Reasons to stay "Monohull"

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Driftwood09

..
2) The exhilaration of speed and constant alertness ( mainsheet & headsail trimming ) it feels like a racing car and less forgiving ( a mono just leans over & rounds up ... )....
...

Yes I agree with all that but what you see has positive on a cat most would consider as negative points in what regards cruising and that's why for each performance cat many condo cats are sold.

I understand what you mean and personally I will even empathize with you however if you are not talking about small coastal hops and that involves longer legs or several days sailing a crew of at least three good sailors are needed do do that and to maintain that constant alertness you talk about. Maybe 2 will do but that is no more cruising but racing since the sleep will not be much.

[accomplice]

On points others haven't made (adding new fuel to the fire):

* Monohulls tend to have larger tankage for length, and much larger tankage for interior volume. This is significant to some in some areas. I like carrying 1500L of fuel and knowing that on passage I generally don't need to ration fuel or fresh water.

* The smaller tankage is a reflection of a need to keep weight down in order to get good sailing performance on a multihull. Robust and redundant ground tackle is another area where what's best for cruising and what's best for sailing performance are unaligned on multihulls.

* In my opinion, the interior of many monohulls is nicer than the finish on the multihulls I have seen. Whether Taiwanese (Passport, Hylas, Tayana) or Scandinavian (Swan, H-R, Najad), the materials and quality of fit on the interior I find much nicer on monohulls. Of course, individual tastes vary.

* I understand the arguments about likelihood of floating vs sinking once inverted, and that heavy weather is rare on many cruising routes, but when I was in a gulf-stream gale with 20ft closely spaced waves, I was quite happy to have a good monohull design between me and the bottom of the sea. Note that most, if not all capsizes are brought about by waves, not wind (I know the wind makes the waves, but you know what I mean...). Shortening sail may be wise and prudent, but also may be insufficient in some sea-states to guarantee the stick points skyward. On this topic, without hard data, I assert that a vessel that rights itself from a ~90 degree knockdown -- an event with not insignificant frequency -- is safer. At a minimum, I sleep better with it at times (assuming I can sleep at all at those times).

Echoing what others have said, if your cruising plans don't require long passages, or are mostly downwind, and feature destinations with shallow water, a multihull may be best for you.

Neither multis nor monos are good nor bad. There are good examples of each for a particular use, and examples of each that would be a poor choice for a particular use.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Is this the same bunch that decided to use brass thu hulls instead of bronze. And the builders had no impute, right! A bit naive don't you think?

A regulating body cannot say what material are made the seacocks unless that is the better material or the only suitable material. A missed knowledgeable ex member of this community, Mark, explained many times that there was superior materials than bronze.

There are also some expensive ones made of composite material that seem to work very well. What they have made was to fix a time period, a minimal one that they should survive without any problem. This means only that if during those 5 years a seacock fails and the boat sinks the manufacturer will have to deliver a new boat, not that they only last 5 years.

In fact most change them between 10 and 15 years and that is not a very expensive affair. I know because I asked, in prevision to change the ones in my boat (9 years old).

Anyway regarding RCD pissing boat builders, the new demand on stability pissed more than one with some existing models having to be modified or taken from the market or passing from class A to B, specially smaller boats and centerboarders that were close to the limit, in what regards stability.

I made a post about that on my blog.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by accomplice

* Monohulls tend to have larger tankage for length, and much larger tankage for interior volume. This is significant to some in some areas. I like carrying 1500L of fuel and knowing that on passage I generally don't need to ration fuel or fresh water.
True but ranges of 500-1000miles under power are pretty easy to come by with multihulls and longer ranges are certainly within reason. Cat's peak speeds tend to slow down so they are similar to mono's when overloaded so adding some extra tankage isn't the end of the world as long as you don't take it to extremes.

* The smaller tankage is a reflection of a need to keep weight down in order to get good sailing performance on a multihull. Robust and redundant ground tackle is another area where what's best for cruising and what's best for sailing performance are unaligned on multihulls.
A lot of cats solve this by having the anchor locker moved back behind the tramp towards the center of the boat. The ability to anchor in shallows results in less need for massive amounts of chain depending on the cruising area. Also the large foredeck makes working the ground tackle safer and easier. We have two anchors on rollers ready to deploy and we can stand comfortably next to them. On a lot of mono's, there isn't room for a second anchor to be ready on a roller or if there is, it's an awkward overlapping design. Anchoring is usually considered a big plus for cats.

