Bruce Farr Design ruins Beneteau First reputation

[dom]

In September 2008 I retired from motor bike racing. I had my first race in 1963. That is 45 years. I broke an arm at Brands Hatch and a collar bone and shoulder blade at Reading Speedway.

The Brands Hatch crash was on a sponsored bike that I did not prepare myself-it lost the gearbox oil which went directly onto the rear tyre-, the Speedway crash I was hit from behind and took the collarbone flip over the front.

My life-and others- depended on the quality of my preparation. The hours on the bench paid off on the track. I had few mechanical failures in my career. It cost plenty but was worth it-I'm still around, unlike many of my fellow competitors.

I know more about being on that razor edge between success and distaster than many. Before going to the IOM my bike was totally dismantled, all the welds examined on the frame and if suspect I went through the crack detection process. It took about 80 man hours to prepare the bikes for six laps-220 miles-of the TT course. I have raced on the worlds most challenging circuits and survived. I have a proven record of achieving personal safety through good preparation while taking part in dangerous and dynamic motor sports.

If you read my posts I have only offered opinion on the difference between my chosen type of boat and the more lightly constructed bolt on fin keel type.

An opinion I firmly hold is that any boat should be able to suffer an accidental grounding without the fear of major structural damage.

I personally think you are dreamy bordering on delusional as to the survivability and maintenance free nature of traditional hulls. That said I'm seriously impressed with your 45 year motorcycle racing career that included the IoM. I mean FFS that's hardcore :encouragement:

Joke is with your meticulous attitude to maintenance I can't imagine you having much trouble with a 40.7!

 

[RobbieW]

...And I don't agree that suitable methods exist...

These guys, http://www.marineresults.com/survey/, seem to specialise in just this sort of inspection using the sort of technique mentioned by pyrojames over in the other thread

 

[lpdsn]

I am not disagreeing with the points you make except the poor design bit, as maintenance, ease of inspection, is just one part of a design remit. In fact, if the remit is for a low cost, high performance boat, then ease of maintenance and inspection might be far down the list of priorities. Perhaps the marketing people and the manufacturer have played down the sensitivity of the structure, limitations. Such stuff is supposed to be part of the Maintenance and Operating Manual for the CE mark to be applied. I could not comment on the surveyors or repairers competency, nor would I suggest that they are incompetent, but again, competency by so called professionals, also, raises it's head, depressingly frequently, as a contributory factor in many incident investigations; just watch Air Crash Investigation for many examples of this from a highly controlled industry as well as threads on this forum examples of incompetent surveyors.

I think you're right about teh marketing people probably playing down the limitations of the structure, if they even ever knew themselves. It'll be interesting to see if the attitudes of surveyors to these boats change. It's going to have a significant impact on the second-hand value of boats with a similar design, if surveyors are going to insist on the keels being removed.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

It all depends on what you mean by "design is adequate". Adequate for what? .....

That is the point I think. My drilling rigs are highly mobile, modules designed to be placed on trucks, this means a lot of stuff squeezed into typical container spaces and it makes inspection and maintenance difficult, but the design remit was for modular construction that fitted on public roads without special measures. Most designs have to trade off various functionality aspects, I have found.

 

[lpdsn]

These guys, http://www.marineresults.com/survey/, seem to specialise in just this sort of inspection using the sort of technique mentioned by pyrojames over in the other thread

Do they do it for free? Or do you just accept that some production boats are going to cost two to three times as much to survey as the norm and that's the way it is? And it is no responsibility of the designer?

What would you think if you were buying a boat of a similar design and the surveyor you employed recommended that you also carry out this additional inspection. Would you do it?

 

[rotrax]

I personally think you are dreamy bordering on delusional as to the survivability and maintenance free nature of traditional hulls. That said I'm seriously impressed with your 45 year motorcycle racing career that included the IoM. I mean FFS that's hardcore :encouragement:

Joke is with your meticulous attitude to maintenance I can't imagine you having much trouble with a 40.7!

Unless it hit the bottom a bit hard....................................

