Canting Keel Monos vs Multihulls

I had the same idea as Jehardiman and I was going to post a comparison between the seaworthiness of multi and monohulls at "La route du Rhum Race". He have done it already

I think that we can conclude that:

Monohulls are a lot more seaworthy than multihulls.

The canting keels of the Open 60 proved to be reliable.

The 40 class boats proved to be fast, competitive, reliable and inexpensive.


About 40class (and its cruising versions) and this race, take a look at:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14468

It seems that canting keels are more reliable and they will be a reality in a lot of boats and not only in racing ones or very expensive megayachts.

In the next Vendee Globe the open 60 will also have canting keels. In that race they are concerned about ecology, so I believe that we will see canting keels that will need very little power to be operated. That research and the knowledge provided by the extensive use in extreme conditions, will be very useful and will permit canting keels to be used not only in megayatchs, but also in all really fast cruising sailboats.

I believe they are here to stay .

 

i dont for a number of reasons
lead can also be worn inside your hat against gamma sun radiation but nowadays not many people do anymore

 

Speed + Seaworthiness

You got that right, Mr. Hough!

 

Talk about opening a can of worms,the replys sure ran the gamut,i think from your site Brian your looking more at a cruising boat?Their is a lot of people who just cant except multihulls,it just depends on what makes u happy,i dont like the heeling of monos or the rolling at anchor,i did enjoy my laser when i was young,i found the racing crowd brought out the worst in people,i dont like daggerboards foils or anything dragging under the water that can help bring me to a sudden stop(bad laser crash)or a multihull that burys the bow and cartwheels(hobie 16)i would prefer the world cup be raced with identical boats,like a laser or sunfish,the whole snobby money thing with yachts is a turnoff.A better thread may be,how much wind well u sail in?how really gung ho are u about going fast?i used to go out when nobody else did,or as i had to explain to rangers,i came here for this wind.ive since changed to wanting a medium sized catamaran with a small outboard,i like some speed while not having to brace myself,drinks staying uprite and my wife and kids relaxing,i dont get the whole anti catamaran thing.

 

Being a thorn in your side for a moment...

You started with science, and now pass off a conclusion you don't agree with as luck. Those boats made their own luck by sailing fast and out of harms way.

The designers of fast sailboats rely on a small dose of good seamanship and the boat's ability to sail faster than weather systems.

The designers of slow sailboats must rely on structures that must withstand forces they cannot avoid ... making the boats even slower and increasing the chances that their "seaworthiness" is tested.

Some people drive Volvo's and never develop driving skills because they rely on the vehicle to protect them. Other people ride motorcycles and rely on skill, speed, and agility to protect them.

IMO Trying to draw conclusions about the relative seaworthiness of multi's and mono's based on ocean racing results is somewhat foolish. Seaworthiness is closely related to seamanship. When you find a sample that shows that multi's don't fare well against mono's when best survival tactics are employed, you may have a point.

The fact remains that the ability to cover 200-300M in 24 hours vs 100-125M means that you have more options when faced with poor weather. Slow boats, oil rigs, and lighthouses must be very seaworthy, they have no chance of avoiding the weather.

Luck has nothing to do with it.
---
edit:
details of two of the multi-hull capsizes were posted in the "sinkings" thread. In both cases the skippers were out of the cockpit and unable to take corrective action. One could not release a staysail sheet, the other was on the foredeck when the autopilot failed.

Thus in 66% of the multi-hull capsizes, single-handed sailing was a more direct cause of the loss than the hull configuration. Wave action was not cited as a factor in either case. I have not seen support for the statement "the waves did not favor vessels between 40+ to 45 feet" does anyone have details of the dismastings, sinkings, and other retirements that might shed some light on how much of a factor waves were in any of the losses?

It is entirely possible to argue that on a mono-hull the two incidents would have been knock-downs instead of capsizes. This could be a foundation for concluding that mono-hulls are a safer choice for single-handers. I am not making that argument or drawing that conclusion, only offering the thought to mono-hull proponents.

The only reason I jumped in here at all was to point out that the posted numbers don't seem to support the conclusion. I'm not saying that I think that the conclusion is wrong, only that the evidence offered did not prove it.

 

Ya Think?

John and Randy,

I fully understand your particular crusade(s) in this discussion.

Best of luck in that...

Chris

 

LOL ... not me ... I'm just seeking truth in Fox News posts ...

 

So basically, bad sailers should have a monohull?its ok with me,ill just pass up them slow boats and sail away.i wish you much luck racing along at a top speed of 8knots,wich would be a slow speed for the multi,its ok i relize many just dont like them for some unexplainable reason,i would recommend actually going sailing on one.

