rollover

Aja

Well-known member
Joined
6 Nov 2001
Messages
4,790
Visit site
Goodness! What would happen if he hadn't lost his mast! /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Donald
 

graham

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2001
Messages
8,108
Visit site
I wondered that .The mast and sails would put up a lot of resistance to it rolling back upright.
 

mikefleetwood

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2005
Messages
3,695
Location
In my shed
Visit site
As he was only just able to right it without mast/sails, no way could he do it fully rigged. This test is a complete waste of time, unless of course, he has some method to loose the mast, rigging, etc quickly. Explosives?
 

Bilgediver

Well-known member
Joined
6 Jun 2001
Messages
8,218
Location
Scotland
Visit site
As he was only just able to right it without mast/sails, no way could he do it fully rigged. This test is a complete waste of time, unless of course, he has some method to loose the mast, rigging, etc quickly. Explosives?


..............................................................

My thoughts exactly and who was he trying to impress...his insurance company /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 

jwilson

Well-known member
Joined
22 Jul 2006
Messages
6,156
Visit site
Quite right. I've BEEN inverted in a boat and sea movement will help righting. Once the keel was canted she came back quickly once heeled about 30 degrees. In conditions that will invert a 60-footer there wiill be more than 30 degrees movement. Also the more water that enters the hull the faster she'll right, as it reduces stability. The real danger is being trapped underwater in the cockpit. If you do manage to release your harness and swim out you then have the danger of being separated from the boat.
 

mikefleetwood

Well-known member
Joined
19 Dec 2005
Messages
3,695
Location
In my shed
Visit site
I'm sure you, and others, are correct about the real-life situation. But doesn't that make the harbour test a bit meaningless?

If I understand the commentary right, it was a requirement of the race organisers that this test was done. Something to do with insurance, I expect.

Surely (and based on other's experience) a better test would be to see what angle of 'tip' would be needed to self-right. It must be possible to compare with conditions that would exist at sea. Presumably if it takes less heel to self-right than it takes to capsize in the first place, then the boat is safe? Actually, I can see flaws in this argument, but there must be a sound principle here somewhere.
 

boomerangben

Well-known member
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Messages
1,271
Location
Isle of Lewis
Visit site
The conditions at sea are hugely complex and I would imagine that most knockdowns are due to breaking waves. I am not sure that we have the techniques to analyse this scenario yet. The best indication would the area between the GZ curve and the x axis which relates to the work done in attaining a given angle of heel. Hopefully these boats require substantially more energy to capsize a boat than it would to right it.

More worrying for me would be the amount of movement in that canting keel as the crane inverted the boat. The boat will never right itself if that thing came off.
 

Avocet

Well-known member
Joined
3 Jun 2001
Messages
29,380
Location
Cumbria
Visit site
I agree that a rough sea MIGHT help to right the boat but how would you know which way to cant the keel in order to take advantage of a wave helping to right you? It didn't seem a particularly quick thing to cant.
 
Top