Canting keels falling off supermaxis - how many?

With the exception of saying that running an engine to drive your boat systems makes you something other than a sailboat, I've no problem with the canting keel boats.

I've no problem with them living on the bleeding edge of structural failure, either.

Nor do I want to remove all risks. I think that deals with all the straw man arguments you want to drag into the discussion.

However, what I *don't* want to do is have yacht racing involve unfunded public resources for rescue operations, because that most certainly DOES affect me, first by a minute increase in overall costs but more importantly, because it gives Govt authorities the *perfect* excuse to stick their nose into the tent and start dictating just what *is* reasonable and what is not.

I point to NZ as a classic example of this actually happening, so don't tell me it's fantasy.

So if you want to race boats that are structurally right on the edge of failure - which basically is all racing boats - pay for your own rescue insurance. If as people like you & Doug claim, it isn't an issue, the premiums will be dirt cheap. But we all know that they won't be, don't we....?

And WRT the boats, crew & camaraderie, I call ******** on that one WRT the big boats. I've been in Hobart for 15 of the last 17 Sydney-Hobarts and the one thing that's noticeable is just how fast the crews of those boats head for the airport. It's the smaller boats that hang about & party on.

PDW

 

Hey Moggy, can I first ask whether you can actually discuss points without insulting those whose views differ from you?

Yes, it's a well known fact that some racing boats are owned by companies. For example, it was stated during the Wild Thing court action that WT was owned by a company, Timelink. It was later transferred to another company;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/w...976459741?nk=d19e25038c5f5ff83b753e428a9d9cb1

"A report by liquidation firm Worrells shows Wild Thing was transferred to a separate entity known as Wharington Properties in June 2007. "The yacht was originally registered in the name of the director's son, Oliver Wharington; however, it was understood that the company (Timelink Pacific) was always the original owner," the report says."

Neville Crichton's Alfa Romeos had companies involved - the canter's owner is listed in the Hobart results as "Team Alfa Limited New Zealand", not Neville Crichton.

It looks like Xana, the other Kiwi 100'er, was owned by a company, Starlight Yachting, since that company features in the bankruptcy proceedings against the "owner", Stewart Thwaites (who I am assured is personally a very nice guy).

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10561958

Moggy wrote; "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."

Maybe they sponsor the boat? It's more than 'maybe'; that's what the logos on the boats are for! Sponsorships in big boat racing can be big bucks - Nicorette had a $1.2 million sponsorship in 2000, which would have gone a long way towards funding her since she was a comparatively low budget boat; as Ludde was happy to tell people like me, he wasn't in the maxi-owning income bracket himself.

And there has not been a "code" against sponsorships and professionalism in the Hobart for a couple of decades, unless you are referring to the concerns that were raised about Workers Compensation after the 1998 Hobart.

"Moggy wrote: 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.

I'm aware of the Oatley family finances and have been for many years, thanks. The fact that some of these guys pay their taxes like normal people does not mean that it's arguably unfair of other big boat owners have to get rescued at the public expense because they choose to sail boats at the breaking edge.

Moggy wrote: "am I simply unaware of what these horrible rich people do?

Who said anyone was a "horrible rich person"? I've sailed with and dealt with some of these guys a tiny bit and have known someone from one of the supermaxi owning families for years and like and respect him.

That doesn't mean that others cannot reasonably think that people should be aware that if they sail on the bleeding edge, rescuers may get a bit annoyed that they chose to take much higher risks than other sailors.

Moggy wrote.... 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.[/QUOTE]

I find your inability to discuss issues and to merely use insults and to completely ignore some issues to be extremely short sighted.

Can I ask again how many Hobarts you've done? As I noted, I haven't done one for some time so maybe your inside view of the race is more up to date than mine.

Re Winston Churchill- where in the world did I claim that she was particularly safe?

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

No, I am not getting excited nor is it about one rescue; it is about an effective database of some 7000 to 70,000+ (depending on how you want to look at the question) that shows that canters have an enormously higher chance of losing keels. The larger figure comes from analysis of the number of fixed keel yachts racing and the reported keel losses, compared to the number of canters racing and the reported keel losses.

This very large database shows a very, very strong trend over well over a decade.

Re "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.'

And you're saying that I'm excited, when you write stuff like that? No, because it's a free country I would like to be able to express an opinion. I express that opinion as an active member of a sport and veteran of this particular event, who has personally had to pay increased costs (insurance, extra equipment) caused by earlier disasters. I am saying that as someone who has lost family and friends sailing, and who has been out there doing searches and seeing time going by and realising that we were now looking for the bodies of people I knew, rather than survivors.

As PDWiley says, offshore racing disasters can affect all offshore boat owners. To say that we who have done the race and have (in a big or very small way) raced or sailed our own boats offshore have no right to speak goes against your point that this is a free country. Are you saying that when a majority of active owners vote against certain types (as they did years ago at the CYCA) then that fact must be hushed up and those voices must be silenced?

I am concerned because canters have a failure rate that is demonstrated, over a long term and over many boats, to be vastly higher than fixed keelers, and that should further failures occur the sport would be harmed. I am also concerned that the emphasis in big boats harms the sport and the race as a whole and as Rhough kindly noted, this is based on serious research and not just watching the race on TV.

By the way, taking out the supermaxis would not "kill the spectacle". There are more than the supermaxis in the race, y'know.

 

It's Colleague not College.

The older craft Winston Chrchill ( 24 tons D), was built in Hobart by Percy Coverdale in 1942. She was a performance oriented craft with a surprisingly low LPS for her era being only 124 degrees, and was just under 47 feet long (14.3 m). But it wasn't her minimal stability that lead to her loss, but her scantlings, construction, and age.

She had a section of Bulwark next to the chainplates removed by a wave. The bulwark planking took part of the topsides with it. The planking pulled the fastenings out and was detached the frames leaving the them intact. Had she been modern timber construction or GRP or metal or even better fastened she wouldn't have sunk.

It's also possible her mast was also pushed once again through the bottom which wouldn't be the first time, in 1958 she fell off a wave and punched the mast through the bottom of her hull and the crew kept her afloat long enough to run her onto a beach.

She wouldn't be considered an outstandingly strong nor seaworthy boat by any standard. Even her stability barely makes the minimum MCA offshore requirement for a boat of her size.

 

Spell checker gets me... so sue me.

My colleague was talking about its new rig, being aluminium and stainless, transferring rig loads to the hull too effectively. He reckoned the old rig flexed more (timber and gal) and adsorbed shock better cushioning the boats structure. He was talking to some of the crew at Middle Harbour prior to the race, he told them that he reckoned it was a mistake and that the new rig would pull the boat apart. I don't know if that is what happened... but... point being the boat had the "safe" features as described... only it wasn't.

 

You are sensitive. Is that an insult?

To what tax advantage as was the original suggestion? Wharington has a colourful financial history, he may have various motives.

Yeah, look, I am not quite that stupid... I was talking a direct sponsorship by the owners company as a means of redirecting untaxed income into ones sport. Third party sponsorship is what it is... I still need to understand where the tax evading benefit is as suggested.

Tax code.... as in redirecting what otherwise would be income into sponsorship of a boat that you have beneficial ownership of. I have sold quite a few boats to some very smart people and I dunno, but I would have thought if there was some scheme to get a considerable break in the cost of ownership these guys would have been all over it.

These guys knock the tax paid by normal people into a cocked hat! I think they cover it... not to mention the contribution to the spectacle. You'd cruel the race chasing the high end away.

You are really overplaying that card... we still have only had one rescue of the type of craft you would like to shut down... one. That was "Wild Thing" which should be called "Shoe String"...

Mate, you are going to have to list these "insults"... this isn't even a mildly spirited discussion.

I will stick with extremely short sighted... if you had your way I think you'd damage the event significantly. My opinion and as valid as yours, sorry if the words "extremely short sighted" insult you... I could have used worse!

Only four and most all the east coast races on and off. I gave up ocean racing... its not sane IMO, much prefer short course stuff but that is my preference. I go to sea to get somewhere to relax.

Are you trying to infer no experience?

You are talking decisions made on "type"... she illustrates the point that it is the boat not the type.

I'm sorry... how many boats are you claiming in your "canter" sample? That is the relevant number and it has to be small... but shock me. So we are setting stats based on a 70,000 boat sample, built using a mature, wide spread technology set against what? A small sample of a developing technology. Can't you see that is an unreasonable comparison to make? LOL.. one "Wild Thing" can really stuff the numbers.

So you believe that canting keel maxis impacted your costs? I can't see that would be a valid claim.

Yes... overly excited about something that has not yet proven to be a major issue by most accounts. If it where, or becomes so, then I guess we will see a global response by the majority of event organisers.

Sure club up and vote down a "type" because you don't like it... LOL... I miss yacht clubs. Free country, yes, let them race.

We have had one failure in the Hobart and from Grants "poor man's", marginally funded maxi! You are extrapolating "stats" from such a small sample that its is irrelevant and during a development period to boot. There is nothing reliable about drawing conclusions this way. You may well have done similar in the first 10 years of bolt on fins. They where "inherently unsafe" according to common "wisdom" for so long it wasn't funny. How things change.... eventually.

Come now... you cannot be serious!

 

That I actually agree with. Personally I have an issue with anything powered on a sailing boat. Then again sail handling on these things without power would be challenging to say the least.

I don't know what I think should be the norm here... engines seem to be accepted.

 

You've made that claim about bolt on fins before being called unsafe according to common wisdom before, and completely failed to provide any evidence for it. I've looked for evidence of it and can find none. It appears that you are making stuff up.

The other point you're completely missing is that the early fin keels did not fail like canters are failing. I don't know of any early fin keel that fell of an offshore racer but we do know that canting keels are falling off offshore racers. So come on, show some evidence that the two cases are in any way comparable. Show us a few dozen fin keels that fell off in the first 10-15 years of their use in offshore racing.

PS - yes, I am serious that getting rid of canting keel supermaxis would not kill the spectacle of the race. The old 80' Shockwave/Alfa Romeo was a spectacular boat. The 90' Alfa was a spectacular boat, Xana was a spectacular boat. Ran, Rosebud and the other Maxi 73s, the Wallycentros and other big performance cruisers are spectacular. The days when 160+ boats entered in the Hobart were spectacular.

So there are many ways of keeping the spectacle that don't involve a few canting keel supermaxis.

 

Correlation is not causation as you say. I can offer an explanation but its basis is in economics and beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't like the use of motors, they don't drive the boat directly... I guess that is the justification. It would be interesting to see if they can run boats this size on human power! What a challenge that would be.

Actually there where those that bemoaned the onset of the plastic 'production' boats. I know a few of them, still very suspect about ideas like strip planking let alone tupperware boats!

... or is it simply driven by the cost of the technology to compete? Competition will always push to the costly end of the scale. It is inevitable that pioneers and gung ho amateurs will eventually give way to better and better prepared teams. That leads to a logical ends... these events can be victims of their own success. None of this will ever be static, if the will is there the amateurs will no doubt pioneer other events. There will always be somewhere to go... if the will is there...

You can't draw that conclusion, the 'health' of the fleet is as much to do with the economy as anything else.

119 boats this year, last time we where over 100 was 2004. We have 3 lines this year, I think that is a first... so I guess they are not scaring boat away are they? So what is your point? Eh?

I don't know that you can class Wild Oats as slow in any company... but my preference for my money has become multis.

Yes mate, we have all been around.

Fighting over my weight, yeah OK, if you say so. Maybe he has a very sound grasp on the financial world and what is occurring, economics and demographics etc I dunno. That is my world and I'd say it is as big a part of the drivers here as anything. I suspect symptoms may be being diagnosed as causes, but whatever... lets blame the canters!

Oh dear... So well argued! Now I obviously have to concede that the race dose nothing for Australia in any respect. School yard stuff... NO?

Yes.

No.

So what?

Absolutely, they are part and parcel of the show. Not the whole event in themselves but the big boats and the small make it what it is. Who is suggesting we can do without the small boats?

My we are a bitter man aren’t we? That is really coming across as envy... you may want to dial that back a little.

The big boats make the spectacle, watch the coverage of the start aimed at the annual arm chair experts. See what they spend the most time on. Ask the TV stations if we should drop them!

Hmmmmm... yeah... OK, if you say so! Given the public money that goes into this event vs the international exposure that hosting an iconic race like the Hobart delivers. I would say that we, the public, are miles ahead on the deal. Granted its not a top line soccer team numbers BUT you seem to be overlooking the fact that it cost the public very little most years.

