saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:27:46 -0400, "mmc" wrote:

saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.

Wish I'd seen that. I'm thinking more and more that I'd go for a tri
over a Mac 26. Have to get in shape though. There's another tri
that's a little slower than the Farriers but has other advantages.
Can't remember the brand now.
But unless I get off my ass and start exercising, it'll be a Carolina
Skiff. If I can get over the gunnels without too much huffing and
puffing.

--Vic

On Oct 24, 5:49*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:27:46 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.

Wish I'd seen that. *I'm thinking more and more that I'd go for a tri
over a Mac 26. *Have to get in shape though. *There's another tri
that's a little slower than the Farriers but has other advantages.
Can't remember the brand now.
But unless I get off my ass and start exercising, it'll be a Carolina
Skiff. *If I can get over the gunnels without too much huffing and
puffing.

--Vic

There are Dragonfly trimarans that are supposed to be just a bit
slower than the Farriers. For just going fast, you might consider a
Windrider trimaran.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:52:54 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

On Oct 24, 5:49Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:27:46 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.

Wish I'd seen that. Â*I'm thinking more and more that I'd go for a tri
over a Mac 26. Â*Have to get in shape though. Â*There's another tri
that's a little slower than the Farriers but has other advantages.
Can't remember the brand now.
But unless I get off my ass and start exercising, it'll be a Carolina
Skiff. Â*If I can get over the gunnels without too much huffing and
puffing.

--Vic

There are Dragonfly trimarans that are supposed to be just a bit
slower than the Farriers. For just going fast, you might consider a
Windrider trimaran.

I'll have to check out the Dragonfly.
The one I couldn't remember is the Telstar 28.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxRc8...eature=related
I like it.

--Vic

On Oct 24, 6:52*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Oct 24, 5:49*pm, Vic Smith wrote:



On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:27:46 -0400, "mmc" wrote:
saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.

Wish I'd seen that. *I'm thinking more and more that I'd go for a tri
over a Mac 26. *Have to get in shape though. *There's another tri
that's a little slower than the Farriers but has other advantages.
Can't remember the brand now.
But unless I get off my ass and start exercising, it'll be a Carolina
Skiff. *If I can get over the gunnels without too much huffing and
puffing.

--Vic

There are Dragonfly trimarans that are supposed to be just a bit
slower than the Farriers. *For just going fast, you might consider a
Windrider trimaran.

Another consideration for trimarans is room below. An F27 has about
as much living space below as a Catalina 22 monohull. An F31 Farrier
has about much room as an Oday 25 below and my 28' S2 monohull has
much more room. However, the tris are trailerable and fast.
Before I built my Tolman Skiff, I was serious about building a 32' Tri
and considered both the Farrier and Kurt Hughes designs. Both have
kits to install the folding structure but Kurt Hughes seemed to
suggest what he called "demountable" amas. These do not fold but are
carried above the main hull on the trailer and are attached to the
support structure at the marina and it was supposed to be fairly easy
but i do not remember the drill.
One reason the trailer tris are so small inside is because they are
made to be less than 8' 6" wide for legal trailering. Both Hughes and
Farrier said their boats can be built wider (9' 8") giving much more
room but this would require a special oversize trailer permit. I
checked into this and you would have to buy such a permit for every
state you entered but it is good for a year in FL. The wider version
is not available as a production boat.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:



Another consideration for trimarans is room below. An F27 has about
as much living space below as a Catalina 22 monohull. An F31 Farrier
has about much room as an Oday 25 below and my 28' S2 monohull has
much more room. However, the tris are trailerable and fast.
Before I built my Tolman Skiff, I was serious about building a 32' Tri
and considered both the Farrier and Kurt Hughes designs. Both have
kits to install the folding structure but Kurt Hughes seemed to
suggest what he called "demountable" amas. These do not fold but are
carried above the main hull on the trailer and are attached to the
support structure at the marina and it was supposed to be fairly easy
but i do not remember the drill.
One reason the trailer tris are so small inside is because they are
made to be less than 8' 6" wide for legal trailering. Both Hughes and
Farrier said their boats can be built wider (9' 8") giving much more
room but this would require a special oversize trailer permit. I
checked into this and you would have to buy such a permit for every
state you entered but it is good for a year in FL. The wider version
is not available as a production boat.

Good info. I know the tris are light on below deck space, but don't
plan to cruise much beyond a few days.
What I like about them is speed under sail, seakeeping ability, and
fishing platform.
If I end up on the gulf, going 20-30 miles offshore for grouper could
be more safely done in the tri than in an open boat.
And with a lot less gas!

--Vic

On 10/24/09 7:46 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:



Another consideration for trimarans is room below. An F27 has about
as much living space below as a Catalina 22 monohull. An F31 Farrier
has about much room as an Oday 25 below and my 28' S2 monohull has
much more room. However, the tris are trailerable and fast.
Before I built my Tolman Skiff, I was serious about building a 32' Tri
and considered both the Farrier and Kurt Hughes designs. Both have
kits to install the folding structure but Kurt Hughes seemed to
suggest what he called "demountable" amas. These do not fold but are
carried above the main hull on the trailer and are attached to the
support structure at the marina and it was supposed to be fairly easy
but i do not remember the drill.
One reason the trailer tris are so small inside is because they are
made to be less than 8' 6" wide for legal trailering. Both Hughes and
Farrier said their boats can be built wider (9' 8") giving much more
room but this would require a special oversize trailer permit. I
checked into this and you would have to buy such a permit for every
state you entered but it is good for a year in FL. The wider version
is not available as a production boat.

Good info. I know the tris are light on below deck space, but don't
plan to cruise much beyond a few days.
What I like about them is speed under sail, seakeeping ability, and
fishing platform.
If I end up on the gulf, going 20-30 miles offshore for grouper could
be more safely done in the tri than in an open boat.
And with a lot less gas!

--Vic


Uh...

I'd dispute that.

Decently powered monohulls properly designed for offshore use tend to go
where you point them, e.g., in a straight line towards shore if
necessary. Sailboats, all sailboats, are much more dependent upon the
vagaries of nature.

If I am going fishing 20-30 miles offshore and my choices were a 27'
deep vee or power cat, or a sailboat...well...I'd hop on the powerboat,
knowing my chances of outrunning an incoming storm were far greater with
a boat that can do 30 knots and head straight in.

On Oct 24, 7:55*pm, H the K wrote:
On 10/24/09 7:46 PM, Vic Smith wrote:



On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
*wrote:

Another consideration for trimarans is room below. *An F27 has about
as much living space below as a Catalina 22 monohull. *An F31 Farrier
has about much room as an Oday 25 below and my 28' S2 monohull has
much more room. *However, the tris are trailerable and fast.
Before I built my Tolman Skiff, I was serious about building a 32' Tri
and considered both the Farrier and Kurt Hughes designs. *Both have
kits to install the folding structure but Kurt Hughes seemed to
suggest what he called "demountable" amas. *These do not fold but are
carried above the main hull on the trailer and are attached to the
support structure at the marina and it was supposed to be fairly easy
but i do not remember the drill.
One reason the trailer tris are so small inside is because they are
made to be less than 8' 6" wide for legal trailering. *Both Hughes and
Farrier said their boats can be built wider (9' 8") giving much more
room but this would require a special oversize trailer permit. *I
checked into this and you would have to buy such a permit for every
state you entered but it is good for a year in FL. *The wider version
is not available as a production boat.

Good info. *I know the tris are light on below deck space, but don't
plan to cruise much beyond a few days.
What I like about them is speed under sail, seakeeping ability, and
fishing platform.
If I end up on the gulf, going 20-30 miles offshore for grouper could
be more safely done in the tri than in an open boat.
And with a lot less gas!

--Vic

Uh...

I'd dispute that.

Decently powered monohulls properly designed for offshore use tend to go
where you point them, e.g., in a straight line towards shore if
necessary. Sailboats, all sailboats, are much more dependent upon the
vagaries of nature.

If I am going fishing 20-30 miles offshore and my choices were a 27'
deep vee or power cat, or a sailboat...well...I'd hop on the powerboat,
knowing my chances of outrunning an incoming storm were far greater with
a boat that can do 30 knots and head straight in.

I have ridden on F31 tris twice and although they are truly fast,
they also seemed wet in any chop with the amas throwing spray up onto
us. Like most sailboats, they are subject to the vagaries of weather
although the normal 15 hp outboard on an F31 will push it at 10 kts.
How would it handle in nasty conditions? I dunno although if weather
was already bad, I'd rather be on my monohull sailboat with its 2500
lbs of ballast. Once the weather is bad, the tri isn't going to go
any faster than a monohull downwind and not much faster into the waves
either.
HArry is right that the powerboat can outrun the nasty but the Tri
should also be able to outrun it. The monohull sailboat (except the
Mac26, a special case) cannot outrun the nasty weather and is built to
take it. A major advantage of a tri is the beachability where they
can be taken right up to a beach or into extremely shallow water where
you have safety.
I believe that if you integrate safety over the entire use of a
sailboat, you would actually find that a trimaran with its ability to
outrun weather and go into shallow water is probably safer than a
displacement hull sailboat. Likewise, if a Mac 26 is used properly
(it is not an offshore boat) it is also safer than a monohull sailboat
AND safer than a powerboat.
However, neither the F27 nor the F31 strike me as a good fishing
platform. Sailing is work and the faster you go the more work it is.
Can you really enjoy fishing and tending sails at the same time? Like
most sailboats, the cockpits of the Farrier Tris are small for good
offshore ability making it difficult to fish from.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:55:02 -0400, H the K
wrote:



Decently powered monohulls properly designed for offshore use tend to go
where you point them, e.g., in a straight line towards shore if
necessary. Sailboats, all sailboats, are much more dependent upon the
vagaries of nature.

If I am going fishing 20-30 miles offshore and my choices were a 27'
deep vee or power cat, or a sailboat...well...I'd hop on the powerboat,
knowing my chances of outrunning an incoming storm were far greater with
a boat that can do 30 knots and head straight in.


Nah, the tri just quickly floats in on the pressure wave in front of
the storm (-:
But aside from running from weather, and fishing in uncomfortable
conditions you probably don't want to fish in, these tris are better
sea boats than any open boat. They just plain don't sink.
A 24' DLX Carolina Skiff would do for going out there only when you're
pretty sure seas will stay fairly flat. Pretty limiting.
These Telstars easily handle 8 foot seas if required.
I know which boat I'd rather be aboard should I get caught in that.
And they provide a lot of area to fish on if it's not too bumpy.
BTW, the Telstar is supposed to power at 15 knots with a 40hp OB.
Don't think I'd want to weight it down with one though.
Last thing I want is a gas-guzzling 27' power boat.
Not in my cards for many reasons.

--Vic

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:27:46 -0400, "mmc" wrote:

saw one those folding trimarans this morning on the Indian River near the
192 causeway, think it was a F-27.
There was barely enough wind to ripple the water but those things are so
light the boat was making probably 4-5 kts. He (or she) was definitely going
faster than the wind speed on a reach.


Where we were fishing for bass was just south of Cocoa, up from Lake
Poinsett.