Best rig for small catamaran circumnavigator?

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by randy quimpo, Jan 23, 2006.

  1. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 5,067
    Likes: 216, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Bi-Plane, DynaRig, Mast-Aft sailing rigs

    An email I recently sent in reply to subject of biPlane rig choice


    SUBJECT: DynaRig, 40-ish Catamaran motorsailer
    Client wrote:
    Hi Brian,

    I am of the definite opinion that all these rigs you talk about are
    inefficient and heavy, not what one wants on a catamaran. It has been
    proved time and again, what makes an efficient rig for windward work, a
    wingmast and a sail of high aspect ratio, and some means of minimizing tip
    vortices.

    Why make it more difficult?

    I have decided to go for a bi-plane rig on my 45 ft. cat, using unstayed
    masts, and the masts will have a wingshape. The masts and booms can turn
    360 degrees. Can easily be released and reefed at any angle to the wind.

    XXXX

    _______________________________________________________________
    Brian replied:

    Actually XXXX I am not trying to “make it more difficult”. I am just following aerodynamic principles that end up leading me to the rigs I chosen to promote and expand upon. I try to consider these rigs in light of cruising sailboat designs rather than racing designs, or specialty applications.

    I’m having trouble understanding your choice of a ‘bi-plane rig’? I understand the desire to get a lower COE of the total sail area, and I do know these rigs have distinguished themselves in a few specialty applications (smaller vessels, and a few speed record seekers), but at what cost to all-around performance on a cruising vessel?? (I believe this is the type of vessel you are seeking?)

    The bi-plane rig can certainly be made to perform to windward. And the use of higher aspect ratios and wingmasts will assist in this effort. But now you have tall narrow triangular sails that are the worst form, that produce considerable induced drag from vortices off of their tips, and you have two of them. Your induced drag on this bi-plane rig is going to be considerable higher than a single free-standing uni-rig.

    My real concern with the bi-plane rig is with its performance in reaching and running, two of the primary and preferable sailing angles for cruising vessels. I just do not see any way to make the leeward twin rig effective at all in a beam-reaching situation. And remember EFFECTIVE downwind sailing is not just about projected sail area to the push of the wind, but rather FLOW over the sails, that will not easily be attainable with the bi-plane rig. Here are a few excerpts from a forum discussion on Sail Aerodynamics I made; Aspect Ratio (AR) of rigs on cruising vessels

    In general we have three basic sailing directions we need to consider, upwind, reach, downwind. And for the cruising sailor the upwind 1/3 of the total is not even an equal partner (as many cruisers often chose not to fight upwind work). As Marchaj and many others have reported, high aspect ratio is principle beneficial for upwind work.

    When we talk of speed, are we talking of ‘around the race course’ speed, or straight-line, head-to-head speed? From a purely aerodynamic point of view, I would prefer to compare the vessels with different sailing rigs on a head-to-head basis in each of the 3 primary sailing directions. So hopefully you can see where I have some problems with your statements such as “the most efficient boats of all use cat rigs”, and “fractional rigs generally go faster than masthead rigs”. If you are talking ‘around the race course’ your statements could well be considered correct in many cases, but on a head-to-head basis they might not hold up so well.


    Are you proposing fully battened sails on these freestanding wingmast? Are they to be reefably? …on each mast?, or just one up, one down? I would not want to be the autopilot unit trying to cope with the turning moments generated by COE shifting from one side to another.

    I’m just not impressed with the idea of a bi-plane rig on a cruising vessel.

    I don’t know how you conclude that my mast-aft design is “ heavy and inefficient”? It shouldn’t weight much more than the ketch rig it is intended to replace. As concerns efficiency I will just say I’ve written quite a lot about this in the past and won’t bother to rehash it here. Suffice it to say it will perform very well on all 3 major points of sail.

    The email I sent out on the Dynarig was meant to show how the Falcon's dynarig could be brought down in complexity, price, and weight. Certainly it is still a 'square rigger', a very modern version at that, and will never compete with a free-standing unirig in expense nor weight aloft. But it has shown its capabilities in performace, and on all 3 points of sail
     
  2. OldYachtie
    Joined: Jan 2006
    Posts: 65
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: near Seattle

    OldYachtie Junior Member

    People who have used the bi-plane rig report that you just let the windward sail out more than usual when reaching, and haul the leeward sail in a bit more. From a seagull's eye view,(overview), I visualize the two sails in concert looking rather like one sail, as this trim would make the greatest draft in the combined middle, and least draft in the combined luff and leach. For this reason, I find claims that it works well to trim a bi-plane rig like this quite credible. Also, when running, you have zero back-winding, as neither sail is down-wind of the other. My next boat (a catamaran) will have a bi-plane rig.
     
