Cheeki Rafiki loss report

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Brob2

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.
....
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.

Sorry didn't understood you were kidding. All that know Sweden yachts know that the they are performance yachts, powerful and stiff boats. The boat in question has just too much sail up and that's all.

Your comments were so off regarding a well known very high quality brand of yacht that I assumed you did not know what you were talking about, not that you were kidding. Don't understand what that has to do with some thinking I am a troll.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

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....

If you have the money for a new boat and prefer an old one, that was just my point. What I said regarding shipyard owners preferring modern fast boats regarded Europe, it seems in contrast with US. A bit like the general sailor's preference even if that seems to be changing on the US.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

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?

Re read what I wrote. I did not said that. what i said was that boats that had not been grounded were not inspected in a significant number (like they had made with boats that grounded) to verify if there was a problem with matrix detachement non related with grounding.

In fact they did only inspect a boat that had not been grounded and that one had signs of forward matrix detachment that can have occurred by a number of reasons. They did not say if they looked for a boat randomly or if they inspect one that was for repairs because it had forward matrix detachment. But from the 4 boats that had matrix detachment due to grounding only half of them had forward matrix detachement, being unknown if the forward matrix detachement on the other two was related with the grounding or not.

So given that half of the boats grounded did not suffer from forward matrix detachement we can conclude that not all boats suffer from that after many years of use.

As usual I try to be precise and honest in any discussion and I don't see any point in doing any other way. What I have been doing is mainly to correct abusive and false statements that some refer were made on that report.

Like some saying that the report says that the First 40.7 had a built defect, that slamming on the First 40.7 will necessarily lead to matrix detachement, that the detachement of the matrix is a sudden and catastrophic process and that therefore the boat should not be classified as an offhsore boat, that a boat that needs to be verified after a grounding (and repaired if needed) cannot be classified for offshore service, that a boat that needs regular inspections to the keel to verify if the keel bolts are tight and if the bond of boat with the hull structure is in perfect conditions (and eventually repaired) cannot be an offshore sailboat. This kind of non sense.

I have said from the beginning that if we seem to have enough information about Cheeki Rafiki loss (inadequate maintenance with keel bolts lose and 5 groundings, some of then without any serious inspection) wee don't have enough information about the First 40.7 that have not suffered groundings.

We now that there were built about 850 First 40.7 that two lost the keel and that both boats have suffered groundings before and that groundings can lead to matrix debonding. The investigation refers that there is a problem with a protocol for inspections and that there are anecdotal information regarding several other boats with problems.

Keel loss is a very serious issue as well as debonding of the keel hull structure from the hull so given that anecdotal information I would say more information is needed and not an anecdotal one. We know that matrix detachement on normal use (no groundings) is not a fast process that can be associated with a built defect but with the limitations of the material.

We know that most First 40.7 are more then 13 years old, some 18 years old and many had not suffered any problem in what regards the bond with the matrix. Giving the anecdotal information that some had given, namely in the forward section related with hard use, time and slamming, further investigation seems to me needed and Beneteau should be the first interested on that investigation.

Beneteau should provide a diagnostic protocol and ask all owners of First 40.7 to pass on a dealer shipyard for a cost free inspection. On the absence of that the ones that regulate the industry should examine a significant batch of First 40.7 taken randomly (30 or 40 boats) to see in how many of those boats problems are detected regarding to the matrix bond (if any) and if so the year of the boat, if it has suffered groundings or not and the use it has been subjected.

This information is needed to establish standards in what regards boat maintenance, namely the time a bond is expected to last and to time regular serious inspection intervals.

My believe is that the boats that will need repair will be very few, but that is just a hunch that has basis on the big number of First 40.7 around and the relatively small number that had been repaired regarding that but this is a safety issue and certitude is needed. The First 40.7 is not an isolated case. Many cruiser racers are built around the world basically the same way.

