The perils of edgy design offshore

Yes I am speculating as to why you are both obfuscating the technical issues, but for the life of me I can't see why there is so much emotive polemic in what should be a relatively straight forward technical discussion.

As for multihulls I don't see what the connection is here and any vessel is judged on it's relative merits for the single craft design being considered for the area of use.
Assess wingnuts on it's own not lumped with all monohulls. Wingnuts is predictably a poor offshore design but perfectly suitable for it's sheltered water design intent.

The same assessment process holds for any multihull. It's illogical to try and lump all multihulls into one global measure any more than it is to do the same with monohulls. Each vessel has to be considered on it's individual merits. That's what I was trying to get through to Gary Baigent that you can't compare the relatively diminutive Wingnuts with 60 foot ocean racers (who's designs have evolved to become safer through observation and regulation both).

Which sidesteps why they were in the water in the first instance next to an upturned ballasted monohull offshore. Both you and Gary seem to want to avoid identifying the mechanism that lead to the craft inverting and remaining so and concentrate on blaming the offshore conditions.

The only reason for the wings is to allow the crew to move out without leaving the deck, and that gets around race rules. Which even Gary should see the apparent irony of given his quoting before.

The downside is an inherent flaw that assists inversion and impedes recovery. That's a technical fact that can be clearly demonstrated. I posted before that if you introduce a flaw you'd better compensate for it with other parameters of the design if you want it to be safe offshore.

People need to be aware of the limitations of the craft they operate.

 

All this BS about self righting does not apply to wide beamed, lightweight monohulls - there is no argument; everyone knows if they turn turtle 180 degrees in inclement conditions, they can stay inverted, unless large waves bring them back upright. This argument has been going on ever since modern, high performance, big dinghy monohulls arrived. These light, wide types are like multihulls. And that is accepted by crews who sail them. The idea is to keep them on their feet, just like a multihull. However, like a multihull, in the K35's case, it didn't sink ... as most/all heavier ballasted designs would, and therefore saved six of her crew.
Lightweight, big dinghy types were pioneered and developed first in Auckland. The Young, Davidson, Elliott, Ross and others have been around for over three decades. Aside from broken keels in some early Elliott designs, to my knowledge there have been no problems or unhappy incidences involving these boat types here in offshore conditions.
To the person who posted the photograph of Rocket 40 BuckleUp in Sydney, (taken from Light Brigade) that boat has been around near three decades too, and also sailed offshore. You'd be interested to know that the R40's beam is around 15 feet, Rocket 30 Extreme's is 17 ... and Jim Young says that, retrospectively, the R40 should have been 4 feet wider.
So you can dismiss righting moment curves. Now, where does your argument go? How about lets ban everything not a moderate displacement mono? Good luck to you. Potentially new sailors, (and how many of them are around?) brought up on sail/kite boards, mountain bikes, sky diving etc. will really enjoy that.

 

The airborne wing will have more windage than the furled sail at knockdown (90 degrees ) but it's the waves that push the boat sideways and the immersed wing acts as a drogue. Couple that with wave action on the underside of the upturned wing and there is an energetic and very positive overturning action.
Once inverted the wings are close to the surface and the shallow hull allows the seas to flow over it and doesn't offer the same benefits to right the boat as they did to invert it. The mast and sails add damping and only a higher level of virtual stability could save the vessel.

 

For me Gary hit the nail on the head. I see no diffence between multi racers and light wide dingy boats as to what happens with a flip. The two deaths may not be directly related to turning turtle with head injury the boom is most suspect.(same boom on all the heavy slug boats). I think those adamant against the design are raising the same anti multi battle of years ago. Basicly this is big time raceing we are talking about and risk and new development are part and parsel with the activity. If you want safe pick the boat you go out on and if a design proves to be unsafe it will get weeded out. If the race committe is worried about deaths they should not encourage open water raceing anybody can fall off a boat get whacked with a boom or get a heart attack 200miles from help.

 

So more misdirection.

Ok, taking up the misdirection gauntlet, here is an excerpt of the summary from a very good research report conducted by the MCA “The capsize and stability of sailing multihull” in 1995:

”..All multihulls maybe capsized given sufficient wind strength, but it is possible to ensure that this likelihood is minimised by conservative rig sizing, and proper considerations of those parameters which affect the stability. If performance requirements demand a large rig, the onus for safety is passed from the designer to the crew. They will require a good understanding of the transverse and longitudinal stability limitations, and sufficient information to enable them to assess their level of safety under sail. They will need information on the relationship between the righting and heeling moments for a range of working sail plans, and when running downwind they will need to know the true wind speed, their vulnerability to pitch poling if stopped, and to capsizing if broached…”

How much of this was known by the crew…..

