# Mackinac race tragedy.



## Tweegs

_Jul 18, 2011 5:52 a.m.

A 35-foot sailboat participating in the 103rd Chicago Yacht Club Race to Mackinac capsized in northern Lake Michigan early Monday morning.

It happened near Fox Island as a round of thunderstorms moved across the lake. There were eight crew members on board the boat -- WingNuts. Six of them were rescued by a passing boat -- Sociable -- and two are still missing.

The U.S. Coast Guard has not released names yet, but the race website lists these as members of the WingNuts crew -- 
Christopher (C.J.) Cummings, 16, of Grandville, Mich. Stuart Morley of Midland, Mich. Peter Morley Jr. of Midland, Mich. Stanton Dent of Midland, Mich. Mark Morley of Saginaw, Mich. Suzanne Bickel of Saginaw, Mich. John Dent of Ann Arbor, Mich. Lee Purcell Chicago , IL 
24 Hour News 8 talked to Cummings' dad, Chip, on Daybreak Monday morning. He said he received a call around 12:30 a.m. from the Coast Guard, telling him and the other survivors were taken to Charlevoix. Chip was able to talk to his son, C.J., who said he was ok and very tired.

The U.S. Coast Guard learned of the overturned Kiwi 35 boat when crew members aboard another sailing vessel, Sociable, were able to radio them.

The Coast Guard told 24 Hour News 8 it is unknown at this time if the WingNuts crew members had life jackets on at the time. The Coast Guard is using one of its 41-foot utility boat, a helicopter and its Cutter Mackinaw to help in the search.

Waves in the water where the boat capsized are between 4 and 6 foot, and the water temperature is in the low 70s, according to the Coast Guard._

Recent reports suggest the missing two were recovered by Coast Guard divers. Thoughts and prayers to the families.

Take this as a strong reminder to wear your PFD's.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh man that sucks. I sure hope they find the other 2.

I heard that the winds were up to 70 knots in that squall? Anyone know?

Thanks for the update tweegs.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Sad stuff, one story reported they were all rescued with PFD's on.

So they were knocked down, then capsized?


----------



## Tweegs

Pure speculation on my part, but maybe they broached and caught a roller?

Got one guy here at work, big Mac race fan and participant, says he heard on the radio that they had sails down. Says he can’t imagine having all the sails down, spinnaker maybe, but not all of them…again, that’s speculation. 

But yes, a 70 kt wind gust was reported.


----------



## kenhoneycutt

Friend of mine in the Mac had the boat he was on dismasted in the storm. Must have been a real blow.


----------



## rockDAWG

Very sad to hear this. My deepest condolences to the family and friends. In time, I hope the Captain can reflect on the incident, so we all can learn from it. 

We shall not take a cheap shot at the captain or crews. We were not in their shoes. It is a tragedy, but just like everything else in life, all has its risk.


----------



## blt2ski

Taking a cheap shot at the captain may not do much, IF he/she is one of the missing/dead.

In the mean time, condolences to the family's.

Marty


----------



## rockDAWG

More in here:
It looks like SPOT works

http://www.cycracetomackinac.com/

UPDATE 2: Search crews find 2 missing sailing race participants

CLEVELAND - The search for two missing sailing race participants concluded this morning as crews found the two boaters unresponsive in the vicinity of their capsized boat.

The names of the crewmembers are being withheld pending notification of next-of-kin.

Divers from a Charlevoix County dive team found the two boaters at 8:44 a.m., EST.

The two boaters were participating in the Chicago Yacht Club's Race to Mackinac.

The U.S. Coast Guard received initial notification from* a private company that monitors personal locator beacons, reporting that two PLBs aboard the sailing vessel Wingnuts had been activated.*

Radio watchstanders at Coast Guard Station Charlevoix, Mich., established communications with the sailing vessel Sociable, who were assisting with the coordination of a search by other responding sailing vessels in the vicinity. The crew of the Sociable pulled six of the eight crewmembers from the Wingnuts out of the water.

A rescue crew aboard a 41-foot Utility Boat from Coast Guard Station Charlevoix, Mich., arrived on scene and located the capsized sailing vessel. Crewmembers knocked on the hull of the vessel in an attempt to discern whether or not people were trapped inside. Receiving no response from inside the vessel, the rescue crew began their initial search pattern.

A crew aboard an MH-65 Dolphin rescue helicopter from Coast Guard Air Station Traverse City, Mich., also began searching.

The Coast Guard Cutter Mackinaw arrived on scene to assume the role of on-scene commander and coordinate ongoing search efforts. Search and rescue coordinators at Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie contacted Charlevoix County to request dive team support. The Air Station Traverse City helicopter crew transported the dive team to cutter Mackinaw, which was used as a dive platform.

====================
2 found dead after sailboat capsizes during Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com

The bodies of two people have been pulled from the water in northern Lake Michigan after a sailboat participating in the Chicago Yacht Club's Race to Mackinac capsized in a storm near Fox Island early Monday morning. Six were rescued.

The names of the two were not released by the Coast Guard. Officials could not recall any previous drowning deaths during past races.

The Coast Guard was notified at 11:40 p.m. CDT Sunday by radio by crew members from the sailing vessel Sociable, that the 35-foot sailing vessel WingNuts had capsized, sending eight people into the water.

Crew aboard the Sociable rescued six, the Coast Guard said. The bodies of the two missing boaters were recovered around 8:45 a.m. today.

The WingNuts boat was from Saginaw, Mich., with one member out of the eight-member crew hailing from Chicago, according to the race's official website. The rest are from Michigan.

Rescue crews aboard a 41-foot utility boat from the Coast Guard station in Chalevoix, Mich., an MH-65C Dolphin rescue helicopter from the Traverse City, Mich., air station and the crew of the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw are participating in the search.

Stormy weather in the area was believed to have been responsible for the 4- to 6-foot waves that may have contributed to capsizing the boat, according to Petty Officer 3rd Class George Degener.

The father of a teen rescued after the boat capsized says his son and crewmates were prepared for a storm but sudden strong winds were impossible to overcome.

Chip Cummings told The Grand Rapids Press and WWJ-AM that his 16-year-old son C.J., of Grandville, was one of the six rescued from WingNuts after it capsized near Lake Michigan's Fox Islands.

Chip Cummings said his son was exhausted but all right. The elder Cummings said his son and others pressed alert mechanisms on their life vests that signaled trouble and sent a GPS alert to the Coast Guard.

Cummings said the missing crew members were experienced.

The water temperature at the time of the accident was in the low 70s. Degener said the missing crew members could safely stay in the water for hours due to the warm temperatures.

The Chicago-Mackinac race covers 333 miles from just off Navy Pier to Mackinac Island in Michigan. It is the oldest annual freshwater race in the world, first held in 1898.

This year, 355 boats with approximately 3,500 crew members were participating.


----------



## rockDAWG

blt2ski said:


> Taking a cheap shot at the captain may not do much, IF he/she is one of the missing/dead.
> 
> In the mean time, condolences to the family's.
> 
> Marty


Apparently, the storm came so quickly:

*The father of a teen rescued after the boat capsized says his son and crewmates were prepared for a storm but sudden strong winds were impossible to overcome.
*


----------



## speciald

I just got an email from a friend who was on a Shock 35, Free Agent, that was dismasted. No one hurt and they have made it in to port; boat is a mess. The fleet tracking program crashed so I don't know where the fleet is. No news on the site about any other withdrawals.


----------



## welshwind

*Mac Race Facebook page*



speciald said:


> The fleet tracking program crashed so I don't know where the fleet is. No news on the site about any other withdrawals.


They do have a facebook page that is quite active. It is:

Chicago Yacht Club-Race To Mackinac - sailing race, Business Services - Chicago, IL | Facebook


----------



## welshwind

*Two lost sailors*

The two lost sailors were "WingNuts" skipper Mark Morley, 51, and Suzanne Bickel, 41, both from Saginaw, MI.

Mark Morley had 44 years of sailing experience, including six Chicago Mackinacs and 85 qualifying races. Suzanne Bickel had sailed in two previous Chicago-Mackinac Races, with 16 qualifying races.


----------



## PaulfromNWOnt

Sad news indeed. Condolences to the families and friends.


----------



## HeartsContent

Tweegs said:


> _Jul 18, 2011 5:52 a.m.
> 
> Take this as a strong reminder to wear your PFD's._


_

Why? Did the lack of a PFD cause loss of life here? I am confused._


----------



## TakeFive

HeartsContent said:


> Why? Did the lack of a PFD cause loss of life here? I am confused.


This should not be confusing at all. Any time there is news of a sudden, violent storm, it should be a reminder of the importance of wearing PFDs. This incident is just such a reminder.

If the fatalities are ultimately determined to be unrelated to PFDs, do we all conclude that PFDs are not valuable? Of course not!


----------



## Tweegs

Heard an interview with the Coast Guard at lunch.

According to him, everyone on board was wearing a PFD. The two that didn't make it were safety harnessed in and for whatever reason could not release the harness. (i.e. fouled, unconscious, etc.)

Heartscontent..
First reported details were sketchy as always, and the initial report stated that Coast Guard divers recovered the bodies with no further details given, which could leave one to believe PFD's were not being worn.


----------



## rockDAWG

Tweegs said:


> Heard an interview with the Coast Guard at lunch.
> 
> According to him, everyone on board was wearing a PFD. The two that didn't make it were safety harnessed in and for whatever reason could not release the harness. (i.e. fouled, unconscious, etc.)


Does this mean that the CG found these two men still tethered to the boat with their PFD deployed


----------



## Tweegs

He said they were still tethered to the boat, he did not say if the PFD's were deployed, though you can probably assume they were.

Also no indication was given if the boat was turtled, sank, or was just knocked down. “Capsized” to the media encompasses many different scenarios.


----------



## rockDAWG

If the boat was still floating (it must be), I assume the others were still hanging around the boat while in water. It is easier for the CG to find a boat than a person in the water. 

The captain and the lady must be unconscious during the knockdown.


----------



## funjohnson

I wonder how stable these boats could be. Those wings freak me out!

WingNuts - Kiwi 35 | The Boat Register on Sailing Networks

What a horrible loss...


----------



## smackdaddy

Tweegs said:


> He said they were still tethered to the boat, he did not say if the PFD's were deployed, though you can probably assume they were.
> 
> Also no indication was given if the boat was turtled, sank, or was just knocked down. "Capsized" to the media encompasses many different scenarios.


I heard the same regarding the tethers. No further word on whether the pfds of the two were inflated. And no word on whether the others had been tethered in.

Tether in to be safe...then this.

Speculation on SA is that they broached, caught a wing, and turtled. If so, it would have happened very quickly. Pic of boat below...










Condolences to the families. And major kudos to _Sociable_ and her crew.


----------



## Barquito

> Also no indication was given if the boat was turtled, sank, or was just knocked down. "Capsized" to the media encompasses many different scenarios.


Didn't one of the reports say that the CG knocked on the upturned boats hull to see if there was anyone under?

I suppose a very important function of the harness, is to be able to release effectively. If you are unconscious already... maybe it doesn't matter.

Would those wings present a huge windage if the boat was heeled at an extreem angle beam-to the wind?


----------



## puddinlegs

Lake Michigan is a serious place. Even Ted Turner was humbled by the Lake during a Chicago Mac, losing his boat's rig after commenting before the start that it was, to paraphrase," a mill pond ". Condolences to all involved. No arm chair QB'ing. So far we've heard, "Wear your pfd." The assumption can only be that since 2 people drowned, they weren't. The the boat with wings. Sure, I'd rather be on an old swan 44 for that, but these were very experienced sailors on a boat they knew well. Tethers? I'm guessing since they were next to the boat, they were tethered, but we don't know yet. If they were, the question is what type of attachment they had on the harness end. ORC requires a quick opening snap shackle with a lanyard in case the wearer gets trapped underneath a boat, caught in rigging, or is being dragged. Maybe they had all their p's and q's in perfect order. Sadly, these things happen. As more becomes known, we'll have better answers. The trick is in the meantime to avoid speculation, blame, and fear mongering.

ORC tether with a snap shackle:

Fisheries - Product Detail

and the ones seen more commonly in use:

Fisheries - Product Detail


----------



## smackdaddy

More details...

2 die when sailboat capsizes during Mackinac race: 'A hell of a night' - chicagotribune.com



> By Cynthia Dizikes and William Lee
> Tribune reporters
> 2:12 p.m. CDT, July 18, 2011
> 
> Two experienced sailors died after sudden strong winds flipped their sailboat in northern Lake Michigan during the Chicago Yacht Club's Race to Mackinac.
> 
> Six of the crew were rescued, including two teenage boys, 15 and 16.
> 
> The dead were identified late this morning as Mark Morley, 51, the skipper of the WingNuts, and Suzanne Bickel, 41, both from Saginaw, Mich. They are the first deaths caused by accident or the weather in the race's history, according to the yacht club.
> 
> The 35-foot boat was sailing near Fox Island, about 13 miles northwest of Charlevoix, Mich., shortly before midnight when a storm raced up, officials and witnesses said.
> 
> *"They were ready for the storm, they had their sails down," said Gifford Cummings, whose 16-year-old son Christopher, known as "C.J.," was rescued. "But the wind suddenly whipped up from 5 knots to about 40 knots. The wind caught one of the hulls and flipped it right over."
> 
> Cummings said the crew were all wearing safety harnesses that secured them to the boat. "They're good when you're sailing, but not when the boat capsizes."
> 
> C.J.'s friend, Stuart Morley, 15, was able to get out of his harness and free Cummings' son.
> 
> "Stuart untethered and then untethered C.J. They scrambled to the hull, they were clinging to the hull. They activated their emergency equipment," which included lights and whistles and beacons.*
> 
> The crew of another boat in the race, the Sociable, were able to hone in on him and others, Cummings said. "They were in the water maybe 10 to 15 minutes."
> 
> C.J. first talked to his mom, then to Cummings. "His first words were, 'Hey, dad.' All I get is a hey, dad," he joked. "I don't think it's all sunk in yet for him -- probably because he was exhausted. It's been a hell of a night, I tell you."
> 
> "He's been sailing since grade school," Cummings added about his son. "This was his first Mackinac race. Several of those on board are his cousins."
> 
> Cummings said the crew was very experienced. "I know them, it's hard," Cummings said.
> 
> Cummings said he had known Mark Morley since the 1980s. "He lived and breathed sailing," Cummings said. "He is one of the most proficient sailors I have ever met. He was very knowledgeable and experienced and always very careful."
> 
> Morley had 44 years of sailing experience, including six Chicago Mackinac races and 85 qualifying races, according to the yacht club. Suzanne Bickel had sailed in two previous Mackinac races, with 16 qualifying races.
> 
> The sole Chicagoan on board, Lee Purcell, was safe, said his wife Aimee, who had awakened early this morning to go meet her husband and his sailing crew in Mackinac when her husband called with the devastating news.
> 
> "My heart sank," said Purcell, who was driving to meet her husband. "I'm worried about the other families."
> 
> This was Lee Purcell's third Mackinac race with the owners of WingNuts," a group of childhood friends from Michigan, Aimee Purcell said.
> 
> "The four owners of the boat have been friends since birth," Purcell said. "They all grew up together and have sailed together since they were tots."
> 
> Purcell, who is an architect, met them years ago while doing business in Detroit, Purcell said.
> 
> Purcell said the owners named the boat after its build and themselves.
> 
> "Their boat is a Kiwi 35, which has fold-out wings on it," Purcell said. "And they're all a little nuts."
> 
> The Coast Guard was notified at 11:40 p.m. Sunday by crew members of the Sociable that the WingNuts had capsized, sending eight people into the water.
> 
> The Sociable rescued six of the crew while its skipper called radioed for assistance, the yacht club said. "Ten boats in the vicinity immediately abandoned the race to join in search efforts for two missing sailors," it said.
> 
> Joining the search was a 41-foot utility boat from the Coast Guard station in Chalevoix, an MH-65C Dolphin rescue helicopter from the Traverse City, Mich., air station and the crew of the Coast Guard cutter Mackinaw.
> 
> Crew members knocked on the hull of the WingNuts to "to discern whether or not people were trapped inside," the Coast Guard said in a statement. "Receiving no response from inside the vessel, the rescue crew began their initial search pattern."
> 
> At 7:44 a.m., a dive team located the two boaters "in the vicinity" of the capsized boat, the Coast Guard said. They were pronounced dead at 12:30 p.m.
> 
> WingNuts sailed out of Saginaw, Mich. The crew, with the exception of Purcell, all hailed from Michigan.
> 
> The water temperature at the time of the accident was in the low 70s, and Degener had expressed hope the missing crew members could safely stay in the water for hours due to the warm temperatures.
> 
> The Chicago-Mackinac race covers 333 miles from just off Navy Pier to Mackinac Island in Michigan. It is the oldest annual freshwater race in the world, first held in 1898.
> 
> This year, 355 boats with approximately 3,500 crew members were participating.


----------



## PCP

Tweegs said:


> Pure speculation on my part, but maybe they broached and caught a roller?
> 
> Got one guy here at work, big Mac race fan and participant, says he heard on the radio that they had sails down. Says he can't imagine having all the sails down, spinnaker maybe, but not all of them&#8230;again, that's speculation.
> 
> But yes, a 70 kt wind gust was reported.


With 4 to 6ft waves? I don't think so. That boat is a vary bad idea in what regards seaworthiness. That boat does not need waves to capsize. When hit by 60/670ft winds, even without sails all sailboats take a lot of heel (30º/45º?). That boat at 45º will expose to the wind a "new sail", the big lateral wing and that would be enough to capsize the boat immediately.










Once the boat capsized that wing will be a vertical sail and the boat would stay capsized (or rolled) under the pressure of the wind on that "sail". Even if the boat has a normal AVS and is making force to right itself up at 90º (I am sure that is the case) that force would be certainly smaller than the huge force made by a 60/70K wind on that vertical wing that would act like a sail.

KIWI 35 sailboat on sailboatdata.com.. More than 6000 sailboats, sailing yachts, dinghies and sailing craft listed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## welshwind

*Specs for Kiwi 35*

Here are specs for the Kiwi 35. The Capsize Screening Formula number, though not accepted by everyone, is pretty high ... meaning it has a greater risk for capsizing. The displacement of a j-105 is 7750lbs, just under three times the displacement of the Kiwi. Not a boat you want to be caught in a storm with. Really a tragedy.

----------------
Specifications for KIWI 35

Hull Type - Drop Keel 
LOA - 35.08 ft. / 10.69m 
LWL - 28.50 ft. / 8.69m 
Beam - 8.33 ft. / 2.54m 
Draft - Min:1.50 ft. / 0.46m; Max:7.00 ft. / 2.13m 
Displacement - 2850 lbs./ 1293 kgs. 
Ballast - 1100 lbs. / 499 kgs.

Production

Designer - O. H. Rodgers 
Builder - Kiwi Boats (USA) 
Construction Material - Fiberglass 
Production Start - 1984 
Total Number Built - 5

Rigging and Sails

Rig Type - Fractional Sloop 
Listed Sail Area - 477 sq.ft. / 44.31 m2 
Fore Sail Area - 201.69 sq.ft. / 18.74 m2 
I - 36.67 ft. / 11.18m 
J - 11.00 ft. / 3.35m 
P - 37.50 ft. / 11.43m 
E - 13.50 ft. / 4.11m 
SPL - 12.5' / 3.81m 
ISP - 38.33' / 11.68m 
Sail to Displacement Ratio - 36.29

PHRF Rating

High - 18 
Low - 60 
Average - 42 
Source - US Sailing

Performance Calculations

Maximum Hull Speed - 7.15 kts. 
Capsize Screening Formula - 2.35 
Sail Area/Displacement (SA/D) - 37.97 (High-Performance Racer) 
Displacement/Length (D/L) - 54.96 (Light Displacement) 
Motion Comfort Ratio - 8


----------



## smackdaddy

Clean (at SA) put up an image of a wind readout screen from another boat "Fast Tango" that shows the wind speed blowing-up off the charts - which had readings to 100 knots. And it was sustained for about 10 minutes - then dropped to 50-60 for about 10 more.

That is some freakin' scary crap.


----------



## puddinlegs

Paulo,
6 foot waves on Lake Michigan are very short and steep by the standards ocean sailors are accustomed to. If 4'-6' was average, it's very easy to imagine a larger set occurring.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oops - it looks like SA just went down. Bummer. [nevermind - back up]

As for the Kiwi specs above - I assume the wings are for crew-ballasting, especially due to the lighter displacement?

By the article above, and by the insane amount of wind shown on that read out I mentioned above, it does seem this boat was literally blown over.


----------



## donradclife

My condolences to the families. 

While all the facts aren't all in and verified, the preliminary conclusion is that they were harnessed onto the boat and couldn't get lose when it capsized. The lessons to be learned for the rest of us are

1. Practice releasing your safety harness tether under load--I'm going to check that mine will easily release with at least my body weight hanging on them--carabiners or fixed attachments at the harness end are NOT acceptable.

2. Its not clear whether they had auto-inflating vests, but its another argument against them.


----------



## LandLocked66c

What a crazy boat design! I understand the design, but jeez that really increases the risk level it seems...


----------



## smackdaddy

Another article:

Grandville teen survives Chicago-to-Mackinac race boat capsizing that killed captain, girlfriend | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

A very sad day for these families. God bless them.


----------



## welshwind

puddinlegs said:


> Paulo,
> 6 foot waves on Lake Michigan are very short and steep by the standards ocean sailors are accustomed to. If 4'-6' was average, it's very easy to imagine a larger set occurring.


Yes they are.


----------



## Tweegs

donradclife said:


> 2.
> Its not clear whether they had auto-inflating vests, but its another argument against them.


I think it would be far more likely to catch a boom to the head, even in lighter air, knocking you unconscious and overboard, than it would be to wind up as these two sailors did.


----------



## welshwind

donradclife said:


> My condolences to the families.
> 
> While all the facts aren't all in and verified, the preliminary conclusion is that they were harnessed onto the boat and couldn't get lose when it capsized. The lessons to be learned for the rest of us are
> 
> 1. Practice releasing your safety harness tether under load--I'm going to check that mine will easily release with at least my body weight hanging on them--carabiners or fixed attachments at the harness end are NOT acceptable.
> 
> 2. Its not clear whether they had auto-inflating vests, but its another argument against them.


A little early to point to auto-inflating vests ... if they were tethered to the binnacle and couldn't release, I'm not sure the tether was long enough for them to get outside those wings. And I've seen some sailors shorten their tethers which would only exacerbate the problem. Also, once the boat capsized, if it was being pushed at any real speed by the wind, no matter what type of pfd you have on, you are going to struggle to keep your head out of the water.


----------



## rockDAWG

Let's NOT focus on who or what to blame, but to remember the Captain, Mark Morley and crew member Sue Bicket. We have plenty of time to learn from this tragedy.

BTW, the captain is the president of Morley Foundation, a noble organization that have done many good in MI.

Morley Foundation | MORLEYfdn.org


----------



## puddinlegs

welsh, your boat has a binnacle. The Kiwi 35 does not.


----------



## EJO

My condolences to my fellow Michiganders.
All here on SN and SA must note that it shows again how dangerous this "inland" lake can be. Too many people under estimate Lake Michigan (or any of the other Great lakes) . As mentioned B-4 in other threads I rather be on an ocean in 60 knt wind than on Lake Michigan. We have 4 to 6 ft waves many weekends with moderate winds here on Lake Michigan but when you get 60knt plus winds in a boat that only weighs 2850lbs (plus 8 x 150lbs crew) and those waves one roll and the wind will catch the Wings rolling the boat over and keeping it there.
I love my 5 times heavier old shorter boat for Lake Michigan with Motion Comfort of 32 plus and capsize ratio of 1.7


----------



## welshwind

*Cause of death*

It was reported here in Chicago on WGN-TV that the two sailors died of head trauma. As flat as the deck on the boat appears, it would seem there was no out when the boat turtled. Truly a shame.


----------



## rockDAWG

welshwind said:


> It was reported here in Chicago on WGN-TV that the two sailors died of head trauma. As flat as the deck on the boat appears, it would seem there was no out when the boat turtled. Truly a shame.


I thought about wearing helmet last year. It seems ridicule but does make sense. Since I wear helmet riding bicycle, motorbike, and snowboard, why not in a sail boat.

RIP

2 found dead after boat capsizes during 'Race to Mackinac' -- WGN


----------



## WDS123

Memory Eternal !


----------



## sailortjk1

Welsh,
do you have a link you can share?


----------



## GaryHLucas

The idea of a short tether is a good one, if you can assume your boat will come back up before you drown! On my boat I have a padeye right in the center of the cockpit floor, and I can move around freely on just a 3 foot tether. I think that helps keep you from a hard toss that could injure you. However on that Kiwi 35 it is clear that would be a bad strategy. You can see the boat is stable when it is upside down. It is terrible that we only learn these things when someone dies. They were hugely experienced sailors too.

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## welshwind

sailortjk1 said:


> Welsh,
> do you have a link you can share?


No link on the cause. I was watching Channel 9 (WGNTV) and that is what they reported.


----------



## welshwind

sailortjk1 said:


> Welsh,
> do you have a link you can share?


Actually, I just found video of tonight's story on-line. Here it is:

2 found dead after boat capsizes during 'Race to Mackinac' -- WGN


----------



## WouldaShoulda

That is a very light, keeless boat.

The deck wings appear to prevent it from righting itself.


----------



## welshwind

*Fox News confirms cause of death*

Fox News Chicago also had a report last night which confirmed the report on WGN-TV as to cause of death:

Mark Morley, Suzanne Bickel | Boat 'WingNuts' Capsizes in Race to Mackinac, 2 Boaters Found Dead


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> Fox News Chicago also had a report last night which confirmed the report on WGN-TV as to cause of death:
> 
> Mark Morley, Suzanne Bickel | Boat 'WingNuts' Capsizes in Race to Mackinac, 2 Boaters Found Dead


Yeah, the reporter (in the video) mentions the sheriff's account that both died from head trauma. If accurate, there was nothing the other crew members or other boats really could have done (which I'm sure is some comfort) - and quick releases or knives wouldn't have mattered anyway.

Sad.


----------



## T34C

GaryHLucas said:


> They were hugely experienced sailors too.
> 
> Gary H. Lucas


SOME of them were hugely experienced. At least 2 of the 8 crew were 15 and 16 yrs old.... Doesn't sound like it mattered, but lets be careful of what info we are throwing around.


----------



## welshwind

T34C said:


> SOME of them were hugely experienced. At least 2 of the 8 crew were 15 and 16 yrs old.... Doesn't sound like it mattered, but lets be careful of what info we are throwing around.


When I read his post, I thought he was referring to the two sailors who died. I would say they were both very experienced sailors from what I've read. But you are right, not everyone on the boat was experienced.


----------



## Barquito

> The idea of a short tether is a good one, if you can assume your boat will come back up before you drown!


I think this is an important point. If you find yourself tethered under a monohull that is getting rolled, your best bet (especially if shorthanded) would seem to be to hold your breath and let the boat right itself. If you unclip, you may drift away from the boat as it rights itself. However, on a catamaran or other boats that like to stay turtle, that wouldn't work.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> When I read his post, I thought he was referring to the two sailors who died. I would say they were both very experienced sailors from what I've read. But you are right, not everyone on the boat was experienced.


That's the way I read it too. And it appears they were experienced enough to ensure that even the less-experienced knew exactly what to do in an emergency and thus ensured their safety.

That's damn good skippering.


----------



## PCP

Barquito said:


> I think this is an important point. If you find yourself tethered under a monohull that is getting rolled, your best bet (especially if shorthanded) would seem to be to hold your breath and let the boat right itself. If you unclip, you may drift away from the boat as it rights itself. However, on a catamaran or other boats that like to stay turtle, that wouldn't work.


I don't think that way. Modern boats takes 1 to 3 minutes (if everything works fine) to right itself up. However there were cases were 10 minutes were necessary (it depends on the waves and luck). I cannot hold my breath that long.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> That's damn good skippering.


Except for his choice of boats...


----------



## Tweegs

I’m sure there is going to be a huge investigation to determine exactly what all went wrong. I hope that they make those findings public so we can all learn from it.

Curiosity has the best of me and I can’t help thinking about it. If that boat were heeled over far enough to dip one of those wings in the water, what effect do you think that would have on the rudder? I know that wasn’t the cause, just have it stuck in my craw.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Except for his choice of boats...


Dude - give it a rest.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> Dude - give it a rest.


Exactly what am I supposed to give a rest to? Are you the only one allowed to comment here? Are we only allowed to sing the praises of people while we sing kum ba yah?

It was a fragile boat. Read the accounts of those that have sailed on it and against it. The fact that it appears to be more stable while inverted should be your first clue. Your second should be the fact that these are the only deaths in this race in 103 years!

How about we give a rest to singing peoples praises and over estimating their skill sets until you know weather of not they screwed up?


----------



## SloopJonB

This was obviously a terrible tragedy but that only increases the need to analyze what happened.

Decades ago, I believe in the IOR era, there was a book written that had the title *"Seaworthiness; The forgotten factor"*. Apparently it has not been read by enough designers and boatowners.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Exactly what am I supposed to give a rest to? Are you the only one allowed to comment here? Are we only allowed to sing the praises of people while we sing kum ba yah?
> 
> It was a fragile boat. Read the accounts of those that have sailed on it and against it. The fact that it appears to be more stable while inverted should be your first clue. Your second should be the fact that these are the only deaths in this race in 103 years!
> 
> How about we give a rest to singing peoples praises and over estimating their skill sets until you know weather of not they screwed up?


Simple. You're criticizing a guy that just lost his life in the midst of a boat-full of his family - one day after it happened. I don't care how you cut it - that's a pretty cheap shot.

Furthermore, you're implying he was a "bad skipper" because he chose "a fragile boat". That too is a cheap shot.

The facts are these:

1. This was not his first Mac on this boat. He had done the race for several years. The boat, therefore, was not "too fragile" for the race itself. Obviously.
2. Your judgement of "too fragile" is just that - your judgement. The Mac committee obviously thought otherwise. Here's a link to their requirements:
http://www.cycracetomackinac.com/the-race/race-documents/
3. This was a hell of a blow-up. I don't know if you've seen the wind gauge readout image from another boat that Clean put up at SA - but it was completely off the charts...charts that had readings up to 90+ knots.

Granted, in those insane conditions, this boat was in trouble (along with many, many others). And once there, its design hurt it even more. But, for crying out loud, this was a fast, huge storm that caught everyone and broke a lot of boats.

So, what is the "right boat" for that kind of squall, T? Why don't you start there? I for one would love to hear your opinions. That would be an interesting conversation.

Look, you can obviously say anything you want. It's an open forum. And it's not like people get banned around here just for being critical. I just think you took a pretty cheap shot above.

And I'll stand by my statement that Mark Morley showed some damn good skippering in that every one of his crew (except for his girlfriend who was reported to have a head injury like he did) were prepared and survived.


----------



## puddinlegs

T34C said:


> Exactly what am I supposed to give a rest to? Are you the only one allowed to comment here? Are we only allowed to sing the praises of people while we sing kum ba yah?
> 
> It was a fragile boat. Read the accounts of those that have sailed on it and against it. The fact that it appears to be more stable while inverted should be your first clue. Your second should be the fact that these are the only deaths in this race in 103 years!
> 
> How about we give a rest to singing peoples praises and over estimating their skill sets until you know weather of not they screwed up?


 The investigation will look into whether or not the boat met the basic rule requirements for righting moment/ability. On the west coast, we deal with PIYA and will be dealing with ISAF more and more as time moves on. From the PIYA rules:

*1.0 Hull*

R R R N 1.1 Mono-Hull, shall be self-righting and strongly built.
Multi-hull, shall be strongly built, with positive buoyancy situated so that the boat will float reasonably level with the hulls flooded.

R N N N 1.1a Limit of Positive Stability not less than 120 degrees.

R R N N 1.1b Limit of Positive Stability not less than 110 degrees.

R R R N 1.1c Limit of Positive Stability not less than 105 degrees.

R R R N 1.1d Yachts with movable ballast shall meet the above requirements in all conditions of ballasting, and shall not heel more than 10 degrees with one side ballast tank filled (yacht in sailing condition, no crew aboard).

R R A A 1.2 Readily accessible, positive mechanical closure provided for all through-hull openings below the load waterline (LWL) except shafts and measuring devices.

R R R R 1.3 Tapered soft wood (or equivalent) plugs for all through hull openings or shafts immediately available.

R R N N 1.4 Minimum average freeboard at ends of LWL equals 5% of LOA, but not less than 2.2 feet (to deck at side).

N N N R 1.5 Centerboard yachts shall obey their class buoyancy regulations and if not sailing under Class rules, shall have sufficient positive buoyancy to support crew.

etc... etc....

The letters R, N, etc... are race catagory references: from left to right, 1, 2, 3, and 4. Chicago Mac would be the equivalent of a 1, or modified 1.

