Its no good. We need to find a reliable production builder who can knock out 10,15 or 100 boats at the blink of an eyelid, and for a reasonable price. I cant see 10 people on this site trusting you going on your track record. Design somthing, sure, find a builder who’s gonna build the things, then great.
Luff 'em & leave 'em.
matt and i have been talking
we think the multihull comunity could get a big boost if there was a cheap, easy to sail, model . that area would grow. i sailed a cat a couple of weeks ago. my design and the whole thing cost me less than $500. i used a IOM rig and a used radio. the hull was just i meter. poeple seemed to like the idea of a small hull, and a cheap price. just to let you know. mine did not work to well. but then agian. like i told mat. I dont know what i am doing. but then you realize . i am your market. i drive IOM, us 1 meter, and seawind, i am looking at a cat. i have driven the real thing and that is what i want.
just my 2 cents
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by cougar
i am looking at a cat. i have driven the real thing and that is what i want.
just my 2 cents
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Lloyd - your above quote is part of the issue … a catamaran is less expensive than a trimaran by the cost of materials and labor of one (1) hull - so yes, you might be able to save a few dollars by going from trimaran to catamaran.
A catamaran is going to be <u>MORE</u> difficult to sail than a trimaran. Here’s an example of what “might” happen:
A builder will start making a bunch of cats and invest money, time and effort into tooling. You will buy one and try sailing it. It will tip over. Other people will see it tip over. They will tell other people about how unstable and hard it is to sail a cat. Other people will then <u>NOT</u> be interested in buying a cat. The builder will be stuck with a lot of hulls and parts he can’t sell - because your cat tipped over and gave the entire idea a bad reputation.
Now the use of the word <u>“you”</u> doesn’t mean you specifically - just the general buying public at large. But can you get my point? If something is difficult to sail - who will buy it. We already have agreed (more or less) that a trimaran is easier to sail than a catamaran, and we can’t get trimarans to sell… and now the thought is to sell a cat instead? No matter how inexpensive a catamaran, if it is difficult to sail or is not a performer, it will die a pretty quick death.
Nothing personal in the following observation - but “If someone isn’t or can’t sail a trimaran, a catamaran is not the answer!” If cats were easier to sail and faster, there would be a lot of them being built and sailed in major (or minor) competition.
However - if you must go that way - you can always use two main hulls from my IMPULSE MultiONE design and make up a cat. I don’t know how well it will sail as a cat, but it is designed for glass over foam which is the most inexpensive and quickest way to build a multihull. The cross sections are free and you can probably scrounge up some foam insulation from local building sites. Just cover with 1/2 oz. glass and hollow out for radio gear. You said you already have the IOM rig and sails and the radio. Your total cost might be less than $40.00 for the 2 hulls and cross beams !!! Heck for $50.00 I might even consider making up a set of foam hulls and covering with glass - BUT - leaving the final finishing up to you.
So here are a couple of suggested opportunities if you really think a cat is the answer! See you on the water next summer with one???
You can always go with the Victor Wild Cat - but Kris Harig had one - so be prepared for major disappointments. But - it is only $96.00 for the kit plus shipping - if you are looking for cheap. After you get it, THEN you can start in with the needed modifications … deeper high aspect board and rudders, wider cross beams, better sails, etc. Kris would be happy to tell you what he had to change. It gets “ugly” [:D]
<center>
</center>
“Do you get my point?”
