Keels and Keels Again!

Basically gentlemen it's about education and the way we see the leisure sailor!

A professional, like a car driver would not be allowed to go to sea without a licence, many countrys turn a blind eye to a reasonable requirement for sensible knowledge for the leisure sailor (probably cost to much to police amongst other things ) conversely we don't need to know how to build a car in order that we drive it! But because of conceived education by (amongst others) the media we would not take a family saloon car on a race track, or a racing car across country knowing that they are not built for it! People can and do this with marine vessels! Why - not so much because they suddenly become idiots the minute they step afloat (ther again!!!) but unfortunately society does not frown on the nutty boatman as it would the nutty car driver (boats aren't in the folk concious like cars are!!)

Thus unfortunately there will always be the 'fool' who will take a risk and go wrong! a lot of the time not through expected ignorance but more 'folk' ignorance! (does this make sense? am I getting across what I'm trying to say?). Therfore it is my belief that to actually ban a type of boat is not only stupid but also very foolhardy, because there are people who can and will use them properly just as there are complete idiots!

No the answer is I'm afraid 'education': unfortunately a lot of the time the only way to get this 'education' across is by large wild strokes - when somebody makes a small but risky mistake tell him in no uncertain way

"what a complete and utter idiot he is"!!!! , scream and shout at him and embarass the hell outa him - he shore as hell won't make the same mistake again!!! And then the next time you can explain why he's maybe not completely right and it would be better to...... then remind him of the consequences! Works a lot of the time No doubt some bright spark will say otherwise so I'll be doing some screaming soon (but you love that don't you, you f***ing muppets!!!!! )

 

That's absolutely true...

But not so simple, you still have the misinformation, provided by boat builders and magazines. Lots of people don't know they are making crazy or dangerous things simply because they are mislead.
Take an example:

Two years ago, I was in my boat at Lagos Marina, when a British gentleman (about 60 years old) asked permission to come aboard.
It turns out that he had a boat just like mine, (a recent Bavaria 36) and wanted to know if, in my opinion, our boat was an oceangoing boat.
Well, I said no, that I thought it would be alright for short oceanic jumps, ( 4 or 5 days) provided that we had a good weather forecast, but that for crossing oceans, with all the uncertain weather that a long jump implies, it was risky (the boat weighs 4,7Tons, with a ballast of only 1,3T).

Then he said to me: Damn, it is just what all those guys have said to me, in Azores, in the Caribbean and in the States. It turns out that this gentleman had sailed solo to the US and back. He had just arrived some days before.
He also said to me that he hadn’t believed those guys with heavy boats because he knew that his boat was a certified Class A boat , an Oceangoing boat (he thought that they had just old fashioned slow boats).

Well, I don’t think that I had fully convinced him, guess that he had thought that I was not very brave, to say the least.

And that is not an isolated case, I know of a fellow countryman (an Azorean fisherman) who has chosen a brand new Bavaria 37 to circumnavigate the world. At least that one, when he finished, had already discovered that it was not exactly the right boat for the job

So I guess that intentional misinformation (as a way of selling more boats) is a problem and can be a dangerous problem.

 

I'm also worried with this CE design category letter (A,B,C or D) issue. I think it can lead people to some serious misinterpretation of what a boat can do, as Vega states. Just an example:

Category C (winds up to force 6 and waves up to 2 m significant, which means you may experience occasional waves of up to 4 m) allows a boat, in Spain, to go up to 12 miles away from a coast line, irrespective of size or propulsion system. Believe me: I've performed many CE stability, flotation and freeboard tests for small boats to be built in series (Assessment under Modulus Aa, of universal use in Galicia for boats less than 7.5 m LH), and take for granted I'd personally never dare to go more than a couple of miles away from a shelter in most of those boats in that weather conditions. And that only if I have no alternatives. I've even seen an open boat less than 4 m length with a 5 HP outboard which has a C design category certificate!

 

I know what your saying Gentlemen, unfortunately the 'road' at sea is never the same from day to day so our wayward idiot who thinks he is fairly clever will for a length of time get away with it! Then unfortunately he goes out in a bad one, sinks and then if rescued blames the boat! Not the use it has been put to!

Unfortunately there are none so blind as those that will not see! However going back this is not I believe a reason to ban that type of vessel (possibly in a unitalitarian state you could ban the man because he does not have a licence to use such a vessel or be out in such a sea state but the policing of it would be tremendous (we can still curse the bloody incompetant fool and will but....)

 

Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the owner, or prospective owner to be informed enough to make a purchase or a crossing. This is why I'm seemly at odds with a few here.

Yes, it would be nice if all offshore vessels were standardized enough to make qualification tests of the owners, possibly require a license to operate. Ditto on passage making, but unfortunately, yachts differ quite a bit, so standardized testing become problematic at best and is why most countries don't license sailors manning their craft into the deep blue.

Maybe I'm more skeptical then most, but I've never taken advertising hype at face value (possibly because I was in the industry) and don't feel to bad for folks that do.

It would be nice if we could have a level playing field from which to choose a yacht, based on a well defined and proven list, in it's design brief. I don't think this has ever been the case and I strongly believe yachts are getting better, not worse. Racers are faster, point better and are still the finicky machine they were 100 years ago, it's the nature of the beast. Cruisers are available, are stronger, better equipped, safer and more capable then what we fondly look back upon years ago.

We all look back a think, 'how about the good old days, when yachts were tough and women knew their place' . . . How time heals wounds. We've forgotten that we had to tie ourselves to the mast as we made a sun shot on a cloudy day, seas rolling the boat from rail to rail with the approach of a storm. We knew it had to be a good shot, likely the only one for a while, relying on a good guess to where we'd be in 24 hours (if we'd only had GPS then). We've forgotten about engines that didn't start more often then they would, or having several sets of points, condenser and other assorted tune up parts, knowing full well they'd get installed (darn, we didn't have electronic ignitions either) before the trip was over. I can think of dozens of reasons why modern boats (not all, but many) are far better then the older yachts that we cussed at the time, but have now become classics, embalmed in the soft glow of fond memories and forgotten ills.

The complication of the average yacht is sufficiently difficult, that placing construction practices in columns of merit is very difficult. Should we try, sure, but not that hard, as things will change quickly enough to warrant wholesale misuse in short order (sound familiar) I quite confident I don't have a good answer for this perplexing set of issues, but I've learned that the market usually sorts out the bad ones first, so buyers have a small something to count on. It's not enough protection, but you still come back to the age old, being responsible for your own decisions thingie, which has me jumping for joy, that someday my name could possibly be listed as one of the little fish that contributed too. If we do our best, we'll probable do pretty well and the owner will arrive safe at their destination.

 

I feel that there is far too much in boat design for the average purchaser to see through the marketing hype and above all a poor level of real sea-going cruising experience with many yacht designers and marketers.

You should try going to sea in some of the modern offerings. I know delivery skippers that are refusing to move certain modern production boats any distance because they have been scared by the motion of the boat and the flexure of the hull.

The popular production cruising boats are getting lighter and weaker, we are seeing a lot of de-lamination , stress failure , chain plate detachment, strut failure, rudder failure , in designs not suitable for ocean cruising . Not suitable because they lack the comfort and reserve strength that should be inherent in a cruising boat

Strength is sacrificed because weight adds to the building cost so a light weight boat stacks up better for the manufacturer, but at sea comfort and safety go with strength and weight.

You cannot have light weight boats with big factors of safety.

 

It’s a lot worse than that, it is not only what you call “marketing hype”. In the E.U. it is the state (under the pressure of big boat builders) that misleads people, certifying that boats like the Dehler 29 are unrestricted oceangoing boats.
Also, a big part of the cruising market is retired couples that are buying a boat to live there for some extended periods. A lot of those don’t have much experience and if with many the boat will remain mainly in the marina (and for that these are perfect boats) a small percentage really wants to cruise, and those will be, in many cases, grossly misleaded.

 

Totally agree Gentlemen but, as PAR states

Thus whatever we think the numpty will get through! As I said earlier with cars we go through a lifetime of steadily increasing hype and competance - you would'nt drive a Formula 1 this week if you only learned to ride a bycycle yesterday! Ubfortunately this is not true in the boating world! This of course is backed up by Government and peer pressure, cars you wouldn't, boats you could and possibly would unless you came from a marine background!

This seems to point to more hype rather than less, a strange way to look at it but if for every car programme you had the equivilant boat programme people would start to realise the problems and understanding may eventually draw in - Britain is an island nation were everybodies lives are touched by the sea - look at the language for instance! What chance has places like the States etc got to put their case across? But I believe that we must still try, automatically banning items is not the way to go, thats been tried!

 

I am confused . Nobody is talking about banning things.
But I would be happy if the authorities didn't certify boats to do things they obviously were not designed to do.
I am not saying that if you want you can not take a boat that is not certified as an oceangoing boat, even a dinghy, around the world, if you really want . What I am saying is that if the boats are certified then when you chose a boat certified as oceangoing you should get a boat that is designed reasonably as a bluewater boat and this it is not the case at all.

 

fast and flimsy, they do not mix.

Time to poke a few embers here.

If I had a choice on using one of those deep bulb keeled flimsy flyers or an equally flimsy mac 26 to go offshore, I would pick the mac 26 any day of the week. The mac 26 wears its flimsiness much better. There is far less concentrated stress in that design. And maybe that's the one advantage of water ballast.

As long as the ballast tank does not rupture and the hatches don't come off and the cabin windows don't fail, the mac 26 should right itself quite reliably. And even if holed there will be little to pull it down. But it would be slow for its size.

Years ago, I saw a design for a water ballasted offshore yacht. It had twin keels which doubled as ballast tanks. She was wide, appeared under canvassed, and was probably slow. But she could sail in shallow water and be kept in a half tide berth. In short, she would be much cheaper to own and maintain. And probably safer as well.

For those who want to cross an ocean quickly I would suggest that the get a multihull, or, better yet, an airline ticket.

Bob

PS- When I went about to invent my own class of ocean racing monohulls, one of the first things I did was limit the draft. And the very disturbing picture at the top of this thread is why.

 

And the best way of limiting the draft is keep the bloody door shut! Keeps the Gremlins out!

Oh! yse! when you buy the airline ticket make sure it's a return, it's a long swim home!

(that should heave a bucket of gas on the flames)

 

I was just sent the MAIB investigation into the Maxfun 35 vessel "Hooligan"

It leaves a bitter taste of an industry where voluntary in house regulation failed due to the ignorance of the individuals. As Vega said people are told that the vessel is safe because it meets the RCD requirements but in reality there is only a manufacturers compliance plate for this class of vessel and no external audit of any part of the design. Whether it be stability or strength.


So far I see:
A designer who doesn't appear to understand structural engineering very well and cannot follow a simple rule based design process producing a poor design.

A fabricator with no qualified welders and poor engineering skills modifying an already poor design without proper analysis.

The builder approving a keel mod by the fabricator that put the greatest bending moment directly on a fillet weld.

Then the maintenance team that failed to consider that an apparently obvious and suspicious loss of coatings (filler and paint) at the keel root needed investigation.

On top of all this the keel bolts had different torques and were failing so even if the keel had not broken off if was going to fall out in due course anyway.

So now this In house compliance guarantee of the RCD has been found wanting who pays? Failing to comply with mandatory regulations needs backing up or it is just a joke. The alternative is the removal of the in-house "approval" for this class and make it an external design audit .


Even the investigators appear to confuse their engineering facts:

Extract from paragraph 2.4.4

"It is well known that areas of local fatigue in the vicinity of welds can be relieved using procedures such as weld dressing, hammer peening and toe grinding. "

Pretty poor confusing stress with fatigue in such a report. I expected better from the British. Seems like the MAIB technical proof reader should go and join the designer, builders and fabricators in a good grounding in properties of materials.

What's happened to basic common engineering sense that used to be prevalent at all levels and now seems so absent.

 

As you know, boats assesed by "Conformity Assessment Module A", this is, the boatyard itself certifying the compliance with the RCD, are only allowed under the RCD to apply for Design Category "D", or up to "C" if LH<12 m. Further than that you need the surveying assessement of a Notified Body.

But, always talking about boats under 12 m, for boats in Design Categories C, B or even A, only Module Aa is mandatory. And this only implies the intervention of a Notified Body to assess floatation, freeboard and stability. But structure may remain to be certified by the boatyard itself. Nonsense, in my opinion. I firmly believe structure should be also assessed by an external survey (for boats intended for something else than soft sailing in protected waters), both at the design stage, construction, and finally the prototype, the boatyard only certifying all boats made after that are close replicas to the prototype.

Precisely because of that, and trying to somewhat limit risks, in Spain (although imperfect and incomplete), and to my knowledege something very similar at least also in Portugal and France, we do have an additional regulation from our maritime authorities, ruling what are the waters you are legally allowed to sail in, as follows (Spain only):
Design Category Miles from a shelter
D------------------- Protected waters as harbours, rivers, small lakes & estuaries, etc. (But not a Galician Ría, i.e.)
C------------------- 12 miles
B------------------- 60 miles
A------------------- Ilimited
(There are 7 zones, but the intermediate levels are only related with the safety equipment carried on board).
So nowadays, as matter of fact, all boatyards around here build even the smallest boats under Module Aa trying to get Category C if possible, so asking for the surveying of a Notified Body regarding stability. A step ahead.
As said, this is still quite imperfect and incomplete, from my point of view, because (and not only) you may have a 10 m category A boat, i.e., where only stability has been externally assessed. But it shows up the concern of the authorities with the boatyards certifying themselves.

Cheers.

 

France correction.

Since 01/01/2005 , there are no longer mandatory distance from a shleter. You go where you want with the boat you want. What remains is you have not to exceed the wheater conditions your boat was designed for and you must have the legal safety equipment.

There is currently 2 safety category equipment : up to 6 nm from shelter is coastal. Further is offshore. There is a future category "basic" planned , for less than 2 nm from shelter.

This has been changed because a bunch of french boats were changing to belgian flag, where the administrative constraints are very relaxed. A bit like you go where you want, with the boat you want, the safety equiment you want (nearly : no mantatory liferaft) , and the licence you want. There is no belgian law that expressly forbid you to try crossing north atlantic in a outboard. But I have ever heard of anyone trying to do it.

 

Interesting, fcfc. Thanks for the info.