Not the way you want to photograph your boat

On Saturday (September 2), NOAA severely underestimated the effects of Tropical Storm Ernesto and we experienced sustained winds of 50 to 60 mph with gusts to 80 in Rowayton (Norwalk), CT. I attach a photo of my boat (the white one in the middle next to the green and beige power boat, which it hit when my mooring dragged). The damage (trashed stanchion and rub rail and minor gelcoat damage) was surprisingly slight given the conditions and the collision - several boats were washed ashore and totaled and many power boats flipped.

However, proper repair of the gelcoat may require removal of the toerail track which looks like it will require major interior deconstruction.

I was a little shocked to see how much my boat hobby horsed in comparison with the other boats . . . must be the IOR design. I hate to say it, but I don't think I'd want to be on an Ericson in really bad conditions.

Wow!

Lotsa stress on standing rigging, too!
All those boats now need to have it inspected...


As to the IOR, the 70's/80's Ericsons were rather conservative when it came to the IOR-favored narrowed-waterline aft. Look at a Cal 31 or some of the Pearsons in that size range some time for a comparison. Oops, I almost forgot the 34T, the most IORish of those Ericsons... We even had one racing in Portland called... "The Point" !!

The photo also shows, in that frozen moment in time, a lot of stern-down in the boat beside yours -- big wave trough moving through. Is it shallow there?

Nasty wind 'n' weather you folks have back there, even when it's not a "major" storm!

Take care,

Loren

Yes it is shallow (about 6 feet at low tide where the boat dragged to - fortunately it wasn't low tide during the storm), but the pitching shown in the photo was typical of the boat's motion throughout the ordeal and was much more pronounced than that of other boats around it. The J-Boats, for example, seemed much steadier. I recall that in the 1979 Fastnet race (also IOR) boats had to be abandoned not because the boats were unseaworthy but because their violent motion was making life aboard impossible.

But as, I said, the boat did not blow ashore as did some, so I am grateful for that.

Ernesto did what up there ?

Golly Gosh Geoff, that must have been hard to watch. When Ernesto finally left here Saturday it was only a tropical depression. I wonder how it re-energized so quickly ? I didn't pay attention after Saturday and was shocked to hear it gave New England such a kick.

Best of luck with the repairs.

Ernesto Impact

Geoff - sorry to hear your boat sustained the damage it did. But it sounds like you may of been one of the 'lucky' ones based on your other picture! Hope most of the boats got thru the unexpected weather ok.

Can anyone help me understand why Goeff's boat had a more pronounced hobby horsing motion than say the J boats that Geoff mentioned? Ericson's like Geoff's 32-3 certainly don't have the radical IOR look that some of the boats from that era had (as Loren mentioned).

It was hard to watch but you try to console yourself by thinking about what boat you will buy with the insurance money

In fairness to NOAA, what happend is that the low of Ernesto got squeezed against a Canadian high which accelerated the winds unexpectedly. Since it was a big holiday weekend and a lot of boats were cruising I am sure there will be more horror stories.

In answer to Frank, I think the answer is that more modern boats have much broader sterns (and in general broader undersides) so they are less prone to having the ends submerge. Of course, the conditions shown iin the photo involve very short wave periods so its probably not fair for me to suggest that the same motion would be felt in the open ocean.

Not much water

Six feet at low tide is shallow indeed. Any sort of strong wind would kick up a very very steep chop, and if water levels were low the boats would be banging on the bottom...
I just did a quick save-as image for the tide predictions from the Mr. Tides (c) application for that area and note that the swing is normally 4 to 5 feet.
Even at high tide it is rather shallow, IMHO.


Loren in PDX

Unlike the Pacific Northwest water tends to be a little thin in Long Island Sound. My boat is usually moored in at least 9 feet MLW, but, of course when the mooring drags to shallower water (as it did) things can get a little dicey. I don't think the boat hit bottom, but we'll find out for sure when we have it hauled in a couple of weeks. Also, due to storm surge, the tide was at least two feet higher on 9/2, and, as your chart indicates, was coming in during the worst of the storm in late afternoon and evening. But doesn't deeper water mean bigger waves?


More pictures . . . (the blue Bristol 43 from a neigboring yacht club that never does a very good job of securing its boats knocked the white boat off its mooring. The Bristol was saved without serious damage while the white boat was severely damaged and partially sunk.)

BTW, the island in the background is Tavern Island - used to be a speakeasy during Prohibition.

