Most of your comments have been addressed by others, but I'll add a few:


sherwindu wrote:

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.

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.

....

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.


From previous post:

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.


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)


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.


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.

sherwindu wrote:

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


first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".



I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc. I'm basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied physicist/engineer.
My concern is one
of safety. I feel that a catamaran is not immune to tipping over, especially if
conditions do not permit
the reefing of sails. 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" wrote in message
...


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

first post he stated "I have never even sailed on a cat myself".


I am not questioning the comfort of a multihull, it's speed, etc. I'm
basing my
views on many years
of ocean sailing experience and my education as an applied
physicist/engineer.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)

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!

Jeff wrote:
...
sherwindu wrote:

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 :-)

Ian George wrote:

The truth is that cruising cat or tri
capsize is very unusual, and usually requires a combination of crew error
(or stupidity, like a recent capsize in Indonesia achieved under screecher
in 35+knots) with extreme wind and sea states to achieve.

I guess you never heard of Murphy's law about things that can go wrong,
sometimes do. For example, in a sudden storm, there may not be enough
time to sufficiently shorten sail, or something jams and you can't let the
sheets out in time, or the sail jams in the track and can't be shortened,
etc. I'm not saying these are common occurences, but they are not out
of the realm of possibility.



These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated. Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass, etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Cats and Tri's generally won't sink, and I can't think of any that I know of
that have; but they can break up,

Well, that's another concern I would have about seaworthyness of multihulls.

which is their worst outcome and usually
results from some sort of 3rd party collision (reef, container,
whale/sunfish) to name a few, which is why I carry a liferaft. I read
elsewhere in this thread, and know of many other multihull sailors who don't
consider the expense and weight of a liferaft justified. I don't understand
this rationale when offshore sailing, but each to their own.

For the same reason that wings break off a plane under extreme wind stress,
this failure could happen on a multihull, due to poor design or construction.



Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and
more comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's
rigging, than hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down.

Either outcome may be unavoidable, and both outcomes are unsatisfactory.
Have you ever been rolled right over in a keelboat?

Thank goodness, no. I have managed in big blows to keep the boat under
control by heaving to or going to bare poles.

I'm guessing not,
because the one time I was (which was in a harbour, btw) the absolute chaos
below from shipped water, fouled supplies, loose equipment, battery acid and
the like made it no place to want to be for any period of time. I have never
capsized on a cabin-sized multi, and doubt it would be much better inside,
although the idea of inflating and securing the liferaft on the inverted
hull(s) once the conditions quieten down has some appeal - although I'm not
sure how it would work in practice. I suppose it could be allright if one
had rigged some points in advance to secure everyhing.

I don't think discomfort is the issue here, but survival. Any kind of a
knockdown
or rollover is going to cause havoc on any boat.



The
problem with taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of
running into real bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull,
batten down the hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled
over, it will right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if
I were planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

The theory of lying to a parachute on a multi is standard heavy-weather
practice. I've never heard of one capsizing from this situation. In fact,
the multi lying to on a correctly set bridle and parachute is really a
pretty comfortable solution when circumstances dictate it.

Why don't you get out on a cat or tri sometime, and observe the differences
for yourself?

As I stated earlier, I'm sure the multihulls give a comfortable ride in most

sailing conditions. The extreme conditions I have been refering to are not
the kind I would want to test.

There are a lot of differences between multis and monos, and
mostly they don't bear repeating, having been covered elsewhere in this
thread. I sail multis primarily because the cruising grounds in easy reach
here are quite shallow and require occasional foray into very shoal waters.
Running a deep-draft keelboat would be a pain in the arse, and I don't much
care for the performance of shallow-bilged monos.

Makes sense to me. In my many cruises to the Bahamas, I occasionally had
difficulties with my 4 foot draft finding safe anchorages. My dinghy allowed

me to visit any nearby place I wanted to go.



I like cats, tris and monos, and can appreciate the relative merits of all 3
styles, and personally, I wouldn't hesitate to venture offshore in a well
found example of either type.

Offshore is a general term. It could mean you are within close proximity to
a
port, if the weather turns very nasty. Crossing an ocean doesn't give you
that option, so you better be sure your boat can take it and leave you in
a position where recovery is still within possibility.



Ian

Gary wrote:


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?

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.

Multihulls have been crossing oceans for centuries.

Gaz

"Capt. JG" wrote:


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.

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.



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?



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.

While reading rec.boats.cruising, I noticed sherwindu
felt compelled to write:



Ian George wrote:

The truth is that cruising cat or tri
capsize is very unusual, and usually requires a combination of crew error
(or stupidity, like a recent capsize in Indonesia achieved under screecher
in 35+knots) with extreme wind and sea states to achieve.

I guess you never heard of Murphy's law about things that can go wrong,
sometimes do. For example, in a sudden storm, there may not be enough
time to sufficiently shorten sail, or something jams and you can't let the
sheets out in time, or the sail jams in the track and can't be shortened,
etc. I'm not saying these are common occurences, but they are not out
of the realm of possibility.

