Pardey Bridle Sea Anchor Method - Opinions?

[prv]

The Pardeys are very insistent that if you are making the slightest forward motion through the water, you are not properly hove-to. They use the kitchen paper test, which is a good one. To be fully effective when hove-to, you have to be sitting in the 'slick' your downwind movement creates.

Kindred Spirit (actually shaped similarly underwater to the Pardeys' boats) hove to very well, at least in the moderate conditions I tried it in. I guess the kitchen paper test is to drop some over the side and see if you move relative to it? Several times I swept sandwich crumbs over the side after heaving-to for lunch, and watched them sit stationary next to the cockpit for some time.

Unfortunately, Ariam will not do the same. She always moves forward at around two knots. I think it's down to the fully-battened main which is always driving, and can overpower the backed fractional jib. She sits stably, doesn't tack or bear off, but always with that forward motion.

Pete

 

[oldvarnish]

She always moves forward at around two knots. I think it's down to the fully-battened main which is always driving, and can overpower the backed fractional jib.
Pete

I've got a fully battened main and I heave-to very nicely with the third reef down and the traveller a little way to windward. No backed jib. She just sits there.

I do the Pardey kitchen paper test and we do move forward a little, but less a quarter of a knot at a guess.

Tried it in big seas but never in dangerous, breaking ones.

 

[prv]

I've got a fully battened main and I heave-to very nicely with the third reef down and the traveller a little way to windward. No backed jib. She just sits there.

I'll have to have a try. I haven't heaved to in her in heavy weather, just day to day stuff like stopping to talk to a fellow forumite in his boat, or allowing a female friend to use the loo comfortably when we were beating against 30knots

Pete

 

[AndrewB]

Absolutely my own conclusion - the Jordan series drogue looks a better bet.

There is a direct conflict of expert opinion here - some expressing the opinion that a bows-streamed para-anchor is the heavy-weather system of choice others that is an invitation to flooding and rudder breakage.
From the diagrams by the OP I'd suggest that (if sufficient sea-room) just heaving-to would be equally effective. I've tried that 5-6 times and found it amazingly restful after trying to beat in a 5-7.
Unfortunately none of these ploys work in the Med, because of the short amplitude/wavelength.

Completely agree. My only attempt to lay out a bow-streamed para anchor in strong winds was an utter dead loss. It felt really exposed working on the foredeck, hard to launch against the wind so that there was no guarantee it set properly, no noticeable improvement in the stability of the boat, felt tethered and helpless, certainly no peace of mind.

On the other hand, I've routinely set trailing warps in F7-10. A Jordan drogue would have been great, but I never quite got round to making one. Very impressed by tank tests I saw done at the Wolfson.

Heaving-to has also worked well for me, and is good in situations where one doesn't want to lose ground to leeward, specially within 100 miles of shore, as in the Med. Normal method has been a storm jib set on the baby-stay. One of the advantages of a heavy-displacement long keel cruiser.

 

[estarzinger]

I watched this excellent lecture from Maryland School of Sailing about sea anchors incuding the Pardey bridle. Have you seen it?

http://youtu.be/4SAXRH42Df0

Unfortunately, I would suggest it is riddled with so many errors and mis-interpretations as to be dangerous.

 

[dgadee]

Unfortunately, I would suggest it is riddled with so many errors and mis-interpretations as to be dangerous.

Tell us of a few ...

 

[charles_reed]

Tell us of a few ...

The poor chap will have to sit through over an hour of self-serving claptrap - why don't you have a look for yourself?
I picked up one obvious terminological inexactitude in the first 40".

 

[dgadee]

The poor chap will have to sit through over an hour of self-serving claptrap - why don't you have a look for yourself?
I picked up one obvious terminological inexactitude in the first 40".

Ah, but statements of opinion rubbishing something really need a few more substantive details. And you seem to be hesitant in providing anything, too.

I have an open mind here and would like to hear views expressed with some clarity.

 

[estarzinger]

Tell us of a few ...

Just a few of the more significant ones:

1. I don't know anyone serious who suggests heaving to with a 'genoa' in strong conditions - not recommended for quite a number of reasons. Many (I would guess most) modern under body boats do not heave to (in strong conditions) in a stable attitude under main/tri sail alone. They will either fore reach, or oscillate (up and down in wind angle). The boat they are using is not a modern underbody, and the references they are using are mostly quite old and oriented to non-modern designs.

2. Their "theoretical" attack on drogues is not at all supported by either test results (tank test or at sea tests) or actual emperical experience. None of the boats in either the fastnet nor hobart used drogues, so those examples are not on point. I will comment that I know boats that have been knocked down using ALL the available techniques (yes, including one series drogue incident near south Georgia, for you jordan fans), but don't know a single one using a (proper) drogue that has been pitchpoled, while I do know two (multihulls) that have been pitchpoled under para anchor (when they sprung forward onto slack rodes).

3. They suggest that "wind loading" is the correct way to size the gear, which is true in a non-breaking wave situation, but false in a breaking wave situation. In breaking waves, the waves will cause the peak loads. Jordan showed how to look at this when he analyzed the Winston Churchill incident.

4. Their rode recommendation is not correct for sizes greater than 16mm. Internal heat generation in the bigger sizes is a major problem, which they don't seem to be aware of.

5. They do not mention that it is utterly foolish to sit on a Para-anchor in the Gulf Stream - where the waves will be twice as high and twice as steep but you can get out of them if you sail 50nm. There are other situations where 'sitting and taking it" is not the best course of action. I might comment that in their case example they do not seem to be very swift at weather planning/routing, and that they were not in breaking waves (compare the sea state in their photos to the photos in the hobart race).

Those are the most significant "top line" problems that I remember. But it was much further riddled with detailed errors (just for instance their Para-anchor size contradicts the pardey's specific recommendation - it is debate-able who is right but should have been mentioned because they were drawing from the pardey's for so much else).

I should note that in a prior version of this video they used/copied material (including photos) directly from one of my articles (this article: http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/HeavyWeather.pdf, which is a bit dated now itself) without permission, acknowledgement or attribution. I made them remove it. But during those "discussions" I concluded that the author has basically strung together other people's material without actually understanding it.

 

[dgadee]

Many thanks. Very interesting. Having been rolled 360 and lost a mast before being beached some decades ago, the issue of what to do in a similar situation does certainly focus my mind.

 

[estarzinger]

^^ ouch. Would be interested to hear the details?

IMHO, 'near shore' storm tactics is different and more difficult than 'blue water' (say more than 100nm from shore) tactics. You have fewer degrees of freedom and fewer options. If it is a relatively close lee shore, somewhere between fore reaching and actively sailing may be the only good option - high success rate (worked well in the hobart) and works you away from danger. But some boats/crews simply can't stand up wind in those conditions, then about all you can do is put out all your ground tackle on as much rode as you can knit together and it probably will not hold but you can hope and pray.

 

[Hial]

The poor chap will have to sit through over an hour of self-serving claptrap - why don't you have a look for yourself?
I picked up one obvious terminological inexactitude in the first 40".

I was trying to be helpful highlighting this lecture there is no need to be rude about it.

 

[dgadee]

^^ ouch. Would be interested to hear the details?

IMHO, 'near shore' storm tactics is different and more difficult than 'blue water' (say more than 100nm from shore) tactics. You have fewer degrees of freedom and fewer options. If it is a relatively close lee shore, somewhere between fore reaching and actively sailing may be the only good option - high success rate (worked well in the hobart) and works you away from danger. But some boats/crews simply can't stand up wind in those conditions, then about all you can do is put out all your ground tackle on as much rode as you can knit together and it probably will not hold but you can hope and pray.

Will have a think about what I remember about the incident and pm you. It was Sep 1982 but some things remain burned in my memory.

 

[AndrewB]

.... 2. Their "theoretical" attack on drogues is not at all supported by either test results (tank test or at sea tests) or actual emperical experience. None of the boats in either the fastnet nor hobart used drogues, so those examples are not on point. I will comment that I know boats that have been knocked down using ALL the available techniques (yes, including one series drogue incident near south Georgia, for you jordan fans), but don't know a single one using a (proper) drogue that has been pitchpoled, while I do know two (multihulls) that have been pitchpoled under para anchor (when they sprung forward onto slack rodes)....

Instructive post. My recollection of the Wolfson tank tests was that they concluded that the Jordan drogue might enable a yacht to survive (i.e. not get knocked down) breaking waves from astern of between 1.5 and 2 times the height. However in the trial I saw, the model yacht with a drogue did get spectacularly pooped by such waves, though this seemed more survivable than being knocked down and possibly rolled without one.

In practical terms, this would mean if a yacht starts to be vulnerable to broaching from breaking waves in a F8, trailing a drogue would help keep it safe up to a F10. But as you imply, not even a drogue will offer safety in the most extreme conditions.

When ocean cruising I got in the habit of trailing warps in lesser winds, F7, when the seas were high. By reducing the tendency to slide down a wave and plough into the one ahead, as well as holding the stern firmly to the wind as the wave broke, it gave a much more comfortable ride and one with which my Aries could easily cope. If speed isn't important, I'd recommend it, if only to give practice with the technique.

Trailing warps in F7 and high seas, while sailing under staysail alone.

 

[estarzinger]

Interesting post. My recollection of the Wolfson tank tests was that they concluded that the Jordan drogue might enable a yacht to survive (i.e. not get knocked down) breaking waves from astern of between 1.5 and 2 times the height. However in the trial I saw, the yacht with a drogue did get spectacularly pooped by such waves, though this seemed more survivable than being knocked down and possibly rolled without.

In practical terms, this would mean if a yacht starts to be vulnerable to broaching from breaking waves in a F8, trailing a drogue would keep it safe up to a F10. But as you imply, not even a drogue will offer safety in the most extreme conditions.

When ocean cruising I got in the habit of trailing warps in lesser winds, F7-8, when the seas were high. By slowing down the yacht and holding the stern firmly to the wind it gave a much more comfortable ride and one with which my Aries could easily cope. If speed isn't important, I'd recommend it, if only to give practice with the technique.

Yes, we carry three 'drogue solutions'.

A standard "single element drogue' (a galerider) that we use in 'less than survival' conditions - which makes the ride steadier and helps the steering while still giving us 6 or 7 kts of boat speed. For some boats it is a very nice tool to have in the quiver. But it has two downsides in the most severe conditions: (a) the single element can suddenly pop out of the face of very steep waves (even if it is weighted) and let you surf uncontrolled until it resets in the wave, and (b) it does not have enough drag to control the boat in big breaking wave strikes. (b) the series drogue is the classic solution to those two problems. However, it is a bit more difficult to recover - you can winch it but can't use the self tailing, and have to be careful to not rip the cones. (c) so I modified two single element drogues (the delta drogue) but adding (dyneema) strops thru their centers. With this i can set one single element (the galerider), then when I want/need more drag or it feels like it might pop out of the wave face, I can attach the rode end to the delta drogue strop and attach another rode and let it out (so I now have two drogues in series), and then I can do it a third time. They are sized so three equal the drag of the recommended jordan series drogue. This seems to have all the benefits of the series, but is both easier to recover (you just self-tail the rodes in with no cones to worry about) and offers adjustable drag. But I don't have enough 'survival storm' time (fortunately ) to really know if it brings any of its own possible drawbacks.

Our prior boat really would not surf and responded with better steering to just trailing a warp - but the current one does not even seem to notice a warp and wants the extra drag of a drogue.

I have never been pooped (some wave crest splashed yes, but never a real wave struck right across the cockpit) while running a drogue. I believe this has to do with two factors. (a) I like to keep going as fast as conditions allow (thus liking the drag adjust-ability of the above third solution) and find 6 or 7 knots to be pretty nice; and (b) both the boats I have significant deep water experience with have had buoyant sterns. I have been pooped when running without a drogue - operator error - one time just for instance we were changing down from the 105% jib to the staysail (no main up) and we should have put the staysail up first and then dropped the jib. But instead dropped the jib before raising the staysail. That lack of drive while we were bare poles caused the boat to decelerate just as a breaking wave was approaching from behind, which broke right over the cockpit.

I quite honestly think a well prepared ocean boat should have a cockpit & companionway that can stand up to a wave or a knockdown. I would not really want to go to sea with a companionway that was so easy to break open. They are (usually) easy and inexpensive to make very strong.

And I might comment that if you are really worried about breaking waves breaking stuff - you should not have a cloth and ss tube dodger up. We have seen several flattened by waves, blocking off the companionway until cleared. It is very rare, like all this severe breaking wave stuff, but it does happen (more frequently than broken companionways at least in my experience).

 

[oldvarnish]

The two posts above are highly informative.

I carried a Jordan the length of the Atlantic, but never had to deploy. It was always at the back of my mind that the stern cleats may not be up to the job. It's difficult to work out if they are, or not.

Regarding recovery, I was talking to Jeanne Socrates who is a fan of the Jordan and used it three times, I think, on her circumnavigation. She floated a polyprop rope tied to the far end to make recovery easier.
I wonder if there's a danger of it tangling and rendering several of the cones useless?

How do you recover yours, Evans?

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

agree... a very interesting thread, and some great contributions.

I share concerns with Old Varnish about the ability of my cleats to handle the load, and have been thinking about putting in a couple of big U Bolts in the transom at the very sides, to a large backing plate with a right angle glassed to the sides at the same time.

 

[estarzinger]

The two posts above are highly informative.

I carried a Jordan the length of the Atlantic, but never had to deploy. It was always at the back of my mind that the stern cleats may not be up to the job. It's difficult to work out if they are, or not.

Regarding recovery, I was talking to Jeanne Socrates who is a fan of the Jordan and used it three times, I think, on her circumnavigation. She floated a polyprop rope tied to the far end to make recovery easier.
I wonder if there's a danger of it tangling and rendering several of the cones useless?

How do you recover yours, Evans?

I just pull it in (with two wraps around a winch drum). There is slack and it is easy to pull when you decelerate up the back side of a wave, and then you just hold it as you accelerate down the front of the wave.

I have presumed with the poly pick up line approach you have to motor around to the end? We tend to like to get back underway pretty fast (say when the wind drops to 35kts), rather than wait until the waves all lay down. I have never used that pickup line approach because I don't like motoring in those sorts of wave conditions, especially with rope in the water. I have also talked with Jeanne a bit about it and I think she tends to wait and rest for things to settle a bit more/longer than we do.

Tony Gooch is another of the 'bluewater mentors' who uses the series drogue approach. He recovered as we do.

We have tangs (essentially equivalent to the main chain plates) welded into hawks transom corners for the drogues, but we rarely use them. In strong gale conditions I have measured "only" 3500lbs of load on the drogue warp. That's the wind loading. It is the very rare serious breaking wave crests that produce the potentially enormous loads (near boat displacement). I use the tangs in the very few/rare conditions when those sorts of loads are a possibility. But you could do massive amounts of tropical and mid-latitude offshore sailing and never run into those sorts of conditions. It is nice to be prepared with massively strong tangs, but IMHO not having them should not stop you from making drogues a regular part of your tactical quiver.

 

[jdc]

Are drogues more associated with, or required, by modern hull or keel shapes do you think? I don't recall R K-J writing about using them on Suhaili for instance, but he did frequently trail very long warps, sometimes in a bight or loop.

I must admit that I don't have a drogue but do carry enough substantial line to trail 300m or even 400m of warp, weighted with chain. Not that I've ever needed it, but there again I've not experienced a real storm.

I'm also curious about the strain expected: would the breaking strain of the rope of a drogue be >10 tonnes? I'm absolutely sure my cleats aren't, nor could be made so: a 3 or 4 tonnes yes, but >10 I very much doubt. We weigh 14. The Jordan website is very short on detail, like what's the rope diameter, and what's the material, and what's the resistance per knot of forward speed through the water. This lack of detail all smells a bit smoke and mirrors, which is probably doing them a disservice. At least I'd like to know the rope diameter so I could work out how to attach it: 20mm dia nylon would be fine, but 30mm might not fit on the cleats or winches that well.

 

[estarzinger]

Are drogues more associated with, or required, by modern hull or keel shapes do you think? I don't recall R K-J writing about using them on Suhaili for instance, but he did frequently trail very long warps, sometimes in a bight or loop.

My experience is that if the boat does not surf easily then warps may be enough, but if it does surf easily then a drogue is useful.
I have not sailed enough different designs through storms be be absolutely certain about generalizing that, but it has been true of the boats I have sailed and seems consistent with other people's experience.


I must admit that I don't have a drogue but do carry enough substantial line to trail 300m or even 400m of warp, weighted with chain. Not that I've ever needed it, but there again I've not experienced a real storm.

I'm also curious about the strain expected: would the breaking strain of the rope of a drogue be >10 tonnes? I'm absolutely sure my cleats aren't, nor could be made so: a 3 or 4 tonnes yes, but >10 I very much doubt. We weigh 14. The Jordan website is very short on detail, like what's the rope diameter, and what's the material, and what's the resistance per knot of forward speed through the water. This lack of detail all smells a bit smoke and mirrors, which is probably doing them a disservice. At least I'd like to know the rope diameter so I could work out how to attach it: 20mm dia nylon would be fine, but 30mm might not fit on the cleats or winches that well.

I found this page useful to conceptually understand what sort of loads jordan anticipated: http://www.jordanseriesdrogue.com/d_15.htm

This page gives their specific load recommendations, which IMHO are very conservative/high: http://www.jordanseriesdrogue.com/D_5.htm

As I mentioned, these big loads are specifically related to a very very rare enormous breaking wave strike. The loads in a strong gale are much less (perhaps only 15-20%, 3500lbs on our boat). So you just have to decide how much you want to be prepared for that once in a life type storm vs the more typical strong gale conditions.

For the jordan you want to use dacron or dyneema. You do not need or want stretch in this application, as the series by design spreads out the loading. For our series we have a dacron bridle, with a dyneema rode, because the dyneema stows so much smaller and does not absorb water.

.....