Cat Capsizes off Kangaroo Island

[boatman61]

Simon.... its no big deal... its this need to be tribal people have...
Kindred spirits and all.... you think Cat vs Mono on heres bad...?
Ask serious wooden boat owners what they think of plastic fantastics... its like saying "Harley's are the greatest bikes in the world..."
When Everyone Knows its Honda

[simonmd]

Lol. yes I understand that but it's not the first time thay've taken a bashing (verbal, not 20ton container) but it never seems to be the other way round. I was wondering if there were a few feelings of inadequasy from some people?

Oh, and the best bike is a Triumph......

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by simonmd

Oh, and the best bike is a Triumph......

Hmmmm.... you could be right there by a whisker....
The never having to change the oil... could be a winner...
just top it up once a week..

[smj]

Originally Posted by simonmd

I really can't understand the attitude of some people towards cats in this thread. There seems to be some sort of 'anti cat' feeling from monohull people that seem to enjoy implying that the basic twin hull of a cat' is a dangerous or flawed design. Sure it capsized BUT it stayed afloat. The fact that it hit the thing is nothing to do with the design, if it was a monohull that hit it, it would have undoubtably sunk altogether. I bet that there have been similar incedents in the past involving monohulls and I bet that there were no cat' owners saying "ah that's because it was a monohull....".

So what's going on, multihull envy?

I think there are a lot of jealous mono hullers out there Im sure there are monos that have sank due to the same situation. The difference being no survivors to tell the story and no floating boats to take pictures of. Very unnews worthy.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by simonmd

and I bet that there were no cat' owners saying "ah that's because it was a monohull....".

You lose, send me the money.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Simon.... its no big deal... its this need to be tribal people have...
Kindred spirits and all.... you think Cat vs Mono on heres bad...?
Ask serious wooden boat owners what they think of plastic fantastics... its like saying "Harley's are the greatest bikes in the world..."
When Everyone Knows its Honda

Now Boatman, how dare you compare my boat to a honda! That 's worse than calling an excavator a boat! Everyone knows that a Honda won't float.

I bet we cruisers could figure a way to get rich salvaging the stuff in derelict shipping containers. Imagine an entire container full of 40" TVs or Toyota parts?

Todd

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by IdoraKeeper

Now Boatman, how dare you compare my boat to a honda! That 's worse than calling an excavator a boat! Everyone knows that a Honda won't float.
Todd

Damn.... I thought ferro's were spelt 'HARTLEY'...

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Damn.... I thought ferro's were spelt 'HARTLEY'...

I do recall advocating a Ferro Cat loaded with anchors and goat feed. But I guess I will have to make do with Idora.

Todd

[Southern Star]

Catty, I am quite happy with and confident about my choice of a catamaran for my present purposes (frankly, as I was with my previous monohulls). Unlike you, however, I do not tend to assume the worst whenever there is a report concerning a multi - e.g., your statement that it was a 'glancing' blow in spite of the fact that even the initial reports referred to a large hole in the hull. In any event, I gather you now agree that it was anything but a glancing blow.

I too would love to hear what kind of boat you have and your likes/dislikes about the design, especially as they pertain to offshore safety. In fact I started a thread some time ago wherein I encouraged people to do the same. Lets face it, my boat is decidedly low on the performance spectrum (and I make no claims about superior overall performance); on the other hand, I consider my boat to be very seaworthy. You seem to have some concerns about the seaworthiness of the breed in general - perhaps we would have a better idea of the genesis of those concerns if we knew what kind of boat you sailed.

Regardless of the genesis, my concern is that posts such as your initial ones in this thread tend to undermine the reputation of all catamarans for seaworthiness without a factual basis. Such posts are, IMO, decidedly unhelpful. Your reference to it having been caused by a glancing blow was repeated as if fact in some posts that followed in the thread - and lets fact it, any analysis based upon your inflammatory mis-statement would simply be 'garbage in-garbage out'.

In any case, unlike you I do not see this incident as giving rise to more questions about the stability of catamarans - I see it as another incident of a boat having the misfortune of striking a partially submerged cargo container while at sea; and, as a testimonial to the fact that even with a huge hole in one hull, that this particular boat did what catamarans should do -remain afloat. But then again, I am always negative-lol!

Cheers!

Brad

[Southern Star]

PS Regarding your question about the relevance of the Titanic to this discussion, you may wish to consider the following:

1. It was in answer to your question mark concerning the boat having struck the container on side of the hull.

2. The analysis of the sinking of the Titanic led some to conclude that it would have survived its collision if it had struck the iceberg head on.

Frankly, I wonder if the same would not have been the case here as well. With a water-tight collision bulkhead/compartment in the bow, it is at least a possibility that the ingress of water could have been contained.

Brad

[sneuman]

I don't think I said anything other than more multis increases the chances of capsizes, collisions, etc. That's a statement of indisputable fact.

[Southern Star]

Sneuman, no argument with your post. You are absolutely spot on, IMO.

Brad

[simonmd]

Ok, lets put something straight here. Generaly, it's true to say that if a cat struck something that ruptured the hull, it would more than likely eventualy capsize. A mono hull in the same situation would most likely not. This is what some people are latching onto and wrongly saying that this proves a cat is more unstable.

HOWEVER, they seem to be happy to ignore the fact that even with catastophic damage, the majority of cat designs will remain afloat, all be it upside down, due to the boyancy given in the other hull. A monohull, unless it's some kind of specialist design that includes water tight compartments will eventualy sink.

I think that many misconceptions that cats are inherantly unstable comes from maybe comparing the cruising cat to the racing cat. These craft are MUCH lighter, usualy not having any cabin to speak of and you'll have seen cats such as the Rush series going along with the crew perched on one side with the whole pontoon out of the water, one mistake or gust of wind in the wrong direction and sure, it'll go over. A cruising cat would have to be in hurricane force winds for that to happen as their C of G is very low and if that was the case, you'd surely have to blame the captain for being silly enough to have sail up in those conditions in the first place. They are VERY different animals and it's unfair to group them altogether in the same catagory.

Originally Posted by sneuman

I don't think I said anything other than more multis increases the chances of capsizes, collisions, etc. That's a statement of indisputable fact.

Rubbish, on what do you base that on?? So it would be ok for me to say that 'monohulls increase the risk of sinking' then, also a hugely general statement not based on any facts at all. How can anyone state the the number of hulls has ANYTHING to do with the fact it hit something?? We are talking about two 40ft objects in THOUSANDS of square miles of ocean. For you to imply that the fact a cat is generaly a few feet wider had ANYTHING to do with it is quite frankly, laughable.

Here are some proper facts for you that I haven't just guessed at, quote taken from catamaransite.com;
recent insurance data showed that cruising catamarans are actually safer than traditional monohulls. Fewer boat losses, fewer injuries and fewer deaths as a percentage of hulls sailing ( data from NTSB)

So, In My Humble Opinion, it's not a design flaw that it capsised, it's a bonus because at least it stayed afloat. I rest my case Your Honour.

Oh, and with the Titanic thing, it would NOT have sunk if it had hit the 'berg straight on. It could float with any 4 compartments flooded and there is no way it would have ruptured four in a head on collision, two or three at worst. This is one of the biggest ironys of the whole story, had they not seen it and steamed right into the damn thing, the ship would have survived. It was the fact that they opened up five compartments by giving a it a glancing blow that doomed the ship.

[sneuman]

simonmd: I base it on the laws of probability. Right now, there are relatively few catamarans/trimarans as a percentage of the entire "cruising fleet". As there are more multis, more of them will come to a bad end as a percentage of all mishaps.

If that sounds like common sense, that's because it is. But some multi advocates make the mistake when talking of sinkings, capsizes, etc. of not only comparing absolute numbers of multihulls to absolute numbers of monohulls, which is statistical fallacy given the far greater numbers of monohulls out there.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by simonmd

Here are some proper facts for you that I haven't just guessed at, quote taken from catamaransite.com;
recent insurance data showed that cruising catamarans are actually safer than traditional monohulls. Fewer boat losses, fewer injuries and fewer deaths as a percentage of hulls sailing ( data from NTSB)

I've seen this before and, quite frankly, am rather underwhelmed. There's no raw data and the writer herself qualifies it by admitting the data is dodgy. She draws the conclusion that the rate of mono sinkings is only "slightly" more than catamarans. Without providing rates or figures, she asserts that personal injuries and fatalities on monos are higher, but has no idea why.

It seems if the numbers were really that convincing, there ought to be more than this vague analysis to back them up.

There could be something there, and then again, maybe not. But as even the author of the above admits, it requires further study to draw any solid conclusions.