Besides the First 40.7 several other boats are known to have lost their keels, most of them cruiser racers like the First. ISAF had made an investigation trough a work party some years ago but to my opinion the works were not deep enough neither the conclusions. One of the problems in what regards forming a serious investigation task force has to the with the sector being pretty much unregulated. The ISAF inspection regarded only the conditions the boats would have to meet to race in offshore races.

Regarding this thread I believe this applies:

"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."
Read more at Keel failure: the shocking facts - Yachting World

[malbert73]

Isn't the issue really about hull liners? They have to rely on secondary bonding but worse yet the quality of these bonds can't be inspected.

I find it impossible to believe that any liner can be a great fit on the entire hull since the hulls are hand laid on a female mold. Small differences in layup and resin distribution make the hull thicker/thinner in places, resulting in imperfect fit. Unlike bulkheads and stringers glassed in which can be cut to fit and precisely bonded/fileted.

Consistent with liner/hull voids cited earlier in a post. I am sure the engineering requires full binding of the surface area of the liner.

So again- liners are cheaper way to build boats. This pleases coastal cruising masses. Let's just not pretend that this makes as strong of a boat as stick built construction.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Polux]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Isn't the issue really about hull liners? They have to rely on secondary bonding but worse yet the quality of these bonds can't be inspected.

I find it impossible to believe that any liner can be a great fit on the entire hull since the hulls are hand laid on a female mold. Small differences in layup and resin distribution make the hull thicker/thinner in places, resulting in imperfect fit. Unlike bulkheads and stringers glassed in which can be cut to fit and precisely bonded/fileted.

Consistent with liner/hull voids cited earlier in a post. I am sure the engineering requires full binding of the surface area of the liner.

So again- liners are cheaper way to build boats. This pleases coastal cruising masses. Let's just not pretend that this makes as strong of a boat as stick built construction.

That's the problem to call liners to anything. Tartans have also liners as a hull structure to distribute the keel efforts. Of course they don't call it liners (rarely the shipyard builders use the term when referring the hull structure) an Tartan talks about a mysterious one shot system to laminate those "liners" to the hull.

Anyway, like on almost all modern fiberglass/epoxy/carbon modern boats it is a structure that is bonded to the hull, through lamination or a bonding agent.

Regarding an integral matrix like the one of the First not to be a great fit you cannot be more wrong since it is a molded piece. Here you have an article describing the two different methods, a molded one an a separated structure like on Tartan and many other sailboats. In my opinion both have advantages and disadvantages:

Monohull -- Structural Grid or Pan Liner — Atlantic Cruising Yachts

[Saltyhog]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Excellent...

X2

I'd think anyone would appreciate a heads up on any potential looming issues with their boat. Most or perhaps all boats have *some* latent design or construction flaw(s). There are no perfect designs and construction methods are always a set of tradeoffs. Forewarned is forearmed. If I had a boat designed and built this way, I know I'd be very inclined to educate myself further to determine the best way to identify and address any issues with the grid liner to hull joint. To blindly proclaim "all is well" is sticking your head in the sand.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by malbert73

Isn't the issue really about hull liners? They have to rely on secondary bonding but worse yet the quality of these bonds can't be inspected.

I find it impossible to believe that any liner can be a great fit on the entire hull since the hulls are hand laid on a female mold. Small differences in layup and resin distribution make the hull thicker/thinner in places, resulting in imperfect fit. Unlike bulkheads and stringers glassed in which can be cut to fit and precisely bonded/fileted.

Consistent with liner/hull voids cited earlier in a post. I am sure the engineering requires full binding of the surface area of the liner.

So again- liners are cheaper way to build boats. This pleases coastal cruising masses. Let's just not pretend that this makes as strong of a boat as stick built construction.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

Haa someone who understand the process, yes, exactly ,,they are uneven, thats why they shoot a thick goop of plexus in the contact faces between hull and liner...

And no one mention this, but normally , im not sure with diferents kinds of methacrylate adhesives, the window from a tacky Surface to a dry one is short, then if 2 or 3 guys start to shoot the goop from the stern to the bow and the bonding window is lost i can imagine in some places in the liner dont get a proper bond . Maybe Minaret know better since i dont work with this kind of adhesives.....

[neilpride]

Interesting video, no grid liner here... i guess..
https://youtu.be/TGWjmboWcYc

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Re read what I wrote. I did not said that. what i said was that boats that had not been grounded were not inspected in a significant number (like they had made with boats that grounded) to verify if there was a problem with matrix detachement non related with grounding.

Here's what you said initially:

"They say that the matrix detachment on the forward section are "commonly attributed to the vessel slamming" but inexplicably failed to have visited any boat that had suffered matrix detachment on the forward section and that had not been grounded for sure."

I think what you meant here is that no boats showing evidence of slamming alone, that is without further evidence of grounding, were physically inspected.

But then you've made comments along the lines of this several times:

In fact they did only inspect a boat that had not been grounded and that one had signs of forward matrix detachment that can have occurred by a number of reasons.

This suggests to me that they did inspect at least one boat that had no evidence of grounding but still had fwd matrix detachment commonly attributed to slamming.

OK, maybe it's just a language thing but I thought you were denying that physical inspections had ever occurred on boats that had fwd matrix detachments, but I now think what you were trying to say is no such inspections occurred on boats with this type of failure alone. If so, then peace. Your larger point seems to be, as I understand it, that the fwd detachment failures could also be attributed to groundings on boats showing both. This doesn't sound irrational to me, but I'm not an expert and I don't think you are either. Maybe one of the yard guys or engineers will chime in, but I don't think you should be suggesting this unless it's also mentioned in the report. Is it? If not, then an equally fair reading could suggest that the two types of aft & fwd keel failures are independently attributable to the two different types of stress.

To hopefully avoid any more heads blowing off with these tedious pedantics, here's again what the relevant part of the report actually said, as quoted in Yachting World:

"[d]uring the course of the investigation, the MAIB received much anecdotal evidence regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts. 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.
"MAIB inspectors visited four Beneteau First 40.7 yachts that had all suffered detachments of their matrix in bays around the aft end of the keel as a result of grounding. Additionally, two of these vessels had suffered, or were showing signs of, matrix detachment in the forward section.

One further Beneteau First 40.7 yacht was visited, which showed signs of matrix detachment in the forward and aft sections."

So a total of five that were physically inspected, all of whom were showing keel detachments "as a result of" groundings. Out of those five, two also showed keel detachments "commonly attributed" to slamming. This was in addition to "much" anecdotal evidence received (but apparently not confirmed by physically inspection) of boats showing failures attributable to both grounding & slamming, without further details as to how many and in what combo. Maybe there's further specificity in the 65-page body of the report itself which I missed.

They did not say if they looked for a boat randomly or if they inspect one that was for repairs because it had forward matrix detachment. But from the 4 boats that had matrix detachment due to grounding only half of them had forward matrix detachement, being unknown if the forward matrix detachement on the other two was related with the grounding or not.

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? How many does it take for owners, boatyards, charter cos., and the mfg. to act on the information? As I've said, it comes down to whether there exists a pattern as opposed to mere happenstance.

So given that half of the boats grounded did not suffer from forward matrix detachement we can conclude that not all boats suffer from that after many years of use.

Or many years of non-use or little use, as is customary with most of the recreational boats of all stripes spending most of their time at the dock.

As usual I try to be precise and honest in any discussion and I don't see any point in doing any other way. What I have been doing is mainly to correct abusive and false statements that some refer were made on that report.

Like some saying that the report says that the First 40.7 had a built defect,

It does. 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.

that slamming on the First 40.7 will necessarily lead to matrix detachment,

It's a possibility, as clearly stated in the report. 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.

that the detachement of the matrix is a sudden and catastrophic process

It tragically was on Cheeki Rafiki.

and that therefore the boat should not be classified as an offhsore boat,

Offshore classification may be fine, but if the prior history is unknown or unverifiable then it appears the 40.7 may not be suitable for all oceans without further safeguards put in place.

that a boat that needs to be verified after a grounding (and repaired if needed) cannot be classified for offshore service,

Any boat or this particular model? Maybe OK for the 40.7 if there exist published mfg. protocols for inspection & repair.

that a boat that needs regular inspections to the keel to verify if the keel bolts are tight and if the bond of boat with the hull structure is in perfect conditions (and eventually repaired) cannot be an offshore sailboat.

Ditto. Assuming loose keel bolts could serve as a potential early warning system (big assumption), I like mstrepe's approach of checking & marking them to make it easier to uncover future movement. But of course this is apparently not a substitute for a more comprehensive inspection.

This kind of non sense.

Emphatically disagree with most of your analysis & certainly this particular conclusion.

I have said from the beginning that if we seem to have enough information about Cheeki Rafiki loss (inadequate maintenance with keel bolts lose and 5 groundings, some of then without any serious inspection) wee don't have enough information about the First 40.7 that have not suffered groundings.

It's probably not unfair to say that we'll never have enough information on incidents like this. Recreational yachting is largely unregulated (for better or worse), many if not most boats rarely go anywhere, the ones that do wind up getting repaired, if at all, in locales proximate to where they broke down, and there's no uniform reporting requirements. The issue is what do owners of 40.7's and similarly designed yachts do in the meantime?

We now that there were built about 850 First 40.7 that two lost the keel and that both boats have suffered groundings before and that groundings can lead to matrix debonding. The investigation refers that there is a problem with a protocol for inspections and that there are anecdotal information regarding several other boats with problems.

Keel loss is a very serious issue as well as debonding of the keel hull structure from the hull so given that anecdotal information I would say more information is needed and not an anecdotal one. We know that matrix detachement on normal use (no groundings) is not a fast process that can be associated with a built defect but with the limitations of the material.

We know that most First 40.7 are more then 13 years old, some 18 years old and many had not suffered any problem in what regards the bond with the matrix. Giving the anecdotal information that some had given, namely in the forward section related with hard use, time and slamming, further investigation seems to me needed and Beneteau should be the first interested on that investigation.

Beneteau should provide a diagnostic protocol and ask all owners of First 40.7 to pass on a dealer shipyard for a cost free inspection. On the absence of that the ones that regulate the industry should examine a significant batch of First 40.7 taken randomly (30 or 40 boats) to see in how many of those boats problems are detected regarding to the matrix bond (if any) and if so the year of the boat, if it has suffered groundings or not and the use it has been subjected.

Excellent idea, and good of you to suggest it.

This information is needed to establish standards in what regards boat maintenance, namely the time a bond is expected to last and to time regular serious inspection intervals.

My believe is that the boats that will need repair will be very few, but that is just a hunch that has basis on the big number of First 40.7 around and the relatively small number that had been repaired regarding that but this is a safety issue and certitude is needed. The First 40.7 is not an isolated case. Many cruiser racers are built around the world basically the same way.

Besides the First 40.7 several other boats are known to have lost their keels, most of them cruiser racers like the First. ISAF had made an investigation trough a work party some years ago but to my opinion the works were not deep enough neither the conclusions. One of the problems in what regards forming a serious investigation task force has to the with the sector being pretty much unregulated. The ISAF inspection regarded only the conditions the boats would have to meet to race in offshore races.

Regarding this thread I believe this applies:

"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."
Read more at Keel failure: the shocking facts - Yachting World

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.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Interesting video, no grid liner here... i guess..
https://youtu.be/TGWjmboWcYc

Nor any pics/video of the bilges by the keel either after bozo has done his bottom bashing. I wonder if the eventual buyer knows what was done to this boat or will it be a surprise find later on down the ownership line? Was this a true keel bashing anyway or was it a simple straight line boat upright grounding at speed to throw the pivoting lift keel up into it's housing, not the same as a rigidly mounted deep keel contacting a hard bottom at speed, maybe with some heel too from purely vertical? Apples and oranges and a marketing video rather than a true engineer defined test methinks.