NO
Wis
_/ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it! _
Again, I see nothing wrong in my answer…you asked a question…I answered! PERIOD
for further comments see: http://www.rcsailing.net/forum1/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1041&whichpage=2
Regards
Wis
PS: I feel like it happend before [:(]
_/ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it! _
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by cougar
matt and i have been talking
we think the multihull comunity could get a big boost if there was a cheap, easy to sail, model . that area would grow. i sailed a cat a couple of weeks ago. my design and the whole thing cost me less than $500. i used a IOM rig and a used radio. the hull was just i meter. poeple seemed to like the idea of a small hull, and a cheap price. just to let you know. mine did not work to well. but then agian. like i told mat. I dont know what i am doing. but then you realize . i am your market. i drive IOM, us 1 meter, and seawind, i am looking at a cat. i have driven the real thing and that is what i want.
just my 2 cents
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Cougar -
there are two “M” Class (older) boats for sale on AMYA web site - one is $350, and the other $400 as I recall. Might make a good, not necessarily competitive, base for an F-48. !!
Drop a couple of inches off the stern, move rudder forward, add cross beams (wood or carbon) make up a set of foam floats and cover with glass - and you would have an F-48 !!!
If the only one in the area, so what if a bit heavy or a bit slow. Getting rid of the lead keel and keeping the same sail area and rig, and it probably would be as fast (or faster) than any “M” class boat sailing locally. It will give you some experience in driving a multihull. And you might be able to sell to another who wants to get into multihulls when you decide to build a lighter weight boat. Defintely a cost savings issue. Depends on how much modifications you want to do - but if they come with a rig, sails and winch, most big $$$ are already addressed. Just a thought.
[:D][:D]
hey that is not a bad idea
but around me. there is alot of IOMs. that is why my cat was 1 meter long ( great mind think alike) my cat was 1 meter sqaure and used my IOM sails. matt and i were just talking and decided that the boat had to be easy to assmeble, pond side. pretty easy to sail; . and you are right if the boat does tip and fall over. the boat would get a bad reputation. and that was one of my concerns . i got scared when one hull just got out of the water. but after about 1 hour. i got comfortable with that. my design when it got too far over. the bow would dig in and the boat would pivot around like a doing a 90 deegree stop. is that normal?
like i said i am leaning on matt for his knowledge on multihulls. i am willing to build a couple of them, for testing and maybe JUST MAYBE. get something going.
by the way dick
i never once took anything you said against me. i know you are talking to the board. we have been freinds for a while. and just the keep this board in line. dick DID SEND ME A GIFT
i got some great magazine on the americas cup. but i have never used that to show favoritism. i have jumped on dick , just like i jumped on doug.
what matt and i want was to get a cheap and easy to sail cat . so that others can sail. amd ,maybe just maybe get the bite. i got hooked on IOM racing by a very smart english man, that bastard sent me plans in 1990 and challenged me to build it. omg what a probelm that has become. maybe i can do the same
a 1 meter long cat that has a beam of 1 meter.
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
Would really need to see photo or hull design before I can speculate. Hopefully rudder didn’t leave water as bow went down, and boards stayed in the water as well. “Normally” if a bow goes under (the leeward bow) the boat will slow dramtically and come to a stop. If it happens upwind it may just set there until bow pops up. Downwind, however, a pitchpole would be likely.
The only time I have experienced a cat do a 90 degree turn was when it was sailing downwind and rudders started to cavitate and once the rudders were covered by air bubbles, the cat would “round up” much as a monohull does when over powered downwind with a spinnaker. If the “round up” was caused by excessive weather helm, you can move rig forward slightly to get lee helm, but this doesn’t sound like a weather/lee helm issue.
Very possible the boat ws TRYING to pitchpole and the pressure on the sail forced the stern around making it look like a 90 degree turn. (example) the sterns lift from water, but mainsheet is centered to middle of rear cross beam or center between both hulls. As the bow goes down and sterns come up and out, the pressure on the mainsail trying to push the boat downwind might have a tendency to “Pull” the stern cross beam and hulls downwind. The buried bow seems to be the pivot point which makes me wonder how deep/long the dagger boards were. Maybe - more speculation here - that as the hulls were pulled forward, instead of the cat tipping sideways, there was enough buoyancy, and less wind due to sail twist that the leeward hull managed to recover.
Sorry Cougar - a lot of unknowns and even more questions… did one bow go down or both? Were you running or beating or reaching? Mainsial trimmed in, out or half and half? Rudders in or out during the event? Sterns in the air, or just clear of water when the boat turned? If downwind - sailing directly down or very deep broad reach? etc. etc. -
Can you go out and do it again please and catch it on tape this time? [:D][:D][:D]
dick.
my design was just made up in a weekend. and by now meen should be considered even close to a true multi hull. what you do is considerd right. i dont have a clue( no comment here guys) what i am doing. the cat was on a reach and one hull was completly out of the water. and going like a bat out of he**. then the bow of the hull, that was in the water nose dived and the boats stern did come out and wow splash the boat comes to a stop. 90 degrees. my dagger board was 6 inch. and 1 rudder was out of the water the other rudder was completey in the water. i think maybe the sail area was too big. if the hull was even close to tipping over . i would do a 90 degree stopp.
but right now. i am a newbie. matt knows more than i do
cougar
long live the cup and cris dickson
Much better info - and am able to narrow it down some, based on cat sailing experience.
“On a reach and stuffed leeward bow” …
This would cause sterns to raise up and leeward rudder probably left the water - or darn close to it. Since you weren’t going directly downwind, the force vector was probably over the side of the leeward hull, rather than forward between the hulls. With the extra drag due to the bow under water, and the sterns probably clear of the water, the cat most likely did pivot on it’s buried bow. Being on a reach, it probably tried to tip sideways, and since there was little lateral resistance, the entire leeward hull swung around the pivot point (bow). My guess is that had you been sailing deeper (downwind) the force from the sail would have been more forward than over the hull side, and it would have pitchpoled. [:-headache] [:-weepn]
For new multihull sailors, consider sailing downwind on a deep reach instead of running. This allows you “Ooops Room” for correcting sail trim or helm. On a reach, if you get hit with a gust, you can sheet out the main further, and if necessary steer up toward the wind and more toward a beam reach with mainsail out and unsheeted, thereby reducing the sail loads, and getting the windward hull back down and the boat under control. The worst thing is to ease the main to dump wind and then steer further downwind. If the boat can’t accelerate to make use of the gust, you have effectively provided <u>MORE</u> sail area to the wind rather than reducing it. [:-censored]
Kind of like sailing to windward and the main about half-way in. It is already “spilling” some air with twist and angled away from the wind. If the boat starts to heel, you can steer up into the wind and bring the weather hull back down - or you can steer away from the wind and hope to pick up speed and acceleration in the gust. Unfortunately, bearing away exposes more sail area to the wind if you don’t loosen the mainsheet, and chances are good a capsize will result. It is often difficult for a heavy boat to react to a wind gust and speed up to the actual wind speed gust or faster. We had a saying that “Down is Down and Up is Up” - meaning that if you steered down and away from wind in a gust - chances are good you would go “down” - as in capsize [:-bigeyes] - while steering up in a gust or puff often allowed the boat to point higher without pinching, and you could climb to weather - especially if trying to lay the windward mark.
Try some of these next time you are out. Note however the liberal use of the words “probably” and “likely” - since I didn’t see it it is still speculation as to what caused the problem… sorry - best I can do.
<font color=“maroon”><u>EDIT/ADDED:</u> Cougar - you may have seen this before as I posted in regards to previous discussion on stability, but thought it appropriate to post again - kind of a reminder (in case you weren’t paying attention - just kidding).
Anyway - a multihull has “Tipping” and/or “Tripping” tendencies. Tipping being sideways and tripping being forward (pitchpole). If you look at my sketch, you can see that if the sails force vector is inside the bows, the boat will have a tendency to “TRIP”, while if outside the bows and over the leeward hull it will have a tendency to “TIP”. One way to lower your risks is to widen the base of the force triange (wider beam and longer hulls) OR to lower the forces by reducing sail area and/or mast height. Since the mast is a lever arm of sorts, it makes sense to keep the sail area, but shorten the mast (lever) if possible. Usually class rules prohibit longer hulls or wider beam. As noted, if you elect to carry an IOM rig on an F-48 you have reduced both sail area and mast height and that “should” provide ability to sail in stronger winds than if using an 86 inch mast or 1400 sq. inches of sail area as allowed. Some will use that maximum sail area on even taller masts (very high aspect ratio) which is fine for light air but can make the boat unmanageable in heavier winds. As you select and rig for your multihull, you might want to keep these concepts in mind to keep the boat upright and sailing fast. Of course, you can always make it “heavier” (Uggh) by adding a blob of lead at the end of the boards. This can be a help if yours is the <u>only</u> boat upright and crossing the finish line - but not too many trophies for “overweight” boats are given out over the course of a regatta or sailing season. [:D] We’ll make a believer out of you yet!
Download Attachment: [ stability.jpg](http://www.rcsailing.net/forum1/data/Dick Lemke/20041112141946_stability.jpg)
37.78KB</font id=“maroon”>
The suggestion was because there was an old M boat for sale over here for around $300 - which would include a main hull, sails and radio gear - and a way for someone to try a multi WITHOUT lead “On the cheap” - so to speak. In addition, if they “liked” the idea, they would then have a rig and radio gear “IF” they decided to build a trimaran from ground up.
The red MultiONE was a boat built by Jack Ronda from the state of Washington here in the US and was based on “PULSE” plans I sold him that were scaled down to one meter - per his request. Photos were around showing it sailing as well as on it’s boat stand. Also had a batch showing some of the close up detail.
My MultiONE “IMPULSE” was sailed three times - once after my stroke. The first time out, (shakedown) was documented here and on other forums in writing. The person from work entrusted to the camera was so impressed by it’s performance, he forgot to take photos. After my stroke, I managed to get boat set up and in the water and wind quit - but there are photos of it “floating”. We are now getting “skim ice” on the ponds so it will probably be spring.
The 36/600 idea was tried in California in early 1990 and they were a disaster (so I am told) - too small and AMYA class folded.
Finally - you are missing the point - ANYONE can design and build a multihull. It’s performance against OTHER multihulls in competition is what tells us if the design is any good or not. If it wins and the design is good - more people will consider building/buying. If it get’s beat during competition - see note above about the 36/600 which would again apply here. No one wants to purchase/build a disaster - but that is how we learn to improve.
I am sure photos of Jack’s boat were published and shared. Just in case you can’t search - here is another post of his 1 Meter sailing during first outing.
<center>
</center>
Now - to respond to your other comments:
- My boat has been “witnessed” sailing back in August - so the inability of photos doesn’t deminish the fact it has sailed. I do not (however) post any claims of it’s performance and will not until I have had a chance to race it against another design. Only that way can I tell if it is fast. In fact, (again if you search) you will find several posts where I have specificlly posted that I would not share the design or promote the boat to others to build until I was sure it sailed and was reasonably fast. The lines are there if someone wants to build one. All other posts have been strictly based on CONSTRUCTION METHODS and no where are any performance claims of my design made - or even hinted at.
I am sure you are aware that in August I suffered a stroke which laid me up for some time - and others can vouch that I still have left-side “issues”. So the fact that I missed several months of sailing because of medical reasons is why you don’t see too many photos and why the boat hasn’t been sailed too many times.
Finally - I really don’t have any care or concern with “what” you believe regarding my boat or it’s design. I posted and showed a 1 meter multihull that was on the water - floating, rigged and with radio gear installed. Because the wind was uncooperative the day I felt able to sail it after my stroke isn’t my fault. I said I would have my 1 meter on the water in 2004 and I did - but I have not laid claims nor do I encourage it’s build for competition since it hasn’t competed - nor did I insinuate that it had. Unlike yourself - I refuse to suggest a production builder start making these until it has proven itself.
I have simply posted my facts and suggested that before either one of us start promoting a specific design - it would be in the best intersts of the buyer/builders to see them on the water and to see their results in competition. The red PULSE design of Jack’s has been proven a sa Mini40 design in Britain.
At this end, I certainly would drive a few miles (thousand) to participate in an event to provide me with “bragging rights of my design” based on competition if it was my intention to convince people to build one - or more. If you elect not to - that is your call, but certainly don’t wonder why no one responds or builds to your designs in any great numbers. Basically - people are interested in the “pedigree” of our boats. Seeing that Bantock has clearly proven his designs’ performances - a new one sells without much effort and is all I am suggesting.
And hopefully - this thread, with the help of the moderators - won’t generate into what was here months back.
I’ve responded to your concerns and issues. From here on out any further response will be limited to facts about the design or build - and I will continue to withold comment about recommendations, production building, or performances until it has the opportunity to prove itself in competition. For day sailing, nothing requires a competition pedigree - and that too was what I was pointing out in my inexpensive suggestion to use a M boat and convert it. No where did I suggest it would win a major event - but it certainly could prove a cost-effect way to try multihull sailing in boats without lead.
Hi Dick,
First off, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. To be frank, I am interested in these multihulls, but I doubt I’ll get around to building one anytime soon. Still fussing over the best layout for my Vic and that is such a simple boat.
I am curious though about your statements (confirmed by Ernst) that a small tri would be much more stable then a small cat. Is the added stability of the tri due to the position of the daggerboard and rudder or something else? I am assuming here that you would be considering a tri and a cat of equal overall beam. Is that my mistake?
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Luke
<blockquote id=“quote”><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial, Helvetica” id=“quote”>quote:<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”>Originally posted by lucashurt
Hi Dick,
First off, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. To be frank, I am interested in these multihulls, but I doubt I’ll get around to building one anytime soon. Still fussing over the best layout for my Vic and that is such a simple boat.
I am curious though about your statements (confirmed by Ernst) that a small tri would be much more stable then a small cat. Is the added stability of the tri due to the position of the daggerboard and rudder or something else? I am assuming here that you would be considering a tri and a cat of equal overall beam. Is that my mistake?
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Luke
<hr height=“1” noshade id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”></font id=“quote”>
Luke -
Ernst pretty muich touched on a lot of the points - but maybe too technical for some. Let me take a stab at the concepts - but in easier to understand wording.
First - a trimaran configuration is so close to a monohull configuration that the move from one to the other is almost seamless. In fact, the MulitONE class “suggests” a ballasted keel as training wheels for the multi. Just keep putting smaller bulbs on the keel until you remove them completely. Even with the wider beam, you will continue to see marked performance improvements as each keel gets lighter in weight. Off-setting this is the boat gets “tippier” as the lead is removed. In my mind, I view the trimaran as a better starter boat since it requires you to get two hulls (weight) off the water so starting stability is slightly better. On a cat configuration, once the windward hull leaves the water, you have about 1/2 the weight in the air, and “tipping” seems to happen faster.
In my opinion, once one learns to react to the faster trimaran, then a cat “might” be faster in total. Cats do suffer from slower tacking (in general) but once mastered, they may prove to be quicker. I look around, and with all the Mini40’s or 2 Meter boats sailing, there certainly is fewer cats than trimarans, and since a trimaran weighs more than a cat (extra hull) and obviously takes more time to build, those who have a lot of racing stick time have seemed to accept the trimaran platform as the basis for most competition.
On the local US basis, Ian Sammis has just started sailing a cat configuration, but I haven’t heard results of comparison between his trimarans and his cats. Also should be noted that Ian is a big boat cat sailor with a bit of experience, and should be able to wring out the best performance from both. My big cat sailing experience versus small ones hinges on the inability to be on board and actually “feel” what is happening. This is a distinct disadvantage and is perhaps a reason why a cat seems a bit harder to sail. By the time the one hull is in the air, it may be too late to react.
