• 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.  
Sign in to follow this  
Knut Grotzki

Brenta 60 Minnic stoned

Recommended Posts

What a mess. From our friends at BLUR

 

brenta60-lostkeel-770x770.jpg

 

 

http://www.blur.se/2016/07/31/brenta-60-minnic-tappade-bulben-efter-grundstotning/

 

Rough Translation:

 

"Brenta 60 Minnic sailed ÅF Offshore Race earlier in July. During the holiday sailing in the Stockholm archipelago seems to have gone on a basis of Möja Västerfjärd . The stone stood at 2.2 meters and the boat stand 3.3 .

Christopher Carlbom , who was on location , type of no- crew on Facebook.
60 -foot sailboat with five people on board , including 2 teenagers , ran aground on which the keel was broken off and overturned . We picked up a person from the water and rescued by another boat to get on board the other . That was the case very well, only minor injuries and a very traumatized guy. But after a few hours at the rescue station with drink and debriefing , we can now check them in the inn .

 

The important thing is that it went well for everyone on board. Shit happens , and everyone can go to the foundation. It is perhaps not optimal to do it with this type of boat, but I have difficulty seeing how to build boats that can withstand everything it can expose them to ?

Heard the way to a much more regular boat had lost its bulb at Bohus race . There came , however, in the country without the boat tipped ...

The boat was previously named UCA and so it can look like when a Brenta 60 is not upside- down:" - www.blur.se

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It stayed on the ground underwater.

 

 

So did this one

 

2c13cac3ea3faf11829f4939a4_5f34061f.jpg

Where and what's the story behind that shot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This eerie ghost ship is the Mar Sem Fim, a Brazilian yacht that was shipwrecked near Ardley Cove in Antarctica. A Brazilian crew had taken it to film a documentary, but strong winds and stormy seas forced the crew to abandon ship. The water that washed over the ship froze, cracked its hull and sunk the yacht, but it has since been salvaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4:43 it seems the Swedes like to bang their boats into big rocks

 

https://youtu.be/gTVdHzIgGZg

Ja ja, shit happens. There are stones an rocks everywhere, it is just a question of when, not if. You have seen the vid about the Linjett 40 designed to hit ? Not by random.

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

 

this is the former Luca Brenta Yacht Design partner, Lorenzo Argento, responsible for the design work on the B60. So far all we know is what we can see from the pictures as we did not speak with the people on board and also the builder does not know anything yet. Nevertheless, I wanted to come back to your community as you have reported the news.

 

Keel design for any yacht designer is the most delicate structural element and factor of safety are very large, particularly on a fast "cruising" vessel like the B60. Grounding load cases, in particular, are considered as one of the various load cases.

 

The debate is always between how strong the boat structure shall be versus the keel+bulb structure. Meaning that if you hit a rock, either the boat (keel floors, keel panels etc) collapse under the impact load to a point where the boat may eventually sink...or alternative the keel breaks...leaving the boat without keel and therefore she will ultimately capsize. This in general terms the worst case scenarios.

 

I witnessed my self a 77ft sloop hitting the Lavezzi rock at speed and sinking soon after. The good thing was that as the boat structure broke (causing her to sink) there was a lot less deceleration of the boat as a whole, which is ultimately did not leave anybody hurt. Try to imagine to steering a boat that goes from 10 knots to 0 in less than a second....you may save the boat, but this could cause a lot of damage to the crew. Is like crashing with a car….something has to take the load, minimizing the impact on the human body. In the other scenario, the deceleration is taken by the “soft” lead bulb….which ultimately transmit the load to the keel and than to the boat. The important thing is to reduce at maximum the deceleration……which may mean sinking the boat, but it also means saving lives.

 

From what it is shown from the pics, the boat clearly lost her bulb. The early report says that they hit a 2.2 mt rock with a 3.3 mt deep keel. My only hypothesis at this point is that the way they hit the rock has phisically (think of a rock with a step....or something similar) snatched off the bulb. At this moment I can not think of anything else. Further investigation may prove if this is the case or not.

 

Ultimately, the most important thing is that nobody got hurt and they are all safe at home.

 

Secondly we may learn a further lesson from this case, but for sure I would like to keep it very public and let people know what has happened as it did not happen under “standard” circumstances but evidently as a result of a human error (think of the Volvo Vests “flying” on the rock at 19 knots).

 

I will keep you posted, as soon as I will learn more.

 

Regards

 

Lorenzo Argento

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a nasty stone at 2.2 m in the middle of a very white area on the chart. Thus nothing that de-accelerates until just the bulb (and probably only the bulb) hit the stone while the rest of the boat continues.

 

We all run aground up here, it is inevitable. Most often softer groundings as most boats draft is more limited, mostly 2 m or less. Stockholm archipelago is not fully chartered, and most of those areas that are said to be were measured ~100 years ago. Also commercial ships, even with pilots, run aground now and then.

 

Now and then there are cases when parts of the keel, or the complete keel, is broken away. There are some fun stories about Bavarias where the crew did not notice the lack of keel ....

 

As of yesterday the boat was still said to be drifting, no one picking it up. Is it a total loss just because of turtling?

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a nasty stone at 2.2 m in the middle of a very white area on the chart. Thus nothing that de-accelerates until just the bulb (and probably only the bulb) hit the stone while the rest of the boat continues.

 

We all run aground up here, it is inevitable. Most often softer groundings as most boats draft is more limited, mostly 2 m or less. Stockholm archipelago is not fully chartered, and most of those areas that are said to be were measured ~100 years ago. Also commercial ships, even with pilots, run aground now and then.

 

Now and then there are cases when parts of the keel, or the complete keel, is broken away. There are some fun stories about Bavarias where the crew did not notice the lack of keel ....

 

As of yesterday the boat was still said to be drifting, no one picking it up. Is it a total loss just because of turtling?

 

J

can anyone grab it at this point and own it by bringing it to port?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is a nasty stone at 2.2 m in the middle of a very white area on the chart. Thus nothing that de-accelerates until just the bulb (and probably only the bulb) hit the stone while the rest of the boat continues.

 

We all run aground up here, it is inevitable. Most often softer groundings as most boats draft is more limited, mostly 2 m or less. Stockholm archipelago is not fully chartered, and most of those areas that are said to be were measured ~100 years ago. Also commercial ships, even with pilots, run aground now and then.

 

Now and then there are cases when parts of the keel, or the complete keel, is broken away. There are some fun stories about Bavarias where the crew did not notice the lack of keel ....

 

As of yesterday the boat was still said to be drifting, no one picking it up. Is it a total loss just because of turtling?

 

J

can anyone grab it at this point and own it by bringing it to port?

 

lettes go! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks tricky to learn sail around archipelagos.

 

I understand why Folkan is such a good boat for those places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in National waters.

 

depends on nation, doesn't it?

 

An abandon boat, just drifting - that is clearly possible to claim. At least in Scandinavian waters.

 

But not so easy, mast is on, probably stuck in the mud somewhere. Sails could be there as well. the boat cannot be towed into any harbour in that way it has to be turned right first. For this something substantial is needed. Preferably also some divers to check everything before and during turning. So this will be expensive.

 

At the same time some "experts" has claimed the boat to be total loss. If so, it would be difficult to regain the expenses for saving the boat.

(I have my doubts, but value has certainly dropped)

 

We'll see

 

/J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rough day for crew, glad all are safe. I do from time to time roll a dinghy to inspect the bottom during a race just to be sure we're clear of weeds ;)

 

Weed check gone wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to someone who saw the AIS track the boat was doing only 6.8 knots just before the hit. That is quite a slow speed for a boat cabable of doing 10 knots in 10 knots wind, having a boat speed of about 9 knots on a beat and while cruising on engine.

 

The severity of running aground doesn't just depend on speed, but also very much on the geometry and material of the ground. But I'm still suprised that running aground at such a slow speed (for the boat) resulted in such a disasterous outcome. What kind of groundings should a boat like this handle without sinking or capsizing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not in National waters.

 

depends on nation, doesn't it?

