Jump to content


J80 Loses Keel


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#1 Harry Manko

Harry Manko

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts

Posted 01 June 2008 - 09:58 PM

It was blowing 30 knots, and perhaps the amount of time she spent on a broach did it in. Nobody wants this to happen to themselves or another competitor.


Attached File  Keel_Loss_.mov   292.58K   2685 downloads

#2 Kaptainkriz

Kaptainkriz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,897 posts
  • Location:Chesapeake Bay / Potomac River
  • Interests:Sailing, duh!
    Tanzer 25 #28, Akoni
    Capri 30 #11, Rock Lobster (sold)
    http://www.tqci.net/~jkriz/Tanzer25.html

Posted 01 June 2008 - 10:34 PM

bummer, no fun at all. :(

at least it floats........

It was blowing 30 knots, and perhaps the amount of time she spent on a broach did it in. Nobody wants this to happen to themselves or another competitor.
Attached File  Keel_Loss_.mov   292.58K   2685 downloads



#3 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 01 June 2008 - 11:30 PM

Great, well run event with great race committee work. Too bad this overshadows it.

#4 Walrus

Walrus

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 06:49 AM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.

Let me tell you what my Dad told me about age of Nine when I was starting to sail.


...If the wind blows too hard, the sails will blow out, and the keel will right the boat.

...If it's blowing even harder, and you have storm sails out, then the mast will go, and the keel will right the boat.

...If you get picked up and dumped by a fucking giant wave, the sails will go, the mast will go, but that's OK, the keel will right the boat.

....The keel will never, ever come off the boat unless you hit a whale or a rock very, very , very hard, in which case it's going to be the least of your problems, or unless you are to criminally insane to do even the bare minimum of maintenance on it.


Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?

#5 CJV

CJV

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,127 posts
  • Location:Long Island, NY

Posted 02 June 2008 - 09:56 AM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.

Let me tell you what my Dad told me about age of Nine when I was starting to sail.
...If the wind blows too hard, the sails will blow out, and the keel will right the boat.

...If it's blowing even harder, and you have storm sails out, then the mast will go, and the keel will right the boat.

...If you get picked up and dumped by a fucking giant wave, the sails will go, the mast will go, but that's OK, the keel will right the boat.

....The keel will never, ever come off the boat unless you hit a whale or a rock very, very , very hard, in which case it's going to be the least of your problems, or unless you are to criminally insane to do even the bare minimum of maintenance on it.
Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?

Dude, I like the failure mode progression, it makes sense. But your closing statement/question suggests that "some of [SA's] retards" allow designers to build sport boats poorly. That doesn't make sense. SA's retards are responsible for a lot of anarchy, but not for that..

#6 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:21 PM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.

Let me tell you what my Dad told me about age of Nine when I was starting to sail.
...If the wind blows too hard, the sails will blow out, and the keel will right the boat.

...If it's blowing even harder, and you have storm sails out, then the mast will go, and the keel will right the boat.

...If you get picked up and dumped by a fucking giant wave, the sails will go, the mast will go, but that's OK, the keel will right the boat.

....The keel will never, ever come off the boat unless you hit a whale or a rock very, very , very hard, in which case it's going to be the least of your problems, or unless you are to criminally insane to do even the bare minimum of maintenance on it.
Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?


You are a total dumbass. There are over 1000 J80's built and this is the first one that I know of that has had a keel problem. Your dad sailed in a different time. He has good advice for people sailing Island Packets or something. Not for anything that will break the elusive 5kn barrier. Most of you have seen this but I'll whore it out again for this guy that is a total hater.

http://youtube.com/r...mp;search_type=

#7 Footlong

Footlong

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts
  • Location:Lawnguyland
  • Interests:Member # 175

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:31 PM

You are a total dumbass. There are over 1000 J80's built and this is the first one that I know of that has had a keel problem. Your dad sailed in a different time. He has good advice for people sailing Island Packets or something. Not for anything that will break the elusive 5kn barrier. Most of you have seen this but I'll whore it out again for this guy that is a total hater.

http://youtube.com/r...mp;search_type=



x2

J80's are great boats.

#8 Heatwave80

Heatwave80

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:04 PM

Cannot download the movie for some reason. Anyone know the cause of the keel loss? I have owned and raced J-80's since 2000 and never had a moment when I felt unsafe or in any danger, regardless of the conditions. These builts are built to handle very tough conditions - in fact two guys sailed one acress the Atlantic earlier this year and encountered no problems even in very adverse weather.

#9 Stiffler's Mom

Stiffler's Mom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 702 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Fuck you you nosy bastard...

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:37 PM

Would love pics of the stubbie. I agree, these boats are brick shithouses and loosing a keel is very odd. Anyone know the hull #?

#10 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:41 PM

Would love pics of the stubbie. I agree, these boats are brick shithouses and loosing a keel is very odd. Anyone know the hull #?

Its hull number 21 from the early 90s. There is no stub as the keel didn't break off at the sump. The whole sump broke off. The bottom is smooth at this point with an 8 inch wide by 4 foot long hole in the bottom and peeled fiberglass on both sides of the hole.

#11 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:46 PM

Would love pics of the stubbie. I agree, these boats are brick shithouses and loosing a keel is very odd. Anyone know the hull #?


Check out the other thread about the same boat. Decent pics there.

#12 Canal Bottom

Canal Bottom

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Location:Jupiter Island

Posted 02 June 2008 - 01:55 PM

A keel should never ever fall or break off. The keel failures are no different than airplane wing failures or jet engines falling off in flight. When that happens the entire fleet is grounded until the industry figures our why the first one failed. We should do the same with sailing. No boats of the types involved in the rudder and keel failure this week should be leaving the dock until we agree on why it happened and how to correct the problems that in my opinion always start with the design.


The chance of death is too great to deal with this in any way.

#13 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:30 PM

x2

J80's are great boats.


Well, maybe nopt this one then so much.

Keel should never leave the boat on a monohull; just like a multi should never sink.

Come on, J-boats and or TPI have a hell of a string going on...

These are not some extreme VO70s.

The freaking keel should stay attached the boat. :blink:

#14 sailman

sailman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,687 posts
  • Location:Portsmouth, RI

Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:35 PM

Once again this thread is useless without pics. There is a root cause to this failure and bashing JBoats will not find it.

#15 Pooch692000

Pooch692000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 579 posts
  • Location:Eastern, Long Island

Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:42 PM

cant open video. any chance of making it compatible with windows media?

#16 -Q-

-Q-

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Location:41-08 / 72-18

Posted 02 June 2008 - 02:44 PM

Other thread, pics, and more information here.

