Gludy
Active member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
I would agree with that.
I would agree with that.
The Hull Challange
- Thread starter Gludy
- Start date
MapisM
Well-known member
A bold statement
[ QUOTE ]
Rubbish find a Class A planing boat....
[/ QUOTE ]
As a preliminary comment, I love displacement boats, and found the debate about confort rather pointless.
To me, it looks like asking "does a more confortable boat provide more confort than a less confortable boat?".
Besides, sea-worthyness, however measured, is also a no-contest between planning and displacement.
A very simple reasons, though not the only one, is that when the sea conditions do not allow planning speeds, a hull which is designed for displacement should necessary have a better behaviour than a hull which is designed for different purposes.
Otherwise, displacement hulls should just not exist anymore.
All the above is IMHO, of course, and just meant to clarify that I am not defending planning boats because I fancy their sport look, or the babes shown in their brochures.
But your statement above, I really could not understand it.
How can you say that? Did you go through all the specifications required for getting the CE classification, and found one which mention the hull shape as one of the criterias, saying also that the "A mark" can not be assigned to planning hulls?
I'm sure you didn't, because such paragraph does not exist.
In some of your posts, you are complaining that some objections to your viepoints were not based on facts, but now I have the impression that you're falling into the same path.
Talking about facts, and just as an example, you can have a look at this builder.
Its whole range of planning boats, from 37' to 66', does have the A classification.
Mind, you won't find that advertised in their site.
You have a choice between trusting my words, or giving them a call.
The phone number, that is available on their site.
...and in case you would decide one of those as your next boat, don't forget to buy me a beer. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Rubbish find a Class A planing boat....
[/ QUOTE ]
As a preliminary comment, I love displacement boats, and found the debate about confort rather pointless.
To me, it looks like asking "does a more confortable boat provide more confort than a less confortable boat?".
Besides, sea-worthyness, however measured, is also a no-contest between planning and displacement.
A very simple reasons, though not the only one, is that when the sea conditions do not allow planning speeds, a hull which is designed for displacement should necessary have a better behaviour than a hull which is designed for different purposes.
Otherwise, displacement hulls should just not exist anymore.
All the above is IMHO, of course, and just meant to clarify that I am not defending planning boats because I fancy their sport look, or the babes shown in their brochures.
But your statement above, I really could not understand it.
How can you say that? Did you go through all the specifications required for getting the CE classification, and found one which mention the hull shape as one of the criterias, saying also that the "A mark" can not be assigned to planning hulls?
I'm sure you didn't, because such paragraph does not exist.
In some of your posts, you are complaining that some objections to your viepoints were not based on facts, but now I have the impression that you're falling into the same path.
Talking about facts, and just as an example, you can have a look at this builder.
Its whole range of planning boats, from 37' to 66', does have the A classification.
Mind, you won't find that advertised in their site.
You have a choice between trusting my words, or giving them a call.
The phone number, that is available on their site.
...and in case you would decide one of those as your next boat, don't forget to buy me a beer. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Gludy
Active member
Re: A bold statement
Thanks for a totally logical and informative response.
You desrve a straight answer to your points:-
"A very simple reasons, though not the only one, is that when the sea conditions do not allow planning speeds, a hull which is designed for displacement should necessary have a better behaviour than a hull which is designed for different purposes.
Otherwise, displacement hulls should just not exist anymore."
Actually that is all I have ever claimed and it is that that is being disputed.
"But your statement above, I really could not understand it."
The point was made at the point where the debate had declined into piont scoring and I was simply in a point scoring mode. When that part of the debate was over, I put on record that the classificiation system A, B etc is only a very rough guide and that I myself would not trust that alone ... that is in another thread.
However what I was doing was asking a question "Find a Class A Planing boat" in an attempt to demonstrate that there are not any I knew of and that were Class A.
I was also pointing out why lifeboats are not planing boats etc.
How do you know that the boats in your link you gave are all class A? Is it just the makers word? I am not saying it is not true, I am just a little scepitical.
Thanks for a totally logical and informative response.
You desrve a straight answer to your points:-
"A very simple reasons, though not the only one, is that when the sea conditions do not allow planning speeds, a hull which is designed for displacement should necessary have a better behaviour than a hull which is designed for different purposes.
Otherwise, displacement hulls should just not exist anymore."
Actually that is all I have ever claimed and it is that that is being disputed.
"But your statement above, I really could not understand it."
The point was made at the point where the debate had declined into piont scoring and I was simply in a point scoring mode. When that part of the debate was over, I put on record that the classificiation system A, B etc is only a very rough guide and that I myself would not trust that alone ... that is in another thread.
