"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.