Tag: illustration

Illustrating the Sinking of RMS Titanic

After all the years of writing and publishing here on Coffeespoons, content centred on the sinking of RMS Titanic remains the most popular. And it was in the early hours of 15 April 1912 when she slipped beneath the surface of the North Atlantic. 700 people survived. 1500 people did not. Titanic’s sinking was the worst peacetime maritime disaster at the time and today, 113 years later, it remains likely in the top-five.

Each year I attempt to read something about the sinking. This year I’ve opted to re-read the first-hand account of Jack Thayer, a Philadelphian who survived the sinking. His father was an executive for the Pennsylvania Railroad and could afford first-class accommodations aboard Titanic.

I highly encourage you to read Thayer’s account of the sinking. First, it’s a short read in this era of short attention spans. But secondly, it provides the rare vantage point of a survivor who entered the water. With the temperature of the North Atlantic below freezing, almost without exception, everyone who entered the water died and so almost every passenger account is from someone who evacuated in a lifeboat.

In the aftermath of the sinking, Thayer managed to cling to a lifeboat and was eventually saved. When Thayer arrived in New York, a young art teacher named Lewis Skidmore worked with Thayer to illustrate what Thayer saw of Titanic on her final night.

Controversially, Thayer’s description included Titanic splitting in two. At the time, survivors intensely debated this point. Some claimed she went down intact and others, like Thayer, insisted she split in two. It was not until 1985 when she was discovered by Robert Ballard that the world learned Titanic did indeed split in two that fateful night, proving Thayer correct.

Unfortunately that was 40 years after Thayer’s death. He struggled with depression in the years that followed the sinking as other tragedies befell the man, including losing two of his own sons—one during World War II. He committed suicide at the age of 50 in 1945.

Skidmore’s graphics—black and white illustrations—arguably do as fine a job today as any complex 3D modelling could. They offer further proof that complex graphics need not necessarily communicate more clearly than sizzle and flash.

Credit for the graphics goes to Lewis Skidmore.

When Is a Torpedo Is Not a Torpedo?

When it’s a torpedo bat.

Last week I looked at baseball’s new torpedo bats in a humourous light. But I did want to take a more serious look, because bat evolution has been part of the tale of baseball since its beginning. Back in the day bats featured long lengths and heavier weights. These days, bats are in the mid-30 inch length and mid-30 ounce weight. Current regulations limit bats to 42 inches in length and a maximum diameter of 2.61 inches. 1 (There is some other stuff in there that is not terribly relevant to the torpedo bat.) And that’s it. Nothing about where the widest part of the bat need be nor the overall shape—merely a round, solid piece of wood.

The solid piece of wood is connected to corked bats. At my age I remember seeing the ESPN clips of Sammy Sosa’s corked bat in 2003 and the story of Albert Belle’s bat, stolen from the umpire’s room.

The torpedo bat, however, is not corked, instead it uses increased mass at the bat’s sweet spot, where it generates the greatest exit velocities when the batter hits the pitch. This graphic from ESPN shows how this works.

How a torpedo bat differs from the normal bat

Overall I like the graphic. The use of contrasting red and blue does a good job highlighting, particularly at the end where the normal bat continues with its edges running parallel as a regular cylinder. The torpedo bat changes into a cone with its top sliced off then rounded. I might have exaggerated the vertical dimensions of the bat illustration, but it still works.

Additionally, as I understand the design, it maximises the diameter of the bat to the aforementioned 2.61 inches. I have heard—but not confirmed—most bats do not reach the full diameter. If that is true, perhaps an illustration where the red lines fell below the maximum diameter of the torpedo bat could do a better job differentiating between the two shapes.

I prefer the above illustration to that produced by the Athletic/New York Times, which attempts a similar distinction.

New York Times version of the graphic.

I think ESPN’s overlay better shows the difference and that the Athletic’s wood pattern distracts from the graphic overall. Whereas ESPN uses the solid red vs. blue hatching to distinguish between the two shapes.

Of course that begets the question, why doesn’t every batter use the torpedo bat?

Suffice it to say, some players are better at hitting the ball consistently at the same spot on the bat. If a hitter can repeatedly make contact at a specific spot along the length of the bat, it makes sense to concentrate the mass of the bat at that spot for better hard contact. If, however, a hitter spreads his contact out along the length of the barrel, he probably wants a more evenly distributed mass to help create a better spread of good contact.

