|
Seaworthiness
Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender
www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise; my primary objective is to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'. From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be much appreciated. I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie no-bull**** plain talking: http://members.optusnet.com.au/coast...rocruising.htm |
Seaworthiness
Yacht design and especially boat building materials have progressed since
the designs you list. They may have been the best 100+ years ago but it's like saying that the Ford model T is the best car ever built! Try some books like "Seaworthiness" by Marchaj or check books by Dave Gerr. It is undeniable that the boats who rcae aorund the world today are more seaworth than a Colin Archer. PS: a judgement about seaworthiness should not be based on fear of the sea .. . . -- Jacques http://www.bateau.com "Peter Ward" wrote in message m... From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. |
Seaworthiness
Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat
building. Peter Ward wrote: Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise; Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate. my primary objective is to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'. The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He sums it up thusly: 1- easy to handle 2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many people imagine 'comfort') 3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy 4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions 5- beauty My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy & perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill. From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials; also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not have to face. BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I mentioned earlier to not overlook. Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull & rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points tell you something about what the same service would indicate today? What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be much appreciated. The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure. The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO. I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie no-bull**** plain talking: http://members.optusnet.com.au/coast...rocruising.htm Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Seaworthiness
I mostly agree with Doug, but would put emphasis elsewhere.
Seaworthiness is largely relative to where you want to go and when. A boat that would be perfectly fine in all conditions that you might meet on the East Coast of the USA (except a hurricane, for which you would have plenty of warning) would not be my first choice for doing a circumnav the wrong way in the Southern Ocean. But to build and equip for the latter when all you intend is the former is expensive and foolish. All boats are compromises, and all factors, including seaworthiness must be weighted intelligently. Speed is also a seaworthiness factor, as it gives you a better chance at getting out of the way of storms. Your Colin Archer will not be as fast as a modern design. Sayula II, a Swan 65, won the first Whitbread. She is much faster, size for size, than a Colin Archer design, yet strong enough to do a 180 in the Southern Ocean and come up with no significant damage. Doug also touches on the question of comfort. IMHO, comfort is a major seaworthiness factor. Unless you have a boat that will heave to and take care of itself, and the sea room to do it, someone has to be sailing the boat, which means that the crew has to be getting enough sleep and enough food to stay able to do what they need to do. As for ferro, I agree with Doug, but would add that a ferro boat is essentially unsalable (it may also be unsailable, as they tend to be heavy). While ferro can be cheap, why build in a material that no one wants to buy in order to save maybe 5 or 10% of the cost of the whole project? You can probably build in steel for very little more, and have a boat that you can sell. -- Jim Woodward www.mvFintry.com .. "DSK" wrote in message ... Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat building. Peter Ward wrote: Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise; Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate. my primary objective is to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'. The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He sums it up thusly: 1- easy to handle 2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many people imagine 'comfort') 3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy 4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions 5- beauty My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy & perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill. From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials; also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not have to face. BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I mentioned earlier to not overlook. Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull & rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points tell you something about what the same service would indicate today? What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be much appreciated. The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure. The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO. I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie no-bull**** plain talking: http://members.optusnet.com.au/coast...rocruising.htm Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Seaworthiness
Great post.
Thank you for pointing out those "forgotten factors" of seaworthiness: speed and comfort. -- Jacques http://www.bateau.com "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message ... I mostly agree with Doug, but would put emphasis elsewhere. Seaworthiness is largely relative to where you want to go and when. A boat that would be perfectly fine in all conditions that you might meet on the East Coast of the USA (except a hurricane, for which you would have plenty of warning) would not be my first choice for doing a circumnav the wrong way in the Southern Ocean. But to build and equip for the latter when all you intend is the former is expensive and foolish. All boats are compromises, and all factors, including seaworthiness must be weighted intelligently. Speed is also a seaworthiness factor, as it gives you a better chance at getting out of the way of storms. Your Colin Archer will not be as fast as a modern design. Sayula II, a Swan 65, won the first Whitbread. She is much faster, size for size, than a Colin Archer design, yet strong enough to do a 180 in the Southern Ocean and come up with no significant damage. Doug also touches on the question of comfort. IMHO, comfort is a major seaworthiness factor. Unless you have a boat that will heave to and take care of itself, and the sea room to do it, someone has to be sailing the boat, which means that the crew has to be getting enough sleep and enough food to stay able to do what they need to do. As for ferro, I agree with Doug, but would add that a ferro boat is essentially unsalable (it may also be unsailable, as they tend to be heavy). While ferro can be cheap, why build in a material that no one wants to buy in order to save maybe 5 or 10% of the cost of the whole project? You can probably build in steel for very little more, and have a boat that you can sell. -- Jim Woodward www.mvFintry.com . "DSK" wrote in message ... Sorry to wander so far off topic, this post isn't much about boat building. Peter Ward wrote: Greetings all, I'm considering building a kit Stornaway Weekender www.scruffie.com as a teethcutting exercise; Cute boats. Much lighter than their appearance would seem to indicate. my primary objective is to get a handle on the bedrock principles of 'seaworthiness'. The best 1 page primer on "seaworthiness" is an essay by Peter Duff (of Edey & Duff, the builders of the Stone Horse among other great boats). He sums it up thusly: 1- easy to handle 2- comfortable (which he explains differently and more sensibly than many people imagine 'comfort') 3- water tight integrity & reserve bouyancy 4- speed in sailing performance under a wide variety of conditions 5- beauty My own explanation, given the many many demonstrations of lengthy & perilous voyages in wildly unsuitable craft, is that seaworthiness consists of a great combination of skill and/or luck on the part of the skipper. This skill includes the ability to prepare & equip a boat rationally for a wide range of anticipated conditions. The luck includes not being there when very bad things happen, although careful attention to unobvious details in predicting such happenings is definitely a skill. From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. While they are good boats for rough water sailing, and definitely can be said to maintain a more comfortable motion in a seaway (which, when things get *really* bad, ain't saying much), they are pre-1920s technology. While I agree with Peter Duff when he says, "The sea hasn't changed much" it is unwise to overlook the accomplishments of modern engineering & materials; also there are hazards nowadays such as being run down by a freighter or hitting a container, that the previous generation of old salts did not have to face. BTW one of the prime characteristics in a boats safety at sea is the ability to make distance to windward in deteriorating conditions... modern keels & rigs have a great advantage in this, which is one of the points I mentioned earlier to not overlook. Consider the design factors in the two boats named... both were intended for rough water sailing, intended to stay on station & be maneuverable in very bad conditions. They were not intended for long duration at sea, nor for carrying heavy loads; both were given hull & rig characteristics intended to the best for windward sailing ability given the technology of the era. Colin Archer worked on techniques of construction as much as hull & rig types, to get the strongest lightest hulls possible. Do these points tell you something about what the same service would indicate today? What I'm seeking is advice on the most 'seaworthy' yacht design available for a vessel under 35'. Becuase of the apparent advantages of heavy displacement & relative ease of fairing, I'm also considering a ferro hull ...any comments/observations on the pros/cons would be much appreciated. The problem with ferrocement is that it has no way of verifying hull integrity, and is prone to catastrophic rather than incremental failure. The main advantage of ferrocement is that it's cheap. For a vessel intended to take to sea, there are better ways to pinch pennies IMHO. I've foundy the following salty site quite useful in terms of Aussie no-bull**** plain talking: http://members.optusnet.com.au/coast...rocruising.htm Thanks for the link. Very interesting reading. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Seaworthiness
define "seaworthiness"
I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big weather system. The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio. Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good time under all conditions but light winds. There are books on cruising sailboats as distinct from racing and coastal sailboats. One that I read recently is Danny Greene's "Cruising Sailboat Kinetics" (1984). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
Seaworthiness
Again, I point at Sayula II. Tough boat, but a whole lot faster than a
Colin Archer. As for outracing the weather at sea, if I have a hurricane forecast in front of me, with pretty good track guesses from the NHC, I'd rather have a boat that was a modern, fast, tough, seaworthy design, rather than an old, slow, tough, seaworthy design. Not extreme, but taking into account modern design thinking. For example, there's some evidence that a modern keel and skeg design is less likely to "trip" on a wave and capsize, than the old full keel designs. Certainly modern designs with the rudder way aft have more steering leverage and therefore will steer better in extreme conditions than long keels with attached rudder. Swee****er (Swan 57) has a D/L of about 230. She certainly never gave us any concerns on our circumnav and I would believe she is sufficiently seaworthy for all "ordinary" purposes -- no Southern Ocean work, I think. A 230 D/L does not mean "weak" as a simple glance around at the scantlings of a Swan will show you. As far as references go, my favorite single book is Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts, The Technical Committee of the Cruising Club of America, John Rousmaniere, Ed., W.W. Norton, 1987. While written partly in response to Fastnet 1979, by an organization best known for racing, the authors have 750,000 miles at sea in small boats among them, and it is good reading for any cruiser planning to venture out of the sight of land. Tony Marchaj, cited earlier in this thread, has also written several books with good information on the good, the bad, and the ugly in offshore design. -- Jim Woodward www.mvFintry.com .. "William R. Watt" wrote in message ... define "seaworthiness" I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big weather system. The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio. Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good time under all conditions but light winds. There are books on cruising sailboats as distinct from racing and coastal sailboats. One that I read recently is Danny Greene's "Cruising Sailboat Kinetics" (1984). -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
Seaworthiness
DSK wrote in message ...
& "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message ... Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny experience. I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; & particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable' craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict; however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be truly "worthy of the sea". Yet on the other hand I continually read accounts of wildly improbable craft -http://www.famoussmallboats.com/ - criss-crossing the Atlantic & Pacific with apparent ease. All quite confusing really. |
Seaworthiness
The Perfect Storm was in the North Atlantic in October -- in winter, in
weather terms. It's no accident that "Winter North Atlantic" has its own loadline, and that it's the one that requires the most freeboard of all. And, although both the book and the movie have obscured reality somewhat (the movie much more than the book), it appears the Andrea Gail had a number of seaworthiness problems. If you choose your times and places with some intelligence -- stay out of hurricane areas, the Winter North Atlantic, the Southern Ocean, then you're very unlikely to face survival weather. Many circumnavigators will tell you that they never saw serious weather on their entire trip -- our highest wind speed was around 42 knots. I, too, am a natural pessimist. People who go to sea should understand that Mother Nature does not suffer fools lightly. But pessimism should not bring paranoia. As I said earlier in this thread, designing and equipping a boat for the worst possible weather is expensive and unnecessary unless you really intend to go out at times and places where such weather is really an issue. Your "ultimate-unsinkable craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict" is a wonderful thing to think about, but I wouldn't want to sail it, as it would likely be slow, uncomfortable, and difficult for its crew. I'd rather choose my times and places and stay away from anything anywhere near "the worst the sea can inflict". I'm pretty sure that's a realistic goal for all except masochists and thrill seekers. As for the quality of production boats, there are production boats that I wouldn't want to take out of sight of land and others that I would happy with almost anywhere, although not at all times of year. You pay your money and, by and large, you get what you've paid for. And, BTW, they're not hard to tell apart at the boat shows -- if you see two boats about the same size and weight and one has fittings -- turnbuckles, for example -- noticeably heavier than the other, you can guess which one I'd rather be aboard. -- Jim Woodward www.mvFintry.com .. "Peter Ward" wrote in message m... DSK wrote in message ... & "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message ... Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny experience. I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; & particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable' craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict; however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be truly "worthy of the sea". Yet on the other hand I continually read accounts of wildly improbable craft -http://www.famoussmallboats.com/ - criss-crossing the Atlantic & Pacific with apparent ease. All quite confusing really. |
Seaworthiness
"Peter Ward" wrote in message m... I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; & particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html In the Sydney-Hobart, the main lesson is don't get caught where the conditions are bad. The analysis showed that it didn't really matter what type of boat you were in - heavy narrow boats, light beamy ones, and everything in between got capsized.. But the boats in a certain area, the area with the worst conditions, were most likely to capsize. John Rousmaniere in his excellent book Fastnet Force Ten came to a somewhat similar conclusion about the Fastnet - that boats in a certain area were more likely to be capsized. That doesn't validate poor design, but it tells me that if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, it doesn't matter what kind of boat you're in. Personally, Id recommend a boat with a limit of positive stability of greater than 120 degrees, with all the cruising gear included in the calculation (which is probably not the design condition). And make sure your boat is ISAF Category 1 or zero compliant. Design is one element of seaworthiness, but the crew (and luck) is equally or more important. Consider that the boat that won the 98 Sydney-Hobart was a light 35 footer that consistently does well in that race and you'll start to get a feeling that those guys could probably sail a crappy old raft through just about anything. And it sounds like you've read the books about the guys with no experience who cross oceans, so you can see the part that lady luck plays as well. More books that would probably be of interest to you: Heavy Weather Sailing has lots of good info, including chapters about desingn features. The Drag Device Data Book if you're really serious about going offshore. Fastnet Force 10. There's also a book about the Queen's Birthday Storm that hit a bunch of cruisers in the South Pacific, but I can't remember the name right now. As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable' craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict; however, I get the distinct impression leafing through all the myriad yachting magazines, that most boats out there are little more than flimsy eye-candy. Just another prettified escapist consumer commodity designed more to part you from your hard-earned lucre, than to be truly "worthy of the sea". Well, there are good boats and bad boats. There are quite a few seaworthy ones available for good prices. Some of them are lightweight flyers, and some are heavy tanks. It's hard to make a boat unsinkable but it is possible to minimize the probability. Watertight subdivision is one way to do it, but you will find that only the Amel boats come from the factory that way. Ramblin' Matt |
Seaworthiness
On 10 Nov 2003 17:35:40 -0800, (Peter Ward)
wrote: DSK wrote in message ... & "Jim Woodward" jameslwoodward at attbi dot com wrote in message ... Thanks both for the excellent advice clearly based on extensive briny experience. I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; & particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate - deficiencies he attributes to the pervasive influence of International Offshore Rules & the 'floating gin-palace' ethos of the charter-boat industry, on modern yacht design & construction. This observation appears to have been borne-out empirically by the 1988 Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race http://www.radford-yacht.com/stablty1.html The International Offshore Rule did produce some nasty boats. It passed out of use in the late 1980s. It is only of concern if you might buy an IOR boat used. Marchaj's polemic flails about with generalizations that don't really tell you anything useful. All boat designs are compromises that juggle conflicting desires. He seems to want naval architecture to stop at some preconceived "golden age." It doesn't work like that. A good (not genius) naval architect, knowing the specific requirements of a client, should be able to improve an existing design, even from a "genius" architect, if it was not designed for the same detailed requirements. If you buy a boat designed to sell at a boat show to nonsailors, you should realize that the compromises may be tilted toward interior accommodations at the expense of sailing ability. If you buy a modest-sized boat that is mainly designed for racing around the buoys, you may not be able to stand up in the cabin. Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a "Curse thee, thou quadrant. No longer will I guide my earthly way by thee." Capt. Ahab |
Seaworthiness
|
Seaworthiness
Rodney Myrvaagnes ) writes:
The most bedrock principle is the need for a capable crew. An archaic design may make you feel salty, but that isn't the same thing. That is the assessment I read of Joshua Slocam and Spray, an ordinary east coast lobster boat, and extrodinary sailor with a lifetime of ocean sailing experience. I think also luck since the life expectancy of sailors was low in his day. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm warning: non-freenet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned |
Seaworthiness
"Peter Ward" wrote in message m... I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; If it's The Perfect Storm you want to survive then clearly you need a Westsail 32. A W32 DID survive the Perfect Storm. Unmanned no-less and, as far as I last heard is still sailing. Yet another Steve |
Seaworthiness
Yes, but the Westsail 32 earned the sobriquet "WetSnail". A tough boat, but
not my first choice for anything. -- Jim Woodward www.mvFintry.com .. "Stephen Yoder" wrote in message thlink.net... "Peter Ward" wrote in message m... I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; If it's The Perfect Storm you want to survive then clearly you need a Westsail 32. A W32 DID survive the Perfect Storm. Unmanned no-less and, as far as I last heard is still sailing. Yet another Steve |
Seaworthiness
"William R. Watt" wrote in message ... define "seaworthiness" I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big weather system. Sorry to disagree but some years ago, during a westward Atlantic crossing, we became threatened by a tropical storm that later developed in a hurricane. My boat was fast enough to efficiently take the classic escape course from such a system. It was my fault to cross to early in season but the fast boat made all the difference and kept us safe, right in the middle of the ocean. -- Jacques http://www.bateau.com |
Seaworthiness
Peter Ward wrote:
I guess I was thinking of seaworthiness in the fairly narrow sense of being able to survive something like 'The Perfect Storm'; & particularly the ability to quickly self-right in the event of capsize. According to Czeslaw A. Marchaj in 'Seaworthiness : The Forgotten Factor' the "point of vanishing stability" et.al. of most modern yacht designs is woefully inadequate There are some fairly simple ways to evaluate the relative stability of a sailboat, and there is a very wide range of boats on the market. To say 'modern yacht designs' have *any* single factor in common is like saying 'modern motor vehicles' are all thus-and-so. How about we say 'some popular modern yacht designs are woefully inadequate'? Then the trick is much simpler, just avoid these particular ones. As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable' craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict; As a natural pessimist myself, let me assure that such a thing does not exist. The ocean is incredibly powerful, it can tear up battleships & supertankers when it's in the mood to. The only answer for surviving such conditions in a small sailboat is.... be elsewhere.... That said, a high ballast displacement ratio and full positive flotation make a lot of sense for ocean passagemaking sailboats. "William R. Watt" wrote... define "seaworthiness" I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough conditions That is a good quality to have, but it can also include having the right gear such as a drogue and/or a storm staysail. .... not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather. This outracing the weather is only helpfull along the coast where, given advance warning of deteriorating weather conditions over the radio, the faster boat can run for cover. Its not much help mid ocean in a big weather system. I disagree strongly. A boat that can make good miles, especially reaching or close reaching in a seaway, is going to spend a lot less time in a storm system and will be able to keep further away from the center. The main indicator of seaworthiness is the displacement to length ratio. Boats with a ratio over (I think) 300 are the most seaworthy. These are ocean going cruisers. Because boats are sold by the pound they are expensive. I know lighter materials can cost more per pound by they don't have as many pounds. The heavy cruisers also have more room for accomdation and storage and a better comfort factor. They can make good time under all conditions but light winds. And to windward, usually. The issue here is that a lot of the current generation like heavy heavy boats. Therefor, since so many of the boats out there cruising are heavyweights, the statistical evidence that heavy boats make the best cruisers is self perpetuating. Heavy boats are good at one thing.... not getting bounced around. Weight conveys no advantage beyond simple inertia. Jim Woodward wrote: Again, I point at Sayula II. Tough boat, but a whole lot faster than a Colin Archer. As for outracing the weather at sea, if I have a hurricane forecast in front of me, with pretty good track guesses from the NHC, I'd rather have a boat that was a modern, fast, tough, seaworthy design, rather than an old, slow, tough, seaworthy design. Not extreme, but taking into account modern design thinking. For example, there's some evidence that a modern keel and skeg design is less likely to "trip" on a wave and capsize, than the old full keel designs. Certainly modern designs with the rudder way aft have more steering leverage and therefore will steer better in extreme conditions than long keels with attached rudder. They will also respond better with less work by either helmsman or autopilot. A tired helmsman is a poor safety factor to have in big breaking seas. Swee****er (Swan 57) has a D/L of about 230. She certainly never gave us any concerns on our circumnav and I would believe she is sufficiently seaworthy for all "ordinary" purposes -- no Southern Ocean work, I think. A 230 D/L does not mean "weak" as a simple glance around at the scantlings of a Swan will show you. Further point, heavily built is not necessarily stronger. Polyester resin is brittle. In an early edition of his book on building the Westsail 32, Ferenc Mate advocated using resin & newspaper to block in parts of the hull. This is going to add zero strength. Lots of older boats with very thick hulls are actually weaker due to the use of short strand mat, chopper guns, lots of voids, cloth edges at odd points, etc etc. All else being equal, heavier is usually stronger. But 'all else' never is quite equal, and the strongest boats are the ones that are well engineered and properly built with suitable materials. This doesn't happen by accident. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Seaworthiness
"Jacques Mertens" wrote in message ...
Yacht design and especially boat building materials have progressed since the designs you list. They may have been the best 100+ years ago but it's like saying that the Ford model T is the best car ever built! Point taken; however, I can't help but note that modern mathematicians are coming round to the view that the archaic 'oceanic lateen' sail design - developed by ancient Polynesians over 4,000 years ago - is actually more 'efficient' than the modern Bermudan. I would have thought it quite possible that the 'ye olde worlde' designers may well have hit upon the 'Platonic Ideal' of ultimate seaworthy hull design via the school of very hard knocks & near-death epiphanies. Try some books like "Seaworthiness" by Marchaj or check books by Dave Gerr. It is undeniable that the boats who rcae aorund the world today are more seaworth than a Colin Archer. I'm sure you're correct - but are they "more seaworthy" because of superior design or superior construction or a mix of both? I personally prefer this definition of seaworthy: "define "seaworthiness" I thought it meant a boat that would take care of itself in rough conditions, not a boat that could perhaps outrace the weather." [rom: William R. Watt ) Subject: Seaworthiness Newsgroups: rec.boats.building Date: 2003-11-10 13:50:05 PST ] Someone in an earlier post mentioned that the Westsail 32 is proven seaworthy by virtue of having actually survived 'The Perfect Storm' without human intervention ...so I do a quick google search & lo & behold up comes something which could be quite easily be mistaken for a Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter in a dark seaway & has a blue-blood Colin Archer pedigree to boot!!: http://www.boatus.com/jackhornor/sail/Westsail32.htm PS: a judgement about seaworthiness should not be based on fear of the sea . . . A very prescient observation. I don't mind admitting that I do in fact have a healthy fear of the sea ...& it is in fact the primary motivating factor in my quest for the *_most seaworthy_* design & construction available for a vessel under 35'. One of my formative late-life experiences was being caught on what the locals call a "crook crossing" of Bass Strait (Devonport Tas. to Melbourne Vic.) some years ago. I was on exactly the same type of ferry that foundered in the Baltic whilst crossing from Estonia to Sweden in 1994; it was a massive vessel of many thousands of tons displacement but literally being bounced & wracked like a balsa model in what looked very much like a watery version of Dante's Inferno. The only shared religious experience I've had in my entire life in fact. -- Jacques http://www.bateau.com "Peter Ward" wrote in message m... From random reading I've formed the impression that the Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter is the epitome of a seaworthy design. Colin Archer designs seem to get the big tick also. |
Seaworthiness
Just to finish the story - the above-mentioned experience gave me a
quasi-mystical insight into the awesome power of the sea. For anyone who's never heard the obscene shrieking of triple screws unsheathed from the brine at full power for minutes at a time as a gargantuan vessel pitches, rolls & yaws simultaneously to the extremes of the envelope; followed by the thunderous explosion of a flat-face bow smashing into a bottomless trough at thousands of tonnes mass ...then loop the sequence for hours on end; it's probably difficult to conjure just what horrors the sea can deliver I now understand why coconuts-in-husk are probably the only *_truly seaworthy_* design. However the 'takeaway' from all of the exceptionally good advice on offer in this thread appears to be that 'seaworthiness is a multi-dimensional challenge' & preparing for the worst involves garnering a wide range of skills & resources ...including a first rate liferaft & epirb. If "fear of the sea" inspires one to take every precaution possible right from the getgo, in order that others will not have to put their lives at risk in order to extract one from what would otherwise be one's watery grave; then surely its not such a bad thing? |
Seaworthiness
DSK wrote in message ...
[snip good stuff] As a natural pessimist, I want to build the 'ultimate-unsinkable' craft, which will weather the worst that the sea can inflict; As a natural pessimist myself, let me assure that such a thing does not exist. The ocean is incredibly powerful, it can tear up battleships & supertankers when it's in the mood to. __________________________________________________ ______________________________ The only answer for surviving such conditions in a small sailboat is.... be elsewhere.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- After noting all of the very sage advice throughout this thread, I suspect this is in fact the zen-essence of seaworthiness: minimize the statistical likelihood that you will be caught in an ultimate storm & trust the balance of fate to the Sea Gods & your own contingency planning. On this point one of the less funny things that has happened to me, is watching the Skipper of a sinking Indonesian ferry - overloaded with wailing Indonesians - throwing prayer leaflets off the bow in order to appease the Sea Gods. That said, a high ballast displacement ratio and full positive flotation make a lot of sense for ocean passagemaking sailboats. [edit] |
Seaworthiness
I agree with you, it's not a black and white situation. I have respect for
the sea but too often, questions about seaworthiness reflects a fear of the unknown. I lost a few friends at sea, one very close and after that loss, for while, I had a real but irrational fear of making any passage longer than 50 NM. It's gone know but respect for the sea is still there. My attitude is more of a "Inch'Allah" type: I do all what I can to have a good boat and be well prepared, to a point and after that, I'll handle it as it comes. Your words: "quasi-mystical insight into the awesome power of the sea" are exactly how I feel. Respect for the sea doesn't mean that passive safety should be an overwhelming priority in choosing a boat or a design, that's what I wanted to say. -- Jacques http://www.bateau.com "Peter Ward" wrote in message ... Just to finish the story - the above-mentioned experience gave me a quasi-mystical insight into the awesome power of the sea. For anyone who's never heard the obscene shrieking of triple screws unsheathed from the brine at full power for minutes at a time as a gargantuan vessel pitches, rolls & yaws simultaneously to the extremes of the envelope; followed by the thunderous explosion of a flat-face bow smashing into a bottomless trough at thousands of tonnes mass ...then loop the sequence for hours on end; it's probably difficult to conjure just what horrors the sea can deliver I now understand why coconuts-in-husk are probably the only *_truly seaworthy_* design. However the 'takeaway' from all of the exceptionally good advice on offer in this thread appears to be that 'seaworthiness is a multi-dimensional challenge' & preparing for the worst involves garnering a wide range of skills & resources ...including a first rate liferaft & epirb. If "fear of the sea" inspires one to take every precaution possible right from the getgo, in order that others will not have to put their lives at risk in order to extract one from what would otherwise be one's watery grave; then surely its not such a bad thing? |
Seaworthiness
|
Seaworthiness
Hi
"Jacques Mertens" wrote in message ... Respect for the sea doesn't mean that passive safety should be an overwhelming priority in choosing a boat or a design, that's what I wanted to say. Now if a junior in a boxy Optimist capsize usealy nothing bad happen except some wet clotches, but if some 60 year old stand up in the 8 feet dinghie at a cold evening with a bit wind , the boat will soon drift away before the guy reach the surface again, and if you prepare a jurney with the clotches you would use for a ride on a bike or think you can use clotches that will soak and get heavy in water , you are not preparing any passive safety, realy _that_ is where you shuld remember the "respect" ; with those small things ,like knowing that you can proberly not alone get back on land while after a short time in cold water you lost your pover, and can not maneage alone. What I want to say is, that it is strange spending lots of money on trivial everyday things , and still have a life jacket that is 20 years old that you never tried if realy work and is impossible to tie right. ------- As when you are there in the water, you only can think _one thing at a time_ if you even can think, and things must be _easy and work. P.C. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com