Why a Yawl or Ketch instead of a sloop

[BeauVrolyk]

Originally Posted by john schroeder

ouch...I have to disagree with your disagreement But thanks for understanding my love of Tripps. I agree with the I want to take the risk stay out of my life senerio but I dont agree with guys taking the risk in crap racing boats that cant stay together in the first place being rescued on my dime and I think it unfair . Drag race cars dont use the roads we drive to work on or the rescue group that civilians use so why do extreme racers? Ok I dig the sport but I dig more getting home on my own keel and that was what this was about so lets start a thread about should boats be regulated or???????? designed not to come apart when mom and the kids go to sea! a . so we dont have to rescue them b. so we dont have the goverment getting in our s--t and C. so some poor sot does not have to leave his warm bed a 3am and hang on a wire to pull some a hole out of the ocean cause his carbon fiber banana boat broke. Im just sayin its you that got pulled out for a f up and we are getting regulated because of it how fair is that and you didnt learn from what your saying. or you have really really bad luck. I dont know what happened in you case so I cant judge . Im not into any regulations but if it is an"" industry"" and it sells to the general public and its not designed to do what they claim it can and its not built as strong as they claim and people drown because they trust the claim????? I think designers should stand up for them selves and and demand a regulation or a board otherwise the government will step in and they are the ones that tested the dory and found it not seaworthy! (course they didnt load it with a ton of cod before the test! and so it was .

We should start another thread. Both times I got pulled out it was NOT the fault of the boat or designer. Once, I fell from the rig trying to get a chute down in a storm, halyard had jammed, no spare, I climbed it and popped the chute snap shackle. Boat stood up fast, I lost my grip. NOT the designer's fault - entirely mine, too stupid to tie on a safety line in my hurry. Second time, I was on a boat that was run into by a fishing a-hole, he never even went on deck, never looked back. What sort of boat design would survive being run over in a dead calm by a 100' fish boat? We had no engine and our flare bounced off their bridge windows without any response. Her name was Angela-Marie and she was from San Pedro CA. USCG did NOTHING to them ever.

Having said that - I strongly disagree with spending taxpayer's money on this stuff. I would have happily paid to be rescued. My mistake, I pay. I even more strongly disagree with someone like the Coast Guard trying to decide if a boat design is safe. Have you ever TALKED to a Coastie about boats? You do know that all multi-hulls are undsafe, boats under 30 something feet long still aren't allowed in the TransPac, fiberglass is not appropriate for boat design - neither is alloy, all of these were or are positions held by supposed experts on yacht design. If you let the Coast Guard or the US Gov regulate boat design you might as well give up on innovation. Our yachts will look they were designed in 1910.

I realize you don't like ultra-light carbon boats. But - which I'm certain you know - carbon is actually much stronger that steel. Also, modern boats are much more seaworthy than the ancient designs I so love to look at and sail upon. We really have learned somethings over the years, and regulated industries generally don't learn.

Be VERY careful what you ask for, when you ask the US Gov to regulate you - Very Careful.

[john schroeder]

I think we have more in common than not. I like taking risks I like cutting edge design, And I love not having someone looking over my shoulder but what is ultimatly going to happen I think is that there will be a slow erosion of these freedoms because the non boating tax payer will become annoyed with the bills that the sea faring few abuse? If we self patrol and do our share of paying for our mistakes ( we all make theme some get to talk about them others well . but its to the best interest that designers and experianced sailors speak out against stupid designs and claims made by manufacturers. That is why I joined this forum as well as to ask questions like the one that started this . everyone answered a part of the question and gave more than would have been learned speaking to one designer . But start another thread and tell me what it is and we can mush this around till we get sick of it then well go sailing !

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by john schroeder

I dont agree with guys taking the risk in crap racing boats that cant stay together in the first place being rescued on my dime and I think it unfair ..

Of course you realize that many more inept "non-racers" need rescue than raceboats? If you take the sailing ability of all the rummies sitting at the bar badmouthing "those crap racers" you might be able to fill a thimble.

Originally Posted by john schroeder

Drag race cars dont use the roads we drive to work on or the rescue group that civilians use so why do extreme racers? .

Oh yes, auto racing does use many of the same resources as daily drivers. Here in SoCal we have the LBGP. It is an IndyCar Road course. They tear the crap out of public roads, the taxpayer fixes them. They use the Medivac helicopter that taxpayers pay for. They have local police and fire on site, paid by the taxpayer. The injured are taken to local, taxpayer-supported hospitals, etc.

Originally Posted by john schroeder

some a hole out of the ocean cause his carbon fiber banana boat broke. .

What, pray tell, is a carbon fiber banana boat? I've sailed on quite a few CF boats, none looked or tasted like a banana.

Originally Posted by john schroeder

Im not into any regulations but if it is an"" industry"" and it sells to the general public and its not designed to do what they claim it can and its not built as strong as they claim and people drown because they trust the claim????? .

Now please tell us all about all the folks who have drowned and what boats they were in that were not designed to do what they claim?

[MikeJohns]

This thread has wandered off the topic and into areas best covered by a new thread or continued on one of the more releveant ones.

Newer forum members (nice to see you) might like to have a look at some of the threads where related issues have been mentioned before:

Seaworthiness

The roll acceleration: What´s the best for crossing oceans?

the egotistical quest for an expensive thrill

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/archive/t-5596

[brian eiland]

Thanks Mike,
...things were getting a bit off course there on a subject thread that was getting pretty good

[john schroeder]

Sorry, And thanks I will look at the other threads. But the banana boat I was refferring to was the Americas cup defender that broke in half off the California Coast Im out.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by john schroeder

Sorry, And thanks I will look at the other threads. But the banana boat I was refferring to was the Americas cup defender that broke in half off the California Coast Im out.

Originally Posted by john schroeder

so some poor sot does not have to leave his warm bed a 3am and hang on a wire to pull some a hole out of the ocean cause his carbon fiber banana boat broke.

Really? So you are saying someone had to leave his warm bed at 3 AM to pull people off the ocean due to that ACup boat's issue? As I recall it wasn't 3 AM at that venue, and all the folks on the boat were removed to chase boats associated with the event.

FYI: No "America's Cup Defender" has ever "broke in half", not in California, not anywhere.


I suppose you could try to be factual in your comments but it wouldn't serve your purpose to use less inflammatory language.

[BeauVrolyk]

Originally Posted by Paul B

Really? So you are saying someone had to leave his warm bed at 3 AM to pull people off the ocean due to that ACup boat's issue? As I recall it wasn't 3 AM at that venue, and all the folks on the boat were removed to chase boats associated with the event.

FYI: No "America's Cup Defender" has ever "broke in half", not in California, not anywhere.


I suppose you could try to be factual in your comments but it wouldn't serve your purpose to use less inflammatory language.

BTW, I think he was talking about the America's Cup boat that sank off of California, as documented here in the New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/06/us...-cup-race.html

While it didn't literally break in half, the entire side of the boat - from the gunnel to well below the waterline - cracked and left about a foot wide opening. Pretty darn close to breaking in half.

No public funds were spent in this rescue, but there certainly have been more than enough dollars spent saving sailors in the Vendee etc....

I think a lot less inflammatory language on all sides would be helpful.

I also think that this has nothing at all to do with Split rig decisions (the topic of this thread)

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by BeauVrolyk

BTW, I think he was talking about the America's Cup boat that sank off of California, as documented here in the New York Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/06/us...-cup-race.html)

You might not have noticed, but the boat mentioned in that article is not an
"America's Cup Defender".

Originally Posted by BeauVrolyk

No public funds were spent in this rescue, but there certainly have been more than enough dollars spent saving sailors in the Vendee etc....

Correct, but as he pointed out, he was not talking about the Vendee, etc.


My position for years has been sailing singlehanded offshore is ILLEGAL and should not be allowed, racing or cruising. Of course if you can figure out how to stand watch 24 hours a day for the entire duration than it would be OK.

Also, anyone going offshore should be bonded to re-imburse all costs to any government associated with their rescue. This includes Volvo Racers, and mom and pop cruisers who don't think it is necessary to actually learn how to sail before setting off.

Take personal responsibility for your actions and say no to the nanny state.

[BeauVrolyk]

Originally Posted by brian eiland

Thanks Mike,
...things were getting a bit off course there on a subject thread that was getting pretty good

Getting back on course....

I'd like to suggest that in addition to the debate we've been having about split rigs vs sloops and which of the split rigs one might want, it would be interesting to consider the changes that materials have made in these choices.

When rigs were wood they were very heavy, by today's standards. The first boat I grew up on had a solid fir tree trunk as a mast. Later my father bought a boat that was almost twice as long, with a mast that was 2.3 times as long as our first boat, and because the mast was a hollow box spruce construction is was far lighter than our old tree trunk.

When I bought my first boat, it has an alloy mast (1980) and over the years I have owned various boats with better and better alloy masts. The most recent having a very good alloy with rod rigging and PBO backstay etc... The result has been a massive decrease in weight aloft.

Now, I'm considering buying a race/cruising boat with a carbon rig. I was shocked to discover that the carbon rig was actually less expensive than the alloy alternative, and massively lighter weight.

