# 4 lost as 40.7 sinks off Azores 15/May/14



## MarkofSeaLife

This is no slouch cruisers boat but has completed the Round Britain and Ireland race and is one of those for charter race boats. It was heading from Antigua to the UK.



> Stormforce director Doug Innes said: ''The yacht Cheeki Rafiki, a Beneteau First 40.7, was on passage from the Caribbean to the UK with a crew of four yachtsmen. On Thursday she started taking on water.
> ''We were in contact with the skipper and at the time the yacht and crew were keeping the situation stable.
> ''They had not been able to ascertain where the water ingress was from and were diverting to the Azores.
> ''Unfortunately we lost contact during the early hours of Friday morning and we believe it is possible the crew abandoned to the life raft.
> ''Search and Rescue authorities were mobilised and a mixture of Canadian and US aircraft along with merchant vessels searched throughout Friday and Saturday.
> ''Although the search efforts co-ordinated by Boston were exceptional we are devastated that the search has now been called off so soon.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ter-yacht-capsized-in-middle-of-Atlantic.html

Heres the kind of thing Stormforce do
http://www.stormforce.biz/Products/160/Antigua-race-week.html#.U3jDI9q9KSM


----------



## smackdaddy

Wow. That sucks. It's really strange that they called off the search after only two days.

Maybe a keel problem?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

The ship found the boat inverted, so there must be photos.
I havent got the position but I've heard it was a long way north and east.
And the ship at the location was in 50 knots, 20 foot seas and didnt stop.


----------



## Halcyon1

*Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

Please sign now in an attempt to get some help to the missing sailors:

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

Pete


----------



## krazzz

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

Link didn't work.


----------



## svHyLyte

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The ship found the boat inverted, so there must be photos.
> I havent got the position but I've heard it was a long way north and east.
> And the ship at the location was in 50 knots, 20 foot seas and didnt stop.


Mark--

From the BBC:

On Saturday, a cargo vessel which was helping with the search spotted and photographed an overturned hull which matched the description of the Cheeki Rafiki but reported no signs of people on board or a life raft.

The US Coastguard said the search area had involved approximately 4,146 square miles and it was "extremely disappointed" not to have found the sailors.

Winds at the start of the search were said to have been blowing at more than 50mph, the sea reached heights of up to 20ft and visibility was reduced to under a mile.​
The foregoing statement "overturned hull" would imply that the hull was absent a ballast keel as, if the keel were still in place, there is no way that a 40.7 would remain inverted, particularly in such a seaway. Considering how the boats are built, I have a hard time imagining how the keel could be entirely lost. Can you?

The crew might still be alive and floating around in a raft but, if there was a catastrophic inversion in such conditions, they very likely may not have been able to retrieve the raft and/or Abandon Ship kit bag, No?


----------



## Halcyon1

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*



krazzz said:


> Link didn't work.


Try again...

Pete


----------



## JonEisberg

MarkofSeaLife said:


> The ship found the boat inverted, so there must be photos.
> I havent got the position but I've heard it was a long way north and east.
> And the ship at the location was in 50 knots, 20 foot seas *and didnt stop.*


That appears to be wrong... Sounds like they remained on scene and continued to search, until Sunday evening:



> We are very grateful to the M/V MAERSK KURE which volunteered to remain and continue the search on Sunday until such time as it was stood down in the evening.
> 
> Cheeki Rafiki Press Release - May 2014 | Stormforce Coaching | RYA, MCA & STCW Training, Charter & Racing For Sail, Power & Superyacht


Amazing that they located the wreck to begin with. Impossible to imagine any survivors inside, given this degree of immersion...


----------



## TQA

I think one of the reasons they called off the search is the PLBs did not transmit for long.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

svHyLyte said:


> The crew might still be alive and floating around in a raft but, if there was a catastrophic inversion in such conditions, they very likely may not have been able to retrieve the raft and/or Abandon Ship kit bag, No?


Yeah, I agree. Very serious situation.

Tony Bullimore was 4 days inverted in the southern ocean, see below.

Maybe have been where the leak was coming from... Then in a storm action should have been to drop the sails and motor.... But even with a leak from the keelbolts you wouldn't think the whole thing is gunna snap off. 
With sails up inversion in 50 knots would have been instantaneous and have taken just a second or so. Anyone below would still be below.

Theres not much you could do, except as soon as you see the leak dump the sails and wait till better weather... Is there?



> ''They had not been able to ascertain where the water ingress was from and were diverting to the Azores.


Well, then, you're stuffed, because if the boat is leaking from anything else you want to get to shelter asap.



> On 5 January 1997, in the Southern Ocean near 52°S 100°E, Bullimore's boat, Exide Challenger capsized and the majority of press and media reports assumed that the 55-year-old sailor was lost. The Royal Australian Navy launched a rescue mission for Bullimore and another capsized competitor, Thierry Dubois.
> 
> Bullimore was alive and managed to survive in an air pocket in the upside-down boat in pitch darkness, having lost his food supplies - his only food was a bar of chocolate. On 9 January, Thierry Dubois was rescued by an Australian S-70B-2 Seahawk helicopter embarked on the frigate HMAS Adelaide.
> 
> Adelaide then proceeded further south to where the Exide Challenger had been located by a RAAF P-3 Orion. Adelaide dispatched a rigid-hulled inflatable boat to the Exide Challenger where crew members knocked on the hull. Hearing the noise, Bullimore swam out from his boat and was quickly rescued by personnel from Adelaide. HMAS Adelaide then returned both Dubois and Bullimore to Perth.[1] During the return journey, Bullimore met with each member of the boat's crew to thank them for saving his life.


----------



## caberg

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

Maybe I am wrong, but does the U.S. Coast Guard have an obligation to search and rescue 4 Britons missing nowhere near the United States?


----------



## gamayun

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*



caberg said:


> Maybe I am wrong, but does the U.S. Coast Guard have an obligation to search and rescue 4 Britons missing nowhere near the United States?


