The Yard Guys

[Julie Mor]

Originally Posted by minaret

This will probably be a permanent problem for this boat, with it's keel needing to be refaired every five years or so.

This is kind of scary. Unless the failure is already evident, I would imagine even the best of surveyors wouldn't catch this. Should the factory have caught this?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

...

"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.
"

I have already explained that is not the current version of the directive and that are not the actual definitions that were modified taking into account this study. The study is interesting and for the ones interested, and it seems that there are many here, deserves a reading:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/docume...ATT84095EN.pdf

"questions on the existing boat design categories have been raised, as it is claimed, that the existing criteria for a boat design category (intended use according to geographical location (e.i. off-shore or sheltered waters)), are misleading and create problems in regards to both marketing and safety.
In the Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Affairs, amendments have been proposed, which would remove the existing link between design category and the intended use according to geographical location, and instead link boat design category with wind strength and wave heights as main parameters....

the capacity of a boat to safely face wind and waves depends on the following
parameters, which are:
- essentially stability characteristics; the boat’s stability is linked to its
dimension, shape, tightness, degree of protection, weight, height of centre of
gravity, windage area, etc.; it is these characteristics that will allow the boat to resist to flooding and capsize or knock-down and make it able to progress in such conditions, but also:- scantling and construction which guarantee that the hull, deck, internalstructure, mast and appendages will resist to such conditions.

The proposed amendments provide a new definition of design categories:
"A. A recreational craft given design category A is considered to be designed forwinds that may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions such as storm, violent storm,hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves. (AM 59)
B. A recreational craft given design category B is considered to be designed for
wind force up to, and including, 8 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 4
m. (AM 61)
C. A watercraft given design category C is considered to be designed for a wind
force up to, and including, 6 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 2 m.
(AM 62)
D. A watercraft given design category D is considered to be designed for a windforce up to, and including, 4 and significant wave heights up to, and including, 0,3 m with occasional waves of 0,5 m maximum height. (AM 63)" "

This alteration was approved in 2013 as other modifications regarding boat safety and also about pollution.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

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

Huge windows on that Nauticat 38 are a liability regarding two points: Huge windage and fragility regarding a breaking wave. It is not the glass that will brake but the fiberglass around the sporting frame that is necessarily small regarding the total surface area. Even on ships it is known cases of windows to be ripped off from the steel structure.

Windage contributes in high winds negatively to the boat safety, specially in a boat with such a high superstructure as the Nauticat 38:





Regarding considering an extreme windage, like the one provided by the vertical big windows on the Nauticat 38, as a safety liability, I am not the only one. The Na and Ne that made the RCD considered:

"the capacity of a boat to safely face wind and waves depends on the following parameters, which are:
- essentially stability characteristics; the boat’s stability is linked to its
dimension, shape, tightness, degree of protection, weight, height of centre of
gravity, windage area, etc.; it is these characteristics that will allow the boat to resist to flooding and capsize or knock-down and make it able to progress in such conditions, but also:- scantling and construction which guarantee that the hull, deck, internal structure, mast and appendages will resist to such conditions. "

[Polux]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

In what regards pleasure crafts having a big surface "window" area is not always a liability, it all depends how it is designed. The use o large panels of methyl methacrylate, popularly named acrylic are not a problem if thick enough and supported internally by a structure. In this case it does not work like a window that is supported by a thin frame but as a transparent wall supported by an interior structural structure.

Regarding windage and energy absorbed and dissipated by the encounter of a breaking wave there is a huge difference between a vertical panel, that will take all the energy, or an inclined panel that will dissipate most of it.

In what regards a good design regarding that and cats, the one that is making an absurdly good passage on the ARC, the Philocat 136 is a great example. Not only dam fast but also designed to be seaworthy and have lots of interior light, without compromising the stability with a huge windage.

[Polux]

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.

Well, at least not enough to pass the safety requirements for a Class A boat and that's a fact.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I have to agree with AVB3 here. The regulation is very specific, and it does say that the boat should be capable of extended voyages well offshore, and it should be largely self sufficient. They do say that it is certified for 8 pob. How can you (Pollux) argue that it says something else entirely when applied to Europeans? It seems that you are arguing that the rating is given simply because without it folks couldn't sail offshore, and (here I speculate) this would surely cut into sales.

Another question: How do they arrive at these ratings? Destructive testing of a sample? Derived strengths from calculations? Measurement of storage space volumes? Tables of required tankage per person? As far as we can tell, it is a rating decided upon by gnomes in an inland cave.

Back to the fray...

Jim

The ratings are not determined using engineering methods except for some basic calculations.

They're more akin to hotel star ratings. Feature counting is another name for it.

They primarily exist for liability and insurance reasons and not to guarantee performance.

Unlike the auto industry where survivability in collisions depends purely on engineered performance survivability on a yacht on the open ocean is highly dependent on crew skill and experience. The ratings reflect societies need for regulation.

I suspect this is why discussions on ocean rating become so heated on these forums. There are many opinions but few available facts and data points.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Here is the actual proposal. ..

• 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.

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.

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

....
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. "

Originally Posted by avb3

. That Bene 38, and many other boats like that, are being sold as if they are suitable for purposes which they are not. I...

Really? I have to say to my friend Madruga that his boat, a Bavaria 36, is not suitable for doing what he does. He circumnavigated two times on it, by the horn. The Beneteau 38 is a more seaworthy boat, more stable and with better sailing characteristics specially solo and Madruga had done it solo.

Don't you think it is time to stop that rant regarding the Oceanis 38 as not suited for offshore work? It makes no sense. There are better boats to go offshore but also worse boats and even those can do it with an adequate safety margin. Look at a little Delphia 33 making a great ARC. For the size the Oceanis 38 is remarkably good and has a very good performance in rough weather (as it was stated by all the experienced the boat on those conditions, including professional boat testers).

Sure, an Oceanis 41 is better and Oyster 625 is even better but certainly the Oceanis 38 will not have any special problem sailing around the world with an experienced sailor, a careful routing and on the right seasons and latitudes.

So, what is really your problem with that boat? Being a sales success, meaning that a lot of sailors consider it a great boat? Having been European boat of the year, meaning that a lot of professional testers had consider it to be a great boat?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

The ratings are not determined using engineering methods except for some basic calculations.

They're more akin to hotel star ratings. Feature counting is another name for it.

...

Hum you call Basic calculations to stability curves with the boat in minimum sailing condition and also fully loaded, downflooding angle, AVS, minimum scantligs and STIX calculation, just to name a few?

[neilpride]

Paulo keep in mind, Nauticat dont build anymore the 38, its a old model, Actual owners dont give a frokk if they have the A or the B, since i see a Nauticat 38 Sweden flag docked in the ducht side of the island, and some blogs from owners outside of the EU, and even in Spain there is 2 for sale rated A, could be the owners install the gaskets in the doors to make it more watertight, Nauticats are everywhere!!!

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Polux

In what regards a good design regarding that and cats, the one that is making an absurdly good passage on the ARC, the Philocat 136 is a great example. Not only dam fast but also designed to be seaworthy and have lots of interior light, without compromising the stability with a huge windage.

Good god, a catamaran offshore with a Rocna anchor. Probably a gun on there too. No doubt they will be visiting Mexico using electronic charts with their autopilot integrated. There should be a law against such "bluewater proper" blasphemy.

BTW, that's what our boat wants to be when it grows up! Or a Freydis - it can't decide (don't you just love looking at Lerouge designs?). We have the Rocna, electronic charts and integrated autopilot already. No guns, but might consider Mexico...

Mark

[neilpride]

Can someone enlight us why the Moody 45 Ds is rated A? i dont get it...

[carstenb]

Actually I think it is interesting that the European rating system is now law?

I agree that the rating system does make sense and tells you quite a bit about the boats capabilites, but I was not aware that there is law behind it. Does this mean that if you are more than 25nm from the coast in a "B" rated boat you can get a fine? or something?

Not trying to belittle this - but who is enforcing this?

What happens with your insurance? I would assume the insurance companies would love this - no coverage if you disregard these regulations.

I haven't heard this has become EU law - but I'm interested in hearing more.

carsten

[carstenb]

An interesting thought:

I don't know a damn thing about Hunters. But if they were that bad, the insurance companies would have stopped covering them or else they would have put severe restrictions on when and how they can be sailed. They haven't done that (to my knowledge) so obviously they can't be seeing a huge number of claims.

I do know that my insurance company (and other companies I have knowledge of) have not put any restrictions on Jeanneau (or bene) based on the boat. Many companies do not accept two-handed sailing passage making, but this has nothing to do with the boat, rather it is about safety when you are only two.

Does anyone know of insurance company restrictions on Hunters, Jeanneau, Bene's or Bavarias? Or any other producution Boats? Dufour, Hansa, Nauticat etc?

If the answer is no- then I submit that the boat is not an issue when sailing across oceans - the skipper and crew might be

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by carstenb

An interesting thought:

I don't know a damn thing about Hunters. But if they were that bad, the insurance companies would have stopped covering them or else they would have put severe restrictions on when and how they can be sailed. They haven't done that (to my knowledge) so obviously they can't be seeing a huge number of claims.

I do know that my insurance company (and other companies I have knowledge of) have not put any restrictions on Jeanneau (or bene) based on the boat. Many companies do not accept two-handed sailing passage making, but this has nothing to do with the boat, rather it is about safety when you are only two.

Does anyone know of insurance company restrictions on Hunters, Jeanneau, Bene's or Bavarias? Or any other producution Boats? Dufour, Hansa, Nauticat etc?

If the answer is no- then I submit that the boat is not an issue when sailing across oceans - the skipper and crew might be

Not enough masive claims, problems spooted and solved before disasters happen, baning a model mean ban the whole production line, insurances rely on surveys and surveyors, no restrictions because the boat comply with the EU regulations and ISO standars..

Cheeki rafiki is a good example on how a structural failure can turn the scenario in a disaster, no investigation in course, no proof, since the boat is in the bottom of the ocean or washed ashore who know where, in fact is like nothing happen, case closed.

My guess the ISO and the RCD have a minimun set of standars and builders stick to that, to the minimun set of standars in some cases,
i think in New Zealand you cant sail a boat offshore with a FWD hatch.
Me think up there is rough!!!!

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Polux

Hum you call Basic calculations to stability curves with the boat in minimum sailing condition and also fully loaded, downflooding angle, AVS, minimum scantligs and STIX calculation, just to name a few?

The cat A stability requirements, like much of the criterion is not very stringent. This is stability curve on a monohull passes the standard.