How many cats have flipped ?

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

What exactly does ALL this have to do with cats flipping?

Best I can tell, depending on who you believe, if you are a vegan or a meat eater, you will emit gas, and that gas is what keeps the upside down cats afloat...



Later,
Dan

[malbert73]

Back to the topic, I totally realize that cats capsizing is same or less frequent than monohulls sinking. So you make your choice. I have to admit I am less terrified by sinking than by sudden capsize. This happened during a sudden squall with 50+ kt winds in our local Weds night racing fleet. One guy almost died as he was trapped under the boat, but luckily as former USCG knew how to extricate himself. None of the monohulls suffered more than torn sails.
At about the same date and time, several 100 miles away, the monohull sailboat Bertie capsized in a similar squall as part of same weather system off of Cape May, but due to shifting internal ballast most likely. As a more modern monohull it may have come back up. With poor design or unlatched hatches, it could have downflooded and sank.
To me, even if I think monos and multis are equally likely to founder if caught in a microburst with sails up, I just am less scared of a knockdown than a full sudden capsize.
Just commenting on why I made my cruising boat choice. I think the opposite is equally valid, just not for me.
And yes, an F27 is not a cruising multi. Much more likely to capsize than a cruising multi. But there were 20-30 foot high performance monos out also who did fine in the squall also.

[tp12]

I think the insurance premiums not differing means the actuaries feel there's no extra risk and this is one area I think we can trust the market.

Pragmatically we all have different risk profiles and biases and shouldn't worry about selecting the boat that we think is right for ourselves.

[Souzag818]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I tend to agree with every thing you have said and only thing I might add is that due to the Cat’s current popularity that the guy with a big checkbook and ego but little experience may be more likely to buy a big, new Cat than a Mono.

And get into trouble because they think they know it all...

[Sailor 99]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I’ve wondered the same myself. In the Caribbean I see cars sailing with a full job and main when I’m at 1st reef in the main and stay sail. My sense is that there are a number of these cats being over powered but the owners/captains don’t know it.

We have a friend who will charter a cat every second year. One year he said he saw a BIG (57’?) cat leave the charter dock only to come back 2 days later with a busted mast and a dead guy.

One would think the insurance companies or large charter companies would have some stats.

You would think but you would also think that they would keep it quiet.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

True 'save the planet vegans' would only be eating locally sourced produce.
In Australia no fresh Peruvian asparagus flown in daily on Lan 801...
In New Zealand no capsicums from the Netherlands ( I kid you not) or Ecuadorian bananas..
And in the dis-united kingdom no Canary Island tomatoes....no citrus... no bananas... no grapes...

In fact in the d-UK you would be limited to spuds and mangelwurzels... hardly a healthy diet...

Oh ... and cabbage... did I mention methane?

Is that where the UK it's bad food rep from? The originally poor choice?

That being said, I wasn't impressed with the food choices in Chile. Basically some meat and some fries in most of the areas I went. Apart from the sushi/ceviche. There had no understanding when I told them my GF was vegetarian. The waiter returned to twice to double check the order "but there's no meat in your order", then the chef came out, to make sure the waiter had got the order right.

Their pizza's though are much better than the Argentinians.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Is that where the UK it's bad food rep from? The originally poor choice?

That being said, I wasn't impressed with the food choices in Chile. Basically some meat and some fries in most of the areas I went. Apart from the sushi/ceviche. There had no understanding when I told them my GF was vegetarian. The waiter returned to twice to double check the order "but there's no meat in your order", then the chef came out, to make sure the waiter had got the order right.

Their pizza's though are much better than the Argentinians.

No, it sprang up during the war years when rationing began due to shortages of being the last man standing, and an effective blockade by U boats.. this continued into the 50's as shortage of manpower in agriculture at home and Europes recovery took place..
Things did not really get back to normal till the 60's.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

.......
That being said, I wasn't impressed with the food choices in Chile. Basically some meat and some fries in most of the areas I went. Apart from the sushi/ceviche. There had no understanding when I told them my GF was vegetarian. The waiter returned to twice to double check the order "but there's no meat in your order", then the chef came out, to make sure the waiter had got the order right.

Their pizza's though are much better than the Argentinians.

Ah..... Chile is not for the faint of heart when it comes to eating out....
A proper bit of cow will come with just a boiled spud on the side.... salad is extra... see below...
They like rich tucker.... as shown here.... the local fish and chips ... 'Congrio ( aka Ling or Kingklip) o lo Pobre' http://adm.1.cl/galeriasitios/Och/20...g%283%2905.jpg yes... there is fish under the eggs....

