Relative Maneuverability- was Re: killer boat wakes
Douglas King
> ..... Boats
> cannot pass a ship under sail because the ship is tacking and traffic is
> moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
Aww, gee, that's too bad. Obviously it's that stupid sailbote's fault
that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
you happen to be in.
>
> And ban powerboats from crowded waterways? Lets set up a test course and
> test a powerboat and sailboat of equal size for maneuvering in tight spaces.
> Are you saying the sailboat has the advantage?
We thrashed this out several times of the past few years.
Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop
and back up.
In all other forms of maneuvering, sailboats have the advantage.
Something about inertia and lateral resistance....
In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water
than you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even the
most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
Fresh Breezes- Doug King
--
This is what we look like when we're at our best:
http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
hkrause
Nothing teaches you more about the physics of boating than learning how
to sail a small boat.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Psychic dwarf escapes from jail. Small medium at large.
Knot A Chance
I said:
> cannot pass a ship under sail because the ship is tacking and traffic is
> moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
Doug said:
Aww, gee, that's too bad. Obviously it's that stupid sailbote's fault
that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
you happen to be in.
I now say:
Hey Doug,, chill out guy. As I previously stated, spend a few bucks and buy
a small used outboard. You are not impressing anyone coming into dock under
sail.
I said:
> And ban powerboats from crowded waterways? Lets set up a test course
and
> test a powerboat and sailboat of equal size for maneuvering in tight
spaces.
> Are you saying the sailboat has the advantage?
Doug said:
We thrashed this out several times of the past few years.
I now say:
Lets talk about it again. A sailboater brought it up in this thread. Are
you saying with equally sized sailboats and powerboats, the sailboat will
have more maneuverability than the powerboat?
Doug said:
Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop and
back up.
I now say:
So what is your point. Either powerboats are more maneuverable than
sailboats or they are not. And what does going faster have to do with
maneuverability?
Doug said:
In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water than
you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even themost avid
(almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
I now say:
So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21 foot
powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
BTW, all powerboats are not "high-speed" motorboats and we are not all avid
go-fast guys. Anchored near a warm sandy beach on a calm sunny day is
heaven to me. And getting their at a leisurely comfortable speed is fine
with me.
Chill out Doug. Spring is here. The water belongs to all of us.
God made sailboaters first, realized His mistakes, then made improved
version 4.1 powerboaters.
Old Crow
>
> Knot A Chance wrote:
> > ..... Boats
> > moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
>
> that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
> you happen to be in.
>
Just wanted to post what I heard yesterday on 16 in Pensacola Bay.
After several attempts from a tug pushing several barges in contacting
some sailboat that must have been in his path, his final transmission
was " Well it appears we will soon learn which is stronger, fiberglass
or steel". I didn't hear any Mayday's...So I'm assuming it got out of
its way.
Phoenix
--
--
Jim
Regal Marine Boat Owners - Join the forum listed below:
http://www.onelist.com/viewarchive.cgi?listname=RegalOwners
Your ex just called....she's with the IRS now.
Knot A Chance <nospamkn...@kellnet.com> wrote in message
news:jv4P2.15$Lg....@iagnews.iagnet.net...
|
| I said:
| > cannot pass a ship under sail because the ship is tacking and traffic is
| > moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
|
|
|
| Doug said:
| Aww, gee, that's too bad. Obviously it's that stupid sailbote's fault
| that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
| you happen to be in.
|
|
Douglas King
> Hey Doug,, chill out guy. As I previously stated, spend a few bucks and buy
> a small used outboard. You are not impressing anyone coming into dock under
> sail.
Got any suggestions on how to mount a small outboard on a Johnson 18?
Check out the complete and total lack of a transom, dude.
http://www1.Minn.Net/~khortsch/images/Boat.jpg
Many (many many many) small sailboats have no motor, and have no
provision for a motor, and it would degrade their performance
*seriously* to modify them to carry one. Impressing people by coming in
under sail? Umm, it's not *that* impressive. I bet you could learn to do
it!
I am impressed when I see a racing crew sail up to the dock, dropping
and rolling their sails, and arrive precisely under the lift with the
lifting harness hooked up, backstay off, sails properly stowed, and
hands upstretchd for the lift hook and a cold beer, respectively. You
get bonus points for doing this in a tideway. Simply docking under sail?
Phooey, if a sailor *can't* do this then he needs to take lessons!
Get over your obsession with internal combustion. Some of us can have
fun without polluting the air, y'know! Furthermore, if you have the
"right' to motor up and down the channel, thne it must logically follow
as the night followeth the day, that a sail-only sailboat has the
"right" to sail up and down the channel.
As for blocking the channel, most (in fact I'd say fully 99.9% or more)
small sailboats have full realization of their relative tonnage and are
firmly commited to keeping the heck outta the way of impatient
motorboaters. The few exceptions will learn their error very quickly.
You can help the process, actually....
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Knot, you might enjoy the NG much more if you stayed away from silly fights.
It seems like that's what he enjoys.
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Joe Della Barba
(I am primarily a sailor but have experience with power from runabouts
to a Searay 60)
1. Powerboats are much more dangerous to each other than sailboats.
Try being in a 16 foot runabout and taking right-of-way over a 60 foot
mega-cruiser. They will run you over without a thought. They have NO
IDEA what the rules are between powerboats.
2. Large powerboats are absolute pigs to handle off-plane. They have
huge amounts of windage and tiny rudders. If it wasn't for twin
engines you would never get one into the dock.
3. Many large powerboats will be damaged by running aground because
the prop and rudder hit first. Combined with their odd automotive
mindset that a channel is like a road, they don't comprehend tacking
and other maneuvering in a channel any more than they would on I-95.
4. I have passed sailors on plane leaving a tiny wake and almost no
noise in a runabout and had them give me the finger when I waved, so
sailors can have their obnoxiuos moments. And I have had powerboater
tow me off of being aground a few times too.
5. Powerboaters are just as likely as sailors to shoot at jetskiis
with a 12 gauge, so that is another point in their favor.
6. OTOH, We found a powerboat with no mufflers going in and out of the
moored boats at about 0100 in Annapolis and asked him if he woke
everyone up yet. The answer was "Not yet, but we are trying".
Joe DB
Paul Kamen
>So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21
>foot powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
>BTW, all powerboats are not "high-speed" motorboats and we
>are not all avid go-fast guys. Anchored near a warm sandy beach
>on a calm sunny day is heaven to me. And getting their at a
>leisurely comfortable speed is fine with me.
Doug never said that. Come on, Knot, I think you can do better than to
point out that sailboats and powerboats take up exactly the same space
when they're berthed or anchored. (Although the boats that run generators
are certainly more annoying.)
--
fish...@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
-"Call me Fishmeal"-
Nikki Locke
> I now say:
> So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21 foot
> powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
Seems obvious to me that he is right, and you are wrong. The space required by
a boat on the move depends on the size of the boat, the skill of the driver,
and the speed the boat is travelling at. Amongst other things. And assuming,
of course, that they are all travelling independently, not all in the same
direction.
Unless all your 21 ft power boats had a max speed of 6-7 knots, and skillful
drivers, then they will indeed need more space than the sailboats.
--
Nikki Locke, Trumphurst Ltd. PC & Unix consultancy & programming
ni...@trmphrst.demon.co.uk http://www.trumphurst.com/
BW
>Who is fighting Jim?
>And what is it to you anyway?
lol this ranks right up there with:
I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do
not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not
repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat
myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself --
stop saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop
saying that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying
that, do you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do
you hear me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear
me? I do not repeat myself -- stop saying that, do you hear me?
Paul Kamen
>So please tell me Paul, how then do you interpret this statement
>from Doug?
>
>"..you can put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a
>given body of water than you can high-speed motorboats. This should
>be obvious to even the most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy."
You quoted him as comparing 30 ft sailboats to 21 ft powerboats. I don't
think he ever mentioned size, and doubt that he intended to compare larger
sailboats to smaller poerboats.
Anders Svensson
The Authorities That Be have (with uncomprehensible wisdom) declared that
powerboaters shall allow sailboats to have their way. Reasons for that may range
from historical superiority to courtesy for the manouverably challengedto
letting the fools play undisturbed - take your pick.
But trying to invent rules like "no sailboat shall ever be allowed to sail into
harbor", "sailboats shall move out of the way for powerboats" and similar will
not endear you or you powerboating friends to sailors. This may or may not be
your purpose - how can I, a simpelton with rags, know about the mysterious ways
of a power locked at full speed ahead.
The very idea with a sailboat is to sail, not use the engine. That is why it is
named sail-boat. I feel that if a motor is used, it is called a motor-boat.
I suggest you start lobbying IALA for a rule change, but until you suceed, you
better stay on your toes when there are real sailors around. Real Sailors *are*
anachronisms, that besides from docking under sail may produce boarding hooks,
sabres and brass guns - you never know... They may in their gloomiest moments
even consider hanging people from the yardarm (you have perhaps noticed the
small, reminicents of yardarms on many sailboats? - they are there for a
purpose...) With a proper keel around, there is even a chance for you to be
learnt the ancient art of keel hauling - very popular pastime of becalmed
sailors brutaly awakened by a powerboater.
I am sure Neptun in his wisdom still regret the move from Sailor version 3.15 to
Motorboater, version 4.0...
The sailing world now eagerly awaits the much needed bug fix for 4.0 - if not
the complete rewrite. I can personally testify that there are (I have seen them)
beta versions of motorboater 4.1 out there that seem to work well. Perhaps they
just still run some system primitives from the 3.15 version?
O. B. Noxious, Sailor
Knot A Chance skrev:
> I said:
> > cannot pass a ship under sail because the ship is tacking and traffic is
> > moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
>
> Doug said:
> Aww, gee, that's too bad. Obviously it's that stupid sailbote's fault
> that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
> you happen to be in.
>
> I now say:
> Hey Doug,, chill out guy. As I previously stated, spend a few bucks and buy
> a small used outboard. You are not impressing anyone coming into dock under
> sail.
>
> I said:
> > And ban powerboats from crowded waterways? Lets set up a test course
> and
> > test a powerboat and sailboat of equal size for maneuvering in tight
> spaces.
> > Are you saying the sailboat has the advantage?
>
> Doug said:
> We thrashed this out several times of the past few years.
>
> I now say:
> Lets talk about it again. A sailboater brought it up in this thread. Are
> you saying with equally sized sailboats and powerboats, the sailboat will
> have more maneuverability than the powerboat?
>
> Doug said:
> Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop and
> back up.
>
> I now say:
> So what is your point. Either powerboats are more maneuverable than
> sailboats or they are not. And what does going faster have to do with
> maneuverability?
>
> Doug said:
> In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
> put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water than
> you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even themost avid
> (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
>
> I now say:
> So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21 foot
> powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
> BTW, all powerboats are not "high-speed" motorboats and we are not all avid
> go-fast guys. Anchored near a warm sandy beach on a calm sunny day is
> heaven to me. And getting their at a leisurely comfortable speed is fine
> with me.
>
> Chill out Doug. Spring is here. The water belongs to all of us.
>
> God made sailboaters first, realized His mistakes, then made improved
> version 4.1 powerboaters.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kamen
>Paul, where did I mention that he was comparing 21 foot to 30 foot?
>That was my statement. Dougs quote below is quite clear to me.
Then why did you change the subject in your response to Doug? Where does
this 30 ft v. 21 ft comparsion come from?
Gould 0738
>Just wanted to post what I heard yesterday on 16 in Pensacola Bay.
>After several attempts from a tug pushing several barges in contacting
>some sailboat that must have been in his path, his final transmission
>was " Well it appears we will soon learn which is stronger, fiberglass
>or steel". I didn't hear any Mayday's...So I'm assuming it got out of
>its way.
Can't speak for Pensacola, but 'round here
I'm convinced that only a small percentage of sailboats actually monitor the
VHF. I have tried hailing nearby sailboats for such purposes as informing them
that their running lights are not turned on (2 or 3 hours after sunset), that
their towed dinghy is completely awash to the gunwales, etc, and the majority
of time there is no reply.
If I ever get "religion" and take up sailing, I'll probably name my boat
"Oblivious".
Many sailors mistakenly feel that they have the right of way over all other
vessels under all conditions, just so long as their sails are up.
A local sailing magazine ran an article afew months ago in which a sailor
recounted a vacation cruise, and in the article complained that a BC Ferry
refused to give him the right of way in a narrow waterway (Active Pass).
The ferry was obviously restricted by its draft, but the sailor was apparently
restricted by his
lack of awareness of the regs.
There are few better seamen that a great sailor, (but probably not all that
many worse than a lousy one).
Peter Kay
Are you the Devil's Advocate?
--
Regards,
Peter
Remove nospam to e-mail
www.yachthawkwind.demon.co.uk/peters.htm
"We are chosen, we are one
We are frightened of no-one"
>
Knot A Chance wrote in message ...
>I give up Paul. I certainly don't understand what you are getting at.
Read
>the entire thread. Anyway, whatever your point is, here are my closing
>comments: sure, you are right, yes, uh-huh, I agree, no doubt about it,
oh
>yeah, yes sir..........Now lets move on.
>
>
>
>Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
hkrause
>
> Knot
>
> Are you the Devil's Advocate?
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Peter
>
Doubtful. The Devil has a tough job. I don't think he hires dummies.
Knot A Chance
hkrause wrote in message <370D1AEA...@erols.com>...
Jim Hogan
>>version 4.1 powerboaters.
However, the devil made the neanderthal drivers, since the existing real
mariners wouldn't touch them. Pollution and noise, you know!
Jim
s/v Jolly Mon
Knot A Chance
And what is it to you anyway?
Phoenix wrote in message <7eirjf$r58$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
Knot, you might enjoy the NG much more if you stayed away from silly fights.
--
--
Jim
Regal Marine Boat Owners - Join the forum listed below:
http://www.onelist.com/viewarchive.cgi?listname=RegalOwners
Your ex just called....she's with the IRS now.
Knot A Chance <nospamkn...@kellnet.com> wrote in message
news:jv4P2.15$Lg....@iagnews.iagnet.net...
|
Knot A Chance
water than you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even the
most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy."
Hmmm?
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
Knot A Chance <remove no spam when replying> writes:
>So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21
>foot powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
>BTW, all powerboats are not "high-speed" motorboats and we
>are not all avid go-fast guys. Anchored near a warm sandy beach
>on a calm sunny day is heaven to me. And getting their at a
>leisurely comfortable speed is fine with me.
Doug never said that. Come on, Knot, I think you can do better than to
point out that sailboats and powerboats take up exactly the same space
when they're berthed or anchored. (Although the boats that run generators
are certainly more annoying.)
--
Knot A Chance
was my statement. Dougs quote below is quite clear to me.
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
Knot A Chance <remove no spam when replying> writes:
>So please tell me Paul, how then do you interpret this statement
>from Doug?
>
>"..you can put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a
>given body of water than you can high-speed motorboats. This should
>be obvious to even the most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy."
You quoted him as comparing 30 ft sailboats to 21 ft powerboats. I don't
think he ever mentioned size, and doubt that he intended to compare larger
sailboats to smaller poerboats.
--
Knot A Chance
the entire thread. Anyway, whatever your point is, here are my closing
comments: sure, you are right, yes, uh-huh, I agree, no doubt about it, oh
yeah, yes sir..........Now lets move on.
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
Knot A Chance" <remove no spam when replying> writes:
>Paul, where did I mention that he was comparing 21 foot to 30 foot?
>That was my statement. Dougs quote below is quite clear to me.
Then why did you change the subject in your response to Doug? Where does
this 30 ft v. 21 ft comparsion come from?
--
John Galt
sailboats have proper anchor lights visible. Yet those powerboats with
all that spare juice for the blenders & microwaves never seem to
bother with one.
Just an observation made from a few years of mostly weekend cruising.
>Knot A Chance wrote:
>> ..... Boats
>> cannot pass a ship under sail because the ship is tacking and traffic is
>> moderate in both directions. The entire river is a no wake zone also.
>
>Aww, gee, that's too bad. Obviously it's that stupid sailbote's fault
>that you can't have your fun in the manner you choose at any location
>you happen to be in.
>
>>
>> And ban powerboats from crowded waterways? Lets set up a test course and
>> test a powerboat and sailboat of equal size for maneuvering in tight spaces.
>> Are you saying the sailboat has the advantage?
>
>We thrashed this out several times of the past few years.
>
>Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop
>and back up.
>In all other forms of maneuvering, sailboats have the advantage.
>Something about inertia and lateral resistance....
>
>In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
>put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water
>than you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even the
>most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
>
>Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Patrick Buthmann
>harbor", "sailboats shall move out of the way for powerboats" and similar will
>not endear you or you powerboating friends to sailors. This may or may not be
>your purpose - how can I, a simpelton with rags, know about the mysterious ways
>of a power locked at full speed ahead.
I have no doubts that several sailors are fully capable of manouvering
their boats into harbour under sail, several marina's in my area
prohibit the use of sails in the harbour area. While it is easy to
claim that you may possess the skill to perform this task, and think
it your right to be able to do so, numerous sailors of a first time
(or even with vast realms of experience) nature do not possess the
skill to do so. By allowing them to do so automatically only puts the
marina, whether privately or publicly operated, at financial risk.
As a counter point, there are several (I know plenty...) of power boat
owners who typically purchase a first time boat "way" too large for
them to handle, and then proceed to damage several craft in the marina
due to their lack of understanding of how to dock it as well.
However, I challenge anyone to say that docking a power boat is even
remotely similar to docking a similar sized sail boat under sail.
There is simply no comparison.
For everyone's safety, and continued low insurance costs, I'm against
allowing sail boats into harbour under sail.
>
>The very idea with a sailboat is to sail, not use the engine. That is why it is
>named sail-boat. I feel that if a motor is used, it is called a motor-boat.
I tend to call them blow botes...but that's simply because I prefer
power be provided by internal combustion, not by Mother Nature. I
have been sailing several times, from small skiffs to 48' that have
circumnavigated the globe (not with me on it...just across the Great
Lakes...). I enjoy sailing, I just don't have the patience for it.
Pat
Marcus G Bell
> ... I am sure Neptun in his wisdom still regret the move from
> Sailor version 3.15 to Motorboater, version 4.0...
> The sailing world now eagerly awaits the much needed bug fix for
> 4.0 - if not the complete rewrite. I can personally testify that
> there are (I have seen them) beta versions of motorboater 4.1
> out there that seem to work well. Perhaps they just still run
> some system primitives from the 3.15 version?
You know how it is. To upgrade from version 4.0 to 4.1 requires a
better CPU.
-- -- Marcus. ( be...@mail.med.upenn.edu )
Gould 0738
>Ever notice that at any given anchorage at night, the majority of the
>sailboats have proper anchor lights visible. Yet those powerboats with
>all that spare juice for the blenders & microwaves never seem to
>bother with one.
1. due to generally larger battery banks (and the capacity to recharge while
underway) my observation would differ thusly; more powerboats are properly lit
after dark than sail. This includes running lights, never mind anchor lights.
2. would it not seem obvious to a person presuming to comment on anchor lights
that the 110 volt circuits used for the "blenders and microwaves" have no
direct effect on a boater's ability to display a 12 volt anchor light?
3. in designated anchorage areas where it is legal to leave a boat unattended
at a mooring, vessels under 65 feet in length are not required to show an
anchor light at all (unless
international rules apply). May I pass along some advice recently given to me?
"Get a Chapman's, read it and learn something."
Paul Kamen
>The sailing world now eagerly awaits the much needed bug fix for
>4.0...
That's in the works. Are you aware of what's happened to gasoline prices
in the U.S. in the last two weeks? At this rate we'll be up to European
levels real soon.
Anders Svensson
live, and "financial risc" seems a strange reason - if you simply don't mean that a
majority of the customers have motorboats and don't want sailboats around.
Of course there are sailors that sometimes mess up thing - even in a big way (how do
you think my skills were built, BTW :-) :-) :-).
But to suggest that a perfectly maouverable and correctly handled sailboat will be
more safe (or even easier to handle) with a engine may be misleading. The sails are
the sailboats main propulsion power, and as such, the one to trust when things go a
little dicey in many sailing boats.
Lack of skill hits hard both ways - and I think that lack of skill and judgement may
be as bad (or worse) - and possibly more lethal - in a powerboat than in a sailboat.
Patrick Buthmann skrev:
--
Phoenix
How is your boat hunting coming along? Have you found any potential boats
yet?
--
--
Jim
Regal Marine Boat Owners - Join the forum listed below:
http://www.onelist.com/viewarchive.cgi?listname=RegalOwners
Your ex just called....she's with the IRS now.
Nikki Locke <ni...@trmphrst.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.000066c...@trmphrst.demon.co.uk...
| In article <jv4P2.15$Lg....@iagnews.iagnet.net>, Knot A Chance wrote:
| > I now say:
| > So you can put a lot more 30 foot sailboats in an area than 21 foot
| > powerboats? Seems "obvious" to me that your are wrong Doug.
|
Dave Hall
>
> A marina who ban sailing in and out would not get much sailboat business where I
> live, and "financial risc" seems a strange reason - if you simply don't mean that a
> majority of the customers have motorboats and don't want sailboats around.
Not at all (other than the obnoixious clanging of the rigging at night),
there is no reason why power and sail can't get along.
>
> Of course there are sailors that sometimes mess up thing - even in a big way (how do
> you think my skills were built, BTW :-) :-) :-).
Right, we just don't want you guys "building your skills" next to our
boats, just in case you "mess up"
>
> But to suggest that a perfectly maouverable and correctly handled sailboat will be
> more safe (or even easier to handle) with a engine may be misleading. The sails are
> the sailboats main propulsion power, and as such, the one to trust when things go a
> little dicey in many sailing boats.
The wind is an unpredictable variable, subject to change intensity and
direction at will. Are you 100% capable of making an emergency collision
avoidance manuever, with no engine, when the wind suddenly shifts, and
you have to deal with that as well?
> Lack of skill hits hard both ways - and I think that lack of skill and judgement may
> be as bad (or worse) - and possibly more lethal - in a powerboat than in a sailboat.
>
Yes, this is true, but in a close quarters marina, I'd be much more at
ease near the much more predictable handling of a powerboat. Besides,
it's pretty tough to manuever a 30+ foot sailboat into a slip, drop
sails, handle the tiller and tie up lines by yourself. The same isn't
true for a powerboat.
The way I see it (though my own personal "bias"), is that the reason
that a sailor wants to be able to manuever their craft into their
marina, under sail, is no different than the "macho" guy who buys a go
fast powerboat. It's a "show off" thing. The fact that you CAN do it,
does not mean that you necessarily SHOULD. You have much less control,
under sail (No reverse, at least no reliable reverse), and should a
sudden "situation" arise, that he has not calculated for, the sailor
stands a very good chance of "messing up". Why risk it? If you're not
showing off your sailing skills for the commodore of your yacht club,
then the prudent thing to do is play it safe and use the engine. That's
what it's there for.
It only takes one major insurance claim to understand where I'm coming
from here....
Dave
Dave Hall
>
> Anders Svensson <Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se> writes:
>
> >The sailing world now eagerly awaits the much needed bug fix for
> >4.0...
>
> That's in the works. Are you aware of what's happened to gasoline prices
> in the U.S. in the last two weeks? At this rate we'll be up to European
> levels real soon.
>
Doubtful. The US, unlike Europe, is heavily dependant of fuel for
virtually all of its needs. If the price of fuel rose significantly it
would start a snowballing effect that would cause inflation to rise,
costs to rise, the economy to sag, consumer confidence to wane, and the
next recession to commence, with the unemployment and downsizing that
usually goes with it.
We have too much invested in "fuel using" devices to shoot ourselves in
the foot by raising fuel prices.
The past has shown that O.P.E.C can not hold to their production cuts.
While this summer is probably not going to be a continuation of this
past winter's great low prices, it should be no worse than last summer.
Another mild winter, and next winter will probably see another glut, and
the price will drop again. That is, unless we get involved in another
war with Iraq, or another major oil producing nation.....
Dave
Dave Hall
>
> Ever notice that at any given anchorage at night, the majority of the
> sailboats have proper anchor lights visible. Yet those powerboats with
> all that spare juice for the blenders & microwaves never seem to
> bother with one.
>
That's funny, I've seen exactly the opposite. Smaller sailboats with
their one deep cycle battery (Changed from the dismally small alternator
in their 9.9 HP outboard, which they only run for 20 minutes or so),
with dimly lit lights, as the battery slowly heads south. Some of these
guys never heard of a battery charger.
> >Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop
> >and back up.
> >In all other forms of maneuvering, sailboats have the advantage.
> >Something about inertia and lateral resistance....
We've been there before, unless you can show me how your sailboat can
turn on its axis, like one of my old jetboats did, I don't want to hear
about how sailboats are "more maneuverable", especially considering the
finicky nature of the wind.
> >
> >In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
> >put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water
> >than you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even the
> >most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
That may be true, but why would you WANT to? If you check the
registrations lately, you would see that the overwhelming majority of
registered boats are powerboats (including PWC). So why would you want
to displace the greater majority to please the wishes of the minority?
Dave
> >
> >Fresh Breezes- Doug King
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> > Lets set up a test course and
> > test a powerboat and sailboat of equal size for maneuvering in tight spaces.
> > Are you saying the sailboat has the advantage?
No doubt about it: sailboats under sail can definitely outmanuever
powerboats in close quarters...and I wouldn't have believed it either
till I started doing race committee work. When we post the course and
other last minute race instructions on my saloon windows and raise the
"come within hail" flag, as many as 50 sailboats from 22' - 40'+ --all
under sail only--start milling around my boat, making passes in all
directions to read the posterboard. They come within inches of me and
each other, turning on a dime...never a ruffled feather aboard any of
'em, much less any ruffled gelgoat. It took a little getting used to!
'Cuz if it were a fleet of powerboats, the air would be blue and there'd
be so many boat hooks out, it would look like a joisting contest.
And that's BEFORE the race starts. If you want to see close quarter
maneuvering under sail at hull speed, stand off out of the way at a mark
during a sailboat race when the wind's really up and watch a bunch of
'em go around it...they want to come as close to it as possible without
hitting it, and since there are penalties for hitting it and/or each
other, part of racing is to force another boat to fall off his course,
losing time. Then, when there's no one around try to round the same mark
at approximately the same speed, coming as close as they did. You can't
do it.
Peggie
> We thrashed this out several times of the past few years.
>
> Motorboats have the advantage in going faster, and being able to stop
> and back up.
> In all other forms of maneuvering, sailboats have the advantage.
> Something about inertia and lateral resistance....
>
> In terms of density, which is what Fishmeal was talking about, you can
> put a LOT more rowboats, canoes, and sailboats on a given body of water
> than you can high-speed motorboats. This should be obvious to even the
> most avid (almost said "rabid") go-fast guy.
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
> --
> This is what we look like when we're at our best:
> http://freehosting.at.webjump.com/ei/eisboch-webjump/45.htm
Rick
Anders Svensson wrote in message <370D9F9C...@swipnet.se>...
>A marina who ban sailing in and out would not get much sailboat business
where I
>live, and "financial risc" seems a strange reason - if you simply don't
mean that a
>majority of the customers have motorboats and don't want sailboats around.
>
way (how do
>you think my skills were built, BTW :-) :-) :-).
>
will be
>more safe (or even easier to handle) with a engine may be misleading. The
sails are
>the sailboats main propulsion power, and as such, the one to trust when
things go a
>little dicey in many sailing boats.
>
judgement may
>be as bad (or worse) - and possibly more lethal - in a powerboat than in a
sailboat.
>
>
>
>
sailboaters,however they do have some larger (30-40") powerboats and in
addition to renting houseboats there are perhaps a dozen or so private owers
of large houseboats that also use the facility. I can tell you that on a
Sunday afternoon when everyone is returning to the marina, most if not all
sailboats enter on their engines. To attempt to sail into this crowded
facility at that time would expose not only the sailboat, but other boats to
an unnecessary risk. Not to mention that any sailboater expecting the right
of way from a 58' houseboat that normally has 4 cyl volvo power and in wind
conditions in a congested area is making a big mistake.
Rick
Anders Svensson
when the engine is a easier way to handle things than doing some fancy manouvering.
But you do make it sound like "as I can't sail, you shouldn't either".
Just like any responsible motorboater (who obeys rules of the road, use caution, is
considerate and generally is a nice guy), responsible sailors will act in the same way.
We will take into consideration if it is possible to sail into the berth safely and under
control and if it can be done in safety. If we can do it safely only under engine, we do
it under engine or not at all - but you may be surprised what can be done quite safely
under sail if you know how.
Some more below...
Dave Hall skrev:
> Anders Svensson wrote:
> >
> > A marina who ban sailing in and out would not get much sailboat business where I
> > live, and "financial risc" seems a strange reason - if you simply don't mean that a
> > majority of the customers have motorboats and don't want sailboats around.
>
> Not at all (other than the obnoixious clanging of the rigging at night),
> there is no reason why power and sail can't get along.
I agree. If you have been below in a sailboat, uou will probably be as puzzled as I am how
someone can *sleep* below, considering the sound levels inside... This is an area where
many sailors can show some improvment. I am posting from rec.cruising - and most cruisers
do handle this problem pretty well. They live in the resonance box, so to say.
BTW, and somewhat related, hHave you found any way to lessen the sound that comes out of
the exhaust tube, sometimes accompanied by smelly smoke? ;-)
> > Of course there are sailors that sometimes mess up thing - even in a big way (how do
> > you think my skills were built, BTW :-) :-) :-).
>
> Right, we just don't want you guys "building your skills" next to our
> boats, just in case you "mess up"
Are you suggesting that there are no skills to build for motorboaters ? I have seen some
pretty spectacular mess created by motorboaters, too.
> > But to suggest that a perfectly maouverable and correctly handled sailboat will be
> > more safe (or even easier to handle) with a engine may be misleading. The sails are
> > the sailboats main propulsion power, and as such, the one to trust when things go a
> > little dicey in many sailing boats.
>
> The wind is an unpredictable variable, subject to change intensity and
> direction at will. Are you 100% capable of making an emergency collision
> avoidance manuever, with no engine, when the wind suddenly shifts, and
> you have to deal with that as well?
Like they said, non understood technology is equal to magic...
You may be surprised how predictable and understandable the wind is, if you learn how to
sail. No offence meant at all, just that when sailing you tend to learn more about these
things than if motoring.
Yes, I would say that prudent seamnship means that a sailor should be able to do that (and
sail accordingly) - just like a motorboater should be prepared that his engine may stall.
Like going in front of a big ship instead of behind - not recommended for either kind of
boat.
And yes, without a engine, one has to take more things into consideration than if one has
one available.
> > Lack of skill hits hard both ways - and I think that lack of skill and judgement may
> > be as bad (or worse) - and possibly more lethal - in a powerboat than in a sailboat.
> >
> Yes, this is true, but in a close quarters marina, I'd be much more at
> ease near the much more predictable handling of a powerboat. Besides,
> it's pretty tough to manuever a 30+ foot sailboat into a slip, drop
> sails, handle the tiller and tie up lines by yourself. The same isn't
> true for a powerboat.
I am not saying that it is easier to dock a big sailboat as it is to dock a similar size
motorboat. But it can be mastered and it can be done safely.
> The way I see it (though my own personal "bias"), is that the reason
> that a sailor wants to be able to manuever their craft into their
> marina, under sail, is no different than the "macho" guy who buys a go
> fast powerboat. It's a "show off" thing. The fact that you CAN do it,
> does not mean that you necessarily SHOULD.
The whole idea with a pleasure boat is to have fun. Like a motorboater, who gets a thrill
out of going fast where conditions allow, a sailor gets his kicks out of doing his thing
under sail. There would be no reason for sailboats if they can't be sailed, so to say.
> You have much less control,
> under sail (No reverse, at least no reliable reverse), and should a
> sudden "situation" arise, that he has not calculated for, the sailor
> stands a very good chance of "messing up".
This is in essence quite correct. The calculation part is a big part of sailboat
manouvering and cannot be dismissed. One of the things a sailor learn much quicker than a
motorboater is to keep safe exits open, all the time. Thats part of the different
approaches and not a value staement - just an acknowledgement that sailing is trickier
than motoring, usually.
I we were flyers instead of boaters, how you would look at gliders compared to motorplanes
?
> Why risk it? If you're not
> showing off your sailing skills for the commodore of your yacht club,
> then the prudent thing to do is play it safe and use the engine. That's
> what it's there for.
You are aware that it is perfectly normal for many sailboats to not have any engine - like
Lasers, Solings and Starboats?
And, don't worry. If the prudent thing is to start the engine, a responsible sailor will.
But I think that many motorboat owners know too little about sailing to judge when it is
safe to dock under sail and when it is not. You will se comparably few sailboats named
"Death Wish III " or "Second Kamikaze"...
> It only takes one major insurance claim to understand where I'm coming
> from here....
I live in Sweden, so it might not be the same at your place. But here, a sailboat would
cost about 1/3 to insure (risc and responsibilities) compared to a similar priced
motorboat. Rates are based on real world accident costs.
>
> Dave
I think we will get along fine, Dave. Just think about that some fancy sailing manouvers
might look mighty tricky to a non sailing motorboater, without it being so. Try it - it is
easier than it looks, really :-) Anything that is easier than it looks lends it self
very well to showmanship.
Anders Svensson
correct in your analysis.
Dave Hall skrev:
--
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Douglas King wrote:
>
[...]
> And that's BEFORE the race starts. If you want to see close quarter
> maneuvering under sail at hull speed, stand off out of the way at a mark
> during a sailboat race when the wind's really up and watch a bunch of
> 'em go around it...they want to come as close to it as possible without
> hitting it, and since there are penalties for hitting it and/or each
> other, part of racing is to force another boat to fall off his course,
> losing time. Then, when there's no one around try to round the same mark
> at approximately the same speed, coming as close as they did. You can't
> do it.
Peggie, if you want to see close quarter maneuvering under sail at several times
hull speed, watch the mark in a Hobie Cat class race. It's even better if
you're one of the racers.:)
Steve
--
/ / /
\ \ \ mailto:shel...@averstar.com
/ / /
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
> Peggie, if you want to see close quarter maneuvering under sail at several times
> hull speed, watch the mark in a Hobie Cat class race. It's even better if
> you're one of the racers.:)
Oh I know! Funny story: the first time I was race committee boat and
watched all those sailboats missing me by inches, my heart was in my
mouth...I was standing in the cockpit watching a J-24 come right at me,
broadside...my eyes must have been getting wider and wider...'cuz the
skipper gave me a big grin and said, "Permission to board?" then made a
hard turn and slid past my gunwhale by inches.
Funny thing is, many sailors believe powerboats are more maneuverable in
close quarters than they are...but no way can ANY powerboat turn in the
same radius or as quickly as any sailboat. The sailboat may lose his
wind--which is why we're required to give 'em the room they need to keep
it, but he'll still turn faster and in a tighter turn if he has to. And
it's our inability to give 'em the room they need to keep the wind and
therefore maintain complete control while still meeting our own
obligations under the rules that makes it inadvisable to sail in a
congested harbor or channel.
Peggie
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Jgalt observes:
>
> >Ever notice that at any given anchorage at night, the majority of the
> >sailboats have proper anchor lights visible. Yet those powerboats with
> >all that spare juice for the blenders & microwaves never seem to
> >bother with one.
>
> underway) my observation would differ thusly; more powerboats are properly lit
> after dark than sail. This includes running lights, never mind anchor lights.
Hmm, in my limited experience, the sailboats of similar size have larger battery
banks. They have to because, for the most part, the engine is run less often.
Steve
Dana Seero
DOING here?
Gould 0738
>Hmm, in my limited experience, the sailboats of similar size have larger
>battery
>banks. They have to because, for the most part, the engine is run less
>often.
>
>Steve
Sound logic; but not in agreement with acutal observation (at least from my
personal vantage point).
Of the 22 boats on the dock at this moment, about half a dozen are sailboats.
Not a single 8D battery in the bunch, most are equipped with group 27's. This
remains fairly consistent over time, as well. Weight and space considerations,
maybe?
Do the lower hp engines, often only 2 or 3 cylinders, a sailboat can use
smaller batteries for starting purposes and many do. Boats used for short
duration day sailing frequently have less involved electrical demands than
small power boats (ice box vs refer, etc, etc).
Sailboats driven by manually cranked outboards often seem to have very small
amp hour reserves indeed.
Steven Shelikoff
>
> Steve reasons:
>
> >Hmm, in my limited experience, the sailboats of similar size have larger
> >battery
> >banks. They have to because, for the most part, the engine is run less
> >often.
> >
> >Steve
>
> Sound logic; but not in agreement with acutal observation (at least from my
> personal vantage point).
>
> Of the 22 boats on the dock at this moment, about half a dozen are sailboats.
> Not a single 8D battery in the bunch, most are equipped with group 27's. This
> remains fairly consistent over time, as well. Weight and space considerations,
> maybe?
Maybe on small sailboats. Are you comparing equal sized boats? A cruising
sailboat of the kind that might be at anchor for several days usually has a much
larger battery bank than a similarly sized powerboat. A pair of 8Ds along with
a starting battery is common for the types of sailboats that may be at anchor
for several days.
> Do the lower hp engines, often only 2 or 3 cylinders, a sailboat can use
> smaller batteries for starting purposes and many do. Boats used for short
> duration day sailing frequently have less involved electrical demands than
> small power boats (ice box vs refer, etc, etc).
Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges, i.e., a small daysailer vs. a
larger powerboat. You start putting the same electrical demands on a cruising
sailboat vs. a cruising powerboat and see which one needs the bigger batteries.
True, most sailboats don't have the same demands as a loaded powerboat, but the
powerboat doesn't cruise for days at a time where the only reason to start the
engine is to recharge the batteries.
> Sailboats driven by manually cranked outboards often seem to have very small
> amp hour reserves indeed.
Powerboats driven by manually cranked outboards also often seem to have very
small amp-hour reserves as well. Sailboats with larger auxillary engines often
have several times the amp-hour reserves of a similarly sized powerboat.
Steve
Gould 0738
>sailboat of the kind that might be at anchor for several days usually has a
>much
>larger battery bank than a similarly sized powerboat.
Most of my exposure to sailboats is with those vessels under 40 feet in length.
A current 40 footer (largest on the dock at this time) has 3 group 27
batteries, two of which are actually hooked up. A friend has a 55 foot
motorsailer with twin 6 cylinder diesels, I'll bet he's got enormous battery
capacities.
I said:>Boats used for short
>> duration day sailing frequently have less involved electrical demands than
>> small power boats (ice box vs refer, etc, etc).
And steve replied:>Well, now you're comparing apples and oranges, i.e., a small
daysailer vs. a
>larger powerboat. You start putting the same electrical demands on a
>cruising
>sailboat vs. a cruising powerboat and see which one needs the bigger
>batteries.
Guess a clarification is in order, my referance to "small power boats" was not
intended to provoke a comparison of "larger power boats" to small sailboats.
Sorry if it did.
Steve said:>True, most sailboats don't have the same demands as a loaded
powerboat, but
>the
>powerboat doesn't cruise for days at a time where the only reason to start
>the
>engine is to recharge the batteries.
In this portion of the planet conditions are such that most sailboats spend an
exceptionally high percentage of their time under power. At least half of the
observable sailboats at any time will be running on an engine, unless a race or
something is taking place. I know this may not be true in all localities, but
it seems accurate for my usual cruising grounds in the NW.
Perhaps also unique to local conditions is the fact that many powerboaters will
anchor out for days on end during the summer months.
We swing on the hook in the same coves as many of our sailing brethern; and
we're not all just about charging around pell mell to see how fast we can get
someplace or another.
Many people would be surprised to discover than not every medium size and
larger powerboat has a generator aboard.
I would agree that a properly equipped cruising sailboat should have a decent
battery bank; it just stretches the envelope of my individual reality to
presume that the average sailboat would usually have more battery capacity than
a similar sized powerboat.
Steven Shelikoff
[...]
> I would agree that a properly equipped cruising sailboat should have a decent
> battery bank; it just stretches the envelope of my individual reality to
> presume that the average sailboat would usually have more battery capacity than
> a similar sized powerboat.
Maybe in your part of the world things are different. But it is a fact that,
under the "normal" operating procedures for a sailboat and a powerboat, a
sailboat *needs* a bigger battery capacity in order to fullfill similar
electrical requirements. It doesn't necessarily need more MCAs/CCAs, but it
does need more amp-hours/reserve capacity. That need is usually translated into
bigger batteries and more stingy use of power. Either that, or a greater
reliance on solar/wind power.
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
>
> Peggie, your response is lucid, amusing, and on-topic, what are you
> DOING here?
My GPS failed.
Peggie
Steven Shelikoff
>
> >> Peggie, your response is lucid, amusing, and on-topic, what are you
> >> DOING here?
> >
> >My GPS failed.
> >
> >Peggie
>
It certainly wasn't her potty.:)
Steve
Sma4264
>> DOING here?
>
>My GPS failed.
>
>Peggie
I would have thight it was your Plotter that failed.
SA
blu...@twow.don't spam me.com
http://www.twow.com/bluefin/mothership.html
Help Find Rachel Newhouse Goto http://www.gracenote.com/rachel
Help Find Kristen Smart Goto http://www.findkristinsmart.org/
Dave Hall
>
> I won't be unreasonable - ofcourse many sailors use the engine to their advantage at times
> when the engine is a easier way to handle things than doing some fancy manouvering.
>
> But you do make it sound like "as I can't sail, you shouldn't either".
Not at all. But we had a discussion a little while back about the
operation of go-fast boats and the places where high speed operation was
deemed "inappropriate". There are also places where running a sailboat
under sail is equally "inappropriate".
>
> Just like any responsible motorboater (who obeys rules of the road, use caution, is
> considerate and generally is a nice guy), responsible sailors will act in the same way.
>
> We will take into consideration if it is possible to sail into the berth safely and under
> control and if it can be done in safety. If we can do it safely only under engine, we do
> it under engine or not at all - but you may be surprised what can be done quite safely
> under sail if you know how.
Again, the conditions will determine the prudence in docking under sail.
If your berth is exposed to the main channel such that you can approach
the dock directly, and the visability and "escape routes" are all
manageable, then it's probably ok to sail in. However, if your marina is
one of those where you have to enter a "maze" of small channels to weave
back to your protected dock, then it is probably too close to be using
sail power.
> > Right, we just don't want you guys "building your skills" next to our
> > boats, just in case you "mess up"
>
> Are you suggesting that there are no skills to build for motorboaters ? I have seen some
> pretty spectacular mess created by motorboaters, too.
Not at all, but when powerboats mess up, they did so purely from lack of
skill or from a sudden unmanageable "situation". The sailor has a
choice. If he chooses not to be prudent, and use the engine, when he
should, and something happens, I would add negligence to lack of skill
or a bad situation.
> >
> > The wind is an unpredictable variable, subject to change intensity and
> > direction at will. Are you 100% capable of making an emergency collision
> > avoidance manuever, with no engine, when the wind suddenly shifts, and
> > you have to deal with that as well?
>
> Like they said, non understood technology is equal to magic...
Unless you have a crystal ball, you cannot predict the wind. Yes, there
are some telltale signs that will give you SOME clue as to what might
happen. But it is not 100% foolproof or accurate.
>
> You may be surprised how predictable and understandable the wind is, if you learn how to
> sail. No offence meant at all, just that when sailing you tend to learn more about these
> things than if motoring.
I've been sailing, and had the wind die for no good reason. Only to have
it start back up a few minutes later. Why? There was nothing that would
indicate that this would happen. I've also been out in conditions where
the wind was "unpredictable", and shifted directions frequently. We
expected it due to the weather fronts, but we didn't know precisely when
and where to expect the shifts. We only knew to expect them.
>
>
> The whole idea with a pleasure boat is to have fun. Like a motorboater, who gets a thrill
> out of going fast where conditions allow, a sailor gets his kicks out of doing his thing
> under sail. There would be no reason for sailboats if they can't be sailed, so to say.
