Does CE CAT A actually mean ANYTHING??

[doug748]

When we were working on the spec of our boat, one of the things we wanted was opening forward facing windows on the deck saloon. One Scandinavian manufacturer too me that he wouldn't do that as he would lose his "category A ocean classification". I pointed out to him that the Discovery 55 had exactly the windows I wanted, but he still refused.

As with most rules there are the anomalies. Some very large Nauticats (an example seen before in this context) can be cat B, whilst other dodgy looking Continental boats are rated fit for the Southern Oceans.
The inexperienced buyer could easlily become more concernd with numbers than sailing qualities and suitable construction features.

It must be very tempting to design to the rule in order to acieve Cat A. I expect your unhelpful manufacturer was very concerned about maintaining his "Cat A reputation"

 

[prv]

Can you tell me why does the category affect the costs of having it rated ?

Because Cat D means something like "probably won't roll over in a moderate-sized bathtub" and I guess that's easier to prove.

Pete

 

[VO5]

By the way, so what does DTI Stability Category 1 mean then ?

 

[Tranona]

Can you tell me why does the category affect the costs of having it rated ?

Thanks,

Boo2

Simple. Cat D just says it is boat shaped and floats. For Cat A you need all the design calculations, engine specs to meet latest regs, CE marked equipment, design features appropriate to category and so on. More information from certifying bodies such as CE Proof or the RYA.

 

[Tranona]

As with most rules there are the anomalies. Some very large Nauticats (an example seen before in this context) can be cat B,

That is because they have sliding doors on the sides of the wheelhouse opening onto the weatherdeck and are unable to meet the requirements for down flooding angles.

You will recall from the Fastnet experience that water entering the cabin through apertures in the coachroof was a major issue, so hardly surprising that a "standard" for a boat operating in severe conditions should include some restrictions in this area!

Nauticat choose not to change what to them is a key selling point on the basis that their clients are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.

And BTW - I don't think I have never seen any reference to "Southern Oceans" in the standards so not sure why you are making that up!

 

[doug748]

Nauticat choose not to change what to them is a key selling point on the basis that their clients are intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
[/QUOTE]

Good thing too.

I was agreeing with your earlier point, that rules breed distortion, they struggle to meet all cases. Hence an Elan 31 rates more seaworthy than a Nauticat 41.
I would take the Nauticat..
...and, in the Southern Ocean, keep the door shut.

 

[Tranona]

Hence an Elan 31 rates more seaworthy than a Nauticat 41.

Therin lies the problem. You are equating the standard with "seaworthiness" - a concept that is almost impossible to define as the numerous threads, magazine articles, learned books etc have shown.

Why not just accept the standard for what it is and not try to criticise it for not being what it isn't!

 

[photodog]

Why not just accept the standard for what it is and not try to criticise it for not being what it isn't!

But what is the standard??

Thats the point. When my Bavaria 31 equates out the same as a Vancouver 34... then the standard is meaningless...

 

[dt4134]

... When my Bavaria 31 equates out the same as a Vancouver 34... then the standard is meaningless...

But it doesn't mean they are the same. There is a standard which defines a minimum requirement which they have both satisfied. In fact they will both have exceeded it, although not necessarily by an equal amount.

 

[stav]

But what is the standard??

Thats the point. When my Bavaria 31 equates out the same as a Vancouver 34... then the standard is meaningless...

I think it is worse than meaningless as government agencies put so much store on it and use it to control what options we have. I feel it is used as one of many tools to try and standardise boating and simply make it a profitable business and draw in a lot of unsuspecting people.

 

[photodog]

But it doesn't mean they are the same. There is a standard which defines a minimum requirement which they have both satisfied. In fact they will both have exceeded it, although not necessarily by an equal amount.

But does the average new boat owner really appreciate that??

I dont think they do.... I think that there needs to be a better break down in that information... I think that someone spending say £100,000 deserves better information about what the boat is suited for than just "Oh its CatA!"

Experienced sailors will be able to judge, but many inexperienced peeps have big plans, and then think that buying Cat A will do the trick..... and of course they then realise that the boat is not right, and the wife isnt happy...

I would suggest that Cat A should be the start... then maybe add a few other things like;

1) Ride Comfort.
2) Underwater robustness.. (Ie Skeg rudder, encapsulated keel....)
3) Ease of handling.
4) Stability... how easily it will recover from a inversion.
5) Rig robustness...




Ok, those could all mean a lot... but we can then start to see how a Vancouver 34 could be differentiated from the Bavaria... to give a more informed choice...

 

[Tranona]

I am not sure that buyers rely to any great extent on the details of the "standard". You only have to look at the variety of boats on offer to see that there is enormous choice, particularly in the Cat A plus range.

As to relating it to "seaworthiness" or the other characteristics (many of which are contentious) that some argue are not included, 100's of people undertake "ocean passages" every year in boats that would not meet Cat A. So it is not a pre-requisite for ocean going boats.

In the example you have quoted it would be surprising if a serious buyer would be unable to see the difference between the two types of boat and even more surprising if they were both on a short list.

When the standards were being developed there were (and still are) strong arguments for a "Super A" category, but little agreement as to where the new line would be drawn.

Remember, these are minimum standards and as already noted some boats that some people think are superior to others are unable to meet them. You can't have it both ways.

 

[dt4134]

But does the average new boat owner really appreciate that??

I dont think they do.... I think that there needs to be a better break down in that information... I think that someone spending say £100,000 deserves better information about what the boat is suited for than just "Oh its CatA!"

Experienced sailors will be able to judge, but many inexperienced peeps have big plans, and then think that buying Cat A will do the trick..... and of course they then realise that the boat is not right, and the wife isnt happy...

I would suggest that Cat A should be the start... then maybe add a few other things like;

1) Ride Comfort.
2) Underwater robustness.. (Ie Skeg rudder, encapsulated keel....)
3) Ease of handling.
4) Stability... how easily it will recover from a inversion.
5) Rig robustness...


Ok, those could all mean a lot... but we can then start to see how a Vancouver 34 could be differentiated from the Bavaria... to give a more informed choice...

I would say the average new boat owner probably has sufficient inkling. Most inexperienced boat owners are going to attempt trips well within the limits of the boat anyway.

Maybe the odd dreamer who will try to sail round Cape Horn in a Bavaria 31 might be misled by the RCD cat A.

And maybe the odd new owner will have a scary crossing of the Channel or North Sea in a F9. I tried looking up the MAIB report on the Cat A Legend that lost three crew overboard off the Humber a few years ago because I seem to remember it referring to the Cat A and accepting that as proof that the boat was suitable for the conditions, but my memory played me false and there's very little detail there.


Incidentally, on the spade rudder point I see no reason why a properly designed spade rudder shouldn't be suitable for ocean crossing. The incidents in the Fastnet 79 race were more down to poor design and a lack of understanding at the time of the forces involved.

 

[stav]

So the RCD CatA

Is a minimum regulation that enables the sale of goods that are unfit for purpose. But it is there to help the beginner but to be useful to the beginner the beginner needs more knowledge than would be required to develop a simple but useful understanding of what makes a vessel fit for cruising a particular area.

But it did prevent me bring in a 1964 S&S mahogany beauty from the USA about 2 years ago that would be the epitomy of sea worthy.

Obviously RCD looks at engine emssions and such to ensure our goods do not cause undue pollution. Great so we use several tons of material that must be about as un-environmentally friendly as possible, GRP (but at least that can be ground up and used for road foundations) but then we make it even worse by mixing it with foam, but hey lets worry about a bit of soot from a small (less than 40hp) engine. If that is so bad in an auxillary why not simply ban high speed (anything that travels at more than 1.3xsqrrtlwl) motorboats.

Reality is it is there to help create a closed market and keep an unsustainable industry going.

 

[Bat21]

I mean, in all honesty can we say that my Bavaria 31 is as safe and capable offshore as a Vancouver 34?QUOTE]


One of them is a scaled up version of a boat designed specificaly for long distance short handed ocean passages.........(British Columbia to New Zealand) and, the other one isn't!

 

[KellysEye]

The bottom line is the French AWB manufacturers hijacked the RCD and demanded that almost all their boats got Cat A. Thus the Categories are meaningless. Of course an AWB and a Vancouver are very different and I know which one I would take offshore/ocean sailing. But then the very great majority don't do that so I suppose RCDs don't matter anyway because those who do go long distance are generally eperienced enough to know what type of boat to buy.

 

[Grumpybear]

The bottom line is the French AWB manufacturers hijacked the RCD and demanded that almost all their boats got Cat A. Thus the Categories are meaningless. Of course an AWB and a Vancouver are very different and I know which one I would take offshore/ocean sailing. But then the very great majority don't do that so I suppose RCDs don't matter anyway because those who do go long distance are generally eperienced enough to know what type of boat to buy.

They didn't need to hijack it - the EC hired them to write it. The truth is that the RCD is just another piece of interference from an unaccountable outfit who believe that everything in Europe must be either regulated (by them, requiring ever more highly paid busybodies) or banned. we are all paying an increasingly steep price for the convenience of not having to change currency quite so often when traveling on the other side of the Channel, and now even the French and Germans are beginning to jib at the cost (although I suspect their solution may be to con the British into paying instead).

 

[bluedragon]

I found this interesting - relates AVS to weight to Cat A / B. It answers a lot of questions about Cat A as far as stability is concerned (assuming you believe the methodology!)...but I know there is more to Cat A than just this.

http://www.rya.org.uk/sitecollectiondocuments/technical/Web Documents/Stability Intro.pdf

Anyway, anything above and to the right of the blue curve on P.2 is Cat A. You'll see there is a huge amount of space on the graph and why so many boats come into this category. Interestingly, smaller AWBs like the Bav.31 need to have a decent AVS to get into Cat A because of their lighter weight...no bad thing!

Of course none of this Cat A / B etc relates to comfort at sea or "an easy motion" as we used to call it, and that's the basis on which most people would choose a particular hull if they had serious offshore intentions. For the rest of us, comfort in harbour is probably more important!!

 

[Kelpie]

That's very interesting. Would be nice to see actual figures for the mass cut-offs. I guesstimated these at about 1.5t and 3t for A and B respectively. It does seem a little unfair to some of the smaller but very capable craft that exist. The weighting between mass and AVS is also very interesing. Most small boats far exceed the AVS requirements but are caught short due to sheer lack of mass.
On the basis of the graph alone I could load my boat up with half a ton of ballast and become cat A! Except the ballast would affect the AVS. Hmmm.