Hunter Bashing - First Aid Kit

[James10016]

All,

Forgive me, this is a bit long winded, but I hope it is of sufficient interest to you, to inspire you to help me run down some of the answers. To make a long story short, I simply want to know what it actually ‘IS’ that makes Hunter Sailboats so bad in 'real' tangiable terms?

I’m a proud owner of a 1988 Hunter Legend 45. I’ve had this boat for 8 years now and have put several thousand miles on it sailing all over the Great Lakes.

During those 8 years I’ve read and/or been on the receiving end of ALL types of patronizing remarks about Hunter inferior design, strength and quality. The majority of which I just smile at or ignore with the same ‘thick skin’ you get after serving 20+ years in the US Army. I’m currently employed as a weapon system manager for the Dept. of the Army.

I make no pretense about being a financially $$ ‘poor’ sailor, because I am one. The same facts of Life that have me currently driving a 2003 Chrysler Caravan were in play when I made my decisions to buy a used Hunter back in 2006. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to own a BMW or Ferrari some day. ;^)

But what I am really interested in discussing and getting YOUR feedback on is: “What are the real (and I mean quantifiable reasons, not personal opinion) differences in 1) Design, 2) Strength and 3) Qualities that make Hunter boats such an inferior product?”

In order to keep this effort simple and focused, I’d suggest that we use a simple work breakdown structure made up of: 1) Hulls, 2) Interior Modules and 3) the Deck. Because these are the three (3) main components common to the majority of firms that are manufacturing fiberglass sailboats.

Remember this is a public discussion, NOT a lecture by some ’would be expert on the internet’. What I am providing below is just a summary of the construction research I conducted. Which itself is intended to provide a basis for this discussion. I need your help relating it to our Hunter sailboats and its competitors. I want to start with just the Hulls for now.

1. HULLS
I’ve watched the OEMs production process videos on Beneteaus, Bavarias, Jeanneaus and Hunters and see NO appreciable differences in the processes they all use to produce their fiberglass boat Hulls.

They all use common fiberglass construction techniques to construct a solid laminate with conventional woven materials and general purpose polyester resins. Granted that over the years there was limited knowledge of what laminate thickness should be, resulting in many overbuilt, and heavy hulls. Solid construction is still very popular with many production and custom builders and, with the experience and knowledge they’ve gained over the years, solid hulls are now not as heavy without sacrificing strength and stiffness. The primary reasons being major improvements made to create a better solid laminate. These improvements were the result of more sophisticated materials, resins and methods of construction.

This makes a nice lead into the subject of vacuum bagging. Vacuum bagging and resin infusion are widely used to further improve the glass-to-resin ratio. Like everything in life, there are no set rules and a host of tradeoffs will apply, just like the ones listed below.

Reasons to use vacuum bagging:
Better uniformity of lay up (No thick/ thin cross sections)
Stronger finished product (Higher glass to resin ratio)
Better Strength to weight ratio

Draw backs to using vacuum bagging:
Increased labor time and materials
Smaller cross sections* (More layers required to duplicate hand layup thickness)

*Note that this last "draw back" can also be viewed as an asset. A thinner cross section of a vacuum bagged layup is in reality quite stronger and lighter than a resin rich hand layup method.

Over 30 years ago sailboat designers and builders started using core materials for hulls in order to reduce the total weight, especially in the topsides. Cored hulls have become very popular, especially for power boat construction. The most popular core materials are balsa and PVC cross-link foam, including Klegecell, and Divinycell. Another popular foam core is Airex, which is made of PVC but is linear in its chemistry (not cross-linked). Core-Cell is another foam core that has become widely used in the past 15 to 20 years. It is similar in properties to Airex but is made with different SAN chemistry. The advantage of using core is the reduction in weight by using thinner laminates on each side of the core.

What is most important when core is used below the waterline is for the builder to remove the core and replace it with solid glass where a thru-hull fitting is to be installed. This allows the thru-hull fitting to be sealed and tightened without compressing the core.

Sailboat Construction Standards.
All of the above information is nice to know but, really doesn’t have any value at all unless you can compare it to a quantifiable standard (e.g. such as a measuring stick).

I’ve researched American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) standards for classifying and categorizing construction requirements for offshore sailboats. Most of which come in the form of complying with several ISO specifications. This is the same purpose that we use MIL Standards for Army weapon acquisition.

