Rudder Failures

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

Plexus is more secure than lee clothes.

Mark

I'm pretty sure a student thesis would resolve this. Just be sure to read all 97 pages. If not, then surely a sales brochure.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Certainly a boat that sails with 14º degrees of heel is a lot more comfortable than one that sails with 25º degrees of heel in what regards sleeping and i have tried both types. The solutions for that depend from boat to boat and many don't even need them since most of boats are used for coastal cruising and most don't sail at night so it would not make much sense a mass production boat coming prepared for a thing most would not use.

For the ones that sail at night each boat is a case but with some creativity a solution will be found. On mine at first I thought it would be a problem but after all the solution was very easy and effective: I just need to take away the back of the seats (that is needed to make a bigger "bed") and put them between the saloon table and the seat. It works very well.

But anyway at night I sail solo (my wife does not like it and says that if I want to do it, I want to do it alone) so I prefer to sleep on the cockpit, on the bottom of it inside a sleeping bag. Anyway I have to check it out each 20 minutes or so and in the end it is more comfortableto be outside than on the inside. Regarding the sleeping space to use on passage, for me, more important than a comfortable space for sleeping on the interior, that I don't use, is a comfortable space on the cockpit and that means for me a space with at least 1.90m to lay down. I have that on my boat but most older boats have not cockpits that long (40ft boats) and many modern ones have not removable cockpit tables and that makes them useless for that (but they have the space on the cockpit settees, even if it is not as comfortable).

For me what I would look first in what regards a place to sleep at night while on passage would be that cockpit space between the cockpit settees. The best boats regarding that are the ones where the cockpit table disappears under the cockpit floor. That is a thing I look carefully when I am choosing a boat for me.

Perfect suited for you, i see, but is not the norm, regarding sleeping in the cockpit with your wife in wacht thats ok , but when you are sailing to weather or with rain, squalls , or anything who made the cockpit wet and miserable your best bet is a confy bunk and if it have lee cloths better, thats my best choice , also sailing 2 its not the same as sailing with 3 or 4 crew members.

Im still trying to figúrate where the heck you acomódate 3 or 4 crew members in this boat, dry and safe, sailing in one tack with hig winds the boat heel no matter what so i dont see any good place in this B38 to despite the comments in this fórum or others regarding the boat is well suited for offshore sailing, but oh well is just my opinión..

Maybe Smack answer with a swan pic with the same layout and i can say its the same ,not good for crews in bad weather,no matter if is a swan or a oyster...

[sailorboy1]

I don't really understand the continued use a single boat model to make wide sweeping statements about a boat brand etc. It is just so ridiculous to use say a 2014 Bene 36, point to some hand holds/berthing arrangements/etc and apply it to all Benes.

It is just as ridiculous to use a couple of rudder/keel problems out of 10,000s of boats and use it to pass judgement on all of some builders 20+ years of models.

[robert sailor]

The reality is that all boats are designed for the expected use. These days it is optimized for dockside living with wide open site lines and the feeling of light open spaces. This is not the perfect set up for offshore sailing but a little thought and a few mods and you can make it work. I've seen skippers string heavy lines below that can be used as hand holds and any flat area with a seat cushion can be modified to be used at sea. No in reality it is not as good as the older proper sea berth but you make do with what you have.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I'm also working on ideas for my aft centerline queen. That's the most comfortable spot on the boat. We'll see.

Does it have a split mattress? Just fix the lee cloth at the center of the bunk under the split, and tie it off straight above. Sleep on the windward side of the lee cloth, whichever that happens to be. Simples.

Lee cloth hints:

* Make them full length, unlike the shorty lee cloths which are so popular these days. So you can lie against them comfortably, as if you're in a hammock. So they are not just restraints designed to keep you from flying out of the bunk.

* Stow the linens when you go offshore. Offshore, either use sleeping bags, or sleep in your gear.


After 3000 miles bashing upwind this summer, I learned a few things about lee cloths, and will be changing my arrangements over the winter.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Perfect suited for you, i see, but is not the norm, regarding sleeping in the cockpit with your wife in wacht thats ok , but when you are sailing to weather or with rain, squalls , or anything who made the cockpit wet and miserable your best bet is a confy bunk and if it have lee cloths better, thats my best choice , also sailing 2 its not the same as sailing with 3 or 4 crew members.

