basketcase
Fuck you second amendment
Antares was ok when they were built by PDQ in Canada.,...... now, hmmmmm....
Are Performance "Cruising" Catamarans Safe? - by Antares Catamarans
- Thread starter jmh2002
- Start date
Keith
Super Anarchist
Antares Catamarans have posted up a new video which is bound to cause some controversy but also includes some useful discussion, data, and links.
I didn't want to derail other threads so I started a new topic with their video and included the links from the video description.
Have at it!
Are Performance "Cruising" Catamarans Safe? - by Antares Catamarans
Join us as we discuss the pros and cons of performance catamarans and dive into research done by the Univerisity of Southhampton, UK, about why multihulls capsize. Topics covered include catamaran stability, 2021 World ARC performance data analysis, and much more!
Link to catamaran stability:
Link to World ARC results:
Link to Definitions:
The biggest potenial problem on a performance cat is the skipper, making poor inexperienced decisions.
Mambo Kings
Super Anarchist
It’s been my experience that poor decisions by experienced sailors are still poor decisions.
We will all of us make the wrong call one day , and it is reassuring to have a good boat on your team. A great defensive tackle can make a poor decision by the QB look good.
All boats require a series of careful design compromises. But this video provides absolutely zero insight . Nada. This guy is laughable.
sure
but if you don't have the extra area.., you can't get caught with it...
and i'm speaking as one who did get caught.
no, we didn't capsize, but we were in more than a little bit of trouble, and pretty relieved when it was over.
Did we make a mistake? yes.., we got a bit complacent. This was a nearly full pro crew.
If you are crossing ocean, and it's going to take, say two weeks, it can be difficult to keep the level of focus that it takes to stick to a no-risk sailing plan.
are you going to take the big sails down every time you see a dark cloud?
The numbers in the video may be all wrong, but it's not wrong to say there is a tradeoff between safety and performance in catamarans.
socalrider
Super Anarchist
I see your point, but following that logic wouldn't it be safer to, say, not equip your boat with any downwind sails? It'd be safest to just carry storm sails for that matter.
Having a boat that can sail off a lee shore in a gale is safer than one that would require functioning engines to make headway.
I'd love to hear more about your situation, but I would suspect that a nearly full pro crew might be *more* inclined to push the envelope versus a family crossing an ocean? Being a bit... um... aggressive myself I certainly get your point that having the sail means you're more likely to use it, but you can have too much sail up on a condo cat as well.
Mambo Kings
Super Anarchist
The numbers in the video are all wrong.
Horrendously wrong
Which completely undermines the credibility of the video and the manufacturer the video is representing.
Which means it is the wrong video to highlight the true statement that there is a tradeoff between safety and performance in any sailing craft. Any message about how to address this trade off , and any message about how to improve the S/P ratio is lost.
Safety and performance is a trade off that starts the moment you step off the dock. It would be safer to stay on land.
Once you start planning to sail, then the choices you make of boat, equipment, sails, crew, training route etc all affect safety. Every decision about long distance sailing impacts safety.
The lighter displacement catamaran in the BVI in February may be a safer place to be than a heavy displacement monohull rounding cape horn in the same month. But both can be safe or extremely unsafe depending on crew and experience.
Yes, a large step up in performance in a cat, means you better also step up the ingredients that increase safety. ...because they are inherently harder to sail on both feet.
agreed
it just happens that the comment i wanted to address was made in a discussion about that video. I didn't mean to endorse the video
my main point is that the fact that one can reef a high performance catamaran doesn't remove as much of the added risk as one might suppose.
I guess there are different ways in which one can get into trouble
I think most of us would be smart enough to realize when things are gradually deteriorating, and then do something about it - like reef
The more dangerous scenario is: everything is fine.., until it isn't.
It's hard really to know what happened in the capsizes we read about, but mostly it seems like the second of those scenarios was responsible - or at least that's what people claim afterwards.
and, i would have to admit that for my particular scare, maybe in retrospect everything wasn't fine
Mambo Kings
Super Anarchist
The fundamental risk with a catamaran as a cruising vessel is that one of the important "fuses" in sailing is removed. A cruising monohull warns you that she needs the sail area reduced by heeling......and if you dont reduce the sail area, the monohull's safety valve is that she will broach or get knocked down and pick herself back up.
Anybody purchasing a blue water catamaran, performance or heavy displacement, needs to be acutely conscious of this factor.
An inexperienced sailor carry too much sail area in a heavy displacement cat is almost as risky as an inexperienced sailor carrying too much sail area in a performance cat.
If asked, would I be more cautious about sailing with @Capt Dave in his high performance Atlantic 57 ( a design which famously turtled in the Atlantic) or with my neighbor Andrew who is jumping up and down with excitement about the purchase of his brand new heavy Lagoon 46, his first cruising boat after getting his keelboat certification in an Ideal 18 and 2 charter vacations in the BVI? The answer I hope is clear. There are many factors which affect safety.
By the way, I will sail with Andrew (name changed to protect the innocent) . I am thrilled by his enthusiasm. I am so happy for him for his boat. I love welcoming a new sailor to our community.,.... but we will learn about caution safety and the fickle nature of the ocean.
I myself have much to learn about cruising cats and I will invite experienced sailors to sail with me, and I will drop tools and offer to crew with experienced sailors in their cats.
mpenman
Member
Not so fast......(pun intended).....now I may already know the answer to this question, but I'll ask it anyways.......which has caused more serious injury in multi's, dismasting or capsizing?
I can tell you from experience that a slow boat that cannot claw its way upwind can be a very dangerous boat too.
I won't speak for @Capt Dave but offshore we normally have a reef to two reefs in the main and sometimes the same in the jib, depending on sea state and conditions.
In both the 57 and the 72 you will get a serious burst of speed before the boat decides to go tango uniform!!! Squalls do happen and they happen fast. Our fastest recorded speed was with a squall catching up from behind causing us to run downwind at a serious clip. The protection in a performance multi can also be a function of its design. Running downwind at 25+knots in big seas knowing that your bows can handle them is a good design.
Exposing your boat to more hours at sea or being unable to get outta the way of something coming is a safety factor that cannot be under-estimated. 200+ miles per day under sail or power gets you out of the way of most bad weather. With todays easy access to weather getting caught in 50+knots of breeze is almost a thing of the past.
On our boats you reef to the gusts, which still gives you a very good safety margin of even higher winds, but maybe costs you a knot or two of boat speed.
Most of the time, in open ocean and stronger winds your goal is to keep the boat comfortable. This means you're pretty dang heavily reefed and I can tell you that it's way safer than a lagoon with a fly bridge and bendable mast!!!
Sailing like flying is hoping you fill that experience bucket before the luck bucket runs out.
Not suggesting I want one, very happy with a fast light boat and following the same stratergy as you. But answering some of your queries on behalf of the dark side, "dangerous lee shore " take the sails down and stick the engines on, in fact, upwind take the sails down and motor, not going far just stick the engines on it's a lot less hustle. It's a different mindset thats all and I have spent very many happy hours with people who get great pleasure out of owning one. By the way you never answered the question you posed dismasting or capsize ?
boardhead
Anarchist
When I was putting a quote together to replace the stock stainless rigging with Dyneema on a sixty foot production cat which I will not name I was quite surprised to find out that the rig would indeed carry away long before a sail over capsize could occur. On reflection - for that boat - probably not a bad idea!
I was aboard two different trimarans (neither mine) when the rig came down, each under full sail, and both were pretty gentle, with no injuries but a good friend had the misfortune on a cat and suffered a smashed face with eye socket damage. None of the boats involved were near capsize. Who knows which mishap - dismasting or capsize -would be more physically dangerous. So it's best to do everything you can to avoid both.
I upsized the Dyneema rigging on my boat suspecting that even if the stock stainless was up to the task - lightship - that loaded and with a few cycles on it that it was not.
Motoring off a lee shore under bare poles - no way on my cruising cat! I need that rig to stay up there and give me everything it's got in that situation and the engines would give me a lift but that's all.
I was aboard two different trimarans (neither mine) when the rig came down, each under full sail, and both were pretty gentle, with no injuries but a good friend had the misfortune on a cat and suffered a smashed face with eye socket damage. None of the boats involved were near capsize. Who knows which mishap - dismasting or capsize -would be more physically dangerous. So it's best to do everything you can to avoid both.
I upsized the Dyneema rigging on my boat suspecting that even if the stock stainless was up to the task - lightship - that loaded and with a few cycles on it that it was not.
Motoring off a lee shore under bare poles - no way on my cruising cat! I need that rig to stay up there and give me everything it's got in that situation and the engines would give me a lift but that's all.
nota
Anarchist
can't allow that to stand
nader was an idiot
the corvair was a good car
the rear axle was like porsche or vw 59-64
and swaped out for a true IRS copyed from the vett by 65
I am biased as I owned 1/2 dozen 65 up corvairs
all nader did was make the fixed one cheap after 65
the only reason I owned so many was they were cheaper to replace then do a simple brake job on at 50 to 100 for most high price was a cherry 66 with 33k miles for 250
btw the 66 4 speed could take a v8 in the back seat with a kit
solosailor
Super Anarchist
In a rare ruling the NTSB exonerated the Corvair in '72.
Have had my '65 Corsa convertible since '83. Excellent handling compared to most 60s cars. Light, independent suspension, unibody.
Have had my '65 Corsa convertible since '83. Excellent handling compared to most 60s cars. Light, independent suspension, unibody.
Lol, I’m from Detroit and spent my career in the auto industry…I’m glad someone got the reference!
he b gb
Anarchist
So true, motoring to windward is heaps more effective/ efficient with your mainsail up (reefed to the conditions) sheeted in tight than motoring directly into the wind and chop.
PIL66 - XL2
Super Anarchist
Capsizing..... for sure... over the 1000's of rigs that have fallen there would be very few injuries.....and of those, even fewer serious injuries
Last edited:
Doesn't matter how you spin it, swing-axles are cheap-ass shit suspension. There is a reason Chevy had to fix it for '64 & '65.
Corvairs were cool cars, producted by a horrible car company.
boardhead
Anarchist
"Hi Tech" BMW got away with equipping their "legendary" 2002/3/5 - etc,etc that way for years but hey, if you don't even know what's behind the wheel just pay the big buck and destroy your domestic sources! My dad rolled a 3 litre S with me in the passenger seat finding out how crap the brakes/suspension were. Never had a problem with his Aston!
But I digress!
