Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[transmitterdan]

No matter what you may read in this thread it is impossible for inspection to correct a design defect. The best inspection can do is take the boat out of service if failure is found. There is no periodic maintenance that can be done to prevent what happened to CR. The "maintenance" that some are constantly reiterating is in reality massive structural rebuilding of the hull/liner. And the report says there is no standardized recommendation of how to go about doing that. So can we get off this nonsense that periodic inspection or maintenance would have saved CR? The report doesn't say that at all and in fact says the opposite. The only way inspection could have saved that crew is if the inspector chained the boat to a tree.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

No matter what you may read in this thread it is impossible for inspection to correct a design defect. The best inspection can do is take the boat out of service if failure is found. ... So can we get off this nonsense that periodic inspection or maintenance would have saved CR? The report doesn't say that at all and in fact says the opposite. ...

Yes I agree let's stay out of this nonsense. You talk of an imaginary design defect as if the MAIB inspection had found one. Please post from the report the relevant part that talks about a design defect an about being it the responsible for the accident. Of course I had already ask you to do that and you couldn't simply because that is not true.

The report on its conclusions talks about the lack of a proper inspection, about the need of a proper protocol inspection and repair and about the boat not being properly repaired after a grounding. it does not talk (there or in any other part) about a design defect.

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...ort_8_2015.pdf

As I have stated many times almost all modern fiberglass, epoxy and carbon boats have a boat structure, integral or not, that takes the efforts from the keel and distribute them to the hull and is bonded to the hull (laminated or with a bonding agent). In any boat given time and very hard use there is a possibility of that bond to weaken so boats should be regularly inspected to verify the integrity of the bond. In cases of grounding any boat should be inspected immediately since the possibilities of that having happened are much bigger.

Regarding modern race boats and cruiser racers (like the First 40.7), due to their harder use and lighter build, they should be inspected more frequently and the chances of that happen are bigger. Anyway this is not a sudden process and with the exception grounding cases it takes several years for a bond to weaken, in that case that would happen.

It is not a sudden catastrophic process and regular maintenance and boat inspections with the repairs, if needed, will be enough to maintain any of these boats in seaworthiness condition.

This is not a defect, it is the way the boats are supposed to be, according with design.

[Polux]

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...

I find this quite funny

So he has a Oceanis 38 is very satisfied with the boat, had (if I am not mistaken) previously a Oceanis 381 and was obviously satisfied with the brand and build quality, otherwise would not have bought another Beneteau, so his opinion about the report is partial.

Gjorensen has a First 40.7 took the opportunity to clear some nonsense about backstays being able to break the boat, is certainly around here the one with more practical knowledge about the boat and nobody asked him if he had had problems with a debonded matrix on keel problems. It seems that is opinion even if relevant to this thread does not suit the agenda of Beneteau bashers.

Transmitterdam, Exile, Neil Pride, Minaret, Saltyhog, A64pilot, Zednotzee, Seymar, the more critics about Beneteau and regarding the First 40.7 are all owners of old boats.

I agree that being owner of a modern designed boat or an old designed boat can influence the way we look at advantages and disadvantages of each type of design but given the number of posters with old boats it is clear to what side the bias falls.

By the way MuckleFlugga what boat have you and from what year?

Regarding boat professionals I know some that have really old boats (mostly here) and I know many that would not have an outdated design, at least if they had the money to buy a newer one. I guess that preference for old shoes will also influence the way they look at the advantages and disadvantages regarding different methods of build and different design criteria.

[nigel1]

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding boat professionals I know some that have really old boats (mostly here) and I know many that would not have an outdated design, at least if they had the money to buy a newer one. I guess that preference for old shoes will also influence the way they look at the advantages and disadvantages regarding different methods of build and different design criteria.

I don't really think you have any right to make this type of assertion, you have no idea why people chose the boats they do. I know of some boat owners with more money than they know what to do with, sail boats more than 50 years old.

Lets keep the thread on track please.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by nigel1

I don't really think you have any right to make this type of assertion, you have no idea why people chose the boats they do. I know of some boat owners with more money than they know what to do with, sail boats more than 50 years old.
...

What is the difference in face value regarding that assertion, that it seems true to me even, if as all the generalizations have exceptions, regarding this one that was made previously:

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...

That assertion was a reply to this. Do you seem that an educated man like mstrebe, an engineer by trade, in what regards analyzing a MAIB report has a biased capacity because he owns a Beneteau? and for having an opinion about it should hear first the comments of less educated people regarding what is black and white stated on that report?

Anyway what I said is just a personal opinion that in Europe, that was what I was referring, I see confirmed by facts. Cannot express politely my personal opinion about that? What is wrong with that?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by nigel1

I don't really think you have any right to make this type of assertion, you have no idea why people chose the boats they do. I know of some boat owners with more money than they know what to do with, sail boats more than 50 years old.

Lets keep the thread on track please.

Fortunately the links provided in the first few posts of this thread will take a reader to pertinent excerpts of the MAIB report and the report itself, and that is a more productive way of reaching one's own conclusion than many of the postings that followed. Or should we investigate what types of boats the MAIB inspectors own???

OK, back on track, but maybe it will help to try and eliminate some distracting side-shows:

Design Defect -- The MAIB report makes it clear that, with no survivors & no boat left to inspect, any findings are necessarily speculative & anecdotal. Unfortunately, this is all too often the case with incidents like this.

Five other 40.7's were physically inspected and they all showed signs of keel-hull separation. "Much" other anecdotal information of similar failures on 40.7's was received & noted by the investigators but not physically investigated. Of the five boats that were inspected, all of them showed signs of failure due to groundings.

Critically (imho), three of these inspected boats also showed signs of failure due to hard sailing alone (what the report referred to as "slamming"). I personally characterize this as critical because, based on the limited communications from the CR crew prior to their capsize, there was no evidence that hitting some sort of submerged object was the immediate cause of the leaks & ultimate keel loss. In fact, while there were undisputedly prior groundings & repairs, the fact that the repairs were deficient is also an assumption based on this record. It is equally plausible, as has been explained by a couple of the pros on this thread, that the matrix separation the report discussed is not adequately repairable absent an entire re-design of the structure surrounding the joint. Again, not something really knowable as a definitive matter but equally plausible based on the anecdotal record.

Now for the side-show part of this. I mistakenly attributed the words "design defect" & related language as a formal conclusion made by the MAIB report. I've acknowledged -- twice already -- that this was in error and appreciate Polux catching me on this. This is not the aviation or even automotive scenario where specific model units, their incidence of failures, the types of repairs being made, etc. are carefully catalogued & tracked. Notwithstanding, I believe it's a rational, logical, & rather obvious conclusion to make informally, especially given the report's findings that hard sailing alone has caused failures (based in part on physical inspections Polux! ), properly inspecting the area is difficult & expensive, and that there is no established protocol for repair. Enough said . . . people can read the relevant excerpts from the report and make up their own minds.

More Expensive Boats With Rudder Problems -- Not sure how the Sweden boat or others is relevant to the report's findings on the 40.7. If there is a pattern of failures, an absence of an inspection/service interval from the mfg., and it's impossible or impracticable to make repairs at an average boatyard, then I'd say it should receive similar scrutiny as the 40.7. What does boat price have to do with any of this, btw? For e.g., if I learned there was any sort of pattern of encapsulated keel failures on Bristol 47.7's -- whether it be 5 or the entire run of 75 -- would I be looking for a solution or merely assuaging my concerns by finding out about a Hinckley or two with a similar problem? For that matter, would the fact that only a few Bristol's suffered the problem cause me to blow off a potential problem with mine?? On the flip side, would my approach brand me a Bristol-basher?? Or how about a basher of all traditional boats from the era?? Sometimes I just don't understand the illogic expressed in these threads.

Beach Geology -- Uhhh . . . well . . . since Muckle F. has wisely said his peace & bowed out, any further discussion/debate might have to be b'twn. Polux & Polux's mirror.

Boat Bias -- Unlike the family mini-van, boats are objects of function and passion, so many of us have it. I know I do! But most can also put it in proper perspective and recognize that many of the concerns expressed -- in this thread anyway -- are motivated by an understandable response to an otherwise popular, well-performing boat with an all-oceans rating suffering a catastrophic failure of a critical system which resulted in the loss of four lives. Besides, impugning motives for such superficial reasons is hardly persuasive.

Now enough with the red herrings, back to the main show!

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

The report on its conclusions talks about the lack of a proper inspection, about the need of a proper protocol inspection and repair and about the boat not being properly repaired after a grounding. it does not talk (there or in any other part) about a design defect.

As I have stated many times almost all modern fiberglass, epoxy and carbon boats have a boat structure, integral or not, that takes the efforts from the keel and distribute them to the hull and is bonded to the hull (laminated or with a bonding agent). In any boat given time and very hard use there is a possibility of that bond to weaken so boats should be regularly inspected to verify the integrity of the bond. In cases of grounding any boat should be inspected immediately since the possibilities of that having happened are much bigger.

Regarding modern race boats and cruiser racers (like the First 40.7), due to their harder use and lighter build, they should be inspected more frequently and the chances of that happen are bigger. Anyway this is not a sudden process and with the exception grounding cases it takes several years for a bond to weaken, in that case that would happen.

This is not a defect, it is the way the boats are supposed to be, according with design.

And how do you suggest these inspection should be carried out? The manufacturer gives instructions for repairs if or when something shows up but not any protocol for inspections. But as you say it's not a defect, some boat's just are disposable

[hellosailor]

To those who suggest commercial aircraft are robust and safe etcetera, may I suggest watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIsbSz03WdU

An incredible video demonstrating the strength of the DC9 fuselage and tail assembly.


The DC9 of course is not alone. The "reliable" 747 had a long international history of fires in the center fuel tank, including one that burnt to the ground while at an airport jetway prior to the TWA800 disaster, in the same year. And you may have conveniently forgotten, when the FAA finally took note of the "weakness" it gave airlines TEN YEARS in which to address the problem, ten years during which they were allowed to just use caution.


Then there's the Lockheed Electra, known as a flying death trap in the early days. After a couple of structural revisions, it wound up a 50-year career on the northeast shuttle routes, beloved by all, before the last ones went down to South America where they are still flying.


And there's the auto industry, where Ralph Nader was famous for wrongfully killing off the Corvair. Which was built like Porsche with a rear engine, so the skid tendencies were very different from conventional cars. Both cars were considered killers--for a long time--until enthusiasts got the point across, that you just have to know they are different, and act accordingly.


Boats? Racing boats? If you want 'em safe, build Nerf Boats. Heck, made a one-design Nerf Boat Racing Class.


But last time I heard, it was always the captain's responsibility to check out his craft. Blimp, boat, or airliner. They're all built to limits, and if you get on without any understanding of those limits, or the operating condition of the vessel, well...."You must be this tall to ride this ride."


Last thing we need are more government regulations because fools are using the power toys.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

I find this quite funny

So he has a Oceanis 38 is very satisfied with the boat, had (if I am not mistaken) previously a Oceanis 381 and was obviously satisfied with the brand and build quality, otherwise would not have bought another Beneteau, so his opinion about the report is partial.

Gjorensen has a First 40.7 took the opportunity to clear some nonsense about backstays being able to break the boat, is certainly around here the one with more practical knowledge about the boat and nobody asked him if he had had problems with a debonded matrix on keel problems. It seems that is opinion even if relevant to this thread does not suit the agenda of Beneteau bashers.

Transmitterdam, Exile, Neil Pride, Minaret, Saltyhog, A64pilot, Zednotzee, Seymar, the more critics about Beneteau and regarding the First 40.7 are all owners of old boats.

I agree that being owner of a modern designed boat or an old designed boat can influence the way we look at advantages and disadvantages of each type of design but given the number of posters with old boats it is clear to what side the bias falls.

By the way MuckleFlugga what boat have you and from what year?

Regarding boat professionals I know some that have really old boats (mostly here) and I know many that would not have an outdated design, at least if they had the money to buy a newer one. I guess that preference for old shoes will also influence the way they look at the advantages and disadvantages regarding different methods of build and different design criteria.

This is a giant Ignorant post from you, as many of those post from you, without any significant experience to back up your assertions, be a pro armchair google finder dont make your post more logical, if we own a old boat is because we like those old boats , new boats or whatever float and sail, then for your information i think we make it very clear in Smack dadys last topic, is not about modern or perfomance v Old and slow, is about quality and skillwork, i dont have any personal hate against any boat in particular, i hate crap and bad quality, Beneteau in particular is in sight lately, but hey they work hard to get that, im the kind of person that if i dont know the procedure or the facts normally i shut up and learn from others, you dont have any kind of experience in the field , nil, 0 nada, apart from
tap tap tap your keyboard with nosense stuff, if you dont know something, ask, learn, but trying to sound Smart without justification is embarrasing for you.... look i have enough financial resources to enjoy a modern design boat, kind your trying to say we are poor old bastards dusty yard boys with the only expectations of old junk, hee? i own a 50 % rigging shop, i have a 35 % participation in a glass workshop, and the licenses to opérate any kind of bussines related to boats, i own a boat, a old one, but not in purpose, this boat come to me like a great deal and i say why not, i own a 40 c&c in the past, a melges, and a Northwind... so is not about money Mr Pólux, Minaret own a large Nauticat, and he put a large amount of cash in the last refit instead of put the money in a plastic fantastic production thing, not a poor folk hee...

So please educate yourself in the field instead of Google, you cant make assertions about pan liners and those keels simply because you never attempt a repair or inspection there, is quite funny...

Back on keels....

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

...

Five other 40.7's were physically inspected and they all showed signs of keel-hull separation. ...Of the five boats that were inspected, all of them showed signs of failure due to groundings.

Critically (imho), three of these inspected boats also showed signs of failure due to hard sailing alone (what the report referred to as "slamming"). ....

I believe you don't make it on purpose but your interpretation of what the say is wrong. They don't say what you state they say.

Regarding the five 40.7 inspected you give the idea that they were randomly chosen. No they were chosen because they suffered matrix detachment and were waiting to be repaired. From the 5 four had matrix detachment resulting from grounding. Only one of the boats visited had not been presumably grounded and that one showed only signs of forward matrix detachment, not on the keel zone.

From the 4 boats that suffered grounding only 2 showed matrix detachement on the forward section that presumably was not attributed to the groundings.

Of course it is impossible to say if the forward matrix detachement had resulted from the grounding or not and in what regards slamming they don't say that they "showed signs of failure due to hard sailing alone (what the report referred to as "slamming")", what they say is this:

"Areas notable for detachment were in the forward sections of the matrix, commonly attributed to the vessel slamming, and the area around and aft of where the keel is attached to the hull, commonly attributed to the vessel grounding."

There is a big difference between saying that the matrix detachment on the forward section is "commonly attributed to the vessel slamming" and saying that they result from slamming.

The forces on a grounding on the keel can be very different depending of many factors and it is impossible to say on a boat that shows signs of matrix detachment due to a grounding if on the forward section the detachment was a result of the grounding or not. If it was so they would have said what you have posted and not what they said.

Words have a very precise meaning and on the report they are very careful regarding what they say. For the sake of the discussion you should be too

[transmitterdan]

Was this passage/boat insured? If so the insurance investigation may reveal much. And they won't be hindered by the charter of the MAIB. MAIB report cannot assign blame or causality as part of its charter. The insurance company can and probably will.

[Brob2]

Originally Posted by Polux

I don't know what is your sailing boat or if you have one but the anybody that knows something about boats know that Sweden yachts are very good boats, fast and stiff. A 45ft is too big for me. The one I loved was the 42, this one:

I put emoticons in my post so you could see my tongue was in cheek, and then you take a shot at my sailing credentials for doing so. I was trying to add levity to a ridiculously tense discussion. Little wonder that some think you're a troll.

For the record, I have been sailing and racing non stop since I was 4, grew up on boats cruising the north eastern coast of North America, and have been a boat owner continually since 14 when I bought a Laser before graduating to keelboats. My last boat was a Jeanneau SO 36.2 I bought new, from a brand you often defend, but now, after some 45 years of sailing I have had to give it up due to a rather nasty heart condition that won't get better, and I now sail with friends, the kids I grew up with at my sailing club, who are also still sailors.

Despite a life time of sailing my knowledge of many things related to cruising pales to that of many here who are true voyagers and I have learned much from them. The technical and cruising grounds experience they offer and their stories I still find interesting. On the other hand, since you question my background, I must say I would match my boat knowledge against yours in a second, particularly since many of your assertions seem based on a myopic stubbornness that fails in the face of common sense. My two cents.

Finally, that SY54 does indeed appear to be very tender in that video. Must be a shallow draft version. Still a lovely boat, which drew a KIDDING comment from me.

[mstrebe]

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!

I'm engaged in this conversation because I find it useful to help me think through all the things that could go wrong with my boat. Vigorous debate distills a lot of useful information, and it's very easy for me to read past ad hominem attacks and irrational invective because I'm not arguing to "win", I'm analyzing to keep from losing far more than a debate on a forum.

All humans suffer from confirmation bias, and the only thing we can do to counter it is recognize that we suffer from it and listen openly to dissenting opinions and evaluate them on their merits. I've already added keel bolt inspection to my annual preventative maintenance schedule because of this thread, so it has done good for me. I'm also putting a dab of glue on one side of each bolt to indicate any rotation.

Also, I'm not particularly interested in defending the 40.7, as that's not the boat I own. My boat was designed in 2014, more than 20 years later, and by a different naval architecture firm. Lessons, including this one, have been learned. Regulations have also improved.

The keel bolts on my boat are far larger than the 40.7 and they bolt into a much larger cross beam structure that distributes load across more of the hull laminate in all directions.

There are a lot of safety features I like about my boat. I like the fact that is floats fully flooded, keel attached. I like the fact that it's companionway is above the waterline when floating on either side.

In my opinion, you don't leave a boat until the boat leaves you. Why was the CR found but it's crew wasn't? My assumption in the absence of facts is that, like many instances, they abandoned too soon. The idea that an inflatable life raft in a storm is a better idea than a flooded but still floating floating hull is the sad product of panic. Get your lifeboat ready, maybe even be in it with a dock line holding you to the hull ready to release, but don't leave that hull until you absolutely must if there's a chance it will remain afloat.

I'm not a naval architect. So I don't bring any more specific experience to this thread than anyone else here. If I can point out something useful to someone else, then I've contributed and I'm happy about that. While I've lived at sea underway for years, and spent many weeks in F12 storms on two Navy Cruisers, my boat is a Southern California Weekender, not yet a live-aboard cruiser. I've been a day sailor for twenty years, but I still have a lot to learn. I only really know the SoCal area, which is reef-less, nearly stormless, and well trod. The biggest problem here is kelp.

I have yet to venture into unmarked territory. While I learned celestial navigation more than half my life ago and have been reading paper charts since 18, I tend to rely far too strongly on instruments.

The purpose of this forum is to trade ideas, and this thread has accomplished that. It serves the memory of the lost at sea that we all try so hard not to follow them thoughtlessly into the deep.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by mstrebe

I'm engaged in this conversation because I find it useful to help me think through all the things that could go wrong with my boat. Vigorous debate distills a lot of useful information, and it's very easy for me to read past ad hominem attacks and irrational invective because I'm not arguing to "win", I'm analyzing to keep from losing far more than a debate on a forum.

All humans suffer from confirmation bias, and the only thing we can do to counter it is recognize that we suffer from it and listen openly to dissenting opinions and evaluate them on their merits. I've already added keel bolt inspection to my annual preventative maintenance schedule because of this thread, so it has done good for me. I'm also putting a dab of glue on one side of each bolt to indicate any rotation.

Also, I'm not particularly interested in defending the 40.7, as that's not the boat I own. My boat was designed in 2014, more than 20 years later, and by a different naval architecture firm. Lessons, including this one, have been learned. Regulations have also improved.

The keel bolts on my boat are far larger than the 40.7 and they bolt into a much larger cross beam structure that distributes load across more of the hull laminate in all directions.

There are a lot of safety features I like about my boat. I like the fact that is floats fully flooded, keel attached. I like the fact that it's companionway is above the waterline when floating on either side.

In my opinion, you don't leave a boat until the boat leaves you. Why was the CR found but it's crew wasn't? My assumption in the absence of facts is that, like many instances, they abandoned too soon. The idea that an inflatable life raft in a storm is a better idea than a flooded but still floating floating hull is the sad product of panic. Get your lifeboat ready, maybe even be in it with a dock line holding you to the hull ready to release, but don't leave that hull until you absolutely must if there's a chance it will remain afloat.

I'm not a naval architect. So I don't bring any more specific experience to this thread than anyone else here. If I can point out something useful to someone else, then I've contributed and I'm happy about that. While I've lived at sea underway for years, and spent many weeks in F12 storms on two Navy Cruisers, my boat is a Southern California Weekender, not yet a live-aboard cruiser. I've been a day sailor for twenty years, but I still have a lot to learn. I only really know the SoCal area, which is reef-less, nearly stormless, and well trod. The biggest problem here is kelp.

I have yet to venture into unmarked territory. While I learned celestial navigation more than half my life ago and have been reading paper charts since 18, I tend to rely far too strongly on instruments.

The purpose of this forum is to trade ideas, and this thread has accomplished that. It serves the memory of the lost at sea that we all try so hard not to follow them thoughtlessly into the deep.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

For god shake mate, please read the full history cmon, the CG found the hull turtle without the keel and the liferaft tied in the cokpit, are you sugesting they jump in the ocean leaving the liferaft in place?? they dont have a second to react under the keel drama...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

I believe you don't make it on purpose but your interpretation of what the say is wrong. They don't say what you state they say.

Why of course, Polux. I'm misinterpreting the report, I'm biased because I own a different type of boat, I have a "thing" against all boats of this particular brand, more expensive boats have also suffered keel failures, most 40.7's have not suffered keel failures, boats are designed for sailing not grounding, boat owners are negligent for not performing proper maintenance, the yard guys don't know what they're talking about, the rocks & sand on the beach are softer than they look. Have I missed one of your cogent retorts? If not, then certainly I've misstated another one or two, no?

Regarding the five 40.7 inspected you give the idea that they were randomly chosen. No they were chosen because they suffered matrix detachment and were waiting to be repaired. From the 5 four had matrix detachment resulting from grounding. Only one of the boats visited had not been presumably grounded and that one showed only signs of forward matrix detachment, not on the keel zone.

No, I did not! I have no idea how the boats were chosen since the portion of the report I read & directly quoted from doesn't indicate this. I also have no idea where the inspectors received all the other anecdotal information they cited about 40.7's with keel failures in addition to the five boats they physically inspected. It frankly never occurred to me! Maybe because it's not relevant? If you have additional information please quote it from the report. I will no longer take your word for it because you have already misstated (and failed to correct) the report by claiming that the boats with evidence of matrix failure attributed to "slamming" were never physically inspected. This is not a question of whether you happen to agree with the report's finding in this regard, but rather whether the boats the report concluded had failures not attributable to groundings were physically inspected. The report says several were in fact inspected and you stated they were not. Correct yourself. Trust me, it'll all still be OK.

From the 4 boats that suffered grounding only 2 showed matrix detachement on the forward section that presumably was not attributed to the groundings.

Of course it is impossible to say if the forward matrix detachement had resulted from the grounding or not and in what regards slamming they don't say that they "showed signs of failure due to hard sailing alone (what the report referred to as "slamming")", what they say is this:

"Areas notable for detachment were in the forward sections of the matrix, commonly attributed to the vessel slamming, and the area around and aft of where the keel is attached to the hull, commonly attributed to the vessel grounding."

There is a big difference between saying that the matrix detachment on the forward section is "commonly attributed to the vessel slamming" and saying that they result from slamming.

So the distinction you're trying to tell us should make a difference, with regard to a CE A, all oceans/offshore rated vessel, is the distinction between a forward matrix detachment of the keel caused by hard sailing, as opposed to one which is commonly attributed to hard sailing? OK, I get it. Huh.

So let's follow your logic through and say that I own a 40.7. Probably well used given the age of these boats and I'm not fully aware of the prior history. But it's only had one PO and I know the guy -- very diligent and I'm reasonably confident it's never suffered anything more than a couple of soft groundings, pretty much inevitable given the thin waters around the area we sail. It's marketed as a "racer-cruiser" and that's exactly how the PO used it. Long-distance cruising with the family on vacations and then hard racing on the weekends. So let's see now . . . I've read pertinent excerpts from the CR MAIB report, and even suffered through many of the painfully illogical portions of this thread so I didn't miss anything. Hmmmm . . . groundings are a concern but hard to say whether these coupla soft ones I suspect happened really count. But wait, Exile cites the report as saying that, along with groundings, hard sailing a/k/a "slamming" can also be a cause of keel failure, albeit in the fwd vs. the aft sections of the keel. Uh-oh, that doesn't sound good -- at a minimum the boat has definitely been sailed hard. But hold the phone! -- eureka! -- happy days! -- thanks to Polux the exact wording from the report says that such failures are only commonly attributed to hard sailing, not necessarily caused by it! So what's all the fuss about? The experts say that the possibility of keel detachment, immediate capsize, and potential drowning are only commonly attributed to the type of sailing my new-to-me boat has been subjected to as opposed to being directly caused by it! No need to go through any trouble now, right?

The forces on a grounding on the keel can be very different depending of many factors and it is impossible to say on a boat that shows signs of matrix detachment due to a grounding if on the forward section the detachment was a result of the grounding or not. If it was so they would have said what you have posted and not what they said.

No Polux. "Commonly attributed" is a far cry from "impossible to say." You are playing some word games here to try and mitigate -- without any authority and for reasons that escape me -- the possibility that these boats could suffer catastrophic keel detachments from hard sailing/slamming alone. But obviously without a grounding, there is no external cause to point to, no neglected maintenance to blame the owner or charter co. for, no botched repair to attribute to the yard guys, and most importantly for you apparently, no way to exculpate the mfg.

Words have a very precise meaning and on the report they are very careful regarding what they say. For the sake of the discussion you should be too

Indeed. So why don't you tell us why you incorrectly claimed that none of the boats that were found to have suffered forward matrix detachments commonly attributed to hard sailing or, if you prefer, "slamming," had been physically inspected? Was it an attempt to cast doubt on a part of the report you didn't agree with? Or is it that hard sailing or slamming, unlike insufficiently repaired groundings, is exactly what this boat is designed & rated for?