Unsinkable Fountaine Pajot

[44'cruisingcat]

No, most exposed are boats that are enormously heavy even before they are loaded.

[mikedefieslife]

Stay within the manufacturer's payload limits and you shouldn't have a problem.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Stay within the manufacturer's payload limits and you shouldn't have a problem.

yeah, thats the theory. But if you can load only 1T above light displacement and go remote sailing and not alone, that is not fun.

[mikedefieslife]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

yeah, thats the theory. But if you can load only 1T above light displacement and go remote sailing and not alone, that is not fun.

No, you are right, but then you're using the boat in a way it's not intended. I know people do it though. It's probably one of the reasons why can't judge/jump to conclusions too much whenever we see submered cat.

A few months ago there was a Prout that sunk. It was a surprise because of the sheer number of them around the world and their history. The numbers of sunken ones can fit on less than hand. We later learned that the boyancy chambers had been cut open (by a previous owner) for use as storage

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

yeah, thats the theory. But if you can load only 1T above light displacement and go remote sailing and not alone, that is not fun.

Some would say cruising in a boat that doesn't sail is not fun.

Some toys weigh next to nothing. Drones, kiteboards, snorkeling gear...

Some people are happy camping, others feel the need to have huge Winnebagos.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

It's amazing that people today still can't grasp what Archimedes worked out a couple of thousand years ago. If the volume of water displaced by an object weighs more than that object, it can't sink.

And for some reason these same people think that showing photographs of boats that haven't sunk proves that they do.

I played with myself in the bath tub when I was a kid enough that I have a decent understanding of displacing water.

If a mono haul "sunk" but I found a 4ftx4ft section on the beach can I gleefully say it didn't sink?

The interesting part of the pic I posted was that the damage was relatively small in one hull midships. In the picture the bows have already touched or about to land on the shoaling bottom. The vessel was a write off.
Making a marketing claim off unsinkable is just that, marketing.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I played with myself ...




Making a marketing claim off unsinkable is just that, marketing.

No doubt.

So you really believe it's not possible to build a boat that won't sink?

How about Boston Whalers? How about Etap?

[Palarran]

Originally Posted by Paul L

I played with myself in the bath tub when I was a kid

That is just too funny.

[sailjumanji]

Regarding the article showing the sunken boat that was identified as a Seawind, this was discussed on the Seawind Club facebook. The local Seawind owners say it is not a Seawind. Seawind never made an 1150, the bows are not Seawind profile, and none of their models have masthead sails.

[smj]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Regarding the article showing the sunken boat that was identified as a Seawind, this was discussed on the Seawind Club facebook. The local Seawind owners say it is not a Seawind. Seawind never made an 1150, the bows are not Seawind profile, and none of their models have masthead sails.

The bows look a little like the Seawind 24, maybe a modified headsail?

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by smj

The bows look a little like the Seawind 24, maybe a modified headsail?

I went back and looked up the discussion on Facebook. One of the Seawind owners sailed by and took pics that were posted. One of the dealers got in on the discussion. HIN didn't match a SW, rig wrong, etc. But there was also the possibility that it could be one of two Seawind 31's that were made in a company ownership transition period (or seven more were made privately from plans). That model didn't have a coach house, and the one in pic doesn't either. You can see it has a daggerboard, similar in size to a large beach cat. To match the HIN registration specs, it would have afterwards been stretched and widened by owner, and rerigged. That's a lot of modification.

So if it is a "Seawind", it's not one of their production-run models. And none of the local owners were familiar with that particular boat (although they seem to be a pretty tight group of Seawind owners locally!)

[rabbi]

Originally Posted by mikedefieslife

Stay within the manufacturer's payload limits and you shouldn't have a problem.

There was a thread about a 440 in charter trim that "sank" because the escape hatch broke. Pictures in this thread show the boat with just half a meter of the bow sticking out. I think it went under shortly after the picture were taken.

There have been a few reports of sunken cats, and at least the charter ones were surely within payload limits. So I would not place my bets on this idea.



To the original question:
Ask FP what exactly they do to ahieve this in the particular model you are looking at!


We owned a FP Mahe and two Lagoons (410 and 380).
The FP Mahe is a much lighter build than a Lagoon due to a different build philosophy: no cabinet doors, no separate hull liner but a large one piece infusion mould, no wooden trim panels but just some glued-on vinyl at the hull walls, much lighter hatches, fewer installations, etc

Plus the Mahe has floatation compartments filled with closed cell foam: lower half of the bow compartments, under the aft cabin beds, under the settee. I'd guess at least 3 tons floatation in a boat with 5to lightship.
In a Lagoon these areas are just empty space, typically filled with junk.

Also there is not a single penetration in engine bulkheads below bridgedeck level, or in the bulkheads to the bow compartments. That has other drawbacks, like tankweight of tank and batteries not down below but at bridgedeck level.
Lagoon has a ton of holes in there, and not all of them are sealed.


So yes, comparing the FP Mahe to the Lagoon 380 & 410 I am sure the FP Mahe wins in terms of being "more unsinkable".
But is it enough to really stay afloat when all compartments are flooded? No idea.


Also no clue if FP still build their boats this way. They changed from all foam core to blasa core, so maybe they also changed from unsinkable to sinking.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by rabbi

There was a thread about a 440 in charter trim that "sank" because the escape hatch broke. Pictures in this thread show the boat with just half a meter of the bow sticking out. I think it went under shortly after the picture were taken.

There have been a few reports of sunken cats, and at least the charter ones were surely within payload limits. So I would not place my bets on this idea.



To the original question:
Ask FP what exactly they do to ahieve this in the particular model you are looking at!


We owned a FP Mahe and two Lagoons (410 and 380).
The FP Mahe is a much lighter build than a Lagoon due to a different build philosophy: no cabinet doors, no separate hull liner but a large one piece infusion mould, no wooden trim panels but just some glued-on vinyl at the hull walls, much lighter hatches, fewer installations, etc

Plus the Mahe has floatation compartments filled with closed cell foam: lower half of the bow compartments, under the aft cabin beds, under the settee. I'd guess at least 3 tons floatation in a boat with 5to lightship.
In a Lagoon these areas are just empty space, typically filled with junk.

Also there is not a single penetration in engine bulkheads below bridgedeck level, or in the bulkheads to the bow compartments. That has other drawbacks, like tankweight of tank and batteries not down below but at bridgedeck level.
Lagoon has a ton of holes in there, and not all of them are sealed.


So yes, comparing the FP Mahe to the Lagoon 380 & 410 I am sure the FP Mahe wins in terms of being "more unsinkable".
But is it enough to really stay afloat when all compartments are flooded? No idea.


Also no clue if FP still build their boats this way. They changed from all foam core to blasa core, so maybe they also changed from unsinkable to sinking.

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.

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Some would say cruising in a boat that doesn't sail is not fun.

Some toys weigh next to nothing. Drones, kiteboards, snorkeling gear...

Some people are happy camping, others feel the need to have huge Winnebagos.

Coastal cruisers probably have 0.5 kn faster long term average over ocean cruisers, so if one sails bar to bar, coastal cruiser is the way to go as sometimes can make bar before tide turns. But some have bigger ambition. From your writing, can see that you never sail Lagoon and use CF 'knowledge base' to judge. I can tell you that sailing Lagoon in last 6000 NM trip was pure pleasure, not just for me, my wife agrees as well.

[Polux]

That´s really simple: Cats or multihulls that are made of materials lighter than water don't sink all the others sink. Only race boats or very fast performance multihulls are on the first cathegory, Fountain Pajot and all the condo cats will sink as it was seen on many ocassions, the last precisely a Fountain Pajot: