The Yard Guys

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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

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

NOW who's jumping to conclusions! I did suggest you actually read your insurance policy (see post #493).

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

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 ▌"




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?

You're a very patient man, Paulo. I admire that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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



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.

Oh PLEASE!! You put up the example of IP using liners to make it seem like they used the exact same construction techniques as one of the mass-produced boats. Thanks to Neil, we have now have evidence to the contrary.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

.............................
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?

How is the definition more rigorous, when previously it included the requirement to make extended voyages, and now that verbiage is dropped completely. Seems to me a huge component of what was required now is no longer there, so how can it mean the same thing?

[neilpride]

Paulo you right, i mistake the N37 for the N38, my bad.
But anyway here are some numbers.

N38



Length/Beam Ratio

L/B =2,95L/B floatation

Lfl/Bfl =2,89Ballast/Disp Ratio

W/Disp =0,35Displacement/Length Ratio

D/L = 387,66Sail Area/Disp. Ratio

SA/D = 14,40Power/ Disp. Ratio

HP/D = 4,95HP/ton
Hull speed

HSPD = 7,38Kn
Velocity Ratio

VR =1,02Recomm. cruising speed (SL ratio =1.1)

CSPD =6,06Kn
Capsize Safety Factor

CSF = 1,54Motion Comfort Ratio

MCR = 45,59Angle of Vanishing Stability

AVS = 130º
Roll Period

T =4,13Sec
Roll Acceleration

Acc =0,05G's
Stability Index

SI = 1,21Initial Metacentric height

GMo =0,42m
Righting Arm 30º

RA30 =




As you can see, CSF, AVS. are not a factor , its still a rock and surpass many new boats today in terms of AVS, CSF . without mention motion comfort. And i guess that numbers come from the keel drag.


Still trying to figúrate why the Moody 45 ds is rated A with that big sliding door, because not the deck cabin structure not the Windows are a isue in the N38.

My 2 cents in many new boats the plexy hatches or cabin side Windows are weaker compared with the N38 in case of a breaking wave hitting the deck..

[Jim Cate]

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

In my view, the insurance companies have already hedged their bets by charging grossly inflated premiums for offshore passages. As all experienced cruisers know, in general, passages are far less hazardous than coastal sailing, yet the premiums are much higher. I think that this allows the insurers to absorb the occasional loss from structural failure without the hassle and expense of a formal investigation and condemning of a particular make and model of production boat.

So, I don't buy your "ipso facto" argument at all.

Jim

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

How is the definition more rigorous, when previously it included the requirement to make extended voyages, and now that verbiage is dropped completely. Seems to me a huge component of what was required now is no longer there, so how can it mean the same thing?

I explain again: The A class boats now are just a bit better then they were before, the demands in what regards stability are the same, regarding safety they will be just a bit better. They are slightly upgraded in what regards less pollution too.

"make extended voyages" was on the definition of class A , you are talking about a definition no about what the boats had to comply with. That had not changed just more safety items added.

Make extended voyages was taken out of the definition because:

"Problems created by the existing definition
a) Confusing link between weather conditions and location Wind force and waves heights are not linked with the type of voyage or the geographical location, but are essentially a result of meteorological conditions (wind is the consequence of low pressure). Severe conditions can occur everywhere, not only in the middle of an ocean, and wind forces and wave heights defined by the weather conditions referred to in design categories A or B can also be encountered in coastal waters, or near the shore. The way design categories are defined in the current Directive makes people think that the farthest they are from shore, the more severe conditions they will meet. This is a nonsense, which is potentially dangerous for the consumer (especially beginners).

b) Confusing mix of very different boat capacities
The current definition of boat design categories also mixes up the intended use with the stability requirements for given meteorological conditions. These are two completely different matters requiring very different specificities of the boat’s design and construction.
To be self sufficient (as required for instance under category A), a boat requires a minimum volume, cargo capacity, energy storage or production and technical systems to operate them. To offer sufficient comfort and protection for the crew for its intended use, it requires being sufficiently habitable, fitted with berths for the total crew, kitchen, chart house, etc.
To be able to face wind and waves, it requires stability capacities, flooding protection and scantling strength.
Under the present directive, the definition does not allow any nuance in the
characterisation. As a result, boats that offer more ability for one or two of the three above characteristics required for their assigned design category are considered equivalent to boats that are less capable in these points, because they do not fulfill the whole definition of the said design category.
..
The result is that today only a part of the boats found on the market are matching the design categories in a correct and precise manner as described by the Directive. These are the boats which have their intended use and wind and waves capacities in line with one of the four design categories. For all the others, the current definition reduces their capacity to the lowest of the three criteria. Today, the design categories do not fulfil their intended purpose which was to help the consumer understand clearly the real capacities of each recreational craft put on the market.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...ATT84095EN.pdf

(You should read all the information you refer on a link. The link for this information was previously posted by you)

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

Now, you might be interested in a discussion with Hunter documented here:

HunterOwners.com - Hunter Q&A

This is what they say about their interiors. Note, they are not marketing to those that want to sail oceans, and they know it:

The interior layouts are designed primarily for families that do not do much extended offshore cruising other than, week ending, a hop to the Bahamas, out to Catalina, or down to the VI. Mostly the folks buying new boats today are not in the 3% or less category that will ever cross an ocean. Boat buyers 25-30 years ago were a somewhat different breed, they bought the boat from the outside in and the interior space and livability were of secondary concern. That is not true today, customers (want, desire) demand roomy comfortable interiors. Owners want a big comfortable center line or athwartship berth that they can lounge around in at anchor and at the dock get a good nap, sleep at night, or entertain friends and family. That's maybe not what you want and you're correct; there are few if any good sea berths in these configurations. And the fact is, that dealers know all this and aren't going to take an interior designed for that 3% or less crowd. They making a living selling boats (not paying the floor plan company). So when you go through a boat show or visit the dealer or go aboard Mr. and Mrs. X's boat in your marina the interior you're most likely to see is the one just described.

Obviously you are part of the 97% Hunter was targeting. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I wanted to come back around to this because you keep saying I should "re-read it".

I actually linked to this very article on my brilliant blog where I walked through "How We Got To Hunter". So, I've read it. Very carefully. In fact, my buddy at SN, Jeff Halpern, is the guy who interviewed Jim (BTW - Jeff's a very fair, stand-up moderator. I respect him.)

Now, what you strangely snipped out in your quote above (unless you're being intentionally antagonizing for some weird reason) is the rest of that paragraph of Jim's quote - which is very relevant to this debate...

We do have several interior options available in every model from the 38 to the 50 that have good sea berths for a crew to go offshore in. By dividing the aft cabins in each, including the 450 and 420 CC., this actually provides 3-4 secure berths. You will, with this arrangement, have 2 aft quarter berths, low down and near the center of gravity. There is a small pilot berth in main saloon with 6'4" length that can be lee-clothed and you can do likewise at the settee as it easily converts to a double.

Why would you do that? Are you genuinely engaging in this conversation or just trying to stir the pot?

Then you COMPLETELY ignore the MOST relevant part of that article in relation to this debate, and even in relation to your continued confusion about the CE classifications...

CWBB It has been pointed out that Hunter has received the highest level of the EU's new seaworthiness ratings. This rating category indicates that the vessel is designed to withstand conditions of approximately 40 knot. winds and 12-foot seas. Hunter's ads, however seem to suggest that the rating implies that the boats are designed to take anything that they might encounter in open ocean cruising. Are Hunters designed for the kind of conditions they might encounter in some of the nastier areas of the world, such as the major Capes or a North Atlantic passage?

JB All current Hunter boats 34' and larger built for European delivery are certified by IMCI to be in compliance with the relevant parts of the Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/CE. The CE mark means that the craft meets or exceeds all current standards and directives of the International Organization for Standardization in effect at the time of construction. All Hunters 34' and larger comply with the CE A design category. Those built for US delivery would have to have a serial number change that is not accepted by the US Coast Guard documentation service and lack various safety placards, stove shielding, and VHF radio specs required by the IMCI. Otherwise the construction is identical. The specific language used by the IMCI is: "Category A Ocean: Craft designed for extended voyages where conditions experienced may exceed wind force 8 and include significant wave heights of 4m, for vessels that are largely self sufficient." The key you're missing is the word "exceed." Yes, we believe the boats capable of rounding the major capes and of North Atlantic passage; several have. All our boats delivered over the past 5-6 years to our Cape Town South Africa dealer have been on their own bottoms. The skill of the captain and crew, proper preparation, appropriate safety equipment are of course essential to safe sailing and are not included when the boat leaves our plant but can be added.

There's a lot more in this article about the offshore capability of Hunters. Yet, for some reason, you gloss over all that...repeatedly confuse issues and information...while demanding that others provide you links to verify their accuracy in their quoting?

Are you really just trying to rile people up?

Dude, you need to do some reading yourself, and work on some semblance of accuracy.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Polux

I explain again: The A class boats now are just a bit better then they were before, the demands in what regards stability are the same, regarding safety they will be just a bit better. They are slightly upgraded in what regards less pollution too.

"make extended voyages" was on the definition of class A , you are talking about a definition no about what the boats had to comply with. That had not changed just more safety items added.

Make extended voyages was taken out of the definition because:

"Problems created by the existing definition
a) Confusing link between weather conditions and location Wind force and waves heights are not linked with the type of voyage or the geographical location, but are essentially a result of meteorological conditions (wind is the consequence of low pressure). Severe conditions can occur everywhere, not only in the middle of an ocean, and wind forces and wave heights defined by the weather conditions referred to in design categories A or B can also be encountered in coastal waters, or near the shore. The way design categories are defined in the current Directive makes people think that the farthest they are from shore, the more severe conditions they will meet. This is a nonsense, which is potentially dangerous for the consumer (especially beginners).

b) Confusing mix of very different boat capacities
The current definition of boat design categories also mixes up the intended use with the stability requirements for given meteorological conditions. These are two completely different matters requiring very different specificities of the boat’s design and construction.
To be self sufficient (as required for instance under category A), a boat requires a minimum volume, cargo capacity, energy storage or production and technical systems to operate them. To offer sufficient comfort and protection for the crew for its intended use, it requires being sufficiently habitable, fitted with berths for the total crew, kitchen, chart house, etc.
To be able to face wind and waves, it requires stability capacities, flooding protection and scantling strength.
Under the present directive, the definition does not allow any nuance in the
characterisation. As a result, boats that offer more ability for one or two of the three above characteristics required for their assigned design category are considered equivalent to boats that are less capable in these points, because they do not fulfill the whole definition of the said design category.
..
The result is that today only a part of the boats found on the market are matching the design categories in a correct and precise manner as described by the Directive. These are the boats which have their intended use and wind and waves capacities in line with one of the four design categories. For all the others, the current definition reduces their capacity to the lowest of the three criteria. Today, the design categories do not fulfil their intended purpose which was to help the consumer understand clearly the real capacities of each recreational craft put on the market.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...ATT84095EN.pdf

(You should read all the information you refer on a link. The link for this information was previously posted by you)

Well, isn't that interesting that the regulators agreed with my earlier points that the A class was confusing, and to make extended voyages, all sorts of additional criteria is important. So, they clarified it to ensure that it no longer was as misleading.

Imagine that.

Of course, if my understanding is different than yours of the English language, than one of us will misunderstand this clarification.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Paulo you right, i mistake the N37 for the N38, my bad.
But anyway here are some numbers.

N38



Length/Beam Ratio

L/B =2,95L/B floatation

Lfl/Bfl =2,89Ballast/Disp Ratio

W/Disp =0,35Displacement/Length Ratio

D/L = 387,66Sail Area/Disp. Ratio

SA/D = 14,40Power/ Disp. Ratio

HP/D = 4,95HP/ton
Hull speed

HSPD = 7,38Kn
Velocity Ratio

VR =1,02Recomm. cruising speed (SL ratio =1.1)

CSPD =6,06Kn
Capsize Safety Factor

CSF = 1,54Motion Comfort Ratio

MCR = 45,59Angle of Vanishing Stability

AVS = 130º
Roll Period

T =4,13Sec
Roll Acceleration

Acc =0,05G's
Stability Index

SI = 1,21Initial Metacentric height

GMo =0,42m
Righting Arm 30º

RA30 =




As you can see, CSF, AVS. are not a factor , its still a rock and surpass many new boats today in terms of AVS, CSF . without mention motion comfort. And i guess that numbers come from the keel drag.

..

Very funny, you have used one of those calculators you can find on internet. You should now better...or maybe not!!!! I am sorry but I am better than that.
Perhaps you can post the source of that very unreliable information.

You know, for finding a boat AVS is a complex affair. Looking at the low B/D ratio, at the keel, that does not maximize the efficiency of ballast and to the relatively low draft, plus a relatively high CG on the hull due to the high superstructures, I can have a good idea and I can tell it is worse than the one of that Bavaria but to calculate it I would have to know a lot more and to be able to accurately determine the boat CG and the boat CB...and you think an internet calculator can do that with some few data about the boat

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

In my view, the insurance companies have already hedged their bets by charging grossly inflated premiums for offshore passages. As all experienced cruisers know, in general, passages are far less hazardous than coastal sailing, yet the premiums are much higher. I think that this allows the insurers to absorb the occasional loss from structural failure without the hassle and expense of a formal investigation and condemning of a particular make and model of production boat.

So, I don't buy your "ipso facto" argument at all.

Jim

His "ipso facto" is correct. What you've laid out above is risk for passage type - which is valid. But that has nothing to do with boat type...which is what is being discussed here.

As he says, if there is a demonstrably defective/deficient product (boat) that makes these passage types even more risky than they already are (which has been accounted for), that boat will not be insured, or will require huge premiums to insure.

Like Carsten, I've seen no evidence of the latter happening. Ergo, ipso facto.

What's ironic though is that you're actually correct that coastal sailing has higher inherent risks than off-shore passages - yet the "blue water" debate rages around the less risky arena of off-shore passages. Hmm.

Maybe "blue-water" boats should be built to be "as tough" as coastal boats.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Polux

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

That is quite clearly the "first reading" of a "proposal" to adopt a directive.

Can you provide a link to the actual adopted directive. So far you have not shown that this has been adopted and is in effect.

[StuM]

To answer my own question. 94/25/EC has not yet been repealed and the above proposed directive has NOT been implemented.

"On 28 December 2013, the new recreational craft directive 2013/53/EU was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. EU Member States have until 18 January 2016 to amend their national legislation and transpose the new directive. The current directive 94/25/EC as amended by directive 2003/44/EC will be repealed on 18 January 2016, after the full application of the new text."

IOW, Polux is incorrect. AVB3 is correct. The new proposal does not become "law" until 18 January 2016 - until then, the 1994 definitions still stand.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Very funny, you have used one of those calculators you can find on internet. You should now better...or maybe not!!!! I am sorry but I am better than that.
Perhaps you can post the source of that very unreliable information.

You know, for finding a boat AVS is a complex affair. Looking at the low B/D ratio, at the keel, that does not maximize the efficiency of ballast and to the relatively low draft, plus a relatively high CG on the hull due to the high superstructures, I can have a good idea and I can tell it is worse than the one of that Bavaria but to calculate it I would have to know a lot more and to be able to accurately determine the boat CG and the boat CB...and you think an internet calculator can do that with some few data about the boat

Nahh you are the funy guy here, the data dont come from any calculator, it come from a N38 forum site, but since you are the NA here, i let you do the maths , you have all the parameters, if you cant provide the AVS from a source then dont say nothing, are you a NA ? its simple i found this data and the other , you dont found nothing to contrast the data. pLS enlight us!!!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by StuM

To answer my own question. 94/25/EC has not yet been repealed and the above proposed directive has NOT been implemented.

"On 28 December 2013, the new recreational craft directive 2013/53/EU was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. EU Member States have until 18 January 2016 to amend their national legislation and transpose the new directive. The current directive 94/25/EC as amended by directive 2003/44/EC will be repealed on 18 January 2016, after the full application of the new text."

IOW, Polux is incorrect. AVB3 is correct. The new proposal does not become "law" until 18 January 2016 - until then, the 1994 definitions still stand.

I'm probably missing something - but where did Polux say it was current law?

+++Nevermind - found it.+++

That said, I certainly don't know the EU legal/legislative system - BUT that statement you list above doesn't necessarily preclude it from being "law". It was obviously accepted and published at the Union level...with the added time being about Member States amending their own legislation. In other words, it seems to be more about implementation.

I would assume this process is similar to Federal and State law in the U.S. So I don't see your snippet as necessarily clear-cut.

Irrespective of that, these are details that really don't matter to the debate of whether production boats belong in blue water. That has pretty much been settled.