Bad design?
 

I don't think I can add much to FJ's comments, but that won't stop me ...


Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

You would pick the slowest boat (and the only keelboat) as your example.
:-)
Uh, Max? You're the one who brought up the Ensign, not me.

I mentioned it because it was part of my racing resume. To use the Ensign
as your example of a low-performance boat is akin to flogging a dead horse.


So you're presenting your "racing resume" as proof of your deep
experience, as in: "I race a old Alberg keel boat, so I know all about
high performance dinghies." Thanks, now we understand where you're
coming from.

I have fond memories of the Ensign - a friend bought one and asked me
to help with his first cruise. We went from Mattapoisett to Wood's Hole
....

Why cruise an Ensign?? It's a daysailer at best, with a cuddy too small for
a child.

Why not cruise it? It's the boat we had at the time. You seem to
have a lot of rules. Actually, this particular "cruise" was a long
one day daysail, though it was also used for overnighters. Shortly
after that I did a number of long weekend "cruises" in an open
daysailer (CC Mercury) accompanied by a Lark (slightly bigger than a
420). Are you saying I should have waited until I had a "proper"
cruising boat?

And it's no revelation that you didn't capsize. I'm unaware of
anyone who ever did capsize a keelboat with a 1:3 ballast/displacement ratio
in anything under a gale and monster waves.

Hey, you're the one who brought it up! I'm quite happy to leave the
Ensign out of discussions of performance dinks.

....
Then you never sailed one [470] in extreme conditions, close to the edge.

No? How does 25kts with gusts to 35 sound? I was on the wire with a very
experienced skipper and, no, we didn't capsize. We did a screaming, planing
reach for about 7 miles under chute. That was fun until the chute blew out.

And I'm sure he *never* has capsized in his life. Sure, Max, tell us
another one.

And elsewhere you claim you never came close 10 knots in a 470. If
you had a 7 mile spinnaker "screaming, planing reach" in 25 gusting 35
and didn't hit 10 knots, you had a serious problem. Your story is
getting mighty shaky here. Are you sure that wasn't really a dream?


....
No, I never sailed a Finn in anything over 15kts, which is plenty in that
boat. The Finn death roll happens so fast that it takes an athlete to
correct for it before the mast passes the point of no return.

So that's your secret! You never actually go out when there's a risk.


Before that I had always sailed low performance boats, like Snipes,
Thistles, Lightnings, and Ensigns (actually, mostly Cape Cod Mercury's)
and had never capsized.

I don't consider a Thistle or a Lightning to be low-performance.
Mid-performance, perhaps, but hardly slow or unexciting boats. A planing
Thistle will leave a planing 470 in its wake,

In lighter winds, the Thistle is faster; in fact, the Thistle is
impressive (compared to other boats) in a Force 1. However, in a
strong breeze, the 470 has the edge. And a 505 would walk away from
both in any condition beyond a drifter.

with a Lightning not far
behind.

Well, a Lightning is 19 feet so it might even have the edge on the 14
foot 470 upwind. But certainly not off the wind.

And it takes athleticism to keep a Thistle from capsizing, unlike
those so-called "high-performance" boats with wide side-decks that roll into
flotation tanks. Hell, a 505's decks hang over the water so much that you
really have to bury that rail to capsize. And there's damn little cockpit
to fill with water if you do, not to mention that most of it will exit the
transom flaps in an instant once you get the boat upright. Same with a 470.

In other words, the 505 and 470 were designed to accommodate easy
recovery from a capsize. I wonder why that is? The Thistle, on the
other hand, probably comes up with a few hundred gallons - hardly
incentive to push the boat to its limits.

And you seem to be playing both sides of this, at one time claiming
you never capsized a Thistle, but then bragging about the athleticism
required to avoid flipping. Claiming no one flips a 505, then
pointing out the wide decks and stern flaps, specifically designed in
to facilitate recovery.



I raced FJs and 420s in college. My experience with that genera of
racing is that collegiate sailors are, as a rule, not terribly
experienced or adept in higher winds. I include myself in that
description, as it was really at the beginning of my serious pursuit of
sailboat racing. Capsizes were not uncommon at the college level.
Your story is getting shaky here, Max. If you have sailed 470's, Finns,
420's and FJ's, then why would you even think of referring to Snipes,
Thistles, Lightnings, and Ensigns as high performance dinghies?

I didn't. I never said they were--you made that leap of illogic.

You're a real funny guy. Let me paraphrase your claim: "I've sailed
an Ensign so I know your claim that flipping 505's is common is
bogus." Sure thing, Max. I'm the one who is "illogical."

I was
simply reciting my *racing* resume. But your contention that a
high-performance dinghy is more likely to capsize than, say, a Thistle or
Snipe is ludicrous. And a Finn is hardly a high-performance dinghy, nor is
an FJ, by the way.

Clearly, the Finn is dated, but its still pretty fast compared to
other singlehanded dinks. Actually the Finn held the speed record for
small boats for a number of years. Also the FJ isn't in the same
class as the 505, but its a lot closer in design to them then to the
Ensign!



No doubt you sailed more conservatively in that circumstance.
Of course. There are time to be conservative, and times to let it all
hang out.

Ever sailed a Contender? I have. How about a Flying Dutchman? Ditto. And
I'll bet the Flying Scots I've sailed in heavy air will leave a 470 in their
wake as well.

You might have a case with the FD, a truly fast boat, but the Flying
Scot would have trouble keeping a 470 in sight. It would even have
trouble keeping a Lightning in sight. And the 505, which I was using
as my "benchmark" high performance boat of 30 years ago, would leave
them all (except maybe the FD) in the dust.

You make the same mistake that BB makes--you place all your
faith in numbers (weight vs. sail area, etc.) and ratings. While they do
give a relative means of comparing boats in typical conditions, they don't
cover the entire spectrum of a boat's performance in various sea and wind
conditions. For example: would you rather sail a 505 or a Thistle in big
seas with 30kts.? I'll take the 505 any day. It'll have a far better
chance of returning to the dock without a hull full of water.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that
you'd rather sail the 505 because its faster, more fun, and easier to
recover from a capsize? I'll agree on all counts.

Remember, the actual issue here is whether it OK to flip a real high
performance boat in a non-racing, controlled environment as seen in
the video of the Spitfires. These boats are probably 25% faster than
any of the boats we've discussed, and were being sailed in a protected
harbor with a chase boat. Further, these boats were specifically
designed as trainers for young, lightweight sailors who are too small
to hold down a Tornado. It takes real stick-in-the-mud to say "I
sailed for 20 years and never did that."

Bad design?
 

Maxprop wrote:
OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:02:59 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur"
scribbled thusly:

These multihulls pitchpole in smooth water. What's with that? Bad
design?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afSKI1RN9Co

Cheers,
Ellen


Nope, just exceptionally bad crew work.

Bingo. Hit the nail on the head, Oz.

Max

I think a bit of both, wave piercing hull tends to pierce in a
straight line, a bit more flare high up on the bows would do wonders.
Pushing any Cat to the limits you can expect to pitch pole and flip,
not as much as the weekend warriors in Ellens flick, but often.

I think the Earthrace boat is in for a rude awakening dealing with the
same issue.
http://www.earthrace.net/

They do not have enough power to punch thru big waves, and a big wave
that envelopes the boat will snuff out the engines.

Wave piercing is great to a point, but ability to rise submerged and
not just drive forward is just as important.

Joe

Bad design?
 

Hey Joe,
Just to set all of your minds at ease, we have been through some nice
big waves (14m) and faired nicely. With 1200 HP with our updated 8.3
Cummins QSC's we will have no proplem. Craig Loomis is a masterful ship
designer and many have staked their reputations, careers, and (gulp)
lives on this design and feel quite confident. Keep an eye on us and
wish us luck! Thanks!
Anthony Distefano
Earthrace Engineer
Joe wrote:
Maxprop wrote:
OzOne wrote in message ...
On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:02:59 -0500, "Ellen MacArthur"
scribbled thusly:

These multihulls pitchpole in smooth water. What's with that? Bad
design?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afSKI1RN9Co

Cheers,
Ellen


Nope, just exceptionally bad crew work.

Bingo. Hit the nail on the head, Oz.

Max

I think a bit of both, wave piercing hull tends to pierce in a
straight line, a bit more flare high up on the bows would do wonders.
Pushing any Cat to the limits you can expect to pitch pole and flip,
not as much as the weekend warriors in Ellens flick, but often.

I think the Earthrace boat is in for a rude awakening dealing with the
same issue.
http://www.earthrace.net/

They do not have enough power to punch thru big waves, and a big wave
that envelopes the boat will snuff out the engines.

Wave piercing is great to a point, but ability to rise submerged and
not just drive forward is just as important.

Joe

Bad design?
 

wrote:
Hey Joe,
Just to set all of your minds at ease, we have been through some nice
big waves (14m) and faired nicely. With 1200 HP with our updated 8.3
Cummins QSC's we will have no proplem. Craig Loomis is a masterful ship
designer and many have staked their reputations, careers, and (gulp)
lives on this design and feel quite confident. Keep an eye on us and
wish us luck! Thanks!
Anthony Distefano
Earthrace Engineer


Hey Tony welcome to ASA

I went and visited your boat here in Kemah. Also applied as crew member
but never got any responce;0(. Tell that asshole taking applications he
should follow up with anyone who takes the time to apply.

What happens when the wings go under and snuff out the 1200 hp
engines? How long can you stay submerged?
I hope you have a water dump in the stacks.

Cummings makes some mighty fine engines, ran a boat (MV Comet) that had
4 cummings KTA 1180's for a couple years. She would coat the water with
a soot blanket until the turbos caught up. BTW watch out for those
turbo's, I had an engineer get his hand sucked into the cummings turbo
and take off all his fingers. Good turbos, still had 11 lbs boost even
after chopping flesh and bone.

Did you follow team phillips and the wave piercing cat? She broke up in
the Atlantic.

Going thru one 14M means nothing, the problem will come when you have
them stacked up 10 M apart for 500 miles. As you know wave height is
not as important as wave length, with a short wave length, you will not
have the momentum to carry you thru all the waves, the boat just does
not have the weight to punch thru over and over and over IMO, and if
she fails to rise fast enough thoses cummings are going to gulp h2o and
send a piston thru the block.

Anyhow...I wish you all the luck in the world, and very fair sea's,
that's the only way you will make it IMO.
BTW tell that fellow accepting applications that I'm still interested
in crewing.


Joe

Bad design?
 

"Joe" wrote
Tell that asshole taking applications he
should follow up with anyone who takes the time to apply.
(deleted some)
BTW tell that fellow accepting applications that I'm still interested
in crewing.


Uh, Joe. First you call him an asshole. Then you expect him to hire you.
Are you on drugs?

Cheers,
Ellen

Bad design?
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Joe" wrote
Tell that asshole taking applications he
should follow up with anyone who takes the time to apply.
(deleted some)
BTW tell that fellow accepting applications that I'm still interested
in crewing.


Uh, Joe. First you call him an asshole. Then you expect him to hire you.
Are you on drugs?

Cheers,
Ellen

Not following up on a request you made of applicants, shows that you
have no respect for others efforts and time.

I could understand not following thru if you did not request
applicants, but thats not the case.

A thank you for your application, or acknowledgement of receipt and
consideration is in order.

If they do not like that opinion then they can kiss my ass anyway.
Respect is a two way street. I'm willing to give the sloucher a second
chance, I'm sure he's quite busy, but thats not an excuse to act like
an asshole.

Joe

Bad design?
 

"Joe" wrote
A thank you for your application, or acknowledgement of receipt and
consideration is in order.

I agree with you.

If they do not like that opinion then they can kiss my ass anyway.
Respect is a two way street. I'm willing to give the sloucher a second
chance, I'm sure he's quite busy, but thats not an excuse to act like
an asshole.


The *sloucher* could be related to the owner. Would you really lower
yourself to work for an outfit like that? If they're unprofessional at one
level it's probably that way all the way up and down.

Cheers,
Ellen

Bad design?
 

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Joe" wrote
A thank you for your application, or acknowledgement of receipt and
consideration is in order.

I agree with you.

If they do not like that opinion then they can kiss my ass anyway.
Respect is a two way street. I'm willing to give the sloucher a second
chance, I'm sure he's quite busy, but thats not an excuse to act like
an asshole.


The *sloucher* could be related to the owner.

Might be a paper pushing, gate keeper as well.

Would you really lower
yourself to work for an outfit like that?

Sure, everyone makes mistakes and has to set priorities. I see the
attempt as worthy of the adversity and personal expences and risk
involved.

If they're unprofessional at one
level it's probably that way all the way up and down.

I'm sure it's just a matter of someone plowing thru huge piles and
piles of administrative and logistical prep work.

But you are correct, it could make you wonder what other small detail
was overlooked. They need my fresh critical eye, advice and experience.
With it they have a better chance of success ;0)

Joe


Cheers,
Ellen