• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Quagers

Cheeki Rafiki MAIB report published

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Wess said:

DDW - You are arguing with a guys that already said he owns a sailing school that has a fleet of these death traps boats. What do you expect him to say?  He is going to defend them no matter what and to be fair there is lots of blame to go around.

The more relevant question perhaps is:  LB, would you buy a used one and how much would you pay, without being able to know its full history?

I don't own, nor operate any 40.7's.  We have had several in the fleet but sold the last one about 8 years ago.  And no I wouldn't buy any boat without knowing its history.  However the  40.7 are pretty good boats for what they Are. Good layout, swallow   6 punters and their gear, and they sail nicely and were pretty competitive on IRC. I would bet most of the dickwits waving their handbags around on here have never set foot on one. I wouldn't buy one now because the market has moved towards more cruising orientated designs like Jeanneau's because of the cockpit layout. Resale price isn't that important because we have depreciated them to nothing after 5 years. We are adding a new first 40 as our race boat because the BH 41 is getting a bit long in the tooth. Tomorrow however I am off to Sydney to run some YM exams on a beachball.

if you never hear from me again you will know you were right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Alternatively ...

You have a Qwerty Uiop car.  You run it hard it into the kerb and fear that you have damaged the steering, so you take it off to the Qwerty dealer. The Qwerty dealer tells you that owing to the way the Uiop is built, the only way to properly check the extent of the damage is to rip apart the whole front of the car in such a way that lots of unrelated components have to be replaced. The bill will be 25% of the cost of a new Uiop, or nearly half the value of your two-year-old car.

That is more than you can afford, and you protest that similar checks on other cars you have owned have cost a tiny fraction of that.  The dealer replies with a spiel about sophisticated engineering blah high quality blah ... and your frustration leads to the conversation deteriorating rapidly to the point where you walk out before you lose your temper.

So you go to a small guy who tells you that yes, the Qwerty dealer is right: a full check does require dismantling everything.  However, he can do a more limited check and repair which he says won't be complete, but will probably be fine in most cases.  No guarantees, but the cost will be modest.  So you get him to do the work.

One day on the highway your steering snaps, the car flips and 4 people die. The investigation shows that yes the steering system on the Qwerty Uiop could have been made stronger for impacts but was otherwise fit for purpose.  However, the investigation also notes that the component which failed is a part which on most other vehicles it checked and replaced easily and cheaply.

The investigation concluded that the direct cause of the deaths was LB15's decision to knowingly forego a full repair, the principal factor leading to the fatal accident was the design flaw which prevented critical components from readily inspected and -- if necessary -- replaced.  The inquiry recommended that a design flaw which so badly impeded routine roadworthiness checks made the Qwerty Uiop an inherently unsafe vehicle.

Two points that show what are a clown you are.

1/ the cost of the repair is around 20k. I know because I have done it. Not the 50% of the value of the boat as in your little fairy tale above.

2/ since it is the operator, not Madame Beneteau that has been charged then your concept of 'direct' or 'principal' cause shows that you know as much about the law as you do about keel repairs.

But don't worry petal you won't ever have to sail on a scary 40.7. You could never afford to buy one and I doubt that anyone will ask a cock like you out for a sail on one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LB 15 said:
8 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

The investigation concluded that the direct cause of the deaths was LB15's decision to knowingly forego a full repair, the principal factor leading to the fatal accident was the design flaw which prevented critical components from readily inspected and -- if necessary -- replaced.  The inquiry recommended that a design flaw which so badly impeded routine roadworthiness checks made the Qwerty Uiop an inherently unsafe vehicle.

Two points that show what are a clown you are.

1/ the cost of the repair is around 20k. I know because I have done it. Not the 50% of the value of the boat as in your little fairy tale above.

2/ since it is the operator, not Madame Beneteau that has been charged then your concept of 'direct' or 'principal' cause shows that you know as much about the law as you do about keel repairs.

But don't worry petal you won't ever have to sail on a scary 40.7. You could never afford to buy one and I doubt that anyone will ask a cock like you out for a sail on one.

Hey, sonny boy, I could buy several of those 40.7s for cash if I wanted to do.  My own cash, not a business's.  And from field research, I usually find that men who talk about cocks like that have small ones which arrive early.

Now, when you feel ready to take a short break from worrying about the inadequacy of your limp noodle, use your small hands to scroll back up and re-read what I wrote.  I was writing about an investigation, not a criminal prosecution.  (Yes, I know there's a prosecution underway over Cheeky Rafiki, but that's not what I was writing about)

As the numbers, here's a 40.7 for £60K.  I assume that your 20K is AUS$, so that's about 20% of the used value of the boat.  Less than the 50% in my car analogy, but still a very heavy hit ... all for a bump which on a long-keeled boat would need nothing more than a little bit of end-of-season patching of some dented keel encapsulation.  And one boat I knew in the west of Ireland (a  Kerry 27) had a lead bulb at the front of its long keel, so whenever it whacked a rock in the narrow sounds, all it needed was a dry out alongside the fishing peer and a bit of walloping with a hammer to reshape the lead.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwoLegged said:

Hey, sonny boy, I could buy several of those 40.7s for cash if I wanted to do.  My own cash, not a business's.  And from field research, I usually find that men who talk about cocks like that have small ones which arrive early.

Now, when you feel ready to take a short break from worrying about the inadequacy of your limp noodle, use your small hands to scroll back up and re-read what I wrote.  I was writing about an investigation, not a criminal prosecution.  (Yes, I know there's a prosecution underway over Cheeky Rafiki, but that's not what I was writing about)

As the numbers, here's a 40.7 for £60K.  I assume that your 20K is AUS$, so that's about 20% of the used value of the boat.  Less than the 50% in my car analogy, but still a very heavy hit ... all for a bump which on a long-keeled boat would need nothing more than a little bit of end-of-season patching of some dented keel encapsulation.  And one boat I knew in the west of Ireland (a  Kerry 27) had a lead bulb at the front of its long keel, so whenever it whacked a rock in the narrow sounds, all it needed was a dry out alongside the fishing peer and a bit of walloping with a hammer to reshape the lead.

 

 

 

Brent? Is that you? I doubt the Kerry 27 needed that. How much damage can you do at 3.5 knots?

And thank you for admitting that your 50% of the value comparison was complete bullshit. I can use the company's money for what ever I like- I own the company. I note by bragging that you are richer than Thirsten Howell the third you are attempting to avoid admitting that you have never sailed nor owned a 40.7 in your life and your only knowledge about them comes from the report.

The report that resulted in  the operator being charged, not the manufacturer. 

Oh and great work with the small dick jokes. You are really coming on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Some of us don't fall for cheap chinese crap.

I used K500 Monel for my keel bolts. At the time they cost about $30/lb, making it less than the average cost of the boat.

I am completely reassured by LB 15's explanation above. I can buy a 40.7, and all I need to do after purchase (and anytime the keel touches anything) is to remove the keel, fly the hull to his "accredited surveyor" to evaluate, then write a check for $20K to his boat builder and I'm good to go - until the next keel touch. How convenient. Perhaps I should get two, one to use while the other is being fixed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2017 at 7:53 AM, LB 15 said:

Regarding your comment on surveyors, my BH 41 grounds regularly, as one would expect from a 2.7 mtr draft sailing school boat operating in a shallow bay. Each year it is inspected by an accredited surveyor and signed off. It's not that hard and let me give you a little tip. If your surveyor won't guarantee his work then there is probably a good reason. He is incompetent. Get a new one.

there is never a single reason why a incident like this happens. You can blame the owner, the designer, the builder or maybe, just maybe, crossing the North Atlantic in winter on a boat that wasn't surveyed before departing wasn't such a great idea.

 

The BH41 has a more obviously glassed in frame structure where you can see any problems.

Haven't you read the latest `god save me clauses' in a boat survey LB? Generally they will deny any responsibility for structure that cannot be properly accessed to inspect.

In the case of the 40.7 that would be the integrity of the glue under the pans.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DDW said:

I used K500 Monel for my keel bolts. At the time they cost about $30/lb, making it less than the average cost of the boat.

I am completely reassured by LB 15's explanation above. I can buy a 40.7, and all I need to do after purchase (and anytime the keel touches anything) is to remove the keel, fly the hull to his "accredited surveyor" to evaluate, then write a check for $20K to his boat builder and I'm good to go - until the next keel touch. How convenient. Perhaps I should get two, one to use while the other is being fixed. 

Hey no worries mate- I can tip you into a couple I know of going cheap...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trickypig said:

The BH41 has a more obviously glassed in frame structure where you can see any problems.

Haven't you read the latest `god save me clauses' in a boat survey LB? Generally they will deny any responsibility for structure that cannot be properly accessed to inspect.

In the case of the 40.7 that would be the integrity of the glue under the pans.

 

 

We did the keel job on our beachball as well as the BH 41. As you would know a 'Pre purchase inspection' (as most surveyors offer to second hand boat buyers) is very different from a commercial 'survey' by a MSQ/AMSA accredited surveyor, that we have done. Naturally neither can comment on things they can't get too. However catastrophic keel failure doesn't come without warning. in the case of the 40.7 if the pan bonding starts to fail, then the keel itself will start to move and this will manifest itself in several ways, cracks on the sides at the keel hull join, compression cracks for and aft , a  visible gap and/or as in the case of CR, water ingress though the boltholes themselves. The keel doesn't just fall of without warning. if any of these things are found then you need to turn over some stones. this may be anything from drilling some inspection holes to removing the keel and starting to dig. I don't argue that the keel attachment of the 40.7's is the greatest, but the problem is far from universal on all 40.7's and can be fixed. The way some of the clowns on here are carrying on it is as if one is risking there lives every time they step on one. Which only demonstrates their ignorance and inexperience. 

If this is a witch hunt then you should all ask yourselves why the operator, not the manufacturer has been charged. You are burning the wrong witch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the eerie photo of the kid staring at the keelbolts? They obviously knew there was a problem, but they headed across the ocean anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

Remember the eerie photo of the kid staring at the keelbolts? They obviously knew there was a problem, but they headed across the ocean anyway...

Poor bastard was just trying to work out what them bolt things actually did. He probably thought they were somehow connected to Facebook or the stereo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK you recent hand wringers (borrowing LB's term) how many of you have actually been on a 40.7, then pulled a floor board up on it or God forbid strucurally worked on one? Your listed here so time to own up.

Twolegs

DDW

Tricky

Wess

Sailabout

Theo

The Jay

NYB021

Commie boater

tane

daffy

Will be a fuckin deafening response  I reakon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

OK you recent hand wringers (borrowing LB's term) how many of you have actually been on a 40.7, then pulled a floor board up on it or God forbid strucurally worked on one? Your listed here so time to own up.

Twolegs

DDW

Tricky

Wess

Sailabout

Theo

The Jay

NYB021

Commie boater

tane

daffy

Will be a fuckin deafening response  I reakon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who me? "deafening response"  fuck off Jack, I know enough. Sold them, watched them being made, oversaw repairs.

I can see the lynch mob at Beneteau's gate; and it's not fair. Nevertheless this tragedy has revealed a weakpoint in trying to ascertain what damage has occurred in the shiny bilge. Ok... so some cracks in the frames, some rust around bolts, some deflection etc etc but the glue joint remained unseen.

Glued in grids are a problem I reckon. Commercially used sailboats with thousands of miles under their belts need better than a cost driven manufacturing method like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just sailed on the one that was in Singapore until it was cut in half by a ship, never out of sight of land or a distance I didnt think I could swim

On the other hand 44.7's are built very well, seen a few bouncing on their keels without any issue. i'd cross an ocean in one of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on some, and pulled the floorboards up. Haven't worked on one structurally. I don't need to cut apart turds to recognize them as turds. To be clear:

I have no problem with Beneteau building a cheap, fragile boat.

I have no problem with them building a boat that cannot be inspected.

I have no problem with them building a boat marketed and sold as capable of ocean crossing.

What I have a problem with, is Beneteau building a cheap, fragile boat, that cannot be inspected, marketed and sold as capable of ocean crossing. 

Now, they have sold 800 of them so the horse has left the barn. What I attempt to do here is provide some caution in this thread, so that a potential buyer researching the subject will not read it and assume that the crew, the sand, the owner, the weather, the ocean, the previous repair shops are all at fault, but the boat itself is just fine for it's advertised purpose. The fact is, a cursory enquiry found 17 that were falling apart. It is certain there are many more. Buy it, but recognize it for what it is, and warn anybody that steps on board before you set off to cross an ocean. Also to dissuade Beneteau and others from building boats this way in the future. There are better ways to do it. They don't cost more. Why continue to do it wrong? By defending this construction method, you encourage its continued use. 

Now you apologists are going to say, many have crossed oceans without incident. That may well be true but proves nothing. Oceans have been crossed in beach cats, row boats, kayaks, and - in at least one case each -  by clinging to a mooring ball and on a floating pile of garbage. We might include the 40.7 crossings in the latter category. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2015 at 10:46 AM, Patrick Shaughnessy said:

[snip]

Just to be 100% clear, at FYD we have no knowledge of the Beneteau dealer recommended repair procedure. That by itself is a pretty worrying. Even if that was followed, we don't necessarily know that it would be sufficient.

[snip]

In this particular instance the hull liner laminate (do not call it a matrix), is not a trivial simple laminate. Replacing it with some unknown laminate to similar thickness would not necessarily be adequate. Please ask first. It almost incomprehensible that a repair could be made in a critical area like this without guidance. Please let us help you.

[snip]

Patrick

Jack - I get it.  You and LB want to troll the topic and OK fine.  Its an SA tradition lord knows and I have certainly done some trolling on SA as well.  But geeze, here on thisd thread you can lead the ignorant astray.  I was not going to bother to respond to you but DDW captures it pretty well below and if that does not cover it, perhaps an earlier quote from FYD (above) on this thread would help to educate you.

It interesting that both you and LB keep ducking the most simple and basic question:

  * Assuming current pricing for a ~2005 vintage of $125,000.00 USD (and you can make and pay for any repair you want) would you (Jack or LB) buy a used Beneteau 40.7 without knowing its full ownership and use/grounding history and cross an ocean with your family (or recommend others do)?

A simple yes or no please.

Regards,

Wess

 

2 hours ago, DDW said:

I've been on some, and pulled the floorboards up. Haven't worked on one structurally. I don't need to cut apart turds to recognize them as turds. To be clear:

I have no problem with Beneteau building a cheap, fragile boat.

I have no problem with them building a boat that cannot be inspected.

I have no problem with them building a boat marketed and sold as capable of ocean crossing.

What I have a problem with, is Beneteau building a cheap, fragile boat, that cannot be inspected, marketed and sold as capable of ocean crossing. 

Now, they have sold 800 of them so the horse has left the barn. What I attempt to do here is provide some caution in this thread, so that a potential buyer researching the subject will not read it and assume that the crew, the sand, the owner, the weather, the ocean, the previous repair shops are all at fault, but the boat itself is just fine for it's advertised purpose. The fact is, a cursory enquiry found 17 that were falling apart. It is certain there are many more. Buy it, but recognize it for what it is, and warn anybody that steps on board before you set off to cross an ocean. Also to dissuade Beneteau and others from building boats this way in the future. There are better ways to do it. They don't cost more. Why continue to do it wrong? By defending this construction method, you encourage its continued use. 

Now you apologists are going to say, many have crossed oceans without incident. That may well be true but proves nothing. Oceans have been crossed in beach cats, row boats, kayaks, and - in at least one case each -  by clinging to a mooring ball and on a floating pile of garbage. We might include the 40.7 crossings in the latter category. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

OK you recent hand wringers (borrowing LB's term) how many of you have actually been on a 40.7, then pulled a floor board up on it or God forbid strucurally worked on one? Your listed here so time to own up.

Twolegs

Jack, I have not been onboard a 40.7, nor sailed one, let alone worked one.

And I don't need to go anywhere near one to understand the significance of the MAIB's warning that:

The investigation has identified that in GRP yachts that are constructed by bonding an internal matrix of stiffeners into the hull, it is possible for the bonding to fail, thereby weakening the structure. In some yachts, including the Beneteau First 40.7, the design makes it harder to detect when the bonding is starting to fail. The report therefore highlights the need for regular inspections of such yachts’ structures by a competent person, and for the marine industry to agree on the most appropriate means of repair when matrix detachment has occurred.

Are Jack or LB15 are claiming that their personal expertise exceeds that of all the talent available to the MAIB?  I really hope not, but if they do claim to know better, then please be clear about that.

So the reality is that all of us in this discussion are working off this one thorough expert analysis.  And this thorough expert analysis concludes that:

  1. the design makes it harder to detect when the matrix bonding is starting to fail
  2. the marine industry has yet to agree on the most appropriate means of repair when matrix detachment has occurred

The report is very clear that this is not solely a Beneteau problem, and that it is widespread in this type of boat. 

5 hours ago, Trickypig said:

I can see the lynch mob at Beneteau's gate; and it's not fair. Nevertheless this tragedy has revealed a weakpoint in trying to ascertain what damage has occurred in the shiny bilge. Ok... so some cracks in the frames, some rust around bolts, some deflection etc etc but the glue joint remained unseen.

It would be unfair to suggest that Beneteau is the only builder with deficient keel attachments.  But Beneteau is one of the biggest builders using this sort of technique, so they do deserve some heat.  It's just that others should feel the heat too.

 

3 hours ago, DDW said:

recognize it for what it is, and warn anybody that steps on board before you set off to cross an ocean. Also to dissuade Beneteau and others from building boats this way in the future. There are better ways to do it. They don't cost more. Why continue to do it wrong? By defending this construction method, you encourage its continued use. 

That's my concern too.  Beneteau and many other builders need to raise their standards, and potential users need to recognise that the design and condition of keel attachments is a very problematic area with this type of boat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

 

  * Assuming current pricing for a ~2005 vintage of $125,000.00 USD (and you can make and pay for any repair you want) would you (Jack or LB) buy a used Beneteau 40.7 without knowing its full ownership and use/grounding history and cross an ocean with your family (or recommend others do)?

A simple yes or no please.

Regards,

Wess

 

 

Even if I thought I knew the history of any 10 year old GRP semi production/production boat I would drop the keel as a matter of course. For the 40.7 I would buy it budgeting for beefing up the laminate around keel and re-tabbing the liner around it. After that I would have no problem going anyway on it other than near ice.

BTW I would not go outside the sight of land on any beach ball built this century even if it was still in its factory wrapping. Should they have built them a bit differently? Yes. 

I'm not an apologist for the 40.7 . I just don't believe 4 people died as a consequence of a manufacturing fault or method. They died because scant regard was given to that manufacturing method when maintaining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Even if I thought I knew the history of any 10 year old GRP semi production/production boat I would drop the keel as a matter of course. For the 40.7 I would buy it budgeting for beefing up the laminate around keel and re-tabbing the liner around it. After that I would have no problem going anyway on it other than near ice.

BTW I would not go outside the sight of land on any beach ball built this century even if it was still in its factory wrapping. Should they have built them a bit differently? Yes. 

I'm not an apologist for the 40.7 . I just don't believe 4 people died as a consequence of a manufacturing fault or method. They died because scant regard was given to that manufacturing method when maintaining it.

OK so your answer to the question (that LB is still ducking)...

Assuming current pricing for a ~2005 vintage of $125,000.00 USD (and you can make and pay for any repair you want) would you (Jack or LB) buy a used Beneteau 40.7 without knowing its full ownership and use/grounding history and cross an ocean with your family (or recommend others do)?

