"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
One problem with catamarans is there are few warnings that they are about
to
capsize. You may notice one of the hulls lifting out of the water, but by
that
time,
it may be too late to correct anything. A monohull will heel
progressively,
giving you
a little more time to shorten sail, etc.

Sherwin D.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Yeah, that's what they said about the Titanic.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...


Gordon wrote:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...GHUN14OU18.DTL

Looks like they got caught in that big storm.
Gordon

The article referenced above had the following comment"

"Double-hulled catamaran sailboats are fast and lightweight -- and
harder
to
capsize than some single-hull sloops. "

What they should have added is that single hull boats have one
stable
state,
right side
up. Even when they capsize, the heavy keel will bring it back
upright.
A
catamaran,
on the other hand, is stable in two configurations, upright and
upside
down.
Once
they flip, they almost never right themselves.

Sherwin D.



Yeah, possibly on the bottom. Whereas the catamaran won't sink.


Well, that's what actually didn't happen. The cat didn't sink did it? Or,
are the pictures faked?

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




Yes, htis is true. Thus one must be vigilant about sailing in control at all
times and reducing sail sooner rather than later instead of relying on the
boat to correct your mistakes.

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

sherwindu wrote:

It's a well established fact that most roll overs of a monohull do not result in
the boat
sinking. I would rather take my chances with a roll over than be helplessly
trapped
upside down.

Makes me also wonder, what did we do before we had EPIRBS? I guess earlier
sailors were better prepared to take care of themselves.

Sherwin D.

Sherwin,

Earlier sailors probably _were_ better prepared to
take care of themselves, because there were no
radios, and no CG helicopters, CG fast cutters,
etc, and they knew it when they left port.

However, many of them also disappeared without a
trace, and it is still a mystery what happened to
them. This still happens today even with all of
our safety gear.

Don W.

"Eternal Father, strong to save, Whose arm hath
bound the restless wave...Oh, hear us when we cry
to Thee, For those in peril on the sea!" --
Excerpted from the Navy Hymn -- William Whiting 1860.

"Mark R." wrote in message ups.com...
The following is the actual NOAA weather forecast for the storm. I
clipped this the night of the strom to email to some friends.

- - - - - - - - -

COASTAL WATERS FORECAST
Snip....snip....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Of the 35 or so comments thus far, no one has questioned why this boat
was in the strom to begin with. Snip....Snip....

-Mark
"Calpurnia"
www.goreads.com

In the article, it said "What we do know is that the new owner hired a British yacht
delivery company to deliver the boat from South Africa to Washington for the Seattle Boat Show
in January. They stopped in San Francisco and left again on December 8. That was the last
anyone heard from the crew". How long would it take to get to Seattle from San Francisco?
I would think that they would have time to wait out the storm before pushing on to Seattle.

Link to article:
http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433
--

SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO

When American Citizens with dual citizenship pledges allegiance
to the flag, to which flag do they pledge allegiance too?

-

In the article, it said "What we do know is that the new owner hired a British yacht
delivery company to deliver the boat from South Africa to Washington for the Seattle Boat Show
in January. They stopped in San Francisco and left again on December 8. That was the last
anyone heard from the crew". How long would it take to get to Seattle from San Francisco?
I would think that they would have time to wait out the storm before pushing on to Seattle.

There are two ways to make the trip, head out to sea about a 100 miles
where the waves are not piled up so much, or stick along the coast so
you can jump into a harbor if the weather turns nasty. It took me over
three weeks to hug the coast when I was heading south from Seattle to
San Diego. Twice I got stuck in a harbor, when the coast guard would
close the entrance and not allow any boats in or out because of waves
breaking on the bar.

This groups challenge was that they were headed against the wind and
the general direction of the swell. That makes for a tough trip on a
good day, but when the wind is blowing 90 and the seas are 40 feet, I'm
not sure how you are making any progress in a controlled fashion.

The fact that the delivery comany was a "British" group may imply that
they were not aware of the challenge with the harbors being closed when
the waves pickup. It is also possible, but not probable, that the were
not aware how the NOAA weather service works and that you need to
change chanels about every 30 miles or so and thus would have thought
they were out of range and could not get weather info.

