Trailerable Multihulls

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by JCD, Mar 4, 2008.

  1. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    Hello Richard,

    :confused: Is this a curve ball?

    It took 60 posts for you to throw out some designs and some names of existing trailerable offshore catamarans after I have been stating a claim unchallenged by any of your designs or any other designs? Just recently, you very graciously implied that the design that I propose would be rated Category B based on the figures provided.

    Okay, I am glad to see that I have some more designs that I can consider for the probability of disproving my initial claim and in order to stay honest, the benefit of the doubt is given. Here we go.

    In the interest of time and space and not having to do any research to point out what you and I know …”that you are a master among others at interpreting the governing rating agency criteria and their procedure for issuing a certificate of rating”, I will pose the question more specifically, although I have been asking the same thing all along.

    Does the Skua, or the TiKi 30/31 design carry a Cat A or B RATING as defined by either ISO, CEN, ABS, or RCD? Rating is the operative word!

    In other words, it must have been design built to obtain the CE mark from the Recreational Craft Directive for Category B,

    or, issued a certificate of plan approval from ABS,

    or, carry written statements signed by the designer and builder which confirm that they have respectively designed and built the yacht in accordance with the ABS Guide,

    or, carry written statements signed by the designer and builder which confirm that they have respectively designed and built the yacht in accordance with the ISO standard,

    or, carry a signed statement by a naval architect denoting the plans and build fulfill the requirements of any of the above.

    This is all pretty basic policy and procedure for all designs that are to be rated and it is considered Naval Architecture 101. It isn’t open for “our” interpretation. It is specific. How much more elaboration is required before the question is understood and a challenge either proves the above true and my claim is disproved or my claim remains as made. Anyone in possession of any of the above would know it and a simple yes or no is all that is required.

    I checked Tennant’s designs and many others and unless I missed something…see response above.

    To me trailerable means just that. That it can be towed by another vehicle on a trailer observing certain road restrictions. The 1 hour "inconvenience" is just that...an inconvenience that can be greater or lesser depending on many variables. One variable could be an amputated sailor taking 5 hours to launch a boat that would take another sailor with all their limbs 15 minutes. To me transportable is just that. It can be transported. This can be in a container a barge or on a trailer or plane and it could mean with outside help or not. It can be overland, oversea or by air.

    I understand that you may not envision a situation when you need to rig and launch a live-aboard in an hour. We agree emphatically. What the hell is the hurry?

    I think that for living on board or for offshore cruising, someone should get the smallest possible vessel that:
    1. You are comfortable living on based on your lifestyle,
    2. You feel confident and safe cruising offshore with,
    3. Can afford to purchase or build,
    4. Can afford to keep and maintain,
    5. Whether it is trailerable, transportable, demountable or water-locked.

    But that is what I think for someone...for me, it now includes a "Category B offshore rated trailerable catamaran" right from the design stage, which will be the first by design to carry the rating unless another design can demonstrate otherwise and further, it fulfills all of the above for others. Except for water-locked.

    All are excellent designs. Live aboard size is a matter of personal preference. I'm reminded of an Alaskan cabin that I visited. It was 8’ x 8’ x 6’ high and the guide told me that early pioneers, sometimes 2 and 3 lived in there with all their gear and creature comforts...including their dogs. The design I am proposing is “minimalist” for 1 or 2 really spoiled persons or “mansions” for 1 or 2 sea loving avid catamaraners that live on their boat 90% of the time because they are outdoorsman and live in their boat the other 10%.

    I am aware of many designs that are not rated for offshore that can and have crossed oceans, but again, and based on the question above, which “rated” trailerable catamaran has done it?

    This is not a repeat. I don’t believe he said that at all. I believe his reference was about both his designs, but that was a reference to his designs. If he chooses, he can now come back and agree with your opinion that a comfortable fit-out or enough displacement for stores for live-aboard cruising is not possible in a 28 footer or a trailerable, but he will find me in full disagreement with his statement as you find me with yours.

    I draw your attention to the design specifics. You have the results of my design. Look at the document. The design starts with all tanks full with all necessary required items and gear on board and then provides you with a payload of 1580#’s. How much damn food does 1 or 2 people need?

    Let’s see how far that takes us. Three meals a day for 2 people eating 3 pounds of food each meal. That will provide 87 days. Have you ever eaten 9 pounds of food in one day? Even half of that for all other items as non food equals 43 days! Have you eaten 4.5 pounds of food in a day?

