This is disturbing! (new Cutwater boat)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Ski in NC said:
True the rigging tubes would likely leak into the hull in a stern low situation, but what is the leak rate? Beyond the pump capability? None of us know. And neither do the surveyors.

My gut feel is that if the bilge pumps were operable, and deck hatches in place, this event would not have occurred. Of course I have little to base that on, it is simply a gut feel.
Click to expand...






I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.




I created an account here on TF to dispel some of the incorrect info here. First, The sponson does not provide buoyancy , just like any other sponson or offshore bracket. The hull provides adequate bouoyancy and the sponson serves as a mount for the engines and step, just like the words definition in the dictionary.


Secondly, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill :)


Third, this was not a outboard conversion on Cutwaters regular 30 hull. The cutwater 30 with volvo's is a displacement hull. The 302 is a completely different mold and a planing hull with a double step and flow interrupters. Entirely different beasts...


While it is curious that he removed the plates and ran the boat without them, or replaced them with different plates...it doesnt have any bearing on the boat sinking. I surmise it likely contributed to the rate the boat took on water in a compromised state. That state being that he left the boat moored or anchored for over a month without shore power. Who knows how much water was already in the hull when the bad weather "happened"
 
firstbase said:
A Rule 500 draws 1.2 amps which would run for about 70 hours or so on a 100 AH deep cycle. Something like that I believe. I'm sure someone will give a more exact example.
Click to expand...

I believe the Rule 1100 draws 3.3A. The batteries installed are not specified by the surveyor but the thruster mfgr requires a min of standard 12V Group 24 AGM Deep Cycle Battery - 80 Ah, 550 CCA. Typical specs state 524 minutes at 8A to bring it down to depth of discharge. (aka dead)

So it's possible battery went flat within 24 hours if Cutwater installed minimum size. In any case neither the battery nor the bilge pump was designed to cope with a flooded boat over a long period of time.
 
Sky-guy said:
I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for joining and sharing your experience. We will now subject you to cross examination :D

(I really like their design approach (the inboard version.) I think they nailed it on comfort, convenience, and performance)
 
Sky-guy said:
I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.




I created an account here on TF to dispel some of the incorrect info here. First, The sponson does not provide buoyancy , just like any other sponson or offshore bracket. The hull provides adequate bouoyancy and the sponson serves as a mount for the engines and step, just like the words definition in the dictionary.


Secondly, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill :)


Third, this was not a outboard conversion on Cutwaters regular 30 hull. The cutwater 30 with volvo's is a displacement hull. The 302 is a completely different mold and a planing hull with a double step and flow interrupters. Entirely different beasts...


While it is curious that he removed the plates and ran the boat without them, or replaced them with different plates...it doesnt have any bearing on the boat sinking. I surmise it likely contributed to the rate the boat took on water in a compromised state. That state being that he left the boat moored or anchored for over a month without shore power. Who knows how much water was already in the hull when the bad weather "happened"
Click to expand...

Since the 30' has a top speed of 26 knots, it is, like the 302, a planning hull. Both displace the same. Other than the power plant, the difference, at least according to Power and Motor Yacht and Cutwater is....

"Instead of the single step that energized the inboard-powered C-30 Sedan, the 302 has two. Moreover, she’s also got “Laminar Flow Interrupters” at the bow (more about this in a moment), and, instead of a single 435-horsepower Volvo Penta D6 under the cockpit sole, there are twin 300-horsepower Yamaha outboards abaft her transom."


I'd be curious to know why the sponson isn't intended to provide buoyancy since the 302 removes a Volvo diesel weighing 770 pounds that is inboard of the transom and replaces it with about twice that weight 30" or so outboard of the transom.

Be all that as it may, what does you manual say about bilge pumps? Are they always on regardless of the power switching, like in the 30 or switched through the battery switches? And could you be specific on what plates you are referring to that the owner in this case removed? Not sure what those are, but I'm glad we have an owner of the 302 to provide practical information.
 
I am having a hard time thinking that a boat can go from "OK" to sunk in about 8-10 hours. Presumably if you can see your boat from your house, you would see it multiple times per day. If you saw the boat low in the stern, you'd investigage. If you had any suspicions, you'd put it on the trailer. I don't know how you go from " my boat looks fine" to " my boats underwater" in such a short time.

It is also very troubling that the boat did not sink tied to the dock. All the lines broke simultaneously in a minor storm ?

There's another shoe somewere that hasn't dropped yet.
 
All 4 bilge pumps in the 302 are direct-wired to the battery and always on. All have float switches and the fore and two aft within the hull can also be controlled manually from a helm rocker switch. If powered, they would together provide 3300gph within the hull assuming you had enough water in there to activate all three simultaneously.




