Join Date: Apr 2006
Thanked 176 Times in 173 Posts
Rep Power: 12
Very interesting bulletin. Sixteen lost rudders in that "size" boat from one maker alone. Considering that in all the years, I only know one person who actually lost a rudder at sea (stainless failure in the days when it was little known)....one has to wonder if Hunter has simply under-designed the rudders. And, despite their express warrantee, if that's an inherent design defect and safety issue they may be held liable for under statute. Some liabilities you just can't waive, no matter how hard you try.
This is the kind of stuff that makes lawyers rich and customers unhappy. A more reputable maker might say "Well, 1/2% of all boats in this size range have rudder failures, but we've had 20% failures. Ooops, we made a mistake." Looks like they're inviting their owners to do the math themselves. Saying that rudders are exposed and they break and all, that's nice...but did you also notice they mentioned 16 composite rudder stock failures--and none for traditional steel stocks?
Manufacturers just don't get it, they complain about the courts and regulations...and then they leave customers with no other alternatives, and wonder why they get hit with more regulations every year.
One could argue that this failure is a good thing, and call it a "breakaway rudder stock" which fails before the rudder tube or hull can be damaged. But then again...they only problem seems to be in their composite rudder stocks.
Why be picky, if the tail can fall off an Airbus, what's a rudder stock among friends. (sigh)
Now, if I were a real cynic, I would wonder if the design specs for those rudder stocks were calculated by the same guy who spec'd the keel on Thursday's Child. Which broke off when the boss was racing it, years ago. (Oopsie.)
Personally I think if more customers would just leave horse heads in the CEOs bed, the CEOs would behave better. (Referring to "The Godfather".)