Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Tyrendarra Vic.
    Posts
    1,166

    Default Waller 880 cruising cat.

    Just looking again through the Frecheville Heaney site , I'm wondering what the experienced think of the Waller 880 cruising cat.
    Rob J.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    65
    Posts
    8,138

    Default

    Howdy,

    Give us a link Dopeydriver!?

    Generally multis vary from a fair bit to a lot more building compared to a similar monohull.

    Under 30ft they struggle to have similar interior space to a mono of similar length (at least not without going really high with the superstructure).

    Over 30ft accomodation can be quite good - but at a big surface area penalty (read "labour")

    But if designed to really go then they can increase your cruising radius significantly. By "really go" I mean head in all the four directions quickly.

    Upwind
    Reaching
    Broad Reaching and running
    Dead upwind under motor

    The first one is the one that is difficult to achieve.

    And before anyone pipes up and says "cruising sailors never sail upwind" it is a load of crapiata - the wind is always on the nose when you have to get somewhere to meet a deadline - or as soon as someone says "that direction is always a downwind ride at this time of year".

    I tend toward monohulls (yes I am biased) but if I was building a cruising boat I would consider a multi (even with all the extra work) because of the ease and fun of covering distances - but I would make sure it performed REALLY well particularly upwind - I don't mean nail biting speed - just what I was talking about in this thread
    http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...t=39544&page=3

    With the boat I have drawn attention to there not the width and lightness. That's where the speed comes from. Cruising Multis designed to standard trailer widths like the venerable Jarcat can be quite good inshore cruisers (rivers and lakes) or opportunistic ocean cruisers (picking a good day to be out there) but don't have the seakeeping (safety) or speed of their wider bretheren which can handle a much wider range of sea conditions.

    Multis live or die on their performance (IMHO) but another advantage is that non sailors feel very secure as they don't heel.

    MIK

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Tyrendarra Vic.
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    MIK Darren posted the site on the couta thread , its http://www.fhboats.com.au .
    I think you might find it interesting , I'm sure we would like to hear your thoughts anyway.
    Rob J.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Daylesford, Victoria
    Posts
    402

    Default ...and another link form Darren

    Hi Rob,

    I can't comment on the performance of the 880, but if you're thinking of building one here's someone's album of doing that...

    http://www.geocities.com/gold4cliff/

    Just the sort of project to launch into after completing a PDR
    A google search will turn up a few more sites.

    I'm sure FH could make a sensational one...for a price. Consider that "Rosita" was priced at over $100K (from memory) and compare that to building something the size of an 880 to that standard. :eek:

    One day...

    Darren

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Tyrendarra Vic.
    Posts
    1,166

    Default

    Thanks Darren !.
    I'd think this boat might be a while off , for me !.
    If I get the PDR finished in time to get it to Goolwa I hope to come home with the stuff for a GIS.
    And I'd like a sea kayak too .
    Then , we will see .
    Rob J.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia and France
    Posts
    8,175

    Default

    Mik's given me lots to comment on!
    Quote Originally Posted by Boatmik View Post
    Generally multis vary from a fair bit to a lot more building compared to a similar monohull.
    I think there is a missing word here: "Length" - compared to a similar "length" monohull. A fairer comparison in cruising terms would be to compare "volume", and even then it would be an exceptional racing monohull which could even come close to matching a cruising multihull in performance.
    Under 30ft they struggle to have similar interior space to a mono of similar length (at least not without going really high with the superstructure).
    I sympathise, but strongly disagree with this statement. The accomodation may not be in the same form but for example, the Kelsall cat referred to in Mik's post would have substantially more accomodation than a monohull of similar length.

    My own 30 footer had standing headroom in the hulls, two queens sized berths, two "cozy" doubles, a full galley with nearly two metres of bench space, a full shower/head area, dinette to seat five, etc etc (and no bridgedeck).

    Below about 25 feet, the manner in which the volume is dispersed becomes more acute, but at that size, monohulls with matching performance also come with a correspondingly diminished interior!

    Over 30ft accomodation can be quite good - but at a big surface area penalty (read "labour")
    Again, think "volume" not length.

    Length for length a well designed modern multi will always be faster than a mono on ALL points of sail, but to achieve that in the smaller sizes the owner (and builder) will have to understand that weight is his enemy!

    No matter what you may have read in the magazines, I have never seen a cat with short, fixed keels match an identical boat with dagger boards to windward. Some do perform well, but the combination of "cruising sailor" large payload, and fixed keels never quite seems to succeed!
    And before anyone pipes up and says "cruising sailors never sail upwind" it is a load of crapiata - the wind is always on the nose when you have to get somewhere to meet a deadline - or as soon as someone says "that direction is always a downwind ride at this time of year".
    Couldn't agree more.
    I tend toward monohulls (yes I am biased) but if I was building a cruising boat I would consider a multi (even with all the extra work) because of the ease and fun of covering distances - but I would make sure it performed REALLY well particularly upwind - I don't mean nail biting speed - just what I was talking about in this thread
    http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...t=39544&page=3 <snip>....
    Multis live or die on their performance (IMHO) but another advantage is that non sailors feel very secure as they don't heel.
    I have sailed a few tens of thousands of miles in multis, racing and cruising, and would choose (within limits) even a poorly performing multi as a cruising vessel any day. The combination of shallow draft, stability at anchor, interior volume, deck space for lounging round, and believe it or not, SAFETY are the real reasons for me.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the speed and comfort while at sea, (and I have outsailed many a racing monohull to windward while racing in medium-sized bridgedeck cruising catamarans) but the ability to moor inside reefs or even just dry out in the lagoon at Percy, or park in the middle of Lake Wathumba on Frazer just leaves the alternatives for dead!

