[bolger] mj knockdowns/ G Cheers
BO>Hi Ed - well we're joining the club. We got knocked down yesterday - and
BO>unfortuanely the hatch was open and we swamped.
FWIW...
Graham Cheer's turtle-turning and other knockdowns on "Shirley
Valentine" came about in part because of too much sail up, in part
leeboards hitting mud hummocks hidden in our murky waters, but in the
worst cases because the windward side ballast tanks slowly emptied.
He's ensured an airtight =and= watertight seal now; also doesn't attempt
harikiri approaches either.
To go over in 25 knots, soemthing had to be wrong. MJ was sailing,
slicing, nicely to windward without a reef in 25 knot winds in the
recent Goolwa-Milang race (while poor Flying Tadpole was tacking through
170 degrees trying to cope with the chop, heavily reefed. The MJ beat
the LS, hiss boo, shame... both came nowhere in a 2/3rds windward race).
Losing the mizzen would be enough...
Tim & FT2
BO>unfortuanely the hatch was open and we swamped.
FWIW...
Graham Cheer's turtle-turning and other knockdowns on "Shirley
Valentine" came about in part because of too much sail up, in part
leeboards hitting mud hummocks hidden in our murky waters, but in the
worst cases because the windward side ballast tanks slowly emptied.
He's ensured an airtight =and= watertight seal now; also doesn't attempt
harikiri approaches either.
To go over in 25 knots, soemthing had to be wrong. MJ was sailing,
slicing, nicely to windward without a reef in 25 knot winds in the
recent Goolwa-Milang race (while poor Flying Tadpole was tacking through
170 degrees trying to cope with the chop, heavily reefed. The MJ beat
the LS, hiss boo, shame... both came nowhere in a 2/3rds windward race).
Losing the mizzen would be enough...
Tim & FT2
In a message dated 3/8/2000 12:40:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard@...writes:
<< Could you explain where the crew was positioned through 45 degrees, and
where you were sitting at 90 degrees?
richard@...writes:
<< Could you explain where the crew was positioned through 45 degrees, and
where you were sitting at 90 degrees?
>>We were sitting on the high side until we fell out. Steve
One thing no one has mentioned, but everybody says is very important in
boats this size, is crew weight.
Could you explain where the crew was positioned through 45 degrees, and
where you were sitting at 90 degrees?
You say below that you fell off off the lee rail, and were no longer
acting as ballast, after 90 degrees? If you were sitting on the lee rail
at 90 degrees, your weight would have been counteracting the sandbag
ballast, and trying to make her turtle... just a thought.
Hwal@...wrote:
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
Don't have a webpage yet? Your competition does! See us for custom web
design.
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
boats this size, is crew weight.
Could you explain where the crew was positioned through 45 degrees, and
where you were sitting at 90 degrees?
You say below that you fell off off the lee rail, and were no longer
acting as ballast, after 90 degrees? If you were sitting on the lee rail
at 90 degrees, your weight would have been counteracting the sandbag
ballast, and trying to make her turtle... just a thought.
Hwal@...wrote:
>--
> point. And then we fell off and I Lost track of exactly what was happening
> since my wife was forgetting to pull the rip cord on her inflatable ( which
> we always wear) - so I was focused more on her for at that point. What I
> think happened was that she ( the boat not my wife) reached 90 degrees and
> wanted to self right but the wind was pushing on the bottom of the boat
> preventing her from coming up. Then when our body weight was no longer acting
> as extra ballast on the weather rail the wind pushed and the lee rail, which
> was submerged - dug in and she went over the even more. Once the wind pushed
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
Don't have a webpage yet? Your competition does! See us for custom web
design.
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
Hmmm. Adding it to the sides might be an advantange - then I don't
have to fair and dress up the walls!
By the way, someone mentioned the boat power, I think it was Steve. A
5 HP might be power enough, but I am glad I have an 8 HP Honda 4-stroke
for mine. For one thing, the 8 has a larger alternator, and secondly,
it is much more quiet than the 5 HP Honda 4-stroke. I checked with
PB&F prior to purchasing the 8 HP, and they said it should be ok to use
on this boat.
