Jump to content

Breamerly

Members
  • Content Count

    313
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Breamerly

  1. 4 hours ago, Zonker said:

    So don't approach a dock as quickly if you go with another brand.

    A good note but in general I'm not in the habit of relying on reverse while docking. Boat's so small (27) I usually just step off and belay my spring on the nearest handy cleat, with the stern in hand to check any pivot. Might be different if I often had to dock in a crosswind, but marinas around here are so often so well protected...

  2. 16 hours ago, El Borracho said:

    Keep us posted on your project. Especially if you choose to do it from underneath.

    "He said, barely suppressing his laughter."

    No seriously, This is being a very thought-provoking thread, and I am very appreciative.

    9 hours ago, Crash said:

    Up thread he said it was a Gary Mull Santana, so either a 22 or 27...3 portlights per side and the big square sea hood point to the Santana 27...as do the chainplates on the cabintop. 

    This person knows their boats. It is indeed an S27.

    And I have to say, thanks all for the compliments. My dad kept her in great shape, sailing her well into his eighties, and did a full deck/hull repaint recently enough that she still looks good. My folks and I went around van isle three times in her.

    I've never quite known whether she's particularly sporty - her PHRF rating is not great, even for her age, but people say Mull built fast boats, and old timers say she points better than most? She's the only boat I've ever owned so I can't really say.

    There are a few things that are just lovely about her as far as creature comforts though - she's as roomy as a lot of 30 footers, with that cabinhouse carrying most of the way to the gunwhale. From the decent headroom to the big, useable galley and the dinette of a much larger boat (thanks to the offset companionway), to the oodles of storage, to the v-berth that sleeps two 6-footers AND my two year-old, she just feels big.

    The one thing I will never understand, though, is why a designer who so clearly was building with pocket cruising in mind, and to that end compromised the ease of working on deck by ballooning out the cabintop so far you can hardly get by it, would insist on a seven-foot racing cockpit and a two-foot lazarette. With an extra foot of cabin you could have fit a heater and shower down there, and still fit four in the cockpit - hang the cocktails for six on deck!

    Since he took such good care of the outside, what I'm left doing is mostly a lot of inside stuff. Replaced the main athwartships bulkhead, new head, new galleytop and sink (with pressure water!) last year, new sole in the head, new through-hulls with actual seacocks. Next upo is the. cabin sole.

    image.thumb.png.a5168d01699dc581135040760cb10c3c.png

     

    • Like 2
  3. 11 hours ago, Zonker said:

    you did! In your first post.

    haha guilty as charged! I meant to just use it as kind of. a figure of speech or a signpost that I was really trying to think outside the box, but I could have been clearer that a 2S was never seriously in the running for the noise and fuel consumption reasons.
     

    10 hours ago, Goatish said:

    Something worth looking into if you plan to motor a lot is what HP and prop pitch is actually best for your vessel.

    There is a free calculator here that I find quite helpful and have used when sorting out how to best re-prop my 5HP 2 stroke for my race boat: https://www.vicprop.com/free-propeller-sizing-calculators

    This is a great resource, I will definitely check it out, thank you. I do also think that I have been pushing a bit too small of a prop for the application, after doing all this reading.


     

    11 hours ago, Zonker said:

    In your case the Yamaha 9.9 is probably the best choice, given that you motor a lot. I don't think the Mercury/Tohatsu ones are "do in a pinch". They'll be fine in 90% of conditions; it's when punching into a sea that the Yamaha will be superior.

    This is the direction I am leaning. interesting insight about the Merc. not having used anything really aside from the yamaha, I. get they're only a little less perfect for the task, but it's hard to really grock how much less perfect.
     

    9 hours ago, Kenny Dumas said:

    The power lift on my yammy has been reliable, going on 6 years now

    good to hear this from a sailor. some of the mechanics know their stuff, and the odd salesman, too, but christ some of the guys at the yamaha dealerships are useless. One guy spent five minutes telling me how I 'need a bigger engine, because it turns faster.' Swear to god he hadn't the foggiest notion of what a gear ratio was, or the difference between planing and displacement. Also have basically been politely told I'm crazy for not wanting auto lift, including with the golden lines of "they hardly draw any power" and "they never break." Real numbnuts material.

     

    8 hours ago, gspot said:

    Point being, in a very high state of tune, a 2-stroke can produce much more power than an equivalent displacement 4-stroke. Honda's current 249cc 4-stroke "only" makes 39.4HP, about 30% less than their 2-stroke of the same displacement from 25 years ago. 


    This makes a lot of sense as kind of the far pole on the spectrum of possible scenarios. They do, after all, get to do twice as many boom-booms per spin-spin.



    Overall good info here folks, thank you.
     

  4. 59 minutes ago, Crash said:

    Almost all of it included painting the “smooth” areas as well as the non skid.  I was lucky in that S2 nicely had mounded the deck with many “cut lines” and horizontal details.  So I was able to tape to a 90 degree corner detail at both the bottom and top edge of the cabin top, yet not have to paint the entire vertical side of the cabin.  I was after a 5 foot job, so I did no sanding/buffing to blend. I posted pretty high quality photos, so if you zoom in, you can actually see the tape ridge lines along the top and bottom of the cabin top.  But you’d be hard pressed to have seen them from more than standing height away...

    After all, it was already a 35 year old boat, and didn’t look anywhere near perfect by that point anyway.

    Plus you’ll likely find with some forethought, 90% of the work, or more is covered by the non-skid.

    This is interesting. I have thought about hiding transitions this way, especially for redoing my cockpit seats and nonskid. The problem on my foredeck, however, is that there are no hard angles. And the non skid that I would have to re-do (unless I blended it?) carries all the way aft to the cockpit.

    The repair is partly/mostly out of the shot, on the far right side of the photo. But that robbin's-egg blue nonskid carries all the way to the bow.

    64282070_ScreenShot2021-03-22at12_11_56AM.thumb.png.e86b9d3109269539c9b74da23bdbfcca.png

  5. 26 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

    It isn't the actual painting that takes time, it is the prep to get the painting job to look decent. 

    Haha it drives me up the walllllllllll every time I hear this. Like, Yes! The prep is both crucial and time-consuming. Turns out, just like with every other job, there's one particular part of the process that is both important and tricky! Pouring concrete is easy, it's building the form that's tough. Brain surgery is easy, it's going to med school that's difficult. Landing on the moon is easy, it's flying a spaceship that's hard. Pounding nails is easy, it's drawing up the plans for the house that's the trick. And on and on, until I tear every last strand of hair out of my head because it's a saying that means nothing! The prep is part of painting and it is hard to do right! Therefore... painting is hard! It is not easy! The last step in the process is easy. Dry times, which type of masking tape to use, surface prep, thinning, solvent selection, the role of humidity, time between coats, tip-and-roll vs brushing vs spraying, to say nothing of the rubix cube that is deciding between the million damn cans of snake-oil paint on the market for any one application - all of that is "painting" and it is fu***ing martian gibberish to some of us — as exemplified by the fact that my paint jobs mostly look like garbage.

    Or, to put it another way: I am not worried in this particular case that I might balls up the action of dipping the roller and moving it back and forth on my boat. I am worried that I could balls up some other crucial and much more ambiguous step in the painting process.

     

  6. Looks good.

    45 minutes ago, Crash said:

    NO!  You can actually repaint parts of the boat, and not all of it, and actually have it look pretty darn good.  I was doing "rolling" repairs to the deck of my S2 9.1 that way.  I did the foredeck, sidedecks to aft of the chainplates and the cabintop first.  Did them from above, with balsa, as it was the original core.  Did solid glass at the partners, and all thru deck fittings were done with solid epoxy to isolate core.  Painted with Brightsides for "skid" sections in a color very close to the original (faded) gelcoat.  Did the non-skid with gray kiwi grip.  It looked good and I got lots of positive comments from folks.  I did it all from the top, as gravity really, really, really is your friend.  To be perfectly honest, the painting part is by far the easiest, and the fairing part by far the most time consuming if you want to do it right....

