Seaworthiness

Retro,
I admire your homework and conviction. You are obviously very capable or you wouldn’t talk as you do. I have offered my combined experiences and technical background for those to accept or reject., I don’t need to repeat them.

I started foredeck in my twenties I am still very strong at 55, I love the tough stuff. Hope to meet you in the South Pacific. I like talking to you

I will be getting into some weather routing stuff, you have spurred my curiosity. Can you send a link to a MFG you like?

However, on the recent item you list;

“Most of the solid GRP boats that still look like they are in one piece are nowhere near as stiff and solid as when they were built.”

My training in engineering, leading to almost obsession about structure and strength of materials gets me into areas no surveyor would never go, as I remove panels and look for really fine details for hours. I think I like this as much as sailing, maybe?

I have done some things on my 34-year-old GRP boats, which you would find interesting.

I have run a tight wire from stem to stern and then put 4500 lbs on the backstay. 3000# on the 41.
I measure hull deflection at the mast and have 11-mm. deflections (both boats).
I also have a hull core after enlarging a thru hull for a new larger dia. speed transducer and I beat it to death with a hammer to find it was very strong. (year 28) took a beating.

Another thing I have done is take measurements to the mm. before the boat is hauled in the water, in the slings, and then on the hard. All three very different. Typical is 1-3 mm. I stretch strings with pencil marks inside side for widest beam and coach roof to floor.
I concluded the hull-deck are quite strongly built and have shown no signs of deterioration. (except for some water getting into balsa deck around a few deck track screws. I have owned my 41 for 20 years. 12? haulings

Another thing I did was truck my 41 across country, LA to Miami and back, 8 years later. I drove next to the truck as the boat bounced, even with dual axle air ride, I was sick to by stomach.
But after 2800 miles I found no fatigue problems.

It was exactly as before except for a lot of chafing here and there. On the return trip, where I was not able to supervise the loading, upon arrival I found the rear straps as tight as guitar strings pulling the cantilevered rear end down to the truck bed, with NO transom support. that's 15 feet hanging out!
I figured with the lowboy bed flexing, these peak loads at the rear of the fin keel were enormous. I went through the roof, talked of suing, but could find no evidence of damage.

I think most of these boats were made well, I have seen ones that were not. Growing up sailing in the 70’s, we knew which were good and which were not. That still holds as those boats not made that well are still around.

I sailed a new ,well made boat in 1983 (long after the heavy seventies), where the garboard split alongside the keel and little water fountains came in. It was a case of a tight radius (high stress) thin hull. This was first sail.

Considering the present lightweight, speed, evolution and the extreme competition between manufacturers today, I would personally have to spend too many hours pouring over the design, materials and process technology and engineering to get comfortable before purchase. I would rather opt for a proven design which fits with the physics I know.

I also am suspicious that the published static curves are accurate. I contacted one of these new rocket boat MFG.s, asked how they derived the static curve. "Computer generated numbers and weight estimates" was the answer. I was curious because the boat was very light and wide to the stern. The curve said LPS 140 . I don't believe it. Even if the curve has high LPS, with such low mass and moment, what does it matter?

Be careful with words like “Most” and “nowhere near”
Personally, I made a mistake calling a boat a “deathtrap in these prior posts. That boat does look closer to 50 feet however (count those spreaders)

BTW I am not trying to imply lightweight is not strong, I am saying it beats up crew, and is much more susceptible to wave forces (higher accelerations), cannot be sailed to maximum potential regularly, does not do well with waves and whales and such.

The wide ones stay inverted. Generally they are harder to steer; poorly balanced once heeled. Pound and flex when going to weather. Pop out of water with wave or wind inputs. They bounce around, roll gunnel to gunnel and are very noisy at anchor.

When people walk around on them the whole boat moves. That could knock the ice out of my drink! right when I am flipping my steak over. And all this for downwind speed?
Racing yes, cruising not for me.

Also, carbon masts don’t do well with lightning, I spent 29 years in the tropics. I have a few stories there too.


One of my past surfer friends once said his board was guaranteed for ten thousand waves or one rock, which ever came first. Funny but true (to me)

Oh, and this you may find funny, My friend owns a Riptide 35, (PH= -3) cool boat!
I mentioned POGO was making a cruising version of their 40. His drink almost shot out of his mouth! Laughing , Sorry, but that was from a guy who may as well be an owner.



The books I mentioned before are very well written too.

Where are the guys from England and Washington? All that hand wringing was amusing!

“little whorls feed on big whorls and so on to viscosity”

 

PS.

"I see being able to sail fast when you choose to, need to, or want to as a plus."

I mentioned this in my question before, "your wind is blowing 4 kts and your weather router says get out, a 400+mile per day low has formed and is heading east.
You are now a sitting duck in the path you can only motor at 7 kts.

In this case; choose, need or want are irrelivant, You are going to get Whupped!

I will be below on my battlewagon, hove to, cooking , glass of wine, book to read. I don't mean to sound uppity, I have already been beaten up on that one especially living in the US.
However the money you will have to spend on exotic materials, associated design and engineering, you could have put into a battlewagon like mine and have enough left over for food, wine, and a babe thrown in!

We don't want to loose you,

As for fast boats, get some friends who own them, they will need crew: why buy the cow when the milk is free.
Cruising is about R&R

 

Very interesting information about old GRP boats, KP. Thank you for that.

Re "Personally, I made a mistake calling a boat a “deathtrap in these prior posts."

I think we all tend to go to the extremes to make our points in internet debates - certainly I do!


"That boat does look closer to 50 feet however (count those spreaders)"

I have a double page colour version of that shot. I also have half-page versions of the same boat, same day. It is definitely the Dubois one ton Jameson Whisky, from the 1987 Irish Admiral's Cup team.

She has three spreaders and a set of jumpers - absolutely normal for a 1987 one tonner (I've just confirmed that by looking through the 1987 Admiral's Cup programme). Fifties at the time normally had four spreaders and jumpers.

Interesting information earlier about the modifications to the Ericson 39.

 

I think Crag is making the point I was trying to - that you only need sufficient seaworthiness. Any additional seaworthiness is unecessary expense.

 

Excuse me PI Design, for borrowing and altering your quote. It just leapt out at me really.

 

Touche!

 

"Guillermo - I'm confused...."

I'm sorry about that, it was certainly not my intention! The first quote I believe (although it's a while ago now) was in reference to the level at which the STIX requirement had been set for each RCD Category. My view is that if you are a legislator in government you only need set any legal requirement to achieve your political aim. The aim of the RCD is to allow free trade of goods within Europe. Once the proposed standards satisfied the particular safety concerns of all participating member states, then that was high enough. Going for a higher standard would only increase costs and cause resentment amongst the electorate. Politicians will consider the standard good enough if they don't receive any public (voter) outrage that 'something needs to be done' about the safety of boats. So far, I think most politicians consider the RCD a success as it has simplified trade and no one in their 'voter surgeries' is complaining about the quality of the boats they are buying. It would be perhaps a little churlish to point out, that no one was complaining before the RCD either.


The second point was about what we, as the buying public, should consider 'adequately seaworthy'. I suggested there was a huge element of personal choice in this. Not only do different boats suit different people's style of cruising and skill level, but most importantly people are prepared to accept a widely differing degree of risk. This degree of acceptable risk has to be balanced against their other prioritise and resources (money) to get a boat that suits them. Not everyone perhaps makes the best choices, but it's through training and education that we can improve this and not by passing legislation to continually restrict choice.

I said it's undeniable that a boat with a STIX of 100 is very different beast to one with a STIX of 32 and we have talked previously about how STIX has fulfilled its RCD function but is perhaps too crude a tool for giving the boat buying public the information they need to make an informed choice. (By the way, I have nearly finalised my alternative proposal).

So, with the proviso that we continue to work on improving the education of sailors, there is not a lot wrong with the status quo. Who has a problem with it ?

It's not Governments, as they are clearly happy to allow people to make these sorts of choices. They allow people who wish to travel from A to B on land to choose to go by motorbike or by train. Both do the same job of moving you, but at very different levels of risk. And thrill. And cost. etc.

No, the only people who ever seem to promote 'higher standards' are those who think they stand to gain from such a move. The RCD grew to become the monster it did because it looked like a 'good little earner' as we say here. You could see the pound signs in people's eyes at conferences 10 years ago, when there was talk of Notified Bodies, inspections, tests, regulations, etc. I've also previously given an example of how the Marine Accident Investigation Branch here is desperate to get more control (and money) in order to regulate the pleasure boating world, even going so far as to fabricate accident statistics to make sure 'a real problem' was seen to exist.

There is even evidence today of similar practice detailed in the local newspaper: It's only on UK canals and rivers that boats have any legal 'safety requirements', because historically, legislation existed to allow this from the days of high density commercial use. This year, the scope of these regulations is being extended to cover the Norfolk Broads, an area of little lakes and rivers in the east of the country. As the boating there is so tame, it is very popular with hire fleets who rent out motor and sailing cruisers to holiday makers who normally have no boating experience and are drawn to the area primarily because of the very high density of waterside pubs. It's an ideal place for a booze cruise. From the newspaper: "The new legislation is needed because there have been 20 deaths over the last 10 years by drowning, and these new regulations are supported by the marine industry who are adamant that it will lead to an improvement in the standard of boats".

So we have a minor problem (2 drownings per year from 10s of thousands of boaters) where everyone knows that alcohol is the cause, but the solution imposed is a whole raft of construction and installation standard for the boats themselves. Makes no sense until you read on and it says: "Eight wardens will enforce the regulations, but they will show leniency at first as there is so much work to be done the boat yards and surveyors say it will be several years before they can clear the back log." Quite - Jobs for the boys.

The only way sailing will resist this constant pressure for more regulation is if we can prove we have both the measure of the situation and have processes in place to continually improve standards. This is the core tenant of the RYA here and seems to work in our context. But to be effective it relies on facts and meaningful insights. If we within the sailing world cannot debate these issues with clarity and factual context without resorting to personal entrenched and polarised positions, we can hardly complain when outsiders seek to impose their own blinkered agendas on us.

 

Interesting perspective on this discussion

I thought this might be applicable to this thread: "But on the other hand, none of the boats engaged in the race with her are supposed to be good for much except to engage in such races. The tendency of yacht-racing is everywhere to produce 'racing machines;' ... by narrowing, deepening and ballasting yachts out of all reason, (or) by making broad and shallow 'skimming-dishes.' In either case the result is not a good type of sea-going vessel."

The quote is from an editorial in the New York World on June 24, 1876. As the ancient Romans (and my high school Latin teacher) used to say, "Nil novi sub sole" (There's nothing new under the sun).

 

That's true in a number of ways, because without the need for speed (albeit in tea clippers, navy ships, revenue cutters, pilot boats, smuggling's boats, mail packets, race boats, etc) there would indeed, be nothing new under the sun.

It's hard to think of one significant boat feature that originated purely by innovation in the cruising boat world. Is there?

 

CT

roger on the one ton, I imagine the Jameson Whiskey filled many a glass after that race!

Are there other pics of that boat? Is it possible to post a digital pic. from your brochure? if it is not too much trouble.

cheers
KP

 

Solar heated showers?

 

Actually, I just found it interesting that discussions like this, about extremities in design resulting in racing boats unsuitable for any other purpose, were going on 130 years ago, and probably earlier.

 

On Rick Tomlinson's website (the photographer) he has our broaching photo down as 1993, when Jameson 1, 2 & 3 (the one-tonner rented from the King of Norway that Cudmore sank), made up the Irish CMAC team.

The other one I've attached below he has down for 1987, when Jameson Whiskey, (IOR 50), Independent Irish Pelt (Dubois 40 One-Tonner) and Turkish Delight (Castro 43 Two-Tonner) were the team.

However there is still something that doesn't square with this as the 87 photo shows it as 'Jameson 3' - but why would it be '3' if there was only one Jameson in the team? So perhaps they are both from 93 or perhaps he just has them listed the wrong way round, in which case our broach is the 50ft Jameson Whiskey.

Help! more info please.


**********
Solar shower - excellent!


www.boatdesign.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12236&stc=1&d=1175025263

 

Round the world racing boats....... ..

 

rayk, KP, Crag Cray, Mike and All Of You,

May I compliment on the writing skills, it's excellent, makes this thread a pleasure to read

Mikey