Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-12-2010, 20:01   #61
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatman61 View Post
Would'nt fishnet floats be less cumbersome than tubing... one float every 12inches....
price out the fishnet floats $4-7 each. then go price pipe insulation $2 for 6-feet. You can cut the insulation in sections and use tie-wraps or 3M electrical tape to secure them.
__________________

__________________
SailFastTri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 20:12   #62
Elvish meaning 'Far-Wanderer'
 
Palarran's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Me - Michigan / Boat - Tenerife
Boat: 56' Fountaine Pajot Marquises
Posts: 2,641
Do you really think the problem with your dingy painter is going to be solved with floats? Why not solve the problem by tying the dingy on the side of the boat or pulling it out of the water?
__________________

__________________
Not all who wander are lost

http://www.sailblogs.com/member/palarran/
Palarran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 20:17   #63
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmwebb View Post
You own an old Boston Whaler?

FWIW, some foams are better than others. There are lots of different kinds of foam out there. Generally "closed cell" foams take longer to get water-logged. Some reputable rudder manufactures use pourable two part closed cell foam. Lots of boats are made from closed cell sheet foam with FRP faces... For something like a crash box that should stay dry a good quality closed cell foam encased in FRP is probably not going to get waterlogged. But even dry foam will add weight compared to air.

Tom
I used Divinycell for the wedges beneath the solar panels in the picture below. They are painted with exterior grade latex house paint matched to the deck color beneath. The paint is a thick type made for painting exterior cinder-block. The foam is not encapsulated in resin and the paint does not fill every surface pore. They have been installed for 3 years beneath these panels -- exposed to rain and repeated salt-water immersions. They have not absorbed any water (so far as I can tell) and if I remove them they still feel light.

BTW my boat cannot sink. Hulls can flood partially but even if you cut it in pieces the sections would all float.



__________________
SailFastTri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2010, 20:45   #64
Freelance Delivery Skipper..
 
boatman61's Avatar

Community Sponsor
Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK/Portugal
Posts: 20,206
Images: 2
Send a message via Skype™ to boatman61
pirate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palarran View Post
Do you really think the problem with your dingy painter is going to be solved with floats? Why not solve the problem by tying the dingy on the side of the boat or pulling it out of the water?
Hey.. Chill out.. I know how to secure a dinghy midships or bow for entering marina berths etc... just trying to help the morons who don't....
And Cats don't always sink... they're just bought by folks who don't like getting wet... unlike us roughy toughy mono owners
__________________


Born To Be Wild
boatman61 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 03:14   #65
Marine Service Provider
 
Factor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brisbane Australia
Boat: Corsair Dash MKII
Posts: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by meyermm View Post
Page one of the multihull operating manual states in large letters "Cats will not sink" .
Which manual was that? Im sorry I dont seem to have a copy of it.
__________________
Factor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 03:20   #66
Marine Service Provider
 
Factor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Brisbane Australia
Boat: Corsair Dash MKII
Posts: 4,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by catty View Post
I'm not sure this is a lagoon 500, but it is a catamaran and the owner seems pretty convinced it sank.
Please read......Sinking of boat probed Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania
Are you being intentionally deceptive, or did you not realise that this was a METAL boat that was holed. Do you not understand the matters of physics that affect the science of buoyancy, or is this just an attempt to deride a style of boat based on your biases.

Perhaps if I explain, not every cat will "not sink" - to achieve this state requires some basics such as positive buoyancy, sealed compartments etc, something most, but not all cats have.

Its a bit like seeing Tony Bullimore upside down in the ocean and saying - but I thought all monos were self righting and clearly monos cant self right - etc etc, . It is a stupendous error in logic to do what you are doing, or you are simply ill-informed. Or you are intentionally mischievous.
__________________
Factor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 06:56   #67
Registered User
 
mudbug's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: "Circumnavigating" the Caribbean
Boat: Lagoon 380; Indigo Moon
Posts: 100
Hi guys!

I have NO SYMPATHY for anyone who tows a dinghy and has a mishap when they have davits sitting there on a catamaran.

I went 18,793 miles on our Lagoon 380 Indigo Moon and had not one problem . . . ever. Why; because I was not lazy.
It is a no-brainer: WITHOUT FAIL and EVERY TIME, PULL UP THE DINK BEFORE PULLING THE ANCHOR.

And if you don't, and prefer to be NEGLIGENT and tow the dinghy instead, then that painter better be cinched so short that the dink is tapping the stern, or else that is GROSS NEGLIGENCE if you ask me. It’s a “boating for dummies” issue. Even total greenhorns chartering Moorings boats learn that rule.

I look at this the same way the USCG looks at radar. If you don't have radar on your vessel, then you are obviously NOT negligent for not using radar (and no davits means towing the dink is often the best you can do).

But if you HAVE radar and you did not turn it on and it could have prevented the accident, then you are negligent. I say that if you have davits and do not use them, it is the same thing, especially on a catamaran where the davits are sitting there like a cherry on a cream pie just begging to be used.

Anyway, you get the picture. In my opinion, not using the davits and then failing to shorten the painter is a “double whammy” of operator error and Lagoon will certainly have an excellent legal defense.

The incident was not directly caused by any failing of Lagoon. Perhaps the damages were exacerbated by the leaking bulkhead, but that is another issue.

The legal framing of this will surely be "but for the captain's negligence and/or gross negligence in not using the dinghy davits and then not shortening the painter to prevent a known and foreseeable risk of entangling the painter in the vessel’s propeller, this incident would not have occurred."

And it is pretty hard to argue that is not a fact, based on what we all know at this point.

Shifting gears, I HAVE seen a Fontiane Pajot swamped and still floating. It actually crossed the Caribbean unattended and swamped and was found drifting off the coast of Nicaragua near the Colombian island of San Andes where we were at the time.

It had been dismasted and abandoned in the Eastern Caribbean and obviously had the advantage of the no longer carrying the weight of the rig, but there it floats.

Here is a picture I took:




I have read lots of catamaran claims of unsinkability but I suspect that those claims are based on watertight compartments working and being
“enhanced” by the buoyancy of the construction materials.

We’ve beat this whole issue to death a few times already over the years.
Here is what Lagoon says on their website:

Buoyancy is also a guarantee of security. All Lagoon catamarans comply with the CE standards for the unsinkability of multihulls. The forward and aft compartments of each hull are separated from the living quarters of the yachts by watertight bulkheads. The density of the materials used and the absence of ballast enhance the unsinkable characteristics of the boat. Even after an impact, you can carry on sailing with your Lagoon. (emphasis added)

But then there are websites like the Red Gibbon’s CruisingCatsUSA where they go MUCH farther and say:

6. The "Unsinkable" Factor - There's a darned good reason why race committees demand that monohull sailboats carry life rafts. It's the ever-present risk of sinking. But because modern cats (a) need no ballast and (b) are built of state-of-the-art, cored-sandwich construction, they are virtually unsinkable. You even could chainsaw (literally) such a cat into 4 sections and each one would float.(Similar to how breaking up a foam coffee cup doesn't decrease each pieces' ability to float.) Consider carefully what that means. When boats sink, sailors can die.But when boats stay afloat, death is seldom the outcome. Can you think of any reason why you or your crew do not deserve this huge added margin of safety when cruising under sail?

Man, I just can’t seem to be optimistic enough to agree with that! I figure that each aft quarter of my old Lagoon 380, filled with engines, batteries, inverters, bicycles, spares, and battery chargers and the like would plummet to the bottom like a rock.

It is just hard to believe that there is enough foam cored sections and wood to float all of the solid glass sections of the boat PLUS all the weight of the machinery and heavy cruising gear too . . . SCUBA equipment like weights and four tanks, books, spares, and tools like sewing machines, angle grinders, buffers, and spare parts: ten thousand pounds easy, on top of the original equipment.

I sure wish every major manufacturer was required to demonstrate all this. First, flood the whole boat and see if it can float with no air. My bet is no. Then, cut a cat into four pieces and see if all the pieces still float. My bet would be hell no.

So, I think that the “catamarans don’t sink” slogan is losing some credibility to some extent because it has been overstated beyond the normal “puffing of wares” that is acceptable. Trouble is none of us know just how much the truth has been stretched.

And oddly, as an aside at this point, how ironic is it that the most feared calamity for catamarans (capsize) is probably the best incident if you want air to be trapped in the hulls and for the boat to stay floating?

All that said, even if cats do sink in some circumstances, so what?

Does that all of a sudden make them a bad choice? Of course not. It is still a fact that a catamaran will never sink as fast as a monuhull or powerboat and there will be more time to get ready to abandon ship, etc. And it is still a fact that as a living platform in the tropics, a catamaran is so vastly superior in design that all other issues become non-issues.

I say forget about the mindset of idiot proofing the dinghy painter. Instead it is a much better plan to go about not to be an idiot.

It is misplaced thinking to try and find a vessel you cannot sink, destroy or otherwise meet tragedy with. NO VESSEL is invincible and all of them can be in serious trouble in the blink of an eye and ultimately be lost.

