Hunter Abandoned At Sea!

[Rick D]

Well, Tom, I'm just Not So Sure

how much difference a 'conservative' rig makes when it comes time to part a shroud. Having the dubious distinction of demasting two, if the wave action is steep and the wind breezy, and if you lose a lower, that rig is likely toast. Thats why you see all those masts folded at the spreaders. I have also lost a forestay, as goes your story on the C36, and recovered it and did not lose the rig. The jib itself held the rig up just long enough. Losing a rig is definitely the makings for a lousy day, but each rig failure I know of was the result of a component failure, not rig design. Swedge fitting failure twice, turnbuckle once, cotter pins THREE times. Oh, and one spreader (wood on an aluminum mast). So, I really don't object to the notion of a conservative design being potentially less troublesome and more forgiving perhaps to maintenance, but as to it staying up when a shroud parts... I wouldn't count on it, keel stepped or no, one or multiple spreaders, backstay or no. This whole discussion ought to make the Vision owners feel better as their resale ticks up, huh Tom? Rick D.

 

[Tom]

Rick, you are absolutely correct losing a mast

starts with a component failure, not because the design of a rig. But your post begs the question....How were you so fortunate to have the dubious honor to be on so many boats with a dismasting !?..... ;-)

 

[Rick D]

Well, Tom, I'm Old And Sailed A Lot

but so have a lot of people. I have to say that one boat had a bad turnbuckle that should have had a toggle. Commissioning error probably. Another boat had a cracked swedge fitting. Those rigs were mine. I had a shroud and forestay come loose because the circlips and/or cotter pins came off. One was probably a rigging error as it was one of the new rigs replacing one that came off. Fortunately, it was on the lee side. Seriously, Tom, your point is well taken, and if there is a lesson on this it is that things are more likely to fail when new or recommissioned and that an owner must take the responsibility to go over the commissioning carefully. Second, rigging is a maintenance item and should be checked carefully and dye used on the swedges. Since west coast boats are rarely pulled and the rigs dropped even less, we should be even more carefull. I suspect that I might have kept a couple of rigs up had I done what I preach. Easy to put off, Tom. Rick D.

 

[henkmeuzelaar]

Thanks for bringing some sanity, Rick

Rick, I am pretty old too and I agree with you 100 %. Usually, it is some damn 10 dollar part that fails. IMHO, the way Tom is going about this makes very little sense. Of course, this is a free country and everyyone is welcome to go on a rant about rigs, anchors, rudders, or Lord knows what. However, until we know what actually failed here, anyone with a grain of sense should hold his or her horses. He talks about a stemplate failure on an 18 year old boat and somehow tries to turn that into an argument for the high quality of the boat in question! For all I know, that boat might be a Royal Huisman. However, unless the stays, turnbuckles and every other piece of expensive rust gets replaced every 8-10 years no responsible skipper should take her offshore!So, until we know more about what really happened here, the only real structural question I would dare to ask is the one already voiced by Miles: could this 376 perhaps have suffered a chainplate failure because Hunter recently appears decided to start eliminating the use of tie-rods.....??Fair winds,Flying Dutchman,"Rivendel II"

 

[Tom]

Henk.....do not misstate what I said.

NOWHERE did I write anything about "quality". Go back through all my posts and try and show me where I said *anything* about quality (or even use the word!!). So Henk...You are all wet on your statement when you say I "try to turn that into an argument for the high quality of the boat in question". So "Me thinks he doth protest too much".I don't know what post you were reading. So let me explain it again. My point was in the pro's and con's of different design's NOT on the quality of the build of any of these boats. And it goes back to what I said before about every boat and design is a compromise and I did state that there are advantages to some of these rigs. But there are also disadvantages and to not discuss and understand them is your perogative, but I think most people out there would like to be aware of the possibilities, no matter how remote. So I tend to agree with Tom Monroe " These types of exchanges help me determine what those limits are/should be."

 

[John Dorsett]

B&R rig

One thing to enlighten about one of the post presented, they discussed loosing their forestay and was saved with the jib halyard I beleive, if you look at the B&R rig and think their is nothing holding as far as a backstay except for the phyisics of the design might want not forget the boom and block and tackle for the mainsheet. and for one thing this is not an argument we still do not know any facts yet FYIJohnS/V Alcyone

 

[Jim A]

John

You sound like an expert. Are you a marine engineer? Have you done a static loading of the B&R rig? Good Work!

