Peter HK wrote:

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.

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



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.

And what if you are on deck at the time? 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.

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



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.



Peter HK

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


Peter HK wrote:

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.

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

You're right, but they can in sudden gusts with a relatively inattentive
cruising crew.

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.

And what if you are on deck at the time? 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.

Well, the same argument can be made for a mono if you're on deck and she
heels dramatically or takes on water suddenly.

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

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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:




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


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

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

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



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

I think I would go with the second option.


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

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




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


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

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

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




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


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

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

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



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

I think I would go with the second option.


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

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




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


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

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

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:
....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...






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

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

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

I think I would go with the second option.



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

For far offshore cruising, this is crazy.



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

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



Well, you're certainly not a licensed captain.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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


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

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

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

Peter HK

"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