    A proper shower, a proper kitchen, a proper study, a proper library, a proper dining room, a proper living room, a proper bedroom…no, lets make that 4 proper bedrooms with 4 proper closets, a proper laundry, a proper family room, a proper parking space. Are we talking about a damn condominium or 65foot multi, or are we talking about a trailerable offshore catamaran that is rated for Category B as a MINIMALIST cruiser? Besides, a six gallon hot water heater is part of the design and the shower is aft with the head, so that is all the room it takes. What…you don’t think that the huge minimum displacement doesn’t include A LOT of comforts and it is all hull and rig weight do you? Oh yeah…and that is at 26’…it looks like the 27’ gives you another 600#’s of payload.

    Come on…I can play the “argue and debate” game with anyone proposing a design to refute the claim if I was verbalizing my results and not producing hard data, but I have made my results public to the community here and the numbers speak for themselves. I welcome everyone to interpret the numbers and not what I have verbalized.

    Wait…I verbalized what I interpreted from the numbers.:D

    The rig, IMHO and belief, must be easy to manage, even in force 8 conditions. There are soooo many excellent choices engineered right now. Ever since you mentioned that I should begin to look into it, I have, and I am at a crossroads. In the end, it will have to be cheap and easily accessible like an extrusion. A freestanding mast is high on my list.

    I thought about mini keels. Very practical but they add a lot of wetted area. I have to try to make my dagger-lee board concept work. If I can place a skeg in front to protect it, then I won’t care too much if it means walking in 6 inches of water to get to the beach. Worse comes to worse, one skeg in the front and one in the back and they can protect the boards while drying out without all the extra wetted surface in between.

    Not true. If GOD did not favor you he wouldn’t send you a message that you can survive. And yes, I wrote in the prior post because I remembered that you were struck.

    Thanks
    J:cool:
     
  2. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    It will never be considered as such.:D

    I have the info and I will get back to you on the results after I try to work out your mast dimensions and info. I'll check out the drawing and get back to you. I need a little time.

    Thanks
    J:cool:
     
  3. Richard Atkin
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 219
    Location: Wellington, New Zealand

    Richard Atkin atn_atkin@hotmail.com

    Hi J, (and Richard Woods)
    Take your time with my beautiful boat design. I'm in no hurry.

    Richard Woods mentioned going for the time-consuming assembly, rather than a quick folding or sliding setup as you propose. I agree with this.

    You said "The design I am proposing is “minimalist” for 1 or 2 really spoiled persons or “mansions” for 1 or 2 sea loving avid catamaraners that live on their boat 90% of the time because they are outdoorsman and live in their boat the other 10%."

    For that kind of lifestyle, and offshore capability, you should forget about convenient assembly, and focus more on simple strength. Getting the boat on and off the trailer would be a small part of the boating experience.
    I doubt many sailors would opt for a holiday that includes the need to constantly use a trailer...even if the boat is folding/sliding.

    On the other hand, perhaps you are trying to design a boat that is convenient to use on the odd Saturday, but also for the occasional 3 month lost at sea adventure. In this case, unless you are designing your boat for your own personal preferences, I think you should do some research on the demand for such a design. How many Saturday sailors like to test their survival skills to that extent?

    My point is, even if you can get your cat B rating, the boat might be frowned upon by staunch offshore sailors who are not impressed by complicated gadgets that require maintenance, increase weight, and are of no advantage while at sea.
     
  4. Richard Atkin
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 219
    Location: Wellington, New Zealand

    Richard Atkin atn_atkin@hotmail.com

    However, after saying all that, I guess most people are weekend sailors most of the time, and would probably love the idea of owning a cat B rated boat that is convenient to trailer.....so you would be pleasing a majority, if not everyone. I suppose this was your point all along :D I spoke too soon again

    I should clarify that Richard Woods was not suggesting you should go for the 'whole day assembly job' but was only stating his preference for offshore cruisers. Spoke too soon again!!
     
  5. Richard Atkin
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 219
    Location: Wellington, New Zealand

    Richard Atkin atn_atkin@hotmail.com

    I agree with you, J, that it is easy to cram some big boat luxuries into a 27 ft boat, if there's just a couple of people onboard....as you say....no need to debate that.
    I'm not a fan of load bearing structures that are telescopic or run along tracks, and I don't like things that are complicated to seal. That's why I opted for simple aluminium beams that fit into sleeves through the hulls. However, I intend to have many helping hands in most of my adventures.

