Production Boats Fit For Blue Water

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

....

Now go work on that resume so you can get paid for your enthusiasm.

Saying that I am being paid for my opinion is offensive and low. Please retire that comment that is inappropriate and rude.

By the way I sail an Italian boat and like as much Italian boats or more than French boats. I like also Danish, German, Australian and Swedish boats as well as some American boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

Many of these boats are so beamy that if you stand on the centerline, where a normal helm would be, you can't see over the windward side once the heel exceeds 10-15 degrees. Hence the need for a windward helm.

That is true. On those boats as on any sailingboat except on autopilot a sailor sits on the side of the boat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

.. The design trends displayed in this thread are appealing to the eye, but not something I personally am interested in. Polux, on the other hand, probably has little interest in some of the more traditional boats. He values speed and modernity over perhaps proven technology. I can't get into the IKEA interiors, but then, the manufacturers obviously know their market, and it appears to work for the masses.

Yes of course you don't belong to the masses but to the enlightened ones. I value efficiency an that is what sailboat design has been about for thousands of years always versus more efficient sailboats. The only difference is that now evolution is so fast that 10 years correspond to 50 years a century ago.

By "proven technology" you probably mean old boats that still sail around. Today a technology is proved on the race course and when it arrives to cruising boats it is already a very well proven technology...if not it will never be applied on the cruising designs.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

Saying that I am being paid for my opinion is offensive and low. Please retire that comment that is inappropriate and rude.

By the way I sail an Italian boat and like as much Italian boats or more than French boats. I like also Danish, German, Australian and Swedish boats as well as some American boats.

Something got lost in the translation, Polux. I was paying you a compliment for your enthusiasm. I was tongue in cheek saying that they SHOULD have someone like you as there is no doubt few could do a better job.

I truly didn't mean to insult I was complimenting you. Doesn't mean I agree with your perspectives but that's okay, as wouldn't life be boring if we agreed on everything.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

i agree with smack, this obsession with older hull forms and " traditional " boats is a US obsession, given the very small proportion that US sailors make of the world sailing fleet, and that Europe is by far the planets leaders, you'd have to say so what.

As per CE, several posters have completely missed the point about CE

firstly , it wasn't brought in to control US imports or in anything relating to 1979 fastnet.
The primary original reason, was that the British and Belgium marine federations, complained to the EU that the Italians and others were controlling access to the "power boat" market by having local standards, that required British manufacturers ( remember Brits and Italians dominate the power boat market) to through through national standards to sell their wares,

IN true sense the EU widened the requirements to address all boats in the EU.

The primary thrust of the CE system ( actually the RCD ) is to ensure that the builder runs a documented manufacturing system. It originally had very few specific requirements unlike ABYC. For example a category A manufacturer has far more documented processes to perform then say a category D. yet the boat could be identical.

Note that ISO specifications hardly existed when the RCD was created, hence the RCD still to this day contains many vague construction standards. ISO standards are merely ONE way a builder can justify compliance, not just THE way.

Gradually especially as more and more ISO standards have been adopted, then the RCD has been modified to specify certain ISO standards , particularly around noise, emissions and basic scantlings and stability.

the trust in the next few years will be that the RCD will progress to a legal version of ABYC. Right now its a long way from that

The purpose of the CatA , means that when comparing two manufacturers you can be assured that both have met the MINIMUM standards and that one is not mis-representing its wares.

Is a CAT A boat a blue water boat, Thats purely for you the buyer to determine , You can be assured that the boat is at or exceeds a certain minimum, is that enough for your requirements, the answer is purely in the beholder. Cat A doesnt mean that the boat will handle all conditions found at sea, that would be ridiculous,

So evaluating a boat with Cat A , against another , doesnt mean that both are the "same" under the hood. The dearer boat , MAY or MAY not actually be any better. I would argue that Oysters rant all they are cracked up to be. personably I don't like HRs uses of foam core under the waterline for example. and I prefer beneteaus single skin, But there are other issues that are different.

Treating CAT A, and discussing bras seacocks, is ridiculous, theres nothing to stop builders using bronze and forthcoming revisions of the RCD will probably make the use of brass very very difficult to comply.

