# A big Oyster abandoned off Spain



## TQA

A year old 90 ft Oyster was abandoned off the coast of Spain because the hull was 'failing'. It is not clear if they hit something or there was an inherent structural issue.

More here Southampton, July 24 2015 | News | Oyster Yachts


----------



## Don L

reads like a nice PR damage control write up


----------



## travellerw

Wow... What a class act by the company. 

Seriously, how they are handling this should be an example for other boat companies. Definitely moved them up a notch in my books.


----------



## Jeff_H

I have to agree with Travellerw, this should be an example for other companies. I was very impressed with Oyster's description and I thought that was a very classy response. They explained what may have happened without ducking responsibility. They reassured current owners by explaining why Oyster thought that the original design met standards. The description contained enough technical detail and specificity to say that they have outlined a real strategy to investigate what happened and are taking it very seriously. They named the methods and people doing that analysis. They acknowledged using a different construction method than their normal on this boat, which is a double-edged sword opening them up for liability about doing the switch, while reassuring other owners whose boats did not use this technique. They made it clear that they will make corrections to past and future boats should change be necessary. That all sounded good to me. 

Jeff


----------



## miatapaul

Wow, that is a real eyeopener. Not many companies make statements like that. They sound very serious, but one has to wonder have they brought in the experts to cover themselves, or to really improve the line an build a better boat. Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## killarney_sailor

Should I cancel/delay my order for the new Oyster 90?


----------



## JonEisberg

killarney_sailor said:


> Should I cancel/delay my order for the new Oyster 90?


Nah, just stick with the 82, and forego the 8' "extension"... ;-)

No telling, of course, whether the modification had anything to do with this sinking, but adding length to an existing design rarely seems to be a good idea...

The "Wolf of Wall Street's" yacht NADINE was a classic example...



> The vessel had been built in 1961 by Witsen & Vis in Holland for fashion icon Coco Chanel, but had undergone many transformations by the time Belfort got his mitts on it. Originally 121 feet long, in the 1970s she was extended by nearly 15 feet, and in 1988 she was cut in half and had another 29-foot section grafted on, finally totaling 167 feet.
> 
> Mayday In The Med | Yachts International


This account of the loss of NADINE is a riveting account... Of cautionary interest to sailors like us, is this comment from her professional captain:



> "About an hour after the crew hatch imploded, another large sea came aboard and shifted one of our Nautica jetboats aft in its foredeck cradle. The tender struck the dining room window with force and shattered it.*I learned a bitter lesson that day about the danger of carrying anything on deck that could become a projectile during a storm.* Even though the tenders and all other gear were well lashed, there is nothing to stop the force of green water on deck. Now we had our bow down, and wave after wave pumped through the broken dining room window into the middle of the yacht. The water was pouring aft and through the salon as well as down the stairs to the guest cabins.


----------



## JimMcGee

If they have an open investigation of the failure, bring in outside experts to check their results and stand behind this boat and any others of similar design -- well there's really not much more you can ask of a company is there?

+1 Oyster

If only more companies showed this kind of integrity.


----------



## JonEisberg

JimMcGee said:


> If they have an open investigation of the failure, bring in outside experts to check their results and stand behind this boat and any others of similar design -- well there's really not much more you can ask of a company is there?
> 
> +1 Oyster
> 
> If only more companies showed this kind of integrity.


However, I won't be holding my breath for further news on this one... ;-)

Is no one else struck by the total absence of news or other reporting on this event? Virtually new multi-million dollar 90-footers don't sink under such mysterious circumstances every day, after all... ;-)

Now, my Google skills may be somewhat sub-par, but I have been unable to find ANY reports of this incident, beyond that single press release from Oyster... The British sailing press has been conspicuously silent, has made no reference to it that I can find, which I find astonishing given the coverage that a site like YBW and YACHTING WORLD gives to every little Cornish Crabber that goes aground on a sandbar ;-) Even YBW's forums appear mute on the incident, someone started a thread in Scuttlebutt a couple of days ago about the Oyster press release, and it now appears to have disappeared...

I've always viewed Oyster as more of a Marketing Company, than a boatbuilder... Lots of different people actually build the boats that become 'branded' an Oyster, different models have come from all over the world, from Great Britain, to New Zealand, to Turkey... I've seen a sales rep at a boat show do a bit of tap dancing, when asked about the possibility of visiting the "Oyster factory"...

So, seems to me some circling of the wagons is going on, and these marketeers might be doing their job quite effectively, for the time being, 'cause there sure seems to have been a lid put on this story ;-)

Fatty Goodlander has a pretty amusing take on the whole Oyster phenomenon, and their marketing success story...



> "It's like the modern boat builders do these days," I lectured. "In yesteryear, if you wanted your boat to be known as a fast, strong racer, you built a fast strong racer. And, like Swan, you then had a certain international panache.
> 
> Nowadays, it's different. Take that British builder of over-priced half-tide rocks; damn, I'm having a Senior Moment - it's named after a shellfish &#8230; oh, yeah! Scallop Yachts! Anyway, these water pigs are so slow you can't even tell if they're aground or have their anchors down because neither affects their boat speed to a noticeable degree. And, so, of course, they get lots of complaints from owners who are wondering why they have to factor in continental drift on passage &#8230;"
> 
> "Get to the point, Fatty," Carolyn scolded.
> 
> "The point is, if your boat is embarrassingly slow, you go to Antigua Race Week and set up an 'exclusive Scallop Cup' class within the larger regatta to convince people your boats are super fast!"
> 
> "Wait a minute," Carolyn said. "To prove your slow boats are fast, you race 'em really slowly?"
> 
> "Exactly!" I clapped my hands with glee. "Ain't corporate logic and the Big Lie a beautiful ting? There are no other boats to compare 'em with! Only rocks and islands, which they are noticeably faster than! Plus, you can film 'em at one speed, and play the TV footage back at another! Cool, eh?"
> 
> "What's this got to do with Yacht Rallies?"
> 
> "Don't you get it," I asked. "It's the same thing. The too wealthy folks who are buying a Scallop Yacht to race in Antigua don't, of course, realize their 'special' course is half the distance and their 'special' race duration time twice as long, they think it's like, sort-of, real yacht racing! Ditto, the rally goers. They fly the flag proudly."
> 
> Rallying For and Against Rallies - ALL AT SEA


----------



## TQA

Hmm all Oysters are slow eh.

Someone should tell Scarlet Oyster this and inform them that they have to stop winning all these yacht races. 

OK OK I know an Oyster Lightwave 48 is not a real Oyster.


----------



## smackdaddy

Oh boy - another production boat falling apart and giving us all a bad name.

My work is never done.

PS - *robert sailor*, can you go over to CF and warn Kenomac for me. He really should know that he needs to be vigilant - or buy a Hunter. Oh, and you've got to hate this part from the release:



> Oyster used industry standard Classification Society rules for the design of the vessel...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Oh boy - another production boat falling apart and giving us all a bad name.
> 
> My work is never done.
> 
> PS - *robert sailor*, can you go over to CF and warn Kenomac for me. He really should know that he needs to be vigilant - or buy a Hunter.


I dunno, I'm not so sure I'd want to go to sea on a Hunter that had just had her length "extended" by 10%, either...

;-)

And for all those who may think Oyster has done an exemplary job of "getting out in front of this story", so to speak - something I didn't notice about that press release until relating this story to a friend earlier today...

There was no acknowledgement or revelation of this incident until a full _THREE WEEKS AFTER_ it actually occurred... One can only wonder if perhaps POLINA STAR III was not slated to participate in the next Oyster Rally or Rendezvous, we might _never_ have heard about this one... ;-)

Truly impressive, how quiet someone has managed to keep this story, thus far...

;-))


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> Oh boy - another production boat falling apart and giving us all a bad name.
> 
> My work is never done.
> 
> PS - *robert sailor*, can you go over to CF and warn Kenomac for me. He really should know that he needs to be vigilant - or buy a Hunter. Oh, and you've got to hate this part from the release:


Pretty sure Ken is aware of this. Seems from the press release that they deviated from their normal practices on the structure whatever than means? They don't make 90 foot Hunters.


----------



## RickSpil

> Oyster used industry standard Classification Society rules for the design of the vessel and the calculations have been analysed by an independent expert in composite construction. He has verified that the design, which incorporates an internal structure not used in any other Oyster yachts, has appropriate safety factors.


And yet ....

In 2013, an almost new 8,000 TEU container ship, MOL Comfort, broke in half in the Indian Ocean off Yemen. Both sections sank. The classification society still doesn't know what happened. This class of ships was, however, the the first container ship classified by NKK to use ultra high-strength steel to minimize plate thickness.

The phrase in Oyster press release "an internal structure not used in any other Oyster yachts" is probably both the good and the bad news.


----------



## JonEisberg

RickSpil said:


> The phrase in Oyster press release "an internal structure not used in any other Oyster yachts" is probably both the good and the bad news.


I was amused by the assertion that _"the possibility of impact with an underwater object propagating structural failure has not been ruled out..."_ Well, I'll bet if you spoke with any of the crew that were aboard and awake at the time, that's probably already been "ruled out"... ;-)

The wording of this release was very carefully crafted, indeed... For instance, they claim this loss is _"the first of its kind in the 42 year history..."_ of the company... And yet, an Oyster went down a few years ago after hitting a growler near South Georgia...

Submerged iceberg cuts South Atlantic voyage short - Ocean Navigator - May/June 2010

So, ironically, in claiming the loss of POLINA STAR III was indeed "the first of its kind", the company has, in effect, already ruled out the possibility of a collision with a submerged object...

;-)


----------



## robert sailor

JonEisberg said:


> I was amused by the assertion that _"the possibility of impact with an underwater object propagating structural failure has not been ruled out..."_ Well, I'll bet if you spoke with any of the crew that were aboard and awake at the time, that's probably already been "ruled out"... ;-)
> 
> The wording of this release was very carefully crafted, indeed... For instance, they claim this loss is _"the first of its kind in the 42 year history..."_ of the company... And yet, an Oyster went down a few years ago after hitting a growler near South Georgia...
> 
> Submerged iceberg cuts South Atlantic voyage short - Ocean Navigator - May/June 2010
> 
> So, ironically, in claiming the loss of POLINA STAR III was indeed "the first of its kind", the company has, in effect, already ruled out the possibility of a collision with a submerged object...
> 
> ;-)


Any clue at all on how these boats were built differently?? I am sure Fatty's remarks were in jest for the most part as Oysters while not speed demons are generally good sailing boats. I do agree that their wordsmiths were hard at work preparing that announcement as much of the value in these boats is in the brand. It should be interesting if and when we get more information on this subject.


----------



## smackdaddy

robert sailor said:


> ...as much of the value in these boats is in the brand.


This is exactly right. And it's exactly the reason I started all the production boat threads. What is that brand perception? And is it valid anymore?


----------



## robert sailor

smackdaddy said:


> This is exactly right. And it's exactly the reason I started all the production boat threads. What is that brand perception? And is it valid anymore?


Well in the end most brands have something of real value backing them up. Some folks like to own a Rolex watch but we all know a Timex will do just as well keeping time but is the Timex the same quality?
Boats are no different, each brand is perceived in different ways. A Swan is generally perceived as a very well built boat at a very high price so people with more money than they know what to do with will gravitate to purchasing something to go along with their Lamborghini and it probably wouldn't be a Bavaria. Is the Swan really built better than a Bavaria, most people would say yes, in every way but is the Bavaria better value? Probably it is. Branding is very important and certain manufacturers are very very good at it. There is a reason they make knock off Rolex watches as millions of people with little money would like to be seen wearing this watch but how many knock off Timex watches have you ever seen? I don't believe for a moment that new entry level production boats are built to the same quality standards as the higher priced branded boats are but I do believe that the entry level production boats deliver much higher value.


----------



## RickSpil

JonEisberg said:


> I was amused by the assertion that _"the possibility of impact with an underwater object propagating structural failure has not been ruled out..."_ Well, I'll bet if you spoke with any of the crew that were aboard and awake at the time, that's probably already been "ruled out"... ;-)
> 
> ;-)


I am sure the company hopes that it can be shown that the boat hit a submerged container. The Irish sail training ship _Asgard II_ was, in all probability, sunk by a floating container, so it would hardly be the first time.

It seems unlikely that the _Polina Star III_ lost her keel like _Cheeki Rafiki_ but time will tell.


----------



## JonEisberg

RickSpil said:


> *I am sure the company hopes that it can be shown that the boat hit a submerged container.* The Irish sail training ship _Asgard II_ was, in all probability, sunk by a floating container, so it would hardly be the first time.


I'm sure they do, as well....

If that were the case, however, don't you think one of the crew would have _NOTICED_ such an impact? And that Oyster would have at least _MENTIONED_ that in their release?

;-)

The only sort of catastrophic impact I can imagine that might have gone 'unnoticed', is one that carried away one of those twin rudders - which of course are considerably more vulnerable to such a collision than rudders mounted on the centerline, behind the keel... But the way the press release reads, it hints to a more 'general' failure of the structure than one pinpointed to the location of a rudder...

Or, one of those picture windows in the topsides...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> This is exactly right. And it's exactly the reason I started all the production boat threads. What is that brand perception? And is it valid anymore?


And, it's exactly the reason I repeatedly assert (ad nauseum to some, no doubt ;-)) that the suitability of a particular boat has precious little to do with the _BRAND_, and everything to do with its _CHARACTERISTICS_...

;-)


----------



## RickSpil

JonEisberg said:


> I'm sure they do, as well....
> 
> If that were the case, however, don't you think one of the crew would have _NOTICED_ such an impact? And that Oyster would have at least _MENTIONED_ that in their release?
> ;-)


I agree. I think that the most likely explanation is a problem in the design or fabrication when the 825 hull was lengthen.

Nevertheless, when the _Asgard_ sank, if I recall the investigation's report correctly, there was no mention of an impact only sudden flooding. They suspected an impact with a whale or a container. When the divers inspected the damaged hull underwater they found sharp impact damage in the hull that was consistent with a container.

I doubt that the divers, if they do find the wreck, will observe similar damage, although I can imagine that Oyster would hope they do.


----------



## outbound

I think you buy a boat not a brand. Still there is a disturbing trend at both the high end, middle and bottom of recreational boat market.
Where as Lipton had no issue sailing his boat from England to the AC now you have 100-200' motor yachts so unsafe they ship from the Med to the Caribbean. The Bucket is made up of boats that power everywhere as it is cheaper and safer to power than sail.
The Wallys, post Ferrogamo Swans, big Benes etc. are not aimed at ocean cruising but rather entertaining owner and guests at the destination. I'm concerned Oyster may be following that trend. Us plebeians need not worry there is still Rustler and other good Brit builders. 
In the middle range Sweden Yachts, and Najad run out of money, Valiant closes, PSC lives on service work, Baltic totally leaves the non pro crewed cruising market, the big builders come out multiple lines only one of which is even remotely ocean ready.
In the low range where in the past you could reasonably expect to take a Tayana, Cape Dory or even a Pearson to Bermuda and expect to safely sail home now its buyer beware if its a new boat. Smack speaks of his Hunter. At this point its an old school boat. There is a new Hunter on my dock. Personally, view it as a great coastal cruiser but would be reluctant to take it out of sight of land or of more concern through a storm. Rather be on Smacks Hunter. Sounds like he has kept it up Bristol Fashion so it would be safer than the bigger Hunter in my current marina.
On another thread there is inference my boat brand is high end. I think it's not even close to high end. Bob designs one offs that are high end. Rather its built in the fashion that was the standard benchmark of prior decades before boat brands realized they could make more money aiming their production lines at the major end users. So quality of life and entertainment systems rise in priority, as does number of berths functional at anchor, and the various modern "improvements". One would think the extension was done either to provide a sundeck for the owner, a bigger "garage" or some other foolishness. D-mn isn't the boat big enough already?


----------



## smurphny

I've got to think that adding a major "extension" to a sailboat of this size and complexity is an incredibly difficult undertaking for both the architect and builder. Will be interesting if we ever find out what happened.


----------



## miatapaul

JonEisberg said:


> And, it's exactly the reason I repeatedly assert (ad nauseum to some, no doubt ;-)) that the suitability of a particular boat has precious little to do with the _BRAND_, and everything to do with its _CHARACTERISTICS_...
> 
> ;-)


Of course this boat was built to the same "standards" (mentioned in the press release) as Smack touts makes the Hunter so seaworthy.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

Some pics have surfaced showing the damage to POLINA STAR after she was raised...

_WOW..._ "Compromised the integrity of the molded hull" pretty much sums it up, alright... ;-)

A guy claiming to be the captain posted over on CF, denying that there had ever been a grounding or other impact, etc...

This could get "interesting", to say the least...

Oyster Problems? - Page 6 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## hpeer

Am I seeing that right? The keel just tore off a big hunk of hull?


----------



## smackdaddy

Heh-heh. Awesome.

Someone tell Keno to come over to SN so I can console him. I can't recall an instance of a Hunter falling apart and sinking...ever.


----------



## sharkbait

1


----------



## smackdaddy

sharkbait said:


> #98
> sharkbait
> Registered User
> 
> Join Date: Sep 2007
> Location: Carolinas and Bahamas
> Boat: cal 29
> Posts: 32
> Re: Oyster Problems?
> SmackDaddy says you never see that happen to a Hunter
> sharkbait is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
> 
> You're Welcome


Sorry - misunderstood your post. Thanks for placing the IED, shark. That should be fun.

Incoming!!


----------



## krisscross

JonEisberg said:


> Some pics have surfaced showing the damage to POLINA STAR after she was raised...


Looks just like drywall in my old trailer.


----------



## JonEisberg

A further description of the incident from the skipper:



> Hello guys, in your posts there are a lot of questions to reply, I will try to reply to all of that and at the same time I will tell some "facts" about our story and about this building. I'm speaking about "facts" because the funny declarations released by Oyster can confuse the readers.
> FACT 1: (why I know what I know)
> The owner built the boat with the target to sail around the world, then he asked to me to follow the commissioning, to prepare the boat for this long trip and to choose and to organize the crew. I arrived in the shipyard in the April 2014, and I stayed there every day up to the launch of the boat in July, then I have sailed on her as captain about 10.000 miles: Southampton- Norway and back, Southampton-Las Palmas, ARC rally, cruises in Caribe, Antigua-Alicante (we never arrived).
> FACT 2: (the crew)
> The boat had two permanent crew member, to be able to manage this aspect I have organized a tourn-over of 5 people:
> Alessio Cannoni
> Dafne Mele
> Giulia Visintin
> Monica Rosini
> Riccardo Salimbeni
> during last trip the professional crew was: me and Dafne.
> FACT 3the boat design)
> the boat was not extended, she was designed and built by Oyster exactly as you can see in the pictures.
> FACT 4: (the meteo)
> we sunk in a sunny day we were reaching in 18 kn of TW with about 1.3 m of wave, sailing with staysail and 80% main sail.
> FACT 5: (SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT)
> 3 JULY 2015 TIME 14:07'
> strong noise with vibration from the hull
> 14:07'15"
> big flooding in the engine room
> 14:07'30"
> water over the service batteries; all systems KO
> 14:07'45"
> I bear away, the crew prepare emergency bilge pump, life rafts, grab bags, furl manually the stay sail, send the may-day by standard-C and by VHF
> 14:13'
> the keel disconnected completely and the boat capsized, in that moment I was standing up in front of the chart table (deck-house) sending the may-day, the water was already cooling down my balls.
> a fishing boat "fished"us after a couple of hours.
> FACT 6:
> we made a video from the life raft, it show the two rudders pointing the sky perfectly intacs, a big hole in to the hull; the relic float upside down all night long, the following morning we found the boat still floating about 15 miles from the capsizing point, one missing rudder, the other one partially broken.
> FACT 7:
> the CEO of Oyster knows exactly this story, he sent two people on site the following day, I told them every single detail of the accident and I gave to them all the pictures and movies that I had and that I still have.
> The relic of the boat and the keel was rescued in October. This operation was a month-long, I participated to this operation and I participated also to the survey performed by all the insurance company's surveyors. We are waiting for the response.
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 7 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah - I saw that over on CF. So this seems to be a straight-up catastrophic failure of design and/or engineering and/or construction. That's gonna hurt.


----------



## albrazzi

JonEisberg said:


> Nah, just stick with the 82, and forego the 8' "extension"... ;-)
> 
> No telling, of course, whether the modification had anything to do with this sinking, but adding length to an existing design rarely seems to be a good idea...
> 
> The "Wolf of Wall Street's" yacht NADINE was a classic example...
> 
> This account of the loss of NADINE is a riveting account... Of cautionary interest to sailors like us, is this comment from her professional captain:


Take the time to read the demise of "Nadine" worth the time.


----------



## Panope

Could someone tell me what kind of saftey margin is typically (or required to be?) built into yacht structures. I'm not talking about impacts with objects or rocks as those loads are focused and unpredictable. I'm asking about basic sailing loads on things like rigging, keels, rudders etc.

Small aircraft design loads and safety margins are well established with heavy oversight. For "normal category" aircraft, the structure is designed to handle +3.8 g's plus 50% saftey factor.

Anything similar for yachts or is it all up to the individual designer/engineer?

Steve


----------



## JimMcGee

> ...a year old 90 ft Oyster was abandoned off the coast of Spain because *the hull failed* and *she lost her keel* while sailing in four foot seas and 18 knots of wind





> Almost immediately after delivery of each of the completed vessels to Gunboat's customers, Gunboat began receiving *complaints regarding the integrity of the vessels*...





> ...a Bavaria 390 *lost her keel* 650nm north-east of Bermuda while on passage back from St Maarten to the Azores





> ...the tragic story of _Cheeki Rafiki_, the Beneteau First 40.7 that *lost its keel* with fatal consequences while crossing the Atlantic





> ...a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37 in charter service in Falmouth, England *lost its keel* while on charter





> In 2005 a Bavaria Match 42* lost her keel* as *the internal structure pulled through the bottom of the boat*. In the same year Moquini, a Fast 42, *lost her keel* off South Africa with *the loss of six crew*


Early fiberglass boats were overbuilt; supposedly because the designers at the time didn't have enough experience working with fiberglass so they added in a safety margin.

Have we reached a point now where designers are taking more and more of those safety margins out of designs to save weight and/or cost because they've become too comfortable with the durability of fiberglass (and similar materials)?

Then the ocean serves up conditions and stresses unanticipated by the modeling software and there's a failure. Maybe not that day, but a problem starts and eventually something fails catastrophically...


----------



## seaner97

JimMcGee said:


> ...a year old 90 ft Oyster was abandoned off the coast of Spain because *the hull failed* and *she lost her keel* while sailing in four foot seas and 18 knots of wind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Almost immediately after delivery of each of the completed vessels to Gunboat?s customers, Gunboat began receiving *complaints regarding the integrity of the vessels*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...a Bavaria 390 *lost her keel* 650nm north-east of Bermuda while on passage back from St Maarten to the Azores
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...the tragic story of _Cheeki Rafiki_, the Beneteau First 40.7 that *lost its keel* with fatal consequences while crossing the Atlantic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...a Jeanneau Sun Odyssey 37 in charter service in Falmouth, England *lost its keel* while on charter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2005 a Bavaria Match 42* lost her keel* as *the internal structure pulled through the bottom of the boat*. In the same year Moquini, a Fast 42, *lost her keel* off South Africa with *the loss of six crew*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early fiberglass boats were overbuilt; supposedly because the designers at the time didn't have enough experience working with fiberglass so they added in a safety margin.
> 
> Have we reached a point now where designers are taking more and more of those safety margins out of designs to save weight and/or cost because they've become too comfortable with the durability of fiberglass (and similar materials)?
> 
> Then the ocean serves up conditions and stresses unanticipated by the modeling software and there's a failure. Maybe not that day, but a problem starts and eventually something fails catastrophically...
Click to expand...

Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?


----------



## smackdaddy

seaner97 said:


> Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?


Precisely!!!

Heh-heh.


----------



## chall03

seaner97 said:


> Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?


I will just leave this here....Hunter Keel Failure


----------



## RobGallagher

edit: never mind, re-read and understand a bit more.


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?
> 
> 
> 
> I will just leave this here....Hunter Keel Failure
Click to expand...

Thank you. I bet the Hunter keel failures don't make news because no one finds them unexpected. Cue rage by Don and Smack.


----------



## Don L

seaner97 said:


> Thank you. I bet the Hunter keel failures don't make news because no one finds them unexpected.


I don't know if that is a Hunter or not, but if you believe that keel just failed like that and fell onto the ground in the yard you are an idiot!


----------



## seaner97

Don0190 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I bet the Hunter keel failures don't make news because no one finds them unexpected.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if that is a Hunter or not, but if you believe that keel just failed like that and fell onto the ground in the yard you are an idiot!
Click to expand...

But that apparently happens on oysters. Or are you calling Smack an idiot? In all seriousness, I think the value brands and the expensive ones are converging, but not because the value quality is being raised towards the expensive ones. It seems more that the construction methods on the high end is falling towards the value end. I worry that this is more reflective of a lack of knowledge of the people in the high end market than anything else.


----------



## albrazzi

Soon this will turn into an" Older boats vs Newer Boats" thread. Seriously this kind of failure should never happen. I would like to know how many of the failures were traced to abnormal stress damage. This kind of news doesn't go much past the initial reporting with the details owned by the insurance carrier.
The question was raised in post #35, what was the design safety factors in such cases. I would assume its more than just analyzing the failure zones of various pieces of a system like you would do with a building or a bridge but surely someone like Bob could shed some light on the process. Clearly some NAs have lost their way?? There would be enough plausible deniability in an instance where a Boat has been in service and exposed to who knows what,, but isn't that part of the design criteria.


----------



## Capt Len

Being a self procaimed expert in just about every thing I can't help notice that the Hunter was apparently designed with a dotted line so the keel falls off cleanly. The BiValve just fails irregularly and peels most of the hull away ; like tearing a phone book. Maybe it's because of the ubiquitous use of e mail that modern designers don't know how to tear a phone book.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> I will just leave this here....





seaner97 said:


> Thank you. I bet the Hunter keel failures don't make news because no one finds them unexpected. Cue rage by Don and Smack.


Heh-heh. I've got one word:










Next.

PS - Now why would you want to be intentionally misleading Chall?


----------



## albrazzi

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I've got one word:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next.
> 
> PS - Now why would you want to be intentionally misleading sean?


With damage like that something's gotta go, Ill give you that. I would like as small a hole as possible as a result, so I like the reference to the dotted line. If you scaled the floors and grid on my CS to the Oyster those frames would be massive (and they're not). Looks like someone pushed the wrong button on the calculator.
The fact that the Hunter was not capsized, sunk, and otherwise incapacitated along with all that localized damage to the aft sections would indicate dragging backwards over some really hard stuff, be it coral or rock, close to the shore. Cause and effect if I've ever seen it. 
I would like a similar explainable cause on the oyster but even then not the whole bottom, that's just unacceptable.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Heh-heh. I've got one word:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next.
> 
> PS - Now why would you want to be intentionally misleading Chall?


But I thought the way these threads worked was that you just posted a random pic of a boat, generalized grossly about the manufacturer and draw long bow conclusions about brands based on a picture on the interwebs?

Intentionally misleading? Steady on Smack. The link to the thread is there for all to read mate.

Just a bit of ****e stirring


----------



## smackdaddy

See it IS fun isn't it!??!!??

You pesky bastard. Sean is going be all sad again.


----------



## chall03

I actually believe that Hunter grounded after deciding to use Active Captain.......


----------



## Exile1

seaner97 said:


> In all seriousness, I think the value brands and the expensive ones are converging, *but not because the value quality is being raised towards the expensive ones.* It seems more that *the construction methods on the high end is falling towards the value end.* I worry that this is more reflective of a lack of knowledge of the people in the high end market than anything else.


This is what immediately strikes me whenever Smack points out that IP, the failed Oyster(??), and other so-called BW brands (if you will) may now be using liners, Plexus vs. tabbing, whatever. It would be yet another gross generalization to say that this necessarily makes these higher end boats weaker or less seaworthy, etc., but it is probably safe to say that it reduces mfg. costs and thus many surmise it is an effort to try and stay competitive with the mass-produced brands.

Since the conversation on the Production Boat thread has once again been reduced to another temper tantrum by a couple of Hunter owners, maybe Smack can use his significant but all too often misdirected forum posting skills to re-focus the discussion. It would be interesting to hear from some of the heavyweight techy guys over there like Bob & Jeff about these newer construction techniques. Who knows, it may actually progress into Smack's long proposed inquiries about durability questions with the (mass-produced) production boats.


----------



## chall03

Exile1 said:


> This is what immediately strikes me whenever Smack points out that IP, the failed Oyster(??), and other so-called BW brands (if you will) may now be using liners, Plexus vs. tabbing, whatever. It would be yet another gross generalization to say that this necessarily makes these higher end boats weaker or less seaworthy, etc., but it is probably safe to say that it reduces mfg. costs and thus many surmise it is an effort to try and stay competitive with the mass-produced brands.
> 
> Since the conversation on the Production Boat thread has once again been reduced to another temper tantrum by a couple of Hunter owners, maybe Smack can use his significant but all too often misdirected forum posting skills to re-focus the discussion. It would be interesting to hear from some of the heavyweight techy guys over there like Bob & Jeff about these newer construction techniques. Who knows, it may actually progress into Smack's long proposed inquiries about durability questions with the (mass-produced) production boats.


+1

I would be very interested in hearing what some of those guys say.


----------



## seaner97

smackdaddy said:


> See it IS fun isn't it!??!!??
> 
> You pesky bastard. Sean is going be all sad again.


Nah. I read it. I just like poking Don. His attitude sucks. Just ask him.


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> +1
> 
> I would be very interested in hearing what some of those guys say.


Jeff has been pretty clear (at least if you don't start arguing semantics) that most newer builds are moving in a less durable manner. Bob has been somewhat silent, but if you read between the lines, likely feels similarly.


----------



## Faster

Possible parallel here... We see far more Mercedes Benz' on the roads these days - partly due to demographics but also because the price difference between domestic and MB has shrunk and even possibly disappeared on some models. No doubt due to market pressure, but many will say the MB cars are not what they used to be. Are 'high end' boats trending the same way - except in the pricing department?


----------



## aeventyr60

^Hard to tell the difference from an MB to a Kia to a Lexus or a Toyota, seems much the same for the "modern production" clorox bottles too. Aren't they all made by the same contract manufacturer now?


----------



## JonEisberg

Some more pics...

Oyster 825: krasse Bilder eines Wracks*|*YACHT.DE










Well, at least the wiring stayed put...










Right from the start, I've always suspected this incident might possibly have been related to the "extending" of the yacht from 82 to 90 feet...

Now, over on CF, the captain appears to be saying that Oyster added approximately _ONE TON_ of additional ballast forward, to somehow 'compensate' for the additional weight of the dinghy garage aft...

Oyster Problems? - Page 8 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> Some more pics...
> 
> Oyster 825: krasse Bilder eines Wracks*|*YACHT.DE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least the wiring stayed put...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right from the start, I've always suspected this incident might possibly have been related to the "extending" of the yacht from 82 to 90 feet...
> 
> Now, over on CF, the captain appears to be saying that Oyster added approximately _ONE TON_ of additional ballast forward, to somehow 'compensate' for the additional weight of the dinghy garage aft...
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 8 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


So do these pics show whether we are looking at a boat built with a hull liner? Tabbing? "Stick built?" In other words, a traditional build or one built more similar to the less expensive techniques the newer mass produced production boats are known for?


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> Right from the start, I've always suspected this incident might possibly have been related to the "extending" of the yacht from 82 to 90 feet...
> 
> Now, over on CF, the captain appears to be saying that Oyster added approximately _ONE TON_ of additional ballast forward, to somehow 'compensate' for the additional weight of the dinghy garage aft...
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 8 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


I don't think a couple of tons matters much on a boat that size (75 tons) - they probably carry a couple of tons of booze.


----------



## Capt Len

So, was the 8 ft added to the mold or scarfed into a zig zag cut hull which is not so bonded to floors anyway . When the first page rips,then the second page .Too much faith in what looks like 1/2 an inch of poor lay up.


----------



## Don L

seaner97 said:


> Nah. I read it. I just like poking Don. His attitude sucks. Just ask him.


Good job of taking one thing and spinning it into something else. Are you sure you don't really work for a news channel?


----------



## seaner97

Quite certain


Don0190 said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. I read it. I just like poking Don. His attitude sucks. Just ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> Good job of taking one thing and spinning it into something else. Are you sure you don't really work for a news channel?
Click to expand...


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> I actually believe that Hunter grounded after deciding to use Active Captain.......


Oh you're good.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> This is what immediately strikes me whenever Smack points out that IP, the failed Oyster(??), and other so-called BW brands (if you will) may now be using liners, Plexus vs. tabbing, whatever. It would be yet another gross generalization to say that this necessarily makes these higher end boats weaker or less seaworthy, etc., but it is probably safe to say that it reduces mfg. costs and thus many surmise it is an effort to try and stay competitive with the mass-produced brands.
> 
> Since the conversation on the Production Boat thread has once again been reduced to another temper tantrum by a couple of Hunter owners, maybe Smack can use his significant but all too often misdirected forum posting skills to re-focus the discussion. It would be interesting to hear from some of the heavyweight techy guys over there like Bob & Jeff about these newer construction techniques. Who knows, it may actually progress into Smack's long proposed inquiries about durability questions with the (mass-produced) production boats.


Precisely. You're welcome. It's not really that I'm _omnipotent_ per se, just profoundly observant. A canary in a coal mine of sorts.

Really what you're seeing is a scramble. These traditional brands HAVE to compete. The can't stay where they are because the number of old, scared dudes who insist on old tanks is rapidly decreasing. In other words, it's yet again CLEAR proof that the BWC is wrong...like I've said all along.

However, another very interesting angle of this is that as this scramble happens, these traditional companies that don't have the _experience_ building lighter and more economically (dude to the outmoded demands of yesteryear's BWC) might be making some very big mistakes as they try their hand at it. As this Oyster shows, they are clearly out of their element. Production boats have been doing this a long, long time.

The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


----------



## chall03

Don0190 said:


> Good job of taking one thing and spinning it into something else. Are you sure you don't really work for a news channel?


FWIW I actually used to work for a news channel 

Love you Rupert....


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> Don0190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good job of taking one thing and spinning it into something else. Are you sure you don't really work for a news channel?
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW I actually used to work for a news channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Love you Rupert....
Click to expand...

Meaning it had news in it before Rupert bought it and turned it into newsish entertainment (faux news?)


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> Really what you're seeing is a scramble. These traditional brands HAVE to compete


Agreed. Innovate or go out of business. Blue Jacket was a stroke of genius in that regard.



smackdaddy said:


> In other words, it's yet again CLEAR proof that the BWC is wrong...like I've said all along.


Not sure about that. Try to remember that brands like Hallberg Rassy are still going very strong, albeit with changes in design and build. Amel is as strong as ever. Hylas I believe are also still selling plenty of boats?



smackdaddy said:


> However, another very interesting angle of this is that as this scramble happens, these traditional companies that don't have the _experience_ building lighter and more economically (dude to the outmoded demands of yesteryear's BWC) might be making some very big mistakes as they try their hand at it. As this Oyster shows, they are clearly out of their element. Production boats have been doing this a long, long time.


Long bow. This Oyster situation is a very isolated example, although I am intrigued to see what conclusions come out of it.



smackdaddy said:


> The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


1 + 1 = 42?


----------



## chall03

seaner97 said:


> Meaning it had news in it before Rupert bought it and turned it into newsish entertainment (faux news?)


Dude I may need a job again one day.

I love you Rupert.


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> Dude I may need a job again one day.
> 
> I love you Rupert.


Bet you could get a job doing real news that isn't owned by him.


----------



## smackdaddy

chall03 said:


> Not sure about that. Try to remember that brands like Hallberg Rassy are still going very strong, albeit with changes in design and build. Amel is as strong as ever. Hylas I believe are also still selling plenty of boats?


Oyster used to be on the list above. It's not now. And have you seen the new Hinckley Bermuda 50? And where are the other traditional brands of yesterday not in your list above?

Look, there's no question that there will absolutely remain a market - but it's certainly not "future proof" and will only grow more competitive as time goes on as the old, scared dudes start using "blue water" walkers. Those brands that sell to sailors who contend with icebergs in their normal cruising grounds will continue to do well. No question.

Honestly, I think Bob has hit on something profound with his CARBON FIBER FULL KEELER. That is freakin' awesome. It should completely change the game. I can't wait to see those things race. If a Valiant 42 is spanking the fleet, this new cutter of his is going to humiliate the fleet.



chall03 said:


> 1 + 1 = 42?


----------



## SloopJonB

seaner97 said:


> Meaning it had news in it before Rupert bought it and turned it into newsish entertainment (faux news?)


Infotainment or Newzak.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Precisely. You're welcome. It's not really that I'm _omnipotent_ per se, just profoundly observant.* A canary in a coal mine of sorts.*


LOL! Uhhh, you DO know how it sometimes ends for those canaries, right?

Seems a perfect description, however, for someone who would sail any Category A rated boat across an ocean, without any hesitation/reservations whatsoever...

;-)



smackdaddy said:


> Really what you're seeing is a scramble. These traditional brands HAVE to compete. The can't stay where they are because the number of old, scared dudes who insist on old tanks is rapidly decreasing. In other words, it's yet again CLEAR proof that the BWC is wrong...like I've said all along.
> 
> However, another very interesting angle of this is that as this scramble happens, these traditional companies that don't have the _experience_ building lighter and more economically (dude to the outmoded demands of yesteryear's BWC) might be making some very big mistakes as they try their hand at it. As this Oyster shows, they are clearly out of their element. Production boats have been doing this a long, long time.
> 
> The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


Totally delusional...

And, I'll see your _"old, scared dudes who insist on old tanks"_ (Hmmm, shouldn't "bitter" be included, as well?), and raise you to _"Young Punks Who Know It All, Without Ever Having Gone Anywhere "..._

;-)


----------



## JimMcGee

seaner97 said:


> Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?


WTF?

Evidently you have me confused with someone else?


----------



## JimMcGee

smackdaddy said:


> The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


Smack, I know you're just stirring the pot (and stirring up some individuals).

But maybe we should all remember only one Oyster has had a keel failure -- a spectacular failure -- but so far only one. Seems a little harsh to paint the whole brand as poor quality.

Not to mention there have been a lot more keel failures among production boats.


----------



## seaner97

JimMcGee said:


> seaner97 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't you find a Hunter so we don't have to listen to the crap any longer?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Evidently you have me confused with someone else?
Click to expand...

No no, You missed the point. If you put one up that was a Hunter as well it would have kept Smack from doing his usual is all.


----------



## JimMcGee

seaner97 said:


> No no, You missed the point. If you put one up that was a Hunter as well it would have kept Smack from doing his usual is all.


Guess I'm still recovering from my turkey coma :laugher


----------



## SloopJonB

Smack, I'm usually pretty good with acronyms but WTF is "BWC"?


----------



## smackdaddy

JimMcGee said:


> Smack, I know you're just stirring the pot (and stirring up some individuals).
> 
> But maybe we should all remember only one Oyster has had a keel failure -- a spectacular failure -- but so far only one. *Seems a little harsh to paint the whole brand as poor quality.*
> 
> Not to mention there have been a lot more keel failures among production boats.


That bold part. Now do you see why I stir?


----------



## aloof

SloopJonB said:


> Smack, I'm usually pretty good with acronyms but WTF is "BWC"?


Blue Water Capable. Whatever that means to whomever is pontificating. Usually on SN it describes a boat with a excess of furniture below, an excess of anchors and chain, and the sailing performance of a dead pig.


----------



## Exile1

aloof said:


> Blue Water Capable. Whatever that means to whomever is pontificating. Usually on SN it describes a boat with a excess of furniture below, an excess of anchors and chain, and the sailing performance of a dead pig.


Or as we recently read, maybe it describes one of Bob's Valiants which finished 2nd (in class) in the Carib 1500 ahead of ??? number of mass-produced production boats, all the while keeping her crew safe & comfortable in seakindly fashion.


----------



## Bleemus

BWC . . .










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SloopJonB

My eyes, My eyes!


----------



## aloof

Exile1 said:


> Or as we recently read, maybe it describes one of Bob's Valiants which finished 2nd (in class) in the Carib 1500 ahead of ??? number of mass-produced production boats, all the while keeping her crew safe & comfortable in seakindly fashion.


Proving my point, I think. That a relatively ancient boat that in no way pretends to have any modern sailing performance does as well or better than modern production boats that seem to be designed to appeal to people who desire fine joinery, shiny anchors and multiple heads over any practical sailing performance or BW durability. Boat show boats.


----------



## Faster

aloof said:


> Proving my point, I think. That a relatively ancient boat that in no way pretends to have any modern sailing performance does as well or better than modern production boats that seem to be designed to appeal to people who desire* fine joinery*, shiny anchors and multiple heads over any practical sailing performance or BW durability. Boat show boats.


I suspect the many Valiants, Passports and other olden goldens have much 'finer joinery' than the laminates and faux finishes seen today.


----------



## chall03

You can never have too much Corian and faux teak.


----------



## Exile1

chall03 said:


> You can never have too much Corian and faux teak.


I might give the Corian a pass, but must confess to times while re-varnishing my teak toe rails -- crawling around on my hands & knees, of course -- that I fantasize about faux teak! Not really, but it gives some lighthearted fodder to the production boat guys who walk by. All in good fun, so long as hulls don't delaminate, keels & rudders stay on, and rollers don't fall off our bows!


----------



## JonEisberg

aloof said:


> Proving my point, I think. That a relatively ancient boat that in no way pretends to have any modern sailing performance does as well or better than modern production boats that seem to be designed to appeal to people who desire fine joinery, shiny anchors and multiple heads over any practical sailing performance or BW durability. Boat show boats.


And yet, last time we heard, the ONE boat in this year's rally that purports to have "modern sailing performance" - the Hanse 430 AVANTI - is still in Bermuda, awaiting the completion of the repair to her rudder...

Go figure, eh?

;-)


----------



## Capt Len

Bleemus , your photo doesn't tell it all. That ouble ender is actually a piece of fusalage from a Boing 47 . The cockpits at both ends allow gybe/tacking just like a proa The unstayed masts ,equidistant from the centre ,allow the sails and booms to pivot to gybe ,and the alternating forward rudder locks in a foil position to walk to windward.surfs with no fear of pitch pole. and you have your pick of bow rollers unlike other production lines. Truly a statement of things to come.


----------



## XSrcing

Looks like they hit a whale.


----------



## RobGallagher

chall03 said:


> You can never have too much Corian and faux teak.


I do prefer the Corian over the stuff in most older boats.


----------



## outbound

Corian makes great sense in a galley. You can put hot stuff on it. It's pretty. You can run it up the insides of the fiddles. It's easy to clean. It sandable so easy to refurbish.

Solid teak appropriately placed also makes sense. Pretty, sandable, rot resistant and easy to refinish.

BTW in the SDRs and 1500s Outbounds tend to finish in the first third of the pack. Oh- they always finish. How about that. Seems so do the other BWC boats. Or just show their transoms like the recent Valiant. Smackies boats finish too but not always. 

Pretty good for a 14 y.o. design and one drawn by a 28 y.o. kid decades ago. 

Baa humbug .

Yes, it's after thankgiving so not to early to say that to Smackie isn't it?

Unfortunately, I think boats at all price points are incorporating features to increase sales but may decrease sea worthiness. Even in the power yacht paradigm you see 60-200' gorgeous power yachts leaving the Med and going to the carribean on the decks of ships because they are unsafe and/or uneconomical to make the passage on their own bottoms. The trade off between cruising pleasures at destination and sea worthiness for an owner who won't be on the boat during passage results in this increasingly common decision. 
So just like there are expedition power yachts and typical mega yachts there will be the same divide in pleasure sailing yachts. Difference is it will extend down to 40-50' sailboats.

Fascinating to me that the sailing mega yachts are cheaper to run under power than under sail. Who would have ever thought that to be true. Wow.


----------



## outbound

Misspoke above forgot about Nordhavn and the like.


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> Fascinating to me that the sailing mega yachts are cheaper to run under power than under sail. Who would have ever thought that to be true. Wow.


?? How does that work?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> However, another very interesting angle of this is that as this scramble happens, these traditional companies that don't have the _experience_ building lighter and more economically (dude to the outmoded demands of yesteryear's BWC) might be making some very big mistakes as they try their hand at it. As this Oyster shows, they are clearly out of their element. Production boats have been doing this a long, long time.
> 
> The conclusion? Maybe production boats are actually becoming the _safest_ boats on the sea. It definitely ain't the Oyster.


Damn, how quickly we've gone from _'Putting big picture windows in hulls is perfectly fine, because a builder like Oyster does it'_, to _'No Oyster should venture beyond the sight of land'_...

;-)


----------



## outbound

Turns out between the cost of the sails and their useful life they are a very big ticket . Then due to continuing need for power to run the boat and maintain the internal environment fuel costs drop less than you would think. Given the small market and strength needed for sailing required gear you have another large expense as things break or wear out. Then add in salaries for all the extra bodies to make the thing sail you have a large additional expense. Under power- captain, a few mates for watches, engineer and cook. Engines are engines so even the large engines in these monsters are routine devices with routine maintenance. I saw a small town on these boats when I watched them at the bucket. So when actually going place to place they are usually under power.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Damn, how quickly we've gone from _'Putting big picture windows in hulls is perfectly fine, because a builder like Oyster does it'_, to _'No Oyster should venture beyond the sight of land'_...
> 
> ;-)


Jon, I know how much you like to remain on the Hamster Wheel of Non-Sequitur Thoughts - but just remember, the big picture windows you don't like didn't sink the Oyster.

The keel fell off the Oyster and took half the boat with it - creating a very different type of big picture window that actually was very non-seaworthy.

So enjoy your wheel - but no points for you.


----------



## RobGallagher

Do we know for a fact that the keel simply fell off?

I don't think we know the entire story and are filling in way too many blanks, assuming way too much.

It was only a matter of time before this became another Hunter bashing thread.


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> So when actually going place to place they are usually under power.


Then what the hell is the point?

If "Mines bigger than yours" is the only reason, they should simply spend the cost of the rig on a longer power boat and be done with it.


----------



## SloopJonB

RobGallagher said:


> Do we know for a fact that the keel simply fell off?
> 
> I don't think we know the entire story and are filling in way too many blanks, assuming way too much.
> 
> It was only a matter of time before this became another Hunter bashing thread.


The quotes from the skipper seem to support the keel simply falling off.

The way it peeled away from the grid supports that view as well. The pics of the keel don't show any severe grounding damage and the skipper says it never happened.


----------



## Bleemus

How did they recover the keel?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## XSrcing

Bleemus said:


> How did they recover the keel?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


From earlier in the thread:



> FACT 7:
> the CEO of Oyster knows exactly this story, he sent two people on site the following day, I told them every single detail of the accident and I gave to them all the pictures and movies that I had and that I still have.
> *The relic of the boat and the keel was rescued in October. This operation was a month-long, I participated to this operation* and I participated also to the survey performed by all the insurance company's surveyors. We are waiting for the response.


----------



## Capt Len

Pretty neat how when the dotted line on one side of the keel/ hull junction failed the big weight continued to peel off the other side of the hull right up to the secondary dotted line hidden in the gelcoat. Doesn't look like a 12 to 1 scarf joint where the added bit was butted into the dadoed hull. I wager that on a 90 footer clobbering a hard thing would hardly be recognizable as a collision as the parts peeled off lickity split.


----------



## hellsop

Faster said:


> Possible parallel here... We see far more Mercedes Benz' on the roads these days - partly due to demographics but also because the price difference between domestic and MB has shrunk and even possibly disappeared on some models. No doubt due to market pressure, but many will say the MB cars are not what they used to be. Are 'high end' boats trending the same way - except in the pricing department?


Nah, cars have gotten better. All of them. Some not better as fast as others, but they're safer (number of miles driven keeps going up, but fatalities keep going down). More reliable (manufacturers that could only offer warranties for three years even a dozen years ago offer 5-8 year warranties now, and you can change the oil every 5000 miles instead of every 2000). More efficient per pound of vehicle (That 35 MPG you remember getting was in a 1200 lb car with an 800cc engine, going down hill from Colorado Springs in July. Now your Golf weighs 2200 lbs empty, has a 1.8l engine and still gets 30 MPH ALL THE TIME. See also "safer" because most of the weight's in airbags, anti-lock brake systems, structural members and crumple zones, except what's now-standard air conditioning so your balls don't turn into the Great Dismal every summer. The Golfs you remember that had AC got 18 MPG.) And as for the longevity of those old cars, remember that they made tens or hundreds of thousands of them, and what you see left represent the top end of the bell curve, where build quality happened to coincide with regular maintenance, and luck avoiding the black ice and drunks of the unanticipated collisions that can fell ANY car regardless how good it is.

Boats aren't comparable. Nobody ever bought a boat with the expectation that it'd last a decade and then you'd junk it and buy a new one because it was worn out. And that's exactly how people bought cars 30-40 years ago, when the boats you're mooning over were themselves built.


----------



## SloopJonB

Well said - remember the twice yearly tune-ups, bias tires that lasted 20K miles at best (spares were *always* used at some point), drum brakes with single pot master cylinders, 100K miles being the normal life of a car, any accident much over 30 MPH involving serious injuries and/or deaths and so on?

Nobody builds a true lemon anymore - even the cheapest cars now are better built than the good ones were 40 years ago.


----------



## aeventyr60

^yep, but at least we could work on the darn things.


----------



## SloopJonB

aeventyr60 said:


> ^yep, but at least we *had to* work on the darn things.


Fixed


----------



## XSrcing

Modern vehicles are still pretty easy to work on. Materials have changed, but all the nuts and bolts still work the same way they did a century ago. Although, you do need to have basic computer knowledge to work on the CANBUS systems.


----------



## Capt Len

Aren 't you belittleing the valuable crossover skills learned by messing with those poorly built wrecks of yesteryear. ?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I know how much you like to remain on the Hamster Wheel of Non-Sequitur Thoughts - but just remember, the big picture windows you don't like didn't sink the Oyster.
> 
> The keel fell off the Oyster and took half the boat with it - creating a very different type of big picture window that actually was very non-seaworthy.
> 
> So enjoy your wheel - but no points for you.


Ahhh, right, what was I thinking? Of course, all reasonable people acknowledge that it's features like _Picture Windows_ where builders like Oyster are applying their superb engineering and construction expertise today, and setting the bar for the rest of the industry... If Oyster is "swiss-cheesing" their hulls with these massive portlights, by your own definition it's being done to such a high standard, that it's perfectly fine for other production brands to be emulating them, no?

In other words, while Oyster apparently still builds a fail-safe hull _ABOVE_ the waterline, once we move _BELOW_ the waterline, it's a whole different ball game, right? And yet, any reasonable person's faith in the ability of those windows to survive a breaking wave strike at sea should remain undaunted, despite the fact that a keel fell off while sailing reefed in 18 knots of breeze, and 1.3 meter seas... Those windows are undoubtedly bulletproof and fit for anything they might encounter at sea, all Oyster has to do know is figure out how to make the keel attachment equally robust...

;-)

But, seems you're being a bit unfair to Oyster here with your Rush to Judgement, and have moved the goalposts once again... After all, shouldn't we wait until the investigation is complete, all of the "The Facts" are in, and we wait until we start seeing _"LOTS"_ more failures of this type, before rendering a final verdict?



smackdaddy said:


> I usually wait for facts. *If we see lots of failures of features/components like this - we know. Otherwise, we don't.*


And, given the huge number of Oysters out there as we speak, shouldn't be be hearing of a huge _"cascade"_ of further failures, virtually any day now?



smackdaddy said:


> Well, then, *we should start seeing the huge cascade of failures and complaints* pouring in in the next week or two. I'll wait....
> 
> ...still waiting...
> 
> ....


OK, so perhaps not a "cascade"... Then How about a _"spate"_ of problems?



smackdaddy said:


> Just like with the Samson post analogy - this questioning of what's being done today can only be answered by the evidence of what's happening to the boats themselves. *The only way that this suspicion of "lighter is worse" is validated, is if we're seeing a spate of failures in these new methods,* not simply a comparison of old and new methods (which is more typical in these forums).


Or, better yet we should wait for a _"rash"_ of them to occur?



smackdaddy said:


> *And until there is a rash of failures/recalls/etc. that exposes those standards as deficient, or certain builders as not up to that standard, *or until there are no production boats out there doing what you don't think they can do because their seacocks are deficient, you're just barking up a tree.


Why have you suddenly lost patience with Oyster? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt, until we see their keel problems become more _"widespread"_ ?



smackdaddy said:


> So, as I've always held, *until we see widespread problems in these production boats* that match the level of hyperbole you guys typically inject (like above) - it's just hyperbole.


And, by virtue of the standard you've consistently applied - that Oysters are among those actually "out there... doing it", why does that alone not make them "good enough", like all the rest?



smackdaddy said:


> So, Jeanneaus, Beneteaus, Hunters, Catalinas, etc. - with appropriate modifications such as those made by Micheal to his Hunter 49 such as watermakers, etc. - they are not only able to do extended voyages and handle pretty severe conditions, they are actually _out there doing it_.
> 
> Are there stronger, better boats? Absolutely. But that's not really the point of this thread. Rated production boats are, for all intents and purposes, definitely good enough.


After all, an _'isolated incident'_ like this doesn't really _"mean much"_ in the big picture, right? These things will happen as the industry moves forward, and builder, like Oyster begin to push the envelope to build "lighter and cheaper" to compete with the rest of the market, no?



smackdaddy said:


> Like I said Maine, *there will always be an example here and there of failures.* You'll find the very same things on older "blue water" boats. It happens. No one is shocked.* But it doesn't really mean much* when the industry at large is moving away from what you guys prefer.


btw, have you been following the stellar progress of the Hunter Passage 42 in the ARC+ ? OK, so they're bringing up the rear, but they are only _a few hundred miles behind_ an Island Packet, a Tayana 37, and a pair of decades-old 35-footers from Albin, and Hallberg-Rassy, among several other smaller boats...

That Modern Production Boat Sailing Performance never ceases to amaze, eh?

;-)


----------



## Bleemus

I was under theimpession that the keel came off and the hull remained afloat so that is why I was curious about the keel recovery. If they both sank near each other it makes more sense. Wonder what depth they retrieved it from. 

I will avoid the banter until we hear a true accounting of the investigation. Not PR spin from the company or useless internet speculation. 

I have hit a whale in the Gulf of Maine on a Santa Cruz 70 doing 14 knots. Trust me in the fact you know it. If the captain of this boat didn't report an impact then it likely didn't hit a thing. The manufacturer will likely spin that side of the story. Don't believe it. 

BTW, THE SC70 suffered no structural damage after a haul out and thorough inspection. A couple of crew had some bruises from crashing into bulkheads etc. when you go from 14 to 0 in a heartbeat. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JimMcGee

RobGallagher said:


> Do we know for a fact that the keel simply fell off?
> 
> I don't think we know the entire story and are filling in way too many blanks, assuming way too much.


Umm, are you forgetting this is SailNet? Wild leaps of logic to shaky conclusions using non-fact based assumptions are what we do !


----------



## JimMcGee

smackdaddy said:


> Jon, I know how much you like to remain on the Hamster Wheel of Non-Sequitur Thoughts...


Quick, somebody give Smack the heimlich he swallowed a thesaurus !


----------



## outbound

Wow bleemus
Is there more to that story. Amazed the rig didn't come down.


----------



## Bleemus

Nope. Nothing more to the story. Sorry. Trimmed the sheets and carried on. Felt bad for the whale as I am sure he or she had a bad headache. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, right, what was I thinking? Of course, all reasonable people acknowledge that it's features like _Picture Windows_ where builders like Oyster are applying their superb engineering and construction expertise today, and setting the bar for the rest of the industry... If Oyster is "swiss-cheesing" their hulls with these massive portlights, by your own definition it's being done to such a high standard, that it's perfectly fine for other production brands to be emulating them, no?


Like I said...










See, you really don't even understand the argument. You have it precisely backwards - as usual. Many production boats have had hull lights for a while. You've been pointing them out forever as something completely unseaworthy. Something no _real_ BWC boat would have.

Then Oyster comes along with the Swiss-cheese, along with Swan, and Hinckley, etc.

So, obviously the BWC brands are actually emulating the production boats (contrary to your ideas of seaworthiness), but as we just saw with the Oyster, they're not very good at it yet. Not nearly as good at it as the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas.



JonEisberg said:


> In other words, while Oyster apparently still builds a fail-safe hull _ABOVE_ the waterline, once we move _BELOW_ the waterline, it's a whole different ball game, right? And yet, any reasonable person's faith in the ability of those windows to survive a breaking wave strike at sea should remain undaunted, despite the fact that a keel fell off while sailing reefed in 18 knots of breeze, and 1.3 meter seas... Those windows are undoubtedly bulletproof and fit for anything they might encounter at sea, all Oyster has to do know is figure out how to make the keel attachment equally robust...[/IMG]


I have no problems with the hull lights. Never have. _You do._ So, again, you have it backwards...as usual.

As far as the keel, yes, Oyster obviously needs to figure that one out. It appears that, unlike _Cheeki Rafiki_, there was no grounding damage (according to the skipper). So, if that's the case, then yes, this is much, much worse.



JonEisberg said:


> But, seems you're being a bit unfair to Oyster here with your Rush to Judgement, and have moved the goalposts once again... After all, shouldn't we wait until the investigation is complete, all of the "The Facts" are in, and we wait until we start seeing _"LOTS"_ more failures of this type, before rendering a final verdict?


Of course we should wait until more facts are in before condemning all Oysters. I'm not condemning all Oysters. Of course, that's never stopped you for condemning and mocking wide swaths of prodcution boats and sailors for all kinds of things from hull lights to cockpit enclosures to anchor rollers you don't like, whatever - but I usually wait for facts (see my many quotes you're rightly collecting). If we see lots of failures of features/components like this on Oysters - we know. Otherwise, we don't.

But with a failure this catastrophic and other boats with apparently similar design and build specs there is definitely reason for concern.

So, as I've always held, until we see widespread problems in Oysters that match the level of hyperbole you guys typically inject for production boats - it's just hyperbole. And that's your shtick - not mine.



JonEisberg said:


> And, given the huge number of Oysters out there as we speak, shouldn't be be hearing of a huge _"cascade"_ of further failures, virtually any day now?





JonEisberg said:


> OK, so perhaps not a "cascade"... Then How about a _"spate"_ of problems?





JonEisberg said:


> Or, better yet we should wait for a _"rash"_ of them to occur?


Cascade, spate, rash, pick a word. The answer is yes, we should wait for more of these type failures before condemning Oyster as a brand.

But you need to be a bit more precise, how many of those Oysters have this similar structure and build (e.g. - the other 80'ers)? If this was the root of the problem, yeah we should likely see similar failures, or recalls and repairs, or whatever. But until that happens, I'm happy to consider this a single incident and not condemn the brand or all BWC boats. Could you say the same about your view of production boats? Of course not.



JonEisberg said:


> Why have you suddenly lost patience with Oyster? Why not give them the benefit of the doubt, until we see their keel problems become more _"widespread"_ ?


I don't really care about Oyster. I've never thought they were all that anyway. I wouldn't own one. But you blue water dudes have been crazy about them - talking about how superior they are to production boats. And now we know that as they are migrating to these newer techniques that the production boat manufactures have dialed in pretty well - they have definitely gotten a couple of things wrong. So, again, even before this, I wouldn't own an Oyster. Not worth it to me. And now, absolutely no way. I think production boats are better overall.



JonEisberg said:


> And, by virtue of the standard you've consistently applied - that Oysters are among those actually "out there... doing it", why does that alone not make them "good enough", like all the rest?


Well, the keel fell off this particular boat. So it definitely wasn't "good enough". Others with similar build and structure would definitely be under a cloud because of this incident...for good reason. But other older, smaller Oysters are out there doing it and I'm fine with that. In general they are as good as production boats in this regard. No argument there. Oyster just needs to really learn a bit more about these new design and building techniques for these bigger boats to take it to the next level like the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas. I have confidence that they can do it with time and practice.



JonEisberg said:


> After all, an _'isolated incident'_ like this doesn't really _"mean much"_ in the big picture, right? These things will happen as the industry moves forward, and builder, like Oyster begin to push the envelope to build "lighter and cheaper" to compete with the rest of the market, no?


It just means Oyster is really no different than BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas. That's been my point for a long time now. Well, except that when you look at the failure ratios, the latter is doing a much better job than Oyster of building boats that don't fall apart and sink. Again, I'm sure Oyster will catch up.



JonEisberg said:


> btw, have you been following the stellar progress of the Hunter Passage 42 in the ARC+ ? OK, so they're bringing up the rear, but they are only _a few hundred miles behind_ an Island Packet, a Tayana 37, and a pair of decades-old 35-footers from Albin, and Hallberg-Rassy, among several other smaller boats...
> 
> That Modern Production Boat Sailing Performance never ceases to amaze, eh?


There are boats, and there are sailors. It's very seldom the boat's fault if it doesn't perform well. So this kind of thing doesn't bother me a bit. Why do you think it would?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Like I said...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, you really don't even understand the argument. You have it precisely backwards - as usual. Many production boats have had hull lights for a while. You've been pointing them out forever as something completely unseaworthy. Something no _real_ BWC boat would have.
> 
> Then Oyster comes along with the Swiss-cheese, along with Swan, and Hinckley, etc.
> 
> So, obviously the BWC brands are actually emulating the production boats (contrary to your ideas of seaworthiness), but as we just saw with the Oyster, they're not very good at it yet. Not nearly as good at it as the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas.


LOL! Well, based on what I've seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, Oyster's days are likely numbered if they need to start building their picture windows to match the standard set by Bavaria, among others...

;-)












smackdaddy said:


> I don't really care about Oyster. I've never thought they were all that anyway. I wouldn't own one. *But you blue water dudes have been crazy about them - talking about how superior they are to production boats.*


Wrong again... From post # 9 of this thread:



JonEisberg said:


> I've always viewed Oyster as more of a Marketing Company, than a boatbuilder... Lots of different people actually build the boats that become 'branded' an Oyster, different models have come from all over the world, from Great Britain, to New Zealand, to Turkey... I've seen a sales rep at a boat show do a bit of tap dancing, when asked about the possibility of visiting the "Oyster factory"...
> 
> So, seems to me some circling of the wagons is going on, and these marketeers might be doing their job quite effectively, for the time being, 'cause there sure seems to have been a lid put on this story ;-)
> 
> Fatty Goodlander has a pretty amusing take on the whole Oyster phenomenon, and their marketing success story...
> 
> Rallying For and Against Rallies - ALL AT SEA


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Wrong again... From post # 9 of this thread:


Look, maybe you yourself haven't loved them up like some of your compadres (especially Keno) - but the BWC has generally loved them up. No doubt. And you do wear the colors. You must admit.

So, guilt by association works fine for me.

PS - I've seen that photo of yours now a million times. It's horrible photoshopping.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> PS - I've seen that photo of yours now a million times. It's horrible photoshopping.


You've got that right, I don't do Photoshop...

Initially, I thought it best to try not to reveal the "brand" of boat being pictured... But some figured it out pretty quickly, so now it doesn't matter...

;-)


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> btw, have you been following the stellar progress of the Hunter Passage 42 in the ARC+ ? OK, so they're bringing up the rear, but they are only _a few hundred miles behind_ an Island Packet, a Tayana 37, and a pair of decades-old 35-footers from Albin, and Hallberg-Rassy, among several other smaller boats...
> 
> That Modern Production Boat Sailing Performance never ceases to amaze, eh?
> 
> ;-)


While we are talking ARC + I would note that an Oyster 575 is currently in 7th place trailing only a X612, a Swan 651, a Fountain Pajot 67, a Shipman 63 and 2 Catana 472s. So it is essentially the third fastest mono.

So far their keel appears to be well behaved.


----------



## bob77903

chall03 said:


> While we are talking ARC + I would note that an Oyster 575 is currently in 7th place trailing only a X612, a Swan 651, a Fountain Pajot 67, a Shipman 63 and 2 Catana 472s. So it is essentially the third fastest mono.
> 
> So far their keel appears to be well behaved.


Why do people even equate rally's with a race. If all the boats had equal racing crews, the results would probably be totally different. How can one use mom and pop crewed boats as an example of anything?


----------



## RobGallagher

bob77903 said:


> Why do people even equate rally's with a race. If all the boats had equal racing crews, the results would probably be totally different. How can one use mom and pop crewed boats as an example of anything?


Exactly.

And millionaire budgets vs. billionaire/corporation budgets. "Race" boats probably spend more on paid crew and expenses in a year than the top three boats combined hull value.

They, in no way, show what boat design is faster, or safer, or stronger.

Not to flame anyone, hell, it's got to be loads of fun and way more adventurous than me going to work today. But these are amature rallies. And that is why they race Catalina and Hanse or Oyster.

Big deal, it's a million dollar boat, bored people with serious money will blow more than that in a half hour playing blackjack, on any given night, in every major casino all over the world. They usually are also boat owners, either a mega yacht or serious sailboat, or both, with serious crews. They also own gulfstars with crews, now that is a serious toy. (and few are in the music business or athletes, that's small money)


----------



## JonEisberg

RobGallagher said:


> Originally Posted by bob77903
> 
> Why do people even equate rally's with a race. If all the boats had equal racing crews, the results would probably be totally different. How can one use mom and pop crewed boats as an example of anything?
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> And millionaire budgets vs. billionaire/corporation budgets. "Race" boats probably spend more on paid crew and expenses in a year than the top three boats combined hull value.
> 
> They, in no way, show what boat design is faster, or safer, or stronger.
> 
> Not to flame anyone, hell, it's got to be loads of fun and way more adventurous than me going to work today. But these are amature rallies. And that is why they race Catalina and Hanse or Oyster.
> 
> Big deal, it's a million dollar boat, bored people with serious money will blow more than that in a half hour playing blackjack, on any given night, in every major casino all over the world. They usually are also boat owners, either a mega yacht or serious sailboat, or both, with serious crews. They also own gulfstars with crews, now that is a serious toy. (and few are in the music business or athletes, that's small money)
Click to expand...

I doubt any of the large monohulls mentioned near the front of the pack are being sailed by anything remotely close to 'Mom & Pop' crews... ;-)

And, I think you guys are greatly underestimating how seriously the 'racing' is taken by the large yachts in the ARC.. That event has become a major factor in the marketing of certain brands over the years, Oyster certainly comes to mind, and you can bet anything that a builder of a high performance boat like Shipman will 'assist' in any way they can, to see their boat do well... I would be very surprised if there was not at least a few paid pros aboard that boat for the trip...










In short, the ARC is a serious business for most of the larger performance yachts participating nowadays, and bears little resemblance to a rally like the Caribbean 1500... Many of these boats are being moved from the Med to the Caribbean for the change in charter seasons, so already have a full paid crew aboard... In addition, many ARC boats are selling slots for the passage at something like $10-15K per berth, so very few are being sailed shorthanded, or not pretty close to their full potential... These kinds of entries are not likely being sailed by owners, and crewed by family and friends along for the ride. Plenty of the larger yachts are making some serious money doing the ARC year after year, and as a consequence consistently good results can pay off in the long run, and command a higher price for those who are willing to pay handsomely to be able to say they sailed across the Atlantic on a "Winning Boat"...


----------



## bob77903

JonEisberg said:


> btw, have you been following the stellar progress of the Hunter Passage 42 in the ARC+ ? OK, so they're bringing up the rear, but they are only _a few hundred miles behind_ an Island Packet, a Tayana 37, and a pair of decades-old 35-footers from Albin, and Hallberg-Rassy, among several other smaller boats...
> 
> That Modern Production Boat Sailing Performance never ceases to amaze, eh?
> 
> ;-)


There might be some serious racers on the big boy boats, but I doubt the ones you spoke of above are professionally crewed, or even close to it, so mom and pop might fit. Put pro's in the Hunter 42 and in the full keeled boats mentioned and see what the outcome is head to head, was all I was stating Jon.


----------



## JonEisberg

bob77903 said:


> There might be some serious racers on the big boy boats, but I doubt the ones you spoke of above are professionally crewed, or even close to it, so mom and pop might fit. Put pro's in the Hunter 42 and in the full keeled boats mentioned and see what the outcome is head to head, was all I was stating Jon.


Ahhh, OK, I had assumed your post was in response to Chall's mention of the larger yachts, which immediately preceded it... ;-)

However, I still think there can be some valuable real world perspective to be gleaned from the results from rallies. After all, many of these boats are being sailed in the manner in which many of their owners typically use them: i.e., being sailed by a couple, or shorthanded, on a passage with similar boats, being sailed in a similar fashion... So, I think many of those comparisons can actually prove to be quite useful...

Sure, most of these boats are not being _RACED_, or necessarily sailed to their maximum potential. But still, from what I saw recently among the participants in this year's 1500, there wasn't anybody who wasn't trying - within reason - to get the passage over with as quickly as possible... This was evidenced by, among other things, how quickly engines were fired up when things started to get light, or people determined they had sufficient fuel remaining to make it into the barn... ;-)

I believe one of the largest fallacies about many "Performance Cruisers" today, is how challenging or tiring they can be to sail on a longer passage, by the sort of shorthanded crews who typically go off distance voyaging... So, in that regard, I think many of these rally results, with one Mom & Pop team "racing" against another, can ultimately be quite instructive, as to the comparative performance of such boats as they are actually being sailed by most of their owners out there in the Real World...

;-)

As an aside, one of the most interesting aspects of the 1500, was the twice-daily SSB net and check-in... The mood on board other boats generally came thru loud and clear, after a day or two, it wasn't hard to tell who was having fun, and who wasn't, who was relatively comfortable and rested, and who was struggling a bit...

When the going got a bit snotty further on down the rhumb line, and the fleet began to see more confused seas and wavetrains from different directions, the folks on multihulls generally seemed to be having the worst of it... A few of those crews did not sound like happy campers, at all...

;-)


----------



## outbound

My slant maybe different then Jons. I don't know. But having done this with and without pro captain I think it may be.

My first goal is to keep the water out.
Second is to end with everyone we started with and all healthy, happy campers.
Third is to break nothing on the way. It's hard and expensive to fix stuff in a foreign country. Especially when you don't know the ropes.
Fourth is to get good performance out of the boat but ONLY when it doesn't conflict with the goals listed above.

I have no problem hoving to to go swimming or have a nice dinner with everyone on board if conditions allow. Or falling off a bit to improve the ride. Or reefing down regardless of weather before night fall. Or power sailing when the wind drops.

In short I'm a cruiser not a racer. I think of my boat as a home not a machine to work to its max. Totally different mindset. You don't trash your home.

What I do repetitively notice is seakindly boats inspire confidence and decrease fatigue so a days work is often bigger and ultimately faster than the racer cruisers types. This is true be it small like a BCC 28 or PSC 34, medium like a V42 or O46 or large like a Hylas 54 or big HR.

In judging a cruising boat I'm interested in how the crew feels after a week or more. It's a different problem than even a Halifax or Bermuda race. So needs a different solution.

Smack may feel differently. Sure I can take a Cadillac down a muddy rock filled road but a jeep maybe a better choice. It's not solely about expense or even size. It's about whether that boat was concieved and optimized for that purpose.


----------



## chall03

bob77903 said:


> Why do people even equate rally's with a race. If all the boats had equal racing crews, the results would probably be totally different. How can one use mom and pop crewed boats as an example of anything?


I don't believe I was actually equating much at all. Just making an observation pertinent to some of the drivel being expounded in this and other threads.

FWIW though the ARC is increasingly more race and less rally, especially at the pointy end.

Do you actually believe that the Oyster is a mom and pop boat? Or that the carbon fibre Shipman 63 is being cruised two up by Bob and Betty from Cruiserville Florida ?

Why do you think boats like that enter the ARC?

I personally know three professional racing sailors who have been flown from Australia to Europe by owners to do the ARC. Those guys don't know how not to race...


----------



## outbound

I was told once more Tayana37s have gone more places and done more circumnavigations the any other sailboat. Not a Swan, not a Hinckley. This was a long running production boat. Smacks emphasis is just plain wrong. Emphasis should be like F.Mate orDesirable and Undesriable....


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Ahhh, OK, I had assumed your post was in response to Chall's mention of the larger yachts, which immediately preceded it... ;-)
> 
> However, I still think there can be some valuable real world perspective to be gleaned from the results from rallies. After all, many of these boats are being sailed in the manner in which many of their owners typically use them: i.e., being sailed by a couple, or shorthanded, on a passage with similar boats, being sailed in a similar fashion... So, I think many of those comparisons can actually prove to be quite useful...


Wait - haven't I (and PCP) made this point repeatedly regarding production boats that are out there doing it - only to get a cavalcade of excuses (from you and many others) as to why such real world examples don't really matter?

At least you're finally coming around to what I've been saying all along. Congrats. And you're welcome.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack may feel differently. Sure I can take a Cadillac down a muddy rock filled road but a jeep maybe a better choice. It's not solely about expense or even size. It's about whether that boat was concieved and optimized for that purpose.


I don't feel differently at all. Modern production boats are perfectly fit for blue water.


----------



## SloopJonB

smackdaddy said:


> I don't feel differently at all. *Some *Modern production boats are perfectly fit for blue water.


Fixed. :wink


----------



## eko_eko

smackdaddy said:


> I don't feel differently at all. Modern production boats are perfectly fit for blue water.


I love a good car analogy.

I've taken an Olds Delta 88, a Camry, a Malibu, and all manner of other vehicles down very rough unpaved roads. The best, and nowhere near the most expensive, vehicle I've used for the job was a Jeep.

At any given time there were all sorts of cars "out there" and "doing it" but the only one still operating within design parameters after a while was that Jeep.


----------



## chall03

smackdaddy said:


> I don't feel differently at all. *Some *Modern production boats are fit for *trade wind sailing* *in season* and *crossing the Atlantic with crew, 10k of safety gear, an Iridium sat phone, radio sheds, weather routing and 200 buddy boats*


Fixed it more


----------



## smackdaddy

eko_eko said:


> I love a good car analogy.
> 
> I've taken an Olds Delta 88, a Camry, a Malibu, and all manner of other vehicles down very rough unpaved roads. The best, and nowhere near the most expensive, vehicle I've used for the job was a Jeep.
> 
> At any given time there were all sorts of cars "out there" and "doing it" but the only one still operating within design parameters after a while was that Jeep.


Exactly. Modern production boats are the Jeeps. You can go ahead and buy a Range Rover or a Cayenne if you want - but why the hell would you?


----------



## eko_eko

smackdaddy said:


> Exactly. Modern production boats are the Jeeps. You can go ahead and buy a Range Rover or a Cayenne if you want - but why the hell would you?


I don't think it's that simple. Sure we know some builders make (almost) nothing but Range Rovers. The generalizations sort of hold there.

I think most production builders make a range of models. Cobalts to Corvettes to Suburbans, with a history of Chevettes and Vegas in there too. Specific models produced at specific times may be suited to specific purposes. Others, not so much.

Since only the high-end builders build nothing but "high end" (note quotes) boats, some may come to think that they are the only ones doing so. On the other hand, I'll bet there have been a larger number of less than great models built by the other builders. Generalizations don't cut it.


----------



## smackdaddy

eko_eko said:


> I don't think it's that simple. Sure we know some builders make (almost) nothing but Range Rovers. The generalizations sort of hold there.
> 
> I think most production builders make a range of models. Cobalts to Corvettes to Suburbans, with a history of Chevettes and Vegas in there too. Specific models produced at specific times may be suited to specific purposes. Others, not so much.
> 
> Since only the high-end builders build nothing but "high end" (note quotes) boats, some may come to think that they are the only ones doing so. On the other hand, I'll bet there have been a larger number of less than great models built by the other builders. Generalizations don't cut it.


Okay. You can make it as complex as you'd like. I'm just saying CE Cat A rated production boats are perfectly fit for blue water. If you'd rather have a Chevette or a Pinto - do it. I don't care.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> I'm just saying CE Cat A rated production boats are perfectly fit for blue water.


Like Oysters?

(for a moment I thought you had gotten over your blind faith in the infinite wisdom of European bureaucrats)


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Like Oysters?
> 
> (for a moment I thought you had gotten over your blind faith in the infinite wisdom of European bureaucrats)


You and your government thing again. That's really weird.

Like I've always said, a CE Cat A boat is capable until it proves it isn't. Hopefully Oyster can catch back up to Hunter in the public eye in this regard.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> You and your government thing again. That's really weird.


Yes, your government thing really IS weird, that's why I pointed it out. I am glad you are seeing at least that!



smackdaddy said:


> Like I've always said, a CE Cat A boat is capable until it proves it isn't.


Indeed, a piece of deep wisdom: "A CE Cat A boat is capable until it sinks."

Of course the exact same claim would be correct for a turd.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Yes, your government thing really IS weird, that's why I pointed it out. I am glad you are seeing at least that!


I'm terribly sorry, but the "I know you are but what am I?" tactic doesn't work in a real debate.










So you first have to explain your tinfoil fear of "government" before pushing it off on me.

We'll wait...

And straighten your collar. It's sloppy.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Indeed, a piece of deep wisdom: "A CE Cat A boat is capable until it sinks."
> 
> Of course the exact same claim would be correct for a turd.


You'd be surprised at the resiliency of some turds. I'm sure there has even been "A Big Turd Abandoned Off Spain" after a festive paella. But I'm pretty sure none of them has shown up on the CE Cat A listings.

What do you sail again?


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> So you first have to explain your tinfoil fear of "government" before pushing it off on me.
> 
> We'll wait...


What 'fear of government?" And who is 'we?'

It is you who believes that if some pencilpusher invents a nice-sounding label, it has to mean something. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. To find out which one it is, listen to people that actually know something about sailing.



smackdaddy said:


> And straighten your collar. It's sloppy.


Collar????



smackdaddy said:


> You'd be surprised at the resiliency of some turds. I'm sure there has even been "A Big Turd Abandoned Off Spain". But I'm pretty sure none of them has shown up on the CE Cat A listings.
> 
> What do you sail again?


More wonderful smack tactics. Divert from the question.

See, you said you are trying to debate. The topic is this: You ranted and raved that every boat that is 'A rated' is capable of crossing oceans. Your evidence was that this must be true since otherwise we would be hearing from failures.

Well, we heard from quite a few catastrophic failures. Now you say that a "Cat A boat is capable until it proves it isn't."

Are you able to see that this is a statement entirely devoid of meaning? I tried to show this by demonstrating that the statement is just as valid for a turd as for a boat.

If this were a debate, you would try to find an argument but instead you write some drivel about imaginary threads on the internet.

See why what you are doing is not a debate?


----------



## smackdaddy

That's what I thought Mast. Carry on.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> That's what I thought Mast. Carry on.


Do you see now that what you are doing is NOT a debate?


----------



## RobGallagher

Another perfectly good thread ruined by sailnet's village idjit.


----------



## smackdaddy

RobGallagher said:


> Another perfectly good thread ruined by sailnet's village idjit.


C'mon! You take it too far, Rob. That kind of name-calling is completely out of line. Mast is perfectly capable at most things, and is certainly no "idjit".

Now, wasn't this thread about a blue water Oyster whose keel fell off and it sunk?


----------



## RobGallagher

JonEisberg said:


> I doubt any of the large monohulls mentioned near the front of the pack are being sailed by anything remotely close to 'Mom & Pop' crews... ;-)
> 
> And, I think you guys are greatly underestimating how seriously the 'racing' is taken by the large yachts in the ARC.. That event has become a major factor in the marketing of certain brands over the years, Oyster certainly comes to mind, and you can bet anything that a builder of a high performance boat like Shipman will 'assist' in any way they can, to see their boat do well... I would be very surprised if there was not at least a few paid pros aboard that boat for the trip...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, the ARC is a serious business for most of the larger performance yachts participating nowadays, and bears little resemblance to a rally like the Caribbean 1500... Many of these boats are being moved from the Med to the Caribbean for the change in charter seasons, so already have a full paid crew aboard... In addition, many ARC boats are selling slots for the passage at something like $10-15K per berth, so very few are being sailed shorthanded, or not pretty close to their full potential... These kinds of entries are not likely being sailed by owners, and crewed by family and friends along for the ride. Plenty of the larger yachts are making some serious money doing the ARC year after year, and as a consequence consistently good results can pay off in the long run, and command a higher price for those who are willing to pay handsomely to be able to say they sailed across the Atlantic on a "Winning Boat"...


I'm not saying these guys are not serious about the race. Not at all. I'm not saying that they don't get thrown some marketing budget bones from manufacturers.

But you don't throw $10K at Toyota and get to change tires at the Indy 500.


----------



## RobGallagher

smackdaddy said:


> C'mon! You take it too far, Rob. That kind of name-calling is completely out of line. Mast is perfectly capable at most things, and is certainly no "idjit".
> 
> Now, wasn't this thread about a blue water Oyster whose keel fell off and it sunk?


It was until you came along.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

RobGallagher said:


> It was until you came along.


Indeed.

I don't really know what his problem is. Like a 9-year old who has to butt into EVERY discussion among adults and ruin any intelligent discours.


----------



## outbound

smackdaddy said:


> Modern production boats are perfectly fit for blue water.


As every one but you has been saying.

There are SOME modern production boats that are perfectly fit for blue water.

There are also some modern production boats, old production boats, modern one offs, and old one offs that are not perfectly fit for blue water sailing.

Problem solved. Now please go away or stifle yourself and not inflict us with your matra so others can understand what can be learned from this event.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Wait - haven't I (and PCP) made this point repeatedly regarding production boats that are out there doing it - only to get a cavalcade of excuses (from you and many others) as to why such real world examples don't really matter?
> 
> At least you're finally coming around to what I've been saying all along. Congrats. And you're welcome.


Hmmm, if there is indeed a "cavalcade" of such claims, perhaps you can provide one as an example? Of course there are many production boats "out there", no one's denying that, I simply think there are often better choices for sailing offshore, and many of these boats possess less than desirable "characteristics" for sailing offshore... _IN MY OPINION..._

However, to use a recent "Real World Example", what would you make of the following, given your often stated preference for the "Faster" sailing performance your Hunter and many other modern production boats supposedly afford?

Bob P's 40 year old Valiant remains the sort of preference of some Old Scared Dudes/Bluewater Chuckleheads even today... So, how come it still beat a Hunter with 5' more LWL to Tortola fair and square, despite their having motored a full half day more enroute? Or, why did a Beneteau 423 arrive almost a full 3 days later, corrected to 5.5 days after their engine hours were factored in? Finally, how is it that one of the newest production boats in the rally, is the one that had to retire and divert to Bermuda with a rudder failure?

Or, are these just the sort of Real World Examples that "don't _really _ matter"?

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> See, you really don't even understand the argument. You have it precisely backwards - as usual. Many production boats have had hull lights for a while. You've been pointing them out forever as something completely unseaworthy. Something no _real_ BWC boat would have.
> 
> Then Oyster comes along with the Swiss-cheese, along with Swan, and Hinckley, etc.
> 
> So, obviously the BWC brands are actually emulating the production boats (contrary to your ideas of seaworthiness), *but as we just saw with the Oyster, they're not very good at it yet. Not nearly as good at it as the BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas.*


You don't even have a clue how wrong you are about that... ;-)

Last night, a brand new Oyster 575 similar to this pulled into the dock right behind me... Naturally, I gave it a close look this morning...










Though I still don't like the idea of them, I've got to admit the engineering of those hull ports looks pretty stout... To my eye, they are _far superior_ to those I've seen on boats like that Bavaria, in that the glass surface is pretty deeply recessed from the hull, appears to be an inch, at least... Not sure how much difference that could make in a wave strike, but certainly if the hull itself were to be making contact with something like a dock or a seawall, it would be a far better arrangement than the flush mounting of the windows on the bavaria, or a big Hanse I saw on the hard here yesterday...

So, based upon my own observation in comparing the two, the notion that Bavaria needs to be showing the folks at Oyster how to install picture windows in their hulls is truly laughable...

Also noticed on the Hanse yesterday, the rudder appears to be actually _DEEPER_ than the keel... Hard to tell, the boat may have been blocked at a very slight incline, but it was definitely closer to the ground, and at a minimum at least as deep as the keel...

Of course, we will have to await the documented reports of numerous rudder losses due to groundings of these boats, before it's fair to venture an opinion as to whether this is either a good, or bad, boatbuilding practice...

;-)


----------



## Capt Len

If I may bring our attention back to the topic, I find it odd that the collective wisdom has not focused more on the horizontal and vertical dotted lines on the hull of the Oyster and the distortion on the separated keel. If I were going to lengthen a glass hull I'd start with vertical cuts down from the gunnel and then horizontal for '8 feet' and then down to the 'keelson' Pull the ends apart and fill in the blanks with panels made in the original mould.Butt glue the edges and bondo the joint for the effect seen in the photo. Hitting some 'submerged object' would easily overcome any tendency for the hull to stay together at the joint and the crumple zone effect absorbs the impact so nobody shouts 'Golly, we hit something' Only guessing here, but I suspect that somebody goofed in the shop.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Hmmm, if there is indeed a "cavalcade" of such claims, perhaps you can provide one as an example? Of course there are many production boats "out there", no one's denying that, I simply think there are often better choices for sailing offshore, and many of these boats possess less than desirable "characteristics" for sailing offshore... _IN MY OPINION..._
> 
> However, to use a recent "Real World Example", what would you make of the following, given your often stated preference for the "Faster" sailing performance your Hunter and many other modern production boats supposedly afford?
> 
> Bob P's 40 year old Valiant remains the sort of preference of some Old Scared Dudes/Bluewater Chuckleheads even today... So, how come it still beat a Hunter with 5' more LWL to Tortola fair and square, despite their having motored a full half day more enroute? Or, why did a Beneteau 423 arrive almost a full 3 days later, corrected to 5.5 days after their engine hours were factored in? Finally, how is it that one of the newest production boats in the rally, is the one that had to retire and divert to Bermuda with a rudder failure?
> 
> Or, are these just the sort of Real World Examples that "don't _really _ matter"?
> 
> ;-)


I've already answered that. There are boats and there are sailors. Put a newb on an Open 60 for an offshore race - or an inexperienced young girl on an Open 40 for a circ. Would you blame the boat if it came in last in the race or was rolled in the Southern Ocean on the circ?

This is really not that hard Jon.

As for the hull lights, I'm glad you're finally coming around. I've told you so for quite a while now. And did you measure the amount of recess on the Bavaria? Here's the 46:




























Looks to be about an inch.

And if you take the time to zoom into that image of yours, those lights aren't "flush mounted" either. They are recessed as well - just like the Oyster (or vice versa) - despite all your seagoing experience. See the lip?


----------



## SloopJonB

Capt Len said:


> If I were going to lengthen a glass hull I'd start with vertical cuts down from the gunnel and then horizontal for '8 feet' and then down to the 'keelson' Pull the ends apart and fill in the blanks with panels made in the original mould.Butt glue the edges and bondo the joint for the effect seen in the photo.


They didn't cut the boat in 1/2, they merely raked the transom back from the original retrousee and maybe extended it some. The original "hull" remained unchanged.

I can't see how the lengthening was the root cause of this failure - I've seen that same process used on boats from 30' on up with no ill effects.


----------



## Capt Len

Gee, I thought my scenario addressed the facts seen in the photos. I know that when you crush a Macgregor with a backhoe you don't get straight edged pieces And the winged keel bent it's nose on impact with the bottom after falling off ?.Maybe something to do with good structural design and quality built?


----------



## hellsop

aeventyr60 said:


> ^yep, but at least we could work on the darn things.


You can work on those modern cars now. Changing oil's no different except you only need to do it about a third as often. Sparkplugs and wires aren't any different except you don't have to be nearly as fussy about gapping the things exactly right and they only need looking at every 40-50k miles anyway. Computer takes care of getting the right spark there. There's no distributor or rotor to worry about; computer does that too, and more finely that any distributor ever made. No carb to clean or adjust or rebuild. No valve timing to adjust either; computer does that too. Brakes aren't much different, at least from the consumables end. Tires only differ in that there's sometimes pressure monitors to account for, but dealing with that is a matter of buying an $85 gizmo rather than anything actually HARD. Are there things that shade-tree mechanics can't tweak anymore? Sure. And there's a lot of parts that need to have special exclusive replacements, but the lack of customization and tweaking represents things that have been already engineered to keep themselved at the right place automatically, just like cars don't have manual chokes and fuel mix controls anymore. Basically anything that you could maintain before and can't now represents a thing where monkeying with it puts something at risk:


safety
legal compliance
some balance of max efficiency and reliability

and you don't really WANT to mess with those things. Do you want to adjust a thing that save you $100 in gas per year at a cost of burning up the valves five years sooner? No, you're not a moron. Engineers took care of doing the design, accountants found the lowest cost of ownership (which makes this company's cars better values than competitors for the cost of "doing some maths": that's a win for everybody).


----------



## hellsop

smackdaddy said:


> It just means Oyster is really no different than BeneJeneBavaHunterLinas. That's been my point for a long time now. Well, except that when you look at the failure ratios, the latter is doing a much better job than Oyster of building boats that don't fall apart and sink. Again, I'm sure Oyster will catch up.


More boats built and the numbers should go down. Build a hundred boats and have the keel fail on one or window fail to seal, and you've got a 1% failure rate. Build thousand boats and have something happen even as many as five of them and you're still twice as good as the other guy, even if you have five times the PR problems. But that's what they are: PR problems.


----------



## hellsop

chall03 said:


> While we are talking ARC + I would note that an Oyster 575 is currently in 7th place trailing only a X612, a Swan 651, a Fountain Pajot 67, a Shipman 63 and 2 Catana 472s. So it is essentially the third fastest mono.
> 
> So far their keel appears to be well behaved.


We also learn that if you wanna go fast, buy a cat. :laugh


----------



## aeventyr60

Somehow, messing about with those stromburg carbs was fun. Lucas electrical, a real joy. My Perkins just about the same. What kind of joy could you get owning a modern production clorox bottle anyway? About the same as owning a ford Taurus...


----------



## hellsop

aeventyr60 said:


> Somehow, messing about with those stromburg carbs was fun. Lucas electrical, a real joy. My Perkins just about the same. What kind of joy could you get owning a modern production clorox bottle anyway? About the same as owning a ford Taurus...


It depends on how you get your joy, I guess. What's more fun? Sailing or carpentry?


----------



## chall03

hellsop said:


> We also learn that if you wanna go fast, buy a cat. :laugh


Well buy a BIG cat, that's not a lagoon


----------



## hellsop

outbound said:


> I was told once more Tayana37s have gone more places and done more circumnavigations the any other sailboat. Not a Swan, not a Hinckley. This was a long running production boat. Smacks emphasis is just plain wrong. Emphasis should be like F.Mate orDesirable and Undesriable....


"Gone more places" is subject to a lot of interpretation, but the other part is more researchable: Latitude 38 - West Coast Circumnavigators' List

Know what I see on that list? A veritable flotilla of Cals in the 35'-42' range. Followed by a fair lot of Tayanas 37s and Westsails in the low 30s.


----------



## JimMcGee

Just curious, have any FACTS come out of the investigation yet?

It would be interesting to see the engineer's conclusions on what failed.


----------



## Bleemus

JimMcGee said:


> Just curious, have any FACTS come out of the investigation yet?
> 
> It would be interesting to see the engineer's conclusions on what failed.


I await this too. I suspect it has already been done to be honest. If it is bad for Oyster you can imagine their PR Dept. will attempt to bury it. Time will tell.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

JimMcGee said:


> Just curious, have any FACTS come out of the investigation yet?
> 
> It would be interesting to see the engineer's conclusions on what failed.


Well, quite a bit is known, actually... At least, if you can believe what the skipper has said, and what you can see with your own eyes...

;-)

OK, anyone around here speak Russian?

More incredible pics to be found here:

??????. ?? ???.

Yup, sure looks like a capsize, to me... Amazing everyone got off safely, exemplary work by the skipper and all others, one can only assume...










Finally, some sense of the structure employed... Guess that single aft keelbolt extending up through the floors wasn't quite up to the job, eh? Oh well, at least we can rest assured Oysters get the engineering of their picture windows right, one of those ain't _NEVER_ gonna fail...

;-)










Perhaps not the best example of fully wetted-out GRP I've ever seen...










Damn, my 45 year old 30' Allied is thicker that this below the waterline... But that was back before they _fully understood_ how strong GRP could be, of course...

;-)


----------



## Bleemus

The interesting part of that series of photos to me is the cutting into the bow revealing what appears to be some crude trimming ballast. Seems like someone miscalculated something. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JonEisberg

Bleemus said:


> The interesting part of that series of photos to me is the cutting into the bow revealing what appears to be some crude trimming ballast. Seems like someone miscalculated something.


"Crude" is right...

You might have missed it, but the captain claimed that after the hull was extended, a ton of ballast was added forward, to compensate for the additional weight of the dinghy garage aft...

UFB...


----------



## Bleemus

Thanks Jon. I did miss that. Looks like bricks and epoxy. My god. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## JimMcGee

JonEisberg said:


> Well, quite a bit is known, actually... At least, if you can believe what the skipper has said, and what you can see with your own eyes...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> OK, anyone around here speak Russian?
> 
> More incredible pics to be found here:
> 
> ??????. ?? ???.
> 
> Yup, sure looks like a capsize, to me... Amazing everyone got off safely, exemplary work by the skipper and all others, one can only assume...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, some sense of the structure employed... Guess that single aft keelbolt extending up through the floors wasn't quite up to the job, eh? Oh well, at least we can rest assured Oysters get the engineering of their picture windows right, one of those ain't _NEVER_ gonna fail...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not the best example of fully wetted-out GRP I've ever seen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, my 45 year old 30' Allied is thicker that this below the waterline... But that was back before they _fully understood_ how strong GRP could be, of course...
> 
> ;-)


My God Jon, the hull on my Catalina 30 is thicker than that !

With the caveat that photos can be deceiving it looks like there was a serious problem in the vacuum bagging process and the resin wasn't evenly distributed through the hull.

I'll assume that the structural grid is supposed to supply much of the hulls strength - so maybe that's why the hull is thinner than I would expect. But in some of the earlier photos it looked like the bond between the grid and the hull failed.

All I can say is wow.

Didn't the captain say she had some serious miles under her keel prior to failing? If so the hull was working for a long time before it finally failed catastrophically?


----------



## smackdaddy

hellsop said:


> More boats built and the numbers should go down. Build a hundred boats and have the keel fail on one or window fail to seal, and you've got a 1% failure rate. Build thousand boats and have something happen even as many as five of them and you're still twice as good as the other guy, even if you have five times the PR problems. But that's what they are: PR problems.


Exactly. And right now, it seems that Oyster is unfortunately at 100% failure rate for this model.

Seriously, let's hope this method is not being used or has been greatly modified on the other 80'ers.


----------



## JimMcGee

*Oyster. The rise from the depth.* _Yacht Russia article translated to English via Google Translate._

It's a little tough going in spots but it's pretty amazing and definitely worth a read. Evidently there were problems with the keel on this boat from the start.

A couple of things that struck me were the design of the keel itself and that though this boat was 15% larger than its predecessor it weighed 10% less. Efforts to reduce the amount of resin in the layup to save weight might explain some of what you're seeing in the photos; which goes back to my original question from a few pages ago - are builders now cutting the safety margins too thin to cut weight and cost?

This was hull number two. I wonder what if any issues have shown up in sister ships?


----------



## SloopJonB

hellsop said:


> You can work on those modern cars now.


*If* you can get at the parts you need to without disassembling 1/2 the freaking car for access. The biggest problem with working on modern cars is that they are packaged for the ease of assembly line robots to put them together, not for human hands to disassemble.


----------



## aloof

Heh. How silly is that: ballasting the bow so that a dinghy can be carried aft. Probably should have just bought a barge, or at least a boat designed for their needs. Hilarious. I had never thought of that....down by the stern? No problem. Put a load of bricks in the bow. Simple!

That layup does look a little dry, but it is hard to see and it looks like it was underwater for quite some time. When a FRP skin begins tearing the build strength doesn't matter much. It's like tearing a phonebook...almost trivial once it gets going.

One of the big deceptions about this Cat A crap is that it is probably based on the *design* not the actual manufacture. These boat builders, whomever they are, are not necessarily held to any standard. Is anybody watching. Are the materials and processes regularly inspected. Ha Ha, funny, in the marine business? No. This is not like Boeing or Airbus.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> "Crude" is right...
> 
> You might have missed it, but the captain claimed that after the hull was extended, a ton of ballast was added forward, to compensate for the additional weight of the dinghy garage aft...
> 
> UFB...


Holy crap:


----------



## Exile1

Here's one poster's commentary & opinion on Oyster which, if true, seems rather revealing:

There is no doubt that earlier generation Oysters, built in the Matthews era, are superb and extraordinarily strong boats. The design "features" of this model show a radical shift away from Oyster design philosophy, towards a cheaper, more profitable "cruiser racer" style which so dominates the market. The new owners (a financial institution as I recall, hedge fund or similar?) appear more interested in money than in quality, going on this evidence. I hope this is not brand wide. But have no doubt about the earlier models. They are built like magnificent tanks.

Oyster Problems? - Page 11 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums (post #158)

There is also a lot of chatter on the CF thread about the laminate thickness around the bottom of the hull & keel being as thin as 15mm.

If this sort of conjecture ultimately pans out, then Smack may be right that the less expensive production boats may be "closing the gap" with the higher priced "vaunted" brands. Rather than accomplishing this by raising the build standards for the cheaper boats, however, it unfortunately may mean a lowering of standards for many of the higher end brands. Of course, this direction is unlikely to change until boat buyers demand more than the absolute minimum EU "Cat A" standard, and insist on something more than an offshore boat that merely "CAN" make bluewater passages. Let's hope Smack is wrong and the industry isn't on a path towards the lowest common denominator.


----------



## SloopJonB

If things are as bad as they appear on this boat I doubt anyone will have to be concerned about future Oyster quality - there won't be any Oyster.


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> Here's one poster's commentary & opinion on Oyster which, if true, seems rather revealing:
> 
> There is no doubt that earlier generation Oysters, built in the Matthews era, are superb and extraordinarily strong boats. The design "features" of this model show a radical shift away from Oyster design philosophy, towards a cheaper, more profitable "cruiser racer" style which so dominates the market. The new owners (a financial institution as I recall, hedge fund or similar?) appear more interested in money than in quality, going on this evidence. I hope this is not brand wide. But have no doubt about the earlier models. They are built like magnificent tanks.
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 11 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums (post #158)


I agree, I think it's very instructive regarding what boatbuilding has become... Richard Matthews is long gone from Oyster, its present owners have come from a world apart from building yachts... Similar to Swan, when Ferragamo took over from Nautor... Same with Hinckley, when a group of investors from Boston saw the incredible profit margins in building the Picnic Boats, they bought it from the family, and I believe it's changed hands once or twice since... These people know how to make money, but not necessarily how to make boats... ;-)

Another excellent post over on CF from Minaret, a professional who knows his way around fiberglass:



> Great example of what can happen with very large infusion setups, something I've noted with infused boats many times before, especially in cases where they are infusing both core and laminate at the same time. It can be very difficult to control resin ratio, especially in areas of the mold where complex geometry requires resin to be infused around tight curves and corners, like a keel. As someone who has done a great deal of carbon vacuum bagging in large high tech construction, I often note in factory production infusion pics the lack of gauging in the bag, and some of the more modern closed mold methods actually preclude thorough gauging. On a hand built high quality vacuum epoxy layup, I would never throw down a bag that large without not just sucker feet but gauges as well at a much higher frequency than I've ever seen in an infusion setting, for obvious reasons. This means the only way to determine actual bag pressure at any given point is by "pinch test", a wholly unsatisfactory method if much of the mold can't even be reached while in wet layup. This often results in very rich laminates, or very dry laminates. I'd love to field burn test hull samples from this boat; I'm sure you'd find the resin ratio's all over the place. Some of the more modern infusion setups are a huge gamble; when you pull the trigger and catalyze and flip on the pumps, everything better go just right in a remarkably short period of time, or you will end with less than ideal results. I'm sure they don't like to eat the possible resulting huge materials losses. Of course, in this case, it would have helped if there had been some laminate in there to begin with! And no, I wouldn't think the designer would be able to escape any responsibility here. *This is what happens when a high quality product name gets sold out. If people don't get wise to this continuing trend and bother to educate themselves on the basics of yacht construction before buying a yacht, before long all we will have left is this sort of thing and the full custom route. People would be better off going back to home builds like in the 60's and 70's, rather than buying from a major production builder today. Of course, no one has that sort of time or energy any more...*
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 11 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums (Post 164)


----------



## aeventyr60

hellsop said:


> It depends on how you get your joy, I guess. What's more fun? Sailing or carpentry?


The reality is that I'll do a bit of carpentry, electrical,plumbing,sewing, rigging and a whole lot of other mundane chores of the voyaging 
yachtsman. it's all part of the joy....no escaping these basic facts of life. Glad I had some old cars to mess about to develop the skills I use everyday now.

Pity the poor 50 foot benehuntalaina guy who has no clue on how anything works, and when his family showed up a few weeks ago in Langkawi he had to get a hotel room...seems 2 of 3 heads didn't work, the fridge was on the fritz and the electrical system had more issues then the local sparky wanted to tackle...No joy for this deep pocket clorox bottle.


----------



## chris95040

"The Market for Lemons" is a theory about counterproductive market forces when the consumer is ill informed: If a buyer can't tell the difference between a "good car" and a "lemon", then they aren't going to pay a premium for a "good car" when to them, the "lemon" looks just like it. As a result, theres less demand for "good cars", so why produce them? Sooner or later all that remains in the market is the "lemon". 

In a rather roundabout, indirect way, I'd suggest maybe SmackDaddy is indeed /responsible/ for this catastrophe!!! He endlessly distorts the market with claims about how fit his lightly-built, budget-cruiser Hunter is for ocean work, and now we have keels falling off of Oysters.


----------



## outbound

The above posts are excellent and accurately delineate current market trends which seem to be unappreciated by smack and others. Concurrently a trend of equal concern has occurred. This trend impacts on the quality of life of cruisers so is worth comment.

As technologies advance they create an interface between user and physical reality. Once they advance sufficiently they become black boxes with the end user having little or no understanding of how the mechanism works, it's limitations or how to repair it. Given how well engineered our daily appliances are ( cars, cellphones, Internet, HVAC systems - you name it) we assume they will always work and plan our lives according. When they don't they are replaced or serviced by a specialist.

Examples of how this mindset impacts cruising abound in other threads but will add a few.

Watch a couple come in for fuel. Cross wind of 20kts. Long dock with three boats on it but space between two of them. They come in beautifully letting the wind push them into the dock. Getting off was different. Thrusters were not sufficient to overcome wind. Captain didn't know technique of using spring to bear off and when told refused due to concern of damage to sugarscoop which would under ride cement pier. Refused to go out backward due to lack of experience with technique. Rather some tens of thousands of dollars of damage occurred when thrusters overheated. 

Cruisers dependent on gps and computers for navigation. See smoke flare so approach. Then get to talk with them on their handheld vhf. Find out wet cells not maintained so went dry. No house bank. Hand held GPS can't be recharged and vhf on last legs. No paper charts on board. Insufficient fuel to make land fall. Tell them how to run boat off starter battery, charge that battery and their handheld devices with engine running periodically. Tell them where they are and how to DR to nearest coastal harbor. Divert and buddy boat with them with every two hour check ins until can hand them off to another vessel. 

Go into Coopers. Start dinner then sit in cockpit with drinks. See couple approach mooring unsuccessfully multiple times. See lady have boat hook pulled out of her hands. No spare. Hear very loud German even over the fresh breeze. Launch dinghy and pick up boat hook. Another cruiser in his dinghy joins me. Try to instruct captain how to approach mooring unsuccessfully. Pick up float gets torn off. Nearly get run over attempting to hand lady the bridle. Other cruiser boards boat. We moor them.

The theme is the level of hubris dependency on everything working incurs and the lack of appreciation of the forces of nature. No appreciation what seems simple when watching on YouTube or in a course with an instructor is complex in practice. None of this occurred in bad weather. All in mundane circumstances.


----------



## SloopJonB

chris95040 said:


> SmackDaddy is indeed /responsible/ for this catastrophe!!! He endlessly distorts the market with claims about how fit his lightly-built, budget-cruiser Hunter is for ocean work, and now we have keels falling off of Oysters.


I *knew *it was his fault. It all started with that beach cat rebuild.


----------



## JimMcGee

chris95040 said:


> "The Market for Lemons" is a theory about counterproductive market forces when the consumer is ill informed: If a buyer can't tell the difference between a "good car" and a "lemon", then they aren't going to pay a premium for a "good car" when to them, the "lemon" looks just like it. As a result, theres less demand for "good cars", so why produce them? Sooner or later all that remains in the market is the "lemon".


Chris, in earlier posts the boat's captain stated that he was at the factory during the build and at the yard during commissioning.

That's more expertise than you or I could muster during a boat purchase.

But a captain is not an industrial designer or naval architect. He can't look at an industrial vacuum bagging setup and determine if vacuum levels in the system are adequate to properly distribute resin throughout the structure. Nor would he likely know what proper resin ratios are. The captain and the owner are relying on the reputation of the builder and that they have the knowledge and experience to get these fundamentals right.

It's an unfortunate reality of corporate culture today that you cut costs until something breaks, often with little regard for consequences -- that's the lawyers problem.

The real question is what this does to Oyster's reputation long term. If I have a multi-million dollar sister ship I'm sure as hell going to have her hauled and closely inspected.

If it turns out this isn't an isolated incident word will spread quickly.


----------



## JonEisberg

Note to Self:

Never, _EVER_ piss off a Russian superyacht owner, or his captain...

;-)

More from the skipper, posted over on CF



> Some reply to your questions:
> 
> 1-The story was published in Russia because Artur (the journalists and naval architect ) was the first one to investigate seriously around the accident; he was a Oyster fun, he came to Spain and he spent 10 days with me during last part of the rescue operation.
> 
> 2- *the story came up only now because the shipyard asked to the owner don't say nothing. We gave them 4 months to propose a compensation for the loss.They never offer money or a new boat for free, they used this time to sell 3 more Oyster 825 and to invent articles on magazines that let to interpretate that we had an accident against floating objects or other things. I didn't start to sail yesterday, I did my job seriousely for about 20 years, I can't accept that somebody invent that I have damaged a boat, just in order to cover his responsability.*
> 
> 3- I have informed the Owner of one of the boat that is now doing the ARC immediately,his boat was still in the shipyard at that time; he was really in a hurry to have the boat to partecipate to the ARC, and he accepts that the shipyard put some reinforcement on his boat (secret job).
> 
> *The marketing people in Oyster shipyard are very good in their job, they are able to convince very experienced owner that they can manage a 82 feet sailing boat without crew, or that an electrical sliding door whithout manual beckup is a safe solution at sea, or that is normal to trim the boat by putting lead everywhere, or that is normal to connect the electronic of the engine to the service batteries and........have I to go ahead?????* No one of the otheir Oyster owner or captains looked for me, sorry I have not explanation for that......we are speaking about safety.....we are speaking about a boat th a cost something like 6.000.000 million of Euro + vat......
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 12 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


UFB, what a disaster... But when hedge funds start buying up boatbuilders, should anyone really be surprised?



> "HTP acquired Oyster by using the exclusive funds of the partners Wim de Pundert and Klaas Meertens and is therefore not subject to any restrictions with respect to the amount invested and the period over which the investment is held. "
> 
> Oyster Marine Ltd sold to HTP Investments BV (HTP) | business News on SuperyachtNews.com


----------



## miatapaul

Sad part is that this is what is happening in many fields, the company gets bought out by a bunch of investors, who know nothing but accounting. They think they can buy a company and cut corners and it will continue selling even if the quality is lower. I don't see the price coming down to meet the lowered quality. The company I work for is the same way, lay off all the developers and wonder why we can't meet the deadlines for new projects. But the new CEO sure spouts out every empty phrase he has read about and mentions every bad business book he has read. Lots of Agile, Cloud, bla bla...... Means nothing.


----------



## Shockwave

This surprises you?

There are lots of noobs out there with big check books buying big boats. Many aren't really interested in more then a couple of ASA sailing classes. They are successful people that often don't take direction well.

At least that is what I've seen over the years.......



outbound said:


> The above posts are excellent and accurately delineate current market trends which seem to be unappreciated by smack and others. Concurrently a trend of equal concern has occurred. This trend impacts on the quality of life of cruisers so is worth comment.
> 
> As technologies advance they create an interface between user and physical reality. Once they advance sufficiently they become black boxes with the end user having little or no understanding of how the mechanism works, it's limitations or how to repair it. Given how well engineered our daily appliances are ( cars, cellphones, Internet, HVAC systems - you name it) we assume they will always work and plan our lives according. When they don't they are replaced or serviced by a specialist.
> 
> Examples of how this mindset impacts cruising abound in other threads but will add a few.
> 
> Watch a couple come in for fuel. Cross wind of 20kts. Long dock with three boats on it but space between two of them. They come in beautifully letting the wind push them into the dock. Getting off was different. Thrusters were not sufficient to overcome wind. Captain didn't know technique of using spring to bear off and when told refused due to concern of damage to sugarscoop which would under ride cement pier. Refused to go out backward due to lack of experience with technique. Rather some tens of thousands of dollars of damage occurred when thrusters overheated.
> 
> Cruisers dependent on gps and computers for navigation. See smoke flare so approach. Then get to talk with them on their handheld vhf. Find out wet cells not maintained so went dry. No house bank. Hand held GPS can't be recharged and vhf on last legs. No paper charts on board. Insufficient fuel to make land fall. Tell them how to run boat off starter battery, charge that battery and their handheld devices with engine running periodically. Tell them where they are and how to DR to nearest coastal harbor. Divert and buddy boat with them with every two hour check ins until can hand them off to another vessel.
> 
> Go into Coopers. Start dinner then sit in cockpit with drinks. See couple approach mooring unsuccessfully multiple times. See lady have boat hook pulled out of her hands. No spare. Hear very loud German even over the fresh breeze. Launch dinghy and pick up boat hook. Another cruiser in his dinghy joins me. Try to instruct captain how to approach mooring unsuccessfully. Pick up float gets torn off. Nearly get run over attempting to hand lady the bridle. Other cruiser boards boat. We moor them.
> 
> The theme is the level of hubris dependency on everything working incurs and the lack of appreciation of the forces of nature. No appreciation what seems simple when watching on YouTube or in a course with an instructor is complex in practice. None of this occurred in bad weather. All in mundane circumstances.


----------



## Capt Len

Took a course in statistics once. Apparently half of everybody is below average.


----------



## skygazer

outbound said:


> See lady have boat hook pulled out of her hands. No spare. Hear very loud German even over the fresh breeze. Launch dinghy and pick up boat hook.





Shockwave said:


> This surprises you?
> 
> There are lots of noobs out there with big check books buying big boats...


No, what surprises *me* is that the boat hook apparently *floated!*  I'd never really thought about it, but unconsciously I must have assumed they would sink, so never dropped one.


----------



## smackdaddy

SloopJonB said:


> I *knew *it was his fault. It all started with that beach cat rebuild.


At least _FIASCO's_ keel hasn't fallen off.


----------



## Shockwave

We once helped a noob tension the rig on his fancy Moody, he couldn't bring up the tension on the caps. 

When I looked up I could see the yard had failed to attach the caps to the spreader ends. My wife went up, opened the spreader tips and put the caps in the spreaders. We then tuned his rig for him.

Wanker never even said thanks.


----------



## albrazzi

miatapaul said:


> Sad part is that this is what is happening in many fields, the company gets bought out by a bunch of investors, who know nothing but accounting. They think they can buy a company and cut corners and it will continue selling even if the quality is lower. I don't see the price coming down to meet the lowered quality. The company I work for is the same way, lay off all the developers and wonder why we can't meet the deadlines for new projects. But the new CEO sure spouts out every empty phrase he has read about and mentions every bad business book he has read. Lots of Agile, Cloud, bla bla...... Means nothing.


We're about 18 months into one of these, restructure everything assume it will work no matter what, we only need a couple of years in order to turn it over so it will hold out that long surely??
Once the salesmen start listening to the Operations people again it goes back to pretty much where it was before. Only we cant call it another restructuring because everyone will remind them we just did that and it didn't work, so they struggle with what to call it because you can't call it that.
Maybe that's not what happened at Oyster or to this Boat but I guarantee you its affecting everything they do, and it will compromise the product, hopefully its manageable.

Salesmen, they're the new Lawyers.

OH and Cinder blocks in the forepeak, give me a break...


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And if you take the time to zoom into that image of yours, those lights aren't "flush mounted" either. They are recessed as well - just like the Oyster (or vice versa) - despite all your seagoing experience. See the lip?


Damn, how on earth could I have missed that "lip"? Must have been approaching 1/4" depth in the middle of that window, at least... ;-)










However, that window is absolutely flush with the hull at each end, at least the builder is not dumb enough to try to bend polycarbonate or whatever to conform to the curvature of the hull... As a result, the window was still coming into direct contact with the dock...

As to that "recess... being _*just like*_ the Oyster, well, you haven't a clue how wrong you are...










Damn, not even $2 million buys you a boat with a rubrail, these days... It will get you some sexy folding cleats, however ;-) If this boat had been lying to a snubber while anchored in the same conditions of that video of the Hunter being discussed lately, I have little doubt it would have wound up on the beach, as well...

Here's the same model Bavaria I spotted on the hard down at Nanny Cay... If anything, that practice of not having the window match the curvature of the hull seems like it might be creating even a weaker structure, overall... But, at least they radiused the corners of that window, at least slightly...










Someone, _please,_ tell me those are not fuel and water tank vents placed low in the topsides in that picture? I'm not convinced, especially after seeing what appears to be stains the color of diesel fuel below two of them... ;-) They are definitely not bilge or other outlets, there's a brace of them down at the bootstripe, and I could not find a fuel vent placed back around the transom, or anywhere else in the topsides...

Here's another example of fine German engineering on a Hanse 545... Absolutely flush with the hull, featuring sharp corners, which of course is a poor practice when cutting openings in a hull, or deck, and will only serve to make the structure more prone to failure, in the long run...










Not sure how the windows on the Oyster are constructed, but what I find most disconcerting about all these others, is that they appear to rely on some sort of _adhesive_ to be held in place... No thru-bolting, or outer retaining ring affording any sort of mechanical fastening... If anyone has knowledge as to how exactly these builders are securing these windows, I'm all ears...

But as long as it _Looks_ good, it's all good... ;-) This Grand Soleil might have featured the _'sharpest'_ corners of all...


----------



## SloopJonB

I agree those huge hull ports are a bad trend but I differ about the lack of fasteners. Plastic lenses have been held in place just with goo for more than 30 years now and by some good builders like C&C. Most alloy hatches have their lenses held in place that way as well and have done for even longer.

Modern adhesives are up to that particular task.


----------



## albrazzi

SloopJonB said:


> I agree those huge hull ports are a bad trend but I differ about the lack of fasteners. Plastic lenses have been held in place just with goo for more than 30 years now and by some good builders like C&C. Most alloy hatches have their lenses held in place that way as well and have done for even longer.
> 
> Modern adhesives are up to that particular task.


True, next time you look up a high rise building just think about all that Glass being glued on with the best adhesives available.
This can easily be done safely, the question would be what caused the failure on the window in question. We're looking at a Keel that fell off are there any cases where these windows have caused a hull failure. All this is academic if not.


----------



## JonEisberg

SloopJonB said:


> I agree those huge hull ports are a bad trend but I differ about the lack of fasteners. Plastic lenses have been held in place just with goo for more than 30 years now and by some good builders like C&C. Most alloy hatches have their lenses held in place that way as well and have done for even longer.
> 
> Modern adhesives are up to that particular task.


You could be right, but I see one important distinction...

Hatch lenses placed within an aluminum frame are not subject to the sort of flexing the topsides surrounding surrounding a large cutout in a fiberglass hull can often see, at least in normal use...

I'd have less concern with adhesive holding a hatch or portlight lens in place _ABOVE_ deck level... But in portions of the hull that will be submerged when sailing hard? No freakin' way... ;-)

It certainly would be interesting to hear a bit more about the precise nature of the portlight failure on that Beneteau 423 crossing the Atlantic that occurred a few days ago...


----------



## JimMcGee

JonEisberg said:


> You could be right, but I see one important distinction...
> 
> Hatch lenses placed within an aluminum frame are not subject to the sort of flexing the topsides surrounding surrounding a large cutout in a fiberglass hull can often see, at least in normal use...
> 
> I'd have less concern with adhesive holding a hatch or portlight lens in place _ABOVE_ deck level... But in portions of the hull that will be submerged when sailing hard? No freakin' way... ;-)
> 
> It certainly would be interesting to hear a bit more about the precise nature of the portlight failure on that Beneteau 423 crossing the Atlantic that occurred a few days ago...


Jon,
You raise an interesting question. Both 5200 and polycarbonate are flexible, and 5200 has a pretty amazing sheer strength. I would think the polycarbonate would fail from stress cracks long before the 5200 and that you'd have plenty of warning if you were paying attention - you'd see the cracks starting long before a failure.

A different question is quality control. The strength of that bond is all about the prep work to make sure there's no wax or contaminants on the surface of the hatch recess and that it's been properly prepped to provide tooth for the adhesive. Now if corners are being cut to save time or someone's having an off day it could become a point of failure when the hull starts working in a sea...

Jim


----------



## Scotty C-M

Here is how the hull portlight is built in the Catalina 400. It is smaller and recessed. It seems like a good middle point of having the hull portlight, and still keeping it safe. There are two on each side of the hull.


----------



## SloopJonB

The fact that it's measured in square inches and not square feet like those big boats is a major point in its favour as well.


----------



## outbound

Have had two discussions with boat builders about port lights in hulls. With modern materials and techniques there is no reason these lights cannot be as strong as the hull itself. Issues in applications involve construction beyond the just the lights. Just like houses and lights fail on the windward side not the leeward side with knockdowns due to deformation lights will fail with deformation of surrounding structure. Thermal effects of dissimilar materials must be accounted for to allow long term integrity. Engineering of spread of forces from constant loads( hydrostatic/rigging etc.) and intermittent loads ( wave action) must be done beyond simple strike loads from impacts.
In short there is much engineering to be done to safely achieve what in the end is a cosmetic effect not improving the speed or seaworthiness of the vessel. The buyer is rarely if ever in a position to be able to judge the quality of this engineering nor the skill of builder in application. Hence, when generating a list of things I did not want on my " last boat" I looked at boats that did not have this potential source of weakness. The exception was when looking at Al boats where I thought ( perhaps incorrectly) it was easier for a non NA to judge engineering.


----------



## Faster

I 'get' the attraction of being able to sit below and see out of the boat without climbing the companionway or at least standing up. And lots of boats can use the extra light.. At anchor in the middle if the night it would really nice to be able to peek out and have a look around without getting up. But... there are 'buts'.

Aside from the structural/mechanical issues it's a matter of aesthetics. The Jeanneau line has numerous hull portlights that aren't even on the same 'line' - ie at different heights from the waterline. The 'vertical' windows on the Oyster and others are possibly worse for being so 'jarring' to the eye and utterly destroying whatever 'pleasant lines' the boat may otherwise have.

We had a boat with two midship hull lights, but rather small by todays' standards. The boat had a sweeping, rising stripe in grey and black, white hull and dark tinted portlights that stood out visually.. I never liked the way that played out. When we painted her we 'hid' the portlights in a broad dark stripe that ran 6 inches or so below the sheerline, it greatly improved the row-away factor of that boat. You couldn't do that with the Jeanneau, for example, with the portlights on all different levels..


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> In short there is much engineering to be done to safely achieve what in the end is * a cosmetic effect not improving the speed* or seaworthiness of the vessel.


Or, in some cases. likely _degrading_ the speed of the vessel, at least when she is heeled, and those windows become submerged...

This Oyster 575 probably has the Latest & Greatest 4 blade feathering prop from Variprop or similar, costing $10K or more, in an effort to minimize drag under sail...

And yet, they go and do something like this... Anyone who has watched - from inside the boat - the flow of water past a submerged portlight that is not absolutely flush with the hull, will appreciate how much that flow can be disturbed...

;-)


----------



## Shockwave

Would this be the same engineer that developed the laminate schedule for the keel?



outbound said:


> Have had two discussions with boat builders about port lights in hulls. With modern materials and techniques there is no reason these lights cannot be as strong as the hull itself. Issues in applications involve construction beyond the just the lights. Just like houses and lights fail on the windward side not the leeward side with knockdowns due to deformation lights will fail with deformation of surrounding structure. Thermal effects of dissimilar materials must be accounted for to allow long term integrity. Engineering of spread of forces from constant loads( hydrostatic/rigging etc.) and intermittent loads ( wave action) must be done beyond simple strike loads from impacts.
> In short there is much engineering to be done to safely achieve what in the end is a cosmetic effect not improving the speed or seaworthiness of the vessel. The buyer is rarely if ever in a position to be able to judge the quality of this engineering nor the skill of builder in application. Hence, when generating a list of things I did not want on my " last boat" I looked at boats that did not have this potential source of weakness. The exception was when looking at Al boats where I thought ( perhaps incorrectly) it was easier for a non NA to judge engineering.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Have had two discussions with boat builders about port lights in hulls. With modern materials and techniques there is no reason these lights cannot be as strong as the hull itself.
> 
> The buyer is rarely if ever in a position to be able to judge the quality of this engineering nor the skill of builder in application. Hence, when generating a list of things I did not want on my " last boat" I looked at boats that did not have this potential source of weakness.


I think this is a perfect example of the mentality behind much of the discussion in this thread. The first part is information directly from the professionals who do this every day. The second part is one's own subjective concern and suspicions despite said information. Now, there's nothing wrong with the concern/suspicion itself - _for one's self_. But when these features are negatively presented in a discussion forum in clear contradiction to not only those professional opinions but also the VAST body of evidence out there of these kinds of hull lights that have very successfully been in service across many, many boats (including mine) for many, many years - such opinion should be taken exactly for what it is - a generalized, unfounded suspicion of the professionals. And that's why it deserves to be challenged. The earth is no longer flat.


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> lights fail on the windward side not the leeward side with knockdowns


Out - that is completely at odds with any number of actual accounts of both port and cabintop failures at sea.

One thing they had in common was that the failures occurred on the *leeward* side, particularly due to such things as being dropped off a wave.

Boarding seas on the windward side were seldom, if ever the cause.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I think this is a perfect example of the mentality behind much of the discussion in this thread. The first part is information directly from the professionals who do this every day. The second part is one's own subjective concern and suspicions despite said information. Now, there's nothing wrong with the concern/suspicion itself - _for one's self_. But when these features are negatively presented in a discussion forum in clear contradiction to not only those professional opinions rendered but also the VAST body of evidence out there of these kinds of hull lights have very successfully been in service across many, many boats (including mine) for many, many years - such opinion should be taken exactly for what it is - a generalized, unfounded suspicion of the professionals. And that's why it deserves to be challenged. The earth is no longer flat.


It's unfortunate that you crypted Outbound's entire post because when you read it in its entirety the obvious point was much more nuanced, namely that building the in-hull portlights is dependent on a lot of properly executed engineering by the boat builder. Out's other obvious point is that most boat buyers are not engineers, and there's likely no way for such a person to tell the difference.

Your frequent argument that "it must be ok because so many are built this way" is not without _some _merit, but only takes you so far. As we all know, the vast majority of boats of all types don't stray from the dock that far, and the ones that do rarely see challenging conditions.

So rather than now showing us a bunch of pics of people circumvavigating on boats with picture windows, or making up something about the amount of recesses or "lips," only to have others then countering with the recent blown out portlight on the Bene, blah, blah, blah, just appreciate that _some_ of the more serious offshore sailors around here may weigh the purely _aesthetic(??)_ purpose of such a portlight against eliminating a _potential_ source of failure. It's yet another one of those boat things where the likelihood of failure may be low, but the consequences potentially severe.

It's not like we haven't read & seen examples lately where reliance on professional boatbuilders has been ill-advised, to put it mildly. But thanks to some of the other more experienced posters on the forums, those of us less experienced posters are now alerted and can make up our own minds. Glad your portlight is working out for you, Smack, and I appreciate that you are someone who enjoys the aesthetic. That's all good, but at least you now know it may be something to keep an eye on as your boat approaches the 30-year mark.


----------



## XSrcing

Let's see some data on how much drag those recessed port lights actually cause.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I think this is a perfect example of the mentality behind much of the discussion in this thread. The first part is information directly from the professionals who do this every day. The second part is one's own subjective concern and suspicions despite said information. Now, there's nothing wrong with the concern/suspicion itself - _for one's self_. *But when these features are negatively presented in a discussion forum in clear contradiction to not only those professional opinions but also the VAST body of evidence out there of these kinds of hull lights that have very successfully been in service across many, many boats (including mine) for many, many years - such opinion should be taken exactly for what it is - a generalized, unfounded suspicion of the professionals.* And that's why it deserves to be challenged. The earth is no longer flat.


It appears not everyone agrees with your own interpretation of the _"VAST body of evidence"_ or personal experience... ;-)

#2 on the list of design features Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger decided against in their custom build of HAWK:



> *Through hullside ports.*
> 
> The Van de Stadt plan called for two portlights through each side of the hull in addition to a total of four portlights through the cabin trunk and seven opening hatches in the deck. By going with aluminum as a hull material and welding on as much deck hardware as possible, we hoped to achieve a leak proof boat. *Every offshore sailor we've ever met with through hullside ports has experienced leaks,* and we questioned the safety of a portlight which would be below waterline when we were heeled over.
> 
> http://www.bethandevans.com/pdf/Leftoff.pdf


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> Glad your portlight is working out for you, Smack, and I appreciate that you are someone who enjoys the aesthetic. That's all good, but *at least you now know it may be something to keep an eye on as your boat approaches the 30-year mark.*


Uh-oh, speaking of production boats approaching their 30-year "half life"...

MAGRITTE was apparently an older Moody Grenadier...



> *Evacuation of four crew from ARC yacht Magritte*
> 
> 04 December 2015
> 
> At 1940 (UTC) Thursday 3 December, World Cruising Club was contacted by Steve Arnold, skipper of ARC yacht Magritte to advise them that the yacht was taking on water. The source of the ingress could not be identified or stemmed and the four crew on board indicated that assistance was required as the situation worsened. On the advice of MRCC Falmouth, a MAYDAY was issued and the yacht's EPIRB activated. The liferaft was readied in anticipation of a possible need to abandon the yacht.
> 
> MRCC Cape Verde coordinated the evacuation of the crew. Cargo vessel SCL Basilea diverted to provide assistance, reaching Magritte at approximately 0500 (UTC). The crew were safely evacuated and are all well on board SCL Basilea which is now en route to Spain. Magritte was abandoned at approximate position 16 44.36N 027 27.82W.
> 
> https://www.worldcruising.com/arc/a...ArchiveID=1&CategoryID=190&ItemID=244437&src=


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> It appears not everyone agrees with your own interpretation of the _"VAST body of evidence"_ or personal experience... ;-)
> 
> #2 on the list of design features Beth Leonard and Evans Starzinger decided against in their custom build of HAWK:


So they chose to leave them off in their own custom build? So what?

Van De Stadt didn't:



















So are you now trying to imply that all the VDS yachts out there with hull lights are dangerous because Evans didn't want them on HAWK? Really?

And I don't see geysers of southern ocean water spewing into Micheal's Hunter here:










And how many cats have you seen sinking across the ocean due to these babies?















(And yes, I already know about the one Charter Lagoon that took on water and flipped near the Seychelles - though I don't think they yet know why. But such is definitely a very rare occurrence despite these ginormous windows you fear.)

Sorry - dude. I don't think you're going to win this battle.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So are you now trying to imply that all the VDS yachts out there with hull lights are dangerous because Evans didn't want them on HAWK? Really?
> 
> Sorry - dude. I don't think you're going to win this battle.


Nah, I certainly know better than to suppose I'll ever win any "battles" around here... ;-)

Just making a further contribution to "the VAST body of evidence" re the integrity of hull windows, from a couple of the most accomplished and analytical world voyaging sailors of their generation...

Perhaps you missed the part of their article I bolded:

_*" Every offshore sailor we've ever met with through hullside ports has experienced leaks..."*_


----------



## outbound

Sloop- you're right I'm dyslexic. Tx for the correction. 
The point I was trying to make was the glass/lexan etc. is usually not what fails but rather it pops out or breaks as surrounding structures deform +/or outward forcing pressures arise. Similarly, the wave strike on a house doesn't cause as much failure on the side it strikes but rather the other side.

Oh well. I need to turn until wind is equal in both ears then turn around when peeing ?right????


----------



## outbound

Smack I hope you know those opening portlights on the inboard side of one or both hulls of an ocean cat are placed there for opportunity of egress in case the d-mn thing turns turtle. It is not an aesethic feature like on a mono but rather a safety feature. It is usually placed in the most protected spot from wave strikes. Cats generally avoid heeling much so submersion is infrequent. I've seen them done in opaque strong materials. Once again you post a poor counter as it is not a cosmetic feature.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack I hope you know those opening portlights on the inboard side of one or both hulls of an ocean cat are placed there for opportunity of egress in case the d-mn thing turns turtle. It is not an aesethic feature like on a mono but rather a safety feature. It is usually placed in the most protected spot from wave strikes. Cats generally avoid heeling much so submersion is infrequent. I've seen them done in opaque strong materials. Once again you post a poor counter as it is not a cosmetic feature.


I know exactly what it is. The point is if these big "windows" in these multihulls can be utilized and still maintain strength and seaworthiness, why on earth would you guys think that small vertically oriented hull lights in a freakin' mono, much higher off the water than in these cats, are somehow "compromising the seaworthiness of the hull". That makes *ZERO* sense.

Once again, it's _your_ counter that's poor.


----------



## RobGallagher

Lots of apples and oranges getting tossed about. Some windows are held in with a frame. They may, or may not, have hardware under those frames.

Big difference between large glued on windows. And they fail... even if one uses the same glue as skyscrapers. 1. They are not glass. 2. They may flex more.

I own a C&C with glued on windows. They can and will come off due to stress/flex.

I would not want to own an offshore boat that had ports simply glued on below the toe rail. I have seen how much water can come in, simply from deck wash and rain, when one separates ABOVE decks.

No, it won't sink your boat, but I would not want to spend three weeks going to weather with a cushion plugging that hole.

I work in a tower with glass windows..I trust them to lean up against. I would not trust them if they were plastic glued to fiberglass by some dude in a boatyard.


----------



## outbound

Would be delighted if Oyster and Swan started again build a vessel that was purpose built for an ocean cruising couple. I think it extremely unlikely they would want to go too small as recovering design and tooling costs is probably done with fewer large boats than small so would suggest ~53'. Would prefer mid 40s but that's probably very unlikely given how small this market is. 
Boat would incorporate new knowledge in hull design and materials but have the same DNA as let's say the Frers 53-2 Swan or the 53 Humphries Oyster. Would note that boat did have hull portlights but they were small, longer in horizontal plane and up near the shear. They were also not at the point of maximum beam. Both boats showed multiple concessions to aesethetics and achieving a more light and airy feeling down below but not to the degree currently seen.
It's paradoxical to me that the current boats with the most portlights to achieve that airy feeling are the ones,in general, that run the AC the most. We leave our curtains closed much more than open. When in a slip for privacy. When anchored to keep the boat cool. Even when the boat is left they are closed to decrease fading of fabrics and sun burning the wood. We very rarely run the AC. If run its to dehumidify more than to cool.


----------



## outbound

Will try to appease Smackie with a story and try to not appear to be a troglodyte.
Close friend who I shared several boats with went off a got a Hank Hinckley Ocean 39. He and I went off cruising with a couple of his daughters. One of them when it was bumpy (coastal Maine) had trouble negotiating the companionway and bumped her head hard resulting in severe post concussion syndrome. Took over a year to totally clear. 
That experience is one of the reasons I don't like Swans or like boats with difficult companionways. Also an issue in many center cockpit boats. I do like the single level living on many current designs or boats with few steps but don't like the execution due to down flooding risks and other features.
We looked at Swans before doing our boat. They were out of our price range but also off the list due to execution of the companionway. It's real nice to have a bulkhead on both sides of the steps. It keeps people from falling. Many of the current production boats are like that. No lateral constraints and often a grab rail on one side only.


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> Oh well. I need to turn until wind is equal in both ears then turn around when peeing ?right????


Correct - except you should turn around *before*....:wink


----------



## SloopJonB

outbound said:


> It's real nice to have a bulkhead on both sides of the steps. It keeps people from falling. Many of the current production boats are like that. No lateral constraints and often a grab rail on one side only.


Absolutely - that's my favourite setup as well. Usually fairly big boats though as it requires enclosed cabins on both quarters.


----------



## outbound

Also works with a head on one side and cabin on the other. The Swan that scared us was >50'. Been on a Hylas 56' center cockpit which also required some thoughts and attention to get down safely. For some reason down not up is the issue. Even when turning around to descend ass first.


----------



## Capt Len

Not sure that those glued on ports work on cats either. My main disappointing experience was on a very fancy Itailian job, Big sleek dark windows glued onto a flexing cabin .Owner rebedded several times to no satisfaction. Finally had SS frames made to cover the joint with an outside gasket. At least it stopped the leaks and the cost and workmanship in Thailand quite reasonable .Best was it got rid of that effeminate Italian look.


----------



## outbound

Friend just did passage to eastern carribean on CF cat. Got to crawl around a bit before he left.

Emergency escape hatches region had rim of no core, solid CF surround and lip, beautiful gaskets and very heavy duty opening hatch. In short, as much similarity to hull lights as a cannon to a sling shot. This boat and many ocean cats are built for the ocean not the carribean charter trade.

This is the same wolf just in another sheeps clothing. 

There are good boats at every price point and size and rig, mono and multi and not so good boats. 

BTW as said before its common to see these with opaque CF or laminate. Totally unlike what's under discussion.


----------



## outbound

One last try on this.
Smack you're intelligent. Don't you realize on most ocean cats the bridge deck/ accommodations starts at the mast or just a small bit forward. The beating the hulls take is mostly before the mast and mostly on the outsides. These escape hatches are in the portion under the bridge deck in a protected area.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> One last try on this.
> Smack you're intelligent. Don't you realize on most ocean cats the bridge deck/ accommodations starts at the mast or just a small bit forward. The beating the hulls take is mostly before the mast and mostly on the outsides. These escape hatches are in the portion under the bridge deck in a protected area.


Yes I understand that. By the same token, it's not like these mono hull lights are at the bow below the water line.

My point is - adhesives and materials have come a long way since nuts, bolts, and rivets were _de rigueur_. Such adhesives are even all over your Outbound.

And how far does one need to heel to submerge one of the typical hull lights in a mono? From SEQUITUR:



> *We also watched the inclinometer jam-up a couple of times against the stops at 60º*...We were hit by a few breaking waves, and Sequitur took them in stride. I thought of launching the Jordan series drogue, but realized that we were just fine without.
> 
> The port sidelight in the salon was looking bottom-ward a few times as breakers hit our starboard beam.


Sounds about right. Doesn't happen too often when cruising - and even when it does, SEQUITUR's portlights handled it fine.










And here's the summary of damage after the F11 they endured:



> After breakfast on Wednesday morning we started with cleaning-up from the heavy weather. Down below, we had sustained *a broken bowl and a chipped candle holder*. Up top the Hydrovane suffered *a bent retaining pin and a sheared one*. I hadn't removed the sail from the unit, and the *hurricane-force gusts were a tad much for the pins*.
> 
> After breakfast Edi washed and applied Vaseline to all the hatch and port-light gaskets. *We had a few drops of water come in a forward one as breaking seas sluiced over the decks in the storms*. I went along behind her and adjusted all the dogs. *We hadn't done this in nearly three years, and have had no leaks until this storm.*
> 
> *Edi also repaired a loose corner grommet on the sun cover over the skylights in our cockpit canopy. It appears that the winds in the 50s and 60s were a tad much for it. *The remainder of the canopy remained in fine condition after its stalwart job of keeping us warm, dry and protected during the storm.


So I understand you guys don't like these things yourselves - but please - it's really much ado about nothing.

You should listen to the professional advice you received. You even got a second opinion.


----------



## XSrcing

Well that's the problem, Smack. Every one of them *is* the second opinion in regard to their opinions.


----------



## JonEisberg

XSrcing said:


> Let's see some data on how much drag those recessed port lights actually cause.


I'd guess it's quite minimal, no question, perhaps on the order of having a blade or two of the prop remaining stuck in the non-feathered position...

I'd happily wager my fortune on this, however: That the _Performance HIT_ that Oyster 575 sees from the additional drag created when those windows are dipped beneath the water's surface, is greater than the _Performance GAIN_ that the 66 ton POLINA STAR III saw from going to a keel stub built to such absurdly light scantlings...

;-)


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> And how far does one need to heel to submerge one of the typical hull lights in a mono? From SEQUITUR:
> 
> Sounds about right. Doesn't happen too often when cruising - and even when it does, SEQUITUR's portlights handled it fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's the summary of damage after the F11 they endured:
> 
> So I understand you guys don't like these things yourselves - but please - it's really much ado about nothing.
> 
> You should listen to the professional advice you received. You even got a second opinion.


Again, you are relying on the short memory on the 'nets, or that people did not read previous discussions.

What you omit in this is the small detail that after this storm, Michael and Edi decided to abort their planned circumnavigation, put the boat up for sale and instead bought a canal boat in Holland. Where they are still voyaging happily to my knowledge.

And we also have been over you accusing me of bad-mouthing Michael just because he wanted to sell his Hunter and did not say bad things about it. No point to repeat, this is all here on SN.

"You are not very good at this"


----------



## outbound

Smack
Rather than referring to 2nd opinions I'd rather listen to builders and yard monkeys. There is no doubt in my mind that if engineered and executed correctly hull lights can be as strong as the surrounding hull. I have said this before and think it unfortunate I need to say it again. 

What I also believe is that it's difficult for a buyer to know if this cosmetic detail is done correctly and that dependency on this detail to bring light into the interior is an unfortunate trend. 

I'm old enough to remember deck prisms. I'm old enough to remember what a PIA they were. I accept the old living in a cave designs had multiple unfortunate consequences. Long steep companionway ladders, lack of natural light, no awareness of environs from below.

Would I own a boat with hull lights. Yes I would if done correctly. Smack, I'd tell you when my b'day is if you would buy me a K&M 53ST. 

Would I choose some current boats with this detail. No. Given I think the design can be done to allow natural light and natural ventilation in a much more aesthetically pleasing and safer way.


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Will try to appease Smackie with a story and try to not appear to be a troglodyte.
> 
> Close friend who I shared several boats with went off a got a Hank Hinckley Ocean 39. He and I went off cruising with a couple of his daughters. One of them when it was bumpy (coastal Maine) had trouble negotiating the companionway and bumped her head hard resulting in severe post concussion syndrome. Took over a year to totally clear.
> 
> That experience is one of the reasons I don't like Swans or like boats with difficult companionways. Also an issue in many center cockpit boats. I do like the single level living on many current designs or boats with few steps but don't like the execution due to down flooding risks and other features.
> 
> We looked at Swans before doing our boat. *They were out of our price range but also off the list due to execution of the companionway. It's real nice to have a bulkhead on both sides of the steps. It keeps people from falling. Many of the current production boats are like that. No lateral constraints and often a grab rail on one side only.*


Geez, _ENOUGH_ with the opinion from _"old, scared dudes"_, already...

;-)

Still, I'm surprised you didn't go with one of Paulo's favorite _"State of the Art Voyage Yachts"_ from Cigale...

I mean, what could _possibly_ go wrong when navigating such a secure, seagoing companionway ladder, while bounding along at double-digit speeds?










Of course, we'll have to await reports of head injuries, or inquiries as to best methods for removing bloodstains from Ultrasuede, before a judgement can be made as to the potential danger created by those sharp overhead corners created by the underside of the cockpit footwell...

;-)

Simply astonishing, some of the degrees to which some builders of yachts supposedly designed for offshore use have lost the plot...

Forget about the pics of stuff like what appears to be the contents of a dumpster poured into the bow section of that Oyster to compensate for the weight added aft. Perhaps the most shocking revelation to come out of the loss of POLINA STAR III for me, is the fact that _HER MASSIVE COMPANIONWAY 'DOOR' COULD ONLY BE OPERATED ELECTRICALLY_, there was _NO_ provision for opening it manually... Absolutely mind-boggling, had that thing been closed when her battery banks became submerged, the skipper and whoever else might have been below at that time would not have survived to tell the tale...


----------



## Bleemus

Loved all the Swans I ever sailed on. Haven't sailed their latest generation though. Quality construction evident throughout. Inspired confidence offshore. But OMFG getting from cockpit to that stupid companionway and to the bottom of the steps was a challenge that usually resulted in bruises. I was young and quite agile too. Can't imagine doing it now. Always wondered what they were thinking. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RobGallagher

JonEisberg said:


> Geez, _ENOUGH_ with the opinion from _"old, scared dudes"_, already...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Still, I'm surprised you didn't go with one of Paulo's favorite _"State of the Art Voyage Yachts"_ from Cigale...
> 
> I mean, what could _possibly_ go wrong when navigating such a secure, seagoing companionway ladder, while bounding along at double-digit speeds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we'll have to await reports of head injuries, or inquiries as to best methods for removing bloodstains from Ultrasuede, before a judgement can be made as to the potential danger created by those sharp overhead corners created by the underside of the cockpit footwell...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Simply astonishing, some of the degrees to which some builders of yachts supposedly designed for offshore use have lost the plot...
> 
> Forget about the pics of stuff like what appears to be the contents of a dumpster poured into the bow section of that Oyster to compensate for the weight added aft. Perhaps the most shocking revelation to come out of the loss of POLINA STAR III for me, is the fact that _HER MASSIVE COMPANIONWAY 'DOOR' COULD ONLY BE OPERATED ELECTRICALLY_, there was _NO_ provision for opening it manually... Absolutely mind-boggling, had that thing been closed when her battery banks became submerged, the skipper and whoever else might have been below at that time would not have survived to tell the tale...


That picture is a great example of what we are talking about. It's a beautiful boat and I want it. But I don't want to sail it across the pacific.

Many people want a "home" on the water. That is what that is. A house boat capable of sailing in "most" conditions.

Let's be honest, If I could afford that boat, I could afford to just ship it across and Island hop S.E. Asian in style


----------



## aeventyr60

^Some of us are cruising SE Asia in style on GOB's....


----------



## Noelex

outbound said:


> Would I own a boat with hull lights. Yes I would if done correctly. Smack, I'd tell you when my b'day is if you would buy me a K&M 53ST.


One of my favourite boats .

This is how their portholes are constructed. This is the hull detail. The interior is a stainless steel frame with a built in thick stainless storm shutter that can be quickly screwed down on the inside.

This is how portholes in the hull should be done.

Details like this are expensive. Production boats do a wonderful job of producing something that is affordable, but portholes are often poorly constructed. It is shame that few production boat builders offer the option of completely leaving out things like this. Even poorly constructed portholes are not cheap.

There are some options for an offshore boat that are best either done right, or simply left off.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> Geez, _ENOUGH_ with the opinion from _"old, scared dudes"_, already...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Still, I'm surprised you didn't go with one of Paulo's favorite _"State of the Art Voyage Yachts"_ from Cigale...
> 
> I mean, what could _possibly_ go wrong when navigating such a secure, seagoing companionway ladder, while bounding along at double-digit speeds?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we'll have to await reports of head injuries, or inquiries as to best methods for removing bloodstains from Ultrasuede, before a judgement can be made as to the potential danger created by those sharp overhead corners created by the underside of the cockpit footwell...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Simply astonishing, some of the degrees to which some builders of yachts supposedly designed for offshore use have lost the plot...
> 
> Forget about the pics of stuff like what appears to be the contents of a dumpster poured into the bow section of that Oyster to compensate for the weight added aft. Perhaps the most shocking revelation to come out of the loss of POLINA STAR III for me, is the fact that _HER MASSIVE COMPANIONWAY 'DOOR' COULD ONLY BE OPERATED ELECTRICALLY_, there was _NO_ provision for opening it manually... Absolutely mind-boggling, had that thing been closed when her battery banks became submerged, the skipper and whoever else might have been below at that time would not have survived to tell the tale...


C'mon Jon, aren't you being a little harsh? For example, just look how uniformly cambered those companionway steps are to hold your head secure until you resume consciousness after hitting your head on the one just above it. And what does it matter given how many people you can comfortably "entertain" on that ultrasuede couch? What appears to be part of a SS handhold on the port side does look rather troubling, however. I mean, really, something that functional for when a boat is actually navigating a seaway? Probably removed for the boat shows, no doubt.

And lest we forget, Polina Star III -- complete with 15mm thick scantlings supporting the keel, piles of bricks dumped into the bow, and coffin-like sealed companionway door -- was presumably a *Cat A rated boat, "certified" for "All Oceans." *


----------



## SloopJonB

JonEisberg said:


> Geez, _ENOUGH_ with the opinion from _"old, scared dudes"_, already...


Apparently you've never heard the old saying "There are old sailors and bold sailors but there are no old, bold sailors". :wink


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Again, you are relying on the short memory on the 'nets, or that people did not read previous discussions.
> 
> What you omit in this is the small detail that after this storm, Michael and Edi decided to abort their planned circumnavigation, put the boat up for sale and instead bought a canal boat in Holland. Where they are still voyaging happily to my knowledge.
> 
> And we also have been over you accusing me of bad-mouthing Michael just because he wanted to sell his Hunter and did not say bad things about it. No point to repeat, this is all here on SN.
> 
> "You are not very good at this"


Yeah you keep bringing this up Mast (over and over and over) - and I still have no idea what it has to do with anything. Here is the cover of Michael's book:




And all that "comfort and style" happened on his Hunter 49. You can click on the image and go to Amazon and read the first few chapters which clearly detail his boat search and how he ended up with that production boat in the first place.

So what exactly is your point? And what does it have to do with Hunters or production boats in general?


----------



## smackdaddy

noelex77 said:


> One of my favourite boats .
> 
> This is how their portholes are constructed. This is the hull detail. The interior is a stainless steel frame with a built in thick stainless storm shutter that can be quickly screwed down on the inside.
> 
> This is how portholes in the hull should be done.
> 
> Details like this are expensive. Production boats do a wonderful job of producing something that is affordable, but portholes are often poorly constructed. It is shame that few production boat builders offer the option of completely leaving out things like this. Even poorly constructed portholes are not cheap.
> 
> There are some options for an offshore boat that are best either done right, or simply left off.


If this is what "done right" means, you can take 99% of the vaunted "blue water brands" off the list as well.


----------



## smackdaddy

Okay - so Swans and Oysters are now off the vaunted "blue water boats" list. So what brands do we have left? Maybe someone should start a thread called "Blue Water Boats Fit For Blue Water". Sounds like it will be a very short OP.


----------



## SloopJonB

I think this whole question about Hunters et. al. fitness for ocean voyaging can be put to bed pretty easily.

Someone provide a list of the Hunters and similar that have been lost or abandoned at sea. The reasons why would be good as well.


----------



## outbound

Yes Smack as I said on multiple occasions "there is a hole in the market". Glad you agree with me. Be nice if it was possible to build a boat in the mid forties purposed for ocean cruising at a reasonable cost. 
I'm delighted with my boat and think it comes real close. Unfortunately as said many stick built builders have closed up shop recently. Personally there was much to be said for Najad, Sweden, Valiant, even the small Baltics and Swans. Shame they have virtually left that market. Paulo has posted multiple European voyaging boats that would do just fine. I've referenced some boats that are in current production that would do just fine. Limiting factor remains cost.
Go price a new HR, Boreal, Rustler, Xc, Morris Ocean series, Italia etc. and you would see what I mean. 
You comment on the K&M. Look at the Bougainville Kanter series and see the same type of construction detail with non opening hull lights. Or Dashews boats. Examples of good cruising boats abound both in metal and synthetics.
There is "best practice" and it is applied in many current production offerings ...........but at huge cost.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so Swans and Oysters are now off the vaunted "blue water boats" list. So what brands do we have left? Maybe someone should start a thread called "Blue Water Boats Fit For Blue Water". Sounds like it will be a very short OP.


They would only be off the list from the time their new ownership/mgmt. decided to adopt the same type of cost-cutting mfg. techniques as the lower priced production boat builders. According to Paulo & others over on the CF thread, that was about 2008 for Oyster. So in Oyster's case anyway, you can safely put a pre-2008 back on the "vaunted blue water boat list." Ditto for older Swans, just don't know when.


----------



## Exile1

outbound said:


> Yes Smack as I said on multiple occasions "there is a hole in the market". Glad you agree with me. Be nice if it was possible to build a boat in the mid forties purposed for ocean cruising at a reasonable cost.
> I'm delighted with my boat and think it comes real close. Unfortunately as said many stick built builders have closed up shop recently. Personally there was much to be said for Najad, Sweden, Valiant, even the small Baltics and Swans. Shame they have virtually left that market. Paulo has posted multiple European voyaging boats that would do just fine. I've referenced some boats that are in current production that would do just fine. Limiting factor remains cost.
> Go price a new HR, Boreal, Rustler, Xc, Morris Ocean series, Italia etc. and you would see what I mean.
> You comment on the K&M. Look at the Bougainville Kanter series and see the same type of construction detail with non opening hull lights. Or Dashews boats. Examples of good cruising boats abound both in metal and synthetics.
> There is "best practice" and it is applied in many current production offerings ...........but at huge cost.


Which is exactly why the ongoing glut of high quality used boats on the market -- "vaunted blue water boats" like Bob's for example -- remain such an attractive option for boat buyers. The softness of such a market will often offset much of the inevitable refit costs, as will the steep depreciation a buyer will suffer from purchasing a brand new, lower priced production boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Okay - so Swans and Oysters are now off the vaunted "blue water boats" list. So what brands do we have left? Maybe someone should start a thread called "Blue Water Boats Fit For Blue Water". Sounds like it will be a very short OP.


Well, as long as you continue to focus solely on "brands", instead of _characteristics_, you are unlikely to ever gain any true understanding of what helps define a particular's boat's suitability for offshore sailing, or what its "Limits" may actually be...


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Yes Smack as I said on multiple occasions "there is a hole in the market". Glad you agree with me.


Let's not get carried away. I just wanted to see what was left on _your_ list.

Interesting to see that Morris made your list. Did you not see this article as to the "evolution towards 'performance-cruising'" that Morris has made over the past few years?

http://morrisyachts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Morris-CW-Apr15.pdf

Lots of features that the BWC don't seem to like.

And HR? Look at what's almost underwater there:










And look at that treacherous companionway with no sidewalls or grab rails or handholds:










What about the Italias?










Nope. Look how close to the water those big windows in the hull are. And a transom that you just know is going to get stuck open while Jon is sailing it offshore resulting in downflooding through that ridiculously low companionway? As if.










Speaking of...look at this jagged companionway detail...Jon would sever a toe while beating into 28 knots in his flip-flops like some Ian Van Tuyl wannabe...










What about XC?










Oh hell no. More holes in the hull.










Ridiculously wide, uncomfortable cockpit. IKEA interior, no handholds, and a freakin' glass backsplash that's just waiting to break in rough seas and sever your head...










Completely unacceptable for REAL blue water use. And I'm sure they are only CE Cat A rated. Pfft.

So, it looks like we're left with only the Boreal and Rustler. Of course, we'd have to special order the Boreal to get rid of those dangerous hull lights:










Damn stout anchor roller though.

This list is getting very short indeed.


----------



## SloopJonB

Exile1 said:


> They would only be off the list from the time their new ownership/mgmt. decided to adopt the same type of cost-cutting mfg. techniques as the lower priced production boat builders. According to Paulo & others over on the CF thread, that was about 2008 for Oyster. So in Oyster's case anyway, you can safely put a pre-2008 back on the "vaunted blue water boat list." Ditto for older Swans, just don't know when.


You can find that date for all the manufacturers - just find the date that the fashion house / equity fund / multinational corporation bought them - that will be when they got screwed and cheapened by greed.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Yeah you keep bringing this up Mast (over and over and over) - and I still have no idea what it has to do with anything. Here is the cover of Michael's book:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And all that "comfort and style" happened on his Hunter 49. You can click on the image and go to Amazon and read the first few chapters which clearly detail his boat search and how he ended up with that production boat in the first place.
> 
> So what exactly is your point? And what does it have to do with Hunters or production boats in general?


Ehm, as I said in my posting, I am bringing it up 'over and over and over' because YOU are bringing it up 'over and over and over.' It's really simple, isn't it?

Next question: " I still have no idea what it has to do with anything." Really? Let me explain it to you really slowly: You are bringing up 'over and over and over' that this particular Hunter did not founder in a storm off Cape Horn, and then cite this as proof that Hunters 'are out there and doing it,' as you is your wont to say. Well, the fact is (you like facts, right?) that after the storm, Edi and Michael (who has about 1000 times as much sea time as you do) abandoned their planned circumnavigation. That is a fact. So why do you always bring up the example of this particular Hunter and this particular storm without mentioning this fact?

Next question: "What does this have to do with Hunters?" Ehm, it WAS a Hunter. As you emphasize over and over and over. Pretty simple, right?

And I am sure Hunters are very stylish.


----------



## Don L

JonEisberg said:


> Well, as long as you continue to focus solely on "brands", instead of _characteristics_, you are unlikely to ever gain any true understanding of what helps define a particular's boat's suitability for offshore sailing, or what its "Limits" may actually be...


Funny because I think the same holds for all the people that insist that all "production" boats don't have those just because of the boat name!


----------



## chall03

Smack I am surprised with your googling ability you haven't yet brought up the Hallberg Rassy delamination controversy of a couple of years back.

For the sake of expediency let's get it over and done with as well 

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f47/swedish-craftsmanship-quality-on-hallberg-rassy-49117.html

Short story - Couple sue HR over a brand new HR37 with alleged delamination issues. The pics around at the time did tell a damning story. HR won the initial case( more on a point of law BTW than because there was no issue) and the parties settled out of court after that (with a brand new 420K HR 37 being delivered). Don't go looking for the pics, the couple took them down as part of the settlement.

FWIW (and given you went back to 1977 with Moodys : ) ) we flew to Europe 18 months ago to survey a 1990's HR 45 and walked away.

The boat had issues. 25 year old boats do. Still I know that HR's are exceptionally well built boats based on a considered moderate design.

My point? This game of find a bad boat picture on the internet proves very little Smack.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Ehm, as I said in my posting, I am bringing it up 'over and over and over' because YOU are bringing it up 'over and over and over.' It's really simple, isn't it?


Of course I repeatedly bring it up. It's one of the best, most compelling case studies out there of production boats in VERY, VERY blue water. Why wouldn't I bring it up? And I'll keep doing so when it makes sense.



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Next question: " I still have no idea what it has to do with anything." Really? Let me explain it to you really slowly: You are bringing up 'over and over and over' that this particular Hunter did not founder in a storm off Cape Horn, and then cite this as proof that Hunters 'are out there and doing it,' as you is your wont to say.


As I said above - it is definitely proof of what these boats can handle. How could you say otherwise?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Well, the fact is (you like facts, right?) that after the storm, Edi and Michael (who has about 1000 times as much sea time as you do) abandoned their planned circumnavigation. That is a fact. So why do you always bring up the example of this particular Hunter and this particular storm without mentioning this fact?


Because it has nothing to do with what this Hunter achieved. Michael himself has been abundantly clear about that. And he's been clear about why they chose to pursue a more gentle form of boating due to his and his wife's advancing age and preferences.



> This month marks six years since I ordered Sequitur, and five years since I took possession. For the past four years Edi and I have enjoyed many superb adventures in Sequitur as she safely and confidently took us in grand comfort and style to some very remote and wild corners of the planet. I turn 68 this summer and Edi's first old age security deposit has just arrived in her bank account. We are ready for some more sedate and gentle boating.
> 
> Edi and I had initially begun thinking of another canal boat when we were stuck in Valdivia, Chile for months waiting for repairs to Sequitur*. Then after we had rounded Cape Horn, it seems that whenever we had an internet connection, we spent hours online looking at various canal boat options. We started by dreaming of what we would do after we completed our circumnavigation. We thought of having an Aqualine replica Dutch barge built for us in Gdansk, Poland.
> 
> Somewhere along the way, while dealing with the increasingly adverse bureaucracies in Uruguay and Brazil, our desire to continue butting against Third World nonsense on our way around the world gave way to a more fast-track transition to the canals.


_*Electrical issues do to poor work by the yard guys who installed their after-market systems.
_

What's so mysterious about that?

So I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything and why you feel it's necessary to add the footnote when highlighting this Hunter's/Skipper's accomplishments.

Can you be more clear on what you're trying very poorly to imply?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Next question: "What does this have to do with Hunters?" Ehm, it WAS a Hunter. As you emphasize over and over and over. Pretty simple, right?


Exactly. That Hunter kicked some ass, don't you think?


----------



## albrazzi

I'm sure nobody cares but I'm not reading 445 pages of this too, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.


----------



## outbound

Smack. 

You just don't get it. I intentially picked boats showing very expensive boats that have obvious deficiencies according to prior posts in this thread. They are in general well built and also actually voyaging. Would I ask for changes if I was ordering them. You bet. Especially that pull up companionway board.

You fell into it. Please wipe it off. I have a sensitive stomach.:devil

BTW I still actually like the Boreal. From what they show on the CD they mail out looks like a really good boat.


----------



## chall03

albrazzi said:


> I'm sure nobody cares but I'm not reading 445 pages of this too, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.


LOL. Maybe we could just start copying and pasting pages across?


----------



## smackdaddy

albrazzi said:


> I'm sure nobody cares but I'm not reading 445 pages of this too, fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.


Heh-heh. Just ignore it. I'm only posting that yet again for Mast. He seems to need a lot of reinforcement.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> And a transom that you just know is going to get stuck open while Jon is sailing it offshore resulting in downflooding through that ridiculously low companionway? As if.


Have you actually ever sailed a boat offshore, where the stern 'rail' is comprised of nothing more than a pair of lifeline wires? Even in very placid conditions, I found it _VERY _disconcerting, but perhaps that's just me. I've made no secret that I'm a total wimp in such matters, when it comes to features on boats that are likely to help ensure I stay aboard, or not... ;-)

Based upon the debate over the Salty Dawg rally a couple of years ago, I thought you were all about strict adherence to ISAF regulations, no?

So, why would you be so willing to excuse the use of a span of lifeline wire in such a critical location, that appears to _exceed_ the span that ISAF allows between stanchions on side decks? Would you be comfortable having either of your boys at those helm stations, in sporty conditions offshore?



smackdaddy said:


> IKEA interior, no handholds, and a freakin' glass backsplash that's just waiting to break in rough seas and sever your head...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely unacceptable for REAL blue water use. And I'm sure they are only CE Cat A rated. Pfft.


Joke all you want, but I look at that glass backsplash, and see something that could easily pose some serious risk in heavy weather... Not likely to "sever your head", of course, but a real possibility of causing a grievous injury to a hand, or wrist...

2 weeks ago tonight, my crew and I were getting tossed around the inside of a Valiant 42 pretty good, in our effort to make it out to I-65 in some very confused seas, a few hundred miles south of Bermuda... We were all quite grateful for the tighter confines of that interior, and the abundance of handholds, and in retrospect I'm relieved that boat did not have such a feature below that would have required taking such care to _avoid_ coming into inadvertent contact with...

But again, that's just me, you obviously are content with living more dangerously when sailing offshore...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Have you actually ever sailed a boat offshore, where the stern 'rail' is comprised of nothing more than a pair of lifeline wires? Even in very placid conditions, I found it _VERY _disconcerting, but perhaps that's just me. I've made no secret that I'm a total wimp in such matters, when it comes to features on boats that are likely to help ensure I stay aboard, or not... ;-)
> 
> Based upon the debate over the Salty Dawg rally a couple of years ago, I thought you were all about strict adherence to ISAF regulations, no?
> 
> So, why would you be so willing to excuse the use of a span of lifeline wire in such a critical location, that appears to _exceed_ the span that ISAF allows between stanchions on side decks? Would you be comfortable having either of your boys at those helm stations, in sporty conditions offshore?












So now we're down to the "what about the children" tactics? First, that transom isn't open...










Second, I'm honestly not sure what the distance between those pushpit stanchions are, so I couldn't tell you on the ISAF issue.

But 3rd, we clip in when offshore and anywhere near sporty. So I honestly wouldn't be that concerned with that boat and its configuration. Beats a VO65 any day.

Hey, Outbound is the one who has this boat on his BWC short list. Talk to him.


----------



## outbound

Smackie. Did you even bother to read my last post?


----------



## outbound

outbound said:


> Smack.
> 
> You just don't get it. I intentially picked boats showing very expensive boats that have obvious deficiencies according to prior posts in this thread. They are in general well built and also actually voyaging. Would I ask for changes if I was ordering them. You bet. Especially that pull up companionway board.
> 
> You fell into it. Please wipe it off. I have a sensitive stomach.:devil
> 
> BTW I still actually like the Boreal. From what they show on the CD they mail out looks like a really good boat.


Just a reminder you can't please everyone so you need to please yourself. 
So far the posts by those much more experienced than me have been congruent to my experience. With apologies yours have not.

Btw you do realize the helms seats are above the drop down stern. Forget falling off being that exposed is cold and wet. Same issue with the old flush deck designs. But with this one getting pooped or even a splash as a wave catches up to you means the Mustos are on a lot of the time. It's true you probably learn to snuggle in the corner of the push pulpit and steer with a foot. In actuality like most boats the AP does most of the steering.
Many folks on passage are clipped on whenever on deck. Some only at night or when one up. Some only when sporty. I like everyone clipped all the time and asking permission if conditions allow it to be off. I like boats designed with harness points in the cockpit, behind the wheels and for Jack lines. I like people pissing in the heads. I like ending with the same number of people with which we started.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> Of course I repeatedly bring it up. It's one of the best, most compelling case studies out there of production boats in VERY, VERY blue water. Why wouldn't I bring it up? And I'll keep doing so when it makes sense.
> 
> As I said above - it is definitely proof of what these boats can handle. How could you say otherwise?
> 
> Because it has nothing to do with what this Hunter achieved. Michael himself has been abundantly clear about that. And he's been clear about why they chose to pursue a more gentle form of boating due to his and his wife's advancing age and preferences.
> 
> _*Electrical issues do to poor work by the yard guys who installed their after-market systems.
> _
> 
> What's so mysterious about that?
> 
> So I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything and why you feel it's necessary to add the footnote when highlighting this Hunter's/Skipper's accomplishments.
> 
> Can you be more clear on what you're trying very poorly to imply?
> 
> Exactly. That Hunter kicked some ass, don't you think?


I am not going to waste time replying to your repetitive repeating over and over and over again stuff that was discussed again and again and again. Bring up the Hunter in the storm again and again but don't forget to mention the FACT that they abandoned their circumnavigation after that storm.

Just look at the facts: NOWHERE in Michael's blog (of which I read every word) did the question of abandoning their planned ("slow and thorough") circumnavigation appear, UNTIL after the storm. Are you telling me Michael did not know he was going to turn 68 two months later? PLEASE!


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Just look at the facts: NOWHERE in Michael's blog (of which I read every word) did the question of abandoning their planned ("slow and thorough") circumnavigation appear, UNTIL after the storm. Are you telling me Michael did not know he was going to turn 68 two months later? PLEASE!


I have looked at the facts. Have you? Where does he mention the storm as the reason they are foregoing the run to Cape Town? This is his entry after said storm...



> *With our onward direction in mind, we assessed Sequitur's condition. We have nothing but high praise for the Hunter 49, finding it a wonderfully sea-kindly vessel, very comfortable and secure in all weather through Force 12. However; the poor quality of the installation work done during the fit-out by Specialty Yachts in Vancouver continues to jeopardize our safety and to impair our enjoyment of this wonderful boat.
> *
> The Raymarine chart-plotter continues to malfunction, losing the radar scanner input, rebooting, going back to factory default and erasing all data and settings. This happens randomly every few hours, seemingly the result of a particular, though as yet unidentified vibration. It began a few days south of Puerto Montt, after we had crossed the Buco de Guafo into the northern Patagonian channels. With this, we have lost the input from both of our AIS units, the Raymarine transceiver and the SeaCas receiver, so we can see no other vessels' AIS signatures. Fortunately though; our transceiver works, so we are visible to other vessels. I suspect some more of Specialty's poor connections are to blame, but so far through my troubleshooting up the mast and down below behind the system's components, I have not been able to track-down the cause.
> 
> The Icom 802 SSB radio, the antenna and the tuner installation that we had done by Specialty performed very poorly from the beginning, and for over a year now has ceased to work at all, so we have no access to weather information by voice nor through gribs by sailmail, so we need to rely on the satellite phone. While we were in Vancouver, I changed over from a Microsoft-based computer to a new MacBook Air, and I have not yet been able to get the Iridium satellite phone to work with it, although the program is designed to work with Macs. So while we have hundreds of minutes on our Global Marine Networks account, I cannot use the XGate email, web browser or weather applications.
> 
> *The thought of venturing out on a three or four week, 3500-mile crossing to Cape Town without ongoing access to current weather information, without dependable radar and without being able to receive AIS data, did not sit well with us. Additionally, with our anchor windlass broken again, approaching a coast in unknown weather after a month's passage without convenient anchoring capability seemed imprudent if better options were available.*
> 
> We thought of staying in Stanley and getting our electronics and windlass repaired; however, *we were tired of many months in multiple layers of fleece, of wearing long underwear, of wearing double toques, of sleeping under two heavy duvets, all this with the Espar furnace turned up high. We were tired of the constant highly humid cold weather. We looked north, closer to the equator.* Argentina was totally out of the question; we risked very heavy fines, even boat confiscation for having visiting the Malvinas without Argentine permission. We looked at heading to Piriapolis, Uruguay.


So, yet again Mast, you're just plain wrong. It wasn't the Hunter, it wasn't the storm, it was exactly what he laid out above. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Surely you can read as well as I can?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> So now we're down to the "what about the children" tactics?


Right, what could I have been thinking? Inconceivable, for sure, that anyone might possibly factor in the safety of a yacht's cockpit for children, in their criteria for choice of a boat to be sailed offshore...



smackdaddy said:


> First, that transom isn't open...


I didn't say it was... hell, that transom board looks to be at least shin-high, at a minimum...












smackdaddy said:


> Second, I'm honestly not sure what the distance between those pushpit stanchions are, so I couldn't tell you on the ISAF issue.


if it's not exceeding 84 inches, it's certainly pushing the limit... If not on that particular boat, it certainly would be on something like this:












smackdaddy said:


> But 3rd, we clip in when offshore and anywhere near sporty. So I honestly wouldn't be that concerned with that boat and its configuration. Beats a VO65 any day.


Again, how could I have forgotten? Of course, the use of tethers solves _EVERY_ shortcoming in the design of decks and cockpits...

Not hard to imagine plenty of situations where it would be far preferable to have a solid rail defining the back of the boat, as opposed to a couple of lifelines fixed with pelican hooks...

Well, at least to a worry wart like me...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> ...if it's not exceeding 84 inches, it's certainly pushing the limit... If not on that particular boat, it certainly would be on something like this:


Ahm - Jon, surely you've been to enough boat shows to know that those "transom seats" fold down on the Sense while that transom raises, right?










WAY less than 84 inches wouldn't you say?



JonEisberg said:


> Not hard to imagine plenty of situations where it would be far preferable to have a solid rail defining the back of the boat, as opposed to a couple of lifelines fixed with pelican hooks...
> 
> Well, at least to a worry wart like me...
> 
> ;-)


Brent - is that you?



Brent Swain said:


> re
> Regardless of how trendy the hull under you ,it is still far easier to fall over a short wire lifeline than over a tall, solid lifeline, and thus it's far more dangerous to cruise with the former. The trendiness of the boat it is on doesn't change that. Having cruised with proper lifelines, I don't think you would ever cruise for long with low, fragile, stock boat lifelines, before you changed them to something more realistic and practical.





Brent Swain said:


> Anything less than 30 inches of the decks is just plain foolish, and bad seamanship.
> I use all solid lifelines, stainless tubing 34 inches of the decks. This drastically reduces loads and movement on the bases, drastically reducing the odds of deck leaks on non metal boats.
> I also have been using the temporary, chest high lifelines for offshore, a huge improvement in peace of mind.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Ahm - Jon, surely you've been to enough boat shows to know that those "transom seats" fold down on the Sense while that transom raises, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WAY less than 84 inches wouldn't you say?


Well, I was referring to the distance between the pushpits, but of course those barely visible wires strung between those seats do appear to afford the ultimate in offshore cockpit security, impossible to imagine how a body might ever pass thru that gap... ;-)

And, in the unlikely event someone ever _DID_ manage to fall back onto those wires, there can be little doubt those seat backs would be up to the task, stronger than stanchions or pushpits, for sure, backed up by oversize fender washers, of course...


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Well, I was referring to the distance between the pushpits, but of course those barely visible wires strung between those seats do appear to afford the ultimate in offshore cockpit security, impossible to imagine how a body might ever pass thru that gap... ;-)


Hey- I didn't say it was awesome. I just said you were wrong.

And you still sound like Brent.


----------



## jackdale

Has this been posted?

ANOTHER MAJOR KEEL FAILURE: What Really Happened to Polina Star III? | Sailfeed

Lots of photos.


----------



## chall03

JonEisberg said:


> Right, what could I have been thinking? Inconceivable, for sure, that anyone might possibly factor in the safety of a yacht's cockpit for children, in their criteria for choice of a boat to be sailed offshore...












We are probably getting close to around 8000nm with either 1 or 2 little tackers under 5 onboard and we have always preferred a centre cockpit.

We have been on a friend's open transom Hanse a couple of times with the kids. It would not be our preference for an offshore family cruising boat.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> Hey- I didn't say it was awesome. I just said you were wrong.
> 
> And you still sound like Brent.


That's OK, you still sound like someone who hasn't sailed much offshore...

;-)

One of the hallmarks of boats being built in recent years for bluewater sailing has been the fuller enclosure or surrounding of the cockpit with solid rails, as opposed to a stern rail and lifelines... I first started seeing this done with Valiants, carrying the rail forward to the lifeline gate. It's now become quite common on other boats like Outbounds, Hylas, and the Chuck Paine designs for Morris and Lyman Morse...

Everyone I know who's ever sailed an aft cockpit boat with this arrangement greatly appreciates the added security and practicality it can afford...


----------



## SloopJonB

Oh boy - don't tell Brent or we'll never hear the end of it.


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> That's OK, you still sound like someone who hasn't sailed much offshore...
> 
> ;-)
> 
> One of the hallmarks of boats being built in recent years for bluewater sailing has been the fuller enclosure or surrounding of the cockpit with solid rails, as opposed to a stern rail and lifelines... I first started seeing this done with Valiants, carrying the rail forward to the lifeline gate. It's now become quite common on other boats like Outbounds, Hylas, and the Chuck Paine designs for Morris and Lyman Morse...
> 
> Everyone I know who's ever sailed an aft cockpit boat with this arrangement greatly appreciates the added security and practicality it can afford...


Hmmm . . . I'm seeing the nicely secured, wrap around stern rails, but where are all the in-hull portlights? I mean, if caught in an F11 storm, the _first_ thing I'm going to wanna see is water rushing by the hull that is supposed to be protecting my spacious salon furnishings. Next thing ya know we'll discover that these three boats also have plenty of well-placed hand holds down below. But where are all the old, scared lookin' dudes? And how the heck do sensible features like this get past the marketing depts.? Surely the "market" wouldn't approve of such safety, convenience & comfort in Cat A boats rated for sailing in "All Oceans."


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> I have looked at the facts. Have you? Where does he mention the storm as the reason they are foregoing the run to Cape Town? This is his entry after said storm...
> 
> So, yet again Mast, you're just plain wrong. It wasn't the Hunter, it wasn't the storm, it was exactly what he laid out above. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Surely you can read as well as I can?


Yes, I can read, and here is the FACT you are looking for: After or during the storm, this very experienced mariner, who no doubt has been in many bad storms during his Navy career, realized that crossing an ocean in this boat would be, let's put it politely, not advisable. Never before did they consider not to circumnavigate, according to their blog. What did he learn during the storm that he did not know before? Certainly not that his 68th birthday was coming up.

And for the N-th time, don't pretend that you find it astonishing that someone who has just decided to put his boat on the market will not trash-talk it.

I am now waiting that you will come back telling me (for the N-th time) that I am impugning Michael's character.


----------



## Don L

I thought this thread was about a keel falling off a large Oyster, how silly of me uke


----------



## chall03

It is. But stuff all to say until a report is handed down. 

So until then it's everyone's favourite game of bash a boat......

It's easy. Just pick a boat. google a picture and join in.


----------



## outbound

The first boat is a sistership of mine. We were the first hard dodger of that style. I would note not shown is a storm board that inserts into the aft opening of the cockpit. The helm seat folds up. Then that board goes into two lateral grooves. It descends leaving a few inches open at the bottom to allow water to egress. There are scuppers at the forward end of the cockpit sole but I can tell you with certainty - when pooped or with a boarding sea the vast majority of the water leaves through that opening. 

Why do I mention this? Because here again a compromise must be made. In the past you could tell an ocean boat by the extremely small cockpit well. Thinking was water is heavy. Enough so that enough of it could comprise how the vessel handled. Less water, smaller scuppers, water would still drain quickly and with a bridge deck less risk of down flooding. 
The open ocean racers got around this entirely. Open stern water would clear very quickly with much less risk of down flooding or handling being effected. For the cruiser there was the additional advantage of easy boarding. My wife's favorite spot is sitting on the sugar scoop, feet in the water, drink in hand, tossing rolled up bread nuggets or frozen peas at the fish. So that's a plus too.
Center cockpits also need adequate drainage and require longer companion ways. But they open up possibilities in interior design and decrease risk of getting pooped and wet. They do not have the same ease in boarding either from a dinghy or dock. Structure is higher and that needs to be incorporated to perserve stability. 

So a feature that lowered the weight aft improving stability and decreased risk of down flooding and decreased the time to clear boarding seas in race boats was incorporated in cruising designs. Sounds good? Does to me except for the absence of any bridge deck ( or raising the companionway opening), over engineered companion ways to get rid of drop boards, and exposed helm stations when translated to several current cruising designs. 

Devils in the details.


----------



## outbound

Jon what is the bottom boat? She's sweet.


----------



## JonEisberg

chall03 said:


> We are been on a friend's open transom Hanse a couple of times with the kids. It would no be our preference for an offshore family cruising boat.


During the 8 days prior to the start of the Caribbean 1500, we were docked at Ocean Marine Center in Portsmouth in the slip adjacent to AVANTI, the Hanse 430 that sadly was forced to retire from the rally with a rudder failure, and divert to Bermuda...










While I believe our Valiant 42 was rightly awarded the prize for the "Most Beautiful Yacht" in this year's rally, without question AVANTI would have taken the prize if there were a separate category for the _'SEXIEST Boat'_... She is a _VERY_ striking boat, with a gleaming Gunmetal Gray hull, and her deck and coachroof painted in a Metallic _SILVER_... (Her owner Jeremi concedes he wouldn't go that route again, however. I imagine it can get pretty hot, and no doubt can create a lot of glare on bright days) That boat looks _FAST_ above all else, even tied up in a slip...

Pretty much without fail, every dock walker throughout that week would comment on what a sharp-looking boat she is... Then, the second comment would invariably express skepticism about the open transom, and the proximity of those wheels to the back of the boat, the cockpit enclosed only be a pair of lifelines strung between the pushpits...

We cruising sailors are just wimps, I suppose... But is appears to me I may not be alone in finding this sort of thing more than a bit disconcerting... Then again, I cringe every time I see someone sitting on a cockpit coaming, _RECLINING_ back against the lifelines... I cannot believe they actually sell padding to wrap around cockpit lifelines, designed to make doing so more _comfortable_...

;-)


----------



## JonEisberg

outbound said:


> Jon what is the bottom boat? She's sweet.


Indeed she is... Too big for me, however, I'll take the 42-foot version, thank you... ;-)

That's NEW MORNING, a 54' Chuck Paine design built by Lyman Morse, probably a $2+ million custom build... The subject of a CW cover story of one couple's Ultimate Globe Girdler, she was sold 5 years after her launch at probably under half the cost to build her... Like so many Dream Boats whose Design Brief/Mission Statement specified a Circumnavigator, she has yet to come close to accomplishing that feat... Not unlike KIWI SPIRIT, come to think of it...

;-)

Up and At 'Em | Cruising World

An incredibly well thought-out boat, no question... Their approach to safety and cockpit ergonomics in particular is well worth reading:

http://www.newmorning.info/page12/styled/styled-2/index.html

Secure hand holds coming out the wazoo... ;-)










Awesome boat, no doubt about it... Still, every time I see her name and logo, the first thing that comes to mind is that it looks like an ad for a Feminine Personal Care Product...

;-)


----------



## outbound

Ed Joy does great work.


----------



## seaner97

chall03 said:


> It is. But stuff all to say until a report is handed down.
> 
> So until then it's everyone's favourite game of bash a boat......
> 
> It's easy. Just pick a boat. google a picture and join in.


Or, more accurately, whack a smack. It's just like whack a mole, but far more annoying.


----------



## JonEisberg

Exile1 said:


> Hmmm . . . I'm seeing the nicely secured, wrap around stern rails, but where are all the in-hull portlights? I mean, if caught in an F11 storm, the _first_ thing I'm going to wanna see is water rushing by the hull that is supposed to be protecting my spacious salon furnishings. Next thing ya know we'll discover that these three boats also have plenty of well-placed hand holds down below. But where are all the old, scared lookin' dudes? And how the heck do sensible features like this get past the marketing depts.? Surely the "market" wouldn't approve of such safety, convenience & comfort in Cat A boats rated for sailing in "All Oceans."


OK, back to the Italia for a moment...

I would have to say it was one of the most impressive boats I saw this year in Annapolis, though I was only able to have a very quick look... But a little birdie tells me many 'judges' were similarly impressed, and I would not at all be surprised if it wins whatever category it fits into in CRUISING WORLD's Boat of the Year contest, or similar. (SAIL has already chosen it as their Best Cruising Monohull 41-50', for instance)...

But looking at such boats, seems to me the target market for them is just the sort of "Real Cruiser" that Don alludes to in his other thread, those that choose to cruise fairly close to home, hopping from one marina to another, rarely making passages, and so on... For when I look at such a boat, the first thing that comes to mind (after "Where the hell is the anchor?") is: "Where the heck would I put all my _STUFF ?"_

As many cruisers know, stern rails often perform other vital functions beyond affording cockpit security... Even for those determined to minimize the amount of Crap on the Back, they can be very useful as mounting positions for liferafts, outboard motors, solar panels, and so on... Looking at those tiny pushpits at each quarter that are now commonplace on all these open patio designs, each one could be quickly filled up by safety gear such as horseshoe buoys and Lifeslings, alone...

One thing that struck me about the fleet in this year's Caribbean 1500, is how few boats were sporting cockpit weather cloths... This year turned out to be very mild, I hardly needed any of my cold weather clothing at all, but in general for a November departure from the East coast, a simple thing like weather cloths can be a _REALLY_ nice thing to have, I never cease to be amazed at how greatly they enhance the comfort of my puny little cockpit when sailing offshore, or in sporty conditions...










Oh, and at to where the anchor is, I know it's the Latest/Createst/Sexiest flip out arrangement that's all the rage on today's "Cruising" boats:










Looks like that roller would have failed _HOURS_ before that on Michael Calabrese's Hunter Passage... In addition, I imagine the tight confines of the bow storage compartment would preclude the use of the World's Finest Anchor(s)...

;-)

Yup, looks more like a Flat Water Marina Hopper the closer you look... Check out the awesome handrail on the coachroof, for instance...

Oh, wait... no need to ever leave the cockpit... One of my favorite features, half a dozen lines being led to a single winch...

_SO_ tidy...

;-)


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Yes, I can read, and here is the FACT you are looking for: After or during the storm, this very experienced mariner, who no doubt has been in many bad storms during his Navy career, realized that crossing an ocean in this boat would be, let's put it politely, not advisable. Never before did they consider not to circumnavigate, according to their blog. What did he learn during the storm that he did not know before? Certainly not that his 68th birthday was coming up.


He just told you in very clear words. How can you not understand that?



MastUndSchotbruch said:


> And for the N-th time, don't pretend that you find it astonishing that someone who has just decided to put his boat on the market will not trash-talk it.
> 
> I am now waiting that you will come back telling me (for the N-th time) that I am impugning Michael's character.


Well you're certainly putting words in his mouth that he never said. In fact he said the opposite - right after the storm and before he had ever talked about selling the boat - AND again later _when_ talking about selling the boat. Very consistent. So, until you can find his words to back up your insinuations that he's somehow lying, YOU ARE impugning his character. It's really that simple Mast. So you really should stop doing that.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> I thought this thread was about a keel falling off a large Oyster, how silly of me uke


 Originally posted by *Chall03:*

It is. But stuff all to say until a report is handed down.

So until then it's everyone's favourite game of bash a boat......

It's easy. Just pick a boat. google a picture and join in.

Don's got a good point, but the larger concern over the Oyster is whether this portends serious quality control & other issues with the higher end boats as they try and utilize the cost-cutting & wgt.-savings construction techniques of the lower end production boats. For me anyway, that seems relevant to this thread. Either that, or people are tired of hangin' out over on the Production Boat thread. 

As for using photos to "bash-a-boat," I would point out that plenty have also been posted to "praise-a-boat" lately. There are Jon's examples of three well found yachts, along with Smack's pics of _s/v Sequiter_ that sailed to Cape Horn, an impressive feat in any yacht (despite the controversy). Other photos of new models demonstrate various potential pitfalls of using features of race boats in cruising applications. What I find useless is the posting of photos of damage to a particular type or brand of yacht without any indication of whether it has any relationship to faulty or cheap construction by the boat builder. _On the other hand,_ there are basic structural items -- like hulls, rudders & keels -- that should be built to withstand a reasonably foreseeable amount of abuse & neglect.

As for waiting for a report on the Oyster, one knowledgeable poster on the CF thread noted that the type of report issued by MAIB that we saw after _Cheeki Rafiki_ may not be issued in this case because there was no loss of life on _Polina Star III_. If true, that would be unfortunate.


----------



## miatapaul

So one question, what month was this Oyster built in? My grandmother always told me to avoid oysters in months with an R in them.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> He just told you in very clear words. How can you not understand that?
> 
> Well you're certainly putting words in his mouth that he never said. In fact he said the opposite - right after the storm and before he had ever talked about selling the boat - AND again later _when_ talking about selling the boat. Very consistent. So, until you can find his words to back up your insinuations that he's somehow lying, YOU ARE impugning his character. It's really that simple Mast. So you really should stop doing that.


Please tell me which words I have been putting in Michael's mouth. Direct quotes, please.

And explain where, exactly, I am insinuating he is lying.

YOU ARE impugning my character. You really should stop doing that. It's really that simple, Smack.

Why don't you read his blog? Please point me to where in his blog (not the book which he wrote after the fact) he writes about planning to abandon their circumnavigation BEFORE the storm. You can't, because he never did. It is after experiencing the storm on the Hunter that they decided to put it up for sale and buy a canal boat instead. It's that simple.

We are waiting.


----------



## Don L

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Please tell me which words I have been putting in Michael's mouth. Direct quotes, please.


You know, I feel he has quoted you this. I would bet to post that we all know your position and that you aren't going to be happy till everyone agrees with it. Since that isn't ever going to happen why can't you just drop it already?

BTW - bet it doesn't have anything to do with a keel peeling off an Oyster


----------



## skygazer

miatapaul said:


> So one question, what month was this Oyster built in? My grandmother always told me to avoid oysters in months with an R in them.


I'm afraid you were a "bad boy" and did not listen well. Months with an "R" (think of it as Brrrr, cold!) are when you should eat oysters. I know, we used to gather them on the flats in Nova Scotia.

Warm months (no "R") have more red tide, bacteria, and spoilage.


----------



## miatapaul

skygazer said:


> I'm afraid you were a "bad boy" and did not listen well. Months with an "R" (think of it as Brrrr, cold!) are when you should eat oysters. I know, we used to gather them on the flats in Nova Scotia.
> 
> Warm months (no "R") have more red tide, bacteria, and spoilage.


Never really liked them that much so I must have gotten that reversed. She (my Grandmother) grew up on the shore, so was very in to them. I only like them occasionally, and when from known very fresh source.

It would not be the first time I misunderstood something she tried to tell me! Though the one that really stuck with me was "If you want to get a girl into bed, listen to Jazz not that rock..." Worked for me! Yea Nana!


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

Don0190 said:


> You know, I feel he has quoted you this. I would bet to post that we all know your position and that you aren't going to be happy till everyone agrees with it. Since that isn't ever going to happen why can't you just drop it already?
> 
> BTW - bet it doesn't have anything to do with a keel peeling off an Oyster


Oh, I have dropped it a dozen times already. But Smack keeps bringing up the story 'over and over and over,' in his words. Believe me, I am as tired of it as you are.

And you are entirely right, it has nothing to do with the Oyster which is what this thread is about. You will have to ask Smack why he decides to bring up this story all the time.


----------



## skygazer

miatapaul said:


> It would not be the first time I misunderstood something she tried to tell me! Though the one that really stuck with me was "If you want to get a girl into bed, listen to Jazz not that rock..." Worked for me! Yea Nana!


I'm embarrassed to say that I paid no attention to an enormous amount of sailing information when I was young. Never heard that about jazz, sounds good!

Oysters are very tough to open, their bottom does NOT fall off readily.


----------



## smackdaddy

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Oh, I have dropped it a dozen times already. But Smack keeps bringing up the story 'over and over and over,' in his words. Believe me, I am as tired of it as you are.
> 
> And you are entirely right, it has nothing to do with the Oyster which is what this thread is about. You will have to ask Smack why he decides to bring up this story all the time.


I brought it up because Out, Jon and I have been discussing in-hull portlights, and whether they are a liability offshore, especially in production boats. SEQUITUR proved that not to be the case for the Hunter in my example above. Everything on that Hunter 49 that was not royally screwed up by Specialty Yacht Services did a stellar job in an F11-12 off Cape Horn and for tens of thousands of miles and varying degrees of weather before and after that particular storm. It's a great story. One that deserves repeated telling. That's why.

But, you'll also notice that in the above posts about this boat and its skipper, I wasn't talking to you, Mast. I was talking to them. Yet YOU felt the need to jump in with your same old insinuations.

You really should stop doing that.


----------



## miatapaul

skygazer said:


> I'm embarrassed to say that I paid no attention to an enormous amount of sailing information when I was young. Never heard that about jazz, sounds good!
> 
> Oysters are very tough to open, their bottom does NOT fall off readily.


Well most Oysters......

If my Grandmother was a sailor, I am sure she would have installed lots of good info. But alas she was not. She was more proper socialite, heck I don't even think I ever heard her swear(proof she was no sailor!), but she could drink some Scotch!


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I brought it up because Out, Jon and I have been discussing in-hull portlights, and whether they are a liability offshore, especially in production boats. SEQUITUR proved that not to be the case for the Hunter in my example above. Everything on that Hunter 49 that was not royally screwed up by Specialty Yacht Services did a stellar job in an F11-12 off Cape Horn and for tens of thousands of miles and varying degrees of weather before and after that particular storm. It's a great story. One that deserves repeated telling. That's why.
> 
> But, you'll also notice that in the above posts about this boat and its skipper, I wasn't talking to you, Mast. I was talking to them. Yet YOU felt the need to jump in with your same old insinuations.
> 
> You really should stop doing that.


Yea, really Mast. How dare you butt in, on a PUBLIC forum no less, to a conversation that was obviously limited SOLELY to Out, Jon & Smack! And to _INSINUATE_ something negative about a _HUNTER_ sailboat! You've got some nerve, buddy. If I wasn't so offended, I wouldn't even have to recall a previous thread discussing how Specialty Yacht Services was an authorized Hunter dealer, expressly authorized by Hunter to complete the final installations on what was a new yacht, including the electronics. Which makes them Hunter's agent, of course, which in turn makes Hunter responsible for the failures, especially if the boat is still under warranty. Oops.

Then again, having to deal with these failures on a trip to Cape Horn only enhances my esteem for the crew of _SEQUITER._ Might even download the book. But trying to hold Hunter blameless for who it specifically chose & authorized to complete the installation of critical systems on one of its newly delivered boats is, shall we say, a _STRETCH_?? As I recall, the boat was delivered by Hunter to Specialty Services without its keel as well. Would Hunter also be held blameless if the keel fell off after expressly authorizing Specialty to perform its installation? But hey, the portlights held, right? 

Oh, and since we're already so wildly off topic, Miatapaul's grandma sounds really cool.


----------



## Capt Len

While drifting even further I should mention that as oysters are reputed as enhancing ones prowess, I ate a dozen last weekend and only eight worked.This, although being somewhat disappointing was far superior to having my keel ripped off.


----------



## Exile1

Capt Len said:


> While drifting even further I should mention that as oysters are reputed as enhancing ones prowess, I ate a dozen last weekend and only eight worked.This, although being somewhat disappointing was far superior to having my keel ripped off.


Boy, if we don't get some more info on that Oyster -- the sailboat one which had its keel ripped off & sank, that is -- it's a little scary to think which direction this thread may go next.


----------



## outbound

Come on it was an appendage that worked and didn't fall off. Is that thread drift?

Remain interested in how keels are done. To my simple thinking as keels get thinner and have higher aspect they are more efficient. Downside is local loading at the canoe body/keel junction increases. Several techniques seem to be employed to transfer this load elsewhere. Using SS or CF for the keel with bulb at the bottom and at the juncture and continuing upward to form plate of that material spreading the load. Using bolts passing through the canoe body into and through a grid so in effect the forces are transferred widely to the canoe body. Using an internal grid so all forces ( rig, keel, engine beds) are borne by the grid and the canoe body is only concerned with keeping the water out. 
Nature of the grid is of interest. See steel, in effect cored beams, variations of the I bean idea, solid matrix etc.

Hard to tell from pictures offered but wonder if bolts failed but adhesive held. So loads were transferred to the canoe body and the canoe body was never engineered to bear those loads. Would explain prior comments about lay up thickness. In other words they were not at all concerned about expense but rather not "wasting" weight from what was deemed unnecessary hull thickness due to perceived expected loading at that area.this could also happen with localized grid failure.

Realize this is speculation as I have no idea at all how this boat is put together. Does anyone have this knowledge? 

Would note that performance would be unacceptable for a racer but low aspect keels would seem better able to spread these loads and if with internal ballast even more opportunity to spread these forces exists. One can then use both the skin and/ or bolts to a grid.


----------



## Shockwave

Out, there were no floors or frames in the keel stub. The stub, by itself, was not strong enough to stop the skins from pulling away from the grid. Think of an I beam, both sides of the I beam were the sides of the keel stub, there was no I in the structure. The keel bolts did not fail, the structure failed. 

I wish I had a good picture of our bilge showing both floors and ring frames in and crossing the keel stub. 

Bob posted pictures of the floors in his carbon cutters, think of them as the I in the I beam.


----------



## Capt Len

Two inadequate skins held apart by weak bulkheads and a lever of great weight bolted on the bottom. Then you tilt the vessel under sail and the bulkheads fail one by one as the skin in tension fails.;the skin in compression just rips up the side up to the dotted line and falls with the keel .A little more structural thought, eh ! Parting light weight keel bolts could have saved the sinking but that would be bad for the reputation of a BW dock queen.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Yea, really Mast. How dare you butt in, on a PUBLIC forum no less, to a conversation that was obviously limited SOLELY to Out, Jon & Smack! And to _INSINUATE_ something negative about a _HUNTER_ sailboat! You've got some nerve, buddy.


I don't care if he posts any time he wants. I DO care if he posts BS that he has no evidence for that impugns the character of another REAL sailor I happen to admire. That's not nerve - that's BS.



Exile1 said:


> If I wasn't so offended, I wouldn't even have to recall a previous thread discussing how Specialty Yacht Services was an authorized Hunter dealer, expressly authorized by Hunter to complete the final installations on what was a new yacht, including the electronics. Which makes them Hunter's agent, of course, which in turn makes Hunter responsible for the failures, especially if the boat is still under warranty. Oops.


Obviously, I can't speak to that relationship. I have no idea about those details. However, it's very clear that Specialty Yacht Services completely screwed the pooch when it came to Michael's Hunter. He put the blame squarely on them - not Hunter. I assume this is because most of the problems came with the after-market stuff that was added by SYS (genset, heater, chartplotter, SSB, other electronics, etc.) - stuff I don't think Hunter would be covering in their warranty anyway because it was add-on stuff.

Maybe you know something about all this I don't? Otherwise, I don't see the problem.



Exile1 said:


> Then again, having to deal with these failures on a trip to Cape Horn only enhances my esteem for the crew of _SEQUITER._ Might even download the book.


You should. You might learn something.



Exile1 said:


> But trying to hold Hunter blameless for who it specifically chose & authorized to complete the installation of critical systems on one of its newly delivered boats is, shall we say, a _STRETCH_?? As I recall, the boat was delivered by Hunter to Specialty Services without its keel as well. Would Hunter also be held blameless if the keel fell off after expressly authorizing Specialty to perform its installation?


"Critical systems"? The keel I'll give you (which did great by the way), but are added genset, SSB, chartplotter, heater, etc. "critical systems" that Hunter has responsibility for?

Again, you need to talk to Hunter about the relationship with SYS. As I mentioned above, the stuff that caused the most problems were the add-ons. Not the standard commissioning stuff. So you're the one that appears to be stretching here. Of course, that's not new.



Exile1 said:


> But hey, the portlights held, right?


They sure did. Impressive, eh?


----------



## outbound

Shock

That's shocking


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

smackdaddy said:


> I don't care if he posts any time he wants. I DO care if he posts BS that he has no evidence for that impugns the character of another REAL sailor I happen to admire. That's not nerve - that's BS.


You are doing it again: Impugning my character by claiming falsely that I impugned someone else's character. You should really stop doing that.

And you also claimed that I put words in Michael's mouth. I am still waiting for quotes where you show that. You are not very good at this.

We are waiting.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I don't care if he posts any time he wants. I DO care if he posts BS that he has no evidence for that impugns the character of another REAL sailor I happen to admire. That's not nerve - that's BS.
> 
> Obviously, I can't speak to that relationship. I have no idea about those details. However, it's very clear that Specialty Yacht Services completely screwed the pooch when it came to Michael's Hunter. He put the blame squarely on them - not Hunter. I assume this is because most of the problems came with the after-market stuff that was added by SYS (genset, heater, chartplotter, SSB, other electronics, etc.) - stuff I don't think Hunter would be covering in their warranty anyway because it was add-on stuff.
> 
> Maybe you know something about all this I don't? Otherwise, I don't see the problem.
> 
> You should. You might learn something.
> 
> "Critical systems"? The keel I'll give you (which did great by the way), but are added genset, SSB, chartplotter, heater, etc. "critical systems" that Hunter has responsibility for?
> 
> Again, you need to talk to Hunter about the relationship with SYS. As I mentioned above, the stuff that caused the most problems were the add-ons. Not the standard commissioning stuff. So you're the one that appears to be stretching here. Of course, that's not new.
> 
> They sure did. Impressive, eh?


I didn't read any impugning of character, of a "REAL sailor" or not. But I'm not surprised you did given how personally invested you are in your particular boat brand. The suggestion was that the boat itself had more to do with aborting the long-planned circumnavigation than what the skipper publicly revealed. You have consistently taken huge offense to this for what appear to be very personal reasons, and made contrary arguments from the skipper's blog. It doesn't mean that either one of you are talking "BS," or whatever other such friendly terms you've called it.

Personally, I have no dog in this particular fight, and am only intrigued with what the crew of _SEQUITER_ did accomplish, not what they didn't. My only interest is to shed some reality on your repeated Hunter propaganda campaign. Are you really now saying you don't know whether a mfg. is responsible for major systems installed by its own authorized dealer on a brand new boat that is presumably under warranty? I understand which party was accused of screwing up, but it was the mfg. who selected them for the final systems installations & commissioning. Unless I read your blog quotes wrong and the chartplotter _itself_ was defective? Otherwise, it doesn't appear as if the boat performed as "perfect" & "stellar" as your marketing efforts make it seem, and Hunter obviously shares some of the blame for failing to properly oversee the last phase of this particular boat's build.

Btw, wasn't there another guy -- sponsored by Hunter I think but whatever -- who did a complete solo circumnavigation on a similarly sized Hunter as _SEQUITER_? Aren't there a number of experienced, accomplished sailors around here -- Don & Ralph come immediately to mind -- who are long-time Hunter owners? Didn't someone on the Production Boat thread recently suggest there had been no catastrophic sinkings, etc. involving Hunter's? Aren't you always bragging about how "awesome" your boat is? I mean, just think how hard it is for a guy like me to keep an open mind, knowing all the while that YOU happen to own one. 

So why all your consternation (constipation?) over Hunter sailboats? Is the problem in _your_ mind, or in the minds of those who may call them or other brands or types of boats "crap"?? You obviously feel like you already have all the answers, so why would contrary ones bother you???

And no, I'm not "impressed" that the in-hull portlights on a brand new offshore cruising sailboat held, only glad that they did so. Still not sure why they are necessary or desirable, or how the risk/benefit equation can justify, but to each his own on that one. Along with your own oft-stated "half-life" theory when it comes to some production boats, we may find that the lifespan of "features" like this turn out to be rather disappointing.


----------



## JonEisberg

The latest from Oyster:



> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015
> 
> 08 December 2015
> 
> Since the tragic loss of Polina Star III - Oyster 825-02 - in early July, Oyster has worked with a team of independent experts to review the design and construction of the Oyster 825. Since the recovery of Polina Star III from the seabed recently we have also worked with the various representatives of the Owner's insurance Company and other stakeholders. The objective of this work was to establish beyond doubt how and why the loss occurred, the first of its kind in Oyster's long history. We are aware of the criticism in some quarters of our preference not to add to the speculation of what went wrong and to wait for the independent investigation to reach a conclusion; it is also true to say that in cases of this sort a company is also very much restrained from detailed comment by insurance and legal interests.
> 
> We believe however, that our fundamental and overriding priority must be to ensure the absolute safety of all our yachts and just as important to give owners and future owners every possible confidence that they are sailing in complete safety. For this reason we believe it would be unreasonable for us to delay any longer in sharing our findings of our investigations to date.
> 
> First, it is important to note that the Oyster 825 design took into account Classification Society Rules and other standards and has been independently verified.
> 
> Secondly, our inspection of the other 825s (not including Polina Star III) highlighted a possible weakness in the process used to build the inner structure of those vessels. This process has not been used on any other Oyster Yacht built over the last ~40 years and will not be used again.
> 
> The only way to check the outcome of the process is by invasive examination taking significant parts of the structure apart. This has been done on Oyster 825-01 and 03 and following these investigations the structure has been rebuilt and, to be prudent, has been reinforced. Oyster 825-04 was only partially built so we were able to verify its structure before launch. The process for Oyster 825-05 onwards has reverted to well-proven methods used on the rest of the Oyster fleet of more than 800 yachts.
> 
> Regrettably, the challenging salvage operations for Polina Star III was such that much of the structure was damaged during the recovery of the yacht and hence at this stage we are not able to confirm whether this possible weakness is related to the loss of the vessel. We will continue to work with the Owner and his representatives as the investigations progress.
> 
> Oyster Marine hopes and trusts that release of these findings - relating only to yachts of the 825 Class - will allay any fears that may exist in relation to safety and security and confirms above all that the Company's fundamental priority is the safety of the sailing experience on each and every one of the yachts it launches. Also that its inspection processes will meet the exacting standards required to meet this commitment.
> 
> Oyster Marine takes this opportunity to apologise to owners for any concerns they may have had regarding safety issues and the length of time taken to release these internal findings and thanks them for their patience and understanding.
> 
> We are delighted that the owners and crew of both Oyster 825-03 and 04 have demonstrated their continued confidence in their yachts and in Oyster and have just completed fast and successful passages in the 2015 ARC.
> 
> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015 | News | Oyster Yachts


Oh, dear... How will Oyster be able to "compete" with Bavaria, Hanse, and Hunter if they revert to their _old methods_ of attaching their keels ?

;-)


----------



## Shockwave

JonEisberg said:


> The latest from Oyster:
> 
> Oh, dear... How will Oyster be able to "compete" with Bavaria, Hanse, and Hunter if they revert to their _old methods_ of attaching their keels ?
> 
> ;-)


So much for grids at Oyster, back to tried and true ring frames, longitudinal and floors. Wasn't that a fun adventure!


----------



## Exile1

Uh-Oh . . . it doesn't sound like the owner & crew of one of the other 825's in the ARC had quite the "confidence" that Oyster just exclaimed. At least not in their _RUDDER,_ that is.

Post #257: Oyster Problems? - Page 18 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## JonEisberg

Shockwave said:


> So much for grids at Oyster, back to tried and true ring frames, longitudinal and floors. Wasn't that a fun adventure!


Interesting to note that while both 825s in the ARC "completed safe and fast passages" with their keels intact, one of them had problems with their rudders, after they_"'got loose and had to refastened every some hours ..."_

Note to Self: Never, _ever_ name your boat "ALBATROS"...

;-)

https://www.worldcruising.com/logsa...1089451782&ArchiveID=5&CategoryID=192&ItemID=


----------



## Exile1

JonEisberg said:


> The latest from Oyster:
> 
> Oh, dear... How will Oyster be able to "compete" with Bavaria, Hanse, and Hunter if they revert to their _old methods_ of attaching their keels ?
> 
> ;-)


Oh no! Now you've done it. Couldn't you have substituted another brand in lieu of "Hunter"? Now we'll never hear the end of it.


----------



## smackdaddy

The


JonEisberg said:


> The latest from Oyster:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015
> 
> 08 December 2015
> 
> Since the tragic loss of Polina Star III - Oyster 825-02 - in early July, Oyster has worked with a team of independent experts to review the design and construction of the Oyster 825. Since the recovery of Polina Star III from the seabed recently we have also worked with the various representatives of the Owner's insurance Company and other stakeholders. The objective of this work was to establish beyond doubt how and why the loss occurred, the first of its kind in Oyster's long history. We are aware of the criticism in some quarters of our preference not to add to the speculation of what went wrong and to wait for the independent investigation to reach a conclusion; it is also true to say that in cases of this sort a company is also very much restrained from detailed comment by insurance and legal interests.
> 
> We believe however, that our fundamental and overriding priority must be to ensure the absolute safety of all our yachts and just as important to give owners and future owners every possible confidence that they are sailing in complete safety. For this reason we believe it would be unreasonable for us to delay any longer in sharing our findings of our investigations to date.
> 
> First, it is important to note that the Oyster 825 design took into account Classification Society Rules and other standards and has been independently verified.
> 
> Secondly, our inspection of the other 825s (not including Polina Star III) highlighted a possible weakness in the process used to build the inner structure of those vessels. This process has not been used on any other Oyster Yacht built over the last ~40 years and will not be used again.
> 
> The only way to check the outcome of the process is by invasive examination taking significant parts of the structure apart. This has been done on Oyster 825-01 and 03 and following these investigations the structure has been rebuilt and, to be prudent, has been reinforced. Oyster 825-04 was only partially built so we were able to verify its structure before launch. The process for Oyster 825-05 onwards has reverted to well-proven methods used on the rest of the Oyster fleet of more than 800 yachts.
> 
> Regrettably, the challenging salvage operations for Polina Star III was such that much of the structure was damaged during the recovery of the yacht and hence at this stage we are not able to confirm whether this possible weakness is related to the loss of the vessel. We will continue to work with the Owner and his representatives as the investigations progress.
> 
> Oyster Marine hopes and trusts that release of these findings - relating only to yachts of the 825 Class - will allay any fears that may exist in relation to safety and security and confirms above all that the Company's fundamental priority is the safety of the sailing experience on each and every one of the yachts it launches. Also that its inspection processes will meet the exacting standards required to meet this commitment.
> 
> Oyster Marine takes this opportunity to apologise to owners for any concerns they may have had regarding safety issues and the length of time taken to release these internal findings and thanks them for their patience and understanding.
> 
> We are delighted that the owners and crew of both Oyster 825-03 and 04 have demonstrated their continued confidence in their yachts and in Oyster and have just completed fast and successful passages in the 2015 ARC.
> 
> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015 | News | Oyster Yachts
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, dear... How will Oyster be able to "compete" with Bavaria, Hanse, and Hunter if they revert to their _old methods_ of attaching their keels ?
> 
> ;-)
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, a good start would be to figure out how these production boats employ these newer methods without the keels falling off.


----------



## Bleemus

Love the spin part about the damage sustained during recovery making impossible to determine if this Oyster suffered from grid frame. LOL. PR people kill me. 

You can clearly see where the straps were placed around the keel to avoid damaging the area that ripped out of the hull. I am guessing the captain insisted on that during salvage. 


PR people kill me. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## seaner97

That aside, the rest is fairly impressive. I started a construction and design thread to divorce this and other stuff from brands to hopefully allow us to discuss this in a more cogent and adult manner. Would be interested in discussing this there.


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> The
> 
> Like I said earlier, a good start would be to figure out how these production boats employ these newer methods without the keels falling off.


Seems to me a better approach would be to return to the standards and practices that have kept Oyster's keels from falling off for 40+ years, and have been the basis for the brand's reputation for quality...

People don't buy boats like Oysters primarily seeking _VALUE_... By and large, they're seeking _QUALITY_, or in some cases, a certain amount of _CACHET_... As a result, brands like Oyster and Swan will never be "competing" with Hunter and Hanse, and I think it's pretty unlikely Oyster will be dispatching their team of designers and engineers to a certain boatbuilding factory in Alachua, FL for 'instruction' on how to build their keel stubs...

Sounds like a certain former Hunter owner would be inclined to agree:

;-)



> Kenomac said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't remember any other yacht manufacturer conducting this sort of extensive investigation? Benneteau, Hunter, others? *When my Hunter keel came loose, I couldn't even get a return phone call from the company, let alone an investigation into the cause....*
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Page 18 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
Click to expand...


----------



## skygazer

JonEisberg said:


> The latest from Oyster:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015
> 
> 08 December 2015
> 
> Since the tragic loss of Polina Star III - Oyster 825-02 - in early July, Oyster has worked with a team of independent experts to review the design and construction of the Oyster 825. Since the recovery of Polina Star III from the seabed recently we have also worked with the various representatives of the Owner's insurance Company and other stakeholders. The objective of this work was to establish beyond doubt how and why the loss occurred, the first of its kind in Oyster's long history. We are aware of the criticism in some quarters of our preference not to add to the speculation of what went wrong and to wait for the independent investigation to reach a conclusion; it is also true to say that in cases of this sort a company is also very much restrained from detailed comment by insurance and legal interests.
> 
> We believe however, that our fundamental and overriding priority must be to ensure the absolute safety of all our yachts and just as important to give owners and future owners every possible confidence that they are sailing in complete safety. For this reason we believe it would be unreasonable for us to delay any longer in sharing our findings of our investigations to date.
> 
> First, it is important to note that the Oyster 825 design took into account Classification Society Rules and other standards and has been independently verified.
> 
> Secondly, our inspection of the other 825s (not including Polina Star III) highlighted a possible weakness in the process used to build the inner structure of those vessels. This process has not been used on any other Oyster Yacht built over the last ~40 years and will not be used again.
> 
> The only way to check the outcome of the process is by invasive examination taking significant parts of the structure apart. This has been done on Oyster 825-01 and 03 and following these investigations the structure has been rebuilt and, to be prudent, has been reinforced. Oyster 825-04 was only partially built so we were able to verify its structure before launch. The process for Oyster 825-05 onwards has reverted to well-proven methods used on the rest of the Oyster fleet of more than 800 yachts.
> 
> Regrettably, the challenging salvage operations for Polina Star III was such that much of the structure was damaged during the recovery of the yacht and hence at this stage we are not able to confirm whether this possible weakness is related to the loss of the vessel. We will continue to work with the Owner and his representatives as the investigations progress.
> 
> Oyster Marine hopes and trusts that release of these findings - relating only to yachts of the 825 Class - will allay any fears that may exist in relation to safety and security and confirms above all that the Company's fundamental priority is the safety of the sailing experience on each and every one of the yachts it launches. Also that its inspection processes will meet the exacting standards required to meet this commitment.
> 
> Oyster Marine takes this opportunity to apologise to owners for any concerns they may have had regarding safety issues and the length of time taken to release these internal findings and thanks them for their patience and understanding.
> 
> We are delighted that the owners and crew of both Oyster 825-03 and 04 have demonstrated their continued confidence in their yachts and in Oyster and have just completed fast and successful passages in the 2015 ARC.
> 
> Update on Polina Star III, Southampton, 08 December 2015 | News | Oyster Yachts
> 
> Oh, dear... How will Oyster be able to "compete" with Bavaria, Hanse, and Hunter if they revert to their _old methods_ of attaching their keels ?
> 
> 
> 
> ;-)
Click to expand...

Wow, almost enough verbiage here to plug the leak when the keel fell off! Should have called the PR guys immediately so they could paper it over "fairly".


----------



## Bleemus

seaner97 said:


> That aside, the rest is fairly impressive. I started a construction and design thread to divorce this and other stuff from brands to hopefully allow us to discuss this in a more cogent and adult manner. Would be interested in discussing this there.


I have read that thread and it is similar to the others. Agree that Oyster did admit some fault and, due to the wonderful pressure of social media, did a lot of damage control. After this experiment I imagine there will always be a few people in the design meetings that will say "looks great but will the keel fall off?". That to me is a good thing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> Sounds like a certain former Hunter owner would be inclined to agree:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
> I don't remember any other yacht manufacturer conducting this sort of extensive investigation? Benneteau, Hunter, others? When my Hunter keel came loose, I couldn't even get a return phone call from the company, let alone an investigation into the cause....


Wow! Keno has something negative to say about Hunters???? I'm shocked.

I assume his "keeling coming loose" is about as accurate as his "people and stuff getting thrown all around the cabin and the boat falling apart while at anchor in a rolly anchorage". Not exactly a voice of credibility in my book. But always entertaining.


----------



## smackdaddy

This part is seriously vague:



> Secondly, our inspection of the other 825s (not including Polina Star III) highlighted a possible weakness in the process used to build the inner structure of those vessels. This process has not been used on any other Oyster Yacht built over the last ~40 years and will not be used again.
> 
> The only way to check the outcome of the process is by invasive examination taking significant parts of the structure apart. This has been done on Oyster 825-01 and 03 and following these investigations the structure has been rebuilt and, to be prudent, has been reinforced. Oyster 825-04 was only partially built so we were able to verify its structure before launch. The process for Oyster 825-05 onwards has reverted to well-proven methods used on the rest of the Oyster fleet of more than 800 yachts.


This process/inspection angle implies a _building/layup_ method - not a _structural _design/method. This would make sense based on the dry-looking laminate that has been pointed out in the pics. And you wouldn't need to "inspect" a structural method you already know you've designed. So what are they really changing here?


----------



## miatapaul

So Oyster admitted they made a mistake with the basic engineering, will they make replacement boats for the owners out there with the existing few?


----------



## XSrcing

miatapaul said:


> So Oyster admitted they made a mistake with the basic engineering, will they make replacement boats for the owners out there with the existing few?


They have repaired hulls 1 and 3. Hull 4 was remedied while being built.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Wow! Keno has something negative to say about Hunters???? I'm shocked.
> 
> I assume his "keeling coming loose" is about as accurate as his "people and stuff getting thrown all around the cabin and the boat falling apart while at anchor in a rolly anchorage". Not exactly a voice of credibility in my book. But always entertaining.


Surprise, surprise. Somebody who just "happens" to report some problems during ownership of a Hunter sailboat (he's also said nice things about it, btw), and you just "happen" to impugn his credibility.

Now which book of credibility do you use?


----------



## seaner97

miatapaul said:


> So Oyster admitted they made a mistake with the basic engineering, will they make replacement boats for the owners out there with the existing few?


Sounds like the few were 01 and 03, and they "reinforced" them.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Surprise, surprise. Somebody who just "happens" to report some problems during ownership of a Hunter sailboat (he's also said nice things about it, btw), and you just "happen" to impugn his credibility.
> 
> Now which book of credibility do you use?


Ken has sailed with me on my on my boat. The things he told me in person doesn't match a lot of the things he writes about his Hunter ownership.

But since that is another subject by far I'll leave it at that!


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> Ken has sailed with my on my boat. The things he told me in person doesn't match a lot of the things he writes about his Hunter ownership.
> 
> But since that is another subject by far I'll leave it at that!


So be it Don. Your credibility has certainly never been an issue, at least in my mind. I would just like to avoid re-litigating whether the saloon cushions "fell" on the floor, or were "thrown" on the floor, or whatever the argument was when Ken wrote about an uncomfortable anchoring situation. Then there was the water-in-the-keel-deal, the argument over which I (thankfully) can no longer remember. In any event, I'm sure Ken had his reasons for selling his Hunter and buying an Oyster, but I agree that is far afield from the subject of this thread.


----------



## smackdaddy

I forgot about this post. Now, drawing on the deep insight and critique that you and Out and others like to offer of production boats' shortcomings, let me see...



JonEisberg said:


>


Woman holding onto the hard dodger for dear life so that she doesn't fall all the way across that silly open cockpit and bash her face into the solid railing. Definitely scared. Crew to port having to stand in an uncomfortable position and hold onto the helm for balance.

Obviously, poor design for real blue water sailing.

Also, the boat apparently requires 5 people to sail her in what appears to be Ian Van Tuyl weather.

Next...










Much better. Looks kinda like my Hunter. Horrible mainsheet configuration though. Well - it's okay for a weekender, but not for real offshore use.

At least a solo dude can sail her.

Next...








[/QUOTE]

Good lord. This boat is hopeless. It obviously takes deep reefing, horrible sail shape, and more than 8 people just to keep her under control. And the dudes on the stern rail look concerned that the rudder is going to all off.

And you really trust that anchor roller?


----------



## JonEisberg

smackdaddy said:


> I forgot about this post. Now, drawing on the deep insight and critique that you and Out and others like to offer of production boats' shortcomings, let me see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woman holding onto the hard dodger for dear life so that she doesn't fall all the way across that silly open cockpit and bash her face into the solid railing. Definitely scared. Crew to port having to stand in an uncomfortable position and hold onto the helm for balance.
> 
> Obviously, poor design for real blue water sailing.
> 
> Also, the boat apparently requires 5 people to sail her in what appears to be Ian Van Tuyl weather.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much better. Looks kinda like my Hunter. Horrible mainsheet configuration though. Well - it's okay for a weekender, but not for real offshore use.
> 
> At least a solo dude can sail her.
> 
> Next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good lord. This boat is hopeless. It obviously takes deep reefing, horrible sail shape, and more than 8 people just to keep her under control. And the dudes on the stern rail look concerned that the rudder is going to all off.


"Deep insights", indeed... ;-)



smackdaddy said:


> And you really trust that anchor roller?


Yeah, I probably would...










Certainly more so than one of these pitiful prosthetic devices, at any rate...

As the unfortunate incident off Willoughby Spit during the onset of Tropical Storm Irene demonstrated a few years ago, the folks who build Hunters appear to be entirely unacquainted with the concept of _LEVERAGE_...

;-)


----------



## chall03

I'm going the fly against a sea of cynicism and suggest that Oyster is doing a lot right......( ok yes other than the whole keel falling off thing that started this).

Yes they are a modern business and they have to negotiate legalities and be careful. But from where I sit they are being pretty open and responsive.

(ducking for cover)


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> .
> ...I assume his "keeling coming loose" is about as accurate as his "people and stuff getting thrown all around the cabin and the boat falling apart while at anchor in a rolly anchorage". Not exactly a voice of credibility in my book. But always entertaining.


I have to say that my wife and I experienced ourselves and stuff being very thrown about down below in an anchorage while on our Hunter, and a much larger Hunter nearby looked just as much like a bucking bronco as we felt. We were going over action plans for when we broke loose and careened towards shore. I had flipped our (towed) inflatable dinghy upside down to stop it rapidly filling so it would not yank so hard.

Not sure why you find this unbelievable. Perhaps the Gulf of Mexico is more benign than the Gulf of Maine?


----------



## seaner97

Maybe it's a regionalism, but we refer to this skating around your mooring or anchor. You see it happen much more with the newer designs, and with much more force.


----------



## outbound

Smack
The hit on Outbound is just plain foolish. To my mind shows a total lack of understanding of cockpit ergonomics offshore. One of the main selling points to me is how many ideal places there are in the cockpit when it gets bumpy. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who has ACTUALLY sailed my boat has spontaneously commented on how secure they feel, how delighted there is a handhold or nice comfy spot just where it's needed.

How about you stop blowing smoke and do a passage with me. I'll take you along as live lumber as long as you pay for your flights and personal expenses. 

Enough already. If you want to take hits, fine. But at least have them based on reality.


----------



## outbound

Smack
You remind me of when my boat was used in the east coast boat shows.

You could tell right away who was a serious sailor. Those who immediately went below to look at the flat screen and berths forget about. Those who stood and sat in every spot in the cockpit doing a 360 to look about and putting hand out to grab something then walked the deck before going below were worth the brokers chatting up.

I got in your face because I thought what you said was potentially dangerous. I would want future cruisers contemplating passagemaking to do the exercise of ACTUALLY thinking about cockpit ergonomics or ideally sailing on various boats offshore before putting down hard money on a boat.


----------



## slap

outbound said:


> Smack
> You remind me of when my boat was used in the east coast boat shows.
> 
> You could tell right away who was a serious sailor. Those who immediately went below to look at the flat screen and berths forget about. Those who stood and sat in every spot in the cockpit doing a 360 to look about and putting hand out to grab something then walked the deck before going below were worth the brokers chatting up.
> 
> I got in your face because I thought what you said was potentially dangerous. I would want future cruisers contemplating passagemaking to do the exercise of ACTUALLY thinking about cockpit ergonomics or ideally sailing on various boats offshore before putting down hard money on a boat.


X Yachts had an XP-44 at the Annapolis boat show a few years ago. When I went on board, I sat myself behind the wheel, checking basic things like sightlines, access to gear, bracing, and comfort. The broker on deck said that I was the first person that day to have done that - everyone else had gone straight below.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> I have to say that my wife and I experienced ourselves and stuff being very thrown about down below in an anchorage while on our Hunter, and a much larger Hunter nearby looked just as much like a bucking bronco as we felt. We were going over action plans for when we broke loose and careened towards shore. I had flipped our (towed) inflatable dinghy upside down to stop it rapidly filling so it would not yank so hard.
> 
> Not sure why you find this unbelievable. Perhaps the Gulf of Mexico is more benign than the Gulf of Maine?


Were all the other "blue water" sailboats in the anchorage calm and chill? In the right conditions ANY boat will do what you're talking about. The dude in question was blaming it on the Hunter - not the conditions. That's why I found it hard to believe.


----------



## smackdaddy

outbound said:


> Smack
> You remind me of when my boat was used in the east coast boat shows.
> 
> You could tell right away who was a serious sailor. Those who immediately went below to look at the flat screen and berths forget about. Those who stood and sat in every spot in the cockpit doing a 360 to look about and putting hand out to grab something then walked the deck before going below were worth the brokers chatting up.
> 
> I got in your face because I thought what you said was potentially dangerous. I would want future cruisers contemplating passagemaking to do the exercise of ACTUALLY thinking about cockpit ergonomics or ideally sailing on various boats offshore before putting down hard money on a boat.


Relax dude. I'm simply doing what you guys typically do. A photo of a production boat is posted and the chorus starts picking things apart in the photo as "inferior" and "not suited for offshore work".

Much of what I pointed out above in those photos is EXACTLY the kind of things that have been slammed on production boats...e.g. - wide cockpits with little means of bracing on a heel leading to fatigue, extending "weak-looking" anchor rollers, etc. The brand of the boat has NOTHING to do with it (until, that is, it's ones own brand).

The issue is, I'm joking. You guys aren't. So harden up a bit.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> As the unfortunate incident off Willoughby Spit during the onset of Tropical Storm Irene demonstrated a few years ago, the folks who build Hunters appear to be entirely unacquainted with the concept of _ANCHORING IN A SURF ZONE IN A HURRICANE_...
> 
> ;-)


Fixed it for you. Heh-heh.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Fixed it for you. Heh-heh.


This just confirms that you missed both the subtlety and tinge of sarcasm of Jon's last post on the "hurricane" you continue to claim was responsible for the Hunter getting damaged & hitting the beach. But forget subtlety & sarcasm, how about the fact reported in that post that none of the NOAA buoys north of Cape Lookout, NC reported hurricane level winds, that local newspapers described the predicted hurricane that never came, that the intensity of the storm unexpectedly weakened as it passed over the NC cape areas, and that the time in question was well in advance of any actual "storm" conditions in any event. All facts which were confirmed by first-hand reports, along with a video.

Besides, do we _NEED_ a "hurricane narrative" to "defend" this particular Hunter's fate? Nobody's arguing the boat didn't attempt to anchor in challenging wind and wave conditions. Maybe it was an otherwise strong boat with a weak bow roller? Nothing new there, and certainly not limited to Hunter's. Or maybe the skipper had too little scope out, or maybe no snubbers? Lots of variables, except for the historical fact of the absence of a "hurricane" which had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Do you really believe you have all the answers, or it is just the charismatic online persona you're trying to desperately maintain?

Here's another fix for you: uke "Heh-Heh."


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Much of what I pointed out above in those photos is EXACTLY the kind of things that have been slammed on production boats...e.g. - wide cockpits with little means of bracing on a heel leading to fatigue, extending "weak-looking" anchor rollers, etc. The brand of the boat has NOTHING to do with it (until, that is, it's ones own brand).
> 
> The issue is, I'm joking. You guys aren't. So harden up a bit.


I figured it was tongue-in-cheek, but don't really believe you were "joking." The only problem is that none of those 3 boat photos, or the comments that accompanied or followed, suggest "wide cockpits with little means of bracing on a heel leading to fatigue, extending 'weak-looking' anchor rollers, etc." Except for your comment, that is. And I didn't even know the "brands" until they were pointed out.


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> Were all the other "blue water" sailboats in the anchorage calm and chill? In the right conditions ANY boat will do what you're talking about. The dude in question was blaming it on the Hunter - not the conditions. That's why I found it hard to believe.


You need to do a quick scan for ambiguity. You did not say he blamed it on the Hunter. I blamed it on the weather! So much for "weather windows", we were almost home and decided we might as well anchor out for the night to get every last bit of enjoyment. Weather was forecast for SW light winds. Not enormous driving rain, wind, fog, lightning and thunder from the NE. Seems to happen occasionally around my area, I've even had them saying 12-15 SW and sunny while experiencing squalls out of the NE.

By the way, can't comment on the BWC boats at that anchorage, only Hunters were there!


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> ... And the dudes on the stern rail look concerned that the rudder is going to all off.


I thought that part was funny! Humor always beats pushy in you face stuff.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> You need to do a quick scan for ambiguity. You did not say he blamed it on the Hunter. I blamed it on the weather! So much for "weather windows", we were almost home and decided we might as well anchor out for the night to get every last bit of enjoyment. Weather was forecast for SW light winds. Not enormous driving rain, wind, fog, lightning and thunder from the NE. Seems to happen occasionally around my area, I've even had them saying 12-15 SW and sunny while experiencing squalls out of the NE.
> 
> By the way, can't comment on the BWC boats at that anchorage, only Hunters were there!


Yeah, sorry, you kind of need to know the history of the Production Boats thread I started over on CF for that background. So it's definitely inside baseball. But this dude who was saying all that was a real doozy.

Where was this anchorage? A gaggle of Hunters in one place - and it's not a marina? Some people will be shocked! Heh-heh.


----------



## Capt Len

Probably looking for a keel


----------



## Don L

skygazer said:


> I have to say that my wife and I experienced ourselves and stuff being very thrown about down below in an anchorage while on our Hunter, and a much larger Hunter nearby looked just as much like a bucking bronco as we felt


When I was researching my Hunter 410 I came across a couple of the "sailing at anchor" type comments. Now after 5 years of ownership where I'm been 100% at anchor or on a mooring I've never felt there was any problem and from watching other boats around me I don't do any more swinging or bouncing than they do, even the "heavy" boats.

So I just don't see it or experience it and I've been stuck on the boat a few times in gales where you just couldn't have safety gotten off. Maybe this falls into the real experience verse internet experience world.

The problem with people saying "Hunter" is that they don't say what Hunter they are talking about. Hunter has been building boats for 40+ years and has build boats from 14' to 54'. Yet somehow on internet forums all are grouped together!


----------



## skygazer

Don0190 said:


> ...Now after 5 years of ownership where I'm been 100% at anchor or on a mooring ...
> 
> ....Maybe this falls into the real experience verse internet experience world.


5 years of 100% at anchor or on a mooring. Hmmm.........perhaps you should try sailing free sometime and get some real experience versus internet experience. :eek


----------



## Don L

skygazer said:


> 5 years of 100% at anchor or on a mooring. Hmmm.........perhaps you should try sailing free sometime and get some real experience versus internet experience. :eek


That the best you can do, just a weak attempt at word play misdirection?


----------



## Exile1

Follow-up article by Charlie Doane on Oyster's previously released public statement:

OYSTER TELLS ALL: Statement on Polina Star Keel Failure | Sailfeed


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Follow-up article by Charlie Doane on Oyster's previously released public statement:
> 
> OYSTER TELLS ALL: Statement on Polina Star Keel Failure | Sailfeed


Could almost have been a combination of various internet forum postings


----------



## JonEisberg

Don0190 said:


> Could almost have been a combination of various internet forum postings


What a shocker, you mean someone like Charlie Doane might have an _OPINION_, as well?

;-)


----------



## miatapaul

XSrcing said:


> They have repaired hulls 1 and 3. Hull 4 was remedied while being built.





seaner97 said:


> Sounds like the few were 01 and 03, and they "reinforced" them.


So what do you think this has done to the resale value of these boats? Must have lost at least 50% or more, after all this issue has been covered by all of the various media. Not only has the value dropped, they will be very difficult to sell, and likely sit for very long time. This seems to have had much more coverage than the Tartan issue did. Granted Oyster seems to be doing a much better job of being forth coming about it. There will be no hiding this from potential buyers.

Also how did they repair a basic engineering fault? Seems they would have to take the whole hull apart and redo it, anything else would just be a patch.


----------



## smackdaddy

JonEisberg said:


> What a shocker, you mean someone like Charlie Doane might have an _OPINION_, as well?
> 
> ;-)





> ...occurred after vampire capitalists took control.


Is Sail magazine a social program? I thought this bit was kind of ridiculous.

And on the classification rules thing...



> [We followed the rules so are not entirely at fault is always a good argument to make. Which itself is an argument for imposing stricter rules to solve the problem. Builders should not be allowed to skimp on keel integrity!]


If indeed they did follow rules and the keel still fell off - which has not happened on virtually ANY rated boats I've heard of out there - they still did something very, very wrong. And the market will take care of it. I certainly don't see where the rules "allowed" this kind of skimping on the keels. He would need to show me where exactly this is. In fact, I think I'll ask him about it...


----------



## Faster

I wonder if this could be as simple as a 'friday late' layup, poor communication with the next crew and/or poor quality control/supervision. It's almost as if the worker bees may not have executed the full laminate layup in that area on that boat (though if they had to modify the others maybe not) Some of those images are shocking with regard to the lack of laminate thickness in those critical areas.


----------



## Exile1

miatapaul said:


> So what do you think this has done to the resale value of these boats? Must have lost at least 50% or more, after all this issue has been covered by all of the various media. Not only has the value dropped, they will be very difficult to sell, and likely sit for very long time. This seems to have had much more coverage than the Tartan issue did. Granted Oyster seems to be doing a much better job of being forth coming about it. There will be no hiding this from potential buyers.


I was wondering about the loss of value on the other 825's too, especially since Oyster publicly admitted what sounded like design and mfg. defects which affected the other boats. Seems to me like the other owners may have some recourse unless Oyster reveals exactly what the defects were, and how their reinforcing resolved them for good.


----------



## seaner97

Exile1 said:


> I was wondering about the loss of value on the other 825's too, especially since Oyster publicly admitted what sounded like design and mfg. defects which affected the other boats. Seems to me like the other owners may have some recourse unless Oyster reveals exactly what the defects were, and how their reinforcing resolved them for good.


Wouldn't be surprised if there was some rider on their new warranty that allowed for transfer of warranty for some specified longer time on that issue exactly for those two boats. Solves the issue without giving away how they screwed up.


----------



## Capt Len

Would be enlightening to look in the bilge of the modified Oysters to see what was done to strengthen the crumple/buckle and tear zone bulkheads and tie them to the skin.


----------



## smackdaddy

Faster said:


> I wonder if this could be as simple as a 'friday late' layup, poor communication with the next crew and/or poor quality control/supervision. It's almost as if the worker bees may not have executed the full laminate layup in that area on that boat (though if they had to modify the others maybe not) Some of those images are shocking with regard to the lack of laminate thickness in those critical areas.


To me this is what makes the language of the press release so ambiguous. The talk about the "process" being flawed...not the structural design. Seeing the photos of that dry-looking laminate it sure looks like a flawed process.

So, it doesn't seem anyone is really looking at the structure. Just the layup and inspection process. Is that a good thing?


----------



## miatapaul

smackdaddy said:


> To me this is what makes the language of the press release so ambiguous. The talk about the "process" being flawed...not the structural design. Seeing the photos of that dry-looking laminate it sure looks like a flawed process.
> 
> So, it doesn't seem anyone is really looking at the structure. Just the layup and inspection process. Is that a good thing?


Well several mentions here that the structure looked woefully inadequate. There statement that no more boats will be built with this method, kind of seems to me that they think it may well have been design more than execution. If it were just an issue of execution they would change the process and continue with it.


----------



## Exile1

miatapaul said:


> Well several mentions here that the structure looked woefully inadequate. There statement that no more boats will be built with this method, kind of seems to me that they think it may well have been design more than execution. If it were just an issue of execution they would change the process and continue with it.


I had the same take on it. They explicitly stated that they were abandoning what they acknowledged was a new design and build process that was a departure from their previous 40-year history, and now returning to that former process for all future builds. This necessarily means that other boats built with the new process are potentially defective, hence the pre-emptive reinforcing.

I don't know so just asking, but is that a grid liner/matrix we're seeing in the photos? If so, does their statement mean that they are abandoning the use of such liners and going back to so-called "stick-built" boats?


----------



## Faster

To my (very amateur) eye that whole keel stub structure, with the exception of the 'floor', looks thin for the task. The hull laminate too, though perhaps that extensive grid work was intended to create an overall strong structure, in which case it would seem the bonding to that grid failed big-time. Poor wet-out wouldn't have helped there either, obviously.

That the hull skin apparently peeled away like an onion is, in JonE's words, UFB!


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> They explicitly stated that they were abandoning what they acknowledged was a new design and build process that was a departure from their previous 40-year history, and now returning to that former process for all future builds.


Actually they don't say that exactly. That's my point. The use the word "design" in the first paragraph:



> Oyster has worked with a team of independent experts to review the design and construction of the Oyster 825


And the third paragraph:



> First, it is important to note that the Oyster 825 design took into account Classification Society Rules and other standards and has been independently verified.


They make no further mention of changing design - just "process". That's my point.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Actually they don't say that exactly. That's my point. The use the word "design" in the first paragraph:
> 
> And the third paragraph:
> 
> The make no further mention of changing design - just "process". That's my point.


Well, maybe, kinda hard to say. Depends on what "process" they abandoned after 40 years, what the new "process" entailed, and why they're now abandoning that one too. If the 825 build amounted to a transition from stick-built to grid liners, then that "process" would necessarily also entail a new "design." If it was just the Friday-layup/QC issue that Faster alluded to, it seems less likely to have affected the other boats. But whether it started at the drafting table or on the shop floor, I think it's significant that it's being very publicly abandoned in favor of old technology that's proven itself very capable (albeit possibly more expensive) for the strength of Oyster yachts for 40 years. Who knows, maybe something went wrong with a new vacuum infusion process that was only used on the 825's?

There are so many complexities & variables in building a boat that only a real expert could speculate in any sort of plausible way.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> There are so many complexities & variables in building a boat that only a real expert could speculate in any sort of plausible way.


I'm no real or fake expert, but in this case I feel I'm qualified enough to say:

Oyster built this very expensive boat and the keel stub separated from the hull, taking the keel with it, and the boat sunk!

Everything is just "noise"!


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> I'm no real or fake expert, but in this case I feel I'm qualified enough to say:
> 
> Oyster built this very expensive boat and the keel stub separated from the hull, taking the keel with it, and the boat sunk!
> 
> Everything is just "noise"!


Tough to argue with that one, Don. Definitely a win for the "Real Cruisers" and a loss for the "Internet Arguers."

I know, wrong thread . . . .


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Tough to argue with that one, Don. Definitely a win for the "Real Cruisers" and a loss for the "Internet Arguers."
> 
> I know, wrong thread . . . .


Yes a definite win for internet arguers.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> Yes a definite win for internet arguers.


Speaking of internet arguers, there's a lively discussion on CF with Polux/PCP & the usual cast of characters, so you can well imagine how that's going. No hull liner built into the Oyster 825 that sunk, just some sort of grid matrix which doesn't seem related to the failure. Lots of talk about inadequately sized scantlings & overly thin laminate. Oyster's recent press release ambiguous as to whether whatever went wrong applies to the other 825's out there, or whether the reinforcing was merely done to reassure owners & preserve co. rep.

In other words, nothing new about the big Oyster failure, only some interesting boat building talk. 

Oyster Problems? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## JimMcGee

The larger questions that are still out there are how far can manufacturers go to reduce the amount of resin in laminate schedules? Are some manufacturers going to far? Will this result in failures over time as these hulls go through repeated cycling? 

Don't forget this Oyster had 10,000 miles under her keel. More than many coastal cruisers will see in a lifetime of use.

One example I saw recently was Leopard's claim that it's new Leopard 40 has 24% more volume than the previous Leopard 39 model but only an 8% weight increase due to "better balanced laminates and a more advanced space frame structure". And Leopard is not alone in pursuing lighter laminates with less resin. 

Will more of these kinds of failures come to light as current production boats rack up miles?


----------



## smackdaddy

JimMcGee said:


> Will more of these kinds of failures come to light as current production boats rack up miles?


That's a very loaded question. You have to remember that these boats are being built to do _what the broader market asks of them_. And for the most part, they are doing a great job of delivering on that. Bigger, nicer boats that can go where most people want to go.

If by your question you are asking if these boats will be great fixer-uppers in 30 YEARS after a lot of wear and tear - I personally wouldn't bet on it.

If you're asking if these boats will stand up to how the broader market is using them for the miles those sailors are using them? Absolutely. I think they will stand up just fine.


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> That's a very loaded question. You have to remember that these boats are being built to do _what the broader market asks of them_. And for the most part, they are doing a great job of delivering on that. Bigger, nicer boats that can go where most people want to go.
> 
> If by your question you are asking if these boats will be great fixer-uppers in 30 YEARS after a lot of wear and tear - I personally wouldn't bet on it.
> 
> If you're asking if these boats will stand up to how the broader market is using them for the miles those sailors are using them? Absolutely. I think they will stand up just fine.


Not sure what you mean by loaded question.

I am sure that the in the big picture, the broader market, people are in fact buying and fixing up 30 yr and much older boats. Are you suggesting that the newest boats are essentially throw away disposable trash? When the newness wears off they are done? That would be sad indeed.

My friends boat is from the 1930's, that's over 80 yrs old. It looks fantastic! Sails wonderfully. No reason many 30 yr old boats can't be in use in another 30 yrs if kept up.


----------



## seaner97

They're building 5 of these so far. That's only one more than the Carbon Cutters. That's not a broad market. 
But resin isn't what makes a hull strong. Building it right does.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> Are you suggesting that the newest boats are essentially throw away disposable trash? When the newness wears off they are done?


Is that what I said? Can you stop with the hyperbole and be rational for a moment?

You yourself put this qualifier in...



skygazer said:


> No reason many 30 yr old boats can't be in use in another 30 yrs* if kept up.*


Like this is saying anything new? Of course this is true. And what does that mean exactly?

I'm saying that just like you don't see fleets of your friend's 80 year old boat beating around in crisp condition - you're not going to see these newer, lighter-built boats all over the used market in 30 years. The point is - _I don't think that's the point_. Maybe it never was.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Speaking of internet arguers, there's a lively discussion on CF with Polux/PCP & the usual cast of characters, so you can well imagine how that's going. No hull liner built into the Oyster 825 that sunk, just some sort of grid matrix which doesn't seem related to the failure. Lots of talk about inadequately sized scantlings & overly thin laminate. Oyster's recent press release ambiguous as to whether whatever went wrong applies to the other 825's out there, or whether the reinforcing was merely done to reassure owners & preserve co. rep.
> 
> In other words, nothing new about the big Oyster failure, only some interesting boat building talk.
> 
> Oyster Problems? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


I've read through the thread. Pretty typical - completely ridiculous, unsubstantiated points, etc. And the pedantic "'thickness' fixes everything" approach.

I think we need to establish something along the lines of "Godwin's Law" where instead of the time-to/probability-of calling a person a Nazi in an online debate, it's about the time-to/probability-of bringing up the ability to "Circumnavigate In A Bathtub" to critique boats that the poster thinks are not built strongly enough. For example, from that CF thread:



> Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
> Y... It is equally obviously true that you can get away with sailing a circumnavigation in a ballasted and buoyed plastic bathtub if you so choose, but is it prudent?


I think we'll call it "Smack's Law".

Then, when the paranoid "You Must Have An Agenda" polemic is tacked on, it becomes a special animal indeed. Again, from that same thread and poster:



> Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga View Post
> Y... I think you equivocate constantly to bolster what appears to be an agenda ... Do you work for a yacht builder?


Again, another common tactic by CFers. So maybe this is "Smack's Law All CF-d Up"?


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> I've read through the thread. Pretty typical - completely ridiculous, unsubstantiated points, etc. And the pedantic "'thickness' fixes everything" approach.
> 
> I think we need to establish something along the lines of "Godwin's Law" where instead of the time-to/probability-of calling a person a Nazi in an online debate, it's about the time-to/probability-of bringing up the ability to "Circumnavigate In A Bathtub" to critique boats that the poster thinks are not built strongly enough. For example, from that CF thread:
> 
> I think we'll call it "Smack's Law".
> 
> Then, when the paranoid "You Must Have An Agenda" polemic is tacked on, it becomes a special animal indeed. Again, from that same thread and poster:
> 
> Again, another common tactic by CFers. So maybe this is "Smack's Law All CF-d Up"?


Aw c'mon, I think most would agree this sort of banter isn't confined to CF! And as is the case with most sailing forums I would bet, I wouldn't say there's exactly a consensus. Check out post #423, on the 3rd to last page or so, talking about how "skin thickness" isn't as important as some might think. Even your latest CF target-of-scorn agrees in part, and it seems like a worthwhile point that might even make Don feel better.

But Paulo is certainly taking his usual hits, but that is yet another commonality rather than a distinction b'twn CF & SN. I'm sure he misses you right now.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Even your latest CF target-of-scorn agrees in part, and it seems like a worthwhile point that might even make Don feel better.


????????


----------



## JimMcGee

smackdaddy said:


> That's a very loaded question. You have to remember that these boats are being built to do _what the broader market asks of them_. And for the most part, they are doing a great job of delivering on that. Bigger, nicer boats that can go where most people want to go.


Hmm, that's actually a different spin on what I was getting at.

If you're looking to reduce manufacturing costs you look at each system going into the completed boat to determine if you can reduce its cost and by how much.

Obviously the hull is a major component and reducing the amount of resin used will have a big impact on its cost.

Push the envelope too far and you compromise the integrity of the structure. That may be OK during initial testing, even during the first few years of ownership. But boats live in the real world and are subject to repeated flexing and stress. If the structure isn't strong enough you get failures - cracking, delamination or a catastrophic failure like the Oyster's keel.

I was wondering out loud if manufacturers are pushing this too far and we'll see a pattern of failures 3, 5 or ten years down the road.



smackdaddy said:


> If by your question you are asking if these boats will be great fixer-uppers in 30 YEARS after a lot of wear and tear - I personally wouldn't bet on it.


There's a broader dimension to your question. If the plan is to reduce costs and increase profits by building to a perception of "how most people will use the boat", failures will inevitably result.

It's a pretty shortsighted business plan. If boats start failing at say five years you kill resale value and that kills new boat sales. Nobody wants to buy a boat with no resale value. In other words you put yourself out of business within a decade.

But then again short sighted business practices seem to be all the rage these days...


----------



## Don L

JimMcGee said:


> Obviously the hull is a major component and reducing the amount of resin used will have a big impact on its cost. .


While I agree building the hull is probably a major cost taken as a whole process (which includes building the mold that is probably the biggest single cost), I bet that the any saved resin is nothing really.

But I think you are just trying to make up stuff and spin a story around it.


----------



## Exile1

Originally Posted by Exile1 
Even your latest CF target-of-scorn agrees in part, and it seems like a worthwhile point that might even make Don feel better.



Don0190 said:


> ????????


Discussion from some of the "internet arguers" here and on CF that greater hull thickness doesn't necessarily correlate to greater strength. Isn't that the point you (& Auspicious) were making (in different ways) about the relatively thin hull thickness (compared to old) on modern boats?


----------



## smackdaddy

JimMcGee said:


> Hmm, that's actually a different spin on what I was getting at.
> 
> If you're looking to reduce manufacturing costs you look at each system going into the completed boat to determine if you can reduce its cost and by how much.
> 
> Obviously the hull is a major component and reducing the amount of resin used will have a big impact on its cost.


I really have no numbers on this - but I am doubtful that the amount of resin we're talking about between different thicknesses of layup will affect the overall costs of the boat that much.

Do you have some numbers to back that up?



JimMcGee said:


> I was wondering out loud if manufacturers are pushing this too far and we'll see a pattern of failures 3, 5 or ten years down the road.
> 
> There's a broader dimension to your question. If the plan is to reduce costs and increase profits by building to a perception of "how most people will use the boat", failures will inevitably result.


Again, I think that depends on how boats are being used by the market that they are targeted to. You keep using very absolute terms (e.g. - "inevitably", "obviously", etc.) in an area that I think has far more nuance than people want to allow for.

I think production boats in general are being built very well for their intended purpose of cruising the ocean. These larger manufacturers have found a good balance between satisfying the market's demands while ensuring safety across a very large fleet of boats. Most importantly, we've yet to see wholesale failures that everyone is hyping in ANY of these lines - even for boats that are 20+ years old. So at what point does that hype become just that - hype?

As I've said before, where all this talk becomes crucial is in the USED boat market. How old is too old when it comes to strength and integrity of these lighter-built boats? Who knows? It depends on a lot of things. But I think anyone who assumes that these boats will be (or, more importantly "should be") going strong across the board in 30 years is barking at the moon.

Of course, the flip side of this logic holds as well - that those who think a 30-40 year old, heavily-built BWC tank is as strong as it ever was and is as ready for blue water as when it was launched are barking just as loud. That's just not how things work.


----------



## Don L

Exile1 said:


> Discussion from some of the "internet arguers" here and on CF that greater hull thickness doesn't necessarily correlate to greater strength. Isn't that the point you (& Auspicious) were making (in different ways) about the relatively thin hull thickness (compared to old) on modern boats?


See you're 100% making crap up as I haven't said anything thing about hull thickness (but I agree that hull thickness and strength aren't the same thing). You went to all the trouble to quote some BS by post number and just threw me into the mix for some mystery reason.


----------



## Don L

smackdaddy said:


> Most importantly, we've yet to see wholesale failures that everyone is hyping in ANY of these lines - even for boats that are 20+ years old. So at what point does that hype become just that - hype?


The first people who are going to know of a problem in hull life is going to be insurance companies. They're the only ones really that have enough info to identify a common thing like hull life. So until the insurance companies start really jacking up rates for 20-30 year boats or refuse to insurance them I think it is all just bah bah bah.


----------



## smackdaddy

Don0190 said:


> The first people who are going to know of a problem in hull life is going to be insurance companies. They're the only ones really that have enough info to identify a common thing like hull life. So until the insurance companies start really jacking up rates for 20-30 year boats or refuse to insurance them I think it is all just bah bah bah.


That's a good point Don.


----------



## hannah2

Sorry for not knowing the details or changing the subject a bit but how come PCP does not post over here anymore? He knows European boats better than anyone else. I know he and BP do not get along but lots of people do not get along with both of them. 

Happy Holidays!


----------



## smackdaddy

Yeah - it's a bummer. I miss Paulo. I really like him

I like Bob very much too. So whaddayagonnado?

I've found that the best forums have people that hate each others' guts but are really smart and/or entertaining. The "everyone get along" thing is SO boring.


----------



## Shockwave

Smack, that's just crap.


----------



## hannah2

Did they both get kicked out?


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Smack, that's just crap.


What do you mean?

Hannah - no, Paulo just left after he and Bob went a few rounds. I didn't see the big deal, but that's what happened. Bob's still posting - which I'm very glad of.


----------



## Exile1

Don0190 said:


> See you're 100% making crap up as I haven't said anything thing about hull thickness (but I agree that hull thickness and strength aren't the same thing). You went to all the trouble to quote some BS by post number and just threw me into the mix for some mystery reason.


I thought, in your Internet Arguers thread, I had asked why hulls were often made thicker in older boats than they are now, even within the same brand of production boat. As I recall, your response was that they were made thicker because they didn't fully understand the limits of fiberglass back then, and so the safety margins had to be greater than they are today. Others disagreed on the "why," but there seemed to be some consensus on improved technological knowledge of safety margins for materials these days, which could help explain many of today's thinner, lighter hulls. The post I referred to on CF was another guy making essentially the same point about the thinner hull sections on the Oyster that sank.

Anyway, I thought your views were part of this consensus, but my apologies if I got it wrong.


----------



## mikel1

I miss PCP also . . . shame . . . Sailnet lost a valuable asset . . .


----------



## skygazer

smackdaddy said:


> ...But I think anyone who assumes that these boats will be (or, more importantly "should be") going strong across the board in 30 years is barking at the moon.
> 
> Of course, the flip side of this logic holds as well - that those who think a 30-40 year old, heavily-built BWC tank is as strong as it ever was and is as ready for blue water as when it was launched are barking just as loud. That's just not how things work.


http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/images/Boat_Longevity.pdf



> ...Owens-Corning Fiberglass and the U.S. Coast Guard *tested* panels cut from three boats...
> 
> In 1972, more extensive tests were performed on a larger population of samples taken from CG Hull 40503, shown in Figure 3, which was being retired after 20 years in service. It should be noted that service included duty in an extremely polluted ship channel where contact with sulfuric acid was constant and exposure to extreme temperatures occurred during one fire fighting episode.
> Total operating hours for the vessel was 11,654.


My note: Chart shows little loss and *actually some gain in strength at the twenty year old mark*.

I seem to remember from tech college that concrete (another composite) also gains strength for 20 or 30 years. Weird!

Another quote from Everett Pearson (Pearson Yachts):



> "We designed the hull laminate from the waterline down so that the boat, laid over on its side with the *entire weight *of the boat resting on the keel and *one square inch of the hull *would yield not more than 1/2 inch and produce no structural damage to the boat."


Not sure where the idea comes from that people were ignorant back then and Owens-Corning and others did not test materials and know what they were doing.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> http://www.ericgreeneassociates.com/images/Boat_Longevity.pdf
> 
> My note: Chart shows little loss and *actually some gain in strength at the twenty year old mark*.
> 
> I seem to remember from tech college that concrete (another composite) also gains strength for 20 or 30 years. Weird!
> 
> Another quote from Everett Pearson (Pearson Yachts):
> 
> Not sure where the idea comes from that people were ignorant back then and Owens-Corning and others did not test materials and know what they were doing.


Are you really trying to extrapolate strength of a complex system such as a cruising sailboat from testing on a single piece of figerglass panel cut from a boat...and/or _concrete_? Okay.


----------



## skygazer

You seem to have removed part of the quote showing that the strength of the hull was planned and designed by Pearson:



> "We designed the hull laminate from the waterline down so that the boat, laid over on its side with the entire weight of the boat* resting on* the keel and *one square inch of the hull *would yield not more than 1/2 inch and produce no structural damage to the boat."


Guess I imagined experimentally measured facts by highly regarded scientists developed from an actual hard used boat might be almost as relevant as an "experts" opinion.


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> You seem to have removed part of the quote showing that the strength of the hull was planned and designed by Pearson:


So what? The whole freakin' report is full of stuff that backs up what I said...



> It's true that the very early fiberglass boatbuilders were conservative with their laminate schedules, which perhaps has contributed to the longevity of some classes. The reason solid skin laminate were 3/8 to ¾ inches thick was because the laminates of the time had what we would today consider to be poor mechanical properties.


Go buy a Pearson if you want one. I don't care. But my point still stands.

PS - I'm getting the pink Meteor.


----------



## Hannibal

That's one big check.


----------



## Exile1

Originally Posted by skygazer 
You seem to have removed part of the quote showing that the strength of the hull was planned and designed by Pearson:

Not only that, but are you really sure that . . .



smackdaddy said:


> . . . The whole freakin' report is full of stuff that backs up what I said...


 ???

Quote:
It's true that the very early fiberglass boatbuilders were *conservative with their laminate schedules, which perhaps has contributed to the longevity of some classes.* The reason solid skin laminate were 3/8 to ¾ inches thick was because the laminates of the time had what *we would today consider to be poor mechanical properties.*

I think you missed the part above where they explained how, by today's standards, the "poor mechanical properties" of the older laminates were compensated for by using more conservative, i.e. thicker laminates. According to the study, this "perhaps has contributed to the longevity" not the other way around.

And finally, you may want to re-read the conclusion from the last page. While mentioning obvious problems in the event of water intrusion in cored laminates, as well as potential fractures in sandwiched laminate that is overly thin, the article concluded as follows:

Many fiberglass boats are still in service after fifty years. Today's resin systems and manufacturing methods certainly have improved, suggesting we set our goal for 75 - 100 years.

Now I don't know where Sky found this article or whether it's valid, but you shouldn't try and misrepresent what it actually says because it happens to contradict your own, unsupported narrative. And if its conclusions are in fact correct, it suggests that modern boats may have a _longer_ life expectancy than their older, thicker-hulled forebears.

Of course this doesn't speak to the role of economics in rendering older boats obsolete. Many of the newer production boats depreciate quickly, and if they prove difficult & expensive to repair over time, then they may meet your predictions of truncated longevity.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Originally Posted by skygazer
> You seem to have removed part of the quote showing that the strength of the hull was planned and designed by Pearson:
> 
> Not only that, but are you really sure that . . .
> 
> ???
> 
> Quote:
> It's true that the very early fiberglass boatbuilders were *conservative with their laminate schedules, which perhaps has contributed to the longevity of some classes.* The reason solid skin laminate were 3/8 to ¾ inches thick was because the laminates of the time had what *we would today consider to be poor mechanical properties.*
> 
> I think you missed the part above where they explained how, by today's standards, the "poor mechanical properties" of the older laminates were compensated for by using more conservative, i.e. thicker laminates. According to the study, this "perhaps has contributed to the longevity" not the other way around.
> 
> And finally, you may want to re-read the conclusion from the last page. While mentioning obvious problems in the event of water intrusion in cored laminates, as well as potential fractures in sandwiched laminate that is overly thin, the article concluded as follows:
> 
> Many fiberglass boats are still in service after fifty years. Today's resin systems and manufacturing methods certainly have improved, suggesting we set our goal for 75 - 100 years.
> 
> Now I don't know where Sky found this article or whether it's valid, but you shouldn't try and misrepresent what it actually says because it happens to contradict your own, unsupported narrative. And if its conclusions are in fact correct, it suggests that modern boats may have a _longer_ life expectancy than their older, thicker-hulled forebears.
> 
> Of course this doesn't speak to the role of economics in rendering older boats obsolete. Many of the newer production boats depreciate quickly, and if they prove difficult & expensive to repair over time, then they may meet your predictions of truncated longevity.


Jeez Exile, you are consistent in your persistently misguided pecking. I'll give you that.

The part that you say I'm misrepresenting needs to be read with at least a _somewhat_ rigorous mind. For example, on the one hand you highlight where the report points out the problems with today's "lighter" approaches to construction...



> Sandwich laminates do have thinner skins that tend to have higher fiber volume fractions, *which may be somewhat problematic after decades of service.*


Ya think? You, of course, left off the bolded part in your own summation. Shock!

Then you set alongside that the "conclusion"...



> Many fiberglass boats are still in service after fifty years. Today's resin systems and manufacturing methods certainly have improved, suggesting we set our goal for 75 - 100 years.


Dude. This article's primary focus is the longevity of fiberglass laminates - not a study of _boats as a whole system_. In other words, look at Sky's example of the Pearson. Does he, or the report, want us to believe that the Pearson hull didn't flex ONLY because of the thickness of the hull layup? It's not reliant on a more complex structural system than the laminate itself?

The report is saying that fiberglass laminates (technologies, base materials, etc.) have improved to the point that they can last far longer than before. And this is true. BUT (again, you have to think a little here) - if the boats are being built more lightly overall - throughout the entire structural system - then this 1-1, boat-boat comparison falls apart very quickly.

Look if you guys need data from 1965 to make you feel good about your own boats, then fine. Who am I to disabuse you guys of that feeling of security. But let's not get carried away here.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Jeez Exile, you are consistent in your persistently misguided pecking. I'll give you that.
> 
> The part that you say I'm misrepresenting needs to be read with at least a _somewhat_ rigorous mind. For example, on the one hand you highlight where the report points out the problems with today's "lighter" approaches to construction...
> 
> Ya think? You, of course, left off the bolded part in your own summation. Shock!
> 
> Then you set alongside that the "conclusion"...
> 
> Dude. This article's primary focus is the longevity of fiberglass laminates - not a study of _boats as a whole system_. In other words, look at Sky's example of the Pearson. Does he, or the report, want us to believe that the Pearson hull didn't flex ONLY because of the thickness of the hull layup? It's not reliant on a more complex structural system than the laminate itself?
> 
> The report is saying that fiberglass laminates (technologies, base materials, etc.) have improved to the point that they can last far longer than before. And this is true. BUT (again, you have to think a little here) - if the boats are being built more lightly overall - throughout the entire structural system - then this 1-1, boat-boat comparison falls apart very quickly.
> 
> Look if you guys need data from 1965 to make you feel good about your own boats, then fine. Who am I to disabuse you guys of that feeling of security. But let's not get carried away here.


Gee Smack, I don't why I'd suggest we're discussing an article about "boats as a whole system" (at least the hull & scantlings, that is) as opposed to just the "longevity of fiberglass laminates." Why should I think that based on an article titled "How Long do *Fiberglass Boats* Last?", poses the question in the 2nd para. of "just what can we say is the expected lifespan of a *fiberglass boat hull*?", describes in the 3rd para. the sinking of a *fiberglass boat* which lay in 60' of water for 4 years but who's hull emerged structurally intact, and goes on to discuss the remarkable longevity of the USCG *fiberglass boats* that Sky recently mentioned in this or an analogous thread. You did get that we're quite obviously not discussing all the mechanical _systems_ on a boat that have to be periodically maintained if not replaced, right? If you think the article is limited solely to a discussion of laminates as opposed to how those laminates have survived as mfg. for _*fiberglass boats*_, then we must have clicked on different links.

And no, I really don't get the sense from these threads that it's "us guys" (whoever they are) that need help feeling secure about our boats. Besides, if the article is correct, a little reading comprehension will suggest even to you that it's the _modern_ boats, not the older ones, that _may_ survive with the most durable hulls due to improved resin technology. But with the caveat, as I did in fact already say, of "problems in the event of water intrusion in cored laminates, as well as potential fractures in sandwiched laminate that is overly thin."


----------



## albrazzi

I think it might be said in the days of old when with the lack of quantative engineering the hulls were overbuilt to make up for the unknowns. At the time it was a safe and turns out tried and true approach. What we have now could be argued to be TOO much engineering and a return to some added safety factor would be in order. 
I wouldn't want a good enough or meets minimum standards anything, but in many cases that's what's being built and it serves their dwindling and highly competitive market. The rest is just debating the same points back and forth.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Besides, if the article is correct, a little reading comprehension will suggest even to you that it's the _modern_ boats, not the older ones, that _may_ survive with the most durable hulls due to improved resin technology. But with the caveat, as I did in fact already say, of "problems in the event of water intrusion in cored laminates, as well as potential fractures in sandwiched laminate that is overly thin."


Fine - if that's what you guys want to take away from this article feel free to go to the production boats threads and confirm to the world that modern production boats are superior to older blue water boats. Money and mouth?

I'll watch.


----------



## skygazer

Smack, I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your ideas. I thought you were fighting everyone to prove that Hunters are good. I have a Hunter and love it. I've mentioned elsewhere that I was surprised when I got it after reading so much negativity on the internet.

Now you seem to be fighting that newer boats will not last, are essentially no good or at least very weak. I tried to show that fiberglass boats can be expected to last a very long time indeed. I really don't know why that wouldn't make us all happy!

You also seem to be saying that older boats aren't very good either. I said I thought 30 yr. old boats could be good for another 30 years and you essentially said I was ignorant.

Perhaps you feel that your boat and yourself hit the sweet spot in development, and perhaps you did. Good on you.

Never the less, I'm afraid that I find I've begun skipping your posts. They seem to lack direction and meaningfulness.

But not meanness!


----------



## smackdaddy

skygazer said:


> Smack, I'm afraid I've lost the thread of your ideas. I thought you were fighting everyone to prove that Hunters are good. I have a Hunter and love it. I've mentioned elsewhere that I was surprised when I got it after reading so much negativity on the internet.


If that's really what you think, you never got it in the first place. It's not just Hunters - it's production boats in general. Sure, a good deal of the negativity has been focused on Hunters in particular, but the bias has been broader than that. So, I just decided to confront it head-on with the threads I started. And here we are.



skygazer said:


> Now you seem to be fighting that newer boats will not last, are essentially no good or at least very weak. I tried to show that fiberglass boats can be expected to last a very long time indeed. I really don't know why that wouldn't make us all happy!


No, that's not it. I'm saying _this report_ is a lousy resource to use to try to bolster the argument. Exile highlights the loose use of language in the report, but if you read it closely it's hard to seriously come away with anything substantive beyond the fact that the _fiberglass itself_ will last pretty much forever. This isn't news.

So, as I said, I'm picky about the evidence I'll use for an argument.



skygazer said:


> You also seem to be saying that older boats aren't very good either. I said I thought 30 yr. old boats could be good for another 30 years and you essentially said I was ignorant.


I don't remember where I said you were ignorant. Can you link to that? But I don't agree with the pat statement as you put it above. As even the report says, it all depends on how the boat is used and maintained (which, again, is very common knowledge). It's all about cycles as has been said many times.



skygazer said:


> Perhaps you feel that your boat and yourself hit the sweet spot in development, and perhaps you did. Good on you.


No. I love my boat, but it's definitely a compromise. I wouldn't hold it up as the model of design and development by any means. But it's a good boat.



skygazer said:


> Never the less, I'm afraid that I find I've begun skipping your posts. They seem to lack direction and meaningfulness.
> 
> But not meanness!


That's fine. There are always a few who skip my posts because they don't like my tone. That's never bothered me in the least.

If someone keeps the conversation civil, I'm very good at doing that as well. If someone pushes the conversation into confrontational, I'm very good at doing that too - without getting bent about it myself. Of course, at that point, how _they_ respond to the confrontation is on them, not me. Most can't handle it and end up pushing things further and further until they blow up and either try to get me banned or hit ignore. That's fine.

So, I'll go round with people the way in which they want to go round. I always have. Is it "mean". No. I'm not mean to individuals. I'm just very honest - and I challenge things that are said that I think are ridiculous. That's it.


----------



## Exile1

smackdaddy said:


> Fine - if that's what you guys want to take away from this article feel free to go to the production boats threads and confirm to the world that modern production boats are superior to older blue water boats. Money and mouth?
> 
> I'll watch.


I can't confirm the longevity of fiberglass because I'm not an expert, but obviously neither are you. All I can confirm is what the author of Sky's article _wrote_, his _opinion_ that resin technology has improved on more modern boats, and how this _may_ result in more durable hulls over time (subject to a couple of caveats). Given how technology usually progresses, it makes some sense to me, but if you would like to cite an article about how stress-cycling or whatever shortens the life of modern, thinner-skinned production boats, then by all means. Just remember that some of the people who favor such boats seem a bit sensitive to criticism. 

As for which type of boat is "superior" or "inferior," I thought the best comments were those that focused on suitability for the intended use, and that is all too often a matter of opinion. I know it's more boring for you than always trying to divide sailors up by type of boat, age, sailing venue, or cockpit ergonomic preferences (to name just a few), but that's the reality of it.

Some additional developments on the Oyster failure, but thus far the discussion seems to be primarily over on CF. Apologies for the distractions over here.


----------



## smackdaddy

Exile1 said:


> Some additional developments on the Oyster failure, but thus far the discussion seems to be primarily over on CF. Apologies for the distractions over here.


Yeah, I've followed along. Same old crap.

I do appreciate NeilP providing more info...

http://polinastar3825.wix.com/blog#!Video-of-the-keel/cmbz/6896A6DF-4405-4D47-BACE-F977AFAF80B7


----------



## Exile1

This was kinda wild. Polina Star III hauled out by Oyster 6-7 months before the sinking, and Oyster concluding all was well. The testing included laminate integrity & keel bolts, among other items. They uncovered a small amount of movement/separation in the aft keel section but concluded it was merely cosmetic and not structural. Something doesn't seem to be quite adding up.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jix6qiey...-xOuS-la/Mr Ezhkov - 23 October 2014.pdf?dl=0


----------



## Shockwave

Hey Smack, I'm just busting your chops, someone has to. Pcp didn't race, he thought PHRF 100 for a fifty was fast, good riddance.


----------



## smackdaddy

Shockwave said:


> Hey Smack, I'm just busting your chops, someone has to. Pcp didn't race, he thought PHRF 100 for a fifty was fast, good riddance.


No worries Shock - you know I'll just bust yours right back. So it's all good. Hell, my boat rates a 96 (NE PHRF). That certainly doesn't suck - but I wouldn't really call that "fast".

As for Paulo - I completely disagree. Not a good riddance at all. I don't know if you've seen his blog:

Interesting Sailboats Blog

But if you have, you'll know that he's certainly no chump. The dude clearly knows his stuff. It's just a very different perspective than what you typically see in sailing forums. What sucks is that people many times would rather kill off the different perspective than consider it. I think that's bad form.

So, be careful how you position your own knowledge in relation to Paulo's. It could make you look a little silly. After all, his thread of the same name here has *OVER 2 MILLION VIEWS*:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/boat-review-purchase-forum/62341-interesting-sailboats.html

Somebody is definitely paying attention.


----------



## Shockwave

No Smack, he doesn't know his stuff. We disagree.


----------



## Pamlicotraveler

Exile1 said:


> This was kinda wild. Polina Star III hauled out by Oyster 6-7 months before the sinking, and Oyster concluding all was well. The testing included laminate integrity & keel bolts, among other items. They uncovered a small amount of movement/separation in the aft keel section but concluded it was merely cosmetic and not structural. Something doesn't seem to be quite adding up.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jix6qiey...-xOuS-la/Mr Ezhkov - 23 October 2014.pdf?dl=0


WOW....This is an amazing letter. That seems to tell a lot.


----------



## NCC320

Shockwave said:


> Hey Smack, I'm just busting your chops, someone has to. Pcp didn't race, he thought PHRF 100 for a fifty was fast, good riddance.


Actually, PCP added a lot to this forum. Some of us miss his input. He had a little trouble with English, but I never saw anyone step up and explain things to him in Portuguese.

And then there are the smart ass, know it all jerks that are quick to call other peoples' boats crap. Doesn't make any difference if such a person has no boat or a mega yacht. Still a jerk.

An experienced poster was driven away. So how does that float with new, inexperienced people on the list? Drive enough people away, and all the experienced will have the sport to themselves.


----------



## Exile1

NCC320 said:


> Actually, PCP added a lot to this forum. Some of us miss his input. He had a little trouble with English, but I never saw anyone step up and explain things to him in Portuguese.
> 
> And then there are the smart ass, know it all jerks that are quick to call other peoples' boats crap. Doesn't make any difference if such a person has no boat or a mega yacht. Still a jerk. An experienced poster was driven away. So how does that float with new, inexperienced people on the list? Drive enough people away, and all the experienced will have the sport to themselves.


Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I don't think PCP was driven away by people calling other peoples' boats crap (not that this doesn't happen on forums). More of a personal thing with one other member here. Besides, like him or not like him, I've never known him to back down from an argument about the pros or cons of a boat! In fact, he's right in the thick of it again on the Oyster thread over on CF as we speak. Some say he often likes to argue only for the sake of arguing, but I've definitely learned from him, as I'm sure others have as well.


----------



## juliomanuel

I wonder what Captain Fatty Goodlander, who recently wrote a piece titled "sailing humor" (All At Sea Caribbean 09/17), would say about all these catastrophic hull failures and the fact he does not see a need for having a liferaft onboard. He quotes; "because the boat itself is our life raft"... "we put that weight and money into our hull to ensure never need a life raft". Well that is all fine and logical, wanting to spend the money and effort making sure your hull is in mint condition, your thru holes and seacoks are regularly serviced and the such, but how will that help you if you hit a semi sunken shipping container 300 miles offshore in the middle of the night? This does happen everyday more and more. Or will it help you when your keel just falls off and rips off the hull like discussed on this blog. I understand there are just to many new gadgets we would all like to have, but really are not a priority. A life raft, has and will always be one. Its just common sense.


----------



## juliomanuel

Oyster took down that article.


----------