Yes, if they can. There's a moral imperative, too.

The Coast Guard has issued a statement on why they called off the search after 53 hours of looking, and has spoken with the families. There just wasn't a good outcome this time.


----------



## smackdaddy

Certainly appears that the keel is gone...










Man that would be a sucky way to go.


----------



## Slayer

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

Don't know if this already got posted but here is a little more info:

Search called off for 4 Britons on 40-foot yacht missing in mid-Atlantic | Fox News


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

That keel looks more like a toothpick!


----------



## smurphny

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

Isn't this deja vu all over again? Same general area, same boat manufacturer? Are these boats falling to pieces? I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about the seaworthiness of this type construction.


----------



## smackdaddy

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*

I understand the angst. But I'm not signing a petition like that. I trust the USCG to assess and understand the situation better than a petitioner.

God be with the families.


----------



## Argyle38

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*



smackdaddy said:


> I understand the angst. But I'm not signing a petition like that. I trust the USCG to assess and understand the situation better than a petitioner.
> 
> God be with the families.


Sadly, I have to agree. The pro's know what they are doing. They would keep searching if there was a chance.


----------



## tommays

I have been on races on the Long Island Sound with good size seas in which we were going fast enough to more or less catch air and land painfully HARD 

It was hard on the crews body and harder on the mind as it is one of the few times i was really expecting something to break in a big way


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

*Re: Restart the search for missing sailors petition*



Argyle38 said:


> Sadly, I have to agree. The pro's know what they are doing. They would keep searching if there was a chance.


Mind you, you'd be a bit pissed off if they were taking photos of the upturned hull while you were in a liferaft on the other side of the ship 

This is unlike Nina, and the Malaysian plane where they searched for ages... And thry complained how quick the Nina search was.

But they probably looked at a couple of clear bits of evidence like the drifts of the two PLBs and the real position of the hull and realised the PLBs were not in a raft... Because if they were they would be together and still transmitting.

Swimmers would not have moved far from the boat.

Its sad. Very sad. But we have to learn from it.

And my lesson is to be a LONG way south of them. And leave MUCH later... In June.

300 nms south of the Azores looks nice to me.


----------



## nwsaildude

The hull has been found by a U.S. Warship

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/1867354-post11.html


----------



## hellosailor

The USCG had commented on this and the BBC has been carrying the story. USCG logic was that in wind, wave, cold conditions, 48 hours was more than the survival window. What was unsaid is that this is also in the middle of nowhere--a very expensive SAR operation.

When they were informed the boat had a 12-man offshore raft, they reconsidered. And apparently reconsidered again, thinking that if the raft was launched, it should have also deployed an EPIRB. Since there have been no signals, the prognosis was that it is unlikely anyone made it into a raft, and again, cold wx makes for a very short survival time, and a [unstated] very expensive SAR mission.

So signals, no signs of life, poor survival window...but I think the unstated cost of operating air assets mid-ocean is the clincher.


----------



## smurphny

It seems like if they have a fix on the position of the hull, it should be possible to really narrow down the projected position of a liferaft, shrinking the search area and the cost. It should also narrow the area for any satellite image searches that are possible. It does not seem likely that these physically fit guys did not at least get a chance to inflate the liferaft. The boat did not just break up and go straight to the bottom. Something doesn't add up.


----------



## svHyLyte

*Up-turned Hull Found*

More on the USCG having found the hull. See Coast Guard Spots Capsized British Yacht off Massachusetts, But No Sign of Crew - NBC News


----------



## hellosailor

Hmm, "off Massachusetts", or rather a thousand miles off the coast. Is it just me that thinks NBC needs to buy a vowel?

smurph, it is very possible that all four guys were on deck at night and one rogue wave (and they do come 100' tall in the Atlantic) rolled the boat, snapped the keel, and washed them all into frigid water, all in the flash of a moment.

Apparently someone got motivated enough to send assets to the hull, and whether anyone is inside (deceased) or simply swept away...A full week in that cold water is way beyond survival time, even in a gumby suit.

Old saying: Man plans, God laughs. [censored] happens.


----------



## capttb

It seems the life raft has been seen still on the boat unused.
Coast Guard Finds Unused Life Raft on Capsized British Yacht, No Sign of Crew - NBC News


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

> The rescuers said the yacht's life raft had not been deployed and was still in its storage space.
> 
> An image showing the life raft still in position had been "shared with and acknowledged by the [men's] families", the Coast Guard said later on Friday night.


Well, I am sorry, but thats the most difficult news. The crew must then be assumed be lost.

Mark


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Released by Coast Guard


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Released


----------



## paul323

Wow - the keel has gone. Sorry to speculate, but the keel area was damaged/bolts loosened. They started taking on water, alerted coast guard. Bam! Keel tears off, boat flips with liferaft still secured. Tragically, chances are one or more were below trying to find/fix the leak...damn. I was really hoping that when they located the hull, the sailors would be in the vicinity...


----------



## smurphny

hellosailor said:


> Hmm, "off Massachusetts", or rather a thousand miles off the coast. Is it just me that thinks NBC needs to buy a vowel?
> 
> smurph, it is very possible that all four guys were on deck at night and one rogue wave (and they do come 100' tall in the Atlantic) rolled the boat, snapped the keel, and washed them all into frigid water, all in the flash of a moment.
> 
> Apparently someone got motivated enough to send assets to the hull, and whether anyone is inside (deceased) or simply swept away...A full week in that cold water is way beyond survival time, even in a gumby suit.
> 
> Old saying: Man plans, God laughs. [censored] happens.


Now that the raft is confirmed to be still on the boat, your theory seems the most likely, especially with the windows blown out. It is surprising that in those conditions whoever was at the wheel was possibly not tethered in. In those waters they would not last more than a couple of hours before hypothermia set in. 
Besides not being there in the first place, what lessons can be taken away from this? Tethered below decks with some sort of temporary air supply? Always tethered on deck? What could have been done to avoid this outcome? These boats (unlike mine and many full keel boats) apparently do not sink so "stay with the boat" has got to be priority #1.


----------



## tommays

The high res close up clearly shows a failed rusted bolt to the rear with two failed bolts in the front and the middle laminate giving up


----------



## christian.hess

3 bolts?


----------



## christian.hess

so sad..here is another exact scenario

» Beneteau 40.7


----------



## night0wl

This really frightens me. Was the weather the reason the keel was sheered off? Or is there conjecture of poor maintenance or repair after a hard grounding?


----------



## smackdaddy

night0wl said:


> This really frightens me. Was the weather the reason the keel was sheered off? Or is there conjecture of poor maintenance or repair after a hard grounding?


EvansS has one of the best analyses I've seen here:

Beneteau 40.7 Cheeki Rafiki missing Mid-Atlantic - Page 5 - Sailing Anarchy - Sailing Anarchy Forums


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

christian.hess said:


> so sad..here is another exact scenario
> 
> » Beneteau 40.7


Well its not the "exact scenario" is it? Thats why you didnt quote the relevant bit, isnt it? Just so you can pop in a miss truth?



> The keel struck the bottom repeatedly during heavy seas in shallow waters before failing. After the keel was lost, water filled the hole and Barracuda sank within minutes.


Mark


----------



## tommays

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Well its not the "exact scenario" is it? Thats why you didnt quote the relevant bit, isnt it? Just so you can pop in a miss truth?
> 
> Mark




While the means of destruction was greatly accelerated the FAILURE is clearly the same right down to the TEARING of the laminate that gave up last after the boats sheared


----------



## smurphny

tommays said:


> The high res close up clearly shows a failed rusted bolt to the rear with two failed bolts in the front and the middle laminate giving up


That's a great close-up. What would you say the thickness of the hull is? Looks mighty thin but maybe it's just the scale of the picture.

From reading about these things, it seems the keel is simply thru-bolted with big "fender washers" on the other side of the glass. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE SHEETIN ME! Who in H comes up with this kind of "engineering?" "The boat had gone aground and maybe there was damage?????" Well, it IS a sailboat folks. Sailboats FREQUENTLY go aground without their keels falling off shortly thereafter.


----------



## gamayun

Very tragic and my heart goes out to the family and friends of these sailors. The thing that is completely amazing is that the hull was able to be located a second time. If the CG can find a near sunk object like that without an EPIRB on it, then maybe we need to rethink second guessing the experts along with their survivability models. I recognize the conundrum though, because with no bodies recovered, this is the kind of evidence that the families probably needed for 'closure.' Curious to me that no one has mentioned that the skipper was 22 year old and that this was a charter racing boat. It seems that if it's not your boat, you really don't know whether it ever had a grounding or how it's being maintained.


----------



## lowtide

Old Corvette fenders had more fiberglass than I see there. 

Condolences to the families of the crew. Very sad.

'


----------



## tommays

Just to keep info here this is the sump inside with everything hanging on the hull


----------



## christian.hess

so it looks like 9 bolts then

well its unfortunate for sure...

so sad...


----------



## wikiwiki

Any idea what size bolts ?


----------



## rockDAWG

So sad. My thoughts with the families. 

Sailing in the open ocean is a dangerous sport. Be careful out there and good luck to all.


----------



## hellosailor

wiki, size doesn't matter unless you know the specific alloy strengths.


----------



## billyruffn

The official report on this incident has been published and is available at https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf

If you don't have time to read it all John at Attainable Adventure has summarized key findings and added his two cents on what it all means. Read his post at https://www.morganscloud.com/

I haven't read the report yet, but John's post is interesting and speaks some aspects of a topic frequently debated here: "What's an 'offshore' sailboat? (vs coastal cruiser)"


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

billyruffn said:


> The official report on this incident has been published and is available at https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf
> 
> If you don't have time to read it all John at Attainable Adventure has summarized key findings and added his two cents on what it all means. Read his post at https://www.morganscloud.com/
> 
> I haven't read the report yet, but John's post is interesting and speaks some aspects of a topic frequently debated here: "What's an 'offshore' sailboat? (vs coastal cruiser)"


Thank you for posting this. John's assessment is outstanding. Also read the comments, additional nuggets in there.


----------



## killarney_sailor

It is an interesting analysis of the report. I think key is the idea is that the standard is for sufficient safety when the boat is new with little, if any, consideration of the strength of the keel connection after 20 or more years of use.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Well, its not a coastal cruiser, its a Beneteau First 40.7 that, I think, has won more Sydney to Hobart races for its class than any other boat.
But its life has been doing constant long offshore races, trans atlantics, Around Great Britain races etc... And hit the bottom often.

John from Morgans Cloud is very good at what he does but his view on boat types is a tad one eyed...
His idea to "return" to different production methods is not as useful, imho, than to advance production methods.

But then I am a modernist, even if I cant work my stupid new smarter-than-me-phone.


----------



## RichH

billyruffn said:


> The official report on this incident has been published and is available at https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf
> 
> If you don't have time to read it all John at Attainable Adventure has summarized key findings and added his two cents on what it all means. Read his post at https://www.morganscloud.com/
> 
> I haven't read the report yet, but John's post is interesting and speaks some aspects of a topic frequently debated here: "What's an 'offshore' sailboat? (vs coastal cruiser)"


What the report infers quite outstandingly clear is that for this particular design, the scantling numbers (added factors of safety, etc.) have to be increased because (and for whatever the cause) there has been documented failure and loss of life. 
That the hulk was probably sunk for navigation safety reasons will make the (now at least morally required) 'upgrade' based on this sinking, forensically impossible. 
At least from the Bavaria keel loss events of a few years ago in the Adriatic and those hull recoveries from relatively shallow water undoubtedly led to quite positive remediation - scantling and safety factor increases for the keel connection. 
(When was the last time anyone heard of an encapsulated keel falling off?) 
Just because a boat is shiny, has great eye appeal, great visual appearance and comfort, does not mean its totally 'safe'. Either the designer/builder totally breaks one or more under dynamic and obscenely expensive testing conditions or as in this such case you examine the failure as best as possible and then redesign and probably boost the safety factors. 
The safety factors are not 'written in stone'; yet, do attempt to cover for unpredicted and unforeseen events. Such is the evolution of the engineering process: if failure, then build it stronger, etc. ... all the rest is simply rolling the dice, as is the hallmark of 'being alive' and taking few undue chances.

