The Yard Guys

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Presuming again? That's a lot of certainty in proclaiming the entire Conformité Européenne a sham.



I hope someday you come back and read this statement and realize how strange and completely disconnected it was to the subject being discussed.

Have you read the EU documentation I linked to?

It clearly states that a Class A designation is for:

• A boat given design category A is considered to be designed to operate in winds of Beaufort force 10 or less and the associated wave heights (the table indicate significant wave height less than approximately 7 m), and to survive in more severe conditions. Such conditions may be encountered on extended voyages, for example across oceans, or inshore when unsheltered from the wind and waves for several hundred nautical miles. Winds are assumed to gust to 28 m/s

There is a proposal to downgrade that standard so the "more severe conditions" part is essentially eliminated.

Here is the actual proposal. Note that wave heights have shrunk also.

• 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 heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue wave.

Obviously a recalibration of thoughts, one would have to agree. Think that industry may have lobbied for that?

It would be good to actually read what is presented. I used official documents, not suppositions. That Bene 38, and many other boats like that, are being sold as if they are suitable for purposes which they are not. I don't see that as ethical or wise for someone to buy them expecting to do their RTW with the best boat available for the dollars spent.

Even you decided to buy a boat designed 30 years ago. You didn't decide on a newer one for legitimate reasons of your own.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by avb3

Have you read the EU documentation I linked to?

It clearly states that a Class A designation is for:

• A boat given design category A is considered to be designed to operate in winds of Beaufort force 10 or less and the associated wave heights (the table indicate significant wave height less than approximately 7 m), and to survive in more severe conditions. Such conditions may be encountered on extended voyages, for example across oceans, or inshore when unsheltered from the wind and waves for several hundred nautical miles. Winds are assumed to gust to 28 m/s

There is a proposal to downgrade that standard so the "more severe conditions" part is essentially eliminated.

Here is the actual proposal. Note that wave heights have shrunk also.

• 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 heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue wave.

Obviously a recalibration of thoughts, one would have to agree. Think that industry may have lobbied for that?

Everything that I can find suggests F8/4m has been in the regs for some time.. 'may exceed' is the notable bit...

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

"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 where conditions up to, and including, wind force 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 4m may be experienced.

Inshore: designed for voyages in coastal waters, large bays, estuaries, lakes and rivers where conditions up to, and including, wind force 6 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2m may be experienced.

Sheltered waters: designed for voyages on small lakes, rivers, and canals where conditions up to, and including, wind force 4 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0.5 m may be experienced.
"

[El Pinguino]

Wind and sea condition the same for both Class A and Class B , wonder what the actual difference is between the two cats...hard to find the actual criteria.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Wind and sea condition the same for both Class A and Class B , wonder what the actual difference is between the two cats...hard to find the actual criteria.

No they're not.

A: ... may exceed... and above....
B: ...up to and including...

[El Pinguino]

ah...correcto...was trying to multitask..eat and read at same time

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by avb3

There is a proposal to downgrade that standard so the "more severe conditions" part is essentially eliminated.

I don't see what it matters in this discussion. What a standard may be in future makes no difference to the current standards that the boats are built to.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Ever been offshore in ugly weather in a big fishing boat?

…...
I assure you, there are many of my clients out in the Bering right now, with big seas and big windows all around.

Are any of these clients out fishing in a 38' sailboat with no stabilizers or outriggers and a small auxiliary engine?

It seems pretty silly to try to make a point by comparing features of a Bering Straights fishing boat with those of a small recreational sailboat.

Mark

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

Are any of these clients out fishing in a 38' sailboat with no stabilizers or outriggers and a small auxiliary engine?

It seems pretty silly to try to make a point by comparing features of a Bering Straights fishing boat with those of a small recreational sailboat.

Mark

Unless he wasn't making that particular comparison, but instead one that rebutted Polux's statement that certain Nauticat's are not sufficiently seaworthy due to large pilothouse windows.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

Unless he wasn't making that particular comparison, but instead one that rebutted Polux's statement that certain Nauticat's are not sufficiently seaworthy due to large pilothouse windows.

Yes, but comparing seaworthiness of pilot house windows on a fishing boat with a small sailboat doesn't make any sense.

BTW, we have a catamaran, so I am not arguing that pilot house windows are dangerous offshore - just pointing out that there is no valid comparison with commercial fishing boats.

Mark

[transmitterdan]

I think Minaret might be suggesting that his Nauticat windows are more like commercial fishing boats than the typical sailboat. He said she has metal shutters over laminated glass. How many modern sail boat builders do that?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Nor does an A8 rating for that Bene 38, no matter how much support you seem to give it. It is a manufacturers rating, and you even acknowledged that in the real world, you would not be doing long, extensive ocean passages in F8 conditions with 8 people aboard.....

I guess you did not understand yet that story regarding the separation of being a Class A and having a Max carrying capacity of 8 persons on offshore conditions. There are many types of offshore conditions, offshore in what regards EC is 25 nm offshore. You, that live on a country without any regulation whatsoever in what regards boat ability, would pretend that the ones that have those regulations have them specified not generally but regarding all type of offshore conditions, meaning daysailing offshore, short passages offshore, racing offshore, long passages offshore and so on?

It seems ridiculous to me. The boat is certified as Class A and that means that it can do all of them and that can safely sail offshore with a crew of 8 and it is for the skipper to judge in any situation what is convenient or not.

Regarding ratings you continue confusing things: It is not a manufacturers rating. A Manufacturer rating would be one that would be attributed by the manufacturer. That is not true.

A manufacturer try to certificate a given boat on a given category on an certified independent body that will certify that the boat is according to the demands required by the RCD regarding the category in cause or that it is not and in that case they will say what has to be modified on the boat.

The Oceanis 38 was subjected and certified as complying with all demands for class A. The Nauticat 38 was subjected and not certified because it did not comply with all those demands for class A. The manufacturer instead of improving the safety of the boat chose to have it certified in class B, that has less demanding exigences regarding seaworthiness and boat safety.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=smackdaddy;1690684]You seem to have trouble with clarity...and using bold tags. But I'll try once more, and then you're on your own...

I'm a little crushed you didn't like my bold tags, so I'll try blue. I'm so ashamed but must confess that I can't get the "Quote" function to work, at least on my tablet. Ever so courteous & helpful, I'm sure Smack will generously offer a tutorial on this topic, along with the intricasies of properly applying Plexus, of course.

The failure of the bond was pretty evident in the photos. Even a complete "poser" (as AVB3 likes to call us) can see that. You don't even need the thesis to draw that conclusion. But that's not the point.

Hmmm, maybe I should have read the thesis after all, but I don't recall the bond itself failing, but rather the surrounding laminate. In fact, and based on what Polux & ColemJ said about Plexus' strong adhesion properties, it would be surprising to see a failure of the bond itself. But I could be totally wrong about what exactly failed. I am hardly an "expert" after all.

Where the thesis comes in handy is in Neil's subsequent global diagnosis, from those photos, that Beneteaus (et. al.) are crap because of this technique - and that the company actually wants people screwed out there. That might fit with your world view of the modern sailboat industry. But I'm not willing to accept that kind of pronouncement at face value - despite Neil's impressive "boat tech" credentials, beer drinking abilities, and nutsack sensitivity.

"Nutsack sensitivity"?? Please, this is supposed to be a G-rated forum. We're not Sailing Anarchy over here, dude.

The thesis shows several things that draw that diagnosis into question. First, the adhesive "fillet" in those photos is very, very poorly done and not at all to the industry standards covered in the thesis (basically no radius whatsoever). Even more importantly, it's very different from the fillets in the other photos of the other Beneteau bulkhead he showed (which had NOT failed) - which were done to the industry standards covered in the thesis.

"Industry standards"? Does that mean that the guy with the goop gun should have taken 10 secs. vs. 7 to smear the goop? You were right, these new, modern technologies really are complicated.

So, what does that mean? Well, if you're just a debating cheerleader, it means nothing, you just make everything bold and talk louder. If you're at all discerning, however, you realize something doesn't add up in those particular photos.

Now where did I leave those pom-poms? I'll need them for cheerleading, of course, at the start of the next ARC event. That way I'll have a chance to see all those traditional bluewater boats before they all drop out.

Was it poor workmanship on this single boat? Did the entire fleet of that year have this same poor workmanship? What year was that? Is this even a structural bulkhead? Is this even a Beneteau? You don't know, for certain, any of this from those photos. Yet, you're willing to jump in head-first.

Yeah, you're right Smack. Let's go with possibilities as opposed to probabilities.

Second, Neil didn't know what was plexus adhesive vs. headliner adhesive in those photos (green and yellow). So, again, something is off somewhere.

You can obviously see how complex this is.

Third, the thesis makes very clear points (backed by evidence) that are diametrically opposed to the general pronouncement by several in this thread that adhesives like Plexus are "inferior" to tabbing. For example, everyone around here assumed that a Plexus bond would fail at the varnished surface of the wood (where most tabbing typically fails over time). The photos here, however, show the failure at the glass instead. So, yet again, something is off somewhere...for those that actually think about it for a moment. Yet no one has tackled that one.

OK, I took your advice and will think about it for a "moment" . . . ok, I'm good now. The factory installed bulkhead failed on an otherwise well-maintained Beneteau that had done a couple of Atlantic Ocean crossings. Boy, this boat stuff is hard to understand.

See, you are basing your bolded pronouncements on a single set of photos that could be showing anything...even an Oyster bulkhead...or the inside of an Ikea cabinet. But whatever they are showing doesn't line up with what's being touted in the tabbing debate - nor does it line up with what's in a non-marketing-based, academic thesis on this exact matter.

I'm sure blue will be more convincing.

Now, that's all fine if you need to simply maintain a position in a debate. Nothing needs to really line up. Me? I choose to be a bit more discerning.

That's why I'm counting on you to fix my "Quote" function dysfunction.



Actually no. "Experience" (as you're framing it) is not at all the only way to judge a boat tech's opinions. Second opinions are pretty readily available - on this forum, in The Google, via other "boat techs", etc.

It's only when you believe one "boat tech's" opinions without checking into it further that you typically run into trouble.

Again I ask, where are the opinions of your other boat techs you continue to relentlessly talk about?

In fact, I'm very confident that even a "poser" could tell that the rat's nest left behind in my bilge by a trusted "boat tech" was not ABYC-level work. No experience required.

Yup, you're right about that one. But are you sure the two before & after pics you posted were of the same area of the bilge? The one where Neil spotted what he thought looked like a crack in the stringer (it does) looks entirely different from the other one.


This is a very, very strange point. My messed up electrical job was courtesy of one of these "boat techs" you say I should respectfully deign to until I have "more experience". So you're saying that I should be grateful that I have to fix it, and be forgiving because "everyone makes mistakes getting jobs done in the beginning"...even highly paid yard guys?

With more experience you'll figure out which boat techs are credible and which are not. Like any profession, it's definitely a mix. Ditto for advice you get from sailing forums on the internet. Only then will your research and non-expert opinion making become useful.

I'm sorry. But that's ridiculous.

Or ludicrous, perhaps?

So, I'm sure you're making some profound point here should humble me in some way. But...I ain't seein' it.

Humble you??

Okay - that's the best I can do for you. Now to more heady matters.

Too heady for me, I'm sure./QUOTE]

[Polux]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

...
In the plans for the Bene up the page I don't see bunks for 8, I can't see seating for 8 yet she is A8....

I had already explained that on the 8 places version, used mostly for charter, the table goes down and a double berth can be mounted on the salon, So with 3 double cabins plus 2 on the saloon it gives 8 berths and believe it or not there are many that sail with 8 in what regards charting.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I think Minaret might be suggesting that his Nauticat windows are more like commercial fishing boats than the typical sailboat. He said she has metal shutters over laminated glass. How many modern sail boat builders do that?

Or that anyone who has a problem with "big windows" offshore might actually know very little about basic boat construction.

[minaret]

[QUOTE=Exile;1690929]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

You seem to have trouble with clarity...and using bold tags. But I'll try once more, and then you're on your own...

I'm a little crushed you didn't like my bold tags, so I'll try blue. I'm so ashamed but must confess that I can't get the "Quote" function to work, at least on my tablet. Ever so courteous & helpful, I'm sure Smack will generously offer a tutorial on this topic, along with the intricasies of properly applying Plexus, of course.

The failure of the bond was pretty evident in the photos. Even a complete "poser" (as AVB3 likes to call us) can see that. You don't even need the thesis to draw that conclusion. But that's not the point.

Hmmm, maybe I should have read the thesis after all, but I don't recall the bond itself failing, but rather the surrounding laminate. In fact, and based on what Polux & ColemJ said about Plexus' strong adhesion properties, it would be surprising to see a failure of the bond itself. But I could be totally wrong about what exactly failed. I am hardly an "expert" after all.

Where the thesis comes in handy is in Neil's subsequent global diagnosis, from those photos, that Beneteaus (et. al.) are crap because of this technique - and that the company actually wants people screwed out there. That might fit with your world view of the modern sailboat industry. But I'm not willing to accept that kind of pronouncement at face value - despite Neil's impressive "boat tech" credentials, beer drinking abilities, and nutsack sensitivity.

"Nutsack sensitivity"?? Please, this is supposed to be a G-rated forum. We're not Sailing Anarchy over here, dude.

The thesis shows several things that draw that diagnosis into question. First, the adhesive "fillet" in those photos is very, very poorly done and not at all to the industry standards covered in the thesis (basically no radius whatsoever). Even more importantly, it's very different from the fillets in the other photos of the other Beneteau bulkhead he showed (which had NOT failed) - which were done to the industry standards covered in the thesis.

"Industry standards"? Does that mean that the guy with the goop gun should have taken 10 secs. vs. 7 to smear the goop? You were right, these new, modern technologies really are complicated.

So, what does that mean? Well, if you're just a debating cheerleader, it means nothing, you just make everything bold and talk louder. If you're at all discerning, however, you realize something doesn't add up in those particular photos.

Now where did I leave those pom-poms? I'll need them for cheerleading, of course, at the start of the next ARC event. That way I'll have a chance to see all those traditional bluewater boats before they all drop out.

Was it poor workmanship on this single boat? Did the entire fleet of that year have this same poor workmanship? What year was that? Is this even a structural bulkhead? Is this even a Beneteau? You don't know, for certain, any of this from those photos. Yet, you're willing to jump in head-first.

Yeah, you're right Smack. Let's go with possibilities as opposed to probabilities.

Second, Neil didn't know what was plexus adhesive vs. headliner adhesive in those photos (green and yellow). So, again, something is off somewhere.

You can obviously see how complex this is.

Third, the thesis makes very clear points (backed by evidence) that are diametrically opposed to the general pronouncement by several in this thread that adhesives like Plexus are "inferior" to tabbing. For example, everyone around here assumed that a Plexus bond would fail at the varnished surface of the wood (where most tabbing typically fails over time). The photos here, however, show the failure at the glass instead. So, yet again, something is off somewhere...for those that actually think about it for a moment. Yet no one has tackled that one.

OK, I took your advice and will think about it for a "moment" . . . ok, I'm good now. The factory installed bulkhead failed on an otherwise well-maintained Beneteau that had done a couple of Atlantic Ocean crossings. Boy, this boat stuff is hard to understand.

See, you are basing your bolded pronouncements on a single set of photos that could be showing anything...even an Oyster bulkhead...or the inside of an Ikea cabinet. But whatever they are showing doesn't line up with what's being touted in the tabbing debate - nor does it line up with what's in a non-marketing-based, academic thesis on this exact matter.

I'm sure blue will be more convincing.

Now, that's all fine if you need to simply maintain a position in a debate. Nothing needs to really line up. Me? I choose to be a bit more discerning.

That's why I'm counting on you to fix my "Quote" function dysfunction.



Actually no. "Experience" (as you're framing it) is not at all the only way to judge a boat tech's opinions. Second opinions are pretty readily available - on this forum, in The Google, via other "boat techs", etc.

It's only when you believe one "boat tech's" opinions without checking into it further that you typically run into trouble.

Again I ask, where are the opinions of your other boat techs you continue to relentlessly talk about?

In fact, I'm very confident that even a "poser" could tell that the rat's nest left behind in my bilge by a trusted "boat tech" was not ABYC-level work. No experience required.

Yup, you're right about that one. But are you sure the two before & after pics you posted were of the same area of the bilge? The one where Neil spotted what he thought looked like a crack in the stringer (it does) looks entirely different from the other one.


This is a very, very strange point. My messed up electrical job was courtesy of one of these "boat techs" you say I should respectfully deign to until I have "more experience". So you're saying that I should be grateful that I have to fix it, and be forgiving because "everyone makes mistakes getting jobs done in the beginning"...even highly paid yard guys?

With more experience you'll figure out which boat techs are credible and which are not. Like any profession, it's definitely a mix. Ditto for advice you get from sailing forums on the internet. Only then will your research and non-expert opinion making become useful.

I'm sorry. But that's ridiculous.

Or ludicrous, perhaps?

So, I'm sure you're making some profound point here should humble me in some way. But...I ain't seein' it.

Humble you??

Okay - that's the best I can do for you. Now to more heady matters.

Too heady for me, I'm sure./QUOTE]

Lol! Nice.




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.