I agree to a point. The recent event in the Sydney-Hobart race the
boat losing it's keel at least had sufficient water balast to return
the boat to a fairly even keel and then was able to motor back into
port. That could qualify as good seamanship.
But there have been many who losing their keels in some race then
have to depend on the rescuers of the world to save them, this is
grossly poor seamanship.
Winning at all costs is not a good design method.
> > Used to be it was very uncommon to ever
> > hear of a boat losing a keel. I don't call this progress, nor
> > design.
> I'd call this a normal design curve discovery process. The
> new, potentially valuable for future boat applications and it
> have a design study process that involves dynamic testing in a
> range of conditions. Racing sailors know that there's a potential
> downside for incorporating newly developed technology. It has been
> since man started swinging jaw bones for weapons. (apologies to
> Space Odyssey)
> If you use any tool to do work for you, you can thank all the
> used it to failure until the design application and material
> was fully realized.
> Tank testing, Finite Element Analysis, Scantlings from other
> applications... they're all good starting points. The real world
> application is where the proof settles into a more stable state.
> The other side of the equation is how many of the boats equipped
> fashion have been resoundingly successful in their enterprise?
> Whether or not this is a feasible, "good" design for future boat
> applications is still being discovered.