in and the mast comes down easy for canal cruising.
You’ll love it.
Bill D.

That's the truth. I've often dreamed of a performance tri. If I were solo that's exactly what I'd have.

[Stein]

I haven’t read all posts but notice the discussion, as expected, quickly turned to the mono versus multi topic. I’ll first say a bit about that, and then get to the topic, “where are monos better than multis”.

I’ve sailed all kinds of boats through about 50 years, fast dinghies, huge superyachts, normal monohull cruisers, beachcats, pro racing Formula multihulls and long distance cats. I’ve also built some racing multis. Can I say which is the best? For me, yes. For others, nope. People are different and needs are too. I think people need to be more aware of what’s in that last sentence. There’s no competition. We don’t need to win anyone over anywhere. We don’t need to feel offended.

We do, however, need to understand the actual differences. Several of the main issues people talk about are misunderstood, like; “cats are poor upwind”.

Well, yes, many of them are, as are many monohulls too. This is not at all related to the hull configuration but to the intention with that specific boat. Most cruising cats we see nowadays are motorsailors to the extreme. Mono motorsailors with a joke for a rig and a joke for a keel also sail very poor to windward. It’s easy to find cats that will outperform absolutely any mono to windward, but neither of those will be good cruisers.

The other big issue is “cats are very expensive to buy and to keep in harbour”. That’s also true, normally 50% extra for the same length, but still misunderstood. Most cruisers are picked for their interior space and comfort. To make a mono match a 40 foot cruising cat on that, you need a 55 to 60 foot mono. That one will definitely not be cheaper on anything than a 40 foot cat.

Yet another: “Multihulls are much faster”. Well, yes, true again, for the same length and type of boat, but if we then turn the above logic around and pick a cruising mono that has the same price tag or the same interior space as a 40 foot cruising cat, the mono will be much longer and thus probably faster in most conditions.

This type of discussion can go into all kinds of detail, but I’ll stop here. Just let people chose whatever type of boat they like. If they’re happy, great!

As for the topic of the OP; where are monos better than multis:
One can get a load of secondhand monos of any size and type all over the world at a pretty low price compared to what is possible with multihulls. The reason being that the multihull market still is very immature. Thus, if we are not wealthy, and want to sail away, a mono is probably the easy option.

Also, there are specific locations. One is canals, as mentioned by others. In Europe you can pass on canals and rivers from the Biscay, or the English Channel, or the Netherlands, or Germany, or the Baltic or the arctic Russian coast, all down to the Mediterranean or the Black Sea. There are decades of exploration waiting. Go into the cradle of western civilisation. Astonishing and fascinating places. Cities many thousand years old. Food, wine, beer and a variation of colourful culture far beyond anywhere else in the world, while at the same time, most areas, reasonably wealthy and very safe.

Almost all canals require the mast to be lowered. The “Staande mast route” through the Netherlands is an exception. Perhaps the prettiest canal is Canal du Midi, the worlds oldest elevated canal system, about 300 years old. Goes across the southern bit of France from the Atlantic to the Med. A bit north of the Pyrinee mountain range, making the border towards Spain. Max 1,5 meter depth. Less is better. From Northern Europe to the Med through France is also very idyllic. Many different alternative routes. Max 1,8 meter depth, but sometimes the water drops to 1,6.

Most modern cruising cats are too wide for all the above. On the Rhein - Main - Donau canal, however, the smallest locks are for 11 meter vide and 100 meter long barges, and the depth is 2,5 meters or more, except late summer in the delta near the Black Sea. This is a fascinating but long trip, though. About 3500 kilometers. The route from arctic Russia, Arkangelsk to the Black Sea via Moscow, or from St.Petersburg, is about the same depth and width as the latter, but clearly for the adventurous... Bureaucracy is sometimes a problem. The end of the trip via Krim is also probably difficult now.

Talking about adventurous: Some monohulls are strong enough to push through a bit of ice. Mostly metal boats. Cats are not suitable for that, even if they’re strong enough, because ice gathers between the bows and stops the boat. High latitude sailing, even in the winter is one of the most fascinating things one can do in life. I’d generally start with the summer version, which is easily cold enough. The Norwegian coast is astonishing. No ice breaking needed there in the summer, though. In the winter that’s different.

I’ve also been at Spitzbergen / Svalbard up to 80 degrees North. Only possible in the summer. There you’ll encounter ice some places. Polar bears, glaciers, walrus, unbelievable landscapes! The North West Passage or North East Passage are the Mount Everest of high latitude sailing. Monohull might be better there for ice breaking, but shallow draft is an advantage to go close to the shore where the ice bergs can’t come. A friend of mine was the first to actually SAIL both in one season, with a Corsair/Farrier 31 foot foldable trimaran.

In general, if I were to go for a mono again, I would definitely have lifting keel and rudder to get a draft of max 2 feet, 60 cm. It’s just so much better in so many ways to get close to things!

[Factor]

Originally Posted by B23iL23

Upwind?

Yeah, nah. I have sailed plenty that can go upwind as least as well as a similar mono

[Factor]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Not that it’s high on your list anyway but anyplace with ice, cats and ice don’t mix. Monohulls with a single prop protected by the hull/keel are best. Two prop monks that leave the props not protected are not as good. Cats would be like ice scoops.

