Wharram Tiki wrecked in Thailand

Discussion in 'Multihulls' started by sloopjb, Aug 30, 2009.

  1. propshaft
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 52
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 30
    Location: S.E.A.

    propshaft Junior Member

    Yes, just a guy sitting in Holland but very concerned about boat wrecked in Thailand... :D

    You have wrong feeling again, as usual. But I am sure builder will join this discussion soon! :D

    Your lie has been proved already.

    Again, next time defamation should be better prepared. Try to find more facts and evidences, only slogans and fabrications do not work.
     
  2. propshaft
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 52
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 30
    Location: S.E.A.

    propshaft Junior Member

    Peter, thanks for Your unprejudiced input.
    Yes, we don't know full story, but there is no evidence that it was builder's fault. Moreover, limited facts we have show opposite.
    So why do we have to listen this ******** 'from Holland'? :D
     
  3. peterAustralia
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 353
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: Melbourne Australia

    peterAustralia Senior Member

    I do not know the answer to the story.

    I am not siding one way or the other.

    I do not like the rude way the builder posted in other threads. He may have had grounds to be rude, but feel it does him no favours. Maybe to be a business owner in a competitive field you need to be aggressive to survive.

    The other blog, this one
    http://naturalhigh-adventures.com/warren-blog/?currentPage=2

    does raise more issues. Maybe they are unrelated. In other words the failure in Thailand was caused by lashing failure (anyone dispute that?). The issues from the guy in NZ relate to the beam trough strength.

    Was the beam trough built to plans, is it strong enough? Is is OK for the builder to use their judgment and use different materials (we do not even know if this has happened or not) I do not like the idea of accusations of defamation, when people may be just thinking out loud. Equally it is not right to accuse people of error, when a lot is based on supposition.

    Too early to come to conclusions. Do we have an independent survey that the boat in NZ was not built strongly enough? Do we have independent survey saying the beam troughs were not built to plans?

    In the above blog he seems to be of the opinion that in the boat in Thailand the mast fell down, then the beams broke, and then the boat got washed ashore. Using logic this does not add up. If the boat broke up at sea, why would the anchor fail? Logic suggests that the anchor failed first, and then the boat got washed ashore, and only then did the mast and lashings fail. The idea that both happened independently must be a massive coincidence, and I feel that coincidences do not happen much in the real world.

    The writer of the blog seems to think the boat was at sea in a storm, the mast fell down, the boat broke in two (whilst at sea) and then by coincidence the anchor failed, and then the boat came ashore... does not add up to me.,,. logic suggests that the anchor failing started the process of events.

    Would a normal catamaran survive being washed ashore in a storm, hmmm maybe yes, maybe no, but it could not be guaranteed.

    So, what do we know. We know that the lashings failed, We do not know who tied them and with whcih rope. Do we expect lashings to withstand the massive forces involved in a boat being washed ashore in a storm (massive turning forces of breaking waves, boat may have been side on to the waves)

    and also we know the fellow in NZ has concerns. But we do not know if his concerns are justified or not.

    It is always a good idea to label fact as fact... and clearly label opinion as opinion. Keep them separate, keeps everyone out of trouble.

    peer
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. raoul bianchett

    raoul bianchett Previous Member

    RB Tiki 38

    Let me clarify some points :

    1. the boat went ashore in a storm as the anchor did not hold

    2. lashing partially broke after the boat rolled on the beach for 2 days , hit by the waves

    3. no structural damages , as shown in the photo i took last week in my factory

    Demonstration of strenght of this construction in cedar - multiaxial

    Nothing structural failed , hulls , beams or so .

    We had to repaint partially the boat and fix a number of scratches and some broken parts , but nothing mayor . Lucky owner , that did not take good care of the boat .

    We wil sail that boat to Philippines in Christmas .

    For the getlemen happy about the huge damages ...sorry , next time , ok ?


    RB
     

    Attached Files:

  5. raoul bianchett

    raoul bianchett Previous Member

    again Tiki

    Forgot to say that we had to disassemble the boat as we decided to fix it in the new factory in Bangpakong , and the boat was waay to wide to be road transported .

    I think the Tiki will be launched again in october and kept overthere in Bangpakong , so who will be here in Thailand is invited to join for a ride ( bring the beers , i will provide the girls ...)

    The boat has been sold to a thai persons , that is a long time friend of the yard .... good guy , but not very careful of his boats ...
     
  6. raoul bianchett

    raoul bianchett Previous Member

    it also look like .. to you only

    Hi Sloojb ,


    the Tiki has been sold months before ...

    "Surely he is then NOT responsible for maintenance and providing adeguate supervision" .. so seems to me , about myself .

    The Tiki was not inside the Marina , but at the anchor in the bay near the Marina ;

    What a pity ... it has not been damaged a lot and is now back in shape ... so there wil not have anything more to discuss ....

    " the mast falled down and the boat broke in 2 parts " ...... it seems somebody's dream more then a report :)


    After the photos of the boat back in shape and ready to sail again .... no more comments .... why ? ;)

    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
     
  7. peterAustralia
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 353
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: Melbourne Australia

    peterAustralia Senior Member

    Roaul,

    It is 11.40pm here, and may be a bit late there, so will understand if you do not answer promptly.

    Are you able to elaborate on the concerns raised by the owner of the Tiki 38 in NZ. I may be mistaken, but a quick glance seems to indicate that the beam troughs were built out of nida core and not solid timber. I guess this is a big issue the the fellow in NZ.

    http://naturalhigh-adventures.com/warren-blog/?currentPage=2

    I guess there is some degree of judgment to be used by the builder. I can see from the photos that the NZ tiki the hulls were built with cedar. I also assume that often the builder changes small things to accommodate the wishes of the owner.



    This is commentary

    I was trying to follow the email trail. It started off politely enough, and then got nasty. Maybe after someone says something the goodwill quickly disappears. Based on the email thread I got the following impression

    Your not a fan of Wharram, in particular the lashing method? I would put it to you that it may be true that the Tiki does not conform to ISO standards, but Wharram is a brand with a very good reputation with many built. I guess what I am getting at, is that it is OK for the owner to want a boat that is not to your taste, but this issue is were the beam troughs built as per plans, and if not were they built to another method was that method sufficiently strong.

    end of comment

    So it seems we have got to the bottom of the Tiki that broke at lashings in Thailand. That seems resolved. This is good. Now moving on to the second issue (if you go by what you read in the internet) is that of the Tiki now is NZ, the owner has concerns about the beam troughs.

    He may have been unduly concerned by what happened to the Tiki in Thailand and feared the same may happen to him at sea. Perhaps he got overly concerned. Maybe he did not realise the huge forces involved in a boat caught on a lee shore in a surf zone. Chances are these massively exceed the loads found when sailing, even in big seas.

    He seems to have concerns that a different methods was used to construct the beam troughs. Is this the case? It is also possible that a different method was used, but that method was sufficiently strong. It is also possible that as the boat was incomplete some work work on this area was yet to be done.

    more comment
    Reading another thread that occurred in this forum a while back, it quickly got nasty. In this thread we have been able to get to the bottom of one of 2 issues fairly quickly without resorting to too much rudeness. What is the difference. Maybe in this thread there is a desire to concentrate on facts, and put emotions to one side.

    again I would like to stress, I am trying to be impartial and neutral. Think everyone would be better off if more emphasis was put on facts and less on accusations.

    thats it .. am off to sleep .. after midnight here.
     
  8. raoul bianchett

    raoul bianchett Previous Member

    Tiki 38 , first and NZ one

    Hello Peter ,

    i will try here below to give the answers that you kindly required .
    English is not my first language ,please be patient .

    @ We have been required , at the beginning of all this , to design and build a Tiki 38 , SIMILAR to the original one , but modified as follows :

    - increased displacement of about 5-8 % , in order to carry more weight
    - avoid plywood , as the local one is too heavy , and it is easy to notice that most Tikis around the world are floating too deep , then lazy to tack and slow .
    - we increased the camber of the decks
    - we decided to build in sandwich of cedar - biaxial , for the hulls , and in nidacore for decks and furniture .
    - beams are in plywood and cedar , with biaxial/epoxy .

    @ Our Tiki is lighter and much faster then another Tiki , as tested in the sea . Of course it is not a main project for us , so we did not perform extensive tests and i don't have much data to share . I can collect them in a future , surely .

