Discussion in 'Northern Marine Yacht' started by jaycee, May 29, 2014.
Northern Marines have previously been hauled at Lovric's using their railway.
Christensen has launched every vessel built by fore and aft keel dollies and a ramp that has a long run out and a fairly steep incline at their marina with no problems what so ever.Good pictures on their web site of the boats on the dollies ready to launch on the ramp. Their launch teams are pretty amazing to watch but the whole process mirrors what has been shown on N.M launching with the exception of the outcome
I did not see another video. I just meant watching the original video I can't see where the stern got so low in the water that it looks like water would be flooding into the transom door. And as it rolls the door is very high out of the water.
As I watch that video I just don't see anything that jumps out at me as reason for that boat to suddenly roll. Other than it being tilted a bit as it goes in. But if correctly balanced I don't see where that should be problem.
NM lauch at DCI
Here is some local coverage of Magic at DCI.
Magic show - Activities Journal - Anacortes TodayAnacortes Today
This was not there largest ramp lauch
I was there when they lauch the 95 foot Atlas
Launch Ramp pictures
Here are pictures of the launch ramp in question. I went at about a -0.6 tide which should be more than nine feet below the launch level if I'm correct about the timing of the launch and the tide at that time.
My impressions of the ramp (merely as an interested observer, no training in this sort of thing) is that there is no fault with it. There are some places where the ramp is scratched but no obvious signs of this disaster such as paint stripes and certainly no signs of collapse. There are deep scratches but they do not look all that recent. The ramp appears to extend well past the rollover point.
There are very faint tracks on the barnacles that go down the ramp and veer off of it to the left into the mud (as you face the water, the stbd said of the boat as it was launched.) This might be what the builder is talking about -- but rather than going off the end of the ramp he fishtailed off to the side. The tracks look wide enough, but do not look particularly recent and there is no large disturbance in the mud where they end. Of course, this is after many tide cycles but it would take a much smarter person to determine whether these have anything to do with the incident. They are so faint they do not show up well in pictures.
The water level at the time of launch appears to be about the level of the white rock in the first picture.
Some very good pictures and observations. Thank you for your time on this.
I do agree, This ramp looks to be in very good shape.
Kind of instills in me the ship did not hit bottom if the tide was up where that white rock is. Even if the hull was on a stern down incline. Could you figure another 3 - 4 feet in the basin?
On the last picture there appears to be dark marks on the pilings across from the ramp. Are those water marks? I'm not used to having that much change from high to low tide. From the video it looks like the boat never got any lift at the transom. Whether it was too heavy by design or the engine room door was open allowing water to enter is anyone's guess at this point. She seemed to float well on her side, for a while anyway.
We moor next door, so information is starting to come out, and while final conclusions should await the information that will no doubt come out in litigation, I thought I would pass this on. According to one contractor working on the vessel, the original design ballast was 60,000#. After adding a lot of stonework up high, the consensus was closer to 80,000 - 100,000#. The boat was launched with 30,000#. This vendor also confirmed something I had heard earlier but couldn't source and that was that the USCG naturally wanted to test stability before releasing the boat to be towed to where it could be hauled out. It would not stay upright when the slings were loosed, hence the need to tow her in the slings.
Baden, at least according to NM, was to displace 315,000# as an 85', or around 85,000# less than a Nordhavn 86, which is 4' shorter than the finish length of Baden. If Baden displaced 415,000# it would seem reasonable in comparison to the Nordhavn.
So, lose the waterline windows, add 50,000 to 70,000# of lead (around 3 cubic meters, I believe), with a bias for that weight starboard, and she'll no doubt float just fine. Did I mention that she'll also be sitting around 3 to 5 feet further down into the water? Won't look so tall then.....
I see your point in principle, but I must completely disagree with your last bit of math.
Even without knowing the exact footprint, I bet that on that size of vessel it would take more than 200,000# to make her sit 3' lower into the water - let alone 5'...
You are quite right. Befuddled between gallons per cubic foot and weight per cubic foot. I used 25' beam on an 85' vessel for 2,125 sq feet, which I think is a generous figure. The correct answer is closer to 6-9 inches. Thanks for the correction! Still a bit problematic for the water line ports....
Absolutely, though if what you heard is correct, there's much more to be blamed than those ports alone - regardless of how many inches/feet are involved...!
...in fact, it beggars belief that they could have made such a huge mistake.
there is video of it rolling over on youtube
Perhaps this, like so much other information you get from others is wrong, although my source seemed to know what was discussed by others working on the boat. It does seem odd that this 90' weighs so much less than an 85' Nordhavn, especially given its apparently larger superstructure.
No, the weight was referred to in the engineering report last year. It was stated that it weighed considerably less based on size than other Northern's. This was from Roddan Engineering which is a firm Northern often uses and very familiar with their boats.
The boat was consciously designed and built light. And Northern's already are lighter than Nordhavn. An 86' Northern weighed 342,000 pounds and an 86' Nordhavn weighs 400,000 pounds.
Those are mussels and barnacles. We have large tide ranges in the NW, a fact that gives joy to the shipyards and grief to unwary boaters. You can still see "tidal grids" where people used to work on boats by tying them to pilings and letting the tide fall until the boat is sitting on horizontal pilings that support it. I don't think it is legal in WA anymore due to EPA regulations but I have seen it in Vancouver (at the rowing club) and Alaska.
Great comments at the end of this story....interesting angle on the loose ballast in the cockpit. Never heard of the "knuckle block" instant.
VIDEO: Builder comments on capsize of $10 million yacht | Trade Only Today
Out of proportions...? Nah, normal day in fantasy land
If she looked like this instead, she may have a shot - Yes? Perhaps some restyling can make her viable.