Circumnavigation w/o liferaft

[Drifter2869]

Very well put Rebel heart.

[Eleven]

Fastcat435. I'm not sure whether congratulations are in order. You've produced a wonderful cruising cat and UN-retired. Well done with the CAT, hope you get the years to enjoy it. To be sure boats are different things to different people. Some have lost their way, the French to style, BB perhaps to comfort, others to performance. I sense you've tried to bring those together. I hate to see double-decker sailing boats, how can that make sense. Even full width windscreens are adding airbrakes and throwing away performance.
Dinghy v Liferaft equals both. Too many liferafts and dinghy's leak or sink. Even when the big boats gone you still need a second means of escape.

[GordMay]

Whilst a “leatherman” type multi-tool is a useful accessory to have at hand, I can’t think anyone would pull one out of their toolbox, to perform any particular job. They’ll do a lot of things, but none of them nearly as well as the proper dedicated tool.

Likewise, the Portland Pudgy doesn’t appear, to me, to be a particularly good cruising sailboat tender, nor a very good liferaft. I’ve never examined one, in person, but does this look like what you want in a tender, or in a 4-man life raft (as advertised)?
www.portlandpudgy.com/

[KBT]

Originally Posted by BlueRhapCity

Given that you stay with the overturned Cat, have an eprib and are trying to keep the weight down on a circumnavigating cat.

Would you consider going without a liferaft?

No, not if I could afford one, and considering the sum total of preparing for any long trip, the cost of a liferaft is a fraction of that total. Sinking is one senario, FIRE, is for me, a frightening prospect, especially if I had no where to go! Bill.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Whilst a “leatherman” type multi-tool is a useful accessory to have at hand, I can’t think anyone would pull one out of their toolbox, to perform any particular job. They’ll do a lot of things, but none of them nearly as well as the proper dedicated tool.

Likewise, the Portland Pudgy doesn’t appear, to me, to be a particularly good cruising sailboat tender, nor a very good liferaft. I’ve never examined one, in person, but does this look like what you want in a tender, or in a 4-man life raft (as advertised)?
www.portlandpudgy.com/

It's hard to imagine that would be any better as a liferaft than a decent quality RIB. Or anywhere near as good, for that matter. It looks dodgy even just as a tender...

[Strygaldwir]

I have read that a RIB is vastly superior in several respects to a life raft. I beleive it was stated that the Haphlon was more durable, the Rib provided signifcantly better thermal protection, the multi-tubed design provided improved protection, the navigation properties were better. If I recall correctly there were only two areas that the life raft might be superior. Most RIB's don't have a canopy for thermal and sun protection, most don't have the tipping resistance that water anchors provide a life raft. If I am off shore, I expect I'd rig my dingy for deploying a canopy and attach a sea anchor.

[Robertcateran]

Can't see any problem with the Pudgy , except for the weight as a tender for a small boat. With a decent parachute, it should be able to sit out most storms, and with a small hand operated watermaker and some fishhooks, you could cross the Tasman in it- But I am not going to try! RIBs and liferafts can get holes in them and the seams can fail. The polyethylene is tough. I have a seakayak made from the stuff and it has performed admirably. Personally, I'd build something simiara and lighter out of polyprop honeycomb core or maybe a small cat such as MultiMaven put out
Robert

[44'cruisingcat]

I can see some - it's hard to see how 4 adults could fit into it, for one, and the people are seated very high which isn't great for stability. It's also pretty narrow, again not great for stability. I'd sooner a RIB thanks.

[Southern Star]

I'm having some trouble understanding how anyone could believe that 'Portland Pudgie' (and more to the point its crew) could survive in conditions that caused a relatively large cruising cat to capsize.

And as to the preference for any dinghy over a dedicated offshore liferaft, take both if the need arises. As I recall, there was a book by a family who survived for over a month after the sinking of their boat in the Pacific by tethering a solid dinghy to their liferaft. When the bottom tube of their liferaft was holed by sea turtles, they were able to move to the dinghy and effect repairs. The solid dinghy also provided a better platform from which to clean fish, etc. Nevertheless, when seas built up, they returned to the more stable platform of the liferaft.

Liferafts have ballast pockets and a beam to length ratio (essentially 1:1) that makes them much less susceptible to capsize. The fact that they have two layers of tubes also makes them better able to survive a puncture (however unlikely) than an RIB. When you are talking about survival for yourself (and likely loved one(s)), isn't it better to leave theory behind and have redundancy? I mean, in the unlikely event that your considered opinion is somehow wrong and a liferaft is actually safer/more stable than your RIB/Portland Pudgie, or whatever.

Brad

[44'cruisingcat]

In conditions that caused a large cruising cat to capsize, you may not survive in a liferaft either - assuming you were even able to get into it. That's why my preferred strategy is to ensure there are livable spaces in the cat even if it is inverted.

"Regarding a preference between having to bail out of a sinking monohull into
a liferaft versus trying to cling to a flipped multihull in raging seas: The
survivors of the eight boats listed above pretty much seemed to agree that
getting into a liferaft at the height of the storm would have been
impossible and in any event a death sentence. The fact that only one of the
boats sank on its own is more evidence that getting into a liferaft should
be the ultimate last resort. Indeed, when Quicksilver's liferaft was
spotted, it was bouncing over the water almost like a beach ball.
Staying with an upturned multihull is usually not as bad as it might sound.
In 1993, the trimaran Rose Noelle flipped between New Zealand and Tonga, and
her crew survived on her for five months. When finally found, they were in
such fine condition that many accused them of having pulled a prank. There's
also the famous case of Rich Wilson and Bill Biewenga, who flipped the
trimaran Great American in the process of trying to set a San Francisco to
Boston record. They were quite happy to be inside the inverted boat off
South America, as it was more stable than right side up. Alas, the huge seas
flipped the tri back up!"

From :

[PUP] Multihulls in the deep blue

[Southern Star]

Cruising cat, I agree totally with the notion that you should only step down into a liferaft (and hence remain with your boat while it is still afloat). Nevertheless, there are cats that can sink (if their design bouyancy is exceeded by the original displacement and the weight of gear/stores onboard); or, if a large bouyancy compartment (typically in the bows) was compromised by striking floating debris (eg, a cargo container) thereby reducing the design bouyancy below the level of displacement.

In those cases a back up lifeboat is required, even in a multihull.

Brad

[fastcat435]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Cruising cat, I agree totally with the notion that you should only step down into a liferaft (and hence remain with your boat while it is still afloat). Nevertheless, there are cats that can sink (if their design bouyancy is exceeded by the original displacement and the weight of gear/stores onboard); or, if a large bouyancy compartment (typically in the bows) was compromised by striking floating debris (eg, a cargo container) thereby reducing the design bouyancy below the level of displacement.

In those cases a back up lifeboat is required, even in a multihull.

Brad

This is the reason that Catana, African Cats, St Francis and I am sure some other builders always have Dyneema webbing on the inner hulls so in case we have a capsize the dyneema webbing from front to rear can function to ty yourself and protection to the inverted bridgedeck , the other reason to have this webbing is that since cat hulls are very high there is no spot to get a hold once overboard and this webbing is attached 350 mm above the waterline so easy to grab and hold on to.

[Southern Star]

Fastcat I couldn't agree more and in fact, have retrofitted my cat with straps and ubolts under the bridgedeck for precisely this reason.

Brad

[David_Old_Jersey]

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned about when a boat is inverted and / or structurally damaged is that she is more likely to suffer further damage and to potentially break up - given she is (probably?!) not designed to also be upside down or to be as strong with structural damage.

Does this mean one should always have a liferaft on a Cat? (or a Mono).

IMO not neccesarily - but it would be wise to realise that their could always be circumstances where your vessel no longer exists in a meaningful manner, even if large chunks are still floating.......whether upside down or not.

[David M]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

One thing that doesn't seem to have been mentioned about when a boat is inverted and / or structurally damaged is that she is more likely to suffer more damage and to potentially break up - given she is (probably?!) not designed to also be upside down or to be as strong with structural damage.

Does this mean one should always have a liferaft on a Cat? (or a Mono).

IMO not neccesarily - but it would be wise to realise that their could always be circumstances where your vessel no longer exists in a meaningful manner, even if large chunks are still floating.......whether upside down or not.

Take the raft so you have more than one option. Two options are always better than one option.