# The Loss of The Alpha 42 "Be Good Too"



## smackdaddy

I've started this thread (pulled from Jon's entry in the Rallies Gone Wrong thread) because this is going to be a very interesting story.

Here's the story told by Charlie Doane who is the Executive Editor of SAIL magazine (to which I subscribe) - and who was on board:

HELICOPTER EVACUATION: Abandoning Be Good Too

This incident is obviously going to raise a lot of questions regarding Aeroyacht's design and construction of the Alpha 42 - info for which can be found here:

AEROYACHT Alpha 42 catamaran - Aeroyacht

The "Be Good Too" was Hull No. 1. Ouch.

It appears that the most significant failure was the rudders, when the boat was apparently "pushed backward by a rogue wave". Interestingly, Charlie says this about the configuration of those rudders prior to this disaster:



> We now set up the boat to motorsail itself in a fore-reaching configuration under just the double-reefed main (there was no third reef). We locked the helm off hard to port to keep her from rounding up and were making progress eastwards at 4-5 knots.


Hmm.

Lots of questions...


----------



## Ajax_MD

This is only one side of the story, but if it's true (and I have no reason to doubt the narrator), These people made legitimate, serious attempts to save their vessel before dialing 911.

It does seem that they were a little light on "damage control equipment" and tools, with which they might have made more successful repairs, but really, what are you going to do about a bent rudder besides carry a spare rudder?

Mostly, I feel that they were screwed by crummy engineering, and crummy construction of their "new" boat.

Crummy rudder design.
Charging system failing on a new boat? 
Engine fails to start on a new boat?
Starter shorts and fails on a new boat?
Self-tacking jib lead insufficient on a new boat?

I think a winter delivery was fraught with unnecessary risk, but they didn't seem to face apocalyptic conditions that would cause such a string of failures.


----------



## xort

To me the error was in taking this brand new boat on a shakedown cruise, offshore, dead of winter.


----------



## PCP

I confess that I did not have understood that it was a brand new boat. I did not have recognized the model but even with the wave piercing hulls the boat looked not brand new to me. The design (Marc Anassis) is kind of odd with plenty angles and a big windage. I never heard about the designer too. He have worked for many years as head of lofting for C&C yachts.

I am a bit perplexed with the accident. I have the idea that the boat had been thrown violently backwards by a gigantic wave but that is not confirmed by their description:

"At about 1130 hrs we took a huge direct hit all across our front windows. The wave that hit us seemed much larger than the rest and was running at a different angle, such that it hit us from directly ahead instead of on the starboard quarter. ..*The wave stopped us dead in our tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit*.

Considering this the damage seems to be very extensive.

Aeroyacht is a yacht brokerage firm that sells catamarans (several brands) and decided to distribute exclusively this one giving it its name. If I understood correctly the company or the builders had no particular experience in building cruising cats and I don't find any previous cruising cat project coming from that NA.

Picking an unproven nº1 hull from a company with no previous building experience in this type of boats and making a delivery on rough seas seems not very prudent to me. It seems to me that it should not be the owners to test the prototype on rough conditions but of course, it was their decision to take the boat there.

Alpha Team

About Aeroyacht - Aeroyacht

http://www.aeroyacht.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Alpha-42-Brochure1.pdf


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, Paulo - it is very weird. Charlie was also perplexed by what happened in his article. My suspicion - based on the article (and his quote in my OP) - was that the helm was locked hard-over and thereby presented an _immediate_ very large plane of resistance to the backward motion. And with the questionable construction/assembly it all just blew up.


----------



## JonEisberg

xort said:


> To me the error was in taking this brand new boat on a shakedown cruise, offshore, dead of winter.


Actually, according to the website, there had been at least some sea trialing/shaking down of the boat prior to departure...

Alpha 01 attacks the ice - Aeroyacht

But I agree, this loss was to a large extent the result of decisions made before the boat ever left Liberty Landing... Always easy to say in hindsight, of course 

Not that I was ever asked, but this would have been a delivery I would have passed on, or at least tried hard to convince the owners to consider 'modifying'... With so late a departure in what has been a very volatile and changeable winter so far, I'd try to talk them into simply going down the coast, and spending the winter in the Bahamas, instead... That would certainly be an ideal boat for it...

Or, at the very least, jumping off from Norfolk, or Morehead City, instead... Chances are the charging issue they had (which again, in hindsight, the consequences of which I think is greatly understated in Charlie's write-up) would have been exposed and remedied prior to setting off from further down the coast... I've posted numerous times here the link to Don Street's thoughts on the risk of shooting directly for the islands from further north, and the preference from jumping off from the Chesapeake or Morehead instead, and doing so in mid-January makes even less sense, to me...

However, such routing considerations expose, to me, one of the fundamental liabilities of a multihull for offshore, or for this passage late in the season, in particular... Namely, their inherent lack of weatherliness, and ability to make a COG as close to the wind as a more weatherly monohull...

So, once the determination that the BVIs were to be the destination, the skipper is put into a bit of a box, due to the limitations of the boat's inability to sail a high course to weather... In January, chances are that further on down the rhumb line, you're gonna encounter the winter trades sooner rather than later, and will be on port tack hard on the breeze for perhaps the last 500-600 miles of the trip, and quite possibly more... So, a departure from the Chesapeake, or south of Hatteras - while being considerably safer and more prudent in terms of waiting for a decent window, and getting across the Stream quickly - could make it very problematic to lay the Virgin Islands on port tack... Hell, on a boat like that, leaving from Morehead/Beaufort, you might be lucky to fetch Luperon, much less San Juan... 

Whatever, this was clearly not the right boat to be on in that particular place, at that particular time... Hell, I still can't get over the fact that the steering arms were fixed to the rudder posts with freakin' _SET SCREWS_... UFB...

In any event, I suppose Bill & Linda Knowles must be relieved this boat wasn't ready to go a few months ago... After all, if this had occurred during the Salty Dawg Rally, it would have only served as further evidence that there is a real problem with the way the SDR is being conducted...

Sorry, Smack - couldn't resist...


----------



## smackdaddy

No worries dude! The SDR would have let them in - no problem. Set screws and all. Who needs to check stuff anyway?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> No worries dude! The SDR would have let them in - no problem. Set screws and all. Who needs to check stuff anyway?


Yeah, the Caribbean 1500's ISAF-based Safety Inspection would have caught that one, no doubt... I'm sure they would have caught the sort of stuff a skipper like Hank Schmitt might have overlooked... 

Hmmm, wish I was at liberty to share an anecdote from an email I received a few weeks ago from Hank, regarding how 'discriminating' the 1500 can be, when it comes to whose checks they will accept...


----------



## misfits

This was mentioned on the local news last night because Charlie is considered a local being from Maine.

I wondered why anyone would even consider a bee line to the islands from the northeast this time of year. What's up with that?

Putting the make of the boat aside, I would think heavy weather would be more of a problem for cats compared to a mono hull, safe to say?


----------



## benesailor

When i saw they were building a Cat (Alpha 42) in NY as was so happy. I thought this was going to be a new beginning for a new builder.

I guess not......
The weather they experienced was not that tough for a boat that was engineered properly. 

I think it's time for some of these american builders to reverse engineer some of the french and german/english boats to get an idea on how to build a boat. 

I would venture to say that this will be the end of the Aeroyacht line. That story was way to accurate and truthful to set aside.


----------



## Faster

I imagine this was probably a pricey boat.. pretty unacceptable level of failures in a new boat, 'shakedown' or not.

We once helped out a charter crew on a 'new' 40 foot cat in the Caribbean, they couldn't run one engine.. we investigated and found that a bulkhead mounted HW tank had broken away and fallen onto the engine, making all kinds of noises as the belts rubbed against it.

As we tried to address the situation it became clear that the tank had been held to the (plywood) bulkhead horizontally by a couple of SS bands and 4 #10 wood screws  It had torn itself free in the swells motorsailing up the east coast of Antigua. Maiden trip for this charter boat out of Guadeloupe. We managed to reattach it and support the weight with some lashings up under the coaming (they wouldn't let us drill holes into the bulkhead and cabin liner to through-bolt it) Never did hear the final resolution, but it was pretty clearly an inadequate method.

In this case it seems that they did all they could to get themselves out of a situation that they arguably should never have gotten into in the first place. Despite the bad timing it sounds like they'd have made a safe passage (to some destination) had the boat not fallen apart on them.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Faster said:


> I imagine this was probably a pricey boat.. pretty unacceptable level of failures in a new boat, 'shakedown' or not.
> 
> We once helped out a charter crew on a 'new' 40 foot cat in the Caribbean, they couldn't run one engine.. we investigated and found that a bulkhead mounted HW tank had broken away and fallen onto the engine, making all kinds of noises as the belts rubbed against it.
> 
> As we tried to address the situation it became clear that the tank had been held to the (plywood) bulkhead horizontally by a couple of SS bands and 4 #10 wood screws  It had torn itself free in the swells motorsailing up the east coast of Antigua. Maiden trip for this charter boat out of Guadeloupe. We managed to reattach it and support the weight with some lashings up under the coaming (they wouldn't let us drill holes into the bulkhead and cabin liner to through-bolt it) Never did hear the final resolution, but it was pretty clearly an inadequate method.
> 
> In this case it seems that they did all they could to get themselves out of a situation that they arguably should never have gotten into in the first place. Despite the bad timing it sounds like they'd have made a safe passage (to some destination) had the boat not fallen apart on them.


So, how will this play out as far as who pays for it? Is the builder going to say 'tough luck, too bad you lost your half-million dollar boat, better luck next time?'


----------



## PCP

benesailor said:


> ..
> 
> I guess not......
> The weather they experienced was not that tough for a boat that was engineered properly.
> 
> I think it's time for some of these american builders to reverse engineer some of the french and german/english boats to get an idea on how to build a boat.


It is not properly that. Americans have great cats, the Gunboat range and great cat designers, namely Morrelli & Melvin that I am sure would design and engineer the boat properly. I think that what we see here is kind of an American thing not related with having the knowledge to do well but not using it.

What you see here is not different than what you see in Catalina or Hunter: Instead of calling the best and more experienced NAs to design their boats (and they exist in America) they design the boat in the house with 2th or 3th rate expertise and if the result in this case was quite traumatic on another cases it is just a product that by design is not as good as it could have been if it was better designed.

Talking about Cats in Europe even the inexpensive and kind of condo kind of cat like the Lagoon are designed by the best European NA specialized in cats, Van Peteghem /Lauriot Prévost that have an huge experience, racing included. We are remembered of that when we see all those Lagoons finishing the ARC and when he see that the ones that are well sailed can make very good results and go surprisingly fast.

http://www.vplp.fr/

That's also true that an European buyer would want to know who had designed the boat he intends to buy and that has a market value while in America the sensation I have is that buyers don't care or ask about that.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator

Just curious why you would class Catalina with Hunter? not even remotely in the same class. I was a Catalina dealer and a Bavaria dealer and Catalina is hands down a better boat Than Bavaria. Each of these boats are designed for different reasons but if I was in the market I would choose a Catalina 5 series over Bavaria, Beneteau, or Jeanneau. They are better design, better sailing, better value and higher quality.  I'm just saying...


----------



## PCP

barefootnavigator said:


> Just curious why you would class Catalina with Hunter? not even remotely in the same class. I was a Catalina dealer and a Bavaria dealer and Catalina is hands down a better boat Than Bavaria. Each of these boats are designed for different reasons but if I was in the market I would choose a Catalina 5 series over Bavaria, Beneteau, or Jeanneau. They are better design, better sailing, better value and higher quality.  I'm just saying...


Not talking about building quality but about boat design quality. I don't agree the Catalina is better designed quite the opposite. The Bavaria are designed by Farr. Who designs Catalina?

I joined Catalina and Hunter because they have something in common and opposed to all the other boats you mentioned: They are designed by 2th rate designers while all the others are designed by the best NA.

what I am saying is not that Catalina is a bad boat but that could be a much better one if it was designed by a top Na, for instance, and talking only about top American NA Cabinets, by Farr or Reichel & Pugh.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## barefootnavigator

Agreed Paulo. I would assume it is to keep costs reasonable. Unfortunately you can have the best designer in the world but it doesn't translate into having a equal regard to quality of construction. Bavaria for example has an absolutely brilliantly built hull but that's where it stops. They have horrible interiors. inferior decks and layouts and honestly wont out sail a comparably sized Catalina's not that either of these are racing machines. Catalina yachts has been in business since 1969 for a reason. They also have the hugest reoccurring customer base in the history of yachting. They also hold the distinction of being the easiest boat to resell the US market. Personally design is the number one reason I purchase a boat equally important is who built it. Having been around I refuse to own anything other than the best built designed boat in the world. On my budget that bought me a 22' boat. Maybe some day I will be ablr to move up to 24 26 or 28 but not at the expense of design or construction. Having said that I happily sail on all above mention yachts. If you want to know the real truth about boat construction ask any boatyard because they are the ones dealing with all the warranty failures 
BTW I respect the hell out of your opinion and experience even if we often disagree.


----------



## barefootnavigator

Here are some numbers, the Catalina weighs 3,000 lbs more with less sail area but only loses.05 knot in hull speed even though Bavaria has a full foot on the water line. Catalina has a better capsize ratio and kills Bavaria on motion comefort.
Performance Comparison
LOA	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
37.4
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
36.33
LWL	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
30.84
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
30.25
Beam	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
11.81
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
11.92
Displacement	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
10363
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
13500
Sail Area	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
721.2
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
602
Capsize Ratio	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
2.17
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
2
Hull Speed	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
7.44
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
7.37
Sail Area to Displacement	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
24.28
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
16.99
Displacement to LWL	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
158
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
218
LWL to Beam	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
2.61
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
2.54
Motion Comfort	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
18.07
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
23.78
Pounds/Inch	Bavaria 36 2002 Model	
1301
Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel	
1288


----------



## capta

PCP said:


> We are remembered of that when we see all those Lagoons finishing the ARC and when he see that the ones that are well sailed can make very good results and go surprisingly fast.
> 
> Paulo


You've got to remember the ARC is a down hill sail at the best time of the year, not a windward venture into the North Atlantic in the dead of winter; apples and oranges, again.
As to American cat designers, Rudy Choy designed some of the greatest SAILING cats; fast and comfortable, 50 years ago. His boats were doing Hawaii to California runs and circumnavigations before many of the designers of today were even a twinkle in their parents eyes. Why his designs are no longer in favor is a mystery to me. These were sailboats, and yet they had the room and comfort of the modern room-a-rans.
In opposition to the thread about the Salty Dog Rally, this boat had what I would assume was a professional skipper with plenty of experience. It wasn't the crew who failed, but the boat, so I don't think there's a lot of similarities. Again they set out at possibly the worst time of the year, unlike the SDR.
If it had been my delivery, I would have run both engines up to low cruising speed and headed for where I wanted to go in the most direct manner possible. I would have deck loaded fuel if necessary and motorsailed if possible, but get south and east ASAP. My last voyage south from Newport, RI was late in the hurricane season and let me tell you, it was not a sailing cruise. Keeping my speed at or above 6 knots was my prime concern, sailing be damned. That made the Bermuda run slightly over 4 days, a pretty safe bet, even at that time of the year. A friend, on an identical boat left within an hour of us, but insisted in using a weather service and playing around sailing as much as possible. He ran into very strong southerlies and arrived a day and a half after us, sustaining some damage and a whole lot of discomfort.
When you are at sea in a vessel, you must understand it's liabilities as well as strengths, especially at a time of the year when the weather can change drastically, leaving you fighting for your life. Relying on a weather service when crossing the gulfstream north of Bermuda is foolhardy. The gulfstream creates it's own weather up there, which no weather service or satellite can see or predict.
One last thing. I have 9 transPacific crossings from SF to Asia on ships, a circumnavigation, half a dozen transAts, probably 3 times that on Caribbean/US sails both ways, and uncountable other voyages on everything from tugs to fishing vessels (even to AK) and I have never seen a "rogue wave". Perhaps I have been extremely lucky, or perhaps they are much more prevalent these days, I don't know, but it seems to me that many of these "rogue waves" people are reporting these days may not in fact, actually be "rogue waves". The one British freighter I know, that in fact encountered a "rogue wave", had it's foc's'l crushed to the level of the main deck, lost all her lifeboats and all the bridge windows, not something I believe a 42' cat would have survived!


----------



## PCP

barefootnavigator said:


> Here are some numbers, the Catalina weighs 3,000 lbs more with less sail area but only loses.05 knot in hull speed even though Bavaria has a full foot on the water line. Catalina has a better capsize ratio and kills Bavaria on motion comefort.
> Performance Comparison
> LOA	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 37.4
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 36.33
> LWL	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 30.84
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 30.25
> Beam	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 11.81
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 11.92
> Displacement	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 10363
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 13500
> Sail Area	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 721.2
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 602
> Capsize Ratio	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 2.17
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 2
> Hull Speed	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 7.44
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 7.37
> Sail Area to Displacement	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 24.28
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 16.99
> Displacement to LWL	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 158
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 218
> LWL to Beam	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 2.61
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 2.54
> Motion Comfort	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 18.07
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 23.78
> Pounds/Inch	Bavaria 36 2002 Model
> 1301
> Catalina 36 MK II TR/Fin Keel
> 1288


That's part of the problem: Many Americans still look at things like capsize ratio and motion comfort ratio.

If you made a search on the site you will find information that will explain why that is meaningless. Jeff has some good posts about it.

Now in what regards hull design/shape, keel and ruder design you will find many differences regarding a boat designed by a top NA like Farr and the ones that design Catalina and Hunter.

But I don't want to discuss this. If you think that Catalina and Hunter are better designed then Bavaria or Jeanneau, fine with me but it is a bit strange that the ones that design Catalina and Hunter pretty much only design Catalina and Hunter and nobody looks for their services for designing other boats while Farr and Marc Lombard (just to mention two) have a huge number of commands each year that goes from mass production boats to big yachts and top race boats.


----------



## barefootnavigator

Throw out all the numbers, it still doesn't negate the fact that the Catalina sails better faster and more comfortably than all above listed boats with which is what I think most people look for. 
Btw Bavaria is using hull technologies designed by Bruce King in the 60's


----------



## PCP

capta said:


> You've got to remember the ARC is a down hill sail at the best time of the year, not a windward venture into the North Atlantic in the dead of winter; apples and oranges, again.
> ...
> In opposition to the thread about the Salty Dog Rally, this boat had what I would assume was a professional skipper with plenty of experience. It wasn't the crew who failed, but the boat, so I don't think there's a lot of similarities. Again they set out at possibly the worst time of the year, unlike the SDR.
> ....
> One last thing. I have 9 transPacific crossings from SF to Asia on ships, a circumnavigation, half a dozen transAts, probably 3 times that on Caribbean/US sails both ways, and uncountable other voyages on everything from tugs to fishing vessels (even to AK) and I have never seen a "rogue wave". Perhaps I have been extremely lucky, or perhaps they are much more prevalent these days, I don't know, but it seems to me that many of these "rogue waves" people are reporting these days may not in fact, actually be "rogue waves". The one British freighter I know, that in fact encountered a "rogue wave", had it's foc's'l crushed to the level of the main deck, lost all her lifeboats and all the bridge windows, not something I believe a 42' cat would have survived!


