Boat Capsize Evidence [Archive] - Boat Design Forums

ancient kayaker

10-10-2009, 10:36 PM

hii,

my boat is a double Decker one, with seating capacity of 80 people. Its a fiber boat. It was capsized while taking a turn in lake while on full capacity. It is suspected that there is a design failure and people want to sue the company.

I would imagine you would need the number of passengers, details of any other loads, number and qualifications and experience of the crew including the captain, the rated capacity of the boat, evidence that it was well maintained and in good condition and intended for the purpose it was being used for, information on the suitability of the location for that kind of craft, statements of what took place immediately before and during the incident, weather information to show it was not an issue at the time, information on the influence of other craft in the vicinity for example excessive wash. In general any court would want to know what happened and in what way the boat was being used that was different from its design intention and the usual practice for that particular boat ind similar boats. You have to show that it was being operated in a responsible manner well within its intended ratings and in a safe location before you have a chance of proving design error. You would have to show either something failed that chould not reasonably be expected to under the circumstances, or that the boat was simply did not suited the purpose its designer stated it was for. And even then you probably won't get anywhere unless there is an established culture of litigation for such matters.

Ad Hoc

10-11-2009, 12:33 AM

Sachi

You need to employ professional consultants to establish if there is "any blame" as such, but more importantly to establish the sequence of events that caused the incident. This will take time and be costly. There is no quick one line answer. Your insurance company would normally take this approach if they have not done so already, since all insurance companies will not want to 'pay-out'. They wish to 'blame' someone...

Unless there is a similar 'body' like the MAIB in your part of the world.

gonzo

10-11-2009, 07:48 AM

Who decided on the seating capacity? Did you just install they maximum amount of seats that would fit the space? Are there any signs telling people not to crowd to one side? Are the onboard personell properly trained and inform people of reguations? It goes on and on.

Alik

10-11-2009, 09:44 AM

Over 80% of marine accidents are human factor (operator) and thus designer/builder won't take any responsibility. Most widespread factor of capsize is overload or incorrect loading, that is definitely fault of operator.

Besides just curious where are lakes in Bahrain?

gonzo

10-11-2009, 09:47 AM

Alik: Where do you get 80%. One of the things I really dislike is people making up numbers to sound as if they have facts instead of opinions

Alik

10-11-2009, 09:54 AM

Alik: Where do you get 80%. One of the things I really dislike is people making up numbers to sound as if they have facts instead of opinions

Statistics of marine accidents... I can't give a link, but this is fact I picked up when I was working in seafarer's training center.

OK, this is fast sample: http://www.mardep.gov.hk/en/publication/pdf/mai_c2006.pdf
Look on what is operator's factors and what could probably be technical factors, You will get those 80%

Alik

10-11-2009, 10:05 AM

Document for topic starter:
http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Regulations%202005.pdf

Paul Kotzebue

10-11-2009, 11:46 AM

So, Paul, how many 20' pontoon boats you know of that can accommodate 15 people at the starboard rail?

None. But if it can accomodate 15 people at the starboard rail, it will, and the designer should account for that. The alternative is for the designer to determine the maximum safe capacity of the vessel based on USCG or other accepted guidelines.

sabahcat

10-11-2009, 07:04 PM

In that particular case it absolutely would be poor design. Any boat that is designed to carry people should be designed with adequate stability with passengers crowded to one side.

My 11 ft aluminium dinghy/tender would capsize with 3 people on the gunwale, it probably would with 2.

It must be a poor design.:rolleyes:

Submarine Tom

10-11-2009, 07:39 PM

Pictures Sachi, do you have any pictures?

PAR

10-11-2009, 08:21 PM

But if it can accomodate 15 people at the starboard rail, it will, and the designer should account for that.

This is a gross misunderstanding on your part Paul. No one can be expected to account for every possibility, particularly when boneheadedness comes to play.

Gonzo, 80% sounds about right, without looking up the figures. It might even be a little low.

Ad Hoc

10-11-2009, 09:04 PM

PAR

Paul is correct in saying:
"..But if it can accomodate 15 people at the starboard rail, it will, and the designer should account for that..."

You must remember this is a passenger vessel. As such the designer must investigate ALL possible conditions/scenarios that could occur. Whether it should or should not happen is irrelevant.

Passenger crowding on one side, for passenger vessels, the design MUST investigate the possibility of as many passengers pushed/squeezed/forced into one area as humanly possible. Whether this condition is equal or greater than the Flag requirement is again, irrelevant. This MUST be investigated in the initial design stage.

This work is always done during the submission, or preferably before, the submission of the preliminary stability booklet to Flag or Class.

As for:
"..No one can be expected to account for every possibility, particularly when boneheadedness comes to play.."

Correct. BUT, if the designer has not mitigate all design issues, than the culprit, for the accident gets of Scott free by pointing to poor design.

It is negligent of any naval architect, in the commercial field, not to investigate all possible scenarios of passenger loadings. If a passenger CAN get to a location, then it WILL happen.

If the investigation shows that all those passengers crowed to one side, the boat would capsize, then the max limit would be ascertained from the stability investigation. Then, this limit is written into the Operating Manual (again another Class requirement - all these issues are beyond the knowledge of luxury/pleasure market designs). The operating manual will state very very clearly the maximum number of passengers allowed on the vessels side.

The vessel, when delivered will ahve
1) The operating manual, informing the Capt. what is possible
2) The vessel will have a tally to state "No More than XX passengers". (Just as lifts do, for max payload)

Beyond this, there is nothing else the designer can do, save to redesign the whole side to actually prevent ANYONE actually going to the side, or limited to the max, that has been previously calculated.

The latter rarely occurs, since the owner of the vessel wants the layout as such, and wont compromise. Hence any responsibility is then taken by the owner/operator to ensure that the max number of passengers per side, is not exceeded.

This issue is a good case that highlights the very real differences between the luxury/pleasure marker and the commercial one. The new rules and reg's for CE marking and the small boat code etc, that many seem to be whinging about for compliance, is just the tip of the iceberg that commercial vessels must comply with day in day out, which is unknown outside this field.

Hence the requirement for professional naval architects not those....i have software i can draw, ergo i can design!

Luckless

10-11-2009, 09:04 PM

Most widespread factor of capsize is overload or incorrect loading, that is definitely fault of operator.

Actually, this can't be said to 'definitely' be the fault of the operator. If the operator was following loading guidelines they were provided, and it capsizes, it is the fault of whoever provided the guidelines. (unless of course it is grossly out there, like 100 tonnes on a very small boat.)

PAR

10-11-2009, 09:29 PM

John and Paul, we're in agreement that commercial vessels, with passengers for hire, fall under a different set of guide lines. My premises was based on a hypothetical 20' pontoon boat with 15 people aboard (clearly above it's stated pleasure use limit, by any stretch of the imagination), gathered at the rail. This precise situation just occurred last summer with the death of a kid. Guess who was found guilty of negligent homicide.

Yes, in commercial craft we go to much greater lengths, but in the original posters case I suspect they craft didn't comply with any of our accepted standards. Of course this is an assumsion, but reasonably based on the region. Wherein you can see 35 passenger buses, traveling up the side of a mountain, with 65 inside and another 15 clinging to the outside, I have difficulty accepting any responsibility on the part of the designer. In areas where standards and regulatory mandates have been accepted, you don't see this type of behavior.

Alik

10-11-2009, 09:36 PM

Actually, this can't be said to 'definitely' be the fault of the operator. If the operator was following loading guidelines they were provided, and it capsizes, it is the fault of whoever provided the guidelines. (unless of course it is grossly out there, like 100 tonnes on a very small boat.)

I was working for 4 years in seafarers training center, developing and customizing stability/loading software for captains and officers. Those days I have studied accident reports on loss of stability, in most cases the reason was overload, mostly shipowners forced captains to overload in order to maximize commercial effect.

The naval architects are always backed by comping the Rules, so there is no argument on subject. It is well known that if passengers crowded on one side heel should not exceed 10 degrees, etc.

Of course, this all works if the boat was designed by professional naval architect and built strictly according to the design. If it is drawn by amateurs, then it is another story (but still ship owners fault - who saved the money on professional design?) :)

Paul Kotzebue

10-11-2009, 11:47 PM

John and Paul, we're in agreement that commercial vessels, with passengers for hire, fall under a different set of guide lines.

33 CFR 183 has guidelines for boats and associated equipment. ISO has stability standards for small boats. In any case it is the responsibility of the designer to follow applicable safety guidelines. The guidelines for commercial vessels may be different, but the standard of care required to design the vessel is not. In addition to applicable safety standards, professional engineers (including naval architects) are required to follow the laws of the jurisdiction that issued their license with regard to engineering practice.

Crowding of passengers to one side is a fundamental design consideration regardless of the service of the vessel. If there is room for 15 people on the rail, then 15 people will be on the rail unless the passenger capacity is limited and clearly marked on the vessel. This is equally true for passenger and pleasure vessels.

Paul Kotzebue

10-11-2009, 11:51 PM

My 11 ft aluminium dinghy/tender would capsize with 3 people on the gunwale, it probably would with 2.

It must be a poor design.:rolleyes:

Not necessarily. The gunwale is not the same as a seat or a deck with a handrail. If your dinghy capsized with people sitting on the seats it would indeed be a poor design.

Alik

10-12-2009, 12:11 AM

professional engineers (including naval architects) are required to follow the laws of the jurisdiction that issued their license with regard to engineering practice.

This system of professional licencing is used in US but not in other countrues where a proper degree is already enough to practice naval architecture. As to boat/yacht designers in US, I heard 90% of them do not have any engineering degree at all, but probably they are not allowed to touch commercial vessels? I have seen some small ferries, charter boats, etc. designed by American designers who are not naval architects by education (at least they do not hold Bachellor degree on the subject).

So everything is not easy here, at least we should know who designed that boat in question and what really happened. BUT if design agreement is written properly the designer will not take responsibility for accidents (we used to put this clause in agreement also).

sabahcat

10-12-2009, 01:07 AM

Not necessarily. The gunwale is not the same as a seat or a deck with a handrail. If your dinghy capsized with people sitting on the seats it would indeed be a poor design.

Your quote
Any boat that is designed to carry people should be designed with adequate stability with passengers crowded to one side.

me and my mates on the gunwale would be passengers crowded to one side.

Or to go another way, would the OP's vessel have capsized with the passengers on seats?

Submarine Tom

10-12-2009, 02:20 AM

Sachi,

Do you have any pictures or has your thread been hi-jacked?

Tom

Paul Kotzebue

10-12-2009, 08:44 AM

me and my mates on the gunwale would be passengers crowded to one side.

"Passengers crowded to one side" is not colloquial and has specific meaning in various stability criteria. It normally includes passenger weight in areas designed to accommodate people, whether sitting or standing, and is not the same for all types of vessels. You would have to check the applicable criteria to determine if passenger weight on the gunwale is a consideration.

Ad Hoc

10-12-2009, 08:58 AM

"..My 11 ft aluminium dinghy/tender would capsize with 3 people on the gunwale, it probably would with 2...me and my mates on the gunwale would be passengers crowded to one side.."

Is your 11ft dinghy designed to have 2 or 3 poeple on one side? When you bought it, did the brochure say...."look great, you can even have 2 or 3 crew sat on the gunwales"..or did it say something else, or nothing at all?

Note, these are "technically" not passengers since this implies they are paying for the pleasure of being transported on your dinghy - incidentally a minimum of 12 is required to be called a 'passenger' boat too.

Fanie

10-12-2009, 09:14 AM

I agree with Ad Hock and Paul. A boat is designed with a certain load in mind, but not all the load on the one side.

We had a similar scenario where a pleasure 'boat' capsized. There never was a problem until they decided to have a strip show on the upper deck. So when the stripper started her act, the bunch of sheep all shifted to the one side - which I assume was the front side - of the stripper that is - which was on the side of the vessel - and it toppled over. You have to realize that South Africans have never seen a naked woman before and it stands to reason that they would lose all sense of logic. Ok just until they hit the water.

Can only be humans doing such stupid things, and we're supposed to be a spesies capable of thinking. I say next time THINK before you get aboard with a bunch of idiots.

dskira

10-12-2009, 10:28 AM

hii friends,

Is there any book/procedure/guideline for collecting/analyzing the evidence for failure in design of a capsized boat?

my boat is a double Decker one, with seating capacity of 80 people. Its a fiber boat. It was capsized while taking a turn in lake while on full capacity. It is suspected that there is a design failure and people want to sue the company.

I do not know why but I missed the second part of your post Sachi.
I apologize, it is a good question:D
Cheers
Daniel

Fanie

10-12-2009, 10:35 AM

my boat is a double Decker one, with seating capacity of 80 people.
The other Q is, how many people were actually on the upper deck ? I can hardly think it sensable to have the majority people on the upper level.

Since there is SEATING for 80 people, were they SEATED :D

Kinda makes me think of these phiolamon taxi's here. There is seating for 11 people, but 22 gets injured when there is an accident. No, it's not overloading in SA, neither is it the driver's fault, it's the vehicle that is not roadworthy :D

ancient kayaker

10-12-2009, 12:36 PM

Not necessarily. The gunwale is not the same as a seat or a deck with a handrail. If your dinghy capsized with people sitting on the seats it would indeed be a poor design.

Valid point. Passemgers rarely hike out over the rail on a tour boat!

Submarine Tom

10-12-2009, 02:03 PM

No response from Sachi. Another hi-jacked thread. Of course you guys haven't even noticed. Carry on...

Fanie

10-12-2009, 02:28 PM

The thread is right on topic imo. Sachi may have left because he didn't hear what he wanted to hear.

peter radclyffe

10-12-2009, 04:01 PM

Fanie

10-12-2009, 04:28 PM

Yes well, according to the news report they were ALL wearing life jackets (remember it's LAW here now). Not sure how a strip show goes where all are strapped into their life jackets. I've been to a strip show before (can't remember the colour of her hair or if she had any) and I've warn a life jacket also, I can just imagine it is going to be kinky.

One of my friends is currently building himself a similar party boat. He was going to make it 4m wide, and it's 12m long. Since I had to draw the structure for him, I told him 4m is too narrow, exactly for this reason. If someone say check the fish the whole bunch is going to storm the side. 6m minimum, I still think it could be wider, but the real solution would be to get more than one stripper at a time ;)

ancient kayaker

10-12-2009, 06:46 PM

Then the boats on either side will capsize :eek:

Sachi

10-13-2009, 07:07 AM

My boat 14 m in lenght with 4 meter beam, 1 m draft and 15 ton displacement. It is made of fibre and a double decker. total weight 6 tons.

I want to investigate the following

1. How to analyse a suspected design failure
2. what is the maximum degree that the boat can turn
3. What are the requirements for an FRP fibre that used in boat especially plesure boats
4. What are the regulations for pleasure boats
4. Any other useful information

Please help me with books, astm, ISO or any other documents in this regard

thanks in advance

Alik

10-13-2009, 07:15 AM

14x4m boat licenced for 80 passengers? Hm... Who issued the licence, Marine Department?

owene

10-13-2009, 08:11 AM

Just leave the country and let anyone that wishes to sue get on with it. However you approach this, you will end up bankrupt (even if you are found to be blameless) so it's quicker, cheaper and emotionally simpler to turn yourself into ether.

