I have followed this thread from the start. I have also read other threads that deal with this subject posted by Dave. All post have been good opinions and advise. Some are defending the manufacture which is warranted. Some put blame on the new owner, and warranted, some feel the dealer failed. I don't know if any one post puts the complete picture into play. This still leaves speculation in play.
Facts that I have interrupted in this thread and the other threads that involve this subject.
*Buyer never had a full survey done before purchase. He respected the integrity of the Ranger Tug Dealership and felt they would do their part in insuring that the boat was as per advertised. Buyer made a mistake. I would not purchase a new or used boat without another set of eyes inspecting the quality of the build.
* Buyer never did a full in person delivery of the boat before taking delivery. New or used a in person delivery should take place showing that all systems are in working order. At this time any questionable items would be inspected ,troubleshot and repaired before the new owner takes delivery. (New or Used) A punch list should be filled out and repaired before the buyer accepts the boat. Once again the buyer respected the integrity of the Ranger Tug dealer and felt that the dealership would do their part in insuring the boat is in the condition as advertised.
* Dealer took delivery from the original owner and did what ? It appears that the boat was taken off the original owners rail system and piloted to the marina and put in a slip to wait for the buyers transport trailer. The boat must have been in the slip for a while if the salesman thought that it warranted a boat ride to get the bottom clean. That would be a red flag in my mind about the integrity of the dealership. Why would they not lift the boat with a travel lift and clean the bottom? It is a boat that spent its time on dry dock with a non painted bottom. Why would the dealer not lift the boat during their full pre delivery inspection to confirm the Prop is installed properly, the gearlube is in good condition and there is no water and do a full inspection of the hull to confirm that the deal that they presented to the new owner is what was advertised.
*Dealer found water in the forward cabin before the boat was ever put on the delivery transport trailer. Why was there water in the bilge? Why were the auto bilge pumps not functioning to keep the water from coming over the floor boards? The dealer said it was because of the air conditioning unit? Why would the Air unit be on in a boat that is awaiting to be delivered and no one was using it? Why was this not fixed or found when the dealership did the full pre-delivery inspection of the boat? My answer to all these questions is the dealer had the boat transported to their facility and never inspected the boat. It was stated that when the boat was delivered and the new owner took delivery the 24/7 fuse panel still had all the fuses out from the previous owners winterize. The dealer did not even check to see why the auto bilge pumps were not working. The dealer never did a commissioning of the boat. The dealer found that the boat was leaking and told the new owner get it fixed when you get it to your marina. The boat had a known leak presumed to be the air unit but not confirmed. The air unit leak was not the cause of the leak. The air unit was never used by the new owner and the boat was still taking on water. I would speculate that the leak the saleman confirmed and Dave confirmed are the same leak. Dave found that his boat was taking on water as it was at the dealership and found that the fuses for the auto bilge pumps were not installed. Dave also worked with the dealership and Fluid Motion to try to find the leak. The unsuccessful attempts to find the leak that was present when the transport company came to pick the boat up from the dealership was still plaguing Dave. He finally decided to haul the boat and inspect the boat. This is something that the original owner never did, the dealer never did and David never did before this time.
*Surveyor inspects the hull finds high moisture numbers well beyond the cracks. The dealer sends a technician to take a couple of pictures of the cracks, Fluid Motion who built the boat wants nothing to do with it. They as of now have not questioned the integrity of the 2 year old hull and seem to think it just cracked but this has nothing to do with the way the boat was built. They can make this determination by having a service technician from a dealership take a couple of pictures. Even after the marine surveyor has stated there is evidence of delimitation. A fiberglass hull delaminates from a impact ( a force that damages the hull weakening and flexing the glass until it fractures and cracks this can be a few layers of laminations or all. Another way the fiberglass hulls delaminate is improper saturation of resin or an area that lacks support by a stringer, bulkhead, frame increasing flex in the hull and eventually delaminates and cracks.
* Fluid Motion has not looked at the hull. They are relying on a fiberglass technician from the Ranger Tug dealer that as per the boat owner spent 10 minutes looking at the damage. He never climbed in and inspected the interior. I don't think he checked to see if the shower drain was attached properly as it was originally stated that as all was wrong with the boat.
* My conclusion, My opinion, No one knows what happened. The original owner, the dealer, Fluid Motion, the new owner. The finger pointing is going everywhere. I look at the simple facts. The boat was leaking before the new owner took possession of the boat. The boat had water over the floor boards. The salesman said get it fixed at your marina. The Dealership obviously never inspected the boat and its systems before delivering the boat. The 24/7 systems were still winterized. The dealer never inspected the hull before delivery. He ran the boat on the lake to try to get rid of growth on the bottom of an unpainted hull?????? The boat leaked before it left the Ranger Tug dealership and leaked when it was delivered to the new owners marina with instructions get the leak fixed when it gets to the marina. Why would the Dealer and Fluid Motion advise calling the insurance company. Why would they not say we will pay to have the boat hauled back to our dealership and find out what failed and why? Why would Fluid motion with their outstanding customer service not be more involved in finding out what happened to this hull. It would be a learning experience for the dealer, manufacturer and the Ranger Tug owner. What happened to the hull is not that uncommon. I have seen many fractured hulls, some from impact, some from improper lay up glass and resin, some from components that were not installed during layup that support the hull, some were a combination of all. If all parties work together the root cause can be determined and the right party will be repairing the hull. Original owner, dealer, Fluid Motion or the new owners insurance company. If everyone was working together this would have been resolved and the Owner of the 2 year old Ranger Tug would be that much closer to getting his boat back so he can enjoy it.
I was involved in 4 incidents similar to this as a technician
1988 277 Regal hull cracked bow , bottom, forward of first lifting strake from bottom. Inspected by, Me, surveyor, Regal service technician specializing in fiberglass repairs, insurance company surveyor. Determined the owner had an impact. Ownwe said he did't think he hit anything. Insurance company paid for damage. Hull was repaired from the outside.
1989 255 Regal hull cracked at the first lifting stake. Inspected by me , Regal service rep. surveyor, insurance company surveyor. Determined that Ragal during the build ddi not properly install a support frame in the lifting strake. This weakened the hull causing continous flexing of the hull in the area of failure. The hull cracked because of this. The hull was repaired by Regal the hull repair was done from the inside and outside of the hull. The boat had about 30 hours on it before the failure. The boat was used on Cape Cod bay. Owner was without the use of his new boat for two weeks.
1996 19' Searay Cuddy. Hull failure in the bow, bottom, in front of the first lifting strake. Inspected by me and SeaRay ( 3 days after the complaint filed to Searay) Sea Ray rep from Tennessee plant was on site at dealership inspected the hull no questions asked. Improper layup. A new boat was ordered for the customer and the damaged boat sent back to factory
2001 Mainship twin cummins diesels. The owner hit a log did over 30K in damage to tranmissision, strut, and rudder and engine stringer. The repair involved pulling the engine to repair the engine stringer. during the repair we found that the stringer was not properly glassed to the hull and the failure was amplified because of this. A representative from Mainship came to the dealership and Mainship agreed that the failure was caused by the impact but the build had a defect and paid for part of the repairs.
These are example I experienced. I'm sure these incidents happen everyday. The owner, dealership and manufacture did't point fingers they worked together. All where present and involved.
The same thing happened to Andre Gundenburg when his 30' Cutwater sunk. There was no Dealership or Factory involvement (call your insurance company) He was self insured so he called himself and said my boat sunk and the deanship and Cutwater will not even come and look at my boat. I have the full copy of his website I downloaded it before it was removed. Once Fluid Motion realized the repercussions of the Website they did the right thing and took care of Andre. That is the customer service that we all expect. That is the customer service that Fluid Motion is known for. I say good luck to all parties involved in this. There will be no winner the damage is done. Hopefully all parties will work together and find a common solution.
