Seaworthiness

"It would seem that MIAB moles have infiltrated this forum to advance such an agenda"

Could we try to keep this thread technical about design and not drift off point?

It is not worth reading anymore if we bog down with this prattle

 

If these statistics are kept or don't exist, how can we possible guage the real extent of the problem? Or shall we just continue to advance our own preferences as gospel?

 

Exactly. How else to explain this thread?

 

Seriously. Arguments are the most protracted, loudest, and get the most personal where there is the least amount of empirical evidence to adjudicate.

This is why I try to refocus the call of the question back to a cruising couple. Otherwise, seaworthiness can take on so many multiple meanings that it really is beyond examination.

I personally think that once you include the frailty that a cruising couple entials, the call of the question is narrowed enough that intelligent observations can be made. And I believe it was the cruising couple that served as the backdrop for the initial post in this thread. Correct me if I'm worng.

 

I still think the notion of a 'cruising couple' is still far too wide for generalisations to be made. Sometimes a cruising 'couple' is one person and a passenger whilst I'm completely happy to alternate single handed watches with the other half of my 'couple'.

But I don't think anyone is debating that there are factors of size / draft / beam etc which have an impact on the behaviour of boats, but the debate is fundamentally about, to what extent should we force people to incorporate these features in the boats they choose.

And for that we have to have a true measure of the risks involved and an agreement as to what extent we should protect people from themselves. It's the same debate they have in the automotive world, where in the UK we are obviously happy with 10 deaths a day on the roads or else we would require twin air bags, ABS and other features that are available to be incorporated in all new cars. If we were really bothered about safety we would restrict speeds to 30 mph on all roads. But neither the car buying public or the authorities believe such a 'cost' is warranted. People have a choice to accept a trade off between safety and purchase price / convenience / high powered fun etc. To debate safety (or seaworthiness) outside of these contexts is unrealistic.

The same is true of housing. People are allowed to build crappy houses along the coast of Florida because it's where people want to live at the price they are prepared to pay, and the authorities accept that the risk, when you factor in the whole picture including hurricane forecasting, evacuation plans and rescue facilities, is acceptable.

So we return to our favourite measurement of 'seaworthiness' - STIX. In isolation raising it to 40 or 50 or more for Cat A boats would probably make ocean classed boats more wholesome. But where is the risk assessment that proves there is a case for doing so? Where is the proof that a STIX of 32 minimum is leading to deaths on a scale that warrants any change? Do the people advocating such a change have a democratic mandate from the people demanding that something is done?

Cruising by it's very nature is about freedom. But like all freedoms it requires the people who enjoy that right to exercise a degree of responsibility. This includes using their financial resources wisely and buying a boat that suits their preferences, ambitions and skill level.

But it's horses for courses: How should we distinguish between the ex SAS trooper, Tom MacClean, who has made a number of solo Atlantic crossings in smaller and smaller boats including one only 5 ft 11 inches LOA, as opposed to the retired couple in a new Bristol 52 who required lifeboat assistance when they ran aground in benign weather on a lee shore in the Chesapeake Bay, but didn't have the skill or capability to run out an effective kedge. One of those boats was deemed (in isolation) to be highly seaworthy, but the same one is also a rescue statistic, feeding the authorities' urge 'to do something' about recreational boats seaworthiness.

 

That's not my understanding. Nobody, certainly not me, is advocating limitations on the right to cross an ocean in the boat of their choosing. I might disagree with somebody's choice of boat and design, but I will not hesitate to defend their right to choose--as I actively did so in another thread.

We are simply trying to figure out what it means to say a boat is seaworthy.

Part of the problem is that we haven't really defined the hazards that come from a boat that is not seaworthy. This can run the gamut, from pitchpoling in a storm, to sinking on account of hitting a container under clear blue skies, hitting a reef from a navigational error triggered by fatigue, getting burned while working in the galley, broaching during a blow, etc. Seaworthiness can mean very many things. What is the objective here?

Ultimately I think the issue of seaworthiness comes done to the subjective evaluation of how to divide the line of responsibility for safety between sailor and boat. If you place greater and greater responsibility for safety on the sailor, that certainly opens up some design avenues. And it is my opinion that this is the route that modern boat design is taking.

 

"Number of people killed in the Fastnet and Hobart aboard boats with deep ballast, skeg-hung or keel-hung rudders, vee-shaped sections, heavy rigs and non-planing hull shapes - at least 6.

Number of people killed in the Fastnet and Hobart aboard boats with spade rudders, flat sections, light rigs and surfing/planing sections - about 6.

