I don't see everyone disagreeing with your point here. My guess is
that anyone who is going to read the material at the jordon
site has done so, and not much is going to sway people who aren't
convinced by the report.
The latest commentary was not about fastening a device to the stern,
but whether or not one would want a sea anchor there instead of
drogues. If you're using drogues off a monohull, and making noticeable
progress to leeward, there's clearly an argument for
leading with the bow to keep directional stability, while also
benefiting from the flotation of the stern.
If you're *not* making significant progress leeward, such as with a
big para anchor instead of drogues, that changes the equation.
If you're in a proa, I'm not sure the stern argument is
salient. Both ends are astern, so the question becomes how much
leeward progress you want to prevent versus how much you want to
minimize stress on the boat. One can't really answer that question
without knowing the distance to the nearest shoal or landfall.
- Mike
Robert wrote:
- ' misconception is the belief that a breaking wave "strikes" the boat
and that the moving water in the crest does the damage. Actually, the
boat is lifted by the forward face of the wave with no impact. When it
reaches the breaking crest the boat velocity is close to the wave
velocity. The crest water is aerated and has little damage potential.
Damage to the boat is incurred when the boat is thrown ahead of the
wave and impacts the green water in the trough. The leeward side and
the deck are struck. A careful reading of "Fastnet Force Ten"
and "Fatal Storm" will confirm this conclusion.' From the Jordandrogue
site
This I do endorse from my own experience. I've never been hurt by white
water but have been hurt falling off waves onto green water.
Robert
Yahoo! Groups Links