We gave up on rational discussion when Jax entered.

no, jeffies, you gave up on rational discussion when you stated that catamarans
are "unconditionally stable".

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:27:30 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Rod McInnis" wrote ...

My, my, my but the things one can learn on a usenet group. Just
recently I learned that cruising catamaran sailboats are
unconditionally stable, that is stable under any and all
conditions.

Unfortunately, the unconditionally stable position is with the
mast pointed down.

Monohulls are unconditionally stable when sitting on the bottom.

Why does it usually seem that this subject is argued on an "either/or"
basis.
There are advantages to either approach. Is this really surprising to
anyone here?

I have both a monohull and a cat. Love em both but they are two very
different boats both because of the number of hulls and the size. But
since the cat is trailerable, I don't have to worry about one of the
main disadvantages, i.e., where to put it when it's not sailing, moored
or anchored.

Steve

On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:41:10 GMT, Brian Whatcott
wrote:

On Mon, 24 May 2004 19:27:30 -0400, "Armond Perretta"
wrote:

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Rod McInnis" wrote ...

My, my, my but the things one can learn on a usenet group. Just
recently I learned that cruising catamaran sailboats are
unconditionally stable, that is stable under any and all
conditions.

Unfortunately, the unconditionally stable position is with the
mast pointed down.

Monohulls are unconditionally stable when sitting on the bottom.

Why does it usually seem that this subject is argued on an "either/or"
basis.
There are advantages to either approach. Is this really surprising to
anyone here?

I've been reluctant to enter this thread because of the significant
contribution from the lunatic fringe.

Still, for what it's worth:
if you define "unconditionally stable" as meaning "unconditionally
self righting from any start orientation while the structure is
intact", there are several well-known examples.
Perhaps the one that comes first to mind, is a trans-Atlantic rowboat.
This had buoyant sponsons at either gunwale, but more importantly,

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

Steve

"JAXAshby" wrote in message
...
We gave up on rational discussion when Jax entered.

no, jeffies, you gave up on rational discussion when you stated that
catamarans
are "unconditionally stable".

I think this proves my point. Jax is so irrational that he didn't notice that I
didn't comment at all on catamaran stability; it wasn't me that made the comment
on "unconditionally stable" and I'm not sure what it means. I would guess,
though, that Chris was talking about cat designs like the Prout which due to a
very conservative design have a virtually perfect safety record: no capsizes, no
sinkings, 5000 built, more circumnavigations than any other brand of sailboat.

Frankly, while jax babbles about theory (getting it wrong, of course), makes up
"statistics," and posts links about 40 year old designs and beach cats, I'm
content that the actual number of modern cruising cats capsizing is less than 5
in the last 10 years or so, with well over 10,000 built.

I have both a monohull ...

an AMF Puffer

and a cat...

a Venture 16

Love em both but they are two very
different boats both because of the number of hulls and the size. But
since the cat is trailerable, I don't have to worry about one of the
main disadvantages, i.e., where to put it when it's not sailing, moored
or anchored.

Steve

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

Steve

so is a beachball, but the discussion was cruising catamarans.

know what this is steviie?

jeffies proves my point:

[nevermind jeffies motors around on a two-huller "because his wife is scared"


no, jeffies, you gave up on rational discussion when you stated that
catamarans
are "unconditionally stable".

I think this proves my point. Jax is so irrational that he didn't notice
that I
didn't comment at all on catamaran stability; it wasn't me that made the
comment
on "unconditionally stable" and I'm not sure what it means. I would guess,
though, that Chris was talking about cat designs like the Prout which due to
a
very conservative design have a virtually perfect safety record: no capsizes,
no
sinkings, 5000 built, more circumnavigations than any other brand of
sailboat.

Frankly, while jax babbles about theory (getting it wrong, of course), makes
up
"statistics," and posts links about 40 year old designs and beach cats, I'm
content that the actual number of modern cruising cats capsizing is less than
5
in the last 10 years or so, with well over 10,000 built.

I'm
content that the actual number of modern cruising cats capsizing is less
than
5
in the last 10 years or so, with well over 10,000 built.

not many people beside jeffies consider a Hobie cat to be a cruising boat. Not
many people beside jeffies consider 1950's to be "10 years or so" ago.

On 25 May 2004 02:35:14 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that those fully enclosed life boats you see
hanging off of freighters are also unconditionally stable.

so is a beachball, but the discussion was cruising catamarans.

know what this is steviie?

Please learn how to follow a thread. The part I responded to was about
trans-atlantic rowboats and other possibly unconditionally stable boats.
You snipped so much you forgot what the topic was.

Steve

On 25 May 2004 02:38:16 GMT, something compelled
(JAXAshby), to say:

jeffies proves my point:

[nevermind jeffies motors around on a two-huller "because his wife is scared"

And the problem with this approach is . . . ?