Statement From Legend Yachts

[Guest]

RE: Yachting Monthly 356 Test

As the manufacturer of the Legend 356, we were quite surprised by the presentation of our position on stability curves featured in the current issue's review of the 356.

While it is true that we declined to provide a GZ stability curve to Yachting Monthly, we did provide Yachting Monthly with concise reasoning behind our position. Yachting Monthly informed us that our statement would be printed. In fact, YM paraphrased the statement, which unfortunately misrepresents our position. For anyone who is interested, the statement we sent them is below.

Further, we are happy to speak with any potential customers of our products about any concerns.

Sincerely,

Luhrs Marine Ltd - UK Manufacturer of Hunter and Legend Yachts
http://www.luhrsmarine.co.uk
info@luhrsmarine.co.uk


Stability Curves

The use of stability curves is a worrying trend as consumers are making assessments and comparisons as to a boat’s safety and seaworthiness by a cursory review of the theoretical curve supplied by a boat designer.

While a stability curve contains useful information, it also is based on a lack of real-life conditions such as wave patterns, wind force applied to the vessel, and other loading factors such as crew/gear size and placement, plus the amount of fluids in water, fuel and holding tanks. Numerous factors affect the actual center of gravity, metacenter, and center of buoyancy and can significantly change the shape of this stability curve. Moments of inertia are additionally affected by rig size and weight, wind force, keel size and shape, etc. These factors are not sufficiently weighted into the stability curve analysis.

The CE certification process now utilizes the ISO standard 12217 to produce a complex formula called STIX (stability index), which is summarized by a numerical rating used in the determination of the design category. STIX reaches far deeper in the stability assessment and may be a more useful indicator of a boat’s true stability. This number, however, is not yet understood by the sailing public, hence its value is limited and its meaning may well be misinterpreted.

At Hunter, we work hard to maximize stability though hull and deck forms, which strongly contribute to stability throughout its range, as well as maximizing the positive range of stability. Our bulb/wing lead keels keep the center of gravity low in combination with our strategy of using heavy laminates below the waterline, and lighter, cored laminates in the topsides. We also concentrate on fore and aft stability and directional stability through hull, keel, and rudder sizing and shaping. All of these factors contribute to a boat that has efficient, controllable and comfortable characteristics.

Luhrs Marine Limited

 

[Guest]

I think you missed something?

Dear Luhrs:

I believe the members of this forum objected so strongly to the Hunter approach because it was assumed sailors would not understand the STIX system. Surely, in such a forum (where there are numerous civil engineers and at least one yacht designer), the information is a reasonable request.

Without the STIX number I would be surprised if the reasoned explanation of your letter enhanced your reputation one iota. You have certainly not impressed me.

So, through the continued lack of information, many will draw one conclusion. Myself, I suspect that perhaps your STIX numbers compare less favourably with Catalina, Bavaria and Jeanneau and other boats of competitive design and price. Please tell me if I am mistaken, but are your boats right on the edge of "passing"? Did you only just barely qualify for the CE mark? If you give us the facts we can learn to make educated decisions, guided as ever by the professionals in the yachting press and by boat builders who credit their clients with an ounce of common sense.

No disclosure, no respect.

Humperdinck Jackman
HJ@Seacracker.org

 

[Guest]

Interesting statement!

"You, the customer, aren't clever enough to understand stability so we won't give you any facts"

I assume what you actually mean is that we don't want you to see the facts because they aren't good.

Before reading your statement, I had no reason to think your yachts had a stability issue; because you won't provide the information, I will now assume that they do!

What a fantastic marketing message you have provided.

Richard

 

[tomg]

This is the classic example of how not to handle a problem. Humperdink's responses are the reasonable, suspicious remarks of someone who believes he is being fobbed off with marketting spin. Every other builder who provides these figures is misleading the boat-buying public? Buyers are not to be trusted to draw reasonable conclusions from comparing Hunters complete spec (inc. GZ/STIX) with other boats? People who are in the market for a low-price/high internal volume cruiser in which to coastal/cross channel cruise with their families are not trusted to make balanced judgements about all of the yacht's attributes? I have a Warrior 40 (heavy displacement) and am not in the market for a Hunter - but I know a man who is! We looked at a couple at the Boat Show. Tremendous value for money for what he wants to do. Both he and I understand the differences between what he wants to buy and my boat. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Hunter, you have a product which is dead right for its market niche but you have done yourselves a grave disservice. You should publish the figures and defend your product. If it is good and safe for its intended use (and even if it just scrapes in) you should not be afraid to take on all-comers, including the snobs who 'would not be seen dead...'. Until you do I and many, many others are with Humperdink.

 

[AndrewB]

Re: I think you missed something?

Humperdinck - could you explain the STIX system then please?

 

[billskip]

THere is a strong possibility that I may be a potential customer..as you say in your post you will be happy to speak about any concerns..my concern is the lack of information regarding stability..could you therefor give me this information so I can give more thought to purchase of a Legend 356..many thanks..

Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk

 

[Guest]

Not in full, but this will get you started:

There is a new International Standard, ISO 12217-2, Small craft, Stability and buoyancy assessment and categorisation.

Included within this standard is a stability index for assessing the stability and safety of sailing monohulls, known as STIX (STability IndeX). STIX is a development of SSS, using measured stability data from each boats' righting moment curve. In addition to STIX, the Standard also includes separate requirements for minimum angle of vanishing stability (AVS), the angle of heel beyond which a boat will capsize.

Would like to tell you more but my dinner's ready.

 

[Guest]

Part II - useful background

ISO teams worked on the stability issue after a coalition from the UK, Netherlands and Norway showed data indicating that vessels too prone to capsize in heavy weather were getting category A approval. The RYA then recommended raising the baseline number for the vanishing point of positive stability as well as using an equation that makes lighter displacement vessels have a higher degree of positive stability in order to meet category A acceptance. Only France and Italy opposed increasing the standard.

"STIX isn't fool proof" and slight variations in loading can often precipitate significant changes in the rating numbers. The committee resolved that if there was more than a 15% change in displacement between light trim and fully loaded, calculations for down flooding angle must be done in both configurations.

The ISO also decided to delete statutes that previously allowed designers and builders to approximate the vanishing point of positive stability and other key statistics. The group recognized that this process was leading to spurious results.

The issue of penalizing certain design characteristics was raised by French delegates and members discussed giving centerboard boats, shoal draft designs and other lightly ballasted vessels category "A" approval by adding a "Risk of Capsize" warning label, much like what is being done with multihulls. Positive floatation and watertight bulkheads were also discussed as mitigation issues for vessels with a lower than acceptable vanishing point of positive stability. None of these discussion items were moved forward.

STIX is the nick name of a stability index being developed by the International Organization For Standardization (ISO), and in theory it will provide a reliable way to calculate a vessel's resistance to capsize, and its ability to recover from wind as well as wave induced knock downs and inversions.

At a recent meeting of the stability working group mentioned above, which was held in Annapolis, MD, the international panel of experts decided to raise the stability standards for vessels seeking category "A" and "B" certification. They made these changes due to what a majority of the member's referred to as undesirable seaworthiness traits in some vessels that had qualified for category A status under the original draft provisions.

For over a decade this ISO subcommittee (ISO/TC188/WG/22- Stability), has been involved in a detailed project aimed at developing criteria with which to evaluate and document a vessel's ability to remain right side up in a variety of sailing conditions. The team, comprised of designers and industry representative, has shouldered the task of setting stability standards as well as determining how to measure them. Their goal is to eventually come up with a final draft of the "Small craft- Stability and buoyancy assessment and categorization -" guidelines. This document, which, in its draft form, is currently being used by many designers and boat builders, will when finalized, hopefully layout a valid and reliable means to objectively determine how sailboats over six meters fit into one of four specific usage categories.

