Seaworthiness

I brought the RS report up because I am concerned that this sort of discussion, where there are repeated calls to talk facts and numbers, should be equally rigourous in other respects.

Yep, I do think that some of the yacht design stables have produced unseaworthy boats. I have been out searching for the bodies of two guys I knew who were lost when a Farr (his fourth yacht design ever IIRC) capsized and sank, after dozens of other examples had been sailing about 12 years without a similar incident AFAIK. A couple of Farr one tonners lost keels after groundings. Other similar boats have been as tough as old boots (like Paladin, which sailed around the world singlehanded by the three great capes). It may actually be reasonable to question the Farr keel attachment philosophy in some situations but there is a great deal of variation between Farrs. However, I think the RF case is not just as simple as poor design, which is surely only one link in a long chain. Short of a counsel of perfection (ie building inspectors during construction or core tests) sometimes safety starts to seem damn depressing.

But another boat by the very Warwick Hood you cited earlier (as an authority on the problems of modern boats) sank that same night and race that the Farr I knew went down. Most of the crew were saved when a Top Hat sailed by within call as they were swimming. The Barrett-built Top Hat is of course a much-respected safe cruiser, although it was designed as a racer and the one which almost had the whole keel fall off near Lord Howe wasn't that safe. Just like Koomooloo wasn't safe, and Miintanta wasn't safe. I'm seriously beginning to question just about every boat, since reputation and longevity and being built to the regs isn't enough. :-( Okay, not many solid steel cruisers have gone down as far as I know, but with the lack of stats I'm also not aware how common they were and how they would handle the situations that have found raceboats wanting. They tend to pull into shelter in bad Hobarts; not a bad thing as (perhaps due to the crew's belief that they are unfairly handicapped) they are rarely going for a good placing.

Basically I'm saying once again that (1) I'm not sure that there is a significantly higher danger in lightweights, when adjusted for situation and numbers and (2) anecdotal evidence presented by people will always, as we all know, tend to favour their own viewpoint even when we are trying to be unbiased.

So once again, I really wish we had a statistical study to identify what causes the major problems. I don't believe that you are right when you say we need to record almost every incident, there are many many sampling techniques, but I can't back that up as my stats guru is asleep after the excitement of watching a 50 ton FMRI machine being installed at the Max Plank Institute. (There's a nerd for you! )

I agree that the situation of loadings etc is extremely complex (from this layman's point of view). I'm not knocking the experts, merely surmising that just as the experts' best efforts to assess stresses in earlier times were innaccurate, the current estimates to assess seaworthiness may well be innaccurate.

I'm always torn between respect for experts, and recognition of the fact that even they get it wrong. It's just a damn difficult area, with tension between vast expertise and knowledge on one hand, and human frailty and unknowns on the other. Given that, I would really like to see a significant statistical analysis of losses carried out.

I had moved out of the thread earlier and I'll move out of it again. My basic position is that before concentrating on the flaws or strengths of any particular general style of boat we should find out whether in real life those boats are particularly dangerous, and that should be identified by statistics rather than by testing that may (and in my understanding, did) concentrate on an area that caused less loss of life than other factors.

 

Mike, it is not me that you are quoting, neither some boat manufacturer trying to promote his boats. You are quoting Owen and Clarke, two NAs that have a very good reputation.

It is odd that you think they are advertising a boat and not expressing their opinion about it.

The 40class boat is not important in their curriculum. It is almost insignificant. They have designed several successful Open60s and is one of the NA offices that are on the rising, with boats as extraordinary as “Spirit of Adventure 65”. Why would they be telling lies about the 40 class boats? They are known also for being experienced sailors and that would make those lies even stranger. I can’t see why you think they would want to do that. That would be bad for business. The relation between an Architect and a client has to be one of truth, and can not be based on false claims.

I don’t understand what you mean (inconvenient?). Of course, stability is the backbone of a sailing boat.

I believe that some of those NAs and Engineers that you talk about have not only written papers but also designed boats. And I suppose that at least one of them has designed a boat capable of raising the interest of a significant number of sailors in a way that the boat was and still is manufactured, even in small numbers (and I am not talking of NAs that make easy to build boats for the amateur boat builders).

Find what you consider a seaworthy boat that costs (new) about the same as the Pogo (and the Pogo at $230 000USd is not properly inexpensive) and we will make a comparison with the Pogo, regarding STIX, AVS, stability curve, Gz at 90º, positive stability and inverted stability.

How more specific can it be?

