>>2299235Then explain why nobody is building a big catamaran to win the TJV.
>The third hull on these ocean racers is really mostly for storage and crew quarters.The middle hull doesn't add much weight and is far from just storage and crew quarters. What it does add is a bulkhead to put the mast on and another one to put a centerboard in. These structural advantages alone makes a trimaran about the same weight, if not lighter, than a catamaran of similar size. They also mean it's possible to build the vessel wider because you have central bulkheads supporting and reinforcing the crossbeams, and more width means more righting moment for a given weight which is absoutely key in high-latitude multihull racing. Making beams of that length with no supporting structure is extremely heavy relatively speaking.
>If you are not ocean racing a multimillion dollar boat, they are entirely pointless, as in the photo of a <30' one I replied to.Moving the goalposts, but I'll bite.
If going for a multihull footprint, a trimaran will outperform a catamaran most of the time due to the hull shapes, except maybe dead downwind but performance multis never sail dead downwind anyway.
Tris are also often considered more responsive and more fun to sail than cats because of the monohull-like feedback they provide through the helm.
Many trimarans can be folded which can provide significant savings on moorage fees compared to a catamaran as the folded tri can fit into a regular monohull-sized slip.
Trimarans are often wider than a catamaran for a given length, giving them an extra safety margin.
Monos, cats and tris all have their segment in the market and while I agree that monos do some things better and cats do others better, there are certain things trimarans do better as well and dismissing them as "objectively pointless" is completely wrong. Smaller trimarans make excellent., exhilarating daysailers or weekenders and big ones cruise the world just as well as cats and monos do.
