|
Is your vessel seaworthy?
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Donal wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:50:08 +1300, The_navigator© wrote: The question is, to you have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a strom jib? I suspect that my boat is "seaworthy" in the same sense that Ella is. Has your boat been inspected? Certainly NOT! Are you taking the ****? **I** decide if my boat is seaworthy. I do *NOT* pass the buck to some incompetent, uneducated, idiot who has failed to meet his parents expectations! No, I don't have a strom jib. I have a spinnaker that can be flown in up to 34kts! Does that count? Ever tried it in 34 knots? Ohhh Yes! It was goooood! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
It easily is raised to a vertical position on a pivot where
the whole system is free to turn round and round as much as needed. When I reverse the power on my outboard motor I always allow the rudder to swing 180 degrees so the prop wash works against it in the proper direction and it is a joy to steer in reverse because of this. Superior design - Wm. Tripp, Sr., you know. S.Simon S.Simon. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Where does the tiller go during this propellor action? Does it whip you into submission? Cheers MC Simple Simian wrote: Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:00:57 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: You've no idea how many times I've heard that from owners of yachts that later come in for rudders. 4" shafts snap like twigs when a yacht is driven backward by a breaking wave. That's due to poor design. Any 'barn door' rudder can not be expected to take the strain on the hinges when it fetches us hard against the stops. But, my rudder is free to turn through 360 degrees. How's it gonna break off when pushed backwards? It will just pivot around on its axis so the leading edge is leading. Superior design in every way! S.Simon |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Did they have spare underwear? No! As usual, the forecast was wrong! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I guess that why you call them foulies.
;-P Cheers MC Donal wrote: "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Did they have spare underwear? No! As usual, the forecast was wrong! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote:
Umm Cappy, they are fragile tubes about 54mm dia. You could bend one around your knee, all that is required is a point loading eg pushpit or an old impact dent. Maybe he plans to remove the galvanized pipe from the broken boom and use that. Rick |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
"Rick" wrote in message hlink.net... Maybe he plans to remove the galvanized pipe from the broken boom and use that. It would look good used up side your head! S.Simon |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Given that I've only had my boat out the Gate once and given that
it's only 20 feet, I'm not sure I can say that it's seaworthy as far as offshore goes. In fact, I'm sure it isn't. It is capable of safe operation in the bay, however. I carry all required safety equipment, and I have lots of extra good-idea items also. Here, the CG is only interested in you if you're either boarded on a spot inspection or get into trouble. There is little, if any consideration given to prevention. You would not believe some of the vessels that transit the bay no less leave the bay. People die and boats capsize and sink quite regularly in the bay itself. Many of the reasons are alcohol related, but a lot are either due to stupidity or a crap boat (well, I guess those are the same thing). "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there is not much idea around here as to what constitutes seaworthiness. Here in NZ the conditions are more challenging than in many other places and to sail offshore requires great attention to detail and sound knowlege of your vessel. Many people here might consider their vessels "seaworthy", but let me remind you that seworthiness is a state of preparedness and safely for major passages and suitabiliuty for storm conditions. Here in NZ we have to get vessels inspected every 2 years for their seaworthiness and without a CAT1 clearance the vessel is not allowed to leave (if owned by a NZ resident). The inspection takes up to ~2 hours and the inspector also questions the skipper on hisd seamanship (it helps if you already have qualifications like Ocean yactmaster or even Coastal skipper) for it is also the application his knowlege that makes the vessel seaworthy (or not). In many cases vessel arrive here from overseas which are patently unseaworthy and these days they are allowed to leave -after a strong talking to by the inspector as to why their vessels are unsuitable and what will likely happen to them in bad conditions. For that reason, it would seem that many US and EU vessels arrive but never leave. When the real sailor thinks about his vessel he thinks about how she will cope if hit by storm force winds in the open sea if he wishes to call his vessel seaworthy. If the vessel is not seworthy then it is just a toy for amusement on nice fair wind days. The question is, to you have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a strom jib? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Do you really expect Katy to follow you when you leave?