The fact is that modern European productions boats are generally well built and can take a competent sailor anywhere he or she wants , WITHIN reason. the evidence is sailing around the world as we speak. ( proof and pudding etc). The US obsession is rather like an argument that says " its all very well if it works in practice, but will it work in theory"

You wil also notice that certainly in this part of the world, insurance companies make no reference to RCD category. Its up to you the owner , as it always was to decide what you regard as a " blue water " boat.

In my view the premier sailors are the french, if its good enough for them, its good enough for me……!!!. after that its the Chinese gooseberries. !

Dave

The only thing I know about CE is that it allows Lagoon Catamarans manufactured in france to install super crappy BRASS thru hulls and BRASS hull valves that only last 4 years and by then are nearly totally corroded away by salt water corrosion... Truly insane and meets CE specs!!!:banghea d:

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Saying that I am being paid for my opinion is offensive and low. Please retire that comment that is inappropriate and rude.

By the way I sail an Italian boat and like as much Italian boats or more than French boats. I like also Danish, German, Australian and Swedish boats as well as some American boats.

You completely misunderstood AVB. He meant that you do such a good job of promoting the design values of modern French makers that you ought to get paid for doing it. It's actually a somewhat flattering comment, while pointing out that you have a strong bias in that direction. But it was certainly not rude.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by georgetheleo

The only thing I know about CE is that it allows Lagoon Catamarans manufactured in france to install super crappy BRASS thru hulls and BRASS hull valves that only last 4 years and by then are nearly totally corroded away by salt water corrosion... Truly insane and meets CE specs!!!:banghea d:

But Goboatingnow's point was that CE category doesn't cover everything and doesn't guaranty quality at all. It covers some basic aspects of seaworthiness. Some people make far too much of this -- just because a boat as a CE "A" class does not mean that it is "ready for anything", necessarily.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by georgetheleo

The only thing I know about CE is that it allows Lagoon Catamarans manufactured in france to install super crappy BRASS thru hulls and BRASS hull valves that only last 4 years and by then are nearly totally corroded away by salt water corrosion... Truly insane and meets CE specs!!!:banghea d:

You are picking a single item to damm a whole process. Firstly The RCD says nothing about the specific material. It's says the seacock should be made of material that shows no change or degradation after 5 years. So of you are finding a boat with rotton seacocks after 4 years, there is a different issue.

I mean should I damm ABYC voluntary build code because it has an antiquated approach to AC safety and a electrical code that encourages impressed current corrosion , no of course not. ,all these standards have blinds spots and weaknesses.

The RCD is an attempt to enforce a documented quality system, to ensure boats meet minimum standards and the company building the adheres to a documented manufacturing system

Gradually , with the addition of the ISO standards on construction, the RCD is changing to be one that's more prescriptive, you can see this in the later addendum to the original RCD document, stability , noise and emissions etc in the RCD now specifically refer to the relevant ISO specs.

Forthcoming mods to the RCD will address the sea cock issue. In that the number of years will be increased. And the relevant ISO standard will be referred to. You could read the standard if you wish, again it doesn't simply say " bronze"

Personally , just like BLAKES, a believe good quality DNZ brass is more then sufficient on a non bonded GRP boat. By the way. DNZ brass will I beleive meet the ISO spec.

US people need to stop thinking of the RCD as ABYC with the force of law. , ABYC has no force of law and is a voluntary " best practice code" yet it contains little on basic stability etc. There are loads of areas in ABYC that require strengthening, The RCD has the force of law and the EU commission has to weigh carefully how strict they make everything .

There is nothing in the RCD. Documentation that's says category A is capable of taking you anywhere for example.,

If you want your lagoon to have bronze seacocks. Why not ask for them when it's in build.

