Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[neilpride]

The Beneteau protocol for repair the thing is BS...BS BS...

[transmitterdan]

When people die it is not an inconvenience. It is unbelievable how hard you are hanging on to this issue. The design is bad, defective, not fit for purpose or whatever euphemism you like. But calling it an inconvenience is disrespectful to the CR crew and their families IMO.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

What the well do you mean "the numbers may be low but this is almost always the case"?

Five boats were inspected, 4 that we know that had been grounded and one that we don't know if it that was chosen randomly or because it was for repairing due to signs of a matrix forward detachement (that could have happen for a number of reasons). One that was not grounded over 800 boats and you conclude "this is almost always the case" regarding matrix detachment. You can only be kidding.

Take a deep breath and read my comment again, Polux. What I wrote is that, whenever there's one of these problems potentially affecting an entire model run, the actual incidence of failures is low. I never stated, nor could I based on the current record, that almost every one of the 800 Bene 40.7's ever made have now suffered matrix detachment! Obviously only a small percentage of Ford Pinto's blew up, Ford Explorer's with Goodrich tires wound up upside down in the ditch, and Chevy ignitions caught fire. All of these models were subject to mandatory or voluntary recalls, notwithstanding. Why? Because when you're talking about a design or mfg. flaw, or yes, defect, that can cause loss of life, basic common sense dictates caution about the entire run, even if only a small percentage will ever be affected. Just because there's no regulatory body in place than can enforce recalls on yachts doesn't mean the same sort of analysis shouldn't at least be discussed.

On Cheeki Rafiki the incident had happened due to bad maintenance of a sailboat that had been grounded 5 times, not properly repaired and that on top of this had the keel bolts not tight. The maintenance was called negligent by a reputable surveyor.

This reputable surveyor was someone YOU quoted as saying that CR's keel loss was due to bad maintenance & loose bolts alone. He made these comments shortly after the incident occurred, and with only the same photo of the upturned hull & basic, barebone facts we all had available to us. That's why I commented awhile ago in this thread that I'd like to hear his opinion now after the MAIB report has been released.

You are trying to generalize this keel loss and the circumstances that lead to it to all First 40.7 as if all of them had been grounded a lot of times not having been properly repaired and had a negligent maintenance. That makes not any sense.

As the report clearly states, the loss of any survivors & the boat necessarily makes the analysis speculative and the available evidence anecdotal. But your assumptions about negligent maintenance & prior groundings are equally speculative, my friend. As is the actual number of the 800 originally mfg. which endured any hard use and/or groundings.

A correct boat maintenance is a owner's responsibility and a debonding of a matrix is a slow process that if a boat is correctly maintained will not lead to a sudden catastrophic accident (plenty of time to repair it before that). You talk about the First 40.7 as if you were talking about a new boat. Most of them as between 18 and 13 years old and over that period the keel integrity and the matrix bonding should have been checked many times and repaired if needed.

How do you check, how do you repair, how do you account for higher quality boats of similar age not having such problems? And around & around we go.

We are talking about a dual purpose boat, a cruiser racer, built light to win races and a boat that needs more frequent inspections and more maintenance then a heavier type of boat. That is not a defect, it comes with the territory and his expected on this type of boat.

Then maybe the mfg., as opposed to the self-appointed internet expert, will take it upon themselves to be more forthcoming on how an owner can manage this. Remember, CR was not owned & sailed by a guy following this thread who concludes that this is a great time to buy an inexpensive 40.7, but an established charter co. who specializes in racing these boats on a different continent, and with an experienced crew.

If it was a pure race boat then even more frequent inspections and more maintenance would be expected. This has nothing to do with the offshore seaworthiness of any of those types of boats, providing that they are in a seaworthy condition and that means in an adequately state of maintenance.

Once again, there is evidence that there is NO WAY to insure adequate maintenance of the keel system and therefore insure a seaworthy condition. Maybe the mfg. will rectify this as you have suggested. Or maybe CR was a complete anamoly, the five boats the MAIB guys physically inspected and the unknown number of others they documented were the only ones with problems. And maybe the guy who runs one of the busiest yards in the US pacific NW has an axe to grind, and the guy who repairs these & countless other boats every day in the Caribbean is hopelessly biased on account of the boat he happens to own. Hey, I know, maybe this entire issue depends on how hard the sand & rocks are when one of these boats washes up on the beach? You have made a few reasonably persuasive points about not jumping to conclusions which are well taken, Polux, but if you keep this up you & your mirror will be the only ones continuing the discussion.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding inspections modern boat building technologies need more technological means to be inspected. Ecography is the biggest development on the last years and it will be a great help regarding cases like this.

Repeating myself
Becouse such technological means are available only in few places boats needing such nonsense should stay close to these services. Things happen when you are out there..

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Repeating myself

Yeah, well, at least you've got company!

Becouse such technological means are available only in few places boats needing such nonsense should stay close to these services. Things happen when you are out there..

Another reason why I find the CE "A" rating troublesome, or maybe more like bulls**t as Neil & Boatman would say. I don't have any problem with Polux's Ferrarri analogy in the sense that you know what you're getting and what the expense & limitations are up front. But an inexpensive, mass produced boat that is marketed as basically a cruising boat, albeit one that is fast (whatever that means)? And one where the mfg. can claim has some seal of approval from a govt. body to sail around the world? Maybe now with those expensive, portable echography or infrared devices that will be introduced for the DIY guys?? Surely there will be an "app" for that too! In the meantime, I think I'll just stick with pulling up a floorboard to check my bilges . . . .

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Polux

So for you this is a defect not an inconvenience?

As I have said many times the report says Beneteau should provide a protocol for inspections and a protocol for repairs. They provided a protocol for repair. I believe they should provide a protocol for inspections and that's what we should be demanding them to do.

Many modern boats are hard to repair in what concerns the bond between the structure and the hull. Regarding inspections modern boat building technologies need more technological means to be inspected. Ecography is the biggest development on the last years and it will be a great help regarding cases like this.

I have already have used it on my boat and the results in what regards images and clear meaning are just awesome. It was used to see if delamination had occurred on the cored hull and all the elements of the core were clearly visible, included the bonding agent and if it was bonded or not.

Please post Bene's protocol for repairing failed liner bonds. Also please post your "Ecography" pics.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

When people die it is not an inconvenience. It is unbelievable how hard you are hanging on to this issue. The design is bad, defective, not fit for purpose or whatever euphemism you like. But calling it an inconvenience is disrespectful to the CR crew and their families IMO.

The cynic in me suspects undisclosed ties to the industry, but probably just ego. Apparently likes to trade "up" every few years to own close to the latest & what he thinks is therefore the greatest.

My apologies for repeatedly taking the bait and bogging the discussion down with lengthy replies to ridiculous word games & irrelevant details. You have a much better knack for concisely stating what really matters.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by minaret

Please post Bene's protocol for repairing failed liner bonds. Also please post your "Ecography" pics.

echograph
[ek-oh-graf, -grahf]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
a device that records oceanic depths by means of sonic waves.
2.
a similar device used in ultrasonography to examine internal body structures or monitor fetal development.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

Please post Bene's protocol for repairing failed liner bonds. Also please post your "Ecography" pics.

I don't need to post the protocol. It is on the report, you only need to read it. Regarding the pics I have not them, the surveyor does (the survey was for an insurance company).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

[COLOR="Navy"]Once again, there is evidence that there is NO WAY to insure adequate maintenance of the keel system and therefore insure a seaworthy condition. M...

Even Minaret contradicts you:

Originally Posted by minaret

...it is extremely difficult and expensive to inspect for this kind of damage, and when found it is extremely difficult and expensive to repair. ....

The MAIB report contradicts you also and it is a lot less adamant then Minaret:

"It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull. "

For them is not "extremely difficult" but "difficult to readily" that means that is difficult to that in a quick inspection. Given the current state of the technology is just ridiculous to say that there is no way of insure the correct maintenance to a keel, being that the one of the First 40.7 or any other.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

When people die it is not an inconvenience. It is unbelievable how hard you are hanging on to this issue. The design is bad, defective, not fit for purpose or whatever euphemism you like. But calling it an inconvenience is disrespectful to the CR crew and their families IMO.

It seems you are not used to use words precisely: A design being not great does not mean that it is defective. The boat was ABS and RCD certified.

Regarding being disrespectful let me remind you that a top surveyor had stated that the problem on that particular was not from caused by a design defect or built but from negligent maintenance ( keel bolts lose).

Let me also remember you that the MAIB report had found that particular boat to have been grounded 5 times with no reports of most of the repairs or inspections after the groundings.

That when inspected by the British regulatory corp they found that the boat had a matrix detachment and that on account of a subterfuge (in what regarded the boat code) the boat was not inspected again by the same authorities to see if that matrix detachement was repaired.

Finally let me tell you that a bad design is not necessarily a defective one. The words do not mean the same thing, not by a long shot and that the MAIB report did not have considered the design defective. This is not euphemism, just the correct use of words.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

echograph
[ek-oh-graf, -grahf]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
noun
1.
a device that records oceanic depths by means of sonic waves.
2.
a similar device used in ultrasonography to examine internal body structures or monitor fetal development.

and boats to.

The one the the surveyor I talk about uses is a prototype derived from the ones that are used for examine body structures.

I had already posted several references on this thread about its use on surveying hulls even a video. Has you have been distracted I will post the video again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxiG_glfDaU

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Even Minaret contradicts you:



The MAIB report contradicts you also and it is a lot less adamant then Minaret:

"It is difficult to readily identify areas where a matrix detachment has occurred in GRP yachts manufactured with a matrix bonded to the hull. "

For them is not "extremely difficult" but "difficult to readily" that means that is difficult to that in a quick inspection. Given the current state of the technology is just ridiculous to say that there is no way of insure the correct maintenance to a keel, being that the one of the First 40.7 or any other.

This has already been covered, Polux. The effectiveness of the technology is debatable; it's apparently expensive & time-consuming; it would have to be applied to a boat which is inexpensive to begin with and so with limited market value at this point in time. How about NO PRACTICABLE WAY -- unless Bene steps up to the plate as you have previously suggested.

Rather than indulging in some sort of useless ego gratification by this ongoing parsing of words with me & others, why don't you try to advance the discussion by quoting or citing to specific portions of the report itself, or other credible & relevant sources, that discuss the practicalities of the technology as applied to this particular boat or type of boat?

[neilpride]

This is amazing Paolo, for sure MAIB report dont say specifically is a defect, kind to open the Pandora Box, i figúrate the consequences, but in one way or the other they say it is a flaw in the construction, like others point it here, to have Access to this kind of tooling to inspect the keel joint and structure you need to sail close to that location, you cant ask for a surveyor to fly to a remote atoll in the pacific after a serious grounding unless you are ready to spend a fortune,,,,in other words, for the vessel value is not worth it, a proper repair involve serious grinder surgery in the interior with a $$$ bill waiting later, if the hull laminate is compromised i will say throw away the boat to the trash bin or spend a big sume of cash in repairs, to have a 40,7 with a masive repair in the keel structure, the Beneteau protocol is a mistery, if you mean that piece of **** as Beneteau point it like grind the flanges , remove the loose bonding stuff , aply new bonding glue and laminate the flanges to the bays , i laugh my ass , first in the 40,7 there is no flanges in the bilge área, is a full compact liner with the bays and flanges running continuosly to the chainplates áreas, just think in to disconect, broke , grind or unbond this whole thing make me dizzy!!! also the sump size limit the backing plates size, there is no way to acomódate a better backing plate without making stress risers , is after all, a nightmare to repair and inspect, then is a flaw ,,, whatever you try to argue....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

This has already been covered, Polux. The effectiveness of the technology is debatable; it's apparently expensive & time-consuming; it would have to be applied to a boat which is inexpensive to begin with and so with limited market value at this point in time. How about NO PRACTICABLE WAY -- unless Bene steps up to the plate as you have previously suggested.

Rather than indulging in some sort of useless ego gratification by this ongoing parsing of words with me & others, why don't you try to advance the discussion by quoting or citing to specific portions of the report itself, or other credible & relevant sources, that discuss the practicalities of the technology as applied to this particular boat or type of boat?

If you restricted yourself to facts it was a lot easier. On the MAIB report several shipyard technicians were interviewed about the way they had actually repaired some First 40.7 with matrix detachment and how they had made the diagnostic. They also compared the way the boast were repaired with what Beneteau stated later about the way it should be done.

The MAIB technicians texamined 4 First 40.7 that have been grounded and found matrix detachement.

These facts prove that matrix detachement can be found on First 40.7 even without technological help and that there are First 40.7 that had the matrix repaired. This are the facts that contradit what you say.