Catastrophic failure

[boatmike]

There has a lot of talk on the recent thread and others recently regarding Bavaria keels that worries me.
I think to pick on Bavaria in particular is wrong.
I think picking on bolted on keels is wrong.
I think that taking about "old" designs versus "new" designs is wrong.
There are examples of good and bad bolted keel designs and not all of them are new.
But in my opinion, regardless of make, to design a boat that will not survive a grounding at the vessels normal cruising speed is verging on the criminal. That is not to say that it would not sustain serious structural damage. It undoubtedly will. But to cause a keel to part company with the parent hull is a catastrophic failure that will almost enevitably cause capsize and sinking with associated loss of life. Are there really people on this forum that go to sea in boats that think a boat can't be designed to withstand such an event? Has the world changed that much that people will buy a boat knowing that it won't survive a grounding and put to sea with wives, children and other innocents on board because it is spacious, luxurious, and has "all mod cons"? Has the consumer market driven us so far that otherwise intelligent reasonable people say " It's designed by professional people so it must be alright?
I do not say this lightly, but we have legislative standards for the collision survivability of cars. Is it not time we had one for boats?

 

[damo]

Spot on

Nigel Calder said he specified that the Pacific Seacraft(?) that he once bought "should be able to run into a rockpile at 8kn and only have superficial damage". The manufacturer was apparently surprised that anyone would expect that in a cruising boat, but they complied. I bet it cost him extra though...

 

[MoodySabre]

Bav bashing is de rigure here isn't it.

I agree with your comments.The problem is that even for cars the crash testing etc only applies to mass produced cars and is not a fixed benchmark. Those that wish to go hairing around in a kit car or low production high-speed jobbie or cheapos who don't get the same protection as a Saab driver. Similarly there are those who want a fast boat or are seduced by price. You can't legislate that every boat should be a old long-keeler or built to a high grounding spec because the market wants something else.

The MAIB report on the Hooligan was plain scary and they did rightly call for better standards in the industry. Better the industry improves before some civil servant gets hold of it.

 

[PeterGibbs]

I support the thrust of your post.

However, racing boats and those with "exaggerated" keels - ie deep profile, have no chance of meeting your very reasonable safety standard. All crusing boats should, of course.

Sales literature for cruising boats rarely talks of safety specifications, safety features yes, but nothing that indicates limits of use. I think your post could usefully lead in that direction.

In the case of Bavaria, and contrary to the myths fostered (I almost wrote festered) on this site, I know of no other manufacturer who has a stock film of one of its boats being piled on to rocks to demonstrate the life saving value of its Kevlar reinforced bows. I found this comforting when I bought mine. Let other manufacturers come out with their own proof of "fit for usual purpose!"

PWG

 

[webcraft]

[ QUOTE ]
to design a boat that will not survive a grounding at the vessels normal cruising speed is verging on the criminal

[/ QUOTE ] Caveat emptor surely . . . we have enough legislation already IMO and making the manufacturers build boats properly would only put more of them out of business.

Personally I think it is verging on the criminal that every new AWB over 38ft somehow is awarded a CAT 'A' Ocean rating when very few of them were designed with that in mind and are manifestly unsuitable.

- W

 

[MARGETTS]

RE Bavarias and the so called failures
I am a proud and highly satisfied bavaria owner.
I sail my boat in all weathers and have yet to have come across a dangerous structural failing in the boat. I have massive confidence in it. As they reportedly manufacture about 3000 boats per year that in my mind adds upto 30000 boats in the last 10 years. Can you all please all report here any genuine documented reports of losses of boat or crew due to genuine boat failures apart from the one which we are all so aware of. These reports should be from reputable sources and be genuine boat failure as opposed to crew failure. I would be very interested to learn genuine worthwhile lessons but am fed up of the innuendo.

Graham

 

[Krusty]

[ QUOTE ]
Caveat emptor surely . . .

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed: Before I signed on the dotted line to buy Piota the surveyor had the yard pull a couple of keel-bolts, at random: they were corrosion free, and on looking down the holes the surveyor commented.. ''I have'nt seen this thickness of structure in a boat this size in twenty years; you could run this one on to a reef and across the other side none-the-worse''
I signed, and he has been proved right, more than once. I totally agree with Boatmike's sentiments.
On visiting a particular boatyard looking for advice from their expert shipwright, and finding him re-glassing the box-structure reinforcing the hull of a modern AWB in way of its keel-bolts, I asked what happened. ''It ran on to the reef in the Swellies; you only have to show these things a rock and they fall apart!''
'Keelrunnings' How often have you bounced your Bav.? If you do, it might be wise to choose soft Danish-islands sand, which is the cruising ground they were first designed for, I believe.

