# Hugo Meyers catamaran



## dinky (Apr 24, 2002)

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...yers&Ntk=boatsEN&sm=3&luom=126&currencyid=100

This is a pretty unconventional boat but allowing for some refitting I think it might suit my purposes. I wonder what others think of it. Our plans are pretty undefined except that we hope to be on the boat full time for up to 10 years. Venues might include the US east coast up to the Canadien maritimes, Caribbean, Pacific Mexico, south pacific, and asia. We are really committed to sailing more, motoring less. Light air performance and relatively comfortable motion in windier conditions are more important than top speed. I like the combination of cold molded hulls and foam cored 'pod' and presumably no thruhulls below the waterline. One big question is the rotating wing. Does anyone have experience with one on a cruising boat? Also, I've never seen shroud connections like the ones on this boat. Anyone with comments I would love to hear them. I'm going to Florida in two weeks and hope to buy THE BOAT. Finally. Thanks to everyone, i love this BB.


----------



## timebandit (Sep 18, 2002)

Although I have never sailed on a large cat I consider them one of the most dangerous boats.
Why?
Large cats have no weight to right them if they go over 90 degrees. I don't think a couple of people on the side can right them like a little Hobbie.
At least the dreaded Mac is self righting.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Hmm... interesting boat...but the price seems a bit low for what it is. Also, I'd recommend getting a survey, since cold-molded boats can have the same problems as cored-laminate hull fiberglass boats. If the skin of the cold-molded surface is damaged, the underlying wood can rot and lose much of its strength.

I'd also question how much reserve buoyancy and load carrying capacity this boat has, given the fairly narrow aspect ratio of the two hulls. I also find it strange that a boat, 51' x 25' should only sleep two people.

Also, the rudders appear to be fairly vulnerable, since they are deeper draft than the hulls appear to be. This is clearly the case in photo #6.

This seems to be an awful lot of boat for just two people to handle, and I doubt that it really has the ability to carry much weight, given its racing heritage. I think you'd probably find yourselves in some serious trouble if you got caught out in any kind of serious weather, given the size of the boat and the sails it must use.

Rotating wing masts are a serious problem if they are more than 10% of the effective sailplan, since they aren't reefable.

It doesn't sound like you know all that much about multihulls.... If you haven't read Chris White's The Cruising Multihull, I would highly recommend you read it before continuing.

BTW, I seriously doubt that the boat has no through-hulls below the waterline.  At a minimum it will have two, one for each engine, since the engines are most likely water cooled. The head also probably has at least one through-hull, since it is probably sea water flushing.

Mind you, I am a multihull sailor myself. 


rskaug said:


> http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...yers&Ntk=boatsEN&sm=3&luom=126&currencyid=100
> 
> This is a pretty unconventional boat but allowing for some refitting I think it might suit my purposes. I wonder what others think of it. Our plans are pretty undefined except that we hope to be on the boat full time for up to 10 years. Venues might include the US east coast up to the Canadien maritimes, Caribbean, Pacific Mexico, south pacific, and asia. We are really committed to sailing more, motoring less. Light air performance and relatively comfortable motion in windier conditions are more important than top speed. I like the combination of cold molded hulls and foam cored 'pod' and presumably no thruhulls below the waterline. One big question is the rotating wing. Does anyone have experience with one on a cruising boat? Also, I've never seen shroud connections like the ones on this boat. Anyone with comments I would love to hear them. I'm going to Florida in two weeks and hope to buy THE BOAT. Finally. Thanks to everyone, i love this BB.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

First I'd say that I know next to nothing about catamarans...but it is clear that this is a very different cat than most and it is selling for far less than a similar production cat of similar age would. Whether this is a result of its' differentness or simply reflects its actual construction and condition is impossible to tell from an internet ad. I would certainly not discourage you from getting a boat that is "different" if it meets your needs and you can handle it. 
What I would suggest is:
1. Not to fall in love too quickly...get a good surveyor and let him do his work while you watch and ask questions. 
2. Visit one of the Catamaran specialty brokers in south Florida and ask about what boats THEY have that could be competitive with the one you are looking at. Chances are...they will have none...but you WILL hear all the reasons why you shouldn't buy the Meyers...and this will help give you a better picture of the plusses and minuses of the boat as you come to your own decision. 
good luck!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

This is a pretty shallow and stupid way of thinking about boats IMHO... considering that the majority of boats, with the exception of monohull keel boats, aren't self-righting. A well-designed cruising multihull is very difficult to capsize.

Most large multihulls are much less likely to sink than monohulls, since they're generally made of buoyant materials and do not have a heavy mass of cast iron or lead to bring them to the bottom.

My guess would be that you hear more about large multihulls capsizing than you do about monohulls sinking, since there are usually more survivors of a large multihull capsizing. Most of the capsizes in modern multihulls are due to racing them, which pushes them well past what a safely sailed cruising multihull would ever see.

For instance, in this past year, there was a 38' catamaran found capsized off the coast of Oregon. At least the boat's fate is pretty well known... since the catamaran was still found afloat.-but there have been many monohulls, like the Tahitian ketch Takaroa II that are just missing and haven't been heard from.... most likely because they've sunk to the bottom with all hands.

BTW, the argument can be made that a cruising multihull is more stable upside down than rightside up, which is true... but a cruising monohull sailboat is more stable sitting on the bottom of the ocean than floating on it... so it's a wash in my book.

Which would you rather be on-a *sunken monohull* or a _*capsized, but still floating, multihull*_... I know my answer to that question.... Liferafts aren't very reliable-which is why you're only supposed to STEP UP into one.



timebandit said:


> Although I have never sailed on a large cat I consider them one of the most dangerous boats.
> Why?
> Large cats have no weight to right them if they go over 90 degrees. I don't think a couple of people on the side can right them like a little Hobbie.
> At least the dreaded Mac is self righting.


----------



## US27inKS (Feb 6, 2005)

timebandit said:


> Although I have never sailed on a large cat I consider them one of the most dangerous boats.
> Why?
> Large cats have no weight to right them if they go over 90 degrees. I don't think a couple of people on the side can right them like a little Hobbie.
> At least the dreaded Mac is self righting.


First profess your ignorace of the subject, then prove it.

Comparing a cruising cat to a Hobie is like comparing a Hunter 40 to a sunfish. It really is no less rediculous. You can't have 2 guys drag a Hunter 40 up on the beach like you can a sunfish. See how rediculous that sounds?

As for the boat in question, I would have serious reservations. The thing that scares me the most about older custom built cats is the ability for the central box structure to handle the torque applied to the hulls in a seaway. Maybe it's a good one, but maybe not. There's not enough of these sailing the world to have any statistics.


----------



## dinky (Apr 24, 2002)

Thanks Sailingdog. You're right about inexperience. I've joked to my wife that we could just as well be picking a rocket for a moon launce for all the cruising experience we don't have. I have done a lot of reading though including Chris White's book. The thing about this that interests me is just that it isn't set up for overloading with too many people and too much gear. And the sail plan seems to be pretty modest. I compared it too several production boats with roughly the same displacement and they all had significantly greater sail area. If the narrow hulls can produce good performance with less sail area, and sufficient carrying capacity, that what I'm lookin for. 

The 10% rule of thumb is good to know. I've also read that wing masts don't ride to anchor as well as conventional masts because the foil wants to sail. Likewise sea anchors, which I would like to have as part of my heavy weather tactics. One thing I would like to find out is if they don't heave to better than conventional masts because instead of unproductive windage you have a little lift aloft for stability and drive too keep the boat oriented to wind and sea. 

Cam, I'll definitly will get a survey if I get to that point and have lined up someone with a lot of multihull experience to do the sea trial with me. One thing I'm up in the air on is whether to try and do the sea trial in light air conditions or on a windier day. Which is more important, how she sails in 6 knots or how she rides in 15?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Glad to help.

IIRC, the 10% figure is mentioned in Chris White's book.

IMHO, how she sails in 6 is more important, since light winds tend to be more common than heavier winds.

