I have heard someboating people state that Hunters are built for speed and are thus light and less able to stand up to heavy weather than some other boats...comments
- Status
Compared to what?
John: These people have their heads up their ass. They have no basis for these statements. Ask them how they 'know' these 'facts'. Have they seens any of these boats come apart in a storm? These statements are just B.S. This in not to say they are built like a Valient, I.P., Hans Christen, etc, etc. In case you have not seen the articles in most of the sailing magazines, a SC52 (Santa Cruz) was dismasted during a delivery run from Oahu to Monterey. The winds where in the 10-15 kt range. One of the crew members was seriously injured. This is no 'light weight' boat. It is very well built but sustained a failure. These boats are built for speed. On our run from Hawaii, we hit 18+ kts in 25-28kts of wind on a broad reach. These boats are built for speed. These boats can stand some very serious weather and are very light (22,000 lbs for a 52'). The reason that Hunters go fast is they have tall rigs and lotsa of sail. They tend to be tender unless you reef early. They are not racers, but they will beat the best of them if sailed properly.
John: These people have their heads up their ass. They have no basis for these statements. Ask them how they 'know' these 'facts'. Have they seens any of these boats come apart in a storm? These statements are just B.S. This in not to say they are built like a Valient, I.P., Hans Christen, etc, etc. In case you have not seen the articles in most of the sailing magazines, a SC52 (Santa Cruz) was dismasted during a delivery run from Oahu to Monterey. The winds where in the 10-15 kt range. One of the crew members was seriously injured. This is no 'light weight' boat. It is very well built but sustained a failure. These boats are built for speed. On our run from Hawaii, we hit 18+ kts in 25-28kts of wind on a broad reach. These boats are built for speed. These boats can stand some very serious weather and are very light (22,000 lbs for a 52'). The reason that Hunters go fast is they have tall rigs and lotsa of sail. They tend to be tender unless you reef early. They are not racers, but they will beat the best of them if sailed properly.
look at the numbers
compare length/displacement ratios and sail area/displacement ratios. they'll tell you everything you need to know about where hunters fall into the spectrum. realize, also, that different model hunters have different ratios. the 380, for example, has a much higher sa/d ratio than a 410.
compare length/displacement ratios and sail area/displacement ratios. they'll tell you everything you need to know about where hunters fall into the spectrum. realize, also, that different model hunters have different ratios. the 380, for example, has a much higher sa/d ratio than a 410.
Which Hunters?
I am continually amused by the use of the word "Hunters." Which Hunters? Hunter has been building boats for over 20 years. There are Hunters of all sizes built for all purposes. The first Hunters were quite different in design from current boats. It does not take too much inspection to see that even the current crop of models differ considerably from model to model. Critics are correct, over the past 20 plus years I am sure that Hunter has built some boats that are not the best choice for crossing oceans. Not every Hunter has been designed to withstand gale force winds and 20 foot seas for weeks. It seems to me that Hunters are designed to withstand the forces to which they will likely be subjected - with an adequate safety margin. Unlike the Flicka, 20' Hunters are not designed to cross oceans. If they were, nobody could afford them. After all, the Flicka last sold for nearly $80k. So, which Hunter are some people talking about? I have owned Hunters for 18 years. My boats were kept for 11 years in a marina populated by a high percentage of Hunters. The only Hunter that I have personal knowledge of sinking did not sink due to light construction. It sank because a hose fell off of the drain of the galley sink. A second did not sink, but began taking water after a lightening strike blew the gelcoat off at the waterline. I am always interested in factual accounts of Hunter structural failures, but know of none. I don't think they are any more likely to fail due to structure than any others. They can take much more than the crews.
I am continually amused by the use of the word "Hunters." Which Hunters? Hunter has been building boats for over 20 years. There are Hunters of all sizes built for all purposes. The first Hunters were quite different in design from current boats. It does not take too much inspection to see that even the current crop of models differ considerably from model to model. Critics are correct, over the past 20 plus years I am sure that Hunter has built some boats that are not the best choice for crossing oceans. Not every Hunter has been designed to withstand gale force winds and 20 foot seas for weeks. It seems to me that Hunters are designed to withstand the forces to which they will likely be subjected - with an adequate safety margin. Unlike the Flicka, 20' Hunters are not designed to cross oceans. If they were, nobody could afford them. After all, the Flicka last sold for nearly $80k. So, which Hunter are some people talking about? I have owned Hunters for 18 years. My boats were kept for 11 years in a marina populated by a high percentage of Hunters. The only Hunter that I have personal knowledge of sinking did not sink due to light construction. It sank because a hose fell off of the drain of the galley sink. A second did not sink, but began taking water after a lightening strike blew the gelcoat off at the waterline. I am always interested in factual accounts of Hunter structural failures, but know of none. I don't think they are any more likely to fail due to structure than any others. They can take much more than the crews.
Hunters not that lightweight..
..if you compare them to Beneteaues, Bavarias,etc. , you will find them heavier than some and lighter than some.. Ability to withstand harsh weather and compatibility to offshore/ocean riguers, has little to do with plain weight ; it has to do mainly with structural integrity and ridgidity of boat' main components : hull ,hull/deck/bulkheads, rig ,keel and rudder, hatches and openings and to some limited degree can be estimated by comparing ballast /weight ratio , dispacement/lenght ratio, and stability curve along with general underwater profile ,to other boats one like to consider. In general ,Hunters are no better or worse that others of same mass production modern well-known GRP gender..( of similar price level..) main difference being of style and design .(well..and rig..but my personal view is that it is going to change back to more 'regular' in not very far future..) They are not racers nor 'Heavy duty' long distance cruisers ,..but like most of them ,somewhere in between..and in my opinion Hunter does it quite well..
..if you compare them to Beneteaues, Bavarias,etc. , you will find them heavier than some and lighter than some.. Ability to withstand harsh weather and compatibility to offshore/ocean riguers, has little to do with plain weight ; it has to do mainly with structural integrity and ridgidity of boat' main components : hull ,hull/deck/bulkheads, rig ,keel and rudder, hatches and openings and to some limited degree can be estimated by comparing ballast /weight ratio , dispacement/lenght ratio, and stability curve along with general underwater profile ,to other boats one like to consider. In general ,Hunters are no better or worse that others of same mass production modern well-known GRP gender..( of similar price level..) main difference being of style and design .(well..and rig..but my personal view is that it is going to change back to more 'regular' in not very far future..) They are not racers nor 'Heavy duty' long distance cruisers ,..but like most of them ,somewhere in between..and in my opinion Hunter does it quite well..
- Status