* In my opinion, the interior of many monohulls is nicer than the finish on the multihulls I have seen. Whether Taiwanese (Passport, Hylas, Tayana) or Scandinavian (Swan, H-R, Najad), the materials and quality of fit on the interior I find much nicer on monohulls. Of course, individual tastes vary.
This one I believe has more to do with age and price point.
- For new boats, once you move away from the high end yachts, everyone has gone to fiberglass interiors with an occasional teak accent. The days of wall to wall teak are largely gone.
- If you go older, a lot of cats are loaded with teak. We have two older cats at the moment and both are pretty much wall to wall teak.

* I understand the arguments about likelihood of floating vs sinking once inverted, and that heavy weather is rare on many cruising routes, but when I was in a gulf-stream gale with 20ft closely spaced waves, I was quite happy to have a good monohull design between me and the bottom of the sea. Note that most, if not all capsizes are brought about by waves, not wind (I know the wind makes the waves, but you know what I mean...). Shortening sail may be wise and prudent, but also may be insufficient in some sea-states to guarantee the stick points skyward. On this topic, without hard data, I assert that a vessel that rights itself from a ~90 degree knockdown -- an event with not insignificant frequency -- is safer. At a minimum, I sleep better with it at times (assuming I can sleep at all at those times).
I've not heard of any cat going over purely from wave action. I would be curious if you've heard of any.

The confusing part of capsize for a lot of people is monos are far more likely to get knocked over and roll but obviously, if they do, they are far more likely to come back up. This leads to comments where we have people saying the "typical" roll...the problem is the typical roll on a cat is exceedingly rare and you get a great photo op of an upturned hull. We really don't know how many mono rolls come back up. We only hear about the ones that survive. Overall, I suspect it's about a wash for equivalent boats. I've yet to see anything statistical either way.

Echoing what others have said, if your cruising plans don't require long passages, or are mostly downwind,(same could be said of the majority of cruising monos that don't go to windward like the racing boats do and if you get a high performance cat, they go to windward very well) and feature destinations with shallow water, a multihull may be best for you.

Neither multis nor monos are good nor bad. There are good examples of each for a particular use, and examples of each that would be a poor choice for a particular use.

If you take comparable boats, there aren't a lot of situations where a cat would be a poor choice once you take cost out of the equation (and even that tends to get overstated) assuming we compare equivalent boats.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Sound of the water over a howling gale? I don't think so.

I think there must be a way to feel it, but it's a mystery to us mono guys.

I've done some cat sailing, and I had no clue whatsoever whether I was getting overpowered or not. I had to judge by the wind instrument and log, and I was very conservative, because I was afraid.

I think this is exactly what Polux was talking about, when he said that actual passage speeds of cats on long ocean passages like the ARC tends to be the same as monos, even performance cats. His theory is that cats on long passages must be sailed more conservatively, because of this issue. I think he may be on to something.

I've often thought Polux was on something!

IMO the ARC isn't really much of a performance indicator. Too many different sailing agendas in play. Also often what Polux refers to as "performance cats"..... aren't.

It does take a little time to learn to "hear" what a cat is telling you. But it's definitely there. They do heel, just not to 30 odd degrees. But you certainly feel the gusts. You also hear the winches load up, sheets creaking, the wind in the rig, the water rushing past the hulls....

Maybe more subtle than the gunnels going under, but it's still readable.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by accomplice

Note that most, if not all capsizes are brought about by waves, not wind .

And the greater the beam, the lower the likelihood of being capsized by waves.....

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

And the greater the beam, the lower the likelihood of being capsized by waves.....

mono rolls 10 x when cat flips 1x in same conditions.

you have 90 % chance to survive each roll and 50% chance to survive cat flip.

That's from the scarce stats I know about. Rare, but still gives some insight.

There seem to be much higher chance of body damage, fractures etc when mono rolls, if survived.

One would expect higher survival rate when cat flips. In most cases, it was wild weather that claimed lives after.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

A regulating body cannot say what material are made the seacocks unless that is the better material or the only suitable material. A missed knowledgeable ex member of this community, Mark, explained many times that there was superior materials than bronze.

There are also some expensive ones made of composite material that seem to work very well. What they have made was to fix a time period, a minimal one that they should survive without any problem. This means only that if during those 5 years a seacock fails and the boat sinks the manufacturer will have to deliver a new boat, not that they only last 5 years.

In fact most change them between 10 and 15 years and that is not a very expensive affair. I know because I asked, in prevision to change the ones in my boat (9 years old).

Anyway regarding RCD pissing boat builders, the new demand on stability pissed more than one with some existing models having to be modified or taken from the market or passing from class A to B, specially smaller boats and centerboarders that were close to the limit, in what regards stability.

I made a post about that on my blog.

My point was that in the past a regulating body like Lloyds would specify proper skin fittings and ball valves but so far the CE doesn't although there has been a rumor that it may be coming. It's not cheap to replace all the thru hulls. CE doesn't care if the builder puts in huge poorly supported ports in a boat, ports that would have a high rate of failure in storm conditions. I recognize that the CE does specify STIX which is a good thing and very important to offshore safety. CE doesn't care if there are no hand holds below or that the cabinets are built with square corners. Many of the boats with a CE rating for offshore were so poorly built that the steering quadrant had a high failure posibility and the builder had to make up a metal support system to reinforce an area that was not strong enough. CE does give buyers some confidence which it probably shouldn't. What it really does is keep the playing field level for the competition and through STIX it does ensure that the stability range is reasonable for offshore. Actually it's that and that alone really that the ratings are based on. You could have the cheapest hull to deck joint and a boat with a hull that oil canned going to weather but as long as it was built with compliance to the STIX rating it would be good to go.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

My point was that in the past a regulating body like Lloyds would specify proper skin fittings and ball valves but so far the CE doesn't although there has been a rumor that it may be coming. It's not cheap to replace all the thru hulls. CE doesn't care if the builder puts in huge poorly supported ports in a boat, ports that would have a high rate of failure in storm conditions. I recognize that the CE does specify STIX which is a good thing and very important to offshore safety. CE doesn't care if there are no hand holds below or that the cabinets are built with square corners. Many of the boats with a CE rating for offshore were so poorly built that the steering quadrant had a high failure posibility and the builder had to make up a metal support system to reinforce an area that was not strong enough. CE does give buyers some confidence which it probably shouldn't. What it really does is keep the playing field level for the competition and through STIX it does ensure that the stability range is reasonable for offshore. Actually it's that and that alone really that the ratings are based on. You could have the cheapest hull to deck joint and a boat with a hull that oil canned going to weather but as long as it was built with compliance to the STIX rating it would be good to go.

What a rant
RCD started with stability as a direct concern regarding the capsizes on the 1979 fastnet. Today the work has extended to many other areas among them rudder minimum specifications and keel minimum specifications. I is not a finished work but a work in progress. It is aimed at providing a minimum quality standard.

Some interesting comments by American Mike Telleria an engineer that works for Nordhavn:

" In some cases, like in the U.S., it’s mostly up to the builder to voluntarily comply with the published guidance – which is certainly in a builder’s interest to do. In other cases, like in the European Union, by law a boat has to be inspected, documented and certified that it meets the published guidance....

There are at least 60 standards that have been developed to support the requirements of the RCD, and each points to a specific International Organization for Standardization (ISO) document that contains the detailed requirements for that particular standard (such as ISO 10088: 2009 Small Craft – Permanently Installed Fuel Systems). Like ABYC, these standards are revised and updated at regular intervals.

The good news for builders like Nordhavn is there is little real difference between the RCD standards and the ABYC standards. The biggest difference is actually all the documentation and inspections that are required for building a CE boat. At Nordhavn we use special software that basically creates a massive checklist of items that must be confirmed for RCD compliance. In each case we note how we satisfy the specific requirement, and once complete the software compiles a large technical file that is given to the inspector.

The inspector reviews the file, inspects the boat and makes note of any additional actions that are necessary for compliance. Once he’s satisfied that all the requirements of the RCD are met, he issues a certification that the boat is worthy of a CE mark."

