Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[autumnbreeze27]

I asked a local and at the time the harbor patrol said it was holed by a vessel that was adrift, they saw the cleat remark as well but didn't have anything to add.

They're going to see about having a looksy tomorrow and I will post pics if I can.

We'll get to the bottom of this! (although the hunter has already been there, done that) <rimshot>

[Exile]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

I asked a local and at the time the harbor patrol said it was holed by a vessel that was adrift, they saw the cleat remark as well but didn't have anything to add.

They're going to see about having a looksy tomorrow and I will post pics if I can.

We'll get to the bottom of this! (although the hunter has already been there, done that) <rimshot>

Where did the "cleat remark" come from?

[Chrisgo]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

That is an interesting document... I guess that one of the features of buying a new mass production boat is an owner's manual with info like this in it.



Jim

It is, and I agree with your comments about the 5 digits - I assume they did a test and then reported the exact number as a marketing ploy so as to be viewed as 100% honest. I am sure a rounded number would suffice. But they did publish a number, and as such would stand by it in a court of law should that need occur - so there must be some amount of confidence in the build.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Neil - here is an honest question: After now learning that Hunter glasses backing plates in, are you certain there was no glassed-in backing plate on that Bene you showed the pics of? If there was a glassed-in plate, that would certainly explain the visible presence of only the washers.

No glassed backing plates in the bene , 110% sure.

[autumnbreeze27]

Originally Posted by Exile

Where did the "cleat remark" come from?

It was a comment somebody left on a Facebook post of the Hunter underwater. I tried to copy it verbatim but either I can't find it or it's been removed.

It said something like "I know the guy who owns this boat and they are good sailors. A cleat failed and they had to abandon ship at 3am"

Anyhow, it's gone, so it's likely due to insurance reasons or just being totally wrong.

The thread is titled as it is because that's the info I got. I am continuing to update the thread as I get more info, for those of you that are interested.

Here's another pic of the Hunter for those with super zoom skills and underwater filters.

[neilpride]

A penguin hanging on the first spreader.

[lifeofreilly57]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

Here she is, the Hunter is back

Anyone know the salvor? There's an opportunity there......

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Could you be more specific? What builders? How do you know this to be factual?

g

My Bene First 456 had fender washers under the cleats. The fender washers worked well enough that the attachment bolts bent but didn't rip out of the deck. I drilled the cleats out for larger bolts and put backing plates in.

Just take a look at your own boat and decide for yourself if things are strong enough for when the docks are jumping and the dock lines are snapping.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

That is an interesting document... I guess that one of the features of buying a new mass production boat is an owner's manual with info like this in it.

I am particularly impressed with the confidence with which they quote the breaking strength of the "strong points" to FIVE significant figures!! That's to one tenth of a pound force! No doubt they expect one to measure the breaking strength of one's dock lines to a similar accuracy/precision in order to follow their 80% rule.

I'm sure that the engineers in the audience will see how silly those numbers are. I applaud the idea of giving some idea of the strength of various bits on a boat, but think that a more realistic quotation would make me trust the numbers more!

On the Avalon Harbour moorings... quite some years ago now, I read that the going price for a Catalina Island mooring was in the tens of thousands of dollars! I'm not sure exactly what that bought, but I think it was the permit to establish a mooring which you then had to supply and maintain yourself. As I understood it, when you were not using it, the mooring company rented it out for day use and kept the money raised. What a deal for the boat owner: spend huge money to be able to leave your boat in a death trap!

Over the years there have been several Santa Ana blows that brought many boats to grief in the Channel Islands. IIRC there was one on a Thanksgiving weekend that wrecked a number of boats and had loss of life involved. Sad, especially when one notes that the conditions that lead to them are well known, and the precursor conditions are fairly easy to see in time to make one's escape from the anchorages at risk.

I too will be interested in further info on the real cause of the subject vessel's sinking. For now, speculation is meaningless.

Jim

Not to mention this means that if you use dock or anchor line with a breaking strength higher than about 7200 PF, and the cleat fails, Hunter will likely not be held responsible. Look at the breaking strengths of lines in the average sizes for these things, and you will see that there is some good corporate CYA going on here, disguised as marketing for the uninitiated.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by minaret

Not to mention this means that if you use dock or anchor line with a breaking strength higher than about 7200 PF, and the cleat fails, Hunter will likely not be held responsible. Look at the breaking strengths of lines in the average sizes for these things, and you will see that there is some good corporate CYA going on here, disguised as marketing for the uninitiated.

Avg. tensile strength of 1/2" Samson dockline is 7900 lbs. 5/8" is at 14,000 lbs. Maybe 3/8" is more appropriate at 4,500 lbs.? But that's only recommended for boat lenghths from 15 to 35'.

[lifeofreilly57]

Originally Posted by Chrisgo

It is, and I agree with your comments about the 5 digits - I assume they did a test and then reported the exact number as a marketing ploy so as to be viewed as 100% honest. I am sure a rounded number would suffice. But they did publish a number, and as such would stand by it in a court of law should that need occur - so there must be some amount of confidence in the build.

I'd be curious to see how they came up with that number.
How was it measured? What direction was the force applied in? Is it just a calculated number or an actual test to destruct? How many stress cycles at that amount of load?
Let's just say I've had some pretty optimistic numbers thrown at me by some of the engineers in my company that had no relation to applications in the real world, I knew they were BS numbers just from experience. If it is just some number sighting the break strength of the securing bolts the number is total rubbish, it doesn't really say what the deck is capable of supporting. I've had a number of production boats over the years and would bet I could pull the cleats right out of the decks of those boats with 8000 lbs of force applied in the right direction.
On the production boats I've owned, most of which are several generations removed from that one, I added backing plates to the bow and stern cleats when there were none, of course those boats had through bolted deck hardware so it wasn't a big deal to add them.
I'm not so sure I'd feel comfortable with glassed in backing plates which were tapped to receive the anchoring bolts and surely don't trust deck hardware secured with fender washers. I guess it depends on what your using the boat for.
Moorings are a whole nother issue, if they're too tightly packed with short mooring lines and just enough chain for tidal changes you can certainly get some pretty violent shock forces when the whole assembly goes tight. Kind of the same reason I like to use a long snubber lines on my anchor chain to act as shock absorbers in rough weather.
It isn't just one piece but all the pieces of the mooring setup that contribute to excessive loads, in this case I'm sure there were several contributors to the cleat failure that set the chain of events in motion.
No, ripping out a bow cleat won't sink a boat, but turning it stern to the seas and allowing it to swing into other boats or moorings will.
A good friend of mine kept his boat in a mooring field that was well protected from the prevailing southwesterlies but wide open to the northeast, this isn't a problem during the summer season but is on both ends of the season when noreasters roll through.
After two seasons in that mooring field we noticed stress cracking in the deck around the bow cleats used to secure it to the mooting lines, fortunately we found it before any failure occurred and were able to beef up the entire area and reinforce the structure. He also added more heavy chain to the underwater portion of the mooring as well as longer mooring lines made out of three strand instead of double braid. These had more give to them and the heavier added chain helped to dampen the forces. The stress crack issue did not return after that, the boat was kept on that mooring 5 more years until he sold it.
Just for shits and giggles we rode around the mooring field in the dinghy looking at the cleat mounting areas of quite a few boats there and saw a number of boats with the same kind of stress cracking around the bow cleats, we left notes on several of those boats just to give the owners a heads up, only one called us.
When tropical storm Sandy came through awhile back (it degraded to a tropical storm by the time it hit RI) one of those boats ended up on the beach.
A Westsail 32 I bought and sold a number of years ago was finished by the original owner who put a substantial sampson post on the foredeck, at the time I thought it was just for the sake of traditional styling and never gave it a second thought, but now it's looking better and better all the time.
Most production boats I've owned weren't really built to ride out a tropical storm at anchor, it's just not what most of them will ever see in the real world, but, with some modification there quite capable of doing so. If you've got more skill and ability than money I'm sure you can address the weak points, you just have to find them and address them before they become a real problem.
I think I need to go inspect the cleats on my boat.............

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by autumnbreeze27

It was a comment somebody left on a Facebook post of the Hunter underwater. I tried to copy it verbatim but either I can't find it or it's been removed.

