UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic

[Exile]

In that earlier, close-up photo of the hull (see, e.g. Post #290), there appears to be another, larger hole that looks like it was the result of the laminate being torn off further down the hull. The immediately surrounding area looks like it could have been an old thru-hull that was re-glassed perhaps. Maybe neither here nor there, but could have contributed to the reported water coming into the boat as the keel started to fail.

[tonywatson58]

Maybe some (three?) bolts first failed through fatigue, the boat took on water and the added stress on the rest caused the hull to fail?

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by Exile

In that earlier, close-up photo of the hull (see, e.g. Post #290), there appears to be another, larger hole that looks like it was the result of the laminate being torn off further down the hull. The immediately surrounding area looks like it could have been an old thru-hull that was re-glassed perhaps. Maybe neither here nor there, but could have contributed to the reported water coming into the boat as the keel started to fail.

That hole looks as though it was uncovered as the boat rolled and the keel pulled sideward taking the outer laminates with it (like bark on a sappy twig). The outer bonding of the integral frame can be clearly seen in that photo.








Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[robert sailor]

Dave and Boatie...ya I do agree that taking a modern racer cruiser into oceans known to get a bit stinky is the skippers responsibility and not the builder. Having said that I don't think the builder should be advertising their boats as offshore designed and built when at best they might better be described as "offshore light".

[four winds]

When the keel departed, three of the bolt holes (rather the area around them) provided little resistance. As evidenced by the lack of damage.


Seems the center of the attachment area was taking the forces. More concentrated load in effect. Less spreading through the structural grid mentioned earlier. Even looks like three elements of this grid can be seen. Being revealed when the keel tore away to starboard.

[Cavalier]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Dave and Boatie...ya I do agree that taking a modern racer cruiser into oceans known to get a bit stinky is the skippers responsibility and not the builder. Having said that I don't think the builder should be advertising their boats as offshore designed and built when at best they might better be described as "offshore light".

..worth a read, especially "Rob_Webb" on page 2:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread...ferences/page2







Sent from my Windows Phone using Tapatalk

[robert sailor]

DownUnder,
I hear you and certainly agree with you that there are many so called traditional designs that should not be taken in the higher latitudes as many of them were poorly designed and built.
I do admit to favoring fin keeled boats for offshore sailing but I'm also bias in the design and build to be on the moderate side and prefer stick built boats.

Boatie,
I agree with you that J Boats have had a less than stellar reputation offshore and certainly would not be on my list for higher latitudes but like other production builders they seem to make out OK in the trades with the odd failure.

I just don't see the problem in coming to terms with racer/cruisers being a compromise offshore. Their design always favors performance over absolute strength just like some of the boats that favor absolute strength over performance but often they sail like straw bales so a nice moderate design/build is always a good choice for offshore in my opinion.

[europaflyer]

Highest res picture of the damage I can find posted below.

It would be interesting to have an appreciation from a pro like Minaret of what we may be looking at here; I can speculate, but I wouldn't trust myself to make a meaningful judgement.

[robert sailor]

Cavalier,
Can't disagree that some of the First Series and many modern boats have earned a good reputation but its very hard to decide which is which. I do know the older first series were very stout and helped Beneteau earn the reputation they enjoy today

[CarlF]

It is the tragic loss of four lives that so troubles me. Had only the boat been lost, this would be much easier to to take.

I don't question the crew in any way. They had the strength, experience, skill and money to sail and maintain this boat to the highest standards. I'm sure they did.

While the ocean can destroy almost anything man can create, keel attachment should not be the weak link as no at-sea repairs or jury rig is possible. Even a collision should not remove the keel.

If this was not a design error but fatigue or corrosion of bolts - should not keel bolt inspection and occasional replacement be as routine as standing rigging replacement - even required in the same way that outdated flares are not allowed?

How often should a bolted keel be dropped for inspection? How many of us do?

[mbianka]

A lot of factors to look at IMO. A production boat primarily being used for racing by a crew that likes to race. My observation around the harbor is that racers tend to break things more often than cruisers. They like to go fast and that's what they do. As a result a racing boat gets stressed more than say one that only cruises.

Though a question I have about Cheeki Rafiki's keel is was it a wing keel like the one in this picture:
http://www.beneteau235.com/images/wing_800.jpg
I just wonder what kind of forces would be at play on the horizontal portion of a Beneateau's wing keel as the boat attempts to rise as it goes through big waves over and over again in a pounding sea. The wing looks like it would make a pretty good drogue like downward force in a rough sea.

[tonywatson58]

Originally Posted by CarlF

It is the tragic loss of four lives that so troubles me. Had only the boat been lost, this would be much easier to to take.

I don't question the crew in any way. They had the strength, experience, skill and money to sail and maintain this boat to the highest standards. I'm sure they did.

While the ocean can destroy almost anything man can create, keel attachment should not be the weak link as no at-sea repairs or jury rig is possible. Even a collision should not remove the keel.

If this was not a design error but fatigue or corrosion of bolts - should not keel bolt inspection and occasional replacement be as routine as standing rigging replacement - even required in the same way that outdated flares are not allowed?

How often should a bolted keel be dropped for inspection? How many of us do?

Yes I'm thinking exactly the same....I never have

[DoubleWhisky]

One question, please, as I'm quite ignorant regarding First series construction methods and engineering.

Are their hulls now built using (famous or infamous) Beneteau's inner liner technique, or are they of more traditional/conventional construction?

Best regards

Tomasz

[goboatingnow]

Evans star zinger has quoted on ybw, using a high res photo the the leading and trailing bolts were severly corroded , the speculation is these failed first a d then the resulting stresses tore the middle bolts from the hull.

Again I don't think this is a boat issue per say. We've have no real knowledge of what actually happened. The fact that the port lights were smashed could indicate she fell off a big wave and with the weakened keel that did all the damage.

I don't believe it's a function of the general class of boat. All boats have weaknesses. The skipper must sail the boat cognisant of the limitations. For example being below hove to would have been a very bad idea on a first.

Dave



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SaltyMonkey]

Bolt issues or no bolt issues, whatever hit them was a huge catastrophic event. The fact that some of them couldn't regroup and try to free a raft is indicative. These were experienced cool headed chaps. Makes this all the more tragic.