42-inch yacht still hoping to become the smallest boat to cross the Atlantic

Once in a big storm, I can't even imagine the beating one would take inside that tiny craft, sliding down the face of a monster wave, crashing into the trough at the bottom, getting rolled. But perhaps his hull and rig design isn't subject to the same broaching and capsizing forces as a larger monohull...

I'm curious to read more about the design of the boat, his equipment, procedures and planning. Though it's best not to judge from a mere photo, there were several things visible in the images of the craft and video of his attempted departure that seemed counter to good seamanship.

I did a trans-Atlantic about 10 years ago (Liverpool, england to Salvador, Brazil) as part of the clipper challenge race. We had a few force 8 and above experiences between the training and the actual trip. The boats were a bit bigger (68 foot, from memory) but either way it's amazing how resilient they are.

Once we went right over surfing down a wave (had a broach). At one point the boat was standing upright on the bow and was over so far that the mast was almost level with water so I could walk up it. The team spent a lot of time stitching those sails together again :-)

I remember sailing out of Hilton Head area (SE Georgia US) on a thirty footer and damn can waves just make the horizon vanish let alone that feeling you get when you don't see land. Throw in sail is not something I would want to manage by myself.

I'm in the Maritimes (south east Canada) and I know it can be incredibly rough here 10m (33 foot) waves are normal off Newfoundland. It's so bad an entire 25,000 ton oil rig sank in a storm a few decades ago.

One rogue wave could smash that little 42 inch yacht to bits the size of confetti.

I wish the Tiny Yacht guy luck but it's going to be rough!

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/07/fisherman-lost...

Given he has taken adequate precautions and has appropriate equipment, I have absolutely no issue with his rescue being at taxpayer expense.

The one thing that he should iron out before making the crossing is making sure that there won't be any fatigue issues with the hull. Doing appropriate testing (I don't know the material and don't know the best non-destructive methods for testing it) on a used hull to make sure there aren't cracks/flaws that develop over time is a good idea.

Given he'll have to sleep, I also think that a reliable electronic alerting system that continuously monitors bilge level / hull integrity and the position/orientation of the boat seems like a necessary addition as well. Early warning of critical issues in such a small craft is a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean#Toxins

For anyone who's into sailing, they'll know about these amazing modern craft, but most people won't. I was hoping to convince those who aren't engaged in sailing at all to watch the Americas Cup this year (because it's going to be awesome).

You can also be clever by designing a 'boat' that is nothing more than a mast with a large counterweight standing vertically in the water, attach your permanently inflated 20 meter long 'life raft' to it, and live out of that life raft during the trip. Such a 'boat' could easily be less than a foot long.

> Though the term "hull speed" seems to suggest that it is some sort of "speed limit" for a boat, in fact drag for a displacement hull increases smoothly and at an increasing rate with speed as hull speed is approached and exceeded, often with no noticeable inflection at hull speed.

Which makes it sound like Hull Speed is not very relevant to look at, but later it also says:

> This very sharp rise in resistance at around a speed-length ratio of 1.3 to 1.5 [where hull speed is reach] probably seemed insurmountable in early sailing ships and so became an apparent barrier. This leads to the concept of 'hull speed'.

The page on Wave-Makign Resistance is related [2]. So it sounds like hull speed is not a hard limit (and is surpassed easily in powered boats or in specific boat designs like racing kayaks) but would be a reasonable upper bound for how fast this particular yatch could go even though nothing truly specific changes right at hull speed. Can anyone elaborate?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_speed [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave-making_resistance

The shortest path is from Cape Verde to Brazil, around 1350 nm, but doldrums (area with not wind) is there, so not the smartest place to sail.

> "I know nothing about boats, but...I...suggest...rounding off 6 - 12" from the edges."

That man is a professional sailor, and you know nothing about boats. I think that people don't like when a person who knows nothing decides that they know better.

> Not sure why I was down voted...I wish the downvoter had...

Please don't do this. HN comment guidelines ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) say "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

In my view more that americans of all classes view themselves in some way as part of an unified 'rebellious'/'underdog' class.. so most anything that sticks out as having any pretence is 'elitist'.. nevermind that this attitude itself has it's own flavor of pretense to false-humility.. but I digress..

Shun the beckoning land!

Choose the open sea instead

To whatever end!

Took down to wondrous depths

Sullen we did go

Where shapes of unwarped primal

Gliding to and fro

... (c) Ahab

Should we make sugary drinks illegal, since we spend millions treating people for obesity related diseases? Or should we put speed limiters on cars, because of the cost of treating people injured in high speed accidents?

Let's make an analogy with alcohol. When alcohol isn't illegal, there is a quality supply of it. When you buy a bottle of 40% whisky, you're not getting something that might be 25% methanol due to some criminal doing an improper job with the distilling, because he only cares about money, wiping out his competitors, and evading the cops, with your health being at the bottom of his priorities.

(Which is not to say, of course, that legal alcohol eliminates the public health problem of alcoholism.)

Why do you consider that strange?

