Just When You Think You're Safe . . . CRASH !

[Mr B]

[QUOTE=Armagh;837124]

Originally Posted by Mr B

edit

A navel Architect has to redesign the Hulls and then it has to be stiffened with ribs and stringers, which it doesn't have now,

edit
/QUOTE]

Mr B
interested to read your post. I may be overly suspicious but much of what you are being told, particularly the bit I quoted, can be construed as setting you up. They seem to be telling you that Gemini's are hopeless junk. I'm not sure they are that bad, and they may in fact be of adequate strength. I'd be getting 'second opinions' as it looks to me like someone wants a load of work out of this. The way its heading it will be written off, someone will get a bargain from the insurance company and repair it, perhaps quite well, for a modest amount and then make a killing on re-sale. Keep you eyes wide open.... Maybe they are all honest, but cant hurt to verify.

The insurance company is handling it, From what the insurance company told me. it will be repaired, but the assessor thinks it may be a write off. He is the one that is saying it will have to be rebuilt to Aussie standards,
Its the insurance company who are paying for it.

They were the insurers for the previous owner, so they do know what it is worth here,
I paid $150-000 for it, but it is worth nearly $300-000 here. and it is optioned to the max.
They know I was going to get it revalued and reinsured in Australia for the higher amount.
Its all hypothetical at the moment,
I will just have to wait the 3 weeks or so till they get the quotes to fix it,
Then I will know for certain.


Gemini's are not pieces of junk, Not once did I feel unsafe at any time in it,

They are a very nice, comfortable, safe and seaworthy vessel,
And I did come through some horrific weather before I got it here,

Waves above the top spreader and I was sitting on top of the waves at 7 knots. 12 metre mast. I was gone twice, but thats another story.

I had 5 metre waves on the nose for about 8 hours, A horrendous chop and southbound current running at 4 knots, and the very nasty wave action where the sea floor goes from 600 feet to 300 feet and then again when it goes from 300 feet to 180 feet, coming into the inlet at Forster at 2-30 in the morning, against an outflowing rapid tide,
Thank you Don from the Forster Marine Rescue Service. who guided me in.

Park any boat on the rocks in a storm, and you will very quickly have just bits and pieces left.

I do see your point tho.
And they do know that I will fix it myself, if they do write it off,
I do have the skills to do it, and the insurance company know what my skills are, as I told them. Shipwright and Practising Engineer are just two of them.

All the Electricals, I can get from China at a fraction of the cost the insurance Company will have to pay for them.
And the Chinese do make good gear, even if they are well known for their cheap crap.

Chinese pure sine wave inverter, 10,000 Watt, 12 volt DC, 240 volt AC 100% duty cycle,
Needs 400 amp hour house batterys. $500-00 AUD
Chinese Charge controller, $150-00 AUD,

Chinese Bilge pumps, 12 Volt, 1100 GPH, 12 metre head, $50-00 AUD each. four of these or a bit bigger will be purchased and hard wired in permanently when I get my boat back.
And the same size as the ones already in it.

My pumps were a serious let down, They dont pump enough water quickly enough,
In a serious moment when you need them to pump a lot of water quickly.

The Broker just rang me to find out if they could do any thing to help me or needed any thing and if I we were allright,

The Broker and the insurance Company have been marvellous, On the ball and exceptionally fast in getting everything happening as quickly as possible,
I am more than impressed with them,

I cant Recommend them more highly,

I dont know if I am allowed to on here, But they need to be known.

PSC Coastwide Insurance Brokers in Bundall Qld, Australia,

Trident Marine Insurance, Mt Hawthorn, Perth, Australia,

Both have been absolutely marvellous, Amazing, Tops, Definately thumbs up,

And yes, Both my anchors are crap and I hate both of them,

You do need anchors that you can rely on. You must sleep some time, Even in the daytime,

[Morrissey]

Good extra info. Seems you are on top of things which is good to hear.

Yes, rocks are tough. Not many boats will get a second life after hitting them. I've seen a couple incidents as people have tried to round either North Stradbroke Island or Moreton Island by autopilot while having a cup of tea below, forgetting that clearing the headland itself isn't enough. A yacht on Flat Rock and trawler on Flinders Reef respectively.

I was just completely stumped by the idea that your hulls have to be stiffened with ribs and stringers. There are lots of Gemini's around, and I believe them to be generally well regarded other than some criticism of bridgedeck clearance - overloaded? So the implication that the whole hull needed stiffening seems really strange. But I might have misunderstood - perhaps they mean just stiffening locally to support the repaired sections?

Hope you get enough flexibility in the payout/claim settlement to do part of the repair yourself as that's probably the best outcome all-round.

