Cat A ocean standard need full revision

[flaming]

I started this thread in good faith as an observation that the latest monohulls were getting very large glued in hull windows, akin to catamaran windows you seen in Lagoons,, etc. This was an observation first hand as we were anchored next to such a boat.
The concern being that monohulls lean over and the risk of sinking or taking on a serious amount of water is real. Having seen bond failures here in the Caribbean as a result of UV damage and heat, it seemed like a poor design choice. RCD allows it. Lloyds Register doesn't.
Lloyds register allows bonded windows in the coachroof but not the hull.

This thread has grown legs and done the normal thing here and become an old vs new thing, but that wasn't my intention. It was a dig at RCD setting a low standard that in my opinion, was too low for boats that the innocent may take into bad weather a few years after the boat was made and find that the bond fails.

There are lots of things I like about modern boats. Vacuum infusion, carbon stiffening and epoxy construction and the increased use of foam core in hulls for stiffness and lightness. All great developments that were not commonplace 25 years ago.
I do think it's ridiculous that the highest RCD rating says large glued in hull windows are fine. Fine at day one but not fine once the bond has failed with obvious consequences. These Cat A boats are the only ones available from production manufacturers. There is no higher RCD standard. The sales blurb says ocean ready, bluewater and I am sure they will be fine on the ARC for the new owner. Down the line, these big window boats have increased risk. The RCD should have broad enough shoulder to say not acceptable. They would only need to add mechanically fixed to vastly improve the safety of such boats. A leak is a leak, but a large hole in the side is a sinker.

Flipping that on its head, you could say that hull windows definitely improve the ambiance of the interior when at anchor somewhere nice - I think we could all agree on that - but the compromise is that it has introduced a maintenance item.

For what it's worth I have bonded windows, not in the hull but in the coachroof. They started leaking a couple of years ago. Nothing major, just a little weep where the rainwater pooled on the top of the glass. Issues with UV, and needing to paint the part of the window that the adhesive bonds to, in order to protect if from the UV. So I'm well aware that they are not a maintenance free item. Incidentally that was at about 10 years old. As the third owner, that became my responsibility...

But then, a lot of things on boats have service lives. Last winter I had the carbon mast re-lacquered for example. Leaving it as it was would have eventually risked it failing as the UV eats at it. Wouldn't have been necessary if I'd had an Aluminium one, but then I wouldn't have had the advantages of the carbon one. Saildrive seals have service lives. My non-slip deck lost the "non" part of that description. And owners who buy second hand boats with those features tend to just shrug their shoulders and deal with these issues. Or not buy the boats.

 

[noelex]

Is this what’s holding you back from buying a new production boat? If so, have you asked the manufacturers to fit “proper” windows? If not, I’m afraid you don’t get a vote.

Production boat builders would not do this.

 

[geem]

I certainly have been out in those conditions on a delivery trip. I wouldn’t be overly concerned.
I don’t get a vote on new boat design, i have never and probably will never buy a new boat. As I said, if you’re in the market for a new boat speak to the manufacturers otherwise it’s none of your concern.

It should be all of our concern

 

[ylop]

Now add inexperienced buyers to the mix who want space below for lots of mod cons, cockpit and deck ares to sunbath, and lacking basic maintenance skills, I am surprised they are not more fatalities - perhaps because they never sail anywhere if there is any wind.

Two possible explanations (which I suspect are both true): 1. Windows don’t fail as often as old sea dogs on this thread think they do. 2. There are few inexperienced buyers who buy inappropriate boats for extreme passages. (Even if you are clueless if you are going to splash figures described in millions you ask advice, you talk to different people, you read magazines, books, forums).

I stand by the comment that there are plenty of owners who are relatively new to sailing buy boats and find the RCD classification a guarantee that the boat is designed to be safe.

Do they? I’m not sure I’ve met any inexperienced new boat owner who could tell me off the top of their head which category boat they bought, how many of people it was rated for or what A/B/C/D mean. It’s an argument had by experienced sailing people…

No doubt somebody will be along in a moment to tell me what to buy.

How much ££ you got?

It is true that the boat only needs to comply at the point of first sale.

technically any major modification needs recertified -although I think it is essentially overlooked. Maintenance, whether seacocks, rigging, rudder, sail drive or windows is of course a different issue. It’s why insurers ask for surveys.

The concern being that monohulls lean over and the risk of sinking or taking on a serious amount of water is real.

Although far easier to get the offending window out the water by switching tack on a mono! I recall thirty years ago reading instructions on managing a major leak with cushions and sails on in/out of hull respectively.

It was a dig at RCD setting a low standard that in my opinion, was too low for boats that the innocent may take into bad weather a few years after the boat was made and find that the bond fails.

