the egotistical quest for an expensive thrill

[deepkeeler]

As a long time sailor racer boat builder and a NZ search and rescue member I would like to start a debate here on an issue I feel very strongly about............The manic edge that much leading edge ocean racing has become.

The boats are pathetic from a seaworthiness angle. Much of the gear has little margin of safety, dependance on high tech weather and rescue services is high, equipment hull and rig failure is high particularly for the open classes. Much ocean racing is becoming increasingly more dangerous, irresponsible and downright foolhardy and the search and rescue services wince at these egoists deep in the southern ocean in boats that do not belong there.

Take the recent advent of the farcical Minis with their poor seaworthiness will continue to plague rescue services. If they can't be self reliant they shouldn't be there. The whole idea of ocean going 21 foot monohulls with atrociuos stability curves is worthy of an imbecile. What is happening to common sense???

Whats next? the 18 foot skiff transatlantic ? The Mirror cross channel marathon? where and who draws the line ?

Governements are going to increasingly encroach on yachties freedom simply because manic men keep pushing the edge.

We will see increasing legislation to protect the manic racers from themselves it's just a matter of time and the number of deaths. French authorities ban ocean racing for the Minis with a few more disasters so too will the rest of Europe.

Now lets consider the open 50,60,70's No lookout is kept, the law of the sea is flouted, short handed or even single handed vessels traveling at 30 knots with no lookout! The worlds navies should confiscate them on sight as a menace to others on the high seas. Port authorites are legally remiss allowing them to depart.

The stability of these vessels is terrible, following the numerous disasters some regulation was introduced but it was written by the existing open boat owners ! They are supposed to be self righting but they are so stable inverted that the only way of righting is to transfer mass, this may be impossible or take several hours. Where is the seaworthiness? why has it been allowed or even encouraged to become such a farce.

Yacht magazine editors love this behaviour though, some are full of rave reports of the manic racers and cover little else. The same mags review 'Modern' unseaworthy cruising design and they are assessed on their shore based racing circuit performance, and the number of berths, no mention of poor weather handling or live aboard comfort. Speed is everything, seems to be the current fad. No matter if it sails sideways at 9 knots in a gale when you try and lie ahull. This is exactly what modern skimming dish design do .

So much current yacht design trends seem to eminate from Californian conditions where light fast cruiser racers dominate the scene, but there is a world of sane cruising boats out here and they do not have bulb keels on anorexic struts and they can take the ground, and have collisions and heave to or lie-ahull.
Forget the daft idea of outrunning a 50 knot storm that I hear so often. If you cross oceans it will get you one day.If you are in a weak uncomfortable and unsafe yacht then you are in a nightmare.

Marchaj proved scientifically and reported his findings prolifically and vociferously that the best hullform for offshore safety incorporates deep ballast, long keels, attached rudders, Vee shaped sections, non planing hull shapes and a fair amount of weight aloft.
He also showed that as the displacement is decreased then so too must the beam so they become long light narrow and deep. This is the complete antithesis to the manic racing machines.

The long slender form (as a poster in the discussion section has posted) may actually be faster than the current designs, and would certainly be more seaworthy.

I would suggest that the numerous modern light plastic designers sitting on their plastic boat design software riding the light plastic wave of current trend would be aghast at the idea of sailing one of their designs to the Falkland Islands.

Cheers to the British steel, sensible strong well crewed one designs where sailing skill (to windward) not manic egotistical behaviour wins the day.

come on step back from the edge, learn agin the joy of competative sailing in safe seaworthy boats with the companionship of a crew.

Embrace the comfort and safety of heavy displacement strong cruising designs. Go cruising in them. Lets get some sense back into ocean racing.

I encourage all other like minded designers sailors architects and engineers to stand forth and be counted. Help me fend off the abuse and howls of the manic madmen..
:!:

Happy new year

[B. Hamm]

Interesting post, and overall I tend to agree with you. I'm not though ready to promote only heavy displacement cruisers. That's a bit too limiting and not necessary either, in my opinion. Good seamanship is hard to argue against, can't believe that anyone would, it just depends on your definition of the term. I too believe that around the world racing alone is foolish and sets a very poor example for the non-sailors of this world.

Will be interested to see what the response is to this thread.

Bill H.

[FAST FRED]

Racing has ALWAYS been for folks that can afford to LOOSE!

The shame is when "racing" trash is sold as a "cruiser" to innocents.

Far more honest just to scrap the old race boats.

FAST FRED

[CT 249]

Hmmm, Fred, don't tell that to the owners of Sunstone, the 1965 racer S&S that has been top boat in the UK four times and has been a liveaboard home since about 1981....she was on her way to Alaska last I heard. Vicky and Tom (a former naval officer) wouldn't like to scrap their lovely RACEBOAT.

Don't tell the owners of Accanito, the lightweight IOR fractional 2 tonner of 1979 that has been a cruiser around the Pacific for about 10 years....the owners love the boat, they don't want to scrap their RACEBOAT.

Don't tell the owner of the 1973 vintage S&S 47 Love & War, who in his 80s singlehanded on 400+ mile deep sea passages, that his Admiral's Cup racer and Hobart winner should be scrapped....don't tell Warren Brown, who sails the old Tenacious (Fastnet and SORC winner) to Alaska and other places, that his old racer should be scrapped.....Maybe Warren and Kursey are just innocents, after all they've only been sailing internationally since about 1973, did the '79 Fastnet etc.....

Don't tell Lou Abrahams, who has done more Sydney-Hobart as owner/skipper than anyone else (with a couple of wins) and cruises his Sydney 38 back across Bass Strait by himself.

Racing has NOT always been about those who can afford to lose. Geoff Stagg (now CEO of Farr Int) was about 22 when he launched a Spencer 45 he built at home and went on to win NZ's top race (about 1000 miles) with. Australian/Kiwi Jon Sayer was about 21 when he built his own design 36 footer and won the Singlehanded TranTasman....he was just an apprentice boatbuilder who used an old car engine etc.

Guys like Ron Holland and Bruce Farr started their yacht design careers with 24-27' cruiser/racers, because they or their owners couldn't afford expensive race machines. Farr had about 40 cheap cruiser-racers (727s, 1104s, Moonshine, Titus sisters) afloat before his first racing machine IIRC.


Re "Marchaj proved scientifically and reported his findings prolifically and vociferously that the best hullform for offshore safety incorporates deep ballast, long keels, attached rudders, Vee shaped sections, non planing hull shapes and a fair amount of weight aloft."

How "scientific" are Marchaj's numbers, when they are disputed by people such as Sydn Fischer (Fastnet winner, world championship winner, Admiral's Cup, Kenwood, Clipper Cup and multiple Hobart winner), Lou Abrahams and others who started in the long keel timber and steel era in the '60s, and still race today. They have both told me that their various IMS, IOR and IRC machines are NOT less seaworthy than their old long keelers.

How "scientific" are Marchaj's numbers when his conclusions re coachroof volume in self-righting are rejected by Martin Renilson's tank testing at AMSA in about 1999?

How much deep-sea sailing has Marchaj done? Some of his ideas re dinghy, sailboard and multi design in "Aero Hydrodynamics" are very strange IIRC....

How vital is a long keel and attached rudder, when one looks at the boats chosen by Jon Sanders, Kay Cottee, Tony Mowbray et all - they all chose fin and skeg medium displacement CRUISER-RACERS and achieved 5 solo non-stop circumnavigations between them. I assume you two are much more experienced and credentialled than the owners of Sunstone, these singlehanders, Lou Abrahams, Syd Fisher, Peter Kurts, Geoff Stagg and many others?????


He also showed that as the displacement is decreased then so too must the beam so they become long light narrow and deep. This is the complete antithesis to the manic racing machines.

Re "No matter if it sails sideways at 9 knots in a gale when you try and lie ahull. This is exactly what modern skimming dish design do ." Reallly? Nine knots??? Sez who?

[Richard Petersen]

Don't worry about them!!!!!! They would rather die cheating about the boat design, handling in a race, starting a race in failing sea conditions, etc. etc. Winning is more important to them, than life itself. They are so out of control, that in a race, if sea conditions mandated throwing some one over the side to win, they would do so, without hesitation. Winning is everything to them. They SUCK, as role models for young sailors to model after. Period.--- Richard Petersen

[SailDesign]

Some of the satatements above make sense, some don't. But really, all I see above are a lot of green eyes peeking out from behind the Christmas tree at a time of year when happiness and love are supposed to be in the forefront.
You want vituperation and mean-ness? Take it to the TP52 thread.... :)

[Richard Petersen]

Go back to your thread.

[Richard Petersen]

Thanks for telling me to go to the 52 thread. I now realize I am being sucked into a undertow of feelings. Not good. Lose my logical process, bad thing on water. Thanks, Richard Petersen :)

[tom28571]

Good grief,

This thread got nasty awfully fast.

Some good points made by almost all. Why not just dissagree and let it go?

I doubt that any legislation from governments in free societies can enforce "safety" in these racers. The only thing that really should concern outsiders like us is the effects of danger to other vessels and cost and/or resources of rescue operations. Other racing venues (car racing, etc) provide their own safety operations and at least try to safeguard the public.

That said, countries like NZ do place some harsh controls on sailboats entering and leaving NZ water. Joe blow yes, big time racers, no.

Too much other stuff going on to get too worked up about this.

[mistral]

in winter 1879, 29 schooner were lost in Grand Banks, 249 persons lost their lifes, and they were fishing in a sturdy schooner, not racing in a planing monohull; this just an example, of course; they were doing a hard work in a risky environment; that's what modern racers do, not very different from "tea clippers" sailor during the 19th century; the constant theme is that in this kind of work the speed of the boat as always been a huge need, somehow traded for seaworthiness; would you call all this awesome sailor a bunch of fools ???? I don't think so.
Even among the old syle boats you can count dismasted boats, wreckages and so on, Marchaj's opinion that a long keel high dislpacemente boat is the only way to reduce risk seems to me an old way of thinking; take a look at the vendee globe; they've been in very huge seas and winds 'til now; in spite of this none has been rescued; even the 2 major injured boat (broken keels!!!) have been able to recover themselves 'til the nearest harbour; take a look at Ellen Macarthur's boat, a "fragile" trimaran, she's been punched several times by 50-65kn winds and 15-20feet waves for 24 hours, without any significant consequence; i wouldn't dare to call her boat one an unseaworthy one. Of course you have to pay a price to push your monohull at 20 knots in southern ocean, i mean that you must have a phisical and mental strenght that will allow you to take your boat to the limit, that's the main problem for me dealing with actual ocean races; boat's have gone too far, and it's becomig always harder to keep them at their limit for long periods of time. I think that a complete statistical investigations concerning last years ocean races' accident would point out that most of failures have happened because of unproper skipper's decision due to overstressing sailing conditions. But this this a aspect of the race; everything is pushed to the limit, both boat and crews; if you don't like this aspect you wouldn't cross the ocean in a race, you'll do it for cruise, taking all the time that you need.
The real danger is to produce such "abnormal" boat and purchase them to "normal" sailors; this is the real problem that will lead to disaster when particular conditions take place.
Give me an ultralight over canvassed planing monohull, i'll enjoy very much in light conditions, i'll begin to worry a lot in average conditions, and i'll be in big troubles when wind and waves increase!!!

fair wind
Mistral

[Richard Petersen]

In general, I agree. Thats why I own,--- a 240 mph street car --- a Mach 2.5 Russian fighter, flown as I please, where I please ,--- a 180 mph street motorcycle,--- a triple engined cigarette off shore racer, run wide open on any water I choose,---a diving submersible, to any depth I desire. Insurance, nothing, for the risk I expose everyone else to. Enforsed laws, HA!

[Doug Lord]

Seems like "we" could come up with a way that the ocean could be shared by high performance boats and leadbellies without overburdening rescue services or putting any innocent parties in danger.Perhaps using technology better ,inproving safety equipment ect. Banning a particular type of sailing just doesn't seem realistic or appropriate.
I'm not driven to race offshore in high performance boats but I respect the hellout of most of these guys who approach the adventure in a well prepared and professional manner.

[deepkeeler]

Everyone please note that NZ has repealed the legislation that was holding up cruising boats that were deficient in their safety gear, several years ago. The legislation was a knee jerk reaction from parliament to yacht search and rescue?s ever increasing cost in NZ?s massive SAR area.


Mistral
{
The problem with the schooner loss examples is again poor hullform, just because a boat happens to be heavy displacement and have a full keeled design doesn?t mean its seaworthy either. Last century boat designs tended to be matched to the bay or region in which they worked, fishing schooners smacks etc were constrained by the port river mouth depth so many areas grew wide flat boats, these are not seaworthy as so many early losses contest. Marchaj has commented on this if you read his works. If you look at the Pilot boats of the same period for a comparisson you will find a completely different story.
}

CT249
{
Please don?t try to discredit Marchaj and the many others involved at Southampton because you don?t like their findings. This is typical of the racing fraternity. A team of scientists with access to unlimited wave tank testing a good model production facility have shown conclusively that your srtong opinion is just that.
Research is ongoing and current, there has been no detracting research to Marchaj?s findings. Only detracting opinions from racing folk who don?t like the implications ie that they are perfectly happy to trade speed for the ability of the boat to survive heavy weather. Other racers freely admit this trade-off.
What on earth has Marcha?s sailing experience got to do with his work? He wasn?t a deep sea fisherman either yet his work has made the North sea fishing boats safer.
I find the emotional prejudiced opinion rather childish. You are indulging in what is called Rationalisation, that is the twisting of arguments to suit your viewpoint.
You cannot change scientific fact. I would ask where is your tank testing data and who did it to support the idea that current trend in designs are safe? You won?t find it.
Other racing skippers opinions are just so much clutter, a racing skippers opinion on his boat is a subjective observation at best. Tank testing data is the only objective test. Enough tank testing has been done to show that the current racing boat forms are very poor indeed when it comes to general seaworthiness let alone survival conditions. They make abysmal and terrifying platforms in severe weather for any crew other than the hardened racers. No matter what opinion some winning racing yachtsman has.
I would add that under the rating systems, winning yachtsmen are forced to adopt hull forms that are not ideal , not the fastest not the safest.

I notice you are silent on the Minis, you consider these sensible safe and seaworthy? Yet they are just the logical application of the extreme hullform to a smaller boat, the problems become more manifest due to the sea /boat size ratio, but the Minis expose the farcical seaworthiness aspects of contemporary racing designs more clearly .
}


The recent search and rescue data is full of records of modern light displacement form racing/ cruising forms that have foundered including more recently worrying cases of some of these type of boats disappearing at sea in severe weather, the current crops of production boats that are so popular have poor seakeeping and comfort qualities, the corporations that manufacture these poor cruising boats are simply chasing a current trend and the elusive dollar. to imitate contemporary racing boats and market them to the victims of a style-concious public as ideal cruising boats is corrupt.
Many of these current crop of production boats can?t even make it into commercial offshore survey because they are so unsafe and yet they are sold to inexperienced families who want to world cruise.

Having experienced heavy coastal weather in a modern production racer-cruiser I would say categorically that they are a poor hullform for the voyaging public.

I think the issue comes back full circle to the racing driven media hype machine that makes these designs so popular, and those inglorious racing community members who will not stand up and admit the failings of the fast hull-forms they so desire.

Honesty, objectivity and gentility please.

[Richard Petersen]

In general: Little boats belong in the small waters, big boats belong in the big waters. Competetive people can not resist going against that fact. Tankers run aground in shallow, narrow waters. Racers sink in the big, bad sea.

[Richard Petersen]

A serious possible fact? There are more "accidents" because there are more boats on the water--- all accidents are now electronicly tabulated. Old days a lot only made news in a 200 mile radius. Maybe we are now more tv aware of a fly farting in India. A certain % of boaters always stand out badly.

[MikeJohns]

Deepkeel

have a look at some of the issues covered in
http://boatdesign.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-5596


I too think safety for cruisers has been eroded by current fad.

I think the Minis and similar boats should stick to round the bouys in coastal waters and be shepharded by capable rescue vessels as we do for the dinghy classes.
I think it was the 99 Mini fleet that was decimated by a mild gale off Spain? I agree they are a farce and Manic is a good description for much of the increasingly dangerous racing behaviour.

I also agree on the single handers in increasingly larger and faster vessels disregard for other vessels and themselves by flouting the law of the sea.

Current style marketing has seen the death of heavy able cruisers, and few sailors now have experienced the comfort and safety of these vessels.
Even small heavy displacement cruisers ( live-aboards under 30 feet ) have died which is suprising given their room, affordability and ocean going ability.
When the Hays tried to source a small boat to sail aroud the horn (25 and a half foot yacht, told in "My old man and the sea") the Hays had to purchase the hull from Britain as there was nothing suitable in the US.



How "scientific" are Marchaj's numbers when his conclusions re coachroof volume in self-righting are rejected by Martin Renilson's tank testing at AMSA in about 1999?



249 (most of the following is directed to you)

So maybe he got the coachroof bit wrong, but I don't think that was even mentioned.

what about the "deep ballast, long keels, attached rudders, Vee shaped sections, non planing hull shapes and a fair amount of weight aloft"
I am not aware of any research that has questioned this at all, it also agrees with all my observations over the years.

You can't kill off a boby of research with one discredited factor then pull the racing skippers opinion from the bag by the ears as the only viable alternative view!

Racing skippers like racing boats they want a hullform you can drive hard continuously for the duration of the race. After which they rebuild the boat often involving changing the rigging,mast, the sails, sometimes even the keel and repairing the cracks, delaminations and other damage in the hull. Cruising people don't want this.

As I have said to you before, cruising families need a different type of vessel.

So many times I have come across couples cruising in racing yachts that really need 8 crew or re-rigging with a cruising setup, they are often reluctant to raise the sails when the sea breeze gets going cause the boats too easy to lose control off when shorthanded.

As for modern flat hulled fin keelers surfing sideways, this is correct and makes them dangerous to lie-ahull as they are inevitably rolled. Even older heavier boats under the IOR designs suffered this problem as they got fatter and lost lateral area..

[Andrew Thomas]

Seaworthiness

Sir, I would agree wholeheartedly with previous comments. During my family's seven-year circumnavigation, in a customised Peterson 45ft ketch, Goondooloo, between 1980 and 1986, there were two occasions where we were foreed by the weather to lie a-hull until a storm abated once in the Gulf Stream between Rhode Islandand Bermuda, and once in the Med, south-east of Port Mahon.

Both times our survival was due to Goondooloo's seaworthiness, as she was more than capable of looking after herself (and us!) when we could not do so due to the conditions.

You can survive bad weather with sailing skills in an otherwise unsuitable vessel, but you have a much better chance of coming through in one piece if the yacht herself is capable of coping alone.

Another depression we came through unscathed was the one of early June 1984, off Bermuda. The tall ship Marques within 200 miles of us was not so lucky, and 19 lives were lost when she went down, along with the 28ft sloop South African Escape and a Russian ship. Again, Goondooloo came through with flying colours.


ANDREW THOMAS
selkieol@yahoo.com

[John Fagan]

I took the liberty of scanning the editors comment from March's cruising Helmsman that you might find topical.


Editorial from "Cruising Helmsman" March 2004

Even after 20 years as a journalist I still get saddened by some of the things I come across.

The death of two women in 2003 on the yacht 'Rising Farrster' is a case in point. To he trapped in a boat that loses its keel, turns upside down and fills with water is horrible beyond contemplation. My heart goes out not only to Linda Yarr and Charlotte Lenas for what they must have suffered, but their families.

The inquest raised a number of issues, not least of which is that some experts believe past design parameters set by authorities are totally inadequate and there are boats sailing around that don't even meet those that were current when they were built.

I thought Coroner John Abernethy did a good job in analysing the 'Rising Farrster' capsize, but there is a related issue he did not address. It is one that regular readers would immediately recognise: boats designed primarily for speed are not ideal cruising boats.

They are designed for minimum weight and maximum performance rather than handling heavy weather. This makes them harder to handle, inclined to slam more in a seaway, potentially less strong unless built with high-tech materials, and less stable.

Many experts believe the Sydney-Hobart minimum stability requirement is at the bottom of the scale of acceptability for offihore sailing and the UK-suggested scale is a much more sensible one if you are looking at sailing seriously offshore outside the easy-rescue parameters of a race.

Reflecting on this as I photographed the wreck of 'Rising Farrster' at Sydney Water Police's base, I couldn't help wondering why a sail-training company would go and buy a boat like this for training novices offshore.
She was a yacht primarily designed for racing that had to have a lead shoe added to meet even the low stability requirements of the Sydney- Hobart. Sure, she was pretty and would have looked good in a brochure, but she had a lot of features expert practical writers would tell you not to look for in an offshore cruising yacht. Yet, here she was, sailing off the coast with an inexperienced crew.

Sadly, I'd say we're all a little to blame for safety not featuring higher on the list of priorities.

Caroline Strainig
Editor
Cruising Helmsman
Australia

[MikeJohns]

Sadly, I'd say we're all a little to blame for safety not featuring higher on the list of priorities.


This is why I wince when I see some of the cruising designs on the hard, there's a core of naval architects and engineers who are getting very concerned about some of the safety aspects of current production yachts both racers and cruisers. The legislators attitude is to leave it to the courts and insurers.

Unfortuantely these deaths (due to poor design) are not the first, we have seen it happen several times before, nor sadly will they be the last, my heart goes out to those families who are missing their loved ones at this time.

This is the sobering human face of the current debate.

[mistral]

Mistral
{
The problem with the schooner loss examples is again poor hullform, just because a boat happens to be heavy displacement and have a full keeled design doesn?t mean its seaworthy either. Last century boat designs tended to be matched to the bay or region in which they worked, fishing schooners smacks etc were constrained by the port river mouth depth so many areas grew wide flat boats, these are not seaworthy as so many early losses contest. Marchaj has commented on this if you read his works. If you look at the Pilot boats of the same period for a comparisson you will find a completely different story.
}


i've read and studied from Marchaj's book, i agree with him on most of the analisis...and few conclusions, he tends to present old boats invariably as better and modern ones as absolute crap, too easy; of course old boats were created by their environment, my main worrying is that we're losing "genetical differences" in boat design; boats all over the world tend to converge to a single form, wich is a bad copy of the one derived from racing boat; with IMS we keep on pretending to race in a cruise boat, or to cruise in a race boat; this is a total crap; racing boats have gone so far , pushing sailboat's performance to the edge, that they're now something radically diferent from cruising boat; we have to accept this fact; same thing happended in race cars and motorcycle 40 years ago; in 1960 you could depart from your home, reach the race lane with your own motorcycle and win a race, and then came back home, now it will be absurd, even in what they called "series-derived" bikes; shipyard's business tends to take advantage of this fact; i saw an IMS race about to end up in tragedy last year; a force 7-8 gale literally pushed up and throwed away a couple of IMS new-designed boat, knocking them down to 90°; crew were clearly unable to control their over canvassased boat, but at lest it was skipper's mistake to create danger; they hoisted spinnakers in bad conditions just to win the race, the problem was clear: all boats went downwind with main and jib, then the third one in ranking hoisted the kite...after five minutes all the leading boats had kite up; other skippers in same conditions kept on going downind with reefed mainsail and jib and ended the race without any problem;
so where's the wrong: bad boat's behaviour or too agressive skipper's attitude, or both????? Marchaj's book maybe tends to underestimate this factor: boats are a "society's product", if market calls for aggressive speedy boat you'll design them, and shipyards will produce them and sell them; skippers are often young people educated to be agressive at work for 50 hours a week, why have they got to behave differently during the week-end??? We all live in a high competitive enivironment where every price is paid to succeed, including massive drug addiction, nervous breakdown, family crashing, and so on, we can't pretend this things disappear as we hoist up a white sail.
I've seen 45 years old man fighting and shouting each other in a dinghy club race!!!
Moitissier's time are definitively gone :-(


Mistral

[John Fagan]

You should find this intersting, John Wilson recounts the story of a cruise to Iceland and the near loss of their boat. In extreme conditions, they tried a number of different heavy weather tactics in an IOR style cruiser-racer.

Exerpt from 'Storm off Iceland ' 'Heavy Weather'

In May 1979 a UFO34, 'Windrift of Clyde', on a voyage from Scotland to Iceland, encountered fairly severe weather - estimated at a sustained 60 knots plus for over 24 hours.

We had a crew of six, of whom four - including myself - were Yachtmaster qualified. The skipper was a Yachtmaster examiner.

we were concerned about closing the coast or crossing the Reyjanes shoals in heavy weather, so we decided to lie a-hull to await a reduction in the wind, which we were logging as Force 7-8.

Lying a-hull was quite comfortable for around six hours, but eventually the seas built to a point where the hull was being surfed sideways in the crests, and the leeward gunwale was starting to dig in and 'trip'the boat over onto her side. We felt that if nothing was done being rolled would sooner or later be inevitable.

We then ran off under bare poles, and for another few hours this seemed safe, although steering was hard work and the motion was very unpleasant.
Then, however, the narrow bows dug in and we were inverted I believe we pitch-poled.

The boat stabilised for a short while, remaining completely inverted, with one smashed coachroof window. One of my most enduring memories is of how springy the coachroof headlining was to stand on, and of the water from the broken window pouring in over my legs.

When we rolled upright again the two crew who had been on deck were in the water alongside, on lifelines, one quite seriously injured.

After retrieving them, we started the diesel and turned to head into the seas under power. A lot of throttle was needed just to get the bows into the wind, but for the short time the engine ran the boat coped well with the conditions. Although we came to a complete stop or even made sternway when hitting breaking crests, the strong prop-wash over the rudder helped to keep control.

Unfortunately, the engine died. We then ran off again under bare poles, while we attempted to send a radio message, without success.

The seas had become substantially steeper and there was a definite cross- swell, causing breaking crests to appear suddenly from an angle to the main run of the seas. Over the next two hours or so we were knocked down twice more, these being exaggerated broaches, starting with the forward side decks submerging, and ending up with the hull at about 120' from the vertical, with the crew on deck swimming alongside the hull, waiting to pull themselves back in along their lifelines as she righted. It was clear that running under bare poles was not a safe option.

Although we had a large drum of heavy warp carried specifically to use as a drogue, we did not try to use this. I do not believe it would have helped.

I set the storm jib, with the hope that more speed might help us surf away from the nastier breaking seas. A few seconds after reaching the cockpit after setting the storm jib I found myself swimming again, seeing the bottom of the keel in the air, I took the helm as we righted, beam-on to the seas, and the boat accelerated fast on a broad-reach on the 'downhill'side of a sea. Instinctively I put the helm down as the next crest arrived, to bring the bow into the sea.

Although conditions remained unchanged for a further 24 hours, we avoided further knockdown. By broad-reaching fast on the backs of the seas, and luffing almost head-to-wind at each crest, we achieved what was probably a square drift sideways. By the end I was so tired and cold that I was hallucinating while helming, imagining 1 was steering through brick railway arches.

As we finally made our way into harbour, we made horrendous, elementary pilotage errors, and were lucky not to lose the boat among the rocks.

End Exerpt


I would make the obseravation that a UFO 34 is an older IOR racer/cruiser with a fin keel a fair amount of beam with fairly narrow bows, having sailed them myself I would concur that to lie-ahull is not a good tactic with these boats and that their beam and hullform makes them uncomfortable in a sea. However they are mild mannered in comparison with the more modern designs we have been discussing here .

Ask youself how the latest production cruiser-racers would have coped in this nightmare scenario?

John Fagan

[MikeJohns]

Relavent to this thread also see

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5726

[deepkeeler]

Thanks for your comments and support everyone, some very informed comment and intersting posts, thankyou


Mistral, good point

human nature has everything to do with it of course, but you can change that by educating people to the true dangers and pointing out the daft nature of much of todays yacht racing behaviour, and encourage people to buy more seaworthy designs.

But where are the racing fraternity, apart from ID:CT249 there is deathly silence! It would be nice if some of them could actually agree that the racing trends are getting increasingly dangerous and that the danger is unnecessary unseamanly and foolhardy.

I live in hope

[SeaDrive]

Tank testing data is the only objective test.

