CE category or class

[magna 6882]

I was wondering why the CE class on boats are not mentioned often. I do see class A mentioned on Nordhavn but most of the literature and boat reviews i read dont seem to mention. I dont think i even know what class my own boat is. Its not mentioned on any of my documents.

The subject came up in my head when i read a previous thread regarding the sinking of a boat down under.
I figure you guys will know the answer. Is it just something folks dont care about.

 

[rslifkin]

Depending on the age of the boat and whether the builder ever wanted to sell it in Europe, the CE category may or may not have ever been officially determined. My boat is too old to have one, for example. And based on limited information available from the builder at this point, I doubt it would be possible to obtain enough information to properly determine the category without some testing being done. I expect it would come up as a CE "B" if tested.



The CE categories are also not a perfect answer to what a boat can handle. They don't account for build quality, durability, etc. So you could have a poorly built boat that would survive the target conditions when new, but after 20 years of use and periodically being pushed in rough conditions, it may not survive those conditions anymore without structural issues coming up.

 

[mvweebles]

.... I do see class A mentioned on Nordhavn but most of the literature and boat reviews i read dont seem to mention.....

Anyone else wonder if a N40 (for example) garner's its A-rating, but whether it would be sustained with the addition of a flybridge, a common addition? Or with a 500-lb dinghy on the topdeck?

Just curious how the testing is done, and whether it changes with common upgrades.

Thoughts?

Peter

PS to OP: CE Rating is important to insurability in Europe. Not a factor in US. Unfortunately, TF is dominated by US contributors so it rarely comes up. Maybe some folks like Mambo can comment as he has an older trawler (Defever 49 if I recall) that likely pre-dates CE classification system and thus may have faced insurance questions.

 

[Mako]

Not sure what testing needs to be conducted. I thought a CE certification was based on design and inspections. Also, it will be needed for registration in Europe, not just insurance. Since classification of a small yacht is not possible in America (ABS), if you're building new and considering European registration/sale in the future, then perhaps have it rated CE instead. The engine requirements should be similar to our Tier 3, just make sure up front that it has the certs to meet both.

 

[mvweebles]

Not sure what testing needs to be conducted. I thought a CE certification was based on design and inspections. Also, it will be needed for registration in Europe, not just insurance. Since classification of a small yacht is not possible in America (ABS), if you're building new and considering European registration/sale in the future, then perhaps have it rated CE instead. The engine requirements should be similar to our Tier 3, just make sure up front that it has the certs to meet both.

I believe there are stability tests, but my memory is pretty lean. I do recall the Nordic Tug 37 had to make some design changes to their engine intake vents to meet CE-B which requires the vents to be above water up to a certain angle of heel. I realize this should be able to be calculated, but I assumed it required some on-water demonstration. Similar with roll period.

Hippocampus is, by far, has the most posts discussing CE ratings. Perhaps he will chime in with some research. That said, I gather Mako has extensive global experience with boat building - if it's your understanding no testing is required, certainly trumps my rusty memory.

Interesting topic -

Peter

 

[Mako]

Nope, not sure about the testing aspect, but I just Googled it briefly and it appears that no incline/stability test is required for C or D ratings (if all documentation is in order), which sorta alludes to it still be required for A or B. Hopefully @Hippo can clarify.

 

[Nick F]

IMHO: Its pretty much a given that an inclination test would have to be performed at building of a new vessel design in order to substantiate the CE category. The inclination test indirectly determines the height of the centre of gravity. Calculations based on the geometry of the vessel determine the height of the Metacentre (the effective centre of buoyancy).

Since the addition of more equipment to the boat affects the position of the CoG, this can be re-determined by repeating the inclination test (but only if the height of the Metacentre is known).

Of course, the inclination test does directly measure the "righting moment" (i.e. the stiffness of the vessel in roll) for small inclinations, and initial righting moment is an indication of stability.

Note: the above statements include some simplifications!