 

[mikejames]

There was a report of one Westerly where the hull laminate had not cured after 15 years. So badly that the keel moved when pushed sideways while the boat was up on a crane.

I suspect that some of the AWB massproduced stories may be more stemming from the fact that the boats travel more quickly from lamination to customer with the volume of production and that the final cure of the resin is not totally completed .
Not saying that it is as bad as that Westerly, just not reachd final strength.
If they make it through a few months of use then they will be stronger when the resin is fully hard

Like a story (cant remember exact details) of an AWB on a maiden voyage to the Brambles Bank where it hit and sank.



And rather than Kevlar bows perhaps a return to more raked bows would allow the AWB to prang the marina and ride up on it rather than stop dead. It was quite spectacular seeing a 1970's 40 footer do that on the tide at Cowes and despite the bang there was only a scratch.

 

[Tranona]

Things are getting out of proportion here. Catastrophic failures are very rare, usually in extreme racing craft - see The Yachting World articles on keels.

This has little connection with the real world of the cruising boat. Keels do not fall off. People do not drown. Yachts do not get run down regularly by ships. Cruising in a yacht is one of the safest pastimes. Suggest doubters read the MAIB reports over the last 20 years and count up the number of fatal accidents involving yachts, for whatever reason, never mind structural failure.

This is not complacency. This is designers and builders who are aware of the issues and users who are generally cautious and careful people.

If I were to sail in uncharted coral infested waters, I would adopt the same view as Nigel Calder and make sure my boat was appropriately designed to cope with hitting coral, as it is likely that this would happen. I don't. I sail in Poole harbour with thin water and mud and sand to run into. I have a long keel shallow draft boat with an external iron keel held on with 10 20mm bolts through oak floors. Perfect for the job! I also sail in the Med in my Bavaria - no tides, mostly deep water, rock lumps easy to avoid. Never doubt the appropriateness of my boat for the environment. Would be equally happy with the Bavaria here, based in a Marina and coastal or cross channel in the summer months - just like hundreds of other happy owners.

 

[BrendanS]

One of the more sensible posts on this forever repeated topic.

 

[exfinnsailor]

Ours is a Beneteau 323 Lift Keel .. If you run into anything it just pops up .. If you run aground ( Had to be me helming ) you just nip down and start winding .. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[wotayottie]

Run into anything at normal cruising spped and survive? So 6 knots , say, into a pile of those concrete cubes that are used in breakwaters.

I doubt that mmany boats would survive that, and it wouldnt be just the keel falling off that would worry me but the grp being holed. The comparison with a car is silly - anybody know of a car designed to crash at 70mph and have no serious body damage?

What is "almost criminal" id being so stupid as to run into something like the above at full cruising speed. Its a good example of Darwin at work to my mind.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
What is "almost criminal" id being so stupid as to run into something like the above at full cruising speed. Its a good example of Darwin at work to my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sailing into a harbour breakwater probably would be a bit dim. But there are allso things like containers at sea. People also genuinely do make mistakes sometimes with underwater rocks etc. As mentioned by others, hitting rocks in Scandinavia, many of which are uncharted, is considered almost normal practise, and boats are expected to survive. Even in the UK, people can make honest mistakes without necessarily deserving to be 'deselected' vis-a-vis Darwin.

 

[jerryat]

Totally agree!!

 

[narooma]

I agree with previous posters that the type of sailing you do should, and generally does, govern which boat you buy. The thrill of bouncing across the wave at 25kts. is a seductive thought (for some) but the idea of being in a typical power boat in a F7/8 is not something I would like to experience.

I could cope with a slightly larger living area while in the marina or at anchor but again this can become a serious danger when things get rough at sea.

That I can't see the daylight through the one and a quarter inches of fibreglass at my waterline is reassuring but means that the boat weight is over twice that of a similar modern mass production job, with all that implies.

If I lived in a marina 90% of the time and were based in a warmer climate, I might be tempted by a powerboat, or a recent production yacht, but as I don't, what I have is good for me.

