Hunter sinks at Catalina due to bow cleat failure

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by colemj

From the description, it sounds like the glass in that area needs to be beefed up. Adding larger backing plates (if that is possible) will only create a larger hole.

To be fair though, if other boats are having windlasses and samson posts ripped out, and if all the broken mooring gear that broke was in decent shape (speculation), these forces may have exceeded reasonable expectations for loads on those cleats.

Mark

Exactly!! FG all the way,, that only explain one thing, thin laminate in the cleat área, in other words, i be in similar situation with my boat in Carriacou in the tail of a hurricane passing by the west side of the island turning the anchorage in a Hell, 6 to 8 ft waves for the whole night plus 40 knts and gusting, i remember the nav lights in the bow pulpit vanish with each crest , 2 long snubbers in both cleats ... and the engine in FWD to mitigate the shock loads... my cleats are fine for the moment...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by colemj

It was on a Hunter.

I must say, you are a slow learner…

Mark

Heh-heh.

One thing I am more curious about now is how the backing plates are glassed in - and whether that decreases the thickness of the layup in that area. I can't really see this being the issue as I would assume that the layup for the hull is completed, then integrated hardware is added. But I don't know.

In any case, due to the fact that the boat was on this single cleat - and that a windlass and samson post was ripped out of a neighboring boat, I still don't see (from this particular example) that there is really anything inherently wrong with the way these cleats are built.

The boat sunk due to its hull being holed by another boat. The 4" hole from the failed cleat had nothing to do with that sinking other than being part of a cascade of failures...the first failure being not using both forward cleats.

[neilpride]

At 5.50 show how backing plates are glassed..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmRofXY5O-I

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Heh-heh.

The boat sunk due to its hull being holed by another boat. The 4" hole from the failed cleat had nothing to do with that sinking other than being part of a cascade of failures...the first failure being not using both forward cleats.

Good one Smack. Cleats would not share the load so you would have 2 cleat failures followed by sinking

Fair weather boats should not be moored in such locations.

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by neilpride

At 5.50 show how backing plates are glassed..

Dude, I didn't even need to hit play! Do you see that title screen????

PLEXUS BABY!!!!!

[colemj]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

One thing I am more curious about now is how the backing plates are glassed in - and whether that decreases the thickness of the layup in that area.

On our boat (not a Hunter, but a similar pariah in the BWC community), the backing plates are placed on the core, filleted and glassed in as part of the primary layup. Fender washers are used underneath the nuts to provide load distribution on the inner skin.

Mark

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Good one Smack. Cleats would not share the load so you would have 2 cleat failures followed by sinking

Fair weather boats should not be moored in such locations.

Nor boats with samson posts?

[autumnbreeze27]

Standby for the pictures from the boat yard

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by colemj

On our boat (not a Hunter, but a similar pariah in the BWC community), the backing plates are placed on the core, filleted and glassed in as part of the primary layup. Fender washers are used underneath the nuts to provide load distribution on the inner skin.

Mark

Mark, this is not meant as bashing, but wouldn't this mean that the backing plate bears on core material, not glass? I would have thought the best practice would be to replace core with something solid in the subject area.

Or do I have the picture upside down? I'm not sure I understand your description!

Jim

[autumnbreeze27]

Here's pictures from the shipyard, showing the temp repairs made to get her back across the channel. She was holed by another boat, so the cleat failure was insignificant if it happened at all. I think I'm going to be taking a few cans of that spray foam in case I have to make an emergency repair.

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Mark, this is not meant as bashing, but wouldn't this mean that the backing plate bears on core material, not glass? I would have thought the best practice would be to replace core with something solid in the subject area.

Or do I have the picture upside down? I'm not sure I understand your description!

Jim

I was thinking the same thought but maybe the plate is bedded in solid glass

[RTB]

Originally Posted by Maine Sail

Let the record show that I officially eat crow on this point..

Me too, since I called the broken cleat BS.

I also noticed in Maine's post - "Only one cleat was in use at the time and it took all the load. It could have just as easily been the mooring pendant that failed, as happens most often."

For anyone else picking up a mooring when expecting storm conditions, one line attached to a bow cleat is not the proper setup. I NEVER attach one line to the pendant. Anyone that has moored in Boot Key has seen their nice, big, display, showing the proper way to adjust your lines. Recommended Mooring Tie Up for Storms

Maybe it would have saved the Hunter in this thread, or maybe not. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do some things. I hope this helps someone else in the future, since there are probably a few future cruisers reading this, that have never picked up a mooring.

Ralph

[downunder]

Originally Posted by colemj

I thought the main flaw of Harleys ARE the riders.

Mark

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Nor boats with samson posts?

I have to say that some of those older boats samson posts were not all that sturdy either.

[CarinaPDX]

Originally Posted by Exile

Excuse my ignorance on this "branding" thing, but what's the rub against Bavaria's? Aren't they, along with Jeanneau's & others made by Beneteau? Maybe similar but with less frills?

I think the "rub" is at least in part the direction that yacht designs have gone as a result of cost pressures, particularly in vying for the bareboat charter business (which is a large part of the market in Europe and elsewhere). Brands like Jeaneau and Bavaria were considered to be above average a few decades ago; as the volume shifted to the charter companies and competition heated up, brands that wanted to stay in the volume charter boat market needed to get the costs down while delivering attractive boats with layouts that suited the charter business (many berths/staterooms, good sailing characteristics, easy/inexpensive maintenance) and would still look good at the end of heavy charter use in 5 years. The resulting designs are highly engineered, lightweight, and fast as well as low cost. Features tend to be designed into the molds rather than added later with expensive fittings and labor (Hunter has been particularly innovative in this regard), and of course the manufacturing process has become highly automated for these volume suppliers. It can be argued that the contemporary yachts are in fact a lot "better" (by many measures) than the old ones. And Jeaneau, Beneteau, Bavaria and Hunter are right at the front of these developments.

So back to the "rub": the older designs have more handcrafted woodwork, while newer boats tend to have more white fiberglass. Older boats were built strong everywhere and thus survive accidents better (like the boats having their bows chewed up against the dock, or anchor chain out of the roller cutting into the bow). The extra weight tends to give a vessel a seakindly motion (and slower forward motion). Builders who still build in the older ways produce beautiful handcrafted boats (and in fact the older boats by Jeaneau and Bavaria had some very nice woodworking), but I would be reluctant to claim them to be better - at least from an engineering, performance, and cost POV. They are/were overbuilt and arguably under-engineered. Newer boats perform wonderfully - until stresses are placed on them which the engineering did not intend. Grounding a modern sailboat can result in quick hull failure, while an older design may survive for days before failing - but does it really make sense to carry all of that weight around just in case you do something stupid? Same with smashing the bows into concrete floats or letting the anchor chain jump the roller and saw through the hull. Modern hulls are engineered to keep the water out; other loads are taken to bulkheads and liners, or if in the hull through local reinforcement using modern materials such as unidirectional glass. Thus Beneteaus have become known for oil-canning and Jeaneaus have used kevlar for impact resistance - such is the nature of the designs. But I would not expect trouble unless the boat is put into a situation that it should not be in.

The point I am working up to is that these new designs often appear less robust and crafted than the older ones, and so get (often undeserved) criticism. I would have you look at higher-end brands of production boat, and compare what they build today with what they use to build, and you will find they too are lighter and more engineered than their older models. In fact I believe the differences in quality today between expensive boats like HR and inexpensive Hunters and Bavarias is small (I'll put on my helmet now) - such is the advantage of high volumes supporting more engineering and automation. Of course there are differences, such as more wood and cabinet-work, on the expensive boats - but I don't see that as a hit on the others. And for long-term cruising I would be making upgrades on any production boat (or any boat full stop).

BTW when I returned 5 years ago I was shocked to learn from a local boat electrician that Hunters come from the factory with isolation transformers. Other manufacturers save a few hundred per boat by using galvanic isolators. So how many of the expensive yachts today come with iso xfmrs?

Full disclosure: I built, beginning in 1978, and still own and live aboard one of the beautiful, heavy, old-fashioned boats. I wouldn't trade - mostly because there is too much of me in it. I appreciate the virtues of the old designs. I also appreciate that to replace this 31' boat with one professionally built today to the same design would take well north of half a million dollars, and would still require a lot of maintenance. It is perfectly rational to buy a 40' modern boat for a lot less, skip all the maintenance no longer needed, and go cruising with a lot more money in the pocket.

Greg