Desirable and Undesirable Characteristics of Offshore Yachts

[estarzinger]

Before my first offshore trip as skipper I read through all the Fastnet reports and got this out of it:

The boat will take it if you can, do not EVER get off the boat unless it is a step up. Remember the guy left for dead on a boat "about to sink" who eventually came home not dead in that very boat?

Fatigue and seasickness will turn a minor problem into a disaster too, or at least you will think it is with the minimal brain function you have left.

yea . . . . some years ago, Beth and I had been advising a couple getting ready for Chile, and on our final night with them they asked for any last advise . . . . I told them 'always do the exact right best thing possible to 100% quality immediately right now when you first think it might be useful no matter how tired or sick you are, most especially when you are dog tired and barfing sick'.

The trick is that you need to know what that exactly right thing to do is, and how to do it exactly right.  Some people have an innate skill and feeling for that, and others need to accumulate vast experience to be able to, and then there are some who just will never ever get it.  Even those last can get by on sheer tenacity , if they have it in huge doses, but it will not be pretty.

 

[accnick]

Fatigue and seasickness will turn a minor problem into a disaster too, or at least you will think it is with the minimal brain function you have left.

This ^

 

[accnick]

yea . . . . some years ago, Beth and I had been advising a couple getting ready for Chile, and on our final night with them they asked for any last advise . . . . I told them 'always do the exact right best thing possible to 100% quality immediately right now when you first think it might be useful no matter how tired or sick you are, most especially when you are dog tired and barfing sick'.

The trick is that you need to know what that exactly right thing to do is, and how to do it exactly right.  Some people have an innate skill and feeling for that, and others need to accumulate vast experience to be able to, and then there are some who just will never ever get it.  Even those last can get by on sheer tenacity , if they have it in huge doses, but it will not be pretty.

This, too. ^

 

[Twaddle]

The discussion of the Golden Globe race here doesn't seem to be based on what actually happened:

Are Wiig: rolled and dismasted while hove to.

Susie Goodall: pitchpoled and dismasted while using a series drogue. 

Gregor McGuckin: rolled and dismasted while trailing warps in cross seas.

Abhilash Tomy: rolled and dismasted while lying ahull.

It is not obvious that any kind of "keel tripping" occurred.

One factor that seems to come up a lot is a breaking wave from 90 degrees to the prevailing direction. I am doubtful that any passive strategy can deal with that.

On GGR vs Longue Route boats: the modern boats mostly kept further north and didn't have the "benefit" of Don McIntyre's advice, so didn't seem to encounter the same conditions.

I believe there have been no capsizes in the Clipper race. Big boats obviously, but still interesting to compare with IMOCAs. Having someone (who isn't exhausted) actively sailing the boat could well be the most important factor after not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[estarzinger]

On GGR vs Longue Route boats: the modern boats mostly kept further north ad well be the most important factor after not being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We had a good friend in the Longue.  They had access to 'modern' weather information (which I have suspected some of the French also had in the ggr)  

But there was also quite a 'cultural' difference between the two races - with the GGR being much more 'macho' and less seamanlike.

One would have to dive pretty deeply into each specific incident but when I have looked, I have not been convinced that any were 'unavoidable disaster's'.   . . . As a matter of basic preparation . . . a small boat going deeply into the southern ocean, without good weather information, needs to anticipate a knockdown as a matter of course. And I was surprised at how many started off with shitty self-steering equipment (which should have been job #1 to get perfect for this race)

 

[Jud - s/v Sputnik]

By a very large margin it would NOT be a book about boat characteristics and design.  It would be directed at the skipper - maintaining situational awareness, fatigue management, being pro-active rather than reactive, etc etc.  There is a whole category of such books dealing with risk/emergency/crisis/stress response.  . . . the whole "Long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror" skill set.  However, not all of them deal with the fatigue management issues, which is distinctive to a few such situations, including being short handed in the S ocean.

