Sailing boats' Stability, STIX and Old Ratios

I'm sorry Guillermo, but I fail to understand any of your implied criticisms of this class. It seems to me to be one of the more carefully considered classes and one I welcome whole heatedly. I can find very little in either their ethos or detail that is less than commendable.

The class requirement to comply with the various ISO regs is a neat way of controlling various parameters at the design stage. But as you say, these are racing boats and therefore RCD compliance is not legally required, so involvement of the Notified Bodies and their cost, can be avoided. However, the class has instigated a series of measurement tests to check class rule compliance, OSR Regs and by inference, ISO compliance when combined with data from the designers. This includes weighing each boat and performing the 90 degree recovery test, that was developed, and has proved effective with the Open Classes. In this instant it is performed in the least stable configuration, ie with 750kgs of water ballast in its least favourable position.

Wide beam and flat decks are recognised as a problem and hence there is a deck and coach house volume requirement (above the sheer plane) in the rules to try and minimise this.

Some of these boats are promoted as cruiser /racers, and some will go into series production. This will obviously have an impact on the process they have to go through with regard to RCD compliance before they are brought to market.

But after that, people are free to do with their boats whatever they like. When I campaigned an IOR 2 tonner, it took 14 crew to race it competitively under IOR, but I raced it happily double handed and enjoyed miles of cruising either alone or with attractive, but nautically clueless young ladies. And that was before self tailing winches, ATN snuffers and roller furling to help.

We must be very careful to never promote the RCD as having any relevance to what people are free to do with their boats. If this already happens in Spain, then I am sorry. But encouraging its spread to the rest of the free world is an insidious undermining of everything we hold dear. There are enough faceless bureaucrats who would love to do this without sailors giving them any encouragement.

I think you are too willing to promote your own boating preferences as being 'the best way for everyone to do it'. I would never criticise your choice of cruiser as you clearly enjoy sailing this way, but please allow others to make their own decisions. In the same way, I've heard there are people who actually make love with the lights on. Crazy, wild and reckless behaviour in my eyes, but it's their choice.

 

About the STIX, they (as many people) obviously don’t consider enough the requirements needed for certifying a boat in Class A. Their own requirements are more demanding.

About the rest, I disagree with you and I agree with Owen Clarke.

Of course, I am too old and to "spoiled" with comfortable things to personally want one of those as a cruising boat.

I agree that the boat will not be comfortable in a seaway, but in what regards stability and safety and scantlings, the boat will be very safe and hard to capsize. I mean it will be a very difficult boat to break under normal circumstances, because it is designed for bigger rigs and extreme situations, and his huge positive stability will make it a very stiff boat.

Of course, even if not likely, all boats can be capsized and the problem here as to do with inverted stability, that in these (beamy) boats can be a problem. But if the AVS of the boat is around or bigger than 120º (and the inverted stability in accordance with that, as it normally is) I don’t see any problem, except comfort, but that is a personal thing.

Guillermo, this are not racing boats that are proposed for cruising (the 40class is not an open class), but very fast cruiser racers that become racing boats. Several of these boats pre-exist the 40 class as small production boats, and as such, have been already aproved for cruising (class A) in the scope of the Directive.

cheers

 

I agree with you about the rest, but here I think you don't understand my concern (I don’t know about Guillermo) about RCD and "the rest of the free world".

RCD as nothing to do with what people want to do with their boats (as you have stated before) but has to do with the right that the consumer has to have available information on the boat that they are buying, on something as important as stability and seaworthiness.

 

I agree, that information should be available, and so should the advice from various sources as to what that information means and the consequences and implications of that information.

But then the consumer should be left to make THEIR choice about the boat they buy and the use to which they put it. If people choose to prioritise speed, excitement and fun over comfort, stability and safety, so be it. It's a free world.

However, I think these Class 40 actually do offer speed, excitement, stability, safety, and fun which only leaves comfort to be debated. Well, that's too subjective, and despite Ted Brewer's efforts at producing a empirical 'factor', I think any realistic one should incorporate the skipper and crew's age, their expectation, wealth and length of time spent at an English Boarding School as a child. This should then be added to 'Bill Tilman Factor' (or monastic quotient in catholic countries) to get a more accurate assessment. Then you will have a realistic explaination of why Robin Knox Johnson is still happy in an Open 60 at 67 years old.

 

Yes, I agree, but what we are doing in this thread is debating "what that information means and the consequences and implications of that information". And you are very welcomed to this discussion.

