The Yard Guys

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

I agree, Nauticat are great bluewater boats (even if not fast) but not the ones from their motorsailing line. Those are mostly used to live aboard (at least here). The ones you see everywhere are the ones from the line they call now Pilot house sailing or their ancestors.

You are wrong regarding the Nauticat 38. It is still made and is on their catalog (traditional classic motorsailers). They are great boats for (slow) coastal sailing and mainly to live aboard, really great for that and that's why some still buy them. Expensive too: "Standard boat price 1.6.2014 304.464,-€, EX WORKS Riihikoski-Finland, excluding all sales taxes"

Nauticat 38
Yachts

[colemj]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

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

How do multihulls ever pass these requirements? Or are there different stability curve requirements for them?

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

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

Not now, for A class boats. You are mistaken. Unless it is a huge yacht. Smaller boats need a better stability curve, really big yachts can have a worse AVS.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by colemj

How do multihulls ever pass these requirements? Or are there different stability curve requirements for them?

Mark

Yes they have different requirements, even if I know very little regarding them but I know that they are relatively tough and that are very few cats below 36ft that can pass them. for that they have to be be very well designed and to be relatively heavy. Trimarans can make it with smaller sizes and more light, so I assume their general stability is a bit better.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Polux

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

Thanks for that, its the sort of thing I was looking for....
Some interesting stuff in there... I always thought that 'wind' was down to pressure gradient... you can have very settled conditions in some parts with a deep low frinstance. Moving right along...
"
As a consequence, the economic impact of the proposed change is the following:
- a reduction in term of production cost and product's final price of some of the smallest models assessed in design category A or B which are simpler and lighter boats previously assessed in a lower design category, then less costly to produce for the reasons explained above;
- a small reduction in term of production cost and market’s price for existing models already assessed in design category A or B which should be modified by boatbuilders to reduce their autonomy; this concerns only products which were precisely adjusted in term of autonomy to their design category type of voyage, and consists essentially in a reduction of tanks size; it’s not sure that there are a lot of products so precisely adapted on the European market;
- no economic impact for the rest of the products, which are boats already correctly assessed in design category A or B; on these boats, boatbuilders have no particular reason with this amendment to change anything;
- the resolution of the risk taken by boatbuilders which were overcategorizing their boats; the removing of the reference to type of voyage makes the lack of habitable part, energy autonomy and consumables autonomy no more an inconformity.
28 PE 475.122
This economic impact concerns boatbuilders and consumers in the same way, and is of the same value for SMEs and bigger companies.
As discussed in chapter 1, another modification concerns design category A definition, which is the additional text to clarify the limit of weather conditions of the category.
This modification has no direct economic impact because it creates or justifies no modification on existing models. The only influence concerns boatbuilder’s responsibility and is discussed below."
and
"By deleting intended use according to geographical location, weather conditions remain the only one criterion, solving the confusing and following problems."
also
"As explained in 1.4.2, the amendments proposed solves to significant extent the problem by adding: “such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves” which corresponds to precise value for wind speed, and a little less precise for wave height.
This limitation is a strong benefit for builders in term of responsibility and liability which were dependant on a case to case interpretation if a casualty or an accident occurred."

So, as I thought, its all about economics and arse covering.....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by 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

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).

Each EC country has its particular laws regarding the licence a sailor has to have to cross Oceans and some very few, like UK, has none. On almost all EC countries you need a licence to sail offshore and you need also a boat that is classified by the RCD to do that (unless it is older than 1998) and the approved safety equipment on board. If some navy boat from any EC country inspects you they will look for the conformity of all things, licence, boat, equipment, even if nobody is going to stop you at the middle of an ocean and inspections offshore are very rare

Regarding insurance is a completely different ball park: If you sunk or have an accident with a boat that was not certified to navigate on that given set of circumstances, or have not a lincence for that the chances are that the insurance company will not pay. Anyway they ask (and see) what boat you have and establish the waters where you can sail. Out of that you are on your own. Even for racing offshore, one of the conditions you have to comply (on boats made after 1998) is to have it RCD class A certified.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by minaret

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.

This fillet:



Looks MUCH more like the proper filleting for adhesives described in the thesis as industry standards. "Proper" being determined by reports and methodologies from the several different NA/NE/Builders I listed earlier.

This fillet looks COMPLETELY different:



Why?

Also, if the adhesive/liner thing is so bad, why is Island Packet doing it?



Is Island Packet off the "blue water boat" list?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

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.....

The blue is better.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Thanks for that, its the sort of thing I was looking for....
Some interesting stuff in there... I always thought that 'wind' was down to pressure gradient... you can have very settled conditions in some parts with a deep low frinstance. Moving right along...
"
As a consequence, the economic impact of the proposed change is the following:
- a reduction in term of production cost and product's final price of some of the smallest models assessed in design category A or B which are simpler and lighter boats previously assessed in a lower design category, then less costly to produce for the reasons explained above;
- a small reduction in term of production cost and market’s price for existing models already assessed in design category A or B which should be modified by boatbuilders to reduce their autonomy; this concerns only products which were precisely adjusted in term of autonomy to their design category type of voyage, and consists essentially in a reduction of tanks size; it’s not sure that there are a lot of products so precisely adapted on the European market;
- no economic impact for the rest of the products, which are boats already correctly assessed in design category A or B; on these boats, boatbuilders have no particular reason with this amendment to change anything;
- the resolution of the risk taken by boatbuilders which were overcategorizing their boats; the removing of the reference to type of voyage makes the lack of habitable part, energy autonomy and consumables autonomy no more an inconformity.
28 PE 475.122
This economic impact concerns boatbuilders and consumers in the same way, and is of the same value for SMEs and bigger companies.
As discussed in chapter 1, another modification concerns design category A definition, which is the additional text to clarify the limit of weather conditions of the category.
This modification has no direct economic impact because it creates or justifies no modification on existing models. The only influence concerns boatbuilder’s responsibility and is discussed below."
and
"By deleting intended use according to geographical location, weather conditions remain the only one criterion, solving the confusing and following problems."
also
"As explained in 1.4.2, the amendments proposed solves to significant extent the problem by adding: “such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves” which corresponds to precise value for wind speed, and a little less precise for wave height.
This limitation is a strong benefit for builders in term of responsibility and liability which were dependant on a case to case interpretation if a casualty or an accident occurred."

So, as I thought, its all about economics and arse covering.....

Funny that you only mention the parts that seem to fit your reasoning. That does not seem fair. What about these ones from the same document, or you did nor notice them?

c) Phenomenon of over categorisation

The boats currently over categorised on the market are in line with wind and wave conditions but not with the type of voyages. The withdrawal of the location and type of voyages solves completely this problem.

d) Difference between general understanding and exact wording

..
Historically, in the first version of the Directive 94/25/EC, there was no limit at all to the design category A definition, but this was changed with the amendment made by Directive 2003/44/EC which added the words “but excluding abnormal conditions”5. This was however a very disappointing improvement for all the actors concerned by this directive, because “abnormal conditions” had no precise meaning, and were left to individual (and varying) interpretations.
The amendment proposed by the Committee of Internal Market and Consumer Protection for design category A definition is the following:
[…] but excluding abnormal conditions “such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves”6.
This is at last a real improvement, because “storm”, “violent storm”, “hurricane” and “tornado” are words precisely defined by the Beaufort scale which is an official document of the World Meteorological Organization: storm is Beaufort wind force 10, violent storm is force 11 and hurricane is force 12.
The meaning of this modification is thus:
- “excluding wind of force 10 and above”
- “excluding waves of extreme sea conditions or rogues waves”
If the requirement for wind force is precise, and therefore a satisfactory improvement, it is not the case for the significant wave height requirement which is more vague, and much less precise than a maximum value significant wave height. “Extreme sea conditions” and “rogues waves” are not defined words and values. So the only existing limitation for waves is the maximum amount of wind force. Knowing that the wave height and the wind force are linked, this is nevertheless partially satisfactory. The proposal solves the problem to a significant extent, although not completely.

Even if your conclusions don't seem fair or reflect the improvement in clarity that these amendments clearly have in what regards what is certified it seems to me that another class should be created regarding boats more pointed to bluewater sailing, boats that are normally called passage makers, not diminishing the abilities that are attributed regarding class A, that seem correct to me, but creating another one for voyage boats.

The UK has that in what regards professional yachts for recreational activities.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

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

I have already explained, did you miss that? Besides being a bigger boat regarding the type of windows this applise:

"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."

Besides you have a proportionality issue in what regards windage, regarding the size of the Nauticat 38 and the size of the Moody 54. They probably have a superstructure with about the same height but one is a 38fter, the other a 56fter, a HUGE difference.

You can see that even regarding the Nauticat 441 that difference in proportion is substantial, as well as the "widows are fixed: On the Nauticat through frames, on the Moody that big "window" works as a wall, with inside structural supports. Maybe that's why the 441 is also a class B boat.
Nauticat 441

[Polux]

Originally Posted by colemj

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

Yes I love Lerouge designs. With that 45ft baby on the ARC they outsailed everybody, I mean all cruising boats except a new big Swan 80 but they are close and it seems they have not given up

Off course, dam good sailors and they are racing, but all the boats around are racing too. a Fy 61 monohull is not far, dam fast that one too, with the teak deck and all. Very Italian


World Cruising Club - Fleet Viewer

[neilpride]

Paulo, since the Nauticat is baned by the doors not be full watertight, i wonder if the Moody 45 ds cockpit big door comply with the rule, WATERTIGHT.. is not about size or windage, in a capsize event both yachts are playing in the same field, big doors..

Let me clarify this for you, a Nauticat 38 have a decent AVS to be rated A , i think around 150...AVS .. they are rated B by the side openings , they dont fullfill the watertight meaning..

So the question if is the moody 45 ds with that big sliding door comply with the requirements ,
To me there is lots of gaps in the rules...

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by neilpride

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!!!!

Neil

This doesn't really answer the question. If the insurance companies started getting an unreasonable number of claims on a specific model, they would either
1- immediately up the premium for insurance on that model
2- refuse to insure it.

If an insured boats ends up onthe bottom of the ocean (i.e. a number of boats of a certain model end up there) they will stop insuring it.

So my question still remains:

Does anyone know of any production boats that major insurance companies either
1- refuse to insure (for ocean passages - due strictly to the boat)
2- Charge an abnormally high premium for insuring (strictly due to the manufacturer/model)

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

as such - the entire argument against "production boats as unsuitable for passage making" is a non-event. There obviously isn't any evidence available that supports the argument that production boats are unsuitable for passage-making.

CAn anyone refute this (facts please)

carsten

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

This fillet:



Looks MUCH more like the proper filleting for adhesives described in the thesis as industry standards. "Proper" being determined by reports and methodologies from the several different NA/NE/Builders I listed earlier.

This fillet looks COMPLETELY different:



Why?

Also, if the adhesive/liner thing is so bad, why is Island Packet doing it?



Is Island Packet off the "blue water boat" list?

He he, yes they are using grid liners but with a huge diference, they are full keel boats, and they have stringers and beams glased before the liner is droped, even the tanks are glassed to the bottom,and the edges in the liner are glased, the grid liner is not 100% structural, this could be the best way to use a grid liner, quite a diference instead of a liner droped in a weak flat hull with just glue and keel bolts troughbolted to a flat section of the bilge/liner heee...

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Neil

This doesn't really answer the question. If the insurance companies started getting an unreasonable number of claims on a specific model, they would either
1- immediately up the premium for insurance on that model
2- refuse to insure it.

If an insured boats ends up onthe bottom of the ocean (i.e. a number of boats of a certain model end up there) they will stop insuring it.

So my question still remains:

Does anyone know of any production boats that major insurance companies either
1- refuse to insure (for ocean passages - due strictly to the boat)
2- Charge an abnormally high premium for insuring (strictly due to the manufacturer/model)

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

as such - the entire argument against "production boats as unsuitable for passage making" is a non-event. There obviously isn't any evidence available that supports the argument that production boats are unsuitable for passage-making.

CAn anyone refute this (facts please)

carsten

Ok, i dont buy the argument production boats cant cross oceans, they do and they do well, im not arguing that mass market production boats cant sustain heavy weather , they do,, my real point is, certains brands are cutting corners in favor of profit, not today, since a long time ago, when they cutt corners they make the boats weaker in many aspects.

For a insurance record they need to have a certain number of claims, if they dont have claims dont mean the boats dont have problems, how many owners are reporting broken rudders to the insurance? is up to the owner to keep the rudder in good service condition, if the rudder is build in a substandar mode then the builder is responsible for the warranty if there is any, if not , owner screwed..

For example, early Hunters 445 have a pice of crap as rudder stocks, Hollow thin Fg, as you can see in the picture , my 2 cents insurance companys dont have a record about 445 rudder problems.

Same for the First 40.7 saga, its well documented and discussed in the net , many techs reach a conclusión that we dont see more keels problems in the 40.7 by just a matter of pure luck or time.

Im sure if you try to get insurance for a old narrow cata from the 80`s you can have problems or a increase in the rate, and like i say before,
For me is really sad,if you have in the US a small jet plunging to the ground killing all the passengers later there is a investigation , if the investigation found a manufacture fault in the design or construction they make a report involving the builder , if the builder dont ground the planes if is a obvious defect they are baned or fined.

If a small sailboat loose the keel in strange circunstances killing 4 people there is nothing, the MAIB apparently is doing nothing , is not a small list of 40.7 in the world, and the insurance dont have enough data to claim if is design flaw or something else.