Dangerous designs?

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by usa2, Nov 18, 2005.

  1. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    I think I am begining to accept the logic of this class of boats. It is a S & M relationship. The owners love to put their money, boat and crew in the worst possible conditions and then scream at them for failing. The crew stands there and gobbles it up. I can now see the full cycle of their lives at sea. Different. But it makes all involved happy enough to do it again, no matter if death is becoming a larger and larger shipmate. ----------------------------------------------- Back to designing in more speed. Reduce crew size and errors by replacing all but 2 with computerized rudder and sail control. :)
     
  2. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,709
    Likes: 82, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member


    More training time? Some of the people who crash various sorts of offshore racer have given their entire life to offshore sailing. Guys lilke Tabarly were naval officers then spent 40 years sailing offshore - and they got hit by storms.

    Are you saying that Tabarly et al were not experienced enough?
     
  3. FAST FRED
    Joined: Oct 2002
    Posts: 4,519
    Likes: 111, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 1009
    Location: Conn in summers , Ortona FL in winter , with big d

    FAST FRED Senior Member

    "How many captains decided to change course and lower sail BEFORE the damage. "

    When racing NONE!

    For a small boat cruiser this is the prudent choice.

    For the racer its a SURE LOSS.

    Techniques suitable for the family Chebby are not the same for a F-1 racer either.

    FAST FRED
     
  4. usa2
    Joined: Jan 2005
    Posts: 538
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 11
    Location: Maine

    usa2 Senior Member

    It seems the maxi Nicorette's crew has offshore storm sailing figured out, because in the 2000 Sydney Hobart they throttled back on the 80 footer and won line honours, then last year they did the same thing on the 90 footer with the same result. Perhaps sometimes its the design, but in most cases its the sailors pushing the boat too hard. Skandia and Konica Minolta both had structural faults (i.e too small rams, keel tower) so it isnt known whether if they had not had these problems whether they would have held together while being pushed. Nicorette escaped with broken frames in her bow. I think with the VO 70s the problems are design based, as they broke in relatively fine conditions. The southern ocean will be worse to them.
     
  5. RCSail
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 17
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Virginia

    RCSail Junior Member

    One failure was design based, that of the PoTC boat. However, six other boats, three by the same designer, went through the same conditions without design failures. Movistar also suffered heavy damage, but it was entirely due to impact with a submerged object.
     
  6. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    The VO70's have been described as the Formula One of ocean racing. That is why I've been using F1 comparisons.

    A F1 car is tested many times the total race distance, not some fraction of a race distance. Every change to a design is tested and evaluated before the car is run in that configuration. No F1 team is going to race something that has only gone a small part of a race distance.

    A qualifying trip of a couple of thousand miles for a VO70 is like putting a F1 car on the line with 30km of "testing".

    In the F1 context that the Volvo Ocean race has compared itself to, the boats are untested.

    Compared to IACC boats, VO70's are untested.

    It seems to me that the untested, fragile nature of the boats and the risks to the crews are being used to make the VO more interesting. IMO this draws the type of spectator that watches motorcycle stunts or any other event that is billed as high risk.

    I have no idea what the per boat budget is for a VO70 team. A F1 team spends somewhere around 300 million USD.

    Michael Schumaker's salary is $60 million. He's paid to race a highly developed, well tested vehicle that is designed to minimize the chance of driver injury.

    NASCAR, F1, and the rest of auto racing make a huge effort to insure driver safety. NASCAR and F1 have huge budgets from corporate sponsorship. Vehicles raced in these series are tested for 1000's of miles before they race. NASCAR and F1 are not billed as high risk events.

    "Mr. Sponsor, I have a boat that managed to sail 2000 miles without sinking or killing anyone. I'm going to enter it a race around the world. I have advertising space available for your company, would you ..." (click) bzzzzzz

    Untested and high risk is a pretty good description of a VO70. :)
     
  7. the_sphincter
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 63
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 8
    Location: behind the grundle

    the_sphincter *

    F1 cars are modular. You can put in beefed up whatever you want to without building a whole new car. Decide the skin on the VO70 is too thin, can't do much about it now. F1 cars also don't see the conditions that the VO70's do, and are much easier to test. VO70's may see 50 foot waves, but how are they going to test them in 50 foot waves? Is there anywhere they can easily go that would guarantee hurricane force winds? The F1 cars are raced in controlled environments. The ocean is completely opposite. The philosophy when building these boats is make them stand up to just about anything that could reasonably be expected in the ocean and still stay competitive. The crews have all done this before and are prepared for whatever gets thrown at them. Maybe if you gave each team a comparable budget to an F1 team, then you can criticize them, because you are basically criticizing the lack of budget.

    "No F1 team is going to race something that has only gone a small part of a race distance."
    That's because the distance only takes a few hours.

    "Compared to IACC boats, VO70's are untested."
    Get up to 25 knots and they'll call off an IACC race.

    Many of the boats have done extensive testing. Movistar did enough testing to manage to break a 24 hour speed record. These test aren't so much about structure as they are about crew. Go beat the hell out of an F1 car, take it into the garage. They're going to rebuild the engine, replace tires, replace clutch, fix anything that needs to be done. That's because the cars are so modular. If they required the Volvo boats to go around the world before the race, they'd already be beat to hell and fatigue would start to come into play.
     
  8. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    You make my point.

    Comparing VO70's to F1 was not my idea. IMO the comparison is laughable.

    "VO70's may see 50 foot waves, but how are they going to test them in 50 foot waves? Is there anywhere they can easily go that would guarantee hurricane force winds?"

    If you can't (or won't) test the design under foreseeable race conditions, then it would seem prudent to add a safety factor to the design to insure a sound vehicle.

    ""Compared to IACC boats, VO70's are untested."
    Get up to 25 knots and they'll call off an IACC race."

    IACC boats don't have to be designed to survive under all conditions, only the conditions that they are raced under. Many years and miles have been put into testing IACC boats for known conditions, yet failures still occur.

    Does it make sense to race a boat with less testing in more extreme conditions?

    Does it make sense to race such an untested boat in life threatening conditions?

    The only way to verify that a design will survive a race is to test it for more than a race distance. I would not expect a VO70 boat to be tested several times around the world and then be raced. F1 cars are tested, the results of fatigue are measured. The test *car* doesn't get raced. A new car built to the *tested design* is. A F1 team has enough parts to build many cars so they will have 3 to race.

    "Maybe if you gave each team a comparable budget to an F1 team, then you can criticize them, because you are basically criticizing the lack of budget."

    If time and budget don't allow for the level of testing and design analysis that F1 requires to be competitive, don't insult people by comparing the event to F1. Maybe they don't have the budget because sponsor's don't tend to back untested, high risk events?

    Would ocean racing be less exciting if risks were reduced?

    My concerns are that many of the worlds finest sailors may have been put at risk in an event that could be much lower risk. If the excitement of ocean racing is the risk rather than the racing, fine. Call it the Volvo Ocean Risk. Just don't compare it to real racing or Formula One.
     
  9. the_sphincter
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 63
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 8
    Location: behind the grundle

    the_sphincter *

    don't compare it to formula 1, but you can compare it to real racing. isn't the point to get around first? This is what these sailors do. This is what ocean racers thrive on. The risk. Same thing for those who climb Everest or base jump.
     
  10. RHough
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 1,792
    Likes: 61, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 793
    Location: BC Summers / Nayarit Winters

    RHough Retro Dude

    I agree 100% that ocean racing on a VO70 is a thrill seeking event. Base jumping, free climbing, smallest open boat to cross the Atlantic and other stunts are comparable.

    It wasn't me that started the comparison to F1.

    This thread is titled "dangerous designs".

    Did the VO70 rule create boats that are less safe than they could be? I vote yes.

    Has the VO70 rule created boats that are unsafe under foreseeable race conditions? The available evidence suggests yes.

    My experience has been that racing sailors will push their boats to the limits of control and sometimes beyond that limit.

    For a boat to fail at or before that limit is (IMO) a failure of the rule, a failure of the designer, a failure of construction, or a combination of those failures.

    It's quite simple to me. If the design can be operated under control past the point of failure, and that failure could put life at risk, the design is dangerous.
     
  11. cyclops
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 1,059
    Likes: 5, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 38
    Location: usa

    cyclops Senior Member

    I agree with RHough.
     
  12. D'ARTOIS
    Joined: Nov 2004
    Posts: 1,068
    Likes: 18, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 321
    Location: The Netherlands

    D'ARTOIS Senior Member

    No, it was me who did it, actually as a matter of speaking, looking at the design problem and trying to produce some kind of metaphore.

    The object of the designers is to create a boat that moves fast within a limit. They optimise their modellings where the safety factor plays an unknown role. Also the guys that sail the boat are more or less indifferent about their safety; I believe that belongs to their age and their thrive to glory.

    The reason that sponsorship for this kind of events as the VOR are so difficult to obtain is that the frequency of mediasupport is too short for the reason that the majority of the race is out of their range, out their scope of reporting. What happens mid-ocean doesn't interest a single person - safe for the actual sailors-sponsors.

    The racer from the '70's still survives, still ocean going, still ususable as a cruising yacht.
    The outcome of my query what could be expected of a VOR 70 after the race, might support my point of view.

    Let's see what happens further.
     
  13. Vega
    Joined: Apr 2005
    Posts: 1,606
    Likes: 26, Points: 58, Legacy Rep: 132
    Location: Portugal

    Vega Senior Member

    If the helmsman says that his boat in windy conditions “ instead of rising, the bow tends to go under the water, even with all the weight (sails and material) carried as much as possible to the stern, and that is dangerous to the material and to the crew”, I have no reason not to believe him.

    In other occasion he has described his boat saying that “she is a real submarine”.

    I think these guys have not confidence on their boats and are crossing fingers hoping not to find real bad weather.

    http://www.yacht.de/yo/yo_news/pspic/bildgross//91/Abn_Amro_14385966c33a99.jpg
     
  14. the_sphincter
    Joined: Nov 2005
    Posts: 63
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 8
    Location: behind the grundle

    the_sphincter *

    D'ARTOIS: Do you think that there's anything wrong with this "disposable boat" idea. If it gets the job done, who cares how long it lasts after that. You buy a Rolls Royce (Hinckley) to keep for life. You buy a Hyundai to drive until it breaks.
     

  15. julleras
    Joined: Sep 2004
    Posts: 16
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Bogotá, Colombia

    julleras Junior Member

    Tabarly didn't use a safety harness, recklessly IMHO, and in a routine check on deck he dissapeared to be found drowned later by a fisherman.

    IMHO he could have been slightly more cautious....

    I agree that many of the ocean racing designs of today don't fit with the idea of safety at sea, thousands of miles away from land.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.