### edited by admin - quoted all the insults I've just deleted ###

All I can say to that is, ridicule is the lowest form of wit, if wit at all.

Are we in the free and open Seabreeze Forum or is this parliament house canberra? (lack of caps for phc intentional)

I apologise for not letting everybody know that I am a second cousin to a rhinoceros.

Kiwi307:- Your apology not necessary or accepted by me at least. You initiated a discussion about class rules and their impact on the construction of your new land yacht and a perfectly civilised discussion of that was going on when all of a sudden the "lurkers" weighed in with anger, angst and whatever other **** is on their collective livers.
You have nothing to apologise for.

BeeGee:- Thank you sincerely for explaining the workings of insurance company risk assessment. It confirmed my belief that insurance companies in the main are nothing more than sophisticated betting agencies where the assumption of risk and premium level is based upon history rather than actual physical and scientific assessment of risk.
Insurance is the only game in town where the only way you win is if you lose. ie your car, your house, your livelyhood, your arm , your leg, your life et al.

If it is not possible to have a civilised discussion devoid of name calling and casting aspertions on people, there is no point having any discussion. Cheers Cisco

hills said...

Yep, enough is enough!! This thread started as a healthy discussion and that was a good thing. Valid points of view were being presented from various view points. Unfortunately it has now deteriated into name calling and has a tone such that no good is coming from it and its just making ALL landyachters look like an undesirable group to associate with.

Please keep all comments constructive. Some may have agendas, like marketing, brand loyalty etc. That's fine and there's no reason this conversation can't continue with those factors in mind.

You can't please all the people all the time, but there's no reason not to listen to other's points of view. They may be wrong and can learn from the discussion or alternatively they may present a view that you hadn't considered.

If you're prepared to talk, please be prepared to listen too!!

Hear, hear1

Gizmo said...

trumpy said...

Just to clarify, all blokart products are stress tested before going to the market, and from an Insurers point of veiw, we would be crazy and totally irresponsoble to do otherwise

Cheers
Phil

Did I hear correct the a few years ago that someone in Queensland was badly hurt when something on a blokart failed? That lead to legal action or did I get my story wrong?

Sorry Gizmo but your information is wrong, blokart Aus has never had legal action against us, in fact blokart has never had a claim against it Globally, with nearly 13000, units sold world wide, the Insurers use these figures to base our Product Liability Cover from.

Like all sports that involve moving parts and speed, there is always going to be accidents or incidents. ensuring correct protection is in place for all concerned is paramount. if there was ever a " product failure " that caused harm we would be the first on board to address and amend the situation, that is why we carry a $20 mill Product Liability Cover,
If we have product failure under normal use and no harm is done, we then address that through our warrnty programe,
I hope this clarifys any queries you may of had regarding blokart insurance

Cheers
Phil

Thanks Bee Gee and trumpy. I understand and agree with what you both say. I just become annoyed and frustrated with the insurance issue as lack of insurance becomes a blocker to so many things these days.

I pay about $2500 a year in premiums and am happy with the coverage I get, so my beef is not really with the insurance companies.

It is with the attitudes that make insurance necessary in instances where people should assume their own risk and take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking to blame somebody else for their own mistakes.

Phil has told me about the Accident Compensation Commission as it works in New Zealand. It would be great to have the same thing here.

On the subject of stress testing etc. The Lake Lefroy Mini Explorer Yacht has gained some popularity with several constructed and under construction.

In close consultation with the designer I would be prepared to build one build one and submit it for stress testing as is done to the blokarts. If this was done satisfactorily and a set of rigid construction guidelines drawn up for that design, it could be repeated for other designs (Pacific Magic, Promo 5 etc) intended for amateur construction.

By this method amatuer built yachts of an approved design can be insured as comprehensibly as mass produced yachts.

There is plenty of recorded history of incidents or the lack of, pertaining to amateur built land yachts in Australia, so assessing risk is not a difficult process.

Is this the best way to go for competitive events or using liability disclaimer agreements as is practised even at blokart events??

cisco said...

It is with the attitudes that make insurance necessary in instances where people should assume their own risk and take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking to blame somebody else for their own mistakes.

Insurance is, unfortunately, necessary, although the need for it is not entirely due to 'ambulance chasing' lawyers. Sure, there are way too many of them, but if a club, manufacturer, or individual does something genuinely negligent and an innocent bystander gets hurt, that bystander has every right to be compensated. It is unlikely that a club would have sufficient funds to pay for even one claim, which means that the club members would be exposed. I love my sport, but I'm not prepared to bet my house on it.

In close consultation with the designer I would be prepared to build [a Lake Lefroy Mini Explorer Yacht] and submit it for stress testing as is done to the blokarts. If this was done satisfactorily and a set of rigid construction guidelines drawn up for that design, it could be repeated for other designs (Pacific Magic, Promo 5 etc) intended for amateur construction.

By this method amatuer built yachts of an approved design can be insured as comprehensibly as mass produced yachts.

I can see where you are going, but I think you will find that the issue is not just the design, but the quality of construction.

You are probably highly skilled with a welder and may be able to produce a safe land yacht assuming the underlying design is okay. I am not so skilled with a welder and may produce one that looks identical to yours, but has explosive tendencies in more than 15kts of wind. This is what I was refering to when I wrote about the consistency of quality. With different builders constructing the same home-built, there would be no consistency in the build quality.

There is plenty of recorded history of incidents or the lack of, pertaining to amateur built land yachts in Australia, so assessing risk is not a difficult process.

Actually, the one-off nature of the construction process is why it would be hard to assess the risk. No two land yachts are alike. The design may be the same, but the materials and construction quality is not.

Is this the best way to go for competitive events or using liability disclaimer agreements as is practised even at blokart events??

Actually, you need both.

The disclaimer basically ensure that participants are aware that if they wipe themselves out through no one elses fault but their own, that is their own problem. I am not aware of any clubs that have a form of Personal Injury cover. to put it simply, the clubs and their members are insured against getting sued, not injured. If you enter the race and have an accident that is not the result of a product defect or poor safety standards by the hosting club, you are accepting that you are doing so at your own risk. It is not a 'get out of jail free' card for the manufacturer or club.

On a different but related topic is the Duty of Care and Duty of Disclosure. At the 2009 Australian blokart Championships at Yeppoon, there was a kid who was dropped off by his father and left to fend for himself. On the second day in 15kt+ winds, he put up his big 5.5m sail. This was an accident waiting to happen, so the race officials did what they were required to do and pulled him back. Sure, the kid's dad should have stayed and it could have been argued that he was negligent in not doing so. But if the kid had been allowed to sail with an oversized sail for the kid's size and wind conditions with the full knowledge of the officials and there was an incident, CQBC as the host club could not have escaped responsibility. The same thing would happen if they knowingly let someone sail drunk, without a seat belt, or without a helmet and there was an accident. Sadly, the "But you knew I was pissed and let me sail anyway, so it's your fault" line probably would stand up.

At the same event, there was a cyclone warning issued for Yeppoon. Under the Duty of Disclosure obligation, if there is something that adversely affects the exposure of the insurance company, you have to tell them. A phone call was placed to the insurer telling them that a cyclone warning had been issued. The winds had not sprung up to dangerous levels, but because of the existence of the warning, the insurance was pulled. Had that call not been made and an incident occurred, the insurance company would have their own 'get out of jail free' card, leaving the club open to be sued with no cover. Some people went off and had a sail on their own, but it was made crystal clear that there was a cyclone warning and no insurance.

You will find these duties are common across the insurance industry. They apply to your home insurance, car insurance, and pretty much any other insurance you buy. Basically, they stop the "I've got insurance, so I can behave like a reckless idiot" mentality.

I think you will find that the waiver is only effective when the manufacturer and club has done everything else right.

Sorry for the long post.

When I started this thread I asked about Class 6. Thread subsequently hi-jacked a bit.
However, in the body of this thread we are told to "forget class 6 it's a thing of the past". Seemed like it came from someone official. Then the Mini rules appeared and my reading was that this was the "official status".
Then I read the event notice for Nationals 2010 which I am considering, and guess what????
Class 6 rules apply.
Confused?
Yu betcha!

BeeGee said...

kiwi307 said...

When I started this thread I asked about Class 6. Thread subsequently hi-jacked a bit.

Sorry about that.

Hey, no issue for me about insurance, more some of the other stuff.
Still confused though!
There's another name for a yacht "Still confused" (probably the best yet) I claim it!

Click on "Gizmo " and you'll see his real name. I can vouch its really him and he has a veeeeery long landsailing history!

How about the site moderator go through this thread and extract the things which do not relate to the title of this thread and move them to "Random Ramblings" and another called "Name calling"?

BeeGee said...

In close consultation with the designer I would be prepared to build [a Lake Lefroy Mini Explorer Yacht] and submit it for stress testing as is done to the blokarts. If this was done satisfactorily and a set of rigid construction guidelines drawn up for that design, it could be repeated for other designs (Pacific Magic, Promo 5 etc) intended for amateur construction.

By this method amatuer built yachts of an approved design can be insured as comprehensibly as mass produced yachts.

I can see where you are going, but I think you will find that the issue is not just the design, but the quality of construction.

You are probably highly skilled with a welder and may be able to produce a safe land yacht assuming the underlying design is okay. I am not so skilled with a welder and may produce one that looks identical to yours, but has explosive tendencies in more than 15kts of wind. This is what I was refering to when I wrote about the consistency of quality. With different builders constructing the same home-built, there would be no consistency in the build quality.

I agree but that is why I said "a set of rigid construction guidelines drawn up for that design, it could be repeated for other designs (Pacific Magic, Promo 5 etc)".

If that guideline stated that the critical welds (mast step and rear x member joints)
must be performed by a certified welder (which I am not BTW) that should satisfy the risk assessor. These are the high stress points for most yachts and any other potential failure points can be designed out.

There is plenty of recorded history of incidents or the lack of, pertaining to amateur built land yachts in Australia, so assessing risk is not a difficult process.

Actually, the one-off nature of the construction process is why it would be hard to assess the risk. No two land yachts are alike. The design may be the same, but the materials and construction quality is not.

Again why I said "a set of rigid construction guidelines drawn up for that design, it could be repeated for other designs (Pacific Magic, Promo 5 etc) ".

Is this the best way to go for competitive events or using liability disclaimer agreements as is practised even at blokart events??

Actually, you need both.

Certainly the liability disclaimer agreements as it establishes that the person is undertaking their own risk during the activity.

Before the advent of commercially built land yachts, land yacht racing had been going on for many years obviously with out manufacturers liability insurance. Therefore I see no need for it today in organised racing competitions.

Racing of anything implies pushing things to their limits. If a person entering a race is not prepared to accept the possibility of gear failure and personal injury, he shouldn't be entering the race.
The liability waiver agreement will release clubs that have club owned yachts for hire I believe, providing the yachts are correctly maintained.

For recreational use of commercially built yachts, the need for manufacturers liability insurance is obvious and I believe a legal requirement. I think it is also necessary for production class racing of blokarts as this is more an amatuer or social type of racing.

Once we step up into performance class, class 6, class 5 and beyond it becomes a professional type activity and it should be an "all bets are off" situation where no one is allowed to claim against any body for any thing. The only insurance necessity is for spectators.

BeeGee, you have an intimate knowlege of insurance issues. I sincerely thank you for your on going input to the discussion and your high level of objectivity, especially considering your position as President of the Melbourne Blokart Club.
Cheers Cisco

hills said...

Click on "Gizmo " and you'll see his real name. I can vouch its really him and he has a veeeeery long landsailing history!

Thanks Hills......but it doesn't answer the questions put forward does it?

Phil

trumpy said...

Gizmo said...

trumpy said...

Like all sports that involve moving parts and speed, there is always going to be accidents or incidents. ensuring correct protection is in place for all concerned is paramount. if there was ever a " product failure " that caused harm we would be the first on board to address and amend the situation, that is why we carry a $20 mill Product Liability Cover,
If we have product failure under normal use and no harm is done, we then address that through our warrnty programe,
I hope this clarifys any queries you may of had regarding blokart insurance

Cheers
Phil

Could you please explain why some blokarts seem to have a lower mast support tube failure problem? (Bribie Island might jolt your thoughts) or was that operator error? and the other cases of similar problems are they errors, or "on the track stress testing"?
Maybe I need to also mention the lack of strength of the lower chassis frame on some models of the blokart?

OH Gismo

Bribie Island, i gather you mean the problem Dave Webster had with his mast base about 3 years ago, quite simlpy operator error, and i'm sure Dave will agree with this.

The other so called problems that you have raised are probably better answered by the Manufacturer, not the Distributor, better still, contact Paul Beckett the designer / director of blokart, his contact details are 001164 7 572 4256 or email him, [email protected] I'm sure he'll be more than happy to answer any manufacturing queries / problems you obviously have.

Gismo a couple of qestions to be answered please!

1)... Do you own a blokart?
2)... If not do you own a landyacht?
3)... What club do you belong to?
4)....How often do you sail?
5)....May i ask your real name?

Cheers
Phil

gismo
Could you please reply to the questions , we want to know
you started it finish it
### edited by admin - person insult removed ###

Gizmo...friend of mine and he forgot to mention , that he is offering free and good advise in person on my sail wagon rebuild, Very Humble he, very knowledgeable too, my cross check is we have worked on similar projects in life.
To my observations in this great and interesting forum, people who don't supply their profile with information re themselves, are hiding something, like not being in the real world. The genuine people have no problem within the security of this forum. Both have genuine points of view.
Discussions is the thing that we have over many peoples around the world, it is the greatest freedom, the next best is to be able to construct and compare without the chance of being thrown to incarceration because we were not the same as everyone else, Talk, challenge, build, then one can Brag .
We all mostly seem to be able to take a good old ribbing

So Gizmo, going back to your comments about blokarts...

Any mechanical device will fail under excessive stress. The question whether blokarts are failing under normal use. Let's be clear about this. A blokart or any other land yacht for that matter that bends because it has, say, been picked up by a small tornado and dumped on the ground under force has not necessarily failed because of a defect.

If you are aware of a fundamental design or manufacturing flaw in blokarts that those who actually sail them are oblivious to, then I would ask for our safety's sake that you present your evidence to the manufacturer as trumpy suggested. This need not be a long-winded and time consuming exercise for you, but if what you are saying is true, you could potentially save a life.

If, however, you are deliberately exaggerating an isolated incident and misrepresenting it as a systemic failure as part of a childish 'let's hang it on blokarts' game, then you should 'fess up now. These pathetic games have needlessly split the sport of land sailing for years and really need to be stopped now for all our sakes.

If you do neither, then those of us who actually sail blokarts will be entitled to look at our own experiences to assess the safety of the manufactured product. We are then entitled to assume that you are doing nothing more than just stirring the pot.

Worse still, if your comments are deliberately malicious, allowed to stand, and cause material harm to blokart International's business (e.g. a representative from their insurance company reads them, believes them, and withdraws their insurance cover), they may feel entitled to start talking to their lawyers. Look up "libel" in the dictionary. I hope this doesn't happen and that good sense prevails.

Gizmo, what you said was (and I quote it in its entirety so there are no selective quotations). My comments are in square brackets.

Could you please explain why [not "if"] some blokarts seem to have a lower mast support tube failure problem? (Bribie Island might jolt your thoughts) or was that operator error? and the other cases of similar problems [such as what?] are they errors [how can one answer that with out knowing what the "similar problems" are?], or "on the track stress testing"?
Maybe I need to also mention the lack of strength of the lower chassis frame on some models of the blokart? [ the question is not whether there is an alleged lack of strength, but whether you need to mention it]

You were not asking whether there were problems as you now claim, but were stating them as fact. Only in your last post did you actually ask "had there been failures as the forum was starting to get the assumption that they hadn't."