Bavs & the RCD

[poter]

I am a little confused????

Why do Bavs loose their keels if they have an RCD. Well I assume that they do have an RCD?

If you import a yacht into the EC then you have to get it an RCD yes? But if its keel falls off will that invalidate it?

confused

poter /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[bilbobaggins]

The Bav Match 42 debacle is likely to cause some hiccups in other places. There is a whole chain of responsibilties open to challenge here, and with it the entire ethos and function of this expensive, controversial Directive. All these boats should have had an RCD 'CE' Mark of Compliance; all should therefore have been built to satisfy the Directive in terms of "INTEGRITY AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS - 3.1. Structure - The choice and combination of materials and its construction shall ensure that the craft is strong enough in all respects"

An august organisation, such as the RYA, should have approved the design and construction as conforming to the Essential Safety Requirements: "NOTIFIED BODY - A notified body ascertains and attests that a specimen, representative of the production envisaged, meets the provisions of the Directive that apply to it."

The manufacturer satisfies the regs. by operating an approved quality control system and by declaring that the products conform to the Requirements and to the Type Approval. He also Verifies this is the case:

"CONFORMITY DECLARATION - The manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community ensures and declares that the products concerned are in conformity with the type as described in the EC type-examination certificate and satisfy the requirements of the Directive that applies to them

QUALITY SYSTEM - The manufacturer shall lodge an application for assessment of his quality system with a notified body of his choice, for the products concerned.

PRODUCT VERIFICATION - This module describes the procedure whereby a manufacturer or his authorised representative established within the Community checks and attests that the products subject to the provisions of point 3 are in conformity with the type as described in the EC type-examination certificate and satisfy the requirements of the Directive that apply to them..."

It was argued hard by some users' representatives - but not others - that this Directive was ill-conceived,and likely to produce no real improvement in security for users, while increasing the costs to boatbuilders - which get passed on to users. Further, it was well recognised at the time that the costs and complexity of this unnecessary measure would fall hardest on the smaller firms, driving some of them out of business. Of course, the larger firms stood to benefit ( do I hear JenBenBav ? ) considerably, and engaged in strong lobbying for their preferred interests.

For example, large multihulls - which had no record of capsize fatalities - were required to fit 'escape hatches'. Smaller multihulls - which *did* have a record of fatal inversions - were exempted from such an obvious requirement. It is telling that the manufacturers of large multihulls already provided such hatches, and could comply at no additional cost. However, the moulds for smaller boats would need costly modification......

I was told at the time that, in the 'horse trading', this and several other safety issues were simply swept aside - 'for your national body did not choose to support those arguments'. It wanted to acquire the role of 'Notified Body' instead of, would you believe, the UKAEA.

It was a 'carve-up'.

 

[Sailfree]

You have all got it wrong.

I was assured by an expert (a salesman on the Bavaria stand) that only a couple of people mentioned the match 42 problems, that it was definately caused by grounding, there is a new report out that vindicates Bavarias. He also added that SIBS was one of their most successful shows with many £1000 deposits taken rather than the £250 deposits of which they expect 10% not to be converted into sales.

Another production boat sales person (different make) said that the production boats were having to work for every sale and that results were flat and that for the bigger production boats the value of the part-ex was causing difficulties in closing the sale.

I was also advised that numbers and sales at Hamble Point used boat sale were excellent.

Now come on scuttlebutters what is the truth?

I would add that I would not be surprised if Bavarias sales were good as I think they have a product that really appeals to first time buyers and to those realistic to know the limitations of a AWB but are attracted by what appears really good value for money. By the way how many Bavs defied the experts and finished the ARC/ Antigua rally last time?

 

[Captain Haddock]

[ QUOTE ]
You have all got it wrong.

I was assured by an expert (a salesman on the Bavaria stand) that only a couple of people mentioned the match 42 problems, that it was definately caused by grounding, there is a new report out that vindicates Bavarias.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was one of the people who mentioned it as I was seriously looking at their range however, grounding aside. I knew the standard of finish was a bit dodgy sometimes but looking at the 50, 46 and 42 I could see badly marked up cuts in the cupboards, ill fitting joins etc. It made me think seriously about the rest of the boat and what went on in the factory.

I'd rather pay an extra 20G's for a boat knowing it's been constructed solidly and with care. After all my crew and my life depend on it.

It saddens me that someone died through what could be keel failure (bolt or fitting). I read the Bavaria report and it smacked of "not me guv... anyway here's our latest brochure". As the man at SIBS said to me "we sell hundreds of Bavs, if a couple fail it's not a bad record is it?".

Now I know someone has died I'm astonished he can be so flippant and that's what grates me about this entire affair, I just can't shake the feeling that Bav and their reps don't give a toss. Maybe they hope it'll go away.

One thing I do find interesting about all of this is that if there is no problem then why issue patch instructions? who pays for the patch the yard or the punter? thousands of other yachts from other manufacturers around the world hit the bottom and they don't lose their keels.


[ QUOTE ]

I would add that I would not be surprised if Bavarias sales were good as I think they have a product that really appeals to first time buyers and to those realistic to know the limitations of a AWB but are attracted by what appears really good value for money. By the way how many Bavs defied the experts and finished the ARC/ Antigua rally last time?

[/ QUOTE ]

They probably will have good sales as the average bod I saw on the Bav stand wasn't interested in performance, construction quality or stability. The usual comment was "Oooo where does the microwave go", "innit posh in 'ere, we can have everyone over for parties", "What about carpet? can we fit carpet?"... people were looking at me like I was a weirdo when I was lifting up the bilge boards, looking at the engine, inspecting the fittings, rig etc. etc.

There's a lot of loose cash around for some people (lottery/house sale/will etc.) for many they've never sailed before and when you see the soft focus lights of Bav land it really offers a world of no risk, care free skipperdom, the ever lasting bowl of fruit in the galley and all just a signature away.

IMO Bav as a manufacturer has a duty to deliver solid, safe goods and protect all their customers new and experienced (More so the new!). If there are problems they should own up instead of shirking the blame and pointing fingers at everyone else.

I thought that was what the RCD was supposed to stand for.