Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[Tayana42]

Originally Posted by minaret

I think anyone fresh to this debate would be confused by Polux' attitude, as Muckle Flugga clearly was. I think this is because he and others are probably unaware of the amount of effort Polux has put into arguing this point on other threads. He is extremely invested in this at this point, and the MAIB report directly contradicts him on what he has spent many months insisting he knows more about than anyone else on the Internet. Of course he wants to continue to argue the point, despite the mounting evidence backing everything the industry pros on this board have been telling him for a long time now. It's just who he is. Waste more breath arguing with him if you like, but it stopped being funny quite a while back. He will just keep saying the same thing over and over, facts and evidence be damned, no matter what.

He is the same guy who on another sailing site argued on and on with Robert Perry about modern boat design.


S/V B'Shert

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

He is the same guy who on another sailing site argued on and on with Robert Perry about modern boat design.


S/V B'Shert

Yeah i remember that, a tough discusión with Bob Perry about boat design despite is not a NA by fact, Bob just give it up after a dozen of posts....

[minaret]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Yeah i remember that, a tough discusión with Bob Perry about boat design despite is not a NA by fact, Bob just give it up after a dozen of posts....

As should we all. This dead horse has been beaten to mush. It's all right there in the report, for anyone with any degree of comprehension.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by minaret

I think anyone fresh to this debate would be confused by Polux' attitude, as Muckle Flugga clearly was. I think this is because he and others are probably unaware of the amount of effort Polux has put into arguing this point on other threads. He is extremely invested in this at this point, and the MAIB report directly contradicts him on what he has spent many months insisting he knows more about than anyone else on the Internet. Of course he wants to continue to argue the point, despite the mounting evidence backing everything the industry pros on this board have been telling him for a long time now. It's just who he is. Waste more breath arguing with him if you like, but it stopped being funny quite a while back. He will just keep saying the same thing over and over, facts and evidence be damned, no matter what.

x2

[neilpride]

Gotcha!! i think is time to get out of here, as you say, all is there in the report!! Cheers..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Yeah i remember that, a tough discusión with Bob Perry about boat design despite is not a NA by fact, Bob just give it up after a dozen of posts....

Yes we all know that Bob Perry is known for designing today contemporary boats and his today one of the best NA, one of those that makes Yacht Naval Architecture progress in what regards boat design development. Here is his last design:

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Nice try. I invite you to tour my stick built tartan. Only liner is in the head.

Maybe your's is really an old boat. More recent ones were made like this:

"Hull is infused under vacuum and the structure is laminated....

http://www.faralloneyachts.com/resou...00ccrspecs.pdf

The structure that takes the efforts of the keel is also commonly refereed as grid linear, in fact Neil calls it liners always.

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes we all know that Bob Perry is known for designing today contemporary boats and his today one of the best NA, one of those that makes Yacht Naval Architecture progress in what regards boat design development. Here is his last design:

Well Bob Perry is a virtuoso. He also builds to order so looks like he was commissioned to build a graceful, easily driven, sailboat. Not every new boat has to look like a pizza wedge in order to shoehorn accommodations in. Narrow and tapered ends still is easiest driven especially in light air when HP is limited.

Oh wait, I just engaged you again on this topic in which you have a single view based on exhaustive Internet research. I'm out also.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Yet another one of your long list of straw men, I'm afraid. So in the absence of online critique & comment, you're saying that builders & designers would not engage in damage limitation?? Who other than owners/buyers, along with maybe insurance cos. & journalists perhaps, will attempt to uncover and hopefully induce solutions? Bright sunshine, albeit with with some cloud cover, is far better than living in the dark. Hopefully you agree.

This statement:

"Kneejerk reactions and online comment can ruin any chance of an open discussion about possible causes and frequently only serve to drive the issue underground as those in the firing line, such as builders and designers, engage in damage limitation."

regarding the negative effect of forum discussions with wild assumptions and false "facts" (like all the nonexistent "facts" that some erroneously had stated the report had said) is not an assumption of mine but from a well known and respected journalist. Is he a straw man? He was the one that wrote a very critic article regarding keels liability To my opinion he is right regarding the typical forum discussion and this one is a good example of a typical one.

Originally Posted by Exile

It does (have a built defect). Not explicitly by the limitations of MAIB's charter as transmitterdam has already explained, but by any sense of the term except purely pedantic & overly legal.

It is extraordinary that you insist on this. Yes the MAIB does not consider that there is a boat defect on the report, legally it has not but even so you state without doubt that the boat has a defective design and building

Originally Posted by Exile

Despite all the time spent parsing these numbers, I'm not sure how relevant it all is for purposes of this discussion, if at all. The numbers may be low, but this is almost always the case. How many others are out there with problems that may never be discovered except when it's too late?

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

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

What we know is that they had some anecdotal non confirmed information that other boats had signs of matrix detachement. We don't know how many boats out of the 800 and if those boats suffered groundings or not.

But we now that contrary to what happened on the lost keel of the Bavaria Match 42 there was not a considerable number of owners that come to internet stating that they had found on their boats signs of problems on the keel attachment related with the fragility that lead to that accident.

The number of First 40.7 built is 10 times superior to the ones of the Bavaria Match 42 and even so I don't know of a single owner complaining about that, at least on internet, as it was the case with the Bavaria.

So, without information what leads you to say that "this is almost always the case"? I would say evidence points to the opposite, with just some of the 850 boats having matrix detachement, most of them after groundings.

Originally Posted by Exile

... I think there's an engineering term for a structure that may have a low incidence of failure but a high probability of catastrophic consequences should it occur....(the detachement of the matrix is a sudden and catastrophic process )...It tragically was on Cheeki Rafiki.

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

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

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

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

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

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Polux

This statement:

"Kneejerk reactions and online comment can ruin any chance of an open discussion about possible causes and frequently only serve to drive the issue underground as those in the firing line, such as builders and designers, engage in damage limitation."

regarding the negative effect of forum discussions with wild assumptions and false "facts" (like all the nonexistent "facts" that some erroneously had stated the report had said) is not an assumption of mine but from a well known and respected journalist. Is he a straw man? He was the one that wrote a very critic article regarding keels liability To my opinion he is right regarding the typical forum discussion and this one is a good example of a typical one.



It is extraordinary that you insist on this. Yes the MAIB does not consider that there is a boat defect on the report, legally it has not but even so you state without doubt that the boat has a defective design and building



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

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

What we know is that they had some anecdotal non confirmed information that other boats had signs of matrix detachement. We don't know how many boats out of the 800 and if those boats suffered groundings or not.

But we now that contrary to what happened on the lost keel of the Bavaria Match 42 there was not a considerable number of owners that come to internet stating that they had found on their boats signs of problems on the keel attachment related with the fragility that lead to that accident.

The number of First 40.7 built is 10 times superior to the ones of the Bavaria Match 42 and even so I don't know of a single owner complaining about that, at least on internet, as it was the case with the Bavaria.

So, without information what leads you to say that "this is almost always the case"? I would say evidence points to the opposite, with just some of the 850 boats having matrix detachement, most of them after groundings.



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

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

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

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

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

For the last time, the defect is that it is extremely difficult and expensive to inspect for this kind of damage, and when found it is extremely difficult and expensive to repair. CR, for instance, if they had done ultrasound or thermal imaging followed by full repair/modification, as you suggest, would have had at least several times the value of the boat into repairs and inspection. This is the defect. A lightweight structure which damages easily yet is almost impossible to inspect for damage or repair is simply not smart. It's a throwaway boat. It's very simple, and everyone here understands it except you. If it's cheaper to buy a new boat than it is to effect repairs, there is a flaw in the design.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by minaret

For the last time, the defect is that it is extremely difficult and expensive to inspect for this kind of damage, and when found it is extremely difficult and expensive to repair. CR, for instance, if they had done ultrasound or thermal imaging followed by full repair/modification, as you suggest, would have had at least several times the value of the boat into repairs and inspection. This is the defect. A lightweight structure which damages easily yet is almost impossible to inspect for damage or repair is simply not smart. It's a throwaway boat. It's very simple, and everyone here understands it except you. If it's cheaper to buy a new boat than it is to effect repairs, there is a flaw in the design.

Second that!

Besides, 5 boat of 800 is evidence enough for Polux if they have crossed an ocean or two ,but the same amount falling apart is not enough to prove him there's something wrong

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Maybe your's is really an old boat. More recent ones were made like this:

"Hull is infused under vacuum and the structure is laminated....

http://www.faralloneyachts.com/resou...00ccrspecs.pdf

The structure that takes the efforts of the keel is also commonly refereed as grid linear, in fact Neil calls it liners always.

By David Pascoe, marine surveyor..

Hence the liner has evolved to the term "grid/liner" where the function of the liner is included to take over the role of conventional framing systems such as individually laid up glass-on-wood stringers. Surveyors know that working with liners can cause problems, not only with access for inspection of the internal hull - often they make large parts of the hull inaccessible - but because of the difficulties imposed by the design for bonding the liner to the hull. If the surveyor can't reach the areas, neither can the builder, and so the manner in which it is attached to the hull has to be suspect unless proven otherwise

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes we all know that Bob Perry is known for designing today contemporary boats and his today one of the best NA, one of those that makes Yacht Naval Architecture progress in what regards boat design development. Here is his last design:

Paolo,

Please do a google search for the number of keels and crew lost on Perry designed boats.

[neilpride]

Last keel creature from Mr Perry.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

For the last time, the defect is that it is extremely difficult and expensive to inspect for this kind of damage, and when found it is extremely difficult and expensive to repair. ....

So for you this is a defect not an inconvenience?

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

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

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