Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Obviously, I need to locate the button for the Sarcasm Font around here...

So, according to your Production/Bluewater thread, modern production boats are "just fine" for " Bluewater Sailing"... But in this thread, it's the rigors of "extended voyaging" which fall outside of the purview of their "standard use-cases", huh?

OK, that's clear as mud...

I said "bluewater cruising". And even that was enough to blow up a firestorm.

As for "extended voyaging" - that's obviously a pretty wide-open categorization that is much harder to define in my opinion. Are we talking doing the Capes - Northewest Passage - the Coconut Run 10 times? What?

In my book, Micheal's trip was definitely "extended voyaging". 4 years and 20K miles straight on your boat - through the Southern Ocean. Definitely. But I don't think that reflects what most people in the world think about when thinking about "bluewater cruising". So yes, a pretty clear difference.

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Hmmm, I'm not convinced you do... :-)





One of the things I found most eye-opening about the detailed photos showing the inside of the ripped off stem of Calabrese's wrecked 420, was the complete absence of any sort of reinforcement beneath the aft end of the anchor roller...

Given the absence of a larger foredeck area to help 'spread the load' of that fitting, don't you think there should be some sort of bulkhead, or at least a vertical tie-rod to the hull, beneath the aft end of that fitting?

I don't know. That all depends on how it was designed and built for the envisioned loads. I'm going to say "no" at this point simply because I haven't seen a lot of Hunter owners complain that their anchor rollers are ripping out of their boats. Have you?

If not, why would you feel it necessary to add a tie-rod? You have to remember that Calabrese's bow was pretty much sawed off by that chain before everything finally let go. A small bulkhead likely wouldn't have helped that much.

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

Would you be comfortable mounting an inner forestay, for example, to that point, without it being tied into a bulkhead, or similar support structure?

Again, I don't know. I do know that Micheal added an inner forestay to Sequitur. And I'm sure he had it properly secured because it stood up to some real abuse. As to how that would work on the 420 - no idea.

[rgscpat]

"Harbor Patrol Officer Tim Mitchell Celebration of Life
Thursday, January 8, 2015

Thursday 1/8 – Check in at Catalina Express San Pedro Terminal http://www.catalinaexpress.com/port-...edro-port.html (Berth 95, San Pedro) at 07:00 for a 07:30 departure– Greg Bombard of Catalina Express has graciously donated the 300 passenger “Cat X” to transport anyone from the mainland who would like to come to the island for the service.... "

https://www.facebook.com/avalonharborpatrol?fref=nf

[CarinaPDX]

Wow. 20 pages and we still don't know if the Hunter at Avalon sank because of the cleat, as the name of the thread implies. Mostly Hunter bashing, Hunter defending and offensive comments. Really?

Discussions about the strength of cleats/backing plates/bow rollers misses the point: the boat shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The points I will make:

1) When at anchor a weather watch must always be kept. Wishful thinking that weather forecasts are often wrong and so let's stay and not worry about it is very bad seamanship. Personally I would have moved to the west side well in advance of the forecast Santa Ana as a necessary precaution. If for some reason I were silly enough to stay (not likely) I would have been ready to slip moorings and leave at the first sign of incoming waves. If there were a question of being able to clear the harbor in deteriorating conditions (and in this case there is) I would not have stayed in the first place. I don't mean to beat up on anyone - this is just the lesson I have learned after years of experience and mistakes. When the wind changes and I find myself on a lee shore with a long fetch you can bet the portlights are dogged, the engine fired up and I am clearing the harbor at the front of the pack. Basic seamanship...

2) Leaving an unattended boat on a mooring there for an extended time is not something I would choose to do. This is hardly the first time that Santa Anas have threatened Avalon harbor; staying there is a bit like staying in the E. Caribbean north of Grenada during the summer. It is basically playing Russian Roulette with your boat. Any one year the odds are very high that no harm will come, but do you want to take that chance? Just because many do take the risk doesn't mean it is a good idea. As the years pass I find myself ever more aware of the risks and ever less willing to take unnecessary ones.

It seems to me the mark of a good skipper is one that is always aware of any risks and has a plan to manage them.

I'd still like to know what happened to the other 7 boats...

Greg

[Exile]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Are you going to bet your boat on that?

My boat? Weren't we comparing Minaret's boat?? Well, if you insist, my bow roller is integral to the deck and doesn't really stick out much. There's no hatch behind where it attaches, just a big plate of SS and then a big bronze windlass behind that. I don't know for sure but wouldn't be surprised if this fwd part of the deck is reinforced & not cored. It feels that way under foot anyway.

Here are some pics:

Ooops, that first one wasn't it, sorry.

Here we go. C'mon now, look at the other pics -- you know, the ones of the bow roller for cryin' out loud!

[smackdaddy]

Like.

[Jon Eisberg]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

In my book, Micheal's trip was definitely "extended voyaging". 4 years and 20K miles straight on your boat - through the Southern Ocean. Definitely. But I don't think that reflects what most people in the world think about when thinking about "bluewater cruising". So yes, a pretty clear difference.

A "pretty clear difference" between "bluewater cruising", and "extended voyaging", huh?

Gotta love sailing forums, I learn something new every day...

:-)

[GeoPowers]

Originally Posted by CarinaPDX

Wow. 20 pages and we still don't know if the Hunter at Avalon sank because of the cleat, as the name of the thread implies. Mostly Hunter bashing, Hunter defending and offensive comments. Really?

Discussions about the strength of cleats/backing plates/bow rollers misses the point: the boat shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The points I will make:

1) When at anchor a weather watch must always be kept. Wishful thinking that weather forecasts are often wrong and so let's stay and not worry about it is very bad seamanship. Personally I would have moved to the west side well in advance of the forecast Santa Ana as a necessary precaution. If for some reason I were silly enough to stay (not likely) I would have been ready to slip moorings and leave at the first sign of incoming waves. If there were a question of being able to clear the harbor in deteriorating conditions (and in this case there is) I would not have stayed in the first place. I don't mean to beat up on anyone - this is just the lesson I have learned after years of experience and mistakes. When the wind changes and I find myself on a lee shore with a long fetch you can bet the portlights are dogged, the engine fired up and I am clearing the harbor at the front of the pack. Basic seamanship...

2) Leaving an unattended boat on a mooring there for an extended time is not something I would choose to do. This is hardly the first time that Santa Anas have threatened Avalon harbor; staying there is a bit like staying in the E. Caribbean north of Grenada during the summer. It is basically playing Russian Roulette with your boat. Any one year the odds are very high that no harm will come, but do you want to take that chance? Just because many do take the risk doesn't mean it is a good idea. As the years pass I find myself ever more aware of the risks and ever less willing to take unnecessary ones.

It seems to me the mark of a good skipper is one that is always aware of any risks and has a plan to manage them.

I'd still like to know what happened to the other 7 boats...

Greg

Good on-topic post, thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[colemj]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

My point is - all of this eye-balling. No one here really knows the numbers behind any of it. To say it's stronger or weaker based on appearance is okay to some point. But to say it's "too weak" or "strong enough" is just guessing.

Was this one on a Freedom 40 "strong enough"?

What about this Caliber 40?

Remember, Micheal's Hunter's bow roller didn't bend. These did. So what does that tell us?

Again - numbers count when critiquing a boat's design and/or build.

I think you missed the posts where I suggested googling for some of these images, made comments on how few BWC boats actually have sufficient rollers for continual high loads, commended Jon E for pointing out some of those examples, made the case for not relying on bow rollers as the strongest anchor point unless one is absolutely sure that is true, and questioned how anyone could know without personal experience if the Hunter arrangement was not sufficient for normal anchoring with occasional high loads.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

My point is - all of this eye-balling. No one here really knows the numbers behind any of it. To say it's stronger or weaker based on appearance is okay to some point. But to say it's "too weak" or "strong enough" is just guessing.

Was this one on a Freedom 40 "strong enough"?



What about this Caliber 40?





Remember, Micheal's Hunter's bow roller didn't bend. These did. So what does that tell us?

Again - numbers count when critiquing a boat's design and/or build.

What a silly thought process..what your photos show is that the bow rollers were overloaded and failed, I helped a fellow cruiser cut one off with our zip cutter that looked quite similar.
And as to Micheal's bow roller, well it was never loaded up enough to fail, that's about the only take back. Or if that explanation doesn't work use your imagination and imagine the boats in the photo,s the day before they were wrecked and you took a picture of them, then they would look just like Micheal's roller.

[svmariane]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I have read the entire discussion. I want it to be clear that I have no dog in this fight. There have been some that have tried to be objective and fair. And, then . . . the protagonists on each side of the issue who have strong beliefs and biases. My comment is that the purchase of a boat is largely an emotional event aside from dollars exchanged. It represents a person's dreams, imaginings, hopes, and fears. It usually follows a period of financial sacrifice and planning before the purchase and a commitment from usually more than one person. It is made with countless years of experience or with little or none. It requires a dedicated captain to maintain it to Bristol standards and a relenting, persistent,ongoing expense. And, irrespective of cost, builder or size, it ceases to be an inanimate object but rather a living force that represents something about ourselves that separates us from the crowd and touches us in a place that most non boaters will never understand. So, owning a boat has been one of the most positive, rewarding and fulfilling things in my life from sailing prams, canoes, duck boats, fishing boats and sailboats. I am happy for those who share my love of boats and wish them good luck and good sailing. Rognvald

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Ralph, this seems to have escaped both the fans and the detractors, and to me it pretty well removes any sense from the arguments. To use one example of a 49 foot Hunter's voyaging as proof that lesser models from the same factory are seaworthy is not convincing. Equally, to use the demise of one operated by an inexperienced nut-case as a damning example is also folly.

My opinion? I think that current model Hunters as well as the other subject mass produced boats are quite well capable of making off shore passages in reasonable safety in the hands of a competent sailor. I don't think they are the best choices for sailing into areas of known difficult conditions. I do not think that the anchoring setups, including the long cantilevered rollers, are good designs for folks who intend lots of anchoring in potentially exposed anchorages (which is kinda the definition of long range cruisers). As shown, the windlass/chain locker setups are awkward and poorly organized, as others have mentioned.

Finally, I don't agree that the anchor roller should not be used to take the strain from one's snubber. A well designed roller should be easily strong enough to absorb those loads, and in our thousands of anchorings over the past 28 years we have always lead the snubber over the roller. We have experienced zero damage as a result of this practice. It should be obvious that far greater loads are experienced when breaking out the anchor in pitching conditions (where practical considerations may preclude the loads being taken by the snubber as they should be).

Oh... all rollers should incorporate some means of preventing the chain/snubber from jumping out, as apparently happened to the beached Hinter. I can't imagine why this would not be included in any roller design.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim,

Do you have any intel on the Hunter 49 from your sources in Tasmania that was delivered to Hobart about 2 years ago. Was an article in the Cruising Helmsman magazine.

I note it is now on the market and was wondering if the owners were changing or had other reasons for the sale.

cheers

[Tx J]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

My point is - all of this eye-balling. No one here really knows the numbers behind any of it. To say it's stronger or weaker based on appearance is okay to some point. But to say it's "too weak" or "strong enough" is just guessing.

Was this one on a Freedom 40 "strong enough"?



What about this Caliber 40?





Remember, Micheal's Hunter's bow roller didn't bend. These did. So what does that tell us?

Again - numbers count when critiquing a boat's design and/or build.

On that third (last) picture (Caliber), I see a bent roller with the root cause failure as a failed weld (likely crevice corrosion), on a very inadequate areal mating of the roller side baseplate(s), outboard to portside, to the prow fitting.
That weld broke almost clean away (well, both of them, L/R). Look at the other welds, very light fillets on a poor join design, in a highly corrosive location. Just a fail waiting to happen, IMO.

With a larger contact and weld area for those rollers (or complete join redesign), and a bit more maintenance, I doubt it would have failed (then anyway).
If I had a Caliber (drool), I'd have a look and see if my rollers needed beefing up (assuming that is a factory layout, not aftermarket).

That top fail was just too flimsy for whatever load hit it (the Freedom 40).

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

A "pretty clear difference" between "bluewater cruising", and "extended voyaging", huh?

Gotta love sailing forums, I learn something new every day...

:-)

I guess not to you. Feel free to go ahead and define them.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by colemj

I think you missed the posts where I suggested googling for some of these images, made comments on how few BWC boats actually have sufficient rollers for continual high loads, commended Jon E for pointing out some of those examples, made the case for not relying on bow rollers as the strongest anchor point unless one is absolutely sure that is true, and questioned how anyone could know without personal experience if the Hunter arrangement was not sufficient for normal anchoring with occasional high loads.

Mark

I didn't miss it. You nailed it. But some others apparently missed it - so out came the GoogleFinger!

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

What a silly thought process..what your photos show is that the bow rollers were overloaded and failed, I helped a fellow cruiser cut one off with our zip cutter that looked quite similar.
And as to Micheal's bow roller, well it was never loaded up enough to fail, that's about the only take back. Or if that explanation doesn't work use your imagination and imagine the boats in the photo,s the day before they were wrecked and you took a picture of them, then they would look just like Micheal's roller.

Just like that Hunter on the beach that you guys started drooling over? Or the one with the apparently missing cleat that sunk it? I'm sure both looked as good as a Moody the day before.

So are we finished with the Hunter thing?