Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[robert sailor]

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.

Could not agree more! From the onset I made a point of showing very small production boats and some even smaller plywood boats that had sailed around Cape Horn. There was a fuss made about the Hunter 49 that had done the same but lets not kid ourselves someone who sails a little homemade plywood boat around the horn as part of a circumnavigation via the other great capes of the world has certainly accomplished much more than the Hunter sailor(not to take away anything from this couple) that went there and back home. It is always about the sailor and not the boat but lets not kid ourselves either some boats are just a lot tougher than others and have a safety margin much higher than an entry level boat.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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?

Well, you have a well-documented history of seeing what you wanna see -- I couldn't see s**t as far as a cleat up on the bow. It may make more sense that the salvagers simply have re-tied it so the thing stays put after it surfaces. I for one couldn't tell from just the vid.

As for the thread title, it looks to me like this thread deserved a different title a long time ago. Unlike you, I'm not inclined towards publicly impugning someone's credibility until & unless it's been thoroughly impeached. Assuming the best intentions of everyone involved, all I can surmise is that the original Facebook poster believed that a parted mooring cleat allowed the boat to swing around which, in turn, led to a chain of events which concluded in the sinking. But with no evidence of any of that, I agree with you (lord, help me) that the thread title is misleading. Then again, if the actual evidence isn't there, then who cares?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

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?

You've not missed it at all. It all depends on how the poster frames the issue. If the poster says that production boats or a particular brand is "trash/crap/dock-condo/whatever" based on a specific issue - that's going to get quite a bit of blowback. And very rightly so.

I honestly don't mean to pick on him, but I've gone back and forth with Keno on this a few times over the past few weeks I've been posting here (you've been part of these threads, so you've seen it). Here's an example in a discussion I was directly involved in in Sailorboy's Hunter thread (which is now unfortunately locked):

Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
Had the boat performed good enough during that time in order for us to feel confident in it's ability to withstand longer passages and possible foul weather at sea.... we'd still be owners of a Hunter 450. The boat had shortcomings for this task too numerous to include in this post. It's a lightly built, daysailor best suited as a dock condo or cruising vessel for areas known for light winds and fair weather.

Hunter is a brand built to minimum standards to keep most buyers safe for the use intended as I've described above.

This is going WAY beyond bringing forth a "problem" and discussing it. Furthermore, it's patently untrue. No question. This is just one of many, many similar statements across this forum. For example, look at who started this thread and go back and look at some of his very similar comments towards Hunters in particular.

So, do you really still not understand the "indignation" when these very inflammatory comments are made?

Originally Posted by Exile

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.

This part of your post I totally agree with. If it can be done without the bashing, these are all very helpful topics to discuss for any and all boats. So we'll see if it's doable. I hope so.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

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 haved 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.)

Actually Smack, you didn't start this thread at all, but maybe if you ask nicely the mods will let you be the OP and also change the title at the same time.

FWIW, I 've never really gotten the coastal cruiser distinction either, except maybe based on tankage issues. But it's not because I would ever minimize crossing oceans or exaggerate coastal hazards. In my mind, you have the same opportunity to sink & die in either. I guess you can theoretically get to safe harbor quicker along the coast if you get into trouble? Not sure anyone who's done the run from Norfolk, VA to Beaufort, NC in late Fall would agree.

But the CE/RCD regs. do seem to make the distinction based on what level of winds & seas different boats are built for. What gives you the idea your Hunter 40 is a "coastal cruiser?" Or is this just all the trauma you've had to endure from all the Hunter bashing that's doing the talking?

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, you have a well-documented history of seeing what you wanna see -- I couldn't see s**t as far as a cleat up on the bow. It may make more sense that the salvagers simply have re-tied it so the thing stays put after it surfaces. I for one couldn't tell from just the vid.

As for the thread title, it looks to me like this thread deserved a different title a long time ago. Unlike you, I'm not inclined towards publicly impugning someone's credibility until & unless it's been thoroughly impeached. Assuming the best intentions of everyone involved, all I can surmise is that the original Facebook poster believed that a parted mooring cleat allowed the boat to swing around which, in turn, led to a chain of events which concluded in the sinking. But with no evidence of any of that, I agree with you (lord, help me) that the thread title is misleading. Then again, if the actual evidence isn't there, then who cares?

So it's OK to condemn the construction of an entire brand of boats, based on no evidence at all, because of one incident that quite probably wasn't due to any fault in construction?

" if the actual evidence isn't there, then who cares?"

(Actually on this forum that certainly does seem to be the case.)

[44'cruisingcat]

Just a thought.


If it turns out the mooring cleat is perfectly intact, and it was the mooring line that failed, does that leave the OP open to legal action?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

So it's OK to condemn the construction of an entire brand of boats, based on no evidence at all, because of one incident that quite probably wasn't due to any fault in construction?

" if the actual evidence isn't there, then who cares?"

(Actually on this forum that certainly does seem to be the case.)

Didn't mean to say "who cares" with regard to the merits of how the boat sank, but rather to how this thread is titled. In other words, anyone who reads this thread -- as least up until now -- will know there's no evidence of faulty construction causing the sinking. But if you & others feel it's important to change the title, I certainly wouldn't "care" about that either.

I'm beginning to think you guys are more sensitive than the Harley guys!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't mean to say "who cares" with regard to the merits of how the boat sank, but rather to how this thread is titled. In other words, anyone who reads this thread -- as least up until now -- will know there's no evidence of faulty construction causing the sinking. But if you & others feel it's important to change the title, I certainly wouldn't "care" about that either.

I'm beginning to think you guys are more sensitive than the Harley guys!

So basically you're saying it's fine to use any excuse to pile **** on whatever it is that you don't like? Whether or not there's a real reason doesn't matter?

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Exile

Didn't mean to say "who cares" with regard to the merits of how the boat sank, but rather to how this thread is titled. In other words, anyone who reads this thread -- as least up until now -- will know there's no evidence of faulty construction causing the sinking. But if you & others feel it's important to change the title, I certainly wouldn't "care" about that either.

I'm beginning to think you guys are more sensitive than the Harley guys!

Way more. You certainly can't point out any flaw in the design or construction of these boats, no matter how small, without immediately being branded a "Hunter basher". Most Harley riders are aware of the flaws and embrace them, even joke about them.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by minaret

Most Harley riders are aware of the flaws and embrace them, even joke about them.

I thought the main flaw of Harleys ARE the riders.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by colemj

I thought the main flaw of Harleys ARE the riders.

Mark

Cover up your boat name Mark, some of these guys can't take a joke!!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by minaret

Way more. You certainly can't point out any flaw in the design or construction of these boats, no matter how small, without immediately being branded a "Hunter basher". Most Harley riders are aware of the flaws and embrace them, even joke about them.

This thread is pointing out a "flaw" that may in fact not exist. If the cleat was gone, leaving a gaping hole in the deck, fair enough.

And it's not just the title, it's the entire opening post. It makes a claim for which there appears to be no evidence so far.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Actually Smack, you didn't start this thread at all, but maybe if you ask nicely the mods will let you be the OP and also change the title at the same time.

Yep. My bad. So many threads, so little time.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

This thread is pointing out a "flaw" that may in fact not exist. If the cleat was gone, leaving a gaping hole in the deck, fair enough.

And it's not just the title, it's the entire opening post. It makes a claim for which there appears to be no evidence so far.

Its a chatboard 44. Unfortunately you will have to do your own research because:

a/. Its a Chatboard.
b/. Its a chatboard.

For every poster that gives excellent information or indeed, as in this case just passes on what they were told, there will 50 who dissent and take offence. Then there are other posters who give lots of information and when asked to supply the references, get upset and say "trust my word".

Everyone knew going in that the whole information was not complete and yet it didnt stop anyone speculating or commenting in 358 posts. You know why?

Its a chatboard.

Either wait for clarification and dont chat, or chat and realise that you will have to sort the chaff from the wheat yourself.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by colemj

I thought the main flaw of Harleys ARE the riders.

Mark

I figured that one would be hard for someone to resist.