Regardless, as I wrote on Friday, the torpedo does not look like a torpedo. If anything, the normal baseball bat looks more like a torpedo than a torpedo bat.

Credit for the ESPN piece goes to ESPN’s graphics department.

Credit for the Athletic’s piece goes to Drew Jordan.

  1. https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/mlb/official-information/2025-official-baseball-rules.pdf ↩︎

Damn the Torpedoes!

Baseball is back and so bring forth the controversies. One of the ones from last week? The torpedo bat. To be clear, the torpedo bat has been around for a few years—it’s not new. However, on Opening Weekend, the Yankees beat up on Milwaukee Brewers’ pitching. But a Yankees announcer specifically pointed out the design and the hype and the controversy was on.

But since this is a Friday, we’re going to look at a semi-humourous take from Davy Andrews of Fangraphs, a statistically-inclined baseball site. He uses illustrations to focus on the shape of the torpedo bat, which to my mind instantly did not look anything like a torpedo. (Read the full article for a funny aside about the shape’s resemblance—or lack thereof—to a torpedo.)

To be fair, I did not immediately think either old timey bomb or pregnant whale, but rather a bowling pin.

Credit for the piece goes to Davy Andrews.

113 Years Later and We’re Still Talking About Watertight Compartments

Earlier this week, a Portuguese-flagged cargo container ship collided with an American-flagged tanker just off the Humber estuary in Yorkshire, England. The American-flagged ship, the Stena Immaculate, carries aviation fuel for the US Air Force. The Solong, the Portuguese-flagged tanker, carries alcohol, which is far better than the toxic chemicals initially feared.

We still know very little about the circumstances of the collision other than the Solong, travelling at 16 knots, slammed into the port side of the Stena Immaculate, which was anchored offshore.

I decided to write a little post because I enjoyed this graphic from the BBC, which details why the Stena Immaculate has not yet sunk—and at the time of my writing is not believed to be in danger of—despite the large hold amidships.

The graphic uses a simple line illustration of a bulk carrier in both 3/4 and a frontal view. The first shows how vessels like the Stena Immaculate separate their cargo into distinct holds, often watertight, so that, should a collision occur, the damage will not flood the entire ship or affect the load of the cargo. For the latter, sloshing liquids, as one example, can alter the centre of gravity and negatively impact ship stability.

The second line drawing illustrates the value of a double-hulled vessel wherein the outer hull shields the inner hull from puncture and prevents massive flooding of interior spaces.

Of course on 11 March, we are a little over a month away from the anniversary of the sinking of RMS Titanic. (In)famously in that case the critical issue was the same idea of watertight compartments. She had enough of them, but crucially they did not rise to the top of the ship as they would have necessarily impacted the luxury of first and second class accommodations. Titanic also did not have a double hull—her bottom was, but this did not run up the ship’s sides to the level where the iceberg impacted the ship.

Overall, I really like this graphic. It needs no elaborate and detailed illustration. Nor does it need sophisticated animations. All it uses is simple line illustrations.

Credit for the piece goes to the BBC graphics department.

Life Aboard the International Space Station

This weekend I read a neat little article from the BBC about astronauts’ lives aboard the International Space Station (ISS). This comes on the heels of two NASA astronauts being left on the station due to some uncertainty about their Boeing spacecraft’s safety. The article featured a number of annotated photographs and illustrations, but this was my favourite.

The designers do a nice job of highlighting the particular components/sections of the station. This was my favourite as they darkened the non-relevant sections—looking at you solar panels.

Credit for the piece goes to the BBC graphics department.

Datagraphics as Marketing Materials

I spent the last two weeks out of town, and my post for the Friday before didn’t happen because there was a fire at my building—I and my unit are fine—that knocked out internet for about 24 hours. But now I have returned.

One of the things I did was visit the city of Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. There I discovered the city has a World War II era submarine, the USS Reqin, a Tench-class submarine that launched at the end of the war and saw no active combat. She was later preserved and arrived at the Carnegie Science Centre in Pittsburgh where she serves as a museum ship.

USS Requin moored in the Ohio River

As I waited for the self-guided tour to begin, I spotted a small poster with some big numbers. Naturally I investigated and found it to be a marketing piece by PPG, a Pittsburgh-based paint and coatings company. The poster detailed the work that went in the preservation of the submarine’s exterior using PPG’s own paints and coatings.

