Would you believe that three of three surveyors don't want to touch my boat? They all said to take it to the dealer, get the holes plugged up with fiberglass, and then do a pressurized water test. I chose all three of these candidates from the lists provided by KMClemore (thanks for the links) and those lists are for "certified" surveyors. I've had it. I am going to photograph these leak sources and I am going to photograph what happens when the tank is filled and I'm going to let you all be the experts.
Or, since these guys all agree with the dealer that a quick fiberglass fix is all that's needed, maybe we're all wrong and the dealer is right? Intuitively, that doesn't pass the smell test. Visible, leaking spots or voids or whatever they are in two different areas has got to mean weakness and more spots and future or existing leaks in other areas, areas that can't be seen with the naked eye. I'm going to stop writing about this and figure out how to get some decent photos uploaded. Will return with photos...
By the way, in fairness to Bill at MacGregor, he wasn't about to get specific or make recommendations or promises or statements of any kind without seeing photos of the problem. His substantive opinion was very understandable. It was his attitude about it that bothered me. Obviously, I will be sending photos to him. I'll let the cabin get nice and full, too, so he gets a bird's eye view of my "unreasonable" description of the problem.
Maybe it will all be more reasonable and come into focus for him when I send photos of cabin storage bins, where the aft berth and batteries are located, full of water. I'll have to remove my batteries and bed cushions first or they'll drown in it.
Chip S.
Voids in water ballast tank of 26M
Surveyor liability question
Back to the question of surveyor liability for a minute. I apologize. I do not wish to delve unnecessarily into legal discourse. However, the question was posed in general and I gave a general, non-definitive, non-authoritative, non-legal answer. Obviously, I risk trouble by dispensing any legal advice over the internet and do not intend to do so. I also don't wish to form any legal relationships with anybody on this great boating board. If the surveyor question was posed in earnest and for a specific reason, I recommend that you contact a lawyer in your area to assist you.
Having said all of that, in Florida, it is generally the case that voluntarily undertaking to do an act that if not accomplished with due care might increase the risk of harm to others or might result in harm to others due to their reliance upon the undertaking confers a duty of reasonable care, because it thereby creates a foreseeable zone of risk. I'll leave you and your lawyers to interpret that as legal ethics preclude me from doing so here, however informal we may all understand our exchanges to be. Laws vary considerably across jurisdictions but you can see, generally, that a surveyor should exercise due care in giving an opinion as to boat safety. This won't do you much good after the boat sinks to 40 fathoms, though. Survivors might benefit ...
Having said all of that, in Florida, it is generally the case that voluntarily undertaking to do an act that if not accomplished with due care might increase the risk of harm to others or might result in harm to others due to their reliance upon the undertaking confers a duty of reasonable care, because it thereby creates a foreseeable zone of risk. I'll leave you and your lawyers to interpret that as legal ethics preclude me from doing so here, however informal we may all understand our exchanges to be. Laws vary considerably across jurisdictions but you can see, generally, that a surveyor should exercise due care in giving an opinion as to boat safety. This won't do you much good after the boat sinks to 40 fathoms, though. Survivors might benefit ...
-
Frank C
The factory should invest a couple of days for their rep (maybe Bill S) to travel to FL and view the boat. Then, they may indeed choose to ship it back to CA for full examination. A new boat for Chip would be a quick decision based on this initial factory survey.Catigale wrote:Hmmmm....three pending sales at 50% gross margin balanced against the Standard production cost of one M.....
However, I think current retail price is $17,000, and I'm just guessing that wholesale to a dealer is $13,000. A 50% factory margin would mean the direct costs for trailer, plus all materials and direct labor in the boat, plus all rigging is about $6,500. IMO, there is no possible way that Macgregor produces the boat for that low a direct cost. Their gross margin is likely 30% maybe only 25%.
So they're probably giving away their last five sales to make Chip whole (remembering shipping and commissioning costs). Regardless, they need to do so if the boat has the defects that are seemingly apparent, at distance.
-
waternwaves
- Admiral
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
- Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while
FrankC Chip et al.
