Why do people buy cruising catamarans ?

[p***@sailor.com]

So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

[Wayne.B]

Post by p***@sailor.com
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls

5. ??? -- Aversion to heeling, that's my guess.

Some folks never get used to the idea of traveling on an angle. Cats
offer a more spacious looking main salon also, both wider and also
elevated well above the water. That seems to have appeal for a few.

[Jeff]

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

I would dispute that claim, sort of. Certainly in the used monohull
market there are bargains to be had, but there are very few cruising
boat that can keep up with a modern cat. Also, most buyers decide
what kind of boat they would prefer rather independent of the price.
Of course, cats tend to be pricey, partly because of engineering
issues, so you might find a large monohull that does fit your
criteria. In our case, the same money would have bought a 42 foot
Hunter or Catalina, neither of which are remotely close to the size
and speed of our boat.

Its hard to do a dollar for dollar comparison, but there are very few
cruising monohulls that can keep up with a cat, even one thats a bit
smaller. And its hard to find any mono that is "spacious" in the same
way as a cat.

One aspect you're ignoring is that the cat will have a much smaller
rig than an equally fast cruising monohull. My 36 foot cat is fairly
fast with only 540 feet of white sail. A mono of similar speed and
size would be 45 feet or more, and might have twice the sail to deal
with. And many cats will do 9 or 10 knots all day in a breeze,
without a spinnaker. While some racing boat will do that, it would
usually require a chute.

Post by p***@sailor.com
1. Shallower draft

That's a real good reason. When folks talk about how mono's outpoint
cats they often pick racing boats with a 7 foot keel.

Post by p***@sailor.com
2. They can be parked on the beach

That's not done as often as one might think. However, I have anchored
in water shallow enough to walk ashore.

Post by p***@sailor.com
3. They don't sink as easily

Its pretty hard to find cases of more than a handful of cats sinking.
There are a number of other safety features, such as a huge
foredeck, a small rig, no heeling, etc.

Post by p***@sailor.com
4. They don't roll like monohulls

Well, they roll like cats, which is a different thing. However, if
you're talking about rolling in anchorages, its rare that my cat is
anything other than rock steady in a protected anchorage. Often, I'll
see neighboring monohulls rolling because we got waked.

Post by p***@sailor.com
5. ???

I find the ride far more relaxing than monohulls, though I'll admit
there are differing opinions on this point. After 8 hours of sailing
a mono my legs are usually getting a bit "rubbery" but after sailing
all day on a cat I'm ready to boogie.

Twin engines are a plus, so is fast efficient powering.

I've come to love the deck layout, with a huge trampoline forward,
twin swim platforms and a nice spot for a dinghy in davits. If the
cockpit is enclosed (many modern cats have a hardtop) it becomes a
large pilothouse. We leave a lot of gear outside, and take a lot of
meals in the cockpit.

The large deck space means lots of hatches - we have 8 large opening
hatches on deck, plus 8 more side hatches. This is a huge amount of
ventilation, and A/C is not needed at anchor.

Post by p***@sailor.com

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

[Gary]

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

Multihull sailing and monohull sailing, while they enjoy they same
propulsion system (wind) are two different vehicles. The safety valve
on a monohull is its ability to roll with the punches. The multihull
has no such valve. The discomfort of living at 15 degrees of heel is
the price you pay for that feature. The level living on the multi makes
it speedier (normally) and more comfortable with more living space.
There is more room on deck for junk to play with at anchor. There is
more privacy. They are wonderful boats for cruising until you have to
pay moorage.
The down side is that lack of a safety valve. When shit happens in the
middle of the night you gotta be paying attention or you'l be living in
it upside down. Fortunately, they are designed for that eventuality.

I would love one if I found one that I liked the look of.

Gaz

[Evan Gatehouse]

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

I don't agree with the "just as fast" reason. My cruising
cat, a 40' fairly light boat but no racer, has often hit 11
knots in 20 knots of wind. Top speed so far on a beam reach
in 25 knots of wind is 15.4 knots for a sustained burst.
We're regularly sailing at 9-10 knots in 18 knots. We pray
for windy days :)

http://www.kp44.org/ftp/KP44Polars.pdf is a link to a Kelly
Peterson 44 VPP. Note that wind is APPARENT WIND, not true
wind angle.

In 16 knots of wind she is predicted to sail at about 7.5
knots pointing at about 35+ apparent (hard to read the
graph), or about 45+ true.

The PDQ 44 is predicted to sail at 7.8 knots at the same
wind strength, same wind angle.

On a beam reach in 12 knots, the KP44 is predicted to do 7.7
knots. The PDQ 44 is predicted to go 9.5 knots both
switched to a spinnaker at that point.

Post by p***@sailor.com
1. Shallower draft

Yup

Post by p***@sailor.com
2. They can be parked on the beach

Not often done cause it scrapes off the bottom paint and
you're stuck there for a tidal cycle. But useful for
painting the bottom or doing maintenance.

Post by p***@sailor.com
3. They don't sink as easily

Very true

Post by p***@sailor.com
4. They don't roll like monohulls

Not only do they not roll, I find the motion at sea a lot
more comfortable because of the reduced motion. My wife
left a drink on a fwd. crossbeam for 1/2 hour and it was
still there when she returned. Beating upwind into 25 knots
3-4' seas, going 7-8 knots, a glass of orange juice spilled.
This was cause for great alarm since nothing like that had
ever happened on the boat

And at anchor of course they just sit there.

Post by p***@sailor.com
5. ???

A ton more deck and interior volume. Smaller rigs as Jeff
suggested.

I don't think moorage while cruising is as much of a problem
as most people think. Generally we anchor everywhere, but
end ties are usually available for the same price. Not
everywhere, but they are available.

Evan Gatehouse

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by Evan Gatehouse
...

Post by p***@sailor.com
2. They can be parked on the beach

Not often done cause it scrapes off the bottom paint and
you're stuck there for a tidal cycle. But useful for
painting the bottom or doing maintenance.

What about if your boat has reinforced keel shoes ?
Are these made of metal so you don't have to worry about
scraping the paint ?

Fountaine Pajot actually shows you how to do this at:

http://www.fountaine-pajot.com/article263-en.html

but if you want to see the whole animation you'll have to
scroll down quickly or right click on the image and click
"Play".

[Peter HK]

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

There are a number of errors in logic in the above post.

People buy cruising catamarans because they are better than cruising monos,
albeit generally more expensive.

Firstly let me make a comment about speed. In this perennial argument there
always seems to be the anecdotal statement that someone in a mono somewhere
beat a multi around a course and that means that multis aren't faster.

Let me point out the reality. Cruising multis (of similar size) are slower
than racing monos. Racing multis are faster than cruising monos. Racing
multis are faster than racing monos (clearly evident from all the long
distant records and also from the America's cup farce in NZ between the huge
mono and the multi half its size where the cat annihilated the mono to
windward and held back off the the breeze so as not to jeopardize the
subsequent court case). Cruising multis are faster than cruising monos- but
not by much as both tend to be overloaded and the evidence that I have seen
suggests about a 10% difference.

Shallow draft is great.

Movement under sail is arguable as multis have a sharper motion but the lack
of heel is a big plus. On my cruising cat we never had a glass spill even in
40- 50 knots ( though I admit we weren't beating into it!).

Non-sinkability is a huge safety plus and forgotten by the mono brigade.
Here in Oz in the last 25-30 years there have been no deaths from multi
capsizes but well over 200 deaths from mono sinkings. Multis here are
popular and account for 25-30% of boats cruising, so it's not a statistical
error. Clearly capsize is not nearly as dangerous as sinking. Better
upside-down on the surface than right way up on the bottom.

Beaching is not that common.

At anchor they can behave poorly, especially in wind against tide
situations.

In cold climates they are harder to heat and all the deck space is not much
use- the converse is true in the tropics.

The spaciousness is great if a cat is large enough so that the bridgedeck is
a lounge area. This means that the staterooms are separate, the shower/heads
are separate, and the whole setup is more like a house. Monos are more like
a dormitory.

If, given the choice, I would certainly choose a large multi over a large
mono for cruising.

Peter HK

[Bryan]

Peter, I'm not sure why you say a cat is better than a mono? Certainly they
have different attributes but the choice of what makes one type of boat
better then another is strictly personal. I grew up racing monohulls and
that is what I feel comfortable on. I do see the advantages of a cat: room,
sailing flat, shallow draft, but I also see advantages in a mono: load
carrying ability, more seaworthy, softer ride.

Buying a boat is a personal decision. What is better for you may be worse
for me.

Fair winds,

Bryan

Post by Peter HK

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

There are a number of errors in logic in the above post.
People buy cruising catamarans because they are better than cruising
monos, albeit generally more expensive.
Firstly let me make a comment about speed. In this perennial argument
there always seems to be the anecdotal statement that someone in a mono
somewhere beat a multi around a course and that means that multis aren't
faster.
Let me point out the reality. Cruising multis (of similar size) are slower
than racing monos. Racing multis are faster than cruising monos. Racing
multis are faster than racing monos (clearly evident from all the long
distant records and also from the America's cup farce in NZ between the
huge mono and the multi half its size where the cat annihilated the mono
to windward and held back off the the breeze so as not to jeopardize the
subsequent court case). Cruising multis are faster than cruising monos-
but not by much as both tend to be overloaded and the evidence that I have
seen suggests about a 10% difference.
Shallow draft is great.
Movement under sail is arguable as multis have a sharper motion but the
lack of heel is a big plus. On my cruising cat we never had a glass spill
even in 40- 50 knots ( though I admit we weren't beating into it!).
Non-sinkability is a huge safety plus and forgotten by the mono brigade.
Here in Oz in the last 25-30 years there have been no deaths from multi
capsizes but well over 200 deaths from mono sinkings. Multis here are
popular and account for 25-30% of boats cruising, so it's not a
statistical error. Clearly capsize is not nearly as dangerous as sinking.
Better upside-down on the surface than right way up on the bottom.
Beaching is not that common.
At anchor they can behave poorly, especially in wind against tide
situations.
In cold climates they are harder to heat and all the deck space is not
much use- the converse is true in the tropics.
The spaciousness is great if a cat is large enough so that the bridgedeck
is a lounge area. This means that the staterooms are separate, the
shower/heads are separate, and the whole setup is more like a house. Monos
are more like a dormitory.
If, given the choice, I would certainly choose a large multi over a large
mono for cruising.
Peter HK

[Peter HK]

Post by Bryan
Peter, I'm not sure why you say a cat is better than a mono? Certainly
they have different attributes but the choice of what makes one type of
boat better then another is strictly personal. I grew up racing monohulls
load carrying ability, more seaworthy, softer ride.
Buying a boat is a personal decision. What is better for you may be worse
for me.
Fair winds,
Bryan

I agree with you entirely- we all see different priorities and have
different opinions. To me cats seem to have advantages over monos for the
things that are important to me and for the type of cruising I wanted to do.

Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

Having said that, now that I have given up cruising, I have a trailerable
mono for local daysailing. It has advantages that suit me at the moment. I'm
even thinking about power in the future (don't tell anyone) ;-)

Peter HK

[sherwindu]

One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

Sherwin D.

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

We raced our Schock 35 for many years and often there
was a multihull fleet sailing the same course. F-28 Corsair
Trimarans and others of the same ilk. We were very rarely
beaten around the course by those multihulls.. I would
tend to agree that in general a large monohull will be as
fast if not faster than a cruising cat.

Ask yourself this question... Would you rather be upright on the bottom or
upside down and floating on the surface?

Some people don't like the way multis ride in heavy seas.. other do.

Ask yourself another question.. What is easier on the crew for days on end..
living on the walls of a monohull or not heeling more than 10 degrees?

[Peter HK]

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.

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

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

Peter HK

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?

Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

[Peter HK]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Marc Onrust
I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to

upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

The only published figure that I have ever seen for risk was in Chris
White's book- The Cruising Multihull. He quotes mortality figures from the
US coastguard over a 10 year period and tries to interpret mono and multi
separately. Thus, while not capsize versus sinking, it was an attempt to
look at overall risk. His estimate is one death per year per 16,500 multis
compared to one per year per 12,500 monos.

He admits the figures are not rock solid.

Overall though it points to very low and equivalent risk in either hullform.

Peter HK

[Capt. JG]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

[Evan Gatehouse]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust
I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only
know of the following;

- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while
a "rage" was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in
the huge breakers

- a Gemini capsizing in Texas; sailed over due to too much sail

- a Fountaine Pajot 35 capsized in the Caribbean; sailed
over with a charter group aboard

- a Catana in the Med; capsized due to a sudden squall
hitting with the chute up at night.

- a Heavenly Twins 26 or 27 capsizing in Force 10+ north of
the British Isles during a rare summer severe storm.

I have also heard of the F-P Maldives 32 being pretty
susceptible to capsize but that's more innuendo that actual
facts and the Iriquois but I don't know if they were
capsized during racing or while cruising.

Most of the above are smaller, narrower beam cats by the way
of fairly old design; the exceptions being the FP 35 and the
Catana.

When the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton University did a study
of trying to capsize cruising cat models the only way they
could do it was a beam on breaking wave > beam of the boat
(similar to a monohull by the way)

"MODEL TESTS TO STUDY CAPSIZE AND STABILITY OF SAILING
MULTIHULLS"
Deakin B.
The 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, January 2001

Evan Gatehouse

[Jeff]

Evan Gatehouse wrote:
...

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;
- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the
episode. Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot,
and down below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn
on the jib) in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach. He
was not entering, but passing by a notoriously windy cut in the Abacos
(by Whale Cay?) and got hit by an estimated 45 knot gust and 6 foot
wave beam on. The boat did not pitchpole, but slowly went on its
side, and stayed there for several hours while the owner (who came
from Marsh Harbor?) and others tried to right it. Finally, a stay
broke and it capsized. It was towed back to Marsh Harbor where the
deck was trashed by efforts to lift it inverted with slings. I saw
the boat in Toronto awaiting a deck rebuild.

One design factor considered by cat builders is how much wind could a
boat handle in such a worst case of a gust on the beam with full sail
sheeted in. The figure used for the PDQ 32 is 45 knots. The
assumption is that in almost all cases where 45 knots is possible, you
would shorten sail - even a single reef makes a huge difference in
this situation. Also, in most cases someone would be on deck to
release a sheet. A significant lesson is that whenever full sail is
sheeted in during a blow, someone must be on deck!

Two other factors apply here: First, this particular boat was sailing
"light." That is, it was stripped out and not carrying cruising gear.
If it were loaded, it probably would not have gone over. The second
is that this design has a rather narrow beam, coupled with a tall
profile. This is one of the issues with smaller cats, since the
temptation by designers is to make them narrow enough for a slip.
Also, since the bridge deck clearance and overhead boom height have
practical minimums, smaller cats have proportionally taller rigs. The
combination of narrow beam and tall rig makes this sort of incident
inevitable. For this reason, I've usually said that the minimum size
for an offshore capable cat is about 35 feet, unless it has a very
conservative rig.

This situation also applies to the Gemini (14 foot beam), and a recent
case of an Iroquois (which only has a 13 foot beam!). The Heaven
Twins is another such case, with a beam under 14 feet.

- a Gemini capsizing in Texas; sailed over due to too much sail
- a Fountaine Pajot 35 capsized in the Caribbean; sailed over with a
charter group aboard
- a Catana in the Med; capsized due to a sudden squall hitting with the
chute up at night.
- a Heavenly Twins 26 or 27 capsizing in Force 10+ north of the British
Isles during a rare summer severe storm.
I have also heard of the F-P Maldives 32 being pretty susceptible to
capsize but that's more innuendo that actual facts and the Iriquois but
I don't know if they were capsized during racing or while cruising.
Most of the above are smaller, narrower beam cats by the way of fairly
old design; the exceptions being the FP 35 and the Catana.
When the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton University did a study of trying
to capsize cruising cat models the only way they could do it was a beam
on breaking wave > beam of the boat (similar to a monohull by the way)
"MODEL TESTS TO STUDY CAPSIZE AND STABILITY OF SAILING MULTIHULLS"
Deakin B.
The 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, January 2001
Evan Gatehouse

[DSK]

...

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;
- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

Another incident not on the list... 2 ~ 3 years ago a Gemini
capsized in the Straights near Seattle. Boat was reportedly
being sailed by a novice in squally weather.

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the episode.
Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot, and down
below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn on the jib)
in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach.

That's not really good practice, is it? ;)

.... (snip for brevity) ... The combination of
narrow beam and tall rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For
this reason, I've usually said that the minimum size for an offshore
capable cat is about 35 feet, unless it has a very conservative rig.

Have you read Tom F. Jones account of sailing thru an
Atlantic hurricane in a 26' (IIRC) Wharram? That was most
interesting. I think that cruising can be done in multihulls
with a degree of safety depending on the skill & knowledge
of the skipper... obviously the more he knows about the
characteristics of his specific vessel, the better.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Jeff]

Post by Jeff
...

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of
the following;
- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage"
was blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

Another incident not on the list... 2 ~ 3 years ago a Gemini capsized in
the Straights near Seattle. Boat was reportedly being sailed by a novice
in squally weather.

Post by Jeff
I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the
episode. Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot,
and down below. He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn
on the jib) in 25+ knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach.

That's not really good practice, is it? ;)

No, but almost all disasters include some degree of human error,
otherwise known as incompetence. When considering such events you
have to think about what is possible when you screw things up; not
what happens when you do everything perfectly.

Of course, in this case its possible that a monohull would have lost
its rig and have been in equally serious trouble.

Post by Jeff
.... (snip for brevity) ... The combination of narrow beam and tall
rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For this reason, I've
usually said that the minimum size for an offshore capable cat is
about 35 feet, unless it has a very conservative rig.

Have you read Tom F. Jones account of sailing thru an Atlantic hurricane
in a 26' (IIRC) Wharram? That was most interesting. I think that
cruising can be done in multihulls with a degree of safety depending on
the skill & knowledge of the skipper... obviously the more he knows
about the characteristics of his specific vessel, the better.

I think I read that some time ago. When I wrote "conservative rig" I
was thinking of Prouts and especially Warrams.

[Capt. JG]

...

Incidences of cruising cats are pretty infrequent. I only know of the
following;
- PDQ 32 capsizing while entering a cut in the Bahamas while a "rage" was
blowing. Pitchpoled in very shallow water in the huge breakers

I talked at length to the owner of this boat shortly after the episode.
Apparently, the charterer was singlehanding, on autopilot, and down below.
He was carrying full sail (one report said one turn on the jib) in 25+
knots, sheeted in tight, while on a beam reach. He was not entering, but
passing by a notoriously windy cut in the Abacos (by Whale Cay?) and got
hit by an estimated 45 knot gust and 6 foot wave beam on. The boat did
not pitchpole, but slowly went on its side, and stayed there for several
hours while the owner (who came from Marsh Harbor?) and others tried to
right it. Finally, a stay broke and it capsized. It was towed back to
Marsh Harbor where the deck was trashed by efforts to lift it inverted
with slings. I saw the boat in Toronto awaiting a deck rebuild.
One design factor considered by cat builders is how much wind could a boat
handle in such a worst case of a gust on the beam with full sail sheeted
in. The figure used for the PDQ 32 is 45 knots. The assumption is that
in almost all cases where 45 knots is possible, you would shorten sail -
even a single reef makes a huge difference in this situation. Also, in
most cases someone would be on deck to release a sheet. A significant
lesson is that whenever full sail is sheeted in during a blow, someone
must be on deck!
Two other factors apply here: First, this particular boat was sailing
"light." That is, it was stripped out and not carrying cruising gear. If
it were loaded, it probably would not have gone over. The second is that
this design has a rather narrow beam, coupled with a tall profile. This
is one of the issues with smaller cats, since the temptation by designers
is to make them narrow enough for a slip. Also, since the bridge deck
clearance and overhead boom height have practical minimums, smaller cats
have proportionally taller rigs. The combination of narrow beam and tall
rig makes this sort of incident inevitable. For this reason, I've usually
said that the minimum size for an offshore capable cat is about 35 feet,
unless it has a very conservative rig.
This situation also applies to the Gemini (14 foot beam), and a recent
case of an Iroquois (which only has a 13 foot beam!). The Heaven Twins is
another such case, with a beam under 14 feet.

