Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 01-08-2010, 18:01   #211
cruiser

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: No longer post here
Boat: Catalac Catamaran
Posts: 2,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleven View Post
This is a very tender boat if those are the figures.
My own CRUISER needs a reef in the main, first of three, at about thirty kts appt but still sails well at 40+ with all sail set.
This might be a Volvo v Ferrari comparison but a Ferrari is not a CRUISER.
Those boats are quite a bit taller than ours and center of gravity comes into play. Also, there's no distinction for flat water sailing.
__________________

__________________
Tropic Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 04:54   #212
Marine Service Provider

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marmaris
Boat: FP Orana 2010, Lipari 2011, Hélia 2013, Catana C 47 2013
Posts: 1,032
Hi Dot Dun

The issues you are raising have been discussed earlier in lenght and I answered most of the questions you are making.So, pls go back to the first post and read all of the comments before making yours.
Of course, you dont have to share my views like I dont shares yours.

No, I am not a nautical engineer. I am not even a mechanical engineer, but when something is wrong with my car, I can say more or less what the problem is all about. Vicea versa, I am chemical engineer with special interest in polymers and osmosis, but I am pretty sure there are some people in this forum more knowledgeable than me even if they are not a chemical engineer.

cheers

Yeloya
__________________

__________________
yeloya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 05:43   #213
cruiser

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brisbane AUS
Boat: Cowther 43 - Hunter 40.5
Posts: 1,006
Everyone makes mistakes. That includes naval architects.
__________________
dennisail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 07:56   #214
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Florida
Boat: FP Belize, 43' - Dot Dun
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeloya View Post
Hi Dot Dun

The issues you are raising have been discussed earlier in lenght and I answered most of the questions you are making.So, pls go back to the first post and read all of the comments before making yours.
Of course, you dont have to share my views like I dont shares yours.

No, I am not a nautical engineer. I am not even a mechanical engineer, but when something is wrong with my car, I can say more or less what the problem is all about. Vicea versa, I am chemical engineer with special interest in polymers and osmosis, but I am pretty sure there are some people in this forum more knowledgeable than me even if they are not a chemical engineer.

cheers

Yeloya

Yeloya,

It's OK that you and I disagree on the operation of our catamarans. I have no problem with that.

Being an engineer myself (not a nautical engineer) what bothers me is not the way you operated the vessel, but the inference that FP has a design flaw that was the root cause of your experience.

From my viewpoint, FP designed, built, and delivered your vessel to meet criteria a particular market demands. The designers/engineers delivered an operation guide with the vessel. You operated the vessel outside the recommended guidelines, passing them off as "The reef recommendations for FP (I assume for every cat) is by far too conservative and for a very good and understandable reasons." and "We all know that these boats are designed to handle up to 18 kts min which you can easily reach surfing down the waves even w/out any sail.. ".

I am not one of the "We" you refer to and personally do not agree with these statements, hence I take a much more conservative approach to operating my catamaran. That doesn't mean I never stray outside the guidelines, but I don't run full sail when FP has recommended a triple reef. IMO, that's simply asking for problems, be it rig or handling.

You claim to understand the criteria the vessel was designed to meet, which differs greatly from the criteria that can be expected using FP's recommended operational guide. I have to conclude this difference is the root cause of you placing blame on the FP engineers.

So my disagreement with you is not how you operated the vessel, it's why you believe FP is liable when you were operating the vessel so far outside their recommended practice.

My real hope is that the practice of complete dismissal of manufacturer's recommendations does not propagate further as I fear there will be lots of people hurt if that happens.

::Off my soapbox now::
__________________
DotDun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 05:55   #215
Marine Service Provider

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marmaris
Boat: FP Orana 2010, Lipari 2011, Hélia 2013, Catana C 47 2013
Posts: 1,032
Dot Dun,

The issue started to be too personal and I am trying to avoid it. I said thousand times that I didn't blame anybody for what has happened. I agree that our cata handling practices are different, which is fine. All I am saying that this type of boat shouldn't have lost DIRECTIONAL stability in these conditions. That's purely my own belief that some forumers have agreed to while some others haven't.. If the boat lifted the hull because of excess sail and wind, I would have 100% agreed with you. In my standards; 10,5 knts of speed in flat water shouldn't lead to rudder stalling. (I remember someone has posted 17+ knts surfing over the waves with no sails at all and kept perfectly his directional stability.) My question was why this happened in my case and why the rudder was designed significantly shorter and smaller than the boat that the same company had built years ago.. I didn't state that it was poorly designed (for which you need to be a nautical engineer) I just said "why", as a curious humble sailor..


Yeloya

NB:I forgot to answer; I am running a charter fleet in which we have 13 catas of every size and models, all from FP. I have sailed all of them extensively in every condition both inshore and offshore. We also have 30 + mono's that I also sail occasionally but my preference has always been catamarans.
__________________
yeloya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 06:23   #216
cruiser

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: No longer post here
Boat: Catalac Catamaran
Posts: 2,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeloya View Post
NB:I forgot to answer; I am running a charter fleet in which we have 13 catas of every size and models, all from FP. I have sailed all of them extensively in every condition both inshore and offshore. We also have 30 + mono's that I also sail occasionally but my preference has always been catamarans.
I think that if you had stated your experience early in this thread, the number of responses would be considerably less than 215. You seem to be particularly qualified to comment on whether ..or not ... a boat is performing as expected.

In my opinion, there hasn't been a satisfying explanation in this thread as to why the rudders stalled under those conditions. I still feel that my earlier comment about the amount of weight this boat has relatively high off the deck was a contributing factor in the hull lifting.
__________________
Tropic Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 09:27   #217
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 257
This horse is starting to smell. Regardless if you think Yeloya was operating unsafely, what I think he (we) are trying to accomplish is a failure analysis. The performance envelope was breached. What failed? If you are arguing that the Yeloya shouldn't have pushed so hard as to breach the performance envelope, you're missing the point. So far, the leading candidate for the proximate cause of failure is the rudder or perhaps the keel. If the rudder were a bit bigger, would the vessel have lost control under those conditions? I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that a bigger rudder would increase the performance envelope of the boat without seriously degrading light wind performance. I'd love to see if FP changes their rudder design on subsequent boats. They are unlikely to admit fault in an email to a captain.

Brett
__________________
LtBrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2010, 17:33   #218
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SW Florida
Boat: FP Belize, 43' - Dot Dun
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeloya View Post
Dot Dun,

The issue started to be too personal and I am trying to avoid it. I said thousand times that I didn't blame anybody for what has happened. I agree that our cata handling practices are different, which is fine. All I am saying that this type of boat shouldn't have lost DIRECTIONAL stability in these conditions. That's purely my own belief that some forumers have agreed to while some others haven't.. If the boat lifted the hull because of excess sail and wind, I would have 100% agreed with you. In my standards; 10,5 knts of speed in flat water shouldn't lead to rudder stalling. (I remember someone has posted 17+ knts surfing over the waves with no sails at all and kept perfectly his directional stability.) My question was why this happened in my case and why the rudder was designed significantly shorter and smaller than the boat that the same company had built years ago.. I didn't state that it was poorly designed (for which you need to be a nautical engineer) I just said "why", as a curious humble sailor..


Yeloya

NB:I forgot to answer; I am running a charter fleet in which we have 13 catas of every size and models, all from FP. I have sailed all of them extensively in every condition both inshore and offshore. We also have 30 + mono's that I also sail occasionally but my preference has always been catamarans.
Yeloya,

You are correct, I attacked you unnecessarily. I apologize!
__________________
DotDun is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-08-2010, 21:16   #219
Senior Cruiser
 
Toys_with_time's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Summer 1 sailing in the Aegean, summer 2 in Australia (earning $ to pay for summer 1)
Boat: FP Lipari 42, Katmazu
Posts: 218
Lipari performance

Quote:
Originally Posted by DotDun View Post

I believe that's the point of this whole thread. Once you stray outside the manufacturer's recommended operating range you should not attempt to hold them liable. Sure, these recommendations are probably conservative, I'm sure they've built a good margin for error (or idiot proofing depending on your perspective ).
Just had some correspondence from a South African who picked up a Lipari in February (not the best month to be crossing the Bay of Biscay) and sailed it 3 handed with a professional skipper straight back to SA.

They had weather bad enough for him to "make my peace with the man upstairs and did not think we were going to survive but then after a while you realize that the boat handles the beating although the ride might not be that comfortable she just handles it with grace and ease"

They did not push her hard and reefed conservatively and still achieved speeds up to 14kt. The delivery skipper commented that he was also "very impressed with the Lipari's speed and how effordly she sailed even very close to the wind angle"

Think the pertinent phrase to this thread is "reefed conservatively and still achieved speeds up to 14kt"

TwT
__________________
Toys_with_time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 04:50   #220
Registered User
 
seashine's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East Coast Australia
Boat: Oldie but goodie 40' cat
Posts: 34
Images: 2
Why has no-one mentioned the crucial difference between cats and monohulls? As we head up in a cat we increase the apparent wind speed and this is what got you into trouble... ^ apparent wind speed equates with ^ heeling moment as there is no keel to counterbalance the pressure of the wind on the sails, so over she goes!
I have learnt this by reading, not by the 3000 or so nm I have sailed in a cat: it's counter-intuitive to a born keel boat sailor like myself, and I spent months wondering why the skipper of my first cruising cat would keep saying "You're rounding up, you're rounding up!!!" as if that was a problem, but it's a vital lesson to be learnt and I'm glad I never flipped their cruising cat in the process!
__________________
seashine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 05:00   #221
Registered User
 
seashine's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: East Coast Australia
Boat: Oldie but goodie 40' cat
Posts: 34
Images: 2
ooops, just realised I'd skipped a few pages of posts too - s-o-r-r-y!!
__________________
seashine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 08:31   #222
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Land-locked at the moment :(
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by seashine View Post
there is no keel to counterbalance the pressure of the wind on the sails, so over she goes!
It's unclear which forces you are talking about exactly, but if you're saying what I think you're saying...

Keels are actually trying to capsize monohull boats (along with the pressure on the sails), not right them. Only hull shape and ballast keep them from going over.
__________________
Event_Horizon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2010, 11:18   #223
Registered User
 
muskoka's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sai Kung, Hong Kong
Boat: FP Lavezzi 40 / Hatteras 48
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeloya View Post
Dot Dun,

All I am saying that this type of boat shouldn't have lost DIRECTIONAL stability in these conditions.

In my standards; 10,5 knts of speed in flat water shouldn't lead to rudder stalling. (I remember someone has posted 17+ knts surfing over the waves with no sails at all and kept perfectly his directional stability.) My question was why this happened in my case and why the rudder was designed significantly shorter and smaller than the boat that the same company had built years ago.. I didn't state that it was poorly designed (for which you need to be a nautical engineer) I just said "why", as a curious humble sailor..
You can stall a rudder in virtually any sailboat if you let weather helm build up too much. Basically, you end up oversteering the boat and when a gust hits the rudder cavitates as speed increases and you round up into the wind. Weather helm tells you that you have a badly trimmed boat - do something about it!

Your loss of helm control was a result of carrying full sails when you should have been on a 2nd reef. You stated you were getting gusts of 25 knots followed by light airs all during your sail: In catamarans you're supposed to reef for the gusts so you basically overpowered the boat, created a massive weatherhelm and stalled the rudders. If the boat had been decently trimmed you might have gotten away with it...

Further, as one of the earlier posters mentioned, you probably had 30-35 knots of apparent wind as you rounded up. That's a massive wind force with a full sail plan under any conditions in any boat. I'm kind of surprised you didn't blow out a sail!

Thanks for sharing your experience.
__________________
muskoka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2017, 13:03   #224
SVI
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Med
Boat: FP Salina 48 / owner / evolution
Posts: 204
Re: On the Verge of Flipping-Over a Cruising Cat...

Quote:
Originally Posted by yeloya View Post

And this is not true sir.. for couple of reasons; firstly because as soon as you start turning towards the wind, the speed of the boat must have gone down, hence, reducing the apparent wind.
Salina owner here, in a gusty Croatia ))

With all due respect to your experience, but you are wrong - the AWS on your sails continue to build as you turn from 90deg AWA to lets say 60. Because it takes time for the boat to stop.

That is why if I go 90 deg AWA and I see a gust on the water - I bear away.

First - there is less AWS when you run.
And less resistance from the waves.
And you get further from the shore (all these gusts are catabatic and die quickly 1nm from the rocky coast).

I do it when the weather get bad and I am cought over-doze - bear away, run 130 AWA 1nm downwind, reef genoa, then go 60AWA and reef main.

You cannot flip a Salina in flat waters. But you can break smth, which I do not like.
But nethertheless I do not like to reef and keep full sails until stable 30-32 AWS on the sail. She flies 13-14kn in this weather.

I guess for smaller lighter cats it is better to take 1 reef in the main above 20 "just in case". This will not only shorten sq ft, but also lower the center of force.

All IMHO, of course
__________________
Sailing sabbathical anyone?
SVI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-10-2017, 19:59   #225
Registered User
 
Strygaldwir's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Deale, Maryland
Boat: SeaView - Privilege 37
Posts: 1,020
Images: 5
Re: On the Verge of Flipping-Over a Cruising Cat...

"Wow! Seven year old argument.

__________________

__________________
Strygaldwir is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which Is More Forgiving - Cruising Monohull or Cruising Multihull maxingout General Sailing Forum 36 10-02-2010 06:41
Cruising Cat vs. Cruising Mono Performance ssullivan Multihull Sailboats 100 03-01-2010 14:05
on the verge... blove8 Meets & Greets 5 07-10-2007 15:18



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 17:47.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.