ROGNTUDJUUU For Sale - Cheap!

[cat man do]

Anyone in Oz know what the story is here?

Crowther Southern Ocean 58 sailing catamaran
AU $398,000 make an offer Was $650,000.
Owner will consider any crazy offer. This is one of the fastest sailing vessels in Australia! Its a state of the art race boat constructed in Carbon Fibre with super lightweight Nomex honeycomb core. New 23m carbon mast with titanium fittings. Its current refit is near completion ready for a new owner to finish the task. A fantastic opportunity as a BIG showcase for a corporate statement in the up coming Around Australia Race.
Fire Sale, must sell make an offer!

Location: Manly (Brisbane) QLD

Crowther Southern Ocean 58 Sailing Catamaran: Sailing Catamaran for Sale - Carbon Fibre With Nomex Honey Comb Core Sail Boats - Queensland (Qld) - Manly (brisbane) Qld

WTF
Why so cheap?

[sww914]

Just from reading the ad, I'd guess that there's still some big $$$ left to pay to finish the refit. Titanium hardware doesn't sound cheap at all.

[Factor]

Main issue is, in my view, that there is a small market for expensive multihull race boats.

[barnakiel]

She is not too young either.

But a hell lotta botta - kicked Kiwi ass in the Coastal Classic. Helped build sails for her back then. Seen her at the dock - a very, very sporty thing she is.

Minus the hell of the mast and cloud of sails she might be a fast cruiser's dream come true.

b.

[freetime]

You shall not rename sailboats

Look at the contour 50 f trimarans in us, atleast 3 have been for sale in a year or more now....

So the market is small.

I have a friend and he try to sell his Bruce Roberts 65f, build -95 and it is nautor swan class on it. And now the price is under 300 000 euro.... And still not sold.

[cat man do]

I cant see how she would have needed that much of a refit as she would have had a whole lot done in 07 after this minor mishap.

[witzgall]

Wow, what is the story behind those pictures????


Chris

Originally Posted by cat man do

I cant see how she would have needed that much of a refit as she would have had a whole lot done in 07 after this minor mishap.

[barnakiel]

Ouch, Beware of drunk French sailors !!!

;-)))
b.

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by witzgall

Wow, what is the story behind those pictures????


Chris

Pushed a bit hard in the 2007 Brisbane to Gladstone, flipped, crew got off ok I think there was some bruising on some from the near 30 knots to 0 stop and subsequent slamming into bulkheads.

Then she drifted and ground the cabin and rig off on Lady Elliot Island (from memory)

Recovered and motored back to Brisbane for repair, so I would assume new rig, sails, winches, electronics and anything else that was in the cabin and then fell out when the roof ground away.

[paulrack]

In the one picture the whole centre hull is out the water, its the one float on the dock? Looks like an expensive mistake!

[solarbri]

I wonder what is left for the refit?
Anyone have any links to more details of this boat?
How reasonable would it be to convert to fast cruising?
Seems like a lot of boat!!!

[cat man do]

Originally Posted by paulrack

In the one picture the whole centre hull is out the water, its the one float on the dock? Looks like an expensive mistake!

Its a catamaran, not a tri.
The center hull is a wavebreaker so as not to get wave slap on a flat panel and is supposed to be clear of the water.

It would be a problem if it wasn't.

[cat man do]

How reasonable would it be to convert to fast cruising?
Seems like a lot of boat!!!

Would have thought that to cut and split cabin and add head room in the centre, (compare this pic to the same one above) so giving a queen size berth either side of cabin, allowing full head room and living in what is the existing space would be easy as and should only add a couple of hundred kg to her weight.

If just using foam kevlar epoxy construction with glass for impact it would not cost that much to do.

[bayview]

Originally Posted by cat man do

Its a catamaran, not a tri.
The center hull is a wavebreaker so as not to get wave slap on a flat panel and is supposed to be clear of the water.

It would be a problem if it wasn't.

You may find that the centre hull is actually a beam which distributes the mast loads into the cross beams.

As can be seen from the pictures the mast is stepped between the fore and aft beam. The bottom of this web/beam has obviously been shaped to minimize the wave drag.

[beiland]

Originally Posted by bayview

You may find that the centre hull is actually a beam which distributes the mast loads into the cross beams.

As can be seen from the pictures the mast is stepped between the fore and aft beam. The bottom of this web/beam has obviously been shaped to minimize the wave drag.

This is form a posting I did on another forum back in 2003:
One item of your thought processes caught my attention in particular; your desire for a single centerboard, and real shallow draft capabilities. I'll certainly second that motion, that shallow draft idea. One of the greatest attributes of multihulls is their capability to really go exploring ALL the water areas including those tributaries, lagoons, reefs, etc. That's why I had kick-up CB's in each hull of my design.

BUT, what you may not have noticed was my alternative to the CB's in each hull. Look at the attached drawing, (or the very bottom profile drwg that denotes "asymmetrical CB's, nacelle mounted". First, imagine a flat plate, on edge, mounted down the centerline on the underside of the bridge deck. This flat plate will act as a rib to strengthen the fore-to-aft rigidity of the vessel, a somewhat weaker characteristic in a catamaran structure vs. a keeled monohull. If a tow bundle (rope, etc) of carbon fiber (kevlar, PBO, etc) was laid along the bottom edge of this flat plate, the rigidity could be even greater (sort of akin to a bottom truss structure, or a flange of an 'I' beam). Now on either side of this flat plate I propose to mount a centerboard, not a single, symmetrical one, but rather two asymmetrical ones; sort of like a single board split in half. The flat sides of these asymmetric boards would fit up against the flat plate nacelle, and rotate on oversize (possibly 1-foot) diameter bearings. The flat fit & big bearings would together supply a great big surface for the large bending moments to bear against. Only one board at a time would be lowered. In fact the two could be linked together such that the act of lifting one automatically lowers (& powers) the other down. And they both could be rigged to 'kick up' upon hitting any solid object and/or for shallow cruising. The control lines (cables) could be routed right up to the cabin top and back to the cockpit.

There are several advantages to an asymmetrical shaped centerboard. First, it requires less total board area to develop a leeway reducing force....so the board size is reduced. Secondly, since it is asymmetrical, it does not require an angle of attack (does not require the boat itself to be sailed at a skewed angle) to develop the 'board's lift' (leeway reducing force). This actually may result in the vessel making less leeway. Plus the drag forces associated with the CB lift forces are on the centerline of the vessel, rather than offin one hull that produces turning moments about the center of the vessel.

This centerline mounting may also improve the tacking capabilities of the vessel as it allows the 'clean' hulls to slip a little while pivoting about the central board.

The front of this nacelle/plate could be configured to act as a wave splitter to actually attack, up front, the formation of those peaky waves under the tramp areas that eventually slap at our bridge deck underside. We kind of slice those waves down a bit. A lightweight fairing might also be added to this 'flat plate nacelle' so it appears outwardly much more esthetically pleasing, as well as more curvature to shed those peaky waves.

And how about the maintenance factor, particularly in remote cruising areas. No need to haul-out the vessel to repair kick-up CB problems, or even bottom painting problems. Everything, including the cables, bearings, and boards is all above the load waterline. The initial building cost should be less by eliminating the trunks in two hulls, and the watertight integrity is much better. The twin boards might have to be made a little bit longer as they operate with a 'free-surface' end, but then they are asymmetric so they can be correspondingly shorter. I would further suggest that surplus helicopter blades are prime candidate sources for both CB blades and rudder blades....high tech, extremely strong carbon fiber fabrications that have a prescribed limited life span aboard aircraft, but are perfectly happy for our use.