The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Two years ago I met I guy sailing around the world in almost new Hanse 54. Not his boat he's just skippering it for the investor owner and taking paid charterers on, etc. Anyway, since that time he replaced (not repaired - replaced) a rudder three times (!), two of which were definitely not his fault, as the hardware failed technically and/or rudder delaminated severely, and 3rd time is open to interpretation. Not to mention a lot of other stuff which he had to replace on the fly as he realized some 1,000s of miles in the middle of nowhere that the boat was not set up for serious cruising. And that's a 54 footer. Do you think they make their 40footers any better? Now I understand that people will say that even a new boat needs to be "beefed up" before a world cruise, etc. May be, especially if that boat is marketed as a coastal cruiser. But if it is marketed as "blue water boat", IMO, it must be a blue water boat from the get go. Otherwise it will be just like the fake SUVs of many manufacturers when they slap an SUV body on a sedan frame and then are suprised why their "SUVs" are not doing that well in the bush.

My point with this thread is that, over the years, I've heard LOTS of second-hand stories about all kinds of boats and problems, etc. I generally put them in the same category as fishing stories.

It is always MUCH better to actually SEE these kinds of problems with photos like have already been presented. Then we can all draw our own conclusions - while the Yard Guys can show off their handiwork.

For example, did you see minaret's post about the Pacific Seacraft rudder?

Now, did I or anyone else make the assertion that Pacific Seacraft yachts have poorly built rudders and shouldn't be offshore? Hell no. I've personally driven and crewed 600+ offshore miles on one before it went on a successful circ. It's a fine boat - maybe not my style - but definitely a fine boat.

And a couple of people who own them asked some questions because of min's post. That's good.

What about the Hylas 70? Did I or anyone else make the assertion that "well, the crappy freezer foam is just an indication of shoddy workmanship and materials throughout the boat". Of course not.

But, some people are comfortable doing just that if it's a production boat. And I think that's just as silly as if I were to do the same with one of these boats.

So - let the photos from the yards - or anywhere else people can find such visual evidence - speak for themselves. Let people cross-check what is being claimed with what's actually happening out there (e.g. - in the ARC, C1500, etc.) Otherwise, it's just a lot of "I heard from a guy..."

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I'm starting this thread as a result of my obscenely popular thread "Rudder Failures".

One of the recurring sentiments in that thread is that if you really want to know about the quality of any boat - you should ask The Yard Guys. And the dustier the guy the better.

The reason for this thread is simple...by seeing the various common problems The Yard Guys have to fix, you can begin to see if the boat you're interested in (regardless of brand) exhibits common problems that you need to be aware of.

Who's gonna start?

Around here, (Michigan) you want to look at the under-sides in the spring. Fresh water freezes in the crappy foam core of typical rudders. You will find the tell-tale weeping leaker on many boat rudders. This can't be fixed by patching over the crack. By the time it is this bad the foam is saturated and must be totally removed, possibly up to a rudder re-build. The other one to look for is water leaks from around the keel to hull interface. Often, the hulls are holding serious water by spring. If the winter tarp is intact & maintained that is a good sign. Tattered or missing winter cover says deep water may be inside; wet decks & wet bulkheads.

If you want to see my own rudder mess go to my photos. I will never fill any continuously immersed item (rudder) with anything but 100% waterproof syntactic foam. I use US Composites 635 THIN epoxy with 3-M micro-balloons as filler. 3 gallons of epoxy with 10 gallons of balloons. Blend in plastic buckets with a dry-wall mixer & BIG drill motor. Member Galleries - Cruisers & Sailing Photo Gallery

[smackdaddy]

Thanks Nicho.

[neilpride]

Smack its a fact, you're never going to accept any clear proof simply because you are denied to accept facts, then post clear proofs here its a waste of time , i think you are trolling on us ,, i show you a plexus failure in a bulkhead , you say wow !!! thats something, posts later you charge again with some weird argument against the proof, if i show you a grid liner in a hunter completely loose from the hull you are going to find a weak argument against the fact,... what you looking for is resting in 3000 ft in the ocean....

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I made the mistake of using the general "you" in my replies to you and Exile. That's not what I meant.

When I typed "if you hit boats..." etc, I wasn't implying that YOU hit boats. I certainly assume that you don't. I meant it as "if one hits boats..." etc. So, I'll try to be more clear on those details. I didn't mean it the way you took it.

Apart from that - I'm providing another side of this argument. The ONLY thing I've called out in this thread are conclusions about what is being shown in some of these photos.

In other words, to conclude from the Bene/trawler pics that Benes are dangerously underbuilt makes no sense whatsoever. For me to say I personally don't buy that conclusion takes no "credibility" whatsoever. There are far too many of these boats out there doing very well to simply believe this at face value.

So - my disbelief may upset you guys, but I can't help that. I'm not going to believe something just because someone says it - regardless of who they are.

As to the photos, those were intended to show that ANY boat (even "well-built" ones with "heavy lay-ups") can and will sustain catastrophic damage in a serious collision or grounding. Trying to make a generalized distinction is actually very dangerous for new boat buyers who might think they can ram a trawler in their 1975 HalbergRico and carry on as if nothing happened - or, worse, one who thinks they can buy one that has been through something like that and just "fix it up".

I got it the first time that you weren't directing your comments about sailors hitting other boats at me or anyone else. But are you really suggesting that people intentionally or recklessly hit other boats, and if they believe they have a better built boat they will be that much more cavalier about it? If not, then are you discounting the foreseeability of hitting hard objects accidentally while ocean cruising, even after several full-time ocean cruisers on this thread have advised and given examples of just that? Or maybe you believe, without knowing any of the particulars, that hitting a steel trawler will unquestioningly cause more damage than hitting a steel container, a submerged rock, or a concrete piling? If so, then Jim's last question about the extent of your ocean sailing experience becomes quite relevant. Perhaps you should tell us?

You asked for opinions from yard guys about problems they're seeing on boats. Jim responded with photos of a Bene that hit a steel trawler, fractured its bow, and took on water. Jim then reported the opinion of the yard guys that they believed the Bene was not built as strong as other boats, presumably those involved in similar incidents (but don't really know). Isn't this exactly what you asked for when starting this thread? I don't recall those same yard guys being attributed with claiming that "Benes are dangerously underbuilt." That may very well be the conclusion of some on this thread, but I didn't read that from Jim.

This is the third big Bene I've either seen or read about who had a fractured bow due to a collision. The Bristol 32 I mentioned crushed its bow but the captain/owner reported no open fractures that allowed water in. I lost reverse gear coming into a slip one time and smacked a piling so hard that I heard a couple of women start screaming over on the next pier. My boat bounced off with no damage (although the piling didn't look so good). On the other hand, and as you point out, there are plenty of Bene's and other mass-produced boats cruising the oceans, many without incident presumably.

There's plenty of evidence & information from both sides of the debate. But people will form their own conclusions based on the relevant facts, not from hyperbole, embellishment, or implausible rhetoric.

[cpa]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

As usual, FWIW, and just to get away from this discussion a bit:

I took the attached photos of the bow of a Bene Oceanus 47 that had had a collision with a steel trawler. Anything other than another steel boat would likely have suffered some damage from such an incident, but this did reveal how thin and flimsy the layup in this specific boat was. The failure of the bow structure brought down the rig as well... something that might not have happened if the bow, even though FRP, was more robustly built. I'm not learned enough to draw useful conclusions from this incident, but perhaps some of you are.

Oh... the venue was the marina yard at Yamba, NSW, and the boat was eventually repaired (at great expense) by grafting on a new bow moulding shipped in from France. I do not know if insurance was involved. The folks who repaired her were quite vocal about the poor construction, layup and schedule of construction in the whole boat.

Jim

Yikes that looks like paper mache. Thanks for sharing the pictures. I sold and commissioned Beneteaus in the mid 2000s. I was never impressed with the quality and would constantly try to steer my "future" blue water cruiser clients towards higher quality brokerage boats.

[cpa]

Also I have sailed and been on more that a few of the 1980s vintage Beneteau First boats (FC10, 35, 42, 456) and they were much better built. Very nice boats.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

I got it the first time that you weren't directing your comments about sailors hitting other boats at me or anyone else. But are you really suggesting that people intentionally or recklessly hit other boats, and if they believe they have a better built boat they will be that much more cavalier about it? If not, then are you discounting the foreseeability of hitting hard objects accidentally while ocean cruising, even after several full-time ocean cruisers on this thread have advised and given examples of just that?

I'm glad you understood that. I guess others didn't.

In any case, of course I'm not discounting the possibility of hitting something at sea. It happens. But for one to believe that because he's bought a "bluewater" boat on John Neal's "Boats To Consider for Offshore Cruising" list he'll be just fine out there if he does hit something...he's dreaming. Here is one from Neal's list, a Sweden 45, sinking at sea after having its rudder assembly ripped out by a collision with something:

Yacht sinking - YouTube

Originally Posted by Exile

You asked for opinions from yard guys about problems they're seeing on boats. Jim responded with photos of a Bene that hit a steel trawler, fractured its bow, and took on water. Jim then reported the opinion of the yard guys that they believed the Bene was not built as strong as other boats, presumably those involved in similar incidents (but don't really know). Isn't this exactly what you asked for when starting this thread? I don't recall those same yard guys being attributed with claiming that "Benes are dangerously underbuilt." That may very well be the conclusion of some on this thread, but I didn't read that from Jim.

This is the third big Bene I've either seen or read about who had a fractured bow due to a collision. The Bristol 32 I mentioned crushed its bow but the captain/owner reported no open fractures that allowed water in. I lost reverse gear coming into a slip one time and smacked a piling so hard that I heard a couple of women start screaming over on the next pier. My boat bounced off with no damage (although the piling didn't look so good). On the other hand, and as you point out, there are plenty of Bene's and other mass-produced boats cruising the oceans, many without incident presumably.

There's plenty of evidence & information from both sides of the debate. But people will form their own conclusions based on the relevant facts, not from hyperbole, embellishment, or implausible rhetoric.

Generally I agree. You mean hyperbole, embellishment, or implausible rhetoric like this?

Originally Posted by neilpride

Look ,,, im involved in the restoration of 2 beneteaus right now after hurricane Gonzalo strike St Marteen, one is a Brand new Oceanis 50 , the other is a 45 same vintage, the 50 get holed in the bow and in starboard side, stern is holed to, it take wáter, a lot, rudder is bend , if i remember a same Oceanis 50 get rudder post problems in the north atlantic this year, well trust me if i say that after inspect deeply all the interior damage and system i just reach the conclusión that beneteau want their customers to be screwed in some isolated spot in the blue ocean somewhere, Lame and sad....

Originally Posted by robert sailor

The Beneteau 50 is probably more boat than either of the Bavarias and it came to grief and sunk when the plywood bulkheads held in place with glue failed to do the job when the skipper and crew ran into some rougher weather in the north Atlantic. Watching that video was enough for me as I watched the boat come apart in conditions that it should have been able to deal with, it just wasn't that bad, I've certainly been in a lot worse.

Originally Posted by neilpride

Is not, properly fiberglass tabbing is by far the stronger and better metod to fit bulkheads , partitions , stringers etc.. what Plexus and some builders try to sell you is just pure BS marketing, the builder can save a lot of money dropping a liner just in time when a single guy with a pneumatic gun is shooting plexus, haaa yes the crapy profit and cut corners,,,,

Originally Posted by minaret

You thought wrong. Bonding with plexus is never as good as a laminate-never. Its strictly a money saver for the builder. Liners mean cheap poor construction, period.

Originally Posted by cpa

Yikes that looks like paper mache. Thanks for sharing the pictures. I sold and commissioned Beneteaus in the mid 2000s. I was never impressed with the quality and would constantly try to steer my "future" blue water cruiser clients towards higher quality brokerage boats.

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Fiberglass reinforcement over a large area is much better structurally than gluing two things together at a narrow strip especially when one part is a piece of plywood. Any decent NA will agree with that. The plywood will fail long before the glue. The fiberglass tabbing adds strength to the plywood. The glue does not.

Originally Posted by minaret

Perhaps because he's not being paid large sums of money for his opinion, unlike the fellows who made that "study", you might consider he is being more honest?

Originally Posted by neilpride

Third.. The top of the rudder post , and this part is really funny and horrible at the same time, the top part is resting in something similar to a Ikea salón table, kind of a set of Plywood partitions , the ply panels are assembled with the Green snot again, WTF!! not a single fillet of resin of fiberglass anywhere!!! believe me, bottom and sides glued with plexus... Do you understand now why Blue Pearl loose the top bulkhead ????

Now go ahead and call me Production boat maniac, maybe, but i hate to see this things in boats who suppose have a A CE Ocean Liner Certification....

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

...but hitting SOME floating or fixed object is a fairly common experience. The oft mentioned shipping container, a log, another yacht (especially whilst racing), a fuel dock... these sorts of collisions are pretty common, and the degree of damage sustained from them can mean survival or non survival if it happens out to sea.

Originally Posted by avb3

I think you should recognize that it takes very few incidents to cause a signficant recall by automobile manufacturers.

I would think if there are any number of safety issues that our community becomes aware of, it is an issue. Remember, air line safety came about by EACH accident being investigated, and the issue addressed. Why should expect anything less from our sailboat manufacturers? There is no reason to brush any incident of a potential hazard under the table.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I took the attached photos of the bow of a Bene Oceanus 47 that had had a collision with a steel trawler. Anything other than another steel boat would likely have suffered some damage from such an incident, but this did reveal how thin and flimsy the layup in this specific boat was. The failure of the bow structure brought down the rig as well... something that might not have happened if the bow, even though FRP, was more robustly built.

Just a sampling.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

That's exactly why this failure in this Bene is so interesting. First, to your point cole - it certainly seems that gluing to a varnished piece of plywood would be the culprit. BUT, the thesis states that Plexus will form a strong bond to common marine substrates WITHOUT prep. Second, the bond didn't fail at the plywood on that Bene...it failed at the glass where you'd think it would be the strongest.





Neil, I completely understand flex, cycles, fatigue, etc. in boats. And, as stated in that thesis, Plexus is both strong and flexible. So, was it over-flexing in really rough seas that caused that failure? Was it an impact? Or, more troublesome, was it simply X number of flex cycles over X number of years?

If the latter, we should start seeing a lot of this exact problem across the fleet. And that's a huge problem. If the former, what's the big deal with this single failure on this Bene?

If anything, what I see in these photos is a pretty crappy application (poor radius, thin application, etc.) Of course, I still don't know exactly what we're looking at here. But it definitely failed whatever it is.

Okay - back to this particular failure and why it happened. Look at the bonding in the photos above, compared with the bonding in this photo that Neil also posted:



These fillets look much more like what we saw in the thesis (i.e. - correct) - and COMPLETELY different than what is shown in the above failure photos. Why?

It would certainly seem to me that the photos of the above failed bond show very poor workmanship - not weak bonding. Now whether that poor workmanship happened at Beneteau or at a yard somewhere - who knows?

But, something definitely does not add up with these photos.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by cpa

Also I have sailed and been on more that a few of the 1980s vintage Beneteau First boats (FC10, 35, 42, 456) and they were much better built. Very nice boats.

When did they move some of its production to US?

[unbusted67]

This thread should be called "how to give a boat owner a panic attack"


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

I'm glad you understood that. I guess others didn't.

In any case, of course I'm not discounting the possibility of hitting something at sea. It happens. But for one to believe that because he's bought a "bluewater" boat on John Neal's "Boats To Consider for Offshore Cruising" list he'll be just fine out there if he does hit something...he's dreaming. Here is one from Neal's list, a Sweden 45, sinking at sea after having its rudder assembly ripped out by a collision with something:

Generally I agree. You mean hyperbole, embellishment, or implausible rhetoric like this?























Just a sampling.

Not trying to be flip, just attempting to follow your logic here:

If this can happen to a Sweden 45 (presumably a "bluewater" boat but I don't know), then it can happen to any boat. So why not buy something inexpensive, mass-produced & "modern" that goes fast and has lots of amenities? That's what Epirbs are for, after all, and there will always be another boat around to perform a rescue.

Funny, I immediately reach the opposite conclusion:

If that can happen to a sturdily built "bluewater" boat, then the last thing I want to do is buy something that is not as well built. Silly me.

But then we're back to whether mass-produced & cheaper = inferior. I personally didn't need further convincing, but fortunately for others who may not be so convinced you provided a convenient & highly persuasive summary of opinions from experienced boatyard technicians, long-time & full-time cruisers, a retired physicist, a guy who recently completed a top to bottom refit on his own boat, and more likely one or two engineers just to round out the mix. But this is your thread, where are all the opinions you were looking for which talk about the high build quality of modern, mass-produced boats?

The thing I've always appreciated about CF, as opposed to some of the other sailing forums I've checked out, is that it's not very difficult -- even for a relatively inexperienced guy like me -- to pretty quickly figure out who's got the credentials and, equally importantly, who doesn't.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

If this can happen to a Sweden 45 (presumably a "bluewater" boat but I don't know), then it can happen to any boat. So why not buy something inexpensive, mass-produced & "modern" that goes fast and has lots of amenities? That's what Epirbs are for, after all, and there will always be another boat around to perform a rescue.

Funny, I immediately reach the opposite conclusion:

If that can happen to a sturdily built "bluewater" boat, then the last thing I want to do is buy something that is not as well built. Silly me.

But then we're back to whether mass-produced & cheaper = inferior.

Buy what you want. The point here is that these kinds of problems are not at all limited to production boats. Clearly. But that always seems to be the thrust of these "bluewater" conversations - a la the trawlered Bene.

THAT thesis, that thrust, is wholly inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Exile

I personally didn't need further convincing, but fortunately for others who may not be so convinced you provided a convenient & highly persuasive summary of opinions from experienced boatyard technicians, long-time & full-time cruisers, a retired physicist, a guy who recently completed a top to bottom refit on his own boat, and more likely one or two engineers just to round out the mix. But this is your thread, where are all the opinions you were looking for which talk about the high build quality of modern, mass-produced boats?

Again - I've not talked about the "high build quality of modern, mass-produced boats" - I've questioned and/or countered the continuing claims that they are so "low quality that they do not belong offshore - that they are not bluewater boats". Again there is ample evidence out there that this thesis is wholly inaccurate.

So where does that leave us?

Originally Posted by Exile

The thing I've always appreciated about CF, as opposed to some of the other sailing forums I've checked out, is that it's not very difficult -- even for a relatively inexperienced guy like me -- to pretty quickly figure out who's got the credentials and, equally importantly, who doesn't.

If "credentials" are all you need to believe something - good for you. But, you'll find plenty of people with plenty of credentials who say completely different things. There's a reason "get a second opinion" is a valid statement.

For me, the facts have to line up for it to be believable. "Credentials" don't mean squat if that doesn't happen.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

This thread should be called "how to give a boat owner a panic attack"


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

HE he he ,.,,,, now thats funy!!!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Buy what you want. The point here is that these kinds of problems are not at all limited to production boats. Clearly. But that always seems to be the thrust of these "bluewater" conversations - a la the trawlered Bene.

THAT thesis, that thrust, is wholly inaccurate.



Again - I've not talked about the "high build quality of modern, mass-produced boats" - I've questioned and/or countered the continuing claims that they are so "low quality that they do not belong offshore - that they are not bluewater boats". Again there is ample evidence out there that this thesis is wholly inaccurate.

So where does that leave us?



If "credentials" are all you need to believe something - good for you. But, you'll find plenty of people with plenty of credentials who say completely different things. There's a reason "get a second opinion" is a valid statement.

For me, the facts have to line up for it to be believable. "Credentials" don't mean squat if that doesn't happen.

"You'll find plenty of people with plenty of credentials who say completely different things. There's a reason "get a second opinion" is a valid statement."

You just provided us not only with a 2nd opinion, but with 11! If your test is suddenly now that these boats "don't belong offshore," that's quite a bit different than the long list of opinions of them having a lower build quality which comports with their lower price. Are you setting the goalposts further back on us?

I don't think anyone who has ever owned a boat would dispute that any & all sorts of problems can & will afflict any & all types of boats. I think everyone would concede that mass-produced boats have done circumnavigations, that a Hunter has sailed around Cape Horn, and that so-called "bluewater" boats have lost rudders, thru-hulls, masts, and been holed. Got it, over it, done.

So where are all the people you cite, with the credentials you don't think are important, who are saying that the less expensive production processes & materials used in building mass-produced boats result in vessels as structurally sound & therefore seaworthy as more traditional "bluewater" boats? Did I frame the question OK for you?