UPDATE - Lemon-aid R 27 Ranger Tug

[SoWhat]

"I can't understand why not many understand the value of the Lab tests on the two samples . It will tell the truth if it was blocking abuse or bad quality fiberglass that couldn't take being on a block . It doesn't get any more simple to understand ."

And I don't understand how you could possibly think sending 2 damaged samples to a lab is going to tell you anything other than they are damaged. It is more probable than not that forces sufficient to break multiple layers of resin bonded fiberglass were applied to the hull. You will never have an answer to who or when or how the forces were applied. It's that simple.

You are determined to find fault with someone. Anyone. Your second thread on this subject titled "Fiberglass Repair Opinion" is just about identical to this one. You have an agenda Mr. Cook.

 

[magna 6882]

In fairness i read your story on your web site and you stated as fact the following.



(Every person in the boat business that I have come across (who had seen the boat), has had the same opinion that “it was dropped on a block.”)


This to me would indicate there was nothing wrong with the boat until it was dropped by some unknown entity. This statement would seem to clear the factory with regards to defective design and workmanship.
Are you thinking ranger should be held responsible?

 

[Benthic2]

Yes it was , and still insured .... I didn't want to try to stick the insurance company with someone else's problem .

This isn't SOMEONE ELSE'S problem. It is YOURS. This is exactly what insurance companies do. They reimburse your costs, and then THEY will pursue the faulty party if one can be found. As dilligent and devoted as you are to finding the entity at fault, they will be better at it because it's what they do. Plus they will do it after the boat is fixed and you are happily cruising away. This is not "sticking" it to the insurance company, any more than they are sticking it to you when they ask for your premium.

It seems very very odd that you have a lawyer and an insurance company, and yet you are still the driving force behind resolving this problem.

 

[BruceK]

OP:
1. What do you hope to achieve from this, and your other thread?


2.Tell us which piece(s) of advice,on either thread, you accepted and acted on? And, how did it turn out?

 

[twistedtree]

To the OP, what exactly are you asserting other than "Ranger Tug and their dealer suck". And what exactly are you asking be done, and by whom?


There is no way to know whether the damage occurred before or after you took ownership. If after you took ownership, then it's a completely legitimate insurance claim. If before then you could attempt a civil case against whoever you think pawned a broken boat off on you. But you haven't done any of that, and I have to believe it's because you have been advised that you have no case. That leaves an insurance claim for latent defects, and it seems that is what you are trying for with all the core samples. If you can show that the build was defective, then you can claim that the damage was not due to miss-handling, but rather a defective build.


Then we get to the repair. What exactly do you want done, assuming someone else is paying for it? You say no to an external repair, but also say no to pulling the boat apart for an inside/outside repair. So what remedy are you asking for? A replacement boat? A buy-back of your boat?


By all indications, you bought a damaged boat. Shame on anyone in the sales chain who knew about it, but it's also crystal clear that the burden of inspection falls to the buyer, and YOU failed in that task. Relying on "it only has 25hrs", "the dealer was so nice", or a "we're family" slogan is not just a poor inspection, it's no inspection at all. As you now know, a 25h boat can be damaged just as much as a 2500hr boat.


You seem to want others to do the "honorable thing". Well, I think it's time for you to take your own advice. You got screwed, and we all feel your pain. But you let yourself get screwed, and you need to own that. So do the honorable thing, own your mistake, fix the boat, and move on.

 

[Porgy]

The problem with the “latent defect” argument as I see it, is that he has repeatedly stated that in his opinion and “everyone he’s spoken to” that the boat was dropped on a block. Can a builder be held responsible for a “latent defect” subsequent to a boat be negligently mishandled and consequently damaged? I can see it if damaged occurred during the normal and proper course of loading on a trailer or lifting in slings or properly placing jackstands. And, it was witnessed or otherwise proven how and when and by whom it occurred. But he’s already placed all his bets on being dropped on block...and not factually knowing who, just somebody.

Someone here had a constructive loss after his boat was dropped. Should he have sued Nordhavn for a latent defect because it should have withstood being dropped a foot? I’m guessing not.

 

[BandB]

Wow , everyone has been busy ! Had ( and still have ) the same Lawyer from the start . Dorchester Ontario ( Ah.... ) Law is a bit different here , No lemonade law . I can't understand why not many understand the value of the Lab tests on the two samples . It will tell the truth if it was blocking abuse or bad quality fiberglass that couldn't take being on a block . It doesn't get any more simple to understand .

