Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article 2005101717252777923%sailingdog@gmailignorethiscom ,
dan wrote: That's the reason I"ve mentioned the Telstar and the Dragonfly trimarans. These two are more geared for cruising than are the Corsairs, which really appear to be racing oriented. Why do you think that they're a bit more safe than a monohull of comparable capacity? Besides being immune from sinking? More stable, which means easier on the crew for long passages.. less chance of injury for the same reason. Of course, as Doug points out, no boat or design is perfect. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why do you think that they're a bit more safe than a monohull of
comparable capacity? Jonathan Ganz wrote: Besides being immune from sinking? More stable, which means easier on the crew for long passages.. less chance of injury for the same reason. Agreed, and less chance of stuff breaking as it falls to the low side. I dunno if they're truly "easier on the crew" since the motion is very bouncy & jerky in any kind of wave action. I guess if you love that kind of boat and sail them all the time, you get used to the motion. The main reason I'd consider them safer is the speed- not for "running away from storms" which is malarkey, but rather because they need a smaller & thus more easily predictable & more accurately judged weather window for any given hop. Dan, I have no experience with the Dragonfly or Telstar other than ogling them at boat shows. I can say that I think the Dragonfly is very well built, and that neither that nor the Telstar is significantly roomier than the Corsair series. Of course, as Doug points out, no boat or design is perfect. Yes there is, but I'm not telling which one ![]() DSK |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
DSK wrote: Why do you think that they're a bit more safe than a monohull of comparable capacity? Jonathan Ganz wrote: Besides being immune from sinking? More stable, which means easier on the crew for long passages.. less chance of injury for the same reason. Agreed, and less chance of stuff breaking as it falls to the low side. I dunno if they're truly "easier on the crew" since the motion is very bouncy & jerky in any kind of wave action. I guess if you love that kind of boat and sail them all the time, you get used to the motion. That's certainly an issue... the motion is different, and it needs some getting used to. The main reason I'd consider them safer is the speed- not for "running away from storms" which is malarkey, but rather because they need a smaller & thus more easily predictable & more accurately judged weather window for any given hop. That is malarkey, but a smaller window needed is sort of like running away in that you might be able to squeak through when I mono wouldn't be able to make it. I wouldn't want to bet my life on that, however. I don't think it's a good idea to plan on a shorter journey until you're really familiar with your boat. Of course, as Doug points out, no boat or design is perfect. Yes there is, but I'm not telling which one ![]() Ah... come on Doug! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |