rogerthebodger
Well-known member
This event where the keel was lost killed the 6 crew members
Moquini's upturned hull found - Yachting World
What do you think of this one?
- Thread starter geem
- Start date
This event where the keel was lost killed the 6 crew members
Moquini's upturned hull found - Yachting World
srm
Well-known member
That is your prerogative.
I have witnessed three boats with hull damage while being moved ashore, and have had one of mine suffer relatively minor deformation in a steel hull due to over pressure with a cradle leg when the yard were unable to complete chocking up while I was there. I prefer to try and avoid potential damage rather than leave others to do their thing and have to sort out the ensuing mess afterwards. Even if the yard has insurance and accept liability you will still have otherwise unnecessary problems and delays.
srm
Well-known member
But did they check the boat's position in the slings once it was out of the water and before it was moved over land? That is the critical time with any boat in a travel hoist as she can easily be put back in the water and adjustments made.
Sea Change
Well-known member
I don't know, but the point is that they were not trying to capture that event for their social media output.
I agree with you broadly about being proactive whilst your boat is in the care of a yard. Don't assume that because people do something for a living that they are actually any good at it. At best, they are probably just faster than we would be.
Baggywrinkle
Well-known member
I understand your decision to go for a new boat, but it's not for me. Funds to buy new were never the problem. I could go out tomorrow and buy a new 44ft boat but there is nothing that appeals to me in the current crop of production boats.
You picked a few things that put you off old boats. Balsa core. We don't have that. We went for a boat with Airex core, not by accident. Rusting keel in encapsulated core. Not an issue. We went for an encapsulated lead keel. With over 40,000nm on the boat so far in our ownership, we haven't seen any rotting ply bulkheads. All ply is hardwood Brunzeil ply. Arguably the best plywood in the world.
We recently sailed from the Caribean to the UK via the Azores and Ireland and we experienced no issue with the boat other than a broken spade connector on a relay and a failed Raymarine St to N2k interface cable. Each leg of the trip had winds well above 30kts but nothing on the boat broke.
We have just removed the rudder for the first time since the boat was built, 44 years ago. We wanted to inspect it before we head off again next year.
The 3 bronze bearings are all good. Although I will be adding a grease point to the top bearing to make lubrication easier. How many modern boats need rudders off regularly.
The reality of a quality older boat is that they are built to last. Is there an equivelent modern boat built to last? You don't have to choose one that was badly built and poorly maintained. There are lots of older boats in great shape that have had money thrown at them over their lifetime by fastidious owners. I actually enjoy maintaining and improving the boat. I know this is not everybody's idea of fun but I retired at 50. As an engineer, I enjoy doing engineering stuff.
This winter we are doubling our lithium battery bank capacity, adding more solar, going full electric cooking and removing the gas system entirely.
I also need to do some maintenance work on the 17 year old engine. Refurb the starter motor, replace some hydraulic pipes on the gearbox and fit new breakers in the electrical distribution panel. I have had the mast tangs off yesterday for inspection and all looks good, but I will die test them before refitting just to make sure. What else will I do over the winter?
This isn't a AWB vs MAB thing. It's just what suits different people. The boatyard we are currently in is filled with people working on boats. Some seem to enjoy the work more than the sailing
What about the rotting ply core under your windlass?
You make it sound like there was nothing wrong with your 44 year old boat .... but you've extensively re-fitted her (removed a teak deck and replaced toe-rails which meant 2500 less holes in the boat, the ply core under the windlass was rotten which needed a deck repair, paint shop for topsides, re rigging masts, refurbishing portlights, rebuilding steering, and "a million other jobs" - this is my idea of a nightmare but par for the course on a boat so old. People pondering the decision new or old need to understand what an old boat means - so please be a bit more honest about what it took to get your boat in the condition it is now in. Finding a perfect example, ready to go is not as easy as you seem to make out - unless you are putting yours up for sale
.... and in the end, it is about money, your boat was eye wateringly expensive when new, at the time 25-30ft was the average cruising yacht - yours is 44ft and was priced beyond the reach of the average cruising sailor. The equivalent today, given that cruising boats are now around 40ft would be 55-60 ft - and the modern equivalent of the Trintella might be a Kraken 50 or 58? .... again, eye-wateringly expensive - why don't you have a Kraken? A Kraken is in every respect orders of magnitude better than what was available 44 years ago.
The compromise you chose was to go for the best available boat you could find from 40 odd years ago, you accepted the issues it had and refitted/rebuilt it to bring it back up to scratch - you must have thought the work was necessary or you wouldn't have done it. The choice you made involved extensive renovation. That's fine - but be transparent - many have no interest in spending time and money in a boatyard or up to their necks in dust and grime for months, maybe years, before the boat is actually up to the standard they want to do some serious sailing. Or worse, they do go sailing and get their budget busted when they discover something seriously wrong that needs immediate attention and have to haul out and repair at great expense in a foreign country - The mast of Fair Isle sinking into the water-tank for example, or countless other YouTubers who end up on the hard when they'd rather be sailing.
IMO, anyone seriously considering a boat from last century should watch Mads restoring his Warrior on the Sail Life YouTube channel - right from the beginning, when he bought the boat - because if you want to be sure before setting off on your "blue water" adventures, the issues with Athena are typical of the era.
I'm sure you are justifiably proud of what she is now, but the other issue I have is that she is not that heavily built - she does carry a lot of ballast though.
The Trintella 44 is 8,500kg of superstructure and equipment and 6,000kg of ballast - adding up to a dry weight of 14,500kg. A Farr designed Bavaria 45 Cruiser is 9,110kg of superstructure and equipment with 3,490kg of ballast - this reflects a change in design thinking in the last 40 years with form stability becoming more prominent, and bulbed keels putting the majority of the ballast lower down for the same righting moment - which means less ballast - but look at those superstructure and equipment numbers - 8,500kg is not that heavy for a 44 ft boat considering materials, designs, and build processes of the day had a worse strength to weight ratio than modern hulls as the stresses can be far better modelled today than back in the 70s.
For comparison, A Kraken 50 is 19,000kg all up of which 6,500kg is ballast - arguably one of the best modern "blue water" boats there is - if it was built to the same ballast ratio as your boat it would have 8,823kg of ballast.
My conclusion is that the Trintella is heavily ballasted, not necessarily heavily built. Almost the same ballast as a Kraken 50 on a much smaller boat. This is the compromise of the encapsulated keel design - the extra weight is needed as there is no bulb on the bottom of the keel, and there is less form stability due to the shape of the hull - basically an old design ethos that appeals to you but not necessarily everyone.
In the end it is great that you love your boat and are happy with your choice, but glossing over what it took to get there with a 44 year old boat doesn't help anyone currently asking the question "old or new"? ... and those for whom money really is no object go for new every time, unless they are into wooden classics.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Really?
When I employ our marina to take my boat out of the water, I expect it to be done professionally & in a correct manner. Rather than be present during the work, I go away & expect to come back when it is finished, to find it ready for me. It does not matter what the yard contract might say, They cannot contract out of taking good care.
If I were to be present & start dictating how things should be done, then who is to blame IF things go awry?
.
I am not trained in heavy lift operations & I doubt that most forumites are either.
In the construction industry, I have hired cranes for heavy lift operations on many occasions. If it is simple stuff then no issue, but if anything difficult, I used to get the company to supply a banksman. Tell them what I wanted done, Stand back & let them get on with it. Invariably it got done quicker & far safely than if I, or my staff had interfered. All covered by their insurance.
No different in the yard.
Stay out the way. Leave it to the yard. Claim against their insurance if something goes wrong.
rogerthebodger
Well-known member
Who is responsible depends on the small print on the agreement and we only find out the S**t hit the fan
In my club I and required to sign a disclaimer for all lifts either with the travel lift of on a trolly using a ramp
My club prefer me to be in attendance for any movements which I tend to be as I have been involved in heavy lifts most of my Engineering career
Boat moved 1400kn on a truck then 600kn to launch and antifouled on a trolly or a scrubbing post between tides without any damage / distortion
In my club I and required to sign a disclaimer for all lifts either with the travel lift of on a trolly using a ramp
My club prefer me to be in attendance for any movements which I tend to be as I have been involved in heavy lifts most of my Engineering career
Boat moved 1400kn on a truck then 600kn to launch and antifouled on a trolly or a scrubbing post between tides without any damage / distortion
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Is your club a professional organisation or a bunch of DIYers covering the club's rear end?
rogerthebodger
Well-known member
Well as I have to pay them for the lift, they must be professional but that does not mean that they act as professionals and if thy damage my boat they will not take responsibility
The previous marina I was in broke up in a storm and my boat was damaged and the marina would not take accountability as is usual. Even insurance companies don't take responsibility for accidents.
As I have my own lifting straps and experience, I tent to do my own supervision but still don't get any discount
dunedin
Well-known member
I don’t remember that specific incident from nearly 20 years ago (which shows how rare this sort of thing is globally), but please remind us whether this was a standard build cruiser or a racer / one off?
dunedin
Well-known member
These are clearly race boats, one a pure race dayboat not a cruiser / racer even. May as well compare to a 49er dinghy.
How about the performance cruiser examples I referred to.
rogerthebodger
Well-known member
Maquini was a standard build in South Africa with a number built for local racing
After the loss the keels on most /all remaining were strengthened
I remember only too well as the sun of a friend of mine was one of the crew and the husband of another friend was another crew member
Poignard
Well-known member
'
That's how I would play it.
The yard is contracted by me to do the work and they are responsible for doing it properly. There's no way I want them to be able to offload any liability onto me if something goes wrong.
Nevertheless, if I see something being done that I don't like, or if I have some particular requirement, (for example, I always insisted on the waterline on my Twister being level so that requires blocks under the forward end of the keel) then I tell them so.
Last edited:
rogerthebodger
Well-known member
Always read the small print!!!!!
Tranona
Well-known member
My sentiments exactly. My last nearly 3 years of refurbishing my GH have only reinforced how much work is involved in even the most basic update. You also realise how poor 40+ year old boats are by modern standards, despite mine being probably the most expensive boat of its size at the time.What about the rotting ply core under your windlass?
You make it sound like there was nothing wrong with your 44 year old boat .... but you've extensively re-fitted her (removed a teak deck and replaced toe-rails which meant 2500 less holes in the boat, the ply core under the windlass was rotten which needed a deck repair, paint shop for topsides, re rigging masts, refurbishing portlights, rebuilding steering, and "a million other jobs" - this is my idea of a nightmare but par for the course on a boat so old. People pondering the decision new or old need to understand what an old boat means - so please be a bit more honest about what it took to get your boat in the condition it is now in. Finding a perfect example, ready to go is not as easy as you seem to make out - unless you are putting yours up for sale
.... and in the end, it is about money, your boat was eye wateringly expensive when new, at the time 25-30ft was the average cruising yacht - yours is 44ft and was priced beyond the reach of the average cruising sailor. The equivalent today, given that cruising boats are now around 40ft would be 55-60 ft - and the modern equivalent of the Trintella might be a Kraken 50 or 58? .... again, eye-wateringly expensive - why don't you have a Kraken? A Kraken is in every respect orders of magnitude better than what was available 44 years ago.
The compromise you chose was to go for the best available boat you could find from 40 odd years ago, you accepted the issues it had and refitted/rebuilt it to bring it back up to scratch - you must have thought the work was necessary or you wouldn't have done it. The choice you made involved extensive renovation. That's fine - but be transparent - many have no interest in spending time and money in a boatyard or up to their necks in dust and grime for months, maybe years, before the boat is actually up to the standard they want to do some serious sailing. Or worse, they do go sailing and get their budget busted when they discover something seriously wrong that needs immediate attention and have to haul out and repair at great expense in a foreign country - The mast of Fair Isle sinking into the water-tank for example, or countless other YouTubers who end up on the hard when they'd rather be sailing.
IMO, anyone seriously considering a boat from last century should watch Mads restoring his Warrior on the Sail Life YouTube channel - right from the beginning, when he bought the boat - because if you want to be sure before setting off on your "blue water" adventures, the issues with Athena are typical of the era.
I'm sure you are justifiably proud of what she is now, but the other issue I have is that she is not that heavily built - she does carry a lot of ballast though.
The Trintella 44 is 8,500kg of superstructure and equipment and 6,000kg of ballast - adding up to a dry weight of 14,500kg. A Farr designed Bavaria 45 Cruiser is 9,110kg of superstructure and equipment with 3,490kg of ballast - this reflects a change in design thinking in the last 40 years with form stability becoming more prominent, and bulbed keels putting the majority of the ballast lower down for the same righting moment - which means less ballast - but look at those superstructure and equipment numbers - 8,500kg is not that heavy for a 44 ft boat considering materials, designs, and build processes of the day had a worse strength to weight ratio than modern hulls as the stresses can be far better modelled today than back in the 70s.
For comparison, A Kraken 50 is 19,000kg all up of which 6,500kg is ballast - arguably one of the best modern "blue water" boats there is - if it was built to the same ballast ratio as your boat it would have 8,823kg of ballast.
My conclusion is that the Trintella is heavily ballasted, not necessarily heavily built. Almost the same ballast as a Kraken 50 on a much smaller boat. This is the compromise of the encapsulated keel design - the extra weight is needed as there is no bulb on the bottom of the keel, and there is less form stability due to the shape of the hull - basically an old design ethos that appeals to you but not necessarily everyone.
In the end it is great that you love your boat and are happy with your choice, but glossing over what it took to get there with a 44 year old boat doesn't help anyone currently asking the question "old or new"? ... and those for whom money really is no object go for new every time, unless they are into wooden classics.
Suggest anybody contemplating taking on a well worn old boat with a view to bringing it up to the sort of standard of geem's boat read the article "how much does a free boat really cost" in September PBO. A more modest boat, a Morgan Giles 30 refitted for high latitude sailing. Cost £1500 but final bill using a mixture of own and professional labour £100k - about the same as my new Bavaria 33 in 2015. Nothing fancy about the boat but all good strong stuff. Over the years there have been several threads on here of people buying the typical 1970/80s 35-45' boat for liveaboard and spending 2 or 3 times as much as the purchase price on the refit. Similarly not uncommon to see 15-20 year old "quality" boats come on the market advertised as "fresh from a £100k refit."
Lets face it, there are people who can jog along with an old boat fulfilling the old saw "bluewater sailing is fixing boats in nice warm places" but if you want to get going with a boat equipped to high level with plenty of life left in it then starting with a modern boat makes sense.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
I have been in a marina where owners were not permitted near while boats were being lifted. The marina in question had to use a crane, as the heritage dock it was located in could not be modified to take one, and while lifting operations were taking place, the whole area was taped off with "Do not pass" black and yellow tape.
Roberto
Well-known member
The yard I use lifts a boat every half hour (during their 6 to 9 month full working season), in/out the water. It includes commercial fishing boats, full centerboarder where they must prop the full hull to keep the ctb blade outside, cruising keelers, racing boats with 3-4m keels and their own ground moulded supports, etc etc, they never had an accident, I can ask a bit higher or lower if I need to do specific things to keel or rudder, otherwise who am I to argue
steveeasy
Well-known member
The boat looked perfectly level when it was being power washed and when they were inspecting the Hull prior to the incident. Not sure how it could have shifted to then require it to be put her down on the Keel. I cant see it being good practice to do so either. I would think the yard needs to explain why they did put it down and how they intended to control or alter the angle the boat while it pivoted on the keel whilst the weight of the boat was in essence off/out of the slings. If They needed to alter the boats angle they should have placed it over the cradle and sat her down on it while they then made adjustments to the slings. This way they would have had greater control over how the altered the boats position and crucially a safety net if something went wrong. So with the information Ive taken from this thread I believe the yard were careless while handling the boat.
Surely by placing the weight on the keel even if it should have taken the weight. the boat would only move off centre. Is it practice to place a keel on the ground and move a hoist sideways to correct/shift the boat in/on its slings. I can see people might do it, but it certainly sounds cavalier if not reckless.
Steveeasy
Surely by placing the weight on the keel even if it should have taken the weight. the boat would only move off centre. Is it practice to place a keel on the ground and move a hoist sideways to correct/shift the boat in/on its slings. I can see people might do it, but it certainly sounds cavalier if not reckless.
Steveeasy
geem
Well-known member
This wasn't supposed to be a new vs old thread but here we areWhat about the rotting ply core under your windlass?
You make it sound like there was nothing wrong with your 44 year old boat .... but you've extensively re-fitted her (removed a teak deck and replaced toe-rails which meant 2500 less holes in the boat, the ply core under the windlass was rotten which needed a deck repair, paint shop for topsides, re rigging masts, refurbishing portlights, rebuilding steering, and "a million other jobs" - this is my idea of a nightmare but par for the course on a boat so old. People pondering the decision new or old need to understand what an old boat means - so please be a bit more honest about what it took to get your boat in the condition it is now in. Finding a perfect example, ready to go is not as easy as you seem to make out - unless you are putting yours up for sale
.... and in the end, it is about money, your boat was eye wateringly expensive when new, at the time 25-30ft was the average cruising yacht - yours is 44ft and was priced beyond the reach of the average cruising sailor. The equivalent today, given that cruising boats are now around 40ft would be 55-60 ft - and the modern equivalent of the Trintella might be a Kraken 50 or 58? .... again, eye-wateringly expensive - why don't you have a Kraken? A Kraken is in every respect orders of magnitude better than what was available 44 years ago.
The compromise you chose was to go for the best available boat you could find from 40 odd years ago, you accepted the issues it had and refitted/rebuilt it to bring it back up to scratch - you must have thought the work was necessary or you wouldn't have done it. The choice you made involved extensive renovation. That's fine - but be transparent - many have no interest in spending time and money in a boatyard or up to their necks in dust and grime for months, maybe years, before the boat is actually up to the standard they want to do some serious sailing. Or worse, they do go sailing and get their budget busted when they discover something seriously wrong that needs immediate attention and have to haul out and repair at great expense in a foreign country - The mast of Fair Isle sinking into the water-tank for example, or countless other YouTubers who end up on the hard when they'd rather be sailing.
IMO, anyone seriously considering a boat from last century should watch Mads restoring his Warrior on the Sail Life YouTube channel - right from the beginning, when he bought the boat - because if you want to be sure before setting off on your "blue water" adventures, the issues with Athena are typical of the era.
I'm sure you are justifiably proud of what she is now, but the other issue I have is that she is not that heavily built - she does carry a lot of ballast though.
The Trintella 44 is 8,500kg of superstructure and equipment and 6,000kg of ballast - adding up to a dry weight of 14,500kg. A Farr designed Bavaria 45 Cruiser is 9,110kg of superstructure and equipment with 3,490kg of ballast - this reflects a change in design thinking in the last 40 years with form stability becoming more prominent, and bulbed keels putting the majority of the ballast lower down for the same righting moment - which means less ballast - but look at those superstructure and equipment numbers - 8,500kg is not that heavy for a 44 ft boat considering materials, designs, and build processes of the day had a worse strength to weight ratio than modern hulls as the stresses can be far better modelled today than back in the 70s.
For comparison, A Kraken 50 is 19,000kg all up of which 6,500kg is ballast - arguably one of the best modern "blue water" boats there is - if it was built to the same ballast ratio as your boat it would have 8,823kg of ballast.
My conclusion is that the Trintella is heavily ballasted, not necessarily heavily built. Almost the same ballast as a Kraken 50 on a much smaller boat. This is the compromise of the encapsulated keel design - the extra weight is needed as there is no bulb on the bottom of the keel, and there is less form stability due to the shape of the hull - basically an old design ethos that appeals to you but not necessarily everyone.
In the end it is great that you love your boat and are happy with your choice, but glossing over what it took to get there with a 44 year old boat doesn't help anyone currently asking the question "old or new"? ... and those for whom money really is no object go for new every time, unless they are into wooden classics.
I have been totally transparent about the work I have done to my boat. That's why you can quote it in this post. Like a say. I enjoy engineering. Every boat I have ever owned has gone on to new ownership in far better than the condition that I purchased it. I am not the only person that loves old quality boats. Buying a boat off people like me is where you can pick up a well sorted boat. Not everybody will want to do the amount of work I have enjoyed doing and that's fine. We are doing some work on the boat now with a view to being off grid for the next five years.
Some facts.
The hull and deck is Airex foam core composite down to the waterline. 1.5" total thickness. It's 37 times stiffer than a conventional solid glass hull with the same amount of glass and resin. The rudder is 200kg. We just removed it to check bearings. The shaft is 90mm solid stainless steel. The main mast is massively built with 1/2" diameter rigging. The mast tangs mount to solid 1" diameter bar passing through the mast. The mast is all welded. No rivets on any fittings.
The bare hull is probably lighter than a modern similar sized boat but way stronger. The hull is monocoque construction. No hull to deck joint held together with a toerail. There is no cast iron in the keel it's all lead and doesn't start off until well down the visible keel so a low C of G being all lead. The top part of the keel houses part of the 800 litre water tank and 500 litre fuel tank. Both tanks are under the floorboards as is the 125 litre holding tank. These locations add to the ballast compared to modern boats with flat bottoms and little useful space for tankage below the floor. The 500kg of 4.4 litre Perkins engine and gearbox also adds some weight low down.
Strength goes into where it's needed. Huge genoa turning blocks. 12mm chainplates, through bolted windows, heavy duty deck hatches, super strong toerail, super strong bulkheads, etc
For it time, it was a high volume hull. Not dissimilar to 15 year old Bavaria and Jeanneau hulls of the same length. It has more volume than a Southerly 135, Contest 44, Sunbeam 44.
Your views on stability are different to mine. Form stability is great until the weather gets rough. Those that know about bluewater boats don't looks for a hull with form stability. Ultimate stability becomes more preferable. When it's blowing 40kts and you have 5m seas, you never crave form stability. Most people wont experience these conditions and that's fine but comfort at sea when short handed 1000nm from land is nice to have when you need it.
The hull design provides us a far move comfortable boat at anchor than modern designs. We rarely roll at anchor. We do pitch more than a modern boat of the same length, as our waterline is shorter, but pitching is easy to live, rolling at anchor is not.
I could buy a new 44ft boat tomorrow, but I wouldn't be happy with it.
srm
Well-known member
The yard I use lifts a boat every half hour (during their 6 to 9 month full working season), in/out the water. It includes commercial fishing boats, full centerboarder where they must prop the full hull to keep the ctb blade outside, cruising keelers, racing boats with 3-4m keels and their own ground moulded supports, etc etc, they never had an accident, I can ask a bit higher or lower if I need to do specific things to keel or rudder, otherwise who am I to argue
My background and concept of responsibility is a little different, but I am not criticising your approaches. If you are using a marina that is obviously professional then there should be no need to intervene.
Its only in the last 15 years or so that I have been able to use yacht yards, (a yacht owner since 1975). Before that the nearest one was at least a couple of hundred miles away. When moving a boat ashore I had to hire a building contractor's crane and driver, and sometimes a road vehicle as well. I explained what I wanted and supervised the work and carried out all the boat side of the operation (as in lifting or stepping a double spreader keel stepped mast) and position of cradle, props, blocks etc.
The marina I have been using for the last few years are very good at handling the boats, but expect owners present for lift out as they have to bring the boat to the hoist bay and require them to be present for lift in ( to check the boat will not sink when the slings are let go). When the boat is in the slings and lifted clear of the water they ask the owner (or other rep) if they are happy before moving it ashore. This seems very sensible as the owner should be much more familiar with the boat than they are.
Poignard's last paragraph is pretty well in line with my thinking though. I watch to make sure there is nothing that will be a problem later, and certainly not something to haggle over with insurers.
Last edited:
