On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:14:06 -0400, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


http://www.2hulls.com/usedcatamaran-2007/Tantara.html

That might not be the same Tantara. The LOA on it is 38'. The articles on the wrecked boat state 46'.
When the ad was placed, that Tantara was in Puerto Rico, not in N. Wales, and finally, the ad states it's a
2003 model, but the BBC article states: "But the coastguard said even though it was an older model,
there was "no reason to suspect it would do what it did".

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:14:06 -0400, Wilbur Hubbard wrote:


http://www.2hulls.com/usedcatamaran-2007/Tantara.html

That might not be the same Tantara. The LOA on it is 38'. The
articles on the wrecked boat state 46'.
When the ad was placed, that Tantara was in Puerto Rico, not in N.
Wales, and finally, the ad states it's a
2003 model, but the BBC article states: "But the coastguard said even
though it was an older model,
there was "no reason to suspect it would do what it did".

It might not be the same one but Google doesn't return any other boat
with that name. It could be 46 feet if they counted appendages such as
davits, for example. A four-year-old boat could be called an 'older
model' but the Lagoon 38 style doesn't look old so you might be right. I
wonder if the Coast Guard ever saw it upright? I'm sure if it WAS a
Lagoon the manufacturer will do what it can to keep the news quiet. That
might be why news about it is almost non-existent.

I wonder if researching the documentation number would show anything?
Ah, it shows you might be right. There's a Lagoon 38 showing owned by
some guy in Kansas City:
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/cg...ssel_name_list scroll down.
Document issued April of this year and expires in 2008. Unless he sold
it to some guys in the UK???

Wilbur Hubbard

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:06:16 -0700, Joe
wrote:

Hey Goofball, I hear you're getting more than your share of rain...

One's summer is missing.. At least I live on a hill.

You are such a jackass, Neal. The pictures in no way resembles a
Lagoon 38, or any other cruising cat. The article specifically said
that "one of its crossbeams was loose." First of all, virtually no
cruising cat has more than the one crossbeam, its normally placed in
the bow to support the forestay. If it failed, the rig would promptly
come down, but that would release most of the forces on the hull.

Secondly, the pictures aren't of any Lagoon. In fact, the shape of
the hull is pretty clearly of a racing style cat. A racing boat, with
two independent hulls connected by several crossbeams, could have this
type of failure. But not a Lagoon or almost any other modern cruising
cat. There are ways they could fail, but splitting in half is not one
of them.

Also, the size was stated as 46 feet; very few cats have appendages
longer than a couple of feet. In particular, the Lagoon 38 davits
keep the dinghy tucked well inside the sterns, and it doesn't have bow
rollers.

Further, it was said to be worth "tens of thousands of pounds" which
is not close to the $280,000 price of the Lagoon. Plus it wasn't
insured, meaning that it was older, of marginal value, and possibly
couldn't pass a survey.

Once again, you've made a fool of yourself, demonstrating that you
have little, if any, knowledge of boats.





* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/9/2007 3:27 PM:

It might not be the same one but Google doesn't return any other boat
with that name. It could be 46 feet if they counted appendages such as
davits, for example. A four-year-old boat could be called an 'older
model' but the Lagoon 38 style doesn't look old so you might be right. I
wonder if the Coast Guard ever saw it upright? I'm sure if it WAS a
Lagoon the manufacturer will do what it can to keep the news quiet. That
might be why news about it is almost non-existent.

I wonder if researching the documentation number would show anything?
Ah, it shows you might be right. There's a Lagoon 38 showing owned by
some guy in Kansas City:
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/pls/webpls/cg...ssel_name_list scroll down.
Document issued April of this year and expires in 2008. Unless he sold
it to some guys in the UK???

Wilbur Hubbard

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
You are such a jackass, Wilbur. The pictures in no way resembles a
Lagoon 38, or any other cruising cat. The article specifically said
that "one of its crossbeams was loose." First of all, virtually no
cruising cat has more than the one crossbeam, its normally placed in
the bow to support the forestay. If it failed, the rig would promptly
come down, but that would release most of the forces on the hull.

Secondly, the pictures aren't of any Lagoon. In fact, the shape of
the hull is pretty clearly of a racing style cat. A racing boat, with
two independent hulls connected by several crossbeams, could have this
type of failure. But not a Lagoon or almost any other modern cruising
cat. There are ways they could fail, but splitting in half is not one
of them.

Also, the size was stated as 46 feet; very few cats have appendages
longer than a couple of feet. In particular, the Lagoon 38 davits
keep the dinghy tucked well inside the sterns, and it doesn't have bow
rollers.

Further, it was said to be worth "tens of thousands of pounds" which
is not close to the $280,000 price of the Lagoon. Plus it wasn't
insured, meaning that it was older, of marginal value, and possibly
couldn't pass a survey.

Once again, you've made a fool of yourself, demonstrating that you
have little, if any, knowledge of boats.



Seems to me you are the one who is fond of the COLREG rule that says
something about acting on scanty information being daft???

So why are you making assumptions and acting on scanty information in
this instance? Could it be because you're prejudiced and refuse to
believe catamarans are dangerous to go offshore in because you have one?
Refuse to believe they do break and do end up upside-down and do end up
washed up on beaches with the loss of all hands?

The story told about three grown men taking a two-week cruise. I doubt
three men are going to go on a two-week cruise on some glorified Hobie
Cat with two cross-beams and a hammock in between. Lose your bias and
smell the roses. It was a cruising cat and it fell apart. Believe it!

Wilbur Hubbard

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/9/2007 7:41 PM:
....

Once again, you've made a fool of yourself, demonstrating that you
have little, if any, knowledge of boats.


Seems to me you are the one who is fond of the COLREG rule that says
something about acting on scanty information being daft???

You're the one making unfounded assumptions.


So why are you making assumptions and acting on scanty information in
this instance? Could it be because you're prejudiced and refuse to
believe catamarans are dangerous to go offshore in because you have one?

And yet, their safety record is as good as monohulls. It would seem
that you're actually reflecting your terror of going offshore.

Refuse to believe they do break and do end up upside-down and do end up
washed up on beaches with the loss of all hands?

As opposed to disappearing without a trace?


The story told about three grown men taking a two-week cruise. I doubt
three men are going to go on a two-week cruise on some glorified Hobie
Cat with two cross-beams and a hammock in between.

What? Now you're denying the obvious by claiming such boats don't
exist. Actually, there are many of that type in Europe - they were
fairly common 20 to 30 years ago. Of course, since you know nothing
of boats your ignorance in this area is understandable.

Here's one that I've been on (OK, I leaned against it):
http://www.wingo.com/sailing/fossett/index.html

Fortunately, the modern cruising cat was developed so that there's a
safe alternative.

Lose your bias and
smell the roses. It was a cruising cat and it fell apart. Believe it!

Right - even though it had "crossbeams" and was a quarter the price of
a modern cat and was too old to insure. And remember, it was
already further offshore than you've ever been.

"Jeff" wrote in message ...

You are such a jackass, Neal.

You could have stopped right there, Jeff.

Max

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:33:17 +1000, OzOne wrote:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:14:06 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/3/2007 7:31 PM:
Rescue required. When are they gonna do something about dangerous,
unseaworthy catamarans?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6930023.stm

Wilbur Hubbard

An old boat, with known structural problems has a complete structural
failure in rough weather and yet doesn't sink and all three elderly
sailors are rescued without injury. How many monohulls could break in
half, or even sustain a small puncture, without sinking?

I've been trying to find more info on this incident. It certainly
wasn't a normal cruising cat, since the two hulls are usually molded
as one, and breaking in half isn't possible without major trauma. It
was probably a racing cat converted to cruising, or a old homemade
boat.


