The Yard Guys

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

The Jeanneau SO 40 seems to be a tough little boat:

So that's what a winged keel is for? Neat trick. I'll wager the guy in the red jacket found that he cannot move from that spot (without the boat keeling over TMABP). I know, he drank a beer before and is wishing he hadn't.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Jeez - and a Pearson 40 loses its rudder in the Pacific:



Pearson 40 Owners Association

John Neal's list is taking a beating out there.

That's one of those older type boats, isn't it. And it lost its rudder in the middle of the ocean?

Yup, I was right. It is an older boat. Last built in 1981.

PEARSON 40 sailboat specifications and details on sailboatdata.com

Hmmmm, I seem to recall a few production boats that lost rudders sunk. This one didn't.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the way the rudder is designed to be attached to the boat? Ya think? Oh, and those older manufactuers who built things just a touch on the heavy side, just to make sure that they erred on the side of safety.

What a concept. Think they were on the right track with that? You know, for going onto oceans in who knows what conditions for, gosh, maybe over 30 years.

Tough boats those Pearson 40's. Out sailing for decades, lose a rudder in the middle of the ocean, make it to shore safely, and everyone is OK. Tough boats for sure.

Here is the full story on the rudder loss in a nutshell:

Denny Thompson was cruising his Pearson 40, Dream Catcher, back to Seattle after competing in the Victoria to Maui race, when he was knocked down, apparently by a rogue wave. The knockdown caused a failure in Dream Catcher's rudder that allowed the rudder blade to rotate freely around the rudderpost. Thompson sailed the final 1000 nm back to Seattle with a jury-rigged rudder. During that time, all remnants of the original rudder and part of the skeg disappeared.

A 1000 nautical miles after losing the rudder, the boat was still floating. That is one tough old boat.

[cpa]

Originally Posted by avb3

Here is the full story on the rudder loss in a nutshell:

Denny Thompson was cruising his Pearson 40, Dream Catcher, back to Seattle after competing in the Victoria to Maui race, when he was knocked down, apparently by a rogue wave. The knockdown caused a failure in Dream Catcher's rudder that allowed the rudder blade to rotate freely around the rudderpost. Thompson sailed the final 1000 nm back to Seattle with a jury-rigged rudder. During that time, all remnants of the original rudder and part of the skeg disappeared.

What a great ending to a bad situation. Thanks for taking the time to find it.

[Jim Cate]

This is kinda funny to me:

Smack dredges the archives and finds some examples of boats that had structural issues, and it is good evidence. Others find two Benies that sank due to structural issues in ONE YEAR and that is happenstance and meaningless, because there are many other Benies that didn't sink this year.

Go figger...

Jim

[neilpride]

Sincé page 3 at rudder failures topic!!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

This is kinda funny to me:

Smack dredges the archives and finds some examples of boats that had structural issues, and it is good evidence. Others find two Benies that sank due to structural issues in ONE YEAR and that is happenstance and meaningless, because there are many other Benies that didn't sink this year.

Go figger...

Jim

Oh, I thought that was how it worked around here. Because all we were seeing before was examples and photos of problems with production boats (one of Neil's dating back 6 years) - leading to the conclusion that they were crap and shouldn't be out there. There was nothing much about the failures in "superior" "bluewater" boats (except for a couple of contributions in this thread).

Don't worry. There's plenty more.

Hard to argue with facts, eh?

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Oh, I thought that was how it worked around here. Because all we were seeing before was examples and photos of problems with production boats (one of Neil's dating back 6 years) - leading to the conclusion that they were crap and shouldn't be out there. There was nothing much about the failures in "superior" "bluewater" boats (except for a couple of contributions in this thread).

Don't worry. There's plenty more.

My last pictures are from this past month dude, the rudder post in the Oceanis and the failure bulkhead bonding, if you mean Negrini pics , no idea...

Leading to what conclusión? your conclusión right, since no one here say they need to be docked and out of the big blue!! cmon....

I bet you my 2 cents you cant found in google a aluminium boat with a failed bonded bulkhead... he he. but try, just for fun...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Oh, I thought that was how it worked around here. Because all we were seeing before was examples and photos of problems with production boats (one of Neil's dating back 6 years) - leading to the conclusion that they were crap and shouldn't be out there. There was nothing much about the failures in "superior" "bluewater" boats (except for a couple of contributions in this thread).

