I always wonder: At those speeds, the occupants risk life and limb. In the videos everything is fine, of course; they don't usually show the failures. But if you're an occupant, how do you know whether to trust the machine?
It is new technology without a track record, on a bespoke machine without a track record. It's safety is unregulated and unresearched. The builder doesn't have the resources to do anything like the safety engineering, prototyping, testing, etc. that someone like Toyota or Airbus does. Even if the design is safe, the construction also lacks those resources.
I can imagine taking the risk if I knew the risk. I could imagine doing it if someone else I relied on knew the risk (e.g., as a test pilot for a major company or military air force). I'm not risk-averse; I've taken more than my share, including risking life and limb. How does someone decide to ride one of these?
Here's some difference to the motorboats,those pointy tubes sitting on the water surface with a big (jet) engine in your back pushing you. The Vestas has its sail off to the side and even a foil still in the water which will give it stability. The sailboats with the kites are being pulled and I imagine in a situation where you cut the rope, the impact into the water is quite predictable and in a straight line, very different from the wild accidents of high speed motorboats.
Perhaps by riding other super-fast sailboats and surviving so far.
Analogously that is the only way I could rationalize the Wright brothers attempting an airplane flight (after surviving many glider flights), which otherwise would seem an insane proposition.
The Wright brothers were developing a major advance for humanity; I might take more risks for that. Also, their airplane was moving quite low and slow - much less risk than these boats, I would guess.
Finally, they were the engineers of their plane - they probably knew the risks well. Maybe that describes these watercraft pilots too.
Syroco describes their attempt the same way. Sea transport has a huge environmental footprint and has changed very little in the last 50 years.
The Wright Brothers' plane carried neither passengers nor cargo, yet it presaged an entire industry of air travel. Likewise, these speed-record boats will only demonstrate a new technology. But likewise, they might transform an enormous industry.
That's true. I've been hearing a lot about using kites for large cargo ships. They'll never be going that fast, but the tech does serve a very valuable purpose.
> Finally, they were the engineers of their plane - they probably knew the risks well. Maybe that describes these watercraft pilots too.
I think that is the key here. Don’t compare these to a reliable production airplanes, they are more akin to a prototype plane.
With prototype airplanes we call the pilots a special name: “test pilots”. But that is just because with most airplane designs there is an expectation that they once will graduate out of testing and will be piloted by regular pilots. But some airplanes never do that. They were only ever meant to demonstrate some principle or explore some new frontier. Same with these sailboats, their crew are “test pilots”, and they perform a test program to gradually validate the performance and safety of the craft. And most likely they will be only ever crewed by the crew who did that program.
So what does it mean that they are “test pilots”. They all probably have a lot of experience with all kind of sailboats and especially fast ones, and then they have a proven track record of having a good intuitive understanding of the physics involved. If all you ever did is to capsize a dingy on a local lake you are probably not getting this job.
And then test pilots get access to the engineers designing the craft and they talk a lot about expected performance. There are all kind of curves and diagrams one can inspect to understand how the craft is likely going to handle.
And then they don’t just leave the pier for the first time and run a world record speed. They first go relatively slow, and only when they are certain they understand how the craft behaves do they try to go faster and faster. This might also mean that they are initially very picky about the conditions they launch into, and as they gain more experience they can “expand the envelope” and try gnarlier weather.
Then of course they prepare for adverse events. They wear appropriate personal protective equipment, have a plan what they do if they are thrown overboard or capsize, and they also most likely have rescue boats at the ready to save them if something goes wrong.
And then on top of all of that they all probably have a psychological makeup where they value going fast, and being the first more than being safe. Even with all the safety precautions and mitigations and good design activities like these are risky. People who all above wish for a long and peaceful and slow life are probably not going to gravitate towards these jobs.
The Wright brothers were involved members of an international “glider” community and, yes, they won the race to be the first to successfully strap an engine to one and fly it.
But remember that the Wright brothers didn’t even try to patent “the airplane”. Their achievement (and patent) was about safely controlling an airplane so that it could fly. More than two years before their 1903 flight, Wilbur Wright gave a presentation in Chicago where he said “ As long ago as 1884 a machine weighing 8,000 pounds demonstrated its power both to lift itself from the ground and to maintain a speed of from 30 to 40 miles per hour, but failed of success owing to the inability to balance and steer it properly. This inability to balance and steer still confronts students of the flying problem, although nearly eighteen years have passed. When this one feature has been worked out, the age of flying machines will have arrived, for all other difficulties are of minor importance.”
> In the videos everything is fine, of course; they don't usually show the failures
I’m not sure they can keep video secret if accidents happen that cause serious injuries or death.
There are plenty of failure videos for the gigantic trimarans used in the America’s cup (search term “America's cup trimaran capsize”), and I think not all of them were in public races.
Is it that much risker than mountainbiking, offtrack skiing or base jumping? Relatively few people would take the risk of practicing extreme sport either, but there are still thousands of people that do.
It's not too different from people testing the first hot air balloons, planes or helicopters (albeit much less risky, still).
My concern is not the amount of risk, but that the amount of risk is unknown.
Someone who has done a lot of skiing / parachuting can estimate well the risks of offtrack skiing and base jumping, plus lots of people have done it before and can inform you, plus the technology used (skiis / parachutes) have very long track records and known performance.
(Mountain biking doesn't seem to be in the same category, but whatever.)
> It's not too different from people testing the first hot air balloons, planes or helicopters (albeit much less risky, still).
> My concern is not the amount of risk, but that the amount of risk is unknown.
It's not really unknown: it's really high and you better hope you don't mess up or you're dead/maimed. Sure here the “don't mess up“ happens mostly at design/build time instead of during the execution, but at the end of the day you're risking your life hoping you're not making a mistake. That's definitely not for everyone.
Comparing this to off-piste skiing or mountain biking is not fair at all. You can view avalanche predictions, sample the snow pack, and take safe and slow lines that go perpendicular to the faults when skiing. Biking you can use hydraulic disk brakes, deliberately lay the bike down and slide out, plus you should be wearing a full face helmet, spine + neck protector, and other armor.
Unless you are actively trying to set a speed record or win a race there is far less danger.
> Unless you are actively trying to set a speed record or win a race there is far less danger.
Well, that's also exactly what we are talking about here…
Also you're talking to someone who broke his own shoulder earlier this year while doing some very easy off-piste skiing earlier this year so I can absolutely assure you that danger is just a small mistake away even if you aren't doing insane stuff.
Risk is a continuum. When it is unknown the people interested in risk accept it. Eventually people learn the risk model and change behavior based on that. As an example of newly known:
All models of Onewheel electric skateboards are being recalled after the maker Future Motion received reports of four deaths of users between 2019 and 2021 and multiple reports of serious injuries.
It is new technology without a track record, on a bespoke machine without a track record. It's safety is unregulated and unresearched. The builder doesn't have the resources to do anything like the safety engineering, prototyping, testing, etc. that someone like Toyota or Airbus does. Even if the design is safe, the construction also lacks those resources.
I can imagine taking the risk if I knew the risk. I could imagine doing it if someone else I relied on knew the risk (e.g., as a test pilot for a major company or military air force). I'm not risk-averse; I've taken more than my share, including risking life and limb. How does someone decide to ride one of these?