|
Catamarans have something extra....
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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:24:14 -0400, "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 Hey Willy, You know, every high speed ferry sailing out of Singapore is a cat. If the catamaran hull form is so unstable how come all the classification societies will classify them as passenger carriers? Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:24:14 -0400, "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 Hey Willy, You know, every high speed ferry sailing out of Singapore is a cat. If the catamaran hull form is so unstable how come all the classification societies will classify them as passenger carriers? I'm talking sailing cats. Not motor cats. Motor cats are heavy, heavy and heavy. And they don't have the leverage effect of spars and sails to turn them over. Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... snip 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? Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much happier living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility for everyone's actions. Regards Donal -- |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Donal" wrote in message news:fa2khk$env$1$ Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could wage the ''war on drugs''. SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message news:fa2khk$env$1$ Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could wage the ''war on drugs''. SBV Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath through it all by himself. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 16, 8:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message news:fa2khk$env$1$ Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could wage the ''war on drugs''. SBV Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath through it all by himself.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You upset about not being able to own a slave anymore? Joe |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:15:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:24:14 -0400, "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 Hey Willy, You know, every high speed ferry sailing out of Singapore is a cat. If the catamaran hull form is so unstable how come all the classification societies will classify them as passenger carriers? I'm talking sailing cats. Not motor cats. Motor cats are heavy, heavy and heavy. And they don't have the leverage effect of spars and sails to turn them over. Wilbur Hubbard Well, given that nearly all, if not all, l of the high speed catamaran ferries I've been on are aluminum I'd have to say that displacement must play some part of their planing, probably to get them as light as possible. The other point that you seem to disregard was that the cat mentioned in the original post was anchored in a 170 MPH wind. And it flipped over. During the same hurricane a large number of mono hulls were sunk. Kinda sounds as though maybe the cat is the better solution when we view the difference between a bottom side up catamaran and a sunken mono hull. By the way Willie, have you ever been out in 170 MPH winds? Do you think your house trailer will survive 170 MPH winds? Or even a house, if you owned one? Or perhaps you have traveled through the cyclone belt and wondered why all those stupid people have cyclone cellars. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 16, 3:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
.... Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath through it all by himself. All by himself? Maybe Davis had something to do with it too... The Constitution is far better with the 14th and the country is infinitely better for 13 and 15. But what does this have to do with cruising? -- Tom. |
Catamarans have something extra....
They sure do make great party platforms in the Carib.
|
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 16, 11:50 pm, ":
On Aug 16, 3:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote: ... Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath through it all by himself. " wrote All by himself? Maybe Davis had something to do with it too... Nah, the Constitution did not (and still does not) say a word about forbidding states to withdraw from the union. Nor does it grant the President authority to order military action against any states (hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term for the U.S. Civil War). Stanton did more to help Lincoln get over the Constitution than Davis... not that I'm a big fan of ol' Jeff Davis... in fact I think the Confederacy was one of the most selfish & retarded gambits that a dying aristocracy has ever foisted upon it's host society. The Constitution is far better with the 14th and the country is infinitely better for 13 and 15. But what does this have to do with cruising? umm... equal rights for sailors & cruisers? Actually, I dunno what it has to do with sailing... but I think that sooner or later, *everything* is related to sailing & cruising somehow. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Catamarans have something extra....
