Heavy Weather Suvival

[VO5]

Part 2.

Obviously, the surfer uses body weight and posture to achieve the effect of stern down and bow up.

A vessel in a large following sea must replicate this posture so that on reaching the trough at the bottom of the wave face, its bow does not dig in.

My findings are, over several deployments, to achieve this requires pull on the stern sufficient that the stern becomes depressed and the bow bouyant (in comparison).

If the towline and its rig (The Seabrake) is too horizontal, the restraint on the crest (at a point in time and position when it is most needed) will not be effective. It will only succeed in slowing down the vessel but not in holding down the stern as well at the same time.

This can not be allowed to develop as a defect.

In order to correct this potential defect the stern must be held down beginning when the vessel is on top of the crest and continuing all the way down the face of the wave until the trough is reached, mirroring the result achieved by the surfer.

Therefore the horizontal angle formed by an imaginary line extending from the the deck and past the stern and the towline (the towline brace) ought not to be too acute, otherwise the effect is for the towline to slow the vessel down, but not to hold the stern down as well when the advancing wave approaches from astern lifting the stern (and trying to get under it and to roll the boat over, worst case scenario, if not on that attempt then with the wave that follows).

Therefore the same horizontal angle and the angle formed by the towline (the towline brace) should be less acute.

The consequence of this is that the pull exerted on the stern is more positive
and introduces the oblique element helping to exert pull AND keep the stern down.

The angle at which the towline(the towline brace) enters the surface of the sea shoutd therefore not be shallow. This can be immewdiately recognised by the distance of the entry point from the stern.

As the end of the towline before the connection with the Seabrake is the chain. The towline....does not descend from the brace to the Seabrake in a straight line.

It descends in a curve.

This ensures the Seabrake is properly embedded in the sea that follows and when extra pull is exerted on it by the effect of the vessel being lifted to a crest, this towline is stretched taut, in a straighter line.

This tautness serves to pull the stern down and lift the bow up on the crest of a crest. The boat then surfs / slides down the face of the wave with its bow UP like the surfer on his surfboard. The stern remains down. The possibility of knocking the vessel off course is avoided. The vessel now maintains directional stability as well.

Guidelines for the length of chain and its calibre for different vessels is privided by the manufactures.

In heavier seas I personally prefer extra weight, so I have extra lengths I can shackle on to ensure depth of the Seabrake is maintained.

In a previous post on this thread there is an attachment to a report of a test carried out on the Seabrake with the unsatisfactory result of it being towed behind a vessel and it breaking surface.

The test was carried out in Chesapeake bay.

Chesapeake Bay is a shallow inland sea in the Untied States.

It is not suitable for testing this type of rig because it is too shallow.

The rig should be deployed in water DEEPER than the length of the towline at least, and then it should be WEIGHTED PROPERLY.

Notwithstanding my immediate comment above, it can be used in shallower water, but with care that it does not foul the bottom, and, in any event, that it is weighted properly.

 

[webcraft]

.
Good grief, is this drivel still going?

Just to address a few points of obvious error:

---------------------​

V05 claims the JSD is 'outdated technology', only used by Luddites. however, the JSD and the Seabrake were both developed in the early 1980s and neither have changed significantly in the interim.

---------------------​

V05 claims that the Seabrake should not be used in shallow water, saying that The rig should be deployed in water DEEPER than the length of the towline at least, but on the Seabrake website it says the device is designed to operate just below the surface, 3-5 ft at operational speed of 3 to 7 knots.

---------------------​

V05 says the JSD does not provide directional stability. This is rubbish - the JSD provides exactly that, as testified to by all those who have used it in anger.

---------------------​

And there are more in among the endless scribblings, but I am losing the will to live.

- W

 

[VO5]

.
Good grief, is this drivel still going?

Just to address a few points of obvious error:

---------------------​

V05 claims the JSD is 'outdated technology', only used by Luddites. however, the JSD and the Seabrake were both developed in the early 1980s and neither have changed significantly in the interim.

---------------------​

V05 claims that the Seabrake should not be used in shallow water, saying that The rig should be deployed in water DEEPER than the length of the towline at least, but on the Seabrake website it says the device is designed to operate just below the surface, 3-5 ft at operational speed of 3 to 7 knots.

