Oyster Problems?

[Kenomac]

From the Oyster Marine website:

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.
Oyster iPad AppFacebookTwitterYouTubeRSS Feedsearchsitemapmerchandiseownerslegalcookies
© Oyster Yachts 2015

[CarstenWL]

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.

If one of them is the Albatros owned by a German sailor (Manfred Kerstan) they at least had problems with their rudders (https://www.worldcruising.com/logsar...ID=192&ItemID=). They reported that the rudders 'got loose and had to refastened every some hours' ...

Carsten

[chris95040]

Well, I for one don't trust Oyster's judgment anymore.

And by that I mean, the guys who now own the brand name "Oyster Yachts".

They probably hoped to /slowly/ introduce cost cutting measures while relying on that Oyster brand name to continue to command high prices. They'd slowly cash out the value of that brand over the course of a decade or two before the market realized they were just a higher priced Hunter.

Instead they pretty much liquidated all that brand equity with one yacht.

Ha! Liquidated.

[donradcliffe]

Translation of the Oyster spin machine:

We screwed up the 825 by cheapening the keel attachment. We have reinforced the boats that were built that way, and are going back to the more expensive design. I don't believe for a moment their statement that the salvage damage from the Polina Star prevented them from doing a forsenic analysis on that boat--they had all the pieces.

Translation of the German blog from Albatros--epic fail by Google translate. The spinnaker pole breakdown may not be a factory problem, but the rudder certainly is.

[neilpride]

Clap clap clap for Oyster ,,, at least they admit a weakness in the 825 and they promise not to use it again, time to step back from the the other side of the red line and build strong as Oyster know how to do it really well....

[Kenomac]

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....

Why the extensive criticism of a company at least attempting to get to the root of the problem, when other companies simply ignore the issue? Another issue... I guess this also lays to rest the lame argument so many on this forum seem to tout regarding the international yacht quality specifications when attempting to equate all yachts Oyster, Hunter Beneteaus as being equals. Seems to me that the specs don't stand for much of anything since the ill fated Oyster 825 was built accordingly. According to that logic, I suppose it means that any other boat brand built to the same specs can also expect their keels to come loose.... everything being equal.

[Fluer de Mer]

Agree. The company is doing right by its actions and should be commended for it in terms of its transparency and statement that it is returning to a proven design/manufacturing technique. Furthermore, the fact that they posted on this forum shows that they both take their reputation and the sailing community seriously. As I've posted previously, this forum is monitored by the OEMs and the discussions on it are part of what make the community so valuable.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

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....

Why the extensive criticism of a company at least attempting to get to the root of the problem, when other companies simply ignore the issue? Another issue... I guess this also lays to rest the lame argument so many on this forum seem to tout regarding the international yacht quality specifications when attempting to equate all yachts Oyster, Hunter Beneteaus as being equals. Seems to me that the specs don't stand for much of anything since the ill fated Oyster 825 was built accordingly. According to that logic, I suppose it means that any other boat brand built to the same specs can also expect their keels to come loose.... everything being equal.

Well --

I think the criticism is that the keel was very badly built. That criticism seems justified to me.

The second criticism was that Oyster is spinning it like crazy. I also agree with this. After a disaster like this, they could not possibly get away with just refusing to acknowledge a problem. This is not Hunter, selling cheap and mass produced goods which were never sold as the strongest and best boat in the world, but rather as a good value for the money (which it is), and which can be reasonably expected to have a failure now and then, but Oyster, which sells a very expensive premium product whose calling card is high strength and top quality.

They sell exactly zero yachts on the basis that they are a good value for money; they sell 100% of their production on the basis that they are top quality and strong enough for any contingency, and they sell to those for whom cost is little object. Without that story, they have nothing at all to sell, and they are dead as a company if they don't make a plausible show of finding and fixing whatever internal process allowed such a thing to happen.

Whether they are actually doing it and will be able to rebuild their reputation remains to be seen. In my opinion they were pretty stupid to allow something like this to happen, but I doubt that they are so stupid as to allow it to destroy the company.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well --

I think the criticism is that the keel was very badly built. That criticism seems justified to me.

The second criticism was that Oyster is spinning it like crazy. I also agree with this. After a disaster like this, they could not possibly get away with just refusing to acknowledge a problem. This is not Hunter, selling cheap and mass produced goods which were never sold as the strongest and best boat in the world, but rather as a good value for the money (which it is), and which can be reasonably expected to have a failure now and then, but Oyster, which sells a very expensive premium product whose calling card is high strength and top quality.

They sell exactly zero yachts on the basis that they are a good value for money; they sell 100% of their production on the basis that they are top quality and strong enough for any contingency, and they sell to those for whom cost is little object. Without that story, they have nothing at all to sell, and they are dead as a company if they don't make a plausible show of finding and fixing whatever internal process allowed such a thing to happen.

Whether they are actually doing it and will be able to rvebuild their reputation remains to be seen. In my opinion they were pretty stupid to allow something like this to happen, but I doubt that they are so stupid as to allow it to destroy the company.

"Spin?" I don't see any spin, I see transparency. The company manufactured one model... Specifically a one-of extended 825 to 90ft using a new method, a method announced over a year previously in their Oyster owners magazine. Things obviously didn't work out as well as the Oyster company had planned, so... now they're returning to what has worked tried and true for over 800 yachts.

What's the problem? Other than what some on this forum seem to think. I seriously doubt if this has hurt sales. In fact, the entire 825 built of I believe two other boats were immediately hauled out in Palma, Mallorca by the manufacturer for inspection and repairs following the sinking. Personally, I've never ever heard of another yacht manufacturer going to this much expense and trouble in order to correct or prevent another possible failure.

What do you expect the company to do? Geez, prior to every ARC, the Oyster company offers free rigging and yacht safety inspections to all Oyster yachts participating. Please name one other yacht manufacturer which does the same? Moody? Does the Moody company offer free safety and rigging inspections on location? Does the Moody company haul out and inspect all boats of the same model following a failure?

[boatpoker]

What was the old method of attaching the keel ?
What was the new method of attaching the keel ?

[colemj]

What was the new method - was it the large infusion that Minaret addressed?

When this goes back to the "old" method, will that grid/skin/stub/keel structure be OK as it is designed?

To me, I couldn't understand how the keel stayed on any of the boats from the pictures I saw. Even assuming the layup was 100% good. That just looked extremely weak - and I am a big proponent of composites and light structural engineering (but obviously not an expert in them).

If the "old" method is simply getting rid of that whole thin grid structure and replacing it with a more substantial and tested structure, then I think Oyster is spinning this big time.

If the "old" method is just better QC of a critical area and substituting hand layup or smaller infusion sections for the one large infusion - while keeping the identical engineering design, then that is understandable.

Mark

Edit, Boatpoker beat me to the post button.

[Mirage Gecko]

The entire build of two boats at great expense???From what I can see there are four built or in progress so maybe 24 Mill Euro in revenue based on Polina price.Pulling a couple of boats well I reckon even I could afford that.
What I haven't seen mentioned is what the "repair" was.What I can not get my head around is if that repair was structural,and it would have to be if any way connected to the sinking, how would that take place without major destructive rework on the two other boats built.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mirage Gecko

The entire build of two boats at great expense???From what I can see there are four built or in progress so maybe 24 Mill Euro in revenue based on Polina price.Pulling a couple of boats well I reckon even I could afford that.

Really... Do you have any idea of how much it costs to haul out two 85ft yachts at the STP shipyard in Palma Mallorca, and take them out of commission for several months while an investigation and repairs are taking place? While at the same time conducting and financing a salvage operation for a sunken 90ft yacht.

My criticism of other yacht companies has always been directed towards their failure to respond to manufacturing issues, as in not bothering to even so much as return a phone call, which is what happened on our previous boat of another brand. Now here in this case, you have a company like Oyster doing all the right things...hauling up the wreck from the bottom, conducting an in investigation, alerting the other owners and making the necessary repairs... and some of you aren't happy with this?

Well... You guys can speculate and believe what you want to believe. Meanwhile, I'm done with this discussion for now.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Really... Do you have any idea of how much it costs to haul out two 85ft yachts at the STP shipyard in Palma Mallorca, and take them out of commission for several months while an investigation and repairs are taking place? While at the same time conducting and financing a salvage operation for a sunken 90ft yacht.

Well... You guys can speculate and believe what you want to believe. Meanwhile, I'm done with this discussion for now.

That's ok if you don't want to participate. But I thought the owner (or their insurer) organized the salvage. And the cost to pull boats is tiny compared to the liability if Oyster did nothing.

You see Oyster as being totally transparent. I don't see any root cause analysis in their release and some obfuscation regarding their claim that the salvage operation destroyed evidence of the cause of the Polina Star III capsize. If they can't figure out the root cause from the salvaged parts then they should not be designing and building boats IMO. But it sounds like they found the problem because they went to great expense to rework all the other boats of the same build. Maybe their attorneys cautioned them to not give their opinion about the root cause which is probably good advice.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Oyster Marine

Please find the latest update on Polina Star III here

Very welcome to this thread...and to this forum

As you can see reading the thread we all wish Oyster to be able to sort this out to regain the confidence of the market and to keep building great cruising boats.

The statement you linked has several points that seem to go on the right way to sort this mess out and to regain the shaken confidence, however I would like you to clarify some points:

".. 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;..."

Can you tell us who is the body that is making the independent investigation and if the results would be made public, I mean at the end of the inquiry?

Regarding this:
"Oyster has worked with a team of independent experts to review the design and construction of the Oyster 825....Secondly, our inspection of the other 825s ... 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 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."

I am a bit confused: The keel structure seems to me similar to many used on the industry, for example by Halberg Rassy, without any problems.

The problem had to do with a deficiently designed type of structure (as you imply) or to an underbuilt of that structure?

Oyster built boats at over 40 years it seems not make any sense to me to say that they are going to built the boats the same way they were always built because obviously the state of the art and the way boats are built has been changing with time and old Oysters certainly were not built like new ones, with the same processes and techniques.

So, to what are you referring regarding this: "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"

What process are you talking about?