As for the Big time racing…how does this Lake Michigan race equate to “big time” when compared against the Vendee Global, or Sydney Hobart, or Fastnet etc??...you’re comparing chalk and cheese.

As for risk with regards to design, see above too.

For those that think there is an anti-this or that. It is all about acknowledging and accepting the shift in risk and knowing where the risk is and what you are prepared to do about, simply to win a race. It matters not one jot what the design is, but what does matter is how the environment affects that design and then knowing these facts what one is prepared to do to mitigate them, if at all.

It appears that you and Gary et al, are coming from a position of bias, in assuming that no one wants these boats out there or everyone is anti-light or multi, or whatever you decide to champion your cause. Risk is risk, failure to recognise risk and mitigate it, leads to unfortunate events. These events, if repeated, tend to force the hand of rules/regulations to prescribe what can or cannot be done, in the name of “safety”, but this does not play well to those that throw the baby out with the bath water. You can’t have your cake and eat it…

 

That begs the question why put a mechanism on the hull that assists it inverting in a knockdown and a beam sea.

I don't think you'll find any support for the viewpoint that heavier designs in general sink when knocked down or rolled.

If the design calls for it any heavily ballasted sailboat can also be make unsinkable since we have enough reserve stability to add some bulkhead weight and high levels of positive floatation its common, Recent changes IN A/NZ get home stability in holed and flooded states for commercial sailbaots for example are quite sensible have you read them?

A heavily ballasted monohull is one of the safest forms you can possibly produce in a small craft providing sensible design.

Sailed offshore and coped with a knockdown with no problem in heavy weather are quite different scenarios. I talked before about gambles...

Are you saying Jim Young said they should be 4 feet wider for offshore suitability or are you simply obfuscating the issue again ?

So this is the crux, neither technical fact nor prudence has no place in your universe and it's up to the individual. Why didn't you simply say that at the start?

But you should not argue that those same individuals should not be aware of the risks inherent in the design. It's one thing to vehemently deny inherent design risks and it's quite another to make them known and up to individual choice.

If the argument is about free choice then argue that.

 

The Perils of Edgy Weather in Any Boat

From Scuttlebutt tonight:

* From Bruce Thompson:
Given the interest in the recent events during the Chicago-Mac, I would
like to recommend that everyone take some time to review the 1998 Lake
Michigan Crew Overboard Study compiled by Gene and Glenn McCarthy. It has
served as a basis for many of the improvements in safety at sea. Here is
the link: http://tinyurl.com/USSA-072411

I would also like to pass along a thought to the crew of Sociable. Like
them, I was involved in a rescue operation where we saved some, but not all
of those in the water (LM Case 15). Like Kevin Costner's character in the
film about Coast Guard rescue swimmers, The Guardian, it's the ones that
you couldn't save that stick in your mind.

One minute you're minding your own business and then you're thrown into a
rescue situation where your intention is to save them all. Learning that
mere mortals are no match for the forces of nature is a difficult lesson.
In recent days, much has been made about gathering all the facts before
making any decisions. If you are ever put into this kind of situation you
will quickly learn that you do not have the luxury of contemplation.

I received nothing but praise for the ad hoc operation we put together on
the fly. All I know is we did the best we could under the circumstances. I
expect that with time the crew of Sociable will also come to appreciate
what they have accomplished. They saved the life of a very brave young man
who went back under the boat to pull out his fellow crewman. That is quite
an achievement.

UPDATE: A preliminary inquiry into the capsize of the Kiwi 35 WingNuts
during the Chicago to Mackinac finds that the two onboard deaths were due
to head trauma. Full story: http://tinyurl.com/MLive-072411

 

Danger Zone is not a R/P design.

 

Mike, Obfuscating is a weasel word, a smoke screen, sophisticated sounding though, you say the word to hide behind, instead of facing the point of someone's, possibly annoying, yes, but real questions or arguments.
1. Sure, a true big dinghy would have no ballast, beside human that is, but it is kind of nice to have some righting moment, for say, on a mooring.
2. Any moderate keelboat with as much water inside as Wingnuts had, would have gone to the bottom faster than a stone. Also the number of enclosed bulkheads and flotation areas that I've seen on monos I've sailed on, or been aboard, such compartments, able to keep the flooded hull above water, would be as rare as rocking horse defecation.
3. Maybe your life is devoid of gambles, tell us how you personally control the weather when you put out to sea.
4. No, Jim Young, his big dinghy designs, after 30 years existence and with no problems offshore, realized he was being too conservative with the narrow? 15 foot beam on the Rocket 40. More performance, power and stability could be gained by going wider.
Incidentally, Ben Lexcen designed a shallower draft keel for BuckleUp, Jim's was deeper. Also the rig was changed from original by Australians who thought they knew better, masthead with smaller main, opposite to what the designer drew.
6. Technical fact? Are you meaning righting moments - we've already gone through that. Prudence? It is up to the owner and crew to work out what can, or cannot, be achieved. Yes, I've always maintained its up to the individual. That's the difference between an anarchist and those who require rules as guidelines for their existence. I'm quite sure, watching the SA Clean interview with Wingnuts owner (look at the boat's name for instance) that he knew exactly what his boat was - and I'm sure the crew did too.