However what I was doing was asking a question "Find a Class A Planing boat" in an attempt to demonstrate that there are not any I knew of and that were Class A.
I was also pointing out why lifeboats are not planing boats etc.
How do you know that the boats in your link you gave are all class A? Is it just the makers word? I am not saying it is not true, I am just a little scepitical.
victoraspey
Member
Re: A bold statement
Actually if you look at www.helmarine.com you will see a planing boat that is used for lifeboat services. Quote "These ranges offer the best in high performance planing hull technology and are used in the most demanding applications by anglers, divers, police and rescue services"
Actually if you look at www.helmarine.com you will see a planing boat that is used for lifeboat services. Quote "These ranges offer the best in high performance planing hull technology and are used in the most demanding applications by anglers, divers, police and rescue services"
Gludy
Active member
Re: A bold statement
Yes I know and they use planing boats for economic inshore rescue work - this was covered ealrier in other threads. I am talking about the full lifeboat that is used for full scale rescue - not one of this is other than semi-d hull.
If planing boats were able to manage the seas as well then it would make sense to have them as the full life boats because there would be a big speed gain in some conditions.
Yes I know and they use planing boats for economic inshore rescue work - this was covered ealrier in other threads. I am talking about the full lifeboat that is used for full scale rescue - not one of this is other than semi-d hull.
If planing boats were able to manage the seas as well then it would make sense to have them as the full life boats because there would be a big speed gain in some conditions.
kingfisher
Well-known member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
The RCD categories are not a set of ratings. Each manufacturer decides for himself under which category he will classify his vessel. The lower you go, the easier (read:cheaper) the classification costs are, the higher you go, the more the responsability weighs on the manufacturer/importer.
So it could be that you can find a category B-vessel to be more seaworthy than a cat.A.
The RCD categories are not a set of ratings. Each manufacturer decides for himself under which category he will classify his vessel. The lower you go, the easier (read:cheaper) the classification costs are, the higher you go, the more the responsability weighs on the manufacturer/importer.
So it could be that you can find a category B-vessel to be more seaworthy than a cat.A.
whisper
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
Oh Dear !! That's going to complicate matters /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Oh Dear !! That's going to complicate matters /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
jimg
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
Absolutely correct! The whole rating thing is far too broad brush to be of any value. The Fleming is a fine boat ( I used to own one ) and is rated Cat A, a lifeboat coxswain was not very complimentary of it's ability to disperse any water taken over the stern; he said the scuppers were far too small too be of any use in a heavy sea. I for one would like to see a link to the actual requirements to gain an A,B,C orD rather than the usual definitions quoted on this forum.
Absolutely correct! The whole rating thing is far too broad brush to be of any value. The Fleming is a fine boat ( I used to own one ) and is rated Cat A, a lifeboat coxswain was not very complimentary of it's ability to disperse any water taken over the stern; he said the scuppers were far too small too be of any use in a heavy sea. I for one would like to see a link to the actual requirements to gain an A,B,C orD rather than the usual definitions quoted on this forum.
Its_Only_Money
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
Which is why the whole industry should change to something more scientific - like the GBB test for instance /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Which is why the whole industry should change to something more scientific - like the GBB test for instance /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Gludy
Active member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
According to what I am reading there has to be certain stability and other standards set - its not up to the manufacturer. yes they can apply for a class A but the boat has to conform to the rules and these are clearly laid down.
According to what I am reading there has to be certain stability and other standards set - its not up to the manufacturer. yes they can apply for a class A but the boat has to conform to the rules and these are clearly laid down.
Its_Only_Money
New member
But...
I think you'll find that Navies the world over will conduct mid-ocean rescues/transfers using the ribs they carry for the purpose - given that these are used wherever possible rather than driving the (D) warship right up to the (probably D) casualty one would assume they cope with some pretty vile conditions. Hence their seaworthiness is proven in a Cat A environment but obviously the endurance of fuel and crew is rather limited, hence they don't fit the "self-sufficient vessel criteria" - but then we are discussing seaworthiness in its purest isolation....
I think you'll find that Navies the world over will conduct mid-ocean rescues/transfers using the ribs they carry for the purpose - given that these are used wherever possible rather than driving the (D) warship right up to the (probably D) casualty one would assume they cope with some pretty vile conditions. Hence their seaworthiness is proven in a Cat A environment but obviously the endurance of fuel and crew is rather limited, hence they don't fit the "self-sufficient vessel criteria" - but then we are discussing seaworthiness in its purest isolation....
Gludy
Active member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
"Absolutely correct! The whole rating thing is far too broad brush to be of any value. The Fleming is a fine boat ( I used to own one ) and is rated Cat A, a lifeboat coxswain was not very complimentary of it's ability to disperse any water taken over the stern; he said the scuppers were far too small too be of any use in a heavy sea. I for one would like to see a link to the actual requirements to gain an A,B,C orD rather than the usual definitions quoted on this forum. "
I agree its broad and its value has to be balanced, not totally rejected but not toally accepted either - its not an absolute thing. I have given the link to the standards at the opening the stability thread.
"Absolutely correct! The whole rating thing is far too broad brush to be of any value. The Fleming is a fine boat ( I used to own one ) and is rated Cat A, a lifeboat coxswain was not very complimentary of it's ability to disperse any water taken over the stern; he said the scuppers were far too small too be of any use in a heavy sea. I for one would like to see a link to the actual requirements to gain an A,B,C orD rather than the usual definitions quoted on this forum. "
I agree its broad and its value has to be balanced, not totally rejected but not toally accepted either - its not an absolute thing. I have given the link to the standards at the opening the stability thread.
jimg
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
Are you refering to the Stix thread? If so, that is not what I am talking about, I would like to see what the requirements are to get CAT A.
Are you refering to the Stix thread? If so, that is not what I am talking about, I would like to see what the requirements are to get CAT A.
Gludy
Active member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
The requirments are laid down by the Recreational Craft directive ... I thought the link I gave, gave links that led to that.
The requirments are laid down by the Recreational Craft directive ... I thought the link I gave, gave links that led to that.
jimg
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
I have just been reading "Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/EEC" and it seems to me that the criteria for A and B are the same!
http://www.cemarking.net/article/articleview/184
It is all about construction and quality control. I think the A is a description of intended use more that being a "better" boat. Where does the sea keeping, etc get mentioned in the directive? I cannot find it.
I have just been reading "Recreational Craft Directive 94/25/EEC" and it seems to me that the criteria for A and B are the same!
http://www.cemarking.net/article/articleview/184
It is all about construction and quality control. I think the A is a description of intended use more that being a "better" boat. Where does the sea keeping, etc get mentioned in the directive? I cannot find it.
Gludy
Active member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
That is not so:- The STIX valuie for a start.
There would be no point in having A and B if they were the same.
Please refer to the link on the opening post stabilit thread = that gib=ves a table of some of the main differences.
That is not so:- The STIX valuie for a start.
There would be no point in having A and B if they were the same.
Please refer to the link on the opening post stabilit thread = that gib=ves a table of some of the main differences.
ribrunt
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
"I am talking about the full lifeboat that is used for full scale rescue - not one of this is other than semi-d hull"
http://www.knrm.nl/vlootschouw/ anyone for a planing all-weather, self-righting RIB? also see Caister's new lifeboat.
Cheers
RR.
"I am talking about the full lifeboat that is used for full scale rescue - not one of this is other than semi-d hull"
http://www.knrm.nl/vlootschouw/ anyone for a planing all-weather, self-righting RIB? also see Caister's new lifeboat.
Cheers
RR.
jimg
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
My question is, where is this in the RCD directive?
My question is, where is this in the RCD directive?
hlb
RIP
Re: The Hull Challenge ABCD categoroes
Well I think /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Well I think /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
steverow
New member
Re: The Hull Challenge
This is probabaly true.
20 to 30 years ago lay ups were far thicker than they are now on production boats.
A good class B boat of yore, probably is as good as any class A production boat today in hull resilience.
However, class A RCD is not just about hulls, it covers everything from electrics, to stability, to water supply and plumbing and back again.
What I would like to know however, is who inspects it....is it just a set of rules for manufacturers to build to, or are their prototypes inspected at every stage by an RCD inspector. Who enforces it if a manufacturer strays...is there a sort of RCD "clerk of works" going round checking this stuff??
Steve.
This is probabaly true.
20 to 30 years ago lay ups were far thicker than they are now on production boats.
A good class B boat of yore, probably is as good as any class A production boat today in hull resilience.
However, class A RCD is not just about hulls, it covers everything from electrics, to stability, to water supply and plumbing and back again.
What I would like to know however, is who inspects it....is it just a set of rules for manufacturers to build to, or are their prototypes inspected at every stage by an RCD inspector. Who enforces it if a manufacturer strays...is there a sort of RCD "clerk of works" going round checking this stuff??
Steve.