The boat must be able to handle REAL sea conditions...

In the previous post Rod made a comment about the damage sustained to Creeds boat. 

Rod comments:

One more thing you might want to check. If I remember right, in Creed's Tiki, there was some concern that the keels and rudder skegs might not be strong enough because they were just glassed on "sacraficial" and not structural. On the Boatdesign forum, in one of the photos, the starboard hull laying on the beach is missing her keel...... There is talk about this boat only sustaining "cosmetic" damages. Losing her keel is a bit more then "cosmetic" in my estimation.

I responded:

Hi Rod,

Yes, the damage to Creed's boat is a little more than 'cosmetic'.  What about the water damage to the electrics and electronics?

What is of greatest concern is the fact that it now appears that the boat broke up after drifting ashore in a slight sea.  This is contrary to the initial report from an employee of the boat yard that the mast had fallen down and broke the beams etc.  It didn't seem to make sense that the beams could have broken just from the mast falling down, but I would not have been surprised if the mast had fallen down.  I saw the vessel just a few days after it was launched and whilst is was in Ocean Marina.  The rope that was attaching the cables to the hull sides were starting to unravel then.  The lashings that were holding the beams together did not look as per the Wharram spec.  These were done in the builders yard...I know because I saw it just a few days before it was launched. 

Maybe these lashings were never tightened after the boat was launched.  Wharram is very specific about the importance of this.  The boat was in the care of the boat builder and was/is the subject of litigation.  In fact, it was only revealed after the boat was wrecked that it had been 'confiscated' and sold with no consideration being given to the US$135,000 Creed had paid to the builder.  Anyway, that is another story no doubt for another day.

Anyway, it now seems that it broke away from its anchor for whatever reason and drifted ashore.  Given that the keels were sacrificial the fact that they came off is not surprising...but, the masts falling down, the beams coming apart...that should never happen in those conditions.  How would it have faired in a real storm? 

I know that Raoul says it broke up in a storm but although it may have been a storm in Raoul's eyes it would have been a gentle sea breeze where I live.  I know as I was in Thailand the day Creed's boat came ashore.  Although I was not in Pattaya I was in Bangkok only 100kms away and it would have been lucky to have been more than 14 knots that day.  I know the area well where the boat came ashore an I have yet to see a shore break of more than 0.5meters even in a stiff breeze.  The area where it was anchored was close to a breakwater and quite sheltered and it came ashore on a sandy beach.

I am looking out the window at the moment at our ocean and the sea is calm 'for us' and the wind is moderate.  46km/hour as published by the Met Office.  I have copied the details here.

at 9am Tue 1 September
Christchurch Aero AWS
Temperature:  13 °C
Wind Speed:  46 km/h
Wind Direction:  NW
Rainfall (last hr):  0.0 mm
Humidity:  60 %
Pressure:  997 hPa
 
What Raoul does not seem to appreciate is that both Creed's boat and mine have to be able to handle the sort of conditions that we get around NZ.  To put that in perspective I have just extracted from the NZ Marine weather site a current sea condition in another part of the South Island of NZ.
 
Shoreline Wave Height 15.40m (50')
Ocean Swell Height  7.90m (26')
Swell Direction W 260°
Swell Period  14 seconds 
Wind Direction  W 259°
Wind Speed  24kts
Wind Chop Height  0.60m
Wind Chop Direction  W 285°
 
And the wind currently is only 24knots.  I happen to know that a couple of days ago that it was much more.  It still is in many areas and has been for weeks.  Here is the latest for the area east of us published today by the NZ met office.

Forties  Area
STORM WARNING 611
This affects ocean areas: FORTIES PACIFIC and SOUTHERN
AT 311800UTC
Over waters east of 160E and north of Ice Edge.
Low 949hPa near 60S 178E moving south 20kt.
1. In a belt 180 miles wide centred on a line 63S 169W 64S 175W 64S 177E: Clockwise 50kt easing to 40kt next 6 hours.
2. Outside area 1 and within 540 miles of low in southern semicircle: Clockwise 40kt.
3. Outside areas 1 and 2 and within 600 miles of low in sector from west through north to northeast: Clockwise 40kt.
Storm and gale areas moving with low.
This warning cancels and replaces warning 608

The fact is that my boat has to be able to handle these conditions.  If it can't I will not be able to get a category 1 certificate which I need to get clearance to sail to Tahiti.

Whereas a boat may never encounter these conditions it only has to happen once.  I am acutely aware of this in that an aquaintance of mine along with his wife and son was lost a few years ago in a storm offshore from NZ on the way to Tonga.  Several other yachts also went down.  Naturally all care is taken to avoid these situations but on a long voyage it is probable such conditions may be encountered.

I know of one boat that has taken a similar route to Tahiti from NZ which I will be taking...and done it twice.  Both times they encountered storms of 65 knots +.

All the good seamanship in the world won't save you if the boat breaks up.  This is the reason if why sometimes I may seem a little 'picky' about my boat.  But when dealing with the ocean those readers who have experienced really rough seas will certainly appreciate my position on making no compromising relating to seaworthiness.

Do you like Convertibles?

I do...in a car.  As a matter of fact I have one.  But, an unintentional convertible in a boat is something else. 

Today we discovered that inside the main cabins where the coach roof is attached to the deck thet they were only bonded by a single layer of glass which only overlapped the joint by about 3mm instead of the mandatory 75mm.   In the event of a wave catching it at the wrong angle the boat would certainly have become a 'convertible'.

Anyway, that is easily fixable.

What was more puzzling is that we found that the base of the forward beam troughs were 100mm too high.  This really had us scratching our heads as all the beams are supposed to be in line, according to the plans.  We had to conclude it was a screw up.

But...I think I know what may have happened...but, it is speculation only.

When the boat builder in Thailand was building the beam troughs (which we have to replace as I mentioned in an earlier post) the three aft beam troughs were near enough in line to accommodate the beams but as I mentioned the forward one was 100mm out of line.

So, we thought that we would check the beams where we found a couple of interesting things.

1. The vertical plywood which provides the main strength of the beam girder was not built as spec as only 50% of the plywood actually went the full distance as the plans provided for.

2. The two laminates of 25mm timber on the upper and lower parts of the beams were missing.   As a result the beams were 100mm's less in depth than those provided for in the plans.

Maybe after the beams had been built the guy's working on the boat decided that they had better reduce the depth of the forward beam so the top of the beam would be at the correct height to the deck but forgetting that it would not line up with any of the other beams???

Pretty strange.

As it has turned out it doesn't matter because we have to cut out the beam troughs and replace them with ones that meet the strength requirements as per the plans.

The next step is to check out the beams and make a decision as to what to do with them.  The forward beam which is supposed to have a curvature on the lower side is actually flat.  But, of bigger concern is that the 50mm of laminated timber on the top of the beam and the 50mm on the underneath is missing.

Over the next couple of days we will have to grind off the glass and check over the joints and decide if we will laminate the additional timber to them or, scrap them and build new ones.

I did question Raoul about this and he did respond by saying that the Wharram beams are way overbuilt and that mine are lighter than stronger than a standard Wharram's beams.   Hmmm...maybe he is right, maybe not...but, it is my life so I will err on the side of caution and not just rely on Raoul's word for this particuarly when he seems to get so many of his facts wrong.  I noticed in the cruiserforum.com that he refers to the galley funiture being out by 10mm.  Not sure where he got that from given that they did nothing in the interior of the galley.  He also refers to the bulkheads being out 1cm over 2.5 meters and saying that it was ridiculous to be concerned about that.  Actually the bulkhead in the starboard hull was a lot more out than that.  The aft beam trough which 30mm out over a distance of less than a meter.

A few mm's out it to be expected and is accepted...but, not to the extent that it was in parts of my boat.  It is easy to get it pretty right through the use of stringlines and a square...but it appears these were not used.

Never mind...what is done is done.  I have four good boat builders working on it now so I am hoping for good progress this week and that we will soon be able to put all these annoying deficiencies behind us. 

The week that was...

Significant progress was made in the galley and other parts of the boat this week.  No point in posting any photos at the moment of the galley until it gets closer to the finishing touches.

Preparation for the 'surgery' to correct the beam troughs has also begun.  The nida-core furniture which was built in the starboard cabin in Thailand by the previous builder has now been cut out in preparation to remove the main aft bulk head and cabin top to square it up and to put in new beam troughs.

The reason why the new beam troughs were not begun this week is because we decided it would be more practical to build in the steps in the two forward and two aft 'cabins' to make it easier for access whilst doing this work.

We also found that the height of one of the 'matching' beam troughs were also out by 20mm.

During this week we completed the design of all the electrical items that will be within the hulls along with the lighting so the wiring can be run out of sight.

In order to ensure best possible performance from the SSB we put in a substantial amount of copper mesh which will have a light covering of glass over it to protect it.  (photo attached) This will link to a 75mm strip of copper which will run back to the starboard stern area where the aerial will be mounted.  

Next week whilst the work on rectifying the beam troughs is going on we will try to anticipate all the deck fittings that will need to have hardwood blocks inserted in the deck.

Fresh water and plumbing...

The deisgn of the plumbing and water system is now complete.

I bought 2 x 88 liter vetus water containers which will be fitted underneath the double berths in each hull.  The reason why I used Vetus tanks instead of building them in is so that the water can be drunk direct from the water system.  I have had boats with either stainless or fibreglass tanks and the water is always 'tainted'.  That is the reason why I went for the special Vetus tanks.

In the port forward cabin there will be a Little Wonder Watermaker.  The watermaker will pump the water into the tank on the starboard side.  There will be a small transfer pump by the starboard tank which will be used to top up the port hull tank.  The water tap in the galley and the head and shower will draw off the port hull tank. 

The system is simple and will be reliable.  I really think a watermaker is an essential piece of equipment no matter what the size of the boat.  In some places it can be really quite difficult to access good quality drinking water which is critical for good health.  The watermaker really doesn't add to weight as the total amount of water being carried can be reduced.

In a few weeks I will post the details about how the decision to use electric motors, and a water maker has actually saved some weight compared to using a couple of outboard and having no watermaker or a generator.

Progress this week...

The work plan had to be modified somewhat this week as a result of the discovering the sub standard work by the previous builder as a result of ignoring the specifications in the plans.

Some time was spent in figuring out the best solution.

We also lined up the two hulls and checked all the beam troughs for alignment. As I mentioned in an earlier post the aft beam troughs were way out of square. The two front ones and the partial mid ones were only a little bit out BUT some of them were way out in height…about 20mm.

If it was not for the fact that I am comfortable with the integrity of the hulls I would have dumped them and started again. I still have to check out the keels…but more about that later.

If you had read the earlier response of Raoul Blanchetti of RB Power and Sailing in Pattaya to my request for assistance you will have seen that the original builders are not only NOT prepared to take any responsibility for the substandard and potentially life threatening work but also are not even prepared to assist in any way such as telling me in what other way the deviated from the plans. Oh…and I mustn’t forget about the threat I received for asking!

Never mind, we can figure it out, and figure it out properly!

This is what we are going to do.

Because I don’t want any compromises to the safety of the vessel we are going to completely remove all the existing beam troughs and the back of the cabin on the starboard hull. We will build complete new ones as per the Wharram plans and specifications (in timber) and fit them into the hulls as they should have been in the first place.

I have also decided to rip out all the Nida-core furniture that was also built by RB but was all out of square as well as replacing the ‘cock-eyed’ bulkhead.

The new beam troughs will include replacement bulkheads and will have all the strength which is provided for in the Wharram specifications. Work on these will begin next week. I will post photos as work progresses.

During the week more work was done in the galley which is looking really good and will be very functional. The shelves and framework are being built in sandwich core and glass with cherry trim. There is plywood used in those areas where the extra strength is needed such as supporting the oven and the drawer fridge.

The builder responds to my letter...but I still have TOTAL faith in the Wharram designs!

As expected, by publishing the letter on the blog it solicited an immediate response from Raoul. Whether he would have responded eventually to my email I don’t know but that is irrelevant now.

The outcome was as expected...no cooperation but a threat.  Nonetheless I thought that it was fair to ask him the relevant questions particularly about the modification of the beams. As he is not prepared to cooperate on helping with this but instead chooses to threaten me I guess that we will just have to assess the beams ourselves and decide whether to build new ones.

As I said in the heading, I have total confidence in the Wharram designs and I would rather go to sea in a well built Wharram than a modern cat of the same size PROVIDED the key structural areas are built as per the spec’s.

I have posted Raouls replies, unedited, and my response which will be the end of this matter as I am obviously wasting my time seeking any support from the builder. I will now just get on and fix it and post the progress on this blog.

First response from Raoul received at 10.31pm Tuesday Aug 19th New Zealand time.

Dear Warren ,

As I said once , Wharram cats are not designed and don’t comply to any international recognized standard , such as ISO or similar .

Click to read more ...

Would my boat have met the same fate as Creed O'Hanlon's??

It would seem so. Whether it would be for the same reasons I can not be certain as I did not have an opportunity to examine where the failure occurred on Creed's boat and the builder did not send me the photos that he promised in a separate email to the one I published.

Let me explain why I think that my boat would have met a similar fate.

In an earlier posting entitled 'The bad' I explained how some of the beam troughs were out of square. Well things have got even worse...much worse.

I now find that the beam troughs are lacking totally in any of the supporting structure and apart from one piece of wood on the aft most beam trough which sits on top of the Nida core deck there is NO reinforcing timber at all...period. So there is nothing to tie the beams into the hulls to ensure structural integrity.

To say I was flabbergasted is an understatement. I wouldn't had thought that such an important thing would have been ignored but a little voice inside of me said 'check it out'.

I wrote to the builder yesterday expecting a reply today but none came so I thought that I may as well publish the email to him which explains my concerns.  This is copied below.

I will now engage a marine surveyor to check out the rest of the hulls and take core samples to ensure that it is seaworthy.

Although this puts back my program by a couple of weeks it was better to find out now because if we had not picked it up I doubt that it would even have survived the sea trials. Also, there is no way I would have got a Cat 1 certificate which is required by all New Zealand boats leaving the country under their own propulsion.  This survey is very tough because the NZ government got tired of foreign yachts visiting NZ after having sailed around the world in the tropics and then having to be rescued in NZ offshore waters because the vessels were not properly equipped for the rough conditions that are common around here. 

We are going to have to build new beam troughs as per the Wharram specifications (which they were supposed to have been) and then cut out the existing beam troughs and fit in the new ones. Quite a major and expensive task.

Hopefully the builder will do the right thing and front up with the cost of putting it back to the correct spec.  We will see...

Here is the letter to the builder. Monday 18th Aug. NZ time.

Raoul,

I have some very disturbing and bad news for you.

In the process today of checking the beam troughs which we found were all out of square, (one which was almost 40mm’s out) we discovered some MAJOR structural deficiencies.

1.NONE of the beams troughs had the required timber laminates built into the transverse bulk heads to tie in with the beam trough strengthening! As a result there is nothing there to secure the through bolts. This means that the first ‘decent’ sea that the vessel experienced would result in catastrophic structural failure which would inevitably lead to the loss of the boat and maybe loss of life. A core of 12mm nida-core and a thin layer of glass has no integral strength at all, and yet that is what you were relying on.

2.On the aft transverse beam trough there is a wooden section glassed on to the top of the Nida-core decking and not tied into any bulkhead. In the event of the beam lashings becoming loose this wooden section which is securing one of the main beams would simply separate from the deck with the beam.

3.To make matters worse the hardwood bearers in which the beams are supposed to rest on in the hull were also missing. Not only the solid bearer at each side of the hull in the beam troughs but also the hardwood bearers that were supposed to run transversely underneath the beams on to which the plywood is attached and on which the beams are designed to rest. All of this area was simply 12mm Nida core with a thin layer of glass.

I trusted you to at least ensure that the hulls you sold me at as you know a greatly inflated price were at least sea-worthy and at least up to or in excess of spec. Instead you sold me what would have potentially been a death trap if I had not had exploratory holes drilled in the beam troughs which brought all this to light.

