In this day where multihulls are cleary the fastest boats on the ocean, why do we even care about huge monohulls anymore?" Bob Perry,

[Panoramix]

You are suggesting that the speed of their cat is 70% faster than a similarly sailed, similarly sized, similarly designed monohull.

Nope, I wrote that it takes ordinary people who sail to the Azores from Brittany with a monohull 10 to 12 days... whereas their skinny cat did it in 7 days! Didn't say that it was like for like as it obviously isn't! My only point is that they got to sail far away whereas other families tend to go to Spain, Portugal, Ireland or England.

I also said that they were exceptionally good sailors.

 

[Se7en]

I think using the ARC results to say "X is faster" is a bit silly.

I'd tend to agree - simply because most cruising sail boats, sailed by couples, tend to coast hop.

When we were out crusing in AU, we ended up buddy boating with a few monos - couple of french boats, a cabo rico, a halberg rassey, an adams, and us. All in the 35 to 40ish ft range. Mostly we did 100 nm to 200nm hops, either as day sails or overnight sails. Most boats were crewed by a couple, often with only one experienced sailor. 

And we all planned on 5 knots boat speed. Below 4 knots we'd burn some dinosaurs, above 7ish we'd be reefing and slowing the boat down.

We also met some multihull cruisers. As a rule, they watched the weather more than us, and tried to sail in something on the beam. But when they did go, they'd plan on more like 7 or 8 knots, and jump 150 to 300 nm in the same overnight sail. One family we crusied with for a month were in a farrier tri... we didn't often sail with them. Motorsailing upwind, we could go places they simply couldn't. On a reach / off the wind, they'd do a horizon job on us in the first hour - and we definately had a ton more racing experience.

We'd have a cat in a hearbeat if;

 - we could afford it

 - we could trust ourselves to reef early and keep it right side up

 - they weren't mostly so dammed ugly!

Other point is that as a couple we can probably handle something in the mid 40 ft range. Mono or Multi, the sails are similar sized, the loads are manageable. A 45 ft cat is a lot more boat that a 45 ft mono, and is priced accordingly. And I doubt we could fit any more stuff on a 45 ft cat... but the temptation would be there.

 

[Black Sox]

I wasn't bothered by being misquoted. These days I have my name attached to so many boats I had nothing to do with I'd go nuts if I let it bother me.

What I do like to do is to call the offending broker and pretend I'm interested in the boat I am supposed to have designed. I lead them along until they are truly buried in their own BS quoting me right and left about the  boat and then I tell them who I am and listen to them grovel.

I'm a mean man.

View attachment 487613

Can we quote you on that, Bob?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

...not much experience needed when judging the "aesthetics" of say a Lagoon 380 or like...

My comment more directed at other assertions, say for example the tired SOS anti-multihull shit that is yet again dragged out in this thread

 

[DDW]

Nope, I wrote that it takes ordinary people who sail to the Azores from Brittany with a monohull 10 to 12 days... whereas their skinny cat did it in 7 days! Didn't say that it was like for like as it obviously isn't! My only point is that they got to sail far away whereas other families tend to go to Spain, Portugal, Ireland or England.

I also said that they were exceptionally good sailors.

Here is what you wrote:

My daughter has a friend whose family owns a catamaran. They've sailed from North Brittany to the Azores, Sweden among many places on annual leave time. This is something you can't do on a mono, it takes 10 to 12 days to go the Azores, it took them 7, with 3 weeks of leave they can just about do it. 

Based on the ARC results from Zonker (and many other years as well) we can say that 7 days in the very fastest cruising cat would be 8 days in even a reasonably fast monohull (I'd plan 8 days in my boat which is certainly not cutting edge). The ARC is also ideal conditions for the cat, if the destination is upwind the order might well be reversed. Now, if your intent was to pit expert sailors on a modern light cat against mediocre sailors on an aging and heavy monohull, then that is a different discussion.

