Sumara of Weymouth
Member
I sail a Vertue and find them quite an adequate size for crossing oceans and sailing in high latitudes. I find large boats rather tiring to sail. Maybe I'm just mad!
Sailing in high latitudes
- Thread starter Wansworth
- Start date
Kukri
Well-known member
It was a specific comment about beam and length in relation to wave size in the Southern Ocean and the consequent risks of capsize and pitchpoling. When he said it, the prevailing idea was that a small boat would be “like a corked bottle” and could survive anything. This is no longer the thinking, following the Southampton University study on the 1979 Fastnet, but at that time there was no tank test data on this point, so he was going simply from his own experience.
Last edited:
Sumara of Weymouth
Member
He could be right, I've been through some pretty rough weather but I haven't experienced the Southern Oceans yet! Maybe I should stick to the Atlantic.
Kukri
Well-known member
When Tilman said it, I was surprised, but the subsequent academic work, starting with the 1979 Fastnet investigation, does bear him out.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
Real Antarctic and Arctic types know that a) roughing it is stupid and a quick way to kill yourself and b) any fool can be uncomfortable!Of course, proper rufty-tufties would do it single-handed in a small, very basic boat.
If I remember correctly David Lewis went to the Antarctic with neither heaternor comms equipment, as recounted in 'Ice Bird'.
My work didn't require deep field work, but I was required to spend a night in a tent on a glacier as training for emergencies. With standard deep field kit, the main problem was that it got too warm! I didn't spend long enough in a tent to learn all the little tricks, but it's worth noting that the General Assistants (basically, field-work experts to allow scientists to do their thing without worrying about camping) took pride in being able to provide fresh-baked sourdough bread from a single burner primus! This is me in a tent on a glacier, melting snow for drinking water.
zoidberg
Well-known member
I have it on some authority that many of the General Assistants were rather expert winter mountaineers before they found the urge to take on Antarctica.
Speaking of which, the Rev Bob Shepton offers a sterling example of high latitude sailing in a rather smaller boat than Tilman's preference for heavy Bristol Pilot cutters.
For example: Baffin Island and Greenland.
Speaking of which, the Rev Bob Shepton offers a sterling example of high latitude sailing in a rather smaller boat than Tilman's preference for heavy Bristol Pilot cutters.
For example: Baffin Island and Greenland.
Last edited:
DownWest
Well-known member
Not quite the same thing, but this: Iron Bark's travels: Iron Bark in Antarctica, winter (iron-bark.blogspot.com) is worth a read. I think I put it up before when peeps were moaning about british weather and cold cabins..
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
As you say, many GAs come with previous mountaineering or skiing expertise. It's not unknown for a sudden scientific reason to be found to visit various nearby peaks!
But their main responsibility in Antarctica is the safety and smooth running of the logistics of the field party.
LittleSister
Well-known member
It was interesting to read of some of the various kit used in Scott's second Antarctic expedition in 'The Worst Journey in the World' (by Apsley Cherry-Garrard, who was on the expedition).
It's a brilliant book in all sorts of ways (beautifully written, thoughtful and human), but I was frustrated by not understanding the terms for the various clothing, camping/trekking equipment and materials, and it was only when I got to the end of the book (the first time) that I found there was a glossary in the back!
One thing that sticks with me is that they used fur sleeping bags. Their sweat in the fur would freeze once they were out of them, so the bags would be frozen stiff, flat and closed (from being packed on the sleds), and each night they would have to use the warmth (such as it was!) of their feet to melt open the sleeping bags, inch by inch, until they could get inside. On the 'Worst Journey' itself (which was not the trek to the Pole, but a very near fatal trek across uncharted territory and ice shelf(?), in the dark depths of the Antarctic winter, to collect penguin eggs) it would take them hours every day to strike camp, pack and then at the end of the day pitch camp, cook something to eat and 'melt' themselves into their sleeping bags etc., such that at times they were only doing IIRC about a mile a day of their long journey.
Amazing endurance, perseverance and self-reliance shown, given their primitive kit, limited knowledge, etc. It's wonder to me that such a high proportion of them survived, both physically and mentally.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
Their clothing was actually pretty good in most respects; of course, it was entirely of natural fibres, so it was less hard-wearing than our modern fabrics, but it did its job pretty well. They had effective windproof outer garments; the main failings were the footwear, which were finneskoe and not really designed for long-term hard usage without the opportunity to get them dry. I understand that experiments have been done by climbers using the type of gear worn by climbers like Mallory and Irving, and they have found it to be superior in some ways to modern gear. Scott et al. were, of course, using gear very similar to that in vogue in the 1930s.
I think the problem with sleeping bags was simply that nothing else was available! Down would probably have deteriorated even more quickly. But their experience is really a very clear statement of why "roughing it" is stupid. They didn't have a choice; their logistic choices were limited, so they were operating on a limited supply of fuel which only allowed enough for cooking, and none for heating (the Nansen stove was designed to use as much heat as possible to heat food and water and allow none to escape into the tent!). Scott's party, of course, got trapped by blizzards only a few miles from a depot with enough supplies to get them back to Ross Island. The modern consensus is that they were unlucky; they happened to encounter weather much worse than the average for the time of year; in a more normal season, they'd have made it. Susan Solomon is the person who did the research on that. Much of the stuff about Scott's leadership is subject to debate; My own position is that much of the criticism depends on 20/20 hindsight and is judging him by the standards of a time nearly 100 years later! He was essentially an Edwardian Naval Captain, with all that means in terms of leadership style and social attitudes. Had he survived, he'd no doubt have served competently and well in the wartime Navy,.