I don't have much comment on the merits of various hull forms, but I do have trouble with this statement. There are plenty of other objective tests available, including testing with full size boats, America's Cup style. It's not simple or straight-forward to translate tank test data to the subjective experience of being at sea in a storm, or to use it to measure the fatiguing effect of a boat's motion.

I also have touble with the "full keel" nomenclature and the shorthand of discussing whether a boat is long keel or fin keel. There have been plenty of boats with short, high aspect keels with attached rudders, e.g. 5.5 meter boats, and their steering difficulties were one reason for detaching the rudder and putting it farther aft. The important point, as I see it, is total keel area, and the lift developed at low speeds. (Very low speeds in the case of heaving to.)

[Doug Lord]

I'd like to ask the group posting here whether or not they consider canting keel boats including CBTF boats examples of the un-seaworthy racing boats mentioned above?

[Paul Merry]

Lorsail

The more complex you make it the less reliable it is, we have seen enough failures of complex hydraulics to suggest it is a poor option. It is a complex issue however. One of the Opens is sitting in Hobart with keel gear failure, one of the Maxi's has just pulled out of the Hobart with hydraulic failure and is receiving assistance from the marine police vessel after a distress call. Canting keels may let you carry more sail and go faster, and right an excessively beamy boat but taken together it certainly diminishes seaworthines compared to say a fixed keel better inverted stabiility hull.

We are also mentioning this here:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5726

Cheers
Paul

[Doug Lord]

Yeah, well there are 29 to 30 fixed keel boats already retired which could be proving deepkeels point or just saying this is a tough Sydney Hobart. Seems like most of the Vendee guys have canting keels and they're over half way with no keel problems that I'm aware off.

[R Kingel]

There are plenty of other objective tests available, including testing with full size boats, America's Cup style. It's not simple or straight-forward to translate tank test data to the subjective experience of being at sea in a storm, or to use it to measure the fatiguing effect of a boat's motion.

Tank wave testing weeds out the dangerous features that it highlights the tendancies of certain hulls to exhibit less than ideal behaviour in various wave patterns and magnitudes. We design navel vessels entirely on tank testing. I think you have not seen the facilities available to us these days.

In the prior account of the UFO off Iceland, if the wave tank testing had been done the skipper would have known what tactics to adopt.

I work with designs of small ships and commercial craft, I do however agree with most of the postings here in that the modern cruising designs are becoming dangerous vehicles for the market they target.

The current Sydney to Hobart is proving Deepkeelers point very well and this is just a gale. If it were a severe storm I think we would see many vessels founder even with their large and experienced crews.

As for the Manic single handers, perhaps they should be limited to certain areas, I shudder at the thought of one of the massive boats smashing into my small yacht at night. I suppose it will happen one day, and then suddenly we shall see some control, as Deepkeeler suggests the Harbour masters could deny them departure.

I also think that Manic is a good description of the Mini Transat.

Rod

[mistral]

i think canting keels are a false problem; i think that true racers have to be pushed to the edge of tecnology; you can modify box rules (ORMA, IMOCA, VOR 70) to make them safer but you can't ban an entire family of technological solutions, or you'll end up like AC boats, that is to say the most expensive hi-tech boat, with concepts of an updated j class!!!!
We have to ban such expensive/risky solutions on cruise/racer or cruise boats to make them absolutely sturdy and idiot-proof even in worse conditions (if it was possible), but IMOCA60 are formula 1 driven by professional sailor, made to go faster even in survival mode; an average risky boat is a price that everyone of this sailor will somehow pay to achieve his goal; in this Vendee globe all-carbon keel was an option choosen by two boats (Bonduelle and Sill et Voila), other racers choose a most conservative steel blade keel; maybe in 2008 all keels will be carbon made, maybe carbon will result in an unesuful option ( i think so) and designers will came back to all steel blade; in this Vendee anyway rudders seems to be the big issue about seaworthiness, not keel; i expect to see some now solutions about rudders in the 2005 ocean races, trying to fix up problems pointed out in current race.

Mistral

[Doug Lord]

Well said, Mistral. Solutions can be found to protect those needing it by using common sense and new technology without banning or severely restricting "on the edge" racing-its a subject worth serious consideration.

[SeaDrive]

Doug,

Your "wait for the evidence" view is correct, of course, but it is pretty clear that something is seriously wrong with the environment that created the big boats in the Sidney-Hobart Race. The conditions, while severe, are not out of line with expectation, and there is a high rate of attrition among big, new boats. That Skandia should be abandoned (though she will probably be recoverd) is a terrible thing, and must the cumulative result of mistakes by a bunch of people - owners, designers, builders, rule makers, etc.

Sea Drive

[Doug Lord]

The history of the Sydney Hobart race,as I understand it, is that the race is tough on EVERY boat. Currently, the race is being led by a canting keel boat (knock on wood) while a great racing boat-Ragamuffin -has been dismasted. Over 40 boats have withdrawn with broken goosenecks, rudders etc. Still that leaves 50+ boats (out of 117) still racing-mostly smaller boats with the two 100 footers retired. Maybe they're two big? The results-and the problems that occured- should be carefully compiled and studied-that would help everybody.
I definitely think there is a place for Manic and not so manic ocean racing as long as some changes are made to insure the safety of the innocent and perhaps prevent taxpayer supported rescue services from being undully burdened when rescue of the guilty becomes important.
Singlehanded sailing with radar that warns of other boats within a certain perimeter(already being used) and an alert system to advise cruising boats and others of the proximity of a fast boat or boats is all doable.The suggestion of race sponsored power boats(or boat) might have some value and might be able to be paid for by taking pictures of race boats in desolate areas-hell,some big company could sponsor such a boat or boats.
Lets not become so over protective that we curtail the daring of the few gutsy people like Ellen McArthur and the Vendee globe guys-there are solutions in which the innocent can be protected and the guilty can still capture our imagination.

[Paul Merry]

Lorsail

Its not that tough, just a sobering reminder of what gets dished up north and south of the gentle weather belt all year round.

Having sailed the route several times myself non-stop some times with apalling weather in the straight and at other what we call a milk run. I can attest that a seaworthy heavier hullform is infinitely more welcome than a light modern trend sailboat in those waters.

I think it highlights above all else what poor hullforms many of the smaller cruiser-racers are.

If the manic racers were a small watch keeping team it would be different but solo........ I have to agree with Deepkeeler that the British steel challenge was a better event than the hanfull of richly sponsered egotists. They do look good I have to admit, perhaps they should be limited to day sailing and have to heave-to while they sleep :)

Paul

[mistral]

i've just looked at sydney hobart official site; may be it's just an impression, but it seems to me that most of the victims occurred among the maxi and the most hi-tech boats; there still a lot of "small" boat, i mean 34-40 footer, in the race, a lot cruiser/racer (bavaria, sydney, beneteau); it would be intersting to have a detailed statisctrical report about this issue. Maybe series design are getting sturdier and better than we think??

Mistral

[Guest Hobart]

Some are in and have maybe been lucky, some are out through choice (sensible) some are out cause they broke things.

Of those continuing in the smaller boats I have been talking to several of them today and conditions are reported as being uncomfortable and miserable, my son on one boat said he was scared tired and sick, ...that worries me. He and I have often debated the issues current here in this thread.

The weather wasn't the sort of survival conditions mentioned in the UFO post by Fagan. Wave reports indicate a predictable wave pattern for the helmsman, all the boats should have been fine in those offshore conditions, just too many uncontrolled gybes and uncomfortable boats built for speed, not safety.

Paul
I very much doubt that they could heave to safely in heavy weather for long. Same goes for so many modern production cruisers as Deepkeeler said riding the light plastic marketing wave.

As others have pointed out;
It stinks when people try and claim that its an ideal cruising form to have a light displacement beamy hull with little lateral immersed area, an exposed spade rudder sharp bows and a questionable stability curve. It even makes a poor racing platform in heavy weather with an experienced and hardy crew.

Some of the marketing put out by the production plastic boat builders is just so much misleading advertising.

For example I just open a magazine and I see

"Contemporary design for Safe effortless fast cruising"

I would love to see the designers, the marketing team and corporate management in one of their "Safe comfortable effortless" hulls in a severe depression in the Tasman sea.

Perhaps it could be a new line in reality TV, but vomit, terror and a screen imitating a rotary clothes dryer probably make poor viewing. Be a good team building exercise eh!

Just a Guest (I wont embarass my son)

[mistral]

thank you guess, a direct report of what's happening is always useful to understand what we're really talking about; the most dramatic consequence of "modern" cruiser/racer is not lack of mechanical strenght of the boat in itself, but "induced lack of ability" of the crew; i mean that being for 48 hours or more in a a boat wich roll and dump violently on each wave will soon lead crew (even expert crew) to a miserable state; this may (and will) lead to wrong decisions and hazardous manoveuring; in a paradox they all seem boats made for experienced tough crews and thy're sold as "relaxing, fast exiciting cruiser" for a newcomer sailor; planing at 18 knots in a monohul is for sure exciting , but definitively not relaxing!!!
most of the dsigner's attention is focused on keel and rudder design to improve upwind peformance, forgetting that a slamming boat will both have poor performance and poor care of her crew

mistral

[SeaDrive]

This quote from the skipper of Skandia bothers me:

“We were going so well,” Wharington said. “We were sailing conservatively on port tack heading inshore where there would be calmer water conditions when we landed off a large rogue wave. At the time we were sailing under No 4 jib and two reefs in the main…very comfortable with the situation.”

Rogue wave? The wave that does the damage is always called a rogue wave. Of course it probably is bigger or steeper or from a different direction or breaking or SOMETHING different from the waves the preceeded it, but that doesn't make it a rogue wave. A boat may encounter 10,000 waves in a day, and one is going to be that one-in-ten-thousand ballbuster.

The reason this is important is that blaming the 'rogue' wave implies that you were beaten by a freak of nature for which you could not plan. But its not a freak, it a probability.

My guess is that the rigidity of the carbon fiber hulls transmits shocks to the gear at a higher level that assumed by the designers.

[Richard Petersen]

If we --- boaters, contest SPONSORS, owners of boat companies, all their staff, INSURANCE COMPANIES, could sift thru all of the statements on this thread. I come up with the fact that we have improved to the top of performance hill. Now that same drive is carrying us down the back side. Boats are no longer just slower on the course. They are DELIBERTLY made to be dangerous on the dumb ,stupid, arrogant chance that some how it MIGHT win. Richard

[CT 249]

Wow, what a vicious thread.

I certainly don't defend some racing designs. I prefer skinnier boats with longer fin keels, personally, and I have little doubt that they are more seaworthy than some of the exreme machines. But the generalisations and hate shown by the "build 'em heavy" brigade here is frightening.

Re Deepkeeler's comment "CT 249. Please don?t try to discredit Marchaj and the many others involved at Southampton because you don?t like their findings. This is typical of the racing fraternity. A team of scientists with access to unlimited wave tank testing a good model production facility have shown conclusively that your srtong opinion is just that."

OK, so what you're saying is that I have to simply follow Marchaj, and in doing so ignore people like Andy Claughton's Southhampton study (1984) which found that "no form or ballasting combination consistently resisted capsize in the 5.5m high wave...this suggests that alterations in form which improve capsize resistance may be rendered inneffective by a relatively small increase in breaking wave height". You're telling me I should ignore the conversations I've had with designers, who tell me how hard it is to measure the effects of sea and rig in steady-state situations (see Prof Peter Jackson's series of lectures to Aust. engineers), much less work out what's happening in the chaos of a breaking wave. You're telling me that a test tank is MORE reliable than the open sea, when experience with many years of extremely expensive testing for racing boat design has proven that tanks can't even reliably work out which hull is fastest in smooth water, much less which hull is more seaworthy when getting thrown around the ocean....

Re "Only detracting opinions from racing folk who don?t like the implications ie that they are perfectly happy to trade speed for the ability of the boat to survive heavy weather."

Some of the most experienced racers here do NOT say they are trading off speed for survivability.

And what of those I mentioned, like Kay Cottee and Jon Saunders, who are not racing fanatics but chose moderate displcement fin keelers for their non-stop round the world trips - journeys which did NOT involve racing?

Let me guess....you know miore than a 4 or 5 time circumnavigtor like Saunders, don't you.....

Re "I find the emotional prejudiced opinion rather childish. You are indulging in what is called Rationalisation, that is the twisting of arguments to suit your viewpoint."

Oh, and you, of course, are standing back as a totally dispassionate wise man. Rubbish. As far as maturity goes, surely you have plumbed the depths when you start off by insulting many people, and then continue by insulting others specifically. And then, after abusing me personally merely because after something like 10,000 miles of deep-ocean sailing I choose to hold differeing views, you have the hide to chide others for not posting here ! The arrogance is frightening!

Re "You cannot change scientific fact. I would ask where is your tank testing data and who did it to support the idea that current trend in designs are safe? You won?t find it."

Tank tests are merely a simulation. Ask reputable designers. They do NOT believe that they can account for rough water reliably. Look at curent IMS designs. They were created from tank tests of the Delft series - yet even in the simple field of flat-water speed, the tank tests have been proved to be very innacurate. That's a fact that almost any IMS designer will agree with, and that any look at the shape of top IMS inshore racers will confirm.

How many designers have told you that tank tests are accurate for rough water? Farr doesn't believe it. Olin Stephens doesn't believe it. MBD don't. B & C don't.

Re "I would add that under the rating systems, winning yachtsmen are forced to adopt hull forms that are not ideal , not the fastest not the safest."

What evidence do you have for that? Look at IMS - one of the most succesful boats in the UK was a 1965 Finnisterre-style S&S. Look at IRC; boats as old as a 1909 Fife win national titles. There is an enormous variation in succesful racing boats under some rules.

Yes, the typical modern IMS boat is not an ideal shape in any way. You know why? Because the TANK TESTS CANNOT PREDICT PROPERLY, even in flat water - so the VPP for IMS is wrong, and designers have to create strange shapes.

Re "I notice you are silent on the Minis, you consider these sensible safe and seaworthy? Yet they are just the logical application of the extreme hullform to a smaller boat, the problems become more manifest due to the sea /boat size ratio, but the Minis expose the farcical seaworthiness aspects of contemporary racing designs more clearly ."

No, I do not consider the minis very smart. I think they have gone too far. That's why I didn;t defend them.

Just because an idea is taken too far doesn;t mean it's wrong. The slender, heavy ideal went too far inthe 1800s with the "plank on edge", too.


Re "The recent search and rescue data is full of records of modern light displacement form racing/ cruising forms that have foundered including more recently worrying cases of some of these type of boats disappearing at sea in severe weather"

Yeah? Which ones? At what frequency, considering the greater number of boats sailing offshore these days? Is that frequency of loss greater than it used to be? You'r the one who wants "science", yet you dish up this unsubstantiated stuff. Task, tsk, really...must do better, son!

And the cases of old boats vanishing or sinking include Slocum, the first Colin Archer to cruise the Pacific (Erling Tambs' Teddy; Tambs also lost a crewman from Sandjefiord, his second Colin Archer IIRC); Winston Churchill (greatest loss of life in the '98 Hobart came from a traditional boat); the cases in Adlard Coles' "Heavy Weather Sailing" and many more.

Re "the current crops of production boats that are so popular have poor seakeeping and comfort qualities"

You're just repeating your claim. Yes, many production boats are horrible and unseaworthy. That doesn't mean all of them are.

The same has always happened. Ever seen a US Ericson of the mid '70s? Look a bit like an S&S, fall apart like tissue paper.

Re "Having experienced heavy coastal weather in a modern production racer-cruiser I would say categorically that they are a poor hullform for the voyaging public."

Oh, well, if you've coastal sailed you must be an expert....But hang on, suddenly you are using experience to back yourself up; yet you have previously said that only tank tests prove your point! Work it out, please...

Re "Honesty, objectivity and gentility please."

This is one of the most breathtaking;y savage, egotistical posts I've seen for ages. You start by referring to "the egotistical quest for an expensive thrill"; you call people "inglorious racing community members "... refer to "the manic edge"...."pathetic boats"..."ocean racing is becoming increasingly more dangerous, irresponsible and downright foolhardy and the search and rescue services wince at these egoists deep in the southern ocean in boats that do not belong there."...."worthy of an imbecile"...."manic men"..."Port authorites are legally remiss allowing them to depart."...."manic egotistical behaviour wins the day."..."manic madmen.."

Then, after that string of vicious abuse of others who are often much more experienced than you (I bet), you ask for "gentility"!

You ask for debate, then you call some of of us with many thousands of miles experience in deep-sea sailing "childish" and say we are twisting evidence. You really are not a very nice sort of person on THIS evidence; anyone who disagrees with you is insulted and abused and patronised. And yet you call for a debate?

You start off from a deeply-entrenched position, commencing a "debate" by calling people mad; then you pretend to be objective.

I agree that there are things that are wrong in the state of ocean racing; certainbly not everything, but some things. But my god, Mighetto is more reasonable than you are.

[CT 249]

Re Paul Merry's comment; 'Its not that tough, just a sobering reminder of what gets dished up north and south of the gentle weather belt all year round."

So are you out there this year, writing to us by satellite phone? How do you know how tough it is, at the moment?

Re "Having sailed the route several times myself non-stop some times with apalling weather in the straight and at other what we call a milk run I can attest that a seaworthy heavier hullform is infinitely more welcome than a light modern trend sailboat in those waters."

So how do we balance your "seveeral times" on the route, with the fact that many have done the route 30-50 times or more hold different views?

Oh, we could follow Deepkeeler's vicous and defamatory route of abuse.....but the fact is that many of these sailors have seen the ocean much more than anyone here, probably - yet they choose to sail the lighter boats they prefer.

Why? 'Cause they like them. Under iRC, a boat like Love & War (1973 S&S 47) has a very good chance; but sailors who have owned similar boats and have enormous experience, now sail modern types.

Having done the race and route several times myself, on boats designed from 1968 to 1995, I know I wouldn't necessarily choose to go on the older boat for comfort or safety. That boat was a long, slender 43 footer - its sistership rolled in the '98 race as did one in '70. Yet the sistership also completed a solo round the world non-stop trip since then. The moral is obvious, and the Volvo race crews said the same thing - the Hobart can break boats that can take a round the world trip.

"I think it highlights above all else what poor hullforms many of the smaller cruiser-racers are."

OK, I suppose it depends on what you're talking about as small or a cruiser-racer. Over half of the boats in the smallest class are still racing.

The long-keelers and the classics (older heavy boats from Peterson, Joubert, S&S and Cole etc, mainly early '70s) and the Swans currently have a retirement rate of 10 finishers, 8 retirements....about the same as the rest of the fleet. The long keeled traditional boats in the race currently have a 100% retirement rate. They include Koommooloo, cold-moulded 1968 vintage; Delta Win, a steel cruiser by Boden; and Salterboats Natumi in the cruising division.

To anyone who wants to use bad Sydney-Hobarts to prove that old displacement boats are sooo much safer than modern boats - have you looked at the fact that old boats killed more people in the '98 Hobart than new ones, and that at least two traditional style boats sank?

[SailDesign]

CT249, don't confuse them with facts - their minds seem to be made up already. :)

[Richard Petersen]

I think SeaDrive has come closest to the new problems we now face in ALL types of leisure sports, that have all become RULED by NYMPHO WINNERS and manufacturers. Every type of machine is now being loaded with as much carbon fibre as fast as possible. Just like fighter aircraft, F-22, are. There is a implied and expected difference between the 2 applications. F-22 pilots expect to be wounded or killed in the use of the plane. CIVILIAN boaters should not expect the same risks. Carbon fibre and composites are great. They are a great way to reduce lap times in a race. They DO NOT IN GENERAL like shock forces applied to them at at any angle other than the design angle. ROGUE waves have been measured at the south capes way in excess of anything a manufactuer would even design for. Only a submarine can navigate them in storms. Class Designed Racing Craft, are the ony way to protect crew and boat in offshore racing. We have to limit the dangers of competion. If you can not do that, it is willfull manslaughter, while hiding behind the word---RACING.

[Doug Lord]

Richard, that is so completely absurd!Surely, you're not suggesting curtailing all ocean racing because some poorly prepared sailors might get in trouble doing something they are not qualified to do!?
You simply can't dismiss the designers, crews and experienced racing programs with that simplistic approach-it makes no sense....

[DGreenwood]

Well said CT. I was getting a bit of a boil on with that thread myself. My experience with sailors has been (generalizing here) they are boneheads! It is their determination that, both makes them suitable to be sailors, and gives them the tendency to hold an opinion despite the evidence.
My own experiences lead me to the belief that safety is found in vessel agility and in vessel integrity.
I find it odd that when this sort of discussion ( and I have witnessed this behaviour many times) comes up, two things happen.

1) Racers and their designers are always blamed for the losses at sea.

2)No one ever talks about the real killers like:
a) Electrical fires An event that will drive you out of a boat in minutes with nothing but the clothes you are wearing. I can't tell you how disturbing it is for me to see people taking families out on some of the deathtraps I have worked on.
b) Gasoline, Propane, alcohol and solvent fires that kill people by the hundreds every year.
c) Carbon Monoxide deaths
d) Drownings
e) Electrocution ( again poorly wired boats)
f) Just plain poor judgment and inexperience as a seaman.
The list goes on and on.
And at the bottom of my list of complaints are the bold and the too bold in the racing world.


People with experience on many types and sizes of boats seem to agree that speed and agility is an important factor in safety.Not the ONLY one but very important. Some one has to be the innovator. There has to be those out there on the bleeding edge and they will die sometimes. We need those people willing to take risks to discover the possibilities.

A much more dangerous culture is found in a society that has lead many ordinary Joes to feel the confidence to take to the sea in his "seaworthy" yacht with little experience and a head full romantic ideas about how his heavy boat will make him a sailor.

Roll this around for a few moments....Name 20 boats that you consider good safe (production or custom) cruising boats that you could honestly say you could send off nonstop around the world single handed and expect them all to come back within six months (twice the record). No doubt some would make it but the attrition rate would very high. Take a close look at what the Vendee' guys do and you will see their safety is found in their speed and ability to ride some weather systems and avoid others. Could there be something to learn there?

Finally I have to say I am not surprised at all by the response to innovation it has always been the way of humans.
200 years ago, had you shown the US Navy brass a VHF radio, you would have been burned as a witch.


"And that's all I got to say about that"

[DGreenwood]

Just as another exercise...go to vendeeglobe.org and watch some of the videos of the boats and skippers. Notice the speed. The wakes look like that of a power yacht...they are moving. Now watch the occupants and their movements. Note the stability even in rough seas. Experienced sailors look at that and know that under those conditions that is comfort and safety. Now I'll grant you a boat like that is not for the inexperienced, but there are many fantastic new cruising designs that are born out of ideas from these boats.


Hmmm...Thinking back now I remember not long ago when people were saying that no serious designer would ever design a real boat on a computer. A passing fancy, they said.

[mistral]

mmm, ok DGreenwood, I'll try to focus on some concepts about your post:

what do you mean with speed and agility???? speed may be intended in having a great top speed down wind, a decent average speed both upwind and downwind; how easy do you think that these speeds will be reached and kept??? with a very nervous boat, that one that will change his course by 90° degrees after three seconds you left the helm, or on a railway-like boat that will go straight even if you're sleeping on the helm??

what do you mean with agility?? a boat that you can moore under sail in a crowded harbour? a one that you can race in a crowded buoy race?
speed and agility means nothing if you don't explain us what do you mean with those magical words; i don't think you'll find many sailor who like slow and bulk boats!!!

by my poor opinion the real killer on the sea is the mad conviction that you can buy your own seaworthiness, just buying a new hi-tech boat or other more or less expensive stuffs; people are forgetting the role of experience; in other fields same thing is happening (i can talk about mountaineriing and climbing, it's the same thing, hi-tech gear, difficult scenarios and poor experienced people lead often to dramas); i have a deep respect for Vendee's guy and Ellen Mac Arthur and their fantastic races; but they're aliens, absolute aliens landed from Mars, compared to the world of normal sailor; not claiming for more speed & technlogy, nor claming for Colin Archer's-style design we can use Vendee as a fair example, they (and their boats) are simply too far, we have to deal with every weekend's boat and normal sailors;

Mistral

[Richard Petersen]

Every thing can be justified. But is the selling of retired RACING HULLS and capabilities to a person with little or no racing experience a morale right of either party? IF you say yes to that. I say EVERY US CITIZEN should have assualt guns for adaquate protection against terrorists. I just justified assualt weapons. Love or a strong need, blinds us, to others around us.

[Richard Petersen]

Why is it you give complete morale and legal support to racing boat companies to sell NEW and USED racing boats to non racing proven people? You know they are going to screw up! Used jet fighter aircraft to anybody. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ PERIOD!

[DGreenwood]

First let me say this not directed at anyone in particular:

Sorry everyone I just get frustrated with all the wasted potential.
Right here on this site we have studied designers and sailors who spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. They are not wasting their time, they are makeing great gains in the quaility, safety and fun of sailing.
I know some of these folks and they have taught me much and I hope they will teach me more. But it is not much fun if this becomes a place to rationalize an unconsidered opinion. We gain nothing.

Using examples of boats that do not perform as one would expect because it is outside the environment it was designed for, gains nothing.

Sitting in an armchair and making disparaging remarks about guys that are out there making it happen is not becoming an intelligent sailor.

Now in response to Mistral questions:

"by my poor opinion the real killer on the sea is the mad conviction that you can buy your own seaworthiness, just buying a new hi-tech boat or other more or less expensive stuffs; people are forgetting the role of experience; in other fields same thing is happening (i can talk about mountaineriing and climbing, it's the same thing, hi-tech gear, difficult scenarios and poor experienced people lead often to dramas);"

I think we said the same thing here.

"what do you mean with agility?? a boat that you can moore under sail in a crowded harbour? a one that you can race in a crowded buoy race?"

I guess I assumed we were talking solely about open water sea keeping ability of ocean racers and round the cans racers and whether their efforts have been of value or a detriment to the general populace of sailors.
It is pretty clear to everyone (I hope) that they have contributed a great deal to the handling and strength of all types of sailing vessels.


What I meant by agile, in terms of open water any latitude sailing, and including the ability to track, have seen much research amongst the Open 60 guys in particular. Hell, what could be more important to a single hander? Foil shapes, lead, (as in placement of center of effort) and how the heeled wetted surface changes and therefore changes balance are all topics that are considered carefully..
Yeah...the "sweet spot" on a modern race boat is smaller. It is also sweeter. It requres skill, to know where it is, and to keep it there.
And speed...well I can tell you speed means safety at sea. And not because it gets you to your destination faster. I like being out there more than the average sailor.
It is because it gives you choices. Now that we have all this improved forecasting we can pick which side of a low we want to ride. We can actually consider going downwind to Brazil because it is no big deal to go over to the otherside of the Atlantic and then south. Going out to Bermuda or Hawaii is family vacation fun, not, an epic saga.

[lakerunner]

Safety is always going to be an issue only to those with the common sense to inforce it. If safety is going to be legislated to boaters it should be the same as auto insurances. We all know if you own a 32' cigarette your not going to cruise at 14 Knots
sitting on the deck enjoying a chat with your friends and family while on auto pilot
If Dad buys a 32' picnic we also Know he is not going airborne at 80 mph. Same with any extreme sport. Who really pays for search and rescue teams ? Insurance Co.? Ha Ha Ha. WE DO . Every one has good points . Deepkeeler has made a very legitimate case. I bet he loves his job . But I bet he hate what he see's at times. We all need to take responsibility for our safety and our actions . If we Don't (and alot won't) We will continue to pay the price because Government will .and you know how much we all like that. The bad dictates to the good.

[DGreenwood]

Although rescue of racers and it's costs are an unfortuanate expense we must be very carefull not to deny our adventurers their place to play. In the US we pay for the coasties to go out and correct thousands of preventable screw ups every year.
As much as I don't like it I am coming to the conclusion that enforced education (Licensing) is the only answer. Or at least it's the only one I can think of.
Licensing could be required of racers as well. Just like the qualifying sails required of long singlehanded races.

[Richard Petersen]

Finally the seperation of racing from non racing. Thank you all. Who is first to change the status? My mommie is calling me in for supper. Richard :)

[Richard Petersen]

A parting thought. Could all of us who are a club member of any boating club, print out a copy of all these pages to be brought up as INFORMATION and THOUGHT at the next club meeting? WE got excited, the rest need to be made aware. Otherwise this is just a bull session. My best to all of us, Richard Petersen

[Paul Merry]

Dear CT 249

I think you are the most vicious poster by far, how about sticking to facts and avoiding playground bullying.

You imply that I am an experienced sailor! I have crossed and sailed through Bass straight on many occasions, I have over 30 years at sea and hold both an Engineers and Masters ticket and had 11 years with the Navy. I have fished the North Sea and worked 6 months on a north sea oil rig. I am also a keen yachtsman I have sailed south of all the capes now in my own 45 foot yacht. I have also raced the Melbourne-Osaka as crew.

I would respectfully suggest that you may have little deep sea experience (correct me if I'm wrong).

You said
" the fact is that many of these sailors have seen the ocean much more than anyone here, probably - yet they choose to sail the lighter boats they prefer."

But isn't this like several of your points just circular reasoning? Considering we are talking about racing, they have little option if they are to reamain competitive. Becauase they choose light boats has little to do with light boats being more seaworthy than heavy boats which incidentally is wrong, a well designed heavy boat will always be safer in the ocean taking all factors into account.

Some heavy boats are not seaworthy for sure but that is a distraction, and the old full keeled racing boats wern't designed to a seaworthiness critereon either, only to a rating rule.

The Sydney-Hobart is a coastal race in the Lee of the Southern ocean predominant swell. Boats can run for shelter for much of the trip. If the race had been down the West coast of Tasmania it would be tough and I doubt any of the fleet would have completed the race. Problem is that some would have tried and either died or been rescued.

Much of the 'bad weather' of the Hobart is only tough on the boats because they are being pushed so hard, if Skandia had slowed down she would have reamined structurally integral I'm sure, so its the masters fault, he broke the boat because of his desire to win. The rougue wave was just the wave that they fell off while driving hard. On the other hand I doubt he could have Hove-to either given the nature of the vessel. But he could have slowed down. I think this is the principal that leads people like Deepkeeler to post here, frustration with unseaworthy conduct from racers who know they get free life insurance from rescue authorities. I find his language appropriate for a frustrated and often incredulous SAR.

I often think it criminal that their services are pushed so hard by the MANIC yachtsman on his way to a finish line.

The well crewed British steel boats have an excellent record working around the world the hard way they earn't some respect. Seems many racing organisers could learn from that as far as vessel design and safety and concerned.

Paul

[mistral]

Much of the 'bad weather' of the Hobart is only tough on the boats because they are being pushed so hard, if Skandia had slowed down she would have reamined structurally integral I'm sure, so its the masters fault, he broke the boat because of his desire to win. The rougue wave was just the wave that they fell off while driving hard. On the other hand I doubt he could have Hove-to either given the nature of the vessel. But he could have slowed down. I think this is the principal that leads people like Deepkeeler to post here, frustration with unseaworthy conduct from racers who know they get free life insurance from rescue authorities. I find his language appropriate for a frustrated and often incredulous SAR.


i perfectly agree with you, Skandia crew suicide themselves pushing the boat over her limit; Nicorette's crew has sailed a more conservative race, slowing down their boat to preserve her from strucutural failure (altough they suffered some delaminations too), trying to avoid an offshore run; i doubt that if you squeeze your boat to her limit you can accuse boat design, or canting keel, or IMS rule or anyone else for having destroyed your boat and risked your life; so, can we talk about unseaworthy boat or we'd better talk about unseaworthy attitude towards races joined by speedy dragster-boats?????

Mistral

[mistral]

Just as another exercise...go to vendeeglobe.org and watch some of the videos of the boats and skippers. Notice the speed. The wakes look like that of a power yacht...they are moving. Now watch the occupants and their movements. Note the stability even in rough seas. Experienced sailors look at that and know that under those conditions that is comfort and safety. Now I'll grant you a boat like that is not for the inexperienced, but there are many fantastic new cruising designs that are born out of ideas from these boats.


Hmmm...Thinking back now I remember not long ago when people were saying that no serious designer would ever design a real boat on a computer. A passing fancy, they said.

hey DGreenwod don't joke!!!!! IMOCA are all but stable boats, they're speedy skimmng dishes, have you ever seen some movie about them going upwind in moderatley heavy seas??? they slam down in each single wave like a table thrown from the second floor, try to think about reaching the bow to fix some problems in such conditions!!!! you'd be thrown away from the boat in a couple of seconds, your life depending on lifelines' quality; i've no doubt about it!!! Have you really seen them hand-steered downwind??? they behave like my laser 2 under a gust, absolutely nervous , they react in a winkeye to each rudder movement, do you really think this can be called stability??? Believe me, they're wild mustangs not quiet cows!!

Mistral

[deepkeeler]

Thanks to everyone for their posts, understand that my apparent vehemence is due to frustration, I am not trying to insult just to carry over my emotions in written language from this forum platform.

But the generalisations and hate shown by the "build 'em heavy" brigade here is frightening.

You're telling me that a test tank is MORE reliable than the open sea, when experience with many years of extremely expensive testing for racing boat design has proven that tanks can't even reliably work out which hull is fastest in smooth water


I think Build em safe is the theme you are lambasting with so much venom.

No I am not telling you that about tank testing. I am trying to tell you (if you read beyond your blinkered appraoch) that wave tank testing proves the safety aspects of a seaworthy hull as opposed to an unseaworthy one. It cannot predict its toal response nor its performance but it does show the characteristics wrt safety, dont get tow testing confused with wave tank testing.


Oh, and you, of course, are standing back as a totally dispassionate wise man. Rubbish. As far as maturity goes, surely you have plumbed the depths when you start off by insulting many people, and then continue by insulting others specifically. And then, after abusing me personally merely because after something like 10,000 miles of deep-ocean sailing I choose to hold differeing views, you have the hide to chide others for not posting here ! The arrogance is frightening!


Arrogance is frightening when it comes to life and limb and some apparently very big chips on shoulders.



No, I do not consider the minis very smart. I think they have gone too far. That's why I didn't defend them.


That is good, and yet we still can't draw the line even where the farce is clear to all, it seems to me it is a good indicator of the state of mind the racing "Industry" today.



Re "The recent search and rescue data is full of records of modern light displacement form racing/ cruising forms that have foundered including more recently worrying cases of some of these type of boats disappearing at sea in severe weather"

Yeah? Which ones?


Do you have broadband, each report is about 5 MB since they contain charts and pictures. Give me your braodband email.



And the cases of old boats vanishing or sinking include Slocum, the first Colin Archer to cruise the Pacific (Erling Tambs' Teddy; Tambs also lost a crewman from Sandjefiord, his second Colin Archer IIRC); Winston Churchill (greatest loss of life in the '98 Hobart came from a traditional boat); the cases in Adlard Coles' "Heavy Weather Sailing" and many more.


Historical boats, no-one said they were seaworthy. You are also confusing two issues here, hullform and materials.

We have had a lot of losses of traditionally built wooden vessels in severe weather, and due to collision. A lot of planked vessels are abandoned in heavy weather because the pumps fail and the steady inflow that these vessels experience ends up swamping the vessel. This has nothing to do with safe hull forms .



deepkeeler@yahoo.com.au

[CT 249]

Re "Dear CT 249. I think you are the most vicious poster by far, how about sticking to facts and avoiding playground bullying."

Hang on, the thread started off by calling people "Manic" and worse, I got called "childish" and I'm the one who is being a bully? Surely that title does not refer to people who are defending others from attack, as I was.

This thread started with calling a large number of people egotistical maniacs and idiots. What terms have I used that are as bad as that, or the direct and personal abuse of me by you and Deepkeeler? Please point them out.

Re "You imply that I am (not) an experienced sailor!"

OK, I was wrong and I apologise. Your own description of your Strait crossings was "several times", it seems to me that "several times" is logically read as being less than 50 or so, or "many". Therefore I had the wrong impression. I believe that it reasonable for me to think that "several" (in your first post) does not mean "many" (in your second post").

Re "I would respectfully suggest that you may have little deep sea experience (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Two Sydney-Noumeas (and return), 5 Sydney-Hobarts (and return) + many coastal races etc etc. I now prefer dinghy sailing & cruising. I am not totally happy with current offshore trends, myself.

Re "But isn't this like several of your points just circular reasoning? Considering we are talking about racing, they have little option if they are to reamain competitive. Becauase they choose light boats has little to do with light boats being more seaworthy than heavy boats which incidentally is wrong, a well designed heavy boat will always be safer in the ocean taking all factors into account."

Well it seems like we're ALL reasoning in a circular fashion.....Your praise for heavy boats is merely re-stating your earlier opinion.

Racing sailors in the Hobart do NOT, repeat NOT, have to sail light boats to remain competitive under IRC and IMS. Last Hobart I did, Division C went to a 1965 heavy-displacement S&S. That boat was so succesful under IMS inthe UK, that it was re-measured by ISAF to try to find out why.

This year, a 1973 design S&S heavyweight is winning a division, as is a heavy Swan 48. In the 4? years since IRC was introduced to national titles in Australia, the title has once gone to a 1909 Fife, and once to a Swan 48. Both are heavy masthead riggers.

In last year's race, 2nd overall and in class went to the heavy masthead-rig Joubert (prof of naval architecture) Tilting at Windmills.The previous year, 2nd overall and a class win went to the smaller but similar Joubert, Zeus II.

So that's the facts....in the last 3 Hobarts, heavy boats have 2 second places and have probably taken out almost half of the Division wins, despite forming a fairly small proportion of the fleet.

There is simply NO bias against heavy boats under IRC and IMS in the Hobart. In fact, Australian designer Robert Hick says that the old boats like Zues (1972 dsign) hae a BETTER chance of an overall win than a modern 30 footer.

Re "The Sydney-Hobart is a coastal race in the Lee of the Southern ocean predominant swell. Boats can run for shelter for much of the trip. If the race had been down the West coast of Tasmania it would be tough and I doubt any of the fleet would have completed the race. Problem is that some would have tried and either died or been rescued."

That's not the informtion I get from those who have done the Westcoaster and the Hobart. They say the Hobart is much harder because of the southerly set kicking up the seas. The Westcoaster swells are bigger but longer and not as steep. Remember, the Westcoaster is on at the same time as the Hobart, in exactly the spot you are talking about. No-one has died or been rescued despite the fact that the fleet includes boats like an Open 60 and typical cruiser/racers.

So here we have a fleet EXACTLY where you are sayingthe Hobart fleet would have been decimated, EXACTLY at the same time...yet no-one has died, no-one has been rescued (last I looked).

Re "Much of the 'bad weather' of the Hobart is only tough on the boats because they are being pushed so hard, if Skandia had slowed down she would have reamined structurally integral I'm sure, so its the masters fault, he broke the boat because of his desire to win.:"

I totally agree with you. I agree it was bad seamanship. I don't like the Skandia type myself. But you adn Deepkeeler seem to be denouncing all fin keelers of light/medium displacement.

One analogy can be seen in rally cars. My car is mor reliable than the world rally champions; not because I'm better or my car is, but just because I don't go as hard. You and I don't get running injuries like a marathon runner, either - because we don't go as hard. Boats being pushed to the limit cannot be judged against boats that are not.

I totally agree that it is bad seamanship to push too hard. I lost my father sailing; I have searched for the bodies of people I know. Stuff happens, and we should be careful out there.

It doesn't mean that you guys should call almost all ocean racers "manics", "madmen" and egotistical and then insult those who dare to reply.....




\

[Richard Petersen]

Finished eating. Can play some more. It seems like there are 2 different threads running here. -------1 is the hard core racers bashing each other. --------------2 is the bunch that wants to keep hard core out of the public hands. THREAD MODERATOR---- split this into 2 seperate threads!!! Or I bring the great MIGEHTTO here from another thread!!!!

[lakerunner]

Although rescue of racers and it's costs are an unfortuanate expense we must be very carefull not to deny our adventurers their place to play. In the US we pay for the coasties to go out and correct thousands of preventable screw ups every year.
As much as I don't like it I am coming to the conclusion that enforced education (Licensing) is the only answer. Or at least it's the only one I can think of.
Licensing could be required of racers as well. Just like the qualifying sails required of long singlehanded races.

DG .You are right . Thanks for the comeback on this. Licensing is a viable option, and yes everyone should have their playgrounds in any recreation or
livelyhood. Education is a very inportant issue here. We are able to jump in a boat with no responsible way of detecting we can even operate one.
Try that at your municipal airport ! This thread opened a can of worms.
and I would like to think we can keep it civil. Obviously it has touched a nerve and has won a seat deserving attention. I just hope we can address it diplomatically with good thought and Ideals . Simply put, we face some serious problems that are very real That deserve adequate solutions.
I use adequate because there are No perfect solution to satisfy all

[Richard Petersen]

I had to laugh at a previous piece by lakerunner. " dad buys a 32'- We know he is not going airborne. Can't say that. I have a 19' 220 hp bow rider. Making some passes on GPS, ZIIIP I am air borne for 2 sec. A cruiser passed 1/4 mile away and a couple of minutes later it's deep wake surfaced in the shollow bay I was playing in. My chops combined with it to my left, suddenly, 67 year old kid is showing off. Good body and reflexes saved my butt. Chaparral earned it's keep. My mouth came within 6" of the windshield. Good deep V saved me. Other less penetrating hulls - too bad.--Rogue Wave? No such thing. My looking too much at the GPS caused a ROGUE WAVE, nothing else.

[lakerunner]

You understand the generalization I was stating . I also no what you mean accidents happen. Similar time 4;30am water like a sheet of glass head to my spot in my bass boat clocking about 45mph and hit a rock under water. lake levels rise and fall periodically on a western reservior i fished . I've been up and down that part of the lake 1000 times , and it never was there before ....... :rolleyes: but none the less could have been killed . Kill switch hooked to my PFD saved me and the console shield . Let me tell you that is one hell of a cup of coffee first thing in the morning. No major damage .
change the prop and fix a few cuts and scrapes not to mention the bruised male ego.
But was a very humbling experience. I'm alive due to a $0.30 piece of string .And a PFD. I think safe on the water at all times, But sometime $#!+ happens.

[MikeJohns]

Regarding the Sydney to Hobart

The withdrawls are only half the story, I am told that many boats that stayed in the race simply sought coastal shelter for the gale then carried on when it was over. Convenient to have a coast nearby. So it is no objective test to look at the boats that manage to finish this one and then proclaim them seaworthy since they simply sat it out in shelter. Thankfully it was not a Sydney to Wellington race, I am not as confident that very many would have made it.

A note on hullform to those claiming that the contemporary racing form is a good cruising design:

Beamy flat boats roll away from the crest, a breaking crest then delivers the energy to accelerate her sideways down the wave with great rapidity. especially boats with poor ratios of immersed to non-immersed lateral area, The vessel then either rolls or gets a severe high sideways velocity knockdown, skippers will often claim they fell off a wave when they actually slid sideways down the face. Much damage occurs to unsupported rudders, windward chain plates, windward mast tangs fittings and even mast buckling from the dynamic compressive loads.
If the helmsman manages to run her down the face, already heeling away trimming down by the bow and venting her rudder she will be inclined to broach-to, again with a likely high energy inversion from the following crest.
A narrow deep hull can experience a moment effective to make her try to lean towards the wave crest due to the orbital effects of the water within the wave, her rudder remains immersed and her large lateral area reduces considerably the magnitude of the sideways translation.

There will be conditions that exceed any small vessels inate seekeping ability but some designs are overwhelmed much more easily. You can see from the above that one form can lie-ahull and one has to be helmed and sailed very carefully for her survival.

It follows that if you go for the hullform that needs to be sailed for survival then that suits the racing man. You get a faster boat and you have to carry on sailing you have no option. You can slow down but you will be safer with steerage and control, at the same time in heavy weather you become vulnerable to knockdown or worse if the helmsman messes up or you are just unfortunate with a detrimental unavoidable situation relative to a large wave.

Vessel Stability is influenced majorly by roll inertia, damping, ultimate virtual stability and the energy required to rotate the hull (dynamic stability). Weight in the rig gives the greatest contribution to dynamic stability, damping requires wetted surface area, ultimate virtual stability needs a reasonable ballast ratio and a decent hullform.
When talking of stability we should also consider the energy to right the vessel if it is inverted, it is not good enough for a vessel to remain inverted for 3 minutes while still in stormy sea. This can be the main problem with the beamier contemporary designs.

There has been some talk of tank testing:

The effects of waves can be studied very well in wave tank testing
by powering the models under remote control. We can then directly observe the effects of generated waves on various hull models at various courses relative to the wave front. By varying the vessels Roll inertia, displacement and dynamic stability reserve, we can clearly show the desirable characteristcs with regard to safety. This is what Marchaj was commisioned to do after the Fastnet disaster, his findings would have been no different for the fatal Sydney to Hobart, as has been said Winston Churchill was not a good comparison considering that she foundered from her construction not her design, but a poor unseaworthy design like 'BP Niad' was certainly predicted to founder.

The open 60's have their share of inversions and are not self righting. Their directional stability is poor they trim terribly with heel, experience slamming to windward and are a poor form to copy for a smaller boat.

Of the "build em heavy brigade"
I am definately a member of the medium-heavy to heavy club for cruising yacht design, heavy, strong, safe and comfortable Heavy does not need to be slow or a lumbering tub. Heavy tends to be slow in light air, but I dont think its worth sacrificing comfort and safety for the light air performance.

I have been receiving accident reports from various agencies for some time. I also see my fair share of ripped out chain plates over stressed rigs, cracked keels and torn out engine mounts. Increasingly this damage is coming from the contemporary light beamy performance cruisers caught in bad weather. Some of the light beamy production boats like the Benetau 390 are just death traps in heavy weather as the disaster 'Ocean Madam' highlighted in europe a couple of years ago. They should not be used offshore.

I think racing is becoming increasingly dangerous due to human nature as well as boat design, I also think some production boats are becoming more unsafe, built cheaply with minimum scantlings, with the marketing targetted at the largely marina bound gin palace market. Other production boats like the Halberg-Rassey produce a more sensible cruising boat.

As for regulation, my worry is that we may well see the sort of regulation and escalating fee base that the light private aviation sector was subjected to a few decades ago.

As for COLREGS and radar, that seems to be a sensible move to make mandatory for fast single handers but the energy budget is high and I suspect they would be turned on only for shipping lanes. These vessels would be just as spectacular and much more robust with 4 aboard, and with a bit of safer hull design, killing the 10 degree rule and we could have a much safer still spectacular sport.

Limit the Minis to round the bouys or employ a couple of fleet minder vessels.

[DGreenwood]

Interesting how when some boats manage to dodge bad weather it is good seamanship and in others it proves poor design?

If The IMOCA and Mini hull forms are so inherently squirrely, even considering how hard they are driven with the huge rigs they have, then how does one explain the relatively low power usage of their auto pilots? I mean those things are on 24/7.
Have you ever tried lying ahull on a less than 100' boat in force 8 or better? Have you ever tried to "heave to" in those conditions? How about the old oil bag trick, ever give that one a whirl?

I wonder where Regulation would stop if you got it started? Sorry, you can't go out sailing you are: (pick one) too old-too fat-not experienced-haven't spent enough on your boat- haven't spent enough in my country- haven't spent enough in my marina.
Sorry...I am being a smart-ass...I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Richard Petersen]

Any body who stays out in a blow of 45 mph or more without making a beeline for the docks deserves to go down. If you can afford the boat and instruments, NO NO NO one should have to risk THEIR life for the show off jerk with a death wish. You wanted those conditions and you got them. Weather equipment elimanates all doubts, unless you are a spoiled brat. You give MOTHER NATURE the finger and she WILL shove it up your nose.--------------USCG or rescue should not be allowed to risk their lives in those cases.

[Paul Merry]

It doesn't mean that you guys should call almost all ocean racers "manics", "madmen" and egotistical and then insult those who dare to reply.....
\

How on earth do you end up deducing that the sensible people here are insulting all ocean racers?..........come on your posts get a little vehement and emotional dont they!
You need to step back from the manic edge of posting :)



So here we ave a fleet EXACTLY where you are saying the Hobart fleet would have been decimated, EXACTLY at the same time...yet no-one has died, no-one has been rescued (last I looked).

\

I was saying that given the same sea state and wind conditions on the west coast and there would have been nowhere to run for shelter on the exposed west coast, and the smaller racing boats that simply anchored out the gale would have been forced to win sea room or been driven ashore. There are huge advantages to running races down the sheltered coast.

The "Fleet" consists of 4 boats last count. There was one rescue I am told shortly after they cleared the heads.

Sorry to hear about your father, was he on a fishing boat?

Paul

[CT 249]

Paul, re "How on earth do you end up deducing that the sensible people here are insulting all ocean racers?"

Maybe I am over the top, but I think Deepkeeler's original post, with is call for boats with "deep ballast, long keels, attached rudders, Vee shaped sections, non planing hull shapes and a fair amount of weight aloft" and his call for us to "Embrace the comfort and safety of heavy displacement strong cruising designs" is a condemnation of the vast majority of ocean racers, who do not sail such craft.

RE "your posts get a little vehement and emotional dont they!"

Maybe, but look at the "other side" from me; Deepkeeler calling people Manic, Richard Petersen talking of "show off jerk with a death wish" and (in his post of 12-26-2004, 09:49 AM) talking of people who SUCK, who cheat and would murder to win a race.

Surely saying someone is manic, deserves to die (RP's last post), sucks or will kill to win a race is more vehement and over-the-top than my replies.

My dad was inshore racing when a wire failed and he went in the water. The boat (small cat) was too unwieldly to get back to him in time.

Hey Richard...re "Any body who stays out in a blow of 45 mph or more without making a beeline for the docks deserves to go down"

Ever tried finding a dock in Bass Strait? There isn't one.

Many of our "docks" are behind river bars and any seaman knows how dangerous they are in bad conditions.

Forecasting is not always exact; the '98 S-Hobart inquest discussed this at length. I was there in the inquest; the models do not always work. Down here, we do not have lotf of land to windward all the time for observations. Ask the NSW Bureau of Meteorology Extreme Weather guys about it, like the Coroner and I did. It just isn't that easy.

Mike, re "The withdrawls are only half the story, I am told that many boats that stayed in the race simply sought coastal shelter for the gale then carried on when it was over. Convenient to have a coast nearby. So it is no objective test to look at the boats that manage to finish this one and then proclaim them seaworthy since they simply sat it out in shelter."

After checking the race site, I see that the boats that sought shelter and then resumed racing were;

Natsumi - heavy cruising division ketch.
BOOTS - Davidson Cavalier 37 masthead rig non IOR cruiser/racer. Sister to "First Lady" of non-stop Round the World fame.
Rollercoaster - Sydney 32, IRC OD racer/cruiser.
Magic - S&S 39. Heavy displacement 1970 design masthead rig.
Gilliwa - Cav 32. Heavy displacement late '60s/early '70s design masthead rig.
Tilting at Windmills -. '70s style heavy displacement masthead rig by Joubert, prof of Naval architecture.
Addiction - Light non-IRC Inglis 37.
Why do I Do It - IMS 37 by (NA) Lyons.
Acrtive Factor- British Steel Challenge 67, masthead rig, owned by Antarctic explorer.

So only 3 of the boats that stopped in Eden then resumed racing were lightweight fractionals, 4 were heavy masthead riggers, 1 a lighter design with a proven record, 1 a cruisin ketch, 1 a British Steel challenge 67 of the type that Deepkeeler says we should all sail.....

So the % of small racers that stopped, then resumed, was actually smaller than the % of heavy boats and cruisers that stopped, then resumed. How can this indicate that the small racers only got there because they stopped? We could just as well say that about the Challenge 67 (one started, 1 stopped) or the cruising ketches (1 started, 1 stopped).

Re "So it is no objective test to look at the boats that manage to finish this one and then proclaim them seaworthy since they simply sat it out in shelter."

You are dead right IMHO. We can only judge seaworthiness of boats that were in the same conditions as each other. So, given that, how can we tell how a heavy Deepkeeler-style boat would have handled the conditions?

Oh wait, we can...there was one there, and it ran for shelter.....

Every bad race, people say "a cruising boat would have been OK"...but as you point out, we can't use the seaworthiness of boats that weren't there as a point of comparison; whether they are racers sheltering in Eden or cruisers in the Galapagos, if they are not there (as you say) we cannot use them for comparison because they are not in the same weather.

Re "The effects of waves can be studied very well in wave tank testing
by powering the models under remote control."

Only to some extent, otherwise why did Andy Claughton BSc, C Eng, MRINA write that R/C testing in the wave tank at the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton Uni was "too variable to allow us to extract quantifiable data"??? (Seahorse May June '84 p 27)?

"A poor unseaworthy design like 'BP Niad' was certainly predicted to founder."

BP Naiad did not founder in poiont of fact, one sister retired from that race OK, 1 finished. Up to 11 Farr 40 1 tons have done the S-H in a single year for 20 years, one has had a tragedy. Another Farr 1 ton (Paladin, a design #136 which is almost identical) has completed the single-handed round the world race and IIRC the Melbourne-Osaka.

I totally agree that Open 60s are not great boats, I totally agree that Ben 390s etc are not good boats, I would prefer boats like Naiad to be slimmer and stronger, but that doesn't mean IMO that we should all be sailing heavy long keelers and that those who don't are wrong, glory-seekers or idiots.

[Richard Petersen]

I can't comment on any one elses waters. I can tell you what I tell every one I take out their first time with me. If we get caught in a squall or a " microburst " winds over 80 mph in 5 minutes, I will head for the nearest land (I do about 50 mph) and beach the boat on the nearest flat beach. Wind to our back or side. -------------I know that no racer would say that and do it. To heck with the race, boat, ego. Stay healthy for the next race. Is that to much to do?

[SailDesign]

If we get caught in a squall or a " microburst " winds over 80 mph in 5 minutes, I will head for the nearest land (I do about 50 mph) and beach the boat on the nearest flat beach.
Personally, since land is what is dangerous to boats, I would rather head _away_ from shore until the blow was over. Interesting that the Navy (most Navies, actually) send their ships to sea in a storm, since they are safer there than at the dockside.

Steve

[Cotttee]

Ever tried finding a dock in Bass Strait? There isn't one.

Many of our "docks" are behind river bars and any seaman knows how dangerous they are in bad conditions.
or idiots.

The NSW coast is full of ports and sheltered bays all the way to Gabo, The whole fleet could have sheltered at Eden and happily avoided the Gale.

If your vessel can sail/motor to windward in a blow there are several Bass straight bolt holes, you have excellent shelter in the Kent group for example. If you had a poor forecast then it is prudent to plan your course to put such shelter within reach.

The prescense of the land to the West removes the prevalent and large Southern Ocean swell.

With an offshore wind in a Gale proximity to the coast gives good shelter and a vessel can choose to simply hold position in the lee of a sheltering landmass without needing to find a bay to anchor in.


Surely saying someone is manic, deserves to die (RP's last post), sucks or will kill to win a race is more vehement and over-the-top than my replies.


I agree partially with him even though it appears excessive

Single handers are prepared to take the risk that they will collide with and be culpable of manslaughter. That sucks.

Racers will push their boats to destruction and rely on rescue services in the quest for a place up the list, i reckon thats Manic.

Single handers sailing poor hullforms who take the risk for egotism shouldn't be mourned for their sake, only for those reamining that suffer the loss.

Is that so over the top? What they said was correct just sounds a bit hard.

[MikeJohns]

but that doesn't mean IMO that we should all be sailing heavy long keelers and that those who don't are wrong, glory-seekers or idiots.

No but family cruising boats should have safer characteristics than many in the current crop available.


Re "The effects of waves can be studied very well in wave tank testing"

Only to some extent, otherwise why did Andy Claughton BSc, C Eng, MRINA write that R/C testing in the wave tank at the Wolfson Unit of Southhampton Uni was "too variable to allow us to extract quantifiable data"??? (Seahorse May June '84 p 27)?

I'd be interested to see that article, I cannot find reference to any paper.

You will find however that wave tanks have moved on in the 20 years since that was written, we can now computer control the tanks to produce waves with a definition they couldn't have dreamt of. Wave and tow tank tank testing is acceptable for the testing of hullform characteristics for commercial and military vessels.

With similar hullform characteristic tests to Marchaj's having been conducted in Japan & Germany more recently, the conclusions havn't changed.
This research also carrries over into other vessel design such as commercial fishing vessels, we dont see fad trends occuring there because seaworthiness is legislated for in that sector and the research on safe hullform initially done by Southampton has been supported.

I say again there is no body of research supporting the view that Marchaj is wrong. Finding the odd dent in the armor doesn't do this.

I also think you confuse Contemporary yachts designed specifically for safety sea-worthiness and performance with older racing boats, older cruising designs of all types and ancient wet lumbering tubs.

We can also improve racing boats considerably for seaworthiness without detracting that much from performance.

Actually it would be good if you could categorically state what your opinion is since you seem to agree on much of what I and other detractors of the modern racing hullform have written.

In you list of boats you should also add the pull-outs to the stopovers.
I agree we need vessels off all types to be present for something like the Hobart to directly show up comparisons re seaworthiness, for those who don't like the implications of wave tank testing. IOR cruiser racers wer not built for seaworthiness but rather performance under the IOR rule.

We can and do design good seaworthy boats that don't look and handle like Briston Channel Pilot cutters.

[DGreenwood]

No I will tell you what maniacal is. Take a small boat with a family of six ill prepared and inexperienced out onto San Franscisco bay, overturn it and the mother can hold onto the children until they die of Hypothermia one at a time. Happened.
Family pulls to gas dock, dad puts fuel down the fishing rod holder and into the bilge until some thing ignites it, all lost. Happened.
Father gives rambunctious boy 150 HP outboard and Whaler to play with who takes off at speed blinded by the rising bow runs over my buddy who is just sitting in a skiff ready to go for a relaxing day of fishing. Dead.
That stuff happens many times a day all summer long and nobody is even a little outraged about the way we give an outboard to children to play with...tantamount to giving a kid a chainsaw to play with.

We allow the innocent to wander out onto the water by the droves and kill each other without knowing the risks. And the worry is a few guys who knew the risks and relatively speaking cause very little trouble for time they spend on the water, or the money they pump into the boating world, or the technoligical advancements they pay for.

These guys are not banging a room full whores, carrying diamond studded Glocks and using the F-wrd with every breath. These are the guys I want my kid to look up to.

Ease up on em'

[Richard Petersen]

IN New Jersey you are a licensed power boat operator if you paid the state $6.00 - 10 years ago. now a course is required. I am so old, they just take the money. I ( ALL ) should be made to take the course. Are old boaters any safer than COURSE TAUGHT ? NEVER! In Germany, almost all radio controlled hobbies are ability structured. You start at the simplest level. Peers reveiw you before you can move up to the next level of competion. That would be un-American. Money would not rule! I caught some of the sailng championships. It looked like 2 boat captians constantly signaling each other with red flags. Racing my foot! Banging each boat and crying FOUL FOUL. I will say it again. They act like 2 spoiled brats playing with their toys!

[deepkeeler]

No I will tell you what maniacal is. Take a small boat with a family of six ill prepared and inexperienced out onto San Franscisco bay, overturn it and the mother can hold onto the children until they die of Hypothermia one at a time.

Thats not the same at all. This sort of problem lead us to be able to get politicians to finally legislate in NZ for licensing along with the requirements for appropriate SOLAS equipment for small boats, and the ability to police it. The deaths then dropped with rapidity.

Australia has left licensing and safety requirements to its states, but stricter licensing and safety requirements have seen the deaths drop significantly there too. For example it is mandatory to actually wear life-jackets in small power boats. Boats are registered Fines are issued to those not complying and the police patrol vigorously in the more popular areas, even having random officers stationed at boat ramps checking vessels, safety gear and licenses before they leave.

The people involved in small power boat loss weren't generally manic at all, just ignorant on the boats capabilities, what it takes to attract attention and what it takes to die of hypothermia. If you had sat those people down and explained the risk the danger and the unsuitability of the vessel and they had still gone out and died then that's a different story.

The cost of rescuing one stable inversion or keel failure deep in the Southern Ocean has been around 5 Million dollars per rescue, under the SOLAS international agreements it has to be done and for free. If the rescued had instead just been left to perish you would have had such a high % of deaths to participants that the races (or the boats) would have been banned. The rescues make good press for magazines who often called the rescued couragous and heroic but don't even mention the name or interview the Orion crew that flew down 3 times and grid searched till they were found. The SAR crews have a different view.

I have 2 sons in their late teens and they don't look up to "these guys" I have enough trouble getting them to reduce risk taking behaviour as it is.


Thanks everyone for your posts. I have never contributed to this forum before but I obviously touched a very raw nerve here, and it is good to see the general support for a bit more sense in some racing events.

I hope you all have a great year


Deepkeeler

[DGreenwood]

Deepkeeler
You make some pretty solid points that are hard to argue.

Good on your Government for taking some sensible steps to stop those sorts of "ignorance" deaths.

Those poor souls who die as a result of lack of knowledge are not the maniacal ones, I was refering to us for allowing it to happen. Refering to the whole culture that includes magazines, salesman, and insurance companies that lead people to believe that it is safe to just jump in a boat and go out without any training. Hey I used to be one of those guys...I survived by dumb luck.

I guess it is just individual choice that makes me willing to suffer the costs of rescuing those intrepid ones that are out there on the edge. As long as they don't push it too far. ( And how far is that?)

I used to hang out of helicopters to rescue beleaguered mountaineers and felt that it was just what society had to do to advance itself.
Maybe that is wrongheaded...but does that make going into space a bad thing?
I think not...I think it is what we are compelled to do.

[Sean Herron]

Hello...

I lost my friend Dave to a very poorly installed camlock that tore from its deck location and Dave had a bight around his leg - part of the melee of the moment - much like that WIND movie - the whole let go, grabbed his left knee and pulled him over the cockpit crew and literally smashed his head against the goose neck...

TELL THAT to the 'engineer' who felt all to be within his 'new calculations'...

Two kids - a wife - and no life insurance - he was 32 - these NA's or PhD's and all the P.Eng's can take their paper and go make chuck gliders from same...

That said - I know it comes down to the muck from the street - who may have subbed an inferior fastener against judgement that would be beyond himself...

But my friend is gone - and he was racing for kicks and fun - sun and wind - thrill - gone...

SH.

[DGreenwood]

Phew!...Sean!...Buddy I know the pill. Damn it is hard to swallow. You go looking for the guy at fault...who is responsible... somebody must be?
Well somebody is, but we don't solve the problem by telling your buddy Dave he can't play on boats anymore. We solve it by making sure that the dude installing the camlock understands the consequences of what he does for a living.
I mean there are safeguards in place to make sure that the guy in China doesn't wire your toaster wrong...aren't there?

Maybe there is something to Licensure...imagine this from a guy who is sworn to fight it.

[CT 249]

Re Paul's comment "I was saying that given the same sea state and wind conditions on the west coast and there would have been nowhere to run for shelter on the exposed west coast, and the smaller racing boats that simply anchored out the gale would have been forced to win sea room or been driven ashore. There are huge advantages to running races down the sheltered coast."

1) Several small boats kept on sailing to windward happily so not all boats had trouble on upwind. A considerable % of the boats that sought shelter in Eden and retired or later resumed were cruising-style boats or Swans.

2) I've discussed this with people from the Extreme Weather section of the BoM and with people who have done the Westcoaster and the Hobart and I'm sorry but there seems to be strong evidence to me that the SH is harder; that's what I'm always told.

I find it a bit harsh that half of the people here are comdemning the racers for being out there, yet many condemn them for sheltering!


Re "There was one rescue I am told shortly after they cleared the heads."

Moshio broke a window, put out a Mayday which was downgraded to a Pan. Boat is an Elliott 15.5, I don't know it.

Among the retirements were all three of the heavy displacement masthead riggers (Yoko, 50' long, 18 tonnes displacement and built in steel to a '70 design; an S&S 34; a Knoop 30). Not necessarily evidence that it's all the fault of modern lightweights is it?


Mike, re "You will find however that wave tanks have moved on in the 20 years since that was written, we can now computer control the tanks to produce waves with a definition they couldn't have dreamt of. "

Mebbe, but Claughton referred to the waves in his tank as creating "perfectly repeatable breaking waves up to 0.5m high, at the touch of a computer keyboard". That doesn't sound too bad to me.

It would be interesting to check up the later studies of which you spoke.

Re "I say again there is no body of research supporting the view that Marchaj is wrong. Finding the odd dent in the armor doesn't do this.

Re "I also think you confuse Contemporary yachts designed specifically for safety sea-worthiness and performance with older racing boats, older cruising designs of all types and ancient wet lumbering tubs."

Perhaps. What other designs do you favour, H-Rs aside?

"We can also improve racing boats considerably for seaworthiness without detracting that much from performance."

YES!!!! I totally agree.

Re "Actually it would be good if you could categorically state what your opinion is since you seem to agree on much of what I and other detractors of the modern racing hullform have written."

I agree, I don't think Open 60s or Minis are great boats. I think the Benny Oceaanis 390 types are bad. I don't like the Skandia/Konica type of highly -stressed 98 footers. I've sailed on the previous generation of 80s and they scared me enough.

I do think fin keels should be more solidly engineered, and I believe a rule which limited the % of ballast in bulbs and reduced beam would create better boats. Something like the Davidson 55 Starlight Express is close to my ideal, but with positive buoyancy; watertight bulkheads p'raps; and other minor changes.

But saying Minis are bad therefore less radical fin keelers are bad (as Deepkeeler said) is as incorrect as sayin that the "plank on edge" cutters of the 1800s are bad, tehrefore Halberg-rassy long keel displacement boats are bad.

BTW, Deepkeeler, people in NSW at least do NOT have to wear PFDs in powerboats. They do in Tassie, perhaps other states.


"

[Richard Petersen]

Just so you know I spread my feelings around. I read where a great old auto name is coming back, better than ever. A $750,000 car, street legal, 1,000 hp, should do at least 280 mph while talking on a cell phone. I really respect that company for advancing the leading edge of dangerous, JERKS. BLESS THEM!!

[lakerunner]

Muck and Mires are crossroads to are quest for perfection. Even though we fully understand we can not achieve it, We still search. Step by step to better ourselves
But find that our biggest mistakes are small methodical details that are overlooked.
An ''O'' ring , a frozen piece of foam, a poorly installed camlock, A trip to mars failed simply because of a "Imperial / Metric equation" inversion. Or water spray slowly separating the matrix due to poor lay- up bonding . eventually causing catastrophic consequences .The list goes on and on.
Our technologies are physical and can be depended upon. How we apply it cannot.
Human error will keep us from perfection ...nothing else.

[B. Hamm]

But is the selling of retired RACING HULLS and capabilities to a person with little or no racing experience a morale right of either party?

So....if I decide to take up offshore racing (not likely unless I win the lottery) that I have to destroy the boat after I'm done with it? That's fairly silly.

The seller can't hardly be held responsible for every buyer of his boat forever and whatever use they decide to put it to. Do that and most sailors would be ex-sailors.

Bill H.

[lakerunner]

We would be walking into dangerous territory if that were to ever happen.
We are the only ones responsible for are actions, Instead of looking backwords for someone else to blame .You are right B.Hamm

[lakerunner]

Really interesting thread . In Sean's post, He opens up other ??'s . What can we do to
keep this from Happening. Which brings us back to the original post ...
The problems are huge The solutions become paradoxial.

[B. Hamm]

If we get caught in a squall or a " microburst " winds over 80 mph in 5 minutes, I will head for the nearest land (I do about 50 mph) and beach the boat on the nearest flat beach. Wind to our back or side. -------------I know that no racer would say that and do it. To heck with the race, boat, ego. Stay healthy for the next race. Is that to much to do?

Often with a well found sailing boat, if you're caught out in really bad conditions you are far better staying out. The water usually isn't the enemy, the land is. Remember fixed keel sailing boats beach too far out to self rescue in a storm and many ports are dangerous in bad condtions.

Bill H.

[Richard Petersen]

Ohh!! I only love to be a passenger on a small sailboat. Under 24'. I love the sound of the bow cutting and the lean in a tight turn. The constant attention it needs to run at maximum. NO earplugs at any speed. NO fumes when traveling in a group. I am having a horrible time finding anyone that can tell and help me design a constant deep V with a cleaver bow, a shaft & prop to lean in a turn as safely and enjoyably as a sail boat. I would even use cash or money. YOGI BEAR, Quote. Rich.

[sharpii2]

Hi Deepkeeler and others

This has been a very interesting thread. I've seen many valid arguements from both sides, and I have tried to learn from everybody. I, myself, have never ventured out of sight of land. I have, however, read about many who have. As events of the last few weeks have demonstrated, the power of the sea to destroy is almost infinite. What I think has been missing here is some sence of ballance.

I think it is possible to put some limits on the "egotistical maniacs"
(I prefer to call them 'extreme sportsmen') without totally ruining their day.

I would suggest, in the case of open 60's and thier like (including the notorious minis) that they be required to carry full foam floatation that is properly distributed for level flotation. If carefully designed, it would not only keep the boat afloat but also facilitate self righting, especially in beamier designs.

I would also require that the keels be strong enough to withstand four gravities of lateral loading and six gravities of vertical loading. Keels that break off, even in the extreme conditons of the Southern Ocean (which they are supposably designed to sail in), should be seen as totally unacceptable.

Rudders should be equally strong.

Survival suits should also be manditory.

My feeling is that if the stricken boat can stay afloat long enough, its crew could be rescued by a fellow competitor.

Also, I believe a beamy boat that has capsized can rescue itself by allowing some floading (made less risky due to the foam floatation) and thereby reducing its effective beam. The poor, beleagered, skipper would then, with waves pounding his vessel from all sides, have to pump the water out. Hardly my idea of fun, but this is for them, not me. Hopfully, this design strategy would be used for boats not much larger than the mini's. Of course, this strategy assumes that both the rudder and keel (with its ballast bulb) stay intact.
I believe that that an 'open style' boat without full foam flotation and adequate hull and appendage strength is like a NASCAR racer without a roll cage and safety gas tank.

I would also require that boats longer than say thirty feet and capable of sustaned plaining speeds be double handed. This is due first to the much higher performance levels these craft are capable of and second, to the fact that there are more people out there than ever before.

Having the race comittees required to post a search and rescue bond of a substancial though not punitive amount would, I believe, help cool the ardor for ever more extreme and perhaps dubious designs.

It has been said in this thread that the faster, more modern designs (like the open 60's) are inherently less seaworthy. From what I have seen this is clearly not the case. I followed an 'around alone' race a few years back on line. I 'watched' dumfounded (I read Marchaj's book too and am also partial to the long keel type) as the open 50's and 60's sailed right through the same waters at the same time as the Hobart fleet that was taking such a beating at the time. These 'open' boats didn't even slow down. They took some damage but, as I recall, not a one of them, at that place and time, had to either quit or be rescued. If thats not seaworthy, I'm afraid I don't know what is.

So what makes a 'seaworthy' (always a relative term) boat. I have a few suggestions:

1.) That it be strong enough and be able to take the pounding its likely to get in average storm conditions in the waters its expected to sail in. Many 'blue water' cruisers make it a point to stay out of the great Southern ocean. I think I would be one of them (bwuk,bwuk, bwuuuk :D ). Race committees should be given 'incentives' (search and rescue bond) to enforce almost absurdly strong scantling load rules.

2.) That the hull and appendage design be apropriat for the storm survival tactics that that vessel is likely to have too use. For instance, light, deep, short keeled vessels should all have long quarter buttucks and/or long flattish runs aft and rudders that are simular to the keel in depth. This way they can run from large breaking seas without having real tempermental steering characteristics. Just about every succesful 'blue water boat' I know of, from Spray and Joshua to the 'open' boats, has had this design characteristic.
Boats that are going to have to 'hull' or 'heave to' because they aren't likely to have sea room to give them the luxury of running should have longer, shallower (relatively), keels. Such boats may be able, if thier beam/length ratio is kept down, to have shorter quarter butts and more curved runs aft.

3.) That the skippers and crew be intimitly familiar with the vessel they are on in both type and actual example. They should know well in advance how their vessel is likely to behave in a given circumstance. I would further recommend that people who are familiar with one vessel type stick to that type (something a lot of 'blue water' skippers do). Or be prepared for some massive re-learning. A survival technique that will work well for one vessel type could well be disasterous for another.

Of course there is no practical defense against disasterously bad luck. That's why we need folks like Deep Keeler.

Well. Thats my two cents worth ;).

Bob

[Richard Petersen]

I Agree. There is no reason in the world why the USCG requires full foam flotation in all boats under 20' long. But NONE in a boat over 20' long.That is premedatated, knowingly endangering people. Insurance companies should stop insuring dangerous boats. It makes no difference what type of boat it is. A floating disabled boat, is always your best place at sea.

[SeaDrive]

This is probably an area where a law-created necessity could be the mother of boatbuilding invention. The first result would be higher-costs - it always is - but costs would come down at least some in the long run. There would be various variants on foam core and foam-lined construction to try.

On the other hand, you would save more lives with a sensor to prevent starting a powerboat when the driver has been drinking. One reason that flotation is not required in larger sailboats is that there are not many fatalities due to them sinking.

[Richard Petersen]

If a person who is a USCG member or a USCG AUX. would please tell us how many over 20' boats sink and how many people died as a result of being on board one that sank, it would open a few eyes a lot wider. Off and inshore waters claim a lot of lives in the states of NY & NJ. I watched Canadaian, USCG, USCG AUX, NY SP, 3 local police and dive teams waste and risk their lives because a 120 mph cigarette jerk ran over a shoal in front of a public beach on the ST. Lawrence River, flipped in the air, stuffed the boat to the 90' bottom with him jammed in it. They dove and risked their lives for a dead piece of meat. I am sure the the divers family have a very hard time living thru useless dives like that. Foam flotation would have prevented them from risking a clot or stroke for a dead body. Dead is dead. Do not cripple or kill those who try to save lives. Search the surface as long as needed. Closure for the original dead relatives is one thing. At the expense of another family, the divers, is horribly wrong.

[gggGuest]

Check out the fatality rate in round the world racing when it was done in more traditional style heavy displacement boats to the fatality rate in the Volvo 60 era. Which hypothesis does it support - that the traditional type is safer or the modern type?

[lakerunner]

He he he ... This is a great thread . Almost religious in context. This one digs deep.
As long as we push the back side of the envelope tragidy is sure to follow.
I agree with you Richard.. 1 week ago Three Young college students had a bright idea of climbing into a canoe to rifle down a creek during a flash flood in Arizona. Search and rescue risked their lifes to pull 2 of the bodies out ,while one Im sure sees life much more brighter then before. ( Devils Advocate) If I had sold them the canoe ,should I have asked them what they are going to do with it? Was the Canoe Faulty?
Will someone be Knocking on my door.........Who's the one going to get it for this.
It is silly in ways that are almost un believable . BUT.........................Who's at fault?
I bet there's one young fella that will think about it for a long long time.

[Richard Petersen]

Why is it we worry about kids grades in any level of education. But we, THE PARENTS, are to damn busy playing with OUR TOYS, to teach them safer boating, climbing, oh crap, everything they are going to try under, PEER PRESSURE. Nothing wrong with the kids! It's the parents who are screwed up!!!

[UFO 34 Owner]

can more detaiuls of John Wilson's story be given - Is " Storm off Iceland " a book title or just an article.

As an owner of a Holman & Pye UFO 34, I would really like to read his story.

many thanks

[guest]

can more detaiuls of John Wilson's story be given - Is " Storm off Iceland " a book title or just an article.

As an owner of a Holman & Pye UFO 34, I would really like to read his story.

many thanks


Hi
It was part of a collection of storm survival accounts compiled by Peter Bruce for his "Heavy Weather Sailing" book, not sure if it is in the book, but this account was published by Yachting World Sept 1999.

cheers

[Richard_A]

just a note to advise that Nicorette lost her mast in very mild conditions just off the Gold Coat ( Queensland ) while on a sponsors & promo sail - just shattered apparently about 1 meter above deck

[Richard Petersen]

Should have put the patch on before leaving.

[Hill]

Richard

Thats carbon fibre and the racing design mentality again. The continual rebuilds that some of these racing boats receive between each event are sorely needed.
In the old days a mast could outlast the hull, now in the quest for lightness=speed all is compromised in the safety-reliability stakes.

Arthur

[Richard Petersen]

:) I am starting to mellow on this thread. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[Richard_A]

hi paul - what year / yacht did you do the melbourne - osaka on ?

interested in your observations on the event

Richard

[mattotoole]

i've just looked at sydney hobart official site; may be it's just an impression, but it seems to me that most of the victims occurred among the maxi and the most hi-tech boats; there still a lot of "small" boat, i mean 34-40 footer, in the race, a lot cruiser/racer (bavaria, sydney, beneteau); it would be intersting to have a detailed statisctrical report about this issue. Maybe series design are getting sturdier and better than we think??

Mistral

I agree that production boats are probably getting better, but accident statistics probably have more to do with who's going to sea in numbers. Most production boats, like the ones you mention, never see real blue water.

[JimCooper]

I am happy to have found this wee chat. I have my own bee in my bnonnet on this score too. Its annoying to find that racing boat technology has influenced the modern designers to the extent that few are even offering heavy displacment boats and have no knowledge of their virtues.
A marine urban mythology pervades that light fast boats are the ones to have. Very few modern sailors can attest to the comfort of a deep narrow and heavy hull simply because they never tried it. I had no end of trouble finding a yacht with those desirable characteristics. Seakindly strong and forgiving is a good ocean voyager. Big fat and flat might work for a 70 foot beastie but youve got to hae conckers in your head if you think a 40 footer will tret you well with those characteristics.

[D'ARTOIS]

It was November, '82 - I was with my 40' Standfast (Frans Maas design) in West-Terschelling, one of the northern Dutch isles. We arrived in a blowing force 9, touching 10. This storm came out of the blue and nothing about it was forecasted. We had the boat turned with the bow into the wind, so that the waves that came crashing over the large dike that protects the harbor, hit us on the bow, rather than on the side.
The next day, it was a full 10, and matter of factly I had to leave. At that time, there were only 2 approaches to Terschelling, one through the "Zuider Stortemelk" and one to the "Vliestroom" in the direction of the Afsluitdijk where you have to cross the shallow "Waddenzee".

The fisherman along the quay, sensing my insecurity, tried to give me their best advise. "It's a southeasterly," they said, "the land is on your weather-side, so what are you waiting for?"
They were speaking of their experience in their high-powered fishing vessels, they had no idea how to sail a yacht. The approach through the channel of the "Zuider Stortemelk" is a narrow piece of water with banks on starboard and the beach on larboard. Probably 200-300 mtrs wide.
One mistake, and one mistake only, was enough to get beached.
Nevertheless I listened to those "experts" and decided to take the boat out to sea.
Having left the safe enclosures of the harbour, the jazz started to come up in de VlÍestroom, the wide Sealane between Vlieland and Terschelling.
I ran off wind making up to 8/9 knots sometimes surfing over the waves with genoa 2 and two reefs in the main. Even then, the boat ran too fast.
Approaching the Zuider Stortemelk I had to steer very close along the beach, not more than 50 mtrs away from the sand. Beachstrollers looked with horror,
at the storming yacht that took wave after wave. Finally I was amid a breaking sea. Everything around was white, foam and breaking waves hit the boat continuously, and suddenly a huge breaker hit the boat and came as a massive wall of water over me.
I had myself locked with two harnasses to the eyes bolted in the cockpit floor and I felt a strong suction when this wave finally lost its power.
The stern came up, but the bow didn't. I realised that I was in the middle of the breaking waves, fallovers everywhere and that the wind was blowing against the tide.
For a short time I thought that this was it and I was just waiting for something giving away, a hatch, the mast, whatever.
It did not happen. Once out of the claws of the breaking water, I had the
land on the weatherside.
The history repeated itself at the approach of the piers of IJmuiden, but grace to the heavy engine and 3-bladed prop, I could motor against the full gale.
I had the same experience 6 years later, sailing an Admirals Cupper from the same designer in the approaches to Den Helder, coming from Norway.
I am almost sure that a few times the boat climbed vertically the oncoming waves, the fisherman that ran with me had flooded their searchlights to guide me to the harbour entrance that I could not see because of the breaking waves and foam that hit me in the face and blinding me.

Just a story from the sea. For me no modern designs. I did the tour also with a Janneau Melody, that did nothing but broaching when I ran off-wind.

[SailDesign]

The great thiing about being a custom designer is that you get to draw what people want.....
If they don't want heavy, I don't "offer" heavy.

[D'ARTOIS]

I agree with you that you dispute never with your customers. Today it is Fun and Fast. People buying such boats never sail under the circumstances I described. People that do, have another kind of boats. It is as simple as that.
And the rest? Look at the TP52 thread and you see the result.

[MikeJohns]

Wonderful tale D'Artois add some sex a bit of espoinage and you'll have a best-seller !

Light boats can be seaworthy and stand up to the sea but they give thier occupants an intolerable ride. Its the accelerations of a light boat in a heavy sea that make her so dangerous and so poor. Accelerometers in one of the modern lighweight cruising boats in heavy weather (light beamy) gave repeated and continual vertical accelerations 0f 0.4G at this only the hardiest of the few can function at all.
In contrast the deep heavy narrower boats are generally under the 0.1G range. The heavier boat also has a heavier rig and this adds a massive inertia to both roll and pitching motion. Cruising in the modern lightweights is becoming a dash from location to location with voyage abandoning misery if any heavy weather is encountered.

The irony is that the larger the boat the easier she is to sail as her mass increases, this is opposite to the marketing hype and ill informed comment from magazine reporters, and worse still from many modern inexperienced designers.

I'll add a current tale here:
The vessel "Scaldis" a Dutch 40 ton riveted steel 50 foot ketch is currently plugging along in boisterous weather just south of Hawaii, they sailed from SanFran. and paused in Hilo Hawaii for only a few days. She is manned by a 37 year old two 70 year olds and a 2 year old girl. All are well. All this despite encountering Hurricane spin off weather . The vessel is well found strong and comfortable, by "modern" values she is under rigged excessively heavy and excessively strong, and yet they are not complaining.
Ordinary relatively inexperienced folk being looked after by the boat.

[JimCooper]

Saildesign

Trouble being that the people who come to you read the glossy magazines and the editorials of tests in sheltered bays far from the howling wind and building seas. In these sail tests the light fat flat boats perform just great and hae a cellar of room below decks full of fancy furniture and more double beds than a man could ever want. The real ocean is a bit different and few reviewers compare the boats in the deep blue sea. You are from these Isles yourself, I am sure you understand the heritage of our designs and the reasons and advantages for them.

The lightweight brigade could learn a thing or two from the crews of North sea fishing boats and the Lifeboatmen to be sure. I read open mouthed and aghast at marketing sales pitches where they talk of out-running the weather, and excellent sea keeping properties of 8 tonne 45 footers... They hae the brains of wee bairns and the experience too.

If you put a family as MikeJohns describes in a lightweight racing spin off in the North Sea in a storm then they'd end up in the helicopter if all went well. I hae never been ordered from my work to search for a stricken yacht but many of my friends have and some of the boats have been beyond the pale for the area they were in. The old men of the sea just shake their heads and mutter in their ale and claim salvage if they can keep a tow on without pulling out the stem.

Cheers
Jim

[sharpii2]

...I had no end of trouble finding a yacht with those desirable characteristics. Seakindly strong and forgiving is a good ocean voyager...

Probably for four reasons:

I.) they cost more to build per given accomodation,
2.)The nautical press and a few well known designers desparage them endlessly,
3.)they only win races when the lighter boats have all been sunk by the weather conditions, and, best of all.
4.)their original owners probably hang on to them.

George Buehler loves to design boats of this type. And he has commented that they make good day sailers as well as ocean cruisers because, for their size, they are so easy to mannage. George likes to build his boats as single chine hulls. But he likes to build them like battle ships. Ed MacNaughton also designs boats of that type. His are all nicely rounded with strip construction.

Bob

[D'ARTOIS]

I am getting towards my retirement, days clicking away in a superfast tempo.. there is still so much to learn...... as a spin off, talking about the oldies that still are going quite strongly: is there anybody that can tell me about the qualities of the (larger) Morgan yachts from the late '60-s early '70-s?

A late ('68) Morgan Sloop, 17 mtrs (55 or 56 ') is lying in California. The boat is much different in looks from anything we know in Europe. Nevertheless she has unbelievable charisma - the interior cannot match the quality of carpentry we are used to, nevertheless she is a beauty.

I would be very grateful to anybody in the forum have a look at this boat and tell me his/her findings. The name of the boat is Albatross and she is offered for sale by a yachtbroker in Ventura, Ca.
She can be Find at Yachtworld.com, accompanied by many photo's.

She has a very particular underwatership, not that we are used to - but I am not familiar with US oldies, therefore my question.....

Brien

[D'ARTOIS]

Correction: the name is not "Albatross" and she is registered in yachtworld.com as no YW # 1514-1203227

thanks

[Milan]

She looks typical for her era of CCA rule boats - quite heavy, optimized for light airs performance, short waterline, long overhangs. These boats are usually strongly built and very good value for the money.

Milan

[D'ARTOIS]

Thanks for your input Milan, I am totally unfamiliar with these kind of designs.

[crawdaddy031]

D'Artois, try to find this book. Desirable and undesirable characteristics of Offshore yachts, by tech committee of CCA. ISBN 0-393-03311-2. This will explain an enormous amount about these types of boats. Jim

[D'ARTOIS]

Thanks, Jim I appreciate your advise, but before I have this book - if I can get it at all - can you give me a bit more practical info?
Milan said something like "optimised for light air conditions" does that mean that this is a daysailer?
What is this type of boat? Can it cope with something like in the story of what happened to me in '82?

Thanks in advance,
Brien

[Milan]

Hi Brian,

No, they are not day sailers, they are able to take open sea, basic hull strength won't be a problem.

Optimization for light airs - Given that CCA rule encouraged long overhangs and short waterline and quite hefty displacement and prevailing light winds in most of the races in US areas in which these boats competed, designers searched speed in light conditions. To achieve that, they tried to minimize wetted surface. To our modern eyes, under water parts of these boats doesn't look particularly small, but they where for their time. (That was during transition period from the traditional long keels to the fins. Fins still had a long way to go to become main stream). They also had generous sail plans. So, what kind of characteristics can you expect from these kind of boats? They are fast in light zephyrs. With a little bit more wind they quickly achieve hull speed. After that, with stronger winds, sails have to be shorted quite early and they can't be driven much above theoretical hull speed. Try to sail faster then that and they just dig a deeper hole in the water and heel more. (Courtesy of short waterline and deep rocker). They are seaworthy in the blow. Having low prismatic coeff and short waterline, ends should be kept light to minimize pitching in the seaway.

Value for the money - if you compare the prices for the second hand boats, you'll probably find that similar amount of money that will you just a few years old 10 meters boat could buy 14 - 15 long CCA boat from the sixties. Old boats where much more strongly built then what is now the norm. Because of that, they tend to age very gracefully, at least fiberglass hull does, eventual wooden deck, hatches and similar are other meter. The best buy would be to find structurally sound boat in need of cosmetic upgrade and preferably ex racer which would be mostly empty inside. In that case one could quickly build basic interior and get big boat for a little money.

Milan

[Vega]

I agree with you that you dispute never with your customers. Today it is Fun and Fast. People buying such boats never sail under the circumstances I described. People that do, have another kind of boats. It is as simple as that.
.

Not as simple as that. A Malo, a Najad or an Atlantic cost 2.5 the price of a Bavaria or a Beneteau and that is a major setback. Most people don't have the money for that kind of boat.

This is an interesting thread.

To my view, good solid modern cruiser-racers, like x-yachts or J-boats, are not unseaworthy. The big difference with a heavy displacement boat is that they take heavy weather in a completly different way:

The light boat will need a crew, because she has to be sailed "actively" with a man at the wheel and requires expertise. If it is really bad, it will run with the wind at planning speeds at almost wave speed .
A heavydisplacement has to drag a lot of stuff behind and doesn't require a crew. The boat can take care of herself.

[D'ARTOIS]

Milan, thank you very much for your highly appreciated reply, I am seriously interested in the boat, but I was puzzled by her design, however so graceful.
Do not forget that I have to take her a long way back home. Your explanation declares the fact that her interior is "not up to standard" which means that she was converted from racer to cruiser.She has a nice teakdeck, almost flush and she has a simple small cockpit that will suit me fine.
I will see if I can post a few pictures.

Her theoretical hull speed will be around the 8.7 knots, a speed that is good enough for me, although she requires an autopilot to handle her single.
I will use the wintertime to get her back to Holland, or France, provided that she can make the voyage.

Now, another question arises. Probably this was a "class" boat as crawdaddy already established - I never heard of this class and the CCA doesn't ring a bell. I have never been involved in US racing as it is on the other side of the pond. But I want to know how she originally was equipped, so I have to dig in the istory of the Morgan Yacht company, in order to get back to her roots.

Again, thanks for your knowledge and opinion.

Brien

[D'ARTOIS]

In fact, Milan, this is the boat we are talking about

[Milan]

Hi Brien,

Nice looking boat! I saw her on the yachtworld.com. Price already looks reasonable, not to mention that you will probably menage to negotiate it even lower…

CCA (Cruising Club of America) rule was most influential American rule in the 50's and 60's. It has a lot in common with a British RORC rule from the same period.

These rules had theirs faults, (as all rules have), but they did tend to produce graceful boats. (Concordia yawl for example).

CCA started to loose influence at the beginning of 70's, with coming of fins and IOR.

Love your idea of buying the boat over the pond and sailing her to home.

Milan

http://www.morganyachts.com/

[D'ARTOIS]

That is, Milan what I understood. Hopefully the broker answers the questions I have mailed to him, it is my experience that US brokers are not that efficient as we are here in Europe, mostly they do not reply to your inquiries, however this one did. Most probably I have to go with a bankers draft in my hands to the US in order to get something of the ground. Let's see how it develops. There is of course the difference in time.
But I am used to handle incoming mail as soon as I am in the office and watch further 2 times per day, often more.

In any case, thanks for your support.

Brien

[CT 249]

It's funny, though, to see the sort of boats that have been criticised for being unseaworthy, unseakindly race machines over the years.

Here's a few press quotes from memory. Try to visualise what sort of boats could come in for these criticisms.

1- "a pitching fool". This Fastnet winner was bought by a new (and highly succesful) owner who dumped it on the market after one sail because it was too uncomfortable and too much of a racing machine. What boat could it be?

Answer - the Burgess schooner "Nina", Fastnet and Transatlantic winner of the 1920s, as described by Lee Loomis.


2- "a rolling fool". Considered too small and unseaworthy by race committees for long races, uncomfortable downwind. What very famous boat, what design?

Answer - Dorade, S&S yawl, described by Loomis (who generally favoured the type).


3- "modern boats are no damn good". In the intro by an article with a
famous designer/builder who declared
that modern boats also lacked sufficient lateral area, were hard to control, and IIRC had rigs that were too high in aspect. Oh, and they weren't any good for cruising either, he reckoned.

What rule was he talking about? What era?

ANSWER - Bob Derektor on CCA rule boats about 1966.


4- "Owners still speak of horrendous tales when these...boats are pressed hard downwind".

What rule was this famous yachting writer and succesful sailor talking of? What designers? What boats?

ANSWER - Masthead rigged, heavy IOR boats from Carter and S&S in 1971.

5 - What boat, shortly after winning a trans-ocean race, was lost when it hit rocks after being unable to tack? It's a hard one, I know. A hint - the owner's next boat, from the same designer, was pitch-poled in a later race. A crewman was lost according to some reports IIRC. What designer? What sort of boat?

ANSWER - The Colin Archer "Teddy".

6 - What was the age, construction and design of the boat that suffered the worst loss of life in the '98 Hobart?

ANSWER - The 1940s vintage carvel planked long-keel heavy displacement "Winston Churchill".

7- What was the construction and design of the boats that suffered the worst loss of lives in the '79 Fastnet?

ANSWER - Cold moulded timber and GRP, heavy/medium displacement like the Carter 33 Ariadne.


8 - What designer said that downwind sailing on one of his highly succesful British boats was "very hard, too hard, in fact, and no fun at all"? What era? What design?

ANSWER -Olin Stephens on his C 1965 RORC boats.

9 - A champion 40 footer of 17,000lb (heavier than some others) but with most of that weight concentrated into the keel by the use of a balsa core hull, the head and hanging lockers un-enclosed, even the cabin sole made of strip planks with gaps to save weight. What rule? What year?

ANSWER - About 1966, CCA Rule (Red Jacket IIRC).


So all through the history of ocean racing, people have been looking at the boats of their time - whether CCA, RORC, early IOR, IRC, IMS - and saying "they're damn dangerous things, things were better in the old days".

[JimCooper]

Aye Mr CT ?

you wrote a lot of words , entertaining too but its today we are talking and its not much of an argument for what goes on here.

The old wooden heavy boat in the Hobart sprung a plank and went down so I'm told . So thats no fair comparison for hullform stability or safety of hull design. None of us would favour the older carvel or even clinker style wood boats and their construction either. Entering the hours from the bilge pump in the log each watch...i ha been there too... aye you can keep your old timber boats.

As for colin Archers I would agree I find them too full and beamy prone to a very nasty pitching to windward in a short sea and too much modern mythology on their superiority. They were probably the best in their day. We can do better and worse today and I think thats what all this is about: comparing the different options available.

There are many light and able yachts that I consider fairly seaworthy and safe but only once they get over 60 feet, even then they are young peoples boats and they need to be driven hard to keep their feet. This suits the racing man but I have tried heaving too it these modern designs and its not nice. That these larger ones are succesfull seems to be a trend to scale them down and when you get to the 30 to 40 footer she just hae not the length the strength nor the depth to get away with it in the rough.

Aye its fast but I seem to think that is what this thread was about. If you get stuck at sea in a modern wee light boat modelled on the bigger sisters in a nasty storm then you will not be a happy wee man, and I really expect that you would be waiting for rescue with hope.

I am retired now I have spent my life at sea as both a fisherman and a cruising sailor mainly to our northern isles to Norway and the Baltic too. I ha also delivered 11 boats from South Africa to Southhampton including some too modern yacht designs for my liking.

I have felt real fear often enough to understand the need for a heavier slower stronger and more seakindly hull. I will probably insult you I'm sorry but I presume you have little real experience and hang out with a racing meinie, and thats where your view comes from.

Cheers
Jim

[sharpii2]

It's funny, though, to see the sort of boats that have been criticised for being unseaworthy, unseakindly race machines over the years.

Here's a few press quotes from memory. Try to visualise what sort of boats could come in for these criticisms.

1- "a pitching fool". This Fastnet winner was bought by a new (and highly succesful) owner who dumped it on the market after one sail because it was too uncomfortable and too much of a racing machine. What boat could it be?

Answer - the Burgess schooner "Nina", Fastnet and Transatlantic winner of the 1920s, as described by Lee Loomis.


2- "a rolling fool". Considered too small and unseaworthy by race committees for long races, uncomfortable downwind. What very famous boat, what design?

Answer - Dorade, S&S yawl, described by Loomis (who generally favoured the type).


3- "modern boats are no damn good". In the intro by an article with a
famous designer/builder who declared
that modern boats also lacked sufficient lateral area, were hard to control, and IIRC had rigs that were too high in aspect. Oh, and they weren't any good for cruising either, he reckoned.

What rule was he talking about? What era?

ANSWER - Bob Derektor on CCA rule boats about 1966.


4- "Owners still speak of horrendous tales when these...boats are pressed hard downwind".

What rule was this famous yachting writer and succesful sailor talking of? What designers? What boats?

ANSWER - Masthead rigged, heavy IOR boats from Carter and S&S in 1971.

5 - What boat, shortly after winning a trans-ocean race, was lost when it hit rocks after being unable to tack? It's a hard one, I know. A hint - the owner's next boat, from the same designer, was pitch-poled in a later race. A crewman was lost according to some reports IIRC. What designer? What sort of boat?

ANSWER - The Colin Archer "Teddy".

6 - What was the age, construction and design of the boat that suffered the worst loss of life in the '98 Hobart?

ANSWER - The 1940s vintage carvel planked long-keel heavy displacement "Winston Churchill".

7- What was the construction and design of the boats that suffered the worst loss of lives in the '79 Fastnet?

ANSWER - Cold moulded timber and GRP, heavy/medium displacement like the Carter 33 Ariadne.


8 - What designer said that downwind sailing on one of his highly succesful British boats was "very hard, too hard, in fact, and no fun at all"? What era? What design?

ANSWER -Olin Stephens on his C 1965 RORC boats.

9 - A champion 40 footer of 17,000lb (heavier than some others) but with most of that weight concentrated into the keel by the use of a balsa core hull, the head and hanging lockers un-enclosed, even the cabin sole made of strip planks with gaps to save weight. What rule? What year?

ANSWER - About 1966, CCA Rule (Red Jacket IIRC).


So all through the history of ocean racing, people have been looking at the boats of their time - whether CCA, RORC, early IOR, IRC, IMS - and saying "they're damn dangerous things, things were better in the old days".

Dear CT:

Pretty good examples of the 'bad' points of just about any kind of sailboat ever raced. It seems that whenever we get rid of one 'bad' we replace it with another. The CCA rules encoraged short waterlines, deep, heavy, ballast, and tall rigs. I can imagine these boats were deadly in tacking duels. But running down wind in high seas in one of these would not be my idea of fun. Too likely to broach or even pitch pole.

Next up, we get the IOR types. Long waterlines, short keels, and seperate spade or skegged rudders. But along with that came wide beams, shallow underbodies, and pinched ends. Very good in light to moderate winds, But, alas, had a tendency to become un controllable when they surfed, which, due to their low L/D's they tended to do a lot.

Then. Along come IMS. Sanity at last. A boat that is likely to surf being able to do so much better, with its full stern and flat run aft and nearly retangular plan form aft the beam. But along with that came the deep bulbed keels, super light hulls, and high roached mains, which now, together or apart, introduce a much higher likelyhood of structural fallure. It will get you through the storm if it holds together

So heres my idea. Why not take a IMS hull form, build it to CCA scantlings, put a nice IOR fin and rudder on it, and give it a Colin Archer Ballast/Displacement ratio and low aspect ratio sail area. Now you've not only made it much stronger, but you have reduced the concentrated stresses as well. And, if that's not enough, you have made a boat that can go pretty damned fast in the right conditions. And do so safely.

Too bad we can't sea lawyer us up a rule that would encourage that.

Bob

[Vega]

.....So all through the history of ocean racing, people have been looking at the boats of their time - whether CCA, RORC, early IOR, IRC, IMS - and saying "they're damn dangerous things, things were better in the old days".

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Nice research.

[Vega]

Dear CT:

So heres my idea. Why not take a IMS hull form, build it to CCA scantlings, put a nice IOR fin and rudder on it, and give it a Colin Archer Ballast/Displacement ratio and low aspect ratio sail area. Now you've not only made it much stronger, but you have reduced the concentrated stresses as well. And, if that's not enough, you have made a boat that can go pretty damned fast in the right conditions. And do so safely.

Bob

To understand better what you propose tell me if these boats go along that drift, and if they don't, why not.

http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberichte/powerslave,id,312,nodeid,10.html
http://www.zaadnoordijk.nl/c-yacht/engels/titelpagina/frames/cframe.htm

http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberichte/powerslave,id,82,nodeid,10.html
http://www.najad.com/najad_yach_400_specs.asp

http://www.maloyachts.se/Default.aspx?tabid=114

[sharpii2]

To understand better what you propose tell me if these boats go along that drift, and if they don't, why not.

http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberichte/powerslave,id,312,nodeid,10.html
http://www.zaadnoordijk.nl/c-yacht/engels/titelpagina/frames/cframe.htm

http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberichte/powerslave,id,82,nodeid,10.html
http://www.najad.com/najad_yach_400_specs.asp

http://www.maloyachts.se/Default.aspx?tabid=114

Yup. Pretty much. I'm not into slow just for slow's sake. Fast cruisers can and should exist. For the right people. I'm just not one of 'em. Streaking through the sea blind at 6kts is scarry enough. I can't imagine doing it at 12.

When I worked at a stamping plant, I ran a prog die. Running it fast improved production, but encouraged accidents. I was often seen either speeding the machine up or slowing it down. The bosses would threaten to fire me, but later learned to wink. I had a motto back then. It went like this: "As slow as I have to: as fast as I dare".

If its strong enough to be dropped on its side from a 9m height into water without anything breaking, its strong enough for me.

What I think is more important than the design itself, is the skipper's understanding of it. heavy weather techniques that are life savers on one hull type can spell disaster with different one.

Thanks for the links.

Bob

[D'ARTOIS]

I can only speak for my own expieriences, but I have had some scary ones. Sailing at force 7 in the Biscaya area is one of the moments I shall not forget.
There, I would have admired a faster and lighter boat than the ferro-cement yacht I was sailing in - that could not be moved in any given condition faster than 5 knts.I a stron gale, I landed in the breakwaters of the Dutch Isles. Grace to the tough construction and seaworthiness of the boat, I survived and came out of it undamaged.
On an other voyage, also in the Biscaya area, we fell from a wave, causing the rupture of one of the engine brackets and the similar thing that happened to the gasoil reservoir.....

In the sealane Dover-Wight ourengine packed up and there was no wind at all....
I had to warn ships to give us a wide berth.....luckily hey did.

In Torrevieja, Spain, I ran aground - during my sleep the autopilot stopped working......

Those things I described could all have been with a fatal ending.

My parents used to donate the Rescue Societies because they were always afraid that one day I might use them.....

If you set sail in a boat, nobody can give you a written guarantee that you will come back. Much depends on your own seaworthiness and of course the condition of your boat.

One boat is more suited for oceanfaring than the other - that is sure.

John Rousmanière's book, "Fastnet Force 10" showed that the people who were involved in the fatal accidents, were not the seamen they thought they were. Or, had bad luck, maybe they were not used to heavy weather.

We sailed at force 8/9 in the Detroit of Gibraltar, going around Puenta Europa,
hitting the Med like we were going down the staiways of the Empire State
Building in an Aluminium bathtub.
We were sailing a Contessa 43, that belonged to my mate, who was soundly sleeping through al this violence around us.
Then we smashed into a wave and the boatspeed was reduced to 0 and on top of that I heard a loud bang followed by a dense uttered comment of my mate, who opened a hatch and screamed what for the .....ll I thought I was doing.
I said "Just look around and see for yourself!"
Seeing the turmoil of water around he said "Good night", and closed the hatch.

I remember clearly that this Contessa, desinged by Jeremy Rogers, was one of the most delightful boats I have sailed.

If you know the can's and cant's,if you know yourself and your boat, you stand a better chance than people that don't fit these requirements.

One of the first cruising books I red was about a Dutch boy that sailed in a rebuild rescue-boat to the Marchesa's; it was in the 50's I believe.

The very expensive Gipsy Moth IV (or V?) specially designed for Chichester's voyage along the Clipperways, malfunctioned hopelessly and his book about this voyage is one big series of complaints about the shortcomings of this design of Illingworth and build by Camper & Nicholson.

What to say?

The elderly couple, in their monster of a cat, do they stand better chances than for example, Airmarshal Maurenbrecher, who sailed from Holland to Australia in a 9 mtr something Oranjebloesem?

What about Herman Janssen, who sailed as Maurenbrecher, single handed around the world in his 9 meter Van de Stadt's "Sounion".....

So many stories about people sailing smaller craft and doing that perfectly safe....

It's not always a matter of the boat, it's a matterof the man too.....

[sharpii2]

Thanks D'Artois for your magnificent sea stories. Your writings about your experiences are a delight to read.

There are a lot who can talk the talk but not all that many who have walked the walk.

I'm one of the former category. When the movie "The Perfect Storm" came out, I went to see it. I damn near walked out. Not because it was bad, but because it was good. Some of the storm scenes were just too convincing.

I have often thought of making an ocean passage myself. If I do, it will probably be in a boat of my own design. There will be two reasons for this.

One. Ego gratification.
Two. I am unwilling to risk anyone elses life to my, possibly, faulty enginering.

But now, the older I get he more reluctant I get. I'm afraid that in my first storm, the first crack of lightning will have me ready for training pants.

Bob

[MikeJohns]

Ah Chris
Still plugging away ?

It's funny, though, to see the sort of boats that have been criticised for being unseaworthy, unseakindly race machines over the years.

Here we have some recorded opinions, opinions are free Chris everyone has them but factual informed comment is harder to find, opinions may or may not be correct.

You also continue to confuse historical heavy boats with contemporary designs, they are not the same. Many things relating to hull design and materials have changed we can reduce roll picting oscillation and get lower centres of gravity with stronger hulls. Well engineered and safe for the relative majority of the inexperienced sailing fraternity.

Here's a few press quotes from memory. Try to visualise what sort of boats could come in for these criticisms.

1- "a pitching fool". "Nina", Fastnet and Transatlantic winner of the 1920s,
"a rolling fool". Dorade, S&S yawl, described by Loomis
Getting a bit far off in time CT I wonder who the fool was or in what context these comments were made?

3- "modern boats are no damn good". Bob Derektor on CCA rule boats about 1966.

Pity they didnt listen to him, the Faastnet disaster wouldn't have happened

4- "Owners still speak of horrendous tales when these...boats are pressed hard downwind".

Masthead rigged, heavy IOR boats from Carter and S&S in 1971.

You can also scan through the magazines of the day and find the accolades

5 - What boat, shortly after winning a trans-ocean race, was lost when it hit rocks after being unable to tack?
The Colin Archer "Teddy".

Surely this is a poor skippering decision too and I see enough modern racers screwing up their tacks. But we are not advocating a return of these hulls as ideal either.

6 - What was the age, construction and design of the boat that suffered the worst loss of life in the '98 Hobart?

The 1940s vintage carvel planked long-keel heavy displacement "Winston Churchill".

Not an argument just a diversion that you keep dishing up....why ?

Understand hull construction not hullform , didnt float upside down for 3 minutes. Sank after its plating fell off.


7- What was the construction and design of the boats that suffered the worst loss of lives in the '79 Fastnet?

ANSWER - Cold moulded timber and GRP, heavy/medium displacement like the Carter 33 Ariadne.

Hullform not construction or displacement, I have not checked your displacement (heavy medium) but would suspect they were medium and -medium/ light

Racing rules (IOR) produced a new breed of racing and racing-cruising boat that was little more than a big, wide dinghy with a stability range as low as 90 degrees. The waves in the storm rolled over a great many of these smaller boats ( low roll inertia ) that then capsized and stayed upside down. (poor stability curves)

Note Nothing to do with displacement also note that the largewr boats in the fleet were not inverted or rolled , only the smaller boats .


8 - What designer said that downwind sailing on one of his highly succesful British boats was "very hard, too hard, in fact, and no fun at all"?
Olin Stephens on his C 1965 RORC boats.

Has this changed ?

9 - A champion 40 footer of 17,000lb (heavier than some others) but with most of that weight concentrated into the keel by the use of a balsa core hull, the head and hanging lockers un-enclosed, even the cabin sole made of strip planks with gaps to save weight. What rule? What year?
ANSWER - About 1966, CCA Rule (Red Jacket IIRC).

So?

So all through the history of ocean racing, people have been looking at the boats of their time - whether CCA, RORC, early IOR, IRC, IMS - and saying "they're damn dangerous things, things were better in the old

days".
At least IMS put the stability up to 120 . Why did it take the fastnet before designers and rule makers listened to the engineers ?

You will find more accolades than detractions in those same journals but these arre just opinions gathered to suport opinions.

In 3 minutes I found more positive material for these same boats than I could possibly type. So I am not sure exactly waht you are presenting here? The odd reported bleat from a dissatisfied commentator on a bad day.

Where are the hull data the crew experience levels the stability curves. The analysis of each disaster, this is what we do forensically in engineering after a failure it's called the scientific approach.

In the Fastnet Storm there were small cruising boats not in the race in the same areas of the storm who fared well when the smaller racing boats were killing their occupants. This is the sort of comparison we need to look at closely. Marchaj has reported often enough on this.

[CT 249]

Jim - 5 Sydney-Hobarts (2 on a '60s RORC rule design, 1 on a '70s IOR mastheader, 1 on an '80s fractional IOR, 1 on an IMS boat), 2 Sydney-Noumeas (maxi and 42' heavy displacement cruiser), delivery trips, etc etc etc.

I may not have your experience but I do have some. There are people more experienced (in terms of miles under sail) than you and I who sail things like Open 60s, so if it's a simple calculation where the most experienced sailor is correct, we're both probably wrong!

:-)

Mike -

I'm not saying all those boats were crap. Nor am I arguing against modern medium displacement boats. Nor am I arguing for things like Beneteaus, Open 60s or current IMS boats.

What I AM putting up is the fact that we all tend to see things in a way that supports our own beliefs (confirmation bias) and what is seen as a perfect example of a boat today may have been considered a pig in its day. Similarly, the boats that we often look back at with nostalgia were often derided in their day. Therefore, AS YOU SAY, we must be very careful and not just go "ahhh, boats were better then".

Current New Scientist has a report which states that major storms have become much worse over the past 20 or so years. It's not the first such report. That is a scientific study. Staff from the Bureau of Meteorology's Severe Weather Department tell me that they have not studied to see whether (for example) the bad Hobarts of the '50s were as bad as the bad Hobarts of the '90s. They consider it possible. Therefore it is possible that problems with boats recently may be due to worsening weather. It may sound like a cop-out, but there is scientific evidence and that's what you want.

The man you called "the fool" was (Alfred) Lee Loomis. Loomis was a Transatlantic racer back in the '30s, had the J Class Whirlwind, was on the winning Admiral's Cup team of 1961, did many Bermudas. As an inventor or amateur scientist (after he made many millions on Wall St) he was a prominent figure in experimental physics, and moved to run a joint operation with MIT. In WW2 he headed the Microwave Committee (one of the major radar developers) and iinvented LORAN and blind-landing systems. GUys like (IIRC) JK Galbraith regard him as brilliant, not a fool, as apparently did people like Fermi, Schrodinger, Feynman etc. Roosevelt described him as second perhaps only to Churchill as the civilian most responsible for the Allied victory in World War II.

By your lofty standards he may be a total fool who lacked a shred of scientific nous......to me he seems OK.

The quotes come from his early classic book "Ocean Racing".

About "- "modern boats are no damn good". Bob Derektor on CCA rule boats about 1966.

Pity they didnt listen to him, the Faastnet disaster wouldn't have happened".

Sorry, Mike, can you explain why Derektor's comments on mid '60s CCA boats relate to an event which occurred to very different craft over a decade later?

Re the Fastnet storm. How many smaller cruising boats were in the area. There were 116 boats in Classes IV and V in the Fastnet. Surely to be scientific we cannot look at the bare numbers of boats that got into trouble, we must look at the % and one may doubt whether there were 116 small cruising boats over the Labadie Bank at the time. Therefore a comparison is simple numbers is surely flawed. Unless there was a reasonable number of cruising boats in the area we cannot compare their experiences. BTW, there was a fat, light J/30 in the area which got through OK.

I believe the lightest boats in the Fastnet were Siska, Police Car, Acanitto, Saracen and Karena (Tasker maxi, fractional Dubois & Joubert 2 tonners and Farr 1104 racers respectively) which had no real problems and IIRC at least 3 of the 4 finished happily ( I don't know whether Karena and Saracen finished). Therefore any statistical link between the true lightweights and major problems may be hard to find.

" Racing rules (IOR) produced a new breed of racing and racing-cruising boat that was little more than a big, wide dinghy with a stability range as low as 90 degrees."

I don't know of any IOR boats with such a low LPS. I was present at the S-H inquest when the LPS for Naiad was discussed and IIRC she for example had an LPS of around 112 - much higher than 90. Yet Naiad was a more radical IOR boat than any of those in the '79 Fastnet I believe.

Of the 5 lightweights I think were in the '79 Fastnet, Police Car and 1104s like Saracen and Karena still do Hobarts (although Australian 1104s need a keel bulb of about 50kg IIRC as they have more freeboard and therefore a higher C of G than Saracen and Karena) which proves they have an LPS closer to 120. Accanitto is now a cruising boat and has been cruising two-up around the Pacific for about 12-9 years, with almost no modifications from new. Little evidence of a lack of seaworthiness according to her crew.

You say "The waves in the storm rolled over a great many of these smaller boats ( low roll inertia ) that then capsized and stayed upside down. (poor stability curves)"

When you say "a great many" capsized and stayed upside down you don't chime with my memory of the official Fastnet report (which referred to them as "B2 capsizes" IIRC). I believe that Ariadne, Gunslinger and Grimalkin may have stayed inverted for some time, yes. That's three small boats out of 116 in Class IV and V (mainly 34' and less).

RORC's statement states that "strangely, the Class V yachts were not as badly hit as classes III and IV" and points out that the death and sinking rate was better in Class V than in III and IV.

Let's look at the boats that lost crew, or sank.

CLASS III (mostly about 37') 63 starters.

Festina Tertia - Contessa 35 (smaller version of the Contessa 43 that D'Artois just called "one of the most delightful boats I have sailed."). Rolled to 150 degrees (crew estimate), lost one man overboard (harness may have snapped).

Trophy. Non IOR boat (H & P 37). Rolled, dismasted, abandoned, crew got into raft which fell apart. 3 deaths. Boat later recovered.

Cavale - 1 death. No info..

Veronier - ditto.

Only 2 boats sank - 1 Peterson OOD 34, 1 other.

CLASS IV . 58 starters.

Ohlson 35 Flashlight - two crew deaths. At 3.7m beam on 10.5 and designed as a fast cruiser, the Ohlson was not a radical IOR boat. See

http://www.michellippens.nl/newsfiles/137.php

or attached pics for views of these dangerous stripped-out fat IOR boats...because of course moderate cruiser/racers never get into trouble. :-)

Carter 33 Ariadne - cold moulded sister to the Australian Carter 33s. They still do Hobart in stock form so the LPS is obviously quite high (C 120 IIRC). They are more conservative than (say) a Peterson, more like a UFO 34.

4 men lost after inversion and abandoning into liferaft which fell apart. Boat found later.

Gringo - sunk. No info.

Class V (about 30') 58 starters.

Grimalkin. Holland Jubilee 30. Two lost, one drowned when boat was inverted, one heart attack. Boat survived.

Gunslinger. Hustler 32. Inverted, recovered, liferaft went overboard, one man climbed into it to secure things and then raft painter snapped. Boat survived.

Maligawa III - sunk. No info.



RORC report states that that the 5 boats that sank were "medium light to medium heavy...not extreme". This was before the shift to light IOR boats had caught on in the UK, and only 2 of the 40+ Admiral's Cup boats were fractional lightweights (Police Car and Accanito) so "medium" in those days meant something like a Peterson, Carter, S&S or Cole.

Yes, I understand perfectly well about Winston Churchill (was there when testimony was given at the inquest, etc). But while it may be unfair in some ways to point to her as she was lost through structural faults possibly caused by age or old construction methods, it is also unfair to point to modern boats that were lost because they were poor examples of lightweight construction, and use them as evidence that modern boats are unsafe.

BTW, the Swanson 42 Mintanta was also lost in the '98 Hobart. I think there were about 4 long keelers in the race, 2 sank. OK, it's not a scientific study but neither is the Fastnet.....or the very bad Biscay race Adlard Coles writes about, when long keelers were lost....or Syd Fisher saying he was happier on his IMS Farr than he would have been on his S&S boat in the '98 Hobart.

Erling Tamb's loss of Teddy was poor skippering, perhaps. Dunno about Sandefjiord's problems. Tambs had sailed half-way around the world and was a former seaman under sail so he was no idiot. However, once again anyone who tries to excuse a problem with an old boat by saying it was poor skippering, must also allow people to excuse problems with newer boats (ie Fastnet) by saying that too was poor skippering.

I am not saying current "standard" designs are great boats. Not in any way do I applaud something like a Beneteau 40.7 as perfect for deep ocean sailing. All I'm saying is that there was no golden period when all boats were perfect, all boats have their problems and sometimes we only see the flaws in the boats we dislike, and only see the good points of the boats we love.

Like you I would like to see a scientific study of the problems, and safer, slimmer, stronger boats. But the scientific studies of capsizes after the '98 Hobart (in Launceston) produced different results to those done around the '79 Fastnet. So the "scientific studies" are neither infallible or in agreement.

If test tank studies were infallible, no America's Cup boat would ever be slow. The IMS rule would work perfectly. But the test tank is not infallible and therefore a "scientific study" that relies on such surely should not be regarded as definitive evidence for a much more complicated problem ie survival at sea.

[Paul B]

John Rousmanière's book, "Fastnet Force 10" showed that the people who were involved in the fatal accidents, were not the seamen they thought they were. Or, had bad luck, maybe they were not used to heavy weather...

I think you will find this true of almost all reports of problems at sea. It has little to do with "light" boats. In the Fastnet that everyone is continually pointing to, the top scoring Admiral's Cup boat was the Peterson designed Rogers 39 Eclipse. She was one of the smallest and lightest boats in the Admiral's Cup fleet. Eclipse was also the top scoring boat overall for the AC, so was obviously crewed by decent sailors. Also high scoring was the Dubois Police Car, a lightweight 2 Tonner (IOR) fractional rigger.

How is it that many of the books written by "heavy" boat sailors are always full of drama, and how they "and their heavy boat" came through it. If THEY knew what they were doing there would be a lot less drama, eh?

One well known writer always seemed to be kedging his "heavy yawl" off of whatever he put it on. Maybe if he wasn't such a hack he wouldn't have been relying on his heavy construction so often. But that wouldn't make for much in the way of books.


We were sailing a Contessa 43, that belonged to my mate, who was soundly sleeping through al this violence around us.
Then we smashed into a wave and the boatspeed was reduced to 0 and on top of that I heard a loud bang followed by a dense uttered comment of my mate, who opened a hatch and screamed what for the .....ll I thought I was doing.
I said "Just look around and see for yourself!"
Seeing the turmoil of water around he said "Good night", and closed the hatch.

I remember clearly that this Contessa, desinged by Jeremy Rogers, was one of the most delightful boats I have sailed.

The Contessa 43 was not designed by Jeremy Rogers. It is actually a Peterson pin tail "lightweight", "rule beating", "unbalanced rig", "pinched stern", "IOR Grand Prix Race Boat".

Nice to hear that someone found it to be a good sailing boat.

[D'ARTOIS]

Well, it was a delightful boat to sail. Only I thought it was a Rogers design, nevertheless we did our monthly whisky run from M'Diq to Gibraltar, where I had also to unload the spare cash of the club I was working for, and that boat sailed as like an eel in a bucket of jelly. Even in this bloody gale. When it storms in the Strait of Gib, you have all kinds of freaky waves caused by the two currents that run against each other.
We had a sudden emergency case in the club, of a girl that had some inflammation in her womb and that had to be brought to the military hospital in Gibraltar very quickly. The Contessa was the fastest option and we covered the 35 nm in about 5 hours time, helped by a strong westerly.
No, I have only good memories of that boat. I wouldn't mind to do it again!

[Vega]

About sea stories and heavy boats...late August, this year, I have passed Gibraltar strait, going out of Med, with 30 knots headwinds. I was motorsailing and doing some lousy 3.5 knots (I only have done that because I had to reach home quickly to start working and the next day the weather forecast was even worse).
Anyway, except a very well manned and powerful motorsailer, I was the only sail boat going against the wind. On the contrary, coming in the opposite direction I came across a lot of sail boats, I believe 8 boats. From these boats, only two (light weight boats) were sailing. All the others, mostly heavyweight sailboats were motoring, without any sail. Most of them, if not all, with a lonely skipper at the wheel (I suppose the wives were below, probably seasick).

When I passed Gibraltar strait going to the Med, in July, my 17 year old daughter was at the wheel of our 36ft light displacement boat (only the two on board) and we had similar conditions (wind on the back, about force 7). The boat was surfing between 8 and 10 knots and I can tell two things, it was absolutely safe, and I have yet a lot to learn as a sailor.

What is the point? well I guess that many of the people that are sailing out there really know very little about sailing (one of the things I found astonishing is to see, in days without any wind sailboats with the main sail up, but already furled, probably in anticipation of some frightening strong winds). Most of these sailors, if they can, they will buy a used heavyweight sailboat, even if they will only go on coastal waters and never with more than 15 knots of wind.
Most heavyweight sailboats that I see in the water are motoring. Normally when there is enough wind for them to sail properly, they stay in the Marinas.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that a heavyboat is safer in extreme conditions, only that with a heavyweight, out of the trade winds, you sail very little and very slowly and motor a lot.

[JimCooper]

Jim - 5 Sydney-Hobarts (2 on a '60s RORC rule design, 1 on a '70s IOR mastheader, 1 on an '80s fractional IOR, 1 on an IMS boat), 2 Sydney-Noumeas (maxi and 42' heavy displacement cruiser), delivery trips, etc etc etc. ....................

............. But the test tank is not infallible and therefore a "scientific study" that relies on such surely should not be regarded as definitive evidence

Sheesh fella you can type eh?

They say your Name is Chris , I am no typist so I 'll keep it short.

Chris
I am not casting aspersions or beating my breast, it is just that when you live on the ocean you see so many men and so many boats in the waters in this part of the world you realise that many of the designers as well as the sailors have little experience. Ive seen recently a new fancy million pound yacht towed in upside down that flipped in the Kreken and stayed that way. Where is the sense in a boat like that ? That she made it across the Atlantic didn't make her seaworthy.

As for ye diatribe all the observations are nought if you cant separate out the boat from the experience of the crew. An unseaworthy design can be made to stand the storm by a tribe of experienced fit and knowledgable sailors, but the 3 peatcutters who just qualify for experience in their wee light racing shell who hae never seen a gale let alone a storm who suddenly find themselves lost and alone out there in the black hell...,
Surely they need the hull that will keep them hale till the gale has passed? That is what many do not get ...just what it can be like. As I said before real fear not dandy helmsmanship and fancy surfing, just survival.

Your observations must be objective laddie its too easy by far to be subjective as you say in your post.

The Pole Marchaj mentioned before who you seem to dislike is much liked around these waters for his great work on the North sea fishing boat tragedies. All his work was done wi models in the tank at southampton. Those tests showed up the fatal flaws in our boats. He went on to show that many of your racing boats were a little compromised too, he also confirmed my own observations and experiences with different hull types.

Come on mon you have to at least admit that tank testing is a good indicator if not the bee all of boat performance eh?

Cheers
Jim

[MikeJohns]

I'm not saying all those boats were crap. Nor am I arguing against modern medium displacement boats. Nor am I arguing for things like Beneteaus, Open 60s or current IMS boats.

I am arguing against them, this is the horny old question here what exactly are you arguing for?

What I AM putting up is the fact that we all tend to see things in a way that supports our own beliefs. Therefore, AS YOU SAY, we must be very careful and not just go "ahhh, boats were better then".

Thats exactly what we are trying to do with objective scientific approaches like tank testing.

The man you called "the fool"
Actually I was implying that the racing crew were forcing the boat on a course that made her pitching abominable.

By your lofty standards

Thanks


Re the Fastnet storm. How many smaller cruising boats were in the area. There were 116 boats in Classes IV and V in the Fastnet. Surely to be scientific we cannot look at the bare numbers of boats that got into trouble, we must look at the % and one may doubt whether there were 116 small cruising boats over the Labadie Bank at the time. Therefore a comparison is simple numbers is surely flawed. Unless there was a reasonable number of cruising boats in the area we cannot compare their experiences. BTW, there was a fat, light J/30 in the area which got through OK.

As Jim said before it is almost impossible to work from this sort of basis since every boat was not sailed by the same experience level


" Racing rules (IOR) produced a new breed of racing and racing-cruising boat that was little more than a big, wide dinghy with a stability range as low as 90 degrees."

Dynamic stability as calculated by Stronhiemer, Marchaj, and Wolfstan tests in 79. (I think also reported in Fastnet force 10)


When you say "a great many" capsized and stayed upside down you don't chime with my memory of the official Fastnet report (which referred to them as "B2 capsizes" IIRC). I believe that Ariadne, Gunslinger and Grimalkin may have stayed inverted for some time, yes. That's three small boats out of 116 in Class IV and V (mainly 34' and less).

I should have said a great many capsized and some stayed upside.......

Yes, I understand perfectly well about Winston Churchill (was there when testimony was given at the inquest, etc). But while it may be unfair in some ways to point to her as she was lost through structural faults possibly caused by age or old construction methods, it is also unfair to point to modern boats that were lost because they were poor examples of lightweight construction, and use them as evidence that modern boats are unsafe.

Do they fail because of construction or because of the massive loads on a lightweight hull suddenly in a situation not envisaged. By my (lofty) standards the factor of safety for many of these boats in critical areas such as rig attachment is inadequate.


BTW, the Swanson 42 Mintanta was also lost in the '98 Hobart. I think there were about 4 long keelers in the race, 2 sank. OK, it's not a scientific study but neither is the Fastnet.....or the very bad Biscay race Adlard Coles writes about, when long keelers were lost....or Syd Fisher saying he was happier on his IMS Farr than he would have been on his S&S boat in the '98 Hobart.

In comparisson just as a plug for the fuller profile while we are observation mode: the deep narrow pilot boats that evolved in the UK, engineless, and often spending days on station in appalling weather suffered almost no loss at all over decades.

I am not saying current "standard" designs are great boats. Not in any way do I applaud something like a Beneteau 40.7 as perfect for deep ocean sailing. All I'm saying is that there was no golden period when all boats were perfect, all boats have their problems and sometimes we only see the flaws in the boats we dislike, and only see the good points of the boats we love.

Let me help you find the good aspects of heavy strong stable powerful cruising hulls of modern design !

Like you I would like to see a scientific study of the problems, and safer, slimmer, stronger boats. But the scientific studies of capsizes after the '98 Hobart (in Launceston) produced different results to those done around the '79 Fastnet. So the "scientific studies" are neither infallible or in agreement.

If test tank studies were infallible, no America's Cup boat would ever be slow. The IMS rule would work perfectly. But the test tank is not infallible and therefore a "scientific study" that relies on such surely should not be regarded as definitive evidence for a much more complicated problem ie survival at sea.

One of the leading proponents of wave tank testing for safety is our own Martin Renilson (AMC) he continues to research capsize mechanisms for yachts. Capsize is a complicated dynamic event , he argues for the dynamics of vessel motion to be incorporated into stability regulations.

To quote him "wave tank testing should be used to provide safer ocean going yachts" he has six papers on this subject some in conjunction with Hick, Cook and Tuite.
He lambastes the rise in metacentric height of racing yachts as the means for the power to carry sail.



We appear to have much common ground ... a mutual dislike of Benetaus for one, I wince when examining damage on some of these boats and wonder how the designer can sing the accolades of his creation when it is such a poor and unsafe vehicle.
The 390 is a classic in unsafe design only suitable for crossing oceans in good weather ( to quote the Marine accident inestigation branch UK) Becasue of the loss of conservatism in design.

The big concern remember is human life, and I would add ; comfort.

[CT 249]

I agree that human life is very important, Mike. I've had enough memorial services for sailors I've known. Even the racers could learn from Formula 1, which now places such priority on safety/

I'm not qualified to judge Martin Renilson's work, it looks cool. It also (IIRC) contradicts Marchaj/Southampton in some respects which is why I approach tank tests with caution.

My ideal is a moderately slim, moderately light but very strong boat with a bulb keel. It would use modern materials to increase strength, not reduce weight too much (say 2200kg on a 28'er, like my current older boat...actually she's already fairly strong ie 16mm cabin sides so you could probably go lighter). The keel (lifting for cruising?) would have a fairly long root (4' on a 28'er??) and be solid enough to suffer no damage should we again hit a sunfish at 12+ knots in a 31'er.....that's where much of the extra strength of modern materials should go. The rudder would be designed (transom-hung breakaway?) to inflict no damage on the hull in such a situation.

Stability can still be high - my own boat couldn't actually have the self-righting test measure attached because 7 guys heaving on halyards around a cleat on the dock couldn't pull her over far enough, yet she's not too heavy. The bulb and weight concentration would not be as extreme as on some modern boats and the lines would be more seakindly so motion would be much better. Rig would be tough fractional because I enjoy them, they go well and they keep people off the bow.

Interior would be "proper" seagoing. The rig would be fractional with a wide stay base to reduce compression loads. Carbon stick may be used but the adnantage would be taken in superior strength for similar weight, not so much in lighter weight.

Most of all, diesel, metho stove (and heater for Hobart?) and FULL FLOTATION (either in well-arranged and tough air tanks, or foam) for safety. She would still surf, would control easily, would be "tweaky" and fun to race, not as roomy for her LOA as a Beneteau but comfortable, not as fast for her LOA as an IRC racer but still fun to sail.

Sure, the greed for speed is a bad thing, but the idea that all was better in the old days, or all could be better if only boats were heavier, does not seem to ring true from all I can see. It doesn't seem to be that simple, and furthermore in the real world I can't ever see people going back to heavy boats. They MAY however go a long way to vastly safer light boats.

I think you can get vastly enhanced safety without going too slow, heavy, large and expensive. I think you'll find the #1 health problem to be older unfit sailors and therefore I worry about making offshore racing more expensive so only older workaholics can afford to own boats.

I'm cautious about assuming that heavier boats designed by engineers are necessarily safer - I think the first 3 accidental (ie not heart attack) deaths in the Hobart came from boats that were designed by people who (IIRC) were engineers (Joubert Magpie 34 "Billabong"; Stienman 52 "Flying Colours"; Kaufman Northshore 38 "Yahoo II"). Sure, the deaths were not related to the design per se (1 was it by the boom, 1 by a block during a dismasting, 1 went overboard) but none of the 3 were radical IOR boats.

Basically all I'm trying to say is that it's not just a case of IOR or racing boats or boats designed by non engineers being bad, and all older or heavier or cruisier boats or boats designed by NAs and engineers being good.

Maybe we need less conservatism because that tends to be (or may be perceived) as anti modern boats???????? Maybe we need a LESS conservative point of view that sees the bad (and good) points of old boats, and the good (and bad) points of new boats?

[Milan]

It's actually quite easy to design light boat which could provide ultimate safety. Hull - thick foam with thick structural skins, maybe with kevlar and similar for puncture resistance. Full flotation and narrow hull with deep fin and resulting positive stability to 180 degrees.

In these days of full TV coverage of ocean races it's getting more difficult to keep insisting that slow, heavy displacement boat is only way to sail safely. Look at those boats in the roaring forties! They just keep racing in conditions which most of us would consider a survival storm. Also, when you see how hard these boats are driven there is little to complain about structural strength, even when something brakes occasionally. If exposed to such stresses, many strongly built traditional boats would suffer structural failures too.

Milan

[sharpii2]

It's actually quite easy to design light boat which could provide ultimate safety. Hull - thick foam with thick structural skins, maybe with kevlar and similar for puncture resistance. Full flotation and narrow hull with deep fin and resulting positive stability to 180 degrees.

In these days of full TV coverage of ocean races it's getting more difficult to keep insisting that slow, heavy displacement boat is only way to sail safely. Look at those boats in the roaring forties! They just keep racing in conditions which most of us would consider a survival storm. Also, when you see how hard these boats are driven there is little to complain about structural strength, even when something brakes occasionally. If exposed to such stresses, many strongly built traditional boats would suffer structural failures too.

Milan

True. True. But those boats are basically going down wind. They are designed to go primarilly down wind at great speed (up to 28kts!). As long as they keep moving fast and in the direction of most of the waves, they will be OK. Wouldn't want to be in one of 'em with a lee shore in my path.

Besides, I think the issue here is not so much that light boats are bad. They clearly are not. There is plenty of evidence based on many passages both famous and not so famous It's that extremely light, go fast at any cost, boats are bad. Particularily low cost production knock outs of such boats. I would feel much safer in a counterfeit escort than I would in a counterfeit porsche. These ultralight speed machines must be carefully engineered to be strong enough and even then they are not neccessarily designed for a long life.

Basing 'boats for the masses' on these things seems to me to be inviting disaster. They may move from owner to owner, shedding parts along the way, until the last owner finds himself with an unseaworthy, unfixable wreck that still looks like a viable boat. It seems that the boats from earlier eras (pre late IOR) aged more gracefully than newer models. Many of the late fifties to mid sixties boats are still in use and still in good health wheras the late seventies and eighties boats, I've heard from some surveyers, are having trouble.

When I went to The Landing School, the class took a feild trip to a yard that specialized in building carbon fibre sandwiched hulls. They needed special cradles lest the poppet pads poke through the eggshell like hulls. Ultralight construction is complex and prone to difficult to repair failures. The 'Open 60' class is a prime example of this. When these things get into trouble, they can cause very costly and risky search and rescue efforts. And often by countries , such as Chile, that can least aford them.

I think the thing to look for is is whether or not it has a good range of stability, rugged but relatively simple construction, and a skipper who knows how to handle her in the worst conditons. Older designs, because of their vast underwater areas, great inertia due to weight, and heavy construction could simply stop sailing and simply take watever punishment the sea could deliver. The crew then could crawl below, batten down the hatch, and wait for conditions to improve. It would face being rolled just as the light boat would, but it would usually recover sooner and roll less often.

Maybe that was the mistake made during the '79 Fastnet Race. Light boats being handled as if they were heavy boats. With their relatively shallow hulls, wide beams, and very small keel areas, I can imagine they got bounced about quite a bit. I read, in fact, that many were abandoned not because they were sinking, but because their 'furniture' broke away from thier hulls along with knife sharp GRP tabbing. And all of this scooted about inside a wildly girating dark cave of a hull which, even though not sinking, had plenty of water in it.
Kind of like riding a barrel full of lose axes and kitchen knives down a waterfall.
It seems that the boats that kept sailing, correct me if I'm wrong, did better.

One boat, 'Grimalkin' I believe, had two sick crew members left behind by their three more fit mates. They were left to die in the cockpit. One of them did. The other was rescued the next day in a mastless, upright, and still floating boat (somebody please tell me if that boat was later repaired and put back into service). Still in the cockpit. Still in his safety harness. The three crew mates were lost along with their raft.

I do remember reading about an incident where one 'open 60' skipper went to the aid of another whose mastless, keelless, but happily upright, boat was sinking. He got here just in time. And he had to go upwind in storm conditons (are there any other kind in the 'great southern ocean') to get there. He said he was amazed that his boat held together and that it was like driving a truck with square tires.

I think your proposed boat would do well safety wise but would not be competetive with her beamier, lighter sisters, speed wise.

And that's the problem.

Bob

[CT 249]

(EDIT - I checked press reports and Bob's recollections of Grimalkin were better than mine I threw down earlier. Thanks Bob. Here's the story from RORC).

Re Grimalkin. She was running udner bare poles (ouch) and the skipper was down below on the radio when he was hit by a tin of food. He lapsed in an out of unconsciousness from time to time.

The boat was then rolled and stayed upsides down for 2-5 minutes. One of the crew cut the skipper's harness but the skipper floated away.The two others trapped under the boat were found unconscious when it righted itself and assumed dead. The three fit mates who left were taken out of the raft by helicopter and survived. The boat apparently rolled later, reviving one of the guys and partly reviving the other. One of the sailors got them both back aboard but the other died later. I think a certain well-known sailing journo, then a teen, was the youngrest man on board - the skipper's son, if I recall correctly (but I may not).

It's a nasty story, but the official report states that the study showed "little indication of any relationship between ballast ratio or length/displacement ratio and vulnerability to knockdowns" but there were "trends towards, for instance, wide boats being prone to knockdowns past 90 degrees".

I know a bunch of guys who were in that storm. They all sailed through, rather than just sitting and waiting to get hit like Grimalkin. They all got through with very little damage. But still, make 'em light, tough and skinny (ish) sounds the right way for me.

Agreed about Open 60s; I've only sailed one once but the designers and sailors seem to say that they are NOT good upwind in nasty stuff and are NOT all that hot structurally when it comes to going upwind. Nor are they much chop when it comes to accidental groundings, or round-the-bouy races if it comes to that.

If you're talking about my proposed boat, she would (I think) be an IRC killer because IMHO the IRC favours slim boats (see the results of maxi canters, BB10s, Adams 10s, the 1909 Fife Eu Na Mara which won the Australian title, the Folkboat that had repeatedly won the biggest IRC afloat, etc etc) and we all know it favours comparatively stable boats.

[SailDesign]

Agreed about Open 60s; I've only sailed one once but the designers and sailors seem to say that they are NOT good upwind in nasty stuff and are NOT all that hot structurally when it comes to going upwind. Nor are they much chop when it comes to accidental groundings, or round-the-bouy races if it comes to that.
Fortunately, the Open class boats (of any length) were not intended to do many of these things. If the Aground Alone or Vendee Globe courses had moe upwind in them, then the boats would be designed and built to go upwind better - not that they are slouches upwind in the right conditions.
As far as groundings and around-the-buoys stuff, well, Formula 1 cars make lousy commuters, too :)
Steve

[CT 249]

Yep, we know WHY they weren't "designed to go upwind better", but the fact remains that they weren't, doesn't it?

The comment about round-the-buoys and grounding was aimed at the fact that some people seem to think that the Open boats are inherently superior for "normal" ocean racing which includes stuff like the typical Fastnet, Hobart, 180 milers, Spi Ouest, Chesapeake Bay High Points etc. Open 60 supporters have spent lots of time talking about the way the Opens can move at top speed through the southern ocean and surely another view can be put forward?

I'm no expert but guys like Scott Jutson and Andy Dovell seem to know their Open boats and upwind performance. Scott's True Blue was a good upwind boat (doesn't it still hold the 50' AA record?) and Andy's Xena has possibly done more "conventional" ocean raciing with success than the other Open 60. Yet both have said that the Open style is NOT as good around the buoys as "conventional" boats.

Which is fine, they are specialist boats, but quite often Open supporters seem to translate being better at singlehanding through the Southern Ocean into being a superior OVERALL design concept and (not that I'm an expert) that doesn't seem to apply in reality.

[Paul B]

Quick Quiz:

Which of these boats has a lighter D/L ratio? The well known "heavy cruiser" Kelly/Peterson 46, or the "lightweight" 1986 Farr One Tonner?

[CT 249]

Hmmmm, looks like a design 185 or 187, they were IIRC about 12,800 lbs IOR Disp. but of course that's less than true disp and it varies from boat to boat and from config to config. Dunno about the Peterson 46 - but isn't the fact that we traditionally calculate DLR from waterline length a bit misleading when we're dealing with boats with substantial overhangs like the Farr?

Both nice boats. I think they really underline the difficulty of analysing real seaworthiness. The 2 Farrs that sank with loss of life (BP Naiad and the Japanese one in the Kenwood) make them sound bad, but there are literally dozens of these Farr 40 IOR boats running around the oceans and pushing hard, aren't there? I think one year the S-H had 14 of them or so, so the chances of some getting into trouble are statistically much higher than the Peterson 46 (only 3 have ever entered Hobarts IIRC). I use the S/H only as an example, of course.

And IIRC the Melbourne (Aust) Farr 40 1 ton design 136 "Paladin" finished the Around Alone. She was a fairly standard boat of her day, very competitive (ie one of our reps in the Southern Cross Cup internatjonal series). Singlehanded racing around the world in a 40'er with no problems (IIRC) AND the ability to go upwind seems a good advertisement for a boat.

It's all so confusing....... :-(

[MikeJohns]

It's actually quite easy to design a light boat which could provide ultimate safety.

Ultimate stability I think you mean, and I would take you to task on “easy”

it's getting more difficult to keep insisting that slow, heavy displacement boat is only way to sail safely.

Why does heavy have to be slow? Speed depends mainly on stability to carry sail, wind strength, sail area, and waterline length these are all far more relevant than Cp, WSA and displacement.

Look at those boats in the roaring forties! They just keep racing in conditions which most of us would consider a survival storm.

They need to, to maintain stability, they are also racing remember. The courses and weather routing are to try and ensure a favourable course.

Also, when you see how hard these boats are driven there is little to complain about structural strength,

You havent seen the disasters then? How long do you think they last before being extensively rebuilt.

even when something breaks occasionally. If exposed to such stresses, many strongly built traditional boats would suffer structural failures too.

Stresses are actually lower in a boat with a higher roll inertia. Also consider hull flexure imposed stresses.

Milan
Heavier means we can build stronger and more rigidly , it means we have more inertia to damp the accelerations of the waves and the boat is therefore more comfortable, We are not so restricted in weight for topsides, decks, superstructure and rig so we can design them far stronger and still have excellent stability while maintaining high strength.

Heavier means you can stow all the cruising gear and not make the vessel unsafe. It means you can stow all that gear and not make the vessel slow.

It means you can ground, collide with and be towed off a sandbank or reef without major structural damage.

For cruisers grounding is an inevitability of life, so are mistakes, you will sooner or later end up running into a rock or colliding with something significant. Too many modern hulls are simply too light to stand the stresses thus imposed and will need significant repair after such an event.

[CT 249]

A couple of queries, Mike;

(Oh and to others who object to the length of these posts - 1, you do not have to read them (2) these are not simple issues.)

About "Why does heavy have to be slow? Speed depends mainly on stability to carry sail, wind strength, sail area, and waterline length these are all far more relevant than Cp, WSA and displacement."

Can you please provide us with information on fast heavy boats of the style you are advocating? While heavy boats can move well, I would be interested to know of those that have demonstrated racing performance (in terms of elapsed time) that can compare with good lightweights.

I know many owners of heavier raceboats are VERY vocal that they don't get enough rating reduction for the extra displacement they cart around. An example of the superior speed of light boats could be the old half tonners (just because I have a chart handy). The first Farr was a tiny 27'er. Compared to East Coast 31s, Cavalier 32s etc she was 5' shorter, about 50% less stable, carried 70% of the sail.

So the Farr had less of the factors you count as speed producing, yet she was clearly faster. Sure, there were some rule trade-offs but the lesson has been repeated time and time again. Rating rules give very generous credits for those who add weight. Going to my handy chart again I see that adding 4" forward depth (about 600 lb to a 7300 lb boat) to an old half tonner gained it 48ft2 of sail - close to 10%. But the boat with the bigger rig was slower.

Personally I agree that heavy boats can be fairly quick on a racecourse and it's fun to see because they offer choice and diversity. They are also very competitive under IRC - but I can't find any that keep up (on elapsed time) with comparable lightwieghts. One example may be the Swan 45 - sophisticated and well campaigned but, IIRC, similar in speed to the lighter and smaller Farr 40 and not competitive with the IC 45 which is older but lighter.

Secondly, why are "stresses ....actually lower in a boat with a higher roll inertia."? And don't quite a few designers of various objects, from 747 wings on down, use flex as a way of handling stresses?

I'm not attacking you, merely asking for more information as this is not an area I'm really familiar with and I would like to learn more.

[Paul B]

Hmmmm, looks like a design 185 or 187, they were IIRC about 12,800 lbs IOR Disp. but of course that's less than true disp and it varies from boat to boat and from config to config. Dunno about the Peterson 46 - but isn't the fact that we traditionally calculate DLR from waterline length a bit misleading when we're dealing with boats with substantial overhangs like the Farr?

Both nice boats. I think they really underline the difficulty of analysing real seaworthiness. The 2 Farrs that sank with loss of life (BP Naiad and the Japanese one in the Kenwood) make them sound bad, but there are literally dozens of these Farr 40 IOR boats running around the oceans and pushing hard, aren't there? I think one year the S-H had 14 of them or so, so the chances of some getting into trouble are statistically much higher than the Peterson 46 (only 3 have ever entered Hobarts IIRC). I use the S/H only as an example, of course.

And IIRC the Melbourne (Aust) Farr 40 1 ton design 136 "Paladin" finished the Around Alone. She was a fairly standard boat of her day, very competitive (ie one of our reps in the Southern Cross Cup internatjonal series). Singlehanded racing around the world in a 40'er with no problems (IIRC) AND the ability to go upwind seems a good advertisement for a boat.

It's all so confusing....... :-(

Design 185, yes. The displacement number I have is slightly more than you quote, and the IOR DSPL was generally 10% or more less than the true displacement.

OK, it was a trick question. Of course the Farr boat is lighter. However, drop on the crew weight and the boats become VERY close in D/L. The KP46 being so close to the "full race" boat would surprise most people, especially since it is often compared to "crab crushers" and hailed as one of the great world cruisers.

You are somewhat correct on the overhang issue. Both boats have substantial bow overhangs. The IOR boat definitely has more useful stern overhang. The point remains, one of the much admired world cruisers from 20+ years ago was really a "light" boat (in the "Racing" scale according to some of the books written around the time). There is no reason that with design and technology advances a boat built today can be lighter still without problems.

Racing and Cruising are two different things, and people need to keep that in mind in these discussions. You push a race boat much harder than you would your home in similar conditions. Also, not all people on a racecourse are skilled sailors, hence problems like the Fastnet '79.

I remain in the opinion that ANYONE going offshore should be bonded to cover the cost of their rescue. Why should I, or the residents of Chile or the UK or Aus or NZ have to pay for people who go ill-prepared off on their dream. This includes singlehanded racers (who are actually breaking the law, another subject) and mom-n-pop cruisers.

[D'ARTOIS]

That is, a rock hard conclusion and justified till it's last word!
We remember Isabelle Autissier clearly, who came into a sort of distress, caused by the ill designed/manufacturing of her boat when she was finally rescued by the brave Aussies who envoyed a frigate to her rescue.
When the claim came in, a zilth fraction of the real cost - the French party remained silent, never paying their debts.

Let them die in piece - they are not worth the trouble, it cruel, it's hard, but very soon it is reality.

[Paul B]

That is, a rock hard conclusion and justified till it's last word!
We remember Isabelle Autissier clearly, who came into a sort of distress, caused by the ill designed/manufacturing of her boat when she was finally rescued by the brave Aussies who envoyed a frigate to her rescue.
When the claim came in, a zilth fraction of the real cost - the French party remained silent, never paying their debts.

Let them die in piece - they are not worth the trouble, it cruel, it's hard, but very soon it is reality.

I don't think anyone should be left to die, but they should be responsible for thier actions. The racers get a lot of attention, but there are more rescues of non-racers every year. Some are even in "heavy" boats.

[Paul B]

It's actually quite easy to design light boat which could provide ultimate safety. Hull - thick foam with thick structural skins, maybe with kevlar and similar for puncture resistance. Full flotation and narrow hull with deep fin and resulting positive stability to 180 degrees. Milan

Be careful about discussing THICK foam cores. Cores can and do shear. The thicker the core the more difficulty it will have in shear resistance.

I believe end grain Balsa is much better in shear. The naysayers will point to the many poorly built boats with balsa problems, rather than look at the well built balsa boats that have been around for more than 30 years without a soft spot to be seen.

[D'ARTOIS]

I take my responsibilities. Next to shore, ok, i'll fire a rocket or so. But in distant waters, like Isabelle's 40'th circular, no - I'll take my loss - no way that I will cry for help!

That's me.

[Vega]

I don't think anyone should be left to die, but they should be responsible for thier actions. The racers get a lot of attention, but there are more rescues of non-racers every year. Some are even in "heavy" boats.

I have seen recently a televison documentary about Rescue situations. The subject was the dayly work of a French rescue life-boat and they have filmed a lot of real situations along the French coast. What has impressed me was that in almost all the situations, it was just inexperienced sailors that have just got a little bit of unpleasant weather and panicked. I didn´t see really stormy conditions and I have even see a boats being towed to port. In that one the 50/60 old skipper said that we has alone with his wife, that it was too windy to sail and that the motor of his boat could not go against the wind and the waves (trying to make way to a port), so he sent a mayday.

Each year there are more calls for help, costs are increasing and I believe that it is inevitably that something changes...and it will not be for better.

[SailDesign]

This post is not really germane to the recent posts in this thread, but I have been trying to decide for days now what it is that annoys me about this whole thread. And I think I have figured it out...
It's the title! " The egotistical quest for an expensive thrill" Anyone planning on designing custom boats for a living, or even for a hobby, had better get used to the fact that your customers are going to have bigger bank balances, and bigger egos, than you do (OK, that last one may not always be true, but mostly). It is a fact of life, and anyone who cannot live with that fact should not be in the custom design market. Or, at least, will not be happy in that market for long.
So - back to your regularly scheduled thread contents.
Steve "rant over"

[JimCooper]

........... I have been trying to decide for days now what it is that annoys me about this whole thread................It's the title!
"The egotistical quest for an expensive thrill"


Aye Steve
I ken ye mon.
A god marketing attention grabber carefully thoughtout guaranteed to irritate and attract. But good worthy thread all the same.


Cheers
Jim

[sharpii2]

A couple of queries, Mike;

...About "Why does heavy have to be slow? Speed depends mainly on stability to carry sail, wind strength, sail area, and waterline length these are all far more relevant than Cp, WSA and displacement..."

...Secondly, why are "stresses ....actually lower in a boat with a higher roll inertia."? And don't quite a few designers of various objects, from 747 wings on down, use flex as a way of handling stresses?...

Dear CT:

On your first question. Heavy boats are usually slower for two reasons

One. They push water aside rather than skim over it. In 'skimming over it', light boats are also pushing water aside, but to a much lesser degree. And the amount of energy needed to push the water aside varies with the square of the velocity. What this means is is that when the wind picks up, the heavier boat that is, say twice the displacement on the same Beam and WL, must do four times as much work to go the same speed. It is making much bigger waves than the light boat. Even if it had twice the sail area it still wouldn't be near enough.

Two. The heavier boat usually has a lower Prismatic Coefficient (CP) than the light boat. Boats with lower PC's have less drag at low speeds (which they usually sail at) and corespondinly more drag at high speeds. The heavier boats are designed this way, so they can have a higher average speed. Since they generally can not go over 1.34 x (WLft^0.5) in knots, the only way to do this is to make them faster in light winds. This is where the low PC comes in.
The light boat often has a higher PC. This is because, for its length and beam, it can carry much more sail in relationship to its weight. The higher PC, therfore, does not slow it down much in light winds. but really improves its strong wind capability. Light boats often surf and sometimes plane. These two options are denied the heavy boat. So, in any reasonably typical race, the light boat is far more likely to have a significant advantage over the heavy boat than the other way around.

Now for your second question.

What we are dealing with here are accelerations. Accelerations are changes in linear speed. The higher the acceleration, the more energy required. And the energy required is the square of the acceleration. To put this in human terms. Say you walk into a wall at 1m/sec. You might get a slight bump in the head. Now walk into that same at 2m/sec and you will probably get a concussion. The reason for this is is because, even though you are hitting the wall at merely twice the speed, you are actually hitting it four times as hard.

Now, getting away from walls and onto boats. Say a wave hits the side of your boat. The hull is going to move. But the mast and keel, which have not been hit, are going to want to stay right where they were. They are only going to move because they are attached to the boat. And the attachmet points, the stays and keel bolts, are going to take the strain. So if the boat is moved twice as fast by another wave, the stays and keel bolts are going to experience four times the strain.
A heavy boat, by virtue of its greater weight per surface area (remember my example here: twice the weight for the same Beam and WL), is going to be moved less by a given wave. Say, for simplicity's sake, half as fast. If this is true, its stays and keel bolts are going to experience one fourth the strain per weight. The wave did not hit it with any less force, but the energy was used in turning the wave into spray and stoving the side in rather than shoving the boat aside. (Its energy was also used in sweeping its happless deckhands over the side as well). Heavy boats have heavy construction for good reason.

This principle is very counter intuitive. My dad's light airplane was able, according to its specification manual, to bank into much tighter turns when it was loaded than it was when it was nearly empty.

Imagine my dismay when I first read that.

Hope I have answered your questions.

Bob

[jam007]

"What we are dealing with here are accelerations. Accelerations are changes in linear speed. The higher the acceleration, the more energy required. And the energy required is the square of the acceleration. To put this in human terms. Say you walk into a wall at 1m/sec. You might get a slight bump in the head. Now walk into that same at 2m/sec and you will probably get a concussion. The reason for this is is because, even though you are hitting the wall at merely twice the speed, you are actually hitting it four times as hard."

Not quite. The energy is to the square to the speed not acceleration. You need the same amount of energy for a low acceleration as for a high. The important part is the difference in speed you end up with. The force is the mass times the acceleration. Energy is also force times distance. If you walk into a brick wall you will as stated absorb four times the energy at 2 m/s than at 1 m/s and end up with a concussion. The force will be four times if the collision depth (the distance the wall and head are compressed) stays the same. The force will probably be less than four times the 1 m/s force due to increased compression.

But the important message about heavy boats lesser acceleration and terefore stresses on fittings and crew is correctly described

[D'ARTOIS]

I won't have neither of the two - nor light nor heavy. I have sailed in a 1937 build wooden boat that was faster than any of the modern boats in the club, even that she had an old fashioned rig, my mate and I could lick the field by a couple of boatlengths although we started a hour later than the clubracers.

A longkeeler, not that narrow, reasonably deep, 13.50 mtr x 3.70 x 2.10 she sailed a bit heavy on the helm (she had e helm, no wheel) but al those boats in that sort of length are heavy on the helm. In 25 knots wind she did 7,5 knots running up to 8 in the gusts.
It was at that time that my taste started to develop for the more classic designs.

I have sailed an ULDB that was just like riding a racehorse, though not unfamiliar to me it was a hefty ride in a hefty boat, that needed changing fore triangles often to maintain her high speed of 11 knots. Nice for the time being but fatiguing on a large haul.
I a boat tires you, eating up your energy, it is there where she can become or may become right out dangerous.

For the day sailor, the weekenedr, the hobby sailor, the light boat is nice, as it is for the ultimate racer who wants to win races. Those boats are basically designed for their purpose.

Today, boats are designed to purpose. Here, in Holland we have to deal with the North Sea, where heavy winds are prevailing most of the time. Mosts of the yachts stay therefore on our large interior sea, the IJsselmeer.

If you want to form an opinion about the lighter boat, try the North Sea in a 30-35 knots wind. Sail then from Iceland to Rotterdam and if you have had a pleasantride, I would be the first to congratulate you with your boat.

[MikeJohns]

A couple of queries, Mike

merely asking for more information as this is not an area I'm really familiar with and I would like to learn more.
Chris



I think we keep plugging away on diametrically opposed tacks here. I am not involved with racing yacht design, (nor do I have your knowledge of the performance of vessels in this field). I want to see good performance strong safe cruising hulls.

I do think you work at a tangent when you try toanalyze the suitability of hullform/design simply on the statistics of the racing fleets. Comparing racing boat results is tempting but the problem is of course separating out the crew experience level and the rule advantages.

A heavier powerful hull design for racing will not necessarily have a rig that shows her to her best advantage. But a rig that gives her the best rule compromise. This I would I think would penalize her in light air. I suspect that is where the complaints arise about the ratings from racers with heavy boats.

The racing boat designer always calls the toss on the light side of scantling sizes, the opposite sides of the coin are strength and lightness. Lightness wins because the lighter boats will always be faster in her maneuverability higher acceleration after rounding each buoy, the gained time for example in faster tacking and re-filling the sails and getting back up to speed can amount to a considerable advantage over the course.


For the record we are using ‘Heavy ‘ pretty loosely here and I think the true heavy ie DL ratio over 350 has its place as a comfortable small seaworthy cruiser but as the vessel gets bigger the D/L of around 300 can give a strong able performer. The champion racer Finisterre had a DL of over 400 (which is extreme) but she was still fast . The SAD ratio takes the increased form resistance due to D into account and is a good guide to the relative power available from the rig , but this is meaningless unless she has a sufficient RM for HM max.

Modern heavier designs generally have more form stability than their predecessors of 20 years ago. As an interesting example Some of Bill Gardens cruising designs were raced with line honors but to quote Bill himself (under CCA rules) "we raced on the basis that if a competitor was visible astern as we crossed the finish line then we lost on points) this does not foster further development of those boats for racing, and as they can be improved upon for cruising the design had little future”.

But we have been over the effect of the rules on design before!

As for stresses

Dynamics is a complex subject, some of the calculations can be challenging. Basically the higher the inertia (and the fluid damping) the lower the accelerations and the lower the dynamic loads on many parts of the vessel. However as I said it is a complex field.

Flexure

….is a result of the stresses, the amount of elastic deformation within a certain safety margin determines the load that can be safely applied. It’s not used as a means but is the result of handling the load induced stresses. Unexpected flexure will often put very high stresses on parts of the structure not designed for such loads. Whether the scantling rules give sufficient guidance for the non-engineering background designer is debatable at times. Commonly with heavy weather and insufficiently rigid boats we see failure of internal bulkhead/hull attachment and furniture attachments, chain plate attachment points, and often hull deck joins (as every boat repair yard knows to their profit).


Another problem with flexure is the cyclic heavy loading. The wracking forces in a seaway coupled with highly stressed local areas that are suffering fatigue can lead to events which will tear a boat apart. A common problem we are seeing lately is the de-lamination due to shear stresses in the hulls of many foam core materials as the stressed glues fail. Light designs are also seductive to the boat builder because they use less material for a given length.

The sail away cruising yacht pushed as a cruiser-racer is the output of a hard pressed industry that cuts corners and is very happy to minimize material . They are aware that only a small percentage of buyers actually use their yachts at all for sailing of this group only a few percent will actually go offshore. The so called cruising sailor the industry targets is really a day-sailor. For ocean work he gets inadequate stability, compromised strength and rigidity and poor durability.

It is a rational economic call to build cheap and fix /payout for problems for those buyers who have structural failures than to design and build for true ocean work. In turn the marketers push this style of boat and in turn the magazines sing their accolades because the whole carnival rotates on economics rather than merit. There is little consumer protection in this industry and I think a lot of mis-information at times.

Heavier boats represent a good platform to design a strong durable and forgiving hull with a good interior volume and load carrying capability, that also performs well. Forgiving means being able to sail away after you have been pulled off the reef you hit at 7 knots, it means not exhausting the crew in heavy weather, it means coping with tons of gear poorly stowed without becoming dangerously unstable or slow. It means being able to heave-to for periods to affect repairs at sea or await daylight.

I asked a fast talking salesman at the Brisbane boat show what he thought the chances were of being able to heave-to in a fin/bulb beamy hull, he replied “ No one heaves to any more” This represents to me the willful ignorance of the whole industry, the lack of real seagoing experience once again, at all levels from the designer to the purchaser.


As an aside but true to the thread which we are wandering off:



Where are we going when offshore racing officials have been considering escape hatches for upturned mono-hulls as a safety feature!

[D'ARTOIS]

What you have said before Mike, is unfortunately the reality of today' s yachtbusiness.
Straightforward negative reports are absent in any Yacht's magazine - I have had not so long ago a discussion with one of my cascobuilders who advised me to drop a specific well known design from a Dutch design-bureau and using instead another design from another designer because his specifications were more solid and preferrable above the better known design-bureau.
Of course, the calculations of the design-bureau were good: but only just!

AND,

it is not a matter of price only. Those people in the production boats do have large overheads and require hefty profits to keep them going. They have to advertise internationally and to be present at any yacht show. That requires a lot of money too.

The individal build boat is ALWAYS better than a production unit given that they are build by quality and qualified professionals.

[CT 249]

Sharpii, thanks for the thought but I do know why light boats are faster - the question I asked Mike was "Can you please provide us with information on fast heavy boats of the style you are advocating? While heavy boats can move well, I would be interested to know of those that have demonstrated racing performance (in terms of elapsed time) that can compare with good lightweights."

ie I was asking for an example and desciption of the heavy boats that he spoke of - those that could equal lightweight boats in performance.

Mike, you gave Finnisterre as an example of a good heavy design. There's a very good example of the Finnisterr style running around in the shape modified/updated (but still very heavy) Finnisterre type Sunstone, at 40' long. She's been outstandingly succesful, ie British champ 4 years under 3 different rating rules, Commodore's Cup and Channel race winner, class winner multiple times in Fastnet and class winner in Hobart etc.

But Sunstone is never as fast as even an '80s Farr IOR 40 or Beneteau 40.7 - she's about 12% slower. She's something like 25% slower than a Farr 40 OD. She is about as fast as a 1980's 33' IOR boat, and is rated considerably slower than a 30' IMS racer/cruiser- something like 30 seconds per mile.

The reason the Finnisterre type wins (crew apart) is that she rates so low. She rates so low that the boat was re-rated at the Offshore Racing Council's expense so they could find out what was up.

She's still a great boat, but she doesn't provide an example of a heavyweight that is faster (or anywhere near as fast) as a lightweight.

I think some of Bill Garden's boats (ie some of those referred to in Guzzwell's book on
wooden boatbuilding) were fairly radical and light for their day?????

Thanks for the info about the structure, I agree about the need for strength (my cabin top has been reinforced with ss straps and another hanging knee, in case she ever ends up bouncing onto the roof!).

I can't quite see Sharpii's point that a lighter boat will move to wave action faster and therefore put more strain on the rig attachment points, as the inertia of a rig in a boat moving to lee fast would put the load onto the leeward chainplate, wouldn't it? And I've heard of very few LEE chainplates going.

I was thinking more of pounding loads, where the mass of the boat is already accelerated as the boat falls off the wave, and the greater mass of a heavy boat would lead to greater loadings when it contacts the water again. Wouldn't the answer be not weight or strength per se, but the ratio of weight (inertia/impact force) to strength?

The concept of "giving' to breaking waves is also interesting, as a boat that is light enough to be acclerated sideways would allow the kinetic energy of the wave to be dissipated through movement sideways, wouldn't it? That would also be connected to lateral area as well as mass/inertia of course.

I remember reading the tale of the 10,000 ton cruiser HMS Sheffield losing the top of "A" turret (something like a 20 by 30' sheet of 2" armour plating) in a gale in a Russian convoy. It makes me interested in giving with the sea rather than trying to resist its force. But of course I'd like to do both!

But yep Mike, I think we are talking of different things. As you say, we can't compare cruisers with racers.

I also wonder whether the cruiser/racer, which is often seen as blend of racer and cruiser, is not better seen as something entirely different from those concepts. And maybe the boatshow "cruiser" types need a new designation - coastal cruiser? They'd seem to have much of the worst of all worlds when seen as a blue-water boat. It'd never work with marketing, of course.

[sharpii2]

Mike, you gave Finnisterre as an example of a good heavy design. There's a very good example of the Finnisterr style running around in the shape modified/updated (but still very heavy) Finnisterre type Sunstone, at 40' long. She's been outstandingly succesful, ie British champ 4 years under 3 different rating rules, Commodore's Cup and Channel race winner, class winner multiple times in Fastnet and class winner in Hobart etc.

Perhaps this is evidence that the rating rules are doing thier job.

Thanks for the info about the structure, I agree about the need for strength (my cabin top has been reinforced with ss straps and another hanging knee, in case she ever ends up bouncing onto the roof!).

I can't quite see Sharpii's point that a lighter boat will move to wave action faster and therefore put more strain on the rig attachment points, as the inertia of a rig in a boat moving to lee fast would put the load onto the leeward chainplate, wouldn't it? And I've heard of very few LEE chainplates going.

Its not so much the relatively light mast that's the concern. It's the relatively heavy keel that on many newer designs has all or most of the ballast at the very bottom. Also,the windward stays would fail first if they are not strong enough because a sudden gust can put much higher loads on them than than the boat moving under them can.

I was thinking more of pounding loads, where the mass of the boat is already accelerated as the boat falls off the wave, and the greater mass of a heavy boat would lead to greater loadings when it contacts the water again. Wouldn't the answer be not weight or strength per se, but the ratio of weight (inertia/impact force) to strength?

Yes and no. The heavier boat is going to experience greater hull surface loadings because, due to its extra weight, it will sink deeper when it hits bottom and therefore experience greater head pressures. The lighter boat will fall just as fast as the heavy boat, but due to its lighter wieght, will not sink as far. It will experience less head pressure, however, since it will stop sooner, the hull surface will experience far greater shock loads (think of a 'belly whopper' as oposed to a 'cannon ball' dive). And so will everything else on the boat. For this reason, light boats have to be proportionately stronger than heavy boats. They have to be carefully engineered to take these proportionately greater loads. This requires more skilled construction and more expensive matterials. Like my dad always likes to say: "Its not the going up I mind. Or even the going down. It's the sudden stop at the bottom that bothers me."

The concept of "giving' to breaking waves is also interesting, as a boat that is light enough to be acclerated sideways would allow the kinetic energy of the wave to be dissipated through movement sideways, wouldn't it? That would also be connected to lateral area as well as mass/inertia of course.

Yes it wil. That is why lighter boats can have lighter scantlings. They just move along with the striking wave. Smaller lateral area also helps in this regard. However, items on the boatthat take concentrated loads, such as keel bolts and fastenings cna suffer greatly. This all can be compensated for, of course, with prescient, careful engineering, but the deeper the keel and the more concentrated the ballast, the harder that is to do. Sven Lunden built himself a light 20 footer. It had a seventies style fin keel with about a 25% ballast ratio. The boat was double ended and capsized a lot. But, with a raised deck, she always righted herself with a quickness. And with little or no damage. She sailed successfully deep into the southern latitudes. However, Sven had a seatbelt rigged for when he was sleeping. The point here is that his boat called 'bris' , an accidental design that got altered several times before reaching her final form, proved quite safe despite her lightness, because of the fact (in my opinion) that she avoided concentrated loads. her draft was only 3ft, and her fin keel was as long at its root as it was deep. It was also thicker at th top too. She wasn't, however, particullarily fast.

I remember reading the tale of the 10,000 ton cruiser HMS Sheffield losing the top of "A" turret (something like a 20 by 30' sheet of 2" armour plating) in a gale in a Russian convoy. It makes me interested in giving with the sea rather than trying to resist its force. But of course I'd like to do both!

[/COLOR]Try a centerboarder. Good upwind with the board down. 'Gives' easily with the board up.

But yep Mike, I think we are talking of different things. As you say, we can't compare cruisers with racers.

I also wonder whether the cruiser/racer, which is often seen as blend of racer and cruiser, is not better seen as something entirely different from those concepts. And maybe the boatshow "cruiser" types need a new designation - coastal cruiser? They'd seem to have much of the worst of all worlds when seen as a blue-water boat. It'd never work with marketing, of course.

[COLOR=YellowGreen]This could become a very dangerous issue. How do you protect consumers from boats that look seaworthy but aren't without creating a monsterous bureaucracy that not only heavily disadvantages small building firms (the most likely to build good boats in the first place) in favor of larger, corporate, builders who not only can better afford the staff to keep up with the endless documentation, but can, through 'judiciuous' political contributions, avoid real scrutiny altogether. I guess this is where the good old fasion American lawsuit comes in. At least here in the States, it seems to be the only way to make 'the big boys' accountable. The real problem here, I think, is that cruising boats tend to be styled after racing boats, often without the carefull engineering. This is to keep costs down. I think it would be far better to make the racing boats resemble the cruising boats, but we both know that won't happen (see my "proposed class of small ocean racer" thread. as to how this might be done). But, I suppose, risk is the price of freedom.

[Milan]

Mike, CT 249, during his long career, Bill Garden designed practically every type of boat you can think of, from very traditional heavy schooners to the light flyers, super yachts and every thing in between, so it's difficult to talk about typical Garden's boat. That particular sentence ("…if a competitor was visible astern as we crossed the finish line then we lost on points…"), was about double ended sloop Oceanus, his personal boat built in the fifties. She was quite unusual boat, not a best choice for light versus heavy boat discussion. Although strongly built glued wood construction (either cold molded or strip planked don't remember) and quite deep vee cross-sections, she actually belongs into ULDB category with her very low displacement / water line length ratio. She was very narrow (about 60 ft LOA 14 ft wide), with a short, fin-ish keel. She was very fast and easy to handle for two persons according to Bill, who was very happy with her. probably his favorite boat. .