Mike
"peter vanderwaart" <pvander-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3486
have to fair and dress up the walls!
By the way, someone mentioned the boat power, I think it was Steve. A
5 HP might be power enough, but I am glad I have an 8 HP Honda 4-stroke
for mine. For one thing, the 8 has a larger alternator, and secondly,
it is much more quiet than the 5 HP Honda 4-stroke. I checked with
PB&F prior to purchasing the 8 HP, and they said it should be ok to use
on this boat.
Mike
"peter vanderwaart" <pvander-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3486
>"Rambunctious"
> When I was thinking about how to add flotation to my Cynthia J. (which
> I never did do), I decided after much thought to install it in columns
> up the side of the cabin so the amount of new flotation down low (good
> when the boat is right side up, bad when the boat is upside down) is
> not more than the amount of new flotation up high (good mostly all the
> time, except for the space it takes up).
>
> It is advantageous to have it at the side of the boat rather than the
> middle, and balanced fore and aft.
>
> Peter
>
> > Thus far I have added some positive flotation to my MJ
> > by placing 3" of the blue stuff up under the foot of the bow well.I
> > plan to fill the area under the cockpit sole as well. I think Iwill
> > put 1/2" under the cabin roof too, but that will be for heat
> > insulation, not flotation.
>
>
>
When I was thinking about how to add flotation to my Cynthia J. (which
I never did do), I decided after much thought to install it in columns
up the side of the cabin so the amount of new flotation down low (good
when the boat is right side up, bad when the boat is upside down) is
not more than the amount of new flotation up high (good mostly all the
time, except for the space it takes up).
It is advantageous to have it at the side of the boat rather than the
middle, and balanced fore and aft.
Peter
I never did do), I decided after much thought to install it in columns
up the side of the cabin so the amount of new flotation down low (good
when the boat is right side up, bad when the boat is upside down) is
not more than the amount of new flotation up high (good mostly all the
time, except for the space it takes up).
It is advantageous to have it at the side of the boat rather than the
middle, and balanced fore and aft.
Peter
> Thus far I have added some positive flotation to my MJ "Rambunctious"
> by placing 3" of the blue stuff up under the foot of the bow well. I
> plan to fill the area under the cockpit sole as well. I think I will
> put 1/2" under the cabin roof too, but that will be for heat
> insulation, not flotation.
Hi Steve-
Do you mind posting some photos of your MJ on its trailer? I am
interested in seeing how your rudder modifications make it all look.
Thus far I have added some positive flotation to my MJ "Rambunctious"
by placing 3" of the blue stuff up under the foot of the bow well. I
plan to fill the area under the cockpit sole as well. I think I will
put 1/2" under the cabin roof too, but that will be for heat
insulation, not flotation.
Thanks!
Mike
http://mkstocks.tripod.com/
Do you mind posting some photos of your MJ on its trailer? I am
interested in seeing how your rudder modifications make it all look.
Thus far I have added some positive flotation to my MJ "Rambunctious"
by placing 3" of the blue stuff up under the foot of the bow well. I
plan to fill the area under the cockpit sole as well. I think I will
put 1/2" under the cabin roof too, but that will be for heat
insulation, not flotation.
Thanks!
Mike
http://mkstocks.tripod.com/
In a message dated 3/7/2000 9:51:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
clydewis@...writes:
<< Steve, could I ask why you don't use the water ballast? Also, when you
were at
90, did the now underwater side of the boat float up? Assuming you used a
lug
rig, and you let go your sheets, any idea where the yard was when you went
over?
With the yard lowered to 2 reefs and the tack still fast, could the leaward
end
of the yard have tripped you? Clyde
hull fitting purchased but not installed. I also sail a seapearl 21 with
water ballast and so am real familiar with the concept. But - about the time
I was ready to drill the holes in MJ - lots of the sp21s were experiening
leaking ballast tanks - some severe - and I found myself thinking that I
should not have had my tanks retrofitted on that boat and should have used
solid ballast ( I had bought an older model without water ballast and had the
tanks retrofitted) - since it's a light boat. That made me think twice about
using water on this boat. The other factor is that we are in the sub tropics
and moisture ( rot) is the enemy. It's probably not necessary to worry - but
water always seems to find a way. I have a strong towing vehicle - so I
decided to see how the van would pull the martha jane with solid ballast and
then decide whether to use solid ballast or water. The van never even
blinked over pulling the extra 500 lbs - so why not leave it in place and not
mess with water or be concerned about moisture problems?
That was my thinking anyway -
sand can also be left behind for long distance towing and at $2.50/50 lbs. I
could drive all the way to the west coast if I wanted to - and spend $50 on
sand bags and be ready to go again. The sand bags are secured inside the
ballast tanks. Over all - probably if I was not in the subtropics I would
have gone with the water.
I have to replace my wooden picnic table completely very 2 years because it
just rots away!
As for the yard - I think you are meaning to ask where the boom was - and did
we trip over the boom. The boom was straight out over the lee rail - since
the main sail was uncleated and luffing. I think the wind just pushed us
over. steve
clydewis@...writes:
<< Steve, could I ask why you don't use the water ballast? Also, when you
were at
90, did the now underwater side of the boat float up? Assuming you used a
lug
rig, and you let go your sheets, any idea where the yard was when you went
over?
With the yard lowered to 2 reefs and the tack still fast, could the leaward
end
of the yard have tripped you? Clyde
>>I was all set up for water ballast - the tanks were glassed and I had my thru
hull fitting purchased but not installed. I also sail a seapearl 21 with
water ballast and so am real familiar with the concept. But - about the time
I was ready to drill the holes in MJ - lots of the sp21s were experiening
leaking ballast tanks - some severe - and I found myself thinking that I
should not have had my tanks retrofitted on that boat and should have used
solid ballast ( I had bought an older model without water ballast and had the
tanks retrofitted) - since it's a light boat. That made me think twice about
using water on this boat. The other factor is that we are in the sub tropics
and moisture ( rot) is the enemy. It's probably not necessary to worry - but
water always seems to find a way. I have a strong towing vehicle - so I
decided to see how the van would pull the martha jane with solid ballast and
then decide whether to use solid ballast or water. The van never even
blinked over pulling the extra 500 lbs - so why not leave it in place and not
mess with water or be concerned about moisture problems?
That was my thinking anyway -
sand can also be left behind for long distance towing and at $2.50/50 lbs. I
could drive all the way to the west coast if I wanted to - and spend $50 on
sand bags and be ready to go again. The sand bags are secured inside the
ballast tanks. Over all - probably if I was not in the subtropics I would
have gone with the water.
I have to replace my wooden picnic table completely very 2 years because it
just rots away!
As for the yard - I think you are meaning to ask where the boom was - and did
we trip over the boom. The boom was straight out over the lee rail - since
the main sail was uncleated and luffing. I think the wind just pushed us
over. steve
Steve, I'm sorry, I was thinking of a dipping lug. When you let go your sheets,
the boom would go out and there is no tack connection, so it should dump the air
quickly. I would have thought, without the mizzen, you might have lea helm but
not what Ed said. Clyde
Hwal@...wrote:
the boom would go out and there is no tack connection, so it should dump the air
quickly. I would have thought, without the mizzen, you might have lea helm but
not what Ed said. Clyde
Hwal@...wrote:
> Ed - After she was upright I was also sitting on the quarterknee to help
> balance the boat - I suspect there might have been some air trapped up under
Steve, could I ask why you don't use the water ballast? Also, when you were at
90, did the now underwater side of the boat float up? Assuming you used a lug
rig, and you let go your sheets, any idea where the yard was when you went over?
With the yard lowered to 2 reefs and the tack still fast, could the leaward end
of the yard have tripped you? Clyde
Hwal@...wrote:
90, did the now underwater side of the boat float up? Assuming you used a lug
rig, and you let go your sheets, any idea where the yard was when you went over?
With the yard lowered to 2 reefs and the tack still fast, could the leaward end
of the yard have tripped you? Clyde
Hwal@...wrote:
> Ed - After she was upright I was also sitting on the quarterknee to help
> balance the boat - I suspect there might have been some air trapped up under
> the cockpit seats - since the cockpit was floating higher than the bow well -
> I intend to put some foam floatation in. I'm not sure where the best place is
Ed - After she was upright I was also sitting on the quarterknee to help
balance the boat - I suspect there might have been some air trapped up under
the cockpit seats - since the cockpit was floating higher than the bow well -
I intend to put some foam floatation in. I'm not sure where the best place is
to do that - under the bow well and under the cockpit sole perhaps - or big
blocks pushed up in the "quarter berth'' area - way back - and perhaps hatch
covers over the quarter berths. What I'd really like is one more foot of
beam! But I can't do that! :-)
She did not reach 45 degrees and then go fast - she reached 45 and sat there
for a few moments and then slowly was pushed down to 90 degrees and she lay
there for a few moments - long enough for me to be asking myself if she was
going to come up again - the companionway and hatch were above water at that
point. And then we fell off and I Lost track of exactly what was happening
since my wife was forgetting to pull the rip cord on her inflatable ( which
we always wear) - so I was focused more on her for at that point. What I
think happened was that she ( the boat not my wife) reached 90 degrees and
wanted to self right but the wind was pushing on the bottom of the boat
preventing her from coming up. Then when our body weight was no longer acting
as extra ballast on the weather rail the wind pushed and the lee rail, which
was submerged - dug in and she went over the even more. Once the wind pushed
her over enough for the mast to hit the bottom ( nine feet deep) it drove the
mast into the mud and she essential locked in that position. At least that's
my theory.
Yesterday I finally got the mizzen unrolled again and it was four of the top
six laces I lost - they were single ties and I think all the flapping of the
sail loosened the knots - I've retied them in such a way so that that will
not happen again. Perhaps the mizzen was acting like a scoop and bagging the
wind. Maybe - or maybe it was spilling wind because of the ties - it was
cleated but flapping a lot where the ties were loose. So I don't know if the
loose ties had it spilling or grabbing the wind. Either way the mizzen was a
part of this. I don't know if I had gotten it uncleated soon enough if that
would have made a difference or not. I still was hoping for the mizzen to
bring her nose up and started the outboard to get some power assist -
I'm used to sailing a sea pearl 21 - a cat ketch. In that boat - if the main
is luffing and the mizzen is cleated - strong wind creates so much weather
helm that as the rail goes down the boat points up very quickly - that's what
I was expecting - but it didn't happen and I still am just not sure why not.
Did I understand you correctly that in your capsize your main was also
uncleated? And what about your mizzen? What was that doing?
Steve
In a message dated 3/7/2000 2:15:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewhaile@...writes:
<< All the same, sand bags or any other negative ballast (ie, ballast still
nearly as heavy under water) should simply not have allowed your boat to
roll over turtle. The wind on the bottom hypothesis does not explain it, all
the more so in a swamped condition. I am completely stumped. Are you
absolutely sure your ballast remained in place?