The main problem I see with that boat is that it may not have sufficient load carry capacity to carry the basic supplies you and your wife would need on an extended cruise or passage, like going from Hawaii to the South Pacific Islands. This is a bit more important on a boat of that size, since you won't be able to bring it into many marinas, due to the 25' beam and 51' LOA.

Instead of a sea anchor, I would recommend a Jordan Series Drogue. I think a JSD will provide far more safety in most cases than a sea anchor, and the loads it imposes on the boat's hardware are much lower.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

rskaug...the main purpose of a sea trial is to insure that all systems work...not to evaluate the "ride". Bring a diesel mechanic with you on the trial and test absolutely everything else...all instruments, auto-pilot, plumbing, heads, sail condition, furlers ,steering, etc.
Given that it is set for a specific date with all parties involved, you won't have much control over the wind conditions unless it is simply too rough to go out. 
Don't skimp on the mechanic...a few hundred bucks on a good diesel guy can save you $15k or more and give you piece of mind about exactly what you are getting!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Personally, I am a bit surprised that you're going ahead with a sea trial, given that you haven't even seen the boat yet. That seems a bit hasty to me, since you probably should at least go aboard the boat to see if it is even something you want to explore purchasing further. 

IMHO, there are many more suitable multihulls out there, that would be far better for long distance cruising than what is basically a slightly re-fitted race boat.


----------



## dinky (Apr 24, 2002)

I think I've been trying too hard to be brief. I appreciate the input here but I haven't given a full enough description of my situation. If this one gets too long, I apologize in advance.

I haven't decided to buy the Hugo Meyers and in fact there is another boat in Florida that I am interested in also. I'm going to Florida to look at both boats and possibly make an offer on one or the other. It's only for logistical reasons that I'm planning ahead for the possibility of staying in Florida through contract, survey, and sea trial. For context I can add that last year we sold all our personal property, rented the house, and have been bicycle touring for all of '07. We had expected to be moved onto a boat by now but I've had two unaccepted offers. Call me stubborn, but that's all maybe more topical to the Buying a Boat forum. 

I posted here because I don't know what to make of the Hugo Meyers. I don't think its quite right to see her as a 'slightly refitted race boat'. The other boat I will be looking at, a somewhat more conventional performance cruiser, has similar sail area on a boat that is 4000# lighter and 10' shorter waterline. The Hugo Meyers may be a bad concept for a cruiser but she would be a real flop as a racer I would think. Or, looked at another way, if one took a typical 42' production cruiser and stripped away the three cabins and 2 heads that I don't need or want you wouldn't need the wide burdensome hulls of the typical production cruiser. Why not put the accommodations for 2 people onto long, slender, easily driven hulls that displace the same amount of water as shorter wider hulls? 

I admit I'm trying to love this boat but I'm open to dissuasion. 

Regarding carrying capacity: I plan to note the tank levels and measure inches from waterline to boot stripe. If I can't get a per inch displacement figure from the designer's documents I will use a plumb bob off the boot stripe to get hull beam numbers to calculate approximate displacement per inch. Does anyone want to offer up a payload capacity I should be looking for?

 Regarding the engines: I'm going to post on the Gear and Maintenance forum but on a related subject here, I'm worried about the price and availability of diesel over the next 10 years at home in the States and around the world. As prices go up there's going to be a lot of political pressure to either cut off supply or tax to max at fuel docks.

Regarding rudder vulnerability: It's a problem for sure. I'm thinking that in shallow water I'll keep the boards down far enough to at least soften the impact if I screw up. That strategy raises the vulnerability of the daggerboard case. I am going to ask the surveyor for particular attention to that. I don't know, it's a problem, maybe a big one.

Regarding strength overall of the boat itself: Again, I'm going to pass that one off to the surveyor but I can say that I don't think a lot of cabin structure necessarily adds to strength. Or said the other way around, I would think there is enough structure in this boat to be strong if it was engineered in. Hugo Meyers is a known name and known more for engineering that artistry it seems so I think I'm willing to take a chance. Maybe I'm a risk taker.

Thank you again to everyone, Dick Skaug


----------

