The perils of edgy design offshore

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by MikeJohns

And how about addressing the rest of my post?
Presumably by now you understand that the wings can be significant in the inversion process? And they act to stop re-righting.
You understand that the limit of positive stability is very important?

Also the ORR is not a measure of seaworthiness is it!

===================
Some wing designs could act to stop rerighting some wing designs would facilitate it. You lump all wing designs together when they can function in very different ways.
Do you consider racing multihulls to be seaworthy?

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Having wings, in and of themselves, does not make a boat less seaworthy.
[color="DarkRed"]The design of the wings, their buoyancy(or lack thereof), their dihedral are major factors in designing a self-righting boat with wings that is seaworthy.
I'm 100% convinced that a boat such as Wingnuts should be self-righting or rightable under the same criteria as an Open 60. Why it, apparently, wasn't is worth looking into.

And the more I consider it the more I see the fact that multihulls are allowed to race in the ChiMac and are not required to be self-righting while there is a hue and cry from some that the way to prevent this tragedy is to add more lead!! Why should racing monohull designs be penalized with outmoded design considerations in light of the above? If it is raced with the full knowledge of the crew that it could capsize -and that if it did it would float- what is the difference between this kind of mono and a multi? I'm asking because it doesn't make sense at all-not because I'm advocating sailing mono's in the ChiMac w/o ballast! I think the design of high speed self-righting monohulls with wings, movable ballast ect.(that float) is a viable direction for design and allowing unfortunate incidents such as the Wingnuts tragedy to negatively impact that just compounds the tragedy.
Again, do you think racing multihulls are seaworthy?

[MikeJohns]

We are talking about this particular craft. Lets keep it to the thread subject. Multihulls as others have said to you are just sidetracking the real issue here, they are a different ballgame entirely.

You still haven't answered me I notice except to quote yourself which isn't very convincing. Have you read my post properly? Is there anything technical you disagree with ?

You'd also agree that adding stability (not necessarily 'more lead' as you put it, but a better LPS/AVS ) would have moved the 98 S-H boats out of the danger zone and saved some more lives !

[Doug Lord]

There is one thing that might have saved the lives of the two crew on Wingnuts: wearing a helmet like the guys on the AC45's do now:

[BATAAN]

I agree about the helmets. When sailboat racing gets as out of control, ragged-edge, crazy as it seems to be, head protection makes sense.

[eyschulman]

I single hand and have been wearing helmets for years. Started when wind surfing used Garth helmet.

[Paul B]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

---------------------------------

Many ocean racing sailboats all over the world race with wings and are extremely seaworthy. Having wings, in and of themselves, does not make a boat less seaworthy.
The design of the wings, their buoyancy(or lack thereof), their dihedral are major factors in designing a self-righting boat with wings that is seaworthy.

More Bravo Sierra from the master.

Please tell us of all the ocean racing sailboats all over the world that are equipped with soid wings! I know of ONE, and it was built to compete in one downwind race. Since that race it has mostly been sitting on the hard or in a slip, not sailing or racing offshore anywhere.

Please tell us of ONE instance where a boat with wings does not suffer from increased inverted stability compared to a similar craft without wings. None exist that I know of.

I have sailed on a Kiwi 35 when they were new. I wasn't very impressed with the build. I would not have sailed on one offshore.

I also sailed on the similar winged Moore 30. I have photos from the day hull #1 was launched, and we went sailing late that afternoon. Ron had a plaque that was screwed to the aft end of the keel trunk. It specifically said the boat was not for offshore use.

These types of boats are fun to sail. Prudent people will not take them into situations for which they are not intended.

[CutOnce]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

There is one thing that might have saved the lives of the two crew on Wingnuts: wearing a helmet like the guys on the AC45's do now:

Actually, there isn't just one thing. There are many things. Rather than try to isolate the cause down to one simple issue, you have to consider all things. If the conditions weren't so bad, the boat may not have got knocked down and these two unfortunate people may not have sustained the trauma. If they were in a different place on the boat ... If ... If ...

20/20 hindsight isn't that worthwhile an exercise. And helmets would help a lot but aren't a perfect solution.

As this is a boat design forum, I posted the thread to provide an opportunity to discuss the design implications regarding the boats - not as a place to try to place blame on the crew's failure to wear helmets.

The better approach is to consider: What real stability measures could be used to help set race entry conditions and save lives? What design change(s) might have affected things for the better? If wings are important to the design, could one be made automatically flood-able for negative ballast when capsized, while the other is positively buoyant? This could help an inverted design out of the inverted stable floating of this boat.

This is a place where new ideas should be discussed.

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by CutOnce

As this is a boat design forum, I posted the thread to provide an opportunity to discuss the design implications regarding the boats - not as a place to try to place blame on the crew's failure to wear helmets.

.