Each of the these divisions represents a specific set of inshore or offshore wind and sea constraints, with the assumption that the farther a boat strays from land the more tumultuous the welcome. Vessels designed for small closed water bodies and inshore sailing conditions (categories D and C) are, with good reason, not expected to include as much resistance to capsize and range of capsize recovery as vessel's built with offshore and ocean sailing in mind (category B and A).

Tom Hale, ABYC's technical director and the lead US representative on this ISO panel, feels that boaters will benefit by global standards, but the road to get there will be long and circuitous. Just one of the obstacles in the way is the difference between the European's restrictive approach to controlling manufacturing and the US's more permissive approach. Codes in Europe tend to spell out exactly what can be done by a manufacturer while the US sequel to codification works in just the opposite manner. Instead of enumerating what can be done the US approach is to pinpoint what may not be done and allow the designers and builders to take it from there. The challenge of creating a process that both interests will buy into is daunting.

 

[webcraft]

I can't see any difference between YM's paraphrase of your statement and your actual statement. apart from length.

Your statement in its full form has done absolutely nothing to change my suspicion that the GZ curve for this boat must be less than flattering, or worse, worrying.

Of course a GZ curve is only a starting point. How people distribute stores, fuel, spares and crew is up to them - they can undoubtably influence the stability of a vessel for the better or the worse. Similarly, they can choose whether or not to fit gear that is definitely detrimental to the stability of the vessel - eg radar, in-mast furling, etc. What they cannot do is alter the 'as delivered' GZ curve of the vessel. The curve itself provides a known starting point - to refuse to issue one is in no way helpful.

 

[SJP]

Re: Part II - useful background

Is therefore it true to say that the two yacht reviewed in this months YM were in fact rated under different systems - or at least against different ISO stability standards?

ie the Legend under CE & STIX and the C-yacht under RCD ?

I got the distinct impression reading the magazine that this was the case.

extremely confused
Steve

 

[Guest]

You put yourself in a bad light

First, claiming that Yachting Monthly have misrepresented you. Their summary strikes me as an extremely fair representation of your long-winded statement. You didn't expect YM to publish it in full did you? 308 words according to my computer! There would have been little space for the review after that!

Secondly, your attitude to yachtsmen is extremely partonising. I think that many yachtsmen are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for. And even those who are unable to draw sensible conclusions from the figures will not learn through withholding this basic information.

Why don't you withhold information concerning sail area and displacement as well? After all, a displacement figure means little in isolation. All such figures require interpretation.

Stability curves may not provide the whole picture, but they provide important information, for example as to the force needed to right a yacht from a total inversion. Or perhaps you disagree for example with the conclusions drawn in the official report into the Fastnet Race?

Here is a link to an Annex of the Report dealing with stability tests, for those who may be interested: http://www.co32.org/BOAT_SECTION/FASTNET_STUFF/fastnet.htm

You have done yourself a real disservice with your pompous reply, and I am sure that there are a number of potential buyers who will rightly have been put off the boat by your attitude.

p.s. The last Hunter that I saw under way (last October) was coming into Poole Harbour and had the rubber protector that guards the hull/deck joint hanging off along half of one side. It had dropped off on the way from the Solent. The sea was a bit lumpy, F5, nothing special. Doesn't bode very well, does it?

 

[Guest]

And a constructive suggestion

Why don't you provide YM with the figures? YM could publish them together with an article (written by YM of course with a free hand) describing the ins and outs of the various stability measurements and using the Hunter as an example to illustrate the article? Perhaps YM could compare the figures with those for one or two other kinds of boats and explain the implications?

Now that would be an interesting article, and you certainly wouldn't feel then that your figures were likely to be misunderstood!

What about it?

 

[pvb]

A or B? I\'m confused...

Just got back from a cheese & wine evening (actually, more of a wine & cheese evening and, yes, we do still have these in the darker parts of Essex). Anyway, I’m confused. This Legend 356 business is a bit bewildering, isn’t it? YM tested it, and gave it one of those “damning by feint praise” reports, complete with the surprising revelation that you refused to disclose stability data. But YM also said that the 356 has a CE classification of “A”. Now, the Legend is of course a Hunter, and the well-respected US “Cruising World” magazine tested it last December and said that “..... Hunter calls it a coastal cruiser. The European Community rates it ‘Category B’, with usage limited to seas of four meters (about 13 feet) and winds of Force 8 (40 knots). “ So who’s telling the truth? And if it’s only fit for piddly little 13 ft waves, who on earth is going to risk putting their family in it anyway?

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Nonsense From Legend Yachts

The stability curve provides the most information about the sea-keeping safety of the design, and also provides an indication of the boat's behaviour. With the stability curve, one can predict the actual amount of heel using any given wind force on the sails or on the exposed profile of the boat. In plain English: the "real life situations" can not be *predicted* without an SV or do you expect us to take your word for what is, or is not, a real life situation?

STIX is a development of SSS (RORC stuff) and their Stability Index No has been in use since late 80s. Nothing unusual then in STIX?

Most of us understand SV curves etc thro' reading YM/PBO and it seems an insult to both ourselves and YM that you deny an opportunity to explore the subject with your data. But then, that speaks volumes doesn't it?

And finally, STIX is a guideline, not mandatory, and isn't due until 2003.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by ParaHandy on Sat Feb 23 01:54:25 2002 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Mirelle]

What on earth do you take us for?

"At Hunter we work hard to maximise stability through hull and deck forms, which strongly contribute to stability throughout its range, as well as maximising the positive range of stability."

You WANTED to have that statement printed in a prominent British yachting magazine?

One does wonder just how much market research you did before entering this market.

 

[Guest]

Bill,

Please contact us directly - (01305) 824 600, or by e-mail - info@luhrsmarine.co.uk, and we will be happy to discuss our products with you.

Sincerely,

Luhrs Marine

 

[billskip]

Thank you for your promt reply I will e-mail you on monday

Regards W.H. Blyth

Bill
www.aegeansailing.co.uk

 

[JeremyF]

Let us know the outcome of the communication, Bill.

I very much doubt that there's an issue under all this nose. Ben, Bav, Jen and Hunter will all be about the same, I would predict.

But, what a way to antagonise the customer base by telling us its all too complicated for our little brains.

Jeremy Flynn

www.yacht-goldeneye.co.uk
New pics 11.02.02

 

[JeremyF]

I think you need to speak to your PR company!

Noone expects a Legend to be as stable as a Rival or Vancouver, but if you believe your product is broadly similar to other mass-market boats, then you have a huge PR opportunity. PR companies are always looking to help their client by finding opportunities to "set the agenda". If you believe that there's a better way to measure stability, then let Legend seize the initiative, and start the process of market awareness and education. You need not be any better than your competition, but if you set the agenda, it will rub off very favouably on your brand, and product.

On the other hand, if you in reality have a competitive disadvantage in this area, you would have been wise not to have posted here. This influencial audience is merciless.

In any case, on Monday talk to your PR agency. They can help you, and you clearly need some help.

Jeremy Flynn

www.yacht-goldeneye.co.uk
New pics 11.02.02

 

[Guest]

Frankly, legend statement makes sense. Perhaps they should have provided it if the mag wanted it, but it is not a very informative document. It will tell you whether the boat will capsize in her marina berth, or if overset by a sydden gust of 100 knot wind while afloat in a dead calm sea, but at sea, where one wants stability, the sea is almost never horizontal so the CB can be (and often is) almost anywhere. and the water in the top few feet of sea is often moving independently of the water below it.

I have been rolled in a bad sea, and the problem had nothing to do with stabilty curves. It had a lot to do with an almost vertical wave face and about ten feet of foam that ogffered little or no buoyancy. Stability curves have been cunjured up by bureaucrats looking for something to hound us all with.

William Cooper