If you have a boat that you are happy with and is the best that you can, or want, to afford, then surely that's all that is really important? The rest is a matter of informed choice, and here we have the problem about the informant and how much we believe in their accuracy. Like the rest of life really!




.

 

[bilbobaggins]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not say this lightly, but we have legislative standards for the collision survivability of cars. Is it not time we had one for boats

[/ QUOTE ]


There are such 'legislative standards' already in existence. They are encompassed, in this country, within the Recreational Craft Regulations 1996 ( as amended ) and embodied Essential Requirements within Schedule I, Annex 1 here ......

[ QUOTE ]
3. INTEGRITY AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS

3.1. Structure

The choice and combination of materials and its construction shall ensure that the craft is strong enough in all respects. Special attention shall be paid to the design category according to section 1, and the manufacturer's maximum recommended load in accordance with section 3.6.



[/ QUOTE ]
The idea is that, in the event of some breach, someone needs to make a formal complaint. Otherwise, the 'paper-generating exercise' continues.

Do note the following, which was slipped in at a late stage, despite the DTI's senior representatives denying vigorously at all stages in the 'public consultation phase' that the proposed legislation would seek in any way to regulate use, or safety matters. Hence, the title 'Essential Safety Requirements' became 'Essential Requirements' and certain content was (initially) excluded.

[ QUOTE ]
Regulations to be treated as safety regulations within the meaning of the 1987 Act
22. These Regulations shall be treated for all purposes as if they were safety regulations within the meaning of section 45(1) of the 1987 Act.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel reassured....?



/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Robin]

Well I seem to recall a so called Scandinavian rock basher (HR42?) that broke up in minutes after grounding in the entrance to a drying harbour (in Scotland?). The pics were in YM I think and a video on RNLI site.

So much of this 'my boat is tougher/superior/has better quality gear' claptrap is more imagined than real IMO.

From memory without trying too hard and in no particular order I can recall:-

Sweden 40 something with busted rudder towed into Cherbourg by lifeboat (2007)
Oyster 41 knockdown on ARC 2007
Westerly Corsair busted chainplates on ARC 2007
Moody 40 something with busted skeg sank off Australia, others with same problem.
Swan recalling boats with rudder defects
Dehler 38 'ish and quite new with busted hull after grounding on sand, major repair required.
6 year old Nauticat having osmosis treatment
10 year old Grand Soleil with osmosis
Moody 37s 376s and others where water pours in below from the anchor locker in rough weather
Southerly 110(?) same problem
Older Co32s with cracks from hull panels flexing
Sadler Starlights with delaminating hulls
Sadler 32s with 'bendy' bottoms if they took the hull weight on the keel ashore
Westerly bilge keelers with keel/floor problems on several models
Westerlys with rudder problems on several models
Sadler 34 with cracked skeg retired from ARC (Editor of YW?)
Malo 34 with busted bow after a gale, weak bow roller broke on a mooring
Halberg Rassy with osmosis on one side of hull (made in 2 halves)
Elan 333 with hole in bows after entering berth a bit quick.
Steel ketch (professional dutch built) with stern sections like a colander after rusting from inside.

This is not aimed at any post or posters in particular, but just a general comment that ALL boats can have defects and anyone who thinks their Scandinavian/classic/oldtimer/highprice special is bullet proof should remember what was said about Titanic.

 

[vyv_cox]

Similarly, I know two boats that hit rocks, neither going particularly fast at the time. One was a Moody 40(?) the other a Westerly Typhoon. Both sustained considerable damage, sufficient to cause seawater to leak into the boat. I can imagine that at higher speed there could have been severe structural collapse, enough to sink the boat.

 

[r_h]

[ QUOTE ]
However, racing boats and those with "exaggerated" keels - ie deep profile, have no chance of meeting your very reasonable safety standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even with a race boat it's possible - the Reflex 38 was structurally engineered to withstand a grounding at 10 knots.

It seems they got the sums right - one hit the Varvassi wreck off the Needles a few years back at speed. Took a big cauliflower shape lump out the front of the lead bulb, but the surveyor could find no damage to the laminate or keelbolts.

 

[gavin_lacey]

In the moulin blanc marina (big yard in rocky area) I saw 5 or 6 boats in six weeks being repaired after keel/rock meetings. All makes of deep fin keel appeared vulnerable. All had same damage. Hull flexes due to massive leverage inherant in design and pulls away from internal grid. Most remained watertight. Effectively a crumple zone. NB unmarked rocks in canal to Chateaulin.