Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
rhys wrote:
..... one more sailboat, even a Macgregor, instead of one more jetski, has *got* to be the lesser of two evils, wouldn't you agree? Oh yes, most definitely. I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea, then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms. South Africa builds some apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em, I'd let the brother buy one. Over a Macgregor, even. Oh c'mon, we all know in our heart of hearts that *no* multihull can ever be really seaworthy, right Anyway, there are more than one or two monohulls better suited to be dockside tiki bars than sailing vessels, so it doesn't bother me that some multihulls have the same issues. The basic point, as I see it, is to understand the capabilities of your vessel and to know how to make her perform. A Mac26X owner who is convinced that his boat is as stable as a deep keel boat, and has the same windward performance as a J-24, can plane under sail, and 'round Cape Horn with ease, falls short of this IMHO. BTW my friends who have owned these boats did not generally fall into this category. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Wed, 19 May 2004 06:56:31 -0400, DSK wrote:
Anyway, there are more than one or two monohulls better suited to be dockside tiki bars than sailing vessels, so it doesn't bother me that some multihulls have the same issues. Many of which have a lot of vowels in their names, IMHO. G The basic point, as I see it, is to understand the capabilities of your vessel and to know how to make her perform. A Mac26X owner who is convinced that his boat is as stable as a deep keel boat, and has the same windward performance as a J-24, can plane under sail, and 'round Cape Horn with ease, falls short of this IMHO. BTW my friends who have owned these boats did not generally fall into this category. Exactly. R. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"rhys" wrote in message
... I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea, then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms. I'm not sure why you have a problem with "flat sliding doors" since I've never heard of a failure of one. Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a perfect safety record? Actually, I consider the door to be a major safety feature since you don't have to climb down a ladder to "go below." Modern cruising cats don't have a problem with seas breaking in the cockpit because the sterns are quite bouyant and lift easily. In many cats the door is almost amidships, so its rather unlikely to be tested even in the worst conditions. And the cockpit drains are usually 3 inch scuppers that drain directly below. I know that traditionally, large comfortable cockpits are not considered the safest for long passages, but they really aren't that bad on a cat. South Africa builds some apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em, I'd let the brother buy one. You'd figure it out real quick. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something
that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a perfect safety record? jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in fact sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most certainly catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
... Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a perfect safety record? jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in fact sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most certainly catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's. Modern cruising catamarans, over 35 feet and used for cruising, have a near perfect safety record, especially with regard to sinking. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of incidents in the last 10 years. To compare their record to monohulls is laughable. Get real, jaxie, this is just another one of you blatant lies! Why don't you show us a statistic, or are you going to spin some yarn about how an "expert" told you so in a bar? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Thursday 20 May 2004 1:05 am in rec.boats.cruising JAXAshby wrote:
Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a perfect safety record? jeff, catamarans do not hardly have "a perfect safety record". They in fact sink all over the place. *some* catamarans do not sink, but most certainly catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's. BULL****. Yet another idiot claim from our resident clown. -- My real address is crn (at) netunix (dot) com WARNING all messages containing attachments or html will be silently deleted. Send only plain text. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
BULL****.
Yet another idiot claim from our resident clown. check it out, yo-yo. catamarans "out there" sink at an unethical rate as compared to mono's. sorry, but you training wheels guys are putting your families in danger. go in a corner and pray for forgiveness. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Modern cruising catamarans, over 35 feet and used for cruising, have a near
perfect safety record, especially with regard to sinking. You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of incidents in the last 10 years. To compare their record to monohulls is laughable. compare the Iroquois owner's list to see just how many Iroquiois catamarans sank of the total number made. The % is not unusual in the context of catamarans taken "out there". |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Wed, 19 May 2004 14:07:53 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
wrote: "rhys" wrote in message .. . I try not to sneer at trimarans and cats, either, because they provide a *different*, but equally valid and perfectly enjoyable alternative to my preferred monohull. Where I tend to get snotty is on the issue of seaworthiness: if you accept that a cat with a big flat sliding glass door on its bridge is going to have issues in a following sea, then you understand my objections are not to catamarans, but to catamarans that want to be patio sunrooms. I'm not sure why you have a problem with "flat sliding doors" since I've never heard of a failure of one. I just find large openings and flat surfaces on small vessels of any type inappropriate from a windage viewpoint and POTENTIALLY from a structural viewpoint. I don't like large companionways and tons of fixed ports in the coachhouse for the same reason. It's not particularly scientific, but there's a reason submarines and shuttlecraft don't have screen doors, either. G Or are you defining "seaworthiness" as something that "looks proper" as opposed to something that has been proven safe with a perfect safety record? Perfect? Stats, please. Plenty of catamarans have gone missing in the ocean...we had one kill two sailors in Lake Erie three years ago near here in a line squall when it flipped and flooded. If a catamaran went down in the ocean, it would be hard to figure WHAT killed it, but a large glass door in the cockpit can reasonably be assumed will let in more following seas IF it fails. And engineering tells us everything fails, eventually. Me, I would rather it was a couple of dropboards YMMV. Some cats are more conservatively designed in this respect; others go for the "sunroom effect". Actually, I consider the door to be a major safety feature since you don't have to climb down a ladder to "go below." Different strokes, I guess. I have plenty of handholds so I essentially "drop" the four feet or so into the cabin. Racing cats, of course, look like '50s fighter jets, with "blister" windscreens and a minimum of deck clutter. Modern cruising cats don't have a problem with seas breaking in the cockpit because the sterns are quite bouyant and lift easily. In many cats the door is almost amidships, so its rather unlikely to be tested even in the worst conditions. And the cockpit drains are usually 3 inch scuppers that drain directly below. I know that traditionally, large comfortable cockpits are not considered the safest for long passages, but they really aren't that bad on a cat. Well, as I've said, while my experience with them is limited, I've seen a few that seemed a bit more alert, so to speak, to the possibly of tons of green water landing in an inconvenient spot. South Africa builds some apparently incredibly tough blue-water cats (they'd have to, given the conditions there), and while I'd personally have to learn to sail 'em, I'd let the brother buy one. You'd figure it out real quick. So I understand. Perhaps I should start with a tri...there are a few F28s locally that are supposed to do 20 kts. R. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Seaworthiness | Boat Building |