mcframe
Well-Known Member
If you look carefully, you'll see there's a Delta anchor in the picture.
I wonder if that was a contributory factor?
Anyway, what ensign was worn at the time?
Revenge of the seahorses?
g,d&r
Bavaria Yachts
- Thread starter Squeaky
- Start date
If you look carefully, you'll see there's a Delta anchor in the picture.
I wonder if that was a contributory factor?
Anyway, what ensign was worn at the time?
Revenge of the seahorses?
g,d&r
Malo37
Well-Known Member
This looks more like a combination of strength and damage failure to me. I have blown the pics up and to me there is no visible evidence of distortion due to impact, ie indentations or concave deformation, or deformation of the bow fitting. However the port side failure is more linear perhaps indicating an initial crack and interestingly on the second picture you can see a vertical crack on the inside 3 or 4 cm to the left (port) of the line of penny washers. Both of these could indicate some initial collision damage (do we know if the collision was on the port side?). Also notably it can be clearly seen, again on the port side, that the deck was not bonded to the hull. At the bottom the failure passes right through the centre of the bolt hole as you would expect for a load failure of the structure and the stbd side is clearly a tear failure of the fibre. The overall layup is extremely light for this highly stressed area of the hull and deck. So my view is that there has been some initial impact damage which should have been relatively minor (and could have occured at any time) but due to the general weakness of the structure and high loading in this area has allowed crack propogation and finally catastrophic tearing. I was totally neutral on Bavarias but this doesn't inspire confidence.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
I think you might have your port and starboard mixed up but otherwise I agree with you. There would be no indentations on the impact side since grp doesnt deform elastically in that way. But it seems clear that the failure line on the stbd side and the deck follows the edge of the bow fitting for some distance as if there has been a prior impact that cracked the laminate at this point. Or maybe even a badly finished bow fitting stressed the laminate when bolts were tightened up.
Thereafter under load , and lets not forget these guys were racing, the crack has propagated and the fitting come off.
But there are many Bavs in our marina and I dont see another one with a bow missing or indeed any sign of structural failure. I am sure that these are more representative than a one off failure by an already damaged boat. I havent got a Bav but it wouldnt stop me buying one. Indeed I would still be more nervous about Beneteau where apparently some models shouldnt be dried out on their keels for fear of hull distortion.
Thereafter under load , and lets not forget these guys were racing, the crack has propagated and the fitting come off.
But there are many Bavs in our marina and I dont see another one with a bow missing or indeed any sign of structural failure. I am sure that these are more representative than a one off failure by an already damaged boat. I havent got a Bav but it wouldnt stop me buying one. Indeed I would still be more nervous about Beneteau where apparently some models shouldnt be dried out on their keels for fear of hull distortion.
Under impact GRP flexes, fractures and then returns to its original shape unless the result is catastrophic destruction that leaves holes, shredded fibers or floppy sections behind. So what is the point of this statement?
This is speculation, it is just as likely that as the bow was ripping away, and before the deck moulding fractured ahead of the anchor well, the structural glue bond between the hull flange and deck tore open.
You make a reasonable observation that, the clean portside hull fracture and the stress line to the left of the penny washers, could be connected to a prior impact but the deck/hull-flange separation could be either due to that prior impact, poor manufacturing or an inevitable consequence of the final separation of the bow.
The photos offer you no reason to dismiss the report that the bow suffered serious damage during the charter and the skipper was advised not to continue the racing series.
Why do you choose to dismiss the most pertinent piece of evidence known i.e. arrogant skipper returns to racing after receiving damage and against 3rd party advice?
What interests me in your, erm, report is that you have ignored the most interesting anomaly in the photos. The starboard side failure is strange. The hull side has suffered a 2 stage fracture, one looks like typical highly stressed laminate but the outer 1/3 is a clean break that looks suspiciously like filler.
My conclusion is that this charter boat had a much earlier serious hull impact and a botched filler repair. Then the bow was whacked again port-side during the charter racing, then the inevitable happed.
The low res photos provide no opportunity for anyone to offer an informed critique of the design or specification of the bow laminate.
Last edited:
Bosun Higgs
N/A
That's an over aggressive response jonjo. 
You are a sensitive soul.That's an over aggressive response jonjo.
The Malo37 post needed a forthright response because it is written by someone with a working familiarity of the language of engineering reports and might mislead the casual reader.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
30boat
N/A
Agree.
Remind us webcraft, how many moderator interventions or bans have you been subject to?
Malo37
Well-Known Member
I don't really understand the reason for the emotive comments in this discussion. As far as I know the only evidence is in the photographs so unless someone here actually witnessed the incident, the rest is hearsay and speculation.
Irrespective of all that, the fact that some builders seem to be producing boats with hulls of eggshell like proportions (which this actualy is if you compare thickness and volume etc) is pretty poor, and I suppose a direct consequence of the demand for cheaper and bigger boats.
Irrespective of all that, the fact that some builders seem to be producing boats with hulls of eggshell like proportions (which this actualy is if you compare thickness and volume etc) is pretty poor, and I suppose a direct consequence of the demand for cheaper and bigger boats.
Phoenix of Hamble
Well-Known Member
Flippin 'eck.... can't you 'elitist' owners ever let up a bit?
I just console myself with the fact that I must be dealing with a highly unusual minority, as its hard to believe that anyone who still thinks that paying 3 times the price for a boat built using mid 20th century techniques is better than one built using state of the art construction technology, precise quantity control and computer calculated material dimensioning is actually capable of using a PC, let alone a forum.
I just console myself with the fact that I must be dealing with a highly unusual minority, as its hard to believe that anyone who still thinks that paying 3 times the price for a boat built using mid 20th century techniques is better than one built using state of the art construction technology, precise quantity control and computer calculated material dimensioning is actually capable of using a PC, let alone a forum.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Some people still prefer solid Victorian villas to timber framed Barratt boxes. Others prefer Bentleys to Mondeos. Just think what tough boats Bavaria could make if they used all that design skill and charged the same as H-R ...
Identify the egg shell below:
Nicholson 35 solid laminate thickness 1ft below toe rail at max beam? Guess 18mm
Bavaria 34 sandwich laminate at same place? Guess 8mm + 10mm sandwich + 4mm inner.
Don't bother answering Malo37, they are both egg shells relative to a 10' or 11' beam.
Minus their keels, the Bav weighs about 3 tons and the Nich about 3.8 tons. But the Bav's hull is say 20% bigger so there does not seem to be much difference in the amount of laminate in the builds.
Malo37
Well-Known Member
150% using your figures
But anyhow try this, the Hallberg-Rassy 342 is just a light 3.4 ton boat minus its keel. Seems you need to add HR to your list of egg shell manufacturers.
TradewindSailor
Well-Known Member
In order to back calculate laminate weight in this way you need to estimate the outfit weight which should be proportional to the internal volume. All in all the laminate weight will be such a small proportion of the displacement (entire hull, rig, engine, keel weights) that the inaccuracies would be huge, making the attempt futile.
I had already removed keel weight from those numbers. Allow 150 Kg for an engine and say 250kg for the rig, that leaves a lot of heavy laminate in the equation.
TradewindSailor
Well-Known Member
But you don't even know the lightship weight. You only know the design displacement. What have the designers allowed for stores/gear/tools/liquids to determine the displacement? As for the keel weight .... or is it the ballast weight? ..... they can be two different values, particularly for integral keels.
The outfit weight is still too large a number to calculate the hull laminate weight accurately
KellysEye
Well-Known Member
>I had already removed keel weight from those numbers. Allow 150 Kg for an engine and say 250kg for the rig, that leaves a lot of heavy laminate in the equation.
Err, what about, tanks, furniture, windows, hatches, cabin soles, taps, sinks, toilet, cooker, doors, plumbing, wiring, steering gear, instruments, cockpit table, bilge pumps, stairs, deck fittings, through hulls, furnishings and...
Err, what about, tanks, furniture, windows, hatches, cabin soles, taps, sinks, toilet, cooker, doors, plumbing, wiring, steering gear, instruments, cockpit table, bilge pumps, stairs, deck fittings, through hulls, furnishings and...
Last edited:
I used the Nich 35's ballast ratio.