Oyster Problems?

[rocma]

Exile: I can see you point, but you show me any other Oyster than the 825 that is a pile of the proverbial crap. There isn´t. Where as I can mention many piles of the same proverbial crap being manufactured in Germany (and not just one brand).

And I like to think I can have some form of opinion here, since my work is in yacht services and yacht management. I see and sail 50+ different types of boats every year among which a lot of Oysters. And they are just excellent boats. Whereas afore mentioned german products.....you would need to pay me to own one.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

I haven't noticed anyone giving Oyster any quarter on this one. If anything, there are more defenders of the less expensive boats when such catastrophes occur, and not always for good cause. When it comes to failures of basic structural components such as hulls, keels & rudders, there is understandable and usually justifiable alarm, regardless of brand.

That one I don't get it. There are brands out there that have made hundreds of boats or thousands and are doing now boats much the same way they have being made on the last 10 years or so.

All those brands combined you have many tens of thousands of boats from brands that had never had lost a keel or had any problem with a keel neither had any boat flooded due to a broken rudder (rudders to break is unavoidable in some occasions). Never, not once.

So, why do you think that there should be a justified alarm, regardless of brand?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by neilpride

(...)

Where we can see the final report in english'?

Ask the Oyster. Maybe they will send you a copy.

They could as well publish it in Chinese. Apparently no governance culture there.

Neptune bless google translate ...

b.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

Pretty bad all in all for a brand pretending to be at the high end of the sailing boat market. (...)

Let me add, successfully.

To people who never heard of, nor care for, Vitters, Perini Navi, Graaf Ship, and the rest of the irrelevant builders. ;-)

b.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by barnakiel

Ask the Oyster. Maybe they will send you a copy.

They could as well publish it in Chinese. Apparently no governance culture there.

Neptune bless google translate ...

b.

Or in German! I don't bother , or in Russian, Chinese, Italian ,, I want to see that report!!!!

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Or in German! I don't bother , or in Russian, Chinese, Italian ,, I want to see that report!!!!

Why are you curious about that? if I am not mistaken you were among the ones that said that the report being commanded by Oyster, even if to credible independent surveyors, would be necessarily flawed

I am with Barnakiel, you will never see that report and the fact that Yacht.de had acess to it it was not certainly because Oyster had give it to them but because they are a great sailing magazine and had maneged that somehow.

I bet the only part of it that you will see it will be the one published on the pages of Yacht.de...and yes it is better to learn German...or to ask to our Dutch or German members to kindly translate that to us, at least the essential of it.

Maybe now you guys start to understand why I have maintained that some European magazines are different from American ones and why I consider Yacht de the best of them all

[Exile]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

Exile: I can see you point, but you show me any other Oyster than the 825 that is a pile of the proverbial crap. There isn´t. Where as I can mention many piles of the same proverbial crap being manufactured in Germany (and not just one brand).

And I like to think I can have some form of opinion here, since my work is in yacht services and yacht management. I see and sail 50+ different types of boats every year among which a lot of Oysters. And they are just excellent boats. Whereas afore mentioned german products.....you would need to pay me to own one.

You'll get no disagreement from me on Oyster's generally, Marco. One of my all-time favs, and this is why the incident with the 825 is so shocking & disappointing.

As for some of the lower-priced boats -- German-made and/or otherwise -- many on the technical side of the yacht industry (maybe like yourself) have shared their criticisms. On the other hand, and as Polux repeatedly reminds us, there are a lot of them out there and many seem to work out well for long-distance and local sailors alike.

People like you, who work in the industry and have broad experience with and exposure to many different boats, usually have the most worthwhile opinions. Of course, that's also IMHO.

Originally Posted by Polux

That one I don't get it. There are brands out there that have made hundreds of boats or thousands and are doing now boats much the same way they have being made on the last 10 years or so.

All those brands combined you have many tens of thousands of boats from brands that had never had lost a keel or had any problem with a keel neither had any boat flooded due to a broken rudder (rudders to break is unavoidable in some occasions). Never, not once.

So, why do you think that there should be a justified alarm, regardless of brand?

Your question compels me to ask why wouldn't alarm, concern & attention be expected and justified from the sailing community when a boat sinks in open water for no other immediately apparent reason than the failure of a basic & critical structural component? In some cases that alarm may be dispelled if there is evidence of prior groundings, damage, or faulty maintenance, but I generally agree with transmitterdan and others from these various threads that rudders, keels, hulls, and other critical components of a yacht should be designed & built to withstand the reasonably foreseeable use, abuse & neglect that yachts often & typically endure.

There are always exceptions, Polux, and some that you have highlighted are well taken. But in general, components whose failure can cause loss of life should be built to a certain minimum standard imho, regardless of how many of them are produced. The fact remains that, while you may be able to keep count of how many boats of this brand or another have been produced, have completed the ARC, or even circumnavigated, you have no idea how many have had problems that were repaired before becoming catastrophic, or how many for that matter have never ventured beyond their slips or inland waters.

In this regard, it seems the EU standards only benefit mfgs. by creating an incentive for them to cut costs, while at the same time allowing them to use that same standard to advertise their boats' capabilities. To be clear, I'm fine with cutting costs to produce a less expensive boat, but only so long as the consumer is not misled about the trade-offs, particularly with regard to safety. In other words, why should consumers who prefer the lower overall cost, aesthetics, performance, spaciousness, and other attractive features of some modern production boats have to risk compromises to safety that an owner of a more expensive brand may not? A Kia may not be as luxurious, "prestigious," or even perhaps "better built" than a Mercedes, but consumers wouldn't tolerate either brand's wheels, axles, steering column, or doors falling off absent extraordinary external events.

What exactly are you trying to defend in these threads, and for what purpose? Why wouldn't loyal Bene owners be just as concerned about their 485's as owners of Oysters who own 825's? The rudder on MarkJ's Bene 393 seems more robustly built, for example, and he's got a circumnavigation and thousands of add'l. miles to prove it. So it's not necessarily a brand issue with Bene any more than it may now be with Oyster. But is it better for an owner of a similar model/yr. Bene or Oyster to ignore a catastrophic failure on a similar boat, or rather to be justifiably concerned/alarmed? If the failure can be reasonably attributed to extraordinary events that had nothing to do with the design or build, then fine. But I frankly fail to understand your reflexive defensiveness whenever these issues come up with certain brands of boats. As a knowledgeable enthusiast, why not advocate instead for a higher minimum standard?

[Just realized this post is more relevant to the Bene 485 thread than here -- sorry.]

[estarzinger]

On this and on the Bendy thread (and on others related) There are two fundamental question to be answered . . . .which is how strong and reliable should our boats be?

-------------------------
1. Should they be as strong and reliable as commercial jets - eg near 6 sigma?

2. Should they be as strong and reliable as good passenger cars - eg near 4 sigma?

3. Right now, private production sail boats are near 2 sigma overall.
---------------------------

a. Should they be able to handle all weather on a 100% duty cycle with minimal maintenance?

b. Should they be able to handle 'summer' weather on a 10% duty cycle with annual DIY maintenance and pro survey immediately after any 'incident'?

c. Should they be able to handle flat water with under 25 kts with complete pro strip down after every sail (some racing yachts are in this category)?
---------------------------------

There is obviously no consensus on these baic questions on this forum. I don't see how any of you can expect to come to agreement on more complex related issues until you at least agree on the basic objectives.

[neilpride]

Wait, I think a good number of posters here are in agreement about this issue with the Oyster.

[Exile]

Not like mfgs. are being asked to reinvent the wheel. It's been done well in the past and continues to be done well by some mfgs. now. Not really a question of technology, but rather meeting minimal standards, and of course costs.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

...Where as I can mention many piles of the same proverbial crap being manufactured in Germany (and not just one brand).

And I like to think I can have some form of opinion here, since my work is in yacht services and yacht management. I see and sail 50+ different types of boats every year among which a lot of Oysters. And they are just excellent boats. Whereas afore mentioned german products.....you would need to pay me to own one.

You mean Hanse and Bavaria are for you more crap than Jeanneau and Beneteau? or are you thinking about other German manufacturers? Dehler? Comfortina? Sirius? Moody, Vilm?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

...
What exactly are you trying to defend in these threads, and for what purpose? Why wouldn't loyal Bene owners be just as concerned about their 485's as owners of Oysters who own 825's? The rudder on MarkJ's Bene 393 seems more robustly built, for example, and he's got a circumnavigation and thousands of add'l. miles to prove it. So it's not necessarily a brand issue with Bene any more than it may now be with Oyster. But is it better for an owner of a similar model/yr. Bene or Oyster to ignore a catastrophic failure on a similar boat, or rather to be justifiably concerned/alarmed? If the failure can be reasonably attributed to extraordinary events that had nothing to do with the design or build, then fine. But I frankly fail to understand your reflexive defensiveness whenever these issues come up with certain brands of boats. As a knowledgeable enthusiast, why not advocate instead for a higher minimum standard?

[Just realized this post is more relevant to the Bene 485 thread than here -- sorry.]

Me defensive? Asked a simply question "So, why do you think that there should be a justified alarm, regardless of brand?" regarding the fall of keels, rudders and structural problems. You are generalizing in an absolute way saying: "When it comes to failures of basic structural components such as hulls, keels & rudders, there is understandable and usually justifiable alarm, regardless of brand."

When you say regardless of brand you mean all brands: never heard of any structural problem, keels or rudders or any with a X Yacth, with a Comfortina, with a Sirius, with a Nordship, with a Rustler, with a Faurby, with a Regina, with a Najad with a Solaris, with a IY, with a Cigale, with a Discovery with a RM....and I could go on and on....so are you sure you mean regardless of brand?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

On this and on the Bendy thread (and on others related) There are two fundamental question to be answered . . . .which is how strong and reliable should our boats be?

-------------------------
1. Should they be as strong and reliable as commercial jets - eg near 6 sigma?
2. Should they be as strong and reliable as good passenger cars - eg near 4 sigma?
....

A good question is also: Should the boats be subjected to periodic mandatory inspections like airplanes or cars (at least in Europe)?

It seems a good point since on most of those accidents that were investigated lack of correct maintenance had always be at least partially or mostly responsible even if that is not the case with this Oyster.

But that thread is about the Oyster that lost the kell, so let's stay on topic about it. There are other threads to discuss other boats.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not like mfgs. are being asked to reinvent the wheel. It's been done well in the past and continues to be done well by some mfgs. now. Not really a question of technology, but rather meeting minimal standards, and of course costs.

You have a funny idea that all brands just meet the minimum standards. Those minimum are what they are a minimum to insure minimum safety regarding what those minimums concern.

If you say to any of those brands that I mentioned that their boats are built to meet the minimum standards they would laugh at your face, even the more modest like Moody.

The problem of Oyster on a multi million boat has nothing to do with meeting the minimum standards but with a mistake that has already been assumed. It requires to be seen if that default in lamination was a building defect or if resulted from a design default (including scantlings).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

Me defensive? Asked a simply question "So, why do you think that there should be a justified alarm, regardless of brand?" regarding the fall of keels, rudders and structural problems. You are generalizing in an absolute way saying: "When it comes to failures of basic structural components such as hulls, keels & rudders, there is understandable and usually justifiable alarm, regardless of brand."

When you say regardless of brand you mean all brands: never heard of any structural problem, keels or rudders or any with a X Yacth, with a Comfortina, with a Sirius, with a Nordship, with a Rustler, with a Faurby, with a Regina, with a Najad with a Solaris, with a IY, with a Cigale, with a Discovery with a RM....and I could go on and on....so are you sure you mean regardless of brand?

Maybe this edit (in bold) of my comment above will clear things up:

When it comes to failures of basic structural components such as hulls, keels & rudders, there is understandable and usually justifiable alarm, regardless of which brand happens to suffer the failure.

Originally Posted by Polux

You have a funny idea that all brands just meet the minimum standards. Those minimum are what they are a minimum to insure minimum safety regarding what those minimums concern.

If you say to any of those brands that I mentioned that their boats are built to meet the minimum standards they would laugh at your face, even the more modest like Moody.

The problem of Oyster on a multi million boat has nothing to do with meeting the minimum standards but with a mistake that has already been assumed. It requires to be seen if that default in lamination was a building defect or if resulted from a design default (including scantlings).

I was referring to boats with structural failures that I believe necessarily failed to meet any sort of minimum standard, incl. the Oyster & Bene being discussed. You misread or misinterpreted if you think I meant that the boats you listed and others merely meet but fail to exceed those minimum standards. The fact that you list so many modern boats that have never had failures only makes my point about failing to meet minimal standards on the ones that have.

Now, are YOU sure you really want to say that the hull delamination, keel detachment, capsize & sinking of a multi-million dollar Oyster "has nothing to do with meeting the minimum standards?" I would suggest that such a "mistake," whether attributable to a design or a construction defect, that causes such a course of events has indeed failed to meet a minimum standard, however defined.