CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats - Page 24 - SailNet Community
 171Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #231 of 343 Old 11-13-2017 Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

As always, thanks again. It's become a bit more clear now. So a couple more nits and I think we can move on from this particular issue...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
Let me simplify this for you. The research on AVS by the corresponding committees who made the recommendations concluded that a concluded for a boat intended for use in the open ocean, the minimum AVS should be 140 degrees. They had concluded this based on research and calculations of existing boats and full sized and scientific tank testing of model boats. George mentioned that earlier in the thread. The 140 degree minimum AVS was chosen because anything less than that would have a problem recovering from a knock down that was in excess of its AVS. There was pretty much universal agreement amongst the naval architectural scientists researching this. That 140 degree mininum was supposed to be based on the real AVS of the vessel calculated in detail.

The ORC has replaced the IMS as the racing measurement rule of choice, and they both use the same simplified formula that produces a less accurate AVS number that is actually 15-20 degrees lower. In the first politicization of the science, it was agreed that using the IMS/ now ORC formula and corresponding AVS limit of 120 degrees was close enough to a limit of 140 degrees when AVS was calculated in detail.

But that was watered down so that the actual AVS as calculated in detail does not have to exceed 120 degrees for Cat A boats where race boats or cruisers.

Based on your attached charts, it would appear that Cat A is watered down further taking it down to 100 degrees, although there is a modifier which may approximate the ORC 120 degrees.

Which gets to my point about the politicized changes to the CE Cat A standards. The science says that offshore cruisers should have a real AVS of 140 or greater. The CE standards appear to allow an AVS as low as 120 degrees and perhaps as low as 100 degrees (if modified by a percentage of m). In other words, the CE Cat A standard does not come within 20 degrees of meeting the AVS standard that marine science says it should be.
This progression makes more sense now. BUT, as regards the AVS formula itself that we're discussing, the minimum for BOTH is 100 degrees. So in that regard Cat A is not further "watered down".

Just like with the ORC addition of the 120 degree minimum, you'd need to look at how various Cat A production boat manufacturers/models deal with this minimum as well. If they insist on a 120 degree minimum, then you have equivalency. We don't have that info easily available, but it is an easy question for any dealer and/or manufacturer (I'll put in some emails to Beneteau/Jeanneau/etc. to find out how they approach this number.)

As George shows, his Catalina seems to exceed that ORC Cat 0 standard.

So, again, I'm focusing on this because I think you have to be very careful to dismiss something as "watered down" unless you have actual numbers in front of you.

On the other hand, I take your point that ALL of it is "watered down" from the science-backed 140 degrees. But it sounds like that was driven by racers, not cruisers. And that's why understanding the trends in cruising boats is very important.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
On the other matter, increasing the sealed volume of the boat above the waterline increases its AVS because it moves the center of buoyancy further from the center of gravity, thereby increasing the righting moment at extreme heel angles approaching the AVS. The cockpit of a boat reduces the volume and so lowers the AVS angle rather than increasing it. If you are going to have large cockpit the ability to drain quickly (i.e. open transom) is a good thing for seaworthiness, but the big cockpits lack of volume is a bad thing for AVS.
Now THIS is another item that I think has been overlooked in the discussion. For example, if the research that was happening back then was based on the Fastnet disaster, how have the downflooding/buoyancy advancements in these new boats changed the calculus of AVS? You mentioned earlier that the 140 was driven by the understanding that you'd hit a vicious-circle of mass as the boat filled with water. Do the newer boats deal with this in a more effective way so that this angle could be safely reduced - all things considered?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
So here is the simple answer you are looking for....The science says that an actual AVS of 140 degrees is the minimum that is safe for open ocean use. The racing rules use a surrogate formula that does not include all volumes so that the AVS that the racing rules calculate is 15 to 20 degrees lower than it actually is and so use an AVS of 120 when calculated using that formula. For all boats the CE Cat A limits the AVS to 120 degrees (down to 100 degrees) using the actual AVS rather than the surrogate formula, which is 20 to 40 degrees less than the science concluded it should be. Therefore the CE Cat A does not produce a boat which meets the minimum standard that the science says it should be for an ocean going vessel. Ergo, CE Category A Production Boats ARE NOT NECESSARILY blue water boats. (Even if some are used offshore and have safely made passages offshore.)
Fair enough. My main goal here is to discuss the boats suited for the language specified in the Cat A rating. How people want to define water beyond that is up to them.

Last edited by smackdaddy; 11-13-2017 at 04:36 PM.
smackdaddy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #232 of 343 Old 11-13-2017
Senior Member
 
RocketScience's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Home Port Seattle
Posts: 285
Thanks: 1
Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 12
 
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
I think there needs to be a bit of a distinction here on how they did this, especially since this thread is (I guess) for noobs?

I’m guessing many noobs, when they hear a “rounding” of Cape Horn, think of it as a ‘passage making rounding’ a’ la the Pardey’s, or RTW solo-er’s such as Jeanne Socrates, etc., but there is a harbor-hopping, gunk-holing way to accomplish it also…

(Cliff’s Notes version of Sequitur’s Cape Horn rounding for those who haven’t read the book, or their blog)

Sequitur took more of the cruise line expedition route down to the Horn, entering Chile’s Pacific coast inland ICW at Puerto Montt (located at about 41°S). From there, they gunk-holed their way 1200NM South to the inland port at Puerto Williams, located just 70NM due North of Isla Hornos (Cape Horn).

In Puerto Williams, they awaited a favorable weather window to make a two-leg run to the Horn, with the first leg being a 40NM trip to an anchorage at Isla Lennox. From Isla Lennox, they made the 50NM jaunt out to the Horn, passed in front of it twice (twice, because they had to turn around), and returned back to Puerto Williams.

(also to be clear, Sequitur endured that F10 gale lying hove-to, waiting out a storm off the Falkin island coast. This experience was independent of their Cape Horn rounding)

Now, rounding the Horn is certainly an accomplishment regardless of how you do it, and I take nothing away from Sequitur and its crew. But doing it in this particular fashion is well within the grasp of many of the seasoned sailors that at least I know, and I would have no problem in doing it in this fashion myself.

As a side note, on one of Lin and Larry Pardey’s later roundings of the Horn (East to West I might add), they did it in calm wind and seas with the chute up!
smackdaddy likes this.

Synthetic Rigged Wauquiez Pretorien 35
RocketScience is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to RocketScience For This Useful Post:
smackdaddy (11-13-2017)
post #233 of 343 Old 11-13-2017 Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Thanks Rocket - you are absolutely right. And just as I point to Michael's words on one side of things - I'll point to them on the other. As you say, he repeatedly talks about "rounding Cape Horn". And the way he did it does not fit with the way some may think about it, or want to define it. So I won't spend any time defending that language. This is specifically how he reported it here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequitur View Post

At 1300 on Thursday the 2nd of February, Groundhog Day we rounded Cape Horn east-to-west, then turned and rounded it west-to-east, just to make sure. There was no shadow for the groundhog to see, so we assumed that means it is still summer down here.
Personally, I think his strategy was great. Very conservative - and got the job done.

BUT, just as you say, the STORM we're talking about as it relates to this discussion happened southeast thereafter between Cape Horn and the Falklands - exactly the same ocean you'd be in in a "purist rounding". So the technical definition of "rounding" one wants to apply has nothing to do with the point of this storm and this boat's performance.

So, again, I have no problem with your making this distinction. It's a good distinction...backed up by his own words.

So thanks for the added facts.

Last edited by smackdaddy; 11-13-2017 at 09:11 PM.
smackdaddy is offline  
 
post #234 of 343 Old 11-13-2017
Administrator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 8,914
Thanks: 44
Thanked 444 Times in 374 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
I find two things interesting. First is what an effective marketing tool these regs turn out to have been. The commercialization of recreational sailing has been an interest of mine for quite a while. Studying these regs and reading this post has filled in some blanks for me.

The second part is, I didn't realize any body outside of Europe cared about European regulations, but I guess when most of the big yacht manufacturers are in Europe, they get to control the market.
These standards, pretty much like all of the EU standards, were created to reduce trade barriers between countries. At the time that the Recreational Watercraft Directive was created, there were an array of different standards being used across Europe including two versions of Lloyds and some countries using ABYC. Because Europe was one of the stronger markets for sailboats, most manufacturers with an eye on sales in Europe and chose to bring their boats into conformance with the Recreational Watercraft Directive. The 'corresponding committees' included U.S. manufacturers and designers and one of the major meetings of the corresponding committees took place at Sname's Chesapeake Sailing Yacht Symposium.

It should be noted that France was playing hardball in the negotiations and pretty much held the line to keep the bar low.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
Some of what I find interesting about the regulations, is they seem to be a little up side down. Here in North America, you get more rules associated with a boat as it increases in size. 6 flares for a 25 footer, but 12 for a 35, that sort of thing. But the Europeans work the other way around, they put increasing restrictions and limitations on boats as they decrease in size.
That does not particularly accurately reflect the way it works. Equipage pretty much works the same way that it does in ABYC. There is a reason for that. Much of the equipage standards came from a metricized version of the ABYC standards. But also, equipage standards are intended to be realistic for the use of a boat and the assumption is that bigger boats have more passengers and are more likely to venture further offshore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
Somebody mentioned earlier that boats on average are more resistant to capsize as they increase in size. How long is a piece of string though. Surely a 50 footer will be more resistant than a 35 footer, but the standard isn't set at 50 feet. Its set some where in the low 30s. No doubt more resistant to capsize than a similar boat around 25, but certainly less than a similar boat of 40 feet. So how long is a piece of string. Is it just coincidence that this string is roughly the same length as an entry level cruiser. That is one heck of a coincidence. Is this a marketing tool to encourage people to buy boats of a certain size. I don't know the answer to these questions, they are just questions.
Again this does not accurately reflect the way that this works. Length does figure into some of the formulas predicting the seaworthiness of a boat under the CE directive, but there is not a cut off point or even a hump in the graph of values as boats get smaller. In that stability increases exponentially (which is why bigger boats are proportionately narrower and shallower) as a boat becomes longer. As a result, the formulas that look at righting moment take length into account. On the flip side, the greater inertia of a larger boats means that impact forces on the hull and appurtenances also go up and so the regs are more stringent in their standards for larger boats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
Another thing that is interesting is the focus on ultimate stability, not just from the regs, but also in this discussion. A catastrophic loss of stability on a keel boat isn't really what keeps me up at night from a safety perspective. The things I worry about mostly have to do with stuff breaking and exposure to the elements.
I think that the focus on AVS is somewhat unique to this particular thread and not to the standards themselves. That may be my fault. Those of us who followed the process of creating the RCD, have commented that the standards are often less than was the standard position within the maritime science community at the time or what was considered good practice even. The AVS issue is an extremely clear example of how the rules were watered down, and so I was using AVS since it is such a clear cut example of where the design and science community was, vs the standards as enacted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
A boat can be sitting perfectly up right, but if a wave comes down onto a hatch and blows the hatch out in heavy weather, you are in deep trouble whether you are upside down or not. Hatches are a big one, but other stuff I keep an close eye on is rigging damage, steering damage and especially through hull issues. I hate through hulls. My current boat doesn't have any, not even for a head.
Again, there are scantling and design load modules within the CE that are pretty close to ABS and Lloyds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcb View Post
This is another thing where things get weird, bigger boats have more through hulls, in some cases a lot more. I consider each of those to be a potential failure point, but back to the ultimate stability side of things- bigger is better under these regs, but not so big as to exclude the entry levels of Cruising Models, which need to be a certain minimum size, not for any safety reasons, but to accommodate a head, a galley, sufficient sleeping accommodations and standing head room.
Again, different parts of the CE standards treats boat size differently. You can make the case that it is possible to build a small boat that is purposefully designed to reduce risk and that would be more seaworthy than some of the floating overgrown tanning beds that are out there. The CE rules actually allow for that in much the same way that Coast Guard developed small rescue boats that can go through huge breaking waves as safely and maybe more safely than some of their bigger cutters.

But that gets back to the premise of this whole thread. The CE standards do not try to say that a boat that meets Cat A is well suited for sailing offshore. What it does say is that one EU nation cannot set a higher standard for boats that are deemed to be safe offshore than those in Cat A and thereby restrict the import of other member nations boats.

What you or I, what a competent yacht designer, what any experienced cruiser might call an offshore capable boat will include a broad range of features, and design priorities that are not even discussed within the standards, or which is set so low, that they would be seen as bad practice.

But on the flip side, on this side of the Atlantic we get to chose what we think of as an offshore capable boat. So you find people trying to make a case that because a Magregor 26M made it to Nova Scotia or the Bahamas, these are offshore capable designs.