Only laws, lawyers and politicians are 'perfect' (HA!).

;-)


----------



## billyruffn

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Well, its not a coastal cruiser, its a Beneteau First 40.7 that, I think, has won more Sydney to Hobart races for its class than any other boat.
> But its life has been doing constant long offshore races, trans atlantics, Around Great Britain races etc... And hit the bottom often.
> 
> John from Morgans Cloud is very good at what he does but his view on boat types is a tad one eyed...
> His idea to "return" to different production methods is not as useful, imho, than to advance production methods.
> 
> But then I am a modernist, even if I cant work my stupid new smarter-than-me-phone.


Mark,

I think the fact that the Bene 40.7 has won a lot of offshore races proves nothing more than, when competently sailed, it is a fast boat. While the Sydney-Hobart can be a tough, even dangerous race it is only 600 miles (as is the Newport-Bermuda race). Assuming the wind is up, 600 miles is three days plus a few hours in a boat like the 40.7. As you know, ocean crossings or extended open-ocean passages are different than most ocean races.

I've been through the report and I think I agree with John at Morgans Cloud on the production issues he raises. He may be "one eyed", but it's a perspective he's learned from years of being "out there" as they say around here.

A debate of whether offshore design should "go back" traditional, proven design concepts, or as you suggest, push forward to advance production materials and methods would no doubt have people lining up on both sides. (I see parallels here with the "conservative" vs "progressive" political debates we all will be forced to endure in coming months :smile).

If we're talking about offshore passage-makers I think John's right to want to take a step back. If we're talking about offshore race boats your desire to push forward is probably in order for the simple reason that racing industries (sailing, automotive and otherwise) often are the source of innovations that later become industry standards. That said, one of the important differences between sailboat racing and, say, Indy car racing is that worn out, retired Indy cars are not often offered for sale to people who want to take the family on weekend camping trips. Retired race boats are quite often bought by people who dream of "sailing off" into the sunset with the wife, kids and family dog aboard.

With that thought in mind, let me turn to the MAIB report. (For those just joining the discussion it is at https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf)

Among the findings of report that should be of particular interest to people who own boats built to design concepts similar to the 40.7 or who see the acquisition of a retired race campaigner / charter boat as an inexpensive entry to a cruising lifestyle are:

1/ Boats of this design type (hull + matrix) are susceptible to structural damage from fairly commonplace events (e.g. groundings), and/or from the cumulative stresses of a long racing career.
2/ The damage that results in separation of the hull and matrix (interior "shell") can significantly weaken the structural integrity of the boat.
3/ This type of damage is difficult (or impossible) to detect, even when subjected to professional survey. And, once detected, it can be difficult to repair to the point where "as built" structural strength is fully restored.

When you couple that all that with the fact that race boats are often designed and built "on the edge" -- as light as possible, and a strong as necessary and that production race boats, like the 40.7, are built to be as inexpensive as possible and....well, do you get my drift?

Add to that the fact that boats like Cheeki Rafiki (and many other charter boats whether they are raced or not) have been skippered by people who do not have a long term interest in the boat and may or may not report or take action on "light groundings" that may occur on their watch and the problem gets worse.

My #1 take away from the MAIB report is that when it comes to buying retired race/charter boats, _caveat emptor_.

Also on my list of "lessons learned" from the report are:

1. SAR forces will calculate how long you and your crew will live in the water. In Cheeki Rafiki's situation the mean time to death bobbing around in a PFD was less than 24 hours. Take away: if you're making a long passage in cold water, carry emersion suits and make sure your EPIRB info on file with the USCG indicates the fact that you have emersion suits aboard, and that your SAR emergency contacts remind the CG of this fact when they call. The mere fact that you have access to emersion suits means the SAR forces will look for you longer. They looked for Cheeki Rafiki for over 50 hours even though the max. survival time was less than half that.

2. Chances of finding a crew member in the water with only a PFD when searching from a fixed wing aircraft are 6%. WOW! This tells me you have to have the life raft in an easily deployable place. Getting in the raft greatly increases the mean time to death from exposure and the probably of being sighted. This also tells me that packing a pouch with mini-flares, laser flares, dye packs, etc and hanging it on your PFD is probably worth the hassle.

3. Even in the world of instant satellite communications, the Marine SSB has a place in the equipment inventory of an offshore sailboat. Cheeki Rafiki had VHF and a Iridium sat phone. There is no indication in the MAIB report that they issued a "mayday" or even a "pan-pan" call on the VHF. While the nature of the catastrophic failure of the hull would probably eliminated any possibility of putting out a "mayday" call, if they had had an SSB they could have put out a "pan-pan" call once they knew they had a major leak. The crew was engaged in trying to find the source of the leak and pumping the boat for over 40 hours before the first PLB went off. That would have been ample time to alert nearby merchant vessels and have them respond.

4. I am having second thoughts about not equipping my PFDs with PLBs. For our Atlantic crossing in 2013 I bought personal AIS transponders for all the crew with the thought that a PLB tells the shore based SAR authorities where a lost MOB is, but not the boat that is in the best position to rescue them. If it's a single MOB, my thinking was that the personal AIS transponder was the way to go. Obviously, in the case of Cheeki Rafiki, it was the PLBs of the skipper and mate that were the only indicators that the boat was in very serious trouble. The boat's EPIRB was not activated, probably because it was located below and inaccessible once the boat flipped over.