Don't worry. There's plenty more.

Hard to argue with facts, eh?

No, it really isn't. Unless you're unable to see through your own bias, are wedded to stereotyping owners of certain types of boats, or are insecure about your own experience, expertise & choice of boat.

Your information about mass production boats doing long passages, along with bluewater boats suffering from broken rudders, etc., is helpful & relevant, but hardly NEW! Do you actually believe your audience, comprised in part by a significant number of world cruisers, career marine technicians, professional engineers, etc. don't already know the obvious, namely that almost any type of boat has & will be subjected to sometimes harsh ocean sailing (Matt Rutherford!), and absolutely no boat -- no matter how strong the rep -- is immune from any & all sorts of mechanical breakdown. Why do you think the ARC requires every participant to carry an emerg. rudder?

What you seem to be missing is that these obvious facts -- known to all but the inexperienced -- are certainly relevant but only the beginning of the debate, not the end. Along with the fact that some of the largest selling mass-produced boats often make up a similarly large proportion of boats entered in rallies , and the equally obvious fact that older boats that have sailed countless miles suffer breakdowns , let's see what other revelations you have also managed to produce out of this informative thread (in no particular order of importance):

We have the "lists" you so thoughtfully introduced into the discussion. It's always interesting to see which boats highly skilled & experienced sailors include, but it's obviously not dispositive. I do think it's noteworthy, however, with the exception of the Beneteau First, that zero models of mass-produced boats appear. Yes, yes, I know about the mishaps with the Malo & others on the lists from your other thread. Congrats on that. But c'mon, not even ONE of the boats that you claim are so unfairly maligned appear on these lists?

OK, so let's go to the designers & engineers who create these beloved boats of yours. Well, we've read in this very thread that they are required to factor in cost at each & every stage of their design & build process. Case closed? Of course not. But why do you think so many cos. like Bristol have gone out of business? Hey, you asked right? Many factors of course, but definitely not because they were unable to sell every boat they produced. Certainly the cost of all the expensive hand labor that went into building them was a huge factor, much of it going into producing the most expensive components, namely the hull and its supporting structures. Good for their purchasers; not so good for business. Do you think the exorbitant price of a new Morris, for example, is just marketing?

Then there are the "Yard Guys" whose opinions you requested but then dismissed as "silly." They each commented on different issues but then independently had the same negative opinion about the structural integrity of the mass-produced boats. What could possibly motivate these professionals -- each in different parts of the world -- to be negative about boats that could very well be owned by a majority of their customers (based on sales nos.)?!

Finally, throw in the recent mishaps and loss of life -- certainly consistent with an aging fleet of mass-produced boats at this point in time -- and you have a lot of cumulative information from several different sources that coincide. Isn't this the consistency & "common sense" you keep saying you're only willing to believe?

You can always fall back on your well-worn theme that the traditional boat crowd are old, stodgy, conservative types that are resistant to change. But stereotyping is always the first and last gasp of any debate, is always misleading, and doesn't advance any useful information in any event. Besides, it makes you look . . . uhhh . . . ummm . . . what's the right word here . . . how about "silly"? Believe it or not, and regardless of my own subjective tastes & preferences, I would actually prefer that you or someone else come up with some plausible evidence that would garner more confidence. Having devoted their careers to the marine industry, wouldn't you think the "Yard Guys" would too? As a sailing enthusiast in a shrinking industry (at least in the U.S.), I would rather that the most modern boats being produced enjoyed a better reputation.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, it really isn't. Unless you're unable to see through your own bias, are wedded to stereotyping owners of certain types of boats, or are insecure about your own experience, expertise & choice of boat.

Your information about mass production boats doing long passages, along with bluewater boats suffering from broken rudders, etc., is helpful & relevant, but hardly NEW! Do you actually believe your audience, comprised in part by a significant number of world cruisers, career marine technicians, professional engineers, etc. don't already know the obvious, namely that almost any type of boat has & will be subjected to sometimes harsh ocean sailing (Matt Rutherford!), and absolutely no boat -- no matter how strong the rep -- is immune from any & all sorts of mechanical breakdown. Why do you think the ARC requires every participant to carry an emerg. rudder?