 

On the "Route du Rhum", the average speed of the first 9 monohulls (60ft) was 11.44, the average speed of the first 9 multihulls (60ft) was 15.60 knots. It is a considerable difference, but the speed of the monohulls is way over 8 knots.

The unexplainable reason why some don't like fast multihulls to go offshore is because they are less reliable than fast monohulls, and for a very large margin, as statistics posted by Jehardiman (about the Route du Rhum) have shown.

This is only what it seems to me a correct analysis of both kind of boats, regarding speed and seaworthiness and that does not mean that I don’t like multihulls.

Fact is that last weekend I have recommended one to a friend as the ideal boat for him. He wants a fast boat for weekends and limited coastal cruising. I have recommended a fast one with a light interior, one where I will enjoy sailing on the weekends with him .

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't agree with that conclusion.

I would say that the fast boats (the multi's) proved to be very much more reliable than the mono's, they accomplished their goal, they won the race.

We are looking at race results. Racing is about winning, mono-hulls did not win. It does not matter how reliable a Volvo is if it has no chance of winning the race. It might be faster than other Volvo's, but it is still a loser. Westsnail 32's are strong, safe and "seaworthy" but they don't win races.

Citing how high end race boats perform when pushed under conditions that most prudent seaman would avoid, does not really tell us much about the relative merits of hull types.

It is a fact that ocean racing multi-hulls are faster than ocean racing mono-hulls.
It is a fact that boats can break when pressed under difficult conditions.
It is a fact that mono hulls with lead ballast can sink.

What no one has proved is that a multi-hull is any less seaworthy than a mono-hull. Can anyone cite conditions where multi-hull survival is unlikely and mono-hull survival is virtually assured? We can certainly cite conditions where mono-hull success is very unlikely and multi-hull success is virtually assured ... ocean racing for instance.

 

Future of Canting Ballast Technology

I am truly amazed how few people have been able to focus any attention whatsoever on the ANSWER to the question posed to Juan K in the first post-and the ramifications that might have in the whole monohull vs. multihull comparison:

---------------------------------
The discussion seems to be revolving around existing multihuls and monohulls-- not having anything to do with the "future of canting ballast technology" vs multihulls-or future development at all.
Existing ORMA 60's are already using foil assist to improve speed-does no one think that the use of foils could affect "the future of canting ballast technology"? Such as the CBTF patent that utilizes a trailing edge flap on a canting strut to reduce ballast and increase RM?
It doesn't seem like there is any question
that the use of modern foil technology coupled with canting
ballast and /or Bethwaites idea of a combination of underwater ballast and on-deck movable ballast
stands to make dramatic improvements in monohull speed.
Does no one have any thoughts on the "future of canting ballast technology" vs multihulls?

 

Jaun K does:

"It depends on acceptance. I could argue that a canting-keel monohull
is a very inefficient multihull. Imagine canting a keel to leeward
and instead of ballast you have air. You would achieve the same
increase in righting moment in a lighter solution, and in fact you get a
multihull. Our sailing community is divided, and choices are made on
style or fashion; otherwise we'd all be sailing multihulls" (emphasis mine)

You are of course free to argue with JK and try to convince him to say that canting ballast would be better/faster/whatever.

I would think that it would be presumptuous at best to champion canting ballast after the designer of two of the fastest canters in the world makes the case for multihills. Did I miss something?

 

Friggi, You sure did predict that one right off the bat...posting #2

 

Future of Canting Ballast vs Multihulls

Mr. Hough,

======================================
Perhaps you did. Have you carefully read what Juan K said was a multihull; do you think it is IN ANY REAL WAY practical-or more importantly: would it really be a multihull and would it be fast? I don't think so; I think his whole comment was tongue in cheek and certainly not an attempt to define the "future of canting ballast technology". I think if any designer in the world knows the potential Juan k does and I think he just blew off the interviewer(and a few others).
But as I pointed out earlier YOU know better:


Subject: RHOUGH/60' Monofoiler

 

Doug, you insist on turning threads into soap boxes for foilers.

You insist on quoting me out of context after I have asked you not to do so.

You just don't get it.

For those that do not wish to be bored reading the thread that contained that post ... Doug was comparing a giant canting keel foiler to a ORMA Tri. The ORMA tri does not make full use of foils and depends on the leeward ama for pitch stability. Thus it has higher wetted surface area than the giant foiler. There is no way that the giant canting foiler would be faster than a multi-hull configuration using foils to the same extent. Doug trots this post out to make it appear that I agree with or support his claim about a 60ft foiler. This is not the case. I have asked him not to use that post out of context on more than one occasion. He refuses to comply. For the first time I gave him some negative feedback.