Agreed. But I and others were taken to task for operating a go-fast boat
at high speed under conditions that they deemed were "inappropriate". If
you accept the court of public opinion, other people will undoubtedly
disagree with you on when conditions to sail into your dock are
appropriate or not. You will no doubt make more than a few people
"nervous", as you perform your manuevers. You know what you are capable
of, but the other guy does not (much like the situation with go-fasts).
>
> > You have much less control,
> > under sail (No reverse, at least no reliable reverse), and should a
> > sudden "situation" arise, that he has not calculated for, the sailor
> > stands a very good chance of "messing up".
>
> This is in essence quite correct. The calculation part is a big part of sailboat
> manouvering and cannot be dismissed. One of the things a sailor learn much quicker than a
> motorboater is to keep safe exits open, all the time. Thats part of the different
> approaches and not a value staement - just an acknowledgement that sailing is trickier
> than motoring, usually.
>
> I we were flyers instead of boaters, how you would look at gliders compared to motorplanes
> ?
>
> > Why risk it? If you're not
> > showing off your sailing skills for the commodore of your yacht club,
> > then the prudent thing to do is play it safe and use the engine. That's
> > what it's there for.
>
> You are aware that it is perfectly normal for many sailboats to not have any engine - like
> Lasers, Solings and Starboats?
If you have no other choice, that's one thing, but if you have the
choice but don't use it, you could be exercising negligence.
>
> And, don't worry. If the prudent thing is to start the engine, a responsible sailor will.
> But I think that many motorboat owners know too little about sailing to judge when it is
> safe to dock under sail and when it is not. You will se comparably few sailboats named
> "Death Wish III " or "Second Kamikaze"...
What does a boat's name have to do about anything? I usually find the
names of powerboats to be a bit more clever, especially those with
double meanings or puns. Sailboat names tend to be "ho-hum", like the
1000th "Serenity" that I've seen. But to each his own......
Paul Kamen
>The way I see it (though my own personal "bias"), is that the
>reason that a sailor wants to be able to maneuver their craft
>into their marina, under sail, is no different than the "macho"
>guy who buys a go fast powerboat. It's a "show off" thing...
Well then, how do you explain why we do this at 2 in the morning when the
marina is deserted and all the live-aboards are asleep? Or why do we sail
in and out of small, deserted anchorages when it would be easier to use
the engine?
For that matter, if sailing is such a "show off" thing, why sail at all
when there's no-one around to watch?
Paul Kamen
>That may be true, but why would you WANT to? If you check the
>registrations lately, you would see that the overwhelming
>majority of registered boats are powerboats (including PWC). So
>why would you want to displace the greater majority to please
>the wishes of the minority?
That wasn't the question. The point here is that sail and
muscle-propelled boats can operate at much higher densities on restricted
waterways without annoying or endangering each other. I take it you agree
with this.
So, to the extent that overcrowding is becoming a problem on certain
waterways, and if the goal is to allow the highest level of safe and
enjoyable use, then it makes perfect sense to ban powerboats from these
areas.
I know that boat registration stats indicate a strong cultural preference
for power. But the factors that produce these preferences are always
changing, and sometimes it's counterproductive to place oneself on the
wrong side of a "fight 'em or join 'em" scenario.
John H. Haig
>
> Dana Seero wrote:
> >
> > Peggie, your response is lucid, amusing, and on-topic, what are you
> > DOING here?
>
> My GPS failed.
>
> Peggie
OH, NO!!! Not another GPS versus sextant thread, (please) :-)
Sma4264
>> >> DOING here?
>> >
>> >My GPS failed.
>> >
>> >Peggie
>>
>
>
>Steve
>
Peggie's pottie's always plop. Which is what they're supposed to do...right?
Sma4264
>when there's no-one around to watch?
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
Maybe because you've had a little too much wine :-)
Paul Kamen
>...we had a discussion a little while back about the
>operation of go-fast boats and the places where high speed
>operation was deemed "inappropriate". There are also places where
>running a sailboat under sail is equally "inappropriate"...
You stretch the definition of the word "equally" beyond the breaking
point.
Compare the consequenses of inappropriate operation:
Powerboat: Serious bodily injury to self and others from high-speed
collisions with other boats or swimmers.
Property damage from high-speed collisions.
Property damage from excessive wake.
Annoyance over a wide area from excessive noise.
Sailboat: Property damage from low-speed collisions.
Annoyance to powerboaters who have to slow down or wait
to pass.
Anders Svensson
> But we had a discussion a little while back about the
> operation of go-fast boats and the places where high speed operation was
> deemed "inappropriate". There are also places where running a sailboat
> under sail is equally "inappropriate".
Dave, the rules of the road also say say so very clearly. There are no-wake zones (wich are
speed limits over here) and we even have (and I am sure there are in many places) areas where
there is no sailing allowed at all. The rules of the road even say that small boats - even
sailboats - are not allowed to interfere with ships when ships can't manouver freely to avoid
them.
But between motorboats and sailboats, the rules are hard and clear, motorboats give way. I think
you (and others) are far off the mark when you say that sailboats should use their engines
instead of sails because that is safer, better and more considerate.
> However, if your marina is
> one of those where you have to enter a "maze" of small channels to weave
> back to your protected dock, then it is probably too close to be using
> sail power.
I regularily sail my OK racing dinghy into the most unbelievable places, where powers that be
have choosen to put the dinghy park and ramp, because the easy to reach ramp is used by all the
"easy manouverable" powerboaters...
Just to say that things are not always what they seem to be.
> Not at all, but when powerboats mess up, they did so purely from lack of
> skill or from a sudden unmanageable "situation". The sailor has a
> choice. If he chooses not to be prudent, and use the engine, when he
> should, and something happens, I would add negligence to lack of skill
> or a bad situation.
This, ofcourse, assumes that nothing ever goes wrong with engines.
> I've been sailing, and had the wind die for no good reason. Only to have
> it start back up a few minutes later. Why? There was nothing that would
> indicate that this would happen. I've also been out in conditions where
> the wind was "unpredictable", and shifted directions frequently. We
> expected it due to the weather fronts, but we didn't know precisely when
> and where to expect the shifts. We only knew to expect them.
Don't read too much into this. I just say that wind shift patterns, sudden lack of wind and
radical windshifts are easier to understand if you sail a lot than most motorboaters will
understand. Of course the wind shifts and moves about sporadically - that is part of sailing
fun.
> But I and others were taken to task for operating a go-fast boat
> at high speed under conditions that they deemed were "inappropriate". If
> you accept the court of public opinion, other people will undoubtedly
> disagree with you on when conditions to sail into your dock are
> appropriate or not. You will no doubt make more than a few people
> "nervous", as you perform your manuevers. You know what you are capable
> of, but the other guy does not (much like the situation with go-fasts).
Yes, I agree on that. But I don't agree that a sailboat that sails automatically is a greater
peril than a motorboat that motors. I also think it is obvious that the current rules of the
road puts a far larger burden on the motorboat than on the sailboat to make a passing safe.
> If you have no other choice, that's one thing, but if you have the
> choice but don't use it, you could be exercising negligence.
Have you considered that there isn't much difference between a motorboat with no sails and a
sailingboat with no motor, when it comes to putting all eggs in one basket.
> You will se comparably few sailboats named
> > "Death Wish III " or "Second Kamikaze"...
>
> What does a boat's name have to do about anything? I usually find the
> names of powerboats to be a bit more clever, especially those with
> double meanings or puns. Sailboat names tend to be "ho-hum", like the
> 1000th "Serenity" that I've seen. But to each his own......
Well, I was alluding a little to your inherent suggestion that some hardcore sailors lack self
preservation and are too willing to risk their own and others wellbeing when docking their boats
without using an engine... probably just a no good joke - sorry for that... I perhaps may
suggest you take it in the same spirit as I took "impress the commodore"...
As a side point, why don't motorboaters that are unsure if sailboats really can manouver well
(with a good helmsman) go have a look at a sailboat race - or just take a look when a fleet
comes back in again after a race to dock up. This will probably be proof enough that sailing
works pretty well as boat propulsion even in very close quarters.
Rick
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
> Dave Hall <nojunkma...@worldlynx.net> writes:
>
> >...we had a discussion a little while back about the
> >operation of go-fast boats and the places where high speed
> >operation was deemed "inappropriate". There are also places where
>
>You stretch the definition of the word "equally" beyond the breaking
>point.
>
>Compare the consequenses of inappropriate operation:
>
>
>Powerboat: Serious bodily injury to self and others from high-speed
> collisions with other boats or swimmers.
>
> Property damage from high-speed collisions.
>
> Property damage from excessive wake.
>
> Annoyance over a wide area from excessive noise.
>
>
>Sailboat: Property damage from low-speed collisions.
>
> Annoyance to powerboaters who have to slow down or wait
> to pass.
>
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
>http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
No stretching things on your part here is there. You really expect anyone to
believe that a sailboat , particulary one say in the 25-40 ' plus range
operating at it's displacement speed and colliding with another boat would
not subject anyone to the possiblility of an injury.
I'll take the sound of a powerboat any "day", rather than the annoying clang
of rigging all night long while your at anchor trying to sleep.
The only point I'll give you in your response is that no doubt a power boat
creates a larger wake and consequently if there was shore damage, more is
likely caused by powerboats rather than sailboats.
Rick
Douglas King
>
> >The way I see it (though my own personal "bias"), is that the
> >reason that a sailor wants to be able to maneuver their craft
> >into their marina, under sail, is no different than the "macho"
> >guy who buys a go fast powerboat. It's a "show off" thing...
Paul Kamen wrote:
> For that matter, if sailing is such a "show off" thing, why sail at all
> when there's no-one around to watch?
*smacks forehead*
Of course!! Heck with it, I'm giving up sailing. It's nothing but a
cheesy spectator sport.
Thanks for opening my eyes, Fishmeal! How could I have been so wrong all
these years?
Fresh umm breezes or something- Doug King
Douglas King
> The way I see it (though my own personal "bias"), is that the reason
> marina, under sail, is no different than the "macho" guy who buys a go
> fast powerboat. It's a "show off" thing.
This may be true of some or even many sailors. Probably a much higher
percent of those who never learned to sail in a small boat. To me it is
not a "show off" thing at all, since the skill to accomplish docking
under sail is pretty much a minimum level of competence. After all, if
you can't reach a dock, how in blazes are you going to pick up a man
overboard?
As I pointed out, there a LOT of sailboats with no motor and no way to
carry one. They are necessarily docked under sail 100% of the time. Is
this "showing off?"
After you've done a couple thousand dockings under sail, it gets to be
pretty ho-hum.
> ..... The fact that you CAN do it,
> does not mean that you necessarily SHOULD.
It may sound odd, but I agree.
> ... You have much less control,
> under sail (No reverse, at least no reliable reverse), and should a
> sudden "situation" arise, that he has not calculated for, the sailor
> stands a very good chance of "messing up".
This is coming from you vast experience with sailboats, Dave? The simple
fact is that you are wrong here. A sailboat is more maneuverable under
sail, with the sole exception of reverse (which you shouldn't need
unless some person cuts in front of you).
> It only takes one major insurance claim to understand where I'm coming
> from here....
Right. Be it noted that I carry a pretty high liability (never put in
any claims though). It's cheap for a sailboat.....
Douglas King
Dave Hall wrote:
> We've been there before, unless you can show me how your sailboat can
> turn on its axis, like one of my old jetboats did, I don't want to hear
> about how sailboats are "more maneuverable", especially considering the
> finicky nature of the wind.
Yes, and I suggest you check Deja News and review what went on in that
thread. If you don't want to hear about it, it's because you were wrong
then and you're wrong now.
Jetskis do not turn on any single axis. If the jet is off, they cannot
turn at all. They may rotate, but continue going in the same path. In
fact their maneuverability is rated as "poor" even by jetski enthusiasts
if they have any experience with any other craft. They simply have no
lateral resistance and tend to "skid" a lot. In fact that's one of the
things that make them fun.
You also keep making points about the "finicky nature of the wind" which
is not considered a serious handicap (at least, relative to
maneuverability) by any sailors who have spoken up yet. I wonder why
that is? Perhaps it's because you are inventing problems to bolster your
opinions?
It would seem pretty obvious that since you have so little experience
actually maneuvering a sailbopat, that you might heed at least some of
the information on the subject which is being made available here for
free, instead of simply repeating your unfounded prejudices again and
again, Dave!
Tired of the same stuff over and over- Doug King
Brian Grant
pretty damn finicky. Without a rudder you just go where it blows.
Paul Kamen
>No stretching things on your part here is there. You really expect
>anyone to believe that a sailboat , particularly one say in the
>25-40 ' plus range operating at it's displacement speed and
>colliding with another boat would not subject anyone to the
>possibility of an injury.
The possibility is certainly there, but in practice, serious injuries due
to sailboat collisions are quite rare. Maybe someone can dig up an
example, but I can't think of a single sailboat fatality resulting from a
collision. Compare to the death and injury rate associated with powerboat
collisions.
>I'll take the sound of a powerboat any "day", rather than the
>annoying clang of rigging all night long while your at anchor
>trying to sleep.
This isn't exactly within the scope of "inappropriate operation," but I
agree that any sailor who leaves running rigging clanging deserves to be
called on it. Warn them once, warn them twice, then untie the halyards
and run them out of the sheaves.
>The only point I'll give you in your response is that no doubt a
>power boat creates a larger wake and consequently if there was
>shore damage, more is likely caused by powerboats rather than
>sailboats.
Does this mean you take the position that collisions resulting from
inappropriate powerboat operation are no more hazardous than collisions
from inappropriate sailboat operation?
I don't think that's a position you can easily defend.
Knot A Chance
Rick writes:
>I'll take the sound of a powerboat any "day", rather than the
>annoying clang of rigging all night long while your at anchor
>trying to sleep.
Paul retorts:
>This isn't exactly within the scope of "inappropriate operation," but I
>agree that any sailor who leaves running rigging clanging deserves >to be
called on it. Warn them once, warn them twice, then untie the >halyards and
run them out of the sheaves.
Paul,
The blow boat crowd has loved to generalize about powerboaters in this and
other threads. As I have yet to moor or dock next to a set of sailboats
which did not have their running rigging clanging away at night, I must
then assume that all blow boaters are discourteous. Let me then continue
with the generalization by saying us powerboaters are going to be plenty
busy taking your suggestion by untying halyards and running them out of the
sheaves.
Dana Seero
> Paul,
> The blow boat crowd has loved to generalize about powerboaters in this and
> other threads. As I have yet to moor or dock next to a set of sailboats
> which did not have their running rigging clanging away at night, I must
> then assume that all blow boaters are discourteous. Let me then continue
> with the generalization by saying us powerboaters are going to be plenty
> busy taking your suggestion by untying halyards and running them out of the
> sheaves.
Oh, no! I own two (small) motorboats and one (small) sailboat. Do I terrrorize
everyone, or no one?
I've noticed discourteous powerboaters in my motorboat and discourteous sailors
in my motorboat.
Then there are the grey areas, like a friend of mine (ex US Olympic sailor) who
was out watching a race in his motorboat when his 7 year old son hooked a
good-sized striper that started towing his boat into the racecourse as a fleet
of nearly 20 boats were rounding the mark. New right-of-way rule - when a 7
year old has hooked the biggest fish of his life, EVERYONE get's out of the
way, and does so cheerfully. Why can't it always be this way?
I've also been towed in when becalmed by those damned stinkpotters, and towed
in a broken blowboat in my motorboat. My wife was rescued by a damned
stinkpotter when her hiking strap broke while we were planing downwind at 12
knots in a race.
I think I'll just keep doing it the way I have been, which is to remember:
- it's supposed to be fun.
- If the other guy is doing something that doesn't make sense, I probably don't
understand the situation.
- Some people don't give a fig about others - but most do.
- We are all OBLIGED to help another boat in distress.
- When in doubt, assume the other guy has a 7 year old on board who has just
hooked the biggest fish of his life, and you are d-d fortunate to be out on the
water and see it, so lighten up.
Just a thought
Rick
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>
> >No stretching things on your part here is there. You really expect
> >anyone to believe that a sailboat , particularly one say in the
> >25-40 ' plus range operating at it's displacement speed and
> >colliding with another boat would not subject anyone to the
> >possibility of an injury.
>
>The possibility is certainly there, but in practice, serious injuries due
>to sailboat collisions are quite rare. Maybe someone can dig up an
>example, but I can't think of a single sailboat fatality resulting from a
>collision. Compare to the death and injury rate associated with powerboat
>collisions.
>
> >annoying clang of rigging all night long while your at anchor
> >trying to sleep.
>
>agree that any sailor who leaves running rigging clanging deserves to be
>called on it. Warn them once, warn them twice, then untie the halyards
>
> >The only point I'll give you in your response is that no doubt a
> >power boat creates a larger wake and consequently if there was
> >shore damage, more is likely caused by powerboats rather than
> >sailboats.
>
>Does this mean you take the position that collisions resulting from
>inappropriate powerboat operation are no more hazardous than collisions
>from inappropriate sailboat operation?
>
>I don't think that's a position you can easily defend.
>
>--
>fish...@netcom.com
>http://www.well.com/~pk/fishmeal.html
>
> -"Call me Fishmeal"-
I'm not trying to defend anything, simply to point out that you conveniently
forgot to make any mention of this in your original post. So it would now
appear that we agree that improper operation of either type of boat can and
does cause injury.
>The possibility is certainly there, but in practice, serious injuries due
>to sailboat collisions are quite rare. Maybe someone can dig up an
>example, but I can't think of a single sailboat fatality resulting from a
>collision. Compare to the death and injury rate associated with powerboat
>collisions.
We obviously agree on the noise caused by clanging rigging however you say:
>This isn't exactly within the scope of "inappropriate operation<
so we can then assume that it is only the improper operation of power boats
that make noise?. To me , noise caused by a boat in operation or not is
still noise.
And finally I made no statement as to whether a collision from a powerboat
is more or less serious than one made by a sailboat simply that a collision
from a sailboat can be just as dangerous. So in reality and without
stretching things we seem to agree.
Rick
Rick
Knot A Chance wrote in message <_EHP2.16$mL....@iagnews.iagnet.net>...
>
>
> Rick writes:
> >I'll take the sound of a powerboat any "day", rather than the
> >annoying clang of rigging all night long while your at anchor
> >trying to sleep.
>
>>This isn't exactly within the scope of "inappropriate operation," but I
>>agree that any sailor who leaves running rigging clanging deserves >to be
>called on it. Warn them once, warn them twice, then untie the >halyards and
>run them out of the sheaves.
>
>The blow boat crowd has loved to generalize about powerboaters in this and
>other threads. As I have yet to moor or dock next to a set of sailboats
>which did not have their running rigging clanging away at night, I must
>then assume that all blow boaters are discourteous. Let me then continue
>with the generalization by saying us powerboaters are going to be plenty
>sheaves.
>
Actually I like the sailboat crowd although I must admit I have never been
able to understand how they can sleep with all the racket from the rigging
going on. Must be like living near the railroad tracks and eventually you
get used to it. There are discourteous groups within both the sailboat and
powerboat crowd. One of these days I'm going to get a ride on one of those
rag boats and see what all the fuss is about.
Rick
>
>
Nikki Locke
> Nikki,
> How is your boat hunting coming along? Have you found any potential boats
> yet?
Found three possibles so far, in St.Martin and Tortola. I suspect that there
may be a lot of boats for sale in the Caribbean which don't find their way
onto the Internet - I'm hoping so, anyway.
Of course, I'm still interested in any information on 30-40 ft long keel
sailing cruisers in the Caribbean, if you know of any.
--
Nikki Locke, Trumphurst Ltd. PC & Unix consultancy & programming
ni...@trmphrst.demon.co.uk http://www.trumphurst.com/
Paul Kamen
>I'm not trying to defend anything, simply to point out that you
>conveniently forgot to make any mention of this in your original
>post.
No, I didn't forget. Bodily harm due to sailboat collisions is so rare
compared to bodily harm from powerboat collisions that it can justifyably
be omitted from a comparison of hazards and risk levels.
>So it would now appear that we agree that improper operation of
>either type of boat can and does cause injury.
But if you're capable of thinking quantitatively, you see that there are
orders of magnitude of difference in the risk levels. Hence my objection
to the use of the words "equally inappropriate."
>so we can then assume that it is only the improper operation of
>power boats that make noise?.
Of course not. Proper and appropriate operation of a powerboat often
produces annoying noise levels also.
>To me, noise caused by a boat in operation or not is still noise.
Right. We agree that it's inappropriate, inconsiderate, and inexcusable to
leave halyards clanging. (Funny how much less of this we see in marinas
with live-aboards). At least, sailors are capable of change. Wanna make a
deal? We'll all stop letting our halyards clang if you stop running your
engines.
>And finally I made no statement as to whether a collision from a
>powerboat is more or less serious than one made by a sailboat
>simply that a collision from a sailboat can be just as dangerous.
>So in reality and without stretching things we seem to agree.
Oh, no we don't. It's specious to ignore the difference in risk levels.
Brian Grant
Rick wrote:
>
<< snip >>
> >
> O.k , I will defer to your apparent greater knowledge in this matter. Please
> provide the group with your source of information that substantiates your
> arguement. I don't make the arguement one way or the other. I know that you
> have said that you personally have no knowledge of any fatalaties involving
> sailboat collisions but should we all accept your arguement on your personal
> knowlege alone?
>
I will have to search for it again but, this issue came up in regards
to a PWC safety thread sometime in the last year. The information on
fatalities by type of watercraft is available from the USCG and the
states of California, Texas and Florida. You will find that these
figures substantiate Fishmeals statement.
Knot A Chance
Paul wrote:
>No, I didn't forget. Bodily harm due to sailboat collisions is so rare
>compared to bodily harm from powerboat collisions that it can >justifyably
be omitted from a comparison of hazards and risk levels.
Are you saying that although the probability of an event may be slight or
even "impossible", you can discard it all together when conducting a hazard
analysis? What about an event with a slight probability of occurance but,
if occuring would result in a catastrophic loss? And what source do you
cite for your information on injuries in sailboat vs powerboat collisions?
Rick
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>
> >I'm not trying to defend anything, simply to point out that you
> >conveniently forgot to make any mention of this in your original
> >post.
>
>compared to bodily harm from powerboat collisions that it can justifyably
>be omitted from a comparison of hazards and risk levels.
