Perceived versus actual seaworthy-ness

[jimbunyard]

Am actually curious about others thoughts on this, how seaworthy-ness should be defined and understood, but was unsure if it would not evolve (devolve?) into something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

as seems to be the trend.....

What actually constitutes an acceptable safety factor? Whose is the responsibility in setting it? And making sure it's adhered to?

It seems to me that, in an environment as dynamic as the ocean surface, just because boat X did something, it seems foolhardy at best to assume that all, or even most, boat X's are equally capable (or lucky).

Regarding mass production boats, logically speaking, the qualifying criteria should not be the best that they've been or done, but the worst, precisely because they're mass produced, and one can't destructively test every unit (or there'd be none to sell).

I realize there're no hard and fast answers, but if we start with definitions, then perhaps we can make better decisions in our compromises.

[mikeguyver]

I fail to see any connection between mass production and sea worthiness. Logical thinking would tilt the scales heavily in favor of mass produced units simply because of the collective safe miles under their hulls. There are one-offs and over priced boats out there that are minimally sea worthy also. The owners ego does not make his boat sea worthy.

[Delancey]

Safe? Safe from what? A tsunami? Getting run over by a trawler? Fire resistance? Safe for sailing through an ice choked northwest passage? Safe from getting salmonella from an egg salad sandwich left in the cooler? Safe to go out after work for a couple of beers and to watch the sunset?

Seems like you have to define the risks first.

[La Porte Rouge]

Very interesting concept, and something that would be very valuable when choosing a boat. That being said, it seems that at best the most we could hope for would be some type of engineering evaluation, and due to the enormous number of variables involved I doubt that there is much hope that a comprehensive evaluation system could be developed, although there certainly are many calculations that can be made to give an indication of supposed seaworthiness. Add to that the assumption that such engineering evaluations would have to apply to new vessels, and many of us are considering boats that are 10, 20, 30 years old, and even older, who is going to know how an evaluation of a boat produced today is going to relate to one by the same manufacturer that was produced, say, 20 years ago.
I support your thought process, and agree that this type of information would be very valuable. Don't know if its something that can happen though.

[zeehag]

lets conduct a poll......
a poll will determine absolute seaworthiness without any doubt or debate.

rodlmffao

[sailorboy1]

There already are design numbers etc, but it doesn't change anyone's thoughts as to "debate"


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Delancey]

Per Merriam-Webster - Seaworthy : fit or safe for a sea voyage.

[Suijin]

There's no way to measure it because there are a lot of different dimensions to seaworthiness, and everyone weighs those dimensions differently

There is design, and we know that many people prefer a fast hull over a comfortable hull for seaworthiness. And there are dozens of design parameters to consider, some of which are considered by some to be important to seaworthiness and others by others.

There is build robustness, and there are plenty of people who believe a lighter, faster boat is fundamentally safer. Again, lots of parameters. Hull thickness? Backstays? Type of vang? Goes on and on.

There is build quality. There are lots of folks with mass production boats who believe that the build quality of their boat is more than adequate for blue water work, and some of them may be right.

You'll never get anything close to consensus on this for the simple fact that there are two many different measures.

[Larry T.]

Do ya think the yahoo in charge of the boat has any effect on seaworthynesss?? Just wondering

[contrail]

And there are lots of folks who weigh in on such topics with little other than theory or other people's opinions which they take as Gospel. When I bought my 1980 Hunter 33 in 1982 (still have it, as a matter of fact, and they were very different from the modern ones), I found myself the subject of some condescension, scorn even. After awhile, I noted that I was usually out sailing while the others were working on their boats. Mine was not what you would call a cruiser designed for Blue Water but after a very careful survey, pounding around for six years on SF Bay breaking things and beefing them up, and extensively outfitting and upgrading her, I wound up with about 20,000 singlehanded offshore miles on her and she was a very faithful good performer. I lived aboard that boat for 18 years, too, so I think I could say I got to know her. I was about to take her across the South Pacific, when some life circumstances changed, and I had plenty of confidence in the boat.

Ten years ago, I bought a Leopard 45 and started a crewed charter business. She was a Moorings Crewed yacht, and has now done a total of 14 years of heavy charter. She was sailed here to the BVI from SA on her own bottom, has been up and down the islands on a number of occasions and to the Chesapeake and back twice, most of this on my watch. I have lived aboard since I got her. But, I can remember many comments about Leopards, whether they pound too much, balsa cores are bad, cats can flip, etc. etc. etc. Yes, that includes published "experts" and famed brokers.

Before I bought her, I found that almost every Leopard had been delivered from Cape Town to the various Moorings charter bases around the world, on their own bottoms. Deliveries, by their nature, are tough, have to conform to schedules, and take place at all times of the year, including hurricane seasons. This truly empirical evidence weighed very, very strongly on my decision. Although the latest Leopards are now mostly delivered on ships, the older ones racked up over 5 million delivery miles, without losing a single one.

I know of only one person who has spent more time on a Leopard 45 or 47 and I can only chuckle when someone (still!) tells me what my boat can or cannot do.

Not every design gets tested in this way, but quite a few of the larger ones used in charter fleets have been, and they are all production boats. I submit this sort of record, whether it is good (often) or bad (sometimes) does tell you something much more valuable than all the armchair theories and posturing.

Cheers,
Tim
S/V Jet Stream

[ssanzone]

Originally Posted by zeehag

rodlmffao

What is this acronym for?

rolling on dirt laughing my fantastically famous ass off?

rolling on deck laughing my favorite farm animal off?

rolling on dingo [ate my baby] lounging mostly from fatigue almost offended?

::shakes fist:: you kids and your high tech lingo.

-steve

[EveningTide]

How seaworthy-ness should be defined and understood- if this is the question I would like to post a paragraph that was written by Olin J. Stephens II. This is from "Heavy Weather Sailing- 30th Anniversary Addition." This designer had 80 years of experience with mono-hulls and he wasn't stuck in the past either. He concludes his chapter with this paragraph. (Published in 1999)

"When I think of the boat in which I should be happiest in meeting heavy weather I visualize one that is moderate in every way, but as strong as possible. I should avoid extremes of beam to depth or depth to beam, either very light or very heavy displacement, or a very high rig. I should like the ends to be bouyant, but neither very sharp nor full, and neither long nor chopped right off. Though I have stressed resistance to capsize, in my own seagoing experience I have never been worried on that score, but I have occasionally been concerned about leaks or the strength of the hull or rig. In the final analysis, I recommend moderate proportions and lots of strength."

Of course "surviving heavy weather" isn't necessarily the only factor in "seaworthy-ness".

[Mike OReilly]

The answer to this question surely must include which "sea" you're seeking to "worthy" of dealing with. It's obviously impossible to build an unsinkable boat that can handle anything Neptune can conjure. But it is equally obvious that it is possible to build reasonably sound vessels to handle their intended uses.

So the simple answer is that a vessel is seaworthy if it is designed and built to meet its intended uses. A boat intended to cruise the Great Lakes or the Bahamas is probably not the boat you want when rounding the Horn. A boat designed to manage the Northwest Passage is probably a poor choice for the ICW.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So the simple answer is that a vessel is seaworthy if it is designed and built to meet its intended uses. A boat intended to cruise the Great Lakes or the Bahamas is probably not the boat you want when rounding the Horn. A boat designed to manage the Northwest Passage is probably a poor choice for the ICW.


Why go fast, when you can go slow

Almost since the Wright brothers first flew what is Airworthy has been argued forever, and the FAA places GREAT store in that word.
In simple terms, what Mike posted makes the most sense and is closest to what the FAA definition is for Airworthy and I see no difference. Planes crash, boats sink. Neither can pull over and wait for the Auto club.

[Cheechako]

maybe more or less sea worthy can be broken into parts:
1) Construction less likely to fail under stress
2) having motion and sailing characteristics that survive well in severe weather.


One can move on from there, like:
How well does a spade rudder survive a boat being thrown on it's beam ends vs a fully supported rudder?
How well does a short fin keel heave to in rough weather?
Is the keel an integral part of the hull or bolted on? Can a bolt can fail even though it may not, Does an integral keel distribute loading stress over a wider area?
Any boat could be seaworthy, but based on logic, intuition and past experience which is MORE seaworthy? ( a bald tire could get you to a 1000 mile destination, do you think a new one would be better?)