Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[Saleen411]

And in one piece, i never see a 747 or a 380 Airbus doing a roll over but me think they dont try yet.... and then we dont know if they can or not with the wings in place,,

All airliners can easily roll....if done right, a very low g maneuver.

As to the 747 you mention?......built like a tank. China Airline pilots accidentally rolled and dove one SUPERSONIC and recovered with a 5g pullout!... AMAZING the jet stayed together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006

Sorry...where were we? Oh yea....keels falling off....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

...Hardness varies considerably, honestly, your dogged pursuit of the idea that these rocks are "soft" is becoming beyond ridiculous. Really. Even the "softest" such rocks are so hard it makes your whole drive here beyond absurd.....

In fact I was not the one that pursued this. I made only a side comment regarding a particular fiberglass boat having survived in one piece among jagged hard rocks, a thing you deemed impossible and I stated that jagged hard rocks were a lot harder for a boat when grounded than an almost flat slab of stone. It seems pretty obvious to me and not ridiculous at all.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Its a waste of time and brain energy to keep going with that silly argument, is pointless... What you are trying to say is sail a first 40,7 and if you run aground make expensive repairs inspections for the life of the vessel, in theory make sense, but in practique i dont see any advantage to get a first 40,7 just for the pleasure to be inspected regularly, is not a expensive Hig tech boat, is a mass production product, if they cant make a strong keel attachment then they should stop building like that .. and stop hiding in the BS argument , that boat run aground!! not my problem...

....
Your silly way to see this thing Paulo ....
....
Boats run aground, is a fact, is something expected in the life of a boat, sooner or later, and the keel joint structure need to be designed to withstand the abuse , if not, they simply dont deserve to be a offshore boat with long range cruising in mind.... No idea how the new 2014 2015 First series are built, but i suspect in the same fashion as older models, why dont take the example from other builders like X Yachts or Arcona Yachts,
...

Another one that calls me silly becuase he does not see things the same way

It seems you cannot understand that all the boats are not the same in what regards performance, lightness or resistance to grounding and needed maintenance. All boats are a compromise and when you want to maximize lightness and speed you will have a boat that will need more maintenance and inspection control to be maintained in seaworthy condition. That does not mean that those boats when on adequate conditions will not be even more seaworthy then more heavier boats on offshore conditions.

Look for instance for racing boats like the Open 60, hugely seaworthy but needing a full inspection (with high tech sensors) at least every year or at the end of a major race. Are they unseaworthy? Well, no, one of the most seaworthy boats around if conveniently maintained.

You talk about the First 40.7 not being a high tech boat and you are right but that does not change anything. The boat is designed with a cruiser-racer program on mind, a dual purpose boat and the only thing that separates him from a high tech cruiser racer like a Ker 39 or a Neo 400 is several more tons of weight and a lower performance, not the need of regular inspections or more maintenance then a main market sailboat.

It seems that you have the funny idea that all that sail offshore should do it on the type of boats that you prefer for it and that the ones that like to do it on cruiser racers or even in racers, that like to enjoy the performance and the superior stability, are just silly sailors even if they have their boats in an adequate state of seaworthiness.

Regarding the comparison of the First 40.7 with an Arcona 40 let me tell you that the Arcona is no different in quality then other two Swedish brands that also make cruiser racers, Maxi Yachts and Sweden yachts and that relatively recent models of those brands have lost their keels (after being previously grounded and obviously not well repaired). There are just a hugely bigger number of First around then all the boats from those 3 brands put together so it is statistically normal that you have more problems with Firsts than with all the boats from those 3 brands put together.

In what regards X yachts it is a different building method, they used steel structures where the keel was bolted and now carbon ones but if you think that repairing one of those boats after a grounding is more simple you are probably wrong. The owner of the shipyard where I have a boat (that is also a top surveyor) have repaired some and surveyed others and says it is a nightmare (those structures are also bonded or laminated to the hull).

