Rudder Failures

[smackdaddy]

On the Plexus versus plywood bulkhead debate - it seems that shouldn't be an issue:

ITW Plexus "Fiberglass Fusion" Adhesives bond thermoplastics, composites, gelcoats, SMCs, wood, metal, and dissimilar substrates. Unlike glassed-in joints or marine putties, they chemically cross-link composites at the molecular level into a unitized assembly. They create bonds so strong that the composites will delaminate before the bonds fail.

ITW Plexus Adhesives cure at room temperature, producing tough, flexible bonds that withstand impact and dampen vibration. They also resist solvents, UV exposure, saltwater, weathering, and temperature extremes/cycling. In addition, they reduce weight and improve performance without sacrificing strength or durability.

ITW Plexus Adhesives require little or no surface preparation (primers, sanding, or grinding). Mixed as dispensed, they are available in a wide range of open times and can be applied to vertical or inverted surfaces without sagging or "swimming". They produce 90% lower VOC emissions than resins or putties and are Greenguard certified.

So - maybe what NP is seeing in the failure of that Bene 50 is just an anomaly?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by avb3

Polux, with all due respect, Minaret is one person who many depend on here for advise and expert opinion. His expertise goes far beyond his own boat, and I would suggest at the very least to hear what he has to say about boat construction.

He is the guy that has to fix them. He sees the good, the bad, and some of the ugly. His observations are not opinion, but empirical experience. I personally find it invaluable that members like Minaret who bring their expertise to this forum, and freely give their advice.

Respectfully I think that the opinion of someone about something is strongly influenced by his own perspective about the subject and certainly the boat he owns his a reflex of his take in what regards boat design. He said:

"You sound just like a brochure. Believe me, very little has changed for the better on the buyer side. The vast majority of changes in recent times have been about the builders bottom line, not a higher quality product."

Basically what I have been saying is that modern design and materials are way better today than at 30 or 40 years ago, offering boats with a better sailing performance. I believe that comparison between a Nauticat that is still produced but was designed several decades ago and a modern designed boat of the same type makes that evident. Those changes in design materials and techniques (allowing a lighter boat) are evident when we compare the two boats and contrary to what he says the modern boat is a high quality product that changed for the better on the buyer side. I know the boats produced by each shipyards and not only from looking at brochures.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Greatketch33

A very interesting thread.

It appears we have many ideas, opinions, and suggestions to offer.

Perhaps the title of our thread should be changed to "Rudder Failure: Steering a Debate to Who Builds and Designs a Better Boat, and the People Who Know."

On a side note: I'll be helping a friend who has a spade rudder with multiple cracks and it appears that one crack is visible from the rudder post owning and downward to the leading edge about 12 inches.

Cool. Take pics as you guys figure out what the issue is.

What is the boat?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

....they are respected everywhere! can Hunter or Bavaria say the same???

Of course Hunter and Bavaria (and Beneteau, et. al.) can say the same. They FAR outsell Nauticats by a HUGE margin. Therefore, the general market respects them more. No question.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

... Nauticat, .. 55 is just a globetrotter with some good sail perfomance , after all is a pilothouse but the triple spreader rig make the diference... ...

And this gives us a respective of what you call a boat with "some good sail performance"

Regarding the Nauticat 55 are you sure that exists? I only know a 52, a 515 and and a 525. Probably you are referring to the 52 Minaret's boat, this one:

This boat is closer to the line that Nauticat calls Motorsailors, to differentiate it from the other line of faster boats, that they call Pilot house sailing yachts:
Yachts
Have a look at a boat from the Pilot house series and look to the keel and rudder:


A motor sailor is by definition a boat that motors more than sail and use the sails to complement its motor, motorsailing. Yes, they can also sail with lots of wind.

That's interesting to see what you call a boat" with some good sailing performance" that explains your other opinions about the subject You know, for almost all, the much faster Nauticats from the pilot house category are relatively slow, even if compared with more modern pilot house boats like the Wauquiez or the Nordship that are slower than main market mass production boats of the same size.

Of course we all are entitled to have our own perspective about what is a modern boat or a good sailing boat, a boat with a god sailing performance, but at least in what regards the last one, your's is a very singular one.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Of course Hunter and Bavaria (and Beneteau, et. al.) can say the same. They FAR outsell Nauticats by a HUGE margin. Therefore, the general market respects them more. No question.

Sales volume has nothing to do with respect. Have you read John Kretschmer's latest book?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Of course Hunter and Bavaria (and Beneteau, et. al.) can say the same. They FAR outsell Nauticats by a HUGE margin. Therefore, the general market respects them more. No question.

Hum, I do not agree with that. Even if the older Nauticats are looked as god sailing boats just by a very small minority they are very well built and are strong. On the new series, the one they call Pilot house, they have some interesting boats like the 37 and 385 that sail relatively well and continue to be very well built.

Unfortunately for them there are boats with the same program as well built and better designed, specially in what the hull refers, built with more modern techniques and that allows them to be lighter. The Nauticat have interiors of great quality but they are in trouble because their boats don't sell, not for a question of price or quality but because the clients of that type of boats moved to a more modern offer, with better sailing boats, as well built and unfortunately, as expensive.

[Cheechako]

"I honestly think most sailors' view of this is seriously out of whack. Do we really expect a used "high quality bluewater boat" to be as good as it was when it was built 20-30-40 years ago? Are its systems really superior to the newer production boats? No electrical issues? No leaks? No creaking? Really?

I think we all know that this is definitely not the case. There are way too many bluewater rehab threads/blogs out there that blow this theory out of the water. Yet, many people buy into that thinking in sometimes dangerous ways (RebelHeart anyone?)"

You are totally missing the reality that boats after... oh about 7-8 years need the same stuff done... doesn't matter if they are 30 years old or 8 years old. An example: my TPI built vacuum infused cat had a waterlogged rudder 6 years after it was built.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

...
You are totally missing the reality that boats after... oh about 7-8 years need the same stuff done... doesn't matter if they are 30 years old or 8 years old. ..

Think again, some things yes, others no. A mast doesn't need to be changed after 8 years but 30 years after it is as strong as new? A rudder stock and even the foil, does not need to be changed after 8 years but 30 years after is it as strong? The number of lost rudders in old boats clearly suggest that is not the case. The piece the fix the shrouds to the hull does not need to be changed after 8 years, but on a boat with 30 years? is it as strong as new? No and it should already been substituted and most never do that. I could go on and on, there is many pieces that are subject to stress and the continuous stress for many years causes material fatigue and those pieces after 30 years have only a fraction of the strength they had when they were new. Certainly you know all this.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Polux

Think again, some things yes, others no. A mast doesn't need to be changed after 8 years but 30 years after it is as strong as new? A rudder stock and even the foil, does not need to be changed after 8 years but 30 years after is it as strong? The number of lost rudders in old boats clearly suggest that is not the case. The piece the fix the shrouds to the hull does not need to be changed after 8 years, but on a boat with 30 years? is it as strong as new? No and it should already been substituted and most never do that. I could go on and on, there is many pieces that are subject to stress and the continuous stress for many years causes material fatigue and those pieces after 30 years have only a fraction of the strength they had when they were new. Certainly you know all this.

Yes, it's obvious that some things last longer and some last shorter.. that was not the point. Anything made of SS is suspect after a very short time really... depends on the initial are in building and installation. Chainplates should be checked after about ten years but may last 30.. how does one know?
Modern practices like bolted on keels and spade rudders are more susceptible... simply by design. Anyone with an engineering background knows an unsupported beam (think spade rudder) is far more susceptible to stresses than a supported beam (think old school skeg hung or keel hung rudder)
So the question is really; Unless there is a defined rebuild "life" to all items, and unless you renew all the different systems regularly on your boat, before that time, which is more likely to fail you in a high load event?
Should we all just buy a brand new boat every 3 years?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yes, it's obvious that some things last longer and some last shorter.. that was not the point. Anything made of SS is suspect after a very short time really... depends on the initial are in building and installation. Chainplates should be checked after about ten years but may last 30.. how does one know?
...
So the question is really; Unless there is a defined rebuild "life" to all items, and unless you renew all the different systems regularly on your boat, before that time, which is more likely to fail you in a high load event?
Should we all just buy a brand new boat every 3 years?

But there is, at least here in Europe, you don't wait to have to a mast brake to substitute shrouds (about 7 to 9 years) you change chainplates (if they look all right) each 15/20 years, a new mast after 20/30years, depending on the condition and so on for many boat systems. If you have a boat properly maintained there will arrive a time where you are wasting too much money (more and more system need to be changed), for the value of the boat that will remain always the same, I mean will always diminish with the passing years. It will arrive a time where it makes sense to buy another less used boat or a new boat.

But that is not the problem. The problem is that normally the ones that own old boats do that because they don't have the money for a new boat an most of the cases maintenance of the boat, besides the antifouling only happens when something breaks...and that is a very bad idea on a boat that goes offshore. Not a big problem if an once bluewater boat is used as a coastal boat, as many do, but crossing oceans on it?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Sales volume has nothing to do with respect. Have you read John Kretschmer's latest book?

Originally Posted by Polux

Hum, I do not agree with that.

Okay - I was being a bit facetious.

But, my point is that the market is good about deciding where the best overall value is for any given product. It's not at all a detraction from the quality of a boat like the Nauticat - but it's definitely a vote that the overall quality-to-price-to-use-case combination of production boats is preferable to the larger market.

This is definitely a form of "respect" in my book.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

You are totally missing the reality that boats after... oh about 7-8 years need the same stuff done... doesn't matter if they are 30 years old or 8 years old. An example: my TPI built vacuum infused cat had a waterlogged rudder 6 years after it was built.

So is this issue better or worse in a 30 year old "bluewater boat", which has had all that stuff - hopefully - done, and done well, 3-4 times? I think you've actually made another great point for choosing a new production boat over an older "bluewater boat".

What was the problem with your rudder that caused the water intrusion?

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Should we all just buy a brand new boat every 3 years?

With your examples, the answer would have to be yes...if you really want to be safe in serious bluewater conditions.

[robert sailor]

I agree on the need to refit/rebuild a production boat 8-10 years old if you are planning on using it for offshore sailing. Everything from sails to rigging to engine overhaul, radios, instruments, you name it will need to be replaced. If coastal cruising you can squeeze more life out of it. One of the reasons you see many cruisers choosing to refit an older quality boat is the residual value and the satisfaction of owning it. If you refit an older S&S Swan 44 for example you are sailing a boat that is admired by most knowledgeable sailors. The lines are timeless. Its a bit like owning an older Porsche, there is a high owners satisfaction in owning and using the boat. There are so many 8-10 year old Bavaria type boats from the charter fleets around that they have very little value and are a good buy but if you spend the money to refit them you will not get a dime of it back as there is no following for older production boats built down to a price. These boats will be unlikely candidates for a proper refit and will over time just be trash. A Swan is just one example but there are many boats that were very well built and if you do spend the time and money you will have a great boat because the basic hull structure is probably built to last indefinitely. After about 10-15 years even a new model is pretty much used up and your money would be far better spent buying an older high quality boat that has recently been refitted. Thats why many members here choose this route, for many its even fun and the satisfaction is high. When it comes time to sell and if your boat has a following it won't be that hard to sell it.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

I agree on the need to refit/rebuild a production boat 8-10 years old if you are planning on using it for offshore sailing. Everything from sails to rigging to engine overhaul, radios, instruments, you name it will need to be replaced. If coastal cruising you can squeeze more life out of it. One of the reasons you see many cruisers choosing to refit an older quality boat is the residual value and the satisfaction of owning it. If you refit an older S&S Swan 44 for example you are sailing a boat that is admired by most knowledgeable sailors. The lines are timeless. Its a bit like owning an older Porsche, there is a high owners satisfaction in owning and using the boat. There are so many 8-10 year old Bavaria type boats from the charter fleets around that they have very little value and are a good buy but if you spend the money to refit them you will not get a dime of it back as there is no following for older production boats built down to a price. These boats will be unlikely candidates for a proper refit and will over time just be trash. A Swan is just one example but there are many boats that were very well built and if you do spend the time and money you will have a great boat because the basic hull structure is probably built to last indefinitely. After about 10-15 years even a new model is pretty much used up and your money would be far better spent buying an older high quality boat that has recently been refitted. Thats why many members here choose this route, for many its even fun and the satisfaction is high. When it comes time to sell and if your boat has a following it won't be that hard to sell it.

Nautor Swan 44 MKII boats for sale - www.yachtworld.com

There are two Swan 44s on YW right now that you can start pouring your refit money into. The purchase price on each is $495K (2002) and $420K (2000) respectively. So according to the math above on the systems, etc., you'll need to change most everything out. It will be expensive. Maybe another $100K+ for a boat like this?

But, as you say, you'll be able to easily sell it in 10-15 years and make a tidy profit (though that seems really hard to believe).

In the mean time, I'm sure you will have a great sense of satisfaction. And I will definitely admire you. Probably for other reasons than you want to be admired, bit I will admire you.