# CE Ocean Ratings



## sab30 (Oct 11, 2006)

Does anyone put any faith in these ratings or are they just a safety guide that your boat wont break up offshore (ie Class A) I realize it doesnt discuss comfort, suitability etc.

I tried to locate a previous thread for discussion but couldnt locate one, if it has been discussed if your could link me that would be great

Thanks


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

The ratings will certify that the boat will survive the stated minimum conditions... as you pointed out, whether you, being aboard said boat, would be happy with the performance of said boat under same conditions will vary widely, depending on the boat.  However, the ocean generally doesn't play fair, and conditions can be far worse than the relatively meager thresholds that the EU RCD ratings have set. 

That said, it really depends on the boat and the manufacturer. For instance, I know of one boat that is going to be getting an EU RCD category C rating in Europe.... but is probably more of a category B boat... It would probably be a Category A boat with a few modifications.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

I consider these broad, rather than definitive, guides. I was told a few years ago that a Dufour 40 was rated "Lloyd's Ocean Class A", which used to mean something. Then I saw the 24-inch lifelines, the deck gear not backed with plates and through-bolted, but with encapsulated aluminum and screwed (an inferior method, in my view), no positive cabin sole floorboard lockdown, insufficient or improperly placed hand rails, weak gasketing on cockpit lockers, and great big portlights with no means to affix storm shutters.

So my ideas of what is appropriate for the ocean and Dufour's and Lloyd's apparently differ. Would the keel stay on? Would the hull endure? Oh, probably. Would I take it across the Atlantic? The hell I would.


----------



## sab30 (Oct 11, 2006)

Thanks..is there a comprehensive list of rating off all boats on a website. The reason I ask is that I was surfing around and again was looking at Elans...for some reason Im stuck on the 434 Impression and noticed it had a class A rating. Im not convinced that I want to be stuck out in some nasty stuff with that boat....the size of the cockpit looks like it could become an olympic sized swimming pool. Everything else about the boat suits us to a t


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Sab...from everything I can see this boat has excellent build quality for a production yacht and is well suited for cruising in terms of tankage and storage capability. I personally don't like wide open cockpits and spade rudders on ocean cruising boats...and the low lifelines seem more of a concession to design than safety. That said...there's no inherent reason this boat cannot be sailed confidently offshore and it certainly is an attractive platform for coastal cruising and living on the hook.


----------



## sab30 (Oct 11, 2006)

Hey Cam...

How do you think it measures up against its US competition? I would think for comparisons (high quality fin keel/spade rudder) would be the Sabre 426 and Tartan 4300..would you agree? I dont know if they are in they are in the same catagory but they all seem to have the Ocean A rating which was the reason for the original post...


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Well, I don't think he fittings/finish of the Elans is up to the Tartan/Sabre standard as there is far less "hand work" nor is the hull epoxy like the Tartan (on the other hand it is not cored below the water line!) Perhaps I'd best describe it as a more heavily built Beneteau built to a higher standard of rigidity and and designed with better tankage/storage.


----------



## Jeff_H (Feb 26, 2000)

It is a complicated question as to whether the CE 'A' Open Ocean standard means a boat is blue water capable. To understand the CE Directive for Pleasure Craft (The text of which can be found http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/directive_94_25.htm ), you need to understand its purpose. When the EU was organizing as a essentially a trade free zone, there was a need to develop uniform standards that would replace the standards that were then in place in each of the individual member countries. In the case of standards for pleasure craft, there were huge variations between contries that had very stringent requirements to countries that voluntary standards to countries with no standards at all.

The process of developing standards started out quite scientifically. Some of the research papers that came out of the preliminary research was really ground breaking. But ultimately the developement of the standards was very political. Since each of the signatory countries had to agree with the standards, the standards had to be a compromise from the most stringent and most tollerant standards used by the member countries. France in particular was very concerned about having standards that were so stringent that it damaged its boat building industry.

In any event, the CE standards ended up being a kind of minimum standard that all of the member countries could agree to and nothing more. The standard deals with structure, and stability and many of the components that are necessary in making a seaworthy craft. The basic text is quite schematic, but there are a number of annex's and addendum and attached by reference standards that more specifically define such items as engine intsallations, electrical installations and so on.

What the standards do not address, are things like deck plan, motion comfort, sail handling gear, interior layout, and so which are all components of making a boat truely suitable for offshore use. And so while a boat may carry an Open Ocean rating, it does not mean that it is truly ideal for prolonged use offshore. And that all comes back to a topic that was on this board a few weeks ago, Risk Management. While a particular boat may have sailed around the world without drowning its crew, that does not mean that it would be a good choice for that purpose. In reality it may have made through luck and good seamanship. But the choice to use any boat offshore comes down to how lucky the sailor feels and how much risk they are willing to take. With the CE an open ocean rating is the most minimal standard that could be agreed to amoungst nations, it is not intended to tell any particular sailor that their boat is actually safe in the kind of conditions that are likely to be encountered if one spends enough time offshore or that it will stand up to the kind of steady abuse that offshore sailing imposes.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Jeff's point about it being a MINIMUM standard of agreement is very important. It doesn't mean that it is a sufficient minimum standard... just what could be agreed upon.


----------



## sab30 (Oct 11, 2006)

I thought that was the case..I made the assumption like vehicles yes many meet the minimum standard but in accidents I would much rather be in some vehicles over others..just wanted the clarification as it does appear in various boat promotion literature...out of curiosity is their a comprehensive list of all boats and their certification as they come out of the factory as stock boats?

Thanks again


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Agreed upon by a bunch of non-sailors in suits on dry land in Brussels, most likely.

Every year that goes by increases, in my view, the number of unsuitable boats attempting heavy weather or distance sailing. The result is often injured crew or boats left afloat without control because the rudder's come off or the engine won't start or they've taken on two feet of water in a flat bilge because they didn't have a bridge deck or they didn't have storm shutters or they didn't have a really good set of hatches, after all (but they were low-profile and big and made the boat look fast!).

So we have the increasingly odd scenario of boats built well enough to avoid catastrophic failure (they don't sink) but weakly enough or unsafely enough to break arms or heads or to be rendered uncontrollable (SAR plucks crew off 200 miles offshore; boat is left to drift or ends up a year later as atoll decor).

It's a strange world we live in, cruising-wise.


----------



## Bigboats2000 (Jun 18, 2014)

Jeff_H, You wrote an excellent piece concerning CE back in 2008. I'm a builder that is currently building under Lloyd's and have some questions concerning CE and was hoping that I could pick your brain for a few moments. Is there a way I can send you a private message.

Thanks Jim


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I think most people that say the CE rating means nothing are doing so because they will never admit than brand X is capable, so therefore if it has a A rating the system must be meaningless.

But it only covers basic design features and has nothing to do with higher degrees of fit/finish items.


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

I would not entirely agree with Jeff_H history lesson on the RCD. 

The RCD was primarily instigated by the UK marine industry to get around Italian and other national certification. 

Fundamentally at its introduction, it was not about a specific build quality. But more relating to ensuring a documented quality control system. In that regard it has more in common with ISO 9000 . 

Notably because detailed construction specifications for leisure craft were not available, the RCD basically referenced a broad scope of construction requirements. Its important to recognise that the RCD doesn't specifically ( in the main ) mandate adherence to ISO specs. Merely that ISO specs are " one" way conformance can be demonstrated. Ultimately for A,B,C categories whatever the builder does. It's up to the notified body to accept and certify. 

At the initial publication of the RCD , few ISO specifications were available anyway. 

Hence boats built to any given category can not , not should be taken to indicate any " particular " level of quality. Equally the RCD is not nor ever intended to be a guide to seaworthiness or suitability to any given task. This is why insurance companies do not specifically reference it. 

To suggest its a " minimum " standard is wrong. Many of its requirements are quite exacting. But as I said its not a build standard. 

Again often drawn comparison with ABYC are equally misguided. ABYC is a voluntary code , hence it can afford to be far more prescriptive. RCD is a legal obligation or all boats new or secondhand. 

As a point , I remember the directive was agreed under qualifies majority voting of the commission and parliament. It did not require agreement by all countries. ( few things do in the EU anymore ) 

There is a significant upgrade to the RCD planned with fad more specific references to the ISO standards, now that many are agreed or in the process of agreement/ratification. 

Using Ocean A ( this is no " open ocean ") to establish specific quality or suitability for a particular purpose is to mis apply the RCD. It could be a cat B boat is actually superior to a cat A. The choice at what level is up to the manufacturer. For example most motorboats are certified at cat B, even though they would mostly pass cat A. 

Dave


----------



## Bigboats2000 (Jun 18, 2014)

thanks Dave, that clears up some of my concerns but also continues to add a level of confusion to the uninformed.

My current issue surrounds a company that is purporting that their vessels are built to CE open ocean A ,and as such, are equal in build quality and strength to our vessels which are classed and inspected by Lloyds registry. 

You can see the level of bovine effluent that I'm dealing with

The issue that I'm running into is trying to educate both the client in the difference, which to the educated and well-informed is pretty obvious,while not stomping all over his broker, who for some reason seems to have a tremendous amount of control over this particular client .

Finding some official text that backs up your obviously well-informed opinion would be invaluable. Any suggestions?

Thanks

Jim


----------



## Stumble (Feb 2, 2012)

Jim,

I am not sure how to answer you. Clearly CE minimums are a far cry from compliance with Lloyds requirements. From an advertising standpoint I would probably respond by comparing some minimum requirements that are easy to understand and show. Like the thru hull fitting specifications. Lloyds (and it depends on which lloyds rule of course) if I remember correctly has all sorts of rules dealing with the quality, alloy, durability, ect of thru hull fittings, while CE cert doesn't require much.

Or the scantlings requirements for each. 
Heck, just print out the 85 page CE requirements, and a copy of the Lloyds requirements you have to comply with. 
Alternatively call a few insurance companies for quotes on a CE class A vessel versus a Lloyds registered vessel of the same type. 

Trying to explain all of the differences would take hundreds of pages. Cat A boats are certainly reasonable for most people but they are nothing compared to the requirements of a Lloyds ship.


----------



## Bigboats2000 (Jun 18, 2014)

Thanks Greg, your suggestion of printing out the scantling requirements is perfect. Probably a lot more detailed than I require but just highlighting a few line items should be more than enough.

Greatly appreciate the help from all members that replied.

Thanks

Jim


----------



## Hush34 (Dec 12, 2013)

All the ratings in the world will not help if you don't have a competent skipper and crew. Let's face it, as sailors we spend more time worrying about ratings of boats and don't think about how we would rate ourselves. The Titanic was unsinkable according to the raters...


----------



## goboatingnow (Oct 10, 2008)

Hush34 said:


> All the ratings in the world will not help if you don't have a competent skipper and crew. Let's face it, as sailors we spend more time worrying about ratings of boats and don't think about how we would rate ourselves. The Titanic was unsinkable according to the raters...


The titanic was " unsinkable " only according to the popular press.

Dave


----------