 

[Joe]

I am no marine engineer but,

from simple calculations one can estimate that the increase in compression forces on a mast step caused by forward forces on the mast scale in proportion to the cotangent of the angle between the back stay and the mast. Because the side stays act as backstay in the B&R design, depending on the actual geometry, the compression force on the mast step can be estimated to be between 4 to 6 times greater in a B&R rig compared with that on a conventional backstay rigged boat. If you consider that the mainsail is usually dropped in very high winds the boom and mainsheet forces on the mast become zero, the only forces holding the mast back come from the backstays, and the forward forces on the mast come from its inertia (as the boat may violently rock forward and backwards) and for the forestay forward component force if running a storm jib. It is not inconceivable that, depending on wave and wind conditions, compression forces on the mast step could become quite large. Add to that the rather small diameter of the mast support tube on Hunters, (less than ½) compared with Catalina or Beneteau boats of equivalent size, and you may have a recipe for mast failure when facing extreme weather conditions.Sorry, this is not rocket science, but simple physics.

 

[Jim A]

I agree

Jibbing is very dangerous in high winds. Not only a backstay but also a sailboat should have stays forward, center line, and aft of the mast before attempting jibbing in high winds! It is a much better idea to run with a reefed main sail. I am not sure but I think that leaves Beneteau out too, as well as my 1992 Hunter 28 with a split backstay. Very well written Joe. How did we get on this topic. Is that what we think happen to this boat? My friends at the marina do jib all the time in high winds in boat that are not built for it. It is ok in meduim air if your lasy but it is not safe in heavy air.

 

[Mark]

Can't wait to hear the owners account.

Hope he does cos that may put all the "experts" back in their seat!The failure could be put down to a whole host of reasons not related to the strength of the yacht.

 

[John Dorsett]

sorry joe

I am no expert in the matter, just wanted to see all facts. not opinion nor biasJohn

 

[henkmeuzelaar]

Tom, my apologies for misinterpreting your post

I thought that the superior construction of a CT 36 was the underlying point you were trying to make with that story. Upon rereading it, however, I must admit that I don't have the foggiest idea what you were talking about. Perhaps you might be kind enough to elaborate.IMHO, the CTs are very good looking boats. Alas, the problem with their heavy, full-keeled construction and relatively small sail area is that they tend to refuse to go to wind.... The second time we were in Hawaii with Rivendel II (i.e. 1997/1998) we were berthed next to a CT40 that had just made it back from The Marguesas, a slightly upwind route under most conditions, in 56 days.....(no typing error). The very experienced French skipper now had to sail her on to Canada by himself (as his much younger Marquesian wife had quit after the 56-day crossing). Of course, he planned to go via the higher Northern latitudes in order to find favorable winds, thereby setting himself up for a very rough passage indeed. But then, why worry? After all he had a very sturdy boat; made for the higher latitudes. IMHO, one does not have to be a genius to realize the circularity of that often-heard argument......Have fun!Flying Dutchman"Rivendel II" (who loves beating into the trades even better than running with them)

 

[Steve Dion]

Insane argument.

This is somewhat of an insane argument about what type of boat for the type of use. We can get the same type of arguments about automobiles (american, euro, japanese etc).We all know that a Corvette is faster than a Kenworth, but which one do you want to use when you are moving a household of furniture across the country.There are not many sailors that want to day sail on a Valiant and not too many that want to cross the ocean on a Catalina 22. There are boats that are better for their purpose and destination.We must assume that the failure on this Hunter was a piece of equipment that failed and not the design of the boat. There have been numerous boats that where lighter/smaller than this Hunter that have made this passage and have made it without this type of a failure, regardless of the specific conditions.I do not know if any of you remember that there was a Santa Cruz that was dismasted in very light conditions on a return from Hawaii. One of the crew member was severly injured with a spinal cord injury. The point being that no one ever accused Santa Cruz with being overdesigned, under built etc.Shit happens to the best of them.

 

[henkmeuzelaar]

Disagree with your assumptions, Steve

In fact, there is no doubt in my mind that most Valiants, Gozzards, CTs and even Hans Christians are used for daysailing (if they even leave the harbor at all). All you have to do is to sail South along the "left coast" from Santa Barbara all the way to Puerto Vallarta and see how the harbors are lined with heavy liveaboard cruisers that took 1 or 2 years to make it down to where they are presently stuck. From talking to the skippers and mates it is clear that many of them are sitting in "chicken harbor" while waiting for the right weather window, their dreams of ocean passages slowly bleaching in the Mexican sun.By contrast, some comparatively light sailing vessels may actually get more use and even make more passages, at least judged by the boats we get to see here in the South Pacific.What you are right about, though, is that this thread is probably not the right place to have this important discussion. However, I am saddened by the apparent resignment with which many Hunter, Catalina and Beneteau/Jeanneau owners appear to accept the frequently preached notion that vessels with deck stepped masts, thinner hulls, spade rudders, B&R rigs, etc. have no business being on the ocean. Therefore I will try to open a new thread on seaworthiness of modern, medium/light sailing vessels so we can all let the sparks fly without suggesting that any of this has anything to do with the Hunter 376 that was abandoned at sea last week.May Our Anchors Hold!Flying Dutchman"Rivendel II"

 

[Tom]

Henk where did you get a CT 36 !?!

What are you reading? This site is a Hunter, Catalina Beneteau, etc bulletin board and I was referring to the Catalina 36. If you went to the link I posted it conspicuously refers to a Catalina 36. It also shows pictures and talks about a particular Catalina 36 that had a Rig failure but was still able to save the mast and get back to port.I'm sorry that you don't understand, its a pretty basic and I explained it very simply in the previous 5 posts. I'm not sure restating it again will help. Its all simple, but my position is a single stay (for instance forestay) letting go on a more conservative designed rig will have a *better* chance to keep a mast up. Simple. It doesn't mean that you *will* lose a mast nor does it mean the more conservative rig can't lose a mast, its just that the physics "favor" the more conservative design. Obviously Joe of Swampscott gets it and explained it, I can understand that some people will never be able to understand it, just like a lot of people will never understand Quantum Theory.And where is everyone getting that anyone is saying anything about the quality of the manufacturing. There are some people that are very sensitive . A rig failure can happen to any boat, just like what has been discussed before.And Steve, Yes, s**t can happen to anyone, with any boat, anywhere ! (I really wish that guy who owns the boat writes in) I agree with you that the Hunter in question most likely had a single piece of equipment that failed (like a swage fitting) and it was not the design of the boat that made the mast come down. But the chances are that after that single piece of equipment failed there was nothing redundant to continue holding the mast up. With a conservative designed rig, there are redundant forces that can help keep the mast up. Simple physics. I happen to disagree though, this is not an insane argument. Some people would like to understand and evaluate what options they do have available to them, whether they might be driving a corvette or a 4 wheel drive, so to speak. And if some people want to sail with a belts and suspenders design and with the knowledge that they might have a better chance with a certain design then its good to discuss. There are also negatives to the conservatively designed rig which I've stated previously.

 

[henkmeuzelaar]

Shame on me Tom; I sure need new glasses !

Alas, it is too late to retract that post or I would do so....I must have read what I hoped to read (instead of what you really wrote) since I have been rearing for a good old-fashioned debate about ocean-going capabilities and limitations of production type medium/light sailing vessels. However, as announced in my preceding message (posted just a few minutes ago), it is probably better to take that debate to a new thread rather than to create the impression that this has anything to do with the recent abandonment of a Hunter 376 at sea.Henk Meuzelaar

 

[Rick D]

Well, Tom,

given what too often passes for metalurgy on many far-east boats, Henk's CT read may be understandable. (Sorry, guys, couldn't resist a little good-natured jab myself.) RD

 

[Mike]

Much Experience with mast rigging failures

Ok, I had a 17' Oday day sailer II when I was in high school, and i think the mast came down a total of 4 times.This is a 3 stay, single spreader mast, deck stepped (Ha, no keel - of course)First time, clevis pin fell out and we came about, mast came crashing down into the water. The stainless deck plate twisted but held. We raised it and replaced the clevis.second time: Stay broke is medium air, same result, this time we had to swin it in (oh that sucked!)replaced all shrouds with double diameter cable.Third time clevis pin again. That deck plate just loves to be twisted.Forth time, i actually turtled the boat miles off shore and had to abandon it and swim it in (for 3 hours in a late Septemeber, WI storm)Ok, so what is my point? There is none. i just hope that my C320 never has a rigging failure, because i know that mast would buckle in two, and even if it droped nicely into the water like my old 17' Oday, who the hell is going to pick it back up while at sea?

 

[David Underwood]

Gee Wiz.. one might have thought...

that everyone onboard was lost and the boat just disappeared... as some do. Many years back, I was to make the passage from the east coast to the Bahammas, I got sick right before the trip and was unable to go. My friends made the trip, but they left in very bad conditions.. way more weather than a 23 foot swing keel sloop should have been used for in this crossing, however, my friends had done it before and they went for it. From what I know, four boats caught in that storm ran into trouble, one sank.. it was a 45 footer, its crew survived on a raft with raw fish and rain water for several days. Two of the other boats had people lifted off and the boats were abandoned. My crazy friends... made it, intact and after a 3 day white foam ordeal had a great trip without lost of life or boat. They sailed back after 3 weeks of vacation but never ever did it again. So.. all I can say is, you pays your money and you takes your chances.... some are better at life and luck than others. If you survive... you really have won the gamble. Again... this Hunter looked like it was floating high on the waterline to me! Seems to me the crew and the boat's a winner!

 

[Dave]

Redundant Systems

I strongly recommend a formal FMEA for this particular problem. This is a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.In cases where safety of life is involved for single point failures it is very common to have redundancy included in the design. For offshore work for example and not racing you might run spare halyards to the windward side of the boat as backups to the rigging. Running backstays and baby stays are other options to add strength and rigidity to the column. Did the mast fail due to buckling or by bending?C.d