i have seen many many posts on this site about chainplate probs with certain models. is the 25.5 one of these?
- Status
Chainplates are not a problem on most ...
Steve: There have been very few problems with chainplates on Hunters in general. The biggest problems have been with older models (Cherubinis) leaking. These can be easily fixed with some epoxy and caulking too. There was an upgrade on a recall for some current models and the production flaw in a single 376. Never hurts to check out your boat, but it is not something I would worry about either.
Steve: There have been very few problems with chainplates on Hunters in general. The biggest problems have been with older models (Cherubinis) leaking. These can be easily fixed with some epoxy and caulking too. There was an upgrade on a recall for some current models and the production flaw in a single 376. Never hurts to check out your boat, but it is not something I would worry about either.
Yes, many of us should worry about this!
Hunter should make clear: (a)in which models, and since when, they have abandoned the time-honored method of using tie-down rods to directly connect the chainplates with the strongest parts of the hull; and (b) what kind of research plus design calculations went into the decision to connect chainplates to nonreinforced deck and outer hull areas instead. Until then, I strongly advise the owners of all larger Hunters without interior tie-down rods to employ the services of a capable naval architect to evaluate the need for substantial reinforcements before venturing too far offshore. Moreover, I predict that, unless Hunter does so (and provides a proper remedy if needed) they will fast lose any hard-won credibility about the seaworthiness of their newer models. In fact, I fully expect that we will see the formation of a new subcategory of Hunters on this board (in addition to the somewhat faddish Cherubini group), namely the newer "Forever Dockominium" designs, in contrast to the older potentially seaworthy models. I agree that the one Hunter 376 incident discussed recently, although certainly very serious for the hapless skipper and crew, was probably just a manufacturing quirk. However, it revealed an underlying, highly worrisome deviation from established sailing vessel design and manufacturing practices that people on this board had somehow completely missed or ignored. Good luck to anyone without proper chainplate attachments! Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II"
Hunter should make clear: (a)in which models, and since when, they have abandoned the time-honored method of using tie-down rods to directly connect the chainplates with the strongest parts of the hull; and (b) what kind of research plus design calculations went into the decision to connect chainplates to nonreinforced deck and outer hull areas instead. Until then, I strongly advise the owners of all larger Hunters without interior tie-down rods to employ the services of a capable naval architect to evaluate the need for substantial reinforcements before venturing too far offshore. Moreover, I predict that, unless Hunter does so (and provides a proper remedy if needed) they will fast lose any hard-won credibility about the seaworthiness of their newer models. In fact, I fully expect that we will see the formation of a new subcategory of Hunters on this board (in addition to the somewhat faddish Cherubini group), namely the newer "Forever Dockominium" designs, in contrast to the older potentially seaworthy models. I agree that the one Hunter 376 incident discussed recently, although certainly very serious for the hapless skipper and crew, was probably just a manufacturing quirk. However, it revealed an underlying, highly worrisome deviation from established sailing vessel design and manufacturing practices that people on this board had somehow completely missed or ignored. Good luck to anyone without proper chainplate attachments! Flying Dutchman "Rivendel II"
I think there should be some understanding.
I think that there should be some understanding of the changes that Hunter has made over the years. What some of us may view as a lack of engineering design may be a lack of understanding engineering. Hunter has changed the way the chainplates are designed a few times in the last 25-30 years. The earlier models in the 70's and early 80's had it's shrouds attached to a chainplate that through bolted through the main bulkheads. Beginning in the early to mid 80's the shrounds were attached to a chainplate that had a rod that screwed into a steel anchor that was bonded in under the pan grid system(this is like my 1985 H'31). In the mid 90's they began to use composite chainplates and found that they were as strong as the anchor system. The anchor system was only as strong the bonding that tied the pan grid to the hull. The composite chainplate however relies upon hull laminate that is actually built in all the way down into the keel. The chain plate attachment is drilled throught the deck and also through this hull laminate that is inboard of the deck. Contrary to the conclusion that some have drawn from the failure of 'ONE' 376 chainplate, the chainplate's rely upon this hull laminate that it is through bolted and is tied all the way down into the keel laminate. The 376 that had the chainplate failure was from a single production problem (NOT A DESIGN PROBLEM). You cannot judge that all the chain plate's with this design based upon this single failure of this Hunter 376. I doubt that this is going to change some opinions but considering that Hunter IS one of the largest mfg. of sailboats in the world, we all know that if this was a REAL problem we would have heard about this much more on this website that this single incident. Nearly every production manufacter has problems from time to time. The real difference is weather they stand behind their product or not. My understanding of this case is that Hunter has stepped up and did what they could.
I think that there should be some understanding of the changes that Hunter has made over the years. What some of us may view as a lack of engineering design may be a lack of understanding engineering. Hunter has changed the way the chainplates are designed a few times in the last 25-30 years. The earlier models in the 70's and early 80's had it's shrouds attached to a chainplate that through bolted through the main bulkheads. Beginning in the early to mid 80's the shrounds were attached to a chainplate that had a rod that screwed into a steel anchor that was bonded in under the pan grid system(this is like my 1985 H'31). In the mid 90's they began to use composite chainplates and found that they were as strong as the anchor system. The anchor system was only as strong the bonding that tied the pan grid to the hull. The composite chainplate however relies upon hull laminate that is actually built in all the way down into the keel. The chain plate attachment is drilled throught the deck and also through this hull laminate that is inboard of the deck. Contrary to the conclusion that some have drawn from the failure of 'ONE' 376 chainplate, the chainplate's rely upon this hull laminate that it is through bolted and is tied all the way down into the keel laminate. The 376 that had the chainplate failure was from a single production problem (NOT A DESIGN PROBLEM). You cannot judge that all the chain plate's with this design based upon this single failure of this Hunter 376. I doubt that this is going to change some opinions but considering that Hunter IS one of the largest mfg. of sailboats in the world, we all know that if this was a REAL problem we would have heard about this much more on this website that this single incident. Nearly every production manufacter has problems from time to time. The real difference is weather they stand behind their product or not. My understanding of this case is that Hunter has stepped up and did what they could.
- Status