The Yard Guys

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I think that you are misinterpreting the term "replacement value". It has nothing to do with what the boat might reasonably sell for. It is an estimate of the cost of reproducing the boat from scratch. And in this light, I think (without specific knowledge) that those replacement values are reasonable, at least ballpark accuracies. So, instead of "making 1.2 million" you could consider it SAVING 1.2 million over the cost of having a brand new Nauticat 52 built for you.

Jim

In insurance replacement value is the value that would be needed to replace the vessel for another similar in identical condition or to bring it to that condition if that would not exceed the replacement value. Insurers (car and boat) have agreed values for all the car and boats on the market for all the years. Those values are standard and used by all insurance companies. If the recovery of the boat is superior to the replacement value then it will be considered a total loss and the money correspondent to the replacement cost will be delivered to the boat's owner.

"Replacement cost is the actual cost to replace an item or structure at its pre-loss condition".

Replacement value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Thus, and notwithstanding Smack's cheerleading, which boats dropped out, or did or didn't suffer failures in a manufactured event such as the ARC, is interesting but almost ludicrous as far as leading to any conclusions.

Why is that ludicrous? Those are real, verifiable numbers over many years. No spin whatsoever.

What "real, verifiable numbers" do you use for your conclusions that might, too, be "almost ludicrous"?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

In insurance replacement value is the value that would be needed to replace the vessel for another similar in identical condition. Insurers (car and boat) have agreed values for all the car and boats on the market for all the years. Those values are standard and used by all insurance companies.

"Replacement cost is the actual cost to replace an item or structure at its pre-loss condition".

Replacement value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect. What governs is how these terms are expressly defined in insurance contracts & survey reports, not generic defns. from online dictionaries.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Incorrect. What governs is how these terms are expressly defined in insurance contracts & survey reports, not generic defns. from online dictionaries.

...or sailing forums.

[smackdaddy]

Weavis - I didn't understand that last post of yours. Was it about insurance?

I personally think there is a lot of hope for Exile. He's a smart guy - and a lot of fun in a debate.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Why is that ludicrous? Those are real, verifiable numbers over many years. No spin whatsoever.

What "real, verifiable numbers" do you use for your conclusions that might, too, be "almost ludicrous"?

Don't have any, nor would I profess to. My guess is you'll never find anything credible because of all the variables as I've already pointed out. Kinda like the lists of "longest-lasting cars on the road." It's just those that are still out there with 100 or 200+ thousand miles. It may certainly be relevant to build quality & durability, but too many other factors to say conclusively.

This is exactly why, in my opinion, a consensus amongst the yard guys & other qualified techy people is so important, along with the experiences of long-time cruisers. If/when you become so qualified, then your bold opinions will carry more weight.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

...or sailing forums.

Don't take my word for it, look at your own insurance agreement & survey! After you're done organizing & labeling your boat wiring, that is.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

This is exactly why, in my opinion, a consensus amongst the yard guys & other qualified techy people is so important, along with the experiences of long-time cruisers. If/when you become so qualified, then your bold opinions will carry more weight.

Again, I personally think that depends on the yard guy. There are very good ones and not very good ones.

For example, you mention "variables". One yard guy may be very experienced in fiberglass work - having worked on many older boats for many years. That work will likely lead him to very strong opinions based on how he does his own job. But that has little to do with the larger picture beyond his own job.

In other words, he may be the best glass tabbing dude in the world. And that tabbing experience will inform his opinions about "proper glass tabbing". But how does that translate to new adhesive techniques, carbon laminates, whatever? Usually, it doesn't very well unless he's all over the newer technologies on a continual basis. Many times it becomes a situation where if it's not done the way he's always done it - it's no good. That's kind of human nature.

So, as shown with my own first-hand experience with bad yard guys, you just have to weigh their opinions against others out there that might be saying something completely different. For example, I wish I had taken my electrical work to Neil - not the bonehead that left that rat's nest in my bilge after assuring me he knew what he was doing.

You need absolutely no experience to research and weigh various opinions.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I think the bottom line issue is that you guys simply don't accept the rating. In other words, your ideas/preferences of tankage (e.g. - the requirement of a genset and a water-maker) drive your lack of belief in the rating system itself. This is likely for many reasons from your "blue water dogma" to distrust of "gubmint" to whatever.

But, your ideas, your preferences, are actually the things that are very misguided in this particular conversation.

Are gensets and watermakers nice to have? Sure, they are luxurious. Do they provide an additional layer of security? Yes. Are they necessary for an "extended voyage" like crossing an ocean? Of course not. Otherwise there would have been no crossings prior to, say, 1995...you know with the very "blue water" boats you guys say are so awesome?

This is what I meant in my post to av. You guys are so ingrained in your "blue water" dogma, that you have seemingly lost the ability to think beyond your very limited list of features.

And that's just as dangerous a naiveté as that cat newb's. For example, having a geneset and water-maker aboard allows you to get away with a smaller water tank. And when you're 4 days into a 4-week passage and these happen to crap out, you are screwed. You're "blue water capable" planning has just put you and your crew in real peril.

Carsten nailed it above. You guys' "requirements" are bordering on ridiculous.

So, why don't we stay focused on the actual discussion...which is whether or not production boats are built to be cruised in blue water. The answer to that is, clearly, yes. How they are prepared after the sale is COMPLETELY up to the skipper. That's why even Oyster doesn't include all that gear you feel is essential for bluewater on their stock 475, which is also advertised as Cat A - capable of "extended voyages" and be "largely self sufficient".

I keep bringing up the Bene 38, as we have most of the critical specs available. The comment can be made about many similar production boats from other manufacturers.

IF your not going to have a watermaker, where are you going to store the water you need? Rain is good to collect, one can't depend on it. So, where are you going to put that extra tankage? What design elements are you going to eliminate, does that affect structural integrity and how does it affect other systems?

Those are legitimate questions. I have ample room in my boat to deal with these, but it is "old school". It seems to me that many boats today, although 'advanced', are like cars. It used to be that there was room to work on an engine, now, to take the spark plugs out or a filter, means major deconstruction, including loosening engine mounts even. Boats are the same, they are using every available space, leaving little to make changes to them.

I have no problem with newer boats; I have a problem the way they are marketed for purposes which clearly they are not ideal for. One of you says, look, there are 8 berths in the 3 cabin if you include the salon, and then another one says, one would take the 2 cabin unit out if crossing oceans. I would suggest that particular boat is not the one I would chose for such a passage. It has too many gaps.

At least the rep from Hunter I quoted earlier made it clear that their boats are designed for day, weekend and coastal cruising. That is 97% of their market, and it is honest marketing. Now, he said that back in 1999, and I hope the new owners have the same integrity. Of course some of those Hunters will be used elsewhere, and cross oceans, but that is not their market nor their ideal design.

Someone else mentioned that an inexperienced buyer, would accept the marketing hype on the Bene, and buy it with the intention of using it for the purpose an A8 suggests it is capable of. Do we really want to have people accept that? Most here know it is not realistic, but what about those 'credit card captains' one always hears about who utilize charters? Do we really want them to buying something because they can, but not seriously understanding needs of a passage maker?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

... What I don't yet understand is HOW that boat is judged to meet the requirements which are not spelled out in the reg, except in the most general terms. Who says the boat is capable of "extended voyages" and be "largely self sufficient". How can a boat with limited tankage be granted this rating, to pick on just one of the things most folks think are required for extended passages and self sufficiency?

When they say that the boat is a class A boat they are concerned basically with stability and seaworthiness. Is in what regards seaworthiness that the max number of passengers/crew is attributed. As you have noticed the same boat can have a bigger number of passenger if it is certified as a Class B because on the less demanding conditions it is considered the boat is still safe with a bigger human load.

For an extended passage all mass market brands have on their options list extra tanks for the boat that will increase tankage.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

You have now explained that some NA and NE folks are consulted, and this should result in scantlings and stabilities that are acceptable... that's good. And in fact, as you guys keep pointing out, many such boats have made successful voyages. That does not in itself endorse the "class A" definition.

Here I believe you misunderstood, they were not consulted, they (the NA and NE) made those rules and there is a technical commission that each here purposes modifications to improve the boat's safety.

One thing that is always badly understood is that a boat certified as class A is not a boat endorsed as specially good for offshore sailing but a boat that satisfies the minimum conditions considered essential for sailing offshore on a extended cruising. That does not mean that a boat that meets those minimal conditions, like the Delphia 33 (that is making a hell of a passage on the ARC) is the best boat to do that. An Oceanis 38 would be a lot better in all aspects, including safety and a Oyster 625 even better.

Regarding the definition of Class A :

Originally Posted by avb3

..

[B]'A’ OCEAN: Designed for extended voyages where conditions may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4 m and above but excluding abnormal conditions, and vessels largely self-sufficient.
.

This definition has changed being now more accurate:

" A recreational craft given design category A is considered to be designed for winds that may exceed wind force 8 (Beaufort scale) and significant wave heights of 4m and above but excluding abnormal conditions such as storm, violent storm, hurricane, tornado and extreme sea conditions or rogue waves."

Those therms refer to the Beaufort scale where a Storm are the conditions related with a F10 and violent storm and hurricane with F11 and F12.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

.. My interest and concern here is that a "class A" rating from the government, if not in fact adequately stringent in its criteria, could lead less experienced folks to overestimate the adequacy of some particular vessel with unfortunate results.

Class A regards a bare minimum considered safe and since their introduction sailboats have been subject to large improvements in what regards seaworthiness and stability. Before the RCD it was usual to have cruisers with an AVS close to 100º, meaning that with the weight of the sails and radar, a simple knock down will be the end of the story because the boat would not be able to right itself and would end flooded and capsized. Today that is past history and the boats, size by size are safer.

I don't think Europeans are mislead by that minimum requirement. Look at the European boats that are making the ARC and you will see that the vast majority is over 40ft. The class A is simply a regulation that prevents boats to have an hazardous stability and seaworthiness and establishes a bare minimum to sail offshore. A lot better in what regards safety then having no minimum at all, in my opinion and it seems, on the opinion of the Europeans.

Cheers

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Its Overrated, simple as that, i read the avb3 link regarding the EU regulations, i think i read in SN the history of a Nauticat 38 rated B , lol, since the superstructure door dont comply with the watertight regulations.... ridiculous to the extreme....

You mean that when the boat is capsized and it is upside down it should not be watertight? Not important?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by avb3

Those are legitimate questions. I have ample room in my boat to deal with these, but it is "old school". It seems to me that many boats today, although 'advanced', are like cars. It used to be that there was room to work on an engine, now, to take the spark plugs out or a filter, means major deconstruction, including loosening engine mounts even. Boats are the same, they are using every available space, leaving little to make changes to them.

You and I have had markedly different experiences with older boats. Almost all newer boats I have been on have far easier engine access (was just working on a Hunter 45 engine today!) and more space to work on systems than older boats - where the engines were crammed into tight compartments deep in the bilge (with the tranny, shaft and stuffing box), electrical panels and access were hopeless, machinery spaces were non-existent, etc.

I see much less requirements to dismantle whole parts of a boat to access things with newer models/designs.

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3;1690345..

IF your not going to have a watermaker, where are you going to store the water you need? Rain is good to collect, one can't depend on it. So, where are you going to put that extra tankage? What design elements are you going to eliminate, does that affect structural integrity and how does it affect other systems?
..
Someone else mentioned that an inexperienced buyer, would accept the marketing hype on the Bene, and buy it with the intention of using it for the purpose an A8 suggests it is capable of. Do we really want to have people accept that? Most here know it is not realistic, but what about those 'credit card captains' one always hears about who utilize charters? Do we really want them to buying something because they can, but not seriously understanding needs of a passage maker?

I really don't understand your point. I know of many that have circumnavigated on 36ft sailboat without a watermaker.

The Oceanis 38 has 200L (option) of water tankage, certainly it will be possible to install an extra 100L as fixed tankage. Regarding bottled water it would certainly be possible to carry 15 packs of 1.5L bottles.

That will make for a total of 435L of water. For a consumption of 1,5L a day for person with a crew of 3 it will be enough for 97 days. All right that implies that sea water is used for everything else except for drinking but the normal passage time on a fast boat like the Oceanis 38 is way less. On an Atlantic cross from Canary Islands probably less than 22days. This gives a large margin for using water and most of the boats with that size are sailed not by three but by a couple.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Polux

I really don't understand your point. I know of many that have circumnavigated on 36ft sailboat without a watermaker.

The Oceanis 38 has 200L (option) of water tankage, certainly it will be possible to install an extra 100L as fixed tankage. Regarding bottled water it would certainly be possible to carry 15 packs of 1.5L bottles.

That will make for a total of 435L of water. For a consumption of 1,5L a day for person with a crew of 3 it will be enough for 97 days. All right that implies that sea water is used for everything else except for drinking but the normal passage time on a fast boat like the Oceanis 38 is way less. On an Atlantic cross from Canary Islands probably less than 22days. This gives a large margin for using water and most of the boats with that size are sailed not by three but by a couple.

Bingo. That's what I meant earlier that some people are so focused on features and dogma, they are not thinking this stuff through.

To build "blue water" requirements around a water maker?


Polux - I like that extended Category definition. That makes a lot of sense.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

You mean that when the boat is capsized and it is upside down it should not be watertight? Not important?

Dont make me laugh please!! its the entrance door in a B38 or a bavaria 33 watertight?? and they are rated A. ?