Again, ChiMac runs under different rules than above, but there will certainly be similar in effect. T34, give the armchair QB 'ing a rest. You're not an investigating authority. Like the rest of us, you can only speculate.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> Simple. You're criticizing a guy that just lost his life in the midst of a boat-full of his family - one day after it happened. I don't care how you cut it - that's a pretty cheap shot.
> 
> Furthermore, you're implying he was a "bad skipper" because he chose "a fragile boat". That too is a cheap shot.
> 
> The facts are these:
> 
> 1. This was not his first Mac on this boat. He had done the race for several years. The boat, therefore, was not "too fragile" for the race itself. Obviously.
> 2. Your judgement of "too fragile" is just that - your judgement. The Mac committee obviously thought otherwise. Here's a link to their requirements:
> http://www.cycracetomackinac.com/the-race/race-documents/
> 3. This was a hell of a blow-up. I don't know if you've seen the wind gauge readout image from another boat that Clean put up at SA - but it was completely off the charts...charts that had readings up to 90+ knots.
> 
> Granted, in those insane conditions, this boat was in trouble (along with many, many others). And once there, its design hurt it even more. But, for crying out loud, this was a fast, huge storm that caught everyone and broke a lot of boats.
> 
> So, what is the "right boat" for that kind of squall, T? Why don't you start there? I for one would love to hear your opinions. That would be an interesting conversation.
> 
> Look, you can obviously say anything you want. It's an open forum. And it's not like people get banned around here just for being critical. I just think you took a pretty cheap shot above.
> 
> And I'll stand by my statement that Mark Morley showed some damn good skippering in that every one of his crew (except for his girlfriend who was reported to have a head injury like he did) were prepared and survived.


There was no "cheap shot", there was no "criticism", and I never said anything other than it was fragile as has been said by other that have sailed the damned boat. Have you? Of course not, you've barely sailed one Catalina on a lake in TX!!!!

The facts are the facts. The pictures show the boat, floating upside down, with 2 dead crew including her owner when every other boat made it back safely to shore. Even you should be able to figure out that clearly something went terribly wrong. How about you share with us what you think happened, with your vast knowledge base, since you don't want anyone else to express the obvious.


----------



## puddinlegs

deleted...


----------



## smackdaddy

puddinlegs said:


> Again, ChiMac runs under different rules than above, but there will certainly be similar in effect. T34, give the armchair QB 'ing a rest. You're not an investigating authority. Like the rest of us, you can only speculate.


+1.

T - I don't claim to have any vast knowledge base. I just know enough not to hammer a well-respected sailor a day after his death when he obviously can't defend himself. Surely you can see the difference.


----------



## T34C

I have not "hammered" anyone!!!!! (other than your stupid comments) 2 people being dead tends to make me think there may have been a problem. The fact that they both died on the same boat in the same incident while all the other boats and crews survived tends to further point to the fact that something went wrong on that boat. When others that have sailed on the boat make comments that in the conditions that boat could flip even without sails on her makes me think maybe it wasn't a good choice for the conditions they encountered. Its a pretty simple. 

While you're right that the skipper is no longer able to "defend himself", neither is the crew member that died on his watch. If analyzing and discussing this tragedy means that 1 person is safer because they have thought about it, then maybe something good can come out of this.


----------



## puddinlegs

Yet another internet thread where all has been deconstructed, resolved, solved. Why bother to pay people to dress up like Coasties, police, etc...? What a waste, eh?


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's another article that goes into more detail:

Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com

This is fact enough for me.


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> Here's another article that goes into more detail:
> 
> Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com
> 
> This is fact enough for me.


Not sure what you mean by "fact enough for me". The skipper had many many years of experience and by all accounts was an excellent sailor. The boat he chose to sail on was prone to capsize (see previous post). Only speculating here, but in the article they said they were waiting for it to right itself. I guessing the issue with that the wing, when tipped so far to the side that the mast was in the water, acted like a sail (which a normal monohull would not encounter) and the strength of the wind was such it pushed it over, turtling it from which it had zero chance of righting itself. That boat is not made for those conditions, those conditions have occurred in the past on Lake Michigan (though infrequently), and this unfortunate tragedy is a result of that. I would like to see if the boat really met the requirements of the Mac and if it would meet the requirements of most big races. In the description of the capsize score (I forgot exactly what it is called), it indicated that some races would not allow any boats with a score over 2 to race. The Kiwi 35 was well above a 2.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

smackdaddy said:


> This is fact enough for me.


Article~The winds just hit us, and we were over on our side, hanging on, waiting to pop back up," Morley said Monday from Harbor Springs, Mich., where his family had gathered. "You know, in sailboat racing, you get knocked down, and you normally pop back up."

But this time was different. The boat's mast dipped into the water, and then the WingNuts capsized, sending the crew into the churning lake.

So it does appear that there are unique characteristics of this vessel that remained ignored even by someone with a lifetime of experience.

It does not make the tragedy any less sad.


----------



## puddinlegs

smackdaddy said:


> Here's another article that goes into more detail:
> 
> Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com
> 
> This is fact enough for me.


Here you go T34, from smack's link:

"The Coast Guard said the crew of the WingNuts did everything right in the heavy seas.

"This incident is just a tragic example of how unpredictable and dangerous the Great Lakes can be," said Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class George Degener."


----------



## welshwind

puddinlegs said:


> Here you go T34, from smack's link:
> 
> "The Coast Guard said the crew of the WingNuts did everything right in the heavy seas.
> 
> "This incident is just a tragic example of how unpredictable and dangerous the Great Lakes can be," said Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class George Degener."


They did everything right given they were in the predicament. However, T34 is questioning and I tend to agree, why they were even out there in the first place. The Kiwi 35 is incredibly light and prone to capsize. Anyone who sails Lake Michigan regularly knows bad weather can pop quickly. I've been sailing for many, many years. I would not want to be on such a boat unless it was day sailing a couple miles from shore. It could be fun in the right conditions, but a long distance race is not one of them.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> Here's another article that goes into more detail:
> 
> Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com
> 
> This is fact enough for me.


Better go back and actually read it. There were a few interesting bits in there.


----------



## sailortjk1

T, If he had been on a differently designed boat; a heavier displacement boat with more Ballast to displacement ratio, a boat with better stabilty and more beam; than perhaps this would not have happened.
If he had been on that boat of different design, he never would have been competitive in his section. 
This is an amature trophy of the greatest extent in fresh water sailing. The longest and oldest race of its kind. 
You know that boat design has as much to do with winning the trophy than many of the other contributing factors. Boat design is as much of a key as tactics, sails, sail trim, experince, etc. Plain and simple, right or wrong, he was trying to win the race.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> Not sure what you mean by "fact enough for me". The skipper had many many years of experience and by all accounts was an excellent sailor. The boat he chose to sail on was prone to capsize (see previous post). Only speculating here, but in the article they said they were waiting for it to right itself. I guessing the issue with that the wing, when tipped so far to the side that the mast was in the water, acted like a sail (which a normal monohull would not encounter) and the strength of the wind was such it pushed it over, turtling it from which it had zero chance of righting itself. That boat is not made for those conditions, those conditions have occurred in the past on Lake Michigan (though infrequently), and this unfortunate tragedy is a result of that. I would like to see if the boat really met the requirements of the Mac and if it would meet the requirements of most big races. In the description of the capsize score (I forgot exactly what it is called), it indicated that some races would not allow any boats with a score over 2 to race. The Kiwi 35 was well above a 2.


I just mean that these articles are the closest thing to fact that anyone has right now. They include first-hand accounts of those that were on-board, the CG, other racers, family members, etc. Criticizing the people involved in this tragedy for what they did or didn't do from the pages of a forum, especially at this point, is going pretty far out on a limb - both in terms of accuracy and decency. That's all I'm saying.

The design of the boat itself, however, is a different discussion in my opinion. But, again, I think you have to be careful how you're evaluating it. In other words, what boat _is_ "made for those conditions" which were, by many accounts I've read thus far, way beyond anything seen in a very long time?

I'm with you on looking forward to more information/discussion of the Kiwi's design and its HW threshold.


----------



## T34C

puddinlegs said:


> Yet another internet thread where all has been deconstructed, resolved, solved. Why bother to pay people to dress up like Coasties, police, etc...? What a waste, eh?


Maybe you should just stay sitting on the sidelines until someone comes along and tells you what to think....


----------



## T34C

puddinlegs said:


> Here you go T34, from smack's link:
> 
> "The Coast Guard said the crew of the WingNuts did everything right in the heavy seas.
> 
> "This incident is just a tragic example of how unpredictable and dangerous the Great Lakes can be," said Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class George Degener."


As long as you are selectively quoting, don't for get this:

"But the boat proved no match for winds that the National Weather Service estimated may have been hitting 52 mph. Peter Morley yelled for the crew to "get to the edges."

I'm guessing there wasn't another boat out there where the crew needed to "get to the edges" to try to keep her upright.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Maybe you should just stay sitting on the sidelines until someone comes along and tells you what to think....


Heh-heh. The "moderator" is back in town.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> I just mean that these articles are the closest thing to fact that anyone has right now. They include first-hand accounts of those that were on-board, the CG, other racers, family members, etc. *Criticizing the people involved in this tragedy for what they did or didn't do from the pages of a forum, especially at this point, is going pretty far out on a limb - both in terms of accuracy and decency.* That's all I'm saying.
> 
> The design of the boat itself, however, is a different discussion in my opinion. But, again, I think you have to be careful how you're evaluating it. In other words, what boat _is_ "made for those conditions" which were, by many accounts I've read thus far, way beyond anything seen in a very long time?
> 
> I'm with you on looking forward to more information/discussion of the Kiwi's design and its HW threshold.


Please quit spouting your usual drivel and show us where anyone has criticized the actions of the crew.


----------



## smackdaddy

sailortjk1 said:


> T, If he had been on a differently designed boat; a heavier displacement boat with more Ballast to displacement ratio, a boat with better stabilty and more beam; than perhaps this would not have happened.
> If he had been on that boat of different design, he never would have been competitive in his section.
> This is an amature trophy of the greatest extent in fresh water sailing. The longest and oldest race of its kind.
> You know that boat design has as much to do with winning the trophy than many of the other contributing factors. Boat design is as much of a key as tactics, sails, sail trim, experince, etc. Plain and simple, right or wrong, he was trying to win the race.


+1.

I'd like to see the "race" boat that is specifically designed to come through the reported 50k-90k+ winds unscathed.

That's why I'm still curious as to what the "right boat" is in this circumstance.


----------



## T34C

sailortjk1 said:


> T, If he had been on a differently designed boat; a heavier displacement boat with more Ballast to displacement ratio, a boat with better stabilty and more beam; than perhaps this would not have happened.
> If he had been on that boat of different design, he never would have been competitive in his section.
> This is an amature trophy of the greatest extent in fresh water sailing. The longest and oldest race of its kind.
> You know that boat design has as much to do with winning the trophy than many of the other contributing factors. Boat design is as much of a key as tactics, sails, sail trim, experince, etc. Plain and simple, right or wrong, he was trying to win the race.


Great post. In any kind of racing the design limits are pushed, and pushed to make things faster. Unfortunately you usually don't know you've gone too far until something breaks, and when it does you just hope no one is hurt in the process. In this case they were.

Look at the complaints people have with the AC boats. "They can't sail in any kind of waves...", "They can't go out if the wind is above 10kts..." All because the designers build the boats to be faster. You can get away with that sailing in protected waters with specific race limits like the AC. Not so much in long distance blue water racing.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> I'd like to see the "race" boat that is specifically designed to come through the reported 50k-90k+ winds unscathed.
> 
> That's why I'm still curious as to what the "right boat" is in this circumstance.


Lets start in general terms... Like every other boat that survived that storm.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Lets start in general terms... Like every other boat that survived that storm.


Yeah, okay T.


----------



## tomandchris

How about you guys take your pissing contest offline and deal with it. You have now gotten to the analysis paralysis stage and you sure as hell don't have the answers to make such an analysis.

These were sailors, and mostly owners by the way, that loved to sail, loved to go fast, loved to compete in the Sportboat class, and they did what they loved. They took risks and were caught by a freak storm that also did significant damage to many other "more appropriate" boats.

This was an unfortunate accident, however the CG seems to think that the skipper did everything he could to prepare for trouble. He had the technology to see what was coming and reacted to it. They lost, but their families don't need a bunch of armchair quarterbacks judging them. Go sailing and leave it alone!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> I'd like to see the "race" boat that is specifically designed to come through the reported 50k-90k+ winds unscathed.
> 
> That's why I'm still curious as to what the "right boat" is in this circumstance.


I'd start with every other boat in the race that didn't capsize or have two fatalities.

I'd rather be on those boats.


----------



## puddinlegs

As was said earlier, what we don't know is, what were the rules pertaining to righting moment, etc... Wouldashoulda, with due respect, many boats 'survived' that I personally would most certainly not wanted to be on for that storm.... that includes pretty much everything in the sport boat class. I'm sure the race organizers will have a go at this with a fine tooth comb and changes will be made. It's human nature that this happens largely after the fact. Sorry T34, but that's how I feel. You're entitled to condemn, find blame, etc... that's the interwebs are all about.


----------



## LandLocked66c

All I can say is WOW!


----------



## smackdaddy

I just like the new "Like" thing. That beats the +1 all to hell!

Nice work SN!


----------



## smackdaddy

[Thanks to Clean at SA for being on top of this.]

MEDIA RELEASE 
19 Jul 2011
Chicago-Mackinac Race-100 Knots and Off the Clock

All hell breaking loose: 100 knots and off the clock Event Media
The Chicago Yacht Club's 103rd Race to Mackinac, presented by Veuve Clicquot-Hearing that it's windy and rainy is one thing. Hearing that water is vaporizing all around you is a completely different tale of horror.

Tim Prophit, owner and co-skipper of Fast Tango, an North American 40 out of the Bayview Yacht Club, and his crew have seen the other side. In fact, their descriptions of the 'strobing' lightning and 'white water everywhere' are on an entirely different level than anything that racing sailors in North America have seen in many, many decades.

But then again, how often have North American Corinthian sailors seen sustained winds of 100 knots? Answer: never.

Tragically, WingNuts, a Kiwi 35, capsized during this meteorological melee and two sailors, Mark Morley and Suzanne Bickel, from Saginaw, MI were lost.

Some back story: For the 361 raceboats entered in the Chicago Yacht Club's (CYC) 103rd Race to Mackinac, the first 30 hours (tack on 24 hours for the cruising boats) were brochure-quality sailing. No bugs, plenty of breeze from the right angle, a kindly sea-state, warm air and spinnakers punctuating the horizon as far as the eye could see. Nothing broken about this picture at all...yet.

The dogs came howling off their chains on Sunday night (July 17), sometime around 2300 hours, EST. According to several different sources (all racing sailors), the breeze (18 knots) was coming from the south before the maelstrom struck. Sheet lighting started illuminating the sky, and the scramble became one of getting the kites down and hoisting heavy-air sails.

Peter Wenzler, co-skipper of Fast Tango Event Media

For Prophit and his Fast Tango crew, the feeling was that this storm would produce intense, short-lived winds of the one-or-two minute variety-the sort of squall that simply requires running off and letting the action pass before resuming the race. According to Peter Wenzler, Prophit's co-skipper aboard Fast Tango, this was a very, very different situation.

'We were within five miles of WingNuts, about 3.5 miles east and 1.5 miles south,' said Wenzler. 'We didn't think we were going to get anything like this. We were flying a reduced spinnaker that we had re-cut into a [heavy-air] Asymmetrical kite. The wind came up pretty quickly, we didn't shock-load the sail or anything-it just disintegrated, parting at the head and down its tapes. We quickly put up the brand-new Number 3 [headsail]. Then the wind [clocked] from about 145 degrees to-BANG!-about 265. The wind was then coming down in vertical shafts.

'It came up really quickly to 60 knots, which we've sailed through enough times to know what it's like. Usually, it blasts through after a minute or two, then it's over and we can keep going. So when the stuff really hit the fan, the instinct is to bear off and run with it, initially-we didn't have time to drop the sails or put in a reef.

'We're just screaming downwind-the water had been pretty flat-and I'm doing my best to stay under the rig, hoping that I didn't wipeout too badly. It was unbelievable! I'm not sure how fast we were going, but water was just BLASTING off the side of the boat. I had three guys up on the foredeck, trying to get the jib down, and then the boat just dove down, right into the lake. So we called everyone back [from the foredeck]; I figured that if the bow goes in [to the lake any further] that I'd lose control of the rudder.

'It just never stopped. It just came on stronger and stronger. It got to the point where we just had to stop and lay the boat down. Heaving-to wasn't an option.

'Our owner always tracks [and graphs] information coming off the anemometer on his laptop-after [the worst of the storm] had passed, we took a photograph of the screen. There was a twenty-minute section in there where we were obviously exposed to some very challenging conditions.

'There was about a seven-minute section where the wind was pegged between the instrument's maximum, which is 100 knots [Ed. Note: 100 knots is 115 mph or 200 kilometers per hour], and 90 knots. It's just blasting out there.

There was more wind than I've ever experienced in 35 years of racing all over the Great Lakes and on the oceans, and I've been through tons of squalls. This thing was different.

'The boat really handled it beautifully. It's absolutely watertight. We ended up just laying her down,' said Wenzler.

'We were going sideways at nine knots!' ventured another Fast Tango crewmember who was standing by during the interview.

'We were at a point where the waterline was above the cabin-house windows,' said Wenzler. 'The rig was out of the water, with the mainsail just above the water. [Brett Zimmerman] was using his body to fill the companionway. We had [companionway] boards but they were down below and this was happening now.

'I think it was a downburst, so we were screaming along in this ridiculous wind that was in front of whatever happened, and it was over-taking us. It went from a dead run to a bit of a reach, it overtook us, and [then] it was smack-dab on top of us, blowing with more force than I've ever seen in my life.

'The water was vaporized...pulverized... In the cockpit there was water up to my knees, and it was white. And the water outside the boat was also white. I was standing on the side of the cockpit, driving, crouched within the wheel frame, with my head ducking below the windward side of the cockpit so that I could see the instruments. Believe it or not, we were still able to give the boat some [steerage].

'It didn't stop! It just kept going. The lightning was strobing. It was black and then white; there was so much of it that it was white all the time. Water was everywhere. Then the boat was lying on [her] side. It felt like capsizing a Thistle [e.g., a much smaller boat].

'I'm not sure how long it lasted, but it was longer than anything that I've ever experienced before. We were like a watermelon seed, being squeezed between two fingers-we were absolutely pressed against the surface of the water. Some crewmembers who were on the rail were thinking about how they were going to escape the lifelines if the boat went over.'

'It was 12 minutes of sustained winds over 50 knots,' said Prophit, who compared the experience to standing in the direct wash of a jet engine.

'Horrific conditions, for sure. It can be imagined that the WingNuts crew experienced a similar set of conditions. Given that a 40-footer was put on her side in this weather, it seems that the scene on WingNuts was far, far worse.

According to race regulations, all boats are must carry a GPIRB (a GPS-enabled emergency locator beacon] or a liferaft. The Chicago Mackinac Race shares the same safety requirements with the Bayview Mackinac Race. The crew of WingNuts took safety extremely seriously. Rather than simply carrying one GPIRB aboard, each crewmember was wearing his or her own personal beacon. Moreover, each crewmember was wearing a PFD and they were all also tethered to the yacht, as per sailing's universally accepted best practices.

While WingNuts did not have a liferaft aboard, multiple ocean-racing experts agree that it could well have been useless. In winds potentially exceeding 100 knots, the raft's tether line (attaching it to the yacht so that the crew can safely board the liferaft) could have immediately chaffed through, likely succumbing to friction between the tether line and/or lifelines or the yacht's anti-skid deck.

Moreover, in winds potentially exceeding 100 knots, the liferaft could have immediately cartwheeled away from the yacht. This happened during the 1998 Sydney-Hobart Race, with crew aboard, in less wind.

Safety tethers have been proven to have saved countless lives, and their use is absolutely the best accepted practice for sailing offshore, at night, or anytime that there is even the slightest chance of a crewmember going overboard; PFDs, of course, should be worn at all times. These practices were exceeded by the WingNuts crew.

'An accident in sailing affects all of us who spend time on the water,' said Gary Jobson, President of US SAILING. 'There are always lessons to be learned from tragedies. It's important that the appropriate parties take the time to thoroughly review all the factors that have taken place. Early indications, based on the report of the crew that were present, is that the accepted standard practices were met, including each member of the crew [wearing] a GPIRB. I would like to add my personal condolences to the family and crew that were part of this sad event.

'Just last week, I participated in the Marblehead-Halifax Race,' continued Jobson. 'We had a record-breaking run. I kept my safety harness attached to the boat during the nighttime hours.'

According to Chicago Yacht Club race officials, WingNuts was removed from race documents immediately following the disaster in an effort to protect the lost sailors' families. This was by no means intended to hide information-only to help provide some privacy to the close-knit family crew aboard WingNuts amidst the media frenzy of the past 36 hours.

The CYC will republish WingNuts data on their website, in due course.

Here is a partial list of the boats that stood by to assist during the tragedy: Turning Point, La Tempete, Sociable Buzz, J Crew'd, Northstar, Nautilus, MENTAL, Que Loco II, Timberwolf, Gauntlet, Usual Suspect, Bozos Circus, Lady K, and Say Uncle.

Specifically, Robert Arzbaecher's Sociable, a Beneteau 40.7 from the Milwaukee Yacht Club, deserves special mention, as they successfully rescued six of WingNuts surviving crewmembers. While Arzbaecher and crew have requested privacy during this difficult time, they deserve to be recognized as heros.

The loss of two sailors from the WingNuts crew is the worst tragedy in the race's proud 103-year history.

Please take a long moment of silence to honor two lost members of our extended sailing family. Please also seriously consider the safety equipment on your boat, and constantly re-familiarize yourself and your crew on the best MOB practices.

While the WingNuts crew undoubtedly practiced excellent seamanship, and best-accepted practices, their boat was simply no match for 100-knot winds.

Sadly, this is a stark reminder that all boaters must accept the fact that-while extremely rare-these sorts of freak storms are a possibility that every skipper must be prepared to encounter.

For more information on the Chicago Yacht Club's 103rd Race to Mackinac, please visit www.cycracetomackinac.com

Podcast from two of the participants:
http://wdet.org/shows/craig-fahle-show/episode/race-to-mackinac-2011-tuns-into-horrible-storm/


----------



## PCP

sailortjk1 said:


> T, If he had been on a differently designed boat; a heavier displacement boat with more Ballast to displacement ratio, a boat with better stabilty and more beam; than perhaps this would not have happened.
> ...


That boat has a high ballast displacement ratio (39%) and that is more than most boats and you have to consider that it is almost all in a bulb and the boat has 2.13m draft. Yes it is a narrow boat (2.54m) and the weight of the crew plays an important part in the boat stability. The weigh of the crew is more than half the weight of the boat and since it can be put on the end of those wings will contribute a lot for the boat total righting moment.

This is a race boat, not a cruiser nor a cruiser racer and a boat to be sailed by a racing crew a well trained crew. I don't think that was the case, take a look:

Peter Morley yelled for the crew to *"get to the edges."*

"*But the edges were different for everybody;* I and some others had fallen to the low side," he said. "The (teenagers), you know, they were hanging from the high side."

Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com

Some racers specially the ones that are used for solo racing can be quite safe with a "family" crew. After all they are designed to be sailed by one solo sailor but there are other boats that on some circunstances demand a racing crew, boats were the weight of the crew can play an important role in the boat stability and the Kiwi 35 is just that type of boat.

KIWI 35 sailboat on sailboatdata.com.. More than 6000 sailboats, sailing yachts, dinghies and sailing craft listed.

Of course, these were pretty extreme circumstances and circumstances that were not forecast, but that boat is a demanding racing boat, not a cruiser-racer.

"'There was about a seven-minute section where the wind was pegged between the instrument's maximum, which is 100 knots [Ed. Note: 100 knots is 115 mph or 200 kilometers per hour], and 90 knots. It's just blasting out there.

There was more wind than I've ever experienced in 35 years of racing all over the Great Lakes and on the oceans, and I've been through tons of squalls. This thing was different."

Regards

Paulo


----------



## Sanduskysailor

I just got back from Macinac and here is my take. The storm was not a freak storm. We knew it was coming when it was in Wisconsin. We were tracking it on the internet when available and radar when it got near. There were marine warnings every few minutes on NOAA radio. That being said, it is extremely difficult to assess exactly when the gusts preceding the storm will hit. We already had retired due to a crew injury before the main storm hit. We were broad reaching under main alone trying to get the injured crew member to shore as quick as possible due to concerns about shock. Visually the storm appeared off in the distance. The first warning was a 40 knot gust with a 40 degree wind shift causing an accidental jibe and ripping the vang out of the mast. We immediately fired the engine and went head to wind to take down the main. I had to throttle down as hard as I could to keep the boat in the wind. The wind increased to 60 knots+ with horizontal rain as we ran off with the storm. It lasted 45 minutes and the waves were pretty nasty but manageable. We monitored the radio as the capsize happened about 15 miles north of us. After confirming that there were an adequate number of rescue boats we continued to motor the remaining 14 miles to Leland to an awaiting ambulance for our injured crew member. He was transported treated and released with a broken wrist.

I actually have sailed on a Kiwi 35 in Tampa Bay in the mid 90s.. Extremely tippy boat which relies on crew ballast to keep it upright. Reports on the island were that they had the sails down and were running under bare poles when one of the wings dug in and pitchpoled the boat. I don't have confirmation that it is factual. All in all a sad day. My personal opinion is that this boat and some others in the race were not suitable for the potential conditions that could be experienced. We broached twice and deathrolled under chute but the boat came back up both times. The Kiwi 35 flipped and stayed inverted which could have contributed to the fatality.

All and all a sad and sobering day. Kudos to the yachts who helped in the search and rescue of the crew in the water.


----------



## T34C

Smack- Interesting report from the Fast Tango crew. Thanks for posting it. Even more interesting is how it differs from the reports from the Wing Nuts crew and what Sandusky- posted.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Having experienced a couple of big thunder storms on the Great Lakes (dismasted in one in 2008) there are a few things I have learned. The severe bursts of wind and/or micro bursts bounce around. You could see 60-70 knots and a boat a 1/4 mile away only 45 knots. It is the luck of the draw as these bounces are totally unpredictable. This storm lasted longer than one in 2008 (60-70knots). The lightning show was spectacular and scary at the same time. It was almost constant daylight for about 15 minutes from all the lightning flashes. With temps in the 90s earlier in the week it was not surprising that the storm would let loose as it made way over the cooler lake waters.

Things I took away from this storm. Get the sails down earlier, be a little more conservative. Make sure you lifejacket has a strobe, serrated sharp knife, and a good whistle. Clip a serrated edge Spyderco or Gerber safety knife to your lifejacket. Monitor all available weather sources.


----------



## smackdaddy

A J109:






"Is everybody on the boat?"

Bear in mind that this is after midnight - so the "daylight" is lightning. A lot of it. That is some scary crap.


----------



## JonEisberg

PCP said:


> With 4 to 6ft waves? I don't think so. That boat is a vary bad idea in what regards seaworthiness. That boat does not need waves to capsize. When hit by 60/670ft winds, even without sails all sailboats take a lot of heel (30º/45º?). That boat at 45º will expose to the wind a "new sail", the big lateral wing and that would be enough to capsize the boat immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once the boat capsized that wing will be a vertical sail and the boat would stay capsized (or rolled) under the pressure of the wind on that "sail". Even if the boat has a normal AVS and is making force to right itself up at 90º (I am sure that is the case) that force would be certainly smaller than the huge force made by a 60/70K wind on that vertical wing that would act like a sail.
> 
> KIWI 35 sailboat on sailboatdata.com.. More than 6000 sailboats, sailing yachts, dinghies and sailing craft listed.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


While every sailor should be saddened by this event, none with a pair of eyes should be surprised... Sailing such a boat on such a passage is rolling the dice, bigtime, and IMHO it could present a real challenge to deal even with "mere" gale conditions on that lake in such a craft...

Members of the Old Breed, men like Rod and Olin Stephens, would be shaking their heads in wonder at what now appears to pass for a boat suitable to be sailed in open waters or offshore... Really sad, that we now live in a time where a book such as DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS is all but forgotten or dismissed as hopelessly Old School, I'd be surprised if it is even still in print...

A couple of glasses raised to all the sailors on the lake that night, and major props to the crew aboard SOCIABLE, sounds like they did a remarkable job...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> While every sailor should be saddened by this event, none with a pair of eyes should be surprised... Sailing such a boat on such a passage is rolling the dice, bigtime, and IMHO it could present a real challenge to deal even with "mere" gale conditions on that lake in such a craft...
> 
> Members of the Old Breed, men like Rod and Olin Stephens, would be shaking their heads in wonder at what now appears to pass for a boat suitable to be sailed in open waters or offshore... Really sad, that we now live in a time where a book such as DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS is all but forgotten or dismissed as hopelessly Old School, I'd be surprised if it is even still in print...
> 
> *A couple of glasses raised to all the sailors on the lake that night, and major props to the crew aboard SOCIABLE, sounds like they did a remarkable job...*


+1.

It seems to me that the biggest design issue (apart from windage) is the crew-ballasting necessity (i.e. - the wings). In really bad conditions - that's a rock-and-a-hard-place kind of decision to make. Send your crew out on the wings to stabilize the boat...or...what?


----------



## WDS123

Smack,

you beat me to it with the video "is everyone on the boat ?"

harrowing - and should be required viewing for anyone who thinks 

1) coiling halyards carefully is a waste of time
2) keeping lookout is boring



I have only experienced true squall conditions once; all I can say is it teaches one a very healthy respect for following good practice.


----------



## mbetter

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> It seems to me that the biggest design issue (apart from windage) is the crew-ballasting necessity (i.e. - the wings). In really bad conditions - that's a rock-and-a-hard-place kind of decision to make. Send your crew out on the wings to stabilize the boat...or...what?


It seems (to my untrained eye) that a boat like that would need less rail meat than a similarly-sized boat without the wings but that hiking would much more crucial in a huge blow.

Unless I'm way off here, you're boned if you don't send the crew out.


----------



## junkrig

In the midst of all these comments, and not to defend the Kiwi (it looks like a monster to me) it would still be well to remember that many well-found ships lie on the bottom of Lake Michigan.


----------



## T34C

junkrig said:


> In the midst of all these comments, and not to defend the Kiwi (it looks like a monster to me) it would still be well to remember that many well-found ships lie on the bottom of Lake Michigan.


There, in lies the issue. Was the Kiwi a "well found ship" for this type of event?


----------



## jackdale

The Kiwi is not that unusual a design. I saw Roy Disney's Pyewacket up on the hard in San Diego. Here is a shot under sail.










And a shot on the hard.










And shot of the stern.


----------



## junkrig

T34C said:


> There, in lies the issue. Was the Kiwi a "well found ship" for this type of event?


Probably not. That said, my points are that (a, and most important) I don't feel that it is appropriate to condemn a dead man for picking a foolish design before his family even has time to get a good start with their grieving, and (b) there is no guarantee that a far better design, in that exact spot at that exact moment, would have kept all her crew alive.
I don't fully comprehend the racing urge. It is clear that racing designs are less safe than old full keel cruisers like my Nor'Sea 27. But I'm slower. But witness Fastnet. Light, fast boats that disintegrated in real world weather. Absent the storms these people who choose these extreme boats come out looking extra smart.
And no boat ever built can guarantee to stand up to the worst Lake Michigan can throw at her.


----------



## mitiempo

Here's a link to an article in the Saginaw News - read the comments below - they are telling. From the comments: MLive readers analyze photos of capsized Saginaw sailboat where two died | MLive.com

Here is the pic from the article. Does it look to anybody like the ballast bulb is damaged or not all there?


----------



## puddinlegs

junkrig said:


> Probably not. That said, my points are that (a, and most important) I don't feel that it is appropriate to condemn a dead man for picking a foolish design before his family even has time to get a good start with their grieving, and (b) there is no guarantee that a far better design, in that exact spot at that exact moment, would have kept all her crew alive.
> I don't fully comprehend the racing urge. It is clear that racing designs are less safe than old full keel cruisers like my Nor'Sea 27. But I'm slower. But witness Fastnet. Light, fast boats that disintegrated in real world weather. Absent the storms these people who choose these extreme boats come out looking extra smart.
> And no boat ever built can guarantee to stand up to the worst Lake Michigan can throw at her.


I'd be nice not to get into the 'racers vs. cruisers' thing. I'll agree whole heartedly with your last sentence. Where I have to disagree is that 'racing' designs (a la anything not full keeled as you allude to) are not as safe as full keel boats. It is not at all clear that all race designs are less safe given the millions of miles 'race' boats have been pushed in a full range of conditions. Would I rather have been on your boat that a Flying Tiger during this particular storm? Sure. But I'd trade it in a heartbeat for an S&S Swan as one example among many I can think of off the top of my head.


----------



## puddinlegs

mitiempo said:


> Here's a link to an article in the Saginaw News - read the comments below - they are telling. From the comments: MLive readers analyze photos of capsized Saginaw sailboat where two died | MLive.com
> 
> Here is the pic from the article. Does it look to anybody like the ballast bulb is damaged or not all there?


Holy Smokes. Sure enough looks that way. Thanks for posting!


----------



## blt2ski

Keel does not look damaged at all. More than likely, the deck does not have enough depth for lack of better wording when upside down to act as a hull and right the boat. Along with the wings making it a broad as it is. Does this mean the boat should or should not have been in the race.........I am not going to go there. 

I do wonder about sport boats of different types for some races, including around here in some wind conditions. As there is one, that seems like it is ALWAYS over and having someone standing by in winds above 25-30 knots or so. Very little ballast and way over powered in downwind situations. Pudding, can probably guess which boat I am thinking about. Does that mean it should not be allowed to race........again, a touchy subject in more ways than one. 

But I do toast the deceased, in going out doing something they love to do. They were probably enjoying themselves up to about 5-15 min before hell broke loose. I have a friend that wondered aloud, if when my kids were young, if I should not quite snow ski teaching. I said the above, this was about 3-5 yrs ago when a number of celbrities lost there lives to head injuries skiing. If I hit a tree, up to about 5-10 secs before I hit the tree, got into an avalanche etc, I was probably having the time of my life! Let it be at that! I could say the same thing if I die tomorrow night, as I write this, today wed for some of you east of me in the pacific time zone, I was probably having a hoot in the wed evening beer can race before i went away!

marty

ps, gotta luv muderators that will not speak their mind in the forum they murderate, but have to go elsewhere to speak it! That is not right, at least in the two I murderate, I am allowed and encouraged to speak my mind, even if it is against the management's own opinion!


----------



## mitiempo

Wonder what Jeff thinks of this.


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> +1.
> 
> It seems to me that the biggest design issue (apart from windage) is the crew-ballasting necessity (i.e. - the wings). In really bad conditions - that's a rock-and-a-hard-place kind of decision to make. Send your crew out on the wings to stabilize the boat...or...what?


Yes and the skipper had asked for that:

*Peter Morley yelled for the crew to "get to the edges."

"But the edges were different for everybody; I and some others had fallen to the low side," he said. "The (teenagers), you know, they were hanging from the high side."*

But half the crew went to one side half to another. That is a type of high performance race boat that should only be sailed offshore by a well trained race crew because the weight and position of the crew has a big importance on the RM and balance of the boat. As I have said the crew weights more than half the weight of the boat and putting that weight on one side or in the other of those big wings has a huge effect specially because this is a narrow boat with not much form stability.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C

jackdale said:


> The Kiwi is not that unusual a design. I saw Roy Disney's Pyewacket up on the hard in San Diego. Here is a shot under sail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a shot on the hard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And shot of the stern.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Pyewacket started life with those "wings". I believe they were added after the fact, as seen here:
Salthouse Boatbuilders, New Zealand, building high performance race boats, cruising yachts and launches, commercial vessels, refit work and slip services
Meaning she was designed and ballasted just like most boats. The "wings" were added for a performance boost.


----------



## JonEisberg

WDSchock said:


> Smack,
> 
> you beat me to it with the video "is everyone on the boat ?"
> 
> harrowing - and should be required viewing for anyone who thinks
> 
> 1) coiling halyards carefully is a waste of time
> 2) keeping lookout is boring
> 
> I have only experienced true squall conditions once; all I can say is it teaches one a very healthy respect for following good practice.


Scariest thing about that vid is the fact they were caught with their pants down, and their mainsail at full hoist...


----------



## T34C

mitiempo said:


> Here's a link to an article in the Saginaw News - read the comments below - they are telling. From the comments: MLive readers analyze photos of capsized Saginaw sailboat where two died | MLive.com
> 
> Here is the pic from the article. Does it look to anybody like the ballast bulb is damaged or not all there?


Looks to me like the bottom paint on the bulb has been scraped up, but I don't see any damage to the bulb its self. Interesting comments after the article.


----------



## PCP

That bulb is really a small one, it is lead and weights less than 500kg. Not a big volume to have that weight. The boat is very light and that corresponds to a B/D ratio of 39%.

The boat stayed inverted by a very good reason: Nonexistence of waves big enough to bring it back to the upright position.

99 percent of existing sailboats if capsized on flat water will stay capsized. Boats need waves to return to the upright position.

A good stability curve will show at least 3 times more positive stability than inverted stability, meaning that for righting the boat up it will be needed a wave 3 times smaller than the one that capsized the boat, and that should not be difficult in normal situations.

But what capsized this boat was not big breaking waves put wind, just a lot of wind. Without waves big enough the boat, almost any boat, will be unable to right itself up.

I am not saying that those wings would not have helped it to stay inverted, just pointing out that almost any boat would stayed inverted if capsized by wind in a sea without significant waves.

Of course, most boats cannot be rolled by wind alone and will recover from a knock down when a violent wind diminishes its intensity.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## josrulz

mitiempo said:


> Does it look to anybody like the ballast bulb is damaged or not all there?


I found an all together HUGE pic from another angle. While I thought it did look damaged in the smaller pic, in this closer-up pic you can see the bulb is there, and it's wrapped with police-type yellow tape. I'm taking a guess, but perhaps it's to hold a light on there. I'm just going to put the link in, since the picture is so large:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/files/3453b27007395210f30e6a70670018b6_2.jpg

Hope that helps.
-J


----------



## PCP

Ok, the police tape explains what in the smaller picture looked odd. The bulb is all there alright.

Jesus that is really a narrow boat and should be a tricky boat to sail. It is impressive to compare the beam at water line with the total beam of the boat, wings included.

That should be an interesting boat to sail with a racing well trained crew. The boat should be a blast.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

paulo,

The boat reminds me of a 35' moth without the hydrofoils! A blast to sail in the right conditions etc, but I could see where boats of some types, the wind and waves would be out of hand sooner than later vs other designs. 

Marty


----------



## PCP

blt2ski said:


> paulo,
> 
> The boat reminds me of a 35' moth without the hydrofoils! A blast to sail in the right conditions etc, but I could see where boats of some types, the wind and waves would be out of hand sooner than later vs other designs.
> 
> Marty


Off course Marty I am not saying that boat is a passage maker, quite the opposite. This is a tricky boat to sail but a boat that should be a blast to sail. This is a racing boat and obviously a difficult boat to sail and should be used by a skilled race crew and I am not talking of an improvised race crew but one trained and used to that particular boat.

I don't know if that boat would not have been capsized if it was crewed by a race crew used to the boat, but certainly they would have been all in the right wing when the skipper called for that (probably they would all be there already anyway). I don't know if more than half the boat weight in the right place would have prevented the capsize.

Since they had no sails out probably that would be enough to prevent massif healing and to have the boat skidding laterally, but what I think is that more than the kind of boat what was imprudent was to take a makeshift crew on that particular boat to an offshore race. Race sailors on race boats can take controlled risks and are used to emergency situations. That crew was not a race crew and I don't think they were prepared or wanted to take any risks at all.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## WouldaShoulda

PCP said:


> Since they had no sails out...


The 10hp outboard on the 35ft SV probably wasn't much help either.


----------



## Sailormon6

I think I see what is perhaps the most serious deficiency of the boat. One of the photos shows that the boat relies on an outboard motor for its auxiliary power. That undoubtedly means they removed the motor while racing, and stowed it below decks. Thus, when the storm came on them, and they lowered all their sails in preparation for it, they had no auxiliary power. One of the reports from crew indicate that, just before the high winds and waves hit, the windspeed had dropped to about 5 kts. That means, without auxiliary power, the boat was dead in the water, with no steerageway. When the big wind and waves hit, the helmsman couldn't point the boat in a direction so that it could withstand the waves. The big, steep waves probably hit the boat hard on it's quarter or its beam, and rolled it over. Although the design of the boat was certainly not well-suited to the conditions it was in, it might have survived if the boat had auxiliary power sufficient to give it steerageway, so that they could orient the boat to the waves.

The skipper, who was thoroughly experienced, might have intended to re-mount the motor, but perhaps the storm hit before he could get it in place.

I can't think of any boat of any design that wouldn't have been in extreme danger of capsizing if caught suddenly by 70 kt winds and steep waves, without auxiliary power, and without steerageway. Almost any boat caught without propulsion and with it's beam to the seas in such conditions would probably have capsized.


----------



## LandLocked66c

> Thus, when the storm came on them, and they lowered all their sails in preparation for it, they had no auxiliary power.


Good call!


----------



## junkrig

*went on too long*



puddinlegs said:


> I'd be nice not to get into the 'racers vs. cruisers' thing. I'll agree whole heartedly with your last sentence. Where I have to disagree is that 'racing' designs (a la anything not full keeled as you allude to) are not as safe as full keel boats. It is not at all clear that all race designs are less safe given the millions of miles 'race' boats have been pushed in a full range of conditions. Would I rather have been on your boat that a Flying Tiger during this particular storm? Sure. But I'd trade it in a heartbeat for an S&S Swan as one example among many I can think of off the top of my head.


I deeply regret not having ended my previous post after "... kept her crew alive." I went where I neither wanted to go nor had expertise.

Where I do have expertise, as a seriously shell-shocked old combat veteran, is in survivors' guilt. And if the general tone of this thread had been wilfully intended to plunge the survivors, particularly the skipper's brother, into lifelong emotionally crippling survivors' guilt, many or most of the posts would still be here verbatim.


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> Really sad, that we now live in a time where a book such as DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OFFSHORE YACHTS is all but forgotten or dismissed as hopelessly Old School, I'd be surprised if it is even still in print...


Just ordered it on Amazon for $.07! The shipping was $3.99 - LOL Must not be a very popular book these days...


----------



## cb32863

LandLocked66c said:


> Just ordered it on Amazon for $.07! The shipping was $3.99 - LOL Must not be a very popular book these days...


I ordered it last year from there and paid $26 for it. Will definitely be picking it up and reading it. My copy was new too.... anyway, this is an awful event and the info I have been reading just amazes me on the conditions all the racers were in.


----------



## puddinlegs

Sailormon6 said:


> I think I see what is perhaps the most serious deficiency of the boat. One of the photos shows that the boat relies on an outboard motor for its auxiliary power. That undoubtedly means they removed the motor while racing, and stowed it below decks. Thus, when the storm came on them, and they lowered all their sails in preparation for it, they had no auxiliary power. One of the reports from crew indicate that, just before the high winds and waves hit, the windspeed had dropped to about 5 kts. That means, without auxiliary power, the boat was dead in the water, with no steerageway. When the big wind and waves hit, the helmsman couldn't point the boat in a direction so that it could withstand the waves. The big, steep waves probably hit the boat hard on it's quarter or its beam, and rolled it over. Although the design of the boat was certainly not well-suited to the conditions it was in, it might have survived if the boat had auxiliary power sufficient to give it steerageway, so that they could orient the boat to the waves.
> 
> The skipper, who was thoroughly experienced, might have intended to re-mount the motor, but perhaps the storm hit before he could get it in place.
> 
> I can't think of any boat of any design that wouldn't have been in extreme danger of capsizing if caught suddenly by 70 kt winds and steep waves, without auxiliary power, and without steerageway. Almost any boat caught without propulsion and with it's beam to the seas in such conditions would probably have capsized.


We have an inboard. Yes, it's preferable in bad conditions as even a long shaft outboard will be dunking in and out of the water in rough weather and will be nearly useless. That said, in a breeze with the sails down, our boat will steer and track. Most boats will. Locally, our rules keep outboards on the transom or in a purpose built well (a la Thunderbirds, Flying Tigers, and the like). They have to be readily deployable. I'm sure this will be on the table when all the safety rules are reviewed.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

"One of the reports from crew indicate that, just before the high winds and waves hit, the windspeed had dropped to about 5 kts. That means, without auxiliary power, the boat was dead in the water, with no steerageway. When the big wind and waves hit, the helmsman couldn't point the boat in a direction so that it could withstand the waves. The big, steep waves probably hit the boat hard on it's quarter or its beam, and rolled it over. Although the design of the boat was certainly not well-suited to the conditions it was in, it might have survived if the boat had auxiliary power sufficient to give it steerageway, so that they could orient the boat to the waves.

The skipper, who was thoroughly experienced, might have intended to re-mount the motor, but perhaps the storm hit before he could get it in place.

"I can't think of any boat of any design that wouldn't have been in extreme danger of capsizing if caught suddenly by 70 kt winds and steep waves, without auxiliary power, and without steerageway. Almost any boat caught without propulsion and with it's beam to the seas in such conditions would probably have capsized.""

A couple of bad assumptions here. I was 12 miles from this tragedy. The seas were hardly flat before the storm and the wind was blowing around 18knots for a couple of hours before the storm. I was helming a 26,000lb boat with 50hp 4 cylinder yanmar and it was all I could do to turn it into the wind to drop the main. I couldn't hold it into the wind. Most of the boats I saw were running bare poles with the storm. From what I have heard, the boat pitchpoled when the bow dug into a wave and air/wind lifted the aft end of the boat. Entirely possible from what I saw. An inboard wouldn't have stopped that. The design of the boat was the main contributor. 

Others have postulated that an experienced crew would somehow prevented this. I call BS on that. The wingnuts crew was very experienced for the most part. The accident occurred because of the extremely high winds and the irregular steep waves combined to get the stern out of the water allowing the boat to pitchpole

3 years ago I was dismasted in a 70 knot microburst at night. The rig was banging over side of the boat with attendant lines, halyards, rigging, etc. We couldn't turn on the motor so as you correctly state the boat turned immediately abeam to the wind. The boat pitched violently for the 20 minutes it took to release the rig and get it away from the boat. But capsizing?? Not a chance. The boat- Sabre 28. So yes I can imagine most boats not capsizing in these conditions.

The fact that the deceased both died from head trauma might be a clue. You are much more apt to suffer head trauma falling 35 feet in a pitchpole than a boat roll. We'll probably all never know. Just a very sad tragic accident. I am surprised that there wasn't more carnage given the conditions.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Sanduskysailor said:


> I am surprised that there wasn't more carnage given the conditions.


If it were a single class racing event full of Kiwi 35s, I suspect you would be correct.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sanduskysailor said:


> The fact that the deceased both died from head trauma might be a clue. You are much more apt to suffer head trauma falling 35 feet in a pitchpole than a boat roll. We'll probably all never know. Just a very sad tragic accident. I am surprised that there wasn't more carnage given the conditions.


This is a great point sand. The head trauma shows that something very violent happened - more easily explained by a pitchpole than a rollover. I remember reading one of the early reports where one of the crew mentioning that the wind caught the boat and blew it over - not the waves as would be expected in a typical roll.

As you've mentioned before, and as I've seen across the boards and reports, this was the worst storm any of these Great Lake racers had ever seen in their lives. That's saying something.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> This is a great point sand. The head trauma shows that something very violent happened - more easily explained by a pitchpole than a rollover. I remember reading one of the early reports where one of the crew mentioning that the wind caught the boat and blew it over - not the waves as would be expected in a typical roll.
> 
> As you've mentioned before, and as I've seen across the boards and reports, this was the worst storm any of these Great Lake racers had ever seen in their lives. That's saying something.


If the two were out on the "wings" and the boat rolled, falling 12 feet then being pulled up short by a tether and hitting the low side of the boat head first would provide pretty significant head trauma, and be much more likely, than the boat pitchpoling.


----------



## PCP

Sanduskysailor said:


> .... From what I have heard, the boat pitchpoled when the bow dug into a wave and air/wind lifted the aft end of the boat. Entirely possible from what I saw. ...The fact that the deceased both died from head trauma might be a clue. You are much more apt to suffer head trauma falling 35 feet in a pitchpole than a boat roll. *We'll probably all never know*. Just a very sad tragic accident. I am surprised that there wasn't more carnage given the conditions.


I am a bit confused with the pitch pole theory...and why do you say that we would never know? There are survivors and they have told what happened:

*"The winds just hit us, and we were over on our side, hanging on, waiting to pop back up,*" Morley said Monday from Harbor Springs, Mich., where his family had gathered. "You know, in sailboat racing, you get knocked down, and you normally pop back up."

But this time was different. *The boat's mast dipped into the water, and then the WingNuts capsized, sending the crew into the churning lake."*

This is no pitch poleand they explain clearly what happened.



Sanduskysailor said:


> Others have postulated that an experienced crew would somehow prevented this. I call BS on that. The wingnuts crew was very experienced for the most part. The accident occurred because of the extremely high winds and the irregular steep waves combined to get the stern out of the water allowing the boat to pitchpole.


Well, there was not a pitch pole, the boat start to heel the skipper demanded the crew to go to the wing to make weight...and some went to the right wing, others went to the opposite wing, contributing to the knock down:

Peter Morley yelled for the crew to "get to the edges."
"*But the edges were different for everybody*; I and some others had fallen to the low side," he said.

Two sailors die in Mackinac race - chicagotribune.com

Do you call this an experienced crew? What I have said is that kind of boat that relies strongly on the weight of the crew as ballast in my opinion should only be sailed offshore by a racing crew.

That boat is not a cruiser but a demanding and fast racing sailboat. I did not said that the accident would not have happened with a racing crew, we would never know, but surely a racing crew would be on the right wing sitting as ballast probably before the skipper send them there and certainly would know the right side to be.

Note that the weight of the crew on this boat is more than half the weight of the boat and have all that weight on the outside wing would make an huge difference in the boat righting moment. That is not a boat to be sailed by a crew that don't know what "edge" is the skipper talking about.

As you have said:



Sanduskysailor said:


> . Kiwi 35 ... Extremely tippy boat which relies on crew ballast to keep it upright.


Regards

Paulo


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> T more easily explained by a pitchpole than a rollover.


Maybe, but I owned a Hobie Cat once upon a time. You didn't want that to fall on your head when you tipped over (not pitchpoled). Given the size and density of the wings on the Kiwi 35, having those wings fall on you while rolling would be a very serious issue.


----------



## T34C

Paulo- I'm guessing that the crew was practiced in the "get to the edges" drill and had be assigned what edge they were to go to in the event the skipper needed them to help stabilize the boat. The statement, "the edges were different for everybody..." could simply be saying that they each went to the edge they were assigned to. doesn't mean it was the right action to take, and in this case probably wasn't, but...


----------



## Barquito

> Peter Morley yelled for the crew to "get to the edges."
> "But the edges were different for everybody; I and some others had fallen to the low side," he said.


When I first read this, I took it to mean that some of the crew just couldn't make it to the high side b/c of the extreem heel. The nimble ones (the teenagers) made it to the high side. I have had this happen a bunch of times in dinghies, where I would accidentally fall to the low side and help the boat roll even more.

BTW, would we be any more or less critical of the boat design if this had been a multi-million dollar racing catamaran from France. I bet those things would launch their crew into orbit like a trebuchet if (when) they broach.

Lastly, it is possible that these folks would have died sitting in their house if it were struck by sustained 100 kt winds. That is about an F2 tornado, except that it lasted for minutes rather than seconds.


----------



## PCP

T34C said:


> Paulo- I'm guessing that the crew was practiced in the "get to the edges" drill and had be assigned what edge they were to go to in the event the skipper needed them to help stabilize the boat. The statement, "the edges were different for everybody..." could simply be saying that they each went to the edge they were assigned to. doesn't mean it was the right action to take, and in this case probably wasn't, but...


T34, obviously on this case all the crew should have been on the high side for increasing righting moment and to bring the boat up. One of the crew members, referring the "edges" says " *I and some others had fallen to the low side*". He does not say how many, but I and some others means at least three, and that's a lot of weight on the wrong place in a boat like this.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## T34C

PCP said:


> T34, obviously on this case all the crew should have been on the high side for increasing righting moment and to bring the boat up. One of the crew members, referring the "edges" says " *I and some others had fallen to the low side*". He does not say how many, but I and some others means at least three, and that's a lot of weight on the wrong place in a boat like this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


Yes, I agree.

With the skippers experience with this boat I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they had a regular drill of getting to the edges when needed.


----------



## mbetter

PCP said:


> T34, obviously on this case all the crew should have been on the high side for increasing righting moment and to bring the boat up. One of the crew members, referring the "edges" says " *I and some others had fallen to the low side*". He does not say how many, but I and some others means at least three, and that's a lot of weight on the wrong place in a boat like this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paulo


This is exactly what I took from that quote.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sailormon6 said:


> I think I see what is perhaps the most serious deficiency of the boat. One of the photos shows that the boat relies on an outboard motor for its auxiliary power. That undoubtedly means they removed the motor while racing, and stowed it below decks. Thus, when the storm came on them, and they lowered all their sails in preparation for it, they had no auxiliary power. One of the reports from crew indicate that, just before the high winds and waves hit, the windspeed had dropped to about 5 kts. That means, without auxiliary power, the boat was dead in the water, with no steerageway. When the big wind and waves hit, the helmsman couldn't point the boat in a direction so that it could withstand the waves. The big, steep waves probably hit the boat hard on it's quarter or its beam, and rolled it over. Although the design of the boat was certainly not well-suited to the conditions it was in, it might have survived if the boat had auxiliary power sufficient to give it steerageway, so that they could orient the boat to the waves.
> 
> The skipper, who was thoroughly experienced, might have intended to re-mount the motor, but perhaps the storm hit before he could get it in place.


I think you may be over-estimating the efficacy of auxiliary power in a situation such as this - even in considerably more moderate conditions than was seen on the lake that night, I've seen the ability of a 80-100 HP diesel to keep a 50' high performance cruising boat with a massive rig head-to-wind or maneuverable even in relatively flat water seriously compromised... In open water in such weather, an engine can become pretty useless pretty quickly, unless perhaps accompanied by the use of a trysail in an effort to maintain the boat in some sort of hove-to or fore-reaching orientation... Sure wouldn't want to try that on a Kiwi 35, however, I wouldn't consider that an option...

I've tried to imagine what I would have done had I suddenly found myself aboard such a boat, in such a situation... Seems like running off under bare poles while streaming a drogue was pretty much their only option that night... However, if faced with such a situation, one bit of gear I would have liked to have had in my bag of tricks would have been a parachute sea anchor to have been deployed from the bow in an effort to keep the boat approximately head-to-wind, that might have offered their best chance for survival, and keeping the boat on its feet...

As always, please note the use of the word _"might"_... never having sailed a Kiwi 35, an just guessing at exactly what the crew of WING NUTS encountered that night, this is little more than a hunch on my part... But, in the post mortem analysis of this tragedy, the use of a parachute sea anchor sure might have been a nice option to have had... Highly unlikely many boats that night had such gear aboard, however...



Sailormon6 said:


> I can't think of any boat of any design that wouldn't have been in extreme danger of capsizing if caught suddenly by 70 kt winds and steep waves, without auxiliary power, and without steerageway. Almost any boat caught without propulsion and with it's beam to the seas in such conditions would probably have capsized.


Not quite understanding what you mean by "without steerageway", I've heard no indication so far that WING NUTS experienced a loss of their rudder or ability to steer. They certainly would have had steerageway if they chose to run off&#8230; Otherwise, I disagree with your final assessment, there are many designs that could have survived such conditions without "propulsion", people like the Pardeys have shown this many times over, for example&#8230;

One of the hallmarks of offshore seaworthiness in a design, is a boat that will to a great extent _take care of itself_ in extremis, without constant input or management by the crew&#8230; A boat such as a Bristol Channel Cutter perhaps comes closest to being the ultimate example of such a design, which can often be left somewhat to its own devices&#8230; However, such a design also affords the widest array of options or tactics for the crew to employ, which IMHO is perhaps the most important component to offshore seaworthiness in a design, and the primary reason why an extreme design like the Kiwi presents such an outrageously unacceptable degree of risk in a passage like the one from Chicago to Mackinac&#8230; Being limited to running off in such waters is not a good option, suppose they had been closer to Beaver Island, for example? Being stuck aboard a boat where your sole or best chance of survivability is running towards a lee shore at night, well, that's not for me&#8230;

As an aside, one thing I was somewhat stunned to learn of reading of this tragedy&#8230; I don't mean to suggest that it would have made any difference in the outcome of this particular event - most likely its deployment would have resulted in simply being blown off into the night - but I am very surprised that liferafts are apparently not required safety gear in the Chicago-Mac&#8230; For a major distance race in waters as cool as is typically found in Lake Michigan, I'm really surprised that in this day and age, life rafts are not mandated by the rules of the race&#8230;


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> If the two were out on the "wings" and the boat rolled, falling 12 feet then being pulled up short by a tether and hitting the low side of the boat head first would provide pretty significant head trauma, and be much more likely, than the boat pitchpoling.


True. Only guesswork at this point. But I assumed the skipper would have been at the wheel with the crew on the wings.

Who knows?


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> As an aside, one thing I was somewhat stunned to learn of reading of this tragedy&#8230; I don't mean to suggest that it would have made any difference in the outcome of this particular event - most likely its deployment would have resulted in simply being blown off into the night - but I am very surprised that liferafts are apparently not required safety gear in the Chicago-Mac&#8230; For a major distance race in waters as cool as is typically found in Lake Michigan, I'm really surprised that in this day and age, life rafts are not mandated by the rules of the race&#8230;


I can't remember which article (or podcast) it was, but this was actually discussed. They said that one of the reasons it's not required for this race is that either other boats or the CG is readily available and nearby - unlike being hundreds of miles from land. Therefore, PLBs were an acceptable alternative.

Another point they made is that, in this particular case, a life raft would have been of little help due to the extreme winds. They said that either it would have, at best, immediately blown away at launch, or, at worst, tumbled with its occupants inside (and the made reference to this happening in the '98 Sydney-Hobart).

Not sure I buy all of that (hypothermia). But an interesting discussion.


----------



## LandLocked66c

Really sucks! I've been on Lake Michigan, Huron, and Erie. When they get angry it's no FUN! The wave action is VERY short and steep! Add 100mph wind and I can't even imagine...


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> True. Only guesswork at this point. But I assumed the skipper would have been at the wheel with the crew on the wings.
> 
> Who knows?


The only pictures I've seen of a Kiwi 35 show it with a tiller. If you google it, you'll see one where the helmsman is out on the wing steering the boat.


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> I can't remember which article (or podcast) it was, but this was actually discussed.
> 
> Not sure I buy all of that (hypothermia). But an interesting discussion.


What podcast's are good? I'd like to find a good sailing one!

Hypothermia is a big deal, hell you can fall victim to it in tropical waters with long enough exposure...


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> The only pictures I've seen of a Kiwi 35 show it with a tiller. If you google it, you'll see one where the helmsman is out on the wing steering the boat.


Correction: Helm.










The only reason the pitchpole theory sounds plausible to me (or at least catching a wing and doing a forward snap-roll) is that there were two with head injuries and 6 without. I'm just guessing that those 2 were in a different area of the boat - with different forces.

Again, as I said above, complete guess.


----------



## dnf777

Only thing we know for sure is that these were experienced sailors, doing what they loved, and fell victim to violent weather circumstances. My thoughts and condolences are with the survivors, friends, and family of those affected.


----------



## GeorgeB

Is it just me, but doesn’t the Kiwi look an awful like a Hobbie 33 with sponsons? Also, from an overhead photo of the deck it looked like there is a seam between them and hull proper? Do they fold up for storage? Are these things dry sailed? Perhaps Paulo can run the numbers on the two boats and enlighten us.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> JonEisberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, one thing I was somewhat stunned to learn of reading of this tragedy&#8230; I don't mean to suggest that it would have made any difference in the outcome of this particular event - most likely its deployment would have resulted in simply being blown off into the night - but I am very surprised that liferafts are apparently not required safety gear in the Chicago-Mac&#8230; For a major distance race in waters as cool as is typically found in Lake Michigan, I'm really surprised that in this day and age, life rafts are not mandated by the rules of the race&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember which article (or podcast) it was, but this was actually discussed. They said that one of the reasons it's not required for this race is that either other boats or the CG is readily available and nearby - unlike being hundreds of miles from land. Therefore, PLBs were an acceptable alternative.
Click to expand...

For me, it would be interesting to know how many skippers had or chose to carry liferafts, anyway&#8230; I suspect the percentage would have been quite small, likely limited to larger and more well-found boats closer to the cruising end of the design spectrum that were equipped with liferafts to begin with&#8230;

I can see the argument for their not being required equipment, but IMHO this attitude represents a dangerous trend among the contemporary sailing community to cede an impressive amount of responsibility for their own safety to some sort of amorphous network of "Rescue Services", or the "safety in numbers" afforded by sailing as part of a large race fleet&#8230; The current faith in modern conveniences like EPIRBs and PLBs is really quite stunning, the underlying expectation that with the mere press of a button or equivalent dialing of 911 and a Coast Guard swimmer will be alongside you in a matter of minutes, the notion of self-rescue and self-preservation is considerably diminished nowadays&#8230; Probably just me, but if I were responsible for my crew in the Chicago-Mac, I'd not want to depend entirely on the kindness of strangers and the probability of virtually instantaneous rescue by an outside source&#8230; As a result, I'd feel it was my responsibility for my crew's ultimate safety to have a liferaft aboard for such a race&#8230;

As others have noted, one of the most surprising aspects to what occurred that night is that catastrophe wasn't more widespread among the fleet&#8230; That speaks volumes to the exemplary seamanship displayed by many of the racers, but it could have been a whole different ballgame if there had been several or numerous rescue scenarios being played out simultaneously&#8230; In such a case, assistance from the CG may not have been quite so "readily available", and many crews might have been placed in great danger by the somewhat casual approach to the notion of self-rescue that not having a liferaft in such waters represents, IMHO&#8230;



smackdaddy said:


> Another point they made is that, in this particular case, a life raft would have been of little help due to the extreme winds. They said that either it would have, at best, immediately blown away at launch, or, at worst, tumbled with its occupants inside (and the made reference to this happening in the '98 Sydney-Hobart).


Uhh, I did make that point, as well&#8230; (grin)


----------



## T34C

dnf777 said:


> Only thing we know for sure is that these were experienced sailors, doing what they loved, and fell victim to violent weather circumstances. My thoughts and condolences are with the survivors, friends, and family of those affected.


Someday someone is going to have to explain this whole "doing what they love" theory to me. In the end, you're either alive or you're not. I'm sure having a loved one die happy is some minor consolation to family members, but I'm equally sure that kids would much rather have their parent return home, that spouses would much prefer to have their husband or wife home safe with them, that parent would much prefer not to have to bury their children. I don't really care if you die smiling, you're still dead. There are no "do overs".


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> Is it just me, but doesn't the Kiwi look an awful like a Hobbie 33 with sponsons? Also, from an overhead photo of the deck it looked like there is a seam between them and hull proper? Do they fold up for storage? Are these things dry sailed? Perhaps Paulo can run the numbers on the two boats and enlighten us.


Hello George,

Yes you are right, the boats have some things in common, beginning by the Era: Both are boats from the eighties, 1984 and 1982 and both were very modern racers in their time.

The Kiwi 35 is a more radical boat not only it has the wings concept but it is also narrower (2.13m to 2.44) and lighter (1293kg to 1905kg) notwithstanding being bigger (10.69m to10.06m). It has also a considerable bigger draft (2.13 to 1.68). Regarding B/D the kiwi has a ratio of 39% and the Hobbie 48%. Both boats have a bulb and if we correct that ratio to take in consideration the draft difference it will turn up that the Kiwi will have a slightly better ratio.

The stability curves should not be very different and the boats should have a decent AVS and if we were not considering the wings, both boats would have a small inverted stability.

The big difference is on those wings. Yes I believe they are articulated (I have read that they were but I don't know the boat). On this picture you can see clearly that seam you talk about:










Of course, even if those wings fold, they would not fold when the boat is inverted and that would give it a really big inverted stability, much bigger than the one on the Hobbie.

KIWI 35 sailboat on sailboatdata.com.. More than 6000 sailboats, sailing yachts, dinghies and sailing craft listed.

HOBIE 33 sailboat on sailboatdata.com.. More than 6000 sailboats, sailing yachts, dinghies and sailing craft listed.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## blt2ski

Question on the weather, being as I read that this was equal to an F2 tornado with the 100+ mph winds, has it been recognized or thought of that within this cell, that some kind of twisting wind could have occurred? with the center going over this boat?

Yes, it is amazing that not more boats sunk/deaths occurred etc. This does show that the sponsor club does require the generally speaking appropriate PFD or equal type safety devices, when and where to ware them etc. While liferafts might have been good......reality is, in the situations that seem to occur on the GL's, I personally am not sure it would have helped "this" situation at all! If anything, been as much of a hindrance, or not a factor, and a useless item since everything pretty much went overboard at once. So could the crew have inflated etc the LR from under the boat.

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Someday someone is going to have to explain this whole "doing what they love" theory to me. In the end, you're either alive or you're not. I'm sure having a loved one die happy is some minor consolation to family members, but I'm equally sure that kids would much rather have their parent return home, that spouses would much prefer to have their husband or wife home safe with them, that parent would much prefer not to have to bury their children. I don't really care if you die smiling, you're still dead. There are no "do overs".


The explanation is simple: Tolerable risk versus inaction.

Now the variables in that equation are all over the place for various people. But everyone makes that call precisely because of what you said..."there are no do overs".


----------



## smackdaddy

blt2ski said:


> Question on the weather, being as I read that this was equal to an F2 tornado with the 100+ mph winds, has it been recognized or thought of that within this cell, that some kind of twisting wind could have occurred? with the center going over this boat?
> 
> Yes, it is amazing that not more boats sunk/deaths occurred etc. This does show that the sponsor club does require the generally speaking appropriate PFD or equal type safety devices, when and where to ware them etc. While liferafts might have been good......reality is, in the situations that seem to occur on the GL's, I personally am not sure it would have helped "this" situation at all! If anything, been as much of a hindrance, or not a factor, and a useless item since everything pretty much went overboard at once. So could the crew have inflated etc the LR from under the boat.
> 
> Marty


I've actually seen mentions from several people that were there that there was a tremendous amount of down draft, pinning boats to the water, but no mentions I've seen of twist.

This was obviously one huge freakin' storm.


----------



## GeorgeB

Interesting comments about life rafts. Didn’t the boat turtle right away? The only possible way a raft could deploy in that situation is a hydrostatic release from an on-deck canister. A deployment from a coach roof mounted canister would result in the raft being held captive in all the drowned rigging. How many boats sailing today have transom mounted canisters? IMHO, the raft is only going to be deployable in the event of down flooding or fire. What may happen as a result of Chi-Mac’11, Southern Straits ’10, Farallone DH ’09 etc. will be another layering of safety regulations on we racers. I’m already racing to ISAF Cat 1 (tailored) regs right now. I have had to do a bunch of modifications, added (very expensive) safety equipment, and be subject to safety inspections – none of which is required of my strictly cruising brethren. 

Thanks for the info Paulo. I have experience sailing the Hobie and was thinking if I could scale it up to a Kiwi. Does the Kiwi have a dagger board? It almost looks like it could be trailered (again, like the Hobie). I’m getting the impression that both boats would handle very similarly. The Hobie is a real lawn dart and the key to them is keeping them slowed down and pointed down wind. They still race them to Hawaii, though the accommodations are extremely primitive (I turned down the opportunity to crew on one for the ’10 Pac Cup).


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> I have had to do a bunch of modifications, added (very expensive) safety equipment, and be subject to safety inspections - *none of which is required of my strictly cruising brethren.*


Wow...now THIS is an interesting point that I've never really thought about! (which is extremely rare)

Why is this? Is it purely because racing is "organized" (read "solid target of liability") and cruising is not?

As much as safety is discussed in cruising, you'd think that these things would be equally practiced there.


----------



## smackdaddy

The boat did eventually right itself (apparently):

(Again - kudos to Clean at SA)


----------



## T34C

Not sure the boat being right side up necessarily means it righted itself.


----------



## PCP

GeorgeB said:


> ...
> 
> Thanks for the info Paulo. I have experience sailing the Hobie and was thinking if I could scale it up to a Kiwi. Does the Kiwi have a dagger board? It almost looks like it could be trailered (again, like the Hobie). I'm getting the impression that both boats would handle very similarly. The Hobie is a real lawn dart and the key to them is keeping them slowed down and pointed down wind. They still race them to Hawaii, though the accommodations are extremely primitive (I turned down the opportunity to crew on one for the '10 Pac Cup).


Just considering the design differences, I would say that the Kiwi would be a considerably faster boat. Being lighter and with the possibility of having half the weigh of the boat in human ballast on the tip of that wing will give it a huge righting moment and a lot of power.

But the lower weight, the smaller beam that will give it a smaller form stability and the the possibility of having people moving on the boat on those wings (away from the CG) will make the Kiwi a very tricky boat to sail, an unstable boat were the position of the crew weight is always fundamental for having the boat balanced.

Compared with the Hobie I would say this a faster but an incomparably more demanding boat to sail...and a boat that would normally recover from a knock down (but not always as this unfortunate accident has shown) but that would not probably recover from an inverted position.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## PCP

smackdaddy said:


> Wow...now THIS is an interesting point that I've never really thought about! (which is extremely rare)
> 
> Why is this? Is it purely because racing is "organized" (read "solid target of liability") and cruising is not?
> 
> As much as safety is discussed in cruising, you'd think that these things would be equally practiced there.


Offshore racing boats have to comply with a lot more safety characteristics than cruising boats, even considering EC class A sailboats. ORC don't even accept the stability data that was used for certify the boat (computer generated) and demand that the AVS to be calculated based on real inclining experiments (just to be sure that the data is for real).

And that's with ORC, when you look at the demanded safety characteristics on the Open boats, like Minis, class 40 or Open 60, they are incomparably superior to the ones demanded for ORC.

That is perfectly normal and it is the same with other racing machines. Do you have looked at the safety items in a race car? A race car is much safer than a touring car and the reason is the same: On a race car you take more risks than in a touring car, the hypothesis of having an accident are bigger so it makes sense to have more protection.

Regards

Paulo


----------



## GeorgeB

Though the fear of lawsuits looms large, and the D&O premiums for regattas is quite steep, I personally haven’t heard of anyone actually suing getting sued. I think it really is all about the publicity in a sport with an already declining attendance rate. My fear is we will eventually get regulated out of existence. All of this in the name of safety. I’ve been in this sailing game now for a number of years and in the “olden days” the boats weren’t nearly as well made as today’s (and I’m including the sport boat categories) and the safety equipment was almost nonexistent. Heck, I remember when only girly men wore PFDs, now it is mandatory. If cruisers had to jump though the same hoops as we do, they would be manning the barricades.

No doubt the Kiwi would be a faster boat, but I’m trying to imagine how she handles compared to other boats which I have personal experience with. My guess is that she is more like the Hobie, than say, a Farr 40. Granted, to windward, and rail crew on the sponsons, a different beast, but down wind, comparable characteristics. Without the luxury of moving crew to the sponsons, you really have to shift gears on the Hobie.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> GeorgeB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have had to do a bunch of modifications, added (very expensive) safety equipment, and be subject to safety inspections - none of which is required of my strictly cruising brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow...now THIS is an interesting point that I've never really thought about! (which is extremely rare)
> 
> Why is this? Is it purely because racing is "organized" (read "solid target of liability") and cruising is not?
> 
> As much as safety is discussed in cruising, you'd think that these things would be equally practiced there.
Click to expand...

Let me make clear, my raising the liferaft issue was nothing more than a speculative aside on my part, I was simply surprised to hear it was not required by the race organizers&#8230; I'm not necessarily suggesting it should be, I was simply surprised - given today's legal climate - that it was not&#8230;

However, I still think this issue betrays the sense on the part of many that a passage like the Chicago-Mac is not really to be placed in the same category as an "Offshore" race, such as the Annapolis-Newport, or Marblehead-Halifax (both of which require liferafts, to the best of my knowledge)

As most who have sailed on the Lakes can attest, those waters can easily dish out the equal to anything likely to be found between Annapolis and Newport, or Marblehead and Halifax in the summertime&#8230; I'm simply musing on the reasons why liferafts might be required in one event, and not the other, is all&#8230; I may be wrong about this, but I believe even entrants in the Vineyard Race out of LIS require liferafts or survival suits for each crewmenber, and the route of that race is certainly no more exposed or remote from CG assistance than the Chicago-Mac route&#8230;


----------



## LandLocked66c

So i'd imagine that they are going to tow her in?


----------



## dnf777

T34C said:


> Someday someone is going to have to explain this whole "doing what they love" theory to me. In the end, you're either alive or you're not. I'm sure having a loved one die happy is some minor consolation to family members, but I'm equally sure that kids would much rather have their parent return home, that spouses would much prefer to have their husband or wife home safe with them, that parent would much prefer not to have to bury their children. I don't really care if you die smiling, you're still dead. There are no "do overs".


I am truly sorry if you don't understand that. Any attempt at an explanation would fall short, so I won't endeavor.

Happy Sailing


----------



## T34C

dnf777 said:


> I am truly sorry if you don't understand that. Any attempt at an explanation would fall short, so I won't endeavor.
> 
> Happy Sailing


Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, self indigent, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


----------



## SEMIJim

Barquito said:


> When I first read this, I took it to mean that some of the crew just couldn't make it to the high side b/c of the extreem heel. The nimble ones (the teenagers) made it to the high side. I have had this happen a bunch of times in dinghies, where I would accidentally fall to the low side and help the boat roll even more.


Hell, I had that happen to me on a J/36. We'd just raised the sails--weren't even racing yet, so nobody was prepared for it. A wayward puff came up and all-of-a-sudden the boat was on her ear. I was caught on the low side and damn near went over _under_ the safety lines. Got my legs under me and literally leaped for the high side. Best I could do was get over the cabin-top and hang on for dear life. It seemed to me at the time that deck damn near went vertical, tho I doubt a spreader came even close to the water.

Because of that experience: I can almost imagine what the crew of WingNuts experienced.

My sincere condolences to the boat, her crew, and the family and friends of those lost.

Jim


----------



## SEMIJim

T34C said:


> Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, self indigent, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


You could say that about anybody that engages in any "risky" sport. I bought tree-climbing gear for mast-climbing. My wife thinks I'm nuts for climbing either. If I screw up, or something goes wrong, I could easily fall to my death, or at least suffer permanent, disabling injury. Does that mean I'm selfish if I do it anyway?

Due to a screw-up on my part the other day, I damn near got hauled off the boat. Would've left my wife at the helm and, well, it's been a long time since we practiced MOB drills. Selfish? Inconsiderate? Careless?

I drive to work every day. Worse death and injury statistics than either of the above. Self-indulgent?

Are we supposed to become completely risk-adverse for the sake of our loved ones?

Jim


----------



## BigZ

smackdaddy said:


> Wow...now THIS is an interesting point that I've never really thought about! (which is extremely rare)
> 
> Why is this? Is it purely because racing is "organized" (read "solid target of liability") and cruising is not?
> 
> As much as safety is discussed in cruising, you'd think that these things would be equally practiced there.


Setting rules is a way to keep the sponsoring yacht clubs from having idiots race. For example, if they didn't set parameters some guy in a flying scott would decide that he would race the chi/mac. They've got to set some guidelines, restrictions, or parameters.
It's interesting that the rules will vary by the sponsoring yacht club. The CYC chicago/mac does not require a life raft. The BYC port huron/mac does require a life raft. There are other smaller differences that mean that sailors who sail in one Mac race might have to have different equipment for the next Mac race. (They are started on consecutive weekends.)

But you really don't want to go into setting rules on cruising boats. Too many variables and sailing styles.


----------



## puddinlegs

T34C said:


> Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, self indigent, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


I think all that's being said is that sailing is inherently riskier than sitting on your couch. Personally, to a degree, I feel safer racing than cruising. It's great to sail with crew and friends that have thousands of sea miles and many years of experience under their collective belts. Racing, while probably not the best way to learn to rebuild an engine or to drop a hook in a tight anchorage, is the best way to steepen the learning curve regarding experience in different wind ranges, sea states, sail trim, while pushing the boat hard. You find out where the limits of a particular design are. A number of racing boat owners that I know locally are actually really good at doing their own repairs, splicing, electronics, etc... Lot's of folks who race regularly also cruise around these parts. There are just too many interesting places to visit in the PNW.


----------



## blt2ski

T34C said:


> Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, self indigent, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


So are you are supposed to be the one to decide if what I am doing is risk free? Such that if I do something, and it effects my family, friends etc in someway bad, I have done something majorly wrong? Yet tonight I had 3 of my 4 kids on the boat out racing..... yeah conditions were rather calm. BUT, if I wanted to do a similar race local, ie swiftsure for an example. The three that crew would be first to be on the crew list, along with some of the others that come out with us. Yes, my boat qualifies per the PIYA 1 regs in and of itself. I mising some of the other items. but they could be bought put on board etc.

Also as mentioned, the race requirements for some of us racing in cat 2 or 3 races, is twice to 4 even 10 times as extensive as a cruiser needs! Most of us do think about what could happen, train to deal with the worst case scenario. Sometimes we do not get it right, but train and practice we do! so hopefully when hell breaks lose, we have an idea on what to do. These folks did everything they were told, taught etc. BUT, unfortunetly, something very haywire occurred. The boat took the worst of it, still is floating etc. but the design was probably "paper" correct, but reality, as paulo pointed out in europe for some ocean races, one must literally PROVE the boat can meet the specs, by purposely turtling the boat, and making it right itself, or at a 90* angle etc. This boat probably would not have been allowed it it would have had to literally prove it righting moment or Stability index.

Marty


----------



## Sanduskysailor

The fact of the mater is that CYC succumbed to the market pressure to have a sport boat class in the Mac. I've sailed on a Kiwi 35 and no way would I ever do a Mac on one. That's just me. My opinion and mine alone is that there were several boats in the race that shouldn't have been allowed to participate because of safety reasons. Any boat the needs the whole crew on the rail for the entirety of a 300 mile race should not be a suitable entrant. 

The MAC is an invitational race. The CYC MAC committee is a private organization and can exclude anybody they want to. I believe they should be strict in their safety requirements. No outboards, minimum stability requirements, liferafts, and minimum accommodation requirements. Also the pre-race inspection should be more thorough. This is the way it used to be and I speculate that it might be in the future. Boats like Melges 32s, Henderson 30s, FT10s might be excluded in the future. So be it, they can still race in races that they were designed for, inshore buoy races and short distance point to point races.

There is no guarantee that there will not be be future tragedies but this would go a long way to ensure that it might be another 103 races before this happens again.


----------



## dnf777

T34C said:


> Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, self indigent, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


Stand down, sailor!

You're just looking for a fight, and you're not going to find one here.

As smack said, the risk analysis falls differently for everyone.

Since driving an automoibile on the public roadways is statistically the most dangerous activity most of us engage in, are all those millions of people who drive to work every day arrogant and self-indignant?

Go sailing. Or sit at home at look at coffee-table books, if sailing would be too arrogant.

Outta this one.

Thanks to all the others who made meaningful, educational posts.


----------



## SEMIJim

Sanduskysailor said:


> The MAC is an invitational race. The CYC MAC committee is a private organization and can exclude anybody they want to. I believe they should be strict in their safety requirements. No outboards, minimum stability requirements, liferafts, and minimum accommodation requirements. Also the pre-race inspection should be more thorough. This is the way it used to be ...


Isn't that the way the Port Huron to Mackinac race is run?

Before The Admiral and I got Abracadabra, when we were all starry-eyed about sailing, we talked about how it would be cool to race the Mac. Then we found out the safety requirements, the entry fees, the costs associated with the safety requirements, the crewing requirements (?) and decided "Uh, maybe not..."

Jim


----------



## T34C

puddinlegs said:


> I think all that's being said is that sailing is inherently riskier than sitting on your couch. Personally, to a degree, I feel safer racing than cruising. It's great to sail with crew and friends that have thousands of sea miles and many years of experience under their collective belts. Racing, while probably not the best way to learn to rebuild an engine or to drop a hook in a tight anchorage, is the best way to steepen the learning curve regarding experience in different wind ranges, sea states, sail trim, while pushing the boat hard. You find out where the limits of a particular design are. A number of racing boat owners that I know locally are actually really good at doing their own repairs, splicing, electronics, etc... Lot's of folks who race regularly also cruise around these parts. There are just too many interesting places to visit in the PNW.


I agree. I've raced in 3 different oceans and countless lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. Racing in itself is not the problem. Its when you start cutting corners in the name of the race, going out when you know you probably shouldn't, or go out in a boat that has no business out there.

On the same day the Mac started there was another distance race started from Racine, WI called the Hook race. Its called that because the course looks like a hook when viewed on a chart. it starts in Racine and goes north on Lake MI to the tip of the Door County Penninsula and turns west thru a pass called Deaths Door, crosses Green Bay in a SW direction and ends in Menominee, MI. The same storm that took out WingNuts sank a boat in the Hook race that was being sailed by the Rear Commodore of the host YC. The boat was a Ultimate 20.

For those that think taking the Kiwi 35 was a risk (I among them) now try getting your mind around sailing the same waters in the same conditions in a 20 ft. sport boat.

Now go back and read my earlier comment and perhaps you'll understand what I was referring to.


----------



## T34C

I'm guessing I know what DNF stands for...


----------



## Tweegs

BigZ said:


> Setting rules is a way to keep the sponsoring yacht clubs from having idiots race. For example, if they didn't set parameters some guy in a flying scott would decide that he would race the chi/mac. They've got to set some guidelines, restrictions, or parameters.
> It's interesting that the rules will vary by the sponsoring yacht club. The CYC chicago/mac does not require a life raft. *The BYC port huron/mac does require a life raft.* There are other smaller differences that mean that sailors who sail in one Mac race might have to have different equipment for the next Mac race. (They are started on consecutive weekends.)
> 
> But you really don't want to go into setting rules on cruising boats. Too many variables and sailing styles.


Only the boats racing the Cove Island course (crosses the lake) require a life raft. The cruiser course (along the shore line) does not, on the Bay/Mac.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

SEMIJim said:


> Are we supposed to become completely risk-adverse for the sake of our loved ones?
> 
> Jim


Not completey, just reasonably.

Everyone else who participated in this event on a more traditional vessel survived.

And my wife won't let me buy a motorcyle.


----------



## welshwind

SEMIJim said:


> You could say that about anybody that engages in any "risky" sport. I bought tree-climbing gear for mast-climbing. My wife thinks I'm nuts for climbing either. If I screw up, or something goes wrong, I could easily fall to my death, or at least suffer permanent, disabling injury. Does that mean I'm selfish if I do it anyway?
> 
> Due to a screw-up on my part the other day, I damn near got hauled off the boat. Would've left my wife at the helm and, well, it's been a long time since we practiced MOB drills. Selfish? Inconsiderate? Careless?
> 
> I drive to work every day. Worse death and injury statistics than either of the above. Self-indulgent?
> 
> Are we supposed to become completely risk-adverse for the sake of our loved ones?
> 
> Jim


No one said you had to be completely risk-adverse. Just make sure you are truly considering the risks and are making the trade-offs in light of your personal situation. It is not hard to imagine someone getting really comfortable with what has been happening in the past and NOT considering what could happen in the future (because it never happened in the past). That is what we all need to guard against.


----------



## welshwind

dnf777 said:


> Stand down, sailor!
> 
> You're just looking for a fight, and you're not going to find one here.
> 
> As smack said, the risk analysis falls differently for everyone.
> 
> Since driving an automoibile on the public roadways is statistically the most dangerous activity most of us engage in, are all those millions of people who drive to work every day arrogant and self-indignant?
> 
> Go sailing. Or sit at home at look at coffee-table books, if sailing would be too arrogant.
> 
> Outta this one.
> 
> Thanks to all the others who made meaningful, educational posts.


Do you really think the 15 and 16-year old on the boat were able to accurately assess the risk? I don't. The Kiwi 35 should not have been in the race. It is not made for offshore racing.


----------



## speciald

A friend sent me a link to a video taken by a Go Video helmet cam on a boat during the storm - ‪2011 Race to Mackinac‬‏ - YouTube
They and the boat survived.


----------



## blt2ski

speciald said:


> A friend sent me a link to a video taken by a Go Video helmet cam on a boat during the storm - ‪2011 Race to Mackinac‬‏ - YouTube
> They and the boat survived.


Smacky posted this a number of pages/posts ago.

Along with, yeah maybe the 15 and 16 yr old could not totally asses the issues. Then again, how many recently have done the "trying to be the youngest solo around the globe" Who is to say that these two do not have more sailing experience than some of us? ie been on a boat since they were born. The father of the 16 yr old did post somewhere along the line on SA. He has been posting there for a number of year from recollection, altho not a lot of post, 200-300 IIRC.

I'm like a lot, the K35 or the U20 in the other race and other "sport boats" if you will probably should not have been allowed in these two races. BUT, to take my total anger out on the skipper when a fluke storm comes thru, or RC for the storm damage, that is not totally right. Both are at fault IMHO for allowing/taking a boat not really correct for the length and type of race. Hopefully the club will now recognize this, unbow from the pressure to allow these types of boat, put some stricter policies in place, and another 100+ yrs before an issue occurs will happen.

Marty


----------



## dnf777

welshwind said:


> Do you really think the 15 and 16-year old on the boat were able to accurately assess the risk? I don't. The Kiwi 35 should not have been in the race. It is not made for offshore racing.


All I did was pass along my condolences, and say they were doing something they loved. That's all.

I did not say they should have or not should have done anything. I didn't comment on the boat, the crew, or passengers' responsibility or lack thereof.

Please don't drag me into a debate over something I have no firsthand knowledge of, nor do most of us here.

My condolences to the crew, family and friends. That's all.


----------



## smackdaddy

BigZ said:


> Setting rules is a way to keep the sponsoring yacht clubs from having idiots race. For example, if they didn't set parameters some guy in a flying scott would decide that he would race the chi/mac. They've got to set some guidelines, restrictions, or parameters.
> It's interesting that the rules will vary by the sponsoring yacht club. The CYC chicago/mac does not require a life raft. The BYC port huron/mac does require a life raft. There are other smaller differences that mean that sailors who sail in one Mac race might have to have different equipment for the next Mac race. (They are started on consecutive weekends.)
> 
> But you really don't want to go into setting rules on cruising boats. Too many variables and sailing styles.


One of the things I've always really liked about SailNet is that it's a mix of racers and cruisers. Because of that, it's got a pretty good representation of advice and experience that's neither overly conservative (for the most part) nor overly extreme. So, as its name implies, it's more about sailing in general...but with some cajones (for the most part).

Some people don't like the idea of the racers-vs-cruisers mentality in these debates. And I actually think it's pretty silly when something like that breaks out. That's because I think that racing DEFINITELY builds your sailing skills far more quickly than cruising. On the other hand, cruising helps you learn and focus on things that become somewhat secondary in racing. So it can actually be a very good balance, all combining to make you a better _sailor_.

But here's where it typically breaks down: the notion of safety and responsibility. And that's why George's post above struck a chord.

If cruising-centric sailors start bashing racers because "racers are not safe and responsible" - where should that argument lead everyone?

George, Semi, and others have mentioned the heavy safety regulations that racers have no choice but adhere to, and the great expense that goes with that. Accordingly many have acknowledged that racers do indeed take bigger risks in terms of pushing their boats on a very fixed schedule. Couple that with the potential liability faced by organizers, and you can perfectly understand the reasons for these regulations.

BUT, turn this argument around toward the cruiser who looks down her nose at "irresponsible, unsafe racers". If safety and responsibility is her driving point...especially in instances like this where an unexpectedly huge weather event was the primary cause of the disaster...how does she herself stack up in terms of safety?

Let's even say she sails the Great Lakes like those who were in this race, and is therefore subject to the same weather events. As a safety-oriented, seamanship driven sailor, does her boat have a life raft, EPIRB, PLBs and exposure suits for everyone on board, drogue, backed jackstays, ditch bag, MOB pole, etc.?

I agree with you BigZ that it's not about regulating cruisers - but if the point of the typical argument is good seamanship and safety, wouldn't EVERY cruiser WANT to be fully equipped (AT LEAST as much as a regulated racer) to deal with such a horrific event that they've seen with their own eyes? Regardless of the expense - and without the need for regulation?

What is the plaintiff cruiser's excuse for not being fully equipped? Cost? The notion that he/she doesn't take unnecessary risks in his/her sailing (and would never have gotten caught in such a squall!)? The assumption that they have it all under control because they have superior judgment?

It seems to me that the safety sermon, if it has to be preached, should be primarily directed towards fellow cruisers who are not as "prepared" as racers with regards to safety.

I just finished a 500 mile off-shore race/return in June. The boat, a Pacific Seacraft 37, was fully equipped per ORC safety regs. I felt pretty damn safe on that boat.


----------



## welshwind

dnf777 said:


> All I did was pass along my condolences, and say they were doing something they loved. That's all.
> 
> I did not say they should have or not should have done anything. I didn't comment on the boat, the crew, or passengers' responsibility or lack thereof.
> 
> Please don't drag me into a debate over something I have no firsthand knowledge of, nor do most of us here.
> 
> My condolences to the crew, family and friends. That's all.


Don't mean to pull you into anything you don't want to be in. I was simply reacting to your comment where you showed support of Smack saying Risk Assessment was up to the individual.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

smackdaddy said:


> The boat did eventually right itself (apparently):
> 
> (Again - kudos to Clean at SA)


The outboard appears deployed.

Do you know when the picture was taken??

Has the vessel been recovered??


----------



## junkrig

puddinlegs said:


> I think all that's being said is that sailing is inherently riskier than sitting on your couch...


Maybe, but probably not. Sitting on your couch is turning out to be one of the deadliest (in)activities that Americans indulge in.
Everybody dies. Some die young, some die old. Some die in wars, in cars, on sidewalks, by their own hand either intentionally or accidentally... Some smoke themselves to death, drink themselves to death, eat themselves to death... Some stress themselves to death. Some do, indeed, just get old and die. Everybody dies. 
I would say that sailing is probably, as activities go, pretty safe. A very low percentage of either cruisers or racers die in their chosen activity... way lower than commuters in their cars, I would guess. I maintain my position that beating up on those who do die in that chosen activity, whether in hindsight their boats look like a poor choice or not, is inappropriate behavior.


----------



## SEMIJim

welshwind said:


> No one said you had to be completely risk-adverse. Just make sure you are truly considering the risks and are making the trade-offs in light of your personal situation.


I have friends that ride motorcycles. I used to ride. My wife doesn't want me to have one, and I'm not real anxious to have one, because of the danger from other drivers and the lack of protection. Does that make us overly risk-adverse, or prudent?

More to the topic: My wife and I tend to avoid going out when the probability of foul weather becomes sufficiently high. Other sailors throw caution to the wind, so to speak , and go sailing. We no doubt miss many good sailing days. But then... a couple years ago, during a club race, probability of storms was realized. Much damage ensued. (No injuries, tho.) Are we too risk-adverse or were they too careless?

Everybody draws the line differently.

My initial reaction, after hearing of this tragedy and seeing the boat, was "WTF was he *thinking*?!?!" But after much reflection on the matter, I find it hard to be critical of WingNuts' skipper. *I* would not have sailed that boat in that race. Hell, *I* wouldn't have bought that boat in the first place, even if I had money to burn. But for him and his crew: She worked. Or so it seemed. I don't think it's for me to judge him. What he did was not for me, and that's all I feel I can reasonably say.

As for the minors: Either they were old enough, and mature enough, to make their own informed decisions, or they were not. In the latter case the responsibility was their guardians'.

As for CYC allowing sport boats in the Chi/Mac race: I'm reminded of a n00ze story I saw last night, relating to the media phone hacking scandals. N00ze droids were talking about how some mobile phones' voicemail was easy to hack. Then, it turned out, that was so *because the customers failed to follow setup recommendations*  So the carriers are to be blamed for carelessness on the part of users? So sport boats are to be eliminated from the competition because some people employ questionable judgement?

Jim


----------



## smackdaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> The outboard appears deployed.
> 
> Do you know when the picture was taken??
> 
> Has the vessel been recovered??


I don't think it's been recovered, based on the talk over at SA, but I don't know for sure. They're talking about coordinating a salvage.

As for the pic, Clean posted it yesterday at SA, so I think it was taken on that day.

As for the outboard it's definitely on the stern (not down below as some assumed). But, who knows if they were motoring or not?

Here is a link to 9 very scary radar readings for that storm:

‪MangosTubes's Channel‬‏ - YouTube


----------



## Sailormon6

JonEisberg said:


> I think you may be over-estimating the efficacy of auxiliary power in a situation such as this - even in considerably more moderate conditions than was seen on the lake that night, I've seen the ability of a 80-100 HP diesel to keep a 50' high performance cruising boat with a massive rig head-to-wind or maneuverable even in relatively flat water seriously compromised... In open water in such weather, an engine can become pretty useless pretty quickly, unless perhaps accompanied by the use of a trysail in an effort to maintain the boat in some sort of hove-to or fore-reaching orientation... Sure wouldn't want to try that on a Kiwi 35, however, I wouldn't consider that an option...


I'm not overestimating anything. I understand very well the limitations of auxiliary engines in those conditions, but that doesn't mean they're useless.



> I've tried to imagine what I would have done had I suddenly found myself aboard such a boat, in such a situation... Seems like running off under bare poles while streaming a drogue was pretty much their only option that night... However, if faced with such a situation, one bit of gear I would have liked to have had in my bag of tricks would have been a parachute sea anchor to have been deployed from the bow in an effort to keep the boat approximately head-to-wind, that might have offered their best chance for survival, and keeping the boat on its feet...
> 
> As always, please note the use of the word _"might"_... never having sailed a Kiwi 35, an just guessing at exactly what the crew of WING NUTS encountered that night, this is little more than a hunch on my part... But, in the post mortem analysis of this tragedy, the use of a parachute sea anchor sure might have been a nice option to have had... Highly unlikely many boats that night had such gear aboard, however...


I agree that running off under bare poles was their only option, but not with a drogue, because they don't appear to have had a drogue.

In my earlier comment, I referred to some of the comments of the crew for some of the bare facts, but we can infer a great deal from the situation itself. We can infer that they either didn't have a drogue or sea anchor, or they didn't deploy it, because there has, so far, been no mention of it being so equipped.

If you were the experienced skipper of that boat in those conditions, what would you have logically tried to do? First, you'd get the sails down, as he apparently did, because that boat would have taken off like a scalded cat in that much wind, if even a small storm jib was flying, and, in those conditions, you need to keep the boat's speed under control. Second, you'd want to turn downwind, because by running downwind, the boat becomes more stable, and you reduce the force of both the wind and the waves by running with them. But, since you are under bare poles, the boat doesn't have enough power driving it to resist the power of the waves smacking the transom, either directly or on the quarter. If a wave strikes the boat hard enough on the transom, especially on the boat's quarter, it can knock the boat beam-to the waves, and the next wave that approaches can roll the boat. Thus, as the experienced skipper of that boat, you'd have wanted to re-mount the motor, if possible, so that you could have better control of the boat's direction and speed, in order to cope with the conditions.

Also, as the waves approach the boat from astern, and as they grow in height and steepness, they lift the stern first, and the boat begins to slide down the face of the wave, just like a surfboard, increasing speed dramatically. When the boat reaches the bottom of the wave, the bow plows into the wave ahead of it, and the boat shudders to a stop, often with the stern falling to one side, exposing the boat's beam to the seas. When the boat is stopped like that, you can turn the rudder, but it won't affect ther direction of the boat. You will have lost steerageway. When the following wave strikes the boat's exposed beam, the wave can either roll the boat on its side, or roll it completely over. The best defense against that is to either deploy a drogue, which will keep the stern square to the waves, or, if you don't have a drogue, then you can use an engine running at fairly low speed, which will help keep the stern oriented properly to the waves, and which will help keep the boat moving at sufficient speed so that it has "steerageway." Alternatively, if the boat has a sea anchor, it could be deployed, as you suggested.



> Not quite understanding what you mean by "without steerageway", I've heard no indication so far that WING NUTS experienced a loss of their rudder or ability to steer. They certainly would have had steerageway if they chose to run off&#8230;


I only know of one general definition of "Steerageway." It means, " a rate of motion sufficient to make a ship or boat respond to movements of the rudder." If you can't keep the boat constantly moving through the water at a sufficient speed so that the boat will answer to the helm, then the boat is uncontrollable, and that's a dangerous situation to have in a storm. As long as the helmsman can steer the boat, he has some control over his fate. If he loses control of the boat, the helmsman becomes a mere passenger, who can no longer influence the course of events. The statement that "They certainly would have had steerageway if they chose to run off..." is simply mistaken. Whenever the boat stops making a certain minimum speed through the water, the rudder becomes ineffective to control the direction of the boat. In my previous post I referred to comments from the crew that suggested how that was likely, and in this post I have shown how a boat can lose steerageway when it is overtaken from astern by steep waves.

The notion that an outboard becomes useless in heavy weather is mistaken. When running downwind, the prop will usually stay in the water and drive the boat. I know that because I was caught in a storm in very similar conditions, and watched a nearby Cal 25 run downwind under bare poles, for 30-40 minutes, while he was running his outboard to help him maintain steerageway and keep the boat oriented square to the following waves. I have seen other outboard powered sailboats do the same many times in heavy weather on the Bay.



> Otherwise, I disagree with your final assessment, there are many designs that could have survived such conditions without "propulsion", people like the Pardeys have shown this many times over, for example&#8230;


 I agree that many boats could have survived those conditions without propulsion. I wasn't talking about those other boats. I was talking about the boat in question, in the particular circumstances in which, according to early comments from the crew, it found itself. Pardeys weren't sailing this boat, with it's unique design, and Pardeys' boats are well-equipped for surviving storms at sea, and Pardeys typically sail where they have ample sea room to adopt the storm sailing tactics that best fit the occasion.



> Being limited to running off in such waters is not a good option, suppose they had been closer to Beaver Island, for example? Being stuck aboard a boat where your sole or best chance of survivability is running towards a lee shore at night, well, that's not for me&#8230;


 It's not for me either, but you don't always get the privilege of choosing the wind direction, or the timing of the storms approach. You have to play the hand you're dealt, and hope that your advance preparation and equipment are adequate.


----------



## SloopJonB

I'm frankly surprised at the some of the discussion of this topic. That boat was manifestly unseaworthy - it was an ultra high performance daysailor, little more than a huge dinghy. Anyone can see that at a glance.

The Great Lakes are or can be extremely nasty - just ask Ted Turner who once made a public apology for downrating the conditions that the lakes can brew up.

The simple fact of the matter here is the boat should never have been allowed in that sort of race. It has nothing to do with being risk averse or demanding it in others, it is simple common sense seamanship.


----------



## smackdaddy

Co-owner Dent from interview in Saginaw MI newspaper.



> ...Dent said the crew eventually dropped the boat's sail and clipped their safety harnesses to the WingNuts. All were wearing flotation devices. We were all hunkered down and enjoying the lightning storm, he said. We didn't expect it would get much worse, Dent said.
> 
> Then this one sail got us, picked us up and pushed us straight over. Without warning, WingNuts flipped to its right and capsized, sending its tethered crew into the water, Dent said. Usually, if the boat tips, it would right itself right away, said Dent, who recalls a similar severe storm hitting the WingNuts during its first Chicago race. I couldn't say why it didn't (right itself) this time. I've thought about it a million times, and I'm sure people will be discussing for months what happened.


----------



## GeorgeB

It seems that there is a complete move away from Cat 2 safety regulations in favor of Cat 1. Cat 2 was originally intended for coastal and near coast racing whereas Cat 1 was for trans oceanic races. Races like the Chi-Mac and our Coastal Cup (and my local OYRA) have all gone to tailored Cat 1. (ISAF has added a “Cat 0” set for the Southern-Ocean, round-the world races.) An illuminating exercise for the strictly cruisers is to down-load the NOR and RR for Chi-Mac and a copy of the ISAF equipment rules and see how their boat stacks up. Everybody who does these races must sign a waiver outlining the risks. Anyone under 18 must have a parent or guardian sign too. When was the last time a cruiser made a guest sign a waiver? A Flying Scott is not going to qualify for the race. Read the NOR. The sport boats have always qualified for, and raced in the Chi-Mac. The recent development was them getting their own start rather than having to compete against the SC 50s and such.


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> Co-owner Dent from interview in Saginaw MI newspaper.


I don't understand the statement below. Did he mean a wave, not a sail? Something else?

"Then this one sail got us, picked us up and pushed us straight over."


----------



## josrulz

welshwind said:


> I don't understand the statement below. Did he mean a wave, not a sail? Something else?
> 
> "Then this one sail got us, picked us up and pushed us straight over."


I had the same reaction. Could he have meant "gust"? Of course, I'm not him, so there's no way to be sure.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> I don't understand the statement below. Did he mean a wave, not a sail? Something else?
> 
> "Then this one sail got us, picked us up and pushed us straight over."


No idea.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

I stand corrected. The boat flipped rather than pitchpoled. True sportboats have not always been allowed in the Chi-Mac. Until last year a liferaft was a requirement. Outboard powered boats were not always allowed. There is a minimum length for entrants. The engine must meet minimum propulsion speeds. You are required to carry enough fuels for 5 hours of motoring minimum etc. The multihull classes instituted restrictions that effectively banned some multi designs. This happened a couple of years ago, so yes there is a precedent for tightening up the standards.

Again, any design that needs the whole crew to stay on the rail for stability should be considered suspect as a suitable entrant for the race.


----------



## Glen53

dnf777 said:


> Stand down, sailor!
> 
> You're just looking for a fight, and you're not going to find one here.
> 
> As smack said, the risk analysis falls differently for everyone.
> 
> Since driving an automoibile on the public roadways is statistically the most dangerous activity most of us engage in, are all those millions of people who drive to work every day arrogant and self-indignant?
> 
> Go sailing. Or sit at home at look at coffee-table books, if sailing would be too arrogant.
> 
> Outta this one.
> 
> Thanks to all the others who made meaningful, educational posts.


Better re-think the coffee table books. Paper cuts can be very traumatic. 
But dnf is right, I sail knowing there are certain risks. I use common sense and years of sailing knowledge to make safe decisions, but who knows. Things happen and they can happen very fast on the Great Lakes. I refuse to speculate on any ones judgment or actions, I WASN'T THERE, and it's not my right. As all of you I feel for the victims and share my condolences. 
ps. T34 incase something does happen to me when I am doing what I was born to do, you don't need to send any flowers


----------



## puddinlegs

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not completey, just reasonably.
> 
> Everyone else who participated in this event on a more traditional vessel survived.
> 
> And my wife won't let me buy a motorcyle.


Actually, with the exception of one, all the sport boats survived. Mind you, I'm glad I wasn't on one.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sailormon6 said:


> I'm not overestimating anything. I understand very well the limitations of auxiliary engines in those conditions, but that doesn't mean they're useless.


Sorry, but I think I'll stand by my original contention that you might be overestimating the potential effectiveness of the engine we're referring to in this instance&#8230;



Sailormon6 said:


> Also, as the waves approach the boat from astern, and as they grow in height and steepness, they lift the stern first, and the boat begins to slide down the face of the wave, just like a surfboard, increasing speed dramatically. When the boat reaches the bottom of the wave, the bow plows into the wave ahead of it, and the boat shudders to a stop, often with the stern falling to one side, exposing the boat's beam to the seas. When the boat is stopped like that, you can turn the rudder, but it won't affect ther direction of the boat. You will have lost steerageway. When the following wave strikes the boat's exposed beam, the wave can either roll the boat on its side, or roll it completely over. The best defense against that is to either deploy a drogue, which will keep the stern square to the waves, or, if you don't have a drogue, then you can use an engine running at fairly low speed, which will help keep the stern oriented properly to the waves, and which will help keep the boat moving at sufficient speed so that it has "steerageway."


Agreed, the scenario of stuffing the bow and dramatically slowing the boat is a very likely one&#8230; But, the notion that a small outboard - "running at fairly low speed", no less - will provide the propulsion to keep the boat oriented dead downwind, or somehow power the bow back out of its submersion, at the very time that the engine is most likely to have been lifted clear of the water, or possibly immersed in the much less dense medium of the froth of a cresting wave, until such a time as the boat begins moving again, and the flow of water past the rudder once again establishes the ability to steer, well&#8230; I simply see that prospect being maintained repeatedly throughout the duration of the storm is HIGHLY unlikely, at the very least&#8230;

Time to take a look at the engine on WING NUTS&#8230;










One thing I think it would be safe to presume given its position so outboard of the cockpit, is that no one would be running or steering the engine independently of the helmsman&#8230; With a conventional inboard installation, the wash of the prop flowing past the rudder can provide at least some degree of directional control until boatspeed is regained, but that option does not exist with a transom-mounted outboard. The engine itself would have to be steered independently of the boat's helm whenever steerageway was lost, and I have a very hard time imagining such coordination between 2 different "helmsmen", in storm conditions&#8230;

Moreover, the effects of wind and waves that night upon a 35' boat displacing less than 3,000 pounds are going to be virtually instantaneous&#8230; Perhaps it's just me, but I think the notion that what appears to be a 9.9 HP Yamaha could maintain directional control for a prolonged period after stuffing the bow is highly optimistic, at best&#8230;

When running off, heading DDW is rarely the best course of action, one usually wants to steer somewhere between a shy run, and a broad reach - depending on the sea state/wave pattern at any given moment, of course&#8230; That's what scared me most after looking at that transom view of the Kiwi 25 for the first time, and the realization that running DDW would be the ONLY option in a survival situation&#8230; Anything closer to the wind, and you bring the likelihood of "tripping" over the leeward wing, or having 70 knots of wind get under the windward wing. This appears to be confirmed by a poster on SA who has some time aboard the Kiwi 35:



> I grew up in the Tampa Bay area and sailed on a number of Kiwi 35s shortly after they were commissioned. They are very light boats for their size and in a blow, the only thing you can do is douse the sails and aim downwind until the big blow passes. I have been privy to that experience several times. From what I read, that is what they did. The boat is an extreme, 35 foot dinghy and has to be treated as such. *It only takes getting the blast from an angle on the mast to get a wing in the water, and from there, if it is blowing that hard, to get air under the windward wing and continue on over.* Also, there is no 'down below' on a Kiwi 35. There is barely sitting room under the doghouse and the rest of the boat is crawling space only, down below.
> 
> Two People Missing in Mackinac Race - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 15





Sailormon6 said:


> I agree that running off under bare poles was their only option, but not with a drogue, because they don't appear to have had a drogue.


Well, that was pretty much my point - given the nature and characteristics of that boat, perhaps they should have had a drogue or sea anchor aboard&#8230; Surely, they had the makings of one, a weighted trysail or storm jib could have been cobbled together for use as a drogue, as might a Code 0 or reacher been used as a sea anchor&#8230; However, such a deployment in the course of a race would be highly unlikely, and very few in their situation would have resorted to such a tactic until it was too late&#8230; Getting such a sea anchor into the water, for example, would have had to have been done long before they were overtaken by storm-force winds, and in fairness very few racing crews would be likely to have done so&#8230;

Which leads me to what I consider to be the scariest aspect of being caught in such weather, in such a radical design&#8230; Namely, that there is so little margin for error, _your very first decision and choice of tactics MUST be the right one_, there would be little prospect of resorting to a "Plan B"&#8230; In a more moderate/conventional design, one most always has the time to try something else, or modify your tactics, or experiment a bit&#8230; Aboard such a boat as a Kiwi 35 that night, there would have been precious little leeway in figuring out what works, or fine-tuning your storm tactics&#8230;

Please understand, I'm not second-guessing what the crew did that night, and it's obvious from the photos we've seen that WING NUTS had been well secured for what was to come&#8230; I'm simply trying to imagine what I might have done in their shoes on such a boat, and I'm inclined to think that their only real chance of avoiding capsize would have been the deployment of a drag device, and trying to keep the boat either head-to-wind with a parachute, or stern-to the seas with a drogue&#8230;


----------



## blt2ski

Jon,

Probably most of what you are saying is correct. Also, I will swag since that boat IIRC as been owned by Mr Morley for the last 4-6 yrs, they have probably been thru a few squalls on the lake. Also probably thought it would be a normal 3-5 min blast as many said these things are. At a wind speed that was WELL under the speed that appeared that night. With this in mind, not knowing you were about to be hit by a killer blast that no one had seen before........not sure any of us, or him now, would have done anything different that what they did. We can second guess, but reality is, they were hit by a BIG freak wind, wrong boat design for this instance, over they went! How the head injuries occured is the issue for the deaths. If that had not happened, they might still be alive, boat is floating, so it took the punishment........

BUT< as many have said, not the type of boat they would want to be doing the race in. Me included. BUT I am not sure if sport boats should or should not be racing. I do think not......but.......

Marty


----------



## tankersteve

*Risk Adverse*

T34C,

Your post about being self-indulgent and arrogant struck a chord. It came across as a very broad brushstroke.

I am a Soldier in Afghanistan. I have done 2 tours in Iraq. I have a family. Am I self-indulgent and arrogant for the risks I undertake? Because this is what I do.

It is sad that lives were lost. And I am not a big fan of the boat design, especially for that type of race. But your comment has its own arrogance, as if we should all only sail on full-keel heavy displacement cruisers, or else we are taking unnecessary risk. Probably the same thoughts were given to those arrogant, ignorant fools in the 50s and 60s who thought it was safe to sail in a plastic boat.

I think you mean well, but the words you write sure come off harshly.

Tankersteve


----------



## tomandchris

It must be the "got to see the train wreck" that brought me back to this thread. After reading all the knowledge and advise spewed by quite a few arrogant ^&*()'s, I think that you may have swayed me from my original thoughts on the subject. I do think that we need some boat police out there telling everyone what is "correct" to sail and what is too risky. I have a recomendation.

Jim, you seem to be the most passionate about what is right and wrong, so you must be an expert in boat design and safety. My suggestion would be a test case and it should start in Egg Harbor. You stand at the the entrance and don't let any boat out that does not meet your standards of safety. Please use the standards suggested by many of those agreeing with you that would include dragging a semi behind them with safety equipment including lifeboats, drouges, sea anchors, and a very long line back to land. If by chance someone flips you off and attempts to go out anyway call the harbormaster and have him raise the gate to stop them. If they get through that, call the CG on Washington Is. and have them come out with their 50 Cal. and blow the bastards out of the water. After a week of this (Use vacation time) report back on your success and we will send reinforcements. Oh, and call your idiot "friend?" that did the Hook and tell him he can't sail for at least two years because of his obvious lack of knowledge of "propriety". 

Now, having had time to read through this I have a few other worries. Nascar is way too dangerous. We need a volunteer for a test ban at Daytona (talk about an opportunity for getting the bird!). Who is going to step up for that one? Do you have enough insurance? Where do I send the camera's because you're going to be frigging famous....and possibly a huge trial will follow.

Bottom line, we should ban anything in this country that ANYONE thinks is inappropriate. Let's make everybody happy...especially the experts. They are the guys that don't need to tie their docklines....they are never untied!


----------



## puddinlegs

welshwind said:


> Do you really think the 15 and 16-year old on the boat were able to accurately assess the risk? I don't. The Kiwi 35 should not have been in the race. It is not made for offshore racing.


And neither are most of the sport boats, though they all survived except for the Kiwi... actually, the boat did survive. They usually do. It's the 'software' that doesn't travel so well. The kids' parents thought that the more experienced sailors on the boat were able to access the risk just fine. Anecdotally, years ago, a local boat (C&C 40) where I grew up was always delivered by the owner's kids, 16 and 14, up and down Lake Michigan and Huron for the Mac races. A local sailor here was surprised by his kids (17 and 14 I think) a couple of weeks back. The kids took their old Swan 37 through the local locks, ship canal, and a 4 mile delivery so they could do a beer can race as a family. An old friend pretty much ran a big budget IOR boat when he was 19 including all the delivery work. Not saying all kids are ready for this, but there are many notable exceptions. Parents are the best judges of what their kids are capable of. Hopefully we 'interwebs' armchair QB's will never be... accept for our own children of course!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

puddinlegs said:


> Actually, with the exception of one, all the sport boats survived. Mind you, I'm glad I wasn't on one.


That's true, the other sport boats were lucky. They could have been lucky AND safer on a traditional boat!!


----------



## Tweegs

Well, the Bay/Mac starts tomorrow. Think I’ll sail out Interstate 69 and see them off.
Of course, strong storms are predicted throughout the weekend.

Raise a glass and wish them safe passage…what say ye?


----------



## PCP

tomandchris said:


> ...
> Now, having had time to read through this I have a few other worries. Nascar is way too dangerous. We need a volunteer for a test ban at Daytona (talk about an opportunity for getting the bird!). Who is going to step up for that one? Do you have enough insurance? Where do I send the camera's because you're going to be frigging famous....and possibly a huge trial will follow.
> 
> Bottom line, we should ban anything in this country that ANYONE thinks is inappropriate. Let's make everybody happy...especially the experts. They are the guys that don't need to tie their docklines....they are never untied!




In sailing there is some confusion about racing as a top sport event and racing as a social meeting. If racing is done at top level in a top racer it is expected that a top racing boat should be driven be a top racing crew.

Going to your car analogy, I am a good drive, put me on a Sunday race with a 200 hp light sport car and probably I will be last but should have no problem in making the race and have lot's of fun. Put me on the wheel of a F1 car and I am pretty sure I will be out of the track in half a lap.

Going from there to say that a F1 car is dangerous is ridiculous. It is not the car that is dangerous but the "pilot" that is not good enough.

The Kiwi 35 is a pretty radical boat, a very fast one and one demanding a top racing crew, an athlete crew that knows the boat very well. Going from there to say that any boat that demands that the crew is most of the time on a wing for balancing the boat on a 300 nm race should not be allowed to race makes no sense. That should not be a problem for a racing crew that takes this as a true sporting event. Many races demand bigger efforts by the crew that obviously has to be up to those demands: Athletes

One of the sail racing that demand huge physical efforts is raid racing in small cats. They make offshore legs for endless hours and obviously they take risks:

‪Raid Revenge -- top F18-sailors challenge the Stockholm Archipelago‬‏ - YouTube

Shoud this kind of race be forbidden? Off course not, there are no causalities (that I know off) on this kind of race and even if there were (as a rare event) so there are in motor sport, horse riding, aerobatics, diving and almost in every action sport.

By the way someone had said that the blow was forecast on the weather report.

What was forecast was a 30k blow. If a 70 or 100k blow was forecast the race would have been postponed.

Reports

Paulo


----------



## Glen53

Tweegs said:


> Well, they Bay/Mac starts tomorrow. Think I'll sail out Interstate 69 and see them off.
> Of course, strong storms are predicted throughout the weekend.
> 
> Raise a glass and wish them safe passage&#8230;what say ye?


I will be going to Port Huron tonight myself to walk the docks. It's a Michigan tradition called "Boat Night" Many of the boats that will be there are from the Clinton River, this is the same river my little 25 Catalina is on. I know some of these boats and there crew. It's a Grand Old Race, and I wish them Gods Speed and a safe run.


----------



## smackdaddy

Tweegs said:


> Well, they Bay/Mac starts tomorrow. Think I'll sail out Interstate 69 and see them off.
> Of course, strong storms are predicted throughout the weekend.
> 
> Raise a glass and wish them safe passage&#8230;what say ye?


Here's to a great and safe race!


----------



## smackdaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> That's true, the other sport boats were lucky. They could have been lucky AND safer on a traditional boat!!


----------



## blt2ski

I do not think "LUCK" and "SAFE" are in the same bracket!

Marty


----------



## Barquito

I don't know aerodynamics at all, but, I bet with a 100kt+ wind, that boat (and maybe others) could have gotten airborne. Just the sheet load from a 45 sq ft sail in 100kt wind would be something like a few thousand pounds... maybe thats why they call them wings... sorry couldn't resist. At the very least the forces involved in those kinds of winds would be an order of magnitude greater than what most sailors are comfortable with.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

blt2ski said:


> I do not think "LUCK" and "SAFE" are in the same bracket!
> 
> Marty


Careful, you are headed to face-palm territory!! :laugher


----------



## JonEisberg

tomandchris said:


> After reading all the knowledge and advise spewed by quite a few arrogant ^&*()'s, I think that you may have swayed me from my original thoughts on the subject.


I'll presume you're including myself among those arrogant ^&*()'s&#8230; Not sure I should even bother addressing such a hysterical, overwrought misinterpretation and over-reaction to what I've written in this thread, but&#8230; what the hell, I'll give it a whirl&#8230;

I won't presume to speak for anyone else, but I personally am not calling for a "ban" on sailing particular kinds of boats, I believe people should be free to make their own choices. To say that I would not care to do the Chicago-Mackinac on a Kiwi 35 does not necessarily mean anyone else should be prevented from doing so&#8230; That choice should be left to the sailors themselves, and the organizing race committees&#8230; I'm simply suggesting that making such an offshore passage aboard a 35' dinghy with such a radical hull design is rolling the dice BIGTIME, and none of us should be surprised when such a boat capsizes in conditions that are not that improbable on Lake Michigan in July&#8230; That has nothing to do with the skill of the crew, it's a matter of simple physics&#8230; And anyone who cannot understand that, after even the most cursory glance at the stern view of a Kiwi 35, and a quick review of the specs, really needs to spend some time with books like DESIRABLE AND UNDESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE OFFSHORE SAILING YACHT, or Steve Killing's YACHT DESIGN EXPLAINED...



tomandchris said:


> Please use the standards suggested by many of those agreeing with you that would include dragging a semi behind them with safety equipment including lifeboats, drouges, sea anchors, and a very long line back to land.


Of course, I was suggesting no such thing&#8230;

I simply look at such a boat, one so unsuited for offshore sailing in storm-force conditions on which the more traditional storm tactics such as heaving-to or forereaching would not be an option, and try to imagine what approach would be most likely to avoid capsize&#8230; We'll never know, of course, but my best guess would lie in the deployment of a drag device to attempt to avert a beam-to exposure to the wind and waves, and that's the sort of gear I'd want to have aboard on such a boat, in such a situation&#8230; Others may differ in their opinion, of course, and they should be free to make their own choices whether or not to carry such gear... As with my mention of liferafts, I'm not necessarily suggesting they be mandatory - I'm simply saying that, given the legal climate that prevails today, I'm a bit surprised they are not&#8230; And, that if I were skippering a boat in that race, in consideration for the ultimate safety of my crew, I'd want to have a raft aboard, and would happily accept the modest weight disadvantage to boats choosing to forego carrying a raft&#8230;



tomandchris said:


> Bottom line, we should ban anything in this country that ANYONE thinks is inappropriate. Let's make everybody happy...especially the experts. They are the guys that don't need to tie their docklines....they are never untied!


Have fun with your hyperbolic nonsense, but I'm hard-pressed to see anywhere in this thread where someone is suggesting anything of the sort&#8230; But, since you mention NASCAR&#8230;

In all probability, Dale Earnhardt would have survived his wreck at Daytona had he been wearing a HANS device, a head and neck restraint which was technology available to drivers at the time&#8230; Driver safety in racing has been immeasurably improved in the wake of such tragedies, by the sort of post-mortem discussion and analysis we are having here. No one is proposing an outright "ban" on such activities, we're simply discussing how such a tragedy as befell the crew of WING NUTS might be averted in the future&#8230; My own contribution to the discussion is tossing out the idea that a drogue or parachute might have given the crew a fighting chance to keep that boat on her feet, nothing more, and nothing less&#8230;


----------



## Sailormon6

JonEisberg said:


> ...I'm inclined to think that their only real chance of avoiding capsize would have been the deployment of a drag device, and trying to keep the boat either head-to-wind with a parachute, or stern-to the seas with a drogue&#8230;


We could quibble over the fine points, but I agree with the above conclusion, as well as your observation that, on this boat, you might only have one chance to select the correct tactics.

Do you think the race organizers should make either a drogue or sea anchor mandatory equipment for the Chi-Mac? Many racers practically require crew to break the handle off their toothbrushes to save weight, and they simply wouldn't carry one unless required. If the Chi-Mac is, for practical purposes, the approximate equivalent of a blue water race, shouldn't they be required, as a minimum, to carry the safety equipment that would be considered essential on a well-found bluewater yacht?


----------



## welshwind

puddinlegs said:


> And neither are most of the sport boats, though they all survived except for the Kiwi... actually, the boat did survive. They usually do. It's the 'software' that doesn't travel so well. The kids' parents thought that the more experienced sailors on the boat were able to access the risk just fine. Anecdotally, years ago, a local boat (C&C 40) where I grew up was always delivered by the owner's kids, 16 and 14, up and down Lake Michigan and Huron for the Mac races. A local sailor here was surprised by his kids (17 and 14 I think) a couple of weeks back. The kids took their old Swan 37 through the local locks, ship canal, and a 4 mile delivery so they could do a beer can race as a family. An old friend pretty much ran a big budget IOR boat when he was 19 including all the delivery work. Not saying all kids are ready for this, but there are many notable exceptions. Parents are the best judges of what their kids are capable of. Hopefully we 'interwebs' armchair QB's will never be... accept for our own children of course!


I'm not exactly sure of your point. Just because some have done it and survived is not an argument that doing it is prudent. Some people have fallen out of a five story window and survived, but I wouldn't use that as an argument that it is a fine thing to do.

Let me explain my thought using a different example. If some experienced sailing idiot wants to sail a 16-ft Hobie Cat across the Atlantic, go right ahead. I'm OK with that. (I wouldn't be in favor of any rescue organization spending a dime to save him (or her) if they ran into trouble.) But let's say that idiot convinced his neighbor ... who has absolutely no sailing experience ... to join him. Here is where I begin to have an issue. You could argue that yes, the neighbor is going of their own free will. But they do not have the knowledge to accurately assess the risks. It is the captain who has to ultimately be responsible and decide if it is proper or not ... and he (or she) has to take the crew and all possible conditions into consideration.

There are plenty of studies out there that show 15- and 16-year olds are horrible at assessing risk. They come up every time the government talks about changing the driving rules for young drivers. Studies have shown that the part of the brain that assesses risk has not fully developed.

In this particular case, the parents may have known exactly the risks and decided to let them go. OK. I'm not trying to take away parents rights. But the onus of what occurred out there falls squarely on the captains shoulders and I, for one, am not afraid to say that I believe the Kiwi 35 did not belong in the race. It is just my opinion. I'm not saying I'm ultimately right or wrong, just letting you know my opinion.


----------



## welshwind

On a somewhat lighter note, here is a link to a 45 minute video called Race to Mackinac. It is done by Geoffrey Baer for Chicago's PBS station WTTW and their show Chicago Stories. He sails on a T10 while another camera man sails on a GL70. As with most of Geoffrey's shows, he gets into some history along the way.

The Race to Mackinac - WTTW


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> One of the things I've always really liked about SailNet is that it's a mix of racers and cruisers. Because of that, it's got a pretty good representation of advice and experience that's neither overly conservative (for the most part) nor overly extreme. So, as its name implies, it's more about sailing in general...but with some cajones (for the most part).
> 
> Some people don't like the idea of the racers-vs-cruisers mentality in these debates. And I actually think it's pretty silly when something like that breaks out. That's because I think that racing DEFINITELY builds your sailing skills far more quickly than cruising. On the other hand, cruising helps you learn and focus on things that become somewhat secondary in racing. So it can actually be a very good balance, all combining to make you a better _sailor_.
> 
> But here's where it typically breaks down: the notion of safety and responsibility. And that's why George's post above struck a chord.
> 
> If cruising-centric sailors start bashing racers because "racers are not safe and responsible" - where should that argument lead everyone?
> 
> George, Semi, and others have mentioned the heavy safety regulations that racers have no choice but adhere to, and the great expense that goes with that. Accordingly many have acknowledged that racers do indeed take bigger risks in terms of pushing their boats on a very fixed schedule. Couple that with the potential liability faced by organizers, and you can perfectly understand the reasons for these regulations.
> 
> BUT, turn this argument around toward the cruiser who looks down her nose at "irresponsible, unsafe racers". If safety and responsibility is her driving point...especially in instances like this where an unexpectedly huge weather event was the primary cause of the disaster...how does she herself stack up in terms of safety?
> 
> Let's even say she sails the Great Lakes like those who were in this race, and is therefore subject to the same weather events. As a safety-oriented, seamanship driven sailor, does her boat have a life raft, EPIRB, PLBs and exposure suits for everyone on board, drogue, backed jackstays, ditch bag, MOB pole, etc.?
> 
> I agree with you BigZ that it's not about regulating cruisers - but if the point of the typical argument is good seamanship and safety, wouldn't EVERY cruiser WANT to be fully equipped (AT LEAST as much as a regulated racer) to deal with such a horrific event that they've seen with their own eyes? Regardless of the expense - and without the need for regulation?
> 
> What is the plaintiff cruiser's excuse for not being fully equipped? Cost? The notion that he/she doesn't take unnecessary risks in his/her sailing (and would never have gotten caught in such a squall!)? The assumption that they have it all under control because they have superior judgment?
> 
> It seems to me that the safety sermon, if it has to be preached, should be primarily directed towards fellow cruisers who are not as "prepared" as racers with regards to safety.
> 
> I just finished a 500 mile off-shore race/return in June. The boat, a Pacific Seacraft 37, was fully equipped per ORC safety regs. I felt pretty damn safe on that boat.


Smack- Good post, but there are a few of holes in your logic. 1) it assumes that someone is either a cruiser OR a race. The fact is that many cruisers also race, on their own boats and on those of others. Most racers also cruise to some extent with family and friends. They are not mutually exclusive. 2) When the weather goes to crap most cruisers are happy to sit at the dock/anchorage and wait for a better weather window. Racers don't get to pick that window, you're either in the race or not. The crew of WingNuts knew well in advance of the approaching storm. Their preparedness bares that out. But, have you read any reports of them firing up the motor and heading to port? How about the crews of any of the other boats in the race? A cruiser would have likely been holed up in some anchorage by the time that storm hit and it wouldn't have been an issue. 3) Full time cruising sailors (at least in the US) tend to choose much heavier over built boats that will survive a blow better than an extremely light edgy designed sport boat.


----------



## T34C

Some people keep claiming that the storm swept thru the Mac was "unusual" or a "had never happened before". I gotta call BS. The Great Lakes in general and Lake Michigan in particular ALWAYS generate big storms that sweep thru this time of year, every year. The sailors that say they've never seen anything like are able to say that because when they see something like that coming, they don't go out! The only thing really unusual is the timing of the event. It just happened to coincide with the race this year.


----------



## welshwind

*White Hurricane*

For those of you who like to read some history on Great Lakes storms, there is a good book called White Hurricane which describes a late season storm across Lake Superior, northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and the damage it wrought.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sailormon6 said:


> If the Chi-Mac is, for practical purposes, the approximate equivalent of a blue water race, shouldn't they be required, as a minimum, to carry the safety equipment that would be considered essential on a well-found bluewater yacht?


The simple, straightforward answer to this is categorically no. And this is for three reasons...

FIRST, how many yachts in the Great Lakes region carry, at a minimum, your full compliment of safety equipment, or even the amount of safety equipment required in these races? And how many of those routinely train anyone and everyone on their boat in these areas? I think you'd have to agree that that number is pretty low...even for "well-found bluewater" yachts sailing these lakes (or any other waters anywhere).

So, as I mentioned in my post above, right off the bat this is a false argument. You should first work on your fellow cruisers and get, say, 90% of them up to the safety standards for these races (voluntarily) - then start making changes for others. This would actually be a tremendous public service.

SECOND, yours and these other kinds of arguments are neglecting one very important point...that this was, _*according to the people that were actually there and who had done this race for decades*_, an aberration of a storm. WAY beyond anything anyone had seen before. Bear in mind, we're talking ~100 knots in some areas. What is that on the Beaufort scale? Here's a visual aid:










Are we to assume that the tree, flagpole and house were funky one-designs that had no business being there? Or are we to say, as the Beaufort scale itself does, that such conditions are widely destructive? That these are purely survival conditions?

My point is this, the probability of these conditions in this area at this time were very, very small - as has been borne out by sailors who've done this race for decades (see SA) and seen many, many of these squalls. This was the risk calculus ALL these guys were sailing under (like any of us). Let's say, for the sake of argument, this kind of storm is a 1%-er. Do you really want to use that as an example to enact widespread regulation across an activity?

Should any and all boats be prepared to adequately handle F12 survival conditions? Is that the minimum standard? Really? Good luck with that.

Should all buildings in a 1000 year flood plain be on stilts? Or all buildings in Kansas be tornado proof?



JonEisberg said:


> I simply look at such a boat, one so unsuited for offshore sailing in storm-force conditions on which the more traditional storm tactics such as heaving-to or forereaching would not be an option, and try to imagine what approach would be most likely to avoid capsize&#8230;


Jon, though I don't always agree with you, I'm definitely not one that holds you're among the "arrogant ^&*()'s". I've only seen one or two of those around here - and you ain't one of them. But, c'mon, of course this boat was unsuited for sailing in storm-force conditions, along with many others in that race. But it's not like they just went out and merrily _sailed into_ those conditions. They got caught - along with everyone else.

Had _Wingnuts_ capsized in 30 or even 40 knots (which according to stories I've seen, it had been through just fine in past races) outrage over its design would be perfectly merited. But that was not the case. Unfortunately, in this case, the boat became a kite - because of up to 100 knot winds...freak winds. Winds that they were not prepared for, winds that no one was prepared for, winds that caught them, and everyone out there by surprise because they only happen 1% of the time.

Yes, at that point, the boat's design was especially vulnerable, but how many "well-found bluewater yachts" (or even ships) have been lost in F12 conditions?

THIRD, the whole risk debate is ridiculous.



welshwind said:


> I'm not exactly sure of your point. Just because some have done it and survived is not an argument that doing it is prudent. Some people have fallen out of a five story window and survived, but I wouldn't use that as an argument that it is a fine thing to do.


I mean, where do you even start with stuff like this? It's really, really simple. Some activities are riskier than others. Those that take the risk in order to do those activities accept that risk - which typically means that you or someone else can get hurt or killed (climbing, skiing, motorcycling, sailing, skydiving, and on and on). That's just the way it is.

If you're one of those that think that taking a risk is "irresponsible" you shouldn't take it. Stay home.

No one is trying to regulate your couch. So, please, stop preaching from it and let the rest of us have some fun.


----------



## Barquito

> Some people keep claiming that the storm swept thru the Mac was "unusual" or a "had never happened before". I gotta call BS.


I agree. Midwesterners hear of major damage from straight-line winds occasionally. Any of those storms would have had the same effects on a sailboat. The only argument is if the fleet should have somehow avoided this storm or sailed through it. Probably they did not have any way of knowing that storm would produce sustained 100kt+ winds vs. short-lived 60kt winds.

BTW, NOAA reports there were 4383 storms between 1950-2011 that produced winds greater than 100kt. Probably most of those were tornados, however. (which is also a possibility sailing Lake Michigan)


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Smack- Good post, but there are a few of holes in your logic. 1) it assumes that someone is either a cruiser OR a race. The fact is that many cruisers also race, on their own boats and on those of others. Most racers also cruise to some extent with family and friends. They are not mutually exclusive. 2) When the weather goes to crap most cruisers are happy to sit at the dock/anchorage and wait for a better weather window. Racers don't get to pick that window, you're either in the race or not. The crew of WingNuts knew well in advance of the approaching storm. Their preparedness bares that out. But, have you read any reports of them firing up the motor and heading to port? How about the crews of any of the other boats in the race? A cruiser would have likely been holed up in some anchorage by the time that storm hit and it wouldn't have been an issue. *3) Full time cruising sailors (at least in the US) tend to choose much heavier over built boats that will survive a blow better than an extremely light edgy designed sport boat.*


Why? What's the point if they're already at the dock when the weather gets rough?

Holey Logic Batman! Heh-heh.


----------



## Glen53

welshwind said:


> For those of you who like to read some history on Great Lakes storms, there is a good book called White Hurricane which describes a late season storm across Lake Superior, northern Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and the damage it wrought.


This is a good book, but to get a quick feel for that particular storm (November 1913) there is some information in Wikipedia
Great Lakes Storm of 1913 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## blt2ski

This squall was probably more inline with the squall in the movie "white squall". Granted the boat that was in the movie was as strong as any, "IF" this squall on LM was of equal density, it is surprising more boats were not lost frankly! 

I also do not see anyone saying that Sport boats like the kiwi should have been out there per say, not anyone wanting to be on a SB on that lake in that race.....I'm included, even on a nice day I am not sure I would want to be on a boat of that nature for 30-48 hrs. Even my 30', smacks smacktanic with better inside sleeping conditions, potential for heat, cooking etc would have better. Now whether or not they would have survived per say, that is another story. But also as pointed out, the boat did survive looking generally undamaged. It is the humans that were damaged! The boat itself is obviously strong enough to handle the conditions. Not that the latter is a reason to allow or not allow a boat of this design.......

Then again, if there would have been a fleet of opti's off the beach, say a NA championship or equal for youths, this happened in mid day, some did not make it to shore with the sounds like 2-3 hr warning........who would be to blame per say, then again, I have gone on to a tangent in this arena too. 

Too many questions, not enough answers.

Marty


----------



## jfdubu

We can all Monday morning QB the captain and crew of Wingnuts but by all accounts they were good sailors and it's sad to see something like this happen.

Read the following link and then try to make the cruiser vs racer mentality.

After I read this I was horrified to think of; 1) what it must of been like and 2) what would I do and could I handle something like this.

The answer to #2 scares the hell out me but I won't stop sailing.

Chicago-Mackinac Race


----------



## dnf777

FWIW,
If I misinterpreted or overreacted to T34's comments, I apologize. 
I think the rhetoric got whipped up like a Great Lakes storm, so before anyone else capsizes, I'd like to say, "no hard feelings".

Let's all have a fun, safe, weekend.

Dave


----------



## Sailormon6

smackdaddy said:


> The simple, straightforward answer to this is categorically no. And this is for three reasons...
> 
> *FIRST, how many yachts in the Great Lakes region carry, at a minimum, your full compliment of safety equipment, or even the amount of safety equipment required in these races?* And how many of those routinely train anyone and everyone on their boat in these areas? I think you'd have to agree that that number is pretty low...even for "well-found bluewater" yachts sailing these lakes (or any other waters anywhere).
> 
> So, as I mentioned in my post above, right off the bat this is a false argument. *You should first work on your fellow cruisers and get, say, 90% of them up to the safety standards for these races (voluntarily) - then start making changes for others.* This would actually be a tremendous public service.


I can't agree, Smacky. By far, the majority of cruising yachts in the area never get far enough from shelter to need drogues and sea anchors, and most either head for shelter when a storm approaches, or don't even leave their marina when one is expected. Racers aren't of that mind-set. They intend to tough it out, come-what-may. If cruisers don't intend to tough it out, come-what-may, they probably will never need drogues and sea anchors. The people who should be equipped with that stuff are the long distance, open water racers, who are much more likely to need them.



> SECOND, yours and these other kinds of arguments are neglecting one very important point...that this was, _*according to the people that were actually there and who had done this race for decades*_, an aberration of a storm. WAY beyond anything anyone had seen before. Bear in mind, we're talking ~100 knots in some areas.
> ...
> My point is this, the probability of these conditions in this area at this time were very, very small - as has been borne out by sailors who've done this race for decades (see SA) and seen many, many of these squalls. This was the risk probability ALL these guys were sailing under (like any of us). Let's say, for the sake of argument, this kind of storm is a 1%-er. Do you really want to use that as an example to enact widespread regulation across an activity?
> 
> Should any and all boats be prepared to adequately handle F12 survival conditions? Is that the minimum standard? Really? Good luck with that.
> 
> Should all buildings in a 1000 year flood plain be on stilts? Or all buildings in Kansas be tornado proof?


I agree that there is a break-point, when the risk becomes too remote to justify the financial burdens that would be imposed in order to reduce the risk, but I don't think you have made out a good argument that the risk, in this context, is too remote.

Your argument is that winds of this force are rare, but the windspeed doesn't have to reach all the way to 100-115 in order to present a significant danger to racing yachts, and especially to yachts in which safety concessions are made in their design, in order to maximize speed.

Moreover, as others have shown, similar conditions are not unknown in the area.

In adopting regulations, the question must always be asked whether people can be trusted to make reasonable judgments on their own, or are they so driven by their competitive desire that their better judgment takes a back seat to their own safety, and that of their crew, and so that the only way to maintain a proper balance between safety and the need for speed is to mandate the carrying of certain safety equipment?

Nobody loves racing more than I do, and I understand the expense involved in racing, but I want to live to race again and again.

To be clear, I haven't formed a firm opinion on the subject. I'm just asking the question.



> Had _Wingnuts_ capsized in 30 or even 40 knots (which according to stories I've seen, it had been through in past races) outrage over its design would be perfectly merited. But that was not the case. Unfortunately, in this case, the boat became a kite - because of up to 100 knot winds...freak winds.


 I might have missed something, but I don't remember anyone answering the key question of whether the boat was overturned by a wave or by a gust of wind. I'm not sure that distinction is crucial, but I'd like to know the answer before condemning the design as unsafe, because I'm inclined to think that, even with it's wings, either a drogue or a sea anchor might have saved the boat from capsizing. If that's so, then it might not be fair to call the boat unsuitable for it's designed purpose; i.e., if, with the necessary equipment and in the exercise of good seamanship practices, it is capable of remaining upright and structurally intact in a storm of such severity. If the boat could have remained upright and intact by the use of the proper equipment and exercise of good seamanship, then the most immediate cause of the capsize was not it's design, but improper boat handling.



> THIRD, the whole risk debate is ridiculous.
> 
> I mean, where do you even start with stuff like this? It's really, really simple. Some activities are riskier than others. Those that take the risk in order to do those activities accept that risk - which typically means that you or someone else can get hurt or killed (climbing, skiing, motorcycling, sailing, skydiving, and on and on). That's just the way it is.
> 
> If you're one of those that think that taking a risk is "irresponsible" you shouldn't take it. Stay home.
> 
> No one is trying to regulate your couch. So, please, stop preaching from it and let the rest of us have some fun.


I agree generally, but we're not just talking about singlehanded racers, who are only putting themselves in harm's way. We're talking about racers who are taking along their friends and neighbors and relatives, and their adolescent children, as crew. If they do so on an unsafe boat, or a boat that is not properly equipped with the safety equipment which might be necessary to cope with conditions that might reasonably be anticipated, they are putting others at risk, who might not know enough about the sport to ask whether the boat is properly equipped. I have no problem with adults making an informed decision, and accepting risk to themselves, but I don't like to see unknowing people lured into a false sense of security, trusting that their "expert" neighbor has all the necessary safety equipment on board.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sailormon6 said:


> I agree generally, but we're not just talking about singlehanded racers, who are only putting themselves in harm's way. We're talking about racers who are taking along their friends and neighbors and relatives, and their adolescent children, as crew. If they do so on an unsafe boat, or a boat that is not properly equipped with the safety equipment which might be necessary to cope with conditions that might reasonably be anticipated, they are putting others at risk, who might not know enough about the sport to ask whether the boat is properly equipped. I have no problem with adults making an informed decision, and accepting risk to themselves, but I don't like to see unknowing people lured into a false sense of security, trusting that their "expert" neighbor has all the necessary safety equipment on board.


Okay - well, I think your excusing cruisers from good seamanship for all the reasons you mention is pretty lame. Fast moving squalls catch almost everyone at some point. But, fair enough.

And, of course winds don't have to reach 100 knots to be dangerous...but the point is that in this case _they did_. So trying to make any other hypothetical argument here is a real reach. But, fair enough.

On the comment above, generally you have a point. But in this specific case, unless you personally know all these people or have read something somewhere I haven't, I think you're making some serious assumptions. And, because those assumptions undergird your apparent condemnation of the skippering, parenting, and/or guardianship of the adults in this family...I think you're on pretty thin ice.


----------



## puddinlegs

Sailormon, what's eminently clear is that you have little racing experience. I question your knowledge of safety rules and regulations as applied to any race, yet alone the Chicago Mac. Your whole 'cruisers' would'a' comes up with every incident of this type. I will say that at this moment, if we checked the safety gear on every 33- 34' sailboat in the area, the race boats will all carry more and have more experience actually practicing and deploying their gear. Cat I races require it. By comparison, there are very few comments made on the numerous cruising boat groundings/fatalities, etc.. Sure, the Kiwi might be banned in the future, but this condemnation of parents, etc... is just safety ninny junk. Applying your levels of risk to all other sailors is not tenable, even for cruisers. If so, none would ever undertake a offshore passage. And remember, there are few points on Lake Michigan that are more than 40mi from shelter... or looking at it from your point of view, a treacherous lee shore.


----------



## Tweegs

jfdubu said:


> We can all Monday morning QB the captain and crew of Wingnuts but by all accounts they were good sailors and it's sad to see something like this happen.
> 
> Read the following link and then try to make the cruiser vs racer mentality.
> 
> After I read this I was horrified to think of; 1) what it must of been like and 2) what would I do and could I handle something like this.
> 
> The answer to #2 scares the hell out me but I won't stop sailing.
> 
> Chicago-Mackinac Race


I'm right there with ya.

This being our second year, we confine ourselves mostly to day sailing where we can pick and choose the days to go out.

It's all well and good, but at some point we have to get out there and engage the heavier stuff. The future holds more than day cruises for us.

I have confidence that the boat can handle rough weather, it's confidence in my own ability to handle the same weather that's in question.


----------



## smackdaddy

Tweegs said:


> I'm right there with ya.
> 
> This being our second year, we confine ourselves mostly to day sailing where we can pick and choose the days to go out.
> 
> It's all well and good, but at some point we have to get out there and engage the heavier stuff. The future holds more than day cruises for us.
> 
> I have confidence that the boat can handle rough weather, it's confidence in my own ability to handle the same weather that's in question.


Just take it in small steps, dude - you'll get it.


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> I mean, where do you even start with stuff like this? It's really, really simple. Some activities are riskier than others. Those that take the risk in order to do those activities accept that risk - which typically means that you or someone else can get hurt or killed (climbing, skiing, motorcycling, sailing, skydiving, and on and on). That's just the way it is.


The first thing you do is not take quotes out of context.

Look ... If the skipper of Kiwi 35 was sailing solo, I would have no issue... go at it. Your life is in your hands. When you start putting other people in danger ... both those on your boat and those who will have to do a rescue ... is when I have an issue. While I would never basejump, I have no issue with those that do. If they hit the face of the cliff they jump off, they die or get seriously hurt ... and no one else.

If in the end, it becomes known that everyone on Wingnuts knew it was a very unstable and very light boat from the beginning (including the parents of the children on board), then OK. But I've done the Mac and know a lot of folks who have. I can assure you MOST boats have some crew who do not fully comprehend what they are getting into and are surprised by a number of things.

I'm not trying to legislate anything. As I said before, I'm not claiming my opinion is the 'true' right or wrong. But I have an opinion and I shared it.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> The first thing you do is not take quotes out of context.
> 
> Look ... If the skipper of Kiwi 35 was sailing solo, I would have no issue... go at it. Your life is in your hands. When you start putting other people in danger ... both those on your boat and those who will have to do a rescue ... is when I have an issue. While I would never basejump, I have no issue with those that do. If they hit the face of the cliff they jump off, they die or get seriously hurt ... and no one else.
> 
> If in the end, it becomes known that everyone on Wingnuts knew it was a very unstable and very light boat from the beginning (including the parents of the children on board), then OK. But I've done the Mac and know a lot of folks who have. I can assure you MOST boats have some crew who do not fully comprehend what they are getting into and are surprised by a number of things.
> 
> I'm not trying to legislate anything. As I said before, I'm not claiming my opinion is the 'true' right or wrong. But I have an opinion and I shared it.


I have no idea what the people (mostly family members) on that boat, or their extended family, knew or didn't know. And I don't think anyone here does. So I don't think it's cool to make assumptions on them to frame some argument on a forum.

However, in regards to your larger point, I, my wife, and our two young boys (7 and 11) are rock climbers. My wife and I have climbed since before we met, and were hanging our sleeping 3 month old from a tree in a baby-backpack at the wall after we had kids. So they've been around it all their lives.

See, it's what we as a family do. It's our thing. Just like sailing, skiing, or any other more "adventurous" activity.

Is it risky? No doubt. Do they fully comprehend the risk? No. They're kids. Do we as parents go out of our way to make sure we are all as safe as we can be? Absolutely.

Is this enough for the safety nazis? No way. There's still risk.

So where is the line drawn on what's "acceptable risk" when it comes to what my (or any) family does? Who judges that?

PS - From purely a seamanship perspective, distance solo sailing is probably the least responsible form of sailing there is.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sailormon6 said:


> Do you think the race organizers should make either a drogue or sea anchor mandatory equipment for the Chi-Mac? Many racers practically require crew to break the handle off their toothbrushes to save weight, and they simply wouldn't carry one unless required. If the Chi-Mac is, for practical purposes, the approximate equivalent of a blue water race, shouldn't they be required, as a minimum, to carry the safety equipment that would be considered essential on a well-found bluewater yacht?


Short answer is No&#8230;

I certainly don't consider myself qualified to determine what sort of gear should be mandatory for such a race, that's for the organizers/sanctioning bodies to determine&#8230; I would most likely be inclined to require far LESS than most others might, I'm all in favor of allowing sailors to make their own choices about such things. I'm only alluding to what sort of gear *I* would consider necessary for my crew's safety, and I would definitely want a drag device if I were sailing a boat so prone to capsize, or where heaving-to or similar would not be an option in dealing with a blow&#8230;

We all assess risk differently, of course&#8230; For example, I do quite a bit of singlehanded sailing, which of course is in violation of COLREGS and a type of sailing many people consider to pose an unacceptable degree of risk. People are certainly entitled to consider me a fool for doing so, fair enough&#8230; Like sailing a dinghy in the Chicago-Mac, it's a roll of the dice.. I'll gladly take my chances, and do everything within my power to minimize the risk, but if I should get run down by a supertanker some day, I wouldn't expect people to be wringing their hands, wondering "how could it have happened?", or "how can this be prevented from happening again?", whatever&#8230; The answer would be pretty simple: "The dumbass went to SLEEP, what the hell did he EXPECT?" (grin)



smackdaddy said:


> Jon, though I don't always agree with you, I'm definitely not one that holds you're among the "arrogant ^&*()'s". I've only seen one or two of those around here - and you ain't one of them. But, c'mon, of course this boat was unsuited for sailing in storm-force conditions, along with many others in that race. But it's not like they just went out and merrily _sailed into_ those conditions. They got caught - along with everyone else.
> 
> Had _Wingnuts_ capsized in 30 or even 40 knots (which according to stories I've seen, it had been through just fine in past races) outrage over its design would be perfectly merited. But that was not the case. Unfortunately, in this case, the boat became a kite - because of up to 100 knot winds...freak winds. Winds that they were not prepared for, winds that no one was prepared for, winds that caught them, and everyone out there by surprise because they only happen 1% of the time.


Well, I'm still comfortable with my original assertion, that a Kiwi 35 is definitely not an offshore boat, and sailing one offshore would entail a level of risk I would not care to take&#8230; And, forget about 100 kt winds, that boat would have been at extreme risk of capsize in winds and seas of far lesser strength&#8230;

I think you and I probably have differing notions of what constitutes an offshore/open water passage&#8230; When you leave one port for another 300+ miles distant with no intention of stopping, you are indeed _sailing into_ whatever you might get _caught in_ along the way&#8230; To view any open water passage in any other manner than preparing for a worst-case scenario, and your very limited ability to out-maneuver whatever weather might come your way, is not exemplary seamanship, and rather naïve', in my view&#8230;

I've done a fair amount of sailing on all the Lakes with the exception of Superior, and in my experience the weather that came through last week was not all _that_ extraordinary (especially, considering the remarkably hot continental weather in place)&#8230; I rate a 15-hour period many years ago on Michigan in sustained Force 9 conditions as one of the most extreme I've ever faced at sea, and a thunderstorm I just beat into Presque Isle one evening rates as one of the most violent and terrifying I've ever seen, and produced winds recorded at the light station of almost 80 mph&#8230; I can't even begin to imagine being caught out in such conditions in a boat like a Kiwi 35 - and if I ever were, I'd rather do so in the open ocean, than in a freakin' hellacious bathtub like Lake Michigan&#8230; (grin)


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> Is it risky? No doubt. Do they fully comprehend the risk? No. They're kids. Do we as parents go out of our way to make sure we are all as safe as we can be? Absolutely.
> 
> Is this enough for the safety nazis? No way. There's still risk.


Not sure if you consider me one of the safety nazis or not, but the example involving your kids is one I am fine with. From what you have said, you and your wife understand the risks and you've made an informed decision for your kids (which is your right).


----------



## blt2ski

Over on SA, the word is via a news article, one of the owners does not know why the boat did not right itself. A recovery vessel has been hired, and they plan to race the mac again. having done so 5 or 6 other times. Including one other lay over incident. 

Marty


----------



## Barquito

I realized something about dangers in sport the other day: It seems that society is willing to endure a certain amount of death in sports. For example, there is usually a death in car racing every few years, there was a death in the european pro cycling peleton this year, there are people mangled skiing, and playing football. I think people, and society naturally push some sports to a certain limit, that results in infrequent, but, possibility of death.


----------



## PCP

Barquito said:


> I realized something about dangers in sport the other day: It seems that society is willing to endure a certain amount of death in sports. For example, there is usually a death in car racing every few years, there was a death in the european pro cycling peleton this year, there are people mangled skiing, and playing football. I think people, and society naturally push some sports to a certain limit, that results in infrequent, but, possibility of death.


Yes, I agree. And your point is?

Regards

Paulo


----------



## tomandchris

JonEisberg,

You were not one that I thought was an arrogant @#$%. Your writings were well thought out and you stated them as your opinion of what YOU would do. Nothing wrong with that, and in fact I agree with most of what you have written. Hopefully you did not WANT to be considered a arrogant @#$%

My problem is with those that think it should be their opinion or the highway. They are the judges of what is acceptable risk, acceptable boat, acceptable equipment, etc.. Everyone else must be wrong, and idiot, etc.. I just don't like people telling others that they are wrong and need to change. There is no problem with informing people of options, but do not diminish them because they don't agree. Especially, don't diminish a fellow sailor that has just died in a freak accident.

For those that think the CYC should change rules to ban certain boats I say why? This venerabal club has run a great race for 103 years and these are the first deaths other than a heart attack. I think they are doing pretty damn well policing the race and competitors, and for one I hope that they investigate, learn, and advise. Period!

I am a L. Michigan sailor. To those that say this is not a "freak" weather phenomona I say ********. We get weather, and BIG weather and waves. The big stuff is usually 40-50-60 knots maximum and the high end is rare...but yes it happens and usually is caught by forecast warnings. 70-80-90-100 is really rare and again almost always warned, although I have not seen a warning for more than 50 Kts in years. This one was forecast for 30kts., and thirty knots to a racer brings a smile unless you interpret the radar correctly and drop sails as this skipper did.

Whether we think the boat is appropriate is irrelevant. Obviously this crew thought it was, as four of those aboard were listed as owners on the CYC website. I hope the survivors race again.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> I think you and I probably have differing notions of what constitutes an offshore/open water passage&#8230; When you leave one port for another 300+ miles distant with no intention of stopping, you are indeed _sailing into_ whatever you might get _caught in_ along the way&#8230; To view any open water passage in any other manner than preparing for a worst-case scenario, and your very limited ability to out-maneuver whatever weather might come your way, is not exemplary seamanship, and rather naïve', in my view&#8230;


I totally agree with you on this point, Jon. And I would not want to have been on that boat in those conditions either - definitely not a HWX boat. But I also wholeheartedly agree with your full response to Sailormon. It's way too complicated for forum sailors to make final pronouncements on a skipper...unless he's a dumbass who fell asleep and got run over. Heh-heh.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> Not sure if you consider me one of the safety nazis or not, but the example involving your kids is one I am fine with. From what you have said, you and your wife understand the risks and you've made an informed decision for your kids (which is your right).


I don't consider you a safety nazi, welsh. I don't know who is and who isn't. So I wouldn't call you one unless you claimed to be one. I just don't like their philosophy.

And thanks on the fistbump for the climbing. You should've seen these kids on their first 5.9. Freakin' awesome!


----------



## smackdaddy

Here is the final word as far as I'm concerned (from SA):



> One funeral down and one to go. I would like to thank all those who posted positive thoughts and prayers for Suzanne and my brother Mark. It has been a help to have so much support from the sailing community. Mark was passsionate about sailing and loved to tell stories of the racing experiences that he had and the ones we shared. Suzanne loved adventure and was a great sailor. I can agree with other comments about this race, that it was the best ever up to the point of the accident. We were all smiles aboard Wingnuts, and having a great time blasting up the lake.
> It is impossible to express our gratitude and how much we are indebted to the crew of Sociable. They took great care of us onboard and were extremely professional in their handling of the rescue and coordinating communication with the USCG and the other boats.
> Two of our crew are on their way to start the Bayview Port Huron to Mackinac race tomorrow. We feel it is the best way to honor Mark and Suzanne's memory. Sail On!
> 
> Peter


Respect.

Listen very closely...


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Tom and Chris- I disagree with you on one point. I have sailed on a Kiwi 35 (in Tampa Bay with the designer) and I have also sailed in 19 MACs including this one. There is more than just the skipper and crew to consider. You must also consider the safety of the boats and crews that have to rescue the crew of a capsized boat. I agree that the storm was not all that rare and not surprising considering the heat in Wisconsin the previous days. We had reports of expected 70 knot winds so we were prepared.

The MAC committee should consider this and some other boats not suitable. Obviously the Kiwi 35 is not self righting. The pictures tell the story. Do you think anyone would take this boat for a cruise unaccompanied up Lake Michigan?

You are entitled to your opinions. I get where you are coming from. I'm betting the boat and possibly some others won't be invited back.


----------



## Sailormon6

puddinlegs said:


> Sailormon, what's eminently clear is that you have little racing experience.


 What's eminently clear is that you know absolutely nothing about me or my racing exerience.



> I question your knowledge of safety rules and regulations as applied to any race, yet alone the Chicago Mac.


 Rule 4.27.1 of the ISAF Offshore Special Regulations (which are incorporated by reference into the Mackinac Safety Regulations) provides as follows:

"4.27.1 A drogue for deployment over the stern, or alternatively a sea anchor or parachute anchor for deployment over the bow, complete with all gear needed to rig and deploy the sea anchor or drogue, *is strongly recommended* to withstand long periods in rough conditions (see Appendix F)."

Thus, a drogue or sea anchor is currently not mandatory, but is "strongly recommended." Under the existing rules, you are free to race across the open ocean without a drogue or sea anchor, just as long as you're willing to ignore the "strong recommendation" (i.e., the combined wisdom) of the organization that governs the sport of ocean racing, and all it's expert advisors.

The argument has been made by some here that offshore racing is dangerous, like auto racing, and that deaths happen, but when a death happens in the sport of auto racing, they study the cause and virtually all auto racers support the constant improvement of equipment to prevent the reocurrance of deaths from the same cause. Here, I see stonewall-like resistance to the suggestion that anything at all be changed. If the resistance is just to the added cost of equipment, I suspect that, if you'd ask the survivors of those who lost their lives, they would approve of the added cost of a drogue or sea anchor. You can resort to name calling if you'd like, but you can't change the fact that two people died, and that it probably didn't have to happen.


----------



## smackdaddy

T34C said:


> Oh, I get it. It's called arrogance, *self indigent*, self absorbed, egotistical. Take your pick. Its putting your own desired ahead of your families and those that rely on you.


Heh-heh. I just noticed this, T.

Isn't this what eventually happens when you buy your own boat?


----------



## puddinlegs

Sailormon6 said:


> What's eminently clear is that you know absolutely nothing about me or my racing exerience.
> 
> Rule 4.27.1 of the ISAF Offshore Special Regulations (which are incorporated by reference into the Mackinac Safety Regulations) provides as follows:
> 
> "4.27.1 A drogue for deployment over the stern, or alternatively a sea anchor or parachute anchor for deployment over the bow, complete with all gear needed to rig and deploy the sea anchor or drogue, is strongly recommended *to withstand long periods* in rough conditions (see Appendix F)."
> 
> Thus, a drogue or sea anchor is currently not mandatory, but is "strongly recommended." Under the existing rules, you are free to race across the open ocean without a drogue or sea anchor, just as long as you're willing to ignore the "strong recommendation" (i.e., the combined wisdom) of the organization that governs the sport of ocean racing, and all it's expert advisors.
> 
> The argument has been made by some here that offshore racing is dangerous, like auto racing, and that deaths happen, but when a death happens in the sport of auto racing, they study the cause and virtually all auto racers support the constant improvement of equipment to prevent the reocurrance of deaths from the same cause. Here, I see stonewall-like resistance to the suggestion that anything at all be changed. If the resistance is just to the added cost of equipment, I suspect that, if you'd ask the survivors of those who lost their lives, they would approve of the added cost of a drogue or sea anchor. You can resort to name calling if you'd like, but you can't change the fact that two people died, and that it probably didn't have to happen.


I apologize for my tone. Drogues are great for long duration events as the rule you posted mentions. I said in my previous post that yes, who knows, perhaps this type of boat will be banned. I wouldn't call it stonewalling , just not in my personal purview to change. That's for the authorities in charge of the race. Again, apologies for my crankiness.


----------



## Sailormon6

puddinlegs said:


> I apologize for my tone. Drogues are great for long duration events as the rule you posted mentions. I said in my previous post that yes, who knows, perhaps this type of boat will be banned. I wouldn't call it stonewalling , just not in my personal purview to change. That's for the authorities in charge of the race. *Again, apologies for my crankiness*.


Thanks Puddinlegs. I appreciate that!

I know that what I'm saying isn't what racing sailors want to hear, but racers should understand that neither they, nor the sponsoring association, will have the final say on the rules that they will have to live by. Regardless of the rules that are promulgated by the sponsor of the race, in our society, whether we like it or not, the rules will ultimately be written by the courts. When a person dies or is grievously injured in an accident of this nature, a lawsuit is commonly filed by either the injured person, or by his heirs or estate, against the skipper, or his estate. The claim will be made that the skipper was negligent in not equipping his boat with all the gear that he could have or should have reasonably foreseen would be needed to complete the passage safely. Even if the Racing Rules don't require the equipment, that won't protect the defendant from liability. In fact, the sponsoring association might also be sued, based on the claim that it should have required, in it's rules, that all participating boats be so equipped. Thus, the Association is likely to be charged with joint liability.

The final decision as to liability is likely to be made, not by racing sailors who are sympathetic to the defendants, but by either a judge or jury of independent minds. It will be made by the same sort of people who held McDonald's liable when a woman spilled hot coffee in her lap, and the plaintiff's case will be argued by a lawyer, or team of lawyers, who will hire the most expert witnesses money can buy to testify in support of their case.

Because the skipper was one of the deceased here, a lawsuit might not ensue in this particular case, but in today's world, I wouldn't bet on that happening.

I don't like these facts of life any more than the rest of you, but, if you're going to be taking weekend sailors along as crew on races that might become hazardous, you might be subjecting yourself to liability that far exceeds the limits of your insurance, as well as the value of your boat and home. The courts will say that you might have a right to risk your own life through your negligence, but not the lives of others.

That doesn't mean you should be intimidated out of racing by the fear of litigation. It simply means that you should equip your boat with whatever safety equipment an ordinary reasonable person can reasonably foresee might be needed to complete the passage safely.

I'm just the messenger, telling you what I think you need to know. Don't kill me.


----------



## smackdaddy

A good quote from SA that gives some more first-hand detail:



> I don't get the need to blame one or the other or the animosity some are exhibiting here --- is it ever that simple anyway? We were at North Manitou when this storm hit, it was the worst storm situation I've been in after 35 years sailing (though not necessarily the highest wind speed, the incredible lightning and especially the swirling TWA is what made it the worst). We had some damage and one crew member with a broken arm, but we finished the race.
> 
> There have been similar tragedies on the Great Lakes before, one with a tri about 10 years ago though I don't remember the exact details. An experienced man and woman drowned in that one too, some here sailed in that race (not me).
> 
> I would say the Wingnuts crew was more vulnerable in a Kiwi 35 than almost any other design, but I have to believe the knew that given their experience. From there a series of events ended in tragedy, what more needs to be said?


So the wind was apparently not straight-line, making it even more dangerous. And the storm was, indeed, worse than the typical squall.

And a very good conclusion.


----------



## T34C

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I just noticed this, T.
> 
> Isn't this what eventually happens when you buy your own boat?


Damned auto correct!


----------



## welshwind

blt2ski said:


> Over on SA, the word is via a news article, one of the owners does not know why the boat did not right itself. A recovery vessel has been hired, and they plan to race the mac again. having done so 5 or 6 other times. Including one other lay over incident.
> 
> Marty


I hear what you are saying, but in one of the articles from a Michigan source, a boat designer (and that is all it said, it didn't give a name) said the Kiwi 35 was the only monohull he knew of that was basically as stable inverted as it was upright.


----------



## Barquito

> Originally Posted by Barquito
> I realized something about dangers in sport the other day: It seems that society is willing to endure a certain amount of death in sports. For example, there is usually a death in car racing every few years, there was a death in the european pro cycling peleton this year, there are people mangled skiing, and playing football. I think people, and society naturally push some sports to a certain limit, that results in infrequent, but, possibility of death.
> 
> Yes, I agree. And your point is?


Just that in a larger context, it is human nature to push things to the limit we (as a society) are comfortable with. If things get too dangerous, then the natural evolution of the sport will be to make it safer, or be marginalized.


----------



## blt2ski

welshwind said:


> I hear what you are saying, but in one of the articles from a Michigan source, a boat designer (and that is all it said, it didn't give a name) said the Kiwi 35 was the only monohull he knew of that was basically as stable inverted as it was upright.


Nor did the article say how far over the K35 went in the layover that the owners referred too. As pointed out, it is not a "safe" boat in the sense of it being able to roll as most semi to full off shore boats will hopefully do. As should probably be required of this race, of which I would find hard to believe there is not some kind of minimum roll over/stability number. Which the K35 may meet on paper, in actuality..........

As others have said along with myself, not sure I would want to be on LM with this boat, nor would I do the race with this boat. Not sure if deleting this boat and other "sport" boats is the correct way to go. as some "sport" boats can do rougher conditions, others.....no way!

A tragedy no matter how one slices this cake up.

marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Another article:

Eric Sharp: Looking for answers after Chicago-to-Mackinac tragedy | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Though I understand the "turtle" debate from a boat design standpoint - it really doesn't have a lot to do with this tragedy. The real question is how did the two victims receive their head trauma? Where exactly were they in relation to the other survivors? Etc.


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> Another article:
> 
> Eric Sharp: Looking for answers after Chicago-to-Mackinac tragedy | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
> 
> Though I understand the "turtle" debate from a boat design standpoint - it really doesn't have a lot to do with this tragedy. The real question is how did the two victims receive their head trauma? Where exactly were they in relation to the other survivors? Etc.


It will be interesting to hear where they were tethered and which way the boat flipped. I wonder if the survivors even know that or if it was just so hectic that no one noticed. If they were tethered to what became the leeward side and attempted to climb up the windward side as it rolled, it is not hard to imagine what happened. I'd bet they didn't expect it to completely flip.


----------



## smackdaddy

Just ran across this at SA. Very eerie. And someone needs to slap that chucklehead in the background talking about getting on the boat and snagging the outboard...


----------



## Tweegs

Yea Smack, at least the one had sense enough to leave the boat alone. 

Wonder how he would like it if I jumped on him and snagged a few nose hairs.

Freakin’ twit.


----------



## smackdaddy

There is another great write-up on this over at SA:

Sailing Anarchy Home Page

And the title says it all:

"no laughing matter"

The guys who want to say that "squalls like this happen all the time so they should have been ready" - might want to re-think that position. These are some very seasoned dudes on this J109 as you can see.



> My name is Len. I have sailed 26 Chicago to Mackinac races. My boat, Lucky Dubie 2, is a J109. This year, Ray Groble (30 Macs), Don Cameron (26 Macs), Mike Walsh, Owen Farris, Joe Erleman, Angel Garcia and I went for the adventure that is the Mac race. It is a race from Chicago to Mackinac Island and is approximately 333 miles.
> 
> ...
> 
> What came next seemed unreal to me. I can honestly say I have never been in a more violent storm in my life. Usually, ferociously high winds last for a short time and blow past. My experience is after you get through a few short minutes, everything is ok. Not this time. The storm had us knocked over in a broach and the velocity continued to increase. Strobe lightning illuminated the deck and the sails. I thought for sure that we would be struck by lightning. While the boat heeled at a severe angle, I was up to my waist under water and Don was thrown from the high side and fell on both the wheel and me. We laughed nervously, but all on board recognized that all we could do was hang on and hope that the rig stayed in the boat and the mainsail did not shred. Our best friend became adrenaline. We saw boats careening out of control all around us when the lightning illuminated the sky. Some narrowly missed our bow or stern. I am certain that those boats had a similar reaction when they saw us. Absent the lightning, all was dark.


----------



## blt2ski

Interesting online article at Sail magazine HERE

Includes a radar blip of the weather at about the time wingnuts capsized. Dang near the whole lake is red in color!

marty


----------



## JonEisberg

blt2ski said:


> Interesting online article at Sail magazine HERE
> 
> Includes a radar blip of the weather at about the time wingnuts capsized. Dang near the whole lake is red in color!
> 
> marty


Good article, pretty Fair & Balanced, as some like to say... (grin) The seamanship exhibited by the crew of SOCIABLE, truly exemplary, as good as it gets...

Perhaps it's a Racer In the Heat of Battle Thing that I just don't get, but after reading the account Smack linked to, and looking at that video from the J109 we've all seen numerous times - I just don't understand how anyone could have watched that weather coming on their freakin' IPhones or IPads or whatever, and _still_ be caught with their mainsails at full hoist...

Seems a classic example of modern technology encouraging one to make too close a call... Because your AIS is telling you can cross the bow of that container ship with a few hundred yards to spare, yeah - go for it... (grin)


----------



## smackdaddy

You do have a point Jon. Even by their own admission in that article, they were too slow to take appropriate HWX action... because they wanted to go fast as long as they could.

This seamanship angle, even in the heat of racing, is a topic that is probably more appropriate for debate than the design of the boat. Obviously, a lot of very experienced guys were caught with their pants down and sails up.


----------



## blt2ski

No matter how you slice it, it is nice to see a reasonably balanced view of the events, not blaming, yet doing so, or at least the yes one did wait too long. Expectations of the crews, ie a couple three blasts, then it is over in 2-4 min, not 15-20 min of this. 

In the mean time, we can wait for the report in Oct, this was the first report I had seen of the who, what where when how the report is being done by etc. Despite the CYC saying that with in hours after they were putting a group together to look at the events.

Hopefully more cool headed articles will appear with info that shows what happened etc, not hear say, 5th qtr armchair quarterbacking etc......

Marty


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This seamanship angle, even in the heat of racing, is a topic that is probably more appropriate for debate than the design of the boat.


Sorry, gotta disagree with that one...

By every account I've seen, the crew of WING NUTS exercised prudent seamanship that night, had all sails struck and were bare-poled when the serious weather arrived... Yet she was still the only boat to get rolled, while others who took relatively little precautionary action in comparison came through with not much worse than knockdowns and busted gear...

Right from the start, I've thought the boat itself was at the core of this tragedy, and I've still yet to see or hear any convincing evidence or arguments to the contrary...



blt2ski said:


> In the mean time, we can wait for the report in Oct, this was the first report I had seen of the who, what where when how the report is being done by etc. Despite the CYC saying that with in hours after they were putting a group together to look at the events.
> 
> Marty





> US Sailing Appoints Independent Review Panel
> Sailing is a remarkably safe sport in large part because of the caring of its close-knit community. When a sailor dies, all sailors mourn and do what they can to see that such an accident does not happen again.
> 
> After two sailors' lives were lost during the recent Chicago Yacht Club Race to Mackinac, Commodore Joseph Haas of the Chicago Yacht Club, the race's organizer, asked US SAILING to conduct an independent study of what happened. On July 28 Gary Jobson, the President of US SAILING, appointed the Independent Review Panel for the 2011 Mackinac Race, and directed it to consider what lessons might be learned and also to make recommendations.
> 
> The members of the Independent Review Panel are (Chairman) Chuck Hawley, Santa Cruz, Cal.; Sheila McCurdy, Middletown, R.I.; Ralph Naranjo, Annapolis, Md.; and John Rousmaniere, New York, N.Y. Each is an experienced offshore sailor, a longtime member of US SAILING's Safety-at-Sea Committee, and a moderator of US SAILING-certified Safety at Sea Seminars. The Chicago Yacht Club appointed one if its members, Leif Sigmond Jr., to serve as the club's liaison to the panel.
> 
> The Independent Review Panel will present its report to the Chicago Yacht Club and US SAILING's in mid to late October.
> 
> Chuck Hawley, Santa Cruz, Cal.
> 
> Chuck has sailed approximately 40,000 miles on vessels ranging from ultralight 'sleds' to single-handed sailboats to the maxi-catamaran PlayStation. His voyages include two singlehanded passages to Hawaii, three crewed trans-Pacific races, and a world record attempt on the West to East transatlantic record. Chuck has moderated many US SAILING Safety at Sea Seminars, and is also a powerboat instructor for US SAILING. He serves on US SAILING's Safety-at-Sea Committee. He has done extensive research into crew overboard recovery, life raft design, anchor design, and storm tactics. Vice President of Product Information at West Marine, Chuck is a member of the American Boat and Yacht Council Technical Board, a former board member of the Transpacific Yacht Club, and a former Commodore of the Santa Cruz Yacht Club. He lives in Santa Cruz with his wife Susan and five daughters, and owns a Megabyte 14 sailboat and a 21' Zodiac RIB.
> 
> Sheila McCurdy, Middletown, R.I.
> 
> Sheila McCurdy has sailed 90,000 miles offshore, including 15 Newport Bermuda Races, two Marion Bermuda Races, and many other races on either side of the Atlantic. As skipper and navigator in the 1994 and 2008 Newport Bermuda Races, she and her crew finished second overall in divisions of over 120 boats in her family boat, Selkie, a 38-foot cutter designed by her late father, Jim McCurdy. Sheila runs US SAILING's National Faculty for Training and is a Moderator for Safety at Sea Seminars. She holds a USCG 100-ton Master's license and a Master of Marine Affairs degree from the University of Rhode Island. She serves as Commodore of the Cruising Club of America for 2010-11. She has been an advisor to the US Naval Academy sailing program as a member of the Fales Committee for 15 years. She serves on US SAILING's Safety-at-Sea Committee and the Bermuda Race Organizing Committee.
> 
> Ralph Naranjo, Annapolis, Md.
> 
> Ralph Naranjo's sailing experience includes a family voyage around the world aboard his sloop Wind Shadow. For 15 years he served as a judge for Cruising World magazine's 'Boat of the Year' Contest. He has managed a full service boatyard and consulted on boat projects. For 10 years he served as the Vanderstar Chair at the U.S. Naval Academy, overseeing the sail training program and acting as the Academy's lead agent on the development of the new Navy 44-foot sail training sloops. He moderates US SAILING safety at sea seminars, is a past Chairman of the Safety at Sea Committee, and has written extensively about a wide range of marine topics. He is Technical Editor of Practical Sailor and Electronics Editor for Sail.
> 
> John Rousmaniere, New York, N.Y.
> 
> John's 40,000-plus miles of offshore sailing includes a Chicago-Mac, a Bayview-Mac, Newport Bermuda Races (twice in the second-place boat), and Fastnets. In small boats he was on a Soling pre-Olympic team and helped win a Thistle National Championship. He has moderated or spoken at more than 100 or seamanship safety seminars, and he wrote the final report of the most recent crew overboard rescue trials. His books on sailing include two on storms - Fastnet, Force 10 and After the Storm- plus the history of the Bermuda Race and The Annapolis Book of Seamanship. John is a member of the New York Yacht Club, the Cruising Club of America, the Bermuda Race Organizing Committee, and U.S. SAILING's Safety at Sea Committee, where he coordinates the Hanson Rescue Medal program.
> 
> Leif R. Sigmond, Jr., Riverwoods, IL
> 
> Leif Sigmond is an avid sailor with offshore and inshore racing experience in both fresh water and salt water. For the past twenty years Leif has been sailing in the Chicago-area on Lake Michigan. Currently he spends much of his time skippering two boats, both named 'Norboy': a Farr 40, which he has taken in the last two Chicago to Mackinac races; and a Tartan Ten. In 2009, he sailed the Tartan Ten to a third place overall finish (second in section) in the Chicago to Mackinac race. Leif has also participated in the Marion to Bermuda race, the Around Long Island race, and other distance races in both fresh and salt water. His racing has taken him to various parts of the world. Leif grew up on the Shrewsbury River in New Jersey. In his earlier years, he raced both offshore and in dinghies and extensively cruised with his parents from the Chesapeake to Massachusetts and the Florida coasts. As a college student, Leif spent three summers teaching all levels of junior sailing at yacht clubs in New Jersey. Leif is a member of the Chicago Yacht Club, the New York Yacht Club and the Shrewsbury Sailing and Yacht Club. At the Chicago Yacht Club, Leif serves on the Board of Directors and he also chairs both the Special Regatta Committee and the Junior Activities Committee. The Junior Activities Committee oversees the sailing school and junior racing. He is the current vice-president of the Chicago Yacht Club Foundation, a not-for-profit corporation established to provide educational opportunities and broaden the horizons for youth through nautical training and boating activities. Leif also serves on the board of the National Tartan Ten Class Association and is the former president of that organization. He lives in the Chicago suburbs with his wife Laura and his son and daughter who both participate in the Chicago Yacht Club junior program.


However, shortly after this was first posted over on Sailing Anarchy, Bob Perry made the very astute observation that it might have been nice if they had appointed to the panel an individual who has actually ever designed a boat...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> However, shortly after this was first posted over on Sailing Anarchy, Bob Perry made the very astute observation that it might have been nice if they had appointed to the panel an individual who has actually ever designed a boat...


And he's right.


----------



## blt2ski

JonEisberg said:


> However, shortly after this was first posted over on Sailing Anarchy, Bob Perry made the very astute observation that it might have been nice if they had appointed to the panel an individual who has actually ever designed a boat...


I had not seen the post at SA, as I do not look there frequently, but I would agree with Bob on this too! SOMEONE with some design knowledge should be part of the group.

Then again, they may have the authority to ask multiple designers questions NOT having a designer on board. In the end, NOT having a designer could be the better option. Only time will tell.

marty


----------



## blt2ski

Jon,

Not sure that smackys thoughts on the lateness of dousing sails was aimed at Wingnuts. I saw it as aimed at the J109 folks. To me is was VERY obvious in most if not ALL comments that WN had ALL sails down, boom lashed etc in what appeared to be according to the recommendations/rules of the race. Even the CG commented that they appeared to do everything correctly. As you say and imply, the real issue will probably come down to boat design as the key reason. As being this is maritime law/issue, they probably will not come out and say that 100% was boat design, but prorate the issues found in some way shape or form. I could also be wrong here too.

Marty


----------



## Steady Freddy

JonEisberg said:


> By every account I've seen, the crew of WING NUTS exercised prudent seamanship that night, *had all sails struck and were bare-poled* when the serious weather arrived...





blt2ski said:


> To me is was VERY obvious in most if not ALL comments that *WN had ALL sails down*


What makes you guys think they had *all* sails down?
Where is it reported that they had *all* sails down?
(no where that I have seen)

Fred


----------



## Steady Freddy

puddinlegs said:


> Fred,
> They've also said that the sails were down.


Sorry, not trying to rub salt in any wounds. I have read the term "lowered a sail", and "taken a sail down" but I have not read one person from the wn crew say they had both sails completely down, and were sitting there with bare poles waiting for the storm to hit. As a matter of fact, I have not read anywhere that said they had all sails/both sails down. (many boats had their main down, but not the headsail). If anyone has a link, I'll be happy to back away with my foot in my mouth.
(edit - I have seen pics, and read other posts saying it looked like they still had sail up)


----------



## Barquito

If the boat was not messed with prior to this photo... it is difficult to determine. The roller furled forsail may have been rolled-up, got pulled out by the wind, then got tangled in lines. The main looks like it is bunched up a bit on the detached boom. I imagine the windage of the bare mast and furled genoa would be enough to heel the boat a lot, after that the windage from the wing would take over.


----------



## Steady Freddy

If you look in the black circle of this bigger pic, you will see the head of the sail with the halyard still attached, 
(certainly the boat was messed with).


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> If you look in the black circle of this bigger pic, you will see the head of the sail with the halyard still attached,
> *(certainly the boat was messed with)*.


If that were the case, looks like it must have been done when the boat was still inverted...










Are you suggesting that the crew of WING NUTS must have dived repeatedly on the headstay that night after the capsize, in an effort to "tidy up" before being taken aboard the SOCIABLE?



Steady Freddy said:


> (edit - I have seen pics, and read other posts saying it looked like they still had sail up)


There have been numerous published accounts stating that the sails had been lowered or furled in advance of the storm...

Mind sharing the links to the photos that call such accounts into dispute?


----------



## Barquito

Ha, there you go. That was the picture I was thinking of. It looks like the genoa is trashed, but still wrapped around the forestay. The main looks like is is tied to the boom somewhat (maybe?). Short of foresic evaluation of the photo, is seems a reasonable conclusion that the sails where taken in at the time of capsize. But I thought there was an early report that said the same thing. Just going by my fuzzy memory.


----------



## GeorgeDog

I'm skeptical that the winds were 100+ as the article implies. That chart recording looks like rapidly changing rates due to the anemometer whipping back and forth atop a swinging mast. Although it's interesting that the wind direction is steady.


----------



## Sublime

Is the boat still out there drifting around? Why haven't they brought it in?


----------



## Steady Freddy

GeorgeDog said:


> I'm skeptical that the winds were 100+ as the article implies. That chart recording looks like rapidly changing rates due to the anemometer whipping back and forth atop a swinging mast. Although it's interesting that the wind direction is steady.


There were no 100kt winds anywhere out there, (obviously malfunctioning instuments on Fast Tango) - 50's and 60's were reported fleet wide -

Jon, you state that "all sails were down", do you have any links to back up your statement, or are you just talking out your ass, (again)?

edit - also, how did the headsail get blown out of the forestay, but then magically get itself wrapped and tied back up?
........ also, if you look at the pic you posted of the boat turtled, u can clearly see the boom STILL attached to the mast.


----------



## blt2ski

freddy,

Go to my post 251, read the Sail magazine article, you will see that the Crew of sociable saw them bare poled. or at least thought so as they went over. 

There are a few other news articles that have been linked in this thread that also have statements by the crew that the sails were tied down etc. NOT up! 

If you are coming here to argue, please leave! There are plenty of articles to be found that statements by the crew, other crews etc. 

The other to note, from comments, the wind appeared to be coming straight down, not horizontal. This would also screw up an instrument from showing the correct speed. Correct would be when the boat was more sideways vs straight up. If the wind is reasonably horizontal, then the opposite occurs.

marty


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> Jon, you state that "all sails were down", do you have any links to back up your statement, or are you just talking out your ass, (again)?


You may want to try to learn how to use the Google Machine - most any 9 year-old can show you how&#8230;

A survivor's story: Crew member recalls storm that capsized Saginaw boat WingNuts, killing two | MLive.com

2 die after boat capsizes in Chicago-Mackinac race - SFGate

Metro and State | Mood somber after 2 sailors die in Mackinac race | The Detroit News

Grandville teen survives Chicago-to-Mackinac race boat capsizing that killed captain, girlfriend | Detroit Free Press | freep.com



Steady Freddy said:


> edit - also, how did the headsail get blown out of the forestay, but then magically get itself wrapped and tied back up?


It didn't &#8230; The head you're seeing is of a different sail&#8230; The pic posted of WING NUTS in Charlevoix shows the headsail still attached to the furler, all the way to the head&#8230;








Who Killed the Mac Racers, The Storm, or The Boat? - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 15

Who Killed the Mac Racers, The Storm, or The Boat? - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 14


----------



## JonEisberg

Sublime said:


> Is the boat still out there drifting around? Why haven't they brought it in?


WING NUTS was towed into Charlevoix by a salvage company about 2 weeks ago...








The full-size images can be seen here:

Who Killed the Mac Racers, The Storm, or The Boat? - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 14

Who Killed the Mac Racers, The Storm, or The Boat? - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 15


----------



## Steady Freddy

JonEisberg said:


> It didn't &#8230; The head you're seeing is of a different sail&#8230; The pic posted of WING NUTS in Charlevoix shows the headsail still attached to the furler, all the way to the head&#8230;


So you finally admit that somebody messed with the boat before the salvage co got there, (it's about time Jon).


----------



## Steady Freddy

blt2ski said:


> freddy,
> Go to my post 251, read the Sail magazine article, you will see that the Crew of sociable saw them bare poled. or at least thought so as they went over.
> marty


Marty, re-read the article. It was the J-109 who saw *Sociable bare poled*, planing right at them, (not WingNuts).

"Shortly after being knocked down, with no steerage, lightning flashed and another boat, just to weather, without sails was planing right towards us. Thankfully, they managed to alter course and avoid a collision. We approached the vessel we now think was SOCIABLE who was first at the scene of the capsized WINGNUTS".


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> So you finally admit that somebody messed with the boat before the salvage co got there, (it's about time Jon).


Okay, let's play...if someone did "mess with the boat" - to what end?


----------



## smackdaddy

In the mean time Fredster...here's just one instance mentioning them (Wingnuts) having their sails doused...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...76449-mackinac-race-tragedy-3.html#post751565


----------



## Steady Freddy

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, let's play...if someone did "mess with the boat" - to what end?


Hi smackdaddy, do you think they had both sails down, or do you think they just dropped the main and kept the headsail up for steerage (like so many other boats did)?


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> Hi smackdaddy, do you think they had both sails down, or do you think they just dropped the main and kept the headsail up for steerage (like so many other boats did)?


Look at my last post. And another...

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gener...76449-mackinac-race-tragedy-4.html#post751591


----------



## Steady Freddy

I already have read that article, and that guy wasn't even on the boat.
He also said that ALL crew were wearing saftey harnesses, although one of the owners said only 7 were wearing harnesses.




"Cummings said the crew were all wearing safety harnesses that secured them to the boat. "They're good when you're sailing, but not when the boat capsizes."


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> I already have read that article, and that guy wasn't even on the boat.
> He also said that ALL crew were wearing saftey harnesses, although one of the owners said only 7 were wearing harnesses.
> 
> "Cummings said the crew were all wearing safety harnesses that secured them to the boat. "They're good when you're sailing, but not when the boat capsizes."


Then I got nothin' more for you. If you don't want to believe a family member who'd spoken directly to the _Wingnut_ survivors - fine. I choose to believe them - until I see something that proves otherwise.

So unless you have evidence to the contrary, you're just making crap up.

PS - Welcome to SN dude.


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> So you finally admit that somebody messed with the boat before the salvage co got there, (it's about time Jon).


No, I'm not "admitting" any such thing&#8230; IMO, it's impossible to determine from such a forensic analysis of a handful of photos what may or may not have occurred to loose gear attached to a boat inverted for a couple of days in the open waters of Lake Michigan&#8230;

Furthermore, what does it matter if someone "messed with" the headsail or boom? Entirely possible that a passing mariner, perhaps simply out of respect, might have boarded WING NUTS to make her appear a bit more shipshape&#8230; So what?

Clearly, the headsail is furled in the shots of the boat inverted&#8230; We have accounts from surviving crewmembers that they had struck their sails in advance of the weather&#8230; What more do you want?

You know, you're sounding an awful like that tiresome idiot "24 Macs/Jon Thomas" who managed to get himself flicked from the thread over on SAILING ANARCHY&#8230; But, I'm sure it's just a coincidence, a newbie arriving here after being booted from another forum, pushing the identical Conspiracy Theory re "tampering with evidence", "conflicting statements from the crewmembers of WING NUTS" (we're still waiting for those cites, btw), and continuing the same argument with me here, that you've dragged in from over there&#8230;


----------



## blt2ski

I' thinking in less than 24 hrs of freddy being here, he needs flicking, or we just put him on ignore! not that I have put anyone on ignore before.

marty


----------



## smackdaddy

smackdaddy said:


> Okay, let's play...if someone did "mess with the boat" - to what end?


Meh - I personally don't yet see a need for flicking. But I'm still interested to know what your answer is to the above question Fred. To what end?


----------



## Steady Freddy

blt2ski said:


> I' thinking in less than 24 hrs of freddy being here, he needs flicking, or we just put him on ignore! not that I have put anyone on ignore before.
> 
> marty


So you're mad for getting wrong, and you're gonna take it out on me?



Steady Freddy said:


> Marty, re-read the article. It was the J-109 who saw *Sociable bare poled*, planing right at them, (not WingNuts).
> 
> "Shortly after being knocked down, with no steerage, lightning flashed and another boat, just to weather, without sails was planing right towards us. Thankfully, they managed to alter course and avoid a collision. We approached the vessel we now think was SOCIABLE who was first at the scene of the capsized WINGNUTS".


Acording to one of the owners, Stan Dent, it seems they were late getting the main down, (and there is no mention of the headsail.

*"Dent said the race's participants were warned in Chicago that the weather could turn rough over the lake, but the first signs of that didn't appear until distant, dark clouds began to block out the Sunday sunset.

Next arrived the lightning; "the most intense" Dent had ever seen at sea.

Finally came the wind, its gusts growing as strong as 45 knots while the waves that resulted reached as high as six feet.

Dent said the crew eventually dropped the boat's sail and clipped their safety harnesses to the WingNuts. All were wearing flotation devices".*


----------



## welshwind

Steady Freddy said:


> Acording to one of the owners, Stan Dent, it seems they were late getting the main down, (and there is no mention of the headsail.
> 
> *"Dent said the race's participants were warned in Chicago that the weather could turn rough over the lake, but the first signs of that didn't appear until distant, dark clouds began to block out the Sunday sunset.
> 
> Next arrived the lightning; "the most intense" Dent had ever seen at sea.
> 
> Finally came the wind, its gusts growing as strong as 45 knots while the waves that resulted reached as high as six feet.
> 
> Dent said the crew eventually dropped the boat's sail and clipped their safety harnesses to the WingNuts. All were wearing flotation devices".*


Just a bit confused. You discount comments above because it came from a family member of one of the crew who was on the boat ... saying that family member wasn't even on the boat ... and then you use quotes from somewhere (where did these quotes come from?) from a guy who wasn't on the boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> Acording to one of the owners, Stan Dent, it seems they were late getting the main down, (and there is no mention of the headsail.
> 
> *"Dent said the race's participants were warned in Chicago that the weather could turn rough over the lake, but the first signs of that didn't appear until distant, dark clouds began to block out the Sunday sunset.
> 
> Next arrived the lightning; "the most intense" Dent had ever seen at sea.
> 
> Finally came the wind, its gusts growing as strong as 45 knots while the waves that resulted reached as high as six feet.
> 
> Dent said the crew eventually dropped the boat's sail and clipped their safety harnesses to the WingNuts. All were wearing flotation devices".*


You're gonna believe what you want to believe, of course... I've already provided this link once before, but what the hell...



> C.J. has sailed since grade school but was joining the Chicago-to-Mackinac for the first time this year. The junior at Grandville High School told his father *they were prepared for the storm to arrive just after midnight, with sails down and winds at about 5 knots.*
> 
> Grandville teen survives Chicago-to-Mackinac race boat capsizing that killed captain, girlfriend | Detroit Free Press | freep.com


----------



## Steady Freddy

welshwind said:


> Just a bit confused. You discount comments above because it came from a family member of one of the crew who was on the boat ... saying that family member wasn't even on the boat ... and then you use quotes from somewhere (where did these quotes come from?) from a guy who wasn't on the boat.


Those quotes came from Stan Dent, one of the 4 owners of the boat, along with his brother John Dent, and brothers Mark and Peter Morley.

Unless you fire up the engine put it in gear and retire from the race, no competent skipper would take down all of his sails, and just flounder with no steerage. Reef or take down your main completely, and put up your storm sail so you have some steerage. It's standard precedure, (you don't just drop all of your sails and let the waves hit your beam).

Below is a quote from Peter Morley who only mentions dropping the main.
Two sailors die in Mackinac race - Chicago Tribune

"Around dusk Sunday, the WingNuts' radar showed a line of quickly approaching storms. Because the crew included two teenage boys in their first Mackinac race, *Morley said, they took extra precautions, lashing the main sail to the boom well in advance of the approaching storm*.

But the boat proved no match for winds that the National Weather Service estimated may have been hitting 52 mph. Peter Morley yelled for the crew to "get to the edges."

"But the edges were different for everybody; I and some others had fallen to the low side," he said. "The (teenagers), you know, they were hanging from the high side."

When the boat went down, the crew was separated in the water. A crew member *who was not tethered to the craft *was able to swim to the surface, Morley said. Stuart Morley, Peter's 15-year-old son, was able to get out of his harness and free his 16-year-old friend, C.J. Cummings.

Crew member Stan Dent cut himself free with a folding knife and plunged into the water to save Peter Morley, whose head was barely above water, said his sister-in-law, Kathy Morley, who was not aboard the boat.

"Peter was basically on his last breath," Kathy Morley said."

It would make no sense to take all your sails down, and when Jon and Marty said they DID, I just wanted to know what made them so sure.


----------



## Steady Freddy

From Robert Hughes skipper of Heartbreaker and close to the WN scene.


Heartbreaker encountered 40-knot winds and severe lightning when the storm blew up early Monday morning.

"It hit us in a very narrow channel," he said. "We only had the storm sail up."


----------



## smackdaddy

Fred - every hypothesis you're putting forth can be easily countered by other hypotheses. So we could do this all day long.

Back to my question, what are you driving at? You're obviously trying to convince the world of something. What is it exactly?


----------



## Steady Freddy

Smackdaddy, you're not following the conversation very well.
Do you think you should take ALL your sails down before a big storm, and do you think WN did? Do you think that's why she capsized, cause she had no sails up and left her beam exposed to the weather, or do you think her crew is smarter than that, and had some headsail unfurled for steerage?


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> Smackdaddy, you're not following the conversation very well.
> Do you think you should take ALL your sails down before a big storm, and do you think WN did? Do you think that's why she capsized, cause she had no sails up and left her beam exposed to the weather, or do you think her crew is smarter than that, and had some headsail unfurled for steerage?


Actually, I'm following it quite well. You seem afraid to answer a direct question or make a simple point. You're putting out all these hypothetical scenarios trying to get _someone else_ to say what's on _your_ mind. That's kind of lame.

What are you trying to say Fred?


----------



## Steady Freddy

smackdaddy said:


> You're putting out all these hypothetical scenarios trying to get _someone else_ to say what's on _your_ mind. That's kind of lame.
> 
> What are you trying to say Fred?


What are you talking about, "Hypothetical scenarios"?

I see Jon and Marty post that WN had all there sails down, and I wanna know why they would say that when one of the owners himself said they only took the Main down, and others that were rescued also talk about dropping a sail.

These guys post that they had BOTH sails down before the storm, yet Stan Dent himself said they experienced the lightning, and the winds, BEFORE they took the main down.

So do you think that Stan Dent is lying?

*"Dent said the race's participants were warned in Chicago that the weather could turn rough over the lake, but the first signs of that didn't appear until distant, dark clouds began to block out the Sunday sunset.

Next arrived the lightning; "the most intense" Dent had ever seen at sea.

Finally came the wind, its gusts growing as strong as 45 knots while the waves that resulted reached as high as six feet.

Dent said the crew eventually dropped the boat's sail and clipped their safety harnesses to the WingNuts. All were wearing flotation devices". *


----------



## smackdaddy

What does it matter?


----------



## Steady Freddy

smackdaddy said:


> What does it matter?


So you think they had their headsail up don't you, why not just say so?


----------



## puddinlegs

Freddie, you're a troll. In survival conditions or anticipation thereof, racing skippers do many things that they typically wouldn't do in 'normal' conditions.
Time for the ignore 1-2. And just for you Fred:


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> Unless you fire up the engine put it in gear and retire from the race, no competent skipper would take down all of his sails, and just flounder with no steerage. Reef or take down your main completely, and put up your storm sail so you have some steerage. It's standard precedure, (you don't just drop all of your sails and let the waves hit your beam).


Congrats, that's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read in this entire thread&#8230;

By numerous accounts, the light show that preceded the arrival of those storms was like something many of those out there that night had never seen before&#8230; Surely, the skipper of a boat like WING NUTS, knowing its vulnerability to a knockdown or capsize in the sort of weather that was heading their way, just _might_ have decided to strike all sails, and be prepared to run off under bare poles&#8230;



Steady Freddy said:


> Below is a quote from Peter Morley who only mentions dropping the main.
> 
> "Around dusk Sunday, the WingNuts' radar showed a line of quickly approaching storms. Because the crew included two teenage boys in their first Mackinac race, *Morley said, they took extra precautions, lashing the main sail to the boom well in advance of the approaching storm*.


Wrong again&#8230;

That is NOT a "quote' from Peter Morley, but rather simply a reporter's paraphrasing of what Mr. Morely said&#8230; No way of knowing the context, the reporter's overall understanding of what was being said, and so on&#8230; Simply because the reporter did not mention furling the jib, does not necessarily indicate that Mr. Morley may not have done so, or that the jib had not indeed been furled, as well&#8230;

If you're gonna try to parse all these accounts to such an extent, you really should attempt to educate yourself as to the distinction between direct quotes and attribution, and reportage vs. a first-hand account or deposition&#8230;



Steady Freddy said:


> It would make no sense to take all your sails down, and when Jon and Marty said they DID, I just wanted to know what made them so sure.


Again, I based my opinion on the various accounts that referred to "lowered _sails_", in the plural, and the photos of the capsized boat that indicate the headsail had been furled&#8230;

You wanna believe that the jib was furled _after_ the capsize, you're free to do so&#8230;

Oh, and speaking of being "so sure", how do you _know_ with such certainty that there were never winds of such intensity experienced on Lake Michigan that night?



Steady Freddy said:


> There were no 100kt winds anywhere out there, (obviously malfunctioning instuments on Fast Tango) - 50's and 60's were reported fleet wide -


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> So you think they had their headsail up don't you, why not just say so?


Dude, you have no courage. And you're making a very weak argument...albeit loudly and consistently. I gotta give you that.

Everything you've laid out in the last few posts is missing one very critical item...the exact timeline of the events. You're fumbling in the dark for some conspiratorial "aha". And I still hold that you need to man up and simply say what you think that conspiracy is instead of leading everyone around on some Alex Jones goose chase that's not even clever...or interesting.

Now, to specifically answer _your_ question, I have no idea exactly what state the sails were in at the moment the fatal blast hit (not the storm, the fatal blast). Nor do I know exactly what moment Stan, or anyone else, was referring to in the timeline of these events regarding wind and lightning and the reduction of sail - _as related to that fatal blast that caused the capsize_.

Many of the racers said they saw this thing coming for a long time - and waited to reduce sail because they had no idea how violent it would end up being. Morley said they reduced sail earlier than they otherwise would have due to the youngsters. How much sail? The details of this differ in the short quotes in these articles...yes...but that means nothing unless you have the critical timeline of events. Which you don't.

Finally, we have the photographic evidence of a turtled boat with, apparently, a furled headsail. Did someone dive down and furl that sail Fred?

Your repeated questions and bolded quotes just aren't building a compelling case for anything. So, instead of trying to squint and figure out what "aha" you're apparently seeing through your endless hypotheticals, I'm just asking you straight up what that "aha" is.

Can you answer this question: What does it matter if the headsail was doused (completely, partially, or not at all)? What point are you trying to make?


----------



## Steady Freddy

smackdaddy said:


> Can you answer this question: What does it matter if the headsail was doused (completely, partially, or not at all)? What point are you trying to make?


Hey man, I was just reading through the thread, and Know-it-all Jon posted that they had all their sails down. Everything Jon posted on this thread is his wild speculation, only he posts it as Matter-of-fact.

So if they didn't have the motor on, and didn't have any sails up, is that why they capsized?


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> Hey man, I was just reading through the thread, and Know-it-all Jon posted that they had all their sails down. Everything Jon posted on this thread is his wild speculation, only he posts it as Matter-of-fact.
> 
> So if they didn't have the motor on, and didn't have any sails up, is that why they capsized?


Oh, I see. So you've got a personal beef with JonE. It all makes sense now.

As for your question...no idea. Any answer I tried to give would just be wild speculation.


----------



## Steady Freddy

I don't have a beef with Jon, but he has posted some total assinine things about me. And you have not posted anything revelant to the topic your last 10 posts, (click on "view posts" and read them yourself smackdaddy)


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> I don't have a beef with Jon, but he has posted some total assinine things about me. And you have not posted anything revelant to the topic your last 10 posts, (click on "view posts" and read them yourself smackdaddy)


Dude, you need to take yourself less seriously...and discuss the word "assinine" [sic] with Webster.

If you take your own advice and click on view posts for me, you'll see that I've not posted anything relevant in about 27 months. And I'm still wicked famous in the sailing world.


----------



## Steady Freddy

Steady Freddy said:


> So if they didn't have the motor on, and didn't have any sails up, is that why they capsized?


OK, enough side stepping, just answer the freakin' question already.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exactly.


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> Steady Freddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if they didn't have the motor on, and didn't have any sails up, is that why they capsized?
> 
> 
> 
> OK, enough side stepping, just answer the freakin' question already.
Click to expand...

Poor lad, you're beginning to sound seriously confused&#8230;



Steady Freddy said:


> Hey man, I was just reading through the thread, and Know-it-all Jon posted that they had all their sails down. *Everything Jon posted on this thread is his wild speculation, only he posts it as Matter-of-fact. *


Oh, really? You mean, like your own assertions that _"there were no 100 kt winds on the lake that night"_, and that _"the boat was certainly messed with"_, or that _"no competent skipper would have taken their sails down&#8230;"_?

Actually, what you are considering to be my own "wild speculation" is based upon the numerous published accounts of this event, and the photos of WING NUTS circulated in the aftermath of the tragedy, and is likely in agreement with the conclusion that most sailors who have followed this tragedy closely would be inclined to come to...



Steady Freddy said:


> I don't have a beef with Jon, but he has posted some total assinine things about me.


Well, that's pretty amusing, coming from a new visitor here who initially addressed me thusly:



Steady Freddy said:


> Jon, you state that "all sails were down", do you have any links to back up your statement, or are you just talking out your ass, (again)?


OK, I'll bite, despite being fully aware of the difficulty of getting you to respond to a direct question&#8230;

What, _precisely_, do you consider to be a "total assinine [sic] thing" I've posted about you?

That would refer to something I've posted *here*, of course, and not over at SAILING ANARCHY, understood?

