Rudder Failures

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

I agree with that but you are wrong in thinking that relatively near a coast a f10 cannot give worse sea conditions than in open ocean. The fact that the sea is not as deep at on open ocean can create steeper waves that break more easily and also sea currents are stronger than in open ocean and that also contributes to form a more disorganized sea with waves coming from different directions.

Cape Hatteras is known has one of the worst spots as also Cape horn or Gulf of Biscay, exactly for creating those conditions. Yes I have been on F10 on one of the places that are known to create steep waves. Yes, very frightening conditions with waves coming over the boat and all the sea white. Yes on those conditions you don't go to where you want, you keep the safest course and try to keep the energy to be at the wheel all the time. With a bit of luck those conditions do not last more than 48 hours, most of the time less.

Biscay and Hatteras experience some of the worst conditions outside the Southern Ocean -- Hatteras because of the Gulf Stream, and Biscay because of the prevailing weather blowing over thousands of miles of fetch.

But these are still ocean conditions -- not like the Med or Baltic.

The other difference is that the weather in places like this blows for days at a time. The character of these storms is different from the sharp often katabatic weather in the Med.

The short wave period in enclosed waters makes the going extremely uncomfortable, but does not create much risk of a roll. They hammer the boat and pour tons of water on the deck, but they are not high enough to roll you, in general. I've been there and done it in storms in both the Med and in the Baltic.

The huge piled up seas in the N Atlanta with overhanging crests are a different thing -- they create two different risks -- one is that you speed out of control down the front faces of the waves and broach. Then you're knocked down or, beam to the sea, you get caught and rolled. Or even worse -- the bow buries in the back of the next wave, and you get pitchpoled. Never happen in the Med. The other is that the crest of such a wave, weighing hundreds or thousands of tons, can topple over and carry you with it into a roll.

In such conditions you really need all three things -- skilled, strong, crew, and plenty of them, and a drag device; boat as strong as it can be; and very high level of preparation of the cabin and interior. Any failure anywhere in these criteria can lead to losing control of the situation. When that happens, people tend to do what those IP sailors did -- lie ahull and wedge themselves in someplace where they can survive the flying missiles and let the boat take care of itself. Having a strong, non-production boat is not the only or even the main thing here, but it's certainly an advantage, at a time when you want every advantage you could possibly have.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

The Bulkhead rest in the liner slot at the bottom, no plexus there, the sides made contact with the hull and here all the plexus is unbonded , the top is just doing nothing , no plexus no Fg, just a few mm gap between the top of the bulkhead and the inner top liner,no this boat dont suffer any damage, in fact looks like new , original hull topsides gelcoat, no patches, keel in really good shape, rudder in really good shape, he made 2 transats previously, the onwer keep everythig in really good condition....

What is the year and make of the boat?

[neilpride]

Obviously i have some shoots from the rudder post config, i guess you agree with me that in this particular beneteau things are better made, since this days things are made diferent , see how Beneteau design the rudder post in this 2006 50, a long way better compared withthe 2012 Oceanis.

They FG the bulkheads in the sides and bottom in some parts, the top rudder post is suported by the deck bearing..

They still make some BS like the cleat Mickey Mouse washers.. but this boat is better made compared with the actual oceanis.

I forget to mention , in pic number 4, the grey top pate is a Steel plate conecting the the rudder post to the top side of the cockpit , believe me or not, stronger ...

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

What is the year and make of the boat?

Beneteau 50 2006.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Beneteau 50 2006.

Why is the fiberglass on the adjacent piece ground away?

Have you ever seen a broken fiberglass tab (if not, would you like me to send you some pictures)?

I'm not debating the Plexus/tab thing - just pointing out that a single occurrence is not damning. I have seen hundreds of fiberglass bulkhead tabbing that has given away without being caused by any undue damage or even hard sailing.

As a professional, I bet you have seen more than your share of broken fiberglass tabs.