Otherwise, I had the same experience of suddenly going flop, being surprised
how fast she capsized when she did. It was a very early point of no return,
say, 45o on a gust. And like you, my sheet was cast off and the sail was >>
balance the boat - I suspect there might have been some air trapped up under
the cockpit seats - since the cockpit was floating higher than the bow well -
I intend to put some foam floatation in. I'm not sure where the best place is
to do that - under the bow well and under the cockpit sole perhaps - or big
blocks pushed up in the "quarter berth'' area - way back - and perhaps hatch
covers over the quarter berths. What I'd really like is one more foot of
beam! But I can't do that! :-)
She did not reach 45 degrees and then go fast - she reached 45 and sat there
for a few moments and then slowly was pushed down to 90 degrees and she lay
there for a few moments - long enough for me to be asking myself if she was
going to come up again - the companionway and hatch were above water at that
point. And then we fell off and I Lost track of exactly what was happening
since my wife was forgetting to pull the rip cord on her inflatable ( which
we always wear) - so I was focused more on her for at that point. What I
think happened was that she ( the boat not my wife) reached 90 degrees and
wanted to self right but the wind was pushing on the bottom of the boat
preventing her from coming up. Then when our body weight was no longer acting
as extra ballast on the weather rail the wind pushed and the lee rail, which
was submerged - dug in and she went over the even more. Once the wind pushed
her over enough for the mast to hit the bottom ( nine feet deep) it drove the
mast into the mud and she essential locked in that position. At least that's
my theory.
Yesterday I finally got the mizzen unrolled again and it was four of the top
six laces I lost - they were single ties and I think all the flapping of the
sail loosened the knots - I've retied them in such a way so that that will
not happen again. Perhaps the mizzen was acting like a scoop and bagging the
wind. Maybe - or maybe it was spilling wind because of the ties - it was
cleated but flapping a lot where the ties were loose. So I don't know if the
loose ties had it spilling or grabbing the wind. Either way the mizzen was a
part of this. I don't know if I had gotten it uncleated soon enough if that
would have made a difference or not. I still was hoping for the mizzen to
bring her nose up and started the outboard to get some power assist -
I'm used to sailing a sea pearl 21 - a cat ketch. In that boat - if the main
is luffing and the mizzen is cleated - strong wind creates so much weather
helm that as the rail goes down the boat points up very quickly - that's what
I was expecting - but it didn't happen and I still am just not sure why not.
Did I understand you correctly that in your capsize your main was also
uncleated? And what about your mizzen? What was that doing?
Steve
In a message dated 3/7/2000 2:15:22 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ewhaile@...writes:
<< All the same, sand bags or any other negative ballast (ie, ballast still
nearly as heavy under water) should simply not have allowed your boat to
roll over turtle. The wind on the bottom hypothesis does not explain it, all
the more so in a swamped condition. I am completely stumped. Are you
absolutely sure your ballast remained in place?
Otherwise, I had the same experience of suddenly going flop, being surprised
how fast she capsized when she did. It was a very early point of no return,
say, 45o on a gust. And like you, my sheet was cast off and the sail was >>
Steve Anderson wrote:
swamped my MJ that crew weight (400 lbs) standing atop the cabin did not
noticeably depress the boat in the water. In light of that, why should we
put foam in her just because we put sand or lead or any other form of
negative ballast to add to her neutral water ballast?
This is something PCB&F have advised me should I choose to add negative
ballast to my MJ, but I don't understand the reason for taking up so much
room below in blocks of foam.
All the same, sand bags or any other negative ballast (ie, ballast still
nearly as heavy under water) should simply not have allowed your boat to
roll over turtle. The wind on the bottom hypothesis does not explain it, all
the more so in a swamped condition. I am completely stumped. Are you
absolutely sure your ballast remained in place?
Otherwise, I had the same experience of suddenly going flop, being surprised
how fast she capsized when she did. It was a very early point of no return,
say, 45o on a gust. And like you, my sheet was cast off and the sail was
luffing long before she dove for the water.
Ed Haile
______________________________________________________
>The ballast was 500 lbs of sand in bagsSo 500 lbs of negative ballast is not enough to sink her. I noticed when I
>inside the ballast tanks. So the ballast was intact.
swamped my MJ that crew weight (400 lbs) standing atop the cabin did not
noticeably depress the boat in the water. In light of that, why should we
put foam in her just because we put sand or lead or any other form of
negative ballast to add to her neutral water ballast?
This is something PCB&F have advised me should I choose to add negative
ballast to my MJ, but I don't understand the reason for taking up so much
room below in blocks of foam.
All the same, sand bags or any other negative ballast (ie, ballast still
nearly as heavy under water) should simply not have allowed your boat to
roll over turtle. The wind on the bottom hypothesis does not explain it, all
the more so in a swamped condition. I am completely stumped. Are you
absolutely sure your ballast remained in place?
Otherwise, I had the same experience of suddenly going flop, being surprised
how fast she capsized when she did. It was a very early point of no return,
say, 45o on a gust. And like you, my sheet was cast off and the sail was
luffing long before she dove for the water.
Ed Haile
______________________________________________________
Do you think your leeboard might have caught on the bottom, or maybe a
tree, and tripped the boat? What was your forward speed when the
knockdown happend?
What is your mast made of? I don't understand the wind pushing you over
the rest of the way, in a wind of only 25. Do you recall if you were
moving to leeward when you started to go turtle? (you were probably busy
at the time...)
Hwal@...wrote:
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
Don't have a webpage yet? Your competition does! See us for custom web
design.
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
tree, and tripped the boat? What was your forward speed when the
knockdown happend?
What is your mast made of? I don't understand the wind pushing you over
the rest of the way, in a wind of only 25. Do you recall if you were
moving to leeward when you started to go turtle? (you were probably busy
at the time...)
Hwal@...wrote:
>--
> Peter -
> The waves were surprisingly small - I think 18" or less. This was a small
> lake with trees around the shore. The ballast was 500 lbs of sand in bags
> inside the ballast tanks. So the ballast was intact. We were sailing with
> two other boats - a mcgreagor and a pocket cat. We tied a line to the
> leeboard pivot, led that across the bottom of the boat and the pocket cat
> pulled us upright. The mast was buried about 4 feet in muck - ( the water
> was 9 feet deep) She came right up when pulled by the pocket cat. The
> pocket cat then came alongside and held us upright - the mcgregor came along
> side on the other side and we were sandwiched between the two. The bow well
> was submerged - with the rails about even with the surface of the water.
> Because the vents in the forward bulkhead were underwater we had to tie two
> lines to the bow and run those lines to the other boats and raise the bow up
> enough so we could get the vents above water and then start bailing. The
> other two boats dropped a total of three anchors but we were eventually
> pushed onto the leeshore - where in about four feet of water they left me as
> I bailed. The bow well and cockpit self bailed as the cabin was bailed into
> the cockpit. I think I said elsewhere that the mainsail was double reefed -
> uncleated and luffing when we went over. The bottom of this boat is a big
> surface for the wind to push against.
>
> steve
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2000 9:36:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>pvanderw@...writes:
>
> << It sounds like a bad day at sea. What was involved in getting the boat
> to shore and dried out afterward? Did you have outside help?
>
> How big were the waves? I would not have thought that the wind against
> the bottom would have pushed the boat over if the water ballast was in
> place and the water was flat.
>
> Peter >>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE!
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
> 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
> Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2122/5/_/3457/_/952358253/
>
> -- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
> --http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
Richard
Spelling|richard@...|http://www.spellingbusiness.com
Don't have a webpage yet? Your competition does! See us for custom web
design.
Boat building projects:http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats/
<<
My wife
is quick to point out that we ideally want her to self right - not just
in
calm conditions - because in calm conditions she won't be knocked down
- but
we would like her to right under the same conditions that knocked her
down -
( maybe that's not even a possiblity if you see what I mean?) I would
not be
surprised to find myself putting some extra ballast in - and maybe some
foam
floatation under the bow well and back under the cockpit seats. Steve
an anchor (the Chinese used through-hull pole anchors in the Yangtse
mud). I bet that was your problem, combined with the open hatch.
When a mast goes into the mud it can really be a pain. I've done this a
couple times in about 3 feet of water.
My wife
is quick to point out that we ideally want her to self right - not just
in
calm conditions - because in calm conditions she won't be knocked down
- but
we would like her to right under the same conditions that knocked her
down -
( maybe that's not even a possiblity if you see what I mean?) I would
not be
surprised to find myself putting some extra ballast in - and maybe some
foam
floatation under the bow well and back under the cockpit seats. Steve
>>But if you drive the mast into the mud, the boat won't self-right. It's
an anchor (the Chinese used through-hull pole anchors in the Yangtse
mud). I bet that was your problem, combined with the open hatch.
