Actual safety differences between designs

[ecgossett]

I was reading an article on Duckworks http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/12/gatherings/class/index.html with the outragious claim that SCAMP is quote "safer than any other small boat you’ll find.". I'm not sure if this is some great marketing on part of Small Craft Advisor that has spread like wildfire or some true claims.

When looking at a B&B design the safety seems pretty apparent from shorter masts, less things to break like rigging on stayed masts and so on. Does anyone have any actual figures on SCAMP and or B&B designs that can refute or at least offer a good alternative article to Duckworks?

[Hirilonde]

Safety is also the result of how well the boat is built and the skills and attentiveness of the person who sails it. The safest boat is the one that is still in your garage or shop, but that isn't much fun. Articles like that are just propaganda IMO.

[ecgossett]

I understand the propaganda part. Also I think B&B's designs are faster, and more comfortable in nasty weather.

[tom151]

I was reading an article on Duckworks http://www.duckworks...lass/index.html with the outragious claim that SCAMP is quote "safer than any other small boat you’ll find.". I'm not sure if this is some great marketing on part of Small Craft Advisor that has spread like wildfire or some true claims.

When looking at a B&B design the safety seems pretty apparent from shorter masts, less things to break like rigging on stayed masts and so on. Does anyone have any actual figures on SCAMP and or B&B designs that can refute or at least offer a good alternative article to Duckworks?

Simple,

That article was written by the designer John Welsford, and as such he should be prepared to substantiate the basis for such claims.

It would be an exercise in "guessing" for anyone to try to suggest they know what he was thinking and calculating. If the designer doesn't have good and defensible arguments -- then that's your answer.

And IMNSHO the B&B forum might not be the place to raise such questions about another designer's work. But that's me.

[Randy Jones]

I've seen SCAMP on the water and it is an impressive little boat. Even sailed my CS17 side by side for just a brief reach and was impressed that SCAMP goes much faster than it should. Also briefly meet John Welsford and the Small Craft Advisors editors. I still perfer the CS17 for lots of reasons, but these are nice people and I'll allow them allow them some latitude in marketing. I'd guess the safety claim probalby has a lot to do with water ballast. Both types are wonderful boats, just different.

[wkisting]

And IMNSHO the B&B forum might not be the place to raise such questions about another designer's work. But that's me.

I don't think Edward was asking about Welsford's work so much as about the politics of claiming that one design is "safer than any other small boat," which can be construed to include some of the B&B boats and certainly a whole field of other designs. Certainly, the claim is silly and meaningless without some context. There are too many subjective factors to evaluate a design's safety in such absolute terms. But Scamp looks like a fine and forgiving ship for its size--which is probably what the article meant to convey.

[ecgossett]

It was really meant from a standpoint of my wife read the article and asked the question of is "our boat as safe"? Of course my answer was I'd put it along side any day.

[nzlance]

Every man is entitled to there own opinion. John Welsford has his....and why shouldnt he? Hes been designing and sailing boats for decades. Sure it is impossible to prove weather or not Scamp is "safer than any other small boat you will find" But at the end of the day this is not "outragious", "properganda" But one very experienced mans findings after sailing the boat. If you took the time to read other articals and books he has written you my find that his style of explination is just that. His own style. Picking apart certain statements because hes sailing a different yatch is ott.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

Apples and oranges...

For a 12 foot boat Scamp has a lot of positive safety attributes.

Now what would I rather be out in? Scamp or a CS 17 or 20???.

I would take the CS boats myself.

[Ken_Potts]

I think the statement "safer than any other small boat you'll find" is complete nonsense regardless of who said it - There's no context. I'm a fan of Mr. Welsford's designs but I think a kayak would be much safer in whitewater or surf and there are other boats that would be safer at sea in a storm. Actually I think even Mr Welsford has designed at least one other small boat that would be safer in a storm.

[Howard]

I believe the word is "puffery" and it is commonly used in marketing of all manner of goods and services. Nothing to get wrapped around the axel over.

The makers of my existing boat used to make public comments about the "death traps" built by their competitors. It turns out that was friendly banter / inside jokes they used among themselves, that spilled over on to a public forum where it was taken seriously. It wasn't until they were called to task on it did the realize how serious people were taking them about it. There have been no "death trap" references since.

[Steve W]

Well, I think that actually doing testing, on video, instead of just saying, "She was designed to.....blah, blah, blah" gives them a bit of a right to crow a bit. Those test videos are pretty impressive.

Contrast this with the situation with International Marine. SCA ran a few stories about unrecoverable capsizes (from my angle, poor sailing...I think a Potter certainly has a commendable track record) and they pulled their advertizing, instead of reacting with video or any proof that their boats are safe. I personally think they are, but at least JW and the staff at SCA clearly designed with safety in mind, and then went out to prove it was safe. I guess the dust eventually settled, because now I see they are back.