Frank,
As you correctly point out , a hydro or leak down test is only going to give a rate, which in this case is likely to be (Best case...lowest) static for the current time, but for the purposes of this discussion it is a repeatable metric that the factory can compare to...... if for example the leak rate goes up after 3500 miles of OTR transport. it also provides an indication of a problem that is increasing.
Chip As far as "consumer product...." Previous 9th circuit has identified "those items advertised to the general public",.."Advertised in subscription periodicals, " and demonstrated at public forums"..
The case I remember had to do with articles advertised by a vendor at a State fair, Similiar to a boat show....... . Also recognized were newsmedia, radio and TV ads.., an interesting side note, is that the court also found warranty provisions were present for items marketed direct to consumer ie Telephone, in home, and agent sales........
Now back to the critical elements....
The resin must totally encapsulate fabric for water integrity. Any coating (Polymer, urethane, epoxy, etc)applied will result in a boat different from the factory process, standard, and with corresponding differences in performance, properties and useability. and really would only provide 1/2 of the watertight barrier needed.
Now as far as the structural strength issues.....
(Without the aforementioned tests, peel, impact, penetrometer etc)
IMHO I can undcerstand a new crew glass laminators being a little iffy on set times....possibly having temps out of control or humidity issues, maybe even a contamination issue in the resin.
But having them apply a a job quantity of substandard resin without detection is almost incomprehensible. Problems with the applicators, release sheets, gelcoat adhesion etc....would be very eveident. From not having seen the boat.......myself....... nor conducted tests...., and having experience with FRP laminates in aircraft and boat building, Workmanship issues bear further investigation., especially the wetting out phase with the rollers ......
You can bet tho, if that was a commercial, or contracted boat or panel supplied to macgregor.......They would be all over the supplier, demand records, plant inspections, Followup QC, action plan, approved test procedure to detect future problems...etc.........or a new vendor woud be found.
But, in reference to the total area of the bonded items......
The overall strength of the boat is not likely an issue, leak integrity is the issue. Envisioning delamination of sufficient area to give a measureable decrease in hull strength in those locations is highly unlikely. as I suspect all the necessary fabric is in place and sufficient glass to resin bonding has occurred to meet structural needs. The strength decreases I am referring to by testing deal with the structural modulus of the wall of finished tank assembly, wall permeability, My suspicion, (after looking at some of the tank layup in a 96 X boat) Is that a relatively very noticable leak could come from a small number of fabric pieces.
And I apologize for the 1 lawyer joke.....earlier in my missive, (I was trying to limit the total quantity... I am aware of the plethora of legal aid providers available.....and the fact that it is increasing. ) I have received a fair amount of ribbing in the past, for my background....So I have develped some immunity to the standard engineer, scientist, electrician, welder, lawyer, priest, physician type jokes.... And tho I have spent FAR FAR too much time in courtrooms in the last 25 years.....I hope someday to be present in one when justice is dispensed.........lol..........(, couldnt help it). Maybe I should just become a salesman for a few years and run for public office........oops that would be redundant....
Anyway....Lest my words be taken out of context... The primary moisture barrier on the boat is the gelcoat..... except in the ballast tank. Therefore it will always be critical to provide the best material handling and layup techniques for these locations.
I have looked at many macs, and all that I have seen have had loose (un resin encapsulated) fabric exposed on the inside of the hull (not a problem as long as teh gelcoat is in place), however my ballast tank has considerably more resin over the fabric. Looks like application differences are the critical issue. Let me know if you find out any fabric was missing on that boat....
But they dont pay me to be popular......Tho I used to make good money as long as I was right.....lol
Lest no one think I can make jokes about myself......
Did ya hear the one about the engineer talking to his buddy about his new bicycle..............
Or the used car salesman talking to Santa.......
And one further limitation to discuss... A marine surveyer is paid to recognize features and flaws in a vessel. an a marine appraiser can determine market value and worth. A marine surveyor should not be estimating the repair costs of any items he finds, I would be extremely suspect if he would give a bid on repairs. HE should be familiar with the CG, NMMA, AYBC, BIA and other specifications.
If you want recommendations on repair methods contact a marine engineer. And then with that info, you can take it to a reputable shop for bidding.
Good Luck..
|>arren
Frank,
As you correctly point out , a hydro or leak down test is only going to give a rate, which in this case is likely to be (Best case...lowest) static for the current time, but for the purposes of this discussion it is a repeatable metric that the factory can compare to...... if for example the leak rate goes up after 3500 miles of OTR transport. it also provides an indication of a problem that is increasing.
Chip As far as "consumer product...." Previous 9th circuit has identified "those items advertised to the general public",.."Advertised in subscription periodicals, " and demonstrated at public forums"..
The case I remember had to do with articles advertised by a vendor at a State fair, Similiar to a boat show....... . Also recognized were newsmedia, radio and TV ads.., an interesting side note, is that the court also found warranty provisions were present for items marketed direct to consumer ie Telephone, in home, and agent sales........
Now back to the critical elements....
The resin must totally encapsulate fabric for water integrity. Any coating (Polymer, urethane, epoxy, etc)applied will result in a boat different from the factory process, standard, and with corresponding differences in performance, properties and useability. and really would only provide 1/2 of the watertight barrier needed.
Now as far as the structural strength issues.....
(Without the aforementioned tests, peel, impact, penetrometer etc)
IMHO I can undcerstand a new crew glass laminators being a little iffy on set times....possibly having temps out of control or humidity issues, maybe even a contamination issue in the resin.
But having them apply a a job quantity of substandard resin without detection is almost incomprehensible. Problems with the applicators, release sheets, gelcoat adhesion etc....would be very eveident. From not having seen the boat.......myself....... nor conducted tests...., and having experience with FRP laminates in aircraft and boat building, Workmanship issues bear further investigation., especially the wetting out phase with the rollers ......
You can bet tho, if that was a commercial, or contracted boat or panel supplied to macgregor.......They would be all over the supplier, demand records, plant inspections, Followup QC, action plan, approved test procedure to detect future problems...etc.........or a new vendor woud be found.
But, in reference to the total area of the bonded items......
The overall strength of the boat is not likely an issue, leak integrity is the issue. Envisioning delamination of sufficient area to give a measureable decrease in hull strength in those locations is highly unlikely. as I suspect all the necessary fabric is in place and sufficient glass to resin bonding has occurred to meet structural needs. The strength decreases I am referring to by testing deal with the structural modulus of the wall of finished tank assembly, wall permeability, My suspicion, (after looking at some of the tank layup in a 96 X boat) Is that a relatively very noticable leak could come from a small number of fabric pieces.
And I apologize for the 1 lawyer joke.....earlier in my missive, (I was trying to limit the total quantity... I am aware of the plethora of legal aid providers available.....and the fact that it is increasing. ) I have received a fair amount of ribbing in the past, for my background....So I have develped some immunity to the standard engineer, scientist, electrician, welder, lawyer, priest, physician type jokes.... And tho I have spent FAR FAR too much time in courtrooms in the last 25 years.....I hope someday to be present in one when justice is dispensed.........lol..........(, couldnt help it). Maybe I should just become a salesman for a few years and run for public office........oops that would be redundant....
Anyway....Lest my words be taken out of context... The primary moisture barrier on the boat is the gelcoat..... except in the ballast tank. Therefore it will always be critical to provide the best material handling and layup techniques for these locations.
I have looked at many macs, and all that I have seen have had loose (un resin encapsulated) fabric exposed on the inside of the hull (not a problem as long as teh gelcoat is in place), however my ballast tank has considerably more resin over the fabric. Looks like application differences are the critical issue. Let me know if you find out any fabric was missing on that boat....
But they dont pay me to be popular......Tho I used to make good money as long as I was right.....lol
Lest no one think I can make jokes about myself......
Did ya hear the one about the engineer talking to his buddy about his new bicycle..............
Or the used car salesman talking to Santa.......
And one further limitation to discuss... A marine surveyer is paid to recognize features and flaws in a vessel. an a marine appraiser can determine market value and worth. A marine surveyor should not be estimating the repair costs of any items he finds, I would be extremely suspect if he would give a bid on repairs. HE should be familiar with the CG, NMMA, AYBC, BIA and other specifications.
If you want recommendations on repair methods contact a marine engineer. And then with that info, you can take it to a reputable shop for bidding.
Good Luck..
|>arren
-
Richard O'Brien
- Captain
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 8:20 am
- Location: Lakewood, CO. Mercury 60hp bigfoot M0427B404
testing equipment
Can some of you engineers shed some light on the tools available for testing thickness and revealing voids? I thought perhaps those ultrasonic devices they often use to test auto body panels for signs of damage might be used for this kind of survey? Is there some inherent weakness in this kind of approach, or are there other tools which are more effective?
-
mike
- Captain
- Posts: 812
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:06 pm
- Location: MS Gulf Coast "Wind Dancer" 98 26X
Re: Surveyor liability question
Don't worry, the boat can't sink... then again, if I'm not mistaken, Roger also said the ballast tank CAN'T leak.Chip wrote:This won't do you much good after the boat sinks to 40 fathoms, though.
--Mike
-
mike
- Captain
- Posts: 812
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:06 pm
- Location: MS Gulf Coast "Wind Dancer" 98 26X
While yes, just slopping on some epoxy to fill (well, cover) the voids would certainly be just a band-aid, I would think that there should be a way to repair these spots. If they area is sanded and otherwise properly prepped, and a "patch" is created by adding a few layers of roving or other fabric, wouldn't that effectively seal the leaks? Sure, it technically wouldn't be as good as the original should have been, but I guess "good enough" is in the eye of the beholder.waternwaves wrote:The resin must totally encapsulate fabric for water integrity. Any coating (Polymer, urethane, epoxy, etc)applied will result in a boat different from the factory process, standard, and with corresponding differences in performance, properties and useability. and really would only provide 1/2 of the watertight barrier needed.
But regardless, I'd be more concerned about the spots I COULDN'T see. How do consumer protection laws work in a situation like this? If you have visible/accessible areas of clearly substandard construction, is there some sort of "presumption" that other areas of the boat (not visible/accessible) could have these same problems? What if these possible unseen weak spots don't actually produce leaks until 5 or 6 years later?
--Mike
Latent defects
Sorry that I have to make a disclaimer every time I answer a legal question but it is my ethical obligation to do so. If the question regarding the discovery of leaks five years down the road is a personal and serious one rather than a hypothetical, please contact a reputable lawyer in your area. My answer is a general, non-definitive one intended for discussion and not for use in protecting one's rights:
Generally, a statute of limitations (a statute stating that you have X number of years to file a lawsuit before your time for doing so expires) begins to run from the time the claim accrues (typically, the time of your injury). Some, however, begin to run from the time that you discovered or should have discovered your injury through the exercise of reasonable diligence (obviously, this period can be much longer than the one which begins to run from the time of accrual of the claim). In home construction, for instance, there may be a latent defect in one's roof which causes a leak but doesn't do so until five years after the expiration of the warranty. Since you had no way of discovering the defect until it manifested itself through the leak, your statute-of-limitations period doesn't begin to run until you discovered or should have discovered the leak itself (rather than the underlying defect that was there all along). Statutes of limitations vary considerably across jurisdictions and are issue or subject matter dependent. I don't know about boats but it would not surprise me to learn that the law would allow you to bring a claim five years after the warranty period expired for a defect that causes a leak (where the leak wasn't discovered and should not reasonably have been discovered prior to that five-year mark). Again, this is a general response and the specific answer depends on the laws in your state as they apply to leaking boats.
Chip S.
Generally, a statute of limitations (a statute stating that you have X number of years to file a lawsuit before your time for doing so expires) begins to run from the time the claim accrues (typically, the time of your injury). Some, however, begin to run from the time that you discovered or should have discovered your injury through the exercise of reasonable diligence (obviously, this period can be much longer than the one which begins to run from the time of accrual of the claim). In home construction, for instance, there may be a latent defect in one's roof which causes a leak but doesn't do so until five years after the expiration of the warranty. Since you had no way of discovering the defect until it manifested itself through the leak, your statute-of-limitations period doesn't begin to run until you discovered or should have discovered the leak itself (rather than the underlying defect that was there all along). Statutes of limitations vary considerably across jurisdictions and are issue or subject matter dependent. I don't know about boats but it would not surprise me to learn that the law would allow you to bring a claim five years after the warranty period expired for a defect that causes a leak (where the leak wasn't discovered and should not reasonably have been discovered prior to that five-year mark). Again, this is a general response and the specific answer depends on the laws in your state as they apply to leaking boats.
Chip S.
-
Chip Hindes
- Admiral
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
- Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu
I think the talk about GM, NM, how many boats Mac will have to sell to pay for a particular action are irrelevant.
Given the problem as described, there is a serious issue with the manufacturing and QC of this particular boat. Whether this problem might apply to the boats laid up just before or just after, the same shift, the same week, the same resin lot, etcetera are all questions Mac should be investigating if they aren't already.
We've only been hearing (reading) about this a short time, but my own opinion is that so far the response has been unsatisfactory and hard to understand.
The projected cost to Mac of ignoring the problem, dragging their feet, assuming that this is just some isolated, irrational, disgruntled buyer, and not a symptom of a larger problem far exceeds the margin to be gained selling a few more boats. Word of mouth is very important in this business. One or two more failures like this, the boating press, competitors and other Mac detractors get ahold of this information and it will start affecting sales. We've already heard from one potential M buyer on this thread who was talking of going elsewhere.
What I'm saying is that it would be difficult for them to overreact, and yet their response so far has been underwhelming. It seems they're not even treating it as a problem. They should be figuratively jumping through their anal passages, not saying it's not our problem, talk to the dealer. And it's really hard for me to understand the dealer's attitude of bring it in next week and I'll get to it after the first of the year. The dealer should be pressing Mac, and Mac should be pressing the dealer to get on this and get it resolved in a hurry. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment; but that moment had better be pretty brief.
I've heard stated many times that more sales are lost due to customer service issues than any other single factor.
As an engineer who doesn't have experience with fiberglass layup, but does have a little firsthand experience with repair techniques, I have little doubt the leaks which are discovered and accessible can be satisfactorily repaired to be as good as or better than new. I am also quite familiar with water's ability to seek the path of least resistance, so that if all known leaks are repaired today, more will develop in new locations tomorrow. I'm extremely skeptical in the ability of any method to find and repair the leaks in this location which does not involve something close to stripping the boat back down to its basic hull form, or at least gutting the interior and cutting out the entire floor pan for access.
As a test engineer for a joint which is only partially visable, and even less accessible, my assumption would be that for every defect I can see, there are at least the same proportion of defects that I can't see. The only possible path around this assumption would be that, based on experience, there are certain areas or locations which are most likely to evidence defects. If these are all visible and accessible, then it would be possible that they could all be found and repaired. What are the chances ? I would say virtually zero. But even if so, fiberglass repair particularly as I keep bringing up, in this inaccesible location, is highly skilled, and quite labor intensive and I have to think at some point the cost of a large number of repairs would exceed the value, even for a new boat.
Given the problem as described, there is a serious issue with the manufacturing and QC of this particular boat. Whether this problem might apply to the boats laid up just before or just after, the same shift, the same week, the same resin lot, etcetera are all questions Mac should be investigating if they aren't already.
We've only been hearing (reading) about this a short time, but my own opinion is that so far the response has been unsatisfactory and hard to understand.
The projected cost to Mac of ignoring the problem, dragging their feet, assuming that this is just some isolated, irrational, disgruntled buyer, and not a symptom of a larger problem far exceeds the margin to be gained selling a few more boats. Word of mouth is very important in this business. One or two more failures like this, the boating press, competitors and other Mac detractors get ahold of this information and it will start affecting sales. We've already heard from one potential M buyer on this thread who was talking of going elsewhere.
What I'm saying is that it would be difficult for them to overreact, and yet their response so far has been underwhelming. It seems they're not even treating it as a problem. They should be figuratively jumping through their anal passages, not saying it's not our problem, talk to the dealer. And it's really hard for me to understand the dealer's attitude of bring it in next week and I'll get to it after the first of the year. The dealer should be pressing Mac, and Mac should be pressing the dealer to get on this and get it resolved in a hurry. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt for the moment; but that moment had better be pretty brief.
I've heard stated many times that more sales are lost due to customer service issues than any other single factor.
As an engineer who doesn't have experience with fiberglass layup, but does have a little firsthand experience with repair techniques, I have little doubt the leaks which are discovered and accessible can be satisfactorily repaired to be as good as or better than new. I am also quite familiar with water's ability to seek the path of least resistance, so that if all known leaks are repaired today, more will develop in new locations tomorrow. I'm extremely skeptical in the ability of any method to find and repair the leaks in this location which does not involve something close to stripping the boat back down to its basic hull form, or at least gutting the interior and cutting out the entire floor pan for access.
As a test engineer for a joint which is only partially visable, and even less accessible, my assumption would be that for every defect I can see, there are at least the same proportion of defects that I can't see. The only possible path around this assumption would be that, based on experience, there are certain areas or locations which are most likely to evidence defects. If these are all visible and accessible, then it would be possible that they could all be found and repaired. What are the chances ? I would say virtually zero. But even if so, fiberglass repair particularly as I keep bringing up, in this inaccesible location, is highly skilled, and quite labor intensive and I have to think at some point the cost of a large number of repairs would exceed the value, even for a new boat.
-
kmclemore
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6265
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:24 am
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: Ambler, PA -- MACX2018A898 w/ Suzuki DF60AV -- 78 BW Harpoon 4.6 -- 2018 Tahoe 550TF w/ 150 Merc
Well, Chip H., in a *really* rough estimate I figure that a competent layup guy is gonna cost around $45/hr., and materials around another $30/hr. at the very minimum. That's $3000/wk., so in about 4-5 weeks of repair time you've bought the boat. Given that much time, though, I expect you could virtually build a new boat from scratch, so as the boat is brand new I think that the repairs would be financially worth the effort, even if you do have to separate the hull to do it.
Having said that, I'd still scap the bugger just because of the aggro factor.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting to see some pictures here....
Having said that, I'd still scap the bugger just because of the aggro factor.
Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting to see some pictures here....
-
Mark Prouty
- Admiral
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: Madison, WI Former MacGregor 26X Owner
Kevin,
I'd say your estimate is fairly accurate. It cost over 3 grand to get my cracked transom repaired and this problem is more serious. These guys aren't cheap and it can be a very nasty job. Somebody is going to have to deal with all the itchy fiberglass, nasty dust and brain deadening chemicals in close quartes to fix this problem.
I'd say your estimate is fairly accurate. It cost over 3 grand to get my cracked transom repaired and this problem is more serious. These guys aren't cheap and it can be a very nasty job. Somebody is going to have to deal with all the itchy fiberglass, nasty dust and brain deadening chemicals in close quartes to fix this problem.
-
Catigale
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:59 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: Admiral .............Catigale 2002X.......Lots of Harpoon Hobie 16 Skiffs....Island 17
- Contact:
Lets make sure we help Chip S. in every way....
There is a pretty high degree of interest in Chip S boat which is great - I think its worth repeating that even though I have a great curiosity as to the business dealings of Roger, the primary goal of this thread imho is helping Chip S getting his boat fixed asap. (Im using fixed generically, as I feel a replacement is in order. Of course, it easier spending someone else's money....)
The relationship between Manufacturer, Dealer, and customer is a complex one. As a manager of a territory for a high tech company I am in this three way dance every day.
Lets all assume the dealer and even perhaps the factory read this thread every few days. We could easily fire off our blasts and put everyone on the defensive, which ultimately delays CHip S getting back into the water. Im wondering if this isnt already going on...ChipS' post about the dealer "descibing his situation as unreasonable" makes me think this.
Not pointing fingers (I am as guilty as anyone about escalating this, and started off calling him a troll
) but lets be aware that our posts, opinions, etc can be CORRECT, FACTUAL and have a negative impact on solving ChipS problem....
The relationship between Manufacturer, Dealer, and customer is a complex one. As a manager of a territory for a high tech company I am in this three way dance every day.
Lets all assume the dealer and even perhaps the factory read this thread every few days. We could easily fire off our blasts and put everyone on the defensive, which ultimately delays CHip S getting back into the water. Im wondering if this isnt already going on...ChipS' post about the dealer "descibing his situation as unreasonable" makes me think this.
Not pointing fingers (I am as guilty as anyone about escalating this, and started off calling him a troll
) but lets be aware that our posts, opinions, etc can be CORRECT, FACTUAL and have a negative impact on solving ChipS problem....-
argonaut
- Captain
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:23 pm
- Location: '97 26X, Yammy 40 4s, Central Fla.
Yikes... Wish I'd used my Visa card to buy that boat, then I could return it!!!
Not funny, really.
Florida has a lemon law, that may only apply to cars.
I wouldn't be too concerned about how many boat's profit replacing this one would "cancel".
All production businesses have an expense category where defective material, "returns", are expensed. If you make stuff, nobody's perfect, you have to account for that. That's an accounting issue.
Macgregor's real issue is how they choose to handle what appears to be a serious manufacturing defect.
Like Saturn, Honda, or Dodge. (no pun intended)
I can tell you any advocate of John Demming wouldn't have any problem figuring out what the right thing to do here if the tanks leak, and that should be easy to determine.
That boat would get taken apart to figure out whether this was a ruse, a systematic process problem, or an isolated instance, and the excercise would be a "lessons learned" for the production engineers and assemblers.
There's a limited window of opportunity here for this to have a beneficial outcome though.
Whether you can slap more glass over the tanks and make it seaworthy isn't the point. Would you give your daughter the boat to use after you re-glass the tanks is the point, and I suspect where lawyers would take this.
These boats are water ballast and there haven't been any tank leak instances that are due to manufacturing defects that I've heard of until this one. Ignore it and it'll become legendary. Deal with it forthrightly and it will just be another data point to prospective buyers.
With over 5000 boats made this way most reasonable people would not be surprised to hear that there's been a problem here and there, how problems get handled will strongly affect a buy or walk decision.
Loan Chip a boat already so he can sail, and if a leakdown test shows something strange, tell him to keep it, throw in a spinnaker, and cut that bad boy up!
Not funny, really.
Florida has a lemon law, that may only apply to cars.
I wouldn't be too concerned about how many boat's profit replacing this one would "cancel".
All production businesses have an expense category where defective material, "returns", are expensed. If you make stuff, nobody's perfect, you have to account for that. That's an accounting issue.
Macgregor's real issue is how they choose to handle what appears to be a serious manufacturing defect.
Like Saturn, Honda, or Dodge. (no pun intended)
I can tell you any advocate of John Demming wouldn't have any problem figuring out what the right thing to do here if the tanks leak, and that should be easy to determine.
That boat would get taken apart to figure out whether this was a ruse, a systematic process problem, or an isolated instance, and the excercise would be a "lessons learned" for the production engineers and assemblers.
There's a limited window of opportunity here for this to have a beneficial outcome though.
Whether you can slap more glass over the tanks and make it seaworthy isn't the point. Would you give your daughter the boat to use after you re-glass the tanks is the point, and I suspect where lawyers would take this.
These boats are water ballast and there haven't been any tank leak instances that are due to manufacturing defects that I've heard of until this one. Ignore it and it'll become legendary. Deal with it forthrightly and it will just be another data point to prospective buyers.
With over 5000 boats made this way most reasonable people would not be surprised to hear that there's been a problem here and there, how problems get handled will strongly affect a buy or walk decision.
Loan Chip a boat already so he can sail, and if a leakdown test shows something strange, tell him to keep it, throw in a spinnaker, and cut that bad boy up!