# Sugar scoop transom safety in big seas



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

I have a question regarding sugar scoop transom safety in big following seas. It would seem like such a transom might be a liability if a big wave was to crash on it. Same with a transom mounted swim platform, that could possibly be ripped out from it's mounting by a crashing wave. 
Any thoughts or experiences?


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

My thoughts are that the sugar scoop adds a bit of buoyancy back there, as well as a scoop to catch a following sea. If the scoop isn't too big, these things probably cancel each other out.

The typical added-on swim platform, on the other hand, does not add buoyancy. And, as you mentioned, depending on its mounting, it might be subject to tearing out by a serious wave. That is why, were I to add a swim platform to the back of my boat, I would want one that could fold up against the transom for passages.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

denverd0n said:


> My thoughts are that the sugar scoop adds a bit of buoyancy back there, as well as a scoop to catch a following sea. If the scoop isn't too big, these things probably cancel each other out.


I did not think about the benefits of added buoyancy. Good point, thank you. And yes, the size of the scoop would likely have a major effect when catching wave's impact. I see that some of the newer boat designs have smaller scoops. I think that sugar scoops are a great feature of convenience but as usual, there is a trade off here.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

I think "Add on" sugar scoops are tricky... and must be properly engineered and fabricated/installed. Also somewhat difficult to make them 'look' right if on a boat not intended for them in the first place.

We've done some considerable mileage in an open transom boat in the Caribbean, often surfing in decent waves (top of St Vincent, Bequia Channel) and never took a wave 'up the bum' so to speak.. and the positive here is that even if it did, it would drain as quickly..

I do think there's a difference if you're talking about todays' near standard open transoms vs an add-on stern platform.. A number of manufacturers are taking the 'fold up' path nowadays.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Would add many boats now have the sugar scoop with open transom. When done with the typical absence of a bridge deck in front of the companionway unless the duck boards start high up and there is at least 6-8" of solid glass below them the risk of down flooding is high. 
Admittedly its a PIA to have to pick up your feet to step into the companionway but this threshold keeps water out. Not only from a pooping but even the more common side boarding sea.
Its common to sail with the companionway open on nice days. Its common to open it for change of watch, crew going up or down even on lousy days. I've seen several good sized new boats where the combination of no threshold and a direct path for green boarding water makes them all too vulnerable to downflooding. 
Although I have a threshold when offshore I place two duck boards that slide into slots closing off the aft section of the cockpit. They stop 6" above the cockpit sole so drainage is unaffected but cut down significantly on amount and force of any aft boarding sea.
Finally it is clearly preferable the sugar scoop be part of the original female mold not glassed in as an afterthought as it will be stronger.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

I believe that Faster, as usual, is spot on. 

While the open and walk-through transom designs of modern era boats can catch a wave, they will also drain faster too. 

My boat ('87 O'day 35) has a factory swim platform. The platform is molded into the hull, and extends the transom aft about a foot from that of the same boat without the platform (O'day 34). However, the coaming on the transom is not a walk-through, but rather a step over with a high bridge deck fore and aft. Both designs have dual 1.5" drains at the far aft sole of the cockpit (no idea how long the swimming pool would last if I were pooped.. Guess is about 5 min.). Because of the high transom, I believe that my boat is as protected from being pooped as it can be.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

A couple of boats I have been looking at:


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

First is a Cal28 stretched to 31 with an added sugar scoop. The second one is a factory original transom on a Heritage 36.
At this point it is all just window shopping as I'm at least 2 years away from a purchase.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

How about we take it one step further and build a 45+ foot boat that shouldn't go out beyond the 3 mile limit. And the Great Lakes? Forget it!
How's this for a stern that says, "WELCOME!" to the ocean. And I shouldn't think you'd want to put a child on either one of those helm seats.
This really is THE boat to caption, "What were they thinking?"
By the way, the name of the boat; Senseless, I kid you not!


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

That's what happens when you have more money then sea-sense.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

capta said:


> How about we take it one step further and build a 45+ foot boat that shouldn't go out beyond the 3 mile limit. And the Great Lakes? Forget it!
> How's this for a stern that says, "WELCOME!" to the ocean. And I shouldn't think you'd want to put a child on either one of those helm seats.
> This really is THE boat to caption, "What were they thinking?"
> By the way, the name of the boat; Senseless, I kid you not!


Kind of a clever/ironic name for a Beneteau Sense 50


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Faster said:


> Kind of a clever/ironic name for a Beneteau Sense 50


Damn, those SenseBoats sure lose their SexAppeal in a jiffy, as soon as you start tacking on a stern arch, cockpit enclosures, dinghy davits, and so on, no?












Hard to decide which looks worse, the bolted-on aluminum jungle gym in capta's pics, or the matching basket handle from the factory


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

JonEisberg said:


>


Just a thought .... Imagine scooping up a large boarding stern wave, and that wave continuing on to then impact on those large 'stern windows' on the deck house and bridge-deck-less companionway. I really wouldn't matter how fast that cockpit would drain, as such a wave if it breached all that 'vulnerability' a lot of that wave would now probably be 'on the inside'.

I would like to hear Bob Perry's opinion on this 'design'.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Ya it's almost like the designers at Beneteau didn't think about designing in a transom board to block off the cockpit from a following sea.... Except of course they did, and it's built into every boat, and takes seconds to deploy...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

Make the assumption that with the 'shield' in place that the volume of the cockpit is 3' X 12' X 12' X 62.4 lb./cu. ft. of water .... thats ~27,000 pounds of load for that cockpit. Betcha with the moment force that 27K load develops vs. reserve buoyancy .... that the stern goes 'squat' .... guesstimate of an est. about 3+ ft. 'deeper' (imagine the timing period of that 'next' stern wave) into the water until the water takes the time (lag) to 'drain' around that shield. ;-)


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

There is a reason that many (all of the big ones) of the sugar scoops on multihulls are open to the inside. I have them, yes waves do wash up... and right over. It is the cosmetic sides that cause the trouble, not the floor itself.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Appendages outside the hull, like swimming platforms, should be considered expendable at sea. Consider the forces if a 10-20' wave breaks and drops a nice "block" of green water, around 64# per cubic foot, on them from that height. No matter how you change the estimates, it is still going to mean "Can six sumos jump on it t once?"

And while sugar scoops make for easy cockpit drainage and fast MOB recovery, it was pointed out back in the 80's that a sugar scoop has the most stable and inherent buoyancy when the hull is, uh, INVERTED.

So...I don't Larry Pardey would choose to build one.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Stumble said:


> Ya it's almost like the designers at Beneteau didn't think about designing in a transom board to block off the cockpit from a following sea.... Except of course they did, and it's built into every boat, and takes seconds to deploy...


I can only assume you are being facetious? What use would that board be in 25+ foot breaking seas and gale force winds. 
Hey, I've got a great idea. How about Bene supplies a drogue with these boats to insure the death of all aboard? Or if that is too expensive, I'm sure a sea anchor would achieve the same results, just backwards.
Seriously though, are these boats being marketed as bay and harbor day sailors? That's certainly the extent of their safe operations, one would think.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

My eyes are rolling.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

Here is the best picture that I could find of the O'day 35 swim platform;









(Not *my* boat)

Prices for these in Yachtworld range from $25K to $35K


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

pdqaltair said:


>


Now _THAT's _ridiculous!

Stick your tongue out and say "Aaaaaaaa..."uke


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

RichH said:


> Make the assumption that with the 'shield' in place that the volume of the cockpit is 3' X 12' X 12' X 62.4 lb./cu. ft. of water .... thats ~27,000 pounds of load for that cockpit. Betcha with the moment force that 27K load develops vs. reserve buoyancy .... that the stern goes 'squat' .... guesstimate of an est. about 3+ ft. 'deeper' (imagine the timing period of that 'next' stern wave) into the water until the water takes the time (lag) to 'drain' around that shield. ;-)


I haven't seen that panel or it's installation firsthand, but the most detailed photos I can find of it indicate it is merely a flat panel, trimmed on the upper edge with a bit of teak, but without any obvious structural reinforcement built into it... And, as one can see from the 'daylight' visible around the edges of it, it rests fairly 'lightly' into whatever brackets it is affixed... I would guess a significant boarding sea could dispose of it with relative ease 










Additionally, even if it is viewed as part of the 'structure' of the boat's transom, its height remains considerably lower than the deck... Not exactly a desirable feature in a boat that might be taken offshore, and certainly something that helps define the "_LIMIT... of this particular Production Boat_", for me...

Certainly not the ideal candidate for testing the effectiveness of a Series Drogue as a storm tactic, at least for me... 

That slatted roll-up 'window shade' companionway door seems a bit too clever/complex, to me... Better hope those buttons keep working, having to roll that thing up and down in inclement conditions could get old pretty quickly...


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

I have to wonder how many cruisers get the chance to test out how fast their cockpit will actually empty through below the waterline drains. How many really know for sure if there is not partial blockage because of growth or debri? Years of bottom paint built up on the inside of through hulls and even just a few small barnacles must have a serious impact on flow. Getting a hit by a dumpster sized wave vs. a heavy downpour...


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Now _THAT's _ridiculous!
> 
> Stick your tongue out and say "Aaaaaaaa..."uke


It's not just women that are hung up on looks. You must be a form over function kind of guy, and I guess you would add sides.

This is pure function--speed, minimal weight, ease of boarding, and seaworthiness. The sides add nothing useful, but they do snag waves. This works better on a multihull, period.

(Yes, it looked better after fairing and paint, but the addition would be less clear. Monohulls, which heel, benefit from sides--they are different in function.)


----------



## aloof (Dec 21, 2014)

I have only ever had waves board thru the open transom while becalmed. When moving it just doesn't happen. I suppose some breaking wave could crash down on a sugar scoop, but I haven't seen anything like that happen either. The scoop and transom is moving away from the waves, or at least along with them. Plus whatever seas to come aboard are drained out very quickly. But then I have zero time on pig-like boats that chunder along while the weather pounds against them like a seawall. Why would a slow boat have a sugar scoop stern?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

aloof said:


> I have only ever had waves board thru the open transom while becalmed. When moving it just doesn't happen. I suppose some breaking wave could crash down on a sugar scoop, but I haven't seen anything like that happen either. The scoop and transom is moving away from the waves, or at least along with them. Plus whatever seas to come aboard are drained out very quickly. But then I have zero time on pig-like boats that chunder along while the weather pounds against them like a seawall. Why would a slow boat have a sugar scoop stern?


I tend to agree with this. I think the boarding wave thing is a bit overblown here.

That said, if you are lying to a drogue in huge storm, yes, I could see where you might have a problem. But sailing along? Mmm. After all, the VO70s and VO65s have a stern/transom that looks very similar to that Sense. And they do sail through some challenging conditions.

Here is an actual breaking wave that "attemps" to board a boat in F11 conditions (at 4:25):






Not exactly the green-wall-multi-sumo-dump that everyone is afraid of.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Some of those after market scoops are pretty ugly and probably vulnerable. I seriously doubt ours is going to get ripped off any time soon.










Not our boat above, just a pic from Katomarine.

Also, it's not the scoop itself that has anything to do with pooping a cockpit. There are center cockpit boats with a sugar scoop, such as the Taswell 57. There are open transom cockpits without sugar scoops.

When offshore, swim platforms need to be folded up and secured at the least. Even better to remove and stow.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

pdqaltair said:


> It's not just women that are hung up on looks. You must be a form over function kind of guy, and I guess you would add sides.
> 
> This is pure function--speed, minimal weight, ease of boarding, and seaworthiness. The sides add nothing useful, but they do snag waves. This works better on a multihull, period.
> 
> (Yes, it looked better after fairing and paint, but the addition would be less clear. Monohulls, which heel, benefit from sides--they are different in function.)


Nope, I far prefer function to form... Sorry, I did not mean to offend...

I assumed that it was a monohull... Now that you call my attention to it, I can see that it is a pontoon on a cat.

As a monohull, it looked like an additional 4.5 feet of cantilevered swim platform. If it were a monohull, any wave encountered while running would get thrown up into the cockpit (or at least helped into the cockpit).

I can't comment on its effect with a cat, but if it works for you, and you're happy, that is all that counts.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

John,

1) The transom board is about an inch thick foam coar fiberglass. It may not be as strong as a normal transom, but it's a lot stronger than most. 

2) The edges are intentionally left open to allow water drainage. In order to meet the maximum time allowed to drain a flooded cockpit the free area of a drain has to be pretty large, and the smaller the encased volume the less water you have to move. ISO standards require a recess (ie cockpit) to be fully drained in less than 2 minutes. 

3) The lower the enclosing bulkhead the less water that needs to be drained, and thus the faster the weight can be gotten rid of. 

4) The transom board rides in a slot and the system is designed around a crashing wave coming in from the transom. 

5) The hatch boards are manual in nature, the electric is an option. So if the button stops working you just reach down and pull it into place. 

6) wide lifting sterns like this have huge amounts of reserve boyancy. Which allows them to lift faster and higher, and thus reduces the likelyhood of shipping a lot of water in the first place.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

You fall off a wave. To not broach you head down and slow up in the trough. The wind wave not the swell hits you in the back. Don't think you're doing high double digits like the open boats nor surfing all the time.
The open boat have very,very solid houses and companion ways. They are not "production boats".
Although I have limited experience I have filled the cockpit several times on different boats. Usually on a broad reach as the storm/gale is just developing. Two wave trains. Sea boards from aft corner. 
I agree with the concept of a open stern. I think is safer to not depend on scuppers. I have two scuppers in the front of my cockpit but the cockpit is open under the helm seat and only partially closed even with storm boards in. 
I think there is nothing unsafe about a sugar scoop (I have one) nor a open stern.
The stern/cockpit of the open boats is not the design on the production boats you allude to in your other thread. I continue to believe those designs are unsafe. I think these boats are inherently unsafe well before two flags with black boxes go up. I think EU ocean rating is meaningless. Getting pooped is not the only setting for down flooding.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

aloof said:


> I have only ever had waves board thru the open transom while becalmed. When moving it just doesn't happen. I suppose some breaking wave could crash down on a sugar scoop, but I haven't seen anything like that happen either. The scoop and transom is moving away from the waves, or at least along with them. Plus whatever seas to come aboard are drained out very quickly. *But then I have zero time on pig-like boats that chunder along while the weather pounds against them like a seawall. Why would a slow boat have a sugar scoop stern?*


Well, speaking of "pig-like boats"... 










There can be unforeseen circumstances that can transform fast boats into slow boats... You can be sailing merrily along close to the speed of the waves - until, suddenly, you're not... After their dismasting, the skipper of RAINMAKER felt compelled to rule out the prospect of lying to a drogue, or presenting her stern(s) to the seas, due to his concern that water would "be brought into" the CRUISING WORLD Boat of the Year...

Moot point, however, as they had the good fortune to still be within range of a CG Jayhawk out of Elizabeth City...


----------



## harmonic (Sep 10, 2013)

Have delivered a sugar scooped yacht up the west coast of the north island,got 50 knots from astern,first wave tore the plywood stern doors out of her ,they were slip in ones,and second wave blew the companionway doors in and put a wave through the boat.Lucky we had washboards should have put them in sooner.Cant say im keen on them for offshore.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

harmonic said:


> Have delivered a sugar scooped yacht up the west coast of the north island,got 50 knots from astern,first wave tore the plywood stern doors out of her ,they were slip in ones,and second wave blew the companionway doors in and put a wave through the boat.Lucky we had washboards should have put them in sooner.Cant say im keen on them for offshore.


I'm not following how the sugar scoop affected this? If the cockpit was still open, albeit with slip in stern doors, would this not have happened with a transom that dropped straight down behind the aft deck?

I presume the companionway doors were the convenience hinged doors, which I would fully agree are not appropriate for open water. But again, nothing to do with a sugar scoop.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Stumble said:


> John,
> 
> 1) The transom board is about an inch thick foam coar fiberglass. It may not be as strong as a normal transom, but it's a lot stronger than most.
> 
> ...


Good information, thanks... It does sound as if that arrangement is reasonably robust, and probably adequate for the sort of paces most owners of the Sense Boats are likely to be putting them through... Still, I wouldn't be comfortable with that sort of setup offshore, but perhaps that's just me. I still think that having such a 'transom' considerably lower than the side decks surrounding the cockpit makes little sense - particularly on a boat with such a ginormous cockpit - and is a poor design feature, representing just the sort of vulnerability the sea will eventually manage to expose the weakness of... Again, that's probably just me 










But the greater problem I have with this current crop of wide open dinghy-style transoms, surrounds the question of how much the overall strength and integrity of the hull might be lost due to the virtual elimination of an important structural component - namely, the transom...

There's one more undesirable compromise forced by such a design, though it's by no means confined to designs like the Sense Boats, as pretty much every aft stateroom boat features a similar arrangement... Namely, how short the length of the rudder stock inside the hull will be, relative to the depth of the rudder(s) themselves, resulting in greatly increased leverage at the top of the rudder post. We've recently seen more than one example of Beneteau's engineering and construction of the way the rudder posts are fixed inside the boat not being up to the task. I'm a big believer in the more traditional arrangement of having the rudder post come up to the level of the deck or cockpit seating at least. it's one of the things that gives me confidence in the integrity of the runner on my own boat, the fact that the top of the rudder post is supported by the cockpit seat and aft bulkhead of the cockpit, just below deck level at that point, thus lending it a massive amount of structural support, while at the same time diminishing the amount of leverage seen at that point...