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? * 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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:15:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:24:14 -0400, "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 Hey Willy, You know, every high speed ferry sailing out of Singapore is a cat. If the catamaran hull form is so unstable how come all the classification societies will classify them as passenger carriers? I'm talking sailing cats. Not motor cats. Motor cats are heavy, heavy and heavy. And they don't have the leverage effect of spars and sails to turn them over. Wilbur Hubbard Well, given that nearly all, if not all, l of the high speed catamaran ferries I've been on are aluminum I'd have to say that displacement must play some part of their planing, probably to get them as light as possible. The other point that you seem to disregard was that the cat mentioned in the original post was anchored in a 170 MPH wind. And it flipped over. During the same hurricane a large number of mono hulls were sunk. Kinda sounds as though maybe the cat is the better solution when we view the difference between a bottom side up catamaran and a sunken mono hull. By the way Willie, have you ever been out in 170 MPH winds? Do you think your house trailer will survive 170 MPH winds? Or even a house, if you owned one? Or perhaps you have traveled through the cyclone belt and wondered why all those stupid people have cyclone cellars. If you only knew . . . When it comes to tropical cyclones you can't even come close to my intimacy with them. My fine blue water yacht and I have been through 4 tropical storms and 12 hurricanes to date. Been aboard each and every time. The worst winds were in Andrew and Wilma. Wilma's were stronger because I was in the core up the Little Shark river in the Everglades. Sustained winds of over 100 knots. Gusts to 120knots. Ten foot storm surge that had the river running backwards and sideways over the banks with approximately a 5 knot current. Trees were snapping off like toothpicks and there's some of the largest mangroves in the world up there. 80 feet tall in some places. My fine yacht survived without a scratch. The worst thing she suffered was some temporary staining from the tannic acid in the leaves and small branches that were turned to mulch and deposited all over the deck. My yacht didn't turn upside down nor did she get sunk. She rode every storm out and took them in stride. The worst any storm ever did was a lightning strike which would have burned her to the waterline had I not been aboard at the time to put out the fire that started in the bilge from burning wiring and an exploded bottle of rum that fed the fire. Real sailboats don't 'flip over' in high winds. No anchored monohull worth a darn is going to be sunk unless it's neglected or abandoned. It's only if the anchors drag or the mooring carries away and the boat gets washed up on the rocks or laid on its beam ends along the shore line when the storm surge comes in. You're attempting to fault monohulls for the faults of their inept crew. When I see a monohull spinning like a top in the air at the end of her anchor line then and only then will I say the darned thing's not seaworthy. I've even been hit by a couple of water spouts that had the spreaders in the water and she bobbed right back up. No problem. That's the way a sailboat is supposed to react to winds. Catamarans are a joke! Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
Jeff wrote:
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. Yep... and you expected... what, exactly? Remember who you're talking to ;) 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. The most common reason for monohulls to sink at the dock is because of a failure in the potable water system, and city water pressure floods them. .... 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; Nah, most monohulls are too slow for such things to present much risk. Might as well worry about icebergs. Aside from that, it's quite easy to reduce the risk by adding bulkheads, flotation, a layer of kevlar (or better yet, choose a kevlar boat to start with), etc etc. .... 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. Well, IMHO if that guy had bought a catamaran (unlikely, the reason he bought 'Morning Dew' is that it was a bargain-basement kludge) he would have made some major goof-up and wrecked that, too. What he did was the sailing equivalent of taking a '75 Buick with bald tires out on the interstate and driving past a series of warning signs then off a bridge construction site. The saddest part is that he took the kids with him. So you can rant about how you'd never sail a cat; that's fine by me. 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?? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Donal" wrote in message ... Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much happier living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility for everyone's actions. Youthinks wrong! The USA doesn't own the high seas. Why should we allow uninformed citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they founder on the high seas? Look what New Zealand has done. You have to pass an inspection to assure seaworthiness in order to be cleared out of that country. Are they socialist or just more responsible and aware of their responsibilities? One thing is for sure, they are tired of the expense and danger to their citizen's lives incurred because their rescue service has to go to the aid of way too many idiots and fools. Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Aug 17, 1:41 am, wrote:
