Starting this to avoid thread drift / flame wars in the cost of S-H thread,
Standards are a funny thing. We all rely on them and without them markets would be fragmentary with a plethora of competing proprietary approaches. Think Australian rail gauges pre-federation. Or imagine trying to buy bolts and nuts (and spanners for them) if every one making bolts and nuts decided their own thread pitch and profile, shaft size and head and nut size. Once you started with a particular supplier you'd have to go back to them every time (think Apple) as anyone else would have their own different characteristics. Almost everything we buy and use is underpinned by standards. Sometimes these are picked up in laws and regulations, but mostly they aren't.
In many cases, there is a commercial incentive to develop and agree standards, because it means manufacturers can consolidate and access a much larger market than if they run their own race. In a market without standards, if I want to expand my market share I either have to convince buyers my product is superior (think Apple) or cheaper, or I have to manufacture versions that are the same as my competitors so I can sell to their customers. But to access the total market I have to do that for most of the different versions of the product if I want to access all the potential buyers of that type of product. That means loss of scale in manufacturing, and maintaining a huge and diverse inventory, increasing my overheads and reducing my profits. If I can round up some of the larger makers., and we can thrash out between us an agreed standard, then we can all manufacture to that standard, reducing the complexity, reducing inventory, and selling to most or all of the potential buyers.
So makers often have a direct stake and interest in setting standards. In doing so, they all try to influence the standard to be closest to their version of the product. In their dreams, it is their version that is agreed without alteration, to be the standard.
In practice, standards are developed by working groups of technical people (many of whom may work for industry bodies or companies, but also often some who are just technical experts), and have to pass muster with a technical committee - in the case of ISO that means a committee on which countries' standards bodies are represented, with one country having one vote. There is a good deal of argument and slow (sometimes glacial) progress towards a common proposed standard. In general no single maker can get their own way all the way through the process.
The small sailing craft (<24m) ISO technical Committee is ISO/TC 188. There are 24 countries participating in it, including Australia (through Standards Australia), and another 22 countries as observers. The current chairperson is Mr Craig Scholten who is on the board of the International Marine Certification Institute and is representing the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). He is also Technical Vice President of the American Boat and Yacht Council (ABYC). The previous chairperson for 9 years was Thomas Marhevko who is or was a Vice President, Engineering Standards at the National Marine Manufacturers Association based in Chicago, Illinois.
There's no doubt there is 'small p' politicking and negotiation that goes on in reaching agreement to proposed standards, but there is also, usually, a strong element of professional technical expertise informing the standard, as technical experts do not want to be associated with a technically inadequate standard.
It would be odd indeed if standards diverged completely from what manufacturers are making, but it is also generally not the case that a single manufacturer or even an aligned group of manufacturers can create an internationally recognised standard that is sub par technically simply to cater to their own interests, as there are generally too many others involved including technical experts, and layers of approval that have to be got through.
Well there you go, my allegation of vested interests heavily influencing standards has been confirmed. The current chairperson on the technical commitee and previous chairperson are senior people from industry associations. Case closed.
I used to import hardwood timbers procured under a global forestry standard called FSC. It was endorsed by WWF and Greenpeace etc, recognised as best practice for logging.
The local industry didn't like a couple of aspects of the standard so they wrote their own forestry standard. AFS (Australian Forestry Standard) it is very similar to FSC except in a few key areas the local industry didnt like or couldn't meet easily. So who wrote the AFS, a commitee of course dominated by the biggest vested interests. The marketing campaign followed and the AFS is seen to be equivalent to FSC by most of the industry and of course Joe public has no idea of any difference.
I would be interested to know if any differences exists between ISO 12217/15 and the old ABS boat building guide, pre 2010. If any difference does exist does ISO12217 make boats safer to sail or cheaper to build.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Well there you go, my allegation of vested interests heavily influencing standards has been confirmed. The current chairperson on the technical commitee and previous chairperson are senior people from industry associations. Case closed.
Everyone who knows anything about sailing known that people from the industry are involved in creating the Standards. That does not mean that, as you claimed, the influence is so strong that means the Standards allow design features that should be banned for such use.
