Talk:Multihull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Multihull#Fundamental departure in concept needs different approach 2 Needs a home 3 Needs much more on all types of Multihulls 4 A lot of Opinion and unsupported POV 5 Wrong Tone

[edit] Multihull#Fundamental departure in concept needs different approach

Although much improved from before, a three months later self-review indicates that this section needs either expansion or a re-think, with possibly a different approach, to get the same points across. At the moment, it feels either incomplete or only teaches the concept to those that already know it.

--Slamlander (talk) 02:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a home

Western nautical traditions were built around moving large quantities of goods. Naturally, boats capable of carrying large payloads developed over the centuries, a job best handled by deep, wide hulls. On the far side of the Earth, across the southern Pacific, a different type of seafaring evolved. Cargos were very light - boats carried a few passengers and a minimal amount of gear. These sailors developed boats that were light and fast -- long thin hulls lashed together in numerous ways to achieve the stability needed to carry poweful sails. When recreational boating grew popular in the West, not surprisingly traditional boat forms were adapted to the use. Small and large, typical sailboats can trace their heritage back to fishing and cargo boats. The faster types might be derived from types such as pilot boats - themselves an evolution of western marine traditions. Racing rules through the late 19th and 20th centuries were almost universally based on the notion that a sailboat has one hull, all but preventing experimentation and development of multihull types.

In the past 40 years, the thinking has changed dramatically. Early pioneers such as James Wharram and Arthur Piver were inspired by the South Pacific multihulls and spent their lives (Wharram is still at it) adapting these types to the needs of modern recreational sailing. A sail on a modern multihull designed for cruising is a revelation to anyone who has spent time on a typical cruising monohull. The multihull hardly heels at all, the motion is much more agreeable to most, they stay upright and carry sail when the monohull is heeling hard and must reduce canvas, and they are just plain fast. But remarkable to anyone new to the type - at typical cruising speeds these boats don't feel that fast. The crew doesn't have to brace themselves and hang on, and they don't find themselves dodging sheets of water thrown up over the bows.

In racing, incredible speeds have been achieved by huge catamarans and trimarans. The round-the-world sailing record is currently held by Orange II, a catamaran that completed the journey in 50 days,16 hours, 20 minutes and 4 seconds at an average speed of 22. 20 knots. The course covered 21,600 miles. These are sustained speeds thought impossible for a sailboat a generation ago.

Monohulls will continue to excel at moving cargo, but to move people quickly and comfortably, multihulls have more than proven to have considerable advantages.

This is a good bit and I'm trying to find a place for it. I need the original author though.

BTW, I don't agree that monohulls will continue to excell at moving cargo. Their ballast makes them inefficient.

Slamlander (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs much more on all types of Multihulls

This article is somewhat "small racing cat" biased. Nw that's ok since dubtless the early editors had that as experience, but surely it needs expansin into multihull commercial craft?

It's also rather light on trimarans.

Is a "Quadramaran" a raft? (tngue in cheek!)

Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This page clearly has some deficiencies. For example, it is internally self-contradictory. At the beginning it says that a multihull is a kind of sailing boat. Later, it mentions power multihulls. There are also some more debatable issues, such as the relative merits of monohulls and multihulls, and especially the relative space given to these two topics. Yet there's no indication here of any kind of discussion. Is/are there an/some active maintainer(s) of the page? Is discussion welcome?

Thanks, Dave Howorth. 2006-10-15

Definitely way too narrow in scope. After all, semi submersible drill rigs clearly are multi-hulled ships and the article correctly opens by defining multi hulls as being either ships or boats. The discussion on pro's & con's is good but needs to be supported by references instead of popular opinions. It also needs to embrace the notion of all types, not just sailing craft.

For example "It is a common concern that in the open ocean, multihull craft are unsafe in a heavy storm." This is certainly true of small sailing craft but completely the opposite is true for a semi-submersible or other SWATH vessels.

Possibly the bulk of this article could be moved under a Recreational Variants sub-heading with a seperate Commercial Variants heading? Jmvolc (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the scope critique. Working on it - Slamlander (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A lot of Opinion and unsupported POV

Some writers hear have gotten into "selling" the multihull concept as an alterantive to monohull. An objective in Wikipedia is to present a nuetral POV (point of view).

Kevin Murray 23:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin: I'm still not done but would cast a sailor's eye view at what's there now? Slamlander (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Tone

This is an interesting subject, and I'm glad someone's taken the time to explain it to laypeople, but:" To add buoyancy, you simply have to hollow out the logs, at no sacrifice in stability. However, that is a lot of work and it has other problems with increased drag and weight. Europeans also went through the raft stage. ... Back to our two logs, separating them by a pair of sticks, called Akas, we actually increase the stability manifold with no increase in weight and with a lot less overall work (no rocks to haul and no more trees to cut)." ..sounds like the sort of conversation I'm occasionally lucky to have with an educated stranger over a beer or two. Surely there's some sort of proscription against addressing readers directly, and so colloquially?--Unmake (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Were there to be such a proscription; I would stop writing. Such proscriptions are fine for technical manuals however, completely miss the point in communicating concepts to a general audience.

--Slamlander (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)