Oyster Problems?

[rocma]

Originally Posted by Polux

You mean Hanse and Bavaria are for you more crap than Jeanneau and Beneteau? or are you thinking about other German manufacturers? Dehler? Comfortina? Sirius? Moody, Vilm?

Ofcourse I mean Bavaria and Hanse. Who else! On the one hand they made boating more accessible to a much larger group BUT they are the ones that have changed the whole market to what it is today and pulled the Jeanneau´s and Beneteau´s to their level. Take a say 15 year old Beneteau of Jeanneau or look at one now. I have run a charterfleet of 15 Beneteau´s, Feelings, Jeanneau´s and have seen them change......unfortunately not for the better.

The biggest problem is now that there is very little choice in between. There are very few brands "in the quality middle" of any size. X-Yachts is the only one I can really think of.

By the way Dehler and Moody are owned and built by Hanse. Like Dufour and Grand Soleil are owned by Bavaria. Vilm, Sirius and Comfortina play no role as a major boat builder in all this and have no influence on the total market at all. They are in a niche market, with low production rates (well built boats though).

Anyway, this topic is spiraling out of context now.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

On this and on the Bendy thread (and on others related) There are two fundamental question to be answered . . . .which is how strong and reliable should our boats be?

-------------------------
1. Should they be as strong and reliable as commercial jets - eg near 6 sigma?

2. Should they be as strong and reliable as good passenger cars - eg near 4 sigma?

3. Right now, private production sail boats are near 2 sigma overall.
---------------------------

a. Should they be able to handle all weather on a 100% duty cycle with minimal maintenance?

b. Should they be able to handle 'summer' weather on a 10% duty cycle with annual DIY maintenance and pro survey immediately after any 'incident'?

c. Should they be able to handle flat water with under 25 kts with complete pro strip down after every sail (some racing yachts are in this category)?
---------------------------------

There is obviously no consensus on these baic questions on this forum. I don't see how any of you can expect to come to agreement on more complex related issues until you at least agree on the basic objectives.

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone apply these concepts to boats.

Cruising boats, even high production boats, are built according to basically medieval, artisanal methods compared to real mass production. More akin to, say, carpentry, than to production as we know it in other fields. But because of the very low volumes involved, it would be quite a trick if someone could figure out how to build a boat as a complete system, with serious analysis and optimization of how it works, as a complete system. I reckon Henri Amel's approach is the closest, but that is still only, say, enhanced carpentry.


I guess if you put aside all the questions of systems, and concentrate on the structure, then in my opinion a boat used offshore and in different weather conditions should never break, "never" in the statistical sense of Sigma 6. "Practically never under any circumstances", I guess, would be better. It should be designed to withstand any forces which the owner, the sea, and the weather could subject it to, and the method of construction should be chosen, and the construction process should be controlled, in a way to eliminate the risk of structural failure to the level of Sigma 6.

With regard to structure, at least, it seems that this can be done without an army of statisticians and QC people a la Jack Welch using traditional methods of formulating scantlings, and "hero" methods of construction based on a culture of high artisanal skill and quality at the level of the workers (very different from modern mass production where using the right methods, even monkeys can produce quality work). No cruising boat is made, or used offshore, in volumes which would let us see that a given Sigma level has been achieved, but the absence of achieving it can be visible -- a keel or rudder falling off one out of 50 or one out of 10 000 boats means the structure is absolutely not at even Sigma 5. And that's just the structure, not the boat as a whole, which might acceptably be much less reliable.

And I guess that's why people are so alarmed about these cases.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe this edit (in bold) of my comment above will clear things up:

When it comes to failures of basic structural components such as hulls, keels & rudders, there is understandable and usually justifiable alarm, regardless of which brand happens to suffer the failure.
....
Now, are YOU sure you really want to say that the hull delamination, keel detachment, capsize & sinking of a multi-million dollar Oyster "has nothing to do with meeting the minimum standards?" I would suggest that such a "mistake," whether attributable to a design or a construction defect, that causes such a course of events has indeed failed to meet a minimum standard, however defined.

Yes, I do really have misunderstood you in what regards what you mean with all brands. It was not intentional and I apologize.

Regarding the Oyster problem having to do with meeting the minimum standards I do believe that is not the case. Oyster is not a brand specialized in inexpensive boats, quite the contrary and all its boats go way over the minimum standards, but it is relevant that you think it was the case

What happens is that there have been a demand among Oyster owners (and not only) for better sailing and faster boats. Faster boats imply lighter boats but not necessarily more fragile boats and that is only possible with high tech building methods, better building materials and smart engineering saving weight were it is not needed and maintaining the structural integrity.

On the last years Oyster have been following that route with success but regarding this boat obviously something had failed. It can be a building defect (as it was pointed out vacuum infusion can be a tricky process that will allow big weight savings maintaining the same strength but that needs very good monitorization) or a design miscalculation.

Oysters are not built to a minimum, If the boats were built to a minimum more expensive techniques like vacuum infusion and more expensive materials like vinylester resins, carbon and kevlar as reinforcements on the hull laminates would not be used.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

....

The biggest problem is now that there is very little choice in between. There are very few brands "in the quality middle" of any size. X-Yachts is the only one I can really think of.

By the way Dehler and Moody are owned and built by Hanse. Like Dufour and Grand Soleil are owned by Bavaria. Vilm, Sirius and Comfortina play no role as a major boat builder in all this and have no influence on the total market at all. They are in a niche market, with low production rates (well built boats though)...

X-Yacht is not (by cost) at a mid level. X yachts cost probably the same or more than Arcona. I would say for a better middle price and quality the only names that occurs me is Salona, Dehler and Azuree. X yachts are high quality boats with the price of high quality boats.

Dehler being a brand made by Hanse does not mean that they are built as Hanses. In fact the building materials and techniques are way different as it is the overall quality (and price).

And Grand Soleil (that owned Dufour) is not owned by Bavaria for several years now, but by an Italian group that owns Sly Yacht. I am not sure about who owns Dufour right now.

The only real boats that sell in large numbers are mass production main market boats and if we join Beneteau, Hanse, Jeanneau, Dufour, Bavaria and Hunter production they will be responsible for what? 90% of all monohull sailboats produced in a year?

[rocma]

For the people not speaking any other lingo than english:

Oyster Yachts explains the reasons for the keel failure that lead to the sinking of Oyster 825 Polina Star III – Yachting World

[rocma]

Originally Posted by Polux

X-Yacht is not (by cost) at a mid level. X yachts cost probably the same or more than Arcona. I would say for a better middle price and quality the only names that occurs me is Salona, Dehler and Azuree. X yachts are high quality boats with the price of high quality boats.

Dehler being a brand made by Hanse does not mean that they are built as Hanses. In fact the building materials and techniques are way different as it is the overall quality (and price).

And Grand Soleil (that owned Dufour) is not owned by Bavaria for several years now, but by an Italian group that owns Sly Yacht. I am not sure about who owns Dufour right now.

The only real boats that sell in large numbers are mass production main market boats and if we join Beneteau, Hanse, Jeanneau, Dufour, Bavaria and Hunter production they will be responsible for what? 90% of all monohull sailboats produced in a year?

You are right: both Dufour and Grand Soleil are now fully independent companies. My omission.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

On this and on the Bendy thread (and on others related) There are two fundamental question to be answered . . . .which is how strong and reliable should our boats be?

-------------------------
1. Should they be as strong and reliable as commercial jets - eg near 6 sigma?

2. Should they be as strong and reliable as good passenger cars - eg near 4 sigma?

3. Right now, private production sail boats are near 2 sigma overall.
---------------------------

a. Should they be able to handle all weather on a 100% duty cycle with minimal maintenance?

b. Should they be able to handle 'summer' weather on a 10% duty cycle with annual DIY maintenance and pro survey immediately after any 'incident'?

c. Should they be able to handle flat water with under 25 kts with complete pro strip down after every sail (some racing yachts are in this category)?
---------------------------------

There is obviously no consensus on these baic questions on this forum. I don't see how any of you can expect to come to agreement on more complex related issues until you at least agree on the basic objectives.

I believe that certain systems should be built to about 4 sigma. I doubt any boat builder can reach 6 sigma for any system. Systems that should be built to survive survival conditions would be keel and rudder for sure. The rest of the systems probably cannot be made bullet proof for reasonable sums so I think there is room for lesser reliability in most systems aboard. The problem I see is that cost cutting seems to be applied to all systems equally.

If periodic maintenance/inspection is required to achieve the required reliability then this should be clearly laid out by the builder so the buyers know that going in. Airplanes require this and the buyer knows thus the range is limited by the need for inspection. But no boat builder tells in their manuals that the keel and rudder should be subjected to an inspection on a periodic basis or even after an event such as collision or grounding. One problem is the fact is that inspection at sea is nearly impossible which is maybe the strongest argument against using inspection as a means to improve reliability. And if inspection is going to be used then pan liner construction is diametrically in opposition it would seem.

The airplane analogy is not a good one. What airplane can an average Joe buy that will fly from California to Hawaii or New York to London? Boat builders have positioned themselves as providing a vessel capable of taking the crew anywhere in the world with a class certification to "prove" it. But the critical (and unseen) gear that can kill the crew is never discussed. It seems the only people talking about it are folks like us. I have not read of a single regulatory body calling for hearings or even an industry summit to discuss these failures. So it's troubling that from some quarters there are threats and belittling going on against those few who have the temerity to suggest there is something rotten in this industry.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by marco@onyva

For the people not speaking any other lingo than english:

Oyster Yachts explains the reasons for the keel failure that lead to the sinking of Oyster 825 Polina Star III – Yachting World

Thanks!

"Our investigations of Oyster 825-01 and 03 – which between them had sailed 20,000 miles, found small cracks at the outer ends of the horizontal joint between the matrix and the webs (marked “A” on the drawing). This suggested that the secondary over-lamination of these joints was unsound and we investigated invasively by cutting samples of the critical areas. We found extensive areas of poor laminating in the secondary structure supporting these T-joints.
‘To address this, we removed all of the matrix and web structure above the stub keel of Oyster 825-01, 03 and 04, re-building this key area in carbon fibre and epoxy resin and, importantly, making these parts in single pieces without the ‘T-joint”."



Read more at Oyster Yachts explains the reasons for the keel failure that lead to the sinking of Oyster 825 Polina Star III – Yachting World

It seems like a mixture of bad designed structure (T joint) and poor defective building and yes the problem was common to more Yachts.

The absence of the the T joint means that they will not use a stub anymore? and have the keel directly bolted to the keel structure?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

...
If periodic maintenance/inspection is required to achieve the required reliability then this should be clearly laid out by the builder so the buyers know that going in. Airplanes require this and the buyer knows thus the range is limited by the need for inspection. But no boat builder tells in their manuals that the keel and rudder should be subjected to an inspection on a periodic basis or even after an event such as collision or grounding. One problem is the fact is that inspection at sea is nearly impossible which is maybe the strongest argument against using inspection as a means to improve reliability. And if inspection is going to be used then pan liner construction is diametrically in opposition it would seem.
...

Any mechanical system needs maintenance, ones more than others and even cars have maintenance schedules to substitute items before they break even if they are normally on the hands of the service centers from that brand of vehicles.

I agree with you and I believe that the lack of maintenance/inspection is the single more important factor regarding breakage on sailboats. Most people have a completely inaccurate idea about the needs of maintenance of a sailboat to maintain it on perfect condition and I agree also, that like on cars, some need more maintenance than others and the schedule regarding maintenance should be made public and come with the boat manual.

That, off course, is against the interests of any brand that don't want to give the idea that a sailboat is an expensive item to maintain. Who will take off the mast each 4 years to check with appropriated means all the fittings and cables and substitute everything (or almost) each 8 years? You can start counting but I will bet that less than 5% and that has nothing with a boat being of high or lower quality, I mean the frequency.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

. . . Who will take off the mast each 4 years to check with appropriated means all the fittings and cables and substitute everything (or almost) each 8 years? You can start counting but I will bet that less than 5% and that has nothing with a boat being of high or lower quality, I mean the frequency.

For moderate coastal sailing, you don't need to inspect the rig or change the rigging so often, but offshore sailing is different, involving more miles (by factors of 10 or more) and more stress, and much worse consequences in case of failure.

I don't know any offshore sailors who inspect their rigs as seldom as every 4 years. I do a major inspection of mine every year (you don't need the mast out to do it), and minor inspections every time I'm up in a bosun's chair. This year I will have it done professionally.

My standing rigging is three years old and I will replace it again before doing anything really ambitious.

I inspect keel boats and thoroughly inspect rudder bearings, seals, and steering gear every year, and I inspect and lubricate all the sea cocks once or twice a year. Every time the boat is out of the water (at least every 4 months), I check the rudder for play in the bearings, and look carefully at the keel joint. It's not expensive or time-consuming to do any of this. I suppose that doing this might have saved Cheeky Raffiki, by the way.

Pretty typical of offshore sailors I think. And I guess I'm not really an "offshore sailor" at all since I am rarely more than 100 miles from a coast, but I do do a lot of miles in all kinds of weather.

[IdoraKeeper]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

For moderate coastal sailing, you don't need to inspect the rig or change the rigging so often, but offshore sailing is different, involving more miles (by factors of 10 or more) and more stress, and much worse consequences in case of failure.

I don't know any offshore sailors who inspect their rigs as seldom as every 4 years. I do a major inspection of mine every year (you don't need the mast out to do it), and minor inspections every time I'm up in a bosun's chair. This year I will have it done professionally.

My standing rigging is three years old and I will replace it again before doing anything really ambitious.

I inspect keel boats and thoroughly inspect rudder bearings, seals, and steering gear every year, and I inspect and lubricate all the sea cocks once or twice a year. Every time the boat is out of the water (at least every 4 months), I check the rudder for play in the bearings, and look carefully at the keel joint. It's not expensive or time-consuming to do any of this. I suppose that doing this might have saved Cheeky Raffiki, by the way.

Pretty typical of offshore sailors I think. And I guess I'm not really an "offshore sailor" at all since I am rarely more than 100 miles from a coast, but I do do a lot of miles in all kinds of weather.

You are respecting the cycles and I bet you get lots of them. It would be interesting to see destructive testing of the rigging parts that are replaced to see if your intuition is borne out. I replaced my bobstay based on the same intuition...just couldn't take the chance.

[neilpride]

So the report is in the internet finally... they still don't answer some few questions like the lead ingots in the bow area , or the ridiculous laminate thicknes in hull and keel stub partitions.... so far so good they say yes, its our fault, at least....

[CarlF]

I think any discussion of Oyster build quality has to consider the two sales of the company to private equity groups - first in 2008 and then again at a firesale price in 2012.

This would not be the first time that quality has suffered when private equity takes over from a long time founder (Richard Matthews). Brands don't build boats. People do.

And the current owner of Oyster stopped having Oysters built at the Windboats yard in Wrexam (maybe to cut costs?). The yard that built hundreds of Oysters over many years now builds boats for Matthews new company, Gunfleet.


I would have no concerns about a pre 2008 Oyster

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

Any mechanical system needs maintenance, ones more than others and even cars have maintenance schedules to substitute items before they break even if they are normally on the hands of the service centers from that brand of vehicles.

I agree with you and I believe that the lack of maintenance/inspection is the single more important factor regarding breakage on sailboats. Most people have a completely inaccurate idea about the needs of maintenance of a sailboat to maintain it on perfect condition and I agree also, that like on cars, some need more maintenance than others and the schedule regarding maintenance should be made public and come with the boat manual.

That, off course, is against the interests of any brand that don't want to give the idea that a sailboat is an expensive item to maintain. Who will take off the mast each 4 years to check with appropriated means all the fittings and cables and substitute everything (or almost) each 8 years? You can start counting but I will bet that less than 5% and that has nothing with a boat being of high or lower quality, I mean the frequency.

Talking about mast and rigging, it depend if the boat is insured or not, by the way we inspect the mast and rigging for a whole charter fleet in a regular basis, insurance rules.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by CarlF

I think any discussion of Oyster build quality has to consider the two sales of the company to private equity groups - first in 2008 and then again at a firesale price in 2012.

This would not be the first time that quality has suffered when private equity takes over from a long time founder (Richard Matthews). Brands don't build boats. People do.

And the current owner of Oyster stopped having Oysters built at the Windboats yard in Wrexam (maybe to cut costs?). The yard that built hundreds of Oysters over many years now builds boats for Matthews new company, Gunfleet.


I would have no concerns about a pre 2008 Oyster

Oysters were also built by Landamore, another absolutely first-class yard.


One way to milk money out of a company, short term, is to take a brand which represents in the eyes of the world a certain level of quality, then stick it onto a similar looking but inferior product, and charge the same price. Reap the profits until the public wises up. I'm not saying that this is happening at Oyster -- I don't have any such facts -- but if it is, it would hardly be the first time in the history of venture capital.