    @ I noticed an excellent payload , easily carrying 8 to 10 persons and still floating higher then the theoretical waterline . Very easy to tack , within seconds , using only the rudders .

    This boat is built in composite , and it must be considered a fiberglass composite construction . Absolutely nothing to see with Plywood / epoxy , plywood on frames , as designed by JW. Our boat is a hull with keels as appendix , fitted with bulkheads and with some structural furniture , floors and stiffeners .

    Original Tiki is a structure of stringers and frames , planked with a plywood skin .

    2 different construction techniques , both well known of course .

    Now the Beam Through : they are heavily laminated and a plywood is incapsulated , just to add material where the locating pin is going through the bulkheads .There is an epoxy bushing too .

    The load is properly distributed , as only the biaxial and triaxial with epoxy can do , as they are wrapped around the edges of the deck . I evaluate the construction as 30 % lighter then the original design , with an enormous strenght , difficult to evaluate , but with a huge safety factor .

    I tried a few times to explain to the owner of the NZ Tiki , our construction technique , but this requires some knowledge of composite construction .

    Nidacore : the core is not so important in this sense ; anyway large areas are in solid glass , in that area , as the core has been removed after laying some layers on one side .

    You are right , i don't like JW designs . I can accept a lashed construction but not lashed with locating pins ...at the end the pins take all the load , if only the ropes get a little loose , and this is what happens every time . It would be much better to bolt through all the beam then .. or glue down . But the ropes are only there to simulate a 'polinesian' construction , and i don't like this .

    Like an heavy make-up , make women look more exotic , but at then end ...wait morning to see ...;)

    I build what a client requires , with limits , but i still keep my opinions .

    I think that the Tiki 38 is not the best boat for long range sailing ..... this was my opinion , that caused so much rumors ..... i insulted their toys :rolleyes:

    There are many persons that sailed the world on a JW .... sure , but still i don't think it is the best boat to do this .

    I have seen that rudders lashings are nothing but troubles ... they always get loose when go on reverse ... in the modern world we don't need to simulate old techniques .... we can build bronze hinges for the rudders , they last forever , costs nothing , no maintenance .... what else we need ?

    I would like to keep my opinions and i respect everybody opinion .


    Best Regards


    ***** **********
     
  9. raoul bianchett

    raoul bianchett Previous Member

    forgot something

    it seems now that i forgot to say that it would have been illogical to build the beam through as per JW design , when the whole boat has been built in an different technique .

    Strong materials , as hardwood and plywood would have been difficult or impossible to connect to 'soft' material as glass fiber/core .

    The logical choice was to build it keeping a continuity of the fiber , hull-deck-beam through , in order to spread the load .

    Thanks


    RB
     
  10. peterAustralia
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 353
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: Melbourne Australia

    peterAustralia Senior Member

    Hi

    Nice of you to reply

    So we now have gotten to the bottom of the story. As the hull of the boat was built of a different material, you decided to build the beam troughs out of a different material as well.

    Now maybe the owner of the NZ tiki assumed that the hull would be built of different materials, but the beam troughs were to be built as per original plans. An assumption on my part is that if the owner of the NZ tiki really wanted the troughs to be built as per original plans, he should have had that in the contract. My guess if this was in the contract, it would have been done so (just my guess, not fact)

    The NZ tiki owner heard about the Tiki in Thailand, became concerned, saw that the beam troughs were not built as he had assumed they would be, and started to get really worried. In retrospect maybe he was overly worried.

    Now would the different beam trough method be strong enough? Well since the yard has made many boats, and there are no stories as yet of structural failure (to the best of my knowledge) in all probability they know how to build things strong enough.

    So a big issue is communication. The owner assumed that the beam troughs were to be built as per plans. The owner seeing that the hull was to be built of a non standard material, assumed it was OK to build the troughs out of a non standard material as well

    Now a little opinion from me
    The tone of the emails got very nasty very quickly. I would put it to you that this was not too smart. When someone comes across as so aggressive (justified or not) it appears from the outside that they have something to hide. Reading some of the emails from ***** on 1 Aug, the tone was very aggressive. I am not saying that he did not have good reason to be upset, but rather that it was not smart or in anyone's interest to reply in that tone.

    If the email correspondence was more of the polite tone of this thread, the entire episode could have been avoided. Perhaps the NZ tiki owner did not realise that the first Tiki failed only after being on a lee shore in the surf zone for a long time, and then only at the lashings. Perhaps in the email correspondence this could have been emphasizes more. Sometimes points need to be said over and over for it to sink in.

    When I read the original thread that was written a while back, I came to poor impression of the builder. But when the facts are now out there in the open, all that he is done is build beam troughs out of different materials, based on the premise that the entire hull was to be built of a different material in the first place.

    For the record, were the lashings built as per plans with the correct number of lashings and correct rope size. Or is this information something not easily found.

    thats it
    the end of the story
    everything is clear
    we can kill the thread now
    just a nice polite, constructive thread..well worth it


    peter
     
  11. warmat
    Joined: Aug 2009
    Posts: 23
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 9
    Location: New Zealand

    warmat Junior Member

    Hi Peter,

    I normally don't join forums but I felt that I should in order to set the record straight about a couple of posts given that it concerns me directly.

    I am the guy in New Zealand with the other Tiki 38. It has been suggested that I am perhaps overly concerned about the strength integity of my beam troughs.

    ***** the builder in Thailand has also claimed in a post that the beam troughs in my boat are actually stronger than that specified by Wharrams. Had that been the case I would have been delighted and I would certainly have no cause for concern.

    However, that is not the case. The beam troughs were constructed of a single layer of 12mm nida-core which is a plastic honeycome and this core was simply butted together to form a trough. Then there was one layer of thin glass applied to it...and that is all. There was no foam cut out and replaced with solid fibre glass as ***** suggests and certainly no timber reinforcing of any description.

    An important part of the trough is the way it is bonded to the hull. The stresses are concentrated at the corner where the troughs meet the hull. That is where strength and reinforcing is so critical so they can be distributed through the hulls. However there was no strengthening at all.

    If the boat had been launched with the troughs the way they were they would have immediately been crushed with the movement caused by the first wave and the boat would have started to come apart.

    I can assure you that if they were strong I would not be spending another $10,000+ to fix them.

    Tomorrow the beam troughs will be cut out. I will have them photographed and also cut through one of them so that the cross section is clearly visible.
    I will post the photos on my blog at http://www.naturalhigh-adventures.com

    Cheers,

    Warren Matthews

    PS. Just for the record. I do know a little about composites in spite of what ***** says. I have built six high speed ocean going power catamarans in composite. epoxy, carbon fibre, kevlar and core materials. All in excess of 70feet.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. propshaft
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 52
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 30
    Location: S.E.A.

    propshaft Junior Member

    This seems to be uneducated guess, not fact. Why didn't they crush on Creed's boat then??? As we know on Creed's boat lashing failed, not troughs.

    Really bad solution, it will damage continuous laminate.

    As I understand You got uncompleted boat, and start cutting the structure without making a survey. Since that, everything You say is just bla-bla-bla... :p
     
  13. peterAustralia
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 353
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: Melbourne Australia

    peterAustralia Senior Member

    ok Warren,

    may i ask why you did not get the builder in Thailand to resolve your concerns regarding your beam troughs in his yard there. Could you have not negotiated something there and then, described your expertise and if still not satisfied, hired an independent expert to mediate.

    Do you concur that the first Tiki that failed was due to the anchor failing and the boat being caught in a surf zone on a lee shroe and the massive forces the cat would have been subjected to. Probably more than a standard Tiki 38 could withstand?
     
  14. peterAustralia
    Joined: Mar 2006
    Posts: 353
    Likes: 23, Points: 18, Legacy Rep: 233
    Location: Melbourne Australia

    peterAustralia Senior Member

    to propshat,

    are you able to elaborate a little more on your identity? do you work in the yard or are involved in some way.

    me
    n peter evans
    49 whitehall street, footscray
    Melbourne Australia
    0403 992106
    just an amateur boat builder,
    on the internet before going to work later today

    Warren we know
    Roaul we know
    Yourself... if you could be so kind?
     

  15. propshaft
    Joined: Aug 2008
    Posts: 52
    Likes: 3, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 30
    Location: S.E.A.

    propshaft Junior Member

    I am not involved and not working at that yard...
    Just making observations based on what I see myself and know from local community.
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.