Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[Exile]

mstrebe --

I thought this thread, to its credit, was way beyond yet another "debate" b'twn. bolt-on vs. encapsulated keels, fin vs. full keels, plastic vs. steel, blah, blah, blah. Instead, it is & always should be about design & construction quality, right? After all, bolt-on keels are hardly new technology and mfgs. seemed to have figured out how to keep them attached a long time ago, despite the inevitable groundings that occassion the type of cruising the 40.7 is rated for.

Polux cited comments from a surveyor made w/o investigation & shortly after CR's loss. This surveyor laid the blame exclusively on prior groundings & poor repairs. My readings of the formal MAIB & RYA final reports, however, certainly did not discount prior groundings, repairs, & maintenance. But after a lengthy investigation, also called into question the design & construction of the keel-hull joint, going so far as to say that mere hard ocean use alone could also possibly result in matrix/liner separation.

Someone can & surely will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that properly designed keel bolts should never come loose, and will only do so if there is a more serious underlying problem. If true, then merely tightening them before or during a passage & calling it good ignores a much more serious & potentially deadly problem. Again, let me know if this is incorrect -- there's enough misinformation as it is and I surely don't want to perpetuate any errors.

Finally, it's getting tiring to inevitably hear -- whenever some sort of failure on a Bene or other mass-produced modern boat arises -- that those who attribute it to design and/or construction have some sort of ax to grind against all of these types of boats. In particular, I hardly think it's in the interest of experienced professionals like Neil & Minaret -- regardless of their personal likes/dislikes -- to be gratuitously telling customers of the more popular & plentiful types of boats that there are significant issues if they couldn't back it up. Not only do such guys make their livings repairing & maintaining many of these very boats, but they own their own boats and are sailors themselves.

I appreciate & understand your love of the boat that you own and desire to defend it, but frankly I would be grateful as opposed to defensive upon learning about potential serious issues with my own boat, as it would hopefully allow me to make the needed repairs and continuing enjoying the boat that I love!

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Exile

mstrebe -- ]

I thought this thread, to its credit, was way beyond yet another "debate" b'twn. bolt-on vs. encapsulated keels, fin vs. full keels, plastic vs. steel, blah, blah, blah. Instead, it is & always should be about design & construction quality, right? After all, bolt-on keels are hardly new technology and mfgs. seemed to have figured out how to keep them attached a long time ago, despite the inevitable groundings that occassion the type of cruising the 40.7 is rated for.

Polux cited comments from a surveyor made w/o investigation & shortly after CR's loss. This surveyor laid the blame exclusively on prior groundings & poor repairs. My readings of the formal MAIB & RYA final reports, however, certainly did not discount prior groundings, repairs, & maintenance. But after a lengthy investigation, also called into question the design & construction of the keel-hull joint, going so far as to say that mere hard ocean use alone could also possibly result in matrix/liner separation.

Someone can & surely will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that properly designed keel bolts should never come loose, and will only do so if there is a more serious underlying problem. If true, then merely tightening them before or during a passage & calling it good ignores a much more serious & potentially deadly problem. Again, let me know if this is incorrect -- there's enough misinformation as it is and I surely don't want to perpetuate any errors.

Finally, it's getting tiring to inevitably hear -- whenever some sort of failure on a Bene or other mass-produced modern boat arises -- that those who attribute it to design and/or construction have some sort of ax to grind against all of these types of boats. In particular, I hardly think it's in the interest of experienced professionals like Neil & Minaret -- regardless of their personal likes/dislikes -- to be gratuitously telling customers of the more popular & plentiful types of boats that there are significant issues if they couldn't back it up. Not only do such guys make their livings repairing & maintaining many of these very boats, but they own their own boats and are sailors themselves.

I appreciate & understand your love of the boat that you own and desire to defend it, but frankly I would be grateful as opposed to defensive upon learning about potential serious issues with my own boat, as it would hopefully allow me to make the needed repairs and continuing enjoying the boat that I love!

Excellent...

[Polux]

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.

Where have you been?

I think you misinterpreted what he wrote. We was not comparing types of keels just saying that both types of boats need maintenance. Quoting:

"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."

[Polux]

It is hard to discuss with you since logic is not your strong point:

Originally Posted by neilpride

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

No, what I have said is that Sweden Yachts, Maxi Yachst and Arcona yachts are all high quality Sweden boats, in fact Arcona were by far the less expensive and "cheap" among those. What I said it was that if we consider the production of the three brands put together the number total of First sailboats produced it will be much bigger and the number of keels lost will be the same, so statistically the number of keels lost is way smaller on the First than on the global production of three of the brands that in Sweden built cruiser racers.

We are talking about keels, I am not talking about rudders.

Originally Posted by neilpride

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.

These seems to show clearly that I was right and that you don't understand that all cruisers are not designed to the same design criteria and program. No, it has nothing to with being designed by Farr (the Oceanis are designed by some of the best NA on the planet) it has to do with design criteria and boat program.

The First is a cruiser-racer a boat designed to race and to cruise, a dual purpose boat and a good one with an extensive list of top victories. The fact of being a low tech cruising racer does not mean that it is designed the same way, according the same design program. The boat is designed to win races so it has to be lighter and more powerful. Being lighter and powerful, using the same materials, makes it a more delicate boat, needing more frequent inspections and more maintenance to have it on a seaworthy conditions.

Originally Posted by neilpride

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.

It seems obvious to me: to show that a boat that needs more frequent inspections and maintenance (Open 60) does not mean that it is a less seaworthy one, if well maintained. It can be a more seaworthy one. Only the maintenance schedule is different.

Originally Posted by neilpride

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...

Yes, full matrix like the one of the First 40.7 can offer a huge bonding area do their job and increase hull stiffness but in what regards repairs or inspections have some disadvantage.

But you are far from right when you say that in case of grounding and in need of repair a X yacht is easier to repair. The ones contemporary to the First 40.7 used a heat galvanised steel structure bonded or laminated to the hull. That is a strong solution but it is as strong as the bond to the hull and when you have a problem with that you have a huge problem. Besides steel even if galvanized is prone to rust in contact with salt water. That's why they have changed to a full carbon structure.

I think Arcona still uses a galvanized steel frame.

By any means I am not saying that Arconas or X-Yacht are badly built just that all systems have advantages and disadvantages. But I may add that I am happy that my boat does not use a steel structure. That is absolutely great for new boats but how many years will those galvanized steel structures last become rust creeps in? And when that happens what will happen to the bonding agents or laminated?

Of course that has a solution, the steel structure can be taken off the boat, galvanized again and bonded in place. Can you imagine the costs?

But the point here is not that I like particularly the First 40.7 or their building methods but that I find you are grossly exaggerating its seaworthiness or build quality to the point of saying that is not an offshore boat and that is pretty ridiculous to say of a boat that raced all the major offshore races, including multiple times the Sydney-Hobart.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Where have you been?

I think you misinterpreted what he wrote. We was not comparing types of keels just saying that both types of boats need maintenance. Quoting:

"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."

Probably a futile attempt to keep things on track here:

What the CR Loss Report brings up is the prospect of a serious & potentially deadly design defect by a mfg. Plenty of other threads about maintenance-related issues. Not to say that maintenance didn't play a role in the CR case. On the contrary, all the reports & expert opinions acknowledge this played a role. But the potential design defect the MAIB & RYA reports are pointing to (not me, not Muckle, not Neil, not Minaret, but MAIB & RYA) is whether the combo of an inadequately supported keel-hull joint, coupled with the use of a liner/matrix, renders such structures unacceptably weak, difficult to inspect, and extraordinarily cumbersome & inexpensive to properly repair.

In other words, even if prior repairs were done improperly, in the absence of any protocols or guidance from the mfg., those repairs may have been as good as were reasonably possible to perform -- short of completely re-designing the actual structure that is. Is this really what we want boatyards to be held accountable for?

Anyone remember the batch of Moody's from a decade or more ago that had skeg failures? The mfg. sent out letters to all owners they could find & fixed them, gratis. Sorta like what auto mfgs. are required to do in the event of a mandated recall. I guess this is one of many reasons why mfgs. like Moody continued to enjoy a good reputation, and why if a Moody or some other boat with a similarly good rep suffers a failure, most are inclined to give them some benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

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

It was the other way around. Anyway as I said X-yacht does not use steel anymore but carbon, a better solution. On Salona the keel structure material looks a bit better then on older X yacht or Arconas since it is of stainless steel.

Anyway the support of those structures to the keel will be as good and the strong as the bond to the hull and in that regard the Beneteau solution it offers a much bigger bonding area. Off course in what regards the strength regarding the connection between the keel and the structure itself it is a better solution and the strength of that connection will be much bigger.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

...
Polux cited comments from a surveyor made w/o investigation & shortly after CR's loss. This surveyor laid the blame exclusively on prior groundings & poor repairs. My readings of the formal MAIB & RYA final reports, however, certainly did not discount prior groundings, repairs, & maintenance. But after a lengthy investigation, also called into question the design & construction of the keel-hull joint, going so far as to say that mere hard ocean use alone could also possibly result in matrix/liner separation.

No, he put the blame on what he calls "incompetent and negligent" boat maintenance, mostly on not tight keel bolts and I would add that the not bonded matrix after 5 groundings it is also a problem of bad boat maintenance.

Originally Posted by Exile

Someone can & surely will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that properly designed keel bolts should never come loose, and will only do so if there is a more serious underlying problem. If true, then merely tightening them before or during a passage & calling it good ignores a much more serious & potentially deadly problem. Again, let me know if this is incorrect -- there's enough misinformation as it is and I surely don't want to perpetuate any errors.
..

It should be Neil correcting you on this but it seems that he chose only your post not stating the obvious: On a bolted keel, more often on a cruiser race or racing boat, the keel bolts should be checked regularly and yes, like any bolt designed to be unbolted and that is subjected to a lot of stress, vibration, shocks and movement it can lose its grip with time and become lose.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

It is hard to discuss with you since logic is not your strong point:



No, what I have said is that Sweden Yachts, Maxi Yachst and Arcona yachts are all high quality Sweden boats, in fact Arcona were by far the less expensive and "cheap" among those. What I said it was that if we consider the production of the three brands put together the number total of First sailboats produced it will be much bigger and the number of keels lost will be the same, so statistically the number of keels lost is way smaller on the First than on the global production of three of the brands that in Sweden built cruiser racers.

We are talking about keels, I am not talking about rudders.



These seems to show clearly that I was right and that you don't understand that all cruisers are not designed to the same design criteria and program. No, it has nothing to with being designed by Farr (the Oceanis are designed by some of the best NA on the planet) it has to do with design criteria and boat program.

The First is a cruiser-racer a boat designed to race and to cruise, a dual purpose boat and a good one with an extensive list of top victories. The fact of being a low tech cruising racer does not mean that it is designed the same way, according the same design program. The boat is designed to win races so it has to be lighter and more powerful. Being lighter and powerful, using the same materials, makes it a more delicate boat, needing more frequent inspections and more maintenance to have it on a seaworthy conditions.



It seems obvious to me: to show that a boat that needs more frequent inspections and maintenance (Open 60) does not mean that it is a less seaworthy one, if well maintained. It can be a more seaworthy one. Only the maintenance schedule is different.



Yes, full matrix like the one of the First 40.7 can offer a huge bonding area do their job and increase hull stiffness but in what regards repairs or inspections have some disadvantage.

But you are far from right when you say that in case of grounding and in need of repair a X yacht is easier to repair. The ones contemporary to the First 40.7 used a heat galvanised steel structure bonded or laminated to the hull. That is a strong solution but it is as strong as the bond to the hull and when you have a problem with that you have a huge problem. Besides steel even if galvanized is prone to rust in contact with salt water. That's why they have changed to a full carbon structure.

I think Arcona still uses a galvanized steel frame.

By any means I am not saying that Arconas or X-Yacht are badly built just that all systems have advantages and disadvantages. But I may add that I am happy that my boat does not use a steel structure. That is absolutely great for new boats but how many years will those galvanized steel structures last become rust creeps in? And when that happens what will happen to the bonding agents or laminated?

Of course that has a solution, the steel structure can be taken off the boat, galvanized again and bonded in place. Can you imagine the costs?

But the point here is not that I like particularly the First 40.7 or their building methods but that I find you are grossly exaggerating its seaworthiness or build quality to the point of saying that is not an offshore boat and that is pretty ridiculous to say of a boat that raced all the major offshore races, including multiple times the Sydney-Hobart.