I have owned in the past a heavy build glassfibre cruising boat with athwartship wood floor frames and full length grp top hat stringers glassed in where the pre-purchase survey I commissioned had identified the glassing as detached in places and it had to be re-glassed as a condition of my eventual purchase. I sailed nearly 30,000 miles in that boat with no trouble.

I've been thinking, If I didn't cruise in such skinny waters these days, that right now would be a very good time to purchase a used Benny 40.7, using threads like this as a bargaining tool to get a low price. My last UK boat before we sold up and moved to the US was a beautiful 1988 Jeanneau Sun Legende 41 cruiser /racer ( Doug Peterson design and the class original, 'Legende' was a French Admiral's Cup team member and SORC winner down under ) which had no internal hull liners, just normal traditional style glassed in wood floors and fore/aft top hat grp over foam stringers. At that time, around year 20000, a Benny 40.7 was very much also on our wish list, but the Jeanneau we purchased was our eventual choice as it came already set up for long distance two handed cruising and one we, wife and I, cruised very happily in for over 30,000 miles in all weathers. Before our ownership it had taken 6th place in the 1996 ( I think) AZAB ( UK to Azores and back) two handed race in very stormy conditions and then cruised the Med for two full years before returning to the UK two handed non stop from Malta and through two full nasty gales one off Atlantic Portugal and another in the Bay of Biscay, we bought her just two days after her arrival back in the UK.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Interesting video, no grid liner here... i guess..
https://youtu.be/TGWjmboWcYc

Possibly the Linjett 43 has a structure as part of the hull (laminated with) due to having a lifting keel but your idea that high quality boats don't have bonded grid liners is not at all true. Most have. X yachts have a carbon grid liner bonded to the hull as many other expensive quality boats.

http://www.x-yachts.com/files/$temp/Xp_44_Final_DPS-A4_Black.pdf

[malbert73]

Originally Posted by Polux

That's the problem to call liners to anything. Tartans have also liners as a hull structure to distribute the keel efforts. Of course they don't call it liners (rarely the shipyard builders use the term when referring the hull structure) an Tartan talks about a mysterious one shot system to laminate those "liners" to the hull.



Anyway, like on almost all modern fiberglass/epoxy/carbon modern boats it is a structure that is bonded to the hull, through lamination or a bonding agent.



Regarding an integral matrix like the one of the First not to be a great fit you cannot be more wrong since it is a molded piece. Here you have an article describing the two different methods, a molded one an a separated structure like on Tartan and many other sailboats. In my opinion both have advantages and disadvantages:



Monohull -- Structural Grid or Pan Liner — Atlantic Cruising Yachts

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


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[malbert73]

Newer tartans may have some liners. Some newer ones also suffered hull issues as well documented. Mine's a 1987 and looks and sails like new. And built right to a great S&S design.

My opinions have little or nothing to do with brand- all to do with build and design quality. Newer is not always better contrary to your assertions.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[minaret]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Haa someone who understand the process, yes, exactly ,,they are uneven, thats why they shoot a thick goop of plexus in the contact faces between hull and liner...

And no one mention this, but normally , im not sure with diferents kinds of methacrylate adhesives, the window from a tacky Surface to a dry one is short, then if 2 or 3 guys start to shoot the goop from the stern to the bow and the bonding window is lost i can imagine in some places in the liner dont get a proper bond . Maybe Minaret know better since i dont work with this kind of adhesives.....

There are a wide variety of methacrylates and other products in use for liner bonding. Some do have long open times; these are what are commonly used for liner bonding. But it's still impossible to see if you've used enough for squeeze out on most liner built boats.

[minaret]

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.

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.