Talk:Catamaran/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Capsizing

A problem with catamarans is that if one does capsize it's difficult to right it. I've never heard of a self-righting catamaran or other multihull design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a critical problem of the design, particularly for cruisers. It seems that this problem of high initial but no ultimate stability is notproperly addressed, in this somewhat one-sided article. A section on advantages and disadvantages compared to monohulls is needed, for things such as this and, off the top of my head, typically shallower draft (advantage), particularly poor performance heading off the wind on more than a broad reach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.16.238 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The largest danger to crew in offshore sailing in being thrown overboard. For cruising cats, this is a very small problem, and so is capsize unless you are driving the boat too hard for conditions. You are much more likely to go in the water off a deck pitched over 30 degrees and more in a knock down or broach. In conditions where a rogue wave is a possible danger, a monohull can be rolled over and this is much more violent than ending up mast down and still foating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Prout catamarans

Hi, I'm not entirely convinced that your edits of my stuff on Prout catamarans and mast-aft rigs amount to an improvement. I may make some edits to reinstate some elements. No hard feelings?! Arrivisto (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, Arrivisto. From Wikipedia:The perfect article:

A perfect Wikipedia article...

• Is well written.
  • Is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language.
  • Is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject.
  • Is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
  • Involves original writing but not original research; a Wikipedia article generally is the written work of its users; it will not violate another's copyright or plagiarize another's work, but its summary of information must still be completely reliably sourced; in addition, all quotes are marked with quotation marks and cited.
  • Is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone.
  • Follows standard writing conventions of modern language, including correct grammar, consistent verb tense, punctuation and spelling.

My question is whether I have eliminated important facts, made things less clear, or created some other problem? I would also question whether your additions are consistent with the tone of the rest of the article or whether they reflect a special enthusiasm for Prout catamarans. Let's have this discussion at Talk:Catamaran, so that other editors can weigh in. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I know these WP guidelines and I tried to follow them. I even know how to use the subjunctive! I am not a fan of Prout and have no axe to grind, but their adoption of the mast-aft rig needs stating, and I think I did it rather more clearly than did your later edits! Arrivisto (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Arrivisto, so have a go at improving our mutual efforts to date. Do you want to develop mention of where the Mast aft rig led, as well? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I got to the page looking for information on the early Shearwater, didn't realize it was so early of a boat. Prout broth. were not as important in early offshore development and you should have a section on C/S/K, still extant as Choy Designs. This page has a number of the classic C/S/K boats. I note that Polynesian Concept was known for 1) built for Buddy Epsen (Jed Clampet) and they flipped it, which was quite the news in the multi-hull community at the time. The book "Catamarans Offshore" is a classic and should get a reference. https://books.google.com/books/about/Catamarans_Offshore.html?id=kLs269HLMukC C/S/K were once setting all the new passage records, many of them stood until the new wave of more modern megamultihulls started being built. This is a big hole in the article. Real story, the sailor who inspired me to be a sailor owned a boat just like "Yellow Bird" that you can find a picture of. It had all yellow sails too. It was raced in the 68 one of a kind and sold, damaged, after the race. It had punctured both hulls launching off one wave and landing on the next. The owner was quite competitive and I think he had made the hulls thinner by sanding them down some to make it lighter. I doubt it was the same boat, but it may have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Tacking a multihull

Most references to tacking a multihull make some comment about backing the jib. This is guaranteed to put the brakes on! I learned to tack properly after blowing a Hobie 16 jib out in a storm. It seems to fly against conventional wisdom, but the winning crews in Hobie nationals seem to do the same thing..... Turn through the wind fairly slowly. Fast turns require significant velocity changes on the hulls and the rudders act as brakes. On a Hobie, get hold of the boom (or use the traveller) and pull it into the wind - gently so that you are not stalling the main. This has the effect of pushing the stern of the boat around. Stop moving the boom across when it is in the correct position for the new tack. That's it! The boat keeps moving through the tack, losing much less speed than it does when backing the jib. The maneuver works equally well on large multihulls and backing the main will even get one out of irons (provided you know how to steer backwards). Those wide travelers make backing the main easy! Given the objection that many sailors express to tightening the main in a tack, I was reluctant to put this in the main article until a few others support the notion. Try it and see if it improves your tacking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.201.161 (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've sailed a number a cats including Hobie 16s, and this seems reasonable if/when it works. In general, backing the jib should be avoided if you can and not jamming the tiller is also good advice for tacking fast. Backing the main is really similar to roll tacking a board boat. Cats never tack quite that easy except nowadays on foils where they stay on foil through both tacks and jibes. In larger cats, a good boat can tack without much tacking and I would try the main back process. I have my crew tack the jib as soon as I know I can carry through on momentum and fill the main. Trimming the jib too soon on the new tack can send you back into irons and I hate steering in reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I've sailed a number a cats including Hobie 16s, and this seems reasonable if/when it works. In general, backing the jib should be avoided if you can and not jamming the tiller is also good advice for tacking fast. Backing the main is really similar to roll tacking a board boat. Cats never tack quite that easy except nowadays on foils where they stay on foil through both tacks and jibes. In larger cats, a good boat can tack without much tacking and I would try the main back process. I have my crew tack the jib as soon as I know I can carry through on momentum and fill the main. Trimming the jib too soon on the new tack can send you back into irons and I hate steering in reverse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Cruising cats

