Conference unifix::sailing

    Stability thru form, not weight. Makes sense to me.
    
    Jeff

re .0:

A discussion of monohull vs multihull is essentially a religious 
argument -- it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are 
sincere. 

Going fast is only one part of sailing -- comfort, cost, and safety are 
some others. I can think a many, many reasons for owning a monohull 
instead of a multihull. One of the most important, for me, is that 
monohulls are self-righting when capsized. Offshore multihulls need a
bit of design improvement in this area. 

I thought you said you like to sail. In that case you should own a 
Westsail (or similar). This will maximize the time you spend sailing on
any passage whatsoever. 

:-)

    .2 is right on.
    
    This is not to say, however, that multihulls have no place.  From
    a technical point of view, the trials and loads which are placed
    on multihull configurations and gear are a good learning experience,
    and a good test of extreme conditions for various materials which
    can be transferred to monohulls.  Carbon fibres, rotating masts,
    rig configurations etc are examples.  
    
    The comfort and safety issues remain the biggest bugaboo, however,
    and I wonder if the differences between the Atlantic and the Pacific
    (longer swells in Pacific, generally less violent continuous wave
    action) might incline us East coasters to opt more for monohulls.
    
    Any thoughts on that from you on the Disney coast ?
    
    The most thrilling sails I have ever had have been on a Hugo Myers
    cat, but also the most exhausting since I was rarely able to total-
    ly relax for a moment.  For extended sailing, my vote will always
    be for a monohull for the same reasons Alan chooses.
                                                       
    Even Dick Newick appears to be aware of the questions surrounding
    the multihull genre and its enthusiasts.  At one time, he had a
    sign on the side of the road leading to his shop on Martha's Vine-
    yard - "BEWARE OF THE PROA CONSTRUCTOR"
    

    as far as comfort, nothing can top the room provided by a large,
    crusing catamaran.  Safety, a valid issue, so I ask you; with
    speed on the multihull side and exposure to conditions reduced in
    conjuction with modern weather/navagation electronics which reduce
    the likelyhood of being caught in said conditions, is safety really
    given up by the well prepared multihull?
    
    Pacific vs. Alantic in reference to sea conditions.  True, the Pacific
    rollers would be easier for a multihull to handle than the steep,
    short period Alantic swells, but the Alantic weather system seems
    to be more predictable than other weather systems in the world.
    In comparison, the Alantic has a single front which moves back and
    forth from the American East Coast to the European West Coast. 
    Transalantic crossings are a matter of putting the boat ahead of
    the front and riding it across (for multihulls, example: Fleury Michone
    transalantic record).  The Pacific has a high pressure point which
    moves from a Northeast to a Southwest position.  The ideal crossing is
    when the high is at it's Southeast most position, then the trades
    are more compact, stronger, and closer to the desired course.  Not
    that anyone, myself included, has weather figured out, but pond
    crossings are somewhat predictable (and it can't hurt to wait for
    good conditions, mono or multi).
    
    Loads, the second biggest problem with multihulls, are still being
    figured out by designers.  I saw a 16,000 pound load on the mainsheet
    of Aikane.  Another time, I saw a 3/4 inch main haul break under load.
    The catamaran Royal took the wing mast concept to a fatal extreme.
    
    The only problem I can identify which is bigger than a handle on
    the loads is where to keep these monsters.  
    
    					John Papa

re .4:

>>>     .... Safety, a valid issue, so I ask you; with
>>>    speed on the multihull side and exposure to conditions reduced in
>>>    conjuction with modern weather/navagation electronics which reduce
>>>    the likelyhood of being caught in said conditions, is safety really
>>>    given up by the well prepared multihull?
    
In my view, yes. First, electronics do fail, and are most likely 
to fail in rough conditions. Second, weather forecasting simply isn't
(and perhaps won't ever be) totally accurate. Not only is some very bad
weather unforecast, but forecasts are all too often wrong (personal
experience, Don Nelson's Bermuda One-Two Race report in a recent note,
and the 1979 Fastnet Race are examples). To expect that you can sail
around or sail away from all dangerous winds and seas is simply
unreasonable and unrealistic (in my very conservative and risk-adverse
view). 

    Still boils down, to me, to the issue of speed.
    
    Comfort is more than just room.  It is motion (one hull follows
    line and waves more comfortably then two under most conditions -
    my opinion), it is maintenance (structural variables of multi-hulls 
    would keep me looking for what would work loose next), it is peace
    of mind (mid-Atlantic storms are no fun no matter what, but being
    able to count on remaining upright and in one piece should all else
    go wrong is some consolation), and it is being able to concentrate
    on all the external stimulae that going "slower" allows you to take
    in.
    
    When I can find all these in a multi-hull to the same degree as
    in a single, I will strongly consider conversion, but my guess is
    the variables of hull and rig structure and according stresses are
    so diverse that it would be near impossible to anticipate and handle
    them all without adding the one death factor of weight.
    
    Keep trying though.
    

    RE .6
    
    >> Still boils down, to me, to the issue of speed.
    
    >> Comfort is more than just room.  It is ...
    
    Sounds more like it boils down to the issue of comfort.  If you
    want comfort you DEFINITELY don't want a catamaran.  Most cat owners
    that I know aren't all that interested in comfort.  They're in it for
    the speed and the thrill.
    
    Cats are fast, exciting, challenging, and somewhat dangerous.  That's
    their attraction for some people.  And for others, that's the reason
    they don't want to go near them.  If you enjoy life in the fast lane,
    flying a hull on a cat can be the ultimate sailing experience.  If you 
    don't enjoy being scared and on the edge of disaster from time to time, 
    go for a monohull (preferably a cruiser, 'cause some racing monohulls
    can be as exciting to sail as cats, though less fast).
    
    Multihulls have their place in the sailing world, just like the slow,
    comfortable, reliable monohull cruisers do.  Since the original
    question didn't mention ocean crossings or specify large monohulls,
    I'll offer the opinion that there's nothing quite as exhilarating as
    reaching across the Broads at Lake Winnapesauke (for example) on a Hobie 
    cat.  But no, I wouldn't want to get caught in a good storm on one.
    
    Depends strictly on what you go out there for.
    
    ... Bob
    

re .4:

Another safety issue ..... running into logs, whales, almost submerged 
shipping containers, etc, has sunk many a boat. Hitting anything at 
multihull speeds (eg, 20 kts) is much more likely to cause serious 
damange or sinking than hitting the same object at monohull speeds 
(eg, 6 kts). The hull strength of the multihull will have to be many 
times the hull strength of the monohull to compensate for the increased 
impact forces (which increase with the square of the speed). Increasing 
hull strength substantially implies more weight or very expensive, high 
tech materials, or both. The discussion of steel hulls some time ago 
indicates that collision is a major safety concern for many sailors. 
Hmmm, maybe a steel multihull is the way to go ..... 

Oh boy!...here goes:

SELF-RIGHTING vs. INHERENT FLOTATION

As to large multihulls not being able to self-right after a capsize, I
consider that amply offset by the advantage that one is in a thing which 
will float when badly holed, rather than sink.  Friends of mine lost their
Cheoy Lee ("Laska", for those of you who may have heard the tale) in
fairly calm seas after hitting or being hit by something substantial. 
Hardly a lightly constructed vessel, she nonetheless sank quite quickly,
and they were forced into the liferaft. (Fortunately they were within VHF
distance of Bermuda still.)  A multihull perhaps wouldn't have been any
more sailable, but would have floated. 

On this one, you just pick your nightmare and work with it.  ;-)

CONSTRUCTION

Most multihull builders are very conscious of the loads their kind of 
sailing puts on a boat.  RE: Alan's concern about hitting something at 
20kts vs 6kts, a Condor 40 hit/was hit by a Russian freighter, both at 
speed and a closing velocity estimated at perrhaps 15 kts.  The bow of one 
ama was crushed back 4 ft, but the next bulkhead prevented flooding.  The 
impact turned the boat violently so that the main bow was also smashed, 
loosening the forestay.  The skipper proceeded to sail himself the last 
several hundred miles to his destination port without assistance -- at a 
reduced speed for safety, 6 kts.  A repair was effected within a week, and 
that boat competed successfully in the last CSTAR.  

Tough enough?  I think so.  And remember there's less energy to be 
absorbed by your structure when it's 6000 lbs moving than perhaps more 
than twice that weight.  You get a partial tradeoff against the likelihood
you'll be travelling faster if you hit something.  

MOTION IN A SEAWAY

Definitely different.  I find monohulls fatiguing because of the roll and 
constant effort to live at 15-30+ degrees off what the cockpit and cabin 
are built to.  Multihulls are definitely easier this way (a trip the head 
at 10 degrees heel is nearly a pleasure in comparison!), but fatiguing
because of the quickness of small motions and also, perhaps surprisingly,
the incessant noise of all that water rushing by when you're at speed. 
It's a trade-off, though I think I might slightly prefer the multi's
motion; I'll let you know after a few more long ocean races. 

SEAWORTHINESS

This is a Pandora's box, obviously, but one important point should be 
made.  Knowledgeable and seamanlike sailors do not take Piver, Cross and 
Wharram (etc, etc) multis to sea if they can help it.  (Their niche today 
is primarily that they are dirt cheap.)  Both design and construction of
multis have seen dramatic developments over the past 20 years.  Most of
you know a lot about the construction side, since much of it is applicable
to monos as well, and Stars & Stripes popularized much of this thinking
(though *not* on the design end!)  Ocean-going multihull design is now in
what some call its 4th generation (Piver & Friends were in the 1st), and
resistance to capsize, among many other factors, has been increased
tremendously.  John Shuttleworth is probably currently the leading
multihull design theoretician (as well as an outstanding practitioner),
and with the evolution of rounded hull shapes, attention to windage CE's,
board designs, and more, many of the latest multihulls are designed to
slide down a wave face before it reaches an angle sufficient to cause
breaking (as in near the crest.)  Of course this isn't infallible --what
is?--but ocean sailing will always be a game and challenge of percentages.
For multis, those percentages have been improving remarkably in even just
the past five years.  

By trading off 10-20% performance for enhancement of seaworthiness
factors, one can today build a cruising multi that is as safe and 
seaworthy as almost any comparable, albeit from a slightly different 
perspective.  And if you believe speed can add to safety (by getting you 
away from the worst of weather systems more quickly), it might be a
convincing argument, eh? 

J.

RE: .9, 

last paragraph should have been:

   By trading off 10-20% ultimate performance for enhancement of
   seaworthiness factors, one can today build a cruising multi that is as
   safe and seaworthy as almost any comparable mono, albeit from a
   slightly different perspective.  And if you believe speed can add to
   safety (by getting you away from the worst of weather systems more
   quickly), it might be a convincing argument, eh? 

Ooops, and sorry.  J.

re .9:

See, multihulls ARE more vulnerable to collision damage! That's why 
they're built with watertight compartments and posititive floatation and
all that. If monohulls were built with collision bulkheads, they'd be
much safer, too. Destroying four feet of hull is major damage. Sounds to 
me like the Condor owner was lucky to get back ashore. Higher speeds 
also reduce the time available for deciding what the proper action is 
in a dangerous situation. This is not conducive to safety, either.

Besides, John, didn't the owner of the Condor 40 you race aboard decide 
not to do the Marblehead-Halifax Race because he was concerned about the 
danger of collision and he couldn't get a radar installed in time for 
the race? Or did I misunderstand the story?

:-)

    watertight bulkheads work, but foam/cell core construction floats, no
    matter how much of the boat is gone.  Major damage is nothing if
    you survive, thats what insurance is for (a new boat)...
    
    					John Papa

RE: .11, 

>>>  See, multihulls ARE more vulnerable to collision damage! That's why 
>>>  they're built with watertight compartments and posititive floatation
>>>  and all that. 

Watertight bulkheads are just good sense, in any boat these days.  They're 
there for structural reinforcement anyway, so making the chain locker 
independent up through deck level is easy, as well as wise.

The floatation is free, when you're not dragging ballast ;-).


