Repairing hull damage on a Hanse.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by zstine

"not ridiculous at all" haha.. let me quote what you are saying is not ridiculous "that all boats sailing around coastal rocks should be able to hit them at 5knts and sail away without significant damage.".. sorry that's is ridiculous.

What you are saying, in essence, is that we need an impact test regulation on boats, which the vast majority of boats today would fail (obviously the Evan's Benetuea 49 and Hanse discussed herein fail.. and likely all performance boats like T52, farr 40, Megles 32, etc.). And if your boat does not pass the 'hit a rock test' then you are a negligent manufacturer, criminally liable!! HaHahah ... Sorry Hpeer, I stand by my statement that it is ridiculous to expect to hit a rock and have no damage in "all" boats...

Well, its always good argumentation to claim someone else made a statement you disagree with.

So here follows my point.

You said the boat is a “coastal cruiser”. It seems it was indeed used this way. It was bought by a inexperienced owner and then rented out to casual users for coastal cruising. It is likely that a boat in charter trade will encounter inexperienced users. It is not uncommon for newbies to make mistakes, too many of us experienced sailors make mistakes. An experienced owner would assume that some charter captain will make a mistake of this magnitude.

That does not make this situation Hanse’e fault, unless they sold the boat as appropriate to this service. For all I know the Hanse may be the absolute perfect boat for some particular kind if usage. It sounds like a good racer cruiser for someone that sails in benign waters and never strays. It is the wrong boat for THIS usage.

[BillKny]

Originally Posted by Greg K

Arguably, such robust build quality is even more important for boats intended for coastal cruising and the charter trade as the experience level of the operator is generally less and the potential for grounding considerably more.

A coastal cruiser needs to be more robust than an ocean crossing bluewater boat headed to remote places where repairs and support are not available for weeks or months at a time?

No. Not even "Arguably." More like "Laughably"

[zstine]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

What's "totally Ridiculous" is to deny something that is so patently obvious, that is if one knows anything at all about composite construction.

Hanse built the boat. The shortcomings in the quality control are evident in the gaps between the grid and the hull that are filled with hardened bonding agent, the root cause of the at-best-premature failure. Hence not only was Hanse negligent, but are also both culpable and liable.

Equally "totally Ridiculous" is the claim that the vessel is "...a coastal cruiser that's built medium-light for several good reasons. Speed and cost are 2 reasons. And there's nothing wrong with that!... assuming they are honest about the boat's intended purpose."

From page 2 of their disgustingly 'slick' brochure, "Feel at home on the high seas". Google 'high seas' definfition, " the open ocean, especially that not within any country's jurisdiction."

http://hanseyachts.hr/media/filer_pu...o_cc_web96.pdf

(since a couple of the several other aspects of this "tR" claim have already been addressed there's no real need to go on)

Leaving aside the also "totally Ridiculous" ideas that even "just a coastal cruiser" should be given a pass because that's what 'someone' incorrectly thinks it is, or that 'their' incomprehension of the fact that what's being discussed, as clearly stated ("Given the construction shown in the video of that particular (new) vessel, I'd guess that with enough normal heavy usage that sooner or later there would have been delamination issues even without a 'heavy' grounding."), is the shoddy quality control of one particular individual boat.

(Though the trans-manufacturer record of such construction techniques leaves little doubt about the shortcomings of that technique...)


And so on.


Couple other points would be interesting to know, like

"...the grid in both Evan's Beneteau and the Hanse also cracked and failed prior to the failure of the bonding agent..."

(You know this how?)

and

Do you own stock in Hanse?

but I fear the responses will be "totally Ridiculous"...

Yes, I concede that Hanse markets this boat as a fast ocean 'blue water' boat, which satisfactorily completed CE ‘A’ qualification. A Volvo ocean race boat is as well. I don't think a volvo ocean boat would get away without damage hitting a rock either. There’s no requirements for sustaining an impact, such as a keel grounding, in any CE or USCG certification that I’m aware of.


You state there was premature failure and that large gaps between the grid and hull were a quality control failure equaling negligence. You provide zero evidence what size of a gap results in an unsound bond. 1/2"? 3/4"? no analysis or testing showing why. I however, will below provide evidence to the contrary.

You state a quote "Given the construction shown in the video of that particular (new) vessel, I'd guess that with enough normal heavy usage that sooner or later there would have been delamination issues even without a 'heavy' grounding." I missed where that came from, (citation?). I didn't see anything in the video to support that statement.

Regarding the failure being premature and why I think the evidence shows it was not; In the 1st post of this thread there's a video link, @ 7min the repair of the failed beam (1 of 2 areas discussed) is shown. Failure of the grid beam is evidence that loads significantly high enough to rupture the grid beam were transferred through the bonding agent into the grid. The grid absorbed the impact energy as designed I presume. In the Evans' Beneteau there are several cracks in the beams that can be seen in episode 2. The most significant is @ 12:25 EP2 on the beam Jade is standing (it is shown better in other episodes but i'm not going to hunt for them). Again, enough stress was imparted on the beam to cause it to fail. In both cases this means the stress and strain of the beam reached failure and arguably the bonding agent achieved it's design goal of transferring significant load to the grid. Not 'premature failure'... Not negligence... by design. Like crumple zones in a car perhaps.

no I don't own stock in Hanse.

Lastly, stating a company is negligent and liable on a public forum is grounds for them to sue you if they can show your claims are erroneous and damaging to their reputation. I’d tread lightly.... Disclaimer, I’m not a lawyer and this is not ‘legal’ advice. I do however, have a degree in engineering and 20+ years of experience in boat building and repair, though only 10yrs of that was as a full time professional career.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by BillKny

A coastal cruiser needs to be more robust than an ocean crossing bluewater boat headed to remote places where repairs and support are not available for weeks or months at a time?

No. Not even "Arguably." More like "Laughably"

Bill,

All depends upon definitions.

If someone is using the boat say in the Caribbean, then such build quality may be fine. You can make multiple day passages and run around the various coats with little risk. I don't know what the Med is like. The Baltic seems to be a rock garden. So “blue water” means away from coastal dangers.

Now if you are going to rock strewn places, say Greenland, then the Hanse construction is surly not acceptable. That may well include gunk holing around in the Baltic. “Expedition” implies coastal cruising, just in far away places.

So to my mind “blue water” and “expedition” are not the same. The Hanse may do well in blue water, it is not an expedition boat.

[zstine]

Originally Posted by Greg K

. . .

And, yes, I do think that all keel boats whether designed for coastal cruising or ocean voyaging should be able to withstand a hard grounding or collision with the keel at about 5 knots without having to undergo such extensive repairs.
...

First, you fail to understand post #16 and vpbekrly's explanation of energy absorption. The damage experienced in this Hanse (no hull breach, but cracking of internal structure) is arguably safer and perhaps a design feature of the Hanse and Beneteau. Cars are safer today because they 'crumple' compared to cars of the 1950's. If the hull and grid were stronger, higher loads will be imparted on the keel bolts for example, potentially making loss of keel and sinking more likely.

I believe the owners of boats should understand their boat's limitations and be aware that hitting a rock at 5 knts could cause significant damage including loss of the vessel (we don't all want to sail a full keel tank!). I personally enjoy to sail fast light planning boats. Your criteria would take that 'right' to pursue happiness away from me, because If all keel boats had to withstand a keel strike without damage, nearly all high performance racer/cruisers would violate this criteria and have to be removed from the market. no thanks!

[Westcliffe01]

The thing is, one such incident essentially totals the boat. Regardless of whether you say it is doing its job or not. If I had paid the asking price for any of the subject boats, I would be pissed that it was totalled and that I essentially had to work on it for weeks or months to make some sort of economic recovery. This is not an incident of the magnitude of a travel lift dropping the boat 8ft onto concrete.

[hpeer]

Your criteria would take that 'right' to pursue happiness away from me,

No one said any such thing, but it helps to explain why you are fight so hard.

Each person is free to do what they want, as are you.

However there should be a large degree of “truth in advertising.”

So back to the subject boat, it is pretty clear the Owner did not understand that he would undergo such massive damage, or just the risks involved in putting THIS boat into a COASTAL CHARTER.

If Hanse or the broker sold the boat knowing the Owners intentions and did not describe the risks then they could/should hold some liability.

Don't put Grandma in a Vette and tell its a good learner car for her teenagers, they will love it.

It would be equally wrong to sell an Island Packet as a racer.

Although it beggers the mind that boat is CE A1 rated.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by BillKny

A coastal cruiser needs to be more robust than an ocean crossing bluewater boat headed to remote places where repairs and support are not available for weeks or months at a time?

No. Not even "Arguably." More like "Laughably"

Yes, of course, from that perspective you're absolutely right. The point I was making was that such mishaps are arguably much more frequent in coastal and charter use. There's probably much bigger $$$ in worldwide insurance claims annually for the sort of structural repairs the Hanse is undergoing among the coastal and charter fleets than bluewater voyagers.

[Emmalina]

Originally Posted by guyrj33

You couldn’t be more wrong!

Might be a bit of sarcasm in there !

[Visarend]

...and this is the very reason why I love the integrated keels, and still cling to my (self built) boat, with all her lead ingots inside the keel, and voids filled with epoxy. A monolith, with 10 cm semi bulkheads before and aft, thoroughly epoxied to the hull (many plies), 40 cm high. In 30 years, touched a rock once, just a scar, no delamination.

[johnyred]

I dont get the subject of the discussion. Is it about bonding or fiberglassing the
grid structure?

Lets say someone has 400K for a hallberg rassy or similar hand made boat.
He could buy a Hanse or similar mass production still hand made boat for 200K.
If he is worried he can spend 10K and fiberglass his grid and have a boat good as a hallberg rassy.
Or if he grounds and damages the keel he can sell the boat and buy a new one and still have some money left from the 400K of the hallberg rassy.

[Kudu]

This is a classic argument. Luckily we have a free market, and you can choose what is important to you.



The European production boats offer space and performance at a relatively low price. We all know by now, that that choice incorporates a compromise on the robustness of the keel.



If you want a rugged boat get an older design with a lower aspect ratio cut-away classic keel, which will ride-up over obstructions. My money is on this type of boat, but many others have different desires.


The smart idea would be to work out a way to economically re-cycle the light modern boats after keel damage. I'm thinking shallower keels and low cost, heavy build, bolt-on sub-hulls. Wont be the same, but will fill someone else's dreams.

[Emmalina]

I had a Dehler that had a big chunk of rubber on the leading corner of the keel for this purpose !

[coopec43]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

I agree. I hit HARD 3 times in my Passport 47. (Damn 6'-6" draft!) I'm talking 'dead stop hard' from 5 knots and body flailing into the cockpit a couple of those times; Result? No damage, scraped keel.

Well your yacht is hardly a "fin" keel! (I wouldn't expect there to be structural damage)

[Finn77]

It's Hanse 418 and there are two more repair videos after the original one if someone's interested

https://youtu.be/qU6YfNn3vaE

https://youtu.be/Dwn0JpM8mPU