Sète's new lifeboat

[Sybarite]

Speed to scene is rarely the defining capability of a lifeboat.

In previous years you argued that it was indispensable and that it was one of the advantages of RNLI boats over French boats. Changed your mind apparently?

The sort of stunted thinking that led to the withdrawal of large helicopters on the south England coast, forgetting that incidents like Drum led to 16 people sitting on an upturned hull.

It was not stunted thinking. The large CTTs in the past were often there to support the fishing fleet as opposed to pleasure sailors. The fishing fleet has considerably diminished and therefore the SNSM reassessed its needs.

Within 5 miles of the coast is usually when you need an offshore boat's capabilities most, especially towing larger vessels off a lee shore.

For which the large CTT is available. Remember how I outlined their distribution along the coast.

 

[chanelyacht]

In previous years you argued that it was indispensable and that it was one of the advantages of RNLI boats over French boats. Changed your mind apparently?

No, you're being selective again.

You need a platform which can get to scene quickly, but then is a capable search operation and communications platform when on scene, or offers excellent crew care on prolonged incidents.

That's where the CTTs are lesser, and the extra money spent by the RNLI shows it's value.

 

[Sybarite]

The SNSM CTT is faster. So what. It's bigger, So what.

And it's a third the price of its nearest comparable RNLI boat. So what you might say?

Equally, it cannot operate of a beach

In France it doesn't have to. For beach situations other alternatives are available.

nor would it fit in the existing RNLI Mersey boathouses.

If it requires an £11m investment (St David's) to make sure that the boat can fit into the boatshed I will send you the French builder and his Polish crew who worked on my house to adjust the boatshed to size. I am sure he would be very happy with a tenth of the price.

So what...??

What matters is that the boat is right for the job it has to do and the environment it needs to operate in

The CTT does the job, it would seem, that the SNSM need it to do. Shannon does the job that the RNLI need IT to do.

SNSM get the boat they want at a price they can afford. RNLI get the boat they want at a price they can afford.

What's not to like?

Value is a concept that you apparently have difficulty in understanding. Especially when it means spending money that somebody else contributed.

PS. You claim the new CTT is faster than the Shannon but the SNSM and manufacturers websites both claim a top speed of 25 knots which is identical to the stated speed of Shannon.

They both have the same designed operating speeds with the same engines but the CTT is a much bigger boat. To achieve the same operating speed it must have a very efficient hull. This borne out by the links posted in #7 and #35 above.

Oh and according to the manufacturers website, the SNSM cannot afford to implement the original plan to replace it's entire all weather fleet and it's likely that there will only be two more CTTs in 2018 to add to the three already in service.

Perhaps, with tongue firmly in cheek, the SNSM should employ some highly paid expert fundraisers

I believe that the SNSM is placing moral pressure on the government to up its participation to a more significant proportion of operating costs. I spoke with the President at the Salon Nautique and he was about to go on the offensive with government as well as broadening the appeal to the public. As it is, revenues were up 10% last year.

Incidentally he suggested that the RNLI might make a contribution given the number of British boats which are helped. (TIC of course)

 

[Bru]

They both have the same designed operating speeds with the same engines but the CTT is a much bigger boat. To achieve the same operating speed it must have a very efficient hull.

You are familiar with boats aren't you?

Yes, it could be that the CTT has a more efficient hull. Then again it could just possibly be that it has a more efficient propulsion system. It could also just possibly have something to do with greater waterline length. And it may be that the SNSM is running it's Scanias flat out whereas the RNLI are running them at 90%. Or it may be that the CTT builders are bigging up their product whereas the Shannon builders are being conservative (a Shannon has been "clocked" at 30 knots)

To put it as clearly as I can, you are making a false assumption

This is the problem with playing lifeboat top trumps with the bald numbers. Engineering doesn't work that way.

By the way, once again you're trying to have your cake and eat it. You bang on about the cost of the new St. Davids station on the one hand but appear happy to see the RNLI rebuild the dozens of Mersey sized stations just so that they can have a bigger boat (which they don't necessarily want or need). Verging on special pleading there methinks

 

[chanelyacht]

If it requires an £11m investment (St David's) to make sure that the boat can fit into the boatshed I will send you the French builder and his Polish crew who worked on my house to adjust the boatshed to size. I am sure he would be very happy with a tenth of the price.