MOST boats in the Hobart and Fastnet were closer to the light fin keel type than the heavy type, yet they killed fewer people proportionate to their numbers. So why the hell is there this concentration on boats that (in reality) kill a smaller proportion of people?" (CT 249)


Some people can handle some boats, and vice versa. To use an analogy - a top class crew on a 49er can sail fast and almost flawlessly in conditions a typical Snipe or Enterprise crew may not be able to handle at all. Why use the same criteria of seaworthiness for both crews?
PS no disrespect to cruising crews but few are used to racing boats at their limit. (CT 249)

CT, In general, it seems we agree. Your Fastnet '79/Hobart '98 comments that fewer of the lighter, "full race" style boats suffered fatalities in proportion to their numbers makes my point that these designs are meant for running with full crews of fit and highly experienced racers. Randy's earlier comment that the lighter, faster boats can avoid the worst of the weather is true...sometimes, but such boats can sail at their full potential only with large, experienced crews, who are operating at peak performance for a clearly defined period of time. I believe that for most (not all) cruising applications, such boats are not suitable.

That being said, I agree with those in this thread who decry any government "standards" for cruising boats. Buyers need to be informed. By definition, cruising on the open ocean, out of sight of land for days or weeks, is a potentially dangerous activity. No one should consider doing so without experience and a high level of knowledge, particularly knowledge of one's own and sailing partners' capabilities. There are some who will be capable of sailing a high performance monohull like a Pogo 40; most cruisers should avoid it. The responsibility, however, lies ultimately with the buyer to do the research and make a sound and well informed decision.

 

Well said! That's a good summation, in my opinion. No boat can be designed to be stupid-proof. There is nothing wrong with a lightweight, planing hull being used for offshore cruising.....provided the owner knows the potential dangers of the type and has the skill level and crew size to manage them under heavy weather conditions. On the other hand, I witnessed the grounding and near loss of a traditional style 40' sloop by an imbecile who attempted to enter a pass (Southern US-speak for inlet) well known and described on charts as shallow, sandy, with rapidly shifting shoals, and poorly marked. This with an strong onshore wind and an outgoing tide, at near low water. Stupid-proof is an impossible design quality.

 

You make some very good points.

No one is saying heavy displacement boats are not seaworthy, only that a boat does not need heavy displacement to be seaworthy. It may need certain characteristics for you to feel comfortable in it, but that does not make boats you are not comfortable with less seaworthy.

When people talk about eventually being in extreme conditions we have to look at what is extreme and how often those conditions actually exist on the ocean. The fact is that storms are NOT every day events. Yes there are almost always storms somewhere, but not on cruising routes during the best months to sail those routes.

Pilot chart data from 100's of years of sail tells us that gales are more frequent in some areas than others and more frequent in some months than others. It does not require anything fancy to plan passages to reduce the risk of sailing in a gale.

Nor does it take anything fancy to learn enough weather forecasting skills to anticipate changing weather. A little study, a log, and a barometer do quite well. Knowing the path that weather systems are likely to take and reacting early (rather than stubbornly holding course towards your destination) should reduce your exposure.

My survival model includes both storm avoidance (highly likely) and preparedness for storms (highly unlikely).

If you start from the idea "I wonder how often I'll find myself in storm conditions" and then do the research instead of starting from "I need a boat that can safely ride out a storm" and not learning to work with nature, you end up with the Ken Barnes story.

There is a HUGE difference between depending on tools to provide skills you lack and making good use of available systems to increase safety at sea. It would be like running aground because a chart was off by 8 miles instead of trusting your piloting skills. If you go aground because you trusted someone else's data (electronic or paper) you have no one but yourself to blame. Seaworthy should not mean idiot proof, such a boat does not exist.

I really have a problem with the idea of heaving-to or lying ahull. Lying ahull almost guarantees that the boat will be beam on to the sea and become very likely to get rolled. I also have a problem with boats that cannot sail in 40-50 knots. 40 knot winds should not bring a boat to her knees and force the crew to think about survival. In that respect there are heavy displacement boats that fail that "seaworthiness" test. In contrast, boats like the Class 40's are designed to sail in 40-50 knot winds ... short or single-handed ... under autopilot. How anyone can think that such a boat is unseaworthy is beyond me.

A boat designed to sail at 20 knots in 35 knots of breeze will have huge safety margins if throttled back to 14 knots. If my physics is correct, dynamic loads go up with the square of speed. If the boat has a safety margin of 2:1 at 20 knots, it has a margin of over 4:1 at 14 knots. At 10 knots the margin is 8:1. I seriously doubt that a boat designed for 9-10 knots will have anything close to scantlings that provide such high margins.

