Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 39

Thread: Definition of "safely"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15

    Definition of "safely"

    It was recently commented that a member's boat, running a bit north of 100 mph, was "more proof" that our classic hulls "can be run safely at these speeds." This comment didn't sit well with me and strikes me as worth further contemplation.

    Caveats: Two thoughts come to mind, but before they do, a couple of caveats. Please, let no one misinterpret my comments as claiming anyone's boat is "unsafe" or that anyone here is being reckless, or the like. I'm saying nothing of the sort. Further, the particular boat in question that inspired the comment above is, in my view, freakin' awesome. I dig it. Looks like a great job. I have ZERO complaints about it, quite the reverse. I'm very much a fan.

    But with that, on to the point. Consider the notion that the existence of any 100+ mph boat (and any information we've gotten or COULD get about it) is "more proof" that our classic hulls can be "run safely at these speeds." Leaping into my head are two things:
    1. a quote from Steven Wright "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." (On the subject of "proof" and how silly it is in this context.)
    2. a quote from Yahoo Answers where some idiot had asked "Is it dangerous to drink while taking [some drug, maybe Vicodin]." Whatever it was, the drug is always ABSOLUTELY PLASTERED with warnings about not taking it while drinking any amount of alcohol, not even a drop. And the asker acknowledged this. Someone, God bless him, just responded to the bonehead with "what is 'danger' anyway?" Freaking hilarious, as well as genius. Because that really IS the point, after all. There is no "safe" in a Donzi Classic at near triple-digit speeds. It's only a matter of how risky it is. Safe is right out. There are FATAL risks in any Donzi Classic up near 100 mph. It just becomes a matter of making good choices to minimize those risks--they never go away and the unqualified label "safely" is absurdly meaningless in the discussion. Any meaningful discussion will be drilling into the many choices and corresponding risks in an attempt to qualify them.


    What's the old saying? "The wise don't need it and the fool won't heed it."
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    14
    There isn't anything safe about it .If it were, it wouldn't be that impressive.

    Safety is also subjective to the conditions. Some call speed reckless others call it thrilling. never is it called safe The way I took what he said is the boat can operate safely at that speed ,Not necessarily it is safe to operate at that speed .
    machinist ,bore it deeper,ream it bigger, and lap it to a fine finish



    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...=2&theater

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Agreed, and that's kinda what I was getting at. The real answer is not 'safely' or 'unsafely', it's a serious and somewhat complicated discussion of choices and risks and attempts to qualify/quantify them. Baking in gear, experience, conditions, etc. And a great deal of subjective, as well as objective, probability. The short label can't have much (if any) meaning.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,664
    Rep Power
    28
    I agree, it's not safe. While the boat in question handles better at speed than probably any other 22C (but what would I know about that?), "safely" is a entirely subjective term.
    Deep Vee hulls were developed in the '50's to go 65 MPH, and it took until the mid '70's before any consistently went 85 MPH. So you can put 750 HP in a Vee hull and go 100 MPH consistently, it's certainly not the easiest way, or cheapest way to do it.
    I'm a little older than many here, I'll admit my desire to live a few more years probably influences my opinion.
    George Carter
    Central Florida
    gcarter763@aol.com
    http://kineticocentralfl.com/


    “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid"
    Professor Ian Plimer, Adilaide and Melbourne Universities

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Agreed, and I should clarify something too, I think. The problem I have is with putting a simplistic label on something inherently complex (not to mention subjective). "Can be run safely" is falsely treating a spectrum like a dichotomy (safely vs. unsafely), and exacerbating that mistake with blindness to subjective notions of both probability (what the risk/consequence numbers are) and also with danger (what people are comfortable with). It's a useless, if not deceptive, generalization.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,040
    Rep Power
    18
    Ghost , as the youngsters nowadays say , 'I'll give you *props* for having the courage to bring this up'.
    So far I agree with the wisdom and tact that everyone has responded with , including your original post.

    Like all the classics, and most every V bottomed boat that Don had a finger in designing , they are destined to become absolute classics that will stand the test of time and still be held as beautiful in 100 years as they are now .
    BUT , they have their limits. These boats were not designed to run 'safely' over , say , 65 mph. Sure , put 1000hp in anything and it will 'go fast' , but it's safety depends entirely on the conditions that day and the skill of the driver to keep it on the water (most likely in a straight line only) .

    A few years ago I went for a ride in a Skater 24 that the owner was running in two new 300 Mercs. We went up to 93mph and I did not feel safe. Why ? Not because the hull wasn't designed for it but because I questioned the ability and experience of the driver. He was a surgeon , so if anything untowards happened at least he'd be able to patch me back up if need be

    As ridiculous as it may sound I'm still adjusting to the new performance of my St T and anything over 50 to me now feels unsafe. I definitely would not give it to anyone to drive unless they had many decades of experience in a wide variety of boats under their belt.

    As for going 100+ in a C22 . No way in hell ! I know the incremental differences one feels in a boat between 30 and 45 mph. Then 50 to 60 mph , etc.
    The fastest I'd probably really want to go in a C22 is upper 60's , if that. Things happen very quickly and can go wrong equally fast at those speeds and the larger the boat the greater mass is going to take longer to slow down to a manoeuvrable speed.

    The other issue that comes to mind is that very few people run their boats as waterborne missiles all the time. A boat that wasn't originally designed (or built) to run at these incredible speeds probably completely looses it's ability to cruise in a civilized manner at 'normal speeds' and does all sorts of things that only encourage the driver to get it out of that zone.

    All that aside , fysis has done an amazing job and has gonads a lot larger than mine !
    Just because something's old doesn't mean you throw it away !

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,788
    Rep Power
    21
    Mike, why don't you just tell Bjorn directly that what he is doing is not "safe". Or better yet take this entire hypocritical argument to .org where this is what you had to say in response to Bjorn's running over 100 mph in his 22 Donzi Classic: "Love it!! Awesome, great work!! -Mike". I happen to think that what he is doing is pretty darn cool.
    Lake St. Clair, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake Oakland

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Thanks Steve. ("props", LOL--classic! ).

    Probably worth bringing up that I don't say it's 'unsafe' either to run a 22C up at these speeds. Only that it has risks, and that the consequences can be serious to fatal for lots of things that go wrong at 100mph. One can work to drive the likelihood of such things down as much as possible, but the bottom line is that at that speed, if something goes wrong it can be a real problem. A bird-strike might be able to kill you at 100.

    My focus remains on trying to characterize risk accurately rather than put a misleading, confusing, nonsense label on something that requires more complex description. Saying something like "it's safer (or more dangerous) than flying on a commercial jet" starts to illustrate this pretty well. First reaction might be "measured HOW?" Once you reach that question, the complexity of the answer, and the silliness of the label "safely" start becoming that much more apparent.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Carl C View Post
    Mike, why don't you just tell Bjorn directly that what he is doing is not "safe". Or better yet take this entire hypocritical argument to .org where this is what you had to say in response to Bjorn's running over 100 mph in his 22 Donzi Classic: "Love it!! Awesome, great work!! -Mike". I happen to think that what he is doing is pretty darn cool.
    Answer: I won't tell him directly that what he's doing is not safe because I'm NOT and never have been saying what he's doing is not "safe." I already said that very clearly, right up front in this thread. Further, I love what he's doing. Note that I also said that I was a fan, right in this thread, right up front. You might want to re-read my first post if you missed it--I addressed this in the "Caveats" paragraph. You'll find there's nothing hypocritical here at all, you've just misinterpreted what I'm saying.

    This is about the reality that there are things in the world more complex than binary choices and the simplistic labels to go with them.

    My point was that labeling what he (and lots of us) do either "safe" or "unsafe" is largely nonsense. It's so hopelessly undefined as to be meaningless. Define 'safely.' In this context, lots of people with large amounts of experience might make all the same decisions about gear and conditions and driving technique and one would say he felt safe and another would say he felt unsafe. They might even do so based on having the same probability estimates and consequences mapped out. (Given the exact same numbers, one person might say it is safe to drink unpasteurized milk and another would say the opposite. The term means nothing without qualification and in this case, LOTS of it.)

    As for the part about 'proof' in the initial comment I criticized, please revisit the joke about "I intend to live forever. So far, so good." Where's the 'proof' in showing a boat can go 100 'safely?' How many hours does it take? Would you watch a fatal accident in a car race and say "that was safe, right up to the point where he got killed?"

    If one understands my point about the uselessness of the terms 'safely' and 'unsafely,' it becomes clear that I am NOT criticizing Bjorn or Mr. X or any of a number of people with fast boats. And even more so, I'm certainly not saying they are 'unsafe.' I'm saying the terms are stupid and meaningless. The only descriptions that make any sense are complex and delve into the details. It'd be a bit silly to say 'unsafe' doesn't mean anything and then call someone 'unsafe.'

    Probability is misunderstood widely--perhaps that is the source of confusion here. Again, if you play the game "is it safer to operate a 100 MPH Classic than to fly on a commercial airliner?" I think you will be able to follow my point. You can't answer that without clarifying a lot of assumptions and definitions. Assumptions and definitions that people won't agree upon until they are clarified. Hence, "safely" here is a meaningless term, used on its own.

    EDIT: Not to confuse the issue, but one actually COULD usefully say SOME things were "unsafe," like doing 100 through a packed regatta on a small lake. Most people could usefully agree on the meaning of the term in that sort of context. My point is more to do with the nonsense of labeling certain things as "safe." In this context, I think calling any of the folks we know who approach triple-digit-speeds either "safe" or "unsafe" is meaningless. Best one could say is that people are doing something inherently somewhat risky in a way to diminish certain risks. Or not to, if one thinks they do not.

    Last, if you are concerned about my comment being in some way personal toward Bjorn, you couldn't be further from the truth. Pardon the candor, but for clarity:
    • my comments about the 100mph project in question were all positive and all sincere
    • my only criticism was not about his project at all--my criticism was about your meaningless and/or misleading comment about his project
    • the comment in which you claimed that said project was further proof of something that is not only hopelessly undefined and not only is not proved, it is not even provable.

    Again, apologies if that comes off as being too pointed, just trying to be clear since you didn't understand this distinction on the first go-round. It's no big deal, we all say such things at times when we don't think things through. See if you don't come to the same conclusion, if you consider the "airline safety comparison" example.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,511
    Rep Power
    0
    Everyone takes measured risks in life and interprets "safely" in context. As long as you have as much of a "oh ****" net as possible then go for it. Risk is relative to a persons tolerance for risk. One person thinks mounting a Citi Bike in NYC is risky. Some think my son is taking a risk on his skateboard doing the Broadway bomb where 100's of skateboarders take over Broadway from cars running from 116th street to the bull on Wall Street. Others think my pops took a risk riding his motorcycle from CT to Alaska and back solo for his 70th birthday.

    I say live life ..........
    1972 16 OB - C16B-63 - "Surface Tension" Resto Project
    1974 16 OB - DMR16106017-B - "The Mule"

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,222
    Rep Power
    13

    Cool Interesting

    Mike, airline safety is a finite % statistic based on probability from a know # of "safe" flights.
    There has only been a hand full of classic's that have gone where no one has gone before. We have a few active members who have, or are, pushing the envelope. A few that I can think of (off hand) took the boat apart, or sold it, like Rootsy, Geoo. Both for their own reasons, I assume. Ed Donnelly's in the 100 club with a 16, and Steve 18 is off the charts fast, as it Todds. They can speak for themselves, and probably have interesting comments.. How many of us get in our daily driver auto's and find it absolute top speed. How "safe" would that be? We all have plenty of auto seat time...... I always wondered how many 100 mph runs Ed did in his 16...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by mike o View Post
    Mike, airline safety is a finite % statistic based on probability from a know # of "safe" flights.
    There has only been a hand full of classic's that have gone where no one has gone before. We have a few active members who have, or are, pushing the envelope. A few that I can think of (off hand) took the boat apart, or sold it, like Rootsy, Geoo. Both for their own reasons, I assume. Ed Donnelly's in the 100 club with a 16, and Steve 18 is off the charts fast, as it Todds. They can speak for themselves, and probably have interesting comments.. How many of us get in our daily driver auto's and find it absolute top speed. How "safe" would that be? We all have plenty of auto seat time...... I always wondered how many 100 mph runs Ed did in his 16...
    Yes, excellent points that speak to what I'm getting at. And consider flights further...does one measure risk by percentage of flights with an accident, fatalities per hour of travel time, fatalities per passenger mile traveled? Then substitute injuries for fatalities and build those into risk. A car wreck might be more likely but the expected harm would be much less i'd think.

    Circling back, with someone who owns a near-triple-digit classic? How much time does he spend at speed?

    Further, not only is our data set of time in such boats small, it's even smaller for any given boat. (As you outlined well.). That's part of why the term 'proves' seems so silly in the comment in question, as well as the unqualified term 'safely.'

    Instead of saying the boats can be run 'safely,' I would instead say that I know some folks with very fast boats, who go to great lengths to make running them as safe as possible.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    14
    Let's use it in a sentence. He took all of the necessary safety precautions to safely run his classic 22 at speed It's funny that one I watched the Video again you could see he was wearing a helmet in the reflection of the gauge . There for there is no doubt he is safely operating as safely as one could possibly, safely operate, a v boat safely over 100 mph
    machinist ,bore it deeper,ream it bigger, and lap it to a fine finish



    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v...=2&theater

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,183
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by joseph m. hahnl View Post
    Let's use it in a sentence. He took all of the necessary safety precautions to safely run his classic 22 at speed It's funny that one I watched the Video again you could see he was wearing a helmet in the reflection of the gauge . There for there is no doubt he is safely operating as safely as one could possibly, safely operate, a v boat safely over 100 mph
    Lol.
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,821
    Rep Power
    14
    Very interesting discussion here. Having come from a young guy who was known by many as "Wildman" to my present age of 60 has brought a different perspective on safety and risk. I admire anyone who knowledgeably designs and drives a fast and powerful machine like I would have done in my younger years. Maybe a lot of this discussion relates to risk aversion as we get older? Possibly a little of the mentoring us older guys want to pass along?
    I will say that I am sometimes concerned when someone just wants to go fast without seeming to pay enough attention to limiting the risks. Most of you guys here seem to have a good handle on safety. I personally would not want to drive or ride in a boat that exceeds what I deem as "safe and prudent", but then I think my risk aversion is directly proportional to my age - lol. Ride on!

    1971 Donzi 18' 2+3
    1985 Eliminator 23' Daytona Offshore - Kevlar hull
    1988 23' Donzi CC F-23 with 250HP EFI Mercury OB
    1989 28' Team Warlock Offshore - single 548CID/600HP
    1990 23' Warlock Offshore - single 525HP
    Bill from Denison, TX - Lake Texoma

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •