Oceanis 485 steering failure

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

...

Please get off this kick about maintenance being a potential contributing factor to the loss of this boat. No matter how crappy the maintenance the rudder tube should not break off when sailing. I don't care if they ran over a whale (or container, fish pot, log or any other detritus the ocean has lurking just below the surface) the rudder tube should not be broken.

You should not assume what you don't know. I believe that somebody should have the power to call the Oceanis 48 for a mandatory inspection to determine if the boat as a problem or not on that sector. You simply don't know if that rudder box had suffered damage and not have been inspected and repaired due to grounding or severe ruder collision.

The problem is that even if some European countries have that power I believe that on most and US that is a thing it is not possible by law, or maybe I am wrong?

You should care if they have run over a container. Rudders are not built to resist a shock with a container and if the resist that shock the long arm they create and the multiplied force could break the hull.

We should be concentrating on making some sort of petition to make mandatory an independent survey when an accident of this type occurs. If the boat sunk (like it is the case), other boats of the same model can and should be surveyed in a mandatory way to see if this is due to an inappropriate design or if due to inadequate maintenance and repair.

Regarding poor maintenance/inspection to be probably a contributing factor I am not the only one to think that way.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

...
The plywood coming loose was probably a combination of poor design, fatigue on the poor design from heavy charter use (probably include groundings), and inadequate maintenance/inspection...

Anyway instead of guessing and assume things, what I think is that the the Oceanis 48 should have a mandatory survey to see if that rudder is adequate or not.

[neilpride]

Beneteau send a recall to the dealers dude, why you think they made the steel plate at page 2?? RECALL... we admit there is a problem. The steel plate only fix one point, the top rudder bearing , kind of a PIle of dog **** to replace the bearing since you need to break free the bearing from the Plexus stuff, inded a great idea, sighhh!!! and later aply more plexus with the new bearing or rely on epoxy, my 2 cents... definetly a good way to screw owners and the bearing maintenance ...


I remind you there is a vid on youtube from a bunch of German folks doing a Biscay Croosing and getting the rudder box working loose , no collision, grounding involved.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Beneteau send a recall to the dealers dude, why you think they made the steel plate at page 2?? RECALL... we admit there is a problem. The steel plate only fix one point, the top rudder bearing , kind of a PIle of dog **** to replace the bearing since you need to break free the bearing from the Plexus stuff, inded a great idea, sighhh!!! and later aply more plexus with the new bearing or rely on epoxy, my 2 cents... definetly a good way to screw owners and the bearing maintenance ...


I remind you there is a vid on youtube from a bunch of German folks doing a Biscay Croosing and getting the rudder box working loose , no collision, grounding involved.

I am not a dude and I am still waiting for you to post to what boats Beneteau made a recall to. Certainly not to all Oceanis and if this boat was included in that recall why was not the piece mounted?

If Beneteau made a recall on this particular model and the charter operator did not took the boat to the Beneteau dealer for the job to be performed surely the major responsibility of this accident is not from Beneteau but from the charter operator that did not follow the recall.

Please be more specific about that. The Oceanis 48 was included in that recall? what were the Oceanis models included in that recall?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

I am not a dude and I am still waiting for you to post to what boats Beneteau made a recall to. Certainly not to all Oceanis and if this boat was included in that recall why was not the piece mounted?

If Beneteau made a recall on this particular model and the charter operator did not took the boat to the Beneteau dealer for the job to be performed surely the major responsibility of this accident is not from Beneteau but from the charter operator that did not follow the recall.

Please be more specific about that. The Oceanis 48 was included in that recall? what were the Oceanis models included in that recall?

The 41, 43, 46, 48, the 50 ft... Oceanis single rudder series,, the steel plate don't solve the ply box issue, just the bearing issue, you are a retired
architect so I guess is not so difficult for you to see the plate and take a conclusion.

The 48 is in the recall to, search google, you are really good on this.
The only folks aware of this problem is dealers and charter companys, and like you say to the extreme, there is thousands of this boats sailing out there, maybe you believe every single owner is in contact with a dealer or te be more specific Beneteau, he? the plate don't solve to much, just the top bearing , the box is the weak part ,, plexus and not a single ounce of Fg, plus the tube is relying only in the top ply side for strength, lame...

I mean,, I never see such a obstinate poster defending no sense when the obvious is very clear,,, to many benes sunking for weird circunstances ...

Take a break and think about it.
By the way this folks in the video don't think like you, no collision or grounding involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7GYGlN_t2g

[neilpride]

Same people , same boat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKBzu0geNvM

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

You should not assume what you don't know. I believe that somebody should have the power to call the Oceanis 48 for a mandatory inspection to determine if the boat as a problem or not on that sector. You simply don't know if that rudder box had suffered damage and not have been inspected and repaired due to grounding or severe ruder collision.

The problem is that even if some European countries have that power I believe that on most and US that is a thing it is not possible by law, or maybe I am wrong?