Though I’ve not read it yet - and we’re straying off topic (albeit in a perhaps equally if not more interesting direction!  Desirable and undesirable characteristics of offshore sailors...) - here’s a good place to mention one such book since it’s from a “local” here -@Foolish’s book— as he’s obviously put a lot of thought into these topics: https://www.sfbaysss.org/resource/doc/SinglehandedTipsThirdEdition.pdf

 

[MFH125]

Reading these oldtimer books is like reading a book about old computers. Weighing the virtues of a Teletype over a CRT. 8" floppies vs. 3 1/2" or a deck of Hollerith cards. The sailing world has thankfully moved on. As much to be learned from these old designers as from a Ford auto engineer from 1965. Before you jump down my throat here...I sail an almost-antique yacht, so...

Did you write this post from a Commodore 64?  Developments in computing technology have been exponential over the last 50 years (This is what Moore's Law explicitly claims, at any rate).  Development in boats and cars has been significant, but there's a reason that people might reasonably recommend a Tartan 37 as a great family boat, but no one would suggest that you pick up an Apple Lisa for your family computer.

When it comes to technical development, cars and boats seem fairly comparable to me.  Engineering have improved, regulations have changed significantly, the "modern comforts" demanded by the market have expanded and made both more complex.  There are cars (and boats) capable of doing things today that were unimaginable in the mid 80s.  The average modern consumer car, however, would be totally recognizable to someone in the 1980s.  It's the result of 30 years of refinement, not a quantum leap.

I think there's an awful lot to learn from a ford auto engineer of the 1960s, by the way.  Same for a yacht designer or an aerospace engineer of the same era.  The basics for consumer grade cars/boats (even planes) were well understood by then.   Our ability to execute has improve a lot, though.  Your basic undergraduate engineering degree of 2021 covers very little technology developed since the mid 60s -- most of what you absolutely must know to be an engineer in math, material science, control theory, structural mechanics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, etc. is 50+ years old.  The newer stuff is significant, but its usually too specific for an undergraduate class.  The huge exception to that has to do with computing.

Ok, I'm done quibbling with your analogy.

 

[Elegua]

Though I’ve not read it yet - and we’re straying off topic (albeit in a perhaps equally if not more interesting direction!  Desirable and undesirable characteristics of offshore crew...) - here’s a good place to mention one such book since it’s from a “local” here -@Foolish’s book— as he’s obviously put a lot of thought into these topics: https://www.sfbaysss.org/resource/doc/SinglehandedTipsThirdEdition.pdf

That book is very helpful even if not sailing single handed. In any case much of the times you are on watch on a short-handed boat you are are essentially single handing. 

 

[El Borracho]

I think there's an awful lot to learn from a ford auto engineer of the 1960s, by the way.  Same for a yacht designer or an aerospace engineer of the same era.

That is no way to proceed. You think any recent successful design team, say at Tesla or Toyota, tore down a 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 to see what made it tick? Laughable. Absolutely zero to be learned there. Unless re-creating some bygone era, no smart yacht designer would bother reading any dusty books searching for tech tips. The experiments have been done and the results are clearly presented in recent designs. Whatever was successful in 1962 has been preserved by its success. No need to look backwards.

 

[SloopJonB]

True.

Well, maybe keel attachments from BITD could be studied.

 

[Elegua]

That is no way to proceed. You think any recent successful design team, say at Tesla or Toyota, tore down a 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 to see what made it tick? Laughable. Absolutely zero to be learned there. Unless re-creating some bygone era, no smart yacht designer would bother reading any dusty books searching for tech tips. The experiments have been done and the results are clearly presented in recent designs. Whatever was successful in 1962 has been preserved by its success. No need to look backwards.

Internal combustion has been pretty well understood for a long time.  What's changed is materials science and advances in computation (CFD) and sensors have allowed designers to put those concepts into practice.  Much of the advances have been applied to safety and emissions controls. Interestingly in many cases, today you can get away with using inferior materials due to the use of electronic controls. For example, you don't need a forged piston and can use a cheap aluminum one if you have a way to detect and prevent knock fast enough. 

 

[MFH125]

That is no way to proceed. You think any recent successful design team, say at Tesla or Toyota, tore down a 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 to see what made it tick? Laughable. Absolutely zero to be learned there.

They didn't have to tear down a Galaxie to learn from it because engineers document what they learn in standards, memos, technical reports, etc.  People designing modern cars are absolutely making use of technologies and design standards from the 1960s and probably much earlier.  I don't know the specifics of the auto-engineering industry, but this is certainly true of both aerospace and naval architecture. 

NACA foil sections are still used frequently despite being much older than the Ford Galaxie who's technology you consider laughable.  The NACA 00XX foil profile used for most modern boat rudders was developed in the 1920s.  Abbott and Doenhoff's book on foil sections, first published in 1949 has sat on the shelf of every office I've worked in.  Are there more modern approaches to airfoil design? Yes, of course.  But I can tell you from experience that they don't produce dramatically better results.  Using a NACA foil section will usually get you 90-95% of the way to optimal.

Similarly in Naval Architecture, people still use things like the ITTC lines for estimating friction drag that were developed in the 1950s.  Nothing William Froude was publishing in the 1860s about model testing has been found wrong.  We've just developed on it.  Hell, the biggest difference between the tank test results Olin Stephens was getting in the 1960s and the ones we get today has to do with better modern sensors.

Can you believe all these industries using all this old technology?  Laughable!  What a joke.  How silly.

Fundamental technical knowledge doesn't go out of date. Older generations of engineers weren't incompetent.  They could even occasionally muster up enough insight to design a boat that you, a confirmed retrophobe and ardent technologist, might deign to own!

Unless re-creating some bygone era, no smart yacht designer would bother reading any dusty books searching for tech tips. The experiments have been done and the results are clearly presented in recent designs. Whatever was successful in 1962 has been preserved by its success. No need to look backwards.

This is just demonstrably wrong.

For 50 years the only people who talked about bowsprits, let alone retractable bowsprits, were the kind of people who bathed in pine tar and trimmed their beards with a spoke shave.  Now they're found on pretty much every modern racing yacht.

Fin keels and separate rudders were being used on boats in the late 1890s, but largely fell out of fashion for ~70 years because of racing rules and the limitations of contemporary construction materials.  I'm sure the underwater profile of the Star Class and other boats from 50+ years earlier had no influence on Bill Lapworth and others who were reintroducing them in the mid 60s.

But sure, there's nothing to be gained by looking at what people have tried before.

 

[El Borracho]

They didn't have to tear down a Galaxie to learn from it because engineers document what they learn in standards, memos, technical reports, etc.  People designing modern cars are absolutely making use of technologies and design standards from the 1960s and probably much earlier.  I don't know the specifics of the auto-engineering industry, but this is certainly true of both aerospace and naval architecture. 

NACA foil sections are still used frequently despite being much older than the Ford Galaxie who's technology you consider laughable.  The NACA 00XX foil profile used for most modern boat rudders was developed in the 1920s.  Abbott and Doenhoff's book on foil sections, first published in 1949 has sat on the shelf of every office I've worked in.  Are there more modern approaches to airfoil design? Yes, of course.  But I can tell you from experience that they don't produce dramatically better results.  Using a NACA foil section will usually get you 90-95% of the way to optimal.

Similarly in Naval Architecture, people still use things like the ITTC lines for estimating friction drag that were developed in the 1950s.  Nothing William Froude was publishing in the 1860s about model testing has been found wrong.  We've just developed on it.  Hell, the biggest difference between the tank test results Olin Stephens was getting in the 1960s and the ones we get today has to do with better modern sensors.

Can you believe all these industries using all this old technology?  Laughable!  What a joke.  How silly.

Fundamental technical knowledge doesn't go out of date. Older generations of engineers weren't incompetent.  They could even occasionally muster up enough insight to design a boat that you, a confirmed retrophobe and ardent technologist, might deign to own!

This is just demonstrably wrong.

For 50 years the only people who talked about bowsprits, let alone retractable bowsprits, were the kind of people who bathed in pine tar and trimmed their beards with a spoke shave.  Now they're found on pretty much every modern racing yacht.

Fin keels and separate rudders were being used on boats in the late 1890s, but largely fell out of fashion for ~70 years largely because of racing rules and the limitations of contemporary construction materials.  I'm sure the underwater profile of the Star Class and other boats from 50+ years earlier had no influence on Bill Lapworth and others who were reintroducing them in the mid 60s.

But sure, there's nothing to be gained by looking at what people have tried before.

You confirmed everything I wrote...inadvertently perhaps. Yes, the successful techniques persist in 2021 designs: NACA foil sections, bowsprits, the maths, etc. The magic of evolution. No advantage in consulting any designers from the early 1900's. An astute designer in 2021 would extensively sail, study, evaluate a POGO or Gunboat, etc., not pore over Joshua Slocum's egotistical boasts about his Spray design. Same with the instant book.

 

[kent_island_sailor]

FYI - Something like 95% of everything known about subsonic aerodynamics was known by the mid 1930s. I am not sure it is a good thing, but a 1935 era aeronautical engineer would be right at home over at the Piper or Cessna factory today. They aren't doing much that is different except aluminum skin is a lot more common and fabric less so. Still using the same magnetos and carbs for the most part too.

Back to boats, the idea that running aground would need $15,000 worth of NDT or the keel would soon fall off is a new idea that could stand to be scrapped in favor of the old way.

 

[Jud - s/v Sputnik]

No advantage in consulting any designers from the early 1900's...not pore over Joshua Slocum's egotistical boasts about his Spray design. 

The esteemed Guy Bernardin went back in time to Ye Olde Wayes... (“Laissez les bon vieux temps rouler,” as we say in Canadianese French...)

Originally, then some years after he ran the same vessel through the Time Machine:

 

[Foolish]

However, not all of them deal with the fatigue management issues, which is distinctive to a few such situations,

One of the things I realized is that nutrition and meal planning is a huge part of athletic performance that was not being covered for long distance sailors.  Although there was some literature for ultramarathon runners, their major challenge is simply in-taking enough calories.  But for singlehanded sailors it is more fatigue management.  It has been said that the  skipper who sleeps best, wins.

This is why a few years ago I did a lot of research and wrote a complete paper on Meal Planning for Improved Performance in Long Distance Singlehanded Voyages.  I actually consider this one of my most important works.  You can download it here: https://www.sugarsync.com/pf/D7718709_68878570_6823572

 

[MFH125]

@Borracho, You're ascribing an opinion to me which I am not saying.  I am not arguing that there has been no technological progress since the 1960s.  That would be ridiculous.

This is what you initially wrote:

Reading these oldtimer books is like reading a book about old computers. Weighing the virtues of a Teletype over a CRT. 8" floppies vs. 3 1/2" or a deck of Hollerith cards. The sailing world has thankfully moved on. As much to be learned from these old designers as from a Ford auto engineer from 1965. Before you jump down my throat here...I sail an almost-antique yacht, so...

My response was that development in computing is on a different scale than in naval architecture.  I offhandedly pointed out (and I'm starting to regret it) that one could, in fact, learn a great deal from engineers of the 1960s.  This is NOT because the engineers of the 1960's know more than the engineers of 2021.  It's because they did, in fact, know something about boats, cars, and airplanes in 1965.

For the record... a lot of old time books about computers are still excellent.  Books like The Art of Computer Programming (Knuth, 1962) and Algorithms and Data Stuctures (Wirth, 1976) are still widely recommended and read.  The example code is written in languages which no one should use today, but the basic principles they are outlining are still highly relevant and particularly well explained.

Yes, the successful techniques persist in 2021 designs: NACA foil sections, bowsprits, the maths, etc. The magic of evolution. No advantage in consulting any designers from the early 1900's.

When you use a NACA airfoil, you are consulting the knowledge of old aeronautical engineers.  Often literally.  The standard reference for NACA foils isTheory of Wing Sections by Abbott and Doenhoff which was written in 1949.  The evolutionary process you're describing is not separate from consulting historical precedent, experience, and opinion.

Bowsprits and fin keels did not persist.  They were resurrected by designers who were familiar with the history of their field and who had sufficient mental flexibility to repurpose or reevaluate design ideas that were considered old-fashioned or "failed."

An astute designer in 2021 would extensively sail, study, evaluate a POGO or Gunboat, etc., not pore over Joshua Slocum's egotistical boasts about his Spray design. Same with the instant book.

These aren't mutually exclusive.  It is possible to both study modern designs and read Slocum/Herreshoff/Farmer/whoever.  The designer who does both is probably better equipped to create good boats and push the field forward than someone who only does one or the other.

 

[shaggybaxter]

Will the boat do that on autopilot? Will it go that fast, safely, with a husband and wife offshore who cannot be trimming and steering constantly? Serious  question, because I've only ever sailed leadmines offshore.

Hiya Cruising,

Up to and into the 30's yes, and better than me (which might not be a high bar  ). When the wind/sea state picked up I'd engage the pilot and then stand in the cabinway and watch the helm, adjusting everything till the wheel was moving a few inches at a time. The big difference between the electronic brain and me was it would react earlier and with less input, ie: as soon as the heel of the boat changed from a passing wave picking up a corner of the boat.    

There were a couple of things you had to keep in mind:

- Hard core VMG mode doesn't work well in big seas. If I was set to say 40-45 TWA, going over a wave can push you head to wind and every now and then the pilot could struggle to put enough helm into it to correct it. As the sea state increased I'd add some buffer in and fall off to 55-60 TWA. It would handle that all day. Same thing for DDW, I wouldn't have the pilot on below 160TWA in big seas. 

-Shit in-shit out still holds true. The pilot is only as good as the inputs, and the input sensors all have a bonkers amount of correction and sample rate adjustments you can apply. It took time to get the optimal settings worked out. We used to get a lot of upwash over the masthead when running deep with a full main which would throw out your Apparent wind speed/angle, so I had to work out an autopilot mode for that for example.  

- Comfort. Like the inputs, the output (helm response) is adjustable. You could set it to aggressive and in big seas it would track on rails but the motion is violent. Or you could back off to a more leisurely setting so you can make a cup of tea but the course track would be more vague and wander about the heading somewhat. That was the key to running close-hauled or deep when you had to, simply set the AP to be more aggressive. Big difference in helm response. 

 But in short, absolutely I trusted the AP in big seas without a full crew. 

Cheers!

SB

Edit: I only used it once in 40 knots plus, and that was on a broad reach under white sails with too much sail up and it handled it fine. You're planing though and bow up, so the pilot isn't working that hard bizarrely. But man there is a big difference from 30's to 40's, 30's is enjoyable, 40's is not.       

 

[El Borracho]

For the record... a lot of old time books about computers are still excellent.  Books like The Art of Computer Programming (Knuth, 1962) and Algorithms and Data Stuctures (Wirth, 1976) are still widely recommended and read. 

Knuth? You have wandered into the weeds. Yeah, read Knuth to tweak your 8085 qsort routine. He is not wrong, just irrelevant in 2021. As irrelevant as yesteryear designer’s now quaint ideas of offshore yacht characteristics. Studying history can be interesting. Restorations can be celebrated. But reality has moved on.

 

[MFH125]

Knuth? You have wandered into the weeds. Yeah, read Knuth to tweak your 8085 qsort routine. He is not wrong, just irrelevant in 2021. As irrelevant as yesteryear designer’s now quaint ideas of offshore yacht characteristics. Studying history can be interesting. Restorations can be celebrated. But reality has moved on.

Do you ever respond to people's main points, or just side comments?

Whether reality has moved on or not, you clearly have.  God bless, man.