Bruce Farr Design ruins Beneteau First reputation

[Daydream believer]

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.

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

 

[Daydream believer]

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 still do not see what falling off your motorbike has to do with yacht design

 

[JumbleDuck]

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.

I saw a claim that Mr Bullimore had fitted a larger keel to his boat against the express written advice of the designer.

 

[Just_sayin']

that Benny Firsts should be as tough as say the old Westerly cruisers

You're funny.

 

[rotrax]

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."

If that IS the case their chickens may be coming home to roost...........................

 

[rotrax]

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.

It beggars the question what the Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo it was doing in the middle of the North Atlantic with four on board then........................

 

[JumbleDuck]

It beggars the question what the Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kilo it was doing in the middle of the North Atlantic with four on board then........................

Making money.

 

[lpdsn]

I hate to agree with HunterWanderer (really hate it as a lot of what he's been spouting is drivel) but fundamentally IMHO it was a design issue.

Not that the boat wasn't designed with adequate strength, but that the design didn't sufficiently take into account the detection and repair of damage after grounding, by people with typical skill levels (skippers/owners/surveyors/repairers).

Some other designs are better in this regard, but I've seen nothing so far that indicates that any of them were explicitly designed for easy keel-attachment damage detection and repair.

And there are 'building codes' (RCD, ISO etc.) but again I've seen nothing that states that they consider this a necessary design requirement.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

It is not a design issue, nor is it a fault of the designer or the manufacturer. The CR incident is just a series of events, over years it appears, that have all contributed to the loss of the yacht, classic so called 'Swiss Cheese' incident causation. As I said on the CR MAIB thread this type of design is now lumped with Osmosis and Teak Decks. I think we may all agree that if the yacht was new it could be sailed across the Atlantic with the minimum of risk.

 

[lpdsn]

It is not a design issue, nor is it a fault of the designer or the manufacturer. The CR incident is just a series of events, over years it appears, that have all contributed to the loss of the yacht, classic so called 'Swiss Cheese' incident causation. As I said on the CR MAIB thread this type of design is now lumped with Osmosis and Teak Decks. I think we may all agree that if the yacht was new it could be sailed across the Atlantic with the minimum of risk.

Don't agree with that as the main cause I'm afraid. According to what was described in the report, it seems to me highly likely that when the repair work was carried out after the main grounding, the full extent of the damage wasn't detected and consequently the repair was only partial. Fully repaired (and assuming any damage from subsequent groundings was readily detectable and fully repaired too) she should have been OK for the Atlantic crossing. Remember, any damage from those subsequent 'light' groundings was to an inadequately repaired structure.

I don't believe the finger should be pointed at those doing the repair because their job wasn't made easy by the design. And unless other designers were taking this into account, it's hard to really point the finger at the designers.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Don't agree with that as the main cause I'm afraid. ....

That is fine because it is not a cause, whatever way you slice and dice this, it is still a series of events that have accumulated in the loss of the yacht, that is irrefutable. Difficulty in detecting the amount of damage is a red herring because methods exist for detecting the full extent of the damage. Repair procedures are apparently available from the designer/manufacturer, so that too is a red herring. Hence, it is not the fault of the design, designer, manufacturer. Just a series of events that have resulted in a tragedy.

 

[lpdsn]

That is fine because it is not a cause, whatever way you slice and dice this, it is still a series of events that have accumulated in the loss of the yacht, that is irrefutable. Difficulty in detecting the amount of damage is a red herring because methods exist for detecting the full extent of the damage. Repair procedures are apparently available from the designer/manufacturer, so that too is a red herring. Hence, it is not the fault of the design, designer, manufacturer. Just a series of events that have resulted in a tragedy.

There are always root causes, even if no one is to blame (and I don't think anyone is to blame).

