"Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen"
wrote in message
...
Just thought I would mention a couple of boats which could be
interesting for someone trying to choose: The Etap from Belgium is an
unsinkable monohull with a foam-filled double hull (Demonstrated by
opening the sea cocks and sailing it across the Channel),

I am aware of the Etap and it certainly seems an interesting step forward.

and the
Dragonfly from Denmark is a collapsible trimaran, you can fold the
outriggers close to the main hull to take up less space in port.

PH When a multi capsizes it floats- most are now equipped with hatches
to enter
PH a secure part of the hull in a capsize. When a mono sinks however-
dragged
PH down by that ballast that makes it self-righting- the only hope is
a
PH liferaft.

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

PH Peter HK



--
You cannot consistently believe this sentence

I'm not sure what your point is-
You cannot believe it?
You change your mind as to the relative benefits of self righting versus
non-sinkability?
You believe one is clearly better than the other and believe that the
statement is not consistent with your ideas?

All I can say is that the evidence that I have suggests that multi capsize
is about as rare as mono sinkings- both are very unlikely.

From an earlier post of mine-

"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 "

Here in Australia over the last 25 years there have been over 200 deaths
from mono sinkings but no death from a multi capsize. The ratio is about 3
monos to 1 multi out cruising. This does suggest that multi capsize is less
dangerous than sinking.

I'd prefer to stay on the surface.

Peter HK

Sorry for any confusion caused by my signatu

--
You cannot consistenly believe this sentence

wrote:


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. ???

"Bryan" wrote:
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.

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

"Marc Onrust" wrote in message
. nl...
wrote:


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. ???

"Bryan" wrote:
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.

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com

Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

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

Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com


Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

"Don W" wrote in message
. com...
Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com


Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433


You're right... didn't make the connection. Still, a 32 foot boat is pretty
small for hurricane-like conditions, I don't care how many hulls it has. :-)

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

The PDQ story (actually a PDQ 36) is still unfolding. The owner has
posted a few hints about what happened, but hasn't told the whole
story. The boat was recently purchased, and had spent its first 12
years in South America with three owners. Apparently there was a
major structural failure caused by bad repairs in the past, not by any
recent events. Because the owner was new, he did not recognize the
signs that something was amiss, until a large section of the hull
broke. My guess is that the forward central bulkhead was removed, or
detached from the deck, allowing the forward section to flex.

Although the boat was described as "sinking" by the press, it was
actually floating high on its lines at the time of the rescue. All of
the systems were still working, and outwardly the boat looked fine.
The engines were working and they had enough fuel to make landfall in
24 hours. However, with the hull severely compromised, including
possibly half of the flotation chambers, and the hull flexing, I'm not
surprised they wanted off!

The owner said it was very strange cooking a meal on the microwave and
listening to Jimmy Buffet while waiting for the rescue. He also said
that he was impressed with the boat and will be looking for another
PDQ once things are settled. I think he'll also be looking for a
different surveyor! BTW, while one could point to this as a problem
of lightly built boats, I would guess the a monohull suffering this
degree of failure would have sunk within a minute or two.



Don W wrote:
Actually, the story at the top of the Lat 38 link is about the
same incident as the eboards link.

OTOH If you read a little further down the page you'll see another
blurb dated Jan 18, (2006) about a PDQ 38 Cat that suffered "cata
strophic structural failure" in the gulf of Mexico. The writer (Bob
Mandel)was rescued.

So far I've been reading this thread with interest since my wife
and I are planning on blue water cruising in the future. We currently
own a monohull and she doesn't particularly care for heeling.

BTW - a friend of a friend was a professional captain on a 65' cruising
cat which was owned by an individual. They were bringing the boat back
to Florida from Belize and got caught in a storm in the Gulf. They made
it back, but the Cat was seriously damaged, and the insurance company
ended up buying the owner a new boat. Heard the story but wasn't paying
that much attention at the time. I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

Don W.

Capt. JG wrote:

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html
--
MarineYacht Yacht Charters
http://www.marineyacht.com



Here's another one... a 32-foot cat that didn't flip.

http://www.latitude38.com/LectronicL...#anchor1085433

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

This guy survived a pretty severe storm in a catamaran:
http://www.eboards4all.com/531993/messages/270.html


Gee, for all his experience, it looks this guy had to abandon ship
effectively because of a parachute anchor failure. A few points out of
that article which I think are salient;

1. The 'parachute' was 18 years old, had been knocked up out of cargo
netting and was 10' (diameter, I assume). No backup was carried.

2. It took some time to sort out a bridle and keep the vessel head to
wind. The warps were 12mm. The impression of the article was that the
vessel would not ride to the anchor and bridles as deployed.

3. Despite the above, the sailor declares that he didn't like his
experience, and would not recommend a sea-anchor again.

The problem I have with items 1 and 2 here are that they could have
been avoided if he had carried a correctly specified and set up para
anchor in the first place, and, in the event that it was 18 years old,
carried a backup for it. (He doesn't mention ever having the parachute
checked / serviced / repaired in any of that time).

I wonder how he would contrast that with this experienced multihull
sailors analysis?

http://www.katiekat.net/Cruise/KatieKatParaAnch.html

I note the following from the second link:

1. For a slightly smaller boat, a 15' Diameter, professionally rigged
Para Anchor with 16mm warps is carried. A backup is carried.

2. The two deployments on this page were carried out as tests and
training for the (husband and wife) crew in conditions of 20 and then
30kts, and showed up several problems that could be learned from when
anchoring to truly horrible conditions.

3. Later, when having to deploy for real on a passage, things went
much more somoothly:

http://www.katiekat.net/Cruise/Katie...U.html#1029103

I believe from the report he's written, had the vessel in question
been carrying a serviceable, correctly specified and set up parachute
anchor, he would be sailing his vessel today rather than searching for
it.

For those interested, here is some useful info at the following link.
I am not affiliated in any capacity other than satisfied customer.

http://www.paraanchors.com.au/


Ian

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:47:41 GMT, Don W
wrote:

I always thought it curious that the
insurance company would cough up for a new $1.5M+ boat instead repairing
the damaged one. Must have been _some_ damage.

I'd say. I'd also be willing to bet that they are not writing any new
policies on that type of boat.

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:59:25 -0800, Evan Gatehouse
wrote:

wrote:
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

I'm not sure fast is as important as feeling fast, but for the price
of some big cats you could have this

http://www.boats.com/listing/boat_de...ntityid=355971

Very spacious and goes downhill like a freight train on a water slide.
Of course, there are depth issues....

Ryk