 

[slowgoesit]

I need to dig through our documents and plans, and might possibly come up with a CE rating for our Beebe Passagemaker. I'm sure Beebe did the calcs, just not sure if I have them. It would be interesting to know. . . .

 

[twistedtree]

I know only enough to be dangerous. As mentioned, we are talking about CE stability ratings. There is much more to CE beyond that. From what I have seen Nordhavn's don't get certified unless they are going to Europe or the purchase contract otherwise requires it. I have seen the CE reports for other N68s, so am comfortable mine meets it. Things like righting moments, down flooding angles, etc are part of it. I think there are also glass strength requirements, but that might be part of ABS, not CE. I know my windows were designed to ABS requirements. Because Nordhavns (and other boats) vary so much from boat to boat, I have seen cases where a boat needed ballast adjustments to get the required rating. Also, N has talked about designing the N41 to meet Category A, and that's one reason it doesn't have a fly bridge.

 

[mvweebles]

According to this website, CE Ratings for pleasure craft were initiated in 1998. They are now required for insurability purposes. Towards the end of the article, discussed Beaufort Scale so there is a tie between it and the CE Ratings.

https://alliedyachting.com/faq/ce-yacht-compliance-classification/

I wonder happens with folks in Europe who own boats built prior to 1998 such as my Willard 36 (1970) or Slowgoesit's Beebe (1978?)?

Attached is an interesting article from VP at Nordic Tugs discussing their decision to get their boats CE Rating B (the 32, 37 and 42). Seems to imply the design needed endorsement, not each individual boat.

Peter

View attachment nordic_tugs_stability.pdf

 

[oguidry]

The published literature on my boat says "Designed to ABYC, NMMA, USCG and CE Category B standards" but nowhere on the boat is a label actually saying CE Category B. Does one assume that the manufacture is truthful in the advertisement? In any case, I hope never to be in 13 foot seas.

 

[Pascall]

According to this website, CE Ratings for pleasure craft were initiated in 1998. They are now required for insurability purposes. Towards the end of the article, discussed Beaufort Scale so there is a tie between it and the CE Ratings.

https://alliedyachting.com/faq/ce-yacht-compliance-classification/

I wonder happens with folks in Europe who own boats built prior to 1998 such as my Willard 36 (1970) or Slowgoesit's Beebe (1978?)?

Attached is an interesting article from VP at Nordic Tugs discussing their decision to get their boats CE Rating B (the 32, 37 and 42). Seems to imply the design needed endorsement, not each individual boat.

Peter

View attachment 144174

I built our boat for 1998 and then no CE is required.
There are insurance companies that require it, but by no means all.
The problem with the CE standard is that a yard determines whether their product meets the CE standard, a follow-up inspection/calculation by an independent body is not required.
The CE standard is requested for one type/design of ship, not per ship.
As far as I know, there is no standard requirement for the stability calculation for the CE standard.
Actually, the CE standard as it is currently applied has little or no added value, even worse, the buyer is offered a boat that can handle waves of, for example, 4 meters, but that is purely based on theory and has nothing to do with practice!!
This can mislead people who have no experience.

Greeting

Pascal.

 

[Duke 239]

My 23' Seadoo jet boat has CE class C rating. It has approximatly zero sea-worthyness. two foot chop comes over the bow and scares the passengers.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

While related, the Ocean A, B, C etc. seaworthiness standards are different than the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD)/CE boat building standards. One relates to design and performance, the other construction.

To sell any vessel in the EU, it must meet CE/RCD construction Standards.

This article, by Nordhavn's electrical engineer Mike Telleria, covers the subject quite well. While building a vessel to a standard can add value, CE is not necessarily a benefit if the vessel isn't sold in the EU, or another area requiring CE construction. Furthermore, some items required for CE compliance are, in my opinion, not beneficial. One example is the requirement for metallic fuel filter bowls, which prevent the user from sing an accumulation of water or debris.

https://www.passagemaker.com/technical/boatbuilding-standards-made-easy

 

[gilbertpark]

All new boats sold in Europe must be CE marked and usually there is a plate in the boat that shows what it is. It is not the individual boat but the model that is CE marked. My boat is a Category B boat that is expected to withstand 4 meter waves in 40knots of wind. My boat does handle safely in F7 with 3M waves - I've tested it!

More info

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/product-requirements/labels-markings/ce-marking/index_en.htm


https://www.bateswharf.co.uk/news/ce-categories-explained/

 

[Steve DAntonio]

An article I wrote a few years ago about Fleming Yachts' ABYC, NMMA and CE compliance programs.

In Ancona, Italy on sea trials (but homeward bound shortly)

 

[O C Diver]

While I'm not familiar with CE standards for boats, I have some interaction with scuba equipment. In an effort to show "minimum standard" sometimes CE requires manufacturers to build things in a certain way or spend substantial amounts of money either changing the standard or offering an alternative standard. An example was the ease of breathing of a scuba regulator. CE determined that to be reliable, the cracking effort ( point at which human vacuum causes the regulator to start delivering air) had to be above a certain amount and the volume as generated by a venturi was also limited to a finite amount. As a result, one of the major US manufacturers had to degrade the breathing of their product to be sellable in the CE countries. In essence, ending design innovation to improve breathing characteristics, without spending a great deal of money to change the standards.

Ted

 

[Hippocampus]

As usual Steve D gives us the low down on construction quality rating systems. I wrote a long post yesterday but apparently it didn’t go through. Bare bones is unlike with sail there’s less incentive for recreational powerboat manufacturers to share measures of seaworthiness with the buying public . Sail are involved in ocean races and rallies. Although few owners actually do those activities they know formal certifications that are often required to enter those events improve resale value and owners safety. Same as buying a Nordie with intention of only coastal use. Therefore nearly all sailboat builders will supply the Gz curve and AVS which along with a sailing polar is often included in their promo literature. Sailboats are built and designed to limit downflooding risk and risk of being overwhelmed. This is nearly universal from a small Pogo or BCC to the largest. A major driver to sales is seaworthiness. Such information is hard if not impossible for a buyer to obtain for recreational power. CE was developed by government in conjunction with industry and only speaks to the vessel at time of initial splash. This often doesn’t reflect the situation after it’s used for a period of time even if no modifications are made and routine maintenance done. So is commonly thought of as a baseline. You wouldn’t cross an ocean in a C rated boat. So a prospective powerboat buyer needs to do his due diligence. Yes confirmation with ABYC, NMMA and CE standards can give you some useful baselines but you need to explore further. Actually review the stability measurements. Area under the curve. Downflooding angles and risks.Mechanisms to limit risk of key disabling single point failures and deal with them.
I wish that we had routine access to rigorous ratings such as applied to inspected vessels. But we aren’t commercial nor passenger carrying. There are B boats I wouldn’t take out except on protected waters or with access to nearby tow services. Similarly we looked at multiple Nordies which were mistreated and needed extensive work to be safe for passage. If contemplating voyaging regardless of CE rating I would engage the services of a skilled person such as Steve D and likely a NA as well to review that particular vessel for suitability.
BTW a home brew roll test isn’t very helpful in my view. It speaks to initial stability and likely reflects early form stability but not behavior at more severe heel angles, a knockdown or inversion. Stiffness is not stability. A Hobie cat is stiff but poor stability.

 

[guy with a boat]

Hippo, that is a lot of detail for a “bare bones” version of your post.

Sailboats have a big stick on top with sails on it and because of that, getting knocked down in big weather is something you have to be prepared for. Gz and AVS are necessary to know because you may test those angles during the life of the boat. It’s fortunately pretty rare for a power boat to test AVS because they are a different animal and knockdowns are almost unheard of. For this conversation I’m assuming capable boats in both categories, no day sailors or harbor cruisers. Coming from either power or sail, the other way of evaluating seaworthiness seems odd but the differences are for good reasons.

Regarding stabilization, we agree that these system don’t change AVS. Fins do help counteract roll and continue working as long as they are in moving water. How can keeping the boat from approaching AVS not be a benefical effect on stability? Would like your thoughts on this.

Regarding the Nordies that you looked at; were they modified in a way that impacted their stability? Or just not prepped for travel to your preference?

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Incidentally, on the subject of Nordhavns, because they are semi-custom, all Nordhavns sold in the EU have a stability test performed at the yard before shipment. This testing is relatively easy to conduct, and in addition to where they are required, they are worth carrying out for unproven designs or those that have been modified.

These photos are form a stability test that was carried out recently on a new build project I'm involved with in Europe, she is built to RINA classification standards. When the test is carried out, the trough is filled with water to dampen the movement of the plumb bob.

 

[Nick F]

Incidentally, on the subject of Nordhavns, because they are semi-custom, all Nordhavns sold in the EU have a stability test performed at the yard before shipment. This testing is relatively easy to conduct, and in addition to where they are required, they are worth carrying out for unproven designs or those that have been modified.

These photos are form a stability test that was carried out recently on a new build project I'm involved with in Europe, she is built to RINA classification standards. When the test is carried out, the trough is filled with water to dampen the movement of the plumb bob.

Minor semantics objection - I hope you don't mind. I have a lot of respect for you, Steve, but calling this a stability test implies something beyond what this test alone demonstrates (IMHO). You and I understand this, but this choice of wording could mislead others on this forum.

This an "inclination test". This test confirms (hopefully!) the height of the centre of gravity which was used in the stability calculations.

 

[Hippocampus]

Excellent question guy. Perhaps Steve D or an NA will chime in. All I know is every person I’ve spoken to and every thing I’ve read has been consistent in reporting fins, gyros, and fish improve comfort but not the formal measurements of stability. Of course there’s the Canadian warning that fish may actually be detrimental to survivability in a seaway.

To my limited thinking -draw a vector diagram of the force and direction of any stabilization add on. At least on the more immersed side as you heel more less and less of that vector is directed up resisting heel. Might move the boat sideways more but not upright. The other side will only work while wet. With any technique there’s a limit to the strength of the vector. Once water is passing perpendicular to the front and back edges of it efficiency is lost. Weight is weight always. Buoyancy is buoyancy. Has long as righting arm from form stability is on the more immersed side it helps. Weight below the waterplane helps prevent a knock down and decreases the force needed to recover from an inversion. Form stability may prevent recovery from inversion. In short the lower the center of gravity the better. Sail, power, mono or multi.
Recall reading a Nordie owner being pleasantly surprised how well his boat did in a knockdown. Recall it was over a bar or in a rage. Perhaps someone here can supply more details. In my day job heard stories of knockdowns and downfloodings of motorboats not ships in commercial service. Wouldn’t be surprised if PS could give many more examples. Think recreational sailors heightened concerns may reflect use patterns more than presence of a mast. The sea could care less. You dump air off the top as you heel so sails don’t have much effect at severe heel. Masts do supply inertia and benefit comfort. Sure a pound at 65’ has more effect on stability than at deck level but the major weights even in a sailboat aren’t far from the meta center. One goes to carbon masts to improve performance not so much stability.

Steve can you offer any guidance on what parameters a powerboater should be looking at as regards ocean and coastal service?

Excellent post Nick. Had trouble getting my mind around what inclination test shows and how it’s used. Also needed some thinking hat to understand dynamic and static. Friend had me sit in the center then the edge of a dinghy at rest and then on plane. Made perfect sense since.

 

[guy with a boat]

This might be the Nordhavn story you are remembering. The boat is Dirona and they got rolled pretty hard crossing a bar:

https://mvdirona.com/2014/09/69-1-degrees/

 

[rslifkin]

Even though wind force reduces with heel, a sudden wind gust will still apply significant force to a boat, pushing it towards a knockdown. With a powerboat, wind is much less significant, so it's only waves rather than both pushing a boat towards a knockdown. So the situations where power may encounter a knockdown are a bit different in my mind.

