Oyster Problems?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Panope

Neil: We will just have to agree to disagree about whether wings can be pulled off the aircraft by the pilot (or autopilot).
...Steve

On the technical manual of each airplane is specified the Gs that it can take. On a fighter airplane more than what the pilot can take without blacking out. On "my" old piper Cub if I remember right it was about 3 or 4G.

Yes a pilot can exceed that if he really tries hard On a jet liner I don't believe it will be much more than that but will take really a bad pilot to exceed those limits except in very extreme and rare meteorological situations.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

Our local club has a policy of leaving all new euro boats in slings in the yard,and don't let them sit on their keel alone.

It is interesting to see the amount of hull deflection some of them have just on their keel.

"Interesting" would be one word to describe it. Does your club own many travelifts, one for each boat? Lol! We block em and make sure to use twice as many stands placed on bulkheads only, with more load than normal on the stands, and I still see a ton of deflection.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Svanen

That's certainly consistent with other accounts I have heard.

Why did they depart South Georgia for Cape Town in late April: i.e., at the onset of winter in the southern hemisphere?



Carl and Tracey (!) See "The Lord and Lady Delusions of Grandeur".

FWIW, I'm inclined to think that a purchased manorial "title" has much in common with a bona fide peerage: both are archaic, snobbish nonsense that have no place in contemporary society.

I had the irritation of wading through their self indulgent, dreadful book about the incident, self published: "Certain death in the ice". I do NOT recommend it. They were extremely reckless, had children aboard, left the Falklands to try to sail to South Georgia two months late, and hit an iceberg, not just once, but were bashing against it in a rough sea for fully three minutes… and it still took more than 24 hours for the boat to sink, enough to save them by rescue of a British warship in the area. From what I could see, if they had had adequate pumps for such a voyage (insane/incompenent as it was at that time of year), and sufficient collision damage mitigation gear, they could have saved the boat. Evan Starsinger is right, the "trouble" they had with the boat was due to their poor maintenance, inexperience, and poor seamanship. The loss of the boat likewise, as well as spectacularly bad judgement. Bloody awful and entirely avoidable loss of one of the 48 Oyster 55s built. But the incident actually shows how tough they really are, rather than the other way around. That boat cetainly saved their lives and if they had been halfway competent they should have been able to save the boat.

I don't think the 825 in this incident would have survived even the initial encounter. I think Oyster Marine is monitoring this thread. If so: for the sake of your reputation but more importantly to maintain what was once a superb line of strongly built Oceanworthy craft, please turn away from the course of decision making that led to the construction of Polina Star, not worthy to bear the Oyster title.

As to the movement in the keel of this boat being "normal" or "acceptable"… Well, it clearly wasn't, was it?

[Prairie Chicken]

In many ways I miss the protections of aviation: Type approvals, required periodical inspections, Airworthiness Directives (to resolve identified safety deficiencies), accident investigations, quality control of parts, etc. But every one of those safety factors add cost, not to mention bureaucratic involvement. I support those sorts of safety nets for public transportation and for commercial vessels, and I'm starting to think private vessels of a given size & pax capacity should bear the same burdens.

Bear in mind that aviation is coming the other direction for recreational a/c operations--lower standards to pilot an ultra light, lower maintenance standards for those ultra light a/c, etc. Those changes are making aviation affordable to the common man.

I wonder what sort of civil alternatives are available to the owner of Polina Star? It seems to me that may be the most reasonable approach.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I had the irritation of wading through their self indulgent, dreadful book about the incident, self published: "Certain death in the ice". I do NOT recommend it. They were extremely reckless, had children aboard, left the Falklands to try to sail to South Georgia two months late, and hit an iceberg, not just once, but were bashing against it in a rough sea for fully three minutes… and it still took more than 24 hours for the boat to sink, enough to save them by rescue of a British warship in the area. From what I could see, if they had had adequate pumps for such a voyage (insane/incompenent as it was at that time of year), and sufficient collision damage mitigation gear, they could have saved the boat. Evan Starsinger is right, the "trouble" they had with the boat was due to their poor maintenance, inexperience, and poor seamanship. The loss of the boat likewise, as well as spectacularly bad judgement. Bloody awful and entirely avoidable loss of one of the 48 Oyster 55s built. But the incident actually shows how tough they really are, rather than the other way around. That boat cetainly saved their lives and if they had been halfway competent they should have been able to save the boat.