    If I wanted more convenience, I personally wouldn't stray too far from Richard Wood's folding principle. Simple and strong, without having to be too cautious about things clogging with debry, and wear and tear etc.
     
  6. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    Ahoy there Richard...

    Did some work on your AtCat. I don't remember following progress that far. It really is a very nice design. I see that you even incorporated a watermaker just in case you get blown out to sea and can't get back. You will have plenty of water and if everyone you invited draws lots...plenty of food.:D

    I estimated some things and I didn't find daggers sooo...see my notes for the estimates etc. I attached the file below. I think she will be quite a performer if you don't invite everybody in town for a trip. I set her reef point at 90% of wind speed to flip her but that will mean that a sudden gust could send everyone for a swim and turn her turtle. Everything should as always be taken with a grain of salt...don't try this at home and use at your own risk blah, blah.


    Mr. Woods is very experienced and I believe he considers all options. I also will keep all options open and it is a working progress because it is what it is...a very rough concept with little if any final decisions made. Although my first priority will be to make her slide into the cockpit, I have not in any way excluded demounting her.


    Perhaps convenience of deployment will need to be the least inconvenient knockdown possible, but my first thought is to make it slide into the cockpit. Design strength is primary whether simple or complex.


    I agree that it is a very small part of the boating experience and it may not even be fun but if I can make that time as easy and as short as possible, then the better. I believe the sliding concept would be best.

    We both agree that many sailors would not opt for a holiday that includes constant use of a trailer. Conversely, that may be a universal truth for sailors that don't have a trailerable catamaran which have accepted the necessity of a trailer because their boat is a trailerable and further, I believe they would opt to take more holidays (not just because they would have more money from zero berthing costs) if I can make the sliding mechanism work to the point of oversimplifying deployment and avoiding the demountable debacle.


    I am looking to design a boat that is convenient every day because althought it may not be sailed every day, there is a possibility that it may be used every day after or during a road trip. I will be maximizing the design to be used to its full potential whether on the water or on the road.

    I don't believe that there is a "rated offshore trailerable catamaran" based on my research, and I make a really big deal about it in here rubbing it up and down in order to see what kind of spectacular reactions I get from someone trying to disprove my work (I guess that's my own dry humor), but my true intention with "rubbing members the wrong way" and all BS aside, is truly serious and sincere. I truly want to provide the skipper with the safety and security of knowing that his trailerable is offshore rated, in this case Category B, so that if he does wish to take the occasional offshore adventure, he can do so with strong confidence. I believe emphatically that many current trailerable skippers would love to be able to go offshore and the prudent don't but, then there are those that may, but not without unnecessary risk to life and vessel.


    I have not had anyone come to me and say..."Hey J, this is an excellent concept and I'm really interested in the design for personal use", and if they did, I would thank them and probably tell them as humbly as possible without tearing too big a hole in my ego or causing them any trauma, that I am grateful for their compliment, observation and recognition and that they should seek the assistance of qualified N.A's or N.E's to provide their dream for them and I would offer any advice or assistance without any strings attached.

    Having said that, it may come to pass that I may need to associate the design with a qualified, experienced and established NA or NE by asking one or the other to design it for my personal use. Right now it is a concept design for personal use that I believe I can generate on my own because of all the generosity from members in this forum.

    I don't know how many...nor do I see a reason why they would want to or should, but you focus on the Saturday sailor. What about the "retired" on the road sailor that may want to sail everyday or from different locations?

    I know you meant to say "even when" the design gets the Category B rating because it is my mission to make it happen. Yes...the boat will be frowned upon by the "staunch offshore sailors" for the reasons mentioned, and this would cause me great concern if I was not designing for the Offshore "Category B rated trailerable catamaran" design for staunch offshore sailors, but I am so it doesn't. I have no intention of incorporating complicated gadgets that require any maintenance outside of the usual or excess weight beyond that which may be required so I don't anticipate creating any type of disadvantage while at sea.

    Will the design be able to provide a circumnavigation without having to make port...no. Is it the best design for waterworld...no. Will it provide reasonable comfort for 1 or 2 as an offshore rated Category B trailerable catamaran...I believe it will and I intend to bring that to fruition.

