Capt. JG wrote:

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...

I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side
in
ocean conditions? I have.-


Jim

Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)



If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to heave
to, rather than lying ahull.

Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
Annapolis Book of Seamanship, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to
steep breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or
in an exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different
methods may be preferred under different conditions, and for different
boats. - For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into
debates about families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute
answers, many participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one
device and damn the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is
nothing aboluste even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly
changing... Different tactics and gear work best at different stages and
on different types of boats."

Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do
better with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove
to or under a reefed sail plan.



Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.

In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...


Seems to me it
would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at least
dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.

Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more
efficiently resist a knock-down or complete roll.


If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the political
pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up, that'll
be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to, making
some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.

Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
recommended.

Jim