Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2014, 07:16 PM   #141
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wxx3 View Post
Which is why this thread has gone to 7 pages.

Not many of us, under any circumstances, can see spending any money, let alone big bucks, on a boat that add it is launched, a 30% list gets it to turn turtle.

It's funny to me, but also to me days a lot about the builder. NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Because I'm sure this mishap report will detail the separate things that added up to this loss, but ultimately, I don't want a boat that can't be launched with no room for error.
The defenses New World occasionally chooses to attempt are all sad. I picture someone arguing with themselves.

New World: It is not a problem with the build. We've built a lot of boats that float upright. It's New World's dollies.

New World: Is is most definitely not our dollies. We've used them before. It's your, New World, design. Your internal Architect.

New World: It is not our naval architect's fault. We asked him. He said the design is fine. It was the ramp New World chose to launch it.

New World: It most definitely was not the choice of ramp. We've launched bigger there before. It's the way New World put the ballast in.

New World: It has nothing to do with the way we placed the ballast. We do it like that all the time. It is that the stabilizer fin you New World guys installed stuck and got knocked off.

New World: It has nothing to do with the stabilizer fin. Look, it's not even dirty. It's the buyer's fault for choosing us.

New World: Yes, that's it. His fault.

New World: Absolutely. That or an act of God. He did it.

New World: Or our prior owner.

Prior Northern owner: You people are not Northern. I own the name and the assets. You are nothing.

Current New World Owner: We are so. We have the rights from you.

To Tell the Truth: Will the real Northern stand up please.

$64,000 Question: It was a lot easier when we rigged these things.

The fact is at this point we don't know the cause. The one thing we do know is that the responsibility for it is the same, whatever the cause. We also know that they are less than forthcoming with factual information and there was plenty of trouble before this. It will be ages before an official finding and even longer than that before everything is resolved legally, perhaps longer than the wait for Lebron to announce his decision.
__________________
Advertisement

BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 08:06 PM   #142
Dauntless Award
 
Wxx3's Avatar
 
City: New York, NY
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Dauntless
Vessel Model: Kadey Krogen 42 - 148
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,313
Thanks B & B that was great. Almost thought you worked for the NYC Dept of Eduacation for a second. No wiat, they don't read off the clock. But they are professionals, they don't need the time clock, and yet they still know whne thier 6 hours and 50 mintues are up.

Sorry, another digression.

I almost forgot my point. When they released the first (and only one I've seen) video, and then told you that they had edited it. That alone increased my interest 100 fold.

Because the edit told me they know exactly the cause, because they knew enough what to edit.


They are idiots and can't even build a boat.
__________________

__________________
M/Y Dauntless, New York
a Kadey Krogen 42 Currently https://share.delorme.com/dauntless
Blog: https://dauntlessatsea.com
Find us: https://share.delorme.com/dauntless
Wxx3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 09:27 PM   #143
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
It was the 462 DD. I enclose the computer models and righting arm curves below. These were done in 2008 only for myself. They are not in any way intended to be taken as critical of the builders. They are based on certain assumptions by me, and they will not hold up in a court of law...

At the time Steve Dashew had made some disparaging remarks about the stability of powerboats. I tried to find a problem and it turned out there isnít one. These curves do illustrate the general stability characteristics of these type of hulls. Note that I have included the aft raised deck on the DD and the raised foredeck on the Nordhavn. The VCG's shown are above the indicated waterline, LCG is at wherever the LCB was at that floatation.

Both these boats show vanishing stability angles of about 85 degrees. That will change if more of the house was included, or if the loading (fuel and water mainly) and floatation changed.


Attachment 31257

Attachment 31258

Attachment 31259

Attachment 31260
Tad, this brings me back to my original question. If your assumptions are correct, from your graph the Nordhavn and Duck show ultimate stability of 87 to 90 degrees. I presume these are light ship calculations. The Baden, assuming she finished out with the additional ballast specified by Roddan would have ultimate stability of 65 degrees. Are there many vessels in this length and beam with that level of stability that are considered blue water cruisers? Is the reason why you don't see any capsized trawlers in this length because they are predominately designed with greater stability? Not picking on the designers of the Baden - just trying to understand what the parameters are for stability that are considered appropriate for crossing oceans.
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 09:46 PM   #144
Senior Member
 
Animal's Avatar
 
City: St Louis
Country: USA
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by angus99 View Post
I for one would just like to raise a glass to Tad for the wealth of expertise he brings to this forum . . . and for the civility he brings to discussions that might otherwise turn into pi$$ing contests. Thanks!




I'll second that motion! Thanks for taking the time, Tad!
Animal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 10:03 PM   #145
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,181
Yeah, it''s great to have him pop-up here and there, no? We're a better forum for it. Of course, I'm still hoping he'll advise me on the stability factors of my three story Manatee proposal.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	three story manatee.jpg
Views:	61
Size:	140.1 KB
ID:	31297  
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 10:10 PM   #146
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
At some point stability is less important than seamanship, survivability of design (is it subject to easy damage and downflooding?), and just plain old everything inside including systems, crew and the ability to function and save the ship in constant seas creating large degrees of roll....including maintenance necessary to keep the engines running. Things often start breaking loose and taking out systems or causing serious damage if the crew wasn't on the ball before the weather set in.

I've been on larger vessels...USCG Cutters from 210 to 399 feet that experienced 60 degree rolls for days on end and the ships crew was down to 33% capable of even getting out of the rack. On another trip we almost jettisoned the helo while running before a hurricane and scared to turn beam to...so we ran before it for 3 days well out of our oparea.

I've been on Icebreakers where the amount of ice has created a dangerous rolling moment and had to break tons of ice off aloft to keep from rolling over.

Once you get to a certain point...like Tad said..it's external factors that usually do the boat in...not just "stability"...once a boat starts rolling beyond 45 degrees for hours on end...life aboard as you now it comes to a screeching halt and people start thinking survivability in many areas other than just rolling over.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 11:44 PM   #147
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by healhustler View Post
Yeah, it''s great to have him pop-up here and there, no? We're a better forum for it. Of course, I'm still hoping he'll advise me on the stability factors of my three story Manatee proposal.
Needs a tuna tower.
__________________
Conrad
Berthed in
Campbell River BC
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2014, 11:52 PM   #148
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrad View Post
Needs a tuna tower.
or at least a crow's nest.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 12:14 AM   #149
Guru
 
Conrad's Avatar
 
City: Calgary
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blue Sky
Vessel Model: Nordic Tugs 42 Hull #001
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by markpierce View Post
or at least a crow's nest.

No Mark...you meant to say AND a crowsnest.
__________________
Conrad
Berthed in
Campbell River BC
Conrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 09:54 AM   #150
Guru
 
City: NC
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
It was the 462 DD. I enclose the computer models and righting arm curves below. These were done in 2008 only for myself. They are not in any way intended to be taken as critical of the builders. They are based on certain assumptions by me, and they will not hold up in a court of law...
Darn, I will call off Lawyer Daggett.

Thanks for the info.

Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 09:56 AM   #151
Moderator Emeritus
 
jwnall's Avatar
 
City: St. Marks, Florida
Country: US
Vessel Name: Morgan
Vessel Model: Gulfstar 36
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannc View Post
Darn, I will call off Lawyer Daggett.
He still practicing over there in Yell County, Arkansas? Must be getting kind of long in the tooth by now.
__________________
John
jwnall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 02:36 PM   #152
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Tad, this brings me back to my original question. If your assumptions are correct, from your graph the Nordhavn and Duck show ultimate stability of 87 to 90 degrees. I presume these are light ship calculations. The Baden, assuming she finished out with the additional ballast specified by Roddan would have ultimate stability of 65 degrees. Are there many vessels in this length and beam with that level of stability that are considered blue water cruisers? Is the reason why you don't see any capsized trawlers in this length because they are predominately designed with greater stability? Not picking on the designers of the Baden - just trying to understand what the parameters are for stability that are considered appropriate for crossing oceans.
I'll say, "You're welcome" to everyone who posted and Pm'ed thanks. I just hope I haven't confused the issue too much.

Delfin....

The model for the N55 was created from published drawings and the curve was done at a displacement of 100,000 pounds. That's light of Nordhavn' s currently published 115,000 LB displacement figure(no word on if it's light or full load). I sank the DD from 67,000 to 75,000 LBs to better represent what I thought was reality. The actual boats may be quite a bit heavier than that. The VCG's were pure guess as was the trim.