I’m sceptical that these naive users exist and take their boats to places that abuse them to the point of failure.

Production boat builders would not do this.

If enough people were expressing concerns about windows and buying other options the designers would follow the market. Clearly it’s not the case.

 

[noelex]

If enough people were expressing concerns about windows and buying other options the designers would follow the market. Clearly it’s not the case.

Yes, I agree, but is the Cat A standard a factor in buyers accepting design and building practices that some of us feel are not desirable on long-distance ocean yachts?

I don’t have a definitive answer to the question, but I suspect many potential buyers are reassured that their concerns must be unjustified when an independent body has certified the yacht safe for ocean conditions.

If the salesmen can appease most buyers’ concerns by pointing to the Cat A standard and avoid losing a sale, there is little incentive for the manufacturer to adopt more robust and usually more expensive solutions.

In this way, the standards work as a disincentive for manufacturers to do better. If your opposition is incorporating less expensive engineering solutions that just meet the standard and not losing customers, naturally, you have to follow suit to remain competitive.

We should not assume that any standard is better than no standard. Bad standards, especially compulsory standards, not only add to the cost if goods, they can in some circumstances decrease rather than increase consumer safety.

 

[westernman]

If the salesmen can appease most buyers’ concerns by pointing to the Cat A standard and avoid losing a sale, there is little incentive for the manufacturer to adopt more robust and usually more expensive solutions.

No windows at all is more robust and less expensive.
But people don't want that.

 

[geem]

No windows at all is more robust and less expensive.
But people don't want that.

Smaller safer windows work pretty well and you can still see out

 

[Supertramp]

No windows at all is more robust and less expensive.
But people don't want that.

I'm reminded of David Lewis and "Ice Bird" where he covered over his windows after a knockdown. He avoided one problem but acquired many others - brought about by venturing into storms and waters most will never see.

The core issue here is whether glued hull windows are a desirable ocean cruising feature, whether they should carry a warning to owners. The problem is there are so many elements of boat structure and design that could give trouble in extreme conditions. Look at all the failures on Golden Globe race boats - traditional designs prepared and sailed by experienced sailors. And no hull windows involved (except on Biscay 36's)!

 

[lustyd]

Production boat builders would not do this.

They don't because their customers aren't asking them to. Random moans on forums aren't something they pay a lot of attention to. They do take safety quite seriously, and if ever there is a proven issue with these windows I'm sure it would be addressed quickly. There isn't an issue, so they have not changed anything.

 

[lustyd]

It should be all of our concern

Why? As far as I'm concerned let people make their own choices unless and until there is a proven issue affecting safety. That's not what this is though, the windows are quite adequate for the job and have been proven over a couple of decades in tens of thousands of boats worldwide.
To put some perspective on this, there were more dismastings just due to chainplate corrosion that happened mid ocean last year than there were failed windows worldwide. I'm not seeing a thread attacking stainless chainplates though...

 

[noelex]

No windows at all is more robust and less expensive.
But people don't want that.

I don’t think anyone wants that, although I believe Bernard Moitessier did build and sail around the world a yacht that would qualify.

Personally, I think Geem’s concern about large bonded hull windows close to the waterline is justified, but I understand that not everyone shares our concerns.

Overall, I think the Cat A standard has missed the mark in several areas. The net result of this watered-down standard is an expensive (at least in some cases) piece of paper that does little to encourage manufacturers to design and construct safer yachts.

 

[ylop]

Yes, I agree, but is the Cat A standard a factor in buyers accepting design and building practices that some of us feel are not desirable on long-distance ocean yachts?

Why do “we” assume we are smarter than the average ocean crossing boat buying public?

I don’t have a definitive answer to the question, but I suspect many potential buyers are reassured that their concerns must be unjustified when an independent body has certified the yacht safe for ocean

In this way, the standards work as a disincentive for manufacturers to do better. If your opposition is incorporating less expensive engineering solutions that just meet the standard and not losing customers, naturally, you have to follow suit to remain competitive.

If your opposition’s boats are sinking because they are built with windows you would have amazing marketing by not fitting windows! In reality there is a segment of the market specifically selling to people who want really robust go anywhere boats. Most buyers don’t want to be out in >F8 or 4m waves, and actually like sailing to destinations rather than spending weeks at sea, hence the “production” boat market caters to them - whilst people who want to cross oceans without dodging around the weather will buy specialist boats.

We should not assume that any standard is better than no standard. Bad standards, especially compulsory standards, not only add to the cost if goods, they can in some circumstances decrease rather than increase consumer safety.

They can, but do you believe if there was no RCD or similar that manufacturers would not put windows in hulls which people might sail across the Atlantic? Or that naive consumers would never believe a sales pitch?

 

[Chiara’s slave]

I don’t think anyone wants that, although I believe Bernard Moitessier did build a yacht that would qualify.

Personally, I think Geem’s concern about large bonded hull windows close to the waterline is justified, but I understand that not everyone shares our concerns.

Overall, I think the Cat A standard has missed the mark in several areas. The net result of this watered-down standard is an expensive (at least in some cases) piece of paper that does little to promote manufacturers to design and construct safer yachts.

The RCD is at best a bit of protectionist paper, one to protect EU boatbuilders. It might be labelled otherwise, but sadly, this is the EU. It’s what they do badly, not what they do well. Hardly unique in that of course, but overly complex legislation that fails to achieve it’s design purpose is their soft underbelly.

 

[geem]

I certainly have been out in those conditions on a delivery trip. I wouldn’t be overly concerned.

Which ocean were you in?

 

[lustyd]

Which ocean were you in?

Actually the sea we were in was worse than an ocean. Lots of big lumps of rock around, currents, headlands etc. and we topped out at 64kt sustained gusts.

Is there a purpose to your dick measuring contest?

 

[geem]

Actually the sea we were in was worse than an ocean. Lots of big lumps of rock around, currents, headlands etc. and we topped out at 64kt sustained gusts.

Is there a purpose to your dick measuring contest?

You don't worry about rocks breaking over your dick when you are in an ocean. Its the waves that get you

 

[lustyd]

Well we had the mast in the water a couple of times, so I guess the waves were bad enough

 

[geem]

Well we had the mast in the water a couple of times, so I guess the waves were bad enough

I had that experience once in the Menai Straits when I was about 15. A Mirage 28. Blowing its head off when the skipper thought it would be ok as we were only going down the Straights a bit. Wind over tide and no wind instrument in those days but spreaders on the water was no fun. How nobody went over the side is a mystery to me. We didn't even have any sail up! We were blown flat with the aid of some steep seas.

 

[noelex]

Whenever I think about poor marine standards, I am reminded of a commercial ship in Australia that took visitors out for dolphin and whale watching tours. They wanted to install an underwater viewing area to allow guests to observe dolphins riding the bow wave.

The commercial standard at the time designated that a portlight had to be a minimum specified distance from the waterline, but neglected to point out that this distance needed to be above the waterline.

Hence, “portlights" installed underwater near the keelson met the requirements for minimum distance from the waterline, and the authorities were forced to accept the design. The designer even joked that he could have installed opening portlights and this would have still met the standard .

 

[Baggywrinkle]

The RCD is at best a bit of protectionist paper, one to protect EU boatbuilders. It might be labelled otherwise, but sadly, this is the EU. It’s what they do badly, not what they do well. Hardly unique in that of course, but overly complex legislation that fails to achieve it’s design purpose is their soft underbelly.

The best compromise is what nobody likes, but everyone can live with, and boats would be far less safe if there were no standard at all. I'd rather have the RCD than not have it. How much regulation and legislation do we want? Because it all has to be thrashed out, agreed and implemented .... just because a few people on a sailing forum disagree with some of the content is no basis for a re-think - and boats are not failing in significant enough numbers to justify a major overhaul.

This thread is at best a pub level discussion between people with very narrow, mostly anecdotal, experience and I haven't seen any informative posts about the current industrial use of structural adhesives or glazing. So unless someone comes up with some fact based evidence as to why the current hull windows in new boats are not fit for purpose, then all the ranting based on "feelings" is just that, opinion.

As an example from the automotive industry, the glazed part of cars has increased in area by 15 per cent over the past ten years. Glass thickness has been reduced by ten per cent, but contributes to 30 per cent of a vehicle’s structural integrity .... technology moves on .... the BMW i8 uses structural glass from Corning, more commonly known as gorilla glass. When glass is bonded directly to the body (like modern windscreens), it acts as a structural component, resisting twisting forces and increasing the vehicle's stiffness. The front windscreen provides 10% or more of a vehicle's torsional stiffness, mainly due to its shear stiffness. The adhesives used are strong enough to transfer these forces safely and reliably - and as a result of both the automotive advances and construction industry advances in both glazing and adhesive, there is no reason why the same tech can't reliably be used in boats. As we can all see, it is happening whether the old salts approve of it or not. It's what people want and it's what is selling .... no one wants to sail about in a darkened cave anymore.

Why yacht designers see a role for toughened glass in new structures

Jim Bolton of UK-based Trend Marine Glass explains: “Interlayer technology now allows us to take hull structure out, to come out unframed and replace it with stiff, strong glass panels, direct-bonded flush with the hull and these include flush-bonded opening windows.

“The classification societies have moved on significantly to accept unframed solutions. On the interior this has the advantage of a smaller, more compact window reveal.”