I've actually had someone I know die in an offshore race due to a flawed design required by a Standard so I'm neither ignorant of the way they are created or ignorant of the potential problems. That does not mean that design features like grids should not be allowed under the Standards for offshore racing because Standards have to balance things like cost versus safety, and therefore those who allow things like glued grids are not only doing so because of vested interests as you claim.
Select to expand quoteQuixotic said..
There's no doubt there is 'small p' politicking and negotiation that goes on in reaching agreement to proposed standards, but there is also, usually, a strong element of professional technical expertise informing the standard, as technical experts do not want to be associated with a technically inadequate standard.
It would be odd indeed if standards diverged completely from what manufacturers are making, but it is also generally not the case that a single manufacturer or even an aligned group of manufacturers can create an internationally recognised standard that is sub par technically simply to cater to their own interests, as there are generally too many others involved including technical experts, and layers of approval that have to be got through.
Well said, and thanks for the balanced view.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..cammd said..
Well there you go, my allegation of vested interests heavily influencing standards has been confirmed. The current chairperson on the technical commitee and previous chairperson are senior people from industry associations. Case closed.
Everyone who knows anything about sailing known that people from the industry are involved in creating the Standards. That does not mean that, as you claimed, the influence is so strong that means the Standards allow design features that should be banned for such use.
I've actually had someone I know die in an offshore race due to a flawed design required by a Standard so I'm neither ignorant of the way they are created or ignorant of the potential problems. That does not mean that design features like grids should not be allowed under the Standards for offshore racing because Standards have to balance things like cost versus safety, and therefore those who allow things like glued grids are not only doing so because of vested interests as you claim.
Why do you often distort what someone says, often times to the point whereby you just make stuff up.
For example
I never said any boat should be banned from any race
I never said anything about keels falling off.
I never suggested volunteers should write yacht construction standards.
I never said keel grids are a design fearure that should be banned.
You have accused me of all of the above either in this thread ornthe other one.
Stick to replying to what someone actually says instead of what you imagine they said.
Now what I did say is I believe large manufacturers in the industry may have adversely influenced standards to the point where profit has taken precedence of seaworthiness. I used the example of GLUED on keel grids failing to demonstrate my point.
Note when I first mentioned it in the other thread I said I suspected that, I didnt know it for a fact. I still suspect it is the case.
I really dont know why you find that so outrageous.
All I was doing was addressing the obvious implications of your allegation that the Standard only allows glued in grids because of vested interests.
If you can make serious allegations against others based only on opinion and suspicion, then it seems very inconsistent for you to demand that others should only respond to your exact words and not what they think your underlying meaning is. Either opinion and suspicion is enough on which to base claims, or it's not.
You agree that you think the standards are heavily influenced by manufacturers and write "How else can things like glued on hull grids that fail actually exist in a boat that is rated to race offshore." That seems to make it pretty clear that you think without the standards being (allgedly) distorted by manufacturers' desires, glued in grids should not be allowed in offshore racing.
If you believe that boats with glued in grids should be allowed in offshore racing, then it seems clear that you think such boats should be banned from offshore racing. If you don't think the glued in grids should be allowed then how do you disallow such boats without a ban?
Yes, you didn't specifically refer to keels falling off, but if you are ignoring that issue then what is your problem with glued grids?
As I understand it, those who write the Standards for yacht racing are volunteers. I may be wrong. It's certainly volunteers who write the Special Regulations that incorporate those Standards. If these volunteers don't incorporate Standards then how else do they ensure that boats are built in a way that is at least half way reasonable?
Finally, what is the outcome of lifting the Standards to ban glued grids? It seems that about 8% of the current Hobart fleet would be out of offshore racing, which is a big hit for a sport that is not doing very well. It would also, all else being equal, significantly increase the cost of going offshore racing.
ISO 12215-9:2012 Small craft - Hull construction and scantlings - Part 9: Sailing craft appendages is the standard that applies to keels in recreational boats up to 24m in length.
It is currently in the final stages of revision with final text received or final draft international standard (FDIS) registered for formal approval. It may be approved, or referred back to the Tech Committee for further work. Likely to be published in the next few months
It will be interesting to see what changes have been made when it comes out.
In terms of problems with boats that are said to comply with standards, these can be due either to inadequacies in the standards, or inadequacies in compliance with the standards. The latter can be one-off failures in a particular build or systematic problems whereby the products don't meet the standard due to the design and build processes not complying. This raises the whole question of how compliance with standards is determined. Compliance may be self regulated, or it may be third party verified. In either case, the adequacy of the verification processes brings another element of possible failure.
As I understand it, the European Union requires adherence to ISO 12215 by law and, for example, recreational yachts built in France are subject to verification of compliance by L'Institut pour la Certification et la Normalisation dans le Nautisme (ICNN).
TBH I think requirements that, for instance, insist on collision bulkheads but allow structural components to be glued in to be hypocritical.
I am not having a go an any volunteers or race organisers etc., they can only work with what's available but to insist on a set of special regulations that are very onerus and arguably over the top (the $2000 first aid being an example) but at the same allow something so fundamentally crap as a glued in keel grid to be acceptable makes me think hmmmm. It seem fine to put any requirement on boat owners regardless of cost but when it comes to building the boat the manufactures can cut some quality to save money. So how does that happen.
If they insisted on laminated grids then it would be the owners paying for them. Companies like Beneteau are going to pass the extra costs on.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
If they insisted on laminated grids then it would be the owners paying for them. Companies like Beneteau are going to pass the extra costs on.
Of some relevance is the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report into the loss of Cheeki Rafiki and 4 crew in 2014 due to loss of keel. The report is available at assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf
The MAIB notes it "received much anecdotal evidence regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts" and visited specific examples undergoing repairs. So there is a significant financial cost to some owners of repairing failures of bonding of glued-in grids, and potentially much more serious costs when the failure is catastrophic.
1.11.1 MAIB enquiries to GRP repairers and Beneteau First 40.7 owners
During the course of the investigation, the MAIB received much anecdotal evidence
regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts. Areas notable for
detachment were in the forward sections of the matrix, commonly attributed to the
vessel slamming, and the area around and aft of where the keel is attached to the
hull, commonly attributed to the vessel grounding.
MAIB inspectors visited four Beneteau First 40.7 yachts that had all suffered
detachments of their matrix in bays around the aft end of the keel as a result of
grounding. Additionally, two of these vessels had suffered, or were showing signs of,
matrix detachment in the forward section.
One further Beneteau First 40.7 yacht was visited, which showed signs of matrix
detachment in the forward and aft sections.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
If they insisted on laminated grids then it would be the owners paying for them. Companies like Beneteau are going to pass the extra costs on.
Its a lot cheaper to laminate the grid when its getting built compared to paying to laminate one that has failed after the boat has been built.
I expect the usable life of these boats will be greatly reduced as they age. It wont be long before a grid repair is not worth doing so the boats will go to landfill. Thats an environmental fail as well. Its really sad as the boats are probably good in every other way.
Select to expand quoteQuixotic said..Chris 249 said..
If they insisted on laminated grids then it would be the owners paying for them. Companies like Beneteau are going to pass the extra costs on.
Of some relevance is the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report into the loss of Cheeki Rafiki and 4 crew in 2014 due to loss of keel. The report is available at assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55408664e5274a157200005b/MAIBInvReport_8_2015.pdf
The MAIB notes it "received much anecdotal evidence regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts" and visited specific examples undergoing repairs. So there is a significant financial cost to some owners of repairing failures of bonding of glued-in grids, and potentially much more serious costs when the failure is catastrophic.
1.11.1 MAIB enquiries to GRP repairers and Beneteau First 40.7 owners
During the course of the investigation, the MAIB received much anecdotal evidence
regarding matrix detachments on Beneteau First 40.7 yachts. Areas notable for
detachment were in the forward sections of the matrix, commonly attributed to the
vessel slamming, and the area around and aft of where the keel is attached to the
hull, commonly attributed to the vessel grounding.
MAIB inspectors visited four Beneteau First 40.7 yachts that had all suffered
detachments of their matrix in bays around the aft end of the keel as a result of
grounding. Additionally, two of these vessels had suffered, or were showing signs of,
matrix detachment in the forward section.
One further Beneteau First 40.7 yacht was visited, which showed signs of matrix
detachment in the forward and aft sections.
