Why do you guys like monohulls so much?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by smj

A knock down is flat, 90 degrees with sails in the water. Everything that wasn’t tied down is thrown around including humans, unless of course your Spider-Man.

Okay, I'll accept that, but the humans don't have to be spiderman, just hanging on a bit.

I will say, however, in 50 years of sailing I've never experienced it. Once on a friend's boat during a race, all of the boats going downwind with spinnakers up, and a squall came through, and every boat in the fleet was knocked down simultaneously, however, even though we were knocked about 90 degrees, only the spinnaker and the end of the boom touched the water since our boat, being 12 feet wide, was floating on it's beam and the mast, horizontal as it was, was still 6 feet above the surface of the water.

Anyhow that does not apply to cruising boats since they don't usually carry kites in those conditions, and under white sails it is REALLY unsual to get that kind of knock down. As I say, Iv'e never experienced it.

PS, I'll add that this occurred in exactly the same spot as the report Newhaul just gave about his h28 going 8 knots. Maybe it was the same day.

Hey Newhaul, did you by any chance see a bunch of Peterson 40's on their sides that day?

[Don C L]

The few times I have been thrown over, and I doubt it was all the way to 90 since just going to 45 can FEEL like 90, the main thing was I did not have a good grip on anything at the moment and I fell against the coaming and then the stanchion. And if you are thrown by a sudden gust or surprising wave, there is the feeling of being tossed too; it is not necessarily a slow thing like a chute pulling a boat over. The chance for serious injury is there, but maybe not for the boat.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Okay, I'll accept that, but the humans don't have to be spiderman, just hanging on a bit.

I will say, however, in 50 years of sailing I've never experienced it. Once on a friend's boat during a race, all of the boats going downwind with spinnakers up, and a squall came through, and every boat in the fleet was knocked down simultaneously, however, even though we were knocked about 90 degrees, only the spinnaker and the end of the boom touched the water since our boat, being 12 feet wide, was floating on it's beam and the mast, horizontal as it was, was still 6 feet above the surface of the water.

Anyhow that does not apply to cruising boats since they don't usually carry kites in those conditions, and under white sails it is REALLY unsual to get that kind of knock down. As I say, Iv'e never experienced it.

PS, I'll add that this occurred in exactly the same spot as the report Newhaul just gave about his h28 going 8 knots. Maybe it was the same day.

Hey Newhaul, did you by any chance see a bunch of Peterson 40's on their sides that day?

No I didn't and it was a spencer 42 the h28 was old fella not me .
That would have been a race down near three tree point and I was la bit busy keeping my footing at that point that boat didn't like being 90° to the wind it really liked 45° off the wind or a 45° following .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Don C L

The few times I have been thrown over, and I doubt it was all the way to 90 since just going to 45 can FEEL like 90, the main thing was I did not have a good grip on anything at the moment and I fell against the coaming and then the stanchion. And if you are thrown by a sudden gust or surprising wave, there is the feeling of being tossed too; it is not necessarily a slow thing like a chute pulling a boat over. The chance for serious injury is there, but maybe not for the boat.

You grow to expect the weird stuff if your out on it long enough . Still get your bumps and bruises but the most important thing is stay on the boat . Always clip in you fall off the boat you die .

[double u]

"...you aren't going to find the equivalent cat for the same money...that point has been made many times in this thread alone...."
so to put it differently: $ for $ the cat is the less suitable boat, right?

"...Not a big multihull problem if you can afford it!..."
& what would be the parameter to compare cats & monos if not $$? length? beam? colour?

"...your precious little elan..." - am I needling you? (purpose achieved...)

[MartinR]

OK, I give you my take. There are catamarans and catamarans, as there are monohulls and monohulls.

My boat for example is not big, inside space maybe like a 38´cat or a 50' modern boat. She was not expensive to buy.

She outsails everything that is out there in comfort. We can do circles around modern cruising cats. She is narrow, which means very little rolling; the sails have more stabilising effect on a narrow boat. DDW is another matter, but that is a course I always avoid. There is little sail area needed to drive her fast, makes for easy handling, single or double handed. Especially, as she is cutter ketch rigged.

The drawback is of course that she lists a lot when beating up, making cooking interesting, but the motion is very predictable and soft.

Safety wise, the hull is basically unbreachable, with strong longitudinal stringers. The keel is attached to a 3 1/2" solid fiberglass platform. The rudder is exposed, very strong, and it is in line with the keel, so a hit is unlikely.

So, basically I like her because of fast, predictable, relaxed sailing. And the freeboard is not very high for the size, so you sit lower, which reduces the motion and gives more sense of speed.

[Cutterman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

I don't for a minute believe that is where you are headed, but OK...

You misunderstood what I was saying. On a given crossing, cruisers on cats and cruisers on monohulls have the passage lengths are not significantly different. I based this on my own observations and on ARC results (eliminating the top boats and last boats in either catagory the durations are similar). Around here we have passages of 100-400 miles. The cats and monos don't have significantly different passage durations.

It does not matter which boat has the higest maximum speed on his polar diagram. If you don't get to your destination any faster, then ultimate speed is not really a determining factor.

Now if you get into high performance vessels crewed by agressive sailors, the results change. I'm talking about Mom and Pop cruisers.

*********
I tend to agree with Wingsail. Only my interest is slightly different. What is really involved in cruising is the total length of time spent on board while executing your plans and how much of that time is spent under way. This helps us to figure out how much food etc. we need to carry, depending on our route.

When I was planning modifications to my monohull, a 1955 Alden sloop design with a waterline length of less than 25 feet (but 33' 9" LOD), I spent a while discussing my ideas with Peter, a friend who had recently returned from a milk-run circumnavigation of the planet in a 34' catamaran, almost twice the size of my boat.

I started out by guessing that my cruising habits involve about 60 - 65% of the time attached to the ground by some means. So I am actually making way under sail and/or power for less than 40% of the time. To my mind, this meant that my modification plans had to take into consideration that I would be living on a stationary vessel for more than half my time afloat and that I should plan the facilities on board accordingly.

Peter was surprised at my guesstimate so he agreed to trawl thorough his four year log to find out how long he had been attached to the ground in some way on his trip around the world. The first thing he did was to subtract the year he spent in Greece when his mast fell overboard in a storm off Cyprus and he had to wait for another one to arrive from Australia. So he worked out his figure based on the three years he was actually executing his plans for a circumnavigation.

When I next saw Peter he told me that, to his surprise, his figures showed that he had been attached to the ground for 62.5% of the time he took to sail round the world, pretty much the same amount of time that I guessed that I did when cruising. Since then, I have decided to become a full-time live-aboard which makes having a suitable environment below decks as important, if not more so, than the environment topside.

This thinking justified the construction of a small cabin in the after half of the eight foot long cockpit on my boat. It's purpose is to house all the navigation and marine communication equipment, keeping it out of the main cabin. This cuddy is just big enough for the watch keeper to sit below out of the weather when sailing or for one person to enjoy a video, listen to the radio or spend some quiet time reading or whatever when the boat is not under weigh. (It would also provide some additional flotation if pooped by a following sea.)

Getting back to the monohull versus multi-hull debate, the corollary to my discussions with Peter showed that Peter's time spent at sea was about two thirds of the time I would take to sail round the world in the smaller boat. The similarity in the proportion of execution time each of us spends actually on the move means that I would spend a greater amount of time attached to the ground than Peter did on his trip due to the smaller size of my boat.

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by double u

"...you aren't going to find the equivalent cat for the same money...that point has been made many times in this thread alone...."
so to put it differently: $ for $ the cat is the less suitable boat, right?
Yes I would think so as you will have a smaller cat...although there have been some very seaworthy small cats built but they probably wouldn't appeal to someone that likes a production boat less than 10 years old

"...Not a big multihull problem if you can afford it!..."
& what would be the parameter to compare cats & monos if not $$? length? beam? colour?

"...your precious little elan..." - am I needling you? (purpose achieved...)

Why do you feel you have to needle people on the forum? Are you like this in real life too?

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Don C L

The few times I have been thrown over, and I doubt it was all the way to 90 since just going to 45 can FEEL like 90, the main thing was I did not have a good grip on anything at the moment and I fell against the coaming and then the stanchion. And if you are thrown by a sudden gust or surprising wave, there is the feeling of being tossed too; it is not necessarily a slow thing like a chute pulling a boat over. The chance for serious injury is there, but maybe not for the boat.

Wave hits are the serious thing. They can be instantaneous and godawful powerful, and of course they are what rolls boats. I've never had that happen, on any boat.

Wind gusts, although they can be surprisingly quick, tend to be slower than wave hits and the amount of heeling they cause tends to be self limiting. I've been though a couple of these that reached near 90 but not on my own boat. Probably about 45-60 would have been the worst, and it was bad enough. I got yelled at for intentionally heading towards a squall trying to get a lifted breeze.

[double u]

Originally Posted by NevilleCat

Why do you feel you have to needle people on the forum? Are you like this in real life too?

okok, next time I'll put "Irony mode on" - satisfied?
(& "...your precious little Elan.." isn't that much short of an insult, right?)

[double u]

"... I'm talking about Mom and Pop cruisers...."
this is the next point in favour of the monohulls: it does not end in total desaster, if the nightwatch is maybe a bit slow to foresee & act when a 40kn squall passes through. Ever which way you turn this - the Monhull is more forgiving,even if the platform is "tilty" at times

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by double u

"... I'm talking about Mom and Pop cruisers...."
this is the next point in favour of the monohulls: it does not end in total desaster, if the nightwatch is maybe a bit slow to foresee & act when a 40kn squall passes through. Ever which way you turn this - the Monhull is more forgiving,even if the platform is "tilty" at times

Regardless of the number of hulls under you unless a fully crewed vessel it is good practice to shorten sail during the overnight hours . Good insurance against unforseen issues

[double u]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Regardless of the number of hulls under you unless a fully crewed vessel it is good practice to shorten sail during the overnight hours . Good insurance against unforseen issues

& then it will take forever to get "to the other side" (after all: nearly 50% of the time in the tropics is darkness).
I just like the fact that it is not so easy to "sail a monohull under" - makes for much more relaxed passagemaking, much more!

[smj]

Originally Posted by double u

"... I'm talking about Mom and Pop cruisers...."
this is the next point in favour of the monohulls: it does not end in total desaster, if the nightwatch is maybe a bit slow to foresee & act when a 40kn squall passes through. Ever which way you turn this - the Monhull is more forgiving,even if the platform is "tilty" at times

More forgiving? In some situations I agree, but not in all. Once again.

http://www.multihulldynamics.com/new...p?articleID=11

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by double u

& then it will take forever to get "to the other side" (after all: nearly 50% of the time in the tropics is darkness).
I just like the fact that it is not so easy to "sail a monohull under" - makes for much more relaxed passagemaking, much more!

And what is your experience level with the varied hull configurations and what conditions have you sailed in with each?

Experience only please . You know what they say about opinions.