Peter HK wrote:


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

Sherwin D.

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

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

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

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

Peter HK

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

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

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


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

Sherwin D.

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

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

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

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

Peter HK

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

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


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

Capt. JG wrote:

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evan Gatehouse

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
....



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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evan Gatehouse

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

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


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


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


That's not really good practice, is it?

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


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

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:
Evan Gatehouse wrote:
...

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

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



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


Jeff wrote:

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


That's not really good practice, is it?

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evan Gatehouse

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:

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


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

Sherwin D.

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

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

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

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

Peter HK

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

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


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

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

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

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


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

Sherwin D.

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

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

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

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

Peter HK

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

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

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


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

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

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


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