.... (hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term for the U.S. Civil War). .... Well we've found a more divisive topic than multihulls as cruising boats. The question of State's Rights is a vexed one and was hotly argued at the Constitutional convention where the founders punted in full knowledge that the question would come back and bite them. Some (Madison, Adams, etc) clearly thought that art VI did mean that the federal rule was to be supreme and thus (says he, time warping) any succession could only be legal with the blessing of the federal government. Of course, there were very strong opinions on the other side (and there was Jefferson who, typically, managed to argue both sides) and the horrible result was the Civil War. A vast number of words has been written on this topic and the arguments still persist so I doubt we'll solve it here, but I'd be content to concede to everything you wrote if you just change "perfectly factual" to "reasonably arguable". -- Tom. |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message ups.com... On Aug 17, 1:41 am, wrote: ... (hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term for the U.S. Civil War). ... Well we've found a more divisive topic than multihulls as cruising boats. The question of State's Rights is a vexed one and was hotly argued at the Constitutional convention where the founders punted in full knowledge that the question would come back and bite them. Some (Madison, Adams, etc) clearly thought that art VI did mean that the federal rule was to be supreme and thus (says he, time warping) any succession could only be legal with the blessing of the federal government. Of course, there were very strong opinions on the other side (and there was Jefferson who, typically, managed to argue both sides) and the horrible result was the Civil War. A vast number of words has been written on this topic and the arguments still persist so I doubt we'll solve it here, but I'd be content to concede to everything you wrote if you just change "perfectly factual" to "reasonably arguable". -- Tom. Under the principle that "The Declaration of Independence Informs the Constitution," our founders recognised that when the Government no longer fit the needs of the People, it is their right to cast off that government. I maintain that, regardless of the evil of "That Peculiar Institution," those Sovereign States which wished to dissolve their ties with the Federal Government and create a new union had every right (both moral and legal) to do so. |
Catamarans have something extra....
* 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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Donal" wrote in message ... Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much happier living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility for everyone's actions. Youthinks wrong! The USA doesn't own the high seas. True. Why should we allow uninformed citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they founder on the high seas? Oh dear! After a good start your argument immediately descends into illogical, politically correct and dangerous waters. Illogical because .... You say that the USA doesn't own the high seas. If that is the case, how could the US Coastguard be given jurisdiction over the boats that sail the high seas? Politically correct because .... Poltically correct arguments depend on persuading your audience that there is an unacceptable risk to innocent parties (the rescue services) posed by the guilty (catamaran sailors). There are a few problems with this line of reasoning. 1) You haven't given us any evidence that catamaran sailors have caused the deaths of anyone in the rescue services. 2) You haven't given us any evidence that monohull sailors have caused fewer deaths than catamaran sailors. 3) You don't seem to understand that every freedom comes with a cost. Your right to drive a car comes with the cost that pedestrian lives are at risk. This is the very essence of freedom. Look what New Zealand has done. You have to pass an inspection to assure seaworthiness in order to be cleared out of that country. Are they socialist or just more responsible and aware of their responsibilities? What responsibility do you think that the state has for an individual? The state should protect a citizen from crime and foreign domination. In a free society the state will not try to protect you from yourself. In fact, the oppsoite is true. In a free society the state should enable you to express your freedom. One thing is for sure, they are tired of the expense and danger to their citizen's lives incurred because their rescue service has to go to the aid of way too many idiots and fools. How much expense is justified in the defence of freedom? Regards Donal -- |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Scotty" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message news:fa2khk$env$1$ Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could wage the ''war on drugs''. ....and more recently so that they could wage the "war on tourism". Regards Donal -- |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... "Donal" wrote in message ... Methinks that you are some sort of socialist who would be much happier living in the 1960's USSR -- where the state took responsibility for everyone's actions. Youthinks wrong! The USA doesn't own the high seas. True. Why should we allow uninformed citizens who choose unseaworthy boats to endanger citizens of other countries who are then called upon to rescue these slackers when they founder on the high seas? Oh dear! After a good start your argument immediately descends into illogical, politically correct and dangerous waters. Illogical because .... You say that the USA doesn't own the high seas. If that is the case, how could the US Coastguard be given jurisdiction over the boats that sail the high seas? Ah, but there's where you're mistaken. It so happens that the U.S. Coast Guard has juristiction over American Flagged vessels no matter where they sail on high seas. And furthermore, U.S. Flagged vessels must pass through U.S. Territorial waters in order to get to the high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard's juristiction is clear and it's accepted law. Politically correct because .... Poltically correct arguments depend on persuading your audience that there is an unacceptable risk to innocent parties (the rescue services) posed by the guilty (catamaran sailors). I fear you have little understanding of what politically correct means and where the term came from. I'd like to suggest you do an etymological search on the term. You'll find the real meaning has nothing to do with the way you understand and use the term. There are a few problems with this line of reasoning. 1) You haven't given us any evidence that catamaran sailors have caused the deaths of anyone in the rescue services. 2) You haven't given us any evidence that monohull sailors have caused fewer deaths than catamaran sailors. 3) You don't seem to understand that every freedom comes with a cost. Your right to drive a car comes with the cost that pedestrian lives are at risk. This is the very essence of freedom. It is not my job to prove any of the above. It is your job in a debate to disprove my statements. This is the very essense of logic. Rational debate rests firmly upon a foundation of elemenatay logic. What responsibility do you think that the state has for an individual? Only that which the individual confers upon the state via elections and laws passed by legislative bodies representing the individual. (the consent of the governed) The state should protect a citizen from crime and foreign domination. In a free society the state will not try to protect you from yourself. In fact, the oppsoite is true. In a free society the state should enable you to express your freedom. Your first statement is true if that's what the electorate has decided it wants the state to do. Your second statement is false. It's false because it's been abundantly demonstrated that the state often protects people from themselves as in seat belt laws, anti-smoking laws, anti-drug laws etc. This is all done with the consent of the governed. Your third statement is not so in all cases or even in the majority of cases. The state enables one to vote and legislate in what ways the individual is allowed, without penalty, to express his freedom. The old example that you have the right to free speech yet you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded room comes to mind. I am talking about free states here - republics and democracies. My statements do not or are not meant to apply to dictatorships. How much expense is justified in the defence of freedom? You sound like a confused libertarian. For your information, the defense of freedom comes at the price of lives. It's always been that way and it always will be. The number of lives spent (lost) is determined by will of those who value freedom over life itself (give me liberty or give me death) vs. the will of those attempting to enslave. Cheers, Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Donal" wrote in message ... "Scotty" wrote in message . .. "Donal" wrote in message news:fa2khk$env$1$ Have you given up on the idea of "The Land of the Free"? Don't you think that the American constitution should defend a real man's right to go to sea without interference from state bodies? Sadly, they burned the constitution in 1971 so they could wage the ''war on drugs''. ...and more recently so that they could wage the "war on tourism". yulp, just another money making scheme/scam. SBV |
Catamarans have something extra....
* 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. |
Catamarans have something extra....
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) |
Catamarans have something extra....
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 |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:21:06 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message egroups.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." What is the make and length? : Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:21:06 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message legroups.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." What is the make and length? : Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) Why, Walker Bay, of course. 8'10" :-D |
Catamarans have something extra....
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? |
Catamarans have something extra....
"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? Either a Swan or a Coronado. |
Catamarans have something extra....
Paul Cassel wrote in
: 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? Oops, I should have written my blue water yacht(s) because . . . I've got three boats now. My Swan 68, Chippewa, my Allied Seawind 32, Sea Isle and I recently purchased the world famous Coronado 27, Cut the Mustard, from the estate of Capt. Neal. Got it at a bargain price and figure I could sell it and turn a tidy profit seeing how famous the boat has become. The trouble is I've been sailing it quite a bit and I'm starting to realize it's just about perfect in every way. It's got about as much room inside and the layout is better than the Allied and it's faster, I swear. Cut the Mustard's been through many a hurricane with the Good Captain aboard but I wasn't referring to that in the above. It's Sea Isle and the Swan. Mostly Sea Isle, my main squeeze. -- Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
Considering the easy availability of weather forcast, especially nowadays, I'd suggest you may want to take a course in weather and storm avoidance Wilbur Hubbard wrote in news:46c7355d$0 : Paul Cassel wrote in : 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? Oops, I should have written my blue water yacht(s) because . . . I've got three boats now. My Swan 68, Chippewa, my Allied Seawind 32, Sea Isle and I recently purchased the world famous Coronado 27, Cut the Mustard, from the estate of Capt. Neal. Got it at a bargain price and figure I could sell it and turn a tidy profit seeing how famous the boat has become. The trouble is I've been sailing it quite a bit and I'm starting to realize it's just about perfect in every way. It's got about as much room inside and the layout is better than the Allied and it's faster, I swear. Cut the Mustard's been through many a hurricane with the Good Captain aboard but I wasn't referring to that in the above. It's Sea Isle and the Swan. Mostly Sea Isle, my main squeeze. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"otnmbrd" wrote in message .70... Considering the easy availability of weather forcast, especially nowadays, I'd suggest you may want to take a course in weather and storm avoidance 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? Wilbur Hubbard |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Snip usual delusional bull**** ..... padded accommodation that sleeps six. Snip more delusional bull**** You should feel right at home then. |
Catamarans have something extra....
