Sailboat about to be clobbered by a 100-foot rouge wave (pic)

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Teknav

Hiya Cheechako! Yes, oars would have done the job IF there was no keel to the boat! During Phoenicians time, hundreds of oarsmen were deployed to sail large boats in the seven seas. Only three on here, so far, picked up on my wicked sense of humor! <Not a chance in hell, oars would have modified this boat's direction!>

Mauritz
Don't be so serious, or you could develop a brain hernia!

Too late.

What if you could muster hundreds of oarsmen and or oarswomen though?

I too picked up on your 'wicked sense of humour', but wanted to give you the satisfaction of believing there were nothing but numbskulls on CF...

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Beat me to that one!

In any event, I don't see that as being a "rogue" wave - as given the reported conditions a ginourmous wave or 3 to be expected. Unwelcome and inconvenient not the same as "rogue".

Exactly. When weather reporters talk about the wave height in a storm, they're talking about the AVERAGE. Some will be smaller, like the one to port of the boat, and others much bigger, as the starboard one. Rather than calling this a "rogue" wave, maybe a better title would have been something like "this is what average really means ..." It doesn't mean you have to pbe prepared for 10 ft waves -- it means you have to be ready for much bigger. There may not be many of them, but they're there.

[Mr B]

1998, Sydney to Hobart Yacht race, Film, Part 1,

Video and piccys from a sailor on one of the yachts crossing, It also gives a description of the conditions the Race is run under,

They also have another race leaving on Boxing day, The Melbourne to Hobart Yacht race,

But it goes down the west coast of Tasmania, Hahahahaha,

FYI,

You dont have a good boat here, Dont go out there, Simple,

[Sir Rondo Normal]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Exactly...
Rather than calling this a "rogue" wave...

This must definitely be a bad photoshop job! The OP never called this a rogue wave, but called it a "rouge" wave so must also be colour blind.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by RazAU

You'd be wrong in those guesses I feel...!

The yacht in that boat is/was VC Offshore Stand Aside, and at 12 metres (40') long you can get an appreciation of how big the seas actually were. Stand Aside was the first to issue a mayday in the 1998 Sydney to Hobart after being rolled and dismasted by an estimated 80 foot wave.

The images of the race do not do the sea state any justice. They were truly huge seas and yes, many of the waves had no backs to them.

This isn't meant as aggressive or questioning you -- but there's an "immediacy" about your post. Were you in that race?

[mrohr]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Exactly. When weather reporters talk about the wave height in a storm, they're talking about the AVERAGE. Some will be smaller, like the one to port of the boat, and others much bigger, as the starboard one. Rather than calling this a "rogue" wave, maybe a better title would have been something like "this is what average really means ..." It doesn't mean you have to pbe prepared for 10 ft waves -- it means you have to be ready for much bigger. There may not be many of them, but they're there.

Well maybe, I'm not sure what reporters are talking (writing) about,but wave heights are generally reported by oceanographers as significant wave heights , I.E. the average of the highest 1/3 of the waves.

[foolishsailor]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

As Zeehag says its not a rogue wave its a storm wave.
As RoverHi says its not breaking. Nor did the previous wave. Yes it fluffed up a white cap and there would have been ten feet of foam, but thats not a breaking wave...

...Yes its scary, very very scary. Fatal? No.

Mark

++++1

A great example of a horrifyingly large "swell" - but not a "breaking" wave.

A bad bar crossing with "only" 20' breaking waves onto shallow sand is more of a killer than this.

Think of the recent SF race with the S/V "Slow Speed Chase" - it was relatively small breaking waves that killed the crew.

Yes, they were dashed against hard surfaces - but it is incredibly rare for conditions in the open ocean to produce real breaking waves versus just large scary swells with a bit of white water on top...

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Exactly. When weather reporters talk about the wave height in a storm, they're talking about the AVERAGE. Some will be smaller, like the one to port of the boat, and others much bigger, as the starboard one. Rather than calling this a "rogue" wave, maybe a better title would have been something like "this is what average really means ..." It doesn't mean you have to pbe prepared for 10 ft waves -- it means you have to be ready for much bigger. There may not be many of them, but they're there.

Yeah, and remember, wave height is measured from the trough to the crest... so a 10 ft wave is more or less 5 ft high from sea level..... right?

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yeah, and remember, wave height is measured from the trough to the crest... so a 10 ft wave is more or less 5 ft high from sea level..... right?

My points are 1) don't hear a number like "10 ft waves" and assume there will be no 20' ones out there, and 2) don't count on the media to get technical details right when they are reporting on something specialized, like -- oh, say, sailing.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Exactly. When weather reporters talk about the wave height in a storm, they're talking about the AVERAGE..

Just to be a bit pedantic . . . Usually (but not always) the wave heights quoted are the "significant heights", which is the average of the highest 1/3 Waves. This metric was developed way back as the closest to what a human observer says the average wave height is.

The 1 in 1000 waves will be 1.86x bigger than the significant height. You get one of those about every 2-4hours with typical storm wave periods.

2x the significant height is the technical definition for a "rogue".