The Yard Guys

[StuM]

In order for the new directive to become "law" to use Polux's word, the previous directive has to be repealed. which doesn't happen until 2016.

[Exile]

Here you go:

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 If you search you will find it You should not post links to things that are outdated and should be sure that what you post is not outdated.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

Or.

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 sold, or will require huge efforts from the builder to insure.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by StuM

In order for the new directive to become "law" to use Polux's word, the previous directive has to be repealed. which doesn't happen until 2016.

Okay. Legal minutiae is definitely not my cup of tea. But is there any difference in the EU between "law" at the Union level and "law" at the Member State level? Just curious.

(PS - Try again Exile. That's the wrong quote...again.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

It's actually nothing like the process with federal vs. state law in the U.S., thankfully.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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

Here..and elsewhere


El Ping "The following conditions of use are defined in Anex ii of the Directive:

Ocean: designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above, and vessels largely self-sufficient.

Offshore: designed for offshore voyages......etc"
Polux *****I have already explained that is not the current version of the directive and that are not the actual definitions that were modified***** "

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's actually nothing like the process with federal vs. state law in the U.S., thankfully.

Okay - it just seemed to have some similarities. This was the quick run-down from WikiP - which we all know is the best legal resource on the planet:

European Union law is a body of treaties and legislation, such as Regulations and Directives, which have direct effect or indirect effect on the laws of European Union member states. The three sources of European Union law are primary law, secondary law and supplementary law. The main sources of primary law are the Treaties establishing the European Union. Secondary sources include regulations and directives which are based on the Treaties. The legislature of the European Union is principally composed of the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which under the Treaties may establish secondary law to pursue the objective set out in the Treaties.

European Union law is applied by the courts of member states and where the laws of member states provide for lesser rights European Union law can be enforced by the courts of member states. In case of European Union law which should have been transposed into the laws of member states, such as Directives, the European Commission can take proceedings against the member state under the EC Treaty. The Court of Justice of the European Union is the highest court able to interpret European Union law. Supplementary sources of European Union law include case law by the Court of Justice, international law and general principles of European Union law.

So, if the "directive" was published at the Union level as described above, I could see how that can be construed as a "law".

But again, who gives a damn? It's irrelevant and super boring. Blue-water sailing on a Plexus Yacht is much more fun.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

Could somebody please define 'production boats' for me.

More than 90% of the boats I see 'out there' are 'production boats' ie they have come from a factory, are of a class, and there have been more than one built.....

The only boats I see in any numbers that are not 'production boats' are steel boats.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Here..and elsewhere


El Ping "The following conditions of use are defined in Anex ii of the Directive:

Ocean: designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above, and vessels largely self-sufficient.

Offshore: designed for offshore voyages......etc"
Polux *****I have already explained that is not the current version of the directive and that are not the actual definitions that were modified***** "

Wow, you guys are worse than I thought! Where is the word "law" above?

Here is where he actually said it (that I could find anyway)...

Originally Posted by Polux

It is law for many years now. That particular difference I mentioned, only in 2013.
The RCD system started to be studied after the Fastnet disaster to prevent something similar to happen again and has been perfected since its implementation back in 1998 (its law since then in the EC).

Even so, he still doesn't appear to be saying what you guys think he's saying. So, I'm betting confusion still reigns on this issue on many fronts (few of them being Polux)...though I have no desire to continue down this rabbit hole.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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.

You're behind on your posts, Smack. If the maj. of policies have the same exclusions as the three that I have purchased from major carriers, then mfg. defects are excluded. That means zero coverage unless a big loss results on account of the defect, which in turn means low risk for insurance cos. You seem to believe that merely repeating something you know nothing about is going to persuade people.

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.

Your reasoning seems to be getting rather tortured at this point, but you did come up with some favorable info on Hunters (assuming one believes the CE regs. are reasonable). Too bad you had to editorialize it.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your reasoning seems to be getting rather tortured at this point, but you did come up with some favorable info on Hunters (assuming one believes the CE regs. are reasonable). Too bad you had to editorialize it.

He he , but Smack Legend dont comply with the CE, me think the wiring is f!/"(!/ck!!!!

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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...

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...

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.

The interview discusses many things, some of which are relevant to this discussion, some of which are not. We were discussing the target market at that point, especially comfort and interiors, were we not? No nefarious designs, as you would say, dude. As you would say, dude, context is important. The context in that post was who the target market was, and 'comfort', especially the interiors you like so very much.

The interview is long, and both you and I left out a number of things it discussed, dude. Things like the arches, there is a discussion of lack of storage due to the large interior space, and especially issues surrounding ease of movement when heeled on a passage, in which JB admits they had to install handholds on the 430 Pleiades. So, dude, why would you not include those in your additions?

JB makes some good points in some parts of the interview, and is defensive in others.

Oh, and the CE issues. As by now you have read that I am correct, and Polux is not, or confused about the issue. Any time you want to acknowledge that, is fine with me, dude. After all, you are pointing fingers at me for not understanding them, which it is now obvious, was not the case.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Your reasoning seems to be getting rather tortured at this point, but you did come up with some favorable info on Hunters (assuming one believes the CE regs. are reasonable). Too bad you had to editorialize it.

Exile, you're very high maintenance. Work through the untortured logic of what you just typed:

then mfg. defects are excluded. That means zero coverage unless a big loss results on account of the defect

You like bold so I've tried to help you out here. Now go back and read Carsten's post and try to connect the dots. There are essentially two of them.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

He he , but Smack Legend dont comply with the CE, me think the wiring is f!/"(!/ck!!!!

Heh-heh. Those damn yard guys ruined my blue water boat!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by avb3

As you would say, dude, context is important. The context in that post was who the target market was, and 'comfort', especially the interiors you like so very much.

Well, context is very hard to get when you selectively snip it out of the very quote you post.

Originally Posted by avb3

The interview is long, and both you and I left out a number of things it discussed, dude. Things like the arches, there is a discussion of lack of storage due to the large interior space, and especially issues surrounding ease of movement when heeled on a passage, in which JB admits they had to install handholds on the 430 Pleiades. So, dude, why would you not include those in your additions?

What do those things have to do with whether the boat is fit for blue water or not? Actually, nevermind. You still don't seem to understand the whole 8 people thing - so I don't need to know.

Originally Posted by avb3

Oh, and the CE issues. As by now you have read that I am correct, and Polux is not, or confused about the issue. Any time you want to acknowledge that, is fine with me, dude. After all, you are pointing fingers at me for not understanding them, which it is now obvious, was not the case.

First of all, I don't know exactly what you're supposed to be correct about in this legal tête-à-tête you're having with Polux. I haven't really been following that too closely because it's not that fun to read, and it has little bearing on the issue at hand.

If it's about the whole "law or not law" issue - it's not as cut-and-dried as presented as I pointed out above.

So, what exactly are you "correct" about?