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Go away with your inane comments, please. S.Simon "katysails" wrote in message ... the new boat buyers seem to be convinced that the key to performance is the big headsail, wing keel and 3 bladed prop:) Definition of a Catalina sailor.... -- katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
You're in no danger of running across an NZ inspector, since
you'll never be taking your boat anywhere, let alone NZ. $5... put up or shut up loser. "Simple Simon" wrote in message ... My vessel is seaworthy. I would get really ****ed if I had sailed to NZ and some fool bureaucrat tried to tell me my vessel was not seaworthy. The very fact that the bureaucrat was looking at it proves him wrong. I have a storm jib and a storm trysail. I have a 75% jib and double reefing on the mainsail. All my sails are relatively new and the storm sails have very little use so they are still strong and sound. My vessel has all new standing rigging and positive flotation. I don't need some nerdy bureaucrat snooping around demanding fees for 'services' which are not wanted or needed. S.Simon "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there is not much idea around here as to what constitutes seaworthiness. Here in NZ the conditions are more challenging than in many other places and to sail offshore requires great attention to detail and sound knowlege of your vessel. Many people here might consider their vessels "seaworthy", but let me remind you that seworthiness is a state of preparedness and safely for major passages and suitabiliuty for storm conditions. Here in NZ we have to get vessels inspected every 2 years for their seaworthiness and without a CAT1 clearance the vessel is not allowed to leave (if owned by a NZ resident). The inspection takes up to ~2 hours and the inspector also questions the skipper on hisd seamanship (it helps if you already have qualifications like Ocean yactmaster or even Coastal skipper) for it is also the application his knowlege that makes the vessel seaworthy (or not). In many cases vessel arrive here from overseas which are patently unseaworthy and these days they are allowed to leave -after a strong talking to by the inspector as to why their vessels are unsuitable and what will likely happen to them in bad conditions. For that reason, it would seem that many US and EU vessels arrive but never leave. When the real sailor thinks about his vessel he thinks about how she will cope if hit by storm force winds in the open sea if he wishes to call his vessel seaworthy. If the vessel is not seworthy then it is just a toy for amusement on nice fair wind days. The question is, to you have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a strom jib? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I'd suggest letting go... otherwise you're in for a ride.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message ... Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:00:57 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: You've no idea how many times I've heard that from owners of yachts that later come in for rudders. 4" shafts snap like twigs when a yacht is driven backward by a breaking wave. That's due to poor design. Any 'barn door' rudder can not be expected to take the strain on the hinges when it fetches us hard against the stops. But, my rudder is free to turn through 360 degrees. How's it gonna break off when pushed backwards? It will just pivot around on its axis so the leading edge is leading. Superior design in every way! S.Simon |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Amazing because it won't happen except in his dreams.
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... She'll heave-to with no rudder and forereach? Amazing. Cheers MC Simple Simon wrote: In force 8 in the open sea I would heave-to under storm trysail. A rudder would not be necessary as the trysail would keep her forereaching. A storm severe enough to break off the rudder would be a survival storm. Repairs would have to be made AFTER the storm passed. A rudder is only necessary when going to weather. Heaving-to or lying-to under storm trysail requires no rudder. S.Simon "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Out board in idle to steer a boat in F8? Are you joking -I hope so. Cheers MC Simple Simon wrote: No problem! As long as the fuel holds out the boat can be steered with the motor in gear and the throttle just above an idle. That should allow some time to steer through or wait out adverse conditions. The motor can be taken off the transom without too much trouble and the wood fitted in the safety of the cockpit but this would best be done in calmer conditions for safety and to keep from losing the motor overboard. In the meantime, I have two windsurfing masts aboard which I could easily make into a steering oar lashed to the transom S.Simon Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:14:13 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: The outboard motor can be used for steerage if the rudder breaks off. I have suitable wood and nuts and bolts to make a foil to attach to the shaft of the outboard motor which pivots. You can bolt taht all in place in a seaway in adverse conditions without falling over the side? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Best suggestion yet!
Cheers MC Rick wrote: Donals Dilemma wrote: Umm Cappy, they are fragile tubes about 54mm dia. You could bend one around your knee, all that is required is a point loading eg pushpit or an old impact dent. Maybe he plans to remove the galvanized pipe from the broken boom and use that. Rick |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I can see you are aware of the limitations of the vessel you own. That
is a good sign. Now take that fool DSK whon thinks a Bolger micro with open bow(!) and ustayed rig is a better seaboat than a Cornish crabber. With ideas like that it's not surising he's run away from sailing. He probably thinks that 50' from shore is offshore! Cheers MC Jonathan Ganz wrote: Given that I've only had my boat out the Gate once and given that it's only 20 feet, I'm not sure I can say that it's seaworthy as far as offshore goes. In fact, I'm sure it isn't. It is capable of safe operation in the bay, however. I carry all required safety equipment, and I have lots of extra good-idea items also. Here, the CG is only interested in you if you're either boarded on a spot inspection or get into trouble. There is little, if any consideration given to prevention. You would not believe some of the vessels that transit the bay no less leave the bay. People die and boats capsize and sink quite regularly in the bay itself. Many of the reasons are alcohol related, but a lot are either due to stupidity or a crap boat (well, I guess those are the same thing). "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there is not much idea around here as to what constitutes seaworthiness. Here in NZ the conditions are more challenging than in many other places and to sail offshore requires great attention to detail and sound knowlege of your vessel. Many people here might consider their vessels "seaworthy", but let me remind you that seworthiness is a state of preparedness and safely for major passages and suitabiliuty for storm conditions. Here in NZ we have to get vessels inspected every 2 years for their seaworthiness and without a CAT1 clearance the vessel is not allowed to leave (if owned by a NZ resident). The inspection takes up to ~2 hours and the inspector also questions the skipper on hisd seamanship (it helps if you already have qualifications like Ocean yactmaster or even Coastal skipper) for it is also the application his knowlege that makes the vessel seaworthy (or not). In many cases vessel arrive here from overseas which are patently unseaworthy and these days they are allowed to leave -after a strong talking to by the inspector as to why their vessels are unsuitable and what will likely happen to them in bad conditions. For that reason, it would seem that many US and EU vessels arrive but never leave. When the real sailor thinks about his vessel he thinks about how she will cope if hit by storm force winds in the open sea if he wishes to call his vessel seaworthy. If the vessel is not seworthy then it is just a toy for amusement on nice fair wind days. The question is, to you have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a strom jib? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into? PDW In article , The_navigator© wrote: Rudder failure is depressingly common. Cheers MC Simple Simon wrote: I've got two telescoping jib poles as well. They are long enough when not expanded and very strong with triple layers of tubing. If the windsurfer masts carried away the jib poles could be pressed into service. What's all this concern with broken rudders? Mine is sound. It has lasted for thirty years and has a two-inch stainless steel shaft. It ain't likely to break. S.Simon "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Did you know that spinnaker poles often break when used thusly? Cheers MC Simple Simon wrote: The outboard has a twenty inch shaft and the cutaway in the transom is only about a foot above the water. The motor stays in the water pretty well. Remember there is a pretty nice stern wave when making way through he water. Not the aluminum windsurfer masts. They are pretty crush proof. S.Simon Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:32:26 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: No problem! As long as the fuel holds out the boat can be steered with the motor in gear and the throttle just above an idle. That should allow some time to steer through or wait out adverse conditions. I didn't know that they built outboards with shafts long enough to stay in the water as the boat pitches thruogh a wild sea....when most rudders break. And your OB doesn't look unusually long, must be the camera angle eh http://www.homestead.com/captneal/Sheshines.html The motor can be taken off the transom without too much trouble and the wood fitted in the safety of the cockpit but this would best be done in calmer conditions for safety and to keep from losing the motor overboard. In the meantime, I have two windsurfing masts aboard which I could easily make into a steering oar lashed to the transom So you don't know anything about the mechanical properties of a windsurfer mast either.....they crush easily... S.Simon Donals Dilemma wrote in message om... On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:14:13 -0500, "Simple Simon" wrote: The outboard motor can be used for steerage if the rudder breaks off. I have suitable wood and nuts and bolts to make a foil to attach to the shaft of the outboard motor which pivots. You can bolt taht all in place in a seaway in adverse conditions without falling over the side? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Why was this posted?
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" Trains are a winter sport |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment.
All boats have limitations, but a sailor doesn't have to be limited by his or her boat. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... I can see you are aware of the limitations of the vessel you own. That is a good sign. Now take that fool DSK whon thinks a Bolger micro with open bow(!) and ustayed rig is a better seaboat than a Cornish crabber. With ideas like that it's not surising he's run away from sailing. He probably thinks that 50' from shore is offshore! Cheers MC Jonathan Ganz wrote: Given that I've only had my boat out the Gate once and given that it's only 20 feet, I'm not sure I can say that it's seaworthy as far as offshore goes. In fact, I'm sure it isn't. It is capable of safe operation in the bay, however. I carry all required safety equipment, and I have lots of extra good-idea items also. Here, the CG is only interested in you if you're either boarded on a spot inspection or get into trouble. There is little, if any consideration given to prevention. You would not believe some of the vessels that transit the bay no less leave the bay. People die and boats capsize and sink quite regularly in the bay itself. Many of the reasons are alcohol related, but a lot are either due to stupidity or a crap boat (well, I guess those are the same thing). "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... It seems to me that there is not much idea around here as to what constitutes seaworthiness. Here in NZ the conditions are more challenging than in many other places and to sail offshore requires great attention to detail and sound knowlege of your vessel. Many people here might consider their vessels "seaworthy", but let me remind you that seworthiness is a state of preparedness and safely for major passages and suitabiliuty for storm conditions. Here in NZ we have to get vessels inspected every 2 years for their seaworthiness and without a CAT1 clearance the vessel is not allowed to leave (if owned by a NZ resident). The inspection takes up to ~2 hours and the inspector also questions the skipper on hisd seamanship (it helps if you already have qualifications like Ocean yactmaster or even Coastal skipper) for it is also the application his knowlege that makes the vessel seaworthy (or not). In many cases vessel arrive here from overseas which are patently unseaworthy and these days they are allowed to leave -after a strong talking to by the inspector as to why their vessels are unsuitable and what will likely happen to them in bad conditions. For that reason, it would seem that many US and EU vessels arrive but never leave. When the real sailor thinks about his vessel he thinks about how she will cope if hit by storm force winds in the open sea if he wishes to call his vessel seaworthy. If the vessel is not seworthy then it is just a toy for amusement on nice fair wind days. The question is, to you have a toy or a seaworthy vessel? How many people here even have a strom jib? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:34:30 -0000, "Donal" wrote: It really did feel like that the last time! We came into port with only *one* halyard! (bear in mind that we knew that we needed a halyard to get someone up the mast!) Why? To reinstall the other halyards! Nobody wore pantyhose! Thermals? Possibly. I didn't check. Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:37:32 -0000, "Donal" wrote: To reinstall the other halyards! Hmmm, you need afew fit Aussies as crew. One of my crew could easily shin up a mast at the dock, tie off a block, run a chair line then come back down, haul himself back up and drop a mouse thru the mast. This is Europe! We have Health and Safety laws. I'd have to do a written risk assessment, a method statement, a training course for the crew, etc, etc. Actually, I've just realised that we have a new law that says that we need a passage plan before we go sea!!! It must include a weather forecast, and (I think) a risk assessment. AAARRRRRGGGGGG! Nobody wore pantyhose! Thermals? Possibly. I didn't check. Panties and garter belts I'd suspect...any of them public school boys? Only one! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote:
haul himself back up and drop a mouse thru the mast. I'll bet that'd upset the folks from the local SPCA! Cheers Marty |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
And you think we have a 'facist state? Poor you!
Cheers MC Donal wrote: Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:37:32 -0000, "Donal" wrote: To reinstall the other halyards! Hmmm, you need afew fit Aussies as crew. One of my crew could easily shin up a mast at the dock, tie off a block, run a chair line then come back down, haul himself back up and drop a mouse thru the mast. This is Europe! We have Health and Safety laws. I'd have to do a written risk assessment, a method statement, a training course for the crew, etc, etc. Actually, I've just realised that we have a new law that says that we need a passage plan before we go sea!!! It must include a weather forecast, and (I think) a risk assessment. AAARRRRRGGGGGG! Nobody wore pantyhose! Thermals? Possibly. I didn't check. Panties and garter belts I'd suspect...any of them public school boys? Only one! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance. In article , Donals Dilemma wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:37 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into? PDW Huh? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:54:53 -0000, "Donal" wrote: This is Europe! We have Health and Safety laws. I'd have to do a written risk assessment, a method statement, a training course for the crew, etc, etc. Ahhh bunch of facists! Bloody right! George Orwell was out by 20 years - otherwise he got it all absolutely correct. Actually, I've just realised that we have a new law that says that we need a passage plan before we go sea!!! It must include a weather forecast, and (I think) a risk assessment. AAARRRRRGGGGGG! Panties and garter belts I'd suspect...any of them public school boys? Only one! Token gay? Definitely not. You have my personal guarantee on that! Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... And you think we have a 'facist state? Poor you! Why do you think that these things upset me so much? IMHO, the state exists for two reasons. 1. To provide defence against foreign domination. 2. To ensure that law and order is maintained. Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I can see an enginnering basis for that asserion but is it really true?
The rudders with top and bottom support should have a thinner stock which would break more easily if the boat fell back from a breaking wave??? Of course impact damage to spades is different problem... Cheers MC Peter Wiley wrote: Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance. In article , Donals Dilemma wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:37 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into? PDW Huh? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 00:40:28 -0000, "Donal" wrote: Has your boat been inspected? Certainly NOT! Are you taking the ****? **I** decide if my boat is seaworthy. I do *NOT* pass the buck to some incompetent, uneducated, idiot who has failed to meet his parents expectations! Always worthwhile to have someone else inspect your boat. I agree with you. I do *not* think that it has anything to do with the government. He may just find something that you haven't seen,not because you're ignorant but because you may just overlook things you live with every day. Yup! I agree. However, I'd like to have an inspection because I *choose* to. I did the Yachtmaster before I took my yacht out to sea - because *I* wanted to - and not because of any law. Most people seem to think that they have no responsibility at all for their actions, or their misfortunes. They feel that the State should guarantee their safety. They demand that the boat should meet some "government specification". They demand that *other* sailors should be Qualified to sail. I feel that every human being deserves a little bit of space where he can exist without regulation. I go sailing to escape from the "well intentioned" politicians, policemen and other idiots who feel that they know how I should behave. Regards Donal -- Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? I think that both you, and Doug, have a lot to offer. Doug does seem to know quite a bit about boats. That shouldn't provoke an emotional response. Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Well, you know all about crap. Why don't you tell us.
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donals Dilemma wrote in message ... On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:15:15 -0000, "Donal" wrote: Token gay? Definitely not. You have my personal guarantee on that! And you know this how? How predictable? Don't you agree? Regards Donal -- |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Donal wrote: "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? I think that both you, and Doug, have a lot to offer. Doug does seem to know quite a bit about boats. That shouldn't provoke an emotional response. He does know some things and when he's right, I'm not perverse and I don't disagree with him. But on some technical issues -usually about design and materials -he is wrong. When his mistaken ideas are presented as a fact that may influence anothers action then I feel that one should object to it. Of course one might say that this is an alt group and so caveat emptor applies, I hope we sailors are far more responsible people than most. For instance, suppose a newbie searched the archive and, as a result of Dougs posting thought that a Bolger micro would be a safe boat in a gale and did not seek protection early enough? The though of being caught offshore in a vessel as unseaworthy as the micro should be an anathema to any sailor unless they are suicidal. I say that it must be made very clear that such boats are suitable for pottering around on placid safe waters and nothing more. As such, they are probably great fun and certainly cheap and easy to build. If that gets people sailing then that's good too. But let's also remember that thousands of people risk their lives and are rescued every year because they assumed that their boats are up to any condition that they may find themselves in when they are not -at least not with the level of expertise that they have on board. Consider also this, many sailors today will still lie ahull in a storm despite proof that a breaking wave at sea will overturn any small boat caugh abeam. For some reason they think the designer must have designed the vessel to be safe when used like that. This thinking is as stupid as the people that rely on air bags to protect them from their atrocious driving and I for one would wish to help dispel the huge amounts misinformation in this medium. Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I though I was -or do you think a Bolger micro has an LPS of 180 degrees
too? Cheers MC Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, you know all about crap. Why don't you tell us. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
The navigator© wrote:
...I for one would wish to help dispel the huge amounts misinformation in this medium. The best way to do that would be to not post here any more. You could avoid falling into debt, too. DSK |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Peter Wiley wrote:
Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance. Well, a spade rudder hung on a post, with no other support, can be strong enough. It takes more care with the engineering & materials than most mass-produced boats can muster. One of the problems I've seen is that high loads on these type rudders tend to increase play at the bearings & bushings, which then results in impulse loads as it begins slamming back & forth. Then the post starts to bend more on each cycle and fatigues more rapidly. Next thing you know, all you've got down there is twisted stub. Another great flaw in 99% of production boats is that the emergency tiller is laughable. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
In article , Donals Dilemma
wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:35:47 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. You'd think so eh? However, the engineering of a spade rudder is quite good, working on the cantilevered beam concept. Agreed or the failure rate would be even worse. They *need* to be a lot stiffer/stronger to work at all. Unfortunately they are not quite as well protected as a full keeled rudder but nonethe less are covered pretty well by the keel. True but I wasn't going there - this thread started out on seaworthiness and if we bring into it the ability to survive a collision with a hard object, all boats are going to fail - just depends on how big an object and at what speed the collision. I'd content that most rudder failures are during racing where streese are high, full keelers don't race anywhere near as much making the incidence of spade rudder failure appear much higher. Maybe. Seems obvious as full keel boats aren't these days much use for racing and I'd agree that failures of almost anything are going to be higher when people are building to minimum engineering specs and maximum stress. I say min engineering specs because each kilo extra weight over what's needed is a penalty you're hauling around. That's fine for the intended purpose too. PDW |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
It does seem to be true in practice, from what I've read. You need
better engineering to build a spade rudder properly than for a rudder supported top & bottom. Therein lies the rub.... Spades are a lot more likely to be damaged from impact but is this a seaworthiness issue? Most small boats aren't designed for collisions or groundings and really only steel copes reasonably well with one if it's rock or coral. Spade rudders are also a lot better for snagging mooring lines, pot lines, gill nets etc etc. I have a few other problems with these sorts of thing but they're all related to maintenance in places with minimal facilities, not seaworthiness issues. I've seen, for example, an awful lot of rudders where the shaft is a solid rod from tiller to rudder bottom. This is wonderful - until you want to remove the damn thing and oooops - where's the big hole to drop it into under he boat? Better hope the tube is brought above the WL if you're going to drop it in the water. Now, if it's a spade rudder having a flange under the hull & the rudder blade bolted to it is going to require a bigger flange/stronger bolts than the same for a keel hung one. Is it worth the hassle? Depends on where you're going to go. How about rod rigging? Is this seaworthy? You aren't going to fix a broken rod easily. An engine buried under a cockpit sole requiring a contortionist midget to service it, and a chainsaw to get it out if it breaks? Ditto lack of access to stern glands. Personally such things interest me far more than whether a vessel has an EPIRB, a SSB or a liferaft. Those things only help you (at public expense) to be rescued *after* you have a major problem. Engineering for long-term maintenance isn't necessary to have a seaworthy boat, but it saves a lot of pain down the track. Did Bill Tilman have a seaworthy boat? Would it have passed your NZ compliance rules? PDW In article , The_navigator© wrote: I can see an enginnering basis for that asserion but is it really true? The rudders with top and bottom support should have a thinner stock which would break more easily if the boat fell back from a breaking wave??? Of course impact damage to spades is different problem... Cheers MC Peter Wiley wrote: Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. Keep in mind the discussion is seaworthiness, not performance. In article , Donals Dilemma wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:14:37 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: On boats with unseaworthy, poorly (or no) supported rudders, yes. On boats designed for extended cruising with a protected and well supported rudder, no. Which category does yours fall into? PDW Huh? Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Peter Wiley wrote: It does seem to be true in practice, from what I've read. You need better engineering to build a spade rudder properly than for a rudder supported top & bottom. Therein lies the rub.... Spades are a lot more likely to be damaged from impact but is this a seaworthiness issue? Most small boats aren't designed for collisions or groundings and really only steel copes reasonably well with one if it's rock or coral. Spade rudders are also a lot better for snagging mooring lines, pot lines, gill nets etc etc. I have a few other problems with these sorts of thing but they're all related to maintenance in places with minimal facilities, not seaworthiness issues. I've seen, for example, an awful lot of rudders where the shaft is a solid rod from tiller to rudder bottom. This is wonderful - until you want to remove the damn thing and oooops - where's the big hole to drop it into under he boat? Better hope the tube is brought above the WL if you're going to drop it in the water. Now, if it's a spade rudder having a flange under the hull & the rudder blade bolted to it is going to require a bigger flange/stronger bolts than the same for a keel hung one. Is it worth the hassle? Depends on where you're going to go. How about rod rigging? Is this seaworthy? You aren't going to fix a broken rod easily. An engine buried under a cockpit sole requiring a contortionist midget to service it, and a chainsaw to get it out if it breaks? Ditto lack of access to stern glands. Personally such things interest me far more than whether a vessel has an EPIRB, a SSB or a liferaft. Those things only help you (at public expense) to be rescued *after* you have a major problem. Engineering for long-term maintenance isn't necessary to have a seaworthy boat, but it saves a lot of pain down the track. Did Bill Tilman have a seaworthy boat? Would it have passed your NZ compliance rules? It sure *looked* like a good seaworthy boat. Don't forget the safety inspection includes the abilities of the skipper. Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Gotta be a first time for everything..... I'm a pragmatist WRT most things. A racing boat is designed to go fast and if it breaks, too bad. If it's so heavy that it doesn't break, and it loses to a lighter one that breaks occasionally, therefore it's useless for its intended purpose. Same logic for all highly stressed machinery. Seaworthiness as defined by the NZ govt inspectors..... ? Heh. Matter of ticking the right boxes, as you've pointed out WRT a perfectly safe LPG install that they wouldn't pass. BTW I did my own LPG instaln on my NSW country place. I'm a certified welder in oxy, stick, MIG & TIG and my FIL is all the above plus refrigeration. Hasn't leaked in 15 years but it still doesn't meet code because neither of us had the magic bit of paper. Fortunately I didn't care, I just used my account with BOC to rent industrial cylinders of LPG instead. Always a way. In article , Donals Dilemma wrote: Did you just agree with everything I wrote...or was I imagining it? :-) On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 12:09:13 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: In article , Donals Dilemma wrote: On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 09:35:47 +1100, Peter Wiley wrote: Balanced spade rudders with only one support for the shaft - at the top - are far more prone to failure than rudders with top & bottom support as provided by a full keel. Thought that was obvious. You'd think so eh? However, the engineering of a spade rudder is quite good, working on the cantilevered beam concept. Agreed or the failure rate would be even worse. They *need* to be a lot stiffer/stronger to work at all. Unfortunately they are not quite as well protected as a full keeled rudder but nonethe less are covered pretty well by the keel. True but I wasn't going there - this thread started out on seaworthiness and if we bring into it the ability to survive a collision with a hard object, all boats are going to fail - just depends on how big an object and at what speed the collision. I'd content that most rudder failures are during racing where streese are high, full keelers don't race anywhere near as much making the incidence of spade rudder failure appear much higher. Maybe. Seems obvious as full keel boats aren't these days much use for racing and I'd agree that failures of almost anything are going to be higher when people are building to minimum engineering specs and maximum stress. I say min engineering specs because each kilo extra weight over what's needed is a penalty you're hauling around. That's fine for the intended purpose too. PDW Oz1...of the 3 twins. I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you. |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
Sorry, no nothing about Bolger micros.
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... I though I was -or do you think a Bolger micro has an LPS of 180 degrees too? Cheers MC Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, you know all about crap. Why don't you tell us. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Well, I like Doug, so I won't comment. Are you a coprophiliac or are you taken in by his endless BS? Cheers MC |
Is your vessel seaworthy?
I've never laughed at an emergency tiller.
Finding it then fitting it is the laugh. My C&C has a stainless steel shaft mounted in the aft locker. It fits neatly over an exposed fitting in the cockpit. At the top of the shaft is a T shaped handle. Even with my formidable upper body strength, I doubt I could steer for long with so little leverage in rough conditions. I could lash a length of wood to it and increase leverage... I think I'll run out and make the mod now! RB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com