At 07:51 PM 12/19/04 +0000, you wrote: >The towing eye for me was over a thousand dollars. I hated the >requirement. I understand why Nordhavn had the requirement, >it is less safe to tow a boat from 9 feet above the water. >The 47 bow is 9 feet above the waterline. Lower lines helps >control the bow from hunting and burying itself which puts >unnecessary stain on the tow boat. > >Nordhavn had to be prepared to tow a vessel. If I was going >to have to tow a vessel a thousand miles, I would want to >be towing from the waterline. I have done some towing in the ocean. I have some serious doubts about the requirement. There was a lot of money put into that by the whole fleet. If this is such a good idea, and it is so hard to retrofit, why is it not part of the standard equipment on a Nordhavn? I think the central issue and question, is what was the decision process like, that brought this requirement? If it was a matter of somebody saying this is a good idea, cost be hanged, then I think the decision was poorly come to. As a practical matter, the idea itself is quite sound and in general I am all for it. But, everything should have some kind of cost/benefit ratio, and I think that there are alternatives that are a lot less costly and nearly as effective. If it were up to me, I would have opted for a split leg chain bridle with chaffing gear attached at the bow. The bridle made of as heavy chain sections as could be handled by the crew aboard, in rough conditions. For instance, you don't see barges being towed from a single point near the waterline. Now a barge being flat ended is not the same as the contoured forward sections of a cruising boat. All of this process is driven to some extent on the chances of having to tow a boat and the conditions to be coped with during the initial hook up and during the actual tow itself. The fact is there are tradeoffs of ease of implementation and usage versus cost that are not easy to weigh. But, the advantages are not nearly as clear cut as our illustrious poster implied from the material I snipped. For instance, the chain bridle that I suggested has the major advantage of providing more sag than the direct to the waterline method. This sag is a major component of a sound towing system and the evidence is the way in which barges are towed in the open ocean. The bridle with it's spread legs has the tendency to keep the tow better lined up. The tow pivot point is behind the bow, which has some good effects at maintaining a stable course. From what I can see of the situation, it is not clear cut that the requirement is necessary, nor that it is the preferred method. Stand by for incoming email. Mike Capt. Mike Maurice Tualatin(Portland), Oregon

                                      Regards....

I've entertained putting a tow-eye on Curmudgeon, but for different reasons. I like the idea of running the snubbers through the eye to keep the pull on the anchor close to the waterline. If they serve multiple purposes builders might be more likely to install them as standard equipment. My pals with Nordhavns also spend a lot of time on the hook so it would seem to be a sensible offering. Regards.... Phil Rosch Old Harbor Consulting M/V Curmudgeon MT-44TC Currently moored in Man-O-War Cay, Bahamas

I asked for and received a waiver for the towing eye requirement, and satisfied the organizers with somethink like you suggest. I had chain around bow cleats shackled to 20' pieces of 1" line with thimbled eyes on both ends. The outer ends of the lines were shackled to a 3" diameter 1/2" stainless ring. The line had chafing gear at the hawseholes consisting of heavy hose material split lengthwise and taped. Hal, Que Linda > If it were up to me, I would have opted for a split leg chain > bridle with chaffing gear attached at the bow. The bridle > made of as heavy chain sections as could be handled by the > crew aboard, in rough conditions. [This E-mail was scanned for viruses.]

Mike, it does make anchoring sense once you work out a method to do it easily. But then, it should be a standard feature - properly engineered. I have *assumed* that the requirement was to avoid chafe and crew members having to go forward in heavy seas to check and renew chafing gear. Ron Rogers Willard 40 AIRBORNE Lying Annapolis