  3. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 5,067
    Likes: 216, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    I'll excerpt a comment I included above and re-emphasize it:
    "And remember EFFECTIVE downwind sailing is not just about projected sail area to the push of the wind, but rather FLOW over the sails, that will not easily be attainable with the bi-plane rig."


    I would refer you to the two contributions above:
     
  4. jamez
    Joined: Feb 2007
    Posts: 563
    Likes: 65, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 231
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand

    jamez Senior Member

    BiPlane rigs have been shown to work well on heavier disp cats
    http://www.flyingcarpet.co.nz/about.html
    as well as light ones like the previously mentioned Schionning.
    However the successful ones all seem to use freestanding masts (as opposed to the stayed rig used by TFJ) and in some cases have taken a bunch of tweaking to get right.

    Most cats in the 27 foot region use a single masted bermudan sloop rig, either mast head or fractional. These rigs are well proven and easy to find appropriate specs for. Sure you could try something unique, but other than the challenge of designing it I can't see the point.
     
  5. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 5,067
    Likes: 216, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    Here's another reference to a very nice looking biplane rigged cat

    http://www.sailcoolchange.co.nz/

    ...but I don't see anything definitive on their true performance on all points of sail :?: :?:

    PS: Click on the 'accomodation button' and take note how close the mast are, and with respect to the boom lengths, then tell me how you effectively broad-reach this rig?
     
  6. jamez
    Joined: Feb 2007
    Posts: 563
    Likes: 65, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 231
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand

    jamez Senior Member

    Cool Change looks very swoopy. I found the design on the Kelsall site

    http://www.kelsall.com/s7.html

    She is approx 26 foot beam on 56 foot LOA. Assuming the hulls are say 6 feet wide and the masts are stepped on the centre line there would be approx 20 feet between them. Not sure of the implications of that, but it does seem to be a different approach to the Schionning which uses a much more low aspect sail plan on a relatively wider hull spacing. To me one of the reasons for the bi-plane should be to get more SA lower down. Not sure I'd want to swap one hi-aspect rig for two.

    There are several articles on Schionnings website about sailing the Radical Bay that may answer some of the handling questions. There is also a 12 metre Schionning bridgedeck cat in build in Australia which will have a bi-plane rig of similar proportion to the Radical Bay.

    I have an aquaintance who, 25 years ago, built a heavily modified Pahi 31 and fitted a biplane rig - in cahoots with Bernard Rhodes of Flying Carpet (see link above). I never sailed on this boat but according to the builder it went well - once he got used to the idiosyncracies of the rig. That boat (the Pahi) is still around and still sports the same rig.
     
  7. Trevlyns
    Joined: Oct 2006
    Posts: 689
    Likes: 34, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 461
    Location: London UK

    Trevlyns Senior Citizen/Member

    What about Wingsails?

    Hi guys!

    I’ve followed this thread with great interest but am wondering why no one has yet mentioned the vane controlled wingsail.

    I’ll be using this on an 8 meter ply/epoxy cat which I designed and my rationale for going this route is as follows.

    1. Ease of handling is important – both my wife and I are in our late fifties.
    2. Expensive hardware like masts, rigging and winches are eliminated.
    3. The wingsail adds a third dimension – thickness. I think this makes for greater efficiency and because it is streamlined, offers little resistance when head to wind.
    4. Angle of attack is set by the vane and therefore follows any wind shifts; keeping the rig efficient.
    5. The wing will simply weathervane in gusts and angle of attack can easily be reduced as the wind strengthens and indeed neutralized when the going gets tough or when in port.
    6. It can be used in conjunction with a conventional spinnaker for downwind work.

    I value and respect all opinions and would encourage any other thoughts on this matter.
     
  8. brian eiland
    Joined: Jun 2002
    Posts: 5,067
    Likes: 216, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1903
    Location: St Augustine Fl, Thailand

    brian eiland Senior Member

    ...an observation offered on another forum just recently...


    Ross wrote:

    Hi Everyone, I have been following the talk on the bi-plane rigs and thought I might relate my observations from sailing against one.

    I sailed with Mark Pescott in the King's Cup regatta (Phuket, Thailand) on one of his Firefly 850 cats. (www.markpescottmultihulls.com) if you want to see what they look like.

    One of the competitors was a Schionning designed Radical Bay 8000 with the bi-plane rig.
    http://www.schionningdesigns.com.au/www/page.cfm?pageID=271

    Conditions over the 5 sailing days varied between 5 to 10 knot days to 20 to 25knots on the Ko Racha race which is about 28 nautical miles and a reach both ways. On one of the lighter days the race ended up being about 4 hours long and we had to beat the Radical Bay by around 1 and a half hours on handicap. We worked hard and won the race on handicap by 0.38 of a second on corrected time but to have to win a race by an hour and a half is a bit ridiculous. They were no where to be seen when we crossed the finish line. The OMR handicap favours twin rigs as the second mainsail is only measured at 50%, a legacy of the days when ketches and yawls were still around.

    The twin rigs worked quite well in breeze above 15 knots and they were hard to beat on handicap on those days but they suffered badly in light airs. We observed that the leeward rig gets blanketed a bit on a beam reach but not as much as you would think. This would be worse on a heavier displacement cruising boat, (that particular Radical Bay weighed 1100kg). I was fairly impressed with its tacking ability. It tacked fairly quickly although on the few occasions we cover tacked we noticed the Firefly was faster through and out of the tack. Mind you there are few cats that could tack as well as us.

    The other observation was that it was a very boring boat to sail, as there wasn't a hell of a lot to do around the bouys. We had kites to launch and jibs to drop at the marks and all they did was ease or trim the mainsheets. Not what you would call an adrenalin rush. I guess my point is, that it certainly would have it's advantages on a cruising boat (ease of handling, etc) but it is not the ideal all round rig, especially for those of us that want to cruise in comfortable conditions ie; under 15knots of breeze, unless you have light, easily driven hulls. One might find the auxiliary gets used a bit more.
     
  9. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 890
    Likes: 285, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    G'day,

    I design and build unstayed carbon masts for multihulls, both harryproas and cats. Some facts after reading this thread:

    A carbon mast will be considerably lighter than a wooden or alloy one. It will also last much longer, with less maintenance.

    A correctly designed and bench tested unstayed carbon mast has nothing to break or wear out apart from the halyard sheave. A stayed rig has maybe 100 individual bits (wires, tangs, rigging screws, spreaders, chainplates, etc etc) all of which should be checked regularly and replaced every 5 years or so. Any one of these fails, the mast falls down.

    An unstayed rig may or may not be heavier and more expensive than a stayed version, depending on who builds it. However, if the boat is designed for the unstayed rig, the overall package will be both cheaper and lighter.

    An unstayed rig is safer. The tip bends off in a squall, delaying the need to reef. Gybes are painless, in any wind strength. The sail can be eased to weathercock on any point of sail. This also makes raising and lowering easier.

    An unstayed rig can be faster, as it has much less windage than a stayed one. The Radical Bay/Firefly comparison is flawed, in a number of areas.

    The best option for a cruising cat is an unstayed wing mast in one hull. Next best is the biplane rig. Everything else is a very distant third.

    Anyone who wants more elaboration on any of the above points, please let me know.

    regards,

    Rob Denney
    www.harryproa.com
     
  10. jamez
    Joined: Feb 2007
    Posts: 563
    Likes: 65, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 231
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand

    jamez Senior Member

    Brian,
    Thanks for posting that excerpt from the other board. I had wondered how the RB 8000 would stack up against a boat able to fly extras. I think these are both cool designs. It would be interesting to see an RB 8000 with a conventional rig (the way the boat was originally designed for the International Multihull Design Competition 2002 run by Norske Flerskog) and see how it performed against the Firefly. I don't think there would be much difference. The bi-plane is described as boring but some people want easy handling as opposed to absolue performance. If I wanted a race boat I would lean towards the Firefly. If I wanted an easily handled fast boat to cruise the RB8000 has some attraction. That said they both seem bloody expensive to me for what they offer.

    Trevlyns,
    Don't know how much info you already have but suggest you check the Jim Antrim website for examples. Te Marama was a cat built to his design with a full wing rig that has cruised the Pacific - not allways without problems, but I'll leave it to you to research that on Google.

    2c worth
    I think what some people tend to miss is that most people just want boats they can (sometimes build and) just go out and sail. Without the problems of optimising someone elses 'next great idea'. Therefore they use proven configurations, rigs etc. And thats just fine. There will always be those who feel they have to push the envelope and thats just fine too. I don't see the point in some of the soapboxing that goes on. At the end of the day most people don't need to be 'converted' and will own what appeals/they can afford.
     
  11. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 165, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    The norm is normal for a reason

    I have to agree with the last writer. The reason the sloop rig is ubiquitous is because it works well on many different points. I don't agree with Rob, although I respect his view, that normal rigs are a distant third.

    Sailing our East coast we often square run. In these conditions being able to hang a reacher or kite off the bow of the boat pulls it docilely downwind. It is fabulous and the autopilot can do it with ease. The main stays often stays bagged.

    Reaching or going to windward I like the ability to balance helm by trimming the headsail and mainsheet. This is how the boat talks to me. I also like the way it is easy to reduce sail using my cutter rig. Most of the time multihull cruiser are slowing their boats down. To worry too much about optimum performance is not in keeping with the cruising philosophy. Above 8 knots average on our 38 footer and the ride usually starts getting too rough.

    In fact the bending masts and rotating masts of racers probably would slow a cruiser down. This is because of an effect called mechanical sympathy. Basically many people get worried when big things with big things under lots of stress - masts and rigs - start wobbling around. Even though the engineer may say it is safe a cruiser will probably ease off to stop the movement. I did when cruising with a rotating stick on my Twiggy. I didn't like it and it made me worried. My non rotating stick on my cat has lots of wires and has never shown me it has any concerns.

    I also don't agree with Rob's point about things to fail. There may be more objects in a normal rig but this does not mean they are therefore more prone to error. The aluminum extrusion is easily checked for damage and is produced to close tolerances but after the carbon mast has had a coat of paint can you be sure the builder has vacuumed it properly - was the carbon marine spec or a leftover laminate someone got cheap. There are many ways to fail here too. Most normal rigs have been up an awfully long time and are still going strong. In thirty years of sailing I have broken more unstayed windsurfer masts than normal masts. Engineer the rig properly no matter what type.

    It is very important to properly understand the use of the rig you put on your boat. Modern cruising multihulls do not go fast enough to tack downwind in many conditions - I have tried it against friends who went faster straight downwind. Some of our cherished beliefs evaporate out cruising. The amazing rig that should work may not. I will be looking closely at the twin mast rigs being built and will be most interested to see how they stack up in typical cruising situations.

    cheers

    Phil
     
  12. Ross Blair
    Joined: May 2007
    Posts: 1
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Noosa Heads Qld. Australia

    Ross Blair New Member

    bi-plane rigs v firefly

    Hi Rob, I was wondering if you could elaborate on what was "flawed" in the Firefly/Radical Bay comparison. At my typing speed it is hard to cover all details. I would like to hear your questions and see if I have an answer.
    Your comment made about the standard fractional bermuda rig was a little harsh. Yes, there are a few bits to check but to say that a hundred components need to be checked is not really true as most of it should be engineered well enough to almost never be checked. Mark Pescott has just been over here (Australia) and bought with him a set of stays from his cat "Summersalt" that, only now, need replacing and she was launched in 1987!
    Yes he was a bit slack and should have replaced them years ago but he does check them from time to time. For the record Summersalt has done over 40,000 nautical miles.
    I am not trying to put down the Bi-plane rig I was just saying that the fractional rig sloop is going to be a faster all round rig. It has to be, with the potential for increasing sail area when required.
    I know what my choice would be for a cruising cat and I don't really care what someone else wants on theirs. As with almost everything to do with sailing it is a compromise and you live with the decision or make steps to change it. Happy sailing all! Meanwhile I'll get back to my dusty shed and keep building boats for others - mutter, mutter. Cheers, Ross Blair.
     
  13. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 890
    Likes: 285, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    Phil I have to agree with the last writer. The reason the sloop rig is ubiquitous is because it works well on many different points. I don't agree with Rob, although I respect his view, that normal rigs are a distant third.

    Rob
    Your reasoning implies that monos are better cruisers than multis as they are more "ubiquitous". I believe that stayed sloop rigs are ubiquitous because a) they are what racing boats use and b) because sailors are very conservative.