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Polux

In fact I was not the one that pursued this. I made only a side comment regarding a particular fiberglass boat having survived in one piece among jagged hard rocks, a thing you deemed impossible and I stated that jagged hard rocks were a lot harder for a boat when grounded than an almost flat slab of stone. It seems pretty obvious to me and not ridiculous at all.

No, I didn't, and I said so in two replies prior to your post and pointed this out again in one later on. But if you insist on repatedly putting words in my mouth, that is up to you. As far as the flat and jagged thing, honestly you said two completely separate things, and quie clearly went on and on about "soft rocks". You are now you are quite obviously eliding the two and equivocating between them. Ok. That is really enough now.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

No, I didn't, and I said so in two replies prior to your post and pointed this out again in one later on. But if you insist on repatedly putting words in my mouth, that is up to you. ..

You mean that the below bold phrase does not mean that if it was not a steel boat but "the sort of craft being critiqued on this thread" the boat would not have survived intact and therefore it is impossible for a light cruiser racer to have survived intact on those conditions?

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

This is a true unrestricted service Ocean boat with a good keel structure. The captain was saved by AMSA well into the event, but first and foremost, he was saved by his boat. Had this been the sort of craft being critiqued on this thread, the boat's disappearance would still be a mystery. Some wreckage may have been found some time later, but probably not.

If not you are a hard man to understand

[mstrebe]

Folks, there's a lot of exaggeration going on in this thread. Sticking to the points regarding _this_ actual grounding, the report points out that the keel-hull joint on this boat had been _repaired_, likely more than once. It also points out that the keel bolts were _loose_ and that at least one of them was likely corroded through.

Many of the arguments here are attempts to indict a design pattern (bolted keels) and a manufacturer (Beneteau) based on the repair work of an unknown yard and the obvious lack of maintenance performed on a rather aged boat.

The report itself convicts those responsible for the maintenance of the boat, not the design, and not the manufacturer. That's not out of some conspiracy to protect Beneteau nor some love of a particular design pattern, it's because that's what the evidence says happened. The engineers who analyzed this failure MOST CERTAINLY would have indicated that the hull was designed badly, or that the bolts were too small or that the backing was insufficient had that been the case. In fact they did say that hull inspections are necessary after groundings for this design pattern--because that's what the evidence led them to. Had the evidence said the design or original engineering was flawed, it would have said that as well. I'm surprised that we have so many engineers on this board with more knowledge of this particular case than the forensic engineers who actually inspected it.

No vehicle is designed to withstand 20 years of use including obviously inadequate maintenance and flawed repairs. None. The argument that a keel should remain attached even if most of the bolts are loose or corroded bespeaks a total lack of common sense: It's not possible to engineer anything in any circumstance to withstand an arbitrary amount of maintenance failure.

This >particular< failure likely would not have happened on a full keel, steel hulled boat, that's true: That boat would have sunk with certainty and never been found adrift had a hidden sea-cock failed, or had a corroded dissimilar metal joint failed below the waterline, or the shaft-bearing shattered, or had the rudder post broken off above the bearing, or had any one of the other dozens of maintenance related problems that can sink a boat occurred. The full-keel steel boat would simply have been lost to the deep, with no possibility of a post-disaster analysis.

A big part of the bias against "plastic" boats is that they're found adrift, after the disaster, after abandonment, and CAN be analyzed. We somehow give boats that are completely lost to the deep a pass simply because we don't know what sunk them. I think remaining afloat after a flooding disaster is an astonishingly important capability that no steel hulled full keel boat could provide. But that hugely important safety measure is callously tossed aside as unimportant in this argument. My boat was specifically engineered to remain afloat when _completely_ flooded with the keel attached or not. I personally find that to be the most important safety feature a boat can have.

