Canting keels falling off supermaxis - how many?

Canting Keels

Canting keels are on IMOCA 60's, Volvo 65's, Schock 40's, Elliot 35's, most 22' Mini ocean racers, the new SK 2 and many, many more. No theres no trickle down-oh wait-which came first the 60'plus ocean racers with canting keels or the 18' SK2?

http://sk2sailing.com/

 

/\

And those canting keelers represent a minute proportion of the world's offshore racing and sportsboat fleets, which demonstrates the point.

They only built about 6 Schock 40s, for example. There's about two Elliott 35 canters and something like 100 canting minis. In other words, there are probably more examples of a single production fixed keel 'big boat' like the First 36.7 than there are canters in the entire world. That indicates what a minority interest they are. That's fine; a lot of my favourite classes are minority interests too - but it demonstrates how they have failed to catch on as a mass-market item.

I don't understand the point about whether the 60'+ ocean racers or the 18' SK2 came first. Canting didn't originate in 60'+ boats, so it's trickled up and then moves up and down.

 

An interesting observation in itself, since when was the last time you came across someone "turboing" an existing motor vehicle? Indeed that technology seems now to be being directed at efficiency and economy rather than delivering raw power.

 

By coincidence, we went to a barbie this weekend with a guy from one of the helicopter rescue outfits on the Hobart route.

He was VERY unimpressed with the experience of pulling Hobart race yachties out of the water. Unlike the Navy (or the RAN as some think it is) his outfit has a budget. Money spent on pulling yachties out of the drink means economies somewhere else.

I didn't mind in earlier years, because in those times the rich guys paid taxes on their sailing. These days many of the big boats are run as companies and therefore they pay no tax to make up for the drain on the public purse they can cause.

 

And what about the drain on the public purse of all the other non-canting keel boats that had/have trouble? That guy sounds like he is in the wrong line of work or ...?
I've talked to numerous Coast Guard guys and they relish the opportunity to use their training to help rich or poor, smart or stupid.

 

You tell 'em, Doug. How dare someone not want to risk their life, and limited budget, hauling yachties out of the drink. I'm sure your heroism is light years beyond that cad.

 

Yeah, a friend of mine is an ex-pilot from our military. He liked doing rescues too, but he wasn't paying for it.

I, OTOH, as a taxpayer, do *not* like paying for the easily foreseeable consequences of races with boats built to minimum possible scantlings. If they can afford to race, they can afford insurance for rescue costs.

I'll be back in Hobart when the fleet gets in. As usual I'll wander around, talk with people I know, look at the boats and enjoy myself. It'll be interesting to see what happens if there's some dirty weather.....

PDW

 

Canters have been in the Hobart for about 10 years and have about 5 boats starting each race, so that's 50 starts for 1 copter/naval rescue (Skandia).

Non-canting boats have been in the Hobart for 70 years and have about 100 boats starting each race, so that's 7,000 starts for about 11 copter/naval rescues ('98, Koomooloo, The Adjuster, Clywd, Goldfinger, etc).

In other words, so far there's been about a one in 50 chance that a canter will require rescue while there's a one in 600+ chance of a fixed keeler requiring rescue. And of course most of those fixed keel rescues were in the freak year of '98; canters have not faced such conditions in the Hobart yet.

So the answer to the question "what about the drain of the none-canting boats that had trouble" is pretty simple - they are vastly less likely to get into trouble and therefore vastly less of a drain. You love showing ratios and numbers in your posts - why do you ignore the ratios and numbers when they don't support your ideas?

What the US Coast Guard want to do is not necessarily relevant; they are fully taxpayer-funded, whereas most rescue assets involved in Hobart rescues are not; they rely on scarce donations and sponsorships.

Secondly, the number of rescue assets available in Australia is vastly smaller than the number available in the USA. The Hobart runs past an area of (by US standards) extremely low population density, which has a very small number of rescue assets. We have TWO rescue helicopters to cover a land area half the size of Florida, and the adjoining sea. You have four CG air stations (including one with 12 choppers and one with 10), a bunch of fixed wing aircraft, and 40 cutters, every one of them much larger than our four offshore rescue boats (IIRC), a 40 footer and three 38 footers. Your cutters are run by pros, ours by unpaid volunteer.

You could also add in other assets; the Brevard County police department alone has 5 helicopters; NSW police have 5 helicopters to cover an area TWENTY TIMES as large.

In other words, we have less 5% of the search and rescue assets the US has for a similar geographical area as the one you are in, and we use a completely different funding model and manning system. What members of the USCG like to do is not relevant to us in this respect. Again, you're one who likes using ratios and numbers in your posts, so how can you ignore the ratios and numbers that demonstrate how tightly-stretched our rescue assets can be?

And of course you have to add in the fact that the Hobart is run at our peak holiday season, when the half a dozen significant rescue assets available on the adjoining coast are already stretched to cover an influx of tens of thousands of tourists who are getting lost in the bush, finding their outboards don't work, drowning off beaches, crashing cars and having heart attacks and needing urgent flights to the scattered hospitals.

It's quite sad that when you are presented with an opposing viewpoint, from someone who is out there doing stuff you just look at in an area you have never been to, involving a type of sailing you have never done in conditions you have never experienced, all you can do is insult them instead of trying to understand the simple maths and numbers that demonstrate that their viewpoint is perfectly reasonable.

 

I don't consider that viewpoint "perfectly reasonable"-I think it is a tragedy for the person holding it and the person who may need rescuing.

 

Then send your non-tax deductible donation to support volunteers ricking the lives to save professional yachties in OZ.

For bright guy you are dense sometimes. OZ is NOT Kansas or like the USA in any way ... OZ and the US don't even share a language.

You cannot compare the over-funded, bloated USCG arm of the US Military to a bunch of blokes running a lifeboat service as volunteers.

 

Damn right. I used to live in Arizona a while back. The AZ Air National Guard has more and better aircraft than the entire Australian Air Force has. Hell, the Pima Aerospace Museum has more and better aircraft than we do....

We might beat AZ on shipping, but even there I wouldn't bet on it.

Texas state military is *way* bigger and better equipped than the entire Australian military.

Oh and BTW, Doug, would you like us to post some addresses for you to send money to? Seeing as how you think it reasonable that rescues of people who won't insure themselves is reasonable, surely you're going to kick the tin a bit? IIRC helicopters run at maybe $200/hour so I think at least $1000 would be a good start. Feel free to donate more.

PDW

 

My wife was in that line of work for many years.

More than a little short sighted given the collective contribution that people in this sport tend make via tax.

... and a little more. Take a close look at Oatley for example... I think he has probably more than covered and big boat rescue effort due to wobbly keels in the Hobart.

Are you sure of your facts there? It is actually quite a hard thing to do, having been involved with boat building and sales most of my life and looked in earnest for ANY advantage that tax law may provide to sell more boats I find it hard to believe. Unless the boat operates as a legitimate business, is in survey, built to, lets say "heavier standards" than guys that race would like and is actually earning it is a difficult thing to achieve.

Maybe they sponsor the boat but I'd be surprised if that didn't breach some code. This isn't a pro race circuit after all? They are not pro race teams as say for profit car racing teams.

Smells a little wrong to me. Have things changed or am I simply unaware of what these horrible rich people do?

.... anyway, I think 'we' the wider public are probably ahead on the deal when you consider the whole Sydney Hobart event and its participants. I find these views remarkably short sighted.

 

Not really a totally reasonable representation...

I don't know exactly what you are getting at but its not exactly another planet...

Yeah, look we use our military, we various professionals and we use volunteers...

Just keep in mind that the whole event is a reasonable 'value add' in a of itself... far in excess of any rescue cost that may occasional be required. Attacking the idea of big exotic boats, that make the show, because they have had a high failure rate is gobsmackingly short sighted.

This seems to be motivated from some sort of envy, its about as illegitimate a discussion as I can imagine. None of these people are being forced to do what they do, where is the problem?

Tell you what, if they pull Oatley's crew out of the water this year because his keel fell off, send him a bill... I bet he'd pay it.

 

So we are basically getting excited about one helicopter rescue? Over such small sample that it is statistically invalid.

I had a ex-college that died in 98 on the Winston Churchill, one of your 'safe' boats, only she wasn't... I doubt that she was anywhere near the boat structurally that Wild Oats is. Sadly and prophetically another of my colleges was voicing that opinion prior to the race due to changes they had made. Fact is every boat owner and skipper makes the decision to go to sea and is responsible for their craft. Their lives depend on it and they don't or shouldn't take rescue as for granted should it be required. I certainly never did and never expected anyone to take unwarranted risk is saving my butt if it all went bad.

What do you want to do? Tell everyone what is reasonable? Wrap it all up in cotton wool? Kill the spectacle by removing all risk that you deem unreasonable? Nobody is doing this at gun point... free country, legal sport, puts us on the map, I suggest you live with it because a lot of us like it.

 

There is a correlation between the advent of motor sailing in yacht races and reduced number of entries. Correlation is not causation, but the canting keel boats that *require* a running engine for stability are so far removed from what 99% of sailors buy that they have become abstract commercial entertainment in what was once a Corinthian Sport.

Motor sailing during a Yacht Race is cheating unless you change the rules to allow these high risk boats into your event.

The Hobart is no different than the Whitbread. Once large numbers of actual production boats and club/family crews out racing for a pickle dish.

The Whitbread was killed by professional sailors and commercialism. The W-60 class and an attempt to create sail racing as a profession saw boats coming apart and the end of private entries. The Volvo is now one design? Racing around the world has become a commercial circus.

If the canters were good for sail racing the effect would be more boats and more people sailing the event. Can that be said about the Hobart?

Envy? LMAO. I've been sailing and racing for over 50 years. Sailing on or owning a motorboat that is slower than a multi has no appeal to me.

CT249 has done more research into the decline and fall of participation in sail racing and sailing in particular than anyone else I am aware of. I often disagree with him/her but every time I've tried to check facts CT has been correct. I think you might be fighting above your weight.

You need to prove the event is a Value Ad ... good luck with that ... the AC has been touted as a value ad look at Valencia and SF ... Team NZ has offshore funding and Red Sock sales to buy boats. Trying to prove that sail racing is a value ad for anyone is your homework for this week. We'll wait.

Big exotic boats make the show? Is what you smoke legal? Non-sailing press will run a photo of hundreds of boats starting. 5 canters? Not likely. The 100's make the show and buy the beer. Not the mega jerks that are on the plane home before your kids can meet their heroes. How about starting the real fleet on the 26th and the canters later enough to virtually guarantee they they have no chance at Line Honours. Think they might stay away next year? How is that different from the blokes that have no chance at line honours now? I suspect the canter will miss the event more than the event would miss the canters.

Here is a hint. If sailing was a value ad profit centre for *anyone* The Yankees, Fox News, and Arsenal would all have pro sailing teams.

Cheers,
Randy