As a point of information
The RCD , note in Europe talking about CE means you could be talking about ball point pens, the legislation is known as The Recreational Craft Directive, there is no such animal as CE category A. , the term is RCD Category A. . CE simply means the product conforms to its relevant standards. . My power saw table for example is CE marked against the safety directives. And so on.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

You are picking a single item to damm a whole process. Firstly The RCD says nothing about the specific material. It's says the seacock should be made of material that shows no change or degradation after 5 years. So of you are finding a boat with rotton seacocks after 4 years, there is a different issue.

I mean should I damm ABYC voluntary build code because it has an antiquated approach to AC safety and a electrical code that encourages impressed current corrosion , no of course not. ,all these standards have blinds spots and weaknesses.

The RCD is an attempt to enforce a documented quality system, to ensure boats meet minimum standards and the company building the adheres to a documented manufacturing system

Gradually , with the addition of the ISO standards on construction, the RCD is changing to be one that's more prescriptive, you can see this in the later addendum to the original RCD document, stability , noise and emissions etc in the RCD now specifically refer to the relevant ISO specs.

Forthcoming mods to the RCD will address the sea cock issue. In that the number of years will be increased. And the relevant ISO standard will be referred to. You could read the standard if you wish, again it doesn't simply say " bronze"

Personally , just like BLAKES, a believe good quality DNZ brass is more then sufficient on a non bonded GRP boat. By the way. DNZ brass will I beleive meet the ISO spec.

US people need to stop thinking of the RCD as ABYC with the force of law. , ABYC has no force of law and is a voluntary " best practice code" yet it contains little on basic stability etc. There are loads of areas in ABYC that require strengthening, The RCD has the force of law and the EU commission has to weigh carefully how strict they make everything .

There is nothing in the RCD. Documentation that's says category A is capable of taking you anywhere for example.,

If you want your lagoon to have bronze seacocks. Why not ask for them when it's in build.

As a point of information
The RCD , note in Europe talking about CE means you could be talking about ball point pens, the legislation is known as The Recreational Craft Directive, there is no such animal as CE category A. , the term is RCD Category A. . CE simply means the product conforms to its relevant standards. . My power saw table for example is CE marked against the safety directives. And so on.

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I pointed out that CE had zero value about 5 pages ago....
But everyone else knew better...

[exMaggieDrum]

Just as GoBoatingNow says above, the ABYC "suggestions" are viewed as minimum items and not what you would necessarily view as should have on a cruising boat. The boat manufacturers dominate the ABYC committees and they want to have "safe" boats but ones that can be sold in a competitive market. A boat built to the letter of the ABYC standards may or may not be suitable to an individual's requirements, although in many cases they are much more rigorous than the CEs.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Something got lost in the translation, Polux. I was paying you a compliment for your enthusiasm. I was tongue in cheek saying that they SHOULD have someone like you as there is no doubt few could do a better job.

I truly didn't mean to insult I was complimenting you. Doesn't mean I agree with your perspectives but that's okay, as wouldn't life be boring if we agreed on everything.

Thank you. Yes sometimes it is difficult to understand feelings or intentions on internet. Yes I agree with you, I would not be here if all had the same opinion. It will be dead boring.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

You completely misunderstood AVB. He meant that you do such a good job of promoting the design values of modern French makers that you ought to get paid for doing it. It's actually a somewhat flattering comment, while pointing out that you have a strong bias in that direction. But it was certainly not rude.

Thanks. That's understood now. Sorry for the over reaction.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

..
firstly , it wasn't brought in to control US imports or in anything relating to 1979 fastnet.
Dave

Regarding this I do not agree or at least at the time, before the RCD was implemented, there was a lot of talk regarding the Fastnet disaster and the work groups (NA and NE) working to establish acceptable minimum safety stability requirements for the RCD talked many times about the need of those requirements to prevent another disaster.

"On the aftermath of the studies about the Fastnet disaster CRUISING CLUB OF AMERICA come with that come with the capsizing screen ratio and EC started the studies to implement minimum stability requirements, later known as the RCD.