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:13:04 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:21:06 -0500, "KLC Lewis" wrote: wrote in message ... On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:46:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote: wrote in message glegroups.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." What is the make and length? : Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) Why, Walker Bay, of course. 8'10" :-D Unfortunately the Big Pyewacket seems to have overshadowed the smaller Pyewacket so no news flashes about you & yours. Bruce in Bangkok (brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom) |
Catamarans have something extra....
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Paul Cassel wrote in : 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? Oops, I should have written my blue water yacht(s) because . . . I've got three boats now. My Swan 68, Chippewa, my Allied Seawind 32, Sea Isle and I recently purchased the world famous Coronado 27, Cut the Mustard, from the estate of Capt. Neal. Got it at a bargain price and figure I could sell it and turn a tidy profit seeing how famous the boat has become. The trouble is I've been sailing it quite a bit and I'm starting to realize it's just about perfect in every way. It's got about as much room inside and the layout is better than the Allied and it's faster, I swear. Cut the Mustard's been through many a hurricane with the Good Captain aboard but I wasn't referring to that in the above. It's Sea Isle and the Swan. Mostly Sea Isle, my main squeeze. -- Wilbur Hubbard Can it be? Craptain Kneel is deceased? Nah, can't be. Just reincarnated. Ad nauseam. |
Catamarans have something extra....
"KLC Lewis" wrote in message et... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... Paul Cassel wrote in : 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? Oops, I should have written my blue water yacht(s) because . . . LOL.....fergot who you were for a moment? I've got three boats now. My Swan 68, Chippewa, my Allied Seawind 32, Sea Isle and I recently purchased the world famous Coronado 27, Cut the Mustard, from the estate of Capt. Neal. Got it at a bargain price and figure I could sell it and turn a tidy profit seeing how famous the boat has become. The trouble is I've been sailing it quite a bit and I'm starting to realize it's just about perfect in every way. It's got about as much room inside and the layout is better than the Allied and it's faster, I swear. Cut the Mustard's been through many a hurricane with the Good Captain aboard but I wasn't referring to that in the above. It's Sea Isle and the Swan. Mostly Sea Isle, my main squeeze. -- Wilbur Hubbard Can it be? Craptain Kneel is deceased? Nah, can't be. Just reincarnated. Ad nauseam. Well, he can now post about his favorite boat. Wonder if he got the log (and cedar bucket) with the purchase? |
Catamarans have something extra....
"OzOne" wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:07:45 -0400, "Captain Crunch" scribbled thusly: Wilbur Hubbard Wilbur F. Hubbard, Forgery, Newark, N.Y., Auburn 7 yrs. Dec. 26, 1893 Alias Wilbur F. Fisk. Hubbard, who lived in Lyons, was a swindler and forger was arrested by Jerry Collins, in Indiana, over 1500 people were at the Railroad Station to see him step off the train. Being a musician was prominent in Church circles in Argos, Ind., he occupied the Christian pulpit. Being a smooth, old foxey rascal. His crooked transactions run into $10,000.00. There were eight indictments for forgery against him. Only $10,000.00? He wasn't very good at forgery or swindling either, was he? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com