The perils of edgy design offshore

[Ad Hoc]

Thank you for posting the prelim report Doug. Although your postings suggest you have not read and digested the report?

This report just echoes the views/findings of our simplistic critiquing (myself, Mike, Guillermo etc), which it appears all those “doubters” ignored simply because the harsh truth is hard to swallow, when wanting to have “death or glory” as Mike so nicely puts it.

Interesting that the very very rough GZ curve I produced here: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/perils-edgy-design-offshore-38903-16.html#post478033

Is very close to the one produced in the report on page 35, the axis is elongated. But the shape, when you squash it ups is very close indeed. The report has a max GZ close to 0.70m, I had 0.6-0.7, the max angle at which this occurs at around 45 degrees, the report has 45 degrees, AVS I had 90 report has 100 degrees.

The whole point of this, is not to blow hot air up my arse. The point being, with very simple rudimentary science and engineering, a professional naval architect (trained in such science and engineering) can make a very quick rough assessment to gauge whether a design is “safe or not, and hence what mitigation or otherwise ie required in the preliminary design phase.

All the discussion about STIX too, again clearly highlighted in the report as being dire.

It ain’t rocket science, it ain’t a black art, it ain’t death or glory. It is simple physics. Ignore it at your peril….as it appeared the owner/crew of Wingnuts sadly did.

The old adage of “penny wise pound foolish” comes to mind. People are prepared to spend money, in some cases large sums, in a boat purchase, it’s cool, it’s light weight, it’s cutting edge..blah blah blah…. Yet simple surveying and review of a design and its safety features costs peanuts, it should not cost you your life!

As a final note.

All those crying boooo hooo…you’re spoiling our sailing, just look at one, of the several recommendations in the reports findings:


2. Selection
2.1. We recommend that race organizers establish minimum standards for both the skipper and crew of each boat as well as the boat’s suitability and seaworthiness.
2.2. We recommend that the race organizers, when needed, engage the services of a naval architect to assist in technical issues.
2.3. We recommend that the race organizers of Category 1 and 2 races implement a minimum Stability Index for their fleets.

Funny, if you scroll through the posting on this thread, again, you’ll see such points being made, yet ignored or dismissed by the “death or glory” camp!

 

[Doug Lord]

The Perils of Edgy Weather in Any Boat

Ad Hoc, you're welcome. As far as I know this is the final report -not a preliminary report?
----
I haven't read the whole report yet but I have read the "Findings" and "Recommendations".
In points 1, 2,10 and 19 of the "Findings" the boat is variously referred to as having been "blown over" by high winds,"capsized by high winds", "blown over and capsized by high winds".
No where in the "Findings" does the report add that waves contributed to the capsize-which they surely did but not, apparently, to the extent the wind did according to the "Findings" portion of the report.
In point #2 of the "Findings" they say: "WingNuts was a highly inappropriate boat for a race of this duration, over night, without safety boats, and in an area known to have frequent violent thunderstorms. Her capable crew and preparation could not make up for the fact that she had too little stability, which led to her being "blown over" by a severe gust.
=====
No where in the "Findings" are the wings found to have been a design feature that led to this tragedy! Further, no recommendations are made to eliminate boats with wings from future Chi-Macs but recommendations are made to ensure that every boat has enough stability to self-right.
----
I am curious as to how these recommendations regarding stability will be applied to multihulls-if at all.

 

[DCockey]

I haven't read the whole report yet but I have read the "Findings" and "Recommendations".
In points 1, 2,10 and 19 of the "Findings" the boat is variously referred to as having been "blown over" by high winds,"capsized by high winds", "blown over and capsized by high winds".
No where in the "Findings" does the report add that waves contributed to the capsize-which they surely did but not, apparently, to the extent the wind did according to the "Findings" portion of the report.
In point #2 of the "Findings" they say: "WingNuts was a highly inappropriate boat for a race of this duration, over night, without safety boats. and in an area known to have frequent violent thunderstorms. Her capable crew and preparation could not make up for the fact that she had too little stability, which led to her being "blown over" by a severe gust.
=====
No where in the "Findings" are the wings found to have been a design feature that led to this tragedy! Further, no recommendations are made to eliminate boats with wings from future Chi-Macs but recommendations are made to ensure that every boat has enough stability to self-right.

