Conference unifix::sailing

O'Day uses a wing design characterized by extremely wide wings. I'm not 
against wing keels but I'm always suspicious of extreme designs. What 
apparently happened here was that the wings sank in the mud and behaved like a 
mushroom anchor. Given the size of the O'Day wings and the holding power of 
mushroom anchors, I'm not surprised the keel ripped off. 

Interesting story. Thank you.

- Bob

Do you mean to say that due to either the suction of the mud or the keel 
being caught under something, that the hull laminate ripped out as the 
tide rose?!?  I'd *at least* expect the boat in that circumstance to fill 
with water as the tide rose over her topsides.

So O'Day doesn't presume it's necessary to have the laminate capable of 
support the boat's weight, at least as a pull?  What do they do?...Figure 
the laminate schedule sufficient to support just the keel's weight, and
then maybe double it for good measure?  :-(

J.

    No one is quite sure whether the wing keel acted like a mushroom
    anchor or if it fetched up on something.  The keel was pulled out
    on the rising tide and was found resting on the bottom.   I have
    my doubts concerning O'day's practical considerations of their
    laminate schedule in this case...they probably gave more thought
    to the head layout.

    I never did like O'Day boats. Ever since the first came out with
    a 25 footer and I leaned against the hull with my hand and the whole
    side deflected in about 3/4 inches (oilcanning?)
    
    I have always considered them poorly designed, mass-produced for
    the uninformed. Your tale confirms this.
    
    Paul

    As a "present" O'Day 28 owner, this is depressing. 
    
    Being "defensive" myself :>) ,and in the defense of O'Day, I 
    thought they compared well against other production boats in 
    the same relative price range. They may not be the Saab of the 
    boatworld, but neither are they Yugo's !
    
    Anyway, this is just more ammunition for me to "trade up" !
    
    JC
     
    
     
   

    Personally, I don't find this so very surprising, nor do I think
    that O'Day is an unsafe boat because of this.  The weakest point
    of the keel is the external lead.  Even if the keel bolts are
    tapped and sleeved, I could understand how the increasing bouyancy
    pressure of a rising tide, helped by some rapidly changing pressure
    from passing boat wakes, waves, etc, could work the keel bolts loose.
    
    The big shocker is that the wings didn't break off.
    
    I saw a picture of a Catalina 34 with a wing keel standing high
    and dry (upright) on the wing (owner standing under it).  I guess
    it might be a good idea for cleaning your bottom on a VERY calm
    day.

    Lock the keel to the bottom; then rising tide could easily generate
    2-4 times the boat's displacement in buoyancy. A fair rule of thumb
    is that each additional inch of draft is 5-10% of the boat's
    total displacement; my boat's displacement doubles when the draft
    increases about 14 inches, freeboard is 2.5 times that.
     
    Ross Faneuf
    

    Just to clear up a possible misunderstanding...the keel bolts didn't
    work loose, but tore through the bottom of the hull taking much
    glass work with it.  The flat section that the keel is bolted to
    was ripped away from the hull itself.  The light layup of this section,
    combined with a lack of cross framing, or any other means to strenthen
    this rather critical area,  appears to be the prime cause of failure.
    I'm sure that nobody in the mass production boat biz has given much
    thought to the mushroom anchor effect.  We'll probably hear more
    of this in the future.
    
    Aside from the mushroom effect, similar keel to hull construction
    in the "J" boats has been a financial pot of gold to the glass repair
    yards.  Clipping a ledge on all the "J's" often pivots the keel
    backwards so that the sharp trailing edge punctures the hull or
    at best just blows away the bilge stringers.  I've seen this also
    on Hunter 34 and Catalina 30's.  Unfortunately, this is probably
    the nature of the beast ie. it comes with the fin keel territory
    along with the spade rudder catching up on lobster trap warps.
    
    I'll give up that 1/2 knot and the 5 degrees to windward and keep
    my old Islander with the old fashioned underbody.  I do swim well
    but like to choose the time and place.

