The perils of edgy design offshore

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by CutOnce, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 349, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    The Perils of Edgy Weather in Any Boat

    ===============
    There is another possibility: maybe Gary is right?!
     
  2. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    So, please provide a stability, GZ Curve, of a multihull, and then over lay the result with the Kiwi35 as shown in this report.
     
  3. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Every boat can be "improved".
    Will you throw out a type of boat because one specific boat was not perfect?
    Lets assume that the premise that a Naval Architect can help choose a better boat is reasonable. Nothing new here. To me this is undoubtably true.

    What would be the design features making this boat "reasonable"?
    Doug listed several options. What would be the suggestions of the technically qualified in this forum? Besides go get a more conventional design.

    Someone mentioned skimming dishes vanishing 100 years ago due to "similar" issues. Looks like a natural evolution of trying something new, refining the design due to hard lessons, and moving on. Unless someone got excessive with the rules - I don't know the history.
     
  4. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 349, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    ===============
    For the purposes of this discussion what matters is that the multihull can capsize and has capsized and killed two people in a Great lakes race. While at the same time the Kiwi 35 is vilified because it can capsize and has capsized and killed two people in a Great Lakes race.

    I just think there is a double standard being applied-I love multihulls but the risk is there because of the nature of the beast. I accept that when I sail one
    and so do many, many others. Yet when someone suggests that a sailor ought to be able to accept the risk to sail an edgy monohull that might capsize that person is called names by at least one naval architect.
    Something is just not right.

    This quote from the report(not the "Findings") says it all. We are asked to believe that an experienced sailor ( who had modified the boat to increase its stability!) "seemed unaware of the danger lurking in vessel's design and how it was being used". That is just plain hogwash because in many of the writings by the owner and in the actions taken by the owner there was an obvious recognition of the edginess of the design in its particular application as a Great Lakes racing machine. I would venture to say that the skipper of WingNuts clearly understood the nature of the boat he was sailing as do those who, with the blessing of the Chi-Mac organization, sail high performance multihulls in the same conditions.
    ===========
    To be clear, I think the recommendations by the report are a good thing. They don't condemn wings just boats with poor stability and good inverted stability. Monohull designs can be done that are as fast or faster than WingNuts w/o the downside and that is a good thing. But there is this nagging feeling that something ain't right here......
    ---
     
  5. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Let me repeat myself. This is how the owner of Wingnuts himself described his own boat:
    After reading that, can anyone here seriously argue that Wingnuts was designed for offshore racing? It was like taking a sports car on a Jeep trail....

    What he calls 'tender,' I'd describe as downright squirrely. Lots of fun in a day race, but not something I'd take out of sight of land.

    Doug, you're right when you say catamarans aren't generally self-righting, either. On the other hand, they're a lot less likely to turn bottoms-up to begin with.
     
  6. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 136, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    All this stuff about ignorant skippers and crews being unaware of what they're getting themselves into ... is again ignorant BS; they are fully aware of what can happen when involved with overpowering elements if they're sailing an "edgy" design.
    Relating back to the multihull/skimming dish mono similarity - and by the way, the skimming dish has never died, look at all the race monohulls of today, all, without exception have skimming dish-like hull shapes, in fact even more extreme than the Century old examples, anyway back on point: there were in Australia during the Crowther/Nicol early period, swathes of mouthy committee revering pundits, who absolutely denigrated to an "abysmal" degree multihulls after some at-sea losses there ... yet the multihull, through evolution has now become recognised as THE modern race yacht, hold all the records and have been developed to extreme sophistication. Who is to say that a wing-type monohull, will not do the same; say by fitting foils, blistered decks, buoyant wing rigs and so on, big foiling Moths, of which a few "adventurer" designers and sailors are working on at the moment. Some of the bigoted EG's here will of course disagree, just as they did/do about multihulls ... they will be proven wrong.
     
  7. MikeJohns
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 3,192
    Likes: 208, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2054
    Location: Australia

    MikeJohns Senior Member


    This is just religious preaching with the pre supposition that you can be nothing but right. But you have been wrong or wildly incorrect on aspects of Naval Architecture, strong opinioins don't make you an expert and you should be trying to discuss this from a technical view and learning what you can rather than retrenching into a biased viewpoint.

    Again and again you continue to miss the real point, and head off on an enraged tangent tilting at imaginary windmills. They just are not there, they are in your head.

    For example whether the boat has wings or not is not the issue. It's about the whole boat as a system. The same as any vessel.

    Read again what I posted here:
    and here
    Try and understand that if the tried tested and proven physics say it's unsafe then it is period, no matter what your opinion is.
    Then only a fool argues that it's heroic advancement in the face of adversity, rather it's just a very high degree of dependence on the welfare state. And for what exactly ?
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2011
  8. Gary Baigent
    Joined: Jul 2005
    Posts: 3,019
    Likes: 136, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 509
    Location: auckland nz

    Gary Baigent Senior Member

    You're the preacher, MJ - with an absolute belief in old book physics, restricted book view physics - you seem incapable to think outside the box/book, yet you continue to preach your arch conservative BS. Books can go out of date, the knowledge superseded. And now, after all your earlier derogatory statements about wings, or not having wings, now the wings are unimportant, it is the whole package instead. Confusion?
    Actually my strong opinions are based on historical developments, from observations about what happens, and is happening - and not the results of silly committees, or outdated books. Are you a strong committee man, MJ? I think so. I'm for the new books and the ones yet to be written about what is happening right now, modern history, something of which, it appears, you have little knowledge and have difficulty comprehending.
     