 

CT Thanks
I would like to go over a few things with you, perhaps in another thread later on when I have more time.

Paulo [Vega]

I emailed the Pogo folks asking for more technical details so I could do just this, but I have as yet had no reply. If we could get the info out of them Not just STIX but the whole gamut of data it would be very illuminating .

You are proposing comparing available producution boats with seaworthiness weighted against cost. While this may appear to be a sensible approach to an imminent purchaser there are many classes of boats that are immediately exempted. I see your point, but now cost is a compromis.

I am really interested in discussing the changes that could have been made in the design phase and how that would make the vessel more seaworthy.

One of the big advantages to the lightweight production boats is the lower material cost to the manufacturer. You are always going to pay more for a capable Blue-water cruisers/ passage maker. The old adage is
"you get what you pay for"
..wouldn't you consider a better 2nd hand vessel for yourself? Surely you would get a relatively pristine 2nd Hand Halberg R or something of quality rather than the plastic bottle interior of the Pogo?

I am away for a few days

 

Heres an article in the Aust.Naval Architect journal (Nov 2001) on small vessel seakeeping to consider, (seakeeping is the motion of the boat in a seaway).

Quote:

Improving Seakeeping Performance through Design

The following attributes lead to good seakeeping characteristics. These are not the only way of achieving good seakeeping performance but are some of the more significant and simple ways to improve a vessel at the design stage.

1. A larger displacement.
A greater waterline length (within the constraints of the design) although slamming can become a problem for some ship length, speed and wave combinations.
3. Increased waterplane area, particularly forward, is very beneficial.
4. V-shaped sections forward that minimise slamming.
5. An absence of flat sections aft (causes stern slamming in relatively small seas).
6. Adequate freeboard to minimise deck wetness, especially forward.
7. Ensure adequate propeller submergence to avoid emergence in waves. This will also increase propulsive efficiency.
8. Keep manned spaces away from forward and aft extremities of the ship and, preferably, as close to midships (or a little aft of it) as possible.
9. Keep GM low enough that roll motions are not too rapid but stability is maintained. A large GM will contribute to high lateral accelerations and motion induced interruptions.
10. Ensure that rudders and skegs are adequately sized such that good directional control of the boat can be maintained in following seas and the risk of broaching may be reduced.


References
Hull System Requirements, Part 6: Seakeeping, Revision 0, RAN, December 2000.

Hogben, N. et al, Global Wave Statistics, compiled and edited by British Maritime Technology Limited, Unwin Brothers Ltd, 1986.

Lloyd, A. R. J. M., Seakeeping — Ship Behaviour in rough weather, Ellis Horwood Limited, 1989.

Bales, N. K. and Cieslowski, D. S., A Guide to Generic Seakeeping Performance Assessment, Naval Engineers Journal, April 1981.

 

An integral keel will always be better than a bolt on.(bilge sump springs to mind)
That is seaworthy design.

Excess beam is bad.
Trading self righting performance for sailing performance?

Protected rudders.
Seaworthy.

Redundant strength.
Minimizing scantlings to achieve seaworthiness?

Displacement.
Bigger is better.

Comparing different boats of equal displacement is the easiest way to find a seaworthy hull form. Or a really fast hull design.
Comparing equal displacement brings a bit of discipline to thinking.
Fast boats are faster by a factor of 0.x, than a seaworthy boat.
Performance is easier to grasp than security.

Performance is what every one wants, all the time, and putting safety to the test is avoided, prudence. Most people who deny risk are unable to face it. Most people who study risk still avoid it, but make preparations to face it if the circumstances arise.
To accept increased risk is brave or stupid.
ROTW racers have my respect for their risk management strategies.
Jerk offs marketing look-alike objects as safe for widespread public consumption get scorn.

There is more data and experience related to performance than seaworthiness. This thread is vigourous for the fact that seaworthiness takes up so little shelf space or logical thought.
No one likes to read traffic accident reports before buying a car.
When we were kids we pinned up Ferraris on the bedroom wall, not highway smashes.(I personally like information regarding survival stories, wrecked boats and stormy weather. Analyse that.)

Performance is a luxury, and the reason it keeps popping up in this thread is hardly logical.

Try reverse engineering an ULDB to increase its seaworthy characteristics.
I will hear the same voices screaming speed and performance.
But it will be fun to watch their pet boat being distorted into something normal .

 

Seaworthy in the Southern Ocean ... or not ...

