Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Fair enough, that seems a very good explanation and reasonable distinction to make... I suppose I'd been thinking of "extended" more in terms of duration, rather than a geographical sense... Even a Milk Run go-around seems like "extended voyaging", to me, as it entails a cruise of far longer duration and geographical scope than I've ever been able to manage... :-)

What strikes me as being somewhat futile about making such a distinction, however, is looking at the scores of yacht losses or abandonments over recent years... Very few of them (at least the ones we hear about) seem to involve boats doing "extended voyaging" as per your definition, but rather are mostly confined to yachts sailing well-beaten paths, and often essentially in coastal waters... On this side of the pond, boats are getting into trouble or being ditched with seemingly increasing regularity along the route between the East coast and the Caribbean, for instance... Of course, the numbers of people sailing such routes far exceeds those venturing to places like Svalbard or Patagonia, but one can't help but be struck by the high percentage of incidents that occur by those engaged in the far more 'pedestrian' activity you've defined as "Bluewater Cruising"...

And, of course, the incident that sparked this thread, occurred in one of the busiest, most commonly visited destinations in the entire US, a mere "26 Miles Across the Sea"...

:-)

Jon

I would think that anyone going on an "extended voyage" has spents years preparing in some form or anohter - therefore there are probably less losses (although based on per capita - might be another story?).

Many of the losses you note - are not engaged in "bluewater crusing", but rather coastal cruising (which to my mind is actually far more dangerous than crossing oceans). Many of these could also be termed "weekend warriors" for lack of a better term.


They lose their boats, normally not because of anything inherent to the boat - but due to their own lack of experience or seamanship.

And let's face it - book learning is wonderful, but it needs to be backed by hard won experience. When anchoring, (well let's start at the beginning) do you:
1- Have the correct anchor
2- Correct rode/chain
3- let out enough scope
4- Backed down sufficiently to ensure the anchor has bitten
5- Set a snubber correctly
6- Guarded adequately against chafe
7- Ensured that if the anchor drags, that you are warned and have a viable plan B
8- Are capable of implementing said plan B

And we can keep going with 8 (or more) steps on virtually every aspect of sailing. The point being, that none of us are born with this knowledge - we've learned it through a combination of reading and experience and talking and watching other, more experienced sailors.

It has been said often enough on this forum - sailors are the cause of lost boats - boats rarely are the cause. I firmly believe this to be true - also of Hunters and other plastic fantastic boats.

Looking at many of the weekend sailors I see on the water - it is my opinion that they are lucky to get back to port without any serious damage.

[autumnbreeze27]

Here's a time lapse video of them raising the Hunter. I'll let the experts here do the frame by frame dissection.

Sailboat Salvage Avalon Harbor on Vimeo

[scuba0_1]

Tried to see something when the boat was side ways but didn't.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Robin3]

couldn't see anything of interest and turned off totally by the stoopid mooosic.


maybe the owner scuttled it to shut the stereo up!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by IntoMyHealth

Maybe the title of the thread should have been "Hunter sinks at Catalina due to Beneteau", just to be fair.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

For the win.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by carstenb

I don't find it difficult to make a distinction. To me:

Bluewater cruising is just that - sailing across oceans, for most that would mean the cocnut milk run (which despite its name is still an achievement if you manage it all the way round) Here, a prudent skipper with close eye on the weather forecasts etc will not experience savage conditions (hence the name Coconut milk run).

Extended voyaging to me implies cruising outside the milk run. Here we're talking southern ocean, round the capes, or the northern ocean (greenland/iceland/etc)

I would not expect any production boat to be ready for "extended voyaging" withou serious modifications (much the same as I would not expect a production Land Rover to ready for a trans sahara/africa trip). The conditions experienced in both the southern and northern oceans are extreme and the production boat companies simply don't sell very many boats to this exceedingly small market.

So why not disregard these extreme markets? No production manufacturer will tell you that their boat is ready right off the line for this type of sailing (voyaging).

For the coconut milk run, most production boats, including hunters, will make it, assuming they are skippered by a responsible person.

I've sailed my Jeanneau throughout the Baltic, Kattegat, and Skagerrak, including in force 8 & 9 and I've yet to feel the slightest bit nervous about the boat. Lest we forget, there are thousands of these boats sailing around inthe North sea/norway and the Biscay. Apparently they seem to survive without issues. We plan on an RTW in it, and yes we are making modifications, but that mainly has to do with there only being two of us. We are not making modifications to the basic boat.

I don't know Hunters, since we don't see very many of them over here, but our "hunter" is the Bavaria - we have lots of Bavaria bashers here in europe.

I owned one and never had any issues with it whatsoever.

IMHO, this post properly articulates the reality of going cruising on production boats. And by "production boats," anything from a Hunter or Jeanneau to a HR or Moody should be included. There may be differences as to what gets modified or beefed up, but your basic notion that none are ready to go from the factory is well taken. I would hazard a guess that even the "expedition boats" built for high-latitude sailing could even be included, although the mods required for beefng up may obviously be less.

Excuse my ignorance on this "branding" thing, but what's the rub against Bavaria's? Aren't they, along with Jeanneau's & others made by Beneteau? Maybe similar but with less frills?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

Here's a time lapse video of them raising the Hunter. I'll let the experts here do the frame by frame dissection.

Sailboat Salvage Avalon Harbor on Vimeo

Sad seeing stuff like this, especially considering all the damage to other boats & loss of life.

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by Exile

IMHO,

Excuse my ignorance on this "branding" thing, but what's the rub against Bavaria's? Aren't they, along with Jeanneau's & others made by Beneteau? Maybe similar but with less frills?

Beneteau and Bavaria are entirely different manufacturers, not badge engineered product names like Lincoln/Ford. There is a cult of Bavaria bashing in the UK and Europe much akin to the Hunter harassing in the USA. Mostly IMO it stems from the 'heck it it was way cheaper than MY boat so it must be total trash' brigade. WHY do folks do this? ALL boats are wonderful. CARS are trash, 'cos they don't float and go wrong. Anything that floats in my book is lovely and a joy to behold, possibly excluding PWCs mind and really it is not their fault the owner is a dumb ***** .

With apologies to all who do not appreciate (ex-pat) Brit humour!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Jon

I would think that anyone going on an "extended voyage" has spents years preparing in some form or anohter - therefore there are probably less losses (although based on per capita - might be another story?).

Many of the losses you note - are not engaged in "bluewater crusing", but rather coastal cruising (which to my mind is actually far more dangerous than crossing oceans). Many of these could also be termed "weekend warriors" for lack of a better term.


They lose their boats, normally not because of anything inherent to the boat - but due to their own lack of experience or seamanship.

And let's face it - book learning is wonderful, but it needs to be backed by hard won experience. When anchoring, (well let's start at the beginning) do you:
1- Have the correct anchor
2- Correct rode/chain
3- let out enough scope
4- Backed down sufficiently to ensure the anchor has bitten
5- Set a snubber correctly
6- Guarded adequately against chafe
7- Ensured that if the anchor drags, that you are warned and have a viable plan B
8- Are capable of implementing said plan B

And we can keep going with 8 (or more) steps on virtually every aspect of sailing. The point being, that none of us are born with this knowledge - we've learned it through a combination of reading and experience and talking and watching other, more experienced sailors.

It has been said often enough on this forum - sailors are the cause of lost boats - boats rarely are the cause. I firmly believe this to be true - also of Hunters and other plastic fantastic boats.

Looking at many of the weekend sailors I see on the water - it is my opinion that they are lucky to get back to port without any serious damage.

This explains the oft-cited quote about sailing not being a good pursuit if you embarrass easily. I've always felt it required a big dose of humility at any level, but especially for the inexperienced.

[SwissMocha]

Originally Posted by Exile

IMHO, this post properly articulates the reality of going cruising on production boats. And by "production boats," anything from a Hunter or Jeanneau to a HR or Moody should be included. There may be differences as to what gets modified or beefed up, but your basic notion that none are ready to go from the factory is well taken. I would hazard a guess that even the "expedition boats" built for high-latitude sailing could even be included, although the mods required for beefng up may obviously be less.



Excuse my ignorance on this "branding" thing, but what's the rub against Bavaria's? Aren't they, along with Jeanneau's & others made by Beneteau? Maybe similar but with less frills?

No, Bavarias are made by Bavaria, german company, whereas Jeanneau and Beneteau are french. And there is quite some bashing of Bavarias here as there is bashing of Hunters there.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

Here's a time lapse video of them raising the Hunter. I'll let the experts here do the frame by frame dissection.

Sailboat Salvage Avalon Harbor on Vimeo

That is an awesome video - and the perfect song to go with it (sorry Robin).

As for the bow cleat issue - it appears to be tied off from the bow. And I don't see a big chunk of boat missing up there that would allow for a full-blown sinking. Starting to look like a new title is needed?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Robin3

There is a cult of Bavaria bashing in the UK and Europe much akin to the Hunter harassing in the USA.

Wait, I thought this was a myth!

Originally Posted by Robin3

Mostly IMO it stems from the 'heck it it was way cheaper than MY boat so it must be total trash' brigade. WHY do folks do this? ALL boats are wonderful. CARS are trash, 'cos they don't float and go wrong. Anything that floats in my book is lovely and a joy to behold, possibly excluding PWCs mind and really it is not their fault the owner is a dumb ***** .

With apologies to all who do not appreciate (ex-pat) Brit humour!

Bingo.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

What strikes me as being somewhat futile about making such a distinction, however, is looking at the scores of yacht losses or abandonments over recent years... Very few of them (at least the ones we hear about) seem to involve boats doing "extended voyaging" as per your definition, but rather are mostly confined to yachts sailing well-beaten paths, and often essentially in coastal waters... On this side of the pond, boats are getting into trouble or being ditched with seemingly increasing regularity along the route between the East coast and the Caribbean, for instance... Of course, the numbers of people sailing such routes far exceeds those venturing to places like Svalbard or Patagonia, but one can't help but be struck by the high percentage of incidents that occur by those engaged in the far more 'pedestrian' activity you've defined as "Bluewater Cruising"...

And, of course, the incident that sparked this thread, occurred in one of the busiest, most commonly visited destinations in the entire US, a mere "26 Miles Across the Sea"...

:-)

Jon, you've hit on what I think is one of the most interesting parts of this debate (PS - I just saw that Carsten addressed it as well). Should we be talking instead about how robust boats should be designed and built to handle "coastal cruising" - which seems to be much more "dangerous"? Crossing oceans might actually be far more 'pedestrian' in terms of risk these days.

I have what some deem a "coastal cruiser" myself - so I must be pretty bullet-proof.

(PS - I didn't start this thread because of the SDD. The discussion is much larger than that one incident. It just so happens that that incident fits into the narrative pretty well.)

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by carstenb

Jon

I would think that anyone going on an "extended voyage" has spents years preparing in some form or anohter - therefore there are probably less losses (although based on per capita - might be another story?).

Many of the losses you note - are not engaged in "bluewater crusing", but rather coastal cruising (which to my mind is actually far more dangerous than crossing oceans). Many of these could also be termed "weekend warriors" for lack of a better term.


They lose their boats, normally not because of anything inherent to the boat - but due to their own lack of experience or seamanship.

And let's face it - book learning is wonderful, but it needs to be backed by hard won experience. When anchoring, (well let's start at the beginning) do you:
1- Have the correct anchor
2- Correct rode/chain
3- let out enough scope
4- Backed down sufficiently to ensure the anchor has bitten
5- Set a snubber correctly
6- Guarded adequately against chafe
7- Ensured that if the anchor drags, that you are warned and have a viable plan B
8- Are capable of implementing said plan B

And we can keep going with 8 (or more) steps on virtually every aspect of sailing. The point being, that none of us are born with this knowledge - we've learned it through a combination of reading and experience and talking and watching other, more experienced sailors.

It has been said often enough on this forum - sailors are the cause of lost boats - boats rarely are the cause. I firmly believe this to be true - also of Hunters and other plastic fantastic boats.

Looking at many of the weekend sailors I see on the water - it is my opinion that they are lucky to get back to port without any serious damage.

+1.

Carsten - I really appreciate your posts. They are very fair and well-reasoned.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Robin3

Beneteau and Bavaria are entirely different manufacturers, not badge engineered product names like Lincoln/Ford. There is a cult of Bavaria bashing in the UK and Europe much akin to the Hunter harassing in the USA. Mostly IMO it stems from the 'heck it it was way cheaper than MY boat so it must be total trash' brigade. WHY do folks do this? ALL boats are wonderful. CARS are trash, 'cos they don't float and go wrong. Anything that floats in my book is lovely and a joy to behold, possibly excluding PWCs mind and really it is not their fault the owner is a dumb ***** .

With apologies to all who do not appreciate (ex-pat) Brit humour!

OK thanks. But now that I'm a little more educated on Bavaria's, I can't figure out what PWC is! I guess I've spent too much time upside down in my bilge trying to figure out where all the pipes, hoses & wires go -- to little avail I might add. But now it's winter and I'm busy armchair circumvavigating.

Maybe it's like the Harley bashing that goes on in the motorcycle world, although I should be careful as I see you live in Daytona. In my mind, 2 wheels were always better than 4 so what's the problem? On the other hand, I also don't understand all the indignation if not hostility when problems surface on mass-produced boats? Maybe just a lot of history I've missed. There's a lot more of them and many are now getting long in the tooth, so more problems to report? There's also, by definition, a lot more standardization. So if a few have keel bolt/water saturation/deteriorating thru-hulls/etc., etc., why wouldn't owners of others have concerns?

My particular boat is a bit of a looker and its mfg. (hopefully) seems to enjoy a good rep. But frankly, I appreciate any criticism I might get much more than all the praise, since then I might have a chance to make it better. What I'm really curious about in these crazy, protracted threads is whether we're talking about the difference b'twn. a Chevy Tahoe vs. Cadillac Escalade, i.e. same chassis & body (I think) but a higher level of finish & luxury, or whether inexpensive means inferior when it comes to the basic structures, components & rigging. Even taking into account modern production efficiencies, economies of scale, inexpensive interiors, etc., the issue is not whether there's obvious cost cutting done, but whether it really matters to potential buyers of these types of boats.

I'm sure you can see why the use of yellow brass thru-hulls, for example, might be worrisome to some, but there's some rationale as it turns out for that too. My point being that there's a rational basis for many people to immediately assume that certain failures are attributable to less expensive construction. On the other hand, there's no denying all the circumnavigations & other long-distance voyaging these boats have accomplished. To the extent these tortured threads either confirm or dispel assumptions, they serve some useful purpose.