    Re .8  I agree that too light of framing around the keel is a generic
    problem, especially with narrow fin keels.  We tagged some rocks
    pretty good once and had the problem described in .8 .  The keel
    pushed back and up, breaking three frames and leaking around the
    bolts.  Now, we hit hard enough to bend the keel such that it needed
    to be replaced, but still could not believe the damage to the hull.
    
    We brought the boat to Mark Lindsay's to be repaired.  Upon looking
    closely at the ribs we saw the original builder had used carbon
    fiber and extremely light construction in the ribs only to surround
    them with 2000 pounds of lead bricks needed for internal ballast!
    Needless to say, we now have thick, heavy oversized ribs.  I still
    never want to hear the sound again of lead grinding on rock!
    
    Dave

    Another defensive comment...:-)
    
    I don't believe its appropriate to jump to conclusions here or to
    stereotype all O'Days as poor quality.  Have the authors of the
    negative comments in the previous replys visited the factory?  I've
    been to see Cal, O'Day, Pearson and Freedoms built.  Outside of
    vacuum bag technology in one model of the above, I have seen no
    difference in the construction techniques or materials used.
    Additionally, the same Q/C procedures seemed to be in effect.
    
    Having been at the factory while my O'Day 40 was being built, I
    know how strong the keel section is and actually kept all the thru
    hull borings for paperweights and souveniers.  I don't believe its
    a Pacific Seacraft, but I don't believe its a MacGregor either.
    There is *NO* correct amount of glass here.  No standard thickness.
    It obviously is dependent on the boat.  We should all know this.
    When buying a production boat, there is a design envelope that we
    all must understand and not expect our boats to outperform.  If
    not, build your own or do a custom job.  
    
    I believe the "mushroom effect" can easily lead to strain far and above
    what a boat like the O'Day 30 was *designed* for.  Possibly 10 times
    what it was designed for. The key word here is *designed*.  A Benetau
    is not designed for that, nor is a J-Boat or Freedom.  The fact that
    some boats are overbuilt is nice, and certainly makes you feel safer,
    but you pay a price in performance and cost.   I saw a Valient's mast
    snap once because the owner tried to bend the mast like a Soveral.
    Certainly not a poorly built boat.  I saw a Tartan 41 smash against
    pilings and bash a hole thru its hull when its dock lines chafed.  We
    all have to be aware of our boats design features and limitations and
    respect them. 
    
    I don't find using a keel as a mushroom anchor something that a naval
    architect would or should spend a lot of time designing for.  There
    are a thousand other equally stupid and equally damaging situations
    that could demand as much attention.                   
    
    My $0.02
    
    Rick
                  

    We will be hearing much more about this specific instance.  All
    information flow has ceased due to impending legal action.  My
    understanding is that the owner's insurance company is about to
    hammer O'day for negligence in the design and manufacture of the
    vessel.  As a result of this everybody involved has "clammed" up.
    
    I do understand that nothing can be designed and built to be 100%
    safe when dealing with the sea, but there are general rules regarding
    fiberglass construction that have stood the test of time.  LLoyds
    layup schedules and their guidelines around securing ballast have
    been successfully used since 1962 on both cruising and racing boats.
    
    There is always the danger of hitting something whether bay sailing
    or off shore.  I expect any boat to be able to take a substantial
    hit without a major hull failure and every muddy grounding should
    result in only frustration and mosquito bites.  I don't think that
    you have to give up performance to get this.  If you really want
    speed, get a power boat. 

    11: I agree 100 percent
    
    peter
    

    Another O'Day fiberglass layup data point:

    I have an O'Day Javelin 14' daysailer. If I stand in the right spot on
    the foredeck, it deflects as much as 1 inch under my weight. I only
    weigh 145 lbs. I would expect a *properly* designed and built boat to 
    withstand at least a 250 lb on the foredeck with negligible deflection.


    --RS

    Actually, the 'mushroom anchor' effect of some winged keels is exactly
    the kind of the thing a naval architect does have to design for,
    and I'll bet that the result of the incident we've been discussing
    is that this will become a design note/warning for future reference.
    
    A remarkable number of the of the rules of thumb, safety margins,
    and design techniques in common use in all engineering professions
    are the result of various major and minor disasters due to unforeseen
    effects of new designs. This strikes me as one such case; I would
    never condemn a designer for not foreseeing this one. I would happily
    crown any designer who had previously considered this effect as
    a prophet or genius. I would also consider any designer who doesn't
    deal with the effect in the future as incompetent...
    
    Ross Faneuf
    

    It has to be an oversight on O'Days part.  They dont usually build
    boats that poorly, and there isnt that much cost savings avoiding
    additional glass or other reinforcement here.
    
    Even though the wings are new to them, they could have gained some 
    insight from manufacturers who have been building boats with Scheel 
    keels.  These keels are quite large at the bottom and present some
    of the same problems as a wing in terms of horizontal and vertical 
    stresses.

    As for cracking hulls, collapsing braces and so on... Manufacturers
    have been faced with the problem of collision stress at the keel
    hull joint for years.  It must by now be a deliberate decision to
    provide the strength or not to withstand those stresses. 

    Walt

    RE .14:  I agree.  Wing keels on production boats are relatively
             new and I am sure (if this becomes a recurring problem)
             that designers will have to take this into consideration.
    	     Up til now, I am sure they just bolted the wing onto a
	     hull with the same layup as a deep fin.
    
    	    Rick
    
    *** I'm not suprised that they are going after O'Day for negligence
        in construction.   I'm sure O'Day will claim incompetence in
        the handling of the boat.   It will be interesting to find out
        the result.  
    

    Does any one have any further info on the topic of the wing keel
    in the mud. Did ODay's corporate 'sinking' end the court issue?
    
    Also what has happened to the boat in question? has it been
    repaired/rebuilt?
    
    Fred
    

>    Also what has happened to the boat in question? has it been
>    repaired/rebuilt?

	I just found out last night that they put several wooden
'ribs'? across, added an extra keel bolt and then reattached the keel.

	Also, I hear that the word got around and the sales of the 30
were well off to the point that dealers were returning stock to O'Day.
	Yes, I think this was the last straw.

	Dave

I hope I understood the quick conversation I had correctly.

    .... also, when I visited the plant just before the auction, the
    only boats there (completed, nearly completed, and in process) were
    the winged keel versions.  Based on this warning, I steered away
    from getting very interested in any of the boats, although I am
    sure the boats could have been bought for a very, very good price.
    
    Ron
    

    I am going out for a test sail on a O DAY 322 this coming friday. I'm
    concerned about this warning on the O DAY 30, but this boat seems to
    have everything my wife and I have been looking for on a boat.
    It is a 1987 and is very clean, seems to have been very well cared for.
    The price is even within sight of the max that we are willing to pay
    for a boat.
    
    I have had a surveyor tell me to steer clear of an O DAY and in the
    next breath to look at each boat individualy. We have looked at several
    boats lately and haven't found anything that we like as well as this
    one.
    
    This is a one owner boat that hasn't been abused. Could it be that the
    boat that this warning is about was an isolated case? Could a surveyor
    tell if the boat I am looking at is strong enough not to loose its keel
    at the first grounding? 
    
    Any one out there have an O DAY 322? If so what do you think of it?
    
    Any comments welcomed.
    
    

re .20:

>>> Could a surveyor tell if the boat I am looking at is strong enough 
>>> not to loose its keel at the first grounding? 
    
Possibly but probably not. It would depend on the details of the design
(number of keelbolts, hull laminate schedule and thickness, backing
plates, etc) and whether or not the design was properly implemented. It
also depends on how hard you ground. Whether or not an O'Day will meet
your needs depends on what you intend to do with the boat. O'Days are
not generally considered to be offshore or heavy weather boats.