Oyster Problems?

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

I'm from here and never had any insurance but I try to avoid stupid mistakes, but if I make one I pay the bill myself.. or do the repairs DIY which is more likely

Most yacht clubs and harbours reguire you to have at least a liability insurance. Everybody tries to avoid stupid mistakes, but accidents happen. I have used boat insurance twice in my life. Once due to grounding and once due to neighbour boat getting loose in a storm. The last one was a bit odd, since I thought it would be paid from the neighbour boats insurance, but the insurance companies decided, that the cause was the storm not the owner of the other boat.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Polux

I have no patient for this type or argumentation. Do you really think that any small sailboat is designed to face the big storms on the North Atlantic in winter or Cyclones?

I did not said that bigger is always safer, said that bigger, if significantly bigger, being both boats well designed, as modern production boats are, the bigger boat will have more stability and will be needed a bigger breaking wave to capsize it and it does not happens only with sailboats: That's why ships are more safe then small boats in bad weather.

I pointed also that I was talking about stability and that it cannot serve much to a small boat to be very strong if it is capsized easily, as any small boat is by a breaking wave of the right size. A capsize leads normally to a mast loss, it is very dangerous for the people inside the boat and can have unforeseen results.

I said also that all boats are not equal in what regards a strong built and that is important too.

You have no patience for this type of argument because you cannot handle it. Your assertion was that no vessel under 80 feet has ever been expressly designed for unrestricted ocean service, and your last and only remaining argument in favour of this absurd conclusion is that smaller vessels are more easily capsized. So what? Capsized is not fatal to any vessel strongly enough built! There are many small vessels precisely designed to be capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling. Some even so designed to keep their rigs. It involves a little concept you seem completely determined to oppose at every level and whatever the cost: thoroughgoing strength of design and build as the primary focus of a particular model.

A good friend of mine, Mark Slats, a nonstop solo circumnavigator on a "small" boat (by your definition) described in a very funny way to me his experience being rolled six times in a row in the Southern Ocean, in his steel, wood masted Gypsy Moth style ketch, with its 1948 Gardner engine. He said: "I was standing on the saloon floor, and then I was standing on the side, then I walked around to the roof, the other side, and the floor again"… SIX times. And then? He just continued sailing on as normal. No problems.

Even if a vessel is likely to be dismasted in a roll, many small designs are intended to survive being rolled and rolled and rolled without any real problems. See for example many of the Vancouvers and Valiants, but equally Island Packets and, well, so many others it is pointless to list, but most CF members will know perfectly well without my having to do so.

Your assertion is just complete nonsense, and your lack of patience is because despite a ferocious series of largely rhetorical fightbacks you have given up so much ground that your heel is over the abyss. Why don't you simply, finally, put all of your various admissions together and admit that certain yacht builds are far stronger and better suited to unrestricted ocean service than others, and stop encouraging the entirely false and frankly dangerous belief that all yachts are equal to the the task in an equal fashion! I really do feel that you argue all this with an agenda in mind, and I suspect you are an employee of one of the companies whose marques you typically defend. Publicist?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

You have no patience for this type of argument because you cannot handle it. ... So what? Capsized is not fatal to any vessel strongly enough built! There are many small vessels precisely designed to be capsized, rolled again and again, and come up smiling. ...
....
Even if a vessel is likely to be dismasted in a roll, many small designs are intended to survive being rolled and rolled and rolled without any real problems. See for example many of the Vancouvers and Valiants, but equally Island Packets and, well, so many others it is pointless to list, but most CF members will know perfectly well without my having to do so.
....

OK, that is too much and that's weird: Boats designed to be capsized, rolled again and again....and come up smiling

Sure very safe boats when they capsize and capsize again. These guys on a Island Packet 380 suffered only a series of knock downs, they don't talk about being rolled or capsized...but it does not seem to me they were smiling when they abandoned the boat:

"The skipper, Ben Stoddart, and two crew members have been rescued from their Island Packet 380 in the North Atlantic following a series of knock downs in atrocious conditions...The call indicated that they had lost all their instrumentation...he skipper had taken a knock to his head...the skipper indicated he was very tired having had only two hours sleep and that the vessel had lost its spray hood.... By mid morning today the crew reported that the vessel had had superficial damage and had suffered a small amount of water ingress, but that their mast was still intact....By midday however on the next call after suffering further knockdowns the skipper indicated that he had had enough and wished to abandon the vessel with his crew."

Island Packet 380 abandoned: 3 people rescued.

Maybe the problem was that they had not been rolled yet...maybe if they had waited a bit more for a complete roll they would come out of it smiling or maybe they needed two rolls

OK, I give up! your thoughts regarding small boats designed to be capsized are too weird for me.

[JPA Cate]

It's a small difference in words, Polux, but I bet Muckle Flugga meant, "designed to survive rollovers, and be able to continue sailing thereafter," not "designed to be capsized."

Apologies if I have misinterpreted either of you gentlemen.

You'd also have to add me to your list of people who think my boat should be able to survive a rollover without dismasting and be sailable thereafter...

And I sure as heck don't want a boat that the keel and part of the hull peel off in any event.

For some of us this is not theoretical, a few spend A LOT of time on their boats, even if they are not full time liveaboard cruisers.

Ann

[transmitterdan]

It sounds to me as if the IP38 was ok to proceed but the crew had had enough. That's hardly an indictment of the IP38.

If I were ever in a boat that capsized and rolled 360 and it came back up I would surely find some time to smile a little. Maybe not at that moment but at some point I would hope I should realize the boat saved my life. That's what they are supposed to do IMO.

Keels are not supposed to fall off no matter what happens. Do we need to create a remake of the infamous "but the front fell off" video?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

"By mid morning today the crew reported that the vessel had had superficial damage and had suffered a small amount of water ingress, but that their mast was still intact....By midday however on the next call after suffering further knockdowns the skipper indicated that he had had enough and wished to abandon the vessel with his crew."

It's become a clichè that many boats can out-survive their crews, but in this case it's reassuring to read that with certain well-built boats it can actually be true, even in the horrendous conditions described.

OK, I give up!

Now with all the many posts of yours that I have read over the past couple of years, this is without any doubt the LEAST credible!

[Cap Erict3]

I don't know that I have ever heard of a sailboat builder claiming a model to be impervious to rollovers.

Could you post one of their brochures?


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Polux

I have no patient for this type or argumentation. Do you really think that any small sailboat is designed to face the big storms on the North Atlantic in winter or Cyclones?

I did not said that bigger is always safer, said that bigger, if significantly bigger, being both boats well designed, as modern production boats are, the bigger boat will have more stability and will be needed a bigger breaking wave to capsize it and it does not happens only with sailboats: That's why ships are more safe then small boats in bad weather.

I pointed also that I was talking about stability and that it cannot serve much to a small boat to be very strong if it is capsized easily, as any small boat is by a breaking wave of the right size. A capsize leads normally to a mast loss, it is very dangerous for the people inside the boat and can have unforeseen results.

I said also that all boats are not equal in what regards a strong built and that is important too.

More fundamental misunderstanding of what is being said to you. The clear inverse of your statement is true, ie that if " it cannot serve much to a small boat to be very strong if it is capsized easily", it cannot serve much for a large boat to be very stable if it is broken easily. As proven in the case of the Oyster! The larger a boat, the more challenging it's design. This is because loads go up exponentially with size. It's the same reason King Kong would be impossible, he'd collapse under his own weight without a skeletal structure on a completely different scale. And not only is the structural design of a much larger heavier vessel inherently more challenging for this reason, but larger vessels are also subject to dynamic loads which smaller vessels cannot possibly be. This is because of the possibility of things like the boat straddling a wave trough with only bow and stern submerged temporarily, and all sorts of other loads not possible (or not as much of a challenge) on smaller hulls. It's elementary yacht design.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Thx Minaret, that's exactly the whole point,, if they never attempt or see in site how painfull , expensive and dirty its a repair like that , hard to see the whole picture, even I don't know if Polux understand the grounding mechanics in those keels , pan liners boats.... to me its really sad to see those boat owners with tight budgets linked to a huge expensive repair ,, I see lots of weird stuff performed for owners, yard workers, etc,,, things like steel straps screwed to the aft root side of a keel to close the gap, FG on top of antifouling, goops of 5200 here and there ,the list is endless..... and droping a keel to make a proper repair just few smart folks.... what we can do? not much since pro advice sometimes is $$$$, and its true, you get what you pay for.... huge compromise,,, I prefer to spend lots of cash in sails, electronics etc.. V fixing a keel to gain the OEM integrity....Amen...

Yep, I've seen tears, hair pulling, general sadness, fortunes spent, etc. in relation to this sort of thing more than once. It's why I'm here, it's hard to watch and I don't like it! Contrary to the statements of some, it has been my experience that most people actually expect their expensive boat to last and be fairly hardy/easy to repair, and are shocked to say the least when you must inform them otherwise.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Obviously a very well built boat

Maybe Oyster could hire the designer as a consultant

Not debating that that is a well built boat, but you might want to blow up that one picture of the port side. Seems like almost all of the public pics are of the starboard hull for some reason. I count at least 8-10 large breeches in this hull. Just because the cast iron keel is unhurt means nothing, as I said before this boat is toast. The keel is probably the only part unhurt. Look closer. Looks like the transom molding has punched right through the hull for the entire port side aft, and the whole area between the straps is just pulverized. Which is the sort of thing one would expect of any boat in these circumstances, total structural failure. It's just that holding this boat up as some sort of exemplar because the keel is still attached is silly, when everything attached to it is pulp.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Cap Erict3

I don't know that I have ever heard of a sailboat builder claiming a model to be impervious to rollovers.

Could you post one of their brochures?


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

What does this even mean? Many designs have good stability, high AVS, and small, tough hatches and portlights precisely designed to survive a rollover. No yacht builder would advertise that their design is FOR a rollover! That would be negative advertising, and entirely misses the point. The point is that many designs are made to SURVIVE a rollover, or multiple rollovers. Are you suggesting they are not?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

It's a small difference in words, Polux, but I bet Muckle Flugga meant, "designed to survive rollovers, and be able to continue sailing thereafter," not "designed to be capsized."

Apologies if I have misinterpreted either of you gentlemen.

You'd also have to add me to your list of people who think my boat should be able to survive a rollover without dismasting and be sailable thereafter...

And I sure as heck don't want a boat that the keel and part of the hull peel off in any event.

For some of us this is not theoretical, a few spend A LOT of time on their boats, even if they are not full time liveaboard cruisers.

Ann

You'd bet precisely right. Polux chose to interpret the words in the other, obviously absurd, manner, as it suits his dwindling position, and his back is to the cliff edge.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Polux

OK, that is too much and that's weird: Boats designed to be capsized, rolled again and again....and come up smiling

Sure very safe boats when they capsize and capsize again. These guys on a Island Packet 380 suffered only a series of knock downs, they don't talk about being rolled or capsized...but it does not seem to me they were smiling when they abandoned the boat:

"The skipper, Ben Stoddart, and two crew members have been rescued from their Island Packet 380 in the North Atlantic following a series of knock downs in atrocious conditions...The call indicated that they had lost all their instrumentation...he skipper had taken a knock to his head...the skipper indicated he was very tired having had only two hours sleep and that the vessel had lost its spray hood.... By mid morning today the crew reported that the vessel had had superficial damage and had suffered a small amount of water ingress, but that their mast was still intact....By midday however on the next call after suffering further knockdowns the skipper indicated that he had had enough and wished to abandon the vessel with his crew."

Island Packet 380 abandoned: 3 people rescued.

Maybe the problem was that they had not been rolled yet...maybe if they had waited a bit more for a complete roll they would come out of it smiling or maybe they needed two rolls

OK, I give up! your thoughts regarding small boats designed to be capsized are too weird for me.

Thanks for so clearly confirming my earlier sketch of your agumentative technique. When challenged in an effective manner, you simply point to an inappropriate example which misses the point. There was no indication that this vessel was done, or could not have successfully completed the journey. What was done was the crew. Big difference. Perhaps the exhaustion of the skipper plus his concerns about the bash to his head was what made the call reasonable. In any case I have zero idea why you even bothered throwing this example at me as it is beyond irrelevant to your position, and in fact if anything rather clearly bolsters the position that I and many others have been trying to get through to you. Perfectly sound yachts are abandoned all the time, not even always with the consent of the skipper. Just ask the skipper of Satori…

I note you still have no comment on who it is you work for, even generally, or what your role is in that capacity. I will draw my own inferences from that.

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

What does this even mean? Many designs have good stability, high AVS, and small, tough hatches and portlights precisely designed to survive a rollover. No yacht builder would advertise that their design is FOR a rollover! That would be negative advertising, and entirely misses the point. The point is that many designs are made to SURVIVE a rollover, or multiple rollovers. Are you suggesting they are not?

None would advertise the ability to survive intact because it's a crap shoot. While the hull might survive the odds against the rigging coming out clean is slim.

If your gonna write fiction try scifi.


Waiting on parts for the 4-154

[mitiempo]

Originally Posted by Exile

That estimate sounds rather low based on all the labor you're describing. At least based on some of the yard work I've had done here in the US.

It is low. I know of 2 different Beneteau boats that found rocks. One, a 331 was repaired at a cost of about 28,000 Cdn - I saw the bills on the table when working on the boat. The other, a 40' boat, had a 40,000 Cdn repair. These were both damage from keel movement aft and upwards.