Here’s the bottomline on this entire Hull topic. These ISO standards governing sailboat hull construction specify the type and amount of structural force that the hull material has to withstand in a defined area (e.g. surface area in square inches). It does Not specify the composition or thickness of the materials being used in that area. Which leaves quite a bit of open room for debate?

None of the four OEMs I listed above (including Hunter) claimed that their products were made to ABS standards.

So, as I said several times throughout this posting, “Where’s the beef” as it pertains to Hunter Hull construction?

Remember, I’m looking for quantifiable numbers here, not conjecture and/or opinion.

Regards,

James10016

 

[rufus1138]

what era are we talking about, ur 88 would have had different construction guidelines and rules than my 78 and presumably different for a 98 or 08 model as well. hunter's reputation has also swung all over the place, some ppl also just jump on the hatin' band wagon when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[Benny17441]

Hunter sailboats are by no means an inferior product and they really offer great value and perform well within its design guidelines. I guess the best description of the boats and their design is an affordable coastal cruiser for the recreational sailor. They are not designed for racing nor for offshore cruising but are regularly used in both endeavors with acceptable results. Production boats in general are faulted for sloppy manufacturing, poor quality control and the use of inexpensive components. Unfortunately workforce turnover, cost cutting production practices, some tolerance or laxity in quality control and the use of lighter or least expensive components leads to boats with manufacturing faults. The manufacturer does try to insure that any recognized and allowed defects do not compromise safety but almost all the boats are plagued by cosmetic faults and things that do not work as designed or fail prematurely. I will give you one solid example, we were pushing an h320 to its limits on a 25 knots of sustained wind when the tack ring on furler busted. Upon further investigation we found out that the Furlex 100 that the boat came with was only rated for boats up to 30'. We called Hunter and were quickly referred to Furlex who indicated they would replace the whole drum free of charge. Upon receipt we noticed that the tack ring on the replacement model had been re designed and strengthened yet no recall was ever issued. It became evident that by using the F100 instead of the F200 they were saving a few hundred dollars per unit perhaps gambling that most owners would not drive the boat as hard as we did that day. There was no offer to pay for the rigging costs of installing the new unit. A few years after the boat went off warranty we found out that the gusher emergency pump had been broken and was inoperative. Since no one had crawled down there since we took delivery we figured it was broken during installation. We were lucky we never had a need for it. I don't think anyone floods a boat to test the pump but we could have crawled down there to conduct a general inspection. We did not bother making a claim. In conversation with other Hunter owners it seems like not a single boat has left the factory in perfect condition as there is always something but all seem to agree that for the price the feel they received real good value. In all fairness even expensive hand made yachts show manufacturing defects but with lesser frequency and components failure. A offshore cruiser will have a gentler motion on the ocean and a race design will be faster and stronger but also both more expensive.

 

[Rick D]

Changing....

When we purchased our first in 1990, it was a double whammy. First, Hunters were rare in SoCal then. Second, ours was a V-32 with a free-standing rig and a non-traditional interior. Lots of tut-tuts at the YC. Over time, when we did decently on some club races, and had people aboard on club cruises, the tut-tuts changed to reluctant acceptance and occasional admiring glances.

When I first did the Newport Beach to Ensenada BC race nine years ago, Hunters were more common, if not very common in marinas. However, there were only two or three racing out of several hundred and so many Catalinas, they had their own trophies. Now, however, there are plenty. Most are in Cruising Classes, but some are not.

I think most of the sour vibe is fading as a new generation moves in and an old out of the sport. Some still exists. When five sailors were killed in that race two years ago in a Hunter (which had won its class before), one of the rumors is that it broke up because the hull was chopper gun rather than hand laid up. I contacted Hunter, got the specific schedule and pushed the information back down where it had bubbled up. Who knows where that crap originates?

Anyhow, there certainly is nothing to be embarrassed by. The full-keelers will never like them, racers despise them (despite many B&R non-backstays going on in one design) and cruisers-who-never-are-ready-to-cruise always think there is a better choice.

I got over it some time ago, but your missive is dead on point. All the major competitors carefully study trends, construction, pricing, and try to out-innovate each other. At the end of the day, they all build (similar) and pretty darn good product.

 

[Crazy Dave Condon]

Warren Luhrs who use to own Hunter built ocean racing vessels which the experience and designs went into Hunter sailboats. He was very active in hull designs but also safety having known him from a personal viewpoint. As for Hunter, many innovative designs came out which the other manufactuers followed suit for what it is worth.

 

[seadaddler]

Bashing

When I sailed my 2007 H-36 from Montauk NY to Florida 99% all ocean 2 crew members I find out did not like my Hunter or did not like Hunters as good sailboat
and felt even worst blue water boat and they both did a lot of blue water sailing.
Pretty much before landing in Florida they said they were sorry for bashing my boat and felt is was a really good sailboat all around and did very well out in the big waves and wind out in the ocean and wanted to go sailing with me to the Islands.
Nick

 

[Jerry Clark H356 SV Persi]

I just finished 2800 miles of cruising in my 2003 Hunter 356 from Kentucky Lake to Punta Gorda, Fl and back. I have cruised offshore in a 32 foot steel Tahiti Ketch, Island Packet 38, 380 and 40 and a CaboRico 38. The Tahiti Ketch , a very heavy displacement boat, is the only one with any better sailing characteristics in the open ocean. That is due to the really heavy build. As to comfort overall, it is the least comfortable of all the boats I have sailed offshore.

I was very pleased with the stability of the 356 in the open ocean and the boat was very stable. It is as good as any I have been on so far. I pick my weather window to avoid bad conditions as I will leave that to younger and more adventurous types. When in my 20's I would have taken this boat to the edge, but I am almost 67 and don't need to prove anything to anyone now, including myself. I didn't buy it to cross oceans as I have no desire to do that. My wife and I see it as our floating vacation home and it served that purpose very well over the six months of our cruise. We have a lot of amenities and the interior of our 356 is large compared to comparable boats of similar length. Most of the time we are either at a marina or anchorage and that is where the bright and spacious interior really makes it a comfortable place to live. I am biased toward the Hunter because it is what I own, but I am also very happy with it and will probably make the trip again sometime in the future.

Anyone who is bashing the current Hunter line just doesn't know the boat.

 

[James10016]

All,

Thank You for your comments.

As I said above, I'm pleased with my Hunter boat, even with several cost cutting measures that I've come across and dealt with over the past 8 years.

Most of which fell within the sub-component realm. Such as 1) the 'plastic packing gland' around the propellor shaft that I replaced with a brass one for $100, 2) the anchor locker and general anchoring layout make the job harder than it has to be, 3) I had to pour several cubic feet of liquid expansion foam into the refrig/freezer compartment to get it up from almost non-existent insulation of zero to an R10 value and 4) increasing the capacity of the House batteries from 150 to over 300 Amp hrs.

But these type of things are ALL discretionary items that I can change after the fact as many of you have also done on Your boats.

Which is why I started this discussion by focusing on the Hull and how it was made. Because, You are stuck with what the OEM provided to you. Thus logically, any real discussion about Hunter quality would have to make the arguement that the Hunter Hull, Internal Modules and Deck design and materials were inferior. Which is why (in anticipation of this arguement) I posted such a lengthy message about Hull material and production processes.

However, I know with certainty that my 1988 Hunter Legend 45's upper Hull must have had a major 'flexing problem' or they wouldn't have install this 2" steel tube reinforcing the hull laterally, just behind the Mast step. This modification seems to have worked. Because there is no indications (in the form of cracks) around the stroud mounting points/anchors, hatches, internal bullkheads and along the toe rail where you'd expect to see the results of this type of flexing.

Now I do understand that the design of my wide, flat bottom hull and its spade rudder isn't the best design for extended ocean cruising. But I don't see where the Beneteaus or Jeanneaus out there have overcome this same issue either.

As far as recieiving an ABS Ocean going classifications, None of the major manufacturers claim to have one. This is perfectly understandable since, it costs allot of money, time and effort to meet the requirements. Because you have to conduct several tests in order to prove it. Especially, the hull/deck strength requirements relating to the area of knock downs & etc. That's got to be real tough and expensive $$ to meet.

But even achieving that has a limited practical value because, in simple terms the size of a 'crashing wave' will ultimately decide if the hull/deck survives the impact. At 62 lbs per cubic foot, it wouldn't take a very big wave to generate several tons of force on your hull and deck. However, this is what ABS is addressing with their Ocean going classifications.

