• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DDW

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

8,415 profile views
  1. Proa, there's no doubt that an F9 and my boat are apples and oranges, but I exclude an F9 and the like because almost nobody is going to cruise them. I'm certainly not. Not enough space, not enough cargo capacity. Does not make them a bad boat, just a bad full time cruising boat (again, for most). I think my boat is decently fast for what it is. But not at fast as the more breathless multihull claims. That's why I look to bigger pools of data, collected over many boats and many years. The ARC results are probably the largest collection of data. What 10 years of that data shows is that a light, expensive, enthusiastically sailed cat is pretty fast. But not much faster than a light, expensive, enthusiastically sailed mono. The more relaxed crews on clorox bottle cats and monos are about the same speed. Rasp, the more I look at that tri the better I like it. The hull flair carried all the way to the transom probably makes the interior seem more open - I'd like to see more interior photos and an accommodation plan. I also like the very clean decks. All it needs is an unstayed carbon mast to get rid of all that string That's very quotable - I''l have to remember that one.
  2. Unfortunately he depends on anecdotal and testimonial hearsay in his comparison. I am looking for hard data: race committee recorded elapsed times and/or satellite tracked passages. There is plenty of this data, just very little supporting the assertion. There have been some bright spots lately, like Fujin's performance in the recent C600. Though how a gung ho racing crew flying a hull around a 3 day course applies to a cruising couple is unclear. That's why I would like to see a Rapido 60 do that course - I'd expect a pretty good performance without as much flogging, but it would be interesting to prove. An F9 doesn't count in this discussion - very few are willing to accept the compromises necessary to cruise something like that. Fine for a weekend, but not so good as a live aboard.
  3. Rasp - nice but pretty cozy (small). What design is that?
  4. In the Practical Sailor tests, copper content alone didn't seem to predict the outcome. Trinidad seems to have come up with a binder that works better with the copper. Also "ablative" seems to have a pretty big range. Like I said, rubbing the Micron CSC with a cloth will take off less paint than rubbing the Trinidad, which is supposed to be a hard paint. I ran around the Salish Sea for about 600 miles, motoring at 6.5 knots most of the time (no wind) and none of the CSC seems to have ablated. Or maybe it is sealed in with slime...the only place it cleaned itself even a small amount was in the immediate vicinity of the prop wash. Maybe a power boat run at 20 knots would do better. I wonder how Washington defines "ablative"? Just what it says on the can?
  5. All the cats I have been on could do a pretty good turn of speed under ideal conditions: Lots of wind, beam to broad reach, flat water. Those seem to be the conditions that result in the "they'll do 12 knots" claims. That is very different than average speeds over several days and several hundred miles, in random wind directions and a fully developed seaway. The Heineken and C600 results are most interesting for that reason, a variety of conditions and directions. I've never sailed on a large tri and would welcome the chance. It'd be great to see the Rapido 60 in the Heineken or C600.
  6. Alex, yeah, that's about what mine looked like in two months. I would not have started this thread if it had been 40 months. The environmental protection argument is selectively applied. In BC, you cannot buy effective bottom paint because it might be bad for salmon, but the lumber, mining, and fish farm industries - all many orders of magnitude worse for the salmon than recreational boat bottom paint - is allowed to continue unchecked. I get it, people need jobs and money talks. Recreational boaters do not have an effective lobby and are the low hanging fruit. The problem is probably temporary (a decade or two) before effective and less toxic bottom treatments are developed. I think of it like the first smog controls on cars. They would barely run. But after two decades of development, cars run better than ever and are so clean you can no longer commit suicide by breathing the exhaust. It's going to be a tough and expensive two decades for us boat owners. Good for business though, eh fstbttms?
  7. Proa, even though I have never been to Missouri, I only believe in hard data. I have had countless multihull enthusiasts wax poetic about the performance of cruising multihulls. However hard data showing that is conspicuous by its absence. I have looked at many years worth of ARC, C600, and Heineken results, as well as some others where multihulls are allowed. The conclusion one must draw from all those results is that cruising multihulls are no faster (and in many cases slower) than monohulls. Can you point to a body of data (timed course or satellite tracked) that shows cruising multihulls being substantially faster than similarly purposed monohulls? I think this is one reason that cruising multihulls have not taken the world by storm - the promised performance is illusory. My own experience in spending now 9 years, several months each year cruising my monohull on both coasts: I have been passed by exactly one cruising multihull. It was a Lagoon 57, sailing from Sandy Hook to Atlantic city. We weighed anchor in Sandy Hook at the same time, he arrived in Atlantic city (80 miles?) about 1/2 hour earlier. Conditions were ideal for the multihull: broad reaching in 18 knots or so. Had I been sailing a 57' monohull instead of my 45' I would have arrived first. Based on our waterline lengths, he should have been 1 1/2 hours ahead. I have sailed past every other cruising multihull I have met, except the ones that were motoring. I may have been unlucky enough only to have met the slow ones. I discount F27/31, I've seen them go pretty fast on a screaming reach, but they are not cruising boats in this context. I think cruising cats are better served to be sold on what they do well (no heeling, no rocking at anchor, lots of space, etc.). They are great cruising boats for these reasons, but a substantially increase in average speed does not appear to be there, based on the available data.
