The Yard Guys

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

Again? It is not a proposal. When it is approved it is not a proposal anymore but a law and that is the law since 2013.


....
You are outdated. The RCD that is in effect reflects this in what refers to A boats:

"The normal use of recreational craft takes place in weather conditions up to Beaufort wind force 7 to 8 as defined in the previous chapter. In weather conditions above these, recreational crafts below 24 m will survive most of the time. An experienced sailor with Atlantic Ocean crossings will never encounter more than Beaufort wind force 9 in his entire life. This is the reality of the sailing practice. "

You keep telling me I am mistaken, and maybe I am, but I have consistently linked to the official sites when making my statements.

You, on the other hand, make assertions without links. Could you please provide them, as it is not apparent from the official sites that the proposed changes have in fact been implemented. Those, of course, would then be lower standards than before, but that is a different issue.

Please provide the official links.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by neilpride

He he, yes they are using grid liners but with a huge diference, they are full keel boats, and they have stringers and beams glased before the liner is droped, even the tanks are glassed to the bottom,and the edges in the liner are glased, the grid liner is not 100% structural, this could be the best way to use a grid liner, quite a diference instead of a liner droped in a weak flat hull with just glue and keel bolts troughbolted to a flat section of the bilge/liner heee...

Thanks for that explanation, neilpride. Us amateurs don't necessarily appreciate the different nuances of construction what on the surface seems similar.

So what your saying is just because a liner is used, if it is not a significant structural component (like in a Hunter or Bene) then it has some validiity.

What about the ability for a surveyor to inspect behind it, or if repairs are needed, would an IP be better suited to that than a Hunter as example?

One can learn so much from this thread.

[neilpride]

I think they made wide cut outs in the liner for important stuff like tanks and plumbing, is not the kind of flat grid liner glued to the hull leaving wide flat áreas under the liner with no option to inspect, but in any case a grid liner is a grid liner and in the ip is not a big exception , some places are hiden and imposible to inspect.

Anyway the grid liner is better designed in the Ip.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I think they made wide cut outs in the liner for important stuff like tanks and plumbing, is not the kind of flat grid liner glued to the hull leaving wide flat áreas under the liner with no option to inspect, but in any case a grid liner is a grid liner and in the ip is not a big exception , some places are hiden and imposible to inspect.

Anyway the grid liner is better designed in the Ip.

In other words, still not ideal, which is what I thought.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by avb3

In other words, still not ideal, which is what I thought.

Yep, but they need to compete with the cheap guys, with a flavour touch of Ip...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

I think they made wide cut outs in the liner for important stuff like tanks and plumbing, is not the kind of flat grid liner glued to the hull leaving wide flat áreas under the liner with no option to inspect, but in any case a grid liner is a grid liner and in the ip is not a big exception , some places are hiden and imposible to inspect.

Exactly. That's why I put up this example...in response to this statement by Minaret:

Originally Posted by minaret

Regarding fillet quality-I have never seen a fillet ball in a production facility. They all use disposable plastic spreader. It is impossible to make quality fillets that way. Also, do you think they fillet the underside of the liner bond? Of course not, it can't be reached! They just shoot a pat of goo onto the contact spots and hope for the best, because that's all that's possible.

I would think it's just as impossible for Island Packet as it is for anyone else. Yet, somehow, it seems more acceptable in an Island Packet because it's considered "blue water".

But, of course, it's not.

[neilpride]

Dude , its a full keel boat, the bottom of the grid liner have bulkheads under the liner glassed to the real beef, check again the picture, and edge sides glased to the hull, sure they use the yellow or Green glue or whatever but is not so critical...
By the way i dont mind if the ip is blue wáter thingy or not, they have good things and bad things, chainplates glassed for example suck....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Paulo, since the Nauticat is baned by the doors not be full watertight, i wonder if the Moody 45 ds cockpit big door comply with the rule, WATERTIGHT.. is not about size or windage, in a capsize event both yachts are playing in the same field, big doors..

Let me clarify this for you, a Nauticat 38 have a decent AVS to be rated A , i think around 150...AVS .. they are rated B by the side openings , they dont fullfill the watertight meaning..

So the question if is the moody 45 ds with that big sliding door comply with the requirements ,
To me there is lots of gaps in the rules...

I don't know why the Nauticat 38 and 441 don't pass the certification for class A but I doubt very much it is only because of a not watertight door. How dificult would be to make that door watertight and pass the certification?

Regarding that AVS of 150º what makes you say that? The other Nauticats, the bluewater ones have a good or very good AVS but these one? what leads you to talk about a 150º degrees for the 38?

The boat has only 1.80m of draft, a non bulbed keel that would not maximize the efficiency of the ballast and a ballast ratio of only 28%. That is rather low if we compare with a mass production main market boat, for instance the new Bavaraia 37, that has a bigger B/D ratio (30%), a much more efficient bulbed keel and a bigger draft (1.95m). All this put together plus a considerable low CG of the hull due to all that weight up on that high salon on the Nauticat 38 will make for a much lower AVS on the Nauticat 38.

