Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls going to the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360 degree roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when he was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he lost both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails to try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out there upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB going and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go to the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.

I wouldn't dispute that a monohull should right it's self after a roll and
be survivable. I think it takes a whole lot more to roll a cat of similar
length than it does a monohull though. After all a 40' sailing cat is
usually between 30' and 40' wide as well.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls going to
the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360 degree
roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when he was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he lost
both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails to
try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out there
upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB going
and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go to
the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.

James,

It may take a lot of force to roll a multihull, but I know of at least one
large one that my sailing friend saw flip over during a Mackinac race here on
Lake Michigan.
As I mentioned in another posting, there is not much warning that a multihull is
going
to roll over. The first sign is the windward hull lifting out of the water, and
by that
time it may be too late to take corrective action.

Sherwin D.

James wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that a monohull should right it's self after a roll and
be survivable. I think it takes a whole lot more to roll a cat of similar
length than it does a monohull though. After all a 40' sailing cat is
usually between 30' and 40' wide as well.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls going to
the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360 degree
roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when he was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he lost
both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails to
try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out there
upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB going
and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go to
the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.

I didn't suggest it was impossible, just that it was a lot harder. The case
you mention sounds like the boat was being pushed to the limit in a race.
That's different from a roll over in a storm. I'd also suspect the boat in
question was also deliberately lightened as much as possible. If I had to
survive a storm in open seas I'd rather be in a cat because it is harder to
roll. A cat fully loaded for an extended cruise rigged for storm conditions
is less likely to roll than a monohull. Not impossible, but less likely.
If I had to pick which one I'd want to be in it would be the cat

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
James,

It may take a lot of force to roll a multihull, but I know of at least
one
large one that my sailing friend saw flip over during a Mackinac race here
on
Lake Michigan.
As I mentioned in another posting, there is not much warning that a
multihull is
going
to roll over. The first sign is the windward hull lifting out of the
water, and
by that
time it may be too late to take corrective action.

Sherwin D.

James wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that a monohull should right it's self after a roll
and
be survivable. I think it takes a whole lot more to roll a cat of
similar
length than it does a monohull though. After all a 40' sailing cat is
usually between 30' and 40' wide as well.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls going
to
the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360
degree
roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when he
was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he
lost
both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails to
try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out
there
upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB
going
and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go to
the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.

The big problem here is that cats don't roll, they flip.

James wrote:

I didn't suggest it was impossible, just that it was a lot harder. The case
you mention sounds like the boat was being pushed to the limit in a race.
That's different from a roll over in a storm. I'd also suspect the boat in
question was also deliberately lightened as much as possible. If I had to
survive a storm in open seas I'd rather be in a cat because it is harder to
roll. A cat fully loaded for an extended cruise rigged for storm conditions
is less likely to roll than a monohull. Not impossible, but less likely.
If I had to pick which one I'd want to be in it would be the cat

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
James,

It may take a lot of force to roll a multihull, but I know of at least
one
large one that my sailing friend saw flip over during a Mackinac race here
on
Lake Michigan.
As I mentioned in another posting, there is not much warning that a
multihull is
going
to roll over. The first sign is the windward hull lifting out of the
water, and
by that
time it may be too late to take corrective action.

Sherwin D.

James wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that a monohull should right it's self after a roll
and
be survivable. I think it takes a whole lot more to roll a cat of
similar
length than it does a monohull though. After all a 40' sailing cat is
usually between 30' and 40' wide as well.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls going
to
the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360
degree
roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when he
was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he
lost
both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails to
try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out
there
upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB
going
and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go to
the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.

Whatever you call it. In the same conditions the monohull will roll before
the cat flips.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
The big problem here is that cats don't roll, they flip.

James wrote:

I didn't suggest it was impossible, just that it was a lot harder. The
case
you mention sounds like the boat was being pushed to the limit in a race.
That's different from a roll over in a storm. I'd also suspect the boat
in
question was also deliberately lightened as much as possible. If I had
to
survive a storm in open seas I'd rather be in a cat because it is harder
to
roll. A cat fully loaded for an extended cruise rigged for storm
conditions
is less likely to roll than a monohull. Not impossible, but less likely.
If I had to pick which one I'd want to be in it would be the cat

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
James,

It may take a lot of force to roll a multihull, but I know of at
least
one
large one that my sailing friend saw flip over during a Mackinac race
here
on
Lake Michigan.
As I mentioned in another posting, there is not much warning that a
multihull is
going
to roll over. The first sign is the windward hull lifting out of the
water, and
by that
time it may be too late to take corrective action.

Sherwin D.

James wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that a monohull should right it's self after a roll
and
be survivable. I think it takes a whole lot more to roll a cat of
similar
length than it does a monohull though. After all a 40' sailing cat is
usually between 30' and 40' wide as well.

"sherwindu" wrote in message
...
Not too long ago, there was some lengthy discussion about the safety
of
monohulls
vs. multihulls. What I heard was a lot of hype about monohulls
going
to
the
bottom
when the roll over. Well, here is a recent story of Ken Barnes 360
degree
roll
off
the coast of Chile where his monohull did not sink. In fact, when
he
was
eventually
picked up, his boat was still floating high in the water. True, he
lost
both
masts, but
he was in a position to either call for help, or jury rig some sails
to
try and
reach port.
I think if this had happened to a multihull, he would still be out
there
upside
down,
and maybe by some miracle he would have been able to get his EPIRB
going
and
kept from freezing to death. So much for the myth that monohulls go
to
the
bottom
when they roll.

Sherwin D.