 |  |
| Boat Design Forums | Boat Design Directory | Boat Design Gallery | Boat Design Book Store | Thanks to Our Site Sponsors |
| ||||
|
#121
09-15-2005, 11:48 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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  |
|
#122
09-16-2005, 08:07 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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 |
|
#123
09-16-2005, 08:56 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
 Nice research. |
|
#124
09-16-2005, 12:39 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberich...nodeid,10.html http://www.zaadnoordijk.nl/c-yacht/e...mes/cframe.htm http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_testberich...nodeid,10.html http://www.najad.com/najad_yach_400_specs.asp http://www.maloyachts.se/Default.aspx?tabid=114 |
|
#125
09-16-2005, 11:16 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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 |
|
#126
09-17-2005, 05:40 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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..... |
|
#127
09-17-2005, 08:49 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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 |
|
#128
09-17-2005, 08:23 PM
| |||
| |||
| Ah Chris Still plugging away ? Quote:
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.
__________________ Mike Johns. |
|
#129
09-18-2005, 10:33 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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. |
|
#130
09-18-2005, 04:12 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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. Quote:
Nice to hear that someone found it to be a good sailing boat. |
|
#131
09-18-2005, 04:36 PM
| |||
| |||
| 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! |
|
#132
09-18-2005, 06:56 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| 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. |
|
#133
09-19-2005, 09:04 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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 |
|
#134
09-20-2005, 08:10 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
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.
__________________ Mike Johns. |
|
#135
09-21-2005, 07:32 AM
| |||
| |||
| 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? |
Linear Mode