    I love sailing anything, but in the strictest performance stakes, there are only three kinds of boat tris, cats, and ........... dogs!

    As for the Waller 880, I've never sailed one, but it appears to be a conservative boat, I suspect if built well and light, and lightly loaded it would make a very attractive coastal cruiser for a couple.

    From my experience, for the same budget I would prefer to build a larger, light "tube" boat (perhaps with a light bridgedeck structure)... think of other ways you could rearrange the hulls for the same surface area!

    Cheers, (in a rare moment of disagreement with Mik!)

    P

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Posts
    84

    Default

    I quoted building a waller 10(lenthened 880 if I remember correct) for a chap last year. $40,000 materials (red cedar strip planked core/epoxy sheathed/ply topsides) [not my choice of construction - just what they specified]

    Cats generally require more building time than a monohull, especially if they have chamferboards as this particular 10m version. However I met a fellow on sunshine coast who does CNC routing for Waller, so all the mould frames must come precut to save lofting from offset tables. Apparently the plans are very detailed.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    65
    Posts
    8,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bitingmidge View Post
    Mik's given me lots to comment on!

    I think there is a missing word here: "Length" - compared to a similar "length" monohull. A fairer comparison in cruising terms would be to compare "volume", and even then it would be an exceptional racing monohull which could even come close to matching a cruising multihull in performance.
    I sympathise, but strongly disagree with this statement.
    Ha - though you would pipe up if I stuck my neck out!!! Which is great - because I haven't done a lot of miles in the beasties - but enough to know just how quick, efficient and pleasant they can be. I also have a fair idea of the construction - I've been involved in building in wood and have a reasonable idea of composite alternatives as you know (ie enough to bring in an expert!!!).

    Can I put forward some further points and ask for your comments?

    The point of comparison for building labour is surface area. And there is heaps more of that in a multi - particularly if it has bridgedeck accommodation. It is not length or volume though they have some small effect.

    The point of comparison with accommodation is volume as you suggest. With a couple of caveats.

    One is that in multis without bridgedeck accomodation (between the hulls) so the interior is split between two hulls - I agree the actual volume is considerably more than a mono of similar length but the feeling of volume is much less because you can only be in one hull at a time.

    This is not necessarily an impediment at all - one of the boats I would consider building (or use as a starting point for my own design) is the Kelsall in the other thread which only has accom in the hulls. Just because it keeps that surface area and labour down - and keep things nice and simple and light - and quick.

    The other caveat is shorter boats with bridgedeck accommodation - It can end up so high at the top and so close to the water at the bottom that it can seriously hamper performance and comfort. Another downside is that the bridgedeck can be too small for comfortable sitting and prevent comfortable movement from one hull to the other.

    My own 30 footer had standing headroom in the hulls, two queens sized berths, two "cozy" doubles, a full galley with nearly two metres of bench space, a full shower/head area, dinette to seat five, etc etc (and no bridgedeck).

    Below about 25 feet, the manner in which the volume is dispersed becomes more acute, but at that size, monohulls with matching performance also come with a correspondingly diminished interior!
    But boats with acceptable performance rather than extreme monos would have a much greater feeling of space.

    At 30ft my concerns about a bridgedeck start to be alleviated - the volume that it adds is quite nicely in line with the surface area (and building labour) and the boat starts to be long enough to deal with the extra weight of the bridgedeck structure without going to "exotic" construction.

    To go smaller than 30 as with the Waller and some of the smaller bridgedeck Kelsalls results in the weight of the hull structure remaining almost the same as a 30 ft boat despite having less length to carry the weight. Why not go a bit longer for the same cost and getting the length to allow the greater weight and increase general performance?

    I am surprised at the displacement of the Waller which is around 3 tonnes many monohulls of the same length would be lighter and have lead keels to pump the weight up.

    For other readers - displacement is a bit of a moveable feast. It will include hull weight and fixed gear but also may or may not include the contents of tankage (fuel and water), sails, people, allowances for safety gear, allowances for cooking gear, clothes etc.

    It would be interesting to hear from Mr Waller on the numbers - if it includes all the above (which it might reading between the lines of his text) it might be within the normal range for cruising multis with reasonable performance. Or it may have been designed to fit the requirements of a particular client.

    Midge? How much was your 30 footer hull structure and her normal sailing displacement? How does it compare with the Waller? What was the weight of standard glass boat similar to yours rather than the light Kevlar you used?

