Another Broken Lagoon
- Thread starter goeasy123
- Start date
cherod
N/A
Totally , and if that is what they want then that is what they should get , but not ignore the ( should be ) obvious limitations and not whinge
geem
Well-known member
I think that's the problem. Buyers of these boats assume they are buying something like a car. They expect it work reliably. They are spending a hell of a lot of money so they assume it must be good. They see others sailing them around the world. They follow blogs of those doing it. Those blogs rarely mention the problems with the boats. The blog owners don't want to admit the failing with their very expensive purchase. The new owners don't research the behaviour of these boats in tough sailing conditions and the whole thing self perpetuates like lemmings going over a cliff.
Supertramp
Well-known member
I think we are now at the heart of the issue, notwithstanding the question of build quality. People have sailed around the world in boats that many would and did regard as barely adequate. Usually cost was the big constraint. And what a great way to learn and get the experience to inform subsequent decisions to build or buy further boats. Everyone starts somewhere and there are some fantastic stories old and new about it.. To be fair to blogs there are some good ones where you can sense the accumulation of experience and the questioning of boat design.
Many people seem to be starting with dream yachts and voyages but without the practical experience that informs choice and modification of boat for intended use. And then expect consumer protection to kick in when it goes wrong. The competence to sail covers not just the processes of sailing but also the judgement and choice of boat, maintenance and equipment. That competence takes years of experience to acquire.
Many people seem to be starting with dream yachts and voyages but without the practical experience that informs choice and modification of boat for intended use. And then expect consumer protection to kick in when it goes wrong. The competence to sail covers not just the processes of sailing but also the judgement and choice of boat, maintenance and equipment. That competence takes years of experience to acquire.
BurnitBlue
Well-known member
I re-state my belief that (nearly) all catamarans are unsafe. I say nearly because there could be one somewhere that ticks all the boxes. Perhaps I should explain why I sold my Prout catamaran to buy a monohull and never to consider one again. Eric Hiscock in one of his cruising books recomends that a skipper should chisel his personal mantra on the main bulkhead. I forget what his was but mine was a Chinese Proverb. "The Tiger Leaps Once".
In a monohull, a skipper can pile on the canvas with whoops of joy and the spirit of adventure. When the boat gets overwhelmed he is warned and he can back off. Not so with a Catamaran which are deliberately under-rigged anyway, but even so a point can suddenly arrive when over she goes. For ever. No time to back off.
This almost happened to me when I cleared the shelter of Monserrat under full sail and got hit with the trades. I lifted a hull in the air. I instinctively turned into the wind as one does. Fortunitely my wife screamed at me "The other way, the other way" I reacted and turned the other way so the airborn hull came crashing down. I was really shaken. The Tiger does miss sometimes but not often. I got rid of the catamaran in Miami ASAP. The nearest land to to leeward would have been 1300 miles to Costa Rica. No thanks.
Recall that Snowgoose under bare poles that was capsized in Vlicho bay.
So, geem, can you tell us why you sold your Snowgoose after a successful Transat. Or anybody eelse perhaps who changed to monohull. I am not interested in those who changed from monohull to catamaran. Chasing a "will o the wisp" no doubt. Human nature.
In a monohull, a skipper can pile on the canvas with whoops of joy and the spirit of adventure. When the boat gets overwhelmed he is warned and he can back off. Not so with a Catamaran which are deliberately under-rigged anyway, but even so a point can suddenly arrive when over she goes. For ever. No time to back off.
This almost happened to me when I cleared the shelter of Monserrat under full sail and got hit with the trades. I lifted a hull in the air. I instinctively turned into the wind as one does. Fortunitely my wife screamed at me "The other way, the other way" I reacted and turned the other way so the airborn hull came crashing down. I was really shaken. The Tiger does miss sometimes but not often. I got rid of the catamaran in Miami ASAP. The nearest land to to leeward would have been 1300 miles to Costa Rica. No thanks.
