WORLD CLASS ???
ERIC ANDERSON:
John,
My point is quite simple. Based on 2 collisions I have observed, the balsa glass boats do not have a mechanism of dissipating the kinetic energy of a crash when the nose of the balsa glass boat impacts another boat. A sister ship to my boat was in a collision hard enough to bend a plate runner 90 deg and bend a steering chock post made with a 1.25” diameter steel tube with a 1/8” wall thickness 90 degrees and the nose of the boat was fine. Personally I think this is a problem. Now if everyone was sailing balsa glass boats would we be safer? I don’t know. I think the whole front end of a clone is a crumple zone and it probably helps lessen the effects of a crash. This is my opinion and I have only anecdotal evidence to support my position
I once saw a M1 Abrams tank collide with a M888 recovery vehicle at around 30 mph. Neither vehicle was even dented but both crews were badly hurt.
Eric Anderson US 5193
Paul Goodwin - US 46:
I agree with Eric's "anecdotal evidence". I've been amazed for years at the relatively minor injuries when two boats collide at 40 mph. I attribute this to the destruction of the wooden hull using up a large amount of energy. Two boats traveling 40 mph carry a significant amount of kinetic energy that must be dissipated, and the friability of the wood structure must certainly help to reduce the amount that goes into the sailors.
DN4287:
The idea of the size of the fleet vs the size of the ice may be a good idea, but will be difficult to do. If we look at the past 10 years or so that the Mountain Lakes RC has run the GC and NAs, we have never set a course larger than 1 mile with the average probably around .8 miles. This is because of the available ice and not that we enjoy small courses. On Green Bay 2 years ago we attempted to set a 1.25 mile course and were requested by the competitors to reduce it because of rough ice on the layline to the windward mark. This year, when we got to the ice for the GC, I was told that we should be able to easily set a 1.25 mile course. After spending about 2 hrs sailing the area prior to setting the course, we determined that the max length was only about .9 miles considering wind shifts. When checking the ice prior to setting a course we do consider windshifts and what length of course we can get in for the different wind directions and ground features. This was one reason we switched locations for the 2nd day of the GC this year. Remember the fleet splits are done the night before - so you would have to have fleet splits for each course length and decide and post on the ice.
Having a Black Flag at the windward mark is a great idea and if the ML RC runs another major regatta we will add that to our inventory. We typically post our 4-wheeler at the windward mark but it's only one vehicle and one person. If a boat breaks on the course, he will typically race off to that boat and place the 4 wheeler in front of the downed boat as protection and offer assistance. The problem arises if another incident occurs during that time. Also, he typically doesn't have time to stand and wave a black flag, but having it there is definitely the RIGHT thing to do. If possible he can hand it off to a competitor or a spectator at the Windward mark or where ever he is on the course.
Communications is another real issue. Over the years we have tried CBs, Personal Radios, VHF and found the most reliable are Cell phones but this year both mine and John's went dead that 1st day even though they were on charge the night before. So even cell phones can fail. I suppose the next method would be to attempt to get 2 Military Man-pack radios.
I will be very interested to see a course diagram using the Darling Marks. Hopefully with distances and angles from the Windward/Leaward marks. We always carry spare marks so adding another 2 marks would not be a but issue. Course changes will take additional time but if it prevents ONE collision it will be well worth it.
John Atkins
DN4287
US4961:
Eric,
Firstly, you started a thread broadly implying that one construction method is too strong relative to another. You should be fully prepared to debate this viewpoint if you are willing to throw it up on the WWW. Secondly, your Engineering analysis of the dissipation of energy is unqualified. To assume that there is a LARGE amount of energy absorbed by a crumple zone, like a car is again, unfounded. I know because my early years in engineering were in auto safety – airbags and restraints. The M1/M888 crash example shouldn’t surprise anyone. Do you think anyone in either of those vehicles was wearing a seatbelt? AND I can only assume, which I am trained not to do, that there wasn’t a soft dashboard in either vehicle, but probably a bunch of hard metal surfaces. I’ll ask one of my fellow Engineers tomorrow who was an M1A1 tank Captain in Germany and several other guys who were ARMY Officers that might be familiar with M888s, I’m not, but I will ask. Like I mentioned before, in a DN, the skipper is on “IN” the boat when the collision happens. He/she is lying in a trough, and generally exits the boat. Again, the skipper is more massive than the boat and therefore has the largest portion of the kinetic energy. It would be an interesting engineering project to capture a collision with high-speed video to see what really happens in a T-bone type collision. We nearly have this view from the GC this year. What is clear from this sequence of pics is one thing. That Sitka boats are truly “Friable”, Webster’s definition; “Easily crumbled or pulverized”. Is this is the desired safety standard we should be striving for? I DON’T THINK SO! If we actually had any data on this topic, I would wager that the majority of the injuries from collisions are due to lacerations from sharp edges due to Friability. If the hulls were to stay intact, we would be safer. Planks shear off – good. Runners bend – fine. Hulls vaporize – BAD! I'm not saying we need to change anything, but I do fee safer in Balsa boat.
Humbly submitted,
John Davenport US-4961
Kentski:
I have just posted actual picutres form the accident at the worlds. it is in aanimated formatto study these are not here for enjoyment I hope you all see what really happend and closely watch it over and over to see the many collisions that took place and when they did. please try to learn something from this it shows when people come into close quarters especially on port they should be well aware of the consequences that can happen one must anticipate from a much greater distance and time before , whether to go in there or not
you will see that the accidents may be quite different from what you thought and heard about Even I do not remember what I see in pictures now
so please look and study them closely
we will have more accidents in the future if something is not changed it quite amazing the injuries were as little as they ended up to be
you can find the sequence on my web site www.csi-composites.com in the dn section in dn picures
regards to all jeff kent 3535
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page