Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Peter HK wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

There are occasional sea patterns that are uncomfortable on a multi,
usually
with beam seas, but the magnitude of the event needs to be considered.
Cats
reach max stability at about 5 degrees of heel (when a hull lifts). As
this
never happens on cruising cats, all heel angles are less than 5 degrees.
Short sharp waves can occasionally exceed this a little due to the hulls
being in a trough and crest. Compare to a mono rolling downwind where
heel
angles can be 30 degrees side to side.

Multis do have a different motion- shorter and sharper compared to slower
but much more amplitude on a mono.
Personally I find it quite comfortable. As stated in a previous post a
glass
never spills, which is a significant observation on the severity of the
motion.

When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches to
enter
a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are
probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things
will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?


I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures, just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


Monohulls do not normally rock from side to side, nor do they heel over
30
degrees
unless you are racing. With the proper sail trim, they should not heel
that
much.

You seem to think I have not sailed monos- far from the truth. While on a
reach they have a fairly stable angle of heel, but I have been on many monos
where the famous "death rolls", which occur when running square, especially
in certain sea states, have been extreme. Not all monos experience this to
the same extent - hullform makes a difference- but 30 degree side to side
roll running square is not that uncommon.

You missed the point of the sails acting like a shock absorber in union
with
the'
pendulum action of the keel.


Not at all.


And what if you are on deck at the time?

Same as a mono in a knockdown.


And what do you do in this secure
section of the hull? Wait and hope for rescue because you won't be
able to
get yourself out of trouble.

EPIRB? While much more comfortable/secure than in a liferaft.


When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

Any boat that fills with water is going to sink.

Not correct- if buoyancy exceeds weight (eg foam cored multis) it doesn't
sink. The Rose-Noelle (a tri which capsized off NZ about 10 years ago)
floated for 100+ days until it washed ashore- all crew survived inside the
hull and walked to safety.

The idea about mono hulls
is that
they will right themselves before the boat fills with water.


The idea about multis is that their incredibly high stability means they
won't capsize.

Neither theory works all the time.



It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

I prefer the self righting.

Each to his own.

Peter HK

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

In article .com,
"Capt" Rob" wrote:
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself.


And yet you haven't sailed catamarans enough to say what the
"sailing experience" is.

Jere Lull wrote:
I've chartered a half dozen 45-48' cats, been on smaller ones, and of
course a bunch of monohulls. I can get either type to go well, so
that's not an issue.


It shouldn't be a big issue. Multis do sail & steer
differently. And not all multis steer the same, either.


The space of a cat is wonderful -- and horrible. From experience, if we
have space, we'll fill it up. We'll make a cat heavy pretty fast. There
goes any speed advantage.


Also more thumping under the bridge deck.
But even a heavy cat is as fast, or maybe faster, than a
heavy monohull. And more fuel efficient when motoring (maybe
I shouldn't mention that).

About space... my personal opinion is that the roominess of
multis if oexaggerated. They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space.


Price is certainly a factor. We can cruise for a few years on the cost
difference for the same amount of space.


Now there's a BIG issue... although the cost of multihulls
is dropping pretty fast on the 2nd-hand market. As more &
more charter cats come out of service & into the market, I
think we'll see prices level off.


My major question, though is how long will cats be serviceable? Our
little Xan is 33 years old and seems destined to celebrate 50
comfortably. That seems not unusual for most well-maintained monohulls
I see.

I saw what happened to a Gemini that smacked a wall. It wasn't going
that fast, but both hulls shattered and the construction revealed
wasn't pretty. (Truth be told, our old Macgregor seemed more solidly
constructed.) Friend on an "older" (late 80's) cat is discovering some
interesting structural projects.

Cats are built relatively lightly, and that's a good selling point, but
will it hurt them in the long run? New Hunters and Macgregors certainly
are capable of what they're designed for, but I wouldn't trust older
ones for serious cruising.


Interesting point. It may be that multis are stressed more
as well as more lightly built... but I don't see why one
couldn't last as long as a monohull, given good care.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Capt. Rob" wrote ...
DSK wrote ...

BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you ...

Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to
involve a license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and
may even know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I
won't engage in any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain. I suppose you can call
yourself whatever you want, but the typical definition of Captain is
someone licensed by the USCG or other authority.

I certainly agree.

Admiral of the Fleet Armond

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space.


Both the Gemini and PDQ I sailed had more room below (Than my 32 or 35
footers) and the central salon was more practical. The hull cabin space
was a bit tight. The deck space is obvious. But is this all a logical
comparison? The 36 foot PDQ IS a bigger boat and than a 36 foot
monohul. We tend to talk about boat size only by LOA, but the beam is
of equal importance. Someone take a top view of a cat and STRETCH it
until it's beam is like that of a monohul. How long would it be....?
Silly, but when it comes to cats we have to abandon the LOA factor as a
primary guage for size. Does anyone have the Cubic interior on a Cat
vs. Mono?

RB
Beneteau 35s5
NY

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
....



Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;

- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the
episode. Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot,
and down below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn
on the jib) in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach. He
was not entering, but passing by a notoriously windy cut in the Abacos
(by Whale Cay?) and got hit by an estimated 45 knot gust and 6 foot
wave beam on. The boat did not pitchpole, but slowly went on its
side, and stayed there for several hours while the owner (who came
from Marsh Harbor?) and others tried to right it. Finally, a stay
broke and it capsized. It was towed back to Marsh Harbor where the
deck was trashed by efforts to lift it inverted with slings. I saw
the boat in Toronto awaiting a deck rebuild.

One design factor considered by cat builders is how much wind could a
boat handle in such a worst case of a gust on the beam with full sail
sheeted in. The figure used for the PDQ 32 is 45 knots. The
assumption is that in almost all cases where 45 knots is possible, you
would shorten sail - even a single reef makes a huge difference in
this situation. Also, in most cases someone would be on deck to
release a sheet. A significant lesson is that whenever full sail is
sheeted in during a blow, someone must be on deck!

Two other factors apply he First, this particular boat was sailing
"light." That is, it was stripped out and not carrying cruising gear.
If it were loaded, it probably would not have gone over. The second
is that this design has a rather narrow beam, coupled with a tall
profile. This is one of the issues with smaller cats, since the
temptation by designers is to make them narrow enough for a slip.
Also, since the bridge deck clearance and overhead boom height have
practical minimums, smaller cats have proportionally taller rigs. The
combination of narrow beam and tall rig makes this sort of incident
inevitable. For this reason, I've usually said that the minimum size
for an offshore capable cat is about 35 feet, unless it has a very
conservative rig.

This situation also applies to the Gemini (14 foot beam), and a recent
case of an Iroquois (which only has a 13 foot beam!). The Heaven
Twins is another such case, with a beam under 14 feet.




- a Gemini capsizing in Texas; sailed over due to too much sail

- a Fountaine Pajot 35 capsized in the Caribbean; sailed over with a
charter group aboard

- a Catana in the Med; capsized due to a sudden squall hitting with the
chute up at night.

- a Heavenly Twins 26 or 27 capsizing in Force 10+ north of the British
Isles during a rare summer severe storm.

I have also heard of the F-P Maldives 32 being pretty susceptible to
capsize but that's more innuendo that actual facts and the Iriquois but
I don't know if they were capsized during racing or while cruising.

Most of the above are smaller, narrower beam cats by the way of fairly
old design; the exceptions being the FP 35 and the Catana.

When the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton University did a study of trying
to capsize cruising cat models the only way they could do it was a beam
on breaking wave beam of the boat (similar to a monohull by the way)

"MODEL TESTS TO STUDY CAPSIZE AND STABILITY OF SAILING MULTIHULLS"
Deakin B.
The 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, January 2001

Evan Gatehouse

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
...
Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;

- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers


Another incident not on the list... 2 ~ 3 years ago a Gemini
capsized in the Straights near Seattle. Boat was reportedly
being sailed by a novice in squally weather.


Jeff wrote:
I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the episode.
Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot, and down
below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn on the jib)
in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach.


That's not really good practice, is it? ;)

.... (snip for brevity) ... The combination of
narrow beam and tall rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For
this reason, I've usually said that the minimum size for an offshore
capable cat is about 35 feet, unless it has a very conservative rig.


Have you read Tom F. Jones account of sailing thru an
Atlantic hurricane in a 26' (IIRC) Wharram? That was most
interesting. I think that cruising can be done in multihulls
with a degree of safety depending on the skill & knowledge
of the skipper... obviously the more he knows about the
characteristics of his specific vessel, the better.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Did a little reading last night about what the designers and builders of
multis say. From Morrelli: Crossing the pond 45 foot minimum, excluding the
Bay of Biscay, all notorious capes, and staying within 40 North and South.
After that add 10-15 foot and you are still marginal for the Capes. The
other designers tended to agree with this basic premise.

I would tend to agree with Morrelli although smaller multi's have made
passages outside of these parameters. Lucky?

Bryan




"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space.


Both the Gemini and PDQ I sailed had more room below (Than my 32 or 35
footers) and the central salon was more practical. The hull cabin space
was a bit tight. The deck space is obvious. But is this all a logical
comparison? The 36 foot PDQ IS a bigger boat and than a 36 foot
monohul. We tend to talk about boat size only by LOA, but the beam is
of equal importance. Someone take a top view of a cat and STRETCH it
until it's beam is like that of a monohul. How long would it be....?
Silly, but when it comes to cats we have to abandon the LOA factor as a
primary guage for size. Does anyone have the Cubic interior on a Cat
vs. Mono?

RB
Beneteau 35s5
NY

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Evan Gatehouse wrote:
...



Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;

- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage" was
blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the episode.
Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot, and down below.
He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn on the jib) in 25+
knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach. He was not entering, but
passing by a notoriously windy cut in the Abacos (by Whale Cay?) and got
hit by an estimated 45 knot gust and 6 foot wave beam on. The boat did
not pitchpole, but slowly went on its side, and stayed there for several
hours while the owner (who came from Marsh Harbor?) and others tried to
right it. Finally, a stay broke and it capsized. It was towed back to
Marsh Harbor where the deck was trashed by efforts to lift it inverted
with slings. I saw the boat in Toronto awaiting a deck rebuild.

One design factor considered by cat builders is how much wind could a boat
handle in such a worst case of a gust on the beam with full sail sheeted
in. The figure used for the PDQ 32 is 45 knots. The assumption is that
in almost all cases where 45 knots is possible, you would shorten sail -
even a single reef makes a huge difference in this situation. Also, in
most cases someone would be on deck to release a sheet. A significant
lesson is that whenever full sail is sheeted in during a blow, someone
must be on deck!

Two other factors apply he First, this particular boat was sailing
"light." That is, it was stripped out and not carrying cruising gear. If
it were loaded, it probably would not have gone over. The second is that
this design has a rather narrow beam, coupled with a tall profile. This
is one of the issues with smaller cats, since the temptation by designers
is to make them narrow enough for a slip. Also, since the bridge deck
clearance and overhead boom height have practical minimums, smaller cats
have proportionally taller rigs. The combination of narrow beam and tall
rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For this reason, I've usually
said that the minimum size for an offshore capable cat is about 35 feet,
unless it has a very conservative rig.

This situation also applies to the Gemini (14 foot beam), and a recent
case of an Iroquois (which only has a 13 foot beam!). The Heaven Twins is
another such case, with a beam under 14 feet.




- a Gemini capsizing in Texas; sailed over due to too much sail

- a Fountaine Pajot 35 capsized in the Caribbean; sailed over with a
charter group aboard

- a Catana in the Med; capsized due to a sudden squall hitting with the
chute up at night.

- a Heavenly Twins 26 or 27 capsizing in Force 10+ north of the British
Isles during a rare summer severe storm.

I have also heard of the F-P Maldives 32 being pretty susceptible to
capsize but that's more innuendo that actual facts and the Iriquois but I
don't know if they were capsized during racing or while cruising.

Most of the above are smaller, narrower beam cats by the way of fairly
old design; the exceptions being the FP 35 and the Catana.

When the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton University did a study of trying to
capsize cruising cat models the only way they could do it was a beam on
breaking wave beam of the boat (similar to a monohull by the way)

"MODEL TESTS TO STUDY CAPSIZE AND STABILITY OF SAILING MULTIHULLS"
Deakin B.
The 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, January 2001

Evan Gatehouse

I had an interesting experience sailing a Seawind 1000 on the SF bay a few
years ago. It started out as a fairly typical day of 20 kts air. We were
cruising along at about 12 kts, not really paying that much attention to the
wind speed. Finally, I noticed that our speed had increased to about 14 kts,
with large rooster tails off the back. Amazing stuff. Then, I realized that
the wind speed had increased to 33 kts. Yikes... time to reef! .. which we
did immediately.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Peter HK wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

There are occasional sea patterns that are uncomfortable on a multi,
usually
with beam seas, but the magnitude of the event needs to be considered.
Cats
reach max stability at about 5 degrees of heel (when a hull lifts). As
this
never happens on cruising cats, all heel angles are less than 5
degrees.
Short sharp waves can occasionally exceed this a little due to the
hulls
being in a trough and crest. Compare to a mono rolling downwind where
heel
angles can be 30 degrees side to side.

Multis do have a different motion- shorter and sharper compared to
slower
but much more amplitude on a mono.
Personally I find it quite comfortable. As stated in a previous post a
glass
never spills, which is a significant observation on the severity of the
motion.

When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches to
enter
a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on
my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are
probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things
will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have
capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?


I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the
figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like
discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the
chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Capt. Rob" wrote ...
DSK wrote ...

BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you ...

Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to
involve a license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and
may even know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I
won't engage in any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain. I suppose you can call
yourself whatever you want, but the typical definition of Captain is
someone licensed by the USCG or other authority.

I certainly agree.

Admiral of the Fleet Armond

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Actually, I just prefer to be called skipper by friends, crew, or customers.
:-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

DSK wrote:
Evan Gatehouse wrote:
...

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of
the following;

- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers



Another incident not on the list... 2 ~ 3 years ago a Gemini capsized in
the Straights near Seattle. Boat was reportedly being sailed by a novice
in squally weather.


Jeff wrote:

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the
episode. Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot,
and down below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn
on the jib) in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach.


That's not really good practice, is it? ;)

No, but almost all disasters include some degree of human error,
otherwise known as incompetence. When considering such events you
have to think about what is possible when you screw things up; not
what happens when you do everything perfectly.

Of course, in this case its possible that a monohull would have lost
its rig and have been in equally serious trouble.


.... (snip for brevity) ... The combination of narrow beam and tall
rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For this reason, I've
usually said that the minimum size for an offshore capable cat is
about 35 feet, unless it has a very conservative rig.


Have you read Tom F. Jones account of sailing thru an Atlantic hurricane
in a 26' (IIRC) Wharram? That was most interesting. I think that
cruising can be done in multihulls with a degree of safety depending on
the skill & knowledge of the skipper... obviously the more he knows
about the characteristics of his specific vessel, the better.
I think I read that some time ago. When I wrote "conservative rig" I
was thinking of Prouts and especially Warrams.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Peter HK wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

There are occasional sea patterns that are uncomfortable on a multi,
usually
with beam seas, but the magnitude of the event needs to be considered.
Cats
reach max stability at about 5 degrees of heel (when a hull lifts). As
this
never happens on cruising cats, all heel angles are less than 5
degrees.
Short sharp waves can occasionally exceed this a little due to the
hulls
being in a trough and crest. Compare to a mono rolling downwind where
heel
angles can be 30 degrees side to side.

Multis do have a different motion- shorter and sharper compared to
slower
but much more amplitude on a mono.
Personally I find it quite comfortable. As stated in a previous post a
glass
never spills, which is a significant observation on the severity of the
motion.

When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches to
enter
a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on
my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are
probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things
will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have
capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?


I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the
figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like
discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the
chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.

There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.

Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.

Their web site is:

http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

Their log entries are vastly numerous but well written (with
photos) and there is one window devoted to their on going dia-
logue with the manufacturer... the original surveyor... and
subsequent repair yard managers ...that those of you that are
technically gifted will find very interesting reading.

By the way they love to receive email and are fairly diligent
in responding promptly.

And yeh... for a lot of you in this group and the other sailing
type forums... these folks and their web site are *old news*.
But I thought I would still give a "heads up" about a good read
for those that may have missed out on the original flourish of
postings that took place back a year or so ago.

Best regards to all

Bill

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Bryan wrote:
Did a little reading last night about what the designers and builders of
multis say. From Morrelli: Crossing the pond 45 foot minimum, excluding the
Bay of Biscay, all notorious capes, and staying within 40 North and South.
After that add 10-15 foot and you are still marginal for the Capes. The
other designers tended to agree with this basic premise.

Morrelli designs tend to be aggressive, not conservative, so I'm not
surprised that they suggest a larger size. Certainly a huge number of
smaller Prouts have crossed oceans and circumnavigated without
incident. They built about 4000 cats, most in the 34-37 foot range
and they've sailed all over the world without a single capsize. But
my friends tell me it takes about 25 knots to get their 37 up to
speed. Their boat has made several Atlantic crossings.


I would tend to agree with Morrelli although smaller multi's have made
passages outside of these parameters. Lucky?


This is more of a philosophical question. What probability of success
would you consider "nominal"? I don't think I would make a crossing
if I thought the disaster rate was 10%, and I'd like to see it well
below 1%. But to be considered "really safe" you'd probably want 0.1%
or even better.

Smaller Benehuntalinas have crossed the pond many times; were they
lucky? I'd certainly take a Prout 37 over any of them. Would you
cross in a Hunter 36?

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Peter HK wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never
even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act
as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one
than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat
nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

There are occasional sea patterns that are uncomfortable on a multi,
usually
with beam seas, but the magnitude of the event needs to be
considered.
Cats
reach max stability at about 5 degrees of heel (when a hull lifts).
As
this
never happens on cruising cats, all heel angles are less than 5
degrees.
Short sharp waves can occasionally exceed this a little due to the
hulls
being in a trough and crest. Compare to a mono rolling downwind where
heel
angles can be 30 degrees side to side.

Multis do have a different motion- shorter and sharper compared to
slower
but much more amplitude on a mono.
Personally I find it quite comfortable. As stated in a previous post
a
glass
never spills, which is a significant observation on the severity of
the
motion.

When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches
to
enter
a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is
what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or
whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on
my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are
probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such
things
will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have
capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?


I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the
figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like
discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the
two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the
chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20%
figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Peter HK wrote:


"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never
even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act
as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one
than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat
nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

There are occasional sea patterns that are uncomfortable on a multi,
usually
with beam seas, but the magnitude of the event needs to be
considered.
Cats
reach max stability at about 5 degrees of heel (when a hull lifts).
As
this
never happens on cruising cats, all heel angles are less than 5
degrees.
Short sharp waves can occasionally exceed this a little due to the
hulls
being in a trough and crest. Compare to a mono rolling downwind where
heel
angles can be 30 degrees side to side.

Multis do have a different motion- shorter and sharper compared to
slower
but much more amplitude on a mono.
Personally I find it quite comfortable. As stated in a previous post
a
glass
never spills, which is a significant observation on the severity of
the
motion.

When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches
to
enter
a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is
what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or
whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on
my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are
probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such
things
will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have
capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?


I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the
figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like
discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the
two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the
chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20%
figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?


The Netherlands

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like
the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?


The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

wrote:
Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.

There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.

Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.

Their web site is:

http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

From the above web site:

"A friend from the U.S. had asked us if we could have a look
at a 55 foot monohull that is for sale here. It was kind of fun
to poke around on a big monohull, but even at 55 feet I have
to say that I am still happier on my 35 foot cat."

I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote:
Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.

There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.

Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.

Their web site is:

http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

From the above web site:

"A friend from the U.S. had asked us if we could have a look
at a 55 foot monohull that is for sale here. It was kind of fun
to poke around on a big monohull, but even at 55 feet I have
to say that I am still happier on my 35 foot cat."

I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote:

I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.

1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.

2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.

The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote:

I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.

1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.

2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.

The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an increasing
number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of the Fountaine line, but
that's another thread.

You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great place for
multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing out of Long Beach and
Dana Point.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Why would you be unable to get yourself out of trouble if you're fairly
secure in a hull?

Picture a multihull in the middle of the ocean, capsized, and the crew
huddled inside the hull. At best they have turned on an EPIRB, and at
worst, they would be difficult to spot being inverted and hopefully found
before they succumb.

Then picture a monohull which has rolled over. At worst, they are dismasted
and have to try an rig some kind of temporary sail, or call for help. At
best,
they can recover enough to continue sailing.

I think I would go with the second option.



When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

The natural stability configuration is for the monohull to self-right, which
it should do fairly quickly. I would take my chances on this boat righting
itself.



Any boat that fills with water is going to sink. The idea about mono
hulls
is that
they will right themselves before the boat fills with water.

Not completely true, as most modern cats will not sink. Of course, never is
an absolute, so I suppose it's possible though remotely so.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

I prefer the self righting. At least I have a chance to recover and
continue

sailing, in that case. If it sinks, then the life raft is your backup.

Many who sail cats don't carry a liferaft, because the cat or tri is the
liferaft.

For far offshore cruising, this is crazy.



Now I'm not claiming that a multi is the end all and be all of safety at
sea, but most of the time, the prime consideration is crew durability, not
boat durability. Crews get tired on a boat that's heeled all the time for
long distances. Tired crew make more mistakes.

If the crew is not up to it, they should stick with close shore sailing or
buy a houseboat.



Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain.

Nothing I have said so far would indicate that is the case. Are you
a licensed captain, and are you using that to prove your case?

I suppose you can call
yourself whatever you want, but the typical definition is licensed by the
USCG or other authority.

I'm not an licensed captain, but I have made several cruises in the Atlantic
and the Mediterranean in some pretty difficult conditions. Some of these
so called licensed captains never get much past the harbor entrance. Since
I do not take passengers on my boat, there is no need to have a license. I
am also a graduate engineer in Mechanics, so I know something about
stability.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote:
I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.

1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.

2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.

The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an
increasing number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of
the Fountaine line, but that's another thread.

You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great
place for multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing
out of Long Beach and Dana Point.

I'm in San Diego but when I do a search on yachtworld.com
for used multihulls over 35' in California I only get 11 results
and these also include a couple of trimarans. If I search for
both new and used I get 23 results but many of them haven't
even been built.

I don't see any Lagoon on this list and only see 1 Catana and
1 Fountaine Pajot (with another one en route).

Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like
the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?


The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

sherwindu wrote:




Why would you be unable to get yourself out of trouble if you're fairly
secure in a hull?


Picture a multihull in the middle of the ocean, capsized, and the crew
huddled inside the hull. At best they have turned on an EPIRB, and at
worst, they would be difficult to spot being inverted and hopefully found
before they succumb.

Its hard to picture because its happened so infrequently. There have
been several such inversions, but I don't recall ever hearing of one
where the occupants succumbed while waiting. There have been a few
cases of people living for extended periods waiting to be rescued.

There was one case of a man who died of diabetic shock, but the rest
of his crew was rescued, and several monohulls were lost without a
trace in the same storm.



Then picture a monohull which has rolled over. At worst, they are dismasted
and have to try an rig some kind of temporary sail, or call for help. At
best,
they can recover enough to continue sailing.

I think I would go with the second option.


I think you have a typo. At _best_ they are only dismasted and
suffered no other damage. At worst, they have structural damage
caused by the dismasting, or the loose mast whacking they hull. If
the hatch was not watertight, they probably took in a lot a water, so
the buoyancy is reduced, and its hard to find any leaks, and the pumps
may not be working. Even a small leak would doom the monohull; a 2
inch hole floods about 100 gals a minute! The crew will be demanding
to get into the liferaft, which is probably the most dangerous thing
of all.

And this is assuming that the boat doesn't stay inverted for a while,
not out of the question with some boats.




When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.


The natural stability configuration is for the monohull to self-right, which
it should do fairly quickly. I would take my chances on this boat righting
itself.

The natural stability configuration is upright, on the bottom. Does
the phrase "lost without a trace" have a familiar ring to it?

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Gary wrote:
wrote:


Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.


Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

That's because the cats are all our sailing!

Actually a check of one marina might not be valid, because some
marinas simply don't have spaces for them. I had to move for next
season because of dredging, and I didn't even bother checking any of
the "first choice" marinas in the inner harbor. However, I got a nice
t-head at good place which is 10 minutes further driving from my
house, but 30 minutes closer to open water once we leave the dock. My
fallback was to move to a mooring, which would have been different,
but would have saved a big bundle.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Jeff wrote:
Gary wrote:
wrote:

Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.


Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

That's because the cats are all our sailing!

Actually a check of one marina might not be valid, because some
marinas simply don't have spaces for them.
...

And the yachtworld.com search results may not be valid because
most catamaran owners don't want to sell :-)

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like
the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days
on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a
few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?


The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Now all I have to do is visit them... never have! I'll be in England in
April/May, but I don't know if we'll have an opportunity to get across. I
believe they have a wooden boat... keep it on some lake that changed names
because it is now part of something else? Is marineyacht.com your business?
We're thinking about booking something in 2007... I know, a long way off.
:-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...






Why would you be unable to get yourself out of trouble if you're fairly
secure in a hull?

Picture a multihull in the middle of the ocean, capsized, and the crew
huddled inside the hull. At best they have turned on an EPIRB, and at
worst, they would be difficult to spot being inverted and hopefully
found
before they succumb.

Then picture a monohull which has rolled over. At worst, they are
dismasted
and have to try an rig some kind of temporary sail, or call for help.
At
best,
they can recover enough to continue sailing.

I think I would go with the second option.



When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.

The natural stability configuration is for the monohull to self-right,
which
it should do fairly quickly. I would take my chances on this boat
righting
itself.



Any boat that fills with water is going to sink. The idea about mono
hulls
is that
they will right themselves before the boat fills with water.

Not completely true, as most modern cats will not sink. Of course, never
is
an absolute, so I suppose it's possible though remotely so.

It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.

I prefer the self righting. At least I have a chance to recover and
continue

sailing, in that case. If it sinks, then the life raft is your
backup.

Many who sail cats don't carry a liferaft, because the cat or tri is the
liferaft.

For far offshore cruising, this is crazy.



Now I'm not claiming that a multi is the end all and be all of safety at
sea, but most of the time, the prime consideration is crew durability,
not
boat durability. Crews get tired on a boat that's heeled all the time for
long distances. Tired crew make more mistakes.

If the crew is not up to it, they should stick with close shore sailing
or
buy a houseboat.



Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain.

Nothing I have said so far would indicate that is the case. Are you
a licensed captain, and are you using that to prove your case?

I suppose you can call
yourself whatever you want, but the typical definition is licensed by the
USCG or other authority.

I'm not an licensed captain, but I have made several cruises in the
Atlantic
and the Mediterranean in some pretty difficult conditions. Some of
these
so called licensed captains never get much past the harbor entrance.
Since
I do not take passengers on my boat, there is no need to have a license.
I
am also a graduate engineer in Mechanics, so I know something about
stability.


You do have a valid point. However, I believe this thing actually did happen
on a multi... can't seem to find the reference... somewhere off Venesuela.
If I do, I'll post it. The crew was in an inverted multi for weeks, no epirb
apparently, until they finally washed up on the beach. The local authorities
didn't believe them at first because they were in such good shape.

Have you ever been inside a mono that has dismasted? (Neither have I) But, I
have read reports that described it as being inside a washing machine with
sharp objects and heavy blunt instrumets flying around. Totally
uninhabitable. Don't think that you can just carry on after a dismasting.

For example, we had a dismasting (rig failure) on a Catalina 27 in the SF
bay. The rig had to be cut away. The boat then motored under supervision by
the CG to its home port. It was very, very rolly and difficult to control
the boat.

It can take minutes to right a capsized mono, especially if there's a lot of
water in it.

Not carrying a liferaft on a multi is actually pretty common. I wouldn't
carry one. I would take a dinghy, but that's a different animal.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
sherwindu wrote:




Why would you be unable to get yourself out of trouble if you're fairly
secure in a hull?


Picture a multihull in the middle of the ocean, capsized, and the crew
huddled inside the hull. At best they have turned on an EPIRB, and at
worst, they would be difficult to spot being inverted and hopefully
found
before they succumb.

Its hard to picture because its happened so infrequently. There have been
several such inversions, but I don't recall ever hearing of one where the
occupants succumbed while waiting. There have been a few cases of people
living for extended periods waiting to be rescued.

There was one case of a man who died of diabetic shock, but the rest of
his crew was rescued, and several monohulls were lost without a trace in
the same storm.



Then picture a monohull which has rolled over. At worst, they are
dismasted
and have to try an rig some kind of temporary sail, or call for help.
At
best,
they can recover enough to continue sailing.

I think I would go with the second option.


I think you have a typo. At _best_ they are only dismasted and suffered no
other damage. At worst, they have structural damage caused by the
dismasting, or the loose mast whacking they hull. If the hatch was not
watertight, they probably took in a lot a water, so the buoyancy is
reduced, and its hard to find any leaks, and the pumps may not be working.
Even a small leak would doom the monohull; a 2 inch hole floods about 100
gals a minute! The crew will be demanding to get into the liferaft, which
is probably the most dangerous thing of all.

And this is assuming that the boat doesn't stay inverted for a while, not
out of the question with some boats.




When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.


The natural stability configuration is for the monohull to self-right,
which
it should do fairly quickly. I would take my chances on this boat
righting
itself.

The natural stability configuration is upright, on the bottom. Does the
phrase "lost without a trace" have a familiar ring to it?

When we had the dismasting on the bay, the CG would not even approach until
the skipper cut the mast/rigging away. I'm wondering what they would have
done if the boat had not had bolt cutters.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote:
I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.

1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.

2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.

The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an
increasing number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of
the Fountaine line, but that's another thread.

You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great
place for multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing
out of Long Beach and Dana Point.

I'm in San Diego but when I do a search on yachtworld.com
for used multihulls over 35' in California I only get 11 results
and these also include a couple of trimarans. If I search for
both new and used I get 23 results but many of them haven't
even been built.

I don't see any Lagoon on this list and only see 1 Catana and
1 Fountaine Pajot (with another one en route).

Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Ah San Diego... One of my favorite places... I went to college there. It was
hard to leave.

Do you currently own something there?

Lots of multihulls for sail don't get put on yachtworld. Have you tried
Latitude38, Craigslist, or even E-bay?

http://www.latitude38.com/

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Capt. JG wrote:
....

When we had the dismasting on the bay, the CG would not even approach until
the skipper cut the mast/rigging away. I'm wondering what they would have
done if the boat had not had bolt cutters.

Approach from windward and send out a line? For coastal cruising I'd
guess its unlikely they would have proper cutters, so they must be
prepared. All of the dismastings I've witnessed have been racing boats
or small cruisers - none have had proper gear.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
...

When we had the dismasting on the bay, the CG would not even approach
until the skipper cut the mast/rigging away. I'm wondering what they
would have done if the boat had not had bolt cutters.

Approach from windward and send out a line? For coastal cruising I'd
guess its unlikely they would have proper cutters, so they must be
prepared. All of the dismastings I've witnessed have been racing boats or
small cruisers - none have had proper gear.

I don't know. The weather wasn't that bad really... 25kts, 4 ft chop. They
didn't really do much except yell on their bullhorn.

Now we have bolt cutters on all our boats! :-)

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ? (OT)
 

Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
Capt. JG wrote:

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like
the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days
on
end.



If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a
few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?


The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Now all I have to do is visit them... never have! I'll be in England in
April/May, but I don't know if we'll have an opportunity to get across. I
believe they have a wooden boat... keep it on some lake that changed names
because it is now part of something else? Is marineyacht.com your business?
We're thinking about booking something in 2007... I know, a long way off.
:-)

Nice description of what's probably the IJsselmeer ("meer" is Dutch for "lake").
Until 1932, May 28 to be exactly, this used to be the Zuiderzee ("Southern
Sea"). In that year they finished a large dike to protect these waters and the
land (and Amsterdam) behind it from the open sea.

Yes, Marineyacht is my business indeed. Let me know if you need our
assistance! :-)

--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message ...
"sherwindu" wrote in message
...






You do have a valid point. However, I believe this thing actually did happen
on a multi... can't seem to find the reference... somewhere off Venesuela.
If I do, I'll post it. The crew was in an inverted multi for weeks, no epirb
apparently, until they finally washed up on the beach. The local authorities
didn't believe them at first because they were in such good shape.


I believe you are thinking of the Rose Noelle which capsized of NZ in 1989? An official enquiry was conducted and confirmed their amazing survival. 119 days in the inverted tri.

I have John Glennie's book on it as well as one written by one of the crew. Good stories. I think the saddest part is that one of the crew who survived this and was only in his 20's died a couple of years later due to a brain tumor- talk about bad luck.

The best link I could find is
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Peter HK

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Going to the original question, my family and I have been living aboard
cruising catamarans since 1996. First a PDQ 36 and now a St Francis
44. This question comes up a lot, so I'm going to answer it as fully
as I can because I believe it's a good question that is sometimes
incompletely answered.

*Speed. Our St Francis will do around 8 knots in 11 knots of wind, at
15 knots of wind we break into double digits. Under power we can go
over 10 knots. There are faster monohulls out there, but our boat has
3 heads, a galley with 9 ft of counterspace and a 3 burner stove, an
massive arch with a dingy hanging off it. We're not trying to break
speed records, but it's a good performing boat. This is without
flying a chute.

*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

*N+1. This is a geek term. It means that most systems are redundant.
Two motors, two fuel tanks connecting the motors, two water tanks and
two water pumps, two seperate battery banks, etc, etc. What this
means in practical terms is you can have an engine overheat and still
make 6 knots on the remaining engine while CHOOSING where you want to
repair the fault, rather than having to do it immediately. That's a
big deal when trying to fight your way into a narrow port entrance in a
gale directly against the wind. Been through that particular scenario
several times.

*Positive bouyancy. I know quite a few different PDQ 36's out there,
and one lost both of it's keels being up on a reef. Another had it's
transom ripped off by a boat, one crashed it's bow against a bulkhead
3 feet back, and my actual boat had at one time a 2 ft hole smashed
into her from a race (previous owner!!) on her starboard side. None
sank. All are sailing now.

*Privacy with guests. It's nice having guests over, we have them
often. But they are in a seperate hull, quite on their own. It's the
equivalent of having them in a boat one slip over. It makes having
guests over twice as fun.

*Aft Arch. We can and do carry a large RIB ready to go at a moments
notice with 4 175 watt solar panels. Having a nice fat transom makes
that possible. While cruising non of the 5 monohulls we cruised with
would even bother launching their dingy's because they knew we could be
over, pick them up and have them to the beach before they could get
their own dingy ready for the water. That translates also in being
able to address a problem quickly underway. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

*large wide decks. I can go up forward in a hurricane with a spare
anchor in my hand and stick to the middle of the boat and know that I
wont go over the side. I can go up forward in any conditions (but I
do clip onto a jack line) and know that I have 10 ft of clearance
between myself and the side of the boat. That's a huge safety issue
to me and my wife. I saw one artical about a monohull sailor who'd
been clippen into a jackline, fell overboard from the bow and was
dragged in the water for far too long. That can't happen to me, I
can't fall on a 6 ft tether 10 ft from the middle to the side of the
boat.

*Shallow draft. Every tropical storm or hurricane that I've been in I
could head into a hurricane hole inaccessible to most monohulls. The
shallow draft anchorage also means that I typically can go to a close
beach with my dingy in shallow protected water.
Big issue there that no one seems to realize. In Georgetown in the
bahamas I was able to anchor in a huge storm in a very small protected
anchorage right outside town in 4 feet of water. No one else could
get into town, I could simply row a few feet to the beach and walk in.

*Good visibility from inside. I can on the settee, warm and snug at
an anchorage, and look out and see what boats are breaking free from a
storm. Sitting in your cockpit during a storm as an anchor watch is
relatively uncomfortable, and many people therefore don't do it as much
as they should and the first sign of a problem is the thud of a boat
hitting them that's broken free.

*Cost. Our St Francis has the space of a 50 ft mono, but not the
costs. Price per foot may be greater on most cat's then most
monohulls, but price per ft of interior living space is often less.

*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway. At best, you would call
sea tow. I woke up, perfectly upright, realized the soft mud didn't
hold my anchor, and lowered the dingy and kedged myself off the bar in
about 15 minutes. My wife prepared breakfast while I did that.

*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics. Many monohulls have a dozen or more thru
hulls. I have less than half of their below water thru hulls, and
were a thru hull to come loose, it's not as low in the water because
the water intakes don't have to be extra low to compensate for heeling.
That means far less water pressure, therefore less water coming in,
and my bilge pumps can easily keep up. Even if they couldn't
watertight bulkheads would prevent it from spreading very far and worse
case after around 2 ft the positive flotation in the bow and stern
would prevent the boat from going any further down. Not nice, but it
wouldn't sink.

*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate. That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve. I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast. While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds. I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).

I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

Cheers,

Doug and Cindy and Zach
St Francis 44
Annapolis, MD

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

On 14 Jan 2006 21:49:36 -0800, "boatgeek"
wrote:

Going to the original question, my family and I have been living aboard
cruising catamarans since 1996. First a PDQ 36 and now a St Francis
44.

Do you have any difficulty getting dock space?