Quote:
Originally Posted by JomsViking
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? |
Okay, Dirty - I get that. And I have no experience in this whatsoever - so I'm just going on what I've read and a whole bunch of ignorant assumptions. It's the big "IMCUBROO" (in my completely uninformed but readily offered opinion) for me here.
BUT here's where it seems your example breaks down from a common sense standpoint:
From what I've read, the chute sea
anchor holds the boat in place with maybe 1 knot or so of leeward drift. The JSD apparently does the same. So, with either one of these devices, you're still gonna get hit by that breaker with the same relative velocity and force.
Now we come down to
where you get hit. I understand that loads of water hammering
down onto your house top is bad news. But is it really any better hammering down into/onto your cockpit, crew and main
hatch? Will this really do less "serious damage"? That part sounds kind of jinky to me.
I guess I'm thinking of the "aquatic impact" more from the standpoint of the end of the boat
punching through breaking water instead of having it dropped onto the superstructure. In this case - isn't the bow better equipped structurally to handle the "punch" than the stern? And isn't the water dropping down thing far more rare than the punch through scenario anyway?
Incidentally, I agree that the slick thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. But their assertion that the bow quartered into the waves is more structurally sound - although more uncomfortable - does make sense enough to have gotten into a lot of heavy weather tactic books.
Anyway - everyone knows that the ONLY device any of us really needs is the SeaBrake. So we should just put this to bed now.
BTW - did you count your shots?
Boats are far more likely to be seriously damaged lying bow-to with a sea 