Previously I implied that there might be some connivance or scam involved. That was a bit OTT. Its easy to end up with the same outcome by having the assessor, NA, repairers all be a bit conservative (don't want any come-back against their reputation). A few bits of conservatism/safety margin built in, compounded by others doing similar, all understandable, and you end up with something over-engineered, heavy and much more costly than necessary.

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by Armagh

Good extra info. Seems you are on top of things which is good to hear.

Yes, rocks are tough. Not many boats will get a second life after hitting them. I've seen a couple incidents as people have tried to round either North Stradbroke Island or Moreton Island by autopilot while having a cup of tea below, forgetting that clearing the headland itself isn't enough. A yacht on Flat Rock and trawler on Flinders Reef respectively.

I was just completely stumped by the idea that your hulls have to be stiffened with ribs and stringers. There are lots of Gemini's around, and I believe them to be generally well regarded other than some criticism of bridgedeck clearance - overloaded? So the implication that the whole hull needed stiffening seems really strange. But I might have misunderstood - perhaps they mean just stiffening locally to support the repaired sections?

Hope you get enough flexibility in the payout/claim settlement to do part of the repair yourself as that's probably the best outcome all-round.

Previously I implied that there might be some connivance or scam involved. That was a bit OTT. Its easy to end up with the same outcome by having the assessor, NA, repairers all be a bit conservative (don't want any come-back against their reputation). A few bits of conservatism/safety margin built in, compounded by others doing similar, all understandable, and you end up with something over-engineered, heavy and much more costly than necessary.

I bought a runabout in Brissy years ago, towed it to Melb on a trailer,
It was designed purely for the South Morton Bar.
I sank it coming into the north road Ramp in Port Phillip Bay,because of the low transom, I told my mate to jump as soon as I hit the ramp as it was going to sink with the first following wave. Took 3 to sink it, 2 metre waves following, I just hooked up the car and dragged it out,
13 boats sank in Port Phillip Bay that day.
It went from a millpond to 2 metre waves in 20 minutes, we sat on the pick for about 2 hours, No problems, but we were starting to get hypothermic, so I decided to head for the ramp, Where I knew it would sink.

They do like to cover their asses, Theoretical Engineers piss me off chronically, They need to know the practical side of things, not just get it out of a book. Which could be wrong any way.

Doing my apprenticeship, my theory teacher hated me, Not only was the book he was teaching me from, was wrong, I could actually prove it was wrong, Hahahahahaha

[webejammin]

I'll get the pic's of my windless to you soon. Good luck on your contenuing adventure, you should keep a log book on everything that has happened and is going to happen.

[Wand]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

One of the billions of things I have learned (impressive cv notwithstanding - LOL) is that the written word is a failed media for imparting tone and voice. ...

Yes, that's often true, and it can be especially difficult to have a good conversation on the net, what with the time lags and the inadequate smilies.

Anyway, peace in our time bro!

[Canibul]

Well, I just read this whole six page thread from the beginning. I have more than a passing interest in Gemini related things. I have strong suspicions we will be sailing one within the next couple of years.

I was thinking of the question (this qualifies as a further "insight", right?) about "what could have been done differently with what was there at the time", and taking into consideration all the factors that I think I understand from Mr. B's narratives.
Forget the crusing guide recommendations, he didn't have that at the time. Forget the motoring all night. He was essentially single handed and the risks and consequences of falling asleep at the wheel in that situation are pretty severe.

So, what could have been done differently. Well, in total hindsight, we know that he was protected from the NW no matter what. So, there were never going to be strong forces from the NW. No matter what the wind did.

And the worst case scenario was all that wind coming from the SE. So, again, having all the advantage of hindsight, maybe the only other alternative would have been to set both anchors to seaward, and tied a single line to that picnic table ashore. No force from that direction, so a lot of light lines tied together might do it.

Might have made sense to put the bow to the SE, with the anchors spread out at some on-site determined angle, like 45 deg.

This would have doubled your holding power into the wind, and hopefully given you time to cut loose the single light stern line to the picnic table and be motoring into the wind in the shortest possible time.

As for future changes, I can well understand why you hate those anchors, but maybe an alternate solution is to wisely pick a third , complementary anchor, and add it to your collection. This would be by far easier and quicker than building your own, and would only add a relatively few pounds to the load. Having three anchors would allow you to define a pretty good spread under just about any conditions, and it never hurts to have two and a spare, either.

Again, I well appreciate how the Monday Morning Quarterback syndrome works, and all this is assuming my scenario would have even worked at all under your conditions and with what you had on board in terms of hardware and knowledge.

It was just a thought.

[Mr B]

Originally Posted by Canibul

Well, I just read this whole six page thread from the beginning. I have more than a passing interest in Gemini related things. I have strong suspicions we will be sailing one within the next couple of years.

I was thinking of the question (this qualifies as a further "insight", right?) about "what could have been done differently with what was there at the time", and taking into consideration all the factors that I think I understand from Mr. B's narratives.
Forget the crusing guide recommendations, he didn't have that at the time. Forget the motoring all night. He was essentially single handed and the risks and consequences of falling asleep at the wheel in that situation are pretty severe.

So, what could have been done differently. Well, in total hindsight, we know that he was protected from the NW no matter what. So, there were never going to be strong forces from the NW. No matter what the wind did.

And the worst case scenario was all that wind coming from the SE. So, again, having all the advantage of hindsight, maybe the only other alternative would have been to set both anchors to seaward, and tied a single line to that picnic table ashore. No force from that direction, so a lot of light lines tied together might do it.

Might have made sense to put the bow to the SE, with the anchors spread out at some on-site determined angle, like 45 deg.

This would have doubled your holding power into the wind, and hopefully given you time to cut loose the single light stern line to the picnic table and be motoring into the wind in the shortest possible time.

As for future changes, I can well understand why you hate those anchors, but maybe an alternate solution is to wisely pick a third , complementary anchor, and add it to your collection. This would be by far easier and quicker than building your own, and would only add a relatively few pounds to the load. Having three anchors would allow you to define a pretty good spread under just about any conditions, and it never hurts to have two and a spare, either.

Again, I well appreciate how the Monday Morning Quarterback syndrome works, and all this is assuming my scenario would have even worked at all under your conditions and with what you had on board in terms of hardware and knowledge.

It was just a thought.

Now thats an interesting thought, I must admit I didnt think about it, Two anchors out the front and one tied to the table, It might have worked, I just dont know,
I hate both my anchors at the moment, They are unreliable,
But I will remember this in future, Thanks for that info,
Making my own anchors wont take long, Its the galvanising of them that takes the time,

[nv5l]

Two anchors don't double your holding power. In fact, they tend to worsen it by increasing the angle on the one anchor doing most of the work. Two anchors will help keep you from swinging, but one or the other will take the brunt of it, usually more than if it was straight out.

In this case, two off the bow would have been good if you had to anchor that close to shore, but other than that, I prefer one with plenty of swing. Stern anchor in this case was a mistake -- one I made myself.

[Canibul]

I was thinking more like a small catamaran sailor who is in a NW blow, and wants to get some sleep. Catamarans don't ride a single anchor the same way monohulls do. Its a bridle situation. It's also putting all your eggs in one basket, when you don't need to.

If the two anchors were side by side, that would double the holding power, right? So maybe 45 deg wasn't the best angle, but putting them say, 20 ft. apart would work just fine. The stern line ashore was to keep the boat oriented while the wind was from the beach. I was assuming beam winds wouldn't have been too bad during the change, until the storm came around from the SE.

As for anchoring close to the lee shore, well, I guess that's when the phrase " you had to be there" comes to mind. The other thing he didn't have on board with him at the time was knowledge of how these storms act.

So, why even put out two anchors if you don't expect a 180 degree wind change? In hindsight, he could have set an anchor halfway between himself and the beach, and spent the night trying to sleep further out of the lee, but I can see why being up in the calm water in the lee made sense at the time, without the weather briefing.

A few feet more in one direction and he would have ended up beached at worst, right? Anticipation of that strong SE wind was the key to all the different outcomes, and it was one of the things that wasn't on board at the time.

A reliable local weather forecast . It all boils down to that. He needed it and didn't have it. There are a lot of 'what if's' to be prepared for. Fatigue doesn't help, either, in an 'any port in a storm' situation. As for the boating newbie stuff, well, this isn't a sailing related incident. This is what's known as 'experience'.

Good teacher, I hear.

[nv5l]

I'm sure you can narrow it down enough to support your contention that two hold better than one, but in practice, it simply isn't true. One will always pull more, unless it's calm with no current, and the amount of additional force can easily be calculated with simple trig.

In this case, the wind shifted and he was caught beam to the wind. This situation drastically increases the forces, and that's in addition to the multiplier effect caused by the angle.

The reason for two anchors can be to have a backup, or to reduce swing, or both, but if the second one keeps the primary from pulling directly off the bow in the direction of wind and waves, the force will be greater than without it. And yes, this can be seen with even a 20' distance between the anchors, heck, even a 2' distance.

[Canibul]

Well, I am honestly trying to understand that statement, but am having problems. I guess I do believe that four flukes dug into the bottom will hold better than two flukes dug into the bottom. And that if one anchor is pulling more, and the force increases enough to make that anchor drag, then at some point the additional strain that caused it to drag will be taken up by the other anchor, and divided in half until something changes. It would be the equivalent of throwing a second anchor out when the first one starts dragging, wouldn't it? And wouldn't that stop the dragging?

