|
Catamarans have something extra....
"Captain Crunch" wrote in message ... Well, he can now post about his favorite boat. Wonder if he got the log (and cedar bucket) with the purchase? Ya, what's the name of that little boat again...something like "Cut the Cheese," isn't it? |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:58:58 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote this crap: "Captain Crunch" wrote in message ... Well, he can now post about his favorite boat. Wonder if he got the log (and cedar bucket) with the purchase? Ya, what's the name of that little boat again...something like "Cut the Cheese," isn't it? I think it was, "pass the salt." I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Catamarans have something extra....
Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
What do you think? If this is real and not some imagined adventure, I think you can sell tickets. I doubt you can recoup the cost of the boat, though. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Wilbur Hubbard wrote: What do you think? If this is real and not some imagined adventure, I think you can sell tickets. I doubt you can recoup the cost of the boat, though. I think people will pay. Did you know it costs about 100,000 dollars to climb Everest? They have a waiting list for guided climbs. Few people are foolish enough to try climbing Everest on their own. There are, indeed, lots of rich bored people around these days. Some are already paying millions of dollars a pop for a ride into space and back for a couple days. I figure to sail a hurricane and enjoy the ultimate survival adventure rich people would be willing to pay maybe 20 thousand dollars - for a one week cruise. Let's say six passengers - that makes 120 grand a hurricane, if there are eight reachable hurricanes a season that would be almost a million dollars the first year alone. Of course there will be expenses but two years should be the break-even point for the build barring unforeseen circumstances. Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:14:30 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Paul Cassel" wrote in message ... Wilbur Hubbard wrote: What do you think? If this is real and not some imagined adventure, I think you can sell tickets. I doubt you can recoup the cost of the boat, though. I think people will pay. Did you know it costs about 100,000 dollars to climb Everest? They have a waiting list for guided climbs. Few people are foolish enough to try climbing Everest on their own. There are, indeed, lots of rich bored people around these days. Some are already paying millions of dollars a pop for a ride into space and back for a couple days. I figure to sail a hurricane and enjoy the ultimate survival adventure rich people would be willing to pay maybe 20 thousand dollars - for a one week cruise. Let's say six passengers - that makes 120 grand a hurricane, if there are eight reachable hurricanes a season that would be almost a million dollars the first year alone. Of course there will be expenses but two years should be the break-even point for the build barring unforeseen circumstances. Wilbur Hubbard A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones who need the advice. - Bill Cosby: Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 16, 9:24 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: Yes, cruising catamarans have something extra. As a simple Google and YouTube search using capsize and catamaran will reveal, the something extra is the remarkable ease with which catamarans turn turtle. With this in mind, any potential catamaran buyer must ask himself if the paltry advantages of a catamaran - things such as small heel angles, slightly faster speeds downwind, more elbow room below (but not load carrying capacity), shallow draft and largish cockpit - outweigh the fact that sooner or later the whole shebang is going to end up upside-down and swamped. Don't even think about what happens if you get trapped under the thing and drown. Just think about upside-down. In other words, everything is ruined. Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? Is the trade-off between a platform that doesn't heel quite as much and an upside-down platform worth it? Only you can answer that question. It depends upon how much you love your life and the lives of your loved ones. I wonder when the Coast Guard is going to get some balls and declare any and all cruising catamaran ocean voyages "manifestly unsafe voyages" and put a stop to them? Wilbur Hubbard Sir I think you are confusing racing cats and lightweight hobby cats with cruising cats, Cruising cats again and again have proven to be more stable than a monohull and I am a fan of the monohull. The appears to be more space in a cruising cat but this is an illusion as it is just more cramped spaces and more of them, but if you need to know the truth on cats go to http://www.tennantdesign.co.nz/ Malcolm is one of the world's leading marine architects on catamarans. then you can speak with authority, check out the technical details and the record of CRUISING CATS . David Law |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 16, 9:24 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: Yes, cruising catamarans have something extra. As a simple Google and YouTube search using capsize and catamaran will reveal, the something extra is the remarkable ease with which catamarans turn turtle. With this in mind, any potential catamaran buyer must ask himself if the paltry advantages of a catamaran - things such as small heel angles, slightly faster speeds downwind, more elbow room below (but not load carrying capacity), shallow draft and largish cockpit - outweigh the fact that sooner or later the whole shebang is going to end up upside-down and swamped. Don't even think about what happens if you get trapped under the thing and drown. Just think about upside-down. In other words, everything is ruined. Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? Is the trade-off between a platform that doesn't heel quite as much and an upside-down platform worth it? Only you can answer that question. It depends upon how much you love your life and the lives of your loved ones. I wonder when the Coast Guard is going to get some balls and declare any and all cruising catamaran ocean voyages "manifestly unsafe voyages" and put a stop to them? Wilbur Hubbard Sir I think you are confusing racing cats and lightweight hobby cats with cruising cats, Cruising cats again and again have proven to be more stable than a monohull and I am a fan of the monohull. The appears to be more space in a cruising cat but this is an illusion as it is just more cramped spaces and more of them, but if you need to know the truth on cats go to http://www.tennantdesign.co.nz/ Malcolm is one of the world's leading marine architects on catamarans. then you can speak with authority, check out the technical details and the record of CRUISING CATS . David Law Thanks but the bottom line is the stability curve. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. Cruising cats have stability curves similar to racing cats at the top of the curve where it says, "oh oh, turn turtle because there's no going back." Since they are heavier, the bottom of the curve looks a little better but that's spurious information because it's at the top where the problem arises. Anybody who claims cruising cats have an impeccable record are not familiar with the facts. People have died when their cruising cats have turned turtle. People will continue to die. The various manufacturers have an aggressive plan to cover up any incidents of capsize. They'd rather people weren't aware of the fact that they are selling a dangerous product. A product of dubious worth when it comes to ocean voyaging where sometimes one just cannot avoid a survival storm. Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/19/2007 9:25 PM:
Thanks but the bottom line is the stability curve. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. In other words, you've made up your mind to ignore the reality of the situation. Cruising cats have stability curves similar to racing cats at the top of the curve where it says, "oh oh, turn turtle because there's no going back." Since they are heavier, the bottom of the curve looks a little better but that's spurious information because it's at the top where the problem arises. There is no doubt that there is a similarity. The issue, however, is that magnitude of the wind/wave required to capsize, the frequency of this happening, and the record of survival when it does occur. Anybody who claims cruising cats have an impeccable record are not familiar with the facts. I've never claimed the record is "impeccable," only that its hard to find cases where a modern cruising cat has capsized while cruising, as opposed to racing or delivery. And please show us your "facts," not just fabricated nonsense. People have died when their cruising cats have turned turtle. People will continue to die. Very, very few. You still haven't provided a single case, although I know of a few. And since its trivial to find cases where monohulls have disappeared without a trace, its not clear what your point is. The various manufacturers have an aggressive plan to cover up any incidents of capsize. Ah! So its a conspiracy! Next you'll claim the Martians are abducting catamaran sailers! They'd rather people weren't aware of the fact that they are selling a dangerous product. And they must have fooled the insurance companies too, because the rates for a cat aren't any higher than for a monohull. A product of dubious worth when it comes to ocean voyaging where sometimes one just cannot avoid a survival storm. Unlike the large number of monohulls that would politely disappear during any storm that would capsize a cruising cat. And since you never leave sight of land, why the great interest in ocean voyaging? |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:56:50 -0400, Jeff wrote:
any storm that would capsize a cruising cat. Perhaps you are underestimating to ability of a fool to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. All the big ships will capsize, and not come back. The self righting vessels are actually rare. During a wartime crossing the Queen Mary came within a degree or so of going over. Wave took out the wheelhouse windows, ninety feet above sea level. Nothing except a submarine is immune to big waves. Of course, those things routinely recover from sinking. I heard that ten thousand shipping containers are lost, during storms, every year. Hit one of those with many small craft, and you may not be concerned with capsizing. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 20, 9:25 am, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 16, 9:24 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: Yes, cruising catamarans have something extra. As a simple Google and YouTube search using capsize and catamaran will reveal, the something extra is the remarkable ease with which catamarans turn turtle. With this in mind, any potential catamaran buyer must ask himself if the paltry advantages of a catamaran - things such as small heel angles, slightly faster speeds downwind, more elbow room below (but not load carrying capacity), shallow draft and largish cockpit - outweigh the fact that sooner or later the whole shebang is going to end up upside-down and swamped. Don't even think about what happens if you get trapped under the thing and drown. Just think about upside-down. In other words, everything is ruined. Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? Is the trade-off between a platform that doesn't heel quite as much and an upside-down platform worth it? Only you can answer that question. It depends upon how much you love your life and the lives of your loved ones. I wonder when the Coast Guard is going to get some balls and declare any and all cruising catamaran ocean voyages "manifestly unsafe voyages" and put a stop to them? Wilbur Hubbard Sir I think you are confusing racing cats and lightweight hobby cats with cruising cats, Cruising cats again and again have proven to be more stable than a monohull and I am a fan of the monohull. The appears to be more space in a cruising cat but this is an illusion as it is just more cramped spaces and more of them, but if you need to know the truth on cats go to http://www.tennantdesign.co.nz/ Malcolm is one of the world's leading marine architects on catamarans. then you can speak with authority, check out the technical details and the record of CRUISING CATS . David Law Thanks but the bottom line is the stability curve. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. Cruising cats have stability curves similar to racing cats at the top of the curve where it says, "oh oh, turn turtle because there's no going back." Since they are heavier, the bottom of the curve looks a little better but that's spurious information because it's at the top where the problem arises. Anybody who claims cruising cats have an impeccable record are not familiar with the facts. People have died when their cruising cats have turned turtle. People will continue to die. The various manufacturers have an aggressive plan to cover up any incidents of capsize. They'd rather people weren't aware of the fact that they are selling a dangerous product. A product of dubious worth when it comes to ocean voyaging where sometimes one just cannot avoid a survival storm. Wilbur Hubbard WIlbur this is easily settled put your money where your mouth is, name 3 people who have died and name the manufacturer of the cat, and show how it caused their deaths. As you want them banned just go for it. you seem to know the facts please enlighten us, but beware some of the manufacturers have deep pockets and big lawyers. Why do some manufacturers of cats claim unsinkability ? which Pleasure cats have turned turtle due to the design or due to the captain taking them to hard, is it design or education? How come most of the southern hemisphere Australia and New Zealand there is a preference for cats, an their not sailed or motored in sheltered waters. Why did not all the polynesians die out it was the only boat they knew? to many questions and as for the conspiracy well I wasn't on the grassy knoll . you mean all these competing manufacturers said "hey guys lets not tell anyone this is unsafe" and the thousands of employees and all the staff never mentioned it to anyone untill you discovered it WOH !!! ELEMENTARY DEAR WATSON ! look at these guys http://www.trawlercatmarine.com/whatisnew.html and go tell them they are dangerous as all their range goes round the world, tell them it won't. Regards David |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:55:35 -0000, "
wrote: Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? All big ships are that way. None of them ever came back from a capsize. I take that back, some submarines are big ships, and they are self righting. Of course, they prefer to be submerged under extreme conditions. WWII German subs used to get totally submerged by waves, when on the surface. Lookouts had to hold their breath for a good thirty seconds. The diesels continued to run, and ears would hurt. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
* Richard Casady wrote, On 8/20/2007 9:09 AM:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:56:50 -0400, Jeff wrote: any storm that would capsize a cruising cat. Perhaps you are underestimating to ability of a fool to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. All the big ships will capsize, and not come back. Do you have a point? Are you claiming that in the history of the world, no ship has ever survived a voyage? Of course not. The issue is not one of possibilities, its one of probabilities. I've never claimed its impossible to flip a cat; I've only claimed it doesn't happen that often. And when it does, it usually turns out to be human error, in the form of carrying way too much sail. Moreover, the loss of life is generally low. The self righting vessels are actually rare. During a wartime crossing the Queen Mary came within a degree or so of going over. Wave took out the wheelhouse windows, ninety feet above sea level. Nothing except a submarine is immune to big waves. Of course, those things routinely recover from sinking. I heard that ten thousand shipping containers are lost, during storms, every year. Hit one of those with many small craft, and you may not be concerned with capsizing. This is another risk where cats have a large advantage - there are numerous cases of cats surviving major damage that would sink a monohull in minutes. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:20:50 -0000, "
wrote: Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? That is nearly everything. All the ships and most smaller boats. Subs are stable, but they mostly submerge and avoid the issue of wave induced capsize. Why do some manufacturers of cats claim unsinkability ? Probably because they are.Many very small boats are. I have never seen[1] an outboard boat that didn't have flotation. We had an sixteen foot inboard that would sink like a rock if you flooded it, but that is another story. All big ships sink easily and some big ship is proving it, somewhere, most of the time. Cruise ship went down not too long ago. Foam is cheap. Subs are close to immune to wave caused flooding especially when down deep. You can put holes in them, however. The unsinkable stuff can pound on rocks until the foam is in tiny pieces. Metal lasts a bit longer than wood under those conditions, not that it matter in the least. What is the big deal about sinking? Many subs do it every day with no lasting ill effects. 1. Under twenty feet. I think it is legally required, actually. I dont know about the larger, and triple 250's will push something big. The biggest ones probably do sink. I am from Iowa, lakes only, waves under four feet. They have a few ballasted sailboats that will sink. The monohulls. We do have 35 MPH sailboats. Class A scows. 38 foot unsinkable monohulls. Those guys like our 20 foot deep 5700 acre lake, for the Nationals, because when[not if] they capsize there isn't space for them to go all the way over. Masts are forty feet tall. Scows sometimes go over and are righted without any flooding. Not so uncommon for small planing type sailboats. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:59:15 -0400, Jeff wrote:
