Is there a catamaran of cruising size that can self right unaided?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Juho

At leat to me that is one of the key questions when considering what kind of a boat to use for ocean crossings. I'm sure also many others ask the same question from themselves.



Yes, it is quite possible that the business of many of those companies works fine, and they do not welcome this kind additional tasks at this moment.



Yes. But I note that lack of progress might also be a result of not having any great ideas that could make the leading companies more competitive. And I note that some of the companies that have been mentioned in this stream do search new innovative solutions.



Yes, but as you say, improvements in multihulls could lead to taking part of the monohull market, and that could mean big money.



My favourite approach would be to first start by making different properties more visible to the users. For example coastal water racing boats need not be as stable as blue ocean cruising boats. Both have their users, so neither category can be banned, but it would make sense to have as clear classifications as possible (possibly mandatory), so that potential buyers will know what they will get and what they will not get. Also insurance companies have some interest in forcing their customers to have reasonably safe boats.

I think you are on point with your replies although I would argue that manufacturers are not overly worried to cash in on convert the mono customer at this point because there are are still yet a lot of potential wanabe cat owners to be plucked from low branches on a tree. This is why I think any anti capsize tech that we may or not see will be driven by the standards bodies.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Naval architect's are not commonly movers of safety tech as were car designers not interested in seat belts, tempered glass and other such things that getting the way of their sweeping lines and beautiful curves.. Safety tech is usually developed via engineering budgets in most cases as an after thought driven by safety lobbyists. Although in a modern world it is part of holistic design.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

I think you are on point with your replies although I would argue that manufacturers are not overly worried to cash in on convert the mono customer at this point because there are are still yet a lot of potential wanabe cat owners to be plucked from low branches on a tree. This is why I think any anti capsize tech that we may or not see will be driven by the standards bodies.

I don't know very well what the boat markets are like today, but also to me it seems that catamaran market is very hot at the moment, and it is very plausible that they therefore focus on just selling and selling.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Juho

Also gusts can flip a boat.

Wind alone will not capsize a cruising catamaran built by the major manufacturers. The rigging will break first. The vessel is simply too heavy.

Originally Posted by Juho

I mentioned also the possibility that the sea would right the boat. Crew might assist. And there may also be techniques that the crew can handle alone (no special technique in my mind at this point).

If a catamaran is abeam of both 50+kt winds and 30+foot waves and capsizes, the rig is now pointing downwind. How much power would be needed to raise the rig back thru the same wind force that assisted in the knockdown? Of course, the wave action doesn't subside to flat just because the crew is in the water.

Originally Posted by Juho

Just wondering if five seconds fit in this "any length of time" category.

It doesn't matter, the rig won't support it.

Originally Posted by Juho

I'm not familiar with the design of all the catamarans. To my understanding it is typical that either hull is sufficient to carry the weight of the whole boat. If the hull is watertight enough, the hull might remain completely dry. I believe it is possible to make the hulls watertight enough to tolerate a 90 degrees turn to either side and back.

And this is the very crux of the problem with this discussion! You don't understand the forces in play. I guarantee you that once you've experience 50+kt winds and/or 30+ foot seas, you would remove wanting to do such ever again from your bucket list. In those conditions, you can't even stand up on deck, let alone right a capsized boat from floating in your PFD. Ain't gonna happen!

You can believe all things are possible when you don't understand the issues!

Originally Posted by Juho

If the boat design aims at tolerating a 90 degree angle, then water and fuel tanks should be built accordingly. I would not start the engine right away after the incident, but I'm sure the engine is not dead yet, especially if it was not running during the incident. If it can not tolerate 90 degrees while running, the boat manufacturer could design a switch that turns it off. There are techniques also for the batteries.

A better design is to prevent any angle greater than 15 degree from ever happening!

Again, just because you can imagine, doesn't mean it can happen!

Originally Posted by Juho

In some conditions the waves may break the boat, but in some other conditions that will not happen. It may also be that there are no big waves. If the boat turns back quickly, the probability of being hit by large waves in an unfavourable position decreases. A boat that is designed to survive 90 degree angles would be built stronger than a boat that is not planned not survive 90 degree angles.

Your imagination about conditions couldn't be farther from real life.

Buy a catamaran, go sail it, you'll experience conditions that you never want to be in again. Examine that experience and you'll find it's only a small portion of what's needed to capsize a cruising catamaran.

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Naval architect's are not commonly movers of safety tech as were car designers not interested in seat belts, tempered glass and other such things that getting the way of their sweeping lines and beautiful curves.. Safety tech is usually developed via engineering budgets in most cases as an after thought driven by safety lobbyists. Although in a modern world it is part of holistic design.

So in your world the regulatory bodies said: cars need a seatbelt and only then engineers invented them?
They said we need ABS and ESP so that the engineers knew what to invent???

I always thought it was the other way around. Clever engineers found solutions to real !! problems, implemented by those companies trying to build the best vehicles. Only after significant market penetration these things were made mandatory, sometimes decades after the solution had been invented.

I think you are on point with your replies although I would argue that manufacturers are not overly worried to cash in on convert the mono customer at this point because there are are still yet a lot of potential wanabe cat owners to be plucked from low branches on a tree. This is why I think any anti capsize tech that we may or not see will be driven by the standards bodies.

of course in your world your bureaucrat buddy can set the non-capsize device as a mandatory equipment for ISO certification and then the engineers will invent one.

Strange world that you live in...

[wellin]

Wow 35 pages and the answer is still NO.

Sent from my SCH-I415 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by rabbi

So in your world the regulatory bodies said: cars need a seatbelt and only then engineers invented them?
They said we need ABS and ESP so that the engineers knew what to invent???

I always thought it was the other way around. Clever engineers found solutions to real !! problems, implemented by those companies trying to build the best vehicles. Only after significant market penetration these things were made mandatory, sometimes decades after the solution had been invented.



of course in your world your bureaucrat buddy can set the non-capsize device as a mandatory equipment for ISO certification and then the engineers will invent one.

Strange world that you live in...

So... let me get this straight then. Car manufacturers, designed and bought another kind of cat to the market because they thought it was a great idea?

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by wellin

Wow 35 pages and the answer is still NO.

Sent from my SCH-I415 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Well if you include tense into the case argument then the answer is maybe yes.

That which was before was a boat - that which will be tomorrow is a boat.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Wind alone will not capsize a cruising catamaran built by the major manufacturers. The rigging will break first. The vessel is simply too heavy.

I know that is one of the available technologies. I don't know how many catamarans have capsized because of gusts, and how many have lost their intentionally weakened rig in a gust or storm.

A weak rig can indeed save the boat from more serious damage. Of course it is not nice to be left floating in the middle of an ocean, but that is better than flipping over (if without ability to right the boat). A repairable rig could be one additional option in our list.

If a catamaran is abeam of both 50+kt winds and 30+foot waves and capsizes, the rig is now pointing downwind. How much power would be needed to raise the rig back thru the same wind force that assisted in the knockdown? Of course, the wave action doesn't subside to flat just because the crew is in the water.

My mail discussed possible recovery in the 90 degrees case, not in the 180 degrees case.

It doesn't matter, the rig won't support it.

Ok, I guess you are saying that 90 degrees + recovery is not possible. I don't consider the case to be closed yet.

And this is the very crux of the problem with this discussion! You don't understand the forces in play. I guarantee you that once you've experience 50+kt winds and/or 30+ foot seas, you would remove wanting to do such ever again from your bucket list. In those conditions, you can't even stand up on deck, let alone right a capsized boat from floating in your PFD. Ain't gonna happen!

My intention was to say that I'm not a boat manufacturer or a corresponding catamaran expert. That does not necessarily mean that I would be ignorant in all aspects of life.

In this mail chain I'm interested in finding out if safety can be improved. I guess most people in storm would agree that this is a good goal. I would not propose to stop research in this area.

You can believe all things are possible when you don't understand the issues!

?

A better design is to prevent any angle greater than 15 degree from ever happening!

That would be nice, but I don't know how to achieve that target.

Again, just because you can imagine, doesn't mean it can happen!

I don't believe that imagining would make things happen. I do believe that research in general may lead to things happening.

Your imagination about conditions couldn't be farther from real life.

If you mean the portions that you marked in bold, I thought they were quite trivial truths.

Buy a catamaran, go sail it, you'll experience conditions that you never want to be in again. Examine that experience and you'll find it's only a small portion of what's needed to capsize a cruising catamaran.

?

[Juho]

Originally Posted by DotDun

If a catamaran is abeam of both 50+kt winds and 30+foot waves and capsizes, the rig is now pointing downwind. How much power would be needed to raise the rig back thru the same wind force that assisted in the knockdown? Of course, the wave action doesn't subside to flat just because the crew is in the water.

Sorry, my previous answer was a bit hasty. I reread this and it seems you were not talking about 180 degrees but about 90 degrees.

There is no need to let the rig stay pointing downwind. In case os a gust, the gust would be already gone.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Juho

Sorry, my previous answer was a bit hasty. I reread this and it seems you were not talking about 180 degrees but about 90 degrees.

There is no need to let the rig stay pointing downwind. In case os a gust, the gust would be already gone.

So now the use case has changed to a Mill Pond (no waves), bright sunshine, 12kts of wind, full sails, and then a freak 60kt gust tips over a cruising catamaran. A few minutes later back to Mill Pond, sunshine, and 12kts wind with my adult beverage and me in the water. Do I understand that correctly?

We can't have a meaningful conversation with the use case continually changing.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

Naval architect's are not commonly movers of safety tech as were car designers not interested in seat belts, tempered glass and other such things that getting the way of their sweeping lines and beautiful curves.. Safety tech is usually developed via engineering budgets in most cases as an after thought driven by safety lobbyists. Although in a modern world it is part of holistic design.

What a crock of crap!

Stop talking in circles!

Naval Architects don't care about safety? really? But they are part of the holistic design?

Complete mumble jumble....!

Naval architecture also known as Naval engineering is an engineering discipline dealing with the Engineering design process, shipbuilding, maintenance and operation of marine vessels and structures. Naval architecture involves basic and applied research, design, development, design evaluation and calculations during all stages of the life of a marine vehicle. Preliminary design of the vessel, its detailed design, construction, trials, operation and maintenance, launching and dry-docking are the main activities involved. Ship design calculations are also required for ships being modified (by means of conversion, rebuilding, modernization, or repair). Naval architecture also involves formulation of safety regulations and damage control rules and the approval and certification of ship designs to meet statutory and non-statutory requirements.

[Juho]

Originally Posted by DotDun

So now the use case has changed to a Mill Pond (no waves), bright sunshine, 12kts of wind, full sails, and then a freak 60kt gust tips over a cruising catamaran. A few minutes later back to Mill Pond, sunshine, and 12kts wind with my adult beverage and me in the water. Do I understand that correctly?

No. All use cases are valid use cases. One approach would be to study all available accident reports. That should give us a reasonably balanced and wide basis for research.

We can't have a meaningful conversation with the use case continually changing.

No changes intended. All use cases that are relevant to the original question are valid.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by rabbi

So in your world the regulatory bodies said: cars need a seatbelt and only then engineers invented them?
They said we need ABS and ESP so that the engineers knew what to invent???

I always thought it was the other way around. Clever engineers found solutions to real !! problems, implemented by those companies trying to build the best vehicles. Only after significant market penetration these things were made mandatory, sometimes decades after the solution had been invented.



of course in your world your bureaucrat buddy can set the non-capsize device as a mandatory equipment for ISO certification and then the engineers will invent one.

Strange world that you live in...

Maybe he will enlist Ralf Nader. Cats are unsafe at any speed.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by paulanthony

If I said to you as a customer to my boat showroom, would you care to buy the option of the new 90 degree capsize guard that #1 resulted in little or no compromise to performance, #2 was fully automatic or at least semi, #3 had a < 5% ticket price of the whole cost of the boat and then explained that it would stop you going beyond 90 I think in all honesty you would buy it.

To be honest I don't think I would. Certainly something like this can be built. Anything can be built. I can envision an airbag-like device, stored at the top of the mast that would be activated by a mercury switch. If this worked it could be a good thing. Assuming the rig holds, the boat would be held at roughly 100 degrees to the water. Maybe it would stay there and the unsubmerged hull could be livable and the boat could be righted in calmer weather. Maybe the wind would pivot the boat around the float at the masthead and the boat would self-right due to wind and wave action without structural damage. All good things assuming it works as planned, but nothing comes for free.

Ignoring the cost, the bag itself would have to be made of material heavy enough to withstand wave action and the forces required of it to hold the boat in place. It would have to be large enough to provide flotation exceeding the the force of the wind and waves, as well as the weight of the unsubmerged hull. There would have to be a container for the inflating gas and for the bag itself. This would result in a very heavy and bulky mass (picture a life-raft cannister) at the top of the mast which would, in turn, create a significant amount of windage and increase in pitching, both of which would adversely affect performance, the increased windage at the top of the mast would actually increase the risk of wind-induced capsize.

Sailors and designers have been coming up with self-righting schemes since the early days of multihulls, but you don't see them on modern boats. The reason for this, as has been pointed out ad-nauseum on this thread, is that capsize is an extremely rare event and the trade-offs involved in self-righting schemes are not worth the perceived benefits. For the same reasons you don't see mechanisms in place to prevent a monohull from sinking. The events are just too rare to justify the necessary compromises.