    Will it be the first offshore rated, Category B, trailerable catamaran, thought of by me first and, me being the first to make it happen...(this is the rubbing question)...well, so far, it has not yet been proven otherwise so I would answer...YES!:D


    Thanks
    J:cool:
     

    Attached Files:

  7. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    Agreed. The problem for my design is having full use of the hulls while on the road at all times without having to deploy or re-arrange them, so I must endure the pain that will be associated with attempting to make that happen.

    J:cool:
     
  8. Richard Woods
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 2,207
    Likes: 164, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1244
    Location: Back full time in the UK

    Richard Woods Woods Designs

    The 9m Skua was designed long before to ISO standards were written. However it was designed to be a Category B boat. One sailed from Germany to Jamaica (I saw it in the Canaries, Bequia and St Lucia.) It continued to sail round the Caribbean until time ran out and it was shipped back to Germany in a container. It was then sold to the UK and trailed behind a car to England. So it is a proven ocean capable car-trailable catamaran.

    I am sure if you contacted James Wharram he would confirm that the Tiki 30/31 are also Category B boats. I assume both are trailable and both have crossed oceans but he can tell you for sure.

    You may also like to ask John Shuttleworth about his 8m Cheetah design. It is a big comfortable trailable catamaran, currently beginning production in China.

    The 8m trailable Dazcat raced across the Atlantic about 12 years ago. On its return to the UK it was trailed to Croatia and then sailed round the Black Sea. A sister ship is planning to sail from the UK through the NW Passage this summer.

    But you probably know all those boats already from your detailed research.

    Having a good design is no big deal. What is important is having a successful BOAT. To do that you need to build your boat, live on it full time for at least three months and cross an ocean. And be happy to do it all again.

    I have spent at least 10 years of my life living on catamarans under 32ft in length. Personally I wouldn't live on a catamaran as small as 26ft, especially a trailable one.

    However, lots of people cruise and live aboard small cats, like the 26ft Heavenly Twins, for example. Indeed there is one next to my office right now that has made 8 Atlantic crossings. But that is a much bigger boat than what you are planning (although it is legally road transportable in the UK, as of course is my Banshee design. You will have seen a photo of my own Banshee being transported by road on my website)

    A final comment. Your doc file says your design has a Texel rating of 113. I think this is a misprint as that is the same as the Dragonfly 920 and faster than a F27. Clearly your boat will be a lot slower than either of these, so I think it should have said 133.

    I am away for a couple of weeks now, so probably won't have time to read this forum until I return.

    Good designing,

    Richard Woods of Woods Designs

    www.sailingcatamarans.com
     
  9. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    Hello Richard,

    :confused: What?

    I also believe that the 920 and the F27 would be faster. I must have done something wrong.

    I will respond to the rest of the post afterwards, but I was online when I read this and it made me a little scared and worried that I may have done something very wrong. I am posting the formulas here. If you or anyone else would care to correct me if it is wrong I would greatly appreciate it.

    Texel K = 1 / (0.19 * Sail Area ^ 0.4 / (Displacement tons) ^ 0.36 + 0.91)
    Texel = 100 / (( 0.99 * ( Lwl) ^ 0.3 * (Sail Area) ^ 0.4 / ( Displacement tons * 2240) ^ 0.3) * Texel K)

    Okay...enjoy your time away and I hope it is safe and pleasant.

    Thanks
    J:cool:
     
  10. Richard Woods
    Joined: Jun 2006
    Posts: 2,207
    Likes: 164, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1244
    Location: Back full time in the UK

    Richard Woods Woods Designs

    Are you using metric or imperial dimensions? As I said before, only the US uses imperial these days. The Dutch never have.
     
  11. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    Hello Richard...

    Needless to say, this post scared me some. See prior post regarding Texel.


    I agree it is a proven ocean capable trailerable catamaran. Nice design too.


    Perhaps you are right that I should contact designers and explain my theory and pose the question to them directly since no one in the forum has yet been able to provide an answer that disproves my theory. I will do that.

    I didn't know about Mr. Shuttleworth's 8m Cheetah. That makes 2 designs I failed to find in my search. Poor planning on my part and I admit it openly. I knew that his design was a micro but when I checked it had little information to suggest it is trailerable. Still that is 2 I missed.


