Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#14
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
The French need Guns! | ASA |