... is "no!"

And if you did buy it to stay in "sight of land" you say you would "beef up the laminate around the keel and re-tab the liner around it."

OK so given the statement from FYD which I quoted (and no further details I am aware of though I have not extensively searched and welcome correction), how exactly would you do that, why would you have confidence it was adequate, and what do you think it would cost?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wess said:

Jack - I get it.  You and LB want to troll the topic and OK fine.  Its an SA tradition lord knows and I have certainly done some trolling on SA as well.  But geeze, here on thisd thread you can lead the ignorant astray.  I was not going to bother to respond to you but DDW captures it pretty well below and if that does not cover it, perhaps an earlier quote from FYD (above) on this thread would help to educate you.

It interesting that both you and LB keep ducking the most simple and basic question:

  * Assuming current pricing for a ~2005 vintage of $125,000.00 USD (and you can make and pay for any repair you want) would you (Jack or LB) buy a used Beneteau 40.7 without knowing its full ownership and use/grounding history and cross an ocean with your family (or recommend others do)?

A simple yes or no please.

Regards,

Wess

 

 

No. I have already said that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Jack, I have not been onboard a 40.7, nor sailed one, let alone worked one.

Not much point in reading anything after that really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Even if I thought I knew the history of any 10 year old GRP semi production/production boat I would drop the keel as a matter of course. For the 40.7 I would buy it budgeting for beefing up the laminate around keel and re-tabbing the liner around it. After that I would have no problem going anyway on it other than near ice.

I'm not an apologist for the 40.7 . I just don't believe 4 people died as a consequence of a manufacturing fault or method. They died because scant regard was given to that manufacturing method when maintaining it.

There are plenty of 10 (or 20 or 20) year old GRP production boats which could be taken offshore without worry that they will fall to pieces - along with plenty that have that worry. 

If by "maintaining it" you mean that before they sailed the boat offshore they should have undertaken "beefing up the laminate around the keel and re-tabbing" as part of maintenance, then we agree. Other than the semantics: I would call this "rebuilding", rather than "maintenance" as I think most would. And I would include the need to do so as a manufacturing fault. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LB 15 said:
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Jack, I have not been onboard a 40.7, nor sailed one, let alone worked one.

Not much point in reading anything after that really...

LB, you and Brent Swain would get on just fine. He also claims that the only relevant experience is on-the-water, so that someone like Bob Perry who has designed many boats which successfully complete challenging ocean journeys is a know-nothing.  Enjoy the companionship.

I have a choice here.  Who do I give more weight to?  The MAIB, with vast expertise in assessing incidents and boat design and construction? ... or a pseudonymous poster called LB15 who makes his money renting out boats, with a profit margin which will be hit badly by buying more expensive vessels?

I place much more weight on the MAIB, because LB15 has a vested commercial interest in maintaining the reputation of cheap plastic boats, and the MAIB doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big of sand in the vag today two balls? By your own admission you could write everything you know about 40.7's on a postage stamp and still have room for the Lord's Prayer.

Just because your own experience is so limited that you haven't even sailed on a beach ball, you are now comparing yourself to Bob Perry? 

You also show your complete ignorance of the charter business. Resale value is not even on the Radar for commercial charter boats. 

You should quit whilst you are behind princess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DDW said:

There are plenty of 10 (or 20 or 20) year old GRP production boats which could be taken offshore without worry that they will fall to pieces - along with plenty that have that worry. 

If by "maintaining it" you mean that before they sailed the boat offshore they should have undertaken "beefing up the laminate around the keel and re-tabbing" as part of maintenance, then we agree. Other than the semantics: I would call this "rebuilding", rather than "maintenance" as I think most would. And I would include the need to do so as a manufacturing fault. 

So what is your point or the resean for your hatred? Did the bowman of a beach ball bone your boy friend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Even if I thought I knew the history of any 10 year old GRP semi production/production boat I would drop the keel as a matter of course. For the 40.7 I would buy it budgeting for beefing up the laminate around keel and re-tabbing the liner around it.

Jack, you make that sound easy. You can't essentially re-tab a boat that has a glued pan liner; although I get what you mean. You have to cut/grind out the pans then glass frames onto exposed hull. I have seen the tops of the frames and longitudinals removed and laminate put into the inside of the frames, then the tops put back on so all the furniture still fits sweetly. The problem with this method is whilst the framing/longitudinals are made stronger, you may still have some detachment under the pans.

It all harks back to the fact that damage is hard to identify and then very expensive to repair to a high standard.

I would do ocean miles on a Beneteau but I would also have a higher than normal concern for any damage apparent in the bilge area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

And I don't need to go anywhere near one to understand the significance of the MAIB's warning that:

The investigation has identified that in GRP yachts that are constructed by bonding an internal matrix of stiffeners into the hull, it is possible for the bonding to fail, thereby weakening the structure. In some yachts, including the Beneteau First 40.7, the design makes it harder to detect when the bonding is starting to fail. The report therefore highlights the need for regular inspections of such yachts’ structures by a competent person, and for the marine industry to agree on the most appropriate means of repair when matrix detachment has occurred.

Are Jack or LB15 are claiming that their personal expertise exceeds that of all the talent available to the MAIB?  I really hope not, but if they do claim to know better, then please be clear about that.

So the reality is that all of us in this discussion are working off this one thorough expert analysis.  And this thorough expert analysis concludes that:

  1. the design makes it harder to detect when the matrix bonding is starting to fail
  2. the marine industry has yet to agree on the most appropriate means of repair when matrix detachment has occurred

 

Maybe I'm reading what J and LB are saying differently, but from what i can see they never claim their experience exceeds that of the MAIB. in fact LB's comments imply that as a matter of course he ensured that the structures of the yachts he used commercially were inspected by a competent person.

16 hours ago, LB 15 said:

We did the keel job on our beachball as well as the BH 41. As you would know a 'Pre purchase inspection' (as most surveyors offer to second hand boat buyers) is very different from a commercial 'survey' by a MSQ/AMSA accredited surveyor, that we have done. Naturally neither can comment on things they can't get too. However catastrophic keel failure doesn't come without warning. in the case of the 40.7 if the pan bonding starts to fail, then the keel itself will start to move and this will manifest itself in several ways, cracks on the sides at the keel hull join, compression cracks for and aft , a  visible gap and/or as in the case of CR, water ingress though the boltholes themselves. The keel doesn't just fall of without warning. if any of these things are found then you need to turn over some stones. this may be anything from drilling some inspection holes to removing the keel and starting to dig. I don't argue that the keel attachment of the 40.7's is the greatest, but the problem is far from universal on all 40.7's and can be fixed.

If this is a witch hunt then you should all ask yourselves why the operator, not the manufacturer has been charged. You are burning the wrong witch.

What i think he is suggesting is that if operated properly the boat is safe and suitable for a commercial operation. This is to a degree an economics question, how much do you have to spend on verifying that the structure is in good shape vs on a new or different boat. How much income can you get vs the expenses/

I can understand you disagreeing with whether the inspection was adequate, but that is a different argument.

It appears that a big risk is when these boats get into the hands of operators who do not understand the issues which may be present, and view the costs associated with a proper survey (which may be somewhat destructive if the boat is not designed for easy inspection) as excessive. We all know that there are many operators out there that will take this risk, We also all know that the cost of a used boat is just a small down-payment on the money you will need to spend on it.

 

Note I'm not an LB apologist in any way, he's an argumentative cunt, and not always right, but you should at least argue against what he says.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

[usual psycho swearing]

Just because your own experience is so limited that you haven't even sailed on a beach ball, you are now comparing yourself to Bob Perry? 

You also show your complete ignorance of the charter business. Resale value is not even on the Radar for commercial charter boats. 

[more personal abuse]

I wasn't comparing myself to Perry. I was comparing the MAIB to Perry.

I was not referring to resale value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

Maybe I'm reading what J and LB are saying differently, but from what i can see they never claim their experience exceeds that of the MAIB. in fact LB's comments imply that as a matter of course he ensured that the structures of the yachts he used commercially were inspected by a competent person.

What i think he is suggesting is that if operated properly the boat is safe and suitable for a commercial operation. This is to a degree an economics question, how much do you have to spend on verifying that the structure is in good shape vs on a new or different boat. How much income can you get vs the expenses/

I can understand you disagreeing with whether the inspection was adequate, but that is a different argument.

It appears that a big risk is when these boats get into the hands of operators who do not understand the issues which may be present, and view the costs associated with a proper survey (which may be somewhat destructive if the boat is not designed for easy inspection) as excessive. We all know that there are many operators out there that will take this risk, We also all know that the cost of a used boat is just a small down-payment on the money you will need to spend on it.

Note I'm not an LB apologist in any way, he's an argumentative cunt, and not always right, but you should at least argue against what he says.

Fair point, John, that this an economics question although those economic issues may be very different for a private owner or single-boat charter operation versus a bigger commercial operation. However, my point is that I think it's more than that.

My concern is that many owners and operators of boats built in this way will be unaware that such extensive checks are needed, and that a specialist survey is needed after even minor groundings, or that full inspection requires destructive testing, or that repairs require specialist techniques.  The danger is this gap between expectations of what is needed to keep the boat safe and the realities of very expensive professional expertise required to inspect or repair is a recipe for faults going undetected.

For example, the MAIB reproduces chunks of the 40.7 Owner's Manual.  No sign of any mention of the need for specialist inspection after groundings, or of the mode of failure.

How many owners of boats built this way are aware of the need for such expensive maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LB 15 said:

So what is your point or the resean for your hatred? 

I wouldn't call it 'hatred'. More like 'disgust'. The point of it was well explained above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Trickypig said:

Jack, you make that sound easy. You can't essentially re-tab a boat that has a glued pan liner; although I get what you mean. You have to cut/grind out the pans then glass frames onto exposed hull. I have seen the tops of the frames and longitudinals removed and laminate put into the inside of the frames, then the tops put back on so all the furniture still fits sweetly. The problem with this method is whilst the framing/longitudinals are made stronger, you may still have some detachment under the pans.

It all harks back to the fact that damage is hard to identify and then very expensive to repair to a high standard.

I would do ocean miles on a Beneteau but I would also have a higher than normal concern for any damage apparent in the bilge area.

Tricky once the keel is off it becomes a lot easier to identify issues and if you can't, cut the bottoms out regardless and retab and then it's done and dusted, visible and can be continually inspected at ease. It is actually not that expensive.

I have never seen the grid top cut off, re-tabbed on the inside and re-top method. That doesn't sound structurally too brilliant nor very effective in terms of access constraints for proper preparation and execution, not to mention uber expensive. Also pretty meaningless as everything reset in place and hidden as B4 with nothing visible to monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

Tricky once the keel is off it becomes a lot easier to identify issues and if you can't, cut the bottoms out regardless and retab and then it's done and dusted, visible and can be continually inspected at ease. It is actually not that expensive.

I have never seen the grid top cut off, re-tabbed on the inside and re-top method. That doesn't sound structurally too brilliant nor very effective in terms of access constraints for proper preparation and execution, not to mention uber expensive. Also pretty meaningless as everything reset in place and hidden as B4 with nothing visible to monitor.

The shipwright in question was asked to keep the bilge looking shiny and a la Beneteau. When you take the lids off the trick of the eye telling you they are continuous frames is lost and you realise what a weak point it can be if the pan attachment is failing. putting glasswork within the frame made the frame continous and bonded to the hull. Fiddly though and I agree re comments of continued `non inspectability'.

There is no doubt that the demise of the Cheeki Rafiki crew has shone a light on this construction method. The fact that insufficient remedial work was done some years ago and the crew were scratching their heads immediately prior to failure means the pan attachment was failing without a visual clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnMB said:

Maybe I'm reading what J and LB are saying differently, but from what i can see they never claim their experience exceeds that of the MAIB. in fact LB's comments imply that as a matter of course he ensured that the structures of the yachts he used commercially were inspected by a competent person.

What i think he is suggesting is that if operated properly the boat is safe and suitable for a commercial operation. This is to a degree an economics question, how much do you have to spend on verifying that the structure is in good shape vs on a new or different boat. How much income can you get vs the expenses/

I can understand you disagreeing with whether the inspection was adequate, but that is a different argument.

It appears that a big risk is when these boats get into the hands of operators who do not understand the issues which may be present, and view the costs associated with a proper survey (which may be somewhat destructive if the boat is not designed for easy inspection) as excessive. We all know that there are many operators out there that will take this risk, We also all know that the cost of a used boat is just a small down-payment on the money you will need to spend on it.

 

Note I'm not an LB apologist in any way, he's an argumentative cunt, and not always right, but you should at least argue against what he says.

 

Thanks mate. And thanks for the endorsement. Most people leave out the 'argumentative' prefix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2015 at 10:46 AM, Patrick Shaughnessy said:

I just wanted to say to the group here, that we assisted in the MAIB investigation, but were unable to review a draft of the document before it was published. I think there a few inconsistencies in the report, but on the whole it is a well written document.

 

The report does indicate that prior groundings were repaired in an unknown way. Just to be 100% clear, at FYD we have no knowledge of the Beneteau dealer recommended repair procedure. That by itself is a pretty worrying. Even if that was followed, we don't necessarily know that it would be sufficient.

 

We take safety very seriously and will issue an announcement/addendum to the MAIB report with some other considerations. The biggest thing I want to emphasize is, please contact your yacht designer if you have any questions. If you have an incident that potentially caused structural damage, contact your yacht designer. If you have an impending repair contact your yacht designer.

 

In this particular instance the hull liner laminate (do not call it a matrix), is not a trivial simple laminate. Replacing it with some unknown laminate to similar thickness would not necessarily be adequate. Please ask first. It almost incomprehensible that a repair could be made in a critical area like this without guidance. Please let us help you.

 

We will be back with more, after we've had a chance to fully digest the report. Stand by.

 

Patrick

LB/Jack - Not trying to be argumentative here or paint you into a corner, and the question has more relevance for LB given his business's exposure and implications... but given above from the designer - which is pretty critical of the manufacturer and cites the complexity of the repair and lack of an accepted procedure - how exactly do you repair it?  From a practical standpoint it seems doable if expensive and complicated, but from the legal standpoint given above I am somewhat surprised that anyone would sign off on a post repair commercial survey of this boat without something in writing from the designer.  In other words is there a widely accepted industry practice for repairing this that a commercial surveyor will sign off on (for the 40.7 with grounding damage specifically). Wess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - this thread is still cranking along.

From the cheap seats, we now have boats that are both much easier to damage and much harder to fix than we used to have. Progress - not really IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

From the cheap seats, we now have boats that are both much easier to damage and much harder to fix than we used to have.

Both of those attributes are bad news.

But I think that neither is anywhere near as serious as the the difficulty of identifying damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Both of those attributes are bad news.

But I think that neither is anywhere near as serious as the the difficulty of identifying damage. 

Good point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I inspected a Starrat Jenks Beneteau that had been through Superstorm Sandy and completely destroyed. Out of 30+ boats I inspected, only the Beneteau was unsalvageable. The top sides and hull had delaminated to the point that the entire exterior of the hull felt like a hard boiled egg with the shell cracked but not removed. There was no need for a hammer test. The interior was in utter chaos. For shits and giggles I dug down through the mess just to check out the grid. It was in perfect condition with no obvious sign of damage. The symmetrical holes in and around it were from the torn off keel with bolts and washers laying next to the hull. This boat had been on land with most of the others I looked at. Apparently the matrix grid didn't handle the loading very well. I thought it was a pretty lousy method of attaching a keel to the hull to say the least...

Why would you take a thinly built hull with a lousy keel structure and offer them as charter boats when you could just sit on your ass and let other builders construct proper boats with proven engineering. 

I see Beneteau's up for sale and I cringe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwoLegged said:

Both of those attributes are bad news.

But I think that neither is anywhere near as serious as the the difficulty of identifying damage. 

NDT looks impossible with that grid design :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wess said:

In other words is there a widely accepted industry practice for repairing this that a commercial surveyor will sign off on (for the 40.7 with grounding damage specifically). Wess

I think there was consensus in the MAIB report and even on this thread, that you simply abandon and cut out the construction method used by Beneteau and remanufacture it with proper keel floors. Part of the proper keel floors might incorporate salvaged bits of the pan. It leaves the boatyard/shipwright to do the engineering (which is a little scary). Jack has even suggested that it is not that expensive. Which makes you wonder all the more why Beneteau didn't do it properly in the first place. Any boat (even a mac26) can be made seaworthy with enough rebuilding. 

One issue with that is many of the boats the MAIB found had detached pans in the forward and aft sections as well, from slamming loads. The keel may be (the most important) tip of a larger berg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DDW said:

I think there was consensus in the MAIB report and even on this thread, that you simply abandon and cut out the construction method used by Beneteau and remanufacture it with proper keel floors. Part of the proper keel floors might incorporate salvaged bits of the pan. It leaves the boatyard/shipwright to do the engineering (which is a little scary). Jack has even suggested that it is not that expensive. Which makes you wonder all the more why Beneteau didn't do it properly in the first place. Any boat (even a mac26) can be made seaworthy with enough rebuilding. 

One issue with that is many of the boats the MAIB found had detached pans in the forward and aft sections as well, from slamming loads. The keel may be (the most important) tip of a larger berg. 

I agree. Its why I said "From a practical standpoint it seems doable if expensive and complicated, but from the legal standpoint given above I am somewhat surprised that anyone would sign off on a post repair commercial survey of this boat without something in writing from the designer."

The repair you (and Jack and others) point to is essentially re-engineers the the keel hull joint.  And while that is not rocket science, it is important to get right and as you point out it leaves that rather important bit of engineering to the boatyard.  Perhaps I am naive and a commercial survey ain't worthy the paper it is written on but I would have thought any commercial surveyor would be unwilling to sign off on the repair because the re-engineering was outside their expertise.

I disagree with Jack and don't think this repair is inexpensive at all (relative to the value of the boat) but I do agree its possible to re-engineer and do the repair making it even stronger (and more accessible and easier to maintain) than it was before.  But somebody needs to sign off on that re-engineering.

Absent something from the designer or Beneteau I don't see how you go back to the original engineering design and rebuild that.  FYD seems to have essentially said you can't... or at least said you should be talking to and taking counsel from us if you plan to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were an airplane, the surveyor (A&P/IA) can only sign off on the *original design*. If you want to re-engineer the airplane, either the original designer or a DER (designated engineering representative) have to sign off, and it is not quick nor cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wess said:

LB/Jack - Not trying to be argumentative here or paint you into a corner, and the question has more relevance for LB given his business's exposure and implications... but given above from the designer - which is pretty critical of the manufacturer and cites the complexity of the repair and lack of an accepted procedure - how exactly do you repair it?  From a practical standpoint it seems doable if expensive and complicated, but from the legal standpoint given above I am somewhat surprised that anyone would sign off on a post repair commercial survey of this boat without something in writing from the designer.  In other words is there a widely accepted industry practice for repairing this that a commercial surveyor will sign off on (for the 40.7 with grounding damage specifically). Wess

Wess

Firstly the guy at Farr says "Just to be 100% clear, at FYD we have no knowledge of the Beneteau dealer recommended repair procedure. That by itself is a pretty worrying. Even if that was followed, we don't necessarily know that it would be sufficient".

I think Farr designed their first Beneteau in the late 80's. That is nearly 30 years ago. The hull liner laminate design method they inherited as it pre-dated that first design commission, therefore that aspect of the design in structural sufficiency terms probably largely sits with Beneteau not Farr. 

In that regard I have technical papers published by Beneteau from that era that address repair procedures post grounding when cracking in the hull liner is evident. Wether those papers made it through to the digital storage age at Beneteau or not and are available today, I don't know.

That aside there have been countless repairs carried out around the world to boats incorporating hull liners over the last 30+ years and undertaken with obviously varying degrees of competency, budget quantum allocated to it and with or without surveyor input. Many would have been the subject of insurance claims  where you would  assume there would possibly be the involvement of a number of expert parties to the repair.

Therefore this aspect of shock horror as if this is the first occurrence and the wider industry being unaware of detection and repair procedures for hull liner boats I simply don't buy. I suggest it more a case of a boat repair industry that is largely unregulated, likes to be unregulated until something goes catastrofuck wrong like here, then they all point their fingers at the manufacturer.

Secondly, your question about surveyors looking for original designer sign-off. Individual surveyors have their own quirks. Some won't take a dump unless someone else signs off on it, some think they know more than the original designer and experienced boat builder combined and there are those in the middle.

Everyone forgets that these hull liner boats are manufactured to a standard and the vast majority operate without incident within that standard. They are are pain in the arse to inspect structurally and it costs money to do that and rectify if something is busted. Drive one of these things hard and that hassle and cost is multiplied.

Easilly forgotten during the debate on design adequacy is this particular boat was a race version of the 40.7 with unforgiving grey sails that was raced hard offshore and by race charterers from the day it was born. Even if it had a company skipper on board, groundings would not have got a lot of airtime I suspect. If there was a boat on planet earth that screamed out for more attention than others, this was it. Did the owner have the budget to do that, who knows? Is it expensive to repair, not really relative to value and a large part probably recoverable if sold to or with a knowledgeable party involved.

It was also a commercial vessel and had a MCA code Category 2 that allowed it 60 mile offshore and that required regular inspection. It didn't have a Category 0 coding compliance for Ocean Crossings and it's Category 2 inspection date expired before it left the Caribbean. Therefore what occurred is that it left England on a round trip of the Atlantic where no accredited inspection was made just before it left and no inspection was to be done at the other end prior to its return. So no one with accreditation and expertise had a look at it and it was uncertified for what it was doing, save for when racing around the balmy isles of the Caribbean. If someone had looked at it, it I suspect it wouldn't have been allowed to leave England. 

If you don't equip and maintain any vessel consistent with its usage, environment and or certification then you can expect the obvious to occur. If you don't like what that entails with a particular design, simple, pay more and buy something else. 

 

 

Alt_221.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I owned a first 30 en 38 in my early 20's. The first 38 was a fast sailer, but back then we had concerns about the keel because of the rust. (Between hull and keel) After inspections they told us it's was ok. 

Also on the kt fauroux 1/4 tonner lost of rust. 

On my other boats (dehler 34/moody/s&s/hunter/vd Stadt/bav350) no problems at all)

 

Ik was on the 40.7 in the Solent but didn't buy it, nice boat but somehow did't make the deal. Weeks later bought the bav42. Have the keel checked twice already, just to be secure)

The former owner of the withbread 30 I've owned did fabricate a total new bondingsection for the keel en renewed also the bolts of course.

Hybrid thoughts about keels:

1) as owner you are responsible for the  condition of the keel to your family and friends but on the other sight: you are dependent from the people you can hire for checking and maint.

 

but

 

2) you like to lean on the thought that you're sailing on a boat from a big volume builder with lot's of sisterships around so what could possibly go wrong whit such a product. Also the design must me checked twice).

 

In the real world you 've to do the maintaining on something you can't see. I still would advice the yachtbuilders to come up with something you could check an change on a regular basis.

 

Is this to big to ask ?

 

About reparing and costs: I know the case, next to mine, of a 48ft boat (swedish made) where they could 't change the keel bolts, they shortened the keelbolts, made adapters on it and lenghtened the old bolts with shorter ones on top. The amount was in us dollar about 17k (15 in Euros).

 

my conclusion: keels and keelbolts are not designed with maintainance, repairing and changing in mind. Logical maybe because of the longkeel period. This also declares high costs when something is going on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I inspected a Starrat Jenks Beneteau that had been through Superstorm Sandy and completely destroyed. Out of 30+ boats I inspected, only the Beneteau was unsalvageable. The top sides and hull had delaminated to the point that the entire exterior of the hull felt like a hard boiled egg with the shell cracked but not removed. There was no need for a hammer test. The interior was in utter chaos. For shits and giggles I dug down through the mess just to check out the grid. It was in perfect condition with no obvious sign of damage. The symmetrical holes in and around it were from the torn off keel with bolts and washers laying next to the hull. This boat had been on land with most of the others I looked at. Apparently the matrix grid didn't handle the loading very well. I thought it was a pretty lousy method of attaching a keel to the hull to say the least...

Why would you take a thinly built hull with a lousy keel structure and offer them as charter boats when you could just sit on your ass and let other builders construct proper boats with proven engineering. 

I see Beneteau's up for sale and I cringe.

 

I cringe when I read bullshit like this.  Sail4millerlite should relize that most people on here know what they are talking about.

You might want to bear that in mind before running your tiny hands over your keyboard next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with cutting out the grid and replacing with floors/ longitudinals is that the keelbolts also pass through the pans...hull itself is likely not thick enough nor strong enough,  and will have to be built up with several layers of glass before you even begin to glass in structure. It will require expert design and oversight, which will run up the cost further. I can't imagine it being a viable option. It's looking like the two options are tabbing the grid back to hull, or scrapping the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RKoch said:

One of the problems with cutting out the grid and replacing with floors/ longitudinals is that the keelbolts also pass through the pans...hull itself is likely not thick enough nor strong enough,  and will have to be built up with several layers of glass before you even begin to glass in structure. It will require expert design and oversight, which will run up the cost further. I can't imagine it being a viable option. It's looking like the two options are tabbing the grid back to hull, or scrapping the boat.

You are right and that is what we did. A few extra layers of layup isn't that expensive. That part only takes a few hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, theo bakker said:

I owned a first 30 en 38 in my early 20's. The first 38 was a fast sailer, but back then we had concerns about the keel because of the rust. (Between hull and keel) After inspections they told us it's was ok. 

Also on the kt fauroux 1/4 tonner lost of rust. 

On my other boats (dehler 34/moody/s&s/hunter/vd Stadt/bav350) no problems at all)

 

Ik was on the 40.7 in the Solent but didn't buy it, nice boat but somehow did't make the deal. Weeks later bought the bav42. Have the keel checked twice already, just to be secure)

The former owner of the withbread 30 I've owned did fabricate a total new bondingsection for the keel en renewed also the bolts of course.

Hybrid thoughts about keels:

1) as owner you are responsible for the  condition of the keel to your family and friends but on the other sight: you are dependent from the people you can hire for checking and maint.

 

but

 

2) you like to lean on the thought that you're sailing on a boat from a big volume builder with lot's of sisterships around so what could possibly go wrong whit such a product. Also the design must me checked twice).

 

In the real world you 've to do the maintaining on something you can't see. I still would advice the yachtbuilders to come up with something you could check an change on a regular basis.

 

Is this to big to ask ?

 

About reparing and costs: I know the case, next to mine, of a 48ft boat (swedish made) where they could 't change the keel bolts, they shortened the keelbolts, made adapters on it and lenghtened the old bolts with shorter ones on top. The amount was in us dollar about 17k (15 in Euros).

 

my conclusion: keels and keelbolts are not designed with maintainance, repairing and changing in mind. Logical maybe because of the longkeel period. This also declares high costs when something is going on.

 

You bought a Bavaria and are casting aspersions on another builders poor construction? Now that is funny. Have you found the participial board in the bulkheads yet? Don't worry you will when it starts to swell. You do realize that just as many Bavaria's have lost there keels as 40.7'S don't you? I am sure that Beneteau will take on board your 'Conclusions' and your 'advice' and act at once. You don't become the largest yacht manufacturer the world has ever seen by ignoring the advice of an internet nobody who demonstrated what a clown he is by buying a Bavaria. Oh and thanks for your boat ownership history. It is truly a tale of woe. Our thoughts are with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I inspected a Starrat Jenks Beneteau that had been through Superstorm Sandy and completely destroyed. Out of 30+ boats I inspected, only the Beneteau was unsalvageable. The top sides and hull had delaminated to the point that the entire exterior of the hull felt like a hard boiled egg with the shell cracked but not removed. There was no need for a hammer test. The interior was in utter chaos. For shits and giggles I dug down through the mess just to check out the grid. It was in perfect condition with no obvious sign of damage. The symmetrical holes in and around it were from the torn off keel with bolts and washers laying next to the hull. This boat had been on land with most of the others I looked at. Apparently the matrix grid didn't handle the loading very well. I thought it was a pretty lousy method of attaching a keel to the hull to say the least...

Why would you take a thinly built hull with a lousy keel structure and offer them as charter boats when you could just sit on your ass and let other builders construct proper boats with proven engineering. 

I see Beneteau's up for sale and I cringe.

 

I cringe when I read shit like this. Sorry sail4catspiss but your little story doesn't pass the sniff test. The Beneteau that you 'inspected' (Bwahahaha) in your little fantasy, was it a 40.7? If it was what was its name so we could confirm this tale? Or have you conveniently forgotten? 

You say that the keel was ripped off and the bolts and washers were lying next to the boat. So did 'superstorm sandy' reach down the companion way and undo the nuts on the  the keelbolts? because I am fucked if I know how the washers came to be lying around under the boat if the keelbolts had been pulled through. You also claim the keel bolts were lying next to the boat. How did they come to be removed from the top of the keel? That Sandy was a vindictive bitch...