You seem to be forgetting from what angle this is being argued against i.e. cost to the public v public gain. This ain't Formula 1, we don't pay to run this event, it is all private money save the odd rescue.

Go ask Tony if he'd like to see the race dropped because of the rescue costs that may occur, I'd be very surprised if he decided yes, too much risk to the public purse from these chaps racing to Hobart!

 

I lived it mate... selling boats for years! There was always quite a large (surprisingly) and ill informed crowd that insisted long keels where the only thing to have. It was never true... but!

It was an attitude, a conventional wisdom, gawd knows where you find it documented. We didn't have chat rooms full of arm chair experts blogging away about their misgivings! I can't count the number of times I have talked people through what happens when you push an Adams 10 and a Compass 29 hard down wind and why one works better than the other... not to mention up wind. Just examples you understand, not that they where choosing between the two.

I wasn't following the early ones that closely but I know of a few coming off when the technology was "mature". Binks lost some in production boats... remember Simon LeBon's (?) boat, what was it, "The Drum". The odd boat lost its keel on Sow and Pigs, an old mate was on one! Look I can't remember them all but there have been plenty in my career and they just get consigned to local lore and memory. At least now we have the internutz to keep loose records of these events...

http://www.sailmagazine.com/boatworks/why-do-fin-keels-fail

It happens... even today.

You want internet "documentation" from a pre internet era? Give me a break!

Yes... but NOT NOW, this is where competition has lead them! That era has passed.... so too will this one.

My advice to you would be to enjoy the spectacle while it lasts. I believe we are toward the end of an era and that these boats will go the way J Boats went for a long time. You will see what you want to see soon enough but it will come with baggage. Economics, demographics... it is coming close to pay back time and with that the ability to run these things will be curtailed, possibly severely.

PS> You want to clean that post up... I can't really tell what is what.

Actually don't bother, this is pointless, I don't get your fixations at all. CLUB together and kill them off if you can... they obviously have no right to race anywhere!

CYA.

 

Oh hey, and thanks for the negative rep! All class...

 

There are 2 easy ways to kill them off.

1. Ban or change the class of boats that need to have an engine running 24/7 to power their sailing hardware.

2. Allow multihulls into the race. There goes the likelihood of line honours, there goes the TV et al fixation with the big canting keel boats.

The Sydney-Hobart has degenerated into a drag race so why not remove all limitations other than say a max LOA and be done with it....

PDW

 

Moggy;

1 - Let's start by saying I did not give you or anyone else a negative rep.

2- About "You want internet "documentation" from a pre internet era? Give me a break!"

I didn't say I wanted internet documentation. Facts will do.

Sure, you mentioned Drum, but that incident was in 1985, some 30 years after the first offshore fin keelers were launched and at least 15 years after the fin keel had become standard for offshore racing boats. Before Drum lost her keel there were thousands of fin keelers out there (over 1500 Arpege half tonners alone, and that's just one of many mass-produced boats) and keel loss was practically unknown.

Yes, a keel fell off the Binks-built Rising Farrster and people died. That was in 2001, after many thousands of fin keelers had been built and very few of them had failed. Try finding a case where a fin keel fell off an offshore boat pre '85, apart from some possible cases where grounding was involved.

You mention a couple of times that it's hard to keep track of keel losses that occurred before the internet, but it's not so - there were books and magazines that covered incidents in great detail well before the incident. We also have internet access to many databases like the Trove archive of Australian newspapers, which shows that incidents like the loss of Gotcha off WA in 1984 and Smackwater Jack in 1980 were covered in the major papers.

So the evidence is that the losses of yachts in the pre-internet era were very well covered - and yet up till about '85, the loss of keels was almost unknown. Since then there have been repeated tragedies with keels falling off, and ISAF and others have listed them. The ISAF database is at

http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/SRSC7diKeelFailuresdatav2-[17112].pdf

These databases show clearly that the canters have a much, much higher chance of losing keels. The ISAF list, for example, shows 27 canting keel failures of various types and 40 fixed/retractable keel failures. Considering that canters appear to make up less than around 5% of the world's active offshore racing fleet, the fact that they are involved in around 40% of keel failures shows a sad tale.