Your credibility is sky-rocketing as we speak.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Avg. tensile strength of 1/2" Samson dockline is 7900 lbs. 5/8" is at 14,000 lbs. Maybe 3/8" is more appropriate at 4,500 lbs.? But that's only recommended for boat lenghths from 15 to 35'.

Ahm - I assume you and Minaret actually noticed that the poster said this doc was for a 33' Hunter?

Originally Posted by Chrisgo

Here is an excerpt from the manual of a 33 Hunter, 2005.

...

Can anyone post the breaking points of a more stout boat for discussion?

Do you guys really have this much of a blinding grudge against Hunters? It's bizarre. And really brings into question your credibility.

[autumnbreeze27]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Your credibility is sky-rocketing as we speak.

It should be, I posted the facts as I get them. You can quote part of my response out of context to attack my integrity, my only guess is you hunter zealots like to get threads closed that have any disparaging remarks about your precious low-end sailor.

[autumnbreeze27]

Originally Posted by lifeofreilly57

I'd be curious to see how they came up with that number.
How was it measured? What direction was the force applied in? Is it just a calculated number or an actual test to destruct? How many stress cycles at that amount of load?
Let's just say I've had some pretty optimistic numbers thrown at me by some of the engineers in my company that had no relation to applications in the real world, I knew they were BS numbers just from experience. If it is just some number sighting the break strength of the securing bolts the number is total rubbish, it doesn't really say what the deck is capable of supporting. I've had a number of production boats over the years and would bet I could pull the cleats right out of the decks of those boats with 8000 lbs of force applied in the right direction.
On the production boats I've owned, most of which are several generations removed from that one, I added backing plates to the bow and stern cleats when there were none, of course those boats had through bolted deck hardware so it wasn't a big deal to add them.
I'm not so sure I'd feel comfortable with glassed in backing plates which were tapped to receive the anchoring bolts and surely don't trust deck hardware secured with fender washers. I guess it depends on what your using the boat for.
Moorings are a whole nother issue, if they're too tightly packed with short mooring lines and just enough chain for tidal changes you can certainly get some pretty violent shock forces when the whole assembly goes tight. Kind of the same reason I like to use a long snubber lines on my anchor chain to act as shock absorbers in rough weather.
It isn't just one piece but all the pieces of the mooring setup that contribute to excessive loads, in this case I'm sure there were several contributors to the cleat failure that set the chain of events in motion.
No, ripping out a bow cleat won't sink a boat, but turning it stern to the seas and allowing it to swing into other boats or moorings will.
A good friend of mine kept his boat in a mooring field that was well protected from the prevailing southwesterlies but wide open to the northeast, this isn't a problem during the summer season but is on both ends of the season when noreasters roll through.
After two seasons in that mooring field we noticed stress cracking in the deck around the bow cleats used to secure it to the mooting lines, fortunately we found it before any failure occurred and were able to beef up the entire area and reinforce the structure. He also added more heavy chain to the underwater portion of the mooring as well as longer mooring lines made out of three strand instead of double braid. These had more give to them and the heavier added chain helped to dampen the forces. The stress crack issue did not return after that, the boat was kept on that mooring 5 more years until he sold it.
Just for shits and giggles we rode around the mooring field in the dinghy looking at the cleat mounting areas of quite a few boats there and saw a number of boats with the same kind of stress cracking around the bow cleats, we left notes on several of those boats just to give the owners a heads up, only one called us.
When tropical storm Sandy came through awhile back (it degraded to a tropical storm by the time it hit RI) one of those boats ended up on the beach.
A Westsail 32 I bought and sold a number of years ago was finished by the original owner who put a substantial sampson post on the foredeck, at the time I thought it was just for the sake of traditional styling and never gave it a second thought, but now it's looking better and better all the time.
Most production boats I've owned weren't really built to ride out a tropical storm at anchor, it's just not what most of them will ever see in the real world, but, with some modification there quite capable of doing so. If you've got more skill and ability than money I'm sure you can address the weak points, you just have to find them and address them before they become a real problem.
I think I need to go inspect the cleats on my boat.............

Great post, more of these, less of the drama, if you please.