In my experience the typical powerboat runs out of stability at something around 70 degrees heel, and that would be a worst case (usually with tanks almost empty). That's typical coastwise cruisers of fairly wide beam. As we don't see a rash of these boats capsizing in normal use, experience tells us this is fine.

Ocean cruisers, those intended for crossing oceans, should be (IMO) held to a higher standard. It's quite typical for small sailing cruisers to have positive stability over 100 degrees of heel. Now, powerboats don't carry a lot of sail, and are not usually subject to knockdown, but it can happen. I've been aboard a lightly loaded fishpacker knocked down to 60-70 degrees by a fierce williwaw in Burke Channel. That's not a good feeling.

Thus in my own work on ocean going boats I try to maintain positive stability around 100 degrees or more. This is done with moderate beam, low profile, in some cases raised decks, progressively lighter construction above waterline, and some ballast as low as possible.
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 02:49 PM   #153
Guru
 
City: NC
Country: US
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwnall View Post
He still practicing over there in Yell County, Arkansas? Must be getting kind of long in the tooth by now.
The original Lawyer Daggett had many sons who have carried on the family business of helping out those in need of legal representation....



Later,
Dan
dannc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 03:06 PM   #154
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
As an aside to all the above discussion on vanishing stability angles. It turns out that the more important issue is "Downflooding Angle". That's the heel angle at which the boat starts to fill with water and the stability starts to change. For those with low freeboard, low engineroom vents, opening ports in the hull, etc, this angle can be between 30 and 40 degrees heel.
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 03:57 PM   #155
Grand Vizier
 
Delfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
I'll say, "You're welcome" to everyone who posted and Pm'ed thanks. I just hope I haven't confused the issue too much.

Delfin....

The model for the N55 was created from published drawings and the curve was done at a displacement of 100,000 pounds. That's light of Nordhavn' s currently published 115,000 LB displacement figure(no word on if it's light or full load). I sank the DD from 67,000 to 75,000 LBs to better represent what I thought was reality. The actual boats may be quite a bit heavier than that. The VCG's were pure guess as was the trim.

In my experience the typical powerboat runs out of stability at something around 70 degrees heel, and that would be a worst case (usually with tanks almost empty). That's typical coastwise cruisers of fairly wide beam. As we don't see a rash of these boats capsizing in normal use, experience tells us this is fine.

Ocean cruisers, those intended for crossing oceans, should be (IMO) held to a higher standard. It's quite typical for small sailing cruisers to have positive stability over 100 degrees of heel. Now, powerboats don't carry a lot of sail, and are not usually subject to knockdown, but it can happen. I've been aboard a lightly loaded fishpacker knocked down to 60-70 degrees by a fierce williwaw in Burke Channel. That's not a good feeling.

Thus in my own work on ocean going boats I try to maintain positive stability around 100 degrees or more. This is done with moderate beam, low profile, in some cases raised decks, progressively lighter construction above waterline, and some ballast as low as possible.
Yes, a williwaw would be one of the conditions that are a bit hard to predict and that can knock a boat, especially one with as much windage as Baden, over the angle where real trouble starts. I realize there isn't any set standard, and that few ships are in lightship weight when bad things happen, but that isn't something I would necessarily want to rely on. So I heartily support your conservative target of something in excess of 100 degrees if you plan on venturing far.

Thanks again....
__________________
Delfin
"Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis." - Jack Handy
Delfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 06:31 PM   #156
Guru
 
Edelweiss's Avatar
 
City: PNW
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 1976 Californian Tricabin LRC
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
As an aside to all the above discussion on vanishing stability angles. It turns out that the more important issue is "Downflooding Angle". That's the heel angle at which the boat starts to fill with water and the stability starts to change. For those with low freeboard, low engineroom vents, opening ports in the hull, etc, this angle can be between 30 and 40 degrees heel.
Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?
__________________
Larry B
Careful . . .I Have a Generator and I'm not afraid to use it !
Edelweiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 06:39 PM   #157
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edelweiss View Post
Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?

I know I'm not Tad but have been have been a ships qualified officer in the USCG and certainly have enough time at sea to post something useful.

You really don't want to include fuel in stability issues unless you are willing to ballast those same tanks with sea water, fresh water or some other moveable weight onboard....and most rec boats aren't willing to flood their fuel tanks with other substances unless absolutely necessary.

You could be well down in fuel load when you most need that weight for stability and it may not be there....unless willing to ballast those tanks.

So whether the designers included it or not...reading the engineering report again may reveal it to me...but if fuel was such a big issue with stability (plus water or food stores) then the designers really did screw up if that's what they were counting to hold the boat upright.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2014, 06:55 PM   #158
Guru
 
Edelweiss's Avatar
 
City: PNW
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 1976 Californian Tricabin LRC
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
You really don't want to include fuel in stability issues unless you are willing to ballast those same tanks with sea water, fresh water or some other moveable weight onboard.
That's understood. . . But that wasn't the question I asked Tad.

Thanks
__________________
Larry B
Careful . . .I Have a Generator and I'm not afraid to use it !
Edelweiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 01:26 PM   #159
Guru
 
Tad Roberts's Avatar
 
City: Flattop Islands
Country: Canada
Vessel Name: Blackfish
Vessel Model: custom
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edelweiss View Post
Tad
To what extent would a full load of fuel effect the stability angle of Baden or is that too speculative?
According to the Roddan weight study Baden was to carry 32,450 pounds of fuel in four tanks. Her full load displacement was supposed to be 130 long tons, about 291,200 pounds. So fuel is about 10% of total weight.

Tanks full or empty would change vanishing stability angle by a few degrees one way or the other.

Thanks for asking that question as it sent me back to looking at the Roddan report which turned up a number of rather glaring mistakes. I almost don't believe these were let stand......

In both weight summery pages some of the empty tanks and their contents are assigned obviously incorrect vertical centers. The main fuel tank (1800 pounds) and it's contents (18000 pounds) are listed a few inches above baseline, lower than the keel shoe! The dinghy, crane, and "misc" hardware are given no vertical arm at all. The grey water tank is listed as 53.5' above the keel! Look...Up in the sky....a grey water tank.....

Mistakes create uncertainty.....perhaps the whole thing is a red herring.
Tad Roberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2014, 02:59 PM   #160
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tad Roberts View Post
According to the Roddan weight study Baden was to carry 32,450 pounds of fuel in four tanks. Her full load displacement was supposed to be 130 long tons, about 291,200 pounds. So fuel is about 10% of total weight.

Tanks full or empty would change vanishing stability angle by a few degrees one way or the other.

Thanks for asking that question as it sent me back to looking at the Roddan report which turned up a number of rather glaring mistakes. I almost don't believe these were let stand......

In both weight summery pages some of the empty tanks and their contents are assigned obviously incorrect vertical centers. The main fuel tank (1800 pounds) and it's contents (18000 pounds) are listed a few inches above baseline, lower than the keel shoe! The dinghy, crane, and "misc" hardware are given no vertical arm at all. The grey water tank is listed as 53.5' above the keel! Look...Up in the sky....a grey water tank.....

Mistakes create uncertainty.....perhaps the whole thing is a red herring.
Two things come to mind and I'm not accusing but sometimes the appearance is as bad as if they are issues.

1. Roddan did a lot of work directly for Northern. Much like the videographer. How independent were they? As a buyer I would not have used them but would have used someone who didn't contract directly with New World. I'm not saying they didn't act independently, but the appearance is that their independence could have been compromised. It's like using a surveyor that the selling broker selects.

2. Roddan's appeal within the report was for them being engaged for a follow up study. Perhaps they intended to do another prior to launching or hoped to do one. They may have then just considered this first study very preliminary in nature. Certainly they stated that they should be engaged for another study. In reading, I got a sense of very limited approval and that wasn't to imply the boat was good to go but just that depending on what happened from that point forward it might one day be. I've run across such before in different fields where the question might be "Will this work" and the answer is "It can be made to work if you spend this much money with us to insure it does."

Now neither of these excuses the sloppiness you point out. There are plenty of fingers to be pointed justifiably in this whole debacle. They buyer, his captain, certain Fraser, Roddan, New World, New World's engineer/architect. The buyer knew long ago this project was in trouble, but once you're in so deep, you really have no way out. Think of this simple example. You've already paid advance payments beyond the work that has been completed to date. However, you get a call that says "We need $25,000 for materials to keep working on your boat. Without it we can't do anymore work at this time. We'll apply that to your next progress payment". What do you do then?
__________________

BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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 Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012