Let´s be practical. Are we in the right way?

Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/CE

Annex I,

Section 2
2.2. Builder's plate
Each craft shall carry a permanently affixed plate mounted separately from the boat hull identification number, containing the following information:
- manufacturer's name,
- CE marking (see Annex IV),
- boat design category according to section 1,
- manufacturer's maximum recommended load according to section 3.6,
- number of persons recommended by the manufacturer for which the boat was designed to carry when under way.

Section 3
3.6. Manufacturer's maximum recommended load
The manufacturer's maximum recommended load (fuel, water, provisions, miscellaneous equipment and people (in kilograms)) for which the boat was designed, as marked on the builder's plate, shall be determined according to the design category (section 1), stability and freeboard (section 3.2) and buoyancy and flotation (section 3.3).

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/directive_94_25.htm

Mike: The info in the image Paulo attached is not directly available to consumers. Boats under the RCD just display a plate similar to the Australian Builders Plate.

Cheers.

 

But Paulo is right:
As per ISO 14945, the load symbol at the Builders Plate (Persons+ luggage icons) excludes the mass of the contents of fixed fuel and water tanks when full

 

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

Let me se what he is saying:

About this, I agree.

I also agree.

Here Condor is not very clear. What does he mean by bigger? For instance I think that I would be safer offshore on a Vancouver 27 than on a 30ft Beneteau. But if we are talking of being offshore on a big production 50ft, for instance Antonio’s 473 or an Halberg-Rassy 37, I am sure the bigger boat will be more seaworthy.

Note that I don’t say that I would prefer the bigger boat. I am only saying that, if seaworthiness is the main criteria, for boats of the same price, I agree with Condor that the difference in size between a big production boat and boat like the Halberg-Rassy is so big that, yes the big production boat will be more seaworthy, I mean generally, as a principle.

Here we are talking about two very seaworthy boats. The Beneteau will be faster, but a smaller boat (if not too small) can have advantages, at least in Europe. Condor would have some difficulty in finding a place in many small marinas and old ports. I believe that the Halberg-Rassy would have also better quality interiors. For me it is really a personal choice that has nothing to do with seaworthiness.

Again, it is not clear. If he is referring to Class A boats, I would say that as a principle he is right, but all generalizations are dangerous. About bigger being better, as I have said before, it depends of how much bigger. And even if they are sturdy I believe that not all class A boats were designed for offshore use.

Yes, I believe it is true, even if a lot of heavy and expensive boats have disappeared not because they were bad, just too expensive and too slow.

Here I think Condor is exaggerating.

But I think that Mike is exaggerating even more .

About insurance, I agree they know what they are talking about, and a good perspective can be given by the value they charge for an all risk policy, according to the type of boat. After all risk assessment is their business and if they are wrong they lose money.

Last year I thought that a friend of mine was paying to much insurance for his 20 year old heavy 40ft deck-saloon. On the second hand market that boat has about the same value as my 4 year old big production 36ft. I asked my insurance company (a big one, Panthaenius) a quote for his boat and I was very surprised when they came with an offer 50% higher than mine, for the same navigation area (ocean, excluding high latitudes).

And I believe they have one of the best data base on boat problems.

I don’t doubt that Mike has encountered those problems, but I believe that he tends to forget that for each custom boat there are a thousand or more big production boats. So he should have a thousand problems on big production boats to one problem on a custom or small production boat (I am exaggerating too , but I believe you understand what I mean).

The biggest problem with big production boats is the same problem as with big production cars. What they call “lemons”. If something goes wrong along the production line, they will not throw the car (or boat) away, they will just try to fix it and sometimes a problem leads to another and in the end it can have problems along all his life. They are very few, but if we talk about 0.01 of the big production sailboats, we are probably talking about 60 boats/year or something like many hundreds of boats in the last ten years.

Robotization has reduced considerably the number of lemons in cars. I believe the same will happen with boats.

I am not saying that a heavy expensive boat is not more resistant than a modern lightweight boat. I am only saying (as I believe Condor also is) that modern boats do well what they are designed for (different types of boats for different uses), providing you use them correctly and with more care than a heavy boat in what regards groundings.

And yes, a hull of a modern production boat will resist perfectly the forces he was designed to resist, and I mean on the sea. If we consider pounding against a dock on an hurricane, or when falling down of a cradle, yes, they can not compare with heavy boats, but neither can their price or speed….and what is the chance that such a situation will happen?

 

Some production boats are abysmal essentially light duty boats, we see damaged boats after they have had a beating in from some of our welcoming weather in the Tasman sea .
Many problems seem to be due to the lack of global stiffness, the boats get here but some really need repairing some of the bigger vessels seem to suffer more damage.
Problems are varied, Structural members separate from the hull, port-lights are loosened and broken, even pushed right in (some of them are pretty poor quality) turnbuckles, eyes and chainplates are bent broken or severely distorted. Owners report the shrouds going slack then bar tight as the hull wracks and it is this sudden load that severely strains the rig, In fairness beating to windward in heavy seas is not the best thing to do in a cheaper lighter vessel.

So the old adage you hear " Good coastal cruiser, but wouldn't cross an ocean in one!"

I know of very experienced delivery skippers that will not sail one manufacturers current 50' + models across Bass straight after being scared by the excessive (and very visible below) flexing of the hull.

We can never generalize on the suitability of a boat by manufacturer or designer, and some manufacturers can produce a very poor even dangerous vessel in one model and a strong able cruiser in another. A good design can also be sunk by poor build quality and cheap components.


Anyway on the topic of common damage to modern designs and general robustness; heres a pertinent snippet from Ian Nicolson on keels and insurance.

 

I'm in total agreement with you, Mike.
I have surveyed my share of modern light production cruising boats after accidents, and I've found also a variety of structural problems, as you refer. And, for sure, any manufacturer/designer can come to produce weak and dangerous boats in spite of a previous trajectory of well founded ones. Thas has happened and still does. Market commands!
Wise words those of Ian, too.
Cheers.

 

Interesting, very worrying, but vague . Mike, you cast grave doubts about the seaworthiness of modern big production boats. As a professional in this area you surely know that if you express such a radical opinion, an opinion that puts in question the seriousness of some of the best boat designers and boat manufacturers, you shouldn’t and can not be vague. You have to back up those claims with data concerning the cases you are talking about - models, builders and number of occurrences in each type of failure.


Please, post those data. I would like to confront the implied boat manufacturers with the facts and ask for explanations.


I confess to be very surprised with your claims. Big production boats race the Sidney- Hobart race (many Beneteau First, among others) and I never heard that they had more problems than heavier boats and certainly not the devastation picture that you talk about. And of course, racing conditions (in the same area) are far more stressful for a boat than any cruising or delivery voyage.

Many big production cruisers, big and smaller, had circumnavigated and are circumnavigating and sailors that have circumnavigated as much as 3 times, continue to give them their trust. Surely after 3 circumnavigations they should have noticed that something very wrong was happening to their boats and would not have persisted in the same error.

I am very curious about the data.

About Ian Nicolson on keels and insurance, can you give me the date of that article?

I have already said that sailors owning a light modern and inexpensive boat have to be more careful about groundings than sailors that own heavy boats.

But he says:

"A visit to any boat show makes it clear that the majority of sailing yachts on the market have short fin keels.. Grounding damage comprises a large percentage of all insurance claims, and as a result, insurance premiums are kept needlessly high".

That also means that those other problems you talked about are rather insignificant, compared with Groundings. I agree with that.

About groundings, if you know that is a weak point on your boat, you only need to be more careful. Today there are echo sounders that read 150m ahead of the boat (my next boat will have one of them). With that, only a absentminded skipper will ground a boat .

Cheers

 

Guillermo, MikeJohns and Vega have the point. Each one contribute to put some of clarity in this discussion... But this discussion did start with a question. Are we in the right way?. We assume it´s fantastic to talk and to write about sailboats, but we should put the feet on the floor. Who has a heavy, classic, and no sail performance boat? Who has a a light,modern and really fast in any condition? Probably those first could be only a 10 % and those seconds the 90%. In what are we spend the time ? In a 10 % of the total boats of the world or we should choose another way of discussion.

Remind the 90 % of boats, of sailboats are not classic designs with huge motion comfort ratios or incredible capsize screening formulas. Unfortunately, most of the boats that every year cross the Atlantic or Pacific they do it in those 90% sailboats.

I love the HR,Contest,Malö,Formosa, Colin Archer, etc, etc, but certainly, I only choose them if did cross the 40-50º S. Anyway imagine a navigation between Boca Chica ( Dominican Republic ) to Portugal or Spain or UK spending more than the one a a half time for choosing a classic design?

For example : First 50 Beneteau vs Nauticat 515 or Formosa 51

Best winds

Antonio

 

Vega I was deliberately vague about manufacturers for very good reasons which you might find hard to understand not working in this industry.

But you call this a seaworthiness issue, It's probably better described as a durability issue. If you buy a lightweight cheaper production boat that mimics high-tech material racers then don't expect the same strength stiffness or durability, this should be self evident, Architect....you have some engineering knowledge?.

Ian's article...
Australian Naval Architect 2001 Nov(I think) you can phone Ian Nicolson.

It is clear enough that CE is no protection against poor design, as we have discussed recently about one production boat where both the design and the build were poor:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10410&page=4

There are of course public recalls that can be referenced if major problems have come to light and you can see these yourself. eg the classic case of the Bavarias not so long ago. Another case of poor design.

As for your fwd sonar preventing keel root damage, which way does your boat go when you drag anchor and pound? It also doesn't pick up that floating tree you are about to run over. Short keel roots on long keels are an abysmal design feature from an engineering perspective. Performance oriented sacrifice of common engineering sense.

Here's a thought.... Around 10% of the 98 Sydney to Hobart were full keel boats none of them suffered hull structural damage, but then none of them were knocked down or rolled

 

DIANA 60

 

Mike,
I have surveyed quite a few fin keelers (fancy boats from very well known manufacturers, which's names I'm not going to make public here, as per your same reasons) after they had grounded or hit submerged objects by a variety of reasons. Several of them had suffered severe damage to their structures, even presenting broken ribs (all!) around the keel base. And that just after grounding at anchor for some minutes in good weather at a sandy beach!

On the other hand I have surveyed also long keelers for the same reason, and usually there were only minor damages, many just cosmetic. The longer the keel the minor the damages, as a general rule. As a matter of fact I have hit a submerged rock with my good old Marie, sailing (alone) at 4 knots, coming to a total halt with the bow pointing up the surrounding hills . I took the boat off that embarrassing situation just by waiting a wave to lift the stern and throttling full power astern. After inspecting on the dry, I found only minor superficial damages at the forefoot, that were repaired in a matter of minutes.

Cheers.

 

Interesting to review some of Vega's interesting opinions at the “Keels and Keels again” thread:

I cannot less than strongly agree with him.
(But then I feel somewhat confused comparing this with some of his statements in several of his recent posts at this and other threads.....)

Cheers.

 

Me? You have posted the same stuff on three different threads
Should I reply on the three? No, it's too crazy .

The answer is here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13569&page=18

 

Only 3/3rds crazy. You have reacted to all three.
Quod erat demonstrandum

 

beneteau experience

I friend i sailed with a lot did a delivery of a Beneteau from the U.S. to Germany.

Bad weather is not always avoidable so they ended up in a storm of about force 8. While rolling downwind the hull twisted so much the watertank ruptured.

After the relief that the water in the bilge was sweet and the hull was not holed came the problem of being without fresh water with 4 people 800 miles from shore.

Back to the main topic:

51 feet of boat of any marque is hard to handle by a small crew in rough conditions. I would by something smaller, spend the money saved on reliability and buy the HR 45.

 

I friend i sailed with a lot did a delivery of a Beneteau from the U.S. to Germany.

Could you be so kind telling us wich was the beneteau model and the year of construction?

Bad weather is not always avoidable so they ended up in a storm of about force 8. While rolling downwind the hull twisted so much the watertank ruptured.

And ... Do you think was it for the model or for not preparing the boat in this conditions?

A.