Recall that Snowgoose under bare poles that was capsized in Vlicho bay.
So, geem, can you tell us why you sold your Snowgoose after a successful Transat. Or anybody eelse perhaps who changed to monohull. I am not interested in those who changed from monohull to catamaran. Chasing a "will o the wisp" no doubt. Human nature.
Tranona
Well-known member
There you are i have corrected that for you. By concentrating on the tiny minority that give problems you ignore the vast majority that happily go about their business safely transporting their owners and crew all around the world.
This is not to say that they are everybody's choice nor that they are ideal but the idea that they are intrinsically unsafe is just not supported by the evidence. Far more people have died in monohulls than have ever died in multihulls. Causes are almost always the same - boat failure and overwhelmed by the conditions (plus the odd collision). All small boats are vulnerable in any of those events.
You can argue for your preference but that does not make you uniquely right. Empirical evidence - the huge numbers of people who use boats you disapprove of for ocean sailing shows that.
Nothing wrong with having your opinions, but wise to recognise that they are not shared by others who might have an equal claim to being "right" as demonstrated by their choices and actions.
BurnitBlue
Well-known member
Not your best argument this time. So full of spin on the truth. I repeat. All Catamarans are intrinsically UNSAFE. Q.E.D. address that. Ignore build quality. Would YOU personally trust your family in a craft that could turn upside down in certain normal conditions. Think about that Snowgoose that turned upside down in Vlicho Bay where wave height is measured in inches. That incident was pure wind on bare poles. I have just recieved a spam email from Multihull World for a used Catamaran priced at one million, two hundred thousand pounds and loose change. The loose change would buy two Moody yachts or twenty or thirty used and clapped out Bavarias. You love Bavaria boats so I am exagerating a bit for fun. A fool and his money.
By the way safely transporting crew all over the worl is the result of a successful event. It is only guaranteed in hindsight. Many, as you admit do not. There is no way in a catamaran which it will be. A monohull is predictable and not at the mercy of circumstance in the same way.
Last edited:
geem
Well-known member
Having done an Atlantic circuit in her in 2004/5 we decided she wasn't large enough for comfortable cruising in a cat. If you load up a Prout Snowgoose they sail like a pig. We had very little onboard. We kept her super light but we did have a mast 8ft taller than standard and laminate sails.
We got caught out on her crossing from the Algarve to Madeira in 04. We were sailing in 30 kts on the beam in big seas, gusting more with four reefs in the main and tiny jib. We crossed a sea mount in these conditions without realising at the time. No chartpotter. A very large breaking wave slide us sideways at incredible speed but we didn't flip. The boat looked like it had been ransacked below!
This, unlike you, gave us great confidence in her abilities. We never came close to flipping again even though we had winds of over 50 kts between Azores and Ireland.
We would have loved to have upgraded to an Outremer but we're mindful that the cost uplift from the value of the Prout was substantial. We were also concerned that we would have similar issues in as much as a 45ft performance cat can't take any weight.
In the end we opted for a true Bluewater boat that could carry weight very well and was easily managed by a crew of two. We actually sail better passage times with the Trintella 44 than we did with the Prout even though the Trintella is three times the weight. On a West to East Atlantic crossing the Trintella easily beats the Prout for comfort. East to West the lack of rolling on the Prout was great but the water action between the hulls and the slamming was not. Down below its noisy and often hard to sleep off watch. The general lack of comfort on a small cat was one of the factors in changing boat. The Trintella is way more comfortable to live on at anchor and far easy to sleep on off watch under way. We carry a huge amount of gear/toys that we could never have considered on the Prout.
We have often discussed whether we would go back to a cat. We both say no. We have been sailing the current boat since 2012 and crossed the Atlantic in her three times. We are currently in the ABC islands off Venezuela and we plan to spend next summer in the Azores then Portugal before heading back to the Caribbean again for the winter. Doing this kind of sailing suits a monohull far better than a cat in our opinion.
If somebody would give me a Gunboat or and Outremer 55, an Aikane 56 or a Balance 526, I would jump straight back on two hulls but never for a fat charter cat. I would be happy to take any of the above boats across any ocean
Tranona
Well-known member
Response to post#47
Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same world. You base your distrust on ONE old boat capsizing in the most extreme conditions where as it happens monohulls also sank! You have presented NO evidence to support your assertions. You ignore the fact that a lot of very clever people design multihulls that do not capsize. I follow these matters pretty closely and do not recall a single multihull capsizing in recent years. Yes, I have entrusted myself and my wife to a Catamaran (an Athena 36) and very nice it was too, whizzing along on a beam reach from Agina to Athens at 10 knots with just the genoa out while my wife sat at the dining table in the cockpit knitting! would I buy one - yes for holiday use in the Med (ignoring the cost and practicality of berthing).
I have not said "many have not arrived safely" - just stated the truth (as confirmed by Jonathan) that a Leopard was lost on a delivery - but so have many monohulls, not least Cheeky Rafiki. Maybe your enthusiasm for "clapped out" old style boats might be shaken a bit by looking at what happened to boats in the Golden Globe fiasco. All those wonderful old warhorses bring dismasted, rolling, giving up and not finishing.
One of the advantages of a strong academic background is the ability to look at the evidence as that leads one closer to the "truth" and I am afraid your evidence and examples such as they are do not lead to anywhere.
Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same world. You base your distrust on ONE old boat capsizing in the most extreme conditions where as it happens monohulls also sank! You have presented NO evidence to support your assertions. You ignore the fact that a lot of very clever people design multihulls that do not capsize. I follow these matters pretty closely and do not recall a single multihull capsizing in recent years. Yes, I have entrusted myself and my wife to a Catamaran (an Athena 36) and very nice it was too, whizzing along on a beam reach from Agina to Athens at 10 knots with just the genoa out while my wife sat at the dining table in the cockpit knitting! would I buy one - yes for holiday use in the Med (ignoring the cost and practicality of berthing).
I have not said "many have not arrived safely" - just stated the truth (as confirmed by Jonathan) that a Leopard was lost on a delivery - but so have many monohulls, not least Cheeky Rafiki. Maybe your enthusiasm for "clapped out" old style boats might be shaken a bit by looking at what happened to boats in the Golden Globe fiasco. All those wonderful old warhorses bring dismasted, rolling, giving up and not finishing.
One of the advantages of a strong academic background is the ability to look at the evidence as that leads one closer to the "truth" and I am afraid your evidence and examples such as they are do not lead to anywhere.
Just_sayin'
Well-known member
This 50 hasn’t broken … yet?
Neeves
Well-known member
When we sail at speed the only sounds we hear is the rigging singing. The major noises comes from the bobstays that hold down the bowsprit. Have endured 8 hours on a beam reach with winds over 55 knots - we know our cat is fairly bullet proof.
How many people with monohulls have tested their yacht at 55knots, sustained and know how it will perform. I might add - the forecast was for 35 knots - we sailed into a little storm cell at which time we did not know it was a little storm cell but were not to turn back and sail into 55 knot winds. We learnt later, I spoke to our Bureau of Meteorology. The BOM sent me a chart of the storm cell - it was moving in the same direction as us. We were just unlucky - but then that's sailing
One aspect of a monohull I miss is hand steering in seas. On a monohull you can steer for the seas. Not so in a cat - if you steer for the seas one hull is not going to be in the same sea. But for us - this has never been a problem.
Geem makes the point that Cats simply don't perform if weighed down - I'd say the same is true of monohulls, which is why people sail stripped out monohulls when racing. We have endeavoured to minimise weight, use a desalinator instead of filling the tanks, down sized the rode and carry only aluminium anchors. We carefully assess everything we carry but make exceptions - we are not camping so we eat off china , drink from glass (and carry a crayfish pot)..
I think the idea that all multihulls are dangerous is - nonsense. Instead of pontificating without evidence go and sail on a Schionning , Outtremer, Gunboator a Grainger and then comment (ours is a Grainger and I've sailed as crew on Schionnings - the latter are largely a bit spartan for us).
The problem of catamarans has already been defined - they are designed, largely, for the charter market and they are often owned, when sailed privately, by people who have not had time to develop the knowledge to know when to reef, or stay at anchor. Many of the people who inhabit this forum were introduced to sailing at a very young age and are now greying (and still sailing), many catamarans are bought by people without this depth of experience.
Geem has listed a series of multihulls which I would die for - but for a variety of reasons were too expensive, not in existence etc when we bought Josepheline. One advantage of buying from a small yacht builder - you get customisation, simple things: so our life raft is stored on the transom (not on deck), our 3rd reef reduces our main to 25% of full size, we have an inner forestay for a storm jib, we use red antifouling - we thought it all, or at least some of it, through.
If you buy a catamaran from a charter fleet - its still a charter boat and does not transform, just because you buy it privately, to an ocean going vessel (despite its certification). There is enough evidence to confirm that some multihulls and some monohulls are not the ideal yachts to cross oceans - if you sail one of these unsuitable vessels - you only have yourself to blame when things go wrong.
Geem and I are lucky - we learnt our lessons and made our decision and have been more than happy with what we have now (we have kept ours for over 20 years) - but we have a catamaran and Geem has a monohull. We would not change back to a monohull but Geem would change back to a multihull if someone can organise some million dollar funding for him AND he can choose from his list of builders. Now I speak out of turn and maybe Geem will correct me. Would we buy a Lagoon - never. Would we sail a Lagoon - never.
Horses for courses.
But being dogmatic is plain wrong.
Jonathan
How many people with monohulls have tested their yacht at 55knots, sustained and know how it will perform. I might add - the forecast was for 35 knots - we sailed into a little storm cell at which time we did not know it was a little storm cell but were not to turn back and sail into 55 knot winds. We learnt later, I spoke to our Bureau of Meteorology. The BOM sent me a chart of the storm cell - it was moving in the same direction as us. We were just unlucky - but then that's sailing
One aspect of a monohull I miss is hand steering in seas. On a monohull you can steer for the seas. Not so in a cat - if you steer for the seas one hull is not going to be in the same sea. But for us - this has never been a problem.
Geem makes the point that Cats simply don't perform if weighed down - I'd say the same is true of monohulls, which is why people sail stripped out monohulls when racing. We have endeavoured to minimise weight, use a desalinator instead of filling the tanks, down sized the rode and carry only aluminium anchors. We carefully assess everything we carry but make exceptions - we are not camping so we eat off china , drink from glass (and carry a crayfish pot)..
I think the idea that all multihulls are dangerous is - nonsense. Instead of pontificating without evidence go and sail on a Schionning , Outtremer, Gunboator a Grainger and then comment (ours is a Grainger and I've sailed as crew on Schionnings - the latter are largely a bit spartan for us).
The problem of catamarans has already been defined - they are designed, largely, for the charter market and they are often owned, when sailed privately, by people who have not had time to develop the knowledge to know when to reef, or stay at anchor. Many of the people who inhabit this forum were introduced to sailing at a very young age and are now greying (and still sailing), many catamarans are bought by people without this depth of experience.
Geem has listed a series of multihulls which I would die for - but for a variety of reasons were too expensive, not in existence etc when we bought Josepheline. One advantage of buying from a small yacht builder - you get customisation, simple things: so our life raft is stored on the transom (not on deck), our 3rd reef reduces our main to 25% of full size, we have an inner forestay for a storm jib, we use red antifouling - we thought it all, or at least some of it, through.
If you buy a catamaran from a charter fleet - its still a charter boat and does not transform, just because you buy it privately, to an ocean going vessel (despite its certification). There is enough evidence to confirm that some multihulls and some monohulls are not the ideal yachts to cross oceans - if you sail one of these unsuitable vessels - you only have yourself to blame when things go wrong.
Geem and I are lucky - we learnt our lessons and made our decision and have been more than happy with what we have now (we have kept ours for over 20 years) - but we have a catamaran and Geem has a monohull. We would not change back to a monohull but Geem would change back to a multihull if someone can organise some million dollar funding for him AND he can choose from his list of builders. Now I speak out of turn and maybe Geem will correct me. Would we buy a Lagoon - never. Would we sail a Lagoon - never.
Horses for courses.
But being dogmatic is plain wrong.
Jonathan
BurnitBlue
Well-known member
I live on the same planet as you do and I do not base my opinion on ONE old Catamaran, i base it in 5 years of Ocean sailing in a Prout catamaran and living the life surrounded by other catamaran owners as we congregate together in various anchorages. I consider the capsize of a catamaran in Vlicho bay while under bare poles as proof that a catamaran can and do capsize by a force of nature. Pure weather, no collision, no mistake in handling, just sitting there with the crew below decks. The monohulls that "sank" ran aground after dragging. In those circumstances in the Ocean the monohulls would have survived but the Snowgoose would have capsized.
Or would it? I am pretty sure how and why it happened so I will fess up. I did not see it happen. The wind was cyclonic? The wind blew from one direction initially. This put the Snowgoose at the limit of the anchor chain. Probably 30 meters. Then the wind switched suddenly 180 degrees. The Snowgoose surged forward accelerating for 60 meters until it overan its anchor with the chain taught between the hulls. This brought the boat to a sudden stop and dipped her bow which raised the stern. The high following wind got under the bridge deck and assisted the tripping momentum which took her over.
It is a mistake to glibly pass over this incident because it does not fit your narrative. For me, because I sailed a similar cat it reinforced my belief with proof that catamarans are unsafe. I have no proof just a guess from my own experience that windage under the bridge deck can also contribute to a capsize. Geem says that in 50 knot winds his snowgoose slid sideways. I agree it also happened to me. The ability to slide sideways due to low draft 80cm with no dagger board is well known. There may be sufficient force on the sails to tip the cat over but with no grip on the sea the cat will just skate away. With the wind astern exposing the bridge deck the cat is in pitch pole territory.
I have not changed my mind. IMO IMO IMO (get it?) all catamarans are intrinsically unsafe simply because they are basically unballasted rafts. They do turn over, however the larger and heavier they are the safer they become. I reckon 50 to 60 foot is approaching the low risk of a monohull.
Finally, your jibe against old war horses in the Golden Globe is sneaky. That was a single handed race in the Southern Ocean. I wander how a lagoon would handle the Southern Ocean when they get to 40 years old.
Chiara’s slave
Well-known member
I thought this tired old topic was extinct 20 years ago.
BurnitBlue
Well-known member
Yes, this tired old topic was as dead as a door nail, then along came the floating condo built for charter as an alternative to holiday hotels. They were then retired into the general yachting scene where they have started to draw complaints because of build quality. They still suffered from loading capacity especially with the added washing machine electric winches etc. They were built for purpose and should have stayed in charter but it was inevitable that some would be bought for private use. This has re-started the topic.
Neeves
Well-known member
Some of us are too old to remember 10 years ago (20 years ago?) or are too young to know what was discussed here 20 years ago.
.Maybe more important - it makers a change from anchors
Jonathan
Tranona
Well-known member
I have corrected you again . You have based your narrative on ONE freak event (and yes the winds were cyclonic) involving a boat that just happened to have 2 hulls plus some unspecified mutterings with other catamaran owners. The latter does not involve tales of sudden capsizes - so why mention it in this context?