- a Gemini capsizing in Texas; sailed over due to too much sail
- a Fountaine Pajot 35 capsized in the Caribbean; sailed over with a
charter group aboard
- a Catana in the Med; capsized due to a sudden squall hitting with the
chute up at night.
- a Heavenly Twins 26 or 27 capsizing in Force 10+ north of the British
Isles during a rare summer severe storm.
I have also heard of the F-P Maldives 32 being pretty susceptible to
capsize but that's more innuendo that actual facts and the Iriquois but I
don't know if they were capsized during racing or while cruising.
Most of the above are smaller, narrower beam cats by the way of fairly
old design; the exceptions being the FP 35 and the Catana.
When the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton University did a study of trying to
capsize cruising cat models the only way they could do it was a beam on
breaking wave > beam of the boat (similar to a monohull by the way)
"MODEL TESTS TO STUDY CAPSIZE AND STABILITY OF SAILING MULTIHULLS"
Deakin B.
The 15th Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium, January 2001
Evan Gatehouse

I had an interesting experience sailing a Seawind 1000 on the SF bay a few
years ago. It started out as a fairly typical day of 20 kts air. We were
cruising along at about 12 kts, not really paying that much attention to the
wind speed. Finally, I noticed that our speed had increased to about 14 kts,
with large rooster tails off the back. Amazing stuff. Then, I realized that
the wind speed had increased to 33 kts. Yikes... time to reef! .. which we
did immediately.

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures, just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.

Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

[Capt. JG]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures, just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.
Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is what are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such things will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20% figures, just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.
Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

[Capt. JG]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act
as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is
what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such
things
will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20%
figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.
Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Peter HK

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes? There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act
as
a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.
Sherwin D.

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.
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. When a mono sinks however- dragged
down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is a
liferaft.
It depends on what you think is the most basic safety feature-
nonsinkability or self righting.
Peter HK

I guess most people prefer to be upside-down-but-floating compared to
upright-on-the-bottom of the Atlantic. The next question though, is
what
are
chances of such events to happen? When I cross the Atlantic (or whatever
waters) I rather opt for a 1% chance to sink my monohull (and trust on my
liferaft) than a 20% chance of capsizing my cat. Now, both figures are probably
far from accurate, so my question is, what are chances that such
things
will
happen?
Regards,
Marc
www.marineyacht.com

I don't think I recall hearing about any cruising cats that have capsized.
Where are you getting 20% or even 5%?

I don't have a clue about those figures, that's why I said they (the figures)
are probably far from accurate. I'm only trying to make clear (like discussed
in the thread above as well) that you can only objectively compare the two
events (sinking a monohull vs. capsizing a cat) if you know what the chances of
both events are. In doing so, I over exaggerated both 1% and 20%
figures,
just
to make my point clear. I would prefer a cat by the way.
Cheers,
Marc
MarineYacht Yacht Charters

I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

The Netherlands

[Capt. JG]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days on end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a few years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!

[Capt. JG]

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days
on
end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a
few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Now all I have to do is visit them... never have! I'll be in England in
April/May, but I don't know if we'll have an opportunity to get across. I
believe they have a wooden boat... keep it on some lake that changed names
because it is now part of something else? Is marineyacht.com your business?
We're thinking about booking something in 2007... I know, a long way off.
:-)

[Marc Onrust]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Marc Onrust

Post by Capt. JG
I would also if I could afford it... :-) Actually, in the bay, I like the
heel of the mono. I'm just not sure I want to do that again for days
on
end.

If I only could go back to "the bay" and SF once more. Been there a
few
years
ago with my wife. What a truly great city!!

Where are you now?

The Netherlands

Ah, I've got some friends over there... near Laren.

Very nice area!
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Now all I have to do is visit them... never have! I'll be in England in
April/May, but I don't know if we'll have an opportunity to get across. I
believe they have a wooden boat... keep it on some lake that changed names
because it is now part of something else? Is marineyacht.com your business?
We're thinking about booking something in 2007... I know, a long way off.
:-)

Nice description of what's probably the IJsselmeer ("meer" is Dutch for "lake").
Until 1932, May 28 to be exactly, this used to be the Zuiderzee ("Southern
Sea"). In that year they finished a large dike to protect these waters and the
land (and Amsterdam) behind it from the open sea.

Yes, Marineyacht is my business indeed. Let me know if you need our
assistance! :-)

[sherwindu]

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Peter HK
Peter HK

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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?

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

[sherwindu]

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by Capt. JG
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?

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by Capt. JG
--
www.sailnow.com

[Jeff]

Post by sherwindu

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Peter HK
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?

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Peter HK
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.

[Jeff]

Capt. JG wrote:
...

Post by Capt. JG
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.

[Capt. JG]

Post by Jeff
...

Post by Capt. JG
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! :-)

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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.

Post by Capt. JG
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.

Post by Capt. JG
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?

Post by Capt. JG
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.

[Peter HK]

Post by Capt. JG
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=rose+noelle&btnG=Google+Search

Peter HK

[Peter HK]

Post by sherwindu
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.

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

Not at all.

Post by sherwindu
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

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Peter HK
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

[Jeff]

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes?

Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.

The truth is, it is a very uncommon event. I've only heard of a half
dozen in the last 20 years, and half of those were delivery crews or
racers, carrying too much sail. In fact, none happened when laying to
a sea anchor. As someone else mentioned, fatalities are extremely
rare. I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling
overboard than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the
more stable platform is safer.

Post by sherwindu
There
is no natural righting moment, as with a mono hull. I have never even
sailed on a cat
myself, but the heeling of a mono hull seems to offer some comfort
advantages, because the combination of sails and pendulum keel act as a
kind of 'shock absorber' in wavy conditions. I would prefer to be
heeled over and on a steady lean than bounced up and down as one than
another hull is lifted and dropped by a wave, especially in
short choppy seas. Long rolling waves would probably somewhat nullify
this advantage. I am referring more to waves on the beam, but there
probably is some
effect on a close hauled tack.

There is no doubt that some people don't like the motion of a cat. A
short, steep chop on the beam can be particularly annoying. The
biggest problem I have is that I end up handsteering in these cases,
because a firm hand on the wheel can make the ride dramatically
smoother.

One significant point in these cases is that we're often doing 9 or 10
knots. When I've had a rough ride on a monohull we're often doing
half that speed.

[DSK]

Post by Jeff

Post by sherwindu
One question nobody has addressed yet is what happens when a cat
capsizes?

Oh c'mon, surely somebody has addressed that point? ;)

Post by Jeff
Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.
The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.

About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?

Post by Jeff
.... I've only heard of a half
dozen in the last 20 years, and half of those were delivery crews or
racers, carrying too much sail. In fact, none happened when laying to a
sea anchor. As someone else mentioned, fatalities are extremely rare.

And usually more related to hypothermia or trauma than
drowning. Still, morbid fear of dying is as unhealthy as any
other neurosis... you can lock yourself in a nice safe
padded room for decades and you'll still die... so you might
as well go & do something interesting!

Post by Jeff
I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling overboard
than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the more stable
platform is safer.

Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics
compare between mono- & multi-hulls.

Post by Jeff
There is no doubt that some people don't like the motion of a cat.

I don't my self... and BTW I have know cruising cats that
would spill a drink, contrary to claims that it never
happens. But of course, much much less frequently than on
monohulls.

Post by Jeff
... A
short, steep chop on the beam can be particularly annoying. The biggest
problem I have is that I end up handsteering in these cases, because a
firm hand on the wheel can make the ride dramatically smoother.
One significant point in these cases is that we're often doing 9 or 10
knots. When I've had a rough ride on a monohull we're often doing half
that speed.

That's because you're on the wrong monohull. ;)

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Jeff]

DSK wrote:
...

Post by DSK

Post by Jeff
Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.
The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.

About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?

I've often wondered about this - some writers simply hand wave that the
chances are roughly equal. My vote would be for avoiding the situation.



However, you have to add to the monohull side of the ledger the number
of sinkings from other causes.

...

Post by DSK

Post by Jeff
I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling overboard
than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the more stable
platform is safer.

Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics compare between
mono- & multi-hulls.

I know of one well publicized case of a racer falling through the
netting.
...

[DSK]

Post by Jeff

Post by DSK

Post by Jeff
Since it appears to be "common knowledge" that cruising cats capsize
frequently, perhaps you can give us a few examples.
The truth is, it is a very uncommon event.

About as uncommon as monohulls rolling & sinking?

I've often wondered about this - some writers simply hand wave that the
chances are roughly equal. My vote would be for avoiding the situation.

Definitely agreed!

Post by Jeff
However, you have to add to the monohull side of the ledger the number
of sinkings from other causes.

Agreed again, and while the chances are small (the
overwhelming number of sinkings are at the dock) IMHO it
strengthens the argument in favor of positive flotation.

Post by Jeff
...

Post by DSK

Post by Jeff
I might guess that more cruising fatalities are from falling
overboard than from sinking or capsizing. This would imply that the
more stable platform is safer.

Good point, I wonder how the man overboard statistics compare between
mono- & multi-hulls.

I know of one well publicized case of a racer falling through the
netting.
...

I bet that strained his relationship...

I've fallen off, but not thru. I've also fallen on a
crossbeam, which was a big "ouch."

What I really hate about mesh tramps is the way wave
pattersn will unpredictably reinforce themselves between the
hulls, so that crossing a small unobtrusive wake suddenly &
erratically gives a jet of cold spray right up your pants.
Not a problem on bigger cats with solid decks, but you hear
the thumping once in a while....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

[Mike]

Post by p***@sailor.com
So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in
the same price range are just as spacious and can go just
as fast ?

I have a friend who has just completed a circumnavigation with his
family in a 45' cat.

His logic for choosing it was:

1. Stable platform for his wife to teach the kids their school lessons
and to live in.
2. Room to carry full set of electrical gear to make life homely -
i.e. generator, water maker, washing machine, massive cold store.
3. Speed so he could sail out of the way of bad weather. He reckons
that only once in 6 years did a mono match his performance and it was
a big fast one that could point better than him beating up the Red Sea
and although he was faster through the water he couldn't point as high
and so they ended up with similar trip times point to point.

He also commented that the ride was 'hard' and that some sailers who
were used to monos found it very uncomfortable.

One downside for them was that if they wanted to haul it out they
needed to find a yard with a massive lift which limited their haul out
options.

If you're staying in marinas lots of them will charge you more for a
cat than for the equivalnet length mono.

He reckons the shallow draft was never relevant.

I'm buying a mono though as they are boat-for-boat cheaper.

Mike

[Capt. Rob]

I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself. I've sailed two cats,
a Gemini and PDQ 36. In both cases my wife and I were bored to tears.
The PDQ was fast off the wind and there was some novelty in that for a
few minutes, but it didn't last. The heeling and motion of a monohul is
part of the romance of sailing for many of us. It feels right, even if
our drinks spill. I think the fellow who posted that while they are
both wind powered, they are too different to truly conpare. No doubt if
I was planning extended cruises with little chance of day and night
sails, a Cat might be the better pick. But for the way most folks sail,
with many daysails and long weekends a mono will be a lot more fun.
Then again, the novelty of heeling and having an exciting ride with the
rail buried can also lose it's charm. My wife and I plan to buy a
larger boat for part-time liveaboard in about 4-5 years and we'll look
at cats again, but I expect we've been spoiled to want the fun factor
more. Maybe our aging bones will change all of that! I do agree that
cats are not attractive, and I'm still young enough (no offense meant
here!) to place that high on my list, though I own a "modern" looking
boat she's still pleasing to my eye.

RB
Beneteau First 35s5 http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/index.html
NY

[rhys]

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself.

I find it refreshing that there's been nothing but good, factual
information here instead of the usual bunfights. A part of that is
that this particular newsgroup is (generally) civil, but another part
is that catamarans have evolved and matured not only as a "technology"
but as an aesthetic choice (never to be sneered at...look at great but
homely cars that don't sell).

Cats are here to stay, and while I question their suitability for
*all* sailing endeavours, they have in some respects many clear
advantages that appeal to a lot of people. Were you to cruise solely
the South Pacific or the Caribbean, for instance, I think the shallow
draft and downwind performance of cats makes them a logical, and in
some cases, nearly inevitable choice.

I am quite willing these days to state that my reluctance to consider
a cat for self-sufficient world-cruising/liveaboard/ocean
passagemaking has much more to do with my own ignorance and the
still-excessive price premium of cats than of any perception I hold on
their suitability as passagemakers. I do dislike many of the design
choices of cats in terms of "floating condos" with "patio doors",
etc., but many builders and designers are preserving the "cat logic"
and advantages but are keeping the windage down and beefing up the
general seaworthiness of cruising cats.

So while I am tilting toward the known...a 40-45 foot monohull
cruiser...I haven't ruled out buying a cat. I would like to sail one,
though. Despite having PDQ Yachts just down the road, seeing a
cruising cat on Lake Ontario is very rare (Hobies, sure...) and I have
never sailed one, or even been aboard one, nor is there one at my
club, although we've had large cruising cats visit on occasion.
Strangely, there's quite a few trimarans...I see a few F-27s and F-28s
and a good pal just bought a Hobie TriFoiler "for kicks".

I don't know if the paucity of catamarans has to do with price (old,
smallish monos are a steal here currently), conservatism or the
peculiarly short, steep chop you find frequently in Lake Ontario, and
which would perhaps wobble a cat on the beam, but I hope to sail one
at some point, just to see what all the fuss is about.

R.

[Jeff]

Bob is absolutely right. If your love of boating is based primarily
on the rush of sailing rail down, and your annual cruise is a weekend
at the marina across the bay, then a cruising cat is not for you.

Ironically, Bob imagines a time in the future when a cat might be the
best match for his needs. I've said that my next sailboat will
probably be a small overnighter, perhaps 22 feet. Right now we're
between long cruises but still spend about 6 weeks each summer aboard,
so the cat still serves our needs.

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself. I've sailed two cats,
a Gemini and PDQ 36. In both cases my wife and I were bored to tears.
The PDQ was fast off the wind and there was some novelty in that for a
few minutes, but it didn't last. The heeling and motion of a monohul is
part of the romance of sailing for many of us. It feels right, even if
our drinks spill. I think the fellow who posted that while they are
both wind powered, they are too different to truly conpare. No doubt if
I was planning extended cruises with little chance of day and night
sails, a Cat might be the better pick. But for the way most folks sail,
with many daysails and long weekends a mono will be a lot more fun.
Then again, the novelty of heeling and having an exciting ride with the
rail buried can also lose it's charm. My wife and I plan to buy a
larger boat for part-time liveaboard in about 4-5 years and we'll look
at cats again, but I expect we've been spoiled to want the fun factor
more. Maybe our aging bones will change all of that! I do agree that
cats are not attractive, and I'm still young enough (no offense meant
here!) to place that high on my list, though I own a "modern" looking
boat she's still pleasing to my eye.
RB
Beneteau First 35s5 http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/index.html
NY

[Capt. Rob]

Ironically, Bob imagines a time in the future when a cat might be the
best match for his needs.>>>


Thanks for keeping this thread civil, Jeff :-)
In the real world I can fully understand and appreciate the clear
advantages that a 36 foot Cat has over my boat. And I'm sure you can
see my side as well regarding the "fun factor" aspect. But for cruising
and spending long periods aboard, the Cat is a clear winner if you can
meet the price point. I have an open mind about it. You buy what suits
your situation, and sometimes passion (such as mine for a slender
tender hull) can injure a cruisers dreams in a very obvious way.
As I said, if we start looking at a part-time home on the water, a 40
foot Cat is a great compromise vs. a 50 or even 60 foot mono.

RB
Beneteau First 35s5 http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/index.html
NY

[Bryan]

Interesting perspectives and civil to boot.

I really think if you know the type of sailing you plan to do the right boat
will jump out at you.

If all we (my wife and I) wanted to sail were the East Coast and Caribbean
we would most likely sail a cat. We want to sail across the pond and feel
the mono is safer and more comfortable for that application.

The cat is built with a hatch in the bottom for a reason, they do flip. Not
a problem if there is someone to get you before you get washed off.

Certainly roominess goes to the cat. Cost to purchase goes to the mono.
Speeds are comparable. You can make a lists that go on and on.

In the end you will buy what you want and defend that decision because you
want to validate the decision you made. I include myself in that statement.

Bryan

Post by Jeff
Ironically, Bob imagines a time in the future when a cat might be the
best match for his needs.>>>
Thanks for keeping this thread civil, Jeff :-)
In the real world I can fully understand and appreciate the clear
advantages that a 36 foot Cat has over my boat. And I'm sure you can
see my side as well regarding the "fun factor" aspect. But for cruising
and spending long periods aboard, the Cat is a clear winner if you can
meet the price point. I have an open mind about it. You buy what suits
your situation, and sometimes passion (such as mine for a slender
tender hull) can injure a cruisers dreams in a very obvious way.
As I said, if we start looking at a part-time home on the water, a 40
foot Cat is a great compromise vs. a 50 or even 60 foot mono.
RB
Beneteau First 35s5 http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/index.html
NY

[Capt. Rob]

In the end you will buy what you want and defend that decision because
you
want to validate the decision you made. I include myself in that
statement. >>>


Well said, Bryan and certainly true. Anytime you feel bored with
civility and intelligence feel welcome to join the Sailing fools Parade
at Alt.sailing.asa. There you'll find some of these same discussions as
well, though you'll have to wade through a lot of nasty insults (all
for fun some would say) to get to the meat of most topics.


RB
Beneteau First 35s5
NY

[Bryan]

Thanks but I think I'll pass on that. : )

Bryan

Post by Bryan
In the end you will buy what you want and defend that decision because you
want to validate the decision you made. I include myself in that
statement. >>>
Well said, Bryan and certainly true. Anytime you feel bored with
civility and intelligence feel welcome to join the Sailing fools Parade
at Alt.sailing.asa. There you'll find some of these same discussions as
well, though you'll have to wade through a lot of nasty insults (all
for fun some would say) to get to the meat of most topics.
RB
Beneteau First 35s5
NY

[Evan Gatehouse]

http://www.rina.org.uk/rfiles/IJSCT/Discuss/deakin.pdf

is the link to the Wolfson study I mentioned earlier. Good
reading and not too technical...

Evan Gatehouse

[DSK]

.... Anytime you feel bored with
civility and intelligence feel welcome to join the Sailing fools Parade
at Alt.sailing.asa. There you'll find some of these same discussions as
well, though you'll have to wade through a lot of nasty insults

90% of which are from one source, it should be noted.

BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you
explain to the nice folks in this newsgroup how you became a
captain.

DSK

[Capt. Rob]

90% of which are from one source, it should be noted.

BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you >>>>



Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to involve a
license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and may even
know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I won't engage in
any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

RB
35s5
NY

[Capt. JG]

Post by DSK
90% of which are from one source, it should be noted.
BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you >>>>
Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to involve a
license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and may even
know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I won't engage in
any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

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

[Commodore Joe Redcloud]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by DSK
90% of which are from one source, it should be noted.
BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you >>>>
Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to involve a
license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and may even
know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I won't engage in
any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

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

There are many places where the honorific "captain" is used. You are just not
very well educated.


Commodore Joe Redcloud

[Armond Perretta]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Capt. Rob

DSK wrote ...
BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you ...

Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to
involve a license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and
may even know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I
won't engage in any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

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

I certainly agree.

Admiral of the Fleet Armond

[Capt. JG]

Post by Armond Perretta

Post by Capt. JG

Post by Capt. Rob

DSK wrote ...
BTW if you want to call yourself "Captain" why don't you ...

Look up the word Captain, Doug. You might also ask the Coast Guard
exactly what a captain is. Here's a hint. It does not have to
involve a license. I think plenty of people here know who we are and
may even know that you no longer sail and have a trawler, but I
won't engage in any nonsense here since this is a real group.
You're welcome to fire away....I won't fire back. Have fun.

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

I certainly agree.
Admiral of the Fleet Armond
--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.comcast.net

Actually, I just prefer to be called skipper by friends, crew, or customers.
:-)

[b***@earthlink.net]

Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.

There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.

Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.

Their web site is:

http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

Their log entries are vastly numerous but well written (with
photos) and there is one window devoted to their on going dia-
logue with the manufacturer... the original surveyor... and
subsequent repair yard managers ...that those of you that are
technically gifted will find very interesting reading.

By the way they love to receive email and are fairly diligent
in responding promptly.

And yeh... for a lot of you in this group and the other sailing
type forums... these folks and their web site are *old news*.
But I thought I would still give a "heads up" about a good read
for those that may have missed out on the original flourish of
postings that took place back a year or so ago.

Best regards to all

Bill

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.
There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.
Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.
http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

From the above web site:

"A friend from the U.S. had asked us if we could have a look
at a 55 foot monohull that is for sale here. It was kind of fun
to poke around on a big monohull, but even at 55 feet I have
to say that I am still happier on my 35 foot cat."

I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

[Capt. JG]

Post by p***@sailor.com

Post by b***@earthlink.net
Though slightly "off topic" my post kind of pertains to the
catamaran debate.
There is a young couple from Chicago that sold their worldly
possesions (including a condo) took a "Sailing 101" course on
Lake Michigan then proceeded to purchase a slightly used
CharterCats Sa "Wildcat 350" and immediately undertook a
circumnavigation of the world out of Florida. This adventure
started in September of 2003... and this week they are headed
for Sri Lanka via a brief stay in the Similan Islands.
Needless to say... they have had their trials and tribulations
due to their inexperience as sailors... and with the vessel
(S/V Bumfuzzle) itself. But for "the grace of God goes thee"
they have made it this far unscathed... although their boat has
had to have a lot of work done while enroute.
http://www.bumfuzzle.com/

"A friend from the U.S. had asked us if we could have a look
at a 55 foot monohull that is for sale here. It was kind of fun
to poke around on a big monohull, but even at 55 feet I have
to say that I am still happier on my 35 foot cat."
I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by p***@sailor.com
I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.

1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.

2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.

The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

[Capt. JG]

Post by p***@sailor.com

Post by Capt. JG

Post by p***@sailor.com
I'm also considering getting a catamaran but they're difficult
to find in California.

Huh? Why's that?

I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.
1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.
2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.
The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an increasing
number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of the Fountaine line, but
that's another thread.

You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great place for
multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing out of Long Beach and
Dana Point.

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by Capt. JG

Post by p***@sailor.com
I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.
1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.
2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.
The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an
increasing number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of
the Fountaine line, but that's another thread.
You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great
place for multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing
out of Long Beach and Dana Point.

I'm in San Diego but when I do a search on yachtworld.com
for used multihulls over 35' in California I only get 11 results
and these also include a couple of trimarans. If I search for
both new and used I get 23 results but many of them haven't
even been built.

I don't see any Lagoon on this list and only see 1 Catana and
1 Fountaine Pajot (with another one en route).

Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

[Gary]

Post by p***@sailor.com

Post by Capt. JG
Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an
increasing number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of
the Fountaine line, but that's another thread.
You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great
place for multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing
out of Long Beach and Dana Point.

I'm in San Diego but when I do a search on yachtworld.com
for used multihulls over 35' in California I only get 11 results
and these also include a couple of trimarans. If I search for
both new and used I get 23 results but many of them haven't
even been built.
I don't see any Lagoon on this list and only see 1 Catana and
1 Fountaine Pajot (with another one en route).
Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

Gaz

[Jeff]

Post by Gary

Post by p***@sailor.com
Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

That's because the cats are all our sailing!

Actually a check of one marina might not be valid, because some
marinas simply don't have spaces for them. I had to move for next
season because of dredging, and I didn't even bother checking any of
the "first choice" marinas in the inner harbor. However, I got a nice
t-head at good place which is 10 minutes further driving from my
house, but 30 minutes closer to open water once we leave the dock. My
fallback was to move to a mooring, which would have been different,
but would have saved a big bundle.

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by Jeff

Post by Gary

Post by p***@sailor.com
Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

That's because the cats are all our sailing!
Actually a check of one marina might not be valid, because some
marinas simply don't have spaces for them.
...

And the yachtworld.com search results may not be valid because
most catamaran owners don't want to sell :-)

[Jeff]

Post by p***@sailor.com

Post by Jeff

Post by Gary

Post by p***@sailor.com
Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Nice rejoinder. The Google Earth check is very good.

That's because the cats are all our sailing!
Actually a check of one marina might not be valid, because some
marinas simply don't have spaces for them.
...

And the yachtworld.com search results may not be valid because
most catamaran owners don't want to sell :-)

Especially after going to the expense of getting one to the West Coast

[Capt. JG]

Post by p***@sailor.com

Post by Capt. JG

Post by p***@sailor.com
I can only think of a few reasons why cruising cats are not popular
around here.
1. Most people on the East Coast buy cruising cats for cruising to
the Caribbean. Californians don't have a lot of islands within
a short cruising distance so a shallow draft isn't important.
Local beaches are usually crowded with surfers and swimmers.
2. Most cruising cats are built in France and the shortest route
to California is through Panama Canal whereas most monohulls
can be transported here by trucks from the East Coast.
The closest Lagoon and Fountaine Pajot dealer is in Seattle !

Not sure where is "here," but in the SF bay you will find an
increasing number of multis on the bay. I'm not a huge fan of
the Fountaine line, but that's another thread.
You're in So. Cal. I take it? Seems like that would be a great
place for multihulls, and I know I've seen a bunch when sailing
out of Long Beach and Dana Point.

I'm in San Diego but when I do a search on yachtworld.com
for used multihulls over 35' in California I only get 11 results
and these also include a couple of trimarans. If I search for
both new and used I get 23 results but many of them haven't
even been built.
I don't see any Lagoon on this list and only see 1 Catana and
1 Fountaine Pajot (with another one en route).
Using Google Earth to look at a satellite photo of Kona Kai
marina with more than 500 slips I can only see 2 catamarans
and 1 trimaran.

Ah San Diego... One of my favorite places... I went to college there. It was
hard to leave.

Do you currently own something there?

Lots of multihulls for sail don't get put on yachtworld. Have you tried
Latitude38, Craigslist, or even E-bay?

http://www.latitude38.com/

[Jeff]

Post by Bryan
Interesting perspectives and civil to boot.

We'll see what we can do about that.

Post by Bryan
I really think if you know the type of sailing you plan to do the right boat
will jump out at you.
If all we (my wife and I) wanted to sail were the East Coast and Caribbean
we would most likely sail a cat. We want to sail across the pond and feel
the mono is safer and more comfortable for that application.

Comfort is very subjective, but safety is not. There's absolutely no
evidence that monohulls are safer. On the contrary, for a variety of
reasons, cats are a lot safer than monohulls.

I'm not sure my PDQ would be my first choice for an Atlantic crossing,
but they've done it. A large number of them have been to Bermuda
because a few of the old owners do an annual rendezvous there, and one
of the charter companies delivered through Bermuda. A Prout (with a
very conservative rig) might be a better choice for the passage, but
then you'd give up some performance in your local cruising. Of
course, you have the same compromises in monohulls.

Post by Bryan
The cat is built with a hatch in the bottom for a reason, they do flip.

Actually, most cats don't have the hatch, because, contrary to "urban
legend," cruising cats don't flip. OK, they've flipped a few times.

But, I challenge you to find even a single link to where a modern
production cruising cat capsized while being cruised. Invariably,
you'll find the story was about a racing cat (or more likely a tri),
or a homemade or archaic design.

BTW, consider that virtually every carter cat in the Caribbean sailed
there on its own bottom, mostly from France and South Africa.

Post by Bryan
Not
a problem if there is someone to get you before you get washed off.

Washed off? I think I'd poke the epirb and wait down below for a
while. Meanwhile, I'd thank my lucky stars that I didn't have a
monohull, which at this point would likely be headed toward the bottom.

Post by Bryan
Certainly roominess goes to the cat. Cost to purchase goes to the mono.
Speeds are comparable. You can make a lists that go on and on.

true for roominess and cost. Speed depends on how you measure it - by
the foot cats are faster, by the dollar maybe not. By the sail area
that must be handled, cats are definitely faster. But if you like
gensets and A/C's, the cat can lose any advantage.

Post by Bryan
In the end you will buy what you want and defend that decision because you
want to validate the decision you made. I include myself in that statement.

me too.

Post by Bryan
Bryan

Post by Jeff
Ironically, Bob imagines a time in the future when a cat might be the
best match for his needs.>>>
Thanks for keeping this thread civil, Jeff :-)
In the real world I can fully understand and appreciate the clear
advantages that a 36 foot Cat has over my boat. And I'm sure you can
see my side as well regarding the "fun factor" aspect. But for cruising
and spending long periods aboard, the Cat is a clear winner if you can
meet the price point. I have an open mind about it. You buy what suits
your situation, and sometimes passion (such as mine for a slender
tender hull) can injure a cruisers dreams in a very obvious way.
As I said, if we start looking at a part-time home on the water, a 40
foot Cat is a great compromise vs. a 50 or even 60 foot mono.
RB
Beneteau First 35s5 http://hometown.aol.com/bobsprit/index.html
NY

[Wayne.B]

Post by Jeff
if you like
gensets and A/C's, the cat can lose any advantage.

Pretty much mandatory in the tropics in my opinion unless you REALLY
enjoy being hot.

[Evan Gatehouse]

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself. I've sailed two cats,
a Gemini and PDQ 36. In both cases my wife and I were bored to tears.
The PDQ was fast off the wind and there was some novelty in that for a
few minutes, but it didn't last. The heeling and motion of a monohul is
part of the romance of sailing for many of us. It feels right, even if

I agree - the feel of a boat heeled over and the romance of
spilling your drinks can't be beat. My cat sails like
driving a bus most of the time.

But when we hit 15 knots there were a lot of big smiles
aboard. :) Biggest smile was the woman driving, who had
only ever been on a sailboat once before.

The turning point for me and my wife:

We were anchored at Isla Providencia, a small island in the
Carib. that belongs to Columbia. It's about 100 miles east
of the Nicaraugan coast. Long way from anywhere. We were
sitting out a norther on our monohull. The swell was
wrapping around the headland and was on the beam. The wind
was strong enough that we didn't want to bridle the boat to
face the swells as this would increase the windage. All the
monos in the anchorage were rolling their guts out. One
furthest out was rolling +/- 30 degrees. We wer feeling
seasick at anchor!

There was a single cat in the anchorage. The folks aboard
were having a picnic lunch in the cockpit. Their 2 year old
was having a swing under the davits on their home made
swing. THEIR boat just bobbed up and down and they smiled
as we rowed to shore to escape the rolling aboard...

Evan Gatehouse

[Jere Lull]

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself.

I've chartered a half dozen 45-48' cats, been on smaller ones, and of
course a bunch of monohulls. I can get either type to go well, so
that's not an issue.

The space of a cat is wonderful -- and horrible. From experience, if we
have space, we'll fill it up. We'll make a cat heavy pretty fast. There
goes any speed advantage.

Price is certainly a factor. We can cruise for a few years on the cost
difference for the same amount of space.

My major question, though is how long will cats be serviceable? Our
little Xan is 33 years old and seems destined to celebrate 50
comfortably. That seems not unusual for most well-maintained monohulls
I see.

I saw what happened to a Gemini that smacked a wall. It wasn't going
that fast, but both hulls shattered and the construction revealed
wasn't pretty. (Truth be told, our old Macgregor seemed more solidly
constructed.) Friend on an "older" (late 80's) cat is discovering some
interesting structural projects.

Cats are built relatively lightly, and that's a good selling point, but
will it hurt them in the long run? New Hunters and Macgregors certainly
are capable of what they're designed for, but I wouldn't trust older
ones for serious cruising.

[Capt. JG]

Post by Jere Lull

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself.

I've chartered a half dozen 45-48' cats, been on smaller ones, and of
course a bunch of monohulls. I can get either type to go well, so
that's not an issue.

Same here.

Post by Jere Lull
The space of a cat is wonderful -- and horrible. From experience, if we
have space, we'll fill it up. We'll make a cat heavy pretty fast. There
goes any speed advantage.

And, safety. One should not overload a multi.

Post by Jere Lull
Price is certainly a factor. We can cruise for a few years on the cost
difference for the same amount of space.

Yup... they are more expensive.

Post by Jere Lull
My major question, though is how long will cats be serviceable? Our
little Xan is 33 years old and seems destined to celebrate 50
comfortably. That seems not unusual for most well-maintained monohulls
I see.
I saw what happened to a Gemini that smacked a wall. It wasn't going
that fast, but both hulls shattered and the construction revealed
wasn't pretty. (Truth be told, our old Macgregor seemed more solidly
constructed.) Friend on an "older" (late 80's) cat is discovering some
interesting structural projects.
Cats are built relatively lightly, and that's a good selling point, but
will it hurt them in the long run? New Hunters and Macgregors certainly
are capable of what they're designed for, but I wouldn't trust older
ones for serious cruising.

Definitely interesting questions/points... no idea really, but there are a
lot of older multis out there that are still going.

[Peter HK]

Post by Jere Lull
My major question, though is how long will cats be serviceable? Our
little Xan is 33 years old and seems destined to celebrate 50
comfortably. That seems not unusual for most well-maintained monohulls

To be frank, one needs to compare apples with apples. Many modern day
performance monos are very lightly built and not destined for longevity. The
same is true for higher performance multis.

There are many cruising monos that last an age and certainly, here in Oz,
many examples of cruising multis that are well built, will never win a race
because they are a bit heavier, but last very well.

My last cruising cat was built in 1983 and when I sold it at age 21 years
the survey found no issues with the structure of the boat. The gelcoat was a
bit faded but had not a single crack. Being vinylester/airex there was no
osmosis.
It surely had at least another 21 years.

She was a little slow by multi standards- 150 mile days were routine but 200
mile days would have needed a racing crew pushing hard. Nothing ever broke.

Everything is a compromise.

Peter HK

[DSK]

Post by Jere Lull

Post by Capt. Rob
I find it interesting that this ultimately pragmatic thread has not
touched on the actual sailing experience itself.

And yet you haven't sailed catamarans enough to say what the
"sailing experience" is.

Post by Jere Lull
I've chartered a half dozen 45-48' cats, been on smaller ones, and of
course a bunch of monohulls. I can get either type to go well, so
that's not an issue.

It shouldn't be a big issue. Multis do sail & steer
differently. And not all multis steer the same, either.

Post by Jere Lull
The space of a cat is wonderful -- and horrible. From experience, if we
have space, we'll fill it up. We'll make a cat heavy pretty fast. There
goes any speed advantage.

Also more thumping under the bridge deck.
But even a heavy cat is as fast, or maybe faster, than a
heavy monohull. And more fuel efficient when motoring (maybe
I shouldn't mention that).

About space... my personal opinion is that the roominess of
multis if oexaggerated. They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space.

Post by Jere Lull
Price is certainly a factor. We can cruise for a few years on the cost
difference for the same amount of space.

Now there's a BIG issue... although the cost of multihulls
is dropping pretty fast on the 2nd-hand market. As more &
more charter cats come out of service & into the market, I
think we'll see prices level off.

Post by Jere Lull
My major question, though is how long will cats be serviceable? Our
little Xan is 33 years old and seems destined to celebrate 50
comfortably. That seems not unusual for most well-maintained monohulls
I see.
I saw what happened to a Gemini that smacked a wall. It wasn't going
that fast, but both hulls shattered and the construction revealed
wasn't pretty. (Truth be told, our old Macgregor seemed more solidly
constructed.) Friend on an "older" (late 80's) cat is discovering some
interesting structural projects.
Cats are built relatively lightly, and that's a good selling point, but
will it hurt them in the long run? New Hunters and Macgregors certainly
are capable of what they're designed for, but I wouldn't trust older
ones for serious cruising.

Interesting point. It may be that multis are stressed more
as well as more lightly built... but I don't see why one
couldn't last as long as a monohull, given good care.

[Capt. Rob]

They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space. >>>


Both the Gemini and PDQ I sailed had more room below (Than my 32 or 35
footers) and the central salon was more practical. The hull cabin space
was a bit tight. The deck space is obvious. But is this all a logical
comparison? The 36 foot PDQ IS a bigger boat and than a 36 foot
monohul. We tend to talk about boat size only by LOA, but the beam is
of equal importance. Someone take a top view of a cat and STRETCH it
until it's beam is like that of a monohul. How long would it be....?
Silly, but when it comes to cats we have to abandon the LOA factor as a
primary guage for size. Does anyone have the Cubic interior on a Cat
vs. Mono?

RB
Beneteau 35s5
NY

[Bryan]

Did a little reading last night about what the designers and builders of
multis say. From Morrelli: Crossing the pond 45 foot minimum, excluding the
Bay of Biscay, all notorious capes, and staying within 40 North and South.
After that add 10-15 foot and you are still marginal for the Capes. The
other designers tended to agree with this basic premise.

I would tend to agree with Morrelli although smaller multi's have made
passages outside of these parameters. Lucky?

Bryan

Post by DSK
They don't really have more capacity
or cubic, it's just less cave-like. They do have bigger
cockpits and immensely more deck space. >>>
Both the Gemini and PDQ I sailed had more room below (Than my 32 or 35
footers) and the central salon was more practical. The hull cabin space
was a bit tight. The deck space is obvious. But is this all a logical
comparison? The 36 foot PDQ IS a bigger boat and than a 36 foot
monohul. We tend to talk about boat size only by LOA, but the beam is
of equal importance. Someone take a top view of a cat and STRETCH it
until it's beam is like that of a monohul. How long would it be....?
Silly, but when it comes to cats we have to abandon the LOA factor as a
primary guage for size. Does anyone have the Cubic interior on a Cat
vs. Mono?
RB
Beneteau 35s5
NY

[Jeff]

Post by Bryan
Did a little reading last night about what the designers and builders of
multis say. From Morrelli: Crossing the pond 45 foot minimum, excluding the
Bay of Biscay, all notorious capes, and staying within 40 North and South.
After that add 10-15 foot and you are still marginal for the Capes. The
other designers tended to agree with this basic premise.

Morrelli designs tend to be aggressive, not conservative, so I'm not
surprised that they suggest a larger size. Certainly a huge number of
smaller Prouts have crossed oceans and circumnavigated without
incident. They built about 4000 cats, most in the 34-37 foot range
and they've sailed all over the world without a single capsize. But
my friends tell me it takes about 25 knots to get their 37 up to
speed. Their boat has made several Atlantic crossings.

Post by Bryan
I would tend to agree with Morrelli although smaller multi's have made
passages outside of these parameters. Lucky?

This is more of a philosophical question. What probability of success
would you consider "nominal"? I don't think I would make a crossing
if I thought the disaster rate was 10%, and I'd like to see it well
below 1%. But to be considered "really safe" you'd probably want 0.1%
or even better.

Smaller Benehuntalinas have crossed the pond many times; were they
lucky? I'd certainly take a Prout 37 over any of them. Would you
cross in a Hunter 36?

[boatgeek]

Going to the original question, my family and I have been living aboard
cruising catamarans since 1996. First a PDQ 36 and now a St Francis
44. This question comes up a lot, so I'm going to answer it as fully
as I can because I believe it's a good question that is sometimes
incompletely answered.

*Speed. Our St Francis will do around 8 knots in 11 knots of wind, at
15 knots of wind we break into double digits. Under power we can go
over 10 knots. There are faster monohulls out there, but our boat has
3 heads, a galley with 9 ft of counterspace and a 3 burner stove, an
massive arch with a dingy hanging off it. We're not trying to break
speed records, but it's a good performing boat. This is without
flying a chute.

*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

*N+1. This is a geek term. It means that most systems are redundant.
Two motors, two fuel tanks connecting the motors, two water tanks and
two water pumps, two seperate battery banks, etc, etc. What this
means in practical terms is you can have an engine overheat and still
make 6 knots on the remaining engine while CHOOSING where you want to
repair the fault, rather than having to do it immediately. That's a
big deal when trying to fight your way into a narrow port entrance in a
gale directly against the wind. Been through that particular scenario
several times.

*Positive bouyancy. I know quite a few different PDQ 36's out there,
and one lost both of it's keels being up on a reef. Another had it's
transom ripped off by a boat, one crashed it's bow against a bulkhead
3 feet back, and my actual boat had at one time a 2 ft hole smashed
into her from a race (previous owner!!) on her starboard side. None
sank. All are sailing now.

*Privacy with guests. It's nice having guests over, we have them
often. But they are in a seperate hull, quite on their own. It's the
equivalent of having them in a boat one slip over. It makes having
guests over twice as fun.

*Aft Arch. We can and do carry a large RIB ready to go at a moments
notice with 4 175 watt solar panels. Having a nice fat transom makes
that possible. While cruising non of the 5 monohulls we cruised with
would even bother launching their dingy's because they knew we could be
over, pick them up and have them to the beach before they could get
their own dingy ready for the water. That translates also in being
able to address a problem quickly underway. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

*large wide decks. I can go up forward in a hurricane with a spare
anchor in my hand and stick to the middle of the boat and know that I
wont go over the side. I can go up forward in any conditions (but I
do clip onto a jack line) and know that I have 10 ft of clearance
between myself and the side of the boat. That's a huge safety issue
to me and my wife. I saw one artical about a monohull sailor who'd
been clippen into a jackline, fell overboard from the bow and was
dragged in the water for far too long. That can't happen to me, I
can't fall on a 6 ft tether 10 ft from the middle to the side of the
boat.

*Shallow draft. Every tropical storm or hurricane that I've been in I
could head into a hurricane hole inaccessible to most monohulls. The
shallow draft anchorage also means that I typically can go to a close
beach with my dingy in shallow protected water.
Big issue there that no one seems to realize. In Georgetown in the
bahamas I was able to anchor in a huge storm in a very small protected
anchorage right outside town in 4 feet of water. No one else could
get into town, I could simply row a few feet to the beach and walk in.

*Good visibility from inside. I can on the settee, warm and snug at
an anchorage, and look out and see what boats are breaking free from a
storm. Sitting in your cockpit during a storm as an anchor watch is
relatively uncomfortable, and many people therefore don't do it as much
as they should and the first sign of a problem is the thud of a boat
hitting them that's broken free.

*Cost. Our St Francis has the space of a 50 ft mono, but not the
costs. Price per foot may be greater on most cat's then most
monohulls, but price per ft of interior living space is often less.

*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway. At best, you would call
sea tow. I woke up, perfectly upright, realized the soft mud didn't
hold my anchor, and lowered the dingy and kedged myself off the bar in
about 15 minutes. My wife prepared breakfast while I did that.

*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics. Many monohulls have a dozen or more thru
hulls. I have less than half of their below water thru hulls, and
were a thru hull to come loose, it's not as low in the water because
the water intakes don't have to be extra low to compensate for heeling.
That means far less water pressure, therefore less water coming in,
and my bilge pumps can easily keep up. Even if they couldn't
watertight bulkheads would prevent it from spreading very far and worse
case after around 2 ft the positive flotation in the bow and stern
would prevent the boat from going any further down. Not nice, but it
wouldn't sink.

*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate. That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve. I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast. While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds. I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).

I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

Cheers,

Doug and Cindy and Zach
St Francis 44
Annapolis, MD

[Wayne.B]

Post by boatgeek
Going to the original question, my family and I have been living aboard
cruising catamarans since 1996. First a PDQ 36 and now a St Francis
44.

Do you have any difficulty getting dock space?

[Gary]

Post by boatgeek
Going to the original question, my family and I have been living aboard
cruising catamarans since 1996. First a PDQ 36 and now a St Francis
44. This question comes up a lot, so I'm going to answer it as fully
as I can because I believe it's a good question that is sometimes
incompletely answered.
*Speed. Our St Francis will do around 8 knots in 11 knots of wind, at
15 knots of wind we break into double digits. Under power we can go
over 10 knots. There are faster monohulls out there, but our boat has
3 heads, a galley with 9 ft of counterspace and a 3 burner stove, an
massive arch with a dingy hanging off it. We're not trying to break
speed records, but it's a good performing boat. This is without
flying a chute.
*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.
*N+1. This is a geek term. It means that most systems are redundant.
Two motors, two fuel tanks connecting the motors, two water tanks and
two water pumps, two seperate battery banks, etc, etc. What this
means in practical terms is you can have an engine overheat and still
make 6 knots on the remaining engine while CHOOSING where you want to
repair the fault, rather than having to do it immediately. That's a
big deal when trying to fight your way into a narrow port entrance in a
gale directly against the wind. Been through that particular scenario
several times.
*Positive bouyancy. I know quite a few different PDQ 36's out there,
and one lost both of it's keels being up on a reef. Another had it's
transom ripped off by a boat, one crashed it's bow against a bulkhead
3 feet back, and my actual boat had at one time a 2 ft hole smashed
into her from a race (previous owner!!) on her starboard side. None
sank. All are sailing now.
*Privacy with guests. It's nice having guests over, we have them
often. But they are in a seperate hull, quite on their own. It's the
equivalent of having them in a boat one slip over. It makes having
guests over twice as fun.
*Aft Arch. We can and do carry a large RIB ready to go at a moments
notice with 4 175 watt solar panels. Having a nice fat transom makes
that possible. While cruising non of the 5 monohulls we cruised with
would even bother launching their dingy's because they knew we could be
over, pick them up and have them to the beach before they could get
their own dingy ready for the water. That translates also in being
able to address a problem quickly underway. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.
*large wide decks. I can go up forward in a hurricane with a spare
anchor in my hand and stick to the middle of the boat and know that I
wont go over the side. I can go up forward in any conditions (but I
do clip onto a jack line) and know that I have 10 ft of clearance
between myself and the side of the boat. That's a huge safety issue
to me and my wife. I saw one artical about a monohull sailor who'd
been clippen into a jackline, fell overboard from the bow and was
dragged in the water for far too long. That can't happen to me, I
can't fall on a 6 ft tether 10 ft from the middle to the side of the
boat.
*Shallow draft. Every tropical storm or hurricane that I've been in I
could head into a hurricane hole inaccessible to most monohulls. The
shallow draft anchorage also means that I typically can go to a close
beach with my dingy in shallow protected water.
Big issue there that no one seems to realize. In Georgetown in the
bahamas I was able to anchor in a huge storm in a very small protected
anchorage right outside town in 4 feet of water. No one else could
get into town, I could simply row a few feet to the beach and walk in.
*Good visibility from inside. I can on the settee, warm and snug at
an anchorage, and look out and see what boats are breaking free from a
storm. Sitting in your cockpit during a storm as an anchor watch is
relatively uncomfortable, and many people therefore don't do it as much
as they should and the first sign of a problem is the thud of a boat
hitting them that's broken free.
*Cost. Our St Francis has the space of a 50 ft mono, but not the
costs. Price per foot may be greater on most cat's then most
monohulls, but price per ft of interior living space is often less.
*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway. At best, you would call
sea tow. I woke up, perfectly upright, realized the soft mud didn't
hold my anchor, and lowered the dingy and kedged myself off the bar in
about 15 minutes. My wife prepared breakfast while I did that.
*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics. Many monohulls have a dozen or more thru
hulls. I have less than half of their below water thru hulls, and
were a thru hull to come loose, it's not as low in the water because
the water intakes don't have to be extra low to compensate for heeling.
That means far less water pressure, therefore less water coming in,
and my bilge pumps can easily keep up. Even if they couldn't
watertight bulkheads would prevent it from spreading very far and worse
case after around 2 ft the positive flotation in the bow and stern
would prevent the boat from going any further down. Not nice, but it
wouldn't sink.
*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate. That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve. I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast. While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds. I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.
Cheers,
Doug and Cindy and Zach
St Francis 44
Annapolis, MD

Great post! Very informative.

Thanks,
Gaz

[rhys]

Post by boatgeek
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

That was quite informative. Thank you.

R.

[sherwindu]

Post by boatgeek
*Speed. Our St Francis will do around 8 knots in 11 knots of wind, at
15 knots of wind we break into double digits.

No arguement there, multis go faster because they are not displacment
hulls.

Post by boatgeek
*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

Post by boatgeek
*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

Post by boatgeek
. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

Post by boatgeek
*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

Post by boatgeek
*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Post by boatgeek
*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Post by boatgeek
*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground. You

are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

Post by boatgeek
*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

Post by boatgeek
Many monohulls have a dozen or more thru
hulls. I have less than half of their below water thru hulls, and
were a thru hull to come loose, it's not as low in the water because
the water intakes don't have to be extra low to compensate for heeling.

Monohulls do not require more thru hulls than multihulls.

Post by boatgeek
*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright

and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

Post by boatgeek
That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

Post by boatgeek
While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

Sherwin D.

Post by boatgeek
Cheers,
Doug and Cindy and Zach
St Francis 44
Annapolis, MD

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch. Happens
there all the time.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

Post by boatgeek
. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing the
boat.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground. You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.

Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an option.
We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the charter
company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and small
fishing boats with no lights).

Post by sherwindu
are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

Post by boatgeek
*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure your
hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead of
heeling, the multi sails faster.

Post by sherwindu
All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright
and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare occurance
and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no problems
at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are seakindly in
extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced skipper is to avoid
extreme conditions.

Post by sherwindu
The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles, I
think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

[Paddy Malone]

Well said, and a great post from boatgeek.

Another important consideration is the effect of heeling and rolling on crew
performance. The U.S. naval study of this by JB Hadler and TH Sarchin (see
The Cruising Multihull by Chris White) found that a sustained 10 degree roll
angle reduced ability to perform routine tasks by as much as 50%!

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".

Cheers

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch.
Happens there all the time.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

Post by boatgeek
. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing the
boat.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground.
You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.
Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an
option. We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the
charter company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and
small fishing boats with no lights).

Post by sherwindu
are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

Post by boatgeek
*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure
your hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead
of heeling, the multi sails faster.

Post by sherwindu
All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright
and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare
occurance and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no problems
at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are seakindly
in extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced skipper is to
avoid extreme conditions.

Post by sherwindu
The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles, I
think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

[Capt. JG]

I can only speak from the experience of being on a heeling boat for 1/2
month at a time. It gets old pretty fast... everything needs to be nailed
down or, as I tell my students, it will end up safely on the floor.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Post by Paddy Malone
Well said, and a great post from boatgeek.
Another important consideration is the effect of heeling and rolling on
crew performance. The U.S. naval study of this by JB Hadler and TH Sarchin
(see The Cruising Multihull by Chris White) found that a sustained 10
degree roll angle reduced ability to perform routine tasks by as much as
50%!
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".
Cheers

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Stability. I don't see it actually from a comfort point of view as
much as safety. If the boat doesn't rotate 45 degrees because of
fluke wind shift it means my wife and son don't get thrown around like
rag dolls.

Strong winds do not suddenly shift like that. You can get that in light
airs
and then such an effect is minimal on the boat. Of course, an
accidental
jig could cause some problems, but we won't address that.

They do out here. We have a spot on the bay called Hurricane Gulch.
Happens there all the time.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Positive bouyancy.

This could be incorporated into a monohull, if it was a high
priority objective.

Post by boatgeek
. I can stop and launch a
dingy to assist another boat in just 3 or 4 minutes.

I tow my dinghy behind the boat, so launching is not an issue.

On long distance cruises?? That's fine for a couple of hours, but you can
run into real problems with a dinghy under tow, not to mention slowing
the boat.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*large wide decks.

A possible advantage.

I would say huge advantage. It's much harder to accidentally fall off.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Shallow draft.

This is a definite advantage for places like the Bahamas.

Or any place you want to get close in.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Good visibility from inside.

Monohulls have windows, don't they?

Sure, but they aren't panoramic. He said "good visibility." :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*twin short keels. It allows us to "walk" off a beach and easily
kedge ourselves back into the water should we drag onto the shore (ok,
not too proud to admit that). But imagine having dragged anchor in the
middle of the night. In a monohull you'd be woken up by the fact they
you are lying completely on your side with waves threatening to wash
into your cockpit and down the companionway.

On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where you are, aground.
You

Well, possibly true, but I'd rather deal with the situation in an upright
position than on my ear.
Deliberately running aground is also an option to get a decent night's
sleep. It's not great for the bottom paint, but it's much more of an
option. We had to do that in Belize.. that or sail all night (which the
charter company specifically told us not to do, due to fishing pots and
small fishing boats with no lights).

Post by sherwindu
are in an anchorage where despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

Post by boatgeek
*Most catamaran thru hulls are above the waterline. I've seen too
many monohulls sink because a hose fitting for their sinks came loose
during the night. I've also had my hose fittings also come loose on
my galley sink drain, and had to tighten them again. That's it. No
water rushing in, no panics.

This kind of design is not peculiar to multihulls. My monohull has all
it's thru hulls below the water line.

I think that's what he said... :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
*Capsizing - Some believe that the monohull ability to heel to dump a
gust of wind gives them an advantage because the catamaran can't heel.
True, cat's don't heel. We accelerate.

There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go. I have seen
pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water. A strong enough
wind is going to blow it over.

Of course there are limits. There are also limits to how much pressure
your hatch boards can take when bording water. The point is that instead
of heeling, the multi sails faster.

Post by sherwindu
All else aside, a catamaran has two basic STABLE configurations, upright
and upside down. A monohull has only one STABLE configuration, upright.

Nope. It's got two. Upright on the top and upright on the bottom. :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
That's the way catamarans
have the same "pressure valve" for dumping unexpected gusts, we can't
heel, therefore the force is directed into motion forward. That's the
safety valve.

When your upwind hull comes out of the water, there goes your safety
valve.
Wave action can contribute to this problem. I can judge this problem
easily
on a monohull by the amount of heel. On a catamaran, you have to be a
very
good judge of speed, or otherwise you will have little warning, except
for the
upwind hull coming up, and by then, it may be too late.

True, especially on crusing cats. However, this an extremely rare
occurance and just a bit of careful thought will prevent it.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the gulf stream in November, in large
waves and trade winds down in the caribbean, I go fast.

I think you have been very lucky up to now.

I think he's probably very skilled.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
While going
fast I can take my time and reef the sails without worrying about
falling over the rails. I think the reason this keeps coming up is
that every serious cruiser in a monohull has had a knock down and that
fear is very present in their minds.

The serious monohull sailors keep their sail plan under control by
reefing,
heaving to, or going bare pole, so most of them don't experience knock
downs.

Absolutely true! ... as should all sailors.

Post by sherwindu

Post by boatgeek
I've been in the same wind gusts
on a monohull and a catamaran. The monohull was knocked down and then
righted itself, the catamaran just went faster. We do tend to
compensate for this by sailing more by the numbers than a monohull
would (reef at 20 knots, reef again at 30 knots, even if it feels
completely under control).
I hope this helps some who are looking at catamarans. Almost every
reason I have isn't due to convenience, it's due to safety.

I agree that multihulls are great for speed and shallow draft. When it
comes
to safety, I completely dissagree. I would not try any remote offshore
cruising
with a catamaran.

You would be in a vocal majority, ill-informed as they are. Many, many
multis have crossed oceans even in terrible conditions and had no
problems at all. Same is true of monos. Both types of vessel can and are
seakindly in extreme conditions. One of the jobs of an experienced
skipper is to avoid extreme conditions.

Post by sherwindu
The previous postings about losing the mast are not the
prevalent case. More often, the mast is mostly intact, and sailing can
resume.

More often? Not sure I agree. If you have sails up and the boat turtles,
I think there's a good probability you're going to lose your rig. All the
time? No. But a significant amount of time to make it common.

[sherwindu]

Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his

Post by Paddy Malone
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. 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. 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. 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.

Sherwin D.

[Peter HK]

"sherwindu" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@comcast.net...
I'm basing my

Post by sherwindu
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,

Of course not.

Post by sherwindu
These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.

Your evidence for this is what?

Post by sherwindu
Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design.

Ever heard of Archimedes' law. I'd say the lead ballast tends to overcome
the bouyant effect of even wooden or foam glass monos. Isn't ballast part of
a mono's "basic design"?


Catamarans are made of fiberglass,

Post by sherwindu
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Most are foam glass, some are wood, nearly all have multiple sealed chambers
for buoyancy. I calculated the surface area of my last cruising cat, which
was foam glass, and found that the foam itself was sufficient floatation for
the whole boat. It also had four large floatation tanks built in, which were
also more buoyant than displacement.


Reducing sail can

Post by sherwindu
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.

True

Freak wave

Post by sherwindu
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. 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.

Same for multis- parachute anchors have been proven time and again.

If for some reason the boat is rolled over, it will

Post by sherwindu
right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull.

If for some reason a mono's watertight state is breached it sinks- can't say
the same for a multi.

Granted this is an extreme case, but if I were

Post by sherwindu
planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

As would sinking in a mono- you do carry a liferaft don't you ? Proof that
sinking can occur.

Peter HK

[Ian George]

Post by sherwindu
Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to
this discussion when in his

Post by Paddy Malone
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.

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu
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

[sherwindu]

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George
Ian

[Ian George]

While reading rec.boats.cruising, I noticed sherwindu

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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.

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George

Post by sherwindu
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 :-)

Post by sherwindu

Post by Ian George
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.

Post by Ian George
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

[Jeff]

Post by sherwindu
These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not necesarily because of their basic design.

The big lead keel has a lot to do with it. A serious breech will sink
a monohull in a few minutes. Although it possible to build a monohull
with positive flotation, only one builder does.

Post by sherwindu
Catamarans are made of fiberglass,
etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Actually, you're wrong on this. Many cats (most? all?) are made with
a lot of structural foam (corecell, klegecell, etc.) such that the
bare hull of a cat is often lighter that water. In addition, most
have sealed compartments scattered around the hull, mine has six, four
in the bows, and two by the engines. Further, the basic shape of a
cat implies that leaking will be isolated to one hull.

The net result is that a cat will survive leaks that will sink a
monohull in a matter of minutes. There are a number of cases cats
returning to port with serious leaks and only have the floorboards
awash. When a monohull does survive serious breeches, it is often
riding so low that the crew retreats to a liferaft.

...

Post by sherwindu
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,

Yes, it is a small possibility in extreme weather. Unfortunately, the
possibilities for a monohull sinking are larger, and can happen anywhere.

Post by sherwindu
Monohulls have windows, don't they?

You have to be kidding with this one. Unless you have a pilothouse,
you have almost no visibility from "down below" in most monohulls.
Benches are below the waterline, side hatches are small and above your
line of sight, and many cruisers have visibility impaired by gear on
deck. Cats, on the other hand, have the saloon two feet above the
waterline, and usually have full panoramic vision from the normal
seating area.

Post by sherwindu
On the contrary, you get woken up when your keel
starts bumping on the
bottom, and you don't go over, you just sit where
you are, aground.

You don't cruise where there are tides, do you? Where I cruise if you
don't get off within 10 minutes, you'll likely there for a while,
probably on your side. (unless, of course, you have twin keels)

Post by sherwindu
You are in an anchorage where
despite strong winds, you should not get
big waves.

You may not have big waves in the anchorage, but breakers on a beach
can effectively trap a boat.

Post by sherwindu
There is a limit to how fast your catamaran will go.
I have seen pictures
of catamarans with one hull lifted out of the water.

This probably wasn't a cruising cat; it certainly wasn't a
conservative rig such as a Prout.

[p***@sailor.com]

Post by Jeff
...

Post by sherwindu
These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.
Sure they do, but not necesarily because of their basic design.

The big lead keel has a lot to do with it. A serious breech will
sink a monohull in a few minutes. Although it possible to build
a monohull with positive flotation, only one builder does.
...

ETAP and MacGregor 26 :-)

[Gary]

Post by sherwindu
Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his

Post by Paddy Malone
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sherwin D.

Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago. Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz

[sherwindu]

Post by Gary
Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago. Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.
Gaz

Yes, but do we have statistics on the multihulls that never made it
to their destination?

[sherwindu]

Post by Gary
Archaic thinking. Adlard Coles disproved the lying ahull theory years
ago.

I don't know about Mr. Coles, but I used the 'lying ahull' in a very rough
Winter passage through the Windward Passage (going north against the
prevailing North Easterly winds) on my 22 footer, and it saved my butt.

Post by Gary
Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.
Gaz

[Capt. JG]

Post by sherwindu
Paddy Malone wrote:sherwindu has contributed one important fact to this
discussion when in his

Post by Paddy Malone
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.

Sure you are! :-) Speed and comfort *are* safety issues.

Post by sherwindu
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. These comments about monohulls sinking is overstated.

What conditions are those? Bare poles? Drogue? Sea anchor?

Actually, mono sinking (and catamaran capsizings) are stated accurately.
They're recorded as they happen.

Post by sherwindu
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. Reducing sail can

Water itself can sink under certain circumstances! That doesn't say much.

Post by sherwindu
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

But your making all sorts of assumptions about monos! On the one had, you're
making the assumption of a freak wave with no preparation or warning - on
the other, you're assuming that all the hatches, etc. on the mono are closed
and ready for battle. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Post by sherwindu
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. 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.

Actually, they decrease, since you won't be out as long as with a mono. Now,
if you want to argue that way, you could say that SINCE multis go faster,
then people would be tempted to select smaller weather windows, and thus
open themselves up to greater danger. :-)

Post by sherwindu
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.

Again, you're making the assumption that NOTHING can be done to get a multi
to get through the situation. This is far from true.

Please describe your offshore, extreme weather sailing on a mono that causes
you to have these views!

[sherwindu]

Post by Capt. JG
But your making all sorts of assumptions about monos! On the one had, you're
making the assumption of a freak wave with no preparation or warning - on
the other, you're assuming that all the hatches, etc. on the mono are closed
and ready for battle. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My point is that if you close your hatches and prepare your boat properly,
you have a good chance of coming through a bad storm. Naturally, if you
don't, you decrease your chances of keeping the boat afloat.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down. 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.

Actually, they decrease, since you won't be out as long as with a mono. Now,
if you want to argue that way, you could say that SINCE multis go faster,
then people would be tempted to select smaller weather windows, and thus
open themselves up to greater danger. :-)

What I meant was that any boat is exposed more to bad weather possibilities
on a long voyage. Actually you can get stung on shorter hops. I left Key
West
once to go up the back country of the Keys, where there are no ports, on the

advise of the weather forcast that called for reasonable winds, with a small

disturbance over Cuba. That next day, it had turned into a hurricane and I
was
lucky it only passed me by within 100 miles, so I rode it out at anchor.
You
never know.

Post by Capt. JG

Post by sherwindu
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.

Again, you're making the assumption that NOTHING can be done to get a multi
to get through the situation. This is far from true.

OK. What do you do if your multihull does flip over? I hear about crawling
into
one of the watertight compartments, but I wonder about the practicality of
this,
and where do you go from there?

Post by Capt. JG
Please describe your offshore, extreme weather sailing on a mono that causes
you to have these views!

You can find some of them in my recent posts to this thread. I have no first
hand
experience sailing multihulls, but am basing my thoughts on how sailboat
behave,
in general, and what I know about Fluid Mechanics, Stability, etc., from an
engineering point of view.

[Matt O'Toole]

So why do people buy cruising catamarans if monohulls in the same price
range are just as spacious and can go just as fast ?
1. Shallower draft
2. They can be parked on the beach
3. They don't sink as easily
4. They don't roll like monohulls
5. ???

Two separate bedrooms with their own bathrooms.

Matt O.