Characteristics of Offshore Yachts

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Could you please explain how the laws of physics have changed in the past 30 years?

A few examples of the changes you imply would be helpful.

As I mentioned, designers and engineers can now apply previously existing physics that they could not 30yrs ago. To such an extent that it would seem almost magical back then (it seems that way to me now).

Take the past AC72 development for example. They were relaying real-time telemetry of an unbelievable amount of sensor data taking almost inconceivable measurements of every aspect of every piece of that boat while it was out sailing for the day - straight back to designers and engineers on shore, who were using those data for making changes to the design while the boat was still sailing, getting those changes out for build overnight, and having those changes implemented on the boat for the next day's sailing trials.

Like I said, that is almost magical to me.

BTW, nobody has been talking about laws of physics except those defending the book contents. And I haven't been able to figure out why such defense, since nobody is really attacking the book. Stating that there have been significant changes in design and materials over the past 30yrs - many good changes - is not attacking the book, the authors or the designers of 30-50yrs ago.

Mark

[Stu Jackson]

Congratulations to the OP for reading and suggesting a (gasp!)

BOOK.

Many of us have been suggesting books in response to internet forum questions for many years. And have been widely chastened for doing so.

Nonsense.

I also took lots of heat for suggesting Google on another forum last week.

Just tired of folks not doing their own research and homework, I guess.

But the beauty of forums is that we can provide links and helpful information for questioners.

Can't make 'em read it, though. :b iggrin:

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by colemj

Multiple water tight bulkheads is pretty much standard fare on catamarans. Two rudders make shear pins almost unnecessary. I don't know what would make an indestructible spar - seems like there will always be forces at sea that can break any spar usable on a sailboat. Flexible rigging? Like in stretchy? I don't understand that one. If you mean flexible in terms of not stiff, then the new fiber stuff is good for that. Seems like a steel hull would be mostly bullet-proof. Many catamarans have a layer of Kevlar in their hull layup, but mostly I want to sail where people aren't shooting at me…



Mark

Bullet proof was meant for able to withstand collision with containers and such. Bounce off as opposed to breaching hull.

You hear a good bit about spade rudder failures. The shear pin was off the top of my head. A kick up rudder instead of a lost one.

Rubber band standing rigging? :> What would it take take make it survive a rollover?

Furlers are a little better. Maybe.

My point was and is that the changes made in the last few decades to sailboats have not made them more durable nor sea worthy that I could see.

The discussion seemed pointed toward a safer sailboat but the industry does not seem to have made real strides in that direction.







------------------------------
Looking for another pretty place to work on the boat.

[paulanthony]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I don't want to get into a pissing match of old vs new whatever but from personal experience having been in a head on collision where I was driving a mid 80s VW and the other car was also a mid 80s Jeep Wrangler (which of course is an unchanged 1940s design with seat belts) - my car was totalled and the other party drove away.

Additionally we must take into account that very few accidents are fatal, most are either fender benders or like mine somewhat damaging. And in these I firmly believe its the cars with the bulk that win. Ask any soccer mom if she prefers the safety of a bulky SUV or the "smart design" of the latest tin can compact. And if I had to chose a car to be in an accident in I'll always chose a 60s-70s MB or somesuch over the latest whatever.

So in the latest whatever you get crumple zones, inertia belts, bags galore, side impact protection, collapsing steering columns, laminated glass, fuel pump retardation, engine bulkhead protection and more but you would still rather have an accident in a 70's Merc?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by jwcolby54

I was on the Kennedy, an aircraft carrier.
…...

We certainly did not intentionally sail into a major storm but a big one is just about impossible to avoid if you are "out there". And if you are going to cross the oceans, you are going to be "out there".
…….

We don't have that on our boats so what do you do? You make the boat watertight and pray for the best. You try to not get sideways to the waves. You try to own a boat that will not easily roll if you do get sideways. If it does roll, it better roll back over (upright) again. A strong enough gust, with any sail at all can put your mast in the water. There are hulls where, at that attitude you are on the edge of going over completely. Others that will just pop back up upright. I sure prefer to pop back upright.
……..

