Oyster Problems?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Polux

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

I, for one, am not seeing it, but that may be because I'm not understanding what you're trying to say (no offense). Maybe it's best to get away from concepts like "defect" (either design or construction) or "minimum standards," since they have various informal & formal meanings. Perhaps "critical failure" would be better.

But these other comments from your post go to the heart of the recent discussion, at least in my mind:

"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."

"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 . . .

Why does "strong" or "well-built" always have to be commensurate with "luxury" and therefore high-cost? Where are the Honda's of the yacht world, or maybe the Pearson's of a previous generation of strong, well-built yachts with plainer interiors, less luxury features, and thus more moderately priced? I suppose your answer might be that buyers don't want them, but what choice do they have in today's new cruising boat market? And isn't it somewhat of a misinformed choice if the mfg. is telling them the govt. has certified that they are built strong enough for "offshore," "all-oceans," or sustained F8 conditions? (or whatever the current EU cats. say).

Again, I'm all in with modern, mass-produced cruising boats that can give the majority of consumers who cannot afford new Oysters, HR's, etc. an opportunity to participate in our sport/lifestyle. I'm also fine with the idea of "getting what you pay for," but only if it involves less luxury or lower quality components other than critical safety systems like hulls, rudders & keels. Most other failures far from rescue can be compensated for with reasonable seamanship skills, but I don't understand the tolerance for so-called "Cat-A" rated cruising boats being compromised -- for the sake of cutting costs -- when critical system failures can cause sinkings and loss of life.

But again, maybe I'm overstating the risks, and I'm certainly not intending to do any "bashing." There's nothing wrong with cheaply-built vs. better-built, just not when it's unlimited as your posts seem to accept, if not endorse.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Exile

Where are the Honda's of the yacht world, or maybe the Pearson's of a previous generation of strong, well-built yachts with plainer interiors, less luxury features, and thus more moderately priced?

They are all over the place. It's just that forum members don't want to accept this for some reason. For the most part the rest of your post that I didn't quote suggests you don't accept it either.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

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

Yes that's sad and in that I would agree with you that customers will look much more to the interior quality and interior looks of a boat than regarding how it is built.

Salona, that in my opinion is the best boat for a lower price, offering a a strong stainless steel grid as structure, a good rudder design and frontal and aft waterproof bulkheads, is in financial trouble, missing the last Dusseldorf boat shows and being in great pains to finish their new 38ft, while all mass production brands are doing well.

The Salona is only marginally more expensive, has a good quality cruising interior even if not so fashionable and innovative as the ones from major brands.

It is not only Salona, take for instance Dehler that presented a new 42ft boat at Dusseldorf. Even if made by Hanse the building quality (techniques and materials) and sail hardware is way better and the difference in price not as big as one could expect, at 170 000 euros for a basic boat, out of the shipyard.

Do you think there was much possible clients looking at that boat? Well, much more looking for the Hanse that were there and they were not new models....and the Dehler 42 has a great cruising interior, but the ones that will be disposed to pay a bit more for a boat that has an interior a bit smaller than a similarly sized Hanse are very few...and even less the ones that want exclusively a cruising boat.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

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.

They made a mistake there. Every boat I've ever built with integral chainplates had no core in the area of the chainplate. The core is beveled off around the chainplate, which means inner and outer skins join to form a solid laminate with a recess on both sides of half the core thickness. This blockout generally takes the form of a triangle. Then when you install the titanium thimble for the chainplate, you wrap carbon uni over the top of the thimble and fan it out onto the hull into the inverted V shaped recess provided for this in the block out. Then you can fair over this laminate, providing a fair surface with no high spot or bulge due to the chainplate layup. It's just how it's done.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Polux

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

I'm not trying to rag on you Polux but it just seems to me that you were very slow to come around to the view that the builders/designers were really cutting corners and the odd time it was just too much cutting. I also think the builders are very good at keeping the wraps on problems they do have which is understandable in the information age.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by minaret

They made a mistake there. Every boat I've ever built with integral chainplates had no core in the area of the chainplate. The core is beveled off around the chainplate, which means inner and outer skins join to form a solid laminate with a recess on both sides of half the core thickness. This blockout generally takes the form of a triangle. Then when you install the titanium thimble for the chainplate, you wrap carbon uni over the top of the thimble and fan it out onto the hull into the inverted V shaped recess provided for this in the block out. Then you can fair over this laminate, providing a fair surface with no high spot or bulge due to the chainplate layup. It's just how it's done.

That makes total sense. He told me that the builder was fixing it as the boat was new and while the damage was only on one side they were repairing both sides.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

They are all over the place. It's just that forum members don't want to accept this for some reason. For the most part the rest of your post that I didn't quote suggests you don't accept it either.

Well, that could certainly be true, in which case you're referring to lower-priced, modern production boats, and me & others have been assuming too much from the relatively small number of keel/rudder/structural failures we've been reading about. But the failures often seem backed up with evidence of weaker design/construction, so an understandable conclusion is that this is solely due to cost-savings. This doesn't seem to apply to many older boats, incl. older generation Bene's, Jean's, Bav's, Hunter's, etc. which I've repeatedly read are considered more robustly built. Could be wrong . . . .

But I've also learned it's all too easy to over-generalize, so in that regard your point is well taken. As is the point you've made many times that the vast majority of these boats are not used for extensive, long-distance cruising, and that many of the ones that are do just fine. But if the practical difference between the cost of an Oyster vs. a Bene (for example) just comes down to luxuries & brand prestige as you've also suggested, then why does even Polux concede that the premium-priced brands are generally "better built." Is a Mercedes really "better built" than a Honda?

[neilpride]

Keep in mind that those big corporations like Groupe Beneteau, Jeaneau etc... are killing those smaller boat builders who offer something better built , they cant compete
in those terms , people don't want to wait to much for a new boat, they don't care in many instances about how the boat is built, they want a affordable boat for the money , and builders see that, they cut corners because is the only way to be alive in that predator market , and you know what? we are the guilty .. I hope very much some brands see the light and try to improve those productions costs in favor of quality and price, others are just playing a dangerous game...


That's probably what happen with Oyster and others , they are bought by big sharks and profit is the golden rule ..

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, that could certainly be true, in which case you're referring to lower-priced, modern production boats, and me & others have been assuming too much from the relatively small number of keel/rudder/structural failures we've been reading about.

In my opinion the internet is full of "noise". One problem gets discussed over and over and over until people start thinking it is 100s of problems, but it was only 1. And the problem is pretty much always on a boat that has had known history or is on it's 4th owner and no one really knows its history.

Meanwhile there are 10,000's of these boats running around just kind. Yet for some internet reason they are all just falling apart and sinking.

I feel it comes down to 2 things:
1- people who have some old boat and for some reason need to justify the reason
2- people with expensive nice boats that need to justify the reason

Whichever apply, it doesn't make some other boats bad! And it is snobbery that for whatever reason people continue useless boat bashing.

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Cars are not Sigma 6, but I reckon the axles are, within a reasonable service life at least. If you have a car whose front suspension collapses (!), it's high time for a new car.

These weren't old cars and they were fixed with a better quality spring. The fundamental problem was the suspension design, which allowed the collapse when the spring breaks. Breaking a spring is quite common in cars, but in most you woudn't even notice that.

I just gave you some examples of things that shouldn't happen and still do. And they are causing more casualities than failing boats. Much more money and time can be put designing and testing a roof, bridge or a car than a boat. Not to even mention an airplane.

[transmitterdan]

Nobody is bashing a boat. Two rudder upper post bearing supports have failed and in both cases the boats were lost but crew survived. One crew very nearly did not survive. That's a huge percentage of boats in this particular build. It is not "noise".

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Nahh, those old Oysters are built like tanks, i have the oportunity to replace a Dc Bow truster engine in a 53 last year , the whole structure is masive , beams , stringers , bulkheads.... really nice boats...

I have seen some old ones leaking from the keel joint too. They are OK but like most other boats, have their weak spots too.

Their chainplates look adequate allright though. ;-)

b.

[robert sailor]

Some people are not good at accessing problems. Most boats sit around marinas most of their life, very few are really tested for any length of time in rough conditions. When a boat does fail it puts all the others built to the same design under suspicion because in most cases a sister ship would given the same conditions also fail. If a builder builds a thousand of one type and has structural failures on 4 or 5 boats then it's a very strong indicator of future failures given similar treatment. Using aircraft as an example, when a crash occurs a very thorough inspection follows and if a design or build fault shows up they will ground the entire fleet until repairs are made. No one says, hell there are hundreds of those flying without problems, don't make a big deal out of one or two failures. When the Benny 41.7 lost its keel the investigators checked similar models and suggested that failures could occur by simply sailing hard upwind in big seas because they found weakness in the design of the forward keel bolt support. I know that they have sense revised the standards and this older design would no longer meet specs but that doesn't stop the same group suggesting that it was the only failure...which should be followed up with the word...yet. if we learn anything by these failures it's probably that most of these boats will do just fine in the shorter term but may not have the long life that their predessors seem to have been given.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Nobody is bashing a boat. Two rudder upper post bearing supports have failed and in both cases the boats were lost but crew survived. One crew very nearly did not survive. That's a huge percentage of boats in this particular build. It is not "noise".

Two in how many samples? 'Huge percentage' - so what percentage exactly?

If the spot is troublesome in the same build, there is clearly a design or / and building issue ;-(

Hope Oyster will not be the case. Would be a shame to scuttle them all. If say the laminate is too dry, there is no way to post-saturate it (I guess)?

b.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I'm not trying to rag on you Polux but it just seems to me that you were very slow to come around to the view that the builders/designers were really cutting corners and the odd time it was just too much cutting. I also think the builders are very good at keeping the wraps on problems they do have which is understandable in the information age.

I am afraid you have misunderstood me again. What do you call cutting corners? I said that for having the boats priced as low as they can they cut in anything they can. They make the boats most people want at the price they want. As I said repeatedly they are not designed for voyaging, mostly for coastal cruising (that is what most do) and occasionally an Ocean crossing on the right season.

If most cruisers were not satisfied with what they offer you would not have many Bavaria, Beneteau, Jeanneau or Hanse clients, clients that are normally faithful to a brand. Just go to their forums and you will find mostly satisfied clients.

I believe that the problem here on this threads and on this particular forum is that you have liveaboards that live on the sailboats, voyage extensively that talk about mass production main market boats taking as measure the boats that they will see fit for them. And you have even a bigger number of sailors that don't sail a lot but that for some reason they find that they need the same type of boats of the ones that voyage extensively.

Believe it or not the Surveyor that works on the Shipyard I have the boat considers that I sail a lot and that my small 3000nm a year are much more than the average he knows do for a year and he knows a lot of them. And in fact regarding my experience, even regarding most that live aboard, I do sail and cruise much more than the average owner of sailboat and I certainly don't need or want the type of boat the ones that voyage extensively want or need.

The reason why mass production main market boats are like they are and cost what they cost is because that are the type of sailboats most cruisers (cruisers are the ones that use cruising boats for cruising) need at the cost they are willing to pay. They are the right boats at the right price for most, otherwise they would not be the ones that sell more.

Many think that they sell more because they are cheaper, but look at cars: it is not the cheaper cars that sell more but the ones that provide the service people desire from them. with boats it is similar. Most owner of sailboats don't sail much, don't use their boats much, many avoid uncomfortable weather and very few want or cross oceans, much less voyaging extensively.

Mass production main market cruising boats are just the right boats for most, at the right price and they can do and stand much more than the "normal" cruiser will ever do. As I had posted extensively about on another thread many have even circumnavigated and voyaged extensively, a thing that they were not designed for neither best suited to (but that does not mean that many have not done so).

So what you mean by cutting corners? I believe they are clearly designed to be built at a cost but they do provide the needs of the vast majority of clients that have them, including being inexpensive. Is this cutting corners? regarding what and regarding whom?