Great question however, and like Ford versus Chevrolet debate, each has it’s supporters. Once Ian gets some stick time in, he should be able to comment based on experience - and will be interesting to hear his views. He is the only person I currently know of that will have experience sailing both types of r/c platforms.
Hi Guys,
Assuming you were to build a cat and a tri of the same overall beam, the pure stability should be very similar. Naturally if you compare a cat with 60% of the beam of an equal length tri, it will have also 60% of the stability (assume equal weight) and thus should be designed with smaller or lower sails.
So I am getting a picture in my mind now, there are advantages of a tri over a cat because:
the position of the keel (easy to stick a bulb on it while learning, which is not impossible on a cat, but more work for sure)
a tri should tack faster than a cat, pivoting on the deeper center hull and only sailing on two hulls at a time which are half the beam of the cat
on a tri, the layout of the radio gear is easy, all in the center hull, on a cat you would need to add weight to one side or the other to balance the craft. also longer wires to connect battery and winch(i assume the two heaviest items are placed in opposite hulls)
does that sound about right. anything big that I missed.
I have been unable to find on the web, detailed pictures of the electronics layout for a cat. Do you know of any.
Luke
P.S. For Ernst, I have enough of the “theoretical basics” to know that your “targets” for designing a MODEL multihull are less precise than the difference between integrating a hull with 12 or 15 sections.
I can probably sketch some up for you, but you are pretty close with your thoughts. You will need, like any boat, a strong and fast sail winch, a receiver, a smaller servo to handle steering, and of course a battery pack. Depending on sail winch used, the winch and servo in one hull and the receiver and battery pack in the other ought to be really close. At worst, perhap only the battery pack - with all other in the opposite hull.
The rudders would need to be tied together with a long cross arm. Sheeting for sails could be routed to the middle of both front and rear cross beam. Each hull would have a daggerboard.
Some have decided to mount all electronics in a pod located between the hulls. First (in my opinion) this doesn’t look very nice, and secondly it sits higher and thus raises the center of buoyancy. It does however, eliminate a lot of the problems with wiring and balance and is easier to build and access when sailing. Kind of a trade-off. If you look close at the photo, it looks like Ian has elected to go with the central pod concept with his catamaran design.
I would be remiss if I didn’t also offer the issue of using foils to improve stability. Yes they work, and yes they improve stability - but as yet, the retractable foiler “theory” has yet to be built, tested and proven, and also the issue of sailing in weed-fouled ponds is still a concern, where they would quickly gather weeds and slow the boat down. This is an issue even with "T-foils on rudders, as it makes it almost impossible to work weeds off a “T” shaped appendage as compared with a straight vertical board or rudder.
Dick,
Thinking out loud, dont slap me if I am wrong, 'cause I am no designer at all…just an idea.
Why not connecting both hulls on a cat, with a “wing”, it could gice some lift and you ll have space to put in the electronics?
my 0,00002 Yen
Wis
_/ if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it! _
No reason not to try it. The older plans for FREIGHT TRAIN show a single wing/arm for connecting the main hull with the floats. On a cat you could do the same. There are issues of stiffness, where you want both hulls moving (or not) identical. Many subscribe to this theory, but I look to Gougeons and their Formula 40 trimaran ADRENALIN and they specifically designed the floats to move independantly of each other. It was a fast boat but not sure how important that design idea was in the overall scheme.
It’s been a long time since I posted on here. After reading through the posts under this heading I am seriously wondering whether or not it’s worth it.
Earnst is sitting there basically saying that an old “M” boat would not work as a tri.
Get off your high horse and read back through some of the old posts.
Dick you are trying to explain things to people that just don’t understand how multihull’s work. My attitude now to “would-be-multi” sailors is that they have know idea how to sail one of the things for starters and once it swims once will just give up. I am sure you could use your time far more productively.
oh what’s the point. I’ll call in every now and then but…
Peter