    I believe that as mature individuals with our own minds, there will be many times that we may respectfully disagree. But to the above we will always agree. From your lips to GOD's ears! I want it to be a successful boat for anyone that may find interest in her...I really do. I understand the economic importance of making all the mistakes on paper first but I agree having a good design on a paper is not a big deal.


    I readily and humbly admit that the comforts that will be afforded by the design will never match many if not most of similar designs. I also agree that it will not be for many that have come to know much of the comfort associated with other designs. I look at the design and this is a constant internal battle for me and oftentimes saddens me because I always wish I can get just 1 more inch or cubic foot and then find myself reminded to stay within the parameters.

    I am truly and wholeheartedly making a heartfelt effort to provide the best "comfortable" and "proper" accommodations possible for the design volume, length and width limitations. I am restricted and limited by those dimensions, but equal heartfelt effort is being made to design in order to obtain the rating so that skippers can go offshore with confidence. This is important for me not because they can go offshore knowing their vessel is rated to do so, but instead because they can get to the other side knowing their vessel is rated to do so which would open up the world to those not able to afford or build or maintain a waterlocked capable catamaran.

    I know I have come out hard and stand-offish in this thread about the concept, but to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't care if a designer(s) said to me that they liked the concept and wanted to work on it with me. If it would afford an opportunity for others to be able to acquire my vision of this concept for their use, I would do it. I'm not greedy or too proud like that. I believe the needs of the many always come before the needs of the few even if at the expense of the few. But I also realize that the sum of the few equals many so the few also have needs like the many.

    Well, again I will hope you find yourself travelling safely and safe upon your return. Hopefully, you will find the thread has made some progress and as always, thank you for your contribution and insite.

    Now it is time to cease and decist from further persuing and participating in the "childish rating spectacle" as my first mate so eloquently put it with a slap across the head and proceed to provide results on the design, because "I am taking away all her interest in my genious":D Got another slap for that.

    J:cool:
     
  12. JCD
    Joined: Jul 2006
    Posts: 359
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 36
    Location: Coney

    JCD Follow the Bubbles!

    I see...well. I'm surprised it got past so many if something is wrong. Thanks for catching it.

    I'm not Dutch.
    Lwl, sail area imperial.
    Displacement in tons, so imperial.

    I have a feeling this is not good. I'm going to go back and recheck all the formulas and find out what is wrong.

    J:cool:
     
  13. Richard Atkin
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 219
    Location: Wellington, New Zealand

    Richard Atkin atn_atkin@hotmail.com

    Hi J :)
    Thanks very much for doing the spread and thanks for the kind comment :)

    Do you think I should forget the watermaker? I thought there might be lots of places where water would be unavailable, but maybe I am being over-cautious about this. Do you think bottled water would be better? Maybe a water maker is more trouble and weight than it is worth.??

    If the numbers you gave me are not distorted by a mistake that you may have made in your own spreadsheet, then I am very pleased with the results. (appreciating the fact that there are some approx. estimations in there).
    It seems quite good considering it is designed to be most efficient at slow speed.
    Does Speed Knots represent the max boat speed before capsize?
    Does Base Speed represent the max boat speed at 90% of capsizable wind speed?
    Does the Texel number look too low?
    Just to be sure....are you working in long tons as opposed to short tons?

    As for the missing daggers:
    The boat is not designed to point high to windward. Instead, it will sail lower and faster and smoother. The hulls will continue to squat as speed increases, so the lateral resistance should be adequate.
    However, ther will be times when the boat will not sail at full displacement, so I may include daggers for those times, but I didn't want to include them in your spreadsheet. All cats perform well when they are carrying a light load, so that is not my concern.


    Now...regarding your boat

    I have a clearer picture of your exact intentions now.
    You want a boat that fits your personal needs...that is...a boat that can be conveniently trailered everyday if necessary, while being rated cat B, and you want it to be comfortable to live aboard, regardless of whether it is on the ocean, or on the trailer.
    Also, you would like recognition for being the first to create such a package. Cool.:) I get it now. Sorry if I took a while to focus properly :D
    I assume that any commercial/mass production ideas come second to the above criteria.

    Suddenly your design looks more exciting to me. You have set a big challenge for yourself, but I think it can be done, if it hasn't been done already.
    Richard Woods has pointed out many boats now, and I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them has the proof to steal your title. I hope you will still be satisfied if your boat is not the 'first' but instead, is a better version of something done before.