It seems to me that the following sentence in Cruising is topsy-turvy nonsense: "Choosing a catamaran offers increased speed at the expense of reduced load per unit of cost. A cruising monohull may be as short as 30 feet (9.1 m), whereas Howard and Doane put the threshold for a cruising catamaran at 40 feet (12 m), to achieve the same accommodation of cruising accommodation for crew and supplies." A cruising cat of 9M has the accommodation of a 12M monohull; and a 12M cruising cat (such as the Catalac 12M) has the accommodation of a very much longer and more expensive monohull. Arrivisto (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Arrivisto. I've modified the text to better reflect what is found in the source cited. See what you think. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a start, certainly. When I have a moment, I'll make some changes too. Thanks. Arrivisto (talk)

The idea that cats of 30 feet cannot be considered cruisers and are inferior to the same length monohull is simply false. Having cruised on a 30 ft cat with two adults, six kids and a german shepard, I beg to differ. An Iroquois Mk I on Lake Michigan. No 30 ft keelboat can do that in any kind of comfort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Types by size

Dinghy-sized catamarans are sometimes referred to as "Beach Catamarans".I guess this is the same thing as beachcats. Article doesn't say what falls under that category (size, number of crew membwers...) 213.149.61.151 (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. We use reliable sources in our articles. Can you supply links to an article for each of the terms that you advocate for? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It isn't a precise cutoff, more about type of boat and sailing. The first C/S/K experiments were and I suspect still are used to take tourists on rides, up to 20 at a time on 30-40 foot beachcats. I never beached mine, but it would be fine except that the rudders don't kick up. It is a technique to service your cat or tri to run it up near the shore at high tide and work will it is out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.164.139 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Expansion of images

Obsidian Soul, thank you for your interest in expanding and improving this article. I noticed that, at one point, there were so many images that some were placed on the left side, which is not recommended at MOS:IMAGELOCATION. It appeared that some images were relevant to the topic, but did not support the narrative in the text, so I removed them in the spirit of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Let's work together, if you feel that certain images will improve the article. I suggest that we propose some text that improves the article and then provide a corresponding image that supports the proposed text. We can do that here, if you like. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @HopsonRoad: I actually like the remaining images as is. Except for that I still strongly think that the very first image should be an example of a traditional Austronesian catamaran, and there should be at least one more example of a traditional catamaran in the history section. Same with the Trimaran article. I think the replicas are also quite relevant, in contrast to just western historical depictions, as they are usually far more illustrative of what they actually looked like prior to the colonial era.

These articles prior to my edits a while back had a WP:GLOBAL bias in both text and images in that they largely focused on modern western catamarans (which also were the main focus of the images used) with only a very brief mention of where it came from (and only Polynesia); and in the case of trimarans, no mentions at all of the traditional trimarans still used extensively in the Philippines and eastern Indonesia (bangka, jukung, etc.). Both situations made it sound (and look) like they were western inventions solely used for sports sailing instead of being a very ancient and central part of Austronesian culture.

My additions were primarily to show the range of traditional examples of both these hull types, instead of what these articles are now which are basically just successions of western racing examples one after another. The fact that racing examples of these miltihulls have names makes it much more likely for them to be mentioned in text, as opposed to traditional examples which were types of boats rather than a specific boat. I hope we can fix that. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hōkūleʻa, a modern replica of a Polynesian double-hulled voyaging canoe, an Austronesian innovation

Thank you for engaging here, Obsidian Soul. While I concur with your desire to reflect global coverage, the question in my mind is where should the emphasis be in the lead images—with the current paradigm or with the historical roots. I feel that the predominant examples should be in the lead and the broader, historical and geographically diverse should occur elsewhere. Consequently, I'm not on board with having a historical image in the lead here or at Trimaran. I'd be very comfortable with the modern replica image, shown here to return as the third image in the "Oceanian and Asian catamarans" section, but I don't see it or a historical image as one of the two images in the lead, which now has a modern sailing and powered catamaran to introduce the topic. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have placed the image in the text, subject to your input and further discussion, if needed. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: While I probably agree on catamarans since the native versions only survive as replicas, I still disagree on trimarans. These are trimarans:

They are not "variations", but the actual thing. There are millions of them used every day for fishing, transport, and recreation in modern times, ranging from small one-person boats to large ocean-going fishing boats. It is native to maritime Southeast Asia. These are not "designed" by Victor Tchetchet, but are ancient technologies. They are quite literally the default boat design in the Philippines and neighboring regions.

These are western trimarans:

There are far fewer number of them. They are "predominant examples" only if you were a westerner and unaware of the native boats that they are derived from. I don't understand why these are deemed more representative of the topic. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for these, Obsidian Soul. Let's discuss at Talk:Trimaran, where I suggest that the galleries better reflect the population of boats with images, like these. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Pioneering Spirit

Stern view of Pioneering Spirit

The "Pioneering Spirit", the largest (work)boat in the world, designed and owned by Allseas Engineering, is NOT a catamaran. It is a pontoon-like vessel with a gap in the foreship. The ship therefore has two bows, but this does not make it a catamaran. A catamaran has two hulls!

Concur, as this photo shows.HopsonRoad (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

N Deleted sentence on the ship. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Wharram missing here

I cannot believe there is not a word about James Wharram and his contribution to catamaran's design

62.103.76.180 (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, the James Wharram article doesn't contain any reliable sources that describe anything beyond his specific designs, namely an impact on how he might have affected how catamarans evolved. Most of the sources cited are by Wharram, himself. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)