Hi Sherwin:
Why would you be helplessly trapped? Can't you swim? If the multihull
is not going to sink, you can swim out the hatch, or, like some multihull
sailors do, is to carry tools located near to where they have planed to
cut a hole in the hull incase of a capsize. Some multihulls have a built in
escape hatch. To take your chance with a rollover in a mono can be a
all or nothing gamble with your life, better odds with a multi, which
you would still have water, food and everything else you brought
with you. In a mono, if there is a hole in the hull for any reason, such
as hitting a container (which is more of a problem than you might think)
or holed by a whale, or equipment failure, you are in deep dodo.
I don't mean to sound like I don't like mono's, I would love to
have a Freedom 40, but as far as safety goes, I think the multi's have
it.

Lagoon escape hatch:
http://www.indigomoon.us/triplog/survey.html

The crewman leaning against the hull is buy the
escape hatch, which is swung over to his left:
http://www.breath2000.org/gallery/al...a_capsize1.jpg

If this happened to a mono, how much time would you have to gather what you need to survive?:
http://www.ceps-survie.com/images/Tr...Spain%2095.jpg

This mono did not survive this:
http://photos.sfsurvey.com/sailH/index.asp

Lost his rudder stock, gone in 60 minutes:
http://www.f-boat.com/pdf/YachtSinkingMay05.pdf


"sherwindu" wrote in message ...
It's a well established fact that most roll overs of a monohull do not result in
the boat
sinking. I would rather take my chances with a roll over than be helplessly
trapped
upside down.

Makes me also wonder, what did we do before we had EPIRBS? I guess earlier
sailors were better prepared to take care of themselves.

Sherwin D.

" wrote:

I have been a catamaran sailor for years and have come this conclusion:
a major different between monohulls and catamarans is the most sable
position for a catamaran is upside down on the surface, the most sable
position for a monohull is right side up on the bottom. I'll take
the cat.

sherwindu wrote:
It's a well established fact that most roll overs of a monohull do not result in
the boat sinking. ...

I don't think there are many "well established facts" when it comes to
small boat survival in severe storm conditions. I've lost friends to
storms at sea who I know were excellent sailors in well found boats and
I have friends who survived the Queen's birthday storm in an old ferro
cement boat. Most of what is published about small craft in very bad
weather is based on the Fastnet, the Queen's birthday storm and the
Sydney-Hobart disasters. I know good faith efforts have been made to
draw lessons from these events. However, there isn't a lot of data to
work with and I'm not sure that all of the people charged with finding
facts were equipped to understand the evidence they judged. The only
really well established fact about all this that I can see is that even
good sailors on good boats can meet with conditions at sea that are
unsurvivable.

-- Tom.

Considering the offshore sailing I have done, I would not be here to answer you
if
I did not observe the proper safety precautions.

I think your statement that multihulls never sink is a fantasy, as is your
presumption
that monohulls sink after they capsize. How many times have you heard of
monohulls capsizing and then continuing to sail, with a jury rig if need be. If
you
haven't heard any, I think you are not in touch with the real world.]

Sherwin D.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
And I answer you that I have done extensive ocean cruising with my 22 foot
sailboat, including a winter passage through the Windward Passage from
Jamaica
to
Florida. It was no picnic, so I know what rough weather sailing is. You
can
add to
that sailing my boat from Greece to Israel and back fighting the strong
Meltimi
winds. I think I have seen enough bad weather.

It does depend on your point of view. I like to work myself out of
trouble, and
not
depend on some electronic signal to send the cavalry over the next hill to
rescue me.
I think with 35 years of cruising experience, I have seen quite a few bad
storms. I
never capsized, but I am not a racer who pushes their boat to the maximum.
When

the weather gets bad, I shorten sail, sometimes heave-to, and/or put out a
sea
anchor. Problem is that many sailors think their multihulls cannot flip
over,
and that's
when they get into trouble.

Sherwin D.

This isn't demonstrated by your post. What is demonstrated is lack of
understand about safety, or rather single-mindedness about what safety
means, which is almost as bad.

We all "like to work ..ourselves... out of trouble and not depend on some
electronic signal... blah, blah." But understanding that you have that
device should you not be able to "work it out" is the point.

And, no. What multihull sailors know is that their boats can't sink. Big
difference.

"Capt. JG" wrote:

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Gee, do I have to spell everything out! My comment was directed to the
concept
that boats are unsinkable, period. They said the Titanic could never
sink. Get
the
analogy? I guess not.