>>>  Destroying four feet of hull is major damage. Sounds to me like the
>>>  Condor owner was lucky to get back ashore. 

You'd be impressed if you saw the boat (or pictures, as I did.)  It 
wouldn't have been pretty in a monohull, either.  He said he was quite 
confident.  Having sailed one of those boats with a 50% flooded ama, I can
attest to their resilience. 

>>>  Besides, John, didn't the owner of the Condor 40 you race aboard decide 
>>>  not to do the Marblehead-Halifax Race because he was concerned about the 
>>>  danger of collision and he couldn't get a radar installed in time for 
>>>  the race? Or did I misunderstand the story?

Same conclusion would be reached for a monohull, most likely, though the 
higher speed makes it especially important in the tri.  When I did that 
race in '73, two boats were badly damaged in collisions -- 2'x4' hole just
above the waterline for one, and dismasted after rolling 120 degrees for
the other.  You know how treacherous that fog can be, and if you choose to 
race through it, especially in heavy weather and/or at night, it's a bit 
of a crapshoot against the unlit fishing vessels.  Remember, Alan, you had 
an adrenalin-pumping awakening near-collision on your own non-racing 
venture; we can separate seamanship techniques from what one has to work 
with once the s**t has already hit the fan!

Definitely with a ;-),  J.

    Hmmm...Interesting.
    
    The can of worms so far consists of:  structure, weight, speed,
    comfort, cost, safety and personal preference.
    
    Anyone care to tackle "Inherent Good Taste" or,
    
    Anyone have enough passion to perhaps be less emotional and more
    pragmatic and develop a definitive ranking system on the above 
    elements and other comparable attributes that would be scientific 
    enough to be meaningful?  For example, to pick an easy one, for
    "Speed", rank a multi a 10 (scale of 1-10) and mono a 5; "Safety",
    Multi 5, Mono 10; Etc.
    
    Or is this finding the worms in the worms.
    
    An afterthought, to be perfectly fair:
    
    Now monohullers, I'm not selling out, but I haven't been on a multi
    in several years, and would be willing to try a more modern configura-
    tion were the offer to be extended in the local area.  As a monohuller
    by preference, I am willing to be converted if someone can convince
    me that the pontoon God does exist.  By the way, Baptism, in this
    case, is NOT an acceptable avenue to conversion.
    
    Any takers ?
    
    

re .14:

No way would I attempt a comparative numerical comparison. I couldn't 
take the abuse!

Definite disadvantages of a multihull are launching, hauling, mooring or 
dockage, and winter storage. It might be tough to get a big multihull
launched and hauled in NE (so far as I know, few very yards could do
it), and it would be impossible to store a big multihull in your own
yard (like I do my monohull). Around here, winter storage is often so
many dollars times length overall times beam. This makes winter storage
of a multihull at least twice as expensive as that for a monohull. You
might also have to rent two slips (at Boston area prices this could be
$6000 per year easily). Or, if you moor instead, harbors are crowded
enough without the extra space required for multihulls. But, hey, who
ever said owning a boat is practical? 

    RE .14
    
    I think making this kind of numerical comparison is sort of like
    "finding the worms in the worms".  It's too subjective to really mean
    anything.  Too many preferences to factor in.  Alan has pointed out
    some of the impracticalities of owning a large multihull, at least for
    this area.  So you have to think that most people who buy them aren't
    doing so for the same reasons people buy a monohull (assuming they've
    thought of the same things Alan did prior to purchase).  Their
    priorities are such that they are willing to pay the extra expense and
    hassle of owning the multihull.  Numerical comparisons wouldn't really
    mean much in this case.
    
    On a slightly different note, I read an interesting article in last
    month's Sailing World from someone who raced on one of the French maxi
    cats.  I'd like to share a couple of exerpts that I found relevent to
    this topic.
    
      " ... 25 knots down a well-formed wave...the boat vibrates around me,
      the wheel going light in my hands.  Wait for it, and Bang!  The boat
      hesitates and gives a groan as the true wind catches up with us.  Luff
      up a little to help her surf onto the next.  And away she goes ..."
    
      "The first time you're on one of these beasts, it's the noise that gets
      you.  The whole boat creaks, groans, and cracks around you.  You have
      to shout in anything over 10 knots.  It all centers around pressure. 
      The tremendous forces tearing, compressing, pulling.  It's hard to look
      forward at speed.  The water is continuously blasting you like a
      succession of fire hoses.  It gets in everywhere.  Whoever invented
      water-proof sailing clothes should try this type of sailing some time. 
      Nothing keeps out the ever-present drenching of saltwater.  But it's
      the noise that makes the big impression."
    
      "So then...just why are we doing this?  Sure it's a boat race.  I know
      that no one has ever really succeeded explaining why people race
      sailing boats.  I could never try to begin here.  But this sailing is
      another type of thing again.  Here I am in the middle of the Atlantic,
      charging along at speeds never dreamed of by most conventional sailors,
      surrounded by the grinning faces of six Frenchmen.  All with that
      slightly faraway look in their eyes - a look I finally have come to
      realize is called "passion"."
    
    Kind've gives you the idea of what these cat sailors are in it for, eh.
    Doesn't sound like something most people would enjoy though.
    
    ... Bob
    

    I can relate an experience on Aikane that is the exact opposite
    to the French multihull sailing description in note .16:
    
    I was clicking along to weather at approx 15 knts in 10 knts of
    wind, the boat was cutting the water very nicely.  We then pulled 
    up a 3/4 oz. asymetrical chute and rolled off the weather approx 
    20 degrees.  She really kicked in, boat speed shot up to approx 
    20 knts.  Aikane handled 20+ knts with no groans, straining, 
    shaking, or vibrations of any kind.  Her entry is clean, with little
    spray from her lee hull.
    
    Many designers use the vertical entry bow, and in my opinion this
    is their downfall.  This type of entry is fine if there is a length
    restriction and waterline is to be at a maximum, but has no place
    on class 1(no restrictions) type multihulls(i.e. Fluery Michone,
    Jet Services, etc.).  Aikane's traditional entry never boneyards,
    while this action seems to be standard procedure in the formula
    40 arena.
    					John Papa

Beware of generalities.

Re: speed, some multihulls are dogs.  Barely able to keep up with an
adequately-tuned monohull of the same length, and less maneuverable to 
boot.  And some monos are amazingly fast.

Re: safety, some monohulls are dangerously unstable beyond 90 degrees.  
Some multis have righting moments more than 10 times higher than many
traditional monohulls, and hull shapes that slip rather than catch to 
avoid capsize.  I'd make *less* of a generalization about multihulls than 
I would about monos.

Re: wetness, some multis are as dry as any boats I've sailed in their size 
range.  Others are soakers.  The Condor's "wing stubs" mean a *dry*
cockpit reaching at 15 kts. (The place gets wet only when you head upwind
and occasionally catch a wavetop with the windward ama bow....)  Boats of
either persuasion vary along this dimension greatly, and hull count
doesn't seem to be a relevant indicator. 

Re: comfort, this has been discussed.  I think it was Randy Smyth who put 
it all in perspective for me last year:  He pointed out that sailing any 
given boat at 50% of its top speed is no problem, easy and comfortable.  
Sailing at 90%+ of top speed is work and stress, and requires thought and 
attention.  That applies equally to monos and multis.  But multis
typically have a higher top speed.  Believe me, 15 kts in the Condor
(about 65-70% maximum speed) just isn't much work at all for even one 
person.  Your beer sits quietly on the seat next to you as one hand
manages the tiller without strain.  20+ kts begins to get hairy, just as
10+ kts might be on a 40' monohull! 

Re: style/appearance, it's your preference.  I like classic monos *much* 
better, but just because I think a '57 Chevy is a classic beauty doesn't 
keep me from sometimes wanting to haul *ss in a steroid-pumped Porsche!

Qualified offer:  If I get the Condor to use for a week sometime this
summer, I'll invite a few of you to try it out with me for an afternoon. 
It ain't the best of everything, but it's different, and a gas in its own
right.  Speed does have an addictive quality for some of us. 

J.

    I have been reading this note with interest because, being a Hobie
    sailor, I'm a fan of multihulls. I have been educated in some of
    the pratfalls of small cats, i.e. pitch-poleing, capsize.
    
    In some reading I've done (MULTIHULLS magazine, and elsewhere) the
    threat of capsize (non pitch-pole) of larger multis seems to come in 
    to play only in the very roughest seas, where frankly any vessel is in
    danger.
    
    The problem of pitch-poleing seems, from what I've read, mostly
    a problem of pure racing boats being pushed to the limit. Are the
    heavier cruising multis prone to pitch-poleing?
    
    As for structural integrity, the cruisers must be stronger. Am I
    wrong?
    
    I don't see myself racing formula 40's or anything of that sort,
    just some nice cruising and fun small time racing. Given the
    normaly greater speed (more cruising range for limited time) and
    comfort (less heel and more square feet below), I think a nice
    cruising cat would be perfect for me. Can anyone give me any reason
    to think otherwise?
    
    As for mooring, it seems to me the radius of the circle made by
    a moored boat is more a function of length than beam, true?
    
    
    Thank you for any input you can offer, this is an interesting
    topic.
    
    Jeff
        
    T 

    re: .19
    
    Crusing catamarans can offer you exactly what your looking for in
    a boat.  Smaller sail areas, fixed mast, and water balasting are
    a few ways catamarans can be adjusted for increased stability. 
    Additionally, the ability to beach a cat provides three things that
    monohulls cannot.  First, in the case of a storm/hurricane, a cat
    beached, lashed down, and her hulls water filled, can wait
    out the worst storm(while a mono has to Ride out the same).  Second,
    a beached cat will allow one tide cycle for bottom-side maintenance.
    And third is the pleasure of a movable, beachfront living conditions.
    
    					John Papa  

RE: .19,

>>>    The problem of pitch-poleing seems, from what I've read, mostly
>>>    a problem of pure racing boats being pushed to the limit. Are the
>>>    heavier cruising multis prone to pitch-poleing?

>>>    As for structural integrity, the cruisers must be stronger. Am I
>>>    wrong?

It's the pushing that produces the failures; pound for pound, most racing 
multis are built substantially stronger than their cruising brethren,
mostly because the exotic materials in the former, if used in the latter,
would push the price out of any reasonable range. 
    
>>>    ...I think a nice cruising cat would be perfect for me. Can anyone
>>>    give me any reason to think otherwise?

If you like multis, go for one.  If you're going to beach it (re: -.1),
cats are somewhat easier.  But the choice between cat and tri is not simple,
however, unless you just plain love one more than the other.  Key factors
include what size you're thinking of, cruising style (in particular, load
capacity), and price range.  In the smaller sizes, say under 30+ feet, you
probably get more useful space on a well-designed high performance tri
than on a similar performance cat.  Above 45', the reverse tends to be
true, as each cat hull becomes large enough to really live in and the deck
can be made 1) solid without sacrificing performance and safety, and 2)
big enough to be lived in, with full sitting headroom at the very least. 

FYI, here are some ballpark figures:

Hobie 21 w/ self-supporting tent on the tramp	<$10K
Firefly/Dragonfly (trimarans) 	$30K
Somersault 26 (trimaran) 	$30K
F27 (trimaran) 			$55K
Stilleto 30 (catamaran)		$85K (??? - this is old info)
Pajot 30 (catamaran)	       $130K+
Condor 40 (trimaran) 	       $160K

You gotta pay for all that performance and strength!  (A used monohull with 
similar accommodation levels and much more load capacity as any one of the
above can probably be bought for a quarter the cost or less.)  Fortunately,
there are some superb deals in used multis, especially some of the bigger
ones.  But the maintenance isn't any cheaper, unfortunately. 

J.

    RE .22
    
    Mickey,
    
    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  This is just as true with
    multihulls as anything else.  I know some people who think they're
    truly beautiful machines.  In some ways I agree.  However, I fail to
    see how you can say they don't look like boats.  Sounds like a narrow
    view to me, and I didn't see any :^) after the statement so I assume
    you were serious.  How can something not look like what it is?
    
