Guest Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 How much for the Elliot?? Link to post Share on other sites
Battleship 100 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 A couple of points above really made me think - so the boats with lead strapped to their bum don't need watertight bulkheads for Cat 3 but the ones that would probably stay floating anyway do? Makes a bit of a mockery of some of the safety thinking. quote] So what do you think TWU would look like without the watertight bulkheads? Would have been a bitch to tow and any electrics on that side would be stuffed. If anything it shows they are neccesary IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 346 Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 So what do you think TWU would look like without the watertight bulkheads? Would have been a bitch to tow and any electrics on that side would be stuffed. If anything it shows they are neccesary IMHO. Unfortunately i think the electrics (switchboard, battery and radio)were sited just where the hole is. Link to post Share on other sites
Battleship 100 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Bugger Link to post Share on other sites
wal 27 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 ooooo dear.. Boat's got watertight forwd bunk and the entire section behind the traveller's flotation Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Read my post again willow. The monos are loaded with lead and sink really quickly don't need bulkheads? Not saying multis don't need bulkheads. Squid - not for sale yet so it would be really expensive (but feel free to make me an offer). Lots of summer left yet. I'll probably build so its all about timing. Link to post Share on other sites
Battleship 100 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I knew what you meant, just in my humble opinion a raft is more likely to need the bulkheads being of much lighter overall construction. e.g. if TWU had hit the stewart I doubt the stewart would have such a big hole in it. Link to post Share on other sites
TimW 1 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Read my post again willow. The monos are loaded with lead and sink really quickly don't need bulkheads? Not saying multis don't need bulkheads. Squid - not for sale yet so it would be really expensive (but feel free to make me an offer). Lots of summer left yet. I'll probably build so its all about timing. Let the Pig rooters sink ! Leave the rules as they are, the multis are the only one's worthy of watertight bulkheads Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 shhhh Tim don't let them in on the secret - we haven't quite reached world domination yet! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I knew what you meant, just in my humble opinion a raft is more likely to need the bulkheads being of much lighter overall construction. e.g. if TWU had hit the stewart I doubt the stewart would have such a big hole in it. Totally agree. We were pondering that if they hit the other way around would the end result really be that much different? I wasn't going to say that but as Willow started it Link to post Share on other sites
col j 0 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 cant have been going that fast otherwise it may have made it right through. sucks to see a boat damaged though. fyi. even stewarts have a hard time taking on stewarts. roy must have been having withdrawls as its been a while since a monday bumper boat WWL Link to post Share on other sites
bushman 12 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 well maybe jt could offer some advice on this one , shore is sad to see it nearly cut in two ... just as well it is made of wood and is a multi .... all the best guys hope your luck changes for the better Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I knew what you meant, just in my humble opinion a raft is more likely to need the bulkheads being of much lighter overall construction. e.g. if TWU had hit the stewart I doubt the stewart would have such a big hole in it. Totally agree. We were pondering that if they hit the other way around would the end result really be that much different? I wasn't going to say that but as Willow started it And where in my post did I mention structural strength guys? It was about propensity to sink and watertight bulkheads - floatation, got it? I.e. monos sink like lead balloons (remember AC Fremantle? took how many seconds?) but they are not required to have watertight bulheads for cat 3 but multis are ?? Structural strength and impact resistance were not a factor in my post nor was the comparison if this collsision was the other way round which is just theoretical. eeewww - what happens if EE T-bones big steel then? or its the other way round? oh same result, well thats scientific - well done, nobel prize..... I knew what you meant. Actually I'm still not sure you did and KM followed that path. Think bouyancy. Not suggesting a rule change for monos either - just think its seems a little illogical. Link to post Share on other sites
markm 30 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 EE, whilst damage due to collision on a mono vs. multi can be debated, I think you may find the rule is more around the propensity to get somewhat waterlogged while upside down. At the risk of incurring the eternal wrath and damnation of the multihull fraternity, I'd suggest the odds of a multi finding itself in the inverted position is slightly higher. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I was only responding to this bit - "if TWU had hit the stewart I doubt the stewart would have such a big hole in it." and more in response to a few comment from a couple of multi dudes at the fact a mono would have sunk with a hole like that in it, which it more than likely would have unless it's reasonably new, in which case many do have lots of buoyancy and wouldn't. Very much a semi-tongue in cheek tit for tat post. But any boat that can take a hole that size and stay floating can only be a very good thing. If that's due to the Regs, then you'd have to say that's one Reg that works damn well. If it's due to the builders, then you'd have to say that was one very smart builder. And as she's floating so high you'd have to say the amount of buoyancy is sized pretty damn good. Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 but then when you think about what happens when leadswingers indeed go upside down you still have to ask why? They can only invert after jettisoning that silly flappy thing and if not holed take a considerable length of time to be swamped - ie Bullimore in the SO, Excalibar off Sydney etc etc. There's a very good chance the boat will stay afloat for a day or two. If however you hole a leadswinger at or below WL without jettisoning said silly flappy, and unless you can stop water ingress or have a standby RIB, mobile crane, or nearby rock to park onto, then you will almost certainly park onto the next available rock somewhere deep below. A multi on the otherhand will just float a little lopsided. (I'm only talking a 6" dia hole here - the damage on TWU can hardly be described as a hole. If she was in any kind of seaway for any length of time that hull would probably have broken up) Link to post Share on other sites
Hurts 6 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Nasty, but impressive it got back to dock, Unaided? What exactly are the rules for cat 3 bulkheads etc for multi's? If the rules are on-line, can someone post a link please? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 thanks for all the kind words of support it certainly has not been our regatta ! We would have posted more info here sooner, but have been to busy drinking MOUNT GAY rum. although nobody was hurt during the crash, marshys testicles took an absolute beating! and craig landed on the chain plates that made for a soft landing for me. Here are some more pics, nothing a can (or 2) of bog wont fix ! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I should add that we learnt 3 important things during this experience. 1) the floatation tanks inside are just fantastic!! 2) life jackets should not be stored down below, but in the central pod with the other safety gear. 3) stewart 34s are farken strong!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Vorpal Blade 89 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Bad luck guys, I guess we wont be seeing you at Kawau next weekend. So far I'm torn between two smart arse comments to add, thinking about it, hey Squidly there may be a Mount Gay caption contest here. And to make the T-boned feel better (or forget) about it winners have to share the proceeds with them on the marina- "At least the new opening Roy has so kindly installed for you makes it easier to get inside than that tiny hole you used to have to launch yourself through." 'So you are not going to duct tape it up and sail home then?" Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.