La Vagabonde's crossing

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

. . . These systems zip by at a significantly fast pace - +20kts. Every bit of speed helps, but 200nm/day is the starting point for being able to play around the systems. More like 300 is where you really gain options - but that is really only available in the elite racing world. I've done a bit of work with Stan Honey, and the world really changes when you can sail at +system speed - then you can pick one system and surf it all the way across., and look in front of you for the next one you want - but again you need like a G-Class for that.

That kind of goes to the heart of the question.


System speed is nirvana, but as you approach system speed, I mean even to half of system speed, your options surely expand exponentially. By "options" I mean your ability to maneuver effectively to stay out of really bad weather.



I wonder what a good crew could have done on a passage like that in an Atlantic 57, a whole ton more performance than an Outremer 45?


With the very light displacement and very thin hulls, the A57 will probably have basically no hull speed, but be limited by motion comfort in any kind of sea state. I would think that in wind like LV have just had you could fairly easily maintain 220 -- 250 mile days with occasional 300 mile days (just like today I easily do 180 mile days day in and day out, with regular 200 mile days). 220-250 mile days has got to totally change the map, dynamically speaking, no?



The Swan 90 I used to sail on had performance like that. I dropped off the crew before they crossed the Pacific, but they averaged something like 230 miles/day all the way across the Pacific Ocean from Cabos to Australia.

[HeinSdL]

It would appear LV is emerging nicely from that last bout of wind passing over for a nice final sail into Lisbon. I would feel pretty elated (very elated) after such a trip. I already felt pretty good arriving in Cadiz having left Amsterdam 2 weeks previous with one stop in Weymouth. But that trip was... very short, compared to LV's.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well that's a no-brainer in my opinion. I wouldn't use a heavy double ender for crossing oceans even if you paid me to (well, maybe depending on how much you pay ). My boat, while immensely strong, has D/L of less than 200 and carbon sails, and we regularly do 200+ mile days. Not a racing boat, but far from a heavy double ender.



There can be no question that speed is a huge benefit for crossing oceans, vs. just bobbing around in a double-ender. One benefit of a fast, strong mono is that you don't need to turn the dial down in rough sea conditions -- when I'm fully crewed, we basically sail balls to the wall all the time and for days on end. My best ever day, 218 miles, was made with the wind ahead of the beam at 20 to 30 knots, driving the bow right through the waves a lot of the time.



The question is not whether or not a double ender; the question is whether something even faster, like an Atlantic 57, can be worthwhile even if it is more delicate (only 12 tonnes displacement!). I would not want to be in a North Atlantic storm in something like that. But if a bunch of speed plus latest weather routing can give reasonable assurance that you won't have to go through a North Atlantic storm, then that may change the equation. I believe people have cracked 300 miles/day in Atlantic 57's.


The Outremer 45 is a pretty modest boat and not much faster in most conditions than my mono (and surely slower in rougher sea conditions), yet they just flew across. Was it just luck that they didn't get into so much as a real gale on the whole passage, or is this the new state of the art? That is the question.

Horse's for Courses DH..
There will always be those who want it over with as quickly as possible.. The destination over the journey.
But there are those for whom the journey supersedes the destination, it exists only as one is needed to resupply or as a waypoint.
40+ days to cover 4000nm means nothing as theres more joy in seeing a pod of Orca or a Superpod of dolphin mid Atlantic than bragging rights at the bar.
So.. to be frank I choose the 'tank' of old from the 70's/80's, tho' not a double ender.. (Wharram being the exception.) as this is the main reason I sail.

More news on the boat off Fig da Foz I wrote about last night.. It is still afloat though getting pounded by the surf.
Seems they were in comms with shore and told not to try entering as the bar was closed, they were to close by then and were driven S of the entrance into shifting shallows, the skipper deployed the anchor to try and stop being driven ashore.
They were told a helicopter would be dispatched to take them off but seems they chose to jump over the side and head for shore.. surfers on the beach assisted along with a jet bike. The woman (50) suffered cardiac arrest and was flown to Coimbra, no news on the bloke.
Boat looks like a Bavaria around 38-40ft, still holding its anchor but pounding at low water.
French Registered so assume French nationals.

[Pelagic]

[QUOTE=Breaking Waves;3027699

These systems zip by at a significantly fast pace - +20kts. Every bit of speed helps, but 200nm/day is the starting point for being able to play around the systems. More like 300 is where you really gain options - but that is really only available in the elite racing world. I've done a bit of work with Stan Honey, and the world really changes when you can sail at +system speed - then you can pick one system and surf it all the way across., and look in front of you for the next one you want - but again you need like a G-Class for that.[/QUOTE]

In boat design, everything is a compromise and you start with a mission statement to help define your priorities, for guidance purposes.