You do realize you've pretty much confirmed my suspicion that you're very likely the infamous "_24 Macs_" recently flicked from SAILING ANARCHY, I hope? There's a remarkable similarity in the style of your postings, of course, and your prediliction for the needless use of parentheses is as much of a stylistic giveaway as is my own trademark affectation for the use of the ellipsis, for example&#8230;

But the following post serves as the confirmation of my initial suspicion that you'd followed me here to resume the tedious, nonsensical argument we'd engaged in over there, rooted in your ridiculous obsession with the placement of certain items on the deck of WING NUTS after she was re-righted:



Steady Freddy said:


> So you *finally admit* that somebody messed with the boat before the salvage co got there, (it's about time Jon).


The whole issue of whether WING NUTS had been "tampered with" was _never even raised or discussed_ - by me, at least - in the course of this thread, here on Sailnet&#8230; Hell, this thread had been virtually dormant of late until your arrival here, and taking me to task regarding an aspect of this tragedy I had never discussed here, but only on another forum? Well, sometimes a troll's gotta do what a troll's gotta do, I suppose...

Anyway, I'll be no doubt amused to hear what I've said to you here has offended you so&#8230; I would have thought that one who has been so universally mocked and reviled, and managed the rare distinction of getting himself flicked from an Animal House like SAILING ANARCHY (not to mention having inspired the public poll posing the question _"Is 24 Macs a D__che?"_), would have developed a bit thicker skin by now&#8230;

Oh, and btw, your assertion that "no capable skipper" would have lowered or furled all sail in advance of the weather moving across Lake Michigan that night is, without question, one of the stupidest things I've read from a Cyber-Sailor in quite some time...


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Couple of facts from someone who was there during the storm. I was on the helm preceding, during, and after the storm. We saw a couple of boats lower all their sails as much as a half hour before the main storm hit. We had already withdrawn because of a crew injury and looked closely at these boats to determine if they were in trouble. We had a main up and were surfing towards Leeland before the main storm hit. Winds preceding the storm by an hour and half were as much as 35 knots. The storm brought a big wind shift with it beside the 60 knot plus sustained winds. The storm also brought some seriously confused seas and 6foot plus chop. None of these items are speculation are conjecture or speculation with me.


----------



## Steady Freddy

Sanduskysailor said:


> Couple of facts from someone who was there during the storm. I was on the helm preceding, during, and after the storm. We saw a couple of boats lower all their sails as much as a half hour before the main storm hit. We had already withdrawn because of a crew injury and looked closely at these boats to determine if they were in trouble. We had a main up and were surfing towards Leeland before the main storm hit. Winds preceding the storm by an hour and half were as much as 35 knots. The storm brought a big wind shift with it beside the 60 knot plus sustained winds. The storm also brought some seriously confused seas and 6foot plus chop. None of these items are speculation are conjecture or speculation with me.


Were you ever in fear of your boat capsizing during the storm?


----------



## Sanduskysailor

No, capsize was never an issue for us. Had we had full sail up maybe. If you looked at earlier posts you will notice that I have sailed on a Kiwi 35 in Tampa Bay. Based on my experience, albeit it limited to one Wed. race on the Kiwi 35, it is entirely possible that the boat capsized with the sails down. I seriously doubt the capsize was the result of skipper error at the time but more of a combination of a downdraft/microburst and confused seas acting on a seriously underballasted boat. Wingnuts had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong boat for the conditions encountered.


----------



## rockDAWG

Sanduskysailor said:


> Wingnuts had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong boat for the conditions encountered.


The biggest problem with wingnut is can't herself.


----------



## JonEisberg

Sanduskysailor said:


> Couple of facts from someone who was there during the storm. I was on the helm preceding, during, and after the storm. *We saw a couple of boats lower all their sails as much as a half hour before the main storm hit.* We had already withdrawn because of a crew injury and looked closely at these boats to determine if they were in trouble. We had a main up and were surfing towards Leeland before the main storm hit. Winds preceding the storm by an hour and half were as much as 35 knots. The storm brought a big wind shift with it beside the 60 knot plus sustained winds. The storm also brought some seriously confused seas and 6foot plus chop. None of these items are speculation are conjecture or speculation with me.


Hmmm, sounds like there were numerous "incompetent" skippers on the lake that night, huh?



Sanduskysailor said:


> No, capsize was never an issue for us. Had we had full sail up maybe. If you looked at earlier posts you will notice that I have sailed on a Kiwi 35 in Tampa Bay. *Based on my experience, albeit it limited to one Wed. race on the Kiwi 35, it is entirely possible that the boat capsized with the sails down.* I seriously doubt the capsize was the result of skipper error at the time but more of a combination of a downdraft/microburst and confused seas acting on a seriously underballasted boat. Wingnuts had the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong boat for the conditions encountered.


Perhaps you've seen this one, from a poster over on SAILING ANARCHY? Sounds like he's sailed on numerous Kiwi 35s, and his impression matches yours...



> I grew up in the Tampa Bay area and sailed on a number of Kiwi 35s shortly after they were commissioned.
> 
> I put my 2 cents worth on the other thread, but I will repeat the meat of it here.
> 
> *The boat is effectively a 35 foot dinghy. *I raced on a good number of the production run boats at one point or another. You cannot really put a drogue off the bow of one of these in those conditions because of the design, it will be sailing backwards against the rudder, causing the boat to shear one way or another, even if there was a drogue on board. There is minimal ballast in the keel, more for the rules rather than righting ability. There is not a whole lot of space down below to carry kits like drogues. *When the boat is caught in high wind conditions, like a thunder storm or a front moving through, the only thing can be done is to drop the sails and sail it downwind under bare poles until the conditions pass. *Even then, it can be dicey, because you have to rely on the helmsman to keep the boat under the stick. If you know that there is something coming that can blow a barn off its foundations, this is not the boat to knowingly go out into those possible conditions. *Running with the wind under bare poles is what I understand they were doing, but there is a whole lot of windage and not a whole lot of weight to keep the boat stuck to the water if it is blowing above 60 knots. There is not a dinghy alive that can stay upright in those conditions and I think that the conditions were well in excess of that.*
> 
> Who Killed the Mac Racers, The Storm, or The Boat? - Sailing Anarchy Forums - Page 4


----------



## Steady Freddy

Looks like there were sailing along on the jib when the storm hit and rounded them up, then another gust flipped them over as they were laying on their side. Not an Offshore boat by any means.


----------



## smackdaddy

I wouldn't call lake sailing - even the Great Lakes, "offshore".


----------



## welshwind

smackdaddy said:


> I wouldn't call lake sailing - even the Great Lakes, "offshore".


Not sure why not ... What is your definition? This is a 333 mile race where you are likely 30+ nautical miles (or more) from any shore for a good part of it.

In Lake Michigan, NOAA defines offshore to be five nautical miles. It appears that in Charleston, SC (Looking at the marine forecasts), it defines it as 20 nautical miles into the Atlantic.


----------



## smackdaddy

welshwind said:


> Not sure why not ... What is your definition? This is a 333 mile race where you are likely 30+ nautical miles (or more) from any shore for a good part of it.
> 
> In Lake Michigan, NOAA defines offshore to be five nautical miles. It appears that in Charleston, SC (Looking at the marine forecasts), it defines it as 20 nautical miles into the Atlantic.


Yeah, I guess that definition can get pretty broad based on how you want to define it.

For example, in another thread where everyone was discussing what "blue water" meant in regards to boat design (Is the XXX "blue water" capable?), the consensus was 3-5 days from shore (i.e. - 200+ miles) - or, another way of looking at it, beyond the reliable weather forecast window.

Another way to look at it is how quickly can you find shelter? Or, yet another, how readily available are rescue resources (CG helo, etc.)?

Then you get into the issue of why life rafts were required in one GL race but not in the Mack?

So, what is "offshore" really - when you're talking about a boat being "offshore capable" or not? I'm just thinking, all the factors above taken into account, calling the GLs "offshore" is a stretch.


----------



## LandLocked66c

When you are surfing down a wave on the Great Lakes and can't see land you are offshore IMO... Tankers sink quite often on the GL's, it's an offshore "environment" regardless of how close you are to the shore.


----------



## blt2ski

LandLocked66c said:


> When you are surfing down a wave on the Great Lakes and can't see land you are offshore IMO... Tankers sink quite often on the GL's, it's an offshore "environment" regardless of how close you are to the shore.


This is probably the best way to look at what is or is not off shore! I would think in the middle of a lake that is 50-100 miles across, you do not see land, BIG waves etc......offshore!

Marty


----------



## cb32863

smackdaddy said:


> So, what is "offshore" really - when you're talking about a boat being "offshore capable" or not? I'm just thinking, all the factors above taken into account, calling the GLs "offshore" is a stretch.


You are starting to sound a lot like the folks you used to argue with that said you didn't "really" sail because you sailed on a lake. Now you have an "offshore" race under your belt and your view changes. Come sail on Superior or Michigan or any other great lake sometime and if it pipes up, see how benign it is. Ted Turner called Lake Michigan a "Mil Pond" before his first Chi-Mac. Lake handed him his a**.......


----------



## smackdaddy

cb32863 said:


> You are starting to sound a lot like the folks you used to argue with that said you didn't "really" sail because you sailed on a lake. Now you have an "offshore" race under your belt and your view changes. Come sail on Superior or Michigan or any other great lake sometime and if it pipes up, see how benign it is. Ted Turner called Lake Michigan a "Mil Pond" before his first Chi-Mac. Lake handed him his a**.......


Actually, I'm still going by the definition of "off-shore" I was given on this forum in the thread I mentioned - and have seen echoed on other forums. It sounded pretty reasonable to me.

During my recent off-shore race, we were only 80 miles out at most. So I actually thought it was a bit of a stretch calling it that. But that's never stopped me.

Anyway, as I've always understood it, the term "off-shore" has nothing to do with the characteristics of the body of water (e.g. - the famous Ted quote), but the distance from those things I mentioned above.

So, saying that the GLs are not "off-shore" is not at all a statement regarding their level of potential danger (i.e. - it's not the slight that most people seem to take it)...it's just saying you have a much bigger safety net available on the GLs than if you are 300-500 miles from land.

This, I think, is why life rafts were not required for this race.

And anyway, the boneheads you mention always held that I was not a real sailor because I sailed on a lake. Everyone, including me as a complete greenhorn, knew that was complete crap. They were just jealous. The definition of "real sailors" or "real sailing" has nothing to do with the meaning of in-shore/coastal/off-shore/whatever. So I don't see the parallel.


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> ...it's just saying you have a much bigger safety net available on the GLs than if you are 300-500 miles from land.


You've obviously never been to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan have you? :laugher

Just because the help is closer doesn't mean they can get to you! If the weather is extreme, they still can't get to you by chopper.


----------



## smackdaddy

LandLocked66c said:


> You've obviously never been to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan have you? :laugher
> 
> Just because the help is closer doesn't mean they can get to you! If the weather is extreme, they still can't get to you by chopper. Even if it is close.


Heh-heh. I said "land" not "civilization".


----------



## Steady Freddy

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I said "land" not "civilization".


Personal Attack removed per forum rules


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> Personal Attack removed per forum rules.


Heh-heh. I thought it was JonE you didn't like.


----------



## LandLocked66c

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I thought it was JonE you didn't like.


WOW! That was awesome! Steady came flying off the top ropes like Jimmy Superfly Snuka! I never saw that coming, Smack! :laugher


----------



## zz4gta

LandLocked66c said:


> Just because the help is closer doesn't mean they can get to you! If the weather is extreme, they still can't get to you by chopper.


I will never say that the great lakes are not offshore, but there is a huge difference in safety when you get out of range of helicopter rescue. That's something that I'm sure everyone can agree on.


----------



## smackdaddy

One reason I'm bringing this up, apart from what I've seen as the general consensus on what "offshore" means, is that this is going to be a very important issue in the investigation. The boat's ratings, the required safety equipment, the definition of "offshore", all of it will be reviewed very closely. It now has broader legal meaning.

The CYCMC determined this boat to be suitable for this race under very specific guidelines. There's no way around that.



> The CYCMC shall have full authority to determine the suitability of any boat for entry into any division, and may divide any division into sections at its discretion.





> Boats shall be of a seaworthy offshore type construction of at least twenty-six (26) feet LOA.





> Boats shall submit valid ORR Certificates.


On the other hand, I see the Kiwi40 listed in USS's ORR classes list - but not the Kiwi 35. And the safety rules for one GL race calls for a liferaft, where this one (I'm pretty sure) does not.

So, it's going to be very interesting to see how all this stuff is defined through the investigation. Is this term "offshore" now going to have a legal definition through USS? And if so, what exactly drives that definition?

The other reason I bring it up is because it's interesting to me how the term "offshore" means so many things to different people, to the point that not calling the GLs "offshore" is somehow insulting.

And, of course, another is to amuse the Fredster.


----------



## LandLocked66c

It's OFFICIAL!

Home Page

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/21/137295524/great-lakes-may-beat-atlantic-to-offshore-wind


----------



## JonEisberg

Steady Freddy said:


> Looks like there were sailing along on the jib when the storm hit and rounded them up, then another gust flipped them over as they were laying on their side. Not an Offshore boat by any means.


So, you're sticking with your theory that they furled the headsail _after_ capsizing, huh?


----------



## LandLocked66c

JonEisberg said:


> So, you're sticking with your theory that they furled the headsail _after_ capsizing, huh?


Easy to do when sailing in a "Pond"...


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack,
Did you download the NOR and RRs? There is probably a supplement that shows all the deviations from ISAF (deleting the life raft requirement is very common). The Chicago YC might even have an Equipment Rules supplement on their website. This would be the criteria that boats would be inspected against. I have a copy of the equipment rules for the “Ontario 300”(?) which was very similar to our local OYRA.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack,
> Did you download the NOR and RRs? There is probably a supplement that shows all the deviations from ISAF (deleting the life raft requirement is very common). The Chicago YC might even have an Equipment Rules supplement on their website. This would be the criteria that boats would be inspected against. I have a copy of the equipment rules for the "Ontario 300"(?) which was very similar to our local OYRA.


Yeah, the quotes I pulled above are from the NOR. And the RR (or MSR) refers to the RRS rules...and on and on.



> Purpose of MSR -- MSR - Monohull establishes uniform minimum equipment, accommodation and training standards for monohull boats racing offshore. The MSR do not replace, but rather supplement, the requirements of governmental authorities, the Racing Rules of Sailing (RRS), the rules of Class Associations and all applicable rating rules.


No way I'm going to run down all of those docs! I need an assistant.

Freddy, get on this cross-referencing will you?

http://www.cycracetomackinac.com/the-race/race-documents/


----------



## AWYP

JonEisberg said:


> So, you're sticking with your theory that they furled the headsail _after_ capsizing, huh?


Yeah, why would he change his mind on that one, even though one of the boys rescued is quoted second-hand by his father...

"Rockford resident Chip Cummings, whose 16-year-old son, C.J. was rescued, told The Associated Press that *the WingNuts crew prepared for storms by lowering the sails* but were overcome by sudden, strong winds and waves."

That's sailS, with an "s", as in more than one.

Link to article

And then there's the capsized boat with the jib furled, but hey, what's that prove. It's quite possible that one of the crew felt it necessary to dive down and tidy up a bit after catching their breath.

Now looking at the evidence, Freddy, do you really still believe that Wing Nuts had any sail up?

And you can't be serious when you made the statement to the effect that no competent skipper would ever furl all sails unless they had their engine running and in gear lest they flounder without steerage. Seriously, you believe that? I guess you've never heard of running under bare poles.

There are many, many accounts of boats running under bare poles with no problem of steerage but rather too much boat speed being the skipper's main concern. And while I'm not saying it's a preferred storm tactic, it is one that is used a lot more than you seem to realize. So perhaps it would be wise to educate yourself a bit more before making such blanket statements in the future.


----------



## Steady Freddy

Steady Freddy said:


> Personal Attack removed per forum rules


It's NOT a personaL attack, it's his "own description", (I just don't know about the "wildly popular" part yet)!


----------



## GeorgeB

Smack, thanks for the website, when I get a free moment, I’ll plow through the SI’s, RRS, special provisions, etc. Or did Freddy volunteer to do this and write us a synopsis? As you might have figured out, race crew is easy and race skipper is hard (and expensive too!). I think that most purely cruisers don’t realize the ton of work we do (and compliance checking) before the RC even allows us near a start line. A “cruiser” could do zero prep work and not be anywhere close to compliance and take off at the same time – yet, we’re the ones everybody calls reckless. Go figure.


----------



## smackdaddy

GeorgeB said:


> Smack, thanks for the website, when I get a free moment, I'll plow through the SI's, RRS, special provisions, etc. Or did Freddy volunteer to do this and write us a synopsis? *As you might have figured out, race crew is easy and race skipper is hard (and expensive too!). I think that most purely cruisers don't realize the ton of work we do (and compliance checking) before the RC even allows us near a start line. A "cruiser" could do zero prep work and not be anywhere close to compliance and take off at the same time - yet, we're the ones everybody calls reckless. Go figure.*


That is EXACTLY right. I fought this same battle earlier...either in this thread or another.

As for the synopsis, my assistant Freddie is working on that. I'm sure he'll have it posted by 0600 tomorrow. After all, he doesn't like conjecture.


----------



## Steady Freddy

*"The Wildly Popular Idiot"*


----------



## blt2ski

Steady Freddy said:


> *"The Wildly Popular Idiot"*


And he IS at that! Willy popular, not sure about the idiot part.......maybe an idjiot......then again, who knows..............

Oh, Id share a beer with him WELL before his assistant..........

Marty


----------



## smackdaddy

Steady Freddy said:


> *"The Wildly Popular Idiot"*


Now you're getting the hang of it Fredimacious. And you're right, I am wildly popular...and maddeningly handsome. It's just the cross I have to bear.

Now, all the time you spent figuring out how to make that text bigger and redder could have been spent on the off-shore safety rules cross-referencing I assigned you. An assignment on which you're so clearly dropping the ball.

Here I've thrown you a serious bone on your quest to find "wrongdoing" and you're not even making an effort? So all you really want to do is speculate and cast aspersions and not get down to the facts? Figures.

Well, if you're going to schlub that off, the least you can do is this:

1. Click on "User CP" in the darker blue bar above (below the breadcrumb nav).
2. Click on "Edit Your Details" in the left panel.
3. Enter "Smack's Not So Popular Assistant" in the "Custom User Title" space.
4. Scroll to the bottom of the page and click on "Save Changes"

Chop, chop old boy!


----------



## LandLocked66c

Lol


----------



## Steady Freddy

double lol


----------



## blt2ski

2011 Chicago-Mackinac Race

I have not had a chance to read all 6 pages of the report, but on SA, folks are giving this weather report on how the storm started, hit etc some good reviews. There were a couple of smallish minor errors pointed out, may have been fixed by the author, or in process. The author does seem to have some meteroligy background behind him, and I see notes on SA that "TWO" storms formed into one, so this may have been a mega storm!

Need to head to work, will read all tonight.

marty


----------



## Steady Freddy

blt2ski said:


> 2011 Chicago-Mackinac Race
> 
> I have not had a chance to read all 6 pages of the report, but on SA, folks are giving this weather report on how the storm started, hit etc some good reviews. There were a couple of smallish minor errors pointed out, may have been fixed by the author, or in process. The author does seem to have some meteroligy background behind him, and I see notes on SA that "TWO" storms formed into one, so this may have been a mega storm!
> 
> Need to head to work, will read all tonight,
> marty


Marty, WN was on the rumbline with many other boats, (they had the same exact weather as many others), but they were the only boat who flipped, cause they should not have been out there with that boat. Kiwi35 WILL be excluded from future Chi/Mac races because it was not designed to survive offshore conditions, flipped over, and luckily, only killed two of the 8 crew, (could have been much worse).


----------



## blt2ski

Freddy,

My posting of the weather link, what happened etc, had nothing to do with why WN flipped etc. It is not to say WN should or should not have been out there etc.

I've said many times, WN if I owned her, I would not have been out there. She looks like a 35' long Moth with out the hydrofoils in my eyes. Or other LARGE dinghy as others have said too!

I have not seen a report saying she will or will not be allowed on the course next year. if not.....it would not surprise me frankly! Nor should ANY boat of that style be out there IMHO. That does not help the what happened that night.

From a weather what happened, this is an interesting report now that I have had a reasonably non-quick look at at. 

Marty


----------



## Steady Freddy

Fair enough Marty.


----------



## WDS123

Anyone who intends on going offshore should read the weather analysis closely


And at every radar image - ask yourself what would YOU OWN forecast had been ? 

I failed miserably at even remotely making the correct forecast


----------



## welshwind

The US Sailing annual meeting is occurring right now. I believe the report from the investigating team was due to be shared at the meeting. I looked at the agenda and didn't seen an obvious place. Anyone know when the report is to be made public? Show runs from yesterday through Saturday.


----------



## smackdaddy

I saw a link to an article on it over on SA - but there was very little specific info from the report. It was more a recounting of the sheriff.

One interesting thing was that the focus seemed to be more on the use/dangers of pfds and tethers. Nothing on the issue of the seaworthiness of the boat itself.

It will be interesting to see the report.


----------



## sailortjk1

http://www.sail-world.com/index.cfm?nid=89486&go=100849

Like Smacky said, raises more questions than it answers.


----------



## smackdaddy

Cool - thanks for the link TJ.


----------



## welshwind

The bottom of the piece SailorT provided refers to the report I was asking about. I'm interested to see what the esteemed panel has to say.

The last three paragraphs of what is currently posted state:

Commodore Joseph Haas of the Chicago Yacht Club, the race’s organizer, asked US SAILING to conduct an independent study of what happened. On July 28 Gary Jobson, the President of US SAILING, appointed the Independent Review Panel for the 2011 Mackinac Race, and directed it to consider what lessons might be learned and also to make recommendations.

The members of the Independent Review Panel are (Chairman) Chuck Hawley, Santa Cruz, Cal.; Sheila McCurdy, Middletown, R.I.; Ralph Naranjo, Annapolis, Md.; and John Rousmaniere, New York, N.Y. Each is an experienced offshore sailor, a long-time member of US SAILING’s Safety-at-Sea Committee, and a moderator of US SAILING-certified Safety at Sea Seminars. The Chicago Yacht Club appointed one if its members, Leif Sigmond Jr., to serve as the club’s liaison to the panel.

The Independent Review Panel will present its report to the Chicago Yacht Club and US SAILING’s in late October.


----------



## smackdaddy

Here's the actual report. Looks like that boat shouldn't have been out there - for sure. But there are some interesting details based on the discussion we've had here.

http://media.ussailing.org/AssetFactory.aspx?vid=16940


----------



## SloopJonB

I find it remarkable that we have 36 pages of discussion here and also documentation of an inquiry as well as God knows how many other discussions and inquiries and news articles and on and on and on when the entire situation can be summed up very simply.

The boat was manifestly unsuitable for a long distance race.

The skipper demonstrated extremely poor judgement in entering a long distance race in a boat of that type.

The race committee demonstrated extremely poor judgement in accepting the entry of a boat of that type into a long distance race.

People paid with their lives for those failures of judgement.

End of story.


----------



## GaryHLucas

I read the report, and I have to ask those of you with lots more experience, how many of you would consider wearing a skate boarders helmet? A recent report cites head injuries as being a very large percentage of fatal injuries on sailboats. If the belief of the crew on Wingnuts is correct, both victims were unconscious before they drowned. So a couple of helmets might have saved them. People wear helmets in nearly every other sport, maybe we need sailing helmets.

Gary H. Lucas


----------



## SloopJonB

GaryHLucas said:


> I read the report, and I have to ask those of you with lots more experience, how many of you would consider wearing a skate boarders helmet? A recent report cites head injuries as being a very large percentage of fatal injuries on sailboats. If the belief of the crew on Wingnuts is correct, both victims were unconscious before they drowned. So a couple of helmets might have saved them. People wear helmets in nearly every other sport, maybe we need sailing helmets.
> 
> Gary H. Lucas


I'd rather see booms raised. Helmets are an unfortunate necessity when you only have two wheels under you but I'd hate to see them on sailboats. I, myself, personally will continue to take my chances on SEAWORTHY boats that don't suddenly invert with me below decks. (although in that case, they probably wouldn't. )


----------



## JonEisberg

SloopJonB said:


> I'd rather see booms raised. Helmets are an unfortunate necessity when you only have two wheels under you but I'd hate to see them on sailboats. I, myself, personally will continue to take my chances on SEAWORTHY boats that don't suddenly invert with me below decks. (although in that case, they probably wouldn't. )


Exactly... I can't imagine doing anything as dorky as wearing a helmet while sailing, on anything less than the new AC boats, or something like an Open 60 trimiran... (grin)

Having said that, however, I believe a bicycle-type helmet is a VERY valuable item to have when sailing offshore, and even if I weren't carrying a bike aboard, I'd still want a helmet aboard... Not necessarily for use while sailing, but for at least 3 other potential scenarios:

If you have to go up the rig offshore, definitely...

In serious gale or storm conditions, use of a helmet while BELOW DECKS can be a prudent move... That's when you are least aware of what might be coming, when a knockdown might take you completely by surprise... I've only done it a couple of times, but I think wearing a helmet while sleeping in storm conditions can be a good idea, that's when you are often most vulnerable to being injured in a knockdown...

And, you really want to be wearing a helmet of some sort if you have to dive on your prop or rudder in a seaway - especially with today's modern boats with their extremely beamy, flat hull sections aft, and hard-edged sugar scoop transoms, etc...

Of course, in conditions where it might occur to one to don a helmet while on deck or in the cockpit, have at it... But for the type of sailing 99.9% of us do 99.9% of the time, seems a bit silly, to me...


----------



## davidpm

JonEisberg said:


> .
> 
> And, you really want to be wearing a helmet of some sort if you have to dive on your prop or rudder in a seaway - especially with today's modern boats with their extremely beamy, flat hull sections aft, and hard-edged sugar scoop transoms, etc...


Sounds like a good idea in theory, would hate to be bonked by the boat bottom.
Probably need to bring some divers weights too though.
It is already pretty hard to get down to the prop as it is.
A helmet would add some more flotation


----------



## smackdaddy

Helmets might have helped...might not have. The woman apparently had a lot of facial trauma - which a bike helmet would have done nothing to counter.

I'm not wearing a helmet. That's just goofy. If I get taken out because of it - you guys can hammer me in-memoriam. Until then, I'll just point and laugh at you goofy-ass helmet wearers while drinking my Dark and Stormies at the helm.


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Helmets....you are missing the point. As a person who was on another boat 15 miles away from this incident and also who has raced on a Kiwi 35 my viewpoint is different. The report pretty much confirms my thoughts that the boat was unsuitable for the race.

Sadly the 2 that died had head trauma. A helmet might not have prevented a concussion which could have been just as fatal when you are under the boat. Thankfully the 6 others survived because of the alertness of another crew. Lake Michigan was unusually warm this year plus the air temperature was moderate. Some years the water is 10 degrees cooler along with air temps in the upper 50s. Hypothermia could have easily claimed lives. No helmet would have saved you from that.

Bottom line is that a boat needs to stay upright and at a minimum self right itself immediately. Wing Nuts didn't qualify on either count. I'd bet big money that CYC tightens up its requirements and that there are more inspections next year. The requirements are pretty precise. I had to meet them for the PH Mac last year on my boat. Fortunately I had done 18 Macs on other boats and had the advice and help of others to meet them.


----------



## welshwind

I just finished reading the final report. I recommend reading it including the appendices. It is all pretty compelling and enlightening. Definitely a tragedy, but we all ready knew that.


----------



## SloopJonB

Sanduskysailor said:


> The requirements are pretty precise. I had to meet them for the PH Mac last year on my boat. Fortunately I had done 18 Macs on other boats and had the advice and help of others to meet them.


Precise they may be (and elaborate and well intentioned I'm sure) but they were obviously lacking in some common sense and plain old good seamanship since that boat was allowed in the race. No matter how many fire extinguishers, PFD's, non-covered lifelines etc. were required by the rules and were onboard, one look at that boat should have disqualified it. If the race committee demonstrated the judgement expected of them, they should have laughed out loud when they got the entry form for it. What's next? Lasers and Sabots?


----------



## Sanduskysailor

Sloop John B I assume you read my opening statement that I thought the boat was unsuitable for the race. The Port Huron Mac hasn't let outboard monohulls do the (Cove Island) long course (although they allow them on the shorter and closer to shore Shore Course). The first time I saw Wing Nuts at Monroe Harbor before the Mac race a couple of years ago I remarked to my buddy that they must be crazy to let this boat into the race.

We had an injured crew member on our boat just before the Mac storm hit. Fortunately we had an emergency medical professional as part of the crew. He had his emergency crash kit with things like IVs and conformable splints. The injured crew started to go into shock because of the compound fracture which is serious. Fortunately he was stabilized as it was a 3+ hour rough ride to an awaiting ambulance on shore. We had him securely confined with a lee cloth and cushions in the port settee. If we would have had a 4 hp outboard and a minimal interior like Wingnuts the outcome could very well have been different. For all of those who think the CG will rescue in time you think again. In a storm like the Mac Race storm it would be hours not minutes before CG cutter or RIB could get to you and get you off the boat. In the 6 foot confused seas during the storm there is no way to offload an injured crew short of putting him in the water and having a swimmer swim him to a RIB or helicopter basket.

So although a helmet might prevent some head injuries it more prudent to have a well prepared stable boat, well stocked medical kit, at least 2 people with some emergency medical training, and good communications gear. I highly recommend to anyone doing an offshore race or passage to attend a USSA Safety at Seminar. I attended one and it is well worth it.

I'm still upset about the tragedy. Thank God for the bravery and professionalism that the crews of Sociable and the other yachts who participated in the search and rescue. The tragedy could have been easily a lot worse.


----------



## SloopJonB

Sanduskysailor said:


> Sloop John B I assume you read my opening statement that I thought the boat was unsuitable for the race. The Port Huron Mac hasn't let outboard monohulls do the (Cove Island) long course (although they allow them on the shorter and closer to shore Shore Course). The first time I saw Wing Nuts at Monroe Harbor before the Mac race a couple of years ago I remarked to my buddy that they must be crazy to let this boat into the race.
> 
> We had an injured crew member on our boat just before the Mac storm hit. Fortunately we had an emergency medical professional as part of the crew. He had his emergency crash kit with things like IVs and conformable splints. The injured crew started to go into shock because of the compound fracture which is serious. Fortunately he was stabilized as it was a 3+ hour rough ride to an awaiting ambulance on shore. We had him securely confined with a lee cloth and cushions in the port settee. If we would have had a 4 hp outboard and a minimal interior like Wingnuts the outcome could very well have been different. For all of those who think the CG will rescue in time you think again. In a storm like the Mac Race storm it would be hours not minutes before CG cutter or RIB could get to you and get you off the boat. In the 6 foot confused seas during the storm there is no way to offload an injured crew short of putting him in the water and having a swimmer swim him to a RIB or helicopter basket.
> 
> So although a helmet might prevent some head injuries it more prudent to have a well prepared stable boat, well stocked medical kit, at least 2 people with some emergency medical training, and good communications gear. I highly recommend to anyone doing an offshore race or passage to attend a USSA Safety at Seminar. I attended one and it is well worth it.
> 
> I'm still upset about the tragedy. Thank God for the bravery and professionalism that the crews of Sociable and the other yachts who participated in the search and rescue. The tragedy could have been easily a lot worse.


I did read all your post and my comments were in no way intended to be critical of you or your comments - I just pulled the "policies" bit because I wanted to add my comments about them. You and the rest of your crew are exactly what SHOULD be in a race like the Mac. The attitude, skills and prudence indicated in your post is exactly the sort of thing the race committee should be using as their standard. Instead they seem to be more focused on how close they can shave it. It's an all too common attitude these days, from yacht designers through builders to race committees. The common thread seems to be "But we're RACING". The sea doesn't care if you're racing or cruising or fishing and people are just as dead if they make big errors of judgement in any case. Saving a few seconds or minutes in a toy boat race is not worth risking anyone's life over.

I was cruising up the coast last year when the skipper had his artificial hip blow out while we were anchored. We only had a short motor in fine weather to a yacht club dock where the C.G. and RCMP marine patrol met us along with the ambulance and paramedics. That situation was a very unpleasant experience but it was like a stubbed toe compared to what you went through. You and your crewmates have my respect for your exemplary seamanship.


----------



## ChuckA

*Sociable honored with Arthur B. Hanson Rescue Medal*

From sailworld via Rhode Island Yachting:

US Sailing awarded the Arthur B. Hanson Rescue Medal Saturday, November 5th to Sociable's skipper, Robert Arzbaecher (Brookfield Wis.), and his crew at the race's awards dinner at the Chicago Yacht Club for their rescue of six sailors from the yacht WingNuts which capsized on Lake Michigan in the midst of a storm during the Chicago Yacht Club Race to Mackinac.

Sociable skipper Robert Arzbaecher said, "A life jacket, a whistle and a light. My God, how simple it can be? But that's what it was," on receiving the Hanson Rescue Medal this week. During the awards ceremony Arzbaecher marveled at how effective basic mandatory equipment was, including the simple Lifesling that many yachts carry hoping they will never have to use it.

Let's stay safe out there.
Sitting on the hard, already dreaming of spring.


----------



## smackdaddy

Sociable. Those guys done good. They deserve everything they get. Great decision making. Great execution.


----------

