BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
Let us consider relative risks of boating things. We all know of
accidents caused by keels falling off external keeled sailboats, if
not, google Mike Plant. Yet, I have never heard of an accident caused
by blisters. This means that external keels are far far more dangerous
than even the worst case of blisters. So, should I reject all boats
with external keels? Actually, I would.

A rather short-sighted view. It would be better to reject all external
keels of insufficient strength, since *that* is actually the problem.

I have never heard of anybody being adversley affected by blisters
while they were on the water.

So therefor, blisters can't possibly be a problem?

The same type of logic "proves" that there are invisible pink elephants
in your front yard.

... Considering that many people here who
would not have a boat with blisters actually sail even when they are
near thunder storms, you have to wonder about their perception of
relative risk.

"Near" hell, I've sailed right thru thunderstorms. Not once but several
times. I have been aboard a boat struck by lightning... down in the
cabin, well away from any metal... still a vivid memory almost 30 years
later!

The perception of risk is merely one input to the evaluation of options.
With regard to sailing thru thunderstorms, clearly the risk is not all
that high, and the only option to securely avoid it (in our area) is to
not go sailing between March & October.

.... Considering the relative
risk of blisters causing problems, I have to conclude the risk is
relatively non-existant.

Seems more likely to me that boats with really bad blisters get less
strenuous use, subject to less stress. Would you want to sail around
Cape Horn in boat with softball size blisters thru the laminate? Would
that be as good IYHO as the same hull without the blisters?

DSK