I don't have evidence for the difference in survivability between full keel and fin keel boats based on a statistical analysis of total losses, and neither does anyone else. It's an analysis that should be undertaken by insurers, who have the necessary data. My suspicion is that they're about equal, because I think it's highly unlikely that keel failure causes a significant number of total losses but that's just my suspicion, and I cannot therefore argue it as fact.

Focusing on the recommendation that bolted keels be inspected after groundings, but conflating that into an indictment against the design pattern is not rational. This keel clearly had been inspected after groundings, found damaged, and repaired after having failed an inspection. Failure to detect a problem was not the issue, and while inspectability is critically important, it has nothing to do with this case: The keel was inspectable, and we know that because it failed inspection, which we know because it was repaired. The problem is that it was repaired badly. Can the hull joint be properly repaired after a grounding that deforms it? I don't know, maybe not. There are groundings that will make a full keel boat unrepairable as well. All we know in this case is that a decision was made to repair, and that repair was not sufficient. Just because this one boat was improperly repaired does not mean that proper repairs are impossible, it simply means that this boat was not properly repaired.

No boat will last 20 years without proper maintenance. Focusing on what failed first on an old race-horse that had been broken in the past, ridden hard, and put away wet in charter for two decades is an important exercise and it's how we learn to improve. But drawing the wrong conclusions from it doesn't improve anything.

Bolted fin keels are an important technology advance for cost, performance, and future improvements. Canting keels cannot be full keels, nor can lifting keels. Both of those advancements are important in niches now and will be much more important as their kinks are worked out and they become more common. Heck, a lifting keel could have avoided these grounding problems entirely by simply being up out of the way in thin waters. Then all of this argument would be gone because this disaster never would have happened.

My conclusions are the same as the professional analysts who actually saw this evidence: Poor maintenance by a charter operator operating a boat far beyond its commercial service lifetime is what caused this tragedy. Period.

Now, what I'd really like to see engineered into ocean rated boats are water ballast tanks glassed into the bottoms of the hulls forward and astern that are normally run empty. In heavy weather, you can choose to flood them for stiffer, deeper riding in a storm and to balance the boat fore-to-aft. Should something happen to your keel, the water ballast can keep the boat upright. For performance in good weather, you simply pump them out. Ether the keel or the ballast is sufficient to keep the boat upright, with both it runs deep, heavy, and stiff--exactly what you want in weather. You could flood tanks before reefing when you've got speed to burn in heavy weather to really stiffen up a boat against a storm.

They're a cheap, simple safety and comfort feature I think should be on all ocean-rated fin keel boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

...The problem is that it was repaired badly. Can the hull joint be properly repaired after a grounding that deforms it? I don't know, maybe not. ... All we know in this case is that a decision was made to repair, and that repair was not sufficient.

I believe that is an important point. As you know there are lots of relatively recent cars with apparently good looks that are ditched simply because proper repairs are more expensive then the value of the car and a insurance company prefers to give the car money value. That happens mostly when the car structure is affected.

The temptation to recover such car with an unsafe repair, that will give a nice looking car with apparently a good resale value is very limited due to the regular inspections that are mandatory to cars (at least in Europe). A structural problem would be easily spotted and criminal charges would follow.

For private boats in many countries there are no mandatory boat inspections and on the ones that have them (my 8 year old boat had passed last week the mandatory RINA Italian inspection) I doubt that they are serious enough to detect a problem like a hidden structural defect on the sequence of a grounding and a superficial repair. That restraint of gaining money over a boat that is improperly repaired does not exist.

I believe that is a problem we all should be warned about and that when buying a boat, even a boat with few years and good looks, a proper and thoroughly inspection by a top surveyor is indispensable if we don't want to play with luck, specially if the price seems too good to be true.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

Folks, there's a lot of exaggeration going on in this thread. Sticking to the points regarding _this_ actual grounding, the report points out that the keel-hull joint on this boat had been _repaired_, likely more than once. It also points out that the keel bolts were _loose_ and that at least one of them was likely corroded through.

Many of the arguments here are attempts to indict a design pattern (bolted keels) and a manufacturer (Beneteau) based on the repair work of an unknown yard and the obvious lack of maintenance performed on a rather aged boat.

The report itself convicts those responsible for the maintenance of the boat, not the design, and not the manufacturer. That's not out of some conspiracy to protect Beneteau nor some love of a particular design pattern, it's because that's what the evidence says happened. The engineers who analyzed this failure MOST CERTAINLY would have indicated that the hull was designed badly, or that the bolts were too small or that the backing was insufficient had that been the case. I'm surprised that we have so many engineers on this board with more knowledge of this particular case than the forensic engineers who actually inspected it.

No vehicle is designed to withstand 20 years of use including obviously inadequate maintenance and flawed repairs. None. The argument that a keel should remain attached even if most of the bolts are loose or corroded bespeaks a total lack of common sense: It's not possible to engineer anything in any circumstance to withstand an arbitrary amount of maintenance failure.

This >particular< failure likely would not have happened on a full keel, steel hulled boat, that's true: That boat would have sunk with certainty and never been found adrift had a hidden sea-cock failed, or had a corroded dissimilar metal joint failed below the waterline, or the shaft-bearing shattered, or had the rudder post broken off above the bearing, or had any one of the other dozens of maintenance related problems that can sink a boat occurred. The full-keel steel boat would simply have been lost to the deep, with no possibility of a post-disaster analysis.

A big part of the bias against "plastic" boats is that they're found adrift, after the disaster, after abandonment, and CAN be analyzed. We somehow give boats that are completely lost to the deep a pass simply because we don't know what sunk them. I think remaining afloat after a flooding disaster is an astonishingly important capability that no steel hulled full keel boat could provide. But that hugely important safety measure is callously tossed aside as unimportant in this argument. My boat was specifically engineered to remain afloat when _completely_ flooded with the keel attached or not. I personally find that to be the most important safety feature a boat can have.

I don't have evidence for the difference in survivability between full keel and fin keel boats based on a statistical analysis of total losses, and neither does anyone else. It's an analysis that should be undertaken by insurers, who have the necessary data. My suspicion is that they're about equal, because I think it's highly unlikely that keel failure causes a significant number of total losses but that's just my suspicion, and I cannot therefore argue it as fact.

Focusing on the recommendation that bolted keels be inspected after groundings, but conflating that into an indictment against the design pattern is not rational. This keel clearly had been inspected after groundings, found damaged, and repaired after having failed an inspection. Failure to detect a problem was not the issue, and while inspectability is critically important, it has nothing to do with this case: The keel was inspectable, and we know that because it failed inspection, which we know because it was repaired. The problem is that it was repaired badly. Can the hull joint be properly repaired after a grounding that deforms it? I don't know, maybe not. There are groundings that will make a full keel boat unrepairable as well. All we know in this case is that a decision was made to repair, and that repair was not sufficient. Just because this one boat was improperly repaired does not mean that proper repairs are impossible, it simply means that this boat was not properly repaired.

No boat will last 20 years without proper maintenance. Focusing on what failed first on an old race-horse that had been broken in the past, ridden hard, and put away wet in charter for two decades is an important exercise and it's how we learn to improve. But drawing the wrong conclusions from it doesn't improve anything.

Bolted fin keels are an important technology advance for cost, performance, and future improvements. Canting keels cannot be full keels, nor can lifting keels. Both of those advancements are important in niches now and will be much more important as their kinks are worked out and they become more common. Heck, a lifting keel could have avoided these grounding problems entirely by simply being up out of the way in thin waters. Then all of this argument would be gone because this disaster never would have happened.

My conclusions are the same as the professional analysts who actually saw this evidence: Poor maintenance by a charter operator operating a boat far beyond its commercial service lifetime is what caused this tragedy. Period.

