Canting Keel Monos vs Multihulls

Hornet's Nest

Hello folks,
I'm the guy who started this thread, and then took off to Thailand for a month never realizing what a hornet's nest I stirred up. Just got back and read some portions of the thread....whew, going to take some digestion at a later time.

 

The canting keel boats race with small crews.
The big multis have large crews and require constant vigelance by the helmsman in heavy weather to avoid the CAPSIZE.

Most of the cruising I have done has been with small crews and an Aries at the helm.
My Hedly Nichol Voyager 45 ft try had to be reefed down in heavy weather , to avoid the constant need fior a skilled helmsman.

Cruising or racing with an army aboard are two different skills.

FAST FRED

 

Always?

------------
Alan, if two boats had the same sail area as each other ,one was 50% heavier than the other, both had the same power to carry sail and the heavy one had 50% more sail area per sq. ft. of wetted surface would the light one still be faster?
-----------------
-Note: the heavy one has ZERO wavemaking drag at max speed; the light one has the wavemaking drag typically associated with a 20/1 beam to length hull at max speed.

 

"The only reason that a cat or a tri has any major ocean ability is due to one thing: Modern composites."

How do you define "modern composites"?

The CSK cats like Aikane were crossing the Pacific Ocean from Cali to Hawaii from about 1956, beating the monos most of the time. Golden Cockerell (another CSK) did the same fairly competitively across the Atlantic in '68 if I recall correctly. I believe these were all just ply.

Manureva had "major ocean ability" as demonstrated by a round-the-world solo record and a Transatlantic Singlehanded win against a 113 foot mono; she was alloy.

Third place overall (behind 73 and 236 foot monos) in the gale-lashed '76 singlehanded transat went to a 31 foot 'glass (single skin I think) Newick Val 31....major ocean crossing ability. Just a couple of years later, the first Route de Rhum (a major ocean crossing) went to a small (cold moulded I think) Newick tri.

The timber tri "Moxie" took the singlehanded transat in 1980 and I'm pretty sure that Morrison's "Umupro Jardin V" (which took the 1984 race) was also timber.

World Cat, a CSK, cruised around the world. I'm pretty sure she was timber. So too, I think, was world-cruising cat Rehu Moana.

That's just part of a long list we could compile of ocean-crossing multis before modern composites.

 

Plywood is a modern composite ('40's vintage on a scale necessary to build the proper, fusalage sized, hulls), the major technology driving by the aircraft industry to solve the strength to weight problem, just like CF and boron fiber.

 

Herreshoff's Amaryllis was of timber construction, and that was over a hundred years ago. Of course, she was not an offshore catamaran... but I think it likely that if catamarans had not been declared ineligible for racing after Herreshoff's success against the sandbaggers, then ocean-racing cats would have appeared long before plywood. After all, canoes and guide boats were made that were as light and strong as the current cold-molded versions, many years before modern glues were invented.

 

Hmmmm. "Modern composites" in racing circles 'round here normally means carbon, foam, nomex, epoxy etc. Oh well, different strokes.

While the Herreshoff boats were not offshore capable, James Wharram's first boat, built of "5/8" planking" was offshore capable and not composite.

Prior to 1980, the best multis had a considerable speed advantage over the best offshore monos. Examples include the 45' Olympus Photo winning the '78 Route De Rhum against 70-80 foot monos; the victory by the comparatively small Toria in the Round Britian of '66 or so; Manureva's victory over the 113' mono Vendredi Trieze in the '72 OSTAR; the performance of the CSK boats against monos.

(PS; I think that according to L Francis Herreshoff, while the catamarans were banned from racing with the sandbaggers, they formed a racing class of their own for some time but lost popularity because they were too cold and wet to sail; understandable in that time and place.

As an aside, banning the cats was surely only as unsportsmanlike and prejudiced as when the tris were banned from C Class, or when the A Class banned hydrofoilers, or when cat clubs refused to let monos and windsurfers race. Surely it's fine to protect the existing fleet because classes that don't rarely survive.

