BayRaider Casualties at Morbihan Week

[Andrew Denman]

Hi Claus,

Just to put this discussion into perspective, what were the actual average wind speeds when the breakages occurred and which ones were attributable to strong wind alone?

regards,

Andrew

[Anthony Huggett]

This video illustrates what can happen if you put the mechanical fuse in the wrong place, and exceed the design spec of the boat. And this cost more than a BR 20 with all the trimmings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA-REPv-ReY

[Craic]

Hi Claus,

Just to put this discussion into perspective, what were the actual average wind speeds when the breakages occurred and which ones were attributable to strong wind alone?

regards,

Andrew

Andrew,
there were few singular local gusts up to F6 but in average just F4-5. It was absolutely fair throughout.

Quoting RCD 'C' in this context as explanation that spars may have some legal licence to snap above F 6 is total nonsense. RCD testing does not involve 'wind' at all, nor the testing of the boat or rig in any wind. RCD 'C' is simply the highest classification any open dinghy type boat can get. Any suggestion a  'C' boat can be tolerated to break something vital in any strong wind is at least misinformed.

'Blame it on the wind' is not helpful for the reputation of the boat.

[Jeremy]

Quoting RCD 'C' in this context as explanation that spars may have some legal licence to snap above F 6 is total nonsense. RCD testing does not involve 'wind' at all, nor the testing of the boat or rig in any wind. RCD 'C' is simply the highest classification any open dinghy type boat can get. Any suggestion a  'C' boat can be tolerated to break something vital in any strong wind is at least misinformed.

'Blame it on the wind' is not helpful for the reputation of the boat.

That is a gross distortion of what I wrote.  All I said was that the boat is clearly designed, tested and certificated to those limits and that if they are REGULARLY exceeded (you stated very clearly in your comment that the boat should be able to take being used and abused in F8 for years) then it was clearly not the boats fault if things started to fail.

I also said, very clearly, that there should be an adequate margin for the odd occasion when the design limits are accidentally exceeded, although my personal view is that getting oneself into a position where the boats design limits are exceeded is poor seamanship.

Now, to put this into perspective, what would be an adequate over-stress and fatigue margin for a boat designed to be used in winds not exceeding F6?  Generally (in engineering terms) structures like this would have a safety factor of around 1.5 applied, any more and the weight penalty starts to get problematic, so a component designed to safely withstand the forces exerted by a F6 wind should just about tolerate a F7 before some components reach ultimate stress.  F8 puts wind loads alone of 2.5 times those at F6, not accounting for the additional wave pounding loads.

We're not talking about a blue water cruiser, or a highly stressed around the buoys racer here, it's a very safe and stable open day boat intended for use in fairly sheltered waters, so I wouldn't expect it to, as you state, take years of use and abuse at F8 - that seems to be an unrealistic expectation.

Anyway, this is really a moot point as, from what you say, the conditions at Morbihan seem to have been within design limits anyway, which is a different matter.  There remains the possibility that the boats concerned were carrying too much sail for the conditions, but without evidence we cannot say for sure this was the case.

[Tony]

Hi, Matt, Claus      ... and  others.

Well! 
It still seems true  (as F.D. Roosevelt nearly said) that you can criticize a man’s wife all you like - but not his dog!  (..or boat,   in this instance.)

I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that the BR20 is anything less than a damn fine boat (..and well spec.’ed  in standard form) but it is a relatively new design.

 If users and designer had NO dialogue about ways of improving the boat you could perhaps say that it was because Matt had designed it perfectly  in the first place. Even if that were the case, (said he, tottering on the brink of annoying all concerned)  I don’t know of any owner of any boat that hasn’t made some modification from  standard  to suit them better and  improve the boat.   This is, surely, a Good Thing for the development of any class of boat and of sailing in general.  Particularly as in the case of Swallow Boats you can pick up the ‘phone and discuss your ideas with the designer and thus avoid any bad mistakes. 
Anyone like to suggest that Matt is not approachable in this respect?
Thought not!

Its this communication between designers and owners that moves things forward and Woe Betide any grey-suited EU Administrator  that thinks that the RCD could EVER do a better job of keeping people safe.  (Are you concerned, Jeremy, to think that the RCD and your insurance validity might be considered in the future to be more of an issue if you are caught out in a blow than your knowledge and seamanship in dealing with or avoiding those conditions in the first place?)

