One modification I made that I think will improve the seaworthiness of the Telstar 28 is the addition of a bridgedeck. Not only does this reduce the volume of water that can fill the cockpit of the boat by about 300 lbs, by taking up almost five cubic feet in size from the cockpit volume—it also greatly reduces the risk of downflooding into the cabin from the cockpit.

I designed and installed the cockpit bridgedeck following the last sail of last season, where I had about 30 gallons of water down below because I forgot to leave in the bottom drop board. I installed the bridgedeck as one of my spring projects.

I have really enjoyed the blog. Your research parallels my own. I would love to see a slightly bigger version of the Telstar 28 (T2) since I plan on taking the multihull I eventually purchase extensively out on the open ocean. I am a bit concerned how this boat would hold up under really big waves such as those we encounter in the Pacific Ocean out here in NorCal. (I don’t want to argue about whose waves are bigger, Atlantic or Pacific. Yet I know for a fact they hold the big wave surfing competitions out here at Jaws, Mavericks or Todos Santos for a reason!)

I would hate to run into those on a trans-pac voyage in a slightly undersized boat like the T2.

Also, one other source you should consider reading is the excellent book, “Storm Tactics Handbook,” by Lin and Larry Pardey. While much of the book applies to keel hulled boats, you might change your mind about getting a Jordan Series drogue in favor of the para-anchor type described in the book. They also explain the vastly superior method of “heaving to” in great detail promoting this often underused technique as the ultimate heavy weather tactic. This is in contrast to running off under partial sails or bare poles, a common heavy weather technique which often leads to disaster. Their concern is that the Jordan drogue does not offer a wide enough slick to dissipate extremely big waves when heaving to. In other discussion boards I have observed that “heaving to” may not work as well with multihull sailboats because they have less drag. But using a larger sized para-anchor (18′) for a multihull will in effect create the same drag and disturbance necessary to create the wave dissipating slick. I know if I ever encounter really big waves on one of my future passages I will most certainly deploy some form of “heave to/para-anchor” technique no matter what boat I am sailing, be it single or multi hull.

Of course we should be able to sail away from most of these situations in our super-fast multihulls, but you never know. Certainly having a plan of what to do if really big waves and wind suddenly hit while out at sea on a long voyage are useful skills and knowledge.

Eric

No, Telstars do not have an escape hatch built in the bottom. I haven’t spoken with Will or Tony regarding doing bluewater passages on the Telstar specifically, but believe that with the modifications I’ve made to the Pretty Gee, it shouldn’t be much of an issue. If a Corsair 28 is capable of crossing oceans, I see no reason a Telstar 28 would not be able to do it as well, if not in more comfort.

regards,

John

As for bluewater passages, I don’t believe a bigger boat is necessarily safer. The older Telstar 26 has made several Atlantic crossings as well as done quite well in the Round the Island race in Great Britain. Given that the North Sea is quite nasty at times, I don’t see that there should be any problems in a Telstar 28 with regards to a bluewater passage. Much of the information from the Fastnet race is only applicable to monohulls.

One other point is that larger boats tend to have larger rigs, and are therefore much more difficult to handle, especially if there is an equipment problem. Most single-handers I’ve conversed with have said that size is not generally an advantage. The rig on a 35′ multihull is often greater than that of a comparably size monohull.

For example, the Corsair F36 has a main with an area of 516 sq. ft, versus a 315 sq. ft. mainsail on the Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37. If you have equipment problems, the 516 sq. ft. main is significantly heavier and harder to handle, reef, stow than the 315 sq. ft. sail. And I’m pretty sure that I’ll be able to leave a Sun Odyssey 37 in my wake in the Pretty Gee.

The one piece of gear I am getting was developed as a result of the Fastnet disaster. It is a Jordan series drogue. I believe that this is really the one piece of safety gear that will make any bluewater passages very safe, regardless of the weather conditions. You can read about it at jordanseriesdrogue.com. I have written designer, Don Jordan, and asked him about sizing such a drogue for a Telstar.

The real problem I found with the Dragonflys, aside from their somewhat prohibitive price, is that they will tend to cost a lot more in the long run. Most marinas charge by the length of the boat, and the Dragonflys are considerably longer when the amas are retracted. Also, from what I have found in my researching the Dragonflys, they are not exceptionally stable with the amas folded back, as it affects their stability and ability to steer well…the folded amas effectively move the rudder from the aft of the boat to about a quarter of the way in.

As for regenerative energy, I don’t see a real need for it. I have two 80W solar panels sitting here, waiting for to be put on the Pretty Gee, and I believe they should be able to handle most of the energy requirements I will have. The problem with an electric propulsion system is the high inefficiencies in the system as well as the much increased weight of a battery bank sufficient to handle the load requirements. I don’t actually see myself using the outboard any great amount, as the Telstar has fairly decent light air performance, given the right sail inventory.

If I do eventually cross an ocean, I think a larger boat will be safer. Do you disagree? There is some evidence (for instance statistics from the disastrous Fastnet race) suggesting that a boat under 35-40′ will do much worse under open-ocean severe storm conditions, freak waves etc. There are no ocean-capable, truly trailerable larger boats — I wish someone would build one.
* The C36 is the largest trailerable (as opposed to demountable) tri. However, Ian Farrier himself says Corsair 36 aka-to-hull fittings are not safe and have failed (he didn’t design this boat and is no longer affiliated with Corsair though they sell his designs).
* Farrier F-39 is a great design but is a demountable not a true trailer. Not sure if any have been built but looks like a fine design.
* Same for the Dragonfly 1200 which is in my opinion the most beautiful and well-fitted folding trimaran I’ve found on the market. But she really folds just for docking, not for trailering. I LOVE the attention to detail on the Dragonflys. They are very expensive — probably a combination of high quality and the exchange rate.

So I’m leaning toward a Telstar 28 near-term (2-10 years) for coastal cruising, then a Dragonfly 1200 (*maybe* an F39 but the interior is inferior) for my Pacific voyage/circumnavigation after I get rich and retire early :^D Many would prefer a catamaran for the greater comfort but I think the performance advantages plus cheaper docking make a good case for a blue-ocean folding tri.

Re engines: I’m into alternative energy. Have you ever looked into the Solomon Technologies offerings? Not sure they’d scale down to Telstar 28 level but the possibility of having oceangoing “regenerative sailing” that can charge batteries while sailing and let you power with no internal combustion engine are very tempting:
http://www.solomontechnologies.com/m_m.htm