Australian Golden Globe Race entrant - yacht lost

This is very sad :(

Although I am wondering why he needed to do a qualifying voyage for the GGR by sailing around the North Island of New Zealand prior to the race start next September in France - unless he was planning on shipping the boat to France, rather than sailing her there?
 
dunedin said:
Sadly the GGR race does seem to be doing a good job of reducing the number of classic long keel yachts of circa 36ft LOA.

Not clear why ended up close to the shore in the first place, but agree very sad, though great no lives lost.
Click to expand...
Sad yes, but I understand that a whole fleet of fin keeled, pie-shaped and open transom models were able to claw off the very same lee shore and during that very same blow, or so, no doubt, one is to be assured.

I view of the ongoing arguments I believe the GGR should be open to ant type of boat willing to compete within the same parametres, i.e. 32' - 36', trad. navigation and without the benefits of weather routing, etc.
 
Laminar Flow said:
I view of the ongoing arguments I believe the GGR should be open to ant type of boat willing to compete within the same parametres, i.e. 32' - 36', trad. navigation and without the benefits of weather routing, etc.
Click to expand...
I struggle with this 'golden age of sail' dream. The boats are using modern sails, running rigging, clothing and foods. Just the sails and running rigging is a totally different dynamic on a hull that was designed for very different loading.
 
Sandy said:
I struggle with this 'golden age of sail' dream. The boats are using modern sails, running rigging, clothing and foods. Just the sails and running rigging is a totally different dynamic on a hull that was designed for very different loading.
Click to expand...
I agree. And with all this, why fix the navigation approach in the 1970s, makes no sense. Why not require gaff rig - or perhaps square rig - and no chronometer? Bonkers idea of a weird race.
 
Well, it has the same validity as crossing the Atlantic in a reed boat or a Viking replica on the Northern route.

The argument that the rustler & co were not designed to carry their rig is nonsense of course.

I really don't care whether the participants are required to navigate by sextant, astrolabe or sun stone, but the fact alone that the contestants are in continuous communication with the outside world changes the whole dynamics of the venture in comparison to the original race, particularly in regards to the preparedness to take risks or simply on a psychological level.

All arguments to the contrary, it appears the books for the next one are filling up nicely, just a shame we won't be seeing modern designs of a similar DWL on the roster. I should have liked to have seen that.
 
Laminar Flow said:
Well, it has the same validity as crossing the Atlantic in a reed boat or a Viking replica on the Northern route.
Click to expand...
That might still come as some people come up with some more mad ideas. We could have the Thor Heyerdahl series with different classes; Racing Kon-Tiki, Racing Ra. ;)
 
Laminar Flow said:
I view of the ongoing arguments I believe the GGR should be open to ant type of boat willing to compete within the same parametres, i.e. 32' - 36', trad. navigation and without the benefits of weather routing, etc.
Click to expand...

No need really. Last time there was a contingent of the AWBs who felt left out, so formed their own "Longue Route" event. They did not leave lots of wrecks in the southern ocean like the GGR did.

Mostly because they allowed weather routing, so they avoided the really nasty weather that caused havoc amongst the GGR fleet. Which is basically the point. There is no such thing as a boat that can survive anything that the Ocean can throw at it, that theory was tested by the GGR and was fairly comprehensively disproved with fully 50% of the fleet who made it past the Cape of Good hope being abandoned in the Southern Ocean. In the past with no accurate weather forecasts, and therefore weather routing, available to boats offshore a big part of this came down to luck, and because of that people going far offshore always wanted the strongest, most traditionally seaworthy boat that they could get hold of to increase their odds of making it to the other side. But now it isn't just luck, and it's pretty clear to see that the combination of good weather routing and a bit of speed has a better success rate than no weather routing and a boat built "to survive anything the ocean can throw at it".

Forget whether this boat, or that boat, is better suited to surviving an extreme storm. By far and away the better proven tactic is to avoid the storm. In the past this was down to luck as much as anything else.
But these days the tools to avoid the worst of the weather exist at very reasonable cost to any cruising boat.

That isn't to say that I think the GGR shouldn't take place, if people want to take part, then go for it, more power to them! The sense of achievement must be absolutely incredible, and I have absolutely enormous respect for the skippers.

When we look at the GGR and the Longue route we see quite clearly that the biggest factor in a safe passage through the Southern Ocean that year was not the design of the boat, but the use of weather routing.

Of course, the advantages of weather routing are increased when you have a bit of speed to help you position the boat... Given the choice I'd far rather be in a faster boat who's plan is to know about and avoid strong winds, than a slow one who's plan is to tough them out. But then maybe I'm just a massive chicken.
 
flaming said:
No need really. Last time there was a contingent of the AWBs who felt left out, so formed their own "Longue Route" event. They did not leave lots of wrecks in the southern ocean like the GGR did.

Mostly because they allowed weather routing, so they avoided the really nasty weather that caused havoc amongst the GGR fleet. Which is basically the point. There is no such thing as a boat that can survive anything that the Ocean can throw at it, that theory was tested by the GGR and was fairly comprehensively disproved with fully 50% of the fleet who made it past the Cape of Good hope being abandoned in the Southern Ocean. In the past with no accurate weather forecasts, and therefore weather routing, available to boats offshore a big part of this came down to luck, and because of that people going far offshore always wanted the strongest, most traditionally seaworthy boat that they could get hold of to increase their odds of making it to the other side. But now it isn't just luck, and it's pretty clear to see that the combination of good weather routing and a bit of speed has a better success rate than no weather routing and a boat built "to survive anything the ocean can throw at it".

Forget whether this boat, or that boat, is better suited to surviving an extreme storm. By far and away the better proven tactic is to avoid the storm. In the past this was down to luck as much as anything else.
But these days the tools to avoid the worst of the weather exist at very reasonable cost to any cruising boat.

That isn't to say that I think the GGR shouldn't take place, if people want to take part, then go for it, more power to them! The sense of achievement must be absolutely incredible, and I have absolutely enormous respect for the skippers.

When we look at the GGR and the Longue route we see quite clearly that the biggest factor in a safe passage through the Southern Ocean that year was not the design of the boat, but the use of weather routing.

Of course, the advantages of weather routing are increased when you have a bit of speed to help you position the boat... Given the choice I'd far rather be in a faster boat who's plan is to know about and avoid strong winds, than a slow one who's plan is to tough them out. But then maybe I'm just a massive chicken.
Click to expand...
Might as well use radio controlled boats, if the brains of the operation is the weather router ashore?

It people want to do things like the GGR for themselves that's great, but it's another media circus for the entertainment of the viewers and the ego and profit of the organisers.
As a member of the audience, I'm a bit underwhelmed by other people sailing around the world these days.
There's so many races, organisers are desperate to find some novel twist on the idea.
I used to follow it quite keenly, for quite a time back in the 70s and 80s.
 
Wing Mark said:
Might as well use radio controlled boats, if the brains of the operation is the weather router ashore?
Click to expand...
In this context routing is done on board during races using only commercially available information. That's been mandated for every race I can think of for a long time. Outright record setting (Jules Verne etc) being a different issue.

In a cruising context, employing the expert services of a weather router ashore makes a lot of sense if one lacks the expertise. Or whilst you gain the experience in order to fully trust your own routing.
 
flaming said:
No need really. Last time there was a contingent of the AWBs who felt left out, so formed their own "Longue Route" event. They did not leave lots of wrecks in the southern ocean like the GGR did.

Mostly because they allowed weather routing, so they avoided the really nasty weather that caused havoc amongst the GGR fleet. Which is basically the point. There is no such thing as a boat that can survive anything that the Ocean can throw at it, that theory was tested by the GGR and was fairly comprehensively disproved with fully 50% of the fleet who made it past the Cape of Good hope being abandoned in the Southern Ocean. In the past with no accurate weather forecasts, and therefore weather routing, available to boats offshore a big part of this came down to luck, and because of that people going far offshore always wanted the strongest, most traditionally seaworthy boat that they could get hold of to increase their odds of making it to the other side. But now it isn't just luck, and it's pretty clear to see that the combination of good weather routing and a bit of speed has a better success rate than no weather routing and a boat built "to survive anything the ocean can throw at it".

Forget whether this boat, or that boat, is better suited to surviving an extreme storm. By far and away the better proven tactic is to avoid the storm. In the past this was down to luck as much as anything else.
But these days the tools to avoid the worst of the weather exist at very reasonable cost to any cruising boat.

That isn't to say that I think the GGR shouldn't take place, if people want to take part, then go for it, more power to them! The sense of achievement must be absolutely incredible, and I have absolutely enormous respect for the skippers.