>
provide the group with your source of information that substantiates your
arguement. I don't make the arguement one way or the other. I know that you
have said that you personally have no knowledge of any fatalaties involving
sailboat collisions but should we all accept your arguement on your personal
knowlege alone?
.
>
>Right. We agree that it's inappropriate, inconsiderate, and inexcusable to
>leave halyards clanging. (Funny how much less of this we see in marinas
>with live-aboards). At least, sailors are capable of change. Wanna make a
>deal? We'll all stop letting our halyards clang if you stop running your
>engines.
>
Now you really stretch a point. Up to now you were making some sense in your
postions but the above comment is ridiculous. I don't remember a single
night that I left my engine running while others were trying to sleep. You
can do better Paul. Quit reaching for straws that don't exist. Perhaps I
could respond, that I'll shut my engine off at the same time you quit
raising your sails. Would make about as much sense as your comment.
> >And finally I made no statement as to whether a collision from a
> >powerboat is more or less serious than one made by a sailboat
> >simply that a collision from a sailboat can be just as dangerous.
> >So in reality and without stretching things we seem to agree.
>
>Oh, no we don't. It's specious to ignore the difference in risk levels.
>--
As I mentioned previously, produce the facts, not opinons and I'll be happy
to agree.
Rick
Paul Kamen
>Are you saying that although the probability of an event may be
>slight or even "impossible", you can discard it all together when
>conducting a hazard analysis?
Absolutely. There are many categories of accidents that I didn't include
in that list for the same reason.
>What about an event with a slight probability of occurrence but,
>if occurring would result in a catastrophic loss?
What about it? Serious bodily injury is presumably always a catastrope,
but such injury arising from a sailboat collision is a) likely to be less
severe than injuries that arise from powerboat collisions, and b) much
much much less likely to happen in the first place. So, without being to
rigorous, I think I'm justified in dropping it off the short list of
common hazards.
I'm not saying that sailboats don't do their share of banging and
crashing. Just that the damage tends to be property, not life and limb.
>And what source do you cite for your information on injuries in
>sailboat vs powerboat collisions?
I worked a summer in the Coast Guard R&D Center on some small boat safety
projects, and had a good look at the accident statistics. Plus my
unscientific, but nonetheless accurate, imho, conclusions based on some
familiarity with the subject.
--
Paul Kamen
>Now you really stretch a point. Up to now you were making some
>sense in your postions but the above comment is ridiculous. I
>don't remember a single night that I left my engine running while
>others were trying to sleep....
You misunderstand my proposal (even though it was obviously tongue in
cheek): The deal is that sailors will stop letting their halyards bang at
night (and during the day too) if powerboaters stop running their engines,
at all times.
Rick
Brian Grant wrote in message <37101B2F...@nospam.please.erols.com>...
>
>
>Rick wrote:
>>
><< snip >>
>> >
>> O.k , I will defer to your apparent greater knowledge in this matter.
Please
>> provide the group with your source of information that substantiates your
>> arguement. I don't make the arguement one way or the other. I know that
you
>> have said that you personally have no knowledge of any fatalaties
involving
>> sailboat collisions but should we all accept your arguement on your
personal
>> knowlege alone?
>>
>to a PWC safety thread sometime in the last year. The information on
>fatalities by type of watercraft is available from the USCG and the
>states of California, Texas and Florida. You will find that these
>figures substantiate Fishmeals statement.
Well if the figures they quote show that there have been no injuries or
fatalities as a result of a collision involving a sailboat then they do in
fact support his statement, at least his original one. Keep in mind that I
responded to the original post of his in which he left out any reference to
the fact that any injury (fatalities were added in a subsequent post) could
result from a collision with a sailboat.
Rick
Rick
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
The only time I hear banging halyards during the day is when I'm at the
marina with my engine shut off, annoying no one. If I run my engine it is to
enter or leave the marina unlike other less courteous people who leave those
banging halyards...;banging. Paul, I'll bow out of this discussion now ,
it's probably gone on long enough. I'll simply state again what the original
intent of my first post was as someone else is now searching for Coast Guard
stats about fatalities involving powerboats including PWC's . A collision
involving a sailboat can cause injury, to deny this fact would fly in the
face of reason. I never put forth any argument that more or less injuries
are caused by sailboats vs powerboats. Happy sailing.
Rick
Knot A Chance
Knot A Chance <remove no spam when replying> writes:
>Are you saying that although the probability of an event may be
>slight or even "impossible", you can discard it all together when
>conducting a hazard analysis?
Fish writes:
>Absolutely. There are many categories of accidents that I didn't >include
in that list for the same reason.
Have you ever done a hazard analysis or even know what one is? Can you
define the different levels of frequency and severity? And you are now
setting an acceptance line for all boaters?
I write
>What about an event with a slight probability of occurrence but,
>if occurring would result in a catastrophic loss?
Fish writes
>What about it? Serious bodily injury is presumably always a >catastrope,
<snip>
A broken leg can be considered serious bodily injury but I do not think many
would consider it catastrophic. Catastrophic to most people includes loss
of life.
I say:
>And what source do you cite for your information on injuries in
>sailboat vs powerboat collisions?
You say
>I worked a summer in the Coast Guard R&D Center on some small >boat safety
projects, and had a good look at the accident statistics. >Plus my
unscientific, but nonetheless accurate, imho, conclusions >based on some
familiarity with the subject.
OK Fish. As you are quite the expert, what is the frequency rate of serious
and catastrophic powerboat vs sailboat accidents, say in 1995, 1996, 1997 or
1998? Show us the money Fish.
hkrause
>
> Fish writes
> >What about it? Serious bodily injury is presumably always a >catastrope,
> <snip>
>
>Knot-a-Chance writes
> A broken leg can be considered serious bodily injury but I do not think many
> would consider it catastrophic. Catastrophic to most people includes loss
> of life.
Good grief, Knot. Are you totally disconnected from reality? Fish posits
that a serious bodily injurity is a catastrophe. He's right, it is. You
counter and say "most people" wouldn't consider a leg fracture a
catastrophe.
A leg fracture is a serious bodily injury and it is also catastrophic,
especially to an adult who has to work for a living and support a
family. If you have a *decent* dictionary and know how to use it, I
suggest you look up the word and check through its meanings.
Are you in your late teens or early 20's with no responsibilities? Maybe
you can keep a roof over your head if you are unable to work, or maybe
you live with mom and day.
P
Dene Oehme
> >I'll take the sound of a powerboat any "day", rather than the
> >annoying clang of rigging all night long while your at anchor
> >trying to sleep.
Any slapping is easy to prevent and stop once detected.
Regards
Dene Oehme
de...@camtech.net.au
http://www.adelaide.net.au/~dene/menu.htm
Alex
the sounds of a boat.
There shouldn't be a contest between power
and sailing boat owners. Instead they should
help each other and learn from each other.
I carry a big engine around in may sailing boat
and would not be able and allowed to manoevre
in harbour without it ;-)))
Alex
Knot A Chance
that a serious bodily injurity is a catastrophe. He's right, it is. >You
counter and say "most people" wouldn't consider a leg fracture > a
catastrophe.
You obviously know little about hazard analysis or the terms related to
hazard analysis. A leg fracture can be considered serious, as you point out
below, but would not be considered catastrophic. Most people would agree
when catagorizing severity levels and drawing acceptance lines.
Are you now proposing that a leg fracture be considered catastrophic? What
else do you include in the catastrophic catagory?
>A leg fracture is a serious bodily injury and it is also catastrophic,
<snip>
It cannot be both in a hazard analysis. I suggest you do some reading on
this Harry. You again prove that you know nothing about hazard analysis.
>Are you in your late teens or early 20's with no responsibilities? >Maybe
you can keep a roof over your head if you are unable to >work, or maybe you
live with mom and day.
Who is "day"???? And you claim Masters in English from an Ivy League
University?
hkrause
>
> >Good grief, Knot. Are you totally disconnected from reality? Fish >posits
> that a serious bodily injurity is a catastrophe. He's right, it is. >You
> counter and say "most people" wouldn't consider a leg fracture > a
> catastrophe.
>
> You obviously know little about hazard analysis or the terms related to
> hazard analysis. A leg fracture can be considered serious, as you point out
> below, but would not be considered catastrophic. Most people would agree
> when catagorizing severity levels and drawing acceptance lines.
>
> Are you now proposing that a leg fracture be considered catastrophic? What
> else do you include in the catastrophic catagory?
>
> >A leg fracture is a serious bodily injury and it is also catastrophic,
>
> <snip>
>
> It cannot be both in a hazard analysis. I suggest you do some reading on
> this Harry. You again prove that you know nothing about hazard analysis.
and casts.
As for what catastrophe means, I suggest again you consult a good
dictionary. Not the cheap paperback or no-name dictionary you probably
have sitting next to your Algebra I text.
Knot A Chance
hkrause wrote in message
>People with broken legs are not into hazard analysis, they're into >pain
and casts.
Thats it, put a "Harry Twist" on it. Take the discussion into something
different so as to suit your needs. Paul brought up a "comparison of
hazards and risk levels", or simply put, a hazard analysis.
>As for what catastrophe means, I suggest again you consult a good
>dictionary. Not the cheap paperback or no-name dictionary you >probably
have sitting next to your Algebra I text.
As I suggested earlier, perhaps you may want to do some reading on Hazard
Analysis, its terms and definitions of those terms. You certainly do not
know what you are talking about on this one.
So who is "mom and day"?
hkrause
>
> hkrause wrote in message
> >People with broken legs are not into hazard analysis, they're into >pain
> and casts.
>
> Thats it, put a "Harry Twist" on it. Take the discussion into something
> different so as to suit your needs. Paul brought up a "comparison of
> hazards and risk levels", or simply put, a hazard analysis.
>
>
The question was about the meaning of the word catastrophe. You
obviously do not know what the word means, you apparently do not own a
dictionary and you apparently are too stupid to look it up on the
internet. So, just for you, here is the definition from my small
dictionary:
ca•tas•tro•phe:
n.1. a sudden and widespread disaster: the catastrophe of war. 2. any
misfortune, mishap, or failure; fiasco: The play was so poor our whole
evening was a catastrophe. 3. a final event or conclusion, usually an
unfortunate one; a disastrous end: the great catastrophe of the Old
South at Appomattox. 4. (in a drama) the point at which the
circumstances overcome the central motive, introducing the close or
conclusion; dénouement. Cf. catastasis, epitasis, protasis. 5. Geol. a
sudden, violent disturbance, esp. of a part of the surface of the earth;
cataclysm.
Note definition Number 2, "any misfortune, mishap or failure..."
A broken leg usually is a catastrophe for the owner of the leg. Perhaps
your problem is limited language skills.
Knot A Chance
understand Hazard Analysis and its terms. Come back when you know what you
are talking about.
BTW Harry, it is ok for you not to know everything. For some reason you
have to try to show that you do. And that is exactly when we start seeing 2
common themes in your threads:
1. You turn the discussion around (the "Harry Twist") to suit your
needs.
2. You turn to 2nd grade insults when you start losing the discussion.
hkrause
Losing the discussion? To you? Are you kidding? You're the one rapidly
gaining the reputation as the numnutz of the newsgroup. Virtually every
time you post something, you're slamdunked into the net. Which you then
follow with a post wondering why this is happening to you.
But, worry not. You have little to say and not the skills to say it.
BTW, when are you going to put up some posts about boating that go
beyond the first chapter of Chapman's?
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
I never deny, I never contradict. I sometimes forget.
Skipper
> The question was about the meaning of the word catastrophe. You
> obviously do not know what the word means, you apparently do not own a
> dictionary and you apparently are too stupid to look it up on the
> internet. So, just for you, here is the definition from my small
> dictionary:
> ca•tas•tro•phe:
> n.1. a sudden and widespread disaster: the catastrophe of war. 2. any
> misfortune, mishap, or failure; fiasco: The play was so poor our whole
> evening was a catastrophe. 3. a final event or conclusion, usually an
> unfortunate one; a disastrous end: the great catastrophe of the Old
> South at Appomattox. 4. (in a drama) the point at which the
> circumstances overcome the central motive, introducing the close or
> conclusion; dénouement. Cf. catastasis, epitasis, protasis. 5. Geol. a
> sudden, violent disturbance, esp. of a part of the surface of the
> earth; cataclysm.
No, no, no, Harry. That old spelling problem has once again created a
reading comprehension error. You obviously combined several words into
one big jumble. The correct spelling should be, "cat's ass Trophy".
This is sometimes expressed as, "Trophy is the cat's ass". Suggest you
do a bit more research in your F&W.
--
Skipper
Lauri Tarkkonen
> >And what source do you cite for your information on injuries in
> >sailboat vs powerboat collisions?
>I worked a summer in the Coast Guard R&D Center on some small boat safety
>projects, and had a good look at the accident statistics. Plus my
>unscientific, but nonetheless accurate, imho, conclusions based on some
>familiarity with the subject.
If one is looking at fatalities in sailboat vs. powerboat collisions,
it is possible to find severe casualities, but in most cases the whole
incidence would be impossible if there were two sailingboats involved
in the collision and the thing could be much more severe if there were
two motorboats involved. Here in Finland there was some years ago a
case where father let his six and seven years old sons drive his boat
while he went down for some other business, the bois could not see
ower the bow and drove over the cocpit of a sailing boat making mince
meat from an elderly couple while doing so. They claimed that they did
not see the sailing boat with the sails up and in perfect visibility.
Here you have to people killed in a sailboat and three people only
little mentally shaken in a motor boat, but I would not tell that the
safety record for the sailing boat goes down and for motor boat up.
- Lauri Tarkkonen
Skipper
> Losing the discussion? To you? Are you kidding? You're the one rapidly
> gaining the reputation as the numnutz of the newsgroup.
While most of Knot's positions could be seen as lacking credibility,
you're the one continually engaging him in mostly off topic flame
exchanges. "Numnutz" reputation? I'd say the title was shared by you
both, and not in just one NG with all the cross posting you seem to
habituate.
--
Skipper
Ed
wrote:
> Rick <reng...@home.com> writes:
>
> >Now you really stretch a point. Up to now you were making some
> >sense in your postions but the above comment is ridiculous. I
> >don't remember a single night that I left my engine running while
> >others were trying to sleep....
>
>You misunderstand my proposal (even though it was obviously tongue in
>cheek): The deal is that sailors will stop letting their halyards bang at
>night (and during the day too) if powerboaters stop running their engines,
>at all times.
Wait a minute....I thought it was us powerboaters that were supposed
to be rude on purpose......now I'm really confused.
BTW, as a powerboater, I don't run my engines at all times. I
actually get where I'm going, drop anchor and enjoy. On the lake the
boat "lives" at, in a typical 8-10 hour outing, it's un-usual to run
the engine more than 1.5 to 2 hours, depending on how long it takes to
find a good spot to relax. On an overnight outing, the ratio of run
time is even less.
It's the same for us when we're in FL. Engine runs to a destination,
we enjoy it, the engine runs to get us home. Maybe 3 hours out of the
whole day.
Yes, it would be different if referring to ocean-going vessels of
power, but then there's generally not a proximity issue that would
cause halyards or engines to be an annoyance to a neighbor.
-Ed G
hkrause
>
> hkrause wrote:
> > A broken leg usually is a catastrophe for the owner of the leg. Perhaps
> > your problem is limited language skills.
>
> having a serious enough accident to have a broken leg or arm
Works for me.
--
Harry Krause
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Brain on vacation, body on autopilot.
Paul Kamen
> ...A collision involving a sailboat can cause injury, to deny
>this fact would fly in the face of reason. I never put forth any
>argument that more or less injuries are caused by sailboats vs
>powerboats. Happy sailing.
No-one's denying that. You did suggest that there was some sort of
"equality" between inappropriate powerboat operation and inappropriate
sailboat operation. I'm saying that they're vastly different in terms of
the levels of both annoyance and danger, as demonstrated by the stats on
serious collision-related injury or fatality.
Paul Kamen
>Have you ever done a hazard analysis or even know what one is?
>Can you define the different levels of frequency and severity?
>And you are now setting an acceptance line for all boaters?
Naval architecture involves a large amount of probabalistic analysis.
Whatever your definition of "hazard analysis," I think I have the basic
principles well in hand. Yes, I did set something akin to an "acceptance
line" for the purpose of my tabulation, and I think it's a reasonable and
valid one which would be supported by the available data, if anyone cared
to check the numbers.
>A broken leg can be considered serious bodily injury but I do not
>think many would consider it catastrophic. Catastrophic to most
>people includes loss of life.
Okay, want to restrict this to fatalities? The stats are easier to find
that way, and I think they'll support my argument here.
>OK Fish. As you are quite the expert, what is the frequency
>rate of serious and catastrophic powerboat vs sailboat accidents,
>say in 1995, 1996, 1997 or 1998? Show us the money Fish.
Frankly, I don't feel compelled to do the legwork here.
I'm sure there is no shortage of sailboat fatalities in those statistics -
but honestly, how many of them do you think are the result of sailboat
collisions?
Knot A Chance
around, what is the defition of the following terms:
1. Impossible
2. Neglible
3. Slight
4. Catastrophic
5. Risk Acceptance Line
I am not asking for your dictionary definition, but the definition of these
terms when working within a Hazard Analysis. If you understand Hazard
Analysis, as you implied you did, this should be easy.
hkrause wrote in message <37111806...@erols.com>...
Peggie Hall/Peal Products
>
> >> >> Peggie, your response is lucid, amusing, and on-topic, what are you
> >> >> DOING here?
> >> >
> >> >My GPS failed.
> >> >
> >> >Peggie
> >>
> >> I would have thight it was your Plotter that failed.
> >
> >It certainly wasn't her potty.:)
> >
> >Steve
> >
>
> Peggie's pottie's always plop. Which is what they're supposed to do...right?
Well...er....no. Plop?????
Y'all will prob'ly get a giggle out of this: one of the toilets in my
house is leaking. Now a household toilet isn't machinery...it's nothing
but a tank, a mechanism to pull the plug in the tank, and a bowl...and
few seals and fittings to connect it to the water supply and sewer line.
There should absolutely nothing in one that your resident "head
mistress" shouldn't be able to repair in heartbeat. Wrong!! When the
helpful hardware person told me that replacing the compression fitting
on the water pipe that goes into the bowl also requires cutting the
stainless steel pipe and replacing it, he took the job beyond my
capabilities. I can rebuild any marine head made...but I am not a pipe
cutter. So tomorrow I'm gonna pay a plumber $80 to replace a bloody $.30
nylon fitting....however--I'm gonna get a least a little more bang for
my buck...While I was at Home Depot I bought a new garbage disposal. I
don't NEED a new one, but I've never liked the one the builder
installed...and I figure the plumber can use the rest of the hour I'm
paying him for to swap it out with the old one. By the time I write him
a check one $.30 nylon toilet fitting replacement will cost me $245. But
what the hell...at least I'll get my full hour out of the plumber.
Peggie
> SA
> blu...@twow.don't spam me.com
> http://www.twow.com/bluefin/mothership.html
> Help Find Rachel Newhouse Goto http://www.gracenote.com/rachel
> Help Find Kristen Smart Goto http://www.findkristinsmart.org/
hkrause
>
> Harry, in a Hazard Analysis, which is what our entire "discussion" revolved
> around, what is the defition of the following terms:
>
> 1. Impossible
> 2. Neglible
> 3. Slight
> 4. Catastrophic
> 5. Risk Acceptance Line
I would say a hazard analysis of a boating situation would take into
account your proximity in a moving boat to any other boat, moving or
moored.
Brian Grant
There is a tool called a pipe cutter that consists of a circular blade
and two rollers which makes cutting a pipe extremely simple. You
tighten the blade down till it is a little snug and rotate it around the
tube, tighten a little more and do it again. A couple turns around the
tube and it drops right off. The run less than $10 at most hardware
stores.
Knot A Chance
(it had nothing to do with my question). Perhaps you should read some
information on Hazard Analysis before you start into a discussion on it next
time.
BTW, depending on the scope, the engine, steering linkage, gasoline tank,
hull, etc could also be included in the analysis, and not just "your
proximity in a moving boat to any other boat, moving or
moored".
I can recommend some fine books for you to read so you can learn about
Hazard Analysis Harry. Let me know.
Jere Lull
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999 07:38:30 GMT, fish...@netcom.com (Paul Kamen)
> wrote:
>
> > Rick <reng...@home.com> writes:
> >
> > >Now you really stretch a point. Up to now you were making some
> > >sense in your postions but the above comment is ridiculous. I
> > >don't remember a single night that I left my engine running while
> > >others were trying to sleep....
> >
> >You misunderstand my proposal (even though it was obviously tongue in
> >cheek): The deal is that sailors will stop letting their halyards bang at
> >night (and during the day too) if powerboaters stop running their engines,
> >at all times.
>
> Wait a minute....I thought it was us powerboaters that were supposed
> to be rude on purpose......now I'm really confused.
>
Actually, I believe the real offenders are those monster unmuffled engines
that can be heard all the way over on the other side of the Bay, miles away,
and/or those boors that run gensets all night at anchor [WHY do they even
leave the dock if they're going to run the a/c all night in their closed-up
boats?].
In my experience, most sailors don't mind if you re-tie their banging halyards
-- we have a standing arrangement with our dockmates if we slip up or the
tie-off lines fall off.
--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux -- '73 Tanzer 28 #4 -- out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's Pics & Specs: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI Vacation trip FAQ (250+ Annotated pics):
http://members.dca.net/jerelull/BVI.html
K.K.
Rick
Paul Kamen wrote in message ...
>
> > ...A collision involving a sailboat can cause injury, to deny
> >this fact would fly in the face of reason. I never put forth any
> >argument that more or less injuries are caused by sailboats vs
> >powerboats. Happy sailing.
>
>No-one's denying that. You did suggest that there was some sort of
>"equality" between inappropriate powerboat operation and inappropriate
>sailboat operation. I'm saying that they're vastly different in terms of
>the levels of both annoyance and danger, as demonstrated by the stats on
>serious collision-related injury or fatality.
Nope, I didn't suggest anything of the sort. I did say that inappropriate
operation of either boat can cause injury. and that's the only position I
took on that matter. And I will make this my final comment ( I can hear
clapping) on the matter.
Rick