Is World Cruising Safe on a Cat?

[sneuman]

at the risk of raising ire here

I have been struck in the past few years at how many catamarans are seen motoring in ideal sailing conditions in the admittedly confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake. I see this on all points of sail, but especially on a beat (which is to be expected). When most of the monos are out there sailing, many of the cats are motoring.

It's just a personal observation, most assuredly subject to my biases. Has anyone else noticed this?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by sandy daugherty

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

Interesting. One possible confounding variable: since there are many more racing monohulls than multihulls, more racers, or borderline racer/cruisers, were likely to have "polluted" the data than the other way around. The note about more personal injuries on monos is interesting, however.

[tongaboys]

Originally Posted by sneuman

at the risk of raising ire here

I have been struck in the past few years at how many catamarans are seen motoring in ideal sailing conditions in the admittedly confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake. I see this on all points of sail, but especially on a beat (which is to be expected). When most of the monos are out there sailing, many of the cats are motoring.

It's just a personal observation, most assuredly subject to my biases. Has anyone else noticed this?

Although it's your story we have to believe here...Maybe it's just something you 'yanks' do in confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake???, doesn't mean the rest of the multihull world has been infected. ...tongaboys

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by tongaboys

Although it's your story we have to believe here...Maybe it's just something you 'yanks' do in confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake???, doesn't mean the rest of the multihull world has been infected. ...tongaboys

Could be my imagination, or "confirmation bias" as they say. That's why I'm asking for other opinions!

[Southern Star]

Sneuman, surely the issue is not whether there are more racing monos than multis (there are), but whether the proportion is higher. I see no reason to believe that to be the case.

The fact remains that an analysis of NTSB stats over the years ( a reliable source and a good data base, one would think) shows the following:

1. the rate of loss for mulits and monos was roughtly equivalent until recent years, when multis improved statistically to a lower rate of loss. I suspect that such is the result of improvements in the design of cruising multis, the reduction in the proportion of cheap, marine-ply homebuilt cats and tris and the reduction in seaworthiness for most of the newer monohull designs (greater beam, flat underbody sections etc.). Regardless of the cause, the stats simply do not support the refrain of some monohullers that multis are not safe.

2. The rate of injuires aboard monohulls is greater than multihulls. The reason for that should be pretty obvious: it is much safer to move around on board, to cook, even to enter the companionway of mulithull than a monohull because it is not heeling to any significant degree.

Those statistics and the experiences in the Queen's Birthday Storm etc. can be written off by those who choose to do so, but surely the simple answer to the initial question is this: yes, modern, properly designed, equipped and constructed catamarans are safe for offshore cruising.

Brad

[tongaboys]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Could be my imagination, or "confirmation bias" as they say. That's why I'm asking for other opinions!

What from other sailer's in the confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake???

Lots of photographs, news reports, print, television, links to, might help your case. Till then it may not have happen, because you don't want to run... Quote: 'at the risk of raising ire here' unquote...your words

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Sneuman, surely the issue is not whether there are more racing monos than multis (there are), but whether the proportion is higher. I see no reason to believe that to be the case.

The fact remains that an analysis of NTSB stats over the years ( a reliable source and a good data base, one would think) shows the following:

1. the rate of loss for mulits and monos was roughtly equivalent until recent years, when multis improved statistically to a lower rate of loss. I suspect that such is the result of improvements in the design of cruising multis, the reduction in the proportion of cheap, marine-ply homebuilt cats and tris and the reduction in seaworthiness for most of the newer monohull designs (greater beam, flat underbody sections etc.). Regardless of the cause, the stats simply do not support the refrain of some monohullers that multis are not safe.

2. The rate of injuires aboard monohulls is greater than multihulls. The reason for that should be pretty obvious: it is much safer to move around on board, to cook, even to enter the companionway of mulithull than a monohull because it is not heeling to any significant degree.

Those statistics and the experiences in the Queen's Birthday Storm etc. can be written off by those who choose to do so, but surely the simple answer to the initial question is this: yes, modern, properly designed, equipped and constructed catamarans are safe for offshore cruising.

Brad

my point is that there are surely more monohull racers that are getting mixed into the data, precisely because their numbers are far greater and because the line between racer and cruiser is blurred.

Actually the Queen's Birthday storm, often cited here, is a perfect example of this principle at work. Does anyone dispute that in 1994 there were indisputably more monos than multis out there? So when the report says: 'It's unclear exactly how many boats were caught in the core of the June '94 storm, but nine boats with a total of 24 crew issued maydays.' we can be reasonably sure that a higher percentage of multis caught in the storm issued a mayday. In any case, we are dealing only with the vessels that issued a mayday. In fact, there were many monohulls (and probably at least a few multis) that survived the storm but did not issue a mayday.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by tongaboys

What from other sailer's in the confined waters of the Magothy R. and the Chesapeake???

Lots of photographs, news reports, print, television, links to, might help your case. Till then it may not have happen, because you don't want to run... Quote: 'at the risk of raising ire here' unquote...your words

I'm gonna start snapping pix!

[Southern Star]

Sneuman, I agree (and indeed, agreed in my initial post) that there are more monohulls than mulithulls. However, if the relative proportion of monos that are racing boats is the same as the proportion for mulithulls, then the results would not be skewed. The numbers speak to the 'rate' and not the absolute number of losses, and again, the 'rate' of injuries.

Which is safer, a multihull or a mono? Ultimately, it stikes me that it matters not which side of this endless debate one takes, the very fact that there is legitimate debate and no clear-cut winner means that the only fair answer to the initial question in this post is: yes, modern, properly designed, equipped and constructed catamarans are safe for offshore cruising. Some say they are safer than monohulls, some say the reverse, but there is nothing in either the statistics or reports of losses at sea to definitively prove the case for either proposition.

Brad

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Sneuman, I agree (and indeed, agreed in my initial post) that there are more monohulls than mulithulls. However, if the relative proportion of monos that are racing boats is the same as the proportion for mulithulls, then the results would not be skewed. The numbers speak to the 'rate' and not the absolute number of losses, and again, the 'rate' of injuries.

Which is safer, a multihull or a mono? Ultimately, it stikes me that it matters not which side of this endless debate one takes, the very fact that there is legitimate debate and no clear-cut winner means that the only fair answer to the initial question in this post is: yes, modern, properly designed, equipped and constructed catamarans are safe for offshore cruising. Some say they are safer than monohulls, some say the reverse, but there is nothing in either the statistics or reports of losses at sea to definitively prove the case for either proposition.

Brad

agreed.

[Tropic Cat]

Originally Posted by svquest2

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.

I have a couple of issues with this post. (big surprise)

First, the original poster put this in the multihull area for a reason. Which was to see what multihull guys think.

2nd, and I feel more importantly is that Joe, with all due respect, has absolutely no idea of the capability of Catamarans in storm conditions nor how they compare to monos in the same conditions. Yet, here he is giving 'expert' testimony.

If you followed the link provided by 44'cruisingcat, you would discover that a modern data point occurred sometime ago in the Queen's Birthday Storm. Cats and monos caught in the same conditions where the cats faired much better than monos.

It's time the bar talk is replaced by reality.

[Tropic Cat]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Actually the Queen's Birthday storm, often cited here, is a perfect example of this principle at work. Does anyone dispute that in 1994 there were indisputably more monos than multis out there? So when the report says: 'It's unclear exactly how many boats were caught in the core of the June '94 storm, but nine boats with a total of 24 crew issued maydays.' we can be reasonably sure that a higher percentage of multis caught in the storm issued a mayday..

This storm was a monster. 100 mph winds and 30 meter seas. Every monohull caught in the storm center was rolled and dismasted. Yet, neither cat turned turtle. Lives were lost on monohulls, and none on a catamaran. Monohulls were lost. No Catamaran was lost during the storm. Heartlight ( A 40' Catalac)was sunk by a fishing vessel after the storm had passed, yet it wasn't in danger of sinking. ( another story entirely).

With all due respect. To mention this storm and both boat types so casually is disingenuous. It is the one data point we have with both monos and catamarans in the same conditions and which had terrific documentation as books were written.

This thread has evolved into a question of safety in storm conditions. I would suggest that if the Queen's Birthday Storm is referenced that regardless of 'maydays' sent, the monohull safety record simply can not compare to that of a catamaran.

And that is the point..isn't it?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Tropic Cat

I have a couple of issues with this post. (big surprise)

First, the original poster put this in the multihull area for a reason. Which was to see what multihull guys think.

2nd, and I feel more importantly is that Joe, with all due respect, has absolutely no idea of the capability of Catamarans in storm conditions nor how they compare to monos in the same conditions. Yet, here he is giving 'expert' testimony.

If you followed the link provided by 44'cruisingcat, you would discover that a modern data point occurred sometime ago in the Queen's Birthday Storm. Cats and monos caught in the same conditions where the cats faired much better than monos.

It's time the bar talk is replaced by reality.

Rick, we've been over this before. Without knowing the total number of boats that went through the Queen's Birthday storm, we have no way of concluding soemthing as sweeping as "cats faired much better than monos." As I am sure you will agree, the percentage of cruising monos to cruising multis in 1994 heavily skewed toward the monos, so even if only 2 out of the 9 boats that issued maydays were multis, in 1994, that would have represented a much larger percentage of the multi fleet at that time.

I am not suggesting that multis are less seaworthy. I am only suggesting that such a sweeping generalization as you assert cannot be divined from the report in question.

[Scott730]

Why do we alway digress to a mono vs multi debate. We all know and respect that Mono's and Multi's can and do circumnavigate, but I wouldn't want to do it in a 30' Catalina or a Gemini.
Let's get back to the original post and help him with answering some of his questions about what he should be looking for in a Multihull to meet his needs.

Scott

[sneuman]

Every monohull caught in the storm center was rolled and dismasted.

This is not correct. The report clearly states that the author(s) have no way of knowing how many boats were caught in the core of the storm. The report only deals with boats that issued a mayday.