Stanley Paris Calls it Quits

[goboatingnow]

Sorry some guy spending $millions on a personal toy is described as left wing.

I think I'm beginning to realise Americans have no understanding of left or right wing.

Dave

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

He might be a tree huger but he swam the English Channel when he was 70...you feel up to it??

He obviously trained hard to prepare for swimming the Channel and deserves credit for both properly preparing and doing what it took to achieve that goal. Hats off to him for that!

But in this case, he spent more than 10 times the boat budget of most of the (successful) 70 something sailors I know and he failed to properly prepare and work the kinks out of both his boat and the way he interacts with it, and after all that he didn't even come close to achieving his stated goal.

Just as I wouldn't find it particularly admirable for some old codger, who was only an occasional recreational swimmer, to spend 10+ times what most successful distance swimmers spend on equipment and then, with much self generated hoopla, set out to swim across the English Channel but only make it a few hundred yards offshore before retiring, I just can't get too worked up about yet another eccentric millionaire throwing several millions of dollars at high tech equipment to not achieve this sailing goal.

Even if he'd made it around, what would he really have accomplished that so many before him, starting with Slocum, haven't already done? The no hydrocarbons hype was just plain silly, given the energy used to create a new high tech boat like Kiwi Spirit. I wish the doctor well as he attempts to reach shore safely and then hopefully enjoys getting to really know his beautiful new toy and working out the kinks as he cruises into the sunset.

[robert sailor]

Who knows just how well he may have been prepared, only he knows for sure. Lots of new stuff he was relying on and maybe **** just happened or maybe you are right and he wasn't prepared. I tend to give doers lots of slack because, well..they are doers.

Seafrontiersman ...How dare you take a poke at my favorite funny guy George Carlin, that boy is a class act..none much better!

[Seagull111]

The old goat has made it further in his boat than I ever will in mine and he quit for the right reason, " not having fun anymore".

[steamgoat]

From his latest blog,boat will be back in Maine around May, possibly to try again next November !

[Cap Erict3]

Looks like Stanley has 100km to Cape Town. Best wishes.

[Andrew Troup]

As regards the damage to the boom, here's what Mr Paris wrote at the time:

Dec 27 (2013)
Accidental Gybe

One of the worst events on a sailboat is known as an accidental gybe. This is where in the boat, sailing nearly downwind with sails including the main and its supporting boom out to the one side, gets hit by a wind shift, causing failure of the helmsman or the autopilot to be able to maintain a course.

This may "accidentally" turn the boat such, as so the wind now comes on the other side of the main and it’s boom, resulting in the boom slamming across with great velocity, and often potentially causing considerable damage. Well, it happened a day or so ago, and here is how.

I was below and up forward when I suddenly became aware that the wind was picking up and we were changing course. As I started back to the cockpit to get to the controls and helm, I realized a squall had hit with intense winds. The boat heeled over to at least 45 degrees, instead of its usual 20 degrees. By this time, I was mid-ship in the galley, and struggling with the boat’s speed and angle.

Getting to the cockpit, I saw the wind in the squall had hit 35 knots (38 mph), the rain was pelting down and the autopilot was beeping, indicating it had lost control. As I got to the helm to take over, the boat gybed - I was too late.

The boat spun into a new course. The wind backed the main and the boom came crashing over. As it did so the strap that holds the sheets that control the main sail gave way. The detached block became a missile and struck me on my right, lower back with such a forced my knees buckled.

The boom now swung wildly and with great force, slamming up against the shrouds - the rods that hold the mast in place.

I regained control of the helm and steered a calmer course while plotting what to do next. Over the next two hours, I managed via a line at the end of the boom known as a preventer, to bring the boom back, reattach the sheets, and then get back on course.

The only other collateral damage is that one of the plastic rods that help give the sail its shape, known as a batten, had broken when it hit the shrouds and slid out of its pocket into the sea.

The above is the reason why I have not yet slept in my cot berth below decks. Because of the frequency of squalls, as many as a dozen a day in this inter-tropical convergence zone off the north coast of Brazil, I have chosen instead to sleep in the cockpit just six feet from the helm.

- - - -

Having now read most of his blogs, there are some lessons from his attempt, I think, and I suppose the nearest I'll come to throwing stones at someone I've never even met is that I'm a bit surprised that they mostly seem to be news to Mr Paris.

1) The physical and technical difficulties of sailing big boats single handed cannot (it seems to me) be extrapolated from the difficulties we're all familiar with, which increase as the number of crew decreases.

Sailing alone is an entirely different game; the same gear and techniques are generally inapplicable.

For example, think of a coffee-grinder winch. A major benefit, when there's more than one person, is that the guy grinding isn't in the way of the guy getting the sheet onto the drum.
This asset turns to a liability as soon as you no longer have more than one person, and it's particularly problematic when the pedestal is some distance from the drum (as appears to be the case here).

Winches need to be in strange places for single-handing big boats, like the foredeck, or at the very least, the mast ... and you need to be able to re-lead lines to any winch. You can't be forever rushing back to the cockpit to ease the sheet, then back to the foredeck to crank another turn on a furler whose line has become detached (as in another incident from this aborted trip)

At the very least, you need large ('Panama Canal'-rated) deck cleats everywhere, particularly around the foredeck, so that in such a situation you can re-lead the sheet or whatever (having using prusiks or similar while you reassign the control station) to be able to ease it from where you're working.

2) The previous point increases exponentially with increasing size and power of the boat, particularly the rig.

The zone of operation of the mainsheet and traveller is known as the "death zone" on big boats with good reason. It seems to me unfortunate that it was located next to where Mr Paris needed to be to take control in a squall.

It is also surprising to me that he was so surprised that the sail chose that moment to gybe, in the situation he describes. Apart from the usual cues, there's this: even with a preventer, unless the wind flicks to a new direction with a ferocity which is almost unheard of offshore, there are generally several tell-tale upwards movements of the boom in the moments before a gybe. Often you can feel this, even lying down below, when you are 'dialed in' with the boat (as you need to be). It gives a useful sliver of time to adopt the fetal position!

3) If you intend to use technology to make up the gap between your physical abilities and the demands of the rig, you need that tech to be highly reliable, offer multiple well-thought out layers of redundancy, be and exceedingly smart. And you need to be even "smarter" than the tech is.

And in this specific instance, I have a strong hunch that last item requires something more than just the dynamic duo of intelligence and income.

I suspect it takes a combination of being naturally endowed with rare gifts and having "paid your dues" - the latter preferably by having sailed solo for a long time, progressively increasing the challenge from a manageable level - eg increasing size and power of the boat, and/or difficulties of the sailing waters.

And the resulting input to the boat's character and layout cannot be delegated to designers and riggers who have never gybed a big boat unaided in a southern ocean gale, and never will.

And even if they had, that does not give them to understand just what YOU bring to the table, which is an essential consideration.

3) The psychological difficulties of solo sailing are considerable. For most people, it seems to me that doing it under close public scrutiny (mostly by a public ill-equipped to understand the nature of the specific challenges) can only multiply those difficulties.

Having a big, strong boat is a double-edged sword, which at any moment can turn from conferring theoretical security to posing practical (and often seeming insurmountable) difficulties.

4) Having fun was mentioned as one of the 'not happening' considerations in withdrawing.
Having clicked on the video

"Kiwi Spirit" and Dr. Stanley Paris 11/20/2012 - YouTube

which seems to show a sailing trial in progress on Kiwi Spirit, I have to confess couldn't bear to keep watching.
It seemed somehow as if all the fun had been sucked out of everyone.
I have no idea what it was about, but it was one of the most joyless things I've witnessed on a boat, the last thing I'd expect when someone was trying out a wonderful new vessel.

5) One characteristic of successful single handers is the way they learn from their mistakes. Often they feel grateful for those who went before, who publicly "fessed up" and allowed other people to learn (more easily) lessons they'd learned hard. This takes humility.

- - - - - -

I don't know whether it's partly the rise of sponsorship, and the domination of competition, but we seem to be losing much of the confessional aspect of solo sailing.

It strikes me that there is generally little to be learned from the published accounts these days, except by reading between the lines, and this is both difficult and risky.

I hope that in doing so, in respect of Mr Paris, I am not doing him injustice.

I feel pretty squeamish reading what I've written, seems I'm flirting with "kicking a man when he's down" and what's more, unable to respond.
I was brought up to err on the side of saying nothing if I had nothing good to say (lacking extreme provocation, which is certainly absent here), so I hereby refrain from trying to draw any more lessons, and I'm sorry if anything I've written is inaccurate or unfair.

[SkiprJohn]

Originally Posted by DDabs

Funny everyone on this forum is talking about their cars. Doesn't anyone own a bicycle? I guess I'm just fortunate enough to have lived in a city where I biked to work, biked to the bar, etc. I plan on bringing my bike with on board when I go cruising.

Just an observation here but as a long time bicyclist, biking to the bar was ok but the return trip was a bit of a hazard.

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don't believe that either,
Same is said for our Prius, people say that they don't save energy and that's just nonsense. For the 120,000 miles we've had it so far it has averaged 54 MPG. That means it's burned 2,222 gl.
Average SUV that gets 15 MPG would have burned 8,000 gl. That's an almost 6,000 gl difference. Prius doesn't save energy? That's nonsense.

I don't mean to jump in here late with this, and I didn't read it all to see if someone pointed this out. But the "average" SUV is many times better for the environment than a Prius.

The Prius uses a battery pack that requires strip mining of the earth (mostly in Canada) to gather the metals required to make that battery, the raw materials are then shipped to China to be refined and made into battery components, the components are shipped to Japan for assembly and the car is then shipped to the United States for sale.

A brand new 0 miles Prius has been worse for the environment than a Ford Bronco with no catalytic converter with hundreds of thousands of miles.


I hope this sheds some light on what is good for the environment, and the perception given by marketing propaganda.

Buy a 2001 Jetta TDI that gets 75mpg that is what you could do to be better for the environment if you must have an efficient "green" car.

/end of rant

Bohemian

[DDabs]

75 mpg from a TDI, yeah good luck with that.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by DDabs

75 mpg from a TDI, yeah good luck with that.

Has been done regularly. ( BMW, vW etc )

Dave

[nimblemotors]

Yes, someone did point it out the cost to build cars, and cited a National Government Lab that did exhaustive and extensive analysis and produced published reports that show you are completely wrong. Not only does a SUV consume more energy to use, it takes more energy to make one.

Originally Posted by Bohemian

I don't mean to jump in here late with this, and I didn't read it all to see if someone pointed this out. But the "average" SUV is many times better for the environment than a Prius.

The Prius uses a battery pack that requires strip mining of the earth (mostly in Canada) to gather the metals required to make that battery, the raw materials are then shipped to China to be refined and made into battery components, the components are shipped to Japan for assembly and the car is then shipped to the United States for sale.

A brand new 0 miles Prius has been worse for the environment than a Ford Bronco with no catalytic converter with hundreds of thousands of miles.


I hope this sheds some light on what is good for the environment, and the perception given by marketing propaganda.

Buy a 2001 Jetta TDI that gets 75mpg that is what you could do to be better for the environment if you must have an efficient "green" car.

/end of rant

Bohemian

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

Yes, someone did point it out the cost to build cars, and cited a National Government Lab that did exhaustive and extensive analysis and produced published reports that show you are completely wrong. Not only does a SUV consume more energy to use, it takes more energy to make one.

Which national government lab?

I like to look at data with my own eyes and not take someone with access to lobbyist influence.

I find it very hard to believe that a few extra hundred pounds of sheet metal makes an SUV worse for the environment than a car with a few hundred pounds of strip mined lithium.

This is my .02 I could be wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I might be on to something here.

[CarinaPDX]

I'd like to see that citation too. Provide link please.

At any rate the fair comparison would be between a conventional SUV and a hybrid SUV -comparing an SUV with a Prius is apples to oranges.

Greg

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Bohemian

I don't mean to jump in here late with this, and I didn't read it all to see if someone pointed this out. But the "average" SUV is many times better for the environment than a Prius.

The Prius uses a battery pack that requires strip mining of the earth (mostly in Canada) to gather the metals required to make that battery, the raw materials are then shipped to China to be refined and made into battery components, the components are shipped to Japan for assembly and the car is then shipped to the United States for sale.

A brand new 0 miles Prius has been worse for the environment than a Ford Bronco with no catalytic converter with hundreds of thousands of miles.


I hope this sheds some light on what is good for the environment, and the perception given by marketing propaganda.

Buy a 2001 Jetta TDI that gets 75mpg that is what you could do to be better for the environment if you must have an efficient "green" car.

/end of rant

Bohemian

I drive a 71 Bronco with no converter..A lady down the road has a Prius,I cant wait for her to say something..lol