How many cats have flipped ?

[Training Wheels]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Obviously trimarans are three times as bad.

WRONG! It’s exponential, so trimarans are 9 times as bad......

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Training Wheels

But wait, how could the boat go so fast with the sails being so inefficient? After all, the mast was almost vertical, not heeled over 30*! 🤫[emoji2]

You obviously dont reef early enough..

[KC375]

Originally Posted by refuge

... I know a sound vessel at a glance.

...

If i were to buy an airplane it would have to have one of those ‘whole airplane parachutes’ that deploy out of the tail. While statistically planes don’t crash that often they still crash. A whole plane chute is a fail safe.....

Two observations.
I’m assuming you know boats better than plans. Whole plan parachutes do no deploy out of the tail (they do stream backwards during initial deployment). They deploy out of or around the center of aerodynamic lift (think cabin top mid wing). The idea is that the plane dangling below the chute lands upright on its landing gear. If the deployment was from the tail the plane would land nose first, a most unsatisfactory attitude.
You could think of the positive buoyancy in a catamaran as akin the whole plane parachute. When things go really pear-shaped your catamaran may be upside down but still floating while your monohull may be upright but comfortably resting on the sea floor.

[smj]

Originally Posted by refuge

Personally I would love to own a catamaran and I’ve looked at a few of them. Especially now that we’re getting older and appreciate the extra space. But deep down my mariner instincts tell me to be cautious. I don’t need statistics. I know a sound vessel at a glance.



I started racing Opties at 8 years old and moved up through the ranks having sailed many catamarans. You really can’t compare catamarans and mono’s. They are completely different beasts. I don’t take sides as I have a deep love for all boats and everything nautical. Yes I even own a motor boat. Lol.



If i were to buy an airplane it would have to have one of those ‘whole airplane parachutes’ that deploy out of the tail. While statistically planes don’t crash that often they still crash. A whole plane chute is a fail safe. I tend to see catamarans the same way. I’ve logged over a million sea miles in my life (yes a million) on every conceivable kind of boat. I trust my instincts and while I might personally (on my own) voyage in a cat, I would never cross an ocean carrying loved ones. That’s just my personal preference. I’d rather be in a stout monohull with a full keel. When it blows 70 knots there’s not much you can do with a cat. I personally know of 3 catamarans that have flipped over at anchor in mere storm force winds. That’s all I need to know and that’s the end of it for me.



But I might charter someone else’s cat for a couple weeks. Just not going to invest my own time into owning something that can’t safely heave to in a Category 1. Just my 2 cents. To each their own.

So what types of cruising catamarans have you sailed and in what weather?

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by smj

So what types of cruising catamarans have you sailed and in what weather?

Don't be silly he just has to glance at a boat to know if it is sound or not.

[Training Wheels]

Originally Posted by boatman61

You obviously dont reef early enough..

Have you been talking to my wife?

[Gerrycooper56]

Originally Posted by David M

I don't think that statistic exists. My gut feeling is that catamarans capsize more often per cruising mile. I can't prove that though.

All one can really say is that at a 90 degree angle of inclination that a catamaran is unlikely to right itself but a monohull is likely to right itself as long as there was a minimal amount of water ingress into the cabin. Both types of vessels have very different righting moment curves. This would only apply to ocean swell that is not severe. Under severe conditions where you have swells rolling I would imagine the chance of rolling is about equal given the same angle of inclination into the swell.

I know this will stir up controversy but I think monohulls overall have a bit of an advantage in severe wind and ocean swell conditions.

On the other side of the debate, catamarans have a greater initial righting moment and less beam per hull providing a speed advantage allowing them to dodge low pressure areas more readily. If you have the ability to reduce the chance of getting into a bad situation in the first place then that is a distinct advantage.

Do cats have a righting moment curve?

[Training Wheels]

Of course.

[Bigmarv]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

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.

Perhaps distinguish between emissions and net emissions. We need to have no net emissions. Anyway, one man's long motoring is another man's meat is another man's driving. Any individual can say their own footprint is not the problem. Saying we should wait for the market or for regulation is saying that we don't want to sacrifice the bits of burning we enjoy, because the regulation is not happening in time, is it.

Oh, and seeing you're insulting me now despite me repeatedly saying this wasn't about you but about the concept of long distance leisure fossil fuel travel, I note you were silent on the missing data around your Greenland trip, so that was presumably totally incomplete. You also didn't answer on my question about you doing scientific work when on your boat. You seemed to be implying you were and it was worthy, but it seems you're actually just a tourist. There's not some special category of worthiness because it's Mr DH who is the tourist. The burn is just part of that especially high emitting category of long distance motoring alongside flights and cruise ships. The data don't lie and the only reason it's a smaller total footprint than meat is that it's more elite and fewer do it. The individual footprint of the regular travellers eclipses individual emissions from normal people even if they eat meat 3 times a day. Sure, we burn less than the superyachts and pleasure trawlers, but we are still in there. It's discretionary high carbon tourism. It's not science and it's not high adventure (unless it's adventurous now to wait for calms and motor between ports).

