Gludy's New Mainsail Reefing System - Dispute

[Gludy]

Magnum
I have read the posts on the main thread about your new boat - all very exciting but I could not find answer as to why you decided the 'spare' boat was going to be a sailing boat instead of another MoBo although I do see you have not given up a MoBo.

 

[Magnum]

Magnum
I have read the posts on the main thread about your new boat - all very exciting but I could not find answer as to why you decided the 'spare' boat was going to be a sailing boat instead of another MoBo although I do see you have not given up a MoBo.

Long story Gludy.

In short wanted to move to sail for years. SWMBO didn't. I've talked her round. Predator 72 has defective gel-coat. Sunseeker offered me new boat, then reneged on the deal. The case will be heard in the High Court this year.

 

[Gludy]

The interesting thing will be after you have the sail boat which one you will prefer

 

[pvb]

PVB
Butterfly the infamous Fastcat had a survey and yet had major problems since. A surbet is not by any means an insurance policy.

No, it's not an insurance policy. But after your experiences with new boats, many people will just think that you were foolish to buy another one without checking that it was OK before parting with your money, and then resorting to your internet rants afterwards to try to embarrass the builders. Maybe I'm just voicing the opinion other people are too reticent to express.

 

[Gludy]

I can see why you think that but I am at a loss to understand why you think me not having a survey lets the builder of a new boat of their obligations to provide a functional boat.

Can I also state that you are being very unfair - what you call my internet rants led to the current builder carrying out major works that a surveyor would have missed for certain and prior to that with Trader, if anything, I provided a timely warning of a rogue trader that may have saved some victims but alas not all.

So answer the question - is the builder responsible for providing a functional boat fit for purpose or not? If they are then do I not have the right to expose bad practice? You seem to me to be missing the main point and just intent of following a critical path towards the customer rather than blaming the bad workmanship where it belongs on the builder.

I really think what you called my rants on the MoBo forum about Trader saved some victims but even then there were souls like yourself who could not see the wood for the trees and concentrated on myself for exposing the truth.

As regards those who state I am some sort of super critical customer from heel - frankly that is a cheap jibe. If you were faced with the situation what would you have done? Lay down on not said a word?

Frankly the boating industry gets away with very low customer standards because many a customers are frozen in the headlights like a scared rabbit worried about lowering the value of their boat. I applaud Magnum for his Sunseeker court case and the fact he is open about what he also considers poor after sales service.

 

[fireball]

<snip>Frankly the boating industry gets away with very low customer standards because many a customers are frozen in the headlights like a scared rabbit worried about lowering the value of their boat. I applaud Magnum for his Sunseeker court case and the fact he is open about what he also considers poor after sales service.

Gludy - you must admit - in recent times you've had very bad luck with buying boats - and I have to question why - because to raise the sort of money you are spending you cannot be stupid - and it can't really be 'your fault' ..
so I look at the type of boat you're buying - and they are (i believe) top end highly bespoke units - ok, based on a standard design (hull molds) and some of the kit will be standard I guess - but there is a lot of scope for personal specification - and because these are almost 1 offs you need a very experienced build team and designers to get it right ...

The sort of boats most of us have are either AWBs - straight out the mold and snagging is still present - but not on your scale - and the equipment onboard is pretty basic - or MABs which are basically AWBs from the past - on both of these the age & volume is enough to have resolved any glaring errors during design and build of the first few models ....

I wouldn't be dreaming of specing the windlass or waterheater or power units - they would be a tickbox on a requirements page and you get very little choice in what is installed - and if you want something different then it's almost a 'on your head be-it' - at which point you get a different engineer to fit it and it's done to the kit manufacturers spec and not to what the builder thinks they might get away with ...

What I'm trying to say is that for the most of us - buying a boat is like walking into PC World and grabbing a PC, choosing a mouse, keyboard and monitor - a box of software and off you go ... and this works the vast majority of the time ...
you're recent experiences seems to be more along the lines of walking into PC World - going up to one of the spotty youths and go around with him - taking a large box and then choosing the motherboard, processor, memory cards, power supply, DVD drive, HD, graphics card, sound module - adding a second powersupply for backup and another graphics card - picking up a couple of monitors and graphics pad - then wandering over to the counter and getting someone to put it all together for you - at which point you find that there are incompatibilities in the drivers and hardware - so whilst you should have a mahussive PC capable of running the worlds money markets you're struggling to stick it together with a roll of gaffertape ... and the spotty youth is on teabreak!
Actually - that's a bit unfair to spotty youths capable of building PC's from scratch ...
So - Gludy - it's all your fault because you won't just bite the bullet and buy a Bavaria ....

 

[Resolution]

How to cut off your own nose?

i've just spent an hour reading (some of) the incredibly long thread about this situation on Gludy's forum. It should be made a case study at business college, as a classic example of how to make a poor deal worse.

1. Clearly there were some faults with the boat as handed over.
2. Paul is not an expert sailor so before selecting and speccing a bespoke tailored yacht of this complexity he should really have employed an expert project manager to advise him and oversee that he got what he was paying for.
3. Sorting out the valid warranty matters from other matters is not always easy and this case must have cried out for an independant expert to cut through the constantly varying and sometimes imprecise claims made by Paul. There clearly were several faults that should be fixed under warranty.
4. I am surprised that the manufacturer, knowing Paul's history with Trader, did not ensure there was such a neutral arbitrator to hand.
5. Once both sides have dug in, there can be no winners. So the manufacturer should have considered whether or not to blow perhaps 0.5% more of the sales price on making the "unreasonable" customer happy. The customer should have considered whether the stress of picking a major fight is compatible with enjoying a luxury toy.
6. Keep your agruments private if you want to reach an agreement. Going public on the internet is guaranteed to make a solution far harder.


Conclusion? As one forumite has speculated, maybe Paul gets more fullfillment out of a drawn out public battle than he does from enjoying his sailing. What a pity.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

Don't forget that Magnum, who would appear to be nobody's fool nor to suffer them gladly and wasn't buying his first boat either, is having major challenges with one of the big three boat-builders who have a huge presence in the market and, while not using the Internet to apply pressure on the builder, is taking them to court from what he said. Yet over on the MoBo form is another poster who is very happy with the same builder and their product - there's just doesn't seem to be any consistency in the product or the service at all.

 

[Gludy]

Fireball
A n ice detailed post but factually wrong.

Yes there are many additions to Suliere -= Yes but these have not gone wrong. What has hone wrong is basic stuff. Frankly the rigging in question as Leisurefurl state can be seen by any experienced sailor to be wrong.
The biggest problem on the boat was the failure to fit the structure to the tramps so they were not secured properly - totally hidden and would not have been spotted in a survey but part of every one of the almost 100 boats made to date - not a complex add on.
To take your example of PC world its like ordering on line with Dell and ticking what options you want all of which the maker states they can do and then having the motherboard go wrong.
The real bespoke part of the boat is the layout and furnishing inside.

A project manager would have had be there all the time and in effect manage the boat build or visit weekly over a period of 18 months and that is an absurd cost.

So no Fireball - the problems on Suliere just like this rigging are basic, really basic.

 

[Gludy]

"Keep your agruments private if you want to reach an agreement. Going public on the internet is guaranteed to make a solution far harder. "

I agree with that but when the builder refuses to budge as this builder does you are left with no option.
Going public the first time with St Francis resulted in a major basic problem being fixed and me getting a refund for work done that I would have otherwise not got.

When going public with Trader and exposing the terrible situation with them I managed to get a full refund plus £100k towards my expenses so how can you possibly argue it does not work? I was the only customer to have ever managed that with them the rest were tied up in court and never got a cent.

Yet when fighting Trader there was the same criticism of me just like those now missing the entire point of this thread. For exposing a real terrible situation that went public on TV twice, the last with the BBC, I get the blame for being some sort of cutsomer from hell... I do not understand that.

"sometimes imprecise claims made by Paul"
Please detail the imprecision.


So in practice, when left with no option, it has proven very effective and the facts fly in the face of your claims. Agree"

 

[Gludy]

" is taking them to court from what he said. Yet over on the MoBo form is another poster who is very happy with the same builder and their product - there's just doesn't seem to be any consistency in the product or the service at all."

The voice of reason

If St Francis Marine were in the UK I would have taken them to Court because the case is so black and white and they have the resources to pay.

Did Magnum have a survey on his new boat? Or did he rely on the Sunseeker reputation?
If he did then the survey did not expose the fault and if he did not then he did exactly the same as myself.

If I were Magnum i would take Sunseeker to Court. In my situation so far I have had the most important faults corrected and paid for only by going public.

The boat before me a St Francis 50 called Bamboo has real major problems that are much more serious than mine and has not achieved satisfaction. In public they stated they had failed to get the warranty work honoured whist they watched me get mine done. They admitted their tactics of keeping it private had failed. Both boats suffered from the manager leaving St Francis, a manager who was not replaced. I did not know this until afterwards.

The purpose of this thread is to expose the deplorable standards of the St Francis rigging and I do not think anyone disputes that it is deplorable. Also to tell everyone that they do not honour warranty claims very well. Even though the thread is discussing other than that matter the thread still achieves its main purpose.

 

[Magnum]

Don't forget that Magnum, who would appear to be nobody's fool nor to suffer them gladly and wasn't buying his first boat either, is having major challenges with one of the big three boat-builders who have a huge presence in the market and, while not using the Internet to apply pressure on the builder, is taking them to court from what he said. Yet over on the MoBo form is another poster who is very happy with the same builder and their product - there's just doesn't seem to be any consistency in the product or the service at all.

Not all boats Sunseeker make are bad. Mine was, and I know there are others.

The circumstances surrounding my boat are very different to Gludy's with gel-coat deterioration being the main problem. This obviously was not apparent prior to or during delivery. When the problem came to light and Robert Braithwaite then offered me a new boat, I believed him. Unfortunately it didn't happen, hence Court action.

That's as much as I'm going to say about the Court action so please don't ask any questions. I'm just illustrating the point that just because a builder has happy customers it doesn't mean they can't have unhappy ones who are perfectly reasonable.

 

[Gludy]

OK - understood about the Court case.
In fact many of my problems including the most important ones would not have been picked up on a survey just like the survey for the Fastcat Butterfly failed to pick up their problems.

St Francis had made many good boats and we researched every single owner we could and every one was happy. So just like Sunseeker who have a good reputation bad boats can still be made.

The reefing system is so basic that when I look at it now, with the benefit of some sailing experience, it impossible to think that they did not know how bad it was. Leisurefurl could not believe it either and were amazed that their advice was not followed.

We ordered steel shoes for the keels and they said yes they can do those.

In out first bad weather one just fell off leaving all the glue on the keel - it was clear there was nowhere near enough glue later admitted by St Francis Marine. No survey could have spotted that one.

The St Francis response was a list of four abstract ideas as to why it may have fallen off including too long in the water and too long on the hard out of the water but no warranty.
Later when I went public and pushed this point they stated they would pay to clean up the keel and remove the other shoe cleaning off that keel as well so as to leave me without any shoes. I then pushed pointing out that I would agree but as that left me without shoes they would have to refund me the cost of the shoes - their answer was amazing - they refused asking why should they pay for my idea? That is a staggering answer and I pushed suggesting that they send a shoe and the yard in Grenada fit both again with me losing the warranty after that. They agreed. So even on the most basic things I have to go public and fight.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Don't forget that Magnum, who would appear to be nobody's fool nor to suffer them gladly and wasn't buying his first boat either, is having major challenges with one of the big three boat-builders who have a huge presence in the market and, while not using the Internet to apply pressure on the builder, is taking them to court from what he said. Yet over on the MoBo form is another poster who is very happy with the same builder and their product - there's just doesn't seem to be any consistency in the product or the service at all.

Am I right in thinking that Magnum's problem is with dark gelcoat degrading in the Med? I confess I was a little surprised to hear that dark gelcoat would even be considered in such circumstances. In gliding anything other than white is an absolute no-no, because of the established danger of heat damage to the structure. Even identifying letters have to be grey rather than black for the same reason.

 

[sarabande]

I was involved in a series of Admirals Cup boats in the 70s. We had a very experienced and well-funded owner, who was canny enough to be able to spot 'issues' arising during the build himself.

However, he did employ various technical specialists (electrics, rigging, winches, ergonomics) to check the build, and spent a great deal of time ensuring that the yard building the boats was very clear about the role of these specialists, who were brought in from time to time as appropriate. Plus me as a team member to act as his eyes and ears when needed.

We also had regular visits from Olin Stephens, or a member of his practice.

My point is that in the simpler, less complex, boat-building world of four decades ago, the 'best practice' was to treat a boat build as a project involving not just the owner and builder, but also temporarily employed specialists whose experience was not to be found in the builder's company. Boats are by an order of magnitude more complex today, so the need for proper supervision is even higher.

Modifying a standard build, as Gludy, Magnum, jfm, and others have realised, is the best way to put 'yourself' into the boat. The difference is that Gludy's builder does not appear to have the necessary skills in quality control and some technical knowledge to translate certain of Gludy's ideas and requirements into reality, as well as to identify and remedy some pretty basic design and construction flaws prior to sign-off.

If the rigging is not up to scratch, if keel shoes fall off, then yes, such events would probably have been prevented by having a specialist oversight during construction, but should never have been allowed to be passed as fit for purpose during construction.

I really, really hope that Gludy gets this sorted out, so that he can enjoy the fantastic potential of his wonderful ocean going cat, and that he and his family can use the boat as intended, without being forever shadowed by unwanted, and unnecessary, dramas.

 

[Gludy]

That is a very good perspective on the change over the last 40 years.

It would simply have not been possible to supervise every day of the build and so for example be there the day when they put the shoes on unless I had a full time supervisor employed for 18 months. St Francis were about 7 months late with the boat but we never applied pressure as we did not want it rushed in anyway.

St Francis boasted to the previous hull owner to us that they had never paid for training of staff with the exception of the office staff - maybe there lies the problem.

Nevertheless the reefing system is so basically flawed that it is hard to accept the Duncan the owner of St Francis did not know how bad it was - he changed it in Sea Trails and declared himself happy with it but when it failed across the Atlantic he supplied new plastic sheaves, new winch drums and paid for the roller to be lifted 6mm then he just stopped. Those replacements never dealt with the core problem.

Duncan also refused to discuss the reefing system on my own forum and in private. Such actions leave a sour taste. To date nobody has done otherwise than condemn the reefing system but ST Francis will not lift a finger to correct it. If that is how they want their reputation to be then so be it.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Duncan also refused to discuss the reefing system on my own forum and in private. Such actions leave a sour taste. To date nobody has done otherwise than condemn the reefing system but ST Francis will not lift a finger to correct it. If that is how they want their reputation to be then so be it.

There seem to me to be two issues here: design and construction. Did you know what reefing system was proposed when you ordered the boat? If you did, and they built what you expected then you may have limited grounds for redress if you then decide that you don't like it much. You'd be on much firmer ground if they supplied something different from what you ordered.

Is the reefing system you have the same as on other boats of the class, or is a custom one? If a custom one, what information about it were you given before ordering?

 

[Gludy]

We simply ordered the Leisurefurl reefing system and they stated they could supply the boat fitted with it.
We therefore assumed it would be fitted in accordance with the Leisurefurl advice.
We have recently discovered it was not.
At no time was the rigging ever discussed other than for me to tell them I only wanted the very best blocks and deck equipment.
They have a duty to supply a working functional system and they have not done that.

Almost all of this last year we have been stuck in marinas or yards fixing things and it only now that we started to sail that we realised just how bad the system is. We then had professional riggers look at it and they were horrified as was Leisurefurl themselves.

In a number of other instances St Francis act outside the makers requirements.

