Victoria 34 and 38

[Tranona]

The RCD is used here in the way I suggested. When registering a post RCD boat, the placarded category determins the area for which registration is granted. If pre-RCD, then proof of suitability is required or determined by survey. All boats have to be surveyed by registration authorities and also have to meet certain equipment levels, again determined by the area being registered for.

Don't take if granted that because the UK are very lax, the same applies elsewhere. A Swedish friend paid his annual light dues last week, having persuaded them that his boat (in which he has done a circumnavigation) is coastal. He was warned that if caught more than 6 miles offshore he would be fined.

OK, But not so in France or Italy Which also have defined categories, and in the latterccase also have skipper qualification restrictions as well. Think Spain is similar.

Difficult to see how a pre RCD boat could be classified as many would not meet the requirements. Down to the word of the surveyor no doubt just like our coding. Interesting to know if they include stability measures.

 

[Tranona]

That's a good idea. I tried a Google and found the RYA RCD documents download page. http://www.rcdweb.com

Very pleased to discover that it costs £550 to gain access. (have a look at the application form page)

That is the full pack aimed at boat builders. When there was a boat building industry BMF ran workshops for builders as well. The principles of the RCD from a consumer perspective was covered extensively in the mags when it came. Now it is part of the furniture, few apart from forumites seemingly have ay interest.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Now it is part of the furniture, few apart from forumites seemingly have ay interest.

My point in a nutshell!

 

[Tranona]

I apologise in advance for the thread drift...

I suspect that for those (like myself) who are experienced sailors and have been on the water for many years (I won't say how many) the RCD category is of little or no interest as casting an eye over any boat will indicate it's capability. However for those that are no so experienced or are new to the sport it is a key indicator.

The downside IMO is that boat builders will design boats such that they just about meet the requirements for a particular category rather than building an inherently seaworthy boat.

Good summary.

People forget, maybe prefer not to recognise, that the RCD was never intended to show that a boat was suitable for a particular use. Its aim was to set a common minimum standard across Europe in terms of design and construction of boats. Clearly given the vast range of different kinds of boats and uses there neded to be categories to differentiate and give a guide to consumers about likely use. The prime differentiator is stability determined by resistance to capsive in waves of a specific size with other "seaworthiness" factors such as watertightness, withstanding swamping as well as minimum standards of construction.

Unfortunately the categories are very wide, particularly A and were given labels that had different meanings to different people, particularly the "Ocean" category. The minimum for Cat A excluded many sound designs that had successfully crossed oceans but also included many designs that are best kept in a marina for entertaining and only taken out on sunny days.

What it does do however assure buyers that are only interested in the colour of the upholstery that the boat is built to a minimum standard, and for those who are looking for a boat that will perform in a particular way, the detail that builders are required to provide will help in making comparisons between different designs.

The detractors seem to think that buyers are ignorant and reliant solely on marketing puff, but as you say that is not the case. Most buyers of new boats are well aware of what to look for and the RCD data is just an aid to their decision making. Just as an example, when I bought my new Bavaria in 2001 it was for light use in the Med, not for offshore sailing, but reassuring to know that the basic design was capable of dealing with more severe conditions - almost certainly exceeding my own ability. Would not have been my choice for offshore and ocean sailing - much more suitable designs available for that.

The point is this thread is not about whether the design is capable, but about whether building a new boat to an obsolete design as a one off is possible practically or economically to meet the RCD requirements.

 

[Tranona]

My point in a nutshell!

But it is still a legal rquirement for a new boat so you can't ignore it. see my post above.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The point is this thread is not about whether the design is capable, but about whether building a new boat to an obsolete design as a one off is possible practically or economically to meet the RCD requirements.

The design in question is RCD compliant.

But it is still a legal rquirement for a new boat so you can't ignore it. see my post above.

I never suggested ignoring it. i said that if the OP wanted to make completed boats there shouldn't be a problem as the design compliance is there and that if he wanted to sell hulls for home completion there shouldn't be a problem as anyone putting the time and effort into finishing one is unlikely to be deterred by a Category D. There may, I suppose, be a few subsequent purchasers who would be deterred by a D, the second hand market shows that plenty of buyers, such as yourself, aren't bothered by RCD categories. Though, of course, some may be. And that's fine.

 

[Javelin]

I wondered if the forum thinks there is a market for new 34 and 38 Victoria?
or is the market too congested already.

That'll be a no then

@ Sailfree - Employee not owner, Biased - probably a bit,
Just threw the vid of Chinda coming out of the shed as I'd just taken it and as a rather weak, knee jerk response to the Obscure Boatyard comment.
Not sure where the 280k came from, certainly not from me.
Currently in the sheds right now is another
Saunders and Roe 46ft (1937)
1915 26' broads launch
Oyster 435
Sadler 26
Ovni 395
Nauticat 44
Ocean 30
Ranger36

Not many yards on the East coast can house and work on so many boats at the same time, obscure or otherwise.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

OK $64,000 question how much as a ball park figure do you think you could turn out a bespoke V38 for equipped shall we say for what it is intended ergo ocean passages. With that answer we shall know the answer to the original question which I think will be a no.

 

[Tranona]

The design in question is RCD compliant.



I never suggested ignoring it. i said that if the OP wanted to make completed boats there shouldn't be a problem as the design compliance is there and that if he wanted to sell hulls for home completion there shouldn't be a problem as anyone putting the time and effort into finishing one is unlikely to be deterred by a Category D. There may, I suppose, be a few subsequent purchasers who would be deterred by a D, the second hand market shows that plenty of buyers, such as yourself, aren't bothered by RCD categories. Though, of course, some may be. And that's fine.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to explain things for you as you seem to ignore what I write, or wilfully misunderstand.

The design may be compliant, but not the builder. The previous builder held the certification. Starting again would mean re certifying both the design and construction (bearing in mind it is unlikely to be built exactly the same as nearly 20 years ago) and the builder. Even if he just sold hulls and decks he would still have to certify what he does sell (by law) so that the completer is able to complete to the design category, which any completer would want to do as the boat would be unsalable until 5 years after completion. Who in their right mind would invest £200k and 3/4 years of their life to build an unsalable boat when they could get a ready to go complete one of the same design for little more than the cost of a hull and deck?

Don't know where you got the idea that I was not bothered about RCD categories when I bought my boat. Of course I was, first because I wanted to buy a legal product and second because I wanted to know that it met minimum standards. The fact that those standards exceeded those expected for my intended use is irrelevant. The only point I was making is that if I were buying a boat for serious offshore work there are many better designs available for that type of use and I would have bought one of those. Inevitably they would exceed the minimum for Cat A by a greater margin than the Bavaria.

 

[Tranona]

That'll be a no then

@ Sailfree - Employee not owner, Biased - probably a bit,
Just threw the vid of Chinda coming out of the shed as I'd just taken it and as a rather weak, knee jerk response to the Obscure Boatyard comment.
Not sure where the 280k came from, certainly not from me.
Currently in the sheds right now is another
Saunders and Roe 46ft (1937)
1915 26' broads launch
Oyster 435
Sadler 26
Ovni 395
Nauticat 44
Ocean 30
Ranger36

Not many yards on the East coast can house and work on so many boats at the same time, obscure or otherwise.

Are these the boats with all the problems you describe in post#87?

BTW plenty of yards around the country could offer a similar list to yours (boats being worked on that is, not defects).

 

[Twister_Ken]

Not sure where the 280k came from, certainly not from me.

That was from Classic Boat, via me. It's what someone (God bless'em) spent restoring a 24' sailing boat to pristine. Which seems to suggest that building bespoke to a good standard is always going to make a new HR look cheap, let alone a used one.

 

[oldvarnish]

Don't know where you got the idea that I was not bothered about RCD categories when I bought my boat. Of course I was

I'm impressed. Such things have never crossed my mind. I know nothing of 'categories'.

I saw a boat, thought it 'looked right', bought it, and it did the job I asked of it without missing a beat.

It was a ...erm... Victoria 38

Buy a boat that fits into your own 'categories', not made up ones.

And if this guy in Southwold wants to build some new ones, wish him luck. You're not forced to buy one.

 

[Tranona]

I'm impressed. Such things have never crossed my mind. I know nothing of 'categories'.

I saw a boat, thought it 'looked right', bought it, and it did the job I asked of it without missing a beat.

It was a ...erm... Victoria 38

Buy a boat that fits into your own 'categories', not made up ones.

And if this guy in Southwold wants to build some new ones, wish him luck. You're not forced to buy one.

Good choice, but if you are buying new you cannot avoid the RCD even if you ignore it. At a guess a V38 built today would cost north of £300k and would suggest that a buyer with that kind of money would have a different perspective.

As I suggested several times earlier the questions here are first is there any demand for new boats of this type at the sort of price required to make a profit, and second can a repair yard overcome the difficulties of building a legal boat. These two issues killed off this type of boat building years ago.

 

[Tradewinds]

I'm impressed. Such things have never crossed my mind. I know nothing of 'categories'.

I saw a boat, thought it 'looked right', bought it, and it did the job I asked of it without missing a beat.

It was a ...erm... Victoria 38

Buy a boat that fits into your own 'categories', not made up ones.

And if this guy in Southwold wants to build some new ones, wish him luck. You're not forced to buy one.

Second that.

 

[jac]

Second that.

Third that. Have put up a poll. Let's see how many others would also not be bothered by the beurocracy.

 

[Tranona]

Third that. Have put up a poll. Let's see how many others would also not be bothered by the beurocracy.

You cannot ignore it if you are a new boat buyer, even if it pays no psrt in your decision.

More importantly for this thread a new boat builder cannot ignore it as he cannot sell his boat without it.

 

[Poignard]

'Aims of the Recreational Craft Directive (according to the BMF website)

The directives requirements, known as Essential Requirements (ER) cover all aspects of the boat from identification marks to strength of construction, stability and handling, from gas, electric and fuel system installations to owner’s documentation.'

The first RCD dates back to 2003. Has it achieved anything worthwhile? Are boats now safer, more seaworthy, reliable than they were before?

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Any idea about the process and cost involved in RCD certification?
There are plenty of small boat builders offering new designs so it can't be that hard to get it done. Can it?

 

[jac]

Any idea about the process and cost involved in RCD certification?
There are plenty of small boat builders offering new designs so it can't be that hard to get it done. Can it?

Doesn't it depend on the category. Effectively you could put it out at cat D and say it is only certified for inland waters. Would surely be cheaper than proving cat A.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Doesn't it depend on the category. Effectively you could put it out at cat D and say it is only certified for inland waters. Would surely be cheaper than proving cat A.

Depends on who you are aiming the boat at, and their insurers requirements.