That said the range and quality of fresh produce available is brilliant... to please the palate of any vegan, vegetarian, or carnivore.... the paltas are to die for....
You can live aboard as well as anywhere on the planet.

Yes the south is a bit different... as is Baffin Island.....

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not just moralizing, but lazy moralizing, made up out of thin air, and wrong. Nothing vaguely factual.



Wrong again. Do a little math before shooting off your mouth. The carbon emitted motoring all the way from Greenland to Iceland, is less than the carbon saved by the five people on board not eating meat for a month (and one-third the carbon saved by not eating meet for the whole summer). Not speaking of the fact that five people were not driving cars during this time. Total impact of a trip like this, including the motoring, is a net POSITIVE on carbon emissions.

Naturally you don't want to talk about your own carbon footprint; you just want to poke at other people's. One more time -- do you eat meat? Do you drive a car? Do you use air conditioning? People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.

The microscopic, the unmeasurable amount (in the grand scheme) of fuel burned on vessels for scientific research and for great adventures like cruising in high latitudes, has got to rank among the most worthwhile emissions on the planet.

...Anyone who for some bizarre reason in this day and age continues to eat meat (o.k., I guess stupidity is maybe not "bizarre"), has no right to say one word to anyone else, about his carbon footprint.

Perhaps we're talking past each other DH. I'm not interested in a personal pissing contest on emissions (seeing you keep asking despite me saying this: no meat, no aircon, very limited miles per year in car). My point is about the sustainability of long distance personal travel that involves so many kgC02 per mile. It's not a complicated point. Just as you say that all should be stopping meat as a first step (even if they don't motor as far in a large yacht as you), I am pointing out that the science shows that there is no room for people to do long pleasure passages by motor (whether they eat meat or not). Not about you personally.

On some of your other points:
- I agree with you about meat on a population average basis. you have said cutting meat is the single biggest thing anybody can do to reduce their footprint. That is true of meat eaters who do not travel major miles per year. If they do (air, pleasure motoring, driving), then they will quickly eclipse their meat emissions.
- on a quick google, the average Brit's meat eating causes 2.2 tonnes equivalent of CO2 per annum. That's about 6kg a day. You'll match that by burning just over 3 litres of diesel per day.
- we exceed the average Brit's annual meat footprint with about 820 litres of diesel. That doesn't take that many days when you turn on Mr Yanmar upwind at sea.
- you seem a bright guy, and false comparisons are beneath you (the entire city of Barcelona's driving v limited cruisers (without data); your use of fuel in a conveniently chosen window against some other meat eater, etc).
- your summer cruise omits all the fuel you've burned getting from England, and any flights your crew used coming and going. Maybe nobody flew, but often people do; you've already said you put the hammer down on other parts of the trip, why omit that? It's a weak straw man.
- a proper comparison if you remain enthusiastic about comparing your boat's footprint with one average meat eater's is to add up all the fuel burnt on the entire trip (including from original port), all the associated flights for all crew, then compare that to you eating meat over the relevant days. The footprint of choosing to cruise like that will likely be bigger than if you sank the boat and ate meat.
- The meat numbers are CO2 equivalent. Much of that footprint is non permanent and so the harm is not 1:1. Diesel is pretty much all CO2. Worth remembering.

Anyway, I agree it's boring to compare individual footprints which is why I keep saying it's not my point. My point is that the science shows that our allowable footprint is of a size that pretty much every westerner has to cut out leisure-based emissions. Yes, I agree about meat, but this is a sailing forum - if it was burnbeeftosavehavingtosailforlong.com I would mention the footprint of elective eating of meat, but it's not.

So again, it's not about you. It's about the acceptability of long leisure trips by motor. The harm is happening, and it's going to be very, very bad. We need to stop unnecessary burning, all of us. I think this is fun for sailors, because we can embrace it and sail again. When the wind drops we can wait. When it howls, we can be glad we have a solid Moody 54. Fun.

Finally, I noted this reference: "fuel burned on vessels for scientific research and for great adventures like cruising in high latitudes, has got to rank among the most worthwhile emissions on the planet". I might have misunderstood what you do in the arctic. What sort of scientific research are you doing in the Arctic?

Cheers, and apols if you took this personally.

[malbert73]

I have to chime in on this side note. Given the masses still travel by airline to crowd onto a cruise ship; millions buy online to have items shipped by truck to their door, after they’ve been on a ship from China; people buy gas guzzling SUVs and trucks and commute in them; and many more examples—
Singling out DH’s, while technically correct, really is short sighted. the real opportunity lies in the masses. Why on earth as sailors would we want to make a case that our emissions are where the opportunity is.

This is now on the internet and would be a great testimonial for a politician trying to score an easy target, much like when NDZ legislation passed and sewage treatment plans still overflow millions of gallons of untreated when it rains.

[blubaju]

Isn't it great, you will never see a sunken mono unless it happens on a dock. So monos are much more safe, those crazy cats only give you a float after flipping, a sunken mono hides your shame.

[nmccubbin]

Do you actually have statistics?
If so the source and details would be VERY interesting

[fatherchronica]

And Boatman61 might have added that while resting atop now stabilized multihulls what most people would eventually think solely of is food. In addition to the escape hatches in multihulls bottoms I used to read about maybe a nice minibar accessible only in the stable position is in order.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Bigmarv

Perhaps we're talking past each other DH. I'm not interested in a personal pissing contest on emissions (seeing you keep asking despite me saying this: no meat, no aircon, very limited miles per year in car). My point is about the sustainability of long distance personal travel that involves so many kgC02 per mile. It's not a complicated point. Just as you say that all should be stopping meat as a first step (even if they don't motor as far in a large yacht as you), I am pointing out that the science shows that there is no room for people to do long pleasure passages by motor (whether they eat meat or not).. . .

Well, I disagree entirely. "The science" does not show this at all. Everyone emits carbon, and the only thing "the science" shows is that mankind should reduce (not eliminate) carbon emissions; "the science" does not tell us which ones to reduce.



And so who is to decide what carbon emissions are justifiable and which are unjustifiable? Why are long pleasure passages by motor unjustifiable but eating meat is OK? Why are football games OK, but cruising in the Arctic is not OK? Why is it OK to commute by car when it's possible to do it by bike? Who decides all this?


And the answer is -- individual conscience, individual judgement, and the market. It's up to public policymakers to transfer the costs of carbon emissions back to the emitters, so that it costs money to emit carbon corresponding to the damage which is done, so that people can make rational decisions about whether or not to drive or ride a bike, whether or not to eat meat, etc. Only the individual knows that it's worth giving up the car (for example) in order to make a long ocean passage by motor, or give up meat, in order to use a car, or whatever.



What for damn sure is not the way to do it, is for people to point fingers at each other. How do you know why your neighbor drives, instead of riding a bike? What business is it of yours? That's not the way you make policy which has an actual effect in solving the problem; it just makes you a jerk. Better to do something real -- like lobby for a carbon tax. And for sure, get your own life in order by eliminating whatever you can from your own emissions.


I am not going to justify to anyone my own decision to motor in the Arctic Ocean. That's none of anyone's business but my own. Nor am I going to question anyone else's decision to do that -- I know well that you can't cruise in places like that, without a lot of motoring, and these adventures are immensely valuable, and the carbon emissions involved are microscopic. I would be much more likely to question meat eating and football games, but not by being a jerk, emitting hot air, and pointing fingers at individuals -- but rather by trying to influence public policy. I do give money to one or two organizations which are attempting to get taxes imposed on meat and dairy products in order to properly reflect the actual damage that consuming the same inflicts on the planet, and also the costs imposed on health care systems. I also gently -- and respectfully! -- educate people close to me, and have probably influenced at least 10 people to give up eating meat. If just 10% of the population would influence just 9 people each to give up meat, the world would be meat-free! And this would just about solve global warming all by itself, and with no cost whatsoever.

[davb]

I sailed a 70’ ketch-rigged cat in the Pacific some years ago. My experience suggests two categories:

1. Extreme survival conditions
2. Normal sailing

In the first category, assuming well-designed and constructed boats, I would rather take my chances in a monohull than a multihull.

In the second category, I don’t think it matters as long as the skipper is competent and understands his/her boat. A good multihull skipper knows that the boat must be sailed by the numbers: when the wind and waves are thus and so it’s time to reef. The multihull won’t send signals that she is overcanvassed. The first signal will likely be something breaks. If she is sailing on the edge of disaster already, a gust or a higher wave can capsize her. A monohull, on the other hand, will let you know that she is being pushed too hard by heeling too much.

Large cruising cats are a fairly recent phenomenon. I wouldn’t put too much stock in insurance statistics.