Bob, (…"I think your proposed boat would do well safety wise but would not be competitive with her beamier, lighter sisters, speed wise…). My proposition was ultimate safety combined with light displacement. Narrow, foam sandwich, unsinkable, (positive flotation + watertight compartments, positive stability to 180 degrees. Such a boat wouldn't have a chance racing in a classes categorized by the LOA where wider competitors with a more sail area would be faster. that's true. But she would be fast in an absolute sense. I had something like this in mind:

[Vega]

My proposition was ultimate safety combined with light displacement. Narrow, foam sandwich, unsinkable, (positive flotation + watertight compartments, positive stability to 180 degrees. Such a boat wouldn't have a chance racing in a classes categorized by the LOA where wider competitors with a more sail area would be faster. that's true. But she would be fast in an absolute sense. I had something like this in mind:

You forgot to put some chines on that boat :p

Before d'Artois (half) convinced me that it was possible to have built an aluminium boat for the same price as a good grp production boat, I have passed a lot of time looking at the right production boat.

I have reached a similar conclusion. For the same price of a 39' you can buy a narrower boat with 42' or 43'. It will have a superior hull speed and it will be more comfortable, mainly against very steep waves with a very short period, the kind that you find in windy days in the Med. I think it will be safer too.

This is mainly a feeling, cause I don't know much....but I would love to know more about this.

I would like very much that people that are around and know a lot, comment on the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of boat (not for racing) but for fast cruising. I am only interested in speed, sea motion and safety and not in comparing this kind of boat with a medium or heavy displacement boat. What I propose is the comparison of this type of boat with another type, the more common light weight craft of the same displacement, but with less length and a lot more beam.

There are not many production boats with these characteristics, but there are some. One of them is the Faurby 424:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/424.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/Faurby424.jpg

http://www.faurby.dk/gb/faurby424.html

[Vega]

How do you protect consumers from boats that look seaworthy but aren't without creating a monsterous bureaucracy that not only heavily disadvantages small building firms (the most likely to build good boats in the first place) in favor of larger, corporate, builders who not only can better afford the staff to keep up with the endless documentation, but can, through 'judiciuous' political contributions, avoid real scrutiny altogether .

They have made just that in Europe. The gigantic bureaucracy of the European Community, in its endless pursuit of protecting consumers has done that. A comprehensive method of establishing a boat classification according to boat characteristics.

Every boat in the EC is now subject to a lot of tests, by certified independent naval firms, before being classified in one of the categories.

The "superior" categorie (A class boats) are considered to be oceangoing boats. A no limit boat.

The result:

Would you believe me if I said that the Dehler 29 is a certified Class A boat, supposedly a go anywhere boat? :

http://www.dehler.com/

:rolleyes: :p :p :confused: :confused: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[sharpii2]

You forgot to put some chines on that boat :p

Before d'Artois (half) convinced me that it was possible to have built an aluminium boat for the same price as a good grp production boat, I have passed a lot of time looking at the right production boat.

I have reached a similar conclusion. For the same price of a 39' you can buy a narrower boat with 42' or 43'. It will have a superior hull speed and it will be more comfortable, mainly against very steep waves with a very short period, the kind that you find in windy days in the Med. I think it will be safer too.

This is mainly a feeling, cause I don't know much....but I would love to know more about this.

I would like very much that people that are around and know a lot, comment on the advantages and disadvantages of this kind of boat (not for racing) but for fast cruising. I am only interested in speed, sea motion and safety and not in comparing this kind of boat with a medium or heavy displacement boat. What I propose is the comparison of this type of boat with another type, the more common light weight craft of the same displacement, but with less length and a lot more beam.

There are not many production boats with these characteristics, but there are some. One of them is the Faurby 424:

Advantages:

1.) More likely to have a ballanced helm, because differently shaped ends make less difference on a narrow hull than on a wide one.
2.) More likely to recover from a capsize, because to carry a given amount of sail it will need more and/or deeper ballast.
3.) Better wave penetrating ability because it will likely be light for its length but heavy for its beam and will likely have a sharper bow.
4.) More likely to be able to excede traditonal hull speed without control problems due to the fact that it will probably make less of a bow wave.

Disadvantages:

1.) Likely to incure higher docking fees due to greater length.
2.) Likely to need deeper anchorages due to the likely need for a deeper keel that is needed to recover sail carrying ability lost to decrease in beam.
3.) likely to need more than one mast due to the need to get the center of area (CA) of the sails lower so that the keel doesn't have to be unreasonably deep and the staying system doesn't have to be so complex (get by with maybe just one or two spreaders on the main mast rather than two or three).
4.) Likely to have less internal volume and less useable deck space. A beamy boat can (and should) have higer sides than a narrow one.

Bob

[Milan]

"…You forgot to put some chines on that boat…"

Well, you could almost say she had them in the way- that boat, Bill Lee's Merlin, is basically round bilge version of John Spencer's single chine plywood flyer Regtime.

http://www.fastisfun.com

She doesn't completely qualify for my proposition but she's quite close. A bit heftier scantlings, watertight bulkheads, somewhat smaller rig and little shallower keel and result would be more docile, slower than original but still very fast cruising boat.

"…2.) More likely to recover from a capsize, because to carry a given amount of sail it will need more and/or deeper ballast…"

I would ad that recovering would also be easier because of low form stability of the hull. On the negative side, in the upright position they initially heel easier then wider boat. It takes some heel to put the ballast in to action.

Narrow boat should be economical to build (in one-off, custom production). More length means more hull material, but that's actually the cheapest part of the boat. Expensive stuff as engine, electronics, interior, e.c.t. are the same as for the shorter one. Longer boat could be faster to build because more spread accommodation could mean easier access resulting in a less time needed to build everything in. (And work-hours are expensive).

Vega's proposition for comperation on the basis of displacement makes a lot of sense as displacement is very good indication of the price (if everything else is the same, material, level of complexity, e.c.t.).

I like many different kind of boats, but I always had a special affection for a low drag, efficient, skinny hulls. They move fast with a minimum fuss in the water and don't need a lot of energy to go.

I'm designing minimum cost, very simple, spartan, fast, (in cruising context) schooner. Here are the basics:

LOA = 15 m
Beam = 3.10 m
Displ = 10 tons max (fully loaded), aiming for less
wetted surface 37 m2
whole (hull) surf. area 74 m2
sail area working +/- 55 m2, around 80 - 90 m2 max in light airs

[Vega]

She doesn't completely qualify for my proposition but she's quite close.
I like many different kind of boats, but I always had a special affection for a low drag, efficient, skinny hulls. They move fast with a minimum fuss in the water and don't need a lot of energy to go.

I'm designing minimum cost, very simple, spartan, fast, (in cruising context) schooner. Here are the basics:

LOA = 15 m
Beam = 3.10 m
Displ = 10 tons max (fully loaded), aiming for less
wetted surface 37 m2
whole (hull) surf. area 74 m2
sail area working +/- 55 m2, around 80 - 90 m2 max in light airs


This one, also a small production boat, is closer to your proposal.
She has lovely interiors. ;)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/wasa2.jpg



http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/Wasa3.jpg (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/Wasa3.jpg)

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/wasa510.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/Wasaint.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/wasaint2.jpg

[Vega]

Sharpii2 and Milann, thaks for the input.

[MikeJohns]

Thanks for the info about the structure, I agree about the need for strength (my cabin top has been reinforced with ss straps and another hanging knee, in case she ever ends up bouncing onto the roof!). I can't quite see Sharpii's point that a lighter boat will move to wave action faster and therefore put more strain on the rig attachment points, as the inertia of a rig in a boat moving to lee fast would put the load onto the leeward chainplate, wouldn't it? And I've heard of very few LEE chainplates going. I was thinking more of pounding loads, where the mass of the boat is already accelerated as the boat falls off the wave, and the greater mass of a heavy boat would lead to greater loadings when it contacts the water again. Wouldn't the answer be not weight or strength per se, but the ratio of weight (inertia/impact force) to strength? The concept of "giving' to breaking waves is also interesting, as a boat that is light enough to be accelerated sideways would allow the kinetic energy of the wave to be dissipated through movement sideways, wouldn't it? That would also be connected to lateral area as well as mass/inertia of course. Chris If you rock a sail boat you’ll get more or less equal loads on the symmetrical shroud attachments. The heeled sailing vessel has a wind load (from windward), a gravity component acting on the windward shrouds and some dynamic loads from her movement. When she is side swiped by a steep fronted wave a force is generated and the hull accelerates sideways along with the wave it heels and skids sideways often travelling down the wave front, the faster this initial translation ie the faster the acceleration the more likely she is to gain even more energy from the wave as it has a longer time to act on the hull. Higher forces (as you say) come into play when the hull encounters the bottom of the hole and it comes to a high acceleration stop with the high forces acting from the water on the lee side of the hull, the weather chainplates at this point suffer very high loads. Note that the hull is highly stressed on the landing (lee) side not on the wave impact side The wave now still has to be countered with your back to the wall (as it were, and this is a frequent knockdown or rollover precursor as she has nowhere to go). Yes the majority of hull damage is not from the wave but from the landing impact. The stove in port-lights , split topsides, bent railings and fractured hull deck joints are nearly always on the lee side. The heavy boat falling off a wave will land with greater force and experience higher loads at this point but she is less likely to get into this position (later) and her scantlings are considerably higher so she will have more reserve strength. The problem with the light boat for the designer is weight, as I have said before weight and strength are opposing criteria. A lightweight boat must sacrifice reserve strength to be lightweight. The same wave acting on a heavy hull has often passed before the vessel reacts significantly. Note that the energy is not dissipated on the hull but on moving the hull eg a boat than is 5 times heavier will experience one fifth the translation for the same wave energy. The wave doesn’t have to break or smash into the boat for this energy to be used it just has to move it. Often because of the heavier boats greater immersed lateral area and considerably higher roll inertia it heels only a little to the wave front (hull form important here too) and rises with the water-mass as the wave passes. It’s final sideways velocity is less than one fifth that of the light boat because of the other factors (WSA LSA) . The heavier rig reduces the roll amplitude for the same reasons; the energy required has a limited amount of time to act as the wave translates past the vessel. All we have been talking about here is sideways translations/ rotaions, we also have pitching yawing, vertical acceleration, impeding action of waves. It seems to me the only disadvantage of a heavier hull is the light air drag of the wetted surface, but if she were able to spread the full sail her hull could stand without rating penalty then that might not be such a disadvantage.

[CT 249]

Thanks Mike, the way you put it is much closer to my understanding and experience than the way Sharpii did, as with respect to him it's the weather side chainplates and lee side of the hull that generally gets damaged AFAIK.

I'm still unsure about the impact of breaking crests on the windward side, as you say the heavy boat moves much slower to lee and therefore must suffer more impact on the weather side in such a situation, mustn't it?

The heavy hull is also definitely slower in a breeze due to greater wave formation; see the earlier example of the Finnisterre type which even in a breeze is significantly slower than an '80s IOR boat of similar length. The facts (as demonstrated by sophisticated VPPs and years of experience) are pretty clear. And I know my sailmakers charge for area of sail, not LOA, which makes a case for the lighter boat. If you put a bigger rig on the heavy boat without penalty then the lighter boats could put on a deeper keel and bigger rig without penalty too!

But we'll both have to stick to our preferences, I think! :-)

[Vega]

The contributions from Ct249, Mikejones and sharpii2 have been very interesting and informative. I am just an amateur who is very interested in the issues that are being discussed in this thread, namely seaworthiness in a boat.

I have read a lot of information on this subject and it’s a controversial issue. For example, Eric Tabarly, one of the most outstanding sailors of the last century had an opinion that seems to collide with the one of Mikejones about seaworthiness in a boat. Mikejones talks about a heavy displacement with a full keel as the more adequate boat for heavyweather.

Eric Tabarlay, who has raced long keel heavy boats and light boats with a finn and a bulb says:

“The boats that have the worst behavior when heaving too without sails (capa seca) are the ones with heavy displacement and a long keel, specially when the keel is not heavily ballasted. The long keel and the deep of the underwater hull offer a big resistance to lateral displacement…then the waves that break against the boat push the superstructure and as the underwater offers a big resistance, capsizing can occur.”

The ideal boat to heaving to without sails, is a light displacement with a finn keel with a good form stability. This kind of boat offers little resistance to lateral displacement and moves fast sideways…protecting the boat from breaking waves…”

Sorry about the poor translation (from Castellano into English)

From « Guide pratique de manoeuvre » by Eric Tabarly.

[MikeJohns]

I am just an amateur who is very interested in the issues that are being discussed in this thread, namely seaworthiness in a boat......

Have you read "Seaworthiness the forgotten factor" ? I recommend that you do it will give you a good and essential primer on this subject..

Eric Tabarlay, who has raced long keel heavy boats and light boats with a finn and a bulb says:

Everyone has an opinion (usually historic by the time it is published), that's why we develop mathematical models and confirm behaviour with empirical data and model testing. Without a more stringent approach it is all just hearsay and conflicting statements from various sources.

“The boats that have the worst behavior when heaving too without sails....

This is called "lying ahull" not heaving-to

...are the ones with heavy displacement and a long keel, specially when the keel is not heavily ballasted.

So what sort of vessel is he reffering to ? A heavy displacement yacht that is not heavily ballasted will be relying on form stability. So we are really comparing heavy skimming dishes with a full keel with light skimming dishes with a fin keel. So what about the other hullforms? ie a narrow boat with a heavy displacement and a full keel ?

The long keel and the deep of the underwater hull offer a big resistance to lateral displacement…then the waves that break against the boat push the superstructure and as the underwater offers a big resistance, capsizing can occur.”

Capsize in this sort of vessel from this type of event has been shown to depend mostly on the ratio of immersed area to topside area.

The ideal boat to heaving to without sails, is a light displacement with a finn keel with a good form stability. This kind of boat offers little resistance to lateral displacement and moves fast sideways…protecting the boat from breaking waves…”

Heaving-to is primarily a tactic for stopping the boat for more comfort for a break to cook, clean, repair, navigate or rendezvous while at sea, and also as a means of standing off a lee shore; eg waiting for dawn before entering an unknown harbour without having to tack to weather all night.

It is not recommended as a survival heavy weather tactic these days, it is much safer to run off with the weather on the quarter carrying some sail if possible.

[Vega]

Have you read "Seaworthiness the forgotten factor" ? I recommend that you do it will give you a good and essential primer on this subject..
[/COLOR]

No, thanks for the information (it’s an almost 20 year old book; I hope that it has been revised in recent editions, because boat designs have changed a lot and I have commanded that book).
I have said that I have read a lot about the issue. Perhaps the better quality information about boats seaworthiness I’ve found comes from the new edition (5th) of “Heavy weather sailing” by Adlard Coles and Peter Bruce. From the original book only one chapter has remained. The book features chapters written by different authors, between them Olin j. Stephens jr, Andrew Claughton and Mike Golding. Have you read this one? This is the book that has deserved from Sir Peter Black this comment: “ This book should be read and reread by anyone who sails”.

[/COLOR] “Eric Tabarlay, who has raced long keel heavy boats and light boats with a finn and a bulb says:
”“The boats that have the worst behavior when lying ahull are the ones with heavy displacement and a long keel, specially when the keel is not heavily ballasted.””
So what sort of vessel is he reffering to ? A heavy displacement yacht that is not heavily ballasted will be relying on form stability. So we are really comparing heavy skimming dishes with a full keel with light skimming dishes with a fin keel. So what about the other hullforms? ie a narrow boat with a heavy displacement and a full keel ?


When he talks about light displacement boats, he is talking about one of his racing boats (Pen-duick III, designed by him) that carries the name of his first boat, the old and beautiful boat he has loved all his life and in which he found death, the original Pen-Duick a design by William Fife III . That one is the heavy boat he is referring to.

This is Pen-DuickIII:
http://www.club-penduick.com/bateaux/bateau_2.html

This is Pen-DuickI:
http://www.voilesclassiques.com/demo_yacht_penduick.htm
http://www.historicships.com/TALLSHIPS/Latina/PenDuick.htm

when Tabarlay says:

”The long keel and the deep of the underwater hull offer a big resistance to lateral displacement…then the waves that break against the boat push the superstructure and as the underwater offers a big resistance, capsizing can occur.”
”The ideal boat to lay ahull without sails, is a light displacement with a finn keel with a good form stability. This kind of boat offers little resistance to lateral displacement and moves fast sideways…protecting the boat from breaking waves…”

he is referring to the hidrodynamics that are easily visualized in these drawings taken from his book:

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/penduick1.jpg
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b152/vega1954/Penduick1a.jpg

These dynamics are very well explained in another thread by Millan referring to the advantages of the center board boats over conventional keeled boats. The dynamics are the same, only that in a center-board with a keel up, they are even better (regarding stability) than in a deep keel with a bulb and a narrow finn. Worst dynamics, in what stability is concerned, will happen in big deep full keeled boats.

Their ultimate stability is lower but they heave some other characteristics that compensate for that. In heavy weather, boat with all inside ballast and centerboard or daggerboard, lifts the board completely out of the water. That moves center of lateral plan aft, making running very easy and eliminates danger from broaching. Also, if hit by the wave from the side, boat just skids to a side and tends to turn away from the wave. in same conditions boat with a deep keel sort of - trips over the keel, heeling much more and maybe even capsizeing.


Heaving-to…It is not recommended as a survival heavy weather tactic these days, it is much safer to run off with the weather on the quarter carrying some sail if possible.


Ok, sorry about my incorrect English:( . As you have pointed out I was referring to lying ahull when I was talking of heaving-to (capa seca). Lying ahull is in Spanish and Portuguese the correspondent of “Capa seca”.

I found it amusing when you say:

“….It is not recommended as a survival heavy weather tactic these days, it is much safer to run off with the weather on the quarter carrying some sail if possible.”

I agree with you. That is the best survival tactic nowadays, the one that is recommended in all the books, more these days that in old days, because modern boats are better running with the weather than older boats. They are faster and therefore take less breaking waves and water from behind.

But when you have a lee shore on your back you have to lie ahull, or stick to a floating anchor, don’t you?;)

[MikeJohns]

Vega
I was just looking her and saw your last post that I missed.

I thought we could re-visit some of these topics on the stability forum when it opens. This thread does contain many pertinent issues.

Looking at Taberly's drawings above I would say two things, firstly that beam on to a large sea is never the seamanly approach in any vessel. Secondly the lighter dish type vessel with long strut/bulb combination does indeed give to the sea, but this causes its own problems. The boat accelerates sideways and this gives a dangerous sideways dynamic component...what happens then depends on the sea state and the vessel roll inertia. See my post 167 above.

There are other factors too but we'll save the discussion.

cheers

[Greenseas2]

Consider the guy who has only a few extra bucks, but wants to ocean race with other boats of a class. How about MORC racers (Midget Ocean Racing Class) Class boats like the Nordica and Hilman are small, well designed and can take some relatively heavy seas. Here, both skippers and Race Committee do their homework and will get word to the boats in advance of heavy storm conditions. You will see Nordicas, Hilmans, Pacific seacraft Flickas and other of the same breed all over the Caribben and Bahamas just cruising. There can be, and are, larger designs that are both good racers as welll as good cruising boats.

[Guillermo]

....I agree with you. That is the best survival tactic nowadays, the one that is recommended in all the books, more these days that in old days, because modern boats are better running with the weather than older boats....

Running may not always be the better technique. Technique to be adopted depends very much on the boat design and sea state. I've personally run a gale with 5-6 m waves under storm-sail alone, in a 30 double-ended-long-keeled ketch with an stern hinged rudder, and I can tell it wasn't a nice experience. The hydrodynamical center of effort moves back and forth with passing waves, and a long keeler has a lot of room for it to to move, thus creating strong broaching pairs. This, added to the loss of efficiency of the rudder when coming down a crest (because oscillating water particles run in the direction of the boat's movement) can make a long keeler incontrolable (And other types too). Towing a series drogue, is probably the best solution to this most unsafe situation.
I recommend a careful reading of:
http://seriesdrogue.com/coastguardreport/
From its pages:
"Sailors who survive such storms may conclude that the tactics they employ, such as heaving to, lying ahull or running off, are adequate to prevent capsize. This is a serious mistake. There is very compelling evidence to show that while a well found boat will survive a storm in non-breaking waves, none of the above tactics will prevent capsize in a breaking wave strike"

[MikeJohns]

Guillermo

Without being patronising and as my own opinion of course ...

The first law of science is "Beware of anecdotal tales", the vessel you describe has far more design characteristics than you mention of course. (as I am sure you know ) All these factors relate to her response to the sea. If you applied some minor alterations you may have found her quite different.

None of the designers a few decades back had the benefit of computers or tank testing at the design stage, designers knocked them out and hoped the sailors would have enough skill to overcome the flaws . There were some great successes and lots of abysmal failures that should never go offshore as there have been in any design era. We can never generalise for a whole era of design on individual performance. (Current or past)

You can of course design any shaped hull for a specific sea-state and relative course with predictable confidence. The real trick is compromising some aspects of hull-shape to provide the best overall combination of comfort safety and performance.

There is also a size factor, as the vessel gets larger the design factors tend to change significantly.

As for my own sailing experiences:
I have sailed on a 100 yr old full keel sailing boat with a massive amount of wetted surface area in large following seas and been delighted with her comfort, performance and her incredible lack of any broaching characteristic at all ... .
This is a narrow deep fore-footed, heavy displacement , very deep vessel . Few sailors these days have experienced such as vessel and they have a strong prejudiced view about how they perform.
I have also sailed on exhilarating fin keeled speed machines that broach if you take your eye of the course for 2 seconds. My own cruising boat is a well balanced moderate fin keel and skeg (because I like the light air performance without huge sail areas).

The old saying is "Horses for courses"

[Guillermo]

...We can never generalise for a whole era of design on individual performance. (Current or past)...
Of course. What I was trying to exemplify is that running is not always the best technique. Depends on many factors, as sea state, boat size and design, experience of crew, etc, etc. That's all.
An interesting thread on parachute anchor and the like, is at:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=87444

[Vega]

[QUOTE=Vega Posted by Guillermo]
....I agree with you. That is the best survival tactic nowadays, the one that is recommended in all the books, more these days that in old days, because modern boats are better running with the weather than older boats....
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Guillermo]Running may not always be the better technique. Technique to be adopted depends very much on the boat design and sea state..... Towing a series drogue, is probably the best solution to this most unsafe situation.
[QUOTE]

Hey Guillermo, I was not talking about all boats,:confused: I was talking about “modern” boats, meaning broad open sterns, light displacement, lots of stability form and about 1/3 of ballast/displacement ratios.

These boats with a competent wheelman and just a piece of sail on the bow can run a gale at impressive speeds without real dangers. I had never run at more than 10knots but I have heard about guys that have run gales at 14, 16 knots without any real problem, and having a lot of fun.;)

On a light boat, towing a drogue is asking for trouble. Those wide and open sterns will offer a lot of surface to the waves; the boat will be easily flooded and as it is light, will move a lot with little control.:(

I agree that a heavy boat with a long keel can be a problem running with heavy seas: Lots of inertia, not enough speed and lots of directional stability. With one of those, the drogue is probably the way to go.

Of course, there is a problem running a gale in a light boat. It will be fun for a couple of hours, but how many can you stand at the wheel? And it will not be funny anymore.:(

That’s why, unless you have a good crew, a heavy boat is still safer than a light one.

Yachting Monthly have published, in the last months some interesting articles about the right way to handle a gale, considering different tactics. When I have time I will post the “best parts” here.

[brian eiland]

...... last paragraph of an interesting interview
with Juan Kouyoumdjian (aka Juan K.) in September Sail magazine.

He's a naval architect who designed the runaway winner (ABN One) in
Volvo Ocean Race.

At end of article they asked: "What is future of canting-ballast
technology?"

He replied:
"It depends on acceptance. I could argue that a canting-keel monohull
is a very inefficient multihull. Imagine canting a keel to leeward
and instead of ballast you have air. You would achieve the same
increase in righting moment in a lighter solution, and in fact you get a
multihull. Our sailing community is divided, and choices are made on
style or fashion; otherwise we'd all be sailing multihulls"

[CT 249]

So why should someone who sails where I sail, sail a multi?

The local puddle 300 metres from my house is too small for a fast beach cat to fit comfortably. We know, because we own a fast beach cat, and we run out of room very quickly. Launching the cat is also a hassle there. Still, we sail there (on monos) because it's fun, and we don't always want to drive 45minutes to the more open waters where we sail the cat, and have the hassle of messing with the bigger, more complicated boat.

The monos are clearly more practical on the puddle, which is why the old cat fleet died out and we get 100+ starters from the dinghy and windsurfer fleet most weeks. This is just one example......thousands of small-boat sailors choose to sail monos for very good reasons such as this. Hell, even the owner of the fastest small cat (Steve Clark of C Class fame) sails small monos as well as cats. So do the world A Class champs, at times.....they appreciate the Laser for what it is. Is Juan saying that all these guys are wrong when they see value in monos?

And what about if we want to go out on the yacht for a cruise around the harbour for the day or weekend? Why is a multi better? The water around here is deep - shoal draft is no advantage really. For my yacht, I want headroom......not readily available in a small multi. I also want nice tight racing....not readily available in a small multi.

Ok, so big multis sail flat - but (cruising apart) we don't HAVE to prefer a cat to a heeled mono. I happen to love heeling in a mono, or the sensitive act of balancing a mono upright, and so do many sailors. The foiler Moth sailors banned wingtip foils because they don't like super-stable boats - you can't call foiler Moth sailors boring. They just know what they like, and they like a boat that responds with heel as well as acceleration and deceleration. This is not style or fashion, it is the personal taste of intelligent experienced people.

The ideal sailing angle for many small cats is higher than it is for many dinghies, but that doesn't worry beach cat sailors. Our F16 type cat "going wild" is sailed at much greater heel than a Laser or Tasar or something like that.....no problem, the boat's great fun at that angle! Cat sailors often fly a hull for speed and fun. so why should sailing flat be such an advantage for big-boat multis when daysailing?

Many windsurfers are sailed on heel, with the lee rail digging in. Many windsurfer sailors love the feeling of having the board tilted as their body leans to windward. In the same way that bike riders love scraping the pegs as they lean through turns, millions of sailors LOVE heel and leaning and we see no reason not to sail leaners. So merely being able to sail flat is not a great bonus for day sailing. For extended cruising, yes it's great. If you happen to like sailing flat, great! But we shouldn't be told that we are slaves to fashion or style because we happen to enjoy a mono's reaction and the subtle art of balancing a mono.

OK, multis can be faster - who cares? If sailing was all about speed, all the Tornado sailors would junk their cats and sail speed boards. But sailing isn't all about speed and anyone who looks at the vast number of highly intelligent people who sail boats like Beneteaus, Westsails, Catalinas, Hobie 16s, Prouts, Dragons, Lasers, Shields, Sea Views, Snipes, J/24s etc can tell that most people don't really care about speed.

On the waters I sail, a big cruising cat runs out of water too quickly. They are a nightmare to slip here (it appears now you have to go up to 45 miles to find a slip you can fit on). They go faster in some conditions, some go faster in all conditions, big deal......many give you little feeling of speed (to my taste) so you may as well be motoring (as far as I'm concerned).

I'm in a family that's now in its third generation of multi sailing....we've formed cat clubs, built multis, lived on multis, raced Tornado worlds, still own and race and build and sail cats. They are great - in many situations they are the most logical boat - but NOT in all situations.

The fact that Juan believes that most sailors are ruled by style or fashion tells us more about Juan than it does about the sailing community.

[Doug Lord]

Ah, for more on this subject see this thread started today:
Canting Keel Monos vs Multihulls - Page 2 - Boat Design Forums
Address:http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?p=103092