Originally Posted by Polux
A final point: In what regards modern sailboats it does not make sense to put on the same level boats that cost 2 or 3 times more than others. It is obvious that it is expected a much better quality building from brands that make much more expensive boats and it is rightly assumed that the better quality does not regard only a better quality interior
but also a better built quality.
I think where some may differ from you, Polux, centers around which components you have to pay extra for in a premium brand. If it's fancy interiors, components, etc., then that's fine. But I don't think those that can only afford the lower priced production boats should have to sacrifice build quality when it comes to critical structural components. You are certainly buying
more luxury items with a Mercedes and it may in fact be an overall safer car, but that doesn't mean you should also expect your Kia not to come with seat belts or airbags, or that the wheels may fall off.
I would find your position on the very low incidence of failures more persuasive IF:
1. The vast majority of leisure boats of all stripes weren't rarely used, and the ones that were used weren't rarely stressed;
2. There wasn't what I believe is probably consistent underreporting of the type of serious failures we're discussing. Sure, if it affects an entire model line or causes a dramatic sinking and/or rescue
. Otherwise, such failures are often dealt with at the nearest available yard and would otherwise not necessarily be publicized unless the owner or yard tech happens to be on the forums
. I agree with your point that this doesn't also necessarily prove a higher incidence, but when we're talking structural problems it isn't unreasonable to surmise that similar boats may also be affected;
3. We also don't have any accurate way to estimate the corollary, namely how many of the Bene First boats you mentioned who are competing in the Sydney-Hobart this year (just to take one example) have taken the preemptive & cautionary measures Bene recommended after
the CR incident, namely dropping keels, inspections, repairing as needed (if possible);
4. Purely anecdotal for sure, but I'm often reminded of the incident Dockhead recounts of hitting an uncharted rock hard
and at speed
, in a boat which enjoys a good reputation for structural strength among other things. I believe he said he subsequently had it properly surveyed and all was well. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting not having your boat inspected after such an incident, but rather that it be built strongly enough to get you home. The problem is, if you're out cruising, home or the nearest suitable facility may be a long ways off, and all
of the boats we are generally discussing have the Cat A "All Oceans" rating; and,
5. I'm not sure the hard vs. soft grounding line of reasoning gets us anywhere. First off, how do you define? Second, unless you're the boat's original owner, how do you know? Third, there have been keel & rudder
problems reported by Minaret & others that were purportedly due solely to soft groundings, and CR's MAIB report concluded that mere pounding in a seaway may have also played a role. Are you also required to survey
your boat after incidents such as those, or should that be factored in as reasonably foreseeable events
when you purchase
a boat designed & marketed for cruising?