    They're not for everybody, some people don't want to go fast.  Some
    people wouldn't go near one because "they look tipsy" (an actual quote
    from someone I tried to get out on a Hobie 16 once).  However, I don't
    put much stock in uninformed opinions, other than to say don't knock it
    if you haven't tried it.
    
    And then again, there's some of us who think that some of the old,
    wooden, slow, heavy monohulls out there look funny.  Guess it's all a
    matter of taste and preference.
    
    On the other hand, I'd take a day sailing in any old scow to a day
    around here sitting in meetings being bored to death.
    
    ... Bob
    

Bob

I read .22 again and deleted it as being in poor taste. Let's just say that
it's been a long couple of weeks and I was blowing off steam in a more or
less harmless direction.

Mickey

    And some people think Bob looks like a multihull, unconventional
    yet fast ;^).
                                                                    
    Dave

    RE .24
    
    Mickey,
    
    Don't take me wrong.  Differences in opinion are what make this file
    interesting, and your opinion is always welcome.  Hope I didn't put a
    damper on your contributions here.
    
    RE .25
    
    Thanx Dave, I can always count on you for a compliment.  Actually, that
    applies to our entire crew and boat this season.  We're definitely
    unconventional, and I guess 9 wins out of our first 20 races
    qualifies us as fast.  (BIG smug grin goes here ...)
    
    ... Bob
    

    I was racing my Laser in the Buzzards Bay Regatta out of Padanarum
    Harbor this weekend, and on Sunday an all steel 60+ foot trimaran from
    France sailed in out of the haze of the morning just as we were headed
    out.  The tubes that held the pontoons on, had to be a foot in diameter,
    and the pontoons had winged keels on them.  Her mast was easily in the
    75 to 80 foot range with Kevlar sails to boot.  I didn't get close enough
    to catch her name though.  The only thing that I could compare her to
    is one of the Klingon star ships in Star Trek.  She was practically air
    borne in the 20 to 25 knot winds that we had.
    
    Charlie

    
    
         IF 1 hull is fast, two must be better right ???  ;>)
    
    
      I love my multihull. I can sail it onto a beach rather than
    play with anchors/moorings, it is very stable (great a as a
    float on those hot days when NOTHING moves, and it is more fun
    in rough conditions than in moderate conditions ( I live for days
    of 20-25 with 4-6 seas, than I can jump waves to weather ).
    
       The founder of Hobie has sold the company. With all that money
    he made, he is building a special vessel for his family. If I remember
    correctly, it is a catamaran with a 66 ft length. He has been diddling
    with Bertrams for a while and has built it to be the most logically
    thought out ship ever (not another one ! ;>) ). The sucker is huge!
    In fact his biggest problem is trying to get the hulls from the
    manufacturing site to the ocean as it is around 20-25 miles. Although
    the deck will be attached at the shore, the hulls are over 12 feet
    tall. This is a nice Catamaran. by the way, the molds are for rent
    if you are interested.
    
        There were references to Cats have exotic materials in them
    to get all that speed. That is true on the racers, big and small,
    just like monohulls. The average cat is never pushed to it's limits
    unless it is racing since it moves along quite well even running
    in a detuned mode. Hence, they shorten the mast, maybe use a bit
    more fibreglass in the construction to make up for the lack of
    carbon fibre etc. Two Canadians did the northwest passage the past
    two summers on one because they could easily pull it up on an
    ice flow and drag it across. Lets see you try that one with a Keel!
    Also, crusing cats can have big rooms attached topsides without
    that cramped "V" shape getting in the way.
    
       I like larger monohulls (+25 ft), and love any serious cat, and
    I  image a trimaran may be fun for a wet ride with lots
    of friends, although you would swear they look like monohulls with
    training wheels 8>) .
    
       Big cats don't pitchpole, little ones do only at the urgings of their
    demented captains ( I speak from experience). Most of them under
    25 ft are trailerable (cross bars slide together) and need a lot
    less water to launch in. As usual, it depends on what you are looking for. 
                                                  
       Go to a big in water boat show and hop aboard one. you will be surprised
    at the room and stability for a given size.
    
        john

    re .27  wow, all steel, any ideas who it was? I'm interested in
    any steel multihull, performance trade-offs, maintenance, etc...
    
    as for a west coast update, anyone ever heard of a "Roland 36"?
    I understand it's a scale up from a Nacra 5.2, interesting.
    
    East Coast Multihull owners have reason to get excited, Randy Smyth
    is moving his operation to Florida.  "Sails by Smyth" is trying
    to get closer to the Formula 40 front, Huntington Beach doesn't
    seem to be generating enough income to support the business.
    
    remember, speed is everything and everything boils down to speed.
    
    					John Papa

    I'm trying to figure out "who is where and with what" related to
    large multihulls of the world.  The people and boats in this reference
    group seem to be few and far between, therefore my request is for local
    knowledge (of future competition)...
    
    I'll start with the little I know:
    
    	Aikane X-5, a 64 ft. catamaran based in Hawaii, owner Rudy Choy
    	
    	Great American, a 60 ft. trimaran based in Newport Harbor, CA.
    
        Stienlager 3, a 60 ft. trimaran based in Australia somewhere           
    
    	Stars & Stripes, a 60 ft. catamaran restricted to San Diego Bay
    
    	Jet Services, a 80 ft. catamaran based on the East Coast somewhere
    
    	Fluery Michone, a 60 ft. trimaran based in France somewhere
    
    any addition information will help (designer, home port, records...)
    because I know there has got to be more out there.
    
    					thanks, John Papa

    no one around for miles...
    	the subject must be of no interest,
    		or could it be that your all still in route?
    
    guess I'll have to get used to waiting for the rest to catch up.
    
    					John Papa

    Hello from France John!
    
    Big racing multihulls? Well, I think it is (or it was, since the max
    length has been reduced to 60 ft.) a French speciality, since our
    well known sailorman, Eric Tabarly, has designed and built "Pen Duick
    IV", the first big offshore racing trimaran for the singlehanded
    transat race "Observer" in 1968. Due to a lack of preparation, this
    revolutionary boat will not finish the race, but Alain Colas, another
    well known sailorman, will repurchase it and will win the next edition,
    in 1972 (and unfortunately will be lost with the same and too old boat
    in 1976).
    The movement was launched. French people will recognize Tabarly like a
    heroe (the sailorman who beats the Anglo-saxons!) and will discover a
    passion for sailing races, specially the singlehanded ones.
    A lot of new races (transats and others) will be created at this time,
    one of the most known is the "Route du Rhum" between St Malo (Brittany)
    and Fort-de-France (Martinique) whose the next start is in november 90.
    This success will attract the sponsors, and a lot of new racing
    machines, bigger and bigger, will be built. The bigger one was _I
    think_ "William Saurin" a 90 ft. trimaran! Today, it is reconverted for
    luxury sporting charter (but I don't know where).
    Boats was becoming too dangerous and too expensive. Length was reduced
    a first time at 80 ft., then a second time at 70 ft., and now 60 ft. is
    the rule (like it was since a long time for the English OSTAR transat).
    The best one was undoubtly "Jet Services IV", a 70 ft. catamaran actual
    recordman on the New-York/Cap Lizard transat with 7 days and a few
    hours, a day speed record at 520 Nm (21,7 Nm average!!!) and more than
    30 Nm in one hour! Designed by Gilles Ollier, his last race was "La
    course de l'Europe" he win last year.
    Others are (disordered):
    
    * "Royale": 80 ft. catamaran, Gilles Ollier design, winner of a lot of
    races and old transat recordman. Based in La Trinit� (French west
    coast).
    
    * "Charente Maritime II": 80 ft. catamaran, Joubert/Nivelt design, the
    "Royale" challenger. Based in La Rochelle.
    
    * "Fleury Michon VII": 80 ft. catamaran, "Charente Maritime II" sister
    ship. Now chartering in Mediterranean sea.
    
    * "Saab Turbo" (ex. "Elf Aquitaine II" with Marc Pajot): 70 ft.
    catamaran, Philippe Briand design, balestron rig, based in Toulon
    (South France).
    
    * "Fleury Michon VIII": 70 ft. trimaran, Nigel Irens design, last Route
    du Rhum winner with Philippe Poupon, based in la Trinit�.
    
    Now a lot of new 60 ft. multi are builded. After a long dominance of
    catamarans designs, trimaran is now the prefered choice because of the
    better stability, and better windward and light wind performances. But 
    can you call "trimaran" a multihull with a very thin hull wich sail
    usually on his only lateral hull (sp?) where the rudder and the fin
    are?!!
    
    sailingly yours
    
    . Pierre .

    re.30 - be careful here, the Kiwis will get you. As if they did not
    already have enough enough multi-hull worries with the San Diego farce.
    
    Steinlager (note spelling) is a New Zealand boat, based in Auckland, sponsored by and
    named after the local beer.  It's first race was the inaugural round
    Australia race, which it won by a margin of weeks.  The skipper is a NZ
    folk-hero, whose name I can't remember (me being Australian) who also
    skippered their boats on the round the world race.
    
    Seeing we're in this topic it's interesting that the round-the-world
    people do not allow multi-hulls.
    
    

    Apropos of nothing in particular - an article in the Jan/Feb 90
    Multihull magazine, page 98 refers to the "fastest women on the
    Australian coast".  Just for the record two of them, Merri Mack and Sue
    Blood work for Digital in Sydney.

    I'm beginning to look for a used cruising cat @32-34' and wondered
    if anyone has experience or advice.  The new ones (at the anapolis
    boat show looked pretty sexy and expensive).  The PDQ 34 looked
    ideal, and Prout's were tempters, I don't konw the quality of the
    Gemini or MacGregors...or does anyone know of any used ones (North
    East U.S.) that are for sale?
                           
    Usage: Cruising.. perhaps down the ICW to the islands, mucking around
    in Maine, some summer liveaboard.
    
    All advice is welcomed.          
    
    Bob Ericson @WFR  FSOA::BERICSON

>>>  I don't konw the quality of the Gemini or MacGregors...

Can't say I've much more than just been aboard (not sailed) each of these. 
Geminis have a very good reputation for quality; MacGregors somewhat less 
so, but certainly not a bad rep either.

Read Multihulls Magazine for more insight.

J.

    a warm hello to my multihull friend in France...
    
      you made mention of a reduction to waterline length, for what reasons
    has 60 ft. become the target waterline?  60 ft. is good, that would
    include Aikane X5 (my training vessel of the pacific arena), though the
    owner would never her go too far away from Hawaii.
    
    an additional hello is sent to my new friend of the Pacific...
    
      Steinlager is operated by Peter Blake, who has claimed he can circle
    the globe in 80 days.  Steinlager seems to be a potential threat in the
    pacific, though the chord of her wing mast appears a bit large.  i
    remember Royale making the same mistake in the past.
    
    current status from the pacific:  Double Bullett II has proven to be
    a threat to the hobie environment, too bad she had to have 70ft of
    waterline to do it.  Gentry doesn't seem to want to build a multihull
    anymore, so Rudy Choy and i have been working on a 75ft catamaran.
    sponserships are still pending, but there is some activity on that
    front.  we'll see, soon...
    					John Papa
    

On Sat & Sun, Sept 22 & 23, the Floating Regatta will be held in Boston 
Harbor, for the benefit of the Boston Floating Hospital for Infants and 
Children.   It is a wonderful inshore multihull event (I don't know if 
there are any mono classes), and for those interested in seeing some 30' 
and larger multihulls competing on a tight triangle course, Saturday in 
particular is a great chance to do so.

There will be sightseeing boats leaving Rowes Wharf at 11:30am and 2:00pm 
on two-hour cruises to watch the races.  For more information, including 
how to reserve spaces, you can call the Regatta Office at 617-956-7656.

And if you do watch, cheer for the raspberry-colored Condor 40 "High 
Flyer", sail number 41507 -- we won't keep up with the Formula 40's, but 
we may do well on handicap!