But back on tasks again. It isn't likely that I'll ever get my hands on the Hull building specifications on any of the boats I've mentioned to make any kind of real determination. So, it comes down to what us (Hunter Owners) have discovered on our own.

So, if you would, tell me what on your boat, are the 'real structural & design' problems that You've identified?

Regards,

James

 

[MLampner]

As someone else said Hunters are not one boat over the more than 40 years they have been made. On the other hand they seem to have always been good value for the money. My 77 i30c is strong as an ox, one of those over heavy boats of its era, but she still sails well and in the very limited racing we have done with her she has always acquitted herself well.

We plan to do my first coastal cruise this summer to NYC from Baltimore. I have confidence in her and the crew that we will make the trip in safety and comfort. Somehow Catalina's of the same age are seen as better boats but mine is more comfortable as fast and easy to handle as any Catalina I have been aboard from the era. Going to windward this boat out performers new longer boats much of the time. I'd like to credit it to a better crew but with only six years experience to my name there have got to be far more better sailors. And last year single handed I out tacked a much newer Janeau 40 on the windward tCk and held my own on the leeward side as well.

 

[Mikem]

I rarely get that question but when I do the reply is something like "well a boat that costs 2-3 times as much will not be 2-3x more comfortable, go 2-3x faster, burn 2-3x less fuel, cook 2-3x better, and last 2-3x longer." Occasionally I'll ask the individual what kind of a car they drive and the reply is typically Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc. They get really quiet when I ask why not a top end Mercedes, Rolls or Ferrari.

I could not be more pleased with the quality and value of my Hunter. And they still make them.

 

[robertsapp]

Forgive me, but I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. It sounds like you want to refute some people's poor opinion of Hunters by providing a detailed engineering analysis of the brand's design and construction. But I believe that by a wide margin, the majority of the Hunter Haters out there don't have any scientific (or even rational) basis for their contempt. It's purely emotional, and showing them a layup schedule isn't going to sway many opinions. Too many people have heard for too many years that Hunter builds crappy boats such that it's now just something that everyone believes and knows to be true, regardless of the facts. If I had to speculate, I think it's probably a legacy of that period in the mid to late 80's when Warren Luhrs left the company and Hunter really fell down on their quality control. But Mr. Luhrs set it right after he came back, and since the early '90's, I think Hunter has been building a boat that is every bit the equal of any other volume production manufacturer.

I greatly enjoyed a quote from a cruiser's blog I read in which he said it's amazing when reaching some of the most remote anchorages in the world how many boats are already there that the "experts" say aren't capable of making the trip.

 

[IH82BL8]

they seem to have always been good value for the money.

I think that's the heart of the matter. Some other makes may have better fit and finish below, solid teak panels where a Hunter would have plywood with teak veneer. I'm not willing to (and relieved that I don't have to) spend 2-3x as much money for a boat that is the same size and performance level of my Hunter.

 

[Bob 04 H260]

All good points made above. I don't intend to bash any other make of sailboat here, I think all the companies today build a pretty good boat.

One recurring theme I hear from experienced sailors who really should know better is that "Hunters are very lightly built boats". They seem to just be repeating something they were told without ever looking at specifications of the boats. This is usually delivered with a smile often to explain why a Hunter just passed their boat. I enjoy explaining to these experts the difference in weight between our H356 and a few other boats in our size.

The H356 weighs 13,900 lbs, a Catalina 350 (with a foot more beam than a H356) weighs 12,900 lbs, a Beneteau 36.7 (with a 6" smaller beam) weighs 12,700 lbs, and I compare this to a "heavily built sailboat", an Island Packet 350, it weighs 16,000 lbs. After that they don't seem to have any explanation as to why the Hunter sails faster, except in the case of the IP . The IP has an extra 800 lbs in the keel, it draws 6" less than the H356, so the difference in the weight of the boats is really not very much. I don't think I change their mind about Hunter's but I do feel better correcting one myth at a time.

We looked at many used boats before buying the Hunter. The price was comparable for the same size and year made by other manufactures. The prices seemed to depend on the condition of the boat and the equipment it had on it. We bought the H356 because it was more comfortable, seemed to have more storage, bigger fridge and freezer, it had more functional space, beautiful grain matched teak paneling inside, and the arch. So we thought overall the Hunter seemed to offer more, it was not any cheaper. I liked the level of factory support from Hunter.

A few years ago I did look at the prices of new Hunters, Catalina's, Beneteau's, there did not seem to be much difference in prices for similar equipped vessels. I don't know what the difference between them is today.

Bob

 

[Jackdaw]

The H356 weighs 13,900 lbs, a Catalina 350 (with a foot more beam than a H356) weighs 12,900 lbs, a Beneteau 36.7 (with a 6" smaller beam) weighs 12,700 lbs, and I compare this to a "heavily built sailboat", an Island Packet 350, it weighs 16,000 lbs. After that they don't seem to have any explanation as to why the Hunter sails faster, except in the case of the IP . The IP has an extra 800 lbs in the keel, it draws 6" less than the H356, so the difference in the weight of the boats is really not very much. I don't think I change their mind about Hunter's but I do feel better correcting one myth at a time.



Bob

No disrespect intended to your boat (which I think is good looking), but I'll eat a winch handle the day it sails faster than our First 367 on any point of sail or conditions.

 

[Rick D]

And Your First...

No disrespect intended to your boat (which I think is good looking), but I'll eat a winch handle the day it sails faster than our First 367 on any point of sail or conditions.

....is about as close to a comparable Benne as a Carerra is to a Panamera

 

[Nom De Guerre]

No disrespect intended to your boat (which I think is good looking), but I'll eat a winch handle the day it sails faster than our First 367 on any point of sail or conditions.

I can imagine that would be more uncomfortable than Stu having to eat his hat.

The mind's eye is wonderfully entertaining.

 

[markwbird]

Hunter bad rep may be partially deserved

I have owned an '83 Catalina 25, an '84 Hunter 25.5 and I currently own an
'84 Hunter 34. That look and feel of cheap that you see here and there is not unique to Hunter. My Catalina maybe seemed a little more solidly built but it sailed like a pig. The Hunter 25.5 sailed beautifully. It is more lightly built and the Maxwell winches are crap but the boat is light, agile and fast. Give me the Hunter any day which is why I bought the Hunter 34. The price was unbeatable, it's fast and has everything I need. There are some issues, however. All the 34's will, at some point, require a major compression post repair due to a poor design. I have already replaced the Maxwell winches. The bow roller is too narrow for the shackle. The cabinetry is ill fitting in places. The stove is alcohol and produces awful fumes. The bilge pump hose is thin and corrugated plastic. Lots of little things than can all be improved. The keel is deep and the mast is tall and she is fast and fun to sail. Great value.

 

[Bob 04 H260]

No disrespect intended to your boat (which I think is good looking), but I'll eat a winch handle the day it sails faster than our First 367 on any point of sail or conditions.

Sorry Jack I did not mean any disrespect to your boat either, I'm sure it is a very fast boat. The lightly built comments did not come from a Beneteau or Catalina owner. I was not saying my boat was faster than yours (I'm a cruiser not a racer ). I was only trying to say that contrary to what I'm often told my boat weighs more than many similar sized production boats. I just picked the 367 out of the air, I could have used the Beneteau 36CC as an example it weighs 13,200 lbs.

regards, Bob

 

[Jackdaw]

Sorry Jack I did not mean any disrespect to your boat either, I'm sure it is a very fast boat. The lightly built comments did not come from a Beneteau or Catalina owner. I was not saying my boat was faster than yours (I'm a cruiser not a racer ). I was only trying to say that contrary to what I'm often told my boat weighs more than many similar sized production boats. I just picked the 367 out of the air, I could have used the Beneteau 36CC as an example it weighs 13,200 lbs.

regards, Bob

Bob, No disrespect taken! I just could not resist; your point is very valid, you just chose the wrong boat to use as an example! ;^)

clay

 

[jk kudera]

It's been a long relationship, I bought my H34 24 years ago, we have day sailed, and ocean sailed from New York to Baltimore, and a lot of places in between! We have also raced her all that time and have placed in the top 5 racers for the season in our club for many years, with many first place finishes. Nothing is perfect, but it is my opinion that this Hunter is an above average boat and a great value.