You should care if they have run over a container. Rudders are not built to resist a shock with a container and if the resist that shock the long arm they create and the multiplied force could break the hull.

We should be concentrating on making some sort of petition to make mandatory an independent survey when an accident of this type occurs. If the boat sunk (like it is the case), other boats of the same model can and should be surveyed in a mandatory way to see if this is due to an inappropriate design or if due to inadequate maintenance and repair.

Regarding poor maintenance/inspection to be probably a contributing factor I am not the only one to think that way.


Anyway instead of guessing and assume things, what I think is that the the Oceanis 48 should have a mandatory survey to see if that rudder is adequate or not.

What I don't know I don't know is irrelevant. We know exactly what happened. The boat sank.

And the point I am trying to get through to you is that if the design itself was correct then the rudder tube would not have failed. It does not matter what abuse the boat may or may not have suffered previously at the hands of its charter paying crew. The fact that it did fail (as did the one on Blue Pearl) says the design is not suitable for its purpose. Period end of story. We don't need any more facts to make that statement valid.

So let us assume the rudder struck something and it did no obvious damage to the rudder then it also should not have damaged the plate holding the upper bearing. There should be no need of any maintenance or inspection of that plate after a grounding because the design should sacrifice the rudder before the upper bearing plate can fail. My point is that even if there was a grounding or collision so severe that it tore the rudder clean off the boat, if the upper bearing plate or the rudder tube were compromised that should be enough to convince anyone it is an unfit design.

This situation does not need more inspections. It needs a good designer that has a mandate to correct the design before someone gets killed.

[gjorgensen]

Wow, this is really a startlingly terrible design by Beneteau. I thought the 40.7 steering system was a mess from the factory, but it was head and shoulders above this.

Despite what the engineer told Evans, it still seems like mounting the top bearing in the deck floor (as on my boat) would have been easier than constructing this sort of mid-deck. Regardless, it appears to be engineered flimsier than the deck would be, yet had to hold vastly higher loads due to the shorter chord between the lower and upper bearings.

As an side, like most 40.7 owners I had to drop the rudder and significantly "improve" the upper bearing race mounting at first haul-out after commissioning since it was way underbuilt itself. It was clear to me once I looked over the system that the rudder post tube was semi-useless in practice. It's unlikely the lower bearing race/seal will just fail at random which is what that would protect against; It seems more likely the upper bearing would be damaged or destroyed or the post itself broken, either one from a large enough impact. In that case the tube, which is much weaker than the rudder post inside it, would most likely be broken our destroyed, allowing water to flood in as soon as the rudder dropped at all. That tube is only another couple inches larger inside diameter than the rudder post, so any failure that allowed the post so slop around uncontrolled (e.g. upper bearing failure) would fracture the tube.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by gjorgensen

Wow, this is really a startlingly terrible design by Beneteau. I thought the 40.7 steering system was a mess from the factory, but it was head and shoulders above this.

Despite what the engineer told Evans, it still seems like mounting the top bearing in the deck floor (as on my boat) would have been easier than constructing this sort of mid-deck. Regardless, it appears to be engineered flimsier than the deck would be, yet had to hold vastly higher loads due to the shorter chord between the lower and upper bearings.

As an side, like most 40.7 owners I had to drop the rudder and significantly "improve" the upper bearing race mounting at first haul-out after commissioning since it was way underbuilt itself. It was clear to me once I looked over the system that the rudder post tube was semi-useless in practice. It's unlikely the lower bearing race/seal will just fail at random which is what that would protect against; It seems more likely the upper bearing would be damaged or destroyed or the post itself broken, either one from a large enough impact. In that case the tube, which is much weaker than the rudder post inside it, would most likely be broken our destroyed, allowing water to flood in as soon as the rudder dropped at all. That tube is only another couple inches larger inside diameter than the rudder post, so any failure that allowed the post so slop around uncontrolled (e.g. upper bearing failure) would fracture the tube.

Wow, thank you for the info... do you consider make the tube stronger , i mean any substantial modification, i guess yours dont have any kind of ply partition around the tube

[ontherocks83]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I mean,, I never see such a obstinate poster defending no sense when the obvious is very clear,,, to many benes sunking for weird circunstances ...

Alright good i'm just glad im not the only one thinking it.

On another note;
Holy cannoli the structure they removed in those videos from the boat looks less sound then something made in a kids box car derby. I cant understand what they are saying but I imagine it goes something like:

( look at this crap can you believe a "professional" built this. Ha ha ha. It wouldnt even work as a coffe table to support my glass of french wine. Speaking of wine do you think they were drunk when they designed this and absolutely hammered when they secured the tube with just paint. I know lets mail it back to them as a goof and tell them it is out of a Hunter and when they trash talk it we'll go ha ha its yours! Or do we just save the trouble and burn it? Oh maybe thats why they built it like this so you could burn it as a signaling device for when it fails....see two birds and all)

Yup im pretty sure thats what they're saying in the video.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

The 41, 43, 46, 48, the 50 ft... Oceanis single rudder series,, the steel plate don't solve the ply box issue, just the bearing issue, you are a retired
architect so I guess is not so difficult for you to see the plate and take a conclusion.

The 48 is in the recall to, search google, you are really good on this.
The only folks aware of this problem is dealers and charter companys, and like you say to the extreme, there is thousands of this boats sailing out there, maybe you believe every single owner is in contact with a dealer or te be more specific Beneteau, he? the plate don't solve to much, just the top bearing , the box is the weak part ,, plexus and not a single ounce of Fg, plus the tube is relying only in the top ply side for strength, lame...

I mean,, I never see such a obstinate poster defending no sense when the obvious is very clear,,, to many benes sunking for weird circunstances ...

Take a break and think about it.
...

I am an active Architect and a retired teacher. Yes I have some skills searching the web mostly because i can search it in several languages but even so I could not find any news regarding a recall on Beneteau rudders regarding new boats (41, 43, 46, 48, the 50 ft).

The only recall I could find notice was in 2012 regarding previous models, Beneteau Oceanis 40 and 43 made between 2008 and 2010.

RUDDER POST RECALL/MODIFICATIONS TO 40 & 43 - SeaKnots

So please post the evidence you have regarding other recalls on Beneteau rudders, namely regarding all recent boats and all the models you refereed to.

You main not be aware of it but posting false information regarding a major boat brand, information that is damaging to its credibility, can put you and this forum in trouble. Not saying it is false, only that I could not find any evidence that it support what you say. Please post information about all those recalls you have mentioned.

Regarding that steel piece provided by Beneteau to be mounted on the top of the rudder stock, connecting it to another support area, not to have any influence on the efforts on the rudder supporting plywood box and only having influence on the wear of the previously existing top bearing, just shows that even if you can be a good shipyard worker, your comprehensions of design an structural efforts is very limited.

Again, if you are right and if Beneteau made a recall on that 48 and a charter company ignored it and did not mounted the needed reinforcement then all this case changes dramatically and the Charter company will be certainly be accused of criminal negligence.

[neilpride]

I give it up with you Paolo. Thank you

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

What I don't know I don't know is irrelevant. We know exactly what happened. The boat sank.

And the point I am trying to get through to you is that if the design itself was correct then the rudder tube would not have failed. It does not matter what abuse the boat may or may not have suffered previously at the hands of its charter paying crew. ... My point is that even if there was a grounding or collision so severe that it tore the rudder clean off the boat, if the upper bearing plate or the rudder tube were compromised that should be enough to convince anyone it is an unfit design.
..

Your idea that a rudder can suffer all kind of abuse, from heavy groundings to be hit by containers and not need to be inspected/repaired or even that its possible on all occasions, face to extreme collisions, to maintain the watertight integrity makes no sense. I know of several boats that had made water after a loss of ruder, from inexpensive boats to very expensive very well built boats.

The only solution to contain the water ingress, on some cases, is a water tight bulkhead separating the rudder system from the rest of the boat. On my opinion that should be introduced on the RCD as a mandatory requirement for Class A boats.

It is not that expensive and inexpensive boats like Salona have them. Sure it will cost an extra 1000 and most of the inexpensive brands will save on that mostly because nobody is asking to the dealers, as a strong point regarding buying a given boat, if that model has it or not. Maybe people should ask for that in first place.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I give it up with you Paolo. Thank you

Don't give up, just post information about those recalls.
I had asked directly to Beneteau so I should have an answer shortly.

[transmitterdan]

Paolo,

I give up and will unsubscribe from this thread. Before I go may I say that you are defending the indefensible. I have no idea why you take the ridiculous positions you have taken on this matter.

[HappyMdRSailor]

Originally Posted by ontherocks83

Alright good i'm just glad im not the only one thinking it.

On another note;
Holy cannoli the structure they removed in those videos from the boat looks less sound then something made in a kids box car derby. I cant understand what they are saying but I imagine it goes something like:

( look at this crap can you believe a "professional" built this. Ha ha ha. It wouldnt even work as a coffe table to support my glass of french wine. Speaking of wine do you think they were drunk when they designed this and absolutely hammered when they secured the tube with just paint. I know lets mail it back to them as a goof and tell them it is out of a Hunter and when they trash talk it we'll go ha ha its yours! Or do we just save the trouble and burn it? Oh maybe thats why they built it like this so you could burn it as a signaling device for when it fails....see two birds and all)

Yup im pretty sure thats what they're saying in the video.

Awesome post OTR...

Originally Posted by Terra Nova

Uh...no. The real problem, here, is an unbelievably crappy design.

As straight as a shooter can get !

Originally Posted by minaret

French rules is right. You know I am excluded from telling the full truth here by NDA's....

Does your NDA specifically prohibit dissemination of intellectual property in a public domain??

Or could you spill the schnitzel privately...