In the aftermath of the race and the analysis published by John Rousmaniere in his book Fastnet Force 10, many leading designers and sailors began to question the direction of design trends....In the spring of 1980, the Cruising Club of America (CCA), which was preparing to run its biennial Newport-Bermuda Race took a long hard look at the Fastnet race and began to study what could be done to prevent such a disaster from reoccurring....The CCA committee that compiled the five-year Fastnet report came up with a simple formula to determine the stability of any yacht of a fairly standard type and of a size suitable for offshore sailing.
In the EU, the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) was introduced to ensure manufacturers comply with basic stability requirements when advertising boats as being suitable for offshore sailing conditions."

Learning the lessons: 1979 Fastnet race - boats.com UK

I remember also that the RCD was discussed at the Nautical press at the time and that implication was made. Unfortunately those magazines are for long on the garbage and you have to pay to read the articles:

"Are you familiar with the Recreational Craft Directive? here's everything you need to know ... Fastnet 79 - the disaster that changed sailing "

Copyshop Cart

There was also an interesting article on line by Van Oossanen, one of the Dutch Na that composed the Dutch work group (for establish the minimum stability requirements for the RCD). It used to be on line and probably I have it somewhere but I cannot download it anymore:"Investigation of minimum stability requirements for ballasted monohull sailing craft"

On it it was also made a clear reference of the Fastnet disaster as a motivation for the RCD.

Regarding the RCD in Generic terms I agree with what you say about it and I believe a good description is this one given by Richard Blundel and Michael Thatcher:

"the most important institutional change to affect the yacht industry was the introduction of the European Union’s Recreational Craft Directive 6 94/25 (RCD). Since June 1998, almost all new recreational craft of between 2.5 metres and 24 metres in length have been required to comply with the requirements of the RCD; designs are classified by specialist companies .. The RCD replaced the various national codes that had been in operation around Europe. It established a number of safety requirements and minimum specifications in areas such as structural strength, stability and buoyancy, under specified classifications up to ‘A’ (Ocean). Though it did not come into force until 1998, the RCD was in effective use for several years prior to becoming legally binding."

Regarding the RCD it should not be seen as a closed document since they have a technical team that is revising it each year (taking into account the needs and boat accidents) and complementing the safety standards with more detailed or higher specs when needed.

The last implementation with more demanding standards was about rudders, the next one will be probably about keels and there is talk about the creation of another class, maintaining the Class A as it is but creating a new one regarding boats with superior stability characteristics, that will include some that are on class A now and exclude others. The objective is not preventing class A boats to sail offshore but to give to customers a more detailed information about stability boat characteristics.

[GarthGregory]

This topic seems endless - look at the current Yachting World article - a deaf Englishman has just sailed singlehanded round the world , via Cape Horn in a 42 ft Beneteau 42 s 7 with minimal mods - nocked down 4 x times in the 40 s - damage a slight tear in a headsail ! - I have been nocked down - had my mast in the sea off Italy no damage, except to my ego - also had 65 knot winds and sailed , bit uncomfortable - I have a Beneteau 473 - 2006 . I am sure there are good boats and better boats and good and better designs , but to automatically label a production boat as bad is nonsense - Beneteau has been building boats for 130 years , I am sure they have a very good idea of what they are doing with the laminating - most of the equipment on board is common to all yachts , whether an Oyster or a Beneteau , so where does a multiple 5 x times the cost, come from - I don't see the value except for a bit more in electronics as standard .

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by GarthGregory

This topic seems endless - look at the current Yachting World article - a deaf Englishman has just sailed singlehanded round the world , via Cape Horn in a 42 ft Beneteau 42 s 7 with minimal mods - nocked down 4 x times in the 40 s - damage a slight tear in a headsail ! - I have been nocked down - had my mast in the sea off Italy no damage, except to my ego - also had 65 knot winds and sailed , bit uncomfortable - I have a Beneteau 473 - 2006 . I am sure there are good boats and better boats and good and better designs , but to automatically label a production boat as bad is nonsense - Beneteau has been building boats for 130 years , I am sure they have a very good idea of what they are doing with the laminating - most of the equipment on board is common to all yachts , whether an Oyster or a Beneteau , so where does a multiple 5 x times the cost, come from - I don't see the value except for a bit more in electronics as standard .

From some of the info I read your 473 was one of the better ones, good boat.