Upwind performance of condomarans

[arsenelupiga]

i think thread name should be changed to

SELL YOUR LAGOON AND BUY ANY OTHER CAT, IDEALLY SEAWIND, you will thank me later

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

i think thread name should be changed to

SELL YOUR LAGOON AND BUY ANY OTHER CAT, IDEALLY SEAWIND, you will thank me later

Ahh, another of your pearls of wisdom, the gifts that just keep on giving.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Quote sailjumanji "So when was the 1250 made? Years? Because new model is 1260 made in Vietnam, and therefore resin infused, composite panels, etc. There is probably a significant weight difference between the two models, if the 1250 was made in AUS."

Seawind 1250 was still manufactured in Australia in March 2011 (when I nearly purchased one) then 1250 production was moved to Vietnam sometime after that (circa 2012 -2013). Then ceased with the introduction of the new 1260. (Others here will have the exact dates).

"a significant weight difference" Apparently not unless I have unearthed a misprint, 1250 spec sheet and page from 1260 hand book, posted so I do not get accused of miss quoting anything.

I suspect - as the reported weights are identical to the lb - that they just continued reporting the same weight. But do you really think resin infused is not going to reduce weight vs traditional layup? Really?

I know, go ahead and say now that Seawind are knowlingly overstating their weights. Criminals!

[arsenelupiga]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Ahh, another of your pearls of wisdom, the gifts that just keep on giving.

thanks.

it is amazing observing bashing of lagoon that is going on and on and on.

Must be jealous, big ego, cat designers that are source of that hate. VPLP shocked them first with these ugly windows and then innovations just go on and on, and, VPLP made it rich !

I would be jealous too. but i am retired now so dont care.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

I suspect - as the reported weights are identical to the lb - that they just continued reporting the same weight. But do you really think resin infused is not going to reduce weight vs traditional layup? Really?

I know, go ahead and say now that Seawind are knowlingly overstating their weights. Criminals!

I stand to be corrected but pretty sure Wollongong factory was resin infused on the 1250 so no change there but yeah your right probably the same specs posted as all are identical.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

thanks.

it is amazing observing bashing of lagoon that is going on and on and on.

Must be jealous, big ego, cat designers that are source of that hate. VPLP shocked them first with these ugly windows and then innovations just go on and on, and, VPLP made it rich !

I would be jealous too. but i am retired now so dont care.

Only in you head arsen only in your head.

The real question is why do you feel the need to constantly degrade all boats other than your lagoon in order to feel better?

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Also probably of significance to part of the discussion over past several days is the warning in the middle of the 1260 spec page. Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum.

Where does this kind of statement come from? That didn't take long, and after you just wrote "I have never attacked a brand of vessel"... nor have I made "derogatory comments about said vessels". Hmmm, I didn't read that in the spec sheet - quite to the contrary there was a warning against overloading.

Wave your Lagoon flag if you want. Heck, fly one from each of your boats! But really? Come on.

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Barra

I stand to be corrected but pretty sure Wollongong factory was resin infused on the 1250 so no change there but yeah your right probably the same specs posted as all are identical.

Oh, good point. I was told that resin infusion was a Vietnam plant process only. But at this point, I don't remember if it was a company rep, or someone else. So I may have misspoken. Would be good to know, as I have a friend shopping for a used 1160 Deluxe.

[Barra]

Originally Posted by sailjumanji

Oh, good point. I was told that resin infusion was a Vietnam plant process only. But at this point, I don't remember if it was a company rep, or someone else. So I may have misspoken. Would be good to know, as I have a friend shopping for a used 1160 Deluxe.

googles your friend - per this seawind were changing to resin infusion process in 2007. the pic is the wollongong factory >>

https://www.sail-world.com/Australia...urce=google.au

[sailjumanji]

Originally Posted by Barra

googles your friend - per this seawind were changing to resin infusion process in 2007. the pic is the wollongong factory >>

https://www.sail-world.com/Australia...urce=google.au

Cool, thanks for that. And it looks like all production was moved to Vietnam by mid 2013.

Seawind production now in full swing in Vietnam - Yacht & Boat

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

Quote smj "Doing half windspeed is not a performance boat, quite the opposite."

And to quote myself "To some being able to do half wind speed in 12 knots is the ultimate, for others to still have the sails up in 45 plus knots of wind and safely keep sailing is an important thing."

I was suggesting that some people see that attribute to be good indicator for a long distance cruising vessel. Nothing to do with a performance multi hull whatsoever. Just as sailing safely in 45 plus knots of wind, has nothing to do with a performance boat, just another attribute that some may also see as important to a long distance cruiser.

I must be a bit thick, because I do not understand where you got the impression I was talking about performance boats quote "is not a performance boat, quite the opposite." I was not trying to imply any of the boats under discussion are a performance boats. Just some of the differences in peoples expectations of long range cruising vessel.

Quote smj "And I have sailed and inspected both Seawind’s and Lagoons, and honestly in my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges."

Likewise I have also sailed Seawinds and Lagoons and honestly in my opinion I am comparing apples to oranges.

I came a signature away from owning an apple at one time and currently own two oranges. It all depends on ones taste as to which fruit you chose. Which is something else I have been advocating on here for quiet long time. Different strokes for different blokes.

I have never attacked a brand of vessel based on my requirements and what I believe, compared to what some one else believes. I obviously enjoy a good discussion other wise I would not persist here and try to discuss facts not feelings. Look at my signature, not names I have given myself but names that have been thrown my way during discussion over the past years, there are other names I have been called I chose not incorporate.

I think my choice is perfect for me, perfect for others that is up to them to decided based on there requirements. I will stick up for my choice based on my criteria when that is challenged, but I have no blinkers on, ask and I will tell you the short comings of my choice and how it could be improved withing the frame work of my needs, wants and ability to pay for it.

Find a discussion where somebody asks about the sailing / cruising attributes of a vessel and I have jumped in with derogatory comments about said vessels abilities or put the vessel down based on my requirements.

Unlike some others comments over the years. EG:"I didn't realize you wanted a motor boat instead of a sail boat" "it cant even sail in under 12 knots at 1/2 wind speed" (not direct quotes but from my memory of previous discussions)

Go back over the past 6 years and the same old names keep coming up over and over and over again pushing there particular barrow, be it based on a corporate or personal bias. I have no doubt that what they believe is true (to them anyway), but others are not only entitled to have an opinion, some times they may be just as correct as well.

I have been accused more than once of being a blinkered "Lagoon Fan Boy" hence part of my signature. Go over to the Fountaine Pajot or Lepoard sections and find me trying to push a Lagoon barrow. Do not bother, because you will not find that sort of post by me there. The world is big enough and diverse enough to incorporate all the brands as they all bring something good to the long range cruising table.

Find a post where somebody is inquiring about a particular performance multihull's attributes and me charging in telling them they do not want to buy that and would be way better off if they purchased a Lagoon. Do not bother looking because you will not find that either.

The converse sadly is not true, the number of biased personal opinions and innuendoes directed towards a Lagoon information inquiry or recommendation is legion. Hence me trying to fly the Lagoon flag.

Is my Lagoon flag flying repetitive and in a higher proportion than others with different brands. Possibly or it may just be that Lagoon represents 1 in 3 of every new Production Multihull launched today. So 1 in 3 Multihull Posts on the Cruisers forum will in all probability be about a Lagoon.

You've been accused more than once..... do you think maybe there's a reason for that?

Anyway, there's certainly someone in this thread pushing one particular barrow. Saying stuff like "lagoons are Water boats">blue water boats, whereas Seawinds are only coastal cruisers, they're slower than lagoons, can't carry a cruising load, if i put 8 tonnes in my boat it would beat everything" (which you seemed to think was a good idea -- I guess you're OK with overloading a boat by a few tonnes then?)

[PaulinOz]

Quote sailjumanji "I suspect - as the reported weights are identical to the lb - that they just continued reporting the same weight. But do you really think resin infused is not going to reduce weight vs traditional layup? Really?"

Once again may be just as simple as a misprint, copy past error as I eluded to in my post. That second page is from the 1260 Owners operating manual, so I would think there is some imperative for that to be somewhat close to correct as opposed to just a marketing type brochure.

The only reason I went and looked at, then posted this at all was as a follow up to your comment "There is probably a significant weight difference between the two models" that interested me to see if that word "Probably" was wishful thinking or in fact was the case, the 1260 being a new model to the market.

The only information I have to refer to is that supplied by the manufacturer of this or any product, that I wish to research, that is why I posted what I did. If it proves to be incorrect and the actual correct figures come to light supporting your "probably" statement, is that not a good thing all round. You will have been vindicated and anyone in the future looking for the displacement will hopefully be presented with the correct figure.

No I neither think, nor implied that Vacuum infused resin is the same as a hand layup. There are some arguments both fore and against for such construction methods.


I do note: That in the time I have taken to write and edit this reply, you have now discovered that the Original Seawind 1250 and the New Seawind 1260 are both vacuum infused, thus the reason that the two different models share the exact same displacement figure to the lb in their respective literature is now acceptable.

Originally Posted by PaulinOz Also probably of significance to part of the discussion over past several days is the warning in the middle of the 1260 spec page.
Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum.

Quote sailjumanji "Where does this kind of statement come from? That didn't take long, and after you just wrote "I have never attacked a brand of vessel"... nor have I made "derogatory comments about said vessels". Hmmm, I didn't read that in the spec sheet - quite to the contrary there was a warning against overloading."

Wave your Lagoon flag if you want. Heck, fly one from each of your boats! But really? Come on. [/QUOTE]


"Where does this kind of statement come from?" The majority of this back and forth over the past 7 plus pages has been in regards to what can and can not be loaded on a vessel safely. In order to know that, you need to know what the displacement of the vessel is, as well as what is or is not included in it's displacement figure. Then you need to know what its maximum load figure is and once again what is or is not included in that load figure.

You have correctly noted Seawinds warning re overloading. Bravo. By referring to it I was neither attacking or being derogatory about Seawind what so ever, but highlighting what I believe is an important statement.

To load a vessel safely and not overload it, one needs to have accurate, correct figures. As evidence by recent figures that seem to be the same for 2 different models, this is not always as easy as one might think or should be to obtain the correct loading information.

The second part of the statement "Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum". By this I was highlighting the fact that Seawind see overloading as a serious issue, to some people on this forum, not necessarily this tread that have expressed views in the past contrary to the Seawinds warning.

In a previous threads on vessel loading, some people here have expressed the view that there was no adverse consequences with overloading a vessel, to the point that raising the waterline to accommodate said extra load was absolutely fine and even common practice among some. (I believe this may be more common in mono-hulls, I have no experience to comment one way or the other)

I myself do not subscribe to this view on overloading multi-hulls, obviously and do not believe it is something that should be encouraged. The only people that need to be encouraged are all the manufacturers, to make it easier to find out what a vessels accurate displacement is and from what it is derived and what its maximum load is and what the load consists of.

They all (wait for it ) including Lagoon need to do better with their documentation, in this area to varying degrees. IMHO

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

You've been accused more than once..... do you think maybe there's a reason for that?

Anyway, there's certainly someone in this thread pushing one particular barrow. Saying stuff like "lagoons are blue water boats, whereas Seawinds are only coastal cruisers, they're slower than lagoons, can't carry a cruising load, if i put 8 tonnes in my boat it would beat everything" (which you seemed to think was a good idea -- I guess you're OK with overloading a boat by a few tonnes then?)

Yeah but really, he is an a**e, totally immune apparently to sarcasm, and appears to absolutely believe what he is spouting.
FWIW I am a mono-hull owner but definitely appreciate the virtues of multi hulls and probably would own one but for the dollars involved.

[PaulinOz]

Quote 44C "You've been accused more than once..... do you think maybe there's a reason for that?

Anyway, there's certainly someone in this thread pushing one particular barrow. Saying stuff like "lagoons are blue water boast, whereas Seawinds are only coastal cruisers. they're slower than lagoons, can't carry a cruising load, if i put 8 tonnes in my boat it would beat everything" (which you seemed to think was a good idea -- I guess you're OK with overloading a boat by a few tonnes then?)"

You quoted my post, at the start of yours post. So I can only assume that some or all of the comments are directed at me.

Please direct me to any of my posts that gave you the above impressions and that in which I was advocating any of your following accretions.

lagoons are blue water boast, whereas Seawinds are only coastal cruisers.

they're slower than lagoons

can't carry a cruising load

if i put 8 tonnes in my boat it would beat everything" (which you seemed to think was a good idea


I guess you're OK with overloading a boat by a few tonnes then?

NO that is yourself 44C, who in the past has advocated that there is not a problem with overloading, in fact you mentioned it again in this thread.

Post #222 "For most of us this is pretty much academic, but there are people who seem to believe that exceeding load limits by even a small margin is dangerous and criminal." Obviously Seawind are in that category as well, believing that overloading is dangerous.

To make this easy for you, I have cut and pasted every post I have made in this thread below, so the leg work is already done for you. The rest of forum members can jump straight to the next post. Nothing below that has not been already posted over past few days.

I will just reply to Uncle Bob because no one will read it if I put it down below.

Quote: Uncle Bob"Yeah but really, he is an a**e, totally immune apparently to sarcasm, and appears to absolutely believe what he is spouting.
FWIW I am a mono-hull owner but definitely appreciate the virtues of multi hulls and probably would own one but for the dollars involved."

Hi Bob once again, I am assuming you are talking about me because you referenced 44C's post that seems to be pointed at me. You are also more than welcome to read through the following re-prints and point out where you feel I am spouting off. (Your word, which appears to be used in a derogatory manner) but on the other hand if by "spouting off" you are referring to just the content of my posts in a colorful manner, why would I or for that matter anybody, bother posting something that they do not believe in.






START OF COPIED POSTS

Very interesting read but his summation at the end says it all.

In short
If you don't ever expect to race then keels are OK
If you think crosscut Dacron sails are good enough then keels are OK
If you trail your boat regularly fit dagger boards
If you have wheel steering and inboard engines and expect to dry out often fit keels
If you want the best performance then fit dagger boards, but be prepared to use them.


I guess the third point is not that relevant to Cruising Catamarans.


Quote "load with 3T of stuff."

Only going light ship then not very fair.


Quote:
Originally Posted by arsenelupiga
Ok, lets do 8 T then. Here is what I will add so wont have reason to go to shops that often. And see who is the fastest !!!

No I am starting to like the way you think.

(The poster was suggesting putting 8 ton of wine in barrels on his boat, he included a picture. I assumed he was joking and so was I)

Quote 44C "According to the handbook, maximum load is 3300kg. It wasn't difficult to find out."

That is truly amazing the maximum offshore CE loading (Cat A) for my 20 ton Condomaran is only 285 Kg more than the Seawind 1250.

Unless maybe the figure you are quoting is possibly Seawind 1250 (Cat D) CE load rating.

Category D – Inland or sheltered coastal waters: is for boats in small lakes and rivers with winds to Force 4 and significant wave heights to 18 inches.

Probably not that relevant a figure to a "long distance cruising boat".

Quote Arsenlupiga "Who knows what Seawind 1250 includes as lightship?"

Some one does, but seems that they would sooner try direct or should that be misdirect the discussion in a totally different direction. IE: discuss the number of reef points on an imaginary main sail (where the hell did that come from), instead of discussing the statement that was made and then called into question. In relation to it's load carrying capacity.

Quote 44C"The only category mentioned in the general specifications is category A, just above where the maximum load is given".

Perhaps the best way to put this all to bed is if somebody with a Seawind 1250 can look at there CE compliance plate and tell us what the "category A" load actually is on the plate. Better still take a picture and post it.

"setting arbitrary definitions for cruising boats" maybe that should be the discussion.

I personally believe the most important criteria for a long distance cruising boat is the following.

To be able to safely carry the required crew for the passage, complete with their provisions and all additional equipment required on passage, all tanks full and still be at or under the maximum designed load for the conditions that may be encountered en-route.

But that as they say is just my opinion.

Quote 44C "Displacement lightship 8250. Fully loaded 11550."

Only if you wish to sail around in small lakes and rivers with winds to Force 4 and significant wave heights to 18 inches.

Quote 44C "Of course some will be dissapointed that their argument has gone up in smoke....."

So who is blowing smoke up who's arse?

I am led to believe by reliable sources, that the category "A" CE load for a Seawind 1250 is only 1450 Kg.

But what would I know.

__________________


Quote Rom "I cannot find any source to confirm that information. I finally believe they can put whatever payload value there as long as they justify it in the documentation. Which they don't for that particular boat"

Exactly what ever they like, so apples, oranges who knows what they are quoting. But CE certification is done independently of the marketing hype by manufacturers, at least that is my belief, but I am willing to be proven wrong. If you know differently lets here about it.

So Seawind 1250 can carry 1450 Kg, does that exclude, generator, water maker, dinghy, panels.html" target="_blank">solar-IRJDSUNE9932123321222xxeww-panels, inverter, etc etc etc. Or are they part of the 1450 Kg. Just asking so we can actually compare apples for apples in the real world of long distance cruising boats.

Quote 44C "So, after all the lies, drivel and misinformation, it turns out the Seawind1250 has adequate load carrying capacity for it's intended purpose"

Quote 44C "The fixed tanks would include the holding tanks, 240 litres. But nobody would sail an ocean passage with full holding tanks. So that takes the available ocean going payload up to 1690kg, plus fuel and water.

Seems more than adequate IMO."

So if I am reading all this correctly, you are now suggesting that to have a "more than adequate" In your opinion, ocean going payload the owner first needs to empty his holding tanks.

Quote SMJ "How much load carrying capacity do you need if you figure the liquids aren't included?"

Now that is a sensible question to ask, all be it very individual to the person answering the question.

The more important question, is what is included or not included in the load carrying capacity?

For example: Dinghy, outboard motor, dinghy fuel, generator, water maker, dive gear/compressor, canoe/paddle board, engine spares, tools, line and rigging spares, etc etc etc.

Where all these included or not included in the original vessels calculation.

If not part of the original calculations, all this weight needs to be subtracted from load capacity on the CE Plate.

To be able to decide how many people, personal gear and provisions can be loaded safely


Quote SMJ "How much load carrying capacity do you need if you figure the liquids aren't included?"

Now that is a sensible question to ask, all be it very individual to the person answering the question.

The more important question, is what is included or not included in the load carrying capacity?

For example: Dinghy, outboard motor, dinghy fuel, generator, water maker, dive gear/compressor, canoe/paddle board, engine spares, tools, line and rigging spares, etc etc etc.

Where all these included or not included in the original vessels calculation.

If not part of the original calculations, all this weight needs to be subtracted from load capacity on the CE Plate.

To be able to decide how many people, personal gear and provisions can be loaded safely

Quote smj "but maybe not ground tackle"

Did not even think about ground Tackle. Mine weighs 470kg.

That's my whole point, you would think it should be easy to get a figure for the total max weight for any given vessel to be operated safely within it's designed conditions.

Sadly, it is elusive to say the least.

Quote 44C "Even though it has an excellent payload capacity, how do you know what your starting point is?" Is that not the question I have been asking all along. To simply state a load figure, needs to be defined further with what is and is not included in the figure.

As to davits being optional, I imagine that may well be because more and more of these boats are being fitted with dinghy lift in lieu of davits as standard from the factory.

Quote 44C "I was wondering if it was actually possible to know where you were relative to the stated load capacity"

Bravo you finally get it, is that not the same question I have been asking for the past 3 pages. When we where discussing the load capacity of the Seawind 1250.

What is and is not included in the standard weight of the vessel is irrelevant, as long as it is clearly stated, so then you will know exactly what items need to be included in the load carrying capacity of the vessel.

Quote 44C "if items which are generally considered basic necessities, such as antifoul are not included"

Quote Jim Cate "Stuff is damn heavy! Long ago I scraped 17 years worth of hard paint.html" target="_blank">bottom-IRJDSUNE9932123321222xxeww-paint off of my old IOR one tonner. Had to collect the scrapings for disposal... weighed nearly 400 lbs!"

Very informative post, the manufacturer of any vessel have no control over the amount of anti-foul that is or is not applied to a vessel and at 20-30 kg an application that can add up very quickly depending on type and frequency of application.

You seem to be nit picking through, what amounts to a very detailed list of what is and is not included in the load capabilities of one vessel. Yet when we where trying to get to the bottom of the load capacity for the Seawind 1250 all we had was a displacement figure and a load figure from a manual, with no accurate indication of what was or was not included in either of those figures. Followed by guesses to how that then tallied with a CE load Plate figure.

Quote 44C "there are people who seem to believe that exceeding load limits by even a small margin is dangerous and criminal."

I am not sure about the criminal aspect, the dangerous side I guess depends very much on by what percentage you exceed the safe carrying load for the vessel (we have already seen how hard that is to ascertain for some vessels). But on the other side of the fence there are those here who advocate, if you need or want to carry more load just raise the waterline when next you anti-foul (from a previous thread on a similar subject. I wonder why all the manufacturers have not caught on to that trick yet).

PS: By raising the waterline you will also need to use more anti-foul paint and also add to the total load of the anti foul on the vessel as well.

Quote arsenelupiga "it is rainy out there so have some time to burn"

Same up here in Lake Macquarie, so I just re read the last 10 pages to get a gist of where this all started and progressed, I came across these two gems that got lost "in the fog of war" (IE: informative, Cruisers Forum banter with slight thread drift along the way.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat
Since we're setting arbitrary definitions for cruising boats, IMO a proper cruising boat should have as standard equipment at least 3 reefing points in the mainsail. Anything that doesn't is a coastal cruiser.

Next but one post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Factor
Thats a bit tough, there are some recent cats that have a mainsail that wouldn't have enough room for 3 reef points.

Then I remember reading this on Seawind's current website when looking for the load figures.

SEAWIND 1260 (12.45 METRES / 42ft)
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND EQUIPMENT -3 Cabin Version
"2 x mainsail single line reefing fitted."

I can only assume this is a misprint, based on the quick retort re: "mainsail that wouldn't have enough room for 3 reef points" from somebody that does know what they are talking about.

Quote 44C "Sorry to disappoint you, but the 1250 has three reefing points as standard. First and second reef have single line reefing, third reef does not."

I also need to apologize, I just realized the part of the manufacturers spec I read, copied and pasted in was not for a Seawind 1250, which we where discussing and seems to be discontinued now, but for a New Seawind 1260 which is advertised as only having 2 reef points in it's published specification. (see link below)

Seawind 1260 - 41' performance cruising catamaran

But after a picture search on the inter-web it clearly shows vessel number SW126001 with 3 reefs in the main.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.

So no disappointment on my part at all, in fact just as I stated in my post, an obvious typo on the manufacturers website in the spec sheet.

My reason for bringing this up at all, when I read back over the posts was trying to understand what you where getting at with what was an obvious dig at a boat, that's main sail only has 2 x reefs.

Quote ROM "I've been reading a few user guides recently, I wish new buyers would put some pressure on manufacturers to obtain a better documentation set."

Plus 10 to that comment Rom. I have recently been trying to Library the PDF Owners manuals and Electrical / Plumbing diagrams for the Lagoon Group, so new owners of second hand boats with no original documentation can access them. It is like trying to drag top secret information out of foreign governments. Better documentation would be excellent, simpler access to what currently exists, would be a starting point.

Quote smj "If the Lagoon 400 sank because it was overloaded or possibly the Lagoon figures were of for the load capacity it should be known."

Only info that I can find re this particular incident translated from a french website.

"The weather window that we have been waiting for several days to leave is presented. We will drop anchor for the Azores this Friday. "Posted on their blog, the message of Sophie Lacellerie and Claude Hachet dated April 22. They actually left St. Martin on April 24, crossed the Atlantic aboard "Rêves d'O", their catamaran Lagoon 400, and approached the archipelago of the Azores this Wednesday. It was then that they were caught in a big storm early in the night. Hollow 5 meters. A kind of whirlpool would have heckled "O Dreams" as well as three other sailboats that were in the same area. Wanting to help them, a cargo ship from Hong Kong would have involuntarily hit the catamaran of the family Charente-Maritime.
Seven hours at sea Sophie, 37, and her 9-year-old son Hugo, managed to get on the life raft. They were rescued around 1 am by the same ship. But Claude, 39, and his daughter Ines, 6, who had been ejected from "O Dreams", floated for hours with their lifejacket. They were recovered only in the early morning by the Portuguese Air Force and transported to the nearest hospital. Too late for Ines, who had spent seven hours in the water. She suffered from hypothermia and could not be saved.
Back to La Rochelle In total, the Portuguese navy had to rescue 12 people between Wednesday and Thursday in the storm zone. Only little Ines would not have survived."

Just as stated by arsenelupiga in post #241.


Quote smj "No takers on whether there have been any Seawind’s that have capsized?" Been raining down here for past 24 hours on anchor, so I have time to play this game.

I have never herd of a Seawind capsizing, but that does not mean it has not happened. How many do you know about ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smj
The cargo ship WOULD HAVE involuntarily hit the Catamaran...... but did it? Would have, could have, should have but nothing definitive.
And no, never heard of a Seawind capsizing.

Sorry I can not find anything more definitive for you.

My take is the "WOULD HAVE involuntarily hit the Catamaran" is more to do with the French way of phrasing and the Google translation than weather it did or did not hit them in the first place. It is pointing out that it was not a deliberate act by the cargo ship.

Original text in case we have some French speakers here, to give a more definitive answer.

"C'est alors qu'ils ont été pris dans une grosse tempête en début de nuit. Des creux de 5 mètres. Une sorte de tourbillon aurait chahuté « Rêves d'O » ainsi que trois autres voiliers qui se trouvaient dans la même zone. Voulant leur porter secours, un cargo de Hongkong aurait involontairement heurté le catamaran de la famille charentaise- maritime."

Quote smj #237 "I understand the load carrying capacity as being part of the blue water requirements, but does anyone recall any Seawind’s that have capsized while sailing?

Quote smj "Obviously to you the ability to carry washer/dryer, dish washer and trash compactor is considered more seaworthy than being kept in the upright non capsized position. Since the Lagoons seem to have a multitude of capsizes and the Seawind’s have none maybe your quote should have read “ this thread started mixing cruising long distance cats like Seawind with coastal cruiser cats like Lagoon”

If you are going to take into consideration when comparing different vessels (Long distance cruisers verses Coastal Cruisers), the number of historical sinkings / capsizes / dis-mastings. Lagoons having multitudes (your words not mine) to Seawinds having none, you are looking at numbers of "x" compared to numbers of "y".

Numbers there in lies the rub.

How many Seawinds have been used in the the long distance cruising roll, because your assumption is that the sinkings / capsizes / dis-mastings happen out in the blue water environment. Hence your preference for Seawind as a Bluewater long distance cruiser. Hard to know how many Seawinds have been truly used in Bluewater compared to coastal cruisers. Perhaps a look at the registrations for the ARC/ARC Plus may be an indication, or The Pacific Puddle jump each year may give some indication.

Next number issue if we had 50x and 50y sailing for 10 years together then the number of incidents occurring to both x and y may well be of some consideration when deciding between each one as a long distance cruiser.

Seawind have produce some 600 boats over the past 35 years.

One Lagoon model the L380 in production for past 20 years has launched over 800.

The L450 in production for 8 years is up over 700 that is only 2 of there current models.

Currently this year Lagoon will produce some 500 vessels. (That is one years production almost equaling Seawinds last 35 years)

So comparing apples to oranges is difficult enough but when the oranges outnumber the apples by a Factor of some 5 to 10 times, it becomes very difficult to draw any sensible conclusions what so ever, based on incomplete or sketchy Internet reported incidents.

None of this proves or implies the ability or for that matter the lack of ability of the Seawind 1250 to be a long distance cruiser. All I am trying to point out is that just because a vessel has had or not had an incident, unless all the numbers and all the facts are know, not much in the way of useful conclusions can be drawn from that limited data on the internet. (eg: bringing up the Lagoon 400 sinking, that seems to have been caused by collision with a cargo ship) Not very relevant at all to a Lagoons long distance cruising ability. Very important I guess If you wish to go around ramming cargo ships though.

Every body has a different idea of what the perfect long distance cruising boat is. It is a very personal thing. Viva La difference.

To some being able to do half wind speed in 12 knots is the ultimate, for others to still have the sails up in 45 plus knots of wind and safely keep sailing is an important thing.

Some want to carry "washer/dryer, dish washer and trash compactor". While others may wish to carry a life raft, a dinghy, a generator, a water maker, an inverter etc.

Which brings me back to my original point that I have been trying to make all along in this discussion, none of these above items are included in most vessels original weight and need to be taken into account in the loading of the vessel. If you do not have correct information to start with, it is very difficult to make a sensible, safe decision on what can or can not be add on to or loaded on your chosen vessel.

Most of us on here, I assume, despite the way we behave sometimes during a discussion, have enough common sense to work out most of it for ourselves, but there are new people all the time reading advice and comments, these need to be consider when handing out advice carte blanche.


Quote smj "Doing half windspeed is not a performance boat, quite the opposite."

And to quote myself "To some being able to do half wind speed in 12 knots is the ultimate, for others to still have the sails up in 45 plus knots of wind and safely keep sailing is an important thing."

I was suggesting that some people see that attribute to be good indicator for a long distance cruising vessel. Nothing to do with a performance multi hull whatsoever. Just as sailing safely in 45 plus knots of wind, has nothing to do with a performance boat, just another attribute that some may also see as important to a long distance cruiser.

I must be a bit thick, because I do not understand where you got the impression I was talking about performance boats quote "is not a performance boat, quite the opposite." I was not trying to imply any of the boats under discussion are a performance boats. Just some of the differences in peoples expectations of long range cruising vessel.

Quote smj "And I have sailed and inspected both Seawind’s and Lagoons, and honestly in my opinion you are comparing apples to oranges."

Likewise I have also sailed Seawinds and Lagoons and honestly in my opinion I am comparing apples to oranges.

I came a signature away from owning an apple at one time and currently own two oranges. It all depends on ones taste as to which fruit you chose. Which is something else I have been advocating on here for quiet long time. Different strokes for different blokes.

I have never attacked a brand of vessel based on my requirements and what I believe, compared to what some one else believes. I obviously enjoy a good discussion other wise I would not persist here and try to discuss facts not feelings. Look at my signature, not names I have given myself but names that have been thrown my way during discussion over the past years, there are other names I have been called I chose not incorporate.

I think my choice is perfect for me, perfect for others that is up to them to decided based on there requirements. I will stick up for my choice based on my criteria when that is challenged, but I have no blinkers on, ask and I will tell you the short comings of my choice and how it could be improved withing the frame work of my needs, wants and ability to pay for it.

Find a discussion where somebody asks about the sailing / cruising attributes of a vessel and I have jumped in with derogatory comments about said vessels abilities or put the vessel down based on my requirements.

Unlike some others comments over the years. EG:"I didn't realize you wanted a motor boat instead of a sail boat" "it cant even sail in under 12 knots at 1/2 wind speed" (not direct quotes but from my memory of previous discussions)

Go back over the past 6 years and the same old names keep coming up over and over and over again pushing there particular barrow, be it based on a corporate or personal bias. I have no doubt that what they believe is true (to them anyway), but others are not only entitled to have an opinion, some times they may be just as correct as well.

I have been accused more than once of being a blinkered "Lagoon Fan Boy" hence part of my signature. Go over to the Fountaine Pajot or Lepoard sections and find me trying to push a Lagoon barrow. Do not bother, because you will not find that sort of post by me there. The world is big enough and diverse enough to incorporate all the brands as they all bring something good to the long range cruising table.

Find a post where somebody is inquiring about a particular performance multihull's attributes and me charging in telling them they do not want to buy that and would be way better off if they purchased a Lagoon. Do not bother looking because you will not find that either.

The converse sadly is not true, the number of biased personal opinions and innuendoes directed towards a Lagoon information inquiry or recommendation is legion. Hence me trying to fly the Lagoon flag.

Is my Lagoon flag flying repetitive and in a higher proportion than others with different brands. Possibly or it may just be that Lagoon represents 1 in 3 of every new Production Multihull launched today. So 1 in 3 Multihull Posts on the Cruisers forum will in all probability be about a Lagoon.


Quote smj "As I said, my beef isn’t with you" I am not taking anything you posted as a beef with me.

Quote sailjumanji "So when was the 1250 made? Years? Because new model is 1260 made in Vietnam, and therefore resin infused, composite panels, etc. There is probably a significant weight difference between the two models, if the 1250 was made in AUS."

Seawind 1250 was still manufactured in Australia in March 2011 (when I nearly purchased one) then 1250 production was moved to Vietnam sometime after that (circa 2012 -2013). Then ceased with the introduction of the new 1260. (Others here will have the exact dates).


"a significant weight difference" Apparently not unless I have unearthed a misprint, 1250 spec sheet and page from 1260 hand book, posted so I do not get accused of miss quoting anything.









Also probably of significance to part of the discussion over past several days is the warning in the middle of the 1260 spec page. Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum.

Quote sailjumanji "I suspect - as the reported weights are identical to the lb - that they just continued reporting the same weight. But do you really think resin infused is not going to reduce weight vs traditional layup? Really?"

Once again may be just as simple as a misprint, copy past error as I eluded to in my post. That second page is from the 1260 Owners operating manual, so I would think there is some imperative for that to be somewhat close to correct as opposed to just a marketing type brochure.

The only reason I went and looked at, then posted this at all was as a follow up to your comment "There is probably a significant weight difference between the two models" that interested me to see if that word "Probably" was wishful thinking or in fact was the case, the 1260 being a new model to the market.

The only information I have to refer to is that supplied by the manufacturer of this or any product, that I wish to research, that is why I posted what I did. If it proves to be incorrect and the actual correct figures come to light supporting your "probably" statement, is that not a good thing all round. You will have been vindicated and anyone in the future looking for the displacement will hopefully be presented with the correct figure.

No I neither think, nor implied that Vacuum infused resin is the same as a hand layup. There are some arguments both fore and against for such construction methods.


I do note: That in the time I have taken to write and edit this reply, you have now discovered that the Original Seawind 1250 and the New Seawind 1260 are both vacuum infused, thus the reason that the two different models share the exact same displacement figure to the lb in their respective literature is now acceptable.

Originally Posted by PaulinOz Also probably of significance to part of the discussion over past several days is the warning in the middle of the 1260 spec page.
Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum.

Quote sailjumanji "Where does this kind of statement come from? That didn't take long, and after you just wrote "I have never attacked a brand of vessel"... nor have I made "derogatory comments about said vessels". Hmmm, I didn't read that in the spec sheet - quite to the contrary there was a warning against overloading."

Wave your Lagoon flag if you want. Heck, fly one from each of your boats! But really? Come on. [/QUOTE]


"Where does this kind of statement come from?" The majority of this back and forth over the past 7 plus pages has been in regards to what can and can not be loaded on a vessel safely. In order to know that, you need to know what the displacement of the vessel is, as well as what is or is not included in it's displacement figure. Then you need to know what its maximum load figure is and once again what is or is not included in that load figure.

You have correctly noted Seawinds warning re overloading. Bravo. By referring to it I was neither attacking or being derogatory about Seawind what so ever, but highlighting what I believe is an important statement.

To load a vessel safely and not overload it, one needs to have accurate, correct figures. As evidence by recent figures that seem to be the same for 2 different models, this is not always as easy as one might think or should be to obtain the correct loading information.

The second part of the statement "Seawind as a manufacturer obviously do not know about the ability to overload a vessel with out any additional consequences, as is advocated among some posters on this forum". By this I was highlighting the fact that Seawind see overloading as a serious issue, to some people on this forum, not necessarily this tread that have expressed views in the past contrary to the Seawinds warning.

In a previous threads on vessel loading, some people here have expressed the view that there was no adverse consequences with overloading a vessel, to the point that raising the waterline to accommodate said extra load was absolutely fine and even common practice among some. (I believe this may be more common in mono-hulls, I have no experience to comment one way or the other)

I myself do not subscribe to this view on overloading multi-hulls, obviously and do not believe it is something that should be encouraged. The only people that need to be encouraged are all the manufacturers, to make it easier to find out what a vessels accurate displacement is and from what it is derived and what its maximum load is and what the load consists of.

They all (wait for it ) including Lagoon need to do better with their documentation, in this area to varying degrees. IMHO

[44'cruisingcat]

It might be worthwhile reading a post before wasting however long it took you to compile your reply.

Unless you're being deliberately obtuse?

I'm quite sure you know who posted about loading 8 tonnes on their boat then going racing.

To which you replied that you liked the way he thought.

So again, you're OK with overloading by a few tonnes, as long as it's a lagoon?