Im still trying to figúrate where the heck you acomódate 3 or 4 crew members in this boat, dry and safe, sailing in one tack with hig winds the boat heel no matter what so i dont see any good place in this B38 to despite the comments in this fórum or others regarding the boat is well suited for offshore sailing, but oh well is just my opinión..

Maybe Smack answer with a swan pic with the same layout and i can say its the same ,not good for crews in bad weather,no matter if is a swan or a oyster...

Yes off course, you have to chose if you sail solo or need a crew. If you say solo you need to watch every 20 minutes or so and being outside is just better, at least for the ones that don't sail on the winter. Being inside and cozy, even on the boats that allow you some outside view, is not as good. I surely risk to fall asleep if I am too comfortable.

In what regards a crew of 4 for that boat, in what regards cruising, it would be highly unusual (most are sailed by couples or couples with children) but there would not be any problem with that...unless you choose the daysailer version, that is the one you have posted. Din't you know that boat has a lot more versions, all more adapted to offshore sailing than that one that they call "daysailing" and has the name indicates, it is more adapted to that?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

...

After 3000 miles bashing upwind this summer, I learned a few things about lee cloths, and will be changing my arrangements over the winter.

I sail a lot upwind but you surely beat me. 3000 miles upwind on the summer? How many mile did you made on the last summer?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Wow, Smack...whats happening my friend?

Now you are comparing your boat to Shannons and Morris's?? Look bud your boat is just fine and for your intended purposes and budget a pretty decent choice so go sailing and just enjoy it. It really is not necessary to keep reinforcing your decisions.

If you read the post, you'll see that I was pointing out all the "bluewater" things that were NOT supposed to be on a production boat, like my Hunter, that were actually on my particular production boat.

You're right. My boat is just fine for just about anywhere in the world I would want to take her. And I'm very comfortable in my decisions - even when some people keep saying over and over and over I shouldn't be.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

We are waiting out a cold front that is holding us back from leaving so my boat jobs are just about wrapped and I have some spare time on my hands so why not revisit this crazy thread again, see if some people are still picking flyshit out of pepper, LOL


Many of the threads are good debates and that includes parts of this one however it’s a bit like debating religions. Who is really right? The answer is of course both sides, sort of.

If you own a boat that has been glued together you can make a case for glue being best and if your preference is tabbing then you can make a case for that. Glues have become more popular because it reduces the skilled labor needed and is the perfect answer for boats built on an assembly line with unskilled labor. This results in large cost savings and allows a lower price, on that there is no debate.
There is growing evidence that many of these boats, particularly the lower priced ones have a lifespan that is much less than boats built to the old methods. Some of the more knowledgeable members on this site have explained that these new CE ratings are based on a certain number of cycles and in one example used it was calculated that if a boat was raced hard and sailed offshore for a number of years that it was quite possible that it was basically used up. In other words it had used up the cycles it was originally designed to be able to withstand before things started to break.
Now that was one example and I’m quite sure that it was an extreme case as most sailboats sit in marinas for 95% of their life and get sailed on weekends in the summer months so it’s unlikely that it would ever see a boat used up, so to speak.


Glass tabbing of bulkheads is still very alive and well in the higher quality boats and is even finding its way back into some of the larger entry level boats but it is skilled labor intensive and is not a natural for assembly lines. Tabbing bulkheads to the hull means that the builder can not use a full liner and has to resort to smaller modules if they use liners at all which adds to the costs. Usually that’s not an issue because the larger more expensive boats are built in much smaller volumes and the builders know that this group of buyers do a lot more due diligence when buying so they are sensitive to the quality standards expected.


Offshore sailing is a completely different kettle of fish as many of these boats get more wear and tear on them on a long passage than a weekend warrior would get in their lifetime of sailing. Think about it, a typical weekend sailor might get 4 hours of sailing in each weekend for 20 weeks a year and that is generous because if you miss one weekend then you need to sail 8 the next to keep pace. That amounts to 80 hours of use a year, usually in protected waters. The boats are rarely subjected to really harsh conditions because if it really starts to blow the sailors simply don’t leave the dock.
Take an offshore passage like Mexico to the Marquises, many of these boats took 25 days to make this passage so let’s see, 25x24 is 600 hours or about equal to 7 ½ years. The same number of accumulated hours to see you get to NZ and now you are up to 15 years of cycles on the boat and rig compared to the average weekend warrior.
So it only makes sense that depending on what your plans for sailing are that you might choose a boat accordingly.


