Bruce Farr Design ruins Beneteau First reputation

H

HunterWanderer

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 Jan 2011
Messages
319
Visit site
Groupe Finot used to design the First range but were replaced by Bruce Farr and now the design does not allow for typical use such as groundings. It would seem that the bolts are too close together, the thickness of the hull too thin and the keel bolt washers too small.
However did Beneteau allow them to design their boats like this?
 
HunterWanderer said:
Groupe Finot used to design the First range but were replaced by Bruce Farr and now the design does not allow for typical use such as groundings. It would seem that the bolts are too close together, the thickness of the hull too thin and the keel bolt washers too small.
However did Beneteau allow them to design their boats like this?
Click to expand...

Are you quoting from the Cheeki Rafiki report?

I would hardly describe grounding as a "typical use". Probably more like an "occasional event".

Richard
 
HunterWanderer said:
Groupe Finot used to design the First range but were replaced by Bruce Farr and now the design does not allow for typical use such as groundings. It would seem that the bolts are too close together, the thickness of the hull too thin and the keel bolt washers too small.
However did Beneteau allow them to design their boats like this?
Click to expand...

If you are basing those observations on the MAIB report, you are wrong. Nowhere does it say the bolts are too close together, nor the hull too thin. The washers met the standard at the time of build, and there is no suggestion that the additional size required by the latest standard would have prevented the incident. The design and manufacture, with the exception of the washers meets the 2012 ISO so if you say the design was inadequate you are saying that the standard is inadequate and that the people at Wolfson, who developed the standard (and Farr Design) do not know what they are doing.

Do you have the expertise to make these claims?
 
Finngulf were a successful company making high quality yachts designed by Strahlmann (sic.) A Finnish designer based in Florida. They decided they were not quite fast enough so got Farr to design them a new boat, about 43', stripped out interior, no wood inside, big rig, fast and twitchy. They built two on spec and sent one to the UK where it languished for over a year before selling for about half price. Within a year the company had closed down to wait out the recession.
Maybe Farr is doing things differently for Bavaria or perhaps Bavaria are just licensing the name? Certainly 'Farr' and 'heavily built' sound like oxymorons.

Amused that when checking the spelling of 'oxymoron' that the Urban dictionary came up with the example 'Microsoft Works'
 
Last edited:
The proof is in the pudding. It has happened. The boat hit bottom and the keel fell off.
Yachts often touch bottom and should be designed to take such loads.
The result is that the Firsts of Bruce Farr have failed and the result is catastrophic. The MAIB report is being very cautious and the design is very poor. The washers especially are way too small.
Woolfson should also allow normal use to include heavy groundings otherwise we (and surveyors ) shall never be sure of the structural integrity of our boats.
 
HunterWanderer said:
The proof is in the pudding. It has happened. The boat hit bottom and the keel fell off.
Yachts often touch bottom and should be designed to take such loads.
The result is that the Firsts of Bruce Farr have failed and the result is catastrophic. The MAIB report is being very cautious and the design is very poor. The washers especially are way too small.
Woolfson should also allow normal use to include heavy groundings otherwise we (and surveyors ) shall never be sure of the structural integrity of our boats.
Click to expand...

You are just making things up. Please read the analysis before making such statements. For example the laminate in way of the bolts was twice as thick as the standard requires, and the number and spacing of the bolts complies with the standard. The washers met the requirements of the standard in use at the time, and as the Wolfson report says the difference required to meet the later standard is small.
 
Do I have the expertise to make these claims.
Who knows?
I have a degree in Engineering and a knowledge of boat design that goes back 50 years. I have owned Beneteaus for 20 years and sailed the Atlantic single handed twice.
 
I am not making things up.
Beneteau for years never had a problem with keel support fixings. But when Farr design specified this boat the hull laminate was too thin and the washers were too small so that when grounding occured the hall was damaged.
It doesent matter what Wolfson or MAIB state the fact is the keel fell off. The design was inadequate.
 
HunterWanderer said:
The proof is in the pudding. It has happened. The boat hit bottom and the keel fell off.
Yachts often touch bottom and should be designed to take such loads.
The result is that the Firsts of Bruce Farr have failed and the result is catastrophic. The MAIB report is being very cautious and the design is very poor. The washers especially are way too small.
Woolfson should also allow normal use to include heavy groundings otherwise we (and surveyors ) shall never be sure of the structural integrity of our boats.
Click to expand...

And what about the Jeanneau Sun Odessy 37 (if I recall correctly) that left it keel stuck on a rock in the Scillies. Was that a Buce Farr issue also?
 
The days when yachts could take to the ground in the pounding sense are long over.The chord of the keel is short now, and the load of the hull,superstructure,mast,equipment, furniture, tankage and the partner's wardrobe are all concentrated on a piece of hull far shorter than in the past with a full keeler.Work it out yourselves, contact with the bottom unless soft mud is going to lead to failure.Even laying up a modern yacht on a cradle the load is in many cases adjusted to share the loading between the cradle and the keel.Contessas, Fishers etc.need a big bashing to even blink!The report may not even mention grounding,I need to go back and see, it could simply be flex failure if excursions in the materials,under load were exceeding permitted loads.We place our faith in the designers of our boats, and we sincerely hope the accountants do not alter the specs, as in the case of the Titanic, and Comet.
 
I dont think its the standard thats to blame, although it probably is inadequate.
The UK motor manufacturers that failed (Triunph, Austin etc. ) met the standards required but the manufacturers that have succeeded such as VW and BMW is probably because their cars exceeded the required standards and they produced products that survived normal use (and abuse on our roads!) and got a good reputation as a result.
The Beneteau reputation was exemplary but now?
 
HunterWanderer said:
My point is that Beneteau reputation has been destroyed by Farr Design.
Click to expand...

Tosh!

I know of a Beneteau first 325 (well before Far and Starck got their mitts on the boats), that suffered the inner tray moulding separating from the hull. The boat was drying out against a wall the the interior stayed where it was and the hull started to sag down. Inspection of the leading edge of the keel showed a big dent.

So if any fin keel hits something hard enough it's possible to cause substantial damage to the interior unless the material in the keel deforms on impact or the keel is encapsulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top