You say 150º for the AVS of the Nauticat 38? I wonder how bigger will be the Bavaria 37 AVS? 180º?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

You keep telling me I am mistaken, and maybe I am, but I have consistently linked to the official sites when making my statements.

You, on the other hand, make assertions without links. Could you please provide them, as it is not apparent from the official sites that the proposed changes have in fact been implemented. Those, of course, would then be lower standards than before, but that is a different issue.

Please provide the official links.

Why should I provide any link? I am telling you those are the definitions that the RCD has for boat classifications and that was approved in 2013. I have posted about that on 2013 when the modifications took place. If you search you will find it You should not post links to things that are outdated and should be sure that what you post is not outdated.

Regarding the lesser standards you seem not to know of what you are talking about. The only thing that had changed in what regards RCD, besides some more restrictions on engine pollution, the need of having a stair that could be deployed from the boat on the water, was the definition of the classes that are now more accurate. The demands and criteria for the certification on each class are exactly the same, plus the new demands.

Can you explain how this translates in lower standards than before?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't know why the Nauticat 38 and 441 don't pass the certification for class A but I doubt very much it is only because of a not watertight door. How dificult would be to make that door watertight and pass the certification?

Regarding that AVS of 150º what makes you say that? The other Nauticats, the bluewater ones have a good or very good AVS but these one? what leads you to talk about a 150º degrees for the 38?

The boat has only 1.80m of draft, a non bulbed keel that would not maximize the efficiency of the ballast and a ballast ratio of only 28%. That is rather low if we compare with a mass production main market boat, for instance the new Bavaraia 37, that has a bigger B/D ratio (30%), a much more efficient bulbed keel and a bigger draft (1.95m). All this put together plus a considerable low CG of the hull due to all that weight up on that high salon on the Nauticat 38 will make for a much lower AVS on the Nauticat 38.

You say 150º for the AVS of the Nauticat 38? I wonder how bigger will be the Bavaria 37 AVS? 180º?

Ok, i try again, by the RYA stability test for ballasted monohulls . they rate the Nauticat 38 with a AVS of 153 degress. and i take it for granted.
Do you want the link??

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

Why should I provide any link? I am telling you those are the definitions that the RCD has for boat classifications and that was approved in 2013. I have posted about that on 2013 when the modifications took place. If you search you will find it You should not post links to things that are outdated and should be sure that what you post is not outdated.

I provide links from official sources so everyone knows what I am referring to, they can check the source themselves, and know it is not just made up from thin air.

Of course, some just want to make assertions, and then say "trust me". Don't tell me I am mistaken, show me. I don't mind being educated to correct my perceptions, but I'm not going to just take some internet banter as the truth. So far, my links to the official sources appear to disagree with your assertions.

I'll take what the official sources at their word.

Regarding the lesser standards you seem not to know of what you are talking about. The only thing that had changed in what regards RCD, besides some more restrictions on engine pollution, the need of having a stair that could be deployed from the boat on the water, was the definition of the classes that are now more accurate. The demands and criteria for the certification on each class are exactly the same, plus the new demands.

So the lower wave limits mean nothing?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Ok, i try again, by the RYA stability test for ballasted monohulls . they rate the Nauticat 38 with a AVS of 153 degress. and i take it for granted.
Do you want the link??

You can be quite stubborn but you just need to put your act together and not mix boats. The only only Nauticats on that list are the the 37 and 385. I have posted here already about the Nauticat 385, given it as a very good example of a small bluewater boat. The other one is the 37, the younger brother. Both are from the line of Pilot house sailing yachts series, the one that are all bluewater boats, all class A, these two:
Nauticat 385
Nauticat 37
That has nothing to do with the 38, from the Motorsailor coastal series (all classB, this one:
Nauticat 38

Here you have the 38 and the 385, nothing to do one with the other:



The AVS you refer belongs to the 37 (153º)


How do you want that a boat that has a worse stability than a Bavaria 37 has a superior AVS? You can be a great shipyard guy but you don't know much about boat design

[Exile]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Neil

This doesn't really answer the question. If the insurance companies started getting an unreasonable number of claims on a specific model, they would either
1- immediately up the premium for insurance on that model
2- refuse to insure it.

If an insured boats ends up onthe bottom of the ocean (i.e. a number of boats of a certain model end up there) they will stop insuring it.

So my question still remains:

Does anyone know of any production boats that major insurance companies either
1- refuse to insure (for ocean passages - due strictly to the boat)
2- Charge an abnormally high premium for insuring (strictly due to the manufacturer/model)

I know of no such cases. If there are none, then ipso facto - the insurance companies do not consider ocean passages in a Hunter or other production boat to be an abnormal risk

as such - the entire argument against "production boats as unsuitable for passage making" is a non-event. There obviously isn't any evidence available that supports the argument that production boats are unsuitable for passage-making.

CAn anyone refute this (facts please)

carsten

Along with what Neil said, I might be able to help with your question, with the caveat that my knowledge of marine insurance is limited to the three policies I've had with three separate carriers since owning my boat. In the US anyway, the recreational marine insurance industry is unregulated, so policies may differ. On the other hand, the three policies I have purchased are all from major carriers (IMU, Seaworthy, Markel) and the following provisions have appeared in each one:

1. There are exclusions, i.e. no coverage, for "mfg. defects," "design defects," and "latent defects." Any loss resulting from one of these occurrences, however, is covered. But if the loss is not the result of a defect but rather wear & tear, insufficient maintenance, corrosion, electrolysis, etc., it is not covered. Don't you love how insurance works?

So if we take the case of Cheeki Rafeeki, for e.g. (assuming the boat was recovered), if it was determined that the keel falling off was due to faulty design by Beneteau, coverage would be denied for repairing the keel, but there would be coverage for the much costlier consequences of restoring the boat (assuming it wasn't a total loss). But if it was determined that it was corrosion & lack of maintenance that caused the keel to fall off as opposed to faulty design, there would be no coverage whatsoever.

Since I am guessing that most of the types of structural failures we're talking about do not result in catastrophic losses (either because most boats don't leave the dock or they are caught in time), then there would be no claim to be filed against an insurance co. since the mfg/design/latent defect which caused the failure is excluded from coverage.

2. As Neil pointed out, coverage is issued based on survey reports, and I would like to think that most of the issues we're discussing would be picked up by a competent surveyor. If not, and the defect results in a catastrophic loss, then I would think the insurance co.'s remedy would be to insure that the affected component of the boat is properly surveyed in the future, not to ban coverage or increase premiums for an entire category of boats, any one of which may or may not be suffering from the same issue. To be clear, every boat in the category may have the design or mfg. defect, but not every boat will suffer a loss.

3. For whatever reason, premiums seem to be based on "agreed values" over anything else. This is different from automobile insurance where certain vehicles may result in higher or lower premiums based on how well they hold up in accidents, how often they are stolen, and how expensive they are to repair. Boats are luxury items not used in the same way I suppose, and most are rarely used at all.

4. With the vast majority of boats sitting at docks, it's a cost-benefit scenario for the insurance cos. Every one of those boats may be paying premiums, but few are filing claims for structural defects that cause sinkings, water damage, or other catastrophic losses. The defects may be there, but they never manifest due to lack of use. And the claims that do occur are mitigated by the exclusion for wear & tear, corrosion, etc.

Again, not an expert here. I think you make an interesting point but also believe it's quite a stretch to conclude that the insurance industry plays such a dominant role in determining which boats may or not be sufficiently seaworthy. It's simply not likely to be in their best interests, economics-wise.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Neil

This doesn't really answer the question. If the insurance companies started getting an unreasonable number of claims on a specific model, they would either
1- immediately up the premium for insurance on that model
2- refuse to insure it.

If an insured boats ends up onthe bottom of the ocean (i.e. a number of boats of a certain model end up there) they will stop insuring it.

So my question still remains:

Does anyone know of any production boats that major insurance companies either
1- refuse to insure (for ocean passages - due strictly to the boat)
2- Charge an abnormally high premium for insuring (strictly due to the manufacturer/model)

I know of no such cases. If there are none, then ipso facto - the insurance companies do not consider ocean passages in a Hunter or other production boat to be an abnormal risk

as such - the entire argument against "production boats as unsuitable for passage making" is a non-event. There obviously isn't any evidence available that supports the argument that production boats are unsuitable for passage-making.

CAn anyone refute this (facts please)

carsten

Facts? I think you might be waiting for a very long time.

The bottom line is...you're exactly right.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

I provide links from official sources so everyone knows what I am referring to, they can check the source themselves, and know it is not just made up from thin air.

Of course, some just want to make assertions, and then say "trust me". Don't tell me I am mistaken, show me. I don't mind being educated to correct my perceptions, but I'm not going to just take some internet banter as the truth. So far, my links to the official sources appear to disagree with your assertions.
I'll take what the official sources at their word.

Yes, you should trust me. Why not? I know what I am saying and I am credible. Have a good reading

Texts adopted - Wednesday, 9 October 2013 - Recreational craft and personal watercraft ***I - P7_TA-PROV(2013)0407

"Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 9 October 2013 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2013/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on recreational craft and personal watercraft and repealing Council Directive 94/25/EC
.....

Design category

...

A. A recreational craft given design category A is considered to be designed for winds that may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave height of 4 m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves.
B. A recreational craft given design category B is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 8 and significant wave height up to, and including, 4 m ▌ .
C. A watercraft given design category C is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 6 and significant wave height up to, and including, 2 m ▌ .
D. A watercraft given design category D is considered to be designed for a wind force up to, and including, 4 and significant wave height up to, and including, 0,3 m ▌ , with occasional waves of 0,5 m maximum height ▌"

Originally Posted by avb3

So the lower wave limits mean nothing?

You mean, the certification demands are more rigorous and in what regards stability the same and that will give boats with a lower standard?

The limits are not lower, it was clarified the meaning of "abnormal conditions" giving to the customer a clearer information : do you call that lower standards? I call a more clearer and precise information. It was not about that you complained about?