# Multi vs Mono



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

My wife and I will be purchasing a yacht in the 30 to 35'' range and since we have a little one (and another on the way) the space that a multihull has in that size range looks mighty attractive. We plan to eventually circumnavigate, after year or two (or ten) cruising the coast, when our skills are honed. Two questions: 1)Are there cats out there with the juice to cross an ocean (fair weather or foul) in the size range that we''re considering. 2) Whats better, initial stability that a 2hull gives or the righting capability of a mono.

Keep in mind I of course never intend to capsize, regardless of the craft we purchase. ;-)


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I think that you would be hard pressed to find a 35 foot multihill that is suitable for a circumnavigation. Multihulls are quite intolerant of carrying a lot of weight. As you add weight to a multihull they lose their primary defense to capsize which is disbursing the energy in the form of accelleration rather than heeling. As you beef up a thirty to thirty five footer to take the beating of roughly 60 years of coastal cruising (few coastal cruisers sail more than 1000 miles a year and most sail somewhere closer to 500 miles per year) you end up a boat that is already reduced in carrying capacity to the point that they can no longer carry the tankage and supplies necessary for that kind of trip. With a lot of luck, cats this size have made it but it is a pretty high risk. If you are intent on doing the trip in a multihull, I think you will need to consider a bigger cat in order to be able to get a sufficiently seaworthy and burdensome platform for such an adventure. 

Of course, well made multihulls are substantially more expensive than monohulls of the same length, so you might actually find an equally commodious, but longer, monohull for the same price range that would be required to purchase a suitable cat for the type of passages that you are considering. 

"Whats better, initial stability that a 2hull gives or the righting capability of a mono?" I guess this depends on what you personally fear the most. If you are more afraid of hitting something and sinking the boat than you are of capsize buy a multihull. If you are more afraid of capsize or getting trapped on a lee shore in high winds and not being able to beat or motor off to safety, buy a monohull. If you are more comfortable with a quick motion vs a rolling motion buy a multi. If you are more afraid of running aground than not being able to find a slip or boat yard able to accomodate the beam of a cat, buy a Cat...... and so on.....There is no one right answer here. 

The intitial stability but poor angle of positive stability and the strength of the hull connection issues means that you need to reef early on a multihull and in some wasys sail more athletically, especially in big waves where wind can get under the hulls and capsize the boat. On the other hand, cats often do not send ''signals'' that they are about to get into trouble until it is too late to do anything about it. 

Lastly, it is also nearly impossible to ''hone'' your skills on a Multihull as there is very little feedback to help you develop a broad range of boat handling and sail handling skills. 

Respectfully,
Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Thanks for the reply and your time. One thing that I failed to mention is that we will be planning not just to cruise the coast but will be moving aboard and apending the first two years doing nothing but cruising. This live aboard situation requires that we have accomodation that is comfortable i.e. three separate sleeping quarters not including the saloon. I''ve not found that set up in anything less than a 45'' monohull.

That being said, I initially started my search for monohulls in the 50-60'' range(i might ad that I''ve not sailed anythig longer than 20''). However, after reading the sage advice of many who post here the size of craft I''m now searching for has shrunk considerably. Others with the same plan as ours have been recommended to buy small, as a 45'' and up become very difficult to handle with a small crew(2) or to single hand(wife or I are incapacitated).

I''m not a fool and I don''t want my dream to swiftly become a nightmare. Your insite into the carrying capacity of a small cat and your advice that we may not be able to hone our skills on a multihull make a lot of sense. If what you are saying is true I find myself in a conundrum, on one hand I shouldn''t buy a longer monohull because it may prove to burdensome to handle on the other shorter monohuls do not provide the space that we feel we need to live aboard.

Can you or anyone else make suggestions?

Again thanks,
Mr. Jeepers


----------



## eds928gt (Sep 28, 2001)

The advice given thusfar is excellent. I would only add that (depending on your budget) a monohull in the high 30'' to low 40'' range may be quite manageable by a couple and can even be singlehanded if it''s equiped with suitable lifting and sailing aids.

Boats with electric winches and an electric windlass can easily be sailed by even a 98# weak-link. Furling headsails and furling mainsails are no longer uncommon, and there are some that are motor-furled.

Of course, having more electrical equipment requires a greater electrical supply and capacity. However, a large boat can easily carry more batteries, and will likely have the room needed for solar panels and/or a wind generator, etc.