 

[Steve DAntonio]

Minor semantics objection - I hope you don't mind. I have a lot of respect for you, Steve, but calling this a stability test implies something beyond what this test alone demonstrates (IMHO). You and I understand this, but this choice of wording could mislead others on this forum.

This an "inclination test". This test confirms (hopefully!) the height of the centre of gravity which was used in the stability calculations.

Absolutely correct, and I am a stickler for proper use of technical language, this is an incline test.

 

[Hippocampus]

This might be the Nordhavn story you are remembering. The boat is Dirona and they got rolled pretty hard crossing a bar:

https://mvdirona.com/2014/09/69-1-degrees/

Thanks for posting. So far as said above the times I’ve found really scary have been surfing with loss of helm. Nothing wrong with the mechanism. Rather steering input does little or nothing . Dirona’ s event included that occurrence briefly. He was fortunate to avoid a complete broach and roll. Our habit in the snot has been to button up but if cockpit door can be well secured leave it open. Think the damage he got is less likely but also green water clears faster. Old Bluewater sail had tiny cockpits. Newer sail designs the back is just left open. Most recreational trawlers have fairly big enclosed aft cockpits and are dependent upon modest scuppers to clear free water.

 

[Hippocampus]

Even though wind force reduces with heel, a sudden wind gust will still apply significant force to a boat, pushing it towards a knockdown. With a powerboat, wind is much less significant, so it's only waves rather than both pushing a boat towards a knockdown. So the situations where power may encounter a knockdown are a bit different in my mind.

You’re correct in my thinking. But different and the same. Knockdowns from wind do definitely happen. Fortunately microbursts are rare and most people adjust sailplan to both average AWS and gusts.

Most sailboats house and superstructure is very low down as compared to a typical recreational trawler. So far when lying ahull or at low speed my trawler is very much more effected by wind than any sailboat I’ve owned. In fact even below fresh breeze in calm seas I’ve needed to briefly change course to reset null for the gyro. I’m very conservative so do this any time a heel is maintained. They say reef early and often. Along with flat is fast. So when sailing do so. I don’t believe the occasions where I’ve experienced stability concerns have ever related to the sails except for two occasions. One when in a small class boat with a spinnaker up. On me as I shifted my gaze to another boat. Other time was sleeping down below and helmsman at post mortem said it was a microburst.
I think what’s more common is that a boat heeling from one wave is struck a second time before it has time to recover from the first wave. The exposed part of the hull above the waterplane takes that strike and over you go. You read commentary about disasters like Fastnet and who got into real troubles. Those who could slide down a wave if forced parallel to the wave train did ok. In other words center boarders with the board up. The worst were full keeled boats especially double enders. Although a stretch many recreational trawlers are closer to full keeled sail Colin Archer hulls then slice of pizza or centerboard hulls which can slide.
The Nordies, KKs and Northerns do everything reasonably feasible to improve survivability but I look at the ultrashoal, ultralight LDLs with negligible form stability who depend mostly on weight placement and wonder although they are very much more tender at low heel angles are they better suited in more extreme conditions. Have antecedents who served in destroyers. They commented on how miserable the ride was but how little damage they saw even after force 8 and above.

 

[PierreR]

Other time was sleeping down below and helmsman at post mortem said it was a microburst.
I think what’s more common is that a boat heeling from one wave is struck a second time before it has time to recover from the first wave. The exposed part of the hull above the waterplane takes that strike and over you go.

I did get hit with a microburst and I can tell you what happened to me.
I had a Hunter 27 at the time and had just gotten back from the store. My wife was below cleaning up and I had just hoisted the main and the genoa. Out of no where we got hit with a gale force gust. I had the genoa sheet cleated. The boat went over but quickly rounded up into the wind and over the other direction. The genoa backwinded and over we went will water pouring into the cockpit. I un-cleated the genoa and up we came with the genoa wildly flapping. I do not remember how we brought the situation under control. Things were a mess down below and my wife less enthused about cruising.