| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do? One
poster said he would not take one out of sight of land so lets consider this. First, most boat accidents happen within sight of land because thats where the boats hit stuff, like land. So, out of sight of land, aside from an occasional collision, weather is the major hazard so let's examine the possible hazards. Hurricanes: Any Mac owner who finds himself in a hurricane is the victim of his own stupidity. I cannot envision any possible excuse to find oneself in such a situation. Unexpected storm, like the Storm of the Century: Actually, most mariners should have expected it. I was due to leave that day for a sailing trip but two days before had noticed an odd low in the Western Gulf. CG posted small craft warnings. I put off my trip. Within 24 hours there were local gale warnings. I know of no small craft operator on any reasonable (for a Mac26) passage of say 48 hours that got caught in this and injured who can honestly say they had no warning. NorEaster: I have no experience with them. Pacific storms: No experience Thunderstorms and line squalls: These are legit hazards because they are fairly unpredictable and isolated. Winds can go from 0 to 70 kts to 0 in an hour and be dead calm 5 miles away. All Florida sailors will eventually find themselves in one and probably several. On my S2, my technique is: First recognize them by hearing thunder (duh), then look to see if I can go around it. This is sometimes possible because they are local but since a sailboat moves slow and sometimes its (the storm) direction of movement is uncertain, this only works about 30% of the time. make sure anchor is ready for possible deployment if near shallow water. Look for the slight coolness of the wind that signals it is near and approaching. TAKE DOWN SAILS NOW if you feel it. Evaluate searoom and try to get into deeper water with engine. As wind gets strong, try to power into it to keep bow pointed toward it. It I cannot keep bow pointed toward the wind, execute a very fast turn and run with wind on the stern quarter. Try to stay out of shallow water. If necessary, deploy anchor. A Mac26 can do all of this and better since it has more power and speed. If the storms direction can be ascertained, it can easily power around it. Since most such storms occur near the ocean/land interface, safe harbor is probably close for powering too at 17 kts. I have noticed that such isolated storms do not greatly enhance the wave height because they are so local and short lived. Storms imbedded in a front can be associated with big waves but these are obvious on a weather map and avoided. This means that a Mac26 can power away from such a storm at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of a REAL sailboat. Another point about going out of sight of land: Why go out there if you can avoid it? After a few minutes, all the waves look the same (ok, so theres an occasional crazy one). The interesting stuff is near land. All teh times I have gone out of sight of land was because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or the only way for my 4' draft. With the Mac26 very shallow draft, it is not limited in this way so should spend far less time on such unnecessary passages. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
|
Seaworthiness of Mac26
rhys wrote:
...Nobody blames PortaBote owners for getting the sailing rig option, so I find the criticisms of the Mac26X *as a sailing vessel* a little pointless, AFAIK nobody has *criticised* the sailing performance of the Mac 26X, only pointed out that it is not at all what it is often claimed to be. If you saw Porta-Bote advertising that their sailing rig option will beat Tornado Cats and is by far the most aerodynamically advanced vessel yet produced by Western civilization, you might shake your head a bit. Is the Macgregor 26X a badly built boat? Separate issue entirely. Is it the ******* offspring of a powerboat and a dinghy? Oh, probably, but so what? Many people like that sort of thing, and as long as they understand COLREGs, it's irrelevant to my sailing experience. Agreed. But would you let your brother buy one? ;) Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"Parallax" wrote in message
om... Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do? One poster said he would not take one out of sight of land so lets consider this. First, most boat accidents happen within sight of land because thats where the boats hit stuff, like land. So, out of sight of land, aside from an occasional collision, weather is the major hazard so let's examine the possible hazards. Hurricanes: Any Mac owner who finds himself in a hurricane is the victim of his own stupidity. I cannot envision any possible excuse to find oneself in such a situation. This could be said of any sailor. However, Hurricane Bob ran up the coast so fast that New England had about 24 hours notice. What would a Mac owner do if he were more than 24 hours from his trailer, other than call his insurance agent? Unexpected storm, like the Storm of the Century: Actually, most mariners should have expected it. I was due to leave that day for a sailing trip but two days before had noticed an odd low in the Western Gulf. CG posted small craft warnings. I put off my trip. Within 24 hours there were local gale warnings. I know of no small craft operator on any reasonable (for a Mac26) passage of say 48 hours that got caught in this and injured who can honestly say they had no warning. NorEaster: I have no experience with them. Pacific storms: No experience Thunderstorms and line squalls: These are legit hazards because they are fairly unpredictable and isolated. snip A Mac26 can do all of this and better since it has more power and speed. If the storms direction can be ascertained, it can easily power around it. Since most such storms occur near the ocean/land interface, safe harbor is probably close for powering too at 17 kts. Why does everyone use "17 knots" as the speed of a Mac 26? The high speeds mentioned on the web site were only achieved with a stripped down boat, no ballast, no mast, rigging or sail, limited fuel, no water and limited safety gear. One very light skipper. If you read the boards, you'll find that most mac owners report speeds of around 12 mph or less for a loaded boat, worse if heading into a chop. And they report it can get very sloppy. While that is still somewhat faster than most "normal" sailboats, its really only a little faster; I've been on a number of boats that can power all day at over 7 knots, or 8 mph. I have noticed that such isolated storms do not greatly enhance the wave height because they are so local and short lived. Storms imbedded in a front can be associated with big waves but these are obvious on a weather map and avoided. This means that a Mac26 can power away from such a storm at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of a REAL sailboat. You're assuming that that boat was in very protected water to start. What if it was in the ocean and the was 3-4 foot chop to start? In this case, the mac won't be that much faster than a real sailboat. You seem to have ignored a large category of weather: What about days that are simply windy and rough? Every year I usually find myself in 30 to 35 knots, seas 4-6 feet. Usually it is outside of the range predicted, though not completely unexpected. How well does the Mac handle this? Can it make headway to windward? It certainly can't do 17 knots, it might not be able to do 7 knots. And what would happen of the engine wouldn't start? Another point about going out of sight of land: Why go out there if you can avoid it? After a few minutes, all the waves look the same (ok, so theres an occasional crazy one). The interesting stuff is near land. This all depends on where you are - in New England one often goes 3 or 4 miles off just to go down the coast to the next harbor. With a light fog that's out of sight of land. All teh times I have gone out of sight of land was because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or the only way for my 4' draft. With the Mac26 very shallow draft, it is not limited in this way so should spend far less time on such unnecessary passages. Many of the truly great sails I've had were in condition where I would not want to take a Mac 26x. If this doesn't appeal to you, if you only seek the pleasures of a completely protected bay, then maybe a mac is the right boat for you. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
If this doesn't appeal to you, if you only seek the
pleasures of a completely protected bay, then maybe a mac is the right boat for you. and you're not a MAN who sails a manly REAL sailboat in manly deep waters under the threat of mansize weather conditions. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Long Island Sound, I have seen my WSI pegged at 60 knots plus strong,
sustained gusts for upwards of 15 minutes at a time, when a serious thunderstorm goes over the Connecticut shore (reports of 90 knot winds happen every few years). I have seen 50+ knots for more than 60 minutes out of 90 minutes under such conditions. no way in hell would I wish to be out there in a boat with the weak rigging of a mac 26, as the rigging was presented on a mac on display in the water at the Annapolis boat show. Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do? One poster said he would not take one out of sight of land so lets consider this. First, most boat accidents happen within sight of land because thats where the boats hit stuff, like land. So, out of sight of land, aside from an occasional collision, weather is the major hazard so let's examine the possible hazards. Hurricanes: Any Mac owner who finds himself in a hurricane is the victim of his own stupidity. I cannot envision any possible excuse to find oneself in such a situation. Unexpected storm, like the Storm of the Century: Actually, most mariners should have expected it. I was due to leave that day for a sailing trip but two days before had noticed an odd low in the Western Gulf. CG posted small craft warnings. I put off my trip. Within 24 hours there were local gale warnings. I know of no small craft operator on any reasonable (for a Mac26) passage of say 48 hours that got caught in this and injured who can honestly say they had no warning. NorEaster: I have no experience with them. Pacific storms: No experience Thunderstorms and line squalls: These are legit hazards because they are fairly unpredictable and isolated. Winds can go from 0 to 70 kts to 0 in an hour and be dead calm 5 miles away. All Florida sailors will eventually find