Yep, there's good reason to not like grids. As well as Cheeki Rafiki's tragic loss, there is (for example) the local Ben 40.7 that was bought after a survey then found to need an $80,000 repair to the floors. But surely that does not automatically mean that they should be banned or not permitted by standards or that they are only there because of vested interests. Here we're simultaneously complaining that offshore racing is too costly and also complaining that cheaper construction should be banned! The fact that so many companies use glued grids, and the significantly higher cost of the brands that 'glass the grid in, seems to indicate we'd increase the cost significantly if we required laminated grids, doesn't it? It's like cars - a Great Wall may not be as safe as a Rolls Royce but that does that mean that we should ban everything cheaper than a Mercedes?
The other thing is that we of course have to look at failure rates rather than absolute figures, and there are a hell of a lot of glued-grid boats out there sailing happlly. The biggest loss ratio in the '98 Hobart and '79 Fastnet came from the conventional heavy to medium displacement wooden boats, but people ignore that. Significantly, WS figures show that the biggest problem with keels is not glued grids, but weld failures. Many, probably most from my recollection, of those weld failures come on expensive high-end racing one-offs. Given that Benny sold something like 900 40.7s (and a similar number of the very similar 36.7s plus some 1200 31.7s with similar grids), and that a significant number have worked very hard in northern hemisphere charter fleets, the 40.7 keel loss ratio could well be far lower than that of high-end racers or even of Oysters etc.
By the way, as the report points out, they don't know the actual reason for Cheeky Rafiki's loss, but it also noted that her keel bolt washers were under sized according to the current standards. The grid could still be glued in rock-solid for all anyone knows and the tragedy could have been caused by the washer issue. In the case of Rising Farrster, for example, the loss of the keel seems to have had nothing to do with the grid type, but with a simple lack of skin thickness (and undersized washers?).
The other thing that sticks out to me is that real world experience shows that almost ALL types of medium-high to high aspect bulb keels fall off with horrifying regularity. Banning one type of support for them seems, on the very simple stats, to be fiddling about instead of confronting the real issue. Until the arrival of bulb and late IOR keels with short root chords, keels just didn't fall off.
If we want to improve offshore safety (and I do) then we should be looking at the entire problem of keel, boat and crew loss and not just one feature that at least has the advantage of apparently being a lot cheaper to make.
@chris249 you say a lot of stuff that makes sense but putting the high cost of brands that laminate grids solely down to the laminated grid is a stretch. I think every aspect of construction of those quality btands contributes to the cost not just the laminated grid.
Also you misunderstand or misrepresent my points. I am not simulaneously complaining about the cost of racing and then calling for it to get more expensive. I am calling out what I see as the inconsistency of ever increasing safety demands on sailors and crews whilst allowing dubious construction techiques a free pass.
I dont thibk these boats should be banned, i would love to see a recall forcing the manufacturers to rectify the issue. If they were cars that would have happened.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
@chris249 you say a lot of stuff that makes sense but putting the high cost of brands that laminate grids solely down to the laminated grid is a stretch. I think every aspect of construction of those quality btands contributes to the cost not just the laminated grid.
Also you misunderstand or misrepresent my points. I am not simulaneously complaining about the cost of racing and then calling for it to get more expensive. I am calling out what I see as the inconsistency of ever increasing safety demands on sailors and crews whilst allowing dubious construction techiques a free pass.
I dont thibk these boats should be banned, i would love to see a recall forcing the manufacturers to rectify the issue. If they were cars that would have happened.
I'm not putting all of the extra cost down to the glued grid alone, merely saying that it's one of the ways they reduce costs, and the number of major brands that use it seems to indicate that it is a significantly cheaper option.
I get your point about inconstency and that remark wasn't aimed at you but generally, and at myself. I too want cheaper racing but I wouldn't own a glued-grid boat myself so maybe I'm part of the 'problem"!
Arguably, the underlying issue is that the number and rate of deaths in the sport, certainly in Australia, is NOT declining as the rules and restrictions get more stringent and as entry numbers decrease. It therefore appears that the current approach is not working. Costs are being increased by things like more expensive first aid kits but high-aspect keels (including those recently checked) keep on falling off, and getting hit by rigging causes more fatalities than in the past (perhaps because the size of the average boat is now much bigger and therefore the forces involved are much higher?) with little action.
Cheers