No, not this year. If you had followed the ARC you will have noticed that, except for the few best sailors and racers that went to strong winds at almost the latitude of Madeira, all the other had plenty of upwind and that's why this years the Cats had a pretty lousy performance. Even so several Lagoons did extremely well sailing as fast as some of the so called performance cats and finished among some of the best performance cruisers of the same size.

Regarding the problem to be on the boat, yes, I had already said that. It seems to me that boat should have not broke the way he did face of a wave that stop it on his tracks and maybe pushed it just a little back. Besides lots of other things failed or did not functioned on that boat

Regarding rogue waves I would be worried. The luck does not last forever and if you keep on sailing that way you will probably find one

Only 15 days ago our shore was devastated by two isolated rogue waves and about 3 weeks ago a 54ft cruising boat was rolled in conditions where 32/34 very light cruiser racers faced without any problem. The wind was not that bad (40K). They say that it was a rogue breaking wave, much bigger than the others and I find that probable since a lot of smaller boats including cats did not had any problem.

By the way a rogue wave is nothing of the other world, by definition it is just a wave whose height is more than twice the significant wave height.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

barefootnavigator said:


> Just curious why you would class Catalina with Hunter? not even remotely in the same class....


Meh.

I had a C27 and now have an H40. I liked the Catalina, and I _really_ like the Hunter. Same PHRF between the C40 and H40 - so very similar sailing characteristics.

I'll put them (at least the older ones) in the same class.


----------



## smackdaddy

capta said:


> *It wasn't the crew who failed*, but the boat, so I don't think there's a lot of similarities. Again *they set out at possibly the worst time of the year*, unlike the SDR.


It's kind of always the crew - no matter how you cut it. The boat just goes where it's steered.

The other problem was that the boat gave them no insurance against this decision (to be out there at the worst time of year). It seems to have been coming apart around them.


----------



## capta

smackdaddy said:


> It's kind of always the crew - no matter how you cut it. The boat just goes where it's steered.


On that, I'll have to disagree. After being run down by a fast moving hurricane off Fiji, I made every possible mistake one could make (most because of a lack of information). A 65', 65 year old wooden Wm. Hand gaff ketch, built in Taunton Ma; rolled 3 times, hatches torn off, main boom and bowsprit broken, but she got us through it. Not that we didn't work our butts off, bailing and nailing floorboards over the hatches, etc, but that boat just wouldn't give up. Four days in winds over 65 knots.
She got us through, not I, nor my crew; my wife, a 20 year old kid who'd never sailed before and our 5 year old daughter. The last log book entry before the bar; "Good luck us." in big letters across a page.


----------



## benesailor

> On that, I'll have to disagree. After being run down by a fast moving hurricane off Fiji, I made every possible mistake one could make (most because of a lack of information). A 65', 65 year old wooden Wm. Hand gaff ketch, built in Taunton Ma; rolled 3 times, hatches torn off, main boom and bowsprit broken, but she got us through it. Not that we didn't work our butts off, bailing and nailing floorboards over the hatches, etc, but that boat just wouldn't give up. Four days in winds over 65 knots.
> She got us through, not I, nor my crew; my wife, a 20 year old kid who'd never sailed before and our 5 year old daughter. The last log book entry before the bar; "Good luck us." in big letters across a page.


Now that's a story worth telling!


----------



## brokesailor

Capta: I think that when they say rogue wave they meant bigger and from a different direction than the prevalent.


----------



## JonEisberg

misfits said:


> This was mentioned on the local news last night because Charlie is considered a local being from Maine.
> 
> I wondered why anyone would even consider a bee line to the islands from the northeast this time of year. What's up with that?


Perhaps Charlie should have re-read his blog entry from last winter, re the loss of the Swan 46 WOLFHOUND in strikingly similar circumstances, prior to setting off on this trip...

Emphasis mine...



> *What the heck were those guys doing out there in February?* Twas a race delivery... believe it or not. McGettigan bought the boat in Connecticut last fall, didn't get it put together as fast as he hoped, thanks to Hurricane Sandy, but was intent on racing it in the Caribbean 600. So he and three buddies from Ireland jumped aboard and departed Westbrook bound for Bermuda on February 2.
> 
> *What went wrong was predictable enough. It was exactly the sort of stuff that usually happens when you're shaking down a boat you've just bought.* A newly installed inverter/charger didn't work properly and the engine got gunked up with dirty fuel. So there they were 70 miles or so north of Bermie with no house power and no engine and a handheld VHF with a rundown battery. Their only working nav equipment was an iPad that was down to 15 percent of its battery life. Then the weather got rough again, and they suffered two knockdowns.
> 
> What would YOU do in these circumstances???
> 
> *I could launch into my routine tirade about unnecessary rescue calls, but I'll spare you that.* (You'll find many such opinions in this forum discussion, if you do care to moralize.) Fact is, I can't promise I wouldn't have done the same thing in this situation, though* I do like to think I would somehow have gotten into Bermuda unassisted.*
> 
> COME AND GET IT: Free Swan 48 Available


----------



## sailvayu

And speaking of "unnecessary rescue calls" I cannot help but wonder why nobody has taken exception to the fact that they refused a rescue at hand, because the ship was going in the wrong direction and it was "inconvenient" for them. So instead had to have the USCG at great expense and risk of life come get them.


----------



## Faster

sailvayu said:


> And speaking of "unnecessary rescue calls" I cannot help but wonder why nobody has taken exception to the fact that they refused a rescue at hand, because the ship was going in the wrong direction and it was "inconvenient" for them. So instead had to have the USCG at great expense and risk of life come get them.


The way I read that was they had been informed by the CG that a west-bound ship was on the way?


----------



## sailvayu

And would good seamanship not dictate that this be verified before sending help away?

I am playing devils advocate here to help better understand


----------



## smackdaddy

> What the heck were those guys doing out there in February? Twas a race delivery... believe it or not. McGettigan bought the boat in Connecticut last fall, didn't get it put together as fast as he hoped, thanks to Hurricane Sandy, but was intent on racing it in the Caribbean 600. So he and three buddies from Ireland jumped aboard and departed Westbrook bound for Bermuda on February 2.
> 
> What went wrong was predictable enough. It was exactly the sort of stuff that usually happens when you're shaking down a boat you've just bought. A newly installed inverter/charger didn't work properly and the engine got gunked up with dirty fuel. So there they were 70 miles or so north of Bermie with no house power and no engine and a handheld VHF with a rundown battery. Their only working nav equipment was an iPad that was down to 15 percent of its battery life. Then the weather got rough again, and they suffered two knockdowns.
> 
> What would YOU do in these circumstances???
> 
> I could launch into my routine tirade about unnecessary rescue calls, but I'll spare you that. (You'll find many such opinions in this forum discussion, if you do care to moralize.) Fact is, I can't promise I wouldn't have done the same thing in this situation, though I do like to think I would somehow have gotten into Bermuda unassisted.
> 
> COME AND GET IT: Free Swan 48 Available


Kind of the textbook case of Monday morning moralizing coming back to bite you in the hiney.

To broke's point above - that's where the "rogue wave" thing comes in real handy.


----------



## smackdaddy

capta said:


> On that, I'll have to disagree. After being run down by a fast moving hurricane off Fiji, I made every possible mistake one could make (most because of a lack of information). A 65', 65 year old wooden Wm. Hand gaff ketch, built in Taunton Ma; rolled 3 times, hatches torn off, main boom and bowsprit broken, but she got us through it. Not that we didn't work our butts off, bailing and nailing floorboards over the hatches, etc, but that boat just wouldn't give up. Four days in winds over 65 knots.
> She got us through, not I, nor my crew; my wife, a 20 year old kid who'd never sailed before and our 5 year old daughter. The last log book entry before the bar; "Good luck us." in big letters across a page.


Great story. And great boat - obviously.

I know you're right, I was just pointing out the irony in your statement above.


----------



## bljones

Rogue wave- the deus ex machina of abandoned ship stories.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Interesting read. Having been caught out in a tropical depression in the same area I can't understate the power of the steep and disturbed seas in this area. Sounds like the boat did o'k for the conditions encountered except for some issues like rudder design, steering system build issues, forward window integrity, and engine location. All solvable problems except they are not solvable 300 miles off the coast of the Carolinas.

Could the engine alternator not working have been from water leaks into the engine compartment from the pounding they were taking? The forward "window" leaked a considerable amount when hit by a wave. If it was plexiglass leaking would not be surprising since plexiglass is pretty flexible. They are fortunate the window did not blow out. 

My take is that this boat was not designed to be a true ocean voyaging machine. It probably is more than adequate for fair weather passages and bopping around the Caribbean. The telling thing was that it was sea trialed in 35 knot winds and 8 foot foot waves and pronounced fit for the voyage. Uh, not exactly the 15-20 foot waves encountered on the voyage. Nothing like being a beta tester 300 miles out in the North Atlantic.

The big question is who gets stuck with the bill. The manufacturer? an insurance company? or the owner? If it is the insurance company, I wouldn't be surprised to see them go after the manufacturer and the paid crew to recover some of their loss. Do you think the owner's wife will let him buy another one?


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Rogue waves do happen especially in this area of the North Atlantic. I'm not sure about the twice as high as the average wave but I am dead sure about somewhat increased height and angle change of rogue waves. We saw some waves as much as 40 degrees off the average wave direction in the same area. Pretty scary when they are breaking and 25 feet high.

I once heard said that rogue waves are attracted to small boats in the Atlantic at about the same frequency as tornadoes are attracted to trailer parks in the Midwest. Just sayin'


----------



## Dog8It

_Through all of this, too, we were now having to pump out the moist sections of the boat by hand. Water had been coming aboard continually in certain compartments for some time and now with no electric bilge pumps we had to attend to the chore ourselves. We weren't sure where the water was coming from, and though the rate of ingress wasn't at all alarming, it was annoying, as we had to pump for several minutes every one-and-a-half hours or so._

It would seem to me that the quality of build was definitely subpar. Though, I would like to know what others make of this type of leakage on a brand new boat.

I really was looking forward to having a new, modern cat designed and build in NA. However, it seems that corners were cut and quality may have been compromised.

Also, the builder's website seems to focus on the ROGUE wave almost exclusively and there is no mention of problems with equipment and boat in general.


----------



## christian.hess

new boats leak all the time when put through a tough sail

remeber TANEA AIEBI?

brand new contessa 26(awesome pocket offshore cruiser) and that thing leaked all wayaround...she would fix and seal something only to have it leak somewhere else

it was a brand new boat in the early 80s right? cost cutting or bad finishing at the factory? recession or not new does not mean bulletproof

the titanic needs to always be in the back of our minds when going new...why cause it was bulletproof except for the 3 milliion bad metal rivets it had

same goes for anything new, until tested its no better than a bucket


----------



## NCC320

Paulo,

You say: 

"Catalina or Hunter: Instead of calling the best and more experienced NAs to design their boats (and they exist in America) they design the boat in the house with 2th or 3th rate expertise"

and: 

"it is a bit strange that the ones that design Catalina and Hunter pretty much only design Catalina and Hunter and nobody looks for their services for designing other boats "

As I see it, a designer might be independent, designing for many people, or a part of the company which builds his designs. Different positions. One would be seeking and doing work for lots of people/companies, and the other, being a part of the team of a particular company is vested in that company and works/designs only for them. As I understand it, in Catalina's case, their designer (Gerry Douglas) has been the designer for many years, is a Vice President of the company, a principal in the company, and probably the number 2 or 3 ranking person after the primary owner of Catalina.


----------



## svHyLyte

Sanduskysailor said:


> Rogue waves do happen especially in this area of the North Atlantic. I'm not sure about the twice as high as the average wave but I am dead sure about somewhat increased height and angle change of rogue waves. We saw some waves as much as 40 degrees off the average wave direction in the same area. Pretty scary when they are breaking and 25 feet high.
> 
> I once heard said that rogue waves are attracted to small boats in the Atlantic at about the same frequency as tornadoes are attracted to trailer parks in the Midwest. Just sayin'


Based upon Charlie Doane's description of the event, the wave that damaged the yacht may have been a "rogue" in the sense that it was larger than the prevailing seas and came from a different direction but was evidently not that much greater. I suspect the problems arose more from the design of the hulls with the raked "wave piercing" bows. The hulls did exactly that. They pierced the wave rather than rising to it which would have driven the bows down and into the water, exacerbating the situation. A wave piercing bow on a motor yacht with 100 feet or more of foredeck to disburse the flood and shed water before it reaches a reinforced steel or aluminum superstructure is one thing. A cat, with only 20 feet or so before a wave strikes a nearly flat plat superstructure of GRP and Plexiglas is quite another matter. Poor design for ocean voyaging in my view.

FWIW...


----------



## PCP

NCC320 said:


> Paulo,
> 
> You say:
> 
> "Catalina or Hunter: Instead of calling the best and more experienced NAs to design their boats (and they exist in America) they design the boat in the house with 2th or 3th rate expertise"
> 
> and:
> 
> "it is a bit strange that the ones that design Catalina and Hunter pretty much only design Catalina and Hunter and nobody looks for their services for designing other boats "
> 
> As I see it, a designer might be independent, designing for many people, or a part of the company which builds his designs. Different positions. One would be seeking and doing work for lots of people/companies, and the other, being a part of the team of a particular company is vested in that company and works/designs only for them. As I understand it, in Catalina's case, their designer (Gerry Douglas) has been the designer for many years, is a Vice President of the company, a principal in the company, and probably the number 2 or 3 ranking person after the primary owner of Catalina.


Yes, that sometimes happens with small specialized brands and in the US certainly it happens with Jboats. But that can only be maintained if the boats are competitive and that's the case with Jboats that not only sell in the US as in Europe.

When major brands like Catalina and Hunter are beaten on the US market by European brands and sell almost nothing in Europe that means that someting is very wrong. It would be natural that Americans, all things being the same preferred American boats.

They are not only being beaten as they face trouble, specially Hunter that was almost bankrupt and that does not seem well to me.

When the major American sailboat brand faces bankrupcy I would say that reasons should be searched regarding its lack of competiveness. I don't know exactly why but it can be a problem of costs/build or design. It seems to me that it is a design problem since I don't find the boats as well designed as European boats and I am not talking about the interior

Anyway that was a side commet regarding that cat being designed by a NA that apparently has not a great experience designing sailboats and particularly cats. I don't thing that could have happened in Europe regardig a cat of that size and price. The comment regarding Catalina and Hunter being designed in the house while the main European brands have always the boats designed by the best NA on the market, has to do with showing a tendency on the american boat building industry even regarding the main and bigger American brands.

I would love to see better American sailboats and I love some of them, like Jboats or Corsair and that has nothing to do with being fast performance cruisers but with the fact of being well designed (those two seel well in Europe too). I am very happy with the new C&C to be designed by a great NA ( Mills, an American one) and I would like to se Catalinas and Hunters designed by major American (or european Nas), I believe they would be better boats.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

svHyLyte said:


> Based upon Charlie Doane's description of the event, the wave that damaged the yacht may have been a "rogue" in the sense that it was larger than the prevailing seas and came from a different direction but was evidently not that much greater. I suspect the problems arose more from the design of the hulls with the raked "wave piercing" bows. The hulls did exactly that. They pierced the wave rather than rising to it which would have driven the bows down and into the water, exacerbating the situation. A wave piercing bow on a motor yacht with 100 feet or more of foredeck to disburse the flood and shed water before it reaches a reinforced steel or aluminum superstructure is one thing. A cat, with only 20 feet or so before a wave strikes a nearly flat plat superstructure of GRP and Plexiglas is quite another matter. Poor design for ocean voyaging in my view.
> 
> FWIW...


I'm curious about this too. At what point do wave-piercing bows become a liability?

By Aero's description of how they behave (high buoyancy), I had in my head the opposite of what you describe above...that the bows rose very quickly, causing the boat to surf backward more quickly than a standard bow would.

But what you describe is equally conceivable.

Do you designers have any insight on how these bows would behave in a large wave strike? I saw the effectiveness of these bows on the AC boats in moderate chop (creating a very stable platform) - but what about the big stuff?


----------



## capta

svHyLyte
You make a very good point and designers should take note. Completely ass-backwards to traditional vessel design with buoyancy decreasing with immersion, rather than increasing.
I hadn't given it any thought before you mentioned it, but now it seems obviously foolhardy for small sailing craft offshore designs.


----------



## smackdaddy

Charlie Doane has produced another writeup - addressing us "baying dogs of the internet" (nice):

BE GOOD TOO: Answering Critics | Sailfeed



> 1. The most substantive point that has been raised is that it was not wise of us to attempt a non-stop passage from New York to St. John in January in an untried prototype boat. This certainly bears discussing. Gunther and Doris had been waiting for the boat for some time and were eager to get south ASAP. *I am sure they are now second-guessing their decision in retrospect...*
> 
> As for Hank's perspective, he's a professional delivery skipper. Taking brand new lightly equipped boats into ****ty weather is a big part of that job, at least if you really want to make a living at it. Some have suggested he should have tried to persuade Gunther and Doris to hop down the coast to the Bahamas instead, but in doing that he would effectively be talking them out of hiring him. *I would guess that he now might be a bit more careful about accepting hull no. 1 prototype jobs.*
> 
> As for me, I have some experience crewing off-season deliveries, including in brand new boats, and I knew what to expect. I knew we'd be in a gale or two and expected some things might break. I would never have done this trip with a skipper I didn't know and trust. In retrospect *I can certainly say I will be more careful in the future about doing off-season passages in prototype boats.*


Isn't the bolded stuff what the "baying dogs" have been saying? Hmm....

Oh, and Jon, ANOTHER plus one for me on the SDR argument:



> In the winter, at least, you won't have some squirrely tropical system doing something entirely unexpected (like Mitch in 1998).
> 
> *There is an argument to be made that experienced sailors taking a boat south in winter are behaving more responsibly than inexperienced sailors who try to go south in the fall without professional help.*


I'm so right. And...



> It may surprise Jon to learn this, but it is possible to sail long distances without any engines or electrical power. Some people even go out in boats that don't have engines or electrical systems in the first place.


...you just got spanked! Heh-heh.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh, and Jon, ANOTHER plus one for me on the SDR argument:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the winter, at least, you won't have some squirrely tropical system doing something entirely unexpected (like Mitch in 1998).
> 
> *There is an argument to be made that experienced sailors taking a boat south in winter are behaving more responsibly than inexperienced sailors who try to go south in the fall without professional help.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so right.
Click to expand...

You know, such an argument _MIGHT_ have some merit, if you or Charlie could show any significant *CORRELATION* between the difficulties encountered by the boats abandoned or forced to withdraw from the SDR, and the experience - or supposed lack thereof - of their crews...

Unfortunately for you, there's not much of a correlation:

*ZULU* - The Alden 54 that suffered the loss of her rudder... Her owner is a member of the New York, Bristol, and Great Harbor Yacht Clubs. She had previously completed the brutal 2011 NARC rally, with no issues... Verdict: "Inexperience" not likely to be a significant issue...

*JAMMIN'* - the Catalina 42 that also lost her rudder... These folks have been full-time cruisers since 2007, starting from the West Coast... They had made the trip back and forth to the Islands a couple of times before...
Verdict: "Lack of experience" not bloody likely to have been an issue...

*LIKE DOLPHINS* - a Catana 47 that was dismasted... Her owners are from freakin' _BELGIUM_, so they have at least one Transatlantic crossing under their belts...
Verdict: I doubt their dismasting was due to a lack of experience...

*NYAPA *- the Hans Christian 38 also dismasted... This year was to be their 3rd time out cruising for an extended period, their first time out was 25 years ago after they were first married... 2nd cruise was a 5 year affair with their 3 daughters, starting on the West coast, thru the Canal and most of the Caribbean, and ending at home in New England, where they worked to replenish the cruising kitty, and refit for another extended cruise...
Verdict: "Lack of experience"??? Seriously???

*WINGS* - the C-38 abandoned after being 'disabled'... Another full-time cruising couple, their home port was Duluth, MN - you know, on that puny bathtub called _Lake freakin' SUPERIOR_ ? They had already made it down to the Bahamas, spent at least a year without ever coming alongside a dock, then had returned to the Chesapeake, where they planned to sail with the SDR...
Verdict: Information on this couple is the hardest to obtain, but I it certainly does not appear they would fit anyone's reasonable definition of "Inexperienced"...

*BRAVEHEART* - the Tartan 4600 that diverted to Beaufort after a crewmember suffered a broken arm...Her owners were veterans of previous Caribbean 1500s, as long ago as 2006...
Verdict: "Inexperienced"? Yeah, OK, if you say so...

So, keep beating that drum of yours that the problems in this year's SDR fleet were due to "Inexperience", the SDR's "Low Bar to Entry", or the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection - 'cause I doubt I'm the only one here who finds your persistent bleating on this issue highly amusing...


----------



## capta

JonEisberg said:


> You know, such an argument _MIGHT_ have some merit, if you or Charlie could show any significant *CORRELATION* between the difficulties encountered by the boats abandoned or forced to withdraw from the SDR, and the experience - or supposed lack thereof - of their crews...
> 
> Unfortunately for you, there's not much of a correlation:
> 
> *ZULU* - The Alden 54 that suffered the loss of her rudder... Her owner is a member of the New York, Bristol, and Great Harbor Yacht Clubs. She had previously completed the brutal 2011 NARC rally, with no issues... Verdict: "Inexperience" not likely to be a significant issue...
> 
> *JAMMIN'* - the Catalina 42 that also lost her rudder... These folks have been full-time cruisers since 2007, starting from the West Coast... They had made the trip back and forth to the Islands a couple of times before...
> Verdict: "Lack of experience" not bloody likely to have been an issue...
> 
> *LIKE DOLPHINS* - a Catana 47 that was dismasted... Her owners are from freakin' _BELGIUM_, so they have at least one Transatlantic crossing under their belts...
> Verdict: I doubt their dismasting was due to a lack of experience...
> 
> *NYAPA *- the Hans Christian 38 also dismasted... This year was to be their 3rd time out cruising for an extended period, their first time out was 25 years ago after they were first married... 2nd cruise was a 5 year affair with their 3 daughters, starting on the West coast, thru the Canal and most of the Caribbean, and ending at home in New England, where they worked to replenish the cruising kitty, and refit for another extended cruise...
> Verdict: "Lack of experience"??? Seriously???
> 
> *WINGS* - the C-38 abandoned after losing her rudder... Another full-time cruising couple, their home port was Duluth, MN - you know, on _Lake freakin' SUPERIOR_ ? They had already made it down to the Bahamas, spent at least a year without ever coming alongside a dock, then had returned to the Chesapeake, where they planned to sail with the SDR...
> Verdict: Information on this couple is the hardest to obtain, but I it certainly does not appear they would fit anyone's reasonable definition of "Inexperienced"...
> 
> *BRAVEHEART* - the Tartan 4600 that diverted to Beaufort after a crewmember suffered a broken arm...Her owners were veterans of previous Caribbean 1500s, as long ago as 2006...
> Verdict: "Inexperienced"? Yeah, OK, if you say so...
> 
> So, keep beating that drum of yours that the problems in this year's SDR fleet were due to "Inexperience", the SDR's "Low Bar to Entry", or the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection - 'cause I doubt I'm the only one here who finds your persistent bleating on this issue highly amusing...


Very interesting post. So many lost rudders at one time. Different builders, different ages; what is the common thread? Did they all deploy sea anchors?
A mystery for you "who done it" fans, to be sure.


----------



## JonEisberg

capta said:


> Very interesting post. So many lost rudders at one time. Different builders, different ages; what is the common thread? Did they all deploy sea anchors?
> A mystery for you "who done it" fans, to be sure.


Sorry, the post you quoted contained one error, which I've corrected...

The information on the abandonment of WINGS is very sketchy, they only say she was 'disabled', not necessarily a loss of steering, to the best of my knowledge... The decision to abandon sounds like it was taken in the face of a forecast of worsening weather, and the owner's blog offers no further clarification of what exactly went wrong...


----------



## sailvayu

USCG Marine Alert

http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/P-DEPT/1_and_2_14.pdf


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> So, keep beating that drum of yours that the problems in this year's SDR fleet were due to "Inexperience", the SDR's "Low Bar to Entry", or the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection - 'cause I doubt I'm the only one here who finds your persistent bleating on this issue highly amusing...


Jon, baby, as always, and as forever will be, I really don't deed to make any correlation other than this:

The SDR was the ONLY rally to have FIVE (6 if you count the other call) SAR cases in a single stretch. _They own that record._

They also own the issues of the "Inexperience", the "Low Bar to Entry", and the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection.

There is simple math to be done, my friend. (Or, alternatively, gymnastics of trying to prove something otherwise. I'm just not good at gymnastics. The tight pants chafe my manbits.)

But we digress....

What are your thoughts on the wave-piercing bows?


----------



## smackdaddy

sailvayu said:


> USCG Marine Alert
> 
> http://wow.uscgaux.info/Uploads_wowII/P-DEPT/1_and_2_14.pdf


Very good stuff. Thanks for the link sailv.



> *Offshore Sailing *
> You must be prepared.
> 
> In a recent offshore regatta, numerous sailboats experienced steering system and other failures which required assistance and/or rescue by the U. S. Coast Guard when a weather system stalled offshore creating higher than expected sea states and winds. The Coast Guard responded using an array of assets to render assistance.
> 
> Offshore sailing requires special knowledge, skills, and abilities. Vessel equipment and components must be thoroughly checked before getting underway and periodically while at sea. The offshore domain's remoteness adds a negative dynamic to survivability concerns. Preparation is key to minimizing misfortune.
> 
> The Coast Guard strongly recommends that owner / operators of offshore sailboats ensure proper maintenance and repair of their critical mechanical systems to reduce the possibility of failure during stressed operating conditions.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, baby, as always, and as forever will be, I really don't deed to make any correlation other than this:
> 
> The SDR was the ONLY rally to have FIVE (6 if you count the other call) SAR cases in a single stretch. _They own that record._


Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that the _PERCENTAGE_ of boats lost in the 2011 NARC Rally was considerably higher... Sorry, but you're better at gymnastics, than math... 

Then, there's the matter of the recent fatalities in both the 1500 and NARC within the past 3 years... *They own that record.*



smackdaddy said:


> They also own the issues of the "Inexperience", the "Low Bar to Entry", and the lack of an ISAF Safety Inspection.


So, despite your inability to offer _ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER_ that any of these incidents can be attributed to "Inexperience" (the examples I've cited indicate quite the opposite, as a matter of fact), you continue to insist that issue is somehow unique to the SDR...

The stated "Bar to Entry" is no lower for the SDR, than for the 1500... Completion of a "Bluewater Passage" for the former, a "Passage of at least 250 miles" for the latter. If anything, the bar seems set lower for the 1500, to me... Unless you can offer evidence that the organizers of the SDR admitted applicants who did not meet those stated qualifications, you really should cease making this assertion... And, as I've alluded to before, Hank shared an anecdote in an email which casts a wholly different light on how 'strict' the 1500 has been in the past, when it came to acceptance of an entry... Dave/Auspicious was copied the same email, he could confirm...

Also, the NARC does not conduct a 'Safety Inspection', either... But, the SDR "owns" that issue, as well, right? Again, despite your inability to offer _ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER_ that any of the SAR incidents in the SDR were attributable _IN ANY WAY_ to the lack of said inspections, you continue to believe what you want to believe...

Or, are we to suppose that all those _OTHER_ crews far less experienced than the boats I've cited above - _who successfully completed their passages_ - are the ones that are supposed to be indicative of the problems that the SDR has with "Inexperienced" participants in their rally?

Seriously, as one wag commented over on SA, you need to get a bigger shovel... 

[/QUOTE]


----------



## smackdaddy

Jon - focus. This is the Alpha thread.

I've already wiped the floor with you on the whole SDR thing in that thread. No need to flail around in this one too. Show some dignity, man.

Now how about those wave-piercers on the Alpha 42?


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Back to the Alpha thread. I, for one, think they did the right thing to get off the boat. They had bad weather coming and a crippled boat. The waves in that part of the Atlantic are brutal. I really don't think they had any real way of un-jamming the rudders. Someone on another forum suggesting attaching a dyneema line to a winch and bending the rudder stock. Seriously? Cutting them away? I can imagine lying on your back sawing away with a small hacksaw as the boat bounced around in the waves. This isn't escape from Alcatraz and nobody in those pictures even closely resembled a young Clint Eastwood. Sure. Go over the side, insane.

Changing the starter motor out. Doable possibly but a risky move in a seaway. A lot depends on the access and having the right socket set. Let us just say they get the engine started and they start making headway at 4 knots towards shore. That's 75 hours of motoring including crossing the Gulfstream. Chances are, you will encounter bad weather and nasty seas in that area during a 75 hour motor which easily could flip the boat. Then where are you? They did the right thing in getting off when they did. It couldn't of been an easy decision but was it the right one. Hell yes. Making this trip in the first place was a patently bad decision given the time of year and an untested boat with systems that were not ready for the conditions encountered. The brightest move they made was having a SATphone. That undoubtedly helped save their bacon and gave them enough information to make the right final decision.


----------



## hellosailor

Bubblehead, a friend of mine picked up a brand new semi-custom yacht from a top name designer and builder in the Northeast some years ago. Damned thing cost more than most houses at the time, and houses in the northeast have never been cheap. 

I had the pleasure of being on the delivery trip home, and among other things from this top-name top-yard? All four cockpit winches had been oriented and mounted the same way, which made the self-tailers on the port side totally useless. And then the expensive brand-name factory-authorized instrument system blacked out every time we tacked. It worked on port tack only, blacked out on starboard tack every time. Apparently the "simple" system to change knotmeters for tack was shorting out everything else. The winches...well, they were all installed the same exact way, right?

So yes, finding gear that is DOA or improperly installed is normal. I think you know that's why even the USN with highly paid contractors insists on shakedown cruises. No surprises here.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon - focus. This is the Alpha thread.


Sorry, but I was simply responding to your re-introduction of the SDR issue into this thread in Post #43...



smackdaddy said:


> I've already wiped the floor with you on the whole SDR thing in that thread. No need to flail around in this one too. Show some dignity, man.


LOL! Well, if continuing to assert that there is no need to show any _CORRELATION_ between the actual facts and the argument you're advancing, constitutes "wiping the floor" with the person you're debating, well... then you are the all-time champion... 

I've already broken one of my New Year's Resolutions by allowing myself to be dragged back into the SDR quagmire  So, if you can come up with any _factual evidence_ to counter anything I posted in #44, or any evidence that any of the SARs can be attributed to the SDR's "laissez faire approach towards safety", please post it over in the "Rallies Gone Wrong", and I'll consider a reply...



smackdaddy said:


> Now how about those wave-piercers on the Alpha 42?


Having no experience with such a design, I'm not really qualified to offer an informed opinion... My gut tells me that in this instance, they were not necessarily much of an issue. Chances are this "rogue wave" was of the unusually steep/breaking/cresting variety, and that the very modest additional bouyancy afforded by what still would have been a very fine conventional bow on this type of multihull, would have made little difference in dealing with such a sea...

I think this whole "wave-piercing" thing is more of a stylistic affectation that 'sounds fast', more than anything else... Let's face it, they're not gonna put blunt bows with a lot of reserve bouyancy on a boat like this, and if anything else, said bouyancy is placed further _forward_ than it might have been with a more conventional or plumb bow...










The first thing I see when I look at that boat, and what I consider to be a FAR greater liability in the North Atlantic in January than those wave-piercing bows, is that massive amount of nearly vertical picture window presented squarely to the onslaught of such a wave... IMHO, after suffering a wave strike of a force sufficient to stop such a boat dead in its tracks from a speed of 8 knots, those guys were _EXTREMELY_ fortunate the entire front of that deckhouse wasn't taken out, and this whole deal could easily have had a far more tragic outcome...

All I can see when I look at this thing, is a boat that I would most definitely NOT want to be aboard in the Gulf Stream, during a gale, 300 miles off the Virginia coast, in mid-January...


----------



## svHyLyte

smackdaddy said:


> I'm curious about this too. At what point do wave-piercing bows become a liability?
> 
> By Aero's description of how they behave (high buoyancy), I had in my head the opposite of what you describe above...that the bows rose very quickly, causing the boat to surf backward more quickly than a standard bow would.
> 
> But what you describe is equally conceivable.
> 
> Do you designers have any insight on how these bows would behave in a large wave strike? I saw the effectiveness of these bows on the AC boats in moderate chop (creating a very stable platform) - but what about the big stuff?


From an engineering viewpoint, I think Aero's designer is/was engaging in rather too much mental masturbation. There is an old rule in structural/air craft design that essentially holds that something that doesn't "look right" probably isn't. The bows on that boat are raked aft at something around 20º or so such that the vertical component of frontal loading will depress rather that lift the bows. There is little flair in the bows/hulls to overcome that and what there is is materially diminished buy the radical tumble home on the upper 20% of the hulls. This is coupled with reverse shear such that the decks curve down from the front of the superstructure to the bows. With the bows driven into a sea, particularly at any speed, the resulting downward vertical component of the sea coupled with the shear weight of the water on deck itself would (not could) drive the bows down. In such an attitude, the sloped front of the superstructure would be rendered nearly effectively vertical to the on rushing sea, in the nature of a sea wall. That the frontal windows didn't burst is likely only because of their curvilinear shape and the strength of the material in the resulting circumferential compression. I'm sure, that having taken a wave over the bows, that boat felt like it had run into a brick wall and was likely driven backward. (Had it been going any faster it would likely have pitch poled.) With the rudders laid over as Doane described, the foils would have tried to reverse their orientation (i.e. spin around) to the on rushing water from astern. That the steering gear failed and the rudder posts bent in such circumstances should have come as no surprise. Frankly, at that point they would have been better off to have simply jettisoned the rudders entirely (if that were possible), plugged the shaft tubes, and steered with sail trim and para-vanes made from line and cabinet doors or some such.

That boat will eventually wash up somewhere and be recovered to someone's advantage.

FWIW...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> Unless you can offer evidence that the organizers of the SDR admitted applicants who did not meet those stated qualifications, you really should cease making this assertion...


Agreed. I'd like to see a list of boats turned away from any rally.


----------



## smackdaddy

SVAuspicious said:


> Agreed. I'd like to see a list of boats turned away from any rally.


I agree with that as well. It would be very educational to see that list for each rally - and the reasoning behind the rejections.

More in the SDR thread...so we can stay focused on the Alpha here.


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> .. I'm sure, that having taken a wave over the bows, that boat felt like it had run into a brick wall and was likely driven backward. (Had it been going any faster it would likely have pitch poled.) With the rudders laid over as Doane described, the foils would have tried to reverse their orientation (i.e. spin around) to the on rushing water from astern. That the steering gear failed ...
> FWIW...


That was my first assumption assuming the boat had been violently be driven backwards by a wave but then I read this description of the accident and they say that the boat was stopped on his tracks by a wave and the MAYBE even the boat went a little backwards. That dos not seem a reason to me for the rudders have been bent and put out of order.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

svHyLyte said:


> From an engineering viewpoint, I think Aero's designer is/was engaging in rather too much mental masturbation. There is an old rule in structural/air craft design that essentially holds that something that doesn't "look right" probably isn't. The bows on that boat are raked aft at something around 20º or so such that the vertical component of frontal loading will depress rather that lift the bows. There is little flair in the bows/hulls to overcome that and what there is is materially diminished buy the radical tumble home on the upper 20% of the hulls. This is coupled with reverse shear such that the decks curve down from the front of the superstructure to the bows. With the bows driven into a sea, particularly at any speed, the resulting downward vertical component of the sea coupled with the shear weight of the water on deck itself would (not could) drive the bows down. In such an attitude, the sloped front of the superstructure would be rendered nearly effectively vertical to the on rushing sea, in the nature of a sea wall. That the frontal windows didn't burst is likely only because of their curvilinear shape and the strength of the material in the resulting circumferential compression. I'm sure, that having taken a wave over the bows, that boat felt like it had run into a brick wall and was likely driven backward. (Had it been going any faster it would likely have pitch poled.) With the rudders laid over as Doane described, the foils would have tried to reverse their orientation (i.e. spin around) to the on rushing water from astern. That the steering gear failed and the rudder posts bent in such circumstances should have come as no surprise. Frankly, at that point they would have been better off to have simply jettisoned the rudders entirely (if that were possible), plugged the shaft tubes, and steered with sail trim and para-vanes made from line and cabinet doors or some such.
> 
> That boat will eventually wash up somewhere and be recovered to someone's advantage.
> 
> FWIW...


Thanks for the explanation Hy. It really seems to me that the wave-piercing hull may have more to do with the rudder issue than anything else. I've asked Charlie for his thoughts on this on his SailFeed blog entry. Hopefully he'll address it.

There seems to be acknowledgment of your points above in the designer's explanation of the WPBs:

Overview - Aeroyacht



> Wave-piercing bows - or reverse or hammerhead bows are part of today's cutting edge naval architecture and the latest thinking in go fast comfort. Versus conventional overhanging or straight stem bows, wave-piercing bows are reversed and are designed to cut through waves, increase performance by reducing pitch resistance. The added benefit is not only higher speeds but a much more comfortable motion at sea.
> 
> So if your bow has a lot of overhang or flare (vertical angle of the hull sides), then you naturally have a lot of reserve buoyancy high up in the bow region and this may result in excessive pitching motion. *Of course the downside to a reverse -wave piercing bow might be a slightly wetter ride on a small multihull such as a beach cat, but on cats larger than 35' this is hardly an issue. *


I think that last part certainly depends on the size of the wave - correct? In big waves, this would seem to become a liability very quickly - even on bigger boats. I watched all of the AC34 races - and those were some very wet rides (prior to the foiling) on 72 footers. Of course, they were flying hulls.

Since the WPB design looks so similar to the AC34 boats, there seems to be conflicting thoughts behind the Alpha's performance in waves when you think of the issues of length-to-speed of the AC34 design:

AC34: The Anatomy of an AC72 | Sail Magazine



> 18. HULLS need to be slim for straight-line speed, but include enough volume and buoyancy forward to prevent the wave-piercing bows from submarining, especially during bearaways.


If this is the primary source of the problem, it seems that this quote from the "Rogue Wave" release from Aero is not quite as it seems:

Rogue Wave - Aeroyacht



> Capt. Hank Schmitt after his rescue:"&#8230;no other yacht would have survived this rudder damage after the rogue wave hit and drove us vioently backward&#8230;"


Do any other multis have WPBs?

(I'll email Marc for a copy of the insurance report as offered on that page.)


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> ..My gut tells me that in this instance, they were not necessarily much of an issue. Chances are this "rogue wave" was of the unusually steep/breaking/cresting variety, and that the very modest additional bouyancy afforded by what still would have been a very fine conventional bow on this type of multihull, would have made little difference in dealing with such a sea...
> 
> I think this whole "wave-piercing" thing is more of a stylistic affectation that 'sounds fast', more than anything else... Let's face it, they're not gonna put blunt bows with a lot of reserve bouyancy on a boat like this, and if anything else, said bouyancy is placed further _forward_ than it might have been with a more conventional or plumb bow...
> [...
> The first thing I see when I look at that boat, and what I consider to be a FAR greater liability in the North Atlantic in January than those wave-piercing bows, is that massive amount of nearly vertical picture window presented squarely to the onslaught of such a wave...


There is nothing wrong with piercing bow hulls and they are not used in monohulls more widely because they create problems with the anchor set up. On a multihull they only have advantages if well designed.

But the same way that a torpedo keel, that in what regards lowering the CG only brings advantages, does not make sense to be fitted on an heavy fat boat, a wave piercing bow does not make much sense to be applied in a cat with a huge windage, brought not only by the cabin height but also by the height of the two hulls. In that sense I find both you and svHyLyte are right into considering that they are more for the image and publicity than for effectiveness and are in contradiction with the global design of the boat.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

SVAuspicious said:


> Agreed. I'd like to see a list of boats turned away from any rally.


Well, we know that Hank has turned an applicant away from the NARC in the past, due to his concern over safety issues...

Hmmm, I'm searching my memory, here, trying to recall which other rally it was that the guy subsequently turned to, and who had no problem accepting his check...

)


----------



## capt vimes

PCP said:


> There is nothing wrong with piercing bow hulls and they are not used in monohulls more widely because they create problems with the anchor set up. On a multihull they only have advantages if well designed.
> 
> But the same way that a torpedo keel, that in what regards lowering the CG only brings advantages, does not make sense to be fitted on an heavy fat boat, a wave piercing bow does not make much sense to be applied in a cat with a huge windage, brought not only by the cabin height but also by the height of the two hulls. In that sense I find both you and svHyLyte are right into considering that they are more for the image and publicity than for effectiveness and are in contradiction with the global design of the boat.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


But you know quite well that modern designs for monos go away from this piercing hulls for other reasons than anchor handling... 








Rambler 100 is - by your own words - the fastest maxi there is and her bow is simply there for not diving to hard and deep into waves - adding bouyancy... Gives rise to the question why the new vor65 have those hammerhead bows - eh? 
I now do not have much knowledge or interest in multis, but piercing bows are just a modest design fashion in my view because i cannot see the merits of it, if you are not racing in certain 'controlled' conditions...


----------



## The Smokester

Charlie Diane says in his article: "...with no sails up the starboard engine ruled, and the boat just turned to port; with sails up and drawing, in whatever configuration, the bent rudder ruled and the boat would only turn to starboard."

Does anyone think it could have been feasible to have sailed with the main on a starboard tack (with its tendency to turn to starboard) and feathering the starboard engine to compensate and thereby travel in a somewhat straight line?


----------



## smackdaddy

The Smokester said:


> Charlie Diane says in his article: "...with no sails up the starboard engine ruled, and the boat just turned to port; with sails up and drawing, in whatever configuration, the bent rudder ruled and the boat would only turn to starboard."
> 
> Does anyone think it could have been feasible to have sailed with the main on a starboard tack (with its tendency to turn to starboard) and feathering the starboard engine to compensate and thereby travel in a somewhat straight line?


I think there are probably lots of things that "could have been done" if jury rigging was the ONLY option available. But most all of them were likely far more risky than rescue.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I think there are probably lots of things that "could have been done" if jury rigging was the ONLY option available. But most all of them were likely far more risky than rescue.


Except, perhaps, when viewed from the perspective of the CG helo crew, or the Navy flight deck crew... 

We've come to view these operations as so routine, it's easy to forget the extreme jeopardy these people can be placed in... Just 10 days ago, after all, a Navy helo went down during a training exercise off Virginia Beach, killing 3 of its 5 crew...

Interesting take from another forum... Ken J is a retired US Navy captain, whose own daughter now serves as one of the few female captains in the Navy, can't say as I fault him at all for feeling this way:

if there was ever a case for the owner picking up the rescue bill, this is it.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Except, perhaps, when viewed from the perspective of the CG helo crew, or the Navy flight deck crew...
> 
> We've come to view these operations as so routine, it's easy to forget the extreme jeopardy these people can be placed in... Just 10 days ago, after all, a Navy helo went down during a training exercise off Virginia Beach, killing 3 of its 5 crew...
> 
> Interesting take from another forum... Ken J is a retired US Navy captain, whose own daughter now serves as one of the few female captains in the Navy, can't say as I fault him at all for feeling this way:
> 
> if there was ever a case for the owner picking up the rescue bill, this is it.


Agreed. When I was talking about risk, I meant from the POV of those on the boat. This one doesn't look so good from all the other POVs.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's Charlie's take on the WPBs...



> No, I don't think the bows made any difference. I don't think a "conventional" plumb bow would have decreased the wave's impact, nor would it have enough additional buoyancy to lift the boat over the wave. More waterline length would make a difference, but then you're talking an entirely different boat.


----------



## billyruffn

In the context of the North Atlantic in January -- when I look at this photo one word springs to mind: DOCKWISE


----------



## JonEisberg

svHyLyte said:


> That boat will eventually wash up somewhere and be recovered to someone's advantage.


I tend to doubt that, at least certainly not on this side of the pond... In the summer, maybe, but I'd be very surprised if it ever fetched up anywhere in North America at this time of the year...

Abandoning a boat 300 miles E of Virgina is not quite the same as doing so off Key Largo... Remember this guy, 'caught out' by the Polar Vortex? Sad story, looks like 1 more is added to the list of our nation's 60,000 homeless veterans...

Miami-bound sailboat found off Palm Beach after Keys sailor rescued in a storm - Florida Keys - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## JonEisberg

billyruffn said:


> In the context of the North Atlantic in January -- when I look at this photo one word springs to mind: DOCKWISE


Unfortunately, Dockwise doesn't provide shuttle service in midwinter... 

When I look at that thing, and see those pics of snowdrifts on the docks at Liberty Landing, one word springs to mind:

_BAHAMAS_...

29 islands and 661 cays spread out over 180,000 square miles should be sufficient to keep any cruiser satisfied for a few months... Particularly, those sailng with only 3' 7" of draft...


----------



## JonEisberg

Another excellent, measured analysis from John Harries...

Yup, those decisions/choices made before ever leaving the dock are so often the most important...

Two Yacht Losses, Many Lessons Learned

btw, here's the brief account of the loss of EASY GO, I was always a bit surprised this one wasn't more widely noted at the time, he was a pretty experienced voyager on a tough little boat... Classic example of cascading failures exacerbated by the conditions...



> A series of small equipment failures (sails, electronics and water ingress), that in lesser conditions could have been rectified relatively simply, could not be addressed. My own fatigue and deteriorating condition was a major contributing factor.
> 
> Easy Go Adventures: Easy Go Lost


----------



## PCP

capt vimes said:


> ...
> I now do not have much knowledge or interest in multis, but piercing bows are just a modest design fashion in my view because i cannot see the merits of it, if you are not racing in certain 'controlled' conditions...


No, they are not a fashion, they have a purpose and that's diminishing wave drag through a better wave penetration. It has nothing to do with a lower buoyancy at the bow. That depends of the bow design and it is possible to have a bigger buoyancy with a wave piercing bow than with a conventional one. The design would have to be a far more complex one but I believe that in the future we will see bows wit a rounded submersed shape, coming backwards and becoming thinner almost till the top where you have to add some kind of wingless to deflect and prevent the water to came rushing backwards. that will have also the advantage to create some lift.

That way you can add the advantages of a rounded bow in what regards superior hull form stability and bigger buoyancy, specially needed with big transom boats going close upwind without, the disadvantages of a substantially increase wave drag (upwind) in difficult conditions.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## svHyLyte

PCP said:


> No, they are not a fashion, they have a purpose and that's diminishing wave drag through a better wave penetration. It has nothing to do with a lower buoyancy at the bow. That depends of the bow design and it is possible to have a bigger buoyancy with a wave piercing bow than with a conventional one. The design would have to be a far more complex one but I believe that in the future we will see bows wit a rounded submersed shape, coming backwards and becoming thinner almost till the top where you have to add some kind of wingless to deflect and prevent the water to came rushing backwards. that will have also the advantage to create some lift.
> 
> That way you can add the advantages of a rounded bow in what regards superior hull form stability and bigger buoyancy, specially needed with big transom boats going close upwind without, the disadvantages of a substantially increase wave drag (upwind) in difficult conditions.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


With all due respect old son, torpedo bow extensions have been around rather a long time. Perhaps good on bluff bowed steamers but their efficacy on sailing yachts is questionable, at best, as one wants/needs a bow to rise with/to an oncoming wave save for the little/smaller ones that don't pose a hazard to one's ships survival. A bow that pearls into a wave is exactly the last thing one needs/wants in extremis.

Perhaps I am too much of an empiricist, having been schooled in aeronautical/structural engineering, but I don't believe there is a shred of empirical or test evidence to support the hypothesis that a reverse bow rake is preferable to a plumb or forward raked bow in a heavy sea. In fact, unless my memory fails me (a possibility), I believe Donald McKay's "Clipper of the Seas" proved exactly the opposite as early as 1854! So, unless you are advocating a return to the trireme designs described by Herodotus, the reversed bow is naught but a fad, tho' in my humble opinion, not a very good one, eh? If not, pray show me the numbers.

But, as you say, Verity is a Delight, Non? Different Ships/Different Long Splices...


----------



## hellosailor

HyLyte-
Might we paraphrase it by saying the only miracle at sea are when folks walk on the water, and you know how much trouble THAT can cause.

Every piece of a boat hull can be optimized for set conditions, and by optimizing it for those conditions, you generally make it worse for all other conditions. Like a nice plumb bow on a boat designed for inshore flatwater racing, which kicks you in the teeth every time it hits a standing square wave and slams to a halt instead of riding up and over or through.

Or a reverse transom, which adds nicely to waterline length but also has its greatest reserve buoyancy when, ahem, inverted.

And of course if the only purpose of something on a boat is "look sexy and sell boats" that's perfectly valid too, isn't it? Don't we want the marine industries to grab every rube they can? (And then preferably send them back to the golf courses and malls, so the water is peaceful and deserted again?)

Whatever the designers have in mind, it is up to the Darwin-Award-Candidate who buys it, to decide how to use it. That's why we can't buy big yellow bulldozers, nook-you-lee-are reactors, and primer cord at WalMart. And in my book, that's just all wrong wrong wrong. Folks rarely misuse any of those more than once.


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> With all due respect old son, torpedo bow extensions have been around rather a long time. Perhaps good on bluff bowed steamers but their efficacy on sailing yachts is questionable, at best, as one wants/needs a bow to rise with/to an oncoming wave save for the little/smaller ones that don't pose a hazard to one's ships survival. A bow that pearls into a wave is exactly the last thing one needs/wants in extremis.
> 
> Perhaps I am too much of an empiricist, having been schooled in aeronautical/structural engineering, but I don't believe there is a shred of empirical or test evidence to support the hypothesis that a reverse bow rake is preferable to a plumb or forward raked bow in a heavy sea. ...
> 
> But, as you say, Verity is a Delight, Non? Different Ships/Different Long Splices...


I dispense paternalistic approaches (old son) and it seems you did not understood anything I had said. What I had said has nothing to do with torpedo bow extensions. To see what I was talking about maybe you can have a look at the interesting boat thread where new bows have been discussed.

Regarding being more or less efficient in heavy seas is a question of bow design and the wanted buoyancy and I can't see any reason for them to be less efficient than a traditional bow but I do see how they can offer less wave drag on heavy seas and that's the reason they are being used when efficiency is very important, in a sailboat because the power available is limited and in fast ships because that way they can be faster.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## svHyLyte

hellosailor said:


> HyLyte-
> Might we paraphrase it by saying the only miracle at sea are when folks walk on the water, and you know how much trouble THAT can cause.
> 
> Every piece of a boat hull can be optimized for set conditions, and by optimizing it for those conditions, you generally make it worse for all other conditions. Like a nice plumb bow on a boat designed for inshore flatwater racing, which kicks you in the teeth every time it hits a standing square wave and slams to a halt instead of riding up and over or through.
> 
> Or a reverse transom, which adds nicely to waterline length but also has its greatest reserve buoyancy when, ahem, inverted.
> 
> And of course if the only purpose of something on a boat is "look sexy and sell boats" that's perfectly valid too, isn't it? Don't we want the marine industries to grab every rube they can? (And then preferably send them back to the golf courses and malls, so the water is peaceful and deserted again?)
> 
> Whatever the designers have in mind, it is up to the Darwin-Award-Candidate who buys it, to decide how to use it. That's why we can't buy big yellow bulldozers, nook-you-lee-are reactors, and primer cord at WalMart. And in my book, that's just all wrong wrong wrong. Folks rarely misuse any of those more than once.


Yes, of course you are correct.

As to the matter of walking on water, not long ago there was an incident here when a Priest and Rabbi and an Imam decided in the spirit of fellowship to go fishing together and share their catch. In the course of rowing out to their fishing spot they had a great debate as to who had the greatest strength of faith. Once arrived at their fishing spot, they cast their bread, bait and lines upon the waters in hopes of a respectable catch. In short order, the Priest announced his need to answer the "call of nature" but not wishing to offend his companions, stepped out of the boat, walked across the water to the shore-line, stepped ashore, and walked into the trees to handle the matter. The Rabbi and Imam looked at one another, commented on the Priest's great faith, and then away and continued fishing. Not long after the Priest's return, the Rabbi announced his need to answer the call of nature as well, stepped out of the boat, walked across the water to the shore-line, stepped ashore, and walked into the trees to handle the matter. With this, the Priest and Imam looked at one another, commented on the Rabbi's great faith, and then away and continued fishing. Not long after the Rabbi's return, the Imam arose, announced his need to answer the call of nature, stepped out of the boat and promptly sank out of sight to the bottom. With this, the Rabbi turned to the Priest: "Oy Veh! What? You didn't tell him where the rocks are?"

Some times blind faith can land one in rather deeper water than one might like, eh?


----------



## smackdaddy

svHyLyte said:


> With all due respect old son, torpedo bow extensions have been around rather a long time. Perhaps good on bluff bowed steamers but their efficacy on sailing yachts is questionable, at best, as one wants/needs a bow to rise with/to an oncoming wave save for the little/smaller ones that don't pose a hazard to one's ships survival. A bow that pearls into a wave is exactly the last thing one needs/wants in extremis.
> 
> Perhaps I am too much of an empiricist, having been schooled in aeronautical/structural engineering, but I don't believe there is a shred of empirical or test evidence to support the hypothesis that a reverse bow rake is preferable to a plumb or forward raked bow in a heavy sea. In fact, unless my memory fails me (a possibility), I believe Donald McKay's "Clipper of the Seas" proved exactly the opposite as early as 1854! So, unless you are advocating a return to the trireme designs described by Herodotus, the reversed bow is naught but a fad, tho' in my humble opinion, not a very good one, eh? If not, pray show me the numbers.
> 
> But, as you say, Verity is a Delight, Non? Different Ships/Different Long Splices...


I'm glad to see this. I certainly can't prove it with math - but wave-peircing seems to be the last thing you want when the waves are taller than your boat...not just your bow.

The wave-piercing bows on the AC yachts made sense to me because they were dealing with _chop_ - not waves. And in this case, getting rid of the pitch helped maintain speed.

But you increase the size of that wave by 10 times and you have a huge wall of water your deckhouse is going to slam into after those bows do their piercing. Or at least it seems.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I'm glad to see this. I certainly can't prove it with math - but wave-peircing seems to be the last thing you want when the waves are taller than your boat...not just your bow.
> 
> The wave-piercing bows on the AC yachts made sense to me because they were dealing with _chop_ - not waves. And in this case, getting rid of the pitch helped maintain speed.
> 
> But you increase the size of that wave by 10 times and you have a huge wall of water your deckhouse is going to slam into after those bows do their piercing. Or at least it seems.


You are wrong about that. In fact modern inverted bows were designed to meet strong sea conditions and to be more efficient on those conditions. The bow shape reduces pitch and speed loss in waves. Also eliminates slamming and bow impact,reducing stress. The inverted bow shape gives a softer entry in waves reducing the probability of damage in extreme weather.

In fact has I have explained already the concept of an inverted bow has nothing to do with a diminished buoyancy. An inverted bow can be designed in many ways and the buoyancy will be the one the designer will find suitable.

Regarding water on deck an inverted bow is designed to diminish pitch and slamming and therefore the boat will dive less in the wave. Also, as I have already said you can design on the top the the bow deflectors to take the spray away and keep the deck as free of water as possible.

The modern inverted bow was developed for ships that work and travel in extreme conditions, even if know the tendency is to extend its use to all. It come to yachts from there and not the other way around.

Take a look at this movie and you will work better how it works comparatively with a traditional bow. On sailboats the principle is the same even if the design is different.






Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I'm glad to see this. I certainly can't prove it with math - but wave-peircing seems to be the last thing you want when the waves are taller than your boat...not just your bow.
> 
> The wave-piercing bows on the AC yachts made sense to me because they were dealing with _chop_ - not waves. And in this case, getting rid of the pitch helped maintain speed.
> 
> But you increase the size of that wave by 10 times and you have a huge wall of water your deckhouse is going to slam into after those bows do their piercing. Or at least it seems.


In the context of this event, seems to me whether these bows are "wave-piercing", or not, is an essentially moot point... If indeed that boat was brought to a dead stop from a speed of 8 knots, by a head-on breaking wave strike, I can't imagine how a more conventional plumb bow would have made ANY meaningful difference, whatsoever...

It's an absolute miracle such a head-on encounter with a "rogue" wave sufficient to damage the rudders didn't take out that entire expanse of living room window... The more I look at this thing, I'm hard pressed to conjure up an image of anything I'd LEAST prefer to find myself aboard, in a gale in the Stream halfway to Bermuda, in January...

Wouldn't surprise me at all, if the crew of BE GOOD TOO is only now just beginning to fully appreciate how lucky they might have been...


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> You are wrong about that. In fact modern inverted bows were designed to meet strong sea conditions and to be more efficient on those conditions. The bow shape reduces pitch and speed loss in waves. Also eliminates slamming and bow impact,reducing stress. The inverted bow shape gives a softer entry in waves reducing the probability of damage in extreme weather.
> 
> In fact has I have explained already the concept of an inverted bow has nothing to do with a diminished buoyancy. An inverted bow can be designed in many ways and the buoyancy will be the one the designer will find suitable.
> 
> Regarding water on deck an inverted bow is designed to diminish pitch and slamming and therefore the boat will dive less in the wave. Also, as I have already said you can design on the top the the bow deflectors to take the spray away and keep the deck as free of water as possible.
> 
> The modern inverted bow was developed for ships that work and travel in extreme conditions, even if know the tendency is to extend its use to all. It come to yachts from there and not the other way around.
> 
> Take a look at this movie and you will work better how it works comparatively with a traditional bow. On sailboats the principle is the same even if the design is different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Actually, what that video shows perfectly illustrates my point. Look at the bridge height of the wave-piercer! Then look at the height of the deck on this cat. If you remove the pitch - that bridge on the cat takes the brunt of the wave - EXACTLY as you see the wave breaking over the upper part of that wave-piercer ship's bow.

Again, to your point, this is perfect for maintaining speed such as on the AC boats...IN CHOP. But it is a huge liability on cruising cats in a big seaway...at least according to that video.

Watch the video of the AC45s in the heavy weather in...Italy (I think). Talk about a wet ride. Now amp that up to 20' waves. You're screwed.


----------



## capt vimes

paulo:
while a agree with you that these bows have been also developed on ocean racers like imoca 60s and VOR 70s and we know in what conditions these boats are driven...
and i know that the slamming, pitching is been reduced with a wave piercer and hence more speed through waves, but:
we all know as well that these racers need huge amounts of water ballast aft just to avoid pitch poling if driven hard in heavy seas!
and this is the draw back of those fine, slender wave piercer with or without negative rake.
and now show me a cruiser - and no converted racer - with water ballast tanks on the centerline aft to bring the bow up and counter any deep wave piercing, which might bring so much water on the foredeck that half the boat goes submarine.
and the massive amount of rake at the stem of this cat, combined with the downward sheer at the bow does drive the bow heavy into waves and once the bow gets submerged, the seer will induce an additional dynamic force down.

in the end also wave piercers face the issue of massive pitching and slamming but just at different speed and wave length.
i know from the development of earthrace Home Page | Earthrace Conservation that they had to considerably slow down in certain wave lengths/heights because the boat tended to go submarine - i just cannot find it anymore... 

edit:
found a short video which illustrates what i meant about earthrace:


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, what that video shows perfectly illustrates my point. Look at the bridge height of the wave-piercer! Then look at the height of the deck on this cat. If you remove the pitch - that bridge on the cat takes the brunt of the wave - EXACTLY as you see the wave breaking over the upper part of that wave-piercer ship's bow.
> 
> Again, to your point, this is perfect for maintaining speed such as on the AC boats...IN CHOP. But it is a huge liability on cruising cats in a big seaway...at least according to that video.
> 
> Watch the video of the AC45s in the heavy weather in...Italy (I think). Talk about a wet ride. Now amp that up to 20' waves. You're screwed.


The spray is connected with speed. If you look again to the video you will see that the pitch is much smaller on the boat with inverted bow. I am sorry but you are wrong on this. The biggest advantage of the inverted bow has to do with big waves and heavy seas and the way the wave energy is dissipated and that particular type of inverted bow I posted is far from Universal, in fact it is a Dutch design. The more traditional one is the one that is utilized on the new US class of Destroyers:



On smaller boats you can see the use of the deflectors I was talking about to take the wave spray away:







Probably this cargo ship (also with spray deflectors) will be the next steep in cargo ship bow design.



Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> The spray is connected with speed. If you look again to the video you will see that the pitch is much smaller on the boat with inverted bow.


I understand that...and that's a big part of the problem with the Alpha 42 we're discussing. What we're talking about here is an issue of scale. All the boats you are showing above are not going to have much of a problem with a 15' wave. They are all designed to protect the bridge from the force of the water after the WPB pierces the base of the wave (very high bridge decks, decks that are very far aft, splash deflectors, etc.).

Again, the problem with the reduction of pitch due to the Alpha 42's WPB is that it has none of the features shown on the photos above. So, with very little pitch (e.g. - boat not rising with the wave) a 15' wave is going to apply some significant force to that bridge deck (and maybe push it backward and destroy the rudders?):










I'm not arguing against WPBs. I'm just saying that WPBs (especially with reversed rake) don't seem to be a very good idea for this size catamaran for the exact reason you mention (lack of pitch). Maybe, like the AC boats, it's not fit for bigger waves you'll experience offshore.


----------



## PCP

capt vimes said:


> paulo:
> while a agree with you that these bows have been also developed on ocean racers like imoca 60s and VOR 70s and we know in what conditions these boats are driven...
> and i know that the slamming, pitching is been reduced with a wave piercer and hence more speed through waves, but:
> we all know as well that these racers need huge amounts of water ballast aft just to avoid pitch poling if driven hard in heavy seas!
> and this is the draw back of those fine, slender wave piercer with or without negative rake.
> and now show me a cruiser - and no converted racer - with water ballast tanks on the centerline aft to bring the bow up and counter any deep wave piercing, which might bring so much water on the foredeck that half the boat goes submarine.
> and the massive amount of rake at the stem of this cat, combined with the downward sheer at the bow does drive the bow heavy into waves and once the bow gets submerged, the seer will induce an additional dynamic force down.
> 
> in the end also wave piercers face the issue of massive pitching and slamming but just at different speed and wave length.
> i know from the development of earthrace Home Page | Earthrace Conservation that they had to considerably slow down in certain wave lengths/heights because the boat tended to go submarine - i just cannot find it anymore...
> 
> edit:
> found a short video which illustrates what i meant about earthrace:
> Earth Race - YouTube


You wrongly assume that inverted bows are all the same or that an inverted bow has necessarily less buoyancy and therefore needs water ballasts on the back of the boat to compensate that inferior buoyancy. That assumption that inverted bows are all the same leads you to think that a sailboat will necessarily have more water over the deck with that type of bow.

On the photos of the anterior post you can see those spray deflectors I was talking about and that can take the water from the deck.

Those inverted bows were first used on sailboats on the new generation of racing multihulls and I am not talking about beach cats but the trimarans that were designed to beat the absolute solo circumnavigation record (and they have not ballast tanks to compensate ). You cannot do that with a sailboat that is not seaworthy since they will cross the worse seas on the planet. I am talking about Thomas Coville and Francis Joyon boats:











Since then all new built ocean racer trimarans were built with inverted bows:

Here the Prince de Bretagne:






Here Vibac Paprec:






Or here, Banque Populaire:



Many offshore cruising cats use already inverted bows:









and racing offshore monohulls start to use them too:



I bet that in less than two years some offshore performance cruisers will be using them too, for a good reason: If well designed they are not a liability in what regards seaworthiness and improve performance. I find them particularly suited to diminish the negative performance points regarding bath tube bows. They offer already a superior buoyancy on the bottom and if reversed they can improve wave drag. Of course a system of wiglets has to be designed to deflect spray away but even I can design that.



Even Chinese ones

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, the problem with the reduction of pitch due to the Alpha 42's WPB is that it has none of the features shown on the photos above. So, with very little pitch (e.g. - boat not rising with the wave) a 15' wave is going to apply some significant force to that bridge deck (and maybe push it backward and destroy the rudders?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing against WPBs. I'm just saying that WPBs (especially with reversed rake) don't seem to be a very good idea for this size catamaran for the exact reason you mention (lack of pitch). Maybe, like the AC boats, it's not fit for bigger waves you'll experience offshore.


I don't know, but I think that anyone who believes the more 'conventional' bows on this Lagoon 42 would have made the _SLIGHTEST_ difference in weathering a strike from a 15' Gulf Stream "rogue" is dreaming... 










Seems a bit lie arguing that an ISAF safety inspection would have made all the difference in the outcome of the Salty Dawg Rally, to me...


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I understand that...and that's a big part of the problem with the Alpha 42 we're discussing. What we're talking about here is an issue of scale. All the boats you are showing above are not going to have much of a problem with a 15' wave. They are all designed to protect the bridge from the force of the water after the WPB pierces the base of the wave (very high bridge decks, decks that are very far aft, splash deflectors, etc.).
> 
> Again, the problem with the reduction of pitch due to the Alpha 42's WPB is that it has none of the features shown on the photos above. So, with very little pitch (e.g. - boat not rising with the wave) a 15' wave is going to apply some significant force to that bridge deck (and maybe push it backward and destroy the rudders?):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing against WPBs. I'm just saying that WPBs (especially with reversed rake) don't seem to be a very good idea for this size catamaran for the exact reason you mention (lack of pitch). Maybe, like the AC boats, it's not fit for bigger waves you'll experience offshore.


Honestly I continue to think you are wrong about that also. This type of bows can dissipate better the energy of a wave (that's way they offer less drag) and in fact the effect would be the opposite than what you mention but in this case and with a huge wave the main pressure and pulling force would not be at the bows but allover the main cabin and that big frontal almost vertical surface.

The force on the bows would be pretty much insignificant compared to that. Better offshore cats offer a frontal curved surface that can diminish that pressure. Not that one. Anyway that is dificult on a small cat and that's one of the reasons that led me to believe that a good offshore cat should be a big one. There are some few that offer that feature with that size but that comes at the cost of a less height in the interior, that is only a standing one at the center of the cabin.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> ...in this case and with a huge wave the main pressure and pulling force would not be at the bows but allover the main cabin and that big frontal almost vertical surface.
> 
> The force on the bows would be pretty much insignificant compared to that. Better offshore cats offer a frontal curved surface that can diminish that pressure. Not that one.


This is exactly what I'm saying too. So I think we're on the same page.


----------



## GeorgeB

This is too funny… I hesitate posting here as I am most likely the only one with big-cat-in-big-waves experience. First off, the USS Zumwalt’s tumblehome bow is there for reduced radar signature. They have found that it suffers from stability issues and no more ships of its class will be built (2nd one is currently under construction). The big point that is missing from this discussion is big cruising cats behave more like big mono hull cruisers than the racing cats and tri’s in the photos that Paulo is posting. We stuck the bow in three waves during our Atlantic crossing in a Leopard 47. On the biggest one, the bows went in so far that the wave broke on the front of the coach. We sustained trampoline damage and a kayak we were storing partially broke free. Fortunately, the Leopard’s displacement and mass carried us through the wave without much loss in speed or we would have lost the rig. The name of the game for a cruising cat is not to slam into waves but to moderate the boat speed so you can ride over them. We did a lot of gear changing to make sure we didn’t stick it again. Tumblehome bows on a cruising cat is the same thing as the sugar scoop on my Catalina. It may look “racy” and modern, but it doesn’t really add to the performance of the boat. I know that real experience doesn’t count for much in this discussion so I’ll leave it up to you keyboard commanders to extoll the virtues of tumblehome bows.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> ... I know that real experience doesn't count for much in this discussion so I'll leave it up to you keyboard commanders to extoll the virtues of tumblehome bows.


Talking about real experience, for me it is enough to know that the best cat designers are using them in their last cruising cats, I mean VPLP, Morrelli & Melvin, Marc Lombard, Defline, Joubert-Nivelt and more. Of course they are all doing it because it is fashionable 

I have heard the same about the use of chines on cruising hulls, about beam brought back and the consequent larger transoms...all fashion details

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> The big point that is missing from this discussion is big cruising cats behave more like big mono hull cruisers than the racing cats and tri's in the photos that Paulo is posting. We stuck the bow in three waves during our Atlantic crossing in a Leopard 47. On the biggest one, the bows went in so far that the wave broke on the front of the coach. We sustained trampoline damage and a kayak we were storing partially broke free. Fortunately, the Leopard's displacement and mass carried us through the wave without much loss in speed or we would have lost the rig. The name of the game for a cruising cat is not to slam into waves but to moderate the boat speed so you can ride over them.


This is what I've been talking about. If you guys stuffed these bows and suffered damage (and potential loss of rig)...










...reverse that stem angle and it sure seems you introduce even more force into that collision.

From what I understand the Alpha 42 is a relatively light boat as well. No wonder it was thrown back on its heels.

(PS - Is that the boat where you did a lousy job of blowing the conch? Heh-heh.)


----------



## DiasDePlaya

PCP said:


> Of course a system of wiglets has to be designed to deflect spray away but even I can design that.
> 
> 
> 
> Even Chinese ones
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Those spoilers are not there to deflect sprayed water but to deflect the air to the genoa.

The main reason of the inverted bows is that to spray water need a lot of energy, then a bow that reduce the amount of water sprayed is far more efficient than a bow that produce a lot of spray.


----------



## capt vimes

GeorgeB said:


> This is too funny&#8230; I hesitate posting here as I am most likely the only one with big-cat-in-big-waves experience. First off, the USS Zumwalt's tumblehome bow is there for reduced radar signature. They have found that it suffers from stability issues and no more ships of its class will be built (2nd one is currently under construction). The big point that is missing from this discussion is big cruising cats behave more like big mono hull cruisers than the racing cats and tri's in the photos that Paulo is posting. We stuck the bow in three waves during our Atlantic crossing in a Leopard 47. On the biggest one, the bows went in so far that the wave broke on the front of the coach. We sustained trampoline damage and a kayak we were storing partially broke free. Fortunately, the Leopard's displacement and mass carried us through the wave without much loss in speed or we would have lost the rig. The name of the game for a cruising cat is not to slam into waves but to moderate the boat speed so you can ride over them. We did a lot of gear changing to make sure we didn't stick it again. Tumblehome bows on a cruising cat is the same thing as the sugar scoop on my Catalina. It may look "racy" and modern, but it doesn't really add to the performance of the boat. I know that real experience doesn't count for much in this discussion so I'll leave it up to you keyboard commanders to extoll the virtues of tumblehome bows.


that is exactly what i meant... boats are meant to go OVER the waves and not underneath them...
they would be submarines if going under the waves, wouldn't they?


----------



## outbound

Read this thread and the back and forth with Paulo. What comes to mind is a discussion with Phil Weld after he gave a talk at a local yacht club having completed his American Promise sail. A paraphrase is "a cruising boat should take care of you with little or no effort on your part. You will be tired, hurt, sick or scared. You will need to rest." Lin and Larry talk about how their little boat can be set up allowing them to go down below to weather the storm. Valiants had a 30 year run based on their similar abilities. I confident from just the first year with my boat I can get to where I'm going having gale and storm options I know will work. And that these will work in the absence of power or presence of common failures ( running rigging, steerage etc.). Once deployed the boat will take care of itself. I've heard it said "a monohull will take care of you but you take care of a multihull". I understand the remarkable ability of the mono race boats to be ACTIVELY sailed in extreme conditions. But in reading about this unfortunate occurrence I'm struck by the loss of the option to easily drop sail and deploy sea anchor or drogue allowing crew to down lie on the sole until things settled down. For a cruising boat I want ( and have) a way to set the boat up by myself from the cockpit that with allow survival of both the boat and all souls aboard. The prime directive of a cruising boat ( yes this was a cruising boat) is to survive in the presence of limited ACTIVE input of its crew. Here we have extremely experienced and skilled crew needing to actively sail their boat in conditions well below cyclonic storm conditions who needed to abandon their boat. If going downwind they would not have backed down on their rudders. This could have occurred if lying to from sea anchor. I have little understanding of storm tactics for multi hulls but know the thinking has changed dramatically in recent years. I also understand the storm tactics used by the current round the world racers are different then I understand and have used from "Heavy Weather Sailing" and like books. Still bows aside it seems evident this boat was not designed to take the conditions it encountered.


----------



## svHyLyte

PCP said:


> I dispense paternalistic approaches (old son) and it seems you did not understood anything I had said. What I had said has nothing to do with torpedo bow extensions. To see what I was talking about maybe you can have a look at the interesting boat thread where new bows have been discussed.
> 
> Regarding being more or less efficient in heavy seas is a question of bow design and the wanted buoyancy and I can't see any reason for them to be less efficient than a traditional bow but I do see how they can offer less wave drag on heavy seas and that's the reason they are being used when efficiency is very important, in a sailboat because the power available is limited and in fast ships because that way they can be faster.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Paulo--

Firstly, I think we are suffering from language difficulties. The term "old son" has nothing to do with paternalism (of which I feel none, incidentally) but is simply a turn of phrase deriving from from "old son of a gun" which might be applied to someone who is an endearing rogue or scamp. Moreover, I suspect you don't "dispense" the term, though you may despise it, in which case I will dispense with vernacular.

To the issue of reverse rake on a yacht's/ship's bows, one might make the argument that a swept-back prow has the effect of reducing the amount of energy needed to overcome the effect of the bow wave generated as a hull passes through the water, which incidentally, is the logic of the torpedo bow extensions one often sees on ships. One could certainly run numbers for that, although not without some difficulty, that might show some advantage at greater speeds such as might be achieved by high speed racing cats or tri's where they seem to be prevalent of late. At the speed of a "cruising cat", however there would be little or no practical advantage save perhaps in chop, but certainly not in ocean waves (which most would prefer to ride over rather than through, no?). Perfectly frankly, I think the design approach is simply a faddish "style" to create an illusion of speediness, much as are the current crop of air-foil wings adorning the trunk-lids of every day automobiles or the fin's of yesteryear.

Most racing yachts are designed to one "rule" or another and, over time, designers become adept at "tweaking" their designs to exploit loop-holes in the rules that might give their boats some advantage. Over time, this, of course, often results in some pretty distorted boats/hull shapes/sail-plans that prevail for awhile but are then dispensed with when a new rule is adopted (hence old IOR racing yachts morph into fast cruisers, if they're lucky, or , if not end up in scrap yard shredders with their keels melted into fishing weights). Some of these design tweaks get carried over to production yachts for awhile such as the whale-tale keel extension on Austrailia's Americas cup boat or sugar-scoop transom additions or tall-boy/bloopers which were all the rage for awhile.

N'any case, the debate about a style is somewhat pointless as most have staked out a position/view point and remain intransigent. They will not be convinced by rationale or logic so why expend the energy, eh? The only remaining question is, would you be willing to take that boat into a winter north Atlantic sea?

Here Homer Nods...


----------



## PCP

DiasDePlaya said:


> Those spoilers are not there to deflect sprayed water but to deflect the air to the genoa.
> 
> The main reason of the inverted bows is that to spray water need a lot of energy, then a bow that reduce the amount of water sprayed is far more efficient than a bow that produce a lot of spray.


I agree, but I was not talking about that picture. This is the post:



PCP said:


> ..
> On the photos of the *anterior post you can see those spray deflectors* I was talking about and that can take the water from the deck.
> 
> ....
> and racing offshore monohulls start to use them too:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet that in less than two years some offshore performance cruisers will be using them too, for a good reason: If well designed they are not a liability in what regards seaworthiness and improve performance. I find them particularly suited to diminish the negative performance points regarding bath tube bows. They offer already a superior buoyancy on the bottom and if reversed they can improve wave drag. Of course a system of wiglets has to be designed to deflect spray away but even I can design that.
> 
> 
> 
> Even Chinese ones


and you can see that it refers the picture on a previous post, this one:



PCP said:


> On smaller boats you can see the use of the deflectors I was talking about to take the wave spray away:


Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

svHyLyte said:


> Here Homer Nods...


----------



## PCP

outbound said:


> ... I confident from just the first year with my boat I can get to where I'm going having gale and storm options I know will work. And that these will work in the absence of power or presence of common failures ( running rigging, steerage etc.). Once deployed the boat will take care of itself. I've heard it said "a monohull will take care of you but you take care of a multihull". I understand the remarkable ability of the mono race boats to be ACTIVELY sailed in extreme conditions. But in reading about this unfortunate occurrence I'm struck by the loss of the option to easily drop sail and deploy sea anchor or drogue allowing crew to down lie on the sole until things settled down. ... The prime directive of a cruising boat ( yes this was a cruising boat) is to survive in the presence of limited ACTIVE input of its crew. Here we have extremely experienced and skilled crew needing to actively sail their boat in conditions well below cyclonic storm conditions who needed to abandon their boat. If going downwind they would not have backed down on their rudders. This could have occurred if lying to from sea anchor. I have little understanding of storm tactics for multi hulls but know the thinking has changed dramatically in recent years..


I am not sure if I understand your post. Are you saying that multihulls are less safe than monohulls in a storm or that they need to be sailed actively and that cannot be left on a sea anchor with all inside waiting the storm to go away?

I am not sure if it is this what you are saying but if it is that is not true.

Multihulls have advantages and disadvantages regarding monohulls in bad extreme weather. Assuming both types of boast are well designed the bigger disadvantage is that if rolled they would not return to its feet the advantages are that they have for the same displacement a much superior stability (and therefore will risk much less to be rolled) and have a better dynamic stability that also improves the overall stability and the likeness of being rolled.

The disadvantage of not being able to re right itself is a big one and that's why I think that an offshore cat has to be a big one and that does not mean necessarily one with a high displacement since on cats, form stability and beam are the more important factors regarding stability.

I would say that the typical offshore cat starts at 44/45ft, while the typical offshore monohull (assuming modern design and light displacement) starts at 36/38ft.

Normally accidents with multihulls that involves capsizes have to do with the boat carrying a not safe amount of sail for the conditions. Considering similar displacements and good designs, a cat on a sea anchor is safer than a monohull since it will be much more difficult to be rolled, in fact a very improbable thing to happen.

of course this accident has nothing to do with extreme conditions and it seems to me, given the description, that it was due more to bad rudder design than anything else.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> .....
> To the issue of reverse rake on a yacht's/ship's bows, one might make the argument that a swept-back prow has the effect of reducing the amount of energy needed to overcome the effect of the bow wave generated as a hull passes through the water, which incidentally, is the logic of the torpedo bow extensions one often sees on ships. One could certainly run numbers for that, although not without some difficulty, that might show some advantage at greater speeds such as might be achieved by high speed racing cats or tri's where they seem to be prevalent of late. At the speed of a "cruising cat", however there would be little or no practical advantage save perhaps in chop, but certainly not in ocean waves (which most would prefer to ride over rather than through, no?). Perfectly frankly, I think the design approach is simply a faddish "style" to create an illusion of speediness, much as are the current crop of air-foil wings adorning the trunk-lids of every day automobiles or the fin's of yesteryear.
> 
> Most racing yachts are designed to one "rule" or another and, over time, designers become adept at "tweaking" their designs to exploit loop-holes in the rules that might give their boats some advantage. Over time, this, of course, often results in some pretty distorted boats/hull shapes/sail-plans that prevail for awhile but are then dispensed with when a new rule is adopted (hence old IOR racing yachts morph into fast cruisers, if they're lucky, or , if not end up in scrap yard shredders with their keels melted into fishing weights). Some of these design tweaks get carried over to production yachts for awhile such as the whale-tale keel extension on Austrailia's Americas cup boat or sugar-scoop transom additions or tall-boy/bloopers which were all the rage for awhile.
> 
> N'any case, the debate about a style is somewhat pointless as most have staked out a position/view point and remain intransigent. They will not be convinced by rationale or logic so why expend the energy, eh? The only remaining question is, would you be willing to take that boat into a winter north Atlantic sea?


As I have said reversed bows have not to do with style and that's why all the best Multihull designers are using them now and not just some.

As DisaDePlaia had rightly said: *"The main reason of the inverted bows is that to spray water need a lot of energy, then a bow that reduce the amount of water sprayed is far more efficient than a bow that produce a lot of spray."*

That regards specially big or medium waves and it will have impact on drag and on boat performance.

As I have posted previously there are cases where researching top performance, trough for instance inverted bows on a boat that has other design items that oppose that search in performance, makes no sense. Nobody will contest the efficiency of a rear spoiler on a car designed to ride at over 120M/H but that spoiler can be ridicule and serve no purpose on a car designed to ride at 80M/H, being in that case a simple aesthetically ornament and under a functionalist approach, a bad taste one.

As I have said previously I don't like the design of that cat that is designed by a NA that seems not have any previous experience in cats or even in designing monohulls. I would not take many sailboats to a North Atlantic stormy sea and certainly not *any* 42ft cat, much less a new untried model designed by an inexperienced NA.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## outbound

No that isn't what I'm saying. Multis have multiple advantages. Much greater form stability. Much harder to invert. Harder to sink especially if watertight bulkheads incorporated. Rather setting up for a storm requires going forward and setting up a bridle. Sea anchor required needs to be quite large. Even with sea anchor boat can back up. 
Also most ocean multis have escape hatches so egress is possible even if inverted. Rather I'm saying cruisers need to think what they will do as weather deteriorates or their boat/crew run into issues. There are two general scenarios. Weather slowly goes south so you have time to slowly accommodate or something breaks/you have physical problems and you need to get into a passive set up ASAP. This was not a hit on multis rather how surprising it is these skilled sailors on a new design could run into a untenable situation when in hindsight ( always 20/20) it was likely to occur.
I'm on a good sea boat. Even though 46' either my wife or I by ourselves could handle a storm. We are neophytes compared to these sailors. They could not.
BTW- the old Prouts at 39' were/are excellent seaboats. If properly designed think smaller then mid 40's is sufficient.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> No that isn't what I'm saying. Multis have multiple advantages. Much greater form stability. Much harder to invert. Harder to sink especially if watertight bulkheads incorporated. Rather setting up for a storm requires going forward and setting up a bridle. Sea anchor required needs to be quite large. Even with sea anchor boat can back up.


In theory, I suppose... Didn't seem to help this guy yesterday, 20 miles off the Texas coast...

Another one bites the dust, CG Rescue Swimmers are getting plenty of practice so far in 2014...

DVIDS - News - Coast Guard rescues man from sailboat beset by weather

DVIDS - Video - Coast Guard Rescues Man From Sailboat Beset by Weather


----------



## PCP

This year has been a bad one. Another one rescued:

RESGATE NO MEIO DO ATLÂNTICO - ESQUADRA 601 (M1379 - 14PM/2014) ~ PÁSSARO DE FERRO

Costa Deliziosa Rescues Sailors From Sinking Yacht | Cruise Currents

PRIMERAS IMAGENES DEL RESCATE DEL BUCCANEER | GRAN PRIX DEL ATLANTICO 2014


----------



## JonEisberg

Turns out BE GOOD TOO was not the only CG SAR that took place off the mid-Atlantic coast on 14 January...

DVIDS - News - Coast Guard rescues boater off Cape Hatteras, NC

Hmmm, _"THE ANSWER"_ seems another of those stupid boat names that could easily create confusion during radio comms, no?

A singlehander, in a 28-footer, in the Gulf Stream E of Hatteras in mid-January? Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? But, yeah, some still insist that "the facts", and "statistics" don't support the impression that boats are being abandoned offshore with ever-increasing frequency these days... 

This one really flew under the radar, info is difficult to come by... Anyone know anything more about "THE ANSWER", by any chance?


----------



## hellosailor

smack, I would suspect that the math gets rapidly more complicated as speed and time variables have to be considered. For instance, the "torpedo" bows get stuffed into a wave. Great, that's buoyancy and the bow of the boat will start to rise. Except, wait, the rising will be affected by the forward speed of the boat, the pitching moment/resistance of the boat, the weight of the water column (height of the wave), the speed the wave is moving at, and the speed of the boat, which will affect how quickly the boat pitches or climbs as well.

I suspect the nautical architect occasionally hiding amongst us would be the first to say that how ay hull behaves in moving water, is and always has been as much a black art as a science, and even with those newfangled computer boxes, there's a lot of numbers that can be crunched correctly or incorrectly to try modeling the different ways a three dimensional object interacts with a many motions of an ocean under varying environmental conditions. 

Of course, that's all ignoring the longstanding chorus that says cats are ALWAYS safer because they ALWAYS have the best chance of simply outrunning a storm.


----------



## JonEisberg

hellosailor said:


> smack, I would suspect that the math gets rapidly more complicated as speed and time variables have to be considered. For instance, the "torpedo" bows get stuffed into a wave. Great, that's buoyancy and the bow of the boat will start to rise. Except, wait, the rising will be affected by the forward speed of the boat, the pitching moment/resistance of the boat, the weight of the water column (height of the wave), the speed the wave is moving at, and the speed of the boat, which will affect how quickly the boat pitches or climbs as well.
> 
> I suspect the nautical architect occasionally hiding amongst us would be the first to say that how ay hull behaves in moving water, is and always has been as much a black art as a science, and even with those newfangled computer boxes, there's a lot of numbers that can be crunched correctly or incorrectly to try modeling the different ways a three dimensional object interacts with a many motions of an ocean under varying environmental conditions.


Exactly... They're not called _"ROGUE"_ waves without reason, after all... 



hellosailor said:


> Of course, that's all ignoring the longstanding chorus that says cats are ALWAYS safer because they ALWAYS have the best chance of simply outrunning a storm.


Yeah, I always get a chuckle out of that one, as well... In this instance, one of the most perplexing admissions by Charlie in a follow-up Comment on his blog, is that in hindsight, he reckons that BE GOOD TOO would have fared better, and have been less likely to suffer the damage she did, had they not been actively sailing the boat at the time, but had simply done nothing, and chosen to lie ahull, instead...


----------



## smackdaddy

hellosailor said:


> smack, I would suspect that the math gets rapidly more complicated as speed and time variables have to be considered. For instance, the "torpedo" bows get stuffed into a wave. Great, that's buoyancy and the bow of the boat will start to rise. Except, wait, the rising will be affected by the forward speed of the boat, the pitching moment/resistance of the boat, the weight of the water column (height of the wave), the speed the wave is moving at, and the speed of the boat, which will affect how quickly the boat pitches or climbs as well.
> 
> I suspect the nautical architect occasionally hiding amongst us would be the first to say that how ay hull behaves in moving water, is and always has been as much a black art as a science, and even with those newfangled computer boxes, there's a lot of numbers that can be crunched correctly or incorrectly to try modeling the different ways a three dimensional object interacts with a many motions of an ocean under varying environmental conditions.
> 
> Of course, that's all ignoring the longstanding chorus that says cats are ALWAYS safer because they ALWAYS have the best chance of simply outrunning a storm.


I agree. So, I really wonder what happens to the Alpha 42 now that it has completely failed in that stuffing? These "wave-piercing bows" upon which the thing was designed and marketed have possibly become a huge liability.



> The Aeroyacht Alpha 42 cruising catamaran is unlike any other production multihull on the market. Whether you order her with high performance daggerboards or keels the first thing one notices is the clean, up-scale design, properly proportioned deck and cockpit areas *and the aggressive wave piercing bows.*


What happens to the other 7 customers in line (plus the owners of this boat)? Do they proceed? Do they walk? Does Aero redesign the bows to the save the boat?

It will be interesting to watch how it plays out.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here was an interesting review:

The Alpha 42 -our take on this concept catamaran from Aeroyacht.

...with a prescient summary:



> All in all, a great concept but one with some surprising flaws when one considers the team behind it. At the end of the day, these are simply drawing and perhaps issues will be illustrated and addressed when the yacht is looked at in practical terms.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Here was an interesting review:
> 
> The Alpha 42 -our take on this concept catamaran from Aeroyacht.
> 
> ...with a prescient summary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, a great concept but one with some surprising flaws when one considers the team behind it. At the end of the day, these are simply drawing and perhaps issues will be illustrated and addressed when the yacht is looked at in practical terms.
Click to expand...

Well, that 'review' gives _NO INDICATION WHATSOEVER_ that any of the "surprising flaws" include the design of the bows of the Alpha 42, but carry on... If fact, they say quite the opposite:



> *It is intelligently specc'ed up using* advanced cored materials to battle the usual 40 foot cat weight issues and *combinations of chines and reverse bows to tackle traditional fore/ft stability problems. *





smackdaddy said:


> I agree. So, I really wonder what happens to the Alpha 42 now that it has completely failed in that stuffing? These "wave-piercing bows" upon which the thing was designed and marketed have possibly become a huge liability.


Seriously, you need to try to get beyond your obsession with the terminology "wave-piercing", and the silly notion that a comparable design of the same size with plumb bows would have dealt any better with such a "stuffing"...

I'll repeat what I posted a few pages ago:



JonEisberg said:


> I don't know, but I think that anyone who believes the more 'conventional' bows on this Lagoon 42 would have made the _SLIGHTEST_ difference in weathering a strike from a 15' Gulf Stream "rogue" is dreaming...


----------



## sailvayu

Just some food for thought. Every major boat builder I have worked for (and I have worked for a few) the stylist ALWAYS over ruled the engineer. Then the accounts had their go and only then could engineering take over. Not saying this is the case here but would not surprise me one bit. My take on wave piercing bows is they have no reserve bouncy and serve no real purpose on a vessel of this size and type. But hey they look cool! Just my 2 cent


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> I agree. So, I really wonder what happens to the Alpha 42 now that it has completely failed in that stuffing? These "wave-piercing bows" upon which the thing was designed and marketed have possibly become a huge liability.
> 
> What happens to the other 7 customers in line (plus the owners of this boat)? Do they proceed? Do they walk? Does Aero redesign the bows to the save the boat?
> 
> It will be interesting to watch how it plays out.


Smack, Jon had already said that he thinks that the bow design had nothing to do with this, I am pretty sure that they had nothing to do with the case and however you seem sure that they have a direct responsibility on the accident.

what leads you to think that? Those bows are nothing new, they were extensively tried in racing and they are used in cruising cats by all the best cat designers.

It seems to me that what they should revise is the rudder system, the that seems to me that is what is not strong enough.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Seriously, you need to try to get beyond your obsession with the terminology "wave-piercing", and the silly notion that a comparable design of the same size with plumb bows would have dealt any better with such a "stuffing"...:


When the Alpha 42 is marketed, by Aero, as having uniquely *"aggressive wave-piercing bows"* - I'd say they are establishing the terminology. Your opinion of whether another boat without "aggressive wave-piercing bows" would have theoretically fared any better doesn't really matter to the reality of what actually happened. Unless, of course, you have solid, comparative engineering data to back up that opinion.



PCP said:


> Smack, Jon had already said that he thinks that the bow design had nothing to do with this, I am pretty sure that they had nothing to do with the case and however you seem sure that they have a direct responsibility on the accident.
> 
> what leads you to think that?


First, I'm not _sure_ of anything. But I am suspicious.

The way I understand this type of bow to work in order to reduce pitch, is that it moves _through_ the oncoming wall of water (not quickly up and over). And, with the reverse angle prow, the force of the water moving past and over the bow basically holds the bow down to a degree as this happens, thereby reducing its quick rise (which would lead to more pitch, hobbyhorsing, etc). This is what's evident in your previous videos and in the videos of the AC45s and 72s.

However, IF this is the case, and if you are dealing with a _large wave_, when the bows pierce the base of that oncoming wave, you not only get the bow being held down by the reverse angle, but also by the advancing volume of water above those more horizontal (i.e. - deep) bows. That is, the wave is advancing faster than the bows are rising.

If this is correct, then you have that wall of water moving directly into the deckhouse of the Alpha 42 with more force than if it were rising more quickly to the top of the wave.

Did Charlie D. say whether the wave that hit them was breaking? I remember he mentioned that the wave crashed into the windows of the bridge deck with great force, but that could be explained by the above scenario if the wave was big enough but not breaking.

In any case, if the Alpha 42 is prone to getting thrown backward by a moderately big wave by the bow configuration - stronger rudders are not the fix.

Again, I don't know what the fundamental problem is. But I certainly don't dismiss this more "aggressive" new feature out of hand simply because of Jon's speculation or videos of ships with wildly different hull configurations than the Alpha 42.

After all, with the right combo of speed and pressure, these wave-piercing bows (ones that look A LOT more like the ones on the Alpha than the ships in your videos) do like to submarine...

Be they 45':




(Watch Oracle's port bow from 25-30 seconds to specifically see what I mean above - on a small scale well short of 15' waves.)











Or 70':





Fortunately, they don't have a huge, wave-catching bridgedeck to battle with that rapidly oncoming wall of water.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> When the Alpha 42 is marketed, by Aero, as having uniquely *"aggressive wave-piercing bows"* - I'd say they are establishing the terminology. Your opinion of whether another boat without "aggressive wave-piercing bows" would have theoretically fared any better doesn't really matter to the reality of what actually happened. Unless, of course, you have solid, comparative engineering data to back up that opinion.
> 
> First, I'm not _sure_ of anything. But I am suspicious.
> 
> The way I understand this type of bow to work in order to reduce pitch, is that it moves _through_ the oncoming wall of water (not quickly up and over). And, with the reverse angle prow, the force of the water moving past and over the bow basically holds the bow down to a degree as this happens, thereby reducing its quick rise (which would lead to more pitch, hobbyhorsing, etc). This is what's evident in your previous videos and in the videos of the AC45s and 72s.
> 
> However, IF this is the case, and if you are dealing with a _large wave_, when the bows pierce the base of that oncoming wave, you not only get the bow being held down by the reverse angle, but also by the advancing volume of water above those more horizontal (i.e. - deep) bows. That is, the wave is advancing faster than the bows are rising.
> 
> If this is correct, then you have that wall of water moving directly into the deckhouse of the Alpha 42 with more force than if it were rising more quickly to the top of the wave.
> 
> Did Charlie D. say whether the wave that hit them was breaking? I remember he mentioned that the wave crashed into the windows of the bridge deck with great force, but that could be explained by the above scenario if the wave was big enough but not breaking.
> 
> In any case, if the Alpha 42 is prone to getting thrown backward by a moderately big wave by the bow configuration - stronger rudders are not the fix.
> 
> Again, I don't know what the fundamental problem is. But I certainly don't dismiss the more "aggressive" new feature out of hand simply because of Jon's speculation or videos of ships with wildly different hull configurations than the Alpha 42.
> 
> After all, with the right combo of speed and pressure, these wave-piercing bows (ones that look A LOT more like the ones on the Alpha than the ships in your videos) do like to submarine...
> 
> Be they 45':
> News Day 1 - AC World Series Naples - YouTube
> (Watch Oracle's port bow from 25-30 seconds to specifically see what I mean above.)
> 
> Going, going, going...gone - AC45 capsize - YouTube
> 
> ORACLE TEAM USA Spithill Capsize #acboathouse - YouTube
> 
> Or 70':
> America's Cup: Big Crash / Emirates Team New Zealand Nosedive - YouTube


Smack you really think that if those cats have normal bows they would not have capsized?. You think they capsized due to the bow shape?