Well, I have heard of Murphy, and he's been on my boats, Mono and
Multi - fact remains that these circumstances are equally applicable
to both types of craft, so I don't think that the outcomes would be
any more catastrophic. The first rule of multihull sailing is 'If you
cannot reef quickly and easily, don't go to sea'. In general, apart
from the nut-swinging hard core racer, a multi will be reefed well
before a similar sized mono - simply because the multihull sailor
reefs to gust-speed, whereas the mono sailor will as a rule reef to
average wind speed and point-up or heel over to spill the gusts.

You seem to not take into consideration the different techniques that
are applied to competently handling the vessel type.


These comments about monohulls sinking is
overstated. Sure they do, but not
necesarily because of their basic design. Catamarans are made of
fiberglass, etc., which last I heard
is something that is heavier than water and will sink under certain
circumstances.

Cats and Tri's generally won't sink, and I can't think of any that I know of
that have; but they can break up,

Well, that's another concern I would have about seaworthyness of multihulls.

If you hit a container hard enough to rupture a lead-ballasted
sailboat it will sink. If you hit the same container at the same rate
in a multihull in may break up, how this reflects on the relative
merits of the seaworthiness of either boat type baffles me.

which is their worst outcome and usually
results from some sort of 3rd party collision (reef, container,
whale/sunfish) to name a few, which is why I carry a liferaft. I read
elsewhere in this thread, and know of many other multihull sailors who don't
consider the expense and weight of a liferaft justified. I don't understand
this rationale when offshore sailing, but each to their own.

For the same reason that wings break off a plane under extreme wind stress,
this failure could happen on a multihull, due to poor design or construction.


Poor design and construction on a monohull or a multihull would be a
problem for me. There are good and bad examples of both.


Reducing sail can
decrease the probability of a roll in both monohulls and multihulls.
Freak wave action can roll a boat
over even with these precautions. I personally would feel safer and
more comfortable in a boat that
I know is going to come back up on it's own, with or without it's
rigging, than hoping I can get into a
watertight compartment with my boat floating upside down.

Either outcome may be unavoidable, and both outcomes are unsatisfactory.
Have you ever been rolled right over in a keelboat?

Thank goodness, no. I have managed in big blows to keep the boat under
control by heaving to or going to bare poles.

I'm guessing not,
because the one time I was (which was in a harbour, btw) the absolute chaos
below from shipped water, fouled supplies, loose equipment, battery acid and
the like made it no place to want to be for any period of time. I have never
capsized on a cabin-sized multi, and doubt it would be much better inside,
although the idea of inflating and securing the liferaft on the inverted
hull(s) once the conditions quieten down has some appeal - although I'm not
sure how it would work in practice. I suppose it could be allright if one
had rigged some points in advance to secure everyhing.

I don't think discomfort is the issue here, but survival. Any kind of a
knockdown
or rollover is going to cause havoc on any boat.


Ah, that is my point. All of the issues you have raised in this thread
- bad design, poor seamanship, inappropriate precaution, poor
construction - all apply equally to both types of craft. They can't
possibly be used to argue a case for one type over the other.



The
problem with taking a multihull on an
extended voyage, say an ocean crossing, is that the chances of
running into real bad weather increase.
In the very extreme, one can take down all sails in a monohull,
batten down the hatches, put out a sea
anchor and ride things out. If for some reason the boat is rolled
over, it will right itself. Can't say the
same thing for a multihull. Granted this is an extreme case, but if
I were planning an ocean crossing,
it would certain cross my mind as a possibility.

The theory of lying to a parachute on a multi is standard heavy-weather
practice. I've never heard of one capsizing from this situation. In fact,
the multi lying to on a correctly set bridle and parachute is really a
pretty comfortable solution when circumstances dictate it.

Why don't you get out on a cat or tri sometime, and observe the differences
for yourself?

As I stated earlier, I'm sure the multihulls give a comfortable ride in most

sailing conditions. The extreme conditions I have been refering to are not
the kind I would want to test.

Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't know anyone who actively seeks
out these conditions :-)

There are a lot of differences between multis and monos, and
mostly they don't bear repeating, having been covered elsewhere in this
thread. I sail multis primarily because the cruising grounds in easy reach
here are quite shallow and require occasional foray into very shoal waters.
Running a deep-draft keelboat would be a pain in the arse, and I don't much
care for the performance of shallow-bilged monos.

Makes sense to me. In my many cruises to the Bahamas, I occasionally had
difficulties with my 4 foot draft finding safe anchorages. My dinghy allowed

me to visit any nearby place I wanted to go.



I like cats, tris and monos, and can appreciate the relative merits of all 3
styles, and personally, I wouldn't hesitate to venture offshore in a well
found example of either type.

Offshore is a general term. It could mean you are within close proximity to
a
port, if the weather turns very nasty. Crossing an ocean doesn't give you
that option, so you better be sure your boat can take it and leave you in
a position where recovery is still within possibility.

Within the capabilities of the craft and its crew. Facing the bleak
facts, on boats of any configuration, it is frequently the crew that
fails, long before the well-found vessel will founder.

Offshore to me is 200miles.

Cheers,
Ian

sherwindu wrote:

Gary wrote:


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?


This discussion is stupid. Do we have stats on the monohulls? You bias
is showing and your argument is silly.

Gaz
Movin' on!