Does a light racer/cruiser as Polux suggests make sense? Well like everything, that depends. If you are going to load the boat up with all the stuff cruisers like to carry with them including a heavy dink on davits, several jerry cans of fuel and diesel, tons of spares and tools and enough food for a couple of months then maybe not because the boat will have been designed for a certain amount of weight and storage and if its overloaded then it will be subjected to rigging loads it wasn’t designed for as well as the performance would suffer as it sunk on its lines. This of course can be solved by choosing a much bigger racer/cruiser but even Polux is suggesting his next boat would be in the 36-38 foot range. Maybe the best choice here is a cruiser/racer.


If on the other hand you are more of a minimalist and can travel really light then sure some of the racer cruisers might be a good option. Just keep in mind that none of these boats sail in much under 5-7 knots of wind offshore because the larger swells are constantly shaking the wind out of the sails. Yes they can sail very well in light air in places like the Med but offshore the swell is always there and it is really hard to sail in light air in those conditions.
Others, like Dockside have expressed views that a, built like a tank, heavier/medium displacement vessel makes more sense for offshore cruising as they can pack huge loads and have room to spare. If the wind is light they just simply push a button and bring in the iron jenny to cover the light airs.
Maybe the answer for many sailors is somewhere in-between, heavy enough to be well built but light enough to be able to sail in lighter winds, this could depend on where in the world you plan on sailing.

As far as trying to make the best decision on older more robustly built boats or newer lighter built boats for offshore use it’s really a crap shoot. If the boat is new or on the newer side, say less than 10 years old and you are planning to cross a couple of oceans then there is a good case to be made for the newer boat no matter how its built because the systems aboard will still have some life in them and the hull and rigging will not have been exposed to that much use. Once the boat is well past 10 years old then it starts to get down to how old each of the components are. I have seen many boats that are 25 years old that are in much better condition than others that are 10-15 years old. Keep in mind that it is rare to have a glass boat actually come apart at sea; it’s the loss of a rudder or a failure in the rigging that is the more common occurrence. Yes it happened to Blue Pearl and CR but those were oddball cases, we hope!
There are so many choices out there and none is perfect for everyone. The sort of throw around money you have plays a huge role. Obviously if Smack had the coin to buy a new Oyster or the like we wouldn’t be having this debate. Smack chose a Hunter and I expect for the money he has invested (bad choice for sailboats I know) and the use he is going to put the boat through he has made a good choice. Similarly it looks like Dockside is in the same position, for his use a wonderful well built boat. Polux our speed freak friend (my wife always says, why do you even use that word speed with things that move the same speed as I can walk) is on the lighter and faster is better side, looks like his choice is a great one as well.


So what is your religion and what will you say to get me to change mine?? The answer of course is you can’t so all the great ideas and information here falls on deaf ears because all the players had their minds made up before the game started. Our boat builder friends here are very opinionated and that comes from deep experience. Experienced offshore sailors are deeply opinionated and that comes from years of experience. That of course does not stop the less experienced from having their views, that’s what CF is all about.
And finally and to me this is very important and that is pride of ownership. When we dingy away from our boat do we slow down for a minute and look back and admire our little ship? Do we have deep confidence in how it was put together? Are we proud to have others aboard? No matter the costs is it giving us a payback in the enjoyment we feel when we are using it.



We are off and running again, catch up with you guys later. R

Good luck and fair winds!


I generally agree with all of this. This:

"Others, like Dockside have expressed views that a, built like a tank, heavier/medium displacement vessel makes more sense for offshore cruising as they can pack huge loads and have room to spare. If the wind is light they just simply push a button and bring in the iron jenny to cover the light airs.
Maybe the answer for many sailors is somewhere in-between, heavy enough to be well built but light enough to be able to sail in lighter winds, this could depend on where in the world you plan on sailing."

is worth clarifying a little.

My personal taste does not favor heavy displacement boats. I love speed, and weight is the enemy of that. Others have different points of view, but that's mine.

For my purposes, a lighter displacement, achieved by coring the hull, using Kevlar, etc., and not just by making everything thinner, is very desirable. But light displacement boats become automatically less seaworthy. So to make up for that, the boat needs to be much bigger.

The much bigger boat, at the same time, is less affected by the loads of crap you need when living aboard/long term cruising.

The much bigger boat has a longer waterline, so will be altogether faster.

All good so far -- the downside is cost.

My boat has D/L of under 200, so actually falls in the "cruiser-racer" category.

Light wind performance suffers because of the low SA/D -- 16.5 in my case. The normal working sails are sized for stronger conditions in these latitudes, and you either need different light air sails (I'm working on a light Code 0 for my boat) or the engine, when the true wind is below 15 knots.

By the way, Polux mentioned outsailing a Jeanneau 57 in light air -- that's hardly a surprise since the J57 has a pretty heavy displacement at 27 tons lightship, which gives it L/D of 210. That will be because it's uncored below the waterline. And the Jeanneau has a really small SA/D of under 15. These are good numbers for up here -- this will be a good boat for the English Channel in F7 or F8. But you won't get anywhere at any speed in 10 knots apparent. I know that boat; I have a friend who has one. Nice boat.

That boat will not be much, if any faster than mine in most conditions, as the waterline length is less than a meter more, and the J57 is quite a bit heavier and with less sail area. With that SA/D, you won't need to reef in less than maybe 25 knots true, so in 25 knots true, it will run away from my boat which already needs the first reef in. The J57 will be great in those conditions. I will have an advantage upwind with deeper draft. Also on some points of sail, my staysail will be an advantage over the Jennie's sloop rig, particularly a reach. I will be faster than that Jennie on a reach right up to the point where I have to start reefing (and he doesn't yet). Another advantage I have is

I had an exhilarating battle upwind with a Bene First 40 last summer, not fully crewed, but kitted out for racing with carbon fiber sails. I was off the East Coast of Sweden on the long trip back from Finland, and we both had to get through a gap in the rocks 10 miles away and dead upwind. The Bene guy was working hard. I had 14 year old blown-out sails (and the headsail was destroyed a few weeks later, so these sails are now retired) and a barnacle farm on the bottom (we scraped off 50 kg of barnacles in Cowes later), and I could not even come close to his AWA. I was using 37 degrees and he was at least 5 degrees closer to the wind than we were. It was about 15 knots of true wind which is on the low side for my boat, greatly favoring the Bene with its much greater SA/D. But we beat him. He just could not match our boat speed -- our greater boat speed more than made up for our lower AWA. Also he lost a lot more speed in his tacks than we did. He did not like losing to a cruising boat with a fat dinghy hanging off davits and at the end of a 3000 mile cruise and a ton of tools and spare parts and canned food on board, but he did. In other than very light wind, it's very hard for a 40' boat to sail faster than a 54' boat.


And that's why size is one possible approach to solving the speed problem. The big downside is cost.

I think about an even bigger boat. I started a thread on it a few months ago. The perfect size for me is about 65' feet. I did a lot of dreaming about a custom build, and if I come into a lot of money, that would be the perfect way to do it. But looking at normal series built boats, my favorite so far is the HR64.

This boat is quite economical compared to a custom build -- the base price is 2 million euros (without VAT) and for that is pretty well equipped. I think with 23% VAT and a few equipment upgrades it would still be well under 3 million euros.

Unfortunately, HR's have undergone a certain "optimization" of production methods over the last decade, which some people would call cutting corners, so it's not as well built as some other boats of this class. It's certainly less strongly built than my present boat is. It has a number of other drawbacks, like the simplified rig, no compass at the binnacle (horrors!!!!), quite modest nav station (less than my present one), etc.

But it has some huge advantages -- I love the narrow beam and modest freeboard. It will be very fast! And it has brilliant dinghy storage -- one of the biggest and most unsolveable problems in cruising boat design. It has a fabulous engine room. It has a 300 horsepower (!) diesel, so you can just motor at 10 knots into a F7 if you need to. You can also order it with the front part of the cockpit enclosed in a hard enclosure with glass windshields -- a semi-pilot house which is a Godsend on long voyages at these latitudes.

So it's so far on the top of my list. I wouldn't want a Moody 66, the big brother to my boat. First of all, it's not made anymore, so I would have to buy used. Secondly -- I just don't like it. It's just a scaled up version of my boat; the spaces aren't optimized for the size.

Or I'll just keep my own boat for a while. We shall see.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

It is just as ridiculous to use a couple of rudder/keel problems out of 10,000s of boats and use it to pass judgement on all of some builders 20+ years of models.

I agree that one should not pass judgement on all the builder's boats. But I strongly disagree that just because there are thousands that haven't failed one should ignore even one failure. In fact, the more units built like that there are the more one should worry. And it seems obvious the builders and the regulators are not going to report anything so the folks are left to speculate.

The techniques used by a builder with even one lost keel or rudder are perfectly valid to critique. Especially if it appears to experienced builders/yards/owners/arm chair sailors/pundits/my cousin twice removed/etc. that the technique or construction materials could be the weak link that allowed the failure.

The CR keel is one example. There may be thousands of boats with that type keel attachment. We don't know the history of that boat but the keel is not supposed to rip its bolts through the bottom of the boat no matter what happens.

Blue Pearl lost her new rudder in apparently less than survival conditions. We don't know if all previous repairs were done right or not. But the rudder post is not supposed to be flopping around tearing the stern out from under the boat no matter what happens.

So I would argue that even one failure should be carefully examined no matter how many thousands of boats are built that way. In fact, if there are thousands built the same that makes it even more important to look at every failure critically.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by colemj

Plexus is more secure than lee clothes.

Mark

Apples and oranges.

However, go fill your boots and Plexus yourself to that berth. Might be fun to watch the video of you trying get up for your watch though.

[neilpride]

Doc? the Jeaneau 57 is rated at 21450 kg / 47289 lbs in their website, or im msiisng something, light ship?

And regarding Kevlar, by experience Kevlar dont make a boat stronger by nature, it have a good abrasión resistance and impact resistance , is really good used in certain áreas of the hull like the bow , but its a bitch to repair, wet out or cut kevlar seems a tough task, and if the boat suffer extensive damaged its a write off, as i see with a ocean racer holed and made in kevlar , the pros refuse to repair the boat .. Carbon take the place this days as Carbon and Kevlar mixed together dont make sense to me , since Carbon dont have or have litle stretch and kevlar stretch a lot then the 2 materials together are fighting each other, very popular in the 80`s and 90`s Hunter , Jeaneau and others used in the bow áreas , to resist impacts or punctures, this days is gone almost in production boats unless is used for a especific aplication, overall Carbon take the throne...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

You have a point here, but a boat not designed to last 40 years are not necessarily a bad choice.

This is what people really need to understand. A similar point was made earlier - that boat builders build boats for NEW BUYERS - not the used market.

This is a good thing.

So, this means when you're buying a used boat - buy the newest one you can possibly afford. This makes FAR more sense than putting the same money into a 40+ y.o. old "bluewater" brand that's going to WAY into its usable cycle anyway.

Who here on CF has owned their boat for more than 15 years?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This is what people really need to understand. A similar point was made earlier - that boat builders build boats for NEW BUYERS - not the used market.

This is a good thing.

So, this means when you're buying a used boat - buy the newest one you can possibly afford. This makes FAR more sense than putting the same money into a 40+ y.o. old "bluewater" brand that's going to WAY into its usable cycle anyway.

Okey, so then what you do with all the 10 to 15 years old production boats, recycling? destroy? no more seaworthy? i remind you you buy a 1989 old hunter legend, why you dont get instead a new boat? its your boat at the end of their life span??

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

The reality is that all boats are designed for the expected use. These days it is optimized for dockside living with wide open site lines and the feeling of light open spaces. This is not the perfect set up for offshore sailing but a little thought and a few mods and you can make it work. I've seen skippers string heavy lines below that can be used as hand holds and any flat area with a seat cushion can be modified to be used at sea. No in reality it is not as good as the older proper sea berth but you make do with what you have.

+1.

Neil, if you really can't figure out how to sleep 3 crew in that boat, you have very little imagination. No wonder you think everything after 1972 was bad design.

I'm more interested in where you put the forward bulkhead after you've removed it.