I had one of those contrary minded thoughts the other day about multi-hulls and their supporters. It may have been on the 10 hour flight from Taiwan to Seattle. You can imagine all the topics I thought up on that leg, and it will be long time before I run out of them to use to start some discussion here on the forum. You will recall that I tend to harp on experience as being a major component of success in things maritime. So, in my mind I tried sorting the supporters of multi-hulls into some categories defined by experience. First there are the ones who have taken a multi-hull to sea. That group breaks down into those who have had one out in let us say 3 grades of ocean roughness; mild, uncomfortable and life threatening. I would further divide them into those with general open ocean experience into: novice, intermediate and advanced. In general I would be most inclined to give credence to the opinions of those who have had a multi-hull in life threatening conditions and had advanced experience. And less credence to those with lesser general experience and less rough conditions. In other words, little credence to a novice in life threatening conditions and more to someone of advanced experience in any conditions. I think you can see where I am headed with this. It also implies that those who have advanced experience in general but have never had a multi-hull out even in a pond are in a poor position to give advise about how well a multi-hull performs in life threatening conditions. I fall in this last category. On the other hand so do a lot of other people. One of the arguments of the multi-hull supporters is that they are fast and can be maneuvered out of the path of a storm in most cases. But notice the "most cases", what about the "other cases"? Suppose the boat is hemmed in by land mass or more than one storm system? Suppose it is damaged and can't maintain speed? I am disinclined to make arguments about multi-hulls based on my own ignorance, so I generally stay out of the debate. But, I can point out rightly that each of you are entitled to consider the experience and judgement of anyone offering their opinion about multi-hulls and whether that opinion is grounded in solid experience. In other words, the issue of experience on the part of anyone participating in a debate on multi-hulls is a legitimate part of that debate and should not be brushed aside out of some fear that the debate will become a personal attack on any of the participants. The supporters of multi-hulls should expect to present their experiences along with their opinions in order that others may weigh that experience and make a judgement as to how valid those opinions are. Having said all this, you are entitled to know what I think, which is in effect my opinion. I think that a multi-hull is a fine platform for sailing the oceans of the world, so long as it is not allowed to become entangled in such rough conditions that they become life threatening. I am suspicious that such hulls will become dangerously unstable under conditions that a mono hull would not be endangered. In short the mono hull with a vanishing point of stability of say 110 degrees is more likely to stay upright than a multi-hull where the vanishing point is more like 70 degrees. If your experience with boats is that of a novice you may not consider the difference in vanishing stability to be important. But I do. I am also suspicious that the trend to multi-hulls is driven by notions of increased comfort under mild conditions and that this is a seductive but poor choice for ocean passagemaking. I have had a number of rides on the Hong Kong high speed catamarans and the ride is very pleasant. But the boats are rarely exposed to really severe conditions. Regards, Mike Capt. Mike Maurice Tualatin(Portland), Oregon