From this you draw a conclusion that all catamarans are fundamentally unsafe - despite you having safely sailed one for many years including by your own admission in 50 knots of wind when the boat slid sideways (as they are designed to do) without capsizing. Just think of the hundreds of other catamaran sailors crossing the oceans who have experienced the same and are still with us!
BTW the subject of this thread was about the structural integrity of one particular model from one builder and not about whether multihulls are safe for ocean sailing. The structural issues seem to be real and admitted by the builders. Safety issues when sailing are very different and the evidence (or lack of it) about founderings or deaths does not suggest that there is any specific increase in risk compared with monohulls.
geem
Well-known member
No I didn't. I said that with a huge wave hitting us on the beam we slide sideways. This way was circa 25ft and breaking. We were in 30/35 kts of wind. We encountered a rogue wave as a result of crossing a sea mount.
Our experience of winds over 50kts was a separate experience crossing from Azores to Ireland.
I think your assertion that cats are unsafe is untrue. I think in extreme weather the skipper has to look after the cat where as on a monohull it feels more like the boat looks after you. This doesn't make the cat unsafe but it means the actions of the skipper are more important.
I personally discount the account of the Prout at anchor being inverted.
I know of accounts of large, theoretically safer cats due to their physical size, cartwheeling across Prickly Bay in Grenada in hurricane Ivan in 2004. Those cats sank but so did all the monohulls. All the account of the Prout flipping tells me is that hurricane force winds were responsible. I know of no other Prout Snowgoose being turn over whilst sailing. Prouts have sailed every ocean on the planet. For such a small and widely traveled cat they have a remarkable safety record.
Neeves
Well-known member
And remarkable longevity - there is one on a swing mooring near our swing mooring. They ceased production in 1986 - so if it is recent its almost 40 years old - not bad for a cat that sailed, at least, half way round the world and is deemed unsafe, if not a death trap..
Its interesting - one vessel is flipped, possibly, in cyclonic wind and this proves cats are unstable and unsafe. Cars and trucks are regularly flipped in cyclonic winds, houses and factories are destroyed and people are regularly killed. I don't hear arguments for cyclone proof cars and trucks and building regulations don't seem to change (or if they do - to no effect). Maybe I have selective reading but I note more yachts being lost because the keel falls off than cats being lost.
In Australia I can insure our yacht, or any yacht, for 365 covering all of Australia's waters - unless I go to northern Australia during cyclone season and then I cannot get cover at all. It has nothing to do with our cat, or any yacht, being particularly at risk - its simple commercial caution on the part of the insurance company. There is a lesson in their somewhere - that owners crossing oceans might incorporate into their schedule. Bragging rights, I survived Cyclone X, Typhoon Y or Storm Z, don't impress me.
These have examples of people who thought they knew best
Safety at Sea: Surviving a Powerful Storm in the Med
Storm tactics at anchor: Surviving gales in Scilly - Yachting Monthly
The articles don't mention those who took heed of the forecasts and spent time safely at anchor - not in the path of the storms -
as Geem said 'it means the actions of the skipper are more important'.
I'm not suggesting cats are safer or less safe than monohulls - but agree with Geem decisions of skippers are important and those decisions are not based on a specific yacht - but on skills learnt over decades and many sea miles.
Sailing is not meant to be a challenge, unless its the Vendee Globe
, its meant to be a pleasure, for all involved.Jonathan
Last edited:
Rappey
Well-known member
A quick Google suggests lagoon have built 6000 cats to date. If 100 have bulkhead problems that's only 1.6% (so far) .
What i thought did stand out about all the caribbean wrecked hurricane boats a few years ago was that most of the cats were upside down and sunk. It was extreme circumstances though.
What i thought did stand out about all the caribbean wrecked hurricane boats a few years ago was that most of the cats were upside down and sunk. It was extreme circumstances though.
geem
Well-known member
You can draw no distinction between sunk cats and sunk monohulls. The Lagoon in St Martin is still full of sunken monohulls.
Once in a cat 5 hurricane it matters little what boat you have. It's likely to be sunk