Jump to content

My Song fell off a cargo?!


Recommended Posts

So either it's an act of God, or next time take the mast down?

Damn tragedy either way.

I get that there are massive logistics and possibly not local cranes etc to deal with the rig at either end, but as others have mentioned...is this rig just too big to have up, on a cradle, at sea?

1 On a cradle your centre of effort (if that's the right phrase for this specific incident), is how much higher than when in the water? With this boat that could be a considerable difference. 

2. The windage on the rig, (which is reasonably constant) is significant. As the boat is in a cradle, the loads will transfer to the stays and cradle ties with no heel (as opposed to in the water where heel absorbs shock). 

3. Inertial forces, as in when the mother ship lurches, are transfered to the tied down and static rig, which in turn are transferred to the tie-downs on the cradle. 

4. If it were to even budge a little, even a micro budge, the keel starts getting out of column with the rig and any further inertial force, game over. 

I'm sure this has all been taken into account...just trying to rationalize it, and yes shit happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 707
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A couple of things to bear in mind before any of the haters start throwing more shit around; 1. Plenty of talented and committed people have put a lot of work into building and maintaining this b

These toys employ a lot of us, directly or indirectly. When billionaires decide to spend their money in a way that puts it into the yachting industry we should embrace it and not bitch. Would you pref

[Interviewer:] Welcome, thank you for joining us in what must be a trying time. [Peters & May Spokesman:] It’s a great pleasure, thank you. [Interviewer:] This ship that was involved in

Posted Images

Pure speculation, but I am surprised to see it anywhere but on centreline of the cargo ship. You would think they would want as wide a base for the tie downs as possible. Might limit the capacity, but sure there were the funds available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chimp, likely placed on deck where it was due to a variety of reasons. Primary of which is the self loading/discharging via the Ships own cranes due to reach and SWL, load closer to the crane, higher load able to be lifted, however the boom/jib of the crane cannot operate above a certain angle so with the load height, makes sense to place it where it was. Other factors include stowage plan of cargo below decks and simple factors such as forward visibility from the bridge, all these taken into account when forming the stowage plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TANGO QUEBEC said:

Chimp, likely placed on deck where it was due to a variety of reasons. Primary of which is the self loading/discharging via the Ships own cranes due to reach and SWL, load closer to the crane, higher load able to be lifted, however the boom/jib of the crane cannot operate above a certain angle so with the load height, makes sense to place it where it was. Other factors include stowage plan of cargo below decks and simple factors such as forward visibility from the bridge, all these taken into account when forming the stowage plan.

If the cradle collapsed I don't think the position on the ship had much to do with it? I could be wrong but if the cradle let go or failed I wouldn't matter where it was? 

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

More confirmation that a calendar is the most dangerous thing to have aboard ship.

If you are delivering by sailing it, I agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, terrafirma said:

If the cradle collapsed I don't think the position on the ship had much to do with it? I could be wrong but if the cradle let go or failed I wouldn't matter where it was? 

Terra...Wasn't suggesting the placement was anything to do with the failiure, just explaining why it was likely put on deck where it was as opposed to centreline as postulated by Chimp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TANGO QUEBEC said:

Terra...Wasn't suggesting the placement was anything to do with the failiure, just explaining why it was likely put on deck where it was as opposed to centreline as postulated by Chimp.

Cheers that makes sense. My slack reading.

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

So, if I ship my little super yacht with P&M, and my superyacht neighbor crushes me flat, then if his cradle is still attached to the deck,  P&M and CEO Folly are OK??? Please tell me.

I would say go to Genoa with a drone,, and go and check for yourself. The Brattingsborg is now docked, and the inspectors from government, shippers, insurance, and lawyers will be all looking at that detail. ;)

Hopefully someone will sneak-snap some pictures for us!

 

Was confronted to such a case a few years back:  crushed boat insurers claimed on crushing boat insurers - who paid  and handled the case with shipping agents -

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, moody frog said:

Was confronted to such a case a few years back:  crushed boat insurers claimed on crushing boat insurers - who paid  and handled the case with shipping agents -

You were lucky to get away with that one. P&M and their CEO Folly would probably have argued that it was an act of god. You would then be the man, and have to sue god...

Pretty hilarious actually, and available on Amazon and Netflix.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gorn FRANTIC!! said:

Was it black or white VB cord? Knowing this could help us decide how much of a factor UV degradation was in this incident.

VB cord is silver and green. The hard part is plaiting the cans once you have emptied them. Emptying more cans seems to help. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fiji Bitter said:

You were lucky to get away with that one. P&M and their CEO Folly would probably have argued that it was an act of god. You would then be the man, and have to sue god...

Pretty hilarious actually, and available on Amazon and Netflix.

 

:D Nice one !

Now the situation may not be as simple as Folly seems to say as you'll see on this clip from many moons ago - when everything was on paper, that insurances are "in the name of God" ! under who the captain himself sails/ Woud be God against God, then.  :unsure:  ;)

Shipment insurance.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 8:07 PM, Curious said:

Around here, the expressed attitude is sometimes "if you have a boat you can afford any further costs because you are all rich", and that means that public facilities are being withdrawn.

I agree with that attitude. At least for pleasure boats. If you own a pleasure boat, you're rich enough or should sell it.

7 hours ago, Parma said:

Responsibilities will not be a point of conjecture here: whoever designed the cradle, whoever fabricated the cradle, whoever assembled the cradle and whoever lashed it down will all be undeniable.

One more: someone told them how much the boat and all its pieces weigh. And might have been wrong. I don't know if it applies to carbon superyachts, but lots of boats seem to weigh more than their manufacturers advertise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

I agree with that attitude. At least for pleasure boats. If you own a pleasure boat, you're rich enough or should sell it.