The plates I was referring to are the two access plates atop the sponson. Factory plates are white and gasketed, and in some of the pictures from this owner there are black plates that dont appear gasketed.
 
Benthic2 said:
It is also very troubling that the boat did not sink tied to the dock. All the lines broke simultaneously in a minor storm ?

There's another shoe somewere that hasn't dropped yet.
Click to expand...


Agree, and how did the boat end up settling upwind from dock and the direction of the waves and wind as it sunk? wouldnt 2 foot waves and associated wind push the boat the opposite direction from where it sat?
Where are the bumpers on both boats, did he tie direct to the dock without any protection?


All things that make a man say Hmmmm..
 
Sky-guy said:
Agree, and how did the boat end up settling upwind from dock and the direction of the waves and wind as it sunk? wouldnt 2 foot waves and associated wind push the boat the opposite direction from where it sat?
Where are the bumpers on both boats, did he tie direct to the dock without any protection?

All things that make a man say Hmmmm..
Click to expand...

The 2 foot waves remark has me baffled. 2 ft waves would not have left that aluminum boat dry. I suspect the dock itself would have a hard time in 2 foot waves and the kayak trimaran too. Plus the owner said his dock is in a sheltered cove off the lake.

On the other hand leaving a boat on a mooring or dock unplugged for a month (where did you get that figure from?) should not be a big deal either. I see boats left for years at a time still floating at the dock without any attention whatsoever.
 
bligh said:
The 2 foot waves remark has me baffled. 2 ft waves would not have left that aluminum boat dry. I suspect the dock itself would have a hard time in 2 foot waves and the kayak trimaran too. Plus the owner said his dock is in a sheltered cove
Click to expand...

The skiff might have been bailed out before the photos. A light skiff would ride over the chop and probably wouldn't collect that much water. Chop would ride over a heavier boat. A cup full or two every few seconds could add up to a lot of water. It could have been a 3' chop. Owner was asleep so really has no knowledge of conditions. Owner lives a couple of miles north of Teslin village. The cove does not appear to be sheltered from northerly winds.
 
Benthic2 said:
It is also very troubling that the boat did not sink tied to the dock. All the lines broke simultaneously in a minor storm ?

There's another shoe somewere that hasn't dropped yet.
Click to expand...


The lines...where are the lines...and bumpers... Also, wouldn't a boat experiencing a relatively slow ingress of water sink fairly even keel straight down? Water would have plenty of time to find the bilge and fill from the bottom up. What would make it turn turtle and turn turtle "out there", away from dock?

Where is Paul Harvey when we need him? The rest of the story....
 
Last edited:
Benthic2 said:
I am having a hard time thinking that a boat can go from "OK" to sunk in about 8-10 hours. Presumably if you can see your boat from your house, you would see it multiple times per day. If you saw the boat low in the stern, you'd investigage. If you had any suspicions, you'd put it on the trailer. I don't know how you go from " my boat looks fine" to " my boats underwater" in such a short time.

It is also very troubling that the boat did not sink tied to the dock. All the lines broke simultaneously in a minor storm ?

There's another shoe somewere that hasn't dropped yet.
Click to expand...

Thus the rub.

I have salvaged probably several hundred boats, most tied to the dock.

They don't usually sink at the dock overnight from one or two reasons unless they get hung up in
a tidal area.

Take few of the statements made so far in this thread too seriously.... A few interconnecting ones may point the way, the rest is probably fluff.
 
Sky-guy said:
All 4 bilge pumps in the 302 are direct-wired to the battery and always on. All have float switches and the fore and two aft within the hull can also be controlled manually from a helm rocker switch. If powered, they would together provide 3300gph within the hull assuming you had enough water in there to activate all three simultaneously.




The plates I was referring to are the two access plates atop the sponson. Factory plates are white and gasketed, and in some of the pictures from this owner there are black plates that dont appear gasketed.
Click to expand...
Thank you. So you feel that one of the sources of the flooding was that the owner removed the gasketed sponson inspection plates, including their white bases, and replaced them with ungasketed black sidewall inspection plates?

I guess if that was the sources of the water in the sponson that sank the boat, perhaps the spondon really is needed for flotation after all?
 
Many of the salvaged boats I have raised had gasketed deck plates in splashwell.

But they were not doing their job for a variety of reasons resulting in progressive flooding and sinking.
 
psneeld said:
Many of the salvaged boats I have raised had gasketed deck plates in splashwell.

But they were not doing their job for a variety of reasons resulting in progressive flooding and sinking.
Click to expand...

