Capsize Ratio's

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Are you saying the folks that got rolled during the Fastnet in 1979 didn't exhibit very good seamanship?

Serious racing and good seamanship are not always found in the same place.

Good seamanship might well have kept them all in port, or altering course to avoid the worst part of the weather system.

This was certainly the case in the '98 Sydney to Hobart race, where the extreme conditions were indeed f/c in time for every competitor to either decline to start or to bail out to Eden or other ports prior to attempting the crossing. Those who did so exhibited good seamanship IMO.

Cheers,

Jim

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Are you saying the folks that got rolled during the Fastnet in 1979 didn't exhibit very good seamanship?

That was a bit of a leap of logic.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Serious racing and good seamanship are not always found in the same place.

We should certainly be able to agree on that!

The dumbest time I ever went sailing was to decide a fleet championship. Our boat had won the spring series, with them taking second, and their boat had won the summer series in lighter air, with us taking second. We split the fall series three and three, with them second in every race we won, and us second whenever they won. A dead tie going into the final race, which neither crew needed to win--we just needed to place ahead of the other boat.

Gale warnings were posted prior to the final race, with 18' seas forecast. Our crew decided to show up for the skippers meeting, figuring that the other crew would assume the race would be cancelled, in which case we would win. Unfortunately, their crew made the same assumption, so when both crews showed up and said they were wiling to match race for the championship, the committee decided to give us a start.

Stupid!

We won, of course. But we broke so much gear that it was the most expensive trophy I've ever held. A wonder no one was hurt that day.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by Bash

We should certainly be able to agree on that!

The dumbest time I ever went sailing was to decide a fleet championship. Our boat had won the spring series, with them taking second, and their boat had won the summer series in lighter air, with us taking second. We split the fall series three and three, with them second in every race we won, and us second whenever they won. A dead tie going into the final race, which neither crew needed to win--we just needed to place ahead of the other boat.

Gale warnings were posted prior to the final race, with 18' seas forecast. Our crew decided to show up for the skippers meeting, figuring that the other crew would assume the race would be cancelled, in which case we would win. Unfortunately, their crew made the same assumption, so when both crews showed up and said they were wiling to match race for the championship, the committee decided to give us a start.

Stupid!

We won, of course. But we broke so much gear that it was the most expensive trophy I've ever held. A wonder no one was hurt that day.

Epic. May have been stupid, but it would make a great sailing movie. Was there a love interest involved?

I'm sure that there are regional differences (SF Bay gets a lot of wind), but I have yet to be in a heavy wind race where good seamanship was demonstrated by many. It usually ends up in a dangerous, gear busting mess.

The large, professional crews are an obvious exception (much of the time), but most racing is predominately done by amateur crews of mixed expertise. Add the extra competitive pressure of a race, and poor decisions can be made (not referring to you at all, Bash. Hey, you won the trophy after all!).

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Are you saying the folks that got rolled during the Fastnet in 1979 didn't exhibit very good seamanship?

The point is, some did not. A subject for another thread probably, together with other racing disasters like the Hobart one.

b.

[sneuman]

But in the Fastnet disaster, as I recall, the IOR-influenced boats themselves came in for plenty of criticism in the post mortem, leading to a major reassessment of many of those designs.

The skipper and crew matter, but so do the boat.

[carstenb]

I'll add my two cents. The smart skipper stays in port when really nasty weather is forecast (=good seamanship). However, on a blue water passage, you can get caught out through no fault of your own. Now you have to ride it out and here is where you find out if your boat capsizes easily. Assuming good seamanship, meaning you have reefed completely (bare poles?) and you have run out warps or a drogue or a sea anchor, there is little else you can do but hunker down and wait. Pray I guess if you have that inclination (as they say - there are no atheists in foxholes). What you really want in a boat is a high ability to withstand capsizing and a high ability to right it self again (did someone say AVS?). But you do need to square off the high AVS with some comfort. HR boats have excellent reputations, as do other european boats, Beneteau and Jeanneau come to mind.

An alternative is to move to kansas where you only have to worry about tornados, not about capsizing

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I'll add my two cents. The smart skipper stays in port when really nasty weather is forecast (=good seamanship). However, on a blue water passage, you can get caught out through no fault of your own. Now you have to ride it out and here is where you find out if your boat capsizes easily. Assuming good seamanship, meaning you have reefed completely (bare poles?) and you have run out warps or a drogue or a sea anchor, there is little else you can do but hunker down and wait. Pray I guess if you have that inclination (as they say - there are no atheists in foxholes). What you really want in a boat is a high ability to withstand capsizing and a high ability to right it self again (did someone say AVS?). But you do need to square off the high AVS with some comfort. HR boats have excellent reputations, as do other european boats, Beneteau and Jeanneau come to mind.

An alternative is to move to kansas where you only have to worry about tornados, not about capsizing

Agreed about offshore passage, etc., but not the part about atheists in foxholes. There are plenty. Please see: Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers

I myself have been in survival conditions and never once found time (or inclination) to appeal to a non-existent cosmic muffin.

But then, I'm just one data point in a vast ocean.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by sneuman

But in the Fastnet disaster, as I recall, the IOR-influenced boats themselves came in for plenty of criticism in the post mortem, leading to a major reassessment of many of those designs.

The skipper and crew matter, but so do the boat.

If I recall right, there was also some issue with the organizers not realizing / not informing / etc.. So we have the human factor to quite an extensive degree: some people sent some other people racing, some racing people pushing their boats hard in what became survival conditions, etc..

The same designs, sailed with full awareness of what the wx was about to become, in non-racing mod, might actually have fared way better.

Later there was much hum about the faults found in the designs, much less hum about the faults found in people sailing them (as well as in those onshore who organized the races).

b.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

If I recall right, there was also some issue with the organizers not realizing / not informing / etc.. So we have the human factor to quite an extensive degree: some people sent some other people racing, some racing people pushing their boats hard in what became survival conditions, etc..

The same designs, sailed with full awareness of what the wx was about to become, in non-racing mod, might actually have fared way better.

Later there was much hum about the faults found in the designs, much less hum about the faults found in people sailing them (as well as in those onshore who organized the races).

b.

I know what you're saying. There was also some "hum" about crews prematurely abandoning their still-floating yachts. I'm just pointing out that design does make a difference -- we can all think of boats we would not cross oceans in.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by carstenb

(...) Assuming good seamanship, meaning you have reefed completely (bare poles?) and you have run out warps or a drogue or a sea anchor, there is little else you can do but hunker down and wait. (...)

That's how you get bashed and rolled - by assuming there is little else one can do.

People 'hunker down and wait'. For a capsize.

Wrong!

9/10 a boat with bare poles, drogues and with her crew hunkered down and waiting will fare worse than the same boat with some sail up, beating, or running, with her crew in control.

b.

[Don L]

figured I would find out how this subject had managed to get to 4 pages

I have come to believe a lot of the ratios and formulas don't really work much anymore with modern designs and lots are questionable as whether they "worked" way back when someone dreamed them up. When I got my current boat I just decided that I DIDN'T know more than the designers.

Far as boat numbers go I believe all you can believe is length, displacement and sail area. After than its' like statistics and you can spin a story anyway that meets your needs.

If I even have to start thinking about my capsize ratio I figure I have real things to be thinking about at the time, like dying!

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I know what you're saying. There was also some "hum" about crews prematurely abandoning their still-floating yachts. I'm just pointing out that design does make a difference -- we can all think of boats we would not cross oceans in.

Yep. There are some poorly designed/built boats around. Many of them are great in the marina or on the harbour cruise but they are far from the minimum-optimum tool for an offshore passage.

I sometimes find pictures of such designs beached and start wondering where their keels are and how a boat sailed onto a sandy beach can sustain the extension of damage visible in the pictures.

I always hope no designer will go into the alleys found blind by Fastnet and Hobart investigations. Now and then, I find my hopes are just wishful thinking.

b.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

9/10 a boat with bare poles, drogues and with her crew hunkered down and waiting will fare worse than the same boat with some sail up, beating, or running, with her crew in control.

b.

Right on +1

Dave

[Randyonr3]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

That's how you get bashed and rolled - by assuming there is little else one can do.

People 'hunker down and wait'. For a capsize.

Wrong!

9/10 a boat with bare poles, drogues and with her crew hunkered down and waiting will fare worse than the same boat with some sail up, beating, or running, with her crew in control.

b.

Now "B" , you've opened a new can of worms... what is the difference in "CAPSIZE" between a boat setting and waiting and a boat taking positive action and moving forward..
would be interesting to find out............