When a mast goes into the mud it can really be a pain. I've done this a
couple times in about 3 feet of water.
In a message dated 3/6/2000 12:26:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
pvanderw@...writes:
<< Final question: Do you have a feeling for what would have happened if
the hatch had been closed? Would it have saved the day, or just
postponed the inevitable?
closed would have at least bought time - and with a break in the wind maybe
she would even have self righted - well ..... except that the mast had been
driven down into the mud. At first she floated there on her side - seemingly
wanting to self right with the wind holding her down - at least that's my
thought. It's pretty hard to tell for sure it all happens so fast. My wife
is quick to point out that we ideally want her to self right - not just in
calm conditions - because in calm conditions she won't be knocked down - but
we would like her to right under the same conditions that knocked her down -
( maybe that's not even a possiblity if you see what I mean?) I would not be
surprised to find myself putting some extra ballast in - and maybe some foam
floatation under the bow well and back under the cockpit seats. Steve
pvanderw@...writes:
<< Final question: Do you have a feeling for what would have happened if
the hatch had been closed? Would it have saved the day, or just
postponed the inevitable?
>>Don't know for sure - but it couldn't have hurt! I think the hatch being
closed would have at least bought time - and with a break in the wind maybe
she would even have self righted - well ..... except that the mast had been
driven down into the mud. At first she floated there on her side - seemingly
wanting to self right with the wind holding her down - at least that's my
thought. It's pretty hard to tell for sure it all happens so fast. My wife
is quick to point out that we ideally want her to self right - not just in
calm conditions - because in calm conditions she won't be knocked down - but
we would like her to right under the same conditions that knocked her down -
( maybe that's not even a possiblity if you see what I mean?) I would not be
surprised to find myself putting some extra ballast in - and maybe some foam
floatation under the bow well and back under the cockpit seats. Steve
> We tied a line to thecat
> leeboard pivot, led that across the bottom of the boat and the pocket
> pulled us upright. The mast was buried about 4 feet in muck - ( thewater
> was 9 feet deep) The bow well and cockpit self bailed as the cabinwas
> bailed into the cockpit.I hope you don't mind all these questions, but I find this somewhat
interesting, as well as scary.
Final question: Do you have a feeling for what would have happened if
the hatch had been closed? Would it have saved the day, or just
postponed the inevitable?
Peter
Peter -
The waves were surprisingly small - I think 18" or less. This was a small
lake with trees around the shore. The ballast was 500 lbs of sand in bags
inside the ballast tanks. So the ballast was intact. We were sailing with
two other boats - a mcgreagor and a pocket cat. We tied a line to the
leeboard pivot, led that across the bottom of the boat and the pocket cat
pulled us upright. The mast was buried about 4 feet in muck - ( the water
was 9 feet deep) She came right up when pulled by the pocket cat. The
pocket cat then came alongside and held us upright - the mcgregor came along
side on the other side and we were sandwiched between the two. The bow well
was submerged - with the rails about even with the surface of the water.
Because the vents in the forward bulkhead were underwater we had to tie two
lines to the bow and run those lines to the other boats and raise the bow up
enough so we could get the vents above water and then start bailing. The
other two boats dropped a total of three anchors but we were eventually
pushed onto the leeshore - where in about four feet of water they left me as
I bailed. The bow well and cockpit self bailed as the cabin was bailed into
the cockpit. I think I said elsewhere that the mainsail was double reefed -
uncleated and luffing when we went over. The bottom of this boat is a big
surface for the wind to push against.
steve
In a message dated 3/6/2000 9:36:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pvanderw@...writes:
<< It sounds like a bad day at sea. What was involved in getting the boat
to shore and dried out afterward? Did you have outside help?