 Claus is right. (Although he did make the Morbehan sound a bit hairy in his original post!) 
If you need a jib boom strong enough to fend off a frigate, why not have one?  Unless you actually want a super-light out and out racing machine for the Americas Cup ,(scary video, that) I can see very good  reasons for making every part as strong as possible, both (as he says) for safety in extreme conditions and for the longevity of the boat. 

Damage limitation with weak links is all very well but NO damage from strong  winds  (which are not exactly a rare event these days) is even better. 
Collisions with icebergs, submerged shipping containers  - or elements of the French Navy – (they are all out their waiting for us, it seems)are  always a possibility and, RCD or no RCD, we will never be totally safe at sea -  but If you actually want to fly a light-airs asymmetric in a gusty F6 instead of reefing down hard and checking the availability of spare underwear, like me and all other right thinking cowards,  doesn’t  it makes sense to beef things up a bit first? 
Where’s the argument in that?

[Jeremy]

Tony,  I don't disagree with Claus about the usefulness of dialogue between users and designer, although I do feel that broadcasting issues to the whole world via the internet (i.e. this open forum) may not be the most productive way of discussing things like this, as it is too easy for potentially reputation damaging snippets to be quoted elsewhere out of context.

What I do very strongly disagree with is the concept that a small open boat should be strong enough to take winds up to F8 for years of use.  This just isn't realistic, given that wind loads increase with the square of wind speed and that structures have an equally non-linear relationship between strength/stiffness and weight.  Making small boat components that are many times heavier than they need to be  just spoils performance most of the time.  For example, designing a rig for F8 rather than F6 working loads increases rig weight by something like a factor of 3 to 6.  Is this really desirable?

The insurance aspect, coupled with the tendency of ambulance-chasing lawyers to exploit regulations to their advantage, is something we have to accept.  I've provided expert witness services (aviation related, rather than boat related) and know first hand the lengths that insurers will go to in order to avoid a claim.  The majority of insurers I've worked with have sought out my services in order to determine whether there was a regulatory loophole they could exploit to reduce or dismiss a claim.  The worst example I know of is a pilot whose doctor misprinted the date by a single day on his medical certificate (the pilot didn't spot the error at the time).  The insurer refused to pay out a total loss claim of over £30,000 on that alone, even though the pilot was fully compliant with all the necessary regulations, licences etc.  It wouldn't surprise me one jot to find that an insurer refused a claim on the basis of a boat being sailed in conditions outside her certification limits.  In fact, much as I don't like the concept of claim avoidance like this, were I a boat-related expert witness I think I'd have to give a view to the insurer that would support them not paying the claim under such conditions, based solely on the regulatory position as it is currently worded.

[Julian Swindell]

Building anything strong enough to resist all possible damage is not realistic. Everything, especially in boat design, is a compromise. I whacked into another boat a couple of weeks ago (my fault, I was blowing towards it as I tried to get the sail up, so I gunned the engine to spin out of its way and just succeeded in accelerating into it.) I put a nasty crack into the top of the hull which I've patched and will repair over the winter. If the hull was 12-18mm thick, it wouldn't have cracked. I also wouldn't have bought the boat, because it would be so heavy I couldn't trail it and it would sail like a tub. So it is a compromise. It isn't fragile, but it is light. It can suffer bumps, bangs, cracks and breakages, particularly with my sailing skills. But I think it is a brilliant design for what I want. Easy to trail, easy to launch and recover, fast and stable and more than strong enough for my needs. My old GRP boat might have actually been tougher (although the mast did break on me once...) but it was so heavy that it just made everything difficult and it sailed so slowly I rarely got out of the harbour.
I would also strongly support Tony's comment about criticism of anything on the internet, whether it is your spouse, dog, boat etc. It will be taken out of context and blown out of all proportion. I will trumpet anyone's success in public. If there are failures, I'll have a quite word in the ear if I think it necessary. It isn't hiding dirty linen, it is being aware of the potential impact of what you say on other's lives and livelihoods.

[Craic]

Webcam sex live for free 2015
 
 
CLICK IMAGE FOR MORE
 

[Graham W]

I have a list of things I usually do, if anyone should be interested.

Claus,
I am interested, not least because I am sailing in the Ionian this summer and afternoon winds can blow up out of nowhere. Prevention is better than cure, within reason, and my Greek is non-existent.

Why not publish your list and then we can all make our own decisions about whether or not we want to follow it?
Graham

[Graham W]

Does anyone have experience of the Drascombe range and how they stand up to this sort of punishment?  I have done a brief search of the Drascombe Association forum website and as far as I can see, there are more concerns about being swamped, falling overboard and the inability to claw off a lee shore than about rigging or spar failure.