This is like a Brent Swain story. But instead of the storm destroying every GPR boat in the anchorage, in your fairy tale it only destroyed the Beneteau's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an example of a fix on a Beneteau after a major prang or series of smaller ones where the pinned section of liner above the keel shat itself and simply cutting out the liner bottoms and tabbing the box section either side wasn't going to cut the mustard. Also it shows albeit on a sectional retro basis what those are calling manufacturers to now implement for semi-monocoque construction in production boats. As anyone can appreciate the additional labour required and fall off in production simply means production builders won't ever contemplate such a move except for a semi-custom line if they have one.

Ironically Beneteau used to have a semi custom division and produced a Farr 60 in the early 90's to take on Nautor and others using exactly this hand lay up grid method and it cost a bomb.

This guy has removed the keel, cut the liner out entirely behind and either side of the keel, ground it down, added laminate to the hull in that area and extending it up the sides of the keel-box with major tabbing between the two. New sections of liner made in the shop have no bottoms other than a flange so it can be tabbed on all sides. While looking pretty horrendous it was done without removing any bulkheads or the furniture so the cost of fixing is far more manageable than many think, even after a severe grounding. It also looks pretty fuckin tough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/59103003@N05/sets/72157644503649396/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Wess

Firstly the guy at Farr says "Just to be 100% clear, at FYD we have no knowledge of the Beneteau dealer recommended repair procedure. That by itself is a pretty worrying. Even if that was followed, we don't necessarily know that it would be sufficient".

I think Farr designed their first Beneteau in the late 80's. That is nearly 30 years ago. The hull liner laminate design method they inherited as it pre-dated that first design commission, therefore that aspect of the design in structural sufficiency terms probably largely sits with Beneteau not Farr. 

In that regard I have technical papers published by Beneteau from that era that address repair procedures post grounding when cracking in the hull liner is evident. Wether those papers made it through to the digital storage age at Beneteau or not and are available today, I don't know.

That aside there have been countless repairs carried out around the world to boats incorporating hull liners over the last 30+ years and undertaken with obviously varying degrees of competency, budget quantum allocated to it and with or without surveyor input. Many would have been the subject of insurance claims  where you would  assume there would possibly be the involvement of a number of expert parties to the repair.

Therefore this aspect of shock horror as if this is the first occurrence and the wider industry being unaware of detection and repair procedures for hull liner boats I simply don't buy. I suggest it more a case of a boat repair industry that is largely unregulated, likes to be unregulated until something goes catastrofuck wrong like here, then they all point their fingers at the manufacturer.

Secondly, your question about surveyors looking for original designer sign-off. Individual surveyors have their own quirks. Some won't take a dump unless someone else signs off on it, some think they know more than the original designer and experienced boat builder combined and there are those in the middle.

Everyone forgets that these hull liner boats are manufactured to a standard and the vast majority operate without incident within that standard. They are are pain in the arse to inspect structurally and it costs money to do that and rectify if something is busted. Drive one of these things hard and that hassle and cost is multiplied.

Easilly forgotten during the debate on design adequacy is this particular boat was a race version of the 40.7 with unforgiving grey sails that was raced hard offshore and by race charterers from the day it was born. Even if it had a company skipper on board, groundings would not have got a lot of airtime I suspect. If there was a boat on planet earth that screamed out for more attention than others, this was it. Did the owner have the budget to do that, who knows? Is it expensive to repair, not really relative to value and a large part probably recoverable if sold to or with a knowledgeable party involved.

It was also a commercial vessel and had a MCA code Category 2 that allowed it 60 mile offshore and that required regular inspection. It didn't have a Category 0 coding compliance for Ocean Crossings and it's Category 2 inspection date expired before it left the Caribbean. Therefore what occurred is that it left England on a round trip of the Atlantic where no accredited inspection was made just before it left and no inspection was to be done at the other end prior to its return. So no one with accreditation and expertise had a look at it and it was uncertified for what it was doing, save for when racing around the balmy isles of the Caribbean. If someone had looked at it, it I suspect it wouldn't have been allowed to leave England. 

If you don't equip and maintain any vessel consistent with its usage, environment and or certification then you can expect the obvious to occur. If you don't like what that entails with a particular design, simple, pay more and buy something else. 

 

That was unexpectedly rational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing about surveyors in this capacity. Perhaps it is different in Australia or Britain, but in the USA an "accredited surveyor" generally means no more than someone who has paid some association fees. Many of them cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. To assess damage to a boat with this kind of construction you really need an experienced boatbuilder with some engineering talent, and be prepared to do some destructive inspection. 

While $10K - $20K for the rebuild might be expensive to some, I think you have a good chance of recovering a large percentage of that on resale. You can advertise it as "not broken" with some confidence, because nothing is hidden under the covers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DDW I think it was you who came up with the incline the boat on hoist with a laser reference mark between keel top and roof test. It was a goodie. If not my apologies to who ever it was. While I have not seen the laser bit certainly some incline action on the hoist with boards up and someone inside is the first step to gauge what is happening and a quick check. Maybe even a simple water level to measure the rotation used. Then if necessary when bolts are out /or nuts off the process of dropping the keel and breaking the bond between keel top and the hull also tells you a lot about what is happening either side of the keel before the next stage if need be of some destructive examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that was me, I had forgotten about it. To make it useful, you would have to characterize it across known good and bad boats to come up with a range of acceptable/unacceptable values, and prove that it works. As an owner, you could do baseline measurements and see if it changes.

You don't need a hoist, you could to it floating in your slip inclining with a halyard. It would cost you about $20 in equipment and a few minutes time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the first 18 months I'm organising to have the keel inspected when we pull her out for her first antifoul. No particular reason (whales notwithstanding) except I'm firmly of the belief that maintenance is important. Serious fuckups always seem to stem from a minor series of events, and I believe a good maintenance plan should mitigate the risk of this ever occurring to me (I hope).

Call me paranoid, but I've only got one keel bolt!  :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a good idea DDW though on the hoist you can also observe what is happening to outer skin not just liner and give it some tapping before and after rotating to each point to see if there is any variance between the three positions. Maybe also best done with tension out of the rig 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Wess

Firstly the guy at Farr says "Just to be 100% clear, at FYD we have no knowledge of the Beneteau dealer recommended repair procedure. That by itself is a pretty worrying. Even if that was followed, we don't necessarily know that it would be sufficient".

I think Farr designed their first Beneteau in the late 80's. That is nearly 30 years ago. The hull liner laminate design method they inherited as it pre-dated that first design commission, therefore that aspect of the design in structural sufficiency terms probably largely sits with Beneteau not Farr. 

In that regard I have technical papers published by Beneteau from that era that address repair procedures post grounding when cracking in the hull liner is evident. Wether those papers made it through to the digital storage age at Beneteau or not and are available today, I don't know.

That aside there have been countless repairs carried out around the world to boats incorporating hull liners over the last 30+ years and undertaken with obviously varying degrees of competency, budget quantum allocated to it and with or without surveyor input. Many would have been the subject of insurance claims  where you would  assume there would possibly be the involvement of a number of expert parties to the repair.

Therefore this aspect of shock horror as if this is the first occurrence and the wider industry being unaware of detection and repair procedures for hull liner boats I simply don't buy. I suggest it more a case of a boat repair industry that is largely unregulated, likes to be unregulated until something goes catastrofuck wrong like here, then they all point their fingers at the manufacturer.

Secondly, your question about surveyors looking for original designer sign-off. Individual surveyors have their own quirks. Some won't take a dump unless someone else signs off on it, some think they know more than the original designer and experienced boat builder combined and there are those in the middle.

Everyone forgets that these hull liner boats are manufactured to a standard and the vast majority operate without incident within that standard. They are are pain in the arse to inspect structurally and it costs money to do that and rectify if something is busted. Drive one of these things hard and that hassle and cost is multiplied.

Easilly forgotten during the debate on design adequacy is this particular boat was a race version of the 40.7 with unforgiving grey sails that was raced hard offshore and by race charterers from the day it was born. Even if it had a company skipper on board, groundings would not have got a lot of airtime I suspect. If there was a boat on planet earth that screamed out for more attention than others, this was it. Did the owner have the budget to do that, who knows? Is it expensive to repair, not really relative to value and a large part probably recoverable if sold to or with a knowledgeable party involved.

It was also a commercial vessel and had a MCA code Category 2 that allowed it 60 mile offshore and that required regular inspection. It didn't have a Category 0 coding compliance for Ocean Crossings and it's Category 2 inspection date expired before it left the Caribbean. Therefore what occurred is that it left England on a round trip of the Atlantic where no accredited inspection was made just before it left and no inspection was to be done at the other end prior to its return. So no one with accreditation and expertise had a look at it and it was uncertified for what it was doing, save for when racing around the balmy isles of the Caribbean. If someone had looked at it, it I suspect it wouldn't have been allowed to leave England. 

If you don't equip and maintain any vessel consistent with its usage, environment and or certification then you can expect the obvious to occur. If you don't like what that entails with a particular design, simple, pay more and buy something else. 

 

 

Alt_221.jpg

 

5 hours ago, DDW said:

That was unexpectedly rational. 

 

1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

He has his moments.


Put it down to upping the dose of my Don't be a Cunt pills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I inspected a Starrat Jenks Beneteau that had been through Superstorm Sandy and completely destroyed. Out of 30+ boats I inspected, only the Beneteau was unsalvageable. The top sides and hull had delaminated to the point that the entire exterior of the hull felt like a hard boiled egg with the shell cracked but not removed. There was no need for a hammer test. The interior was in utter chaos. For shits and giggles I dug down through the mess just to check out the grid. It was in perfect condition with no obvious sign of damage. The symmetrical holes in and around it were from the torn off keel with bolts and washers laying next to the hull. This boat had been on land with most of the others I looked at. Apparently the matrix grid didn't handle the loading very well. I thought it was a pretty lousy method of attaching a keel to the hull to say the least...

