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".

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
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".

Iroquois are not "modern cruising cats over 35 feet." The were designed in the
early 1960's and are only 30 feet long, with a 13 foot beam. Many of the early
boats were finished from bare hull by amateurs. While it was a "breakthrough"
boat in its day, they serve now as the example of how not to build a catamaran.
Try again, jaxie.

jeffies, owning a catamaran is a leap in religious faith, and like most
religious bigots, catamaran bigots have the mental capacity of a seven year old
kid. catamarans present huge, and unstable, wind surfaces, have large,
marginally structural surface unable to stand tons of water slamming against
it, unable to sail up wind, enormous engineering problems in trying to keep the
two hulls from twisting the interconnecting structure to broken pencils and are
rather misserably slow when weighted down by cruising necessities.

As a % of boats "out there", catamarans sink at a much higher rate than mono's.
That is why so few catamarans -- as a % of total catamarans -- "go out there".

Catamarans are training wheels, bought by people who feel the need for training
wheels and both the boats and the people who buy them are best off staying
close to shore and anchoring every nite in a well protected anchorage.

now, jeffies, go pray in your Church of Eternal Life/Two Hulls that the God of
Two Hulls might smite the Half-Boat Heathens who might dare to set sail in
winds above 15 knots and waves above 4 feet.

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".

Iroquois are not "modern cruising cats over 35 feet." The were designed in
the
early 1960's and are only 30 feet long, with a 13 foot beam. Many of the
early
boats were finished from bare hull by amateurs. While it was a
"breakthrough"
boat in its day, they serve now as the example of how not to build a
catamaran.
Try again, jaxie.

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat problem.


"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
jeffies, owning a catamaran is a leap in religious faith, and like most
religious bigots, catamaran bigots have the mental capacity of a seven year
old
kid. catamarans present huge, and unstable, wind surfaces, have large,
marginally structural surface unable to stand tons of water slamming against
it, unable to sail up wind, enormous engineering problems in trying to keep
the
two hulls from twisting the interconnecting structure to broken pencils and
are
rather misserably slow when weighted down by cruising necessities.

As a % of boats "out there", catamarans sink at a much higher rate than
mono's.
That is why so few catamarans -- as a % of total catamarans -- "go out
there".

Catamarans are training wheels, bought by people who feel the need for
training
wheels and both the boats and the people who buy them are best off staying
close to shore and anchoring every nite in a well protected anchorage.

now, jeffies, go pray in your Church of Eternal Life/Two Hulls that the God of
Two Hulls might smite the Half-Boat Heathens who might dare to set sail in
winds above 15 knots and waves above 4 feet.




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".

Iroquois are not "modern cruising cats over 35 feet." The were designed in
the
early 1960's and are only 30 feet long, with a 13 foot beam. Many of the
early
boats were finished from bare hull by amateurs. While it was a
"breakthrough"
boat in its day, they serve now as the example of how not to build a
catamaran.
Try again, jaxie.

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat problem.

jeffies, were you too busy praying at the Church of Eternal Life/Two Hulls to
notice the post with three quick references? Is is your faith so bigot based
you couldn't read words that contradicted your faith?

On Thursday 20 May 2004 12:15 pm in rec.boats.cruising Jeff Morris wrote:

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat problem.

Just plonk the troll into your killfile, he is terminally clueless.
The existance of a few bad small cats is enough to condemn all multihulls
in his tiny mind despite the existance of cats which are unconditionally
stable.

yeah, the asshole believes in science, facts, experience, limits of positive
stability, structural integrity and 30 knot winds, too. killfile the *******.

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat problem.

Just plonk the troll into your killfile, he is terminally clueless.
The existance of a few bad small cats is enough to condemn all multihulls
in his tiny mind despite the existance of cats which are unconditionally
stable.

Chris Newport wrote:

On Thursday 20 May 2004 12:15 pm in rec.boats.cruising Jeff Morris wrote:

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat problem.

Just plonk the troll into your killfile, he is terminally clueless.
The existance of a few bad small cats is enough to condemn all multihulls
in his tiny mind despite the existance of cats which are unconditionally
stable.

"Unconditionally stable" is a term recognized
in maritime parlance as hyperbole.

the existance of cats which are unconditionally
stable.

"Unconditionally stable" is a term recognized
in maritime parlance as hyperbole.


in maritime parlance perhaps, but to the rest of the world it is referred to as
"bullsh*t". Only drivers of training wheels think otherwise.

On Sunday 23 May 2004 2:38 pm in rec.boats.cruising Roy Jose Lorr wrote:



Chris Newport wrote:

On Thursday 20 May 2004 12:15 pm in rec.boats.cruising Jeff Morris wrote:

Poor, poor jaxie. Your post reeks of jealousy.

You still haven't given even a single example of a cruising cat
problem.

Just plonk the troll into your killfile, he is terminally clueless.
The existance of a few bad small cats is enough to condemn all multihulls
in his tiny mind despite the existance of cats which are unconditionally
stable.

"Unconditionally stable" is a term recognized
in maritime parlance as hyperbole.

Only by those who fail to understand the designs involved.
There are, of course, some deliberate design choices such as
a relatively short mast and sails which are calibrated to offload
dangerously high forces before the craft is in danger.