This mystery s/b pretty easy to solve. Looks like the transom needs to sink only a few inches before those plates are underwater, so calculating how much water would need to slop over the transom and leak into the sponson to submerge the stern enough to put them underwater isn't going to be a difficult calculation.
 
Sky-guy said:
Secondly, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill QUOTE]

Will the boat founder if sponsons flooded and stern sinks 10 inches or more? If stern sinks less than 10" will the scuppers in the cockpit still drain? This area of discussion seems relevant.
Click to expand...
 
Sky-guy said:
I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.




I created an account here on TF to dispel some of the incorrect info here. First, The sponson does not provide buoyancy , just like any other sponson or offshore bracket. The hull provides adequate bouoyancy and the sponson serves as a mount for the engines and step, just like the words definition in the dictionary.


Third, this was not a outboard conversion on Cutwaters regular 30 hull. The cutwater 30 with volvo's is a displacement hull. The 302 is a completely different mold and a planing hull with a double step and flow interrupters. Entirely different beasts...
/QUOTE]


The Cutwater 30 is clearly not a displacement hull.

Click to expand...
 
Delfin said:
Thank you. So you feel that one of the sources of the flooding was that the owner removed the gasketed sponson inspection plates, including their white bases, and replaced them with ungasketed black sidewall inspection plates?
Click to expand...

Still mystery even if that is the answer. This owner chose to replace the plates right before or during his trip? He replaced them immediately after they got home? Does this seem like the kind of project this guy would take on at any point after getting the boat? I don't remember a mention of anything like this.

Is it possible the dealer put in the wrong plates when assembling? that seems more likely...
 
The black plates were likely installed by the salvage contractor for his purposes.
 
firstbase said:
Still mystery even if that is the answer. This owner chose to replace the plates right before or during his trip? He replaced them immediately after they got home? Does this seem like the kind of project this guy would take on at any point after getting the boat? I don't remember a mention of anything like this.

Is it possible the dealer put in the wrong plates when assembling? that seems more likely...
Click to expand...

No but the Cutwater's owner who joined the thread had suggested that the inspection ports were changed. I was just asking if that was his assumption. Not sure the dealer would be installing basic equipment like this, unless Cutwater sent them a partially completed boat, which I guess is possible.

But the idea that the owner of the sunk boat changed them seems pretty implausible.
 
Delfin said:
No but the Cutwater's owner who joined the thread had suggested that the inspection ports were changed. I was just asking if that was his assumption. Not sure the dealer would be installing basic equipment like this, unless Cutwater sent them a partially completed boat, which I guess is possible.

But the idea that the owner of the sunk boat changed them seems pretty implausible.
Click to expand...

I'd guess OEM since the surveyors reports said nothing to contrary other than the covers were not watertight. BTW, the maritime lawyers who have apparently been engaged are pretty heavy hitters. As is the surveying group Intermaritime Consultants who had the law firm as a client.
 
If it goes to trial, reliance on "experts" may not be necessary. This is a rare case in which the very same boat - not just a sistership or model or simulation - can be sunk at the very same dock, multiple times if needed to demonstrate the vulnerability. After all it is already a constructive loss. The demonstrations can be done in front of lawyer agreed to, or court appointed observers. The legal questions then become what were the standards of seaworthiness the factory was obliged to deliver, and whether any non-authorized modifications were made that affect the outcome. They wouldn't inexpensive experiments, except when compared to the legal bill for both parties.
 
It could be quite inexpensive. Put a garden hose into the bracket well and put power to the bilge pumps. See if the pumps can keep up with the ingress.

Or power up the pumps and back the trailer down the ramp. Let bracket be swamped and see if pumps keep up.
 
Ski in NC said:
It could be quite inexpensive. Put a garden hose into the bracket well and put power to the bilge pumps. See if the pumps can keep up with the ingress.

Or power up the pumps and back the trailer down the ramp. Let bracket be swamped and see if pumps keep up.
Click to expand...

You could also easily test the proposed theory by the Cutwater owner above that the sponson isn't needed for flotation. It would hold around 1200# of water, so raise the motors and ask the offensive front five for the Seattle Seahawks to stand on the transom and see whether you can drop the stern 10" or so.
 
Thanks for chiming in. See questions below



Sky-guy said:
I know as I own a 2018 302. I've put 140 hours on her over the summer since I took delivery in June. I watched my hull(#56) built from the fiberglass up through multiple phases of the build and know this boat inside and out.
Click to expand...


I'm curious what your HIN is? I ask, wondering what the relative product numbers are for your boat vs the sunken one. The sunken boat's HIN is FMLC3023J718, suggesting it is hull #3 of the 302 series. Boat's change through production, sometimes quite a bit, so I'm trying to calibrate hiow much one should presume the subject boat was built the same as your boat.


Sky-guy said:
I created an account here on TF to dispel some of the incorrect info here. First, The sponson does not provide buoyancy , just like any other sponson or offshore bracket. The hull provides adequate bouoyancy and the sponson serves as a mount for the engines and step, just like the words definition in the dictionary.
Click to expand...


The sponson most certainly does provide buoyancy. The pictures clearly show the water line well above the bottom of the sponson, so it is partially submerged, thereby creating buoyancy. One of the surveyors even calculated the buoyancy, and calculate how much deeper the transom would have floated were the sponson flooded to the water line and no longer providing any buoyancy, and also how much more weight would be applied if the sponson were completely filled with water as it would have been if flooded via the deck plates.


Sky-guy said:
Secondly, the sponson can be swamped, and the waterproof control conduits sit above the waterline inside the sponson, then stovepipe up 10 inches inside the hull. last time I checked, water cant travel uphill :)
Click to expand...


The survey suggests otherwise, at least for the subject boat. And the stove pipe in the survey photos are more like 7-8", not 10'. Perhaps this are changes over the production of the boat.


Sky-guy said:
Third, this was not a outboard conversion on Cutwaters regular 30 hull. The cutwater 30 with volvo's is a displacement hull. The 302 is a completely different mold and a planing hull with a double step and flow interrupters. Entirely different beasts.../
Wow, this really calls everything into questions, and casts a lot of doubt on everything you have said.



Sky-guy said:
While it is curious that he removed the plates and ran the boat without them, or replaced them with different plates...it doesnt have any bearing on the boat sinking. I surmise it likely contributed to the rate the boat took on water in a compromised state. That state being that he left the boat moored or anchored for over a month without shore power. Who knows how much water was already in the hull when the bad weather "happened"
Click to expand...


I dodn't know why you say anyone ran without the deck plates. Nobody has said that in anything I have read. And those deck plates appear to be factory installed. Perhaps it was just a production change between the subject hull and yours.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DDW said:
If it goes to trial, reliance on "experts" may not be necessary. This is a rare case in which the very same boat - not just a sistership or model or simulation - can be sunk at the very same dock, multiple times if needed to demonstrate the vulnerability. After all it is already a constructive loss. The demonstrations can be done in front of lawyer agreed to, or court appointed observers. The legal questions then become what were the standards of seaworthiness the factory was obliged to deliver, and whether any non-authorized modifications were made that affect the outcome. They wouldn't inexpensive experiments, except when compared to the legal bill for both parties.
Click to expand...


I agree. Let's go sink it again. Road trip!
 
Okay, I am tired. Someone send me a message when the courts make a decision or there is a successful arbritation agreement.
 
OK, the plot thickens.


Those deck plates WERE changed at some point. In his photo showing the separated steering tie rod early in his ownership, the deck plates are visible and they are beige colored. In the later survey photos they are black.


So WHEN were they changed, WHY were they changed, and did the change degrade the water tight integrity of the sponson?
 
Spash resistant and waterproof are miles apart.

Not sure if any screw or press in small circular plate fitting is rated waterproof.

Many suppositions here from pictures or someone's unsupported verbage are pretty thin in my mind... Again, I wouldn't put any in an accident report without further supporting evidence that the "supposition" was relavent.

Maybe more are than what meets my eye, but in a thread versus spread out with indexing on a conference table, my old school mind isn't connecting all the dots some are. :)
 
twistedtree said:
OK, the plot thickens.


Those deck plates WERE changed at some point. In his photo showing the separated steering tie rod early in his ownership, the deck plates are visible and they are beige colored. In the later survey photos they are black.


So WHEN were they changed, WHY were they changed, and did the change degrade the water tight integrity of the sponson?
Click to expand...

Spray coated on one side only and reversible? The boat was made in Washington with initial service work and commissioning done about 150 miles away in Port Alberni on Vancouver Is. The sponsons were opened up by dealer.

As PSN says, many dots to connect. One thing we know for sure, this boat took on lots of water.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Two feet in!
Replies
20
Views
2K
AlanT
AlanT
Marco Flamingo
My new GE 12V fridge
Replies
7
Views
3K
Marco Flamingo
Marco Flamingo
Magneto
How do you crew your boat?
Replies
13
Views
3K
O C Diver
O C Diver
Portage_Bay
An interesting read on the security of GPS
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
AMG
A
alfamike
  • Locked
For Sale: Sold- High Seas Marine SSB – HF Radio Transceiver – 150 watts
Replies
1
Views
557
alfamike
alfamike

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom