The Yard Guys

[four winds]

Decided to check this thread one last time. It has been a very good thread, however, seeing I was at page 23. and therefore three pages behind... I just didn't have the will power to read those pages.

Skipped to the last page, read some, skipped to end....


It's been good to look up all the boats mentioned that I've never heard of.. And it's good discussion. Good technical stuff. The "money no object ,RTW, what boat fantasy" keeps coming to mind.

Maybe this one for me: Discovery 57 I think it was.

Oops, didn't post. Wait.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by four winds

Decided to check this thread one last time. It has been a very good thread, however, seeing I was at page 23. and therefore three pages behind... I just didn't have the will power to read those pages.

Skipped to the last page, read some, skipped to end....


It's been good to look up all the boats mentioned that I've never heard of.. And it's good discussion. Good technical stuff. The "money no object ,RTW, what boat fantasy" keeps coming to mind.

Maybe this one for me: Discovery 57 I think it was.

Thanks four. I'm sincerely glad that it's been useful for you. That was my hope in starting it.

It's been a hell of a lot of fun. That's for sure!

[four winds]

Can't edit the pic on my phone. My data is throttled as well.

On Discovery's site, that computer rendering of the dark blue hull boat is just plain sexy.

Cheers

[Neptune's Gear]

I read most of it. Got bored, too repetitive. I'd just like to say, you don't have to have a genset or a watermaker to be an offshore boat. My boat has neither, and has over 40,000 miles offshore. I guess it doesn't qualify as a bluewater boat then. %^$#!
Oh yeah, and it's a production Farr with a liner!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Neptune's Gear

I read most of it. Got bored, too repetitive. I'd just like to say, you don't have to have a genset or a watermaker to be an offshore boat. My boat has neither, and has over 40,000 miles offshore. I guess it doesn't qualify as a bluewater boat then. %^$#!
Oh yeah, and it's a production Farr with a liner!

Heh-heh. Go the liners!

[minaret]

Man, looking at all this argument about fillets being stronger than glass tabbing, I have to wonder if any of these people have actually glass tabbed anything. Because, obviously, to tab a joint you must first fillet it. Usually with fiber filler so you can glass wet on wet, which is much stronger than Plexus. Does anyone really believe that just because a plexus fillet might have a superior bond (though probably not because production poly always has a chemical bond just like plexus), it will actually be superior in any department to a joint which has both a fillet and a glass tape? I just can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would. It is absolutely not about bond strength, but about a tapered distribution of load from one structural component to another. This simply cannot be achieved with a fillet, period, ever.

I repeat, for the uninitiated (of which there appear to be many), it is not a question of fillet vs. glass tab. It is a question of fillet vs. fillet & glass tab. It is simply never done that a structural tape is made without filleting first. So what is being said here, is that by glassing over that plexus (or other adhesive) fillet, the joint has been somehow ruined and is now worse than it was before!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

Man, looking at all this argument about fillets being stronger than glass tabbing, I have to wonder if any of these people have actually glass tabbed anything. Because, obviously, to tab a joint you must first fillet it. Usually with fiber filler so you can glass wet on wet, which is much stronger than Plexus. Does anyone really believe that just because a plexus fillet might have a superior bond (though probably not because production poly always has a chemical bond just like plexus), it will actually be superior in any department to a joint which has both a fillet and a glass tape? I just can't imagine that anyone in their right mind would. It is absolutely not about bond strength, but about a tapered distribution of load from one structural component to another. This simply cannot be achieved with a fillet, period, ever.

I repeat, for the uninitiated (of which there appear to be many), it is not a question of fillet vs. glass tab. It is a question of fillet vs. fillet & glass tab. It is simply never done that a structural tape is made without filleting first. So what is being said here, is that by glassing over that plexus (or other adhesive) fillet, the joint has been somehow ruined and is now worse than it was before!

Yeah - this is what the thesis said too...fillet AND tabbing. So I'm with you. However, IIRC, they did say that the best/strongest joint appeared to be one that used an adhesive like Plexus as the fillet (not fiber filler) - then the taped tabbing on top of that. I think that's what Polux's earlier photo showed in that boat under construction.

So, no argument here. That seems to be what's optimum.

It's the next step down from optimum where it gets interesting.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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)...
...

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.

Polux - Post #457
"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."

He subsequently posted a link to to support this statement to a document which was clearly labelled in the text as a proposal.

We have since established that the previous directive will not be repealed until 2016. Until that time, the previous directive has legal effect. IOW, it is NOT "law since 2013".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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



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.

It's almost painful to watch you keep doing this to yourself. I know it's a lot of minutiae for a guy like you, but I think you can do it. Reading post #493 might even help you understand why it's not in the best interests of insurance cos. to hike premiums or deny coverage for certain categories or types of boats. Here's the elementary school version (in blue, not bold, just for you):

1. No insurance coverage to repair the defect itself. Ex: NP's time & materials to reinforce the bulkheads on the Bene would have to be paid by the boat owner.

2. If, however, there was water ingress as a consequence of the defective bulkheads on the Bene and that water ingress caused damages, then insurance would cover the cost of repairing damage from the water ingress, but not to repair the underlying defect!

3. If the damaged bulkheads were deemed to be wear & tear vs. a mfg. defect, then no coverage & the boat owner is screwed.

4. Since there are presumably few big losses resulting from mfg. defects, it's low risk for the insurance cos.

Got it? You pay to fix the defect, they pay for any resulting damage. Few defects get uncovered; even fewer big losses are the result = low insurance risk. Why? In part because most boats sit at the dock but premiums get paid regardless. And as Jim C. pointed out, premiums are hiked for the few boats that do ocean passages. Insurance cos. are crafty in managing their risks.

There is another example using the CR scenario in post #493. Policy terms & exclusions from other cos. may vary. Kapeesh??

P.S. Think "effective date" on Polux's EU law. Passed the legislative body in 2013, but doesn't become "law" -- i.e. valid & enforceable -- until 2016 when/if the EU member countries adopt/ratify it. So in no way is it the "law" as of 2013. Not just a formality -- likely to have changes made in the interim. Not confusing unless you make it so.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by StuM

Polux - Post #457
"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."

He subsequently posted a link to to support this statement to a document which was clearly labelled in the text as a proposal.

We have since established that the previous directive will not be repealed until 2016. Until that time, the previous directive has legal effect. IOW, it is NOT "law since 2013".

Okay. I'll let you duke that out with him. Like I said, in quickly scanning through the very broad overview of how EU law works, I could see how an legislatively approved "directive" can be interpreted as a "law" at the Union level.

BTW - what is AVB3 supposed to be "correct" about? This law thing? And if so, what does that have to do with boats being blue-water or not?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Okay. I'll let you duke that out with him. Like I said, in quickly scanning through the very broad overview of how EU law works, I could see how an legislatively approved "directive" can be interpreted as a "law" at the Union level.

BTW - what is AVB3 supposed to be "correct" about? This law thing? And if so, what does that have to do with boats being blue-water or not?

Get some rest Smack. It's late for you. Tomorrow maybe you should try less posting, more reading.

[minaret]

Replace the term "blue water boat" with "voyaging boat" and this whole silly argument goes away. Semantics. There's an obvious disconnect between those for whom "cruising" means extended offshore voyage making with a family, potentially lasting decades, and those for whom "cruising" means a season in the Caribbean or two.

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by minaret

Replace the term "blue water boat" with "voyaging boat" and this whole silly argument goes away. Semantics. There's an obvious disconnect between those for whom "cruising" means extended offshore voyage making with a family, potentially lasting decades, and those for whom "cruising" means a season in the Caribbean or two.

I believe you are correct here. Certainly my concept of a "bluewater boat" is one to be used for passage-making (longer ocean crossings), and extended voyaging in nteresting places. Meaning a boat someone is living on for a longish period of time and will use to cross oceans.

I do not consider a jaunt from Florida to the island as extended cruising (nor do I consider sailing around in the Baltic as extended cruising.

[Polux]

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.

You seem to think this is a game or some personal war between me and AVB3 or any other member. I just happens to be better informed about the RCD, a subject that seems to be new for some and that I followed with interest since its implementation more than 15 years ago, as well as its various alterations.

The only thing i did was to point out that a given definition for A class boat was outdated, that the RCD (the law) had been modified. it was asked if the modification, that was on a link posted by AVB3 under the form of proposal, had already been approved. I answered yes and said it was in 2013. AVB3 asked for a link that supported what I was saying and even if I don't understood why he was questioning what i was saying, I posted a link.

Regarding what you say regarding the implementation of a law that obviously does not regard to definitions that does not need any implementation because don't change the classes, that are the same, neither the demands needed to approve a boat on each of the classes and whose only purpose is to provide the consumer a better information and to clarify the meaning.

The period for implementation you mention regards things that have to be modified, in what regards different national laws to be conform with the alteration, not a definition that does not need any implementation. On what regards the present RCD alteration the large period for implementation is justified by the big implications the laws on maritime engine will have on engines, implying new designs and substantial alterations. Not only it is needed time for transposing the law for the different national laws as it is need time for the manufacturers to sol present stocks and be able to comply with the new law. Note that even so the 6 years are just a maximum period, different countries can and normally implement EC laws on different periods.

All this have nothing to do with a definition that was one and is now another and has been modified only to make it clearer in the consumer interest and has no implication whatsoever on the boats that are classified under each class. The idea that an approved new definition that does not imply any alterations and only explain better a previous one on the consumer interest will have to wait 6 years for "implementation" is a ridiculous idea. You guys sometime talk about Eurobureaucracy but when it comes to facts seem to have a more bureaucratic mind than all EC bureaucrats put together.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

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.

So it seems you have understood that the clarification of each of the same categories would not have any negative effect on the existing boat standards as you previously suppose. Good!

Regarding the rest obviously if the definitions were modified it was to take any confusion out of them.

The boats continue to be certified in each class for the conditions of wind and sea that were before, it was clarified the meaning of "abnormal conditions".

It seems however that you did not understood why in what regards class A the extended voyages has taken out of the defenition even if they explain:

"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)....
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."

The problem on class A previous definition was that there was boats that in what regard seaworthiness were clearly designed as class A but in what regards galley, storage or interior arrangement were not clearly intended for extended voyage. This regards mostly the increasing number of big daysailers/weekend cruisers that have come to the market responding to an increasing demand. Boats like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58neJMtlR5M

To eliminate the problem it was decided to take out of the definition "extended voyage" to allow that boats like this one, that has the seaworthiness needed for the described wind and sea conditions (that are not only encountered on extended voyages) could be included on class A. This type of boats includes for instance the Oceanis 38 on the daysailing version, with a reduced galley and a reduced water tankage.

The vast majority of mass market boats will not fall on this category of day-sailors and are suited, with the options that are available, for extended voyages as you can see if you have a look at the boats that are doing the ARC, that include a small Delphia 33, that has more storage and interior space than old "bluewater" boats of that size.

On the proposal the subscriber talks about the possible need of creating another class to separate the boats that are suited for extended voyage from boats with the same seaworthiness but without the required storage and equipment. I don't know if that is useful since as we have seen here what is considered the minimum for that type of boat varies wildly. Some even think that all those boats need a generator.