Why would you take a thinly built hull with a lousy keel structure and offer them as charter boats when you could just sit on your ass and let other builders construct proper boats with proven engineering. 

I see Beneteau's up for sale and I cringe.

 

Hey SailboatLooter. You say "I inspected a Starrat Jenks  Beneteau" WTF is that?

Anyway I remember now seeing your Craigslist advert for 33 x Marine Propane Oven/Hob's, 128 x winches of various sizes, boxes of electronic equipment and 14 X Beneteau keel bolts Inc washers and nuts and all listed as guaranteed hurricane proof. I thought at the time the latter offering was a steal as any spares are sitting at the bottom of the ocean I'm told.

Your obviously very handy with a Sabre Saw...and you clearly managed to make enough money to keep your crack coke addiction going strong to this day? Well done son.

PS. Apologies all but not even the extra pill dosage could stop me replying to this trolling fuckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shaggybaxter said:

After the first 18 months I'm organising to have the keel inspected when we pull her out for her first antifoul. No particular reason (whales notwithstanding) except I'm firmly of the belief that maintenance is important. Serious fuckups always seem to stem from a minor series of events, and I believe a good maintenance plan should mitigate the risk of this ever occurring to me (I hope).

Call me paranoid, but I've only got one keel bolt!  :( 

It's not how long your keelboat is it is what you do with it that counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Hey SailboatLooter. You say "I inspected a Starrat Jenks  Beneteau" WTF is that?

Anyway I remember now seeing your Craigslist advert for 33 x Marine Propane Oven/Hob's, 128 x winches of various sizes, boxes of electronic equipment and 14 X Beneteau keel bolts Inc washers and nuts and all listed as guaranteed hurricane proof. I thought at the time the latter offering was a steal as any spares are sitting at the bottom of the ocean I'm told.

Your obviously very handy with a Sabre Saw...and you clearly managed to make enough money to keep your crack coke addiction going strong to this day? Well done son.

PS. Apologies all but not even the extra pill dosage could stop me replying to this trolling fuckwit.

Starrett and Jenks was a company that bought the hull and deck molds for the Morgan 45, and sold hull and deck kits to DIYers back in the 70s. I am not aware of any relationship with Beneteau boats, and I doubt it exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

This is an example of a fix on a Beneteau after a major prang or series of smaller ones where the pinned section of liner above the keel shat itself and simply cutting out the liner bottoms and tabbing the box section either side wasn't going to cut the mustard. Also it shows albeit on a sectional retro basis what those are calling manufacturers to now implement for semi-monocoque construction in production boats. As anyone can appreciate the additional labour required and fall off in production simply means production builders won't ever contemplate such a move except for a semi-custom line if they have one.

Ironically Beneteau used to have a semi custom division and produced a Farr 60 in the early 90's to take on Nautor and others using exactly this hand lay up grid method and it cost a bomb.

This guy has removed the keel, cut the liner out entirely behind and either side of the keel, ground it down, added laminate to the hull in that area and extending it up the sides of the keel-box with major tabbing between the two. New sections of liner made in the shop have no bottoms other than a flange so it can be tabbed on all sides. While looking pretty horrendous it was done without removing any bulkheads or the furniture so the cost of fixing is far more manageable than many think, even after a severe grounding. It also looks pretty fuckin tough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/59103003@N05/sets/72157644503649396/

The photos in the linked album are of a First 36.7, which is similar in construction to a 40.7, albeit using more robust plates under the keel bolt nuts and 1000 kg less keel weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

@lb , why are americans irritating on this sailingforum while in real life the 're nice ? Last 20 years i visited the states a lot , last year I was special invited to the yacht club on Martha's Vineyard , every one was very nice to me.

Everywhere I come Spain/Uk etc sailors are also nice people.

 

But this forum is only for frustraded sailors ?

 

If it is , I 'm at the wrong place and better leave it to "high volume frustrated posters " ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, euro sailer said:

 

better leave it to "high volume frustrated posters " ?

 

 

giphy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Hey SailboatLooter. You say "I inspected a Starrat Jenks  Beneteau" WTF is that?

 

Probably thinking of a Berret Starck. Close, but no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, euro sailer said:

@lb , why are americans irritating on this sailingforum while in real life the 're nice ? Last 20 years i visited the states a lot , last year I was special invited to the yacht club on Martha's Vineyard , every one was very nice to me.

Everywhere I come Spain/Uk etc sailors are also nice people.

 

But this forum is only for frustraded sailors ?

 

If it is , I 'm at the wrong place and better leave it to "high volume frustrated posters " ?

 

 

Wander over to Cruising Anarchy, much friendlier crowd overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, RKoch said:

One of the problems with cutting out the grid and replacing with floors/ longitudinals is that the keelbolts also pass through the pans...hull itself is likely not thick enough nor strong enough,  and will have to be built up with several layers of glass before you even begin to glass in structure. It will require expert design and oversight, which will run up the cost further. I can't imagine it being a viable option. It's looking like the two options are tabbing the grid back to hull, or scrapping the boat.

 

16 hours ago, LB 15 said:

I cringe when I read shit like this. Sorry sail4catspiss but your little story doesn't pass the sniff test. The Beneteau that you 'inspected' (Bwahahaha) in your little fantasy, was it a 40.7? If it was what was its name so we could confirm this tale? Or have you conveniently forgotten? 

You say that the keel was ripped off and the bolts and washers were lying next to the boat. So did 'superstorm sandy' reach down the companion way and undo the nuts on the  the keelbolts? because I am fucked if I know how the washers came to be lying around under the boat if the keelbolts had been pulled through. You also claim the keel bolts were lying next to the boat. How did they come to be removed from the top of the keel? That Sandy was a vindictive bitch...

This is like a Brent Swain story. But instead of the storm destroying every GPR boat in the anchorage, in your fairy tale it only destroyed the Beneteau's.

Ok Troll. First off I would scrap the boat after the professional surveyor said that keel was a fucked area as would RKoch. Secondly, it was a 33' with the nuts and washers attached to the keel. As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded well with 5200 tight to the soft eggshell hull that you defend relentlessly. 

You rent out boats that you say need keels dropped re tabbed new layers of glass and it's better than new. You now have a shit cruising boat with a cored hull built for inshore weekend warriors aka your elite clientele. Make sure when you sell your business's "yacht" you don't disclose a fucking word to the poor Aussie bastard about soft groundings on your Barrier Reef or whatever your customers fucking nail and his surveyors miss and put a stamp of approval on your mod/fuck fix. Good luck.

Nobody reading this thread is going to buy a Beneteau. Let's have a vote people. I cast mine as NO. Other than you and Jack Spew oh shitting on every response here this thread is pretty interesting...and Jack, saying that the kid who died on Rafeeki after looking at the keel bolts and thinking it's Facebook or a stereo hookup was pretty low, even for me. This whole thread is about the tragic loss of lives and how to prevent it. Dropping the keel and $9000 US to check on the possible life threatening condition of the keelbolts is a sound investment as and a couple of bucks more and new keelbolts make the world of difference in any boat. Of course, I wouldn't waste my money on a Beneteau ;)

As far as the only boat completely wrecked. Out of 65,000 boats damaged in 2012, many were truly fucked, I can send you pics galore. Most were big sport fishers and he like. The sailboats fared better overall and only a couple of Hunter 42's and a Hunter 53' were holed and crushed compared to great looking Morgans, pearsons, Catalina's , Bavarias and Nautors all repaired and back in service. Hunters and Beneteau's crushed between real grp boats. 

 

When Bob Perry calls me out for whatever you guys are, I'll send him the pics of the Beneteau because HE might know what he's looking at

P.S. don't stop being a dick it's fun to learn that someone is more of a whiny cunt than me. Come to the States and I'd trust you to take whichever boat of mine you want for as long as you want...the keel won't fall off and the boats are as real as yours whether you believe it or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey SailboatLooter. You say "I inspected a Starrat Jenks  Beneteau" WTF is that?
4 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Probably thinking of a Berret Starck. Close, but no cigar.

Berret Starck only did 35' and 41' Benny's. He and the surveyor were looking at a 33'??? Berret Racoupeau did a First 33.7.

Both obviously clueless as each other or a story with more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the back peddling is almost deafening. At least he put the washers and nuts back on the keel bolts for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:
Hey SailboatLooter. You say "I inspected a Starrat Jenks  Beneteau" WTF is that?

Berret Starck only did 35' and 41' Benny's. He and the surveyor were looking at a 33'??? Both obviously clueless as each other or a story with more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

They dis a 32s5 as well.

 

 

4 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

 

Ok Troll. First off I would scrap the boat after the professional surveyor said that keel was a fucked area as would RKoch. Secondly, it was a 33' with the nuts and washers attached to the keel. As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded well with 5200 tight to the soft eggshell hull that you defend relentlessly. 

You rent out boats that you say need keels dropped re tabbed new layers of glass and it's better than new. You now have a shit cruising boat with a cored hull built for inshore weekend warriors aka your elite clientele. Make sure when you sell your business's "yacht" you don't disclose a fucking word to the poor Aussie bastard about soft groundings on your Barrier Reef or whatever your customers fucking nail and his surveyors miss and put a stamp of approval on your mod/fuck fix. Good luck.

Nobody reading this thread is going to buy a Beneteau. Let's have a vote people. I cast mine as NO. Other than you and Jack Spew oh shitting on every response here this thread is pretty interesting...and Jack, saying that the kid who died on Rafeeki after looking at the keel bolts and thinking it's Facebook or a stereo hookup was pretty low, even for me. This whole thread is about the tragic loss of lives and how to prevent it. Dropping the keel and $9000 US to check on the possible life threatening condition of the keelbolts is a sound investment as and a couple of bucks more and new keelbolts make the world of difference in any boat. Of course, I wouldn't waste my money on a Beneteau ;)

As far as the only boat completely wrecked. Out of 65,000 boats damaged in 2012, many were truly fucked, I can send you pics galore. Most were big sport fishers and he like. The sailboats fared better overall and only a couple of Hunter 42's and a Hunter 53' were holed and crushed compared to great looking Morgans, pearsons, Catalina's , Bavarias and Nautors all repaired and back in service. Hunters and Beneteau's crushed between real grp boats. 

