Visit our Popular Forums

markpierce · 20-10-2013, 01:50

Self-destructed in protected waters yet:

Charter Cat · 20-10-2013, 02:11

I raced on these boats as a tactician. Even if its a 40' boat, I wouldn't cross an ocean with it.

Nico Domino · 20-10-2013, 02:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charter Cat

I raced on these boats as a tactician. Even if its a 40' boat, I wouldn't cross an ocean with it.

Is this a 18' under magnifying glass? Would not cross the bay, never mind ocean!

Factor · 20-10-2013, 02:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by markpierce

Self-destructed in protected waters yet:

You want perhaps I should start posting news reports on the loss of life in motorboats? Honestly, this is a discussion about CRUISING mono sail boats and CRUISING multi sail boats. Artemis is no more relevant than the titanic is to your boat. Than Winston Churchill is to the mono world.

(For those that don't know, Winston Churchill was responsible for the single largest loss of life in a racing sail boat in Australia - what was WC? A state of the art carbon mono sled, a HP tri a gun Cat? no she was a refurbished and renewed and very proper Traditional Yacht, now somewhere on the bottom of the sea with three of her crew may they RIP)

And of course your silly comment invites the traditional response

Self destructed in protected waters yet........................

sww914 · 20-10-2013, 04:07

Who's better, Buddha or Krishna?

dirkdig · 20-10-2013, 04:18

Well i own a 440 and race on a First 47.7 mono.
After a 5-6hr run on the mono i am buggered and exhausted if the wind is up.
On the cats i can sail in the same conditions for days and be fine.
When ever i have had mono guys on board for a 4 day ocean delivery they always comment how civil it is, hardly any bruises,and we sit down for meals that we can prepare quite easily.
Dont get very wet either on a 440.

Redreuben · 22-10-2013, 04:32

We're all individuals !

45' TRIMARAN.

Seaguy · 22-10-2013, 08:46

With modern technology such as Satphones, Epirbs and reliable life rafts, I would bet survivability of a catastrophic situation is about the same. You are more likely to capsize a multihull although prudent sailing makes this very unlikely. Even if disaster strikes, you are most likely going to survive. You can hit something (like a submerged container) at speed in either and the monohull will likely sink quickly while the multihull will be disabled but more likely survivable. Chances are in a well prepared boat, both will survive. So the question really should be, what suits your plans and desires?

I have owned numerous monohulls (mostly race boats, but one 44' cruising boat which we cruised over 5000 miles) and I have chartered numerous multihulls. For cruising, I prefer multihulls. Most of your time is spent at anchor and a multihull is just a lot more comfortable with it's increased stability and shallower draft that lets you anchor in more protected waters. I am in the process of having a high performance cruising multihull designed and built. Yes, there is a slight chance I might flip it, but I'll be cautious and prepared. I am pretty sure the odds are better I will die in a car crash, than in a boating accident.

But if safety is the overriding concern, stay indoors and out of planes, boats and cars.

downunder · 25-10-2013, 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaguy

With modern technology such as Satphones, Epirbs and reliable life rafts, I would bet survivability of a catastrophic situation is about the same. You are more likely to capsize a multihull although prudent sailing makes this very unlikely. Even if disaster strikes, you are most likely going to survive. You can hit something (like a submerged container) at speed in either and the monohull will likely sink quickly while the multihull will be disabled but more likely survivable. Chances are in a well prepared boat, both will survive. So the question really should be, what suits your plans and desires?

I have owned numerous monohulls (mostly race boats, but one 44' cruising boat which we cruised over 5000 miles) and I have chartered numerous multihulls. For cruising, I prefer multihulls. Most of your time is spent at anchor and a multihull is just a lot more comfortable with it's increased stability and shallower draft that lets you anchor in more protected waters. I am in the process of having a high performance cruising multihull designed and built. Yes, there is a slight chance I might flip it, but I'll be cautious and prepared. I am pretty sure the odds are better I will die in a car crash, than in a boating accident.

But if safety is the overriding concern, stay indoors and out of planes, boats and cars.

Good balanced post.

Could you possibly dilvulge the design of vessel you are building ?

**Jim Cate** · 25-10-2013, 07:55

An idle thought: has anyone considered that with a beam of around 2 times that of a monohull of similar capacity, the catamaran has about twice the probability of hitting a floating hazard?

I am not sure what this means in terms of real life cruising disasters, but I think that it is mathematically correct.

Cheers,

Jim

Jimbo485 · 25-10-2013, 08:11

Jim,

I like your logic, I truly respect your opinions and it hurts me to note this but.......

....... a cat has a huge gap between the hulls where nothing much happens. Only 2 weeks ago, for unimportant reasons, we were in a collision situation with a floating object. A quick glance showed that we did not have enough time/distance to turn away. So I aimed at it. At the last second I made a correction to be sure it went straight down the middle without touching any hulls, props or dagger boards. It passed underneath sin problema.

Doing the mathematical calculations of the the front-on cross-sectional area exposed to a potential collision, I have no doubt that the multis are the least riskiest, as compared to a mono.

Multi-hulls have hulls that are individually very fine and shallow. Multiply that by 2 and it is still sweet nothing.

colemj · 25-10-2013, 08:33

The total combined beam of our two hulls together is 8', Most mono's have the same or more beam than this. Like Jimbo, we often pass objects between our hulls when necessary - there is a ~14' gap there.

Whether the hypothetical chance is more or less, it is still so razor-thin close (and small) as to be unimportant to consider. After all, do you consider it important that larger mono's than yours have a greater probability of hitting things? Would you consider moving to a smaller mono to be safer?

Mark

Seaguy · 25-10-2013, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

Good balanced post.

Could you possibly dilvulge the design of vessel you are building ?

We're early in the design process. When we're further along, I will share more. It will be 50' with the emphasis on performance with a minimal bridgedeck cabin. Built mostly of carbon fiber with displacement less than 15,000 lbs. We have not yet selected a builder.

If you are interested, PM me and I can give you more info.

-Seaguy