My boat has a fully encapsulated long keel. It wont fall off. If it takes a hard hit it might leak-an IP was beached in the Chesapeake to avoid it sinking after hitting a submerged concrete breakwater. The damage was just above the keel into the under sole area. Leaking is often managable-sudden turning turtle because the keel is no longer attatched is more problematical.

Compared to the technology I spent years working with, boats are relativly simple-at least the ones I have worked on or owned have been. I am not comfortable with design and construction which has the potential for sudden and dramatic failure. That is what appears to be the case with CR. The previous history is of course relevant, but if the design and construction mean structural damage to the keel/hull joint integrity is compromised after a heavy grounding one has to ask if it is fit for crossing oceans without a survey of this critical area prior to making the passage.

I admire the lightweight flyers-those Americas Cup big foiling beasts are amazing. They however have a team of expensive experts fussing over them every moment they are not actually sailing.

It is amazing how many ex bike racers I meet sailing-sailing or powerboating seems to be the replacement for bike racing for many. I think it has the technical aspect with the maintenance, the planning and chartwork and that sense of aprehension as you slip the lines for a passage.

It certainly works for us.

PS:-First Mate was a handy racer too. She rode sidecar outfits in road racing with distinction and won her class in the 100th aniversary Ecce Homo Hillclimb in the Czech republic in 2005. She was on the telly and everything.........................................

 

[CJS]

Don't mind me I'm only a novice but I do race on a 34.7 and I've read the CF report cover to cover.

It was very well thought out given that they didn't have the boat to look at, or any of the crew, RIP.

I've only read the firts 5 pages of this tread so appologies if it's been said before.

There were a number of factors,

At the time of design the was no ISO standard, the designers did follow berst practice and a US standard. They tested the materials and controlled quality well.

There was a tendency to under estimat/not reprot groundings, was it grounded more often than known?

None of the repair yards the MAIB spoke to fully understood how to reapair the matrix, for example none removed the keel when repairing the other 5 40.7's the MAIB found.

None of the guide books recomented a non stop route or one that far north.

The skipper was young and only had his YM's open ocean 6 months if he'd more experance or somebody onboard with more experance to use as a sounding board things might have been different, for example they didn't slow the boat to get it ready to abandon ship when the worst happend.

The report noted that one or two of the keel bolts has rusted and may have failed. They concluded the loss of CF was probably due to accumulated dammage due to several groundings.

It's very easy to be arm chair experts but lets remember that 4 men lost their lives and that they are missed by four famlies who never got to say good bye. Personally speaking no matter how over engineered your boat or kit is, you must look after it, depending on it being bomb proof is neglecting your own responsablaity.

 

[savageseadog]

There are very real questions about how strong keel attachments actually are, initially and after use, repair and after passage of time. I don't believe that it's possible to accurately model the strength of a keel attachment and underlying structure when new never mind after several years have passed. A keel and underlying structure will be subjects to many and varied types of loading, it's certainly possible to model then test a keel with some types of load but how do you predict the other effects? The structure is complex with varied thicknesses of GRP, sizes shapes and positions of structural members, bolts, etc etc.
I would suggest that design specs are in the main empirical, deduced from some testing and some experience but a great deal else is probably unknown so there will be a factor of safety which will hopefully cover all eventualities. For racing yachts in particular customers want light and fast boats, there will be significant pressure on suppliers to provide what they want but designers and builders will probably deny this. The fact is though that customers will go elsewhere if they don't get what they want.

 

[RobbieW]

Do they do it for free? Or do you just accept that some production boats are going to cost two to three times as much to survey as the norm and that's the way it is? And it is no responsibility of the designer?

What would you think if you were buying a boat of a similar design and the surveyor you employed recommended that you also carry out this additional inspection. Would you do it?

I'd be extremely surprised if an inspection of this sort were done for free unless the constructors were to take to some responsibility which seems unlikely. Now that a weakness of this construction method has been highlighted and become far more public, the costs of inspection and resolution will be reflected in the market prices of affected boats, qv...

... As I said on the CR MAIB thread this type of design is now lumped with Osmosis and Teak Decks...

Edit: After a little reflection it might be truer to say "Now that a better understanding of the operating costs of this construction method..." rather than "Now that a weakness of this construction method...'

 

[Sailfree]

It has oft been said that any structural engineer can design a bridge to stay up- but it takes a good one to design a bridge that just stays up

I think that quote is applicable to buildings as you can always design them to be too strong as weight is not a limiting factor. A bridge design is different though as extra weight in the span increases the stresses.

I have seen many examples of lazy over design that results in extra costs for the client.

I also designed the additional 3 storeys of the East wing of the Brighton metropole hotel in lightweight concrete that went onto the existing 3 storeys. That was challenging.

Returning to this thread though I feel that a number of prejudices are showing through. Rotrax prefers encapsulated keels that are found on older designs. I agree they can be stronger and withstand impacts better but they are slower and can be difficult to manoeuvre in a marina. I am in an outside berth in Poole and frankly I don't think I could berth an equivalent long keel boat in the restricted space I have! I have limited experience of a Rustler 36!

All boats could be stronger but then you have to specify minimum strength/impacts they must resist. If we are to race sailing boats then weight and design being "just" adequate will be a factor as in formula 1 for cars. There was the case of the Americas cup boat that folded in the middle due to the conditions.

In a similar way though as the design of the carbon capsule for formula 1 cars that have increased survivabilty for drivers it could be possible to specify a minimum impact load for fin keels but the testing costs would put a few more boat builders out of business.

I still believe that for normal use and prudent inspection after any groundings fin keel designs are adequate. Boats do take a large amount of abuse and the CR case is exceptional. Let's not make rule for the exceptions. I notice in the separate thread that a maxi with all things a fin keel survived a grounding off Weymouth with only rudder damage.

Some spout on about the weakness of this design that I think is rubbish. There is a weakness in all boat design that few can withstand eg an hull impact with a submerged log or container - how many boats have sunk because of this. Should all boats be designed like an etap? or have watertight compartment to ensure buoyancy.

I suspect more boats have been loss due to impacts with floating objects than lost keels but that does not give ammunition for some people prejudices against fin keels!

WRT resale value I do not think CR incident will affect them as much as the more well known additional cost of teak deck replacement that is necessary after some 15yrs on quality boats like HRs etc. now that should stir the pot!!

For Rotrax benefit I would add that I used to commute 140mls every day into London on a motorcycle and only stopped last year when I retired at 68 so I think my risk analysis is fairly good!

 

[doug748]

It is as well not to confuse encapsulated keels with long keel design:

View attachment 51426

Albin Ballad, encapsulated.

Long keeled boats have internal or external ballast and sometimes a bit of both.

 

[Sailfree]

It is as well not to confuse encapsulated keels with long keel design:

View attachment 51426

Albin Ballad, encapsulated.

Long keeled boats have internal or external ballast and sometimes a bit of both.

Thanks for the clarification. I think though that encapsulated keels tend to be longer than fin keels by varying degrees and likewise are less manoeuvrable by similar varying degrees.

 

[dom]

PS:-First Mate was a handy racer too. She rode sidecar outfits in road racing with distinction and won her class in the 100th aniversary Ecce Homo Hillclimb in the Czech republic in 2005. She was on the telly and everything.........................................

Well hats off to her! - winding one of those babies up a hair-pinned road at race speeds is no joke ...she might have you on a foiling cat yet!

 

[rotrax]

Well Done! I worked out years ago that riding motorbikes on the street was FAR more dangerous than racing. I was sideswiped by a merc on the M4 in 1982. I was in the outside lane in a column of passing traffic, fortunatly the last one. The Merc came from the centre lane and hit me. I went Merc, centre reservation,Merc,centre reservation, ground-all at 75 MPH ish.

On another note, I have no problem with up to the minute design and construction. One of the easily accessable wonders of the construction world is Brunels single span brick bridge over the Thames at Maidenhead. The experts said it could not be done. IIRC thousands travelled to see it fall down the day they removed the shuttering. It did not.
It still does its job carrying the Great Western Railway well into its second century of daily use.

I am sure that most fin keel yachts with bolted on keels are safe. I have owned two. Our sailing may be further afield in the future and my choice of boat reflects only what I want for the peace of mind when crossing more challenging streches of water. Our longest passage so far is 27 hours-Newlyn to Kilmore Quay.

What concerns me is the lightweight hi-tech construction of some. For the reasons others have said these are essential for racing where weight is a penalty. Racing, as these commentators have noted, means yachts hit the bottom from time to time. If this means expensive and time consuming inspection and dismantling in many cases it wont happen. We are having this debate because a yacht of this type went down with 4 crew on board. When it was found floating upside down it appeared the keel had been torn off.

The conclusion I draw from this is that boats constructed in that way are less durable, and an essential component of what I require from a yacht is durability.

 

[E39mad]

To the OP, Beneteau have always had some issue down the years with their First range

In the 1980's it was Osmosis or faulty resin causing laminates to flap like a plastic bag

In the 1990's the Stark interior boats 32s5 35s5 lost rigs regularly - yes they were raced very hard but they were almost new. The 45f5 I used to race had major structural failure after 3 years of ownership (the internal moulding with the mast stepped on it slid forward) - the French came over to sail it back, took one look at it and went home on the Ferry!

The 40.7 is a fast yacht and if it had a few groundings on hard material with the kite up say 8 to 10 knots then the forces on the keel will be severe to say the least.

I believe that any rational person will view the CR case as what it is - a tragic accident due to previous use of the yacht and had this been another manufacturer with the same (mis)use and similar design then the same tragic outcome would have happened.

 

[lw395]

It is as well not to confuse encapsulated keels with long keel design:

View attachment 51426

Albin Ballad, encapsulated.

Long keeled boats have internal or external ballast and sometimes a bit of both.

Good point.
The problem with modern yachts is that to get halfway competitive performance, you need a deep keel.
The keel will also want to be short from front to back and not very fat.
The hull will have relatively low immersed volume, due to the light displacement, and fairly flat bilges.
Then add in the requirement of a fairly low coachroof or even a flush deck, plus standing headroom inside.

This all adds up to essentially the keel joining onto the canoe body of the yacht as a T structure.
Whether you bolt the keel on, encapsulate it, or whatever, it is a concentration of stress at that point.

You can avoid all that by using an old fashioned hull shape, unfortunately that will be worth somewhere between squat and diddly-squat on the race circuit and the race charter market.

 

[rotrax]

So there you have it-race them hard and expect a short life but an eventfull one or forget racing, dont go aground or carry too much load on the rig and you will be OK.

Sorry-not for me.

 

[lw395]

If keel dropping is necessary to make sure a boat is safe then yes that must be done.

Simply dropping the keel may not help.
I think we are talking about needing some sort of testing of the properties of the GRP.

 

[lw395]

I ground my boat regularly without any fear of structural damage.

It's interesting to chat with marina crane operators.
One test of the stiffness of a hull is how much you have to keep lowering the strops to let all the weight off, after the keel touches the ground.
I've seen a fair few MABs which are notable for flexing a long old way.
Repeatedly doing that to GRP weakens it, in a vicious circle.
Some of these boats, I'd think twice about crossing Lyme Bay...

 

[doug748]

Good point.
The problem with modern yachts is that to get halfway competitive performance, you need a deep keel.
The keel will also want to be short from front to back and not very fat.
The hull will have relatively low immersed volume, due to the light displacement, and fairly flat bilges.
Then add in the requirement of a fairly low coachroof or even a flush deck, plus standing headroom inside.

This all adds up to essentially the keel joining onto the canoe body of the yacht as a T structure.
Whether you bolt the keel on, encapsulate it, or whatever, it is a concentration of stress at that point.

You can avoid all that by using an old fashioned hull shape, unfortunately that will be worth somewhere between squat and diddly-squat on the race circuit and the race charter market.

Very true, could not have put it better.

And the more margin you build into your racing keel, the less competitive it becomes, and bolted on iron is the less expensive option. And, as usual, we can't have it all.