[MHml] Catamaran vs Trimaran

[Rob Denney]

G'day,

Old thread indeed, time to liven it up a bit. ;-)

>Limit length, a tri can be faster.

True, but apart from marina costs, who cares?

> Limit beam, a cat can be faster.
But not as fast as a proa.  One and a half hulls is lighter, less windage
and therefore faster than two hulls. And the half hull sees no sailing loads
so can be much lighter and cheaper.

> Limit $, a cat can be faster for the construction cost.
Two hulls cost 33% more than one and a half.   Plus the proa does not need
all the beefing up to stop the rigging loads lifting all 4 corners of the
boat and compressing the area under the mast.  >

>Limit sail area, a cat can be faster
This would make a very interesting class.  A sail area limit, everything
else open.     A proa would win hands down, except in small sizes where a
windsurfer or foiler moth would be better.  I wonder why there has never
been such a class?

Regards,

Rob




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Gibbs" <BillG at GibbsCAM.com>
To: "'Informed discussion of multihull issues'" <multihulls at steamradio.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [MHml] Catamaran vs Trimaran


> Old and long thread, which I did not just completely re-read.
>
> As I recall, prior discussions on this topic concluded that the "rule" was
the primary determiner of advantage.
>
> Limit length, a tri can be faster.
> Limit beam, a cat can be faster.
> Limit $, a cat can be faster for the construction cost.
> Limit sail area, a cat can be faster
>
> Using length as a primary speed class criteria is a holdover from
monohulls and hull speed limits.  It has no more inherent validity
> with multihulls than any other parameter limit.  It is a popular one
though.
>
> Bill
> Afterburner