Can we agree that safety at sea is a combination of how seaworthy the vessel is and how seaworthy the sailor is?

ie. A very seaworthy boat can be made less safe by poor seamanship and a less seaworthy boat can be made more safe by good seamanship.

It the last few weeks a drama unfolded in the water around Cape Horn. One solo sailor in a 44 foot Ketch required rescue, less than 200 miles away another solo sailor in a 28 foot boat did not. The 44 foot boat has been abandon and scuttled, the 28 foot boat is around the Horn and continuing it's voyage.

One boat is a Maurice Griffiths designed 44’ staysail ketch built in Gozo, Malta by Terry Erskine steel yachts in 1993.

Link

The other is a Southern Cross 28.

Link

It looks like the larger, heavier boat was expected to take of care the sailor and did not.

The sailor of the smaller boat is taking care of the boat and has been successful.

The Smaller boat is recording days run over 130 miles, The Larger boat was averaging about 80.

Was this luck? Did unforeseeable conditions take the large boat, or were conditions predictable enough that even a 28 foot boat could remove itself from harms way (with a good sailor at the helm)?

After reading about the two voyages, is there any amount of designed in seaworthiness that would have helped the 44 footer? Is seems obvious that the 28 foot boat is seaworthy enough.

IMO, one sailor would have found a way to fail in any boat and the other would have found a way to succeed.

How much of seaworthiness is boat and how much is sailor?

 

These photos are Chilean Navy, the Horn.
Maurice Griffiths designed 44’ staysail ketch built in Gozo, Malta by Terry Erskine steel yachts in 1993.
It will be scuttled...

People abandon boats, including sea worthy ones, for many reasons.

Mainly it is the recent luxury of button press rescue.

If assistance cant be summoned, the boat is your second best choice:!::?:
I dont know who took this image, but it is a classic



Choose a platform for self rescue gentlemen.

 

Randy, of course we can but is that really what Guillermo meant when he posted;

IMHO... In my humble opinion, this is a thread in the design category of BoatDesign and we should be discussing the design aspects of how to design a seaworthy yacht. We are not going to be able to educate sailors in seamanship or even get them to understand the importance of it; in fact, some sailors don't even properly understand the importance of experience and we are not going to be able to change that either

We should however define to what extent we should consider seamanship when designing an ocean going boat.

I have said it before and I say it again,

Here is my opinion;
We can assume that seamanship is pretty OK but not very good, if it is not to that level and the boat is caught in a storm while crossing the Bay of Biscay... well, that is stupidity and nothing that designers should have to take into consideration in the design of an ocean going sailing yacht. We can also assume that the boat is equipped with a drogue or a parachute anchor and with life lines and a life raft etc. And with a SSB, although not even Bullimore had one

We can not assume that the boat is crewed by very experienced sailors with tens of thousands of miles of sailing experience, and not that they are out running 10 kilometers every morning to keep in shape. The lower limit for seamanship and experience that designers should have to consider are;

• Enthusiasts who actually have done a lot of coastal sailing
• have experienced over 40 knot winds but not over 50 knots, at least not continuous wind strength anyway
• have done quite a few "easier" open water crossings taking up to a few days or so. But they chose to postpone if it blew 40 knots.
• They are proficient when it comes to navigation

Really difficult to define this The best way to describe how I think is maybe "But they chose to postpone if it blew 40 knots"

So what do we get? We get a boat that is less extreme than the Pogo 40 Because it must be more forgiving and it must be habitable also in rough weather

Is it really important?

Mikey

 

Give me, Give me, Give me

Very nice boat, looks very seaworthy, just needs a stronger rig apparantly. So why did he abandon, weather looks OK so it should have been possible to motor to shore, shouldn't it?

Mikey

 

Does anyone have the facts ?

I notice he removed 400kg of bilge keels without re-ballasting, also the boat is fairly shoal draft at 5'6" Another foot on the keel and compensating ballast would have made me happier for the seas he was sailing.

I would not be surprised if the boat had been knocked down, on the other hand it may have been a rigging failure. Either he was heartily sick of the whole voyage and wanted to get off or he was injured.

Added
Ok I found the link thanks Rayk. All is clear now he rolled 360 degrees after rounding up into a breaking wave.

 

One set of facts is that a sailor in a 28 foot boat manged to sail 130-140 miles a day in the same area to get around Cape Horn, and the sailor in the larger, heavier boat could only manage about 80 miles a day and was asleep while his boat "wandered into the storm".

We can discuss the relative seaworthiness of the boats until the end of time, but the fact will remain that all it takes is a good sailor to make one boat look seaworthy and a poor sailor to make another boat look unseaworthy.

I've tried to make this point time and again, but no one seems to think it is relevant.

I pointed out the errors made by the skipper and crew of the Bene 390 ... but the boat was blamed.

If you read the notes from Ken Barnes in the "seaworthy" steel boat and the notes from Donna Lange on her little 28 foot boat, I think you will be forced to come to the conclusion that no boat could be seaworthy enough for Ken Barnes.

Ken Barnes: "I’ve spent the last 4 days in a storm. It started on Dec. 23 when I was sailing along in 20 kts and went to sleep. At around 2am (why always at night) on the 24th I noticed the wind generators were making a lot of noise and I was no longer sleeping in the traditional horizontal position. It seems that as I slept the wind took the opportunity to increase to 35 kts.

Well after trying for a while, in my muttled condition, to figure out which way to turn the autopilot to head downwind I finally started to get things sorted out, in my head, now for the boat. First of all I knew there was a large low pressure system ahead of me when I went to sleep but I had been watching these lows and they all seemed to pass by rather quickly, usually in about 24 hours so my thinking was this one will pass and I will get in behind it, I thought wrong. This low decided to camp out for 3 days and as I slept I wandered right into it."

Donna Lange: "1600UTC 1100local/NY 0700NZ
Jan 3,2007 Wednesday Good Mornin Hugs!!
position: 52'52"S 82'56"W
winds: SSW 30kn gusty(yesterday -this morn, winds
45-50kn gusting higher)
sp: 5kn COG:122 Seas: 10' swell:10'(reached 15'lastnight)
point of sail: close reach
sails: full reef main, 1/3jib
miles sailed: 138nm
miles to go: 8228nm to RI
556nm to Cape Horne wypt.still 60nm from
the Horne itself.
forecast: The full effects of the storm system
hit ;yesterday afternoon with 45-50kn of wind gusting,and
squalling. Truly as much wind as i have ever seen.
The seas state did cooperate as the system moved
quickly keeping the swell from building above 15'
and it stayed very rolling, not breaking, longer
periods. I had only one knock down this morn and
that was as my point of sail came around to beam
reach and the seas were still 15'. Winds are settling
now. i have put the mainsail back up as it was
down all night sailing on only a small jib. The
sun is shining, temp rising a bit from it's low
of 41*f (5*c)last night. We are a wet lot, my little
ship and I but all safe and sound. resting now.
I have ended up a bit farther south than i had
planned so the 30kn winds will continue most of
the day, giving way to winds W20kn later on. A
big High system is to follow this bringing milder
winds from the west mostly. We'll see how it all
pans out over the next few days. i anticipate
being at the Horne on the 7th or 8th. The question
will be the winds effect on my trip west up the
channel.
Conditions: temp low 41*f (presently 48*f), Bar>
1008(@1600; now 1013 1900), It is always a tremendous
experience to witmess the dynamics of big storms.
I felt very secure and at peace the whole time,
and for good reason as the conditions were relatively
benign, though the potential for a dangerous rogue
is always there. I believe it is somewhat the
familiarity, sense of understanding of the flow
of the storm, and an appropriate expectation, though
the winds were far stronger than i had thought.
I had gotten farther south nearer the center and
the 50kn winds. The great feeling I have is gratitude.
i just can't forget how very difficult my previous
crossings have been from old and ineffective equipment
to unbelieveably relentless storm systems one after
another. Only GRatitude, trust and the faith i
believe that gives momentum to the energy to bring
about the postive outcomes we hope for. All good
on board. Good contacts on radio with Patagonia
net and Russel radio. sv_ Tainui, John Valentine,
is crossing to chile a bit behind me from Opua.
It was really great to have a few words of encouragment
and comradery in the midst of the tempest. What
a treat. This morn on the Patagonia net, sv_Spindrift
contacted me. Ken knows me from ST Thomas. He was
there when i originally bought my boat and the
first refits. He was in amazement to hear me here.
He is expecting to be in Ushuaia before I leave,
so it will be great to meet up with an old 'mate'.
I have been asking about immigration and whether
they will have any trouble with my provisions.
it would be a great loss if they confiscate my
seeds and nuts etc like they did in Opua. of course
then, I didn't have any on board. Now i am fully
stocked. My understanding is that they will not
have any problem with the dried goods, only meats
and fresh food which i have none of. Though I
don't have any fantasy of reaching a warm place
when i arrive in ushuaia, i will look forward to
a hot bath. enjoy!!! I hope all are well. big hugs
and loves , xoxoxo d"

One sailor sleeps his way into a storm while the other is typing a novel and cheerfully states she was only knocked down once.