    Length for length a well designed modern multi will always be faster than a mono on ALL points of sail, but to achieve that in the smaller sizes the owner (and builder) will have to understand that weight is his enemy!
    Yep - but I'd like to emphasise the weight aspect as well - it is critically critical.

    No matter what you may have read in the magazines, I have never seen a cat with short, fixed keels match an identical boat with dagger boards to windward.
    I was hoping you would make this point. That's been my observation too - the cats without centreboards I've sailed have felt sluggish and been sluggish upwind compared to the ones with 'em.

    Can you talk a bit about the practicalities of sailing in shallow areas with Piggy (the 30ftr) and others? How do you avoid hitting things, what happens if you do.

    I don't think I would ever consider a short fixed keel multi not only from a performance view but it means the boat is a good foot and a half to two feet deeper or more - reducing the shallow draft advantages.

    I have sailed a few tens of thousands of miles in multis, racing and cruising, and would choose (within limits) even a poorly performing multi as a cruising vessel any day. The combination of shallow draft, stability at anchor, interior volume, deck space for lounging round, and believe it or not, SAFETY are the real reasons for me.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the speed and comfort while at sea, but the ability to moor inside reefs just leaves the alternatives for dead!
    I'd put these two paragraphs together. If the multi does not equal the upwind performance of a reasonable upwind performing monohull then it is a failure as a design. The performance should in fact be somewhat better, but equal is acceptable.

    If
    poorly performing
    has this as a bottom limit I can but agree!

    There are monos with shallow draft but there are few that are elegant mixes of sailing performance and shallow draft.

    I love sailing anything, but in the strictest performance stakes, there are only three kinds of boat tris, cats, and ........... dogs!
    So can I be really frank? The following are my personal feelings and biases. Any of the readers' may be different from mine.

    My feeling - personal feeling - is that I would pretty well always choose a mono for daysailing or river and lake cruising - just that reaction as fast as thought thing that I like. Wanna Tack - Tack - Going again on the new tack at same speed within seconds. Gybe - can just about do it by moving my weight in the cockpit plus a bit of rudder - damn nice. Modern multis are pretty good in the tacking stakes compared to their early bretheren but they still don't tack or handle like a mono. They go from being quick and lively to just losing that feel through the tack whereas a mono has a smooth transition. But that is a personal thing.

    Another area where multis still fall down is if you want to make them trailerable. Part of the performance improvement of modern boats has been a large increase in beam over the earlier generation boats - largely because of much improved hullshapes that resist nosediving or the negative repercussions of it - so boats have been able to get wider without getting longer.

    There are lots of ingenious ways of folding and unfolding the beasties or assembling and disassembling - but it all just adds hassle. Just as a perspective - I wouldn't have a trailer sailer unless it had a freestanding rig and tabernacles like the Norwalk Island Sharpies. You hit the beach, pull the masts up in about 5 minutes and drop the boat in. Stayed masts, headsails or folding down hulls or extending crossbeams are all pretty awful to me and obstruct the sailing process.

    If you can keep the boat in one piece that problem disappears completely or if you only have to assemble or disassemble occasionally then it becomes a great bonus because you can take the boat up to the Whitsundays or Gippsland lakes or whatever. But as a process for every time you go sailing - count me out.

    The third area is that I really dislike the labour of building boats and do everything I can to eliminate parts. Multis still require so much building compared to a mono that I just can't wrap my head around it all. With monos you only have to build one hull and one interior. I keep getting the feeling that I'd like to try my hand at a modern light ply multi using my style of simplified construction ...

    Where I am biased TOWARD multis is with regard to ocean cruising - I think I would find it hard to consider anything else - I'm right in line with Biting Midge. For performance and safety in a small to medium sized package nothing can beat them. You can halve the time it takes to get between Sydney and Brisbane (OK maybe only cut it by a third if the winds are against you)

    The other place is offshore racing - one blast with Midge showed me what fun it is - I've always found racing monohulls offshore deadly dreary - but on a multi it's a hoot - feels very much like a round the buoys race with a real openness in strategy and tactics.

    From my experience, for the same budget I would prefer to build a larger, light "tube" boat (perhaps with a light bridgedeck structure)... think of other ways you could rearrange the hulls for the same surface area!
    My thoughts too.

    MIK

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Tyrendarra Vic.
    Posts
    1,166

    Default Edercation !

    So what I'm getting out of this , is before making a decision on a cruising boat , get plenty of experience in multihulls , to make an informed decision !.
    Thanks boys !.
    Rob J.

Similar Threads

  1. Latest Reputation revieved
    By aabb in forum FORUMS INFO, HELP, DISCUSSION & FEEDBACK
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 13th July 2005, 05:05 PM
  2. Staining MDF ??????
    By coggy in forum FINISHING
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 29th November 2003, 03:37 PM
  3. How To Bathe A Cat
    By DavidG in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14th April 2003, 10:31 PM
  4. Science of Cats & Buttered Bread
    By Eastie in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 9th November 2002, 11:31 AM
  5. No grasshopper but a cat
    By AlexS in forum WOODIES JOKES
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th September 2000, 08:05 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •