Beneteau Oceanis 390 stability - HELP!!!

[Stingo]

An earlier post of mine got side-tracked to the suppossed instability of a Beneteau Oceanis 390 and now I'm sitting here with eyes like a raped owl.

HELP!!! Am I setting off on a blue water cruise in something less stable than a scorned SWMBO and could I not sort it out with a few hundred Kgs of lead attached to the bottom of the keel?


<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[Viking]

Head lines - Yachting World June 1999 - 'Officical - the 39-footer unfit to cross an ocean' see my private message!

 

[Stingo]

Think I'll just nip down to the pub and buy myself and extra large Scotch - purely for medicinal purposes of course.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[webcraft]

Have a look at

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.nds.coi.gov.uk/coi/coipress.nsf/1d4410efd9700935802567350059a4fa/47f2e41e3adeeac88025674e004028ba?OpenDocument>http://www.nds.coi.gov.uk/coi/coipress.nsf/1d4410efd9700935802567350059a4fa/47f2e41e3adeeac88025674e004028ba?OpenDocument</A>

It's the DETR report into the Ocean Madam accident.

Conclusion no. 3 was:
"3. The Oceanis 390 is a safe, comfortable, yacht suitable for pleasure sailing and charter work. Her lightweight design, however, together with her stability characteristics, introduce a high risk factor in the type of extreme sea-state conditions encountered by Ocean Madam. The yacht is not designed for crossing oceans in bad weather."

If I was you I'd look for more info and opinions on the Beneteau Owners site:

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.beneteau-owners.com/>http://www.beneteau-owners.com/</A>

It seems a bit of a bummer Stingo, all set to go then someone drops this bombshell on you . . . but it might be better to swap boats now if you are worried and get something a bit more bombproof if you are heading for blue water. On the other hand, no boat is indestructible and I'm sure many Oceanis 390s have made successful blue water voyages. Any vessel can get into trouble in Biscay in an October gale.

Good luck whatever you decide, keep us informed.

<font color=blue>Nick</font color=blue>
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>

</A>

 

[Guest]

You must remember the 390 is a class B boat. I would want a class A for ocean sailing. Also worth reading a few books before you go including 'Heavy Weather Sailing'

 

[Stingo]

Thank you for the link and encouragement.

I have heard of 390's crossing oceans and I am, as far as possible, a fair-weather sailor so places like Biscay in October are a no, no for me. I know that isn't a safeguard against F9's but it does reduce the likelyhood.

In addition to this, that article makes no mention of drogues, parachutes, trailing warps or other means of slowing a boat or keeping the boat pointed either into or with the waves. There is also no mention of whether they were beating, reaching, running - all factors IMHO that would contribute to stability at the time. How much rag did they have up?

The clash of interests that I have is that I have installed so much gear on my boat and it would take weeks to remove it and reinstall on another boat - never mind the financial implications.

The most economical solution (time wise & financially) seems to be to add a few hundred kiloigrams of lead onto the bottom of the keel. I will obviously consult Beneteau and a naval Architect before I go ahead with this.



<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[kingfisher]

Alternatives

The history of the Dutch Boat Bank shows that a Oceanis 390, built in 1989, was sold in 2001 for 81.680 euro. For that amount, you can currently get this:
1983 Contest 35
http://www.denationalebotenbank.nl/botendetail.asp?id=78027

1995 Kvase 1350
http://www.denationalebotenbank.nl/botendetail.asp?id=79382

Boats of a different type than the oceanis, for a different purpose. Oceanis= coastal boat, these: blue water cuisers.

Remember: every boat is a compromise. So, allthough a Oceanis might be quite comfortable in port, for a blue water cruiser you're looking for other characteristics. An example: a large cabin is great in port, but dangerous on the ocean. Same goes for double bunks.

For a lot of people and circumstances, the Oceanis is perfect. But for extended cruising (I saw your intended route on your site: you do not want to do Cape Good Hope in an Oceanis), you have to look at boats with different characteristics.



Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[Sybarite]

To have a balanced view-point you should perhaps read Bénéteau's reply to this report. I remember reading it at the time although I can't remember precisely the points that were made but it sounded (obviously) a bit more reassuring.

 

[Stingo]

Re: Alternatives

Yes, always a compromise.

Many years ago I read an article about the amount of time that "professional" cruisers actually spend at sea - only 10%. The rest of the time was spent at anchor/in a marina. I have always wanted to spend my 10% of actual sailing time in the best possible conditions (I know I can't always choose) and so 90% of the time I will be concerned with comfort and space. Perhaps I do have the right boat then.

I would also venture to say that my boat should sustain 7knots SOG and so I should have a reasonable chance of dodging any looming nasties. (I have SSB and will link it to my laptop etc etc for weather reports)

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[kingfisher]

techniques and tactics

As always, the competence of the crew is much more important than the quality of the boat. I still believe that an oceanis 390 is much safer than any -30 footer, simply because of its size.

So what you're basicaly looking at is changing tactics, instead of changing boat. Get a hold of bad weather sailing guides, and work further on that. Keep in mind the fact that most tactics are for displacement boats. The oceanis leans towards form stability, and less towards weight stability.

So I would guess you'ld learn more from multihull storm tactics. What i can read from the reports, a 390 behaves more like a multihull than a displacement hull.

BTW a 7kts SOG is not even going to get you acros Biskaye: read this months YM

Group of people on the pontoon: skipper is the one with the toolbox.
http://sirocco31.tripod.com

 

[Twister_Ken]

The idea of extra lead in the keel is initially appealing, but it might then start imposing strains on keel bolts, floors, etc, so that those need beefing up. It will also allow you to carry more sail for longer as the breeze builds, which might mean you want to upgrade standing rigging. You'll also float deeper which will slow you a little. So lead may not be a cheap option.

 

[Stingo]

Ken, has anyone ever told you that you're far too clever for your own good?

I have emailed a naval architect -also a regular on this forum. I have also spoken to Beneteau and they have (informally - won't put it in writing for some reason) said that I could add 200kgs to the bottom of the keel without upsetting stresses and strains on the hull, rigging etc. I want it in writing first though and I want to know where on the keel to bolt it.



<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[zefender]

Re: weighty subject

You need to be cautious about advice from Beneteau re additional weight since they may be working on completely different assumptions. Your boat is ready to sail long-term. I notice you already have Aries gear fitted plus (doubtless) loads of other heavy stuff, additional fuel & water etc. This extra weight will be substantial and will distort the likely statistical models the manufacturers will be working with. I suspect (though I might be wrong) that stability curves and the like are calculated with a brand new, empty 'sailaway' boat. Since all the stuff you'll be carrying will be above the water line, you may already need a bit of weight on the keel to counter the weight already there, let alone improve the boat's ability to stay the right way up in rough conditions. Given the boat's design, I suspect an overloaded one is miles more dangerous than one pretending to be a cargo carrier.

I'd be confident about fair weather summer trips down to the med and across the pond. Plenty of Oceanis' must have done that. I'm not that sure about some of the more testing parts of your itinerary though. Your point about 10% sailing time is a good one and this assumes you'll be very circumspect about likely sea conditions. But what about meting friends flying out to join you, putting pressure on you to 'press on'? What happens when/if you arrive at a dump of a place you just want to get out of ASAP? You itinerary already assumes an awful lot of time at sea (10%?) and implies a schedule given seasonal weather characteristics? Is it too tight, bearing in mind some of the places you are going may have poor (for your boat) weather/sea conditions for more than 50% of the time?

But I don't want to sound a pessimist.....have a ball, you lucky sod. But take care.

 

[aod]

Accepting that the basic (unaltered) hull of the Oceanis is in itself not regarded as your ideal heavy weather yacht. Then add metal mast steps (which you have) add a stainless gantry (which you have) then add a radar reflector to the mast (which you have) add a radar and ariels to the gantry (which you have) add roller reefing (which the boat has) fit out the interior with radios and gizmos mounted at head height (which you have) add a bookshelf and massive CD storage rack at chest height (which you have) and what you end up with is a very significant amount of bad weight.

Add all that bad weight to a yacht with a dubious GZ curve and you end up with what you have. A dangerous combination. I have been telling you for a year that you would be wise to have an inclination test and a stability report but as far as I know you haven't yet done so.

You may get away with adding extra lead (by way of a bulb) to the keel but that in itself creates problems like the stress on the keel blade and keel bed when the boat is thrown down a wave. Plus the expense of course.

Having seen your boat and read through this post I think you are right to be seriously concerned because no matter what precautions you take, based on your plans you are with certainty going to get caught out in bad weather.

To be brutaly honest if I were sailing on your boat I would have serious concerns about being rolled in the channel in a F6.

Stingo I more than most on here, know how much time and care and money you have spent preparing the boat for your adventure but to be blunt it isn't suitable, and if you set off you will be very lucky indeed to get away with it.

I know South Africans are good people but I haven't yet met any that can walk on water!

Take care

 

[AndrewB]

Stick with it.

My guess is the same issue applies to a great many high-volume modern yachts in the Beneteau, Jeanneau, Bavaria, Hunter/Legend, Moody ranges. These are not built to the stability and strength parameters of 'traditional' long-distance cruisers.

It is just bad luck that the Ocean Madam got singled out for criticism - partly because a particularly nasty accident coincided with a 'new' approach to reporting by MAIB. I believe they withdrew their original remarks about the design of the yacht and now seem more circumspect in criticising design (not commercial pressure, surely!).

Many people blue water cruise in such yachts. If they don't compare with the Vancouvers, Tradewinds, Crealocks, etc there are still a lot worse out there. Most cruising yachtsmen go a life-time without getting into a F9-10 in open sea. All yachts are compromises, and ultimately it is the crew rather than the yacht that is the important factor in determining the outcome of bad conditions. I would take note of the warnings, recognise the limitations, but having come this far, stick with it.

If you are seriously considering adding external ballast low on the keel, you may need to beef up the strength of your keel joint. This modification could have a detrimental effect on its resale value.

 

[Stingo]

Re: Stick with it.

I am only fussed about the resale value if I am looking to replace her. Otherwise, this is my home and palace for the foreseeable future.

I couldn't agree more with your point that Ocean Madam got single out. It could well have been any Ben/Jen/Bav/Moody/ etc etc.

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[Eudorajab]

I wouldnt let too many scare stories put you off. The main thing is if you are comfortable with your boat and its abilities along with your own. There are unfortunately a lot of scare mongerers who for one reason or another try to stop people from realising their dreams. Go for it. After all ... the Titanic sank didnt it?

Forget the lead ballast as well. Stock up on more than a few crates of the amber nectar and go for it.

 

[Guest]

Post deleted by danfoley

 

[Stingo]

Amber Nectar. Now someone is talking sense!!! AT LAST

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.stingo.co.uk>http://www.stingo.co.uk</A> - now showing at a computer near you

 

[FlyingSpud]

The Titanic is a good example of what happens if you go to sea in a boat with a design unable to cope with the conditions it faced. They knew the defect but went anyway, trusting to luck.