Sure, it’s heartbreaking when something like this incident happens and a beautiful vessel is so severely damaged, but it is NOT an indication of a Lagoon failing, or that catamarans are not a good bet any more, or anything other than on any vessel, if the captain and crew are not vigilant and fastidious in safe practices, the results can often be unpredictable and catastrophic.

I don't know much, but after five-and-a-half years and 18,973 miles on a Lagoon 380 without a scratch, I do know that 99% of my good luck at sea came from my own effort and industry and did not come from the Lagoon factory.

So get off your butt and pull up that dinghy and then you will never have to become a test case for the current state of so-called"catamaran unsinkablility!"

All the best and play it safe,

Buddy
__________________
See our website at: www.indigomoon.us
mudbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 09:03   #68
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
Mudbug, I would have to disagree with your statement " it is not an indication of a Lagoon failing". Sure the capt. Was negligent but if Lagoon owned up to it's sales hype only the engine room would have flooded and the boat may have been able to make shore with the use of one motor.
__________________
smj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 15:11   #69
Registered User
 
mudbug's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: "Circumnavigating" the Caribbean
Boat: Lagoon 380; Indigo Moon
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by smj View Post
Mudbug, I would have to disagree with your statement " it is not an indication of a Lagoon failing". Sure the capt. Was negligent but if Lagoon owned up to it's sales hype only the engine room would have flooded and the boat may have been able to make shore with the use of one motor.
It did make "shore" . . . they ran it up in the shallows and it was salvaged. It was never totally submerged from all I have read so far.

Sure there may be an apportionment of damages, and there is a strong argument that IF the facts are PROVEN that Lagoon breached a duty to deliver a promised design, and that breach of duty directly caused additional damages that are beyond the scope of what would have happened anyway, then sure . . . maybe

The point is that Lagoon did not play any part whatsoever in causing this incident in the first place. And it is NOT BY A LONG shot Lagoon's fault at all that any of this initially happened.

It is CLEARLY NOT a case where "Lagoon sold me a crummy boat and it sank."

Nope . . . instead, it is "I did something totally stupid and negligently ripped my boat wide open and water gushed in . . . an act that will put ALL boats at peril. And after that water gushed in, the damages were worse than I thought they would be in such a case because a bulkhead that was supposed to be watertight and keep water out of the cabin was not . . . so, even though I TOTALLY caused this incident, I think it was made much worse when it came to the damages because of the leaking bulkhead."

I've got no problem with that, but it is also true that the boat was FINE until the captain ripped the back end of it out!

And we don't know yet. We have hearsay allegations being thrown around, but for all you know the bulkhead leaked because of structural damage caused by the extreme violence of the mishap. I've been around long enough to know that there are two sides to every case and at least two experts to be heard from before any real opinion can be formulated as to Lagoon's part of liability, if any.

As for the negligence that caused this: no expert needed . . . slam dunk negligence and perhaps even gross negligence depending . . .

Anyway, I do appreciate where you are coming from, but I am not as quick to step over the captain and start immediately bashing Lagoon.

And I do agree that Lagoon's claim that they provide watertight bulkheads and an owner "can continue on sailing" after an incident is a promise that appears not to have been kept based on the owner's allegations so far.

Time will tell. I am not willing to demonize Lagoon at this early stage in the case, though, and certainly not in general . . . ever.

I had too much PERFECT PERFORMANCE from my Lagoon to agree with any comment that Lagoon is somehow a bad actor, even if they are liable for all damages beyond the engine room flooding. That just is not so based on my personal experience. I had great, honest, genuine support from Lagoon and Catco and would buy the same boat again!

All that said, I'm sure they will sort it out, and fault will be apportioned accordingly. And it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

All the best,

Buddy
__________________
See our website at: www.indigomoon.us
mudbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 16:29   #70
smj
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2007
Boat: Searunner 38 catamaran
Posts: 3,654
If the story as told is true then Lagoon is definitely guilty of building a boat not according to their spec.'s . The thought that the engine could have possibly contributed to the bulkhead failure is a good one though.
__________________
smj is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 17:01   #71
Registered User
 
mudbug's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: "Circumnavigating" the Caribbean
Boat: Lagoon 380; Indigo Moon
Posts: 100
Hey, and I understand your valid point. I just know from experience that these things are never balck and white . . .

Hope you're doing great in the Lone Star State!
__________________
See our website at: www.indigomoon.us
mudbug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 18:20   #72
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Burlington Canada
Boat: Lagoon 440
Posts: 29
Images: 2
well the debate goes on

Hi all: Wow what an interesting emotional thread. First of all I love both yacht designs. Cats and monohulls so don’t bash me to hard. The pros and cons for Monohulls and Cats is strongly put!

I was a monohull sailor for many years, even built the 1981 and 1984 Canadas Cup Yachts both named “Coug” at Wiggers Custom yard in Ontario. Captained them as well for five years, so know the issues with a high performance yacht very well. Sailed them in all conditions, with a competent experienced crew. Even had a hard grounding with the chute up at 10 knots. We were taking on water through the keel bolts, and were knee deep in 20 minutes! The skipper turned the yacht into the wind and tacked her back and forth several times. The keel fell back into position. With luck and quick action from all on board we were able to stem the flow and keep her afloat for 10 hours till we hit shore and got her hauled out. If the keel had of dropped off surely she would have been unsinkable! Maybe that is the key, have explosive keel bolts!

I now own a Lagoon 440. Many reasons why this was the choice of yacht but so far very happy with the design and construction. The 440 is equipped with water tight bulkheads for and aft, and yes in the manual they say “unsinkable”. This had no significance in my purchase by the way just a bonus. We carry a lift raft and would not leave shore without it. The maximum load we can carry is 5900kg! Does this mean we would not maintain buoyancy if we exceed it? I don’t know but do not intend to find out!

The 440 forward bulkheads in particular are solid with no big holes to compromise them. There is a large drain hose sealed through the bottom leading directly to the main bilge in each hull, with control valves. I will check but my guess is they are over 1”-1 ˝” . There is also the same hose coming from the back engine compartment bulkhead, also to be water tight. The hoses are there to drain a compartment, if compromised by flooding, into the main bilge, to keep her buoyant and controllable. When I took possession of my 440 they were all in the open position. They now remain closed at all times. Not sure about the 500 but would assume the same configuration. If these were open and the captain did not know, well that could explain how the main hulls were compromised by water. Why the opposite hull took on water has me! Did the other sail drive fail due to the grounding thus duplicating the first problem?

Ok so based on what I have read so far, I would agree with Mudbug that the Lagoon company is not at fault but rather the captain and the unfortunate events that happened due to a rather large, strong painter! Wow I will be changing mine before I launch the dinghy.
My personal opinion is that it is a real shame to hear of this accident and makes me more aware of how any yacht no matter the design can become quickly compromised and no longer capable of maintaining its buoyancy!
Schoonerdog: Were did you get that shot and are you sure it is a 440? I would like to know what happened to her!
__________________
smcauley440 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 20:28   #73
Sponsoring Vendor

Community Sponsor
Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Stuart Fla/KeyWest
Boat: Voyage 500, Silent Faith
Posts: 76
The Lagoon 500 is a nice yacht but a heavy boat (can't deny it) so, to me the heavier an object the more it wants to sink. The posted photo of the lagoon with just the required air tight bows above water says it's not floating correctly. I am going to purchase a life raft after reading this thread.
craig boorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2010, 21:05   #74
Senior Cruiser
 
maxingout's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fort Pierce, Phoenix
Boat: Privilege 39 Catamaran, Exit Only
Posts: 2,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by doocruiser View Post
the boat was totally in the hands of a local captain when it happened !! that says it all !!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig boorman View Post
The Lagoon 500 is a nice yacht but a heavy boat (can't deny it) so, to me the heavier an object the more it wants to sink. The posted photo of the lagoon with just the required air tight bows above water says it's not floating correctly. I am going to purchase a life raft after reading this thread.
I always carried a six man life raft on board Exit Only, but not because I worried about sinking. I was concerned about fire and explosion. If you have electricity, fuel, and propane on board, you have lots of good reasons to purchase a life raft.
__________________
Dave -Sailing Vessel Exit Only

http://SailingUNI.com
http://maxingout.com
http://PositiveThinkingSailor.com
maxingout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2010, 11:51   #75
Registered User
 
doocruiser's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 35
update on the 500 !!

like i said 5 pages of threads ago, i have been on this boat since the incident, i seen her back on the hard 2 days ago,sail drives were back in place. only bottom cosmetics remaining.this is her 3rd residence since the indident.
bottom line is, having lived here for 12 years, i would not put a local in charge of my $700 scooter without having a western person there to oversee happenings,never mind an $800 000 cat !
every decision made after the sail drive was popped was incorrect and amplified the problem !
__________________

__________________
doocruiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
lagoon

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.