The link will take you to some scary pictures of a chain plate failure on a late-model Hunter. Does anyone have any knowledge of this event or any have any idea what might have gone wrong?
- Status
CWBB
The Hunters, Catalinas and Beneteaus always get poor treatment by most of the posters on that board and there is always some nasty argumment going on there. Hunters are held in very low regard. That being said, this is a pretty ugly set of pictures from which I would have trouble defending the construction techniques. Would like to hear from an engineer about this. There seems to be a lot of reliance on adhesives to bond the hull to deck. My 28.5 appears to have its bolts closer together and the chainplate is a rod arrangement through the deck.
The Hunters, Catalinas and Beneteaus always get poor treatment by most of the posters on that board and there is always some nasty argumment going on there. Hunters are held in very low regard. That being said, this is a pretty ugly set of pictures from which I would have trouble defending the construction techniques. Would like to hear from an engineer about this. There seems to be a lot of reliance on adhesives to bond the hull to deck. My 28.5 appears to have its bolts closer together and the chainplate is a rod arrangement through the deck.
recall
Hunter recalled similar chainplates on h410 models. The new ones installed on my boat are longer and support two additional bolts that actually go into the hull. Much better. It would be interesting to know what model is shown in the picture Clayton posted. I'd certainly want to know if I had a boat other than a 410.
Hunter recalled similar chainplates on h410 models. The new ones installed on my boat are longer and support two additional bolts that actually go into the hull. Much better. It would be interesting to know what model is shown in the picture Clayton posted. I'd certainly want to know if I had a boat other than a 410.
It is a 1997 H376
The failure happened during the Harvest Moon Regatta. The boat, "Lady Lou" was racing in the PHRFCR Class "N" division. (Details in link below.) I heard from other racers that the conditions this year were 20 to 25 knots of wind with 6 to 8 foot seas. The wind direction was such that it was a 150 mile beam reach on port tack that became a close reach towards the finish. Note: "Night Wind" in the same division, is a Hunter 37.5 There was no indication of any abnormal circumstance like collision, accidental jibe, sabatoge, etc., caused this failure.
The failure happened during the Harvest Moon Regatta. The boat, "Lady Lou" was racing in the PHRFCR Class "N" division. (Details in link below.) I heard from other racers that the conditions this year were 20 to 25 knots of wind with 6 to 8 foot seas. The wind direction was such that it was a 150 mile beam reach on port tack that became a close reach towards the finish. Note: "Night Wind" in the same division, is a Hunter 37.5 There was no indication of any abnormal circumstance like collision, accidental jibe, sabatoge, etc., caused this failure.
Just called Hunter
I put a call into Eddie Breeden to find out what Hunter knows about this. Here's what I heard: The boat is a 376, 1998 model year. Back in '98, the hulls were cut freehand. It appears this particular hull was cut too close and there wasn't enough laminate to properly anchor the chainplate. Hunter is in touch with the owner and is repairing the hull, chainplate, and any other damage caused by the incident. They've also contacted other 376 owners (and perhaps owners of other models, too - I'm not sure about that) which were built in the same time frame. They have found no further problems. Eddie also explained that they are now using templates for cutting the hull so problems like this don't happen. Overall, I got the impression that they're disappointed this happened but are taking responsibility and making it as right as they can.
I put a call into Eddie Breeden to find out what Hunter knows about this. Here's what I heard: The boat is a 376, 1998 model year. Back in '98, the hulls were cut freehand. It appears this particular hull was cut too close and there wasn't enough laminate to properly anchor the chainplate. Hunter is in touch with the owner and is repairing the hull, chainplate, and any other damage caused by the incident. They've also contacted other 376 owners (and perhaps owners of other models, too - I'm not sure about that) which were built in the same time frame. They have found no further problems. Eddie also explained that they are now using templates for cutting the hull so problems like this don't happen. Overall, I got the impression that they're disappointed this happened but are taking responsibility and making it as right as they can.
One attaching point?
Am I right in observing that this 376 has a rig with only one chainplate attaching point per side? I hate to say it but... this leaves very little margin for error when it comes to fastening that thing home. It's like all or nothing, you know. In at least one way the old '70s black aluminium toerail had an advantage-- distribute pull over a long length of T-6066, you know. Also-- for people with similar rigs out there-- how do you bend the mast? JC
Am I right in observing that this 376 has a rig with only one chainplate attaching point per side? I hate to say it but... this leaves very little margin for error when it comes to fastening that thing home. It's like all or nothing, you know. In at least one way the old '70s black aluminium toerail had an advantage-- distribute pull over a long length of T-6066, you know. Also-- for people with similar rigs out there-- how do you bend the mast? JC
Resale
Is anybody concerned about the resale value of this and similar lines of Hunters? Assurances from Hunter that all subsequent hulls were done better counts for nada. Any knowledgeable surveyor or buyer (and the internet makes them knowledgeable) will balk at a 2 bolt chain plate secured to a deck which is secured to a hull with 5200 and 6 to 12" oc 5/16" machine screws. This is marginal engineering at its finest and only serves to weaken Hunter's rep across the board. It is commendable of Hunter to underwrite the complete repair of this vessel, but, this is only one of how many others?
Is anybody concerned about the resale value of this and similar lines of Hunters? Assurances from Hunter that all subsequent hulls were done better counts for nada. Any knowledgeable surveyor or buyer (and the internet makes them knowledgeable) will balk at a 2 bolt chain plate secured to a deck which is secured to a hull with 5200 and 6 to 12" oc 5/16" machine screws. This is marginal engineering at its finest and only serves to weaken Hunter's rep across the board. It is commendable of Hunter to underwrite the complete repair of this vessel, but, this is only one of how many others?
It absolutely inexcuseable
for Hunter to have even let this design off the drawing board, let alone out the door. The Hunter bashing that goes on at the CWBB, among others, is usually uninformed drivel but this is indefensible. I feel less warm and fuzzy about the factory's willingness to repair this mess than I am appalled that they thought this was a seaworthy design in the first place. As Hunter owner, you're damn right I'm concerned it'll affect the value of my boat, even though it's a different model and vintage. You should be too. What gets me is that my much older boat has tie rods connecting the chainplates to the hull for crissakes. This statement about about the hull being cut by hand and a little too close just doesn't get it for me (or probably anybody else either.) Hunter's got some 'splainin' to do.
for Hunter to have even let this design off the drawing board, let alone out the door. The Hunter bashing that goes on at the CWBB, among others, is usually uninformed drivel but this is indefensible. I feel less warm and fuzzy about the factory's willingness to repair this mess than I am appalled that they thought this was a seaworthy design in the first place. As Hunter owner, you're damn right I'm concerned it'll affect the value of my boat, even though it's a different model and vintage. You should be too. What gets me is that my much older boat has tie rods connecting the chainplates to the hull for crissakes. This statement about about the hull being cut by hand and a little too close just doesn't get it for me (or probably anybody else either.) Hunter's got some 'splainin' to do.
Experimentation
Perhaps Hunter has gone a little too far in trying to reinvent rigging. The commercial marketplace is not the place to be using for a design laboratory. Save that for the America's Cup where rigs that fall apart, hulls bending in two, keels breaking off, rudder stocks leaking are the norm. Not on family cruisers.
Perhaps Hunter has gone a little too far in trying to reinvent rigging. The commercial marketplace is not the place to be using for a design laboratory. Save that for the America's Cup where rigs that fall apart, hulls bending in two, keels breaking off, rudder stocks leaking are the norm. Not on family cruisers.
I agree
Hunter is very glib with the explanations when something like this happens. Like the chainplate replacements on the 410's. What's the real reason they had to do this, I wonder? And shouldn't they look at all their boats with the same design chainplates and send out replacements?
Hunter is very glib with the explanations when something like this happens. Like the chainplate replacements on the 410's. What's the real reason they had to do this, I wonder? And shouldn't they look at all their boats with the same design chainplates and send out replacements?
Ouch!
This is a pretty big failure for the sailing conditions described-- or for that matter for any sailing conditions. The title says chainplate failure, but it looks like a joint failure. I looked at the Hunter website to get a better idea of the current hull to deck construction (see link) but I can't reconcile Hunter's illustration with what I see here. Where is the flange on the hull?? something is pretty wrong here, and I don't understand Eddie's explaination unless the hull flange was nearly missing because of a bad trim job. Even so, something was missing in the QC to let this assemble incorrectly. Since there are hundreds sailing in all waters in lots of worse conditions, I suppose we can take some comfort in this being unique, and in Hunter stepping up to the plate. Rick D.
This is a pretty big failure for the sailing conditions described-- or for that matter for any sailing conditions. The title says chainplate failure, but it looks like a joint failure. I looked at the Hunter website to get a better idea of the current hull to deck construction (see link) but I can't reconcile Hunter's illustration with what I see here. Where is the flange on the hull?? something is pretty wrong here, and I don't understand Eddie's explaination unless the hull flange was nearly missing because of a bad trim job. Even so, something was missing in the QC to let this assemble incorrectly. Since there are hundreds sailing in all waters in lots of worse conditions, I suppose we can take some comfort in this being unique, and in Hunter stepping up to the plate. Rick D.
I'm glad I don't have no stinkin' chainplates!
The pictures are awful!. If the width of the flange was EVER a freehand cutting decision by a guy on the floor, then that is really bad manufacturing engineering! I'd also suggest that Hunter's value engineering effort has gone too far. My Vision 32 has a free-standing rig, so chainplate failure is one lees thing I worry about!
The pictures are awful!. If the width of the flange was EVER a freehand cutting decision by a guy on the floor, then that is really bad manufacturing engineering! I'd also suggest that Hunter's value engineering effort has gone too far. My Vision 32 has a free-standing rig, so chainplate failure is one lees thing I worry about!
What were they thinking (or smoking) ???
This whole affair makes me sick to my stomach. What worries me more than the obvious screw-up with the cutting job ("sh@t happens") is the underlying design idea that the chainplate of an almost 40ft sailing vessel can simply be bolted to a relatively thin fiberglass hull. What happens if that hull gets cracked below the attachment point, e.g. as the result of a (all too common) collision with a dock? The only way I could see this possibly work is if the bolted-through hull area had been specially laid up with radial FG plys, in order to create a systematic load distribution area. Even then, however, some degree of vulnerability to collisional damage and failure would seem to remain. At this point it would seem prudent to warn all owners of larger Hunters that do not seem to have a solid tie-rod connection between the chainplate and the structural grid to have their chain plate area inspected by a certified marine surveyor (preferably with design experience). If several inspectors were to conclude that the construction is unsafe and that the vessel should therefore not be taken offshore, one might have the makings of a class action suit..... Ugly as that may be, it is far better than loosing a vessel, let alone a life, because of a senseless design mess. I love my Hunter Legend 43 and I have always been impressed by Hunter's Custom Service. Right now, however, I feel embarrassed to have encouraged owners of 30+ Hunters to go cruising offshore, if they feel like it. Therefore,let me repeat: if your 30+ footer does not have a belowdecks tie-rod anchoring your chainplates to a structural member or grid, please do not take your vessel offshore without further inspection! Flying Dutchman
This whole affair makes me sick to my stomach. What worries me more than the obvious screw-up with the cutting job ("sh@t happens") is the underlying design idea that the chainplate of an almost 40ft sailing vessel can simply be bolted to a relatively thin fiberglass hull. What happens if that hull gets cracked below the attachment point, e.g. as the result of a (all too common) collision with a dock? The only way I could see this possibly work is if the bolted-through hull area had been specially laid up with radial FG plys, in order to create a systematic load distribution area. Even then, however, some degree of vulnerability to collisional damage and failure would seem to remain. At this point it would seem prudent to warn all owners of larger Hunters that do not seem to have a solid tie-rod connection between the chainplate and the structural grid to have their chain plate area inspected by a certified marine surveyor (preferably with design experience). If several inspectors were to conclude that the construction is unsafe and that the vessel should therefore not be taken offshore, one might have the makings of a class action suit..... Ugly as that may be, it is far better than loosing a vessel, let alone a life, because of a senseless design mess. I love my Hunter Legend 43 and I have always been impressed by Hunter's Custom Service. Right now, however, I feel embarrassed to have encouraged owners of 30+ Hunters to go cruising offshore, if they feel like it. Therefore,let me repeat: if your 30+ footer does not have a belowdecks tie-rod anchoring your chainplates to a structural member or grid, please do not take your vessel offshore without further inspection! Flying Dutchman
The chainplate doesn't look too bad, it's...
the hull/deck joint that opened up like a sardine can. It looks like the chainplate is just attached to the deck which is pretty crazy but it seems to still be attached. The deck part of the flange looks like it was way too thin. It looks almost like the bolt hole was drilled off center so it was more of a crescent than a hole. This makes me want to peel off the rubrail on mine and take a look at what's hiding under there. Pretty shoddy workmanship in a critical area, to say nothing of bad design. I think most of us owners would be willing to pay a couple more dollars to anchor the chainplates to the hull or a bulkhead, they can't possibly have saved much money by doing this.
the hull/deck joint that opened up like a sardine can. It looks like the chainplate is just attached to the deck which is pretty crazy but it seems to still be attached. The deck part of the flange looks like it was way too thin. It looks almost like the bolt hole was drilled off center so it was more of a crescent than a hole. This makes me want to peel off the rubrail on mine and take a look at what's hiding under there. Pretty shoddy workmanship in a critical area, to say nothing of bad design. I think most of us owners would be willing to pay a couple more dollars to anchor the chainplates to the hull or a bulkhead, they can't possibly have saved much money by doing this.
goes the distance?
The under-engineering that went into ALL the chainplates on larger Hunters is the same problem as the under-engineering that went into the bow cleats on the Austrailian 410 we saw washed up on the beach a few months ago. Hunter takes a few shortcuts to reduce manufacturing costs, and the further you get from the intercoastal waterway the more likely it is that your boat will be the next one with pictures posted on this site that something ripped out of the deck. I'm with you, Henk, add my name to the growing list of Hunter owners who wishes he'd bought a true offshore sailboat. What ever happened to that motto: Hunter goes the distance?
The under-engineering that went into ALL the chainplates on larger Hunters is the same problem as the under-engineering that went into the bow cleats on the Austrailian 410 we saw washed up on the beach a few months ago. Hunter takes a few shortcuts to reduce manufacturing costs, and the further you get from the intercoastal waterway the more likely it is that your boat will be the next one with pictures posted on this site that something ripped out of the deck. I'm with you, Henk, add my name to the growing list of Hunter owners who wishes he'd bought a true offshore sailboat. What ever happened to that motto: Hunter goes the distance?
Whoah there John
let's be careful with that broad brush. If you're referring to that particular chainplate design then you and Henk are absolutely right and like you, as a fellow Hunter owner, I'm pretty peeved about the market consequences as it may affect us. It doesn't, however, reduce my satisfaction with my own boat. The large tie rods that connect my chainplates to the substantial grid structure in the hull gives me confidence that I'll give up long before my boat does. I've got cutaway drawings of the mid eighties big boat structures and I think it compares favorably with most other volume manufacturers. If you really wanted a dedicated 'blue water' boat then you probably didn't need this episode to convince you that there might other boats better designed for that purpose (tankage, storage, seaberths, etc.) I'll wager however that this isn't what most Hunter owners were after in the first place. I'm perfectly happy that my boat is comfortable, very fast and *reasonably* well built. I absolutely think the designers and the QC guys should be raked over the coals on this one but it doesn't mean *all* the big boats are crap. It's bad enough that the rest of the sailing world may think that anyway so I think it's particularly important that as Hunter owners we retain some perspective. I'm sure you guys were referring to the 376 and 410 designs though, right? Fair winds.
let's be careful with that broad brush. If you're referring to that particular chainplate design then you and Henk are absolutely right and like you, as a fellow Hunter owner, I'm pretty peeved about the market consequences as it may affect us. It doesn't, however, reduce my satisfaction with my own boat. The large tie rods that connect my chainplates to the substantial grid structure in the hull gives me confidence that I'll give up long before my boat does. I've got cutaway drawings of the mid eighties big boat structures and I think it compares favorably with most other volume manufacturers. If you really wanted a dedicated 'blue water' boat then you probably didn't need this episode to convince you that there might other boats better designed for that purpose (tankage, storage, seaberths, etc.) I'll wager however that this isn't what most Hunter owners were after in the first place. I'm perfectly happy that my boat is comfortable, very fast and *reasonably* well built. I absolutely think the designers and the QC guys should be raked over the coals on this one but it doesn't mean *all* the big boats are crap. It's bad enough that the rest of the sailing world may think that anyway so I think it's particularly important that as Hunter owners we retain some perspective. I'm sure you guys were referring to the 376 and 410 designs though, right? Fair winds.