I'll leave you to it now because it's pointless when it's taken personally and I didn't intend you to feel attacked at the start. You feel it's nobody else's business what others emit but hopefully you'll understand some see it differently - what we emit is not just our own business - it's everybody's business, like any externalized harm.

So let's let the thread get back to the scientific certainty that most catamarans are already upside down. I hope you keep enjoying sailing and at least consider waiting for wind from time to time. Sure, it might be slower and sometimes more dangerous, but that would start being adventurous, right?

[alctel]

Jeez, I've such an environmentalist I've been actually arrested at pipeline protests and even I think BigMarv is talking rubbish.

The burn is just part of that especially high emitting category of long distance motoring alongside flights and cruise ships. The data don't lie and the only reason it's a smaller total footprint than meat is that it's more elite and fewer do it.

It's not though. I think you are getting completely confused around how much each mode of transport emits and the reasons why air travel is so harmful. Living and travelling on a sailboat is one of the most carbon efficient forms of living and travelling, even with running the motor a bunch - it's still way way less pollution that almost any other form of Western existence.

Add to the fact that high latitude travel is dangerous, and saying that you should just float around and wait to get clobbered to avoid burning a couple of dozen gallons of fuel is just extremely daft. Especially when you then need to get rescued. The North sea is exceedingly shitty.

Shaming people for doing stuff they enjoy that has way less carbon emissions than virtually every other 1st worlder on the planet isn't how you stop climate change - it just makes you look like an arse. Holding companies accountable, getting involved in municipality design decisions, lobbying politicians to stop taking oil money, agitating for more transit/bike options, ending fossil fuel subsidies - that's how you can help.

edit: sorry, that may have come off a bit harsh and as a personal attack, and for that I apologise. Polluting industries have done their best to deflect blame away from themselves and towards individuals, and the kind of attitude you had there really helps nothing and in fact can turn people away.

[Hasbeen]

One windy night we got a call from the Whitsunday yacht club, for help with rescuing 3 multi hulls off the Whitsunday Islands. I put a patch up crew together & took our 29 metre international cat, powered by 2, 1200 HP motors.


There were 3 upturned multies, one try & 2 cats. They were all in a race going past our area, so being driven fairly hard down wind & sea at night.


The first one we picked up was a 36Ft cat, that had surfed down a wave, buried it's bow, tripped over it, & inverted stern over bow. The crew said there had been no indication of a problem previous to the inversion, & they thought they were well with in the boats capability before the trip. As the boat was still in one piece & floating well. Our 6 knot idle speed was far too high for towing so I gave her to a slower launch, who towed her still inverted to safety. The hull mast & rigging were OK & reused.


I then rescued the 40Ft try. She had broached on a wave, & rolled beam over. Again it was so sudden that in the dark the crew had no idea of the difference that caused the rollover.


The mast & sails were detached & hanging under the boat, & I gave her to a launch slow enough to tow her back to safety. I had no contact with the larger cat that was also towed inverted into safety.


We had 2 international cats, a 24 Metre & the 29 Metre. They cruised at about 25 knots, top speed about 30, & carried 204 & 326 passengers respectively. They were more comfortable than a launch in the moderate seas we dealt with inside the great barrier reef, but did worry me a little at times.


In an 8 to 10 Ft following sea at their cruising speed they could captured by a following sea. One hull buried deeper in the wave would slow a little, & the boat would turn & travel across the wave like a surf board. This could last for hundreds of yards, before she came off.


Each skipper had their own way of dealing with the condition. Some would power off, & try to stop the boat, some would power up & try to out run the wave, others just let the boat come off the wave naturally.


We never had any accidents, or even close calls, so I guess I was just being a worry-wart.

[KC375]

For those asking about stability curves and other considerations for seaworthiness Shuttleworth has a pretty good article here

[dfelsent]

If only I’d take a rhetoric class I would know the correct name for “I’m not making a personal attack but I’m attacking your actions, and you. But it’s not personal. ”. That seems to be the MO of bigmarv. Can anyone help me out? Thanks in advance.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by refuge

Personally I would love to own a catamaran and I’ve looked at a few of them. Especially now that we’re getting older and appreciate the extra space. But deep down my mariner instincts tell me to be cautious. I don’t need statistics. I know a sound vessel at a glance.

Couldn't see any point in wasting my time reading past here....

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Training Wheels

Have you been talking to my wife?

Is that what the scream was as you flew past me...???
REEEEEEEEEEEFFFF..!!!