 

An abandon boat, just drifting - that is clearly possible to claim. At least in Scandinavian waters.

 

But not so easy, mast is on, probably stuck in the mud somewhere. Sails could be there as well. the boat cannot be towed into any harbour in that way it has to be turned right first. For this something substantial is needed. Preferably also some divers to check everything before and during turning. So this will be expensive.

 

At the same time some "experts" has claimed the boat to be total loss. If so, it would be difficult to regain the expenses for saving the boat.

(I have my doubts, but value has certainly dropped)

 

We'll see

 

/J

 

I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not in National waters.

 

depends on nation, doesn't it?

 

An abandon boat, just drifting - that is clearly possible to claim. At least in Scandinavian waters.

 

But not so easy, mast is on, probably stuck in the mud somewhere. Sails could be there as well. the boat cannot be towed into any harbour in that way it has to be turned right first. For this something substantial is needed. Preferably also some divers to check everything before and during turning. So this will be expensive.

 

At the same time some "experts" has claimed the boat to be total loss. If so, it would be difficult to regain the expenses for saving the boat.

(I have my doubts, but value has certainly dropped)

 

We'll see

 

/J

 

I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

 

So if ownership can't be had by salvaging the wreck I would assume the responsibility for environmental impact and hazard to navigation still rests with the current owner and he/she needs to get it cleaned up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Not in National waters.

 

depends on nation, doesn't it?

 

An abandon boat, just drifting - that is clearly possible to claim. At least in Scandinavian waters.

 

But not so easy, mast is on, probably stuck in the mud somewhere. Sails could be there as well. the boat cannot be towed into any harbour in that way it has to be turned right first. For this something substantial is needed. Preferably also some divers to check everything before and during turning. So this will be expensive.

 

At the same time some "experts" has claimed the boat to be total loss. If so, it would be difficult to regain the expenses for saving the boat.

(I have my doubts, but value has certainly dropped)

 

We'll see

 

/J

 

I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

 

So if ownership can't be had by salvaging the wreck I would assume the responsibility for environmental impact and hazard to navigation still rests with the current owner and he/she needs to get it cleaned up?

 

The owner is responsible to to clean it up and if he doesn't do it then it becomes a legal matter that can sometimes take years to solve according what I've read. Swedish justice system is very different from the US system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Not in National waters.

 

depends on nation, doesn't it?

 

An abandon boat, just drifting - that is clearly possible to claim. At least in Scandinavian waters.

 

But not so easy, mast is on, probably stuck in the mud somewhere. Sails could be there as well. the boat cannot be towed into any harbour in that way it has to be turned right first. For this something substantial is needed. Preferably also some divers to check everything before and during turning. So this will be expensive.

 

At the same time some "experts" has claimed the boat to be total loss. If so, it would be difficult to regain the expenses for saving the boat.

(I have my doubts, but value has certainly dropped)

 

We'll see

 

/J

I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

So if ownership can't be had by salvaging the wreck I would assume the responsibility for environmental impact and hazard to navigation still rests with the current owner and he/she needs to get it cleaned up?

The owner is responsible to to clean it up and if he doesn't do it then it becomes a legal matter that can sometimes take years to solve according what I've read. Swedish justice system is very different from the US system.

Your timely and concise responses regarding swedish law and the theoretical current state of this vessel is much appreciated and quite interesting. The govt has to sue the current owner for damages when and if they occur and can be proven yet for a third party to legally salvage the clearly abandoned vessel the owners permission or govt permission must be obtained. Therefore if the vessel does not leak diesel and just bobs around near the shore causing little hazard to navigation it will just sit there until someone breaks the law and scuttles it so they dont have to look at it anymore? If the owner has any integrity as a user of the beautiful water in your country he/she would clean it up. And as for the laws, you guys need to fix that shit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

 

 

Well, I do dispute that on more than one level. I base this on the book(s) by professor Hugo Tiberg who is the most experienced sea lawyer in Sweden.

1) an abandoned boat drifting, every one is entitled to try to rescue. Encouraged even.

2) a successful rescue will result in some compensation. The amount is settled by the parties (or their representatives) or by a court.