 

Herreshoff's catamaran Amaryllis

Several mentions of Amaryllis lately, so I thought I might reference these two discussions:
A YACHTING WONDER. SUDDEN DEVELOPMENT OF THE FASTEST CRAFT IN THE WORLD.
http://www.runningtideyachts.com/multihull/Amaryllis.html

HOW THE YACHTING WONDER OF 1876 WAS CONCEIVED AND BUILT
http://www.runningtideyachts.com/articles/amarylis.html

 

But foils can equally be applied to multihulls. In fact they would probably be more effective, with a better power to weight ratio, and less weight to get "planing". Has there been a ballasted foiler that worked yet? (I dont follow the progress of hydrofoils all that closely)

 

future of canting ballast

--------------
To the best of my knowledge a ballasted foiler has only worked on an rc model so far.Of course foils can be applied to multihulls -witness L'hydroptere. My point was and is that a canting ballast boat probably also using on-deck sliding ballast may be able to be built that would at least equal the speed of displacement and /or foil "assisted"(not full flying) multihulls-while being self righting. And therefore that the future of canting ballast as posed in the original post hasn't been written yet. To achieve
"multihull speeds" with a self righting platform would be quite an accomplishment-and I believe it is possible. Just don't write off canting keel mono's 100%-they're already going much,much faster than anyone thought was possible just a few years ago.

 

Modern!!!! LOL Your comments remind me of the college graduate who was confronted by a rotary phone and a slip-stick. Trying to pass of events from the 60's and 70's as "ancient" history just don't cut it with me.

James Wharram's first "design" was two dory built hulls lashed together in which he made a voyage to the west indies (i.e. the same voyage as Columbus, but took longer, maybe the two girls had something to do with it). In subisquent designs he gave up the dory style hull and went to plywood.

What I find more puzzeling is the selection of the Route de Rhum as an example of the dominance of the multi. The '78 race was the race that Alain Colas and Manureva were lost in, but no mono-hulls. Additionally, in the last running (2002) the first to finish multi (Géant) was only 6 hours ahead of the first to finish mono (Kingfisher) which was 3 hours ahead of the second multi to finish and only 6 hour ahead of the 2nd mono. However, the more important statistic is that 18 of 26 multi-hulls abandoned the race (i.e. 69% with 15 out of 18 in the fastest multi-hull class abandoning) while only 10 of 32 (31%) monos did. Though weather and location on the course had a lot to do with it just like the '79 Fastnet, it was however not a good showing for the multi's.

And again, citeing the '72 OSTAR interesting in that the winner of that race, the afore mentioned Alain Colas, gave up the "sure thing" tri to go with a 236' mono in '76 and lost to a 73' mono helmed by the man (Eric Tabarly) who also built and gave up the prevoius winner ( Pen Duick IV/Manureva). As a side note, another tri went missing during the '76 OSTAR also, again the only boat to be lost.

At 42', Toria was the largest multi in the '66 round britian and so of course she should lead the multis to the first 6 places. The largest boat that year, and first mono to finish, was a '30 vintage Fife design at 47' so her LWL is too short to make her LOL a comparison factor. Again, it is interesting to note that 4 of 10 multis retired in that race (including Tiki Roa a double proa built and crewed by James Wharram); for monos it was 2 of 6 (including Blondie Hasler and his 45.5' SUMNER).

As for Amarylis, as the same for the Great Eastern, they were failures in their own time, however great a future they protended. Going back to my first point, i.e. modern composites allow multi-hulls of sufficient size to be built to allow ocean crossing/racing; I will let Herreshoff use his own words....

I'm not putting forth a point that either mono's or multi's are absolutely better. A boat is just a tool, and like a tool, the proper one should be selected for the job. Yes, people crossed oceans in multi's before CF, they also rowed across them in open boats in far greater numbers. Proving it feasible does not make it practical, as many patents will atest.

I will state my position again

 

Cat's Meow

You think, maybe, that The great One, Mr. H., may have just gotten that bit all wrong... just a little, maybe? Catamarans not adapted to extended cruising? Is that incoming I hear from the general direction of the cat industry?

Whew!, I'm glad he wasn't planning any military strategy based on that crystal balling notion. At least he played it out in a low key fashion, rather than some hyperbole driven argument based on his "vision" in the form of Amaryllis

And interestingy enough, you used the quote, knowing it wasn't accurate, simply to parse-out a slender section of the argument on your behalf.

I do like, it, though, when you toss bait in the water.

Mind if I take a pass on that one as too soft? I tend to like 'em a bit more crunchy.

 

I totally agree that neither mono or multi is absolutely better. I said in an earlier post that I thought that Juan K's point that we only sailed monos for style and fashion was wrong. I personally prefer monos although I have a bit of multi experience. I merely think that in saying multis had NO advantage and didn't have ANY major ocean crossing ability pre composites is incorrect.