Now, what I'd really like to see engineered into boats are water ballast tanks glassed into the bottoms of the hulls forward and astern that are normally run empty. In heavy weather, you can choose to flood them for stiffer, deeper riding in a storm and to balance the boat fore-to-aft. Should something happen to your keel, the water ballast can keep the boat upright. For performance in good weather, you simply pump them out. They're a safety and comfort feature I think should be on all ocean-rated fin keel boats.

I understand that ownership brings personal bias but your argument regarding full keel vs the lightly built bolt on keel on the B40.7 makes absolutely no sense. The original design of the keel attachment doesn't even meet the new minimum approvals so I think your position is a weak one at best.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

Folks, there's a lot of exaggeration going on in this thread. Sticking to the points regarding _this_ actual grounding, the report points out that the keel-hull joint on this boat had been _repaired_, likely more than once. It also points out that the keel bolts were _loose_ and that at least one of them was likely corroded through.

Many of the arguments here are attempts to indict a design pattern (bolted keels) and a manufacturer (Beneteau) based on the repair work of an unknown yard and the obvious lack of maintenance performed on a rather aged boat.

The report itself convicts those responsible for the maintenance of the boat, not the design, and not the manufacturer. That's not out of some conspiracy to protect Beneteau nor some love of a particular design pattern, it's because that's what the evidence says happened. The engineers who analyzed this failure MOST CERTAINLY would have indicated that the hull was designed badly, or that the bolts were too small or that the backing was insufficient had that been the case. In fact they did say that hull inspections are necessary after groundings for this design pattern--because that's what the evidence led them to. Had the evidence said the design or original engineering was flawed, it would have said that as well. I'm surprised that we have so many engineers on this board with more knowledge of this particular case than the forensic engineers who actually inspected it.

No vehicle is designed to withstand 20 years of use including obviously inadequate maintenance and flawed repairs. None. The argument that a keel should remain attached even if most of the bolts are loose or corroded bespeaks a total lack of common sense: It's not possible to engineer anything in any circumstance to withstand an arbitrary amount of maintenance failure.

This >particular< failure likely would not have happened on a full keel, steel hulled boat, that's true: That boat would have sunk with certainty and never been found adrift had a hidden sea-cock failed, or had a corroded dissimilar metal joint failed below the waterline, or the shaft-bearing shattered, or had the rudder post broken off above the bearing, or had any one of the other dozens of maintenance related problems that can sink a boat occurred. The full-keel steel boat would simply have been lost to the deep, with no possibility of a post-disaster analysis.

A big part of the bias against "plastic" boats is that they're found adrift, after the disaster, after abandonment, and CAN be analyzed. We somehow give boats that are completely lost to the deep a pass simply because we don't know what sunk them. I think remaining afloat after a flooding disaster is an astonishingly important capability that no steel hulled full keel boat could provide. But that hugely important safety measure is callously tossed aside as unimportant in this argument. My boat was specifically engineered to remain afloat when _completely_ flooded with the keel attached or not. I personally find that to be the most important safety feature a boat can have.

I don't have evidence for the difference in survivability between full keel and fin keel boats based on a statistical analysis of total losses, and neither does anyone else. It's an analysis that should be undertaken by insurers, who have the necessary data. My suspicion is that they're about equal, because I think it's highly unlikely that keel failure causes a significant number of total losses but that's just my suspicion, and I cannot therefore argue it as fact.

Focusing on the recommendation that bolted keels be inspected after groundings, but conflating that into an indictment against the design pattern is not rational. This keel clearly had been inspected after groundings, found damaged, and repaired after having failed an inspection. Failure to detect a problem was not the issue, and while inspectability is critically important, it has nothing to do with this case: The keel was inspectable, and we know that because it failed inspection, which we know because it was repaired. The problem is that it was repaired badly. Can the hull joint be properly repaired after a grounding that deforms it? I don't know, maybe not. There are groundings that will make a full keel boat unrepairable as well. All we know in this case is that a decision was made to repair, and that repair was not sufficient. Just because this one boat was improperly repaired does not mean that proper repairs are impossible, it simply means that this boat was not properly repaired.

No boat will last 20 years without proper maintenance. Focusing on what failed first on an old race-horse that had been broken in the past, ridden hard, and put away wet in charter for two decades is an important exercise and it's how we learn to improve. But drawing the wrong conclusions from it doesn't improve anything.

Bolted fin keels are an important technology advance for cost, performance, and future improvements. Canting keels cannot be full keels, nor can lifting keels. Both of those advancements are important in niches now and will be much more important as their kinks are worked out and they become more common. Heck, a lifting keel could have avoided these grounding problems entirely by simply being up out of the way in thin waters. Then all of this argument would be gone because this disaster never would have happened.

My conclusions are the same as the professional analysts who actually saw this evidence: Poor maintenance by a charter operator operating a boat far beyond its commercial service lifetime is what caused this tragedy. Period.

Now, what I'd really like to see engineered into ocean rated boats are water ballast tanks glassed into the bottoms of the hulls forward and astern that are normally run empty. In heavy weather, you can choose to flood them for stiffer, deeper riding in a storm and to balance the boat fore-to-aft. Should something happen to your keel, the water ballast can keep the boat upright. For performance in good weather, you simply pump them out. Ether the keel or the ballast is sufficient to keep the boat upright, with both it runs deep, heavy, and stiff--exactly what you want in weather. You could flood tanks before reefing when you've got speed to burn in heavy weather to really stiffen up a boat against a storm.

They're a cheap, simple safety and comfort feature I think should be on all ocean-rated fin keel boats.

You own a Bene 38, so i guess its easy for you, try read the full anexe MAIB report and other pro comments in the net from profesionals in the boat bussines, no offense...

[mstrebe]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I understand that ownership brings personal bias but your argument regarding full keel vs the lightly built bolt on keel on the B40.7 makes absolutely no sense. The original design of the keel attachment doesn't even meet the new minimum approvals so I think your position is a weak one at best.

But that's not my argument. That's just one point I made about the conclusions reached in the report. My argument is that full keels aren't any more survivable in a storm than fin keels, they just fail in different ways.

Cherry picking (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be fair, I do own a Beneteau: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[mstrebe]

Originally Posted by neilpride

You own a Bene 38, so i guess its easy for you, try read the full anexe MAIB report and other pro comments in the net from profesionals in the boat bussines, no offense...

Yeah. I know a lot of boat professionals and delivery skippers--San Diego is that kind of town. Great guys, love racing with them.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Another one that calls me silly becuase he does not see things the same way

It seems you cannot understand that all the boats are not the same in what regards performance, lightness or resistance to grounding and needed maintenance. All boats are a compromise and when you want to maximize lightness and speed you will have a boat that will need more maintenance and inspection control to be maintained in seaworthy condition. That does not mean that those boats when on adequate conditions will not be even more seaworthy then more heavier boats on offshore conditions.


This is again no sense from you, a Bene 40,7 is built like many others in the mass production market, Jeaneau, Oceanis series, i dont see any hig tech improvement in this boat, is made of Poly and glass, alu mast and wire rigging, the diference is designed by Farr, a reputable designer, a 40,7 v a Oceanis is the same regarding maintenance, with the diference that one have a piece of **** as keel structure and the other a better design but not much diference in the overall metod to built the structure.


Look for instance for racing boats like the Open 60, hugely seaworthy but needing a full inspection (with high tech sensors) at least every year or at the end of a major race. Are they unseaworthy? Well, no, one of the most seaworthy boats around if conveniently maintained.

Again, the 40,7 is not a hig tech racing boat, a open 60 is not a cruiser racer, why you mention a open 60, apples v oranges.

You talk about the First 40.7 not being a high tech boat and you are right but that does not change anything. The boat is designed with a cruiser-racer program on mind, a dual purpose boat and the only thing that separates him from a high tech cruiser racer like a Ker 39 or a Neo 400 is several more tons of weight and a lower performance, not the need of regular inspections or more maintenance then a main market sailboat.

Heeee???

It seems that you have the funny idea that all that sail offshore should do it on the type of boats that you prefer for it and that the ones that like to do it on cruiser racers or even in racers, that like to enjoy the performance and the superior stability, are just silly sailors even if they have their boats in an adequate state of seaworthiness.

I dont say that, pure planet polux invention, dude keep your facts straight, all that sail offshore should do it in a seaworthy boat , with a well enginered hull and rig..

Regarding the comparison of the First 40.7 with an Arcona 40 let me tell you that the Arcona is no different in quality then other two Swedish brands that also make cruiser racers, Maxi Yachts and Sweden yachts and that relatively recent models of those brands have lost their keels (after being previously grounded and obviously not well repaired). There are just a hugely bigger number of First around then all the boats from those 3 brands put together so it is statistically normal that you have more problems with Firsts than with all the boats from those 3 brands put together.

BS, But thanks, that prove my point, when you mention statistically normal more problems you mean loosing keels and rudders right?



In what regards X yachts it is a different building method, they used steel structures where the keel was bolted and now carbon ones but if you think that repairing one of those boats after a grounding is more simple you are probably wrong. The owner of the shipyard where I have a boat (that is also a top surveyor) have repaired some and surveyed others and says it is a nightmare (those structures are also bonded or laminated to the hull).

Is a fact, whatever you use instead of a full hull pan liner is infinite better to fix it, CF or Steel, how i know that, because i deal with production boats every day, hollow grid liners are probably the worst solution in terms of repairs, inspections and strenght,, period, Builders like Arcona or Xyachts solve the isue with a better idea no matter what you think about it...

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

But that's not my argument. That's just one point I made about the conclusions reached in the report. My argument is that full keels aren't any more survivable in a storm than fin keels, they just fail in different ways.

Cherry picking (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be fair, I do own a Beneteau: Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No use adding more ways boats can fail as we are talking about losing a keel, unlikely to happen on a full keel sailboat. I own a bolt on keel myself but I would not debate a skinny keel on a light boat as being as tough as a full keel. Just doesn't make sense to me.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

Folks, there's a lot of exaggeration going on in this thread. Sticking to the points regarding _this_ actual grounding, the report points out that the keel-hull joint on this boat had been _repaired_, likely more than once. It also points out that the keel bolts were _loose_ and that at least one of them was likely corroded through.

Many of the arguments here are attempts to indict a design pattern (bolted keels) and a manufacturer (Beneteau) based on the repair work of an unknown yard and the obvious lack of maintenance performed on a rather aged boat.

Much of what your wrote I disagree with. But I will stick to this last sentence. No one is saying bolted keels are a bad idea. Quite the opposite. Bolted fin keels are a great thing in terms of speed (aka safety), stability (aka safety) and maintenance. The issue is not bolted keels.

The issue for this particular event is not strong enough attachment and in particular not sufficient spreading of the loads that a high aspect fin keel produces. On top of that the internal design of the boat (not the keel) makes failure more likely after innocuous events such as grounding and heavy pounding. Once failure happens the internal design (pan liner) makes finding the damage near impossible and fixing it even more difficult. There are no industry standards for finding and fixing these type failures. Once you understand the real problem with this boat most of your other arguments fall away. The real issue is not loose bolts or shoddy repair. The issue is how the bolts came to be loose and/or corroded and why proper repairs are nearly impossible. We can dance around this all day long but a pan liner boat has to be built so as to be indestructible in that portion of the hull else this will keep happening. And this pan liner is far from indestructible.

[neilpride]

First pic a Salona keel structure, next a X yacht keel grid system, and the Bene hull pan liner...

Me think the Salona is a cool idea followed by the X yacht......