Here's what John writes regarding H37C holding tanks(see the "Design on the 54" thread): "Then again maybe you can avoid work. What precisely is wrong with the tank? Is the clean-out plate accessible enough to get an arm and cleaning solvent into it? Can it be pumped by hand? Or, if it just plain leaks, can a flexible rubber tank be inserted into it and used instead? If you gauge your sizes right you may not even lose much capacity." So you see there are still a few things that we can teach Mr. Cherubini about his Dad's boats. John, there is no clean-out port. The aluminum tank is under the shower seat, completely inaccessible. They rot and leak. The shower seat is a nicely molded white f/g, a continuous part of the inner liner from toerail to shower floor. From the locker under the starboard v-berth, looking aft, you can see some tabbing that holds the tank against the hull. Most of us have taken the tank out through that triangular shaped hole. It is necessary to cut the tank into little pieces to get it out. Very few H37Cs still have a tank there. You are correct regarding f/g repair. Someone with the right skills could take the old tank out after cutting out the seat, put a new tank in there, and reglass it so no one would know. I think one fellow did that. Here on Lake Erie we need a larger tank than that space can accomodate because we can never pump overboard. So for most of us the problem is where to put the replacement tank. For sure it will be 3/8" polyethelene, not aluminum!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Of tankage and poor excuses
Good point about the tank, Ed. I was never involved in the actual production of the boats once they left the prototype stage. Any tank without a clean-out port is a major oversight and, unfortunately for 'edifiers', not the fault of the designer. The tank is a subassembly produced under the auspices of Hunter purchasing. Thew designer merely stipulates where it should go (and in practice not always on his own). I am sorry for that inconvenience but it p's me o' to hear of that. It's inexcusable. Again I don't know how the tankage is all configured but look under the vee berth for possible space to locate a flexible vinyl tank, as we had on Antigone. JC
Good point about the tank, Ed. I was never involved in the actual production of the boats once they left the prototype stage. Any tank without a clean-out port is a major oversight and, unfortunately for 'edifiers', not the fault of the designer. The tank is a subassembly produced under the auspices of Hunter purchasing. Thew designer merely stipulates where it should go (and in practice not always on his own). I am sorry for that inconvenience but it p's me o' to hear of that. It's inexcusable. Again I don't know how the tankage is all configured but look under the vee berth for possible space to locate a flexible vinyl tank, as we had on Antigone. JC
E
Ed Schenck
Not blaming, just "edifying".
There are a dozen of us 'H37C bigots' that correspond regularly. And a lot of other H37C owners here on HOW(over 75 in the Owner's Directory"). There are engineers, lawyers, working stiff's like me, and even marine architects. We love that boat, the holding tank is an annoyance. You may also not know that the 1979, and maybe 1980, did not have the engine/tranny/stuffing box access from the quarter-berth. When I first started asking questions about drip adjustment and oil changes here most responders could not understand my problem. Thank God for Gene Greunder and Tom Haoulias who helped me with measurements. I cut my own "door". To get a really good "under-the-covers" look at the H37C be sure to check Gene's site under "Boat Modifications" at http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/7414/index.html Thanks again for your wise counsel(and humor).
There are a dozen of us 'H37C bigots' that correspond regularly. And a lot of other H37C owners here on HOW(over 75 in the Owner's Directory"). There are engineers, lawyers, working stiff's like me, and even marine architects. We love that boat, the holding tank is an annoyance. You may also not know that the 1979, and maybe 1980, did not have the engine/tranny/stuffing box access from the quarter-berth. When I first started asking questions about drip adjustment and oil changes here most responders could not understand my problem. Thank God for Gene Greunder and Tom Haoulias who helped me with measurements. I cut my own "door". To get a really good "under-the-covers" look at the H37C be sure to check Gene's site under "Boat Modifications" at http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cabana/7414/index.html Thanks again for your wise counsel(and humor).
T
Tom Hadoulias
Edification and production boat building...
John and Ed, It's great to be able re-live some of the thought processes that came about during the design of the 37C and other Cherubini Hunters of the era through John. And it's also great to be able to discuss some short-commings and frustrations of our vessels and understand how to make them better through the active participants of this forum like Ed, Gene and so many others that graciously share thier information and experiences. I doubt that there are many other vessels and brands that share this dedication. In reading the "Edifying" comment by Ed and the follow-up by John, I can't help but ask what exactly the design concept was by Mr. Cherubini Sr. and what Hunter built in areas other than the holding tank. Say structual integrity and other significant outfittings. Did Hunter build thier version of his design to thier product and purchasing constraints and cost limitations, or did John Sr. oversee and assure that production standards met his "namesake". Obviously this didn't happen on the holding tank scenario, but perhaps aluminum was the tank of choice at the time. I am curious as to what active role was played in the post design stages, primarily in structual areas, lamination, rigging, steering and the major things we rely on to get us through safely when we contemplate extended cruising and distant passages. Thanks to John Cherubini and his son for a truly remarkable design that has allowed us an oportunity to own a "real" boat at a modest price, comparably. And thanks to Ed Schenck, and the others who contribute regularly to this forum and keeping the security in knowing that our boats are able to fulfill the dreams that we have worked so hard and spent our funds on. With the intent to ultimately "set sail" to distant anchorages. Truly a "silk purse" at anchor next to all those mega-yachts and names synonomous with blue water cruising. John, thanks for your interest and activity in this forum. I would welcome an opportunity to chat with you directly if your time permits, as I am compiling technical data that I have gained through my complete re-fit and through the courtesy of those on this site. I would like to ultimately return what I have learned to those that could use the information in the future. My email is hadoult@aol.com if you feel so inclined. Tom Hadoulias
John and Ed, It's great to be able re-live some of the thought processes that came about during the design of the 37C and other Cherubini Hunters of the era through John. And it's also great to be able to discuss some short-commings and frustrations of our vessels and understand how to make them better through the active participants of this forum like Ed, Gene and so many others that graciously share thier information and experiences. I doubt that there are many other vessels and brands that share this dedication. In reading the "Edifying" comment by Ed and the follow-up by John, I can't help but ask what exactly the design concept was by Mr. Cherubini Sr. and what Hunter built in areas other than the holding tank. Say structual integrity and other significant outfittings. Did Hunter build thier version of his design to thier product and purchasing constraints and cost limitations, or did John Sr. oversee and assure that production standards met his "namesake". Obviously this didn't happen on the holding tank scenario, but perhaps aluminum was the tank of choice at the time. I am curious as to what active role was played in the post design stages, primarily in structual areas, lamination, rigging, steering and the major things we rely on to get us through safely when we contemplate extended cruising and distant passages. Thanks to John Cherubini and his son for a truly remarkable design that has allowed us an oportunity to own a "real" boat at a modest price, comparably. And thanks to Ed Schenck, and the others who contribute regularly to this forum and keeping the security in knowing that our boats are able to fulfill the dreams that we have worked so hard and spent our funds on. With the intent to ultimately "set sail" to distant anchorages. Truly a "silk purse" at anchor next to all those mega-yachts and names synonomous with blue water cruising. John, thanks for your interest and activity in this forum. I would welcome an opportunity to chat with you directly if your time permits, as I am compiling technical data that I have gained through my complete re-fit and through the courtesy of those on this site. I would like to ultimately return what I have learned to those that could use the information in the future. My email is hadoult@aol.com if you feel so inclined. Tom Hadoulias
'Post-design' considerations
Thanks for your nice words, Tom. In response to your question about Hunter's 'versions' of my dad's design work, I believe you are suspecting the truth. The point must be made clear that the designs for the Hunter range were NOT purchased from my father. He was kept on retainer as house designer. The legal and professional differences are profound. As I have said before I am currently collecting my father's original work into an archive for posterity and reference. This task is difficult because I do not own or possess all the drawings. The designs drawn for Hunter are the property of Hunter, and Hunter assumes all legal responsibility, including copyright and liability. My father was in essence only their employee. Of course we'd all like to think he had more input than that, and he did, because he was the staff expert in sailboat design and construction and a week never went by that the phone was not ringing with some question from Marlboro or Alachua or Warren himself. Though he might have stipulated the type of tank to be used in the 37 and where to put it, there can be no fair direct connection made between the fact that he made such a stipulation and what Hunter decided to do in the end. Does that make sense? This is not avoiding any responsibility or smudge on the man's reputation– most of this designer-employer arrangement was as he wanted it (mainly for financial reasons). The fact is that Hunter were notoriously frugal and DID tend to use available parts whenever they could rather than copying his design verbatim. The mismatched windows on the poor little Hunter 27 are a prime and sad example– the boat was originally drawn much prettier with two complementary quadrilateral windows (a '60s style my dad favoured), but they found the oval one in the Hunter 30 parts bins. But there were times when Hunter would kowtow to his every whim, and he grew aware of how he could get them to realise his designs to their full potential. A look at the cabin windows on the Mainship 34, which he designed for Silverton in about 1979, shows a marked and aesthetically welcome departure from the rest of the Silverton/Mainship family 'resemblance'. One more unfortunate fact is that once Hunter got rolling in production, certain liberties were taken by Alachua in which my father had little or no input. The design inceptions of the 35 and 36 (which I commented on elsewhere here) are prime examples. It seemed– however unfair this may sound– that they had got too big for their breeches and began more and more to do without the guy they had taken on as expert (mostly likely for financial reasons). It was the final straw in this progression that Cort Steck, a guy in his 20s with vastly inferior knowledge of yacht-design aesthetics, technical expertise, and real sailing experience, was hired to replace my dad as house designer in about 1981. Forgive me for sounding sappy but I truly believe my dad felt that more in his heart than in either his pride or his wallet. He had a policy of embracing those he worked with as his dearest friends– since his work and personal life were always commingled– and he might've been happy to work for them forever, so this was a put-down of the highest order to him. Fortunately he only lived another year and a half after that disappointment. You may of course always EMail me with further questions. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org. JComet@aol.com
Thanks for your nice words, Tom. In response to your question about Hunter's 'versions' of my dad's design work, I believe you are suspecting the truth. The point must be made clear that the designs for the Hunter range were NOT purchased from my father. He was kept on retainer as house designer. The legal and professional differences are profound. As I have said before I am currently collecting my father's original work into an archive for posterity and reference. This task is difficult because I do not own or possess all the drawings. The designs drawn for Hunter are the property of Hunter, and Hunter assumes all legal responsibility, including copyright and liability. My father was in essence only their employee. Of course we'd all like to think he had more input than that, and he did, because he was the staff expert in sailboat design and construction and a week never went by that the phone was not ringing with some question from Marlboro or Alachua or Warren himself. Though he might have stipulated the type of tank to be used in the 37 and where to put it, there can be no fair direct connection made between the fact that he made such a stipulation and what Hunter decided to do in the end. Does that make sense? This is not avoiding any responsibility or smudge on the man's reputation– most of this designer-employer arrangement was as he wanted it (mainly for financial reasons). The fact is that Hunter were notoriously frugal and DID tend to use available parts whenever they could rather than copying his design verbatim. The mismatched windows on the poor little Hunter 27 are a prime and sad example– the boat was originally drawn much prettier with two complementary quadrilateral windows (a '60s style my dad favoured), but they found the oval one in the Hunter 30 parts bins. But there were times when Hunter would kowtow to his every whim, and he grew aware of how he could get them to realise his designs to their full potential. A look at the cabin windows on the Mainship 34, which he designed for Silverton in about 1979, shows a marked and aesthetically welcome departure from the rest of the Silverton/Mainship family 'resemblance'. One more unfortunate fact is that once Hunter got rolling in production, certain liberties were taken by Alachua in which my father had little or no input. The design inceptions of the 35 and 36 (which I commented on elsewhere here) are prime examples. It seemed– however unfair this may sound– that they had got too big for their breeches and began more and more to do without the guy they had taken on as expert (mostly likely for financial reasons). It was the final straw in this progression that Cort Steck, a guy in his 20s with vastly inferior knowledge of yacht-design aesthetics, technical expertise, and real sailing experience, was hired to replace my dad as house designer in about 1981. Forgive me for sounding sappy but I truly believe my dad felt that more in his heart than in either his pride or his wallet. He had a policy of embracing those he worked with as his dearest friends– since his work and personal life were always commingled– and he might've been happy to work for them forever, so this was a put-down of the highest order to him. Fortunately he only lived another year and a half after that disappointment. You may of course always EMail me with further questions. J Cherubini II Cherubini Art & Nautical Design Org. JComet@aol.com
J
Jim Runge
Hunter 37C Holding Tank Repair
Our holding tank was rotted out when I bought the boat (1981 model) 2 years ago. My wife and I decided we didn't need all that fresh water storage so I removed the water tank on the starboard side and glassed in a shelf. A 25 gallon plastic holding tank fits perfectly. The plumbing was simply rerouted to the other side of the head compartment. I used the vent from the water tank and the deck fill fittings for the old water tank as the vent and pumpout fittings. After 2 years the setup works fine. We used a Todd standard sized holding tank we got from West Marine. The tank is held down by a series of ratchet straps. This seemed the best approach for us since we just coastal cruise and stop at marinas on Lake Michigan, only occasionally anchoring out. After looking at all the other alternatives I am more than satisfied with the arrangement we have.
Our holding tank was rotted out when I bought the boat (1981 model) 2 years ago. My wife and I decided we didn't need all that fresh water storage so I removed the water tank on the starboard side and glassed in a shelf. A 25 gallon plastic holding tank fits perfectly. The plumbing was simply rerouted to the other side of the head compartment. I used the vent from the water tank and the deck fill fittings for the old water tank as the vent and pumpout fittings. After 2 years the setup works fine. We used a Todd standard sized holding tank we got from West Marine. The tank is held down by a series of ratchet straps. This seemed the best approach for us since we just coastal cruise and stop at marinas on Lake Michigan, only occasionally anchoring out. After looking at all the other alternatives I am more than satisfied with the arrangement we have.
P
Peggie Hall/Head Mistress
Several observations...
In the early days of holding tanks, aluminum WAS the choice, because it was considered a superior material to the plastics of that day (and still is, to a lot of the tanks today--especially the cheap ones favored by many OEMs BECAUSE they're cheap), and because no one had had enough experience with holding sewage--and it never occurred to 'em to research it--to know how corrosive urine is.The only reason many of 'em are only JUST beginning to fail is because they weren't used the first 10 years of the boat's life. The same lack of interest (and who could blame 'em? ) in understanding the nature of sewage--in fact, the nature of ALL organic material and how it breaks down--accounts for the use of bladders as holding tanks...they fit into spaces none of the few readily available rigid tanks fit into. They stink...but so did most other holding tanks...so it just became "conventional wisdom: boats with holding tanks stink...live with it." No access to replace 'em was provided because it was just assumed that metal tanks would last as long as the boat, and it also never occurred to boat builders that all hoses eventually permeate and would require periodic replacements. In fact, odor permeation wasn't even a consideration, only durability--and sanitation hose doesn't fail, it just permeates and stinks. But..."boats with toilets stink...boats with holding tanks stink more...it's just something we all have to live with." It wasn't until so many of us were forced to install and use holding tanks that it ever occurred to anybody to question that bit of "conventional wisdom," discover that, like a lot of "conventional wisdom," it's pure folklore--repeated so many times by so many people that it's just accepted as fact, when it's actually pure malarky born of ignorance. Unfortunately, however, too many boat builders find it easier and less expensive to keep doing things the same way they always have instead of making the little modifications that allow boat owners access to systems to replace the parts that fail. So if your boat predates 1985, it's forgiveable ignorance...but on anything built after 1990, no access to systems is either inattention to changing needs or a function of the bottom line.
In the early days of holding tanks, aluminum WAS the choice, because it was considered a superior material to the plastics of that day (and still is, to a lot of the tanks today--especially the cheap ones favored by many OEMs BECAUSE they're cheap), and because no one had had enough experience with holding sewage--and it never occurred to 'em to research it--to know how corrosive urine is.The only reason many of 'em are only JUST beginning to fail is because they weren't used the first 10 years of the boat's life. The same lack of interest (and who could blame 'em? ) in understanding the nature of sewage--in fact, the nature of ALL organic material and how it breaks down--accounts for the use of bladders as holding tanks...they fit into spaces none of the few readily available rigid tanks fit into. They stink...but so did most other holding tanks...so it just became "conventional wisdom: boats with holding tanks stink...live with it." No access to replace 'em was provided because it was just assumed that metal tanks would last as long as the boat, and it also never occurred to boat builders that all hoses eventually permeate and would require periodic replacements. In fact, odor permeation wasn't even a consideration, only durability--and sanitation hose doesn't fail, it just permeates and stinks. But..."boats with toilets stink...boats with holding tanks stink more...it's just something we all have to live with." It wasn't until so many of us were forced to install and use holding tanks that it ever occurred to anybody to question that bit of "conventional wisdom," discover that, like a lot of "conventional wisdom," it's pure folklore--repeated so many times by so many people that it's just accepted as fact, when it's actually pure malarky born of ignorance. Unfortunately, however, too many boat builders find it easier and less expensive to keep doing things the same way they always have instead of making the little modifications that allow boat owners access to systems to replace the parts that fail. So if your boat predates 1985, it's forgiveable ignorance...but on anything built after 1990, no access to systems is either inattention to changing needs or a function of the bottom line.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.