How big were the waves? I would not have thought that the wind against
the bottom would have pushed the boat over if the water ballast was in
place and the water was flat.
Peter >>
The waves were surprisingly small - I think 18" or less. This was a small
lake with trees around the shore. The ballast was 500 lbs of sand in bags
inside the ballast tanks. So the ballast was intact. We were sailing with
two other boats - a mcgreagor and a pocket cat. We tied a line to the
leeboard pivot, led that across the bottom of the boat and the pocket cat
pulled us upright. The mast was buried about 4 feet in muck - ( the water
was 9 feet deep) She came right up when pulled by the pocket cat. The
pocket cat then came alongside and held us upright - the mcgregor came along
side on the other side and we were sandwiched between the two. The bow well
was submerged - with the rails about even with the surface of the water.
Because the vents in the forward bulkhead were underwater we had to tie two
lines to the bow and run those lines to the other boats and raise the bow up
enough so we could get the vents above water and then start bailing. The
other two boats dropped a total of three anchors but we were eventually
pushed onto the leeshore - where in about four feet of water they left me as
I bailed. The bow well and cockpit self bailed as the cabin was bailed into
the cockpit. I think I said elsewhere that the mainsail was double reefed -
uncleated and luffing when we went over. The bottom of this boat is a big
surface for the wind to push against.
steve
In a message dated 3/6/2000 9:36:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
pvanderw@...writes:
<< It sounds like a bad day at sea. What was involved in getting the boat
to shore and dried out afterward? Did you have outside help?
How big were the waves? I would not have thought that the wind against
the bottom would have pushed the boat over if the water ballast was in
place and the water was flat.
Peter >>
> It seems to me - that while we were laying on our side thecompanionway was
> above water - but the wind pushed on that big flat bottom and seemedto push
> it "down" and with the underwater rail digging in it pushed her downenough
> for the companionway to go under. Then it was a done deal.It sounds like a bad day at sea. What was involved in getting the boat
to shore and dried out afterward? Did you have outside help?
How big were the waves? I would not have thought that the wind against
the bottom would have pushed the boat over if the water ballast was in
place and the water was flat.
Peter
In a message dated 3/6/2000 2:30:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tjfatchen@...writes:
<< Graham Cheer's turtle-turning and other knockdowns on "Shirley
Valentine" came about in part because of too much sail up, >>
Being double reefed we didn't have that much sail up - and I have an
adjustable parrell - so I had the yard and mast set real low - and the sail
was luffing at the time being uncleated. The mizzen had lost so many ties
that perhaps the upper portion was acting as a "bag'' - catching the wind.
Hard to know if it was spilling the wind or catching it - I was looking down
not up at that point :-)
It seems to me - that while we were laying on our side the companionway was
above water - but the wind pushed on that big flat bottom and seemed to push
it "down" and with the underwater rail digging in it pushed her down enough
for the companionway to go under. Then it was a done deal. I know the
captian should walk the plank for having the companionway open - guilty. I'm
just concerned about the ease with which she went over in the first place and
would like to avoid that again - perhaps more ballast and some stategically
placed foam? Steve
tjfatchen@...writes:
<< Graham Cheer's turtle-turning and other knockdowns on "Shirley
Valentine" came about in part because of too much sail up, >>
Being double reefed we didn't have that much sail up - and I have an
adjustable parrell - so I had the yard and mast set real low - and the sail
was luffing at the time being uncleated. The mizzen had lost so many ties
that perhaps the upper portion was acting as a "bag'' - catching the wind.
Hard to know if it was spilling the wind or catching it - I was looking down
not up at that point :-)
It seems to me - that while we were laying on our side the companionway was
above water - but the wind pushed on that big flat bottom and seemed to push
it "down" and with the underwater rail digging in it pushed her down enough
for the companionway to go under. Then it was a done deal. I know the
captian should walk the plank for having the companionway open - guilty. I'm
just concerned about the ease with which she went over in the first place and
would like to avoid that again - perhaps more ballast and some stategically
placed foam? Steve