ANOTHER MAJOR KEEL FAILURE: What Really Happened to Polina Star III?

I cannot see the need for the public interest unless you are a serious buyer of an Oyster in which case go and talk to them and satisfy yourself. If Oyster was a PLC then I would think someone would be out there short selling.

How will an owner of a 30' sailing yacht benefit from this thread?

You know we are all to quick to be critical, has anyone talked about how Oyster 885 sailed around the world straight out of the yard. Oh no thats right because its not tittle tattle.

Perhaps I am being a little defensive but when you have worked on a project for nearly three years you have faith in people and companies even when events like this happen,
 
An owner of a 30' boat will benefit from this thread just fine thanks, as will I who have a 22'.

That's because designers apparently need to know how far to push, and the thing which is getting us all intrigued here is this was not a radical one-off racer stressed in the Southern Ocean.

I have sailed almost all my life and owned a variety of boats inc your quoted 30', I'm also a qualified engineer with experience of rather more major projects like the introduction of ( and covering trials and repair schemes for ) the largely carbon fibre Harrier II.

So as owner of a smaller boat than the one which fell apart without much provocation we're aware of at the moment, I can say you bet all future boat owners will benefit.
 
Couple years ago a 40.7 sunk with 4 lives. Now a almost new Oyster sunk, luckily all saved.

Are hulls under built? Are anymore likely to fall off?

Yes future keel failures could effect one of us.

So it important to us all.........
 
This is a forum of sailors and peoples views are going to be aired whether you like it or not - yes I understand Lozzer being defensive knowing what he knows and has seen from his experiences with the yacht he is overseeing the construction of. But this is not the yacht in question and until some answers come out there will be views/speculaton aired along the lines of:

1. The design was insubstantial even if the lay up was correct

2. The lay up was of poor quality

3. The comprehensive modifications to an existing design were not thoroughly investigated

I used to work for an ex-sail boat builder and have sailed one of the worlds oceans on an Oyster. I believe the information should be known even though it may never be officially provided.
 
Lozzer said:
Having spent much time on the build of my bosses new 745 I am very impressed with what Oyster are doing. We have a build surveyor who attends site regularly to check on processes and quality control and he reports that the yacht is being built to a very high standard.
Click to expand...

So why don't you and your boss trust them to do a good job without constant supervision?
 
Lozzer said:
I cannot see the need for the public interest unless you are a serious buyer of an Oyster in which case go and talk to them and satisfy yourself. If Oyster was a PLC then I would think someone would be out there short selling.

How will an owner of a 30' sailing yacht benefit from this thread?

You know we are all to quick to be critical, has anyone talked about how Oyster 885 sailed around the world straight out of the yard. Oh no thats right because its not tittle tattle.

Perhaps I am being a little defensive but when you have worked on a project for nearly three years you have faith in people and companies even when events like this happen,
Click to expand...

Seems you misunderstand the nature of forums such as this. There are many very experienced people on here, both with sailing and building ocean going boats. Some actually own or have owned such boats or had new boats built. So they know a bit about the subject.

The movement towards certification and use of standards is mainly driven by the need to be more open about design and manufacturing processes of these very expensive bits of kit - not least because of the safety aspects.

Keels becoming detached from boats used to be mainly the preserve of racing boats which are often experimental and do not have to conform to production standards. However there have been rather too many failures on cruising or production boats in recent years which leads to public interest questions about design and construction method standards.

So when there is a catastrophic failure on a nearly new boat from one of the world's major semi custom builders it is not surprising there is a lot of interest. Given the turbulent environment of this sector of the market it is also not surprising that questions get asked about the impact of such a failure on the reputation of the builder.

You are falling into the trap that perhaps Oyster have fallen into of believing that it is an internal matter which only affects them and the owner. However, it is impossible to hide the visual evidence, and in the absence of any official explanation there are some, like the Russian journalist who will fill that information void with their own assessment.

In my previous life I ran courses for senior executives on crisis management, or rather on how to avoid a negative event becoming a crisis. All the research and experience of analysing corporate crises suggests the way this company is handling it publicly is perhaps not the best to minimise the effects.

Appreciate that they are between a rock and a hard spot as the sums involved are significant, but equally they must recognise that they can't hide the fact that the boat failed and but for swift action by the crew could easily have resulted in the deaths of 5 people.

Recognise that the boat you are supervising will be built properly, just as all the other boats built by the company seem to have been. But this one was clearly not. Understanding the real causes is of interest to anybody who has an interest in design and construction, not just those who are likely to buy one. The latter will of course have even more interest, not just in the specific problem of this boat but in the whole process. Those of us who buy production boats have to rely on the quality of the design and production processes of the builder without close supervision. However as I pointed out earlier much of this work is done by the same people who design Oysters and other similar custom and semi custom boats so have an interest in all their work.
 
Seeing the way the hull peeled makes me think about the resin mix. I wonder if one layer was incorrectly mixed or the catalyst was reduced or omitted. That could cause such a substantial failure. It may have been a factor in why the keel stump broke as the hull was unable to take the loading of the keel.

Seeing how the internal ribbing has detached from the hull is again raising questions about bonding two sections for the life of the boat. Many production cruisers use this construction method and I feel this will lead to the early demise of many modern cruisers as any detatchment is almost impossible to repair adequately and economically.

I feel sure there will be plenty of designers trying to decide if the scantlings have been reduced too much or there needs to be changes of design to increase the strength of keel support.

Generally I have heard many good things about Oyster and their service to owners. This event will affect the perceived view of potential customers about the strength of the boats they market and affect future sales, and also depress resale values. As Tranona said, Oyster need to be very careful how they handle this failure and probably need to do a lot more work to protect the perception of the Oyster brand.
 
Lozzer said:
I cannot see the need for the public interest unless you are a serious buyer of an Oyster in which case go and talk to them and satisfy yourself. ..... ,
Click to expand...

How would someone like me, the majority on here I guess, decide that what they say is satisfactory? How are you satisfied that the boat you are watching being built is built satisfactorily? I suggest that the majority, including you, don't have much of a clue at the end of the day. Sure, you can be experienced and have skill understanding designs and construction methods, but unless you are fallowing a inspection process, have an independent design review and sampling as the build goes on you don't have a clue what is happening. This is the situation many of us would find ourselves in.
 
Lozzer said:
I cannot see the need for the public interest unless you are a serious buyer of an Oyster in which case go and talk to them and satisfy yourself. If Oyster was a PLC then I would think someone would be out there short selling.

How will an owner of a 30' sailing yacht benefit from this thread?

You know we are all to quick to be critical, has anyone talked about how Oyster 885 sailed around the world straight out of the yard. Oh no thats right because its not tittle tattle.

Perhaps I am being a little defensive but when you have worked on a project for nearly three years you have faith in people and companies even when events like this happen,
Click to expand...

Humm, very difficult to get my head aground you fella, are you honestly stating that major failures in a craft made by a busines building and selling craft is not a public interest matter?
Whether or not anyone can or will intend buying such a craft.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
How would someone like me, the majority on here I guess, decide that what they say is satisfactory? How are you satisfied that the boat you are watching being built is built satisfactorily?
Click to expand...

I am remembering the $10m motor boat built in Anacortes under the close supervision of her owner's agent and planned skipper ...

 
One point that I don't think has been made is safe failure.

Pressure vessels are designed so that they will leak before they blow up; they are strong enough for a crack to go all the way through without causing a catastrophic failure of the vessel. This makes them heavier than they need to be but means they fail as safely as possible.

If a keel falls off then the results are catastrophic - at best the boat is likely to capsize and there is a high risk of fatalities. Polina Star III was lucky to have enough warning to get everyone off in time but this was luck, not engineering. It shouldn't matter whether the boat has hit anything or not - the keel should never fall off on a general purpose boat. Degradation in some way is fine - if you hit something with the keel then expect leaks - but total catastrophic failure is not acceptable.

It is a bit like car suspension. If the suspension fails catastrophically then the car is instantly out of control. So it doesn't happen - the suspension is engineered so it doesn't fail catastrophically despite the high loads, vibration, complexity and corrosive environment. It may bend, wear or start clonking but not fail. Boat keels should be the same.
 
JumbleDuck said:
I am remembering the $10m motor boat built in Anacortes under the close supervision of her owner's agent and planned skipper ...

Click to expand...

I don't know how they expected that thing to float right side up.It looks all wrong to me.Almost no draft ,very narrow and too high.
 
Owl said:
If a keel falls off then the results are catastrophic - at best the boat is likely to capsize and there is a high risk of fatalities. Polina Star III was lucky to have enough warning to get everyone off in time but this was luck, not engineering. It shouldn't matter whether the boat has hit anything or not - the keel should never fall off on a general purpose boat. Degradation in some way is fine - if you hit something with the keel then expect leaks - but total catastrophic failure is not acceptable.
.
Click to expand...
I think you are being a bit unfair. While the keel failure ended up being catastrophic it happened in such a way as to give time for an orderly evacuation, which seems to be exactly what you are suggesting should have happened. In this case they had 6 minutes between the first major issue and the keel finally falling off - and the fact that the issue was not more serious must be largely down to that time
 
bedouin said:
I think you are being a bit unfair. While the keel failure ended up being catastrophic it happened in such a way as to give time for an orderly evacuation, which seems to be exactly what you are suggesting should have happened. In this case they had 6 minutes between the first major issue and the keel finally falling off - and the fact that the issue was not more serious must be largely down to that time
Click to expand...

Mm, how would the "orderly evacuation" work in the midst of an ocean storm after the boat had instantly capsised? But I'm guessing you're making a tongue in cheek post though, so apols if that's the case. .
 
dom said:
Mm, how would the "orderly evacuation" work in the midst of an ocean storm after the boat had instantly capsised? But I'm guessing you're making a tongue in cheek post though, so apols if that's the case. .
Click to expand...

I think you miss the point - the boat didn't instantly capsize. There was 6 minutes between the major failure and the keel finally detaching. Plenty of time to prepare the liferaft, grab the grab bag, send a mayday .

The poster was complaining about catastrophic capsize without warning, and I was just pointing out that they had 6 minutes warning.

Obviously the keel falling off is never a good situation, but if it were to happen to me I would rather have 6 minutes warning than nothing
 
30boat said:
I don't know how they expected that thing to float right side up.It looks all wrong to me.Almost no draft ,very narrow and too high.
Click to expand...

I think the same whenever I see a car transporter or modern cruise ship.

Occasionally we yottie's have our instincts proven right ( thing on it's side on Bramble Bank, Costa A Carreera ) but generally these motor vessel people seem to work on the ' Stagecoach Principle '; " The last one made it, off you go ! "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top