Why should we pay money to enforce a legal regime of prohibition that subsidises the most dangerous and ruthless transnational criminal organisations -- to the point that entire fucking countries get destabilised from cartels and US military intervention? Why should my tax dollars pay to enforce criminal laws that turn the crank of the "iron law of prohibition" and cause drug use to be more and more deadly (which we all end up paying for, via taxes and medical costs)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_prohibition

Why do people think it's fine to enforce a legal regime that immiserates drug users to the point that they're willing to risk their life (I don't own guns, but lots of USians do) kicking in my door and stealing my old laptop to pawn for some overpriced fentanyl-laced drugs (sold by criminals) that might overdose them in the street? There'd be less laptops stolen out of cars and houses and less people keeling over in the streets and less "gang-related shootings" if addicts could just buy some fucking precisely-dosed pharmaceutical-grade opioids at-cost from a pharmacy.

Didn't we already try this? Murder done by organised crime combined with ineffective/corrupt police and low homicide clearance rates, along with along with severe increases in incarceration rates, increases in overdose deaths from alcohol/drug consumption (caused by higher potency and more impurities) isn't a new syndrome, it also cropped up during the 1920-1933 alcohol prohibition. Ending that prohibition slashed the murder rate. Why can't we do the same thing for drugs?

Where's the "personal responsibility" that prohibitionists need to own up to? Will they take responsibility for how their policies helped trash the US's homicide clearance rate? Is "less solved murders" worth the wondrous results that drug prohibition has given us?

The harm that drug use/manufacture causes is a lot more a function of the relevant policies/laws than the actual chemicals themselves. Indeed, most of the harm from illicit drug use comes from:

1. dose/concentration uncertainty or potential contamination with higher-potency drugs -- like unexpected fentanyl inside heroin

2. contamination with unwanted or dangerous chemicals (from manufacturing / distribution processes) -- such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP or cutting agents

3. Poly-drug use: combining any two of {opioids, benzos, alcohol} to exploit synergistic effects -- which can easily result in respiratory depression

4. Designer drugs: using a less tested / more dangerous compound because the better tested and safer one is prohibited.

All of these are either caused or significantly worsened by prohibition and can be much more readily avoided without prohibition. Those harms are not inherent to drug use; indeed, people who have adequate access to pharmaceutical-grade opioids can safely use them for decades without any major medical complications.

Most of the US opioid problem is from legally obtained doctor prescribed meds.

In general following medical advice is not usually seen as irresponsible.

This guy set himself a clear goal and is trying to achieve it. It probably brings him some fulfillment regardless of the result.

I feel bad for putting it that way, especially if someone younger reads it, because this can lead to developing a cynical world view that isn't necessarily valid. I'm not trying to give you an existential crisis or something, but go down the (thought) avenue completely if you're taking a trip to that destination, don't just stop in the middle of the road. People do things because they enjoy them or simply want to; life is hopefully enjoyable for most, and then sadly but inevitably we all die one day.

Meaning is a really hard thing for me to pin down. Most people go to work, not because work is fun, but because they want money. to them, it's real, meaningful security. It's a place to live and food to eat. The 'meaning' is pretty clear. Some of those people work to provide for their families. These are pretty clear, easy examples.

I screw around reading hacker news, and getting into discussions, because sometimes they're really fun. The meaning, for me, is exposure to other viewpoints and ways of thinking about the world. I do have to admit, i'm probably getting my life sucked out of me doing this, five minutes at a time, with silly comments like these. But i rationalize and such, and invest these conversations with meaning.

As far as i can tell, there's really only two possible ways to have meaning. Stuff that i think is important (poor word choice. Stuff i'm perhaps emotionally invested in, or enjoy, or am attracted to). The other way is theological. I'm not a theological person, so i'll set that aside as meaningless. But i'm happy to follow that sort of argument if you want to make it. Again, i'm here for the viewpoint, because that's the part that has meaning to me.

Perhaps this is all rambling nonsense. I'll try to make some sort of point. Do you do anything meaningful for a reason other than it's important to you or (maybe) your god? For any reason you pick, i can find you a person that made a different choice. For example, you chose to spend some time on HN tonight. I can guarantee my mom didn't spend any time on this site.

You (or maybe your god) invests the world with meaning. You get to pick how to spend your day. I get to pick how to spend my day. We probably don't make the same choices. The boat guy, he makes very different choices than both of us. But that's ok. The choices we make probably look just as pointless to him as his choices do to us.

We'll all be dead soon enough. I'd encourage you to let people doing weird stuff just be weird - as long as you feel they're not endangering the rest of us somehow. That guy is going to try a crazy thing. I also think it's meaningless. But it's not meaningless to him. I'd suggest that criticizing someone for trying a meaningless thing is even more meaningless.

you're going to die someday buddy. Do stuff that means something to you.

Unless the argument is that wanting to cross the atlantic itself is gross negligence, but that's slippery slope to "anything but staying home and watching TV like a good citizen is gross negligence".

Everything else was included in the minimal day use fee, saw one guy take an abridged version of the hike (due to injury), whereby they covered the finger lakes on boat, and hiked by the short rapids in the slot valleys.

On another note, Parker's Trail is horrible, and when they actually hike the Chilkoot trail they successfully picked the absolute shittiest of conditions (not quite snow, but a slushy, slippery mess). In the summer, it isn't terrible to boulder up, and I found it to be quite an enjoyable trip, got really lucky with some great views & conditions.

I'd also point out -- taxpayers spend millions on training exercises for these same crews so that the teams will know how to rescue people who need rescuing from more "acceptable according to grandparent" perils. Seems like rescuing a few crazy people attempting insane stunts could justifiably be rolled over into the training budget for these teams ...