bikedaft
Well-Known Member
That does explain it thanks (annexes)
Comet Yachts safety Bulletin
- Thread starter flaming
- Start date
That does explain it thanks (annexes)
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
That seems high to me, but then what do I know? I'd have thought a replacement keel would use the traditional J-bolt method of fastening and do away with the internal frame altogether. That reduces it to casting 3.25 tonnes (https://www.comaryacht.com/en/sport/comet-sport-45-s/) of lead, which is about £7k's worth. I'll guess £15k all-in, maybe a bit less if all the Comet 45 shallow draft owners club together to make their yachts saleable (and possibly sailable) again with a production run.
dom
Well-Known Member
£15k all-in seems aggressive to me. Although you're right, big savings will certainly be available:
- If design and fabrication costs are shared (bearing in mind that many different models are affected)
- If the work is concentrated in a single yard
- And if all owners sign up to a communal timescale.
Kukri
Well-Known Member
Just a detail, but I was rather surprised by the delay between receipt of notification by the RYA and notification being given to the MAIB. I quote from the MAIB report:
Tyger of London’s upturned hull was sighted on 10 December 2017 drifting approximately 10nm north of the capsize position. The mast, sails and sail drive were cut away by divers and the hull was salvaged by the insurer on 13 December and taken to Tenerife.
The Royal Yachting Association (RYA), the Certifying Authority for Tyger of London, became aware of the accident via a third party and suspended its small commercial vessel (SCV) certification on 13 December 2017.
The MAIB became aware of the accident on 27 December 2017. On 19 February 2018, a safety investigation was commenced once the yacht had been declared a constructive total loss.
The MAIB “became aware” two weeks after the RYA and twenty days after the loss. It reads as if nobody told the RYA and the RYA didn’t tell the MAIB. The delay in the investigation until the CTL had been agreed does make sense as destructive testing was going to take place.
Tyger of London’s upturned hull was sighted on 10 December 2017 drifting approximately 10nm north of the capsize position. The mast, sails and sail drive were cut away by divers and the hull was salvaged by the insurer on 13 December and taken to Tenerife.
The Royal Yachting Association (RYA), the Certifying Authority for Tyger of London, became aware of the accident via a third party and suspended its small commercial vessel (SCV) certification on 13 December 2017.
The MAIB became aware of the accident on 27 December 2017. On 19 February 2018, a safety investigation was commenced once the yacht had been declared a constructive total loss.
The MAIB “became aware” two weeks after the RYA and twenty days after the loss. It reads as if nobody told the RYA and the RYA didn’t tell the MAIB. The delay in the investigation until the CTL had been agreed does make sense as destructive testing was going to take place.
Last edited:
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I imagine it will largely depend on whether a traditional lead-and-J-bolt version of the same shape will be strong enough or whether changes to either the shape or the structure are needed. In the former case it should be reasonably straightforward to take a mould off an existing keel and cast a new one in it, but in the latter it could get painful. And, of course, someone will have to analyse and sign-off whatever design is used.
If I owned one of these, though, I'd be VERY nervous while sailing it.
ProMariner
Well-Known Member
Great that nobody died, still pish that yacht designers and builders have, and continue to, duck the issue of keels, leaving the owner / operator to pick up the pieces. Imagine if front suspension mounts on cars were not inspectable, and only survived up to 5 uk spec potholes? Would we blame all the dead drivers for the wheels coming off?
DownWest
Well-Known Member
Part of any refit problem is that the fin part of the keel was/is attached to the plate and that is then bolted to the hull with wider based fastenings. I wonder if it would be structurally sound to drill down a series of threaded holes to double up on the original welded rods with c/sunk headed bolts? Or just get Iron Bros to cast a flange topped keel in iron with a bit more volume to match the weight.
Resolution
Well-Known Member
Does make you wonder just what is inside your own keel. Diagrams in the published manual are all very well, but is it what was actually manufactured?
Some years ago the story went round of a new AWB with cast iron keel, in which parts of a bicycle and a bed could just be seen!
On a more reassuring note, the numbers of major keel failures seem small in relation to overall numbers of yachts in existence.
Some years ago the story went round of a new AWB with cast iron keel, in which parts of a bicycle and a bed could just be seen!
On a more reassuring note, the numbers of major keel failures seem small in relation to overall numbers of yachts in existence.
DownWest
Well-Known Member
Well yes, except if you own a boat with a dubious keel. Not to mention the report..
bikesherpa
New Member
I do not think threaded holes can be drilled down in a lead keel. It could probably be done in an iron cast keel (some Comets have it).
One issue with the design is the lack of pre-tensioning of the 30mm stainless steel welded threaded rods. Maybe tensioning could be achieved by drilling down a smaller threaded hole within the 30mm rod itself, and bolt it from above the bilge.
oldmanofthehills
Well-Known Member
I am astonished by the report. As an Engineer bound by CDM regulations I am bound legally to design so that it can be built safely, work safely, be used safely and if appropriate disposed of/scrapped safely. As European firm I cannot see why Comet would not be bound by near identical equivalent legal requirements, and why the builder would not be bound. This includes not changing construction without full evaluation and authorisation of rechecked design
For a recent design to specify something that cant be built is surely a matter for legal action against the Design House i.e. Comet.
For a recent design that does not actually match the design that is surely a case for legal action against the Builder, though if Comet contracted it out it still starts with the owners action against Comet.
A class action seems appropriate
For a recent design to specify something that cant be built is surely a matter for legal action against the Design House i.e. Comet.
For a recent design that does not actually match the design that is surely a case for legal action against the Builder, though if Comet contracted it out it still starts with the owners action against Comet.
A class action seems appropriate
dom
Well-Known Member
oldmanofthehills
Well-Known Member
Wiki and Comar website seemed to indicate they were still active. Probably now chose to go bankrupt rather than pay compensation. Happens all the time with US firms. Damn and blast
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Distracted question ... I think of CDM as the Construction Design and Management regulations. Is there another meaning for making things? I've just had two major bits of work done at home and both required careful attention to C(onstruction)DM.
prv
Well-Known Member
I have to assume that if that was possible they'd have done it in the first place and saved the fabrication and welding cost.
The frame is presumably necessary to give strength in what would otherwise be a very thin lead section.
Pete
oldmanofthehills
Well-Known Member
It includes the Construction Phase, and though I dont construct I am on hand during construction and commissioning in case changes need to be designed by some one and authorised by someone - often me. Major changes need further approval even higher up the tree though I may advise
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Good point. On the other hand, never underestimate the ability of second-rate engineers to make things needlessly complex.
prv
Well-Known Member
Other threads that may be of interest