What you seem to be missing is that these obvious facts -- known to all but the inexperienced -- are certainly relevant but only the beginning of the debate, not the end. Along with the fact that some of the largest selling mass-produced boats often make up a similarly large proportion of boats entered in rallies , and the equally obvious fact that older boats that have sailed countless miles suffer breakdowns , let's see what other revelations you have also managed to produce out of this informative thread (in no particular order of importance):

We have the "lists" you so thoughtfully introduced into the discussion. It's always interesting to see which boats highly skilled & experienced sailors include, but it's obviously not dispositive. I do think it's noteworthy, however, with the exception of the Beneteau First, that zero models of mass-produced boats appear. Yes, yes, I know about the mishaps with the Malo & others on the lists from your other thread. Congrats on that. But c'mon, not even ONE of the boats that you claim are so unfairly maligned appear on these lists?

OK, so let's go to the designers & engineers who create these beloved boats of yours. Well, we've read in this very thread that they are required to factor in cost at each & every stage of their design & build process. Case closed? Of course not. But why do you think so many cos. like Bristol have gone out of business? Hey, you asked right? Many factors of course, but definitely not because they were unable to sell every boat they produced. Certainly the cost of all the expensive hand labor that went into building them was a huge factor, much of it going into producing the most expensive components, namely the hull and its supporting structures. Good for their purchasers; not so good for business. Do you think the exorbitant price of a new Morris, for example, is just marketing?

Then there are the "Yard Guys" whose opinions you requested but then dismissed as "silly." They each commented on different issues but then independently had the same negative opinion about the structural integrity of the mass-produced boats. What could possibly motivate these professionals -- each in different parts of the world -- to be negative about boats that could very well be owned by a majority of their customers (based on sales nos.)?!

Finally, throw in the recent mishaps and loss of life -- certainly consistent with an aging fleet of mass-produced boats at this point in time -- and you have a lot of cumulative information from several different sources that coincide. Isn't this the consistency & "common sense" you keep saying you're only willing to believe?

You can always fall back on your well-worn theme that the traditional boat crowd are old, stodgy, conservative types that are resistant to change. But stereotyping is always the first and last gasp of any debate, is always misleading, and doesn't advance any useful information in any event. Besides, it makes you look . . . uhhh . . . ummm . . . what's the right word here . . . how about "silly"? Believe it or not, and regardless of my own subjective tastes & preferences, I would actually prefer that you or someone else come up with some plausible evidence that would garner more confidence. Having devoted their careers to the marine industry, wouldn't you think the "Yard Guys" would too? As a sailing enthusiast in a shrinking industry (at least in the U.S.), I would rather that the most modern boats being produced enjoyed a better reputation.

I'll reply later. I'm getting some life coaching right now.

But, in short, this thread and the other are for the inexperienced.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I'll reply later. I'm getting some life coaching right now.

But, in short, this thread and the other are for the inexperienced.

Need time to Google up more broken rudder pics? Do tell, but truth be told you may be making some people panicky.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

No, it really isn't. Unless you're unable to see through your own bias, are wedded to stereotyping owners of certain types of boats, or are insecure about your own experience, expertise & choice of boat.

Actually, I think you've absolutely nailed the mindset of what you call (below) the "Traditional Boat Crowd" (TBC) - and what I was referring to as the "Blue Water Crowd" (BWC) you often see mentioned on forums. They are definitely wedded to stereotyping boats and owners of certain types of boats, etc.

See, I'm stereotyped as the "Hunter Bashee" - or the "Gullible Hype Believer" - or the guy who loves "Bendytoys" - or the gullible dude who gets "Mesmerized By a Shiny Brochure". So there is stereotyping everywhere. But that kind of stuff doesn't really bother me. It just needs challenging.

Remember, I've not made continual derogatory comments about "bluewater" boats. I've just defended production boats from very silly comments and "conclusions". I'll keep doing that.

Originally Posted by Exile

Your information about mass production boats doing long passages, along with bluewater boats suffering from broken rudders, etc., is helpful & relevant, but hardly NEW! Do you actually believe your audience, comprised in part by a significant number of world cruisers, career marine technicians, professional engineers, etc. don't already know the obvious, namely that almost any type of boat has & will be subjected to sometimes harsh ocean sailing (Matt Rutherford!), and absolutely no boat -- no matter how strong the rep -- is immune from any & all sorts of mechanical breakdown. Why do you think the ARC requires every participant to carry an emerg. rudder?

What you seem to be missing is that these obvious facts -- known to all but the inexperienced -- are certainly relevant but only the beginning of the debate, not the end.

As I said earlier - this is where you're misguided. This thread and the rudders thread is ABSOLUTELY for the inexperienced. They come to forums like this looking for information. I certainly did when I started sailing. And if there is only one side of the story they are not getting the whole story. And that can be very dangerous. We've seen that on this very forum.

So, as you say, it's very, very relevant at the beginning of the debate. I'm not really concerned what a small, but vocal set of "world cruisers, career marine technicians, professional engineers, etc." have to say if it's only one sided - and especially if there is lots of information out there from other "world cruisers, career marine technicians, professional engineers, etc." that contradicts them.

At the end of the day, people - even those inexperienced at sailing - are smart. They will figure it out. As long as they have access to FACTUAL information for BOTH sides of the debate. That's all I'm doing here - trying to provide that.

Originally Posted by Exile

We have the "lists" you so thoughtfully introduced into the discussion. It's always interesting to see which boats highly skilled & experienced sailors include, but it's obviously not dispositive. I do think it's noteworthy, however, with the exception of the Beneteau First, that zero models of mass-produced boats appear. Yes, yes, I know about the mishaps with the Malo & others on the lists from your other thread. Congrats on that. But c'mon, not even ONE of the boats that you claim are so unfairly maligned appear on these lists?

Why on earth should I care about some list one person puts together - especially one that, out of the 127 brands - roughly 75% of them are no longer in business? Many such lists have been around for years. And I COMPLETELY understand that production boats don't appeal to the "TBC" (as you call them).

Those lists are opinion. What I'm trying to focus on - and provide clear evidence for - is fact.

There are THOUSANDS of production boats out there happily sailing offshore in very blue water, while guys like Mr. Neal say that's not "advisable".

Again - I usually follow facts, not opinion. You are welcome to follow what ever you would like. But just remember, no Bristols have sailed the ARC for these last many years while many production boats have done so very successfully. Does that say anything about the blue water reliability of Bristols?

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, so let's go to the designers & engineers who create these beloved boats of yours. Well, we've read in this very thread that they are required to factor in cost at each & every stage of their design & build process. Case closed? Of course not. But why do you think so many cos. like Bristol have gone out of business? Hey, you asked right? Many factors of course, but definitely not because they were unable to sell every boat they produced. Certainly the cost of all the expensive hand labor that went into building them was a huge factor, much of it going into producing the most expensive components, namely the hull and its supporting structures. Good for their purchasers; not so good for business. Do you think the exorbitant price of a new Morris, for example, is just marketing?

Unless we're talking malfeasance or something, companies go out of business because demand for their product does not keep up. It's that simple. If it's a good product that effectively meets a real need in a market - people will buy it, and the company will grow. If the market shifts and the company can't or won't change they die.

What is so strange about Mr. Neal's (and others') list and your TBC's continual trumpeting of old, out-of-production boats as the best thing for blue water, is that the argument is essentially stuck in 1980. People don't buy those boats anymore.

So what does that leave? Simple. It leaves posters on forums directing inexperienced boat buyers to these old boats that have very likely used up their "cycles". At best, this means that these buyers will put a hell of a lot of money into these boats to bring them up to snuff - hopefully before things break. At worst, it means that the boat starts falling apart 800 miles off-shore and they have to be rescued (it happens).

Now...of course...not ALL the old boats are "bad". But, good grief, the vast majority of the newer production boats are a great value that are perfectly suited to off-shore cruising - yet "they are not on the list". They are inferior. That makes no sense.

As for your question about Morris. Sure, a lot of it is marketing. But there is no doubt that a lot of is also a higher level of craftsmanship and beefiness. They definitely have a niche. The real question, though, is will they make moves like Island Packet (using liners), etc. to deal with cost and stay competitive - and stay in business? More importantly, will their clientele let them?

We'll see.

Originally Posted by Exile

Then there are the "Yard Guys" whose opinions you requested but then dismissed as "silly." They each commented on different issues but then independently had the same negative opinion about the structural integrity of the mass-produced boats. What could possibly motivate these professionals -- each in different parts of the world -- to be negative about boats that could very well be owned by a majority of their customers (based on sales nos.)?!

I didn't dismiss every yard guys' opinion as silly. However, it very much depends on what we're talking about. Remember, all of this is very relative. In other words when someone has a "negative opinion about the structural integrity of the mass-produced boats" - the question is structural integrity for what and compared to what?

Remember, the starting place for production boats in these debates is that they "don't belong offshore". So, if the yard guys are saying that these boats are "too weak" for off-shore work, then there should be PLENTY of evidence for this view out there simply due to the HUGE number of production boats actually sailing offshore. If there are not clear problems across the fleet, then this claim doesn't really stand up does it?

It becomes silly when the facts don't match the claim.

On the other hand, if what the yard guys are saying is that a Hunter is not built nearly as well as, or with nearly the quality of a Hinckley or a Wally...that's not silly at all. There is plenty of fact out there to back that up.

So, again, it depends on exactly what the yard guy is claiming as to whether it's silly or not.

Originally Posted by Exile

Finally, throw in the recent mishaps and loss of life -- certainly consistent with an aging fleet of mass-produced boats at this point in time -- and you have a lot of cumulative information from several different sources that coincide. Isn't this the consistency & "common sense" you keep saying you're only willing to believe?

I've already said this many times...but, thus far, for me, the biggest concern right now from everything I've seen is the keel on the Bene Firsts (Cheeki Rafiki, etc.). There certainly seems to be something wrong there.

Apart from that, again judging by what I've seen with photographic evidence, etc. - I'm personally not convinced of any serious fleet-wide problems in any current line of modern production boats.

THAT SAID, I have also said many times that I DO believe the "shelf life" of production boats is definitely shorter than boats in the past. And that is going to be a very, very interesting study over the next several years as to how that plays out. What is that "shelf life"? And how does its end manifest itself?

But, that is EXACTLY why I think it's a horrible idea to point inexperienced boat buyers to 40+ year old boats that happen to be "on the list". There is just as much danger lurking there. No question.

Originally Posted by Exile

You can always fall back on your well-worn theme that the traditional boat crowd are old, stodgy, conservative types that are resistant to change. But stereotyping is always the first and last gasp of any debate, is always misleading, and doesn't advance any useful information in any event. Besides, it makes you look . . . uhhh . . . ummm . . . what's the right word here . . . how about "silly"?

Well, the stereotyping was happening LONG before I got here. "Bendytoy" anyone? "Hunter Bashing" anyone? And as a proud BHL sailor (BeneHunterLina) - I could honestly care less about how I or my boat is stereotyped, etc.

As I've told you many times, I don't go after the boats owned and sailed by the TBC (Traditional Boat Crowd) or BWC (Blue Water Crowd) or however you want to refer to this group you're talking about. They're fine boats that, for the most part, do just fine offshore.

So are modern BeneHunterLinas.

Originally Posted by Exile

Believe it or not, and regardless of my own subjective tastes & preferences, I would actually prefer that you or someone else come up with some plausible evidence that would garner more confidence. Having devoted their careers to the marine industry, wouldn't you think the "Yard Guys" would too? As a sailing enthusiast in a shrinking industry (at least in the U.S.), I would rather that the most modern boats being produced enjoyed a better reputation.

Maybe the best place to start would be looking at what modern boats are actually accomplishing out there instead of continually pouring over old lists they are not on.

[Terra Nova]

Unsubscribed.

[smackdaddy]

Ex - you mentioned Morris. Here's a great article about the Morris 45, and a very telling quote that fits what we are talking about:



Morris 45 Sailboat Review | Cruising World

This is no throwaway raceboat nor high-volume production boat built to a price point. The best materials are combined with traditional construction practices-like a through-bolted hull/deck joint, beefy backing plates, and tabbed bulkheads-in a yacht intended to last for generations.

If people continue to insist on buying a sailboat they intend to keep for generations, they have their market.

But you should also read this about how tough it really is:

http://www.proboat.com/morris-yachts-core-repair.html

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Ex - you mentioned Morris. Here's a great article about the Morris 45, and a very telling quote that fits what we are talking about:



Morris 45 Sailboat Review | Cruising World

If people continue to insist on buying a sailboat they intend to keep for generations, they have their market.

But you should also read this about how tough it really is:

Morris Yachts Core Repair - Professional BoatBuilder Magazine

Is not about if last a generation or 2 , they have customers who want quality and they can afford that quality, you know the meaning of QUALITY?

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Is not about if last a generation or 2 , they have customers who want quality and they can afford that quality, you know the meaning of QUALITY?

Hey - don't gripe at me bro...it's their marketing language!