I don't think the 825 in this incident would have survived even the initial encounter. I think Oyster Marine is monitoring this thread. If so: for the sake of your reputation but more importantly to maintain what was once a superb line of strongly built Oceanworthy craft, please turn away from the course of decision making that led to the construction of Polina Star, not worthy to bear the Oyster title.

As to the movement in the keel of this boat being "normal" or "acceptable"… Well, it clearly wasn't, was it?

In my opinion, the Holman & Pye designed Oyster 55 (actually an Oyster 53 with extended transom) is one of the strongest sailboats ever made, at least, that I've ever spent any time on. Built like a battleship, and with the weight to match. Not just massive layup but massive structure, very heavy bulkheads, etc. Magnificent boat, if rather slow. I looked seriously at one of the rare ketch versions of these when I was boat shopping in the 2000's.

Should be not be compared in any way with the boat which is the subject of this thread. Incredible that someone was able to actually sink one. I would have thought that you'd need a 6 pounder deck gun to create a hull breach in that one.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

In my opinion, the Holman & Pye designed Oyster 55 (actually an Oyster 53 with extended transom) is one of the strongest sailboats ever made, at least, that I've ever spent any time on. Built like a battleship, and with the weight to match. Not just massive layup but massive structure, very heavy bulkheads, etc.

But Oyster 53 H&P is actually clearly lighter than Humphreys 53 and 545, which are quite close to the same size (even LWL). 18.5 vs. 21.5 tonnes. Not to mention HR55 (26.3 tonnes), HR53 (23 tonnes) or even the much sportier Swan 53 (20 tonnes) from the same era or current Swan 54 (22 tonnes).

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jmaja

But Oyster 53 H&P is actually clearly lighter than Humphreys 53 and 545, which are quite close to the same size (even LWL). 18.5 vs. 21.5 tonnes. Not to mention HR55 (26.3 tonnes), HR53 (23 tonnes) or even the much sportier Swan 53 (20 tonnes) from the same era or current Swan 54 (22 tonnes).

Your information is wrong. Gross tonnage on a H&P Oyster 55 is 29.45 tonnes. I have no idea where you got your entirely incorrect figure.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Your information is wrong. Gross tonnage on a H&P Oyster 55 is 29.45 tonnes. I have no idea where you got your entirely incorrect figure.

I did say 53. OYSTER 53 (HOLMAN & PYE) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Sailboatdata has quite a few errors. Is this one of them?

55 seems to be about 23 tonnes according to these:
OYSTER 55 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
OYSTER 55 sailing yacht for sale | De Valk Yacht broker
http://www.yachtfractions.co.uk/imag...ghtonbelle.pdf

Where did you get the 29.45 tonnes?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Your information is wrong. Gross tonnage on a H&P Oyster 55 is 29.45 tonnes. I have no idea where you got your entirely incorrect figure. I am beginning to think you enjoy contradicting people for the fun of it. Certainly you can have no direct knowledge of this model, yourself.

sailboatdata.com




OYSTER 55


Oyster 55 photo on sailboatdata.com

Hull Type: Fin with rudder on skeg Rig Type: Cutter
LOA: 56.25' / 17.15m LWL: 45.43' / 13.85m
Beam: 15.75' / 4.80m Listed SA:
Draft (max.) 7.50' / 2.29m Draft (min.)
Displacement: 51000 lbs./ 23134 kgs. Ballast: 13359 lbs. / 6060 kgs.
Sail Area/Disp.1: Bal./Disp.: 26.20% Disp./Len.: 242.83
Designer: Holman & Pyle
Builder: Oyster Marine Ltd. (UK)
Construction: FG Bal. type:
First Built: 1986 Last Built: # Built: 55
AUXILIARY POWER (orig. equip.)
Make: Perkins Model:
Type: Diesel HP: 80
TANKS
Water: 290 gals. / 1098 ltrs. Fuel: 158 gals. / 598 ltrs.
BUILDERS (past & present)
More about & boats built by: Oyster Marine
DESIGNER
More about & boats designed by: Kim Holman
NOTES

Earlier boats were called the OYSTER 53.


sailboatdata.com blog sailboatdata.com on facebook sailboatdata.com linkedin page Follow sailboatdata.com on Twitter


© 2003-2015 sailboatdata.com All rights reserved.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jmaja

I did say 53. OYSTER 53 (HOLMAN & PYE) sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Sailboatdata has quite a few errors. Is this one of them?

