On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:04:14 -0700, "Capt. JG" <jganz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Bruce in Bangkok" <b*paige*125@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:27g8041if045lq5r02dtcbn9av4naq2prg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
>>>> heavy
>>>> seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
>>>> ocean
>>>> in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
>>>> shows
>>>> this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to
side
>>>> in
>>>> ocean conditions? I have.-
>>>
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>> Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
>> is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
>> would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
>> understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
>> lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
>> place.
>>
>> It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
>> the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
>> the deck line.
>>
>> I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
>> single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.
>>
>>
>> Bruce-in-Bangkok
>> (correct email address for reply)
>
>
>If it was bare poles, then no as far as absolute stability goes, but in
>storm conditions, the generally accepted best method of survival is to
heave
>to, rather than lying ahull. This implies some sail up. Thus, some
ability
>to sail and greater stability while doing so. Even running before the
storm,
>you might be able to do that with bare poles, but I don't think you could
do
>it dismasted. You need something up to heave-to.
I apparently misunderstood the situation you were describing.
However discussing the ability of any boat to withstand the sea is a
highly subjective subject as in a serious storm any boat can be
overwhelmed.
Heaving to, for example is a good tactic... until the waves get high
enough that they are breaking and you may well be rolled. On the other
hand, running off is a good tactic until the waves become steep enough
that your drogues cannot slow you sufficiently and you bury the bow in
the trough of the wave and pitch pole.
Even in the Fastnet race there were vastly different experiences with
some boats overcome and others merely having a "spot of heavy weather"
as the British put it.
But all things considered I suspect that the hatchway and ****ts of a
lightly built boat wold be the weak points and the boat would probably
have serious problems not being swamped.
>
>Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac in
>heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging. Seems to me
it
>would not make the boat more stable than under bare poles due to weight
>aloft and no sails for stability, but the rigging would resist or at
least
>dampen a 360 roll... probably just one time around.
>
>If what I wrote was interpreted to imply that one would simply have bare
>poles vs. being dismasted (as thought that would be much of a choice), it
>was not my intention - I suppose Jim will be bitter, sorry for the
political
>pun -- I was always thinking that if I can put any kind of sail up,
that'll
>be an advantage, which is why they make storm sails.... heaving to,
making
>some progress vs. being at the mercy of whatever comes your way.
>
>All this said, I can't imagine someone purposefully dismasting to improve
>stability. Wow... great idea... a collapsible mast that you could just
fold
>up and stow. I think this would be perfect for the Mac enthusiast who
wants
>to go offshore. LOL
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)
|
