Have A Question For Catamaran Owners

[zeehag]

southern star--yes it does, and despite the hit my friend is taking about the lighting--which is more than adequate, the owner did agree not to hit the steelie again.....we hope he continues in a friendly kinda mode....even tho he does have more to lose than does my friend--we see how stuff evolves...

just a paint chip--i cannot believe that--you guys drive stiffer tanks than mine--is impressive.....

where is the "shakes head in amazement"icon.....

[zeehag]

the only legal territory this is headed to is the insurance claim on the cat's ins company--we have the necessary fotos of both boats, the affidvits from 2 mexican captains that the anchor lights are functional, bright, and only the drunk could not see them.

.LOL only one in banderas bay who could NOT see the lights was the lit up cat driver. sober????? rodlmao. the lights were exactly eye level with cat driver and he could not see them????

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by zeehag

5 kts travelling from dead astern into a lighted boat----didnt stop until he was embedded in the steelie's coach house.... sober????

One doesn't have to be drunk to make a serious mistake. Consider the crew of the "Aegean".
http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetF...aspx?vid=19623
While stone-cold sober they inadvertently struck an island, resulting in the deaths of all 4 onboard. All it takes is an autopilot and a moment of inattention. Is it so inconceivable that the skipper of this purpose-designed, mono-eating deathcat was simply distracted for a moment and that he feels terrible about his mistake and the consequences? Sometimes masthead anchor lights can be hard to see, especially from a pilot house or a steering station under a bimini. Sometimes lights at deck level can be obscured by deck structures or rigging. I am curious to hear the cat skipper's version of events.

I think you are giving the boat and the skipper a little too much credit in this affair. "Didn't stop until he was embedded in the steelie's coach house"? Looking at your photos, the mono has split backstays that would have prevented the cat from even encroaching on the cockpit. From what I can tell the damage is to the windvane, outboard, pushpit and steering pedestal. I suspect the pedestal was knocked over by a prodder, not a wire strung between the bows of the cat for the purpose of creating mayhem.

[ArtM]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

purpose-designed, mono-eating deathcat

Now I know what I want for my next boat - a mono-eating deathcat!

[Blue Crab]

'Look innocent enough but inside these retractable tubular akas are special high-modulus fiber lines that will cut though a steel boat like butta. Pics "courtesy" of CF members, not to suggest they are guilty of anything, nor to dismiss the possibility. Wink wink.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by colemj

If it was indeed a steel cable stretched tight across the bows, then I have never seen one and cannot guess as to its purpose.

However, I seriously doubt the designed purpose was solely "to allow drunk drivers to commit acts of absolute damage to the boats they drive over in an anchorage--despite bright lights"


Mark

yeah.... let's get real Zee.....
Some cats have a jumper stay accross with a short strut to counteract the pull by the forestay....

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by zeehag

the only legal territory this is headed to is the insurance claim on the cat's ins company--we have the necessary fotos of both boats, th affidvits from 2 mexican aptins that th anchor lights are functional, and only the drunk could not see them.

.LOL only one in banderas bay who could NOT see the lights was the lit up cat driver. sober????? rodlmao. the lights were exactly eye level with cat driver and he could not see them?????

Whatever the truth, it's better for your friend if nobody raises the fact the cat driver was probably drunk. As I mentioned before, insurance companies don't cover drunk driving.

[Factor]

+1. The absolute worst thing that can happen in a property damage claim is to get involved in a they were drunk issue. Stick to "they were in the wrong".

[Blue Crab]

Aw, it's gotta be moot now. No "field" sobriety test, no standing, no?

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by mikereed100

One doesn't have to be drunk to make a serious mistake. Consider the crew of the "Aegean".
http://offshore.ussailing.org/AssetF...aspx?vid=19623
While stone-cold sober they inadvertently struck an island, resulting in the deaths of all 4 onboard. All it takes is an autopilot and a moment of inattention. Is it so inconceivable that the skipper of this purpose-designed, mono-eating deathcat was simply distracted for a moment and that he feels terrible about his mistake and the consequences? Sometimes masthead anchor lights can be hard to see, especially from a pilot house or a steering station under a bimini. Sometimes lights at deck level can be obscured by deck structures or rigging. I am curious to hear the cat skipper's version of events.

I think you are giving the boat and the skipper a little too much credit in this affair. "Didn't stop until he was embedded in the steelie's coach house"? Looking at your photos, the mono has split backstays that would have prevented the cat from even encroaching on the cockpit. From what I can tell the damage is to the windvane, outboard, pushpit and steering pedestal. I suspect the pedestal was knocked over by a prodder, not a wire strung between the bows of the cat for the purpose of creating mayhem.

you have never seen a boating incident, have you?? you would be surprised what happens. the cat was ON TOP of the steelie's cockpit. steelie did not have split backstays UNTIL AFTER THE INCIDENT-- upon reversing, the cat was ready to dismast the steelie--as all stays and halyards and dodgers and sternrails were all intertwined --chunks of wood used for companionway trim were rammed off the boat with a hole size of nose of cat....this as a serious mis-judgement on the rt of the cat driver. at 5 kts boat speed.
do not make judgements you do not understand. this is an actual incident, not a theoretical one.

[waikikin]

There's a pretty clear statistical indicator contributing to the collision happening, it's an irrefutable fact that catamarans have two hulls & therefore at least twice as likely to strike another vessel, also there's often quite some space between those hulls increasing the risk of vessel collision even more, of course trimaran collision risk increases by at least three in a direct interpolative fashion. The operators of such vessels should be made aware of these facts & warning notices placed in direct view of helm stations on these high collision risk vessels.
Given that multihull vessels have become quite popular, the daily risk of collision must increase in proportion with their numbers, the saving grace in this is the cost, as catamarans have two hulls & an in between section to build they are generally much more expensive than single/monohulled vessels helping to throttle back the rise in popularity, also once word is out on these greater collision risk factors this may help reduce catamaran vessel numbers.
One can warn the operator, is this enough? Not quite, a fair proposal might be to restrict the navigation of vessels simply by allowing single hulled vessels to days of the month divisible by one, catamarans allowed on days divisible by two & trimarans to days divisible by three. By employing this simple system further statistical analysis can be applied to collisions especially to days where all single, cat & tri vessels are in use such as 6th, 12th, 18th etc, like a smash up derby. Another fair aspect of this system is that clearly catamarans are aclaimed for speed generally twice as fast as monos & tris more so, this allows for similar distance run per day per vessel on a rough mean average on a pro rata basis, easy, simple, clear!

[zeehag]

waikikin--i think is simpler if the loose nut behind the wheel of any boat, one two or three hulls has a sober outlook on driving boats.

[Southern Star]

Waikikin, your analysis is indeed simple - but wrong. Having two hulls does not mean that you are twice as apt to hit another vessel. Even assuming that the risk of striking another vessel increases in direct proportion to beam ( a dubious proposition), cats are typically less than twice as beamy as monohulls of the same LOA. Indeed, since beam tends to increase with LOA on monohulls as well, then surely your attack should be on larger vessels - i.e., perhaps the tendancy towards larger boats will stop because of the increased risk of collision!

Of course your simple analysis ignores perhaps the most significant factor in collision avoidance - maneuverability. Since the typical cat has twin engines, it is much more maneuverable than a monohull of the same length: most of us can turn 180 degrees in essentially our own length. When one compares this to any monohull (except perhaps ones with both bow and stern thrusters), cats are far less likely to strike another vessel in close quarters when being operated by a competent helmsperson.

Perhaps the other point that you have ignored is insurance rates: if cats were twice as likely to get into collisions as monohulls, actuaries would have picked this up and adjusted insurance rates accordingly. The fact is that insurance rates for cats versus monos of the same value, sailing in the same waters with crew of comparable experience, are typically no greater than monohulls.

Speaking from personal experience, there was a much greater risk of my striking another vessel in my previous monohulls than with my current catamaran, even though it is both longer and beamier than any of them. My monohulls all suffered to some degree from prop-walk, which initially tends to move your boat where you don't want it to go; one full-keeled mono I owned (a Bayfield 32) could only be described as an 'adventure' when being operated in reverse!

I feared that this thread would become yet another illogical attack on catamarans and sadly, that seems to be the case.

Brad

[zeehag]

Originally Posted by Factor

Lock it, it was silly to start with and it hasnt got any better

it was silly to start a thread to learn about construction on a catamaran??.. mebbe this post you wrote is sillier..LOL


thankyou southern star and 44 and others for your helpful information.

factor--as usual, you have been a true educational assistant, and when you ask for assistance, i hope is well given.

[Factor]

Brad - I think he was talking tongue in cheek.