---------------------​

V05 says the JSD does not provide directional stability. This is rubbish - the JSD provides exactly that, as testified to by all those who have used it in anger.

---------------------​

And there are more, but I am losing the will to live. I am afraid I find the vast bulk of his postings on this thread empty noise. Your mileage may vary.

- W

Oh Dear ! I am so sorry to hear of your mindstate, Webby.
I think we all should do our best to cheer you up and try to prevent you from taking your own life.

There are no errors on my part, I assure you. The errors have to be on your part, not grasping what is meant, which I try to explain by way of the printed word, as clearly as possible.

The thing is, Webby, the JSD will slow down a boat, granted, absolutely.

But directional stability depends on keeping the stern down so that the sea following cannot get under the stern to knock it sideways, otherwise the risk is the next wave could roll it over.

If the stern is not kept down therefore directional stability is not guaranteed.

It is crucial to keep the stern down on top of a crest first. It needs extra pull to achieve this. The JSD cannot generate that extra pull because the cones exert a constant pull and not an adjusted pull when needed, because they are fixed.

Have I explained it correctly so you will finally understand, or possibly....I am beginning to think you have no ocean going experience at all ?

Because If I haven't explained it correctly to you in plain English or you do not understand this basic two pronged principle, I will explain it again, as I am very patient, you see Webby ?

The Seabrake should not be used in shallow water because it is weighted.
It can scrape along the bottom either when it meets extra shallows or during recovery, is the reason.

Gottit ?

 

[snooks]

I though this thread was dead 4 days ago. Obviously VO5 has found a pulse, from somewhere

Unsubscribing....byeeeeeeeee

 

[webcraft]

I though this thread was dead 4 days ago. Obviously VO5 has found a pulse, from somewhere

Unsubscribing....byeeeeeeeee

He he . . .

JSD is usually deployed with a length of chain or other weight at the end. Nylon line plus the fact that the cones are not rigid means that the drag is not constant and is dynamically varied, so once again Shampoo Man is havering.

JSD keeps the boat's stern dead to wind - no record anywhere in the literature of the 'knocking off' shampoo man froths about.

The idea that a hundred metres or so of drogue - no matter what it is composed of - could drag along the bottom shows a complete lack of understanding of the physical forces involved IMO. While V05 may have some genuine heavy weather experience his ramblings suggest that he has perhaps survived them more by blind luck than by posessing any grasp of the forces involved.

Unbeileveable stamina though - 'head and shoulders' above the rest of us, most of whom have long ago lost the will to live while reading this. I promise not to bump it back up . . . .

Webcraft out . . . .

- W

 

[rotrax]

.
Good grief, is this drivel still going?

Just to address a few points of obvious error:

---------------------​

V05 claims the JSD is 'outdated technology', only used by Luddites. however, the JSD and the Seabrake were both developed in the early 1980s and neither have changed significantly in the interim.

---------------------​

V05 claims that the Seabrake should not be used in shallow water, saying that The rig should be deployed in water DEEPER than the length of the towline at least, but on the Seabrake website it says the device is designed to operate just below the surface, 3-5 ft at operational speed of 3 to 7 knots.

---------------------​

V05 says the JSD does not provide directional stability. This is rubbish - the JSD provides exactly that, as testified to by all those who have used it in anger.

---------------------​

And there are more in among the endless scribblings, but I am losing the will to live.

- W

+1!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

.... But directional stability depends on keeping the stern down so that the sea following cannot get under the stern to knock it sideways, otherwise the risk is the next wave could roll it over....

This is true but the JSD remember is lying down the back of the wave. As the yacht approaches the crest, the force caused by the drag of the JSD cones must be downwards (at an angle at least equal to the back slope of the wave) relative to the stern and so pull or hold the stern down.

Of course, as soon as the yacht starts to accelerate, due to gravity or lift caused by a cresting wave or force by a breaking wave, the forces on the JSD increase (in a non linear manner) and as such due to the direction of the JSD continue to hold down or force down the stern of the yacht.

Both the Sea Brake and the Jordan Series Drogue work in a very similar fashion.

 

[VO5]

He he . . .

JSD is usually deployed with a length of chain or other weight at the end. Nylon line plus the fact that the cones are not rigid means that the drag is not constant and is dynamically varied, so once again Shampoo Man is havering.

JSD keeps the boat's stern dead to wind - no record anywhere in the literature of the 'knocking off' shampoo man froths about.

The idea that a hundred metres or so of drogue - no matter what it is composed of - could drag along the bottom shows a complete lack of understanding of the physical forces involved IMO. While V05 may have some genuine heavy weather experience his ramblings suggest that he has perhaps survived them more by blind luck than by posessing any grasp of the forces involved.

Unbeileveable stamina though - 'head and shoulders' above the rest of us, most of whom have long ago lost the will to live while reading this. I promise not to bump it back up . . . .

Webcraft out . . . .

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

The key to your entire hypothesis is highlighted in RED (bold), in your reply above, showing you have "an opinion", that's all.

This shows you have very little or no practical experience of heavy weather in deep water.

In deep water serious kit is needed with a weight that is guaranteed to embed properly into troughs of 100 to 180 metres with crests 0f 20, 30 metres.

Serious kit is not suitable for shallow water despite your persistent arguing.

 

[Fascadale]

Mr VO5, are you "Albert" in this thread ?

(A very long thread where "Albert" attempts to annoy our transatlantic friends: only to be read as an alternative to "Strictly")

Albert is asked if he has a commercial interest in "Seabrake", his posts are described as "infomercials", he is repeatedly asked to post photos of his boat.

Post 219 on page 6 of the thread is very interesting: the discussion about Mr Albert Labos and the Chesapeake Bay rescue provoke a very interesting debate.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Is It True That You Can Run But You Cant Hide?

Mr VO5, are you "Albert" in this thread ?

(A very long thread where "Albert" attempts to annoy our transatlantic friends: only to be read as an alternative to "Strictly")

Albert is asked if he has a commercial interest in "Seabrake", his posts are described as "infomercials", he is repeatedly asked to post photos of his boat.

Post 219 on page 6 of the thread is very interesting: the discussion about Mr Albert Labos and the Chesapeake Bay rescue provoke a very interesting debate.

Wow Fascadale, too many similarities in the drogue debates and then Post 219 pulls the mask away. I wonder if its true, if I was a gambling man ......

 

[William_H]

Post gone ugly

I am sad to see this post gone ugly. It has some vital info /discussion which we can all carry in our heads but hopefully few will ever need.
It seems to me that VO5 is emphasising the pull down effect more than the manufacturers in their literature (or I missed it). I can certainly see that the angle down to the drogue is important in providing hold stern down capability. Certainly burying a bow is something you don't want. I think many small power boats come to grief in this way. (nose in and broach)
The other aspect of the Sea brake that seems a little vague is the idea that it opens midway and closes so varying the load dependent on speed. I would like to see this explored further as being the real difference from any other drogue. Does it work to make a great difference? If not so significant then any drogue with chain to hold it down would seem to be useful. olewill

 

[webcraft]

Mr VO5, are you "Albert" in this thread ?

(A very long thread where "Albert" attempts to annoy our transatlantic friends: only to be read as an alternative to "Strictly")

Albert is asked if he has a commercial interest in "Seabrake", his posts are described as "infomercials", he is repeatedly asked to post photos of his boat.

Post 219 on page 6 of the thread is very interesting: the discussion about Mr Albert Labos and the Chesapeake Bay rescue provoke a very interesting debate.

Ho ho ho - cover blown Albert.

Heavy weather in the Chesapeake eh?

- W

 

[webcraft]

I am sad to see this post gone ugly. It has some vital info /discussion which we can all carry in our heads but hopefully few will ever need.

Olewill,

Plenty of experience here to have this discussion - without the egomaniacal nonsense input of Albert/V05

Just start another thread with the subject/questions you are interested in. I doubt even a brass neck the size of shampoo man's will post again until he has registered a new identity.

- W

 

[temptress]

I seek the opinions of any who have encountered survival conditions. ........

Some years ago now I was on a 90ft Sailing boat coming out of Santander in Spain heading to the UK. We ended up with a F10 plus coming at us. Looking at the options we had no sea-room to run off but instead tried to keep the bows into the waves. Taking the the seas on our port bow. This worked well for 2 days and while we made little or no progress to windward or over the ground but we lost no ground either. We were safe but uncomfortable, in the troughs we were almost becalmed and on the peaks we were almost flat over on our side.

Some years later I was delivering a 32 footer back to the UK when we got caught in a unforecsat F10/11. I say F10 - 11 as I'm not sure the windex was recording the wind speeds fine then it went up to 11 and fell off.....

This time we had sea room and ran before it - not dead downwind but kept the wind on our starboard quarter. We had a tiny scrap of furled mainsail , no headsail . This gave us just enough speed through the water to maintain steering and allowed us to run down the waves. we go the occasional wave over the transom but nothing too scary until the steering cable came apart. Even that was not too bad once we figure dout what dad happened. Put on the below-deck Autopilot and rigged a new cable. Tricky but what surprised me most was that the autopilot whilst working overtime just about coped.

we had the anchor rode ready to stream aft but we did not depoy it as it seemed OK to us the way we were.

 

[westernman]

Some years ago now I was on a 90ft Sailing boat coming out of Santander in Spain heading to the UK. We ended up with a F10 plus coming at us. Looking at the options we had no sea-room to run off but instead tried to keep the bows into the waves. Taking the the seas on our port bow. This worked well for 2 days and while we made little or no progress to windward or over the ground but we lost no ground either. We were safe but uncomfortable, in the troughs we were almost becalmed and on the peaks we were almost flat over on our side.

Some years later I was delivering a 32 footer back to the UK when we got caught in a unforecsat F10/11. I say F10 - 11 as I'm not sure the windex was recording the wind speeds fine then it went up to 11 and fell off.....

This time we had sea room and ran before it - not dead downwind but kept the wind on our starboard quarter. We had a tiny scrap of furled mainsail , no headsail . This gave us just enough speed through the water to maintain steering and allowed us to run down the waves. we go the occasional wave over the transom but nothing too scary until the steering cable came apart. Even that was not too bad once we figure dout what dad happened. Put on the below-deck Autopilot and rigged a new cable. Tricky but what surprised me most was that the autopilot whilst working overtime just about coped.

we had the anchor rode ready to stream aft but we did not depoy it as it seemed OK to us the way we were.

I am surprised you say that with a little bit of sail up you had just enough to maintain steerage.

My experience in my boat (52ft pilot cutter), is that in F9 under bare poles she will do over 4 knots. So I would guess that by the top end of a F10 we would be needing to find ways of slowing down.

F9 is the most I have experienced - so I am interested in learning more. Just in case.

 

[Neil]

Ho ho ho - cover blown Albert.

Heavy weather in the Chesapeake eh?

- W

I had a quick scan through the 'Albert posts' and there is a huge similarity of writing style even apart from the content. Certainly 'Albert' seemed to display a surprising lack of seamanship.........

As a novice, I read here to improve my knowledge. I followed this thread out of academic interest, not expecting ever to be in a situation that required it. Disappointing if some of it's all fluff and no substance.

 

[ianj99]

I had a quick scan through the 'Albert posts' and there is a huge similarity of writing style even apart from the content. Certainly 'Albert' seemed to display a surprising lack of seamanship.........

As a novice, I read here to improve my knowledge. I followed this thread out of academic interest, not expecting ever to be in a situation that required it. Disappointing if some of it's all fluff and no substance.

My suggestion is to read RKJ, Chichester et al on their round the world trips.

A long loop of heavy warp trailed behind (they always ran before big seas for what I would have thought were obvious reasons) seems to be the best option.
RKJ suggested that this also prevented waves breaking over the boat, presumably, if the loop length is correct, its slices off the top of the wave before it breaks, like a cheese wire?

I

 

[VO5]

I am sad to see this post gone ugly. It has some vital info /discussion which we can all carry in our heads but hopefully few will ever need.
It seems to me that VO5 is emphasising the pull down effect more than the manufacturers in their literature (or I missed it). I can certainly see that the angle down to the drogue is important in providing hold stern down capability. Certainly burying a bow is something you don't want. I think many small power boats come to grief in this way. (nose in and broach)
The other aspect of the Sea brake that seems a little vague is the idea that it opens midway and closes so varying the load dependent on speed. I would like to see this explored further as being the real difference from any other drogue. Does it work to make a great difference? If not so significant then any drogue with chain to hold it down would seem to be useful. olewill

There seems to be a very strange hidden agenda to ferociously defend a product of US manufacture and design on a worldwiode basis among the international yachting fraternity.

This strange hidden agenda is carried forward at all costs.

I am puzzled as to why this might be the case since nowadays it has been superceded by a better and more efficient solution.

The defenders of the US product will go to extremes to rubbish any idea that challenges theirs, even when it is shown we have moved on to better things.

AAdditionally this nasty sniping from detractors who ought to be learning instead of behaving the way they do will not deter me from presenting the facts :~

First of all understand that I do not have any commercial interest.
I did not even purchase my Seabrake.
It was gifted to me by a Master Mariner friend as a Birtday Present, as he had used one and was very satisfied.
So it cannot be said I have any connection other than as a satisfied user.

The facts are that the Seabrake is constructed as a result of extensive research trialling and modification to achieve a variable pull when needed most.

It has been extensively tank tested and tested live in the Bass Strait.

As you know the Bass Strait develops murderous seas in certain conditions with wave crests 80 feet in height. It is not a Heath Robinson concept. It has been adopted by the Australian Coastguard.

The chute itself is constructed by placing two open ended large cones one behind the other so the wider ends face each other separated by the slot.
They are connected by strengthened tape which gives it a surprisingly unusual shape.

In tank testing and in the open sea it has been found that one other significant feature of this configuration is that the chute remains stable and does not spin at all.

The manufacturers recommend the addition of a swivel at the chain end. I have a swivel on mine. But I have found their claim of non spinning to be correct after having deployed and recovered on several occasions. So therefore on the evidence I have of this fact I am removing my swivel.

The way in which the chute combination swells when added pull is put on it is very interesting. This is because the extra water is not only discharged by the end orifice but significantly it is discharged radially from the slot.

This forced radial disharge of forced water it seems to me in the opposite direction of pull is is what creates the turbulence that increases drag. And so increased pull equals increased drag. It really is very clever. There is nothing like it.

The Manufacturers additionally explain the Seabrake has other uses, as sea anchor, bosun's chair, anti roll rig, etc., but not having explored these uses I cannot comment further.

 

[SHUG]

My pennyworth is that boats are designed specifically to point into waves bow first and the coachroof and hatch boards are also designed to take waves from that direction.
Having tried to run before big waves with a sea anchor the result was dangerous pooping over the stern.
My suggestion is to to rig a trysail or small mizzen sail and sheet in tight and try to sail into the waves. You wont make much progress but the motion will be more tolerable and the boat will be moving as it is designed to do.
If you have to use a sea anchor,use it at the bow for the same reasoning.
The situation with traditional boats (square riggers) may have been very different as they would have difficulty in going to windward even in favourable circumstances.

 

[westernman]

My pennyworth is that boats are designed specifically to point into waves bow first and the coachroof and hatch boards are also designed to take waves from that direction.
Having tried to run before big waves with a sea anchor the result was dangerous pooping over the stern.
My suggestion is to to rig a trysail or small mizzen sail and sheet in tight and try to sail into the waves. You wont make much progress but the motion will be more tolerable and the boat will be moving as it is designed to do.
If you have to use a sea anchor,use it at the bow for the same reasoning.
The situation with traditional boats (square riggers) may have been very different as they would have difficulty in going to windward even in favourable circumstances.

Not in my experience (limited to F9).

Trying to make any progress into waves in heavy weather is very uncomfortable. The waves crash over the bow and roll down the decks producing a large amount of air borne spray when they hit the mast, saloon skylight, liferaft or anything else on the deck. There is an enormous amount of crashing - every is rattled - stuff falls out of lockers. Very hard down below to do anything - e.g. take a pee.

The motion running before in exactly the same conditions is extremely comfortable - like a magic carpet. Very smooth. The boat gently rises to let the waves pass underneath. My mother in law actually cooked lunch! We got just one wave over the stern - but nothing worse than any one of the waves we were getting over the bows which is every single wave when crashing to windward.