Why am I bringing all this up? Because one of the reasons for a split rig is to get the weight down closer to the deck. With the polar moment going up as the square of the distance from the center of rotation, there is a very good engineering argument for shorter rigs; they increase the stability of the boat independently of the sail area and lowering the center of effort for a give sail area. So, a lighter rig is always better, provided it's strong enough. The same applies to modern sail cloth, which is vastly stronger, and the various modern lines that substitute for dacron line and stainless steel wire.

The point is that with modern materials, which are clearly better in every way (other than looks), shouldn't we reconsider the engineering design tradeoffs being made in choosing a rig.

In the days of yore, rigs were frequently limited by the strength and weight of the materials used. A sail on a square rigged ship is primarily limited by the crew's ability to reef them, which process involved lifting them and tying them off. Now, a rig is similarly limited by the ability of a sailor (including his equipment, like power winches and roller furling) to manage the sail.

I would propose that the massive decrease in weight of the rigging of a boat makes a strong argument that a sailor can avail themselves of the superior sailing performance of a sloop without suffering from the problems that originally drove sailors to split rigs for larger craft. Given that the force of the wind on the rigging goes up as the square of the sail area, I would propose that a contemporary sailor could manage a sail roughly 1.5 times the size of a sailor from the turn of the century.

Of course for those, like me and my 1947 IOD, who still sail boats built in the old fashioned way, this doesn't apply. If you've an old boat with an old rig, you need the older smaller sail sizes and you may need a split rig. But for those who have a contemporary boat, like me with my Moore-24, which has light carbon/kevlar sails, PBO and spectra rigging, and modern gear; a much larger sail area per sailor ration is perfectly safe and has much higher performance.

Beau

[BeauVrolyk]

Originally Posted by Paul B

You might not have noticed, but the boat mentioned in that article is not an
"America's Cup Defender".

You are right - technically - the boat hadn't (and never did) ear the right to be a "Defender" of the America's Cup. But, you and everyone reading this knows that you're playing sea lawyer. It was a boat being sailed during a challenge for the America's Cup, designed, built and sailed by a great team, which could very easily have been an "America's Cup Challenger" had she not sunk.

I think you're splitting a very fine point to avoid saying you were wrong. But, technically - you are correct - LOL!

[BeauVrolyk]

Originally Posted by Paul B

My position for years has been sailing singlehanded offshore is ILLEGAL and should not be allowed, racing or cruising. Of course if you can figure out how to stand watch 24 hours a day for the entire duration than it would be OK.

Also, anyone going offshore should be bonded to re-imburse all costs to any government associated with their rescue. This includes Volvo Racers, and mom and pop cruisers who don't think it is necessary to actually learn how to sail before setting off.

Take personal responsibility for your actions and say no to the nanny state.

I must admit I'm having trouble finding consistency between your desire to make single-handed sailing "illegal" and "say no to the nanny state". I do not believe that anyone - not even the overbearing moralizing US Government actually has any legal jurisdiction over what a sailor does in international waters. There are various bogus claims by various people that they do - but it really is just a function of coercion based upon their military. How do you enforce something like a bond and also say no to some nanny state? You'd like to coerce folks when it suits you - dictating what they can/should and cannot/shouldn't do while simultaneously calling for them to take responsibility for their action.s. Typically, one who takes responsibility is freed from such coercion.

Now back to Yawl, Schooners, Ketches and Sloops.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by BeauVrolyk

your desire to make single-handed sailing "illegal"

Not mine. It is already so. Check COLREGS #5.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by BeauVrolyk

How do you enforce something like a bond and also say no to some nanny state?

Here in CA we cannot legally operate a motor vehicle without insurance. That ensures the state is not on the hook for expenses incurred for individual's accidents.

The bond is the same idea. Why should states have to spend taxpayer dollars to fish poorly prepared idiots out of international waters? A bond ensures PERSONAL RESPONSIBILIY for their actions.

When you leave port you have to pass through customs. I can't get on a plane to China or Australia without passport control checking to see if I have a valid Visa, so it wouldn't be any different to not allow passage to any vessel departing without proof of bond.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by BeauVrolyk

.

I think you're splitting a very fine point to avoid saying you were wrong. But, technically - you are correct - LOL!

No, you've missed my original point completely. I was referencing the fact that the person who posted that "fact" had no idea what he was talking about when it came to specifics. He is just one more voice in the choir of gibberish that tend to spout off about things they know nothing about.

If you got the point you would know I am not splitting any hairs. Facts are facts, and inflammatory language is just that. We need more of the former and less of the latter when talking about "modern" yacht design.