  8. I'm not a resident of Washington or Canada. But if I paint it in Canada, then spend two months in Washington I'm screwed? Or if I paint it in Washington and don't leave for a month I'm screwed? No it ain't rocket science, the paint is shite. I cruise the boat, I can't change the paint every time I change jurisdictions. It's kind of amusing that Washington State's circular about bottom paints (explaining that copper will be illegal) refers you to a UC study which delivers the firm conclusion that copper bottom paint was far superior in antifouling properties compared to the 3 "environmentally friendly" alternatives they tested.
  9. I didn't say I cleaned it in Washington, and in fact I did not. If it is true that you can't clean this stuff, then given the rate of flora growth, it truly is shite. A non-starter. Secondly, if you knew it was illegal, why did you say I waited 100% too long to clean it? Are you saying this paint must be cleaned at least once a month, but it is illegal to do so? Good stuff, eh?
  10. So, this is Micron CSC and not 66. I assumed it didn't work as well since CSC is legal in Canada and 66 is not. That is usually a good indicator. I don't know exactly how this season compared with last, my berth location was a bit different. All I know is that the slime/weed and stain on the CSC are far worse than I have (ever) seen on Trinidad. I'd have thought an ablative would be easier to clean than this. If I rub this stuff, actually less comes off than if I rub Trinidad. As far as leaving it 100% too long, if I can't clean it after 2 months, then it's shitty paint. There are plenty of places up in the San Juans and Gulf islands where you are not going to get a diver to come that far every month, without spending a lot of money. More money that just hauling it again. "Shitty" here is a relative term - in that there are paints that aren't that "shitty". I guess Trinidad will be illegal in Washington too shortly.
  11. Probably should be in Gear anarchy but who looks there? This year for the first time I used Micron CSC. Had to go ablative because I thought I would have to haul out again pretty quick. Had to go CSC rather than 66 because it was painted in Canada. After sitting in the marina for about 60 days a thick layer of slime and light weed formed. It doesn't ablate off, and it is difficult to scrub off. On the exposed bottom paint there are slime stains that will not scrub off, even if hit pretty vigorously. Under the water line with some fairly hard scrubbing I could get it pretty clean. I've always used Trinidad SR up until now, and didn't see anything like this in about the same conditions. Is Micron just that bad in comparison? Next spring I'll probably sand all the Micron off and go back to Trinidad, but I'm wondering if my experience is atypical.
  12. I would not say the problem is the opposite. The extra space (on a cat - not a tri) may make the problem worse because of the temptation to take even more. But if you take the stuff an average cruising couple has on a 35' mono, transfer it over to even a 50' cat, the cat is going to be overloaded. Same stuff. They can't carry as much stuff, without being just as slow. Or slower still, as they start with the disadvantage of extra windage and two or more hulls. They are ideal for someone with the restraint to keep to very minimum equipment and stores for that size boat, and the vigilance to keep it upright. That's a pretty small subset of cruisers. Or for someone who wants the extra saloon and deck space and doesn't care that it's slower. That turns out to be the sweet spot for the cruising cat market, proven by the vast majority of those sold.
  13. ...when the rating is highter than a maxi 100 thats not obvious.. Even more obvious, actually. There is no doubt that multihulls are fast in stripped down race form. Strip down even further (like sailboards) they are faster. Even further (like foiling kite boards) even faster still. One of the main problems seems to be that for a most cruising couples, there is a certain minimum weight load required, in small sizes this is too much for a multihull to carry and maintain its advantage of light weight. One either needs to leave many desirable things on the dock, or buy a much longer boat.
  14. When you hav'ta say your 35'er has standing head room, you know its a tri....
  15. A carbon pole looks cool, and will intimidate the competition. You could just get the aluminum pole wrapped with a carbon print, your competitors won't know the difference and it might fool the foredeck as well.