Important reasons for getting a large boat are: comfort, storage capacity, tankerage for water and fuel, and sturdiness. In many ways you''re in luck. There are many boats (new and used) in the size range mentioned that are (or could be made to be) well suited for extended offshore cruising. They will likely cost more to setup for ease of sailing, but if the sailing aids make sailing easier and more pleasurable, then the investment will be well worth it.

~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~


----------



## Magic_Moments (May 15, 2003)

I have one example of a boat with 3 staterooms that may suit your needs. I think the interior was designed for the charter trade since there are two other versions as well.
Look at the 3 stateroom version of the Beneteau Oceanis 390. There is one for sale in my marina which is how I came to be aware of it, but I don''t know anything about how it performs. These boats are 10-15 years old, but the three I have looked at seem to be in good shape. The things I have been told to watch for are leaking on the Lexan portlights and iron keel maintainence if it has an iron keel.
There are problably hundreds of other boats that would suit you, but this is one I have seen.

Ken


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

The problem with a boat like a Oceanis 390 is that they are planning to go around the world and a boat like the 390 really is not robust enough for that kind of duty. 

Jeff


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Maybe it''s best to simply change my approach altogether.

Bite the bullet live in cramped conditions for the first couple of years. Then sell that boat and move onto a larger one when we feel that we could easily handle the larger craft. My only concern is the resale issue. I''ve seen many vessels on the market for months and don''t want to end up with that 30-35'' boat that won''t sell.

How about some recomendations of boats in the 30-35'' range that would be less painful to live in and easy to resell. As stated earlier we will have a two year old and one year old when we buy so they could share a V possibly if we could separate it somehow(lee cloth etc.)

Any ideas? A good galley would be really nice, too.

Thanks again,
Mr. Jeepers


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Sorry, 
A price would be nice.
If we were going to buy this as a coastal cruiser/VIsland hopper training vessel to resell in a couple of years we''d like to keep the budget to under 60k after fitting out. 
Now. Any suggestions?
Anyone familiar with the 35'' Allmand Tri-Cabin?
Thanks
Mr. Jeepers


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

I have some familiarity with the 35'' Allmand Tri-Cabin and more familiarity with its smaller sister. Both seem to be mediocre or worse sailers with mediocre or worse build quality that demand a higher than expected price because they are quite roomy for their length and era.

Jeff


----------



## henryvand (May 2, 2000)

Back to the mono vs cat issue - suggest you buy the book " Cruising In Multihulls" by Charles Kantor - you will find his overview of the issues very helpfull.


----------



## fonest (Aug 24, 2006)

I think you should consider it in two parts. First for a couple of years of comfortable coastal cruising, suggest you buy a Gemini 105M catamaran- nearly 1000 owners can't all be wrong. Re-sell after that for a larger boat suitable for ocean passages- My guess is by then you will have sufficient experience to decide whether a mono or multi is for you. (Admittedly I'm biased as I own a Gemini).


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

With all due respect, the three private cabin requirement is going to severely limit your options and rule out most of the good sailing boats in that size range. You might want to consider whether that is an absolute necessity in the boat that you intend to resell in the next few years.

I also want to echo that a monohull boat sized in the low forties should be manageable for two people. I jumped from inexperience and a 22' boat to a 36 foot boat and found that there was less of a difference than I expected and that, in some respects, the bigger boat was easier to handle singlehanded. On the other hand, I now have a much heavier 41 foot boat which is happier being sailed by two or more.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

As to the mono vs. multi debate, I would feel immeasurably safer crossing an ocean in a monohull. I like the relative feeling of control in a stiff monohull. I would be much more worried about bad weather in a multihull and my impression is that capsizing is far less possible in a well-built monohull. Bad weather is stressful enough. Also, I would put a high value on the superior pointing ability of a monohull. Disclaimer: I have never sailed on a cat larger than a hobie.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

You may have noticed the following thread on the multi-mono discussion.

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/buying-boat/10107-cat-vs-mono.html


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Other than the fact that this thread is three years old, let me say this:

The Lagoons (and many others, I would suspect) come across the Atlantic on their own feet. Many monos can do this too, but many should not (or could not). 