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2008
  14. Richard Atkin
    Joined: Jul 2007
    Posts: 579
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 219
    Location: Wellington, New Zealand

    Richard Atkin atn_atkin@hotmail.com

    Hi again J....been thinking about your design requirements.

    What do you think of this idea:
    Use the Sango/Wizard folding system. When you find a nice place on land to camp overnight, you pull over to the side of the road or whatever. Connected permanently to the trailer is a winch system (human powered if you prefer). From the winch, cables connect to the cat's crossbeams which are currently broken apart and pointing upwards. Winch the beams down into the horizontal, locked position, and put 2 jacks under each hull.
    The beams would be winched simultaneously, as the winch system would use an axle that runs down the length of the trailer.

    Very strong and very simple.

    It means that all your cutlery, kitchen appliances, laptop etc. would need to be firmly stored, but for an offshore cruiser, they should be anyway.
     

  15. catsketcher
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 1,304
    Likes: 144, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 790
    Location: Australia

    catsketcher Senior Member

    Stand on the shoulders

    Hello JCD and Richard

    I am have been intrigued by your thread and don't know what to make of it. I have a little 6m trailerable cat and a 38 foot ocean going cat. They are really different from each other.

    I built both and they both do very different things. The little one is great for jaunting around the harbour and is light for getting on and off the trailer. The 38 footer was our home for 3 years and carried my family coastal sailing. Both boats are good at what they do but I can't make one do what the other does.

    Offshore you want size up to about the size where the gear starts getting too big for you. For my family and me that is our 38 footer. It is comfy and very reliable. On the back of the car you want a small package that gets onto the trailer from sailing really quickly - you want a quart in a pint pot. My experience is that you won't get both in one boat.

    I like numbers but my advice is that no amount of fiddling with numbers is going to get around the square cube rule. My 38 footer is more than 16 times as stable as my half as big trailer cat of about the same ratios. Stability is key and there are times offshore when I wouldn't trade my high bows, reserve bouyancy and generous payload for anything. Inshore stability is not so necessary but spreadsheets and the like won't get around the point that small is far less stable offshore. But the square cube rule hurts like hell for a trailer sailer. Every extra bit of length is a nail in the coffin for usability.

    I have a few friends who have had really good trailerable tris - fab boats but they sold them. When asked why they replied that they were too hard to rig. These boats are 8 metres and need a crew. In the end they usually stay in the water. Why is an 8 metre tri so much harder to rig than my 6 metre cat. One reason is that the mast is about 3 times as hard to put up.

    Extra length and section size make bigger masts a real evil. Try taking the mast down on a Seawind 24 or the like. You will probably get a crane. In the end most people give up and leave the boat on a mooring.

    My advice is to get down to the ramp and help rig a Farrier tri similar to the size you like. Farriers are incredibly well designed and still a little tricky because they are pretty large - F82 and F31. They fold like a dream and still about half the 82s and most of the 31s are on moorings around where I live. (when sailed regularly) Your cat will not have thirty years of evolution, a fab folding system and the particularly helpful trait of a tri (having a solid deck to step the mast on). It will be much harder to trail.

    I wouldn't get too caught up on numbers yet. Some of my favourite numbers are weight of mast lift, winch line load, car fuel consumption for the trailer cat and payload, rotational inertia (comfort) and cruise speed for the big cat. Get out there on the boats you want to base your idea on. Sail them, measure them, reverse engineer them but put away the spreadsheet until you are sure you know what you want. I certainly would not want a 8-9 metre cat with a 1st generation folding system for daysailing or for towing. If it has the displacement for offshore it will be a bugger to tow and if it is light for inshore it will be questionable offshore.

    Sail, sail, own a secondhand one, fix it, modify it, learn, get ideas and then with a wealth of experience you will be more likely to avoid the pitfalls that you won't see coming if you design and build with little experience.

    I offer these thoughts not out of spite or malice. It is about 8 years since I came up with my little trailer cat design. The idea is not fully developed even yet althought she works very sweetly. My life has been side swiped by an idea I thought I could achieve within three years. My advice is to buy a Merlin or Wizard, a Stilletto, a GBE, a Seawind 24 or whatever and have fun sailing. Sailing is much much more fun than building or designing.

    cheers

    Phil Thompson
     
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.