 

[socalrider]

Here is what you wrote:

Based on the ARC results from Zonker (and many other years as well) we can say that 7 days in the very fastest cruising cat would be 8 days even in a reasonably fast monohull (I'd plan 8 days in my boat which is certainly not cutting edge). The ARC is also ideal conditions for the cat, if the destination is upwind the order might well be reversed. Now, if your intent was to pit expert sailors on a modern light cat against mediocre sailors on an aging and heavy monohull, then that is a different discussion.

I also don't buy the implication that a faster sailing boat necessarily gives you more range on a vacation.  If you're cruising around the world it's possible, but most of us are on schedules and can't necessarily plan a 2-3 week trip around a weather window.  We've gotta go when we've scheduled the trip.  So your range estimate can't be based on ideal conditions, it has to be conservative, typically based on average speeds which could be attained under sail or power.  And most boats motor about the same speed, based on WLL, whether they're "fast" or "slow".  

With motoring speed setting your range, you might be better off in a longer mono vs a shorter cat for the same $$.  Unless you're in an area with very reliable winds.  6.5kt in a 40' cat vs 7.5kt in a 50' mono is a material difference.  

 

[floater]

..If you think it will be 3x as fast (as Peter J. used to claim for Gunboats), you may just be disappointed. 

RIP the gunboat. it was a good run while it lasted..

 

[Voiled]

2 hours ago, floater said:

RIP the gunboat. it was a good run while it lasted..

The gurl was deeply impressed, that seems to be worth something on this site.

 

[Zonker]

Those results show a Catana 45 that “everyone knows is a really fast cruising cat” was only 4% faster than an HR 44 that “everyone knows is slower than the 2nd coming of christ”. 

A single Catana and a single HR IS an anecdote.

Would you bet real money with two equally motivated crews (i.e. using spinnakers, trying to go as fast as possible) on these 2 boats would only be 4% difference in speed? 

I also don't buy the implication that a faster sailing boat necessarily gives you more range on a vacation.

When we shifted from a slow 30' mono to a fast 40' cat our daily ranges were greatly increased. We had to mentally re-calibrate our brains because the 30' boat was a 4-5 knot boat and the cat, when just day sailed and not fully loaded for living aboard was a 8-10 knot boat. We would get to a destination right after lunch and think "that would have been an all day trip on the last boat". We also had to train ourselves to take down the spinnaker a wee bit sooner as we were approaching a harbour at 12 knots!

 

[DDW]

Those are both anecdotes. That's why I would rely rather on many years of ARC data. I will make the assertion that this is real world, real crews on real boats in real conditions and the speed that results. And that data tells a compelling story that there isn't a huge difference in speeds among the entire fleet until you get to the 3 sigma outliers. Including both monohulls and multihulls. It isn't just the ARC data, there are a few other tracked cruises/races that tell the same story. So does speed not matter? I would say not really, unless you are sailing within site of another boat. Then you want to be faster - even a little faster is enough. And that is an emotional thing, not an objective one. 

 

[Zonker]

I'd say crew matters as much as the boat. That variable isn't captured very well by ARC results. Mom and pop relaxed sailors versus mom and pop + 2 friends who can keep the boat moving a lot faster.

Our 40' cat did Mexico to Nuka Hiva in 19 days. Our friends in a Wauquiez Pretorian 35 took 20 days. We loafed along and sailed very slowly the last 300 miles with 1 rudder missing. The skipper on the Pretorian was an experienced big boat bowman. He was peeling spinnakers and pushing the boat very hard. He was only 5% slower than us.

On another much shorter hop of 500 miles (Ua Pou - Makemo in the Tuamotos) we did it in 2.5 days. We were pushing hard to get in just before dark and anchored. They were pushing equally hard but for them it was closer to 3.25 days. ~25% faster sounds about right to me - in those conditions, with equally motivated crews.

I am sure a really well sailed HR44 could outsail the Catana if the Catana owners were not flying a chute at night, not flying a chute at all, reefing early, reefing "because night is falling" - that's a thing among some sailors. etc etc.