 

When Bob Perry calls me out for whatever you guys are, I'll send him the pics of the Beneteau because HE might know what he's looking at

P.S. don't stop being a dick it's fun to learn that someone is more of a whiny cunt than me. Come to the States and I'd trust you to take whichever boat of mine you want for as long as you want...the keel won't fall off and the boats are as real as yours whether you believe it or not.

 

5200 bonding the grid? The bonding methods have been discussed at length but if you think that was what you were looking at, you were unobservant.

`a couple of bucks more and new keelbolts' The point is that on a 40.7 they are cast into the keel. You will be trucking the keel off to Mars before any keelbolts get replaced in a boatyard for a couple of bucks.

 

There you go... a polite civilized response. Drab and devoid of humour.

Give me a LB/JS joke any day. (well most of them)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

 

Ok Troll. First off I would scrap the boat after the professional surveyor said that keel was a fucked area as would RKoch. Secondly, it was a 33' with the nuts and washers attached to the keel. As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded well with 5200 tight to the soft eggshell hull that you defend relentlessly. 

You rent out boats that you say need keels dropped re tabbed new layers of glass and it's better than new. You now have a shit cruising boat with a cored hull built for inshore weekend warriors aka your elite clientele. Make sure when you sell your business's "yacht" you don't disclose a fucking word to the poor Aussie bastard about soft groundings on your Barrier Reef or whatever your customers fucking nail and his surveyors miss and put a stamp of approval on your mod/fuck fix. Good luck.

Nobody reading this thread is going to buy a Beneteau. Let's have a vote people. I cast mine as NO. Other than you and Jack Spew oh shitting on every response here this thread is pretty interesting...and Jack, saying that the kid who died on Rafeeki after looking at the keel bolts and thinking it's Facebook or a stereo hookup was pretty low, even for me. This whole thread is about the tragic loss of lives and how to prevent it. Dropping the keel and $9000 US to check on the possible life threatening condition of the keelbolts is a sound investment as and a couple of bucks more and new keelbolts make the world of difference in any boat. Of course, I wouldn't waste my money on a Beneteau ;)

As far as the only boat completely wrecked. Out of 65,000 boats damaged in 2012, many were truly fucked, I can send you pics galore. Most were big sport fishers and he like. The sailboats fared better overall and only a couple of Hunter 42's and a Hunter 53' were holed and crushed compared to great looking Morgans, pearsons, Catalina's , Bavarias and Nautors all repaired and back in service. Hunters and Beneteau's crushed between real grp boats. 

 

When Bob Perry calls me out for whatever you guys are, I'll send him the pics of the Beneteau because HE might know what he's looking at

P.S. don't stop being a dick it's fun to learn that someone is more of a whiny cunt than me. Come to the States and I'd trust you to take whichever boat of mine you want for as long as you want...the keel won't fall off and the boats are as real as yours whether you believe it or not.

 

Just in case there was anyone reading this who may have been giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might not be a complete and utter bullshitting moron, this post should get them over the line. The evil and weak Beanteau's crushed by the strong and good Morgans and Bavaria's. YCMTSU. 

You can have my winey cunt crown. I am not worthy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Wander over to Cruising Anarchy, much friendlier crowd overall.

Or for a real eye opener , pop into PA. don't make eye contact with anyone, just stay near the door and observe.

you will find us Auusies can hold our own in the deauchbag stakes on that board...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, euro sailer said:

@lb , why are americans irritating on this sailingforum while in real life the 're nice ? Last 20 years i visited the states a lot , last year I was special invited to the yacht club on Martha's Vineyard , every one was very nice to me.

Everywhere I come Spain/Uk etc sailors are also nice people.

 

But this forum is only for frustraded sailors ?

 

If it is , I 'm at the wrong place and better leave it to "high volume frustrated posters " ?

 

 

You might just be a bit over-sensitive to hang around here.....this is a tough room.

IMG_20170514_152157.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

....As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded well with 5200 tight to the soft eggshell hull that you defend relentlessly....

Stick the hull liner laminate down with 5200??? Those poor girls in Accounts Receivables at 3M are going to be up all night looking for these missing Beneteau invoices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2017-5-13 at 10:24 AM, jack_sparrow said:

This is an example of a fix on a Beneteau after a major prang or series of smaller ones where the pinned section of liner above the keel shat itself and simply cutting out the liner bottoms and tabbing the box section either side wasn't going to cut the mustard. Also it shows albeit on a sectional retro basis what those are calling manufacturers to now implement for semi-monocoque construction in production boats. As anyone can appreciate the additional labour required and fall off in production simply means production builders won't ever contemplate such a move except for a semi-custom line if they have one.

Ironically Beneteau used to have a semi custom division and produced a Farr 60 in the early 90's to take on Nautor and others using exactly this hand lay up grid method and it cost a bomb.

This guy has removed the keel, cut the liner out entirely behind and either side of the keel, ground it down, added laminate to the hull in that area and extending it up the sides of the keel-box with major tabbing between the two. New sections of liner made in the shop have no bottoms other than a flange so it can be tabbed on all sides. While looking pretty horrendous it was done without removing any bulkheads or the furniture so the cost of fixing is far more manageable than many think, even after a severe grounding. It also looks pretty fuckin tough.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/59103003@N05/sets/72157644503649396/

 

16 hours ago, J28 said:

The photos in the linked album are of a First 36.7, which is similar in construction to a 40.7, albeit using more robust plates under the keel bolt nuts and 1000 kg less keel weight.

Thanks J. I can't recall where I got that link from but I do remember the guy saying it took him around 100 manhours plus materials and yard time. If you do the maths that is not a lot for a 36' and on a LOA and Value basis would be cheaper again for a bigger boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is My Beach Ball experience from Friday.

A photo for the Coroner before getting on board...

Displaying IMG_5669.JPG

Quick check of the killer keel bolts before heading off...

Displaying IMG_5682.JPG

Returning safely passing under the rainbow arch erected by the Sydney city council in recognition of all Beach ball sailors.

Displaying IMG_5678.JPG

And know one died! Thank God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LB as you seem to be having trouble uploading them pics I got some kid while I was waiting for a train to hack your phone...the train pulled into the station so he only had time to grab this one....you clearly went the extra mile to prove beach ballers are tougher than many think.

 

20090710_103538_Yacht_on_the_ro.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

..and Jack, saying that the kid who died on Rafeeki after looking at the keel bolts and thinking it's Facebook or a stereo hookup was pretty low, even for me. 

And Mr Sail4aBlowJob...I didn't say he died you swallower  ...you know why?? that guy looking at the bilge in the pic is alive and well today because that pic was taken on Cheeki in England many miles and many moons before you lying greasy fuckwit.   

post-8534-0-80523900-1401281443_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

....As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded well with 5200 tight to the soft eggshell hull that you defend relentlessly....

4 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Stick the hull liner laminate down with 5200??? Those poor girls in Accounts Receivables at 3M are going to be up all night looking for these missing Beneteau invoices.

And while I'm at you slanderous useless cunt ...I will give you a tip.. you bait your own hook so well. Firstly I bet you can't quote one source in this and other forum threads, the MAIB report etc about Beneteau eggshell hull layups (well at least below the waterline...the punters want some light) and if you find just one of substanceI I will send someone around to your place at my expense to give you a blow job for a change....and I promise they would not have just got out of prison ..trust me.

In this one paragraph in addition to that and your 5200 nonsence you say "As I said, the matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded" 

So in your words we have a Beneteau on the beach, has gone through an event so severe the fuckin keel bolt nuts were sucked off and the keel and bolts separated from hull yet you say the "matrix looked fine and the rest of the boat was shot. It was still bonded" 

I hope you realise saying all this and supposedly in the company of a surveyor very hull liner laminate boat builder on planet earth will be chasing you two dudes down for the photo evidence you say you have including no doubt evidence of no liner hull laminate separation that you speak of after such a benchmark event. You are causing quite a stir out in boatbuilding land I'm sure.

You might end up being famous and be offered a free Beneteau...which I'm sure you would knock back having regard for your principles.

Please don't come back here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

LB as you seem to be having trouble uploading them pics I got some kid while I was waiting for a train to hack your phone...the train pulled into the station so he only had time to grab this one....you clearly went the extra mile to prove beach ballers are tougher than many think.

 

20090710_103538_Yacht_on_the_ro.jpg

That boat is actually a Sadler Starlight 35: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1198156/High-dry-Boat-ends-grounded-rocks-yacht-race.html

But hey, don't let the facts get in your way

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck that wasn't LB doing some serious beach ball testing this weekend to stick it up you handwringers...well I take it all back TwoLegs you are the veritable genius if not the internet detective. I gave that friggen kid $20 to get the scoop..Now I'm feeling just like a member of your humourless and no knowledge club. While an exclusive gathering I'm not happy being a new member.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

no knowledge club

... says man who spoils his joke by posting a pic of a Beneteau which isn't a Beneteau. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

 

In reference to your earlier question; yes I've sailed a 40.7.  No, I have not rebuilt one but I'm not such a wanker as to believe that the MAIB and others who have expressed reservations about some construction techniques are wrong. And if you read instead of just slinging shit to satisfy your ego, you may have noticed that I didn't criticise 40.7s or Bennys in particular. Nor am I sorry for being concerned about building techniques that kill people.

And no, you're not actually a member of some funny guy club - you just come across as some sad dill who tries to build himself up by putting other people down. It's not working.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites