"JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0_NNj.8632$V14.4155@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
> Capt., I don't think that heaving to is the "generally best method of
> survival" in storm conditions. For example, as pointed out in the
> Annapolis Book of Seaman****p, Heaving-to leaves a boat vulnerable to
steep
> breaking waves, so it is not the best tactic early in the storm or in an
> exceptional storm. As also stated in the Annapolis work, different
methods
> may be preferred under different conditions, and for different boats. -
> For example: "Discussions of storm tactics often stray into debates
about
> families of drag devices. In their quest for absolute answers, many
> participants (Capt?) in these heated arguments choose one device and
damn
> the other, studiously ignoring the fact that there is nothing aboluste
> even about a storm at sea. Conditions are constantly changing...
Different
> tactics and gear work best at different stages and on different types of
> boats."
Feel free to believe what you want. Heaving-to is one of the best methods
to
survive a storm vs. bare poles. I never said it was the only or even "the"
best, since that's dependent upon the conditions. Keep at it though... I'm
sure you'll just improve your standing in the "ridiculous" line.
> Because of it's light weight, my opinion is that the Macs would do
better
> with a storm anchor (as previously stated) rather than being hove to or
> under a reefed sail plan.
Do better? Now, that's funny. Even if it didn't sink immediately, it would
be completely uninhabitable, and since all the rigging would be gone, it
would be unsailable.
>
>>
>> Despite Jim's rather bizarre assumptions about survivability in a Mac
in
>> heavy seas, the discussion did get me thinking about rigging.
>
> In other words, you're backing off your previous dogmatic position...
Ummm.... this was a response to Bruce or did you bump your head on your
Mac?
>
> 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.
>
> Dismasting would reduce the inertia of a boat when rolling in one
> direction or the other, and would therefore lessen the forces acting
> against the forces opposing it, e.g., the "boat-righting" forces exerted
> by the keel or ballast. Permitting the keel or ballast to more
efficiently
> resist a knock-down or complete roll.
Apparently not according to an expert. Perhaps you can argue with him for
a
while.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Why not accept the position suggested in the Annapolis text? - That is,
> the best solution may depend on the particular conditions and the
> particular boat. But under severe storm condidions, heaving to is not
> recommended.
You're wrong. You're misreading what was said. And, you're getting boring,
sup****ting a piece of junk.
--
"j" ganz @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