It occurs to me that if Drascombes can survive normal heavy weather conditions without damage, then Swallow Boats should be able to do so too.

[Julian Swindell]

I had a Drascombe Dabber for 13 years on the west coast of Ireland. Bowsprit cracked when I was blown onto a jetty. Mizzen mast jumped out of its socket in rough weather and the leverage of it being blown over ripped the whole transom capping rail off. Yard parellel line snapped and dumped the mainsail overboard when I lowered it. Any boat can break.

[Peter Cockerton]

Comments from Claus

What I am not happy with is the strength of the standard jib-clubboom, and of the standard steel wire inside the jib luff. I would recommend that these parts are generally reinforced in future, as minimum. Plus all critical hollow profile endplugs be secured by through-bolts. Plus the jib foot clamcleat secured by at least one trhough-bolt. I have a list of things I usually do, if anyone should be interested.

Claus

The comments raised above unfortunately make lesser experienced sailors like myself very uncomfortable and difficult to rationalise without further explanation. Swallow Boats designed my Bayraider using accredited engineering practises and suitably qualified engineers. If the above is just your opinion (however you seem to be recommending the above changes are carried then that is your perogative but i still think it's abuse of the open forum. Perspective buyers which i guess are hard fought to get in this economic climate will not be exactly persuaded to purchase if doubts are raised on the boats engineering without in this case stress calculations to support.

Perhaps we need a seperate area on the forum which only owners of Swallow Boats can access and boat design issues can be raised on a controlled basis. This way Matt could have a chance to see them before publication and discuss with the author before publication.

[Anthony Huggett]

Speaking to Matt at Beale Park, it seems that the club boom breakage was sustained in a collision with a French Navy vessel of considerable size, as has been alluded to above. 

I'm not sure that Claus was aware of this from his original post.

It really isn't reasonable to expect any lightweight sailing boat to bounce off a ship like that with no damage, so as far as I am concerned, there is no case for Matt to answer since the standard club boom did not fail due to wind and weather.
 
That said, I can see Claus' point that the since entire rig depends on a fairly thin piece of wood there might be a case for beefing it up for one's own peace of mind if one is going to push the boat hard. But given the collision that caused the breakage, something was surely bound to give, and I would sooner break the club-boom than have the forward bulkhead give way under compression or the stemhead rip out.

[Tony]

Speaking to Matt at Beale Park, it seems that the club boom breakage was sustained in a collision with a French Navy vessel of considerable size,

As Daddy would say:-

BETTER DROWNED THAN DUFFERS IF NOT DUFFERS WONT DROWN

They brought em up rough in them days!

However, with my record of dings, prangs and general marine  mayhem my sympathies are with the BR20 skipper!

[Craic]

...If the above is just your opinion (however you seem to be recommending the above changes are carried then that is your perogative but i still think it's abuse of the open forum. Perspective buyers which i guess are hard fought to get in this economic climate will not be exactly persuaded to purchase if doubts are raised on the boats engineering without in this case stress calculations to support. ..

Perhaps we need a seperate area on the forum which only owners of Swallow Boats can access and boat design issues can be raised on a controlled basis...

Peter,
I disagree. I believe my open critique of some minor boat details rather lends more credence to my fervent applause and support for Swallowboats of which you can find plenty in other contributions on this website, in some magazine articles and -indirectly- in the subline of this post.

User feedback -especially founded critique- is the best source for product improvements. I have opened this thread hoping to collect a lot of such such user feedback, in order for the yard to quickly add a few improvements in order to make their boats even better than they already are. If you know a way how to achieve this through hushing things up, please let me know.

As pointed out, the BR jib clubboom is taking the entire strain to hold the rig and sailing capability up in the worst of conditions, and in case of a collision. Even in modest conditions this one bends and lets the mast rake back and sag the lee shroud. It should not bend or break too easily. Wouldn't cost much extra, and would give -me- greater peace of mind.

I found that the steel wire in the luff of my standard BR jibs was the same diameter as the wires I had in conventional jibs of other boats where that wire had no function to hold the entire rig up. It is difficult and expensive to change that wire later. I recommend it is made 1-2 mm thicker on the BRs as standard especially as the extra cost for that should be minimal.

Again, any other suggestions how to make the BRs -even- more sturdy than they already are, better bring them together here rather sooner than later.