Fuck you second amendment
Antares was ok when they were built by PDQ in Canada.,...... now, hmmmmm....
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:
It’s been my experience that poor decisions by experienced sailors are still poor decisions.The biggest potenial problem on a performance cat is the skipper, making poor inexperienced decisions.
Just because you have a lot of sail area doesn't mean you have to use it all. If you re-ran the calculations with a reef in for the performance cats you could equalize the stability numbers.
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.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.
The numbers in the video are all wrong.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.
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.
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.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
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?People always tell me the fuse in the lagoon is the mast comes down before it can capsize. Not such a bad thing, I probably would rather be mastless than upside down. Once your boat becomes your home you attitude tends to change quite a bit thats all I can say.
can't allow that to standCanceled this morning...I wish someone would have explained to me earlier that I picked the Corvair of catamarans. Unsafe at any speed! LOL.
Lol, I’m from Detroit and spent my career in the auto industry…I’m glad someone got the reference!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
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.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.
Capsizing..... for sure... over the 1000's of rigs that have fallen there would be very few injuries.....and of those, even fewer serious injuriesNot 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?
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.
View attachment 582436
"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!Very true - Triumph Vitesse POS you could roll the wheel and suspension right under the car!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.
View attachment 582483