Cheeki Rafiki

[robert sailor]

Dave, of course everything written in these forms is speculation except for the facts that 4 men died after a keel was lost on a racer/cruiser.
There are many manufacturers that have been building boats over the years that have never had one of their boats loose a keel. Yes they are much smaller that Beneteau but if you add them all up together they represent some healthy numbers over the years.
My personal feeling is that you can justify losing rigging and rudders etc. but lose a keel offshore is pretty much beyond reasonable especially when some builders are able to build boats without that happening.
All that aside I still think modern production boats have a lot to offer and represent high value when compared to boats of the past but as has been shown over and over they have their limitations and owners would be wise to treat them accordingly.

Boatie,
Of course I agree with you, people always want to highest quality and the best service at the lowest price. The fact that it goes against logic doesn't stop people from believing it.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by mbianka

Well the keel fix is simple. Drill a hole through the keel and thread a 3/4" line of Dyneema through it. Tie the ends off port and starboard or run it up as a backup stays to the mast. Probably only lose about a knot of boat speed but, you'll sleep better in the storm.

We're you sober when you came up with that plan?

What can I say I'm just an "idea" kind of guy.

There are ideas and there are brain farts. I'll leave it to the gang to decide what that was.

[scuba0_1]

Keel turns into anchor...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by highseas

A boarding ladder attached to underside of a hull may increase chances of survival.

also lifeliines on the bottom of these boats (with bolted on keels) might help crew members can stay put in the high seas until help arrives.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Unfortuately lead in hulls is slowly ( or quickly ) going the way of the do do bird. Environmental and safety at work regulations now make it very difficult in Europe to handle lead without serious additional cost.

Stainless in steel in itself isn't really the issue, its the ingress of seawater thats does the damage.

Ive delivered three chartered racing yachts, Other then one which was nearly new, they all looked like they were worked hard.

No easy answer to your question.

Nor is this an issue for European regulations, its important to realise that the RCD is merely a minimum requirement, furthermore to my knowledge there is currently no specific standards on Keels or Keel attachments. There is a draft ISO 12215-9 standard on Keel scantlings, but Im not sure it has been adopted yet. ( it was first published around late 2010)

Heres what the draft ISO standard says

A

the primary thrust of ISO 12215-9 is that the forces on the keel are capable of being carried by the structure

The draft can be read here https://law.resource.org/pub/bg/ibr/...215-9.2012.pdf ( ignore the first few pages in Bulgarian, the standard is in English)

This is an extremely technical standard and is an indication of how the later ISO standards for small craft are becoming more rigours and science based.

dave

Interesting document.

I'm not happy with the design life assumptions on p66. Its so easy to increase the fatigue life with just a bit more material.

The good old E.U. First they approve brass through hulls and now they are going to approve stainless keel bolts (even 400 grade if fitted carefully). All boat builders do it now anyway. Must be alright then.

Ship and ha'penny of tar comes to mind.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Never seen an example of a molded in keel parting with the boat... unless it was abandoned on a rocky beach!

True, I have seen one fill up with water from leading edge damage, cause the steel shot ballast to swell , the resulting repair was more then the value of the boat.

Anyway its not the same, you simply cant make an internal keel perform liek a narrow chord find keel, hence it would never be a competitive racer cruiser.

Its all horses for courses. These are not ultimate heavy weather machines, they are "closer to the envelope" racing cruisers. On deliveries they have to be sailed conservatively and carefully

dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by poiu

Interesting document.

I'm not happy with the design life assumptions on p66. Its so easy to increase the fatigue life with just a bit more material.

The good old E.U. First they approve brass through hulls and now they approve stainless keel bolts (even 400 grade if fitted carefully). All boat builders do it now anyway. Must be alright then.

Ship and ha'penny of tar comes to mind.

I think thats somewhat of a mis-statement, ISO standards are merely minimum standards, nothing stoping you from paying more.

the design life paragraph is interesting

The operational life of the craft is assumed to be 8 million stress cycles. This is based on an assumed operational envelope — various times on different points of sail, average tacking times for beating, average rolling periods for downwind, typical wave encounter periods, estimated heel angles — and is only intended to be representative.
This corresponds to about 25–30 years of moderate-to-high usage recreational sailing or about five years of very extensive ocean racing (one, 30 000 NM, competition plus associated training and preparation annually). This is 15 % of the figure of the number of cycles normally used in ship fatigue assessment.

One could easily assume that a charter racer like Cheeki would have used up its fatigue life in similar times to ocean racers , i.e. 5 years !

dave

[robert sailor]

Dave, your comment on life limits brings a thought back to mind when I was BS'ing with a British Surveyor who commented on a well used racer cruiser "they are finally building boats that have a very finite lifespan"

[poiu]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I think thats somewhat of a mis-statement, ISO standards are merely minimum standards, nothing stoping you from paying more.

the design life paragraph is interesting



One could easily assume that a charter racer like Cheeki would have used up its fatigue life in similar times to ocean racers , i.e. 5 years !

dave

Clearly the RCD and ISO standards people think their minimum standards are good enough. I don't. It is especially justified to improve the standards when the extra costs of the better and in my view appropriate standards are really small.

