Are "Performance Cruising Catamarans" safe?

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Franziska

Ha, it's more the other way around, thanks for agreeing with me.
Read the first reply in the thread [emoji846]

Oh, OK. Sorry. Then I agree with you (that performance cats can be safe).

Which of course implies the opposite can also happen.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

I know anecdote does not equal data, but here you go with three examples:

Crash of Two Speeding Ferraris Ends in Flames
Ferrari splits in half, kills one in California crash
2 die when Ferrari crashes head-on in car in Pinellas Park, police say

Oh dear, say carefully and slowly after me, operator error does not prove design fault, operator error does not prove design fault.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Factor

Oh dear, say carefully and slowly after me, operator error does not prove design fault, operator error does not prove design fault.

Never said it did, never said it did, never said it did.

Where the f...fridge did that come from?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by chrisr

btw, talking about the benefit of performance cats : i know of an outremer 50 which recently did Galápagos to Marquesas in 13 days

most (including condo-cats) take 25-30 days

it's arguable that a shorter time at sea equals increased safety.

"but..." i hear you say "it's the journey, not the destination...why hurry ?". well, it's easy to reduce sail and slow down if that is what you want.

on the other hand, it's hard and dangerous to try to push a slow boat too much

another thought is that it is not just lightness that makes a performance cat. look at hull beam...our hulls are literally half the beam of similar size condo-cat. sure we cannot carry the weight these boats do, but we carry enough...and with a lot less boat to push through the water.

cheers,

So your Dean 440 s a Performance cat?

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by geoleo

So your Dean 440 s a Performance cat?

no

and never said it was (read post #18)

and this has what to do with anything anyway ?

(by the way, what sort of boat do you have ?)

cheers,

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

This is assume! I agree ...

D'oh! That was supposed to say "awesome." I'm sure that's what I typed last night, not sure how it got changed.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

Never said it did, never said it did, never said it did.

Where the f...fridge did that come from?

HERE where you use three operator error stories to justify your suggestion the a car the brakes better, handles better, has superior performance is more dangerous than a piece of automotive misery.

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry
I know anecdote does not equal data, but here you go with three examples:

Crash of Two Speeding Ferraris Ends in Flames
Ferrari splits in half, kills one in California crash
2 die when Ferrari crashes head-on in car in Pinellas Park, police say

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Factor

HERE where you use three operator error stories to justify your suggestion the a car the brakes better, handles better, has superior performance is more dangerous than a piece of automotive misery.

A guy bought a new Ferrari 488 in the UK and crashed less than 2 miles from the dealership after collecting it.. like a performance catamaran a Ferrari is great until its not.
I can think of an occasion when a performance catamaran would have flipped.. I was drifting in a gentle SW breeze doing maybe 2kts just maybe 15 miles ENE of the top of the Bahamas.. full sail Genoa and main when the wind died and two minutes later a 45kt wall of wind hit us from the N, knocked the Bruce Roberts 54 down with main and Genoa in the water... we came back up as the wind then dropped to around 25kts, luckily neither of us went over the side.
Hate to think of the effect on a Lagoon let alone a lightweight performance cat.. ohh.. and the forecast was wind going NW 15 to 20kts according to NOAA.
Seems the brakes did not save him..

[Matt Johnson]

Originally Posted by boatman61

A guy bought a new Ferrari 488 in the UK and crashed less than 2 miles from the dealership after collecting it.. like a performance catamaran a Ferrari is great until its not.

I can think of an occasion when a performance catamaran would have flipped.. I was drifting in a gentle SW breeze doing maybe 2kts just maybe 15 miles ENE of the top of the Bahamas.. full sail Genoa and main when the wind died and two minutes later a 45kt wall of wind hit us from the N, knocked the Bruce Roberts 54 down with main and Genoa in the water... we came back up as the wind then dropped to around 25kts, luckily neither of us went over the side.

Hate to think of the effect on a Lagoon let alone a lightweight performance cat.. ohh.. and the forecast was wind going NW 15 to 20kts according to NOAA.

Seems the brakes did not save him.. [emoji3]

This happened often (4-5 times a year) when I worked at a Toyota dealership. Doesn't mean a Toyota Corolla is the problem either.

[Lee Jerry]

Originally Posted by Factor

HERE where you use three operator error stories to justify your suggestion the a car the brakes better, handles better, has superior performance is more dangerous than a piece of automotive misery.

That is some pretty wild imagination to get to “design fault” from three crash stories.

And you’re wrong, it wasn’t a suggestion. It was a statement. Of fact.

One more time. (Because I’m a sucker for punishment.)
Two cars. (Note I didn’t say “a car.”)
Car 1 can be driven by any civilian, regardless of ability, and they all pretty much get the same results in terms performance and safety.
Car 2 is different, it requires more experience and training in order to get maximum performance and maximum safety out of it. When the civilian drives it, they can’t get maximum performance out of the car and they crash it more frequently than the trained driver.
Are these cars equally safe?



Or maybe cars are too complicated. How about these two tools shown below. One is pretty simple and can be picked up by just about anyone and used properly. The other requires training to use (at all, but especially use safely). Both can be used to cut a log, one will do it faster. One might give you a cut, the other might cut your foot off. Are they equally safe?


It’s not frickin’ rocket surgery, people.

[neilpride]

Forget about cars and give real examples of boats.

[Factor]

Yep - I get it. A chainsaw and a boat is the same thing. Got it now.

FMD, have you ever sailed any of the boats we are talking about here, eg Outremer?

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

That is some pretty wild imagination to get to “design fault” from three crash stories.

And you’re wrong, it wasn’t a suggestion. It was a statement. Of fact.

One more time. (Because I’m a sucker for punishment.)
Two cars. (Note I didn’t say “a car.”)
Car 1 can be driven by any civilian, regardless of ability, and they all pretty much get the same results in terms performance and safety.
Car 2 is different, it requires more experience and training in order to get maximum performance and maximum safety out of it. When the civilian drives it, they can’t get maximum performance out of the car and they crash it more frequently than the trained driver.
Are these cars equally safe?



Or maybe cars are too complicated. How about these two tools shown below. One is pretty simple and can be picked up by just about anyone and used properly. The other requires training to use (at all, but especially use safely). Both can be used to cut a log, one will do it faster. One might give you a cut, the other might cut your foot off. Are they equally safe?


It’s not frickin’ rocket surgery, people.

[catsketcher]

Somehow I have never flipped a large multihull in 40 years of ownership, 35 years owning performance multis and about 6 years of living and cruising aboard. Maybe it is because I can sail well and good sailors know how to sail properly. I race small dinghies and cruise larger cats.

Maybe for someone who knows nothing about sailing, a performance cat could be less safe, because they don't reef properly, or like Fxytxy and me, they can't bleed off loads in a squall by changing heading, or they can't listen to a boat and tell when she is yelling at them, or they think it is fun to cruise with a hull getting light, or they overload the boat with weight in the ends, or they can't reach the sheets from the helm or autopilot. Sure you can make a performance cat capsize if you want. But if you are a sailor, who can listen to the boat, who grew up on dinghies that flipped easily, who loves to feel the response of a great balanced boat, who goes through the boat and takes off junk every year, who keeps the bottom clean, who keeps the boat in great trim, you will have a bond with the boat.

Then it talks to you, all the time, even when inside, you can feel what she says. She will let you know what she wants and you do have a relationship with her, getting to know her and you make sure you look after her so she looks after you as well. Teach that to those who sail with you and then everyone can listen too.

If you can't be bothered to learn to sail, who can't keep the weight out of the ends, who can't keep the steering system strong and workable, who won't listen to the boat screaming at him to change modes, then don't blame the boat, blame the sailor as you should. We blame the sailor if they steer their heavy cat onto a rock, or bash the marina in their production boat, or they sink the things (and they do sink) when a rope gets wrapped around a prop and puts a hole in the hull. It is not the boat's fault that someone did something dumb.

In the face of overwhelming evidence of over many decades of safe adventuring by Australian catamaran cruiser racers (the modern performance cruiser can be thought of as starting in Aust with the Spindrift cat in 1970) people still call performance cats unsafe because they can do the very thing we demand - be fun and exciting to sail. For that I am happy to have to bring some competence, some respect for the sea and the boat, to the table and blame myself long before I ever blame the boat.

My boat is no Ferrari - she is a family sedan. The previous analogy is plain wrong, my boat glides along with almost no vices and is easier to sail in almost all winds than a production cat because she is so trim and balanced. Like a family sedan, we can cruise nice, smooth and fast on a good highway. And like in a family sedan, I could flip her if I wanted and if I crash her, it is all my fault.

To then make blanket statements about safety from one facet (capsize resistance) is plain wrong. I met a guy who couldn't put his well known heavy production cat in Percy lagoon because he couldn't rest on his keels. So he was out in the waves and lee shore and we were hard on the soft sand for two weeks, tied up to a tree. Safer? We were by a long way. But if you lack the capacity to understand that safety is a suite of options you may think that the area under a stability curve is the only facet that is important. I get tired of people who learn one thing about design and then in the face of multiple decades of experience promulgate simplicities that are simply incorrect. So listen to those who sail performance cats if you want to know about how they are safe, and the facets about them that make them safer than others, and the areas in which they require more care. BUt safety is not a single capsize issue and only a fool would suggest it to be so.

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by Lee Jerry

That is some pretty wild imagination to get to “design fault” from three crash stories.

And you’re wrong, it wasn’t a suggestion. It was a statement. Of fact.

One more time. (Because I’m a sucker for punishment.)
Two cars. (Note I didn’t say “a car.”)
Car 1 can be driven by any civilian, regardless of ability, and they all pretty much get the same results in terms performance and safety.
Car 2 is different, it requires more experience and training in order to get maximum performance and maximum safety out of it. When the civilian drives it, they can’t get maximum performance out of the car and they crash it more frequently than the trained driver.
Are these cars equally safe?



Or maybe cars are too complicated. How about these two tools shown below. One is pretty simple and can be picked up by just about anyone and used properly. The other requires training to use (at all, but especially use safely). Both can be used to cut a log, one will do it faster. One might give you a cut, the other might cut your foot off. Are they equally safe?

It’s not frickin’ rocket surgery, people.

This isn’t a bad analogy.

Rather than the best tool to get the job done (the chain saw or performance catamaran), you propose we use tools that do not work well, but are more “safe?”

Here are the most safe things to cut a log with in order of safety. Which one is “safe” enough for you? More importantly why do you live in fear and require “safety” from inferior tools instead of performance?

Where do you end such a self limiting concept anyway?

If you have some wood to cut, are you doing it with the herring because it’s the most safe option? It can’t cut you at all, so that’s the one you’d choose?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Factor

HERE where you use three operator error stories to justify your suggestion the a car the brakes better, handles better, has superior performance is more dangerous than a piece of automotive misery.

Folks often rabbit on about sailing solo being dangerous when in fact its no more dangerous than sailing with crew.. possibly less dangerous one could say, speaking from experience of both.
What it boils down to is not the practice but the individuals risk tolerance.
Some thrive on living on the edge whilst the majority prefer to stay close to the centre.. Performance cats come under this parameter.. What's your risk tolerance.