J.

    I have been reading these multihull notes with marginal interest until
    a couple of experiences has stirred my interest.  One occurred on
    Narragansett Bay one  almost-windless day when in a Ranger 30 making
    about 3 knots, a 27' multihull passed me by doing about 6 knots.  The
    second was my recent visit to the Newport Sailboat Show where I saw
    several cruising multihulls.  What impressed me was the room below,
    that they make 2/3 of true wind speed and with less heeling.
    
    So now I am rethinking multihulls.  But must admit to some prejudice
    for monohulls.  Are there any sailors out there who "switched" to
    multi's from mono's who could share their experience?  Also, any advice
    on what cruising multi's that are good/bad?  I saw the Intercat1500 at
    the show, but will be looking at a Prout 27 this weekend.
    
    Any advice, opinions, experiences are welcomed.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul

    While on this subject, anybody got any comments about the F/27
    trimaran?  I'm pretty impressed with what I've seen of them so far, and
    will be thinking about getting my own boat in another year or two. 
    I'm fairly certain this is one of the boats I'll be looking into
    between now and then.
    
    ... Bob
    

re .39:

>>> What impressed me was the room below .....

I sailed on a multihull for the first time, a Condor 40 trimaran, last 
weekend. It had less interior living space than the C&C 26 I used to 
own. Two people below was a crowd. Not a boat I'd choose for much more
than overnight sailing. On the other hand, it was fun to sail and fast.
But it was, as a racer/cruiser multihull, definitely slower (because of
its weight and manageable rig and sail area) than the all-out racing
multihulls we were sailing against. A Hobie 18 stayed even with us for a 
time upwind in a nice breeze. Downwind the Condor was about as fast
(slow) as a monohull. Overall, I'd like to sail the boat again. 

    The guy in the dock next to mine has a 35' Edel Cat, which is the one
    shown at the Newport Show a couple of weeks ago. This is a really neat
    boat!
    
    The accommodation in the two hulls are each like the accommodation in a
    typical 26' sailboat. Each hull has a single bunk, double, shower and
    head. There is a galley in the cockpit section, with a very spacious
    lounge and nav centre.
    
    This thing cruises faster than most of the powerboats in Narragansett
    Bay, even at only 20 knots wind!
    
    I looked at the 39' Privilege at the boat show, and it was a very
    impressive vessel. I didn't find out how much it cost, but suspect it's
    around $250K. Again, sumptuous accommodations. 
    
    You can charter both the Edel Cat and the Privilege in the caribbean,
    and I intend to charter an Edel Cat over the next 4-8 weeks.
    
    I'll give you my impressions when I get back.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ray

    Re .41:
    
    From my investigations, I've found that Trimarans typically have less
    accommodation space than Cats. I'm not sure I fully understand the
    architectural reasons why, or the design tradeoffs, but because I'm
    looking for a high performance but comfortable cruiser, I'm focussing
    most of my attention on the larger Cats.
    
    Ray

    If I remember correctly, the InterCat at the Newport show is designed
    so that the centre section is in the water. In contrast, the Privilege
    and Edel Cat centre sections are about 3' higher than the waterline.
    
    It seems to me that, in bad conditions, the centre section would pound
    badly. It didn't look as if it was designed as a hull, but looking at
    the vessel head-on, it almost looked like a Tri!
    
    Ray

RE: .39, 

I'm one of those who's switched to multis.  Not that I don't enjoy a
well-found and competent monohull.  But speed does provide excitement and
safety (faster passages), and outside of a usually worse price/accommodation 
ratio, I cannot find any undesirable features of multis that aren't offset
by other equally (to me) undesirable features of monos.  Bottom line:  The
extra excitement costs; are you willing to pay? 

As far as the different types of multis, it helps to begin by appreciating 
that the variation in performance among multis varies more than that among 
monos.  There are some wonderfully comfortable dogs as well as some 
discouragingly spartan flyers.  Some try to fill a niche in the middle, 
and that's where I put the Condor 40, for instance.  If you want to learn 
more, get a subscription to Multihulls Magazine (a rather flawed effort, 
but the only dedicated multihull publication available in this country.)
Learn about length/beam ratios, Bruce numbers, hull design tradeoffs, etc, 
before committing yourself to anything.  Sail on as many multis across the 
entire spectrum as you can, for that experience is the only real way to 
gain perspective.  I've sailed on about 6 multis between 30' and 50', and 
before being able to make any commitment am still looking to hook a ride
aboard one of the latest generation of designs, now being adapted for
comfortable if simple cruising.  It's also an area where change is
happening quite rapidly -- hot designs of five years ago are noticeably
back from the cutting edge today, even in cruising designs. 

RE: .40

The F-27 is a remarkable little trimaran, having been sailed across both 
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, a use for which it was not designed. 
They are about 2500 pounds afloat all up (less crew), and designed for
easy trailering or winter storage by folding the akas (arms) to bring the
amas (outer hulls) up against the vaka (main hull).  Accommodations are 
relatively simple and small, but she's a light wind flyer on all points.
The two we race against in the NEMA fleet beat the 41'7" Condor boat for 
boat if the winds don't stay above 10-12 knots.  (Then again, we wipe them 
in 20+ knots of wind.)

Well-built, with an excellent reputation.  Ian Farrier is an experienced 
designer, known for his ego and self-serving opinions, but talented
nonetheless.  They run around $50K, which is cheap if you value speed and
hauling convenience, quite expensive if you judge by accommodations. 

RE: .41 

Alan and I disagree regarding the Condor's space below; I feel that two
double berths, a galley and a nav station sharing 6'2" headroom, separate 
head under the bridgedeck, a forepeak which can hold many bags and even an
extra pipe berth, plus a cockpit comfortable for six if you're not racing,
is quite a bit. Certainly more than a C&C 26.  We've raced five aboard for
three days Annapolis to Newport, and while I don't enjoy the tight
quarters, in practice it was about the same feeling as 5 aboard Toward
Morning, a 32' monohull.
	                      _________ 

In sum, 

Dick Newick, one of the leading multihull designers and a pioneer in the
field for several decades now, put it all very succinctly when he said 
that multihull owners must choose only two of the following three things:

		1)  Speed and performance
		2)  Comfortable/spacious accommodations
		3)  Reasonable cost

In affectionate tribute to Dick's stature, this has become known by many as 
"Newick's Law."

Ray,

You bring up some design choices that should be carefully considered.  

Tris tend to have less accommodation overall, but in smaller sizes will 
tend to have what they do in one hull instead of split, and be faster for 
that level of accommodation to boot.  Accommodation tradeoffs are subject 
of a much longer reply.

Tris are considered more weatherly; cats faster off the wind.  Reasons for 
this are also subject of another note, if anyone cares.

Seaworthiness is a *big* issue in multis -- under-wing clearances, above 
deck shape and size ("hamper" some call it), deck edge shape, beam, hull 
section, etc all play roles in the final result.  I can refer anyone 
interested to some good research and articles.

Remember Newick's Law.  You can trade off between factors (i.e., have 
great acoommodations with OK performance and OK price,) but the ultimate 
choice seems unavoidable.

J.

    In 1974 I took a Jim Brown 37' three wheeler from Auckland, New Zealand
    to Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea to help the lads in PNG celebrate their
    independence from Australia.  Previously, my bluewater sailing experience
    had been exclusively on monohulls.  Here are a few observations
    about that particular boat:

    Space below was exceptional with two (real) double beds and two
    single beds.  In addition, we had a permanent dinette that seated
    the four crew comfortably.  I likened it to a poor man's 50 footer.
    
    Deck layout and storage:  There was a large and dry center cockpit.
    We stored two surfboards in one of the outer hulls, along with diving
    gear for four.  The fiberglass dinghy was just tossed on a sidedeck with
    the painter tied off to a cleat just in case.  To keep limber, I
    used to do yoga at sunset on the other sidedeck.
    
    Performance: We regularly knocked off 175 mile days (quite good
    for that size cruising boat).  The Brown-designed self-steering
    was great in all but the most severe conditions.  Night-time watches
    were a pleasure.  
    
    Since we left New Zealand in June, we had the pleasure of experiencing
    some *nasty* weather: two full gales.  The worst of the two was
    the first, when we were attempting to round Great Barrier Island
    beating into 45+ knots that was blowing against the current flowing
    out of the Firth of Thames.  It was a bit sloppy.  Once we discovered
    that you actually go faster by reducing sail (compression force
    of the mast forces the boat to sail through rather than over the
    water- the passage ways through the closed-wing deck become smaller
    and the water is quite loud), things were acceptably comfortable.
    We also ran into a gale in the New Hebrides, holding 16 out-of-control
    knots on a beam reach before reducing sail.  That was a bit spooky
    since the beam sea tended to want to tip the boat over.

    Anchoring: If anything, you need more ground tackle because of the
    additional windage and because of the tendency of tri's to want
    to dance at anchorage.  We used to rig up a couple of lines from
    each outer hull to reduce that tendency.
    
    We transported the soccer team from one Fijian island to another
    for an annual game, 19 of us in all.  While there was plenty of
    room to carry on, the boat was really riding low, and was a dog
    to sail.
    
    In general, if we kept the boat light and weren't too macho about
    reducing canvas when the breeze picked up, she behaved very well.
    
    Oh, one more thing, the boat was ugly- we nick-named her the Water
    Bug.

    I would like to hear from anyone who has experience sailing a cruising cat 
    in the 24foot to 32 foot range in force 6 and up winds and seas.  
    The only negative I hear about cats is that they will capsize.
    
    So what is it like sailing a cruising cat in heavy weather and how
    prone to capsizing are they?
    
    I looked at a 27' Prout last Saturday.  Anyone have any information on
    these boats?
    
    Paul 

>>>  ...sailing a cruising cat in the 24foot to 32 foot range in force 6
>>>  and up winds and seas.  The only negative I hear about cats is that
>>>  they will capsize. 
    
So will monohulls. ;-)  Other replies have laid out the maybe-roll-maybe-
sink vs. stay-upside-down-&-float-high arguments.  It's an individual's 
choice -- neither is inherently better all by itself.

A couple observations, based on lightweight tris more than the heavier 
curising cats:

1)  While on a fast reach, if you get a big puff which starts to heel the 
    boat dangerously, the correct reaction is the opposite of what mono- 
    hullers do:  Turn downwind as quickly as possible while being careful 
    not to go so far as to gybe.  The reasoning behind this is that
    burying a lee bow is the most likely way a multihull will go over in
    those conditions (sort of an asymmetrical pitchpoling), so the object
    is to share the downforce on the lee bow with the other one or two
    bows as fast as possible. 

2)  We sailed a 30' Newick design tri in 25-40 kts, and in that boat it 
    was more tricky to sail upwind in heavy seas than reaching/downwind.  
    The reason was that to set the boat up for a beat required the
    windward runners to be snugged (common on most all performance multis),
    and it took a quick, firm and very careful touch to keep some waves on the
    bow from pushing us onto the other tack.  To have gone over risked damage
    to the rig.  Were it my boat and we were cruising not racing, I'd have had
    even less sail up (we were flying the #3 and double-reefed main!), and
    would have seriously considered easy-to-enter places in a lee.  Offshore
    with less choice, I'd have hunkered down more (spitfire jib & three
    reefs), or gone downwind if goals and searoom allowed -- that's very
    comfortable on a multi where you can easily match the speed of the waves
    under bare poles. 

3)  New bow shapes today are *much* better at coping with the tendency to 
    bury a bow.  While it can't be ignored entirely, many designs of the 
    past 5 years are remarkably resistant to burying, even in the hands of 
    an inexperienced helmsperson.

4)  New hull shapes are being developed (so-called "4th generation" 
    designs) which are particularly seaworthy in comparison to most of the
    designs which have earned multis a reputation for "flipping" side-over- 
    side.  John Shuttleworth is leading this effort in developing a theory
    as well as practice of multihull seaworthiness.  These hulls typically
    have very rounded sections with fully-retractable daggerboards or
    centerboards, and are intended to slid across the a wave at a lower
    wave-face angle than it takes for it to break.  Thus, in theory at least,
    your boat is likely to slide and give with the forces rather than be
    pinned by anything in the water.  Shuttleworth is no fool, and readily
    admits there is a wave condition out there somewhere which will capsize
    any yacht-scaled multihull (which is just as true for monos,too), but he
    believes the goal is to reduce the chances of tripping and capsize to an
    achievable and acceptable minimum.  But when you've got a 35' multi 
    with only ~3 tons displacement, keeping a smooth and small underbody 
    shape isn't too difficult.

J.

re .49:

No doubt there is a significant difference between racing and cruising 
multihulls, just as there is between racing and cruising monohulls. But 
some of what John says concerns me as a cruising sailor with aspirations 
of crossing oceans.

Just to make my bias clear, in my view a cruising boat should not be
taken offshore unless it has reliable self-steering that can manage the
boat in all but quite extreme conditions. Cruising boats often/usually
have small crews, and sickness, fatigue, cold, injury, etc, can make
self-steering critical to survival even in less than extreme conditions.

Because of their speed, windvanes do not successfully steer multihulls.
Hence self-steering must, of necessity, depend on electric autopilots. I
am less than optimistic about the reliability of electric autopilots in
bad weather. If nothing else, batteries do run down. To be sure, the
multihulls sailed in the CSTAR and other races must use autopilots
successfully but they have very skilled crew and usually spare
autopilots galore. 

That aside, John's description of the care needed to steer a (racing?)
multihull in bad weather makes me wonder. Is the level of skill needed
to manage a multihull in bad weather higher than that possessed by not
always experienced and always tired and cold crew? Is a monohull less
vulnerable to inattention and mistakes (both inevitable)? There are
techniques -- heaving to, running off with a sea anchor (eg, Galerider),
etc -- that allow a monohull to fend for itself, or nearly so. Are there
techniques that work for multihulls? Of course, some monohulls manage 
themselves much better than others. 

Sure, monohulls do capsize, but a properly built monohull will survive a
capsize without significant damage. I don't know of any way for a
multihull to recover from a capsize without major outside assistance. 

Obviously, the monohull vs multihull controversy has no simple answers 
and is probably best discussed with the assistance of a large bottle of 
rum. 

re .49 again:

>>> Offshore
>>> with less choice, I'd have hunkered down more (spitfire jib & three
>>> reefs), or gone downwind if goals and searoom allowed -- that's very
>>> comfortable on a multi where you can easily match the speed of the waves
>>> under bare poles. 

Hmmm, just a moment ......

                           average/significant
  wind speed   wave speed     wave height
    (knots)     (knots)         (feet)

      30          17.2          14/22
      40          23.1          28/45
      50          29.0          49/78     (from Marchaj, "Seaworthiness")

One more little problem here -- if your speed (over the ground) is the 
same as the wave speed (over the ground), your speed relative to the 
water is zero. Rudders don't provide any steering effect when the 
relative speed is zero. So there you are, sailing at tremendous speed 
in huge seas with no steering control. Sounds to me like utter disaster 
is just over the next wave crest. 

Even if you're somewhat exaggerating, I would think that sailing at high 
speeds in big seas would be horrendously dangerous. Inevitably, you'll 
submerge a bow, and with the momentum from your speed and the push of a 
breaking wave over you'll go. 

    re -.1
    
    Aren't wave speed and water speed independent?  A wave moving
    horizontally over the ground actually displaces water up and down. 
    Would a submarine lying just under the surface have any speed over the
    ground?
    
    Just a dumb question from a physics flunky.
    
    - gene 

    re .51
    
    Alan,
    
    You've confused the wave propagation speed with actual movement of the
    water. If you look at a single drop of water on the surface, it's
    position oscillates back and forth. It picks up forward speed as it
    rides up the front face of the wave, then stops and travels the other
    way as it rides down the back of the wave. If the wave was steep enough
    to accelerate the surface water to wave proagation speed, the height of 
    the wave would increase, become unstable, and break. 
    
    On my boat, I surf as fast or faster than the waves quite often. Rudder
    control is reduced while riding down the face but not eliminated. 

Ta da! Nothing like an argument full of mistakes and stupidity (mine,
that is) to enliven an otherwise dull workday. 

re -.1: Quite right. The water itself doesn't move at anything like the 
wave velocity. The water velocity is in the range of 4 to 6 knots
(different section in Marchaj). This would imply that reduced or minimal 
steering control is a definite problem for us monohullers when sailing
down waves. Marchaj points out that light boats are much more affected 
by the rapidly changing hydrodynamics (and are hence much more difficult 
and tiring to steer) than heavy boats since heavier boats react more 
slowly. 

But, John spoke of sailing at the speed of the waves. The wave velocity 
is very high (20 to 30 knots or more) in storms. If you are going to 
stay on the face of a wave, then you have to sail at wave velocity (with 
lots of rudder control). If you sail faster you'll run into the wave 
ahead. Sail slower, and the waves will catch you. And, too, waves are 
usually very confused and irregular. It is unlikely that one could stay 
on a wave face very long no matter what one's speed. So it seems that,
regardless of the number of hulls, waves will fall upon you. 

re: .51,

>>>                           average/significant
>>>  wind speed   wave speed     wave height
>>>    (knots)     (knots)         (feet)
>>>
>>>      30          17.2          14/22
>>>      40          23.1          28/45
>>>      50          29.0          49/78     (from Marchaj, "Seaworthiness")

Well, in the Gulf of Maine, 30-40 kts of wind produced shorter, slower, 
steeper 8'-12' waves.  I wouldn't hope to keep up with the faster (higher) 
ones, sinc that'll tend to be scary to say the least.  But several times 
now we've had enough speed to be quite close to the "moderate" 6'-8' ones. 
Besides a gentler ride, one has the important option of steering away from 
even the big things more easily, since the speed diffential in less than 
in a mono.

No question that multis have a "feel" of their own, and while one can 
experience structural integrity first-hand if the boat is well designed 
and put together, "rock-solid" isn't an adjective many multihullers have
occasion to find very descriptive.  ;-)  Even a relatively heavy fast 
cruiser like a Condor 40 skitters about some as it encounters lumps of 
water at speed.  Personally, I find the satisfaction of knowing I'm 
getting to better conditions (be it my destination harbor or just calmer
waters) at twice the speed of a mono to be quite enough compensation for 
any roughness of ride.

Re: autopilots, 

Alan's exactly right in saying that multis generally travel too fast for
windvanes to work.  But we depend on so many electronics, I see no reason
not to extend some of that trust to steering. If it fails in use, rarely 
does that cause more than a few moments of hasty and full manual recovery.

Re: heavy weather handling, 

That particular boat, I learned over time, was dicierr to handle than many 
today.  Also, it was set up and skippered by a very experienced person; I 
was very new to the fast-and-flat game at that time.  Even so, I was able 
to control it.  Bottom line is that when you go faster, in anything, 
things can happen to you more quickly, and you must react more quickly. 
It's part of the price for that kind of speed.  Today's designs make that 
kind of speed quite easy to handle, and though I haven't sailed the Condor 
is quite as heavy conditions yet, it's always been *much* easier to 
handle even when things pick up offshore.

J.

Here's a complete listing of all the multihull magazines known to be 
published worldwide:

	Multihulls Magazine
	421 Hancock St
	North Quincy, MA 02171
	USA

	Multihull International 
	53 High St
	Totnes, Devon TQ9 5QN
	England

	Multicoques
	16 Port St.-Pierre
	83400 Hy�res
	France

Unfortunately, The Multihull Magazine (a.k.a. Sail Mutlihull), published 
in Great Britain, just bit the mist this summer. 

J.	

A few (adventurous?) souls have inquired about information on multihulls, 
and a couple times I've pointed to Multihulls Magazine as the flawed but 
best source available this side of the Atlantic.

I have a duplicate copy of an old issue (March/April '89) that I'd be glad 
to give away (shipped by i/o mail) to anyone who'd like to look it over to
consider subscribing.  In glancing through, I see how much the technology
and designs have evolved in just a year and a half, but much of what's
there is still relevant.  There's a great article on the pitchpoling of a
quite new Tektron 50 (overcanvassed in bad weather in an area of known
tidal whirlpools and huge standing waves, short crew new to the boat,
etc), the usual collection of "this is where we went in our multi..."
articles, and typical design reviews from around the world (mostly
Australia, as per usual.) 

Anyway, please send me mail if you'd like it.  I'll delete this as soon as 
I ship this copy of MM off to the first responder.

J.

update from the west coast...

  Bob Handle currently has Double Bullett II in the water in
  Marina Del Rey, California.  The vessel still needs a mast
  and sails, but should prove to be the next fastest sail in
  the Pacific...that is until the "Eagle" catamaran is done,
  then, without question, we'll own the blue waters of the
  the globe!!!
			John Papa

    What is "Eagle"?  Where is she being built and when will she be
    finished?
    
    Don

Don,
	Eagle is "to be" a 80' catamaran designed by myself
under the direction of Rudy Choy from Choy Designs in Hawaii.
Finding sponsership is now my main occupation of time, though
I have found some limited success in this arena...

Eagle catamaran: 80' loa   75'lwl   45'beam   40%step/lwl
The design is a modified, scaled-up version of Aikane X-5,
incorporating construction materials of carbon epoxy and
foam core composites.  Water balasting increases Eagle's 
stability under higher wind conditions while allowing for
the lightwind benifits of the materials used in construction.
The sail plan includes winged mast, loose-foot fully battened
mainsail, self-tack batten foresail, and asymetrical 
spinnaker.  The deck layout is targeted at trans-oceanic
racing, the controls are distributed so that an active crew 
of two, helm and mate, have complete control of the vessel 
for any required, hands-on sailing operation.  Time 
optimization, navagation software utilizing GPS, an autopilot,
and weatherfax information will allow for extended, hands-off 
sailing operation, reducing the in-transit, crew requirements 
to a single watch.
			John Papa

This project is confidential, please keep a lid on it,
if construction starts as scheduled, sea-trials should
begin about this time next year, then ... The World!!!

(my time with digital, and access to this network, is 
limited to the requirements of the Navy here at China 
Lake, so i don't know how soon, but... i'll keep you
posted, and oh yea... you know any good crew???)

>>>> you know any good crew???)

	I feel the need
		then need for speed!


	john

	ps. I know how to reef mainsails too !  ;>)

    re 1283.60 by PAPA -
    
    Please tell more about the proposed water ballasting.
    Would water be shifted between ballast tanks in either
    hull when tacking, or equal amounts kept in both
    hulls? Would all water ballast be pumped out during
    light winds? Electric pumps? I've been toying with
    the idea of pumped ballast for a 20' Supercat,
    thus my interest.
    
    thanks
    -John
    

    One water ballasting technique was patented by Tristan Jones on his
    osprey class trimaran, Outward Leg. He called them "cool-tubes" and
    from the sketchy description I got fromthe book, they are tubes filled
    with sea water (because they are submerged), whose weight is zero when
    submerged. But when the ama lifts out of the water, you get instant
    ballast and an instant righting moment. I believe that the tube was
    fitted to the main hull (not sure though).
    
     The tube was 6" diameter PVC, lined with copper, with a "stopper" at
    the aft end. Cost was $120.00.
    
    Gregg

    When are this year's various multi-hull events
    in Newport RI, or elsewhere in New England?
    If someone has the dates, please post them.
    

When I return to the office with a bit of time, I'll post the remaining 
NEMA (New England Multihull Assoc) schedule.
    
J.

    Well, for a poor guy wanting to grow from a 24 wooden Snipe to
    a cruising/camping tri in order to sail around Italy coasts
    (very close to coast as I never sailed more far then 10 miles)
    this note has been a gold mine of infos.
    
    1st question: is it possible to build safe wooden tris?
                  (this for building on my own; I apprenticed
                  for one year in a small yard in Naples under
                  an old master craftsman who built Stars, 1/4
                  tonners, dinghies and so on, all wood or ply
                  wood). The question is mainly related to the
                  connection of the external hulls to main hull.
    
    2nd question: does someone know about projects/drawings for
                  a 20' to 26' suitable for single-handing?
                  With room enough for a double berth, galley,
                  and head?
    
    Why a tri? Well, my half best is disabled and seems not to appre-
    ciate too much all the efforts needed to maintain a normal position
    in the narrow cockpit of an old racing Snipe with very modern North
    sails (really fast, having also a superb 8 planks glued spruce mast,
    24 years too). Moreover she doesn't swim so doesn't appreciate the
    possibility of capsizing; she prefers an easy sun-bathing.
    BTW. She's fanatic of Stars (?).
    For me a tri is safer than a cat (don't open another can of worms,
    please!); looks more like a mono (personal prejudice); is fast
    something less than a cat but more than a mono.
    BTW. I've sailed a Dart 18 and a Dart 20 (so called Stampede) and
    both the cats have really proved impressive for acceleration and 
    speed, very easy to use, having no centerboards; really lot of fun.
    What else? Probably lots but let's start from the very beginning
    and let's see what'll be.
    
    Thanks for any answer and my compliments to John P. capability
    to raise super discussions. 
    Bye all.
    Arrigo
      

    The Gougeon brothers have been building big cats and trimarans w/
    wood and their epoxy for 20 years. A few years ago they built a 
    Formula 40 tri w/ a suspension system for the outer hulls; all 
    made from wood, epoxy, and carbon fiber.
    
    I'm sure they'd love to take to you $$$$
    
    Paul

    $$$$ ... that's the matter!
    
    Something more amateurial?
    
    Tks & bye.
    A.
    

    WoodenBoat magazine has listings of a few multihull designers.  If
    you're looking for a portfolio of plans, I can send you an address or
    two from there.  Or if you mail me your address off-line, I might not
    have discarded one book of designs yet, and I could mail you that.
    
    GlenL, a plans/kit supplier here in the US, also markets plans for a few 
    tris.  I'll send you copies of those pages too./

    John, tks for the answer; I'll mail you a.s.a.p.
    
    BTW: could you pls tell me if Wooden Boats will accept subscriptions
    from Italy? I don't find any press on the argument here. If so, can
    you pls give me their address?
    
    Ciao.
    A.
    

    Wooden Boat lists an address for subscriptions in Germany:
    
      Rolf Kelling-Eischeid
      Versandbuchhandlung Maritimer Literatur
      Kaistr. 33
      2300 Keil 1, West Germany
    
      Phone 0431.6 24 85
    
    That's the closest address to Italia.  The price is 70DM for one year.
    
    Now, about plans, I have a book of designs by Kurt Hughes in Seattle.
    He does tris and cats.  Most of them seem to be high performance
    designs, but some are called "cruisers".  They range from 12 feet
    to 60 feet.  If you want this book, send me your address and you can
    have mine.
    
    Clark Craft also makes plans and patterns for three trimarans, of
    18, 28, and 34 feet.  I'll send you copies of these pages too, if you
    want them.  They are located at 
    
        Clark Craft
        16 Aqua Lane
        Tonawanda, NY 14150
    
    Finally, if you're willing to consider catamarans, look at 
    
       Woods Designs
       6 Elm Park-Southdown
       Millbrook-Torpoint
       Cornwall PL10 1HD
       UK
    
       Plymouth (0752)823301
    
    I'm thinking of building a 14 footer they designed, but they also have
    boats from 20-45 feet.
                           
    Hope this helps--send me your address if you want copies.  Mail from
    the USA to Bologna takes about a month.

Arrigo,

I've been out of the office for a week-plus, hence the delay in replying.

>>>    1st question: is it possible to build safe wooden tris?
>>>                  (this for building on my own; I apprenticed
>>>                  for one year in a small yard in Naples under
>>>                  an old master craftsman who built Stars, 1/4
>>>                  tonners, dinghies and so on, all wood or ply
>>>                  wood). The question is mainly related to the
>>>                  connection of the external hulls to main hull.

Yes.  Once one finds a materials source, as mentioned in another reply,
homebuilding a boat using wood, epoxy and exotic fibers (carbon, Kevlar,
etc) is within the ability of a careful but not expert homebuilder. Derek 
Kelsall in particular espouses several techniques for his designs which 
use the new materials simply and effectively.  
    
>>>    2nd question: does someone know about projects/drawings for
>>>                  a 20' to 26' suitable for single-handing?
>>>                  With room enough for a double berth, galley,
>>>                  and head?

The ideas presented so far are good; you can find all of them plus *many* 
others from around the world in the magazine MULTIHULLS -- contact and 
address information is contained in an earlier reply to this note, I 
think.  They also have an annual summary of all known designs from around 
the world, organized by cat/tri, then by length, then alphabetically, with 
additional characterizations.  Each indicates if it is in production or if
plans are available.  Hundreds, perhaps even a couple thousand listings
are included, with contact addresses for the designers.  They also write
often about amateur building techniques, often with lead articles by the
designers themselves, and always have another 2-5 designs featured in each
issue, including cruising designs from 7 meters on up. 

If you're going to subscribe to a magazine, MULTIHULLS will help get you
going on the right design.  Although its editing and printing are pretty
second rate, the info is broad, with technical and homebuilding advice
aplenty.  For woodworking techniques applicable to all boats, WOODENBOAT
is unsurpassed (especially in graphic beauty), but I'd suggest the former
as a start. 
    
J.

    After reading the replies about the Halifax race, I was wondering, how
    do multihull boats handle travelling at high speeds in choppy seas?
    
    

>>>    After reading the replies about the Halifax race, I was wondering, how
>>>    do multihull boats handle travelling at high speeds in choppy seas?
    
High performance multis bounce, vibrate, and generally can shake around
quite a bit.  The most unusual sensation for the monohull sailor first
experiencing an overnight race on a multi in "active" conditions is how
things seem to jerk *laterally* a great deal, not up and down especially.
This is clearly due to the multi's relatively lower inertia and higher
surface area (compared to monos) as it hits the waves of substantial
inertia.  Hitting even a four-foot wave broad off the bow at 15-20 knots
in a 40' boat of only 6000 lbs can have quite an impact.  However, at 
other times the fine hulls of a fast multi can slice through the top of a 
wave that would cause a mono to pitch more.  Occasionally you just go fast 
enough not to be in one place long enough to have any particular wave
affect your motion long enough to really be felt--a strange but
exhilarating thing when it happens. 

Depending on the boat (tri vs. cat, ama design, rig, sails, etc...), the 
greatest danger in running fast in rough seas may be diagonal pitchpoling 
by burying the leeward bow.  (Mr Kalinowski can probably offer a treatise
on this topic, with examples undoubtedly!  HIs boats, however, are made to 
self-rescue easily.)  Consensus these days seems to be that A) if your
multi's design is one of the later generations, and B) you're not racing,
then you'll be safe as long as you keep your target speed below 1/2 or 2/3
maximum.  It's pushing things to their limits when conditions are dicey
that has caused just about all the big multi capsizes (including those two
in France recently.)  Broad reaching in 30+ kts of wind feels like 15-20
across the deck at 20-25 kts boatspeed, and some sailors keep the big 
chute up, forgetting that any rounding up will change the balance and may
produce a sudden and drastic increase in heeling force.  Haul in or
shorten the jib, reef the main, and be glad to do 10-12 kts with control. 

In terms of motion, it's a matter of opinion what you prefer; some can't
sleep at all in the busy-ness of a multi really traveling, and find the
rocking of a mono more comforting.  Others (myself included) like the lack
of significant heeling and the knowledge that we'll be out of any
discomfort in perhaps half the time. 

It's worth a sail to find out.

J.

    After a 2 weeks holidays here I'm back (unfortunately)!
    I've re-discovered, with my 11 old kid, the pleasures of the...
    Optimist (yes, Sirs, Optimist) and spent a lot of time in rough
    lake conditions (northern winds and choppy waters) but we've
    also practiced on a cat, a 16 ft. AMF Trak 16. Heavy boat with
    a tall mast, large main abd a good auto-furling jib (the first
    thing Fred, my kid, learnt how to use properly).
    It's been the first time I've experienced without a skilled crew
    and for a longer time and the results, in terms of general reliability,
    have been good. The wind was strong enough to create problems if I were
    on the Snipe with light crew but has created any problems at all on the
    cat; I just allowed Fred to furl the jib, when the wind speed was
    increasing, to avoid he could be scared, and anyway, with the main only
    we were sailing on one hull at about 14, 16 knots. But I could also
    experience that, if I wanted to go more confortably, I had only to
    release a little and I sailed at a very good 9, 10 knots, with no
    effort at all, just a little, but very little rolling, and with a sense
    of complete safeness. 
    I'll go back to experience again but, undoubtedly, if you don't want
    to win a regatta, you can sail very well, having anyway the double of
    fun and the half of troubles.
    Well, I must try a tri now!
    Thanks for the infos about MULTIHULLS. I'll have a look.
    Ciao a tutti e buone vacanze.
    A.
    

    re .56     ie magazines
    
    
        last night I got flyer for a French magazine called Mullihull
    World. It is an english version of their magazine. They publish 80 page
    magazines every 2 months. Cost is $35 us for 1 year, $56 for 2 years.
    
       The mailing address is in France, but the return address was from
    San Fransico.
    
        Anyone ever heard read this magazine, and is it worth the money?
    
          john

    
    
    The english version of Multihull is fairly new and I would think that
    they need some time to get their act together.
    
    However, it is the best magazine around to learn about what is going in
    the multihull world in Europe and very much worth reading.
    
    Marcel

    Any further reports on Planesail from the U.K?
    
    Ray
    

>>>    Any further reports on Planesail from the U.K?
    
The current issue of Multihulls Magazine has John Walker's latest ad, 
showing the Planesail in front of the Statue of Liberty.  He wrote an 
article (two?) on the eventful crossing in a hurricane--excitement for the 
crossing novices, but the boat and wings too it in stride--which also 
appeared in MM.

The boat's been in Florida over the winter, looking for buyers and
investors (charter versions).  No word on their success, but she's heading 
back under "wing" this late spring, I've heard.

Though the price cools any ardor on my part (and I'm hardly in the market,
despite dreams) I'd love to sail one.  Came *this close* during a trip to 
Plymouth in 1990, but they'd just pulled Zefyr to correct a minor control 
problem, and I didn't get the promised test drive.  (Of course I got a 
raincheck!)  Still, I'm most curious to see if it will feel like it makes 
sailing too "automatic" in some way.  Walker's software program can sail 
the boat hands-off safely in any conditions, and interfaces with GPS and
Loran.... 

J.

    Cruising on a 4th generation cat seems to be an ideal way to spend five
    years experiencing the world.  Its either now or never, before I
    get married or have a family.  I plan $250k for the boat and $250k
    for expenses.  My choice is the Jenneau designed, U.S. built, Lagoon
    42'; have to wait for a used one to hit the market.
    
    I have several questions:
    
    Having only an adventurous spirit and no sailing experience, will I be
    able to handle the boat, or will I be in danger? (Currently have a 44'
    trawler in Prince William Sound.)  
    
    Is it possible that I would get bored or that the trip would seem
    monotonous, or that I'd be so tied to the boat I couldn't explore
    beyond sight of the boat?
    
    Is there a slightly smaller boat of equal workmanship that would
    suffice?  Are there safety or crew requirement differences between,
    say, a 36' cat and a 42' cat?
    
    Besides suscribing to Multihulls Magazine, are there any other
    recommendations of reference material for planning this multihull trip?
    
    ...Bailing out of Alaska
    
                             

    The DEC/jan/Feb issue of Multihulls, the french version had a writeup
    on the Lagoon. You may wish to contact the US office for a back copy of
    it, or call Jenneau. They probably have xerox copies of the article.
    
    

The Lagoon is a fine boat, now built here in the US of A by TPI in RI.  If 
you haven't got experience in a large multi, you could save yourself 
perhaps a lot of money and quick likely a lot of grief by chartering for a 
couple weeks or more first.  Given the budget you cited, there should be a 
few percent available for "research"!

While there are many things one might say about multis, one big difference 
(to watch out for) in comparison to approximately equal size (weight)
monos:  Things Happen Fast when the breeze is up.  I've been sailing on a
42' tri including some ocean races, and I'd certainly think very long and
hard before jumping into a Lagoon 42 (easily twice the size of that tri,
not to mention a good deal slower.) 

Unless you've got to leave now and are willing to take your chances, spend 
some time sailing on many different multis, and learn what the relative 
merits of cats and tris are -- many folks who've sailed on each some have 
ratehr strong preferences, and you might wish to investigate those.  (For 
instance, if weatherliness--ability to go upwind--is important to you, 
forget the cruising cats and focus on deep dagger tris.  If a degree of 
luxury and accommodation space is key, then cats in the >35' range will
please you much more.) 

You can call Privilege Charters (# in MM) and get yourself on a 39' cat in 
the Caribbean among other locations.  Other charters in different sizes 
are offered in MM.

Good luck!  Need any paid crew?

;-),  John.

    @250K for expemses even over five years, the likelihood of being tied
    to the boat seems remote unless you are a total hermit.  Cruising World
    just had another article on the "typical" cruising budget.  A majority
    of people seem to spend between 15-20K per year for everything
    including repairs.  I believe this was in the category of relatively
    comfortable cruising.  Negating any accumulated interest on the 250K
    over the five year period, 50K per year should allow you to spend as
    much time as you want tied to a dock in port, provide the ability to
    rent cars or even fly to remote areas further inland, eat at
    restaurants frequently and even take a vacation :-).  
    
    Cruisers reportedly spend about 10% of their total time out sailing. 
    and the rest in the harbor, lagoon, or bay of their choice.  This also
    includes planning for waiting out hurricane or typhoon seasons or
    cooler winter if desired.  With the budget you have shared, I would say
    that you may tire of seeing and doing too much well before you ever
    felt tied to the boat.  For an unhurried circumnavigation following one
    of the traditional routes, two years is about the minimum allowing for
    safe passages away from storm seasons.  Five years should allow you to
    explore all of the major cruising grounds and then some depending on
    how adventurous you are.  
    
    I would take 5% of your boat budget and spend it on research via
    chartering as suggested.  Bear in mind that not all of the multis are
    going to be blue water capable just as with monos.  SOme of the newre
    designs have not been on the marlet for long and therefore cruising
    histories may be sketchy or unavailable.  Select your vessel wisely. 
    As far as handling it yourself, this is probably more of a function of
    layout and deck equipment more than anything else.  Just about any boat
    can be rigged for single or short handed sailing.  Case in point are
    the Deerfoot series of 60+' boats designed to be sailed around the
    world quickly by a middle aged couple.  In any event, keep us posted on
    your progress.  It is facinating to me at least to here about other
    deccies going cruising.  If you need delivery crew or a baot sitter in
    some remote part of the world.........
    
    Enviously yours,
    
    Brian

RE: .94, Brian's ideas are good.  They prompt me to add a couple thoughts, 
FWIW:

There are several generations of multihull design, and you may wish to 
learn a bit about them in order to better assess your design choices.  
Some writers suggest three generations: 

FIRST:  Basic two or three hulls, each typically similar to an
ultra-narrow V-bottom monohull.  Little design awareness of multihull
dynamics in a seaway other than higher speed.  Wharram and early Brown
designs are typical. 

SECOND:  Rigs designed for higher speeds (e.g., flatter sails with large
roaches and full battens.)  Hull designs focus more on reducing pitching 
and pitchpoling tendencies.  (Some older designs are *scary* in this way.)
Wetted surface reduction seen as a way to improve light air performance, 
though underbody shapes still tend towards the V-bottom.  Examples include 
Gemini, Condor, the Val series.

THIRD:  Wing masts and much greater attention paid to hull shape. U-bottom 
designs predominate with deep high-aspect daggerboards to reduce leeway.  
However, many also begin to recognize that multihull safety in an extreme
seaway is based on rather fundamentally different principles than with 
monohulls -- side-slipping  down the face of a wave is desirable, tripping 
is to be avoided.  John Shuttleworth speaks to this issue extensively and 
convincingly.  His designs, such as the Tektron, are good examples.  
Shuttleworth also pays attention to other previously-ignored factors, such 
as reducing parasitic drag -- there's actually a significant amount of 
wind resistance at the upper sppeds these boats cruise, as well as a 
similar desire to reduce the "grip" any stray waves might have on the hull 
above the waterline at speed.

Dick Newick suggests a fourth generation:

FOURTH:  Advanced full wing masts (for cruisers as well as racers) and
dynamic hull shapes, such as his half-moon amas, which provide increased
lateral resistance as forward speed increases.  Ocean Surfer -- CSTAR 
Class 3 winner -- is an example (except for a full wingmast) and
apparently is still for sale having been converted (!?) for cruising.


Were I in your sneakers, I'd spend some of that research time talking with 
Chris White, John Shuttleworth and Dick Newick for a start.  Each knows a 
bundle, and each is quite open to discussions with jus' plain folks like us.
(They are listed in increasing order international reputation and
opinionation!)  White is in MA, Shuttleworth in England but often 
traveling here, and Newick in ME -- they all regularly advertise in MM.

What a fun dilemma you have!

J.

[restored by the Moderator]

================================================================================
                 <<< $1$DUA14:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SAILING.NOTE;4 >>>
                                  -< SAILING >-
================================================================================
Note 1283.86                       Multihulls                           86 of 86
MSBCS::DOLL                                          43 lines  19-MAY-1992 12:35
                             -< World  Class Cat >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re. Bailing out of Alaska

There are several production cats that I would consider world travelers
and they are mostly French.  The first three are excellent sailers.
You can charter any of them in either the Med or French Carib.  Live aboard
for a while before choosing if possible.  Sailing is a different life style
than power.


1. The Fountaine Pajot line.  Made on the West coast of France.  I have a
   32 ft.  They are the least expensive of production boats, due to 
   their production volume.  They have a 39 and 42 for about $200k and $250K.
   By buying in France direct there is no dealer fee (15-20%) and no import 
   tax until you bring the boat into the U.S.

2. The Catana series. They have a 39 and up in size.  They are more expensive
   but they perform better and I believe they are well built from what
   I've been told.  The designer is Lock Crowther, one of the best. They are 
   made on the south coast of France.

3. Jeanneau 42 built in the U.S. for about $380K; overpriced.  It's a new
   design and I don't know much about it.  It is built by a co. with a 
   good reputation, the U.S. co. I'm speaking of, not Jeanneau.  Take care
   when you deal with a Foreign Co.  Seek out advice.  

4. Privilege is also overpriced and doesn't perform as well.

5. Prout 39, a stretched 37; well built, lower perfomer, built in England.


Other alternatives are to buy a used production boat.  You save the depreciaton
and can get a much larger boat.  Fifty foot prouts are available for less
that $200K.

The third alternative is to buy a good no name boat.  There is a 45 ft cat
in Soundings that will be sold for less than $100K.  They have no value used.

    Planesail came to New York for a boat show on the East Coast and there
    is a rather uninformative article, although good reading, in this
    month's issue of Multihulls.
    
    Re: .85, I wonder where this design fits in your analysis?
    
    One thing that scares me about the windsail design, although
    intellectually I can understand the forces involved: It is well
    advertised that the wing shows less wind drag in neutral position than
    a regular mast and shrouds. 
    
    But if you look at all that bulk above the roof of Planesail, it makes
    one wonder how well the rig can fare in a high impact shock. It looks
    like the whole damn thing would break at the rotating joint.
    
    Yet, they came across the Atlantic in good style; perhaps they did not
    suffer any really bad conditions?
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

RE: .87,  

>>>  I wonder where this design fits in your analysis?
    
The hulls are third generation in philosophy, although rather stout for 
comparision with racing hulls.  They also offer another similar length 
model with even fatter central hull, which has another main cabin and more 
amenities.  Given the displacement and shape of the original Planesail's
hulls (I saw them in Plymouth during construction in 1990), I'm frankly
surprised at the impressive published performance figures.  I believe the 
thrust he claims is generated to be true, but it looked like a 
less-than-svelte shape for a tri at the time.

The wing is definitely ahead of the pack on development; no one has 
anything close to it in terms of performance with equivalent durability
and reliability. 

>>>  One thing that scares me about the windsail design, although
>>>  intellectually I can understand the forces involved: It is well
>>>  advertised that the wing shows less wind drag in neutral position than
>>>  a regular mast and shrouds. 
>>>  But if you look at all that bulk above the roof of Planesail, it makes
>>>  one wonder how well the rig can fare in a high impact shock. It looks
>>>  like the whole damn thing would break at the rotating joint.
    
As I figure it, shock loading can come from only three sources:  wind 
gusts, green water hitting it, and inertial shock as the boat pitches or 
rolls suddenly.  

The first is a non-issue; the blade feathers very responsively.  Standing 
on the roof in zero breeze, you can easily turn it with one hand with 
surprisingly little effort.  I watched Zefyr's single wing feathering in
fluky breezes down at the docks, and was quite amazed at how quickly it
turned and changed direction with every minute puff.  Walker is first and
foremost an aeronautical engineer, as is much of his design staff -- that
structure is unbelievably light.  (I lifted one end of one of Planesail's
wings laying horizontally with little effort and no grunt.)  He has built
a very high-tech wing, and it's just as strong as a plane's.  (Get it?)

The second is unlikely, since the wing is so high.  *If* it did get hit, 
however, and in a way that the feathering blade wasn't able to turn the 
main wing away from perpendicular in time, it could take quite a hit.  
Given the engineering and construction, though, I'd bet at least even 
money on Walker's wing over any conventional rig in the same situation.  
His bearing system is similar to, but larger than, that used on Harrier
VTO jets' wings -- a credible demonstration of potential strength.  If my 
memory recalls, the wing bearing races are on the order of 30" diameter,
with a patented self-lubing system.  Zefyr's ball bearings were about 1/2" 
diameter; Planesail's may be larger or not.
    
Given the strength Walker says (and I believe) is engineered and built 
into the wing bearings, the third shock loading source (inertia) would
bother me more in terms of materials fatigue than any single load per se.
Again, having looked closely at that system, inside as well as out, I 
wouldn't worry any more about it than I would a conventional rig.  Of
course it should be inspected regularly and carefully, just as you would
any conventional rig. 

It looks big, but weighs little.  And has less drag than a same height
conventional rig -- hard as that is to believe when one sees the visual
mass of those wings up there all the time. 

>>>  Yet, they came across the Atlantic in good style; perhaps they did not
>>>  suffer any really bad conditions?
    
They encountered one hurricane, 75-80 knots wind reported.  Zefyr has 
endured confirmed 100-knot gusts at her dockside mooring in Plymouth, with 
zero damage.  Walker claims that during those windgusts, similar multis in
the harbor with conventional (if advanced) rigs would lean over 10-15
degrees, whereas Zefyr feathered her blade and leaned barely perceptibly.

Too bad the exterior cabin design is so unconventional; that's the one big
hurdle I keep struggling with.  (As if I had >$100K to buy a Zefyr in the
first place....)  ;-) 

John.

    I'm thinking of buying a Sundowner trimaran, LOA 42'. Does anyone have
    any experience with this boat, who could give me some advice? I'm
    looking for a coastal cruising liveaboard boat with plenty of space.
    I'm somewhat dubious that a trimaran really gives any better useable
    space than a similar length monohull at 40 feet. I think this makes a
    difference above, say, 47 feet.
    
    Now catamarans, that's different. They seen to have more space, because
    the hulls typically seem to be bigger in beam and more useable.
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

    I cant help with this size range but if the space is a major
    requirement, and maybe you have looked into them but, have you
    considered the Cat's?????   I have done some comparisons in the 30'
    ranges and found the "space" differencs to be enormous!!  I wouls
    suspect that in the larger ranges it would be a similar comparison...  
    
    Maybe this will cause some thought or it was wasted paper,,,, 
    eh,, electrons I guess....8^)
    
    Good luck..
    
    `Charlie'

    I am definitely considering catamarans. The problem is, in my price
    range ($35K to $45K), in the sailing magazines and brokers, etc., there
    are many more Tris than Cats for sale. I'm not sure I understand why,
    but it's a fact.
    
    I agree that Cats appear to have better accommodation for a liveaboard
    cruiser, and right now, that's my priority, although I also do want to
    engage in some coastal cruising and decent performance would
    help....want everything, don't we?
    
    I think that in the 1970s there were a lot of Tris and not many Cats,
    but that changed in the 1980s. But I can't afford an 80s boat, so
    practicality comes in....
    
    Any suggestions for a good performance Cat, above 37 feet, from the
    seventies onwards?
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

    A comparison of space between a 40' tri vs a 40' mono will depend
    somewhat on what kind of mono (narrow and sharp, vs beamy and deep) but
    mostly on what kind of tri.  The Condor 40 I've sailed on (42' LOA) has
    somewhat less total volume than most same-length monos, but that's
    because it doesn't extend the living space beyond the narrow main hull
    beam (~6'??) except for opposing dbl berths built into the topside
    flare.  The ends of the hull (perhaps >50% of LWL total) are too narrow
    for much use other than equipment storage.  When not overloaded, she
    can really move out (25 kts once while I was on the tiller!)  But there
    are also plenty of older cruising tris which have beamier vakas (main,
    or middle hulls), and together with solid akas (wings or crossbeams)
    enclosing additional living space, provide tremendous volume.  Of
    course they may be no faster than most cruising monos of the same
    length....
    
    Dick Newick said it best, and I repeat:  
             Pick no more than two:   1) Performance
                                      2) Comfort 
                                      3) Economy
    
    I don't know the Sundowner, but you can get decent cost and excellent
    comfort if you are willing to give up relative performance.
    
    J.

    I've been looking at a few designs for Tris, and am concluding that,
    indeed, they are not a good tradeoff for internal space compared with
    Cats or even, in a lot of cases, Monos!.
    
    I'm off to see a fairly big tri (45' Horseman Tri-Star) on Friday. This
    one has a beam of 25'6" and extends living space over the akas and into
    the amas. However, from the drawings, I am not so sure that this design
    is much more roomy than a beamy 45' monohull except that there is
    considerable double berth space with low overhead, due to their being
    located in the akas. The beam of the main hull is, I guess, about 8.5',
    which is a narrow space. It's hard to tell from drawings, and I'll give
    you a better impression after I've seen her.
    
    In contrast, I've been aboard a couple of Cats of the same length, and
    my observation is that the hulls are beamier, and the overhead (when an
    enclosed design) tends to be higher, thus the living space is amazing.
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

    I have sailed the French built Catana 42' catamaran in the Med, off the 
    coast of France.
    
    I would recommend the catamran over the Tri, for space and cost.
    
    Frank
    

    Here's a question for multihullers.
    
    I have been sailing various multis, cats and tris, for the last two
    years, trying to get some experience with them.
    
    I have noticed that most cats you could cruise on are over 30 feet. 
    While under 30 feet, the market is filled with boats in the 18-20foot
    range (Hobies, etc.).
    
    The only multis in the 24-28 range are the F24 and F27 Tris.  
    
    A friend who owns a 35 foot cat told me that under 30 feet crusing cats
    have no better performance (i.e. speed) than comparable monos, thus the
    abundance of big crusing cats.
    
    There seems to be a void in the 23-28 foot range for a speedy cat that
    can also accommodate cruising needs. Don't mention the Endeavor Cat 27
    (previously known as the Intercat - I sailed it; it's very s-l-o-w.)
    
    Any comments?
    
                                                          

    Actually, there are quite a few, but those that sail up to the
    reputation of multihulls are admittedly light on accommodations.  Some
    examples include:
    
    -  Seawind 24 (cat) - hardly fast, but still a monohull-beater.  Can be
       demounted for trailering.
    -  Stiletto 27 (cat) - quite fast, minimum accommodations in each hull. 
       Not easily demounted for trailering.  And possibly no longer in
       production (?)
    -  Dragonfly 25 - The speedster of the 24-28' class, former Round
       Britain Race winner, available with a performance rig 4' taller,
       which in competent hands can embarrass a well-sailed F27.  Latest
       versions have a slick "swing-wing" system for highway-legal trailering.
    -  Somersault 26 - built by Outrigger Boat Co in Chicago, and recently 
       renamed to something I can't recall.  A Newick design, easily
       demounted by two people without exertion.  This has the greatest
       interior volume of any of these mentioned, and is probably the most
       flexible in terms of long-term interior cruising arrangements. 
       A capable but not spectacular performer.
    -  Argonaut 26 - The "odd duck" of the bunch, brought to you by the guy
       who first introduced hundreds of people to low-end performance
       multihull camper-cruising with the Tremolino 23, a main hull system
       using stock Hobie 16 hulls for amas!  It was a great concept, cheap,
       and really worked remarkably well.  The Argonaut is another
       swing-wing deal, rather awkward-looking with only moderate performance.
    
    There are others, but perhaps you can see from these that this niche
    has not been neglected.  From a price p.o.v., the F-24, F-27 and
    Dragonfly are definitely on the high end; others are less, with the
    Seawind and Argonaut on the affordable end (with the Somersault perhaps
    not far away.)
    
    Having recently sailed a new F-24 for two hours in 16-20 kts breeze,
    holding 14 kts *average* speed for over ten minutes on a broad reach,
    and doing 7-9 kts upwind in 3-4' chop, I can attest to appeal of this
    size and type of sailboat!  And we never bothered to break out the
    asymmetrical spinnaker....  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)  ;-)  
    
    J.
      

    To J. Spencer:
    
    Thanks.  you gave me just the information I was looking for.  Do most
    of these boats you mention have trampolines or bridge decks (or
    whatever they are called).
    
    I, too, cruised and raced for 4 days aboard an F27. Definitely fast,
    also definitely WET and CRAMPED living space.  But FUN, FUN.
    We went through Wood's Hole, against the current, under sail and with a
    only a 9hp outboard.  No problem and somewhat unbelieveable that we
    were able to do it.
    
    Again, thanks for the infor.
    
    Paul
    
    PS Any multihullers out there doing the Newport to Block Island race
    on Oct 10 and 11?

    Paul,
    
    All the 24'-28' performance-oriented multis I mentioned (and know of)
    have fabric tramps instead of solid wing decks.  
    
    - First, they are very weight-sensitive, and any solid deck would add
      quite a bit of weight and compromise performance.  
    
    - Second, since there wouldn't be enough space inside a solid wing deck
      for more than storage, it's not worth the cost of building them. 
      Also, adding storage space to this niche of boats induces owners to
      carry more, which kills performance, and undermines a prime rationale
      for getting one in the first place.  (This comment specifically
      excludes the multihulled houseboat varieties, which perform like wide
      barges and are aimed at a different market.)
      
    - Third, just about all of these multis profess to be trailerable (with
      significantly differing degrees of ease), and the technology of folding
      a solid deck still hasn't been sufficiently developed to be practical
      and affordable ;-).
    
    I agree with your observation that these mini-multis can be somewhat wet
    in chop when pushed above 50-75% of their potential on any given point
    of sail.  To some degree it's just a case that blasting along into
    wavetops produces a certain amount of spray, and one just has to find a
    spot to get out of it if possible.  Many F-27 sailors, for instance,
    fit an 8-10' hiking stick and on longer legs run things from the
    windward ama as far aft as possible, where it tends to be somewhat
    dryer (the spray blows diagonally across the boat.)  This may work
    better on a tri than on a cat, where the tri's windward hull (ama) bow
    is likely to be higher above the water than an equally aggressively
    sailed cat.  Indeed, most cats of this size are designed to be sailed
    with the windward hull still in contact with the water, if only
    minimally.
    
    Some multis can accommodate a good-sized dodger without it being in the
    way (such as the F-24 but not the F-27, due to the latter's pop-top.) 
    Also, we found that on our wet beat in 20 kts uphill in 4' Buzzards Bay
    chop that by slightly feathering the sails we could hold 5-6 kts upwind
    with virtually no spray coming aboard...not a bad option if sailing
    with family or soluble crew.  I'd also just reef down and relax.
    
    BTW, if comparing various multis, higher tramps, increased hull flare,
    and sharper (wave-piercing) ama bows all tend to reduce the amount of
    spray coming aboard.  The F-27 has one of the "dryer" reputations among
    the boats I've listed in this class, mostly because of its greater
    height and somewhat more pronounced hull flare.
    
    John.

BOATBUILDER magazine has ads from several multihull designers who have 
designs in the 20' to 40' range. The current issue describes a 30'
cruising cat that is claimed to be able to reach 20 kts. The living
space looks cramped and awkward even with sleeping space over the bridge
deck.  Probably ok for short cruises but not (IMHO) for living aboard.
Immersion is some 670 pounds per inch, which implies that any serious
load of fuel, water, food, ground tackle, spares, etc, may significantly
impact performance. (My 32' monohull sinks about 1 inch per 1000 pounds
of load, and we've raised the waterline two inches already.) Estimated
building time for the hulls is 1800 hours (years of one's spare time or
a large yard bill) and mast, sails, etc are another $10000 (or more). 
Might be worth spending a few dollars on some design portfolios and 
study plans from the various designers.

Alan

    I agree with Alan:  Mini-multis (24'-30') are great for thrills,
    convenience, (relatively) reasonable investment, daysailing and
    occasional weekending.  I love multis, but wouldn't try more than that
    except for possibly one week or another sometime in a tropical clime if
    a larger vessel wasn't available or affordable.  The F-27 probably
    comes closest to offering a modicum of comfort for a week-long stretch,
    though as Paul indicated, it only offers the basics in a rather cramped
    package.  To match the comfort of Alan's 32' cutter I'd be looking in
    the 35' range for a moderately high performance cat or at least 40' for
    a similar tri.
    
    Repeating Newick's law, pick two:  Speed, Comfort, or Economy.
    
    John.

    Hi from French riviera,
    
    Last replies talk about those wonderful trimarans F-24 and F-27 from
    Corsair Marine, probably one of the most successful boats builder in
    the States at this time!
    It's been five years I follow the Ian Farrier's designs and Corsair
    Marine growth, I suscribe for the TRIbune (C.M. newsletter) where I can
    keep in touch with the latest developments. 
    Unfortunately for us in France, eventhough we have among the best
    multihulls designers and boat builders, small multis have never been
    successful enough to justify investments contrary to the big catamarans
    for chartering.
    The importation costs raise the basic price substancially, but since
    the F-24 introduction (and the dollar rate), it's still affordable (I
    definitely forgot the F-27 because of the price).
    The F-24 is a great compromise, this one is really trailerable, and of
    course really fast. The design is very well achieved, inside as
    outside, and finishing beyond any reproach. I can talk of him now since
    I have had a chance to visit one of the Corsair dealer during an US trip 
    two weeks ago, his name: Bob Gleason - Wareham, MA - 508-295-0095.
    This nice guy gave me two hours of his time to show me everything about
    those two folderable boats, no need to say I was impressed!
    
    Main characteristics:
    	LOA		24'2"
    	LWL		23'7"
    	Beam, overall	17'11"
    	Beam, folded	8'2"
    	Draft, board up	12"
    	Draft, board dn	4'8"
    	Sail area	400 sq.ft.
    	Weight		1800 lbs.
    
    I plan to buy one maybe in the next two years from now, when I will
    find a new owner for my actual "Coco" a 6.50x2.70m "mini-transat"
    racing boat.
    
    Do any of you have more (sailing and practice) info on that particular
    boat? (more than 50 of them have been delivered since one year now, and
    350 F-27s!)
    
    . Pierre .