Razzbar wrote:
The media has been saying it was a "perfect storm" that Ken sailed

You believe, or even pay any attention to, what "the media" says about an
event like this? Where have you been?

Saying "perfect storm" sells papers and web clicks.

By his own account, the conditions were actually about as good as you can
hope for in that part of the world when the weather isn't fair. I'll give
him credit for not exaggerating (I thought he said 40 foot seas but I say
later it was 40 knots of wind and 20 foot seas).

The conditions he describes himself would have barely merited mention in
that part of the world if he hadn't damaged his boat. However, the huge and
virtually unlimited fetch combined with conditions that can exist hundreds
or even thousands of miles to the west mean that there could have been a 15
to 20 foot ground swell running under the waves he was experiencing due to
local weather. He might have hardly noticed this wave action superimposed
on the waves he was dealing with. Twenty foot seas in those latitudes are
also much farther between the crests than the 20 foot seas you might see in
the Atlantic. Speed is a direct function of wavelength.

When all these dynamics come together, the result could easily be a wave
that would dismast most vessels. It's a matter of being in the wrong spot
at the wrong time. It's a risk you take, like mountain climbers who go up
with the possiblity that the weather report in hand may be one of the 5%
that are wrong.

--
Roger Long