Oyster Problems?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes but you should not forget they sunk as any other boat that it is not well maintained. On the last ARC and ARC+ with several hundreds of boats and many new or almost new cheap main production boats that only one that went down was a Moody, an already old one, a full keel boat.

It was owned by a family that lived aboard and they had prepared the boat for a circumnavigation that would start with the ARC, They obviously had forget about something. Never managed to find form where the water was coming in.

They were experienced sailors and this was their 2th circumnavigation.

http://www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/e...ng-69312coming in. The boat did not hit anything

That Moody most likely sank because of a deficiency in the design -- sea cocks located in the main passenger volume where a breached hose or a hose which comes loose can sink the boat.

Granted 99.9% of all cruising boats have the same defect, but that does not make it any less egregious.

But it is a defect, and one of Dashew's Sundeers would not have sunk for the same reason. Nor will my next boat, which will be designed with watertight compartments fore and aft and through hulls and seacocks out of the main passenger volume.

Meanwhile I'll have a dewatering pump which could keep up with a breached seawater hose.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

This is likely all correct, and you are making (in my opinion) valid distinctions between "main market cruising boats" and "voyaging boats." But how does a buyer who actually wishes to go "voyaging" (as opposed to what most do) discern the difference? If relying on the mfg. brochures which the EU stds. validate, then why spend, as you estimate, 2-3 times as much?

It seems as though you are contradicting yourself. On the one hand the main market cruising boats are equally capable for extended voyaging (in fact more capable than most cruisers), but on the other hand they are not built as well as voyaging boats. Besides tankage issues, which parts of voyaging boats are "better built" that may justify their add'l cost?

Not understanding your point and certainly you are attributing to me things that I did not said or think. I have said very clearly that voyage boats are designed for voyage and as such they are far better and more adapted to do that then main market cruising boats and I have said that plenty times.

Regarding main market cruising boats it seems you miss the concept since an Halberg Rassy, a Sirius or a Najad are a main market cruising boats, not designed expressly for voyaging but very well built main market cruisers and certainly seaworthy boats.

Then you have main market mass production cruising boats, the ones that are built in huge numbers, built for a lower price but that point exactly to the same market in what regards use (and will be used the same way) as the first ones, except in what regards price, finish quality and quality of built. Off course, we are talking here of different sectors of the same market in what regards design, differentiated by price levels.

On the European boat of the year contest the first ones are called Luxury cruisers while the second ones are called family cruisers. Both are designed for general use, that means the most possible large criteria in what regards design.

Even in what regards voyaging the more expensive main market cruisers are better then the cheaper ones because they are better built, even if far in convenience and efficiency regarding true voyage boats.

While a voyage boat will not need to be modified to do voyages, main market boats have to be adapted for it, ones more than others.

I never said that mass main market boats are equally capable or more capable than voyage boats or even luxury main market boats, I said that some are used for that successfully and many have circumnavigated.

More capable than most cruisers only if you are referring to old cruisers, with 30 years or so that are also used for that. Insurance companies are rarely mistaken regarding money and they charge for those more for insuring them than to new main mass market cruisers.

I have also noticed that most boats that sunk are old boats, not new modern mass production cruisers, and regarding that you have only to look at the ARC.

Regarding costumers to know what the best boats to buy to voyage they only have to look at boat magazines, and mostly do. They certainly let you know what the boats they consider voyage boats and the ones they consider main market boats even if with offshore potential. Maybe you should read more sail magazines...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

That Moody most likely sank because of a deficiency in the design -- sea cocks located in the main passenger volume where a breached hose or a hose which comes loose can sink the boat.

Granted 99.9% of all cruising boats have the same defect, but that does not make it any less egregious.
...

No, it seems it was not the case:

"The water was not coming in through seacocks and Arnold and his crew could not locate the source."
ARC crew is rescued by a cargo ship within hours of their yacht sinking – Yachting World

Maybe the rudder? I remember that on the edition previous to this one another Moody had to divert to Cabo verde making water from the rudder. They were able to save the boat and to make repairs there.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

No, it seems it was not the case:

"The water was not coming in through seacocks and Arnold and his crew could not locate the source."
ARC crew is rescued by a cargo ship within hours of their yacht sinking – Yachting World

Maybe the rudder? I remember that on the edition previous to this one another Moody had to divert to Cabo verde making water from the rudder. They were able to save the boat and to make repairs there.

If that was the case, then it's another design defect -- rudder bearing should not be below the waterline and in the main passenger volume. True 99.9% of cruising boats are made like that, but it's wrong! Dashew's boats don't, and my next boat won't either!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Not understanding your point and certainly you are attributing to me things that I did not said or think. I have said very clearly that voyage boats are designed for voyage and as such they are far better and more adapted to do that then main market cruising boats and I have said that plenty times.

Regarding main market cruising boats it seems you miss the concept since an Halberg Rassy, a Sirius or a Najad are a main market cruising boats, not designed expressly for voyaging but very well built main market cruisers and certainly seaworthy boats.

Then you have main market mass production cruising boats, the ones that are built in huge numbers, built for a lower price but that point exactly to the same market in what regards use (and will be used the same way) as the first ones, except in what regards price, finish quality and quality of built. Off course, we are talking here of different sectors of the same market in what regards design, differentiated by price levels.

On the European boat of the year contest the first ones are called Luxury cruisers while the second ones are called family cruisers. Both are designed for general use, that means the most possible large criteria in what regards design.

Even in what regards voyaging the more expensive main market cruisers are better then the cheaper ones because they are better built, even if far in convenience and efficiency regarding true voyage boats.

While a voyage boat will not need to be modified to do voyages, main market boats have to be adapted for it, ones more than others.

I never said that mass main market boats are equally capable or more capable than voyage boats or even luxury main market boats, I said that some are used for that successfully and many have circumnavigated.

More capable than most cruisers only if you are referring to old cruisers, with 30 years or so that are also used for that. Insurance companies are rarely mistaken regarding money and they charge for those more for insuring them than to new main mass market cruisers.

I have also noticed that most boats that sunk are old boats, not new modern mass production cruisers, and regarding that you have only to look at the ARC.

Regarding costumers to know what the best boats to buy to voyage they only have to look at boat magazines, and mostly do. They certainly let you know what the boats they consider voyage boats and the ones they consider main market boats even if with offshore potential. Maybe you should read more sail magazines...

One important nugget of truth in here is that "high end" cruising boats are not necessarily the same thing as "blue water boats" in the sense of boats ready for any kind of adventurous voyaging.

In fact, "high end" boats are designed for a similar kind of duty to mass market boats, just stronger and better made, and this is more and more the case. You see this convergence especially with Hallberg Rassy.

I realized how unsuitable all series produced boats are for my own usage, only gradually. For me, they have:

1. Far too little deck and sail storage
2. No watertight bulkhead aft
3. Through hulls in the main passenger space
4. No all-weather helm position
5. Systems not designed for long autonomous service.
6. Accommodation not designed to be used at sea
7. Poor technical spaces -- engine room, workshop
8. Rig not made for heavy weather -- too much SA/D, too much windage, not flexible enough.
9. Rig and deck gear underspecified (for Oysters already in the 1990's).
10. No sampson post; light duty vertical windlass.


etc., etc., etc.


So Polux has said something important here -- just because it's a "high end boat" does not by any means guaranty that it is suitable for serious voyaging.

And that's ok, because only a small percentage of us actually does any serious voyaging.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

..
And that's ok, because only a small percentage of us actually does any serious voyaging.

Even if most of us cruise a lot.

It all depends on two points:

1- Having the right type of boat do the the cruising one likes and want to do.

2 - Having the money to have that type of boat and if not, what are the best compromises regarding money/type of boat for doing the kind of cruising one likes to do.

The main type of voyaging boat would be a poor boat to sail on the med, or even on the Baltic, were a lot of light wind sailing is to be expected as well as a lot of upwind sailing, sometimes in nasty weather.

That's why the typical voyage boat, let's say a Boreal would not be the best boat to sail on the med, the same way a Solaris would not be the most indicated boat to sail in high latitudes and this has nothing to do with price or quality but with sailboat design.

Off course, both boats are able to do that, meaning the Boreal sailing on the Med or Baltic and the Solaris sailing on high latitudes but that would be quite a waste because none would be used for what was designed to do best.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Even if most of us cruise a lot.

It all depends on two points:

1- Having the right type of boat do the the cruising one likes and want to do.

2 - Having the money to have that type of boat and if not, what are the best compromises regarding money/type of boat for doing the kind of cruising one likes to do.

The main type of voyaging boat would be a poor boat to sail on the med, or even on the Baltic, were a lot of light wind sailing is to be expected as well as a lot of upwind sailing, sometimes in nasty weather.

That's why the typical voyage boat, let's say a Boreal would not be the best boat to sail on the med, the same way a Solaris would not be the most indicated boat to sail in high latitudes and this has nothing to do with price or quality but with sailboat design.

Off course, both boats are able to do that, meaning the Boreal sailing on the Med or Baltic and the Solaris sailing on high latitudes but that would be quite a waste because none would be used for what was designed to do best.

Ah-Ha! I think I just realized why you & me had a bit of a disconnect in our exchange of posts above. By "voyaging" boat, you seem to mean the type of mostly aluminum "go-anywhere" type boats (e.g. Boreal) designed to withstand high-latitude cruising. I often see them referred to as "expedition" boats, a type of boat that's not really being discussed here. Hope we're sharing the same lingo now. Good points, btw, about the importance of choosing a boat best suited to the type of cruising a buyer realistically intends to do. That seems even more important than brand or even cost in many cases.

My curiosity has been and remains more about structural/critical systems differences, if any, amongst the broad category of modern fiberglass (Cat A) boats of various brands marketed more for long-distance cruising, whether they be the high priced ones like Oyster, or the more moderately priced & popular Bene 485 or 473 (for e.g.) that are also often used in charter. It's probably fair to say that the (new boat) price differential b'twn. these types of similarly sized and marketed cruising boats is also 3-4x.

So leaving aside tankage, aesthetics, creature comforts, brand prestige, components, and other non-critical structural systems, my curiosity comes down to whether -- as b'twn. today's boats marketed for long-distance, mid-latitude cruising only -- you believe the critical/safety/structural systems (keels, rudders, hulls, scantlings) on premium boats are in fact "better built" than their less expensive counterparts. This seems to go to the heart of what exactly a buyer may be giving up in exchange for lower cost, whether this is really fair to assume given the failure rate (to the extent it can be determined), and whether the consumer should be better informed about any potential trade-offs with safety. As already discussed, this does not seem to be the case in the auto & aviation industries where there exists minimum standards for critical systems/safety regardless of cost (due in part to pervasive govt. regulation).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Ah-Ha! I think I just realized why you & me had a bit of a disconnect in our exchange of posts above. By "voyaging" boat, you seem to mean the type of mostly aluminum "go-anywhere" type boats (e.g. Boreal) designed to withstand high-latitude cruising. I often see them referred to as "expedition" boats, a type of boat that's not really being discussed here. Hope we're sharing the same lingo now. Good points, btw, about the importance of choosing a boat best suited to the type of cruising a buyer realistically intends to do. That seems even more important than brand or even cost in many cases.

My curiosity has been and remains more about structural/critical systems differences, if any, amongst the broad category of modern fiberglass (Cat A) boats of various brands marketed more for long-distance cruising, whether they be the high priced ones like Oyster, or the more moderately priced & popular Bene 485 or 473 (for e.g.) that are also often used in charter. It's probably fair to say that the (new boat) price differential b'twn. these types of similarly sized and marketed cruising boats is also 3-4x.

So leaving aside tankage, aesthetics, creature comforts, brand prestige, components, and other non-critical structural systems, my curiosity comes down to whether -- as b'twn. today's boats marketed for long-distance, mid-latitude cruising only -- you believe the critical/safety/structural systems (keels, rudders, hulls, scantlings) on premium boats are in fact "better built" than their less expensive counterparts. This seems to go to the heart of what exactly a buyer may be giving up in exchange for lower cost, whether this is really fair to assume given the failure rate (to the extent it can be determined), and whether the consumer should be better informed about any potential trade-offs with safety. As already discussed, this does not seem to be the case in the auto & aviation industries where there exists minimum standards for critical systems/safety regardless of cost (due in part to pervasive govt. regulation).

Garcia has started with that story of exploration boats but that type of boats are being used for more than 30 years as voyage boats and their main intent is to voyage and to cruise extensively not to explore unexplored waters.

There was a time that the best boats for that were steel boats, nowadays it seems that Aluminium is the choice of those that can afford an ideal boat to voyage extensively with maximum autonomy and less need of maintenance, that is important when somebody decides to sail out of well charted waters and to more far away places where marinas and yacht shipyards are not easily available, not necessarily in high latitudes.

If you voyage a lot you want the strongest and more resistant boat you can afford and that means steel or aluminium yachts. Kevlar/Carbon is also an option even if in what regards repairing them on locals with not technologically yacht shipyards, they seem clearly disadvantaged to me.

Regarding your other question regarding two main market boats, both designed for basically the same purpose (a family cruiser and a luxury cruiser, to use the denomination used by the European boat awards) one costing for the same length, 2 or 3 times more, it is expected that the difference in price does not only regards a better and more expensive interior but also a stronger and better built, as well with a slightly better sailing hardware, like bigger winches, more electric winches, more hydraulic assisted systems, better electronics and so on.

However in what regards seaworthiness the difference is far away to be proportional to price. If you want to compare with cars have as example a BMW, a Audi or a Mercedes versus a Ford or among the cheaper one even a a Daweoo or a Dacia.

It is expected that the more expensive cars and boats to have less maintenance, to last longer and to be stronger but all of them will take you where you want to go providing you be carefull with them and have them conveniently serviced.

In fact in what regards what a car offers for the money a Daweoo offers incomparably more than a Mercedes even if everybody would want a Mercedes, if they can afford it.

On boats probably the difference in what is offered for a price is much bigger than on the cars because only mass production builders, the ones that offers the cheaper boats, produce in numbers big enough to justify the use of robotics and the difference in what regards production between them and a luxury boat builder like Oyster is just huge, allowing them scale economies in what regards the price of all the hardware on a boat, from masts to winches passing by engines and electronics.

An important part of a boat are equipment, probably the biggest single overall cost and if this can be bought with a big discount due to the huge quantity, than you have that difference reflected on the boat price. Discount that, the efficiency using robotics regarding costs and the much less luxurious finish and interior materials and only regarding that you will have a huge difference regarding production costs even if the boats were built the same way in what regards hull and structural parts, that as I have said, it is expected not to be and generally they are not.

By the way, Garcia and Boreal in what concerns the European boat of the year contest enter the category of Bluewater boats, contrary to Oyster for example, that enters the category of Luxury cruisers.

[44'cruisingcat]

Oyster 825 Polina Star sank due to "unsound" lamination - Sailing Today


Oyster seem to be accepting responsibility by admitting there were lamination problems in the construction of this and the other two similar yachts. The other two have been repaired already.


Commendable approach IMO.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Polux

it is expected that the difference in price does not only regards a better and more expensive interior but also a stronger and better built, as well with a slightly better sailing hardware, like bigger winches, more electric winches, more hydraulic assisted systems, better electronics and so on.

It is expected that the more expensive cars and boats to have less maintenance, to last longer and to be stronger

Yes I guess those things are to be expected, but are they true? Regarding cars, I wouldn't say more expensive cars require less maintenance and probably they don't even last longer (unless they get more maintanence, which is quite usual). These are very difficult to compare, since much depends on how cars are serviced. A cheap car will be very cheap after 5-10 years of service and then most likely quite ignored.

My parents have always had more expensive brands like Audi and BMW while I have had second hand Peugeots since 1992 (had one Audi before that). Having done most of the services to all these by ourselves, I would say that Peugeots have required less service. Nowadays almost all cars can handle 400 000 km without major overhauls, thus they last longer than 99% of the owners are willing to have them.

How much more expensive would a production boat be, if they added say 50% to hull laminate thickness? Maybe 5%?

There have been quite many issues with HR, Najad etc. and now Oyester. Are they really better built structurally? They are not making huge profits, so they are expensive to built. Where does that extra cost come from? Lack of automatisation is one thing, but there isn't much automatisation regarding lamination and structures. Actually HR is one of the very few still using spray lay-up. Automatisation comes in installations and making parts for the interior. So these must be the main reason for the added cost. Also making long series helps to mimimise the cost of design and molding, which are a big cost portion of boats made only a few in series.

I wouldn't say that all or even most luxury cruisers are better built structurally than production boats. For C/R boats it may be a different story. They are usually clearly lighter than the production boats. Thus they need to be better built even for the same strength.

[neilpride]

Post number 1000 wow.
Almost all cars handle 400000?? seriously? wait a moment yes they can handle 400000, but after 2 clucht replacement, maybe 2 turbos in the way, 3 or 4 timing belts to, etc.. etc.. saying that , cars today are like low Q production boats, unless you want to pay more for a better brand , diesel cars this days are busted by brands, TDI, HDI, DCI etc... all a piece of crap in terms reliability... they take a reliable atmospheric engine, they fit a hig boost turbo, more Hp, they stick a complex direct common rail electronic injection system,
still using timing belts this days , and they last shorter..... my wife is going down the third Turbo breakage in W Golf tdi despite she warm the engine in cold and wait before stop the engine ... Lameeeeee.....

[rocma]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I think any discussion of Oyster build quality has to consider the two sales of the company to private equity groups - first in 2008 and then again at a firesale price in 2012.

This would not be the first time that quality has suffered when private equity takes over from a long time founder (Richard Matthews). Brands don't build boats. People do.

And the current owner of Oyster stopped having Oysters built at the Windboats yard in Wrexam (maybe to cut costs?). The yard that built hundreds of Oysters over many years now builds boats for Matthews new company, Gunfleet.


I would have no concerns about a pre 2008 Oyster

This is not a very good example Carl. Oysters were built in 3 yards, 4 even at some stage. Windboats, Landamores and Southampton Yacht Services (SYS). Some owners insisted on Landamores built, others on Windboats, others SYS. They are all first class yards. Oyster already owned SYS and when they took over Landamores, they basically didn´t need Windboats anymore. That has nothing to do with quality, but common sense and cost effectiveness.
The fact that Richard Matthews now has his (few) Gunfleets built at Windboats has no bearing to the quality of that yard but is simply because he could not keep his own yard going due to lack of numbers of Gunfleets that are sold.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Post number 1000 wow.
Almost all cars handle 400000?? seriously? wait a moment yes they can handle 400000, but after 2 clucht replacement, maybe 2 turbos in the way, 3 or 4 timing belts to, etc.. etc.. saying that , cars today are like low Q production boats, unless you want to pay more for a better brand , diesel cars this days are busted by brands, TDI, HDI, DCI etc... all a piece of crap in terms reliability... they take a reliable atmospheric engine, they fit a hig boost turbo, more Hp, they stick a complex direct common rail electronic injection system,
still using timing belts this days , and they last shorter..... my wife is going down the third Turbo breakage in W Golf tdi despite she warm the engine in cold and wait before stop the engine ... Lameeeeee.....

I haven't owned a car until 400 000 km, but several until 200 000 - 330 000 km. All petrol Peugeots with original clutch, only one has a turbo and it is original as well (still in use, now 214 000 km). Timing belts are changed every 120 000 km (used to be 60/80 000 km) as a normal maintenance and it isn't that expensive (about 300 € including parts and work). All of these have been in good working condition when I have sold them.

Yes probably the old fashioned diesels lasted longer, but it is very seldom to have bigger problems before 400 000 km with modern turbo diesels. Or at least these problems appear way sooner and are repaired under warranty.

Corrosion is the worst problem with cars although it is now much better than during 70's and 80's. My older car is now 16 years old. Still mechanically in very good conditions, but starting to be on it's last years due to rust. Not much point in welding and repainting a car that's 1000 € of value.

[neilpride]

Definitely i don't think is a good idea to miss a timing belt interval replacement by 20000 kms, but up to you, like you say if the car is not worth or is really old, but talking with various mechanics about the turbo problem with the Golf the main answer is no matter how you baby the turbo they break . at 60000 or at 120000 , who know.. they are built to be replaced , not only in my golf, Audi, VAG , etc... and its expensive...
They can last those 300000kms or 400000 kms but with expensive repairs in the way or you are lucky and get a good car or you get a bad one, maintenance intervals by the dealer and pray to have those pesky problems in warranty... after that you are in your own....

[minaret]

Still waiting for Polux to post pictures of "robotics" in use in boat building. Have been waiting for about two years now. Robots don't like sticky resin! There are no robotics in use in this industry. And no, using a 5 axis CNC to route plugs for molds is not boat building by robotics. That is done by everyone in the industry.