Jordan Series Drogue vs Paratech Sea Anchor

[SaltyMonkey]

Yes, but I'd only be tacking around. That's why I asked.

Not sure what would be good for a finner at this point. I just don't believe a sea anchor would make an effective technique with a finner. Someone change my mind? Maybe there is no other choice though? Running downwind DOES take skill and concentration as I said earlier and why I would avoid it, but for a finner that may be the only course you have. I still think slowing a finner to "unsteerable" speeds with a series is crazy talk. So what do we have? Nothing? Ok, yes speaking of "SURVIVAL IN EXTREME CONDITIONS"

[Jim Cate]

SM and Conrad --

REading your posts above leads me to ask if you have any idea of the level of experience that Evans (and Beth) bring to their opinions. In brief, they have far more high latitude miles under their keels than Lin and Larry do, and very many of them in a modern, medium displacement fin keel boat.

Evans did recommend that folks read their detailed exposition on seamanship presented in their (very valuable) website. In this work they explain their (successful) means of heavy weather survival, and the details of WHY they have chosen these means.

SM, to say that you "dont believe their experience" is kinda silly. Think about it, mate...

Jim

[SaltyMonkey]

Jim - their experience is in LARGE boats. Expensive boat$. Not in SaltyMonkey level grit and toil and woe is me kinda boats.

L+L are closer to my speed and size.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

Jim - their experience is in LARGE boats. Expensive boat$. Not in SaltyMonkey level grit and toil and woe is me kinda boats.

L+L are closer to my speed and size.

Just so you know . . . L&L's boat is not actually that small - 29' on the waterline, 740 sq ft sail area, 18,000lbs cruising displacement - all almost exactly the same as our 37'er . . . it's just that she has almost no overhangs, so they say she is 'small on deck' (but the LOA is actually +40').

As to the slick . . . wonderful in a gale . . . a trivial irrelevant aspect in monster breaking waves.

In a historical sailing context, I consider "Slocum and Voss" modern, and they certainly don't support the 'used successfully for centuries' selling point. In the Slocum to Hiscock era, lying a-hull was commonly considered a proper and accepted technique. When we were down around the horn we read many of the original logs from Cook to the square rigs to the clipper ships. When trying to go from east to west, they would keep going west as long as the ship could stand it but in the end they would turn and run when the ship could not stand the westerly storm any more. I don't remember any that hove-to or tried any sort of 'para-anchor' . . . perhaps I missed a case or two but of those ships with cotton sails, the sails would blow out and usually could not stand the pressures required to heave-to in storm force winds. I don't know much about the wooden coastal fishing vessel . . but I suspect they would heave-to in simple gales to hold position over the fishing grounds, and they are coastal so running may be a problem in many cases anyway.

Just remember . . . we do carry a para-anchor. But for us it's just one of many tools, and it happens to not be our first choice for most storm situations, its one we would only use in a narow range of situtions.

Guy's, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. And I don't really care if you 'believe my experience' or not. My basic original point was that NONE of our extremely experienced cruising friends (and I mean people with MUCH more storm and high latitude experience than L&L) are convinced by the Pardey technique and none use it (and as I have commented the Pardey's themselves have not used this technique much in real storms). None of our friends make much a point of it (except John Neal and Hal) because the Pardey's are the Pardeys and we all respect what they have done. But I personally think that's a shame think it's a valuable point of information which the cruising community should know. If you want to dismiss this lack of acceptance by so many experienced folks that's fine . . . you have at least heard the facts. It's your decision and your boat, and one of the things that's so great about cruising is you can pretty do as you please.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Just so you know . . . L&L's boat is not actually that small - 29' on the waterline, 740 sq ft sail area, 18,000lbs cruising displacement - all almost exactly the same as our 37'er . . . it's just that she has almost no overhangs, so they say she is 'small on deck' (but the LOA is actually +40').

How is she 40+ feet if she doesn't have overhangs? Are you counting that massive sprit which even Lyle didn't want on there? It was an effort to keep the mast lower. We're talking Taleisin correct?

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...When we were down around the horn we read many of the original logs from Cook to the square rigs to the clipper ships. When trying to go from east to west, they would keep going west as long as the ship could stand it but in the end they would turn and run when the ship could not stand the westerly storm any more.

This would align to why Bligh, after a month, tailed and headed east to Tahiti instead. But, I have not read those logs.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Just remember . . . we do carry a para-anchor. But for us it's just one of many tools, and it happens to not be our first choice for most storm situations, its one we would only use in a narow range of situtions.

I don't know how that would do you all good anyway, at that size a ship the stresses must be magnified significantly.

[TEE]

This seems to be a hot topic. I own Galerider and Jordan Series Drogues, and a Fiorentino Sea Anchor. There are a lot of opinions out there and there are several comments made that I agree with. First, a Sea Anchor is intended to stop the boat and should always be rigged off the bow. Second, a drogue is intended to slow the boat and should be rigged from the stern.

A Galerider drogue is rigged off of the stern and slows the boat so it can be steered effectively. The JSD drogue is rigged off of starboard and port attachment points at the most aft portion of the transom and takes over the steering function.

Sea Anchors place additional loads on the rudder of a boat because as the boat is held by the bow, large waves will strike the boat and tend to push the boat backward in a surging motion. Everyone knows that rudders are most vulnerable when a boat is moving backwards. If the boat surges backwards and the rudder breaks from its midship position, it can simply snap off. On the other hand, when a drogue is used, the boat is moving with the seas in a forward motion and less stress is placed on the rudder. Also, since a boat is moving forward with seas when a drogue is used, less stress is placed on deck attachment points than with a sea anchor.

The designer of the JSD noted the attachment points for the JSD are critical and may be subjected to extraordinary loading if a breaking wave hits the stern. Therefore, he said the best attachments are very heavy stainless steel straps that are bolted through the hull with multiple bolts at the port and starboard.

There is a coast guard report that explains some of the stuff, and you can read it on line at http://www.jordanseriesdrogue.com/pd...uardreport.pdf

I think in a survival situation, the JSD is more likely to pull a boat through for the reason that apparent wind and stresses are on the average lower for a boat moving with the wind and seas.

Of course, there are those who swear by other methods, and if they survived a bad storm, nobody can say they are wrong. But the truth is all boats are different, and they all act differently in stormy seas. What works for one boat might not work for another. Surviving a storm is part yacht construction, preparation for the worst, seamanship in general, and a whole lot of luck, specifically. If there is a breaking wave that is twice the width of your beam, and it has your name on it, and if it hits your boat in the wrong direction, it probably won't make much difference what you are doing to manage the storm.

[SaltyMonkey]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by TEE

Sea Anchors place additional loads on the rudder of a boat because as the boat is held by the bow, large waves will strike the boat and tend to push the boat backward in a surging motion. Everyone knows that rudders are most vulnerable when a boat is moving backwards. If the boat surges backwards and the rudder breaks from its midship position, it can simply snap off.

But in a L+L configuration, the boat is 50 deg off center and forces are distributed between aft and forward. This is a semi lying ahull. I don't believe the forces are as strong.

Moreover, I believe with a wineglass shape or a skeg to keel connection, those forces are not as vulnerable. A spade or a stand alone skeg would not be advisable.

As mentioned before, some believe that stand alone skegs are more dangerous than spades because skegs can break off and leave a man hole.

Originally Posted by TEE

There is a coast guard report that explains some of the stuff, and you can read it on line at http://www.jordanseriesdrogue.com/pd...uardreport.pdf

I know this report and I think it is rather out of date (1987) since it doesn't take into consideration those light spade/fins that became more prevalent in the 90's through 2000's.

[smackdaddy]

In all the research I've done, I've become convinced (reluctantly) that the JSD is a very, very good HWS solution. However, I'm not yet convinced that rudder damage is not possible with the JSD - due to breaker strike (as opposed to the para-anchor setup where the breaker strikes the bow)

Watch this video of Falcon GT in the SO. Watch the very end of the video when a following sea smacks the stern. This boat is sailing...what...maybe 10 knots? Imagine being held to these seas at 1 knot.

One thing I'd love to know...was there any "backward" force on the rudder when that thing hit?

YouTube - Stu at the helm of Falcon GT on stormy Southern Ocean Seas

!

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by toelpel

I am preparing for transatlantic cruise and would like to get some comments on the subject above. Thank you

First and only post.

We've been feeding a troll.

[dana-tenacity]

Smackdaddy - When steering in conditions like that I never noticed any "back pressure" on the rudder. When I stopped steering and went below with the drogue deployed I was able to have a cup of tea and go to sleep, When I awoke conditions had improved and there was no damage (rudder locked). I can think of several occasions where this was true.
Maybe because the rudder is in deeper water, who knows?

[smackdaddy]

Wow, thanks dana! I've posed this questions in several forums and yours is the first experienced-based answer I've gotten.

I did get some great answers on the dynamics of waves that would explain the lack of rudder damage. To your point, it is not, for the most part, exposed to the breaking water which is the only water that is actually "moving" from what I understand. So it is protected under the surface.

Again, thanks. Anything that let's me go down below and have a cup of tea and a bit of a nap in an F11 is just the thing for me!

Originally Posted by dana-tenacity

Smackdaddy - When steering in conditions like that I never noticed any "back pressure" on the rudder. When I stopped steering and went below with the drogue deployed I was able to have a cup of tea and go to sleep, When I awoke conditions had improved and there was no damage (rudder locked). I can think of several occasions where this was true.
Maybe because the rudder is in deeper water, who knows?

[dana-tenacity]

Actually another thing I just remembered was that when the water was highly aerated (read inside a breaking crest), the boat sat much lower in the water, as in the waterline was at the toerail. WHich I guess would put the rudder much deeper than normal , and into "solid" water.

[xxuxx]

Originally Posted by dana-tenacity

Actually another thing I just remembered was that when the water was highly aerated (read inside a breaking crest), the boat sat much lower in the water, as in the waterline was at the toerail. WHich I guess would put the rudder much deeper than normal , and into "solid" water.

As a surfer and a sailor, this is a great point! It also is the reason some sailing ships have sunk in the ocean, due to the aerated water from gases escaping from the ocean floor. The aerated water just can't support the boats displacement, hence, sinking!

[smackdaddy]

Actually, not so much xx:

DRILL VESSELS FLOAT IN AERATED WATER

[xxuxx]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Actually, not so much xx:

DRILL VESSELS FLOAT IN AERATED WATER

2 Things. This abstract, my pet, was written in 1985 and things have changed. Secondly, it was written by a former professor of my roomate. She attended Aberdeen University, PH D Geology. Thats Aberdeen Scotland. The theory was debunked years ago. Next time, be sure of your facts before you start mouthing off, Smack