I am helping a boat get ready for this Hobart.
There is a lot of stuff to do.
Struck me that people here who might want to have a go in their own boat, might want to know what is actually involved and the actual cost.
As I said there is a lot of stuff to do, but happy to post in some detail if people want to know.
Thought I would ask before going ahead.
Some of the stuff is really good but a lot is crap or overkill. (like the $2000 first aid kit)
L

This was from Cat 5 club racing.
So weekend club racing is sheltered waters.

My personal cost to do the race was
$600 sea saftey course - did the one at Bankstown through it was worth the money to get a day in the pool out there very good
new spinlock lifevest $470 Harness Tether $200
Ais PLB in one $500
New wet weather pants I bought a set of Gill coastal which were great for less than $200
My justification is that breathable wet weather pants dont last anyway just get good cheap one knowing you will probably throw them away in 12 months
My last ones from a brand starting with M lasted exactly 12 months and when i went to do the southport race 12 months later they leaked and all the white membrane peeled off in sheets they were crap. Cost about $600
So far the Gill have done 4000 miles including Sydney Auckland and are in great condition no leaks all the velcro and zips work and the shoulder elastic still stretchy, Impressed

Multiply my spend by 9 people for the Hobart
We also had experienced ocean racers say they were pulling out due to the cost of harnesses lifevests and sea safety

Good luck to your mate hope he goes well

Who would have thought, marine specific at about double the price.

UncleBob said..
Who would have thought, marine specific at about double the price.

Ours wasn't arranged as nicely as the offshore kit in color coded bags etc.

So we decided to arrange all the contents into a system that worked for us, we created three seperate kits that had the following names
Oops
Sh#T
And
OH f$#k

Everyone who wants to abide by the law has that problem.
I had 3 just turn me down outright.
Check out the Schedule drugs in the new modular First Aid Kit and this on top of those in the Coastal Kits.
Then there is the storage issue. (In Qld you need a drug safe weighing more than 350kg)
The unreality of Australian Sailing.


Item
5 ml syringes x 5
22 g needles x 5
Alcohol swabs x 10
Saline ampoules (10 ml) for injection x 5 S2
Penthrane "Green Whistle" one x 3 ml bottle S2
Panadeine Forte tablets (Paracetamol 500mg + Codeine 30mg) x 20 tabs S2
Naloxone (antagonist to morphine) 400 mcg amps x 5 S2
Midazolam 5 mg injection x 5 amps S2
Morphine 10 mg/ml x 5 amps S8
Oxycodone tablets (Oxycodone hydrochloride) 20 mg (note strength) or equivalent x 20 tabs. S8
Separate Watertight container for the above 10 items
Paracetamol (500 mg) tablets x 20 S2
Seasickness tablets - 60 count (different type) S2
Ondansetron sublingual (under tongue) 4 mg - if not included alreadyS3/S4
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory tablets x 20 (various types available) S2
Chloromycetin eye ointment S3
Framycetin sulphate ear drops x 1 S3
Mupirocin 30 g (2 x 15 g) S3
Antifungal cream (Daktarin 30 g)S2Omeprazole 20 mg (OTC pack) S2
Prednisone 25 mg x 10 tabs S4
Antihistamine tablets (Loratadine 20 pack) Demazin S2
Metronidazole 200 mg x 21 tabs S4
Amoxycillin / Clavulanate Acid 500 mg x 21 tabs S4
Ceftriaxone 1 g injection x 5 amps (given intramuscularly) S4
Dulcolax tablets x 20 tabs S2
Loperamide tablets x 20 tabs S2

I don't have answers, but it seems to me the CYCA and AS are in a bind in that once upon a time, it was skippers who were responsible for their boats and crew, and it wasn't expected that the CYCA would tell them, in great detail, how to prepare their boats and crew. When Illingworth suggested making a race of a planned cruise, there were 9 boats in it, and in that day and age, each skipper was responsible for their boat. However, for better and worse, the world has changed and continues to do so. Amongst the changes is commercial sponsorship, including of the race itself, and the promotion of it as an event to the wider public. Once money is involved, it ceases to be a purely amateur event. The corporatisation of the event makes the CYCA responsible for it in a way that wouldn't have been imagined 80 years ago. Once you make money from an event, you tend to be held to a higher standard of accountability. Arguably the S-H also draws a level of participation that wasn't originally contemplated, which as it developed meant some kind of minimum standards had to be met with the aim of avoiding participation by the unprepared and inexperienced. Another development that has contributed to the change is the ability to rescue. There is a cost to the public of retrieving (or not) those who get into trouble, and over time this leads to regulation intended to reduce the incidence of rescues and to avoid both the cost and injuries and loss of life. Another factor is the extent of civil suits for liability. Organisations with significant assets that organise events have to consider the possibility they may be sued if someone ends up injured or dead. To manage this risk, they seek to show they took reasonable precautions to prevent adverse events.

I think amateur sailing is still one of the least regulated activities. So far as I know, I can buy a boat and set out single handed to cross an ocean without having to satisfy anyone else that I am capable or the boat is fit. I am happy that's still the case. Self regulation by the instinct for self preservation is still relied on. Unfortunately, every time someone sets out in an unseaworthy or ill equipped boat and/or without the necessary abilities, and gets into trouble, this undermines the generally laissez faire approach that still prevails in Australia, at least for cruising.

If I were looking to leave NZ to cross an ocean in my sailing boat, by law I would have to satisfy their maritime authority that my boat and her safety equipment are adequate and she is adequately crewed for the intended voyage. www.maritimenz.govt.nz/media/ybhnno0k/guide-for-international-certificate-of-voyage-for-pleasure-craft.pdf

Remains to be seen how long before this becomes a legal requirement here.

Which brings me back to this thread topic. The cost is dependent on where you start from. If you own a boat with intentions of serious offshore sailing (for cruising, not racing) then arguably you should have most, if not all, the equipment AS specifies, in which case bringing your boat up to spec if you want to go racing is not a great additional cost. I don't race, but I have most of the safety equipment on the cat 1 list because I wouldn't go offshore without it (tho' my first aid kit is not as comprehensive). Obviously it's a different story, if you want to equip your inshore twilight/weekend harbour racer to go offshore.

In my defence, I fall back on my observation that how much [extra] it costs depends on where you start from, including the boat you have.

I'd have thought Wapiti was sounder than many entries, but I'm not a naval architect's left elbow.

In this case it is not the state that's setting
the requirements, it's World Sailing and so AS.
As far as the government/state is concerned I can sail my boat from Sydney to Hobart whenever I want. Long may that remain so.

This thread is mainly about the safety rules being too onerous and making offshore racing too expensive. Isn't it perfectly reasonable for volunteer rule makers to ensure that the normal production boat can race offshore? Why do you want that stopped? How would offshore racing work if the typical production boat was banned? Where is your evidence that a properly maintained boat with a grid is so unsafe that it should be banned?

What other standard do you expect WS to use? Would you prefer that there be no standards at all?

It seems as if you are implying something close to corruption causing death, which is one hell of an allegation to make unless you have very, very good evidence - and the fact that as someone with (AIUI) zero qualifications in yacht design, building or offshore racing you disagree with those who probably know such things vastly better than you do is NOT evidence at all.

When I was in the industry I was dealing with designers for locally-built boats that didn't use glued grids. Some of them (Andy Dovell and Lyons among them) publicly disagreed with some aspects of the standards, but they did not make the allegation you made as far as I know.

The OP began with an observation about the relationship of equipment requirements to cost: "Some of the stuff is really good but a lot is crap or overkill. (like the $2000 first aid kit)", so the thread from the outset was about the cost including how that relates to what's required to meet the special regs. The focus started on equipment, including the difficulty of getting a doctor to write the scripts for the prescription-only contents. Cammd made the valid point that getting the boat itself certified as meeting the construction and self righting standards can also be costly.

On that last I note the special regs have different options for meeting the construction and self righting standards, including based on a boat's age - either 1987-2010 or from 1 July 2009 onwards. But they are silent on pre-1987 boats, so my guess is one is back to hull scans and measured righting moments/AVS for those.

I am still interested to hear from lydia what the costs are for getting a boat from Cat 5 inshore club racing to Cat 1 S-H acceptance. That's a big lift. As part of that, I'd be interested to know how old the boat in question is and whether she already had the paperwork to satisfy hull construction and self righting requirements from the get go, or had to be surveyed/tested to get there and if so, at what cost.

I'd also be interested in anyone else's experience of taking an existing offshore equipped boat up to spec. as I expect many of the costs would already have been met (engine and other spares, emergency steering, life raft and so on).

Understood hull construction (scantlings) and righting moment are different things.

As I understand it the reason the special regs specify ABS for boats built between 1987 to 2010, is that American Bureau of Shipping (which is what ABS stands for) standards were available from 1986 onwards. As American standards, they may or may not have been used by local boat builders. If they were, and the designer and builder made that explicit in paperwork at the time, you may have what you need, if not, it may be back to being surveyed against those ABS standards.

From 1 July 2009, the ISO standards were available and so these are the standards to be met. Again, Australian boat builders are not required to adhere to ISO standards, though many choose to do so. If they were adhered to and the designer and builder made that explicit in paperwork at the time, you may have what you need, if not, it may be back to being surveyed against those ISO standards. American boat builders and European boat builders are required to adhere to standards, and so boats built in Europe or America after standards came into force should have paperwork certifying this.

Pre-1986, neither the ABS nor the ISO existed, so far as I am aware. So, older boats cannot have been built to meet those standards, even though as built they may meet or exceed the requirements of those later standards. So, I'm guessing that for pre-1987 boats, you're back to getting a naval architect to inspect your boat and certify it (or not), for whatever fee they charge to do so.

So what costs are faced to demonstrate compliance with the hull construction requirements in the special regs will likely depend on where and when a boat was designed and built and by whom.

Quixotic said..
I'd also be interested in anyone else's experience of taking an existing offshore equipped boat up to spec. as I expect many of the costs would already have been met (engine and other spares, emergency steering, life raft and so on).

My budget to do the race was around 50K, That was with a relatively new boat (2-3yrs old) that was already ISO 12217 Category A certified.
Sails were near new, but it's wardrobe was mostly heavy air boat, that budget didn't include 10-12K for a light air main.
I ended up geting rejected anyway. The first year I entered I failed the stability test, which at least solved the budget issue for me! We went to Hervey Bay instead and had a fat time punting around in the sun and crytal clear, flat water. We did got accepted year 2, but it took a mate lobbying for it for them to accept the ISO cert for satisfying the stability compliance. Cost and time put me off again.

I'd do it in a heartbeat on OPB (other peoples boat). But when it's your own boat, even new, it's still a signficant commitment in time and money. A typcal Hobart is going to punish the boat and the gear, I'd be over the moon with under $10K in damages on top of that budget.

Compared to other similar bucket list investments, it just didn't stack up. Sad really, would've loved to have done it on my own keel.

Chris 249 said..
This thread is mainly about the safety rules being too onerous and making offshore racing too expensive. Isn't it perfectly reasonable for volunteer rule makers to ensure that the normal production boat can race offshore? Why do you want that stopped? How would offshore racing work if the typical production boat was banned? Where is your evidence that a properly maintained boat with a grid is so unsafe that it should be banned?

What other standard do you expect WS to use? Would you prefer that there be no standards at all?

It seems as if you are implying something close to corruption causing death, which is one hell of an allegation to make unless you have very, very good evidence - and the fact that as someone with (AIUI) zero qualifications in yacht design, building or offshore racing you disagree with those who probably know such things vastly better than you do is NOT evidence at all.

When I was in the industry I was dealing with designers for locally-built boats that didn't use glued grids. Some of them (Andy Dovell and Lyons among them) publicly disagreed with some aspects of the standards, but they did not make the allegation you made as far as I know.

The only allegation I made is that vested interests influence standards.

I referred to a glued on keel grid as an example of where I believe profits are given priority over safety. There is plenty of evidence of them failing. I even heard of one boat that experienced such a failure due to wave action alone.

If you believe that glueing vs tabbing structural hulls members is in the interests of seaworthiness and not profit then we will just have to disagree.

BTW how would one "properly maintain" a glued on hull grid.

Finally, pointing out my lack of qualifications does not disqualifiy me from having an opinion. That argument/tactics is akin to suggesting you dont know the difference between a male and female if your not a biologist.

cammd said..

Chris 249 said..
This thread is mainly about the safety rules being too onerous and making offshore racing too expensive. Isn't it perfectly reasonable for volunteer rule makers to ensure that the normal production boat can race offshore? Why do you want that stopped? How would offshore racing work if the typical production boat was banned? Where is your evidence that a properly maintained boat with a grid is so unsafe that it should be banned?

What other standard do you expect WS to use? Would you prefer that there be no standards at all?

It seems as if you are implying something close to corruption causing death, which is one hell of an allegation to make unless you have very, very good evidence - and the fact that as someone with (AIUI) zero qualifications in yacht design, building or offshore racing you disagree with those who probably know such things vastly better than you do is NOT evidence at all.

When I was in the industry I was dealing with designers for locally-built boats that didn't use glued grids. Some of them (Andy Dovell and Lyons among them) publicly disagreed with some aspects of the standards, but they did not make the allegation you made as far as I know.

The only allegation I made is that vested interests influence standards.

I referred to a glued on keel grid as an example of where I believe profits are given priority over safety. There is plenty of evidence of them failing. I even heard of one boat that experienced such a failure due to wave action alone.

If you believe that glueing vs tabbing structural hulls members is in the interests of seaworthiness and not profit then we will just have to disagree.

BTW how would one "properly maintain" a glued on hull grid.

Finally, pointing out my lack of qualifications does not disqualifiy me from having an opinion. That argument/tactics is akin to suggesting you dont know the difference between a male and female if your not a biologist.

No, knowledge of structural design is NOT the same as knowledge of an everyday matter, in which we all have experience, like the difference between male and female. It's a matter involving engineering, chemistry, naval architecture etc - all of them highly technical fields.

I didn't say anything remotely like claiming that glueing rather than tabbing is in the interests of seaworthiness, but that's not all that Standards are about. The people who created the Standards and those who chose to require them for offshore boats have to balance cost and quality. A high proportion of offshore racing boats are built with glued grids. What happens to the sport if they are all banned? What happens to the sport if cost is ignored? This is a thread about the cost of offshore racing, already many people have said that the costs are too high, and you seem to be implying that those who say that cheaper boats with grids are suitable for offshore racing must be biased. That's untrue - they are probably just more aware of the reality and statistics than you are. For example, glued grid problems aren't the biggest cause of keel loss. I don't like them myself, wouldn't have a boat with one, but that is very different from saying that those who created the standards and/or require them for offshore racing have been swayed or corrupted in important matters when you have zero proof of that damning allegation.

Interesting information. Thanks.