Advice on the Schionning 1750

[tp12]

Originally Posted by tuskie

I did that in post #110. Vessels were impounded and weighed. Payload, including people was calculated as well.

Skipper, 17, breath tested after four killed and three critical in pleasure boat

The chances of an overloaded boat being detected and the operator prosecuted, in Australia at least, is very small. No doubt, you'll probably get away with it. But it's still not legal, and it's not a good idea for a whole bunch of other reasons.

There is nothing in that article that indicates the weight was any factor nor that there was any prosecution. It simply states that the boat was to be investigated for the cause of the accident by the water police and forensic crash unit. Do you have any other information regarding this incident?

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by tp12

There is nothing in that article that indicates the weight was any factor nor that there was any prosecution. It simply states that the boat was to be investigated for the cause of the accident by the water police and forensic crash unit. Do you have any other information regarding this incident?

Yes. Please read post#110.

[PaulinOz]

Originally Posted by packeteer

I haven't read the thread in its entirety as yet, but thought I'd throw my 2 bob in the ring...
Personally I prefer gallery down, and on something like a Seawind it's secure while still retaining a lot of "airyness". A gallery up would really suck in a seaway, and really takes a lot of space away from your saloon

I assume this has mistakenly been posted in the wrong thread, even less relevance to discussion in this thread than a lot of the posts.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

The fact is, a huge number of cruising boats are "overloaded". When we owned our mono, one of the "done things" in preparation to going cruising was to raise the waterline. It was just routine.


You'd think, with all these "overweight" boats going around that we'd be hearing of people being prosecuted - but outside of one poster's imagination, no, nothing.

Raised waterlines do not necessarily indicate an overloaded boat. Another red herring. For example, a Lagoon 440 or 450 could be launched with a payload of say, 2 tonnes. To go on a long cruise it may take on an extra 2 tonnes and have to raise it's antifoul waterline. It's still about 2 tonnes under it's maximum displacement.

I'll say again that the legal consequences of overloading is but one of the issues with this practice. You have continually argued with the examples, legislation and links I have posted but offered little concrete evidence that overloading is legal, safe, insurable, etc. Exempt to say that lots of people do it and get away with it.

Have you actually really tried to find the facts? How about asking an insurance company: "Is may boat covered by your comprehensive policy even though it's ovrr the designer's maximum displacement? " How about calling out to the Water Police : "Just checking it's OK to be overloaded. After all the world's not going to end and my arms not going to fall off."

Let us know something that's not just your opinion.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by tuskie

I am not a lawyer and am not about giving legal advice. Nor am I going to engage in an argument with you. I also stress that legal issues are just one on the potential ramifications of overloading a boat. Perhaps ask your insurance company?

The law varies from one jurisdiction to another, but many states and countries, even third world ones, have some sort of law pertaining to overloading boats.

In our state of Queensland, Australia the most relevant law is probably the "The*Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994" which "*imposes a general safety obligation on all vessel owners and operators, masters and crew to operate vessels safely at all times. This responsibility includes making sure the ship is: safeproperly equipped and maintained, and operated in a safe manner.*
The general safety obligation prohibits a vessel from going to sea if it is not properly built and maintained, equipped, crewed and operated in line with its proposed operating environment."

Sound relevant to you?

Laws are one thing, policing and enforcement is another. Just because the authorities don't regularly pluck boats out of the water and weigh them, doesn't mean that it's ok legally to overload.

In previous threads I have given an example of a "Marine Incident" which is pertinent to this subject. It involved a 26 foot recreational vessel that was carrying 9 passengers and their belongings. It was run into by a smaller faster runabout who failed to give way. The incident resulted in 3 fatalities and was consequently investigated by police, Maritime Safety Queensland and the Coroner. Many aspects of vessel safe operation were investigated, including watch keeping, speed, competency of the 17 year old licenced driver/helmsman, measures taken to avoid the collision and you guessed it, vessel load. Charges were laid, but as the vessel was within maximum load/displacement, this aspect of operation was OK. It was widely reported in the press at the time so more details can be researched if you desire. Hypothetically, if the vessel could have been proven to be overloaded, I'm not sure exactly what other charges would have been laid.

So overload if you wish. It's possible that you will have no real adverse consequences as long as the overloading is not severe. Just hope that a speed boat doesn't run into you or some similiar incident doesn't trigger scrutiny.

Originally Posted by tuskie

Yes. Please read post#110.

Yep, I've read it and I read it before but I went back in case I missed a link to another article or something but there's nothing there. Sorry If I wasn't clear, but do you have a link to an article or anything that supports what you're saying? What charges were actually laid? Were they proven?

You say the vessel was found to be under max load so therefore there was no test as to whether weight played a role in the crash or not. From a purely factual point of view, this doesn't support what you're saying regarding weight and leaves room for Factor's statement regarding weight needing to be proven as contributing to the cause of the accident for there to be a prosecution. In my experience this is the case and Factor's statement seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Additionally, making statements like this one:

Originally Posted by tuskie

Arguing that a court won't convict because of lack of admissible evidence is rubbish.

Only serve to undermine credibility. I mean, seriously, that's simply not true and I'm surprised to read it here.

Originally Posted by tuskie

Let us know something that's not just your opinion.

Indeed.

[PaulinOz]

A couple of very simple questions that gets to the hart of this argument that has been weighed down by limbs dropping off and proof of liability for litigation.

What is the maximum weight as a percentage of total load carrying capacity that it is believed OK to overload a vessel by, which will cause no determent to safety of said vessel ?

If you believe that figure is grater than 0% what do you know that the designer of said vessel does not ?

(I am assuming it is in the best commercial interest for a designer to quote the maximum load capacity for any given design, as this is one of the many criteria that a design is judged suitable for purpose on)

Maybe I am wrong and designers quote there load based on the correct figure less X% because they know it is a common practice apparently to overload cruising vessels according to some.

[tp12]

I've spoken to Jeff Schionning regarding the payload, what is included in the payload and what will happen when overloaded relating to two series of catamaran designs that he offers and I think that a lot of you would be very surprised at the results. He includes more than you think and the world won't end if you're a bit overloaded.

If you're really interested and want to hear the truth from the guy who made the decisions while he was doing the designs, who has decades of design experience and is also willing to discuss it all call Jeff directly: +61 2 4997 3322

A lot of the opinion dressed up as fact here will be dismissed.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

A couple of very simple questions that gets to the hart of this argument that has been weighed down by limbs dropping off and proof of liability for litigation.

What is the maximum weight as a percentage of total load carrying capacity that it is believed OK to overload a vessel by, which will cause no determent to safety of said vessel ?

If you believe that figure is grater than 0% what do you know that the designer of said vessel does not ?

(I am assuming it is in the best commercial interest for a designer to quote the maximum load capacity for any given design, as this is one of the many criteria that a design is judged suitable for purpose on)

Maybe I am wrong and designers quote there load based on the correct figure less X% because they know it is a common practice apparently to overload cruising vessels according to some.

I am not going to argue for overloading a vessel, but it simply isn't that simple. One way to meet EU Cat A certifications is to reduce the max displacement. Once the boat design is done, and the rig selected, it's possible to just knock a few hundred kg off the max displacement if you need a little nudge to get over the STIX threshold.

In fact these days it isn't uncommon for the max displacement to be defined as the heaviest load that preserves a Cat A rating.

So does loading a boat past this point make it dangerous? Not really, it has negative effects on maximum stability, but frankly the difference between heeling a boat to 117 degrees or 117.1 is so minimal from a real world perspective it simply doesn't matter.

If you are really worried about load effecting the sailing characteristics, or rig loads, then you need to find out the load prediction that was used to calculate rigging size and mast section size. Because the added stuff adds directly to the RM of the boat, and if it is too high the mast will collapse before the hull starts to fly.

[tp12]

Originally Posted by niecy

We're considering buying a Schionning 1750. We're first time sailors and plan to live aboard, eventually planning to circumnavigate. We're looking at one that has been for sale over a year and they've dropped the price to $650,000 which seems cheap for a boat of this size and quality. Any thoughts or opinions on this boat our other boats in this price range for a family of three? We're a bit worried about payload because we do want dishwasher, wash/dryer etc.
Other boats we're considering are Catana's and Lagoons.

