This is disturbing! (new Cutwater boat)

I have always assumed the check valve incorporated into the latest models of bilge pumps is to stop the pumps from cycling where there is a long run to the loop/discharge port and not for protection of a through hull port installed at/below the water level. When I see through hulls mounted close to the water line, I have to wonder if they are there by design or for aesthetics.

Certainly any owner's worst nightmare. At this point in life I know enough to know that I don't know enough to give advice. But that rarely stops me.

Cutwater should settle this and settle it fast. I work in an industry where, unfortunately, law suits are de rigueur. You would be amazed at how fast legal fees can add up to $400k. Especially if you are accused of doing something negligent or outright fraudulent (whether you are guilty or not doesn't matter) and federal agencies with acronyms get involved and impose damages. Even if the company's insurance policy doesn't cover it for some reason, it's short money. Cutwater actually could use this to it's benefit if they are smart. Brands are judged by how they take care of customers when things go bad. (Tylenol vs. Volkswagen) It can take a generation or more to repair a PR disaster like this.

Just my $.04

SpaceCadet said:

Certainly any owner's worst nightmare. At this point in life I know enough to know that I don't know enough to give advice. But that rarely stops me.

Cutwater should settle this and settle it fast. I work in an industry where, unfortunately, law suits are de rigueur. You would be amazed at how fast legal fees can add up to $400k. Especially if you are accused of doing something negligent or outright fraudulent (whether you are guilty or not doesn't matter) and federal agencies with acronyms get involved and impose damages. Even if the company's insurance policy doesn't cover it for some reason, it's short money. Cutwater actually could use this to it's benefit if they are smart. Brands are judged by how they take care of customers when things go bad. (Tylenol vs. Volkswagen) It can take a generation or more to repair a PR disaster like this.

Just my $.04

Click to expand...

There's one factor, however, that can't be overlooked. Cutwater/Fluid Motion, my not be fluid or liquid enough to be capable of settling something such as this quickly, even if they wanted.

I don't know their financial situation but I know many small builders who have spent the money fully the moment they receive it. Without the up front and progress payments, they're not even capable of building the boats.

BandB said:

There's one factor, however, that can't be overlooked. Cutwater/Fluid Motion, my not be fluid or liquid enough to be capable of settling something such as this quickly, even if they wanted.

I don't know their financial situation but I know many small builders who have spent the money fully the moment they receive it. Without the up front and progress payments, they're not even capable of building the boats.

Click to expand...

BB
One stop at a Ranger Tug rendezvous will tell you they are a very large builder, amongst the biggest in the US. They have a loyal following of hundreds of very smart owners cruising the daylights out of their vessels.

Space Cadet is correct, if indeed they built a problematic outboard vessel they should fix it. But, it remains to be seen if the owner was sloppy and inattentive or the vessel would have floundered in the best of hands.

There is a bottom line here, the best of boats have sunk while the worst of boats somehow remain afloat. Boats owned by billionaires or those on SS, makes no difference. Experienced boaters have numerous sinking stories, the reasons are endless. Mega yachts with professional crew sink due to the simplest of reasons. Single handers on comparatively low cost vessels cruise long distances and remain afloat, some are TF members.

I can provide no answers or even ask intelligent questions on this tragedy. Too bad the TugNuts site is so sparse with this sinking and members questions on same squelched. I'm watching.

sunchaser said:

BB
One stop at a Ranger Tug rendezvous will tell you they are a very large builder, amongst the biggest in the US. They have a loyal following of hundreds of very smart owners cruising the daylights out of their vessels.

.

Click to expand...

Actually all that tells me is that they have built lots of boats over the years. Tells me very little about their current state of affairs or financial position. I'd also say that size doesn't necessarily indicate cash available either. They're not among the largest builders in the US at all. Wouldn't be in the top 20, perhaps not top 40. Perhaps big for their type boat.

I'm just saying there are many boat builders that would not have $400k available cash for a payment. None of that disparaging Ranger Tugs at all. Just sometimes easier said than done.

Sears couldn't pay it...lol. Perhaps had they not spent all the money buying back stock.

Al said:

Greetings, I have read the full forum subject on this as well the full blog of the owner.
In review. There is much mention regarding the bilge pump in question located in the engine pod to which I would like to contribute. I will by the use of my personal incident with a Rule pump, (same manufacture).
In my case, on odd times there would be a substantial amount of water in the bilge without any apparent source. I would taste the bilge to confirm it being salt water after thinking that the source was a leaking hot water tank, not the case.
The bilge would be pumped and watched with no incoming water found. There would be days between with no issue. Then a voyage would be made and during that time checking the bilge, water would again be found. Of course, a complete search of the bilge an all, I repeat, all connections to the three Rule bilge pumps would be accomplished. with all connections tight.
After being at anchor one night, with guest aboard, checking for engine start up, I noticed a larger amount of water than even that found in earlier finds. This made the issue too serious to not find the answer.
BINGO!!! It came to me, the overboard outlet for the bilge pump was AT WATER LINE level. hence, with the extra folks onboard, the weight allowed the bilge pump discharge to be under water here is the find (THE RULE BILGE PUMP DOES NOT HAVE A CHECK VALVE BUILT INTO IT.) I found later that only recently had Rule redesigned pumps to include some sort of check ball, not in any of the existing pumps on board my boat.
I reinstalled the discharge hose with new that formed a hoop loop above the discharge and the issue was cured.
Having said this, if you review the photos of the engine pod and the bilge pump discharge, you will note that it comes in at or below the water line and is a direct drop to the pump.

What I am saying is with the water being forced up and about with the stern facing the waves, the water was coming in via the bilge pump and not the stern gaskets resulting in filling the pod. At some point as the boat was becoming laden, the inflow was increasing allowing faster flow backwards through the discharge hose to the and through the bilge pump itself. (No Check valve)

Al-Ketchikan.

Click to expand...

Interesting. You could be right. However, there shouldn't be a check valve in a bilge pump discharge line. They can fail and cause problems. What you did, make a loop so the line went well above the waterline is the proper solution (with an anti-siphon valve in it).

BandB said:

...I'm just saying there are many boat builders that would not have $400k available cash for a payment. None of that disparaging Ranger Tugs at all. Just sometimes easier said than done....

Click to expand...

Surely it`s common for product manufacturers to have Product Liability Insurance to cover exposure potential like this.

BruceK said:

Surely it`s common for product manufacturers to have Product Liability Insurance to cover exposure potential like this.

Click to expand...

I would think so and I'd think they'd go that route rather than pay themselves. However, that means taking the time to convince the insurer it's a covered event. Whereas the builder might like a quick accommodation, the insurer doesn't hold the same incentive of goodwill.

BandB said:

I would think so and I'd think they'd go that route rather than pay themselves. However, that means taking the time to convince the insurer it's a covered event. Whereas the builder might like a quick accommodation, the insurer doesn't hold the same incentive of goodwill.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the company attorney advised them not to admit to anything.

Of course, if the company picked up the boat, everything has changed. The boat owner no longer can protect the evidence.

Delfin said:

Since there is no federal process whereby boats are "recalled" like autos, or at least none that I am aware of

Click to expand...

USCG Safety & Recall Notices

"Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Since there is no federal process whereby boats are "recalled" like autos, or at least none that I am aware of

USCG Safety & Recall Notices"

First off, I guess, there must be a number of complaints, on the same subject, before the USCG gets involved.
To whom do they report the defects without fear of a lawsuit.

Greetings,
Where's good ole AYBC in all of this?

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Where's good ole AYBC in all of this?

Click to expand...

What can the AYBC do?

We are discussing theory here. We do not know the complete facts nor have we heard the builder's response.

Greetings,

Mr. OD. Agreed. We know very few of the facts nor the builder's response. My comment was initially tongue in cheek but upon reading your response it got me to thinkin'.

Since AYBC "suggestions" are, supposedly, an industry agreed upon set of build guidelines, surely at some point questions will arise as to the proper application of said guidelines in the build of the Cutwater vessel.
NOT making any judgements at this point.

boatpoker said:

USCG Safety & Recall Notices

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. BB already pointed that out. Much obliged.

Due to the previous discussion of 'some owner's' shutting off all the batteries upon leaving the boat for a period of time, I wonder if he shut the batteries off.

IMO, it is ridiculous for the builder to suggest, he shouldn't have docked the boat stern to face the waves.

The picture, as pointed out, an absence of dock lines too.

Things are are, shall we say, a bit clouded.

So.... I've been trying to figure this out.
Let's just say that the boat capsized and that ALL internal systems and parts are toast. Engines? maybe??
It's a write-off. Scrap!
Would the hull, deck, cabin and any other fiberglass parts be salvageable?
What's the value of that?
Could you "de-construct" it and start all over.
If a new one is $400K what would the cost be to rebuild it?
Guesses?
Worth it?

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Where's good ole AYBC in all of this?

Click to expand...

<cough> ABYC

Greetings,
Thanks Mr. r.

Mr. TR. I suspect someone will have to pay to dispose of it. My guess is it would cost more to fix than scrap if you figure in labor $$.

Could this get the vote for 2018/19 TF winter thread of the year?? This may get us through the winter....Better than Netflix. There's still SO much to be revealed (but let's not hold our breath on Fluid Motion, LLC releasing any statements!). I also find it very interesting that the "Tug Nutters" are staying quite mum on the whole situation. I don't blame them though.....they love the company and are loyalists.

If I owned an outboard Cutwater 30’ boat, I would be stocking up on caulking and checking all possible water entry points in the sponson.

South of Heaven said:

Could this get the vote for 2018/19 TF winter thread of the year?? This may get us through the winter....Better than Netflix. There's still SO much to be revealed (but let's not hold our breath on Fluid Motion, LLC releasing any statements!). I also find it very interesting that the "Tug Nutters" are staying quite mum on the whole situation. I don't blame them though.....they love the company and are loyalists.

Click to expand...

The tugnuts site is owned by Fluid Motion: no critical threads are permitted. I believe they also own the C-Brats forum too. Independent forums like this one are the only place to discuss this.

Am I the only one whose forum feed is filled with ads for Cutwater boats?

Woodland Hills said:

The tugnuts site is owned by Fluid Motion: no critical threads are permitted. I believe they also own the C-Brats forum too. Independent forums like this one are the only place to discuss this.

Click to expand...

In addition, the vast majority of folks on the tugnuts site are Ranger Tug owners. You sometimes see threads on boat problems, but I agree that nothing like this thread would survive long on that forum.


Jim

Comodave said:

If I owned an outboard Cutwater 30’ boat, I would be stocking up on caulking and checking all possible water entry points in the sponson.

Click to expand...

The fix doesn't seem complicated. Just form a raceway to carry the outboard controls, with access from the top of the strern platform. Then fill the balance of the sponson with foam. Problem solved, and probably cheaper to build than the whack doodle install they currently have.

Delfin said:

The fix doesn't seem complicated. Just form a raceway to carry the outboard controls, with access from the top of the strern platform. Then fill the balance of the sponson with foam. Problem solved, and probably cheaper to build than the whack doodle install they currently have.

Click to expand...

I wondered this also, it would seem to be the obvious way to get cables and hoses to the engines without compromising the integrity of the hull extension or having them be an eyesore. I wonder why it wasn’t done that way in the first place instead of the silliness with the pumps and holes in the platform.

Delfin said:

The fix doesn't seem complicated. Just form a raceway to carry the outboard controls, with access from the top of the strern platform. Then fill the balance of the sponson with foam. Problem solved, and probably cheaper to build than the whack doodle install they currently have.

Click to expand...

That is if the problem, and the only problem, is as we suspect. Unfortunately, an independent third party would also need to look at boats that hadn't sunk and hadn't been fixed to further evaluate. Difficult for anyone short of a forensic investigator such as NTSB or USCG to really figure out everything from a sunken and recovered boat. The surveyors wrote good reports based on the scope of their examinations but that scope was limited and it didn't involve hard questioning of either the builder or owner.

Delfin said:

Surveyor's report didn't says so and recommended testing, but based on the operator's manual, you don't need to keep a batter switch on since they were supposed to be directly wired to a power source. That guidance is contradicted by the wiring diagram, which shows the bilge pumps to be powered from a sub panel and thruster battery. Most owners aren't going to be electricians so would be expected to rely on the written word describing intended function. The surveyor expressed the opinion that the flapper valve that is supposed to prevent the inevitable water from sloshing into the sponson was inadequate. However you cut it, this Cutwater was very poorly thought out with the result that whatever the failings of the owner or dealer, the vessel capsized.

Click to expand...

I took a look at the 302 wiring diagrams and my read is a bit different. I agree it’s not super clear, but here’s my take.

First, according to the surveys, there are three pumps; two in the main bilge and found on the inboard as well as the outboard versions of the 302. Then a 3rd pump in the sponson, obviously unique to the outboard version of the 302.

The wiring diagram shows the dual main bulge pumps, but down NOT show the wiring on the outboard sponson pump. So we have no idea how it’s wired, and whether it’s the same or different from the main pumps.

The main pumps appear to be wired from two power sources; the thruster battery, and the house bank. This part is unclear, but I suspect this relates to the typical on, auto, off switches commonly used for bilge pumps. The power from the thruster battery runs through float switches, so would be the Auto power source. And the power from the thruster battery is always present for the pumps, even if the thruster switch is off. The switch only controls power to the thruster itself. This all seems reasonable, and agrees with the operators manual.

The second power source from the house bank is indeed switched by the battery switches, and there will be no power if the battery switches are turned off. I suspect this power source is only used for the Manual On operation of the pumps, but can’t tell for certain.

What’s completely unknown is how the sponson pump is wired. It might be the same as the other pumps, which would be fine, or it could be different with unknown implications.

Regardless of the wiring, the pump arrangement in the sponson seems problematic. The top of the sponson is barely above the water line, and that the highest any anti siphon loop could be for the pump. And there was no mention of an anti siphon in that hose run, making it highly susceptible to siphoning. The check flap would slow any back flow, but is never a substitute for an anti siphon vent. If the outlet remained submerged after the pump ran due to wave action, it would immediately start to siphon back into the sponson. Get enough water in the sponson, and the pump outlet would be permanently below the waterline with constant siphoning. The amount of water flow would be impeded by the flap, but definitely not a perfect seal, and perhaps a very poor seal if any debris got in it. Any pump failure and its curtains. Plus the pump could be running constantly and rapidly drain the battery. I suspect this was the first element in the chain of failures.

Now add the weight ( or lost buoyancy) of a flooded sponson that places the penetrations to the main hull below the water line. At that point it’s all a done deal.

Al said:

Greetings, I have read the full forum subject on this as well the full blog of the owner.
In review. There is much mention regarding the bilge pump in question located in the engine pod to which I would like to contribute. I will by the use of my personal incident with a Rule pump, (same manufacture).
In my case, on odd times there would be a substantial amount of water in the bilge without any apparent source. I would taste the bilge to confirm it being salt water after thinking that the source was a leaking hot water tank, not the case.
The bilge would be pumped and watched with no incoming water found. There would be days between with no issue. Then a voyage would be made and during that time checking the bilge, water would again be found. Of course, a complete search of the bilge an all, I repeat, all connections to the three Rule bilge pumps would be accomplished. with all connections tight.
After being at anchor one night, with guest aboard, checking for engine start up, I noticed a larger amount of water than even that found in earlier finds. This made the issue too serious to not find the answer.
BINGO!!! It came to me, the overboard outlet for the bilge pump was AT WATER LINE level. hence, with the extra folks onboard, the weight allowed the bilge pump discharge to be under water here is the find (THE RULE BILGE PUMP DOES NOT HAVE A CHECK VALVE BUILT INTO IT.) I found later that only recently had Rule redesigned pumps to include some sort of check ball, not in any of the existing pumps on board my boat.
I reinstalled the discharge hose with new that formed a hoop loop above the discharge and the issue was cured.
Having said this, if you review the photos of the engine pod and the bilge pump discharge, you will note that it comes in at or below the water line and is a direct drop to the pump.

What I am saying is with the water being forced up and about with the stern facing the waves, the water was coming in via the bilge pump and not the stern gaskets resulting in filling the pod. At some point as the boat was becoming laden, the inflow was increasing allowing faster flow backwards through the discharge hose to the and through the bilge pump itself. (No Check valve)

Al-Ketchikan.

Click to expand...

I agree, and will add that a check valve is completely inadequate for preventing water ingress in such a situation. The only safe way to do it is with a vented loop that will break any siphon.


Al, it sounds like you have the loop, but does it have a vent at the apex of the loop? Without it, and siphon can still get started if the outlet is below the water line when the pump runs, and remains there like when you had guests on board, o if the boat has a heel because of tank imbalance, or wind, or whatever.

psneeld said:

Generally check valves are not recommended on bilge pumps....but loops are.

Click to expand...