wrote in message
oups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Your definition of trolling is flawed. When posts are on-topic and about
boats and posted in a boating group they are hardly trolls. I've noticed
when some people decide they don't have the mental capacity to engage in
debate, rather than trying to learn some debating skills they resort to
name-calling. This makes you look awfully small.

Jeff is a worthy debating opponent. He even manages to win one from time
to time. . . You, on the other hand, are a sniveling little wimp who's
yet to win one. Now, run along.

Wilbur Hubbard

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...

Me too. Why would anyone want a jackass like "wilbur" to sail the same
kind of boat as themselves? It's notable that he has never raced, nor
sailed any one-design or high performance boat (mono or multi). Which
of course begs the question, has "wilbur" ever sailed *any* boat? Yet
another question, why feed the trolls, Jeff??


Never raced? I suggest you look up the race history of my Swan 68,
Chippewa. A Google search will open your eyes.

Interesting the metamorphosis of Willie Hubbard into Mr. Clay Deutsch
of Newport, R.I., the owner of the Swan 68 named Chippewa is
positively amazing.

However, as Voltaire said - Common sense is not so common.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Willie ain't got nothing on me. I suggest that y'all should look up the race
history of MY vessel, "Pyewacket."

:-D

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Some years ago when you started ranting about catamarans, I made a
simple claim that you would have trouble finding any cases of
catamaran capsizes that met the following criteria: It had to be a
modern production cruising cat, not of the "crossbeam" style, or
homemade, or 40 years old; it had to be at least the size of my cat
(36'3") with appropriate beam and cruising rig; it had to be being
used for cruising, not racing or delivery. I even admitted that you
might find a few, but that it would likely be in conditions that would
put any monohull at severe risk, and that generally catamaran capsizes
end up as a story of survival, not loss.

And what have you come up with? You've scoured the web for years and
posted every story you could find, but as predicted the pickings have
been slim indeed. In fact, not a single incident you've reported fit
the criteria. Several have been 30 feet, which is generally
considered too small for serious weather. One of those was a racing
cat, and another was an very old design with a beam so narrow that it
could hardly be called a cat nowadays. Another was a crossbeam
design, with a known structural flaw. One was at anchor in a Category
5 hurricane, where many of the monohulls sank. You've even posted
links to Hobie capsizes! The Fountain Pajot Tobago 35 was close but
small and with a SA/Disp of almost 30 its rig is quite aggressive for
a cruising cat.

Further, with one exception, there was no loss of life in any of these
incidents. In that exception, a delivery crew left port and sailed
into one of the worst storms in Pacific Northwest history. Even so,
it appears everyone was on deck at the time of the capsize, and anyone
below would have survived. In fact, its possible that had someone
below activated the EPIRB (or had it been rig to automatically
activate) someone on deck might have been rescued.

And you completely ignore the fact that every year there are a number
of monohulls that sink or go missing, and that monohulls sink every
day in inland situations, even at the dock. Also, monohull sailors
are at risk every time they go forward; not so on cats. Almost all
monohulls are at great risk from collisions with logs, containers, and
whales; multihulls generally survive such episode long enough for
rescue. Incidents such as the loss of "Morning Dew" in Charleston
would be very unlikely in a modern catamaran.

On top of this, the vast majority of sailors, whether mono- or
multihull never, or very infrequently, actually go offshore, and of
those that do, most avoid the worst weather. For instance, for all of
your talk, you've never been more than 50 miles away from land; you've
never encountered conditions that could potentially overwhelm a larger
cat.

So you can rant about how you'd never sail a cat; that's fine by me.
Personally, nothing could make me spend more than a week on a 26
footer, let alone live on it for years. Why don't you explain to us
how you lost that boat?




Good job moving the bar, Jeff. I've posted dozens times and at least a
half dozen valid links in the past year alone of how unseaworthy
catamarans are. You can nit and you can pick and you can say, "That
ain't fair, Mom, he's not being fair!" but it won't avail you. The
pictures speak for themselves. Large cruising catamarans washed up
capsized on the beach in Oregon with loss of all hands. Pictures of
large cruising catamarans upside down off the English Coast. More
pictures of another upside down and being righted and pumped out with
total loss of mast and rigging. More reports of one turning turtle on a
simple trip across the Gulf of Mexico. It goes on and on. Keep moving
that bar, Jeff. It just makes you look like somebody who is incapable of
seeing the obvious.

Catamarans are too dangerous to be used for voyaging on the world's
oceans. They'll likely not survive a storm at sea intact. That's the
truth and you'd better start accepting it.

And your logic if totally flawed with respect to monohulls sinking. You
ignore the numbers. Your claim is like saying "Look how many Ford F-150
trucks are involved in wrecks compared to Volkswagen Microbuses?" Well,
isn't that special? Never mind there are probably ten thousand F-150s to
every Microbus. When there are a hundred catamarans voyaging and one
hears six of them turning turtle one can assume one probably doesn't
hear of six more that capsized. That's twelve out of a hundred. Pretty
unsafe by the most lax standards, IMHO!

Wilbur Hubbard



* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/16/2007 9:24 AM:
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

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/17/2007 11:54 AM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Some years ago when you started ranting about catamarans, I made a
simple claim that you would have trouble finding any cases of
catamaran capsizes that met the following criteria: It had to be a
modern production cruising cat, not of the "crossbeam" style, or
homemade, or 40 years old; it had to be at least the size of my cat
(36'3") with appropriate beam and cruising rig; it had to be being
used for cruising, not racing or delivery. I even admitted that you
might find a few, but that it would likely be in conditions that would
put any monohull at severe risk, and that generally catamaran capsizes
end up as a story of survival, not loss.
...



Good job moving the bar, Jeff. I've posted dozens times and at least a
half dozen valid links in the past year alone of how unseaworthy
catamarans are. You can nit and you can pick and you can say, "That
ain't fair, Mom, he's not being fair!" but it won't avail you. The
pictures speak for themselves. Large cruising catamarans washed up
capsized on the beach in Oregon with loss of all hands.

One case, of ill-conceived delivery. This is the only case that
involved a fatality in years of trying.

Pictures of
large cruising catamarans upside down off the English Coast.

It wasn't a modern cruising cat, and you know it.

More
pictures of another upside down and being righted and pumped out with
total loss of mast and rigging.

A small racing cat.

More reports of one turning turtle on a
simple trip across the Gulf of Mexico. It goes on and on.

Close, but again a rather small cat, with an aggressive rig.

Keep moving that bar, Jeff. It just makes you look like somebody
who is incapable of seeing the obvious.

I'm not raising the bar, in fact I've made the same claim a number of
times over the years.

This was earlier this year:
"Actually I've rather obsessively searched for catamaran capsizes for
many years. There have been some, but very few. As I've posted a
number of times, there have been almost none that are cruising boats
over 35 feet, actually being cruised, not delivered. In point of
fact, none of the recent incidents fit these criteria."

In 2002, in response to a suggestion of a large airbag on the mast:
One problem with this is that there are very, very few cases of modern
cruising cats over 35 feet capsizing in any conditions. Smaller cats,
racing cats and trimarans may be able to make more use of it, but the
extra weight aloft might actually induce more capsizes!

In 2003, in response to a question about a racing tri incident:
"That was a racing trimaran, not a cruising cat; two totally different
boats. The have been only a handful of cruising cats over 35 feet
flipping while cruising"

In 2004:
"I'm real curious to know the model of the cat. 30 feet is on the
small size for catamaran safety because the general design which has
proven to be safe in sizes over 35 feet doesn't scale downward very well."


Catamarans are too dangerous to be used for voyaging on the world's
oceans.

That's something you'll never do, so why are you so concerned?

They'll likely not survive a storm at sea intact. That's the
truth and you'd better start accepting it.

And yet, their safety record is better than monohulls. The majority
of larger cats have probably done a long ocean passage - virtually all
of the charter cats in the Carribean got there on their own bottom.


And your logic if totally flawed with respect to monohulls sinking. You
ignore the numbers. Your claim is like saying "Look how many Ford F-150
trucks are involved in wrecks compared to Volkswagen Microbuses?" Well,
isn't that special? Never mind there are probably ten thousand F-150s to
every Microbus. When there are a hundred catamarans voyaging and one
hears six of them turning turtle one can assume one probably doesn't
hear of six more that capsized. That's twelve out of a hundred. Pretty
unsafe by the most lax standards, IMHO!

You're ignoring the fact that there are 5000 Prouts and none have
capsized. Prouts may have more successful navigations than brand of
sailboat. A similar number of Lagoons with a safety record almost as
good.

And you still haven't given us a single example that fits my criteria.
Its simple: 36 feet, modern design, while cruising. Stop giving us
ancient homebuilt racing trimarans and claiming they're representative.



Wilbur Hubbard

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/17/2007 11:54 AM:

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Some years ago when you started ranting about catamarans, I made a
simple claim that you would have trouble finding any cases of
catamaran capsizes that met the following criteria: It had to be a
modern production cruising cat, not of the "crossbeam" style, or
homemade, or 40 years old; it had to be at least the size of my cat
(36'3") with appropriate beam and cruising rig; it had to be being
used for cruising, not racing or delivery. I even admitted that you
might find a few, but that it would likely be in conditions that
would put any monohull at severe risk, and that generally catamaran
capsizes end up as a story of survival, not loss.
...



Good job moving the bar, Jeff. I've posted dozens times and at least
a half dozen valid links in the past year alone of how unseaworthy
catamarans are. You can nit and you can pick and you can say, "That
ain't fair, Mom, he's not being fair!" but it won't avail you. The
pictures speak for themselves. Large cruising catamarans washed up
capsized on the beach in Oregon with loss of all hands.

One case, of ill-conceived delivery. This is the only case that
involved a fatality in years of trying.

Pictures of large cruising catamarans upside down off the English
Coast.

It wasn't a modern cruising cat, and you know it.

More pictures of another upside down and being righted and pumped out
with total loss of mast and rigging.

A small racing cat.

More reports of one turning turtle on a simple trip across the Gulf
of Mexico. It goes on and on.

Close, but again a rather small cat, with an aggressive rig.

Keep moving that bar, Jeff. It just makes you look like somebody who
is incapable of seeing the obvious.

I'm not raising the bar, in fact I've made the same claim a number of
times over the years.

This was earlier this year:
"Actually I've rather obsessively searched for catamaran capsizes for
many years. There have been some, but very few. As I've posted a
number of times, there have been almost none that are cruising boats
over 35 feet, actually being cruised, not delivered. In point of
fact, none of the recent incidents fit these criteria."

In 2002, in response to a suggestion of a large airbag on the mast:
One problem with this is that there are very, very few cases of modern
cruising cats over 35 feet capsizing in any conditions. Smaller cats,
racing cats and trimarans may be able to make more use of it, but the
extra weight aloft might actually induce more capsizes!

In 2003, in response to a question about a racing tri incident:
"That was a racing trimaran, not a cruising cat; two totally different
boats. The have been only a handful of cruising cats over 35 feet
flipping while cruising"

In 2004:
"I'm real curious to know the model of the cat. 30 feet is on the
small size for catamaran safety because the general design which has
proven to be safe in sizes over 35 feet doesn't scale downward very
well."


Catamarans are too dangerous to be used for voyaging on the world's
oceans.

That's something you'll never do, so why are you so concerned?

They'll likely not survive a storm at sea intact. That's the truth
and you'd better start accepting it.

And yet, their safety record is better than monohulls. The majority
of larger cats have probably done a long ocean passage - virtually all
of the charter cats in the Carribean got there on their own bottom.


And your logic if totally flawed with respect to monohulls sinking.
You ignore the numbers. Your claim is like saying "Look how many Ford
F-150 trucks are involved in wrecks compared to Volkswagen
Microbuses?" Well, isn't that special? Never mind there are probably
ten thousand F-150s to every Microbus. When there are a hundred
catamarans voyaging and one hears six of them turning turtle one can
assume one probably doesn't hear of six more that capsized. That's
twelve out of a hundred. Pretty unsafe by the most lax standards,
IMHO!

You're ignoring the fact that there are 5000 Prouts and none have
capsized. Prouts may have more successful navigations than brand of
sailboat. A similar number of Lagoons with a safety record almost as
good.

And you still haven't given us a single example that fits my criteria.
Its simple: 36 feet, modern design, while cruising. Stop giving us
ancient homebuilt racing trimarans and claiming they're
representative.


You lose!
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...size-4446.html

And it only took two minutes to Google it. Now what have you got to say
for yourself?

Wilbur Hubbard

* Wilbur Hubbard wrote, On 8/17/2007 8:47 PM:
....

And you still haven't given us a single example that fits my criteria.
Its simple: 36 feet, modern design, while cruising. Stop giving us
ancient homebuilt racing trimarans and claiming they're representative.


You lose!

I lose? You're the one claiming that ALL catamarans WILL capsize.
Perhaps you found one case, you still have around 20,000 to go.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...size-4446.html

And it only took two minutes to Google it. Now what have you got to say
for yourself?

You realize that the Outremer 45 is known more as a racer than a
cruiser - there's a video in UTube of one doing over 22 knots. At the
very least you'll need to show that it was used for cruising at the
time, not racing.

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

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 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?