Welcome to Nordhavn.com - Power Thats Oceans Apart

It is mostly about motor yachts but he gives you an idea of what is the RCD and what is aimed for. It is aimed for providing a minimum quality standard and Mike, that deals with it, even if American, don't seem to believe that RCD is aimed at protecting the EC market or that will do nothing to control quality.

Quite the contrary, he seems to look at it in a positive way and talks about Nordhavn to be worthy of a CE mark.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

mono rolls 10 x when cat flips 1x in same conditions.

you have 90 % chance to survive each roll and 50% chance to survive cat flip.

That's from the scarce stats I know about. ....

I am very curious. Till know it has been a pretty unbiased discussion. Those statements regarding percentages to survive a roll or regarding percentages of rolls to cat capsizes seem incredibly odd to me but you have statistics, so let's have a look at them before going further into it.

Please tell us about those statistics. Any link?

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

What a rant
RCD started with stability as a direct concern regarding the capsizes on the 1979 fastnet. Today the work has extended to many other areas among them rudder minimum specifications and keel minimum specifications. I is not a finished work but a work in progress. It is aimed at providing a minimum quality standard.

Some interesting comments by American Mike Telleria an engineer that works for Nordhavn:

" In some cases, like in the U.S., it’s mostly up to the builder to voluntarily comply with the published guidance – which is certainly in a builder’s interest to do. In other cases, like in the European Union, by law a boat has to be inspected, documented and certified that it meets the published guidance. This understandably adds to the cost of the boat in terms of hiring outside inspectors and creating documentation. Then there is a whole additional level of scrutiny for any boat where a pleasure yacht or commercial charter yacht classification is desired, which typically involves ongoing inspections throughout the build, extensive documentation and the use of materials and equipment that is held to a higher standard."..

There are at least 60 standards that have been developed to support the requirements of the RCD, and each points to a specific International Organization for Standardization (ISO) document that contains the detailed requirements for that particular standard (such as ISO 10088: 2009 Small Craft – Permanently Installed Fuel Systems). Like ABYC, these standards are revised and updated at regular intervals.

The good news for builders like Nordhavn is there is little real difference between the RCD standards and the ABYC standards. The biggest difference is actually all the documentation and inspections that are required for building a CE boat. At Nordhavn we use special software that basically creates a massive checklist of items that must be confirmed for RCD compliance. In each case we note how we satisfy the specific requirement, and once complete the software compiles a large technical file that is given to the inspector.

The inspector reviews the file, inspects the boat and makes note of any additional actions that are necessary for compliance. Once he’s satisfied that all the requirements of the RCD are met, he issues a certification that the boat is worthy of a CE mark."

Welcome to Nordhavn.com - Power Thats Oceans Apart

It is mostly about motor yachts but he gives you an idea of what is the RCD and what is aimed for. It is aimed for providing a minimum quality standard and Mike, that deals with it, even if American, don't seem to believe that RCD is aimed at protecting the EC market or that will do nothing to control quality.

Quite the contrary, he seems to look at it in a positive way and talks about Nordhavn to be worthy of a CE mark.

I'm sure it is and I doubt Nordhavn will learn much from CE standards on how to build a good boat as they learned that years ago. As for the rant, ya I guess I get this way from time to time. Maybe down the line CE might actually be tied somewhat to quality but thats not the case now.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've not heard of any cat going over purely from wave action. I would be curious if you've heard of any.

The confusing part of capsize for a lot of people is monos are far more likely to get knocked over and roll but obviously, if they do, they are far more likely to come back up. This leads to comments where we have people saying the "typical" roll...the problem is the typical roll on a cat is exceedingly rare and you get a great photo op of an upturned hull. We really don't know how many mono rolls come back up. We only hear about the ones that survive. Overall, I suspect it's about a wash for equivalent boats. I've yet to see anything statistical either way..

When there are waves there is wind so it makes no sense to talk about being capsized only by waves without wind action. But regarding cats capsized with bar poles or pitchpoled certainly you know of some. One of them was that Lagoon 38 that was discussed here recently.

But I agree that a cat, size by size is harder to capsize due to wave action than a mono but more easier to capsize over a strong gust (monos don't capsize with wind alone).

Regarding monohulls when rolled surviving rolls they are the vast majority. The ones that sink due to a roll are the small exception. That does not mean that the boat is not abandoned after that in some cases, but will provide shelter till the rescue.

Regarding comparative safety I don't think that it makes sense to talk about that, both crafts are relatively safe and I don't believe someone will buy one or another based on that criteria except in what regards some particular cases:

In what regards smaller crafts monohulls are safer and you have an expression of that in what concerns the boats that are approved as category A in what regards passing stability criteria.

A well designed monohull can pass with about 27ft, at 30/33ft almost all monos are approved while cats are only approved around 36Ft and the major brands only start to make cruising cats bigger than that and for obvious reasons while major brands of monohulls start their lines at around 30ft.

A 38ft monohull cost about 70% less than a 38ft cat so for the ones that don't have the money for a bigger cat and can have an offshore boat, monohulls are the obvious answer.

A 38ft feet cat is an offshore safe boat but providing it is an heavy condo cat because if we are talking about really performance cats the size of the cat, to have the same seaworthiness will have to increase and it is not by accident that Lagoon starts its series with a 38ft boat, Fountain Pajot with a 40ft but brands of performance cruisers like Outremer starts with a 45ft cat, Catana with a 42, Le Breton with a 45, Atlantic with a 42.

Regarding performance cats they imply a awareness and a care regarding sailing that are dispensable in a performance monohull and even more in an heavier cruising monohull.

Sure one can like and appreciate that, as it was stated by a owner of a fast performance cat, but most cruisers will dispense with that and will prefer a more relaxed kind of sailing and it seems cat sailors too, on a general basis given the vast preference for more stable heavier condo cats.

Anyway, boats are what they are and diversity is a good thing as it is a good thing to have sailors with different tastes that allow an incredible variety of sailing and cruising boats.

[Polux]

Posted on another thread that had nothing to do with this. I re-post it here, that seems the proper thread to talk about cruising cats versus cruising monohulls.

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

keel failure is similar to cat flip. And mortality rate similar i guess around 50%. Also chance numbers seem about in line with number of cat flippings.
....

I guess you are on a mission here. Regarding those 72 refereed nonohulls that lost of keel (in 32 years) I remember many because they took place in top racing boats during major offshore races that I follow since many years ago and I can tell you that the lost of lives is hugely far to the 50% you talk about. Lost of live was a small percentage regarding the involved crews on those accidents.

To be fair the same happens regarding cat capsizes. Yes I know of some lost lives but also of a majority of people saved after the capsizes. That difference in lost lives has nothing to do with one to be less dangerous than the other but with the fact that the ones occurred on racing monohulls that took place mostly in high profile races where the location of the boats was exactly known and the rescue normally available on short notice while some of the cat capsizes happened in cruising boats in passage with not a well known position.

Regarding numbers taking out of the scenery pure racing boats, where lost of keels and capsizes are much more frequent, cruising cat capsizes are perceptually much more frequent than monohulls losing the keel.

If you noticed from that list with 72 boats that lost the keel in 32 years only two are cruiser racers and none is a pure cruiser. Sure I can add a few more cruiser racers that I know of but the list will be shorter than the list of the performance cruising cats and cruising cats that I know that have capsized and I am not talking about the last 32 years but about the last 15 years or so and only about the ones I know.

Since there are at least 20 monohulls (or more) for each cat that can give you an idea of the difference regarding the proportion of cruising cats that have capsized and mono hulls that have lost the keel regarding the total number of each boats.

And let me say that I don't consider seriously the risk of a monohull to lose the keel (if proper maintenance and adequate inspections are carried out) as I don't consider seriously the risk of a cruising catamaran to capsize even if on that case a more prudent and conservative use of sail area is needed while cruising.
......

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

When there are waves there is wind so it makes no sense to talk about being capsized only by waves without wind action. But regarding cats capsized with bar poles or pitchpoled certainly you know of some. One of them was that Lagoon 38 that was discussed here recently.

But I agree that a cat, size by size is harder to capsize due to wave action than a mono but more easier to capsize over a strong gust (monos don't capsize with wind alone).

Regarding monohulls when rolled surviving rolls they are the vast majority. The ones that sink due to a roll are the small exception. That does not mean that the boat is not abandoned after that in some cases, but will provide shelter till the rescue.

Regarding comparative safety I don't think that it makes sense to talk about that, both crafts are relatively safe and I don't believe someone will buy one or another based on that criteria except in what regards some particular cases:

In what regards smaller crafts monohulls are safer and you have an expression of that in what concerns the boats that are approved as category A in what regards passing stability criteria.

A well designed monohull can pass with about 27ft, at 30/33ft almost all monos are approved while cats are only approved around 36Ft and the major brands only start to make cruising cats bigger than that and for obvious reasons while major brands of monohulls start their lines at around 30ft.

A 38ft monohull cost about 70% less than a 38ft cat so for the ones that don't have the money for a bigger cat and can have an offshore boat, monohulls are the obvious answer.

A 38ft feet cat is an offshore safe boat but providing it is an heavy condo cat because if we are talking about really performance cats the size of the cat, to have the same seaworthiness will have to increase and it is not by accident that Lagoon starts its series with a 38ft boat, Fountain Pajot with a 40ft but brands of performance cruisers like Outremer starts with a 45ft cat, Catana with a 42, Le Breton with a 45, Atlantic with a 42.

Regarding performance cats they imply a awareness and a care regarding sailing that are dispensable in a performance monohull and even more in an heavier cruising monohull.

Sure one can like and appreciate that, as it was stated by a owner of a fast performance cat, but most cruisers will dispense with that and will prefer a more relaxed kind of sailing and it seems cat sailors too, on a general basis given the vast preference for more stable heavier condo cats.

Anyway, boats are what they are and diversity is a good thing as it is a good thing to have sailors with different tastes that allow an incredible variety of sailing and cruising boats.

I think most of this is very sensible, and an interesting analysis.


I must, however, object to the comparison between a 38 foot mono and a 38 foot cat. No one chooses between a 38 foot mono, and the far greater volume 38 foot cat! It is silly to talk about "cats are expensive", fallaciously comparing them foot for foot. You don't compare houses based on the width of the facade, do you? You talk about area. These cat mono comparisons are like saying, wow, this 75' wide house is so much more expensive than that 75' wide house, how surprising! Well, not at all if you consider that one of them is twice as deep and therefore has twice the floor area.

So someone trying to choose between a cat and a mono will be comparing a 38 foot cat with probably a 47 foot or so mono, and they will find the cost is similar for a similar amount of hull volume and for similar build quality.

But this feeds back into Pollux's correct analysis of safety -- comparing like for like, that is $ for $, or hull volume for hull volume, and definitely NOT length for length, it is indeed easier to achieve a given level of safety in a mono.

And that's probably why serious long distance voyaging is done almost exclusively in monos, or in really large cats of say 50' or more.

But for ordinary cruising, in anything other than small boats (not Category A), I agree with Polux that there isn't any significant difference in safety between cats and monos. If there were, you would see it in insurance rates, but you don't.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am very curious. Till know it has been a pretty unbiased discussion. Those statements regarding percentages to survive a roll or regarding percentages of rolls to cat capsizes seem incredibly odd to me but you have statistics, so let's have a look at them before going further into it.

Please tell us about those statistics. Any link?

like you monos, i follow cat arena for many years so I know about most flips (not extreme racing) . When cat flips, there are often fatalities. Adding up numbers for cruising cats comes around 1/2 people survives, hence 50% survival rate. I would expect keel falling off mono, survival rate at best 50% as cat is designed for flip, mono not for keel loss.

Mono I do not know. However, assuming bad weather and people are in cockpit, and you get 4 m breker rolling the boat, I estimate there is 90% chance that boat will come back within a minute. Depending on build of course. Newer models wider, hence less chance of sub minute return.

Also I estimated 1 minute people can hold breath, although I realise that may be less due to shock etc.

Therefore you have 90 % chance to come out alive from a single roll.

4m breker that rolls mono is at least 10x more common than 7m breaker that flips cat over life of boat.

This is how I derived numbers.

If you have better metrics, happy to hear.

also there are more than 2 cruising monos losing keel since '84. 1 in other thread, and another one oyster mentioned in same thread. And I know for another one. So there are at least 3, but i bet many, many more. Also some of dissapeared monos can be contributed to keel failure as all is gone real quick.

Flipped cruising cats, less than 10 flips i know of, from 15 years observation.

ok, your turn