Favorite rough weather technique

Discussion in 'Sailboats' started by gonzo, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    "thats is obsolete USA car design thinking and why the American auto industry is in difficulties." Frosty, I believe you. I need to get my family of seven to Anchorage once a month for shopping. On your advice, I am selling my Ford Expedition and am curious what European production car I should buy to replace. We have a winding road along Turnagain Arm...
    11697728_BG1.jpg
    ...where it gets quite icy, has falling rocks, rock climbers, dall sheep and belugas that silly people are always looking at while driving and just getting into cell phone range, so everyone is a little busy... in short, many head-on collisions.
    Sometimes I drive this alone so if the above scenario doesn't include many safe, efficient, comfortable, good looking cars - just tell me which one does best against the 2,700 kilo Expedition in a head-on with one passenger. I am so looking forward to trashing this outdated technology as I only get 19 miles a gallon and want to be as Earth-aware as possible. Four-wheel drive is, of course (sticking with my new European theme), de rigueur.
    I Googled "big European car" and the S-Max and my Expedition came up - Both Fords - how corrupt is that!? I definately want something I have to wear driving gloves and fashionable shoes to drive...something that shouts "EUROPEAN"!

    Same for my boat. I'm listing it and would like to replace with the latest in lightweight construction. Here's the design criteria; Carry 20 passengers. Withstand hit on 5,000 kilo vertically oriented log. Occasionally beach (It's kinda rocky here). Able to run from most weather and take mean **** when necessary. Under 300,000 Euros cost. My heavy lay-up with a steel shoe under the keel is so damn...American (read: "obsolete")! Yuch!
     
  2. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,275
    Likes: 584, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Please get your stupid cars off this thread
     
  3. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    "Gonzo" is slang for "dick".
     
  4. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,578
    Likes: 120, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    5 miles a gallon... supreme :p and SIX wd
     

    Attached Files:

  5. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,275
    Likes: 584, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Get the stupid cars off this thread. Learn to sail
     
  6. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    Oh come on,-- thats 2 things.
     
  7. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    As a valid comparison I, for one, understand the relation of lightweight cars to lightweight boats. I didn't bring up the cars but it is valid to do so. The point being that lighter weight, higher tech, if you will, is not always superior. I also believe it is verging on unseamanlike to go to sea on a boat that depends on the vagaries of wind to survive. Belay that attitude, dick.

    My wife will adore it, Teddy!
     
  8. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,275
    Likes: 584, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    Cars do not float through displacement. The comparison is farfetched at best. Also, you are turning this into a string of personal insults and political diatribes.
     
  9. TeddyDiver
    Joined: Dec 2007
    Posts: 2,578
    Likes: 120, Points: 73, Legacy Rep: 1650
    Location: Finland/Norway

    TeddyDiver Gollywobbler

    1 person likes this.
  10. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Now we're talkin', Teddy!
     
  11. Frosty

    Frosty Previous Member

    Can you explain in further detail your suggestion.
     
  12. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,275
    Likes: 584, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    I accept that there are differences of opinion and we all get off topic at times. However, I will flag you to the moderator if you insist on insults.
     
  13. mark775

    mark775 Guest

    Okay. Belay the attitude, Gonzo.
     
  14. CT 249
    Joined: Dec 2004
    Posts: 1,701
    Likes: 78, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 467
    Location: Sydney Australia

    CT 249 Senior Member

    My apologies - I missed that sentence and therefore overstated my case.

    I should have said that there's nothing in the final conclusions that said that the mast could have come out of the steel channel it was set in, and pierced the hull. That passage of Winnings (from about one day after he was rescued) certainly does say that at that stage he thought it was possible that the mast went through the hull, but it certainly does not say that it definitely did and certainly did not say that there was a deck hole.

    The main thrust of the evidence was that there was damage around the lee chainplates, NOT that the mast went through the garboard. However, I lent my copy of the transcripts to someone, I no longer have the notes I took at the inquest, and it's too hard to download it all so I don't have all my info at hand.

    There were rumours that there was a weakness in the garboard, apparently because people thought that the missing fairing putty that Megga Bascombe saw was under the water (as did Cec Quilkey in his first day of interviewing). This was not the case, as is clearly apparent from Bascombe's statement and sketch.

    The Coroner's final findings were;

    "It is clear from the evidence that "Winston Churchill" suffered
    serious damage to her port side, probably at or near the chain plates, that
    caused her to founder. According to the evidence I have heard from Mr.
    Perdriau and Mr. Quilkey this damage was unrelated to what was
    observed by Mr. Bascombe at the port bow.
    Accordingly I find that "Winston Churchill" foundered when she
    sustained damage to her port side when she was struck by a wave as
    described by her surviving crew. As a result of her foundering the crew
    were obliged to abandon her and take to her life rafts."

    WC was on starboard tack, so the mast would not have gone through an area along the port side near the chainplates.

    I don't know who the experts in your article where, but none of them would have had the power to compel people to give statements and to be cross-examined, so one wonders why they would have a better chance of interviewing the witnesses than the coroner. On balance, surely the coroner's final findings should be considered more authoritative.

    There was intensive public and media interest in the inquest here. Submissions from the general public were accepted. If anyone had information about WC's cause of loss, it is highly unlikely that it remained unknown to the Coroner.

    However, the main point was that there is no evidence that WC had weak fasteners or was otherwise in poor condition at the time of her loss, apart from the weaknesses of sheer age - and she was quite a heavily-built boat made by an expert in the field.


    PS re the cause of loss of the heavy boats. Out of interest, while checking to see what 'The Fatal Storm" said about the loss of WC, I came across the piece where the owner of the 12 ton 42 foot doble-ender Miintanta is giving information about her sinking. He is said to have believed that there was a crack in the hull under the starboard settee berth, but that he could not see the leak; 'because of the way the yacht was constructed however, he could not get into the area to confirm that'. This is similar to the evidence that the crew gave to the Coroner, where they confirm that they checked the engine compartment and all the through-decks and could find no sign that they were leaking through those areas, and therefore that it appeared that the hull was damaged.

    So the available information appears to confirm that both heavyweights sank through hull damage. One was old and timber, the other a very solid and well tested cruising boat. Both had done previous Hobarts with no issues.

    PPS - By the way, no one is saying that the loss rate in the Hobart was good. What many of us say is that there is no evidence that the lightweights were demonstrably unsafe, and that this is backed up by the statistics of loss and severe damage.

    It would be interesting to see the sort of boats that the anti-light-brigade would like to see racing, and some evidence (ie results when raced against lightweights) that they are just as fast, as has been claimed here.
     

  15. gonzo
    Joined: Aug 2002
    Posts: 14,275
    Likes: 584, Points: 123, Legacy Rep: 2031
    Location: Milwaukee, WI

    gonzo Senior Member

    I think that just comparing boats by weight is not enough. Too many other aspects come into play. Some heavy structures don't have all the weight where it makes them stronger. Light structures are not always less stressed either.
     
Loading...
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.