Trying to imply that I was thinking the '60s is "ancient history" doesn't cut it with me. I never claimed that it was. I was referring to the claim by you that "prior to the mid 1980’s there was no advantage to multi-hulls in ocean crossing" and in context of racing speed (which is what the thread seems to be about as per your own definition) there certainly was an advantage in the best multis. I specified the best versus the best, so bringing in the experimental failures is irrelevant; there were some truly cruddy early multis. There wasn't an advantage in reliability, but I was merely pointing out that to say there was NO advantage is pushing it.

When you are talking about "prior to the mid 1980s" in a racing context surely it's perfectly reasonable for me to bring up instance from the '60s to '80. I'm rather well aware of the history of the sport, from the Cumberland fleet to the Malabars to the Bermuda Fitted Dinghy to the ORMA 60s.

"And again, citeing the '72 OSTAR interesting in that the winner of that race, the afore mentioned Alain Colas, gave up the "sure thing" tri to go with a 236' mono in '76 and lost to a 73' mono helmed by the man (Eric Tabarly) who also built and gave up the prevoius winner ( Pen Duick IV/Manureva). As a side note, another tri went missing during the '76 OSTAR also, again the only boat to be lost."

1) - It's hard to compare the 70' (approx) Manureva to the 236 foot Club Med....if it takes a 236 footer to feel that you have an advantage over a 70 footer, then there seems to be an advantage to the multi. About 17 hours behind the 236 footer came a 31 foot tri, by the way, so Colas was clearly mistaken in his belief that the mono was superior. He may have underlined that by going back to the tri later. Sure, it was a fatal mistake to do so, but it indicates that he was not sold on the monos. Manureva was of course alloy, and her round the world solo record and OSTAR win indicates that a pre-composite multi COULD win.

Tabarly retired in '72 after a collision and self-steering trouble in a brand-new boat. He moved to a 73 foot mono because only IOR monos were allowed in the first Whitbread, in which he sailed the boat. He moved back to a multi (Paul Ricard etc) later. He also loved monos, which is very cool. The fact that he moved to a mono for a specific purpose is not an indication that he thought multis had "no advantage" in ocean crossings or else he would not have returned to multis with the succesful ALLOY (ie non composite) Paul Ricard by 1980 (before your deadline).

By '80, of course (before your mid '80s deadline) the early finishers in the Transat were all multis.

Re the Round Britian....multis did well the next race, with a 36' cat only 10% slower than the Ocean 71 which was twice the length. By '74 boats like the 80' IOR maxi Burton Cutter and Admiral's Cupper Quailo were outclassed by the multis. By '82, 30' multis were beating the first of the Open 60 type monos (first mono 12th despite being longer than all but 2 mults).

Re Amaryllis....I had brought up the fact that the early Herreshoff cats "lost popularity because they were too cold and wet to sail" earlier.

Re Wharram....you posted that the only reason that multis have "ANY major ocean ability is due to one thing: Modern composites."

Wharram (and earlier but even cruddier cats; Bischops???) proved that major ocean crossing in multis COULD be carried out prior to modern composites. Ergo, the claim that they lacked "ANY" major ocean crossing ability is wrong. Of course modern composites are much better, but there was SOME major ocean crossing ability earlier.

 

According to Sept. 2006 SAIL magazine: Maximum speed Volvo Open 70=40.6 knots(mono 70' 5") ; Maximum speed G-Class Cat=45knots (cat 121').
So the canting ballast 70' mono only has to go 4.9 knots faster to equal the top speed of a 121' catamaran?!
Well, thats not the whole story, even if you believe SAIL, because they list the maximum speed of Yves Parlier's Mediatis Region Aquitaine as 45+ knots.And the multifoiler L'hydroptere is quoted as having a maximum speed of 45 knots. I wonder if this doesn't say more about planing hulls than canting ballast? The Volvo and the 60' cat are both planing hulls....
And a 60' cat with the same top speed as L'hydroptere?
But back to the subject: the Volvo with its canting keel "only" has to gain 12% more speed to equal two very fast multihulls and one very fast multifoiler.
It seems to me ,off the top of my head, that big monohull keelboat speeds have increased more dramatically in the last 20 years than big multihull speeds. Can the historians in the crowd comment one way or the other on that?

 

This is almost laughable, you say only 12% like it’s going to be easy. 12% is a huge margin, when increases in speed are usually measured in tenths of a percent. This is nothing but a bunch of hype, because you have no hard numbers backing it up. For all we know the multi could have been sailing in 30 knot winds, while the Volvo was sailing in 60. Simply stated you can’t compare the two without a good frame of reference.