Hull Laboratory Results- Ranger Tug

[Nomad Willy]

bfloyd4405 wrote;
“Manufacturers of trailer boats like Ranger should design their boats with reinforcing in areas that would normally sit on the bunks of a trailer. If the samples taken to the lab were not from these areas of the bottom then the tests were a waste of money but if they were, the tests are proof of a major Ranger engineering fault and Ranger should be held liabel”

Do not agree
Trailer boats have always had this problem. Especially w light plywood boats and aluminum.

But an experienced operator of boat lifting/moving equipment should check for internal frame and bulkhead locations. Ditto steel boats. But I’ve only experienced one occasion where they did. And it was my boat.
If there is anyone responsible it should be the equipment operator and of course that would fall on the marina.

But if a boat builder built a boat that was weak in some ways it should be placarded against pressure points. But to make them libel one would (IMO) need to at least be prepared to show the boat was too weak for normal usage. And I would think being carried on a “pad lift” trailer would be anticipated as typical usage.

Many boats get heavy from added weight and it dosn’t occur to many skippers to haul their boats light as in low on fuel and water and other significant weight.

The Ranger looks like a well built boat.

 

[Mr. Ed]

Actually Mini Coopers have pretty good headroom, their problem is that you have to get down to the road to get in and out of them. But I get your point.

As a previous owner of a MINI Cooper and a current owner of a Ranger Tug, I can attest that the MINIs have lots of head room (even wearing a helmet), and that some Rangers do have quality control issues from the factory. All of mine have been handled adequately by the dealer. None of them included a hole poked in the hull.

The analogy seems to be like blaming MINI for a puncture in one of the OEM tires but not knowing what caused the puncture.

 

[BruceK]

I just read the OP's latest and apparently last post on the subject. This is at least the second crack event. More to come. Regards.

It would be great to see this unfortunate OP get help, it seems you are the first(maybe only)one to understand and support his issue. It would be a great service to the OP(and TF generally) if you and he got together, maybe not on thread, to press for whatever he seeks. I hope it works out and he won`t need to start more threads here to achieve his purpose.

 

[Benthic2]

Who is the most knowledgable and effictive entity to determine fault and obtain reimbursement ? An insurance company!!! It is their raison d'etre......it is what they do, and they do it well. To not involve them in a situation when you have been wronged is foolhardy. On the rare chance that they do not serve you well the number 2 option is a legal remedy.....He has not tried option 1 or 2 despite supposedly having both an insurance company and a lawyer....

We are not getting all the information here......I suspect his insurance company told him to go pound sand and he can't find a lawyer to take the case. It's Ocham's razor.....the most obvious solutions are usually right. "Usually"....I know that is not the same as "always".....but he has had more than ample time and opportunity to explain why option 1 or 2 was not his best choice........and the crickets were deafening......

 

[twistedtree]

I believe Ranger should have done destructive testing during their development stage in order to establish whether special precautions should have been issued for ground handling. If it has areas in the hull that are vulnerable, that information should be clearly stated and readily available to owners and ground crews. It's a thin hull and very likely has vulnerabilities that would not be expected by typical uninformed ground handling crews. Of course manufacturers of light weight boats wouldn't want to admit that...and I doubt Ranger has this data.

If Ranger or anyone else want to build a 1/4" thick hull or a cored hull boat by all means have at it...but document the engineering testing that supports that decision. If they say the boat hull is bullet proof, I'd say show me your test results. BTW, one of the things they could have done to mitigate the ground handling fragility issue is utilizing more robust resins. They chose not to. There are (or at least should be) consequences for those decisions. In the aircraft world, their type certificate could have been on the line.

I don't believe for a second that the damage was caused by a drop.

It would be interesting to establish who did what when. But that's a liability question. The issue is what physical event (within the realm of the two or three days in question) could have created the damage. Process of elimination. Ranger should have related test data in their files....but again, I have a hunch they don't. Hence their reluctance to engage. I was suggesting that OP could do testing to make his points, not Ranger. The tram retrieval device, which I mentioned months ago, should be investigated. If a drop test duplicated the failure...end of story. But better for Ranger to help get to the bottom of this.

At least you have articulated a complaint, even if it's completely speculative. The OP hasn't even done that. He's just throwing out random data and saying "look, that proves it, case closed."


BTW, why don't you think the damage could have been caused by a drop?


And for all we know, Ranger might have done all the things you list.


Also, the damage occurred BEFORE the boat went on a trailer for delivery to the OP as demonstrated by the dealer bailing out water. So the facts don't point to trailer or hauling mishandling.

 

[twistedtree]

Who is the most knowledgable and effictive entity to determine fault and obtain reimbursement ? An insurance company!!! It is their raison d'etre......it is what they do, and they do it well. To not involve them in a situation when you have been wronged is foolhardy. On the rare chance that they do not serve you well the number 2 option is a legal remedy.....He has not tried option 1 or 2 despite supposedly having both an insurance company and a lawyer....

We are not getting all the information here......I suspect his insurance company told him to go pound sand and he can't find a lawyer to take the case. It's Ocham's razor.....the most obvious solutions are usually right. "Usually"....I know that is not the same as "always".....but he has had more than ample time and opportunity to explain why option 1 or 2 was not his best choice........and the crickets were deafening......

Reading between the lines...


1) Why no insurance claim? Because there is nothing to indicate the casualty happened while the boat was insured by the OP, and every indication that it happened before insured by the OP. So not covered by his insurance.


2) Why no warranty claim? Because it's pretty clearly the result of some sort of impact or mishandling, hence excluded from the warranty.


3) Why no law suit against the previous owner for selling him a damaged boat? Because in these sorts of transaction, the burden of inspection is clearly on the buyer. He shortcut the inspection, so screwed himself.


4) Why no law suit against Ranger for a defective design of some sort. Because it's pretty tough to prove with all but this boat working just fine as intended. What lawyer would take on such a case on contingency? Apparently none, so pursuing legal action would be on the owner's nickle, and likely cost much more than the value of the boat.


Also note that he has presented all sorts of info hinting that the Ranger is a defective design, but has never actually said so. Why? Because if he can't show it's fact, it would be libel.


So all he can do is try to give Ranger a black eye and hope they offer to fix the boat to shut him up. But so far the vast majority of people who listen to the whole story agree with 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. All the owner has accomplished is to give himself a black eye, and further distance himself from a usable or saleable boat.


It's all rather sad and pathetic to see someone auguring into the ground like this.