3 ms·
>Beyond being exceptionally tall — more than 40 feet higher than the original foremast — it was also very heavy, at least 24 tons of aluminum, possibly more. t
by trhway 2y ago
>Beyond being exceptionally tall — more than 40 feet higher than the original foremast — it was also very heavy, at least 24 tons of aluminum, possibly more.
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.
- bell-cot 2y ago> ...24 tons at say 30m above... And also the weight of full, rain-drenched sails. And a few crew aloft, fiddling with those sails. And...
- joha4270 2y agoThis isn't a square rig, but a bermuda rig. You don't go climbing on those. 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.
- mr_toad 2y agoThey were at anchor, the sails weren’t up.
- bell-cot 2y ago> In short, I ... Correct. But my point was about the design & stability calculations. Not about the rigging state at critical moment, when this vessel failed. (And if things go seriously wrong up in the rigging, a few of your crew might just have to go climbing. Just like "sails could be wet", safety margins must allow for that.)