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

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

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

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.

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

"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.