Fix/prevent in the field
I think, given all the discussion about an example of shoddy workmanship, that there can't be anything wrong with any of us taking on the job of reinforcing the chainplate areas of the hull on our own. Lawsuits and blame-pointing do nothing for anyone at the time the rig goes over the side. In that way everything is ultimately the skipper's responsibility. The prudent might consider pulling the bolts of the chainplates, laying up more glass in that area, and redrilling new holes, especially on older boats. Fibreglassing is not (as this instance of Hunter 'de-engineering' illustrates) exceptionally difficult work and any of us are qualified to wet out a few patches of glass and apply them responsibly here and there. I have a 28-year-old H-25 and I will be doing this very job to a boat that, by design and by its contemporary building standards, probably doesn't need it. But if I can do it inexpensively and easily, why not? JC 2
I think, given all the discussion about an example of shoddy workmanship, that there can't be anything wrong with any of us taking on the job of reinforcing the chainplate areas of the hull on our own. Lawsuits and blame-pointing do nothing for anyone at the time the rig goes over the side. In that way everything is ultimately the skipper's responsibility. The prudent might consider pulling the bolts of the chainplates, laying up more glass in that area, and redrilling new holes, especially on older boats. Fibreglassing is not (as this instance of Hunter 'de-engineering' illustrates) exceptionally difficult work and any of us are qualified to wet out a few patches of glass and apply them responsibly here and there. I have a 28-year-old H-25 and I will be doing this very job to a boat that, by design and by its contemporary building standards, probably doesn't need it. But if I can do it inexpensively and easily, why not? JC 2
for Rick S
I hate the thought of turning this into a peeing match. You ASSUME a few things which you ought not to have, Rick-- and believe it or not I say this in all due respect for a guy I know as little as you know me. First of all, at SEA, EVERYTHING is 'ultimately the skipper’s responsibility'. Who else is there to blame? But my point was that blaming Hunter or anyone else solves nothing after it's happened. The important point is that we, who have not had this chainplate/deck failure happen to us, are now forewarned. It is incumbent upon every one of us who has any suspicion about the strength of his boat to poke his nose in there and inspect for himself. I am positive none of us would rather say, 'Look at those SOBs who built my boat!' --and then go off on a sail, have it fail, and thus allow some disastrous consequences to take their place. Not you-- not me. The point I was making was that any one of us can remedy the POTENTIAL for this problem by inspecting, or at least having someone more expert inspect, his boat as it is now. The poor people to whom this happened obviously did not know to inspect it. We now do. Let us all be prudent. And I hope I made the point that the fix is NOT all that complicated. Any of us could do it. (As for your comment that the stresses on a mere 25-footer are different than those on a 37- or 41-footer, allow me to politely assume that maybe you do not know or have forgotten my professional background, my direct hands-on experience, and my knowledge base in the realm of yacht design, construction, and sailing... but I promise-- only in the very best-humored spirit-- to never mind it if we can both let it go. --wink) JC 2
I hate the thought of turning this into a peeing match. You ASSUME a few things which you ought not to have, Rick-- and believe it or not I say this in all due respect for a guy I know as little as you know me. First of all, at SEA, EVERYTHING is 'ultimately the skipper’s responsibility'. Who else is there to blame? But my point was that blaming Hunter or anyone else solves nothing after it's happened. The important point is that we, who have not had this chainplate/deck failure happen to us, are now forewarned. It is incumbent upon every one of us who has any suspicion about the strength of his boat to poke his nose in there and inspect for himself. I am positive none of us would rather say, 'Look at those SOBs who built my boat!' --and then go off on a sail, have it fail, and thus allow some disastrous consequences to take their place. Not you-- not me. The point I was making was that any one of us can remedy the POTENTIAL for this problem by inspecting, or at least having someone more expert inspect, his boat as it is now. The poor people to whom this happened obviously did not know to inspect it. We now do. Let us all be prudent. And I hope I made the point that the fix is NOT all that complicated. Any of us could do it. (As for your comment that the stresses on a mere 25-footer are different than those on a 37- or 41-footer, allow me to politely assume that maybe you do not know or have forgotten my professional background, my direct hands-on experience, and my knowledge base in the realm of yacht design, construction, and sailing... but I promise-- only in the very best-humored spirit-- to never mind it if we can both let it go. --wink) JC 2
- Status