Fanie

10-13-2009, 08:22 AM

Sachi,
Imo for that length hulls the beam should have been around 7m and not for double the passengers, but specifically so it won't capsize. If it was two meters wide for instance it would capsize much easier. You can calculate the capsize moment wrt the beam width. I just use my female instinct with these things.

PAR

10-13-2009, 03:56 PM

Unfortunately, in your part of the world, having standards and accepted practices in place for protections against unsafe designs or operation, is shall we say is "lacking".

As I mentioned very early in this thread, we just haven't a clue what this is all about. Now we have a hint and things are about as I suggested.

Now, I'm dieing to see a picture of the boat, just to confirm what we all must be envisioning about now.

After a quick search of capsizes in Malaysia, I found none (no news story, which in itself is interesting) that suggested an 80 passenger vessel capsized, but did come across several dating back to 2003, all of which were over loaded, most in "rough" conditions.

This leaves one to conclude that Sachi, needs to be more specific (date of incident, name of boat, location of incident, etc.) so we can get a real picture of what's going on.

Ad Hoc

10-13-2009, 06:27 PM

Sachi

If you're serious about your quest, then look at the stability book for the vessel. That will tell you who designed it, which class/flag state surveyed/approved her, what standards it is to meet etc etc.

Guillermo

10-17-2009, 06:28 PM

USA's 46 Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter S, Part 171.
http://cfr.vlex.com/source/1095/toc/01.17
(if aplicable in your country. Most probably you should have specific criteria for that kind of small domestic passengers vessel, issued by your national authorities)

Hire a naval architect and ask him/her to perform an stability test to the boat (if not lost) and recalculate to find if your country's mandatory stability criteria are met, including maximum allowed turning heel. If boat has been lost, then the NA can revise the whole stability booklet of the boat to search for possible faulty calculations if there are any.

This may also be of interest to you:
http://www.ukshipregister.co.uk/master_final_report_10-11-08.pdf

pistnbroke

10-17-2009, 07:14 PM

did not read all the thread but why is your insurance company not dealing with it .....Public liability etc ...did these people pay to go aboard .??

CowMan

12-12-2009, 02:15 AM

The analysis of the boat is involved, but fairly straight forward: raise the boat, pull the lines, then incline it. Even with a copy of the stability book, if one exists, and original inclining data, if it exists, boats tend to get heavier over time (ships constant), and accurate lightship & VCG data would be essential in determining if an overload condition existed. Stability criteria to apply would be, at a minimum, the standards required by your local flag state - small craft regs can be snarly.

Your best bet is to find a firm to conduct a stability analysis of the vessel. It would be foolhardy for them to assign blame, but it gives you something to take to a lawyer (who are in the profession of determining blame). FWIW, I would feel a bit uncomfortable in a 14m x 4m boat with more than 50 or 60 people sitting, let alone 80 potentially roaming.

Tim B

12-12-2009, 08:35 AM

There have been several similar incidents, some involving loss of life, and I can only see a few possible explanations of it.

1) There are boatbuilders who do a cut and shut job with no interest in safety.
2) There are designers who just want to make a quick buck, and they've renamed and moved the company by the time anything happens.
3) There are operators who are not willing to pay for good design work, and who will deny all responsibility that they had sub-standard work done.

We are looking at low-speed calm water craft here. The calculation for maximum heeling moment before a generic hull capsizes is VERY simple (as in 1st year Naval Arch degree simple). Working out the maximum heeling moment from passengers is VERY simple. Working out the wind, wave and maneuvering heeling moments is a little harder, but anybody calling themselves a designer should be able to do it. So developing an operational envelope is not really that hard. Operation outside that envelope is not guaranteed, and is done at the operators own risk.

What concerns me is the number of "designers" around who have no apparent experience of any sort. We have seen quite a few questions on this forum along the lines of "I want to design a boat, but how do I calculate the bouyancy?". I mean come on, guys, this is the 21st Century! Surely we understand the capsize mechanism in flat water well enough to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen.

There is really no excuse for these incidents.
End Rant.

Tim B.

Fanie

12-12-2009, 08:58 AM

Alik

12-12-2009, 09:01 AM

1) There are boatbuilders who do a cut and shut job with no interest in safety.
2) There are designers who just want to make a quick buck, and they've renamed and moved the company by the time anything happens.
3) There are operators who are not willing to pay for good design work, and who will deny all responsibility that they had sub-standard work done.

Overload is most widespread reason of loss of stability; not builder and designer.

dskira

12-12-2009, 09:23 AM

Well Tim, if a guy is a newby and knows nothing it's still ok if he's willing to learn something. What worries me is the guy that thinks he's clever and knows enough to just build. Then when there's a problem afterwards he'll never admit he's the idiot.

Even worse is when he sells this boat to someone else who has no idea that there is a problem.

I think you point out the worst scenario very well. And it happened unfortunatly.
the problems is these people is they open the door for more regulation, and more scrutinity from the gouvernement push paper.
Look at what happens in Europe with the CE regulation going out of hand.
And honnestly when a guy say: "I know nothing but I want to design a boat, which free program can I download", that creep me out.
One day I will post: "I know nothing but I want to make an open heart surgery, what knife I can have for free" :P It is that stupid!
Cheers
Daniel

mark775

12-12-2009, 09:29 AM

No ****, Alik. Tim, your rant surredly is misplaced. There had to be some sort of stability letter, at least, if it carried passengers. If it was not designed to carry passengers for hire, in my world, it had a plaque that said how many. The last person I would fire upon with the available information is the designer. People were ranting about the Lake George, NY incident with the Ethan Allen in '05, too. The boat was rated for 14 and had 47 + crew aboard according to the report I read...

Tim B

12-12-2009, 09:48 AM

Well, not really. It is applicable to the operators as well. My point is that at the moment there seems to be cases where there is no legislation whatsoever. Now if everybody is conscientious about the design and operation of a vessel, this is fine. However, there are few cases where this clearly hasn't been the case (who knows how many more which haven't gone wrong yet?) and in my view that is unacceptable given the level of understanding we have in the subject.

Alik & Fanie, agreed, the operator may not be aware, but it's good business sense to check if you're unsure isn't it? The designer's fee is going to be a lot less than the lawyers.

dskira, I agree the EU regs are a PITA, but at least they are written along the right lines, and have provided the industry with a baseline sanity check if nothing else.

Cheers all,

Tim B.

Fanie

12-12-2009, 10:00 AM

Plaques doesn't say much. Any one can put his own one on there.

Imo, who ever takes a crowd out on the water is reponsible for the safety of the lot. You want to be the big important boss in charge and pocket the mega bucks you take the responsibility. If you don't want to then don't go out.

mark775

12-12-2009, 10:15 AM

You know, I got on a ferry in Phuket with my new bride once. It was disorganized, filthy, oily, disgusting in every way. I took a peek in the engine space and there were wires and pump lines running every-which-way. The bilge had maybe 40cm of oily water. I started to look around and there were so many people packing on this ferry that I grabbed my wife and started to head off - but the ferry was disembarking AND people were still boarding. Starting to think of options, I told my wife that under no circumstances were we going indoors, I asked a deckhand the distance to Koh Phi Phi and he replied "a few kilometers", so expert swimmers both - I relaxed. I'm going to guess fifty kilometers later, we arrived. Was this the designer's fault? To me, it looked like the boat could have been ok at some time but way overloaded, slack water in the bilge, nothing ship-shape, I felt lucky. It got worse. We waited for a lightly loaded boat to go to Aonang Krabi, rode there and had to get off with way too many people and bags on a gol-darned longtail, prop flailing, waves lapping at the gunwales. My point is that things are done differently in the third world and the use of the boat may be vastly different than what the designer intended.

mark775

12-12-2009, 10:19 AM

Yes, those plaques have always seemed like "too many", but a starting point.

dskira

12-12-2009, 11:05 AM

Quoted from Tim B post
dskira, I agree the EU regs are a PITA, but at least they are written along the right lines, and have provided the industry with a baseline sanity check if nothing else.

It's a good point. Perhaps I saw it to narrowly.
Cheers
Daniel

TeddyDiver

12-12-2009, 03:29 PM

I got on a ferry in Phuket with my new bride once.
Might been King Cruiser.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlS263wnQFc

mark775

12-12-2009, 04:14 PM

No, nice vid tho. That was a nice boat - I wonder what happened.

TeddyDiver

12-12-2009, 06:09 PM

Hit to Anemone reef.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cruiser_wreck

mark775

12-12-2009, 06:24 PM

I'm sorry that the lady got a broken back but something strikes me as hilarious about "...limiting its seaworthiness to a further thousand metres."

Fanie

12-12-2009, 06:30 PM

I saw the same thing :D Maybe it was sea worthy untill it sank.

Alik

12-12-2009, 09:15 PM

You know, I got on a ferry in Phuket ... things are done differently in the third world and the use of the boat may be vastly different than what the designer intended.

I was in similar situation, but the 'ferry' was also carrying steel extrusions on the upper deck...

But now one can take new catamaran ferry there - our design :)

Sachi

12-14-2009, 10:46 PM

i can send the pictures and spec of the boat, by personal mail if any one is able to help me.

welder/fitter

12-15-2009, 04:04 AM

i can send the pictures and spec of the boat, by personal mail if any one is able to help me.

5 pages of discussion & not a photo/drawing of the boat?:confused:
Even with the specs you've given, Sachi, I think you're asking a bit much from any of these gifted designers/engineers. Put up some photos!

mark775

12-15-2009, 04:17 AM

Alik, let's see the pic of the ferry. I just looked at your page - not all my cup of tea but very nice! I could use that 16.6 crew, I'll tell ya'

PAR

12-15-2009, 01:31 PM

Again, I'll stand on my previous post about the area of the world this has occurred in. When they start valuing human lives more then that of their trusted ox or horse and women/children as chattel, then maybe they'll begin to wake up and insist on some controls and regulations. I can think of few places in the world where you'd be less likely to "get screwed" in some way or another, with absolutely no recourse of any kind. Eventually, they'll catch up with just 20th century concerns, let alone 21st, though many will have to die in the mean time and it will probably be the 22nd century by then.

apex1

12-15-2009, 04:37 PM

Paul,

do not forget, they have the year 1430 now!!!! We have already 2009.
So, just 600 years of patience, and they will be at a proper, civilized standard.

Regards
Richard

and do´nt tell me anybody I´m wrong, please. I live and work with this human crap.

PAR

12-15-2009, 09:49 PM

Yea, but the world's going to end in a year or two, so . . .

gunship

12-17-2009, 06:13 PM

80 people on 14x4 metres? one meter draft? seems a little crowded!

messabout

12-20-2009, 04:47 PM

Eighty people on a 14 x 4 meter boat is an absurdity. When the boat is a double decker, the notion is beyond absurdity. Metacentric heights and all that jazz coupled with moving cargo that can not be secured is the height of reckless endangerment.

Aside from recklessness: When the capsize occurred was the boat moving? if it was moving, how fast was it going and what was the radius of the turn ? How high is the top deck above the waterline?

gunship

12-20-2009, 06:59 PM

after a quick one in freeship, this is what i came up with. it looks even less stable than the Wasa!
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n257/biggles_92/Newmodel_Linesplan.jpg

PAR

12-20-2009, 08:05 PM

Actually, this doesn't sound as bad as is typical, though I have no idea of hull shape, let alone if any of these figures are remotely accurate.

Assuming they are, this is 45' x 13' craft (14 m x 4 m) and 4 rows of 20 people can stand within the confines of it's rails fairly easily.

Has any one been able to qualify the general statements thus far? Date of incident, vessel type, general dimensions, etc.? Or is this still speculation on all too common tragedies in the third world areas?

gunship

12-21-2009, 05:35 AM

dont forget its a two decker.

dskira

12-21-2009, 08:12 AM

Looks like a modern production boat :P
Can I have in an other colors :?:
And on top I would like a deck saloon please. :)
Just kidding, don't take it the wrong way.
Cheers
Daniel

PAR

12-21-2009, 10:57 AM

As I thought, no qualification, not even a news paper article about the incident. Classic third world detachment . . .

apex1

12-21-2009, 12:54 PM

I have my doubts there was a issue ever!
Why are we not fed with some pictures?
Where is a lake in that uninhabitable part of our planet?
80 souls lost? Reuters would mention it.

6 pages of speculation...............

forget it guys

PAR

12-21-2009, 02:49 PM

Very early in this thread I suspected this was just a bunch of gibberish. The fact I can't find anything even close on the topic and the original poster isn't willing to offer up, even the remotest bit of evidence of this tragedy, just shows why they'll remain a third world area for the near future.

What possible gain could there be to post a story like this and not have the common sense to back it up with a reasonable level of documentation. This boggles the mind, frankly. Especially in light of the fact, people of this country will toss money and help just about any issue, here or abroad. If you want millions to fix a problem, just make sure it gets "air time" in the USA.

apex1

12-21-2009, 05:42 PM

You know Paul, the "near future" in this case means about 500 years or longer!
That may be a unpopular opinion (and sure not polite), but it IS my opinion, that the civilized part of the world ends at the Turkish border and starts again at the Indian border (going eastbound).

pistnbroke

12-24-2009, 11:01 PM

troy2000

12-25-2009, 01:30 AM

If you look at the rating of american foreign policy you will see that Civiliation Starts at the american boarder ....Its unfortunate that the only version of Civilisaton that americans think is acceptable is there own ...hence they are now hated troughout the world for there impositon of there standards on everyone else .......oh will they ever learn .....

As opposed to whom? The Brits, for example, who never, ever used their military and economic power to impose their beliefs and their way of doing things on the rest of the world?:p

Give the Yankee-bashing a day off, mate. It's Christmas. Have some eggnog and go snuggle a kangaroo, or something.

PAR

12-25-2009, 11:05 AM

It's a sin that accepting the lose of these ferry passengers (if it's actually true) is just a way of life for you Piston. What a sad world you'd have us live in. I think most would find at reasonable expectation of survival in a form of mass transit, should be assumed, unless of course you'd rather have it Piston's way and every man for themselves. So, tell me Piston, what did those ferry passenger's pay for, the right to be drowned? Yep, a hell of a world you live in.

dskira

12-25-2009, 11:48 AM

As opposed to whom? The Brits, for example, who never, ever used their military and economic power to impose their beliefs and their way of doing things on the rest of the world?:p

Give the Yankee-bashing a day off, mate. It's Christmas. Have some eggnog and go snuggle a kangaroo, or something.

Well said troy. Start to be tiering the bashing.
Every country can be bash, its easy. So cool of and enjoy the Christmas down under :) .

Cheers
Daniel

Loveofsea

12-31-2009, 11:34 PM

I just looked at the first post in this thread so i have no idea if anyone has said this already, please forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

boats capsize because of a flaw common to virtually all production hull configurations---- water accumulates at the transom while at rest.

the more water that comes in, the deeper the transon-the closer to capsizing. Virtually all small boats capsize from the transom.

PAR

01-01-2010, 12:57 AM

a flaw common to virtually all production hull configurations

Virtually all small boats capsize from the transom.

Well damn, now I have to go back and change all my work? You're kidding right? Folks, you should speak what you know, rather then what you speculate.

apex1

01-01-2010, 08:36 AM

Well damn, now I have to go back and change all my work? You're kidding right? Folks, you should speak what you know, rather then what you speculate.

Yeah that makes it so fruitful sometimes.

People pop up, do´nt have the time and politeness to read the thread, do´nt have a clue what the issue could be, but have a perfect solution for a unknown problem.

Lovesofa,

is your barber dead, or why did you sing that song for US?

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 11:09 AM

Instead of throwing barbs, why don't one of you geniuses actually refute what i have said?

do either of you even know how to design a hull that doesn't have that fatal flaw???

apex1

01-01-2010, 11:28 AM

Instead of throwing barbs, why don't one of you geniuses actually refute what i have said?

do either of you even know how to design a hull that doesn't have that fatal flaw???

May I tell you what? But keep it confident!

You are a proven idiot!

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 12:19 PM

"You are a proven idiot!"

i'm a "proven idiot" who has logged over 90,000nm in open seas, 65,000nm in a boat that i designed and built. You will not find a more prolific small boater than myself--some people actually use their design, othere sit around and talk about it...

I stand by my assertion and if you unable to refute what i have said, then why even bother to reply?

apex1

01-01-2010, 12:21 PM

Well let me excuse for the "proven"..............

and reading a thread before contributing is sometimes a sensible way!
You will notice why your comment was so welcome as it was.

souljour2000

01-01-2010, 12:51 PM

Hmm...where to go today? shall we take the Bahrain lake launch or the Indonesian ferry...thanks..but I'll swim instead...or maybe opt for the Bahrain lake launch before the Indonesian ferry....these types of third-world operations kill thousands every year...people in these countries die like flies on these death taxis...and it is sad because the governments are so corrupt that any regulating bodies (i,e, coast guard,etc) have officials that are usually bribed easily in order to obtain operating permits...etc...by the way...we seem to have gone a couple years here now in the states without one of these old touristy WWII amphib duck taxis becoming submarines....

apex1

01-01-2010, 01:31 PM

Mamlakat al-Bahrain

is smaller than the city of Hamburg and has NO LAKE !!! If there is a "lake" it is to small to have a boat floating on it.

The whole thread is a hoax! And Paul and I mentioned that more than once.

Regards
Richard

Alik

01-01-2010, 01:33 PM

these types of third-world operations kill thousands every year...
'Peacekeepers' from some 'first-world' countries kill even more...

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 02:52 PM

what i noticed was no one here, YOU included are able to refute what i said. I rest my case.

Have a nice day!

apex1

01-01-2010, 02:57 PM

'Peacekeepers' from some 'first-world' countries kill even more...

So true...........so true! But their claims are nice!:D

And at the end they "accomplish" their missions. Or something like that.

PAR

01-01-2010, 04:10 PM

Loveof sea, you supposition is absurd and the likely reason no one has responded other then to poke fun at the ridiculousness of it. Currently I have 76 different designs to my credit and dozens under construction around the world including several forum members. So, how did you solve this poorly defined weakness ("transom capsizes" are all new to me, but then what do I know), that only you seem to recognize?

apex1

01-01-2010, 04:13 PM

Paul,

backing multihulls you know! They are all in danger of capsizing over the transom!

I sometimes wonder where you learned your job.

Regards
Richard

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 08:11 PM

Do any of your designs provide for the safety factor of water accumulating in the belly rather than at the transom while at rest? That one single design factor could mean the difference between saving the vessel or losing it--the most precious seconds for action are the ones that immediately proceed a capsizing. Those moments are lost when the water goes straight to the transom... Hulls should be designed for worst case scenario, thats the concept behind level flotation. The problem with that is, it doesn't take effect until after the boat is swamped.

Virtually every capsizing of a small vessle is because of water coming in over the transom--that's because every one of those boats was in a bow up attitude before it capsized. And just why on earth was that boat in an exagerated bow up attitude if not that water accumulated at the transom....:rolleyes:

It should be very simple for someone with your cridentials to show me where i am mistaken.

It would be nice to have a discussion based on the dynamics of a typical boat hull taking on water while at rest. It would be fun to learn the academics of it all :)

dskira

01-01-2010, 08:55 PM

what i noticed was no one here, YOU included are able to refute what i said. I rest my case.

Have a nice day!

I honnestly read several time your "capsize by because of the transom" and I don't get it.
Could you post a serie of sketches.
I don't see the relevance of the transom on your equation, only in the case of a small outboard with cutout transom for the outboard and no baffle.
Beside that I am quite lost.
Cheers
Daniel

PAR

01-01-2010, 09:30 PM

Virtually every capsizing of a small vessle is because of water coming in over the transom

First of all, I can spell vessel, but more importantly this is grossly incorrect. The figures clearly show (from every source BTW) this is quite incorrect, but hay, why be accurate when you're making broad generalities about things you don't understand and insult those that do.

Of course Loveofsea does realize the requirements for capacity, buoyancy or flotation in a swamped condition, splash well mandates, etc.

Of course Loveof sea hasn't considered a pump removing accumulated water from a centrally located sump, is just as effective as the same size and style pump mounted in a well at the transom, as is currently practiced. Now, in his defense, most off the shelf pumps can't keep up with a good rain shower, but this is a different story.

It would be fun to learn the academics of it all

Franky, I haven't the time nor interest (this is a lousy format for that level of education), but if you have specific questions . . .

the most precious seconds for action are the ones that immediately proceed a capsizing

I've been in literally dozens of capsizes, some intentionally induced. I'm not sure how many you've been in or witness to, but the boat doesn't just hop up in the air and flip over like a mullet trying to escape the jaws of a dolphin. You have time and can make decisions, unless it's a canoe, kayak or you've foolishly stepped on the rail of a 7' yacht tender, attempting to get in.

Maybe you should try to offer the ISO or other guide or standard(s) that you feel needs revision, possibly a better explanation, because currently your stock of the scenario described is questionable, at least as you've worded it or attempted to covey to us thus far.

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 09:51 PM

how about just ONE source~

level floatation as an industry norm, why not level sinking?

PAR

01-01-2010, 10:30 PM

One source for what? You have a odd way of endearing yourself and frankly, I'm fairly sure that most have given up on you all ready. I'm about the most reasonable you'll find and am also losing a desire continue. You'll find most of use are professionals in the industry here. If you have something specific to ask, instead of the generalities you've touted, that state them, other wise enjoy your peculiar world, where all boats capsize by the transom.

Loveofsea

01-01-2010, 11:12 PM

Your quote:

"The figures clearly show (from every source BTW) this is quite incorrect"

i asked you for only one source, ANY one of your "sources" will do.

I run these seas in earnest, how am i expected to give a flip about YOUR personal perception of what YOUR others might think of me?? Seriously.

I didn't give you generalities, i gave you specifics about an unsafe hull characteristic. You have absolutely no obligation to me or anyone else to address the issues that i raised, but you should at least be big enough to overtly decline the offer-

it must be my lot in life...

every once in a while i engage a forum, searching for the answers to lifes persistant questions :)) {GK}

and this time like so amny others only confirms my belief: that which looms huge in the minds of some, remains entirely unexpalinable by the english language....

You are a self-proclaimed expert---so tell me how 'water accumulating at the rtransom' should NOT be a concern to the typical small production boater from the designers perspective.

Brad

(there is nothing like the feeling of utter security on a tumultuous sea..)

PAR

01-01-2010, 11:54 PM

I've never met as innately inept a person yet. You've succeeded at surprising me. Posting any sources would seem foolish now, in light of the several governmental agencies that do gather statistics on accidents, mishaps, etc. as do insurance and other private companies, but once again, I'm informing you of the obvious (well at least to everyone else it's obvious).

Brad, if a sump and well is located at the base of the transom, as it is in about 60% of small power craft, and the prerequisite pump also located there, then I can assure you there is absolutely no reason to be concerned as the pump will remove the accumulated water once it gets of sufficient volume to trip the float switch. As a mater of fact, a well designed boat will have two sets of pumps, those located at the transom and those located midship, though this does imply an entirely different hull form then is currently prevalent in production. Possibly much like the one you failed to enlighten us about or were possibly referring to initially, foolishly thinking that they all are the same shape.

I guess in your world they don't mount bilge pumps at the transom, in a small sump, but fortunately for the rest of us, they do.

Alik

01-02-2010, 12:56 AM

PAR, to support Your input: there are stability requirements that are developed to compensate various effects including effect of free surface of bilge water. Say, minimum GZ should be 0.2-0.3m depending on type of craft, GM requirement for commercial vessels or offset load test for pleasure craft, etc.

There is absolutely no issue with reduction of stability due to bilge water on properly designed and operated boat. Seems we deal with another misbelief of experienced sailor - it is quite common.

Loveofsea

01-02-2010, 01:22 AM

You may think i am inept, but i actually have a self-priming bilge pump mounted on the transom :D

While underway in wind and rough seas, the water coming over the rail is unavailable to the 2k pump nesting up in the belly--{there to protects the many nights at anchor ;) }

I'm on my 4th 2k pump since '91. The first one actually saw some action one day back during the splendid gale. Since then they have only pumped water out of the boat two times, both fresh water from rain i couldn't avoid--i kid you not~!

Getting back to the subject at hand--It doesn't matter how the water intrudes the hull, a good design will not allow the water itself to be the single greatest force working against maximum prolonged flotation :!:

dskira

01-02-2010, 07:45 AM

Seems we deal with another misbelief of experienced sailor - it is quite common.

I think it is very well said Alik.

Thank you for your patience, you realy try, but it seams Loveofsea has a hard time to understand.

Loveofsea, I am impressed by your NM at sea, but on other matter you seams confuse. Perhaps you insisted on a peculiar reasonement, or on a strange concept.
You have to pay more attention what PAR and other has to say, they are highly trained professional and their advise are precious. Believe me, my self I have great pleasure to learn from their post.
Anyway all that will not let impair your love of the sea, transom or not.
Keep sailing, it's safer.
Daniel

PAR

01-02-2010, 11:39 AM

I'm sorry you've seemed to chew up pumps, I had my share of bad pumps too, but I think this is more a function of poor manufacturing quality then any design flaw on both the yacht designer or pump engineers.

Boarding water is a fact of life, there's no sense trying to avoid it, without forever staying ashore. I agree there are many designs that don't treat boarding water as an important an element as both you and I think it is. I do think that most designs address the issue fairly, at least within guidelines and regulations. Again the various regulations, specifications and guidelines needn't be noted (hell I don't want to look them all up, honestly), but down flooding, boarding water, leaks from various sources, etc. are all handled among the various regulations, especially in commercial vessels (I treated this thread per the regs. for pleasure craft).

In the end, I think we both are in basic agreement, though I still have faith in the pumps, while you seem to have had the "fear" put in you (I know this fear). I have several boats, about half are berthed, so faith in the pumps is mandatory. I've arrived at the marina more then once to see the boot stripe looking low, to find a leaf or gum wrapper wedging the "first" switch closed (I use a multiple switch and pump system), but then again this is why I check on the boats more then once a week. Now, this may also be a function of owning 50 year old wooden boats and their nasty habit of spitting out caulk or butt block fasteners without warning or it could be my anal nature in coveting these old beauties.

troy2000

01-03-2010, 12:54 AM

how about just ONE source~

level floatation as an industry norm, why not level sinking?

Loveofsea, you're the one who flat said that in the vast majority of small craft capsizes, it's water coming over the transom that does them in. I would say that if anyone needs to come up with sources, it would be you--not the people questioning you.

Why do you keep badgering Par for sources, instead? Frankly, I'd say he is a source, at least compared to you. He designs boats for a living, and I suspect he has some basic knowledge concerning what sinks them and what doesn't....

You, on the other hand, seem to have no actual facts and figures to back you up; you've offered nothing that needs to be refuted. In fact, you seem to be touting your mileage at sea as the primary source of your expertise.

I'm not impressed. I drive several hundred miles a week in my pickup, but it hardly makes me a statistical expert on the main cause of car wrecks.

PAR

01-03-2010, 01:48 AM

Not so fast Troy, lets take your example and have a look. Assuming a real 700 miles per week, across 52 weeks per year, for about 36.5K in annual mileage. This places you at about 3 times the national average in miles driven. Again, assuming (gets me every time) you are paying attention during your driving, you probably see considerably more by way of car wrecks and other mishaps on the road. According to Walter P. Stapleton, head judge, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals 1975 (the precedent usually sited for clarification of what describes an expert and don't ask me how I know) you would be an expert on car crashes in your area. Of course there's always going to be a better expert that can be called, but at the moment, you're our California car crash go to guy. Live with it ;)

In short, I didn't list statistical information because it's very easy to find, but you do have to have an idea where to look. I made a few bland suggestions, but more specifically the USCG and several transportation agencies of the US government, as well as most insurance agencies and related industries are quite annal about keeping records on these sort of things. Stuff like over 80% of all sinkings on boats with stern drives (okay to be precise, this is claims made, as I got it from an insurance company), occur because of a bellows leak and a malfunctioning bilge pump system (imagine that) or that 90% of all boats sold in the USA in the last 5 years were powerboats. Some of this information is fun to know, like the percentage of folks that wear bathing suits, compared to fully dressed and more importantly the percentage of the scantly clad boaters that were involved in alcohol related mishaps.

My point was, with a little leg work, the regulations, trends, statistics (for nearly every imaginable thing), etc. can be dug up and examined. In fact most of it is "public record". More complex issues, such as the AYBC, ISO and other standards or industry practices are also fairly easy to obtain.

I don't know everything, unless you ask my other half whom I've convinced I am a supper human from another planet (well maybe the other planet part anyway), but I do think it's important to insure you earn your grade. It's one thing to have a question and another to profoundly state that things are thus and not have a clue about the actual facts of the situation you're proclaiming is true. I just happen to know what is the primary cause of most capsizes, at least statistically and it's nothing as was suggested, hence my dander.

Loveofsea

01-03-2010, 02:57 PM

I failed to make my point clearly enough. Boats take on water for many reasons, ruptured bellows is right up there at the top of the list. My original point was that no matter how the water enters the hull, if it rushes to the transom the bow up/transom down attitude will be the ultimate cause of of the capsizing. If that same boat had level sinking ie, 'water accumulates in the belly' the boat would sink more level, buying precious last moments for action--maybe enough to save the vessle. Regardless, boats don't usually capsize until that last cup of water comes in over the transom.

I must not have been very clear about my belly pump either. My series of new bilge pumps only pumped water a couple of times over all those years in the boat--i replace that pump(s) every few years whether it ever actually pumped water or not. When you run these seas like i do, you cannot take any chances. The only time i ever need to pump water out of the hull is when i am underway, taking spray over the rail in wind and seas then i use the self-priming pump screwed to the transom. (i assure you Sir that the good skiff does not leak! :cool: I never use the belly pump--i may only need it one more time, but i WILL need it then-- so it is always a virtually new pump... (gave my old perfectly good pumps away:)

Here is how i achieved 'water accumulating in the belly' I built the hull upside down in a jig holding the bulkheads only. It is easier to visualize the hull right side up. View looking at the side--Y datum plane touches the hull 1/3 bottom length aft of bow--from that point aft the hull is flat and rises up 3" from the plane/ from that point fwd the hull makes a parabolic curve up 6" from the plane--:D

I hear you about wooden hulls--i love the feel of a wooden hull skimming the seas. My skiff is a 19ft flatbottom with a 115HP tiller. It is like riding a dirtbike on the water!

Some day we should have a discussion about how to make flatbottom work well in seas--that's something i know!

tom28571

01-03-2010, 03:54 PM

There will never be much exchange of good information if the discussion gets into personality flaws before anyone ever describes their position well enough for decent argument to follow.

Here goes: I think Brad is only talking about small powerboats and probably only IO's or outboards. In that case there is some point to his argument which he should have cleared up to begin with. Of course no one hardly ever gives a decent description of their question to start with on this or any other forum.

I know of three cases locally that fit this pattern. One is a Sea OX that sunk at the dock because storm water washed in over the transom. The second is similar in that a near sinking was caused by rapid check up and considerable water entered the same way. Aid from another boat was required to prevent swamping. The third case was me in a Whaler 23 Outrage I was using as a race committee boat in very rough water. The boat was at anchor and water was dashing over the bow. We mover aft and water rapidly came in over the transom.

The common thread is all three cases was the absence of an adequate safety transom ahead of the splashwell. Boats with deep V hulls have the motor mount too low for safety without a second transom ahead of the splashwell. I wrote to Boston Whaler and they said that they had provided an optional forward transom for this boat but it was no longer available.

Big deal. Optional:mad: There were also no scuppers which they said had also been available in the past. still:mad:

Another new twin inboard boat sunk a couple years ago about a mile from me on new delivery because a water intake hose parted and the boat filled and stopped the engines. Both licensed delivery captains aboard drowned in the cold water and we will never know all the details.

Still, most serious capsizes locally occur in the waves and are because the boat flipped. This is most probably due to poor seamanship and catching a big one on the beam. Power cats are not immune as the last one was such a cat with loss of life.

Now, I happened to learn that a lot of Brad's experience is in a small flatbottom skiff with pretty big outboard that he runs for long distances offshore in California. Most of us would not consider that but he makes it work by adding a big fixed trim tab on the stern to hold the bow down so that the boat does not slam and he can run a high speed in waves(his words). Not my cup of tea but even port tackers get to tell their story.

Edited to add that Brad got his latest post in while I was typing.

troy2000

01-03-2010, 05:53 PM

We should probably go back and define terms, before going any farther. Loveofsea was talking about 'small craft.' If he's referring to your average ski boat, he has a point; I've seen them swamped on a dead flat lake just from cutting the engine suddenly, and having the wake roll over the stern.

But this thread was originally about a 14 meter, double decked boat with 80 passengers aboard, that capsized while making a turn at speed. Does that fit his definition of small craft, and does he think it capsized because of water coming over the transom?

And I'll stick to my original point: when a person makes a controversial statement, I'd say the onus is on him to back it up with verifiable facts and figures. It isn't everyone else's job to disprove it.

apex1

01-03-2010, 06:06 PM

And I'll stick to my original point: when a person makes a controversial statement, I'd say the onus is on him to back it up with verifiable facts and figures. It isn't everyone else's job to disprove it.

Fully concur!

PAR

01-03-2010, 06:25 PM

Well, it is possible for reasonable folks to square away and work it through. Thanks to all for having waited it out.

Stopping hard and having a following sea blast through the well isn't a design flaw, nor is having thru hull hoses falling off, nor is placing a fair bit of weight at the aft end of the cockpit in rough conditions.

Brad, boats that have the pointy end on the front, can't sink evenly without huge internal volume decreases, used up with chambers or foam. The wedge shaped hull forms used, mean the volume is aft, which is true if empty, full of crew or water. You can add some depth to the fore foot or just aft of this, but this is extra displacement and drag for most pleasure craft design briefs.

Tom, is correct, the vast majority of capsizes are operator error, frankly they broach and get flipped in a rolling or beam sea or surf.

There may come a day when all outboards are on brackets with tall, well sealed transoms, but boneheadedness can't be engineered out of the equation. You're always going to have a butthead, that after screaming along in his new 16' flats boat at 50 knots, slams the throttle closed and wonders where all the water came from. Of course the outboard bracket also makes a 14' boat a 17' boat instantly, which can kill sales and markets. There's also practical concerns on smaller craft, like a 12' fishing skiff. How much internal volume do you surrender to the extra transom? All difficult questions . . .

Loveofsea

01-03-2010, 07:31 PM

I saw a boat stop too fast once. Many years ago at the bait barge in the outer harbor, an old ski boat with a big aft V8 pulled up. My friend worked the barge and saw the floating beer cans at 6AM and decided that they should head home, and told them so...

unfortunately there was another barge a couple humdred yards away--the driver flipped us off and gunned it to the other barge and shut her down... the height and velocity of the wave that overtook them was nothing short of slow-motion perfection. From the middle finger to a dog paddle in something less than 30 seconds..They immediately climbed out of the water and i'm sure they got a ride back to the ramp shortly after. My only regret was that we failed to formally declare a MUV.

Talk about an inherent design flaw, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68AOltMu768&feature=related

That should NEVER happen, but because of the relatively rare center enging configuration, it sits good and flat while virtually swamped. Most other boats would have gone down from the transom, or so i think...:p

PAR

01-04-2010, 01:02 AM

That should NEVER happen, but because of the relatively rare center enging configuration, it sits good and flat while virtually swamped. Most other boats would have gone down from the transom, or so i think...

The boat did precisely what it was required to do by mandate. It floated level while swamped and this is the best you can ask for, from a boneheaded move like that.

troy2000

01-04-2010, 02:12 AM

The boat did precisely what it was required to do by mandate. It floated level while swamped and this is the best you can ask for, from a boneheaded move like that.

At least the driver took it well, instead of coming up mad at the world for his own stupidity....

PAR

01-04-2010, 11:32 AM

It's clear to me, this was an intended stunt. The boat he's driving is the preferred puller for professional ski teams. You can see he acknowledges the camera person, and nods to say it's going to happen now, then cuts the throttle. He comes up smiling and then lifts his arms as if to suggest nothing bad has happened. You'll also note the passenger turn to press her vest against the dash, because she knows what's about to happen. She comes up smiling and also raises her arms to say, "I told you it wasn't a big deal" . . .

I can assure you, if any one of us did this with our wife on board, we'd be sleeping on that damn boat for a month and she wouldn't come up smiling and waving her arms as if nothing bad happened.

I'll bet Master Craft or one of the ski teams sponsored that "event", to prove the worth of the design.

The power of observation is the key to survival folks . . .

Loveofsea

01-04-2010, 02:20 PM

IMO, there is no way on Gods green earth a hull should even be capable of 100% submersion on relatively flat water. It would be the equivalent to an SUV just rolling over while driving down the freeway! It looked like he hit a small wake and that somehow drove the entire boat under water??? If that doesn't illustrate a fatal design flaw, i don't know what does....

Good thing that boat had the engine in the belly because if that happened to virtually ANY other configuration, the boat would have gone down. Water accumulationg in the belly saved that boat. It was a combination of one really good design feature and one really bad one, in this case the good one saved it from the bad one.. That hull should be recalled immediately, it is a potentially fatal accident waiting to happen.

If my hull did ANYTHING that, i wouldn't be here.

It is amazing that anyone in their right mind would own a boat so fatally flawed.

SamSam

01-04-2010, 03:18 PM

IMO, there is no way on Gods green earth a hull ...
......a boat so fatally flawed.

He did it on purpose. I think he was attempting a power turn, like here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsF8niEGEMQ&feature=related

but he didn't get it down right.

Some people just go for the dive itself....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-wCtryPVu8&feature=fvw

I have a Yamaha lx210 from about 40mph pull the throttle back to zero but the buckets down(reverse) then bring the revs back up you can control the dive by the amount of throttle. My wife did not talk to me for the rest of the day ...peace

I believe it works best with jet drive.

.

PAR

01-04-2010, 03:53 PM

Loveofsea, what is it with your fatal design flaws.

Master Craft builds the best boat for it's intended use, in fact it's quite specialized, you'll note how she's not "hanging her chin" up on plane, for example.

There's nothing wrong with this design, I'm very familiar with them, having been on them dozens of times. In fact, there's one just down the street from me. He purchased it because I told him to, when his kids showed a great interest in skiing.

The boat was never fully submersed, though it did dig into a wake and have a huge hunk of green water roll over her. The water inside the boat is several inches deep, but the pumps will dump it over the side and he'll restart the engine and drive off.

I did mention to pay attention didn't I (good to see SamSam did). Did you notice the driver looks to make sure he killed the engine and turns on the pumps? Why would you kill an engine, toss your hands in the air in celebration, then reach down and flip on a bilge pump?

You can speculate and make unfounded accusations or . . .

souljour2000

01-04-2010, 04:16 PM

Wait...did you just say that this boat was not totally immersed?....he heh..I want what kind of drugs that your on dude...why on earth would you....can't believe your defending this bonehead maneuver..we all have done them but why defend it so vehemently....what are you..a Mastercraft rep?..that must be it...

Loveofsea

01-04-2010, 04:49 PM

PAR

01-04-2010, 06:05 PM

I'm so glad that informed and educated folks such as myself, sit on the committees and boards that make these decisions, rather then the uneducated ridiculousness that I've seen over this.

If we used your logic, then there wouldn't be buildings over 1 story tall because a kid might fall out of a window, ladders wouldn't go more then 3' tall so as to prevent someone breaking an ankle when they fall off it, cars would have doors that don't open so people can't smash their fingers in them when they close and planes would surely not be permitted to have wings, because heaven forbid one might crack you in the forehead as you walk under it.

I've never met a more clueless bunch of posts. I've tired to make amends for suggesting some aren't thinking things through, but clearly I was incorrect in this attempt.

I've preformed this maneuver on several occasions, it's actually fun it you "stuff" it just right, especially on a 95 degree day. To have people suggest it's a design flaw and that the USCG should investigate is sheer lunacy of the highest order from ill informed, uneducated, want-a-be's. Who do you think is going to investigate? Someone with your level of understanding or someone like me? Thank God people like me sit on these boards, if for no other reason then to keep people like you off them. You should go twist yourselves up in bubble warp and hope the end comes quickly.

Alik

01-04-2010, 08:43 PM

The CG really should do an investigation of these patently dangerous hulls.

Are You serious? Brainless idiots are overloading the boat at bow, but it is still designer's fault? :D

souljour2000

01-04-2010, 09:14 PM

Was browsing thru here and ran across that "not totally immersed" part and had to disagree...surprised to check back and find that you were the one who said that...that boat was pretty damn well immersed IMHO but none of us are perfect...I don't have a dog in this fight..so I'll leave it there...just happened upon this thread again ... but I think it is an interesting one...cool video for sure...a stunt gone wrong?

troy2000

01-04-2010, 11:13 PM

We are going to have to disagree on this one gentlemen--whether the driver did it on puropse or not, no legitimate hull design would allow the craft to become completely submerged while on flat water. NO HOW--NO WAY!

Now the first vid that sam linked was what i would expect from a hull when put thru the paces--no water got in the boat~no problem...

Here is a clip of a kid actually being thrown out of the boat after it takes a nose-dive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY9x5YBft8&feature=related

How that near disaster can be defended as simply a benign hull characteristic is beyond my comprehension! Kid thrown out of the boat, and that's OK???

If it were up to me, every hull with this flaw would be recalled and modified or the owner would be reimbersed for the full price paid. The CG really should do an investigation of these patently dangerous hulls.

Be safe~

Ummmm.....it wasn't flat water. I believe there was a pretty hefty wake involved. If the bow hadn't gone up over that wake and then headed down directy at the "flat" water, the boat wouldn't have played submarine....

You remind me of the activists who screamed and carried on and got Suzuki Swifts taken out of production, because OH MY GOD: if you drive them like a stunt car instead of a 4x4, they turn over!!! People who think like you are the reason my sons wound up in an elementary school where running was forbidden, lest someone fall down and hurt himself. I'm serious: any child caught running was immediately benched, until the end of recess or lunch break.

You cannot design human stupidity out of a boat, unless you design them not to carry people.

PAR

01-05-2010, 01:37 AM

Nothing went wrong folks, the stunt (which is what it is and one I and many others have preformed on countless occasions) was well executed. The bow wasn't over loaded, it was what we call "stuffed" into the back of a wave, wake or whatever happens to be handy. In fact you don't even need a wave or wake, but it does make it a wetter and more spectacular event to see.

It takes some practice to do and have it look good. You blast along at a good clip and get in rhythm with the boat's "dance". As the boat rises and smashes down, you time the throttle chop as the boat is coming down off a wave or a wake and ideally, if you can stuff the bow into another as you come to a stop, it'll look better.

As soon as you cut the throttle, the bow dives. Anyone that's ridden a motorcycle and grabbed a big hand full of front brakes with spent front shocks, knows the sensation that occurs next. The boat takes a nose dive and the stern rises up on the following wave and momentum, further stuffing the bow in good and shoveling water right over the foredeck.

The boat isn't totally immersed, though it does look like it, to those that have never seen real boarding water before. I've had 30' waves crash on deck, completely flooding the cockpit of the sailboat I was on. It sure seemed like the boat was a submarine for a second, but it shed it's wet blanket and asked for more a few seconds later.

These are boats people. If you go out in them, you can have a perfect day and not a drop of water can touch you. On the other hand these are boats and getting wet is what they're designed to do. I use to have a boat that I specifically setup for heavy weather action. We didn't even head out unless the wind were a steady 25-30. We took our foul weather gear and harnesses and got hammered by mother nature. We were even stopped by a USCG cutter during hurricane Hugo and told to turn around. Fortunately, I was with two USCG officers buddies (there's always more then one nut case aboard). We were partners and racing sailors friends and they knew the boat and how it was set up.

My point is because you can take a PWC and drive right under a freighter's wake, blasting out the other side in a cloud of exploding water droplets, this doesn't mean it's a design flaw. Possibly some mental disorder would be a better description, but there's nothing wrong with the boat, just how it's being used. This isn't the boat's fault, nor that of the designer. It's an operator choice and I for one am all for them, because the contrary to this freedom is having anal retentive, frightened, wussies legislate out any potential for having a choice in the first place.

This is the point that I've been trying to get at all along. Everyone should have the ability to accept the results of the choices we make. Our country was based on this very premise and I'll defend it with my last breath. We have so many opportunities as a result of being able to choose in this country, that we take for granted our very freedoms and attempt to remove them for our own good!

Alik

01-05-2010, 02:13 AM

The bow wasn't over loaded, it was what we call "stuffed" into the back of a wave, wake or whatever happens to be handy.

Hm... 3 guys of 80kg each plus luggage at bow on such a small boat? I would say it is overload. Driving boat in such condition isn't good practice.

PAR

01-05-2010, 02:42 AM

Alik

01-05-2010, 03:03 AM

Alik, I agree that some of the videos show poor judgment, but this isn't the fault of the boat or the boat design. 3 guys in a bow rider isn't over loading it. It has 4 seats forward of the helm on that boat, so it can take it. Of course they aren't sitting in the seats, but on the seatbacks and the skipper should have known what would happen if he "stuffed" the boat.

Actually there should be safe loading instruction in Owner's manual, so the loading SHOULD start from the stern and passengers should be seated on cushions. I have a bowrider cat myself, so I never carry people on the front sofa unless stern seat is loaded. On wave, I used to move all passengers aft from midships.

Then, on video the guys are sitting too high, so CG is really high that effects stability and ride. Visibility is poor also... This is definitely lack of boating culture.

Again, this isn't the fault of the boat or it's design
100% agreed. As I stated at the beginning of this thread, major part of all marine accidents is due to human factor.

It is a case when monkey drives the boat, and then one claims the designer :D

PAR

01-05-2010, 03:11 AM

Bingo!

Over 80% of on water incidents are operator error (in this country).

Loveofsea

01-05-2010, 03:34 AM

Sorry to overtly disagree with you, but a well designed boat hull simply would not be able to submerse itself no matter what the driver did--period!

I can't help but think that part of the reason those inherently dangerous hulls are even on the market is because those who make the decisions are either driven by greed, or are overly compliant to those who are driven by greed. How someone could see what those hulls do and actually sign off on a design as abborant as that is beyond my comprehension. (no offense intended)

Any hull that is capable of that stunt is unsafe, simple as that. It would be physically impossible for most hulls to do that--that should be proof enough that those hulls are flawed. Just because no one wants to inhibit the profitability of the corporation doesn't mean that their product is safe or even legitimate.

A simple question: In what OTHER boat type would you tolerate this extraordinary hull charactoristic?

souljour2000

01-05-2010, 03:48 AM

Almost to the day this time last year a Coast Guard search/rescue for 4 football players gone missing in a 21-foot Everglades cc fishing boat 50 miles off Clearwater,Fl had just wrapped up... Later, it was determined that the owner of the boat had recently lost a nice anchor on a previous trip so when NW winds started to pick up as a cold front moved in and it was time to go the owner decided not to cut the anchor line of the new anchor when it got stuck on a coral head... Instead, he decided to untie it and and re-tie it to a stern cleat and give her some power hoping to pull the stuck anchor off the coral in this fashion...by then I think there were at least 3-4 foot waves...(building to 12-15 feet later that night) ... The boat flipped ...one of these fellows was eventually rescued over a day later...the bodies of the other three men were never found. It was eventually determined that they had actually gone closer to 65 mi offshore trying to reach a prime fishing area well-known to many as the "middle grounds".They left that morning as winter cold front that had been forecasted for several days in advance was almost upon them...No epirb of course...I believe that they had only a handheld vhf and cell phones (both on their way to the fishes when the boat flipped...not sure who might have been in range by then if the VHF could have been utilized...probably no one.
This type of seamanship cannot be eliminated without changing American boating substantially with required boating classes (maybe after they free the weed) or making boats that also have places to sit in them when they happen to be flipped (upside down lower units are not good handholds either for people hanging on back of a turtled boat hull...manufacturer law suit?) Anyways...a sad story but hopefully a highly educational one for the boating public as it was heavily covered by the media due to NFL players being involved.
__________________

apex1

01-05-2010, 07:47 AM

Sorry to overtly disagree with you, but a well designed boat hull simply would not be able to submerse itself no matter what the driver did--period!

Gawd.........................

is it really so difficult for you to get the picture?

Or is you Barber on holiday and we get the weekly drivel instead?

Just agree, your statement was guesswork, or plain nonsense or out of the blue.

You must not excuse to be born!

though....................

PAR

01-05-2010, 11:19 AM

Loveofsea, you plainly don't have much experience in boats, on boats, in command of boats or any concept of design, it's concepts or basic principles. You're simply and clearly delusional interpretation is precisely why professionals such as myself, are required to make these decisions for you.

You're are just like the idiots that stood around the day the first iron or concrete hulled vessel was launched. No concept of what you're talking about, but you sure can run your mouth. Then later in the local pub, you haven't anything to say because you were grossly wrong and it actually did float, in spite of your insistence it wouldn't

And Souljour2000, you should be ashamed of yourself. Hand holds on an inverted boat, please. Would you like some pop up seats with 4" foam cushions with that request, please. Yes, the lower leg of and outboard or out drive is a great place for hand holds. I've used it as this and it's damn handy. In fact, it's usually one of the only ways to climb up on a inverted hull. But of course, you'd prefer the designer anticipate this and have some upside down steps molded into the hull.

That boat the flipped and 3 where killed last summer, was broached in beam seas, from the pure lack of experience of it's skipper. It did everything it was supposed to do, it floated (inverted) and offered a raft that the 4 could have stayed with. According to the statement of the only survivor, the others swam or drifted off. My impression was they were attempting to swim for shore or had lost their will and were giving up. None of these thing were a result of any element of the boats design.

Using this example to boost your case for safer boats is pure lunacy, as the whole event was operator error. In fact a series of errors (with is typically) and the boat did everything it was designed to do. It tolerated the conditions it was out in, even through it was never intended to be a blue water boat. It was rolled, but as a direct result of mistakes by the skipper.

Mandating regulation isn't going to change anything about this event, except maybe the broach, though powering through 15' seas in that style of boat will test the best of the best and it may have broached anyway.

There's an old saying; you never take a boat out into seas that are taller then the boat is long. On that unfortunate night, it's very probable that they found out what happens when you do venture into big seas with little boats.

Restricting our freedoms will not prevent these sort of things, though a part of me does wish for better boat handling training, I don't think it should be mandated. I do think that a Power Squadron boat handling course should be required if you've never owned a boat before, maybe as part of the title transfer and tax package. You have to show successful completion, etc., though this smacks of more infringement on personal freedoms.

This is the basic problem here. You think we are too stupid to be responsible for our own actions and as a result want to legislate a required response or force designers to make boats as boring as possible in an effort to protect ourselves from ourselves.

I on the other hand will side with the framers of the constitution and permit people to accept responsibility for their own actions (regardless of how stupid they can be sometimes), so long as it's not intentionally attempting to injure or harm anyone.

Nothing in any of the above incidents suggests these skippers were intentional setting out to hurt some one. Sure better judgment could have been used, but this argument can be used in any situation when you have the leisure of hind sight.

So, the next chance I get at a chance at a SNAME or SBYD meeting, I'll think of your concerns and then laugh to myself, because I'm not going to bring up anything. Mostly because I like to see the boneheads of the world, remove themselves from the gene pool, purely through their own actions. It's mother nature's way of weeding out the garden so to speak.

apex1

01-05-2010, 11:44 AM

Paul,

I must spread some reputation around before giving it to you again............

lol

souljour2000

01-05-2010, 01:33 PM

Actually I agree with almost all your comments ...I was really being purely facetious about the handholds (ak.a.lower unit of their boat when flipped) being a less than desirable designed in safety feature...but in fact it is what saved the one guy and your right..they are handy in a fix.....the one about seats in a capsized hull especially...it was a poor example to employ a joking comment so my bad but my sarcastic comments I guess failed to show that I also believe you can't legislate intelliegence...I DO have a very different definition of immersed than you but you use the term perhaps as it is used in a naval architecture discussion or some nautical definiton of immersion...your absolutely right that the ski boat was never compromised from a stability point of view and it did its job as the designers could have only hoped quite well...it still was immersed though in my view..however briefly...but was it ever compromised stability-wise?...no...was the boat designed well..obviously yes I should say..I never disagreed with you there...just semantics-wise... your use of that word "immersed" which I thought maybe you could have used a better one....this isn't a forum of linguistics professors and english language usage...and it should remain thus...so my bad there.......I don't have a dog in this fight so I should have stayed out of it...especially since I haven't even bothered to look up the definition of immersed yet..:)

Loveofsea

01-05-2010, 01:45 PM

Tim B

01-05-2010, 03:25 PM

You know, hoax or not, the first few pages of this thread were quite an interesting insight into differing views on vessel stability, and the acceptable operational envelope. It's a shame that in the last few pages it's descended into a tantrum.

LoveOfSea,
So you've sailed 65,000nm in a boat that you designed and built. Well done, you must be quite a sailor. Unfortunately, since you didn't qualify it, this may have been a 20ft fishing boat sailed 60NM a weekend during the summer for 43 years. Ok, I'm being facetious, but there is a world of difference betwwen designing one (possibly very conservative boat) and designing many successfully. There are many people who have made that mistake, usually with life-threatening consequences.

Pooping (where the vessel is flooded from intake of water over the stern is one of the hardest calculations to do on any vessel, and it's caused either by wave action, or by the wake catching up with the boat (which is actually a wave of short wavelength and large wave height). It's generally accepted that going from full ahead to full stop will cause the backend to get wet. Please note evidence in this clip... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1dzMoZk_9M

The question of capsize due to loss of stability from bilge water, should never be a problem, as there should never be enough bilge water to make this happen. Capsize due to loss of GM after flooding is likely to occur, of course.

So given that this thread has gone wildly off-topic, perhaps it would be better to continue it elsewhere. And for the time being, the designers will continue to issue operational envelopes with their designs.

Tim B.

PAR

01-05-2010, 03:31 PM

Maybe you should look up immersed folks. The boat had a V shaped ring of water, maybe a few inches thick travel from bow and crashing amidship. From the side this looks like the boat is traveling through a wall of water, but it's hollow inside and you know this with some skiing, surfing or boarding experience. Does a surfer get "immersed" when he has a breaker curl over him? If he's got enough speed on and doesn't wipeout, he can exit the tunnel, literally dry as a bone, but it sure looks like he got dunked, but you don't know this unless you've piped one.

As far as your experience Loveofsea, I can only imagine your lack of it. Your lack of design understanding is also that of a novice. You know they don't put excessive flare in the bow of boat like this for a reason Loveofsea. So, can you tell me why, it's a common design ploy and used nearly exclusively on this type of boat. You're literally are clueless in this regard, which is why you should stick with being scared and shivering from the possibilities you can bring on yourself.

Again, just twist yourself up in a some heavy duty bubble wrap and hope the end comes quickly.

souljour2000

01-05-2010, 03:42 PM

German u-boats and U.S. K-boats spent most of the time on top of the water..on the surface that is...their diesels needed air to run...so did the crews...but they were "boats" that could be fully submerged if only for short periods ...they performed well in their design envelope...not a great example maybe... but I will say in final that smart designers of small craft would do well to make sure their boats can do the opposite..that is..become submarines for very short periods...the ski boat designers apparently had that in mind...so do most competent designers...you could argue that half of your larger vessels get "submersed" or partially submerged at their very launching..of course any large wave will submerse alot of small boats in the right conditions...most ski boats and small pleasure craft probably have a large "dumbo" factor engineered into them...since the majority of U.S. marine fatalities are collision with obstacle or another boat and/or alcohol-related drownings I'd say most designers of these types of craft are doing a good job....always room for improvement especially the "dumbo factor" but you can only do so much as a designer..or a legislator..or a poster on a thread that has become very tired...submerged even...in a gyre of sargassum weed and circular reasoning I'd say....

apex1

01-05-2010, 03:49 PM

As far as my experience goes, i've spent more nights alone 75-100nm offshore than you have on the couch in your livingroom :D .

I would not bet on that! PAR is´nt a couch potatoe.

And some around here have been at sea too! Not just you. I did in three years what you have under your belt! Others here did even more miles at sea.

But what am I talking, you are one of the never comprehending sort. No matter what nonsense you are talking, you´re always right.

Leave it.........

Loveofsea

01-05-2010, 04:27 PM

pretty amazing-- That which is so apparent in your mind remains entirely unexplainable by word :rolleyes: You still have not explained how a boat traveling down the river and suddenly nose dives without warning is not a design flaw. This reminds me of conservative politics, let me guess :p

Tim, i do underwater photography as a hobby here in So Cal. Over the years I have spent some 700 nights anchored at the most remote places off the coast. I don't do day trips and I haven't taken a trip less than 60nm out of port in a decade--over 300 nights on the water since then. My last trip was a couple of weeks ago. I spent two nights anchored on that incredible submerged mountain top situated 100 miles off the coast called the Cortes Bank. When the conditions are right, i like to swim out there alone at night :cool: The trip before that it was 3 nights at San Nicolas Island with a trip out to Begg Rock. I have been doing this year around since '91 in this boat.

apex, the difference is i go alone, i don't need others in order to feel secure on the water.

PAR, I'm getting tired of this also. I think that your ego is preventing you from just admitting what you must already know--a boat that suddenly dives below the surface for no apparent reason is a safety hazard. This is what happens when people put self-interest above all other considerations. How could anyone look at the video that i linked that showed the kid being thrown in the water and think that is acceptable for ANY boat? The truth is, you can't so you cling to your ideology :(

"there is nothing like the feeling of utter security on a tumultuous sea" :D

apex1

01-05-2010, 04:41 PM

apex, the difference is i go alone, i don't need others in order to feel secure on the water.

That is what I assumed!
You should learn proper seamanship! Nobody can stand watch for 24hrs! And you probably will not survive tumultuous sea when in the bunk.

Tim B

01-05-2010, 04:53 PM

The clip you're reffering to ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY9x5YBft8&feature=related ) is just an example of Newton's first law. ie. That which moves will continue to move until something gives it a good reason not to.

The fact the the seat that you were lounging on stopped isn't considered a good reason.

The driver (I refuse to use the word helmsman for this idiot) purposefully throttled back hard, which would induce a dive. I see no unapparent reason for the chain of events which follwed, nor any issue of design. Boats don't just dive underwater because they feel like it. There is ALWAYS a reason. Whether it's apparent to you is a matter of technical knowledge and experience. Both of which I would question for small fast craft.

I'm not into protecting idiots. If you fail to follow advice, then you have only yourself to blame, not the person giving the advice.

Tim B.

troy2000

01-05-2010, 05:10 PM

For you to actually defend a boat hull that will completely submerse itself is absolutely absurd! If the bow diving below the surface for no good reason is not unsafe, then what the heck is??? You sound more like a shil for the industry than a real engineer--Pretty scary to think that you sit on some board and would approve of such a demonstratively DANGEROUS hull design :eek: Maybe that's where the money is, who knows. Regardless that's apparently the reason those dangerous boats are allowed to be marketed to an unsuspecting public.

Or maybe in the glossy literature there is this warning: WARNING--Drive at your own risk! This craft may suddenly dive below the surface for no apparent reason! (four 2,000GPH bilge pumps --- standard equipment)

Those boats have that fatal flaw precisely because design DID NOT FOLLOW FUNCTION! Design followed a marketing image instead. They wanted a slick, low profile boat and they failed to compensate for that "look "by inhancing the lift of the bow. Those boats should be rhetrofitted with a flare on the bow to prevent the hull from actually diving below the surface. Ya think?!

As far as my experience goes, i've spent more nights alone 75-100nm offshore than you have on the couch in your livingroom :D .

What is this nonsense about "no good reason"?!? There were perfectly good reasons. You're carrying on like they were jaunting across a mirror-smooth surface, and the boat, all on its own, suddenly submarined. You might as well rail about the fatal design flaw that allows a car to hit a tree; how dare auto makers not design a car that won't leave the road if you turn the steering wheel the wrong way, or that won't spin its tires if you give it too much gas on ice, or that won't roll over if you take a sharp curve at 70 mph instead of the posted 35?

I think it would probably be close to impossible to put enough flare in the bow of that boat to prevent it from doing what it did, unless you threw out any other consideration of function and appearance. Ya think?

Loveofsea

01-05-2010, 05:13 PM

apex, i stand by my safety record. I've been towed 3 times in 90,000nm. Twice because of a failure in a brand new engine, the other because of a lower unti failure (75nm out of port--i was back out there with a new L/U the next weekend :cool: . I've traveled the equivelent of circumnavigating the planet between towings :D You?

and if i am such a poor boat designer then why has my plywood boat design lasted 18 years, year around, outlived 5 outboards, and traveled 65,000nm of open seas and the hull has only degraded less than 1%? I suppose you know of a lot of similar wooden powerboats running around out there, right?

Forgive for making this brazen statement, but it would be virtually impossible to use the materials i used and build a stronger and more durable vessel than this one. I have worked around aircraft all of my life and i designed this skiff using the principles of aircraft structure design rather than traditional boatbuilding design.

>>>as few pieces as possible---every piece being as large as it can possibly be<<<

apex1

01-05-2010, 05:21 PM

troy2000

01-05-2010, 06:12 PM

I'm bowing out, folks; have fun. This is another thread being powered by someone's obsessions....

souljour2000

01-05-2010, 06:17 PM

Hate to state the obvious but Apex is right...this kind of arrogance is what gets you killed... this guy sounds like Capt Quint from "Jaws"...he survived the "Indianapolis" only to get eaten by a transient fish....

Loveofsea

01-06-2010, 03:12 AM

Two last (rhetorical) questions:

Would a Boston Whaler or a Grady or a Fountain, etc even be capable of submersing the bow on relative flat seas?

....Why not?

PS: souljour, arrogance doesn't get you killed. It's inexperience, stupidity and sheer bad luck that will do you in.

Thank you for the spirited exchange gentlemen!

Brad

(loves the sea)

TeddyDiver

01-06-2010, 04:01 AM

And the winner of the Loveofsea's design contest is here!!! No more submerged bows! No more capsizing! It may have a couple of other disadvantages but no game no gain..:P

SamSam

01-07-2010, 11:13 AM

When submarining is done on purpose it wouldn't seem to be a design flaw. My understanding is to do it as it's done in the posted videos, when up to speed you throw the boat into reverse (jet drive only I would imagine) which pitches the boat stern high and bow low, but the forward momentum allows the bow to submarine. (I think the first submarining was a failed power turn, that's why the guy threw up his hands and the woman wasn't all that happy) If the boat submarines with the only thing being done is suddenly throttling back, that would seem to be a poor attribute to me. If your motor quits at speed, you automatically submarine? If a boat has a tendency to stuff itself into waves that would be a definite disadvantage also, at least to me. Here's the last few posts on a thread about submarining....

I experienced my 1st submerging today.There was a Moomba Outback on my river today out wakesurfing. I was cruising and hit one of his waves and I would estimate 50 gallons entered the bow!

I had just gotten back to my fallen skier (past my own rollers) when I got caught in 3-4 consecutive "double-ups" from passing boats. We took all of them over the bow. I'd say it was 200-300 gallons. The water was 5 inches deep above the carpet! It took at least 30 minutes to pump it all out. I was a bit scared for a minute. I've only run the boat ('02 OB) about 5 total hours now -- still getting used to it. Any tips?

When you see these coming, if you can, give your boat some throttle to try to lift the front end above the crests coming at you.

http://www.moomba.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=5831

When you're doing nothing, and 3-4 waves come in over the bow from nothing other than passing boats, what is that- a design flaw or poor design or just a design compromise?

I'm not sure the major cause of capsizing (sinking?) is water coming in over the transom, but it does happen. A few years back we had someone drown when the boat stopped so someone could light a smoke and the wake came over the transom and sunk them.

.

Sheepy

01-07-2010, 11:40 PM

As far as your experience, I can only imagine your lack of it. Your lack of design understanding is also that of a novice. You know they don't put excessive flare in the bow of boat like this for a reason Loveofsea. So, can you tell me why, it's a common design ploy and used nearly exclusively on this type of boat. You're literally are clueless in this regard, which is why you should stick with being scared and shivering from the possibilities you can bring on yourself.

Again, just twist yourself up in a some heavy duty bubble wrap and hope the end comes quickly.

I'm curious as to why they don't put excessive flare on these boats? My guess would be to stop the bow acting sorta like an airplane wing at speed towing a skier?

powerabout

01-09-2010, 11:32 AM

I always thought 'shipping a greeny' as we called it over the bow was a design feature as where we skiied in OZ was damn hot.

What goes up must come down, when boat racing just make sure the launch was good so when you come down you are in the correct attitude or else...
A bit like ski jumping...its pretty hard to recover in the air

powerabout

01-09-2010, 11:57 AM

I'm curious as to why they don't put excessive flare on these boats? My guess would be to stop the bow acting sorta like an airplane wing at speed towing a skier?

at 58kph
I dont even think a tiger moth will take off

gunship

01-09-2010, 06:34 PM

i think a tiger moth will JUST about take off :P but the point stands.

so compare:
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/aircraft/TigerMoth_ZK-CCH_preserved_airworthy_NZ.jpg

with:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3617/3639882499_2828bba678_o.jpg

Sheepy

01-09-2010, 08:31 PM

at 58kph
I dont even think a tiger moth will take off

No, however a boat at speed may flip over?

powerabout

01-10-2010, 05:10 AM

Ok, Here's one at take off

Loveofsea

01-10-2010, 10:31 PM

Unlike boats that dive below the surface while traveling over relatively flat seas for no apparent reason, these planes take off in a short distance....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWTcCtYl5Cs

PAR

01-11-2010, 03:22 AM

Why do you not believe the reality of the "stuffing" a boat stunt? Do you honestly think perfectly good boats just suddenly nose dive? What kind of idiot are you? You're constantly making comments about things that plainly aren't true, as if you knew something different, yet you haven't the understanding of the design concepts or principles to back up your repeated attempts at retort.

I gave this thread up a couple of pages ago and here you are still ranting about what you don't understand. Now, it's my mission to point out how stupid you are. We don't need your level of "experience" and frankly it's dangerous to others.

Unlike boats that dive below the surface while traveling over relatively flat seas for no apparent reason,

Comments like this make it very clear that your capacity to understand reasonable explanations is beyond your ability. Maybe you should go back to sucking your mash potatoes through your straw and pinching at the night nurse when she's on her rounds.

Just because you don't like it or don't understand it, doesn't mean it's not happening commonly or with a reasonable level of safety (I can preform this stunt repeatedly, all day long with no damage). It just means you're too stupid to pay attention to the video or others that have experienced just what the video shows. This level of arrogance needs to be weeded from the gene pool.

Sheepy

01-11-2010, 04:02 AM

@ someone who knows could you please tell me the reason for not having excessive flare on these boats? I would genuinely like to know if I have it right.

powerabout

01-11-2010, 06:17 AM

Flare does not stop a nose dive/submarining
If you ship a greeny at idle ( and dont know how to avoid that)you need more freeboard for the conditions.
I'm no NA but have raced powerboats and spent thousands of hours in ski boats so here's my laymans explanation...

If the boat is pointing down hill it will go downhill till the bouyancy of the hull starts to apply a force greater then the momentum
As the deck is usually flat it then opposes coming back to the surface ( assuming its under)
The hull having a fine entry is the path of less resistance so helps it to go down.

Once the drag and added bouyancy overcomes the mass/momentum you slow (maybe almost to a stop) and float back to the surface. Its all dynamic so any combo of the above happens.

These are all variables so you can have no problem if the angle of incidence is low, or have a bit decelaration, and the bow lifts back or add more speed and the problem get worse etc etc, this problem on race boats has injured and killed many people and snapped hulls in half.
( from 100mph to stop in a boat length will hurt)

Newtons law...

A wave piercer is just as dangerous IF IF it changes its running attitude and points downhill.
The Ozzies here might remember a commercial 40+m wave piercing cat that went in on Port Phillip Bay ( Melbourne ) in the 80's.
It was steaming at normal cruise but in swell and it nose dived at 30kts or whatever speed it was doing, nearly went vertical and submerged the passenger area by more than 80%, yes the fish were looking at the passengers in the aquarium, it then popped back up.
Many broken arms and legs. ( I had a customer who happened to be on board who described it to me)

Oh...a stunt trick to do....Jet skiiers have been doing it for years and ski boat drivers also for that instant cool on a hot day...
The same can be done to stand a boat almost vertical off a wave without fear of going over backwards

Loveofsea

01-11-2010, 01:17 PM

Properly designed boats do not suddenly dive below the surface throwing kids into the water-PERIOD! The vast majority of boats are designed to keep people INSIDE the boat. The ones that throw people out of the boat are not safe.

souljour2000

01-11-2010, 01:30 PM

People get ejected from boats all the time...not as much as from cars or maybe bars...but still quite often...remember...as the comedian Ron White says...you can't fix stupid...btw..I wish there was a retired career Coast Guard guy or gal in this forum who could really weigh in on this and similar threads with some stats and even some scary but educational stories maybe...

apex1

01-11-2010, 01:45 PM

PAR--GROW UP FORCRYINGOUTLOUD!

If you can't admit that you are wrong, you need to just let go of this thread.

have a nice day

Replace "PAR" with your name and you will find hundreds of supporters here!..:cool:

Fanie

01-11-2010, 02:32 PM

Unlike boats that dive below the surface while traveling over relatively flat seas for no apparent reason, these planes take off in a short distance....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWTcCtYl5Cs

Awww.... that's nothing. I can launch a boat in a much shorter distance.

Loveofsea, I wouldn't discard some of the advice from these respected boaties because it doesn't fit your reference window.
Nothing is always as it seems ok. Instead of taking these guys on, learn from them.

Loveofsea

01-11-2010, 02:55 PM

Hello Fanie~ I'm a 'boatie' also. The difference is, i spend a lot more time actually boating than i do talking about it. I was looking thru my log books the other day and i estimate that i have spent the equivelent of 250 24 hour days with a tiller in my hand--in open seas :)

i keep wondering why it is acceptable for those hulls to suddenly dive below the surface, yet there is no way on earth anyone would tolerate that flaw in a grady or a whaler--none of the local experts have been able to answer that.

all i get are insults, name calling and the typical sock-puppet drive-by from the likes of apex :rolleyes: .

Souljour, people get ejected for all kinds of reasons--virtually all of then due to extraordinary circunmstances, not because the bow suddenly decides to take a dive below the surface. Again, a properly designed hull would not be able to do that no matter what the driver did-PERIOD.

Why is it acceptable in one boat and not in another :confused:

Fanie

01-11-2010, 03:05 PM

There may be a difference in spending lots of time on the water - and actually design a boat :idea:

I suspect that boat diving under the water was done so deliberately by the skipper. Look where the engine (and most of the dead weight) is located. All he had to do was trim the nose down some and turn the boat so it can cut under the water. It is the center of gravity that keeps him upright.

Loveofsea

01-11-2010, 03:17 PM

Fanie, i designed and built my boat :D .

Could the skipper of a grady or a whaler do that?

Why not?

PAR

01-11-2010, 04:30 PM

Okay, you designed and built a boat, but you've not answered the one question I directed at you, which was, why do the majority of pleasure boats have the bow they do, which you've described as inherently unsafe? So Mr. designer of boats, why? It's one of the most common features on modern pleasure craft and shared by most commercial power craft (sailboats too) as well. I can make a Whaler dive like the video shows too. It will not be quite as spectacular, but it will dive and ship it's bow wave. The fact that you are too arrogant to accept things you don't understand is a good indication of what you're about. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's bad, it just means you don't understand it.

apex1

01-11-2010, 05:07 PM

all i get are insults, name calling and the typical sock-puppet drive-by from the likes of apex :rolleyes: .

The sock puppet builds boats since more than 30 years, holds a commercial master unlimited, and circumnavigated 3 times. (on motoryachts)

Amateur..........there is a typo in your nickname, should read Lovesofa!

troy2000

01-11-2010, 11:46 PM

Jeez, is this thread still going?:(

I don't know why you guys won't shut up and listen to loveofsea. After all, he designed and built his own boat, and hasn't sunk it (yet). So that means he must know more than all you wannabes who do it for a living....:rolleyes:

Loveofsea

01-12-2010, 12:11 PM

I'm appaled, appaled i tell you :p That the state of commercial boat design has sunk to this level where a boat can suddenly dive below the surface and it's not considered unsafe :confused: Where is the oversight?? If Ford or GM put out a vehicle that did the equivalent, there would be a forced recall.

Way back in '91 when i needed a serious offshore skiff, i had no faith in the industry. I can't tell you how glad i am that i didn't cop out and buy a conventional design.

apex, it must have been fun to travel around the world 3 times. I bet you have a lot of incredible memories...

PAR

01-12-2010, 05:47 PM

The only thing appalling is the level of your stupidity. So, Mr. yacht designer, why do the vast majority of pleasure craft and commercial craft (tankers, freighters, too) all have this bow feature? All of us, well of course you are the exception, design these inferior yachts and ships this way and we can easily justify the logic used in their shapes, but you yet have to suggest have you a grasp of these principles. All you're capable of doing is blabbering about what you think you might know. You can't quantify you arguments in any reasonable fashion, especially in light of the fact that a Whaler 18 can dive just like a BayLiner Capri 18. You're being an idiot for the sake of being an idiot and I'm going to enjoy pointing this out to everyone as long as you continue to do so.

The only way out of this is for you to offer a reasonable understanding of why 95% of bows are shaped so poorly and unsafely (your thoughts not ours). Do you think that we'll all nuts and just design bow and entry shapes to suit a common whim?

apex1

01-12-2010, 06:19 PM

apex, it must have been fun to travel around the world 3 times. I bet you have a lot of incredible memories...

At least I could avoid contact with idiots as you! For 9 happy years......:D

SamSam

01-12-2010, 08:29 PM

Please. 'Stupid' and 'idiot' are so overused and tacky. 'Dolt' and 'retard' are always refreshing, and smack of class. :)

peter radclyffe

01-12-2010, 10:41 PM

[QUOTE=Loveofsea;330816]Two last (rhetorical) questions:

Would a Boston Whaler or a Grady or a Fountain, etc even be capable of submersing the bow on relative flat seas?

....Why not?

PS: souljour, arrogance doesn't get you killed. It's inexperience, stupidity and sheer bad luck that will do you in.

Thank you for the spirited exchange gentlemen!

Brad

(loves the sea)[/QUOTE

you'll be telling us next that arrogance didnt sink the titanic

Loveofsea

01-13-2010, 03:41 AM

You are overly defensive on this issue as indicated by your continual personal insults and name calling. You obviously errored in your initial response and you're simply not big enough to admit it.

Have any of you ever accomplished anything in your lives that wasn't associated with a larger entity than yourselves. Traveling around the world 3 times is great, but unless you did it solo you just tagged along or needed others to tag along with you.... You were only another cog in a wheel larger than yourself.

I suspect that one of the main differences between us is that i have managed all of my years on the water from a position of complete and utter self-sufficiency--no crew, no entaurage, nothing but me and the boat i built.

take last thursday for instance- i left my house at the leasurely hour of 11:30AM (How presumptious of me!) and made the 78NM run to my favorite cove. The first 5NM were beautiful, but the last 70NM were socked in fog. I got to the Island of the Blue Dolphins four and a half hours later, anchoring in that cove. I never even saw the island until late at night when the fog moved out. I spent three nights at that God-forsaken, wind swept island.

I went there for one thing, to swim in blissful desolation under the kelp canopy :). I have been focusing my photography on shallow water rockfish species since they are all but extinct along the coast. I saw a few mature individuals, but nothing exceptional. There were three huge elephant seals staging in the kelp before i made this particular dive--by the time i got suited up, they were gone--bummer. I really wanted to get a good pic of an elephant underwater. I did manage to get some quality video of a couple elephants on the surface. That's how it goes--huge effort and, sometimes little to show for it. i guess that is why we keep coming back...

140 trips, 230 nights at that place we effectionaltely call Jurassic Park, AKA San Nicolas Island...

Gentlemen, may your bows always stay above the surface! (transoms too!)

Brad

"My personal life is far too rewarding to piss it away on a career!" (quote me :) )

troy2000

01-13-2010, 04:06 AM

Confidential:

Have any of you ever accomplished anything in your lives that wasn't associated with a larger entity than yourselves. Traveling around the world 3 times is great, but unless you did it solo you just tagged along or needed others to tag along with you.... You were only another cog in a wheel larger than yourself.

I suspect that one of the main differences between us is that i have managed all of my years on the water from a position of complete and utter self-sufficiency--no crew, no entaurage, nothing but me and the boat i built.

With all due respect, that's the biggest load of malarkey I've read in a long time. It's something I would have expected out of my son when he was a high school junior, and had just discovered Nietzsche.

As long as you insist on being a solo act and pretending you aren't really a part of society, you're extremely limited in what you can do and how far you can go with it.

For example, if you want to define yourself strictly by your ability to jam by yourself on a trumpet or a sax, be my guest. But you're never going to play a symphony; that takes an orchestra. And it's childish to sneer at the members of that orchestra because they know how to play together, and can create music you couldn't possibly play alone.

It's nice you built your own little boat and know how to run it, son. But if you sprain your arm while you're patting yourself on the back like that, it's going to make it hard to cast off and tie up one-handed.

I'll tell you what: when you've done everything Par has done, but managed to do it solo with no one else lifting a finger or spending a dime or giving you an ounce of moral support or teaching you anything, come on back and we'll talk about whether you're Superman.

PAR

01-13-2010, 12:20 PM

Yet another wasted post Loveofsea. Where you again fail to tell us why the bow type you feel is fundamentally bad, yet is employed by 95% of the current crop of yachts and commercial craft on the market today or in the last few decades. When will you cough up the expansion describing how all (well not all, just 95%) of the bow shapes used can't be quantified by the gross majority of NA's around the world? You will not get off the hook, until you qualify these statements and ridiculous insistence that you're above all else, having found the only answer.

Let's make it easy for you, how about some resistance and damage studies that show why you're correct and everyone else is wrong. Of course this does open the door for many previous studies, particularly those done by the US Navy, that show why the current crop of bow is in favor, but hay, you're the only one in step here so, please show us. We're waiting to be enlightened. In your corner you do have the results used on the Nimitz class, but I'll bet you don't know why they elected to use this shape, which has a little to do with maximizing deck space for aircraft.

souljour2000

01-13-2010, 01:29 PM

I'm amazed that this gentleman has managed to stay alive having made that many trips out that far...usually success in the marine environment and arrogance don't mix..at least not for long..he is probably a competent diver but may have even better judgment concerning local so-cal weather...I do suspect he's also had a fair bit of luck which he should not count on holding out forever... There is a lesson here we all can draw from : Don't try to transfer success experienced in one specific corner of life...onto another discipline...such as naval architecture...
Building one boat does not a naval architect make.... No matter how many gloriously ego-inflating..."National Geographic" moments he may have attained by himself in his little corner of the Pacific...the gentleman has by a warped form of transference confused his apparently great success as a local mariner/photographer with mastery of all fields relating to marine endeavor....he knows his mistake by now but his ego will probably never allow him to admit it in here...meanwhile the rest of us are fools to wait around for him to...

apex1

01-13-2010, 01:38 PM

having made that many trips out that far.. ..

Hmmm,

I have some doubts about that.;) .....just some

rasorinc

01-13-2010, 02:10 PM

The bow will always dig into water if you push to hard forward on the Yoke.

Loveofsea

01-13-2010, 03:13 PM

You tough guys need to get out on the water more often--seriously :mad:

Building a boat was only a means to an end for me. I wanted to run the seas on my own terms and no commercial hull fit my needs, so what is a man to do :) I don't claim to be a boat designer even though i designed and built, arguably one of the most successful skiffs of all time :cool:

I don't have to know anything about bows to know that when one dives below the surface it is the ultimate evidence of a poor design. The truth is people who use those types of boats are never too far from help which is a good thing. They are mainly used on lakes and rivers--Other than my innate concern for my fellow man, i have absolutely no interest in the type of boat people choose to use. It's just a shame that the industry puts out boats that are that inherently dangerous.

Troy, i have never claimed to have done what PAR has done. No one has ever given me a dime--i learned how to run these seas on my own. My wife of 26 years gives me all of the moral support that i need :)

Souljour, talk about National Geographic moments, i have been taking videos of all of my trips since '95. I have racked up some 40 hours of video -whales, sharks, sunsets, gales, fish, pinipeds, you name it!~ Someday i am going to put together my own documentary-- a one man underwater photographic expedition from a home made boat :D BTW, i have been watching the offshore weather here in So Cal literally around the clock since 1985. I can tell you what the wind is doing anywhere in the bight 24/7 ;) I have been caught in severy weather on only 3 occasions since i started boating.

Here is a story about a trip i took way back in '91. I posted it here a few years ago, i hope you gentlemen enjoy it.

A SPLENDID GALE"

Late fall in 91, I anchored off the quarry at the East end of Catalina for the night. This is a tricky anchorage because you have to set up right on a small plateau situated on a steep slope. Night fell as a typical fall evening, still and quiet. Around midnight I noticed telltale flashes of lightening on the distant southern horizon. I listened to the radio and there was no mention of imminent weather, so I fell back to sleep. Somewhere around 4 am I was awoken by a very sharp swell. I could still see the lightening but could hear no thunder, the sky was clear and the wind was calm. I was coming off of a 2 day trip and was to head home later in the morning anyway, so I stowed the gear and headed back across the channel.

Just after sun up and about 7 miles off the island I felt the first blast of wind at my back as the cusp of the wind and seas over took the skiff. Within minutes I find myself surfing down 6-8ft seas with a 40 or 50kt southeasterly wind at my back. Severe following seas are to be avoided if at all possible, so I turn the good skiff around to make my way back to the island for shelter. The good skiff has a tiller so there is no console to protect from the wind and spray. Every time the bow touches, spray would explode over the boat. Within minutes my cloths are saturated and I am wet to the skin, standing in 3 or 4 inches of sloshing water. The wind driven spray was so intense that I couldn't breath from my nose and my eyes and face stung too much to even look in the direction that I was to head. The sky was clear and I was able to get an occasional glimpse of the silhouette of the island which helped greatly with the navigation.

As I pressed on it was getting increasingly difficult to hold the tiller and articulate the throttle which was critical to controlling the boat in the these conditions. I was shaking uncontrollably form the onset of mild hypothermia and had to get out of the wet clothing. I knew that when I let go of the tiller the bow would swing from the wind; but how would she take the seas from the transom? I had no choice but to find out. I shifted the engine into neutral and turned off the ignition. The transom went straight into the seas and she up and over'ed each swell with no problem. I switched on the bilge pump and frantically bailed with the bucket for a few minutes. After most of the water was out of the boat, i took off the wet clothes and put on the wetsuit. Better! I start the engine and proceed but I am still blinded by the spray. I stop once again and put on the mask and snorkel. Much better! I have a 2,000 gph bilge pump to protect the nights at anchor, but when underway the water rushes to the back of the boat and is unavailable to the pump. I make note of it as I press on.

Suddenly a Coast Guard helicopter appears and hovers directly above, diver in full regalia standing in the door. I was very relieved to see them! I know that this sneaky bastard easterly had caught everyone by surprise. I quickly give him the semaphore signal for 'all is OK.' Luckily for me, it was the only one I knew. He waves in acknowledgment and they quickly moved off. The body is much warmer with the wetsuit on so I focus on avoiding the cresting portion of the waves ahead. The routine is established and I am maintaining fine now. Power up the face, cut the throttle just as the bow reaches the peak so it gently 'drops' down the back of the wave, power thru the trough and up the next face, wave after wave. A large commercial vessel that I had seen earlier on the horizon graciously comes over to check on me. I pat my heart and wave to them, they wave back and move on.

I relish the intensity of this moment! It is a rare occasion when the seas grant you such a splendid ordeal of mind and senses. When the wind blows, it shrinks your world, draws you into yourself. Another chance encounter between man and soul. This day we meet again under crystal clear skies and roaring seas! Hello old friend, how you comfort me... But this won't last, I know that later I will be safely at home and this moment will be irretrievable, but for the memory. I look at these hands for a long moment, then I press on.

As I make slow and steady progress toward the island, I see baitfish everywhere. The boat scares them out of the water and the wind is so strong that it rolls them across the surface before they disappear. That is very amusing for some reason. Three and a half hours and 7 miles later, I reach Avalon. I see a number of people along the jetty and the dock up ahead. I wave to them as I enter the harbor. Big lump in my throat as I see many caring arms wave back. The Harbor Patrol boat edges out to meet me and asks if everything is OK. I tell him that I am fine and he directs me to a buoy. Somewhat embarrassed, I have to ask how to tie up. I change into dry cloths, tend to the boat and nap for a couple of hours.

When I awake, the event is over and the winds are calm. I make the run back across the channel. Later that night as I sit in the living room, cat purring in my lap and a cup of fine rum in hand, I am maudlin. For a few precious hours there was a respite from the mundane comforts and trivialities of day to day existence. Life was rich! Full of the reality and bigness that connects your heart and soul straight to the earth we live on. Fate granted yet another opportunity to live and dwell in the realm of stark survival on the beautiful ocean that I love so much. There is nothing like the feeling of utter security on a tumultuous sea ... and until the next time, I will miss it so.

PAR

01-13-2010, 06:29 PM

Once again, another post, lots of fluff, but nothing, zip, nada lick of expertise or data to suggest why his ideas of a bow, which fly in the face of everyone else's are better.

Your like the conspiracy theorists that when pressed for real answers just offer up the "deer in the head lights" look and hope you don't notice they really don't know or understand the situation they're questioning.

No one other then you and those that care about you give a damn about your personal stories of sea conquests. These are little more then artificial chest pumps, in a self induced attempt at forum CPR.

Look you haven't a clue why the types of bows that dominate 95% of all boats, power, sail pleasure and commercial are employed, so just admit you're limitations and move on.

Suggesting that the likes of Herreshoff, S&S, Owens and all the other greats, not to mention all the less then famous, who none the less have major contributions all, with very few exceptions, have designed bows like the ones you describe as inherently unsafe.

Why, Loveofsea are we all wrong and you are right? What level of arrogance would have us think that you and you alone, are the keeper of the secrets of a good bow.

Stop beating around the bush and offering up self love songs about previous exploits and answer the very simple questions. For the sake of mysteriously diving bows everywhere, tells us, save man kind from the likes of the evil doer NA's of the world.

Tim B

01-13-2010, 06:32 PM

Very interesting story. 6 to 8 ft waves in a 40 footer might be uncomfortable, but I have seen just as bad during Cowes week a few years ago in a similar sized boat, and I'll bet at much shorter wavelength (which is very important in these matters). We did ship a respectable amount of water over the bow when heading into seas, and there was nothing wrong with that boat! It was doing exactly what it was designed to.

When you approach what you think is a design flaw, you have to try to work out why the designer made that decision. Particularly with hull design, there will have been a concious decision for at least the following on power and modern sailing boats:

bow rake
amount of rocker
the aft-run properties
chine position
amount of forefoot
amount of flare
angle of entrance
deadrise fore/mid/aft (section shape for yachts)

So with a small cruiser or a fishing boat, it's quite legitimate to have lots of bouyancy at the ends, as it lends itself to a drier boat which "rides" the waves fairly well. What it doesn't do is go fast. Conversely, a deep V powerboat hull goes fast very well, but is uncomfortable in a seaway. This can be improved by using variable deadrise, but it will never be pleasant. However, the deep V poses another issue, of manouevring at speed. In this case too much forefoot will detract from the capability to turn tightly at speed, so if this is a requirement, the seakeeping will be comprimised (this may be quite reasonble).

Yachts are an interesting case, as the trend has been generally similar to powerboats over the last 50 years or so. Designers have generally moved away from short fat hulls with lots of bow rake, to longer hulls with more vertical bows and more U-shaped sections. The newer yachts are more easily powered, and can carry more sail, particularly off-wind. More interestingly, there has been a massive shift in sea-keeping, particularly in racing yachts, to going through waves rather than over them, as going through waves is faster and more comfortable, if slightly wetter.

Most importantly, there is ALWAYS a reason for something to happen (see Newton's first law). It may not always be obvious, but it is there, and you may need deeper understanding to recognise it. Very few hulls which make large-volume production are not well suited to what they do.

Hope this clarifies a few ares.

Tim B.

PAR

01-13-2010, 07:27 PM

If any lives have been lost or any people injured, I'm the one that could be held for negligent homicide or depraved indifference, if it's shown that one of my bows contributed to the event. I'm the one up on charges, not boneheads that can't justify their statements

Just as I mentioned in a recent PM, there's a reason you can be punished if you yell "FIRE" in a movie theater when there isn't a fire. You can't qualify it with an "in my opinion" once the cat is out of the bag, you're either right or your mistaken. Peoples lives and careers paths are in jeopardy, not to mention jail time.

I consider this whole line of debate by Loveofsea dangerous and libelous to some degree. I demand an explanation, data or testing to corroborate the accusations immediately.

troy2000

01-13-2010, 08:42 PM

peter radclyffe

01-14-2010, 01:40 AM

loveofsea
what do you think of these

http://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy195/helpME7/img448.jpg

Loveofsea

01-14-2010, 04:18 AM

I'm beginning to think that you don't like me very much :(
But since my neighbors on both sides and down the block give me their keys when the go on vacation i'll just have to get over that, but it won't be easy :rolleyes: Since when do 95% of boat hulls dive below the surface for no apparent reason :confused:

Peter, i prefer #9, because i have a flatbottom with special modifications. These modifications make it superior to v hulls in several aspests, running downswell, perhaps the most significan. I use my tiller (and articulate throttle) to work the port chine against the swells just like the FWD edge of a surfboard. One thing i find disheartening about most flatbottoms is that they taper to a V in the bow. That mistake eliminates the single most valuable aspect of a flatbottom--exagerated transom lift without the "bow steering" effect where the V in the bow dominates the effect of the rudder (lower unit on an outbd); broaching IS dangerous. My hull is widest 1/3 bottom length from the bow and it has a SST lifting strake on the transom. Since it lifts at both ebnds, it has a tendency to stay stuck to the surface--the less the bow lifts from the surface, the less it slams back down. Although there is a slight penalty for this conflict, it is negligable. I think # 2 and 6 would stand the least chance of stuffing the bow as indicated in the videos previously posted.

Tim, the skiff is 19ft. All boats are going to stuff the bow on accasion while in seas. I have a problem with a boat doing that on calm waters, such as a river. Very informative post, thank you.

Did i mention that i installed a 6" diameter glass window right smack dab in the middle of the cockpit floor :D

PAR

01-14-2010, 04:48 AM

Again, you have accused me and most of the designers of the world of possible reckless abandon and you're flippant with your lack of response that might suggest you have a clue. No data, no documentation, no tests, just another ramble of what you don't know.

I think anyone that makes these accusations should be held accountable. They are libelous, defamatory, unsubstantiated and dangerous to the industry as well as an insulting injustice to the professionals in it.

If I knew who you were, you be up on charges and forced to make an explanation or serve the mandated public apology that would naturally result from your inability to reply intelligently on the subject.

Now that this has gone on long enough for others to see what you're about, your value here is what it should be and your posts will be taken accordingly.

ancient kayaker

01-14-2010, 01:19 PM

Gentlemen, you may have to agree to disagree! Terrific vid in post #120 by the way, thank you Love! As for the rest of you, perhaps if you leave him alone for a while he'll calm down and this thread can return to its proper topic. I'll ignore my own advice and have my say, once and once only ...

Having watched countless power boat races on the TV program "Destroyed in Seconds" (my wife's favorite) in which one or more boats take to the air or vanish below the surface or fragment, I myself have no problem believing a fast-moving boat can do something spectacular if the operator makes a mistake or hits a wave.

The folk in the boat clearly prepared for something neat, the boat did something neat, and they both waved afterwards. The boat seemed to be rising back up at a phenomenal rate, either they had the bilge pump from hell or it wasn't as bad a swamping as it looked.

In the video the bow dips about halfway to the surface and pauses there as the boat decelerates. No problemo on flat water. But then they hit the wave they were aiming at which pulls the bow under. Lots of negative gees but no blood on the dash or windshield. Planned and executed with perfect timing. Badda Bing, Bidda Boom.

Tankers have been lost doing precisely this sort of thing, the bow gets pushed down by a biggy and the ship drives itself under with its own mementum. This boat didn't do that despite provocation.

There is no way to design a boat that cannot be put into harm's way when there is an ******* at the controls. the seat is for the ******* of course, but not everyone understands that.

I've noticed that most power boats settle at the transom when the power is cut, they usually have a big outboard trimmed to lift the transom and lower the bow so the operator can see ahead. When the lift stops the boat rolls back on its own wave and the engine weight does its job. However, the boat in the video is of an entirely different breed to the types most folks use to tow their kids around on a tire or do their shopping across the lake. Personally, I hate the beastly things and the smell and the noise and the wash and the bank erosion ... oops, you got me doing a rant now!

Loveofsea

01-14-2010, 01:28 PM

If you condone this one more time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFY9x5YBft8&feature=related

You shall be placed under citizens arrest, transported straight to the Hague and be tried for minor crimes against humanity! :p

Did i mention the SST lifting strake on the transome (the width of the transom w/cutout for the engine--11" in length) really suppresses the movement of the hull at reat. It creates just enough resistance to keep the hull out of synch with the swells. The hull actually comes to rest, then starts to move again. It makes sleeping possible. Imagine how stable at rest the hull would be if the 3/4" plywood bottom stuck out 6-8" all the way around the boat :eek:

Have a nice day tiger :)

PAR

01-14-2010, 06:34 PM

This isn't about condoning any type of behavior. It never has been and it just like a coward, to now attempt to change the subject of their position, one which they can't intelligently defend.

This is about you accusing all modern designers, myself included of recklessly endangering peoples lives. This was your rant Loveofsea, not mine. I pointed out what was really happening in the video, but you in you ultimate sense of awareness, suggested it was a design flaw. You've even gone so far as to suggest it's just something that happens, unexpectedly in calm water, which you've since, wisely backed away from (probably because you actual believe in the laws of physics that you learn in the 5 grade). You are the one that still makes unsubstantiated accusations of ill fated bow shapes. Of course your true colors have continuously shown through, when after repeated questioning, you've never answered a single one.

You have accused me of repeatedly designing things that I can be charged a felony for. You've been an inconsiderate, intentionally insulting fool, having declared that this is a design issue not an operator issue. You have called me a liar and suggested I've put people's lives in danger. If you don't think I haven't taken this as a personal assault on my abilities and profession, you are mistaken and you can surely bet, I will haunt your every move on this forum, until you admit to you deeds or offer reasonable explanations for your insults and contemptuous behavior.

Sheepy

01-15-2010, 01:29 AM

I have one question for loveofsea....if your design is so good why haven't you made yourself rich since it is such a good one?

CowMan

01-15-2010, 03:23 AM

Forgive for making this brazen statement, but it would be virtually impossible to use the materials i used and build a stronger and more durable vessel than this one. I have worked around aircraft all of my life and i designed this skiff using the principles of aircraft structure design rather than traditional boatbuilding design.

>>>as few pieces as possible---every piece being as large as it can possibly be<<<

Good sir, I think you'll find that truely applying the principles of aircraft design would design you a boat with a shorter lifespan, not a longer. Aircraft are cut to the bone for weight savings. While we see this in commercial cargo ships to some degree (increased steel weight = less cargo capacity for the same displacement), but it is no where near to the same extent and not generally appropriate to personal pleasure craft. Critical aircraft components, such as wing spars, run with safety factors half of what we'd start with for a ship.

There is some truth to loveofseas claims, certainly a powercraft designed for sheltered waters will not fair so well as the likes of an ocean going dory on the open seas, but designers are generally respectful of the operational area, and the videos don't prove your point either loveofseas. They just show people being idiots and having fun. The alternative of course is to have a broad bow, but they can submerge too. Here is a tug running 12 knots the wrong way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTjj6y_lj_0
Presented to the water flow, the stern is quite broad and tugs possess enviable stability, with large GM values and lots of sheer. You'd be a raving lunatic to claim that this is a dangerously designed vessel, but it can certainly sink itself.

Having read this thread, I'd be interested in seeing the lines of your skiff. I've developed a theory - and it is only that. Given your argument that contemporary boats dive by the bow and sink by the stern; yet, your own design does neither - perhaps you've reversed the design - a transom bow and a V-stern!

PAR

01-15-2010, 04:18 AM

Cow Man, Loveofsea has done anything but blabber, insinuate, accuse and grossly insult. He can't substantiate any of his assertions and I'm confident his personal design is a joke, in most regards as a modern vessel. The only thing he appears to be good at, is avoiding answers to fair and reasonable questions about his assertions. I'll also bet that I could dive the bow of his skiff or whatever he has said he designed and built. I could do it in a flat calm with not a ripple on the water surrounding the boat.

Loveofsea

01-15-2010, 04:20 AM

You are taking this WAY too seriously and WAY too personal. All i have done here is maintain my position that a safe boat should never even be capable of diving below the surface no matter WHAT the driver did-PERIOD.

The fact that some drivers have discovered that inherent design flaw and use it to have fun with, doesn't make it legitimate.

We all have our own perspectives, and my perspective is somewhat unique in that i spend days at a time way offshore alone in a small boat. In the purview of the boating world, i think i have earned the right to my opinion by now. There is no way on earth you, me or anyone could make my boat do that. That is the perspective fiom which i base my opinion about safe boat handling characteristics.

I am bold on this planet, but i am also a man of true compassion and i realize that somewhere in this thread i must have hurt you deeply for you to respond to me in the way that you have. I am loath to think that i am responsible for such apparent anguish, so with deference to your feelings i apologize to you for our protracted disagreement. Like the anctient kayaker said, you and i should just agree to disagree like gentlemen. You can haunt me if you want, but it will only be a pitiful spectical for the others to see. I am sorry that i hurt your feelings and would much prefer that we be friends, our mutual disagreement notwithstanding.

Sheepy, i take a lot of pride in being able to say that i have never derived a cent of income from all of my time on the water. I have never charged anyone to use or publish any of my photographs. My hull was designed for one purpose; to be able to spend days and nights at a time, secure in the offshore waters. Realistically, what kind of a market do you think exists for that?

Did i mention that i have a splash rail (1.5 X 3") that goes all around the skiff except the transom? I can literally walk 360 around the outside of the skiff ;) Not that i have have to do that very often--even the time when an angry sea lion jumped in the boat! That splash rail is a good example of adding substantial strength to the hull without taking up any space on the inside...

A few years ago my skiff was featured on a web page, if you would like to see some pictures of it, just let me know and i will post a link.

tunnels

02-23-2010, 04:08 PM

Because it just couldn't be 15 people on a 20' pontoon boat all running to the starboard side at once to watch fire works (or something), it just has to be the designer and their incompetence in vessel design. I mashed my thumb with a hammer yesterday, so I'll be filling suit with Stanley at the first of the week.

Dont sue Stanley , sue you mother for giving birth to a idiot and then you father for planting the seed of stupidity . :mad:

JosephT

11-17-2010, 05:35 PM

gunship

11-17-2010, 05:36 PM

looks like it... Very very sad...

Perm Stress

11-21-2010, 06:47 PM

Stumbled on this post while searching for notes on Boston Whalers. Many questions were asked about the boat in question, but I never saw any links to the story. It appears the boat below is at issue.

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060331/060331_boat_hmed_4a_001.grid-6x2.jpg

Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12083338/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa

In short, the boat was illegally modified. The owner should be tossed in jail (if he's not there already).

Looking at the waterline marks and comparing under water volume (potentially available for weights that increase stability) with all the weight up high, this vessels stability should be even less than that of famous VASA, which capsized and sunk in Stockholm harbor in 17th century.

"Design process" is similar too...

larry larisky

11-21-2010, 08:55 PM

at least it float, some don't.
beside that i will be careful of what i say when professional are in the forum. i find more interresting to read their posts than reading the crap some wrote without any clue.
i have no clue, i shut my trap, i learn and i ask question.
i read par post, the man is highly trained, we are lucky he is willing to share his knoweldge.
i saw one who left because of stupid and offending posts.

welder/fitter

11-22-2010, 12:22 AM

The only explanation, data or testing you're going to get from Loveofsea is, "I built my own boat and it hasn't sunk yet. That means I know more than all the professional designers and NA's in the world, past and present.":)

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Loveofsea Quote: You are taking this WAY too seriously and WAY too personal. All i have done here is maintain my position that a safe boat should never even be capable of diving below the surface no matter WHAT the driver did-PERIOD.

Of course, you've also made many ridiculous statements, such as:

Love of sea quote: Have any of you ever accomplished anything in your lives that wasn't associated with a larger entity than yourselves. Traveling around the world 3 times is great, but unless you did it solo you just tagged along or needed others to tag along with you.... You were only another cog in a wheel larger than yourself.

LOL, what f*cking arrogance!

Brad,
A couple of buddies of mine pull that same "submersible" stunt at the end of our summer vacation at the lake, most years. On the last day of our vacation, we sit on our lawn chairs, drinking beer, and await this same stunt, a stunt that never seems to get old. I remember one year when they had to miss the lake, because they were in jail for stuffing chickens in mailboxes in Saskatchewan.

How about posting a few photos of this boat you designed & built and describe how it puts the mainstream designers to shame? Like another "heretic", you've done your best to spew a lot of BS on others and told some interesting stories, but haven't shown us, nor adequately explained, this great alternative of yours. Now, I'm not suggesting that you haven't designed a better mouse-trap. In fact, as you have no need to make money from your design I'd even recommend it to some fishermen I know in Asia, whom risk their lives in small boats too often, if it appears to be all that you say it is. Btw, if it is possible, could you put up photos in the next page or two of this thread? I'd hate to have to wait another dozen pages, or so, before asking again.

Perm Stress

11-22-2010, 01:56 AM

(?!) It is anything, but "traditional dhow".
Fairly contemporary motorboat hull for semi-planing speed.

gunship

11-22-2010, 05:14 AM

(?!) It is anything, but "traditional dhow".
Fairly contemporary motorboat hull for semi-planing speed.

The OP hasn't shown much knowledge about boats so far so I doubt he could even tell a clipper from a trireme. ;)

larry larisky

11-22-2010, 09:32 AM

loveofsea next time you go for underwater photography, please stay put.

PAR

11-22-2010, 10:30 AM

This is a long dead thread folks and Loveofsea hasn't posted since last February, anywhere on the forum. Dredging up his ridiculousness wouldn't be a productive effort.

As he failed to prove or even defend, design most often isn't at fault, but operator actions usually are, much like aircraft crashes. We'd probably like to think that it was the equipment or a design flaw that lets us down somehow, but most often it's a much simpler equation, we "no brain ourselves" into a set of events of which nothing good can come out of. It's a well established and very common human failing and it's been studied to a very high degree.

In short, it would be wise to just let this thread die off and start a new thread about the capsize in Bahrain. Unfortunately, in this part of the world, this sort of thing is much more common then in western countries.

welder/fitter

11-22-2010, 12:03 PM

wimal

11-26-2010, 12:49 PM

If we just consider your vessel is a box shape one, the BM = BxB/12T = 1.333 m and KB=0.5 m hence KM = 1.8m. Depending on the shape of the vessel these figures would slightly change. The vessel to have minimum initial stability the center gravity should be below 1.65m and I wonder how a two deck vessel could be designed to satisfy this requirement when the vessel is loaded with 80 passengers probably on both decks. As already mentioned in previous discussion, when designing passenger vessel, crowding of passengers to one side should be considered and also heeling due to turning should also be considered and the way I can remember these angles should not be more than 10deg. Probably initial stability may be just positive when the vessel is loaded with fuel and other consumables. The righting moment against inclination may be small because of the 15tonne displacement. As the vessel is at shallow draft heeling moment due to turning can easily exceed the righting moment depending on the operating speed of the vessel

couch

12-18-2010, 02:29 PM

Baaa haaa haaaa
This post has been a hoot ... had to register just to comment.

Per the original topic of the post ... the passenger boat (if the one in the pic) that capsized was a piece of $#!t. It was likely not licensed - if it was / did hold a valid certificate, then the Master, owner(s), and governing body should all be held responsible. Sad part is that there are boats out there that are equally as bad and still hold valid certificates. Yes there is blame enough to go around.

As for "Love of Sea" you're a pompous ass and are full of $#!t to boot. Learn when to acknowledge your limitations when it comes to vessel design, construction and operation!

Boats / ships / vessels / autos, planes / bikes / shoes / drill bits / etc. are all designed with an intended purpose and range of operation. If the operator uses the item in a manner that the designer / engineer / architect could not reasonably foresee then the operator must assume the burden of liability. This is why there are now so many WARNING / CAUTION stickers on every product that you purchase - some of which appear to be absolutely baseless other than the fact that the world is full of idiots who continue to act without consideration of the outcomes!

FYI the videos of the small boat(s) sinking / stuffing the bow are intentional acts / stunts. Basically its a "crash stop" manoeuvre. I have a 16' 270 hp Yamaha jetboat for playing about in - this manoeuvre / stunt is a favourite with all of my kids and passengers - ITS A HOOT!!! Was the boat designed with this activity in mind ... likely not ... the fact that it can be done without the boat sinking / capsizing only supports the fact that it was well designed in accordance with the applicable standard.

For the record, I too am a Naval Architect. I have built / rebuilt / modified numerous 12m to 2om GRP vessels. As well, for over 25 years, I have been a partner in the operation of a commercial passenger excursion vessel(s) in the North Atlantic - a nice day for us is likely some of the $hittiest weather most other people on this site cruise in!!! Do I have all the answers ... no. Am I always right ... no. Have I made mistakes ... yes. Did I learn .... yes (most of the time).

Keep up the good work re the forum.