I personally would rather take my chances on a boat that most likely
will
go
back
to an upright position where I have a chance of salvaging enough
rigging
to
continue
sailing. We are slaves to our EPIRB's to get us out of trouble. Your
first
thought
when in trouble at sea is how can I recover a bad situation, not make a
grab for
the
EPIRB. Of course, in the case of an upsidedown multihull, they didn't
have much

of a choice.

Sherwin D.

The logical choice is to pick the most survivable situation and to
recognize
when a situation is becoming untenable. I suggest that you've never been
in
a washing machine-style situation, where everything (as a best case) is
going round and round and everything is flying. It's not a place you
would
want to stay for very long. Need a dramatic account? Read Fastnet Force
10.
The mono will capsize, then right itself, perhaps a number of times, and
if
you're very lucky, you won't be killed or injured by the flying debris.
If
you're unlucky, water will enter and the boat will right itself on the
bottom.

On the other hand, if a multi capsizes, it will likely stay capsized
providing a stable and likely livable place to await rescue.

No where have I seen anyone suggest that triggering an EPIRB is a first
action or even third option, but neither is it necessary to wait until
the
situation is unsalvagable to trigger it. When you say, "they didn't have
much choice," you imply that they had a choice at all. It's more likely
that they were swept overboard before being able to get to it or below.

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



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

In article ,
sherwindu wrote:
Considering the offshore sailing I have done, I would not be here to answer you
if
I did not observe the proper safety precautions.

I think your statement that multihulls never sink is a fantasy, as is your
presumption
that monohulls sink after they capsize. How many times have you heard of
monohulls capsizing and then continuing to sail, with a jury rig if need be. If
you
haven't heard any, I think you are not in touch with the real world.]

Sherwin D.

Would you rather be lucky or good? I think you've been lucky.

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.
--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.

Not taking sides in the multi vs mono debate
although I do own two mono's at the moment.

I did read a while back about a ~45' Cat that was
abandoned due to structural failure during a storm
in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking that this
type of structural failure is probably far more
common than outright sinking for multihulls, but I
could be wrong about that.

A friend was one of three crew on a ~60' Cat on a
passage from Belize to Florida several years back.
They hit a storm in the gulf and suffered enough
damage that the insurance company totaled it.
They made it into port, but the boat was toast.
The skipper was a professional who had sailed the
same boat all over the world for more than ten
years with many Atlantic crossings etc. I had a
hard time understanding what kind of damage you
could suffer that would cause an insurance company
to total a $1.5 million boat. He said that among
other things, the mast was punched through the top
of the salon, and the "structure" of the boat was
damaged beyond economical repair.

It doesn't do much good to have two hulls which
float if they are no longer attached to each other

Don W.

"Don W" wrote in message
.. .


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Multihulls don't sink from a capsizing. On the other hand, monos will
sink if enough water gets below. It's disingenuous to claim that I
said monos always sink when they capsize. How many multis have you
heard than have sunk? Perhaps far fewer than monos. Either that or
you're not in touch with the real world.

Not taking sides in the multi vs mono debate although I do own two mono's
at the moment.

I did read a while back about a ~45' Cat that was abandoned due to
structural failure during a storm in the Gulf of Mexico. I'm thinking
that this type of structural failure is probably far more common than
outright sinking for multihulls, but I could be wrong about that.

A friend was one of three crew on a ~60' Cat on a passage from Belize to
Florida several years back. They hit a storm in the gulf and suffered
enough damage that the insurance company totaled it. They made it into
port, but the boat was toast. The skipper was a professional who had
sailed the same boat all over the world for more than ten years with many
Atlantic crossings etc. I had a hard time understanding what kind of
damage you could suffer that would cause an insurance company to total a
$1.5 million boat. He said that among other things, the mast was punched
through the top of the salon, and the "structure" of the boat was damaged
beyond economical repair.

It doesn't do much good to have two hulls which float if they are no
longer attached to each other

Don W.



Well, I guess they made it into port, so it must not have sunk... I
currently own a mono... Sabre 30, and the only multi I've owned was a
Windrider 16. I used to occasionally take it off Crissy Field (San
Francisco) and would regularly get it complete filled with water. Rode low,
but wouldn't sink. I'm pretty sure that if I filled my Sabre with water, it
would sink.


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