The Requin as a poster

We can see the large numbers clearly and to the piece’s credit the hierarchy works. What are we talking about? Three paints applied to the submarine in these quantities in this amount of time. The only factette not totally relevant is how many tourists annually visit the submarine.

Design wise, the poster does a nice job of dividing up its space into an attention-grabbing upper-half. After all, it grabbed my attention. The lower half then subdivides into three columns that speak to the aforementioned subjects. The last column then divides again into halves.

As marketing design does, it’s not the most offensive. For example, we don’t have the gallon buckets sized or scaled differently. The designers used a restrained palette and kept a consistent typographic treatment.

Admittedly, I was a bit disappointed because I had thought it would be some facts or data about the submarine itself. But for what the piece is, I thought it did a nice job.

Credit for the piece goes to PPG’s graphics department.

L2 Halo for JWST

Yesterday I received a question about where the new James Webb Space Telescope is located. Is it in orbit of the Earth, like Hubble? Is it out in deep space?

The answer is no, not really. Now I spent this morning trying to illustrate the answer to that question myself. However, it’s taking me too long. So we’re going to reference this great illustration from Scientific American.

Not quite the final frontier, but the James Webb is pointing that way.

James Webb orbits around a point called the L2 Lagrange point, which sits in a line with Earth and the Sun. The telescope points out and away from the sun whilst the sun shield keeps the sunlight from warming the spacecraft while solar panels collect said light and power the spacecraft.

So if any of my other readers had a similar question, hopefully this goes some ways to answering the question.

Credit for the piece goes to Michael Twombly.

Those Quirky Quarks

Last week scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland announced the discovery of new sub-atomic particles: a pentaquark and tetraquarks. This BBC article does a really good job of explaining the role of quarks in the composition of our universe, so I encourage you to read the article.

But they also included a graphic to show how quarks relate to atoms. It’s a simple illustration, but it does a great job.

There’s only one Quark though.

Sometimes great and informative graphics can be simple. They needn’t be flashy or over-designed. I could quibble about the depiction of the electron cloud around the nucleus, but it’s not terrible.

Credit for the piece goes to the BBC graphics department.

Top Gun

Last night I went to see Top Gun: Maverick, the sequel to the 1986 film Top Gun. Don’t worry, no spoilers here. But for those that don’t know, the first film starred Tom Cruise as a naval aviator, pilot, who flew around in F-14 Tomcats learning to become an expert dogfighter. Top Gun is the name of an actual school that instructs US Navy pilots.

Back in the 1980s, the F-14 was the premiere fighter jet used by the Navy. But the Navy retired the aircraft in 2006 and it’s been replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, a larger and more powerful version of the F/A-18 Hornet. So no surprise that the new film features Super Hornets instead of Tomcats.

And so I wanted to compare the two.

The important thing to note is that the Tomcat flies farther and faster than the Hornet. The F-14 was designed to intercept Soviet bombers that were equipped with long-range missiles that could sink US carriers. The Hornet was designed more of an all-purpose aircraft. It can shoot down enemy planes, but it can also bomb targets on the ground. That’s the “/A” in the designation F/A-18. In the role of intercepting enemy aircraft, the F-14 was superior. It could fly well past two-times the speed of sound and it could fly combat missions over 500 miles away from its carrier.

In the interception role, however, the F-14 had another crucial advantage: the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It was a long-range air-t0-air missile designed for the Tomcat. It does not work with any other US aircraft and so the Hornet uses the newer AIM-120 AMRAAM, a medium-range air-to-air missile.

There are plans to design a long-range version of the AIM-120, but it doesn’t exist yet and so the Hornet ultimately flies slower, less distance, and cannot engage targets at longer ranges.

However, dogfighting isn’t about long-range engagements with missiles. It’s about close-up twisting and turning to evade short-range missiles and gunfire. And even in that, the F-14 could use four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles whereas the F/A-18 carries only two on its wingtips.

By the 2000s F-14 was an older aircraft and while the moving, sweeping wings look cool, they cause maintenance problems. They were expensive to maintain and troublesome to keep in the air. But they are arguably superior to what the Navy flies today.

Moving forward, the Navy is beginning to introduce the F-35 Lightning II to the carrier fleets. Maybe I’ll need to a comparison between those three.

Credit for the piece is mine.