# Cruising a small catamaran



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

While I am sure this topic was discussed way more then once, it's not in the top thread list - so how about I bring it up here.

I have pretty good experience with monohulls, so I know what to expect there. I am considering a somewhat extended family cruise, with kids, though - and an idea of a small catamaran started to look mighty interesting, something about 30ft long, that is still a small and manageable vessel but supposedly provides more stability and space (that others might need more than myself, I am happiest when snugly fit in a quarterberth 

So far pluses of small cats are:
- shallow draft (good for variety of East Coast waters)
- often an outboard engine, this is both pro and con - pro because they are easier to maintain and replace 
- stable platform
- space

Minuses are:
- Potentially not as safe in heavy weather - or is it? (I know it supposed to be hard to turn one of those "turtle" but who knows, they have those floats on top of a mast for a reason  )
- Wide, might be hard to find docking (though at 30' length, may be not as wide)
- Does not go to weather
- Engine - con because they might not be as powerful, gasoline engines don't like slow going (and outboard diesel is a weird beast), and they tend to have weak alternators. Plus I remember my days with outboard on previous boat - in any sea, the damn thing would be out of the water half the time, choking on air and dying. 

So, what would be pros and, especially, con-s that I might be missing?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Brak-

Two books I'd highy recommend you read are Chris White's The Cruising Multihull and Thomas Firth Jones's Multihull Voyaging.

Several small catamarans that might be good choices for you are:

Gemini 105Mc
TomCat 30
Heavenly Twins
MaineCat 30
Catalac 8M

Many cruising catamarans and trimarans are very seaworthy and perfectly safe in heavy weather.

The Gemini 105Mc, the TomCat 30, and the Heavenly Twins 26 are all only 14' wide or so, and will generally fit in a slip that would accommodate a 40' monohull. The Catalac 8m and MaineCat 30 are 18' wide IIRC, and will have a problem in most smaller slips.

Some cats go to weather just fine... others do not. Trimarans generally do better going to windward. However, trimarans have generally less space than a monohull of equal LOA, where as catamarans have more space than a monohull of same LOA.

The Catalac 8M, Geminis, and many other catamarans have internal diesel engines.

Most of the cats I've mentioned have a three-cabin layout and a decent salon.

The Gemini, Catalac 8M and Heavenly Twins have made ocean crossings on fairly regular basis.

If you have any specific questions on multihulls, let me know.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> If you have any specific questions on multihulls, let me know.


Thanks, that was quite useful!

There are a few older Iroquois cats for sale, and they look nice enough - but then there are all those stories about them being too narrow for the length and prone to capsize (which would very much negate any benefit for a family cruise). 
How much truth is to these stories and are they worth exploring at all?

As far as engine goes, personally, after dealing with inboard diesels for a while, I wouldn't mind taking a break and living with an outboard, with whatever shortcomings it has  That said, outboard on a monohull looks pretty lame, but on a cat they somehow seem more in place


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

BTW, thanks for the pointer for Heavenly Twins - they do look mighty interesting. However, the closest one for sale is in BVI. I wonder what it would take in beurocracy and taxes to import it into US.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Make sure if you get an outboard, that it is a four-stroke, rather than a two-stroke. Fueling it is much simpler and it is quieter, less smelly, and more fuel efficient than a two-stroke. 

There is some Iroquois specific information in the Jones book, and I'll see if I can dig it up later today. I've never sailed on one, but haven't heard anything specific about them being capsize prone. Most of the multihull capsizes that you read about are either racing related or due to human error. A well-designed multihull is very difficult to capsize.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Thanks, I'd appreciate any info you can find on those. 

I had a 2 stroke engine before on my Beneteau 235 - it was definitely not something I'd like to live with again


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Hey, sailingdog - anything in that book on Iroquois cats?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Sorry brak... been busy down at the marina... will check when I get home tonight.


----------



## Paysay (Apr 4, 2007)

*30 ft Catamarans*

I chartered a 30 ft catamaran for a long spring weekend on the Chesapeake with a crew of 4 other guys from work. There were a few things I learned:
1. An overloaded catamaran sails like a bath tub.
2. A low bridge deck will pound in a chop.
3. Motor to weather.

There were other pros and cons, but these surfaced without much thought.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Paysay-

Generally, any overloaded multihull is going to perform like crap... They're fairly weight sensitive. 

The low bridge deck pounding is a problem, and even worse if you've overloaded the boat

Some multihulls, both tris and cats go to weather just fine...others almost not at all. Stars & Stripes ran circles around a monohull about twice its length both upwind and down IIRC.  

Your comments would be more helpful if you said what kind of catamaran you chartered. Was it the MaineCat 30 or the TomCat 30??


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Paysay said:


> I chartered a 30 ft catamaran for a long spring weekend on the Chesapeake with a crew of 4 other guys from work. There were a few things I learned:
> 1. An overloaded catamaran sails like a bath tub.
> 2. A low bridge deck will pound in a chop.
> 3. Motor to weather.
> ...