Polux --

With respect, you & others seem to avail yourselves of this line of reasoning whenever a catastrophic failure on one of the less expensive boats comes up. It can be persuasive in certain situations I suppose, but all it says to me in this case is that these more expensive Swedish yachts you speak of (and I know nothing about) with keel problems should potentially be subject to the same conclusions reached about the 40.7. OR, the mfgs. should not release these boats for sale w/o some guidance & protocols for required maintenance intervals, AND/OR they should not be allowed to enjoy the CE A offshore rating. In other words, why not advocate for bringing the standards up vs. lowering them? Put another way, why should people who want an inexpensive yet well-performing, fast yacht like the Bene First not be entitled to the same basic safety standards as a more expensive yacht?

For me anyway, these debates have little to do with types, brands, cost, light vs. heavy, yada, yada, yada. Frankly, I don't think most boat buyers have this sort of sophistication & knowledge. I surely didn't. But if a mfg. wants to make a scaled-down Open 60 for the masses then so be it, but just be up front about the increased, more expensive service intervals as you suggest. No different from your Ferrari for use on the street as opposed to, say, a Chevy Camaro, except that street or track, the Ferrari will require more frequent & expensive maintenance. So long as the buyer is made aware of this, then so be it. But in the absence of any guidance or protocols, coupled with an "A" offshore rating, how is a typical boat buyer supposed to know how to maintain their keel-hull joints, or whether it requires any maintenance at all (short of a hard grounding, that is)?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

...

What the CR Loss Report brings up is the prospect of a serious & potentially deadly design defect by a mfg. ...

Can you post the part of the Report that refers a "design defect"?

Surely if it was that the case they would have pointed clearly that, as it was the case with the Bavaria Match 42 where all boats were called in and modified. If that was the case with Beneteau the same would happen.

I can only see references regarding inappropriate maintenance and critics regarding the non existence of a protocol in what concerns "identifying matrix detachment and conducting repairs, or on the circumstances that would necessitate keel removal".

I cannot see nothing on the report regarding anything other than the need of proper maintenance (and that includes the bond of the matrix) but certainly you will post the relevant part regarding a deadly design defect.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

Where have you been?

I think you misinterpreted what he wrote. We was not comparing types of keels just saying that both types of boats need maintenance. Quoting:

"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."

We are sailing so dont have the time to engage you in these interesting topics.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

Can you post the part of the Report that refers a "design defect"?

Surely if it was that the case they would have pointed clearly that, as it was the case with the Bavaria Match 42 where all boats were called in and modified. If that was the case with Beneteau the same would happen.

I can only see references regarding inappropriate maintenance and critics regarding the non existence of a protocol in what concerns "identifying matrix detachment and conducting repairs, or on the circumstances that would necessitate keel removal".

I cannot see nothing on the report regarding anything other than the need of proper maintenance (and that includes the bond of the matrix) but certainly you will post the relevant part regarding a deadly design defect.

Paolo,

The report says it will not assign blame therefore it cannot call out any responsible party. It can only make recommendations which it does.

But if after reading the report one cannot see any possibility of a design defect in the recommendations then I'm not sure what will convince. Any design that has a deadly failure mode with no adequate means of inspection and repair is defective by definition.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, he put the blame on what he calls "incompetent and negligent" boat maintenance, mostly on not tight keel bolts and I would add that the not bonded matrix after 5 groundings it is also a problem of bad boat maintenance.

I thought this is what I said. The first surveyor you cited blamed poor maintenance after all the groundings, but cited that exclusively. The final MAIB & RYA reports acknowledged this record, but concluded that the underlying problem was the poor design & construction of the joint itself, exacerbated by the use of the liner/matrix. The law would call the former the "proximate cause" of the failure, but the latter the "cause-in-fact." In other words, but for the improper & inadequate design & construction by the mfg., the groundings & resulting repairs may not have contributed to the failure.

Again, this particular side-issue is not about debating the reports' conclusions, but rather agreeing on what the various reports actually said.

It should be Neil correcting you on this but it seems that he chose only your post not stating the obvious: On a bolted keel, more often on a cruiser race or racing boat, the keel bolts should be checked regularly and yes, like any bolt designed to be unbolted and that is subjected to a lot of stress, vibration, shocks and movement it can lose its grip with time and become lose.

OK, fair enough as a function of routine maintenance. I stand corrected. But my understanding is that, in this case, most notably the photo of the upturned hull showing evidence of longstanding corrosion of some of the bolts, loose bolts would have been symptomatic of a problem with the hull-keel bond itself. No? How can corroded bolts reveal anything other than water ingress, which in turn means a failure of the underlying laminate and/or liner? The point I was making is that tightening up loose keel bolts as part of one's routine maintenance may be distracting one from a much more serious problem which is causing the keel bolts to come loose in the first place. Have I fairly stated this point in your mind now? I don't want anyone's heads to blow off here.

I'm sure Neil knows I have no personal dog in this fight and that I welcome corrections. He's done it before and will hopefully do it again!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Paolo,

The report says it will not assign blame therefore it cannot call out any responsible party. It can only make recommendations which it does.

But if after reading the report one cannot see any possibility of a design defect in the recommendations then I'm not sure what will convince. Any design that has a deadly failure mode with no adequate means of inspection and repair is defective by definition.

Thanks transmitterdam. You characterized this more accurately than I did. I overreached by suggesting the report formally concluded it was a design defect to blame, although I agree with you that this is a fair & logical conclusion to reach. And thanks Paulo for pointing this out.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Polux --

With respect, you & others seem to avail yourselves of this line of reasoning whenever a catastrophic failure on one of the less expensive boats comes up. It can be persuasive in certain situations I suppose, but all it says to me in this case is that these more expensive Swedish yachts you speak of (and I know nothing about) with keel problems should potentially be subject to the same conclusions reached about the 40.7. OR, the mfgs. should not release these boats for sale w/o some guidance & protocols for required maintenance intervals, AND/OR they should not be allowed to enjoy the CE A offshore rating. In other words, why not advocate for bringing the standards up vs. lowering them? Put another way, why should people who want an inexpensive yet well-performing, fast yacht like the Bene First not be entitled to the same basic safety standards as a more expensive yacht?

For me anyway, these debates have little to do with types, brands, cost, light vs. heavy, yada, yada, yada. Frankly, I don't think most boat buyers have this sort of sophistication & knowledge. I surely didn't. But if a mfg. wants to make a scaled-down Open 60 for the masses then so be it, but just be up front about the increased, more expensive service intervals as you suggest. No different from your Ferrari for use on the street as opposed to, say, a Chevy Camaro, except that street or track, the Ferrari will require more frequent & expensive maintenance. So long as the buyer is made aware of this, then so be it. But in the absence of any guidance or protocols, coupled with an "A" offshore rating, how is a typical boat buyer supposed to know how to maintain their keel-hull joints, or whether it requires any maintenance at all (short of a hard grounding, that is)?

You that defend a non regulated market think that it is not to the buyers to know what they are buying? Do you think that customers will not be able to distinguish between a Ferrari and a Ford Focus or between a Main market boat and a cruiser-racer?

If that is the case it will be a very misinformed sailor. I would say that someone before buying a boat should inform himself about boats and sailing, about what he wants from a sailing boat, the advantages and disadvantages of each type of sailboat for the given type of sailing he wants to do.

Regarding Sweden yachts it is odd you never heard about them. The Sweden yacht 42 was for many years my dream boat (the one that lost the keel), off course only a dream since it was one of the more expensive 42fts around.

"History of Sweden Yachts
It all started in 1976 with a yacht (Sverige) that was built for America’s Cup. Since then, Sweden Yachts has developed into being one of the world’s leading producers of luxurious, high quality sailing yachts, helping customers to find and participate in buying the boat of their dreams. Sweden Yachts is represented by people with ambitions to construct, produce and sell the best yachts, and they never compromise about quality.
The yard is located in Stenungsund Sweden, where they produce 25-30 yachts/year.."

Buy & Sell Used Boats - Boat Information - Boatmatch.com (Sweden)

As in all boats, **** can happen. Here you have a Sweden Yacht 45 going down with a rudder problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIZvq9sRKvo

and here you have a 54 sailing, a beautiful boat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Vk-mEOBjk

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

We are sailing so dont have the time to engage you in these interesting topics.

I suspected that. I will be doing the same in about 10 days or so...for the next 5 months. I will not be around anymore for a while

No topic is as interesting as real sailing. Have fun, fair winds