 

The only way to put an end to this silly debate is to Gary & co to participate one rough offshore race with the boat in question.. You say it's seaworthy design... so prove it!

 

From what you have added to the discussion, I think it's possible to come up with a better theory of what may have gone wrong. Eight crew seems somewhat large for a boat of this size and type. How many crew do you usually see on Turkey Wings?

My guestimate is the eight crew members had a combined weight of somewhere between 1200 and 1600 lbs. If they were all in the cockpit and the boat was heeled over, at least half that weight would be supported by the immersed wing. This should drive it somewhat deeper in the water. Add to that this likely scenario:

The mainsail is either let free or blows out completely, leaving the jib standing. Suppose that is jam kleeted and, under this terrific pressure, about 7.7 lbs per square foot, can't be released. The boat is now trying to round up into the wind, but the solitary jib is holding it off. The boat is then pushed sideways by the fierce wind, pushing the leeward wing even deeper, causing the boat to heel even further. As the boat heels further, more of the crew's weight is transferred onto the immersed wing, causing it to go deeper still. Its at this point that the capsize is likely to happen. And all this can happen in a matter of seconds with almost no time for the crew to effectively act.

And if they did, what could they do? Cut the jib sheet? Even then, the flailing jib may still have enough drag to hold the bow down wind. And the rudder has long since been made ineffective.

I guess my point is that certain events combined can effectively sink any ship, when any one of them alone would have caused little harm at all. It seems that the worse flaws of this design are that it is directionally unstable when hard pressed, a flaw shared with many sailboats that have sailed many blue water miles, and that it could not recover from a complete capsize, another trait shared with many a more conventional sailboat that has sailed the ocean blue.

It's when these traits are combined and happen unpredictably that the boat becomes dangerous.

With multihulls, the thing to do in a sudden gust is to turn down wind. The high speed of the boat running off lessens the force of the wind on it. Rounding up in one may well multiply it, overwhelming the transverse stability of the boat.

With most monohulls, the thing to do is to round up, letting the boat come to a near stop with the sails flailing away. Trying to run before the wind risks the bow digging in and the boat broaching.

I'm wondering if this boat was treated as a multihull, with the skipper trying to run before the squall. That would explain a lot about how it got into trouble.

Perhaps when all the facts come out, if they ever do, lessons can be learned about making safer future versions of this type of boat.

 

Boy! You can even obfuscate the meaning of obfuscate , It’s simply the opposite of elucidate. No weasel need be involved.

And yes I think you deliberately confuse a lot of issues like basic naval architecture Willfully to support your very clear ultralight edge go fast predilection which clearly colors your view. Not just your approach here in this thread but other material you have apparently written.

 

Very true. Here is a very clear example:

This is straight out of the testosterone fuelled "death or glory" mentality. Always assuming glory never even considering death or consequences beyond ‘glory’.:!:

How grossly disrespectful of you to drag those poor lost sailors into your myopic view to rant with more polemic emotion in a feeble attempt to make your point. Shame on you...

As Mike also points out, you can’t even use words correctly, let alone basic naval architecture.

Obfuscate….obscure, confuse (OED)…can’t see anything about a weasel in the OED.
Perhaps we don’t gamble enough with our use of words and their definitions....

 

Hello Peter, I try to send you an e-mail, but it always comes back undelivered! Why??? I am so grateful for your help.

 

Just read this story and it is truly sad. Here we have a very experienced crew who did everything right and took on mother nature head on.

My only suggestion for racing types and perhaps every day sailors is to consider a helmet. If one is tossed around on deck one blow to the head is all it takes to become incapacitated. At that point your life vest, safety line, etc. are of little use.

http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Tec-Ace-Wake-Helmet-Medium/dp/B000EYQDCG

Whitewater kayak paddlers consider them standard gear and would NEVER go out without one. Considering how harsh the environment can become on deck I do believe a helmet is without question a good idea. Getting racers/sailors to understand how important they are is another matter.

Water getting rough? Pop that helmet on your head!

Hindsight is 20/20.