I intend sailing this boat to Tahiti by first heading east from Lyttelton which is around 43 degrees south to the Chatham Islands which are about 500 NM offshore and then a direct line to Tahiti another 2,500 miles North East from there. I will be leaving in the middle of winter in NZ during which time we have southerly offshore storms which come direct from Antarctica. At least 2 storms can be expected before getting to the trade winds and warmer weather. Typical wind speeds in the fronts that pass over at this time of the year in this area are around 65 knots and sea conditions of 45 – 50’. I also have to pass over the Mernoo Banks on the way to the Chathams. This stretch of water is considered to be one of the worst in the world. A well founded Wharram is more than capable of handling these conditions which is what attracted me to this design. I would never attempt such a voyage in a typical modern catamaran of the same size.

The way you had constructed my boat is such that I would never have made it even as far as the Chathams before it would have disintegrated.

The question is what do we do about this Raoul? Some major surgery is required on the boat, or alternatively I dump it.

I intend getting a surveyor in to assess the situation and also check over other aspects of the boat including the beams. I understand from Creed that you did not build my beams to spec as you felt that you could build them stronger and lighter. You never advised about this change or any of the others relating to the beam troughs. Please let me know what you did to the beams so I can advise the surveyor so it can be checked out.

I know that your architect Albert was involved in the modifications to the Tiki hulls. Did he also modify the beam troughs or was that your idea?

The bottom line is that I want to know from you are you prepared to meet the expenses of putting the hulls back to Wharrams specs that they should have been in order to make it seaworthy.

As I said I am getting an independent surveyors report and will be able to present you with full details PROVIDED I get a commitment from you by return email that you will make good my losses on this issue.

Warren

The bad...

In the previous post I mentioned that it had been both a good and bad week.  I mentioned the good...now the bad.

As readers of this blog know I originally planned on building 'Natural High' in Thailand where I have a subsidiary of my New Zealand business so it was quite convenient in that I could visit the boat yard frequently.

I started construction there as planned but earlier this year I became somewhat disillusioned with this decision and decided to 'eat a considerable loss' and pull the hulls out of the yard and ship back to New Zealand for completion.  One of the triggering points was that various parts of the vessel had obviously been build 'by eye' rather than using good boat building principles of string lines and ensuring everything was square.

I picked this up in Thailand when some nida-core furniture in the master stateroom was built and when I saw it I could see that everything was out of square.  It turned out that the bulkhead that it was attached to was about 35mm out of square.  The out of square bulkhead was not obvious until the furniture was attached. 

I considered it was pointless in trying to have it corrected using the same tradesmen as they didn't seem to understand the importance of using 'squares' to line things up instead of just placing things where they thought it looked OK.  In fact one part that they built which I had to have removed in NZ was so far out that I actually had to laugh about it.  It was the runners for a drawer and they were on such an angle and not parallel that it would be impossible for them to perform the intended function.

Anyway, back to why this week has not been so good.

I was in the master cabin with my architect finalising the the layout for that cabin and deciding upon the best way to resolve the out of square bulkhead.  We decided that the best solution was to put in a dummy bulkhead that was square and work from there.

Then the thought struck me...which I should have thought of earlier.  'duh'  If the bulk head was out of square then the 'slot' for the cross beams may also be out. So, we took a line down the center of the hull and squared of the section for the cross beams.  And, sadly it was way out.  So, there would be no way that the cross beam would match up with the other hull.  The photo shows a little of this.

As with everything on a boat one thing leads to another.  It now looks like that not only we will have to rip that part of the hull deck out and rebuild it but also rebuild the aft end of the cabin as that is also out of square.  So, all the fairing work and undercoating will have to be redone.

Only found all this out at the end of the day Friday.  Early next week we will align the hulls and use stringlines and check out the alignment of all the other beam 'slots' and then make decisions which as to how best proceed.

I always say that making assumptions is a dangerous thing and in this case I ignored my own advice.  I had assumed that the slots for the beams would have lined up and be square given it is such a basic requirement in boat building.

But, looking on the bright side...it was better that it was discovered now rather than after the hulls were complete and painted and then finding the cross beams would not line up.