And I don't agree that suitable methods exist. Are you really suggesting the keel is dropped for each and every survey, and after every light grounding, which is the only method that would allow a surveyor to fully identify this sort of damage? It's not going to happen in the real world and it is predictable that it is not going to happen. The design hasn't sufficiently allowed for that. It should be a lesson learnt going forward.

 

[rotrax]

I still do not see what falling off your motorbike has to do with yacht design

As usual you have not got the point. The point was me NOT falling off my motorbikes in races due to mechanical failures- I proposed that my preparation and carefull inspection before events minimised potential failures that at 150MPH plus are pretty intense. I could dismantle my bike in a few hours in a 3 metre x 2 metre space with simple handtools. Not so easy with a 40 foot yacht!

I try to meet similar preparation and maintenance standards with all the boats we have owned. IE-to prepare them so they do not fail in use.

It can be bloody expensive though..........................

 

[rotrax]

There are always root causes, even if no one is to blame (and I don't think anyone is to blame).

And I don't agree that suitable methods exist. Are you really suggesting the keel is dropped for each and every survey, and after every light grounding, which is the only method that would allow a surveyor to fully identify this sort of damage? It's not going to happen in the real world and it is predictable that it is not going to happen. The design hasn't sufficiently allowed for that. It should be a lesson learnt going forward.

+1!

 

[Birdseye]

There are always root causes, even if no one is to blame (and I don't think anyone is to blame).

And I don't agree that suitable methods exist. Are you really suggesting the keel is dropped for each and every survey, and after every light grounding, which is the only method that would allow a surveyor to fully identify this sort of damage? It's not going to happen in the real world and it is predictable that it is not going to happen. The design hasn't sufficiently allowed for that. It should be a lesson learnt going forward.

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

 

[Deleted member 36384]

There are always root causes, even if no one is to blame (and I don't think anyone is to blame).

And I don't agree that suitable methods exist. Are you really suggesting the keel is dropped for each and every survey, and after every light grounding, which is the only method that would allow a surveyor to fully identify this sort of damage? It's not going to happen in the real world and it is predictable that it is not going to happen. The design hasn't sufficiently allowed for that. It should be a lesson learnt going forward.

The facts are that the design does not lend it self to easy inspection, that is likely to be a contributor factor that could, and in other industries, has, led to inadequate repairs. If the only way to inspect this type of construction after a grounding is to drop the keel, then that is what has to be done, why people chose not to do this, is not known, it could be money, it could be lack of competency by the surveyor, lack of time, who knows. However, there are still methods available to inspect these structures, so it can be done and it can be repaired so that full strength is assured. As for what constitutes a light grounding, ask the designer, he is the one that understands. However, we know all this, the point I am making is that the design of the yacht is adequate and if the builder built to specification, then the designer and builder are not responsible for this in any way.

A work colleague flies a Yak plane, the hoops he has to jump through to maintain it's airworthiness is considerable if he prangs it, they do not skip a task because it is hard to do. You may not be surprised that 'putting things in the too hard to do box' is a regular finding in incident investigations. It is still a series of events because if the yacht had not slammed particularly hard as reported by the skipper, they may have made it to a port with no issues, if they had dropped the keel before departing, obtained the services of a surveyor, asked the builder to comment on the survey findings they may have had the keel repaired to full strength, if the yacht had not been used as a sea school yacht it may have etc etc etc.

 

[JumbleDuck]

However, we know all this, the point I am making is that the design of the yacht is adequate and if the builder built to specification, then the designer and builder are not responsible for this in any way.

It all depends on what you mean by "design is adequate". Adequate for what? A design which cannot be inspected or repaired easily, or at all, after foreseeable damage may be inadequate in that respect, even if it perfectly good in the undamaged state. They call it "Design for Maintenance" and there are some useful principles - though mainly for mechanical engineering design - at http://www.utwente.nl/ctw/opm/staff/ME/MulderW/DesignForMaintenance_DesignGuidelines.pdf.

Here's a trivial example. My wee Westerly suffered a broken stanchion base when another boat hit me. To get the old stanchion base out I needed access to the captive nuts under the deck, which had been placed there before the hull and deck moulding were joined and were glassed in above the main bulkhead. Getting at them would have required cutting some of the bulkhead out. from the performance point of view the design was fine but for maintenance it was terrible.

There is no doubt that modern yacht designs provide far better strength/weight than older, cruder ons. However, that comes at a cost, and perhaps that cost is a structure which simply cannot be repaired after a hard grounding. We accept that modern lightweight cars protect us at the cost of unrepairable body deformation after moderate accidents; maybe the same will have to be accepted for yachts, and particularly for racing yachts.

 

[lpdsn]

The facts are that the design does not lend it self to easy inspection, that is likely to be a contributor factor that could, and in other industries, has, led to inadequate repairs. If the only way to inspect this type of construction after a grounding is to drop the keel, then that is what has to be done, why people chose not to do this, is not known, it could be money, it could be lack of competency by the surveyor, lack of time, who knows. However, there are still methods available to inspect these structures, so it can be done and it can be repaired so that full strength is assured. As for what constitutes a light grounding, ask the designer, he is the one that understands. However, we know all this, the point I am making is that the design of the yacht is adequate and if the builder built to specification, then the designer and builder are not responsible for this in any way.

A work colleague flies a Yak plane, the hoops he has to jump through to maintain it's airworthiness is considerable if he prangs it, they do not skip a task because it is hard to do. You may not be surprised that 'putting things in the too hard to do box' is a regular finding in incident investigations. It is still a series of events because if the yacht had not slammed particularly hard as reported by the skipper, they may have made it to a port with no issues, if they had dropped the keel before departing, obtained the services of a surveyor, asked the builder to comment on the survey findings they may have had the keel repaired to full strength, if the yacht had not been used as a sea school yacht it may have etc etc etc.

If you design something where maintenance is impractically expensive or difficult or requires knowledge outside the norm, it is bad design. That's what happened here. As a root cause, the too hard to do box is the responsibility of the designer.

No guarantee that a surveyor would've found the issue. The boat had exactly been unsurveyed and one surveyor had even partially identified the problem. Again, unless you believe that these surveyors were of sub-standard competence (which I have no reason to believe myself), you have to conclude that the design made the job of finding the damage impractical.

Similarly to your Yak friend with his aircraft, some boats outside the norm will require special attention. I crew on a race boat where the keel is dropped every year. But the owner chooses to do that because he knows that the design of his boat means it is prudent. It is an extreme design though.

It is a different matter saying this ordinary production boat requires way more spent on maintenance, with specialist tools and skills, than other ordinary production boats.

 

[dom]

It is a different matter saying this ordinary production boat requires way more spent on maintenance, with specialist tools and skills, than other ordinary production boats.

The 40.7 sits on the boundary between full on racer and standard production boat. As with anything performance, cars, fighter aircraft, stunt planes, etc the costs of maintenance are commensurately higher. My reading of the MAIB report is consistent with a conclusion that CR was something akin to a BMW M3, which was sent down to a bog standard MoT test and repair centre and then shoved out to compete the Paris Dakar trail alone.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

If you design something where maintenance is impractically expensive or difficult or requires knowledge outside the norm, it is bad design. That's what happened here. As a root cause, the too hard to do box is the responsibility of the designer.

No guarantee that a surveyor would've found the issue. The boat had exactly been unsurveyed and one surveyor had even partially identified the problem. Again, unless you believe that these surveyors were of sub-standard competence (which I have no reason to believe myself), you have to conclude that the design made the job of finding the damage impractical.

Similarly to your Yak friend with his aircraft, some boats outside the norm will require special attention. I crew on a race boat where the keel is dropped every year. But the owner chooses to do that because he knows that the design of his boat means it is prudent. It is an extreme design though.

It is a different matter saying this ordinary production boat requires way more spent on maintenance, with specialist tools and skills, than other ordinary production boats.

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.