[Stumble]

Meh,

Hunter has gone thru three distinct design and construction phases. During which they turned out varying quality of boats. The problem is that for a while they really were turning out pieces of junk, and it takes a long time for a reputation of a boat builder to change (for good or bad).

Since inception Hunter has targeted the low cost market, but did it with reasonable quality boats (1972?-1981? Dates aproxamate). Then there was a resurgent drive to get the cost of building them down as low as possible, regardless of price, and there were all sorts of poor design choices, bad construction details, and questionable business practices. This is the era when the current Hunter reputation was built.

Finally in 1995 Hunter fired their designer, and went out and got one of the better respected yacht designers in the market, Glen Henderson, who along with fixing the design problems also required better construction processes and control. I think it was in 2005 that the last of the old designs was retired, and everything build since then has been from Henderson, who consistently turns out well thought out but economical boats.

I may still have doubts about some of the Hunter designs, but they are philosophical not out and out dangerous. For instance I prefer keel stepped masts because they are stronger, while Hunter (and Beneteau) have switched to deck stepped because they don't leak, and are easier to transport (read cheaper). I prefer lead keels, but they have switched to iron because of the cost difference.

These new changes to save money I am fine with, thought here is a hit on performance. But the middle years from Hunter did things like use cast nuts and bolts instead of milled. Much cheaper, and nominally as strong, unless you got one of the cast parts that had a void, in which case they ripped apart at 1/2 nominal loads.

Probably the biggest single issue Hunter had to contend with happened during their middle years. In order to drive down price they had pioneered a new building technique. A thin outer shell is built (the hull), then a fiberglass grid which is built seperator is dropped into place. This grid has to be blind glued into place, which means all the goop has to be installed before the grid is dropped in, and once it is in you can't access the glue lines anymore. Well as you might expect for a while Hunter was turning out boats where the goop and the liner didn't meet up, or lacked suitable tabbing. When the grid and the hull seperated this resulted in catastrophic failure of the boats. Basically the hull, deck, and internal framing all came apart, and broke into three large pieces.

 

[smackdaddy]

stumble - do you happen to have specific examples of those catastrophic failures? I would honestly like to see how, when and why they happened. Having done a lot of research and ending up with a Hunter ('89 Legend 40), I came a cross a lot of these anecdotes, but very little real evidence. I've obviously already made my decision for now in terms of our Hunter - and I'm comfortable with it - but I'm very interested purely from the standpoint of what conditions, etc. to avoid to negate these kinds of structural failures that are pointed out in posts like yours.

 

[desert rat]

Thank You stumble;
That is the kind of information that makes sense to me. If I buy a hunter I will
avoid the mid year adjustment, although i would like to look at the glued in frame
It is a good Idea. The frame not the glued in.

 

[miatapaul]

Dude, we're talking Hunter here. Wake up man! Heh-heh.

However, I think you could turn the above into a lovely haiku.

And don't forget...they're boneheads too.

seems to have been a change in thinking! I think some are great, some are lousy. Hunter seems to push the envelope away from the norm. That is why they seem to have more unpopular models. Sometimes it works out other times not so much. They were on the leading edge of economizing boats, especially when the price of oil, and therefor resins went way up. I don't like the B&R rig, and I am not opposed to alternate rigs. But they have some really nice normal style rigs.

 

[Stumble]

stumble - do you happen to have specific examples of those catastrophic failures? I would honestly like to see how, when and why they happened. Having done a lot of research and ending up with a Hunter ('89 Legend 40), I came a cross a lot of these anecdotes, but very little real evidence. I've obviously already made my decision for now in terms of our Hunter - and I'm comfortable with it - but I'm very interested purely from the standpoint of what conditions, etc. to avoid to negate these kinds of structural failures that are pointed out in posts like yours.

Smack,

I was involved with one in Miami about a year ago. It was a 40 asking $5,000 with a not to exceed repair quote of $45,000 or so. The deal fell apart as soon as the buyer saw the repair quote. It's a pretty well documented issue with this era of Hunters, but I don't know if I have any primary documents on one anymore.

Including the one last year I have been involved with three Hunter's that had this type of failure. In all three cases it was a 85-92 year boat, and in all three cases theboat was a total write off (the first two), or should have been (the third). Two of them were damaged by running aground where the skipper claimed a low speed collision, the other occurred while sailing in an estimated 25kn of breeze and six foot swells.

In all three cases the boat was able to safely make it back to the dock under power, but the grid separation resulted in major oil canning of the sides, and because the boat became so flexible there were serious concerns about the mast coming down.

 

[PCP]

... Overall, I think they are the best production sailboat on todays market and represent a good value too.

People?! Do you hear this? It is true. I second the above statement. The reason I think many of the more seasoned sailors knock these vessels is that they want to feel important exbounding knowledge which shows their vast knowledge of sailing, even if it is completely erroneous. And besides, have you ever looked at the PHRF ratings on some of the models? It will surprise you.

I don't bash Hunters, they are what they are and can be compared with other boats of similar price but this statements make no sense:

"the best production sailboat on todays market"?

Assuming you are talking about cruisers, we would be, for a 36/38ft boat, talking about something like this:

XC-38: Der goldene Schnitt aus Dänemark - Yacht TV - Segel Videos von Europas größtem Yacht Magazin

Or this if you like a more sportive cruiser:

Solaris One 37 ? die edle Italienerin - Yacht TV - Segel Videos von Europas größtem Yacht Magazin

 

[mpickering]

I was a "Hunter Hater" for many years. Like many sailors, I was wary of the non-traditional B&R rig. I fell into the trap that boats had to have conventional backstays. There had to be something "wrong" with the B&R rig.

Then I raced sailboats. Notably Stars and Snipes, two boats that lack conventional backstays. Then I understand the hate for what it was: lack of knowledge on how rigs work. Once you understand the triangle of support, you understand the B&R rig. I also saw the real unspoken gripe on B&R rigs come out, mostly from racers. The lack of a backstay prevents you from inducing bend in the mast to tune the rig. To which I responded: Hunters aren't J-Boats. They aren't meant to be raced. They're meant to be cruised. The lack of an adjustable backstay is not fatal. Most cruising boats have fixed backstays. It also means if you can't adjust it, you can't overstress it.

A lot of my objections melted away after that awareness dawned. Then it simply becomes fit, finish, quality of construction, etc. I argue if there were serious problems with Hunters over the long-term, they'd be out of business. No builder producing crap boats that fall apart will be able to survive in this day and age. Yet they do so they must be doing something right.

In that, Hunters are no worse or better than Catalina or Beneteau. I've owned Catalinas. We were close to buying a Beneteau but the ballast fractions of some of the Beneteaus scared me. We finally found our boat in a 2000 Hunter 340.

The only issue with the boat that was the boat was some slight cracks in the tabbing in the bilge. A not uncommon problem in boats with external keels and skinny bilges. Purely surface and the yard ground them out and reglassed. Everything else we've had issue with has been normal boat wear-and-tear. Tore our the head on our jib and our cutlass bearing failed two weeks after installation. Both fixed without much problem.

I've been pleasantly surprised by our boat. She points higher than I would expect of a shoal draft boat, easy to handle, doesn't pound the way I would expect in chop from a beamy production boat and the accomodations and features have spoiled us. Even our traditional sailing friends who "hate" Hunters have enjoyed sailing our boat. She's not a C&C 40 but her cockpit and space down below are better than the larger boat.

At the end of the day, the survey is what matters. Our Hunter had one of the best surveys our surveyor had ever seen for a 12 year old boat. Only two issues that required addressing and both were fixed. When your surveyor tells you you've made a good choice, that's a ringing endorsement right there. And we had the toughest surveyor in Annapolis.

We'll keep our Hunter until retirement. And her replacement may be another, larger Hunter. We loved the Hunter 45. Full headroom from transom to forepeak is hard to pull off. The cheap production boat made its bluewater, custom, hand-built Tartan 4700 seem amateurish. I really couldn't see what that extra $400,000 was buying in the Tartan.

Matt

 

[Stumble]

Thank You stumble;
That is the kind of information that makes sense to me. If I buy a hunter I will
avoid the mid year adjustment, although i would like to look at the glued in frame
It is a good Idea. The frame not the glued in.

Pretty much all of the big price conscious builders are using this type of drop in construction. There are issues with it, but for the most art they have learned how to handle the glue ups, and the tabbing sizing.

 

[Brent Swain]

Many of the older boats, built before they entirely trusted fibreglass ,and when the materials and labour were much cheaper, are far better boats than any Hunters or Beneteaus . (Albergs, Spencers ,Frasers, etc etc. ,boats far more solidly built than anyone could afford to do today) .Given those alternatives, why would anyone take a chance on a boat with such a doubtful reputation as a Hunter?

 

[Don L]

Given those alternatives, why would anyone take a chance on a boat with such a doubtful reputation as a Hunter?

Because the thousands of Hunter owners that are happy sailing their boats don't consider them "doubtful"!

Your post is like most internet Hunter bashing in that it suggests that Hunter owners must be stupid or something because they believe more in owner reviews and real experience, instead of internet admirals and armchair experts.

 

[PCP]

Many of the older boats, built before they entirely trusted fibreglass ,and when the materials and labour were much cheaper, are far better boats than any Hunters or Beneteaus . (Albergs, Spencers ,Frasers, etc etc. ,boats far more solidly built than anyone could afford to do today) .Given those alternatives, why would anyone take a chance on a boat with such a doubtful reputation as a Hunter?

It seems you have a point regarding why Hunters have a bad reputation. I never had heard that story only the one about some rudders of a certain vintage to fall out. As someone said it is difficult to regain a good reputation after some nasty errors even if contained in the time.

For what I know Hunters have already surpassed those problems and are today at least average boats in what the market respects.

I do not agree that in general old boats to be more well built than new ones They certainly had a lot more fiberglass on them but that does not made them more resistant or better boats.

The design is much better now (in most cases) and the new boats have an average quality better than the average old boat. Quality control is much better today.

Mass production boats like Bavaria are built with Kevlar protections on the main hull impact points, case they hit something. That gives them probably a better resistance to impact than the one you could find on an old hull, even a lot more thicker.

Regards

Paulo

 

[Stumble]

I frankly don't buy the idea that older boats, particularly when fiberglass was first starting to be used were build any better than they are now. Sure they used tons and tons of fiberglass, but it was mostly CSM not roving, which has a fraction the strength, and is much more prone to wicking water into the hull.

Sure there is a difference between the Swans of yester year and the Hunters of today. But the average boat of today is light years ahead of the average boat of the sixties.

 

[facabrut]

I don't care much for the newer Hunters, post 1985, when they began to streamline the cabin tops.
I much prefer the appearance of the box cabin on the 1984 and older boats, and they were overbuilt, much heavier & more solid back then. My choice is the 1984 Hunter 25', with 3' draft...great boat which I bay & ocean sailed.
Love that boat with a dependable Honda outboard!

John

 

[Brent Swain]

Older boats were far more solidly built. Many used bronze thru hulls, instead of fragile plastic. Most used lots of roving. Osmosis was never a problem before the 80s. They also had more sea kindly hull shapes , and ultimate stability was never a problem before super beamy flush deckers became the norm. It is a myth, propagated by the industry ,that using less material makes modern boats stronger, in order to enable them to cut material costs and still sell boats.

 

[smackdaddy]

seems to have been a change in thinking! I think some are great, some are lousy. Hunter seems to push the envelope away from the norm. That is why they seem to have more unpopular models. Sometimes it works out other times not so much. They were on the leading edge of economizing boats, especially when the price of oil, and therefor resins went way up. I don't like the B&R rig, and I am not opposed to alternate rigs. But they have some really nice normal style rigs.

Actually - you're absolutely right. It was a huge change in thinking for me. When I first rolled up on this sailing thing - Hunters were absolutely maligned everywhere I looked. So I was pretty squarely set on a Bene (after looking at all the older "bluewater brands" and not being interested in slow). Then I did some research from some actually reliable sources - and I chose the Hunter.

I did a full write up on why on my blog. Check it.

I'm very happy with the choice.

 

[PCP]

Actually - you're absolutely right. It was a huge change in thinking for me. When I first rolled up on this sailing thing - Hunters were absolutely maligned everywhere I looked. So I was pretty squarely set on a Bene (after looking at all the older "bluewater brands" and not being interested in slow). Then I did some research from some actually reliable sources - and I chose the Hunter.

I did a full write up on why on my blog. Check it.

I'm very happy with the choice.

Modern boats are a bit like cars. With very few exceptions there is no bad cars anymore. Sure each has its problems but it is mainly a question of taste.

Regarding an used boat, after choosing the type and characteristics of the boat one wants it is more important the condition of each boat than the brand itself (assuming the same market segment).

The age of the boat is also another important factor that goes with the condition of the boat. A boat is a complex machine with many different systems all with a limited durability. The younger and less used the boat the more they are going to last, considering that some system can even degrade faster if the boat is not used at all.

The only really durable part of a boat is the hull and deck but that represents less than 1/3 of the price of a sailboat.

Regards

Paulo

 

[smackdaddy]

Smack,

I was involved with one in Miami about a year ago. It was a 40 asking $5,000 with a not to exceed repair quote of $45,000 or so. The deal fell apart as soon as the buyer saw the repair quote. It's a pretty well documented issue with this era of Hunters, but I don't know if I have any primary documents on one anymore.

Including the one last year I have been involved with three Hunter's that had this type of failure. In all three cases it was a 85-92 year boat, and in all three cases theboat was a total write off (the first two), or should have been (the third). Two of them were damaged by running aground where the skipper claimed a low speed collision, the other occurred while sailing in an estimated 25kn of breeze and six foot swells.

In all three cases the boat was able to safely make it back to the dock under power, but the grid separation resulted in major oil canning of the sides, and because the boat became so flexible there were serious concerns about the mast coming down.

I guess in a nutshell, here's my take on these kinds of stories/incidents...

UNLESS IT'S A COMMON OCCURRENCE FOR A PARTICULAR BRAND, if a boat falls apart to this degree, I'm going to put most of the blame on the skipper and/or hardcore conditions. Catastrophic structural failures like this don't just happen.

For example, simply running aground is not going to destroy any of the brand-name boats like laid out above. Now, running aground in a rough seaway and pounding the keel for hours will definitely do the trick.

Also, sailing in 25-knots and 6' swells is not going to destroy any of the brand-name boats like laid out above. However, heavily pounding into short-period waves for hours on end will likely do the trick as well.

The point being, there is absolutely no evidence that Hunters (or any other brands) have a tendency to simply fall apart in rough conditions (which is the common refrain in these discussions). But you CAN tear ANY boat apart if you beat it hard enough. Just look at all the "bluewater" boats available on YachtWorld in the Jersey area for "pennies on the dollar".

All that said, I will take it a bit more easy with my Hunter than I would with an Oyster or Amel. I understand the trade-offs...despite the fact that there are many Hunters that have done circs and the like. Oh, and I can afford the Hunter.

 

[Don L]

Regarding an used boat, after choosing the type and characteristics of the boat one wants it is more important the condition of each boat than the brand itself (assuming the same market segment).

The age of the boat is also another important factor that goes with the condition of the boat.

Old cars and old boats have something in common, all that matters is what condition they are in at the time a buyer looks at them.

 

[Don L]

All that said, I will take it a bit more easy with my Hunter than I would with an Oyster or Amel.

Not me because my Hunter can take way more than I can handle. I suspect I will have closed up the boat and rolled up crying in a ball down below way before the boat is going to fall apart.

 

[smackdaddy]

Not me because my Hunter can take way more than I can handle. I suspect I will have closed up the boat and rolled up crying in a ball down below way before the boat is going to fall apart.

I agree with that. What I mean is that I'll likely do things like reef earlier, or throw out a drogue earlier, etc. - than I might were I in one of those other boats.

But that's the kicker - NOT doing these things, even in an Amel, only means you'll likely be sicker and more miserable than if you did them in the first place - even if the boat is fine. So it's hard for me to see the downside of "taking it a little easier on your boat" (i.e. - yourself and your crew) - regardless of the nameplate.