By the same token, I bought my boat in part because she was single-handed into the U.S. from South Africa and that many of her sisterships had made long distance passages all over the world. When I bought her my long term plans included equipping her to be safe offshore, retiring and single-or double handing her to Europe to spend some of my senior years poking around the continent on her. But, despite the admirable record of these boats doing all kinds of long distance passages (for example South Africa to Scotland non-stop, racing one design across the South Alantic or a Pacific crossing the wrong way) very few people would consider a boat like mine to be an offshore cruiser and I fully understand that and that figures into my thinking. But, I would still take my boat offshore and properly equipped still consider her a reasonable choice for me to make an offshore passage.

Within reason and done reasonably responsibly, the choice of a boat and where we sail it remains our prerogative. But in making a decision such as this, part of the discussion needs to be about laying a cold and jaundiced eye on the realities of the matter. In that regard, the CE standards are barely relevant to the discussion. To me there are a broad array of requirements that I personally would look for in a boat that I was going to buy to go offshore that aren't in the standards. You and I might not agree on these which is why I might buy a different boat than you or Smack. (For example, I would consider it critical to have a crush block at the forefoot, and would not consider a boat with full liners suitable for offshore passage making. but hey that's just me.)

And that is where these conversations fall short. Whatever the standard and how ever in adequate it may or may not be, we each get to chose how much risk we are willing to take when we select a boat to go offshore. And what ever decision we make, we each end up betting our lives and the lives of our crew on our decision.

Hopefully, we bet carefully and luck out with the spin of the wheel. If not, hopefully we will be remembered for our virtues.....

Jeff
Arcb and john61ct like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay
Jeff_H is online now  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jeff_H For This Useful Post:
Arcb (11-13-2017), john61ct (11-13-2017)
post #235 of 343 Old 11-13-2017 Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
But that gets back to the premise of this whole thread. The CE standards do not try to say that a boat that meets Cat A is well suited for sailing offshore. What it does say is that one EU nation cannot set a higher standard for boats that are deemed to be safe offshore than those in Cat A and thereby restrict the import of other member nations boats.
Jeff, what makes this conversation difficult (for me at least) is that I respect your opinion AND you seem to have a great deal of "behind the scenes" information on the science and deliberations behind the development of the CE RCD.

However, when you say the above, it certainly goes against what the CE body states on the
CE Marking website (with my bolded part):

Quote:
Description:
Directive 94/25/EC was published on the 16st of June 1994, and it came into force 20 days later..

The Recreational Craft Directive (94/25/EC, as amended by Directive 2003/44/EC) is intended to ensure a high level of safety for users, as well as regulate exhaust and noise emissions of certain types of engine-propelled recreational craft. The Directive aims to harmonise the rules governing the sale of recreational craft within the EU.
If you take this bold part above and couple it with the language in both the CE Cat A and ISO Cat A standards, I'm having a hard time seeing how your comment is accurate. It very well may be your opinion - and that's fine - but is it factual? Is the CE being misleading here?

Last edited by smackdaddy; 11-13-2017 at 08:59 PM.
smackdaddy is offline  
post #236 of 343 Old 11-13-2017
Administrator
 
Jeff_H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Annapolis, Md
Posts: 8,914
Thanks: 44
Thanked 444 Times in 374 Posts
Rep Power: 10
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
This progression makes more sense now. BUT, as regards the AVS formula itself that we're discussing, the minimum for BOTH is 100 degrees. So in that regard Cat A is not further "watered down".
What you keep skipping over is that while are both using are numerically using 100 degree (with modifications), but they are calculating that 100 degrees using different methods so that the ORC calc typically ends up with 15-20 degree larger AVS in reality than would be the case for the Cat A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
As George shows, his Catalina seems to exceed that ORC Cat 0 standard.
I am not sure that George actually did show that his Catalina exceeded the Cat 0. George said that his Catalina tested to 129 degrees. I assume by 'tested' he meant that an inclination test was performed on a sistership and that was extrapolated to produce an actual AVS. Per the above, that would suggest that he would not meet ORC Cat 0 since their formula typically produces a number that is 15-20 degrees less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
On the other hand, I take your point that ALL of it is "watered down" from the science-backed 140 degrees. But it sounds like that was driven by racers, not cruisers. And that's why understanding the trends in cruising boats is very important.
It is not even slightly true that it was 'driven by racers and not cruisers'. The science promoted a specific standard of 140 degrees and a detailed calculation method. At that point in time, before computerized design programs allowed a lot of this to be automated, a full blown calculation of AVS was a laborious process.

For that reason, the racing rules had purposely come up with a greatly simplified calculation that really did not even attempt to calculate the actual AVS.

As a part of the RCD research, there were tables showing the actual AVS vs IMS/ORC AVS and it was shown that using 120 degrees with the IMS(now ORC) formula was slightly lower but roughly the equivalent to the actual AVS using 140 degree limit.

That is why the original compromise was to use the IMS/ORC formula. But that went off the rails when the limit the actual AVS was allowed to be used against the 120 degree limit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
Now THIS is another item that I think has been overlooked in the discussion. For example, if the research that was happening back then was based on the Fastnet disaster, how have the downflooding/buoyancy advancements in these new boats changed the calculus of AVS? You mentioned earlier that the 140 was driven by the understanding that you'd hit a vicious-circle of mass as the boat filled with water. Do the newer boats deal with this in a more effective way so that this angle could be safely reduced - all things considered?
The STIX process is purposely designed to allow improvements in downflooding protections to be considered. It is part of the modifier that allows some reduction in AVS (and possibly where the 'not less than 100 degrees' comes from). But the reduction starting point is not the 140 degrees that was scientifically determined, it is a value that is 20 degrees below that thereby further watering down the impact of the improved downflooding measures.

Jeff


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Curmudgeon at Large- and rhinestone in the rough, sailing my Farr 11.6 on the Chesapeake Bay
Jeff_H is online now  
post #237 of 343 Old 11-13-2017
Moderator
 
Arcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 4,019
Thanks: 214
Thanked 201 Times in 197 Posts
Rep Power: 10
 
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Very interesting stuff.

I guess to clarify some of my thoughts, without getting in to quoteing. Your thoughts ad up to me with regards to trade barriers, and some folks keeping the bar a bit low, to ensure their products remain competitive.

In terms of my comments about length, I made a conclusion in my brain, without expressing it. When I read the formulas, and I admit my stability is rusty, I observed a reward that was directly proportionate to mass or displacement that maxed out at 15 tons or 100 degrees AVS for class A and at 95 degrees for Class B. So my conclusion was, a higher displacement boat was rewarded in these formulae. I drew my own conclusion that higher displacement, probably meant more water line length, but I agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that.

Yes, I did see there were standards on hatches, but they weren't really standards that I would associate with really big weather.

Also, no mention of collision bulkheads or water tight compartments. I know not every one would agree with me, but I like boats that can remain bouyant with a flooded compartment (like pretty well any catamaran).

When I was saying I felt there was an inverse relation with size and requirements, I was reffering specifically to the calculations for AVS and points of down flooding. I observed their was both a requirement for angle of downflooding and height of downflooding, both for cat a and cat b.

The height of downflooding very clearly rewarded larger boats as a small boat would have to have bizzarre proportions to achieve it.

So I'll stand by my theory that size is rewarded, but not necessarily in the terms I expressed as "length". That size appears to roughly coincide with the entry level cruisers sold by a few companies.
Arcb is offline  
post #238 of 343 Old 11-13-2017 Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff_H View Post
What you keep skipping over is that while are both using are numerically using 100 degree (with modifications), but they are calculating that 100 degrees using different methods so that the ORC calc typically ends up with 15-20 degree larger AVS in reality than would be the case for the Cat A.


I am not sure that George actually did show that his Catalina exceeded the Cat 0. George said that his Catalina tested to 129 degrees. I assume by 'tested' he meant that an inclination test was performed on a sistership and that was extrapolated to produce an actual AVS. Per the above, that would suggest that he would not meet ORC Cat 0 since their formula typically produces a number that is 15-20 degrees less.




It is not even slightly true that it was 'driven by racers and not cruisers'. The science promoted a specific standard of 140 degrees and a detailed calculation method. At that point in time, before computerized design programs allowed a lot of this to be automated, a full blown calculation of AVS was a laborious process.

For that reason, the racing rules had purposely come up with a greatly simplified calculation that really did not even attempt to calculate the actual AVS.

As a part of the RCD research, there were tables showing the actual AVS vs IMS/ORC AVS and it was shown that using 120 degrees with the IMS(now ORC) formula was slightly lower but roughly the equivalent to the actual AVS using 140 degree limit.