Hmmmm. So a sailing club has to pay full commercial rent because the members own boats like Lasers and Shark 24s, while the golf club, horse racing club, football club and tennis club get to hang on to valuable land for peppercorn rent?  What makes a boat owner different to the other sportspeople, who get much more heavily subsidised?

And why should commercial boat owners get a different attitude?  Why not charge fishing boats as much as the market will bear - after all, if the people want to eat fish they can just pay more or eat cake. And those little kids playing sandlot baseball - why should they get away without each paying $450 per game or whatever market rates for hiring the ground are. After all, if they want to play baseball, they should be rich enough to pay market rates or should give up.

Why is the owner of a $3k 1960s 24 footer or a 1980s Laser "rich enough" and the owner of a pair of expensive running shoes or a good mountain bike not "rich enough" to just go out and buy the national parks they play in? Bloody runners - if they can afford feet they are rich enough to buy the trails to put them on.

Sailors in many places are no richer than man other sportspeople and making it appear as if they are can be bad for the sport.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bill E Goat said:

Pulpit can you take your reasoned posts somewhere else, there is no place here for logic.

I heard they tied it down with VB cord

 

5 hours ago, Gorn FRANTIC!! said:

Was it black or white VB cord? Knowing this could help us decide how much of a factor UV degradation was in this incident.

 

1 hour ago, Gissie said:

VB cord is silver and green. The hard part is plaiting the cans once you have emptied them. Emptying more cans seems to help. 

What can I say ? 

 

Man an I got it so wrong and I’m sorry I let the Dickheads get to me. 

 

How can you all forgive me ?

 

If I put hoppy on block will that help ? 

 

Ill now now go and confess and say a few hail marry’s for my wrong doing. 

 

Pulpit 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

 

And yes nearly everything at a club level can be traced to the big boats trying it first from methods of construction, rigging, right down to crew solutions for sail handling the list is long.

Like what? The list of things that were developed in small boats first is enormous; light displacement, fin keels, bulb keels, assy spinnakers, carbon hulls, foam sandwich hulls, planing hulls, bendy rigs, full battened sails, mylar sails, carbon spars, spade rudders, vangs, fixed bowsprits for assys, hydrofoils, bermudan rigs, squaretop mains, roller furling, etc.

The vast majority of performance features in a boat like My Song were seen in small boats years before they arrived at big boats. If the job of "trying it first" was left to big boats then boats would still have long keels and be planked or steel. She was a nice boat but such boats do little that spreads through the club fleets.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another picture from Farevela, https://farevela.net/2019/05/28/le-foto-del-my-song-sul-cargo-prima-dellincidente/ , which is a nice close up of the cradle, and strapping, while still in port at the look of it.

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

I am a boy who has also spend some time in the industrie, have personally shipped a couple of smaller superyachts half way around the world, designed and had one of the cradles build, and joined one on the trips as well. I also own a. fast 39ft symbian, but don't ask me for more details on the saddle and straps on that one.

OK, so obviously I know a little bit what I am talking about, and you know what, surprise, surprise:

The shipping cradle failed!!!  Or maybe, rather fell over???

If you can call that piece of shit, or two pieces of shit actually, a shipping cradle at all, as it doesn't seem to have any longitudinal strength (braces). Add to that absolute minimal strapping, in particular diagonal strapping both transverse and longitudinally. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing collapsed forward, in the first big wave the ship hit. I bet the captain tried to avoid rolling by taking the seas head on, under estimating the effect of pitching.

A mitigating factor could have been that the lifting keel might have been sitting on the cradle (or deck), but it did not take the weight of the ship, like that is always the case with conventional keels. Makes a very big difference.

So hopefully Farevela will come with more pictures, and also the inside scoop, as they are a pretty cool bunch. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

You were lucky to get away with that one. P&M and their CEO Folly would probably have argued that it was an act of god. You would then be the man, and have to sue god...

Pretty hilarious actually, and available on Amazon and Netflix.

 

A good film, :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hoppy said:

If you did, you might miss the most momentous post in SA history, if it ever happens..

We all gave up on that happening a long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mad said:

We all gave up on that happening a long time ago.

One day I might surprise you all, just like you might one day be surprised by a sensible outcome to Brexit. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hoppy said:

If you did, you might miss the most momentous post in SA history, if it ever happens..

Hoppy, 

Sometimes it’s better to just do it and beg for forgiveness after than ask before you do it before hand. 

 

Pulpit

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pulpit said:

Hoppy, 

Sometimes it’s better to just do it and beg for forgiveness after than ask before you do it before hand. 

 

Pulpit

Tried that and that's how I'm in my current situation :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hoppy said:

One day I might surprise you all, just like you might one day be surprised by a sensible outcome to Brexit. 

I'm not holding my breath for either :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Curious said:

Like what? The list of things that were developed in small boats first is enormous; light displacement, fin keels, bulb keels, assy spinnakers, carbon hulls, foam sandwich hulls, planing hulls, bendy rigs, full battened sails, mylar sails, carbon spars, spade rudders, vangs, fixed bowsprits for assys, hydrofoils, bermudan rigs, squaretop mains, roller furling, etc.

The vast majority of performance features in a boat like My Song were seen in small boats years before they arrived at big boats. If the job of "trying it first" was left to big boats then boats would still have long keels and be planked or steel. She was a nice boat but such boats do little that spreads through the club fleets.

 

Very much a two way street, Suggest you visit the model room at the New York Yacht Club or perhaps the Herreschoff museum in RI you quickly realize that a lot has been tried in the centuries before now,  materials, hull forms, keel shapes, rigs and their position , bowsprits,  sails cuts and shapes the list goes on and not all on small boats.

Some with success others have  latterly become successful with a better understanding of the engineering principles and access to materials that make systems stronger and lighter.

Yes a lot of things have been developed in small boats equally a lot has been developed  first on the old big boats like J boats,  A precursor of halyard locks today the original J boats carried a Pin man that stayed aloft for the entire race and "pinned "the halyards at full hoist until they came up with a better solution.

The new big boats like this vessel My Song  have advanced many things because of their size, scale and loads.

On Maxi boats we had wire mainsheets spliced to line for the winches, same with the jib sheets that were shacked to the clew all the halyards were wire because there was not yet the materials we now see as commonplace with low stretch and great strength.

As a consequence a lot more engineering and analysis is known and better understood in terms of loads and efficiencies and so now we have hydraulics for instance  now frequently used on smaller vessels. Internal furling booms another. Captive reel winches, Load cells to assist sail trim, Hydraulic Genoa Cars adjustable underload

One of the first boats to use Hydraulics exclusively and primarily to make sail handling and maneuvers easier was a Huisman built Ron Holland design called Whirlwind XII at 103 ft it was considered almost impossible to handle a vessel of that size using traditional methods hence Holland came up with Hydraulics as a solution and with that vessel superyachts became a thing.

Today so much money is thrown at these big boats that the understanding and engineering has become somewhat scaleable and therefore adaptable to boats of all sizes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now for all the lovely people in this thread, while we are waiting for fake news from Genoa, and yes it had to happen, here is the worst fucking My Song of all hundreds of them, the one and only Engelbert Humpy Humperdinck, with my very  insincere apologies, just to cheer you all up:

 

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

Here is another picture from Farevela, https://farevela.net/2019/05/28/le-foto-del-my-song-sul-cargo-prima-dellincidente/ , which is a nice close up of the cradle, and strapping, while still in port at the look of it.

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

I am a boy who has also spend some time in the industrie, have personally shipped a couple of smaller superyachts half way around the world, designed and had one of the cradles build, and joined one on the trips as well. I also own a. fast 39ft symbian, but don't ask me for more details on the saddle and straps on that one.

OK, so obviously I know a little bit what I am talking about, and you know what, surprise, surprise:

The shipping cradle failed!!!  Or maybe, rather fell over???

If you can call that piece of shit, or two pieces of shit actually, a shipping cradle at all, as it doesn't seem to have any longitudinal strength (braces). Add to that absolute minimal strapping, in particular diagonal strapping both transverse and longitudinally. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing collapsed forward, in the first big wave the ship hit. I bet the captain tried to avoid rolling by taking the seas head on, under estimating the effect of pitching.

A mitigating factor could have been that the lifting keel might have been sitting on the cradle (or deck), but it did not take the weight of the ship, like that is always the case with conventional keels. Makes a very big difference.

So hopefully Farevela will come with more pictures, and also the inside scoop, as they are a pretty cool bunch. 

I agree that thing does look like a sketchy at best. Ideally you have bracing going from right below the bunk splashed down to the footprint. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, doghouse said:

Let's not get carried away here 

No worries, I was just echoing some of the industry leaders here.

I do appreciate your 1 contributionin this thread, keep them coming.

 

 

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

Early days........... but they’re sounding pretty damn sure it’s down to the boat and crew.  They’ll be eating some shit if it’s something else!  Think I’d have waited a day or two before issuing that part of the response. 

Especially as the people Peters and May are pointing the finger at are both clients and well resourced sophisticated people who can easily find many ways of satisfying themselves if they are wrongly blamed.

I doubt that the disclaimer “that this is the initial assessment and is subject to confirmation in due course” will in any way mollify the accused parties.

Frankly even if the client is at fault the client may choose some form of retaliation for being called out gratuitously. It’s not like there is no communication among the crews and owners of mega yachts.

Even when you are right it’s not smart business practice to go around telling the world (especially a small publicity/reputation sensitive world) that your client fucked up.

Peters and May are probably “right” that they are not to blame. If they were smart they would have found a better way to say that...e.g. arrange for someone a little distant from them and of more perceived objectivity to make the same comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fufkin said:

So either it's an act of God, or next time take the mast down?

Damn tragedy either way.

I get that there are massive logistics and possibly not local cranes etc to deal with the rig at either end, but as others have mentioned...is this rig just too big to have up, on a cradle, at sea?

1 On a cradle your centre of effort (if that's the right phrase for this specific incident), is how much higher than when in the water? With this boat that could be a considerable difference. 

2. The windage on the rig, (which is reasonably constant) is significant. As the boat is in a cradle, the loads will transfer to the stays and cradle ties with no heel (as opposed to in the water where heel absorbs shock). 

3. Inertial forces, as in when the mother ship lurches, are transfered to the tied down and static rig, which in turn are transferred to the tie-downs on the cradle. 

4. If it were to even budge a little, even a micro budge, the keel starts getting out of column with the rig and any further inertial force, game over. 

I'm sure this has all been taken into account...just trying to rationalize it, and yes shit happens.

God was just helping out on taking the mast down!   It just so happened that the boat was still attached during the process.

- Stumbling

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Navig8tor said:

Very much a two way street, Suggest you visit the model room at the New York Yacht Club or perhaps the Herreschoff museum in RI you quickly realize that a lot has been tried in the centuries before now,  materials, hull forms, keel shapes, rigs and their position , bowsprits,  sails cuts and shapes the list goes on and not all on small boats.

Some with success others have  latterly become successful with a better understanding of the engineering principles and access to materials that make systems stronger and lighter.

Yes a lot of things have been developed in small boats equally a lot has been developed  first on the old big boats like J boats,  A precursor of halyard locks today the original J boats carried a Pin man that stayed aloft for the entire race and "pinned "the halyards at full hoist until they came up with a better solution.

The new big boats like this vessel My Song  have advanced many things because of their size, scale and loads.

On Maxi boats we had wire mainsheets spliced to line for the winches, same with the jib sheets that were shacked to the clew all the halyards were wire because there was not yet the materials we now see as commonplace with low stretch and great strength.

As a consequence a lot more engineering and analysis is known and better understood in terms of loads and efficiencies and so now we have hydraulics for instance  now frequently used on smaller vessels. Internal furling booms another. Captive reel winches, Load cells to assist sail trim, Hydraulic Genoa Cars adjustable underload

One of the first boats to use Hydraulics exclusively and primarily to make sail handling and maneuvers easier was a Huisman built Ron Holland design called Whirlwind XII at 103 ft it was considered almost impossible to handle a vessel of that size using traditional methods hence Holland came up with Hydraulics as a solution and with that vessel superyachts became a thing.

Today so much money is thrown at these big boats that the understanding and engineering has become somewhat scaleable and therefore adaptable to boats of all sizes.

 

I'm very, very aware that a lot was tried centuries ago. But the "innovations" that can be seen in the NYYC model room were normally seen first on small boats, many years before.  Compare something like Linton Hope's Half Rater Kismet (the same length as a Melges 24 but only 30% as heavy) or an 1890s sliding-seat silk-sailed ultralight sailing canoe like Mab to a contemporary big boat like Vigilant and the big boat looks like a different and much more primitive era.  The bermudan rig, for example, was first used in an international race in small boats in 1895 with Ethelwynn,  and didn't make it into the big boats until the 23 Metre Nyria got one in 1921. High aspect fin keels started in small boats in the 1890s with Payne's Raters, and only later moved to big boats years later. In the J Class era the top small boats like Fox's 14s didn't use halyard locks because they had tiny bronze winches that allowed them to alter halyard tension easily, at a time when that sort of control was impossible in big boats. The same thing kept on happening - the first foam core boats were O Jolle dinghies, the first all carbon boat seems to have been an experimental Parker Contender around 1971, and mylar film sails were seen in Stars and dinghies long before they were used in big boats.

I'm not an expert on line technology so although I too sailed wire-sheeted IOR boats I'm not sure what may have been developed on big boats, but things like hydraulics were in use in skiffs at almost exactly the same time they started out in yachts.  Yes, the superyachts are improving their own technology but a lot of that is completely irrelevant at club level; how many 25 to 35 foot PHRF boats or dinghies use captive reel winches or hydraulics unless they are a '70s IOR warhorse?

Obviously it is not all a one way street but from the tip of the pole for its modern assy (an idea from small boats) to its foam or Nomex core (first seen in small boats) and its carbon skin (first seen in small boats) all the way to the clew of the squaretop main (first seen in small boats) a boat like My Song is a collection of many ideas pioneered in small boats. Many of us - perhaps most of us - have had very little "trickle down" from big boats.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Remodel said:

Yes, but next you'll be complaining about the overpaid Cat 3 hacks showing up as trimmers and tacticians on your local beer can circuit.

I actually don't give a shit if they do or don't.

But to see them on those big platforms standing in the back of the boat with there arms folded trying to look smart and looking down on the mom and pop competitors, irks the shit out of me  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Here is another picture from Farevela, https://farevela.net/2019/05/28/le-foto-del-my-song-sul-cargo-prima-dellincidente/ , which is a nice close up of the cradle, and strapping, while still in port at the look of it.

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

I am a boy who has also spend some time in the industrie, have personally shipped a couple of smaller superyachts half way around the world, designed and had one of the cradles build, and joined one on the trips as well. I also own a. fast 39ft symbian, but don't ask me for more details on the saddle and straps on that one.

OK, so obviously I know a little bit what I am talking about, and you know what, surprise, surprise:

The shipping cradle failed!!!  Or maybe, rather fell over???

If you can call that piece of shit, or two pieces of shit actually, a shipping cradle at all, as it doesn't seem to have any longitudinal strength (braces). Add to that absolute minimal strapping, in particular diagonal strapping both transverse and longitudinally. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing collapsed forward, in the first big wave the ship hit. I bet the captain tried to avoid rolling by taking the seas head on, under estimating the effect of pitching.

A mitigating factor could have been that the lifting keel might have been sitting on the cradle (or deck), but it did not take the weight of the ship, like that is always the case with conventional keels. Makes a very big difference.

So hopefully Farevela will come with more pictures, and also the inside scoop, as they are a pretty cool bunch. 

 

It appears that cradle was built and designed as a yard cradle in stationary use only, not to handle the loads in the moving, pitching, rolling deck of a ship on a storm in the open ocean.  Does anyone know if additional steps were taken to prepare for that, with this cradle?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Does look like a yard rather than shipping cradle. That is why I was interested in position on the ship. You want room either side to get the extra footprint of a wide cradle and widely placed anchor points for tie downs. The footprint looks small and the lack of bracing surprising. I also wonder about the stiffness of the deck of the cargo ship. If tie downs are used at tight angles like that the compression loads into the deck go through the roof.

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

Here is another picture from Farevela, https://farevela.net/2019/05/28/le-foto-del-my-song-sul-cargo-prima-dellincidente/ , which is a nice close up of the cradle, and strapping, while still in port at the look of it.

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

 

The shipping cradle failed!!!  Or maybe, rather fell over???

If you can call that piece of shit, or two pieces of shit actually, a shipping cradle at all,

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that photo: it's more of a brace or support than a cradle.

Boat starts to bounce on top of the braces and eventually falls off the side of the braces and into the sea, damaging the support structure in the process.

Cradle? Not hardly.

(it also occurs to me that if the straps were tighter on one side than the other it would tend to pull / heel the boat over towards that side, which movement may have precipitated the entire fiasco)

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

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that photo: it's more of a brace or support than a cradle.

Boat starts to bounce on top of the braces and eventually falls off the side of the braces and into the sea, damaging the support structure in the process.

Cradle? Not hardly. 

(it also occurs to me that if the straps were tighter on one side than the other it would tend to pull / heel the boat over towards that side, which movement may have precipitated the entire fiasco)

Would those two cradles be welded to the ship's deck or are they just sitting under the S/V's load?

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

That's exactly what I thought when I saw that photo: it's more of a brace or support than a cradle.

Boat starts to bounce on top of the braces and eventually falls off the side of the braces and into the sea, damaging the support structure in the process.

Cradle? Not hardly.

(it also occurs to me that if the straps were tighter on one side than the other it would tend to pull / heel the boat over towards that side, which movement may have precipitated the entire fiasco)

The second part of the equation is the vessel doing the hauling:

mv-brattinsborg-and-sailing-yacht-my-son

My eye is not that experienced with commercial vessels, but that one appears to be both undersized for the deck load and  how high the vessel was sitting in the water.   She does not appear to have much weight on her to get her riding closer to her lines.    Now, there is the possibility that there are ballast tanks that are used to "put some starch in the keel" for better sea-keeping.  

As the package currently sits, it looks like it is a recipe to do some rolling and really stress out the lashings on each vessel.   Given the cradles lack of substance and how high Song is above the deck, due to the deep keel, and the leverage of the tall mast, its no wonder that she broke loose and said "I'm outahere!"

- Stumbling

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stumblingthunder said:

The second part of the equation is the vessel doing the hauling:

mv-brattinsborg-and-sailing-yacht-my-son

My eye is not that experienced with commercial vessels, but that one appears to be both undersized for the deck load and  how high the vessel was sitting in the water.   She does not appear to have much weight on her to get her riding closer to her lines.    Now, there is the possibility that there are ballast tanks that are used to "put some starch in the keel" for better sea-keeping.  

As the package currently sits, it looks like it is a recipe to do some rolling and really stress out the lashings on each vessel.   Given the cradles lack of substance and how high Song is above the deck, due to the deep keel, and the leverage of the tall mast, its no wonder that she broke loose and said "I'm outahere!"

- Stumbling

Cargo ship looks small enough to be powered at a decent speed by hoisting some canvas on MY SONG's mast.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn’t collapse on first wave.... it crossed the Atlantic on that ship first....

it had unloaded some boats in palma that day and continued on....

missing a strap after some unloading? Weight distribution changed? Strap moved? Anything could have happened to cause the cradle to fail, but proving what/which happened first could take a lot of legal wrangling! If they ever find out at all....

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

 

It appears that cradle was built and designed as a yard cradle in stationary use only, not to handle the loads in the moving, pitching, rolling deck of a ship on a storm in the open ocean.  Does anyone know if additional steps were taken to prepare for that, with this cradle?

From what we see there does  not appear to be any longitudinal or diagonal bracing.

Also wonder if the keel itself was boxed to prevent any lateral movement in a heavy sea or did they simply rely upon gravity, if the keel started moving it would be rolling the vessel in the cradle.

I would imagine that getting ugly quickly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Al Paca said:

This RO is a total grifter. Has a 50 mil yacht and ships it commercial? Should have chartered a ship for exclusive transport 

What a pathetic comment.

People that wealthy got wealthy by not spending money stupidly.

They need a vessel moved they engage an expert and trust the shipping company to perform their contracted obligations in the matter.

They do not go and charter an entire ship to move one item.

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

designed as a yard cradle

I agree. My acquaintance with the subject includes loading and lashing many boats in the 100 foot range and smaller for sea transport. It would be nice to see the bottom of the cradle as well.

At first glance, it looks like they just did not lash anywhere near sufficiently. I would have erred on the side of caution with lots of lashings running as far fore and aft as I could rig. That ship is a lot smaller than what I am used to, and probably rolls and pitches like a SOB.

It is also critical to note that lashings always need checking and tightening soon after departure,  daily, and at the onset of any weather. An issue with this sort of boat is that you cannot just rig a bunch of heavy chain lashings and tighten them way down, without damaging the boat.

And I cannot imagine planning a load like this without a well engineered and agreed on lashing plan. I would expect "My Song" people to show up to examine the deck and consult the chief officer at an earlier port, and have detailed and specific lashing diagrams on hand during loading. None of it would be improvised at the last minute. The only changes I would expect to make would be additional lashings to counter movement noted during the voyage.

My two cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too recently designed some cradles for shipping US Navy tugs. We did an FEA and a 55 page report to show the cradle/tie downs were suitable.

One useful reference is the IMO Code of Safe Practice for Cargo Stowage and Securing.  Our cradle was designed for these accelerations. (For Americans, 1 g = 9.81 m/s2 so transverse acceleration in our case was 0.64 g )

Vertical acceleration (αz) = 6.2 m/s2
Transverse acceleration (αy) = 6.3 m/s2
Longitudinal acceleration (αx) = 2.9 m/s2

The lack of ANY transverse tie downs and longitudinal bracing for this cradle looks like an accident waiting to happen. That's a yard storage cradle folks.

Probably nobody checked the cradle for strength/stability etc.

Using only nylon or polyester straps like that is also risky. They stretch too much IMO.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Using only nylon or polyester straps like that is also risky. They stretch too much IMO.

You are correct, have seen transport crew note a strap getting slack and so ratchet it some more end result was a 45 ft sailboat with “dimples” in the hull where the cradle supported it.

They cranked it down so much internal galley units were displaced up to 20mm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

Here is another picture from Farevela, https://farevela.net/2019/05/28/le-foto-del-my-song-sul-cargo-prima-dellincidente/ , which is a nice close up of the cradle, and strapping, while still in port at the look of it.

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

I am a boy who has also spend some time in the industrie, have personally shipped a couple of smaller superyachts half way around the world, designed and had one of the cradles build, and joined one on the trips as well. I also own a. fast 39ft symbian, but don't ask me for more details on the saddle and straps on that one.

OK, so obviously I know a little bit what I am talking about, and you know what, surprise, surprise:

The shipping cradle failed!!!  Or maybe, rather fell over???

If you can call that piece of shit, or two pieces of shit actually, a shipping cradle at all, as it doesn't seem to have any longitudinal strength (braces). Add to that absolute minimal strapping, in particular diagonal strapping both transverse and longitudinally. Wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing collapsed forward, in the first big wave the ship hit. I bet the captain tried to avoid rolling by taking the seas head on, under estimating the effect of pitching.

A mitigating factor could have been that the lifting keel might have been sitting on the cradle (or deck), but it did not take the weight of the ship, like that is always the case with conventional keels. Makes a very big difference.

So hopefully Farevela will come with more pictures, and also the inside scoop, as they are a pretty cool bunch. 

Ooooh dat not look good.

Dat mash up too easy mon.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Al Paca said:

This RO is a total grifter. Has a 50 mil yacht and ships it commercial? Should have chartered a ship for exclusive transport 

Have you always been a dick, or is the a new thing ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really sad about this story... it was a beautiful boat. I had the opportunity to see her last year and was really an outstanding piece of naval architecture and design.

About the cradle I found this picture of Comanche during ship transportation: It’s interesting to notice the difference on the cradle structure... no diagonal struts are visible on My Song picture. Then it’s true that Comanche has a longer keel (about 7 m vs 5 m) but My Song weights at least 3 times Comanche and... also the rig here make the difference.

I’m really not an expert in this field but or Comanche cradle is over-engineered or on the My Song one something is missing 

0F874FC2-D9E6-40DA-8566-85923B998BE3.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's going to be a lot of finger pointing and argument about this one.

  • Who designed and constructed the cradle?
  • Who approved it suitable for this purpose?
  • Who erected it?
  • Who attached the yacht to the cradle?
  • Who attached the yacht and cradle to the ship's deck?
  • Who approved the whole loading scheme before departure?
  • Who maintained the lashings during passage?

There are more questions to ask, I'm sure.  

I've done this a few times, but never with a load this big, or with the mast up.  So competent suggestions are appreciated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fiji Bitter said:

 

view-28.thumb.jpg.aef476829e677705043aa1a520a64813.jpg

 

It is very interesting to note that the boat only has about 10 tie downs aside as well as the halyards. It is also noted that tie down points forward of the  mast there are only about 2 either side. 

 

Im a little amazed that there isn’t more lashings around the whole boat. I’m also surprised that the bow isn’t supported or braced more as well. With so much over hang from the forward cradle it would of been a good idea to brace the bow as well. It’s the old thing of 3 points of contact is far better than 2 and it would of steadied the boat far better as well.

 

At the end of the day as I said earlier, the Captain, Loadmaster and the Skipper of My Song would of all signed of on the loading of the vessel before they set sail. 

Pulpit

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

Ooooh dat not look good.

Dat mash up too easy mon.

 

     I love when an Island Rastafarian can look at the latest yachting wonder when it arrives in the Caribbean and somehow make a seat of the pants judgement on some aspect of a vessel that eventually proves to be true.  Much like TQA and his Island Mon dialect above. I delivered a poorly designed and even more poorly power catamaran ferry boat down to the VIrgins from Florida that barely held together for the trip. One of the Rasta grounds guys for the resort took a bow line as we approached the resort dock and as he bent over the cleat to fasten the line (properly by the way) he looked up between the hulls and did the point to his eye and then up under the hull. I knew just what he was seeing as the outer laminate of the underside of the bridge deck had peeled away during the night and was hanging down in flaps. The whole management of the resort (the white folk) were out on the dock with cold champange and congratulations and only the Rasta seemed concerned. I spoke briefly with him about it and what a waste of money that boat had been and he just shrugged knowingly. I joined the celebration and took a couple of glasses of bubbly and called the gardener back over and gave him one and thanked his for his perception and good judgement even for being a 'man of the dirt'. He laughed and asked me why the boat had two hulls that would be subject to that sort of pounding to the underwing and I gave him a quick rundown of what a good catamaran design was supposed to do. He just shook his head and said 'Mon, dat boat sure be ugly...'

    I agreed with him and he though a bit more and then said 'You know, that boat not just ugly, but wit dose two hulls like dat, dat boat be Double Ugly!!'

   I cracked up and gave him a 'respect' chest dab and returned to the party where I could help share his perfect observation. The next day, everyone was calling our new ferry boat the 'Double Ugly', a name it never could shake. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Weatherman said:

Really sad about this story... it was a beautiful boat. I had the opportunity to see her last year and was really an outstanding piece of naval architecture and design.

About the cradle I found this picture of Comanche during ship transportation: It’s interesting to notice the difference on the cradle structure... no diagonal struts are visible on My Song picture. Then it’s true that Comanche has a longer keel (about 7 m vs 5 m) but My Song weights at least 3 times Comanche and... also the rig here make the difference.

I’m really not an expert in this field but or Comanche cradle is over-engineered or on the My Song one something is missing 

0F874FC2-D9E6-40DA-8566-85923B998BE3.jpeg

Here are some photos of Comanche on her cradle, note the bracing. Also my daughter is standing on the keel in both photos and she was about 1.3 m tall. 

 

Sorry that the photos are upside down.

 

pulpit

 

988C5CA8-D376-4BD4-AAC8-8647BDAF544D.thumb.jpeg.61e040c12a736d0122d353b4ed992853.jpegY

1CC65400-C9A3-45F2-9F6E-2F85029216AB.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

"My SOng' cradles had a skinny box section to them, unlike 'Coman" single post supports. They may have calculated that as providing enuff fore/aft rigidity to not need the diagonal bracing seen on "Coman'  cradle. They both seem to have 6 -7 straps per side, but the big C has the stern pair crossed to give a wide angle.

How much weight is on the bulbs??   C looks to be hanging in the air, maybe foam block under it. Two straps either side to hold it centered - I don't think yhat would be needed if she were really sitting on the keel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^To do that you'd have to take the rig down too...  Which as discussed above, major hassle to do in the Caribbean.

With the rig still in, it'd be even more unstable without the keel...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The lifting keel is possibly a factor, but there is no doubt that the rig is an even bigger factor. I would like to see P&M's consideration in that respect, but I guess we never will. They did promise an update as soon as available, but I am not holding my breath for that either.

 

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

"My SOng' cradles had a skinny box section to them, unlike 'Coman" single post supports. They may have calculated that as providing enuff fore/aft rigidity to not need the diagonal bracing seen on "Coman'  cradle. They both seem to have 6 -7 straps per side, but the big C has the stern pair crossed to give a wide angle.

How much weight is on the bulbs??   C looks to be hanging in the air, maybe foam block under it. Two straps either side to hold it centered - I don't think yhat would be needed if she were really sitting on the keel.

Longy,

the big C needs 6.8 m or 22’ 4” To float in.

 

The bulb is sitting on the cradle in my photo above and it’s lashed side to side to stop the boat from tipping over. It’s a amazing cradle the way they have designed it so that they can load the boat on it with the keel in or out of the boat and it’s very well braced.

 

pulpit

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

Really sad about this story... it was a beautiful boat. I had the opportunity to see her last year and was really an outstanding piece of naval architecture and design.

About the cradle I found this picture of Comanche during ship transportation: It’s interesting to notice the difference on the cradle structure... no diagonal struts are visible on My Song picture. Then it’s true that Comanche has a longer keel (about 7 m vs 5 m) but My Song weights at least 3 times Comanche and... also the rig here make the difference.

I’m really not an expert in this field but or Comanche cradle is over-engineered or on the My Song one something is missing 

0F874FC2-D9E6-40DA-8566-85923B998BE3.jpeg

Even our quarter tonners' cradles have longitudinal and cross bracing and they probably weigh less than My Song's mast

2_Girls_getting_there_Nov_2009.JPG

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

It is very interesting to note that the boat only has about 10 tie downs aside as well as the halyards. It is also noted that tie down points forward of the  mast there are only about 2 either side. 

 

Im a little amazed that there isn’t more lashings around the whole boat. I’m also surprised that the bow isn’t supported or braced more as well. With so much over hang from the forward cradle it would of been a good idea to brace the bow as well. It’s the old thing of 3 points of contact is far better than 2 and it would of steadied the boat far better as well.

 

At the end of the day as I said earlier, the Captain, Loadmaster and the Skipper of My Song would of all signed of on the loading of the vessel before they set sail. 

Pulpit

Not trying to be a smart arse at all, but who's to say that the photo wasn't taken at smoko but one of the guys strapping it down which he sent to his missus to tell her what he's been doing all day. Then another 58 tie downs were added before the ship sailed. There's way too many what if's and maybe's at this point to make any real judgments on this but if the facts are as they appear, I agree with a lot of what's been said. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the pictures Comanche is cradled and strapped tight. No rig up. Crunch all the numbers and count all the straps ties whatever. The rig not being up is the single biggest factor. 

A deep draft bulb keel with  a sled underbody informs the shallow shape of the 'yard' cradle. I'm reminded of when we once transported a couple of Elliot sport boats on their yard cradles on a flatbed.  No rig up (of course), but the shallow shape of the cradle combined with the deep draft bulb keel(that doesn't rest on the cradle if I recall) made us extra vigilant of strapping the bulb both to the cradle and the flatbead as many times as we thought necessary, and then a couple more times.

Also note. The positioning of Comanche on the much larger (than My Song's) transport vessel is closer to the centre of pitch/roll, and is pretty much sheltered from at least one side. Re My Song, Stumbling and others have mentioned positioning, and also where exactly the transport vessel is floating on her lines(way above...less stable) 

Hindsight is 20/20 but which pic inspires more confidence? 

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

There's going to be a lot of finger pointing and argument about this one.

  • Who designed and constructed the cradle?
  • Who approved it suitable for this purpose?
  • Who erected it?
  • Who attached the yacht to the cradle?
  • Who attached the yacht and cradle to the ship's deck?
  • Who approved the whole loading scheme before departure?
  • Who maintained the lashings during passage?

There are more questions to ask, I'm sure.  

I've done this a few times, but never with a load this big, or with the mast up.  So competent suggestions are appreciated.

Well put P.Wop !

A.F.A.I.K, most serious Insurance Cos. require:

An independant 3rd party to " approve(d) it suitable for this purpose"

A chartered surveyor to "approve(d) the whole loading scheme before departure"

and ...... insurers are definitely tough litigators.

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

Not trying to be a smart arse at all, but who's to say that the photo wasn't taken at smoko but one of the guys strapping it down which he sent to his missus to tell her what he's been doing all day. Then another 58 tie downs were added before the ship sailed. There's way too many what if's and maybe's at this point to make any real judgments on this but if the facts are as they appear, I agree with a lot of what's been said. 

Well, you have to try and be smart around here, just a little bit smart will be fine.

There is another picture after she left port. It has got less detail, but seems to show the same strapping arrangement. See M26 post #34, or the Farevela link in #120 for the two together.

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

About the cradle I found this picture of Comanche during ship transportation: It’s interesting to notice the difference on the cradle structure... no diagonal struts are visible on My Song picture. Then it’s true that Comanche has a longer keel (about 7 m vs 5 m) but My Song weights at least 3 times Comanche and... also the rig here make the difference.

I’m really not an expert in this field but or Comanche cradle is over-engineered or on the My Song one something is missing 

0F874FC2-D9E6-40DA-8566-85923B998BE3.jpeg

Comanche's is a purpose made engineered cradle, connections and tie down design that travels around the world with her...like many race boats that mostly rely on on-board ship lift/drop cranage capacity (not terrestrial) in and out of the water so go sans mast and so keel is left on.

My Song was a "one-off" cradle/tie down inclusive of mast fuck up and it went for a swim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 10:30 PM, Gissie said:

Do you think the development of carbon spars, lightweight rigging, electronics etc would have been developed if the sole market was dingys?

Obviously not electronics, but I think you'll find when it comes to carbon spars dinghies were first.

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

Obviously not electronics, but I think you'll find when it comes to carbon spars dinghies were first.

Not so sure about that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condor_of_Bermuda

Quote

Notable facts[edit]

40px-Edit-clear.svg.png
This section is in list format, but may read better as prose. You can help by converting this section, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (April 2015)
  • It was the first yacht to race with a carbon fibre mast in 1977 in the Whitbread Around the world Race.
  • After developing a substantial lead, Heath's Condor was ultimately uncompetitive in the first leg (UK to Cape Town), due to a catastrophic rig failure.
    • Won the second leg (Cape Town to Auckland, New Zealand)
    • Second in the third leg (cracked mast)(Auckland to Rio de Janeiro)
    • First in the fourth (final leg) (Rio de Janeiro to Portsmouth)
    • Placed last on elapsed time due to first leg; subsequent races were amended to give yachts a fighting chance after a single leg mishap.
  • Condor was the primary competition for Whitbread outsider Pen Duick VI – a French sponsored, uranium ballasted unrecognised entrant to the 1977/78 Whitbread Around the World Race.

 

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

and it went for a swim.

Lovely My Song did not just go for a swim, she performed a super platform dive, a backward twist with 2 somersaults, and scored 40 million points. Initially she got a little bit tangled up in her bikini string, but after some encouragement from the Captain she jumped the cradle and off she went. 10 million extra points were given for briefly keeping her mast up until hitting a big wave head on at her maximum speed of 30 knots. Last we heard of My Song Gone was Viva Il Duce and then we all live in a yellow submarine, while shouting fuck the float test and continuing to drift to Porto Cervo to join the Loco Piano song festival, sponsored by P&M.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 4:36 PM, mad said:

Early days........... but they’re sounding pretty damn sure it’s down to the boat and crew.  They’ll be eating some shit if it’s something else!  Think I’d have waited a day or two before issuing that part of the response. 

why would you use the boat crew to build a cradle for a ginormous sailboat with mast up that's going to sit on top of a rocking ship?  who the hell would pinch pennies and not have an engineering firm there to oversea and handle everything..

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fan said:

Some more fodder for the arm chair engineers...

Cradle failure.jpg

Cradle loads wasn't the issue there with that amount of steel and number of deck fixings. There was insufficient lateral restraint provided in hull supports and to vessel itself. Look how close to the edge of the ship the cradle is mounted, tie downs at BMax would be close to vertical. With the help of rig momentum/load past vertical, the boat literally rolled/slid off the top of the cradle. God invented the triangle for a reason.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fan said:

Some more fodder for the arm chair engineers...

Cradle failure.jpg

Looks like a pretty well engineered base.

There appears to be a few critical bits missing from above this base though.

Remember the boat sat about 14ft above the deck. Whatever failed appears to have been in the approx 7 ft above this base.

The presence of the forward and aft splash assemblies close in proximity to the bases seems to imply a collapse type event between the splash assemblies and the bases that tipped the boat to starboard.

Note also there appears to be half an A frame behind the guys to the right this appears to be half of the brace for the keel.

I suspect a collapse event followed by a rolling of the vessel which blew half the keel support A frame off the deck.

A 105 tonne lever will do that.

This is supported by the way the remaining A frame is partially jacked off the deck.

Also the base being inspected looks secured to the deck to the left but is racked about  1 1/2 ft where assessors  are standing.

Thats my ten cents worth, here is the caveat:

Until we know for certain the chain of events this is conjecture however that said I do work in Marine Loss Assessment .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navig8tor said:

Looks like a pretty well engineered base.

There appears to be a few critical bits missing from above this base though.

Remember the boat sat about 14ft above the deck. Whatever failed appears to have been in the approx 7 ft above this base.

The presence of the forward and aft splash assemblies close in proximity to the bases seems to imply a collapse type event between the splash assemblies and the bases that tipped the boat to starboard.

Note also there appears to be half an A frame behind the guys to the right this appears to be half of the brace for the keel.

I suspect a collapse event followed by a rolling of the vessel which blew half the keel support A frame off the deck. 

A 105 tonne lever will do that.

This is supported by the way the remaining A frame is partially jacked off the deck. 

Also the base being inspected looks secured to the deck to the left but is racked about  1 1/2 ft where assessors  are standing.

Thats my ten cents worth, here is the caveat:

Until we know for certain the chain of events this is conjecture however that said I do work in Marine Loss Assessment .

Good armchair assessment. As an engineer I would second that theory. The bolts that hold down the keel bulb a-frame are intended to take load in tension. If the boat collapsed and forced the keep to the side this would have created shear loading on the a-frame bolts. A this point there would be nothing to stop the keel walking towards the edge of the deck and pulling everything with it once it went over. That's my guess anyways...

Link to post
Share on other sites