are monohulls just overbuilt?
I've been looking at alot of multihull designs, and comparing them to monohulls. Though i now own a multi, i have sailed on monos and realize they have their advantages as well. I dont want to get into the multi vs monohull debate, that's been done to death. But i have noticed some interesting things comparing designs.
Generally, multihulls need to be built as light as possible to realize their potential. Therefore, despite hitting high speeds and stresses, and despite having long narrow hull forms that dont lend to strength and stiffness, they are built extremely light. A thirty foot trimaran can be built of 1/4 inch ply in some instances. Even putting aside the extremes, a similar displacement monohull nearly always has much thicker scantlings than a multi. This is true even in the case of unballasted, or lightly ballasted, monohulls.
Is this necessary? Isn't a wide hull form theoretically stronger than a narrow one? Shouldn't it require less, not heavier, scantlings? Are monohulls just built heavier than is necessary, because they suffer less from being heavy?
“The difference between an adventurer and anybody else is that the youthful embrace of discovery, of self or of the world, is not muted by the responsibilities or the safety-catches of maturity.” Jonathan Borgais