Thanks BW for showing us where the "hump" lies in +250nm/day tactical speed. ...

...So we need to ask ourselves is fast passage making the priority at tactical speeds?....
.... or do we prefer the comforts and provisional capacity to stay at a remote destination?......

With a great deal of money and a large length to person ratio you can do both, but most of us cannot afford that and need to make a choice, if voyaging under sail.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

.
I wonder what a good crew could have done on a passage like that in an Atlantic 57, a whole ton more performance than an Outremer 45?

This is actually a relatively easy question to answer reasonably objectively. Get polars (or approximations) for both boats, get a couple different 16 day grib files, run routings, compare results (amount of heavy and light winds, and time at different angles, seastate distribution, etc) - that sort of analysis is done all the time when designing modern offshore race boats.

220-250 mile days has got to totally change the map, dynamically speaking, no?

Yes, that’s starting to be very useful. LV managed to totally avoid one system entirely when their speed was at the low end of that range.



The Swan 90

there is a swan 80 right now doing very excellent speeds in the arc. I am sure they have a very skilled crew..

I think you would enjoy an Atlantic 57. It suits you.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Cherod

Nothing to do with being a Greta groupie , I am too old for that and have a beautiful wife thank you , but really , what nonsense , just how blinkered can you be , just another transat ?? such a shame , you are missing so so much , seems since the cod wars you have been on the wrong side .

So what made this special.. Apart from the people on the boat..
What did it reveal about CC effects on a W-E November crossing.. none, because no one on board can make a comparison.
When did you last cross.. mine was last year and in most years I have been a member on here.. except 2012 when it was the S Pacific.
It was just another Transat.. seems you need to get off the sofa and away from the screen more

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by conachair

Anyone in the UK posting links to the daily mail as a credible source of info gets laughed at.

So, she didn't fly over? Or the jet mysteriously didn't emit carbon?
Not that I believe it's a problem in the first place, but....

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by boatman61

But there are those for whom the journey supersedes the destination

Originally Posted by Pelagic

.... or do we prefer the comforts and provisional capacity to stay at a remote destination?......

yes, I, of course, agree with both of you. It's a personal decision - multiple potentially right answers.

I personally tend toward boats that can efficiently tack into small tight remote complicated harbors and anchor under sail (think of some of those great little coves in the Hebrides). That's my personal joy.

I've never met nor sailed with him, but based on his forum presence I think DH would enjoy something like an Atlantic 57.

[DDouglasone]

Originally Posted by OldKetch

A "permanent shock"? I think you are underestimating the scale and complexity of natural processes. As a former geoscientist I always find it fascinating to engage climate protesters about their perception of historic climate change. None of them could guess that only in the past couple of 100 thousand years there were several major temperature fluctuations over 10C and that there were major sea level changes, well over 100m just in the past 12-16 thousand years. (see data below)

The scale, the speed, the complexity and the stochastic nature of geological/climate changes make projections based on "current" observations rather questionable. Yet, when there is lots of politics, big money and big egos involved to push simple messages, it is rather easy to forget the need for essential scientific scepticism.

Thank-you!

Anyone genuinely questioning the Climate Change debate should first and foremost understand we are currently in a receding glacial maximum.
Remember the "Little Ice Age" experienced in the 1700's anyone or the warming during the 1400's aka The Renaissance?
Just look at the Younger-Dryas period 13-14kya when after 5-6 thousands yrs of receding glaciers, boom! 300 yrs and the glaciers advanced down to New York City and were a mile high!
Just one single volcanic eruption throws up more C02 than man AND woman has ever produced since the discovery of fire! 😁
Why are the polar caps on Mars receding as well?
No one likes pollution but to assert what Climate Hoaxers claim is just plain fiction.
Nothing wrong with cleaning up our act, as we should, but the lunacy I suspect is mere projection because precious little is done by those who advocate this in favor of using my money to "fix it"!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Horse's for Courses DH..
There will always be those who want it over with as quickly as possible.. The destination over the journey.
But there are those for whom the journey supersedes the destination, it exists only as one is needed to resupply or as a waypoint.
40+ days to cover 4000nm means nothing as theres more joy in seeing a pod of Orca or a Superpod of dolphin mid Atlantic than bragging rights at the bar.
So.. to be frank I choose the 'tank' of old from the 70's/80's, tho' not a double ender.. (Wharram being the exception.) as this is the main reason I sail.
. . .

That's just a different style of sailing, and if you are ready for anything the sea can dish out, then why not.


Just my personal preference to sail fast and sail actively. And the way LV got across really opened my eyes about a few things.


I wouldn't take an A57 to the Artic -- hit one small growler at speed and it would be smashed to splinters and you'd be blue and dying before you could get your drysuit on. But for most other stuff it might be a good choice, based on all of this. Would be great fun to do a passage like this one, on a boat like that, dodging the systems, flying across.

[HeinSdL]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

So, she didn't fly over? Or the jet mysteriously didn't emit carbon?
Not that I believe it's a problem in the first place, but....

I'm not sure where she came from or how much CO2 was emitted as a result of this crossing. But show me any article published by The Daily Mail or The Times covering the IPCC report in a balanced way or any climate related topic in a balanced way and I would be delighted & amazed. That is where the problem lies: whenever these publications bring up the topic of climate change it is to RUBBISH & TAUNT others who are showing some concern. So instead I would say: get hold of a copy of the IPCC report and start rubbishing the findings therein. That will be a lot more difficult and much less palatable (indeed acceptable) for their readership base. And it won't happen anyway, as dictated by the individuals who own these publications.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by DDouglasone

... Just one single volcanic eruption throws up more C02 than man AND woman has ever produced since the discovery of fire! ...

Where does one get infected with such drivel?


According to the USGS, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion (24,000 million) tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.
Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent (± 0.08%) of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

From the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Hazards Program
“... There is no question that very large volcanic eruptions can inject significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours.
However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount.
While large explosive eruptions like this are rare and only occur globally every 10 years or so, humanity's emissions are ceaseless and increasing every year...”
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

yes, I, of course, agree with both of you. It's a personal decision - multiple potentially right answers.

I personally tend toward boats that can efficiently tack into small tight remote complicated harbors and anchor under sail (think of some of those great little coves in the Hebrides). That's my personal joy.

I've never met nor sailed with him, but based on his forum presence I think DH would enjoy something like an Atlantic 57.

Likewise BW.. my preference is mainly long fin and skeg tho' did try a couple of newer (06) Bene's... I too love sailing on and off the hook whenever possible.
Never yet owned a full keeler.
DH.. Not knocking your choice mate.. average speed of systems is 12kts.. if you can outpace it great..
I just heave to and stick the kettle on and break out the rum..
We're both happy chappies..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

I'm not sure where she came from or how much CO2 was emitted as a result of this crossing. But show me any article published by The Daily Mail or The Times covering the IPCC report in a balanced way or any climate related topic in a balanced way and I would be delighted & amazed. That is where the problem lies: whenever these publications bring up the topic of climate change it is to RUBBISH & TAUNT others who are showing some concern. So instead I would say: get hold of a copy of the IPCC report and start rubbishing the findings therein. That will be a lot more difficult and much less palatable (indeed acceptable) for their readership base. And it won't happen anyway, as dictated by the individuals who own these publications.

Finding balanced news or opinion reporting is exactly the problem. So is confirmation bias. These days you have to force yourself to read credible publications and informed opinions that don't conform with your own point of view to try and achieve any sort of objectivity or "balance." Unfortunately, far too many people evaluate the "credibility" of opinions contrary to their own on purely personal, subjective factors. In the extreme, you have far too many people who I have no doubt are sincere in their beliefs, but seem genuinely surprised and therefore personally offended when confronted with contrary points of view. Once the personalization, labeling, and name-calling starts, an otherwise well-intentioned advocate has lost the debate. Or more to the point, has lost the ability to influence opinion on the subject.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That's just a different style of sailing, and if you are ready for anything the sea can dish out, then why not.


Just my personal preference to sail fast and sail actively. And the way LV got across really opened my eyes about a few things.


I wouldn't take an A57 to the Artic -- hit one small growler at speed and it would be smashed to splinters and you'd be blue and dying before you could get your drysuit on. But for most other stuff it might be a good choice, based on all of this. Would be great fun to do a passage like this one, on a boat like that, dodging the systems, flying across.

Fwiw, my takeaway of La Vag's crossing, with its excellent weather routing resources, was that it's certainly possible to avoid holes, find more favorable winds, and maybe avoid some of the more unfavorable conditions, but I still question whether it would have been enough to avoid an unpredictable, large, and fast moving tropical storm/hurricane. For e.g., if TS Sebastian had not been as compact and was tracking on a more northerly course. Or maybe I'm overstating this risk, perhaps as a result of reading Kretschmer's excellent book about a late season (Nov.) hurricane in the Carib that defied the forecasters and tracked the "wrong way." Several boats got caught while relying on the forecast, with resulting loss of life.

My question would be, and assuming a reasonably fast boat and good onboard weather routing capabilities, is whether forecasting has improved enough over the past 10 years or so that many experienced sailors' hard & fast rule about never sailing during hurricane season remains applicable?