The simple fact is that ... if you choose to ... you can sail the oceans for years and NEVER sail in a storm. Designing boats with lying ahull in a storm as the primary design brief makes no sense to me. Building a boat that is not strong enough to sail safely in the conditions for which it was designed is not likely to happen. If you take a Class 40 design and depower it in a cruising version, you have a hull shape that was designed for open ocean under all conditions and scantlings that are engineered for speeds and conditions that a prudent cruiser will probably never see. Concluding otherwise is to ignore basic physics.

 

Randy, you're right: the boat, considered in isolation, is certainly seaworthy, but aside from R/C models, boats need crews to operate. Fatigue and the higher risk of injury associated with higher speeds, especially planing speeds, take their toll on the crew. A cruising crew's ability to absorb punishment and still perform at peak levels is significantly lower than a racing crew's for a variety of reasons stated previously. The crew's ability to perform is an integral component of seaworthiness.

But as I've said before, I'm speaking of most cruising crews. There will be cruising crews capable of sailing such a boat. As long as it's recognized that a "cruiserized" Pogo 40 is not for everyone, I'm satisfied.

 

I'm confused....

Cheers.

 

Certainly. The cruisers that proudly state that they don't worry about sail trim because they are "just cruising" will not choose a cruising Class 40 boat. I doubt that anyone (except me) that was considering a Shannon will look seriously at an Akilaria.

I don't get the higher risk of injury and fatigue being a problem. No one says the boat has to be pushed that hard all the time. I see being able to sail fast when you choose to, need to, or want to as a plus. It is an option that many boats don't have. You can always sail a fast boat slower, you cannot sail a slow boat faster.

 

The motion of a flat bottom, lighter weight hull in any sea state above calm and even at displacement speeds will be typically faster, more violent, jerkier, etc. This contributes to fatigue and a higher possibility of injury.

 

That's not true. To blindly believe in statistics is an act of faith. An unexpected storm may arise wherever and whenever.

Absolutely. But a prudent skipper should also allow for equipment failure, tiredeness or the like. Blind faith is risky.

And if you think you'll be always able to speed off an storm, you'll have serious chances of toasting down there with Neptune.

As there are light ones. Inconclusive.

I find your expresion “In contrast”quite tendencious. On the other hand Class 40 boats are pretty difficult to steer under autopilot in those conditions, requiring constant skipper attention. Read again Phil Sharp's statements.

Proper 'heavy' cruising boats are scantled with pretty high safety margins. I'm not so sure for the new breed of super light ones.

Generalizing that way only from the tale of a couple who said you so, is not prudent at all.

Please show me a designer following that design brief, my dear!

Maybe that's why some keels have a tendency to live an independent life nowadays...

I would like to inspect those forty foot boats with D/L ratios under 100 within some years time. I'm not so sure as you are about their fatigue characteristics. I think you are not being prudent at all about all this. You seem to have an excess of faith in performance of electronic equipment, marketing people and your own abilities. Not very wise, in my opinion.

Cheers.

 

I'll wager that a boat that was designed to be steered by an autopilot will be easier to steer than a boat that was not. It does not make sense to think that designers with experience designing successful boats for short-handed ocean racing would come up with boats that are harder to steer than boats that were not designed with that in mind.

I have only my personal experience to guide me. I know several people that have sailed oceans, none of them talk about storms that came from nowhere. I am forced to conclude that there is always some warning of bad weather. Some of my friends have had no choice but to continue into the bad weather (racing or working as a delivery skipper), but they knew it was coming and could have avoided it if they chose to.

Well, with the number of people that think crew safety while lying ahull is the prime consideration in determining seaworthiness ... I would assume that it is high on the list of a design brief.

Not on any boat I would consider for cruising ...

The reality is that in 40 years I'll not care what condition the hull is in. I have no problem with a boat that is not sound after 20-40 years. Most of the solid GRP boats that still look like they are in one piece are nowhere near as stiff and solid as when they were built. At least the good wooden boats of the 30's and 40's could be rebuilt to "as new" condition. As far as I know there is no repair for a soft solid glass hull. There are hundreds of boats still in use that should not be. It is only the easy usage and limited time they spend sailing that keeps them on the market. That does not make them sound.

At one time all the same concerns were raised over boats with D/L ratios under 300, then under 250, then under 200 ... it will always be so. As long as one is tied to heavy = strong rather than good design = strong one will always mistrust lighter weight replacements.

Yes, I put quite a bit of faith in my ability, I certainly have more faith in my ability to take care of the boat than in the boat's ability to take care of me. I don't think that anyone that does not have faith in their ability should consider ocean sailing at all. I doubt marketing people, and I am familiar enough with marine electronics to have confidence in them as well. Electronics don't fail for no reason any more than storms rise up from nowhere. Components fail either early on or they work just fine until damaged or obsolete. As a prudent sailor, I don't rely on systems that have not been in use past the early failure date, after that I don't abuse them and they seem to work just dandy for me.