Oyster Problems?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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.
...

To give you an idea of the costs on Italy, were the inspection is performed by very qualified independent organization (RINA) the cost is about 500 euros for each inspection that has the periodicity of 4 years. For year the costs are less than two nights on a typical Italian Marina.

It seems very reasonable to me. Regarding bureaucracy, the guys on the shipyard were I had the boat treated everything, I had not to be present and it is not complicated. The bureaucracy and the work that it tools to them to accompany the inspection was so light that they did not even charge that to me.

On the inspection they take special care testing and seeing the condition of all trough the hull sea-cocks, regarding keel and keel structure, boat structure and bulkheads, regarding rudder, rudder play and general condition and regarding standing rigging condition. They also make a lot of questions regarding boat maintenance, that in my case were answered by the shipyard manager that does the maintenance of my boat.

[Polux]

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.

Gross tonnage has not to do with the actual weight of the boat. It has more to do with the interior volume of the boat than with weight.

"Gross tonnage is a measurement of total capacity expressed in volumetric tons of 100 cubic feet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage

Regarding yachts it is an administrative measure that has to do with attribution of taxes and other stuff.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Polux

Gross tonnage has not to do with the actual weight of the boat. It has more to do with the interior volume of the boat than with weight.

"Gross tonnage is a measurement of total capacity expressed in volumetric tons of 100 cubic feet"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage

Regarding yachts it is an administrative measure that has to do with attribution of taxes and other stuff.

As I said above, registered tonnage is 26.1, gross 29.45. Neither figure is close to 18, unless my counting has gone awry somewhere.

[barnakiel]

I would be pretty careful making statements like H&P Oysters were fine and then something went wrong. I have seen quite a number of leaky keels on H&P Oysters.

Too many people judge boats by their price. I think a walk in the boatyard gives more accurate judgement of quality.

A lucky friend of ours drove a Ferrari. Then he sold it and bought a Honda. His motivation was that he wanted a quality car.

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by jmaja

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 the 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.

No, I would say that it is an impossible difference. 18.5T is the lightweight. The two most important measure of weights on a boat are lightweight and maximum weight, that is the light weight plus the maximum load the boat is designed to carry.

No sailing yacht is designed to carry 54% of its lightweight as load. Regarding monohulls 25% as load regarding the lightweight of the sailingboat is already a good load capacity.

I did not post about that but I found curious the comparisons you posted regarding Oysters and Swans. I would say I was surprised to see that the difference was not big regarding similar building materials and techniques and having as consideration that the bigger draft of the Swan and the type of keel can save a lot of weight (mostly on ballast). Considering also that Oysters have more heavier interiors.

The hulls are not that different in what regards weight and probably are not different in what regards impact resistance or in what regards strongness.

That is interesting since one is normally associated with a bluewater very safe cruisers and the other associated with more fragile performance cruisers. In fact Swan are performance cruisers by design and performance.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

As I said above, registered tonnage is 26.1, gross 29.45. Neither figure is close to 18, unless my counting has gone awry somewhere.

Nobody has claimed that Oyster 55 would weigh 18 tonnes. I said Oyster 53 weighs 18.5 tonnes and that seems to be the correct (design) value given by Oyster.

So where does that 26.1 tonnes (or is it metric tons?) come from? Is it measured? Given by Oyster? Why there are plenty of ads and other info that give 23 tonnes (50 000 or 51 000 lbs) for Oyster 55 H&P and none 26.1 tonnes?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

As I said above, registered tonnage is 26.1, gross 29.45. Neither figure is close to 18, unless my counting has gone awry somewhere.

Registed tonnage is also an administrative figure. The way they are calculated depend on countries and regions.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I would be pretty careful making statements like H&P Oysters were fine and then something went wrong. I have seen quite a number of leaky keels on H&P Oysters.

Too many people judge boats by their price. I think a walk in the boatyard gives more accurate judgement of quality.

A lucky friend of ours drove a Ferrari. Then he sold it and bought a Honda. His motivation was that he wanted a quality car.

b.

Leaky keel on an H&P 55? Prove it.

You suggesting I judge boats by their price? So tell me, oh oracle, wherein you walked the boatyard when you made your judgement on the 55s, what was it you judged them down on, apart from the fictional leaky keel? Oh, and which boatyard? When and where? And what do you mean by "… and then something went wrong."? It doesn't even really appear to make sense. The last of these boats was built 19 years ago…

[neilpride]

The H&P 55 its a supper boat , last year we made pre rigging inspection in a 55 before they set sail to Azores, we ask the owner for a interior tour and frankly the boat smell to quality in every corner ...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

I would be pretty careful making statements like H&P Oysters were fine and then something went wrong. I have seen quite a number of leaky keels on H&P Oysters.

Too many people judge boats by their price. I think a walk in the boatyard gives more accurate judgement of quality.

A lucky friend of ours drove a Ferrari. Then he sold it and bought a Honda. His motivation was that he wanted a quality car.
b.

I guess that by quality car he mean a car with less maintenance. Ferrari are very high quality cars but very complicated ones and needing a lot of maintenance. That goes with the package.

Two years ago I drove one of the last models and I can tell you the quality is impressive everywhere as well as the performance and comfort.

I am not only talking about the super performance on sports mode but the performance on cruising mode that allows you to drive the car as if it had a big diesel engine, going in 5th gear on the slow city traffic without any complaints. Truly impressive.

But regarding luxury and price of the boats being many times associated with a much bigger built quality in what is essential or regarding control quality, I agree with you.

That is why on the European boat of the Year contest two of the classes that have similar (by design criteria) sailboats are Family cruisers and Luxury cruisers.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by jmaja

Nobody has claimed that Oyster 55 would weigh 18 tonnes. I said Oyster 53 weighs 18.5 tonnes and that seems to be the correct (design) value given by Oyster.

So where does that 26.1 tonnes (or is it metric tons?) come from? Is it measured? Given by Oyster? Why there are plenty of ads and other info that give 23 tonnes (50 000 or 51 000 lbs) for Oyster 55 H&P and none 26.1 tonnes?

Displacement is stated to be 51000, however, last time I bothered to ask (some years ago) I noticed mine was significantly heavier. Quite significantly actually… though I can't remember exactly what. Not surprising as she has a lot of kit aboard (yes and tankage etc), but remember noting that it did not account adequately for the difference. However, each 55 is unique, with a different layout though on a general theme, and stick built, so weights will vary in the class. No part of the hull skin is less than 2cms thick, solid, no core, up to far more than that in the keel areas. No bulkhead less than 3, the main bulkhead at the mast is around 7 cms, and many of the other big structural bulkheads around 5 or 6 cms, including the walls of the heads, and the majority of the lateral bulkheads. Decks are between 5cms and 15cms thick (around the main track and other heavy load areas, massive structural beams visible in all areas of hull, fully encapsulated massively built modified keel and bronze footed full skeg. I weigh 100 kilogrammes, and if I stand on the side deck and jump up and down in a dead still calm she barely moves. Like jumping on concrete, but will happily do well over 200 mile days in the right winds, and take 8 knots out of 12 on a fine reach all day long.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jmaja

Nobody has claimed that Oyster 55 would weigh 18 tonnes. I said Oyster 53 weighs 18.5 tonnes and that seems to be the correct (design) value given by Oyster.

So where does that 26.1 tonnes (or is it metric tons?) come from? Is it measured? Given by Oyster? Why there are plenty of ads and other info that give 23 tonnes (50 000 or 51 000 lbs) for Oyster 55 H&P and none 26.1 tonnes?

Registered tonnage in not what the boat weighs. It is a calculation of cargo capacity. Even for pleasure vessels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_tonnage#Calculation

A tonne is a metric measurement 1,000 kg.

Displacement is the weight of the vessel.

[Maine Sail]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

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

For what it is worth, your statement was cross-posted on another forum to Bob Perry, the guy who designed the Valiants.

Originally Posted by bobperry

That is nonsense. It's almost an automatic that if you get rolled once you will most probably lose the rig. I don't even know how I would design the rig so it would stay on. I do know that if I tried that calculation there would be some hefty safety factors. Lots of variables involved.

I'll go so far as to say that comment is stupid.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, I would say that it is an impossible difference. 18.5T is the lightweight. The two most important measure of weights on a boat are lightweight and maximum weight, that is the light weight plus the maximum load the boat is designed to carry.

No sailing yacht is designed to carry 54% of its lightweight as load. Regarding monohulls 25% as load regarding the lightweight of the sailingboat is already a good load capacity.

I did not post about that but I found curious the comparisons you posted regarding Oysters and Swans. I would say I was surprised to see that the difference was not big regarding similar building materials and techniques and having as consideration that the bigger draft of the Swan and the type of keel can save a lot of weight (mostly on ballast). Considering also that Oysters have more heavier interiors.

The hulls are not that different in what regards weight and probably are not different in what regards impact resistance or in what regards strongness.

That is interesting since one is normally associated with a bluewater very safe cruisers and the other associated with more fragile performance cruisers. In fact Swan are performance cruisers by design and performance.

Swans this actual days are made in CF , hull and deck In the 60 ft and the 80 ft, so no sense in compare a Poly Oyster hull with a CF Swan in terms of strength,, Swans are the kind of Light, Strong , Fast and really expensive boats....

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Swans this actual days are made in CF , hull and deck In the 60 ft and the 80 ft, so no sense in compare a Poly Oyster hull with a CF Swan in terms of strength,, Swans are the kind of Light, Strong , Fast and really expensive boats....

Swan 66 is not CF boat, but has some CF structures.