There's been lots of talk on well built Hunters in early 80's. The hull layup being 2" and very well built. I'm now looking at the 85 year and wondering if Hunter lessoned some of their layups or cut costs on construction. I've seen articles suggesting Hunter improving gear in this year but cutting back on the overall strength, thickness, of fiberglass. Seems to me, if the weight doesn't change, the boat still is getting the same fiberglass on it, but who weighs these things, nobody. I like the 37 cutter, but would like to know I'm getting the same integrity as the earlier 80's. Any help on information would be appreciated. thanks, Bruce
- Status
Quality
Bruce, I can't help you directly; my H37c was built in 1980. But I know a good surveyor across the river from you who also owns an H37c. If you're interested in getting in touch with him, send me an email and I'll send you the info back. John Reid Cheese 'n Crackers john.patti.reid@juno.com
Bruce, I can't help you directly; my H37c was built in 1980. But I know a good surveyor across the river from you who also owns an H37c. If you're interested in getting in touch with him, send me an email and I'll send you the info back. John Reid Cheese 'n Crackers john.patti.reid@juno.com
Interesting question
The hull and deck molds do change slightly during production runs, but I've never heard about basic construction changes without it resulting in a new model designation. You indicate you've heard about construction changes in the '85 model year: what did you hear, and what's your source? Hopefully, we'll hear from some 37c owners on this!
The hull and deck molds do change slightly during production runs, but I've never heard about basic construction changes without it resulting in a new model designation. You indicate you've heard about construction changes in the '85 model year: what did you hear, and what's your source? Hopefully, we'll hear from some 37c owners on this!
Should be the same, same molds.
Others will chime in here I am sure. But one of the regular contributors to this site discussed his H37C with Hunter recently. He told Hunter how impressed he and his marina were with the hull of the H37C, it is thick and solid. Hunter told him that newer hulls are as good or better, that they never skimped on that aspect of the boats. The only weight difference between any year H37C would be fin keel versus shoal draft. The shoal draft is quite a bit heavier. But a boat in the same series should be identical regardless of year. Are there Monday boats like there are Monday autos? Unfortunately the serial number doesn't tell you what day of the week they layed up the hull.
I think a call to Hunter would be worth your time. There are still people there that know the H37C.
Others will chime in here I am sure. But one of the regular contributors to this site discussed his H37C with Hunter recently. He told Hunter how impressed he and his marina were with the hull of the H37C, it is thick and solid. Hunter told him that newer hulls are as good or better, that they never skimped on that aspect of the boats. The only weight difference between any year H37C would be fin keel versus shoal draft. The shoal draft is quite a bit heavier. But a boat in the same series should be identical regardless of year. Are there Monday boats like there are Monday autos? Unfortunately the serial number doesn't tell you what day of the week they layed up the hull.
I think a call to Hunter would be worth your time. There are still people there that know the H37C.To Phil Herring - where I've heard this info.
Hi Phil, I have not heard it precisely stated. By reading these messages I've formed this opinion for postings. I'll state the information that I believe makes sense. Thick layup in 70's to about 83 because strength of fiberglass not completely understood of how much is needed. Things makes sense, new materials, better more then less. In the 83 era, more knowledge of strength and layup techniques. Stronger but lighter knowing better methods and some history on what you can do to save money but keep strength. I'm not sure if Hunter started changing or not but the knowledge of doing things differently was there, lighter but as strong. Messages have been posted at this sight about the 84 to 88/89 era when Hunter started to ugrade equipment on boats to a better quality and making boats lighter and we all hope as least as strong. Maybe the lighter and construction changes were on newer models not the old model with newer year. Guess I'm trying to say, since H37C didn't have a change in model number, construction stayed same. I believe after 85 the H37C was discontinued. Bruce
Hi Phil, I have not heard it precisely stated. By reading these messages I've formed this opinion for postings. I'll state the information that I believe makes sense. Thick layup in 70's to about 83 because strength of fiberglass not completely understood of how much is needed. Things makes sense, new materials, better more then less. In the 83 era, more knowledge of strength and layup techniques. Stronger but lighter knowing better methods and some history on what you can do to save money but keep strength. I'm not sure if Hunter started changing or not but the knowledge of doing things differently was there, lighter but as strong. Messages have been posted at this sight about the 84 to 88/89 era when Hunter started to ugrade equipment on boats to a better quality and making boats lighter and we all hope as least as strong. Maybe the lighter and construction changes were on newer models not the old model with newer year. Guess I'm trying to say, since H37C didn't have a change in model number, construction stayed same. I believe after 85 the H37C was discontinued. Bruce
Hull Thickness
I have a 37c built in 1981. The hull is strong, but I'm curious as to where it is 2" thick?? At the waterline, I changed the thru-hull for the vanity sink and the material was 1/2" thick or thereabouts. I wonder if some are confused by the appearance of thickness where the "pan" edge seems to add considerable thickness. This would not add to hull strength in any appreciable way. I suspect the hull layup was very consistent throughout the production run of the 37c.
I have a 37c built in 1981. The hull is strong, but I'm curious as to where it is 2" thick?? At the waterline, I changed the thru-hull for the vanity sink and the material was 1/2" thick or thereabouts. I wonder if some are confused by the appearance of thickness where the "pan" edge seems to add considerable thickness. This would not add to hull strength in any appreciable way. I suspect the hull layup was very consistent throughout the production run of the 37c.
2" Hull Thickness
Dave, In response to your post about 2" hull thickness. I can assure you that as one who has installed all new Thru Hulls and additional electronic sensors throughout my "81" 37C with my boatyards assistance, that the areas measured are actual thru the thickness measurements and not a "pan" edge as you suggest. The area of the keelson forward of the keel in the cut-away is actually over 3" thick. I installed a interphase transducer there and we had to use over 18 layers of glass to plug the old depth sounder thru hull that was removed to make room. Also removed sections of cabin sole and installed additional transducers with F/G plugs of over 2" thick. Waterline and below produced over 1" at the shear. Your vanity thru hull is above the waterline if it's in the same location as mine. 1/2" or so above the waterline thickness is pretty good by any manufacture's standards. I disagree with your statement about not adding hull stength in any appreciable way. Your strength is in the stiffness of your area below the waterline that transitions the keel loads to the overall upper structure that effectively "boxes" your loads with your mast and rigging. The stronger, the better. And although thickness is no guarantee in all cases for strength, I'd much rather have it for impact resistance below the waterline than rely on "paper thin" technology. Tom
Dave, In response to your post about 2" hull thickness. I can assure you that as one who has installed all new Thru Hulls and additional electronic sensors throughout my "81" 37C with my boatyards assistance, that the areas measured are actual thru the thickness measurements and not a "pan" edge as you suggest. The area of the keelson forward of the keel in the cut-away is actually over 3" thick. I installed a interphase transducer there and we had to use over 18 layers of glass to plug the old depth sounder thru hull that was removed to make room. Also removed sections of cabin sole and installed additional transducers with F/G plugs of over 2" thick. Waterline and below produced over 1" at the shear. Your vanity thru hull is above the waterline if it's in the same location as mine. 1/2" or so above the waterline thickness is pretty good by any manufacture's standards. I disagree with your statement about not adding hull stength in any appreciable way. Your strength is in the stiffness of your area below the waterline that transitions the keel loads to the overall upper structure that effectively "boxes" your loads with your mast and rigging. The stronger, the better. And although thickness is no guarantee in all cases for strength, I'd much rather have it for impact resistance below the waterline than rely on "paper thin" technology. Tom
- Status