Actual safety differences between designs

[wkisting]

Nothing against Welsford, but I'll say it again: The statement "safer than any other small boat you'll find" is meaningless and nonsensical without some defined context.

For example, any boat on dry land is automatically safer than Scamp is at sea (unless you crawl under the dry boat and kick out the supports--see, yet another safety variable!). Any boat of similar shape without a mast is automatically safer if your main "safety" criteria is to avoid capsizing (lower CG with no mast). Any boat with a working motor is automatically safer if you're becalmed and need to get a hypothermia victim to help. Any well-designed boat of similar shape with an appreciably longer waterline is automatically safer if you're talking about high waves approaching the limit of what the 12-foot Scamp can bear (but then the quality of the helmsman matters too!). Any boat with more buoyancy and more watertight storage is automatically safer if you're holed and taking on water. In each of those examples (and millions more) the notion of "safe" shifts slightly depending on context (especially the helmsman's ability and the environmental conditions). That is why it can only be silly and false to make any absolute assertions about safety.

I chalk it up to excessive enthusiasm for a very fine looking little ship--which is understandable. I just wanted to point out that there's no way to debate the validity of the statement because it is genuinely meaningless without clear parameters. What he should've said is "safer than any small boat I've designed or sailed." That would constitute a valid context (his own personal experience, which is substantial and therefore credible). It's just a poor choice of words. Of course, even then we'd still have to ask Welsford the question: "Safer how?"

[Tom Lathrop]

I might want to comment on this but probably should stay out. Not that I'm not very familiar with the capsizing tendencies of small boats, having much experience in that realm. I haven't actually seen John's statement and don't kow the context. On the face of it, its a bit of hyperbole and others have already poked numerous holes in the assertion. Have Scamp knocked well down in a hard burst and she would swamp and be as much a problem as other similar boats. On the other hand, Scamp looks very capable in a blow and might well weather high wind and water more easily than a typical Core Sound, particularly in less capable hands. There is much more to sailing than that and the question is not really all that relevant in making a choice between these boats..

[ecgossett]

The only problem I had in the CS17 was big waves coming in in groups close together, I turned into them to ride over, which was also into the wind, and lost speed (average 2knots when constantly turning to ride over waves). I didn't like the waves breaking over the side as much, and the irrational fear up rolling too hard in one of the narrow trough's when three or four waves are stacked up

I never really worried about mizzen sheets except for major course changes, or when gusts would hit above 30knots for a couple minutes I would have to let out mizzen to fix severe weather helm, until wind slowed 5 knots (at lower speeds the sail would luff that far out).

It's also never fun going into the waves on a port tack and having the bow burying, always wondering how much water is in forward compartment (less then half inch after hour (about 2 cups), and if forward hatch is holding. For not having seals the forward hatch kept water out really well. I still want to install some sort of plug for draining forward compartments and other small plugs on tanks to make it easy if needed to drain water (mostly from waves breaking over port side), tank water wasn't a lot just a small bit. The driest/dry place on the CS17 in nasty weather is the aft compartment with forward hatch.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

What sort of speed were you making before turning into the waves Ed?

[ecgossett]

3-4 knots, double reefed, and sails pretty far to lee. We where not letting the boat lean as much as we should have. Later on in smaller waves on inter-coastal when we where more confident speed was better.

[David M]

Claims backed up by actual independent testing are much more reliable and informative. These tests may not illustrate how the design reacts in a seaway or high wind conditions, but it is pretty interesting to see how the USCG conducts their test.

http://www.clcboats.com/life-of-boats-blog/peeler-power-skiff-coast-guard-testing.html

[Steve W]

Thanks for the link David.

Interesting first sentence in the above link "Powerboat designs, even those sold as kits like our new Peeler Skiff, must comply with stringent Coast Guard regulations".

The loading was neat, but when I was younger I swamped an 14' aluminum rowboat with a 10 HP motor in heavy waves (stupid youth!) and it didn't behave like it would have in a pool! I couldn't get it bailed, because the motor kept the transome below the water level. And while swimming with it, everytime I tried to get "in" it, it wanted to roll a bit, unless you were in the absolute center. Eventually the boat and I blew into shore!

I think if you really wanted to test a boat, you'd be better off takeing it to the surf, flipping it, and seeing what happenned, including wave aaction and reboarding. Even in calm water, if the freeboard can't be maintained swamped, you know its never going to be bailed. But I will say, that CLC boat floats a lot higher than the boat I was in!

Take Care,

Steve

[Lynn Watson]

Steep wind waves are tough to deal with in most small boats -- mine bangs into a 3' wave, stops dead, and sort of staggers off until she builds some speed back up; not much fun. But getting to weather in a snotty blow is critical sometimes, when running off isn't an option.

I would think that a fine entrance, with flare higher in the bow, would cut into the walls 'o water and let the boat keep moving without too much solid green stuff on the foredeck. Like the bow shape on a CS, maybe?

btw, who has run their boat through the SCA seaworthiness test? They would fare pretty well, no? I'd love to hear any insights that people have gotten from that test. Here's the link:

http://smallcraftadvisor.com/sca-seaworthiness-test

...still thinking about a Belhaven...

Lynn

[Scott Dunsworth]

Lynn my Belhaven scored very good, except for the Captain part!

[Charlie Jones]

I think if you really wanted to test a boat, you'd be better off takeing it to the surf, flipping it, and seeing what happenned, including wave aaction and reboarding. Even in calm water, if the freeboard can't be maintained swamped, you know its never going to be bailed. But I will say, that CLC boat floats a lot higher than the boat I was in!

Take Care,

Steve

Exactly the reason my CLC John's Sharpie is now a trimaran. It was almost impossible to self rescue from a capsize, unless you were in shallow enough water to stand beside the boat. Bow is so fine it didn't float high enough to keep water out. CLC doesn't sell the kit anymore, and doesn't push the design. But as a tri it's a great boat- three Texas 200's under her keel so far.

[Ray Frechette Jr]

Exactly the reason my CLC John's Sharpie is now a trimaran. It was almost impossible to self rescue from a capsize, unless you were in shallow enough water to stand beside the boat.

And if you capsize and turtle now you will really have a hard time recovering from it...

[Charlie Jones]

LOL- True dat, but she's a MUCH safer boat now. Originally you NEVER cleated the sheet, and as a matter of fact , could not- there weren't any cleats. If it started to go and you couldn't IMMEDIATELY let go, you were over. Was a HOT boat, which is why John doesn't push it anymore- not a boat for novice sailors.

Now I feel much safer beach camping in her, and have seen 13.7 knots on the boat on a broad reach. First Tex 200 was sailed in winds up to 30 knots. I would never have even tried it before.

Graham designed the amas by the way.