When we look at the GGR and the Longue route we see quite clearly that the biggest factor in a safe passage through the Southern Ocean that year was not the design of the boat, but the use of weather routing.

Of course, the advantages of weather routing are increased when you have a bit of speed to help you position the boat... Given the choice I'd far rather be in a faster boat who's plan is to know about and avoid strong winds, than a slow one who's plan is to tough them out. But then maybe I'm just a massive chicken.
Click to expand...
I do actually very much agree with you.

My particular point is the crowd that think modern designs are suspended from the laws of physics or, equally, those who believe older models are impervious to the perils of the sea. The nonsense goes both ways and to a great part in complete ignorance of technical facts, simple reality or any real experience out on the ocean.

You are right, the best and safest boat is the one not in the midst of a survival storm.

On the aspect of "faster": yes, a displacement type craft is limited in it's attainable speed. To be sure, the winner of the GGR completed his race at an average speed of 6.8kts, a relative speed of 1.32 on a 27' waterline, which equates to sailing continuously at or near hull speed for 35,000 miles. That is an absolutely phenomenal achievement for such a craft, not to mention it's skipper, and this while laden down to ensure complete autonomy for 300 days. I doubt very much that a "modern" lightweight flyer of a similar DWL and competing within the same parametres , if it could even (safely)carry that load, would be much faster, least not in the initial stages of the race.
 
Laminar Flow said:
I do actually very much agree with you.

My particular point is the crowd that think modern designs are suspended from the laws of physics or, equally, those who believe older models are impervious to the perils of the sea. The nonsense goes both ways and to a great part in complete ignorance of technical facts, simple reality or any real experience out on the ocean.

You are right, the best and safest boat is the one not in the midst of a survival storm.

On the aspect of "faster": yes, a displacement type craft is limited in it's attainable speed. To be sure, the winner of the GGR completed his race at an average speed of 6.8kts, a relative speed of 1.32 on a 27' waterline, which equates to sailing continuously at or near hull speed for 35,000 miles. That is an absolutely phenomenal achievement for such a craft, not to mention it's skipper, and this while laden down to ensure complete autonomy for 300 days. I doubt very much that a "modern" lightweight flyer of a similar DWL and competing within the same parametres , if it could even (safely)carry that load, would be much faster, least not in the initial stages of the race.
Click to expand...
That's bonkers IOR era thinking, nobody would design a boat with such a short LWL these days.
Achieving that speed with a short notional LWL (as defined by the rules of the day) doesn't make the old boat a good boat, it just makes it a boat designed around an arbitrary constraint.

It's not even the real waterline length is it? The boat doesn't operate bolt upright with no wave around it.

You might wonder what modern knowledge and materials could produce, if the main design constraint was set to LWL again?
Or what modern boats might look like if the constraints neither punished nor promoted overhangs.
Say if the constraint was simply 500sqft of sail and any hull you like, or 3T all up, or whatever you can build for £100k.
Racing boats are driven by rule constraints, other boats are mostly driven by cost constraints in one way or another.

Likewise you could wonder what 50s and 60s evolution of yachts might have produced with the tech of the day and 21st century IRC and marina price lists.
 
Laminar Flow said:
To be sure, the winner of the GGR completed his race at an average speed of 6.8kts, a relative speed of 1.32 on a 27' waterline, which equates to sailing continuously at or near hull speed for 35,000 miles. That is an absolutely phenomenal achievement for such a craft
Click to expand...
I don't know where you are getting those numbers from but according to Yellow Brick he sailed 28175nm in 212 days, a slightly more realistic average of 5.54 knots.
 
Laminar Flow said:
Sad yes, but I understand that a whole fleet of fin keeled, pie-shaped and open transom models were able to claw off the very same lee shore and during that very same blow, or so, no doubt, one is to be assured.
Click to expand...
My original statement that “Sadly the GGR race does seem to be doing a good job of reducing the number of classic long keel yachts of circa 36ft LOA” was not intended to spark another old / new debate, but rather to point out (as I said) that sadly the GGR does seem to have resulted in a reduction in the surviving number of boats that many in here like - eg the Rustler 36s etc lost.
It is likely that with weather forecasts and modern navigation less of these classic boats would be lost.
 
I spoke to an entrant before the race. He hated his boat. Gave up pretty soon. No idea how I would change things. It is a fabulous test of sailing skill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top