Gludy
Well-Known Member
Thank You. 
Gludy's New Mainsail Reefing System - Dispute
- Thread starter Gludy
- Start date
Seven Spades
Well-Known Member
I once saw a consumer programme on TV where someone bought a non-functioning hi-fi, it would switch off after two hours.
It turned out that the buyer had no rights because the item was not faulty but was simply badly designed. It did not fall under the sale of goods act as not being of merchantable quality either, because there was nothing wrong with it, it just didn't work as expected which is not the same thing. This probably doesn't help you but will show you what you are up against.
It turned out that the buyer had no rights because the item was not faulty but was simply badly designed. It did not fall under the sale of goods act as not being of merchantable quality either, because there was nothing wrong with it, it just didn't work as expected which is not the same thing. This probably doesn't help you but will show you what you are up against.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I really do not think that applies - this is more akin to not being able to use the hi-fi without it blowing up and there is no doubt the reefing system is not fit for purpose./
Please remember I have given in trying to get St Francis to even talk about the reefing issue - I am paying to get it fixed. So I am not following any legal route anyway. I just want the world to know what how St Francis Marine operates and what standard of rigging you can expect from them. Hence this thread.
Please remember I have given in trying to get St Francis to even talk about the reefing issue - I am paying to get it fixed. So I am not following any legal route anyway. I just want the world to know what how St Francis Marine operates and what standard of rigging you can expect from them. Hence this thread.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Paul, you have been very selective here (as usual! ) re the information you have disclosed regarding the running rigging problems on Suliere.
I had a look around your vessel in August last year when she was ashore at Grenada Marine having warranty work carried out by Jaco Hamman from St Francis Marine. My visit was primarily to further investigate (with my surveyor’s hat on, on behalf of St Francis Marine) your claim at the time that there was evidence of hull foam core delamination in the forward inboard sides of both hulls. My survey colleague Ian had previously inspected Suliere a month earlier (again as requested by SFM).
The comments below re your rigging dispute are my own, based on my general observations of the vessel at the time of inspection, other information that subsequently came to light, and from perusal of (some of) the extensive threads re Suliere on your Multihulls Forum, and the numerous posts above in this thread.
Please note that I really have tried to write these thoughts as impartially as possible, simply to try and provide a bit of ‘balance’ to this thread (I see that Nordic is trying to do the same on your Shattering thread at Multihulls4Us, but you are not too impressed).
It is not my intention in the slightest to ‘have a go at you’ about anything, and I was not commissioned or requested by SFM to make this contribution to your thread – it is voluntary.
The above mentioned issue of delamination has already been extensively covered in the Dispute thread on your Forum - http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2429
So, please bear with me while I ‘fill in’ now with some background information (none of which is private or confidential) re Suliere and her rigging for general reference for the Scuttlebutt Forum readers.
I think that Suliere was the first catamaran built by St Francis Marine (SFM) to be fitted with the Leisurefurl in-boom reefing system. She is the 11th boat built so far to the 50’ design by Angelo Lavranos (previous boats were slightly smaller).
Further information about this class can be found at http://www.stfrancismarine.com/
I would hazard a guess that the previous ten SF 50 boats before Suliere were all fitted with fairly ‘conventional’ stackpack systems for the mainsail, where the fully battened sail drops in to a ‘bag’ supported by lazy jacks, and is then ‘zipped up’ to further protect it from the sun and elements.
The main sheets and jib sheets (no halyards or reefing lines) on these vessels were usually just led aft to winches on the cabin top, as shown below,
but Suliere has a fixed ‘wrap around’ windscreen which probably meant that there would not have been room to swing a winch handle if the sheet winches were mounted in the positions shown on the cabin top.
Here are a couple of photos (from the SFM website) of the base of the mast on a sistership with a stackpack system for the mainsail. It all looks neat and tidy, and easily accessible.
As can be seen in the photos, the only lines ‘led aft’ with this stackpack system were the mainsheet (double ended, so it can be adjusted from either port or starboard sides) and the two jib sheets.
Below is a drawing of the deck plan for Suliere, as supplied by the Builders, showing a schematic arrangement of the lines led aft.
While below is a photo (taken and supplied by SFM) showing the deck / cabin top layout of Suliere; the control lines for the mainsail can be seen going up to the two racks of sheaves and then aft to the winches that are hidden behind and below the windscreen.
Here is a link to the Leisurefurl Manufacturer's website - http://www.leisurefurl.co.nz/leisurefurl.html
While here is a link to the photos Paul took of the various fittings used to lead the lines from the mast aft to the cockpit - http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/
I guess that one would normally hoist and furl the sail in / out at the mast, same as with the Stackpack mainsails. It looks like you can just ‘wind it in’ using a winch handle in the socket on the forward side of the mast, although they do offer an electric motor drive as an option.
But it would appear that Paul specified that the halyard and reefing / furling line for the Leisurefurl mainsail should be led aft, so that the helmsperson and crew could control these activities from the cockpit.
The starboard mainsheet, mainsail reefing / furling line and jib sheet can be controlled from the helm, while the mainsail halyard is led aft to the port side bank of jammers and winch, with the port mainsheet and jib sheet.
Below is a photo (taken by my colleague Ian on his visit to Suliere) of the gooseneck on Suliere’s mast, showing the furling / reefing rope drum for the Leisurefurl on the forward side of the mast. The small yellow rope is the furling / reefing line.
This small yellow rope goes down to this turning block http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/5554105308/
at the base of the mast, and then up to the fabricated S/S assembly with sheaves on the cabin top as shown in Paul’s album here http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/5554105558/ and then back to the starboard winch by the helm.
(BTW Paul, I hope that you have since had a cover made up to protect the section of mainsail near the gooseneck that is exposed to sunlight – I am assuming it was like this for at least a few months last summer when Suliere was laid up ashore. The fierce tropical sun will cause the exposed area of canvas to deteriorate rapidly if it is not protected from the UV rays)
Below is a photo of the helm station, taken by SFM before leaving South Africa.
As you can see in the above photo, there is not much choice in the matter if you want to lead the lines aft, while having a rigid spray dodger as well – there really is no other place where the winch could be mounted, other than the position shown. If the winch was on the coachroof there probably would not be enough room for the handle to spin without scraping the grinder’s knuckles on the dodger.
I think that this is probably the first dodger that has been been built with ‘solid’ windows – the boats shown on the St Francis webpage all appear to have simple bimini canopies with no solid screens.
This solid dodger then necessitates a much more complicated arrangement of rollers and guides to lead the sheets, halyard and reefing line ‘over the edge’ to the winches mounted lower down.
Below is a zoomed in view on the previous photo showing the starboard roller and winch.
This set up with the Leisurefurl system was a prototype (for SFM) arrangement – it was the first time (as far as I know) that SFM had ever led control lines from the mast aft to the helm station.
I think it would be reasonable not to expect the initial prototype system to be absolutely perfect, especially when considers the physical constraints and limitations that are apparent in the photos posted above.
Improvement can only come about through practical trial (and error) sailing and development.
And I think that we are all in agreement here that the various turning blocks and rollers shown in the photos at the beginning of this thread were far from perfect at this initial stage, and needed further development!
(continued below, as I have run out of characters)
) re the information you have disclosed regarding the running rigging problems on Suliere. I had a look around your vessel in August last year when she was ashore at Grenada Marine having warranty work carried out by Jaco Hamman from St Francis Marine. My visit was primarily to further investigate (with my surveyor’s hat on, on behalf of St Francis Marine) your claim at the time that there was evidence of hull foam core delamination in the forward inboard sides of both hulls. My survey colleague Ian had previously inspected Suliere a month earlier (again as requested by SFM).
The comments below re your rigging dispute are my own, based on my general observations of the vessel at the time of inspection, other information that subsequently came to light, and from perusal of (some of) the extensive threads re Suliere on your Multihulls Forum, and the numerous posts above in this thread.
Please note that I really have tried to write these thoughts as impartially as possible, simply to try and provide a bit of ‘balance’ to this thread (I see that Nordic is trying to do the same on your Shattering thread at Multihulls4Us, but you are not too impressed).
It is not my intention in the slightest to ‘have a go at you’ about anything, and I was not commissioned or requested by SFM to make this contribution to your thread – it is voluntary.
The above mentioned issue of delamination has already been extensively covered in the Dispute thread on your Forum - http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2429
So, please bear with me while I ‘fill in’ now with some background information (none of which is private or confidential) re Suliere and her rigging for general reference for the Scuttlebutt Forum readers.
I think that Suliere was the first catamaran built by St Francis Marine (SFM) to be fitted with the Leisurefurl in-boom reefing system. She is the 11th boat built so far to the 50’ design by Angelo Lavranos (previous boats were slightly smaller).
Further information about this class can be found at http://www.stfrancismarine.com/
I would hazard a guess that the previous ten SF 50 boats before Suliere were all fitted with fairly ‘conventional’ stackpack systems for the mainsail, where the fully battened sail drops in to a ‘bag’ supported by lazy jacks, and is then ‘zipped up’ to further protect it from the sun and elements.
The main sheets and jib sheets (no halyards or reefing lines) on these vessels were usually just led aft to winches on the cabin top, as shown below,
but Suliere has a fixed ‘wrap around’ windscreen which probably meant that there would not have been room to swing a winch handle if the sheet winches were mounted in the positions shown on the cabin top.
Here are a couple of photos (from the SFM website) of the base of the mast on a sistership with a stackpack system for the mainsail. It all looks neat and tidy, and easily accessible.
As can be seen in the photos, the only lines ‘led aft’ with this stackpack system were the mainsheet (double ended, so it can be adjusted from either port or starboard sides) and the two jib sheets.
Below is a drawing of the deck plan for Suliere, as supplied by the Builders, showing a schematic arrangement of the lines led aft.
While below is a photo (taken and supplied by SFM) showing the deck / cabin top layout of Suliere; the control lines for the mainsail can be seen going up to the two racks of sheaves and then aft to the winches that are hidden behind and below the windscreen.
Here is a link to the Leisurefurl Manufacturer's website - http://www.leisurefurl.co.nz/leisurefurl.html
While here is a link to the photos Paul took of the various fittings used to lead the lines from the mast aft to the cockpit - http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/
I guess that one would normally hoist and furl the sail in / out at the mast, same as with the Stackpack mainsails. It looks like you can just ‘wind it in’ using a winch handle in the socket on the forward side of the mast, although they do offer an electric motor drive as an option.
But it would appear that Paul specified that the halyard and reefing / furling line for the Leisurefurl mainsail should be led aft, so that the helmsperson and crew could control these activities from the cockpit.
The starboard mainsheet, mainsail reefing / furling line and jib sheet can be controlled from the helm, while the mainsail halyard is led aft to the port side bank of jammers and winch, with the port mainsheet and jib sheet.
Below is a photo (taken by my colleague Ian on his visit to Suliere) of the gooseneck on Suliere’s mast, showing the furling / reefing rope drum for the Leisurefurl on the forward side of the mast. The small yellow rope is the furling / reefing line.
This small yellow rope goes down to this turning block http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/5554105308/
at the base of the mast, and then up to the fabricated S/S assembly with sheaves on the cabin top as shown in Paul’s album here http://www.flickr.com/photos/60977371@N06/5554105558/ and then back to the starboard winch by the helm.
(BTW Paul, I hope that you have since had a cover made up to protect the section of mainsail near the gooseneck that is exposed to sunlight – I am assuming it was like this for at least a few months last summer when Suliere was laid up ashore. The fierce tropical sun will cause the exposed area of canvas to deteriorate rapidly if it is not protected from the UV rays)
Below is a photo of the helm station, taken by SFM before leaving South Africa.
As you can see in the above photo, there is not much choice in the matter if you want to lead the lines aft, while having a rigid spray dodger as well – there really is no other place where the winch could be mounted, other than the position shown. If the winch was on the coachroof there probably would not be enough room for the handle to spin without scraping the grinder’s knuckles on the dodger.
I think that this is probably the first dodger that has been been built with ‘solid’ windows – the boats shown on the St Francis webpage all appear to have simple bimini canopies with no solid screens.
This solid dodger then necessitates a much more complicated arrangement of rollers and guides to lead the sheets, halyard and reefing line ‘over the edge’ to the winches mounted lower down.
Below is a zoomed in view on the previous photo showing the starboard roller and winch.
This set up with the Leisurefurl system was a prototype (for SFM) arrangement – it was the first time (as far as I know) that SFM had ever led control lines from the mast aft to the helm station.
I think it would be reasonable not to expect the initial prototype system to be absolutely perfect, especially when considers the physical constraints and limitations that are apparent in the photos posted above.
Improvement can only come about through practical trial (and error) sailing and development.
And I think that we are all in agreement here that the various turning blocks and rollers shown in the photos at the beginning of this thread were far from perfect at this initial stage, and needed further development!
(continued below, as I have run out of characters)
Last edited:
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Continued......
Changing tack slightly now, after seeing the rather unique and innovative davits** that were designed and developed by SFM for Suliere’s tender, and realizing what they are capable of, I am sure that if further development work had been undertaken by the yard then on the various fittings for guiding the control lines aft to the helm station, a very workable system would have evolved, if time and trials had permitted.
** Re the davits, Paul has posted a video of them in operation here : http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2494
They were reported to have subsequently buckled in way of the bends while hoisting the tender one day in Grenada; repairs were then carried out by Grenada Marine where additional S/S plate web stiffeners were welded on to the inside bends of the arms as can be seen (just) in the photo below :
These repairs appeared (to me) to be certainly strong enough for lifting the tender in its lightship condition (ie with no water ballast or passengers on board) in normal circumstances.
However SFM apparently gave Paul a full refund on the initial purchase cost of these davits, which he then applied towards the (greater) cost of Grenada Marine fabricating a new pair to the same design but with thicker wall section on the S/S tubes.
Going back to the Leisurefurl system - re the development trials of the prototype control system devised for the Leisurefurl, these should have (in my humble opinion) included various (ie comprehensive) tests of both the roller reefing genoa and the mainsail, ideally in a variety of conditions, and they should have also included testing the other sails as well.
Paul, by departing from St Francis Bay with Suliere when you did, does this mean that you personally were totally happy with every aspect of the vessel’s hull, rig, sails, machinery and electrical / electronic systems?
I ask this without malice, it is an innocent question.
If yes, did you and Duncan compile a detailed check list of items to go through prior to acceptance, and was this list ‘signed off’ by both the Owner and the Builder to indicate agreement? I get the impression that this did not happen, otherwise it would surely have been mentioned before.
Duncan has mentioned in his Facts or Fiction post in the Dispute thread on Paul’s Multihulls Forum that “Sea trials were never completed to the mutual satisfaction of Builders and Owners (which is the usual procedure), due to the Owner’s desire to leave for the Caribbean as soon as possible”.
If not, why not??? I know that you have pointed out that the vessel was 5 months late on the initially agreed delivery date, and that you were apparently in a hurry to get to Grenada (I am sure that you yourself mentioned this somewhere as well), but surely it would have been possible to add on an extra few days or even a week at St Francis Marine to make absolutely certain that all systems were working properly prior to sailing (or motoring rather) the 2 day passage to Cape Town (and then onwards to the Caribbean)?
I know that SFM have made mistakes here while building this very complex boat – Paul has certainly had lots of problems to contend with along the way. Most were fairly minor, although some were much more major.
But I must admit that I am not surprised by this – pretty much every new construction project is going to have problems along the way, and especially so if it is as heavily customised as Suliere.
The main bone of contention now seems to be the issue of the pulleys / sheaves / turning blocks and rollers guiding the main and jib sheets, mainsail halyard and reefing lines aft to the winches in the cockpit.
I understand that following initial complaints re how the rollers were butting on to the winches, SFM supplied Paul with new rollers, some new sheaves (?) and new winch drums, with instructions for fitting by the yard in Grenada.
The rollers were then subsequently raised by 6 mm as they were apparently still butting on the winch drums, but it sounds as if this modification was not very successful.
Paul has mentioned above re how he is now having much more substantial S/S base plates made up for supporting the rollers, as the fibreglass structure under the roller assembly was apparently deforming noticeably when under load.
An appreciation of the complexity of this vessel can be gained from the purchase costs of Suliere (which are not confidential – they were posted on Paul’s Forum) – the basic boat cost approx US$ 800,000, while all of the ‘extras’ amounted to approx US$ 550,000. I would hazard a guess that if the same design was built by a reputable yard in Britain to a similar specification, the final cost would probably be at least 50% more.
I do hope that all outstanding issues will be ‘done and dusted’ soon, and then everybody can reach mutual agreement that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for her intended purpose.
I am sure that SFM have certainly learnt a lot from building Suliere – and I very much doubt that they will allow any future new builds to leave the yard until a full programme of sea trials has been carried out to the mutual satisfaction of all parties concerned, and these sea trials then ‘signed off’ as part of the contract / agreement.
In conclusion, I was of the impression after visiting Suliere at Grenada Marine that the overall quality of construction and outfit was generally very good indeed (apart from the last few problems still remaining to be sorted, as detailed above and on Paul’s Forum) - Paul has said this as well, and I am sure that most readers on this Forum will agree with us on this if they do get the chance to visit Suliere and cadge a beer off Paul!
And I will offer a polite suggestion here to SFM that for future orders they should positively encourage new Owners to appoint their own representatives to oversee the building project (especially if the Owners do not really feel capable of overseeing it themselves), as this will ultimately be for the mutual benefit, health (re blood pressure and stress!) and protection of both Owner and Builder.
Changing tack slightly now, after seeing the rather unique and innovative davits** that were designed and developed by SFM for Suliere’s tender, and realizing what they are capable of, I am sure that if further development work had been undertaken by the yard then on the various fittings for guiding the control lines aft to the helm station, a very workable system would have evolved, if time and trials had permitted.
** Re the davits, Paul has posted a video of them in operation here : http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2494
They were reported to have subsequently buckled in way of the bends while hoisting the tender one day in Grenada; repairs were then carried out by Grenada Marine where additional S/S plate web stiffeners were welded on to the inside bends of the arms as can be seen (just) in the photo below :
These repairs appeared (to me) to be certainly strong enough for lifting the tender in its lightship condition (ie with no water ballast or passengers on board) in normal circumstances.
However SFM apparently gave Paul a full refund on the initial purchase cost of these davits, which he then applied towards the (greater) cost of Grenada Marine fabricating a new pair to the same design but with thicker wall section on the S/S tubes.
Going back to the Leisurefurl system - re the development trials of the prototype control system devised for the Leisurefurl, these should have (in my humble opinion) included various (ie comprehensive) tests of both the roller reefing genoa and the mainsail, ideally in a variety of conditions, and they should have also included testing the other sails as well.
Paul, by departing from St Francis Bay with Suliere when you did, does this mean that you personally were totally happy with every aspect of the vessel’s hull, rig, sails, machinery and electrical / electronic systems?
I ask this without malice, it is an innocent question.
If yes, did you and Duncan compile a detailed check list of items to go through prior to acceptance, and was this list ‘signed off’ by both the Owner and the Builder to indicate agreement? I get the impression that this did not happen, otherwise it would surely have been mentioned before.
Duncan has mentioned in his Facts or Fiction post in the Dispute thread on Paul’s Multihulls Forum that “Sea trials were never completed to the mutual satisfaction of Builders and Owners (which is the usual procedure), due to the Owner’s desire to leave for the Caribbean as soon as possible”.
If not, why not??? I know that you have pointed out that the vessel was 5 months late on the initially agreed delivery date, and that you were apparently in a hurry to get to Grenada (I am sure that you yourself mentioned this somewhere as well), but surely it would have been possible to add on an extra few days or even a week at St Francis Marine to make absolutely certain that all systems were working properly prior to sailing (or motoring rather) the 2 day passage to Cape Town (and then onwards to the Caribbean)?
I know that SFM have made mistakes here while building this very complex boat – Paul has certainly had lots of problems to contend with along the way. Most were fairly minor, although some were much more major.
But I must admit that I am not surprised by this – pretty much every new construction project is going to have problems along the way, and especially so if it is as heavily customised as Suliere.
The main bone of contention now seems to be the issue of the pulleys / sheaves / turning blocks and rollers guiding the main and jib sheets, mainsail halyard and reefing lines aft to the winches in the cockpit.
I understand that following initial complaints re how the rollers were butting on to the winches, SFM supplied Paul with new rollers, some new sheaves (?) and new winch drums, with instructions for fitting by the yard in Grenada.
The rollers were then subsequently raised by 6 mm as they were apparently still butting on the winch drums, but it sounds as if this modification was not very successful.
Paul has mentioned above re how he is now having much more substantial S/S base plates made up for supporting the rollers, as the fibreglass structure under the roller assembly was apparently deforming noticeably when under load.
An appreciation of the complexity of this vessel can be gained from the purchase costs of Suliere (which are not confidential – they were posted on Paul’s Forum) – the basic boat cost approx US$ 800,000, while all of the ‘extras’ amounted to approx US$ 550,000. I would hazard a guess that if the same design was built by a reputable yard in Britain to a similar specification, the final cost would probably be at least 50% more.
I do hope that all outstanding issues will be ‘done and dusted’ soon, and then everybody can reach mutual agreement that the vessel is in satisfactory condition and fit for her intended purpose.
I am sure that SFM have certainly learnt a lot from building Suliere – and I very much doubt that they will allow any future new builds to leave the yard until a full programme of sea trials has been carried out to the mutual satisfaction of all parties concerned, and these sea trials then ‘signed off’ as part of the contract / agreement.
In conclusion, I was of the impression after visiting Suliere at Grenada Marine that the overall quality of construction and outfit was generally very good indeed (apart from the last few problems still remaining to be sorted, as detailed above and on Paul’s Forum) - Paul has said this as well, and I am sure that most readers on this Forum will agree with us on this if they do get the chance to visit Suliere and cadge a beer off Paul!
And I will offer a polite suggestion here to SFM that for future orders they should positively encourage new Owners to appoint their own representatives to oversee the building project (especially if the Owners do not really feel capable of overseeing it themselves), as this will ultimately be for the mutual benefit, health (re blood pressure and stress!) and protection of both Owner and Builder.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
BajanSailor
I think readers should also refer to another post from BajanSailor on the Multihulls4us forum post 239 here.
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3451&page=12
I have responded in full below it.
This post was basically just an attack on me the client at a time When Duncan from SFM is not answering any questions his surveyor appears not to answer anything to do with the thread but just carry on the smear campaign. In fairness BajanSailor has not been told the truth.
Now to answer the points made in your post.
Just some background corrections.
Suliere was the second in boom reefing system fitted by St Francis. They had fiotted a Profurl unit to a SF48.
Your guess is wrong. Bamboo the boat before it had the same solid dodger. This is offered as an option.
Not so - previous boats have controls back to the helm.
So even you agree do you that the then reefing system is deplorable?
Do you agree you should not use a simple no bearing plastic organiser to turn a high load line through 60 degrees?
Do you agree that the blocks should have bearings?
Do you agree that the block should be lined up with the line and not angles so that the block is ahved and the line hits the stainless steel holding the block?
These are the questions that Duncan refuses to answer - can you please answer them?
I would also add that there is no excuse for building such a poor system that goes against what leisurefurl specify and the basic rules of rigging.
I am amazed you did all those nice images and then did not give any opinion on the subject of this thread. I would also like you to justify how I was selective in my post.
Here we go again - off subject and based on a totally false premise.
There was ample time - I allowed unlimited time for sea trials the last of which was 48 hours solid run to cape Town. I refused to leave o make the final payment until all had been checked.
The davits were tested and even a video made of St Francis staff operating them here:-
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2494
That is true - they had used a 1.5mm tube for the arms the same as they use for lightweight ribs and these failed - they were too thin and could not take the compression load. I asked for refund instead of insisting they repair them - I let them off lightly and ended up paying a lot more for the repairs than the original davits because I have always believed and say so to this day that they did a great job on the design. Since then I have made a number of small improvements to the davits. Once repaired the davits were functional and so I am happy to make small improvements.
Why bring up this subject because it has nothing to do with the rigging system under discussion?
No matter how you try to blame me for the deplorable system - its is the builders responsibility to ensure it is functional.
Yes- we had checked every system and had the sea trials and at that time I thought I was leaving with a good boat and the support of the the builder who I had heaped non-stop praise on with video after video. I never dreamt that as we encountered problems in the crossing he would act the way he did. After all the boat was under warranty.
There are two Duncans. The one before you hand over the final payment and the one after you have paid. I did not know that then.
Your impression is partly wrong, partly right. We had derailed check list every day for months and has Duncan has stated we only had the camera issue remaining when we left Cape Town. He did not ask me to sign anything.
Part 2 of my response next post
I think readers should also refer to another post from BajanSailor on the Multihulls4us forum post 239 here.
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3451&page=12
I have responded in full below it.
This post was basically just an attack on me the client at a time When Duncan from SFM is not answering any questions his surveyor appears not to answer anything to do with the thread but just carry on the smear campaign. In fairness BajanSailor has not been told the truth.
Now to answer the points made in your post.
Just some background corrections.
Suliere was the second in boom reefing system fitted by St Francis. They had fiotted a Profurl unit to a SF48.
I can confirm that as true and St Francis Marine stated this was not a problem.
Your guess is wrong. Bamboo the boat before it had the same solid dodger. This is offered as an option.
Not so - previous boats have controls back to the helm.
They are not functional and display a total lack of understanding of basic rigging principles. They could have been run far better at the time.
So even you agree do you that the then reefing system is deplorable?
Do you agree you should not use a simple no bearing plastic organiser to turn a high load line through 60 degrees?
Do you agree that the blocks should have bearings?
Do you agree that the block should be lined up with the line and not angles so that the block is ahved and the line hits the stainless steel holding the block?
These are the questions that Duncan refuses to answer - can you please answer them?
I would also add that there is no excuse for building such a poor system that goes against what leisurefurl specify and the basic rules of rigging.
I am amazed you did all those nice images and then did not give any opinion on the subject of this thread. I would also like you to justify how I was selective in my post.
Here we go again - off subject and based on a totally false premise.
There was ample time - I allowed unlimited time for sea trials the last of which was 48 hours solid run to cape Town. I refused to leave o make the final payment until all had been checked.
The davits were tested and even a video made of St Francis staff operating them here:-
http://www.multihulls4us.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2494
That is true - they had used a 1.5mm tube for the arms the same as they use for lightweight ribs and these failed - they were too thin and could not take the compression load. I asked for refund instead of insisting they repair them - I let them off lightly and ended up paying a lot more for the repairs than the original davits because I have always believed and say so to this day that they did a great job on the design. Since then I have made a number of small improvements to the davits. Once repaired the davits were functional and so I am happy to make small improvements.
Why bring up this subject because it has nothing to do with the rigging system under discussion?
I was new to the sailing bit and trusted Duncan the expert sailor on it. He altered the system after sea trails and we trailed them again until he was happy. It made a hell of a noise but I thought that was normal for this syetm - I was wrong.
No matter how you try to blame me for the deplorable system - its is the builders responsibility to ensure it is functional.
Yes- we had checked every system and had the sea trials and at that time I thought I was leaving with a good boat and the support of the the builder who I had heaped non-stop praise on with video after video. I never dreamt that as we encountered problems in the crossing he would act the way he did. After all the boat was under warranty.
There are two Duncans. The one before you hand over the final payment and the one after you have paid. I did not know that then.
Your impression is partly wrong, partly right. We had derailed check list every day for months and has Duncan has stated we only had the camera issue remaining when we left Cape Town. He did not ask me to sign anything.
Part 2 of my response next post
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Duncan has totally fabricated that - we refused to leave without very point being checked. he controlled the sea trials and told us we had to set off sometime we could not stay there forever and that normally the final shake down to Cape Town was it - withheld a large sum until after the work in Cape Town. You are quoting a total fabrication that is a smoke screen for what is basically a very simple reefing problem.
Total and utter fabrication by Duncan. he even refers to us being the most fussy customers he has ever had in checking things in a post when I pointed out some flaws ion the GRP stating that he was mazed I missed them. He also agrees in a post that the camera was the only outstanding item when we left Cape Town.
This is one point of contention that Duncan to date refuses to even discuss.
Th rest of the quote is correct.
But the complexity is not what has gone wrong - its basic stuff. Again this thread is about the reefing system and anyone can see how simply wrong that is. The complexity is a smokescreen. All the advanced stuff on Suliere works - there is no issue there so why not see the simplicity of the issue on the rigging and stop repeating all Diuncan's smokescreens?
Duncan charged a lot extra and we went well past our budget - he was paid well for his work. Thew cost in the UK is not relevant.
It seems to me that few of the problems would have been caught by a survey or odd site visits but are you saying that even if a boat is signed off as being OK at the time then that somehow this limits the warranty when things show up later?
Your long post has not answered the basic issue of this thread- the rigging question. I maintain is shows a standard of design/implementation that is well below what anyone should expect from a boat builder. Do you agree?
yesod
Well-Known Member
Paul, you have been very selective here (as usual!
can you just confirm - you were paid by st francis marine, and thus are just a teensy bit compromised here, right?
snooks
Well-Known Member
The leads aren't great, but for a few hundreds pounds of stainless steel work a solution shouldn't be that hard to find
Here's what I would do:
1/First off, starting from the winch end, a SS bracket to bring the winch from the angle of dangle where it finds itself, up to vertical. Hopefully encompassing the electric gear box/wires.
2/Remove the plastic guides, or file them away if you really want to keep them.
3/New sheeves (or new deck organisers if you're feeling flash).
4/Then back to your friendly SS fabricator to make/adjust the bracket on the coachroof so the rollers face outwards, rather than inwards, spread them apart and get a better lead.
There shouldn't be a lot of pressure on the furling lines, as they are slack when the sail goes up, and when you're furling in the halyard is eased off.
If I were finding there was a lot of pressure when I was reefed, I might be tempted to install a rope clutch to the reefing line on the mast, leaving it open all the time...until I'm doing a longer passage when I could lock the line off at the mast and save the wear to the rest of the system.
Here's what I would do:
1/First off, starting from the winch end, a SS bracket to bring the winch from the angle of dangle where it finds itself, up to vertical. Hopefully encompassing the electric gear box/wires.
2/Remove the plastic guides, or file them away if you really want to keep them.
3/New sheeves (or new deck organisers if you're feeling flash).
4/Then back to your friendly SS fabricator to make/adjust the bracket on the coachroof so the rollers face outwards, rather than inwards, spread them apart and get a better lead.
There shouldn't be a lot of pressure on the furling lines, as they are slack when the sail goes up, and when you're furling in the halyard is eased off.
If I were finding there was a lot of pressure when I was reefed, I might be tempted to install a rope clutch to the reefing line on the mast, leaving it open all the time...until I'm doing a longer passage when I could lock the line off at the mast and save the wear to the rest of the system.
davidej
Well-Known Member
Don't you all think it is time to draw this thread to a close?
I can't really see the point of arguing it all out in this forum.
I don'r think many of us are contemplation ordering 50ft cats so 'name and shame' won't really work.
Its all been good fun but after 10 pages......in the words of Oliver Cromwell
"let us have done with you -in the name of God, go"
I can't really see the point of arguing it all out in this forum.
I don'r think many of us are contemplation ordering 50ft cats so 'name and shame' won't really work.
Its all been good fun but after 10 pages......in the words of Oliver Cromwell
"let us have done with you -in the name of God, go"
bigwow
Well-Known Member
I disagree.
This thread lays bare the sort of after sales service one can expect when buying from SFM.
If it saves one person from sinking their life savings into one of their boats this thread can go on ad infinitum for me!
This thread lays bare the sort of after sales service one can expect when buying from SFM.
If it saves one person from sinking their life savings into one of their boats this thread can go on ad infinitum for me!
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I can never ubnderstand why anyone wants to limita thread - all they have to do is stop reading it
Gludy
Well-Known Member
To say I was selective in describing the issues on the rigging - see the opening post of this thread. It is just untrue to claim I was selective. BajanSai8lor went onto waffle about many things not connected with the issue but actually totally failed to answer the questions relating to the rigging issue.
I have repeated the questions to him but I cannot, in fairness, expect him to answer to drop his client in it!
Nobody denies it is a a terrible example of rigging so why all the huge posts - we might as well discuss the weather in Outer Mongolia as discuss davits with images. Its seems to be a very big smokescreen and a running away from the simplicity of the issue. Amazing ... truly amazing.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
Yesod – replying to post 88 above : - Yes, we were paid by St Francis Marine for the inspections we carried out on Suliere last year.
But that was all; we have not had any further business dealings with them since, and I am not anticipating receiving any more survey commissions from them re Suliere.
If they do ask us for any reason to visit Suliere again when she is laid up in Grenada for the summer (or in any other island for that matter) I would politely decline, as I believe that Paul’s surveyor there, Bob Goodchild, is extremely knowledgeable, experienced and impartial, and I would have complete faith in his findings, and I would suggest to SFM that they should too.
Edit - after reading Paul's note above - as you can see from the above, there is no 'client' involved here.
Paul – Re my post yesterday on your Forum, that was more concerned with the whole issue of claimed delamination of your hulls.
The bottom line was that there was no evidence as such at the time of our inspection of any delamination of the foam cores in your hulls.
But you still do not seem to accept that.
I had hazarded a guess above that Suliere was probably the first SFM 50 to have control lines led aft, and Paul corrected me - thank you.
You mentioned that Bamboo was also fitted with a fixed windscreen – how were their jib and mainsail sheets (and halyard and reefing lines as well?) arranged?
Did they have a similar set up to Suliere (where the winches are mounted on the sloping aft side of the cabin, with rollers to guide the ropes over the corner), or did they have some other system?
This is a genuine question, and I am very interested in how their system works.
The fixed windscreen under the bimini awning has many advantages – however one disadvantage is that there then is not enough room to swing a winch handle if the winches are mounted on the outboard sides of the cabin top, which seems to be the usual arrangement on the vessels with bimini roofs and no windscreens.
Re the leads to the winches for your reefing line, halyard and sheets, I agreed that they needed to be improved.
If the angles were not correct when you carried out sea trials and took delivery of the boat they should have been seen and corrected then.
Re you being selective in what you post, I said this simply because you launched immediately (with your original post) into the items you were complaining about, with no background information to enable readers to see the ‘whole picture’.
I thought that it was very difficult for anybody not familiar with the vessel to visualize this whole picture just based on the photos and information you had provided, hence why I posted a variety of photos to illustrate the whole system.
If I was going to make a complaint of this nature, I would lead up to it with an introduction – in this introduction I would try to look at it through the eyes of somebody who has never seen the boat before.
The only reason for mentioning the davits was to suggest that SFM appeared to be very good at lateral thinking and coming up with new ideas to solve problems, hence based on this apparent ability I was of the opinion that it should have been possible for them to further refine the prototype arrangement that was installed for the Leisurefurl system if you were not happy with it.
Paul, you said re the controls for the Leisurefurl system “I was new to the sailing bit and trusted Duncan the expert sailor on it. He altered the system after sea trials and we trialed them again until he was happy. It made a hell of a noise but I thought that was normal for this system - I was wrong”.
I was not trying to blame you for this Paul – you say that Duncan was happy, with it, but surely the bottom line here is that you yourself should have been happy with it?
Was any explanation offered at the time for the noises (graunching?) experienced while the system was in use?
You also said “We had detailed check list every day for months and as Duncan has stated we only had the camera issue remaining when we left Cape Town. He did not ask me to sign anything”.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Re the cost going way over your initial budget, had you specified all of the extras at the time that the contract was signed, or were some of them added on later?
I only mentioned cost of boat and extras to illustrate to readers here that this is a very complex boat.
And I think you would agree that one of the attractions of South Africa for boat building is that the cost of their overheads including labour is considerably less than (say) in Britain, and that this would be reflected in the quoted cost for a yacht which should be very competitive on price when compared to a similar vessel built in Britain.
I will be the first to agree though that the reputation for quality assurance by South African builders in recent years is generally poorer than their competitors in Britain, hence why I would always insist on having outside supervision / surveys during the course of construction if I had commissioned a boat built there.
In fact I would do the same in Britain (or anywhere else in the world) if I was buying a boat for US$ 1.35 million.
I was involved last year in the design, specification, construction supervision and final acceptance sea trials of an oil spill response vessel built by Alnmaritec (www.alnmaritec.co.uk) for the Oil Terminal here.
Their boat was half the cost of yours, but they still engaged me from the start (2 years earlier, for a fixed fee, absolutely no fleecing involved!) to be involved in every aspect.
They also had a few periodic inspections carried out by the Lloyds Register surveyor in Newcastle during the course of construction, and a final inspection by the MCA surveyor after launching, even though none of these were actually required by the local regulations here - rather, these inspections were for their own peace of mind (despite Alnmaritec having an excellent reputation for building customised one off vessels).
Re officially signing off a vessel on completion of sea trials, this confirms in writing that everything at the time was then working to an agreed standard – I agree that it does not limit your warranty when things break later on, however it does help to protect both parties concerned from petty squabbles.
As there is then no contention or argument about if the thing was fit for service or not at the time of the sea trial / hand-over – it must have been, otherwise it would not have been signed off.
Rather, it then simply comes down to why or how the thing failed later on while in service.
But that was all; we have not had any further business dealings with them since, and I am not anticipating receiving any more survey commissions from them re Suliere.
If they do ask us for any reason to visit Suliere again when she is laid up in Grenada for the summer (or in any other island for that matter) I would politely decline, as I believe that Paul’s surveyor there, Bob Goodchild, is extremely knowledgeable, experienced and impartial, and I would have complete faith in his findings, and I would suggest to SFM that they should too.
Edit - after reading Paul's note above - as you can see from the above, there is no 'client' involved here.
Paul – Re my post yesterday on your Forum, that was more concerned with the whole issue of claimed delamination of your hulls.
The bottom line was that there was no evidence as such at the time of our inspection of any delamination of the foam cores in your hulls.
But you still do not seem to accept that.
I had hazarded a guess above that Suliere was probably the first SFM 50 to have control lines led aft, and Paul corrected me - thank you.
You mentioned that Bamboo was also fitted with a fixed windscreen – how were their jib and mainsail sheets (and halyard and reefing lines as well?) arranged?
Did they have a similar set up to Suliere (where the winches are mounted on the sloping aft side of the cabin, with rollers to guide the ropes over the corner), or did they have some other system?
This is a genuine question, and I am very interested in how their system works.
The fixed windscreen under the bimini awning has many advantages – however one disadvantage is that there then is not enough room to swing a winch handle if the winches are mounted on the outboard sides of the cabin top, which seems to be the usual arrangement on the vessels with bimini roofs and no windscreens.
Re the leads to the winches for your reefing line, halyard and sheets, I agreed that they needed to be improved.
If the angles were not correct when you carried out sea trials and took delivery of the boat they should have been seen and corrected then.
Re you being selective in what you post, I said this simply because you launched immediately (with your original post) into the items you were complaining about, with no background information to enable readers to see the ‘whole picture’.
I thought that it was very difficult for anybody not familiar with the vessel to visualize this whole picture just based on the photos and information you had provided, hence why I posted a variety of photos to illustrate the whole system.
If I was going to make a complaint of this nature, I would lead up to it with an introduction – in this introduction I would try to look at it through the eyes of somebody who has never seen the boat before.
The only reason for mentioning the davits was to suggest that SFM appeared to be very good at lateral thinking and coming up with new ideas to solve problems, hence based on this apparent ability I was of the opinion that it should have been possible for them to further refine the prototype arrangement that was installed for the Leisurefurl system if you were not happy with it.
Paul, you said re the controls for the Leisurefurl system “I was new to the sailing bit and trusted Duncan the expert sailor on it. He altered the system after sea trials and we trialed them again until he was happy. It made a hell of a noise but I thought that was normal for this system - I was wrong”.
I was not trying to blame you for this Paul – you say that Duncan was happy, with it, but surely the bottom line here is that you yourself should have been happy with it?
Was any explanation offered at the time for the noises (graunching?) experienced while the system was in use?
You also said “We had detailed check list every day for months and as Duncan has stated we only had the camera issue remaining when we left Cape Town. He did not ask me to sign anything”.
Thank you for clarifying this.
Re the cost going way over your initial budget, had you specified all of the extras at the time that the contract was signed, or were some of them added on later?
I only mentioned cost of boat and extras to illustrate to readers here that this is a very complex boat.
And I think you would agree that one of the attractions of South Africa for boat building is that the cost of their overheads including labour is considerably less than (say) in Britain, and that this would be reflected in the quoted cost for a yacht which should be very competitive on price when compared to a similar vessel built in Britain.
I will be the first to agree though that the reputation for quality assurance by South African builders in recent years is generally poorer than their competitors in Britain, hence why I would always insist on having outside supervision / surveys during the course of construction if I had commissioned a boat built there.
In fact I would do the same in Britain (or anywhere else in the world) if I was buying a boat for US$ 1.35 million.
I was involved last year in the design, specification, construction supervision and final acceptance sea trials of an oil spill response vessel built by Alnmaritec (www.alnmaritec.co.uk) for the Oil Terminal here.
Their boat was half the cost of yours, but they still engaged me from the start (2 years earlier, for a fixed fee, absolutely no fleecing involved!) to be involved in every aspect.
They also had a few periodic inspections carried out by the Lloyds Register surveyor in Newcastle during the course of construction, and a final inspection by the MCA surveyor after launching, even though none of these were actually required by the local regulations here - rather, these inspections were for their own peace of mind (despite Alnmaritec having an excellent reputation for building customised one off vessels).
Re officially signing off a vessel on completion of sea trials, this confirms in writing that everything at the time was then working to an agreed standard – I agree that it does not limit your warranty when things break later on, however it does help to protect both parties concerned from petty squabbles.
As there is then no contention or argument about if the thing was fit for service or not at the time of the sea trial / hand-over – it must have been, otherwise it would not have been signed off.
Rather, it then simply comes down to why or how the thing failed later on while in service.
Last edited:
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I accept all that as true but your client is still St Francis Marine as they would always come to you first in that part of the world.
My whole point was that the off the scale moisture readings in the cored section of the hull could be delamination - I hoped it was not but the bottom line was it needed to be investigated. I kept repeating that.
This has nothing to do with the rigging system. Its a Duncan smokescreen.
Bamboo has the winches in the same position and the lines back but no in boom reefing of course. The point makes no difference either way. The rigging in the opening post is by any standards deplorable and there is all this nonsense about davits, delamination etc etc that has nothing to do with the basic rigging issue.
You can swing a full sized winch handles on the port winch and a short winch handle on the starboard winch. I insisted St Francis make the short handle one because its always best to finish off manually.
But after the first sea trail corrections they were not improved - Duncan was happy with it. That is the whole point.
I do not accept that - told only the truth and when you use a simple plastic organiser to turn a high load line through 60 degrees or have the shave out of line with the line so that it places a huge load on the face of the sheave shaving it as you go - then anything you have added makes little difference. The deplorable facts remain just the same.
I thought there was no choice but the high noise and racket - I was a novice and had the wool pulled over my eyes at a time when i had total trust in Duncan. However there you go again instead of addressing yourself to the terrible system that no experienced sailor could have devised, you try to swing responsibility on me.
We had a whole series of videos explaining we were novices and praising Duncan - that was the situation at that time and one reason we both feel betrayed by him.
When we reached Grenada the sheaves the new drums and the lifting 6mm were all offered as a cure when in fact they just addressed the symptoms.
I hoped I could reduce the friction as described with plain bearing sheaves but it made little to no difference. It was only recently that i have discovered just how bad the system really is.
I did not know the cost of many items until the last minute and had to draw on another £200,000 ... yes pounds. I pleaded for costs but none were forthcoming until very late. Bamboo had warned me about how Duncan charges for extras but it was too late by then. I paid it on the spot with the agreement that only the camera was not checked as working.
My attitude was to forget it and concentrate on the wonderful boat i had.
It was always a leisurefurl system from the outset.
I disagree - the rand when we ordered was up to about 16 to the pound - when we paid for all the extras it was under 11 to the pound. I could have had almost the same boat built in the UK for about the same price and not had all the extra expenses of 19 months worth of trips to Africa. However I do not understand how this relates to the rigging issue.
being in the business it is your right to claim that but in practice that was not really easily possible in St Francis. In any case it does not change the fact that the builder is responsible for their work.
There are really very few 50 cats built in the UK.
We chose St Francis for the design and she sails very well.
Exactly.
You still have not answered any of my questions about the rigging - we have had a nice chat to one side of the issue but not actually talked about the issue.
Please answer those questions.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
Duncan the owner of St Francis Marine has reached a new low in his responses on the multihull4us forum:-
Duncan is refusing to answer any questions on any warranty subject and comes up with this. He has no evidence whatsoever that any damage has been dome by me and seeing as the rigging complaint is all about its basic design there is no relationship between my experience and the problem.
All the details are :-here
I have been sailing large power boats for 11 years and have commercial endorsements etc. I have the day skipper and ICC in sail and now have over 7000 miles under my belt. I am fully qualified by law but never of course stop learning.
Duncan cannot point to anything that I have done that resulted in any false claim so he just comes up with this when the current discussion of the forum is about his failure to fit the windless to the makers requirements!
He has never answered any questions on the reefing system the subject of this thread and that is with over 300 posts now on the multihulls forum.
Duncan is refusing to answer any questions on any warranty subject and comes up with this. He has no evidence whatsoever that any damage has been dome by me and seeing as the rigging complaint is all about its basic design there is no relationship between my experience and the problem.
All the details are :-here
I have been sailing large power boats for 11 years and have commercial endorsements etc. I have the day skipper and ICC in sail and now have over 7000 miles under my belt. I am fully qualified by law but never of course stop learning.
Duncan cannot point to anything that I have done that resulted in any false claim so he just comes up with this when the current discussion of the forum is about his failure to fit the windless to the makers requirements!
He has never answered any questions on the reefing system the subject of this thread and that is with over 300 posts now on the multihulls forum.
boguing
Well-Known Member
Paul, I've been biting my tongue. I can't any longer.
I spent a long time in the boat making business, and did a degree in Naval Architecture.
Boat building is not much more than a cottage industry. Benetau, Hanse (in terms of sailing boats) are on the cusp. St Martin are not. They are right down there in the cottage section, and we should all be grateful for the niche builders.
Essentially, building a boat starts with getting two mouldings and filling them up with bits. Standard bits or non-standard bits. Either/or, how can one reasonably expect a very small management team to know they will interact? These companies are not Ford or Boeing with thousands of Engineers thinking through the what-ifs.
What lets you down is that your level of experience is quite clear. A truly experienced sailor might possibly have spotted these faults on a walk around.
The major point is that he would certainly have spotted it when operating it. He'd know that the load he was applying did not equate with what was happening. He'd stop. Look and find an alternative with bits of string, spare shackles to make it work, and sail happily back to the yard, after that trial.
You have implied that a badly arranged mainsail reefing system is life-threatening. Er. No. It's not.
You must have known (from prior experience) that boat building is not a science. And yet you signed up to spend a vast amount of money without professional oversight?
You took a boat across an Ocean without the experience to know that a reefing system didn't work properly?
Taking a dinghy sailing course would cost you a fraction of the cost of that computer you're sitting at.
I spent a long time in the boat making business, and did a degree in Naval Architecture.
Boat building is not much more than a cottage industry. Benetau, Hanse (in terms of sailing boats) are on the cusp. St Martin are not. They are right down there in the cottage section, and we should all be grateful for the niche builders.
Essentially, building a boat starts with getting two mouldings and filling them up with bits. Standard bits or non-standard bits. Either/or, how can one reasonably expect a very small management team to know they will interact? These companies are not Ford or Boeing with thousands of Engineers thinking through the what-ifs.
What lets you down is that your level of experience is quite clear. A truly experienced sailor might possibly have spotted these faults on a walk around.
The major point is that he would certainly have spotted it when operating it. He'd know that the load he was applying did not equate with what was happening. He'd stop. Look and find an alternative with bits of string, spare shackles to make it work, and sail happily back to the yard, after that trial.
You have implied that a badly arranged mainsail reefing system is life-threatening. Er. No. It's not.
You must have known (from prior experience) that boat building is not a science. And yet you signed up to spend a vast amount of money without professional oversight?
You took a boat across an Ocean without the experience to know that a reefing system didn't work properly?
Taking a dinghy sailing course would cost you a fraction of the cost of that computer you're sitting at.
Gludy
Well-Known Member
I agree with that, Av experienced sailor would have known the rigging for the mainsail was terrible. Had I had even with the experience I now have I would have spotted it.
However that makes it worse that St Francis fitted it that way.
Duncan actually scoured the winch in trials and did make one change but it did not deal with the underlying issue just the symptom. He must have known how bad it really was. Again that makes the builder even more responsible.
No not me - other problems were dangerous and life threatening.
I signed up to buy a totally new boat from a reputable dealer. I do not agree that I needed a full time manager at the factory to oversee it.
We are talking here about a very, very basically flawed reefing system and any builder with a modicum of sailing experience should be able to arange it so it worked. The builder is 100 per cent responsible for the rigging system he built. You need not go on about not being a science because the rigging mistakes here are not rocket science and any customer should expect and get better.
The wool was pulled over my inexperienced eyes and we had on board two expert sailors. We used the main very litte and when we did we hit problems. Why not ask the question why a reputable builder sent out a boat across the ocean when if he had any expertise at all at rigging he knew it was rubbish?
I trained and have day skipper etc I am also commercially qualified on the motor boat side.
I trusted Duncan and that trust was betrayed.
Now let me ask you a few things.
Was part of your training learning how to not be responsible for how you build boats?
Did the training include learning how to wash your hands of your failings and how to swing the blame for those failings onto the customer?
Would you not agree that the rigging is a flawed design that no boat builder should be proud of?
Please answer those questions because frankly your attitude belongs to a few centuries ago. As such it is a disservice to the parts of the boating industry that do actually try to have some standards.
If you answer those questions I am happy to continue to discuss these matters with you.
Last edited:
taz
Well-Known Member
I`ve been reading this thread(and the one on Multihulls) with some disbelief. Especially those that have had a go at the OP, when he was the customer(paying good money) and not the builder.
I have no experience of boats as of yet, but I do run a successful building company and from that experience I would like to put my opinion forward.
I have been involved in some large new builds in Cheshire, where a £1 million+ house has been bought, demolished and a modern house(£2 million+) built. I, as the contractor, insist on the architect being available at all times and a project manager( by customer appointment) be on site full time.
This is my link to the customer. If the customer wishes any change be made I insist this is done through the architect(if not to plans) or through the project manager (if otherwise) There are a number of reasons for this, for example 1) to keep a record of all the extras, cost, labour, materials etc 2) To explain anything I am unhappy with or unsure as to its quality or purpose. There are many more reasons but these seem to be the ones more inline with the OP`s predicament.
Surely this company should have either had a build/project manager or request the customer employ one as they obviously weren`t up to the job in hand, with systems they had no experience of.
I have no experience of boats as of yet, but I do run a successful building company and from that experience I would like to put my opinion forward.
I have been involved in some large new builds in Cheshire, where a £1 million+ house has been bought, demolished and a modern house(£2 million+) built. I, as the contractor, insist on the architect being available at all times and a project manager( by customer appointment) be on site full time.
This is my link to the customer. If the customer wishes any change be made I insist this is done through the architect(if not to plans) or through the project manager (if otherwise) There are a number of reasons for this, for example 1) to keep a record of all the extras, cost, labour, materials etc 2) To explain anything I am unhappy with or unsure as to its quality or purpose. There are many more reasons but these seem to be the ones more inline with the OP`s predicament.
Surely this company should have either had a build/project manager or request the customer employ one as they obviously weren`t up to the job in hand, with systems they had no experience of.
Last edited:
boguing
Well-Known Member
Done.