Perhaps you are underestimating to ability of a fool to do the wrong thing at the wrong time. All the big ships will capsize, and not come back. Do you have a point? There actually are two, the really obvious ones. it usually turns out to be human error, See above, about fools. Then there are good sailors who rarely make mistakes. Sometimes one is all it takes There was the guy on the messdeck of a big ship, in a bad storm. He opened the backing plate on a porthole, was so horrified by what he saw that he failed to properly secure the port. and about fifteen tons of water entered. The water got to the engine room, drowned lots of electrics and the ship evertually sank when it lost all engine power. The self righting vessels are actually rare. During a wartime crossing the Queen Mary came within a degree or so of going over. Wave took out the wheelhouse windows, ninety feet above sea level. Nothing except a submarine is immune to big waves. Of course, those things routinely recover from sinking. I heard that ten thousand shipping containers are lost, during storms, every year. Hit one of those with many small craft, and you may not be concerned with capsizing. This is another risk where cats have a large advantage - there are numerous cases of cats surviving major damage that would sink a monohull in minute Some favor a watertight bulkhead forward on monohulls, with cargo containers in mind. Those things can even mess up a screw on a big ship. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... Some favor a watertight bulkhead forward on monohulls, with cargo containers in mind. Those things can even mess up a screw on a big ship. It is my considered opinion that all containers should be made so that they will sink if they go aglub. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Richard Casady" wrote in message ... Some favor a watertight bulkhead forward on monohulls, with cargo containers in mind. Those things can even mess up a screw on a big ship. It is my considered opinion that all containers should be made so that they will sink if they go aglub. And I think for every container that is lost overboard the captain of the ship should be held responsible and fined 1000 dollars. I bet that would put a stop to it. Why is it over in China or Japan the top guy has the blame placed on him and gets shot or has to commit suicide when he screws up royally but in the good ole USA the top guy, no matter how badly he screws up, always manages to blame it on an underling who then takes the fall? Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 19:01:10 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: Actually, I'm doing just the opposite. I'm currently having a yacht built that is stout enough to survive the worst hurricane ever imagined and the worst seas it can produce. It consists of a 90 foot steel hull on the outside, then comes three feet of floatation foam, then comes an inside steel hull. Between the two steel hulls are ribs welded to each hull. Inside the inside hull there's a gimbaled and padded accommodation that sleeps six. It has four, watertight, transverse steel bulkheads and it's heavily ballasted with moderately deep fin/bulb keel. There's three, free-standing masts that telescope so in the retracted position they only protrude 20 feet above the deck. The hatches are all like submarine hatches, sealed and able to hold pressure. It has air tanks so it can be sealed up for up to 12 hours. It has an apparatus that can draw in outside air when it's sealed up. Of course it is self-righting to the max. The plan is for the ultimate survival sailing adventure. Purposely sail out and put the vessel in the path of a hurricane and then ride it out in safety. Clients would have bragging rights. "I sailed Hurricane Dennis when it was Cat 5." What do you think? I think you should name it Titanic Ironhorse, AH#130, HSB#96, SENS BS#187 2001 Ultraclassic with Sidecar 96 Custom bucket of bolts (gone but not forgotten) Republicans think every day is 4th of July Democrats think every day is April 15th Ronald Reagan |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:49:24 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: It is my considered opinion that all containers should be made so that they will sink if they go aglub. They will unless full of low density water resistant cargo. The doors on the boxes are not watertight. Electronics, with all that foam, just won't sink. CRT's are bouyant. So is wood. Depends entirely on the cargo. With the right cargo a boxboat is basically unsinkable. Read the empty weight stenciled on one that I spotted on I-80. Something over 8000 lbs. and they would weigh over 40 tons if full of water. That is way too heavy for a boxboat, some of those carry 8 000 containers. Those ships will not carry 300 000 tons. that is ridiculous, so the boxes have to weigh much less. They mostly start out very bouyant, but they are not watertight, like I said .Even so they can't be guaranteed to sink. They will take quite a while to, however. even if they do, eventually. A container washed off a ship and spilled a cargo of bathtub ducks. Scientists collected data on currents for years. Had it not come open, it would not have sunk until it dissolved into rust. There are the floating oil drums as well. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:20:50 -0000, "