  9. Willallison
    Joined: Oct 2001
    Posts: 3,590
    Likes: 130, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 2369
    Location: Australia

    Willallison Senior Member

    What a load of obstinate bollocks! When you manage to produce one of these "new world" physics books, that manages to re-write the current, proven and well understood versions, then I for one would love to see it.
    The REALITY is that for those who want to push the envelope, there are faster and infinitely safer boats out there to do it.
     
  10. MikeJohns
    Joined: Aug 2004
    Posts: 3,192
    Likes: 208, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2054
    Location: Australia

    MikeJohns Senior Member


    Ha ! You should actually stop, and consider properly whats being posted.

    There is very little sensible that you've posted in this thread and you've demonstrated some very concerning ignorance about naval architecture. Your reply to this is to claim that physics has a use by date :rolleyes: and your new physics based on nothing other than opinion is vastly superior, Therefore you are right and everyone else is wrong. That view just doesn't wash.

    Anyway as to your further confusion about my view, if you cannot go back and read the link I'll post it here:

    That's physics, it's also simple, it never goes out of date that can only happen in fantasy worlds.

    All you have are opinions based on a very narrow understanding of the subject, you contribute no facts, studies, papers to contradict the professional view and you have historically shown yourself outside of this forum to be not only ignorant but to hold an extremely stilted view.

    You also don't seem to comprehend that we as a professional group are not "quoting from ancient outdated books", we actually are observing from a fundamental understanding of the subject.
     
  11. upchurchmr
    Joined: Feb 2011
    Posts: 3,287
    Likes: 259, Points: 83, Legacy Rep: 579
    Location: Ft. Worth, Tx, USA

    upchurchmr Senior Member

    Gentlemen,

    Physics works. It is the cleaverness of the designer, engineer, builder, owner, operating within the limits of physics that provides new opportunities. Not to ignore the sailor who actually finds out how to get around the percieved limits of basic physics with technique, inovation, attention and luck.

    Nothing is cut and dried. Poor boats have been sailed a long way, great boats have been wrecked thru ignorance, inattention, and bad luck.

    MJ - how would you evolve this boat to be better? Second time I asked that - it is easier to yell at someone, I personally was just reminded not to do that in another forum. Guilty as charged.

    What can we get out of this that is positive?

    Marc
     
  12. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    So, since you are unable to provide as requested:-

    ...which implies you are unable to do so (thus speaking from ignorance), or do not wish to supply the data (because you know you expose yourself to more critiquing). So, here is one i made for you to understand the simple facts you are very clearly missing.

    wingnuts stab v typ sailing cat.jpg

    The reason why the graph looks odd, to to ensure that both stability curves are on the same scales. The GZ of Wingnuts is taken directly from the report.

    So, with a strong wind heeling moment that is sufficient to knock down Wingnut, what effect does it have on a catamaran??....well, it is clear to see, the result is an angle of heel of roughly 2 degree. I shall repeat this for the hard of reading, 2 degrees! A wind heel that would capsize Wingnuts produces a heel of just 2 degrees in a typ. sailing cat.

    So, you feel there is cherry picking when it comes to one boat versus another boat. With the evidence presented, please again, explain why?
     
  13. Ad Hoc
    Joined: Oct 2008
    Posts: 7,774
    Likes: 1,679, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 2488
    Location: Japan

    Ad Hoc Naval Architect

    Oh dear, someone with delusions of grandeur that is incapable of logical reasoning and theorising based upon observations to produce consistent and repeatable engineering knowledge open to any independent scrutiny.

    So, the book by Issac Netwon "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" published in 1687, is now out of date. Ergo F=MA is no longer valid??..hmmm interesting...tell me more :eek:
     
  14. Doug Lord
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 16,679
    Likes: 349, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 1362
    Location: Cocoa, Florida

    Doug Lord Flight Ready

    Ad Hoc, I appreciate that you supplied the information that you wanted . And also the commentary to go with it. Tell, me what exactly is the "typical sailing cat"?
    Most high performance cats I'm familiar with sail with the windward hull flying when racing-maybe 6- 10 degrees angle of heel. Most high performance racing cats fly the windward hull in less than 10 knots wind intentionally when racing. Yet you show the "typical sailing cat" sailing at 2 degrees in the approx. 50 knots of wind that the report says capsized WingNuts.
    Whats wrong with this picture?
     

    Attached Files:


  15. pdwiley
    Joined: Jun 2008
    Posts: 1,004
    Likes: 86, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 933
    Location: Hobart

    pdwiley Senior Member

    From my POV, what's wrong with your argument is that you won't supply any numeric data to support your opinions, whereas Ad Hoc can & does.

    So, if you don't like his choice of numbers, the solution is simple. Stop whining about what he picked and post your own.

    PDW
     
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.