Why do you guys like monohulls so much?

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by newhaul

If you like to find reefs with the keels on your leopard perhaps a cored hull is the last thing you need i can think of several other things first aside from a keel does not need nor should it be cored especially on a cat where it is a bolt so not part of the hull per se

I thought most mini keels on catamarans are foam filled for shape and glassed into a shelf or something on the hull. To have it bolted on doesn't seem to make sense, the bolt assembly would require a lot of additional reinforcements which only would make sense if the keel was ballasted or metal in the first place. The bottom of the keel probably has some extra layers of glass. Maybe older designs had bolt on ones?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

I like to find reefs with my keel. A hull cored below the waterline will be a problem.

There are plenty of places to save weight above the water.

With your keel? In a Leopard cat? Gotta wonder about that statement...

But back to reality: our above mentioned Airex cored hull with a bolt on lead keel managed to survive a number of groundings, including twice striking coral heads with some vigor. The worst damage was needing to dig some lumps of coral out of the lead and then bog up the dents. The stiffness added to the hull by the coring makes for a better outcome in such occasions, not a worse one... again a benefit of a well designed and constructed hull. You do know, don't you, that in way of the keel bolts the hull is not cored but is a solid laminate?

Jim

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by smj

Crew rescued from an Amel 52 in 30-40 kts of wind.

https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/vi...iles-offshore/
What’s up with that? I thought the Amel was gods gift to blue water cruisers%?

Certianly the boat can handle it. Perhaps the crew cannot.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Yihang

I thought most mini keels on catamarans are foam filled for shape and glassed into a shelf or something on the hull. To have it bolted on doesn't seem to make sense, the bolt assembly would require a lot of additional reinforcements which only would make sense if the keel was ballasted or metal in the first place. The bottom of the keel probably has some extra layers of glass. Maybe older designs had bolt on ones?

We are not talking about an old cheap catamaran. We are talking about his newer top of the line leopard

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Certianly the boat can handle it. Perhaps the crew cannot.

Thats a fact just ask a local boy Brian Troutman he's from seattle and has sailed his Amel 52 ketch delos around the world from here to the Caribbean via the horn .

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Thats a fact just ask a local boy Brian Troutman he's from seattle and has sailed his Amel 52 ketch delos around the world from here to the Caribbean via the horn .

They haven't gone to the horn yet. Looks like they are going up the east coast from their latest videos. I think they are thinking of going back to europe and do some northern latitude sailing.

I seriously doubt they will go all the way down brazil again just to do the horn.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Yihang

They haven't gone to the horn yet. Looks like they are going up the east coast from their latest videos. I think they are thinking of going back to europe and do some northern latitude sailing.

I seriously doubt they will go all the way down brazil again just to do the horn.

I don't know what charts you use but to most of us the horn refers to the horn of Africa not the straits of Magellan. That is cape horn. Commonly sailing the cape

[Yihang]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I don't know what charts you use but to most of us the horn refers to the horn of Africa not the straits of Magellan. That is cape horn. Commonly sailing the cape

hmmm....

Horn of Africa is the area near the Gulf of Aden between Yemen and Somalia, delos definitely didn't go through the red sea and suez canal. Southern tip of Africa is called the cape of good hope by most, which delos did go through. Are you referring to Cape of good hope as the horn of Africa? and the southern tip of South America is called cape horn like you said.

According to most maps, sailors and books published.

I seriously doubt anyone is referring to going through the red sea and Suez canal as 'around the world via the horn'.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Horn-of-Africa

https://www.britannica.com/place/Cape-of-Good-Hope

https://www.britannica.com/place/Cape-Horn

[Supercat568]

Originally Posted by Jammer

1. Higher overall cost profile
   1. Used market is much tighter
   2. New prices are higher due to cost of manufacture
   3. Because of the wide beam, there are fewer low-cost choices for slips and haulout
   4. Cost of maintaining two engines and saildrives
2. In practice, upwind performance is slightly worse
   1. When comparing performance cruiser monos, to performance cruiser cats, as typically outfittted.
   2. Adds to the risk posed by lee shores
3. They aren't as seaworthy.
   1. Odds of hitting something or catching a line are doubled by the twin hulls.
   2. They are more highly engineered, and engineering failures are occurring at greater rates than with monos
      1. Inversions due to undiscovered holes in the stability envelope
      2. Emergency hatch leaks
      3. Structural failures
   3. They are more susceptible to serious damage when a collision does occur
      1. By example, e.g. the family that hit a fish trap in the Med
      2. Due to reliance on saildrives (in nearly all cases), with attendant line-trap and collision risks.
   4. Generally not able to motor on one engine, therefore, twice the risk of a problems from engine failure.
4. There is some slamming on the waves in heavy seas.
   1. Due to the bridge deck hitting the water.
   2. Alarming to the uninitiated. Undermines the advantage of being friendly to non-sailors
5. Limited weight carrying ability
   1. Limits tankage
   2. Limits ability to carry dive gear and compressors
   3. Leads to tradeoffs regarding emergency equipment and spares
   4. Undermines some of the benefit of the extra space
6. Wider beam limits where they can go in some cases
   1. Some notable, historic inland rivers and canals
      1. Broads bridges
      2. Canal du midi
   2. Reduced availability of slips particularly in the USA

That's the most comprehensive list I've ever seen! You got some good ammo there Cap'n, I love it!! Thank you!