I will not intentionally be taking any boat I own into a big storm. But I do intend to cross oceans. So looking for the right boat is part of my strategy for staying alive.

OK, I am going to stick my neck out here.

The above reflects exactly what some of us have been saying about keeping things in perspective when reading that book. Particularly if you are new to the whole cruising/passagemaking thing.

Warships, RTW racers, and even shorter distance racers don't get to choose their sailing grounds, times of year, departure dates, weather windows, etc.

While anyone CAN get caught in a "Big Storm", most prudent cruisers will not because they are smarter than that. They understand the weather and seasonal patterns of their particular cruising grounds, pay attention to weather forecasts, choose optimum departure windows, etc.

"Big Storms" are, in fact, very easy to avoid when you are "out there". Almost nobody gets caught in one unless they are doing something well out of the ordinary, like sitting off Hatteras in January, or delivering a boat up the NW coast in winter gales.

"Big Storms" are mostly forecasted weeks in advance and tracked constantly and almost always occur in well-known times of year and areas.

This isn't my opinion - read Evan's and Beth's website or any of the Pardy books - these are people who went into more rarified adventure areas. Read the blogs and stories about the recent past rash of teens going around the world. I think Evan has stated that the harshest weather they have seen on passage is 40kts, and I remember the Pardys saying something similar.

Most seem more concerned with light weather, rather than heavy. None seem to worry a lot about a "Big Storm".

When one understands this, and puts one's cruising plans in perspective, then one's choices of "desirable" boat designs open up dramatically.

Else Beth and Evan's Hawk, Jimmy Cornell's Borealis, and may other well-regarded voyagers were big mistakes...

Mark

[Terra Nova]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

...the changes made in the last few decades to sailboats have not made them more durable nor sea worthy...

Nor have the changes made recent boats more attractive.

[colemj]

For those considering the playoff between sailor and boat, today I met and talked with Benoit Lequin, who has crossed the Atlantic twice on a Hobie 18, and is currently sailing around the world on a Mod 70 trimaran. Both of those boats would have given Olin Stephens apoplexy and make Bob Perry drop his guitar.

Personally, I would bet on Benoit in (on?) his Hobie 18 over many people in their Westsail 32's.

Mark

[Cap Erict3]

More seemingly brave frenchmen? I may need to rethink media induced prejudice.


------------------------------
Looking for another pretty place to work on the boat.

[colemj]

I think of them as crazy more than brave. That opinion is from my own experiences talking with Frenchman who do a lot of things in boats I would never do, in places I would never go. Not sure it has anything to do with media at all.

My point was that I found him well-prepared as a person for doing what I deem less than safe things with boats that are less than desirable designs for the things he is doing. More so than most typical cruisers I meet on their boats.

More so than me on ours.

Mark

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

I'm guessin' Skipmac doesn't spend a lot of time around the GOM.


------------------------------
Looking for another pretty place to work on the boat.

Edit....

I typed this a might quick Skip. Please excuse the glib nature of the post.

While the GOM has handed me my hat a few times over the decades it is not the southern ocean nor the North Atlantic.

While my Tupperware tub suits me in the gulf I am not likely to carry her hurricane hunting. Never been a real adrenalin junkie.

Oh no need to apologize. Can't argue with the facts.

I have done a bit of boating in the GoM but never got hammered. I did have some fun just a bit farther south in the Straights of FL on the way from Mexico back to Ft Lauderdale. A front came in a faster and stronger than forecast and it got pretty bouncy. Nothing life threatening at all but 8-10' pointy top waves, breaking on top and dead on the nose. Boat would launch off the top of each wave like a ski jump and crash into the trough on the other side, bury the bow and send green water down the decks.

Finally gave up and pulled into the Dry Tortugas and anchored until it blew over.

So, yes it can get nasty out there but unless you got out and play tag with a hurricane it's not going to get into survival mode weather.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by colemj

For those considering the playoff between sailor and boat, today I met and talked with Benoit Lequin, who has crossed the Atlantic twice on a Hobie 18, and is currently sailing around the world on a Mod 70 trimaran. Both of those boats would have given Olin Stephens apoplexy and make Bob Perry drop his guitar.

Personally, I would bet on Benoit in (on?) his Hobie 18 over many people in their Westsail 32's.

Mark

I was wondering how long it would take for this thread to devolve into this kind of garbage. Actually longer than most of these types of threads so that's good.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by colemj

OK, I am going to stick my neck out here.

The above reflects exactly what some of us have been saying about keeping things in perspective when reading that book. Particularly if you are new to the whole cruising/passagemaking thing.

Warships, RTW racers, and even shorter distance racers don't get to choose their sailing grounds, times of year, departure dates, weather windows, etc.

While anyone CAN get caught in a "Big Storm", most prudent cruisers will not because they are smarter than that. They understand the weather and seasonal patterns of their particular cruising grounds, pay attention to weather forecasts, choose optimum departure windows, etc.

"Big Storms" are, in fact, very easy to avoid when you are "out there". Almost nobody gets caught in one unless they are doing something well out of the ordinary, like sitting off Hatteras in January, or delivering a boat up the NW coast in winter gales.

"Big Storms" are mostly forecasted weeks in advance and tracked constantly and almost always occur in well-known times of year and areas.

This isn't my opinion - read Evan's and Beth's website or any of the Pardy books - these are people who went into more rarified adventure areas. Read the blogs and stories about the recent past rash of teens going around the world. I think Evan has stated that the harshest weather they have seen on passage is 40kts, and I remember the Pardys saying something similar.

Most seem more concerned with light weather, rather than heavy. None seem to worry a lot about a "Big Storm".

When one understands this, and puts one's cruising plans in perspective, then one's choices of "desirable" boat designs open up dramatically.

Else Beth and Evan's Hawk, Jimmy Cornell's Borealis, and may other well-regarded voyagers were big mistakes...

Mark

Thanks. I've been saying this for years but generally doesn't seem to get through. My experience, if one does as you suggest, that is take into consideration the seasonal weather patterns for the area he/she is cruising and pay attention to the forecasts then the likelihood of encountering really serious weather is just about nil.

Of course high latitude sailing then all bets are off.

[nimblemotors]

Hmm, guess you haven't seen this video.

What is the definition of 'offshore'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

I strongly disagree. Get any new car and an old 60s-70s Buick or a Ford and smash them head on and see the results. In general it's the old cars which are inherently safer. But on the new cars features like seatbelts, airbags, etc. make their flimsiness tolerable. And that's only if the drivers use them. A big "if".

[sesmith]

Concerning cars...the statistics speak for themselves, so there should be no disagreement on car safety:

http://www.saferoads.org/federal/200...s1899-2003.pdf

Some more recent years here:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ge...fatality-facts

Many more cars on the road today, and a fatality rate half to a quarter of what it was in the 60's and 70's.

Wouldn't it be nice if there were similar safety stats on boats...it might solve the bluewater boat discussions. On second thought...no, it wouldn't.

[hellosailor]

se-
I see one crucial piece of information missing in those motor vehicles stats. There's no attempt to correlate the number of deaths by the actual number of MILES or HOURS driven per capita. I know that in 1970 I drove 4x more miles than I did last year, so I'm not necessarily driving any safer, I'm just driving 1/4 as much, and that should make my accident rate 1/4 as much.


Or perhaps the rate should be worse, as I'm getting less practice on the road.


The statistics seem less than scientifically, or mathematically, accurate without corrections for unstated changes like that.


When Tricky Dick Nixon reduced the federal speed limit from 65 to 55, everyone said "See? The death rate went down, 55 is safer!" and then the New York Times got some numbers from the NYS Thruway Authority, showing that the actual number of vehicle miles driven [which are the direct base of the number of toll dollars collected and thus easily tracked] had plummeted even more than the death rate. The real numbers, when corrected for that rate, showed that driving at 55mph was actually more dangerous than driving at 65mph.


Perhaps because more hours on the road created more fatigue and more crashes, no one knows because it was terribly inconvenient to do any real research.