it's extremely enticing to 'add more sail' to a boat in order to squeeze more speed out of it, or achieve easier lufting.
turns out that marine architecture is a lot harder than one thinks at first glance, and just about everyone that tries to tweak specs afterwards does so in such a way that makes the boat categorically worse.
(don't ask me how I came to realize this after many dollars spent)
and then you say "the 1st best day is when you sell it"
rug pull
I installed a pull-out stereo, a separate amplifier, various permanent and movable speakers, etc. I mostly had the pros installed them, but I was always tweaking things at the wire-harness level. I enjoyed my music EXTRA LOUD, with minimal distortion.
And I had one of those basic aftermarket alarm systems. And there I was, constantly tripping the alarm for various reasons, and we lived in a safe neighborhood, so it was mostly an additional annoyance when I set it off, or armed it, or disarmed it: I was being super ostentatious.
So my proudest DIY mod was to install a shiny toggle switch in the dashboard. The toggle switch had the sole function of disabling the alarm by cutting its power. So I basically handed it to the crooks who came along in a few weeks to steal all my cassettes. But honestly, I doubt that anyone on that block was sorry to see me separated from my music at that point.
But yeah, most "enthusiast" mods are a waste of money and make the vehicle worse.
The term is luffing for anyone who wants to look further into these things (as I do/did).
I'm curious about how it went for you?
Sail area ~square mast height Mast wind force under sail ~linear sail area Mast diameter ~square mast wind force under sail Mast wind force reefed ~linear mast diameter
If that's right, then you're in quadratic shit. How much bigger was the mast, a metre taller or - like the Bayesian - tens of metres?
I assign a rather low prior probability to any ship being “unsinkable”, so I’ll need better evidence than that before my posterior probability becomes more than minuscule
It's worth it for those classes of vessels. Their job is to handle very rough conditions. The price of such extreme stability is a rough ride.
Self-righting yachts exist.[2] But they look like rescue boats with nicer interiors.
Many recreational sailboats have enough flotation to survive 90 degrees of roll, with the sails flat on the water. This is called a "knockdown". In small craft, it's usually embarrassing but not a disaster. Larger sailing craft are usually built to avoid rolling that far.
There's a conflict between luxury and seaworthyness. The things you want for rough conditions, such as high freeboard and few openings, conflict with what people want in a luxury craft. Bayesian apparently couldn't go past 45 degrees without water pouring in. A stupidly tall and heavy mast allowed wind to push it that far over with no sails raised.
> Many recreational sailboats have enough flotation to survive 90 degrees of roll, with the sails flat on the water. This is called a "knockdown". In small craft, it's usually embarrassing but not a disaster. Larger sailing craft are usually built to avoid rolling that far.
Offshore racing rules tend to specify things like minimum angle of vanishing stability (AVS), they tend to be around 130 degrees. Similarly yachts sold in the EU must fulfill ISO 12217-2 which, AFAIU, also requires a minimum AVS of 130 degrees.
Not sure if that applies to the Bayesian, it might be old or big enough to be exempt from these rules.
But if you overload it or damage it and compromise air spaces or break off or crush lighter-than-water materials (e.g., styrofoam filled fixtures and voids), then it's no longer unsinkable. So you're right, nothing is unsinkable. Not even when "operated properly" and maintained properly, there's no guarantee you won't run into unforeseen conditions. An unsinkable boat is as ridiculous as an uncrashable airplane or automobile.
One can chill under the waves, the other is so big we don't know of any waves that can meaningfully do much to it.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Saying that when the boat is nearly 200 feet under the surface of the sea seems insane.
{Titanic, Bayesian}
The fact that the keel was up is no excuse at all.
Adjacently, one glaring omission from the Times' coverage was reports of those gigantic cabin windows shattering. I wish they'd addressed that. I didn't know about the unseaworthy vents, but just looking at the pictures it seemed obvious that if you put that boat on its ear in any kind of weather you'd break those windows and sink.
I've had my boat with the rail 2' under water in 6'+ choppy Buzzards Bay conditions gusting over 30kt and it was a hoot. When I imagine a floating hotel like the craft in the article in a similar situation, that's probably a fatality. I wouldn't be able to sleep onboard a boat like that.
EDIT: There are also numerous examples in the historical record of whaling ships, clipper ships, war ships, merchant ships, and the like getting knocked down in storms and besides maybe crew being washed overboard and busted rigging getting through it relatively unscathed. It's absolutely inexcusable and shameful in the year 2024 for this to happen.
[1] https://www.practical-sailor.com/sailboat-reviews/block-isla...
reason according to wikipedia:
> Vasa sank because she had very little initial stability—resistance to heeling under the force of wind or waves acting on the hull. This was due to the distribution of mass in the hull structure, and to the ballast, guns, provisions, and other objects loaded on board placing a lot of weight too high in the ship. This put the centre of gravity very high relative to the centre of buoyancy, thus making the ship readily heel in response to little force, and not providing enough righting moment for her to become upright again.
My memory of vasa museum: At that time, ship designers not necessarily calculated center of mass and center of buoyancy.
The real problem was the Vasa's design & weight distribution - which were disastrously unstable. Which problem had previously been demonstrated in simple dockside testing. Here's Wikipedia's account:
> In the summer of 1628, the captain responsible for supervising construction of the ship, Söfring Hansson, arranged for the ship's stability to be demonstrated for Vice Admiral Fleming, who had recently arrived in Stockholm from Prussia. Thirty men ran back and forth across the upper deck to start the ship rolling, but the admiral stopped the test after they had made only three trips, as he feared the ship would capsize.
Gunports are most usually open when guns are firing, which occurs as a ship is under way. Merely having open gunports should not imperil a ship.
The Bayesian similarly had a high CoG and windage courtesy its tall mast, and was apparently susceptible to shipping water should it heel sharply and/or encounter high seas, as seems to have been the case.
Regardless of inherent design issues which are perhaps debatable, this seems like a bit of a "Have you tried plugging it in?" kind of a situation.
Now obviously nobody sane would make the knowing trade to risk their life for a bit of quiet. But it is easy to imagine the crew getting into the habit of retracting the keel so they can keep the rich guests comfortable. And especially if they were doing that on the regular and nothing bad happened ever people would normalise it and see it as the correct operating procedure. One might view this as a form of normalisation of deviance. “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behaviour is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organisation.”
(Technically speaking of course it is only normalisation of deviance if this was unacceptable practice. If it is true that the ship’s operating manual did not require them to have the keel down in that configuration then it is not deviance and then the term does not apply.)
Will be interesting to read the exact findings about this in the investigation report once it is out.
Like yourself, I await the investigation report, however, I suspect that will be a bit underwhelming and only confirm speculation. It is not good to speak ill of the dead, so it will take a lot longer before someone tells the unvarnished truth. I suspect that will be a story of folly, with the big mast being the 'invisible clothes'.
We have lots of these stories at the moment, from Oceangate all the way to the Boeing 'projects' that have been off the mark. You could 'explain it like I am five' to write a really good story book for bedtime reading for kids, going from the depths of the ocean to space, with follies that follow the same story, all the way. What a great time to be alive.
https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2024/08/27/former-bayesia...
It should also be noted that the fishermen in the area all received notice of incoming storm activity and many of them took precautionary measures HOURS in advance of when the storm actually hit. Whoever was the bridge watchstander on duty during that time should have been paying attention to the immediate near term weather forecast info. This was an entirely preventable incident.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7233792... (no account needed)
Changing the name of a vessel is bad luck. That's all I need to know.
Also, it's possible some of these basic balancing and center-of-gravity considerations were already known over 500 years ago- it's when a novel feature gets prioritized that the fundamental stability of the design gets overlooked.
To nitpick, properly being able to do these kinds of stability calculations are a considerably newer invention. E.g. the famous Vasa ship capsized in 1628 because at that time ships were still designed based on rules-of-thumb and the experience/intuition of the builders, with no stability calculations done.
Is it just because it was some rich guy that died? I don't think that makes it worse in any way than any other accident where people died, to be honest.
I just don't really understand the outrage about this. When I hear that a young family is killed by a drunk driver I'm much more angry and sad. But you don't see the New York Times writing about those when they happen on the other side of the world. These people mattered too but they knowingly took a risk by camping out in the sea.
Honestly one look at that mast and unless that thing is on a submarine I really don't know what the builders were thinking.
> The company speculated that the crew did not close a watertight door between this hatch and the engine room. (...)
> But witnesses, an Italian official familiar with the investigation and the underwater video challenged the company’s versions of events. The footage appeared to show the watertight door to the engine room closed, and the Italian official said the divers had not seen any open hatches on the hull.
> Mr. Borner also said that after rescuing the captain, he asked him if he had shut the hatches. The captain said he had. Mr. Borner shared pictures taken by his guests a few moments before the Bayesian sank that appear to show that hull hatches were closed.
Overall, a very informative article, it analyzes boat's documentation and compares it with other boats from the same manufacturer.
The boat builder will blame the crew for not closing these but I doubt there was any procedure to actually close them. The engine needs to run to generate power and the engine needs fresh air and an exhaust.
the yacht is 500 ton, 4m draught (with the retractable keel not extended). The mast is 72m height. So, the 24 tons at say 30m above center of buoyancy require - minimum - 240 ton at 3m below the center of buoyancy. Add to that that the center of buoyancy is inside the body at some depth under the deck, so the weight of the body above the center of buoyancy also needs corresponding weight (lever momentum, ie. mass x lever length) below the center of buoyancy. Doesn't look good.
And also the weight of full, rain-drenched sails. And a few crew aloft, fiddling with those sails. And...
And while the article doesn't explicitly say that sails was stowed, it does mention that they were only under sail propulsion once during the trip and that they started the engines to maneuver into the wind. While a (rolling? I don't know the English term) sail is somewhat exposed to the elements even while stowed, its rolled up fairly tight.
In short, I strongly doubt either wet sails or climbing crew contributed in any way to the sinking.
Maybe that was the case with the chef who was found outside of the vessel. The rest of the casualties unfortunately seems to have been trapped in the capsized vessel. (This is based on my present knowledge of rumours, the proper investigation is still on-going and our understanding might change.)
This would make it virtually impossible to get out, if you were below deck.
and then
"only sailed once in 5 days, motored the rest"
silly tradeoffs.
Wind isn't blowing the right direction? Easier to motor than tack. Sailing upwind? Easier to motor than have the guests stumbling into walls due to heel. Variable winds? No wind? Have to be at <place> by <time>? Easier to motor.
Try to login, and it never responds to the login.
So I remember that I registered an account with an old email. Login, it send a verification code.
And then doesn’t respond to that verification number.
So I drop VPN… and it accepts the number… and immediately spams that email address..
Only to throw up another paywall.
And it still doesn’t accept the subscription I pay for.
Hopefully not concurrently.
This rumor wasn't mentioned in the article.
So many seemingly small compromises along the way that seem to increase the vulnerability, then the crew is expected to compensate.
