Seaworthiness

If you are going to rant. Please attribute the statement you ranting about to the correct person. In this case the statement was Vega's not mine.

Safe design is all about reducing risks.

If sinking is the greater risk, why isn't making boats unsinkable the first priority?

Since it is a fact that more people have died from going overboard that from capsize, your statement is your opinion, not fact.

What about lighting strikes? More boats are struck by lightening than capsize.

If you want to have a safe boat, you reduce the risks of:
1> Sinking
2> Falling Overboard
3> Being struck by lightening
4> Capsize

The longer you are at sea the more likely you are to encounter conditions that might cause the loss of boat or crew. Therefore, the greatest risk reducer is speed. A 40 foot boat that sails at a S/L of 1 on a 36 foot waterline makes 6 knots, covers 144M per day, and makes a 2700 mile passage across the Atlantic in 18-19 days. A 40 foot boat that can average 8.33 knots, covers 200M per day, and makes the same passage in 13-14 days. Reducing the time at sea by more than 5 days is almost a 30% reduction in risk.

Please try to find any other design feature that will reduce the risk by 30%. what change to the design is required to reduce the risk of capsize by 30%? Reduce the risk of going overboard 30%? Reduce the risk of sinking (your #1) by 30%?

Would you put up with a less comfortable ride to reduce risk 30%?

The faster boat has a wider choice of weather, further reducing the risk of sailing in conditions that might cause capsize. The 30% faster boat can cover almost twice the area that the slower boat can cover. 125,000 sq miles of choice in 24 hours compared to 65,000.

Focusing on only one aspect of what makes a boat safe and seaworthy is folly. A well rounded combination of good crew, sound construction, and good design are needed. If seaworthiness is related to getting the crew home safely, it is very hard to argue against faster boats.

I contend that if making a boat 10% more resistant to capsize reduces it's speed by 5% it is a net loss. While reducing the risk of the event, you are increasing the probability of encountering the conditions that could cause it.

On the other hand, if increasing the risk of capsize 10% also gains 5% speed, there is a net gain the safety, you have reduced the exposure more than you have increased the risk.

 

Bold is mine

With a bit of rough and tumble in heavy weather, and seeing the power of the ocean, cleverness is a knife edge to sit on.

 

Both very true. Which is why multihulls have always been far far safer than monohulls

And while we are talking of risk you have still refused to be drawn on the unneccessary risk imposed by cruising monohulls that have inversion times long enough to drown the crew

Statistics are often appear compelling but prove to be insubstantial. Arguing for a higher risk hullform to reduce the time at sea in a riskier hulform is a circular argument isn't it ?

Since when did the sea become so dangerous ? I thought Well found (seaworthy) boats are those which are intrinsically safe at sea.

If you could accept a 50% drop in speed and guarantee a bomb proof vessel with vastly improved comfort levels that could handle severe gales with aplomb....wouldn't that be an attractive proposition by a statistical risk assemsment ? In reality you would probaly only lose that 10% you guessed at. With some carefull design from scratch you may not lose that either.

I'll throw in some quotes from Brion Toss in "The Riggers Locker "

" It is difficult to see through the assumptions and norms of ones own society ther're so reflexively there and yet they shape our craft as much as the ocean does "

"To compound things the popular perception is that the more seaworthy a vessel is the more sluggish it is. "

" Shortcomings in attitude education and culture lead to shortcomings in boats. And that in our era has lead to vastly profitable solutions . These are generally based on sound principles but are hyped to mask the nature of the flaws they are supposed to solve"

"No matter how effective these responses may be they are only bandaids after the damage has been done"

"Responsible designers and rule making bodies can prevent the worst excesses of unseaworthiness"

" To compound things, hype has obscured a host of simpler more dependable and invariably cheaper alternatives"

And I would add that the cheaper alternative adheres far more to the very desirable cruising paradigm of simplicity which bestows long term reliability and in turn greater safety.

By the way the Dashews Deerfoot mentioned in previous posts has a LPS of 135 degrees and is a very stiff weatherly boat. It's a bit big for a good comparisson with the 40 footers Vega has been talking of.

Cheers

 

How many people chose a boat based on its seaworthiness or safety level? I'd bet not many. Those who go on an extended global cruise may chose generally more seaworthy boats than those who go daysailing, but beyond that I doubt whether many people really look at stats when buying a boat. I suspect that many people have the following list of priorities: price, space, looks. More experienced sailors may also consider: rig design, keel option, attention to detail and stabilty. I guess that most people would not like to sacrifice speed, style, price or layout for seaworthiness. Only a very sailors will place seaworthiness as a priority and, dare I say it, only a few really have a need to.

I'm not saying that seaworthiness isn't important, or that sailors shouldn't pay it more attention, but the reality is that most don't. Just like most folk don't chose their car based on the number of safety features. We generally assume all are reasonably safe, but some cars are better than others. Incidentally that reminds me of the idea that cars would be much safer if airbags were replaced with spikes. If one of those popped out every time you braked sharply, you'd soon slow down...

 

Mike, could you give us some example of these boats with more displacement but equal speed? As previously mentioned, the case for high LPS is strong, but we still haven't had a valid example of a boat that was heavy but similar in performance.

Furthermore, would a heavier boat with a bigger rig be more expensive, and if so from what part of the average sailor's budget would the extra cash come, and what risks would be involved in spending less money in that part of their life? Do you drive a brand-new Mercedes and exercise each day? If not, aren't you making a value judgement and accepting a higher chance of death in exchange for other bonuses? Do you agree that other people should have the right to choose their own calculus of risk? Is it really safer to drive a cheaper car or work more at the office, in exchange for a higher LPS? What are the probabilities? If they haven't been worked out, how do we know that mandating a higher LPS may not actually kill more people?

I believe there are stats that show that ABS does not reduce road deaths; people know that they have ABS so their calculations of risk means that they drive faster to compensate. It's very well known in legal tort circles. I'm not saying that this means that we should have low LPS, I'm merely throwing around the idea that it has been proven that you can make something safer, without actually saving anyone.

Just to confirm; I'm not arguing for fat boats that spend a lot of time upside down. I just have a feeling that this is a more complicated subject than something that can be solved with an LPS restriction.

 

Maybe, maybe not. As long as I had the information made available to me, I might choose such a vessel for some conceivable voyage, but then I might not.

I certainly don't want some committee making a decision for me, in the same way I don't suppose you want to be forced to go to sea in a boat you wouldn't like either.

We all accept trade offs in safety in everything else in life. People like swimming pools in their gardens despite the thousands of children who die in these each year. Should they be banned? A national maximum speed limit of 40 mph on the roads would save so many lives, but we're all happy to wizz along at 80. Why this obsession with stability when the statistics from the RNLI in the UK for example, show that problems from stability (in all vessels) account for less than one percent of the reasons people seek outside assistance when boating.

We just need to ensure people know what they are buying and realise the true implications of their choices. I certainly think we have a way to go to achieve this, but dictating the choices people have in their leisure time is frankly, abhorrent.

 

Re: PI Design

Laughed my head off! Spikes instead of airbags are a brilliant idea!
Your post has the ring of truth!

Many new sailors every year getting started are swamped with offers to satisfy their every whim.
Remove the external safety net.
Pressure put on rescue services and other mariners is not fair.
If newbies cant face the sea, without help waiting in the wings, they should stay put. Space for entertaining in the cockpit can stay coastal.
Putting their faith in a seaworthy design is a start.

By the way, I cant for the life of me figure out a way to become fabulously wealthy by marketing seaworthiness. It is a bit dark and scary.
It is like sensible shoes. Good idea, but a bit boring.
Racing away from danger sounds exhilirating, cheating death, much easier to sell to the poor old consumer.
sigh...

 

Wow , just had a quick look at this pissing contest and feel i'll be back in a couple of day's after a bit of a read, mentioning the M word.

No not monohulls.

Dave


PS: mind you just saw the M word on page 5

I'll be back.

 

Let me bring here an example about the difference between racing and cruising regulations for boats, relating stability matters.
Here in Spain you may race an open dinghy in whatever Club race (or the like) with no problem at all (except the needing of being federated and so have an insurance covering), but you are not allowed to freely sail that dinghy if not racing (or training under a Club's supervision), unless it has a positive righting arm at 90º (just talking about stability). Most of open dinghies do not comply with this, either because the downflooding angle is lower than that or because they do not have positive righting moment at 90º (crew is supposed to be in the water by then).
It is asumed (mandatory) that when racing there is an organization (federated Club or the like) taking care of security measures, so if a dinghy capsizes help is within easy reach, what doesn't happen when sailing on your own.
This is an example of how design considerations are taken into account to prevent general public to go sailing and risk their lives. Societies tend to protect themselves through design regulations, among other.

 

That's a bizarre rule. I can't imagine not being able to go out to sail my Laser by myself.

What happens to the people who are stopped from sailing on weekday evenings? Bet many of them sit at home and watch TV and become unhealthy and at much more risk than if they were allowed to go sailing.

 

I strongly disagree. The amorphous ameba of fools seems to be indestructible and getting bigger day after day....

 

Well Guillermo, I am actually shocked (and slightly ashamed) that a situation like this exists in Europe. But it's important to realis that this is not normal amd that anything like this would be totally unexceptable in most other countries. Even its mearest suggestion in the UK would cause rioting and not just from sailors. I am confident that a reaction against it would unite all the public in scenes that would make the 'poll tax riots' look like a picnic.

I am stunned by its mere existance..

 

Hmmm... weaning sailors off intervention and assistance could be harder than I imagined....

 

My dear Crag, You're lucky guys but I'm afraid that, although reluctantly, you'll be there in less than 20 years. It's the course of present history. The only difference between the UK and Spain regarding this has been that you have had strong and reivindicative boaters associations, which we have had not (We arrived late to popular boating). But bureaucrats, pressed by insurance companies, "Worried Parents Associations" and by their own will of not accepting responsibilities on their backs, will win the game at the end, believe me....

 

Agreeing with Mike Johns and other, this doesn't means by itself there has been not capsizes. It means only there have been not recorded human life loses followed by detailed investigations. I would like to know how many loses of control, dangerous broachs, B1 and B2 knock downs, in what conditions, etc., etc., have been experimented in this kind of fleet. I agree we need more and detailed statistics to better judge. It would be very interesting to run a world wide inquiry with skippers of all kind of boats regarding this.

Regarding my previous post asking if somebody knew about clever devices to authomatically steer a sailing boat taking into account other considerations than just course, have a look at the new on-line magazine Brian Eiland brought to our attention, Ocean Racing Magazine (www.ocean-racing.net), and look in page 66 & 67. We are already there. Presently my company is working jointly with a sweden company for the development and introduction to the market of a computerized on-board system related with fishing vessels stability. The close future.

P.S. At Ocean Racing mag, also have a look at the very interesting article on elongating keels, pages 76-77