I can't comment much about B & B boats, because I only built a Spindrift 11N and have yet to do a capsize test. But I certainly wouldn't take it out of protected water. I own a Sea Pearl 21, which is an amazing production boat, but its unrecoverable (Can't be bailed although it has positive flotation) and that is something I'd want to know if I was buying one. As I know this, the mainsheet never leaves my hand.

I am watching very closely at the CS20 with cabin being designed as possibly my 2nd build.

Take Care,

Steve

[PAR]

"Safe" is a speculative term at best, without substantiation, such as a stability book to back it up. It's possible he pulled a stability curve during the work up, though most small open craft have a lousy one anyway. I have a design about that size that is easily and clearly more stable having 131 to 139 degrees of righting arm, depending on keel type selected. I'll bet anything A scamp would do what all boats of that general configuration do when laid on their beams ends: down flood and stay there. A little fluff in the safety comment department, but so what really, we believe politicians, making us able to swallow about any kind of ridiculousness, so . . .

[Charlie Jones]

but so what really, we believe politicians, making us able to swallow about any kind of ridiculousness, so . . .

Are you trying to say our politicians would LIE to us??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooo :unsure:

[Scott Dunsworth]

Just got jump in here. I have two nearly finished spindrift 12's. Also have built the 10N and don't have a clue as to how the 10N would act in a capsize, but the regular spindrift would have to float high after going for a swim. The regular has large ballast tanks the full length of the hull on both sides, also in the bow under the seat. When I did a capsize test on my Penobscot 14 she was total swamped after I righted her, up to the top of the centerboard trunk.

With the long ballast tanks along the beam of the spindrift I can't see over 3 or 4 inch's water being in the hull after righting. The tanks just aren't going to allow the boat to scoop up much water while righting, they will hold the shear much higher than a boat with the floatation in the ends. It would have to be easier to right because it would take on a lot less water and the ballast tanks are helping to push back over also. But if the boat was completely turtled those same tanks would work against you while trying to right her. She would be floating high in the water though.

I was lucky enough not to ever capsize my Penobscot 14. If I had known this when I owned her I would have never taken her out early on, in cold water or bad weather and didn't afterwards.

Scott

[Ray Frechette Jr]

"Safe" is a speculative term at best, without substantiation, such as a stability book to back it up. It's possible he pulled a stability curve during the work up, though most small open craft have a lousy one anyway. I have a design about that size that is easily and clearly more stable having 131 to 139 degrees of righting arm, depending on keel type selected. I'll bet anything A scamp would do what all boats of that general configuration do when laid on their beams ends: down flood and stay there. A little fluff in the safety comment department, but so what really, we believe politicians, making us able to swallow about any kind of ridiculousness, so . . .

Scamp resists downflooding pretty well Par. Seats go from transom to blulkhead and the seats have enough boyancy to pfloat the boat high up which has the seat top acting as a dam for downflooding.

Now in an angry sea state of course water could overwhelm that damming effect.

Scamp is clearly fairly well thought out and has a fair amount of good safety built in. But it is still a very small boat. In nasty breaking waves I wouldn't want to be on it. I would still want to be in port in a small craft advisory...

[Howard]

As for the claim of being "safer than any other small boat you'll find".............what about Yankee Girl?

http://www.marlinbree.com/alone_against_the_atlantic_33621.htm

There is a related story.......can't remember where I heard it, but the gist of it was that either Spiess or someone like him sailed a similar small boat from Europe to the US. Had made it all the way and was within sight of land (one of the Carolina Coasts as I recall), when he was met by the US Coast Guard, who pronounced his boat too small and "unsafe" and plucked him from the water, preventing him from completing the trip and setting a new record in the process. The fact that he had managed to get that far apparently lost on them.........or more likely, fully aware of it, but ending the journey short so as to prevent others from trying something equally risky.

[Charlie Jones]

An interesting side note on this- Steve is a friend of mine by the way

http://bbs.trailersailor.com/forums/trailersailor/index.cgi/read/842244

and one line from the post-"John Welsford, the designer, is there, along with Howard Rice, who did the capsize testing, and a bunch of other folks who are making this thing happen"

Italics mine

[Steve W]

I hope I didn't infer that I thought any boat unsafe. What I applaud is the testing SCA did on Scamp. The second statement in Scott's response is exactly what most of us have to go on, to paraphrase "This is what I think will happen". I think Scott is proably right, but it's nice to se a design actually tested, and results made public, instead of us having to do it ourselves. I don't think the Scamp is a boat for me, but the testing and public sharing of the results I applaud.

I new when I bougth my Sea Pearl about its capsize issues, but not from Marine Concepts advertising, only of reading past users experiences.

Take Care,

Steve

[Docpal]

For some perspective- http://www.microcrui...ssmallboats.htm

Also get a copy of "A Speck on the Sea" by Wm. Longyard and see what some people have done in small boats. The skipper is usually the weakest link in the chain.....