Good to see your understanding of marine civil engineering in a national park is as deep as your knowledge of lifeboats.

FFS....

 

[penberth3]

Good to see your understanding of marine civil engineering in a national park is as deep as your knowledge of lifeboats.

FFS....
[/COLOR]

Exactly. As one of a few stations built on legs at the bottom of a cliff, this isn't a fair example of building costs.

 

[penberth3]

And it's a third the price of its nearest comparable RNLI boat. So what you might say?

What is the design life of these cheap French boats?

 

[Sybarite]

What is the design life of these cheap French boats?

30 years before major rebuild.

And cheap is a pejorative description. They are high quality boats built under a tightly cost controlled basis. They have the latest hi-tech equipment on board - the president described the bridge as ressembling a Boeing 747.

(BTW you have about 10 years of postings to catch up on.)

 

[Sybarite]

You are familiar with boats aren't you?

Yes. Are you?

Yes, it could be that the CTT has a more efficient hull. Then again it could just possibly be that it has a more efficient propulsion system. It could also just possibly have something to do with greater waterline length. And it may be that the SNSM is running it's Scanias flat out whereas the RNLI are running them at 90%. Or it may be that the CTT builders are bigging up their product whereas the Shannon builders are being conservative (a Shannon has been "clocked" at 30 knots)

To put it as clearly as I can, you are making a false assumption

This is the problem with playing lifeboat top trumps with the bald numbers. Engineering doesn't work that way.

Instead of coming up with BS half truths it is obvious you haven't checked out the links that are set out in posts # 7 (pvb's post)

http://www.goodchildmarine.co.uk/com...t-pilot-craft/

and #35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C24xDv-FmKM

In the first the pilot craft operator has confirmed the better passage through the water and how this has enabled annual fuel savings of £80000 per boat.

In the second the simultaneous passages of a classic hull compared with a pantocarene hull were measured for vertical movement. The pantocarene's movement is much smoother (less bobbing up and down) resulting in higher speed and a more comfortable ride for the crew. Nevertheless the CTT has top of the range damped crew seats as you can see in the OP.

Even as an engineer you might be able to comprehend this...??

May I remind that long before seeing this video I had already observed other videos and commented on the fact that it was clear that the pantocarene had a smoother movement. So before throwing out your condescending comments you might check your facts first.

By the way, once again you're trying to have your cake and eat it. You bang on about the cost of the new St. Davids station on the one hand but appear happy to see the RNLI rebuild the dozens of Mersey sized stations just so that they can have a bigger boat (which they don't necessarily want or need). Verging on special pleading there methinks

The only adequate response to this is "whoosh"!

To put it as clearly as I can, you are making a false assumption

Right back at you.

 

[Bru]

Sidestepping the point again my dear chap

I'm neither disputing nor accepting the claims that the Pantocarene hull has a "smoother movement" (maybe it has, maybe it hasn't)

I'm pointing out the fallacy of your bald claim that because the CTT achieves the same speed with the same engines as the Shannon it must therefore have a "better" hull

The whoosh is entirely at your end

 

[dogleg]

Sidestepping the point again my dear chap

I'm neither disputing nor accepting the claims that the Pantocarene hull has a "smoother movement" (maybe it has, maybe it hasn't)

I'm pointing out the fallacy of your bald claim that because the CTT achieves the same speed with the same engines as the Shannon it must therefore have a "better" hull

The whoosh is entirely at your end

I really would like to know if the CTT engines are running at full output unlike the 60% of the Shannon

 

[chanelyacht]

I really would like to know if the CTT engines are running at full output unlike the 60% of the Shannon

No doubt someone will be along shortly to say the Shannon's engines are oversized if they're only running at 60%

 

[Bru]

No doubt someone will be along shortly to say the Shannon's engines are oversized if they're only running at 60%

Could have used cheaper engines

 

[Sybarite]

Sidestepping the point again my dear chap

I'm neither disputing nor accepting the claims that the Pantocarene hull has a "smoother movement" (maybe it has, maybe it hasn't)

I'm pointing out the fallacy of your bald claim that because the CTT achieves the same speed with the same engines as the Shannon it must therefore have a "better" hull

The whoosh is entirely at your end

The 61' CTT weighs 28 tons; the 44' Shannon 14.5 tons. Same engines; same operating speed.

What else would materially contribute to the equation?

Whoosh over to you.

 

[Bru]

The 61' CTT weighs 28 tons; the 44' Shannon 14.5 tons. Same engines; same operating speed.

What else would materially contribute to the equation?

Whoosh over to you.

Right back at you. Try reading my post properly

Firstly, the two boats have an entirely different propulsion system. High speed props versus water jet propulsion. Now I'll freely admit that I don't know this for sure but I'll lay odds that the water propulsion system is less efficient overall (thus requiring more power).

Secondly, we know that the Scanias in the Shannon are governed down. We do not know whether the same applies to the engines in the CTT

Thirdly, we know that Shannon is actually capable of over 30 knots, the operating speed of 25 knots is very conservative. We do not know whether the same applies to the CTT

Fourthly, it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that the CTT, being based on the Pantocarene hull, IS able to achieve higher speeds for a given power to weight ratio. The CTT does not have to operate in extreme shoal waters and it does not have to be beach launched / recovered

Points one to three should tell you that it is nonsense to play Lifeboat Top Trumps with the simplistic published figures

Point four should inform you that it is also nonsense to compare apples with pears

The CTT appears to be a very good all weather deep water lifeboat. It seems to be suitable for the job that the SNSM wanted it to do and available at a very good price (which sadly is even so beyond the means of the SNSM to procure in the quantities they would like)

The CTT and similar designs did not meet the needs of the RNLI for a Mersey Class replacement.

It is naive and simplistic to try and claim that one is better than the other. It is suitability for the job requirement that matters and on that score both the CTT and Shannon appear to be top trumps

 

[rotrax]

Can we end this now please?

Perhaps start again next year?

 

[Sybarite]

Right back at you. Try reading my post properly

Firstly, the two boats have an entirely different propulsion system. High speed props versus water jet propulsion. Now I'll freely admit that I don't know this for sure but I'll lay odds that the water propulsion system is less efficient overall (thus requiring more power).

Secondly, we know that the Scanias in the Shannon are governed down. We do not know whether the same applies to the engines in the CTT

Thirdly, we know that Shannon is actually capable of over 30 knots, the operating speed of 25 knots is very conservative. We do not know whether the same applies to the CTT

Fourthly, it is entirely possible, indeed likely, that the CTT, being based on the Pantocarene hull, IS able to achieve higher speeds for a given power to weight ratio. The CTT does not have to operate in extreme shoal waters and it does not have to be beach launched / recovered

Points one to three should tell you that it is nonsense to play Lifeboat Top Trumps with the simplistic published figures

Point four should inform you that it is also nonsense to compare apples with pears

The CTT appears to be a very good all weather deep water lifeboat. It seems to be suitable for the job that the SNSM wanted it to do and available at a very good price (which sadly is even so beyond the means of the SNSM to procure in the quantities they would like)

The CTT and similar designs did not meet the needs of the RNLI for a Mersey Class replacement.

It is naive and simplistic to try and claim that one is better than the other. It is suitability for the job requirement that matters and on that score both the CTT and Shannon appear to be top trumps

After arguing using thee times "don't know" to reinforce your points, may I just say that the CTT pantocarene is also available with jet propulsion as sold to the Dutch.

But, as Rotrax said, one egg is un oeuf.

 

[Bru]

After arguing using thee times "don't know" to reinforce your points, .

And that is exactly my point!

I don't know enough accurate detail to form anything other than an opinion and neither do you! Yet you repeatedly assert as fact that the CTT is a "better boat" than the Shannon based on your interpretation of a handful of videos and incomplete data.

may I just say that the CTT pantocarene is also available with jet propulsion as sold to the Dutch..

You may

That would be a more valid basis for comparison but I can't find a shred of info about the jet propulsion version

 

[rotrax]

Touche!

 

[fisherman]

Just a point on jets which may be valid. When I looked at a jet powered boat the requirement was for 3000 revs, the Ford engine was 2600 max, there had to be special dispensation to run it fast. The alternative would be more HP and a step-up gearbox, is this why there is more HP in the waterjet boats?