Unsinkable Fountaine Pajot

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

The reality is, SOME catamarans can sink. I don't think anyone denies that.

The point is, it IS possible to build them so they can't. It's not even difficult.

I agree with you 100% and have done so in around 15 of the exact same threads in the past . I have to believe you get tired of the same thing - the same bait, the same hook, and sinker.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

How would buying a boat ( cat or mono) that is marketed as unsinkable change what you might do with the vessel? I'm not sure it would factor in much to my passage decision making. Perhaps it wouldnt factor in at all. Would I then feel more comfortable doing the NW Passage or sailing to Antarctica?

It is very difficult keeping a boat at a light load while long term cruising. Some do much better than others. Doing more extreme, high latitude sailing takes An even heavier load.

Unsinkable does make a good marketing campaign.

And how would buying a boat marketed as self righting change what you might do with the vessel?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

None of those boats have sunk.
They are aglub, but still floating all be it somewhat down on their lines.

Aftrer having sunk it would be difficult to take a picture don't you think?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It's obviously more difficult with a keelboat. You have to compensate for the ballast, which requires several cubic metres more foam.

But it's actually not difficult to make a composite multihull positively bouyant. It doesnt call for excessively thick cores.

...

Yes I agree with you on that even if there are many monohull racing boats that are unsinkable due to positive flotation. All the IMOCA, all the MINI RACERS, all the CLASS40 are unsinkable. The box rules demand that.

There are also some mono cruising boats that are unthinkable and it is not so difficult as it seems neither it makes them much more expensive or takes considerable space. The best examples are the ETAP:

but I agree that it is more easy to have that feature on a catamaran but that is not the point.

The point is that easier or not, most of them, Lagoon, Fountain Pajot and many other condo cats, that constitute most of the multihull cruising boats ARE NOT UNSINKABLE as it has been shown many times.

This gives a false sense of security to the ones that buy and sail those boats many times strenghtened by misleading publicity.

I beleieve that yes, all offshore multihulls should be unsinkable and that the manufacturers should be accountable in cases were that proved not to be true.

[yeloya]

As Palarran said, this has been discussed 100 times.


1-every boat is sinkable but while cats are usually more submerged than sank, monos under same conditions do sink in a matter of minutes. (That's why I cannot post a picture of a sinking mono.)


2-as a matter of fact, "unsinkable" claim is exagerated , whether it be for FP or Etap.
Some boats are less sinkable than others and everyone has a different opinion on that..
Full stop.


Cheers


Yeloya

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Polux

Aftrer having sunk it would be difficult to take a picture

Sticks hand under water with gopro or similar

don't you think?

Yes, yes I do.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Polux

multihull cruising boats ARE NOT UNSINKABLE as it has been shown many times.

Shown where?
You haven't shown us once yet.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

all true. But one can make lagoon , or any other cat, unsinkable to whatever degree very cheaply. Just fill couple of storage spaces with foam. I doubt anyone does it, storage space is more important, vs chances to be in situation that unsinkability may come into play.

Plus the foam has a fair bit of weight to it (45kg per 1m3 from what i've seen) potentially adding almost 200kg in the corners of the boat. It only provides additional buoyancy over an airtight compartment if that compartment is breached.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by yeloya

As Palarran said, this has been discussed 100 times.


1-every boat is sinkable.....


Yeloya

Nope. Simply not the case. In fact probably the majority of boats, ie trailerable runabouts, are legally required to provide basic flotation.

That is, even if flooded, holed or capsized, they will still remain afloat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Shown where?
You haven't shown us once yet.

I said MOST multihulls are not unsinkable, not all, as you gave to understand by an incomplete quote. But I can say it the other way around if it makes you happy: Racing multihulls and really fast performance multihull cruisers are almost all unsinkable.

[Thalas]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Plus the foam has a fair bit of weight to it (45kg per 1m3 from what i've seen) potentially adding almost 200kg in the corners of the boat. It only provides additional buoyancy over an airtight compartment if that compartment is breached.

Do you really think a square meter of foam weighs 100lbs? Are you under the impression they are using high density memory foam?!

Fun fact, 1sqM of water weighs 1 ton. I knew it was dense, but jeez.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Polux

I said MOST multihulls are not unsinkable, not all, as you gave to understand by an incomplete quote. But I can say it the other way around if it makes you happy: Racing multihulls and really fast performance multihull cruisers are almost all unsinkable.

I think the point was that all the photos you've shown of "sunken" cat's actually haven't sunk. Yes, they're flloating very deep in the water, but they are floating.

If I could be bothered, I have several photo's of boats that really have sunk. Just masts sticking out of the water mostly, and a few underwater shots. There's a difference.

None of them is a multihull.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Thalas

Do you really think a square meter of foam weighs 100lbs? Are you under the impression they are using high density memory foam?!



Fun fact, 1sqM of water weighs 1 ton. I knew it was dense, but jeez.

So 1sq meter of water weighs a ton? Did you attempt to say a cubic meter?

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by peterp

Thalas thanks for that well put, well I was not suggesting FP are telling fibs I just thought it an interesting subject. Having just sold my Lagoon 400 I have to say I have had eight years of enjoyment and satisfaction and great backup from Lagoon, even when we had a problem when it was out of warranty Lagoon still honoured that claim which was over $5K, and I think they are built very well, and appear more substantial than FP maybe at the expense of a bit more weight, I would buy another in a heartbeat but they just don't have the right size for us this time around. The FP 42 is nice, but for the extra I may as well go the FP45, it ain't perfect (for me that is) I hate the steering set up, but I am going on a one on one test sail on a FP42 to see if I can get my brain around it next week, re the FP45 I also don't like the lack of a traditional chart table, who wants to stand up and fiddle with the plotter, I don't like only one 470ltr fuel tank not enough range for a 45 footer and no second tank backup, but apparently it may be possible to have it duplicated have to wait and see, having said all that the compromises look acceptable, otherwise there is a lot to like about FP45.

Hi Peter,
Gordon here, we have met up many times during my Orana 44 ownership days and chatted during my He’lia 44 cruising days from early 2013 on ‘The Larrikin ‘ hull #13. As you know we have now ordered the New 45 and will be picking it up at the factory next year in September.

We are comfortable with the lack of a fwd Nav station because in our experience on ‘The Larrikin’ we used our iPad and WiFi / Bluetooth capability, and were able to passage plan anywhere on board. Also with the side cockpit clears down you have a beautifully large ‘desk’ table out there that we were able to utilise for passage planning on the large paper charts.

You will, as we did, quickly adapt to the helm setup and eventually come to love this arrangement because it has some very positive aspects. Please approach this with an open mind, it may take more than one or two outings to become comfortable but I am confident that you will.

Re the fuel tank qty. We cruised for three and a half years on our He’lia 44 with the same tank capacity as the 45. We sold her with only 715 Hrs on the engines and that included crossing the Atlantic, arriving in Martinique with diesel in the tank. I don’t think you need have any reservation re the 470ltr capacity. There is the ability to carry extra fuel because there is ample storage under the cockpit large seat for another 120ltrs in 20ltr containers.

The New 45 is said to have 10% better performance when sailing/motoring than the He’lia 44. Therefore, fuel hopefully will not be an issue.

Cheers Gordon.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

I think the point was that all the photos you've shown of "sunken" cat's actually haven't sunk. Yes, they're flloating very deep in the water, but they are floating.

If I could be bothered, I have several photo's of boats that really have sunk. Just masts sticking out of the water mostly, and a few underwater shots. There's a difference.

None of them is a multihull.

So are you sayng that catamarans never sunk? really? or are you just tryng to be funny?

You don't call this one sunk?




It is on the rocks and that's the only reason it does not dissapear completey.

Here you have another one:

Catamarans. ... Jim McKeever informed us that S/V Meltemia

sank

at her dock in July 2014".

And what you call this? A floating catamaran?

Anyway when it is said by a dealer or somebody else that a catamaram does not sink it is meant that it offers shelter and safety to the ones that sail it even when it is flooded. Clearly that is not the case in this pictures or any pictures I have posted previously.