csharpatsea
Well-Known Member
Are you a registered marine surveyor working as an associate in your father's business?
Keel cracks
- Thread starter BristolDiver
- Start date
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
No. But I help him sometimes if I'm not busy and it's an interesting job.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Sorry your very interesting thread got hijacked.
One of the things I was going to raise was how an owner can put a boat on the market with such an obvious defect without giving potential buyers an explanation. Likely to lead to just what happened - buyer sees it, can't work it out, not willing to spend money on a survey and walks away.
Seems much more sensible to get a professional opinion on the problem and either get it fixed or declare it and set the price accordingly. Reminds me af a Moody (as it happens) that I looked at a few years ago. Clearly had osmosis but owner refused to recognise it, asked top dollar. Was otherwise an attractive proposition and had 2 or 3 offers but each time sale fell through on survey. Boat then got a reputation of being a dog, not helped by all the bare patches on the hull and being left neglected in the yard. Eventually sold for about half the original asking price, where if he had been more forthcoming earler probably would have sold for 20% less than asking price.
Hope you find the boat you are looking for.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Don't know how you draw that conclusion. A small sample out of a large population is not indicative of a systemic problem
You also misundertand what I was saying about the state of the boat in question. The standard of design and build at the time that boat was built was not as high as it is these days. Poor materials, slipshod workmanship and hit and miss design was common and time has done the boats no favours.
It is a mistake to equate weight and volume of materials with quality, or to use the frequently abused term "overengineered". (or its colloquial equivalent "built like a brick s***t house"). Heavy displacements were used because partly because they were much more tolerant of poor build - what does it matter if a few more kilos of cheap GRP were used because they had no idea of whether it was strong or not. When I worked in a boat builder we used to joke that one of our competitors had no idea of the displacement of the boats they built - the only way of finding out was to add up the weight of all the materials brought into the factory and divide it by the number of boats built in the period.
So, of course there are many good boats from the past that have stood up well, but you only have to hang around these fora for a little while to know that there are a lot that have not - and largely because of deficiencies in their original design and build. It may have taken 20 or 30 years to come out, but as I said elsewhere I do not believe in general that boats built in more recent times have the same level of latent defects. Hopefully I will still be around in 20 years or so to see how well my boat stands up, but the first 9 years look promising.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Back to Sigma keels
Leaving all the hysteria about Bavarias aside ...
I was at Port Edgar today to have a browse round the chandlers (reasonable range, eye-watering prices). More or less outside their front door is a big Sigma (38, I'd guess) on a cradle. Out of interest I had a gander at the keel and, guess what ...
Yup, that's cracked too, and in a fairly similar way. The crack runs from side to side of the top flange, just grazing the front of the keel proper. Unlike the one you saw it runs straight across, and it's got no sign of stuff bulging out (filler job on yours).
So I had a look at the bottom of the leading edge, and there is a strange "dent" there - what you might expect if a 4" diameter bar had been vigorously applied to the front about 4" from the bottom - a cylindrical indent about 1/4" deep. I find it very hard to imagine cast iron, which is brittle, deforming in that way - but perhaps the 38 has a lead shoe on the keel?
I'd have taken pictures but alas my mobile phone was out of battery. However, without any further information I'd take this as further convincing evidence that a good hard wallop to the bottom of a Sigma keel can break off the front of the mounting flange.
It still wouldn't be a deal stopper for me, but I would want to know in great detail what happened and what has been done to put it right.
Leaving all the hysteria about Bavarias aside ...
I was at Port Edgar today to have a browse round the chandlers (reasonable range, eye-watering prices). More or less outside their front door is a big Sigma (38, I'd guess) on a cradle. Out of interest I had a gander at the keel and, guess what ...
Yup, that's cracked too, and in a fairly similar way. The crack runs from side to side of the top flange, just grazing the front of the keel proper. Unlike the one you saw it runs straight across, and it's got no sign of stuff bulging out (filler job on yours).
So I had a look at the bottom of the leading edge, and there is a strange "dent" there - what you might expect if a 4" diameter bar had been vigorously applied to the front about 4" from the bottom - a cylindrical indent about 1/4" deep. I find it very hard to imagine cast iron, which is brittle, deforming in that way - but perhaps the 38 has a lead shoe on the keel?
I'd have taken pictures but alas my mobile phone was out of battery. However, without any further information I'd take this as further convincing evidence that a good hard wallop to the bottom of a Sigma keel can break off the front of the mounting flange.
It still wouldn't be a deal stopper for me, but I would want to know in great detail what happened and what has been done to put it right.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Oh sorry, I forgot to include the bit about the new owners having to chip in €55mn (on top of restructuring the debt) to keep the company going. It was an awful lot worse than some shares being sold at a loss.
csharpatsea
Well-Known Member
So an external investor looked at the underlying Bavaria operation and decided it was worth 300 million to buy out the private equity prats who were looking for quick exit + 55 million fresh capital for the manufacturing operation which presumably has been starved of factory floor investment while its new owners were frozen in the headlights of the credit crunch.
The event comes nowhere close to the bankruptcy/phoenix scam that Westerly practiced multiple times.
Last edited:
nct1
Well-Known Member
If all 150 boats in the range have to be recalled to fix a problem it is a systemic failure, design, stress testing and quality control have all failed, because this kind of problem should have been ironed out before boats were sold to customers, and before a keel was lost with regrettable consequences.
The numbers argument does not wash with me, Ford sold the Pinto with a serious defect, and in total production terms it was a small proportion, but the authorities did not take the relative numbers argument. I am not equating the two companies approach to the problem, just the numbers argument.
There was no misuderstanding on my part, my quotation from you was not about the boat in question, but your inital generalisation about older boats, and your subsequent post about getting a sense of proportion about the number of Bavarias with problems. What is worse is that you continued with the generalisation on older boats but still don't expect Bavarias to be tarred with a generalisation.
I guess you could reply with another post on why recalling all the boats in a range is not a systemic failure, and anyway it's wrong to generalise, and another piece about older boat construction, but it kinda proves my point about generalisations.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Your loyalty is impressive. Do you have an iPhone, by any chance?
csharpatsea
Well-Known Member
Let me give you a tip on winning arguments, make a single strong point and don't drown it with questionable speculation.
A specific design problem does not constitute systemic failure, Westerly and Nicholson had a systemic failure in hull production standards because multiple models, produced over a decade or more have exhibited high rates of osmosis.
Nicholson had a systemic failure in their rudder designs because they repeated the same design/manufacturing error over 10 to 15 years in different models.
Sigma had a systemic design failure because over a 10 production run they did not fix the manifestly undersized transverse bilge reinforcement box sections that went pop so often during fleet face groundings. In contrast Bavaria had a problematic production run of about a year before they took positive corrective action.
Since the Match 38/42 keel mounting was subject to a specific design fix how do you conclude quality control was also at fault?
"Have to"? Were you a fly on the wall in the Bavaria board room? It is just as legitimate to state that in order to protect the reputation of their name they decided it was prudent to recall all those yachts for some extra layers of laminate in the bilge.
It is strange that you are so determined to wave a red flag over this issue because analysis of Bavaria's response only serves to demonstrate that their actions were prompt, decisive and decent. Their actions were in complete contrast to past British yacht manufactures who have resorted to repeated bankruptcy and relied on local jingoism to cover up their systemic failures.
And where did it get them? The road to corporate perdition and names plaques purchased by oversea manufacturing outfits.
Last edited:
nct1
Well-Known Member
I guess we will have to agree to differ on whether recalling the whole production run of a model to cure a serious issue is systematic failure.
Are you telling me that design's should not be subject to quality control ?
With respect to the "have to" and "prompt decisive" reaction point try
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRIrh2hK5U&NR=1
and it's sister posting and the following link
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/bavaria-match-42-lost-its-keel-7362-3.html#post54205
and the various YBW threads on this subject.
Now, I am guessing you are a Bav owner, and are sick of the MAB owners pointing at this issue. Fair enough, I would be in your shoes. And as another poster has pointed out, just because one range had a problem 5 years ago, not all Bavs are subject to such problems. And just as my MAB offers value for money if you are prepared to invest some time, the Bav range has a cost / benefit ratio that is attractive to many new buyers.
But the irony of a Bav owner having a go at MAB designs and asking for evidence was too much
Make what you will of the olive branch.