    Phil
    Sailing our East coast we often square run. In these conditions being able to hang a reacher or kite off the bow of the boat pulls it docilely downwind. It is fabulous and the autopilot can do it with ease. The main stays often stays bagged.

    R Do you leave that rig up overnight? Can you get it down singlehanded in the rain in a 40 knot squall at 2 am? The unstayed rig does not need a spinnaker to be hoisted, or a main to be lowered to fly the spinnaker. Just ease the sail out to square with the boat and you have the same result. In the squall, dump the sheet, the rig weathercocks and everything is immediately under control.

    P Reaching or going to windward I like the ability to balance helm by trimming the headsail and mainsheet. This is how the boat talks to me. I also like the way it is easy to reduce sail using my cutter rig. Most of the time multihull cruiser are slowing their boats down. To worry too much about optimum performance is not in keeping with the cruising philosophy. Above 8 knots average on our 38 footer and the ride usually starts getting too rough.

    R Sure, the more strings, the more you can talk to your boat. This, and Ross' desire for lines to adjust and adrenaline rushes are definitely pluses for sloops, minuses for unstayed rigs. Whether they are what cruisers want is a moot point. Reducing power on your cutter cannot be as easy as reducing it on an unstayed rig. You have to drop or furl a (possibly flogging) sail, the unstayed rig flexes, and pressure is relieved. No work required. Being able to stop the boat and unload the sails on any point of sail to tie in a reef on an unstayed mast is far easier than any sail reduction I have ever been involved with on a stayed rig.

    P In fact the bending masts and rotating masts of racers probably would slow a cruiser down. This is because of an effect called mechanical sympathy. Basically many people get worried when big things with big things under lots of stress - masts and rigs - start wobbling around. Even though the engineer may say it is safe a cruiser will probably ease off to stop the movement. I did when cruising with a rotating stick on my Twiggy. I didn't like it and it made me worried. My non rotating stick on my cat has lots of wires and has never shown me it has any concerns.

    R This is about stayed rotating rigs, not unstayed ones.

    P I also don't agree with Rob's point about things to fail. There may be more objects in a normal rig but this does not mean they are therefore more prone to error. The aluminum extrusion is easily checked for damage and is produced to close tolerances but after the carbon mast has had a coat of paint can you be sure the builder has vacuumed it properly - was the carbon marine spec or a leftover laminate someone got cheap. There are many ways to fail here too. Most normal rigs have been up an awfully long time and are still going strong. In thirty years of sailing I have broken more unstayed windsurfer masts than normal masts. Engineer the rig properly no matter what type.

    R No "may be" about it. There are more things to fail in the stayed rig. And they are more prone to fail. The alloy extrusion is the least of your worries, the rigging and all it's connections is what needs to be checked and replaced regularly, and if one fails, down it all comes. I assume a reputable mast manufacturer of the carbon tube. There are numerous checks which can be made of a carbon mast (which is why carbon has finally made it into commercial aeroplanes) including static bend tests and ultrasound tesing. Both are one offs. Windsurfer masts are a bit different. They are highly stressed and frequently subject to impact damage for which they were not designed such as dropping them off the roof rack.

    P It is very important to properly understand the use of the rig you put on your boat. Modern cruising multihulls do not go fast enough to tack downwind in many conditions - I have tried it against friends who went faster straight downwind. Some of our cherished beliefs evaporate out cruising. The amazing rig that should work may not. I will be looking closely at the twin mast rigs being built and will be most interested to see how they stack up in typical cruising situations.

    R The unstayed rig works brilliantly down wind. No crash jibes, no need to luff to reduce sail, no stays to chafe against. But mostly, no flogging spinnaker to raise and lower and scare the wife and kids.

    regards,

    Rob

    cheers

    Phil[/QUOTE]
     
  14. rob denney
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 890
    Likes: 285, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 436
    Location: Australia

    rob denney Senior Member

    Ross
    Hi Rob, I was wondering if you could elaborate on what was "flawed" in the Firefly/Radical Bay comparison. At my typing speed it is hard to cover all details.

    Rob
    Firefly is near enough 20% lighter, 5% longer, with a 50% higher mast (critical in light air sailing) with 10% more working sail and near enough 100% or more downwind/light air sail area. Therefore it should be faster. The Firefly is a superb boat, we did well in the Brisbane Gladstone in it many years ago, despite being too scared to fly a spinnaker in the dark after being hit by a squall in the middle of the night. But as a cruiser, the rig is far too much like hard work. You see this as a plus, I see it as a minus, for cruisers. see below for a more meaningful comparison of an unstayed rig vs Firefly.

    Ross
    I would like to hear your questions and see if I have an answer.
    Your comment made about the standard fractional bermuda rig was a little harsh. Yes, there are a few bits to check but to say that a hundred components need to be checked is not really true as most of it should be engineered well enough to almost never be checked.

    Mark Pescott has just been over here (Australia) and bought with him a set of stays from his cat "Summersalt" that, only now, need replacing and she was launched in 1987!
    Yes he was a bit slack and should have replaced them years ago but he does check them from time to time. For the record Summersalt has done over 40,000 nautical miles.

    Rob
    So, are you saying that stayed rigs do not need to be checked or have anything replaced until they have done 40,000 miles? Didn't think so. 20,000? No. 10,000? No. At the end of every season, and before, after (and during) a long passge or a gale? Yes. I would not expect to have to check or replace anything in a well built, unstayed carbon mast for at least 40,000 miles. Not because I am more gung ho than you, but because there simply is nothing to check.

    You say a few. On Firefly, there are 3 stays, 2 or 3 diamonds, 5 or 6 rigging screws, 10 or 12 clevis pins, 10 or 12 swages, 7 attachments for the wires on the mast, 3 on the deck, a seagull striker (with another piece of wire, rigging screw, 2 swages, and 2 cotter pins), maybe a dolphin striker with another piece of wire, rigging screw, 2 swages, and 2 cotter pins, a traveller with a ball bearing car, blocks and cleats and at least two sheet winches and cleats. Not quite a hundred unless you include all the rivets, nuts and bolts holding it together, but it is only a 28 footer. None of these are on the unstayed rig, so do not have to be over engineered, bought, checked or replaced.

    Ross
    I am not trying to put down the Bi-plane rig I was just saying that the fractional rig sloop is going to be a faster all round rig. It has to be, with the potential for increasing sail area when required.

    Rob
    Sorry, but I disagree with this as well. The unstayed rig can use extras (with the same handling problems) as on stayed rigs. But, more importantly, if speed is the criteria, then an unstayed rig can be a lot bigger to start with (as it flexes and does not need all the wires and resultant compression loads), will have far less windage, and can be mounted in a much lighter and longer (no forestay trying to wrench the bows off) boat, all of which are speed producing factors. An example is my solo Transpac boat. Lighter, wider, longer and cheaper than Firefly, more sail area, more accommodation and far drier, easier and more comfortable to sail. Any chance of you doing the next Sydney Hobart or Brisbane Gladstone in a Firefly so we can compare them?

    Ross
    I know what my choice would be for a cruising cat and I don't really care what someone else wants on theirs. As with almost everything to do with sailing it is a compromise and you live with the decision or make steps to change it. Happy sailing all! Meanwhile I'll get back to my dusty shed and keep building boats for others - mutter, mutter.

    Rob
    Give yourself a break from the sanding and sticky resin and come down to Urunga next weekend to see the dustless future of boat building! We are holding a KSS workshop from 7th-10th. At the end of the 4 days there should be a 50' hull, decks and bulkheads, faired, gel coated and ready to assemble. Materials cost for the finished hull, $Aus5,500/$US5,000. A couple of these and a sensible unstayed rig rig and you could afford to stop building boats for others and get back to cruising. ;-)

    regards,

    Rob
     

  15. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,315
    Likes: 165, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    Agree to disagree

    Thanks Rob for your comments. I think we will remain unmoved by each other and it will be our boats that will win the argument. I can't put into words the security my boat with its rig gives me with all its wires. You like your rig but I think that until I experience it for myself I won't get where you are coming from. Then I will either change my view or agree to disagree.

    I like diversity - I love watching metre boats sail, going for a fang on a skiff or a good ride on a sailboard. Nigel Irens, who I think is the greatest multi designer we have, sails old style monos with a modern twist because he likes them. Most people sail monos because monos are the best boats for what most people do. My wife wants a Dragon because they are great boats that talk to her. There is no one super boat - no one super rig. There are many reasons to choose a boat/rig. Logic and argument can only unveil a few. You gotta love this thing that takes all your time and effort.

    cheers

    Phil
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.