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

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

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

I think I would go with the second option.



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

For far offshore cruising, this is crazy.



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

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



Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain.

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

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

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



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

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


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

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

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


Not at all.


And what if you are on deck at the time?

Same as a mono in a knockdown.


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

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


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

Any boat that fills with water is going to sink.

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

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


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

Neither theory works all the time.



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

I prefer the self righting.

Each to his own.

Peter HK

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

"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

Sorry for any confusion caused by my signatu

--
You cannot consistenly believe this sentence

sherwindu wrote:
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes?

Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.

The truth is, it is a very uncommon event. I've only heard of a half
dozen in the last 20 years, and half of those were delivery crews or
racers, carrying too much sail. In fact, none happened when laying to
a sea anchor. As someone else mentioned, fatalities are extremely
rare. I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling
overboard than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the
more stable platform is safer.

There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

There is no doubt that some people don't like the motion of a cat. A
short, steep chop on the beam can be particularly annoying. The
biggest problem I have is that I end up handsteering in these cases,
because a firm hand on the wheel can make the ride dramatically
smoother.

One significant point in these cases is that we're often doing 9 or 10
knots. When I've had a rough ride on a monohull we're often doing
half that speed.

sherwindu wrote:
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes?


Oh c'mon, surely somebody has addressed that point?


Jeff wrote:
Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.

The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.

About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?


.... I've only heard of a half
dozen in the last 20 years, and half of those were delivery crews or
racers, carrying too much sail. In fact, none happened when laying to a
sea anchor. As someone else mentioned, fatalities are extremely rare.

And usually more related to hypothermia or trauma than
drowning. Still, morbid fear of dying is as unhealthy as any
other neurosis... you can lock yourself in a nice safe
padded room for decades and you'll still die... so you might
as well go & do something interesting!

I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling overboard
than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the more stable
platform is safer.


Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics
compare between mono- & multi-hulls.


There is no doubt that some people don't like the motion of a cat.

I don't my self... and BTW I have know cruising cats that
would spill a drink, contrary to claims that it never
happens. But of course, much much less frequently than on
monohulls.


... A
short, steep chop on the beam can be particularly annoying. The biggest
problem I have is that I end up handsteering in these cases, because a
firm hand on the wheel can make the ride dramatically smoother.

One significant point in these cases is that we're often doing 9 or 10
knots. When I've had a rough ride on a monohull we're often doing half
that speed.

That's because you're on the wrong monohull.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:
....
Jeff wrote:

Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.

The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.


About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?

I've often wondered about this - some writers simply hand wave that the
chances are roughly equal. My vote would be for avoiding the situation.



However, you have to add to the monohull side of the ledger the number
of sinkings from other causes.

....

I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling overboard
than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the more stable
platform is safer.


Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics compare between
mono- & multi-hulls.

I know of one well publicized case of a racer falling through the
netting.
....

Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.

The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.


About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?


Jeff wrote:
I've often wondered about this - some writers simply hand wave that the
chances are roughly equal. My vote would be for avoiding the situation.


Definitely agreed!



However, you have to add to the monohull side of the ledger the number
of sinkings from other causes.


Agreed again, and while the chances are small (the
overwhelming number of sinkings are at the dock) IMHO it
strengthens the argument in favor of positive flotation.

...

I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling
overboard than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the
more stable platform is safer.


Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics compare between
mono- & multi-hulls.


I know of one well publicized case of a racer falling through the
netting.
...

I bet that strained his relationship...

I've fallen off, but not thru. I've also fallen on a
crossbeam, which was a big "ouch."

What I really hate about mesh tramps is the way wave
pattersn will unpredictably reinforce themselves between the
hulls, so that crossing a small unobtrusive wake suddenly &
erratically gives a jet of cold spray right up your pants.
Not a problem on bigger cats with solid decks, but you hear
the thumping once in a while....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:06:50 GMT, 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 have a friend who has just completed a circumnavigation with his
family in a 45' cat.

His logic for choosing it was:

1. Stable platform for his wife to teach the kids their school lessons
and to live in.
2. Room to carry full set of electrical gear to make life homely -
i.e. generator, water maker, washing machine, massive cold store.
3. Speed so he could sail out of the way of bad weather. He reckons
that only once in 6 years did a mono match his performance and it was
a big fast one that could point better than him beating up the Red Sea
and although he was faster through the water he couldn't point as high
and so they ended up with similar trip times point to point.

He also commented that the ride was 'hard' and that some sailers who
were used to monos found it very uncomfortable.

One downside for them was that if they wanted to haul it out they
needed to find a yard with a massive lift which limited their haul out
options.

If you're staying in marinas lots of them will charge you more for a
cat than for the equivalnet length mono.

He reckons the shallow draft was never relevant.

I'm buying a mono though as they are boat-for-boat cheaper.

Mike