wrote: On Aug 20, 9:25 am, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 16, 9:24 pm, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: Yes, cruising catamarans have something extra. As a simple Google and YouTube search using capsize and catamaran will reveal, the something extra is the remarkable ease with which catamarans turn turtle. With this in mind, any potential catamaran buyer must ask himself if the paltry advantages of a catamaran - things such as small heel angles, slightly faster speeds downwind, more elbow room below (but not load carrying capacity), shallow draft and largish cockpit - outweigh the fact that sooner or later the whole shebang is going to end up upside-down and swamped. Don't even think about what happens if you get trapped under the thing and drown. Just think about upside-down. In other words, everything is ruined. Why put up with a boat that has a designed-in flaw of being more stable upside-down than rightside-up? Is the trade-off between a platform that doesn't heel quite as much and an upside-down platform worth it? Only you can answer that question. It depends upon how much you love your life and the lives of your loved ones. I wonder when the Coast Guard is going to get some balls and declare any and all cruising catamaran ocean voyages "manifestly unsafe voyages" and put a stop to them? Wilbur Hubbard Sir I think you are confusing racing cats and lightweight hobby cats with cruising cats, Cruising cats again and again have proven to be more stable than a monohull and I am a fan of the monohull. The appears to be more space in a cruising cat but this is an illusion as it is just more cramped spaces and more of them, but if you need to know the truth on cats go to http://www.tennantdesign.co.nz/ Malcolm is one of the world's leading marine architects on catamarans. then you can speak with authority, check out the technical details and the record of CRUISING CATS . David Law Thanks but the bottom line is the stability curve. That says it all as far as I'm concerned. Cruising cats have stability curves similar to racing cats at the top of the curve where it says, "oh oh, turn turtle because there's no going back." Since they are heavier, the bottom of the curve looks a little better but that's spurious information because it's at the top where the problem arises. Anybody who claims cruising cats have an impeccable record are not familiar with the facts. People have died when their cruising cats have turned turtle. People will continue to die. The various manufacturers have an aggressive plan to cover up any incidents of capsize. They'd rather people weren't aware of the fact that they are selling a dangerous product. A product of dubious worth when it comes to ocean voyaging where sometimes one just cannot avoid a survival storm. Wilbur Hubbard WIlbur this is easily settled put your money where your mouth is, name 3 people who have died and name the manufacturer of the cat, and show how it caused their deaths. As you want them banned just go for it. you seem to know the facts please enlighten us, but beware some of the manufacturers have deep pockets and big lawyers. Why do some manufacturers of cats claim unsinkability ? which Pleasure cats have turned turtle due to the design or due to the captain taking them to hard, is it design or education? How come most of the southern hemisphere Australia and New Zealand there is a preference for cats, an their not sailed or motored in sheltered waters. Why did not all the polynesians die out it was the only boat they knew? to many questions and as for the conspiracy well I wasn't on the grassy knoll . you mean all these competing manufacturers said "hey guys lets not tell anyone this is unsafe" and the thousands of employees and all the staff never mentioned it to anyone untill you discovered it WOH !!! ELEMENTARY DEAR WATSON ! look at these guys http://www.trawlercatmarine.com/whatisnew.html and go tell them they are dangerous as all their range goes round the world, tell them it won't. Regards David Your problem, as mine was, is to believe that Wilbur responds to logic - he doesn't. Willie has decided that Cats are unsafe, therefore Cats are unsafe. That is the long and short of it. Logic, statistics or any other arcane knowledge available to the rest of the boating world is totally immaterial. Husband had decided and therefore it is so! Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
|
Catamarans have something extra....
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:37:21 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:19:56 +0700, wrote: On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:42:06 GMT, (Richard Casady) wrote: On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:49:24 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: It is my considered opinion that all containers should be made so that they will sink if they go aglub. They will unless full of low density water resistant cargo. The doors on the boxes are not watertight. Electronics, with all that foam, just won't sink. CRT's are bouyant. So is wood. Depends entirely on the cargo. With the right cargo a boxboat is basically unsinkable. Read the empty weight stenciled on one that I spotted on I-80. Something over 8000 lbs. and they would weigh over 40 tons if full of water. That is way too heavy for a boxboat, some of those carry 8 000 containers. Those ships will not carry 300 000 tons. that is ridiculous, so the boxes have to weigh much less. They mostly start out very bouyant, but they are not watertight, like I said .Even so they can't be guaranteed to sink. They will take quite a while to, however. even if they do, eventually. A container washed off a ship and spilled a cargo of bathtub ducks. Scientists collected data on currents for years. Had it not come open, it would not have sunk until it dissolved into rust. There are the floating oil drums as well. Casady Actually container ships are rated in 20 ft equivalent containers, The figure I gave was for a twenty foot box. Seemed a lot, so I refigured and got the same forty tons. I used ' The Calculator That Takes No Prisoners,' the HP 48. The Chinese are building some 90 000 ton boxboats. To big for the Canal. Casady If I'm not mistaken the maximum total weight of a 20 ft. container is 35,000 lbs., and a 40 ft. container 45,000 lbs. I believe that the Emma Maersk is considered the largest container carrier in the world with a capacity of at least 11,000 TUE's.. Length 396 M, Breadth 56 M, Draft 30 M. No mention of displacement. 110,000 BHP, a cruising speed of 27K and a crew of 13. Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
|
Catamarans have something extra....
