The only reason we can see to cruise offshore in a multihull is speed. But if you go for the condo style cats the weight and windage will make you so slow that you will envy the daily runs of monohulls. On the other hand with long hulls, minimal accommodations, and low windage, fast sailing will be your reward.
Here is an example. OK, she is a bit on the ugly side, but you are going to make exhilarating passages. And you will not be bothered by the wing deck slamming.
Posted by Steve Dashew (April 28, 2011)
April 29th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Proof that fast catamarans don’t have to be ugly!
She is Neptunes Car, a 15 year old Shuttleworth design.
Evidently the French have a different idea about what constitutes a term charter catamaran, as this one crosses the Atlantic twice a year with paying guests on board.
April 30th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Interesting to know, Richard. I had a suspicion that Shuttleworth would be involved… his style is rather distinctive.
The problem with production cruising cats isn’t that the concept is inherently bad; rather, it’s to do with market forces. If you cram in a lot of accommodation space, and give it powerful engines, you can market a “condomaran” as a charter boat (floating hotel room) in all sorts of profitable places. If you keep the length down (L/D around 5-6, or DLR above 150) you can fit four staterooms in a ten tonne 42-footer without racking up huge dock fees. That makes for good charter profits, as long as you stick to short trips in sheltered waters.
A cat’s real advantages, though, come in when its hulls are long and slim, and its superstructure compact. Take those same four staterooms and the same 10 tonnes, simplify the mech/elec systems, and put it on slim 60-foot hulls with a >3′ wing clearance, and you’ll come in at about the same cost and space. Same volume, weight and total sail area, but with L/D ~ 8 or DLR below 50. It’ll be more comfortable out in open water, and it’ll be much faster on passage. Unfortunately, there’s this perception that “length equals space” and that a 60-footer is a HUGE cat- and there’s plenty of profit to be made selling and operating overweight condomarans, so why pursue something that’s technically better but has a more limited market?
April 30th, 2011 at 7:45 am
You have the formula Matt:
Same applies to monomarans as well… Bewoulf, our 78 foot ketch, had a DLR in full cruising mode of under 70.
May 1st, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Actually the link to Neptune’s Car was deleted from my post. No idea what the one in Steve’s photo is, but CAR is 300% sexier. Search catasailing dot com/fr if you want to see the real thing.
Matt, been there done that. 12 years ago I started a company, designed a high performance 58′ catamaran with slim hulls, daggerboards, sexy aerodynamic styling and more salon volume than similar condomarans. Every client insisted upon filling them with Sub Zero household refrigerators, two gen sets, in mast furlers, and 2000′ jet drive ribs hung on the back. The result: a more expensive condomaran. As Bob Perry once told me, “there is no market for performance— interior volume is the only measure for most buyers”. Same holds true for monohulls. I recently did a passage on a multi million dollar custom 59′ ULDB. The owner is reaching the age where he is considering a Nordhaven. When I pointed out that pushing a three story tall brick through the water is not the most rational of design options and suggested he explore the FRB idea, it occasioned a hour long rant about how much faster his last transpac race boat was than a Sundeer 65, lack of room in FRB designs, ugly aluminum, etc.
Sorry if I’m cynical, but good design will always be a nitche market.