I'm thinking you saw one on this boat before you were able to access the Plexus fillet under it…

Mark

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

If an inexperienced sailor believes his "bluewater boat" will allow him to sail into conditions he otherwise wouldn't - that's a recipe for disaster.

Truer words were never spoken especially if you eliminate the word "bluewater". No boat will make up for a crew's inexperience and intolerance for discomfort. Both the boat and the crew have to be up to the task. And there is no way to be 100% sure of either of those. That's because heavy weather is a random process.

That is why it's not prudent to draw conclusions about the results of small data sets where success was the outcome. For example, a particular boat rounded Cape Horn therefore all such boats are fine for that passage. That conclusion is not warranted.

Here is another case: A particular boat was sailing the north Atlantic and the keel was ripped off the boat. Sadly, the boat was found inverted with all hands lost. Now some may have us apply the same "small data set" logic to this case and say something like, "Well it only happens not very often so you can ignore that case". I would contend that is not the right attitude. Random events usually tend to line up into a really bad situation only occasionally. Because bad outcomes are fairly rare, when they do happen they usually are trying to tell us about a fundamental problem. The trick is finding that problem so we can avoid it.

So I believe you have to discount random stories about success and study really hard any and all failures if you want to honestly compare amongst various brands/technologies/types of boats. Even poorly designed and built boats will not fail very often. That's the nature of random processes.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by colemj

Why is the fiberglass on the adjacent piece ground away?

Have you ever seen a broken fiberglass tab (if not, would you like me to send you some pictures)?

I'm not debating the Plexus/tab thing - just pointing out that a single occurrence is not damning. I have seen hundreds of fiberglass bulkhead tabbing that has given away without being caused by any undue damage or even hard sailing.

As a professional, I bet you have seen more than your share of broken fiberglass tabs.

Mark

The fiberglass is grounded because we want to see any trace of damage in the jull or rest of impacts or something, really, there is no traces of impact inside not outside, yes i see dozen of FG tabs broken or unbonded,
can happen to, is not the first time i see plexus bonded plywood things unbonded from the hull, in my boat all the bulkheads are heavy glassed
and with a airex foam pillow under the edge, 3 of the main bulkheads are also troughbolted at the FG tape with bolts one for every 10 inches , also the ones i see unbonded with Fg tape ocurr in diferents places , not the whole bulkhead unless there is a impact or grounding or a accident or wáter intrusión damage.
Cheers.

[colemj]

Just to be clear - there was never any tabbing over that Plexus? Pictures are very difficult to see, but it looks like remnants and evidence of prior tabbing are there. I believe you if you say no - I'm just checking what it looks like to me.

Odd that the Plexus gave way from the fiberglass and not the varnished wood. I never liked directly bonding anything to varnished wood.

Mark

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by colemj

Just to be clear - there was never any tabbing over that Plexus? Pictures are very difficult to see, but it looks like remnants and evidence of prior tabbing are there. I believe you if you say no - I'm just checking what it looks like to me.

Odd that the Plexus gave way from the fiberglass and not the varnished wood. I never liked directly bonding anything to varnished wood.

Mark

Believe me, no traces of Fiberglass, i can take pics from the port side if you want , no problem, in fact the rest of the boat looks similar, glued to the hull, i see some fiberglass tape in other partitions but mainly plexus bonded, the aft rudder post bulkhead is glassed at the top and plexus bonded to the bottom, the fwd bow área bulkhead is glased in one side and the other not.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by colemj

Just to be clear - there was never any tabbing over that Plexus? Pictures are very difficult to see, but it looks like remnants and evidence of prior tabbing are there. I believe you if you say no - I'm just checking what it looks like to me.

Odd that the Plexus gave way from the fiberglass and not the varnished wood. I never liked directly bonding anything to varnished wood.

Mark

Well i believe the bulkheads rest with a whole fresh coat of varnish coming from that wonderful CNC robots , they miss to leave the bonding área unvarnished , so the dudes grab the bulkhead, drop it in the slot, and shoot the plexus in the sides making a fillet , job done!!!

[Cheechako]

So....... back to the original subject..... It seems that almost all rudders become waterlogged eventually. The ones I've seen have no exterior damage, and it's pretty much a given that the water intrudes slowly at the shaft exit/fiberglass interface. I've seen many attempts at spreading 5200 etc at that interface.
So... what's the answer at initial construction to avoiding this common problem? I guess if you fill the rudder with a lightweight epoxy slurry that would avoid water intrusion, foam seems to be the culprit. (I've filled with a similar type of thing)
Is there any way to ensure a seal at the shaft interface though?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

So....... back to the original subject..... It seems that almost all rudders become waterlogged eventually. The ones I've seen have no exterior damage, and it's pretty much a given that the water intrudes slowly at the shaft exit/fiberglass interface. I've seen many attempts at spreading 5200 etc at that interface.
So... what's the answer at initial construction to avoiding this common problem? I guess if you fill the rudder with a lightweight epoxy slurry that would avoid water intrusion, foam seems to be the culprit. (I've filled with a similar type of thing)
Is there any way to ensure a seal at the shaft interface though?

Yep, my opinión, many rudders are build it with inadequate internal structures or without enough internal bars , flat bars et... foam is not a good material in terms of compresión alone , most rudders this days have the 2 halves just bonded , not fiberglassed at the edge , the cure?? some people glass a coule of layers in the whole rudder and make a epoxy seal at the entrance exit in the top, i guess the trick is to avoid shaft rudder movement.

Look at how funny is the internal structure in the rudder of a Swicht 51.

[Cheechako]

wow,,, that's pretty minimal! The waterlogged rudders I've had were tightly attached to the shaft...no perceptible movement... the glass even seemed adhered well to the SS.... yet still they filled with water.
two of these boats were in the 7-8 Year old range.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

wow,,, that's pretty minimal! The waterlogged rudders I've had were tightly attached to the shaft...no perceptible movement... the glass even seemed adhered well to the SS.... yet still they filled with water.
two of these boats were in the 7-8 Year old range.

No idea Chee , then there is 2 options , or the top shaft entrance, or by the 2 halves , or a minimal damaged from the bottom, or maybe some smartass decide to install a hollow shaft from top to the bottom , he he.....

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Truer words were never spoken especially if you eliminate the word "bluewater". No boat will make up for a crew's inexperience and intolerance for discomfort. Both the boat and the crew have to be up to the task. And there is no way to be 100% sure of either of those. That's because heavy weather is a random process.

That is why it's not prudent to draw conclusions about the results of small data sets where success was the outcome. For example, a particular boat rounded Cape Horn therefore all such boats are fine for that passage. That conclusion is not warranted.

Here is another case: A particular boat was sailing the north Atlantic and the keel was ripped off the boat. Sadly, the boat was found inverted with all hands lost. Now some may have us apply the same "small data set" logic to this case and say something like, "Well it only happens not very often so you can ignore that case". I would contend that is not the right attitude. Random events usually tend to line up into a really bad situation only occasionally. Because bad outcomes are fairly rare, when they do happen they usually are trying to tell us about a fundamental problem. The trick is finding that problem so we can avoid it.

So I believe you have to discount random stories about success and study really hard any and all failures if you want to honestly compare amongst various brands/technologies/types of boats. Even poorly designed and built boats will not fail very often. That's the nature of random processes.

I generally agree with you. But I think this approach has be taken for BOTH sides of the debate.

And, I think you need to stay away from hyperbole as much as possible. For example, I never said that because Sequitur did so well in a severe storm off Cape Horn that "therefore all such boats are fine for that passage."

Those are your words, not mine. I don't believe that to be true.

What I do believe to be true is that this is a great example of what a new, well-maintained Hunter can endure in the right hands - and that is makes a very strong argument that Hunters can handle the kind of sailing 99% of cruisers out there will EVER do.

As for Cheeki-Rafiki, from what I've seen of that keel failure, I AM suspect of those boats. If I owned one, I'd be a bit nervous. But I wouldn't condemn ALL Benes or ALL production boats based on that case - just as you say.