Another Keel Lost; Another Capsize

[JPA Cate]

Someone suggested torquing them to 60% max yield to "test" them, but my engineering training tells me I don't want to add a significant fatigue cycle like that to the bolts.

A long time ago, on our previous Insatiable, we tried to tighten the keel bolts, not understanding properly why water ingress was happening, and I'd like to say, that even with the boat sitting on the keel, it was very difficult to get the nuts to tighten at all, on that boat, using a breaker bar with a pipe extension. I agree about the not pulling on them that way, but race boats often drop the keel once a year to check everything with the keel to hull joint, according to Uncivilized, another CF member, and I'm sure that CAN be done without compromising the nuts and bolts--only one's pocketbook!

Ann

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

Owners need to be responsible for their own boat/safety.

Surf Sail is spot on. Whether or not there is a mandated inspection, or anything for that matter, ultimately one is responsibility for ensuring one's own safety.

On a different note, today there were one or two more donors to the GoFundMe page for Nicki Walsh and Tanner Broadwell. There has been no further information about the salvage of the vessel.

There have been several well documented cases of people who recently sank without insurance. Two that come to mind are the Australian guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnCfJl0V8ug

and the family who sailed across the Pacific and due to poor seamanship, hit a reef in French Polynesia. As I said, neither had insurance and neither were salvaged although the Australian gentleman took full responsibility and was trying to find a way to salvage it.

It is interesting to note that although there were many comments about the seamanship of the family in French Polynesia, there was little vitriol. There were many positive comments about the Australian guy taking responsibility. There were a few comments about the family in French Polynesia and the GoFundMe account, which was to get them back to their home country. It turns out their boat was unable to be salvaged and the authorities towed it off the reef and let it sink, which it did quite promptly.

I suspect a big reason for the difference in attitude was the way the couple in Florida handled their GoFundMe goals.

[JPA Cate]

Yes, maybe people are more interesting to help with salvage, for which there are many good reasons, than with providing a new boat (because, will the same thing happen to it?).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by surf_sail

- ....
The thing is though how do you really inspect a keel anyways? You can't check the bolts without taking them out - and even then you'd likely need to do destructive testing to make sure they are sound. Sure you can retighten the bolts, but they likely only need tightening if they've stretched (and hence gotten weaker). ....

The only really effective solution with keel bolts (in my opinion) is preventative maintenance. So maybe insurance co's will require replacing the keel bolts after x years, just like standing rigging. That's fine, hopefully though they have good data to inform how many years is a good replacement cycle.

I agree that it makes sense preventative maintenance the problem is that we need first to have information about that, information that does not exist in what regards stress and metal fatigue on keel bolts or even keel structures.

It can be studied it is just a matter of having sufficient interest in doing that and someone that pays the investigation. It has been done in what regards airplane structures and metal fatigue many years ago, after some bad accidents.

Regarding retightening meaning necessarily that the metal stretched that is not the only cause. I know that generally a 8 to 10 year old boat needs to retightening the keel and the nuts will move, all of them a bit.

I know because I have seen it done on my boat and on more boats and on all of them all the nuts moved about 1/2 to 3/4 of a turn.

"... If you see no signs of water reaching the bolts—which are often protected by seals around them—then the corrective action is just to retorque the bolts. In addition to the plasticity of the fiberglass, the lead can be sufficiently malleable to allow some upward movement of the J bolt within the casting."
https://www.sailmagazine.com/diy/how...e-is-your-keel

I am not sure that you will need to see signs of water. The water intrusion can be prevented by the keel seal and even so the bolts can need a slight retightening.

And there is nothing worse than a keel not correctly bolted and torked to the boat structure. A not well tightening keel can move in a way imperceptible to the eye but that will increase dramatically steel fatigue on the bolts.

Besides that an experienced surveyor, even more one specialized on keels, will be able to detect problems and symptoms that will pass completely unaware to an untrained eye.

If the inspections are made in inspection centers that do hundreds of keel inspections a year the reunited knowledge will be much bigger regarding the subject and also it may make affordable the use of expensive equipments as a x ray machine.

By the way that link above is to a good article on kell maintenance.

[Sailmonkey]

Keel inspection centers?!?! Puleeze......

Keep the government “helpers” away.

[atmartin]

There's so much variation between manufacturers that you need someone with lots of experience to give a valid opinion on keel bolts.

I don't count myself among those people, but a few things jump to mind:

-Keel bolts elongating could be due to over-torquing or creep (I doubt this one)

-The ballast keel or laminate crushing/flexing in use and allowing the joint to loosen up (less likely if bolts are patterned properly, but I've seen many older keels with all the bolts right down the middle )

-Hard grounding or other catastrophic event exceeding the yield strength of the laminate, bolts or bolt/ballast interface. The keel may still be attached, but parts or all of the joint is compromised, leading to the problem above. If the joint is solid, damage may instead occur in the keel grid (if it has one) or hull skin itself.

-Corrosion, of course

At the very least, you need a surveyor for this. And a good one at that. Most run-of-the-mill surveyors have neither the time or training to analyze your keel joint or the engineering behind it. Most older boats (like the sinker this thread is about) probably didn't have an engineer involved in the design at any stage. At best an NA and/or someone following a scantling or rule of thumb. With a sufficient factor of safety, these boats worked fine, but the level of analysis behind most of our boats is incredibly crude compared to any aircraft or production automobile.

For many boats, you can't even obtain a drawing with exact dimensions, much less a copy of their calculations!

Apples and oranges.

[oldjags]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry but I have to take a serious offence to your use of the word " Newby" I have been sailing the worlds oceans for well over 40 years and my last name is Newby. In future I request that you spell it newbie when refering to anyone that is new to any endeavor that is being discussed. Thanks
Now as to the rest of your post many that have posted opinions ( to include myself) are actually speaking as to experience with similar matters . Personally knowing how the early Columbia's are / were constructed I would assume that the vessel is still in one piece likely with the exception of the last. Most of the Columbia's in this era had the hull/ deck joint glassed into one unit on the inside with screws holding the rubrail on. Jmho

I had a friend named John who always got frustrated when people would say they're going to the john. "Quit calling it the john!!!", he would complain. I asked him would he have rather been named Dick??

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by oldjags

I had a friend named John who always got frustrated when people would say they're going to the john. "Quit calling it the john!!!", he would complain. I asked him would he have rather been named Dick??

that is a funny one.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by oldjags

I had a friend named John who always got frustrated when people would say they're going to the john. "Quit calling it the john!!!", he would complain. I asked him would he have rather been named Dick??

I call it the Jim.

Then I can tell people "I go to the Jim every day"

[Uncle G]

"Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck"

Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Uncle G

"Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck"

Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck

so it would appear that they have given their wreck away. So at least it will be removed finally. Now they have a new boat and Plenty of cash in the bank. Wish I had their luck

[Scout 30]

Hating on them, at this point, is just hating. I wish them luck.

[Drew13440]

Originally Posted by Uncle G

"Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck"

Couple whose dream boat sank gets a bigger, better boat for a buck

Thanks for posting this. From the article:

"It’s been pretty stressful," Broadwell said. "Today I finally feel like I can breathe."
That’s because on Monday he signed over the title to the Lagniappe to Joseph Moore, owner of Disco Volante Marine, who planned to begin to raise the wreckage this week. The engine and fuel tank, the main environmental concerns, were pulled up weeks ago.
"Their 21-day grace period to get the boat out of there was almost expired when they contacted me," Moore said. "Now it’s my problem. … I understand it was a lengthy process for them."

So, they've done the responsible thing. Good for them! Wish 'em luck.

[Scout 30]

Originally Posted by newhaul

so it would appear that they have given their wreck away. So at least it will be removed finally. Now they have a new boat and Plenty of cash in the bank. Wish I had their luck

They didn't give it away. They paid $5,000 for a salvage. It was also reported that the engine & fuel tanks were removed weeks ago.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Scout 30

They didn't give it away. They paid $5,000 for a salvage. It was also reported that the engine & fuel tanks were removed weeks ago.

yes I read that part.
Btw you understand that the engine was an outboard and the fuel tank was a portable . So that was not as big of a thing as is implied.