Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

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. 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

Great post! Very informative.

Thanks,
Gaz

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

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


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.

That was quite informative. Thank you.

R.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

boatgeek wrote:



*Speed. Our St Francis will do around 8 knots in 11 knots of wind, at
15 knots of wind we break into double digits.

No arguement there, multis go faster because they are not displacment
hulls.

*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.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.





*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.



*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.



*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?




*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.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground. You

are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.



*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.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

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.

Monohulls do not require more thru hulls than multihulls.


*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.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright

and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

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.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

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.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

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.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

Sherwin D.



Cheers,

Doug and Cindy and Zach
St Francis 44
Annapolis, MD

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
*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.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch. Happens
there all the time.

*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing the
boat.

*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

*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.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground. You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.

Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an option.
We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the charter
company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and small
fishing boats with no lights).

are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.



*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.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

*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.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure your
hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead of
heeling, the multi sails faster.

All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright

and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

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.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare occurance
and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

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.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

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.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no problems
at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are seakindly in
extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced skipper is to avoid
extreme conditions.

The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles, I
think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Well said, and a great post from boatgeek.

Another important consideration is the effect of heeling and rolling on crew
performance. The U.S. naval study of this by JB Hadler and TH Sarchin (see
The Cruising Multihull by Chris White) found that a sustained 10 degree roll
angle reduced ability to perform routine tasks by as much as 50%!

sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this discussion when in his
first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".

Cheers

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

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in
light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch.
Happens there all the time.

*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing the
boat.

*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

*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.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground.
You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.

Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an
option. We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the
charter company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and
small fishing boats with no lights).

are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.



*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.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

*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.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure
your hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead
of heeling, the multi sails faster.

All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations,
upright

and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration,
upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

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.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare
occurance and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

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.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

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.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no problems
at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are seakindly
in extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced skipper is to
avoid extreme conditions.

The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles, I
think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

I can only speak from the experience of being on a heeling boat for 1/2
month at a time. It gets old pretty fast... everything needs to be nailed
down or, as I tell my students, it will end up safely on the floor.

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

"Paddy Malone" wrote in message
...
Well said, and a great post from boatgeek.

Another important consideration is the effect of heeling and rolling on
crew performance. The U.S. naval study of this by JB Hadler and TH Sarchin
(see The Cruising Multihull by Chris White) found that a sustained 10
degree roll angle reduced ability to perform routine tasks by as much as
50%!

sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this discussion when in
his first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".

Cheers

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

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in
light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch.
Happens there all the time.

*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing
the boat.

*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

*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.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground.
You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.

Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an
option. We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the
charter company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and
small fishing boats with no lights).

are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.



*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.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has
all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

*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.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure
your hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead
of heeling, the multi sails faster.

All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations,
upright

and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration,
upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

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.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare
occurance and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

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.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience
knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

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.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When
it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote
offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no
problems at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are
seakindly in extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced
skipper is to avoid extreme conditions.

The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing
can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles,
I think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:06:50 +0000, popeye wrote:

So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in the same price
range are just as spacious and can go just as fast ?

1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

Two separate bedrooms with their own bathrooms.

Matt O.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his

first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".


I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc. I'm basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied physicist/engineer.
My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over, especially if
conditions do not permit
the reefing of sails. These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances. Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls. Freak wave
action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and more
comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's rigging, than
hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. The problem with
taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of running into real
bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled over, it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if I were
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

Sherwin D.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
I'm basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied
physicist/engineer.
My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over,

Of course not.


These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.

Your evidence for this is what?

Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design.

Ever heard of Archimedes' law. I'd say the lead ballast tends to overcome
the bouyant effect of even wooden or foam glass monos. Isn't ballast part of
a mono's "basic design"?


Catamarans are made of fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Most are foam glass, some are wood, nearly all have multiple sealed chambers
for buoyancy. I calculated the surface area of my last cruising cat, which
was foam glass, and found that the foam itself was sufficient floatation for
the whole boat. It also had four large floatation tanks built in, which were
also more buoyant than displacement.


Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.

True

Freak wave
action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and more
comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's rigging,
than
hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. The problem
with
taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of running
into real
bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten
down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out.

Same for multis- parachute anchors have been proven time and again.

If for some reason the boat is rolled over, it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull.

If for some reason a mono's watertight state is breached it sinks- can't say
the same for a multi.

Granted this is an extreme case, but if I were
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

As would sinking in a mono- you do carry a liferaft don't you ? Proof that
sinking can occur.

Peter HK

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

sherwindu wrote:
Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to
this discussion when in his

first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".


I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc.
I'm basing my views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied
physicist/engineer. My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over,
especially if conditions do not permit
the reefing of sails.

Cats can tip / trip, but usually this is the domain of racing cats with high
powered rigs and sailplans. These aren't the rig ratios you'll normally find
on a cruising multi. On heavier cruising cats or tri's, the beam ratio (and
inherent stability) is far more likely to see the rig wiped off from running
overpowered, than capsizing the boat. The truth is that cruising cat or tri
capsize is very unusual, and usually requires a combination of crew error
(or stupidity, like a recent capsize in Indonesia achieved under screecher
in 35+knots) with extreme wind and sea states to achieve.

These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated. Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass, etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Cats and Tri's generally won't sink, and I can't think of any that I know of
that have; but they can break up, which is their worst outcome and usually
results from some sort of 3rd party collision (reef, container,
whale/sunfish) to name a few, which is why I carry a liferaft. I read
elsewhere in this thread, and know of many other multihull sailors who don't
consider the expense and weight of a liferaft justified. I don't understand
this rationale when offshore sailing, but each to their own.

Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and
more comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's
rigging, than hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down.

Either outcome may be unavoidable, and both outcomes are unsatisfactory.
Have you ever been rolled right over in a keelboat? I'm guessing not,
because the one time I was (which was in a harbour, btw) the absolute chaos
below from shipped water, fouled supplies, loose equipment, battery acid and
the like made it no place to want to be for any period of time. I have never
capsized on a cabin-sized multi, and doubt it would be much better inside,
although the idea of inflating and securing the liferaft on the inverted
hull(s) once the conditions quieten down has some appeal - although I'm not
sure how it would work in practice. I suppose it could be allright if one
had rigged some points in advance to secure everyhing.

The
problem with taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of
running into real bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull,
batten down the hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled
over, it will right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if
I were planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

The theory of lying to a parachute on a multi is standard heavy-weather
practice. I've never heard of one capsizing from this situation. In fact,
the multi lying to on a correctly set bridle and parachute is really a
pretty comfortable solution when circumstances dictate it.

Why don't you get out on a cat or tri sometime, and observe the differences
for yourself? There are a lot of differences between multis and monos, and
mostly they don't bear repeating, having been covered elsewhere in this
thread. I sail multis primarily because the cruising grounds in easy reach
here are quite shallow and require occasional foray into very shoal waters.
Running a deep-draft keelboat would be a pain in the arse, and I don't much
care for the performance of shallow-bilged monos.

I like cats, tris and monos, and can appreciate the relative merits of all 3
styles, and personally, I wouldn't hesitate to venture offshore in a well
found example of either type.

Ian

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Most of your comments have been addressed by others, but I'll add a few:


sherwindu wrote:

These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not necesarily because of their basic design.

The big lead keel has a lot to do with it. A serious breech will sink
a monohull in a few minutes. Although it possible to build a monohull
with positive flotation, only one builder does.

Catamarans are made of fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Actually, you're wrong on this. Many cats (most? all?) are made with
a lot of structural foam (corecell, klegecell, etc.) such that the
bare hull of a cat is often lighter that water. In addition, most
have sealed compartments scattered around the hull, mine has six, four
in the bows, and two by the engines. Further, the basic shape of a
cat implies that leaking will be isolated to one hull.

The net result is that a cat will survive leaks that will sink a
monohull in a matter of minutes. There are a number of cases cats
returning to port with serious leaks and only have the floorboards
awash. When a monohull does survive serious breeches, it is often
riding so low that the crew retreats to a liferaft.

....

In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled over, it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if I were
planning an ocean crossing,

Yes, it is a small possibility in extreme weather. Unfortunately, the
possibilities for a monohull sinking are larger, and can happen anywhere.


From previous post:

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

You have to be kidding with this one. Unless you have a pilothouse,
you have almost no visibility from "down below" in most monohulls.
Benches are below the waterline, side hatches are small and above your
line of sight, and many cruisers have visibility impaired by gear on
deck. Cats, on the other hand, have the saloon two feet above the
waterline, and usually have full panoramic vision from the normal
seating area.


On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel
starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where
you are, aground.

You don't cruise where there are tides, do you? Where I cruise if you
don't get off within 10 minutes, you'll likely there for a while,
probably on your side. (unless, of course, you have twin keels)


You are in an anchorage where
despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

You may not have big waves in the anchorage, but breakers on a beach
can effectively trap a boat.


There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go.
I have seen pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water.

This probably wasn't a cruising cat; it certainly wasn't a
conservative rig such as a Prout.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

sherwindu wrote:

Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his


first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".



I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc. I'm basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied physicist/engineer.
My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over, especially if
conditions do not permit
the reefing of sails. These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances. Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls. Freak wave
action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and more
comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's rigging, than
hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. The problem with
taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of running into real
bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled over, it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if I were
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

Sherwin D.


Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago. Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his

first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".


I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc. I'm
basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied
physicist/engineer.

Sure you are! :-) Speed and comfort *are* safety issues.

My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over,
especially if
conditions do not permit
the reefing of sails. These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated.

What conditions are those? Bare poles? Drogue? Sea anchor?

Actually, mono sinking (and catamaran capsizings) are stated accurately.
They're recorded as they happen.

Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances. Reducing sail can

Water itself can sink under certain circumstances! That doesn't say much.

decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave
action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and more
comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's rigging,
than
hoping I can get into a

But your making all sorts of assumptions about monos! On the one had, you're
making the assumption of a freak wave with no preparation or warning - on
the other, you're assuming that all the hatches, etc. on the mono are closed
and ready for battle. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. The problem
with
taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of running
into real
bad weather increase.

Actually, they decrease, since you won't be out as long as with a mono. Now,
if you want to argue that way, you could say that SINCE multis go faster,
then people would be tempted to select smaller weather windows, and thus
open themselves up to greater danger. :-)

In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten
down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled over,
it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if I
were
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

Again, you're making the assumption that NOTHING can be done to get a multi
to get through the situation. This is far from true.

Please describe your offshore, extreme weather sailing on a mono that causes
you to have these views!

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Jeff wrote:
...
sherwindu wrote:

These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not necesarily because of their basic design.

The big lead keel has a lot to do with it. A serious breech will
sink a monohull in a few minutes. Although it possible to build
a monohull with positive flotation, only one builder does.
...

ETAP and MacGregor 26 :-)

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Ian George wrote:

The truth is that cruising cat or tri
capsize is very unusual, and usually requires a combination of crew error
(or stupidity, like a recent capsize in Indonesia achieved under screecher
in 35+knots) with extreme wind and sea states to achieve.

I guess you never heard of Murphy's law about things that can go wrong,
sometimes do. For example, in a sudden storm, there may not be enough
time to sufficiently shorten sail, or something jams and you can't let the
sheets out in time, or the sail jams in the track and can't be shortened,
etc. I'm not saying these are common occurences, but they are not out
of the realm of possibility.



These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated. Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass, etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Cats and Tri's generally won't sink, and I can't think of any that I know of
that have; but they can break up,

Well, that's another concern I would have about seaworthyness of multihulls.

which is their worst outcome and usually
results from some sort of 3rd party collision (reef, container,
whale/sunfish) to name a few, which is why I carry a liferaft. I read
elsewhere in this thread, and know of many other multihull sailors who don't
consider the expense and weight of a liferaft justified. I don't understand
this rationale when offshore sailing, but each to their own.

For the same reason that wings break off a plane under extreme wind stress,
this failure could happen on a multihull, due to poor design or construction.



Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and
more comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's
rigging, than hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down.

Either outcome may be unavoidable, and both outcomes are unsatisfactory.
Have you ever been rolled right over in a keelboat?

Thank goodness, no. I have managed in big blows to keep the boat under
control by heaving to or going to bare poles.

I'm guessing not,
because the one time I was (which was in a harbour, btw) the absolute chaos
below from shipped water, fouled supplies, loose equipment, battery acid and
the like made it no place to want to be for any period of time. I have never
capsized on a cabin-sized multi, and doubt it would be much better inside,
although the idea of inflating and securing the liferaft on the inverted
hull(s) once the conditions quieten down has some appeal - although I'm not
sure how it would work in practice. I suppose it could be allright if one
had rigged some points in advance to secure everyhing.

I don't think discomfort is the issue here, but survival. Any kind of a
knockdown
or rollover is going to cause havoc on any boat.



The
problem with taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of
running into real bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull,
batten down the hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled
over, it will right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if
I were planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

The theory of lying to a parachute on a multi is standard heavy-weather
practice. I've never heard of one capsizing from this situation. In fact,
the multi lying to on a correctly set bridle and parachute is really a
pretty comfortable solution when circumstances dictate it.

Why don't you get out on a cat or tri sometime, and observe the differences
for yourself?

As I stated earlier, I'm sure the multihulls give a comfortable ride in most

sailing conditions. The extreme conditions I have been refering to are not
the kind I would want to test.

There are a lot of differences between multis and monos, and
mostly they don't bear repeating, having been covered elsewhere in this
thread. I sail multis primarily because the cruising grounds in easy reach
here are quite shallow and require occasional foray into very shoal waters.
Running a deep-draft keelboat would be a pain in the arse, and I don't much
care for the performance of shallow-bilged monos.

Makes sense to me. In my many cruises to the Bahamas, I occasionally had
difficulties with my 4 foot draft finding safe anchorages. My dinghy allowed

me to visit any nearby place I wanted to go.



I like cats, tris and monos, and can appreciate the relative merits of all 3
styles, and personally, I wouldn't hesitate to venture offshore in a well
found example of either type.

Offshore is a general term. It could mean you are within close proximity to
a
port, if the weather turns very nasty. Crossing an ocean doesn't give you
that option, so you better be sure your boat can take it and leave you in
a position where recovery is still within possibility.



Ian

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Gary wrote:


Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago. Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz

Yes, but do we have statistics on the multihulls that never made it
to their destination?

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago.

I don't know about Mr. Coles, but I used the 'lying ahull' in a very rough
Winter passage through the Windward Passage (going north against the
prevailing North Easterly winds) on my 22 footer, and it saved my butt.

Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Capt. JG" wrote:


But your making all sorts of assumptions about monos! On the one had, you're
making the assumption of a freak wave with no preparation or warning - on
the other, you're assuming that all the hatches, etc. on the mono are closed
and ready for battle. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


My point is that if you close your hatches and prepare your boat properly,
you have a good chance of coming through a bad storm. Naturally, if you
don't, you decrease your chances of keeping the boat afloat.

watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. The problem
with
taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of running
into real
bad weather increase.

Actually, they decrease, since you won't be out as long as with a mono. Now,
if you want to argue that way, you could say that SINCE multis go faster,
then people would be tempted to select smaller weather windows, and thus
open themselves up to greater danger. :-)

What I meant was that any boat is exposed more to bad weather possibilities
on a long voyage. Actually you can get stung on shorter hops. I left Key
West
once to go up the back country of the Keys, where there are no ports, on the

advise of the weather forcast that called for reasonable winds, with a small

disturbance over Cuba. That next day, it had turned into a hurricane and I
was
lucky it only passed me by within 100 miles, so I rode it out at anchor.
You
never know.



In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull, batten
down the
hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled over,
it will
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if I
were
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

Again, you're making the assumption that NOTHING can be done to get a multi
to get through the situation. This is far from true.

OK. What do you do if your multihull does flip over? I hear about crawling
into
one of the watertight compartments, but I wonder about the practicality of
this,
and where do you go from there?



Please describe your offshore, extreme weather sailing on a mono that causes
you to have these views!

You can find some of them in my recent posts to this thread. I have no first
hand
experience sailing multihulls, but am basing my thoughts on how sailboat
behave,
in general, and what I know about Fluid Mechanics, Stability, etc., from an
engineering point of view.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

While reading rec.boats.cruising, I noticed sherwindu
felt compelled to write:



Ian George wrote:

The truth is that cruising cat or tri
capsize is very unusual, and usually requires a combination of crew error
(or stupidity, like a recent capsize in Indonesia achieved under screecher
in 35+knots) with extreme wind and sea states to achieve.

I guess you never heard of Murphy's law about things that can go wrong,
sometimes do. For example, in a sudden storm, there may not be enough
time to sufficiently shorten sail, or something jams and you can't let the
sheets out in time, or the sail jams in the track and can't be shortened,
etc. I'm not saying these are common occurences, but they are not out
of the realm of possibility.

Well, I have heard of Murphy, and he's been on my boats, Mono and
Multi - fact remains that these circumstances are equally applicable
to both types of craft, so I don't think that the outcomes would be
any more catastrophic. The first rule of multihull sailing is 'If you
cannot reef quickly and easily, don't go to sea'. In general, apart
from the nut-swinging hard core racer, a multi will be reefed well
before a similar sized mono - simply because the multihull sailor
reefs to gust-speed, whereas the mono sailor will as a rule reef to
average wind speed and point-up or heel over to spill the gusts.

You seem to not take into consideration the different techniques that
are applied to competently handling the vessel type.


These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated. Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass, etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Cats and Tri's generally won't sink, and I can't think of any that I know of
that have; but they can break up,

Well, that's another concern I would have about seaworthyness of multihulls.

If you hit a container hard enough to rupture a lead-ballasted
sailboat it will sink. If you hit the same container at the same rate
in a multihull in may break up, how this reflects on the relative
merits of the seaworthiness of either boat type baffles me.

which is their worst outcome and usually
results from some sort of 3rd party collision (reef, container,
whale/sunfish) to name a few, which is why I carry a liferaft. I read
elsewhere in this thread, and know of many other multihull sailors who don't
consider the expense and weight of a liferaft justified. I don't understand
this rationale when offshore sailing, but each to their own.

For the same reason that wings break off a plane under extreme wind stress,
this failure could happen on a multihull, due to poor design or construction.


Poor design and construction on a monohull or a multihull would be a
problem for me. There are good and bad examples of both.


Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and
more comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's
rigging, than hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down.

Either outcome may be unavoidable, and both outcomes are unsatisfactory.
Have you ever been rolled right over in a keelboat?

Thank goodness, no. I have managed in big blows to keep the boat under
control by heaving to or going to bare poles.

I'm guessing not,
because the one time I was (which was in a harbour, btw) the absolute chaos
below from shipped water, fouled supplies, loose equipment, battery acid and
the like made it no place to want to be for any period of time. I have never
capsized on a cabin-sized multi, and doubt it would be much better inside,
although the idea of inflating and securing the liferaft on the inverted
hull(s) once the conditions quieten down has some appeal - although I'm not
sure how it would work in practice. I suppose it could be allright if one
had rigged some points in advance to secure everyhing.

I don't think discomfort is the issue here, but survival. Any kind of a
knockdown
or rollover is going to cause havoc on any boat.


Ah, that is my point. All of the issues you have raised in this thread
- bad design, poor seamanship, inappropriate precaution, poor
construction - all apply equally to both types of craft. They can't
possibly be used to argue a case for one type over the other.



The
problem with taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of
running into real bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull,
batten down the hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled
over, it will right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if
I were planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

The theory of lying to a parachute on a multi is standard heavy-weather
practice. I've never heard of one capsizing from this situation. In fact,
the multi lying to on a correctly set bridle and parachute is really a
pretty comfortable solution when circumstances dictate it.

Why don't you get out on a cat or tri sometime, and observe the differences
for yourself?

As I stated earlier, I'm sure the multihulls give a comfortable ride in most

sailing conditions. The extreme conditions I have been refering to are not
the kind I would want to test.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know anyone who actively seeks
out these conditions :-)

There are a lot of differences between multis and monos, and
mostly they don't bear repeating, having been covered elsewhere in this
thread. I sail multis primarily because the cruising grounds in easy reach
here are quite shallow and require occasional foray into very shoal waters.
Running a deep-draft keelboat would be a pain in the arse, and I don't much
care for the performance of shallow-bilged monos.

Makes sense to me. In my many cruises to the Bahamas, I occasionally had
difficulties with my 4 foot draft finding safe anchorages. My dinghy allowed

me to visit any nearby place I wanted to go.



I like cats, tris and monos, and can appreciate the relative merits of all 3
styles, and personally, I wouldn't hesitate to venture offshore in a well
found example of either type.

Offshore is a general term. It could mean you are within close proximity to
a
port, if the weather turns very nasty. Crossing an ocean doesn't give you
that option, so you better be sure your boat can take it and leave you in
a position where recovery is still within possibility.

Within the capabilities of the craft and its crew. Facing the bleak
facts, on boats of any configuration, it is frequently the crew that
fails, long before the well-found vessel will founder.

Offshore to me is 200miles.

Cheers,
Ian

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

sherwindu wrote:

Gary wrote:


Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago. Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz


Yes, but do we have statistics on the multihulls that never made it
to their destination?


This discussion is stupid. Do we have stats on the monohulls? You bias
is showing and your argument is silly.

Gaz
Movin' on!

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:


"Capt. JG" wrote:


But your making all sorts of assumptions about monos! On the one had, you're
making the assumption of a freak wave with no preparation or warning - on
the other, you're assuming that all the hatches, etc. on the mono are closed
and ready for battle. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


My point is that if you close your hatches and prepare your boat properly,
you have a good chance of coming through a bad storm. Naturally, if you
don't, you decrease your chances of keeping the boat afloat.

But, what I'm saying is that you're ignoring the same advice that
would apply with a mutli. For example, if you make sure you're
prepared for the worst, then you have a good chance of coming through
a bad storm on either type of vessel.

Actually, they decrease, since you won't be out as long as with a mono. Now,
if you want to argue that way, you could say that SINCE multis go faster,
then people would be tempted to select smaller weather windows, and thus
open themselves up to greater danger. :-)

What I meant was that any boat is exposed more to bad weather possibilities
on a long voyage. Actually you can get stung on shorter hops. I left Key

Hurricanes don't just appear out of nowwhere... they're quite
predictable in the general sense. Sounds like bad planning.

OK. What do you do if your multihull does flip over? I hear about crawling
into one of the watertight compartments, but I wonder about the practicality of
this, and where do you go from there?

Fair enough question. You have food, water, dry clothes, batteries. You have
access to the topside (bottom of boat) through hatches built for that
purpose. You have an Eprib, which you use. You have filed a sail plan
with friends, so they'll know when to start putting out the
alarm. While you wait for rescue, you relax because you're not in a
washing machine going round and round. You're in a stable (though
upside down) boat.. actually more stable than right side up. You're
fine.

You don't need to crawl into a watertight compartment, because those
compartments are sealed. You just stay in the inverted living area.

Please describe your offshore, extreme weather sailing on a mono that causes
you to have these views!

You can find some of them in my recent posts to this thread. I have no first
hand
experience sailing multihulls, but am basing my thoughts on how sailboat
behave,
in general, and what I know about Fluid Mechanics, Stability, etc., from an
engineering point of view.

Since you have no first had experience with multis, then I submit that
you're not qualified to say that they are dangerous. For example, if I
have an advanced degree in business, that doesn't qualify me to claim
that a McDonald's franchise is a bad deal because I've never tried
fast food. :-)




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

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

On 18 Jan 2006 11:10:52 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

For example, if I
have an advanced degree in business, that doesn't qualify me to claim
that a McDonald's franchise is a bad deal because I've never tried
fast food. :-)

But it does qualify you do do a business analysis using the facts that
are available.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

In article ,
Wayne.B wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 11:10:52 -0800, lid (Jonathan Ganz)
wrote:

For example, if I
have an advanced degree in business, that doesn't qualify me to claim
that a McDonald's franchise is a bad deal because I've never tried
fast food. :-)

But it does qualify you do do a business analysis using the facts that
are available.

Correct. So far, I haven't seen such an analysis from Sher... just
opinion based on facts like him having never actually cruised on a
multi. :-)





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

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

I have sailed a Phillip Rhodes designed Swiftsure 33 mono for 23 years
in the Gulf of Mexico. I have also, during the last 15 years chartered
cats from 39, 42, 44, 47 and 48 feet in the Caribbean. I have also
sailed two cats in the Bahamas. It is my opinion that a cruising cat is
by far the more comfortable boat on any long distance voyages,
especially off the wind. When comparing sinking monos to capsizing
cruising (not high tech racing) cats, there is a slight advantage to
the cats. The fatality rates are slightly better on cruising cats. All
French made cats are required by law to have escape hatches. If it
wasn't a law, there would be far fewer on the boats. So the presence
of these safety devices are not, by their presence, an indication that
cruising cats are flipping over everywhere. It has been my experience
that sailing either a mono or a cat in the same heavy weather
conditions does not hold a greater degree of danger for either. There
is just a difference in the tactics one employs to handle like
conditions. As you stated, the right boat will just jump out at you.
What jumped out to me was a 45 ft cruising cat that I will sail in the
Med this summer and cross to the Caribbean next December. You really
have to sail any type of boat fairly extensively to make a
determination as to what suits you best. My opinion is if you can
afford it, buy a cat.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

I have sailed a Phillip Rhodes designed Swiftsure 33 mono for 23 years
in the Gulf of Mexico. I have also, during the last 15 years chartered
cats from 39, 42, 44, 47 and 48 feet in the Caribbean. I have also
sailed two cats in the Bahamas. It is my opinion that a cruising cat is
by far the more comfortable boat on any long distance voyages,
especially off the wind. When comparing sinking monos to capsizing
cruising (not high tech racing) cats, there is a slight advantage to
the cats. The fatality rates are slightly better on cruising cats. All
French made cats are required by law to have escape hatches. If it
wasn't a law, there would be far fewer on the boats. So the presence
of these safety devices are not, by their presence, an indication that
cruising cats are flipping over everywhere. It has been my experience
that sailing either a mono or a cat in the same heavy weather
conditions does not hold a greater degree of danger for either. There
is just a difference in the tactics one employs to handle like
conditions. As you stated, the right boat will just jump out at you.
What jumped out to me was a 45 ft cruising cat that I will sail in the
Med this summer and cross to the Caribbean next December. You really
have to sail any type of boat fairly extensively to make a
determination as to what suits you best. My opinion is if you can
afford it, buy a cat.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Ian George wrote:

The first rule of multihull sailing is 'If you
cannot reef quickly and easily, don't go to sea'.

I think that is true for any sailboat. The question is not always
having the knowledge of how to reef, but having the opportunity
to do so. I can think of several scenarios where the crew is
distracted by something and doesn't reef down in time.

In general, apart
from the nut-swinging hard core racer, a multi will be reefed well
before a similar sized mono - simply because the multihull sailor
reefs to gust-speed, whereas the mono sailor will as a rule reef to
average wind speed and point-up or heel over to spill the gusts.

I think you are trying to give some credit to multi-hull sailors over
mono hull sailors where it doesn't exist. What you describe is just
plain good sailing technique, for any boat. However, as I stated earlier,
a boat heeling over is a much more positive feedback than an increase
of speed. A monohull will usually do a gradual heeling or at least it is
obvious that you may be in trouble if your rail is in the water. A multihull,
on the other hand, will probably stay flat until the tipping force overcomes
the moment arm of the upwind pontoon, and the multi will go over rather
quickly. I'm curious what criteria a multi sailor uses to relate boat speed
to the amount of reefing required. Speed is not that easy to judge, and a
dangerous speed may be dependent on the particular construction of the multi.




Ah, that is my point. All of the issues you have raised in this thread
- bad design, poor seamanship, inappropriate precaution, poor
construction - all apply equally to both types of craft. They can't
possibly be used to argue a case for one type over the other.

My issue is not so much preventing the initial roll over, but what happens
to the boat once that happens. Not that it is exactly pertinent to multihulls,
but the news today talked about two women rowing their boat across the
Atlantic and having it flip over. Luckily, they had an EPIRB, called for
help, and luckily their was a Tall Ship in the vicinity that picked them up
rather quickly as they clung to their overturned hull.





Offshore to me is 200miles.

I don't know if that is enough of a cushion if the seaworthyness of any
boat is in question.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"MB" wrote:
...
When comparing sinking monos to capsizing cruising
(not high tech racing) cats, there is a slight advantage to
the cats. The fatality rates are slightly better on cruising
cats...

So there's no point arguing which is safer.

As you stated, the right boat will just jump out at you.
What jumped out to me was a 45 ft cruising cat that
I will sail in the Med this summer and cross to the
Caribbean next December.
...

At first I was looking at a Tayana, then a Beneteau 473
jumped out at me, then a Catalina, a Jeanneau and now
a Fountaine Pajot !

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Just thought I would mention a couple of boats which could be
interesting for someone trying to choose: The Etap from Belgium is an
unsinkable monohull with a foam-filled double hull (Demonstrated by
opening the sea cocks and sailing it across the Channel), and the
Dragonfly from Denmark is a collapsible trimaran, you can fold the
outriggers close to the main hull to take up less space in port.

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

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

PH Peter HK



--
You cannot consistently believe this sentence

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

sherwindu wrote:
Ian George wrote:

In general, apart
from the nut-swinging hard core racer, a multi will be reefed well
before a similar sized mono - simply because the multihull sailor
reefs to gust-speed, whereas the mono sailor will as a rule reef to
average wind speed and point-up or heel over to spill the gusts.

I think you are trying to give some credit to multi-hull sailors
over mono hull sailors where it doesn't exist. What you describe
is just plain good sailing technique, for any boat. However, as I
stated earlier, a boat heeling over is a much more positive
feedback than an increase of speed. A monohull will usually do a
gradual heeling or at least it is obvious that you may be in
trouble if your rail is in the water. A multihull, on the other
hand, will probably stay flat until the tipping force overcomes the
moment arm of the upwind pontoon, and the multi will go over rather
quickly. I'm curious what criteria a multi sailor uses to relate
boat speed to the amount of reefing required. Speed is not that
easy to judge, and a dangerous speed may be dependent on the
particular construction of the multi.



Not so much in a cruising multi; in a highly strung racing multi very close
attention needs to be paid to true -v- apparent wind, but as close atention
to velocity made good is also important when racing, usually there is close
attention being paid to that formula.

In a cruising cat or tri, it is usually sufficient to be aware of apparent
wind when running off the wind, where one could be doing 15 knots or better,
running off a 25knot breeze, in the apparent calm of a mild 10kt apparent
wind in the cockpit. Trousers can be ruptured when turning to head back up
and the wind turns into 30 - 40kts apparent... drogue time, hopefully you
aren't out of sea room.


Ah, that is my point. All of the issues you have raised in this
thread - bad design, poor seamanship, inappropriate precaution, poor
construction - all apply equally to both types of craft. They can't
possibly be used to argue a case for one type over the other.

My issue is not so much preventing the initial roll over, but what
happens to the boat once that happens. Not that it is exactly
pertinent to multihulls, but the news today talked about two women
rowing their boat across the Atlantic and having it flip over.
Luckily, they had an EPIRB, called for help, and luckily their was
a Tall Ship in the vicinity that picked them up rather quickly as
they clung to their overturned hull.

Rolling a modern, well-found cruising multi is very, very hard to do. That
was all I was trying to point out. Older (up to th '70s) solid deck tris and
cats were somewhat more prone to this, due to the action of green water on a
solid expanse of deck. Some coastal cats and tri's I see with close weave
tramp mesh bother me too, although the chances are that the tramps would be
ripped from their saddles before the boat would roll. but really, the OP
wasn't talking about these boats.

Frankly taking to the Ocean in a rowboat isn't even halfway sane.


Offshore to me is 200miles.

I don't know if that is enough of a cushion if the seaworthyness of
any boat is in question.

If the seaworthiness of the boat or for that matter the competence of the
people aboard it is in question, I am perfectly happy to watch it leave from
the dock, and have done.

Ian

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


Ian George wrote:

The first rule of multihull sailing is 'If you
cannot reef quickly and easily, don't go to sea'.

I think that is true for any sailboat. The question is not always
having the knowledge of how to reef, but having the opportunity
to do so. I can think of several scenarios where the crew is
distracted by something and doesn't reef down in time.

The same bad things can happen on a mono if you don't do what's required to
be safe. Your comments don't really add much to why or why not a multihull
is or isn't safe.

I think you are trying to give some credit to multi-hull sailors over
mono hull sailors where it doesn't exist. What you describe is just
plain good sailing technique, for any boat. However, as I stated
earlier,
a boat heeling over is a much more positive feedback than an increase
of speed. A monohull will usually do a gradual heeling or at least it
is
obvious that you may be in trouble if your rail is in the water. A
multihull,

Gradual heeling? Not in high wind gusts. These are common where I sail.
You're doing a nice steady 6/7 kts in 20 kts air, then you get a 32 kts
gust. Even reefed, the boat will heel quite quickly, and I've seen people
dumped into the bottom of the cockpit. And, this is in protected water!

on the other hand, will probably stay flat until the tipping force
overcomes
the moment arm of the upwind pontoon, and the multi will go over rather
quickly. I'm curious what criteria a multi sailor uses to relate boat
speed
to the amount of reefing required. Speed is not that easy to judge, and
a
dangerous speed may be dependent on the particular construction of the
multi.

Probably? It'll happen very quickly. I reef by wind speed or expected wind
speed. That's very easy to judge.

Ah, that is my point. All of the issues you have raised in this thread
- bad design, poor seamanship, inappropriate precaution, poor
construction - all apply equally to both types of craft. They can't
possibly be used to argue a case for one type over the other.

My issue is not so much preventing the initial roll over, but what
happens
to the boat once that happens. Not that it is exactly pertinent to
multihulls,
but the news today talked about two women rowing their boat across the
Atlantic and having it flip over. Luckily, they had an EPIRB, called
for
help, and luckily their was a Tall Ship in the vicinity that picked them
up
rather quickly as they clung to their overturned hull.

I think that if you're a prudent sailor (mono or multi), you'd want to do
all you can on the prevention side. Taking the position that a mono *will*
survive a roll with rigging intact is not a smart move. Further, the broken
mast has a propensity to punch holes in the boat. You would need to get up
on deck and cut it free immediately. This is extemely hazardous duty.

Offshore to me is 200miles.

I don't know if that is enough of a cushion if the seaworthyness of any
boat is in question.

Offshore out here is beyond the demarcation line, the dividing point between
domestic rules-of-the-road (Inland Navigating Rules) and the international
rules-of-the-road. Out here, that is definitely offshore in every sense of
the word, including not being within sight of land.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen"
wrote in message
...
Just thought I would mention a couple of boats which could be
interesting for someone trying to choose: The Etap from Belgium is an
unsinkable monohull with a foam-filled double hull (Demonstrated by
opening the sea cocks and sailing it across the Channel),

I am aware of the Etap and it certainly seems an interesting step forward.

and the
Dragonfly from Denmark is a collapsible trimaran, you can fold the
outriggers close to the main hull to take up less space in port.

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

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

PH Peter HK



--
You cannot consistently believe this sentence

I'm not sure what your point is-
You cannot believe it?
You change your mind as to the relative benefits of self righting versus
non-sinkability?
You believe one is clearly better than the other and believe that the
statement is not consistent with your ideas?

All I can say is that the evidence that I have suggests that multi capsize
is about as rare as mono sinkings- both are very unlikely.

From an earlier post of mine-

"The only published figure that I have ever seen for risk was in Chris
White's book- The Cruising Multihull. He quotes mortality figures from the
US coastguard over a 10 year period and tries to interpret mono and multi
separately. Thus, while not capsize versus sinking, it was an attempt to
look at overall risk. His estimate is one death per year per 16,500 multis
compared to one per year per 12,500 monos.

He admits the figures are not rock solid.

Overall though it points to very low and equivalent risk in either hullform.

Peter HK "

Here in Australia over the last 25 years there have been over 200 deaths
from mono sinkings but no death from a multi capsize. The ratio is about 3
monos to 1 multi out cruising. This does suggest that multi capsize is less
dangerous than sinking.

I'd prefer to stay on the surface.

Peter HK

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Sorry for any confusion caused by my signatu

--
You cannot consistenly believe this sentence

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

wrote:


So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

"Bryan" wrote:
We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

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


So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

"Bryan" wrote:
We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

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

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com


Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...
Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com


Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433


You're right... didn't make the connection. Still, a 32 foot boat is pretty
small for hurricane-like conditions, I don't care how many hulls it has. :-)

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

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

The PDQ story (actually a PDQ 36) is still unfolding. The owner has
posted a few hints about what happened, but hasn't told the whole
story. The boat was recently purchased, and had spent its first 12
years in South America with three owners. Apparently there was a
major structural failure caused by bad repairs in the past, not by any
recent events. Because the owner was new, he did not recognize the
signs that something was amiss, until a large section of the hull
broke. My guess is that the forward central bulkhead was removed, or
detached from the deck, allowing the forward section to flex.

Although the boat was described as "sinking" by the press, it was
actually floating high on its lines at the time of the rescue. All of
the systems were still working, and outwardly the boat looked fine.
The engines were working and they had enough fuel to make landfall in
24 hours. However, with the hull severely compromised, including
possibly half of the flotation chambers, and the hull flexing, I'm not
surprised they wanted off!

The owner said it was very strange cooking a meal on the microwave and
listening to Jimmy Buffet while waiting for the rescue. He also said
that he was impressed with the boat and will be looking for another
PDQ once things are settled. I think he'll also be looking for a
different surveyor! BTW, while one could point to this as a problem
of lightly built boats, I would guess the a monohull suffering this
degree of failure would have sunk within a minute or two.



Don W wrote:
Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com



Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

While reading rec.boats.cruising, I noticed Marc Onrust
felt compelled to write:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html


Gee, for all his experience, it looks this guy had to abandon ship
effectively because of a parachute anchor failure. A few points out of
that article which I think are salient;

1. The 'parachute' was 18 years old, had been knocked up out of cargo
netting and was 10' (diameter, I assume). No backup was carried.

2. It took some time to sort out a bridle and keep the vessel head to
wind. The warps were 12mm. The impression of the article was that the
vessel would not ride to the anchor and bridles as deployed.

3. Despite the above, the sailor declares that he didn't like his
experience, and would not recommend a sea-anchor again.

The problem I have with items 1 and 2 here are that they could have
been avoided if he had carried a correctly specified and set up para
anchor in the first place, and, in the event that it was 18 years old,
carried a backup for it. (He doesn't mention ever having the parachute
checked / serviced / repaired in any of that time).

I wonder how he would contrast that with this experienced multihull
sailors analysis?

http://www.katiekat.net/Cruise/KatieKatParaAnch.html

I note the following from the second link:

1. For a slightly smaller boat, a 15' Diameter, professionally rigged
Para Anchor with 16mm warps is carried. A backup is carried.

2. The two deployments on this page were carried out as tests and
training for the (husband and wife) crew in conditions of 20 and then
30kts, and showed up several problems that could be learned from when
anchoring to truly horrible conditions.

3. Later, when having to deploy for real on a passage, things went
much more somoothly:

http://www.katiekat.net/Cruise/Katie...U.html#1029103

I believe from the report he's written, had the vessel in question
been carrying a serviceable, correctly specified and set up parachute
anchor, he would be sailing his vessel today rather than searching for
it.

For those interested, here is some useful info at the following link.
I am not affiliated in any capacity other than satisfied customer.

http://www.paraanchors.com.au/


Ian

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:47:41 GMT, Don W
wrote:

I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

I'd say. I'd also be willing to bet that they are not writing any new
policies on that type of boat.

Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?
 

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:59:25 -0800, Evan Gatehouse
wrote:

wrote:
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

I don't agree with the "just as fast" reason. My cruising
cat, a 40' fairly light boat but no racer, has often hit 11
knots in 20 knots of wind. Top speed so far on a beam reach
in 25 knots of wind is 15.4 knots for a sustained burst.
We're regularly sailing at 9-10 knots in 18 knots. We pray
for windy days :)

I'm not sure fast is as important as feeling fast, but for the price
of some big cats you could have this

http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...ntityid=355971

Very spacious and goes downhill like a freight train on a water slide.
Of course, there are depth issues....

Ryk