Visit our Popular Forums

Blue Stocking · 05-10-2011, 09:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by colemj

I believe Tom Perkins commissioned the design and build from the start (I think it was his "starter" boat to get into sailing with). And that rig is no after thought! The uniqueness and complexity show a lot of thought going into it, and the boat had to be designed specifically for it.

Mark

Abandoned powerboat hull.IIRC.

dennisail · 05-10-2011, 16:25

Anytime someone sticks sails on a power boat hull, it is an afterthought. No matter how complex the rig. I think it is a great boat though. However I question the relevance of mentioning that a gunboat is faster than a luxury 1300ton motor boat with sails.

dennisail · 05-10-2011, 18:18

Getting a little OT here, but some light reading here on the loss of the concordia.

Transportation Safety Board of Canada | Featured Investigation - Marine - 2010 - M10F0003

Vid here

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-medi...nimation-E.wmv

Not really applicable to most smaller externally ballasted yachts, but shows that size does not make up for a decent righting curve and complacency when leaving hatches open. This boat was sailed over, just like you can do in a multi, but at least the multi probably wont sink like it did. The AVS is similar to a cat at 90deg.

sailronin · 10-10-2011, 11:32

Maltese Falcon was not Perkins' first boat.
Tom Perkins owned a Perini Navi called Andromeda la Dia in which he circumnavigated...I know the captain who worked for him for six years or so. I don't believe that was his first boat either....

**Jim Cate** · 10-10-2011, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailronin

Maltese Falcon was not Perkins' first boat.
Tom Perkins owned a Perini Navi called Andromeda la Dia in which he circumnavigated...I know the captain who worked for him for six years or so. I don't believe that was his first boat either....

G'Day Dave,

So, here's a query: Did Tom himself "circumnavigate" or was it a case of his boat circumnavigating and he visiting it in interesting places?

Many of the super-yachts we see whilst cruising are in the latter category.

Cheers,

Jim

sailronin · 10-10-2011, 12:59

Hi Jim,
Tom actually did the passages, he left the boat in port to go back to work but loved being at sea. On another trip they chipped ice off a glacier in Antarctica and kept it in the freezer to cool drinks in the tropics.
Dave

**estarzinger** · 10-10-2011, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by owengg

What size catamaran is needed for a circumnavigation? I've read of the dangers of pitch polling in catamarans. From what I've read a circumnavigation shouldn't even be attempted in a boat under 40 ft.

Just to get back to the OP - I would certainly suggest that you could easily do a circumnavigation on 'three little birds', the very nice 36' tri in the Annapolis boat show.

Along those lines, and not discussed yet, is that small tris seem to have a bit better offshore capsize resistance than small cats.

kaimusailing · 17-11-2011, 09:58

Any boat can we overwhelmed if extreme conditions are bad enough, or if a skipper is bad enough. I have chosen a Wharram catamaran of 44' and it is very seaworthy. I did a lot of research and there are two interesting accounts, one of a 21' Wharram circumnavigation and the other a Gulf Stream crossing in a hurricane by a 23' Wharram.

steve ripples · 21-11-2011, 06:19

Addressing the original poster's question :

It's not easy to find reputable statistical comparisons of accidents and fatalities for monohull and catamaran ( or multihull ) sailing boats. Chris White's book The Cruising Multihull still appears to be the most readily available summary of this kind of information. His conclusion was 'During the five year period from 1983 to 1987, there were no reported cruising multihull fatalities in the U.S. or adjacent waters. Going back another five years, there were two reported fatalities in the 10-year period 1978-1987 inclusive. ...taking the number of boats into account, one fatality annually for every 16,250 multihull sailboats 25 feet in length. This fatality rate is somewhat lower than the rate for monohull auxiliary powered sailboats 25 feet or longer, which the US Coastgurd shows as being one death per 12,500 boats annually ( average value for the period 1978-1987).

US Coastguard statistics show vessels 40' and over have significantly lower death rates than shorter vessels.

Link to downloadable Coastguard data : Deprecated Browser Error

Note how high operator error is on list of accident causes and how few, relatively are the number of sailboat deaths.

