This is disturbing! (new Cutwater boat)

I recall remembering in one of the two surveyor's report that the owner turned off the power and left the boat. Based on this language in the owner's manual, one could conclude that doesn't matter:

"The bilge pumps operate automatically with electronic float switches when all switches and breakers are in the OFF position. "

Granted, this is from the manual for the 30', which is an inboard, and not the 302, which is for outboards, but there doesn't appear to be a separate manual for this new model online, so it may be safe to assume that the added third bilge pump in the sponson would have the same characteristics. If that proves incorrect and a manual for the 302 exists that warns the user not to turn off the power then that would be pretty important. Doubt it.

So, one of a number of different possibilities exist, most of which are not good for the builder.

1. The bilge pump was wired incorrectly
2. The bilge pumps are not as described in the manual
3. The bilge pump had a defective flapper valve as the surveyor indicated
4. The bilge pump was too small for the conditions
5. The bilge pump was wired correctly but was defective
6. A separate manual exists for the 302 telling the owner not to turn off power

Be all of that as it may, building a boat whose survival in commonly encountered boating conditions is dependent on a cheesy bilge pump is the height of stupidity in design, IMHO.

Delfin said:

Be all of that as it may, building a boat whose survival in commonly encountered boating conditions is dependent on a cheesy bilge pump is the height of stupidity in design, IMHO.

Click to expand...

Of course, what we think we know about the design may be all wrong. There could be some other design elements that prevent the water ingress that seems obvious from the pictures we have seen. I doubt it, but you never know.

Delfin said:

I recall remembering in one of the two surveyor's report that the owner turned off the power and left the boat. Based on this language in the owner's manual, one could conclude that doesn't matter:

"The bilge pumps operate automatically with electronic float switches when all switches and breakers are in the OFF position. "

Granted, this is from the manual for the 30', which is an inboard, and not the 302, which is for outboards, but there doesn't appear to be a separate manual for this new model online, so it may be safe to assume that the added third bilge pump in the sponson would have the same characteristics. If that proves incorrect and a manual for the 302 exists that warns the user not to turn off the power then that would be pretty important. Doubt it.

So, one of a number of different possibilities exist, most of which are not good for the builder.

1. The bilge pump was wired incorrectly
2. The bilge pumps are not as described in the manual
3. The bilge pump had a defective flapper valve as the surveyor indicated
4. The bilge pump was too small for the conditions
5. The bilge pump was wired correctly but was defective
6. A separate manual exists for the 302 telling the owner not to turn off power

Be all of that as it may, building a boat whose survival in commonly encountered boating conditions is dependent on a cheesy bilge pump is the height of stupidity in design, IMHO.

Click to expand...

I'd add another which I'm coming to believe is the most likely explanation...


"The sponson bilge pump pluming was subject to siphoning with no adequate protection."


That's related to your #3, but I would argue that even a fully functioning flapper is not a protection from siphoning.

twistedtree said:

I'd add another which I'm coming to believe is the most likely explanation...


"The sponson bilge pump pluming was subject to siphoning with no adequate protection."


That's related to your #3, but I would argue that even a fully functioning flapper is not a protection from siphoning.

Click to expand...

And my guess is that it is 2, 3, and 4, but perhaps we'll find out for sure sometime.

If I owned one of these, I'd demand the fix I described above. There is no need for a bilge pump if you fill the sponson with foam.

I am starting to think that it would be better to buy a 2 or 3 year old boat than a brand new one.

Benthic2 said:

I am starting to think that it would be better to buy a 2 or 3 year old boat than a brand new one.

Click to expand...

Depends on the boat and the builder. A new undertaking such as an inboard converted to an outboard would bring some apprehension.

Woodland Hills said:

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

Click to expand...

Unless you like spam you need Adblock.

Benthic2 said:

I am starting to think that it would be better to buy a 2 or 3 year old boat than a brand new one.

Click to expand...

With or without this incident, that had always been prudent.

Woodland Hills said:

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

Click to expand...