*"aggressive wave-piercing bows"*

Don't you think that phrase is a publicity stunt? Those bows on that boat are as about as functional as a spoiler on the back of your car, and as harmless as it would be the spoiler

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Smack you really think that if those cats have normal bows they would not have capsized?. You think they capsized due to the bow shape?
> 
> *"aggressive wave-piercing bows"*
> 
> Don't you think that phrase is a publicity stunt? Those bows on that boat are as about as functional as a spoiler on the back of your car, and as harmless as it would be the spoiler
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


No, I understand the difference between a cruising cat and an AC45/72. But, the shapes and basic dynamics are similar. Again, if you watch that one section of the AC45 race in Naples, you'll see what I mean.

As for the "aggressive wave-piercing bows" being a PR stunt - maybe. I'd just like to see the engineering data to prove it one way or another.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> No, I understand the difference between a cruising cat and an AC45/72. But, the shapes and basic dynamics are similar. Again, if you watch that one section of the AC45 race in Naples, you'll see what I mean.
> 
> As for the "aggressive wave-piercing bows" being a PR stunt - maybe. I'd just like to see the engineering data to prove it one way or another.


well, this movie is an old one, at the time they didn't have inverted bows:






and just look at the list of records from Joyon,in his boat with inverted bows:






It is a question of design. A designer can control the buoyancy on the bow of a sailboat with normal boats or inverted bows, not more, not less but the one that makes the boat sail better, including with big waves.

The objective on an inverted bow is not diminish the buoyancy but to create a shape with a better wave penetration (that's what any bow does) one that can dissipate better the wave energy creating less spray. The objective is not pass inside the wave otherwise how to you think that solo sailed trimaran could have survived a non stop circumnavigation at an average speed over 19K?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> When the Alpha 42 is marketed, by Aero, as having uniquely *"aggressive wave-piercing bows"* - I'd say they are establishing the terminology. Your opinion of whether another boat without "aggressive wave-piercing bows" would have theoretically fared any better doesn't really matter to the reality of what actually happened. Unless, of course, you have solid, comparative engineering data to back up that opinion.


Well, if there is one thing that is apparent from a reading of this thread, it is that you have never personally experienced 18-20' seas in the Gulf Stream, during a gale.. 

Certainly, I don't have any "comparative engineering data" to reinforce my opinion... I can only offer an _OPINION_ based upon my own experience and observations of how monohulls - both power, and sail - behave in steep, confused seas... And, it is simply my _OPINION_ that anyone who really thinks that a boat with bows like this:










...when _sailed STRAIGHT INTO an oncoming Gulf Stream "rogue", at 6-8 knots, when the breeze is up to 40_, would have a perceptibly superior tendency to 'climb' the face of such a wave, than the same-sized Alpha 42...










...is, well, _dreaming_... 

Oh, and then there's this little tidbit, from Hank Schmitt's official statement for the insurance company:



> At one point the boat experienced 50 knot winds and 20 foot seas but _*the wave piercing bows worked great.*_
> 
> http://www.aeroyacht.com/2014/01/16/rogue-wave/


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> It is a question of design. A designer can control the buoyancy on the bow of a sailboat with normal boats or inverted bows, not more, not less but the one that makes the boat sail better, including with big waves.
> 
> The objective on an inverted bow is not diminish the buoyancy but to create a shape with a better wave penetration (that's what any bow does) one that can dissipate better the wave energy creating less spray. *The objective is not pass inside the wave* otherwise how to you think that solo sailed trimaran could have survived a non stop circumnavigation at an average speed over 19K?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Okay. I just thought "aggressive wave-piercing" meant that the bow pierced the wave (i.e. - "passed inside of it" like you see in the ACWS45 video). I'll take your word for it, though.

So how did this cat get thrown back on its rudders in conditions that were not that bad?


----------



## outbound

Guess I'm being dense. I did a Newport to Bermuda on a tri and multiple Marion to Bermudas on monos. The tri was the worse ride but was a safe ride as the owner did trans Atlantic races on her and was a great sailor. The tri was wicked fast but would stall some if brought too close to the wind. The monos with greater mass and inertia would plow through. We saw similar sea states in the stream but admittedly it was June not winter. I would think the designers of multis try to,keep weight down to be fast and frontal plane to be fast and not stall from wave action. When being washed by a breaking wave frontal plane includes the house.
Stalling occurs with light monos too if insufficient drive is generated. 
Would think fineness of bow(s), hulls and other features of design to be as important as the slant of the bows. Fine bows have less volume regardless of shape. Efforts elsewhere to improve gyradius can compensate . Don't understand why the focus on just that feature. Clearly there are ocean going racers with this feature making safe transits.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Okay. I just thought "aggressive wave-piercing" meant that the bow pierced the wave (i.e. - passed inside of it like you see in the ACWS45 video). I'll take your word for it.
> 
> So how did this cat get thrown back on its rudders in conditions that were not that bad?


Any small sailboat can be stopped on its tracks by a big frontal wave. That is not the point. The point is that they say that they were stopped on is tracks and *maybe* moved backward a little (and if they are not even sure certainly it was not a violent backwards movement) and with that they lost or damaged beyond repair both rudders. That is what seems strange to me, not the boat being stopped by a big wave.

Regarding being stopped by a big wave we can even say that those bows were advantageous since they offer less drag and would contribute for a smaller loss of speed. Off course in what regards a really big wave that would be pretty marginal since the pressure made by the wave on the frontal cabin and on the main body of the cat would be much bigger than the one on the bows.

Look at this image:










and compare the frontal surface of the bows with the rest of the cat. Imagine a 10ft breaking wave hitting it. It would crash over the boat and the main force would be made over the cabin, not the bows.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Any small sailboat can be stopped on its tracks by a big frontal wave. That is not the point. The point is that they say that they were stopped on is tracks *and maybe moved backward a little (and if they are not even sure certainly it was not a violent backwards movement) *and with that they lost or damaged beyond repair both rudders. That is what seems strange to me, not the boat being stopped by a big wave.


Actually, no - that's not correct. Here is what Charlie actually said...



> At about 1130 hrs we took a huge direct hit all across our front windows. The wave that hit us seemed much larger than the rest and was running at a different angle, such that it hit us from directly ahead instead of on the starboard quarter. Hank and I were in the saloon right behind the windows at the time. A fair amount of water squirted in all around the edges of the window panes and one large piece of trim was blown right off one vertical frame. The windows themselves, thankfully, held up fine. *The wave stopped us dead in our tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit. A large amount of water surged up our stern and blew a large teak step right off its mounts.*


Despite him saying "a bit", they moved backward with enough force to blow the large teak step off its mounts due to water rushing up the transom. That's much more than "maybe moved backward a little".



PCP said:


> Regarding being stopped by a big wave we can even say that those bows were advantageous since they offer less drag and would contribute for a smaller loss of speed. *Off course in what regards a really big wave that would be pretty marginal since the pressure made by the wave on the frontal cabin and on the main body of the cat would be much bigger than the one on the bows.*
> 
> and compare the frontal surface of the bows with the rest of the cat. Imagine a 10ft breaking wave hitting it. It would crash over the boat and the main force would be made over the cabin, not the bows.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


The above is the point I've been making as well.


----------



## PCP

It seems this is another one being rescued. 11ft waves seem not too big to me. I wonder what was the boat?

Coast Guard Rescue - KiiiTV.com South Texas, Corpus Christi, Coastal Bend


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Actually, no - that's not correct. Here is what Charlie actually said...
> 
> Quote:*"The wave stopped us dead in our tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit."*


and I said: *"The point is that they say that they were stopped on is tracks and maybe moved backward a little (and if they are not even sure certainly it was not a violent backwards movement)"*

Big difference



smackdaddy said:


> Despite him saying "a bit", they moved backward with enough force to blow the large teak step off its mounts due to water rushing up the transom. That's much more than "maybe moved backward a little".


So know you know more about what happen than the ones that were on the boat?

It seems to me that the other explanation for the the teak steps to be broken as the well as the rudders damaged with the boat *"dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit"* is bad design or bad building. The rudders should not have been damaged beyond repair by a boat stopped on its tracks and that *seemed* to have backed up a little.

You seem to prefer to question their description of the accident that for what I have understood is made by a credible skipper. Why?

Regards

Paulo

The above is the point I've been making as well.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Yorksailor

To summarize:

People who should have known better took a very expensive greenhouse out in the North Atlantic, in winter, without an adequate shake down and without adequate backup systems breaking the prime directive:

_Never leave a warm pub to go out in a winter gale!_


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So how did this cat get thrown back on its rudders *in conditions that were not that bad?*


Again, it's obvious you've never been in or near the Stream, with 18-20' seas, and winds of 40-50 knots... 

And, in the _WINTER_, no less, when the air is considerably denser, and thus _heavier_, and more powerful...










Certainly, these were not necessarily what might be typically described 'Survival' conditions, but when I try to picture being in their shoes, I'm hard pressed to imagine a boat of that size that I would view as being less suitable to weather that gale in relative safety and comfort... Again, looking at that massive amount of frontal profile - much of it being glass - and considering that each cubic yard of water weighs as much as a Volkswagen Beetle, this crew was extremely fortunate a direct from a rogue across the entire front of that condo did not take out those picture windows entirely...

If that had happened, the immediate downflooding that could have resulted would likely have been immediate and catastrophic, and their exposure to the conditions severe. Such an event could easily have resulted in severe injury to any of the crew from broken glass or debris, and might have caused a wide array of serious complications, such as rendering their sat phone inoperable. As I've said before, I suspect these folks are only now fully realizing how lucky they might have been...


----------



## PCP

They were sailing North trying to evade weather and waves or were they sailing west, against wind and waves (and with more to come)?


----------



## smackdaddy

Yorksailor said:


> To summarize:
> 
> People who should have known better took a very expensive greenhouse out in the North Atlantic, in winter, without an adequate shake down and without adequate backup systems breaking the prime directive:
> 
> _Never leave a warm pub to go out in a winter gale!_


I'm good with that. Although, I'd call it a "_Wave-Piercing_ Greenhouse".


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> and I said: *"The point is that they say that they were stopped on is tracks and maybe moved backward a little (and if they are not even sure certainly it was not a violent backwards movement)"*
> 
> Big difference
> 
> So know you know more about what happen than the ones that were on the boat?
> 
> It seems to me that the other explanation for the the teak steps to be broken as the well as the rudders damaged with the boat *"dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit"* is bad design or bad building. The rudders should not have been damaged beyond repair by a boat stopped on its tracks and that *seemed* to have backed up a little.


Again, the following is _exactly_ what Charlie wrote:



> The wave stopped us dead in our tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit. A large amount of water surged up our stern and blew a large teak step right off its mounts.


So I guess it depends on which description/outcome you as a reader want to focus on. You assume that it could not have been a violent backward movement because he said it was only "a bit"...yet he also describes the water surge having enough "violence" to blow the large teak step off its mounts.

So I guess if you want to only focus on the "a bit" description and assume it was a gentle push...you need to deal with the issue of how that water boarded with that much force. He did say both things.



PCP said:


> You seem to prefer to question their description of the accident that for what I have understood is made by a credible skipper. Why?


Not at all. The problem, as I said above, is that "a bit" can mean anything. You have to weigh that common description with the other stuff he's reporting (the water surge, the actual damage, etc.). In light of these things, the "a bit" could very well be tongue-in-cheek (just ask an Australian).

You, on the other hand, are purely focusing on bad rudder design and/or construction _because of your assumption that is was a light backing down of the boat_ - not addressing how this could be so with the Charlie's other descriptions.

Why?


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Again, the following is _exactly_ what Charlie wrote:
> 
> "dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit. A large amount of water surged up our stern and blew a large teak step right off its mounts"
> 
> So I guess it depends on which description/outcome you as a reader want to focus on. You assume that it could not have a violent backward movement because his said it was only "a bit"...yet he also describes the water surge having enough "violence" to blow the large teak step off its mounts.
> 
> So I guess if you want to only focus on the "a bit" description and assume it was a gentle push...you need to deal with the issue of how that water boarded with that much force. He did say both things.
> 
> Not at all. The problem, as I said above, is that "a bit" can mean anything. You have to weigh that common description with the other stuff he's reporting (the water surge, the actual damage, etc.). In light of these things, the "a bit" could very well be tongue-in-cheek (just ask an Australian).
> 
> You, on the other hand, are purely focusing on bad rudder design and/or construction _through your assumption that is was a light backing down of the boat_ - not addressing how this could be so with the Charlie's other descriptions.
> 
> Why?


Smack you should be a better handle of English than me. He said:

"*dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit*"

Seemed means that he is not even sure that it "backed up a little" amd you don't see why I say that from his words we can conclude that the boat was not thrown backwards violently??? If that was the case he would be pretty sure that the boat was thrown backwards and it would not express doubts about that saying* "seemed"*.

That's the reason I am focusing in bad rudder design or bad build and bad stair design: They should not have broke or be out of service in a situation where the boat went backwards so slightly that even the skipper (a credible one) has doubts if he really went backwards. That what this means:

"*dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit*"

Regards

Paulo


----------



## smackdaddy

PCP said:


> Smack you should be a better handle of English than me. He said:
> 
> "*dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit*"
> 
> Seemed means that he is not even sure that it "backed up a little" amd you don't see why I say that from his words we can conclude that the boat was not thrown backwards violently??? If that was the case he would be pretty sure that the boat was thrown backwards and it would not express doubts about that saying* "seemed"*.
> 
> That's the reason I am focusing in bad rudder design or bad build and bad stair design: They should not have broke or be out of service in a situation where the boat went backwards so slightly that even the skipper (a credible one) has doubts if he really went backwards. That what this means:
> 
> "*dead on its tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit*"
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes - I understand "seemed". It's obviously what he _felt_. But, again, I'm looking at his description/phots/etc. _of the actual damage_ and trying to reconcile the two (feelings and fact). Why? Because the amount of force is a pretty critical factor in determining any flaws in the design/construction, yes?

So, only Charlie (or someone else on that boat) can actually address this seeming contradiction. I definitely don't think it's an issue of credibility. I just think there's nuance in his writing between what he felt inside the boat and what happened outside the boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Again, the following is _exactly_ what Charlie wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The wave stopped us dead in our tracks and even seemed to back us up a bit. A large amount of water surged up our stern and blew a large teak step right off its mounts.
> 
> 
> 
> So I guess it depends on which description/outcome you as a reader want to focus on. You assume that it could not have been a violent backward movement because he said it was only "a bit"...yet he also describes the water surge having enough "violence" to blow the large teak step off its mounts.
> 
> So I guess if you want to only focus on the "a bit" description and assume it was a gentle push...you need to deal with the issue of how that water boarded with that much force. He did say both things.
Click to expand...

Quite entertaining, to watch you obsess over the minutest detail, and your parsing of every single word... 

Actually, if you've bothered to read Hank's account of the event, you'd realize there are some considerable disparities between his own description, and Charlie's... For instance, Charlie says they were fore-reaching at 4-5 knots, while Hank asserts they were _"sailing on a close reach under a double reefed mainsail at 6-8 knots..."_ Given the conditions, that's a BIG difference... And then, there's this:



> All was well when suddenly we got hit by a big rogue wave that not only stopped the boat cold* but violently pushed us backwards onto our rudders&#8230;" *
> 
> No monohull or catamaran steering system *violently pushed backwards* could have survived this.
> 
> Rogue Wave - Aeroyacht


So, then, according to the _CAPTAIN_, writing in his official report to the insurance company, it would appear that the boat was pushed back just slightly more than "a bit"...

Of course, you're free to believe which account you want to believe... However, given your obsession with the "wave-piercing bows" as being the root cause of the damage, but given Hank has already countered that argument in asserting that they "worked fine", I'm gonna guess you'll be sticking with Charlie's description of what _REALLY_ happened out there...


----------



## outbound

"It should be noted that the rudders of the boat were built of 1.5 inch solid stainless round tube welded to a closed framework of 2″ wide by 1/4″ thick stainless bars with (2) vertical and (3) horizontal members. Unfortunately no rudder is designed to suddenly lurch into reverse and have 10 Tons of torque applied to them."

'nuff said. Guys please kiss and make up ( here or on the other thread). I really like you both.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Quite entertaining, to watch you obsess over the minutest detail, and your parsing of every single word...
> 
> So, then, according to the _CAPTAIN_, writing in his official report to the insurance company, it would appear that the boat was pushed back just slightly more than "a bit"...
> 
> Of course, you're free to believe which account you want to believe... However, given your obsession with the "wave-piercing bows" as being the root cause of the damage, but given Hank has already countered that argument in asserting that they "worked fine", I'm gonna guess you'll be sticking with Charlie's description of what _REALLY_ happened out there...


Ahm, Jon, are you talking to me or to Paulo? If you read above, I was the one saying I thought, based on the damage, that the boat had been pushed back much more violently than Charlie perceived or wrote. Hank's account just confirms that. So, what were you saying about my reading comprehension again?

Look, I simply have a hunch on the bow design contributing to the backward force Hank describes. Is it right? I don't know - we'll see. In the mean time, are you saying I should believe the bows had _nothing to do with any of this_ simply because you say so?

(Out - don't worry. Despite our dripping sarcasm, biting prose, and strange emoticons, I would buy Jon a beer any day of the week.)


----------



## PCP

JonEisberg said:


> Quite entertaining, to watch you obsess over the minutest detail, and your parsing of every single word...
> 
> Actually, if you've bothered to read Hank's account of the event, you'd realize there are some considerable disparities between his own description, and Charlie's... For instance, Charlie says they were fore-reaching at 4-5 knots, while Hank asserts they were _"sailing on a close reach under a double reefed mainsail at 6-8 knots..."_ Given the conditions, that's a BIG difference... And then, there's this:
> 
> So, then, according to the _CAPTAIN_, writing in his official report to the insurance company, it would appear that the boat was pushed back just slightly more than "a bit"...
> 
> Of course, you're free to believe which account you want to believe... However, given your obsession with the "wave-piercing bows" as being the root cause of the damage, but given Hank has already countered that argument in asserting that they "worked fine", I'm gonna guess you'll be sticking with Charlie's description of what _REALLY_ happened out there...


That's really odd. My first thought regarding what had happened to the rudders was that the boat was probably thrown violently backwards by a wave (I posted it) but then come that statement about the boat being only pushed backwards slightly and even that not for sure. One thing would not go with the other, I mean that kind of damage to be normal in a boat stopped in his tracks.

Neither the two different descriptions of the accident go one with the other. Well the description for the insurance, that I only heard now, can be true, or just to be for the insurance, I guess we will never know. Fact is that if the rudders were damaged according with the first description, the insurance company would not pay anything claiming that it was a building or design defect (I saw it happen) so they have to give to the insurance a good reason for the damage other than a defect of design or building.

It is pretty strange that two guys on the same boat describe the accident in such two different ways. One says, the boat was violently pushed backwards and the other says the boat was stopped on his tracks and maybe went a bit backwards. It is not the same thing and it is hard not to notice a boat being violently thrown backwards

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> Neither the two different descriptions of the accident go one with the other. Well the description for the insurance, that I only heard now, can be true, or just to be for the insurance, I guess we will never know. Fact is that if the rudders were damaged according with the first description, the insurance company would not pay anything claiming that it was a building or design defect (I saw it happen) so they have to give to the insurance a good reason for the damage other than a defect of design or building.
> 
> It is pretty strange that two guys on the same boat describe the accident in such two different ways. One says, the boat was violently pushed backwards and the other says the boat was stopped on his tracks and maybe went a bit backwards. It is not the same thing and it is hard not to notice a boat being violently thrown backwards
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Not surprisingly, the page on Alpha's website containing the original description of events, and quotes from the official insurance report, no longer exists...

http://www.aeroyacht.com/2014/01/16/rogue-wave/


----------



## smackdaddy

I saw that over on SA. It's a bummer for Aero. And it's a bummer for us as we'll not likely know the details of what really happened until the legal dust settles - which could be years.


----------



## JonEisberg

svHyLyte said:


> Something I think you fellows are missing in your debate over whether the yacht was pushed backward or not is the fact that* they were running off, albeit (supposedly) slowly in in steep following sea. *


Hmmm, not sure where you got that impression...

Hank said they were "close reaching at 6-8 knots..."

And this is Charlie's description: (emphasis mine)



> We now set up the boat to motorsail itself in *a fore-reaching configuration* under just the double-reefed main (there was no third reef). We locked the helm off hard to port to keep her from rounding up and were making progress eastwards at 4-5 knots. This seemed stable, though we were still getting whacked occasionally by waves on the starboard bow.





svHyLyte said:


> I do expect that yacht will wash up somewhere, to someone's advantage, at some point in the not to distant future. We shall see, eh?


I'm not so sure about that, I would be VERY surprised if this boat ever fetches up ashore on our side of the Atlantic...

As you said, we shall see... but I wouldn't be holding my breath, waiting for this boat to ever be seen again anytime soon


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> ....
> Something I think you fellows are missing in your debate over whether the yacht was pushed backward or not is the fact that they were running off, albeit (supposedly) slowly in in steep following sea. ...


Are you sure of that? I mean that they were running off? By the speed and description I thought that were going against the wind, not very close, but not running off.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## svHyLyte

PCP said:


> Are you sure of that? I mean that they were running off? By the speed and description I thought that were going against the wind, not very close, but not running off.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Actually, you're correct and my assessment is erroneous and will be accordingly removed momentarily.

Done.


----------



## smackdaddy

More info from Charlie Doane on the specific damage to the rudders (ran across it on SA):



> This is comment #45.
> 
> @Phil: I'm very glad you found the post useful and informative. To answer your questions: 1) the rudder posts, properly called rudder stocks, were not bent. It was the frames inside the rudder blades that seemed to have been damaged. On the starboard side the blade frame had apparently broken loose, as the blade was spinning around its stock. On the port side, the frame had bent. The rudder turned freely, but the blade was always pitched to starboard, even with the wheel hard to port. And no, we certainly did not hit anything.
> 
> 2) We did discuss trying to drop the rudder with the bent frame, but it was quite buoyant and we had no way to push the stock down the bearing tube. Also, it seemed it would be impossible to extract the Allen wrench we'd hammered in to pin the tiller arm in place.
> 
> 3) Bending the blade frame straight again was out of the question. I can't imagine how you'd do it at sea.
> 
> HELICOPTER EVACUATION: Abandoning Be Good Too


So my question here is how hard this would be to jury rig? If the bent rudder is still turning freely on its intact stock - couldn't you disconnect and adjust/rig the tie rod running to that tiller arm to straighten it? With the other spinning freely you would at least have one functional rudder.

I seem to recall that there was another front bearing down them and their window of opportunity for rescue was closing - so I don't want to be harsh - but this whole thing really seems like a half-hearted effort on everyone's part.


----------



## PCP

svHyLyte said:


> Actually, you're correct and my assessment is erroneous and will be accordingly removed momentarily.
> 
> Done.


You assumed that they were trying to evade weather. In fact given this picture I would thought that they would be beam reaching going North to escape the stronger winds that were coming.










It seems that they were close hauled going at a small angle to the waves and that means that they consider the conditions manageable specially considering that stronger winds were on the way. Maybe they were wrong about that assessment, or they had just bad luck, or the rudders were too fragile.

But regarding the bows let me explain better why I say it is a question of design and that what you say has not directly to a bow being inverted or not:

To having an inverted bow, considering design options on a boat with a "normal" inclined bow, you can invert it starting from the waterline (and you will have a boat with a smaller deck) and in this case you will have a boat with less bow buoyancy or you can start to invert it a deck level, maintaining the deck length of the boat and increasing LWL. In fact if we want a boat with the same interior volume this is the way to go and in this case we will have a superior bow buoyancy.

On this drawing you have an existent boat with an inverted bow. If you maintain deck length and start from there a "normal" bow the area correspondent to the lost volume is the red one. It all depends what buoyancy the NA wants on the bow and having them inverted does not mean necessarily less buoyancy but some more feet on the waterline on a same sized deck boat.





Regards

Paulo


----------



## capt vimes

paulo - here is a quote from the VOR homepage:
"4. Reverse bow
The reverse bow is mainly a cosmetic feature, in the most photographed area of the boat, but it will also help keep water off the bow."
Volvo Ocean Race | Innovative Features


----------



## PCP

capt vimes said:


> paulo - here is a quote from the VOR homepage:
> "4. Reverse bow
> The reverse bow is mainly a cosmetic feature, in the most photographed area of the boat, but it will also help keep water off the bow."
> Volvo Ocean Race | Innovative Features


How can it be a cosmetic feature if it takes water from the bow?

Yes taking water from the bow (and that means diminishing wave drag) and increase LWL are the main advantages of an inverted bow. Someone can also consider the shape as a nice one and consider that the cosmetic feature is more important than the performance advantages. It is a question of perspective and of what one considers more important.

I bet that Farr would have disagreed regarding that cosmetic perspective: When he designed the boat he only had one thing in mind: best performance for the job. Can you see him adding "cosmetic" aspects to a race boat that is by definition a completely functional boat?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> More info from Charlie Doane on the specific damage to the rudders (ran across it on SA):
> 
> So my question here is how hard this would be to jury rig? If the bent rudder is still turning freely on its intact stock - couldn't you disconnect and adjust/rig the tie rod running to that tiller arm to straighten it? With the other spinning freely you would at least have one functional rudder.
> 
> I seem to recall that there was another front bearing down them and their window of opportunity for rescue was closing - so I don't want to be harsh - but this whole thing really seems like a half-hearted effort on everyone's part.


Yeah, I was surprised to read that description, as well... From the initial account, I had gotten the impression that the port rudder had become more or less jammed/wedged against the hull... Certainly sounds like there was still a possibility that it might have been re-oriented in a way you suggest, or possibly by 'bridling' the rudder itself with lines back up and over the transom, to keep it in a roughly fore and aft plane that wouldn't want to turn the boat in circles...

I also originally thought the possibility of dropping that rudder was out of the question due to such a 'jamming', but now we hear that its buoyancy was what prevented it from being extracted (Seems the Allen key they had hammered in could have cut off with a hacksaw or cutting tool, no?)... Well, those rudders are not THAT big, after all, and it seems to me their inherent floatation could have been overcome... How about 'sacrificing' the anchor and chain rode, for instance, by attaching it to the rudder and dropping it over the stern (still attached to a length of line to enable eventual retrieval, of course), such a weight could have been sufficient to help pull the rudder free of the tube/bearings, it would seem... Easy to suggest in hindsight from here, of course, who knows 

The more I think about this incident, the more I think it represents another classic example of a series of cascading failure, and the essence of seamanship being the _IMMEDIATE_ attention to 'issues', whenever they arise... The critical one, that I don't think we've really discussed, is the lack of attention to resolving the chafing issue of the jibsheet, which Charlie admits they were aware of... When that sheet eventually parted, they were forced to roll up the jib, which forced them to motorsail under their main alone, which resulted in an extreme amount of weather helm, which caused them to put the rudders hard over to avoid rounding up, which caused the rudders to be in an extremely vulnerable position when the boat was driven violently backwards by the wave strike, and so on, and so on... Had that chafing issue been dealt with before the sheet failed, they could have been sailing with a far better balanced sail plan - or perhaps even under a deeply reefed jib alone - and the rudders allowed to remain in a more centered position when the wave strike occurred...

I'm still not going to characterize the crew's efforts as "half-hearted", however, and I think some of the criticism that has surfaced in Comments on both Wavetrain, and Saifeed, has been WAY over the top... I'm guessing Charlie might have happily embraced my comments that he singled out in the beginning, if he had any idea how tame they would appear in comparison to some that have been posted since... 

I also think - as I have said from the beginning - that the big wild card that is difficult for any of us to overestimate - is the presence of the owners aboard... That can change EVERYTHING in such a situation, and I'm gonna give Hank and Charlie the benefit of the doubt, and concede they might have been able to avoid abandoning BE GOOD TOO if it had just been the 2 of them aboard to worry about...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> The more I think about this incident, the more I think it represents another classic example of a series of cascading failure, and the essence of seamanship being the _IMMEDIATE_ attention to 'issues', whenever they arise...
> 
> I also think - as I have said from the beginning - that the big wild card that is difficult for any of us to overestimate - is the presence of the owners aboard... That can change EVERYTHING in such a situation, and I'm gonna give Hank and Charlie the benefit of the doubt, and concede they might have been able to avoid abandoning BE GOOD TOO if it had just been the 2 of them aboard to worry about...


These are two good points. As for the cascading failure, this certainly seems to be a case of that. But in your rundown you focus primarily on the crew's action/inaction. However, the boat certainly seemed to be failing as well. And my bet is that _those failures made the crew lose faith in the boat_.

I mean, you completely give up using your headsail because of a _parted sheet_? That doesn't make sense. Many ways to address that after it's happened (even you if you neglected it to begin with).

This is why I'm saying it seems to be a half-hearted effort. This is not meant to condemn Hank or Charlie or anyone else. It's just to say that _something_ caused these capable sailors - and the owners - to decide it was better to cut losses and get off.

The cascading failure in the boat, and the subsequent loss of faith in it by the crew, would appear to be the best explanation of why jury-rigging took a backseat to rescue. Obviously just a guess - but there is a lot to this story that isn't out.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I mean, you completely give up using your headsail because of a _parted sheet_? That doesn't make sense. Many ways to address that after it's happened (even you if you neglected it to begin with).


Just a hunch, but gnarly conditions in the Gulf Stream in January, coupled with the apparent lack of jacklines rigged on such an expansive foredeck, might have had _something_ to do with the inclination to simply furl the damn thing at that point, and do without it..  I know I certainly wouldn't have been very inclined to want to wander out onto some freakin' _trampoline_, while stretching to reach the clew of the jib, without being attached to a VERY short tether, and bulletproof jackline arrangement... I see nothing to indicate such a basic deck safety system was in place aboard this boat - although, in fairness, there might have been something arranged closer to the centerline of the boat, that is not visible in the pic... Still, that is not a foredeck I'd want to have to venture out upon in those sort of conditions...










I know people don't want to hear it, but one of the _POTENTIAL_ downsides to features like inside steering stations, or full cockpit enclosures, is that they can _SOMETIMES_ make it a bit more difficult to venture out of a warm and comfy place - and attend to something that might need attending to - than if you're already cold and miserable out there to begin with... No need to ask me how I know this, of course... 

But something as rudimentary as the fair lead of a headsail sheeting setup, it seems amazing to me that any issue with chafing of the sheets wasn't rectified earlier, particularly after the builder crowed about having completed a round-Long Island shakedown featuring "arctic gales", and "walls of 8' seas"... One would have thought any issue with jibsheet chafing would have been sorted well before this boat even departed NY, no?


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah, it does look cold, wet and seriously lumpy out there. But whaddayagonnado?

Again, if it was that much of an issue with steering - why not just pull the leeward sheet across. Sure, you would have to grab a boathook and head to the mast - but at least you'd have the boat sailing again and not set-up for disaster.

If you're right about the problem being not wanting to get wet and cold - or even not having a jackline rigged (which we ALWAYS do for any offshore) - it goes back to my comment about this whole thing really appearing half-hearted.


----------



## outbound

Wonder why folks not discussing nature of failure of skeleton framing inside rudder. From little info provided either welds failed,design was poor or spec for materials was not met. I'm assuming stock was ss not cf.
Also wonder about sailplan. We have at our access- genny and Solent on rollers and storm jib on dyneema remove able inner for stay. Don't recall seeing other blue water boats without some forethought to headsails. The storm jib stay is deployed before leaving. Is it possible this ocean going boat was dependent on only one headsail ?


----------



## capt vimes

PCP said:


> How can it be a cosmetic feature if it takes water from the bow?
> 
> Yes taking water from the bow (and that means diminishing wave drag) and increase LWL are the main advantages of an inverted bow. Someone can also consider the shape as a nice one and consider that the cosmetic feature is more important than the performance advantages. It is a question of perspective and of what one considers more important.
> 
> I bet that Farr would have disagreed regarding that cosmetic perspective: When he designed the boat he only had one thing in mind: best performance for the job. Can you see him adding "cosmetic" aspects to a race boat that is by definition a completely functional boat?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


it was just a quote... i do not see how the inverted bow can help getting water of the bow either... because the inverted means that water gets pushed onto the deck while with a positive/conventional rake of the stem water will be pushed down, isnt'it?
and i certainly cannot answer in bruce farrs behave...


----------



## SVAuspicious

JonEisberg said:


> I know I certainly wouldn't have been very inclined to want to wander out onto some freakin' _trampoline_, while stretching to reach the clew of the jib, without being attached to a VERY short tether, and bulletproof jackline arrangement...


Darn tootin'. I know you know this Jon, but for those that follow behind us, it is worth reinforcing that one should never be too proud to crawl. On that boat, at least as far as the picture indicates, there are pretty big stretches with nothing to hold onto.

I don't much like trampolines in heavy weather. I've been in a couple of feet of water on the foredeck more times than I like to consider, but it least it wasn't coming up from underneath me. Power enema is the most descriptive term I can come up with. Nothing to do with this boat in particular but with cats in general in heavy weather.

With regard to chafing we'd have to ask Hank or Charlie.

Remember, none of us were there. We're speculating about a lot of things. I *know* Hank, and I've read a lot of what Charlie has written, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## capta

smackdaddy said:


> I mean, you completely give up using your headsail because of a _parted sheet_? That doesn't make sense. Many ways to address that after it's happened (even you if you neglected it to begin with).


Have you considered that it may have been a jib with a high clew? Perhaps, in the weather they were experiencing at the time, it might be very dangerous to drop a roller furling jib to attach new sheets? Just a thought; we sail with a Yankee, not a genoa, with an unreachable clew from the deck.
Also, speaking from experience, it is no simple task to work under the hull of a boat at sea; perhaps in this case, downright fatal.
This one, IMO is on the boat and manufacturer.


----------



## smackdaddy

capta said:


> Have you considered that it may have been a jib with a high clew? Perhaps, in the weather they were experiencing at the time, it might be very dangerous to drop a roller furling jib to attach new sheets? Just a thought; we sail with a Yankee, not a genoa, with an unreachable clew from the deck.
> Also, speaking from experience, it is no simple task to work under the hull of a boat at sea; perhaps in this case, downright fatal.
> This one, IMO is on the boat and manufacturer.


As for the headsail issue a high clew wouldn't matter in what I was suggesting - and you definitely wouldn't have to drop the roller.

I'm assuming that the jib sheet wasn't a single-line attached with a lark's head, but instead two separate sheets with bowlines. I assume that because they rolled up the sail - and in weather like that, you'd either need a sheet still on and wrapped to secure the clew, or you'd need to go forward and tie it up yourself so it wouldn't unroll and flog.

So, if they still had a functional sheet, why not pass it in front of the mast to other side of the boat and use it in place of the parted sheet? I just don't understand how sailing the boat hard-over with wicked weather helm (stressing things that much) is preferable to coming up with a relatively simple fix.

At the end of the day, your last sentence definitely seems to be a lot of the problem.


----------



## capta

[QUOTE=smackdaddy;
I believe the A42 is indeed a single sheet foresail rig with a traveler. Also, you've got to remember, there's no foredeck to work from, only a net, kind of an unstable (and wet?) work area.
Just thoughts, not meant as argumentative.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

SVAuspicious said:


> Darn tootin'. I know you know this Jon, but for those that follow behind us, it is worth reinforcing that one should never be too proud to crawl. On that boat, at least as far as the picture indicates, there are pretty big stretches with nothing to hold onto.
> 
> I don't much like trampolines in heavy weather. I've been in a couple of feet of water on the foredeck more times than I like to consider, but it least it wasn't coming up from underneath me. Power enema is the most descriptive term I can come up with. Nothing to do with this boat in particular but with cats in general in heavy weather.
> 
> With regard to chafing we'd have to ask Hank or Charlie.
> 
> Remember, none of us were there. We're speculating about a lot of things. I *know* Hank, and I've read a lot of what Charlie has written, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.


Power enema i

you guys are killing me :laugher


----------



## smackdaddy

capta said:


> I believe the A42 is indeed a single sheet foresail rig with a traveler. Also, you've got to remember, there's no foredeck to work from, only a net, kind of an unstable (and wet?) work area.
> Just thoughts, not meant as argumentative.


You're right. I was definitely mistaken:










A simple self-tacking jib. How does that sheet chafe to the point of parting in such a short time frame? That doesn't look like a super complicated setup there.


----------



## smackdaddy

Hank Schmitt's account of the loss:

ABANDONING BE GOOD TOO: The Skipper Responds to the Builder's Response

He seems to question it design of these bows as did I:



> Here Gregor is making the mistake of believing his own marketing ideas. He suggests that if we were sailing faster into the waves then his "wave piercing" bows would have pushed us through the wave and we would not have been pushed backwards. If you ask me, a boxer stepping into a left hook is much worse off than one stepping away from that same left hook. Why he disparages the seamanship of the crew and suggests we should have had more sail up and been going faster is something I do not understand. Most experienced sailors would want to slow the boat down in bad weather, not sail faster upwind into the waves. It is his belief we should have been going faster so we would have walked into that left hook of a rogue wave.


In any case, Gregor's side of the story suddenly sounds quite a bit more hollow and desperate.

I have huge respect for Hank and his accomplishments, but I thought this one was bit snide:



> Past experience would dictate to most sailors to slow down. *Some armchair sailors suggested deploying a drogue or sea anchor to help slow us down or stop the boat.* Proper seamanship would be to slow down in bigger seas and not go faster as Gregor admonished us to do. (The use of drogues and sea anchors are a whole other chapter into themselves. Most new boats do not carry them and *most delivery skippers never deploy them as they want to be more proactive and do not want to stop.*)


You really shouldn't discount proper and proven seamanship techniques...even if they are suggested by armchair sailors...when they've been repeatedly proven to save boats. Even if you're a very seasoned delivery skipper. The boat always needs to get there. Even armchair sailors know that.


----------



## CaptStephan

Has there been any news on the final resting place of the "Be Good Too"?


----------

