UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[Astrid]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

USCG has suspended the search. Link to the article:

Statement from U.S. Coast Guard regarding Cheeki Rafiki suspension

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That was on the 18th. More recent announcements indicate the search has been resumed.

[andbell]

Originally Posted by Kevin84

USCG has suspended the search. Link to the article:

Statement from U.S. Coast Guard regarding Cheeki Rafiki suspension

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That was the first search - they started up again today.
You had me worried!

[andbell]

Wondering if the Tosca is also going to join Malisi?

They seemed to be sailing a similar course prior to Malisi heading North
and just recently they also appear to have altered to the North.

I guess they will have limited search time dependent upon how much extra fuel and stores they have onboard - would it be likely that any of the merchant vessels or CG would provide them with extra provisions ?

[Kevin84]

Originally Posted by andbell

That was the first search - they started up again today.
You had me worried!

Oops! Just saw the article. Thought it waa current gouge. My mistake!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[gjorgensen]

Originally Posted by Brob2

Correct- the' teeter totter' effect with the fulcrum not too distant from the keel bolts location.

I've owned a 40.7 since late 2001 (bought new), so I can tell you anything you want to know about the keel. It's not really a "bulb" keel in the classic sense. The keel is a one piece lead casting that enlarges into a sort of elephant foot shape at the bottom. The elephant foot is aft-swept and does not protrude in front of the keel.

The keel is pretty narrow and there is no keel stub or sump as part of the structure. Instead the keel bolts flush to the flat hull. The keel does flare a bit at the hull, but nothing like a cruising boat keel. There are a reasonable number of bolts - 10 if memory serves - that go through the hull and structural grid inside. The structural grid will definitely spread the loads around inside the hull. Naturally that does make for a pretty impressive fulcrum on the hull when the boat is heeled, made worse by the narrow hull/keel joint. The hull is very thick solid glass in this area, with the grid more than doubling the thickness, but none the less it does put a very large load on a very small hull area.

My boat has somewhere around 8000 sailing miles on it (plus thousands motoring) all over California and offshore, and there's never been any sign of weakness or flex around the hull or hull/keel joint. I do have the yard torque the bolts every time the boat's out of the water but they've been fine every time. The original adhesive and filler along the keel/hull joint is still there from 2001 and even that hasn't cracked or separated, so there's been no sign of flex.

With over 700 boats built the 40.7 does not have any sort of history of losing keels that I've ever heard. One boat in the great lakes lost one a few years ago, but that was immediately after being hammered vertically on the keel for 2.5 hours in large seas while hard aground. The boat certainly has weak points (ask me about the steering system) but the keel has never been a problem with the model. That's not to say it didn't fail outright of course, but it would be unusual. That said, I have no doubt it's less robust than a shorter wider keel would be in a large impact, whether with the ground or something floating, and a large enough impact would result in tearing the bottom of the hull away with the keel.

Keeping my fingers crossed for the safety of the crew.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

I've owned a 40.7 since late 2001 (bought new), so I can tell you anything you want to know about the keel. It's not really a "bulb" keel in the classic sense. The keel is a one piece lead casting that enlarges into a sort of elephant foot shape at the bottom. The elephant foot is aft-swept and does not protrude in front of the keel.

...

Keeping my fingers crossed for the safety of the crew.

Thanks for that informative posting. It answers a lot of our questions about the keel design.

I wonder if the photo had enough resolution to show the keel attachment area? I couldn't make it out on my computer. I've been a bit surprised that the boat was still afloat after that long inverted. One possible contributor to flotation would be air trapped in the hull... a gaping hole where the keel had torn out a chunk of the skin plus the grid would have lost that possibility. This might suggest that the bolts broke or pulled out of the lead, leaving the bolt holes sealed... somehow seems unlikely, but??

Some of you might remember that a Transpac sled lost her keel returning to the coast a longish time ago. The skipper, Chuck Hawley (of West Marine fame) did a fantastic job of "dinghy sailing" and got her back to Hawaii on her own bottom, sans keel. In that case, the keel bolts pulled out of the lead casting, and were left sticking out of the hull. Not sure how that relates to this event... just remembering...

Sure hope we have some good news soon.

Jim

[tonywatson58]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

I've owned a 40.7 since late 2001 (bought new), so I can tell you anything you want to know about the keel. It's not really a "bulb" keel in the classic sense. The keel is a one piece lead casting that enlarges into a sort of elephant foot shape at the bottom. The elephant foot is aft-swept and does not protrude in front of the keel.

The keel is pretty narrow and there is no keel stub or sump as part of the structure. Instead the keel bolts flush to the flat hull. The keel does flare a bit at the hull, but nothing like a cruising boat keel. There are a reasonable number of bolts - 10 if memory serves - that go through the hull and structural grid inside. The structural grid will definitely spread the loads around inside the hull. Naturally that does make for a pretty impressive fulcrum on the hull when the boat is heeled, made worse by the narrow hull/keel joint. The hull is very thick solid glass in this area, with the grid more than doubling the thickness, but none the less it does put a very large load on a very small hull area.

My boat has somewhere around 8000 sailing miles on it (plus thousands motoring) all over California and offshore, and there's never been any sign of weakness or flex around the hull or hull/keel joint. I do have the yard torque the bolts every time the boat's out of the water but they've been fine every time. The original adhesive and filler along the keel/hull joint is still there from 2001 and even that hasn't cracked or separated, so there's been no sign of flex.

With over 700 boats built the 40.7 does not have any sort of history of losing keels that I've ever heard. One boat in the great lakes lost one a few years ago, but that was immediately after being hammered vertically on the keel for 2.5 hours in large seas while hard aground. The boat certainly has weak points (ask me about the steering system) but the keel has never been a problem with the model. That's not to say it didn't fail outright of course, but it would be unusual. That said, I have no doubt it's less robust than a shorter wider keel would be in a large impact, whether with the ground or something floating, and a large enough impact would result in tearing the bottom of the hull away with the keel.

Keeping my fingers crossed for the safety of the crew.

Thank you Sir! Being hammered aground will certainly reduce the fatigue life of keel bolts!! So will, maybe, hard racing and Atlantic crossings...the MAIB will be investigting in due course and I will be contacting them so any comments are welcome.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a Maritime disaster for people to start thinking "outside the box" i.e. Titanic...SOLAS now requires that every ship should have adequate lifeboat capacity....duhhh????!

[downunder]

Originally Posted by tonywatson58

Thank you Sir! Being hammered aground will certainly reduce the fatigue life of keel bolts!! So will, maybe, hard racing and Atlantic crossings...the MAIB will be investigting in due course and I will be contacting them so any comments are welcome.

Unfortunately, it sometimes takes a Maritime disaster for people to start thinking "outside the box" i.e. Titanic...SOLAS now requires that every ship should have adequate lifeboat capacity....duhhh????!

Just don't suggest mandatory liferafts here.

Bad enough to suggest EPIRBS to USA cruisers.

And dry suits or immersion suits.

[boatman61]

Just seen an interview with a US solo sailor who's boat sank on a crossing.. apparently the CG declared him dead twice.. before he was picked up by a ship..
Seems the impossible does happen.. fingers crossed

[Cavalier]

More resumed search news:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27497974


Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[mbianka]

Looks like two more yachts from the ARC leg are diverting to the search area. Wishing them God speed and good conditions.
World Cruising Club - Fleet Viewer

[Rustic Charm]

Search resuming ? Yeah.

It can pay to protest and petition after all.

[category4jay]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Honestly, how many boats without a keel that fit the Rafiki's description are floating around near the yacht's last location?

And if the boat had survival suits, hydrostatic release deck mounted liferaft or other equipment not required or normal for a 40ft racing boat, don't you think the owners would have publicized that in their efforts to get the search resumed?

The CG had to bow to popular pressure to resume the search but it would be horrible if someone was hurt or killed in this gesture. This isn't really a "search", the drift of any life raft can be calculated with good accuracy from the known location of the overturned hull. That's why the CG said they had "saturated" the area. And this experienced crew would have tried their best to keep the life raft close to the wreck. And they had least two PLB's, flares, and reportedly a handheld VHF radio. If they weren't able to deploy the life raft - which seems likely in a sudden capsize caused by keel loss and sloshing water from the leak - they died quickly in the cold water of that latitude.

Our anger should be directed at whatever allowed the keel to fail in open water and kill four men. They did not radio that they had hit anything. Either the crew failed to repair an earlier collision (seems most unlikely given their experience and large budget) or the boat's manufacture was defective.

Well said.

[Leo Ticheli]

The batteries in all the EPIRB's I've seen last only 48 hours or so. Rather than go with the extra replaceable battery route, why not fit one designed to be kept in the life raft powered by a hand-crank? The unit could be much smaller and lighter with no battery, would not require periodic battery replacement, and could be operated every couple of hours indefinitely.

Hand-crank radios are common and dirt cheap, so why not?

Fair winds,

Leo

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

I've owned a 40.7 since late 2001 (bought new), so I can tell you anything you want to know about the keel. It's not really a "bulb" keel in the classic sense. The keel is a one piece lead casting that enlarges into a sort of elephant foot shape at the bottom. The elephant foot is aft-swept and does not protrude in front of the keel.

The keel is pretty narrow and there is no keel stub or sump as part of the structure. Instead the keel bolts flush to the flat hull. The keel does flare a bit at the hull, but nothing like a cruising boat keel. There are a reasonable number of bolts - 10 if memory serves - that go through the hull and structural grid inside. The structural grid will definitely spread the loads around inside the hull. Naturally that does make for a pretty impressive fulcrum on the hull when the boat is heeled, made worse by the narrow hull/keel joint. The hull is very thick solid glass in this area, with the grid more than doubling the thickness, but none the less it does put a very large load on a very small hull area.

My boat has somewhere around 8000 sailing miles on it (plus thousands motoring) all over California and offshore, and there's never been any sign of weakness or flex around the hull or hull/keel joint. I do have the yard torque the bolts every time the boat's out of the water but they've been fine every time. The original adhesive and filler along the keel/hull joint is still there from 2001 and even that hasn't cracked or separated, so there's been no sign of flex.

With over 700 boats built the 40.7 does not have any sort of history of losing keels that I've ever heard. One boat in the great lakes lost one a few years ago, but that was immediately after being hammered vertically on the keel for 2.5 hours in large seas while hard aground. The boat certainly has weak points (ask me about the steering system) but the keel has never been a problem with the model. That's not to say it didn't fail outright of course, but it would be unusual. That said, I have no doubt it's less robust than a shorter wider keel would be in a large impact, whether with the ground or something floating, and a large enough impact would result in tearing the bottom of the hull away with the keel.

Keeping my fingers crossed for the safety of the crew.

Almost the same design as on the 461, except that the profile at the hull is wide enough to accommodate a sump. I have the float switch for bilge pump 1 of 3 sat at the bottom of the sump.

She's now 15 years old and there's no sign of fatigue on the external caulking or on or around the studs internally.

I pulled her out of the water yesterday for a bottom job, so took some pics, see attached.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...t=photo%2c.jpg

Pure speculation, but I'd hate to think that the crew of the Cheeki Rafiki may have fallen victim to a previous heavy grounding of the boat to which neither they (nor the management company) had been made aware - the reported circumstances do sound a lot like overstressing of already fatigued (or corroded) keel boats.