Two examples:-
A current dispute over on my forum is this:-
-------------
5. Windless
We have a Maxwell 220 Windless on Suliere.
Maxwell state clearly in their fitting instructions that an approved ignition proof breaker is required. Suliere does not have this breaker to isolate the windless so if anything goes wrong this is the procedure that St Francis expects me to do:-
Switch off gene/shore power - open up the seating area to switch off inverters - switch off battery isolater - open up the main cupboard under the inner helm and locate with Mastervolt box has the fuse for the breaker - unscrew the lid of that box and then unscrew the large fuse.
My case on this is very simple - the maker states it is a requirement not an option and there are times when I may, for safety reasons, want to quickly isolate the windless.
To date St Francis Marine have refused stating the way to do it is as described above. I have countered with the fact it is a requirement (I have yet to have a boat without one!).
Now in Duncan's latest post he offers to send me a unit meaning I fit it at my expense.
My view is that he should pay for the correct breaker as specified in the 2200 manual to be fitted to the boat. It should have been there in the first place and when I paid for the windless I expected it to be fitted in accordance with Maxwell' instructions. There is now a lot more work to do than there would have been fitting it at the time.
I welcome opinions on this. So anyone please post your opinion.
The issue to me is simple, I think when you order a new boat and pay for a certain bit of kit on it you expect that kit to be fitted with the makers instructions and in particular with their requirements.
-------------
Yet another is that 3 boats that I know of have had trouble with the undersized car on the main traveller. Lewmar are a good company that i can only praise for after sales service and with one boat they replaced the part but explained the system was undersized and so outside Lewmar warranty but still St Francis refused to change the car. So St Francis insist that you claim all equipment failures through the manufacturer of that equipment yet they fit things outside the warranty of the manufacturer so the customer ends up having no warranty from either the manufacturer of the equipment or St Francis Marine. That is totally unreasonable but typical of their attitude.

 

[sarabande]

Have you considered professional arbitration, rather than getting yourself involved so deeply ?

 

[Gludy]

I am not sure what you mean by so deeply.
I take a whole range of steps to solve problems before going public.

I am in the Uk for a few weeks at present and after failing to even get Duncan of St Francis Marine to discuss the issue in private or public and wanting to try and actually manage to rescue some sailing out of this season which ends on 1st June, I ordered the riggers to rectify the system after discussing it at length with them. I could not wait.
Arbitration to be fair would mean the person seeing the system out in the Caribbean etc. So arbitration would occur after the system is fixed. I certainly would agree but I do not see St Francis agreeing to it.

Part of the tactics of St Francis is to wear a customer out by not answering questions and the issue then drags on and on and some customers just give in. I have actually given in on this point of reefing because I am not willing to ruin the last remaining 6 weeks of the season. This thread is basically a name and shame thread.

As regards other issues such as not fitting parts such as the windless to the makers spec then yes I would agree to impartial and binding arbitration. I would also agree to it on the reefing system given that I have the obvious documentary evidence of how it could not work properly. I do not think St Francis Marine would though.

By now I know the spots of the leopard I am dealing with. I even get warranty work done which i document and do not even bother claiming because it simply too much hassle.

This thread is not about a resolution of the reefing system or even getting St Francis to pay for it. They have won on that. Their stone wall tactics and smear behaviour whereby they smear me or any contractor who works on the boat have won on this rigging question - I cannot spend any more time on that. This thread is simply a name and shame thread. Other unresolved issues are still under discussion on the Multihulls4us website.

Typical of St Francis is an attempt to shame the qualified electricians who worked on my boat in the past on issues they have paid for. They published a before and after photo on the website:- post 96
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3451&page=5

This was typical St Francis Marine Tactics - however they had forgotten that this work was done not by my contractor but by theirs in Cape Town when the Mastervolt agent had to rewire their work. Once caught out like this they never apologise but just move onto the next smear.

The bottom line here is that nobody except St Francis Marine who refuse to answer questions on it disputes how bad the reefing system is and I am therefore putting this standard forward as a standard of work they are proud of.