Not!

http://www.2hulls.com/usedcatamaran-2007/Tantara.html

Read it and weep. I bet it doesn't make you feel very safe on your PDQ
which is sort of a cheapo version of the Lagoon 38.

Wilbur Hubbard

Funny that a 39' cat advertised on Puerto Rico suddenlt stretches to
46' and breaks up off Anglesy......and taht the remains in no waty
resemble the 39 footer.

How does a Tiki 46 gab you?
http://www.pca-seapeople.org/PCAgall...g2_itemId=4253
I agree with the comments about South Stack and Holyhead RNLI he
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.p...fpart/all/vc/1
The waves in the overfalls are a bit unusual - 'falling over
pyramids'.. but it sounds as if they were outside the worst of it.
Very difficult to say what the sea conditions were at the time of the
failure. The pictures may have been taken later or in a slightly
different location. I was out about 40nm away at that time and it was
about F5, increasing. The forecast for the St Davids Head to Colwyn
Bay including St Georges Channel (same inshore forecast) area was F4-5
increasing F7.

OzOne wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:04:14 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:



Catamaran designs are inherently dangerous. You shouldn't have to go
around tightening bolts to keep your sailboat from falling apart.

Wilbur Hubbard

Nor even pulling keelbolts regularly...to stop your only method of
remaining upright falling to the bottom of the ocean...?


That's why Roger MacGregor's so brilliant. Water ballast, man!

Two or three hulls in lieu of ballast is really really dumb. There's
not a sailing catamaran or trimaran made that's more stable rightside-up
than upside-down. Add the stability problem to the fact that leverage
factors dictate greater stresses and you're just sacrificing way too
much in a lame attempt to avoid a ballast keel.

If you fear keel bolts then go with an encapsulated keel. Don't
substitute an unstable design. That's retarded. Another option that's
much smarter is a monohull such as the likes of an ETAP that uses foam
flotation in the hull that makes it unsinkable. People tend to use the
dumb excuse that catamarans and tri-marans tend to not sink because of
the multiple hulls one of which gets holed doesn't make the whole thing
sink. Just more faulty thinking trying to defend an untenable position
and unsuitable design.

Wilbur Hubbard

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:33:17 +1000, OzOne wrote:

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:14:06 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
scribbled thusly:


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/3/2007 7:31 PM:
Rescue required. When are they gonna do something about dangerous,
unseaworthy catamarans?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6930023.stm

Wilbur Hubbard

An old boat, with known structural problems has a complete
structural
failure in rough weather and yet doesn't sink and all three elderly
sailors are rescued without injury. How many monohulls could break
in
half, or even sustain a small puncture, without sinking?

I've been trying to find more info on this incident. It certainly
wasn't a normal cruising cat, since the two hulls are usually
molded
as one, and breaking in half isn't possible without major trauma.
It
was probably a racing cat converted to cruising, or a old homemade
boat.


Not!

http://www.2hulls.com/usedcatamaran-2007/Tantara.html

Read it and weep. I bet it doesn't make you feel very safe on your
PDQ
which is sort of a cheapo version of the Lagoon 38.

Wilbur Hubbard

Funny that a 39' cat advertised on Puerto Rico suddenlt stretches to
46' and breaks up off Anglesy......and taht the remains in no waty
resemble the 39 footer.

How does a Tiki 46 gab you?
http://www.pca-seapeople.org/PCAgall...g2_itemId=4253


The capsized catamaran looks like it has sugar scoop transoms. The tiki
has no such thing,The Lagoon 38 does have sugar scoops, though. The
question is does the Lagoon have a keels or daggerboards (or
centerboards)? The capsized boat has no sign of a keel of any sort so it
must have daggerboards. But you can see the spar at the bow sticking up
at an odd angle. It's still attached to one hull but not the other.

Wilbur Hubbard
--- Catamaran - two unseaworthy boats joined together to make another
one?