Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 03-05-2015, 15:30   #76
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
What planet are you living on? I am European and a commercial skipper (though sail globally) and you appear not to have noticed the vast numbers of "old" boats located in marinas and harbours throughout Europe.
Yes I have found a huge number of non used old boats, sometimes abandoned on the marinas of Europe without nobody wanting to buy them. Most of the boats I saw actually cruising (and I cruise for 4 or 5 months a year) have less then 20 years and many less than 10.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
Lightness and stability are opposite ends of a tense spectrum and are antagonists. Just watch a lightly built cruiser racer's behaviour at anchor by comparison to a modified keel medium displacement sea boat.
Sorry but here I have to say you don't know what you are talking about. Stability of a boat has nothing to do with a way a boat moves on a marina, it has to do with sail power and certainly lightness and stability are not antagonists. You have only to look to an Open 60 that weights has much as a 40ft light boat and has much more stability then a 40ft heavy weight boat, a much heavier one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
On what basis do you even have the audacity to claim to know what "most Europeans" think concerning this? And I mean, even given your bizarre and cherry picking for the sake of argument qualification that your cohort is confined to those who "buy new boats"? Seems to me you are just making this up or perhaps speaking from the anecdote of personal experience, in which case you have zero grounds to generalise. Or can you refer me to the study you have conducted on the matter and its associated data?
In fact is very simple and only one that is blinded by different tastes in what regards sailboats has any difficulty in seeing it:

What the market offers is what sailors want. There are very different market sectors that corresponds to different needs but it is pretty obvious that really heavy boats and full keel boats are out of the equation even in what regards voyage or exploration boats that has become lighter faster...and less expensive.

If we took what I said to the letter "Most Europeans.. are interested in having a good performance, low maintenance sailboat at a reduced cost" I am obviously talking about what is called main market, boats that sell in much more numbers because their design criteria correspond to the needs of most sailors: They are not cruiser-racers, they are not voyage/exploration boats, they are not middle weight boats, they are what the mass production brands aim at, light, relatively fast sailboats with a spacious good quality interior at a relatively inexpensive cost. This seems obvious to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
As to your eye popping assertion that "Most Europeans that buy new boats change of sailboat with about the same frequency as they chance cars and that is about each 3 to 5 years " not only is this likely to be groundless, but even if true refers only to a vanishingly small cohort of individuals. ...
I am not talking about the ones that change from used boat to used boat I am talking about those that have the money to buy new boats and yes about 5 years it is probably more time than the average.

Ask to a boat dealer and they will tell you that. In fact I now that because I talk frequently with them.

Regarding being a "vanashingly small cohort of individuals" I hope not since are they that buy new boats and provide later more modern used boats to all the ones that are not lucky enough to have money to buy them new. Anyway the number of cruisers sold each year in Europe should be over 5000, possibly more so they are not such a small number and they are not vanishing because sells after the crisis are picking up again.
__________________

Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 15:41   #77
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 2,759
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

The med is quite Deep, well charted and well lighted, cruisers often use marinas , yacht clubs or anchorages , but most of the time boats are docked to marinas, so my 2 cents running aground in the med is just a nuisance, in the caribbean for example or the pacific running aground is something you can see very often, and keels need to be designed to digest that kind of abuse, 5 touch downs in several years is nothing if the keel and structure is well designed, i remember to see after the last cane in SXM a old gib sea with a keel bend to the extreme, he spend 3 days with the keel stuck in a rock gap banging until finally get towed to a haul out yard , most of the damage in the lead and few small cracks inside, something amazing despite the abuse...
__________________

__________________
neilpride is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 17:02   #78
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 3,142
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

What people want is not possible. They want a boat that performs well and also will save their a$$ when they screw up (weather/grounding/too much sail/etc.). And they want a boat that costs 1/2 what it would cost to build one to their desired specifications. And that's how we get what we have here because someone will always tell buyers they can have anything they want.
__________________
transmitterdan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 18:57   #79
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
Sorry but here I have to say you don't know what you are talking about. Stability of a boat has nothing to do with a way a boat moves on a marina, it has to do with sail power and certainly lightness and stability are not antagonists. You have only to look to an Open 60 that weights has much as a 40ft light boat and has much more stability then a 40ft heavy weight boat, a much heavier one.
Yes> I thought you would misunderstand this, and I also thought you would use your typical spurious cherry picking style to attempt to argue it. Firstly, your probably accidental use of the word "marina", when I stated that watching them at anchor may be telling. It is watching boats riding to anchor in rough or adverse conditions that gives the indication of stability. Form stability can be increased by building boats that are otherwise fairly light, but much wider in the hull, however without the keel, these boats have zero stability, quite obviously. The point is these boats are lightly built IN ALL THE WRONG WAYS. Your using the example of Open 60s is a truly laughable example of cherry picking. It is like saying: you say there is a problem with this line of family cars, well, now, if you look at this Maclaren F1 over here… Please. Moderate or heavier displacement vessels built to ocean tolerances are dramatically more stable in heavy weather than lightly built mass production cruisers. This is why so many times we hear "Force 7's" as providing severe conditions. They very rarely do, and then only with current and residual wave action from more powerful systems, but if you are out in them in a light mass production boat, they sure as hell feel ike they do. Much less than a F 9 to 11! Take that same boat to Svalbard or Chile, or even to NZ, and you will feel what is lacking in terms of stability. Stability means more than simply its tendency not to capsize due to plank like width (AKA fat arse).

The boat which lost its keel after a single bump had the form stability that you are gesturing at. If they had sailed that boat to weather in anything other than light winds, they would have discovered what that type of stability is worth by comparison to the vastly more important structural type to which I was frankly obviously referring.

And by the way, one more thing about your car analogies above. This was a MAIB report. If it had been an AAIB report, and two AIRCRAFT had had their wings fall off out of 800 built, the entire fleet would be grounded pending a thorough investigation of each one and the rectification of all possible future issues. For all that this was not an aircrash, the men who put their confidence in the Cheeki Rafiki's structural integrity are nonetheless equally dead.

As to your replies regarding the cherry picking of the elite who buy new boats and dispose of them like tissues to the poorer folk, and its complete ignoring of the fact that the majority of such boats are in fact purchased by corporate charter operations in a relationship with the corporate mass production operations both striving to deliver maximum profit at minimum margin of error and safety: I say your reply is better argument than I could supply against itself. Good luck with that.

Honestly I am done replying to you on this. I am with Minaret, on that one.
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-05-2015, 23:39   #80
Registered User
 
Muckle Flugga's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aboard the Ocean wave
Boat: 55' sloop.
Posts: 1,426
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
You mean debonding suddenly after 5 different confirmed groundings over several years plus non tight keel bolts for an unknown period of time and some collisions with hull damage? Give me a break.

Regarding groundings It must be the sailor. It seems you are grounding your boat continuously I had done about 40 000 miles of coastal cruising on the Atlantic and Med, anchoring most of the days and touched the ground very lightly two or three times. I would not even call that a grounding.
To the sailors who trusted that a good repair had been made to a light grounding, the failure which was considered repaired was catastrophic, and suddenly fatal. If a keel structure can unbond due to a single light grounding, then it can unbond SUDDENLY. Your equivocation on this matter is just weird.

Did I suggest that I "ground [my] boat continuously"? What a ridiculous inference. And your polishing your image with regard to your own "two or three times" (once in roughly 13,000 miles, which equates to around once a year of long range cruising, rather more frequent for Ocean professional skippers typically sailing further per year and significantly faster than my own rate of groundings per mile, and three times in a circumnavigation; not to mention the once or twice in the average charter by a credit card captain in unfamiliar waters!), you not only have the luxury of very good charting in European waters, but flatter yourself that these were "very light", when in fact one of the salient facts in the report shows that these boats are SO weakly constructed that a skipper's perception of lightness of grounding or otherwise is essentially to be discounted.

Now really, I am done with you on this.
__________________
Muckle Flugga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 01:33   #81
Armchair Bucketeer
 
David_Old_Jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,013
Images: 4
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

I think Polux has pretty much nailed the position. Its inconvenient for those of us who buy 2nd hand boats. But it is what it is.

The market always gets what it demands - that just not always what folks want. With boats its big and cheap as possible. Marketing sells, the manufacturers who did not reduce costs by not building forever boats for the average buyer and average use (occasional coastal use and mostly marina sitting! - no matter what the brochure says) have long since gone out of business.

It dont make them bad boats, but caveat emptor....especially on cores, liners and bolt on keels when buying well into "older"....and seeking to use them for non average use.

But buying boats has always been about finding a good one! There was no golden age on that (in ye olden days of the 60's and 70's! there were a lot of crap boats built, in design and / or build quality. And just as many crap PO's. Lol)
David_Old_Jersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 04:50   #82
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilpride View Post
The med is quite Deep, well charted and well lighted, cruisers often use marinas , yacht clubs or anchorages , but most of the time boats are docked to marinas, so my 2 cents running aground in the med is just a nuisance, in the caribbean for example or the pacific running aground is something you can see very often, and keels need to be designed to digest that kind of abuse, 5 touch downs in several years is nothing if the keel and structure is well designed, i remember to see after the last cane in SXM a old gib sea with a keel bend to the extreme, he spend 3 days with the keel stuck in a rock gap banging until finally get towed to a haul out yard , most of the damage in the lead and few small cracks inside, something amazing despite the abuse...
Neil, I was given my particular example as experience. I did not only have sailed the med but extensively the Atlantic coasts of Portugal and Spain. Grounding or not to grounding (instead of touching gently the ground) has to do with care and good seamanship. You have light fast big yachts with over 4m of draft that sail in all oceans of the world, including Pacific and they don't ground more than 2 meters draft boats or 1.6m draft boats.

You have just to limit your access to where you can go. That's good seamanship.

Having a fast, light deep draft fin keel yacht has many advantages and some disadvantages and one of them is to be very careful about groundings and that can limits were you go safely.

I disagree with you that light fast yacht, particularly cruiser racers like the First 40.7 should be built to sustain over 5 groundings, meaning regular grounding, without suffering damage has a design criteria. That would have make them not only much heavier (and slower boats) as much more expensive. They are not designed to be grounded and in case of a grounding they should be properly and thoroughly inspected to detect damage.

If you want a cruiser that can sustain groundings without damage than you should be looking for another type of boat. They exist on the market, namely modern aluminium centerboarders or even modern swing Keelers (with all the ballast on the keel) that face to a grounding will just swing up the keel.

Jeanneau has already one version of those on the 349 and if the market wants that (with the additional price tag) they will extend this type of offer to the rest of their line, but I bet that is not going to happen.

If sailing slowly and out of light winds is not a problem to you you can always restore some old designed full keeler. They certainly will have a bigger resistance to grounding than a fin keeler...well most of them.
Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 04:57   #83
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
What people want is not possible. They want a boat that performs well and also will save their a$$ when they screw up (weather/grounding/too much sail/etc.). And they want a boat that costs 1/2 what it would cost to build one to their desired specifications. And that's how we get what we have here because someone will always tell buyers they can have anything they want.
I don't think that most sailors that buy new boats don't know what they are buying. Maybe that happens when they buy the first boat but not after buying several and that's mostly the case.

You seem to assume that the ones that buy new boats are not knowledgeable sailors and I cannot see any reason for that except that they seem to want a different compromise (all boats are a compromise in what regards design) than the one you would favor.
Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 05:09   #84
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
To the sailors who trusted that a good repair had been made to a light grounding, the failure which was considered repaired was catastrophic, and suddenly fatal. If a keel structure can unbond due to a single light grounding, then it can unbond SUDDENLY. Your equivocation on this matter is just weird.
..
Again the boat in question had not grounded one time but 5 and also being repaired to hull collisions that suffered while racing. Besides that it had the keel bolts lose and that is just negligence in what maintenance is concerned.

I cannot understand your point: Yes sailors trusted that the boat has in good conditions, trusted that it had been adequately repaired and had been well maintained, that it was in a seaworthy condition.

Well it was not, not well repaired and not adequately maintained and you put the blame of that on the boat himself and not on the ones that made the repairs and don't have provided the boat with an adequate maintenance? That's illogical. On some of those groundings there are not even reports of the boat being inspected/repaired and the lose bolts on the keel is just major negligence in what regards maintenance.

That's why a reputable surveyor had said:

"The tragic death of the four crew and loss of the yacht was a result of third party incompetence and negligence and was preventable. Those who were responsible and negligent in the proper care and maintenance of the vessel should be indentified and held accountable to ensure something like this doesn’t happen again.....

This tragedy should not have happened. Through no fault of the crew the Cheeki Rafiki was sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition and those responsible should be held accountable. The families of the victim’s have a right to know of the unseaworthiness and that their loved ones paid a terrible price and died because of the gross negligence of others"
Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 05:19   #85
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch
Posts: 1,580
Images: 2
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
You mean the information I provide regarding some of his questions is wrong? If not (and it is not) what the purpose of your post? Just being intentionally disagreeable? You have nothing more to do?
You imply without better knowledge the issues (cracks in the structure) with the boat he has not endangered the integrity and safety of the boat. Unbelievable claim on your part. Thou you avoided quoting the criminating part in his question which pretty much tells excactly you knew the answer was basicly BS..
__________________
TeddyDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 05:20   #86
I promise to put my pants on
 
sailorboy1's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: On the boat somewhere
Boat: Hunter 410
Posts: 11,193
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

I don't really understand this thread anymore. To me all we really know is that that keel fell off, but that it had help along the way.
__________________
stop blowing smoke up my rear, blow it at the sails instead
sailorboy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 05:24   #87
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyDiver View Post
You imply without better knowledge the issues (cracks in the structure) with the boat he has not endangered the integrity and safety of the boat. Unbelievable claim on your part. Thou you avoided quoting the criminating part in his question which pretty much tells excactly you knew the answer was basicly BS..
You can only be joking. I answered to part of his questions, the only ones that I quoted and I have done that correctly. I certainly did not have implied nothing. It was a straight forward answer, a factual one.
Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 05:36   #88
Registered User
 
neilpride's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: in the world
Boat: csy 44 tall rig.
Posts: 2,759
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
Neil, I was given my particular example as experience. I did not only have sailed the med but extensively the Atlantic coasts of Portugal and Spain. Grounding or not to grounding (instead of touching gently the ground) has to do with care and good seamanship. You have light fast big yachts with over 4m of draft that sail in all oceans of the world, including Pacific and they don't ground more than 2 meters draft boats or 1.6m draft boats.

You have just to limit your access to where you can go. That's good seamanship.

Having a fast, light deep draft fin keel yacht has many advantages and some disadvantages and one of them is to be very careful about groundings and that can limits were you go safely.

I disagree with you that light fast yacht, particularly cruiser racers like the First 40.7 should be built to sustain over 5 groundings, meaning regular grounding, without suffering damage has a design criteria. That would have make them not only much heavier (and slower boats) as much more expensive. They are not designed to be grounded and in case of a grounding they should be properly and thoroughly inspected to detect damage.

If you want a cruiser that can sustain groundings without damage than you should be looking for another type of boat. They exist on the market, namely modern aluminium centerboarders or even modern swing Keelers (with all the ballast on the keel) that face to a grounding will just swing up the keel.

Jeanneau has already one version of those on the 349 and if the market wants that (with the additional price tag) they will extend this type of offer to the rest of their line, but I bet that is not going to happen.

If sailing slowly and out of light winds is not a problem to you you can always restore some old designed full keeler. They certainly will have a bigger resistance to grounding than a fin keeler...well most of them.

Then dont label the 40,7 CaT A, just B or C , with a shelter port not far away in case the failure happen, the 40,7 born like Cat B and later they stamp it the Cat A .

Is simple, if you make a product tricky to inspect and weak in the most vulnerable área in case of grounding and dangerous if no proper action is taken regards the structure ,,simple that product dont deserve to be labeled Cat a.

And please dont say this is what the market want regard mass production boats, the 90% of the buyers or new customers dont know a frukk what the hell they are buying...
__________________
neilpride is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 07:02   #89
Registered User
 
TeddyDiver's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arctic Ocean
Boat: Under construction 35' ketch
Posts: 1,580
Images: 2
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polux View Post
You can only be joking. I answered to part of his questions, the only ones that I quoted and I have done that correctly. I certainly did not have implied nothing. It was a straight forward answer, a factual one.
But the question wasn't so simple and you should have stated that you had no clue what so ever about the integrity. Instead your answer can be misleading in this regard becouse the question was the previous post. I understand that it wasn't intended but a bit of care and rereading could help to avoid such things to happen.
__________________
TeddyDiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2015, 08:19   #90
Registered User
 
Polux's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portugal/Med
Boat: Comet 41s
Posts: 4,957
Re: Cheeki Rafiki loss report

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeddyDiver View Post
But the question wasn't so simple and you should have stated that you had no clue what so ever about the integrity. Instead your answer can be misleading in this regard becouse the question was the previous post. I understand that it wasn't intended but a bit of care and rereading could help to avoid such things to happen.
Who said I had not a clue? if asked directly I would have gave the same answer Neil did and also have said what another member have said regarding the importance of the cosmetic repair having holding on or not, for the reason the same poster stated.
__________________

Polux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki missing in mid-Atlantic 1000 islands General Sailing Forum 517 11-06-2014 16:32
Cheeki Rafiki gmthompson99 Monohull Sailboats 107 30-05-2014 13:37
Restart the search for the missing Cheeki Rafiki crew members. mikethedane General Sailing Forum 0 20-05-2014 08:47


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.