That is why the original compromise was to use the IMS/ORC formula. But that went off the rails when the limit the actual AVS was allowed to be used against the 120 degree limit.




The STIX process is purposely designed to allow improvements in downflooding protections to be considered. It is part of the modifier that allows some reduction in AVS (and possibly where the 'not less than 100 degrees' comes from). But the reduction starting point is not the 140 degrees that was scientifically determined, it is a value that is 20 degrees below that thereby further watering down the impact of the improved downflooding measures.

Jeff
Okay, then let's start working back out of the weeds and get a bit more general...

As of now, the "accepted" minimum AVS number on the ORC side is 120 degrees. The question, then, for Cat A boats is where they fall in relation to this 100-140 range - i.e. the 140 which is covered by the initial science (at that time - I assume you're talking pre 1998?), and the current equation showing the bare minimum 100 for Cat A.

IF the Category A boat you are considering has a published AVS greater than 120 degrees, you are in the exact same realm as the Cat 0 boats...WITH THE CAVEAT that for these precise "actual AVS" numbers you'd need to do all kinds of specific weighing and measuring of your own cruising boat with all the actual stuff aboard to get to them. And, unlike trans-oceanic ORC racers have to do, cruisers are never going to do that.

So, we're back to the standards. The boats have to be measured against a set of criteria to be able to meet the AVS requirements of Cat A. Therefore, all one needs to do is look at that published number and determine what they are comfortable with regarding the number.

For exmple, what is the difference of this number between an Oyster/Hylas and a Beneteau/Bavaria? That's what this boils down to.

I've emailed Beneteau for a bit more detail on this particular issue. We'll see what I get back.
smackdaddy is offline  
post #239 of 343 Old 11-13-2017
Land lubber
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Homosassa, FL
Posts: 1,421
Thanks: 98
Thanked 33 Times in 32 Posts
Rep Power: 6
 
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by smackdaddy View Post
As of now, the "accepted" minimum AVS number on the ORC side is 120 degrees. The question, then, for Cat A boats is where they fall in relation to this 100-140 range - i.e. the 140 which is covered by the initial science (at that time - I assume you're talking pre 1998?), and the current equation showing the bare minimum 100 for Cat A.
I am a little confused as well. I think one would want a 'easy calculation' of 160 to meet the ideal 140 number, where a 120 'easy calculation' is now accepted. So that puts most of these boats way off the mark on this specific 'safety point'.
ianjoub is offline  
post #240 of 343 Old 11-13-2017 Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 17,467
Thanks: 226
Thanked 227 Times in 216 Posts
Rep Power: 0
     
Re: CE Category A Production Boats ARE Blue Water Boats

Yeah, that's the danger here ian. The numbers can get so complex that they become meaningless to people. But they aren't meaningless.

The bottom line, I think, is that Jeff believes the AVS number should be 140 based on the science at that time. The accepted minimum standard in trans-oceanic racing (which is essentially "blue-water-cruising-to-the-nth-power") is 120 degrees.

So, the only thing we need to know now is the specific number for various Category A boats that one might be interested in. This number will be somewhere between 100 and 140 - and you now have a clear benchmark for what that particular number means in relation to serious ocean use that falls right in the middle of those two numbers.

Beyond that, in my opinion, it's quibbling over pretty minor details.

Remember, this is part of the RCD as well...



They're not just winging it.
Attached Thumbnails
Screen Shot 2017-11-11 at 7.30.51 PM.png  

Last edited by smackdaddy; 11-13-2017 at 09:57 PM.
smackdaddy is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.


User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best used cheap blue water boats 30-45ft bfloyd4445 General Discussion (sailing related) 98 10-26-2013 01:26 AM
Feedback Needed: Blue Water Cruising Boats 32-36 Feet Oyster7 Boat Review and Purchase Forum 45 10-29-2010 11:16 AM
Production blue water boats JakeLevi Boat Review and Purchase Forum 73 07-31-2009 10:07 PM
Blue Water Capable Boats (Not a Cat 30, I promise) Aesir Cruising & Liveaboard Forum 36 04-22-2009 05:32 PM
Blue water cruising boats xnavyx2 Boat Review and Purchase Forum 18 12-30-2006 05:58 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome