I think it is because you're comparing apples to oranges. The problem with a sea-anchor in breaking waves is that the waves will crash on the superstructure, which often is the most vulnerable part - You don't wish it to crash in the cockpit either (and even though the cockpit is probably stronger, you don't want it full of water). But with the drogue the risk of having a wave crash on you is vastly diminished. I believe (as SD) that the best (but far from perfect) device for that is the JSD. You have to ask yourself one question "If you ever experienced something with breakers, were you more worried about the waves slamming against the hull or the ones crashing on top of the cabin?", well what was it, Punk?
I also do NOT buy the "slick" thing that the Pardeys talk about, but even IF it works, their vessel is very different from most modern yachts, and I doubt that ANY of us can lie to a bridle like they do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy
C'mon Dog - this doesn't sound right. I know you're all about the JSD - but I don't buy the assertion that a boat is more likely to be "seriously damaged" lying bow-to a sea anchor. I'm no Jeff, but typically the front of a boat is built to withstand more force than the back.
I don't think there's any argument that running is more comfortable - but lots can still go wrong if/when seas slam the stern. Most likely with more serious damage/consequences than if the bow was slammed. Right? |