Others may disagree with some (or all ) of the above and will have different takeaways from mine. What matters, IMHO, is that we all learn from tragedies like this.


----------



## hellosailor

Allow me to be a contrarian and say that a boat which has won a lot of offshore races, is quite possibly NOT a good offshore boat.

Remember that you win races by being fast, and fast means light. And just as the America's Cup racers stop racing if the wind or waves exceed a certain point, every boat is designed "to a certain point". A racer must be designed for a specific maximum wind/wave condition, and if you exceed that, IT BREAKS.

So do I want a boat that has been lightly built, and crewed by experts who will not let it hit the breaking point? The popular offshore race winner?

Or do a want a slower boat, built heavier to withstand less skilled crew and fouler weather?

Sure, you can compromise the two...if you've got the money to have it built one-off.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

hellosailor said:


> Sure, you can compromise the two...if you've got the money to have it built one-off.


Cheeki Rafiki was a RACE boat. It RACED every passage of its life. It was going back to the UK for a season of long offshore RACES. Then back to the Caribbean in a RACE for more RACES.

It has 2 or 4 less keelbolts than the standard cruising beneteau as the boat is a RACE boat.


----------



## aeventyr60

^ yes, and had a history of serious groundings that the owners were to cheap to fix properly or "retire" from racing. Even good race horses are put out to stud after a successful career with leg injuries.


----------



## billyruffn

MarkofSeaLife said:


> It has 2 or 4 less keelbolts than the standard cruising beneteau as the boat is a RACE boat.


Why would a race boat have fewer keel bolts than a standard cruising boat? Weight?


----------



## robert sailor

billyruffn said:


> Why would a race boat have fewer keel bolts than a standard cruising boat? Weight?


Deep fin keels that are thin in profile are more efficient, especially going to windward. A narrow root between the hull and keel also adds to this efficiency however it is also more difficult/expensive to design/build a really strong and durable/light joint.
Cruising designs tend to have a much wider keel joint at the hull allowing the builder to put in more bolts spaced out in a stronger layout.


----------



## hellosailor

Rash guess: Lead keel instead of B's typical cheaper iron keel, as well?
With a thinner keel section, less room for bolts. Or, less steel from bolts, more lead for keel, better ballast & righting movement?

Mark? Iron on that model when "stock" ? 

Warren Luhrs (head of Hunter at the time) lost the keel on specially-built-for-the-boss-to-race Thursday's Child(?) when it was brand new, so the problem is neither new nor B's alone.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Iron keel on mine. I think its an option on the first. If you wanted to win a race you'd go the lead.... Thinner, deeper etc.

I was looking at how thin the keel looked in the photos. Mine is much fatter and longer so theres more bolts.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Thats not a keel. Its a lollypop stick!!!


----------



## smurphny

I really appreciate the speed that these boats can achieve, especially when they pass me like I was standing still but there needs to be some common sense in the design. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see that hanging a sliver of metal on a few bolts is not a design that will stand up to the sea for very long. It is simply under-engineered to save money and weight (in that priority order).


----------



## Capt Len

Design of vessels seems to be one of compromise .If speed, eye appeal, cost, are the only factors at play ,incorperating the Modulus of Robusticity becomes undesirable. Somehow ,this becomes the norm and crash and burn becomes more spectacular.


----------



## hellosailor

Should "Compromise" be a dirty word?

Hunter used to compromise a lot to get their prices down, but then again, they got a lot of first time owners on the water and into the sport.

A lead keel will be denser and stress the keel attachment more, but so what? If I have eight heavy strong bolts and the iron guy has a dozen smaller ones, who's to say my keel isn't attached better? Ignoring a layer of 5200 that makes the bolts purely cosmetic anyway perhaps?(G)

I think it comes down to the engineering, and especially when "light is fast, go light and fast and win the race" is what counts, the question is who anticipated conditions, didn't push beyond the envelope, and in case anyone has seen the budgets for the America's Cup ? There's a big question of how deep are your pockets?

I came to realize very early on that if you really want to win races, you'd better have a deep pocket. Because stainless fittings are all hogs that only cheap-asses use. Titanium rules. Iron keels? Great for beer can races and handicaps. Lead? Right, that's your father's Oldsmobile. Slip in a couple of tungsten sabots, and now you've got a keel. (Spent uranium is great, but even government wallets have problems with that one. Talk about hazmat.)

So, blaming the engineer and the builder for a keel breaking off?

Not really. Someone said "Yeah, that's good enough, and all we want to pay for." And then someone (else?) said "Don't worry about it, we can push harder."

Sure you can. Maybe that's why designers usually don't go racing on the boats they got hired to design?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

HelloSailor is absolutly spot on.

A "First" is a RACE boat. Try tell race boat owner they need a slower boat. Try telling that guy who bought the 40 foot Gun boat and flipped it 30 minutes into his first race in St Barts this year.

Or the guy who sunk one on his maiden voyage this year.

But, please, don't neglect the fact that this First has several, yes, several groundings in its life.

So you expect designers to allow for how many groundings?? 1? 2? 5??????????

Like those who buy a Gun boat to cruise, or a First to cruise its good to tell them its not a cruising design boat. But this first wasn't used as a cruiser it was used for long offshore, ocean crossing racing. The owners duty of care is higher especially as they sell berths to make it a business.

Mark


----------



## hotdogs

smurphny said:


> You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see that hanging a sliver of metal on a few bolts is not a design that will stand up to the sea for very long. It is simply under-engineered to save money and weight (in that priority order).


This is a Brent Swain-quality argument. Prediction: if pressed to justify such a claim via a numerical model, the poster above will be incapable of doing so.


----------



## jerryrlitton

hotdogs said:


> This is a Brent Swain-quality argument. Prediction: if pressed to justify such a claim via a numerical model, the poster above will be incapable of doing so.


Well I am no rocket scientist either however if you have two boats with the same mass, same sail area with the same apparent wind you will roughly have two boats trying to avoid roughly the same leeway right? Very roughly but you do get my point. Since the keel is one of the significant (not all I know) items that resist leeway it has to resist a certain amount of shearing force. However these two boats have different keels, one boat has a keel that extends almost 2/3 of the hull and 5 foot deep. The other has a 4 foot long 7 foot deep keel with a bulb. Since the shearing force is roughly the same the longer keel boat can spread this force over a larger area no? Hence the ability to make it stronger. The long keel boat won't win many around the can races however it will get you where you need to be. I am sure a proper engineer can make a numerical model to explain this picture.


----------



## smurphny

hotdogs said:


> This is a Brent Swain-quality argument. Prediction: if pressed to justify such a claim via a numerical model, the poster above will be incapable of doing so.


Tell that to the folks who lose keels, rudders, and other miserably under-designed equipment. There is a point at which any reasonably logical person with some practical mechanical experience does not need to see the engineering data to KNOW that something is not fit to endure an ocean environment. While I applaud new technology and experimentation, I also believe it should sold as just that-experimental, BEWARE, kinda like a beta version of software, users should be aware it may well crash and burn until perfected. It seems like these boat engineers are experimenting with people's lives


----------



## robert sailor

Personally I think the new entry level production sailboats are pretty strong out of the box. Yes for sure some had failures that was poor engineering but all in all I think they are pretty decent. I believe what we are seeing is that because of the way they are built they do not have the longevity or the durability of the stick built boats either new or in the past.


----------



## Capt Len

Earlier, some discussion of the differences and definitions of bending, shearing, cycle # of flexing ,twisting and stuff left me both nodding affirmatively and shaking my head with 'Huh?' Boats for difference markets allow designers and engineers some leeway to balance speed .cost safety for a knowledgeable buyer. Expectations of the unwashed masses of boat owners leave many at risk of disappointment or worse. Personally, I prefer the too strong don't break Modulus of Robusticity plan .Weather ones keel bolts fail in tension, shear forces allow something to twist or bend is at a different level than having to ask the marina staff about that gurgling sound or to check the engine oil occasionally.


----------



## hotdogs

smurphny said:


> Tell that to the folks who lose keels, rudders, and other miserably under-designed equipment. There is a point at which any reasonably logical person with some practical mechanical experience does not need to see the engineering data to KNOW that something is not fit to endure an ocean environment. While I applaud new technology and experimentation, I also believe it should sold as just that-experimental, BEWARE, kinda like a beta version of software, users should be aware it may well crash and burn until perfected. It seems like these boat engineers are experimenting with people's lives


My prediction came true!!! Even better, the response came with an appeal to emotion and some other logical fallacies. New prediction: the poster quoted above will continue to make mathematical claims with no math and, furthermore, will double down by tossing in a few insults or, perhaps, a comparison between myself and an infamous historical figure. Also, steel boats are the best boats.


----------



## smurphny

Here's a piece with some math, if it floats your boat:

http://www.vgyd.com/Keels%20Falling%20Off%209-5-13.pdf

Another: http://www.sailmagazine.com/diy/keep-your-keel-on/

Some interesting facts here:https://www.morganscloud.com/2015/06/25/cheeki-rafiki-report-misses-an-opportunity-to-make-boats-safer/


----------



## billyruffn

smurphny said:


> Here's a piece with some math, if it floats your boat:
> 
> http://www.vgyd.com/Keels%20Falling%20Off%209-5-13.pdf
> 
> Another: Keep Your Keel On - Sail Magazine
> 
> Some interesting facts here:https://www.morganscloud.com/2015/06/25/cheeki-rafiki-report-misses-an-opportunity-to-make-boats-safer/


Interesting reading. One thing caught my attention was the difference in the attachment points for the keel bolts between the diagram in the Sail Magazine article (image Keel Figure3 below) and the attachment point on the Bene 40.7 keel (Thumbnail below).

The generic diagram in the magazine article has the keel bolts running up through the structural members (frames?) in the matrix / liner while the Bene keel bolts penetrate the hull between the frames. Seems to me the Bene design is inherently weaker.


----------



## smurphny

billyruffn said:


> Interesting reading. One thing caught my attention was the difference in the attachment points for the keel bolts between the diagram in the Sail Magazine article (image Keel Figure3 below) and the attachment point on the Bene 40.7 keel (Thumbnail below).
> 
> The generic diagram in the magazine article has the keel bolts running up through the structural members (frames?) in the matrix / liner while the Bene keel bolts penetrate the hull between the frames. Seems to me the Bene design is inherently weaker.


It seems to me that the attachment of that long, heavy lever to a fiberglass structure's surface with a small footprint is the problem. I don't see any good way of making something like this work without distributing that stress over a much wider surface area *or with some sort of cantilever*, up inside the hull, much like a mast that goes through- deck or the trunk of a centerboard-style hull. A keel, attached to a narrow piece of bottom is kinda like trying to use a deck mounted mast without stays. There's just too much leverage on too small a bearing area.


----------



## jerryrlitton

smurphny said:


> It seems to me that the attachment of that long, heavy lever to a fiberglass structure's surface with a small footprint is the problem. I don't see any good way of making something like this work without distributing that stress over a much wider surface area *or with some sort of cantilever*, up inside the hull, much like a mast that goes through- deck or the trunk of a centerboard-style hull. A keel, attached to a narrow piece of bottom is kinda like trying to use a deck mounted mast without stays. There's just too much leverage on too small a bearing area.


You have a numerical model for that I suppose.....Just kidding.