I guess 2nd issue might be in part a result of 1st. What was on the catamaran besides the 5 people? I am curious as I did read about overloading them and wonder what "overloading" would mean. If I were on one with wife, kid and usual cruising provisions plus dinghy and motor - and that would constitute "overloading", that'd be pretty bad.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

brak said:


> I guess 2nd issue might be in part a result of 1st. What was on the catamaran besides the 5 people? I am curious as I did read about overloading them and wonder what "overloading" would mean. If I were on one with wife, kid and usual cruising provisions plus dinghy and motor - and that would constitute "overloading", that'd be pretty bad.


That really depends on what catamaran you're looking at, and what you consider the normal cruising provisions. One of my friends believes in having everything including the kitchen sink with her when she travels. Needless to say, she's not a sailor.  For a weekend, she usually has three bags... one of which is too large to be considered a "carry-on" in airline parlance. I, on the other hand, can generally travel for two-to-three weeks with a single carry-on bag and my laptop computer case. 

As for the Iroquois catamarans, they're quite seaworthy... and I don't believe that they have any serious capsize issues. Under certain conditions almost any boat can get into trouble... the problem is that for multihulls, the conditions are often different than those for monohulls. Chris White mentions a story about a 60' monohull that was essentially knocked down in the 1984 St. Pete-Fort Lauderdale race in relatively benign conditions.



> The "death roll" was so violent and deep that crew members on the starboard rail were completely submerged and "grinders" were hanging vertically from the pedastals [And maintaining a death grip on the handles, no doubt!] The weather associated with this incident was reported as wind 20 gusting to 30.


However, this doesn't mean that 60' monohull sailboats are inherently unseaworthy... same applies to the Iroquois.

A well-designed multihull gives the captain and crew plenty of warning... and generally it will only capsize after being ignored. Cruising multihulls really are ultimately designed to sail best when sailed flat-not flying a hull. Flying a hull is generally regarded as walking the knife's edge on a cruising multihull, and really about the last warning sign before a capsize event. *Most well-designed cruising multihulls that capsize are due to the captain not sailing the vessel properly.*

Sailing a multihull takes a slightly different set of techniques than sailing a monohull. For instance, on a monohull, you reef for the general wind strength and let the boat heeling take care of the gusts... on a multihull, you generally reef for the gusts and let the boat handle the weaker winds... This is because a multihull is a different type of boat, and unlike most monohulls, it will accellerate fairly rapidly in response to a gust unless it is overpowered by its sails.

Many of the smaller cats, like the Iroquois, the Geminis, the Heavenly Twins have made long ocean voyages with little trouble. A Corsair F28 was used by Mike Horn in his Latitude Zero project, where he followed the equator around the planet on bicycle and foot for the land portions and by sail for the ocean portions.


----------



## Paysay (Apr 4, 2007)

It was an old Gemini 30. I wasn't particularly impressed.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

I tend to try and stay on the lighter side - when we go to BVI for a week long charter we usually have one (though large) backpack style bag, and half of it is my fins and a few scuba accessories  

Still, a long cruise would definitely require some "stuff" on board - clothes of different kinds, sleeping stuff, kitchen utensils, tools, provisions (in metal cans too) - even at a bare minimum that would be quite a bit, I figure. Guess I've got to sail on a catamaran with someone else first.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Slightly related to previous topic. If a boat had "bottom work done" and as part of it they had a layer of new glass put on the bottom (I am guessing this is one of those big blister repairs, which I don't particularly care for). 

Anyway, is there a way to figure what would that layer of glass add in weight?

Also, in terms of catamaran weight - how much would be the reasonable load (gear and all) if compared to, say, displacement?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

brak said:


> Slightly related to previous topic. If a boat had "bottom work done" and as part of it they had a layer of new glass put on the bottom (I am guessing this is one of those big blister repairs, which I don't particularly care for).
> 
> Anyway, is there a way to figure what would that layer of glass add in weight?
> 
> Also, in terms of catamaran weight - how much would be the reasonable load (gear and all) if compared to, say, displacement?


Sounds like it...or the laminate wasn't laid up thick enough and it wasn't strong enough, so a layer was added to stiffen the hull some more...

No real way to tell how much weight it added, since that is dependent on the amount of resin used, the weight of the cloth, and such...

It depends on the design of the catamaran, some designs are better at carrying weight than others are...

You can have two boats of near identical specifications: LWL, beam, hull beam-to-length ratio, individual hull waterline beam, etc; and yet have very different PPI figures for the two boats.

It depends a lot on the hull design. Older v-shaped hulls tend to have lower PPI numbers than more modern, higher-prismatic co-efficient rounded hull designs do.

If you have any specific boats in mind, let me know.

BTW, as a general rule, I've found that long-term cruising takes about 1500 lbs. of gear for most couples as a rough ballpark figure.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> If you have any specific boats in mind, let me know.
> 
> BTW, as a general rule, I've found that long-term cruising takes about 1500 lbs. of gear for most couples as a rough ballpark figure.


The specific boat is a Heavenly Twins 26 (or 27, who knows  ), MKII I believe. I don't think it needed stiffening, it's a pretty small cat. But blisters - that is certainly a possibility.

1500 lbs of stuff sounds about right, if I'll take into account anchors and stoves and all that stuff. Clothing alone shouldn't be more than 200 lbs for all, kitchen stuff and provisions would make up a bulk of the weight, i think. Of course one never knows until one tries 

Would 1500lbs be too much for a 26' cat?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The Heavenly Twins, even though they're getting on in years, are very seaworthy little cats. From what I remember of them, they're fairly heavy for a small cat... about 6500 lbs. and should be able to carry the gear you have fairly well.

Some more things you might want to read. LINK, LINK, Linkhttp://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-articles/20476-sailing-multihull-part-iii.html


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> The Heavenly Twins, even though they're getting on in years, are very seaworthy little cats. From what I remember of them, they're fairly heavy for a small cat... about 6500 lbs. and should be able to carry the gear you have fairly well.
> 
> Some more things you might want to read. LINK, LINK, Linkhttp://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-articles/20476-sailing-multihull-part-iii.html


Excellent links, thanks!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Glad to help.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Well, looks like the one out here had extensive blister repairs - that explains an additional layer of glass all over the bottom (and keels, and rudders and anywhere else in sight). I am not sure how I feel about that - on the one hand boats don't sink due to blisters, on the other - it is a structural issue no matter how you put it. Oh well.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Brak-

Not all blisters are a structural issue... in many cases they are a cosmetic issue... and if the additional layer of glass was added and the hulls barrier coated, recurrence is very unlikely.

Back in the 1970s, Valiant and several other manufacturers used a new "fire-retardant" resin that left boats built with it susceptible to widespread blistering... but many of these boats are fine and perfectly seaworthy... and many had the same type of "repair" done to them.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Sailingdog, got another question for you.

I do expect catamarans built lite, but this one seems to have really thin composite. 

In fact, in a few places I can push the topsides of floats with my hand and they will flex. They aren't delaminated or wet (measured and looked at from inside) - but very thin. I've seen a few light monohulls boats before but nothing where I could force the hull to flex by hand. Does this sound like something you'd expect from a catamaran?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Brak-

The scantlings for multihulls are generally much lighter than that for monohulls. This is generally because a multihull doesn't have to resist the same kind of forces that a monohull, which is pinned in place by the ballast and the inertia of its great mass. A multihull, being much lighter tends to move with the seas, floating on top of them rather than having to plow through them. Basically, you're giving up bulk for agility... I haven't been on a Heavenly Twins in a long time... but on many production multihulls, even modern ones like the Corsairs and Geminis, will often flex if you push on them hard enough.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

This ones for sale. they departed the states in 2003 and just got back a couple of weeks ago. 
bumfuzzle boat


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Oh yeah, good read too!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Now that Bumfuzzle is for sale, I notice they don't have the nightmare story of what they went through with Charter Catamarans about the boat.... Not exactly what you want in a boat you're looking to buy. I'd rather go with a company that has a better track record than that... much less a boat with a less storied history than Bumfuzzle.

*Edit:* I've changed the post a bit at the request of Bumfuzzle's owners... and notice that they now have a clear link to the repair history and problems on their homepage. It was not there previously.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

Curious  

Well, every boat has its negative sides, and the fact that they were able to deal with those is good. What happened that made them nearly sink?

More importantly, I don't seem to find the price listed anywhere on that page (though considering her age and size, I am pretty sure she's way out of my price range)


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

You can read about the various problems they had with the boat here.


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> You can read about the various problems they had with the boat here.


WOW. This is by far the worst GRP hull job that I've seen. I don't think owners will appreciate this thread all too much though.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Even given the repairs, would you want to buy a boat with that history???


----------



## brak (Jan 5, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> Even given the repairs, would you want to buy a boat with that history???


For me the answer would be "no".

I think, though, after reading the entire exchange, that both the manufacturer is at fault as well as simply the very extensive use to which this boat was subjected. Not every boat is built to withstand so much sailing (unfortunately, but this is the reality - people want houses on water, not sailing vessels and builders oblige).


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> Glad to help.


BTT.

I am also looking over some cats and have pretty much settled on a 105MC partly because of budget and partly because to see if the lifestyle works out.
I know I can (with relative ease and safety) cruise much of my own wonderful (and yet unexplored - by me) country.

The boat standard from the site is 9600lbs.
Add a few cruising hardware things (the options list - or most of it) and there is no posted weight.

Do you know what that is and what the maximum it is rated at?

And how do mfgrs. arrive at that?

To sell boats?
To sell safe boats?

Add a few more things, anchor and chain/rode, radar?, wind gen.?, dingy, davits, water maker,.................you know.................

PS, I have read all the Gemini site, looked at many for sale online, read all your links (thanks), searched and read three sailing forums, etc.

PPS, I have not used the yahoo site because I read their privacy policy and it really sucks, so I will not get a number.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

My boat is also built by Performance Cruising, and is a trimaran. I have her fairly heavily loaded, and she performs quite well, even when loaded more heavily than her sister ships, and I've had her up to to 15 knots. I'd imagine the Geminis bear weight fairly well, based on my experience with the Geminis, Telstars and from speaking to other Gemini and Telstar owners.


----------