Finally, I'l admit that slatted companionway arrangement is pretty slick, certainly the sort of thing guaranteed to elicit raves at the Boat Shows... However, I once had a similar recessed drop board arrangement on a high-end European boat get stuck in the recessed position. To get them raised required the dismantling of much of the exquisite interior joinery surrounding the recess, a major PITA... So, I remain a bit skeptical when viewing such wondrous solutions...


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

eherlihy said:


> Nope, I far prefer function to form... Sorry, I did not mean to offend...
> 
> I assumed that it was a monohull... Now that you call my attention to it, I can see that it is a pontoon on a cat.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I over reacted.

Actually, the main reason I added this was to aid my wife, who is disabled and has considerable difficulty boarding. By bringing the dingy along side, securing it fore and aft, and using the davit for support, for the first time she can board the dingy. That, as you can imagine, adds a lot to cruising. Priceless. Could a swim platform do as much? Perhaps, but solid glass is more stable.

As for sugar scoop additions being torn off by waves, I did the engineering calculations for this one; by far the greater force is dock collision. When I allowed for backing into pilings at a few knots, waves were not significant (and I tested that theory on docks a few times! Oops. The piling moved).

-----

Back to the thread. The PDQ 32 is a center cockpit design with high transoms (see my avitar). Boat shows are full of open cockpit designs, including the Gemini Legacy. I don't understand it.










http://sail-delmarva.blogspot.com/2012/10/its-sweet-when-you-stay-in-love-with.html


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

You think that is bad? Look at this abomination. It has no business going out beyond the 3 mile limit either.



capta said:


> How about we take it one step further and build a 45+ foot boat that shouldn't go out beyond the 3 mile limit. And the Great Lakes? Forget it!
> How's this for a stern that says, "WELCOME!" to the ocean. And I shouldn't think you'd want to put a child on either one of those helm seats.
> This really is THE boat to caption, "What were they thinking?"
> By the way, the name of the boat; Senseless, I kid you not!


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

What is ridiculous about it?



eherlihy said:


> Now _THAT's _ridiculous!
> 
> Stick your tongue out and say "Aaaaaaaa..."uke


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

aloof said:


> I have only ever had waves board thru the open transom while becalmed. When moving it just doesn't happen. I suppose some breaking wave could crash down on a sugar scoop, but I haven't seen anything like that happen either. The scoop and transom is moving away from the waves, or at least along with them. Plus whatever seas to come aboard are drained out very quickly. But then I have zero time on pig-like boats that chunder along while the weather pounds against them like a seawall. Why would a slow boat have a sugar scoop stern?


You keep talking as though your boat is impervious to heavy weather.
Have you actually had her in 30+ foot breaking seas with winds over 60 knots, needing to run off under bare poles?
In one storm I was in in the Atlantic, Alan Colas lost his life on an alloy trimaran, and it would be my guess his boat was a great deal faster than yours and he may have actually had as much ocean going experience as you. I just do not see how you can have a stern we are discussing here and turn it to the seas and not take the occasional wave right on the head of the exposed helmsman.
For me it isn't about water in the cockpit coming and going, it's about those two helm seats hanging over the stern, and the poor basta*d who has to steer in extreme conditions. There's no point attaching a harness to any of what I see there holding up the helm seats or the bimini, as I've seen better constructed metal work torn, twisted and broken by the sea in less severe conditions than that 1978 storm.
That little plank across the stern does nothing to protect or shelter the helmsman, period.
Lastly, one might want to slow a boat with a sugar scoop because pitchpoling is not a very fun thing to do on a boat at sea.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

jzk said:


> You think that is bad? Look at this abomination. It has no business going out beyond the 3 mile limit either.


Professional racers and crews are a far cry from a cruising couple over 50 getting pasted in a storm.
Have you seen the size and strength of the guys who sail boats like the one you have pictured? They don't even need harnesses; their pinky finger is stronger than any dyneema harness line!
Let's not mix apples and race boats with professional crews here, OK?


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Your concern is way overblown. Can you cite an example of where this was a problem? If I own a boat for ten years, I might take one such wave and it might knock me over? And if I were to take such a big wave that landed on me, a regular stern would prevent that?

If I could open the stern of my boat like that, I would in a heartbeat. I especially like the way the Oceanis 45 stern goes up and down.

I like the windows in my hull also. I understand that they might flex if I ever bash them against a dock, but I see no issue with them at sea.

And if I ever need to deploy the JSD, I won't be back at those helm stations anyway.



capta said:


> Professional racers and crews are a far cry from a cruising couple over 50 getting pasted in a storm.
> Have you seen the size and strength of the guys who sail boats like the one you have pictured? They don't even need harnesses; their pinky finger is stronger than any dyneema harness line!
> Let's not mix apples and race boats with professional crews here, OK?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

capta said:


> Professional racers and crews are a far cry from a cruising couple over 50 getting pasted in a storm.
> Have you seen the size and strength of the guys who sail boats like the one you have pictured? They don't even need harnesses; their pinky finger is stronger than any dyneema harness line!
> Let's not mix apples and race boats with professional crews here, OK?


Capta - you're kind of all over the place here. So the same conditions that tear away metal work in a cruising boat are okay for a VO70/65 because the crew don't need harnesses, just their pinkies?

Then cruising boats should all be designed for cruising couples over 50 to get pasted in storms?

Sorry, I think this whole debate is a little hysterical.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

John,

The low transom is in part required by the large open cockpits. The rules say you have to drain the entire cockpit in no more than 2 minutes (or there is a formula that could require it to be shorter). Given the volume of the cockpits the scuppers would have to be massive to move that much water out in that period of time. By lowering the transom you reduce the volume of water that is potentialy trapped, and thus the amount that needs to be discharged. 

The rudder post issue... Meh, it's an engineering problem. I am not convinced Beneteau has solved this, but it's a numbers game and a build quality issue. I have sailed plenty of boats with similar designs that I have no question about. On the other hand the Sense has twin rudders which reduces rudder load by about 40% so the forces involved may actually be lower than on a traditional design. 

As for the transom strength issue... its actually pretty easy to measure hull deflection here. A stick on laser level a piece of string and a weight and you can tell how much flex there is in the hull. I have never measured any. This is a pure engineering problem. Like the rudder post I may trust a particular designer or builder more than another, but resolving the problem is really just adding enough strength in the ring frame at the transom to handle the loads. And the loads aren't that high in reality.

And the compression issue is really one that catamarans have had to deal with for a long time. The design challenge of keeping two points (normally the backstay attach,net points) from compressing is one cats have pretty much solved. No more than they require a monolithic plate from hull to hull does a monohull require plate. Arches are stronger, and weigh a lot less. 


Finally the hatch board issue... I would have to look at the system to know more. I know it can be accessed completely from the exterior by lifting the access plate. How well it's executed is a different issue. One of the advantages I see however is that unlike most boards that have to be substantially removed and put back (which often aren't) these are more likely to be left partially raised. I also hate fighting the 1/2" acrylic on my boat. They are so heavy my wife finds it hard to deal with them. 


Again I will point out that there is a huge difference in how well a design is executed (and I have real issues with my Beneteau in this regard) and if the design itself is sutable. I don't think the Sense is a heavy weather boat for a lot of reasons, but mostly because in my experience Beneteau doesn't build in the type of strength I would want, and their execution of the designs is somewhat lacking. However this is a Beneteau problem not an open transom problem.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> Capta - you're kind of all over the place here. So the same conditions that tear away metal work in a cruising boat are okay for a VO70/65 because the crew don't need harnesses, just their pinkies?
> 
> Then cruising boats should all be designed for cruising couples over 50 to get pasted in storms?
> 
> Sorry, I think this whole debate is a little hysterical.


And let me points it th to big race boats DONT rely on crew muscle to do anything. You can't the loads are too high. They rely on the best deck design money can buy, and installing the right deck gear, in the right place, for the job. Frankly I find sailing a big ocean sled to be easier than sailing most cruising boats. Where cruising boats install all sorts of stuff to make living on board comfortable racers don't. So you don't have Biminie parts in the way, or potted plants in the cockpit, or tables, or, or, or.

The reality is that big ocean racers are probably more comfortable than most cruising boats to be on. Simply because designers know there is a limit to human endurance and delaying hitting that wall is required to good performance.

The most comfortable sea berth i have ever slept on was on an Andrews 70, most comfortable cockpit while sailing Andrews 70, driest cockpit (as sea) Andrews 70. Worst galley Andrews 70, worst salon table Andrews 70 (didn't have one), worst Biminie Andrews 70...