Why do some of us think it's important? Because keel losses so often kill people. Some of us have lost friends and family to sailing and it's not fun. the 24 lives lost when high-aspect keels of various sorts fell off caused an enormous amount of heartbreak - one hell of a lot more than finishing earlier in a race ever saved.


3- Sure, economics play a role in the Hobart's entry numbers - but since our consumer economy is generally considered to be stronger than that of Europe or the USA and their comparable races are getting record fleets, how can our economy be the main problem?

And to the extent that economics do play a role, how much is that effect increased by the fact that smaller, cheaper boats are left so far behind these days? You reckoned that no one was talking about getting rid of the smaller boats but that has actually pretty much happened - where are the dozens of 30-36 footers we used to get?


4- Yes, some people preferred long keels and sometimes they said silly things to back up their claims. That's different from a situation where we are making a logical argument by looking at ISAF databases and recorded incidents of keel loss.


5 - I don't know why it's so hard to work out that my responses were in blue and underlined. I did that because it's easier to see the discussion evolved.

To make one point clear - I am NOT relying just on Wild Thing's accident as evidence of my points. I am referring to the abundant evidence of numerous problems with canting keels (such as the ISAF dabatase linked to above) which proves that they have a disproportionate loss rate.


6- Yep, we have 119 boats this year. That's about one-third as many as the Fastnet, about two-thirds as many as the Bermuda gets, and it would have been a small fleet years ago. Sure, you expect those races to be bigger because they are in much more populated areas, but the other races have got record fleets recently and the Hobart fleets are smaller than they used to be.

Of course there are many factors involved in the fleet numbers - so why just assume that people who want to discuss some of those reasons, and the effect that allowing certain boats has on those reasons, are "short sighted"?

What some of us are largely trying to say is that these questions are complicated, and we would like to discuss some of the complications without being dismissed as merely being "short sighted".


7- Dunno what's so hard to understand about my 'fixation'. I would like sailing to become more popular, and that there is a lot of evidence that sports become more popular when gear becomes more accessible and easier to use, and less popular when gear becomes less accessible. I can't see why that belief, and the analysis that underlies it, is a bad thing.


PS - while checking up stuff I found out that the old Nicorette, the one which won the 2000 Hobart, suffered canting keel damage in the 2003 Hobart so she can be added to the list. I also found guys like Wharington, Dovell, Neville, Staggie etc saying (in Oz Sailing June 2004) that the big problems would occur when the canters were passed down from pro and semi-pro crews down to weekend warriors. So that implies that this is not so much a case where technology will mature and become safer, but one where technology will become more dangerous as it is passed down.

 

Canting Keel Performance Sailboats

Some people talk about technology as if everything stays the same and they focus on that in an attempt to categorize a new technology to fit their retro agenda.
It doesn't work that way. Canting keel boats, for the most part,are successful and fast. The technology has been demonstrated to work well in the vast majority of boats its used on. But the fact is it is a relatively new technology where there have been engineering/design short falls because of a lack of wide spread engineering knowledge of these types of boats. Now that has mostly changed and the success rate of canting keels is far better than it was 5 or ten years ago. People who want fast boats will more and more turn to canting keel technology to give them the state of the art in fast monohulls. And more and more they are getting a well designed, well engineered vessel that will last for years and that can be raced hard safely.
The people howling in the wind about these boats being unsafe might have been right years ago but with some hard raced canting keelers like Wild Oats approaching 10 years old the evidence is starting to become conclusive that the designers and engineers have this technology at the point where it will be regarded as safe as any other keel before too long-as well as being much faster.
The argument about not wanting canting keel 100 footers to use engine powered hydraulics is just ridiculous and will never,ever sway someone who is in the market for the fastest 100 footer he/she can buy!
The canting keel is here to stay and is being used on boats from 18' to over 100' because it is becoming a mature technology that offers great benefits in high performance sailboat design.

 

It's not so much about swaying them away from using new technologies, but
having separate categories and classes for vessels with powered hydraulics and
also for those without.
Do you have an objection to having those separate classes?

 

I like the way it's handled in the Sydney-Hobart. In races where its first to finish- run what you brought- I think there shouldn't be separate classes unless it's first to finish AND handicapped-like the SH.....