RCD Category C to France?

[prv]

I had an Etap 21i that I brought new, part of the options I spec'd was a Cat B upgrade (the boat is RCD 'C' as standard)... the *only* difference was a piece of 1/2" board, about 4" high that had to be bolted in place across the bottom of the companion way

...but of course that's not to say that another boat would be magically upgraded by raising the companionway threshold. The Etap was obviously very nearly there already, and only the height of companionway sill was non-compliant with the B standard.

Pete

 

[ReggieK]

But then you haven't paid for anything more

Just pointing this out in reply to Tranona.
Actually the restriction to coastal waters was never discussed with Insurance Co. So I assume they must know that my boat is category C ( this was never asked or mentioned).
Doesn't bother me as I'm hardly going to cross Irish Sea in her.

Obviously would be important for O.P. to be aware of, if and when insuring a Category C boat

 

[Boomshanka]

...but of course that's not to say that another boat would be magically upgraded by raising the companionway threshold. The Etap was obviously very nearly there already, and only the height of companionway sill was non-compliant with the B standard.

Pete

Agreed, absolutely... but I was a bit surprised to see what the upgrade involved in the Etap case!

 

[Tranona]

Agreed, absolutely... but I was a bit surprised to see what the upgrade involved in the Etap case!

That is not surprising. Many boats are on the borderline of categories and can be in one or the other with only minor changes. The Nauticat 331 I used earlier is an example. If it had a more conventional deckhouse with an aft companionway it would exceed the requirements for Cat A by a long way - much higher STIX for example than a whole raft of 35' or so AWBs that are (just) Cat A. Presumably buyers of Nauticats are quite happy with Category B - and some have circumnavigated. In a similar vein, more than 30 Golden Hind 31s have circumnavigated and they would not get above Cat C - mainly because they don't have self draining cockpits.

Builders will obviously seek to get their products into the category that suits the market they are aiming at. A quick survey of the popular 33-37 ft AWB sector will show how many are only just above the margin on the all important stability measures - and therefore they can claim they are capable of "Ocean" voyaging. Even though they are much more suited to coastal marina hopping, which is probably what most buyers use them for.

 

[TimBennet]

The Nauticat 331 I used earlier is an example. If it had a more conventional deckhouse with an aft companionway it would exceed the requirements for Cat A by a long way - much higher STIX for example than a whole raft of 35'

You have to be careful of that assumption. The large deckhouse contributes significantly to its high STIX, as they use the inverted buoyancy it provides to give a very credible angle of vanishing stability (often ≥170° or so). If you remove the large deckhouse, you loose this contribution and its STX is likely to return to being average for a similar sized boats of similar proportions.

The Moody 45 managed CAT A by a similar means. Although there is nothing in the 'rules' to prohibit this, one only has to look at the superstructure / doors / windows of a RNLI AWLB (which also uses the buoyancy of the superstructure to make them self-righting) to wonder whether recreational boats would remain water-tight long enough when inverted for them to roll upright without taking on enough water to nullify any self-righting ability.

 

[prv]

The Nauticat 331 I used earlier is an example. If it had a more conventional deckhouse with an aft companionway it would exceed the requirements for Cat A by a long way

You have to be careful of that assumption. The large deckhouse contributes significantly to its high STIX, as they use the inverted buoyancy it provides to give a very credible angle of vanishing stability (often ≥170° or so). If you remove the large deckhouse, you loose this contribution and its STX is likely to return to being average for a similar sized boats of similar proportions.

I think the point wasn't to remove the deckhouse, but to move the doors from the sides to the aft face.

Pete

 

[Tranona]

I think the point wasn't to remove the deckhouse, but to move the doors from the sides to the aft face.

Pete

Yes, that is the point, but it would mean doing away with the vast aft cabin to create a cockpit and enough of an aft bulkhead to fit a companionway. The larger, more sail orientated Nauticats do this and when you get to the 42 you can have the full height aft cabin as well.