Should we conclude that Southern Cross 28's are more seaworthy than Griffith 44's?

Donna Lange has certainly shown that storms in the Southern Ocean can be avoided ... even in a tiny 28 foot boat.

I've bothered you all for too long. I'm not a NA or even a designer. I'm just a sailor. I think these two stories prove my point that the sailor is a greater factor than the design of the boat.

A discussion of boats without including the skill of the sailor (or designing boats that require no skill) is to bizarre for me to comprehend.

I don't think my Befana has any faults that prudent seamanship cannot compensate for. Therefore I declare her to be "seaworthy" enough for me.

I wish you all luck in your search for designs that will be safe for the Ken Barnes' of the world.

Cheers

Randy

 

Your post asks "How much of seaworthiness is boat and how much is sailor?"
40%? 60%? 80%? I don't think that the "how much" is important, no. How would that knowledge benefit this discussion We need what, not how much.

I am an engineer like Mike and I would personally want to define what level of seamanship and experience we should design an ocean going boat for and then get on with discussing the technical aspects of it. Engineers don't like to discuss aspects that they can't do anything about anyway

Of course any design has to consider the ability of the operator. And I have already started defining the level of seamanship and experience, please add your opinion.

Absolutely, and they should be advertised as what they are. The Pogo 40 for instance is a racer and not a cruiser/racer or even a racer/cruiser - remember, we are discussing ocean sailing, not coastal sailing.

That sounds really strange for me. Is the focus on reducing losses when there is an accident??? Randy - That was the focus a generation ago

In northern Europe anyway, focus has since long moved on from regulation of cars and improvement of driver skills to regulation of driving - control with a very low tolerance to mistakes of any kind. And it is certainly improving safety. My opinion here is that we should try to avoid at all costs to go down that path in the yachting world. Because it makes life very boring

That is why we should get on with this thread. May I have your opinions on level of seamanship and experience please

Mikey

 

That's because that part is not necessary to discuss in this thread - what we need is to define level to design for, define level of seaworthiness appropriate for that level, and then comes the fun bit - what's the best compromise

Mikey

 

Randy
I agree with your appraisal of the skipper, his seamanship does appear lacking perhaps he was chronically seasick, most likely he should have been doing his apprenticeship on the west coast for a year and getting to know the boat before this daring adventure.

I also agree any vessel can be sailed in an un-seamanly manner , but there are very poor yachts too even under competent skippers.

Have you heard that two Sydney to Hobart yachts have been rescued after running into trouble on their return home from Tasmania.

This is the report dated 8th Jan:
The 10m yacht Berrimilla is being towed to Eden on the NSW south coast after rolling and being dismasted in heavy seas at 3.50am AEDT today .
The yacht, with four crew, was picked up by a police launch 56km northeast of Eden.
The Queensland yacht Wedgetail lost its steering about 10pm last night in the Tasman Sea, 65km east of the St Helens on Tasmania's east coast.

(Just to throw another couple of rescues into the pot.)



You can make very seaworthy small boats but it is much harder. The adage is that technical design problems increase in inverse proportion to the size of the boat. This is because Weather and sea conditions (and people) don't scale down with the vessel , the compromises are greater and the task much harder. A designer that produces a small seaworthy and practical cruising vessel has done very well.

This is what I think too. Another adage is that every boat is a collection of compromises.



I am away a few days now.

 

Oh well, and I said I'd stay away.....

I'm not sure about the relevance of Berrimella. The boat has a displacement of 6,933kg on an LOA of 10.1m and a LWL around 7.4m, and an IMS stability index of 141.6. It sailed two-handed around the three Great Capes during its two-man circumnavigation, and completed the notorious '98 Hobart with enough ease to win its class. Alex is not a gung-ho racer.

I see that she doesn't fulfil one definition of "seaworthiness" posted here (thanks Mike for giving us one definition) as she was not "stable watertight and controllable in all expected conditions." But then if a boat that is knocked down is unseaworthy (and surely a knockdown is neither stable or comfortable, and rarely controllable) then many well-reputed conservative boats are as well.



Could we flip this around to some extent? Can we get a nomination of some popular boats that ARE deemed to be seaworthy??