sherwindu wrote:
Gee, do I have to spell everything out! My comment was directed to the concept
that boats are unsinkable, period. They said the Titanic could never sink. Get
the
analogy? I guess not.

There is a bit of a difference - an analysis after the fact, plus the
obvious empirical evidence, shows that the claims of "unsinkable" for
the Titanic were unfounded. Although not common, there is plenty of
evidence that flipped cats don't sink. And there is plenty of
evidence that cats have survived structural damage that would sink a
monohull in minutes.


I personally would rather take my chances on a boat that most likely will go
back
to an upright position where I have a chance of salvaging enough rigging to
continue sailing.

You're making a huge assumption that the boat is still floating.

We are slaves to our EPIRB's to get us out of trouble. Your first thought
when in trouble at sea is how can I recover a bad situation, not make a grab for
the
EPIRB. Of course, in the case of an upsidedown multihull, they didn't have much
of a choice.

Actually, anyone who had stayed below quite probably would be still be
alive, whereas anyone who was on deck would have had a serious problem
even on a monohull.




Sherwin D.

Jeff wrote:

sherwindu wrote:
Yeah, that's what they said about the Titanic.

You're using the Titanic as an example of why monohulls are safer than
multis? That's a pretty convincing argument.