==================
Actually, it appears to me that you put the blame from post one on the "edgy" design of the boat and on the design of boats regarded by you as "edgy"-see 1,2 &3 below:

Originally Posted by CutOnce

Sad news of two deaths in the Chicago Mackinac Race. This is the longest freshwater race in the world.

1) The boat involved Wingnuts, is an edgy lightweight design where wide wings creating righting moment (with crew movement) necessary for the sail plan used are core to the concept.

Offshore keelboat racing is a venue where conditions often change faster than crew can run for shelter - therefore the boats must be able to handle extreme conditions unsupported. It's sad that two veteran sailors died - and the so far unanswered question is
2) "Would these people be alive today if the boat they were sailing was conventionally ballasted and designed for offshore conditions?".

3) Compared to some of the edgy designs discussed here, Wingnuts seems pretty tame, old school and out-of-date. No required engines to sail, sliding ballast or complex mechanical technology.

There is no doubt that Wingnuts should be capable of spectacular performance in the right conditions - a possible line honours boat, if not category winner ... but ... that speed potential in the right conditions does extract a penalty in worst case scenarios. Although we are talking about freshwater here, make no mistake that the Great Lakes can be as bad as extreme conditions encountered in maritime settings.

I'm all for experimentation and pushing the envelope in controlled circumstances where the inherent safety factor reduced in the boat is made up for by close proximity of support, help and the ability to avoid extreme conditions. We had a concert stage collapse last night (while Cheap Trick was playing) here - a line of thunderstorms blew in at 60 knots sustained with under five minutes warning.

4) How much safety should be eliminated in the quest for speed? Is racing between a safe (and realistically slower) boat and a riskier/dangerous speed machine fair? Should a owner/skipper be held liable for crew deaths when they leave the dock in a boat incapable of handling the worst case conditions encountered?

I'm not talking about inshore testing of a boat like "Q" and it falling over with a support RIB present. But I do wonder about someone taking the same boat across the Bass Straight.

Thoughts?

I wish this were only a theoretical discussion happening before a tragedy, not after lives were lost.

--
CutOnce

=========
Four first: that is the point of the handicap systems and different classess used by the ChiMac race committee.
1, 2, 3: From the testimony of many of those present the conditions were freaky and focused in the general area of where Wingnuts was. It was a storm without parallel at least in the history of this race according to many people I've read. Two people tragically died and assessing blame for that on the design of the boat is just plain wrong-especially considering that 6 people survived and the current lack of firsthand information from the survivors.
Some notes:
a- Wingnuts met every standard required by the Chi Mac race committee,
b- the crew was very well prepared and experienced,
c-"Edgy" designs have an important roll to play in small boat design but ,as I have said repeatedly, I think a boat in a race like this should be self-righting at least in the same way as an Open 60. New self-righting monohull keelboat designs will emerge using lifting hydrofoils which will increase speed to levels equal to or faster than equivalent sized multihulls. I think this is a great thing for design and for sailing. Additional criteria for these kinds of boats could include a requirement that they float no matter what-like multihulls. And like multihulls they should be able to race in the Chi Mac and other similar races. In fact, these high speed monohulls will have one major advantage over most multihulls: they will be self-righting or rightable by crew action like Open 60s. Greater speed increases risk-thats just a fact that most multihullers live with and it is a fact for high speed monofoilers and their crews. By using common sense and the best design technology available the risk can be mitigated- mainly by ensuring rightability of the boats and utilizing basic safety concepts such as helmets, proof of rightability , sealed masts, masthead flotation with rigs designed for the load, and more.
d- Not all wings are the same and it is possible to design a boat using very wide wings and movable ballast that is also self-righting. The idea that the wings on Wingnuts may have contributed to the capsize is possible but more needs to be heard from the survivors to nail down exactly what happened. A couple of people on SA who claimed to know the Kiwi 35 well say that the boat can be righted from a turtled position by the crew-I would assume they would have had to practice to be able to accomplish that in the aftermath of a storm. One boat that was near Wingnuts was said to have been laid over at 90 degrees and moving 9 knots sideways. In a situation like that had a crew been thrown off as the boat laid over it seems someone could have been lost. Mike is right when he says that the Kiwi
35 could have tripped over the down wing but at the same time the rig would have been hitting the water and the boat would not be sliding sideways-any crew thrown during the capsize might have had a better chance than on a boat scooting sideways. The information from the survivors will be key in determining exactly what happened and why.
e-"Edgy" designs probably shouldn't be "cruising" boats but they have a role to play that many people gravitate to for the pure thrill of sailing such machines. Lets hope that "big brother" or his agents don't try to muzzle high speed monohull or multihull design and instead help to contribute elements of safety to such designs.


