Oyster Problems?

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Those chainplates are built like !!!!!!!!!,,,,,

Should have been done in carbon, integral to deck/hull, so as to be 100% leak proof forever.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Common now, your just making Moody's look good! Great boats actually and great builders, just lousy marketers.

Thread drift, but bad marketing was by far not Moody's only problem. They failed because they could not create all the elements you need to sell boats at that price point. The mystique of an exclusive luxury product -- something the hands-on, sleeves rolled up, boat-building, Moody family never understood. They owned the top end of the market in the UK in the '60's and '70's, and took it for granted. They thought the product speaks for itself. But by the '90's, most high end boats were being bought by people without that much sailing experience, many of whom who wouldn't know a chainplate from a keel bolt, but all of whom can smell the ineffable scent of luxury.

And the product itself was inferior in significant ways to what Richard Matthews was turning out. It was not as pretty -- a fatal flaw in this market segment. Not as well finished below -- even more fatal. They were better sailing machines, but in this market segment that is less important than the master cabin bunk. Built equally well, but with far less comprehensive support -- something this market understands better than build quality.

No, Richard Matthews killed Moody fair and square, and my hat's off to him. He built some of the best and most beautiful cruising yachts ever made. Even more impressive, he built a boat building company which was consistently profitable -- that rarest of things. Matthews had an eye for design, and hired the most artistically gifted designers around at the time -- Andrew Winch for the interiors (brilliant move), Kim Holman for the hulls and decks.


When the company closed, Moody was the oldest yacht builder in the world -- something like 150 years, all in the private ownership of the same family. Sometimes things just run their course. The Moody family are still hands-on, boots-on, and sleeves rolled up guys -- David, the former CEO, is now a surveyor, keeping an office in the old Moody boatyard (now Swanwick Marina) not far from Bill Dixon's office. I was surprised a couple of years ago when one of the guys pressure washing the bottom of my boat at Cowes Yacht Haven introduced himself to me as David Moody's son, the whatever-eth generation of the family. He recognized my boat, because he helped to build her -- he was one of the yard workers at the time. He was proud to be out there messing around with boats in whatever capacity. How cool is that?



Sorry for the thread drift. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Should have been done in carbon, integral to deck/hull, so as to be 100% leak proof forever.

Or in massive aluminum alloy, welded to the aluminum deck?

That's how my next boat will be built

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Thread drift, but bad marketing was by far not Moody's only problem. They failed because they could not create all the elements you need to sell boats at that price point. The mystique of an exclusive luxury product -- something the hands-on, sleeves rolled up, boat-building, Moody family never understood. They owned the top end of the market in the UK in the '60's and '70's, and took it for granted. They thought the product speaks for itself. But by the '90's, most high end boats were being bought by people without that much sailing experience, many of whom who wouldn't know a chainplate from a keel bolt, but all of whom can smell the ineffable scent of luxury.

And the product itself was inferior in significant ways to what Richard Matthews was turning out. It was not as pretty -- a fatal flaw in this market segment. Not as well finished below -- even more fatal. They were better sailing machines, but in this market segment that is less important than the master cabin bunk. Built equally well, but with far less comprehensive support -- something this market understands better than build quality.

No, Richard Matthews killed Moody fair and square, and my hat's off to him. He built some of the best and most beautiful cruising yachts ever made. Even more impressive, he built a boat building company which was consistently profitable -- that rarest of things. Matthews had an eye for design, and hired the most artistically gifted designers around at the time -- Andrew Winch for the interiors (brilliant move), Kim Holman for the hulls and decks.


When the company closed, Moody was the oldest yacht builder in the world -- something like 150 years, all in the private ownership of the same family. Sometimes things just run their course. The Moody family are still hands-on, boots-on, and sleeves rolled up guys -- David, the former CEO, is now a surveyor, keeping an office in the old Moody boatyard (now Swanwick Marina) not far from Bill Dixon's office. I was surprised a couple of years ago when one of the guys pressure washing the bottom of my boat at Cowes Yacht Haven introduced himself to me as David Moody's son, the whatever-eth generation of the family. He recognized my boat, because he helped to build her -- he was one of the yard workers at the time. He was proud to be out there messing around with boats in whatever capacity. How cool is that?



Sorry for the thread drift. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming

Well I am not sorry at all. Excellent perambulation, and thanks!

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Or in massive aluminum alloy, welded to the aluminum deck?

That's how my next boat will be built

I layered up my welded aluminum chainplates until they looked nice and strong. Then I did the calculations.

Ultimate strength = 4.3 times shroud strength and 6.3 times the weight of the boat.
Fatigue strength (500,000,000 cycle) = 2.3 times shroud strength. 3.3 times boat weight.

To what sigma number does that calculate?

Steve

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Panope

To what sigma number does that calculate?

Nothing because all that had nothing to do with 6 sigma.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Panope

I layered up my welded aluminum chainplates until they looked nice and strong. Then I did the calculations.

Ultimate strength = 4.3 times shroud strength and 6.3 times the weight of the boat.
Fatigue strength (500,000,000 cycle) = 2.3 times shroud strength. 3.3 times boat weight.

To what sigma number does that calculate?

Steve

Forget about that Sigma thing for a moment, i think your boat will be lifted from those chainplates.. dont try that at home or with a Bene lol..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

I hear this from the excuse makers quite a lot so let's deal with it. Please look in your car manual and find for me the recommended maintenance for the seat belts, air bags, crumple zone steel, door compression posts, and any other human safety system. Then come back and tell me that a boat keel and rudder is just like a car. We are not taking about oil changes, we are talking about safety of life system.

You compare what is not comparable. Seat belts would be comparable with life lines or jack lines and a rudder would be comparable with the direction of a car and the keel with the car chassis or suspension, all fundamental parts on car safety and yes not only they have schedules to verify those parts on regular maintenance (and if needed repair them or change pieces) as on mandatory regular car inspections (in Europe) those parts are exhaustively examined with the help of special testing machines.

Those inspections change with the age of the car, initially after 4 or 5 years, than each 2 years and at a certain point each year. They are not expensive (less than 50 Euros here).

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

You compare what is not comparable. Seat belts would be comparable with life lines or jack lines and a rudder would be comparable with the direction of a car and the keel with the car chassis or suspension, all fundamental parts on car safety and yes not only they have schedules to verify those parts on regular maintenance (and if needed repair them or change pieces) as on mandatory regular car inspections (in Europe) those parts are exhaustively examined with the help of special testing machines.

Those inspections change with the age of the car, initially after 4 or 5 years, than each 2 years and at a certain point each year. They are not expensive (less than 50 Euros here).

That would be such as keel bolts or rudder bearings, not the structure itself. That's comparable..

[Polux]

Originally Posted by poiu

Yes, credit to them for not giving us the Beneteau silent treatment and credit for their candour.
...

Well, not exactly like that The skipper of that boat posted here about that case exactly because Oyster was blaming him to have collided with something as the cause of the accident. Oyster was denying that this was a problem common to the other 825.

It is worth to remember what he said about Oyster's attitude on this:

Originally Posted by Alessiocannoni

I suspect the keel is identical and the structure as well, 8 months ago, when I was complaning about the structure because not convinced about the solidity of it, he wrote an email saying something like: don't worry, your boat has the same structure of the other 825, they are very strong! Go ahead with your around the world trip an enjoy your boat......after the accident, to reassure the owner of another 825 in building, the same man wrote to him something like: don't worry about your boat, the structure of Polina Star III was different from the other....
Thay changed version about it so many times that is difficult to say which one is the thruth. Anyways, they are trying to built more then possible in series, immagine that during the building I suggested to change the shape of the keel in order to move forward the center of gravity ( to compensate the weight of the garage), they used the identical keel, then they adjusted the balancement by about 1 Tonn of lead into the bow........one year ago, when I was complaning about that nobody care me..... now that the boat sunk and I show the lead into the bow to the surveyors they are scandalized....................................... ........................................

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.

Then we had a very angry owner with Oyster because Oyster would not assume its contractual warranties on the boat, a pissed Russian that managed the edition of Yacht de in Russian to publish photos and independent surveys regarding what happened on the boat.

Later Yacht de, the biggest world sailing magazine published the story and the photos on their main edition, in German.

After that it was the credibility of Oyster that was at play, they could not try to put it under the carpet, nor blame it on the skipper, nor made the story disappear and face to the results of the Survey by the Yacht Insurance they had not any other choice than to limit the damages and take an "honorable" position regarding the accident and all the story as if they had not done precisely the opposite till that moment.

I don't remember any case where Beneteau had faced irrefutable proves that something was very wrong on a new boat, so wrong that it had lead to the boat sinking. On the loss of keel of the First 40.7 the investigation did not pointed to a built defect, the boat was more than 10 years old, had been grounded and there are more than 500 other boats without serious problems on that area.

The only similar case I can remember was with the Bavaria and the keels of the Match 42 and they had done exactly the same as Oyster: First they tried to deny that something was wrong with all the boats of that model (a building defect), that the boat that had lost the keel had grounded before (and that was true) but several other Bavaria Match 42 come up with the same problem and the cover the media had done to all the case made them take the honorable position, assuming a built defect and the free alteration and reinforcement on all the Match 42.

Honestly I cannot see any difference in the way they have behaved, Oyster or Bavaria and regarding Beneteau I am quite sure it will be the same if it is proven that a boat has a building defect. First they will try to hide it and then if they are not able to do it, they will do the "right" thing looking for limiting damage on their reputation.

[robert sailor]

So back a ways Neil Pride shows pictures of a Beneteau fix for a steering system that was either poorly designed or poorly built or both. Polux I keep hearing your comments about how designers and builders of modern boats don't take short cuts. I have also read of owners that have tried unsuccessfully to take Beneteau on but in the end their pockets were not deep enough. It's my opinion that it is very expensive and very hard to take on a boat builder unless you can write a check for a new 82 ft Oyster and even then I'll bet it was a tough game.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Should have been done in carbon, integral to deck/hull, so as to be 100% leak proof forever.

Sounds perfect. A cruising friend of ours owns a new X-Yacht 44. After crossing the Atlantic, that's where we first met he found his rigging was on the loose side. After a good inspection it was found that the carbon fiber frame that picks up the rigging loads was delaminating from the hull interior skin (it's cored) well its quite the job to make those repairs. I know you are a glass guy but it seems that the issue was in the bond to the core.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Thread drift, but bad marketing was by far not Moody's only problem. They failed because they could not create all the elements you need to sell boats at that price point. The mystique of an exclusive luxury product -- something the hands-on, sleeves rolled up, boat-building, Moody family never understood. They owned the top end of the market in the UK in the '60's and '70's, and took it for granted. They thought the product speaks for itself. But by the '90's, most high end boats were being bought by people without that much sailing experience, many of whom who wouldn't know a chainplate from a keel bolt, but all of whom can smell the ineffable scent of luxury.
..

They went down for the same reason why builders of boats or cars go down: For not being able to provide what clients (or that share of the market) wants at a competitive price.

I would say Moody went down a bit for the same reason the British car Industry went down: The British were (are?) too conservative regarding what they like and the British market alone was not able to make profitable production cars or boats selling them only inside UK. The production was small and the production prices higher than on other countries that exported their cars.

That had obviously exceptions but it was pretty much like that: While Najad, Halberg Rassy, Amel, Contest, Swan or Baltic were selling most of the boats abroad, British brands keep on making conservative boats and selling them mostly to British since they were to conservative for the general European taste, regarding what clients wanted on that market.

Today it seems they have gone over it and Oyster, Gunfleet or Southerly are making much less conservative yachts, even Rustler had come up with some designs that look like modern boats. For some it was too late (the last Moddies were less conservative) and it seems that for Southerly too. Nothing to do with quality or the lack of it.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

So back a ways Neil Pride shows pictures of a Beneteau fix for a steering system that was either poorly designed or poorly built or both. Polux I keep hearing your comments about how designers and builders of modern boats don't take short cuts. I have also read of owners that have tried unsuccessfully to take Beneteau on but in the end their pockets were not deep enough. It's my opinion that it is very expensive and very hard to take on a boat builder unless you can write a check for a new 82 ft Oyster and even then I'll bet it was a tough game.

I don't know how you keep telling me things that I had not said or even worse the opposite that I had said. I said that the Oceanis rudder design is poor, that does not mean it is a defective design.

I had said repetitively that mass production boat builders, the ones that build the cheapest boats, obviously build boats to a cost and cut in anything they can to have competitively priced boats.

That does not mean they are defective in their design or built, like it was the case with the Bavaria Match 42 and with this Oyster, boats that had defects as it is understood on the industry.

No one would expect a mass production boat to be as strong or well built as a luxury cruiser like a Oyster or an Halberg Rassy but everybody would expect them not to lose the keel after one year of use as it was the case with the Bavaria Match 42 or The Oyster 825.

I hope others can see the difference

[neilpride]

Well I think those rudder bulkheads and othet stuff its a good example in how they cut cost ...