Bruce Farr Design ruins Beneteau First reputation

[Daydream believer]

I am however a highly experienced Technician/Mechanic of 50 years experience and have ridden my self prepared racing mororbikes in some of the most arduous and dangerous races in the world.
I know about personal safety-and how to achieve it.................................

But do you!!

Only picking your post as an example due to wording not particularly to wind you up
Lots of people come on this forum to claim various abilities but one might ask -are they actually related to the subject in hand?

For instance (sorry again for using your post) what has motor bike repairs or bike safety got to do with yacht keels & marine safety?
Some forumites claim to be engineers ( what, shovel engineers, chemical engineers, boiler engineers, sewerage engineers etc etc!!!!)
but if the learning has nothing to do with yacht structural design then their comments can only be personal opinion not taken as actual fact

So forumites rubbishing a particular manfacturer does not really carry any weight whatsoever, apart from practical experience of that manufacturer of course which is somewhat different

 

[Daydream believer]

Are we not able to be polite and show a little more tolerance for differing viewpoints?

Oh come on !!!
Do not spoil the fun!!!!

 

[Sailfree]

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.

Please specify the impact load the keel/hull must withstand without sustaining any damage (and how many such impacts) before you spout such rubbish.

Before you question my qualifications I once designed a flyover with a 15yr design life. It complied with the then design code. Its still up and being used some 48yrs later. obviously it was overdesigned and cost more than one that would just have been adequate and needing replacement after 15yrs.

 

[lw395]

......
For instance (sorry again for using your post) what has motor bike repairs or bike safety got to do with yacht keels & marine safety?
.......

A lot IMHO.
Safety is as much about a few almost 'soft science' things as it is about hardware.
It's about knowing the limits of the hardware.
It's about using the hardware right.
It's about understanding the hardware and knowing that your particular kit is as good as it can be.
It's about having good reason to trust the processes by which the hardware was built, repaired, tested etc.
It's about trusting, for the right reasons, the people involved, whether they are building your race bike, or providing you with a plane to fly or a boat to sail.

And it's about knowing what happens if something breaks and taking responsibility for that.

It's not just about the strength of a bit of metal or plastic.

 

[awol]

Before you question my qualifications I once designed a flyover with a 15yr design life. It complied with the then design code. Its still up and being used some 48yrs later. obviously it was overdesigned and cost more than one that would just have been adequate and needing replacement after 15yrs.

If only yacht keel design had had such a design code then CR, Rambler, various RtW boats, Tony Bullimore, Drum, etc., etc. would have had no problems.

 

[Birdseye]

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.
.

Only in the hands of the incompetent!

 

[awol]

Only in the hands of the incompetent!

Nothing to do with CR perhaps but I would have thought that drying out against a quay wall was a normal activity of the "competent" and the shock loads from passing boat washes while at that "interesting" time would have been considered.

 

[AndrewfromFal]

If only yacht keel design had had such a design code then CR, Rambler, various RtW boats, Tony Bullimore, Drum, etc., etc. would have had no problems.

IF the design code is stuck to by the manufacturer.

- As an example, there was nothing wrong with the design of Drum's keel attachment (as borne out by her close sistership, Lion NZ, which used the same design). The problem was one of manufacturing; IIRC correctly, porous steel work.

 

[Talulah]

IF the design code is stuck to by the manufacturer.

- As an example, there was nothing wrong with the design of Drum's keel attachment (as borne out by her close sistership, Lion NZ, which used the same design). The problem was one of manufacturing; IIRC correctly, porous steel work.

Hooligan V Accident
This was another case of the build being different to the design. (Amongst other mistakes.)
https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/547c7036ed915d4c0d000085/HooliganVReport.pdf

 

[rotrax]

Here is what you wrote in the other CR thread:

"When I studied automotive technology in the early sixties I had to write a paper on a great designer.
I chose Henry Ford, but studied others"
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?429092-Cheeki-rafiki-maib-report/page26#2U1WeVSG48qRv6xl.99

I always thought only academics and market specialists wrote papers? Look this is all getting a bit silly, the title of this thread is bordering on libelous and as I pointed out you have even got your boats mixed up (very different keel structures incidentally). There is of course an important engineering/safety discussion to be had here along the lines of what Talulah and others have described.

However, if I were you I'd keep off the entire "slag-off" angle here. It is always fun to give a gratuitous kick in the goolies to a big company one perhaps doesn't like very much; just be aware that these companies can kick back too! Incidentally most major companies routinely scan the net for articles, discussions, etc which reference their brand. I'm going to pull out of this particular line of discussion now; it's a free world out there.

There you go again-I dont believe I have slagged off any particular company or person. I have been critical of what I percieve to be shortcomings.

My vocational education was at the excellent Wandsworth Technical College as part of my proper old fashioned five year apprenticeship. I studied MVT-Motor Vehicle Technology-for the C&G London examinations. Five years of regular day release and some night school.
As part of this I had to present a paper-not an essay, a paper-on my chosen designer.


I have offered my strongly felt opinion on contempory boat design-and made it clear that I prefer old fashioned, heavy, slow but inherently strong designs.

We agree to differ-fine. Dont get so wound up about it-it would be a grey old world if we all wanted the same thing.

 

[rotrax]

But do you!!

Only picking your post as an example due to wording not particularly to wind you up
Lots of people come on this forum to claim various abilities but one might ask -are they actually related to the subject in hand?

For instance (sorry again for using your post) what has motor bike repairs or bike safety got to do with yacht keels & marine safety?
Some forumites claim to be engineers ( what, shovel engineers, chemical engineers, boiler engineers, sewerage engineers etc etc!!!!)
but if the learning has nothing to do with yacht structural design then their comments can only be personal opinion not taken as actual fact

So forumites rubbishing a particular manfacturer does not really carry any weight whatsoever, apart from practical experience of that manufacturer of course which is somewhat different

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.

 

[lw395]

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

Anybody grounding a boat, however it is built, should fear structural damage.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The boat in question had a long, hard life of intense use, and at least one major repair.
In many senses it could have been considered at the end of its working life.
Then it was used, at best, at the extreme of what it was designed for.

I used to own a glider which had been designed, inter alia, for aerobatics. V_NE as built was 137kt, acceleration limits were +7/-5g and it was cleared for everything including inverted flight and outside loops. When I bought it it was 20 yeas old and the type was down to 112kt, +6/-4g, semi-aerobatic. Two months after I sold it (good move) it went down to 108kt, +4/-2g, non-aerobatic. The limits change as the aircraft get older and as hours and launches increase and reflect survey evidence from around the world.

Perhaps something similar is needed for modern lightweight yachts. Cat 0 possible only up to 5 years / 100,000 miles, then Cat 1 for another 5 years / 100,000 miles, then Cat 2 for another 10 years / 200,000 miles, then non-commercial use only.

 

[pmagowan]

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

Anybody grounding a boat, however it is built, should fear structural damage.

 

[flaming]

Anybody grounding a boat, however it is built, should fear structural damage.

Certainly true where the grounding is an unexpected thump type stop, rather than a gentle nosing up a muddy river waiting for the tide to rise.

 

[lpdsn]

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

You're obviously hitting the wrong type of rock and simply not trying hard enough.

 

[rotrax]

Anybody grounding a boat, however it is built, should fear structural damage.

The guy who headed up the salvage operation for Gypsy Moth when it jumped up on the reef gave a talk to our club some years ago. Despite spending several days grinding around in the rising and falling tides it was faked up with a few sheets of ply to get it to a safe haven where it was then sorted out properly.

I winder how a modern bolt on fin keeler would have done in the same situation.

At sea, if the $H1T hits the fan it goes wrong very quickly. I would prefer to be on something with overspecified construction.

I fully accept that racing improves the breed-but not neccesarily for safety.

I have seen a Maxi 1100 hull upside down at gosport with no keel attatched. It got on the Bramble Bank during a race. The action of the waves against the leverage of the keel ripped it off.

That type of boat is not for me.

 

[Strolls]

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

An accidental grounding, perhaps.

Cheeki Rafiki was beaten to ****, having sustained numerous documented dings and repairs over its career.

In your comment you describe the vigilance with which you maintained your motorcycles, but that's a complete contrast to the complacency with which the yacht racing community seems to treat groundings.

"Oh, well, it's still floating, so I guess we didn't ground that hard, eh? She got us home to port, so I don't suppose there's any need to worry about it."

 

[Birdseye]

Nothing to do with CR perhaps but I would have thought that drying out against a quay wall was a normal activity of the "competent" and the shock loads from passing boat washes while at that "interesting" time would have been considered.

I cannot imagine that even a Benny would have the slightest problem with the very minor loads involved then. I wouldnt even call that a grounding in the normal sense that word is used.

The issue here is relatively simple. To succeed in racing, and thats what the owner of a First wants when he buys the boat, you need light weight and high power. That means construction that is no heavier than necessary to meet the official standards at a practical cost level. Even when money is thrown at the issue as it often is with full on race boats, you still get structural failures of the sort that never happen or very rarely happen with cruisers. So to say as was implied that Benny Firsts should be as tough as say the old Westerly cruisers is unrealistic. They wouldnt sell. They wouldnt win.

In short you pays wour money and makes your choice.

 

[snooks]

Snooks, was it Premier Cru perchance?

It was, but it was rebuilt stronger than before.

Hi Snooks
Thats just my point.
Lots of old Beneteaus hit bottom hard and suffered damage, eg. separating the hull from the matrix of the hull lining. But the hull layup itself and the size of the steel reinforcing of the Finot design was sufficiently strong that the keels didn't fall off.
The Farr designed Firsts structure is too light for actual use and abuse, and Beneteaus reputation is compromised.

The only reason the keel didn't come off or wobble round in the future was because the problem was discovered. The inner liner had detached from the hull, and where the trailing edge was the hull was also cracked.

The interior around the aft section was removed a 1/2 inch stainless steel plate I've a foot wide and waterline to waterline was glassed into place with 3/4 inch solid laminate again.

It wasn't the strength of the original boat that kept her sailing for the next 20 plus years.