Funny , I never had anyone use the words "" Dave Cook and Audacity '' in the same sentence .

If i can ask one favor , If you are really interested in ''the details '' see ''the story '' on my webpage , www.rangertugtruth.com

You boasting about being too honest over and over. Total BS. You keep telling people to go to your webpage. Total BS. We've been. Nothing useful there. You've gone over and over through this and supplied zero real information, all because of your failure to do your job. Your failure to check the boat out.

Then you want to blast anyone who calls you out. Well, this is a public forum and it's not here just to support your repeated rants and unfounded assumptions and theories. And even if you get something from your paid expert, it will mean nothing as the other side could get the opposite from their paid expert. No one here will ever know the facts because there's no one pursuing them, just you pursuing your own theories. The Audacity of David Cook. Now you've had it twice. You and all these pitiful whining that no onw has ever called you this or that. I highly doubt any of it.

I find only one good thing in all this. Your stubbornness keeps you off the water and away from all boaters. I know you won't like this post, but many of us tired of your rants.

 

[twistedtree]

The problem with the “latent defect” argument as I see it, is that he has repeatedly stated that in his opinion and “everyone he’s spoken to” that the boat was dropped on a block. Can a builder be held responsible for a “latent defect” subsequent to a boat be negligently mishandled and consequently damaged? I can see it if damaged occurred during the normal and proper course of loading on a trailer or lifting in slings or properly placing jackstands. And, it was witnessed or otherwise proven how and when and by whom it occurred. But he’s already placed all his bets on being dropped on block...and not factually knowing who, just somebody.

Someone here had a constructive loss after his boat was dropped. Should he have sued Nordhavn for a latent defect because it should have withstood being dropped a foot? I’m guessing not.

That’s the fine line. The latent defect theory says that the failure was due to a structural defect in the course of normal handling. The counter argument will of course be that the damage was caused by abnormal handling, and the OP has so far promoted this theory as well, so it would be hard to change tune now.

 

[bucketlist1]

"I can't understand why not many understand the value of the Lab tests on the two samples . It will tell the truth if it was blocking abuse or bad quality fiberglass that couldn't take being on a block . It doesn't get any more simple to understand ."

And I don't understand how you could possibly think sending 2 damaged samples to a lab is going to tell you anything other than they are damaged. It is more probable than not that forces sufficient to break multiple layers of resin bonded fiberglass were applied to the hull. You will never have an answer to who or when or how the forces were applied. It's that simple.

You are determined to find fault with someone. Anyone. Your second thread on this subject titled "Fiberglass Repair Opinion" is just about identical to this one. You have an agenda Mr. Cook.

Mr So What - Lab tests tell you a ton of information . Voids in fiberglass ( air pockets ) reduce the strength , too little resin used causes a dry layup =weak and too much resin = low tensile strength . The results will tell if the 6.3 mm thick hull is strong enough or not . End of story

 

[bucketlist1]

In fairness i read your story on your web site and you stated as fact the following.



(Every person in the boat business that I have come across (who had seen the boat), has had the same opinion that “it was dropped on a block.”)


This to me would indicate there was nothing wrong with the boat until it was dropped by some unknown entity. This statement would seem to clear the factory with regards to defective design and workmanship.
Are you thinking ranger should be held responsible?

Yes , every boat guy / boat repair guy said '' dropped on a block '' ''put down hard on a block '' this was till the first hull core sample was done . 6.3 mm thickness . If you know about ''Gerr Calculations '' this thickness is well under the recommended thickness . If it was vacuum bagged , epoxy or carbon fiber , that thickness could be fine .

Normally builders overlap the glass witch from port to starboard so a portion is double thickness up the keel area . This added extra thickness for a grounding , etc . The military specs on boat building are much more strict . Time requirements for layers to bond , clear gel coat to inspect the hull , visually ( then painted after ) . Having the Lab report will settle the questions .

 

[twistedtree]

Mr So What - Lab tests tell you a ton of information . Voids in fiberglass ( air pockets ) reduce the strength , too little resin used causes a dry layup =weak and too much resin = low tensile strength . The results will tell if the 6.3 mm thick hull is strong enough or not . End of story

Strong enough or not for what? You don't know what handling of the boat caused the damage, so how do you know if it was abusive and the hull should have withstood it? So exactly what level of structural strength are you looking for, and how is that germane to anything? Where are you hoping this leads? What are you trying to accomplish or prove other than making Ranger and the dealer look as bad as possible?


I really think you need to step back from this and get some perspective. You are off in the weeds spinning in circles. Or if you are on a clean path, you haven't articulated it in any way that anyone can follow.

 

[SoWhat]

Mr So What - Lab tests tell you a ton of information . Voids in fiberglass ( air pockets ) reduce the strength , too little resin used causes a dry layup =weak and too much resin = low tensile strength . The results will tell if the 6.3 mm thick hull is strong enough or not . End of story

You display a fundamental lack of understanding of fiberglass. The amount of catalyst to resin varies between manufacturers and is highly dependent upon ambient temperature when mixed and the amount of resin used similarly varies.

The piece you removed was damaged and had obvious delamination. Of course it is going to have voids.

You also display a fundamental lack of mechanical engineering. There is no thickness that will survive a drop or putting the total weight of a boat on one point. 12mm will crack just as easily as 6mm.

You have an agenda. You are fixated on proving a manufacturers defect but it is for naught because you can't establish actual causation of the crack. A defect does not cause a hull to spontaneously crack.

 

[LakeMJim]

Dropped on a block

Oh I get it now, he's arguing that the hull was not strong enough to withstand being dropped on a block, and that's a manufacturer defect.

Well, good luck with that one.

I was distracted by all the talk of a missing label, some electrical issue and not knowing who the transporter was.

Mystery solved. On to the next one.

 

[DDW]

At some point, the OP has to decide if he wants to spend the next two years in court, or on the water. The effort expended so far, if instead spent with a grinder and some resin, would have had him on the water. A one sided repair is absolutely fine if done right - it is done that way on glass/carbon aircraft structures all the time which are a far more demanding and critical application.

 

[LakeMJim]

Surprising that the core samples he says he sent to a lab in November, 2020 have not yet been returned with results.

Or maybe not really surprising at all.

 

[Shrew]

Could the OP please clarify where the bulkheads are in relation to the damaged hull? Is the damage centered on a bulkhead? If not, what is the distance from the damaged to the nearest bulkhead?

 

[SoWhat]

Surprising that the core samples he says he sent to a lab in November, 2020 have not yet been returned with results.
Or maybe not really surprising at all.

Good catch. Cook posted on his alternate thread 'Fiberglass Repair Opinion' that he removed core sample on or about 11/24/2020.

One could easily surmise that Cook sent sample out for analysis soon thereafter and results were likely received in a timely manner. Another mystery in the saga of Cook v. World

 

[LakeMJim]

I feel a bit guilty for not having more empathy for the OP, but it just seems he is blaming all the wrong people and confusing the issue.

I wonder what would have been the result if he just said here that he got screwed over, and he didn't do his due diligence, but he really can't afford a loss of this type and set up a GoFundMe to help him pay for repairs?

I would have contributed as I bet a lot of others would too.

But I almost think he enjoys the 'battle'.

 

[sean9c]

I think that if I saw a GoFundMe page asking for money to help me repair the $180K boat that I just bought I think that I'd decline.

I feel a bit guilty for not having more empathy for the OP, but it just seems he is blaming all the wrong people and confusing the issue.

I wonder what would have been the result if he just said here that he got screwed over, and he didn't do his due diligence, but he really can't afford a loss of this type and set up a GoFundMe to help him pay for repairs?

I would have contributed as I bet a lot of others would too.

But I almost think he enjoys the 'battle'.

 

[SteveK]

GERR Recommendations. I like to learn so looked it up. here is the PDF that came up.
View attachment BoatStrengthIBEX.pdf

IMHO.
The location of the stress crack is where I would expect a travel lift sling to be placed. It was noted about 1/3 from the bow.
Was lifting enough stress, sitting in a sling while being surveyed, being loaded to a trailer? Or did a moving travel lift hit a pothole? If any of these caused this then the opposite side should also be stressed as I would expect the layup of the glass to be the same.

Less likely sitting on a trailer unless there was a pressure point on sides, as in the keel did not carry the weight. Same with blocked on the hard, the keel gets secured while the lift balances. The side supports keep the boat from falling over, more so than holding up the weight.
Now if a rookie installing one over tightens one of them instead of just snug, there is an exception.

P.S. I was at a floating boat show and commented on how thin the glass hulls were. You could see the shadow of the water lapping at the hull with the contrast of the sun. It is not the 70's anymore when they erred on the side of caution with thickness.

 

[Shrew]

The location of the stress crack is where I would expect a travel lift sling to be placed. It was noted about 1/3 from the bow.
Was lifting enough stress, sitting in a sling while being surveyed, being loaded to a trailer? Or did a moving travel lift hit a pothole? If any of these caused this then the opposite side should also be stressed as I would expect the layup of the glass to be the same.

If you look at the markers for lifting straps those are also placed at bulkheads.

 

[SteveK]

I just found this video which explains the side cracks, look at the way it is blocked, one keel block and 4 side supports at back end. Video is showing a crack in the keel, about where a sling would go. I did not see this video in this thread.

 

[SteveK]

If you look at the markers for lifting straps those are also placed at bulkheads.

Where shall I find these marks?
However while ideal under a bulkhead that does not rule out operator error in placement. It is a load stress crack for sure

 

[ghost]

Empathy for the OP sure. But I have little for his handling of it. I think he has stepped over the line with the mfg and stated his suspicions as if they were facts and he did that very publicly.

I strongly suspect the mfg is taking no action against him for the reason that nobody is helping them out more than he is.

If he ultimately proves what he thinks, good for him, but the odds don’t look good. “We didn’t design that boat to be dropped”, case closed. The same laminate, very likely same condition, proves strong enough in repeated tests of a large group every day. You would need to sample those boats too and prove your laminate is somehow different from theirs.

It just doesn’t look like a winnable argument. Test results or no.

But hey If I have to apologize for being wrong some day, I’d be happy to do so. Im not putting pen to paper just yet.

 

[Porgy]

I wonder what would have been the result if he just said here that he got screwed over, and he didn't do his due diligence, but he really can't afford a loss of this type and set up a GoFundMe to help him pay for repairs?

I would have contributed as I bet a lot of others would too.

Umm, not here.

Recognizing that as far as I know he doesn’t have a GFM page but, 1. His abject failure of due diligence set the stage for this debacle, 2. He refuses to engage his insurance company. The worst that can happen is they’ll say no but, he won’t even ask, 3. He has money to spend on a lawyer, core samples, lab analysis, etc, and 4. It’s a boat, a toy. He isn’t living out of a refrigerator box. I can’t fathom how some can beg or sponge money off others to pay for their hobbies. If I can’t afford to fix it, I can’t afford to own it. But I guess some people have no shame and rely on the sucker born every minute.

 

[Shrew]

Where shall I find these marks?
However while ideal under a bulkhead that does not rule out operator error in placement. It is a load stress crack for sure

Not all boats have them, however many do. I had a Maxum that had them and my Mainship has them.

All you need to do is go into the boat to locate them. However, there are standard locations. Right below the windshield. Right below the slider on flybridges. My boat has 3 main bulkheads. I think there is a small 4th under the bed in the fwd berth, but you you wouldn't lift that far forward.

Agreed, I suspect this is a simple result of either how it was lifted or blocked. I suspect it was how it was blocked for transport. Sitting on the hard only relies on gravity. Loaded on a truck the vessel is is strapped down, and there's significantly more force between the blocks and the hull both from reefing down the load and the stresses of hi-speed travel.

If blocking wasn't placed properly under the bulkheads, this is where i would expect to see the greatest potential for failure.

 

[LakeMJim]

I think you missed the point, which was IF he had NOT done all the things he has done but instead admitted he screwed up and had stretched to his limit to buy the boat I'd be happy to contribute to its repair. I can spare $100 after all.

If none of those things are true and he's rich and can easily afford it then I wouldn't.

It's hard to imagine that someone who could easily afford to repair the boat would go to all this trouble but anything is possible I guess.

 

[Benthic2]

Bucket: I may have missed it, but I don't think you have said what you expect, or who you expect it from to resolve this issue. Do you want the boat repaired?... replaced? ...your money back ? And from what party do you feel owes you this compensation, Ranger, the PO, the shipper or the dealer ?

 

[LakeMJim]

I'm also very skeptical that he has insurance (or coverage for this event), a lawyer or has sent anything for testing.

No sane person would refuse to make a claim on insurance, if they could.

 

[Rufus]

Hydraulic trailer was mentioned for both move evolutions. Bad news for a thin skinned boat. Way too easy to over load an area with a pad lift design. My money is either there, or on the first owner's tram lift. Boat manufacturers should be issuing clear guidelines as to how to handle their boats on the hard. Yard workers don't have a clue as to what's behind the boat skin, and are not about to stop and take a look. I've been harping on ABYC to issue guidance in this regrd and actually sent them some draft advisory material. BTW, the 39 Sea Ray next to us suffered similar damage due to a yard handling screw up.