RCD Ratings

[KipH]

I was most surprised to find that a known seaworthy boat, the Nordic Folkboat, only scores a C rating, the same as a Wayfarer dinghy. Surely this is an anomaly. Can anyone explain?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

As standard the cockpit is not self draining, and also gives straight into the saloon. This will be frowned on by the rule makers. A self drainingcockpit is an available option, but compromises comfort for safety. I doubt that the absence of lifelines endears them to the beaurocrats. It doesnt make them unsafe, but one would need to be aware of issues arising from such a design. My Father raced a 70 foot day Edwardian racer to Santander in winds he estimated at F14 (so far off the scale that he added some numbers). The boat had no self draining cockpit, no lifelines, and they won by 24 hours, and suffered no damage.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

I've seen film of Frank Dye cruising a Wayfarer to the Faeroes, taking the mast down in a F10 and going to sleep, lying to a sea anchor. RCD?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KipH]

So what it comes down to is that the RCD is to help people who don't know about boats, to choose a boat. It's trying to prevent someone who's just got their dinghy level 2 from emulating Frank Dye, or a Nordic Folkboat sailor from going offshore if they don't know a big greenie coming over into the cockpit, means pump like hell.
It's idiot protection, isn't it?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

Perhaps more of a liability protection? If I take my Wayfarer transatlantic, it gets swamped, I drown, my relatives sue Proctor or whoever makes it now, they can point at its RCD. "Sorry madam, it's only meant for inland waters".

If your suggestion was the intended one, Joe Newbie would be perfectly justified in buying a Cat A and setting off into the blue yonder.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KipH]

Fair point. I didn't mean to imply that buying a cat A boat would enable a Newbie to go anywhere. Liability is a better way of saying it.
At the same time I'm still surprised at a ratings system that can place a 16 ft boat with a centre board and a 25 ft boat weighing a couple of tonnes and having a 50% ballast ratio in the same category.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by KipH on 03/11/2003 17:18 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Sybarite]

I would love to see this. Is it available in DVD/cassette form?

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

I love the shape of folkboats but I wouldn't go offshore in a boat with such low freeboard if it wasn't water tight and self bailing. Just for the sake of peace of mind.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

I'd love to see it again, too. I don't remember exactly when I saw it, probably about 1980. It was a very amateurish effort, not unexpectedly. There were two on board, initially beating into quite serious seas. Later it got really nasty, they lowered the mast into a crutch on the transom, covered the cockpit with a canvas cover and snuggled down. Not everything was shown, as you might expect, detail given in the commentary, but enough to show quite exceptional seamanship.

There's quite a bit of info about it <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.angelfire.com/on4/cruisenews/CN030317.html>here</A> A great line is "My favourite part is still where, after the force 9, you say "Bill looks a lot better this morning." and then you see Bill and he looks like he died three days ago!!


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

Would that be the Summer Cruise Video as per the <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.wayfarer.org.uk/Library/SlideandVideoLibrary.htm>Wayfarer class</A> site?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KipH]

O.K. John,
that's helpful to me. What sort of boat would you recommend as a first time (pocket) cruiser that still had offshore potential, so you could grow into it rather than change it after a couple of years?
Can you think of one still in production?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeterGibbs]

Like many others I guess, I was never aware of a crying need to produce a system of categorising private sailing vessels. The nature of sailing and the habits of seaways make this a futile endeavour. It was not that hundreds of souls were being lost at sea on unsuitable vessels. No, the sad fact of the matter is that this is another EU initiative stemming not from a consumer need but from the bureaucratic government, untrammelled by reason, that is the European Commission today. It is a trade not a consumer protectionist scheme, pure and simple, and adds to the cost of manufacture. Presumably trade interests are delighted with its arrival - could anyone else be?

The test of its durability is how many purchasers single out their needs according to the RCD. How many plan or limit their sailing according to its rough gradations of seawothiness? Is the RCD grading the first question asked when new customers board a vessel for sale? Does the first mate demand to know what category of boat has been booked for the annual flotilla?

The RCD cannot even be defended as confirmation of a choice made on the regular empirical grounds. It is, for boat owners and charterers alike, a completely useless piece of garbage. It would be nice to think the RCD is idiot protection - the poor thing is not even that potent.

PWG


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[PeterGibbs]

Re: RCD Ratings - what a crock!

Like many others I guess, I was never aware of a crying need to produce a system of categorising private sailing vessels. The nature of sailing and the habits of seaways make this a futile endeavour. It was not that hundreds of souls were being lost at sea on unsuitable vessels. No, the sad fact of the matter is that this is another EU initiative stemming not from a consumer need but from the bureaucratic government, untrammelled by reason, that is the European Commission today. It is a trade not a consumer protectionist scheme, pure and simple, and adds to the cost of manufacture. Presumably trade interests are delighted with its arrival - could anyone else be?

