Is World Cruising Safe on a Cat?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by svquest2

Well you have heard from some catamaran people and they justly believe in their boats. The problem is I believe in monohulls and wouldn't consider extensive ocean passages in a cat without being in an armada of boats to rescue me. The truth is that in a bad enough storm any boat; cat, tri, or mono-hull can capsize. Perhaps the mono-hull will do it the easiest, but the normal mono-hull will right itself. The tri may be right-able after the storm, but the cat is just as stable upside down as it is right side up.

No one ever wants to sail in storms that can capsize or pitch-pole you (something multi hulls do easier than mono's), and everyone watches weather to minimize the possibilities. Since cats and tri's are faster they do have a better chance of beating weather than the mono-hull. Nevertheless should you get caught in such a bad storm, your chance of survival is much higher in a mono-hull. I believe that's the bottom line and of course thats only my opinion.

Good luck

Joe S

The evidence doesn't bear this out. [PUP] Multihulls in the deep blue

The fact that a mono is easier to roll means that a storm that could roll a mono several times, might not roll a cat at all. The mono might self right, but without it's rig, which will make subsequent roll overs even more likely. Being on a boat that is frequently rolling 360 degrees may not be survivable, even if it doesn't sink. But with the more frequent roll overs the risk of sinking rises too.

[Zanshin]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

...The mono might self right, but without it's rig, which will make subsequent roll overs even more likely...

Without the rig the whole roll equation changes and another roll is unlikely. But due to the missing inertia of the mast and rig the boat's movement will become very uncomfortable. This assumes normal and not breaking waves, where the formula of a breaking wave height of 55% of the LWL hitting at 90 degree will roll the boat again.

[tongaboys]

ONCE UPON A TIME IN A LAND FAR FAR AWAY...

Well you have heard from some mono-hull people and they justly believe in their boats. The problem is I believe in multi-hulls and wouldn't consider extensive ocean passages in a mono without being in an armada of boats to rescue me. The truth is that in a bad enough storm any boat; cat, tri, or mono-hull can capsize, especially mono-hulls. The mono will do it the easiest, but... although the normal mono-hull may right itself, it's more likely to sink . The tri may be right-able after the storm, but the cat is just as stable upside down as it is right side up, either-ways you haven't sunk to the bottom.

No one ever wants to sail in storms that can capsize or pitch-pole you (something mono-hulls do all the time), and everyone watches weather to minimize the possibilities. Since cats and tri's are faster they do have a better chance of beating weather than the mono-hull. Nevertheless should you get caught in such a bad storm, your chance of survival is much higher in a multi-hulls. I believe that's the bottom line and of course thats only my opinion ....tongaboys
with apologies to svquest

[Lucky]

I believe that both types of yachts are capable of a circumnavigation, as long as the skill level of the crew matches the yacht!

However, I have read the story referred to in the previous post that the cats survived in appearantly good condition, in spite of the lack of crew skill. I have a similar story from the North sea, when the two persons onboard an FP Athena 38 was cought by a storm enroute from Southamton to Stavanger in Norway.

They didnot have any experience with such weather and also very limited sailing experience at all.

On speaking to the skipper/owner he claimed they where pertified with fear and inspite doing a lot of wrong manouvers the boat handled it all well and they arrived without any serious injury, the worst being a permanent scar on the face from the wind flapping of the survival suit zipper.

The boat did not suffer any damages.

This goes to show that most yachts, of a reputable build quality mostly handles rough condition better than the avarage crew.

However, safety aside comfort come into play and the number of benefits with the cats cannot be overstated! I have owner several monos and now my second cat, an FP Belize 43, and can only say the there are two different lifestyles involved,- one living in a rolly darm basement and the other in a resort!

This sounds like absolute rubbish to a lot of people, but its the truth believe my wife! We have tried both worlds.

Another major issue with a long term cruising yacht is comfort onboard downwind and at anchor. Dead downwind a mono is unstable and rolls without control from side to side. In, I belive the last ARC the Yachting Montly Tech editor was participating and I remembered from his report that the crew was exhausted from the sailing across, not from heavy winds but from the relentlass rolling.

The same thing can be said about the conditions when at anchor. The cat leaves a stable platform that rises with any swell and don't roll. Ask any mono people that has been anchoring in swelly lagoons. And during a long cruise the avarage time at anchor is about 90 % of the total time spent on the entire cruise.

As a conclusion I would state that a competent crew can go anywhere in a competent yacht, which nearly all modern yachts are. However I would never do it in anything than a cat for the above mentioned arguments.

Happy lead free sailin!

[donradcliffe]

My only suggestion is to go out and try sailing a cat in the open ocean ocean in 3 meter waves at all points of sail before you buy one. The motion is different, and you may find it more or less uncomfortable. Both cats and monos can get into trouble under survival conditions, but with a little planning and weather knowledge, you can avoid those conditions unless you try to sail around the Horn.

[Cheechako]

Boy, here's an open question for the forum! Gentlemen, fix bayonets... Mono people to the right please, Cat people to the left... prepare to charge! The answer of course is, neither is safe, and your safety can only be optimized by how well you do as a seaman, mechanic, planner and risk taker.

[Therapy]

44, Lucky and others of the cat persuasion.

Stop it.

Dock space is hard to come by and our anchorages will fill.

Stop it.

Tell a friend, yes. Don't tell the whole world.

Thanks.

[Strygaldwir]

No, world cruising on a catamaran is not safe. Nor is world cruising on a monohull safe. They both have a degree of risk that is higher than staying at home and not driving, or getting into a car, or associating with people that may have communicable diseases.

The diffence in probablity of a catastrophic event in a catamaran vs a monohull is probably due to differences in the platform is not measurable in comparison to the probability that crew skill or preparedness will causes a catastophic event.

[sandy daugherty]

Strygaldwir is precisely correct. see:
SSCA Discussion Board • View topic - Trimaran capsizes off New Zealand! Multi-hull or Mono-hull?

To paraphrase my long-winded explanation: Cats are no more dangerous than mono hulls. In fact, there are more fatalities and serious injuries aboard mono hulls, but not quite enough to be statistically significant.

These are conclusions based on empirical data; sober accident statistics from organizations that have to report accurately.

Opinions reported in this frequently repeated dog fight are based on anecdotal evidence, single accounts, and news stories. Lets remember that headlines need pictures, and boats that sink don't photograph well, so there's a built in bias against the "floaters".

Yacht club bar talk, whether in the bar or in a book (the basis of some of the most firmly held opinions) is not empirical, and accurately reflects only the loyalties of the members, so you get different "facts" at different bars!

Anecdotal evidence is just gossip: it always improves with each telling, and the juiciest morsels become urban legend, so far from the initial kernel of fact that it is rarely recognizable, and rapidly turns into multiple events as a result of the variety of embellishments.

I'm now a multi hull enthusiast. I didn't start out that way. I'm at a loss to understand the hostility toward multi hulls that occasionally crops up here. I wonder if some of it stems from multi hulls being successful in spite of flaunting traditional gospel. Perhaps there is some jealousy arising from most multi hulls being out of the economic reach of some of the more strident critics. Another possibility is the great relish multi hullers exhibit when they have the opportunity to sail faster than a nearby larger mono hull. Maybe its just because we gloat, and that rankles!

[Christian Van H]

Kevin, I sail a mono right now, but have chartered Cats and loved them. Please contact Maxingout on this board: http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...gout-4626.html
He's done it, and has a film you can buy to check it out for yourself. He's one of the brightest, most inspirational people on this forum, and really knows his stuff. Seriously, contact him. Chris

[colemj]

Originally Posted by sandy daugherty

Perhaps there is some jealousy arising from most multi hulls being out of the economic reach of some of the more strident critics.

Hi Sandy,

I've always had trouble with this one. It seems like one of those points that is repeated enough to become "truth" without data or further reflection.

When I look at new boat prices for catamarans and monohulls of comparable build, they seem to be equivalent for a given length. The term "comparable build" is debatable, but as a less controversial example at the coastal cruiser level, a new Gemini and Hunter 33 cost the same. This holds true as you move up, but the debate over "equivalence" also increases. But compare (for example) new Halberg-Rassy prices to new higher-end catamaran prices and the pricing argument still doesn't make sense. The equation becomes very unbalanced when considering the relative space of a multi over a mono at any given length - is a 40' catamaran really equivalent in size to a 40' mono?.

What is true is that for a fixed amount of money, one can find more and better monohulls on the used market. This is particularly true for boats less than $250,000 USD, and incontrovertible for boats <$100,000 USD. The reasons may be many, and I can only speculate that this is because multi's are newer boats, or there are fewer of them, or they hold their values better, or multihull purchasers are bigger suckers, or monohull purchasers are better negotiators, or... I don't know.

But for new boats, being out of economic reach just doesn't seem to add up to me and even on the used market (comparable boats - desirability, availability, quality, age, fit out, etc) this doesn't seem to hold true.

BTW, desirability and availability are valid qualifications and not weaseling on my part to make my argument because many people wait years and years for specific monohulls to show up on the market and they command prices reflecting this.

Mark

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Zanshin

Without the rig the whole roll equation changes and another roll is unlikely. .

Thats not what CJ Marchaj says in his works. A mono without a rig will, according to his work be significantly more likely to capsize.

[captain58sailin]

If you are confident in your choice of vessels, why is there the predisposition to point out the faults of the "other guys" none of the arguments presented have been backed up with any statistical data. More people get killed on a golf course by lightening than yachting accidents. Usually what goes wrong with any vessel; is operator error and bad maintenance. So why not focus on the positive attributes of each discipline rather than taking pot shots at each other? If I were in a situation where I needed help, I wouldn't care if it came by two, hulls or three, or one, or by a passing dolphin. So get over it and be happy with your personal choice.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Lucky

I believe that both types of yachts are capable of a circumnavigation, as long as the skill level of the crew matches the yacht!

However, I have read the story referred to in the previous post that the cats survived in appearantly good condition, in spite of the lack of crew skill. I have a similar story from the North sea, when the two persons onboard an FP Athena 38 was cought by a storm enroute from Southamton to Stavanger in Norway.

They didnot have any experience with such weather and also very limited sailing experience at all.

On speaking to the skipper/owner he claimed they where pertified with fear and inspite doing a lot of wrong manouvers the boat handled it all well and they arrived without any serious injury, the worst being a permanent scar on the face from the wind flapping of the survival suit zipper.

The boat did not suffer any damages.

It's worth noting that this situation isn't unique to multihulls ... it's a common occurance with monos too. Typically the boat can handle more than the crew.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by sandy daugherty

Strygaldwir is precisely correct. see:
SSCA Discussion Board &bull; View topic - Trimaran capsizes off New Zealand! Multi-hull or Mono-hull?

To paraphrase my long-winded explanation: Cats are no more dangerous than mono hulls. In fact, there are more fatalities and serious injuries aboard mono hulls, but not quite enough to be statistically significant.

Although the gap is rapidly closing with more and more multis out there, I think it's important to consider that there are still a lot more mono datapoints out there. A hell of a lot of monos sank, pitchpoled, dismasted or otherwise met their fate before the first cruising catamaran ever made its appearance.