themselves in one and probably several. On my S2, my technique is: First recognize them by hearing thunder (duh), then look to see if I can go around it. This is sometimes possible because they are local but since a sailboat moves slow and sometimes its (the storm) direction of movement is uncertain, this only works about 30% of the time. make sure anchor is ready for possible deployment if near shallow water. Look for the slight coolness of the wind that signals it is near and approaching. TAKE DOWN SAILS NOW if you feel it. Evaluate searoom and try to get into deeper water with engine. As wind gets strong, try to power into it to keep bow pointed toward it. It I cannot keep bow pointed toward the wind, execute a very fast turn and run with wind on the stern quarter. Try to stay out of shallow water. If necessary, deploy anchor. A Mac26 can do all of this and better since it has more power and speed. If the storms direction can be ascertained, it can easily power around it. Since most such storms occur near the ocean/land interface, safe harbor is probably close for powering too at 17 kts. I have noticed that such isolated storms do not greatly enhance the wave height because they are so local and short lived. Storms imbedded in a front can be associated with big waves but these are obvious on a weather map and avoided. This means that a Mac26 can power away from such a storm at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of a REAL sailboat. Another point about going out of sight of land: Why go out there if you can avoid it? After a few minutes, all the waves look the same (ok, so theres an occasional crazy one). The interesting stuff is near land. All teh times I have gone out of sight of land was because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or the only way for my 4' draft. With the Mac26 very shallow draft, it is not limited in this way so should spend far less time on such unnecessary passages. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Nobody blames PortaBote owners for getting the sailing rig option
I own a Porta-Bote and am happy with it. I do not own the sailing rig for it, have never met anyone who did or does own the sailing rig for it, and have heard stories of stories or stories that there exists no satisfied owner of the sailing rig for the bote. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Do you have a point? Parallax claims there's nothing of interest "out of sight
of land" and with a shallow draft boat, no reason to go there. I'm just agreeing that if he sees it that way, the Mac might be the right boat for him. Frankly, half of my sailing life was been spent in very protected waters, so I understand the appeal of inland sailing. But I've found I also enjoy coastal cruising in environments that would be beyond the capabilities of a Mac. Sorry if that logic offends you. "Quest0029" wrote in message ... If this doesn't appeal to you, if you only seek the pleasures of a completely protected bay, then maybe a mac is the right boat for you. and you're not a MAN who sails a manly REAL sailboat in manly deep waters under the threat of mansize weather conditions. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ...
"Parallax" wrote in message om... Granted the Mac26 is not an offshore boat, but what can she do? One poster said he would not take one out of sight of land so lets consider this. First, most boat accidents happen within sight of land because thats where the boats hit stuff, like land. So, out of sight of land, aside from an occasional collision, weather is the major hazard so let's examine the possible hazards. Hurricanes: Any Mac owner who finds himself in a hurricane is the victim of his own stupidity. I cannot envision any possible excuse to find oneself in such a situation. This could be said of any sailor. However, Hurricane Bob ran up the coast so fast that New England had about 24 hours notice. What would a Mac owner do if he were more than 24 hours from his trailer, other than call his insurance agent? Unexpected storm, like the Storm of the Century: Actually, most mariners should have expected it. I was due to leave that day for a sailing trip but two days before had noticed an odd low in the Western Gulf. CG posted small craft warnings. I put off my trip. Within 24 hours there were local gale warnings. I know of no small craft operator on any reasonable (for a Mac26) passage of say 48 hours that got caught in this and injured who can honestly say they had no warning. NorEaster: I have no experience with them. Pacific storms: No experience Thunderstorms and line squalls: These are legit hazards because they are fairly unpredictable and isolated. snip A Mac26 can do all of this and better since it has more power and speed. If the storms direction can be ascertained, it can easily power around it. Since most such storms occur near the ocean/land interface, safe harbor is probably close for powering too at 17 kts. Why does everyone use "17 knots" as the speed of a Mac 26? The high speeds mentioned on the web site were only achieved with a stripped down boat, no ballast, no mast, rigging or sail, limited fuel, no water and limited safety gear. One very light skipper. If you read the boards, you'll find that most mac owners report speeds of around 12 mph or less for a loaded boat, worse if heading into a chop. And they report it can get very sloppy. While that is still somewhat faster than most "normal" sailboats, its really only a little faster; I've been on a number of boats that can power all day at over 7 knots, or 8 mph. I have noticed that such isolated storms do not greatly enhance the wave height because they are so local and short lived. Storms imbedded in a front can be associated with big waves but these are obvious on a weather map and avoided. This means that a Mac26 can power away from such a storm at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of a REAL sailboat. You're assuming that that boat was in very protected water to start. What if it was in the ocean and the was 3-4 foot chop to start? In this case, the mac won't be that much faster than a real sailboat. You seem to have ignored a large category of weather: What about days that are simply windy and rough? Every year I usually find myself in 30 to 35 knots, seas 4-6 feet. Usually it is outside of the range predicted, though not completely unexpected. How well does the Mac handle this? Can it make headway to windward? It certainly can't do 17 knots, it might not be able to do 7 knots. And what would happen of the engine wouldn't start? Another point about going out of sight of land: Why go out there if you can avoid it? After a few minutes, all the waves look the same (ok, so theres an occasional crazy one). The interesting stuff is near land. This all depends on where you are - in New England one often goes 3 or 4 miles off just to go down the coast to the next harbor. With a light fog that's out of sight of land. All teh times I have gone out of sight of land was because it was the fastest way to get somewhere or the only way for my 4' draft. With the Mac26 very shallow draft, it is not limited in this way so should spend far less time on such unnecessary passages. Many of the truly great sails I've had were in condition where I would not want to take a Mac 26x. If this doesn't appeal to you, if you only seek the pleasures of a completely protected bay, then maybe a mac is the right boat for you. Jeff: I use 17 kts because that is reported by several ppl on Mac26 cruising sites. As far as what a Mac26 owner would do if a Hurricane was approaching and he couldnt get his trailer to his boat, the question makes no sense. When she is not being sailed, she IS on the trailer. However, in the unlikely case of her not being on the trailer but in a slip, he does what all other sailboat owners do, checks to make sure his insurance policy is paid up, then considers if he can secure her better. During hurricane season, I leave my S2 in a state of hurricane readiness (summer is just too hot to sail all the time, I sail in cooler weather). For the occasional 35 kt "storm", I am certain a Mac26 can handle it. One web site talks about sailing a lot in such weather in a Mac26, dunno if he really does. Here, if I see fog, I get very cautious, even light fog. I been lost in fog enough to know how fast light fog becomes pea soup. Generally, foggy conditions are also very light wind conditions so it is not any more a hazard to the Mac26 than to any other boat. I am also not assuming "very protected water" but the open Gulf of Mexico. The NE gulf is VERY shallow and gets a nasty chop. Still, a 50 hp motor sure beats my old 6.5 hp Yanmar 1GM on my S2 (replaced by a 13 hp 2GM). |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Tue, 18 May 2004 16:02:41 -0400, DSK wrote:
AFAIK nobody has *criticised* the sailing performance of the Mac 26X, only pointed out that it is not at all what it is often claimed to be. Well, even looking at grainy pictures of it I can tell it will point like a barge. "Can sail" and "can sail well" are relative. If you saw Porta-Bote advertising that their sailing rig option will beat Tornado Cats and is by far the most aerodynamically advanced vessel yet produced by Western civilization, you might shake your head a bit. Like a junkie with Parkinson's, yes. Is the Macgregor 26X a badly built boat? Separate issue entirely. Is it the ******* offspring of a powerboat and a dinghy? Oh, probably, but so what? Many people like that sort of thing, and as long as they understand COLREGs, it's irrelevant to my sailing experience. Agreed. But would you let your brother buy one? ;) Sure, if he was picking it over a powerboat...but I'd take the thing under tow if the wind picked up. G Seriously, they look like nothing I'd enjoy, but one more sailboat, even a Macgregor, instead of one more jetski, has *got* to be the lesser of two evils, wouldn't you agree? 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. R. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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". |
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... 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. Check what out? Show us a site that proves that cruising cats aren't safer than monohulls. Another worthless claim from the jaxhole. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
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. Check what out? Show us a site that proves that cruising cats aren't safer than monohulls. Another worthless claim from the jaxhole. http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9154 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9182 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9275 |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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? |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"rhys" wrote in message
... 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... Really? I've heard of a couple in the last 20 years ... can you point to any? This is an odd issue, because people often claim cats flip, sink, or go missing, but then are never able to provide examples. There are, of course, a few, but very few compared to monohulls. we had one kill two sailors in Lake Erie three years ago near here in a line squall when it flipped and flooded. Yes, it was a racing boat carrying full sail with spinnaker in the middle of the night, only one man was on deck at the time. There is certainly no question that racing cats and tris flip. Of course, racing monos also flip and often sink. 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. Why? Most catamarams keep a dry cockpit in following seas. And in major storms the preferred strategy is to lie to a sea anchor. 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". Are you saying a Hunter is a safe boat because it has dropboards? You could make the hypothetical case that sliding doors might not be safe in an "ultimate storm" but certainly the majority of boats built have similar issues. So are you simply saying that most cats are built as coastal cruisers, just like most monohulls are? 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. Yes, there are certainly a number of cats designed specifically with ocean passages in mind, just as there are a number of monohulls so designed. At the other end of the spectrum there are cats suited only for coastal waters, although they have made passages as "stunts," just like you hear of J30's making passages. One thing to remember about larger cruising cats is that they make a huge number of passages. Almost every cat the Caribbean (a major part of the market) gets there on its own bottom, usually from France or South Africa. Even my PDQ, clearly a coastal design, has 30 or 40 Bermuda passages (the major charter fleet uses that route), plus a least one Atlantic crossing. 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. Now that might take a bit of learning. Last year I was waiting out some weather in Plymouth, MA when a new F31 came in. He said they had just been doing about 17 knots reaching down from Boston. I was a bit envious until I went below - but it did make me think about choices and alternatives. -- -jeff www.sv-loki.com "The sea was angry that day, my friend. Like an old man trying to send back soup at the deli." |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Did you even look at the links? One talks about the Iroquois, a very early
design from the '60's, only 30 feet, which did have problems. They also did a considerable number of passages, including IIRC a circumnavigation. The second provides a number of links to mishaps involving a 19 foot cat, a "Route du Rumb" racer, Groupama, one of the most extreme racing boats ever made, a Prindle 18 capsize, a daysailing dive boat in Hawaii, and a fictional movie. Another tells the rather improbable third-hand tale of two 42 foot cats falling over in an anchorage from a 40 knot gust. (Most modern cats are designed to stay upright with full sail sheeting tight, with a 45 knot wind on the beam.) Pretty lame, jaxie. But its about what we expect from you. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... 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. Check what out? Show us a site that proves that cruising cats aren't safer than monohulls. Another worthless claim from the jaxhole. http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9154 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9182 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9275 |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Really? I've heard of a couple in the last 20 years ... can you point to
any? This is an odd issue, because people often claim cats flip, sink, or go missing, but then are never able to provide examples. There are, of course, a few, but very few compared to monohulls there are thousands of mono's to every two huller out there. There *IS* a reason for that. In fact, many sound reasons for that. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
jeffies, speaks from the pulpit of The Church of Enlightenment/Two Hulls
preaching only to the Two Hulls Choir thusly: Did you even look at the links? One talks about the Iroquois, a very early design from the '60's, only 30 feet, which did have problems. They also did a considerable number of passages, including IIRC a circumnavigation. The second provides a number of links to mishaps involving a 19 foot cat, a "Route du Rumb" racer, Groupama, one of the most extreme racing boats ever made, a Prindle 18 capsize, a daysailing dive boat in Hawaii, and a fictional movie. Another tells the rather improbable third-hand tale of two 42 foot cats falling over in an anchorage from a 40 knot gust. (Most modern cats are designed to stay upright with full sail sheeting tight, with a 45 knot wind on the beam.) Pretty lame, jaxie. But its about what we expect from you. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... 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. Check what out? Show us a site that proves that cruising cats aren't safer than monohulls. Another worthless claim from the jaxhole. http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9154 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9182 http://www.cs-bb.com/forums/CSBB/index.cgi/read/9275 |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"JAXAshby" wrote in message
... Really? I've heard of a couple in the last 20 years ... can you point to any? This is an odd issue, because people often claim cats flip, sink, or go missing, but then are never able to provide examples. There are, of course, a few, but very few compared to monohulls there are thousands of mono's to every two huller out there. There *IS* a reason for that. In fact, many sound reasons for that. Once again, jax displays his total ignorance. In this country, there are 200,000 boats registered as "auxiliary sailboats." This includes many (probably a majority) that are under 30 feet, so the number of sailboats that could be compared to a cruising cat is probably well under 100,000. However, one catamaran builder alone has built almost 1000 boats, and that number is likely doubled by the other builders. This by itself is enough to prove that Jax is off by at least a factor of forty. But looking to Europe we find that Prout built about 5000 cats. Does that mean that there are 10,000,000 aux sailboats in England? rather doubtful. Similar numbers have been built by the large manufacturers in France, and now South Africa is building in large numbers. Its pretty clear that the number of cats is growing. While I'm not sure the number is 5% yet, it is getting close. Boston was never considered a catamaran center, but every marina has at least some - the number is about 3% of the sailboats. In my marina the number is over 10%! |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
the latest report to the choir from the pastor of The Church of Eternal
Enlightenment/TwoHulls.com is thus: [yuk] In this country, there are 200,000 boats registered as "auxiliary sailboats." This includes many (probably a majority) that are under 30 feet, so the number of sailboats that could be compared to a cruising cat is probably well under 100,000. However, one catamaran builder alone has built almost 1000 boats, and that number is likely doubled by the other builders. This by itself is enough to prove that Jax is off by at least a factor of forty. But looking to Europe we find that Prout built about 5000 cats. Does that mean that there are 10,000,000 aux sailboats in England? rather doubtful. Similar numbers have been built by the large manufacturers in France, and now South Africa is building in large numbers. Its pretty clear that the number of cats is growing. While I'm not sure the number is 5% yet, it is getting close. Boston was never considered a catamaran center, but every marina has at least some - the number is about 3% of the sailboats. In my marina the number is over 10%! |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
"Unconditionally stable" is a term recognized
in maritime parlance as hyperbole. Only by those who fail to understand the designs involved. such as design engineers? unconditionally stable means stable without an condition contradicting it. Catamarans are usually UNstable in conditions beyond about 30* of heel. In fact, catamarans are most stable ONLY at zero degrees of heel. Each degree of heel past zero takes less and less force to push the boat to the next degree of heel. In addition, as the windward pontoon clears the water the wind force heeling the boat *increases* due to the end plate effect of the leeward pontoon. Both are in dramatic difference to monohulls, which in cruising designs are more resistent to heel as the boat tilts (up to about 60* generally of heel) and in which the sail area exposed to the wind decreases. Catamarans can be capsized by strong winds alone. Monos virtually always require breaking waves to capsize. 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. |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
Chris Newport wrote: 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. "Unconditional" is an absolute. No matter the design there are always conditions such as in the ones you set up as "deliberate design choices" (above). |
Seaworthiness of Mac26
On Monday 24 May 2004 5:36 am in rec.boats.cruising Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Chris Newport wrote: 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. "Unconditional" is an absolute. No matter the design there are always conditions such as in the ones you set up as "deliberate design choices" (above). Pedants R us. The stability is unconditional for the yacht as designed (Wharram). Changing the design obviously invalidates the stability. The designs in question have, amongst other features, a short mast to keep the centre of effort low, and special sails calibrated to cut loose before critical loading can be reached. The JaxIdiot will probably continue his rants, but bigotry is no substitute for reality. Just keep him in your killfile. Feeding the trolls is a bad idea. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com