I bet it is because you were searching for Cutwater boats and the advertisement cookies are kicking in. Clear your cache/delete cookies and they will go away. Technology. Ain't it grand.

Delfin said:

So, one of a number of different possibilities exist, most of which are not good for the builder.

1. The bilge pump was wired incorrectly
2. The bilge pumps are not as described in the manual
3. The bilge pump had a defective flapper valve as the surveyor indicated
4. The bilge pump was too small for the conditions
5. The bilge pump was wired correctly but was defective
6. A separate manual exists for the 302 telling the owner not to turn off power

Click to expand...

7. The bilge pump worked correctly but the battery was dead due to lack of charging

Agree that Rule cans are a bit cheesy and if I used Rule float switches I would have 3 in parallel, but I think focusing on the bilge pumps is a red herring.

The bilge pumps didn't sink the boat and ABYC is clear that they are designing to remove rain water and spray. They are not designed to dewater a swamped boat. The surveyors didn't check them for some unknown reason.

The surveyors imply that the sponson steering hose/bilge pump conduit wasn't sealed thus allowing water ingress. Design problem for sure. They also go into some weight calculations attempting to imply it changed the waterline .18m or about 7". This could be a design issue as the bilge pump overboard discharge through hull appears to be about 7" from waterline. The surveyors did not bother to measure the actual distance or determine if a vented loop was present.

Cutwater could still skate even If the surveyors (expert witnesses) can prove design defects. Shared liability. Canadian small vessel regulation SOR/2010-91, part 2, para 201 "The operator of a pleasure craft shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the craft and of every person on board."

Reasonable steps are facts decided by a judge but a reasonable person leaving a boat docked for a week or more might ensure that the batteries are topped up, the bilge pump switches aren't clogged and work as designed, mooring lines are secure, bow is facing prevailing wind, etc.

If the owner can get past the limited hull warranty via implied warranty of fitness attack (Canada's Sale of Goods Act) he then has to get past the section that states:

"... if the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards defects that such examination ought to have revealed."

Hmmm, 800 mile trip? certainly looks like he examined the boat. I suspect Cutwater will play hardball on this claim. Owner should take their settlement offer and move on.

Bilge pumps may not be designed to dewater a boat, but they are there to prevent the beginning of progressive flooding...

So yes, they can be a causal factor in a sinking in my opinion.

Three comments:

I've met plenty of pilots who don't have a clue about boats (or anything else, some of 'em).

I would not want to own a boat that depended on periodic running of a bilge pump to keep it afloat, and would certainly not leave it unattended for long. If the failure of a bilge pump can sink the boat, then the boat is eventually going to sink.

New boats with any kind of complex systems always have some problems. I spent way more than that on a custom build from highly regarded builders, everything needed to be debugged. The assumption is if you haven't tested it, it doesn't work. Leaving the day after it's launched on a long voyage is fraught with peril. At least a 2 week shakedown, then bring it back with a bitch list. Now, this one didn't sink on its first outing, but all the problems prior were predictable and expected. In fact the 10 year old used boats I've bought have all had their share of problems, many of them manufacturing defects not noticed by the original owners. Yes you expect perfection for your money, but you are rarely going to get it.

twistedtree said:

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.

Click to expand...

No Twisted, it does not. There has not been an issue from that point and I contribute that to the height of the loop which is at the very least 10-12 inch or in this case up against the overhead. I was surely agitated at the ignorance of my placement. Never gave it a thought. As the loop is comprised of rubber hose, what do you suggest as a vent fitting? I am sure others on the forum have vent free loops as well and we can all learn.

Al-Ketchikan

"This could be a design issue as the bilge pump overboard discharge through hull appears to be about 7" from waterline." Quote; "SoWhat"

Disagree, if you reexamined the survivors photos, you will note the overboard is at the water line.

Al-Ketchikan

Benthic2 said:

I am starting to think that it would be better to buy a 2 or 3 year old boat than a brand new one.

Click to expand...

Totally agree. I'd much rather let the first owner eat the massive depreciation and then buy the boat after all the bugs are worked out. IF THEY SELL IT......that's the only downside to buying used. Sometimes you'll never find what you want (that's probably why many buy new to begin with. Lol).

But IMHO buying new is only justifiable if you have a few million dollars that are liquid (not retirement accounts).

Al said:

[/B]

No Twisted, it does not. There has not been an issue from that point and I contribute that to the height of the loop which is at the very least 10-12 inch or in this case up against the overhead. I was surely agitated at the ignorance of my placement. Never gave it a thought. As the loop is comprised of rubber hose, what do you suggest as a vent fitting? I am sure others on the forum have vent free loops as well and we can all learn.

Al-Ketchikan

Click to expand...

Al, check with a marine supply store for a vented plastic loop ie West Marine.
Now, if you want to be a bit creative, alternate port starboard overboard.
Remember, NO check valves and no hull valves and overboard discharge about a foot above the water line.

I guess I'm surprised to hear that new boats have problems. I remember reading about a guy at Nordic Tug who has done the shakedown cruise on almost 500 boats!! They tested everything from lightbulbs, and sinks to engine alignment and sound levels. When you consider the cost of a new boat, have a few people spend a few hours with a checklist is a small cost to keep your reputation high.

Even if the owner in the original post was a little salty, Cutwater should be mortified at his experience in taking delivery. Even if most of it was the dealers fault, Cutwater should be policing its dealers.

This has been a very eye opening thread for me, more from a business persepective than a boating perspective.

Here's the link to the article about the factory shakedown cruise I referenced above:

https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser-reviews/secrets-of-a-sea-trial

Al said:

"This could be a design issue as the bilge pump overboard discharge through hull appears to be about 7" from waterline." Quote; "SoWhat"
Disagree, if you reexamined the survivors photos, you will note the overboard is at the water line.
Al-Ketchikan

Click to expand...

Disagree with your disagreement.

I think you are looking at the drain outlet. The bilge pump overboard discharge is depicted in photo located in Section 5.3, page 12, of survey report II.

The owner confirmed the height in one of his rants with an actual measurement of 7 1/2"

Al said:

[/B]

No Twisted, it does not. There has not been an issue from that point and I contribute that to the height of the loop which is at the very least 10-12 inch or in this case up against the overhead. I was surely agitated at the ignorance of my placement. Never gave it a thought. As the loop is comprised of rubber hose, what do you suggest as a vent fitting? I am sure others on the forum have vent free loops as well and we can all learn.

Al-Ketchikan

Click to expand...

Like this:

FOR 903000 Forespar Marelon Vented Loops - Head Accessories

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...

I am new to the site and live in the PNW. I know and have cruised with many Ranger/Cutwater owners. Most love their boats but there are others not so much.
I am not here to bash Ranger but I do want to clarify that the C-Brat site is fully independent and is not owned by Ranger or C-Dory.

Benthic2 said:

Here's the link to the article about the factory shakedown cruise I referenced above:

https://www.passagemaker.com/cruiser-reviews/secrets-of-a-sea-trial

Click to expand...

Good article, thanks. It says a lot about Nordic's attitude towards QC that the owner of Nordic does all the shakedowns, and it says a lot about Cutwater's that they ship s boat with the shower drain not hooked up,
and that leaks.

pnwrick said:

I am new to the site and live in the PNW. I know and have cruised with many Ranger/Cutwater owners. Most love their boats but there are others not so much.
I am not here to bash Ranger but I do want to clarify that the C-Brat site is fully independent and is not owned by Ranger or C-Dory.

Click to expand...

This rings true with me as well.

It's hard to put a number on it but I have met more than a few Cutwater/Ranger owners who are not happy with the quality of the boats. Most of them love the look, performance and overall package. Which I completely understand. I just think the quality is over hyped.

SoWhat said:

Disagree with your disagreement.

I think you are looking at the drain outlet. The bilge pump overboard discharge is depicted in photo located in Section 5.3, page 12, of survey report II.

The owner confirmed the height in one of his rants with an actual measurement of 7 1/2"

Click to expand...

By golly you are correct. With this revelation to the thought, the mystery is in the hands of speculation and speculators.

And to Delfin- Thanks, I had viewed these objects but not from that of bilge pump application though it will work. Given my space, I believe I am comfortable with the bend being the height it is.

Yet the contribution regarding the siphon effect on bilge pumps is worthy.

Al-Ketchikan

Al said:

By golly you are correct. With this revelation to the thought, the mystery is in the hands of speculation and speculators.



And to Delfin- Thanks, I had viewed these objects but not from that of bilge pump application though it will work. Given my space, I believe I am comfortable with the bend being the height it is.



Yet the contribution regarding the siphon effect on bilge pumps is worthy.

Click to expand...

The odds of having a problem with a siphon effect are ver small. However, it can happen. You would need the right combination of water at the pump that fills the hose at the same time that a list causes the boat to put the outlet under water. Not likely granted. However, if it DID happen (and the check valve fails as it will) then you now have a hose that is filling your boat with water and you are depending on the pump to save you.

Putting a vent in that loop would avoid that potential problem entirely.

The more I read and think about this, the more I will be surprised if the buyer receives anything or anything more than a token amount. This isn't being critical of Fluid, because they're not the ones who will make the decision of whether this is a warranty issue or not. Not, they could join the owner in saying it is and fighting their insurer but that's highly unusual. The fact is Liquid's insurer is the one who would be paying.

They can say prove the sinking is due to a hull issue or design issue. Even if you find design flaws, prove it was those flaws that caused the sinking.

Now, if the buyer chooses litigation. If they do and the builder's insurance company chooses to try not to pay anything, then you get into a long ugly fight with battling experts none of whom the judge and/or jurors, if any, really understand. Look through this thread and try explaining it all someone with no familiarity. There can be long venue battles but there can even be fights over who aligns with whom. Dealer and builder can start pointing fingers at each other. Builder says, we don't know what the dealer did. Dealer says we don't know what the owner did. It was fine when it left here.

Fighting could require lawyers in two countries, depositions, multiple experts and get extremely expensive.

dhays said:

The odds of having a problem with a siphon effect are ver small. However, it can happen. You would need the right combination of water at the pump that fills the hose at the same time that a list causes the boat to put the outlet under water. Not likely granted. However, if it DID happen (and the check valve fails as it will) then you now have a hose that is filling your boat with water and you are depending on the pump to save you.

Putting a vent in that loop would avoid that potential problem entirely.

Click to expand...

Exactly.


Sail boats are most vulnerable because they get on a heel for an extended time, and suddenly find they have a bilge full of water. But it can still happen on a power boat. All it takes is some consistent chop against the side of the boat and/or a heel that submerges the thruhull most of the time. The lower the thruhull, the more vulnerable. Why have the exposure when it can be eliminated.

BandB said:

The more I read and think about this, the more I will be surprised if the buyer receives anything or anything more than a token amount. This isn't being critical of Fluid, because they're not the ones who will make the decision of whether this is a warranty issue or not. Not, they could join the owner in saying it is and fighting their insurer but that's highly unusual. The fact is Liquid's insurer is the one who would be paying.

They can say prove the sinking is due to a hull issue or design issue. Even if you find design flaws, prove it was those flaws that caused the sinking.

Now, if the buyer chooses litigation. If they do and the builder's insurance company chooses to try not to pay anything, then you get into a long ugly fight with battling experts none of whom the judge and/or jurors, if any, really understand. Look through this thread and try explaining it all someone with no familiarity. There can be long venue battles but there can even be fights over who aligns with whom. Dealer and builder can start pointing fingers at each other. Builder says, we don't know what the dealer did. Dealer says we don't know what the owner did. It was fine when it left here.

Fighting could require lawyers in two countries, depositions, multiple experts and get extremely expensive.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that the best thing for the company would be a quick settlement, take back possession of the boat, require that the owner take down his web site and place a gag order on him, and make the whole thing go away. Then work to fix the other boats that are out there, and move on. $400k would be a cheap resolution cost.


And I expect they could settle for less than $400k anyway. The buyer would be facing a big expensive legal battle, as you say, with no assurance of getting anything. Accepting a quick $200k and getting on with your life would sound pretty good to me.

twistedtree said:

It seems to me that the best thing for the company would be a quick settlement, take back possession of the boat, require that the owner take down his web site and place a gag order on him, and make the whole thing go away. Then work to fix the other boats that are out there, and move on. $400k would be a cheap resolution cost.


And I expect they could settle for less than $400k anyway. The buyer would be facing a big expensive legal battle, as you say, with no assurance of getting anything. Accepting a quick $200k and getting on with your life would sound pretty good to me.

Click to expand...

TT
What does the owner want is an interesting question. If he is truly self insured under Canadian law there are several potential outcomes. If he wants revenge there are other avenues. If he wants to be made whole there are steps that could have been taken absent the Internet. A lawsuit in US court is not without entanglements as previously noted.

So blog site postings aside, where this tragedy goes for resolution seems in the Owner's corner. And likely not known for our curiosities.

twistedtree said:

It seems to me that the best thing for the company would be a quick settlement, take back possession of the boat, require that the owner take down his web site and place a gag order on him, and make the whole thing go away. Then work to fix the other boats that are out there, and move on. $400k would be a cheap resolution cost.


And I expect they could settle for less than $400k anyway. The buyer would be facing a big expensive legal battle, as you say, with no assurance of getting anything. Accepting a quick $200k and getting on with your life would sound pretty good to me.

Click to expand...

Since everyone worries a bit about their boat sinking, this thread holds a lot of fascination for people. And being fascinated with the subject, everyone seems to have an opinion. Clearly we don't know how this will turn out, but I disagree that the owner isn't going to be made whole on this fiasco, whatever his failings. Sometimes product defects are obvious and manufacturers liability is easy to assign - think the Firestone recall of 14.5 million tires because the treads would fly off if you went fast and cause sometimes fatal accidents. It resulted in the company having to be acquired by Bridgestone to avoid bankruptcy. Other times, the defects or who is responsible for the defect are murkier.

In this case, there isn't any question who built the boat, nor is there any question that in normally encountered conditions the boat can sink, nor does there appear to be any attempt by the builder through the owner's manual to warn the owners of unusual and special care that must be taken to prevent sinking. Just because a bilge pump stops working doesn't usually mean your boat is going to sink, but if it does, it is because something else went wrong. In Cutwater's case, the something else that went wrong was tying the boat up to a dock with a light sternwise chop in the water.

Given that, my guess is that the insurance company carrying the product liability policy will be uninterested in fighting this issue very hard simply because the problem in the design so clearly exists and will be experienced in some form by other owners who will want to avoid the same scenario and demand some kind of a fix, which will have the effect of Cutwater acknowledging the problem rather than being able to deny it. Insurers don't much like fighting multi-front battles when the $ involved to settle are trivial, and this situation has class action lawsuit written all over it. Rather than pretending the problem doesn't exist and then fighting it out with other owners who fear their vessels may sink, the cheapest course for the insurer and company is making the owner whole for what is a trivial amount of money compared to the cost and grief and brand damage of a lawsuit.

The owner can get his money back, or more likely, a new Cutwater 302 with the problem fixed, which isn't going to cost the company what the owner paid, nor will they suffer the brand damage of having to explain to prospective owners what went on - they can point to their excellent customer service, above and beyond the call. They take the sunk vessel back, gut it, but re-coup the value of the hull, and perhaps some value from the motors. So maybe their out of pocket is $200,000, which is about the amount of money the insurer will pay just getting ready for a lawsuit from one owner. In other words, there is no upside to Cutwater or the insurer not to make this schlub whole, so my guess is that is precisely what will happen, and every Cutwater 302 they've sold will have the issue addressed since it is so clearly a cock up on the builder's part.