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:10:59 +0700, wrote:
Actually container ships are rated in 20 ft equivalent containers, The figure I gave was for a twenty foot box. Seemed a lot, so I refigured and got the same forty tons. I used ' The Calculator That Takes No Prisoners,' the HP 48. The Chinese are building some 90 000 ton boxboats. To big for the Canal. The 8000 pounds figure was empty weight, and the 40 ton figure was the displacement, the weight, at 63 pounds/cubic foot, of a chunk of water 8x8x20 feet. At 35 000 lbs a 20 would float with half of it out of the water. The original question was if the could they be made to sink and I pointed that if they started out that heavy , the all up weight comes to a ridiculous total for the ships. As it is, a container of machinery will slowly sink, but foam packing may keep a box,or enough of them, the boxboat itself, afloat until it lots of rusting has occured. If I'm not mistaken the maximum total weight of a 20 ft. container is 35,000 lbs., and a 40 ft. container 45,000 lbs. Twice as big as a 20 would translate to 70 000 pounds for a 40, not 35k. 45 000 does sound reasonable for something light enough to be legal on the roads, however. I believe that the Emma Maersk is considered the largest container carrier in the world with a capacity of at least 11,000 TUE's.. Length 396 M, Breadth 56 M, Draft 30 M. No mention of displacement. 110,000 BHP, a cruising speed of 27K and a crew of 13. Crew of 13? One watch officer, one on the wheel, and one lookout times three shifts. Plus a cook, the skipper, and the chief engineer. Twelve right there. The seven masted schooner Thomas Lawson, had steam winches to work the sails, and a crew of 18, and I believe Lakers mostly have a crew of 29. Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons. Go to www.pancanal.com to watch ships go through the locks in the Panama Canal. Mostly boxboats. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... The original question was if the could they be made to sink and I pointed that if they started out that heavy , the all up weight comes to a ridiculous total for the ships. As it is, a container of machinery will slowly sink, but foam packing may keep a box,or enough of them, the boxboat itself, afloat until it lots of rusting has occured. How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, either with cargo, mixed cargo or cargo and ballast, so as to make them negatively buoyant? Might complicate loading a bit, but would increase safety at sea immensely. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:32:14 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:10:59 +0700, wrote: Actually container ships are rated in 20 ft equivalent containers, The figure I gave was for a twenty foot box. Seemed a lot, so I refigured and got the same forty tons. I used ' The Calculator That Takes No Prisoners,' the HP 48. The Chinese are building some 90 000 ton boxboats. To big for the Canal. The 8000 pounds figure was empty weight, and the 40 ton figure was the displacement, the weight, at 63 pounds/cubic foot, of a chunk of water 8x8x20 feet. At 35 000 lbs a 20 would float with half of it out of the water. The original question was if the could they be made to sink and I pointed that if they started out that heavy , the all up weight comes to a ridiculous total for the ships. As it is, a container of machinery will slowly sink, but foam packing may keep a box,or enough of them, the boxboat itself, afloat until it lots of rusting has occured. Yes, I did sort of miss the point there a bit. According to the Export911.com website the standard dimensions of a 20 ft, container are 19.875 X 8 X 8.5 or 9.5 with the 8.5 dimension referred to as a "Standard Container". The standard Tare weight is 1,800 - 2,400 Kg.(3, 968 - 5,291 Lbs.) So, using your weight of water a 20 TUE would displace 85,145 lbs less the tare weight of, say 4639lbs and would require need to be nearly full of water to sink. Empty. As "stuff" seems to be mostly packed with plenty of styrofoam packing it is likely that most containers are floating for a substantial length of time after they are lost. If I'm not mistaken the maximum total weight of a 20 ft. container is 35,000 lbs., and a 40 ft. container 45,000 lbs. The standard for international shipments is 24,000 Kg ( 52.,900 lbs) and 30,480 Kg. (67,200 Lbs) Can't remember where I got the lower numbers I initially quoted. Twice as big as a 20 would translate to 70 000 pounds for a 40, not 35k. 45 000 does sound reasonable for something light enough to be legal on the roads, however. I believe that the Emma Maersk is considered the largest container carrier in the world with a capacity of at least 11,000 TUE's.. Length 396 M, Breadth 56 M, Draft 30 M. No mention of displacement. 110,000 BHP, a cruising speed of 27K and a crew of 13. Crew of 13? One watch officer, one on the wheel, and one lookout times three shifts. Plus a cook, the skipper, and the chief engineer. Twelve right there. The seven masted schooner Thomas Lawson, had steam winches to work the sails, and a crew of 18, and I believe Lakers mostly have a crew of 29. The engine room crew work a standard 8 hour day with annunciators in the engineer's quarters. Direct engine control from the bridge. At night, two people on watch., maximum. The "autopilot and the chart plotter" steer the boat and the O.O.D. writes up reports and MAYBE there is a man on watch. Say, Captain, two watch keepers X three shifts, Cook, Two deck hands and a three man engineering crew...... Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons. Go to www.pancanal.com to watch ships go through the locks in the Panama Canal. Mostly boxboats. The world's freight travels by container. Try and get old fashioned "deck cargo" any more. We were trying to ship a 28 ft. sloop back to the west coast and "luckily" there was a conventional cargo boat that ran back and forth between two ports on the east coast and Phuket, Thailand carrying raw rubber. Otherwise the boat would have to have been shipped on a container carrier and billed at the cost of the number of containers displaced by the boat. Plus the cradle would have to have standard container hold downs and lifting eyes. It ended up as a "no sale" as we couldn't get it back to the U.S. at a cost much less then the selling price. .. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@
4ax.com: Crew of 13? One watch officer, one on the wheel, and one lookout times three shifts. Plus a cook, the skipper, and the chief engineer. Twelve right there. The seven masted schooner Thomas Lawson, had steam winches to work the sails, and a crew of 18, and I believe Lakers mostly have a crew of 29. The engine room crew work a standard 8 hour day with annunciators in the engineer's quarters. Direct engine control from the bridge. At night, two people on watch., maximum. The "autopilot and the chart plotter" steer the boat and the O.O.D. writes up reports and MAYBE there is a man on watch. Say, Captain, two watch keepers X three shifts, Cook, Two deck hands and a three man engineering crew...... Where you folks get your versions of ship's crew is beyond me. No such thing as an OOD on Merchant ships. Engineers have alarms in rooms for duty engineer during night. Auto pilot normally steering but only few have GPS and waypoints inputed to make course changes. Master does not spend his day on bridge. Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons. Go to www.pancanal.com to watch ships go through the locks in the Panama Canal. Mostly boxboats. The world's freight travels by container. Try and get old fashioned "deck cargo" any more. We were trying to ship a 28 ft. sloop back to the west coast and "luckily" there was a conventional cargo boat that ran back and forth between two ports on the east coast and Phuket, Thailand carrying raw rubber. Otherwise the boat would have to have been shipped on a container carrier and billed at the cost of the number of containers displaced by the boat. Plus the cradle would have to have standard container hold downs and lifting eyes. It ended up as a "no sale" as we couldn't get it back to the U.S. at a cost much less then the selling price. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running.... alternate method to ship yachts is on an "carcarrier" |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:05:01 -0000, otnmbrd
wrote: wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@ 4ax.com: Crew of 13? One watch officer, one on the wheel, and one lookout times three shifts. Plus a cook, the skipper, and the chief engineer. Twelve right there. The seven masted schooner Thomas Lawson, had steam winches to work the sails, and a crew of 18, and I believe Lakers mostly have a crew of 29. The engine room crew work a standard 8 hour day with annunciators in the engineer's quarters. Direct engine control from the bridge. At night, two people on watch., maximum. The "autopilot and the chart plotter" steer the boat and the O.O.D. writes up reports and MAYBE there is a man on watch. Say, Captain, two watch keepers X three shifts, Cook, Two deck hands and a three man engineering crew...... Where you folks get your versions of ship's crew is beyond me. No such thing as an OOD on Merchant ships. Engineers have alarms in rooms for duty engineer during night. Auto pilot normally steering but only few have GPS and waypoints inputed to make course changes. Master does not spend his day on bridge. Basically you are repeating what I said - explaining how/why the Maresk boat operated with a crew of 13 people. Annunciators in the engineers quarters, autopilot steering. I did use the term "chart plotter" but you will, note the inverted commas" I have no idea how the bridge crew refer to their electronic navigation system but I'm certainly not naive enough to think that these ships are navigated by sextant. Maresk has the reputation of under stating the capacity of their ships and outside estimates of capacity are in the range of 14,000 TEU's giving a possible cargo capacity of 245,000 tons. Go to www.pancanal.com to watch ships go through the locks in the Panama Canal. Mostly boxboats. The world's freight travels by container. Try and get old fashioned "deck cargo" any more. We were trying to ship a 28 ft. sloop back to the west coast and "luckily" there was a conventional cargo boat that ran back and forth between two ports on the east coast and Phuket, Thailand carrying raw rubber. Otherwise the boat would have to have been shipped on a container carrier and billed at the cost of the number of containers displaced by the boat. Plus the cradle would have to have standard container hold downs and lifting eyes. It ended up as a "no sale" as we couldn't get it back to the U.S. at a cost much less then the selling price. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running.... alternate method to ship yachts is on an "carcarrier" Sure, and how many car carriers do you think are running between South Thailand and the West Coast of the US? The ones that run from around Bangkok are all under contract to Toyota or one of the other Japanese companies and they won't talk to you. Their schedules are coordinated with the factory and the sales forces and they have spare room. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....Correction
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:05:01 -0000, otnmbrd
wrote: wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@ 4ax.com: Much snipped cost much less then the selling price. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running.... alternate method to ship yachts is on an "carcarrier" Sure, and how many car carriers do you think are running between South Thailand and the West Coast of the US? The ones that run from around Bangkok are all under contract to Toyota or one of the other Japanese companies and they won't talk to you. Their schedules are coordinated with the factory and the sales forces and they have spare room. The line should have read with the factory and the sales forces and they have no spare room. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:05:01 -0000, otnmbrd
wrote: wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@ 4ax.com: Where you folks get your versions of ship's crew is beyond me. In my case, pure guesswork. I can see getting by without the lookout and/or the helmsman. The Captain is stuck with all the paperwork. And that has to be damn near full time? Or is it? Could be a lot less of that than there used to be, if it is now mostly done on shore. So, you got in your sneer, now tell us the true facts. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running... You see them on the webcam at the canal. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
Some ships are using one man bridge watches but generally you'll find a Mate and one helmsman/lookout...average crew size is 21 and decreasing, with lowest I've seen being certified for six. Paperwork has become the biggest problem for all...depending on the ship the Mate may be or may not be allowed to do paperwork on the bridge.....too much of the paperework is just to justify the existence of the various regulators and company pencil pushers who are too lazy to dig through to find the info on their own BEG. As for getting a yacht from Bangkok to West Coast US..... hardest part would be getting it to Japan or Korea for a carcarrier. Point being that there are alternate methods to container ships, but as was stated end result may not justify expense (Richard Casady) wrote in : On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:05:01 -0000, otnmbrd wrote: wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@ 4ax.com: Where you folks get your versions of ship's crew is beyond me. In my case, pure guesswork. I can see getting by without the lookout and/or the helmsman. The Captain is stuck with all the paperwork. And that has to be damn near full time? Or is it? Could be a lot less of that than there used to be, if it is now mostly done on shore. So, you got in your sneer, now tell us the true facts. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running... You see them on the webcam at the canal. Casady |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:40:14 -0000, otnmbrd
wrote: Some ships are using one man bridge watches but generally you'll find a Mate and one helmsman/lookout...average crew size is 21 and decreasing, with lowest I've seen being certified for six. Paperwork has become the biggest problem for all...depending on the ship the Mate may be or may not be allowed to do paperwork on the bridge.....too much of the paperework is just to justify the existence of the various regulators and company pencil pushers who are too lazy to dig through to find the info on their own BEG. As for getting a yacht from Bangkok to West Coast US..... hardest part would be getting it to Japan or Korea for a carcarrier. Point being that there are alternate methods to container ships, but as was stated end result may not justify expense The "hardest part" was getting the damned boat to America at a price less then the sales price. We could have shipped it many ways - sail to Singapore and put it on a container boat there; barge it somewhere. The problem was that everything we looked into, and we did have professional freight people working on the problem, cost too much money. The owner even looked into sailing it back. The problem got solved when another bloke came along and offered to buy it. The owner e-mailed the U.S. bidder and told him what the costs were and he withdrew his offer immediately. Which left the door open to selling it locally. (Richard Casady) wrote in : On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:05:01 -0000, otnmbrd wrote: wrote in news:qaupc3h03p9djjkjr2fidcn3tmfhs02em2@ 4ax.com: Where you folks get your versions of ship's crew is beyond me. In my case, pure guesswork. I can see getting by without the lookout and/or the helmsman. The Captain is stuck with all the paperwork. And that has to be damn near full time? Or is it? Could be a lot less of that than there used to be, if it is now mostly done on shore. So, you got in your sneer, now tell us the true facts. Plenty of "breakbulk" still running... You see them on the webcam at the canal. Casady Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Kula" eeolson(thapt spam eaters)hawaii.rr.com wrote in message ... "Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Wilbur Hubbard wrote: My fine blue water yacht and I have been through 4 tropical storms and 12 hurricanes to date. What kind of boat do you have? Forget that. I want to know: what are the odds? Since tropical storms out number hurricanes what ... 10-1. He heads out to find the Hurry-Kanes. Those 4 tropical storms were Hurry-Kanes when he left port, but Petered Out (like Gaynze) |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "KLC Lewis" wrote in message ... How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Kula" eeolson(thapt spam eaters)hawaii.rr.com wrote in message ... "Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Wilbur Hubbard wrote: My fine blue water yacht and I have been through 4 tropical storms and 12 hurricanes to date. What kind of boat do you have? Forget that. I want to know: what are the odds? Since tropical storms out number hurricanes what ... 10-1. I hope you aren't foolish enough to be calling me a liar. And, for your information, all hurricanes ARE tropical storms but not all tropical storms are hurricanes. Gotcha! So, don't make me mad or I'll have to post the list. I've been sailing since 1985 and can reconstruct the list from my whereabouts all those years. I can use this: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...k/htrack2.html Or, I think I have a copy of it saved to CD or on the hard drive of an old laptop. Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week.
"KLC Lewis" wrote I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. You mean, like trying to argue with a sockpuppet on the internet? "Wilbur" I mean, not Scotty. DSK |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:19:19 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: "Kula" eeolson(thapt spam eaters)hawaii.rr.com wrote in message .. . "Paul Cassel" wrote in message . .. Wilbur Hubbard wrote: My fine blue water yacht and I have been through 4 tropical storms and 12 hurricanes to date. What kind of boat do you have? Forget that. I want to know: what are the odds? Since tropical storms out number hurricanes what ... 10-1. I hope you aren't foolish enough to be calling me a liar. I don't know. What do you call an individual who posts with a fictitious name from a bogus web site and claims to own Roy Disney's modified 68 ft. Swan, Pyewacket? And, for your information, all hurricanes ARE tropical storms but not all tropical storms are hurricanes. Gotcha! So, don't make me mad or I'll have to post the list. I've been sailing since 1985 and can reconstruct the list from my whereabouts all those years. I can use this: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...k/htrack2.html Or, I think I have a copy of it saved to CD or on the hard drive of an old laptop. i.e., figure out where the storms had been and then claim to have been there? You will remember that you were asked where you had cruised and that you replied that you wouldn't unveil your cruises because they were for your satisfaction only. Wilbur Hubbard Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message oups.com... now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. "KLC Lewis" wrote I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. You mean, like trying to argue with a sockpuppet on the internet? "Wilbur" I mean, not Scotty. DSK Na, I never try to argue with Wilbur, er, Crap'n Kneel. I do, however, retain the right to poke him with sticks from time to time. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in How about passing international law that all shipping containers must be loaded, now *that's* the dumbest thing I've read all week. SBV I'm entirely capable of coming up with dumber stuff. Well, that would be hard to top, though I'm confident you'll try your hardest. Scotty |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com