Too powerful?

[Mollers]

[QUOTE=Kernow;261656]

Originally Posted by CJL

Original UK built 585's are rated higher than the later UK and South African built ones. [/QUOT

Any idea when they changed? the one I've bought is a 95 or 96. Have to say it looks a lot of rib to be restricted to 120.

Was it involved in the Dunkirk evacuations?

[CJL]

[QUOTE=Kernow;261656]

Originally Posted by CJL

Original UK built 585's are rated higher than the later UK and South African built ones. [/QUOT

Any idea when they changed? the one I've bought is a 95 or 96. Have to say it looks a lot of rib to be restricted to 120.

You're probably OK with a 95-96 model. Do you not have a transom plate on yours?

PS - the year of build may be stamped backwards on the starboard bow just below where it meets the tubes.

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

So its a marine surveyor who is reponsible for determining the ultimate power capabilities of a hull ? He comes to your yard, ticks some boxes and gives you a plate (so to speak) to stick on the back ?

In a word - kind of!

He comes to the yard, fills out some forms on information we give him as to the layup and construction, goes away and does some lengthy calculations to decide if the boat can take the power structurally, then comes the fun bit, for Cat C you have drive the boat flat out and complete a 90 degree turn in so many metres - if you can't do this the boat doesn't fail, you just have to put a sticker by the helm saying something to the effect that you shouldn't do a 90 degree turn flat out! (I'm not kidding either!)

The point I'm making here is that there is no (that I am aware of) formula to decide the max power of a boat which just uses length and buoyancy etc - there is a lot more to it than that, and if you make the boat strong enough you're ok.

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Simon B

Cookee,

Is there a dental disclaimer absolving B-Shark of any claims relating to loosening of fillings, eyeballs and any uncontrolled breasts that may endanger the craft or become a hazard to marine navigation!?

I think that's a great idea - it may take a while to work out the wording of that one though!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Cookee

The point I'm making here is that there is no (that I am aware of) formula to decide the max power of a boat which just uses length and buoyancy etc - there is a lot more to it than that, and if you make the boat strong enough you're ok.

http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources/Abersoch%20RIB.pdf (p16)

and Annex F (which is in a separate document http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...IB_Annexes.pdf

but as said in the first link there are other ways to prove conformance rather than just using the calculation.

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Polwart

and Annex F (which is in a separate document http://www.maib.gov.uk/cms_resources...IB_Annexes.pdf

but as said in the first link there are other ways to prove conformance rather than just using the calculation.

Thats interesting .. The ISO standard calculation is in Kw, to convert to hp you multiply by 1.37, which for a certain failed 8.5m hull of mine works out at a maximum hp of 197hp using a 2m beam by 9m OAL and confirms that the 300 hp it was actually plated for was rather optimistic, if my calculations are correct

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

Thats interesting .. The ISO standard calculation is in Kw, to convert to hp you multiply by 1.37, which for a certain failed 8.5m hull of mine works out at a maximum hp of 197hp using a 2m beam by 9m OAL and confirms that the 300 hp it was actually plated for was rather optimistic, if my calculations are correct

But its not the only way to arrive at the number - and actually has no relevance to the failure you experienced, since transom design/construction aren't part of the equation just beam and length. So the calculation is presumably about handling for "any" hull shape of those sizes.

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Polwart

But its not the only way to arrive at the number - and actually has no relevance to the failure you experienced, since transom design/construction aren't part of the equation just beam and length. So the calculation is presumably about handling for "any" hull shape of those sizes.

I was aware of all of that, with due respect Polwart.. It was more of a 'prospective' post if you like, to garner opinion and validate the fact that there seems to be an open policy on what is a very important subject to me, which is linked with CJL's original post.

Hopefully through some investigation and posting of my own experiences, I can shed some light on a predicament others may avoid, as, it will surely hurt them in their pocket as it did me, so I am keen to follow the theory of exactly how a hull is calibrated to carry the horsepower that its plate determines, further.. why, as Cookee said,.. he will build a 7.5 that will handle 300HP and get certificated,.. quite rightly for it, as he says he will offer a 5YR Gtee for it, and confirm the build technique,.. but others build larger boats that will only handle a lot less power than their plate states?, who is controlling the plating certificates of these hulls ? I would like answers on this, as its costing consumers money, when they should not be left in the dark in such a fashion, without there being such an arbitary thing as 'ahh well that transom looks heavy enough,.. doesnt it ?' Now I know there are ISO standards, but as been seen what do they count for ?

Is it that ,when many competitors hulls of a similar size get rated for 300 hp that, without reasonable controls, some 'other' manufacturers just plate their hulls for the same power without getting properly tested .. just so they dont loose market share in that arena ?

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

who is controlling the plating certificates of these hulls ?

• the manufacturer is responsible for controlling the plating/certificate, and ensuring they have the evidence required by the RCD to support their claims.
• the trading standards for the area covering the manufacturer are responsible for enforcing the RCD.
• the trading standard for Falkirk are responsible for ensuring that FYM sell product that is fit for purpose.

of course unless you are very lucky, trading standards will know nothing about boats!

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Polwart

• the manufacturer is responsible for controlling the plating/certificate, and ensuring they have the evidence required by the RCD to support their claims.

Ok lets stop on point one .. I'm arguing that the manufacturer isn't coding their boats properly and who is to stop them ? There are no controls over what they stick on their hulls.. period... as its arbitrary by many accounts

When they get a CE mark.. it still is no qualitative measure on what the construction methods or the build quality of the hull are.. so why have it ??

And what is more frustrating, is.. how some retailers use it as a sales tool when plainly it isn't worth a monkeys !! that is a market con and it should be stopped !!

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

There are no controls over what they stick on their hulls.. period...

thats not strictly speaking true - have you asked Yorkshire (?) trading standards to comment if you believe the boats are incorrectly labelled? IIRC the boat you had an "issue" with was Cat B, so the notified body should have been involved in the approval process and I think on an ongoing basis to 'ensure' conformance.

[Bigmuz7]

Originally Posted by Polwart

thats not strictly speaking true - have you asked Yorkshire (?) trading standards to comment if you believe the boats are incorrectly labelled? IIRC the boat you had an "issue" with was Cat B, so the notified body should have been involved in the approval process and I think on an ongoing basis to 'ensure' conformance.

I hardly think the'yd be interested, and no body could enforce what is intangeable at the best of times, untill there is an accident, caused by a failure which could prove their negligence. Fortunately I saw mine coming before it put anyone at risk

[MarkL]

FWIW.... I have a 1995 UK built Ribtec 645 that is rated for 250hp

When it was new it was rigged with 2 x 90hp and now, thank to a previous owner, has a 130hp Honda

The Honda weighs 229kg.... I can (and probably would if I had the dosh) get an E-Tec 250Hp that weighs 238 kg.... So in my simplistic world - i.e. after too much wine - I can't help but think that, certainly for older RIBS - it's as much a weight issue as anything.

There's no doubt that, as others have already commented on the hull shapes of the older Ribtecs, mine could do with somewhat more than 130hp to shift it's deep and heavy arse !

Cheers,
Mark

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

I hardly think the'yd be interested, and no body could enforce what is intangeable at the best of times, untill there is an accident, caused by a failure which could prove their negligence. Fortunately I saw mine coming before it put anyone at risk

I beg to differ. Although they may not come to the same conclusion that you did that it is incorrectly plated. But at the very least someone sniffing around may make whoever is involved in those decisions at the manufacturer put more thought into it. The reason I believe they will be "interested" (which is not the same as understanding) is that if an accident does happen the MAIB / prosecution will do some investigation - if they find that you wrote to trading standards highlighting an apparent breach of the RCD which they didn't investigate then heads would roll.

If you are going to bring it up everytime someone mentions engine size, or RCD ratings then its only reasonable that you should atleast attempt to pursue your concern through the official channel.

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Bigmuz7

[/LIST]Ok lets stop on point one .. I'm arguing that the manufacturer isn't coding their boats properly and who is to stop them ? There are no controls over what they stick on their hulls.. period... as its arbitrary by many accounts

When they get a CE mark.. it still is no qualitative measure on what the construction methods or the build quality of the hull are.. so why have it ??

And what is more frustrating, is.. how some retailers use it as a sales tool when plainly it isn't worth a monkeys !! that is a market con and it should be stopped !!

The whole system was intended as a leveller in Europe to harmonise standards and make sure you are getting what you pay for - Because of a complete lack of control it is ending up being a bit of a waste of time and abused by manufacturers who claim approval for 12 people on a 6 metre boat Cat C - Quite meaningless really and frustrating as a manufacturer following the system and paying a professional to do it for me!

Dealers who use the categories as sales tools are making use of what is available to them - you can't blame them, but the public haven't got time to do real research into the subject, and believe any "Official" rating of a product in a simplistic way - ie "B" is better than "C".

There must be differnet ways of calculating maximum power because niether of the "CE" surveyors have quoted that formula to us!

[9D280]

Originally Posted by Cookee

Dealers who use the categories as sales tools are making use of what is available to them - you can't blame them, but the public haven't got time to do real research into the subject, and believe any "Official" rating of a product in a simplistic way - ie "B" is better than "C".

Yep, not too dissimilar to every Automotiove manufacturer boasting how many Euro Ncap stars their cars have.

I suspect I have one of the older Ribs on the forum, C. 1977/8 built. It's plated for 60, with no mention of the max weight. It's Grandkids are rated for a 90 horse 4 stroke. So, does that mean I can hang two 4-stroke 30s on there just 'coz it has no weight limit on the plate? (and let's make sure I buy them from a manufacturer that the 30 is a downrated 40 Just to make sure I max out on weight for the discussion )

Of course not. I'd be lucky to get the transom to the water stil lattatched to the boat. We are in an ever increasing world of litigation and a culture of "if in doubt - SUE THEM". I suspect there is a bit of posterior protection of going on. Remember the opening comments in your GPS manual tells you not to rely on it for navigation, and that packet of roasted peanuts may contain nuts!


Out of idle curiosity, anyone out there with an O-Pro 2m Beam? How thick is the transom?

[CJL]

It sounds like CE ratings are down to a certain element of trust and experience!!

Sure the CE rating does help but quite a few MAIB reports feature boats with CE plates that have fallen appart. Perhaps CE system should be upgraded to require each model of boat to have an independent inspection prior to going on the market? This would give the consumer a better guarantee that what their buying is fit for purpose.

Back in the real world..... clearly this will kill the small boat industry but if CE is to standardise and give peace of mind to the consumer and this is not working ........why bother with it all??