Cats with Dagger Boards?

[Jef & Marin, Netherlands]

Switch 51, Switch 55 from Sud Composites have daggerboards. Swiss Catamarans which took over the boatyard around 2008 also do

[Leighpilot]

LAR benefits ? I’m glad you asked.

The ability to take the ground easily

The ability to be hauled and stored on the hard worldwide with out the need for dollies or cradles

They’re less likely to break or be damaged.

They’re easier and simpler to use

Both rudders are protected at all times.

[RHCAT]

Roger Hill Catamarans from NZ’s Concept Cats. Mini Keels making it beachable and dagger boards for upwind are a great combo.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Leighpilot

LAR benefits ? I’m glad you asked.



The ability to take the ground easily



The ability to be hauled and stored on the hard worldwide with out the need for dollies or cradles



They’re less likely to break or be damaged.



They’re easier and simpler to use



Both rudders are protected at all times.

Take the ground easily - “easily” is the wrong word, rather “with less risk of hull damage”. We are able to take the ground easily with our daggerboard cat but of course we do have to first ensure there aren’t hard bits that would damage the hulls. As long as you have a hard plate along the bottom of your mini keel (not many do) you also have to check the bottom to prevent damage to the mini keel.

Hauled and stored without cradles or dollies - in all the professional yards that I’ve been to, including in Fiji and Tonga, I have not seen any cat with it’s keels on the ground - they all had at least a few pieces of timber under the keels, if not proper supports and/or cradles. Same as for a daggerboard cat.

Less likely to break or be damaged????? That is BS, both types of appendages are as likely to be damaged as the other. I’ve seen plenty of mini keels getting rebuilt - it’s a much bigger job than repairing a daggerboard.

They’re easier and simpler to use. True, you don’t do anything with mini keels except scrape growth and apply antifoul. Your first fully true statement.

Both rudders are protected - not a unique feature. Our daggerboard cat is not the only one with full depth skegs to protect our props and rudders.

There are LAR benefits and cons, just as there are for daggerboards. Neither is necessarily better, just different. And that’s OK.

[Leighpilot]

I think for the purposes of the benefit equation mini keels could be considered as small LAR keels. So having mini keels and boards would probably be the best compromise for someone cruising and wanting a board boat. A boat like that would have most of the benefits of boat types.
I’d disagree on the damage potential. Board are far more fragile than LAR keels.

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by Leighpilot

I think for the purposes of the benefit equation mini keels could be considered as small LAR keels. So having mini keels and boards would probably be the best compromise for someone cruising and wanting a board boat. A boat like that would have most of the benefits of boat types.
I’d disagree on the damage potential. Board are far more fragile than LAR keels.

Or the worst of both worlds.
When downwind the ability to have boards up means:
Almost no forward drag, the CR is at the stern.
There is virtually no chance of the rudders cavitating on a wave crest or when surfing resulting in doing a 180.

When upwind the boat can be balanced to the prevailing wind and wave conditions.

Obscure situations involving cross currents and tides can be mitigated by board adjustment.

Kick up rudders an option on many dagger board cats means rudder protection is not an issue and drying out becomes more simple.

If laying a hull in an ocean storm, breaking seas, a daggerboard cat will slid sideways whereas the potential for a LAR cat to trip still exists.

The two types are different, daggerboards are more complicated and require user intervention, the same way a rotating mast does, if you don't set them right the performance benefits are lost. LAR keels are just there and will be the limiting factor on sailing performance.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by Don Lobo

Making a list of catamarans that have daggerboards. I'm personally looking for one in the mid 40 foot range about 5-10 years old.

would appreciate your help in making a comprehensive list

cheers!

Lobo

Lots of pro's and con's for all types of boats, are boards better than keels, it depends on your criteria for any boat function or characteristic, including boards.

I'm with you, I think dagger boards are by far more benificial for me. One thing to look for when trialling boats is how easy the boards are to adjust when sailing. To gain the most benifit you should be able to adjust them as you are sailing, hopefully while under load, not too bad if you just briefly take the load off with a wiggle.

[Shaneesprit]

Originally Posted by paulajayne

Well I thought it very funny - still smiling 😂

[markiobe]

This one

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/201...h-13s-8364234/

Sailed a very similar one today; tacking angle ~85deg, 10.8kts upwind in ~16-18kts :-))

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by markiobe

This one

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/201...h-13s-8364234/

Sailed a very similar one today; tacking angle ~85deg, 10.8kts upwind in ~16-18kts :-))

Displacement 3400kg?!? If that is lightship then what is the loaded displacement?

In either case that seems way too light for a cruising boat - the water and fuel alone are 1000kg, with another 1000kg for the sails, dinghy, anchoring equipment, galley fittings, toilets, engines, other fixed/portable equipment and a couple of people with their food to sail her.

As an example, the 1988 Crowther Super Shockwave 40 is 3200kg displacement. That is an open bridgedeck race boat with minimal accommodation. https://www.owenclarkedesign.com/198...40ft-catamaran

[Matt Johnson]

It's the Offshore Multihull Rating weight. It is a true number representing a lightship weight (no fluids in tanks, no food, no dinghy/anchor etc).

Take a look at the photos, it's a very simple boat without any extra fluff.

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by Matt Johnson

It's the Offshore Multihull Rating weight. It is a true number representing a lightship weight (no fluids in tanks, no food, no dinghy/anchor etc).

Take a look at the photos, it's a very simple boat without any extra fluff.

Yup, very good looking boat. But if you want to cruise you’ll add at least 50% of the lightship displacement before adding food or toys or anything else that makes cruising more than just sailing somewhere and camping, including six people to sleep in all the beds. With relatively fine hulls there will be a big performance hit to weighing her down.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Yup, very good looking boat. But if you want to cruise you’ll add at least 50% of the lightship displacement before adding food or toys or anything else that makes cruising more than just sailing somewhere and camping, including six people to sleep in all the beds. With relatively fine hulls there will be a big performance hit to weighing her down.

I tried to buy one when I bought my boat and have raced against one (a different one) a few times in Moreton Bay. They are more race boat than cruiser, but they are usable as a frugal cruiser. They are built to sail in light winds and they do it very well.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by markiobe

This one

https://www.yachtworld.com/yacht/201...h-13s-8364234/

Sailed a very similar one today; tacking angle ~85deg, 10.8kts upwind in ~16-18kts :-))

They are fast boats and can sail high but those numbers don't stack up. That would have you sailing at 15 or so apparent

[Tupaia]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Yup, very good looking boat. But if you want to cruise you’ll add at least 50% of the lightship displacement before adding food or toys or anything else that makes cruising more than just sailing somewhere and camping, including six people to sleep in all the beds. With relatively fine hulls there will be a big performance hit to weighing her down.

Agree nice looking boat and a very competitive stripped out race boat but not sure it is robust enough to qualify as a long distance cruiser. Didn't WOW end up in La Reunion with destroyed chamfer panels after crossing the Indian Ocean.


Was this because of structural strength issues or cruising loads exceeding the design?