Some folks have done some limited high latitude work in cats but it’s rare.

Yeah Nah. Plenty of multis have done high latitude sailing, plenty

[Martilse]

I’m a cat owner and the reality is cats can go most place monos can go but obviously they are better in shallower water.

Having said that my view is if you want to cruise Europe and the Med then a mono is better. The reason is that space is very constrained in village harbours or at marinas and often there is no real place to anchor. I cruised the med for 12 months a few years ago in a mono and it was amazing. It would have been much harder in a cat and frankly I didn’t see many cats.

[Ranshiro]

Thank you for all the responses. It has been great to specifically hear about people's personal experiences about where they have sailed on both cats and monohulls. I look forward to hopefully hearing more.

I know that things on here can quickly move to a cat vs mono debate, which I hoped to avoid by posting in hull specific forums. My apologies if my thread has brought anybody any discomfort. That has not been my intention.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by wingssail

How about beating off a lee shore (in the bight of a bay) in 25 knots of wind.

I love the windward ability of my monohull. I know that certain performance cats can do this also, though I have not seen it, but a performance cat sort of scares me; I'm not sure me and my spouse are good enough sailors to keep the attention level required to avoid capsizing a high performance cat.

If you are talking performance cats, that typically means boards of some sort.

Day sailing when you want top performance, the preference is usually to put the leeward board down as it will be deeper in the water...but this presumes reasonable conditions and a close watch from the helm to react.

In bad conditions (ie clawing off a lee shore in a storm), you use the windward board. It may not be as good as the leeward board for performance but if the hull starts to lift, the board loses grip and you slide to the side dissipating the overturning force.

If you are talking lower performance cruising cat...they will point well enough to stay off the beach, plus you can always run the leeward engine to give it a boost. Very tough to overturn a heavy under canvased condomaran.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by bdav21

Get a Corsair Folding Trimaran and have the best of both worlds. Get there faster and don’t spill the wine.
Comfortable, sea worthy and they’ll get to weather much faster than a monohull.
The hulls fold in and the mast comes down easy for canal cruising.
You’ll love it.
Bill D.

For weekend cruising, a folding trimaran would probably be my preference. I don't need a lot of storage or interior living space and you get great performance.

For longer term, the lack of storage and living space becomes a major downside.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

If you are talking performance cats, that typically means boards of some sort.

Day sailing when you want top performance, the preference is usually to put the leeward board down as it will be deeper in the water...but this presumes reasonable conditions and a close watch from the helm to react.

In bad conditions (ie clawing off a lee shore in a storm), you use the windward board. It may not be as good as the leeward board for performance but if the hull starts to lift, the board loses grip and you slide to the side dissipating the overturning force.

If you are talking lower performance cruising cat...they will point well enough to stay off the beach, plus you can always run the leeward engine to give it a boost. Very tough to overturn a heavy under canvased condomaran.

Also in this case, the performance hit discussed here is negligible.

The board is a foil sticking 6ft down beyond the bottom of the hull. Increases the draft of my boat from 2ft to 8ft for example.

If my windward hull is 6" lifted from pushing the boat, I may lose 6" of the 2' draft or normal area of the hull providing resistance but I still have 6ft of board in the water giving 100% of the same grip a 6' foil gives.

Looking at depth, this deepest tip of the board is still at 92% of the depth as it would be in flat water.

So I'm thinking even in this generous discussion I quoted, using the windward board is going to provide basically the same result.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Chotu

Also in this case, the performance hit discussed here is negligible.

The board is a foil sticking 6ft down beyond the bottom of the hull. Increases the draft of my boat from 2ft to 8ft for example.

If my windward hull is 6" lifted from pushing the boat, I may lose 6" of the 2' draft or normal area of the hull providing resistance but I still have 6ft of board in the water giving 100% of the same grip a 6' foil gives.

Looking at depth, this deepest tip of the board is still at 92% of the depth as it would be in flat water.

So I'm thinking even in this generous discussion I quoted, using the windward board is going to provide basically the same result.

Can you not adjust the depth of the boards? I wouldn't be trying for maximum depth in survival conditions. Just enough to keep her going to windward.

Also, once the windward hull comes clear of the water, there is a big impact on leeway due to the loss of the end plate effect on the board.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Can you not adjust the depth of the boards? I wouldn't be trying for maximum depth in survival conditions. Just enough to keep her going to windward.

Also, once the windward hull comes clear of the water, there is a big impact on leeway due to the loss of the end plate effect on the board.

What are you trying to argue about here? I'm on YOUR side.

Boards are infinitely adjustable to any depth at all.

In the same post are you actually saying "I wouldn't be trying for maximum depth in survival conditions" and also saying you'd be flying a hull in the same conditions???

Are you trying to argue for sport here or something?

My post is saying everything you said earlier was true and the loss of performance is quite negligible.

Further, there are no endplates on dagger boards, so you're probably confusing a couple different things here. If you are thinking the hull itself is an endplate and that it prevents flow from the high pressure sideof the foil to the low pressure side, you're way off in your picture of how end plates work. They are added to the TIP of a foil to prevent high pressure fluid from sneaking around to the low pressure side around the tip. Surely you can't be saying high pressure fluid is sneaking around the board by leaving the surface of the water when you are flying the hull in your survival conditions scenario.