----------



## Jeff_H

billyruffn said:


> Interesting reading. One thing caught my attention was the difference in the attachment points for the keel bolts between the diagram in the Sail Magazine article (image Keel Figure3 below) and the attachment point on the Bene 40.7 keel (Thumbnail below).
> 
> The generic diagram in the magazine article has the keel bolts running up through the structural members (frames?) in the matrix / liner while the Bene keel bolts penetrate the hull between the frames. Seems to me the Bene design is inherently weaker.


It is generally considered best practice on a glass boat to bolt through the hull rather than through the transverse frames. This is actually the stronger method on a boat with a molded force grid/pan. The transverse and longitudinal frames and the pan in between form a very stiff box once attached to the hull, and the bolts are hung from the bottom of that box.

That is very different than a wooden boat where the bolts run through the 'floor timbers' which distribute the loads to the frames, which distribute the loads to the planking, stringers, and so on.

One of the things that impressed me in the report is the extraordinary level of quality control used by Beneteau in building these boats, including all resin weighed, all fabrics precision cut and placed, glue joints specified in width, length, and area, the retention and examination of coupons from the hull borings which are then examined and burn tested if there is any question, and so on. I seriously doubt that level of quality control exists on most production lines, or even on many custom or high end production boats.

I know the 40.7's reasonably well. They were amazing race boats for their day, winning most of the major regattas of the era when they were introduced and still winning races today, 15 years later. There is no doubt these began life as race boats. For a somewhat budget oriented production boat, these really pushed the limit on performance.

But that kind of performance does not come free. It requires careful engineering and perhaps more vulnerability than would be expected out of a boat intended solely for long distance cruising. The long span bulb keels require much more careful engineering and care in construction than a more conservative design. I seriously question whether these boats were ever designed for the kind of use that they have gotten sailing tens of thousands of hard racing and offshore delivery miles. The 40.7 that I know best, has held up extremely well despite its hard use and something well over 10,000 sea miles. When you think of a hard usage for a coastal cruiser racer of maybe a 1,000 miles, that is the equivalent of 10 years of use, and no one was easy on the boat I knew, pushing her hard upwind at full speed, in a steep chop in a way that no cruiser ever would purposely punish a boat.

Race oriented boats are lighter by design, and are designed to have smaller margins for error. Therefore, they are more prone to damage in an event like a collision or a grounding. Because of that, they also require a greater commitment from owners and repair yards to get it right after some major event occurs.

Reading the report, it sounds like most likely conjecture is this boat lost its keel in a very similar manner to the situation with the Cape Fear 38 which was lost in the Gulf of Mexico. In both cases the boats had been damaged in groundings. There was a delamination in the supporting structure for the keel. In the case of the 40.7 that delamination appears to be between the pan and the skin, and in the case of the Cape Fear, the delam was in the hull and transverse frame to hull joint. The ultimate failures were both a kind of 'zipper' failure, where one part failed and overloaded the part next to it, which in turn failed and overloaded the next part and so on.

In the case of this 40.7, the report suggests that the glued in pan was a major contributor to the problem since the pans like these make a proper diagnosis of damage after a grounding almost impossible. The use of glued pans have become the norm in production (even high end and supposed offshore) boats these days and frankly, in m mind, if anything needs to change in boat building, glued in frames and pans should be eliminated in the keel area of the boat to be replaced with glassed in solid structure.

The business of losing keels is not a new phenomena and certainly is not unique to bolt-on keels. My family's Vanguard, which had an encapsulated keel, lost its ballast keel and sank. A contributing factor in that loss was the damage from an earlier grounding. When I worked at Direcktors in the early 1970's we rebuilt a boat with an encapsulated keel, that hit a coral head in the Bahamas and had lost its keel roughly a year later while sitting in its slip. In that case, the ballast keel had been driven up through the membrane separating the bilge from the ballast, and had sheered the connection between the ballast and the sides of the encapsulation.

Jeff


----------



## hellosailor

smurph-
I'm not sure it is fair to blame only the engineers. In fact, I'm sure that is NOT fair.
Some years ago four of us were entered in a distance race and the wx forecast the night before matched the historical buoy data for the course and season, 5 knots, try not to get bored.
Except the next morning we round the breakwater and head out to the starting area, and it is more like heavy gray skies, 4-8' seas, winds 20 gusting to 40 and the boat was teaching us a whole new symphony as every part found new ways to move. Maybe half of the fleet withdrew. Two out of three newschoppers never showed up, and the videographer in #3 apparently forgot to load his camera, they never got film from it.
I can't complain, I had good foulies and good drugs (G) and four of us was plenty to work the boat and have relief. Yes, we wound up with multiple mechanical failures and withdrew by the end of that day, deciding that since the new forecast called for no shelter and severe thunderstorms, it was simply not going to be worth crossing the line from "Whee!" to outright dangerous.
So, half the engineers got a pass, because half the boats didn't have to go out and play. We just broke small stuff (the furler, the damned diesel fuel system) but the structural parts were just fine.

Of course by any modern standards it was an older heavily built boat...which oddly enough _performed best _in heavy wind and weather.

As long as the engineer gives you the specs that meet your requirements, it ain't his fault if _you _break the boat.


----------



## smurphny

hellosailor said:


> smurph-
> I'm not sure it is fair to blame only the engineers. In fact, I'm sure that is NOT fair.
> Some years ago four of us were entered in a distance race and the wx forecast the night before matched the historical buoy data for the course and season, 5 knots, try not to get bored.
> Except the next morning we round the breakwater and head out to the starting area, and it is more like heavy gray skies, 4-8' seas, winds 20 gusting to 40 and the boat was teaching us a whole new symphony as every part found new ways to move. Maybe half of the fleet withdrew. Two out of three newschoppers never showed up, and the videographer in #3 apparently forgot to load his camera, they never got film from it.
> I can't complain, I had good foulies and good drugs (G) and four of us was plenty to work the boat and have relief. Yes, we wound up with multiple mechanical failures and withdrew by the end of that day, deciding that since the new forecast called for no shelter and severe thunderstorms, it was simply not going to be worth crossing the line from "Whee!" to outright dangerous.
> So, half the engineers got a pass, because half the boats didn't have to go out and play. We just broke small stuff (the furler, the damned diesel fuel system) but the structural parts were just fine.
> 
> Jeff, I know what you mean about encapsulated keels. When I hit something a couple of years ago, it took a BIG chunk out of the 2" thick glass right on the nose under my lead ballast (the lead was quite visible). It surely got me thinking about the fact that encapsulated ballast is not immune to damage. There was no stress indication and I made sure to do the repair correctly, knowing that 5600# of lead wanted to follow gravity if given a chance
> 
> Of course by any modern standards it was an older heavily built boat...which oddly enough _performed best _in heavy wind and weather.
> 
> As long as the engineer gives you the specs that meet your requirements, it ain't his fault if _you _break the boat.


Yes, I agree that if a boat is designed light and fast for only racing in "coastal" conditions or if it's made very clear in the specs. that a boat is not intended to go out an inlet unless the weather is good then the skipper has no beef when something lets go, especially if he/she has dictated the specs. I don't think that's the case in of the keel loss incidents, is it? Maybe "ocean racer" and "ocean cruiser" should be differentiated more clearly? A skipper who makes a bad weather choice or gets caught out in a storm should not have to worry about the darned keel falling off. There are plenty of other things to worry about in those cases. All the other things can be dealt with by a good crew, even a rudder falling off or a mast coming down, but not a keel falling off. It's end-game and should be the rarest of bad events.


----------



## hellosailor

Who knows what each case has really been? One guy says "we bumped it" and his crew say "the whole boat slammed!" and the survey shows a chunk of keel missing and since the cabin was locked, no one notices the bulkhead tabs also snapped...so maybe someone just fills the keel and pretends nothing happened. While someone else would total out the boat.

Losing a keel is something I can do without experiencing. But on a day trip with a new-to-me boat, I might not look at how the bilge boards were secured, or the batteries. On an offshore passage? I want my own eyes and fingers from stem to stern, and if things just aren't right, I'm not going. Different standard of risk, to me.

I think a lot of "rock star" race crews turn a blind eye to the boat, leaving these things to the guy who signs the checks and the peons [sic] who do yard work. That's their privilege. And sometimes, of course, there is limited time and limited choices that can be made.

Sometimes all you can say for sure (well, maybe for sure) is "There but for the grace of the gods, go I."


----------



## smurphny

hellosailor said:


> Who knows what each case has really been? One guy says "we bumped it" and his crew say "the whole boat slammed!" and the survey shows a chunk of keel missing and since the cabin was locked, no one notices the bulkhead tabs also snapped...so maybe someone just fills the keel and pretends nothing happened. While someone else would total out the boat.
> 
> Losing a keel is something I can do without experiencing. But on a day trip with a new-to-me boat, I might not look at how the bilge boards were secured, or the batteries. On an offshore passage? I want my own eyes and fingers from stem to stern, and if things just aren't right, I'm not going. Different standard of risk, to me.
> 
> I think a lot of "rock star" race crews turn a blind eye to the boat, leaving these things to the guy who signs the checks and the peons [sic] who do yard work. That's their privilege. And sometimes, of course, there is limited time and limited choices that can be made.
> 
> Sometimes all you can say for sure (well, maybe for sure) is "There but for the grace of the gods, go I."


It's surely a scary thing to trust your life to an unknown sailboat, especially if it's a rented boat. So many people seem to do that. I wonder how many doing the bareboat thing ever look for structural damage. I've never rented a sailboat nor had any connection to this process. Is there an opportunity for a hull inspection or are they just in the water---sign here, go? It would seem that anyone would want to check the boat over just to assure they did not get blamed for existing damage.


----------



## hellosailor

Kinda like taking your Hertz rental to a mechanic before you signed the rental agreement?

I think they'd look at you oddly if you chose to dive on the hull before you picked up the charter. And charter boats tend to be less stressed than racers, their biggest stress is too much engine time and not enough hot water or hair dryers.(G)


----------



## TakeFive

smurphny said:


> ...Is there an opportunity for a hull inspection or are they just in the water---sign here, go? It would seem that anyone would want to check the boat over just to assure they did not get blamed for existing damage.


Yes, that's always part of the check-out process. The good checkout captains will even point out existing damage to make sure you don't get blamed for it.

You're never going to be able to do a full survey on a charter boat prior to checkout. You usually can sleep aboard the night before your checkout, and this would give you enough time to do a very thorough inspection, including diving on the hull, I suppose. However, that would probably violate marina rules.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

TakeFive said:


> Yes, that's always part of the check-out process. The good checkout captains will even point out existing damage to make sure you don't get blamed for it.
> 
> You're never going to be able to do a full survey on a charter boat prior to checkout. You usually can sleep aboard the night before your checkout, and this would give you enough time to do a very thorough inspection, including diving on the hull, I suppose. However, that would probably violate marina rules.


What? You've paid $5,000 for a week of vacation, not a week of survey work. Good grief, who does that crap???

You load up the boat with Bread, Booze and Broads and shove off.


----------



## smurphny

If I was forking over 5 grand for a week, I'd have the booze, broads, and a $%^load of before and after pix of the boat, including those taken of anything indicating the keel might fall off Didn't someone recommend that pix-taking idea somewhere in another thread?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

smurphny said:


> If I was forking over 5 grand for a week, I'd have the booze, broads, and a $%^load of before and after pix of the boat, including those taken of anything indicating the keel might fall off Didn't someone recommend that pix-taking idea somewhere in another thread?


Yes, that was me 
But underwater pics of the keel? Do you think I might sacrifice one of my 'crew' into that cold, murkey water? She might deflate!

:eek


----------