About Ted Brewer "Comfort Ratio" let me remind you that he also says about it:

“COMFORT RATIO (CR): ...does provide a reasonable comparison between yachts of similar type. ...The intention is to provide a means to compare the motion comfort of vessels of similar type and size, not to compare that of a Lightning class sloop with that of a husky 50 foot ketch.

...Do consider, though, that a sailing yacht heeled ... will have a much steadier motion than one bobbing up and down ..

Nor will one human stomach keep down what another stomach will handle with relish, or with mustard and pickles for that matter!

It is all relative.”

The bold marks are mine.

Cheers

 

Crag,
I'm not criticising at all the Class 40 boats. Neither any other boat. As matter of fact I like very much the Class 40 concept and the boats that have been designed to it. For their intended use.

I'm sorry if I have not been clear enough in stating my position. Let me try to explain myself again:

What concerns me is this STIX think crawling subtly into the market as being the 'word of God' concerning seaworthiness of boats. Most users have not enough knowledge to properly understand the implication of ISO rules and, particularly, STIX. And, as I'm trying to expose trough my posts in this thread, STIX has its drawbacks, having (in my humble opinion) been influenced in its development, by mass boats manufactures (and even designers!) because of marketing concerns.

RCD is conceived to give all recreational boats customers some kind of protection by means of providing trustable and harmonized information when they buy a boat. So when somebody without deep knowledge buys an A categorized boat, may be expecting (In my opinion) to be able to go anywhere with that boat. Of course RCD state this approach is not valid, but, who knows out there the RCD?

Categorization under the RCD not only depends on stability issues, but on a lot of other matters, as you know. But stability is the highlight of all of them in my opinion. As a matter of fact in Spain all boats under 12 m for categories C and D may be compliance certified by the own manufacturer, except what concerns to stability, freeboard and floatation, where the intervention of a Notified Body is mandatory, if the manufacturer wants the boat to be allowed to sail in waters other than harbours and the like. That's why I'm focusing this thread on stability matters.

I want to impose nobody my way of thinking. I'm just trying to defend the idea that STIX has yet to be more deeply studied and developed, to better indicate the seaworthiness of a boat. Also the necessity of providing extra info for customers, maybe even creating an extra category, or an special warning note, for racers going into cruising mode (As the Class 40s) and cruisers-racers. And at last, but not least, the necessity of all manufacures providing enough and clear information on all this matters in their marketing material.

Cheers.

 

Hi Guillermo, I'm afraid there is a philosophical difference between us in our expectation of the RCD. It is a piece of legislation that was never intended to increase safety, was never intended to produce better boats and was certainly never intended to help the consumer. It is and always was a 'free-trade' agreement to level the playing field for manufactures. In the UK its implementation is handled by 'trading standards' officers, to ensure that boats that comply with the Directive can be freely marketed in any of the EEA countries without let or hindrance. And in that, it has met its function. There is now no need to build boats with variations to meets the individual regulations in Italy, Spain or France, as there is common agreement as to a minimum requirement to please everyone.

And I believe there is significance in the notion of a 'minimum standard' and the fact the RCD's function is to benefit the free trade by manufactures, and no one else. Therefore it's entirely right that the big manufactures should campaign to get a market place established that is most advantageous to their trading position. That is what they did and most are happy with the resultant level playing field.

Now if the RCD is being corrupted by either government agencies to regulate boat use, or by the manufacturer's to help sales promotions, then that should be stamped on. We must never deviate from either 'caveat emptor' in the buying process or the skipper's total and absolute final responsibility for the safety of his vessel and crew. This is only possible by education, education and education and not regulation. Stability only forms one small part of the total system that results in safety at sea. A skipper that is capable of understanding everything else that will influence his safety during ocean sailing will be quite capable of understanding the notion of STIX. If through this knowledge he feels he would prefer one boat over another, then that's for him to decide. The idea that Michael Ritchey sailing Jester (Cat B) is less safe than some 'numpty' sailing a 'cruising boat' that just happens to have letter A on a brass plaque, is frankly ludicrous.

So, if people are basing their entire ocean going yacht buying decision on whether it has an A categorisation, then we should let Darwin's theories take their course. The human race will be better without these people in the gene pool.

 

Well, Im afraid I do not agree at all with you. Trade has been probably a main conducting reason, I will not discuss that, but safety and consumer protection are among the goals. From the Forewords of the Directive:

"Whereas the removal of technical barriers in the field of recreational craft and their components, to the extent that they cannot be removed by mutual recognition of equivalence among all the Member States, should follow the new approach set out in the Council resolution of 7 May 1985 (4) which calls for the definition of essential requirements on safety and other aspects which are important for the general well-being; whereas paragraph 3 of Article 100a provides that, in its proposals, concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection, the Commission will take as a base a high level of protection....
Whereas, in view of the nature of the risks involved in the use of recreational craft and their components, it is necessary to establish procedures applying to the assessment of compliance with the essential requirements of the Directive....
Whereas it is appropriate that the Member States, as provided for by Article 100a (5) of the Treaty, may take provisional measures to limit or prohibit the placing on the market and the use of recreational craft or constituent products thereof in cases where they present a particular risk to the safety of persons and, where appropriate, domestic animals or property..."

Skipper responsibility, of course. Education, of course. But also regulation is necessary, as in any other human activity in our crowded world.

Drastic, but I basically agree.

 

Paulo,
May I have from you the Swans' GZ curves?

 

Guillermo, you may...when I have the time to search and for scanning them,(they are not in my computer). Sorry but I have had busy days.

Hey Crag, I am with Guillermo on this one. Certainly it was intended as a 'free-trade' agreement but also as a way to protect and advise the consumer.

“When placed on the market or put into service, craft must be accompanied by a Declaration of Conformity. This certifies that the vessel meets the Essential Safety Requirements (ESR) contained in the Directive.

A Technical Construction File (TCF) must be produced and maintained by the Manufacturer / Authorized Community Representative. This file has to be kept all the time a particular model is in production and for a minimum of ten years beyond production of last vessel.

The TCF describes how the vessel meets the Essential Safety Requirements”

http://www.ceproof.com/recreational_craft_directive_RCD.htm#esr

These Essential Safety Requirements are “essential” to whom? Obviously, to the safety of the consumer.

RYA that have played a large part in the ISO working group that has drafted the new stability standard index screen known as STIX say :

“Just as it is mandatory for the fuel consumption of all new cars to be published so the RYA believes that stability information should also be available to a buyer of a boat”

and suggest that consumers should ask the manufacturers the stability data before buying a boat and they also say :

"If it’s still not made available then smell a rat".


But I agree with you on one thing: for all practical effects, till this moment, the RCD has only worked as a 'free-trade' agreement and that’s why it has not contributed to better boats.

And I disagree with you that the average sailor has a decent information about STIX or boat stability. Most don’t even know what the STIX index is, but almost everybody knows the Boat categories that are certified by the RCD, and in my opinion those categories are misleading, while the STIX is a very useful tool to screen boat stability.

Regards

 

I don't want this to become a spitting match between lawyers, but that Council meeting your quote refers to in May 1985 was specifically addressing the 'free movement of goods'. They agreed that there should be a 'new approach to technical harmonisation and standards' as a way of achieving that open market.

The original scope of the RCD did include several basic safety parameters that have since been extended by amendment to include environmental and other concerns. But there still has been no change in the intended purpose of the Directive, that being the 'free movement of goods'.

My only concern is that we in the industry, mustn't encourage it to become something it is not. I appreciate that you and others, including Rolf Eliasson feel there are some aspects of it which give cause for concern, including a view that the STIX number for Cat A is too low. However, rather than try to meddle with the detail, perhaps we should push for it to become even simpler. This ambition to keep the Directive as simple as possible and non prescriptive was one of the stated objectives in its drafting. So in contrast to raising the limit, I truly believe it should either be lowered or better still, the Categorisations should be eliminated altogether.

In support of a lowering: I think it is unrealistic for the required STIX numbers to eliminate boats with a proven offshore ability. For the (British) Folkboat, Contessa 26 and Virtue to be deemed unsuitable for ocean service is bizarre. Therefore the lower limit should include these boats and the resultant huge range of vessels within Cat A would then trigger in the buyer's mind a realisation that there is more to choosing a boat than a simple letter on a brass plaque.

To go further and eliminate the Categories all together is because they, (and the STIX numbers) are trying to convey too much information in a overly simplistic way. This is a disservice to the consumer as it encourages them to be simplistic in return. The information about the boats should be conveyed by a series of indicators without any direct inference as to their suitability for use. This series of values would portray direct information about strength, stability, comfort, range under power, environment concerns, recyclability, etc, and then the consumer would be free to match the demands of his particular use to a particular boat. Lumping all boats above a certain number as being suitable for some generic use, whilst eliminating others of better pedigree, is a nonsense as some of your examples have shown.

This system would shift the responsibility of deciding to what use a boat should be put, back four square in the lap of the skipper. The present situation is only fuelling the time when a case will appear in court between a ship wreck survivor claiming damages against the manufacturer / Notified Body / EU on the grounds they promised him the boat was suitable.

 

Now we have something interesting here!

I'm not able to find it now, but I posted somewhere else my idea that STIX could very well be a gathering of factors making little sense when mixed all together to get a final figure. Something like if we multiply, or add, or whatever, the 'Old' ratios to come also to a final and simple figure: would that number serve to categorize a boat's seaworthiness? Absolutely not, in my opinion, as we cannot mix pears with apples.

Should we then provide a kind of 'Old' ratios style information to the user, only that more accurate or adequate than those, as you suggest? But, will those ratios or indicators be understood by the general public without specific formation? Would that bring more safety into the boating comunity? Shall we obligue all boaters to become a kind of NAs? Shall we obligue them to get a qualifying course to teach them how to understand things, pass whatever tests and then licensing them as 'qualified boat buyers'? Aren't we going deeper into regulations this way?

And if we do the contrary, and let all people in this wide world go and behave only by their own mood, and use whatever inadequate boat they want for whatever bizarre adventure, how can we avoid crazy people going to sea and killing not only themselves (which could be nice under the Darwin's laws you mentioned) but other people too? (among those, their rescuers)

Not easy answers here. A simple categorization way seems desirable to me, for the sake of the users and the safety of all, but for sure we can do better than STIX (although I recognize it has been a good first try).

I would love to see you developing further your idea in this forum, with specific and detailed proposals. It would be a very nice matter of discussion.

On my side, and in the mean time, I will keep on working on the STIX number, trying to find out what can be done that way. And I need the help of Vega for this, as he has gathered a lot of info on a lot of boats.

Cheers.

 

About this, it’s interesting to hear what he says about the seaworthiness of its Open 60, in conditions that Mike Golding (in his six circumnavigation) described as about the most ferocious he has encountered:

"I had a maximum of 70.4 knots five times. It is not often you see 70 knots and I have seen it before but I was going downwind with it. It was horrible and at times genuinely frightening".

Robin Knox Jonhson says about it:

"The waves are watery Himalayas, it is as bad as anything you would see in the Southern Ocean,

The wind sounds like the BBC sound effects for a storm in Antarctica.

Everything around me is white, you dare not look into it as you would be blinded”.

The boat is otherwise fine and just needs the chance to show herself, she has been riding the waves beautifully - an absolute dream. She's really good, it is just a bit uncomfortable for the human inside her. “
.

 

I am sorry you cannot do that.

If you want to look how heavily regulated domains behave, just look general (private) aviation. Rules have been put to a "high" level of safety. Due to very high certification costs, it nearly killed the market. An aircraft GPS is around 15 000 euros (garmin 430). So private pilots just fly planes without GPS, and use any handheld GPS. Same for engines. You can still buy a NEW 125 hp, carbureted, magneto ignition aircraft engine for about 30 000 euros. This is possible due to the enormous lack of competition created by huge certification costs.
And people who can no longer afford to be killed in general aviation simply get killed using unregulated flying objects like ultraligths or powered chutes. You do not save any people. You just get them killed somewhere else outside your rule scope.

In the marine use, it will be the same. If you make ISO as stringent as LLOYD unlimited service rules, most people will no longer be able to afford a somewhat reasonable boat to cross atlantic. They will just be drowned using beach toys, pedalos or jetskis to cross atlantic.

 

In my opinion this is not quite so. The cost of a full category A certification is not cheap, but it is only an small fraction of the value of the boat, and this talking about a single unit. If we talk about mass production boats the impact of the cost of certification becomes ridiculous.

But we always find people reluctant to pay such services. In my experience, people who don't care to pay 4000 euros for a piece of not vital equipment, many time toys, become very angry to pay the same 4000 euros for a certification. The same kind of reluctancy we can find around about designers' fees.

On the other hand, what we see around are a growing number of pricey boats, instead of the contrary. My experience is that boats here in Galicia are bigger and fancier every year. The widow of the former owner of my boat told me that when they bought the boat from new, back in 1971, it was 'grandious', being 11 m length, whith relatively very few boats around being bigger than that. But with the passing of years the boat (she said in a funny mood) was getting smaller and smaller, to the point of becoming just one more of the crowd.

What amazes me is why there are people who think they have the right to cross an ocean without the proper equipment, but we do not see the same kind of people claiming for that same right to cross the Kalahari, climb the Everest or just go deep diving.

Cheers.