Another lost keel

AntarcticPilot said:
I think the point is that Colin Archer was brilliant at producing boats that met, or over-met the design brief. If Shackleton had had the use of her, they'd all have sailed out of the Weddell Sea; sadly Endurance didn't endure! But if the design brief included stuff like "pressure from sea ice must lift her, not crush her", Archer met that, but incompatible stuff like "sea kindly" and even "sails better than a log" went by the board! I'm pleased that I've seen her at Oslo - but also very pleased that I never had to sail on her!
Click to expand...
But how pleasant to stomp about the decks have large bits of wood to hold on to be able to retire below and light the wood stove on a cold morning,own a bit of history and bring smiles to peoples faces and strike nautical poses with admiring onlookers?
 
Daydream believer said:
I do not think I would like the idea of towing a lump of keel under the boat, smashing the hull, as the boat slowed from 30kts to zero in 25 yds.
Have you seen the pictures of water streaming over the decks of some of these boats. I have a couple of friends who do not have automatic lifejackets, because they keep inflating on them. Imagine a LR going off in an inopportune moment. Especially in a locker, or just inside the hatch. It would be like an airbag on a car. Get released then inflate & knock half the crew overboard at the same time :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I think that with the keel completely detached, things would be a great deal wetter than what you have described, also I was referring to hydrostatically released liferafts, i.e. they are released when they are 1.5 to 4 metres below the surface.
 
Last edited:
flaming said:
I can think of 5 possible causes.

1. The engineering on the keel and/or keel attachment was incorrect.
2. The manufacture of the keel and or/attachment was incorrect.
3. When the boat was put together after shipping to Aus, it was put together incorrectly.
4. It had sustained damage that weakened the structure
5. The failure was the result of a collision that was outside of the design parameters.

Of all of those I think 4 is very unlikely as the boat was brand new and had supposedly only done a few days sailing. 5 is probably also fairly unlikely, although not impossible, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of damage to the hull other than the missing keel.
Click to expand...
I agree completely however it is hard to see beyond a failure of design. Design should take into account possible manufacturing defects/failures either by over design or by close monitoring of manufacture. Likewise maintenance including assembly must be carefully considered at design stage. (clear fool proof instructions)
A design also should account for damage in collision or similar mishap.
Now compare with approval off design of an aircraft. Approval depends on not just structural design but consideration of all factors that can affect the safety of the aircraft in it's lifetime. Includes maintenance instructions and monitoring system of any failures of component over the lifetime of the aircraft.
Clearly this was a racing design pushed out with minimum design diligence. So risky... That is my speculation anyway. ol'will
 
William_H said:
I agree completely however it is hard to see beyond a failure of design. Design should take into account possible manufacturing defects/failures either by over design or by close monitoring of manufacture. Likewise maintenance including assembly must be carefully considered at design stage. (clear fool proof instructions)
A design also should account for damage in collision or similar mishap.
Now compare with approval off design of an aircraft. Approval depends on not just structural design but consideration of all factors that can affect the safety of the aircraft in it's lifetime. Includes maintenance instructions and monitoring system of any failures of component over the lifetime of the aircraft.
Clearly this was a racing design pushed out with minimum design diligence. So risky... That is my speculation anyway. ol'will
Click to expand...

I'd agree in this case that we are seeing a failure of design, more than backed up by the fact that they've made big changes in the attachment method.

But I'm not so sure that you can complete eliminate manufacturing defects as a cause of issues, its possible to overengineer and write the clearest of instructions, but if someone puts on a cheaper lower spec bolt, or makes change off plan then it can be hard to account for that. Especially in a race boat where to extract the most performance they can out of it.
On my MG when I was doing some remedial work due to splitting around the floors in the bilge, I found that the builder had decided to use 5mm backing plates instead of the designer specified 10mm. They'd also trimmed them very roughly (leaving sharp edges) and not got the shape right, leading to them being sat across the radius of the floors. (causing the splitting) Now the boat last 35 years like this, because like most 80's boats it was heavy and overbuilt. But on a race boat that was built with smaller safety margins then that type of piece of cost cutting could have had a far worse affect.

As for collision, I guess the question is how hard a collision should it withstand? It can't be built for any eventuality.
 
One thing that has been highlighted on the Anarchy thread that I confess I'd missed is that the original spec was not bolts mounted in the keel and nuts screwing down on to them, but tapped threads in the keel and bolts coming down from the boat screwing into those threads.

I can't get my head round why you would choose to do that.
 
flaming said:
One thing that has been highlighted on the Anarchy thread that I confess I'd missed is that the original spec was not bolts mounted in the keel and nuts screwing down on to them, but tapped threads in the keel and bolts coming down from the boat screwing into those threads.

I can't get my head round why you would choose to do that.
Click to expand...

I also read that thread and forgot that, in fact the only boat I can recall seeing with bolts rather than studs & nuts was a Sonata. I'm not sure if they're all like that or just the one I looked at.
 
The odd thing is, that the side loads are taken by the tapered fit, the bolts just pull the keel into the taper. I too, find it odd that they used bolts at first, rather than studs and nuts.
 
Ceirwan said:
I'd agree in this case that we are seeing a failure of design, more than backed up by the fact that they've made big changes in the attachment method.

But I'm not so sure that you can complete eliminate manufacturing defects as a cause of issues, its possible to overengineer and write the clearest of instructions, but if someone puts on a cheaper lower spec bolt, or makes change off plan then it can be hard to account for that. Especially in a race boat where to extract the most performance they can out of it.
On my MG when I was doing some remedial work due to splitting around the floors in the bilge, I found that the builder had decided to use 5mm backing plates instead of the designer specified 10mm. They'd also trimmed them very roughly (leaving sharp edges) and not got the shape right, leading to them being sat across the radius of the floors. (causing the splitting) Now the boat last 35 years like this, because like most 80's boats it was heavy and overbuilt. But on a race boat that was built with smaller safety margins then that type of piece of cost cutting could have had a far worse affect.

As for collision, I guess the question is how hard a collision should it withstand? It can't be built for any eventuality.
Click to expand...
My argument here is that Quality Assurance of builder should be considered in design process. ie If you are going to extreme of design then you must ensure that the design will be followed exactly. (with best work practices) If you can not be assured of quality assurance in construction then you have to over design to compensate.
A helicopter is an interesting example of where design of necessity means in some cases the entire machine flying depends on a single bolt or nut. Obviously you don't specify any old bolt or nut. Designer has to delve right back coice of meterials and design and origins of bolt and even then in many cases specify a replacement life limit.
ol'will
 
William_H said:
A helicopter is an interesting example of where design of necessity means in some cases the entire machine flying depends on a single bolt or nut. Obviously you don't specify any old bolt or nut. Designer has to delve right back coice of meterials and design and origins of bolt and even then in many cases specify a replacement life limit.
ol'will
Click to expand...
Yes; when working in the hangar on an aircraft, one of the air-mechs got talking to us and he said that he didn't like flying in helicopters for just that reason - they all hang from one or a small number of very highly stressed components! And as he put it, you don't know that the last guy to work on it did his job properly. I've always been less than keen on flying in helicopters after that conversation! Fortunately for me, I've only had to fly in one once, and the noise and discomfort didn't encourage me to repeat the experience.

If you read through air accident reports, it's depressing how often faulty components, bad workshop practices and substitution of parts have caused accidents, usually fatal. The difference is that almost all air accidents get followed by an in-depth enquiry, and result in serious penalties if anyone is found to be at fault, and corrective measures imposed if it was something that could not have been anticipated in the design.

Bottom line is that Murphy was right!
 
William_H said:
My argument here is that Quality Assurance of builder should be considered in design process. ie If you are going to extreme of design then you must ensure that the design will be followed exactly. (with best work practices) If you can not be assured of quality assurance in construction then you have to over design to compensate.
A helicopter is an interesting example of where design of necessity means in some cases the entire machine flying depends on a single bolt or nut. Obviously you don't specify any old bolt or nut. Designer has to delve right back coice of meterials and design and origins of bolt and even then in many cases specify a replacement life limit.
ol'will
Click to expand...

Well I would definitely agree on this one, I originally apprenticed as an aircraft fitter, and at every stage of the build there were inspections, sign off sheets etc and in many cases parts traceability right back to the fitter who did the work and the inspector who signed it off.

Though I think its unrealistic to expect a sailing boat to have the same level of after care that an aircraft would get, so they should be necessarily built to expect that.


Of course at the moment, unless I missed it, we still don't know the cause, other than the keel was entirely missing, but the hull structure was intact. All we know is that its been redesigned independently. (the attachment method)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

P
Essential pre purchase or even pre survey checks
2
Replies
28
Views
859
Refueler
Refueler
conks01
Hanse 301 Buying Advice
Replies
4
Views
184
TSB240
TSB240
Sea Change
Mini sandblaster for rust spots on keel?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
1K
Mister E
M

Share this page

Top