As a matter of interest, do you have any specific information about the Sigma design issue, any specific links or books you can point at ? This is not a trick question, just a genuine interest.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Yes, I think the problem with this debate is a basic misunderstanding by some of very common terms. To suggest thst a SPECIFIC failure of one design totalling 150 boats of two variations can be called a "systemic" failure while ignoring say 25000 built by the same factory over the last 10 years to different designs which do not have the same problem is an very good example of such as misunderstanding.
On the other hand the same kind of people accuse others of "GENERALISING" when they point out specific failures of other builders. For example in just the last week on these fora there have been specific examples of failure or possible failure of keel attachments on 4 completely different Westerlys - Jouster, Centaur, Renown and Fulmar, built over I guess a 15 year period and all requiring substantial remedial work. We also can look at the 20 years or so that the same builder (along with many other builders) produced boats that suffered from inadequate GRP layups, usually resulting in "osmosis" - again requiring serious remedial action. The problem was discovered very early on, and yet the builders continued to produce boats with known defects. Ignorance, greed, poor processes etc can be blamed - but if ever there was a "systemic" failure this has to be one of the best examples. Owners of such boats will continue to pay for this failure as long as the boats are in use as the "cures" themselves have a limited effective life. Perhaps this explains in part why most of these builders no longer exist.
So, please take off the rose tinted spectacles that seem to filter the failings of the past - after all the evidence of the failings (particularly of GRP hulls) is there for everybody to see under poly wraps in the corner of every yard in the country.
It may well of course be that there are in built long term defects in recent factory built boats. However I think that the reaction from Bavaria over the Match series was as good as you get. They screwed up, recognised the mistake, fixed it and stopped making the boats. You do not hear owners saying they had a raw deal over the incident - indeed the opposite, unlike some of the failings reported from other builders.
On the other hand the same kind of people accuse others of "GENERALISING" when they point out specific failures of other builders. For example in just the last week on these fora there have been specific examples of failure or possible failure of keel attachments on 4 completely different Westerlys - Jouster, Centaur, Renown and Fulmar, built over I guess a 15 year period and all requiring substantial remedial work. We also can look at the 20 years or so that the same builder (along with many other builders) produced boats that suffered from inadequate GRP layups, usually resulting in "osmosis" - again requiring serious remedial action. The problem was discovered very early on, and yet the builders continued to produce boats with known defects. Ignorance, greed, poor processes etc can be blamed - but if ever there was a "systemic" failure this has to be one of the best examples. Owners of such boats will continue to pay for this failure as long as the boats are in use as the "cures" themselves have a limited effective life. Perhaps this explains in part why most of these builders no longer exist.
So, please take off the rose tinted spectacles that seem to filter the failings of the past - after all the evidence of the failings (particularly of GRP hulls) is there for everybody to see under poly wraps in the corner of every yard in the country.
It may well of course be that there are in built long term defects in recent factory built boats. However I think that the reaction from Bavaria over the Match series was as good as you get. They screwed up, recognised the mistake, fixed it and stopped making the boats. You do not hear owners saying they had a raw deal over the incident - indeed the opposite, unlike some of the failings reported from other builders.
Woodlouse
Well-Known Member
Osmosis cannot always be blamed on inadequate GRP layup. GRP is porous and osmosis is the inevitable result of it being submerged in water for extended periods without the chance of drying out. Older boats get it for two reasons. Firstly they've been in the water far longer than new designs. Secondly most new boats are sheathed in epoxy under the waterline which is completely watertight.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
To be fair - and not just to Westerly - it took a long time for Osmosis to be established as a problem in GRP yachts ... inasmuch as it's any more than a money maker for surveyors and yards, that is. It was less a matter of "inadequate" layups and more one of lack of knowledge of materials ... knowledge which has really only been gained from many years of experience. In other words, if it wasn't for the bubbling seventies boats, modern builders would probably be making the same mistake.
I think all this "I'm-better-than-you-because-my-builder's-better-than-your-builder" (and probably my-dad's-bigger-than-your-dad) stuff is nonsense. It's particularly daft in attempts to set up Westerly vs Bavaria antagonism, since the two companies occupy very similar niches in the market - down-to-a-price manufacture of mass-production boats. That doesn't make them bad! Sure, after thirty+ years 70s Westerlies are often getting a bit tired. Hardly surprising. In thirty years' time the Bavarias which come off the production line today will inevitably have their problems too ... and their afficionados.
wotayottie
Well-Known Member
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Good. You are now getting close to what I have been arguing. It is never "mine is better than yours". It is the belief that things were better in the past and that 1970'-90's boats were better built etc etc - when this is just not the case - that I question. It was pioneering days - new materials, new concepts, underfunded low volume builders trying to make their way and so on. The problems with GRP were well known at the time, but ignored because anyone with a shed, a mould, buckets and brushes could turn out a beautiful shiny hull for eager buyers.
The Moodys and Westerlys of this world revolutionised cruising and all of a sudden middle class families could afford serious ocean going craft. Hardly surprising that many see this as a golden era - but tend to ignore the bad bits. The age declined when Johnny Foreigner (mostly) realised that for the same volume and weight of materials you could make a boat about 20% bigger with more of the features that buyers were looking for. The key to this new model was volume production and automated processes and the factory boat is here. Remember, the big European builders EACH make more boats in a year than Westerlys made Centaurs in the entire production run. I would guess that the entire labour input for building a modern factory 40 footer is about the same as old style builders would require to fit the deck and deck fittings on a "traditionally" built boat. Such economies mean that ordinary people like me can afford a 37 footer when my father (if he were a sailor) would perhaps have seen a Centaur as the ultimate goal.
It may well be that my Kevlar reinforced hull will turn into cream cheese and my keel will fall off or crack in 20 years time - but I don't think so. As I said earlier, I hope I am still around to see it - whatever happens.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
In one sense I think many boats then were "better built" - because the materials were new and the computer models weren't anything like as sophisticated as we have now, good builders tended to use lots of materials just in case. The result could be very solid boats. Boats today are almost certainly better designed than they were then, and can therefore get away with being more lightly built. That doesn;t mean "too lightly", just "more lightly". Good news for racing, perhaps not such good news for cruing in thirty years. We'll have to wait and see.
As a comparison, I know a chap with a Bolkow Phoebus, which is the every first production GRP glider from the late fifties. Compared to modern glider it's massive: 225kg empty as compared to 180kg for a modern SZD-59 Diana with vastly better performance. That's because people didn't know what they could get away with in GRP then, and tended to overdo things a bit. On the other hand they have turned out to be extremely durable, with an awful lot of the 250 or so built still flying half a century later.
It would be interesting to look at how the prices in real terms compare. I haven't found the necessary prices with a quick google, but will return to it some time ...
You'll just have to hope that more accurate design makes up for lighter construction. I have my doubts, but the only way to settle it is to meet up in thirty years time and compare notes. And enjoy sailing in the meantime.
Next weekend, all being well, I collect my "new" boat. Twenty five years old and I have chosen to buy something built like a brick outhouse rather than spend half as much on a lighter boat of the same length ... and rather than getting 30% more length of flimsier boat for the money. That's my choice - not better or worse than yours, just different. Wouldn't it be boring if we all sailed the same things?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Assuming some climbing up the salary scale - guessing that in real terms your salary now is about 50% more than it was in the 70s, doesn't that make the Bavaria twice the cost of a Centaur in real terms? I've just spent half a year's university lecturer salary on a second hand 26 footer ... NOT a Centaur!
DownWest
Well-Known Member
Early plastics, ref the Bolkow glider. The Windecker Eagle was an early 4 seat composite (epoxy) aircraft. The FAA were worried about the new technology, and made them over spec the structure. Got into a flat spin on early test flights and the pilot had to bail out (he deployed the anti spin chute, but the g forces made him jettison it at the same time) After recovering the plane, they said everything aft of the firewall was reusable.
In this thread.. Looking at the first pic, the bits don't line up. If a repair was attempted, the welder would at least set it up so the bits matched. If not, some filler would make it look reasonable. Neither seems to have been tried. Begs a question (or 2..3) about the quality of the repair, and the owners acceptance of it.
Did the OP ask the previous owner (6yrs) or just walk. I may have missed something it.
A
In this thread.. Looking at the first pic, the bits don't line up. If a repair was attempted, the welder would at least set it up so the bits matched. If not, some filler would make it look reasonable. Neither seems to have been tried. Begs a question (or 2..3) about the quality of the repair, and the owners acceptance of it.
Did the OP ask the previous owner (6yrs) or just walk. I may have missed something it.
A