Back to the OPs original enquiry re: Rosella; Rosella is built heavy and over the design specified weight. This will eat into your payload; but by how much and what the exact impact will be is unknown. Please give Jeff a call and ask him your questions; he knows the boat and all the other information that will be relevant: +61 2 4997 3322

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by tuskie

I did that in post #110. Vessels were impounded and weighed. Payload, including people was calculated as well.

Skipper, 17, breath tested after four killed and three critical in pleasure boat

The chances of an overloaded boat being detected and the operator prosecuted, in Australia at least, is very small. No doubt, you'll probably get away with it. But it's still not legal, and it's not a good idea for a whole bunch of other reasons.

With all respect, the legal relationship of a fatal high speed, small boat collision and "overloading" of a cruising sailboat is pretty slight. As in non-existent!

I suspect that any "overloading" involvement of the event that you propose as proof of culpability will involve numbers of POB, not hull weight. After the fact weighing of a sunken boat (if that actually happened... no reference to such in the article you posted) would not be evidence of overloading for the several reasons posted in a previous post. It is unclear how any putative "overloading" could have contributed to this or any other collision. And in fact, the boat involved in your example wasn't overloaded, so how does this support your argument?

You ask if we think it is OK to "overload" our boats, and for me the answer is yes. As others have said, it is a very common practice amongst cruisers, a practice that does not seem to have had safety or legal ramifications in the thousands of such practices around the world. We have had personal knowledge of a number of collisions and sinkings of cruising boats. The issue of "overloading" was never an issue raised by authorities when adjudicating the event, nor by the insurance companies involved. Finally, I have owned so far five sailing vessels and a number of dinghies. Of those, only the dinghies had any documentation which mentioned maximum loads. None of the sailboats came with any such information. That may no longer be true of new boats, but one hell of a lot of cruising boats are older, so how are they or the authorities to know if they are "overloaded"?

All in all, I think that your interpretation of such rules (if there are such) is mistaken, and your warnings to us are groundless.

Jim

[PaulinOz]

"Back to the OPs original enquiry re: Rosella; Rosella is built heavy and over the design specified weight. This will eat into your payload; but by how much and what the exact impact will be is unknown. Please give Jeff a call and ask him your questions;"

Seems to be spelt out clearly enough in the study plans for the model in question.

"The Waterline cats are quite weight sensitive. They have good payload (quoted at 2,000kg), however they must be built of the light composites specified and every effort should be made throughout construction to save weight, both structurally and when making choices of fittings and equipment."

From the designers website "Waterline 1750 study plans."

[tp12]

Originally Posted by PaulinOz

"Back to the OPs original enquiry re: Rosella; Rosella is built heavy and over the design specified weight. This will eat into your payload; but by how much and what the exact impact will be is unknown. Please give Jeff a call and ask him your questions;"

Seems to be spelt out clearly enough in the study plans for the model in question.

"The Waterline cats are quite weight sensitive. They have good payload (quoted at 2,000kg), however they must be built of the light composites specified and every effort should be made throughout construction to save weight, both structurally and when making choices of fittings and equipment."

From the designers website "Waterline 1750 study plans."

Thank you but that doesn't describe the impact of being overloaded (by a little or a lot) nor do you know by how much the boat is over lightship and therefore how much the payload is reduced.

A simple phone call is all that is required here.

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by tp12

Additionally, making statements like this one:

Originally Posted by*tuskie*

"Arguing that a court won't convict because of lack of admissible evidence is rubbish."


Only serve to undermine credibility. I mean, seriously, that's simply not true and I'm surprised to read it here.

Sorry to not have expressed myself more clearly. What I believe Factor was alluding to was that it was very unlikely that an operator of an overloaded recreational vessel would be succesfully prosecuted because of the difficulty of obtaining admissible evidence. He said that such evidence would be more easily collected for a commercial vessel overloaded with people who could be counted rather than a cruising yacht loaded with rum and onions.