-- Q

#17 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 02 June 2008 - 03:07 PM

Well, maybe nopt this one then so much.

Keel should never leave the boat on a monohull; just like a multi should never sink.

Come on, J-boats and or TPI have a hell of a string going on...

These are not some extreme VO70s.

The freaking keel should stay attached the boat. :blink:


Since it is the only 80 in a string of over 1000 of them that has had a keel prob and it is one of the earliest ones built and has been raced since it was built....... I'd say it is either a really weird fluke, it was previously grounded hard or dropped from a lift, or it has just had poor care and was beat all it's life.

I owned 8 really high milage Volvos before I had one with engine problems. It was just a poorly treated car. I still drive Volvos. I would have no problem with sailing any J80 anyplace.

#18 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:02 PM

Since it is the only 80 in a string of over 1000 of them that has had a keel prob and it is one of the earliest ones built and has been raced since it was built....... I'd say it is either a really weird fluke, it was previously grounded hard or dropped from a lift, or it has just had poor care and was beat all it's life.

I owned 8 really high milage Volvos before I had one with engine problems. It was just a poorly treated car. I still drive Volvos. I would have no problem with sailing any J80 anyplace.

I'm not a J-boat hater.

Think.

What were you wearing and what were conditions and water temp when you went flying down the bay. Imagine if...

One is one too many, the pics don't suggest poor care, and J-boats and TPI have a string going don't they. Too many problems across range of J-boats designs/TPI mfg for there not to be some root cause other than grounding or poor care I'll bet.

At some point you have to conclude where there is smoke...

#19 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:18 PM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.

Let me tell you what my Dad told me about age of Nine when I was starting to sail.
...If the wind blows too hard, the sails will blow out, and the keel will right the boat.

...If it's blowing even harder, and you have storm sails out, then the mast will go, and the keel will right the boat.

...If you get picked up and dumped by a fucking giant wave, the sails will go, the mast will go, but that's OK, the keel will right the boat.

....The keel will never, ever come off the boat unless you hit a whale or a rock very, very , very hard, in which case it's going to be the least of your problems, or unless you are to criminally insane to do even the bare minimum of maintenance on it.
Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?


What did you dad sail, a Hinkley. Yeah that'll get you roud the cans fast. Just in case you did'nt know the J80 is a perfomance design with a limited life span not a tub that is ofshore capable. Jeesss.

#20 FasterThanYou

FasterThanYou

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 89 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:34 PM

Yeah its completely normal for the keel to fall off boats all the time... lol. But shouldn't the deck peel off first cause if it doesn't how can the rest of the hull delaminate as its meant too?

#21 sailman

sailman

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,687 posts
  • Location:Portsmouth, RI

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:38 PM

Looking at those pics it looks like delamination was the probable cause of the failure.

What caused the delam?
  • Poor layup? Kind of doubtful given the age of the boat.
  • Prior grounding not repaired properly? Maybe.
  • Design flaw? Doubtful.
Will Museler

#22 Boudreaux

Boudreaux

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 314 posts
  • Location:da Sliver by da River.

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:38 PM

Is the J80 SCRIMP'ed? We've just done a bunch of exploratory surgery on the sump of a J160 and it had major defects in the infusion that led to major defects in the keel sump. It is a non-trivial problem to infuse the sump on these boats. You'll never hear it from TPI, but I'd bet they have changed their infusion process and lamination schedule around that since they have lost all these keels on every different flavor of J-Sprit boat they build.

Problem is that if the problem is not caught on the factory floor, there is no reasonable way for a buyer to know if there is a latent defect that could one day lead to this.

#23 Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,142 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:41 PM

Looks an awful lot like the same problem that the J120s (and at least one 124) and some 109s have been having as documented on SA. Difference was the bigger boats caught it earlier.

#24 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:42 PM

Is the J80 SCRIMP'ed? We've just done a bunch of exploratory surgery on the sump of a J160 and it had major defects in the infusion that led to major defects in the keel sump. It is a non-trivial problem to infuse the sump on these boats. You'll never hear it from TPI, but I'd bet they have changed their infusion process and lamination schedule around that since they have lost all these keels on every different flavor of J-Sprit boat they build.

Problem is that if the problem is not caught on the factory floor, there is no reasonable way for a buyer to know if there is a latent defect that could one day lead to this.



I'm guessing the age of this one is non scrimp.

#25 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:43 PM

Yeah its completely normal for the keel to fall off boats all the time... lol. But shouldn't the deck peel off first cause if it doesn't how can the rest of the hull delaminate as its meant too?

Nobody is saying that it is normal, but everyone is jumping to conclusions. This is a 15 year old boat and although Tom has had the boat many years, he is not the original owner. This isn't like those Megles 30s right out of the box when their keels fell off. It's entirely possible that this boat might have a history that my give a clue as to why this happened. I'm sure, in time they'll figure out why and how this happened and I'm sure J Boats is as anxious to know as anybody. There are 1000 J 80s out there including the one where those 2 nuts sailed accross the Atlantic. This is the first one that this has happened to. Lets see what they find out.

#26 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:45 PM

I'm not a J-boat hater.

Think.

What were you wearing and what were conditions and water temp when you went flying down the bay. Imagine if...

One is one too many, the pics don't suggest poor care, and J-boats and TPI have a string going don't they. Too many problems across range of J-boats designs/TPI mfg for there not to be some root cause other than grounding or poor care I'll bet.

At some point you have to conclude where there is smoke...



You're looking at a wide range of J boats having keel problems. 109's and 124's having some problems has absolutely nothing to do with a pre scrimp 80 having a problem. Also, as I've pointed out before..........more than 1000 J80s out there sailing around and only one has had a keel issue. I think it's that particular 80. Not all 80s.

#27 Wess

Wess

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 04:50 PM

You're looking at a wide range of J boats having keel problems. 109's and 124's having some problems has absolutely nothing to do with a pre scrimp 80 having a problem. Also, as I've pointed out before..........more than 1000 J80s out there sailing around and only one has had a keel issue. I think it's that particular 80. Not all 80s.

Yea, I agree. I'm not suggesting a problem with all 80s. But I am saying that too many J-boats pre and post scrimp that have come out of TPI have had keel problems for all of them to be grounding or poor care problems.

#28 Heatwave80

Heatwave80

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 02 June 2008 - 05:26 PM

Definitely a pre-SCRIMP boat. Obviously an isolated incident given the number of 80's sailing for many years with no problems. I am willing to bet there is more to the story and it will eventually come out. I too am sure that J boats is keen to find the cause. They made good on a damaged part of my boat when it was 8 years old after factory testing determined it was a manufacturing defect.

#29 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:02 PM

The Good guys just won their arbitration case.

#30 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:04 PM

At the risk of being flamed out, who was the arbitration against?

#31 Footlong

Footlong

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts
  • Location:Lawnguyland
  • Interests:Member # 175

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:04 PM

That's good for those guys!

#32 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:06 PM

At the risk of being flamed out, who was the arbitration against?

Against the insurance company that denied the claim when the keel fell off in 30 knots and rough seas.

#33 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:09 PM

At the risk of being flamed out, who was the arbitration against?

Against the insurance company that denied the claim when the keel fell off in 30 knots and rough seas.


Interesting. Any info on what the insurance Co. determined the cause of loss to be?

#34 Koozie

Koozie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:10 PM

Woo hoo! :D

#35 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:17 PM

At the risk of being flamed out, who was the arbitration against?

Against the insurance company that denied the claim when the keel fell off in 30 knots and rough seas.


Interesting. Any info on what the insurance Co. determined the cause of loss to be?

No info yet. The insurance companies OPINION was that the failure was caused by delamination over a long period of time that the owner should have seen. This, in spite of the fact that the owner presented maintenence reciepts which had included a complete bottom job the year before. The loss was caused by the boat being on its side for an extended period of time in 30 knot winds and big waves. The boat bounced up and down repeatedly until the keel broke off. The boat had been very well cared for. It was a shame the company denied the claim and it took a year and a half for justice.

#36 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,999 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 03 September 2009 - 04:23 PM

Name the insurer.

#37 OC 103

OC 103

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 346 posts
  • Location:Long Island
  • Interests:sailing

Posted 03 September 2009 - 10:12 PM

Wasn't there another one that lost it's keel coming into San Francisco bay last year?

#38 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,686 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 03 September 2009 - 10:20 PM

Wasn't there another one that lost it's keel coming into San Francisco bay last year?



YES - the guys got lucky and were rescued in the dark outside the GG while hanging onto the upturned hull. From all reports sounded to be the exact same sort of failure hull skins peeled away and the keel made a fast exit.

#39 Beau.Vrolyk

Beau.Vrolyk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,269 posts
  • Location:San Francisco & Santa Cruz
  • Interests:Sailing on any and everything that floats. Skiing when the rainfall turns semi-solid and white.

Posted 03 September 2009 - 11:53 PM

Wasn't there another one that lost it's keel coming into San Francisco bay last year?



YES - the guys got lucky and were rescued in the dark outside the GG while hanging onto the upturned hull. From all reports sounded to be the exact same sort of failure hull skins peeled away and the keel made a fast exit.



This is becoming a pattern. How many is this in total? I think I recall at least 4 over the years.

#40 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 04 September 2009 - 12:23 AM

Wasn't there another one that lost it's keel coming into San Francisco bay last year?



YES - the guys got lucky and were rescued in the dark outside the GG while hanging onto the upturned hull. From all reports sounded to be the exact same sort of failure hull skins peeled away and the keel made a fast exit.



This is becoming a pattern. How many is this in total? I think I recall at least 4 over the years.

I believe the total is now two. The insurance company that incorrectly denied the claim is International Marine Underwriters.

#41 1topfueljim

1topfueljim

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:SoCal

Posted 04 September 2009 - 02:00 AM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.

Let me tell you what my Dad told me about age of Nine when I was starting to sail.
...If the wind blows too hard, the sails will blow out, and the keel will right the boat.

...If it's blowing even harder, and you have storm sails out, then the mast will go, and the keel will right the boat.

...If you get picked up and dumped by a fucking giant wave, the sails will go, the mast will go, but that's OK, the keel will right the boat.

....The keel will never, ever come off the boat unless you hit a whale or a rock very, very , very hard, in which case it's going to be the least of your problems, or unless you are to criminally insane to do even the bare minimum of maintenance on it.
Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?


You are a total dumbass. There are over 1000 J80's built and this is the first one that I know of that has had a keel problem. Your dad sailed in a different time. He has good advice for people sailing Island Packets or something. Not for anything that will break the elusive 5kn barrier. Most of you have seen this but I'll whore it out again for this guy that is a total hater.

http://youtube.com/r...mp;search_type=

Since the actual count is apparently two, and using your own math, it is like: "Over a million Mustangs have been built, and only 2000 of them have had all four wheels fall off at freeway speeds. What's the problem?"



#42 NoobyDoo

NoobyDoo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 06:33 AM

Obviously you don't seem to have a quality boat there.
Obviously, the J80 must have had a shit of a designer.
...Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?

You are a total dumbass. There are over 1000 J80's built and this is the first one that I know of that has had a keel problem. ...
Since the actual count is apparently two, and using your own math, it is like: "Over a million Mustangs have been built, and only 2000 of them have had all four wheels fall off at freeway speeds. What's the problem?"

I love Js, but if 2000 (or 200 or even 20) Mustangs (or any car) had a failure of that magnitude no matter what the production run, there would be a recall, lawsuits, public outcry, etc., etc. Short of hitting something really hard, keels shouldn't be falling off boats, and given that this has happened a number of times with Js it's fair to ask what's up. Oops, must have dropped my iPhone while I was texting this, cuz the screen just blew out.

#43 Moonduster

Moonduster

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,260 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 09:41 AM

NoobyDoo,

You're smoking crack when you try to compare the auto industry to the marine industry. First, the auto industry builds far, far more (think 100s of thousands) of each model and, therefore, has the ability to do lots more testing of production samples than is possible when building a few hundred of a yacht.

Second, how many Pintos were involved in fatal rear-end collisions before Ford decided that perhaps a recall was really less expensive than litigation?

Gimme a break!

#44 Flyer32445

Flyer32445

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Bristol RI

Posted 04 September 2009 - 12:42 PM

another thing to think about in this is most speed shops fair the keel and sump down to get to minimal thickness of the foil, if they remove too much material on the sump. If they did not do internal lamination to replace the missing material/account for the now reduced "ibeam" effect of the outer skins the chance of failure would go up a bit

#45 12345

12345

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,042 posts
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 04 September 2009 - 01:25 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.

#46 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 04 September 2009 - 01:57 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.



Yeah, just what I was thinking. I've raced prob hundreds of J's but have never once raced any of my cars. There is no comparison with anything cuz there isn't any production car that is built in masses that is only gonna be raced.

#47 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 04 September 2009 - 02:53 PM

another thing to think about in this is most speed shops fair the keel and sump down to get to minimal thickness of the foil, if they remove too much material on the sump. If they did not do internal lamination to replace the missing material/account for the now reduced "ibeam" effect of the outer skins the chance of failure would go up a bit


This is a little off base. There is no I beam effect because the sump or stub is a monolithic F.R.P. layup with no core material.

#48 Flyer32445

Flyer32445

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Location:Bristol RI

Posted 04 September 2009 - 05:55 PM

the distance off centerline of the laminate is the issue, it why you gain strength from a wide section like in a mast

#49 Bulbhunter

Bulbhunter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,686 posts
  • Interests:SA is DEAD

Posted 04 September 2009 - 06:03 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.


Besides if this is really bothering you there is a simple fix - don't buy a Jboat ha ha...

#50 NoobyDoo

NoobyDoo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 07:59 PM

NoobyDoo,

You're smoking crack when you try to compare the auto industry to the marine industry. First, the auto industry builds far, far more (think 100s of thousands) of each model and, therefore, has the ability to do lots more testing of production samples than is possible when building a few hundred of a yacht.

Second, how many Pintos were involved in fatal rear-end collisions before Ford decided that perhaps a recall was really less expensive than litigation?

Gimme a break!

Who's on crack? I didn't make the comparison, I pointed out the fallacy of the comparison.

As for Pintos, who's comparing boats and cars now? Anyway, since you brought it up, J Boats ought to learn from Ford's mistake . . . unless you're suggesting more keels need to fall off more boats and some sailors should die before J Boats gives this more than lip service.

By the way, I used to have a boat with a sump -- not a J -- and guess what, it had a keel problem, as in keel no longer hanging straight and water coming in due to flexing. Guess what the insurance company told me? "We ain't paying because it's an inherent defect." In hindsight, I'm not sure they were wrong.

#51 movable ballast

movable ballast

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,030 posts
  • Location:San Diego

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:12 PM

A keel should never ever fall or break off. The keel failures are no different than airplane wing failures or jet engines falling off in flight. When that happens the entire fleet is grounded until the industry figures our why the first one failed. We should do the same with sailing. No boats of the types involved in the rudder and keel failure this week should be leaving the dock until we agree on why it happened and how to correct the problems that in my opinion always start with the design.


The chance of death is too great to deal with this in any way.


Realy? How much do you want to pay for these boats that never fail? Do you want to subject your boat to a total teardown every so many miles to assure the design continues to be robust? Grow a brain, sportboats (if you can call a J80 a sportboat) are like sports cars. They are built to a specification in order to be competitive. Should all cars be "grounded" because a Formula 1 car fails during a race? How do you know the designer is at fault? Maybe the boat had been dropped in a past life. Is that the designers fault.

#52 NoobyDoo

NoobyDoo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:13 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.

Yeah, just what I was thinking. I've raced prob hundreds of J's but have never once raced any of my cars. There is no comparison with anything cuz there isn't any production car that is built in masses that is only gonna be raced.

You're both missing (and at the same time proving) the point. Production cars are designed and built for tooling to the market, or commuting to work, or taking the kids to soccer, or heading up the highway to visit grandma. They are not designed or built for screaming sideways around corners and through traffic at breakneck speeds with a bunch of other wack jobs in hot pursuit, and that's not how they are ordinarily used. Well, at least not by anyone outside of Oakland. On the other hand, modern sport boats are designed and built precisely for that kind of use, and that's precisely how they are used. It's a simple question of whether the design and construction is adequate for the expected use. From there, it's just an argument over what percentage of the time having the keel fall off comes under the heading "shit happens," and when it gets to the point where "this kind of shit should not be happening." Personally, I don't think a long broach ought to cause the keel to come off, but hey, the pipe is coming around so I'll give it some more thought while I take the next drag.

#53 rfield

rfield

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Location:Essex, VT

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:21 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.



Yeah, just what I was thinking. I've raced prob hundreds of J's but have never once raced any of my cars. There is no comparison with anything cuz there isn't any production car that is built in masses that is only gonna be raced.


http://www.fordracin...ionhomepage.asp

Ford has been selling turnkey racecars since 2005.

#54 bjmoose

bjmoose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Location:Mountain View, CA
  • Interests:Laser sailing in district 24.<br /><br />Formerly, J24 racing in Fleet 17.

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:26 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

#55 NoobyDoo

NoobyDoo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:36 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

Right. The keel that fell off Heat Wave happened way after this. We should be talking about that one instead.

#56 From the Helm

From the Helm

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts

Posted 04 September 2009 - 08:55 PM

All you Chicken Little' out there, trying to compare a boat to a car is like comparing a orange to a pumpkin. Sure both are orange but there is a huge difference in the wear and tear of a Yacht vs. a Car. I have raced many a J in my life 24, 105, 109, 130 and never had a worry about their seaworthiness. Sometimes bad things happen no need to circle the wagons wrap yourself in Pillows and cry.



Yeah, just what I was thinking. I've raced prob hundreds of J's but have never once raced any of my cars. There is no comparison with anything cuz there isn't any production car that is built in masses that is only gonna be raced.


http://www.fordracin...ionhomepage.asp

Ford has been selling turnkey racecars since 2005.


Race cars come with all sorts of restrictions as to intended use and risk. If you want to compare race cars to race boats there are certainly comparisons, both are stressed beyond design and both are expected to break.

That said, you don't expect the frame in a race car to break, unless you have been over the same curb a bunch of times really hard.

#57 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 04 September 2009 - 09:16 PM

the distance off centerline of the laminate is the issue, it why you gain strength from a wide section like in a mast


At the risk of being contrary, that is not quite accurate either. While the laminate structure for the sump/stub is monolithic, the entire sump/stub is hollow and is additionally reinforced by F.R.P. transverse floors. The floors act to increase the torsional stiffness of the entire structure.

Personally I do not see any real adverse effects from a standard fairing job, removing too much of the F.R.P. laminate.

However, if there was a shear failure of the floors from the hull and sump/stub area, this could well lead to a failure of the F.R.P. structure.

Either way the keel should not have failed under the mode of operation that this boat was under at the time of the loss.

#58 Madmax

Madmax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,779 posts
  • Location:Santa Barbara
  • Interests:Sailing Surfing Flying Skiing

Posted 05 September 2009 - 12:05 AM

The keel should NEVER (with a emphasis on NEVER) fall off!!!!

#59 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 12:27 PM

NoobyDoo,

You're smoking crack when you try to compare the auto industry to the marine industry. First, the auto industry builds far, far more (think 100s of thousands) of each model and, therefore, has the ability to do lots more testing of production samples than is possible when building a few hundred of a yacht.

Second, how many Pintos were involved in fatal rear-end collisions before Ford decided that perhaps a recall was really less expensive than litigation?

Gimme a break!

Who's on crack? I didn't make the comparison, I pointed out the fallacy of the comparison.

As for Pintos, who's comparing boats and cars now? Anyway, since you brought it up, J Boats ought to learn from Ford's mistake . . . unless you're suggesting more keels need to fall off more boats and some sailors should die before J Boats gives this more than lip service.

By the way, I used to have a boat with a sump -- not a J -- and guess what, it had a keel problem, as in keel no longer hanging straight and water coming in due to flexing. Guess what the insurance company told me? "We ain't paying because it's an inherent defect." In hindsight, I'm not sure they were wrong.


Let me guess, C+C?

#60 sailsd

sailsd

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 03:02 PM

"Personally I do not see any real adverse effects from a standard fairing job, removing too much of the F.R.P. laminate."
I am guessing either you have never really been envolved with composite engeneering, fairing race boats, or you haven't really thought about this. You are correct for a "standard" fairing job which invoves nothing more than sanding to a really smooth surface and probably doesn't even remove all of the gel coat. Many racers will fair the keel, and sump, to a minimum class overall thickness. If the keel started out too thick this may result in actual fibers being removed which WILL result in a loss of strength. This has the potential to be an issue with boats like the J which have a hollow sump that extends down from the hull.

If I were to have a boat where any of the actual laminate thickness was sanded away to make the keel profile thinner, I would be concerned. Especially in the area of the keel attachment. I have seen boats where the keel was atleast 1" over class minimum thickness. You don't think that removing 1/2" of material on each side of a hollow sump is not going to adversely effect the strenght?

I am not saying that this has happened with the J80, I don't know. I am just saying your statement is a little off.

#61 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 05 September 2009 - 04:18 PM

"Personally I do not see any real adverse effects from a standard fairing job, removing too much of the F.R.P. laminate."
I am guessing either you have never really been envolved with composite engeneering, fairing race boats, or you haven't really thought about this. You are correct for a "standard" fairing job which invoves nothing more than sanding to a really smooth surface and probably doesn't even remove all of the gel coat. Many racers will fair the keel, and sump, to a minimum class overall thickness. If the keel started out too thick this may result in actual fibers being removed which WILL result in a loss of strength. This has the potential to be an issue with boats like the J which have a hollow sump that extends down from the hull.

If I were to have a boat where any of the actual laminate thickness was sanded away to make the keel profile thinner, I would be concerned. Especially in the area of the keel attachment. I have seen boats where the keel was atleast 1" over class minimum thickness. You don't think that removing 1/2" of material on each side of a hollow sump is not going to adversely effect the strenght?

I am not saying that this has happened with the J80, I don't know. I am just saying your statement is a little off.



Having been involved in new build projects of both dinghies and keelboats, re-build projects, commissioning and rigging, delivery and racing, and project management since the early 80's, then Marine Surveying since 1990 and certified since '95, I'd say I have more than a fundamental level of understanding in composites, both as applied in new construction and repair.

As a Marine Surveyor, I am also very careful with my language, which is why I qualified my statement with the word standard.

I would suggest your understanding to be minimal. Anyone who considers fairing an F.R.P. laminate to include removal of said laminate beyond the veil coat laminate (1/2" in your statement), without replacement of an equivalent material, should not be allowed anywhere near a grinder or peeler, let alone anywhere near the bottom of a sailing boat, racer or cruiser.

#62 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 05 September 2009 - 06:24 PM

All right, I realize that my comment re: removing too much F.R.P. material was miscontrued. To be clear, I am stating that I doubt a standard fairing job would remove too much if any F.R.P. laminate.

#63 ducky

ducky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 07:42 PM

the keel including the sump disapeared from both boats that lost keels.

#64 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,836 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 05 September 2009 - 07:43 PM

Wait! Another J/80 lost its keel???!?!!11

#65 NoobyDoo

NoobyDoo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 05 September 2009 - 08:57 PM

NoobyDoo,

You're smoking crack when you try to compare the auto industry to the marine industry. First, the auto industry builds far, far more (think 100s of thousands) of each model and, therefore, has the ability to do lots more testing of production samples than is possible when building a few hundred of a yacht.

Second, how many Pintos were involved in fatal rear-end collisions before Ford decided that perhaps a recall was really less expensive than litigation?

Gimme a break!

Who's on crack? I didn't make the comparison, I pointed out the fallacy of the comparison.

As for Pintos, who's comparing boats and cars now? Anyway, since you brought it up, J Boats ought to learn from Ford's mistake . . . unless you're suggesting more keels need to fall off more boats and some sailors should die before J Boats gives this more than lip service.

By the way, I used to have a boat with a sump -- not a J -- and guess what, it had a keel problem, as in keel no longer hanging straight and water coming in due to flexing. Guess what the insurance company told me? "We ain't paying because it's an inherent defect." In hindsight, I'm not sure they were wrong.


Let me guess, C+C?

Pearson. Built a couple months before they went under.

#66 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 05 September 2009 - 10:21 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

THANK YOU! I brought it up because, at the time, many people wanted to know what happened with the arbitration. It took forever, but after a year and a half, the insurance company has been forced to pay their insured. Most companies would have paid right away, but this company chose to play hardball and ultimately lost. I wonder if Heat Wave's claim was paid without having to resort to lots of letters and ultimitely, arbitration. If it was handled properly, lets hear which company that was.

#67 Hitchhiker

Hitchhiker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Location:Saquo-Pilia Hensha

Posted 05 September 2009 - 11:24 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

THANK YOU! I brought it up because, at the time, many people wanted to know what happened with the arbitration. It took forever, but after a year and a half, the insurance company has been forced to pay their insured. Most companies would have paid right away, but this company chose to play hardball and ultimately lost. I wonder if Heat Wave's claim was paid without having to resort to lots of letters and ultimitely, arbitration. If it was handled properly, lets hear which company that was.


Sounds pretty much par for the course for IMU.

#68 ducky

ducky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 03:19 PM

so is it safe to sail a J-80 off-shore? latter boats less likley to lose keel? :unsure:

#69 slater-san

slater-san

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 04:06 PM

so is it safe to sail a J-80 off-shore? latter boats less likley to lose keel? :unsure:


It's "Offshore Certified" according to the J-boat's ad-men.

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.

And in the '70's Ford told you to take your Pinto for a drive on the freeway in heavy traffic.

#70 0000

0000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 04:20 PM

There have been several instances of keels falling off in the last few years. The ones I'm aware of where the cause was investigated are the Hooligan in 2007 and the Cynthia Woods in 2008. In both cases the investigation concluded the keel attachment structure was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts.

Does anyone know of any investigations and/or published conclusions regarding the cause of the other keel failures that have occured recently?

#71 magma

magma

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 05:32 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

Right. The keel that fell off Heat Wave happened way after this. We should be talking about that one instead.



Ironically it looks the owner of Heatwave replied to the original thread, long before his own keel fell off.

http://forums.sailin...p...t&p=1724199

#72 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,940 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 05:37 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

Right. The keel that fell off Heat Wave happened way after this. We should be talking about that one instead.



Ironically it looks the owner of Heatwave replied to the original thread, long before his own keel fell off.

http://forums.sailin...p...t&p=1724199

That would be the previous owner from TX - the boat was sold to a great guy in CA who was devastated by the loss. Heatwave had also been very well maintained with no signs of the impending failure.

Congrats on getting the insurance settlement - numbnutz company actions like that just create more lawyers.

#73 magma

magma

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 15 posts

Posted 06 September 2009 - 05:52 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

Right. The keel that fell off Heat Wave happened way after this. We should be talking about that one instead.



Ironically it looks the owner of Heatwave replied to the original thread, long before his own keel fell off.

http://forums.sailin...p...t&p=1724199

That would be the previous owner from TX - the boat was sold to a great guy in CA who was devastated by the loss. Heatwave had also been very well maintained with no signs of the impending failure.

Congrats on getting the insurance settlement - numbnutz company actions like that just create more lawyers.


Thanks for the backstory. Wouldn't wish that on anyone.

#74 Eric

Eric

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 918 posts
  • Location:Orcas Island, WA

Posted 07 September 2009 - 03:16 AM

so is it safe to sail a J-80 off-shore? latter boats less likley to lose keel?
It's "Offshore Certified" according to the J-boat's ad-men.
Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.
And in the '70's Ford told you to take your Pinto for a drive on the freeway in heavy traffic.

I owned a Pinto in the 70's. We called it the "traffic puck". We got no respect when driving that thing. It was brutal riding in rush hour traffic. After a couple of years it looked like Rocky Balbino after a fight. Kind of a lime green color.

Posted Image

#75 Heatwave80

Heatwave80

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 19 October 2009 - 03:03 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

THANK YOU! I brought it up because, at the time, many people wanted to know what happened with the arbitration. It took forever, but after a year and a half, the insurance company has been forced to pay their insured. Most companies would have paid right away, but this company chose to play hardball and ultimately lost. I wonder if Heat Wave's claim was paid without having to resort to lots of letters and ultimitely, arbitration. If it was handled properly, lets hear which company that was.

It is my understanding that the Heatwave claim was paid in a prompt, professional manner by the insurer (BOAT/US). I did speak to the claims adjuster and he asked some very intelligent questions but I never got the impression he was intending to deny the claim.

#76 ducky

ducky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,827 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 03:12 PM

so has j-boats stepped up to the plate and done the right thing, like admit to fuckin' up? :o :o

#77 slap

slap

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,105 posts
  • Location:Somewhat near Naptown

Posted 19 October 2009 - 03:39 PM

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair

#78 DDW

DDW

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 03:57 PM

There have been several instances of keels falling off in the last few years. The ones I'm aware of where the cause was investigated are the Hooligan in 2007 and the Cynthia Woods in 2008. In both cases the investigation concluded the keel attachment structure was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts.

Does anyone know of any investigations and/or published conclusions regarding the cause of the other keel failures that have occured recently?

It may be worth pointing out here (once again) that the ABS Guide is woefully inadequate, has not been updated in 15 years, and does not contemplate the sort of keels now being hung off of cheaply built production boats.

A sport boat built with a deep fin that only just made the ABS standard is not one that I would venture further from the dock than swimming distance. Increase the keel attachment strength by about 4X over that, and I am in. This is neither particularly difficult nor heavy.

#79 Randall Flagg

Randall Flagg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Location:out east

Posted 19 October 2009 - 04:14 PM

Not everyone realizes this is an OLD thread that has been bumped to the top so that the final insurance resolution with arbitration result could be published.

People - read through the whole thread before posting.

THANK YOU! I brought it up because, at the time, many people wanted to know what happened with the arbitration. It took forever, but after a year and a half, the insurance company has been forced to pay their insured. Most companies would have paid right away, but this company chose to play hardball and ultimately lost. I wonder if Heat Wave's claim was paid without having to resort to lots of letters and ultimitely, arbitration. If it was handled properly, lets hear which company that was.

It is my understanding that the Heatwave claim was paid in a prompt, professional manner by the insurer (BOAT/US). I did speak to the claims adjuster and he asked some very intelligent questions but I never got the impression he was intending to deny the claim.

The Slillagalee claim was paid 15 months after the claim. The insurance company denied the claim but after arbitration, they were forced to pay it.

#80 Anonymous Anarchist

Anonymous Anarchist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 04:28 PM

The purpose of Sailing Anarchy is not to create disorder.

The purpose of Sailing Anarchy is to preserve disorder.

Regards
aa

#81 Mash

Mash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 207 posts
  • Location:Lyon - Fr

Posted 19 October 2009 - 04:35 PM

There have been several instances of keels falling off in the last few years. The ones I'm aware of where the cause was investigated are the Hooligan in 2007 and the Cynthia Woods in 2008. In both cases the investigation concluded the keel attachment structure was inadequate and did not meet the requirements of the ABS Guide for Building and Classing Offshore Racing Yachts.

Does anyone know of any investigations and/or published conclusions regarding the cause of the other keel failures that have occured recently?



Here in Europe the fiasco of Bavaria Match 42's keels comes to mind, but I'm not sure final findings have been published.

M - I reckon all the boats were recalled by Bavaria for upgrade at some point, though

#82 0000

0000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 06:49 PM

A sport boat built with a deep fin that only just made the ABS standard is not one that I would venture further from the dock than swimming distance. Increase the keel attachment strength by about 4X over that, and I am in. This is neither particularly difficult nor heavy.


You may not get many chances to sail on a sport boat unless you can swim really far. I agree the ABS standard is light. 1.5X to 2X over ABS for the keel attachment is more in line with good engineering practice.

#83 mr_fabulous

mr_fabulous

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,984 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 07:01 PM

Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?


I think we have to consider the intent of the design for club racing vs. blue water racing or cruising. A perfomance based craft will have inherent design changes that challenge durability characteristics. Newer racing craft are lighter, faster and may be more prone to catastrophic failure as a result.

Oh, and BTW, your dad did not sail a schooner did he? :P

#84 0000

0000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:40 PM

Why the fuck do modern designers try to kill people by fucking with this simple and safe progressive set of failure modes, and more importantly why the fuck do some of you retards allow them to get away with it?


I think we have to consider the intent of the design for club racing vs. blue water racing or cruising. A perfomance based craft will have inherent design changes that challenge durability characteristics. Newer racing craft are lighter, faster and may be more prone to catastrophic failure as a result.


The boat buying public should not have to accept a greater risk of catastrophic failure just because a boat is newer, lighter, and faster. The buyer should not have to be responsible to take a guess as to the operating limits of the boat based on the unknown intent of the designer. Designer's have a responsibility to meet at least a minimum standard of safety such as ABS or ISO guidelines. We are finding out catastrophic failures have occured on boats that do not meet those minimum standards, even though the designer or builder has claimed they did. The truth is some modern designers don't have the engineering chops to do the keel attachment analysis in the first place. They get a pass because sailboat designers have been given an idolized status somewhere between surfboard shapers and professional golfers. We would never accept gross incompetence from other professions like dentistry or accounting. But if a keel falls off a sport boat, well that's just racing.

#85 bjmoose

bjmoose

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Location:Mountain View, CA
  • Interests:Laser sailing in district 24.<br /><br />Formerly, J24 racing in Fleet 17.

Posted 19 October 2009 - 09:51 PM

Folks! Read to the end of the thread before replying! Sheesh. You're replying to posts made a year and a half ago.

#86 0000

0000

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 19 October 2009 - 10:00 PM

Folks! Read to the end of the thread before replying! Sheesh. You're replying to posts made a year and a half ago.


I replied to a post made today. Just like you. Sheesh.

#87 jrpytlak

jrpytlak

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,731 posts
  • Location:Lake Champlain. Then Annapolis. Now Nor Cal

Posted 20 October 2009 - 01:33 PM

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair



Yeah, folks that rag on the Corvair usually know nothing about them. The second gen (65-69) handled like a wet dream for it's time. There are some dudes still vintage racing the early ones too. I do find that a little odd when there's so many cheap MG's out there to race that would prob be more fun......

#88 slater-san

slater-san

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts

Posted 20 October 2009 - 01:44 PM

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair



Yeah, folks that rag on the Corvair usually know nothing about them. The second gen (65-69) handled like a wet dream for it's time.

....which is why I said "early 60's". My Dad had a '61 which he has told me was "interesting" to drive on the local mountain roads as the outside rear wheel would "dig in" on tight corners. If there wasn't an issue with the swing arm rear suspension, then why would Chevy completely re-engineer it for the '64 model year? Especially when the rest of the '64 model was mostly the same as the '60-'63.

#89 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 20 October 2009 - 01:56 PM

The Corvair was no different than a swing axle Porsche, VW or Mercedes from back in the day.
The only diff was drivers of the German cars were assumed to be able to adapt to the car, while drivers of a Corvair were apparently thinking a rear engined turbocharged car would drive EXACTLY like a 1960 Chevy station wagon.
I was loaning my mid-engined car to my mother once and was in the middle of warning her about what would happen if you lift in the middle of a corner when she asked me if I remembered what kind of car she had when she was 16.
"A turbo Corvair"???
OK - skip the lift-throttle oversteer lecture :lol:

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair



Yeah, folks that rag on the Corvair usually know nothing about them. The second gen (65-69) handled like a wet dream for it's time. There are some dudes still vintage racing the early ones too. I do find that a little odd when there's so many cheap MG's out there to race that would prob be more fun......



#90 slap

slap

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,105 posts
  • Location:Somewhat near Naptown

Posted 20 October 2009 - 02:04 PM

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair



Yeah, folks that rag on the Corvair usually know nothing about them. The second gen (65-69) handled like a wet dream for it's time.

....which is why I said "early 60's". My Dad had a '61 which he has told me was "interesting" to drive on the local mountain roads as the outside rear wheel would "dig in" on tight corners. If there wasn't an issue with the swing arm rear suspension, then why would Chevy completely re-engineer it for the '64 model year? Especially when the rest of the '64 model was mostly the same as the '60-'63.

For the 1964 model, they added an additional transverse leaf spring in the rear, and a larger anti roll bar to the front. For the 1965 and later models, they completely redid the suspension and went to a four wheel independent suspension. Note that Nader's book came out in 1965, and would not have had anything to do with the above changes.

Interestingly, GM had planned to drop the Corvair after the 1966 model because of the new Camaro, but kept making it for 3 more years because they didn't want to appear pressured by Nader's book.

#91 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:04 PM

The Corvair was no different than a swing axle Porsche, VW or Mercedes from back in the day.
The only diff was drivers of the German cars were assumed to be able to adapt to the car, while drivers of a Corvair were apparently thinking a rear engined turbocharged car would drive EXACTLY like a 1960 Chevy station wagon.
I was loaning my mid-engined car to my mother once and was in the middle of warning her about what would happen if you lift in the middle of a corner when she asked me if I remembered what kind of car she had when she was 16.
"A turbo Corvair"???
OK - skip the lift-throttle oversteer lecture :lol:

Of course in the early '60's Chevy probably told it's customers the Corvair was a great car for a twisty mountain road.


"In what may be the automotive industryís greatest irony, NHTSA, the federal agency created from Naderís consumer advocacy, investigated the Corvair and issued a report in 1971 clearing the carís design, two years after the car went out of production.

Part of Naderís evidence against the Corvair was a promotional film created by Ford Motor Company, in which a Ford test driver purposely turned the Corvair in a way to make it spin around. Such films were not uncommon. GM also had films showing Ford Econoline pickups standing on their noses under heavy braking."

http://en.wikipedia....evrolet_Corvair



Yeah, folks that rag on the Corvair usually know nothing about them. The second gen (65-69) handled like a wet dream for it's time. There are some dudes still vintage racing the early ones too. I do find that a little odd when there's so many cheap MG's out there to race that would prob be more fun......


Exactly. Early 911's were notoriously bad behaved. Modern ones have tamed the beast, but they are still not as well balanced as a midengined Cayman. (where the engine should have been in a 911 all along)

#92 DDW

DDW

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,901 posts

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:07 PM

The truth is some modern designers don't have the engineering chops to do the keel attachment analysis in the first place. They get a pass because sailboat designers have been given an idolized status somewhere between surfboard shapers and professional golfers.

I agree 100%. And some very big names among them, too.

There is no reason for a keel to fall off a boat. The attachments required are not heavy, and after all, they are generally made of lead anyway. Design incompetence, or builder incompetence are the primary causes.

#93 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:19 PM

Major thread creep warning :o
THIS is why I hate the "too windy to race" crap, at least as applied to adults in keelboats. Light air racing breeds light air optimized boats (as in light boats) that beat their heavy built competition. When it finally gets heavy, they call the race - thus locking in the market for light boats - rinse - repeat --

The truth is some modern designers don't have the engineering chops to do the keel attachment analysis in the first place. They get a pass because sailboat designers have been given an idolized status somewhere between surfboard shapers and professional golfers.

I agree 100%. And some very big names among them, too.

There is no reason for a keel to fall off a boat. The attachments required are not heavy, and after all, they are generally made of lead anyway. Design incompetence, or builder incompetence are the primary causes.



#94 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:23 PM

Or 914, 914-6, 916GT, 917, Boxster, or any number of mid engined cars they made or make.
They had a marketing issue with putting the best engines in the 914, because then the "lower" model would kick the 911's ass. I raced against a 914 that had a hot 3 liter 6 transplanted into it and NOTHING could keep up with him. My paltry 2.1 liters wasn't even close.

Exactly. Early 911's were notoriously bad behaved. Modern ones have tamed the beast, but they are still not as well balanced as a midengined Cayman. (where the engine should have been in a 911 all along)



#95 Grrr...

Grrr...

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,413 posts
  • Location:Detroit

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:38 PM

You're looking at a wide range of J boats having keel problems. 109's and 124's having some problems has absolutely nothing to do with a pre scrimp 80 having a problem. Also, as I've pointed out before..........more than 1000 J80s out there sailing around and only one has had a keel issue. I think it's that particular 80. Not all 80s.

Yea, I agree. I'm not suggesting a problem with all 80s. But I am saying that too many J-boats pre and post scrimp that have come out of TPI have had keel problems for all of them to be grounding or poor care problems.


Car manufacturers have some of the tightest quality control systems in the world. Yet they still measure thousands upon thousands of things gone wrong on their vehicles every year. That includes engines dieing, fires starting, floor mats causing sudden acceleration - safety issues galore.

Yet you're surprised that a non-automated industry like hull layup might actually have some defects?

I'd wager you do not have a strong grounding in statistical analysis.

#96 USA190520

USA190520

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,658 posts
  • Location:mostly here but not all there

Posted 20 October 2009 - 05:07 PM

it fell off

thats not normal is it?

no and id like to say this isnt common as there are a lot of Jboats siling world wide that are safe

what about this one?

I was refferring to the ones that are safe

so you're saying this J80 wasnt safe?

not at all, it just wasnt as safe as the others

why?

well some of the other ones are built so the keel doesnt fall off

wasnt this built so the keel wouldnt fall off?

well obviously not

how do you know?

well because the keel fell off and hundreds of lbs of lead sank to the bottom, it's a bit of a giveaway.... i'd just like to say that this is NOT normal

well what sort of standards are these boats built too?

oh very rigorous maritime engineering standards....

really, what sort of things?

Well, the keels arent supposed to fall off for a start

what other things?

regulations on what materials can be used...

such as?

well cardboard is out

and?

no cardboard derivitives, like paper, paper's out, no string, no celo tape

rubber?

no rubber's out

they've got to have steering, and a min. crew requirement

what's the min crew?

one i'd imagine.....

so the allegation that these boats are built simply to go as fast as possible despite the consuquensesis untrue

absolutely ludicris these boats are very very strong boats ...

well, what happened in THIS case

well the keel fell off of this boat but i stress this is very unusual

why do you think the keel fell off?

well a wave hit it

a wave?

yes a wave hit the boat

is this unusual?

oh yes, a wave? at sea? hardly ever hear of such a thing...

so how will the lead in the sunken keel effect the environment?

oh, the keel fell of well outside the environment

surely you mean it fell off in another environment

no, it fell off outside the environment... no environment, all there is is sea, birds, fish and 900lbs of lead, the environment is completely safe...

#97 Wally 80

Wally 80

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 168 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 20 October 2009 - 05:15 PM

The Front Fell Off!

it fell off



#98 Squalamax

Squalamax

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts

Posted 20 October 2009 - 06:10 PM

Or 914, 914-6, 916GT, 917, Boxster, or any number of mid engined cars they made or make.
They had a marketing issue with putting the best engines in the 914, because then the "lower" model would kick the 911's ass. I raced against a 914 that had a hot 3 liter 6 transplanted into it and NOTHING could keep up with him. My paltry 2.1 liters wasn't even close.

Exactly. Early 911's were notoriously bad behaved. Modern ones have tamed the beast, but they are still not as well balanced as a midengined Cayman. (where the engine should have been in a 911 all along)


A 914 is a phenominal car handling wise. Always lacked power.

I'm sure a 3 liter 6 in a 914 would be a killer combo.

#99 jesposito

jesposito

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,537 posts
  • Location:somewhere where your not
  • Interests:cycling, skiing and depressing the competition on the race course

Posted 20 October 2009 - 06:15 PM

Or 914, 914-6, 916GT, 917, Boxster, or any number of mid engined cars they made or make.
They had a marketing issue with putting the best engines in the 914, because then the "lower" model would kick the 911's ass. I raced against a 914 that had a hot 3 liter 6 transplanted into it and NOTHING could keep up with him. My paltry 2.1 liters wasn't even close.

Exactly. Early 911's were notoriously bad behaved. Modern ones have tamed the beast, but they are still not as well balanced as a midengined Cayman. (where the engine should have been in a 911 all along)


A 914 is a phenominal car handling wise. Always lacked power.

I'm sure a 3 liter 6 in a 914 would be a killer combo.

Does it have a Hemi?

#100 kent_island_sailor

kent_island_sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts
  • Location:Kent Island!

Posted 20 October 2009 - 06:22 PM

Yes, actually.
IIRC, the 3.0 liter 911 DOES have a hemispherical combustion chamber.
The lower power 2.0 liter 4s and 6s they with stock - maybe not.

Or 914, 914-6, 916GT, 917, Boxster, or any number of mid engined cars they made or make.
They had a marketing issue with putting the best engines in the 914, because then the "lower" model would kick the 911's ass. I raced against a 914 that had a hot 3 liter 6 transplanted into it and NOTHING could keep up with him. My paltry 2.1 liters wasn't even close.

Exactly. Early 911's were notoriously bad behaved. Modern ones have tamed the beast, but they are still not as well balanced as a midengined Cayman. (where the engine should have been in a 911 all along)


A 914 is a phenominal car handling wise. Always lacked power.

I'm sure a 3 liter 6 in a 914 would be a killer combo.

Does it have a Hemi?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users