I will say one thing I have noticed in the Multi versuis Mono debate: Where you steer the boat. The Lagoon 440, for example, is up above the Saloon, with winding steps around and very exposed. I don't know about some of you, but I have sure been in a bunch of storms that I would not want to make that walk!! And I sure would not want to be sitting up there in a lightning storm! Just a little practical concern, I guess.

In all, with the new Multis, I would be surprised if they were not as safe as a mono in almost all conditions. Hurricane/TS, put me in a Mono. But as far as that goes, put me on land instead!

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CBinRI said:


> As to the mono vs. multi debate, I would feel immeasurably safer crossing an ocean in a monohull. I like the relative feeling of control in a stiff monohull. I would be much more worried about bad weather in a multihull and my impression is that capsizing is far less possible in a well-built monohull. Bad weather is stressful enough. Also, I would put a high value on the superior pointing ability of a monohull. Disclaimer: I have never sailed on a cat larger than a hobie.


While capsizing is less of a possibility in a well-found monohull, sinking definitely is more of a possibility than in a well-found multihull. John Vigor states in his book, _The Seaworthy Offshore Sailboat,_ that it is a tossup... the position of greatest stability for a monohull is rightside up sitting on the bottom of the ocean, and for a multihull it is uspide down. Which would you rather have, and upside down but floating boat or a sunken one? Capsizing in a modern cruising multihull is very rare, and in most cases the fault is directly attributable to human error.


----------



## Gary M (May 9, 2006)

Just curious about the higher risk of sinking a mono. Is that because if holed there is only the one hull or because on a mono you could be heeled over/rolled and water would go in the hatches? Or both?

Gary


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Gary M said:


> Just curious about the higher risk of sinking a mono. Is that because if holed there is only the one hull or because on a mono you could be heeled over/rolled and water would go in the hatches? Or both?
> 
> Gary


Most multihulls are built with buoyant materials, so the hulls will tend to float, even if fully flooded. Also, multihulls have multiple hulls, and the chance of holing all of them is relatively low, and many multihulls have multiple water-tight compartments in each hull, further reducing the risk of water filling the hulls.

For instance, my trimaran has forward and aft buoyancy compartments in the amas and main hull-meaning that there are 10 distinct compartments _(there are two aft buoyancy compartments, port and starboard, in the main hull)_.

A monohull, if it doesn't self right quickly, runs the risk of downflooding, where water starts to come into the cabin. Since most monohulls have a significant mass of iron or lead built in as a keel, once they start to fill with water, they have a strong tendency to sink. Also, if a monohull is holed, the water pressure will often force water into the hull faster than the bilge pumps can deal with it-also resulting in the boat sinking.


----------



## Headingsouth (Jun 26, 2006)

Proabably mostly due to the fact that you have tons of ballast which does not tend to float. Leopards aka Moorings cats also come here on their own bottoms - from South Africa.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Also, historically, the incidence of capsize in cruising multihulls has been very low, and getting lower as the engineering principles and understanding of capsize forces has gone up. 

Almost all of the well known capsizes in multihulls are in those that are extreme racing boats, like the Volvo 40s, which had quite a few to report earlier this year. Those boats are sailed on the extreme edge of control, and often are flying a hull to reduce wetted surface area to a minimum. 

That said, the capsizes that are reported in most cruising multihulls are mostly due to operator error. Sailing a multihull has a few slight, but significant differences from sailing a monohull. Reefing is generally done to accommodate the gusts, where on a monohull, where it is generally reefed to accommodate the general wind strength, and the boat heels to accommodate the gusts—this is not an option on a multihull.


----------



## Gary M (May 9, 2006)

Thanks Sailingdog, living on the Great Lakes I am not at all familiar with Ocean going muitlhulls but that explains a lot. 
Here in the lovely fresh water lakes our chances of running into a container etc. tend to be somewhat smaller. also of course we do not get the extreme weather. Neither of which I regret. 

Gary


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Gary-

The crew of the Edmund Fitzgerald and many other boats would probably disagree about you having no extreme weather. Going aground is still a risk in the Great lakes, and hitting rocks are also a big problem in some parts, like near the Apostle Islands. Both of those can hole a monohull and cause her to founder. 

Also, there are still some loose shipping containers on the Great Lakes, granted there are probably fewer than on the ocean by a big port like Long Beach or Savannah. But, they'll generally float a bit lower, so are harder to spot in the water.


----------



## Gary M (May 9, 2006)

Maybe I should have said no extreme weather during the normal sailing seaon, not Superior in April or November. Also a small boat can take shelter fairly quickly if they are paying attention to the weather. 

For the last 15 years I have been diving the wrecks of the Great Lakes so have seen the results of what can happen, a huge percentage of them are caused by the need to make early and late season runs. Poor seamanship and fog had a big part as well.


----------



## Johnrb (Sep 21, 2002)

Sailingdog:

As a multihull sailor, and regarding shipping containers, you may find this interesting (from Sailing Anarchy a couple of days ago):

"At approximately 1000 hours this morning, Stève Ravussin's trimaran Orange Project was in violent collision with a container, whilst sailing at more than 20 knots, under full main and gennaker."

"The main initial impact was taken by the drop keel, which was fortunately in the up position, but the main rudder mechanism was completely destroyed and the trimaran, which is about 140 miles north west of the island of Florès, in the Azores, is no longer maneuverable"

There hasn't been an update yet.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Project Orange is a racing trimaran, and as such is significantly faster than most cruising multihulls. Most small cruising multihulls can not sail consistently at a speed over 10-15 knots—and only in certain conditions. 

Also, many of the smaller multihulls, including mine, have kickup rudders, and are designed to kickup in the case of a frontal impact, such as a grounding.


----------



## Johnrb (Sep 21, 2002)

I have occasionally used a good photo of Orange Project as a desktop on my PC. Definitely not a cruiser. ;-)


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, I have personally never seen (again in person) a shipping container floating offshore. However, I can with some level of confidence tell you that if you hit it, even at 7 knots, you are probably going to hole your boat. It is not as if they are going to give any. I remember reading a little while back about a couple that had taken delivery on a brand new Hatteras and hit one on their maiden voyage. The boat sank within 20 minutes (less, according to his wife). The point of the story was about being prepared to abandon ship quickly... but still, makes you wonder!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> Well, I have personally never seen (again in person) a shipping container floating offshore. However, I can with some level of confidence tell you that if you hit it, even at 7 knots, you are probably going to hole your boat. It is not as if they are going to give any. I remember reading a little while back about a couple that had taken delivery on a brand new Hatteras and hit one on their maiden voyage. The boat sank within 20 minutes (less, according to his wife). The point of the story was about being prepared to abandon ship quickly... but still, makes you wonder!


Of course, multihulls are far less likely to sink, having multiple hulls and no ballast to sink them.  Also, the shallower draft on a multihull probably makes it less likely to hit a submerged shipping container.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Well, I guess if one hull could support the whole boat, that a multi could be considererd safer. However, I mught have to dissagree on the less likely to hit part for two reasons: 1) It is my understanding most of them float just below the surface and thus would be at the depth of a mono or multi, and two, because you boat has twice the beam (or hulls), you should be twice as likely to hit it/something.

Another good reason to fill your tender with Helium so you can just float above the waves. Now, let me calculate here a moment, how big would the tender have to be to float in the air while holding a 25000 lb boat...


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

SShhhhh, I am still calculating...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Umm... each ama on most trimarans are 100-200% buoyancy of the entire boat generally. The amas on many multihulls, including mine, are separated into several water-tight compartments, so a frontal impact is unlikely to rupture the entire ama. 

The central hulls on most trimarans is similarly constructed. Mine has the holding tank forward, to help contain any damage in the case of an impact, and two buoyancy compartments aft for the same reason. 

Similarly, the hulls on a catamaran are usually separated into multiple water-tight compartments or have some sort of crash bulkhead built in. 

BTW, you'd need a really big tender...probably quite a bit longer than your boat to get the lift you need.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't think you have truly consdiered the immeasurable conscequences of a frontal impact on your boat. 

Let's see, even if you survive the holing, when your holding tanks open up I don't care what the sea state is... you will be abandoning ship!!

You better start looking into that helium Dink too.

- CD

Personally, I would not have to worry about it since my waste does not stink...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruisingdad said:


> I don't think you have truly consdiered the immeasurable conscequences of a frontal impact on your boat.
> 
> Let's see, even if you survive the holing, when your holding tanks open up I don't care what the sea state is... you will be abandoning ship!!
> 
> ...


And if you light the accompanying methane, then you'll take care of any need for flares.


----------



## ebs001 (May 8, 2006)

One thing to consider is livibility. Most catamarans provide much more comfortable living quarters and since you want to live aboard you'll be doing that 100% of the time and cruising maybe 1% of the time.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Jeepers, when we initially set to seriously plan our circ, our guts were set on a multi. I learned quickly that the multi vs mono debate is a very interesting balloon to float (if you will pardon the pun ref recent posts) on forums like this, although certainly an interesting one. As you have noticed by the number of readers and posters on this thread, there are some very passionate opinions on both sides of the table. We have narrowed our search to a mono, or I could say "settled" on a search for a mono due to budgetary constraints. Cost is a significant factor on this one that we couldnt ignore, for us it meant the difference between leaving this summer, or working another couple of years and well, and unlike the mono vs multi match, that just wasnt much of a fight. That said, here's a list of capeable (and affordable by cat standards) multi's in our order of pref.

Prout 38
Atlantic 42
Catana 401
Foutntaine Pajot 38
Leopard 38 (production boat though - that would req a totally new thread)

Check out bumfuzzle.com - inexperienced couple, poor quality cat, on their way home in one piece. Not saying thats the way to go for everyone, just that it can be done. Hey, if we prepared for every single eventuality none of us would cross the road without flares and flack jackets. 

I know, I know... let 'er rip boys!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, cost is definitely an issue, especially when dealing with a larger Catamaran or Trimaran, as the labor to create the multiple hulls is fairly high. Crossings have been made in relative comfort and safety in much smaller multihulls than the ones you've listed.

* Some of the smaller producton cats that have made trans-oceanic passages include:
* 
Heavenly Twins 26
Catalac 8M
Gemini 105

* Similarly-sized production cats that may be capable of making such passages include:
* 
Maine Cat 30
Tom Cat 30

* Some production trimarans that have made trans-oceanic passages:
* 
Corsair F28, F31, F36
Farrier F27, F9
Telstar 26
Telstar 35 (circumnavigated, but not sure this was a production boat, if it was the run was limited).

*Other production trimarans that may be capable of a trans-oceanic passage, but none that I know of have done so are:
* 
Quorning Dragonfly 900, 1200 (they also make an 800 but its a bit small)
Telstar 28, which is larger than the Corsair F28 in many ways

OSTAR sailor Lia Dutton's 34' trimaran _Shockwave_ may be a production boat, but I'm not sure what it was.

The Gunboat Catamarans are lovely custom boats, if a bit expensive. If you want to see a funny video demonstrating their capabilities, go to the Safari Charters website and click on the video link. _Safari_ is a Gunboat 62, and a damn fast boat, designed by _Morelli and Melvin. _She is a huge boat, with a LOA of 62' and a beam of 30'. 

Charter Cats, the builders of Bumfuzzle, seem to have some serious customer relations and quality control issues. It pays to do your research and to get a proper survey done of any boat you buy. I don't believe that the couple that owns Bumfuzzle had a proper survey done.


----------



## thesnort (Jun 2, 2007)

OK, I've been following along with the unsinkability factor of multihulls, but no one has pointed out that there do exist monohulls with positive buoyancy even when holed and flooded. I give you the ETAP. There are others, but this one is currently in production. I think it's a Belgian make and costs a small fortune.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Snort...note date of last post. There is a recent thread on Etaps here:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11457&highlight=etap


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

And that totally ignores how many people have been lost off of monohulls. I can think of several recent incidents, like Moquini, that lost far more lives.



RickBowman said:


> Not all that rare really. I know of two instances, one with loss of life, one on Lake Huron and one on Lake Michigan. Lake Huron, 2 dead, tangled in the rigging. Lake Michigan, an elderly woman extridited with a chain saw with the Gemini inverted.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Knockdowns are bad, inversions are bad... having the boat sink out from under you is worse IMHO. Overall, capsizes of cruising multihulls are fairly rare events, and as I said earlier, most capsizes of cruising multihulls were preventable and due to human error in large part.


RickBowman said:


> This really isn't a single/dual hull comparison, only that inverted dual hulls aren't rare, as both of these unrecoverable dual hull accidents occured in waters that I frequent. Certainly, any vessel can flounder given the wrong circumstances but to post that dual hulls inverting are rare and knowing first hand of a discrpency to this was the reason for my posting. Knockdowns are bad news, unrecoverable inversions are imho far worse.


----------

