Asm
Member
Princess - 52 56 60 64
Swim platform issues
- Thread starter PRINCESS 56 OWNER
- Start date
Princess - 52 56 60 64
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Aha, fair enough, that makes sense. The solution to that requirement is to buy a secondhand boat eg a Princess 54. In fairness though I can see where the contemporary passerelle requirement (for the Med) comes from, a letterbox passerelle mounted under the cockpit floor is a lot easier for boarding than a transom mounted lifting passerelle where you have to climb down over the cockpit seating.
pan
Member
I recall in this thread a mention of 400kg lifting, either it's for a dinghy or a h*ll of a lot of beer/female companions! If it's suggested that a passarelle is used instead of the hi/lo platform, the spec for that would have to be massive, due to the length of the platform, probably extending out 4m (super yacht spec).
Doesn't seem Princess are suggesting that anyway, any honest answer has to be they simply got it wrong as JFM suggests, 400kg lift capacity indicates that it was intended for a certain size of tender, but someone forgot to determine the necessary clearance below the waterline. So are they going to 'wriggle' or not, I trust the Op will let us know what transpires.
Doesn't seem Princess are suggesting that anyway, any honest answer has to be they simply got it wrong as JFM suggests, 400kg lift capacity indicates that it was intended for a certain size of tender, but someone forgot to determine the necessary clearance below the waterline. So are they going to 'wriggle' or not, I trust the Op will let us know what transpires.
PRINCESS 56 OWNER
New member
Met with management at the PYI Factory Office today and sympathetic response to the problem was evident. However they need more time to research either the engineering solution to get the platform lower or resort to Ballast which is now looking more like a couple of Tons, subject to tests and trials, placed strategically to bring the whole vessel down to DWL not just the stern. I await the deliberations followed by their decision on suggested remedy.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Jeez, 2t! Have they offered an explanation why the whole boat is floating much higher than it should?
PRINCESS 56 OWNER
New member
They say it is within specifications, nothing I am assured is missing. The boat has aft cabin fit out, and holding tank. It does not however have A/C, Washer Dryer, Teak Side Decks / Fly Bridge. The six man Life Raft is not on Board at the moment. There is also extra Anchor Chain in the bow locker which does lift the stern marginally.
MapisM
Well-known member
Ok, so they realized that 750kg is not enough.
It's reassuring that it didn't take them much longer than the 5 minutes which were necessary to a stupid forum poster who never designed boats for a living (that's me) to reach the same conclusion... :ambivalence:
And now, by how much would those 2T increase the draft of the whole vessel, according to them?
My estimate (note that I'm not calling this a guess anymore, as I did for the weight of the bare hull) is just a hair more than one inch. Whoa!
Regardless, I would explain them in not unclear terms that the only two realistic alternatives are either an "engineering solution to get the platform lower" or a full refund for a product not fit for purpose.
The 2T ballast suggestion (also accepting that it would be sufficient, and I very much doubt it), is something they should be ashamed to have even just mentioned.
If it were my boat, I would have suggested them a more straightforward use for such ballast: something which simply involves shoving, rather than "strategically placing"...
Btw, the Opacmare range of hi/low platforms is very large, with loads from 300 kg to no less than 2000, and excursions (also for the smallish models) in excess of 1.3m.
Therefore, it's entirely up to the builder to have choosen something which is not appropriate for the application.
This is just for the records, since some of the previous posts seemed to imply that the bigger mistake of Princess was the choice of a cheap Italian supplier - on the face of the fact that it happens to be the leader in its market.
Apropos, also the tie bar visible in Asm pics in post #19 is NOT Opacmare standard. They offer it just as an option, so obviously it must have been specced by the builder for some reason.
MapisM
Well-known member
You posted this while I was writing my previous reply.
If she's within specs, that's good news, but also confirms that they MUST replace the equipment with one that has a higher excursion.
MapisM
Well-known member
Naaaaaaah, c'mon, jfm.
You perfectly knew that the Garfield joke wasn't meant to "turn the heaters on". In spite of that, I apologized if that came through as rude, but you didn't seem to care.
Now, don't even try to pretend that my previous statement was meant as an "unfounded criticism of someone's innovation", rather than just a plain joke. You are way smarter than that.
Also because this thread wasn't just a generic "fresh opportunity": the reason why Sleipner stabs popped to my mind, while reading your bashing of Opacmare, is EXACTLY that we are talking of a P56.
In fact, you are now telling us that Princess does not fit Sleipner stabs on her, and they only made one on request of Sleipner owners.
How weird is that, after the P56 was the only boat mentioned in that thread, where you said in the OP "The first ones are already in a 2013 Princess 56", and Sleipner made a big deal of the P56 installation on their brochure, including pics?
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
So its not a Med spec boat? No upgraded gennie, no pasarelle and as you say, no aircon or washer/dryer. Got to be over 1t of weight there. My guess would be that some numpty in the Princess design dept has done the platform design based on a Med spec boat and forgotten about lighter spec boats for the N European market
MapisM
Well-known member
Well, considering also what Lozzer said of his P85, I'd rather think that at Princess they just underestimate the depth required for a lifting platform to work properly.
If its functionality should depend on the options specced for each boat, the vertical stroke is too low no matter what.
I mean, Let's just look at the drawing Bartw posted (and on BA, as he correctly said, the platform is higher than average when raised!), or the numbers jfm quoted.
The functionality of that thing can't depend on a difference measured in millimeters. If it does, a higher excursion is required, period.
petem
Well-known member
That's a funny literal translation, an "excursion" is what old people go on a bus!
You mean "greater travel" or "range".
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Hey Pete, while it goes against my better judgement both to disagree with you
and to agree with Mapism in fact I do think that the use of the word 'excursion' is correct in the context quoted. Pedantically you might say 'greater excursion' rather than 'higher excursion', but nevertheless in this context 'excursion' meaning 'range of travel' is correct, imho.
MapisM
Well-known member
LOL, more than happy to bow to your superior knowledge, both for the language in general and also for the more appropriate use of technical terms.
That's a nice by product of this forum, for anyone non-EN mother tongue...
In fact, I would never pretend to have used that term because I knew what jtb explained, but just as a "funny literal translation"...
Apropos, I take it that you speak IT, petem?
Oh, and jtb, what's wrong in agreeing with myself occasionally?!?
I didn't mention it so far, but I also completely agree with your spot on suggestion on this thread.
Re. the human ballast, that is!
Btw, also the boat wasn't too shabby...
That's a nice by product of this forum, for anyone non-EN mother tongue...
In fact, I would never pretend to have used that term because I knew what jtb explained, but just as a "funny literal translation"...
Apropos, I take it that you speak IT, petem?
Oh, and jtb, what's wrong in agreeing with myself occasionally?!?
I didn't mention it so far, but I also completely agree with your spot on suggestion on this thread.
Re. the human ballast, that is!
Btw, also the boat wasn't too shabby...
petem
Well-known member
Hey Pete, while it goes against my better judgement both to disagree with you
JTB, I do believe you're right ....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+excursion ....
"technical
a movement of something along a path or through an angle."
Many apologies MapisM, I stand corrected!
petem
Well-known member
No sadly not, just a guess!
MapisM
Well-known member
A good one anyway, the IT for excursion is in fact "escursione".
Thanks for the "sadly", I appreciate...
jfm
Well-known member
There's no getting away from the maths. MapisM is completely correct here. 2 tonnes evenly distributed will lower the boat something like 30mm, which is just not enough. This platform needs to go 200mm lower than it currently does, and that btw will need double-figures tonnes of ballast. Best to open all the floor hatches and pour in a truck load of ready-mixed concrete then...Ok, so they realized that 750kg is not enough.
It's reassuring that it didn't take them much longer than the 5 minutes which were necessary to a stupid forum poster who never designed boats for a living (that's me) to reach the same conclusion... :ambivalence:
And now, by how much would those 2T increase the draft of the whole vessel, according to them?
My estimate (note that I'm not calling this a guess anymore, as I did for the weight of the bare hull) is just a hair more than one inch. Whoa!
Regardless, I would explain them in not unclear terms that the only two realistic alternatives are either an "engineering solution to get the platform lower" or a full refund for a product not fit for purpose.
The 2T ballast suggestion (also accepting that it would be sufficient, and I very much doubt it), is something they should be ashamed to have even just mentioned.
If it were my boat, I would have suggested them a more straightforward use for such ballast: something which simply involves shoving, rather than "strategically placing"...
The whole ballast "solution" is daft. It isn't a solution. A different hi-lo mechanism is what is needed here
Petem, yup MapisM is correct in using "excursion". It is reasonably widely used in engineering terms as a version of "stroke" but with a slightly continental flavour
jfm
Well-known member
Tee hee! No worries re kitchens
I don't want to thread drift but the prin 56 with vector fins was a special commission - the shareholder family of Sleipner ordered that boat as their own personal boat. Right now, I'm not finger on the pulse with Princess specs so someone might correct me, they are not yet a tick-box option on Prin56. They are tick-box on Squadron 65, and will be on the SIBS boat 2014, plus one boat being delivered this summer, so they are beginning to get installed down to the 60 foot-ish level. But it's early days of course. Based on all that, I think my statement was correct and I don't think I made any mistake but tbh I haven't gone back and read my OP in that thread so will stand corrected (and apologise) if I got it wrong. Incidentally, plan is also to retrofit curved Vector Fins to my boat this year, and I'll report back on that of course
jimmy_the_builder
Well-known member
Petem, yup MapisM is correct in using "excursion". It is reasonably widely used in engineering terms as a version of "stroke" but with a slightly continental flavour
I know the term from my, er, experiments with the audio system on the boat (and in the car, and in the truck, etc...
)