I don't see anything in this that implies "old boats" are strong and new
boats aren't. Certainly an offshore boat needs to be well built - dah! There
are plenty of new, high -tech boats that are much stronger than old boats -
and much more fun to sail..

Paul
www.jcruiser.org
"Trent D. Sanders" wrote in message
om...
If you wonder about not being dependent on "high-tech" and electrical
stuff on your boat, and why you want a "good old boat" that was
strongly built, check this out. It's one of the guys that had to quit
the Singlehanded TransPac last week due to boat / equipment failure.
Very scary.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=6203

Trent Sanders
S/V Cimba

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:55:26 GMT, "Paul L"
wrote:

I don't see anything in this that implies "old boats" are strong and new
boats aren't. Certainly an offshore boat needs to be well built - dah! There
are plenty of new, high -tech boats that are much stronger than old boats -
and much more fun to sail..

Paul
www.jcruiser.org
"Trent D. Sanders" wrote in message
. com...
If you wonder about not being dependent on "high-tech" and electrical
stuff on your boat, and why you want a "good old boat" that was
strongly built, check this out. It's one of the guys that had to quit
the Singlehanded TransPac last week due to boat / equipment failure.
Very scary.

http://www.sailinganarchy.com/forums...showtopic=6203

Trent Sanders
S/V Cimba

It so happens I agree with the OP's preference for strong boats (new
or old). And about not being solely dependent on the "high tech".
I've climbed up on that soapbox more than once. But the story
referenced says more about seamanship and judgement (IMHO) than it
does about equipment.

True, the hull was not up to the demands he placed on it, but he had,
after all, been driving it very hard in severe conditions. Also, he
had been given fair warning a year before. A competent survey (which
should have been mandatory after the earlier failure) would probably
have revealed the problem at the dock. In any event, the hull held
together even when he turned about and headed back into the teeth of
the storm. Personally, I'd have hove to, tried to brace the hull with
whatever was at hand (not necessarily possible), and waited for the
weather to abate while munching on M&Ms and reading Kipling.

He had leaking ports, which he tried to seal with silicone. I would
expect that to work in rain, but not with green water on deck. So,
water got in the boat. That'll happen. But evidently it stayed
there, since he spoke of sleeping in water sloshing over the
floorboards. What happened to the bilge pump? And the backup bilge
pump? And the manual backup to the backup?

The windvane failed (bad installation? poor maintenance? bad luck?)
but I wouldn't call that high tech.

The Autohelm never actually failed; he just didn't trust it. Fair
enough, I probably wouldn't either.

Water got into the engine start switch when he filled the cockpit.
That'll happen. Some folks move the switches into the cabin, for that
reason. Ignoring the evidence of the shorted switch (panel lights)
didn't help, but many of us have probably done sillier things on sunny
days with plenty of rest. I'm sure I have.

As for the battery switch, I'm inclined to doubt there was a real
problem there. The batteries were flat, which is sufficient to
explain the problem. When did that happen? It probably wasn't
instantaneous. Why were both banks flat, assuming he had two?
Battery switch set on "BOTH" maybe?

The genset wouldn't start. Maintenance? Did it get wet? When was it
last tested?

The satellite phone didn't fail; he just didn't know how to use it.
Obviously he never even tried it before leaving. Which is not
particularly damning. It's a convenience, not survival gear.

The VHF went away with the batteries. A handheld might not have
summoned aid from afar, but would certainly serve for contacting
nearby vessels.

I don't mean to criticize the sailor, but rather the conclusion that
this was a failure of "high technology." The only thing that actually
broke was the windvane. Lacking all the facts, it still seems to me
that all the problems were ultimately preventable. In the final
analysis, he *decided* to press that boat that hard, in that weather,
with that equipment.

That said, the sailor survived harsh conditions in good health, with a
relatively intact boat, so he passed the test, as far as I'm
concerned. If he made some questionable (note: questionable does not
mean "bad") decisions in outfitting and under pressure of race
conditions, fatigue, and bad weather, well, that'll happen. I'd sail
with him. On my boat, at least. :-}

__________________________________________________ __________
Glen "Wiley" Wilson usenet1 SPAMNIX at worldwidewiley dot com
To reply, lose the capitals and do the obvious.

Take a look at cpRepeater, my NMEA data integrator, repeater, and
logger at http://www.worldwidewiley.com/