Hacker News Reader

Comment by karaterobot | Hacker News Reader

Were mistakes made? The retractable keel was up. I'm no grizzled mariner, but that feels like a thing you'd want to do in a storm. Feels like at that point your yacht has all the stability of a guy standing up in a canoe.

View on HN

I sail a 1962 Block Island 40[1] with a retractable bronze centerboard. Granted, it's no mega yacht, but it has an aluminum mast that is at the thinnest 3/16" because at the time people didn't understand the material and were afraid of it. The main boom is a solid wood tree trunk that takes 3 of us to rig every year. Its solid fiberglass hull is 2" thick at the keel, tapering to about 1" at the toe rail, with solid fiberglass decks tapering from about 1" at the rail to about 3/8" where they meet the cabin top. In other words, this is a heavy, overbuilt, brick shithouse of a boat. But it's designed well and has enough ballast to be safe with the board retracted.

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...

It's pretty shocking that a boat with no sail area could get knocked over bad enough to sink that quickly. Something had to be seriously wrong with the design. I'm not particularly salty, but I've sailed in 25-30kts with the rail buried and not even had a second thought about the boat sinking. I've been knocked down with full sails up in 25kts, and had a broach while racing -- sailboats can be expected to spend at least brief amounts of time on their side, even if you're not out doing anything particularly dumb. I just can't fathom how a boat wouldn't be able to survive 2 minutes on its side and still be signed off by a builder.

It's a thing you can expect to happen, like falling while downhill skiing. Only the most extreme situations are like "if you fall, you die". If it's like that every time you go out, the prognosis is grim.

EDIT: I can actually count on one hand the number of times I've been in situations like that and while it's a hell of a lot of fun it's not something you bring your friends, family, children, etc along for..

I’ve only been sailing a few years, but I racked up about 500nm of racing this summer. I’ve only been in these situations a few times, but had a ton of confidence in the boat and the skipper. It’s honestly a ton of fun, and feels more dangerous than it is, since the boats are (supposed to be) designed to handle this. That said, I keep the family away from this sort of thing, and take them out on our family friendly coastal cruiser for more leisurely sails.

In order to enter e.g. the Newport-Bermuda race you need a minimum stability rating of 115. IIRC Bayesian's angle of vanishing stability was 75° keel up, and the vents started taking on dangerous amounts of water at 45°. That's not a boat I'd ever feel safe on! The skiing analogy would be like every single run is maximum consequence.

Source (found in a cousin comment which now I can't find): https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2024/08/27/former-bayesia...

Lots of Windage on a mast that tall.

Yes but a knockdown shouldn't have sunk it, especially given (per the article) they had the hatches closed.

The keel's purpose is to balance the boat so it remains upright. A sailboat without a keel can be capsized incredibly easily.

Presumably the thinking was that with all the sails down, there was no need to have the keel lowered. Which it probably wasn't, until the boat suddenly gets hit hard by an unexpected gust from the side and the windage of the rig is sufficient to capsize it.

What would the advantage to not have it lowered be? Like you're sitting there, sails down, anchored. Why would you go "Nope, better if keel isn't lowered"?

> Why would you go "Nope, better if keel isn't lowered"?

We don't know yet. The rumour is that the mechanism of the extendable keel was prone to banging in the lowered state. You don't want to be disturbing the sleep of the guests paying you fortunes. That plus the also rumoured fact that the operating manual only required it to be lowered when sailing could explain why the crew did not opt to lower it at anchor.

All of the above is based on internet whispers. The investigation report hopefully will answer this question with authority.

Apparently the retractable keel was noisy (creaking sounds?) so was left up at night.

I think I phrased my comment poorly, causing confusion. I meant that putting down the retractable keel is something you'd want to do in a storm.

In this case, though, the boat was designed to run in many conditions (e.g., under engine, at anchor, etc.) with the keel retracted. The keel was only intended for use under sail.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com