Beefing Up

[Fascadale]

I am considering taking up the 2010 transat challenge in a 1972 built GRP Invicta 26, designed by Van der Stadt, hull molded by Tylers, a long keeled, heavily built folkboat derivative.

To what extent do forumites believe that a well built, well designed and properly maintained production yacht should be "beefed up"?

Take the chain plates: if I alter them should I alter the standing rigging ? Then the riggings' attachment to the mast becomes the next week point and so on. Should I consider putting in new bulkheads as I believe was done on a Corribee that did a transat ?

This class of boat has been around for a long time and has a good reputation as a passage maker.

Good sailing

Paul

 

[Gargleblaster]

The problem is where do you start as you say and how good is your anticipation of where the weak points are. I had a failure last year in my rigging but it wasn't until I got my mast down over winter and removed my shrouds that the real problem appeared. I thought my rigging had stretched and as a result my inner shrouds had wear hardened at the lower swages. It was my intention to either increase from 6mm to 7mm shrouds or to use dyform. While the inner shrouds had wear hardened at the swages what had caused looseness in the shrouds was not stretching but wave action [I believe] on the mast had pulled a ss bolt that goes through my mast and to which the inner shrouds are attached, down through my mast by about 1.5 cms. Since then I have had stainless steel plates fitted to the shroud attachment points hoping that my shroud attachment bolt will not be able to pull through that.
Probably the big thing is to look at each component on the boat and ask yourself how could this fail?
I worry about my fin keel as I worry about my spade rudder. If you have a Folkboat underwater profile on your Invicta, these should not be worries for you. But your rigging, stormboards, perspex lights, through hull fittings all need looking at seriously.

 

[Jake]

Hi Paul

I'm facing a similar quandry myself - where do you draw the line? Of the Corribee's that have done long trips, most have been reinforced in some way. Stressing of a thin hull (which my Corri has, but your Invicta hasn't) can lead to early failure, so I'm adding some more reinforcement along the belly of the hull, and up as far as the waterline. I'm using epoxy and stitched rovings, as an epoxy layup is lighter (1:1) and stronger than the equivalent polyester (4:1). In a 21-footer, weight is the big enemy.

Bulkheads are being reinforced and checked for watertight integrity (close examination showed voids and cable holes that would have let water through) and wherever possible, the boat is being compartmentalised with watertight hatches. (Ply locker lids held down by elastic are giving way to screw down types, so the locker becomes a buoyancy tank.)

I'm also making a bulb for the keel to make her stiffer, extending the rudder downwards (against pooping) adding much larger drains. I'm also considering partially filling-in the cockpit to give less of a swimming pool for the Atlantic.

One good thing about the older boats, such as yours, as they were often laid up like a brick outhouse. As John says, it's trying to work out the weak points (hatches, windows etc) and reinforce those, that's the priority.


Good luck with the Transat!

 

[thailand69]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is where do you start as you say and how good is your anticipation of where the weak points are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just thinking aloud........but on the basis that someone has a good condition version of a boat (hopefully!), maybe go and looksee at some less well maintained versions to get an idea where weak points and leaks occur through simple lack of TLC / maintanence over many years? and use this as a guide as to what yer at least think about beefing up / replacing.

With the larger classes of older boats this would be a bit easier than for the one off specials.......... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Jester Challenge? mmmm, maybe I am more of a reader and dreamer /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif - but part of me would love to buy another Corribee and see what happens /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[andlauer]

Bonjour
My approach was a bit different. The FigarOne was run by "mad" professional single hand racing sailors for years.
So all that could fail had fail and had been reinforced by the previous users.
Eric /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Fascadale]

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful replies

To a cerain extent I see this issue as being in two parts, each equally important.

The first would be the basic seaworthness of the vessel herself, her ability to withstand prolonged exposure to heavy seas. So here I would look to the strengh of such things as the perspex lights, integrity of extenal hatches, the health of the rig along with a list of other things. To ensure this the above I think reinforcement will be needed in places. I see this as part of disaster avoidance

The other part of the issue I see as more about surviving disaster. Like others I have been thinking about making the main bulkhead as watertight as poss. My boat also has quite a large lazarette which is almost inaccessible when underway. This along with the lockers under the saloon berths could be made fairly watertight. I am even thinking of making the quarter berth and the space under it into some sort of watertight locker.

I suppose this is about planning for that unplanned meeting with a container or something equally unpleasant.

There was an interesting article in PBO recently about making the bulkhead watertight and another thought provoking article a couple of years ago about a transat in a 22ft boat. The skipper in that case took the view, if I remember correctly, that his whole boat could be equipped be the liferaft. There is also the suggestion that some of those who lost their lives in the Fastnet race may have had a better chance had they stayed on board their boats.

Good sailing

Paul

 

[JREdginton]

[ QUOTE ]
There is also the suggestion that some of those who lost their lives in the Fastnet race may have had a better chance had they stayed on board their boats

[/ QUOTE ]

More than some. I will stand corrected but i seem to rememebr that around 50% of the people who perished did so from life rafts from boats that were later found afloat, hatches missing, rig lost, awash, but still afloat.

As Peter, my old instructor used to say - "you climb UP into a life raft, if you are looking down on it, it's too soon to get into it!".

 

[Gargleblaster]

The same point was made about the 1988 Sydney to Hobart. Of the many boats that were abandoned they were later found damaged but still floating well. Only one boat was actually lost the 'Wintson Churchill' a 1949 wooden boat.
I still like the idea of a liferaft onboard. It does give a sense of security that one has a supposed escape route. But that said I've often looked out at a wild sea and wind and thought 'I don't want to take to a liferaft in that.'
One occasion when I considered I was in a survival storm, I saw a fin possibly a shark, more likely a dolphin appear in the spray at my stern just before I retired below to ride out the storm. That emphasised to me that I was not taking to the liferaft that night whatever happened.

 

[CPD]

Hello chaps, a very interesting sea safety course 2 weeks ago highlighted these very facts, that the liferaft is only to be used when the boat is sinking and you cant stop it from doing so, or, of course, if the boat is on fire. The message was very loud and very clear - do not abandon ship unless you really really have to. I seem to remember the fastnet figure was 80% of abandoned boats found floating.

Re the hydrostatic release : I personally regard them as something else that could go wrong, however if it gets to the stage where it might work (ie boat sinking and taking the liferaft with it) then better have it than not, and hope, of course, that it works !!

Sea survival and ISAF course well worth the time and money. No connection etc etc etc etc but stormforce coaching (S'hampton) - very good.

 

[jhr]

[ QUOTE ]
Only one boat was actually lost the 'Wintson Churchill' a 1949 wooden boat.

[/ QUOTE ] It's a while since I've read "Fatal Storm" but I'm sure four or five boats sank, though you are right that a number of abandoned boats were recovered, still afloat, after the race.

The three crew who were lost from the Winston Churchill died because their liferaft disintegrated, iirc. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[thailand69]

So maybe instead of a liferaft spend the money on a Tony Bullimore type survival suit (or just a drysuit?) so that even if the boat is waterlogged that you don't succumb to hypothermia - even if bl##dy uncomfortable.

Of course their are always scenarios where having both would be a good idea. and spares..........

 

[Gargleblaster]

[ QUOTE ]
A freak storm on December 27, 1998 caught 55 boats by surprise. With hurricane force winds and 80-foot waves, 7 boats were abandoned, five sunk, six sailors drowned, and 55 were rescued by helicopter. This tragedy brought out the weaknesses in many of the safety systems and techniques in common use, which are explored throughout the book. This is the whole story. Set aside some time for this book, because once you start it, you won't be able to put it down. 250 pgs. Pub 2000.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only was I wrong about the number of boats lost. I was ten years out in when it occurred. I thought I had read the book and the Winston Churchill was the only boat lost. Perhaps it was the only boat lost with all hands.
I think I'm right in saying that of the boats that were abandoned many were recovered whereas the people who took to liferafts were not all so lucky. [Must read the book again - I think Amazon are offering it for 22p].

 

[Gargleblaster]

This however should be a picture of the much milder Sydney to Hobart race in 1988.

 

[Noddy]

All this talk of beefing up and heavy structures is making this catamaran sailor think. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Obviously the hatches need to stay closed and the windows have to stay in.

I believe the multihull argument goes something like:
Light = fast = avoid bad weather
Light = float on top of waves rather than smash through them.

It seems that many people want a boat that can deal with heavy weather untended by human hand. The emphasis in the multiull world seems to be that you need to sail the boat.

Where it is not convenient to run before a storm, or sleep becomes imperative, the parachute sea anchor (not drogue) with a very long rode seems to be becoming a tactic that is favoured for really scary storms. It prevents excessive leeway while keeping the bows into the weather.

I have to say at this point that I have never been in a survival storm in any sort of small boat. Got my head kicked in by a force 7/8 wind over tide in shallow water once. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Paul

 

[Gargleblaster]

[ QUOTE ]
There is generally something to be learned from such events, exceptional though they may be. Much has been written about how to behave in storm conditions but I have the feeling that above Force 10 there can be few hard-and-fast rules. Boats respond differently, and knowing how the boat behaves must be more than half the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
The above comes from Mike Richey's article 'Jester's Ultimate Storm', which can be found on the Jester Challenge website here: http://www.jesterinfo.org/jestersultimatestorm.html
[ QUOTE ]
This all fits in with my own feeling that every gale is different, and it is extremely difficult to lay down the law about what to do in very heavy weather. There are too many variables, not only the size of boat and wind strength, but the wave length and steepness of the seas, the velocity of the wave train and so on.
Certainly in survival storms one wonders whether the hapless mariner can do much more than hope for the best. I think one reason David wrote the article was that at the end of it all he was never quite sure whether he had survived because or in spite of the action he took. This strikes me as a healthy attitude, hesitant rather than didactic.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is from another of Mike Richey's 'On Reflection' articles from the Jester site all of which are worth reading.
I know you say that in a cat you will stay out of the way of heavy weather. Not a cat but I have a light displacement boat and that has always been my strategy. But unfortunately I haven't always been successful in staying out of the way of bad weather.
Up until my last 'survival storm' I had thought my tactic if encountering storm force winds and waves that I should run before them. However the storm I last encountered put me out of control under bare poles and while I wasn't so much concerned about pitch poling, I was concerned that I would enter the wave in front of a trough and keep going down or submarine. So instead I lay-a-hull, which in that situation I survived but as Mike says:
[ QUOTE ]
he was never quite sure whether he had survived because or in spite of the action he took

[/ QUOTE ]
Previously in the Pacific I had run through the tail of a cyclone under a scrap of canvas and survived that, even though my mast came down in the dying stages as I tacked to enter a harbour.

 

[Noddy]

Its good to have personal (electronic) contact with someone who has been in the classic survival storm. As I mentioned my heavy weather experience under sail is limited. I've read lots and lots in an effort to be prepared.

I suspect that like many other things the waiting and worrying is worse than the actual event. This is certainly true for engine faliures in microlights (ULM). Is this your experience of this kind of heavy weather or do you still shudder when you think about it?

Paul

 

[Gargleblaster]

[ QUOTE ]
do you still shudder when you think about it?


[/ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is I don't. Probably because the worst or next to worst thing that I was expecting to happen - never did. I fully expected to do a 360 roll or maybe only a 180 roll. For instance I spent most of the 36 hours the storm raged around me lying on one of my two usable bunks as I didn't want to sit as I thought by sitting I would increase my chances of breaking my neck. And even though I was flipped around on my axis 3 times by the waves, throwing me from one side of the cabin to another fortunately I never rolled.
Other things not related particularly do give me the shudders or in my case I get a nasty clenching feeling in my testicles. One is climbing my mast in anything over F2. Mainly because of a bad experience I had once in Titchmarsh Marina having to climb my mast during wind gusting F9 when my forestay had detached from the mast. The problem was the wind was blowing the boat over and each time that happened I didn't think there was going to be enough righting moment with me up the mast to bring it back up again. I'm also phobic about riding on helicopters having been in a situation of going in on autorotate once and having a rough landing.
Having said all that though I do not intend attempting the northern route across the Atlantic from east to west again in a boat less than 30 feet. I am going to attempt the intermediate route in 4 weeks, but am hoping for nothing over F9.

 

[andlauer]

Bonjour
I don't either.
My approach is to consider that I must prepare the man and the boat to the worse case. In case of storm it would be to have, for any reason, a half sink boat.
Only half sink because I have sufficient buoyancy not to sink. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

In these condition I would wear a "comfortable" TPS life suit and wait for betters days with sufficient means or to repair or to call for help (GPS-Epirb, GPS and Iridium). Every heavy weight is fixed to the structure and I wear the harness short in my birth. Nice place to be, isn't it ? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I experiment the TPS for a night and an early morning sea bath when I was so exhausted that I went into an hallucination about my keel being loose.
I had to check because I couldn't keep the doubt for half a month. While doing so I was smiling and just thinking about someone looking at me.. /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

If I had situation where I would have "no solution", I would not took the start. I can't stay alone for a long period with deep fear.
Eric

 

[markpageant]

Just at thought - lots of replies here are talking about how you will beef up the barky. Most boats are designed to be in/ on the water whereas most people are 'evolutionarly' somewhat more distant from the briney. How will you beef up your good self - to cope with questions like 'what is the nature of self ?' and other such intrigues which will no doubt accompany you ?

 

[lumphammer]

Went across to Cherbourg last weekend with my son and his partner, and following on from the various beefing up comments had a look around to see what could be done.
One thing I found was a large unused space under the forecabin bunks. What I would like to do is fill this with some type of foam, not necessarily to make the boat unsinkable, but to stop water getting in if I did run into something.

I have a feeling it would take a large number of cans of gap filler, and I'm not sure if that would be the right stuff anyway. Any suggestions as to what I could use?