Perhaps the answer is to take both anchors to the same point on the boat. That allows doubling the anchor, and yet not restricting the ability of the hull to align itself for least resistance to wind and waves. I think that must be your concern.

And in that scenario, a light anchor that was intended to drag would work better to hold the boat oriented stern to the wind until it changed around. Cats have a lot of windage. I would think I would want to use all the available anchor I had on board. If conditions got away from me with one anchor, I think throwing the spare into the game at that point would be really pushing it. Especially starting that close to the rocks.

I apologize for not understanding that the problem was the wind abeam. I thought he had drug his seaward anchor straight into the beach. I didn't realize it had described a 90 degree arc because of the changing wind on the beam.

[thinwater]

[QUOTE=nv5l;838192]Two anchors don't double your holding power. In fact, they tend to worsen it by increasing the angle on the one anchor doing most of the work. QUOTE]

No, not true. It's a matter of trig. If the anchors are set at 45 degrees and the wind is exactly between them, the load on each anchor will about 60% of the full load. If the wind is to one side, then one anchor will have to carry the full load, but not more than that. At 90 degrees, the load is 70% each, and load on twin anchors does not reach 100% until 120 degrees. As the angle aproaches 180 degrees the forces become greater, but with any slack, catenary during setting and setting drag (can't set and anchor without dragging it a few feet), I doubt an angle of over 120 degrees is attainable in practice without real effort.

Before I continue, let me say that 1 larger anchor is generally best.

An angle of less than 60 degrees is potencial trouble because when the boat swings, one anchor rode may slide across the other anchor, pulling it out. I think 90 degrees generally makes more sense; better reset protection, less than 100% load, and no fouling.

Since either anchor may have to carry 100% of the load, they must BOTH be capable anchors. This will not make a poor-holding anchor hold.

The real advantage of twin anchors at 60-120 degrees in a blow is 2-fold:
1. They will not be jerked around in dirrection. Even if the wind changes 180 degrees, the anchor will only rotate 90 degrees (in the 90 degree case). Generally through a storm, the anchors will see no change in pull dirrection.
2. The anchors will not need to reset on changes. See above. This can be important if the anchors have poor reset behavior (danforth-type), if the bottom is patchy (hard and soft or other problems) or if the there is simply no room (beach or docks nearby).

A stern anchor is nearly always the wrong answer in a blow; what ever the anchoring system, all of the rodes should meet in one place, so that the boat can pivot and meet the waves smoothly. I've never used a stern anchor overnight; only a few times to keep the stern near a beach or such, and only if the wind and waves/wakes were acceptable.

Since we are talking about a single boat in a tough spot, I'm going to skip "swing" concerns. Yes, I understand them.

[nv5l]

If it was a completely stable system, I'd agree, but how often does that happen? One or the other will end up taking the full, now multiplied, load from time to time. It's sorta like sailing at anchor with bigger angles. Anyway, do as you wish...

[Eleven]

I faced just that situation. I went for the beach BUT we were at the end of a long reach across shallow waters so the waves had dissipated a lot of energy, there was still some lively surf and the windsurfers were having a great time.
We did beach and I was happy to wait out the tide falling and returning, we bumped a few times, had the anchor slung and sails tidied away. The boat was swinging to the anchor and beginning to face the breakers so things were getting more comfortable.
Then the lifeboat turned up, advised us to accept a tow. I didn't argue. It was a very uncomfortable pounding, waves over the bow trip with some damage (stanchion broken) from the lifeboat bumping us to pass a line. 2hrs later peace and calm in the estuary we'd headed for and I'd missed in poor light and mist.
As for beaching, I'd go for it every time if you know the beach and bottom are sand, no piling, broken groins, random rocks. If it's desperate I'd go for the beach anyway. It can't sink there.
In 4 metre waves you'd soon be well up on the beach, biggest worry would be getting off. Spare anchor in a stern locker was ready but I'd go for a bow anchor or two and control the boat drifting back onto the beach until she was nicely settled.
Main reason is that souls on board can readily make for dry ground! It's remarkably nice in a choppy sea to sea the beach drying out behind you. Safety is so close even if you are going to get wet.
This does work better in a shallow bay, we were out of the worst wave action the closer we got to the beach because breaking further out was spending their energy. A major factor.

[Canibul]

I just cannot see how one anchor can multiply the load on another anchor that is already taking the full load. (Unless the non-loaded anchor was hanging over Niagara Falls,)

I need to think this one over better, I guess. It sounded to me like he didn't have the inclination to deal with anchoring for a full watch circle type of excursion. I assumed that this was because it would put him out further into the wind that existed when he first anchored. Thats the tough thing about hindsight. you really don't know all the factors that went into a decision.