UPDATE: 7/22/11 U20 sinking-hit by the same storm that later hit Wingnuts: http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/125810733.html
from the crew on SA:
I was at Goombay today and talked to the initial reports of the boat sinking to 60 feet were incorrect. I spoke with the group that pumped out Goombay and towed her to shore.

We were taken to shore about 11:30pm or so. The Tow Boat arrived at 2:00am and the boat was still at the surface with bow down and stern still out of the water.

As the reason that the front flotation dry well area filled was due to the intense pressure created by the waves entering the cabin a seam popped where the dry well was sealed to the hull allowing water to slowly seep into the dry well.

Boat is out of the water and looks great. Very little damage was incurred.

Correction to the News story... Pete was the one to retrieve his cell phone and communicate with Fire and Rescue!

Thanks to a great crew, we are all here to talk about it!

Picture: U20 sunk in same storm that hit Wingnuts--click on image-

[CutOnce]

I do feel the lightweight wide-winged, minimally ballasted design of this particular boat most likely contributed to the problems encountered. I think that ultra light weight planing sportboats have their place, and that isn't on overnight offshore unsupported races.

I think this crew prepared well and did everything right.

I was surprised seeing the hull floating inverted with the keel bulb intact for hours. I did not think that it would be possible for an offshore racing keelboat - common sense made me think it would be at the least self righting (when it was critically needed, not hours later).

In regards to standards met, perhaps the standards need to change. Perhaps meaningful and more stringent standards should be developed.

Sailing offshore and unsupported is where you must be prepared for "freaky" and unexpected conditions. It is amazing how many times I've heard
"it was a one in a million circumstance" - so often I've come to believe that everyone's math is wrong - especially offshore.

--
CutOnce

[MikeJohns]

Originally Posted by Paul B

..........Ron had a plaque that was screwed to the aft end of the keel trunk. It specifically said the boat was not for offshore use.

These types of boats are fun to sail. Prudent people will not take them into situations for which they are not intended.

And this is the crux of the matter the boat was not suitable for the course. It shouldn't have been in that race.

Doug is putting spin on every real issue here and he's clearly making up 'facts' as he goes and trying any avenue of argument to deflect valid criticism of the design. Why? is what I'd like to know.


[edit added]

Ah I see , it's so he can argue for foilers.

[eyschulman]

The same parameters would apply to multihulls in unsupported open waters. That argument has been beat to death. Multis go everywhere and the good ones go very fast thats what racing is about. When Nat H brought his cat to New York back in the late 1800s and wiped out the fleet the first reaction was to outlaw the maverk boat and in so doing development was set back almost a century. Racing in any mode of tranportation includes risk sometimes the ultimate risk. If you legislate against design risk you stifel development

[Doug Lord]

Originally Posted by MikeJohns

Doug is putting spin on every real issue here and he's clearly making up 'facts' as he goes and trying any avenue of argument to deflect valid criticism of the design. Why? is what I'd like to know.

===================
Making an absurd statement like that clearly shows you haven't read what I wrote. And I damn sure don't make up facts.

[MikeJohns]

You can read what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

..Making an absurd statement like that clearly shows you haven't read what I wrote. And I damn sure don't make up facts.

I'll add that one to a Doug fact shall I ?

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

....a hue and cry from some that the way to prevent this tragedy is to add more lead!! ........

Why did you make that up?

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

.......the extraordinary nature of the storm...........

Is your spin on the event read post #22

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

....To single out wings as the cause of this accident is ludicrous. ..

Only in your mind, but you are wrong, they were major and significant contributors. That at least could be easily shown in any wave tank!

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

..Many ocean racing sailboats all over the world race with wings and are extremely seaworthy. ...

Really? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

Having wings, in and of themselves, does not make a boat less seaworthy. ...

Do you really suggest that adding a tripping mechanism doesn’t affect seaworthiness.

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

these comments are way off base. This boat had a valid ORR certificate...

An ORR rating certificate doesn’t vindicate the design.


To me it looks like you are defending an abysmal choice of design for the course sailed simply because the implications challenge your foiler infatuation. Perhaps we should open another thread and look directly at the inherent dangers in those craft.

[Gary Baigent]

To the somewhat smug, 20/20 hindsight experts posting here, you should remember that the elements are a lot more powerful, repeat, a lot more powerful than we are. In apportioning blame people forget that the examining bodies of human endeavour are not armchair rules but the elements, which find feeble humans no contest ... and luck also plays a role.
And talking about wide beamed, lightweight monohulls; the Young designed Extreme (even more extreme than the Kiwi 35) has done many miles in hard sailing New Zealand conditions - usually winning not only class but beating much larger boats as well ... and New Zealand conditions can be rapid fire changeable and very savage too.

[Guillermo]

I agree with the ones saying here that kind of designs are not adequate even for overnight racing, but for dinghy style cans courses in daylight with fast rescuing services available.

Cheers.