Lightning Strikes Multihulls More Than Monohulls

[Cheechako]

But the debris is most often confused with Japanese Tsunami flotsam.....

[David M]

With a 1% chance of it happening then what's all the fuss?

The chance of it happening also varies with the area. In the SF Bay Area we have lightning storms maybe two days out of the year.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by carstenb

FYI

The article says the stats are an average of the insurance companies last five years of claims. Sso the nu,bers are accurate, looked at from their point of view. Yes severity is obviously cost of the claim. I don't think fewer mono have comprehensive insurance than multi's, but multi's, looked at as a group may be more expensive than monos and therefore the cost of claims is higher.

But i bet those stats show up in the cost of insuring your boat

I do think fewer monos have comprehensive insurance than multis. The insurance sampling groups 1966 Cal 25's with 2010 St. Francis 50's.

I also think there are many more mono's hit by lightning that are not accounted for in insurance claim statistics because they either are uninsured (hence invisible to the study) or the damage does not make a claim worthwhile (high deductible or no comprehensive insurance).

To illustrate using my "statistics" about lightning hits in the San Blas this year, of those 13 boats hit, only 3 were catamarans. But from an insurance perspective, 3 catamarans were insured but only 2 monos were. So insurance claim statistics would conclude that catamarans are 1.5x more likely to be hit than mono's and that powerboats are completely immune (the powerboat did not have insurance).

You would lose your insurance cost bet - we have never been charged a premium over monos with insurance and have never been quoted any differently by any company. The cost of insurance has simply reflected the value of the boat and not whether it is a multi or mono.

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

In the San Blas case, you would need to know about how many monos there were and how many cats--if there were 6 monos for every cat, then the relative statistics would be about like BoatUS. However, unless there were 300 cats and 2000 monos in the San Blas (not likely), it looks like the title of lightning capital of the world should move down there from Florida.

In our anchorage right now, there are 5 mono's 3 cat's and 1 powerboat. This is probably representative here, although powerboats are more rare, so the multi/mono ratios are somewhere between 1:4 and 3:5 throughout the islands right now.

The 13 boats struck were a subset of a total of ~40-60 boats here, so Florida has nothing on the San Blas when it comes to lightning. It is come to Jesus, archangels blowing horns, second coming lightning like you have never seen it down here. The Floridians on boats down here admit they have never seen lighting like this.

Mark

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by colemj

I do think fewer monos have comprehensive insurance than multis.

As i understand it, the stats were for the number of insured boats hit per 1000 of insured boats. The percentage of any group insured would not therefore effect the ratio.

[colemj]

That statement was related to the relative costs of the claims, not the statistic of hits.

You are correct that if the sampling pool is large enough, then the statistics should represent uninsured boat percentages as well.

It is odd how this mono/multi statistic has such legs with people, since most of them live and cruise in areas where lightning is rare (Denmark, England, California, the Med?).

It is even difficult to understand for those living in lightning-rich areas. Ruling out a type of boat because it is statistically twice as likely to be hit by lightning doesn't make rational sense given the rarity of lightning strikes overall. If this was rational, then everyone would be ditching sailboats completely in favor of trawlers, which are 10x less likely to be hit - not just 2x. You would be irresponsible not to.

There are many other things on boats that are more dangerous and far more likely to happen that one rarely bats an eye at - it would be interesting to see BoatUS's statistics on lightning strikes vs. many other things that are submitted for damage claims.

I bet those lightning immune PWC's would be seen in a different light...

Mark

[bene505]

ANyone know the percent of monohuls that are insured by Boat U.S.? Same question for multihulls. Knowing those two numbers would tell you the rest of the story.

Let's not forget SUVs. Saw this off DrudgeReport.com.

Lightning hits the SUV - YouTube


Regards,
Brad

[Paul L]

There are many other things on boats that are more dangerous and far more likely to happen that one rarely bats an eye at - it would be interesting to see BoatUS's statistics on lightning strikes vs. many other things that are submitted for damage claims.

...
Mark

The majority of claims for sinking occur at a dock. That is why you should always anchor out.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by colemj

... Ruling out a type of boat because it is statistically twice as likely to be hit by lightning doesn't make rational sense given the rarity of lightning strikes overall. If this was rational, then everyone would be ditching sailboats completely in favor of trawlers, which are 10x less likely to be hit - not just 2x. You would be irresponsible not to...

I don't recall anyone extrapolating that conclusion.

[Travelnik]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

The way I read the table is that cats are about twice as likely to get hit, and the cost per claim is almost twice as high.

Twice as likely to get hit...

Twice the cost per claim...

Twice as many hulls...

I see a trend here:

Insurance companies are rip-offs!

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I don't recall anyone extrapolating that conclusion.

But if I did, guess that would send me to a pontoon boat (PWC not being a boat). Oh wait, aren't those usually catamarans?

[carstenb]

WE do see lightning here in Denmark (oh yes we do!) probably not as much as other places. I should note that the reason I posted the statistics was because I thought them interesting. Personally, I have no beat with either cats or tris. I've sailed on some and they are fast and have lots of room (comfort).

I have a mono and that's because I believe (I'm not trying to start an argument here), that monos are safer in blue water at peak storms. A mono has a chance of righting itself after a capsize - multis stay flipped.

But that's my opinion. I certainly agree that wehn it comes to speed and comfort - multis are superior

[Factor]

You forget non sinking

[colemj]

Originally Posted by carstenb

A mono has a chance of righting itself after a capsize - multis stay flipped.

Interesting risk assessment. Statistically, multis have a far higher risk of being hit by lightning than flipping in a storm.

Mark