Sudden Attraction to Hunters

[xxuxx]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

Light compared to what? The 42' Passage that I looked at when I started this is 24,000 lbs displacement. That isn't all that light for it's size unless you are comparing it to something like a 70's tank boat. Heck my current attraction is to a 44' boat that's only 23,500 lbs displacement.

And how come we always go back to the "crossing oceans" or major strom on any boat discussion? Why is is acceptable to pick a boat based on the less than 1% use time sail and suffer the other 99% of the time; instead of picking a boat good for the 99% of use time that may be uncomfortable that other 1% (and what boat really is comfortable for that 1%)?

Handholds seem to always come up; well install some! Isn't that part of boat fit out for cruising anyway, to fit out your boat for it's planned use?

SOMEBODY GIVE THAT MAN A CEEEGAR!!! Do you hear that...ole farts? Ole predjudice farts? Its the old 99% vs 1% rule.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by capt.bobfm

Sure Hunters are generally fast, it is because they are light. The B.R.rig was designed as a racing rig, that is why down wind proformance was sacraficed. The underwater profile on most Hunters is strictly a racing configuration. I have taught a lot of people how to sail on many Hunters ranging from 26ft. to 49ft. They are (almost all)a blast to sail but I wouldnt want to cross an ocean on one. Do you really want to go cruising in a boat that is designed to race? There is no skeg, you really should have a spinaker for downwind work,the metecentric hight is high(making the ride snappy and uncomfortable on long passages),most models have fue if any convient hand holds below.Sure sail your Hunter for weekend excursions or even a week or two near shore, but youre a tougher sailor than me if you can feel happy and safe cruising in the real ocean for an extended period of time.

Light- someone already dispelled that one but if that isn't sufficient, compare them to Beneteaus to see which is "light"
B&R rig - largely irrelevant to anyone who properly sails DDW only with a shute
underwater profile is strictly racing - anybody ever seen a Hunter with a 7 ft fin keel?
Designed to race? ever seen a flat underwater profile on a Hunter? somebody must have glued a Beneteau nameplate on it.

It seems to me these criticisms are purely a result of either the mine-is-better-than-yours syndrome or expressed by folks who think criticism makes them sound authoritative.

[eyschulman]

It seems that we are back to the old argument about clam crusher keels vs. modern fins and spade ruuders with the addition of overall build weight-I thought Bob Perry put that matter to rest when he designed the Valiant way back when.In the same time it takes a fin keel ocean designed boat such as a J/44 to cross a pond a clam crusher will still be out there for weeks running down its supplies and risking bad weather. Also should the wind clock to on the nose the difference in time to safe port increases dramaticly. My previous J/44 would typically out sail the clam crushers to port or up the sound by a margin of 3-4 to 1 and the boat was quite seaworthy. I wonder if the pro clam crushers did a couple passages on boats like that if they might change the opinions they have. Slow is not in of itself safe and its not much fun.

[sv-Mystique]

AMEN Don!

I have sailed my exact same boat in the Bahamas, Spanish Virgins and left my Bene on a ball in the BVI's to day sail with a cruising couple that sailed from the Great Lakes. Most that have a negative word never owned or sailed a Hunter. I have sailed on many "cruising boats" Valiants, Tayanas, Masons, Freeports, Islanders, Baba's, Pandas and could run my mouth on my negative opinions but don't because what value would that bring to the community?

[Curmudgeon]

The issue with Hunters isn't the design, it's the build quality.

As for the fin vs full keel debate, the fin keel/spade rudder is great for going to weather, but not so great when you hit something. But that is a separate issue.

[Ocean Girl]

The only trait a Hunter owner must have is thick skin.
Erika

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Ocean Girl

The only trait a Hunter owner must have is thick skin.
Erika

no kidding, Erika!

Before I purchased my first Hunter, I campaigned several high-status racing boats. People thought I was a rock star because I won six consecutive YC fleet championships and placed in the silver in five national championships in these boats. Then, after discovering cruising and deciding to live aboard, I purchased my first Hunter. It was the best boat I could afford on a teacher's salary. My wife loved the boat because it wasn't dark and damp down below, and I appreciated it because I'm 6'3" tall and I wasn't wacking my head every time I stood up. But all the sudden, people started treating me like I didn't know anything about sailing.

Hello?

When I bought my second Hunter, we entered her into 6 beer can races in my home club, each race run under PHRF rules with between 25 and 35 boats. We ran those races with OEM sails, and won four of the six races.

WTF?

It's not about the brand, folks. It's about the crew. (And I'll admit that I had an advantage because I'm faculty advisor of a university sailing team, and I had some pretty talented crew. But the fact remains that we kicked butt on a Hunter that people were living aboard.)

I'm amazed at the number of newbs who join this forum, purchase a boat for less than 1/10th what I paid for mine, and consider themselves to have a superior ride because the've purchased a boat that some boat broker told them that it's a "bluewater boat" precisely because it isn't one of those Benetau-Hunter-Catalina-Juneau production boats.

It's not about the brand, folks. Cruisers ought to know that.

[gr8trn]

I know a guy who cruises up and down the west coast with his Hunter and he drives an late model M3.
What I am saying is that this guy is not afraid to cruise on a comfortable more affordable, simpler to sail production boat yet he understands what a real performance auto is.
I think he is not confused, merely choosing the right boat for his purpose.
Silly man!

Greg

[Curmudgeon]

There's nothing wrong with owning and enjoying a Chevy Malibu. Just don't try to argue that it's really just as good as a Mercedes or that it will protect you as well as a Mercedes if you drive into a tree.

[nautical62]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

...And how come we always go back to the "crossing oceans" or major strom on any boat discussion? Why is is acceptable to pick a boat based on the less than 1% use time sail and suffer the other 99% of the time?.....

Don, this is what I don't get either. What purpose would it have served to spend more on a passage making boat than I did on my Hunter when my Hunter was fine for my intended purpose of Florida and Bahamas sailing?

To bring in the car analogy: Driving a 10-year old economy car is what frees up the funds for me to go cruising on an educator's income. Why forgo cruising in favor or a more expensive car when my current one gets me to work just fine? Why wait years to buy a more expensive boat, when I can buy a Hunter that allows me to go cruising where I want to cruise right now?

I think few of us buy Hunters because we believe they are the best cruising boat ever made. We buy them because they are the best choice given our needs, availability and finances.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There's nothing wrong with owning and enjoying a Chevy Malibu. Just don't try to argue that it's really just as good as a Mercedes or that it will protect you as well as a Mercedes if you drive into a tree.

If you want to buy a car that actually has the build quality and reliability of a Mercedes, then buy a Toyota

[holmek]

Well said Don Lucas, Buy a boat thats pretty and fit it out to your standards. Don't blame the factory for any shortcomings. Your seamanship and experience makes your boat suitable for the voyage.

[mintyspilot]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

If you want to buy a car that actually has the build quality and reliability of a Mercedes, then buy a Toyota

I've owned two Toyotas and they never broke down. Ever. I put over 100,000 miles on both of them and they were starting to wear out, but between them they gave me 13 years of trouble free motoring.

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

There's nothing wrong with owning and enjoying a Chevy Malibu. Just don't try to argue that it's really just as good as a Mercedes or that it will protect you as well as a Mercedes if you drive into a tree.

Has MB's marketing and advertizing actually worked?
Having owned two different MBs, my experience is that their marketing far exceeds their construction practices. About the best which could be said is that we paid extra for their fancy advertizing.

Having owned both a Hunter and a MB, my experience is that the Mercedes had far more design and construction faults but then that advertizing does cost a pretty penny..

[sledjockey]

Wayne's Rule #20

Packaging is a direct representation of how bad a product sucks.



I am not an expert or even a novice of any sort. I have been shopping a lot of boats in the Pacific Northwest as of late, however. I have noticed that compared to boats of similar years and sizes, it seems that all the Hunters I have looked at are in a similar state of repair as other brands. In another words, they have held up about the same as other brands have.

Disclaimer: Again, this is only a casual observation from walking around and "kicking the keel" on boats at the pier. We have, however, looked at several hundred boats over the last year all in the 38 - 45 ft range and from the mid '70's to present.

So far, the wife and I like the newer Hunters and Beneteaus best due to their layout and potential livability factor.