DownWest
Well-known member
Wasn't the choice of Ponies to haul stuff a major mistake?
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
It wasn't a killer. The ponies did quite well for what they were intended for, and unlike dogs, they had expert handlers - Oates, for one. The ponies were mainly used for depot laying.
It's worth remembering that the Navy had significant experience of polar travel in the Arctic, from the search for Franklin and subsequent expeditions.
But if they'd had the weather they expected from previous weather observations, they'd have made it. Modern observations suggest that they hit weather only expected one year in twenty, and that slowed their return journey so that their food and fuel didn't last long enough. They made it to within less than a day's travel from the depot under "normal" circumstances . But the extreme cold they encountered meant that the sledges didn't run well - more like pulling them over sand than snow, and their poor diet (vitamins were not yet known) weakened them too
LittleSister
Well-known member
The other thing - seemingly unappreciated by many - is they weren't hurrying back from the South Pole. Unlike Amundsen, they weren't there just to race to the Pole: getting to the Pole was just one element of a 2 year scientific expedition. On their way back they stopped e.g. to take sights, measurements and collect samples, and were still hauling 60lbs + of rock samples, that they'd earlier spent a day collecting, with them to (what they didn't yet realise was) the end. (They'd also been earlier hauling on the sled one of their colleagues, who'd fallen ill, IIRC - it's a while since I read all this.)
They lost the contents of one of their last cans of fuel when it leaked, suddenly leaving them very short, and then got pinned down by the abnormal weather you mention not far at all from the next stash of supplies.
Cherry-Garrard writes very movingly and approvingly about Scott. He said something along the lines that Scott was a poor judge of men, and prone to terrible depression, but had shown the strength of character to fight and overcome his weaknesses to be a great leader, who he not just admired, but loved. (In a proper, manly way, of course!)
If I remember correctly, Cherry-Garrard said the problem with the ponies was that they were mainly poor ones. IIRC due to the financial constraints in assembling the expedition they weren't able to go to Russia/Siberia (was it?) to choose the ponies themselves, and had to accept the generally disappointing specimens they were sent.
They also took with them some of these new-fangled motor sleds to try out, but these turned out not to be very practical.
IIRC another issue resulting from the limited understanding of diet at the time was that their food simply didn't provide them with enough calories to replenish the extremes amounts of those they were burning every day in their exertions and keeping warm, so even though they were eating daily, they were effectively gradually starving, and on the return from the Pole one by one they were becoming becoming weak, then ill, then incapacitated.
My impression is that take out any one of the unusually severe weather, the leaking fuel can, and the declining energy and health due to inadequate diet, and they would probably have survived. (As might have done Scott's long term reputation.) But those holes in that Swiss Cheese lined up.
It must have been grim back at base camp, waiting expectantly for the South Pole team and their leader to return, and gradually having to give up hope as the winter approached, wait out the entire winter, then go out next spring to look for them, knowing they must be dead. (Cherry-Garrard was among those who found the tent with their remains.)
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
Only slightly off topic, I went to a talk by Pip Hare last Saturday. She said that one of her “mistakes” on her first Vendée Globe was to have her diet put together by a professional dietitian who had massively under estimated the calorie intake that she would need.
My medical student son commented that what with semi-starvation and the Portuguese Man O’War she had come close to killing herself.
My medical student son commented that what with semi-starvation and the Portuguese Man O’War she had come close to killing herself.
Last edited:
Kukri
Well-known member
There’s a very good book - “Barrow’s Boys” - about the way in which the RN deliberately set out to explore and map this planet in the 19th century.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
All perfectly correct. The ponies were indeed sub-standard, but they were brought into reasonable condition, and were primarily used for depot laying. And I heartily agree that comparing Amundsen's expedition with Scott's is comparing apples and oranges. Scott's expedition returned with several important scientific results - for example, the "Worst Journey in the World" was undertaken to gather Emperor penguin eggs to test a theory about the embryology of penguins - the theory was eventually disproved. And other parties from Scott's expedition made important geographic discoveries, especially the Dry Valleys, which to this day are used an the closest terrestrial analogue of Mars!
Incidentally, those rock samples that the Pole party were still carrying when they died were eventually a crucial piece of evidence for the acceptance of continental drift, as they proved that Antarctica had been in tropical latitudes in the past, and linked Antarctica to other parts of the world with similar fossils (If I remember correctly, they were of the Glossopteris flora, and linked Antarctica with South America, Africa and Australia).
Scott was also not afraid to try new technology, and was willing to experiment with the new-fangled petrol engine! The motorized sledges didn't work well, unsurprisingly given the primitive state of the technology, and I think (I'm not sure) that it died because the lubricants were inadequate in Antarctic conditions. This (Wolseley / Hamilton Motor Sleigh - Tank Encyclopedia) is a fascinating account of the technology.
Kukri
Well-known member
RF Scott was a national hero from his death until some point in the 1970s when in a sort of “cultural revolution” it became the done thing to say that Shackleton was much better. This would probably have surprised both of them. Amundsen was pretty impressive too.
zoidberg
Well-known member
Captain Worsley is the man for me.
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
It doesn't really "bear him out". A lot of research and practical real word experience has developed understanding such that small boats can be prepared soundly for ocean passages and the stresses they are likely to experience in extremis. Roger Taylor and GGR are good examples of small boats built to deal with tough challenges. There are always exceptions though.
RunAgroundHard
Well-known member
All of these people have a determination characteristic that is likely exceptional compared to the ordinary person (how do you define ordinary). They don't see barriers as insurmountable, just something that needs to be addressed to overcome. If I had an ounce of their fortitude it would make me a better person; I can't imagine the resolve needed to do what they did and face the challenges.
