Oyster Problems?

[neilpride]

The builder/brand obviously..... follow by the insurance crews....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes , I agree with you even if the case is only similar in what regards a (possible?) catastrophic failure, since they are clearly different.

In what regards the Beneteau 55 we don't know what happened but even so a different case since many Beneteaus 55 have been produced and not any other accident was registered on new boats, not on the 55 not on other many recent similar Beneteaus.

I would say that a defect in building is, regarding the Beneteau 55, the more probable cause while on the Oyster the more probable cause is a design problem connected with a defective production method, at least it is what I understood from the somewhat confusing explanations Oyster gives.

Oyster assumed that the boats had a problem, Oysters 825 were called in and reinforced. That did not happen with Beneteau were the many 55 were not called in neither reinforced.

I agree however that consumers should have the right to be informed regarding what happened on cases like these and a mandatory independent investigation should always take place. The problem here is who should investigate that? Who is going to pay for that?

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Like the one Oyster, only one Bene 55 had a problem that has been reported. The fact that Oyster called in other boats of the same model for reinforcing and Bene did not for other 55's doesn't necessarily mean that the Bene had an issue isolated to one boat. I'm not familiar with bow thruster construction, but if the rumors are true about water ingress from that area then wouldn't that be some sort of breach of the hull surrounding the thruster itself? Sure, it could have been a mfg. defect that only affected one boat, but there could also be some weakness in that area that has yet to manifest on other 55's, or more likely just hasn't been reported. The one boat theory also makes less sense to me from the largest mass producer in the world, even if the 55 is obviously made in smaller numbers.

I also don't follow your distinction between a "defect in building" vs. a "design problem connected with a defective production method." I understand the distinction in the abstract, just not why it's relevant to the several boats being discussed here. None of them are one-off custom builds, after all, so whether the fault lies with the design dept. or is derived from the factory floor hardly seems relevant, at least to this discussion.

Finally, since when are accidents "registered" on new boats? The little we've heard about the 55 was due to the publicity of it being on its way to a boat show, and from the CG rescue. Nothing from Beneteau itself as far as I'm aware. How would we necessarily know if other problems have developed on 55's in more benign, less dramatic circumstances, like when the boat is just sitting at its slip?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

. . .

But I do not agree that hard groundings are common...unless the sailor is not a good or careful one. Done many miles without any hard grounding and I have friends that have made as many or more miles than me without hard groundings too. . ..

Depends on where you sail. I ran up on a rock in Finland in a place where the chart showed 9 meters of water. Whacked it so hard that 25 tons of my boat rode up on the rock, putting the bow thruster out of the water.

After the accident, I looked at different charts of that spot. No mention of this rock on any of them. But that's Finland

I guess a boat with a thin very high aspect keel (the kind we know you like, Polux ) would have been sunk. My boat's keel has a lead bulb, but it's not all that high aspect, and is very, very strongly attached. There was not the slightest damage.


I guess a "good and careful sailor" has x-ray vision or ESP, to know where there's a rock, which doesn't appear on any chart?

[neilpride]

Moodys are build like brick houses !! lol

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Depends on where you sail. I ran up on a rock in Finland in a place where the chart showed 9 meters of water. Whacked it so hard that 25 tons of my boat rode up on the rock, putting the bow thruster out of the water.

After the accident, I looked at different charts of that spot. No mention of this rock on any of them. But that's Finland

I guess a boat with a thin very high aspect keel (the kind we know you like, Polux ) would have been sunk. My boat's keel has a lead bulb, but it's not all that high aspect, and is very, very strongly attached. There was not the slightest damage.


I guess a "good and careful sailor" has x-ray vision or ESP, to know where there's a rock, which doesn't appear on any chart?

I did not said that could not happen. Said it is very rare. How many miles do you have and how many hard groundings did you experienced?

I had been caught once on a freak meteorological phenomena with winds out of the scale (it was night and I don't really know what it was) that ripped my 3rd refeed lose mainsail out of the mast, ripped the flag and heeled the boat at 90º for several minutes (they looked very long to me).

That wind would probably capsize any cat and it is not for that cats are unsafe, because those accidents are very rare.

Anybody can run over a container and depending on speed, any fiberglass boat can be severely damaged to the point of being sunk by one. The risk of that to happen is however very low and does not make fiberglass boats unsafe. If so we would all be sailing steel boats that are much more resistant to that kind of contacts.

Safety is never absolute unless you sail on a battleship and even so all is relative. The risk of catching a rock on well chartered waters (that is where most cruising boats sail) where is marked 9m on the charts is very low.

However I would say that in what regards me my level of awareness in what regards to be careful with depths only become lower when depths are over 20m. At 15m and under I pay constant attention to depths and reduce the speed of the boat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Like the one Oyster, only one Bene 55 had a problem that has been reported. The fact that Oyster called in other boats of the same model for reinforcing and Bene did not for other 55's doesn't necessarily mean that the Bene had an issue isolated to one boat. I'm not familiar with bow thruster construction, but if the rumors are true about water ingress from that area then wouldn't that be some sort of breach of the hull surrounding the thruster itself? Sure, it could have been a mfg. defect that only affected one boat, but there could also be some weakness in that area that has yet to manifest on other 55's, or more likely just hasn't been reported. The one boat theory also makes less sense to me from the largest mass producer in the world, even if the 55 is obviously made in smaller numbers.

It seems you have stated yourself why it is not a similar case: Oyster assumed that had a structural problem on the 825, one of the 3 or 4 boats built sunk and all surviving boats were called to be reinforced..

On the Oceanis 55 we don't really know what happened, there are (not confirmed) suspicions that it was a problem with the bowthruster, that can go from deficient installation to a defect on that area on the hull and I say a defect and not a structural or design problem because contrary to Oyster Beneteau did not assume that there was a problem on that area and did not call the many 55 already produced (since 2013) to be reinforced.

They are not crazy on Beneteau and if there was a structural problem on that area that could lead to the sinking of other boats, surely a recall would have been made or at least instructions would be given to the dealers how to reinforce the area and solve the problem. Several Oceanis 55 sinking with such a problem would damage so much Beneteau image as this case with Oyster.

The Oceanis 55 that sunk was a brand new boat and if they had a structural problem that would lead to the sinking of new boats, surely some of the many Oceanis 55 that are sailing would have already experienced problems on that area. I don't have knowledge of any.

Originally Posted by Exile

I also don't follow your distinction between a "defect in building" vs. a "design problem connected with a defective production method." I understand the distinction in the abstract, just not why it's relevant to the several boats being discussed here. ..

That is an easy distinction: A design problem coupled with a defective production method will affect all boats produced that way and that is why Oyster called all 825 in, to be corrected.

A defect on building or a badly or incorrectly mounted equipment is a screw up, meaning that somebody did not build or mounted something right, it is an human error and it will only affect that particular boat. That is why Beneteau did not call all Oceanis 55 to be corrected.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Depends on where you sail. I ran up on a rock in Finland in a place where the chart showed 9 meters of water. Whacked it so hard that 25 tons of my boat rode up on the rock, putting the bow thruster out of the water.

After the accident, I looked at different charts of that spot. No mention of this rock on any of them. But that's Finland

I guess a boat with a thin very high aspect keel (the kind we know you like, Polux ) would have been sunk. My boat's keel has a lead bulb, but it's not all that high aspect, and is very, very strongly attached. There was not the slightest damage.

Yes we have a lot of rocks in Finland, but very few non charted ones unless you sail in the areas far from the fairways in regions not well charted (the paper charts show the quality of charting). You should avoid areas with very few depth measures and also areas of less than 10 m depth outside fairways.

I don't think your guess is correct. There are many groundings every year here including high aspect keels and I have never heard of a single one sinking due to hitting a rock. But quite a few very large structural repairs have been made also to boats with quite traditional keels.

One boat sank when its anchor failed and it hit the rudder in the rocks. A few boats have sunk due to problems with through hulls or piping.

Riding up a rock is really not that bad for the structure. It is much worse to totally stop at the first hit. It is the rate of deceleration that counts. It does help to have a very long keel with a lot of slope in the leeding edge, since those can't really bounce back they will just ride up even the steepest rock.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Exile

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Like the one Oyster, only one Bene 55 had a problem that has been reported. The fact that Oyster called in other boats of the same model for reinforcing and Bene did not for other 55's doesn't necessarily mean that the Bene had an issue isolated to one boat. I'm not familiar with bow thruster construction, but if the rumors are true about water ingress from that area then wouldn't that be some sort of breach of the hull surrounding the thruster itself?

I did some searches about that and it seems no-one knows where excatly the water came in and the boat sank a few days later before it was salvaged.

I have no idea what Beneteau did with that. I understood is was not a sold boat yet.

It is quite common that new boats have defects although that is not acceptable. I know of several serious problems with different "quality" brands as well as "cheap" ones. Most have been kept totally hidden. Examples of hidden problems with quality brands includes total delamination and then destruction of the keel floors (first boat of the model in its first summer, no grounding) and bad leak from the rudder bearing which almost sank the boat in its maiden voyage.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by poiu

I think you are missing the point, that both keels are the exact same thing in the most essential, relevant sense. They are both bad and dangerous designs.

That is your opinion that is not shared by experts neither by boat designers.

Not saying that the keel structure of the First 40.7 is the best on the market but it is not a defective design, neither a dangerous one if correctly maintained. Both keels lost on First 40.7 were lost on boats that have been grounded and not correctly repaired. 600 boats were built, they have sailed on the last 10 years and with the exception of those two no more keels were lost, many were raced hard and some even had circumnavigated.

Completely diferent from a boat, out of 4, that in less than a year, without being grounded lost the keel due to a defective design and defective building methods.

Regarding the First 40.7 the Chief Inspector’s statement did not point to a defective design on the First 40.7 but to generic conclusions that regards all the boats that are built that way (and they are many), regarding the need of a proper maintenance on that area (Keel structure):

"The investigation has identified that in GRP yachts that are constructed by bonding an internal matrix of stiffeners into the hull, it is possible for the bonding to fail, thereby weakening the structure. In some yachts, including the Beneteau First 40.7, the design makes it harder to detect when the bonding is starting to fail. The report therefore highlights the need for regular inspections of such yachts’ structures by a competent person, and for the marine industry to agree on the most appropriate means of repair when matrix detachment has occurred."

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Moodys are build like brick houses !! lol

All boats can have problems, older ones more than new ones: a 1988 Moody 134 was abandoned a day ago on the ARC, making water in a way they could not cope with. They planned to circumnavigate, but unfortunately they did not went far.

ARC-YACHT auf dem Atlantik gesunkenÂ*|Â*YACHT.DE

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems you have stated yourself why it is not a similar case: Oyster assumed that had a structural problem on the 825, one of the 3 or 4 boats built sunk and all surviving boats were called to be reinforced..

On the Oceanis 55 we don't really know what happened, there are (not confirmed) suspicions that it was a problem with the bowthruster, that can go from deficient installation to a defect on that area on the hull and I say a defect and not a structural or design problem because contrary to Oyster Beneteau did not assume that there was a problem on that area and did not call the many 55 already produced (since 2013) to be reinforced.

They are not crazy on Beneteau and if there was a structural problem on that area that could lead to the sinking of other boats, surely a recall would have been made or at least instructions would be given to the dealers how to reinforce the area and solve the problem. Several Oceanis 55 sinking with such a problem would damage so much Beneteau image as this case with Oyster.

The Oceanis 55 that sunk was a brand new boat and if they had a structural problem that would lead to the sinking of new boats, surely some of the many Oceanis 55 that are sailing would have already experienced problems on that area. I don't have knowledge of any.

The bolded sections above are comments where I think you may be making some assumptions without sufficient facts. Unlike the regulatory & reporting requirements in the automotive & aviation worlds, there are no such strictures that I am aware of on mfgs. of recreational yachts. I'm not referring to the EU Cat. A, etc. ratings (which apparently don't even require follow-up inspections for compliance) or the published engineering standards, but the types of mfg. defects, mandatory recalls, and reporting requirements that agencies in the US such as the DOT & FAA keep track of and enforce. And when recreational yachts suffer major failures, they are often repaired at the closest suitable facility and not necessarily at an "authorized dealer." On top of that, transmitterdam commented that the type of thorough MAIB investigation that was done on Cheeki is only done when there is loss of life, and is furthermore precluded from directly assigning blame in any event.

So my point here is not to re-litigate the underlying facts of each of these now well-known events, but to suggest that just because we may not hear or read about first-time or repeat failures in the yachting world doesn't mean they don't happen. On the contrary, they probably happen more than we know, and different mfgs. are better or worse at addressing them. Unless you have some inside track to Beneteau or owners of other 55's, I'm not sure we also can't just assume that what amounted to catastrophic water ingress while one 55 was beating to windward in lively conditions didn't amount to a small leak or weep in another 55 at the dock which the owner could easily have addressed at a local yard.

That is an easy distinction: A design problem coupled with a defective production method will affect all boats produced that way and that is why Oyster called all 825 in, to be corrected.

A defect on building or a badly or incorrectly mounted equipment is a screw up, meaning that somebody did not build or mounted something right, it is an human error and it will only affect that particular boat. That is why Beneteau did not call all Oceanis 55 to be corrected.

Well again, the bolded part seems like a big assumption on your part, but if correct it certainly supports your contention that the Bene 55 failure was an isolated incident. But I don't find persuasive the argument that since Bene did not address other 55's there must not be a problem with them too. I don't think we know if they did or not, if their owners did or not on their own, or if there is even a way to find out. And if they did not, it still doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, perhaps manifesting itself in a more innocuous way on someone's 55 parked in a slip. But again, if you have some other, specific information, by all means correct me.

I don't mean to pick on Beneteau, btw, especially in a thread about a catastrophic Oyster failure, but Bene doesn't seem to enjoy a favorable rep for customer follow-up and after-sales accountability. But hey, that may be an unfair assumption on my part which I will happily stand corrected for if need be. But if correct, then it suggests Beneteau may not be quite as concerned about its reputation as you assert.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jmaja

It is quite common that new boats have defects although that is not acceptable. I know of several serious problems with different "quality" brands as well as "cheap" ones. Most have been kept totally hidden. Examples of hidden problems with quality brands includes total delamination and then destruction of the keel floors (first boat of the model in its first summer, no grounding) and bad leak from the rudder bearing which almost sank the boat in its maiden voyage.

Certainly agree that problems with boats are not always confined to particular brands, or even new vs. old. And also worth noting that we probably hear about more failures on the brands with higher production runs, for obvious reasons. So there's probably some unfair "branding" (if you will) that goes on. On the other hand, some mfgs. definitely seem to enjoy a rep for stronger, higher quality boats, although they aren't immune from failure either as we've seen in this thread. And of course some of the ones who enjoyed the best reps are no longer in business.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well again, the bolded part seems like a big assumption on your part, but if correct it certainly supports your contention that the Bene 55 failure was an isolated incident. But I don't find persuasive the argument that since Bene did not address other 55's there must not be a problem with them too. I don't think we know if they did or not, if their owners did or not on their own, or if there is even a way to find out. And if they did not, it still doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, perhaps manifesting itself in a more innocuous way on someone's 55 parked in a slip. But again, if you have some other, specific information, by all means correct me.

I don't mean to pick on Beneteau, btw, especially in a thread about a catastrophic Oyster failure, but Bene doesn't seem to enjoy a favorable rep for customer follow-up and after-sales accountability. But hey, that may be an unfair assumption on my part which I will happily stand corrected for if need be. But if correct, then it suggests Beneteau may not be quite as concerned about its reputation as you assert.

It seems to me that it i the other way around: If you know of any other problem with an Oceanis 55, please post about it, It will be interesting news and can prove you right

For all brands reputation is a big asset and a bad reputation may be the end of a Brand. For Beneteau, like all brands, a good reputation is essential to be successful.

Beneteau only has a bad reputation on boat forums, on the real world it enjoys a good reputation, otherwise it would not be nº1 on boat sales for many years. It is not about price since there are cheaper boats on the market and other similarly priced.

If the reputation regarding customer follow up was as bad as you think it is...well, they would not have a good reputation neither would be the nº1 in sales.

Regarding Beneteau after sales quality and care you can go to the thread about the Oceanis 38, that has been bought by several members of this forum and see how they have addressed the problems that sometimes happened with new boats. They are satisfied with the after sales service.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

It seems to me that it i the other way around: If you know of any other problem with an Oceanis 55, please post about it, It will be interesting news and can prove you right

For all brands reputation is a big asset and a bad reputation may be the end of a Brand. For Beneteau, like all brands, a good reputation is essential to be successful.

Beneteau only has a bad reputation on boat forums, on the real world it enjoys a good reputation, otherwise it would not be nº1 on boat sales for many years. It is not about price since there are cheaper boats on the market and other similarly priced.

If the reputation regarding customer follow up was as bad as you think it is...well, they would not have a good reputation neither would be the nº1 in sales.

Regarding Beneteau after sales quality and care you can go to the thread about the Oceanis 38, that has been bought by several members of this forum and see how they have addressed the problems that sometimes happened with new boats. They are satisfied with the after sales service.

Well, I've noticed a number of things about what's said on boat forums that don't always play out in the real world, so I'm hardly one to argue with you there! Maybe Bene's are better liked over in Europe than in the US for some reason? Hard to say, but this is yet another one of many, many related topics where the information seems anecdotal, incomplete, sometimes biased, and often at odds with the techy guys who work on many different types of boats every day.

I agree that mfg. reputation is critical, especially without any significant industry regulation. But it seems it's getting harder to figure that one out too, especially when old-time mfgs. like Oyster change hands. At least it seems they might be heading in the right direction in restoring their's.

[Exile]

Follow-up article by Charlie Doane on Oyster's previously released public statement:

OYSTER TELLS ALL: Statement on Polina Star Keel Failure | Sailfeed