The Yard Guys

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

You are. By once again trying to demonstrate that certain brands of inexpensively manufactured boats are "unfairly maligned" because more reputable brands also suffer failures.

All boats suffer similar failures in all kinds of conditions in all kinds of places. That's been my point from the beginning. How is that bending facts?

Minaret said that the Moody's failure was due to an "idiotic tow". Is that what you read too? Or are those facts a little bent?

Granted, he might have information we don't see in that thread or on the blog - but until then...

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Exile

Uh-Oh . . .

Hunter 356 Bluewater Capable? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

I've been watching that one to see who from here was going to chime in. Probably opened the flood gates now that you posted the link.

[Exile]

I need at least 5 characters again for this reply to work, apparently.

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

All boats suffer similar failures in all kinds of conditions in all kinds of places. That's been my point from the beginning. How is that bending facts?

You've made that point again & again. What I never understood is why you keep making it -- or ever chose to make it to begin with -- when I don't recall it ever being contested! The issue is whether the inexpensive boats are unfairly maligned because they undisputedly use cheaper, less labor intensive mfg. processes, and because so many yard guys (here & elsewhere) don't seem to believe they're as well built as other well-respected brands. You don't think experienced yard guys haven't seen just about every type of failure on any & all boats? The question is what type of failures are they, & whether they are attributable to age, usage, lack of maintenance, or accidents, or whether they are instead a direct result of cheap construction from the factory. Since there are almost no regulatory stds. nor reporting requirements for accidents, failures & repairs, and because so few boats of any brand really get used, then what good is keeping count if there's no causation? You look for patterns, I suppose, and try & connect the dots. For example, the fact of a rudder failing on a 30-yr. old boat entered in the ARC -- in the absence of any other history -- is one thing; photos of bulkheads failing on a relatively new Bene after two Atlantic crossings is quite another. No, it doesn't necessarily prove anything without add'l information, but it does corrorborate the opinions you asked for from the yard guys!

Minaret said that the Moody's failure was due to an "idiotic tow". Is that what you read too? Or are those facts a little bent?

I don't honestly know. I haven't gone back & re-read the thread and I don't think I read the entire thread the first time. But does it matter? The question you seem to be interested in is whether the failure was attributable to a mfg. design or construction flaw as suggested by the reported "spate" of failures in the mid-80's, or whether it was the result of external events, namely a faulty repair job plus the grounding, combined with maybe also an improper tow. Minaret's point was that it was ultimately attributed to external events, but what seems important to you is whether faulty construction also played a role, not whether it was the grounding or the tow job that contributed to the damage.

Granted, he might have information we don't see in that thread or on the blog - but until then...

Could be. He did say he had been in touch with the owners to offer help. But the pattern we're looking for I suppose is whether it had anything to do with failures of these components in the mid-80's, assuming this boat was that old. But what does the build quality of a 30-year old Moody have to do with the structural integrity of modern, mass-produced boats? In other words, if we conclude the Moody was poorly constructed, does that make the newer boats in question built any better?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by avb3

I've been watching that one to see who from here was going to chime in. Probably opened the flood gates now that you posted the link.

Might have to start selling tickets. Could be standing room only!

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Minaret said that the Moody's failure was due to an "idiotic tow". Is that what you read too? Or are those facts a little bent?

Granted, he might have information we don't see in that thread or on the blog - but until then...

I can't quote you the exact online info or link but back at that time ISTR it emerged that Primrose had run aground at some point. A tow operator had tried to pull her off which resulted in skeg damage. The skeg wasn't damaged in the grounding but in the effort to pull her off. It may have been a grounding previous to the one in question i just don't remember. Back then at first everyone was fascinated as to how a Moody could loose a skeg in a "soft" grounding. But after the whole story emerged no one i can recall thought the Moody had a crappy skeg design. It was understood a tow caused the initial damage. I vaguely remember the initial damage was caused on a previous grounding.

The main lesson of that whole episode was to be cautious with deep draft boats in the ICW and use good experienced tow operators when you inevitably run aground slowly because you were cautious.

I am not saying in this particular case what I am about to say is relevant because I don't know. But in general you have to be skeptical of blogs and online postings about how a boat came to be damage and presumed causes the owner gives. There is a lot of money at stake and insurance companies will read the blogs.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by minaret

If you think offshore passages are boring, that explains a lot.

No, I love offshore passages but not the ones that take 22 days. Too long for my taste. Ideally I like to have an offshore passage that takes between 6 hours to 24 hours, preferably in muscular strong conditions that allows the boat to go fast and then have a rest, going to a nice restaurant and have some drinks on a bar. That means on my boat and on those conditions passages between 45 and 170Nm. Off course, I have made passages that took several days, but that is just what I like more.

I am quite sure that most cruising sailors find boring even 24 hours passages. Most of then cruise about 30nm a day or less if they can.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Exile

Maybe it's because when a hurricane is approaching those who opt to head out to sea rather than heading for safe harbor are never heard from again??? Insurance cos. do rely on the amount of claims filed to set their premiums. They're pretty heartless that way.

Either way, it still negates the point made that insurance companies lowering rates for being at sea is plain silly.

In fact, many do just that in practice.

Mark

[Polux]

Originally Posted by smackdaddy

Woah! I had no idea about the other Moody's losing their rudders. I only came across that one instance in the ICW.
..

You may as well have a look at why that old Moody 47 that was making the ARC diverted to Cabo Verde. He is still there. He was making the ARC among the last when it diverted to the Islands. The Discovery 57, the Bavaria 47 and 44, the Lagoon 450 that also had to make a pit stop there are long gone and they are already very close to the last boats on the Transat, the Island Packet 38 and those old Nauticats (42 and 43), the old Mason 44 and the old Maramu.

Funny a Hanse 505 that had made there a pit stop too and returned to the Canary Islands against the prevailing winds!!! Probably some personal problem and a great performance upwind: they are almost there.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Exile

You mean when the engine dies approaching the narrow inlet bordered by rock jetties, but the sail covers are back on, and the stopper to secure the anchor has already been set? Some people seem to forget that their diesel is only their AUX engine.

With electric furling on both my headsail & main, some would argue that having hank-on heavy weather sails is the safest way to undertake a passage. On my boat, they are only deployed in 30+ kt. conditions, so my current set-up would minimize the possibility of fouling. At the same time, who wants to leave the cockpit when it's blowing 30+ kts.?!

I personally never understood the urge of some people to "tidy up" before they finally docked/moored/anchored. Although in my first and only season with an outboard on a 27footer my motor did die on me while navigating our mooring field, good thing the sails were not tucked in under a cover or I'd have some angry neighbors to deal with. ))

[SimonV]

Originally Posted by Polux

There will be very few that will enjoy 20 days at sea without seeing land or having a nice meal on a restaurant, a beer at the bar, or changing from time to time from one nice anchorage to another. Sure, it will be nice to know the Caribbean, but like most Americans do regarding the Med, it is a lot less boring and time consuming to charter a boat there. I don't know if I ever cross the Atlantic but you can be sure that if I cross it will not be for the pleasure of crossing it (boring stuff) but for the pleasure to sail on the Caribbean with my own boat. It is worth it? I did not decide yet, but for most it isn't.

I must be one of the very few. I can honestly say my single handed crossing of the Pacific was cathartic and I can hardly wait for the next . One thing I did find strange was I became disappointed on seeing the Marquasers my 23 days San Francisco to the islands was just too short.


Sent from my GT-N7105T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by SimonV

I must be one of the very few. I can honestly say my single handed crossing of the Pacific was cathartic and I can hardly wait for the next . One thing I did find strange was I became disappointed on seeing the Marquasers my 23 days San Francisco to the islands was just too short.


Sent from my GT-N7105T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

You've got some Moitessier running through your veins.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Polux

You mean that boat with a huge windage, a cage window and 28% of D/B ratio on an old keel with a low draft?
This one?





The one you say it has a lateral not watertight door and is not able to pass the Class A relatively small minimum demanded in what regards safety and seaworthiness?
´



That is easy to know. People do what they desire to do. If you see that most cruisers have boats with the ability to cross oceans and see only a small portion of them crossing the Atlantic it is because they don't want to. Or do you really think that crossing the Atlantic, besides being boring to most, is something special or dificult?

There will be very few that will enjoy 20 days at sea without seeing land or having a nice meal on a restaurant, a beer at the bar, or changing from time to time from one nice anchorage to another. Sure, it will be nice to know the Caribbean, but like most Americans do regarding the Med, it is a lot less boring and time consuming to charter a boat there. I don't know if I ever cross the Atlantic but you can be sure that if I cross it will not be for the pleasure of crossing it (boring stuff) but for the pleasure to sail on the Caribbean with my own boat. It is worth it? I did not decide yet, but for most it isn't.

That explain a lot, so you need to try it before make a opinión, i do the Transat 9 times, for me right now its boring, thats why i stop doing deliverys, because i dont found anymore the joy to do it again, 2 years ago a customer ask me to move a Brand new Amel to La Rochelle, i refuse the proposition even with good cash in advance.

But to claim that croosing a ocean is boring,,,, nahh, is not, you do lots of things, weather, sail changes , triming, cooking, fishing, Reading, even fixing things, if you believe can be boring maybe is your lack of passión for the sea, i feel more boring be in a marina in Winter , sailing in weekends, and motoring in the calms, now thats boring!!!

Saying that the most part of cruisers just want to sail in the caribbean and for this reason choose to cross the atlantic, cmon, take a plane to Las Palmas and make a report asking each boat why they want to cross the atlantic? for the most is the 1 ocean passage and the joy to do it one time, for others is a dream come true, and for others is the 2 or 3 ARC and they enjoy it like the 1 time, very easy to make a assumption from a marina dock...

[smackdaddy]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by smackdaddy All boats suffer similar failures in all kinds of conditions in all kinds of places. That's been my point from the beginning. How is that bending facts?

You've made that point again & again. What I never understood is why you keep making it -- or ever chose to make it to begin with -- when I don't recall it ever being contested! The issue is whether the inexpensive boats are unfairly maligned because they undisputedly use cheaper, less labor intensive mfg. processes, and because so many yard guys (here & elsewhere) don't seem to believe they're as well built as other well-respected brands. You don't think experienced yard guys haven't seen just about every type of failure on any & all boats? The question is what type of failures are they, & whether they are attributable to age, usage, lack of maintenance, or accidents, or whether they are instead a direct result of cheap construction from the factory. Since there are almost no regulatory stds. nor reporting requirements for accidents, failures & repairs, and because so few boats of any brand really get used, then what good is keeping count if there's no causation? You look for patterns, I suppose, and try & connect the dots. For example, the fact of a rudder failing on a 30-yr. old boat entered in the ARC -- in the absence of any other history -- is one thing; photos of bulkheads failing on a relatively new Bene after two Atlantic crossings is quite another. No, it doesn't necessarily prove anything without add'l information, but it does corrorborate the opinions you asked for from the yard guys!

I'm sorry, but I just haven't seen a lot of evidence from the yard guys. Seriously. Yes, a few photos of 3-4 boats (1-2 actually compelling, others second-hand from years ago), but hardly the kind of thing that would prove anything about "poorly-built" production boats suffering structural failures all over the place. So, yes, I DEFINITELY hear this same point "made over and over again". If yard guys are actually seeing this as often as claimed - then show it. It's that simple. This thread was created for that. So far, it's been kinda quiet. Me, I look for evidence of the patterns that people are claiming are obvious. You, you seem to look for quiet.

Originally Posted by Exile

Minaret said that the Moody's failure was due to an "idiotic tow". Is that what you read too? Or are those facts a little bent?

I don't honestly know. I haven't gone back & re-read the thread and I don't think I read the entire thread the first time. But does it matter? The question you seem to be interested in is whether the failure was attributable to a mfg. design or construction flaw as suggested by the reported "spate" of failures in the mid-80's, or whether it was the result of external events, namely a faulty repair job plus the grounding, combined with maybe also an improper tow. Minaret's point was that it was ultimately attributed to external events, but what seems important to you is whether faulty construction also played a role, not whether it was the grounding or the tow job that contributed to the damage.

It matters because Minaret accused me of "bending the facts to fit some agenda". Knowing whether the skeg was ripped off when Mike backed the boat off under the its own power - or when an "idiotic" towboat captain improperly ripped the boat backward is a very important detail. As an insurance shaman, you should know the importance of such details and want to keep them straight. Well, unless you "have an agenda".

Originally Posted by Exile

Granted, he might have information we don't see in that thread or on the blog - but until then...

Could be. He did say he had been in touch with the owners to offer help. But the pattern we're looking for I suppose is whether it had anything to do with failures of these components in the mid-80's, assuming this boat was that old. But what does the build quality of a 30-year old Moody have to do with the structural integrity of modern, mass-produced boats? In other words, if we conclude the Moody was poorly constructed, does that make the newer boats in question built any better?

Originally Posted by Exile

It matters because many of the BWCC (Blue Water Crowds Coops), push newbs toward these 30 year old "bluewater boats" as being "safer" off-shore. Moodys have long been in that category. It would be good for newbs to know that this oft-spouted advice has some big holes in its "well-built, bluewater" hull.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

That explain a lot, so you need to try it before make a opinión, i do the Transat 9 times, for me right now its boring, thats why i stop doing deliverys, because i dont found anymore the joy to do it again, 2 years ago a customer ask me to move a Brand new Amel to La Rochelle, i refuse the proposition even with good cash in advance.
....

So it took you several times to find it boring Some will know that for them it will be boring even without trying it once. Some found pleasure in circumnavigating non stop. I do not need to do that to know that I would find that booooooring but I respect the ones that find pleasure on that as I respect the ones that find pleasure in racing or in day sailing. Different forms of sailing for different sailor's tastes. That's all.

[neilpride]

No, i found it boring doing very often , i enjoy it the first 2 and 3 and 4 time , you learn a lot in a ocean passage , i dont change my first transat for nothing,...