I'm curious about the Hunter Cherubini hulls. Is the hull a stock Hunter hull or is it a stronger design?
- Status
It is just a Hunter.
George: The early Hunters where designed by Cherubini but built by Hunter. They may have been stronger by design.
George: The early Hunters where designed by Cherubini but built by Hunter. They may have been stronger by design.
Probably stronger.
Just because they are old they are probably stronger. The Cherubini hulls are solid and quite thick. These were built before trying to stretch the limits of fiberglas technology. I have drilled holes in the bottom and sides of my H37C and found no voids, only very solid glass. Six inches from the centerline and three feet in front of the keel it is one inch thick. There is no coring in a Cherubini hull.
Just because they are old they are probably stronger. The Cherubini hulls are solid and quite thick. These were built before trying to stretch the limits of fiberglas technology. I have drilled holes in the bottom and sides of my H37C and found no voids, only very solid glass. Six inches from the centerline and three feet in front of the keel it is one inch thick. There is no coring in a Cherubini hull.
Cherubini Hull
They were built by Hunter so they were in it for the money (build it as cheap as possible) but overbuilt glass layup was all they new 25 ago. My hull is one inch thick in the one spot I have drilled for A/C outlet , port side next to the v-bert about 5 inches above the waterline. No core just plain old glass. The older hulls were probably overbuilt as far as glass lay-ups were concerned which made a very solid heavy boat. A lot of opinions about old technology FRP verses newer more technologically advanced methods with cores and high tech materials and vacuum bagging for ideal resin to glass ratios are out there. But my old heavy 79 h33 works great for me and has been on a few reefs with no structural damage. Kevin
They were built by Hunter so they were in it for the money (build it as cheap as possible) but overbuilt glass layup was all they new 25 ago. My hull is one inch thick in the one spot I have drilled for A/C outlet , port side next to the v-bert about 5 inches above the waterline. No core just plain old glass. The older hulls were probably overbuilt as far as glass lay-ups were concerned which made a very solid heavy boat. A lot of opinions about old technology FRP verses newer more technologically advanced methods with cores and high tech materials and vacuum bagging for ideal resin to glass ratios are out there. But my old heavy 79 h33 works great for me and has been on a few reefs with no structural damage. Kevin
I take issue
With the remark that "they were in it for the money (build it as cheap as possible" Aren't all boat builders in it for the money? Or are they giving away Hinckley's these days? And Hunter hulls are not cored below the waterline, they are solid, because I have drilled holes for thru-hulls and there was at least 1" of glass there. In the early years, they laid up hulls thisker than they need because they didn't know much about the strength. Much more testing has been done, allowing for higher strength to weight ratios. Sometimes heavier is just heavier, and that's why a newer Hunter will blow by an old one in light air.
With the remark that "they were in it for the money (build it as cheap as possible" Aren't all boat builders in it for the money? Or are they giving away Hinckley's these days? And Hunter hulls are not cored below the waterline, they are solid, because I have drilled holes for thru-hulls and there was at least 1" of glass there. In the early years, they laid up hulls thisker than they need because they didn't know much about the strength. Much more testing has been done, allowing for higher strength to weight ratios. Sometimes heavier is just heavier, and that's why a newer Hunter will blow by an old one in light air.
Sometimes Heavier is stronger...
In reality, it's the strengh of the materials that new technology is able to use to make lighter be stronger. Carbon fiber being a prime example. Hunter is no exception, F/G is expensive and it's better to use less if you can to save money. Coring above the water line is one method they use to accomplish this task. Obviously, they are doing a pretty good job of it as they are the second largest builder of sailboats in the world if my information serves me correctly and the reason is that they are still making money at it. As for your boat blowing by our older Hunters in light air, that maybe true, however when you miscalculate your approach to your slip and contact the dock we replace a couple of boards on the dock when you need to plug the hole in your forepeak to keep the air-conditioning from leaking out. Thicker and heavier is better above and below the waterline in FRP boats when it comes to impact resistance! Tom Hadoulias S/V Lite Chop
In reality, it's the strengh of the materials that new technology is able to use to make lighter be stronger. Carbon fiber being a prime example. Hunter is no exception, F/G is expensive and it's better to use less if you can to save money. Coring above the water line is one method they use to accomplish this task. Obviously, they are doing a pretty good job of it as they are the second largest builder of sailboats in the world if my information serves me correctly and the reason is that they are still making money at it. As for your boat blowing by our older Hunters in light air, that maybe true, however when you miscalculate your approach to your slip and contact the dock we replace a couple of boards on the dock when you need to plug the hole in your forepeak to keep the air-conditioning from leaking out. Thicker and heavier is better above and below the waterline in FRP boats when it comes to impact resistance! Tom Hadoulias S/V Lite Chop
Cherubini hulls
Obviously they (Hunter) were in it for the money, that's why anyone builds production boats. I am saying that the quality of these old hulls are well respected because of heavy lay-up schedules in the hull (and in my opinion the more traditional hull lines). It was the way they built them in the earlier days of FRP. If they had known a way to cut materials and still produce an acceptable boat they would have because they were all about larger profits. That is seen in the cabin top construction under the( deck steeped mast). It is less than acceptable but it put more money in there pockets. I don't recall any newer Hunters blowing by me ever, guess I should pay more attention. Kevin
Obviously they (Hunter) were in it for the money, that's why anyone builds production boats. I am saying that the quality of these old hulls are well respected because of heavy lay-up schedules in the hull (and in my opinion the more traditional hull lines). It was the way they built them in the earlier days of FRP. If they had known a way to cut materials and still produce an acceptable boat they would have because they were all about larger profits. That is seen in the cabin top construction under the( deck steeped mast). It is less than acceptable but it put more money in there pockets. I don't recall any newer Hunters blowing by me ever, guess I should pay more attention. Kevin
Yeah, where did that. . .
come from? Ain't no new Hunters blowin' by my H37C. But they don't go out when I do, maybe that's the reason. Last night in 3-footers with whitecaps I had Lake Erie to myself.
come from? Ain't no new Hunters blowin' by my H37C. But they don't go out when I do, maybe that's the reason. Last night in 3-footers with whitecaps I had Lake Erie to myself.
H33 hull thickness
As a structural engineer by education refitting my 79 H33 I was interested in seeing how thick the layup of the hull was and how it varied. At the galley sink throughhull 1/2" (port side in the flatter part of the hull section about midship) Head discharge 5/8" raw water intake 11/16" Transom - didn't measure but probably less than 3/8" Topsides at water tank vent. didn't measure but very thick probably 3/4" -1" (near bow) Layup at stem very thick, had to go through several inches to install new bow roller. Thus, the Cherubini layup was very sensitive to location on the hull with layup thickening toward bow and thickening from rail downward toward longitudinal centerline. The heavy aluminum toerail mechanically fastened at 6" intervals with 1/4" fasteners to deck and topsides adds enormous strength at that critical location An indicator of the inherent strength in the layup is the lack of ribs, grids or other stiffening structures on the inside of the hull. The liner is tabbed to the hull at strategic locations which does serve to stiffen the hull but otherwise, just a clean run of fiberglass layup on the inside, leaving a clean run for drainage, straight to the bilge. Seems to me that very good construction control would have been necessary to have the finished structure vary in thickness in such a designed manner, putting the layup strength where it is needed the most. My experience with the old boat at close quarters left with me with a very deep respect for the quality and strength of the design.
As a structural engineer by education refitting my 79 H33 I was interested in seeing how thick the layup of the hull was and how it varied. At the galley sink throughhull 1/2" (port side in the flatter part of the hull section about midship) Head discharge 5/8" raw water intake 11/16" Transom - didn't measure but probably less than 3/8" Topsides at water tank vent. didn't measure but very thick probably 3/4" -1" (near bow) Layup at stem very thick, had to go through several inches to install new bow roller. Thus, the Cherubini layup was very sensitive to location on the hull with layup thickening toward bow and thickening from rail downward toward longitudinal centerline. The heavy aluminum toerail mechanically fastened at 6" intervals with 1/4" fasteners to deck and topsides adds enormous strength at that critical location An indicator of the inherent strength in the layup is the lack of ribs, grids or other stiffening structures on the inside of the hull. The liner is tabbed to the hull at strategic locations which does serve to stiffen the hull but otherwise, just a clean run of fiberglass layup on the inside, leaving a clean run for drainage, straight to the bilge. Seems to me that very good construction control would have been necessary to have the finished structure vary in thickness in such a designed manner, putting the layup strength where it is needed the most. My experience with the old boat at close quarters left with me with a very deep respect for the quality and strength of the design.
Cherubini Just a Hunter!!!??*#**
STEVE!! How could you say such a thing? Are you related to Luhrs by chance? or at least on his payroll? just a hunter...I never....OK, I'm calm....I'll get over this...calm...breath in.. After owning more than one of these wonderful boats and doing much research as well as a significant amount of repair work to my boats, I have come to the conclusion that John Cherubini was not too concerned with $$ when designing his boats. Form and function were paramount..sailing function that is. Creature comforts in the cabin area were also not one of his favorite things to the point of allowing one of his sons design the interior on some of the boats. I believe he designed in strength with a healthy margin. Hunter (Luhrs) on the other hand, liked good boats, but was chasing $$$ and frequently tried to cut corners. As I understand it, this was the cause of some conflict between the two. In summary, yes the design was strong. Yes the hulls were thick. But the workmanship in many cases was poor. Many Cherubini Hunters have sloppy glass work like where bulk heads and sole "floors" are "tabbed" to the hull. The "secondary" bonds sometimes do not hold. Another area of concern would be the bedding and seal of items secured to the deck. The seal of pedistals, stanchions, railings, ports, etc, often fail and thus we have soft spot problems in many of our old boats. Soft decks and repaired decks are often weaker than when new. I believe many of us would like to see Hunter build an "annaversary" addition Cherubini designed boat, and this time build it right. Perhaps the 33 would be a good candidate? Don Bodemann
STEVE!! How could you say such a thing? Are you related to Luhrs by chance? or at least on his payroll? just a hunter...I never....OK, I'm calm....I'll get over this...calm...breath in.. After owning more than one of these wonderful boats and doing much research as well as a significant amount of repair work to my boats, I have come to the conclusion that John Cherubini was not too concerned with $$ when designing his boats. Form and function were paramount..sailing function that is. Creature comforts in the cabin area were also not one of his favorite things to the point of allowing one of his sons design the interior on some of the boats. I believe he designed in strength with a healthy margin. Hunter (Luhrs) on the other hand, liked good boats, but was chasing $$$ and frequently tried to cut corners. As I understand it, this was the cause of some conflict between the two. In summary, yes the design was strong. Yes the hulls were thick. But the workmanship in many cases was poor. Many Cherubini Hunters have sloppy glass work like where bulk heads and sole "floors" are "tabbed" to the hull. The "secondary" bonds sometimes do not hold. Another area of concern would be the bedding and seal of items secured to the deck. The seal of pedistals, stanchions, railings, ports, etc, often fail and thus we have soft spot problems in many of our old boats. Soft decks and repaired decks are often weaker than when new. I believe many of us would like to see Hunter build an "annaversary" addition Cherubini designed boat, and this time build it right. Perhaps the 33 would be a good candidate? Don Bodemann
I knew I would get this response when I ........
Don: I know I would get this response when I pushed the Submit button. BUT! A Hunter is a Hunter is a Hunter. I wish I could put my interior, engine and rigging in a Cherubini Designed Hunter hull.
Don: I know I would get this response when I pushed the Submit button. BUT! A Hunter is a Hunter is a Hunter. I wish I could put my interior, engine and rigging in a Cherubini Designed Hunter hull.
Steve, Steve, Steve............Steve, Steve
You are more of a glutton for punishment than even I am....... RonKA5HZV
You are more of a glutton for punishment than even I am....... RonKA5HZV
Hello
And now what is probably the expected response... [laugh] A couple of points: 1. Irony. My dad was a glutton for anxiety. If there was the slightest risk of the boat being actually used as a SAIL boat in water deeper than his height, he designed it with overkill. Then the prudent Germans John and Warren came along and specified a little more glass just to be safe. Then the factory came along and allowed margins for error 'on the heavy side'. 2. Papal infallibility. Of course the boats were intended to be as you see them; there was no real error there. They were designed to use existing technology to an ideal happy medium between safety/strength and cost/construction ease. My dad was very particular about hull thicknesses at certain places. The Cherubini 44 had an all-glass hull 2-1/4 inches thick at the turn of the bilge-- inagine that! But there has NEVER been a Cherubini-44 hull failure due to design or construction. He never would have used coring to save money for two reasons: it's weaker and it's vulnerable to water (can YOU say 'delamination'?). But do not presume that people were naive or less informed then about what they were using. In the 1970s we chose fibreglass on purpose, understood it, and used it well-- perhaps better than it's used now. 3. OPEC. It's true that my dad had NO concept for 'construction budget' or 'market value'. He designed from as far back in an idealist's vacuum as he could. But if Hunter had been so interested in saving money they would have lightened up on glass especially. The Luhrs brothers were once said to be the 'last' guys to make multimillions in the fibreglass-boat industry. Here's why: in the mid-70s fibreglass, a petroleum product, was getting precipitiously expensive. I recall John L talking about a guy in Texas selling resin for 2.00/gallon, which was a steal-- but you had to buy the whole railroad tanker full. The costs of using fibreglass in 1973-1979 were just horrible. If the glass is in the boat, it was in spite of the cost, not to save it!! BTW-- to this day at boat shows I STOMP on the deck to see how stiff it is. Cored decks sound like a drum head. Solid decks sound like a sidewalk. If the salesman yells, he's got something to fear! Anyway-- I like Don's idea of an 'anniversary edition' 33. I've often said the 37 and 33 are the best of the bunch. And I'd be interested in any heads-up competition between current models and the older ones of equivalent size-- but it'd have to be in some good and nasty Great Lakes chop (Mackinac?). Then we'll go down south and give the newer boats-- obviously intended to provide air-conditioning and stand-up showers in Florida waters that never kick up-- a run for their money in their own back yard!! JC 2
And now what is probably the expected response... [laugh] A couple of points: 1. Irony. My dad was a glutton for anxiety. If there was the slightest risk of the boat being actually used as a SAIL boat in water deeper than his height, he designed it with overkill. Then the prudent Germans John and Warren came along and specified a little more glass just to be safe. Then the factory came along and allowed margins for error 'on the heavy side'. 2. Papal infallibility. Of course the boats were intended to be as you see them; there was no real error there. They were designed to use existing technology to an ideal happy medium between safety/strength and cost/construction ease. My dad was very particular about hull thicknesses at certain places. The Cherubini 44 had an all-glass hull 2-1/4 inches thick at the turn of the bilge-- inagine that! But there has NEVER been a Cherubini-44 hull failure due to design or construction. He never would have used coring to save money for two reasons: it's weaker and it's vulnerable to water (can YOU say 'delamination'?). But do not presume that people were naive or less informed then about what they were using. In the 1970s we chose fibreglass on purpose, understood it, and used it well-- perhaps better than it's used now. 3. OPEC. It's true that my dad had NO concept for 'construction budget' or 'market value'. He designed from as far back in an idealist's vacuum as he could. But if Hunter had been so interested in saving money they would have lightened up on glass especially. The Luhrs brothers were once said to be the 'last' guys to make multimillions in the fibreglass-boat industry. Here's why: in the mid-70s fibreglass, a petroleum product, was getting precipitiously expensive. I recall John L talking about a guy in Texas selling resin for 2.00/gallon, which was a steal-- but you had to buy the whole railroad tanker full. The costs of using fibreglass in 1973-1979 were just horrible. If the glass is in the boat, it was in spite of the cost, not to save it!! BTW-- to this day at boat shows I STOMP on the deck to see how stiff it is. Cored decks sound like a drum head. Solid decks sound like a sidewalk. If the salesman yells, he's got something to fear! Anyway-- I like Don's idea of an 'anniversary edition' 33. I've often said the 37 and 33 are the best of the bunch. And I'd be interested in any heads-up competition between current models and the older ones of equivalent size-- but it'd have to be in some good and nasty Great Lakes chop (Mackinac?). Then we'll go down south and give the newer boats-- obviously intended to provide air-conditioning and stand-up showers in Florida waters that never kick up-- a run for their money in their own back yard!! JC 2
Steve O. - How can you say that?
I've got an '89 Cherubini designed 33 and I have yet to see any of the new Hunters blow by me in light air! I'm always leaving them behind. Aside for my boat being on the light side (Disp. 10,000#) and an absolutely supurb underbody design (Thank you John C.!) it also probably has a lot to do with a deep keel (5'-7") and narrow beam (10')on that year's 33. Last year going from Stonington, Ct. to Block I left in convoy with a 94 H33.5 (or whatever their deignation is). Same point of sail, same tack, same wind. I was ahead by literally a mile after 1-1/2 hours and the distance kept increasing. Blow by me? No Way!!!
I've got an '89 Cherubini designed 33 and I have yet to see any of the new Hunters blow by me in light air! I'm always leaving them behind. Aside for my boat being on the light side (Disp. 10,000#) and an absolutely supurb underbody design (Thank you John C.!) it also probably has a lot to do with a deep keel (5'-7") and narrow beam (10')on that year's 33. Last year going from Stonington, Ct. to Block I left in convoy with a 94 H33.5 (or whatever their deignation is). Same point of sail, same tack, same wind. I was ahead by literally a mile after 1-1/2 hours and the distance kept increasing. Blow by me? No Way!!!
One quick note ...
When I was down below in my 2000 Hunter and the sun was shining ... I could read the Hunter logo backwards through the hull. Similarly, installation of ANY electronic was impossible as the liner was paper thin and it was an 1/8 from the tissue paper exterior. Granted, the boat was intentionally made lighter and the knowledge of fiberglass strength is greater. But, I surely like sitting down below in our 1978 (Cherubini) Hunter 30 and feeling like I'm in a solid, "no-kidding" kind of boat.
When I was down below in my 2000 Hunter and the sun was shining ... I could read the Hunter logo backwards through the hull. Similarly, installation of ANY electronic was impossible as the liner was paper thin and it was an 1/8 from the tissue paper exterior. Granted, the boat was intentionally made lighter and the knowledge of fiberglass strength is greater. But, I surely like sitting down below in our 1978 (Cherubini) Hunter 30 and feeling like I'm in a solid, "no-kidding" kind of boat.
- Status