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I don't know what charts you use but to most of us the horn refers to the horn of Africa not the straits of Magellan. That is cape horn. Commonly sailing the cape

don't often say this, but : wrong wrong and wrong again

in sailor speak, there is only one 'horn' and that is the one at the bottom of south america

sure there is a horn of africa but that will never be called 'the horn'

if speaking about 'the cape', it is the cape of good hope that is being referred to

cheers,

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by river251

Every time I notice it, there are twice as many people reading the monohulls forum as reading the multihulls forum. I am really curious about this. Cats have what everyone wants, supposedly....no rolling (youtubers Kevin Boothby and Patrick Lane constantly talk about how tiring and unpleasant this is), things stay put, relatively more room. A non-tilted, non-rolling, roomy lifestyle. So what is the attraction of monohulls?

It can't just be cost or that everyone is waiting til they have enough money saved to sell their mono and get a cat. There are good older cats available for not that much more than decent older monos. Or am I wrong, it's the cost?

Two years of reading threads and watching videos and I still don't get it.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

My opinion:

It's because monohulls offer a different sailing experience than cats, and some of us like it better. The fiscal realities are that cats tend to be more expensive to buy, maintain, store, and equip than monohulls. For some sailors, the cost differential is important.

Jim

I will respectfully disagree with Jim about the cost. Cats and monos cost about the same if you compare like for like -- like volume, like quality level, like condition and age. You can't compare them by length.

But I agree with Jim about everything else -- sailling experience is different; each type has its own pluses and minuses. Monos are great; have a number of profound advantages. But cats are great too, with their own set of advantages. No one can give you any advice which will be as worthwhile as simply going out and spending some sea time with both types, and determing yourself, what YOU like.

You mention rolling and heeling -- these are big advantages of cats. But that's just two of hundreds of different other factors.

You mention roominess -- but cat or mono, you choose the size which gives you the room you need. Cats are not inherently roomier, any more than a wide house necessarily has more square feet of area. Be sure to compare like for like, and you'll see why many people choose monos.

[Pelagic]

Hi Dockhead,
Your post made me wonder, what should be the common denominator cost wise, when comparing a cat with mono?

Assuming the same hull and deck material and a lightweight interior of comparable quality, then the logical equalizer should be displacement as that is the controlling factor builders use when doing basic material costs

So what size mono equals any given cat of the same displacement, less the cost and weight of ballast?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Dockhead,
Your post made me wonder, what should be the common denominator cost wise, when comparing a cat with mono?

Assuming the same hull and deck material and a lightweight interior of comparable quality, then the logical equalizer should be displacement as that is the controlling factor builders use when doing basic material costs

So what size mono equals any given cat of the same displacement, less the cost and weight of ballast?

Yes, I think you're right. When I was working with designers on my now aborted new build, I was told that cost is very closely correlated with weight, for a given level of quality.



Across cat vs. mono you have to subtract the ballast. Cat might still be slightly more expensive per tonne because of the extra machinery (extra prime mover and gear).



If you know GRT (gross registered tonnage), that might be the best indicator of all for cost, as that's a proxy for volume.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Jammer

1. Higher overall cost profile
   1. Used market is much tighter
   2. New prices are higher due to cost of manufacture
   3. Because of the wide beam, there are fewer low-cost choices for slips and haulout
   4. Cost of maintaining two engines and saildrives
2. In practice, upwind performance is slightly worse
   1. When comparing performance cruiser monos, to performance cruiser cats, as typically outfittted.
   2. Adds to the risk posed by lee shores
3. They aren't as seaworthy.
   1. Odds of hitting something or catching a line are doubled by the twin hulls.
   2. They are more highly engineered, and engineering failures are occurring at greater rates than with monos
      1. Inversions due to undiscovered holes in the stability envelope
      2. Emergency hatch leaks
      3. Structural failures
   3. They are more susceptible to serious damage when a collision does occur
      1. By example, e.g. the family that hit a fish trap in the Med
      2. Due to reliance on saildrives (in nearly all cases), with attendant line-trap and collision risks.
   4. Generally not able to motor on one engine, therefore, twice the risk of a problems from engine failure.
4. There is some slamming on the waves in heavy seas.
   1. Due to the bridge deck hitting the water.
   2. Alarming to the uninitiated. Undermines the advantage of being friendly to non-sailors
5. Limited weight carrying ability
   1. Limits tankage
   2. Limits ability to carry dive gear and compressors
   3. Leads to tradeoffs regarding emergency equipment and spares
   4. Undermines some of the benefit of the extra space
6. Wider beam limits where they can go in some cases
   1. Some notable, historic inland rivers and canals
      1. Broads bridges
      2. Canal du midi
   2. Reduced availability of slips particularly in the USA

Most of this list is based on incorrect assumptions. Why do people with no actual experience of catamarans keep recycling the following fallacies?
[LIST][*] Upwind is slightly worse, then you add the risk off lee shore? The reality is that some catamarans don’t sail well to windward. The vast majority do OK and quite a few do well. Just like the broad spectrum of cruising monohulls.[*] They aren’t as seaworthy??? More likely to have an engineering failure? Based on what? The cost to insure isn’t any more based on cost of boat, so if insurance companies don’t price in risk why should you? BTW, the width of most catamaran hulls when doubled is still less than any but the smallest monohull, so how does that equal greater risk of hitting something floating?[*] More susceptible to damage? In the examples you cite, those are problems of having a cored hull and nothing to do with boat type. Ditto for sail drives.[*] How can catamarans not be capable of motoring on one engine, if a monohull is capable of motoring on one engine? In a marina at slow speeds, sure, one engine has you steering in circles. But faster than 3 knots and there’s enough water flow over the rudders to steer straight. On passages it’s common to run just one engine, to extend the range. And since catamarans typically have smaller engines, running on one means more range.[*] Slamming bridge deck in waves. Sometimes and in some conditions. Some catamarans are worse and the vast majority barely notice.[*] Catamarans more alarming to non-sailors than monohulls? ROTFL, seriously? What is more alarming to a novice sailor than heeling and burying the lee rail?
There’s just been a very active thread on here about how the OP had freaked out his parents and in-laws through rocking and rolling - he should have had a catamaran and would have avoided the whole issue (though crossing a bar on a falling tide is not so good in either case). Or the other recent thread of an elderly couple abandoning an Amel ketch due to something unknown and many posters mentioned fatigue. In the reported 30-40 knots most catamarans are steady and flat - I guess that couple should have had a Lagoon 440.[*] Limited weight carrying capacity? Not generally, if you size volume for volume. Is Sailing Zatara in any way weight-constrained on their Privilege 565 vs their 55’ Beneteau?[*] Wider beam and limits in canals, yup. Though looking at the Ruby Rose videos it looked like a deep keel was more of an issue than their beam. Horses for courses.[*] Reduced availability of slips is entirely regional and often applies to monohulls as well. There are fewer catamarans in most places, so it makes sense that their are fewer berths.

Please folks, let’s stick to what you know and stop recycling the myths as facts.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Most of this list is based on incorrect assumptions. Why do people with no actual experience of catamarans keep recycling the following fallacies?
[LIST][*] Upwind is slightly worse, then you add the risk off lee shore? The reality is that some catamarans don’t sail well to windward. The vast majority do OK and quite a few do well. Just like the broad spectrum of cruising monohulls.[*] They aren’t as seaworthy??? More likely to have an engineering failure? Based on what? The cost to insure isn’t any more based on cost of boat, so if insurance companies don’t price in risk why should you? BTW, the width of most catamaran hulls when doubled is still less than any but the smallest monohull, so how does that equal greater risk of hitting something floating?[*] More susceptible to damage? In the examples you cite, those are problems of having a cored hull and nothing to do with boat type. Ditto for sail drives.[*] How can catamarans not be capable of motoring on one engine, if a monohull is capable of motoring on one engine? In a marina at slow speeds, sure, one engine has you steering in circles. But faster than 3 knots and there’s enough water flow over the rudders to steer straight. On passages it’s common to run just one engine, to extend the range. And since catamarans typically have smaller engines, running on one means more range.[*] Slamming bridge deck in waves. Sometimes and in some conditions. Some catamarans are worse and the vast majority barely notice.[*] Catamarans more alarming to non-sailors than monohulls? ROTFL, seriously? What is more alarming to a novice sailor than heeling and burying the lee rail?
There’s just been a very active thread on here about how the OP had freaked out his parents and in-laws through rocking and rolling - he should have had a catamaran and would have avoided the whole issue (though crossing a bar on a falling tide is not so good in either case). Or the other recent thread of an elderly couple abandoning an Amel ketch due to something unknown and many posters mentioned fatigue. In the reported 30-40 knots most catamarans are steady and flat - I guess that couple should have had a Lagoon 440.[*] Limited weight carrying capacity? Not generally, if you size volume for volume. Is Sailing Zatara in any way weight-constrained on their Privilege 565 vs their 55’ Beneteau?[*] Wider beam and limits in canals, yup. Though looking at the Ruby Rose videos it looked like a deep keel was more of an issue than their beam. Horses for courses.[*] Reduced availability of slips is entirely regional and often applies to monohulls as well. There are fewer catamarans in most places, so it makes sense that their are fewer berths.

Please folks, let’s stick to what you know and stop recycling the myths as facts.

Man you protest to much just let them believe the way they want you will never change anyones opinion via posting on an internet board. I have sailed all 3 types and i prefer a monohull .
Btw not all listed are myths many are items that were actually experienced on specific vessels .