Cynthia Woods verdict

[Ross]

Re: It sure.

Just like hanging heavy drapery rods with molly bolts in sheetrock. Sooner or later it was bound to break off. I don't see any sign of extra glass in the hull in the way of the keel bolts. Were the small bolts holding the fin and the large bolts holding the bulb?

 

[Roger Long]

It sure looks like just about every keel bolt was leaking or had leaked (lends credence to Franklin's theory). Multiple groundings and a bad band-aid job probably did her in.

I would like to see the full USCG report and what findings, if any, there were about pre-accident delamination or other hull damage. From what I've seen of previous investigation, it wouldn't surprise me to find that significant questions weren't asked. I was closely involved (although not formally) with one case in which the inquiry concluded that it was God's fault because of "improvements" made to a vessel's stability. The naval architect's claims were accepted without question. You only had to add two numbers in one column, two numbers in another, and divide the result to prove that the claimed stability improvement could not have taken place. This vessel could only be heeled to about 35 degrees by wind before capsizing.

Speaking not to the specifics of this case, since there is a lot of information I don't have, but commenting on the general design for the benifit of anyone with a similar keel connection:

The photo evidence and the keel bolt configuration indicate that there was no significant stiffening of the large and essentially flat panel the keel was bolted into. This would actually have made the design quite tolerant of grounding strains due to its flexibility. The photos I posted above indicate fairly massive deformation at one point but fiberglass is a fairly forgiving material. I wouldn't take the groundings by themselves as proof of the structure being weakened significantly below its as-built strength. If there were any stiffening members, the keel bolts clearly weren't tied directly to them.

I also would not take weeping and minor leaking as proof that there was pre-existing structural degredation. The whole structure appears so flexible that maintaining the seal along the joining surfaces of the fiberglass and metal would have been very difficult. This very flexibility is also protecting the fiberglass structure from excessive strains.

I don't buy the theory that impact load from the keel knocking around on loose keel bolts was a factor. The flexible and relatively unstiffened bottom would have been an excellent shock absorber. I don't rule it out or the possiblility that the structure had been previously weakened. I'm just saying I haven't seen any real evidence of either and plenty of indication that the design was as strong as when built at the time of the accident. My experience with wreck inquiries both here and abroad does not cause me to let the press release influence my thinking very much.

My point in taking time to write this, aside from procrastinating on going out and firing up the snowblower in 35 knots of winter wind, is not to make any claims about this particular vessel. If you have a vessel with a keel and hull connection of similar design that has not been subjected to grounding strains, I don't think the findings of this inquiry should provide comfort for taking her out in conditions like that of the accident night. Failure may not be inevitible but the keel strength should be factored into vessel management and course decisions just as many other vessel characteristics and vulnerabilities should be. Racing is, of course, not very conducive to appropriate decision making about such things.

Bottom line: Keel / hull connections of this type may be adequate for normal use but NOTHING about the press release and information available in this forum should be considered as adding any weight to that proposition.

 

[Peter Ross]

It sure looks like just about every keel bolt was leaking or had leaked (lends credence to Franklin's theory). Multiple groundings and a bad band-aid job probably did her in. Someone obviously knew something was amiss due to the obvious attempt at minimizing or stopping the leaking via marine sealant? IMO that keel should have been totally dropped, and the laminations fully examined and repaired, before a re-set... Note the forward keel bolt it is about three threads short of the top of the nut...

Even if they did need to repair the keel stub, and or add more glass, the builder left them NO room to do so as the keel bolts are cut flush with the nuts???

Hello all,
I need to check with the powers that be how much detail I can provide. The report would be comical if a man had not lost his life. It's quite obvious the report is one sided and not remotely complete. The fact they are making TAMU use the Freedom Of Information Act to view that nonsense speaks volumes.
I need to make this quick to eliminate timing out again, I'll write a complete response offline and post here and elsewhere as things progress.

I'm the guy who built Hull #1 (commonly referred to as the "Prototype",) the tooling for the boat and created a boat company for Mitchell. The boat was built by eye, without drawings. They altered an undesigned boat and reinvented the wheel.

Optional keel choices resulted in the non performance barn door lead slab seen in the photos.
The shim is the weak link providing all the errors. The shim allowed massive wagging, the shim (required due to lack of communication between Marek, Mars and CFYW (Mars buitl to the specs they sere give.) More on this later.
The shim allowed water to enter the boat after normal sailing. The shim allowed the keel to wag and eventually saw through the lamainate and fall out of the boat. The shim.........made for lack of showing threads on the first bolt.

Going to post this to keep from timing out............ more to follow momentarily.

 

[Peter Ross]

Hello all,
I need to check with the powers that be how much detail I can provide. The report would be comical if a man had not lost his life. It's quite obvious the report is one sided and not remotely complete. The fact they are making TAMU use the Freedom Of Information Act to view that nonsense speaks volumes.
I need to make this quick to eliminate timing out again, I'll write a complete response offline and post here and elsewhere as things progress.

I'm the guy who built Hull #1 (commonly referred to as the "Prototype",) the tooling for the boat and created a boat company for Mitchell. The boat was built by eye, without drawings. They altered an undesigned boat and reinvented the wheel.

Optional keel choices resulted in the non performance barn door lead slab seen in the photos.
The shim is the weak link providing all the errors. The shim allowed massive wagging, the shim (required due to lack of communication between Marek, Mars and CFYW (Mars buitl to the specs they sere give.) More on this later.
The shim allowed water to enter the boat after normal sailing. The shim allowed the keel to wag and eventually saw through the lamainate and fall out of the boat. The shim.........made for lack of showing threads on the first bolt.

Going to post this to keep from timing out............ more to follow momentarily.

Incorrectly sized and shaped backing plates also added to the sawing away of laminate.

The shim was fabricated to hide a huge HUGE screw up. More on this as well, but not to be overlooked.

Hull thickness......ONE HALF INCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Massive INLINE bolts! No attempt to tie the floors or any structure to the bolts.
The boat was given to the sailing team, one must presume to be part of a sailing/racing program. They did infact enter several offshore events with the boat. I am not exactly certain which rule they raced under, but both IRC and ORC events require a boat to be built to ABS standards. I am not going to site the exact rule but a search for ABS rules concerning hull thickness vs. keel bolt size will yield shock and anger.

"Built to industry standards"? Hope the standards change. Those aren't standards any builder I know or ever worked for would build to. USGC ................SHAME on you!!

Again, more to come as suits allow (not my own, if I were sued by Mitchell or Marek, my fingers would be unreleased and typing fast and furious.............my old friends need to accept responsibility for this...yes, we were good friend's....why is that so hard to do?)

 

[Peter Ross]

Incorrectly sized and shaped backing plates also added to the sawing away of laminate.

The shim was fabricated to hide a huge HUGE screw up. More on this as well, but not to be overlooked.

Hull thickness......ONE HALF INCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Massive INLINE bolts! No attempt to tie the floors or any structure to the bolts.
The boat was given to the sailing team, one must presume to be part of a sailing/racing program. They did infact enter several offshore events with the boat. I am not exactly certain which rule they raced under, but both IRC and ORC events require a boat to be built to ABS standards. I am not going to site the exact rule but a search for ABS rules concerning hull thickness vs. keel bolt size will yield shock and anger.

"Built to industry standards"? Hope the standards change. Those aren't standards any builder I know or ever worked for would build to. USGC ................SHAME on you!!

Again, more to come as suits allow (not my own, if I were sued by Mitchell or Marek, my fingers would be unreleased and typing fast and furious.............my old friends need to accept responsibility for this...yes, we were good friend's....why is that so hard to do?)

http://www.click2houston.com/download/2008/1219/18318764.pdf

Link to the ABS Sailboat const. doc. Scroll to page 26, read 7.3.1
http://app4.websitetonight.com/projects/3/2/0/3/320314/uploads/37-ORY.PDF

ISAF: http://www.sailing.org/tools/documents/OSR2008_Complete-[4325].pdf
All US racing events must conform to ISAF rules. Scroll to page 10 3.0.31 b.

 

[Peter Ross]

strainght up fact....the boat hit ground several times before race....the boat was repair....keel bolts weren't tight enough....boat was beating against 14' waves (I was there, I know) and keel wore out fiberglass so keel fell off.

My boat has the same amout of backing on those keel bolts as it does but my boat made it just fine.

As the USGC said, faulty repair, but boat manager should have had it inspected by a survaver. This is a lesson learned for all of us. Keels are the most imporant thing on the boat and the one and only thing that can sink a sailboat in seconds. This means that ANYTIME a boat goes offshore, it should have a "pull on this line to release safety gear" for all lifejackets, liferafts, handheld radio, mirror, whissle, flairs and so on.

The boat went over very quickly. Three crew members were down below including a safety officer who I met at the safety meeting for the race. He noticed the water inside and woke up and got the other two out the compainionway but he didn't make it in time. The last guy couldn't get through the compainionway with his lifejacket on so he took it off. 5 people shared 4 jackets (reason for having 5 jackets on the quick-release).

GPS tracker stopped responding so CG was called. It took CG 26 hours to find them with coordinates. Only way they found them is because night came and one crew member had a flashlight with him. 26 hours in the water with planes flying overhead and no rescue.....talk about demoralizing.

So check your keel bolts!!!!!!! and have a quick release of all necessary safety equipment for all on board.

I learned my lesson form this....have you?

Franklin, I assure you, your boat was not built in a similar manner. Nor would Hunter Marine build a boat with the keel attatched to the hull skin and hull skin only with no floor or structure contact.
Yes the boat had grounded, on sand. Ok, maybe some oyster shells as well. While I have sailed on Galveston bay and did run aground in the Ultimate 30 we were racing on. That boat had a 12 ft canting dagger bulbed keel. Contact speed was more than 10 knots, damage minimal, but the bulb was scrathed badly by oysters, I suppose. CW, according to the report, was not at speed and not sailing when it grounded. In fact, the bottom must have been quite soft, since the boat was able to travel so far on to the bank under it's own power. Hardly the stuff keel failures are made of. Another fact, the boat should have been engineered to take several groundings without extensive damage, CW wasn't, a fact.
I learned about the accident watching the news in RI. I saw the boat's transom in a photo and thought it looked familiar. I went to another site and saw a thread about the Cape Fear 38. I followed the link to iBoat tracker and started reading the posts from last to first post. That was a tough read. They hadn't found the crew at that point, Roger's son was giving updated reports etc. When I read Eric's final report, (that amazingly brave and beyond mature boy,) tears did flow.
Another fact is sad but true, CFYW has little experience and uses really good marketing buzz crud. There is no legacy of quality craftsmanship, people don't strive to work for CFYW as they might a well known builder. 5 boats in 8 years................the place is a hobby shop, not a production boat building facility.
Mitchell insisted the boats have 6'3"+ standing headroom. They reduced floor the floor heights to gain some of this. Roger noted the difficulty in making such short floors work. Remember, that keel weighed 5,000lbs. The rig is 60ft tall. Big waves, 1/2" hull, tall rig, big inline bolts, sharp edged backing plates ( not to mention laminating quality,) lack of structure and contact to bolts = failure. The groundings are business as usual, IMHO.

If you were racing in 14ft seas, that keel would have come off on it's own regardless of the grounding. A helmsman would need to steer carefully over each and every wave to eliminate terrible pounding, not likely in darkness. The sudden stops would have been too much for that construction, no way it would have survived. Unlike a wing, that keel had a specificly low number of wags til seperation.
Not all bulbed keels are doomed to fail, this one was.

 

[sailingdog]

Just curious... but it shows three separate backing plates for the various groups of keelbolts. Wouldn't a single backing plate covering the entire area for all the bolts have been much stronger...since it would have had much greater support by the underlying laminate—where the spaces between the various plates currently exists??

 

[Peter Ross]

Just curious... but it shows three separate backing plates for the various groups of keelbolts. Wouldn't a single backing plate covering the entire area for all the bolts have been much stronger...since it would have had much greater support by the underlying laminate—where the spaces between the various plates currently exists??

There were floors between the backing plates and they remained in the boat with the students' repairs. Problem was they never tied the floors to the bolts.

 

[Franklin]

Franklin, I assure you, your boat was not built in a similar manner. Nor would Hunter Marine build a boat with the keel attatched to the hull skin and hull skin only with no floor or structure contact.
Yes the boat had grounded, on sand. Ok, maybe some oyster shells as well. While I have sailed on Galveston bay and did run aground in the Ultimate 30 we were racing on. That boat had a 12 ft canting dagger bulbed keel. Contact speed was more than 10 knots, damage minimal, but the bulb was scrathed badly by oysters, I suppose. CW, according to the report, was not at speed and not sailing when it grounded. In fact, the bottom must have been quite soft, since the boat was able to travel so far on to the bank under it's own power. Hardly the stuff keel failures are made of. Another fact, the boat should have been engineered to take several groundings without extensive damage, CW wasn't, a fact.
I learned about the accident watching the news in RI. I saw the boat's transom in a photo and thought it looked familiar. I went to another site and saw a thread about the Cape Fear 38. I followed the link to iBoat tracker and started reading the posts from last to first post. That was a tough read. They hadn't found the crew at that point, Roger's son was giving updated reports etc. When I read Eric's final report, (that amazingly brave and beyond mature boy,) tears did flow.
Another fact is sad but true, CFYW has little experience and uses really good marketing buzz crud. There is no legacy of quality craftsmanship, people don't strive to work for CFYW as they might a well known builder. 5 boats in 8 years................the place is a hobby shop, not a production boat building facility.
Mitchell insisted the boats have 6'3"+ standing headroom. They reduced floor the floor heights to gain some of this. Roger noted the difficulty in making such short floors work. Remember, that keel weighed 5,000lbs. The rig is 60ft tall. Big waves, 1/2" hull, tall rig, big inline bolts, sharp edged backing plates ( not to mention laminating quality,) lack of structure and contact to bolts = failure. The groundings are business as usual, IMHO.

If you were racing in 14ft seas, that keel would have come off on it's own regardless of the grounding. A helmsman would need to steer carefully over each and every wave to eliminate terrible pounding, not likely in darkness. The sudden stops would have been too much for that construction, no way it would have survived. Unlike a wing, that keel had a specificly low number of wags til seperation.
Not all bulbed keels are doomed to fail, this one was.

either I didn't make my point clear enough or you mis-read my post. There were MANY groudings in the year leading up to the race. Now I am the first to admit I ran aground 3 times in 5 years and one time I cracked my quadant and the next time I broke it, but running aground several times in a year and not having it surveyed before the race is pure stuipd! I ran the same race. I spent 6.5 gs on new sails. I spent 2.8 gs on a liferaft. I spent 2 gs on a new AC/Heater (I'm a live-aboard and you need that in may here). I spent $200 on a rig inspection. I spent $1,400 on on Jordan series Drogue. I spent $600 on new running rigging. Damn if the Univertity can't spend $500 on a good survey. I really wanted to get one done myself even though I know my boat inside and out, but I just could afford it and they got money like it grows on trees compared to me.

So bullshit! I agree with CG. The real fault is on the University for not spending the $500 on a survey on the boat before the race. I don't give a damn about "budgets", lives are at stake.

Besides us all promoting the courage and using this as an example of what a safety officer must do, I think the most important things is for us to learn that someitimes shit happens in a matter of seconds and we have to be prepared for it. That's what I've learned and I hope everybody who reads this has to.

While you are out sailing, ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my keel and the boat flips in .5 seconds and never came back up?".

 

[Peter Ross]

either I didn't make my point clear enough or you mis-read my post. There were MANY groudings in the year leading up to the race. Now I am the first to admit I ran aground 3 times in 5 years and one time I cracked my quadant and the next time I broke it, but running aground several times in a year and not having it surveyed before the race is pure stuipd! I ran the same race. I spent 6.5 gs on new sails. I spent 2.8 gs on a liferaft. I spent 2 gs on a new AC/Heater (I'm a live-aboard and you need that in may here). I spent $200 on a rig inspection. I spent $1,400 on on Jordan series Drogue. I spent $600 on new running rigging. Damn if the Univertity can't spend $500 on a good survey. I really wanted to get one done myself even though I know my boat inside and out, but I just could afford it and they got money like it grows on trees compared to me.

So bullshit! I agree with CG. The real fault is on the University for not spending the $500 on a survey on the boat before the race. I don't give a damn about "budgets", lives are at stake.

Besides us all promoting the courage and using this as an example of what a safety officer must do, I think the most important things is for us to learn that someitimes shit happens in a matter of seconds and we have to be prepared for it. That's what I've learned and I hope everybody who reads this has to.

While you are out sailing, ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my keel and the boat flips in .5 seconds and never came back up?".

Franklin, that is ignoring the fact this boat was not built to ABS standards. That is a total pile of crap they dropped on the sailing world. I did read your post. Nothing changed in my position.
Without going into great detail or promoting my endless experience, I am only going to point to certain facts. Groundings on sand should be acceptable. 5000 lb lead keels should not be fastened to 1/2 inches of total hull thickness, without any connection to surrounding structure.
CFYW KNEW those boats were going to a college sailing program. They KNEW the boats would be sailed hard and as they noted following an event in WIlmington on Holder 20's, those students are hard on a boat. They KNEW the boats would be raced offshore. That boat should have been bullet proof, it isn't, it wasn't and the design change for headroom and keel plug storage killed a man.
Marek works for Mitchell on Bald Head Island as a civil engineer, drawing golf cart paths. Perhaps the company was not contacted after the grounding because their response time is so bad. Maybe they were contacted and brushed it off.
I tend to agree with the surveyor part, but they weren't going to do destructive inspection to determine laminate failure. They would have seen a repair that was ugly. That ugly repair did hold, it is still in the boat, the KEEL IS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That keel had no chance of staying in the boat NONE!!! The other boat is a death trap as well. I have spoken with an engineer who thinks the CF 38's can be upgraded and repaired, I say crush them all and the mold with it. The boat had so much potential, I made a huge mistake creating that company for Mitchell and I am sorry for that.
I can get really aggressive, please hold back on the bullshit, I 'm here to help keep sailors alive.

 

[sailingdog]

If that was the case, why didn't they make the bolts longer, and fill the space in between the floors with solid fiberglass support blocks and then run a single large backing plate for all the bolts, over the floors and support blocks. That would have tied the keel to the floors and greatly reduced the chance of the keel falling off.

From the sounds of the existing design, the only thing holding the keel on was really a fairly thin layer of laminate, which was attached to the floors, but once the laminate sheered, little else was holding it on.

By putting blocks into the spaces between the floors, it would help spread the force of any torque on the keel to the floors themselves—since any torque of the bolt would require the blocks to turn. The single larger backing plate would require the floors—which I am guessing were fairly substantial from the spacing of the gaps between the existing backing plates—to tear before the keel could be lost.

Also, inspecting the damage of the relatively thin laminate between the floors was likely to miss any significant damage that did not have an immediately visible condition, due to the floors being in the way.

There were floors between the backing plates and they remained in the boat with the students' repairs. Problem was they never tied the floors to the bolts.

 

[Roger Long]

If that was the case, why didn't they make the bolts longer, and fill the space in between the floors with solid fiberglass support blocks and then run a single large backing plate for all the bolts, over the floors and support blocks.

I recently read a news commentary which said that the central theme of the last decade will be recorded in history as no one asking simple and obvious questions about things that seem so tragically clear and wantonly deficient in common sense after the system has collapsed. From what I'm reading here, the vessel appears to be a perfect product of her times. As with so many other things from the period, there were plenty of opportunities for someone to ask exactly the question you are asking now. Instead, everyone just kept kicking the can down the road until it reached Roger Stone.

 

[Peter Ross]

If that was the case, why didn't they make the bolts longer, and fill the space in between the floors with solid fiberglass support blocks and then run a single large backing plate for all the bolts, over the floors and support blocks. That would have tied the keel to the floors and greatly reduced the chance of the keel falling off.

From the sounds of the existing design, the only thing holding the keel on was really a fairly thin layer of laminate, which was attached to the floors, but once the laminate sheered, little else was holding it on.

By putting blocks into the spaces between the floors, it would help spread the force of any torque on the keel to the floors themselves—since any torque of the bolt would require the blocks to turn. The single larger backing plate would require the floors—which I am guessing were fairly substantial from the spacing of the gaps between the existing backing plates—to tear before the keel could be lost.

Also, inspecting the damage of the relatively thin laminate between the floors was likely to miss any significant damage that did not have an immediately visible condition, due to the floors being in the way.

Sailing dog, you totally got it. Only problem with the extended bolts and backing plates is reduced standing headroom. Mitchell insisted these boats have over 6 ft standing headroom.
In the initial rant at the "other" place I mentioned the insane request I undo the hull plug , remove the cabin area stations and draw them on the shop wall. At that point I had not seen the cabin drawing and was under the impression I was building a sport boat (it was called a sport boat in the contract.) After nearly destroying the plug to draw those cartoons, the stations were replace and plug construction continued.
They were able to draw full size figures (Mitchell could be a police sketch artist if he wanted) on the wall to determine cabin size. They sketched that HUGE cabin on the boat and it was soon apparent I had been building a totally confused monster with the performance ability to get novice sailors in trouble fast. The 32 ft boat was clearly not going to look very good with that horrid cabin, so it got extended, all by eye. I never got over that huge cabin and the need for over 6 ft standing headroom. The original plug had been altered to gain an inch of headroom at the sheer. The remaining clearance was taken from the keel floors. I suppose that is all I can add, except on hull #1 I never gave them their extra inch and laminated that floor an acceptable height. It was also set up with for and aft stringers tying the floors near the centerline.
I still can't believe they reduce the skin laminate and thought that would do.
Roger,
That is the most spot on remark I have read to date, except I don't really think anyone would call that hull thickness using moderate tech materials a trend of the times, more to the latter part of your fantastic statement. That snowball never had a chance to slow down given the shop's lack of experience and supervision. I have learned alot reading your posts here, am trying hard to keep my mind open but my gutt and brain are killing me.

 

[Franklin]

Seems other boat makers also believe small individual backing plates is better then one big one because Hunters are also made with the same type of backing plates and I've never heard of a Hunter loosing it's keel and yes, many Hunters have beaten the same path as other boats.

The main difference I see between my connection compared to there's is that I have 8 keel bolts and they have much less then that, so I guess that means I have more support then they do with the keels weighing about the same. All my bolts have about an inch of spare threads and they are about an inch or more thick.

I guess my point is, I don't think the design of the backing plates is wrong, but maybe that they didn't have enough bolts with a backing plate for each giving them more support.

Anybody know how to determine thickness of glass without dropping a keel?

 

[Roger Long]

That is the most spot on remark I have read to date, except I don't really think anyone would call that hull thickness using moderate tech materials a trend of the times.

I didn't mean that (thin keel attachments being an industry trend) either. I meant doing something so obviously inadequate, according to clearly understood standards of the time, and then having it escape the notice (or, at least, action) of a whole chain of people who were in a position to look at it critically and intervene.

In the case of selling huge number of mortgages to people without any real income and then repackaging them as Grade A securities, plenty of people were sounding the alarm but no one was listening. I understand you were trying to sound the alarm on this boat well before the accident but, again, no one was listening.

 

[Roger Long]

Seems other boat makers also believe small individual backing plates is better then one big one.

Better for what, the customer or the bottom line?

There is certainly nothing wrong with individual backing plates though but, you are missing the point. There was nothing wrong with either the bolts or the backing plates on this keel. That's the essential ingredient in the USCG consulatant's whitewash.

Put that keel onto an appropriately thick and stiffened fiberglass structure without a compressible shim on the outside and it probably would be fine (except the bolts would be too short in this specific case). Run longer bolts up through proper structural floors on a hull bottom of the same thickness and it probably would be fine.

You are looking at the wrong end of the horse

 

[Maine Sail]

I've never heard of a Hunter loosing it's keel and yes, many Hunters have beaten the same path as other boats.

The main difference I see between my connection compared to there's is that I have 8 keel bolts and they have much less then that, so I guess that means I have more support then they do with the keels weighing about the same. All my bolts have about an inch of spare threads and they are about an inch or more thick.

I guess my point is, I don't think the design of the backing plates is wrong, but maybe that they didn't have enough bolts with a backing plate for each giving them more support.

Anybody know how to determine thickness of glass without dropping a keel?

Franklin,

How about a Hunter loosing the entire keel stub?? This is more in line with the failure experienced on the Cynthia Woods. The backing plates held but the glass did not. The backing plates held in the photos below but the glass did not..

P.S. I did not take these photos and am only re-posting them.

 

[Franklin]

Do you know what model that is? Everything looks the same as mine except on major thing...that stub is supposed to be 2' deep. Did they fill in the stub to add weight to the keel or was it made that way?

I still say that the glass broke on Cynthia Woods because the keel wasn't bolted on tight enough. Loose bolts will do that. In this case, it definately wasn't the bolts which is scary but it doesn't say anything about the backing plates not being big enough which is my point.

 

[Franklin]

Something just isn't right about that picture...besides the keel not being on the boat Where are the nuts? Are they below the water? If so, why are the keel bolts so long? Is that all metal? If so, it seems like it would be way too heavy.

 

[tommays]

You could bolt the CW keel on a block of steel and set it on a shaker at a 25 deg angle and i am pretty sure it would it have a failure