Has the Bayesian yacht sinking been discussed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

I have reported this post to Jeff. It contains too much math. And none of it is metric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

DP. Knowing smart people doesn't make you knowledgeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Completely not my field of engineering, but you need to be careful when scaling. Material properties don't scale. So while you can make a mast that tall, the weight probably didn't scale linearly. However, I am going to guess that extensive CB versus CG calculations were made and measured empirically on the yacht. It wouldn't have gotten out of the design phase without approval by a naval engineer/architect, even though it was just a scaled-up design of an existing yacht.

IMHO, most accidents are operator error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

DP. Knowing smart people doesn't make you knowledgeable.

Never said it did. But this guy is bragging about how much he knows and how I couldn’t possibly meet anyone as knowledgeable as him, and I’m just noting, no, actually I happen to know multiple other engineers. Didn’t say I’m smart like these family members. I’m merely asking questions.

I feel bad for the crew. Seems unfair that a 22 year old watch should have a manslaughter charge against him because a $40M boat didn’t have enough correcting mechanisms to weather a storm like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Ok, yeah, you have a point about the watchstander, but as someone who did two years of naval architecture before switching to aero engineering, I can say you're wrong about the mast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Ok, yeah, you have a point about the watchstander, but as someone who did two years of naval architecture before switching to aero engineering, I can say you're wrong about the mast.

Why wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

How many J22s or Lasers or other youth racing boats are out in open ocean in rough seas? How are they at all relevant to this?

[Anonymous]

Was the watch stander paid a $3M insurance policy to give his life in an emergency?

The poor aren't your pawns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ok, fine. You win. It’s a design flaw because your feelz tell you so. It’s totally not human error, because I’m smart and you think that makes me sound mean.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

It can be and likely is both. Boats like this are designed to make human error resulting in capsizing all but impossible especially while the boat is moored.



This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ok, fine. You win. It’s a design flaw because your feelz tell you so. It’s totally not human error, because I’m smart and you think that makes me sound mean.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

Got it. How smart you are. Although no, I’m from a family of military trained engineers so you’re definitely not the smartest engineer I know.
Navy, Air Force, and space engineers among them. You sound like an ass. But putting that side, I’ll comment on your training sailboat example…

The proportions may be identical but a training sailboat doesn’t have people drinking and sleeping in a/c controlled cabins below deck who will be trapped when the boat capsizes takes on water and sinks within minutes…

Ok, fine. You win. It’s a design flaw because your feelz tell you so. It’s totally not human error, because I’m smart and you think that makes me sound mean.

Got it.

It can be and likely is both. Boats like this are designed to make human error resulting in capsizing all but impossible especially while the boat is moored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The name isn’t the problem. It was that the mast had to be the tallest single mast in the world.

It wasn’t rigged for sail while sitting at anchor, so I don’t understand why you think that is somehow damning.

So it’s the tallest sloop ever made. Ok? And?

It’s basically a scaled-up design, so nothing about it is exactly bleeding edge design. I would argue the retractable keel, assuming it’s retracted while at anchor, which it probably is, is more at-fault than the mast.

Even with sails down the mast and huge boom might have contributed to this boat reaching its tipping point and unable to reset

This. The mast was supersized and heavy. The boom was heavy. The keel was up.

Keel was up but according to builders regs that was appropriate. So they’re gonna try to pin it on the crew but this seems like a design flaw to me.

It’s appropriate to have the keel up while *at anchor* - which it was. The problem was, the weather conditions created by the storm did not reflect the typical weather conditions of a moored vessel. They were more similar to a Cat II-III hurricane, albeit briefly. And during those conditions, the boat would *definitely* have the keel extended, to achieve extra leverage/stability from the fulcrum-effect of the extended keel, and offset the wind loading from the bare mast.

When they put the ship to sleep for the evening, the weather conditions dictated normal mooring conditions - the keel would be up. But conditions obviously changed very rapidly in the early morning, to a situation that would absolutely require the keel to be down.

Is that a design flaw? Not in my educated opinion as an engineer and lifelong boater. It’s operator error. The crew member standing watch should’ve noted the weather changing rapidly and deployed the keel. If the keel were down it wouldn’t have gone over. That’s human error, not a design flaw.

This is on the crew. Specifically the watch-stander and the Captain.

It was a ridiculous boat with a pointlessly tall mast. The weather hit fast, and whoever was on watch was probably more concerned about saving themselves than dying to save billionaires

The mast isn’t “pointlessly” tall. The mast is scaled appropriately for the size of the hull. It’s the exact same proportions as the little J-20 or Laser sloop your kid might learn how to sail on at camp. It’s just massively scaled-up.


And it IS responsibility of the watch stander to take actions to save the guests and the ship. That’s the POINT of being a Professional Seaman. You put your life at risk, if necessary, to save the passengers. You don’t save yourself first. Be a ***damned professional!

Come on now. Is this the engineer? You gotta admit a single mast of this height is rare and that some bragging rights were part of the design. If you say otherwise, you gotta be someone connected to the builder somehow

Yes, I’m the engineer and lifelong boater/sailor. I probably know more about boats, boating and sailing than anyone you’ll ever meet, assuming you’re not a boater/yachtsman yourself. So yes, I definitely consider myself an expert - and you should as well.

And in my *expert opinion* as an engineer and sailor, there’s nothing remarkable about a 500+ ton 185ft sloop with a 11m draft having a 230ft mast. Those proportions are totally reasonable.

For example - the J22 class sailboat that many kids who go to sailing camp learn to sail on - the standard “training sailboat” in the sailing world - has a length of 22 feet and a mast that is usually about 27 feet tall.

If you divide the mast height by hull length, you get a a figure of ~1.22.

In the case of the Bayesian, when you divide mast height by hull length, you get a figure of ~1.28.

It had essentially the same identical proportions as a training sailboat.

How many J22s or Lasers or other youth racing boats are out in open ocean in rough seas? How are they at all relevant to this?

Think about your question… ask it to yourself a few times in your head. Then maybe you’ll understand why I’m not even taking the time to answer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Such a tragedy and I admit I’m scared for the captain and crew who I fear will have this pinned on them unfairly

Should they have left the boat when passengers were still on board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to conjure much sympathy for the ostentatious yacht crowd. And I think the captain has some liability here. But one less billionaire in the world…

Nice.

They are human, just like poor people. You sound disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Such a tragedy and I admit I’m scared for the captain and crew who I fear will have this pinned on them unfairly

Should they have left the boat when passengers were still on board?

Yes? They're just deckhands on a rich guy's yacht. It's a job and most jobs aren't worth dying