Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Sep 10, 2:32?pm, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:12?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:25?am, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:43:36 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:
This link will take you to a photo of George C. Scotts's 80-foot Ditmar
Donaldson "trying this at home" back in 1979. Same location. Wave height
was estimated at 20 feet.
http://www.yachtworld.com/capehorn/index.html
For more details, select "About the Photo Above" from the bottom of the
options on the LH margin of the page. (My friend Mike Zarkos owns this
brokerage- but this is purely an invitation to view a photo and you can
do so without wading through a lot of boats for sale).
A little larger view of the same shot:
http://www.mv-dreamer.com/Mojo.htm
I wonder what those people in the smaller boat were thinking.
"How fast can we make that last 40 yards to get behind the
breakwater?!"
or maybe, "Darn! Those were my favorite trousers!"
"Chuck said those waves weren't really as big as they seem...they're
only two to three footers..." :}- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's a bit funny- but I think the photo of the Ditmar Donaldson
punching through that surf *does* serve as a good reference for wave
height. The USCG review of the incident reportedly refered to that as
a "20 foot" wave. A legitimate 8-footer would still be 40% as large-
so I do try to bear that in mind when I hear boaters describing rather
extreme wave heights. Most people routinely overstate wave height- at
least IMO formed by years of observation. No need, really; 4-5 footers
can make for some really challenging conditions when expressed as
short interval chop.

Since I don't have to boat, if I see 3' waves on the bay, I just don't
go out, or I trailer over to the Pax River, which is an interesting
waterway that stays reasonably calm.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I hear that. When things get much worse than the foreground on photo I
noted upthread I begin wondering what I'm doing slogging around in it
and make some specific plans to find shelter.

The one time recently when I broke my own rule and set out for a long
crossing when things were about like the photo, (or
so).......conditions got worse and then all sorts of fun began. Spent
3 very uncomfortable hours......(posted about that last month,
"Greetings from Ganges").

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 10, 2:32?pm, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:12?am, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Sep 10, 10:25?am, thunder wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:43:36 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote:
This link will take you to a photo of George C. Scotts's 80-foot Ditmar
Donaldson "trying this at home" back in 1979. Same location. Wave height
was estimated at 20 feet.
http://www.yachtworld.com/capehorn/index.html
For more details, select "About the Photo Above" from the bottom of the
options on the LH margin of the page. (My friend Mike Zarkos owns this
brokerage- but this is purely an invitation to view a photo and you can
do so without wading through a lot of boats for sale).
A little larger view of the same shot:
http://www.mv-dreamer.com/Mojo.htm
I wonder what those people in the smaller boat were thinking.
"How fast can we make that last 40 yards to get behind the
breakwater?!"
or maybe, "Darn! Those were my favorite trousers!"
"Chuck said those waves weren't really as big as they seem...they're
only two to three footers..." :}- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's a bit funny- but I think the photo of the Ditmar Donaldson
punching through that surf *does* serve as a good reference for wave
height. The USCG review of the incident reportedly refered to that as
a "20 foot" wave. A legitimate 8-footer would still be 40% as large-
so I do try to bear that in mind when I hear boaters describing rather
extreme wave heights. Most people routinely overstate wave height- at
least IMO formed by years of observation. No need, really; 4-5 footers
can make for some really challenging conditions when expressed as
short interval chop.
Since I don't have to boat, if I see 3' waves on the bay, I just don't
go out, or I trailer over to the Pax River, which is an interesting
waterway that stays reasonably calm.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I hear that. When things get much worse than the foreground on photo I
noted upthread I begin wondering what I'm doing slogging around in it
and make some specific plans to find shelter.

The one time recently when I broke my own rule and set out for a long
crossing when things were about like the photo, (or
so).......conditions got worse and then all sorts of fun began. Spent
3 very uncomfortable hours......(posted about that last month,
"Greetings from Ganges").



My wife likes boating, likes fishing, and even will pee in a cup, if she
has to (though we now have "facilities" on son of Yo Ho), but she
doesn't like getting bounced around in the boat. So if it gets rough, I
slow way down, or we trailer over to calmer waters, or we don't go out.

Yesterday was a beautiful day on the Bay, really nice. We fished for a
while, cruised around, went for a swim at a nice desolate beach, then
went up the Pax River to Vera's White Sands Beach Club, a kind of campy
marina-restaurant-bar up a creek off the Pax.

http://verasbeachclub.com/

http://verasbeachclub.com/grandopening/index.html

Great frozen margaritas! If you get a chance, take a look at some of
the photos...the palm trees are for real, as is the banana tree.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:43:36 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

This link will take you to a photo of George C. Scotts's 80-foot
Ditmar Donaldson "trying this at home" back in 1979. Same location.
Wave height was estimated at 20 feet.

I've seen that before but it never fails to give me a chill. My
understanding is that the boat was severely damaged. That's certainly
easy to believe.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:28:39 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

That's a bit funny- but I think the photo of the Ditmar Donaldson
punching through that surf *does* serve as a good reference for wave
height. The USCG review of the incident reportedly refered to that as
a "20 foot" wave. A legitimate 8-footer would still be 40% as large-
so I do try to bear that in mind when I hear boaters describing rather
extreme wave heights. Most people routinely overstate wave height- at
least IMO formed by years of observation. No need, really; 4-5 footers
can make for some really challenging conditions when expressed as
short interval chop.

All true but that's not just any old 20 footer of course. The fact
that it is steep and breaking is what causes all the excitement.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:32:53 -0400, HK wrote:

Since I don't have to boat, if I see 3' waves on the bay, I just don't
go out, or I trailer over to the Pax River, which is an interesting
waterway that stays reasonably calm.

That is certainly an appropriate strategy for a 20 footer, or even a
good bit larger.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

HK wrote:



My wife likes boating, likes fishing, and even will pee in a cup, if she
has to (though we now have "facilities" on son of Yo Ho), but she
doesn't like getting bounced around in the boat. So if it gets rough, I
slow way down, or we trailer over to calmer waters, or we don't go out.

Why not just go out in the Lobster Boat?

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:



My wife likes boating, likes fishing, and even will pee in a cup, if
she has to (though we now have "facilities" on son of Yo Ho), but she
doesn't like getting bounced around in the boat. So if it gets rough,
I slow way down, or we trailer over to calmer waters, or we don't go out.

Why not just go out in the Lobster Boat?


Surely the 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat has a real head, burled dark
walnut, gold fixtures, heated towels and a real China bowel with a
bidet. Anything less than that and you are on a, on a 21' Parker Center
Console peeing in a bucket.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:01:14 -0400, BAR wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:



My wife likes boating, likes fishing, and even will pee in a cup, if
she has to (though we now have "facilities" on son of Yo Ho), but she
doesn't like getting bounced around in the boat. So if it gets rough,
I slow way down, or we trailer over to calmer waters, or we don't go out.

Why not just go out in the Lobster Boat?

Surely the 36' Zimmerman like Lobsta' boat has a real head, burled dark
walnut, gold fixtures, heated towels and a real China bowel with a
bidet. Anything less than that and you are on a, on a 21' Parker Center
Console peeing in a bucket.

A bidet?

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Sep 10, 3:22?pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:28:39 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
That's a bit funny- but I think the photo of the Ditmar Donaldson
punching through that surf *does* serve as a good reference for wave
height. The USCG review of the incident reportedly refered to that as
a "20 foot" wave. A legitimate 8-footer would still be 40% as large-
so I do try to bear that in mind when I hear boaters describing rather
extreme wave heights. Most people routinely overstate wave height- at
least IMO formed by years of observation. No need, really; 4-5 footers
can make for some really challenging conditions when expressed as
short interval chop.

All true but that's not just any old 20 footer of course. The fact
that it is steep and breaking is what causes all the excitement.

Precisely. Spread that same 20-foot rise out far enough and you have a
nice, gentle swell. Very few of the "white knuckle" tales involve
gentle swells. A 4-footer breaking on the beam will put my side decks
awash,
and a breaking 6-foot head sea will put green water on the foredeck.
Nope, nope, nope- don't need to do that when it can be avoided, and
just short of all of the time it can be when coastal or inland
cruising.

A lot of the coastal harbors in WA, OR, and CA have river bars. the
combination of rapid shoaling, an onshore wind, and conflicting tides
and river currents can create some very nasty conditions. In many
locations, the USCG literally closes the bar to navigation when
conditions get ugly enough. One of the reasons for "surfman" training
is to prep the Coast Guard personnel to perfrom rescues of folks who
don't heed the "closed bar" warnings.

Don't Try This at Home - Spectacular USCG Photos
 

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:21:47 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

A lot of the coastal harbors in WA, OR, and CA have river bars. the
combination of rapid shoaling, an onshore wind, and conflicting tides
and river currents can create some very nasty conditions. In many
locations, the USCG literally closes the bar to navigation when
conditions get ugly enough. One of the reasons for "surfman" training
is to prep the Coast Guard personnel to perfrom rescues of folks who
don't heed the "closed bar" warnings.

Didn't you post a picture a couple of years ago of a large yacht
crossing a bar - some famous actor's yacht?