The test of its durability is how many purchasers single out their needs according to the RCD. How many plan or limit their sailing according to its rough graduations of seaworthiness? Is the RCD grading the first question asked when new customers board a vessel for sale? Does the first mate demand to know what category of boat has been booked for the annual flotilla? Will they ever?

The RCD cannot even be defended as useful confirmation of a choice made on the usual empirical grounds. It is, for boat owners and charterers alike, a completely useless piece of garbage. It would be nice to think the RCD is idiot protection - the poor thing is not even that potent.

PWG


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[RupertW]

My favourite pocket cruiser wouldn't be to everyone's taste, but if you were looking (very) second hand I'd go for the Westerly GK24.

It's cheap, small, has a decent harbour-double berth forwards as well as a proper sea toilet compartment and hanging locker. At sea it has two very secure quarterberths, sails like a fast dinghy in lighter winds and reefed down can beat its way into a Force 8 offshore with steering light enough for the smallest autohelm to cope (as long as you keep the lines clean by avoiding sprayhoods and dodgers).

Downsides - they're often pretty shabby now, no standing headroom, and in heavy weather you get pretty wet.

I've been looking for a modern equivalent and the closest I can find is the smaller Beneteau Firsts.





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

I think I'd agree (for offshore at least) - but the builders do offer it as an option. Once you have that, it is a boat which has proved itself over tens of thousands of miles of offshore cruising and racing. The hull is so easily driven that the sails are all nice and small and manageable.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

That seems to be it. If I'm reading it correctly it is only available for hire by Wayfarer Class Assoc members? I would buy a copy if it was available.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

From a personal preference point of view I would still put the folkboat high on the list provided it is a water tight version. See Ian's (QSIV's) note with which I agree entirely.

Next it is a question of what type of offshore sailing you envisage and what sort of budget is available. You might choose one type of boat if for example you were going on an occasional overnight channel crossing but you might choose a different type if you were contemplating an ocean crossing. Pocket cruisers can do this; it just depends how masochistic you are.

For long term cruising, where you do not want this to be a pain, you need to have standing headroom and enough stowage space for your supplies. For an average person this implies a minimum length of about 30 feet or 33 feet if you want to get Cat A status. Even in this size of boat the waves can appear awfully big in an ocean storm.

For the peace of mind aspect, there are boats which are guaranteed unsinkable. The French introduced this notion and the criteria are very strict. It means that if the boat is holed it will be not only remain afloat but there will be enough freeboard and reserve buoyancy to enable you to keep sailing. The Belgian Etap range comes to mind here - they all comply - and they start at about 21' (Etap 21i). They are recognized as quality boats and are priced accordingly.

There are some even smaller French boats which are unsinkable. The First 211 is a modern example.

Another pocket cruiser which I like is the Corribee. Lovely lines (single keel version) but no longer built. However I would say that they enter the maso list. Ellen MacArthur though started on one. They have crossed the Atlantic.

You also have the boats developed for the mini-transat 6m50 22' eg Pogo, Coco, etc. These are flying machines but not cruiser friendly eg deep draft.

Another interesting boat is the Super Sepentaire 22'. It is a centreboard or more correctly an off-centreboarder. The C/b case is offset by about a foot so that it interferes less with the accommodation. Apparently it works well in practice.

There are many more from smaller manufacturers too numerous to list here.

I think basically what I am saying is that you neeed to think about the realistic sailing you intend to do and then broaden your horizons when it comes to a boat choice. I think for a given sum of money, you will get more boat for your money in Europe than in the UK.


John







<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

<font size=1>If your suggestion was the intended one, Joe Newbie would be perfectly justified in buying a Cat A and setting off into the blue yonder.</font size=1>

<hr></blockquote>

As of course they are doing, on precisely this assumption.

Incidentally, Frank Dye once mentioned that when his Wanderer had capsized and turtled in heavy weather on one of his long northern passages, he had simply remained inside perched on the thwart until the conditions improved, when the dinghy could be righted (I don't know if this is related in any of his books). Not the sort of storm tactics to be recommended to Joe Newbie and his AWB!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KipH]

Hi John,
I'm probably going to be doing a lot of long-weekending, whilst I'm still at work, but with longer summer cruises. I'm thinking of basing myself on the East coast, so initially my bigger trips would be to Holland/Belgium, but ultimately will expand to Scandinavia in the north, down to say La Rochelle (pretty much anywhere a standard NW Europe insurance policy may let you go!).
Ocean crossings? I dream as much as the next man, possibly more so. Wouldn't mind crewing on one, indeed had an offer to crew a delivery of a mates (50 ft) boat back from Australia next year, but it fell through because nobody'd insure it.
So, yes I've thought about it, but don't see it in the near future.
Thanks for your suggestions, it has broadened my thinking.
Kip.

<hr width=100% size=1>