Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
Expect them to fall off again if you take the boat to sea unless you modify the design of the shoes and or method of attachment!
Gludy's New Mainsail Reefing System - Dispute
- Thread starter Gludy
- Start date
Expect them to fall off again if you take the boat to sea unless you modify the design of the shoes and or method of attachment!
Gludy
Well-Known Member
They did not use enough glue plus we are changing the glue type plus we are Keying the shoe.
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
It is unfortunate that this, the Trader and the other boat in between which I cant remember, all had different problems. I also disagree with jhr that you are a perfectionist - these are all fundamental issues - but on this one I am struggling to find any sympathy.
Just looking at the pictures in the first post, it is a blatantly awful design. In fact design is being too polite to it. It seems that you were not able to identify the problem at the time of specification or delivery, and to deal with it at the time. So its not the manufacturers fault that it has taken you a trip across the pond to find that out.
Just looking at the pictures in the first post, it is a blatantly awful design. In fact design is being too polite to it. It seems that you were not able to identify the problem at the time of specification or delivery, and to deal with it at the time. So its not the manufacturers fault that it has taken you a trip across the pond to find that out.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
+1.
It's become a pattern.
It's become a pattern.
bigwow
Well-Known Member
I disagree. The man has come from powerboats and took it on trust that the SAILboat manufacturer knew what he was doing rigging wise. SFM obviously do not, if the pics are anything to go by. The most Gludy can be accused off is naivety in trusting the manufacturer.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
"Just looking at the pictures in the first post, it is a blatantly awful design. In fact design is being too polite to it. It seems that you were not able to identify the problem at the time of specification or delivery, and to deal with it at the time. So its not the manufacturers fault that it has taken you a trip across the pond to find that out."
I made a whole series of videos about choosing and building Suliere. I presented myself on those videos as a sailing novice having come from power boats. St Francis marine knew that.
I really did trust St Francis Marine for the sailing advice - they claimed to be the experts.
This system failed in crossing the Atlantic and St Francis Marine sent parts etc - we had it modified to their instructions in Grenada - none of it worked so now they just refuse any further warranty work and will not even answer questions on it.
Looking at the system now with eyes that have some experience I am in wonder as to how they think it could have ever worked - its is so bad and so against LesiureFurl's advice. So given that we told the world we were newbies and had this on many videos - St Francis Marine had an extra duty to ensure the rigging worked.
However, regardless of the level of knowledge of the customer, St Francis Marine in installing this system demonstrate a total lack of understanding of even the most basic of rigging standards and yet they claim it is fine and in as much as they claim to be proud of their boats they claim to be proud of this rigging. No matter how you look at it St Francis Marine are responsible for the fact that their design and installation does not work.
As already explained I am paying a lot to improve this system and St Francis not a cent - I just want the sailing world to appreciate what the standards of St Francis Marine are - hence this thread. This type of thread on forums around the world is also only the start - there are videos and all the resources at my disposal being used to advertise to the world just what standard you can expect from St Francis Marine. They set their standard and I am offering them free advertising of that standard.
I made a whole series of videos about choosing and building Suliere. I presented myself on those videos as a sailing novice having come from power boats. St Francis marine knew that.
I really did trust St Francis Marine for the sailing advice - they claimed to be the experts.
This system failed in crossing the Atlantic and St Francis Marine sent parts etc - we had it modified to their instructions in Grenada - none of it worked so now they just refuse any further warranty work and will not even answer questions on it.
Looking at the system now with eyes that have some experience I am in wonder as to how they think it could have ever worked - its is so bad and so against LesiureFurl's advice. So given that we told the world we were newbies and had this on many videos - St Francis Marine had an extra duty to ensure the rigging worked.
However, regardless of the level of knowledge of the customer, St Francis Marine in installing this system demonstrate a total lack of understanding of even the most basic of rigging standards and yet they claim it is fine and in as much as they claim to be proud of their boats they claim to be proud of this rigging. No matter how you look at it St Francis Marine are responsible for the fact that their design and installation does not work.
As already explained I am paying a lot to improve this system and St Francis not a cent - I just want the sailing world to appreciate what the standards of St Francis Marine are - hence this thread. This type of thread on forums around the world is also only the start - there are videos and all the resources at my disposal being used to advertise to the world just what standard you can expect from St Francis Marine. They set their standard and I am offering them free advertising of that standard.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Rigger Mortice
"+1.
It's become a pattern."
Where is the pattern?
"+1.
It's become a pattern."
Where is the pattern?
Gludy
Well-Known Member
MoodyNick
Thinking about your post a little more, I struggle with your logic.
You agree with your comment
"it is a blatantly awful design. In fact design is being too polite to it"
So why given that standard is not the builder responsible? Somehow the builder really messes up and then the customer who did not specify other than the rigging had to use the best components get the blame!
On that logic if a car salesman sells a new car to lets say a person who has little technical knowledge and the car does not function the person is to blame?
Ot lets say they sell the new car to an experienced mechanic who fails to notice something wrong then the customer is to blame?
Sounds to me as if the brain washing of the boating industry does work on some people
For the record the second boat you refer to had no problems at all as it was never even started to be built. Myself and another chap who also had a clear broken contract took the dealer to court and we both won - I seized a boat he had in order to get my deposit back and the other chap made the dealer personally bankrupt after taking my advice to have a personal guarantee and so was protected when the dealer went bankrupt. So no pattern there.
The first boat the Trader, well I Frankly did a public service there or maybe you would have simply not complained went the keel fell of and the transom started to part? Again no pattern there.
I can take this sniping at me and I can answer back although I do think that your line of thought is wonderful fodder for the rogues in the boating industry - I look forward to the response
P./S. I did have boats before the Trader without any such issues.
Thinking about your post a little more, I struggle with your logic.
You agree with your comment
"it is a blatantly awful design. In fact design is being too polite to it"
So why given that standard is not the builder responsible? Somehow the builder really messes up and then the customer who did not specify other than the rigging had to use the best components get the blame!
On that logic if a car salesman sells a new car to lets say a person who has little technical knowledge and the car does not function the person is to blame?
Ot lets say they sell the new car to an experienced mechanic who fails to notice something wrong then the customer is to blame?
Sounds to me as if the brain washing of the boating industry does work on some people
For the record the second boat you refer to had no problems at all as it was never even started to be built. Myself and another chap who also had a clear broken contract took the dealer to court and we both won - I seized a boat he had in order to get my deposit back and the other chap made the dealer personally bankrupt after taking my advice to have a personal guarantee and so was protected when the dealer went bankrupt. So no pattern there.
The first boat the Trader, well I Frankly did a public service there or maybe you would have simply not complained went the keel fell of and the transom started to part? Again no pattern there.
I can take this sniping at me and I can answer back although I do think that your line of thought is wonderful fodder for the rogues in the boating industry - I look forward to the response
P./S. I did have boats before the Trader without any such issues.
Last edited:
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
I think it's more that someone who buys an estate car isn't really in a position to complain about the lack of a folding roof.
What matters is not whether this works as you would like it to, or as well as you'd like it to, but whether it is what they contracted to sell you. If you looked at one of their boats, read the documentation and then said "I'll have one of those" then you are in a weak position should some aspects of "some of those" prove unsatisfactory.
Incidentally, do I gather that you had little sailing experience when you bought a sailing boat and then set straight off across the Atlantic? In which case, you have my serious respect!
SHUG
Well-Known Member
I have come late to this thread and I can scarecly believe that the OP is being attacked by several posters. If you buy anything at all it has to be "fit for purpose".
In my view "design" comes some way after sound engineering and the OP has every right to complain about this badly engineered and poorly executed system.
In my view "design" comes some way after sound engineering and the OP has every right to complain about this badly engineered and poorly executed system.
capsco
Well-Known Member
Bilgediver
Well-Known Member
Get someone local to confirm the shoe is not too stiff to allow it to flex should the boat flex beneath it be flexing. It might be worth considering splitting the shoe into more than one piece if this is a possibility . This could have been part of the previous failure mechanism which occured in heavy weather.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
No - its someone who buy an estate car when the car cannot be driven properly.
Raising and lowering the main is a basic part of any sailing boat - not really an option.
Sorry but that is not the case. If a builder offers to sell you a producty and you ask if he can add stainless steel keel; shoes and the responds YES - he supplies - you pay then they should be fit for purpose full stop.
The contract just states a Leisurefurl system fitted. I would expect that to be properly fitted so as to be functional - if that was not the case he could simply drop the parts on the coachroof and walk away. You point is totally invalid in English and South African law.
I took lessons and managed my Day Skipper practical. I already was commercially qualified for power boats and so the new part to me was just the cloth bit. I also had two highly experienced sailors with us for the trip.
Last edited:
Gludy
Well-Known Member
That is a good point and noted BilgeDiver - thank you.
pvb
Well-Known Member
Just out of interest, why did you specify a LeisureFurl system? As I understand it, you had no sailboat experience, and you decided on a New Zealand built furling system for a boat being built in South Africa, where there isn't a LeisureFurl agent.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Glad to answer the question.
I researched all the systems listened to all the pros and cons and chose Leisurefurl.
No in boom reefing system is made in SA, the same applies to engines and many other things on any sailing boat. I hope your remark is not a criticism?
Leisurefurl then made the boom and shipped it to SA. The also had the sail made in NZ.
Leisurefurl also visited St Francis Marine to explain the system but St Francis Marine chose not to follow the advice a fact I did not know until recently.
If you examine the rigging done by St Francis it is obvious to any experienced sailor that it is totally inadequate for the job - real basic design flaws.. That really has nothing to do with LeisureFurl or anyone else, its simple basic rigging done very badly. As regards the Leisurefurl system itself it all functions perfectly - I can turn the mandrel with my hand with the whole sail on it.
I researched all the systems listened to all the pros and cons and chose Leisurefurl.
No in boom reefing system is made in SA, the same applies to engines and many other things on any sailing boat. I hope your remark is not a criticism?
Leisurefurl then made the boom and shipped it to SA. The also had the sail made in NZ.
Leisurefurl also visited St Francis Marine to explain the system but St Francis Marine chose not to follow the advice a fact I did not know until recently.
If you examine the rigging done by St Francis it is obvious to any experienced sailor that it is totally inadequate for the job - real basic design flaws.. That really has nothing to do with LeisureFurl or anyone else, its simple basic rigging done very badly. As regards the Leisurefurl system itself it all functions perfectly - I can turn the mandrel with my hand with the whole sail on it.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I might also add that the people who did the real work on the LeisureFurl system where Sparcraft in Cape Town. The design of the run of the lines etc was left to St Francis.
We are very pleased with the system itself - it was a good choice.
We are very pleased with the system itself - it was a good choice.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
I still think there is a potential issue here, since the builder does seem to have fitted a Leisurefurl system - just not very well. Has he significantly diverged, though, from a standard Leisurefurl system? If he has, you have a good case. If he hasn't, you've just specified a duff product and the builder has much less responsibility. Had you seen one of his Leisurefurl installations before, and if so, was it significantly different?
Respect stands!
Gludy
Well-Known Member
The LeisureFurl system on the boat as supplied by Leisurefurl is fitted OK.
The lines to this system being the main halyard and the reefing line are not fitted in accordance with LesiureFurl guide lines nor to any standard of reefing anywhere. They are fitted so bad that they cannot be described as functional.
I go to a builder and spend my money which is good money. In return the builder offers me a product built with his expertise. The question becomes - should I reasonably expect the builder to know how to rig the two lines to the LeisureFurl properly? There is no doubt that the answer to this in law is YES and morally it is YES.
So far everyone agrees that the system, if it can be called that, is rubbish and breaches basic rigging rules. The total blame for that lies with the builder nobody else.
If I ask for a bit of equipment and the builder fits it properly for me only to find out later that the equipment is rubbish that is not the builders fault in SA law although as the supplier they are still responsible in EU law. But this is not the case here. The builder has totally failed on the most basic of standards to supply a functioning main sail reefing system and that builder will not even discuss the issues just stating that all man made things can be improved. That is what I am displaying so the world can see what standard to expect from St Francis Marine.
The lines to this system being the main halyard and the reefing line are not fitted in accordance with LesiureFurl guide lines nor to any standard of reefing anywhere. They are fitted so bad that they cannot be described as functional.
I go to a builder and spend my money which is good money. In return the builder offers me a product built with his expertise. The question becomes - should I reasonably expect the builder to know how to rig the two lines to the LeisureFurl properly? There is no doubt that the answer to this in law is YES and morally it is YES.
So far everyone agrees that the system, if it can be called that, is rubbish and breaches basic rigging rules. The total blame for that lies with the builder nobody else.
If I ask for a bit of equipment and the builder fits it properly for me only to find out later that the equipment is rubbish that is not the builders fault in SA law although as the supplier they are still responsible in EU law. But this is not the case here. The builder has totally failed on the most basic of standards to supply a functioning main sail reefing system and that builder will not even discuss the issues just stating that all man made things can be improved. That is what I am displaying so the world can see what standard to expect from St Francis Marine.
Resolution
Well-Known Member
For once I am in full agreement with Paul.
