Gludy's New Mainsail Reefing System - Dispute

[Magnum]

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!

Couldn't agree more.

Very disappointed that some people seems to think Gludy "deserves" what has happened here. It's crystal clear to me that the builder is to blame. Anyone thinking of buying a Cat should steer clear of St Francis Marine. Their attitude stinks.

 

[Boomshanka]

What I can't see in amongst all this chatter is what exactly is it that Gludy is now seeking It's what a good arbitrator would seek to establish from the outset.

 

[Gludy]

Boguing

Rigging' is too vague. The way that the lines are dealt with at the helm? Awful.
Should an overseer have spotted it? Yes. Absolutely.

Thanks for answering the questions.
You agree the reefing system is awful - we are talking about the one shown in the images on post 1 of this thread.

The mistakes here are so basic that no sailing boat builder could not have been aware of them. When we asked on sea trials about the huge noises etc we were told we would get used to it!

The rigging for the mainsail is simple - it has nothing to do with any advanced stuff or mixed systems. All the complaints on my boat have been real basic - super basic.

Had the boat been built in Cape Town we would have had a surveyor but it was not realistic to fly one in all the time to St Francis.

In effect we had the wool pulled over our eyes so the subject of this thread is to point out that St Francis Marine will not honour the warranty on it nor answer my questions on it leaving me with no option but a very expensive upgrade.

I consider that terrible after sales service and want to advertise that fact in a name and shame thread.

Can you now see my point? Is there anything you disagree with?

 

[Gludy]

What I can't see in amongst all this chatter is what exactly is it that Gludy is now seeking It's what a good arbitrator would seek to establish from the outset.

This thread is a name and shame thread on one point the mainsail rigging for raising and lowering the mainsail.

There are a number of outstanding points being thrashed out here:-

St Francis Marine have just decided to stop posting having not once discussed the reefing system.

 

[boguing]

Tired and off to bed.

Will reply to you and Magnum tomorrow.

John

 

[boguing]

My last comment on this topic - to preserve what's left of my sanity.

Paul. We had a customer very much like you. His boat had a few warranty niggles which we put right. Then he found some more, which we put right. In every communication he mentioned further outstanding problems, but wouldn't tell us what they were. By this time he was stretching:- the terms of the warranty, and b, our patience. We wanted a happy customer and he wouldn't help him to help us.

The last straw was that he accused us of having used a heavier layup in his boat, and that the prototype, which he was racing against was deliberately built underweight to make us look good.

Problem is that he was an awful sailor.

So I wrote, via solicitors, offering to have the four boats local to him (including his) lifted with a strain gauge, on two conditions.

1. That he would be present and ensure fairness, and 2. That if his boat was not heavy, he would accept that he had no further claims against us.

He accepted; the prototype was 200Kg heavy, and his was within 20Kg of the other two.

We never heard from him again.

If I was St Francis I would do the same with your reefing system.

For heavens sake don't take any of this seriously, you're obviously always right, and don't need the likes of me to try and see that you might just be a teeny weeny bit wrong.

My last words, so have fun with them.

 

[Gludy]

Paul. We had a customer very much like you. His boat had a few warranty niggles which we put right. Then he found some more, which we put right. In every communication he mentioned further outstanding problems, but wouldn't tell us what they were. By this time he was stretching:- the terms of the warranty, and b, our patience. We wanted a happy customer and he wouldn't help him to help us.

Sorry but I am not like that at all -

, but wouldn't tell us what they were.

I do not think you can accuse me of that. That is the exact opposite of what i do . I have detailed the issue very clearly and you even agree that the work is "Awful" so why do you even go there with that analogy?

You do seem to have this unique thinking that somehow the boating industry is not even accountable for awful work!

Problem is that he was an awful sailor.

Here we the awful system that is not connected with any sailing ability.

If I was St Francis I would do the same with your reefing system.

For heavens sake don't take any of this seriously, you're obviously always right, and don't need the likes of me to try and see that you might just be a teeny weeny bit wrong.

My last words, so have fun with them.

Totally amazing boat industry logic that makes the boat industry above and apart from the real world.

The system is by your own words 'awful' so you blame the customer instead of just putting the matter right. Totally amazing.

Without trying to insult you - with that attitude towards this case you should not be selling boats.

My case is so very simple - an awful system that does not work has been installed. Being a novice I did not realise at the time. I never signed acceptance. The builder is responsible but refuses to even talk about it. It is that simple. The fact you cannot see that astounds me.

 

[Boo2]

Very disappointed that some people seems to think Gludy "deserves" what has happened here. It's crystal clear to me that the builder is to blame. Anyone thinking of buying a Cat should steer clear of St Francis Marine. Their attitude stinks.

+1.

For £1M3 ISTM that casting a bespoke alloy bracket to take the winch in an upright position would be well affordable. Or otherwise a bulge in the sprayhood moulding to permit the handle to pass would have had the benefit for the builder for future sales.

The solution the builder actually chose is shoddy in the extreme IMHO.

Boo2

 

[Boo2]

For heavens sake don't take any of this seriously, you're obviously always right, and don't need the likes of me to try and see that you might just be a teeny weeny bit wrong.

Why is Gludy wrong ? He was sold a boat with a reefing system which is not fit for purpose and the builder has washed his hands of it. Blaming the customer is the last resort of a scoundrell IMO.

Boo2

 

[Gludy]

What would you do?

I ask that you put yourself in this position.

Your new boat has a history of failings in the basic electrics - undersized cables melting, undersized components melting and you think you have had all this solved with a series of visits from a qualified electrician.

You start getting mains powered electric shocks and also the hot water is no longer hot - well sometime it is and sometimes it is not.

You call into a Marina and get new electrician to come and see the boat. They take an initial look and declare that the mains heating element in the tank is not just not working but feeding mains power into the water supply. Further there is extensive damage to cables etc. They then find out the CE marked boat does not have any RCD's and was never tripping on electric faults. The boat breaches CE safety regulations and is dangerous to boot.

The boat builder is out of reach at the Miami Boat Show - so to make the boat safe you employ the electrician to fit the RCD's. In addition he points out that the way the individual wires without an outer sheave are clamped at stress point is illegal. He cannot reinstall the wire illegally so he has to fit a sheave before clamping.

He does all the work - makes the boat safe and you pay the bill.

The email you send to the builder points out that they are negligent and it is not a warranty claim. The warranty clearly covers things that fail due to bad workmanship or materials but here there were no RCD's to fail - in effect the builder had not finished building the boat.

When the builder returns to base he finds your email and writes get the boat fixed and send me the bill - he writes the omission of the RCD' is "inexcusable".

Then then discovering the work is already done he claims he will not pay for it all only two of three RCD's and not the labour rate you paid but a figure he dictates. He also refuses to pay for the other damage caused by the lack of a trip.
He also refuses to contribute to the high marina cost that were incurred when the work was done.

I acted fast to make my boat safe. I employed a highly qualified herman marine electrician and went on their advice.

How would you have reacted in the same situation?
What would you do now that the builder stone walls even discussion on this?

 

[pvb]

I'm confused by this. It's certainly wrong to omit the RCDs. But when the boat was handed over to you, and I gather this was over a period of days, surely you were shown the location of the various important bits and pieces? Didn't it occur to you to ask where the RCD trips were? I can only imagine myself in a similar position, about to set off in an unfamiliar boat for a long voyage - I'd want to crawl all over it and know where the seacocks, switches, etc, were located.

 

[Gludy]

No its did not occur to us.
There are vast array of switched on the boat and we had with us one of the people who had worked on the boat and who knew the boat built from scratch. The idea was that he would show us all over the boat on the trip.... he ended up putting a fair amount of time into fixing things on the trip.

In fact even when we called in electricians after the crossing who worked on the boat replacing undersized cables etc, they did not notice either. It was the third electrician who noticed.

Of course the omission of the RCDs is a clear breach of CE standards and there is no excuse for that.

 

[Keen_Ed]

No its did not occur to us.

Says it all, really. Why didn't you employ someone who does know how to commission a new boat?

And/or employ your own overseer/project manager to supervise the yard?

Standard practice. Not exactly rocket science.

 

[Resolution]

Says it all, really. Why didn't you employ someone who does know how to commission a new boat?