A 40' cat will be a better choice than a shorter one for many reasons, assuming that the owner's budget is adequate to meet the higher maintenance costs and the vessel can be kept in good seaworthy condition. Much better living space at sea and whilst moored, particularly when waiting out the unexpected bad weather / parts delivery or repair delay / need to top up funds etc. And that bears on the psychological health necessary for the task, not to mention happiness / fun quotients.

Longer hull length, wider max beam, greater designed displacement than smaller craft = better seaworthiness, resistance to capsize, operating comfort and efficiency in greater range of sea-states. Around 40' is a good compromise between the seaworthiness factors and man-handling factors. Going too large can take you beyond your physical abilities. What happens when the electric anchor winch fails, the furling gear fails, you have to go up the mast, you go aground etc?

Cat vs mono? The cat wins on grounds of capsize survivability; collision survivability due to preservation of buoyancy by compartmentalization of structure; maintenance of operator efficiency due to low angles of heel (captain's cock-ups list very high on accident causes); lower risk of injury and man overboard due to lower angles of heel and much less violent motion. The cat is far less likely to injure you than the mono and relatively small injuries - broken finger / toe / wrist/ banged head can be the beginning of serious trouble, never mind being downright unpleasant.

Regarding severe weather, a well designed cat is going to be a much better place to be than a well-designed mono. Deploy a parachute sea anchor and sit it out.

steve ripples · 21-11-2011, 06:34

Oh, PS on cat v mono - the cat will be quicker than the mono, it'll get you to more places in less time than the mono. Sailing quicker can also mean getting into port in daylight instead of arriving at night and maybe deciding it's best / safest to sit off and wait out the night. Know which I prefer.

sck5 · 21-11-2011, 06:43

on a somewhat different topic (though related) it seems to me that ALL boats doing long ocean passages are tending to be bigger and bigger as time goes on. I was the smallest boat in the Caribbean 1500 last year (33 ft.) so I looked at the composition of the fleets for the past 20 years and there is an unmistakeable upward trend in size. Plenty of smaller boats still do the ARC.

It seemed to me that my boat (a Caliber 33) was just fine on a long passage because it was built to do it. Some of the other boats were not so strongly built and seemed to me a little iffy on such a trip. But overall, people seem to think nowadays that anything in the vicinity of 33 ft. is too small when the fact is that the limiting factors on such a boat related more to how much water we could carry and how many crew to spell each other on watch than on seaworthiness of the boat.

Ian McD · 21-11-2011, 14:09

I read what is said and accept the stats given but still i can't get comfortable with the conclusion that a cat is safer than a monohull. Stats can be very misleading and we must be very careful in the conclusions we draw from them. In this case I would like to see a comparison between properly designed and built monhulls and similar multis sailed offshore in extreme conditions. I am an engineer, for what thats worth, and have beeninvolved in the design and construction of large commercial fishing boats and some yachts over many years. The physics just do not support the conclusions made by Steve. Having said that, I must also say that the current crop of production monos do not seem to pander too much to the ultimate storm either. The
negatives, apart from structural strength, is excessive beam, low ballast ratio and all those niceties which make for a well designed blue water boat and which are obvious to all of us whether we admit it or not. Small cockpit, minimum freeboard and so on.You know one when you see it. These are the factors which make the difference between monohulls and multihulls. These monos do not turn over easily and do not stay that way and do not sink when they do so. They are the result of generations of design and development by totally independent peoples all over the world and the commonality of design is amazing. Horses for courses. I certainly would not knock back a forty foot cat if offerred one but I would prefer a forty foot Oyster to round the horn. I would RESPECTFULLY say that to think otherwise is to be kidding yourself.

smj · 21-11-2011, 14:19

I think the ultimate in seaworthiness is the ability to be able to stay afloat when flipped or holed. Something the majority of cats can do and very very few monos can.

44'cruisingcat · 21-11-2011, 14:20

The owners of Fallado were planning a circumnavigation via Cape horn. And after considering many monohull options decided to have a catamaran built. Yes, to sail round Cape Horn.

Then they went ahead and did it. I guess they were kidding themselves?

Fallado's Circumnavigation