Yes, this is rubbish, on two accounts. Firstly, the authorities who investigate such Marine Incidents are very competent and are more than able to collect admissible evidence of overloading. Remember, cats don't tend to sink, so the rum and onions can be weighed. Secondly, why would anyone suggest or even imply that it's OK to do something illegal or unsafe because of the difficulty of prosecution? So, it's OK 'cause you won't get caught and if you do, you'll get off due to lack of admissible evidence?

The purpose of using the incident described in post #110 was to illustrate that, yes, recreational vessels can be weighed. In Australia, at least. All that you need is to be unlucky enough to have someone run into you. Whether you think you are at fault or not, you and your vessel will be under scrutiny.

I'm staggered with the support or ambivalence with regard to overloading. I would have thought that it was a "no brainer". Legal issues aside, I can't for the life of me understand how it is even slightly compatible with prudent seamanship. I got plenty of exam and oral questions regarding safe loading whilst obtaining commercial quals. Even the sticker on my kayak warns against it. But this is CF.

[Smooth Cruiser]

I've arrived at this thread a little late but will add my 2 cents worth.

Not sure if niecy is still reading or if the overloading of the thread has scared her away!

I have a Schionning 1350 and would agree with about half of the posts in this thread.

Namely:

- the Schionning will be more fun to sail than Lagoon/Catana

- just because a Schionning can be fast doesn't mean that it has to be. You need to reef early and reef often. The old adage from Gavin LeSueur was that if you are thinking about putting a reef in then it is already too late. I would wholeheartedly agree with that and would add that in 17knots of wind gusting higher I will reef and that even when I'm racing in these conditions the boat goes at the same speed anyway with a reef as it can be kept in trim easier.

- my girlfriend (at the time) and I cruised up the coast in trade winds with steady 25+ knot winds and we only used the headsail, with the furling line on a winch. If we were going too fast I took another roll or two in the sail, if we slowed down I let a roll or two out and we sailed up the coast in this way in perfect comfort and no stress doing 10-12kn which is as fast as you would want to go cruising before you start surfing waves. A Catana or even worse a Lagoon would have had some main and more jib or would have been motorsaiing and would have been slower, less comfortable, harder work and more stress.

- just get out there and have fun, but be aware of your limitations. It sounds like you already plan to take experienced friends / crew and this is necessary.

- out at sea you will love the size of the boat.

- in the marina you will hate it - this is likely the biggest problem with big boats. Parking will test you to the limits way more than any other aspect of the boat usage. A bow thruster may be nice but I worry that you will have too much going on anyway with two engines, cross wind, steering, bystanders, shouts of advice etc etc to add bow thrusters as well. Things happen quickly and you need to have a clearly laid out mental plan - bow thrusters would add a layer of complexity that may offset their usefulness. I don't know as I haven't used them but I see a lot of people berthing a multihull who effectively become mentally overloaded taking in everything that is going on and all the options they have - to the point of freezing up, panicking and doing completely the wrong thing. Keep it simple. Have a plan. Practice and practice on a nice day so that when it's an ugly day you know what to do instinctively.

- get out on other boats - look up WAGS racing at RQYS in Manly if you are Brisbane based and go down and get out on boats. You will get to watch someone else doing the hard work of leaving and docking as well as sailing and will get a lot of insight and enjoy a great afternoon out on the water.

- don't forget to have fun.

- ignore anything you read on the internet (feel free to include this post)!

[PaulinOz]

"nor do you know by how much the boat is over"

I personally do not know if the vessel in question is overweight at all.
If some one is interested in the vessel, I am sure they will get all the relevant information from the designer and owner required to make an informed decision as to it's suitability to their purpose.

The problem I have is people giving advice to novice sailors (OP "We're first time sailors and plan to live aboard") that it is not a problem to overload a vessel.

Based on the fact that they and others do something, still does not make it correct or prudent advise to be given.

Last month: "hey why would you want an heavy boat like that, you are obviously not interested in sailing"

This month: "If you need to carry more stuff it's OK to overload it. We all do it and there is no way any body can catch us anyway so it must be all right."

as tuskie said "it's CF"