3) to ensure compensation the rescuer can claim the boat. This doesn't mean the rescuer owns the boat, but means the rescuer has the boat until a compensation has been agreed.

4) The Supreme court in Sweden does not write the laws, they interpret the laws. (Here me and KareL are aligned, it seems). Thus, the law may say one thing and the Supreme court another (unusual, but happens).

 

Of course a boat in danger may be saved without asking the owner (if no one is onboard) or a court. Saving the boat is one operation, the compensations and other such aspects is another.

 

Actually, I am more interested if the Brenta is a total loss or not. It is said to be a very expensive boat ($ 2-3 M has been mentioned), constructed in carbon. Water in Stockholm area hardly contains any salt - many occasions where sunk boats has been taken up and used again, even the engines!

 

/J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I just read through Swedish law and the Supreme court interpretation of the law and my conclusion in this case is that you cannot claim this wreck without getting either a court decision or the legal owner's permission.

 

 

Well, I do dispute that on more than one level. I base this on the book(s) by professor Hugo Tiberg who is the most experienced sea lawyer in Sweden.

1) an abandoned boat drifting, every one is entitled to try to rescue. Encouraged even.

2) a successful rescue will result in some compensation. The amount is settled by the parties (or their representatives) or by a court.

3) to ensure compensation the rescuer can claim the boat. This doesn't mean the rescuer owns the boat, but means the rescuer has the boat until a compensation has been agreed.

4) The Supreme court in Sweden does not write the laws, they interpret the laws. (Here me and KareL are aligned, it seems). Thus, the law may say one thing and the Supreme court another (unusual, but happens).

 

Of course a boat in danger may be saved without asking the owner (if no one is onboard) or a court. Saving the boat is one operation, the compensations and other such aspects is another.

 

Actually, I am more interested if the Brenta is a total loss or not. It is said to be a very expensive boat ($ 2-3 M has been mentioned), constructed in carbon. Water in Stockholm area hardly contains any salt - many occasions where sunk boats has been taken up and used again, even the engines!

 

/J

 

Hi Jaramaz

I do agree with all 4 points but you can not claim the boat without getting the owners or the courts permission if there is a owner of the boat. You are allowed to get compensation for your cost and labor for salvaging a vessel but the compensation is not as high as in other countries, not even close. There are circumstances when you are allowed to claim a vessel but not as long as someone else still has the legal ownership. Sweden is a very god country get in distress at sea because it will not cost you ridiculous amount money to get help. If there is danger for the crews health than the rescue is normally free of charge even if you get help from non government organisation. You are not at risk at loosing the ownership of your boat or getting a ridiculous high charges for getting help when you are at distress in Swedish waters. My experience is that most people will help you free of charge. Stockholm archipelago is a fantastic place to sail in during the summer but you cannot stop navigating due to the 24 000 islands and skerries and probably even more hidden rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This eerie ghost ship is the Mar Sem Fim, a Brazilian yacht that was shipwrecked near Ardley Cove in Antarctica. A Brazilian crew had taken it to film a documentary, but strong winds and stormy seas forced the crew to abandon ship. The water that washed over the ship froze, cracked its hull and sunk the yacht, but it has since been salvaged.

Glad to know it was pulled...thanks. Makes me feel better about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, back when dirt was still being made, you lost your boat outside the 3-mile, it was fair game salvage...without the bull. Greedy gut laws changed that, but still a swab loses a rig, regardless of cause, some means of righting things must be considered, if for no reason than leaving a place better for having been...just cuz we don't live there offers no right to intrude or maim...I think too many of us on water forget what is below the keel. (End of rant. Sorta sorry, but...) You get my drift!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill all the lawyers first...from Henry play called Henry something and scripted by a certain English Earl, not you know who! Like the oly, religion and more, clods will believe anything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boat is now salvaged and docked in central Stockholm waiting for a full inspection. http://www.hamnen.se/artiklar/nyheter/kapsejsade-lyxbaten-bogserad-i-hamn.html

thanks K. Link did not work for me. It would be interesting given your laws how the salvage was motivated and funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this