I read the entire report. No where did I see any indication of any analysis of the details of the mechanism of the capsize beyond looking at the various stability curves and values. Also nothing about the wings. So I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about hull wings per se from the report.

 

[Ad Hoc]

Then neither of you are looking deep enough, and your both missing the point of the report. It is not a critique of the design per se, but the findings of the events leading to the tragic accident. However the report makes it very clear, if you know where and how to look, appenx B:

..”The extreme deck beam necessitated by the wing like appendages negatively impacted the vessel’s stability, and it’s the panel’s opinion that the vessel’s design characteristics made the Kiwi 35 an inappropriate boat for such a long distance race……. Add to this the light area posed by an elevated wing and the prospect of recovery from a knock down in heavy weather was poor at best. In such situations, wind pressure on the elevated wing added to the heeling rather than righting moment—encouraging a capsize..”

That’s all the proof you need!

"..The crew also seemed unaware of the danger lurking in vessel’s design and how it was being used..."

Sums it up nicely too, yet here we have others reading the report and still not comprehending!

 

[peter radclyffe]

The perils of dodgy offshore design

Her incapable crew and lack of preparation could not disguise the fact that none of them had studied basic physics,
or if they had they were not telling the others,
but like a lot of sailors, they refuse to look below the surface,
possibly because its not glamourous

skimming dishes died out 100 years ago because of similar problems

 

[MikeJohns]

I read the entire report. No where did I see any indication of any analysis of the details of the mechanism of the capsize beyond looking at the various stability curves and values. Also nothing about the wings. So I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about hull wings per se from the report.

David
Yes nothing blatantly direct but clear enough really.

It was never going to be a long hard look at the design and explanation of the dynamics once the totally abysmal design became apparent from other angles it's not worth digging any more.

What this whole thread illustrates quite well is that self appointed experts with strong opinions don't understand many aspects of boat design. And certainly don't properly understand safety aspects.

The obviousness of the whole failure paradigm to the Naval Architects and more knowledgeable designers and even some of the sailors is apparent. Then in contrast the total initial denial, obfuscation and downright stupidity from self appointed experts with very little understanding of the physics involved.

This has been a strong trend in racing circles for decades. It's the total apparent lack of understanding that leads to completely unnecessary deaths. I really think at times we fail as professionals because we don't get the message across well enough in the face of the do or die mentality, and that mentality is so unnecessarily stupid.

But then you try and get the message across even in a forum like this and it apparent many people don't want to know and they just have faith in providence and a belief system that fails them when the chips are down.

 

[Gary Baigent]

The few Elmer Gantry-like types here, smugly preaching from self righteous pulpits, have to realize that many adventurer-like yachting types don't want safe, conservative plodders and enjoy pushing to the the edge of things; that is how the human race has developed, progressed and gained knowledge - and "death or glory" simplistic labeling by the EG's for these types is just ... glib BS. You EG's can boringly keep repeating yourselves ... but people, sailors in this case, but it can apply to many differing endeavours, are quite capable in making up their own minds about what they want, or don't want to do, they can evaluate for themselves ... we already have a surfeit of hindering regulators, bureaucrats and dictatorial types for our own good.

 

[troy2000]

The few Elmer Gantry-like types here, smugly preaching from self righteous pulpits, have to realize that many adventurer-like yachting types don't want safe, conservative plodders and enjoy pushing to the the edge of things; that is how the human race has developed, progressed and gained knowledge - and "death or glory" simplistic labeling by the EG's for these types is just ... glib BS. You EG's can boringly keep repeating yourselves ... but people, sailors in this case, but it can apply to many differing endeavours, are quite capable in making up their own minds about what they want, or don't want to do, they can evaluate for themselves ... we already have a surfeit of hindering regulators, bureaucrats and dictatorial types for our own good.

There's a difference between 'pushing to the edge of things,' and going over the edge with inappropriate or inadequate equipment or techniques.

I've noticed that adventurers who make a habit of doing something inherently dangerous, like mountain climbing or wreck diving, usually do it as carefully as they reasonably can. They don't just recklessly throw themselves at it....