Indeed, Cheeki Rafiki may well have done so. Maybe it will be analysed in a MAIB report if there is one.

[deluxe68]

Originally Posted by minaret

Are these not SS bolts in a cast iron keel? Sound like a recipe for corrosion to anyone else? I wonder if the European construction standard which says boat fittings are required to last five years and no more comes into play here. They install brass thru hulls based on the same guidelines, knowing they are only going to last a bit more than that five years. Wonder if the same type of reasoning applies here? If you asked them, would they tell you you are expected to drop the keel for inspection after five years and regularly thereafter? If so, are they telling prospective clients this beforehand? Seems like the added cost of regular inspection of integral structural parts of the boat would defray any savings made by buying a cheaper brand...


Using a cast iron ballast keel also restricts construction to keel bolts, instead of the usual studs or "J" bolts which are cast into a lead keel. This means you are relying on the thread of the SS bolt and the thread of the cast iron keel to hold things together. Big difference between this and a cast in J stud.

The First series (36.7, 40.7, 44.7 and 47.7) all used lead keels, most of the other B-boats use iron keels.

[robert sailor]

That information begs the question...do any of the boat builders tell customers that their boat was designed to last for 5 years with extensive offshore use or 20-30 years if you are a weekend pilot?? It doesn't say much for future values or maybe it does. The better built boats will simply hold their value much longer.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by minaret

Are these not SS bolts in a cast iron keel? Sound like a recipe for corrosion to anyone else? I wonder if the European construction standard which says boat fittings are required to last five years and no more comes into play here. They install brass thru hulls based on the same guidelines, knowing they are only going to last a bit more than that five years. Wonder if the same type of reasoning applies here? If you asked them, would they tell you you are expected to drop the keel for inspection after five years and regularly thereafter? If so, are they telling prospective clients this beforehand? Seems like the added cost of regular inspection of integral structural parts of the boat would defray any savings made by buying a cheaper brand...

Using a cast iron ballast keel also restricts construction to keel bolts, instead of the usual studs or "J" bolts which are cast into a lead keel. This means you are relying on the thread of the SS bolt and the thread of the cast iron keel to hold things together. Big difference between this and a cast in J stud.

Who said this boat has an iron keel? It is my understanding that there are two keel versions of the 40.7. Deep lead keel and shallow iron keel. Got that from a 40.7 owner I met in the Marquesas earlier this month.

Presumably this racing boat woud have the deep lead keel...

C

[deluxe68]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Dave, of course everything written in these forms is speculation except for the facts that 4 men died after a keel was lost on a racer/cruiser.
There are many manufacturers that have been building boats over the years that have never had one of their boats loose a keel. Yes they are much smaller that Beneteau but if you add them all up together they represent some healthy numbers over the years.
My personal feeling is that you can justify losing rigging and rudders etc. but lose a keel offshore is pretty much beyond reasonable especially when some builders are able to build boats without that happening.
All that aside I still think modern production boats have a lot to offer and represent high value when compared to boats of the past but as has been shown over and over they have their limitations and owners would be wise to treat them accordingly.

Boatie,
Of course I agree with you, people always want to highest quality and the best service at the lowest price. The fact that it goes against logic doesn't stop people from believing it.

I love the old Swan S&S boats and have lusted after one for a while. I just looked at the S&S Swan forum, lots of threads dedicated to keel maintenance and repairs. I wonder what it would cost to re-keel one of these old war horses.

[CarlF]

I think keel attachment is something that neither the manufacturers or the standards bodies want to talk about.

It is well known that there are safer ways to attach keels. The Cheeki Rafiki is not the first boat (or life) lost to catastrophic keel failure.

A catastrophic keel loss is more likely to cost lives than most failures on a boat (as we've just seen). There is no possible at-sea repair, no jury rig, maybe no chance to deploy a liferaft. Common sense would suggest that a keel be engineered to fail last - not first.

If the keel attachment can not be made virtually fail safe (as with molded keels), the standards bodies and racing groups should require conservative minimum standards for keel attachment and the regular inspection of keel bolts (by dropping the keel).

We owe this to the crew of the Cheeki Rafiki

[Exile]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I think keel attachment is something that neither the manufacturers or the standards bodies want to talk about.

It is well known that there are safer ways to attach keels. The Cheeki Rafiki is not the first boat (or life) lost to catastrophic keel failure.

A catastrophic keel loss is more likely to cost lives than most failures on a boat (as we've just seen). There is no possible at-sea repair, no jury rig, maybe no chance to deploy a liferaft. Common sense would suggest that a keel be engineered to fail last - not first.

If the keel attachment can not be made virtually fail safe (as with molded keels), the standards bodies and racing groups should require conservative minimum standards for keel attachment and the regular inspection of keel bolts (by dropping the keel).

We owe this to the crew of the Cheeki Rafiki