Anyone know the difference of interior size of Searunner 34 tri vs Marples 35 tri?

Anyone know the difference between the size of the interior of a Searunner 34 tri verses a Marples 35 tri? When I look at photos it looks like the aft cabin is similar in size. I was wondering if the fore cabin of the Marples 35 is smaller (or feels smaller) because of the way the more aerodynamic deck slopes down?

Thanks

 

As John Marples drew both why not ask him?

RW

 

I concur, I'm always puzzled when people don't ask the designer when they are still living. The 35cc aft cockpit is a nice layout with a uninterrupted cabin, the 35 cc center cockpit doesn't have the stringers of the searunner but are the hulls finer? Ask the guy with the plans.

 

Geez, I will ask him but I just wanted to see if anyone on here knew first before I contacted him! I know how to search online and it still took me about five minutes just to find his email address and I'll be surprised if it's current.

 

I've found Marples pretty easy to contact before, plus he could sell you a couple of plan sheets at a reasonable rate if you wanted to compare for awhile. See what he says about speeds too and get back to us.

Building a CC boat means you need to be able spile in the bulkheads and interior pieces after the hull is together, for some this can be challenging. A Searunner has everything defined and most of it built into the setup from the start so will go together faster down the road in the build from what I've seen.

 

Constant Camber hulls are assembled on the inverted bulkheads so I'm not sure why spiling would be necessary. One design is plywood hard-chined, the other has compound curves. John Marples is quite accessible through searunner.com.

 

I wouldn't build either in the way they are designed in today's world. I love Searunners and would happily own one if I didn't have too many boats already but they don't use space as efficiently as a modern design could . The CC35 also misses out on some interior room as well.

I would build a Grainger Spoon Bay style tri with a strip plank flare or foam core with more veed float bottoms. CC is a lot of work in mould building and restrains you to a restricted hull shape whereas strip or foam allows any shape to be built. The curved flare gives much more room inside. But why build when you can buy a tri for not that much money?

I did design a tri that was a cross between a Spoon Bay and a Searunner. It took me a year to draw it up. All my mentors and friends said I was mad to build a tri but I was adamant - tris are best I proclaimed (I had owned two). One night I stayed up late trying to squeeze some extra room in the boat for our two sons. I then gave in to the constant nagging and, just to check it out, drew the accomodation plan for a nice cat. It had over twice the interior room of the tri. I don't need a lot of room - I cruised a Twiggy with my wife and son - but the cat was faster to build, had heaps more room, was easier to live on and had far better resale than the tri would have. I still have her 20 years after that night and am always happy I didn't build the tri I drew.

cheers

Phil

 

Both the interiors are a little busy. I like the center cockpit once you get into the 37' - 40' range, in the small sizes things can crowd up if everyone heads to the galley dinette area at once or into the bow to tuck in the kids. You can tell when it's dinner time as the stern goes down, a tri really shouldn't have the off watch putting on the brakes.

 

I'm not sold on centre cockpits on trimarans, It slices the boats accomodation in half at it's widest point and you lose one of the areas internally where you can have decent sole space in the cabin.

 

My interior list is based around cruising. Don't put the head forward in the area of most motion but where it can be accessed by wet people without dripping through the cabin. A stern head is best for everyone, weight is temporary, head odors are seperate from the accommodations. Make the galley so the cook doesn't get bumped by people going to the table. Put the nav station close to the hatch. Keep the bunks in low motion areas with the sleepers feet pointing forward. This last one is really important, doubters can be put on a stretcher and have their friends run them head first into a wall at 10+ knots for a test.

 

It depends on whether you're designing your boat for the open sea or for sitting at anchor. Large open spaces just means you'll get thrown farther when that big beam sea hits the hull.

 

I think considering any interior space on a trimaran particularly large is a bit of a stretch. Bunks and the like can be located higher in the hull at it's widest point or as wing berths and hence don't need much sole space but being able to have a flat sole around the galley/saloon/headspace is a really nice touch.

Let me rephrase it, I don't dislike centre cockpits and they are a great place to sail the boat from but personally I would not have a trimaran with one as the compromises they bring are not in my view worth it.

 

Agreed on the space, a handhold is always there. I do like the bigger Searunners but the forward bunks where you sleep head first are for anchor in my book. Interestingly the Searunners seem a bit quicker out in the real world and the CCs ride a bit smoother, what you'd expect from a boat with hard chines compared to one with rounded V hulls which must ride deeper to carry the load.

 

Here is Norm Cross' version of a economic 34' centercockpit cutter rig cruising tri. The single chine construction is more straight forward then the Searunner and the keel skips the elaborate centerboard trunk and bracing. Norm had the same conclusion about berth direction and the head is astern so this ticks my boxes for this style of cruiser. The lower V angle will carry a load better than a CC and the chine above the waterline reduces turbulence while putting the elbow room where you need it.

 

On another note the 31 and 34 Searunner could be adapted to the same sort of interior as the Cross. On the 31 I'd put the table in the first sitting room section with the galley in the old dressing room. Astern going aft the first section would now have the start of the bunks with the feet still extending under the cockpit. The head would go in the after cabin section saving that trip to the pointy end. The space is pretty similar flopped around.

The 34 takes more head scratching, I'd do it in a similar way with a shorter cockpit forward to give a bigger table area. The galley in the old dressing area keeps the cook out of the traffic pattern.

Both boats could have some sort of nav area using wing space in the forward cabin table area with a bit of thought.

You wind up loosing the converted dinette bunk in both boats but some sort of bow bunk is possible with the head moved astern. For something wide perhaps it could extend into the new galley area at night.