I totally agree that the condo cats do not sail much faster than a mono of similar size. Faster, lighter cats really do sail considerably faster. We were about 5-10% faster than a FP Bahia 46 for example, and about 20-25% faster than a Lagoon 42, and so much faster than a Lagoon 380 (sailing side by side day sailing and on passages)

 

[Veeger]

As for the ARC being a measuring standard.  These folks,  Cat Greatcircle , on a new Outremer 55, often sailed only with the spinnaker, no main, on their crossing.  In fact,  multihulls often sail this way on those downwind 'milk runs' because the main chafes on the shrouds. (this was an annoying frustration for me as well, although I didn't make any ocean crossings on my boat). Consequently, imputing relative speeds on something like the ARC is somewhat pointless.

 

[Panoramix]

Here is what you wrote:

Based on the ARC results from Zonker (and many other years as well) we can say that 7 days in the very fastest cruising cat would be 8 days in even a reasonably fast monohull (I'd plan 8 days in my boat which is certainly not cutting edge). The ARC is also ideal conditions for the cat, if the destination is upwind the order might well be reversed. Now, if your intent was to pit expert sailors on a modern light cat against mediocre sailors on an aging and heavy monohull, then that is a different discussion.

My point is just that you make sweeping generalities from statistics and that's just not possible as there are outliers. They would need at least a Pogo 50 or something similar to go as far as they do on their 37ft catamaran... not the same kind of boat...

 

[kent_island_sailor]

Sailing a charter cat against charter BendyTwos from island to island, the cat was faster. We sailed wider angles upwind but made up for it with boatspeed, although in both cases a faster monohull would have won that race. Offwind - we were GONE, 9-10-11 knots was the usual. We did have a miserable slamming beat to get home when some tropical disturbance left us going dead upwind in 35-45 and gusting higher. That was a motoring operation, we didn't even think about using the sails.

 

[KC375]

Basically: Run.

just don't blink

 

[DDW]

My point is just that you make sweeping generalities from statistics and that's just not possible as there are outliers. They would need at least a Pogo 50 or something similar to go as far as they do on their 37ft catamaran... not the same kind of boat...

Well, yes, the whole thread is about sweeping generalities just as Bob Perry's quote in the title is. One can always chose to sail an outlier. You in fact make a sweeping generality when you say "no monohull"can do what their cat can do - in fact an outlier mono could. Especially if the destination is upwind. 

 

[Mark Morwood]

I totally agree that the condo cats do not sail much faster than a mono of similar size. Faster, lighter cats really do sail considerably faster. We were about 5-10% faster than a FP Bahia 46 for example, and about 20-25% faster than a Lagoon 42, and so much faster than a Lagoon 380 (sailing side by side day sailing and on passages)

We had similar experiences long distance cruising on our overloaded but still performance oriented Catana 48.  Sailing with similar sized condo cats we would get there about the same time in light winds, except we had sailed and they had motored, and with a bit more wind we were significantly faster. We also sailed roughly in company with a Discovery 55 across a couple of oceans and we had very similar passage times. Both skippers with quite a lot of experience both cruising and racing, but we chose to sail much more actively with more light wind sails set up for easy handling. Both of us families with two adults and two kids.

Speed matters, but even more important for us cruising was how often we didn't have to turn on the engine.

 

[estarzinger]

but but . . . gentlemen don't sail to windward, and multi hulls are pure death traps and not 'real' sail boats, and speed does not matter for cruising, and my way is not only the best way but really the only way, so metal boats are the only thing worth considering

yes, I know there are metal multi's

 

[Mark Morwood]

excuse me, I hesitate to tell you that you are wrong, but if you don't have to caulk seams with oakum it's not a "real" cruising boat

 

[estarzinger]

 if you don't have to caulk seams with oakum it's not a "real" cruising boat

sewn leather skins over bent tree branches also potentially ok? 

I think the irish monks sailed those to iceland?

but this is all an anglo affliction - REAL sailors (french) sail metal boats. 

idle hands tonight, not much to do, other than make silly posts