55 seems to be about 23 tonnes according to these:
OYSTER 55 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com
OYSTER 55 sailing yacht for sale | De Valk Yacht broker
http://www.yachtfractions.co.uk/imag...ghtonbelle.pdf

Where did you get the 29.45 tonnes?

Why don't you have a look at my CF icon, kinda carefully.

[Sandero]

I apologize for not reading all the posts in this thread and commenting. I did read most of them through page 21 and it was a fascinating read. Thank you to everyone who posted a comment. Special thanks the to skipper who has participated in this discussion and to saving his crew. Well done!

My take away is that there is something terribly wrong in the boat building industry and probably as it relates to one off designs and new technologies. Obviously one recurrent meme is to make the boat lighter and maintain strength... light is faster than heavy. Faster seems to be a meme for multiple reasons... winning races... and making shorter and therefore safer passages... Lighter is also more economical.

The problem appears (to me) is that there is really inadequate testing of the technologies and design approaches. Lots of theory and little testing... unless one considers the products sold and sailed as the tests!

We know that there are some destructive tests conducted in the automotive industry. Considering the volumes of sames and number of users it seems to be economically possible. And we have huge companies which are better able to afford such testing programs. And then the government exerts regulatory mandates for the safety of its citizens. There are still design defects and lives lost... but probably proportionately the marine industry is way behind in this. I don't know the stats... but it feels that way.

I am not very confident in these builders having read a few of these accounts of what are clearly engineering design and construction failures. There was no aforeknowledge that the design and manufacturing were flawed. But there seems to be an recurring theme that we use "best (historical) practices and sound engineering principles.

Frankly I am curious where are this lay up of laminate engineering knowledge lives? How was it discovered, tested and so on? It seems as if builders are continually tweaking and evolving their construction techniques..and perhaps without the testing and proving before putting some boats into service.

Based on the fact the there was no grounding... Oyster was completely at fault.. no ifs ands or butts and should be held financially responsible for the loss and all associated costs. Determining why the boats design/laminate/materials failed is academic and should be the basis for improving the "art" of building and possibly for recall and retrofit at the manufacturer's expense of all the boats they manufactured which contain similar build and engineering decisions. I doubt that Oyster would do this. While they may make decent margins... these costly do overs can sink a small company. One wonders why they even take such risks?

While I don't think yachts are poorly designed constructed.... it appears that this is much more an art than a science with predictable outcomes than I had thought. Just the fact that ballast was added to the bow was a huge red flag that the designer was someone in over his head.

The sea is not forgiving. You need as much going for you as you can when you venture out.

WOW just WOW.

[neilpride]

Hull plus ballast 29 tons?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Why don't you have a look at my CF icon, kinda carefully.

I've always suspected that you were one of us.

The last time our Oyster 53 Humphreys design was on the travel lift, it weighed in at 51,000 with a full tank of fuel and half tank of water.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I've always suspected that you were one of us.

The last time our Oyster 53 Humphreys design was on the travel lift, it weighed in at 51,000 with a full tank of fuel and half tank of water.

Well now I have been outed: the registered tonnage is 26.1, and gross 29.45. Dems da facts.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Why don't you have a look at my CF icon, kinda carefully.

What is "CF icon"?

This also shows 18.5 tonnes for Oyster 53: https://books.google.fi/books?id=F_N...cement&f=false

So the value in Sailboatdata seems correct, but may not be the actual displacement as built.

So is th 29.45 tonnes measured? If so, quite a big difference to design value. Would be a typical difference for a HR, but not for most other brands.