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

smackdaddy said:


> Capta - you're kind of all over the place here. So the same conditions that tear away metal work in a cruising boat are okay for a VO70/65 because the crew don't need harnesses, just their pinkies?
> 
> Then cruising boats should all be designed for cruising couples over 50 to get pasted in storms?
> 
> Sorry, I think this whole debate is a little hysterical.


Come on, the pinky finger thing was just a hyperbole.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Look, I'll admit the VO70/65 example is worlds apart from a cruising boat. No cruising boat is going to be blasting along at 15-25 knots - minimizing exposure to a boarding wave from behind. Also, the open transom on these racing yachts is usually to take care of the following issue - which is very rare on a cruising yacht:






That said, if boarding waves were the omnipresent death machine that some here are trying to make them out to be, a sugar scoop transom might have some slight downsides. But I have absolutely no desire to have a boat that is specifically designed to thwart every imaginable oceanic bogeyman. At some point this stuff gets ridiculous. I want a boat that sails well.

Then again, those bogeymen are out there...






...typically in the Southern Ocean. Notice how these guys are hanging on with their pinkies?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> That said, if boarding waves were the omnipresent death machine that some here are trying to make them out to be, a sugar scoop transom might have some slight downsides. But I have absolutely no desire to have a boat that is specifically designed to thwart every imaginable oceanic bogeyman. At some point this stuff gets ridiculous. I want a boat that sails well.


I think most of us want boats that "sail well". But I think you may be underestimating one of the most important attributes of an offshore cruising boat that will likely be sailed by a shorthanded crew... Namely, the boat's inherent ability to 'take care of itself' - and her crew - when being left more to her own devices, in situations such as heaving-to, or running off under bare poles, or when streaming a drogue...

When conditions deteriorate, or the crew becomes fatigued, or preoccupied with dealing with some issue that has arisen, and so on - you really want to have as many options in your bag of tricks/tactics as possible... I think most sailors would agree that the single biggest advancement in heavy weather gear in recent years has been the advent of the Jordan Series Drogue... Needless to say, an open transom boat is certainly less than ideal for the use of one as tactic for riding out a storm at sea... We've recently seen the abandonment of a $2.5 million Boat of the Year being sailed by 3 professional sailors, after all, in which their reluctance to present the open transom(s) to the seas might have factored in their decision to bail out...



smackdaddy said:


> Then again, those bogeymen are out there...
> 
> ...typically in the Southern Ocean.


I don't know why you assume that being pooped, or having a cockpit swept by a boarding wave, is such an improbable or rare event... Hell, I've been pooped on a sistership to this Trintella (another Boat of the Year) - a boat with a considerable amount of freeboard and a raised cockpit coaming - when sailing down the freakin' _CHESAPEAKE_... And, we were sailing _fast_ at the time...










All things considered, I'd still rather make it more difficult to have water come into the cockpit, than easier  Getting a lot of water over the cockpit sole is rarely without consequence, as they are not always completely watertight, and critical stuff like batteries and engines are usually located directly below... I look at that hatch giving access to that roll-up companionway on the Sense, and the first thing I see is the very strong probability of water working its way below... I've come to hate hatches on cockpit soles, I don't think I've ever seen one that didn't leak to some extent, and I'd be willing to bet anything that the problem with the starboard engine on RAINMAKER was related to seawater sweeping the deck and hatch that opened to that engine space...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Maybe I missed it, but the one thing I didn't find on Jordan's web site was any link to any subjective testing comparing series drogues to conventional drogues, let along proving them superior. Drogues are fairly old technology, even if sailors haven't paid much attention to them until recently.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

I don't think any one of those Beneteaus with open sterns would have a problem with a jsd, provided adequate attachment points were installed.



JonEisberg:2623969 said:


> smackdaddy said:
> 
> 
> > That said, if boarding waves were the omnipresent death machine that some here are trying to make them out to be, a sugar scoop transom might have some slight downsides. But I have absolutely no desire to have a boat that is specifically designed to thwart every imaginable oceanic bogeyman. At some point this stuff gets ridiculous. I want a boat that sails well.
> ...


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

^^ I'm assuming that was some sort of joke. 

I can't even imagine anchoring stern-first in a rough harbor. There'ld be some water in the cabin. A fun experiment, though. Just anchor stern-first in open water in a steep 4' chop and see what happens.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Have you seen how a boat behaves under a jsd? It is not the same as anchoring stern to.



pdqaltair:2624073 said:


> ^^ I'm assuming that was some sort of joke.
> 
> I can't even imagine anchoring stern-first in a rough harbor. There'ld be some water in the cabin. A fun experiment, though. Just anchor stern-first in open water in a steep 4' chop and see what happens.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> Maybe I missed it, but the one thing I didn't find on Jordan's web site was any link to any subjective testing comparing series drogues to conventional drogues, let along proving them superior. Drogues are fairly old technology, even if sailors haven't paid much attention to them until recently.


Not sure where you were looking, but I'm surprised there was no reference to the testing conducted by the US Coast Guard Research & Development Center almost 20 years ago... A summary of their conclusions:



> The two conventional drogue configurations are the cone drogue and the parachute drogue. Both types have been used successfully in a variety of applications. A third type of drogue called a series drogue has been developed as part of this investigation. The series drogue is intended to provide near optimum performance under storm conditions and to avoid some of the problems encountered with cone and parachute drogue.
> 
> The series drogue offers the following desirable features:
> 
> ...


Additionally, here's what Steve Dashew has to say:



> During our research for SURVIVING THE STORM, the one heavy weather drogue system that stood out was Donald Jordan's series drogue design. John Harries has a fascinating account of a true survival storm and the use of a JSD on his website, Attainable Adventure Cruising. You can read this account by clicking here. This long, detailed post is worth your time.


Finally, there's Victor Shane's DRAG DEVICE DATA BASE, probably the most comprehensive collation of real-world accounts of the use of drag devices... Here's one report that compares the deployment of both a series drogue, and a single point drogue, in the same storm:

D/M-15 Monohull, Contest 40 | Victor Shane's Drag Device Data Base


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

So, the “Committee for the Selection of Appropriate Oceangoing Sailboats” has determined that cockpit sole mounted hatches are not acceptable in an oceangoing sailboat. Gentlemen, may you please rise and observe a moment of silence while the recording secretary strikes the names Pacific Sea Craft and Valiant from the Register. Man, this list is getting shorter by the day.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Thanks, Jon. I had started the USCG paper but there's so much yada yada ahead of that...

Seems more like overall impressions than real a/b comparison but since they don't see any DISadvantage to it...that counts too!


----------



## SVAuspicious (Oct 31, 2006)

hellosailor said:


> Maybe I missed it, but the one thing I didn't find on Jordan's web site was any link to any subjective testing comparing series drogues to conventional drogues, let along proving them superior.


So you want to see people pitching unsubstantiated opinions at one another? *grin* I'm sure what you meant was _objective_ testing using the scientific method.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> I think most of us want boats that "sail well". But I think you may be underestimating one of the most important attributes of an offshore cruising boat that will likely be sailed by a shorthanded crew... Namely, the boat's inherent ability to 'take care of itself' - and her crew - when being left more to her own devices, in situations such as heaving-to, or running off under bare poles, or when streaming a drogue...


A boat being able to take care of itself is one thing. A boat designed to address the seriously overblown rhetoric around here is entirely another. The latter doesn't exist.



JonEisberg said:


> When conditions deteriorate, or the crew becomes fatigued, or preoccupied with dealing with some issue that has arisen, and so on - you really want to have as many options in your bag of tricks/tactics as possible... I think most sailors would agree that the single biggest advancement in heavy weather gear in recent years has been the advent of the Jordan Series Drogue... Needless to say, an open transom boat is certainly less than ideal for the use of one as tactic for riding out a storm at sea... We've recently seen the abandonment of a $2.5 million Boat of the Year being sailed by 3 professional sailors, after all, in which their reluctance to present the open transom(s) to the seas might have factored in their decision to bail out...


Really? Did you read the same report from the skipper I did over at SA?



JonEisberg said:


> I don't know why you assume that being pooped, or having a cockpit swept by a boarding wave, is such an improbable or rare event... Hell, I've been pooped on a sistership to this Trintella (another Boat of the Year) - a boat with a considerable amount of freeboard and a raised cockpit coaming - when sailing down the freakin' _CHESAPEAKE_... And, we were sailing _fast_ at the time...


I don't think being pooped by a wave in itself is a super rare thing necessarily - I just don't think the one most cruisers will likely encounter is nearly the level of violence being described here (metal being torn away, hatches being blown apart, sumos landing in the cockpit-cum-swimming-pool, etc.). In the video of Falcon I posted above, you see the boat get hit from behind by a breaking wave in F11 conditions. Piece of cake.

In the Volvo video you see the boat get slammed on the beam by another breaking wave in the Southern Ocean that was definitely no piece of cake. That's the type of violence being portrayed in the above discussion.

In any case, the fine non-sugar-scoop transom and raised coaming and high freeboard of that Trintella apparently didn't do any good - even in the freakin' Chesapeake (which is no Southern Ocean).

All I'm saying is that the "design flaws" you guys are hammering - with the wild scenarios you're dreaming up to hammer them - are not really design flaws.

And in terms of the JSD - if you're really that exposed to breaking seas with the kind of violence seen in the Volvo video, you're transom is not going to make a huge different either way. Of course, I don't recall in Jordan's literature that his device increases your danger of being sunk by a boarding wave. Otherwise, the Pardey sea anchor method would still be the biggest advancement.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

GeorgeB said:


> So, the "Committee for the Selection of Appropriate Oceangoing Sailboats" has determined that cockpit sole mounted hatches are not acceptable in an oceangoing sailboat. Gentlemen, may you please rise and observe a moment of silence while the recording secretary strikes the names Pacific Sea Craft and Valiant from the Register. Man, this list is getting shorter by the day.


There is only one boat on the planet that Jon even remotely respects - and that's Jon's boat.


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

Two points to consider:

The amound of freeboard gained by a full transom vs. a sugar scoop is measured by a few feet at most (often less). In large seas, that is pretty much nothing. A large sea is going to climb over the transom just as it will over the scoop, as pointed out in the case of Trintella. The ability to get rid of the water is a very real advantage. While I may not like the completely open transom, they are designed to be closed. To do so requires seamanship. Seamanship is, in my opinion, a much larger factor than the sugar scoop.

The second consideration is, again just my opinion, that the sea is one big heartless mother. There is no boat that can take all the sea can send at her. We all go by grace of God. I've seen 30 foot waves and 50 MPH winds. Thank God I was on a 200' tuna clipper. Even that boat (M/V Clipperton), the largest in the San Pedro fleet at the time, was tossed around like a potato chip. All of us on our little boats do the best we can. The variety of designs that work are all compromises (the endless "what is a blue water …"). Modern professional design, including production boats (whatever the heck that means), are really well thought out and offer trade-offs that the skipper has to evaluate for the intended use. No boat does it all. Skill and design play huge parts, but Posidon (insert God of your choice - or if you are an atheist, think fox-holes!) rules the day.


----------



## Sailormon6 (May 9, 2002)

I have also been pooped in the Chesapeake Bay, and wouldn't call it commonplace, but it surely isn't rare. 

There's a lot to be said for a design that can empty a cockpit of water in a few seconds, instead of a few minutes. If the boat can be pooped when the cockpit is empty, the risk is much greater with a ton or so of water in the cockpit, causing it to squat down. As I see it, there's a greater risk represented by a cockpit that is slow to empty than one that is quick to empty. In those conditions, children and all but the necessary crew should be down below. Crew on deck should be tethered.

It doesn't matter how well a boat is designed, however, if the crew sails in 50 kt winds without putting the hatchboards in place. I saw a 30' racer on the Bay broach and sink in seconds in 25 kt winds because the hatchboards weren't in place, and water filled the inside of the boat, and I frequently see experienced sailors with open companionway hatches in heavy weather.

I tend to agree with smacky. These design variations are probably not as crucial as this discussion would suggest. The design principle that ultimately matters the most is the "corked bottle principle." Everything else is secondary to that.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have a JSD, sugar scoop and open transom which can be nearly closed. That's my vote. Also have doors and duck boards with true seahood to close companionway. Figure hard Bimini may disappear but with good closure of boat and no aft facing glass on house nor hatches down flooding is not a concern. 
I voted with my pocketbook and risk of my life. I will say again filling the cockpit is not that unusual. Even getting pooped is not the one in a million Smackdaddy suggests. I've limited experience and I've been pooped several times. ( not yet on current boat although have had seas board from aft on this boat. But not the slam pinning you to the wheel).


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Scotty C-M said:


> Modern professional design, including production boats (whatever the heck that means), are really well thought out and offer trade-offs that the skipper has to evaluate for the intended use.


Prreeeeeeeecisely. And back to seamanship.

Great post Scotty.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

outbound said:


> Even getting pooped is not the one in a million Smackdaddy suggests. I've limited experience and I've been pooped several times. ( not yet on current boat although have had seas board from aft on this boat. But not the slam pinning you to the wheel).


Again, I'm not saying getting pooped is one in a million.

I'm saying getting VOR-slammed like has been suggested to justify one design approach or the other is, for the average cruiser, very, very, very rare. Just like in your case. You've walked away from every one of yours apparently. So they weren't serious.

Having a lot of water in the cockpit is not, by any measure whatsoever, getting VOR-slammed.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Who knew. I was looking the current line up of Swan's and it looks like due to open transoms all but their smallest are no longer sea worthy. Looks like this icon of off shore sailing should now be limited to 3nm out.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

The new Hinckley 50 will also need to stay near shore.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

And the new Hylas yachts... Sadly my list of best built boats is getting gutted by the need to stay away from sugar scoops and open transoms...

I am running out of options.

Even Island Packet that hallmark of ancient design has started adding sugar scoops... We are all doomed.

Edit:

Yikes even Hallberg Rassy is now out with their open walk thru transoms... Guys I am running out of options. There may not be a boat made anymore that should be considered reasonable for offshore work anymore.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

You guys are killing me with the sugar scoop and open transom. Can we agree, they are not synonymous? I don't see any connections between being pooped and having a sugar scoop. It's cockpit design and location.










I would say our cockpit is partially open, as the opening between the helm seats has a step up, but is lower than the coming, and certainly doesn't span the transom. I find our helm seats to feel pretty secure underway, admitting they are not nearly as protected as a center cockpit. stock photo follows.










While I understand these new wedge shaped, fully open transoms are sailing pretty nicely, I just don't like their lines. If true, I think I learned something in this thread. The open transoms are a necessary evil to drain the large/wide cockpit? Interesting.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

The thing is that the JSD is really quite spectacular from an engineering perspective. It is nothing like being anchored stern to, although Jordan seems to encourage such as well. 

Unlike being anchored stern to, the JSD works dynamically. It balances the boats speed and the impact of breaking waves such that they are as "gentle" as can be.

Would an open stern be as "pleasant" a place to hang out when the JSD is deployed? Maybe not. But would it put the boat at risk? I highly doubt it. Most likely you are not in the cockpit anyway. You are down below resting.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> I don't think any one of those Beneteaus with open sterns would have a problem with a jsd, provided adequate attachment points were installed.


Well, that would make you a far braver man than I... 

Braver, too, than Steve Dashew, it appears:



> There is no question that these drogues work. A number of end users have testified to that fact. *The problem is that in severe conditions the series drogue may work too well, holding the stern down against an advancing sea, so that the rear end of the boat and local structure, such as the cockpit and companionway, are at risk.* In spite of Don's comments, this remains an area of concern for us when considering boats with vulnerable structure at the stern.
> 
> If you have a boat with a strong stern and a midship cockpit, where a boarding sea is not going to cause problems (a good example would be a Peterson 44), the series drogue may be the ultimate weapon. This would also apply to flush- deck designs with horizontal companionways, where the sea does not have a direct shot at the wash boards (such as the early Swans).
> 
> ...





jzk said:


> Have you seen how a boat behaves under a jsd? It is not the same as anchoring stern to.


Well, from Robert Burns, an Australian sailor who actually has seen how a JSD works, with a center cockpit Contest 40 during a Force 10 storm in the Gulf Stream:



> There is some vulnerability in the companionway as the JSD will pull a vessel backwards through a breaking wave...
> 
> SURVIVING THE STORM, pg. 436


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Here is a story of a Hunter with open stern anchored stern to in a hurricane (from the JSD site). It is my opinion that the boat would have done even better had it been at sea with a JSD precisely because of the dynamic system involved. Rather than being secured to the seabed, the boat would have been going forward allowing less impact from any breaking waves:

Hurricane Ike on a Stern Mooring – 2008 New Information
By great good fortune we have a detailed description of the behavior of a sailing yacht moored from the stem in Hurricane Ike in the Gulf, as reported by a brave and competent sailor who stayed aboard for the whole event. Hurricane Ike was a major storm that damaged oil rigs and devastated a large area along the shore. This certainly was a "worst case" mooring event. The boat was a Hunter 376 sloop rigged yacht, length 37 ft. 6 in. displacement 15000 lb. The hull has an open, walk through, transom. The bottom of the stern is relatively flat, and rests a couple of inches above the water and "slaps" when the boat is at anchor. The mast is high.

The boat was anchored very securely with 300 ft. of scope to the first anchor and 200 ft. to a large second anchor, plus chain ahead of the anchors. The anchors did not move during the storm. The depth was 20 to 30 ft. and the fetch was a third of a mile.

The skipper reports:
"As the waves got bigger they filled the cockpit halfway up the companionway doors. I could see water going over the cabin at the mast.

The wave slap turned to pounding as the waves grew higher. The boat jerked forward as each wave pounded the stern. I could see the mast shake with every wave...The stem did not lift with the waves and the boat did not pitch.

The bilge pump failed and the bilge filled. I thought I was going to sink the boat. I managed to fix the pump and rig a second pump and got the water back down."

This is certainly a frightening story. I have considered all aspects and believe that I understand why this happened, and what we can learn to avoid such a problem in the future.

The skipper suggested that the heavy pull on the anchor line was holding the stem down. This cannot be the problem. With 200 ft of line to the first anchor the slope of the anchor line is relatively shallow and if the load had been 2000 lbs, a high estimate, the vertical component of the load would only be about 200 lbs, not nearly enough to hold the stern from rising..

Under these extreme hurricane conditions, this behavior is what might be reasonably expected. This was a major storm. Small houses along the shore were tipped on their sides or completely destroyed...A wind speed of 110 mph was reported.
The boat did not yaw, roll or pitch.

Wave theory indicates that a wave train of 6 ft. near breaking waves formed over a reasonable fetch would have a wave speed of 15 ft. / second and a period of 3 seconds. The skipper reported that the stern did not rise to the waves. Also be mentioned that every time a wave struck the mast shook. This is a significant observation.

A large boat with a high mast has high inertia and resists sudden pitching movement. The mast is a major contributor, as it takes a large force to wave the mast in a fore and aft direction rapidly.

Every boat has a natural frequency in pitch. If the natural frequency is much lower than the wave frequency the boat will not respond. This boat has a low natural frequency in pitch and could not rise to the rapid 3 second wave strikes.

The skipper was understandably traumatized by this experience. He felt he had made a mistake by mooring the boat from the stern. Actually, the boat behaved well, it did not roll or yaw violently as is a common experience in a storm such as this.
The flooding problem was serious, and was certainly aggravated by the open transom. However it is probable that some water would get over a conventional transom in these conditions.

The "pounding" of the waves under the flat transom should not be damaging.

This event tells us that in preparing a boat for a hurricane or severe storm, it would be prudent to tape up all sources of leakage from the cockpit and the deck. In this instance it seems that the companionway doors may have been the main source of the leakage.

It should be noted here that the drogue has been through many storms at sea including several of hurricane strength and there are no reports of the cockpit filling. The reason for this is that the waves at sea are large and have a low frequency. The boat has time to rise with the wave.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^ Interesting how Dashew mentions a very fine GOB offshore cruising boat in his comments...and our regulars want to dismiss the older proven designs...for the fluffy stuff.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

As Jordan notes in the Hunter story, the open stern might "aggravate" the situation, but I don't think it puts the boat in any additional risk. It is true more water makes it to the hatch boards.

But remember, with the JSD deployed, when the water washes into the cockpit it is much more gentle and not the pounding slam that would occur without the JSD.

I remember there being a test video on the JSD site that demonstrates this effect, but I can't find it.



JonEisberg said:


> Well, that would make you a far braver man than I...
> 
> Braver, too, than Steve Dashew, it appears:
> 
> Well, from Robert Burns, an Australian sailor who actually has seen how a JSD works, with a center cockpit Contest 40 during a Force 10 storm in the Gulf Stream:


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

Related question. If you were unwilling to deploy a JSD off the stern of an open cockpit, would it be better to deploy off the bow, over a parachute. The chute can pull out of the face of a wave and shock load the deck cleats. Perhaps a JSD would keep things more uniform? Never heard of anyone using one this way, perhaps there is a reason.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

"There is some vulnerability in the companionway as the JSD will pull a vessel backwards through a breaking wave..."

How can a JSD "pull a vessel" backwards?


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Unlike a parachute anchor, with a JSD, there is no "backwards:"

RECENT EVENTS The catamaran "Be Good Too" was abandoned 300 miles east of Cape Henry (United States East Coast) in early January 2014. The primary reason was severe damage to her 2 rudders when she was thrown backwards by a rogue wave. Without going into the many aspects behind the decision to abandon a catamaran that was less than 2 months old, the incident highlights the dangers faced by mono and multi-hulls when hit by a breaking or large wave. In reverse, the loads on the rudder stock and steering gear are greatly increased way beyond anything normal in turning the boat. Water pressure tries to swing the rudder broadside with increasing force. Rudders are designed to be trailed. Most of us will have felt the excessive steering loads that occur when going astern and perhaps have had the wheel or tiller jerked out of our hands, bringing the rudder up hard against the stops with a sudden impact. Lying to a parachute anchor set from the bow has identical risk of being thrown backwards and suffering rudder failure. In contrast a series drogue set from the stern and moving the boat slowly forwards through the water does not carry this danger.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> But remember, with the JSD deployed, when the water washes into the cockpit it is much more gentle and not the pounding slam that would occur without the JSD.


Yeah, here's a good example of that "gentle" lapping of water against the deckhouse and companionway, from the DRAG DEVICE DATA BASE:



> In any event it did an outstanding job of keeping the stern into the waves and of limiting drift to almost nothing (10 miles in 36 hours, less any westerly drift from possible currents). I had changed the 15 lb. mushroom at the end to a 5 lb. weight and that helped the Jordan to ride a bit more horizontal (but still below the surface). The only problem was that the boat had been broken into in the Canaries and the inside lock for the main hatch had been damaged (the hatch fully closed, just couldn't be secured shut). As you probably know, the Jordan drogue exhibits a tremendous pull at all times. The transom of Moon Boots had been beefed up specially because of this, as had the hatch and the hatch boards. And a good thing too, because every so often a wave would completely go over Moon Boots (I could see solid water as I looked out the side ports).
> 
> *The problem was that at times these waves would slide the main hatch 2-3' forward. Note that the hatch top itself was custom made of wood, weighted almost 75 lbs., and slid very hard on its track as it did not sit on rollers or cars of any type (just slid on metal tracks). It always took an effort with both hands to slide it open or shut. But these waves would slam it open and at the same time 30-50 gallons of water would pour in, (this happened 9 times in 36 hours). Therefore anyone using this style drogue had better have prepared the stern of his boat properly. *
> 
> D/M-6B Monohull, Ericson | Victor Shane's Drag Device Data Base


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

I saw him endorse the Islander 44 as well. There is one across from us. Gorgeous lines for sure. However, not sure a boat like that even compares to newer designs. For example, I believe it has its chainplates bolted to the bulkhead. The open cockpit Beneteaus have far superior chainplate designs.



smackdaddy said:


> There is only one boat on the planet that Jon even remotely respects - and that's Jon's boat.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> "There is some vulnerability in the companionway as the JSD will pull a vessel backwards through a breaking wave..."
> 
> How can a JSD "pull a vessel" backwards?


I can't speak for Robert Burns, but I'm guessing that is his way of describing the often cited "bungee effect" of the series drogue, and how the boat can often decelerate when being overtaken by a following sea, as opposed to accelerating down the face of the wave...


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

A wave slid the hatch forward? A feat any human could do? What force do you suppose was pushing on that hatch top? 20 lbs? And you think that isn't "gentle?"



JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, here's a good example of that "gentle" lapping of water against the deckhouse and companionway, from the DRAG DEVICE DATA BASE:


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Probably. Which is the beauty of the JSD. It is constantly balancing all of the forces. It is really one big "shock absorber" and works almost in the exact same way.



JonEisberg said:


> I can't speak for Robert Burns, but I'm guessing that is his way of describing the often cited "bungee effect" of the series drogue, and how the boat can often decelerate when being overtaken by a following sea, as opposed to accelerating down the face of the wave...


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

jzk said:


> I saw him endorse the Islander 44 as well. There is one across from us. Gorgeous lines for sure. However, not sure a boat like that even compares to newer designs. For example, I believe it has its chainplates bolted to the bulkhead. The open cockpit Beneteaus have far superior chainplate designs.


Nope, bonded to the hull. Sorry, not seeing any Bene's completing Indian Ocean passages, much less Pacific passages to SE Asia. Some sort of fantasy you want to perpetuate?


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Another point needs to be made about the JSD. It needs to be properly sized for the boat. If it restricts forward motion too much, the experience can be much less "comfortable." Jordan talks about that. I suspect that Jon's example with the hatch pushing forward was caused by a JSD too powerful for that boat. We are trying to properly balance many different loads. Forward motion is an essential part of the theory behind the JSD.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Bonded how? That sounds liken an even worse design.

Bene's have done hundreds of such passages. In what world are you living?



aeventyr60 said:


> Nope, bonded to the hull. Sorry, not seeing any Bene's completing Indian Ocean passages, much less Pacific passages to SE Asia. Some sort of fantasy you want to perpetuate?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

aeventyr60 said:


> ^ Interesting how Dashew mentions a very fine GOB offshore cruising boat in his comments...and our regulars want to dismiss the older proven designs...for the fluffy stuff.


Oh, come now... What does a guy with a couple of hundred thousand miles of offshore sailing under his belt, and who has authored far and away the most comprehensive study of heavy weather sailing since Adlard Coles, likely know about boats, anyway? How many YouTube videos do you supposed HE has watched, after all?





> Today, the vast majority of production yachts are simply not designed for heavy weather.
> 
> Yes, they have wonderful, livable interiors while in port. If your cruising is coastal in nature, with short hops between protected harbors, these boats are both cost-effective and fun to live aboard.
> 
> ...


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

jzk said:


> Bonded how? That sounds liken an even worse design.
> 
> Bene's have done hundreds of such passages. In what world are you living?


I'm living in the offshore world of cruising in SE Asia. I've looked at hundred's of boats, in anchorages from Phuket, Thailand to Subic Bay, Philippins and most recently at two of the top marinas in Langkawi, Malaysia. I can tell you that there are no offshore Benes here. Sure a few domestic based one', but nobody headed to So. Africa. Reality is ditch....


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

You are trying to pass your personal observations as some kind of accurate data collection method? Now that is laughable.



aeventyr60 said:


> I'm living in the offshore world of cruising in SE Asia. I've looked at hundred's of boats, in anchorages from Phuket, Thailand to Subic Bay, Philippins and most recently at two of the top marinas in Langkawi, Malaysia. I can tell you that there are no offshore Benes here. Sure a few domestic based one', but nobody headed to So. Africa. Reality is ditch....


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Isn't he a powerboater?



JonEisberg said:


> Oh, come now... What does a guy with a couple of hundred thousand miles of offshore sailing under his belt, and who has authored far and away the most comprehensive study of heavy weather sailing since Adlard Coles, likely know about boats, anyway? How many YouTube videos do you supposed HE has watched, after all?


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> And in terms of the JSD - if you're really that exposed to breaking seas with the kind of violence seen in the Volvo video, you're transom is not going to make a huge different either way. Of course, I don't recall in Jordan's literature that his device increases your danger of being sunk by a boarding wave. Otherwise, the Pardey sea anchor method would still be the biggest advancement.


Good luck getting the Pardey Bridle technique to work for you, unless you decide to swap your boat out for full-keeler...  Unless you're able to produce the slick to windward that Lin & Larry seem able to do, lying to a parachute in that fashion could be quite dangerous when seas begin breaking...

I have no doubt the Pardey's have had success with this tactic, but I have never seen another first hand account from anyone who claims similar success... I think Steve Dashew identifies the reasons why:



> A final word on the Pardey system. It appears to us a key element is the ability of Seraffyn to produce a windward slick to calm the breaking crests.
> 
> This slick is quite difficult to achieve, and none of the sailors we've spoken with, who go to sea on modern vessels, have ever been able to reproduce a slick from their hulls or keels.
> 
> ...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

GeorgeB said:


> So, the "Committee for the Selection of Appropriate Oceangoing Sailboats" has determined that cockpit sole mounted hatches are not acceptable in an oceangoing sailboat. Gentlemen, may you please rise and observe a moment of silence while the recording secretary strikes the names Pacific Sea Craft and Valiant from the Register. Man, this list is getting shorter by the day.


Sorry, my bad, I keep forgetting that pointing out a _SINGLE_ feature that represents a potential liability constitutes the Eternal Damning of a particular Brand, Forevermore... 

Oh, well, at least I didn't single out Hunter, then I'd _really_ be called on the carpet...

What can I say, my experience with openings in cockpit soles - and with flush deck hatches in general - has not been favorable... No matter how high the quality of the build. Whenever I delivered those Trintellas, I always hoped for a nice sunny and breezy 'dry out day' or two at the conclusion of the trip... The beautifully crafted teak deck lid over the forepeak locker certainly looked like it would be watertight, but leaked like a sieve, all the gear stowed within would be soaked... Likewise, the transom door, amazing how much water something designed to be watertight would still admit underway... On a Hylas 54 in the Caribbean 1500 2 years ago, the crew noticed the boat seemed curiously 'bow-heavy' after a day of rough sailing. When someone finally went forward to investigate, they discovered the cavernous forepeak was likewise filled with what probably amounted to a few tons of seawater that managed to leak through the flush deck hatch on what most would consider to be a pretty high-end boat...

Hell, I've seen enough salt water getting onto engines beneath cockpit soles _WITHOUT_ any openings cut into them, so I'll stick to my opinion that creating a large opening above them, in the fashion that some production builders have done, is not necessarily the greatest of ideas...

btw, I've sailed a number of Valiants, and I don't recall ever having seen a cutout in the cockpit sole... Not to say there might be some out there, however...

As for the Pacific Seacraft, that's another boat I'd be proud to own, or happy to deliver anytime... However, even the finer builds often contain some truly head-scratching features... If I owned this PSC 34 and were planning to head offshore, for instance, one of the mods I'd definitely want to make would be to relocate this engine panel to a more sensible location 












smackdaddy said:


> There is only one boat on the planet that Jon even remotely respects - and that's Jon's boat.


_WRONG_, yet again... 

Although I'm reasonably content with my little tub, there's quite a long list of others I would quite happily trade her for...


----------



## SimonV (Jul 6, 2006)

aeventyr60 said:


> I'm living in the offshore world of cruising in SE Asia. I've looked at hundred's of boats, in anchorages from Phuket, Thailand to Subic Bay, Philippins and most recently at two of the top marinas in Langkawi, Malaysia. I can tell you that there are no offshore Benes here. Sure a few domestic based one', but nobody headed to So. Africa. Reality is ditch....


I am surprised at your comments about Benes As I know of three personally in Malaysia and one in langkawi, that are all going around also a hunter 46 that is on the hard as the owners are home at the moment. There must be more.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

aeventyr60 said:


> Deleted by moderator.


Okay - that's funny. Well played sir.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

Thank you all for very interesting and useful comments. A lot of stuff for me to digest, but definitely an eye opening material.
One comment regarding older, more conservative boats. For some people they are the only financially viable option to consider when planning a serious offshore journey. Even if one of these new designs is indeed way better when it comes to safety and comfort offshore, who can afford them?


----------



## Scotty C-M (Aug 14, 2013)

aeventyr60 said:


> Deleted by moderator.


Thank you, Moderator.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

Gentlemen. Please.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> Good luck getting the Pardey Bridle technique to work for you, unless you decide to swap your boat out for full-keeler...  Unless you're able to produce the slick to windward that Lin & Larry seem able to do, lying to a parachute in that fashion could be quite dangerous when seas begin breaking...
> 
> I have no doubt the Pardey's have had success with this tactic, but I have never seen another first hand account from anyone who claims similar success... I think Steve Dashew identifies the reasons why:
> 
> ...


Yeah - but think about your logic Jon. If you really have reservations about the JSD making your boat vulnerable to pooping - and you really want to kneel at the Altar of Dashew - then you (and him) probably should get a boat just like Seraffyn. After all, it seemed to do pretty well in storms, is very, very simple, super old-school, and didn't even have a sugar-scoop transom. And you seem to want a boat like that.


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - but think about your logic Jon. If you really have reservations about the JSD making your boat vulnerable to pooping - and you really want to kneel at the Altar of Dashew - then you (and him) probably should get a boat just like Seraffyn. After all, it seemed to do pretty well in storms, is very, very simple, super old-school, and didn't even have a sugar-scoop transom. And you seem to want a boat like that.


Nope, can't worship at Dashew's alter. His otherwise incredible FPB 64 isn't safe past 3nm from shore. He designed and installed a sugar scoop, which as we all know makes a boat wholy unsutable for off shore work. Despite being otherwise the best off shore powerboat its size I know.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Look at those huge-ass windows:










Obviously he took a page out of this design brief:










It's kind of a cross between a Gunboat and an M1 Abrams (with a sugar-scoop transom of course):



















And it was more expensive than the Gunboat!

http://www.berthon.co.uk/yacht-sales-brokerage/used-yachts-for-sale/pdf/216569/


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah - but think about your logic Jon. If you really have reservations about the JSD making your boat vulnerable to pooping - and you really want to kneel at the Altar of Dashew - then you (and him) probably should get a boat just like Seraffyn. After all, it seemed to do pretty well in storms, is very, very simple, super old-school, and didn't even have a sugar-scoop transom. And you seem to want a boat like that.


Nah, it's not my own boat's vulnerability while streaming a drogue that concerns me, but rather that of some of the other boats that have been mentioned in this thread...  I'm reasonably confident about my little tub's ability to deal with heavy weather, for a boat of her size. After all, she bears a considerable resemblance to both the Contessa 32, and the S&S 34, a couple of designs that seem to have acquitted themselves reasonably well in heavy weather over the years...

As much as I admire some of the qualities of many full keel designs, I have little desire to own one, myself. For the kind of sailing I do, I put a higher value on close quarters maneuvering than many others might, I really want a boat more nimble in tight situations, and that can turn/spin around on a dime...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

smackdaddy said:


> Look at those huge-ass windows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In the future, you may wish to do a bit of research prior to making such a laughable comparison...

Typical of the way Dashew does pretty much everything, the windows on the FBP are massively over-engineered, and their sheer weight alone might have come close to sinking RAINMAKER  To make a fair comparison, it would help to know what sort of glass is used on the GB 55, but there is no indication on Gunboat's site as to the scantlings or thickness, and even the GB pros posting to the threads on SA don't seem to have a clue... All we do know that vast expanse of clear enclosure aft is described as "semi-rigid", however, and was blown out by a squall...

Additionally, he carries storm shutters aboard his boats, even though he doubts they will ever be necessary... Storm gear such as a drogue and para-anchor, as well, equipment apparently deemed superfluous on Gunboat's Disruptive Techno-Boat capable of "sailing around storms"...



> To begin with, these boats have a lot of glass. In a normal seagoing context, with boarding seas being the only structural problem, the engineering is pretty simple. One goes to ABS or Lloyds rules, runs the type of classification, vessel data, and window opening through the computer, and out comes a glass requirement, like the thickness called out below for the FPB 83.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





smackdaddy said:


> It's kind of a cross between a Gunboat and an M1 Abrams (with a sugar-scoop transom of course):


Why, yes - as anyone can clearly see, the stern boarding platform on the FPB makes her transom virtually _IDENTICAL_ to those on RAINMAKER, especially as regards the vulnerability to boarding seas and the possibility of downflooding...










Toss in that flimsy-looking companionway, and the risk to downflooding appears considerable, indeed... Not to mention the tripping hazard that raised sill presents, thankfully eliminated on the Gunboat's sliding doors, which of course are renowned for watertight integrity... Hell, even that slatted window-shade rollup arrangement on the SenseBoats would have been a far superior arrangement to this...












smackdaddy said:


> And it was more expensive than the Gunboat!
> 
> http://www.berthon.co.uk/yacht-sales-brokerage/used-yachts-for-sale/pdf/216569/


Now, _THAT'S_ funny...

I'd suggest the owner of IRON LADY got a better value from his millions spent... It's far more boat to begin with, in terms of size, accommodation, and equipment. He put 21,000 miles behind his sugar scoop, from one corner of the world's largest ocean to the other, over the period of a couple of years, and he still has the boat to trade in for the larger one he's commissioned from Dashew...

Brian Cohen, on the other hand, managed to make the tour of the fall boat shows, shoot a bunch of videos while tooling around LIS and NY Harbor, before jumping into the arms of a CG rescue swimmer in the North Atlantic a mere 200 miles into RAINMAKER's first offshore passage... He likely has no clue as to the status or whereabouts of his boat at the moment, and may well be keeping his fingers crossed he will receive fair and equitable treatment from his insurance company... it will be interesting to see whether he decides to order another Gunboat 55, or whether perhaps his wife urges him to go in a 'different direction', after coming perilously close to losing her baby boy during that little offshore escapade...

Now, I'm no financial expert, but it seems to me the guy who put his trust in Dashew made the better investment overall, no?

Bottom line is, while Gunboat's hype claims you'll be able to go anywhere in style, comfort and safety with their glassed-in 55 foot beach cat, Dashew's boats are actually _DOING IT_...


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

JonEisberg said:


> .. All we do know that vast expanse of clear enclosure aft is described as "semi-rigid", however, and was blown out by a squall...


You are saying that the isenglass was blown out by a squall?


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

The one question I have about the Gunboat is the engineering of the rig. Was the material itself defective? Is there a way to inspect for defects? Was it undersized? 

I also wonder about the benefits of this shroud attachment point.

I think the ability to close off the hulls is a nice idea, and even useful for privacy as well.

The issue with the enclosed cockpit is a non issue.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> You are saying that the isenglass was blown out by a squall?


That's a WAG on my part, though I suppose it might be possible they were blown out by any of the lesser windspeeds they experienced during the trip, or prior to their encounter with the series of squalls...



> CB:... The aft enclosure tracks have blown out...


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> The issue with the enclosed cockpit is a non issue.


Yeah, sure, the consequences of exposing that greenhouse to the elements, and the lack of storm shutters or other means to attempt to seal it back up, were essentially inconsequential, without a doubt:



> CB: The port forward window is gone. We were getting rainwater and salt spray in the salon. The electronics and navigation at the helm and radio box are out. The aft enclosure tracks have blown out. Without being underway, we are getting some wave tops into the salon. The port companionway hatch could be an issue if seas get bigger...
> 
> The satphone charger is mounted at the navstation. It's wet and doesn't appear to be charging...
> 
> ...


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

It is a big hardtop dodger with glass in the front and isenglass aft.



JonEisberg said:


> Yeah, sure, the consequences of exposing that greenhouse to the elements, and the lack of storm shutters or other means to attempt to seal it back up, were essentially inconsequential, without a doubt:


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

jzk said:


> It is a big hardtop dodger with glass in the front and isenglass aft.


Too bad that observation never dawned on the skipper with 30K miles on Gunboats in winds up to 65 knots, one might suppose...

On the other hand, Gunboat does suggest you're good to go for high latitude sailing with the 55, so... You'd think if they didn't have a reasonable expectation that area would remain protected from the elements, they'd have placed the "nav station" and communications array in a more secure location, no? I've never seen a SSB installed in the cockpit, beneath a dodger, for instance...


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

FWIW, "isinglass" is what pioneers two hundred years ago used to get some light when they couldn't find a source for expensive glass.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass

Folks who refer to isinglass on boats, usually just mean they don't know what the window material actually is. So talking about how hard or easy it is to blow out something that's made of unknown material...really....

Even the Pardeys use newer, better, stronger, more expensive glazing materials than isinglass.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> FWIW, "isinglass" is what pioneers two hundred years ago used to get some light when they couldn't find a source for expensive glass.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass
> 
> Folks who refer to isinglass on boats, usually just mean they don't know what the window material actually is. So talking about how hard or easy it is to blow out something that's made of unknown material...really....
> ...


The Pardeys used a clear window material? Without even so much as a 'pram hood' aboard their boat, where?





> As I watch from the companionway, I consider yet another reason we've resisted mounting a dodger on TALEISEN. Without one, half of me sits in the friendly, orderly cabin where Larry, sleeping soundly, is within easy shouting distance should I need his help. At the same time, I'm already halfway outside, so there's no reason not to check a line or trim a sail. Without the dodger, I can study the whole horizon, estimate the track of each squall, and watch stars appear behind each trailing skirt of clouds. Tonight, I contemplate how our amidships galley and aft watch seats make the dodger less important to us. We can cook without fear of spray or wind dousing the stove; we can remove our foul-weather gear in the dry space just below the companionway, safely away from the person working in the galley.
> 
> Lin and Larry Pardey Make a Voyage in Rough Weather | Cruising World


Every reference to the aft enclosure on the Gunboat has described them as being "semi-rigid" panels... I'm guessing they're a similar material to that commonly used on motor yacht and sportfishermen flybridge enclosures, a relatively heavy gauge material like Strataglass, or the stuff that goes by the popular brand name EZ2CY...


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

When I refer to "isenglass" I refer to that flexible plastic stuff sewn into canvas that rolls up. The aft of rainmaker is just this isenglass material.



hellosailor said:


> FWIW, "isinglass" is what pioneers two hundred years ago used to get some light when they couldn't find a source for expensive glass.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass
> 
> Folks who refer to isinglass on boats, usually just mean they don't know what the window material actually is. So talking about how hard or easy it is to blow out something that's made of unknown material...really....
> ...


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

Here is a picture of said rolled up isenglass


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

The other side as well.


----------



## jzk (Feb 25, 2008)

I think I need to make a little correction about the Rainmaker Salon being "a big hardtop dodger with glass in the front and isenglass aft."

What I really mean to say is that it is a REALLY GOOD hardtop dodger with glass in the front and roll up isenglass aft. That it did not fully withstand an impact from the mast falling down is understandable. However, it is such a sweet, well protected enclosed cockpit that it is probably reasonable to mount the SSB there, but again, there is good reason to mount it below. All the other nav stuff is equipment routinely mounted outside. The really nice thing is that the hulls are able to be sealed off. Perhaps not "watetight," but water tight is not super necessary. I can't remember ever seeing a catamaran with this feature other than open deck catamarans. The cockpit has really cool features like an opening roof, front hatch, etc. I remember being in other gunboats where you couldn't see the main when at the helm. That is a little goofy to me.


----------