    There's 10+ square feet of deck replaced in these pics...and yes, the handrails got redone too :rolleyes:

     

     

     

    Looks good enough to make me rethink my plans, but I have to ask - how much fairing/repainting is visible here? I see mostly non-skid (which is no dig on the job, at all!)

    Also, after painting, how much fiddling did you have to do with magician-grade wetsanding (6000 grit etc) and/or polishing/buffing paste to get the blend? Do you have  a writeup somewhere  of your process?

  7. 2 hours ago, Zonker said:

    I'm assuming you realize that new 2 strokes are not available and are considering used.

    Who said anything about a two-sroke? My first choice is a new Yamaha T9.9, which is a four-stroke. The only thing that has kept me from clicking 'buy' already is the fact that Yamaha appears to have shifted almost entirely to manufacturing these motors with power tilt, which is a feature that I really don't want, extra complication being the source of misery that it is on a sailboat.

    2 hours ago, Zonker said:

    But they will be enough for your boat.

    Since I use the boat for a lot of mini-cruising (gunkholing),  I end up under power a lot. Two summers ago we powered something like 40 hours out to the west side. I try to avoid doing that much usually, but in summer calm, 30 hours under power including bashing through the rips at point wilson and out into the straight on a 5-day islands trip is par for the course. Given that, it seems like it would make sense to have a solid pusher, not the "it'll do in a pinch" version.

    So that's it. I'm an otherwise ready buyer, just taking a cursory look around to convince myself I haven't overlooked something like an equivalent Merc., which I would go for in a heartbeat. Honestly the CommandThrust 9.9 is tempting, with that 2.42, but when I did the numbers it seems just a little lighter on the torque side than I'd like, ideally.

    I have to admit I'm a bit confused about the two-stroke option though. My understanding was that they are more powerful because they fire twice as many combustion strokes in a given number of engine revolutions as a 4. Does that mean a two-stroke running at the same RPM as a comparable-displacement 4 just produce double the power?

    And wouldn't that mean that a two-stroke rated for X HP would only need to have roughly half the displacement of a 4-stroke rated for the same HP? Yet Tohatsu's advertised 2S's are comparable or greater displacement than 4 strokes of the same rated HP.

    I still don't think 2S is really an option given A) how loud they are, B) how much more gas they eat (small boat, limited tankage), and C) the fact that I'd have to buy used (and I'm looking to increase my reliability, not decrease it). But I'm interested to know more about them I guess.

     

  8. 1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

    Smooth gelcoat takes a bit more work because it has to be perfectly fair to look good, but the finishing just involves using finer and finer sandpaper and then wax and buff until it looks good.  Any idiot can do it.

    Exterior paint is harder to make look good, but there are a number of paints like Interlux Brightsides that are at least easy to use, even if they don't give perfect results.

    This is the thing. I could figure out the nonskid I think (I watched my neighbor do it), but figuring out whether my existing topside is gelcoat or paint is not something I know how to do, and again, let alone applying either and having it blend well into the old.

  9. 6 hours ago, El Borracho said:

    Fairing to perfect takes about thirty minutes a day over 2-3 days depending on epoxy cure time. Likewise painting and non-skid. I did this very same project, about 2 sq. ft. at a pulpit base just a few months ago. I'm ruthless with the angle grinder. No fussy screwing around: cut it all out. Balsa core. Came out perfect inside and out.

    Re-creating identical non-skid is certainly an issue. I'd probably opt for not matching. Just make a nicely shaped area of new non-skid separate from the old. You said 4ksb, right, not a historic collector's item?

    I was being overly negative by calling it a 4ksb. It's a gary mull santana that was my dad's (so more like a 5.5ksb thank you), and she's actually in decent shape, just a bit dinged/scuffed. She's nice enough (and I'm. stupidly proud enough) that while I stop myself from getting perfectionist with anything, I try not to finish repairs/projects with the area looking worse than when I started. 

    That was my reasoning for not wanting to cut open the topsides. I don't know what the old paint was, and I think to make it look good I'd basically be looking at doing fresh nonskid and paint on the whole bow deck. I think I could get a nonskid color that matched the others (and it's not contiguous so who would even notice?) and figure out how to do it alright, but I was under the distinct impression that getting the paint (gelcoat?) to blend old-to-new was basically impossible.

    So far as I've understood it, you more or less have to repaint your entire topsides if you're going to do one bit, unless you want it to look like hell. Is that not right?

     

  10. Poked around a bit. The mercury 9.9 pro-kicker is a little different from the mercury 9.9 Command Thrust, but they both have a 2.42:1 lower unit.

    That's compared to the 2.9:1 lower unit in the Yamaha.

    Aside from the lower unit they appear quite similar otherwise.

    Yamaha displaces 212 cc, with a 2.2x1.69 bore/stroke — the Merc is 208 CC with a 2.16 x 1.73 bore/stroke. So the Yamaha has a slightly larger (2%) displacement, but the merc has a 2% longer stroke (long skinny cylinders produce more torque than short squat ones). But those are very small variations, and must to some degree cancel each other out. Both are available in a 25" shaft.

    That leaves the prop and lower unit.

    The merc specs a bigger prop: 10"X7" 4-blade VS. a 9.25"X(?) 3-blade on the Yamaha. But I see that SOLAS makes essentially the same 10x7 4-blade for the Yamaha, so if they have the same cylinder geometry and can fit the same prop, that means the main difference is the gear ratio in the foot.

    So to the gear ratio....

    To turn that 10X7 prop ten times, theoretically moving the boat 70 inches forward, the merc engine is rotating about 24 times, during which period it detonates (completes a single combustion stroke) 24 times (well 24.2 times, each, if you want to be precise).

    To turn the same prop the same number of times, pushing the same boat the same 70 inches forward, the Yamaha engine is fully rotating 29 times, and detonating 29 times.

    Or, over any given distance, the Yamaha is firing 12 times for every 10 times the Merc fires (29:24 = ~12:10).

    Orrrrrrr..... if I can remember my high school physics.... assuming the same amount of fuel per combustion stroke (same throttle/mix setting), the Yamaha is capable of doing about 20% more work than the Merc per time unit, meaning it produces about 20% more power (which in rotational terms is... torque? I thinK?).

    Obviously, the corollary is that the Yam will hit its powerband/redline at a lower boat-speed, since the Yamaha is having to run at a higher engine RPM to achieve the same prop RPM, but it can do so against more resistance  (ie, a heavier boat, more chop/headwind, etc). 

    I'm thoroughly confused, and probably fucked some part of all that up completely, because I barely understand any of this, but in general so far I am getting the impression that the yamaha wins out for pushing my family and all our junk into confused chop and a 10 kt headwind at point wilson on our way up to watmo for the tenth time in the last two years.

    Very open to any corrections or suggestions about my thinking here.

  11. 14 minutes ago, Goatish said:

    I believe that the Mercury ProKicker models will be the closest and likley the best option to replace a Yamaha in this regard. They are not manual tilt normally, but they do lift very high. I just installed a lease return 15 HP version on my commuter boat as a backup to the main engine, and it tilts way up and easily stays out of the water even with the 25" extra long shaft and the reverse sloping transom. They have EFI, decent sized alternators and most come setup for remote controls, so would be a good option for a sailboat as you don't need to hang over the back to tilt it, start it, or do anything to it during normal use.

    Hard to come by used right now, but there are lease returns here and there that end up a couple grand less in purchase price while still having warranty and being an effectively new motor.

    Is this the one (below)?

    Looks like it has 2.42:1, but is purpose-built for a larger prop otherwise, they say? 

    https://www.powerequipmentdirect.com/Mercury-Marine-1F10261KK-Engines/p97582.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw3duCBhCAARIsAJeFyPVT6Hm8Hzt0uQvDEWyIxceCJYKAUSB9nejbpVJHclAILU5QCGWoUaAt6BEALw_wcB

  12. 2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

    IMO forget using plywood. At a minimum you'd have to score it yourself - huge pain.

    This is why I had been thinking of doing it layer by layer. Single-ply will take simple curves without scoring. It would take 10-12 layers to build to full thickness, but I think if I got myself all laid out and used fast epoxy I could get that laid up in a long day. 

    I am open to this foam stuff though, which sounds way easier. Just would like to find some more info on it.

  13. 7 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

    Foam & balsa core are available in scored blocks mounted on a light scrim

    Interesting! Do you have a link or company name or anything I could use to take a look at that? Also any ideas on where would be a good spot to find some data or at least a good writeup on foam in this application?

    Also, what about the core-to-core bond at the edge of the repair? With foam do you still need to do a bevel/scarf?

  14.  

    3 hours ago, Rain Man said:

    If the area being fixed crosses over between non-skid and smooth areas of the deck, try to stop peeling the top skin at the edge of the non-skid area and just dig out the core in the smooth area from the side.  Otherwise you will end up painting the entire smooth area to make it match. 

    Not possible. The foredeck is two large non-skid sections with a raised painted strip running fire-aft down the center, and rapping around the edges. The soft spot is plum in the middle, underlapping both nonskid areas by 8-10 inches. I could see excavating an inch or two under a non-skid edge, but that seems too far to reach and be assured of a good, complete clean-out.

    I can't see how coming in from the top wouldn't require essentially redoing nonskid on the whole foredeck, as well as figuring out some way to blend the paint over my repair with the rest of the old topside paint (dubious at best).

  15. 45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

    The fly in the ointment when working overhead.

    And you should use better fabric than mat - it's the weakest by far of all forms of glass fabric.

    Also, should you insist on using it, be certain to obtain mat that is epoxy compatible. Most of it is bound with a styrene soluble binder and there's no styrene in epoxy - which is what you should use for a job like this.

    Right. I used 'mat' as a general shorthand, but obviously cloth or bixial would be better. I am thinking probably to go with the latter. And yeah, definitely an epoxy-compatible one. Again with the shorthand/assumption.

    I guess I should have been more clear at the beginning that basic technique  was not what I meant to come asking about. What I'm more wondering about is the overall strategy (like the question of whether to come in from the top or the bottom, and foam vs/plywood).

    With the overhead layup, same thing: I think I have enough basic technique/skill to do it without issue. The part that will be new to me here is replacing the core of a surface that is both curved and weight-bearing.

    Personally, I have much more experience with epoxy work than paint (very little) and nonskid (none!). That's why I say that learning those two new skills, and executing them in a high-visibility application, sounds like way more of a pain in the ass than executing a decent overhead layup, which I have done before without issue and know I can get right on the first try.

    All of that said, am I missing something there?

  16. I appreciate all of this. 

    One question I have is about coming in from the topside though. I re-did the glass overlap on my the keel flange last summer, and did not actually find the overhead work to be that big of a pain. I didn't do a great job at it, in the sense that the final product was not as fair as I might have liked, but that was mostly down to a lack of yard time/vacation time to spend the extra days or two getting it from decent to good.

    On top of that, the area in question overlap two separate nonskid areas on the topside, as well as a big flat smooth area.

    So the way I'm looking at it is, coming from the top would require adding two whole additional workflows, both of which I am not very familiar with, and both of which have fairly tight tolerances (a recipe for mistakes/do-overs): Gellcoat/paint and non-skid application.

    Conversely, on the underside I can (and have elsewhere) get the mat lam'd up, schmear some thickened epoxy over it, sand it fair, paint paint that fucker with the same semi-gloss paint that's everywhere else on the inside of the hull (no headliner in the v-berth) and be done with it.

    Assuming I don't mind the overhead work and can do it decently, it seems a lot simpler to avoid having to get into finish paintwork, let alone non-skid.

    What am I missing?

    1 hour ago, El Borracho said:

    Waste of time though. The balance of the deck is plain old plywood, right? Done right the deck will not leak in that area again.

    Good point.

    1 hour ago, Rain Man said:

    I suppose this is the right moment to once again point out that virtually every boat builder doesn't do it right, and if they did, none of this moisture intrusion would have happened.  The next time you are reading a glossy brochure touting a gleaming pile of fibreglass laminate, remember that if you buy it, the first thing you should do is fix the shoddy work on the deck and hull intrusions.

    This is a very good idea. Could be done at the same time as a topsides paint job - just pull everything, reseal, redo, then repaint. Interesting to think of looking for a boat with the assumption in mind that this would be a necessary first step.

     

     

  17. Hi everyone! It feels like ages since I was on here, commenting on this or that, mocking ads on craigy's, or starting threads on anchoring that seem to annoy nearly everyone. Good times!

    Anyway I'm back because, yet again, it's springtime, which means my boat needs a fix for which I have only about 2/3 of the necessary knowledge.

    Basically, soft spot in the bow deck. It started around the fasteners (always the fasteners) for a rode-box that was through-bolted (jesus why) to the underside of the deck, at the front end of the V-birth.  The soft spot is pretty big (20-28" in diameter), but doesn't appear to intersect with any structural elements (you know, other than the deck itself) so I'm not paniced — but things are a bit complicated by the significant curve on the underside of the deck.

    After idly questioning a few other moderately-knowledgable people, the current plan is to cut away the bottom skin out to maybe 6-8" past the soft spot, remove the rotten core, do my best imitation of a bevel on the good edge (in prep for a scarf joint), and then use epoxy to laminate individual plies of hardwood (similar to doorskin, but of a rot-resistant species) one-at-a-time onto the underside of the deck, using upward pressure on the underside to spring-form them to the curve of topside, and progressivley widening them so that they overlap the existing core more and more. In the end, the thinking goes, I'll have essentially laid up a new plywood "core" as strong as (stronger than, if I nail the scarf technique?) the original.

    Is this completely insane?

    I have heard penetrating epoxy is junk, and this spot seems too big and too soft for it.

    A variation I have thought of is doing similar to the above, but fewer times, using something like a 1/8" marine ply. This seems easier, but given that I would likely have to kerf it to get the full curve, thus breaking the fibers that give it its strength, likely weaker?

    Any insight.advice/mockery/showsometits/etc would be apprecaited.

  18. Since I was a little kid, I've sailed on boats pushed by Yamaha 9.9 high-thrusts, and as surely as I remember lullabies, I remember my pops whispering in my ear that the 9.9 was the only outboard purpose-made to push a sailboat.

    Fast-forward a couple decades. I have 6 percent more knowledge about sailboats than I did at age 10, and a credit card, and I need a new motor.

    And of course, the high-thrusts are back-ordered till kingdom-come because of the 'rona, plus, even worse, it appears to be nigh impossible to find one without an integral power-tilt mechanism (which I am skeptical would raise as high as manual tilt, and of which I am also dubious of on general grounds, on the basis of the sailor's simplicity-is-golden philosophy).

    I've heard about the tohatsu 2-sroke 9.9 (light, and will pass anything but a fuel dock) and the nissan sailpro (only available in 6 HP?) - but the closest thing has a 2.3:1 gear ratio rather than the yammy's 2.9:1 - and it seems like with a heavy slow sailboat, that probably matters?

    Any thoughts on pushers that perform comparably turning a big prop made for a displacement boat?

    For reference this is for a typically-overloaded 27 foot sloop that spends as much time under power as sail, pushing the family up into the islands (but also out to the west side) most summers. Reliability is paramount. Noise levels are also a priority on long (12+ hour) pushes to/from the fun zone.

     

  19. 29 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    If I lived around there those buoys would move about 50 feet closer to the marina about once a week ;)

    All I'll say - since given my whole thread on this kind of thing, I'm pretty sure everyone knows my stance - is that a battery powered angle grinder will go through a 3/8" chain link in just over thirty seconds. 

    Don't ask how I know.

    • Like 1
  20. 1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    a sailboat pulls up to the fuel dock, takes on 300 gallons of water, dumps trash, and then buys 4 gallons of diesel while a bunch of powerboats trying to buy 500 gallons of fuel each circle around.

    It me

     

    (In reality I usually get 15-20 gallons of gas, which is a slightly bigger purchase, but still chump change compared to Smokey Belcher and his floating diesel pot, which might suck a couple hundred gallons in one go - that said, it obviously comes with the game of operating a public accommodation - serving cheapskates like me is the price you pay to serve the big spenders)

    • Like 1
  21. 4 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

    Almost no one "owns" a house in the sense they paid cash for it, I would assume most houses are bought with mortgages.

    It's such a tired old saw to waggle a finger at the rest of society this way, all balanced on some hair-splitting: you don't really own that house, you sap!

    Ownership is defined in most legal cases and also in common use as exclusive right to exclusively control the enjoyment, employment, and disposal of an asset. This is not the same as a legal interest in a property.

    Even if you're underwater on a zero-down ARM mortgage, you own the house. You get to use it, no one else does, and you can sell it or bulldoze it and build condominiums or a church to the god-emperor Zod or a giant stucco cock: the bank has no say. The bank manager can't come swim in your pool. They can't decide it would be better for them if you did AirBNB with the backyard cottage. They can't (unlike an HOA) so much as ask you to keep the lawn mowed.

    If you give a third party a legal interest in a property in exchange for a loan and then fail to make the payments, sure - they can ask a court to convert that legal interest to ownership, or to force a sale so that they can get their share of the value back. But until the judge's gavel goes bang they are not the owner.

    In fact, nothing could be a better example of this than an underwater loan: try giving the bank 'their' house back then.

    Interestingly, this is actually kind of a reciprocal of the standard that @Steam Flyer and others are applying here - that essentially someone's full-time personal use of a property should confer a different type of privilege in local communities. They are more truly 'owners' because they're actually the ones present on, and using, their properties, not to mention continuing to the life of the local community.

    I wonder: if you had two 'owners', one who rented his property and was never around, but had all but a single dollar of the mortgage paid off, and one who lives on his land full time, and is the third generation to do so, but through bad luck and a stupid art gallery his wife wanted to finance now has a lien on his house for all but a single dollar of its value.

    Who is more an 'owner'?

    Anyway, off to practice some knots or something.

  22. 5 hours ago, rockb said:
    9 hours ago, Breamerly said:

    They should be at least partly responsible to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe operation of their property. What's reasonable?

    What is reasonable

    I guess we'll find out.

    The one thing I would point to is that contracts and even basic statutes often make things seem more clear-cut than they actually are. After a few decades of case-law are taken into account, responsibility in many types of accidents rarely ends up invested absolutely in one person (the captain), and by the same token neither is blame. 

    (For just one example in a separate Marine situation, take anchoring: it would seem extremely clear cut that if someone comes into the harbor after you, anchors too close, and then swings into you, it's their fault. However, in reality the fault is often found to be shared: when you observe them anchoring too close, your choice not to act (move your own boat) brought some of the liability onto you. Obviously, these are not analogous situations - but it does demonstrate that even a situation that is apparently even more clear cut can often be legally ambiguous.)

  23. 23 hours ago, Baldur said:

    Now, where in the article, or anywhere else, is there evidence to indicate the owners staffed the vessel inadequately, failed to train the staff or were deficient in their responsibility to address "other material safety issues?" 

    Personally (and I'm obviously not the law, although that would be dope) I think the extension of culpability to the owners, if indirect and of a lesser degree than that born by the captain, makes sense. They should be at least partly responsible to take reasonable steps to ensure the safe operation of their property. What's reasonable? The captain's word that he'll follow the rules? Again, personally I think it's reasonable to expect they go beyond that, including some degree of active, ongoing oversight.

    If i hire you to operate my bus, and you gradually transition from an upstanding if washed-up Marine to a sad drunk who frequently takes power naps on the straight stretches of road, at some point I start to have responsibility for not discovering you've changed.

    I'll admit though that I don't know exactly where that point is, or how much responsibility I should share if I miss it.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...