I found this comment at Sailing Anarchy, in a 2007 post by someone whose username was Wingnuts:

The boat is fun to sail very tender, two people out on one of the wings will put the wing in the water. You almost need a deck buddy to move around the boat. If your go port you need an equaled sized person to go starboard.
Being built of Kevlar and divinycell the boat is very light and the acceleration is amazing.

We just completed a restoration and upgrades to our Kiwi, WingNuts adding a retractable bow sprit, carbon mast and deck layout and gear.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=63036

 

[Ad Hoc]

Oh dear….seems another just wont listen.

And here is proof why:-

…the starboard wing, look closely, has considerably more buoyancy in the area where the flared hull and wings combine - they are not flat wings as you have indicated. I'm sure you will say that is irrelevant, a wing is a wing, but with that buoyancy, the boat at 100 degrees or so, is not going to lie as deep in the water as you have perhaps envisaged.

However, like a multihull, in the K35's case, it didn't sink ...So you can dismiss righting moment curves..

3. Maybe your life is devoid of gambles, ..

So, what is one of the recommendations the report suggest:

2”….2. We recommend that the race organizers, when needed, engage the services of a naval Architect to assist in technical issues….”

The above comments defending such an indefensible and negligent position with regards to sailing and safety is made by the same:

… no, I'm not a registered naval architect,

QED!

As I and other have said…some people just wont be told, because it spoils their illusion and fantasy world and prefer to remain inside their bubble where they feel “safe” from the criticisms of sound hard engineering and facts.

The few Elmer Gantry-like types here, smugly preaching from self righteous pulpits, have to realize that many adventurer-like yachting types don't want safe, conservative plodders and enjoy pushing to the the edge of things;...

I think you need to take that up with reports authors:

Chuck Hawley:- Chuck has sailed approximately 43,000 miles on vessels ranging from ultralight “sleds” to single-handed sailboats to the maxi-catamaran PlayStation…

John Rousmaniere: John’s 40,000-plus miles of offshore sailing includes a Chicago-Mac, a Bayview-Mac, Newport Bermuda Races (twice in the second-place boat), and Fastnets. In small boats he was on a Soling pre-Olympic team and helped win a Thistle National Championship…

Ralph Naranjo: For 10 years he served as the Vanderstar Chair at the U.S. Naval Academy, overseeing the sail training program and acting as the Academy’s lead agent on the development of the new Navy 44 foot sail training sloops…

Sheila McCurdy: Sheila McCurdy has sailed 90,000 miles offshore, including 15 Newport Bermuda Races, two Marion Bermuda Races, nine transatlantic passages, and a Bayview-Mackinac Race.

As well as Ron Trossbach, Dan Nowlan, Jim Teeters. All of their Bio’s are in the report…

 

[Gary Baigent]

Oh dear, did I fail to mention smug, righteousness, smugness - oh, yes, glad I did because it certainly applies.

 

[michael pierzga]

The conclusion of the report is logical. Simply looking at a boat with wings causes me to "TRIP" , do a double take and wonder what they we're thinking. What a silly idea.

Nice boat for club regattas but inappropriate for offshore sailing.

Race committees should consult naval architects when deciding whether or not to allow a non conventional design to participate in a regatta.

 

[peter radclyffe]

some sailors are professional gamblers

some sailors are seamen

there is nothing smug about facts

 

[MikeJohns]

The few Elmer Gantry-like types here, smugly preaching from self righteous pulpits, have to realize that many adventurer-like yachting types don't want safe, conservative plodders and enjoy pushing to the the edge of things; that is how the human race has developed, progressed and gained knowledge .............quite capable in making up their own minds about what they want, or don't want to do, they can evaluate for themselves .....

No it isn't, you are wrong about how technology develops, it's from understanding the technology not about denying aspects of it. In this case the design was condemned in the Eighties already, its an abysmal and ancient design by leading edge standards. It's not a leading edge technological advancement worth risking life to prove. To pretend that the deaths were somehow promoting the science of sailing is nonsense and the every viewpoint that leads to harsher restrictions on everyone.


But again you are confusing two issues, and that's not helpful.

Where does knowledge fit into this ? Knowledge of the envelope and just where and why pushing it makes it dangerous is important.

If it's really about choice then you accept and admit the danger and compensate for it. If the attitude is "we don't need no education" then accept that regulation is inevitable. It will protect not only you but the people you charismatically lure aboard with "Trust me, I have a strong opinion".

Either you admit that the design is dangerous or you 'believe' away the danger and avoid the hard won knowledge that says it is.


In this case you might now concede that Wingnuts exhibits very poor design features for an offshore craft.

Arguing that it's your right to go offshore in an unsafe boat is a completely different case to arguing that it is in fact not unseaworthy.

The viewpoint of uneducated denial is the viewpoint that invariably demands regulation to protect not you from yourself but others from you.

 

[Doug Lord]

Then neither of you are looking deep enough, and your both missing the point of the report. It is not a critique of the design per se, but the findings of the events leading to the tragic accident. However the report makes it very clear, if you know where and how to look, appenx B:

..”The extreme deck beam necessitated by the wing like appendages negatively impacted the vessel’s stability, and it’s the panel’s opinion that the vessel’s design characteristics made the Kiwi 35 an inappropriate boat for such a long distance race……. Add to this the light area posed by an elevated wing and the prospect of recovery from a knock down in heavy weather was poor at best. In such situations, wind pressure on the elevated wing added to the heeling rather than righting moment—encouraging a capsize..”

That’s all the proof you need!

"..The crew also seemed unaware of the danger lurking in vessel’s design and how it was being used..."

Sums it up nicely too, yet here we have others reading the report and still not comprehending!

========================
It would seem to me that the "extreme deck beam necessitated by the wing like appendages" impacted stability in this case primarily by allowing the boat to be stable when inverted. But a boat with wings or wide beam doesn't have to be stable when inverted. Both the Open 60's and Mini6.5 specify cabin structures above deck level in an attempt to make the boat unstable when inverted, thereby allowing it to be self-righting or rightable by the crew . A wide boat, even with wings, could be designed to be self-righting with above deck cabin volume, reduced wing volume, non-solid wings and or wing dihedral without eliminating wings as a design feature. That is a central consideration based on the findings and recommendations: the wings were not implicated in this disaster-except in the role they played in allowing inverted stability. The degree to which the wing area facillitated a capsize could have been mitigated by proper design and stability resulting in a self-righting design.
The fact is this boat had serious design flaws regarding it's stability characteristics but those flaws could be overcome in a better design using proven technology-and wings incorporated in such a way that they add to inverted instability.
============
In a broader consideration of stability: it amazes me that this same race allows multihulls whose inverted stability is legendary and whose ability to self-right is non-existent in most cases. And this is even after two people were killed in a multihull capsize incident in a different race fairly recently.
The answer there must be, apparently, that the race organization recognizes the "right of self-determination" for multihull sailors who choose to enter a race with the potential conditions as described in the Wing Nuts report. That is, the race committe recognizes the right of the skippers and crew of high speed multihulls to sail in the same, potentially extreme, conditions as Wing Nuts in boats whose stability characteristics are known to produce life-ending capsizes!
As I think they should!
I would be interested in the standard of thinking that says, for one boat type, capsize and the risk of death is unacceptable yet the same organization ok's it for another boat type??!!
======
From the Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-sail-in-competition-20111029,0,1814596.story

Picture: Wingnuts righted after the incident. According to the report, she,apparently, self-righted by herself.

 

[daiquiri]

That is, the race committe recognizes the right of the skippers and crew of high speed multihulls to sail in the same, potentially extreme, conditions as Wing Nuts in boats whose stability characteristics are even worse than WingNuts!
As I think they should![/COLOR][/I]

Oh yeah sure, they should. Why shouldn't they? The more participants to the race, the more money and visibility in the media for the show.

It won't be them anyways (the race committee members) to jump into cold and wild water and risk their own lives to save the reckless (or simply) ignorant skippers ("adventurers", as Gary Baigent calls them) when sh*t happens. No, it will be CG rescuers and crew from other boats. Too bad nobody has asked them whether they are happy or not to face the peril just because the show must go on.