Oasis sea sick

[broberts]

I thought the oasis class ships were supposed to be more sturdy then some of the smaller ships but the more reviews I read the more I'm getting worried as many shows in the past have been cancelled due to rough seas. Getting super anxious about leaving in 10 days.

 

Oasis class ships are very sturdy. Most of the time ships can avoid weather that causes an uncomfortable amount of motion. But nobody controls the sea or the weather.

 

The aqua shows would be dangerous on land and would get cancelled as frequently due to high winds.

 

Ten reviews of one voyage on which an aqua show got cancelled should be cancelled out by the 10 or 100 voyages where that didn't happen.

[loubetti]

I always agree with "chengkp75" 110%. And while he is a mariner, and I, an aviator, I am pretty well studied on this subject, and no doubt like cheng, I don't get sea sick.

 

Now a question for cheng: Putting aside the amenities and glitz and gimmicks of a particular ship. I you had to make a northern TA in the "off season", and knew you would likely have several days of force 9-12 seas (yes, been there done that), which ship would you choose for the best "ride" and why?

 

1. Oasis class 225,000 tons

2. Queen Mary 2 148,000 tons

 

I would also add doing this at a speed of around 25 knots, which I think Oasis can hit if pushed.

 

Also, if you do not mind, please describe the difference, aside from shell plating thickness between an "ocean liner" hull and a "cruise ship" hull for the folks here.

 

Thanks! :)

[chengkp75]

I always agree with "chengkp75" 110%. And while he is a mariner, and I, an aviator, I am pretty well studied on this subject, and no doubt like cheng, I don't get sea sick.

 

Now a question for cheng: Putting aside the amenities and glitz and gimmicks of a particular ship. I you had to make a northern TA in the "off season", and knew you would likely have several days of force 9-12 seas (yes, been there done that), which ship would you choose for the best "ride" and why?

 

1. Oasis class 225,000 tons

2. Queen Mary 2 148,000 tons

 

I would also add doing this at a speed of around 25 knots, which I think Oasis can hit if pushed.

 

Also, if you do not mind, please describe the difference, aside from shell plating thickness between an "ocean liner" hull and a "cruise ship" hull for the folks here.

 

Thanks! :)

 

Oasis has a design speed of 22.5 knots, while QM2 has 30 knots, but either way, pushing a ship at those speeds in force 9+ is a little stupid. It would all depend on the wave period, as the ship can get into harmonics if her speed and the wave frequency meet, causing excessive pitching and jarring, as well as the possibility of lifting the screws high enough in the water to overspeed them.

 

I would definitely prefer the QM2 for a winter North Atlantic crossing, over Oasis. The difference is in the "block coefficient" of the submerged hull, which is in essence how much the ship approximates a cinder block. QM2 has a much lower block coefficient, and a finer entry than Oasis, allowing her to part the seas better, and she has a "longer" bow (the projection forward from the waterline to the bow) and more flare to the bow, which will also part the seas better and also provide more buoyancy when the bow wants to dig into a sea, reducing pitching.

 

Optimum ride is obtained by meeting the seas slightly off the bow to either side. This minimizes slamming into the seas, and pitching, while still keeping rolling to a minimum. Rolling gets worse the further the seas get around to the beam.

 

I also think the QM2's stern is better designed for heavy seas, while Oasis has a bit of a "duck tail" (though not a real pronounced one) that is designed to add to speed and roll stability. QM's stern will again part following seas while Oasis will tend to pitch more in following seas.

 

There really isn't any difference in hull plating between the ships, it is around 18-22mm thick (3/4"). QM may have more stiffeners forward than Oasis, spaced closer together, but it is mainly the shape of the hull that gives her the ability to weather harsher conditions. Either ship can survive equal strength storms, just one may make you feel more like you personally survived than the other.

[mark290]

Again you have no clue as to what you are talking about , do you???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

So very true.

[ehfl]

If you book a cruise in windy season (winter), then yes, the seas may be higher. But it's 2016. If you know you are subject to motion sickness, take a pill for it and enjoy the cruise.

[Beardface]

The Oasis can sway, but it will do so far less so than others, due to the nature of its construction. When I was on it in 2014, the thing just didn't move. My entire group to this day keeps saying how unreal of an experience it was because the ship never swayed and you never actually felt like you were at sea.

 

That being said, the Aquatheater will close its performances if the ship does start to sway, even minimally, due to the height of the dives that take place into the pool the size in which it is. Not much room for error back there.

[Suzez]

Really, people believe a ship at sea won't rock or sway:rolleyes:

 

I like that :)

[Mango Mike]

Oasis has a design speed of 22.5 knots, while QM2 has 30 knots, but either way, pushing a ship at those speeds in force 9+ is a little stupid. It would all depend on the wave period, as the ship can get into harmonics if her speed and the wave frequency meet, causing excessive pitching and jarring, as well as the possibility of lifting the screws high enough in the water to overspeed them.

 

I would definitely prefer the QM2 for a winter North Atlantic crossing, over Oasis. The difference is in the "block coefficient" of the submerged hull, which is in essence how much the ship approximates a cinder block. QM2 has a much lower block coefficient, and a finer entry than Oasis, allowing her to part the seas better, and she has a "longer" bow (the projection forward from the waterline to the bow) and more flare to the bow, which will also part the seas better and also provide more buoyancy when the bow wants to dig into a sea, reducing pitching.

 

Optimum ride is obtained by meeting the seas slightly off the bow to either side. This minimizes slamming into the seas, and pitching, while still keeping rolling to a minimum. Rolling gets worse the further the seas get around to the beam.

 

I also think the QM2's stern is better designed for heavy seas, while Oasis has a bit of a "duck tail" (though not a real pronounced one) that is designed to add to speed and roll stability. QM's stern will again part following seas while Oasis will tend to pitch more in following seas.

 

There really isn't any difference in hull plating between the ships, it is around 18-22mm thick (3/4"). QM may have more stiffeners forward than Oasis, spaced closer together, but it is mainly the shape of the hull that gives her the ability to weather harsher conditions. Either ship can survive equal strength storms, just one may make you feel more like you personally survived than the other.

 

Sir, I am in awe of your knowledge. I actually look forward to your responses to questions posted on this website.

Thank you for teaching us "land lubbers" a thing or 2 (if I could only remember 1/100th of what you tell me).

[FSUNole]

I thought the oasis class ships were supposed to be more sturdy then some of the smaller ships but the more reviews I read the more I'm getting worried as many shows in the past have been cancelled due to rough seas. Getting super anxious about leaving in 10 days.

 

I was on Allure 2 years ago in what seemed like mild conditions and I never felt a ship move more when not in a storm. I wondered at the time if it was the case because of how tall it is.

[loubetti]

Oasis has a design speed of 22.5 knots, while QM2 has 30 knots, but either way, pushing a ship at those speeds in force 9+ is a little stupid. It would all depend on the wave period, as the ship can get into harmonics if her speed and the wave frequency meet, causing excessive pitching and jarring, as well as the possibility of lifting the screws high enough in the water to overspeed them.

.

 

I only mentioned the 25 kt speed as I had been on QE2 and QM2 when they were doing 26 kts in those conditions. Of course, QM2 was the better ride, but QE2 was not so bad either.

 

Also, we had the props come out of the water several times on QE2 back in '93, during a nor'easter out of New York. A momentary shudder and then done. We were in the Lido having lunch, and were at the stern. It was fun watching the water slosh out from each end of the old Lido pool, and we were eating next to it. Thankfully on the port side of it!

 

Of course the question begs, what if an almost 100' rogue wave crashes on the bow? That happened to QE2, and there was just minor denting of the deck plates up front. Cunard waited until the next scheduled dry dock (over a year) until they repaired the damage. I saw the damage and it was of no concern to me!

 

Me thinks no one wants that to happen on an ordinary cruise ship. Agree?

[chengkp75]

I only mentioned the 25 kt speed as I had been on QE2 and QM2 when they were doing 26 kts in those conditions. Of course, QM2 was the better ride, but QE2 was not so bad either.

 

Also, we had the props come out of the water several times on QE2 back in '93, during a nor'easter out of New York. A momentary shudder and then done. We were in the Lido having lunch, and were at the stern. It was fun watching the water slosh out from each end of the old Lido pool, and we were eating next to it. Thankfully on the port side of it!

 

Of course the question begs, what if an almost 100' rogue wave crashes on the bow? That happened to QE2, and there was just minor denting of the deck plates up front. Cunard waited until the next scheduled dry dock (over a year) until they repaired the damage. I saw the damage and it was of no concern to me!

 

Me thinks no one wants that to happen on an ordinary cruise ship. Agree?

 

Norwegian Dawn took a rogue wave (don't remember how large) and the damage was limited to flooding of forward cabins when the balcony doors and windows broke. QE2 didn't have those kinds of staterooms down near the promenade deck (or any at all with large forward facing windows, if I remember from my time on her).

 

I've been on older, single hull tankers in hurricanes where everything forward of the house was under water, but it all came back up. Damage was handrails and fire stations, but no structural damage. All ships can take quite a lot of punishment from the seas without a lot of damage.

 

You'd probably be surprised, coming from your aviation background with the stringent structural regulations, but even when frames are dented or bent, they are quite frequently left until the next scheduled drydock. Surveyors will look at the damage, and if there is no appreciable cracking (and even then that is sometimes temporarily rewelded) or acute buckling of the frame, it will be left for up to 5 years, with only annual inspections.

 

For a reference on how structurally sturdy ships are, look up the SS Badger State. It survived days of typhoons without power, fires and explosions, and had to be sunk by gunfire.

[chanat]

We have sailed Oasis twice in Jan. and will sail Allure in 1 & 1/2 wks. Oasis was def the smoothest cruises we have been on. We have sailed 1 each, Princess and Carnival, and 12 RC so far. My husband didn't even take Bonine like he has to on all the other cruises

[denatravels]

I go (over) prepared for seasickness, as I know I am prone. I use the patch AND wristbands, as well as taking a supply of ginger gum (which is still wrapped after 4 cruises). I'd rather prevent it than treat it!

[Pilot53]

We were on Oasis for the New Years cruise. On the way from Nasau to St Thomas, it was very windy. Sometimes 50kt across the deck (30 kt headwinds and 20 kts cruise into it). The deck lounges were sliding all over from the wind. You could feel some motion, but nothing bad. There were about 8 foot seas. The pools were sloshing a little. There was a danger of wind burn more than sunburn.

On the way back from ST. Martin, it was much nicer. You could not tell that you were on a ship if you could not see the water. I did the ship tour thing on the last day at sea, and you could not even tell you were on a ship. Could have been any building with a mechanical control room.

A few years ago, on Radiance OTS, we went to Mexico from Los Angeles, and that was much rougher. We were moving all over in the currents and seas.

None of it bothered me, and I am very sensitive to motion.

[gritsnc]

Play it safe and take over the counter Dramimine. I started taking it the day before our cruise. While on the cruise I decided one day that I didn't need it. By dinner, I was hanging my head over a trash can. I will never risk that again no matter how smooth the seas are.

[CCC3]

Do the bars have ginger ale?

[Clarea]

Do the bars have ginger ale?

Yes, fountain if you have a package and cans if you want to purchase individually.

[canuckcruiselover]

The Oasis can sway, but it will do so far less so than others, due to the nature of its construction. When I was on it in 2014, the thing just didn't move. My entire group to this day keeps saying how unreal of an experience it was because the ship never swayed and you never actually felt like you were at sea.

 

That being said, the Aquatheater will close its performances if the ship does start to sway, even minimally, due to the height of the dives that take place into the pool the size in which it is. Not much room for error back there.

 

When I was on the Oasis, the aquatheater has to close because there was not enough water in the pool for the divers. The water was sloshing around really badly but my husband and I could not feel even the slightest movement on the ship.

[pspercy]

Someone mentioned freak or rogue waves.

 

Here's a link to a BBC series on same, very interesting and guess what - they're everywhere !

 

[Indymann99]

Sorry couldnt resist...