And/or employ your own overseer/project manager to supervise the yard?

Standard practice. Not exactly rocket science.

My sentiments as well on a boat with a considerable number of bespoke mods.
BUT that does not absolve the builder from doing a workmanlike job in the first place. From the descriptions given to us by Paul some of the faults were inexcusable in any quality yacht. Others are more debatable.

 

[Gludy]

I have already answered those questions in some detail.

Is your point that the customer is to blame for the boat not being built to CE standards and wrongly plated a CE boat?

The boat was checked through by a number of specialist in Cape Town and rewiring was done to correct the errors of St Francis. Two electricians inspected the boat In Granada and did not notice.

What you are in effect claiming is that the builder cannot be trusted even on basic issues and that the customer always has to pick up the bill even when the builder is negligent?

For the record Negligence:-

Negligence is a failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or loss to another person. There are four steps in proving negligence. The plaintiff must prove:
that there is a duty in the circumstances to take care duty of care
that the behaviour or inaction of the defendant in the circumstances did not meet the standard of care which a reasonable person would meet in the circumstances (breach of duty)
that the plaintiff has suffered injury or loss which a reasonable person in the circumstances could have been expected to foresee (damage)
that the damage was caused by the breach of duty (causation).

The builder therefore fails on all four counts and is clearly negligent.

 

[Magnum]

Says it all, really. Why didn't you employ someone who does know how to commission a new boat?

And/or employ your own overseer/project manager to supervise the yard?

Standard practice. Not exactly rocket science.

On superyachts, maybe, but on boats of this value it most certainly is not.

 

[Gludy]

Yes - how many people out there buying a new yacht have employed someone to constantly supervise build? Not many.

The Fastcat Butterfly had a survey done in Cape Town but still ran into big problems later. In fact it was the attempted cover up of their problems and censorship that led to the creation of my own free speech multiulls4us forum.

A survey does not normally cover CE. You have to have a CE survey. It does not cover engines - you need and engine survey. It does not cover electrics and so on.

I left Cape Town confident that we were backed by very good after sales service but in fact we were not. In fact a number of others were covering up their issues.

By the time I have finished with Suliere she will be as perfect as a yacht can be. Nothing is going to stop that progress.

 

[rwoofer]

Having read the breadth of comments on here, I can't help but feel that reality is somewhere between the extremes. Some observations:

- I definitely think the builder has not helped himself with some genuine mistakes and bad calls in dealing with them, but can also see that if there is a relentless list of challenges to his product that judgement may go astray. From experience I know that it is really important to try to keep things in perspective and make sure the builder knows your priorities. Even then I know there are some things I've picked a fuss over that later on I realised were a fuss over nothing.

- I would have never specified leading lines back to the cockpit with so many turns, by personal preference. No matter how good the turning blocks are you are racking up a lot of friction. Arguably the builder should also know this, but I also understand the builder has to balance "I wouldn't do it that way" vs "that's what the customer wants". Like many things in boats there are compromises that only the customer can determine, because it is personal preference. My preference is to minimise friction.

- Regarding bearings in blocks. It isn't necessarily the case that bearings are best. There are definitely best for heavy dynamic loads eg. sheets, but I know some manufacturers don't recommend bearings for high static loads eg. halyards because it can create flat spots on the bearings, rendering them useless. Reefing lines fit somewhere in between, so no bearings isn't necessarily bad.

All this means you have to be careful to differentiate actual mistakes, with things that came down to owner choices. The builder should have accepted and corrected actual mistakes without fuss and in Paul's position (relatively inexperienced on raggie matters) I would have used someone with more experience to guide on specification and help with commissioning, so you take the downsides of owner choices on the chin.

I wouldn't have gone so far as to have a project manager involved and don't think that involvement would have been needed to make this initial ownership experience much more positive. Anyway all IMO.

 

[photodog]

I wonder what lesson Paul feels he has learnt from this experience......?

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Having read the breadth of comments on here, I can't help but feel that reality is somewhere between the extremes.

As per usual Richard, you are being an absolute gentleman, and also aiming to apply common sense.

You wont get anywhere in life behaving like that, you know !