I wonder if the severe hobby-horsing had more to do with ground-tackle than hull shape? Do you have shorter or lighter mooring chain than some of the other boats you were watching?

With a chain mooring or anchor rode you're relying on the caternary weight of the chain to do the shock absorbing for you. If the chain is too short and/or lightweight, it will just stretch straight and the boat's bow will be yanked down with every rising wave crest. Very hard on both boat and mooring indeed.

I'm suprised at how many boats in all those pictures have dodgers, sailbags, and roller-furled sails still up in those pictures. My rule of thumb is to strip all that for any forcast in the 30-knot range. That's a lot of added windage.

Sounds like this was a bit of a suprise though. Looks like a wild ride. Thanks for the pictures!

Nate

No, I don't think that short ground tackle was the problem (we have a very knowledgeable and conscientious club manager and the moorings are removed and inspected every year) based on my observation that the mooring ball never lifted from the water even with all the bucking. Had the boat ever pulled up short on the chain, I would have seen it go taut. The mooring is a heavy chain - one inch nylon rode combination with two 15 foot 3/4 inch nylon pennats attached.

Yes, the wind strength was unexpected. A couple of sails did unfurl and the sails were shredded but that did not cause the boats to drag.

No stupid questions right?

No stupid questions right?

OK, what is the IOR design? I have also heard the term IMS design. What is that as well?

Also, what is IMHO?

Also, what is IMHO?

Here is a good explanation. Maybe Seth will weigh in and give us the "scoop".


"The IOR was intended to correct the abuses of the CCA/RORC rules. The number of measurement points were increased. Stability was taxed for the first time. Because of the specificity of measurement points the IOR created distortions that in the produced boats that proved to be fatal to sail in heavy conditions. TO being with, the CCA rule produced boats that had long ends in order to produce more sailing length when heeled. To counteract that unhealthy trend, the IOR took a series of measurements around the bow and stern, these produced boats with very pinched ends. Beam was seen a slowing factor so the IOR type forms tended to be quite beamy. The IOR penalized stability so the IOR produced boats with high vertical center of gravities, narrow waterline beams, and eventually a lot of flare so that crew weight could be loaded on the rail. This combination of wide beam, excessive flare, pinched ends, and low stability produced boats that wanted to heel a lot but would jack their rudders out of the water when they heeled and would produce an asymmetric heeled waterplane so that they could and would quickly lose control when heeled. They also had a tendency to roll steer, meaning that they would change course pretty dramatically as they rolled from side to side unless a quick steering response was added but that steering response tended to increase the amount of rolling.

The hull form of an IOR typeform (especially later period boats) usually included comparatively flat sections, with a deep canoe body, pinched ends, a bustle near the rudder and comparatively short keel foils.

Like the previous rules, the IOR over penalized mainsails and under penalized jibs and spinnakers by a long shot. IOR boats pushed this to the absolute limit with excruciatingly small mainsails and enormous genoas and spinnakers. This is the opposite proportion that is idea for a cruising boat. Large foresails are much harder to handle and there was absolutely no aerodynamic reason for this rig proportion. In fact by the 1920?s, it was known that fractional rigs with minimally overlapping jibs offered the most drive per square foot of sail area and we now know that they offer the most flexibility in dealing with changing windspeeds. But the IOR rule had pushed the type form rig into a proportion that was harder to handle, required a larger sail inventory, placed greater stresses on the hull and was less seaworthy for a variety of reasons.

In the wake of the 1979 Fastnet Disaster designers and scientists began looking in earnest at the seaworthiness and seakindliness of race boats. In the ensuing research the IOR type form came under justified heavy criticism. Much of the impact of the research filtered into changes in the IOR rule and into thinking about what a race boat should be. This resulted in a rapid succession of IOR rule changes and a general disgust with the IOR rule and the boats they produced. There was also a realization that measurement rules were not a very good way to achieve good boats."

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/buying-boat/7930-ior-cca-help.html

Thank You for the detailed explanation Geoff.

Thank You for the detailed explanation Geoff.

I now have the basic understanding of what IOR design is. Can you tell me what the letters (initials) stand for? Also are the terms IMHO & IMS related to IOR design and what do those initials stand for as well?

IMHO is an "Internet" acronym

In My Humble Opinion.

As opposed to IMNSHO

In My Not So Humble Opinion.



In the Hampton Roads / Norfolk area, we had winds in the 40-60 range. Waves were splashing over the bridge tunnels, and we had about a 4-5 foot swell. I think that would put the waves at about 4-5 feet as well. I'm pretty sure it was a Tropical Storm by the time it hit us.

Fortunately, my marina - Old Point Comfort Marina at Ft. Monroe - had people stationed out there with portable pumps all morning, adjusting the lines on any boat that needed it. I'm very thankful and feel the $115/mo is well worth it. I showed up after the wind to check the boat and the guy said "we would have phoned you if something was going wrong". He said they were pumping out boats all morning if the bilges started to fill up. Very good customer service IMO. The road near the dock was partially flooded, and the water was up to the hard points of the marina. The main docks are floating with huge anchor poles. It was a little creepy to be looking "up" at the boat from the road, since the water level is usually about 4-5 feet below the road.

We were told to secure lines, loose articles, etc. etc. and other than needing to empty a full bilge (manual pump only), I suffered only a broken sheave. The sheave in question was attached by the PO for a spinnaker rig that I have been too busy to put up (moving houses will do that!) so it was dangling loose against the mast. I assume the pin retainer ring pulled loose, not really sure. It fell on the deck and somehow managed to stay aboard.

Some folks had ripped sail covers and whatnot, but honestly there wasn't that much damage down here.

- Jerry

Good God,

I'm so daft! I need to take a class on how to communicate on the web now. LOL!


As for IOR- International Offshore Rule, correct?

"Internatinal Offshore Rule"
I followed the link to the discussion on that site. "Jeff H" is the author and there seems no easy way to tell what his qualifications are... designer, sailmaker, skipper, magazine editor, ??
The factual parts ring true, but he lards it out with conclusions and editorial pontification, In My Humble Opinion ('net shorthand = IMHO).

I have seen many commentaries over the decades that the CCA boats were considered better dual purpose boats and better sea boats. As I see it, the IOR tried to used math to override design, and a good designer was then faced with coming up a boat with an advantaged rating number that would still sail well.
Many did so. Note that the one IOR design factor that caused so much anguish was the need for a short measured static waterline. Thus the pinched-in bottom at the stern... and so they tended to go downwind in a similar fashion to a double ender, i.e. they would roll a lot when pushed to the edge of hull speed.

The good news is that this hull shape gave the boat ballanced waterlines when going to weather, and that's where they really come into their own.
Another outcome of that design rule was ample beam in the center of the boat, with lots of interior room that made it easy to market to the major portion of the sailing market that wanted a "fast looking" boat they could day sail and vacation on.

Around my area, the various ton-rated boats were never a large group and PHRF quickly became the only way to race a boat... that and one-design and its homely step child the level fleet. Portland even had a few quarter ton boats racing for a short time in the 70's.

Seth will probably straighten us out on this matter a lot more when he checks in.

Anyone else remember the Yamaha 33 ? Two cylinder horizontal Yanmar under the forepeak with a long shaft supported by several pillow bearings?
Boat floated bow-down a few inches until the crew got into the cockpit... but what a short static waterline! Some Tartans had an engine in a box under the dining table...

Had ta' get that evil weight forward, ya know...

Cheers,

Loren

(no credentials at all, and no one quotes me anywhere)

It occurs to me that the initial (and eye opening) photo that got us all ruminating about hull forms may have overshadowed some other potential questions.
What with all that wind and hard-driven spray, how did the ports, hatches, and mast boot do at keeping the storm water out?

Mooring cleats OK?
Visible stretch or slack now in rigging?
Steering cables?

As you get time, please do let us know.

Thanks and best of luck to you,

Loren

The boat came through with flying colors (took it out for a good sail afterwards) and had it not been for the collision, you would not have known there was a storm. There was very little water inside, but then all the original ports have been replaced. Even the damage from the collision seems to be cosmetic, at least to my untrained eye.

Check your cleats.

I was told by a Fiberglass repair guy (who did some work for me) that he had to do repairs on all four mooring cleats that were pulled out on a E-27 (same vintage as my 1973). The boat was at Descanso Beach at Catalina Island (un protected area) during a storm that came from the South East last October. There were no factory installed backing plates on any of the cleats.

I recently installed a bow roller on my boat and I noticed I also had no backing plates on my bow cleats. The stern cleats were plateless as well. I am told this should be high on my "To Do List". As I have installed additional hardware on my boat like the Radar mast and additional sheet cleats, bow roller and I have always installed backing plates on these items.

I wonder if backing plates were installed on earlier or later models of Ericsons. I always thought this was a mandatory part of hardware installation on sailboats. Any reason this was over looked by the factory?