Chip - thanks for putting the 'troll issue' to rest - I think you will find a lot of support from the board
Your post had the feel of being on the up-and-up, but it pays to be cautios in cyberspace.
My apologies to you if you were put off my by raising this issue. Please keep us posted on this.
Stephen
Voids in water ballast tank of 26M
-
richandlori
- Admiral
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:08 pm
- Location: Living Aboard in Morro Bay, CA
- Contact:
Just to clarify my comments about adding my signature to some type of "please fix this" letter, that may have caused some to get irritated. I offer my assistance as a fellow Mac owner to simply help apply a small amount of pressure on Mac to properly deal with the issue. I have often found that going into a problem with a bit of extra pressure on your side, can help with the outcome. Does others signing give Chip any legal help, NO, nore does it harm those who sign. It just reminds Roger of his responsibilities...(he may not even need our reminding)
In the end, it will be up to Chip and his dealer to resoulve this issue.
Regards and good luck.
Rich
Bakersfield, CA
In the end, it will be up to Chip and his dealer to resoulve this issue.
Regards and good luck.
Rich
Bakersfield, CA
-
Catigale
- Site Admin
- Posts: 10421
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 5:59 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26X
- Location: Admiral .............Catigale 2002X.......Lots of Harpoon Hobie 16 Skiffs....Island 17
- Contact:
Chip wrote
"On this note, was it stupid and dangerous for my wife and I to have been bailing out the water in the battery compartment or is not a danger for the batteries to be sitting in water (the water never reached the level of the terminals)? "
Chip - it was certainly prudent to be bailing as once the water starts flooding the tops of the batteries of course, then you have a big problem.
Six inches of water in the bilge is a lot of weight, which can 'slosh' and make the boat unstable...without repeating a long thread here, one of the more dangerous times in a MAC is when you are underway and you are filling the ballast. (the 26M is safer than my 26X in this regard as you have fixed ballast)
I have dual bilge pumps on my X and am rigging a third 'moveable' one as a Fall project - plus a hand bilge pump!! (Okay, so I am a little paranoid...but I sail with youg kids too.)
"On this note, was it stupid and dangerous for my wife and I to have been bailing out the water in the battery compartment or is not a danger for the batteries to be sitting in water (the water never reached the level of the terminals)? "
Chip - it was certainly prudent to be bailing as once the water starts flooding the tops of the batteries of course, then you have a big problem.
Six inches of water in the bilge is a lot of weight, which can 'slosh' and make the boat unstable...without repeating a long thread here, one of the more dangerous times in a MAC is when you are underway and you are filling the ballast. (the 26M is safer than my 26X in this regard as you have fixed ballast)
I have dual bilge pumps on my X and am rigging a third 'moveable' one as a Fall project - plus a hand bilge pump!! (Okay, so I am a little paranoid...but I sail with youg kids too.)
-
Bill at BOATS 4 SAIL
- Admiral
- Posts: 1006
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:28 pm
- Sailboat: MacGregor 26D
- Location: Oconomowoc, WI
-
Chip Hindes
- Admiral
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
- Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu
I have on several occasions in the past defended the Mac against what I considered to be misguided criticism (steering, trailer and standing rigging among others). I nevertherless find it highly insulting that others on this board would demand that a contributor provide hull numbers and photographic evidence to prove he is not a troll. That's just wrong and not in the spirit of this board. Are we going to demand the same from those who rave about the Mac to prove they aren't shills from the factory? Anybody else out there remember Matt Roving?
I assume this problem is as described, and with that in mind the only equitable solution is a new boat, a soon as is reasonably possible, with transfer of Chip's installed equipment either at factory expense, or cash compensation to make up the difference.
That being said, there are literally thousands of water ballasted Macs out there which do not have ballast tank leakage problems. This one instance should be viewed as an aberration and not an indication of a general decline in quality.
If potential new M owners take this as a reason to avoid buying a Mac, they are making a mistake and it will be their loss. But the factory can ensure this does not develop into a problem by taking immediate, positive action to get Chip a new boat.
Are you still lurking out there, Matt?
I assume this problem is as described, and with that in mind the only equitable solution is a new boat, a soon as is reasonably possible, with transfer of Chip's installed equipment either at factory expense, or cash compensation to make up the difference.
That being said, there are literally thousands of water ballasted Macs out there which do not have ballast tank leakage problems. This one instance should be viewed as an aberration and not an indication of a general decline in quality.
If potential new M owners take this as a reason to avoid buying a Mac, they are making a mistake and it will be their loss. But the factory can ensure this does not develop into a problem by taking immediate, positive action to get Chip a new boat.
Are you still lurking out there, Matt?
-
Chip Hindes
- Admiral
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
- Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu
Truthfully, I don't remember a lot about it.
About the time there began to be rumors of a new boat to replace the X, there was a tremendous amount of speculation on the board as to what the new boat would look like, what features would carry over and what would be improved. Fairly quickly there developed a substantial contingent of those who were highly critical of the changes which were rumored to be underway, with the attitude that the X was about as good as it gets, don't mess with success, did Roger have his head somewhere the sun don't shine, etcetera.
Then this guy named Matt Roving (get it?) showed up on the board. Truthfully, the name went right over my head until someone else pointed it out. He seemed to have a lot of positive comments about the new design, and eventually it became apparent that, even if he wasn't a direct factory plant, he sure had access to a lot of information that any "normal" participant wouldn't have. I don't think he ever actually admitted it, but others began to address questions to him directly as if he were from the factory. Interestingly, he seems to have disappeared about the time the M became more of a reality than a rumor.
I seem to remember there were a couple others with similar names, but they're lost forever on the old board.
About the time there began to be rumors of a new boat to replace the X, there was a tremendous amount of speculation on the board as to what the new boat would look like, what features would carry over and what would be improved. Fairly quickly there developed a substantial contingent of those who were highly critical of the changes which were rumored to be underway, with the attitude that the X was about as good as it gets, don't mess with success, did Roger have his head somewhere the sun don't shine, etcetera.
Then this guy named Matt Roving (get it?) showed up on the board. Truthfully, the name went right over my head until someone else pointed it out. He seemed to have a lot of positive comments about the new design, and eventually it became apparent that, even if he wasn't a direct factory plant, he sure had access to a lot of information that any "normal" participant wouldn't have. I don't think he ever actually admitted it, but others began to address questions to him directly as if he were from the factory. Interestingly, he seems to have disappeared about the time the M became more of a reality than a rumor.
I seem to remember there were a couple others with similar names, but they're lost forever on the old board.
-
waternwaves
- Admiral
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:18 pm
- Location: X less in North Puget Sound -have to sail other boats for a while
hull number and st johns
I didn't mind posting my hull number and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this board.
I'll talk to Bill at MacGregor tomorrow and will share his comments about the voids and resulting leaks.
My advice on traveling the St. Johns River after T-day is as follows. Get the blue charts for the river from West Marine (broken into North, Middle, and South) as well as the cruising guide for the river which can also be obtained from West Marine (at least the one in the Orlando area). Keep in mind that much of the river may still be a no wake zone due to hurricane flooding and that travel will be slow going. Even without flooding, most of the river is developed and there are numerous no wake zones.
We only traveled the southern portion of the river and it has a number of great sailing lakes including Lake Monroe in Sanford and Lake George in the Ocala National Forest area. It never ceases to amaze me as to how few people actually use the lakes for sailing or other activities (not complaining).
You can stop off at springs and go swimming on Lake George. There are a number of marinas with lodging, food and gas all up and down the river. There are a few floating logs and other debris (docks, etc.) remaining in the water from the hurricanes so be very watchful for these obstacles. I wouldn't let them keep you out of the water because they are few and far between. It's just that you need to be aware that they are there. Lake George can, until the afternoon, be dangerously foggy. Also, as explained to me on this board, be aware of the weather because these shallow lakes generate waves with short wave lengths and they really rock the boat. We lodged at the Black Water Inn in Astor, Fla., for 18 bucks and at Porky's (yes, Porky's) for 10 bucks. Only problem at these places is that they are watering holes and you'll be listening to bar music and bar patrons (and have them looking at you and your boat) until about midnight. Find an anchorage and avoid these places unless you have a wife who insists on a real restroom and some time off of the boat.
Two last bits of advice - be prepared to be boarded and inspected, don't violate the no wake speed when in no wake zones, and watch out for speed boats operated by drinkers. I guess that goes without saying.
I'll talk to Bill at MacGregor tomorrow and will share his comments about the voids and resulting leaks.
My advice on traveling the St. Johns River after T-day is as follows. Get the blue charts for the river from West Marine (broken into North, Middle, and South) as well as the cruising guide for the river which can also be obtained from West Marine (at least the one in the Orlando area). Keep in mind that much of the river may still be a no wake zone due to hurricane flooding and that travel will be slow going. Even without flooding, most of the river is developed and there are numerous no wake zones.
We only traveled the southern portion of the river and it has a number of great sailing lakes including Lake Monroe in Sanford and Lake George in the Ocala National Forest area. It never ceases to amaze me as to how few people actually use the lakes for sailing or other activities (not complaining).
You can stop off at springs and go swimming on Lake George. There are a number of marinas with lodging, food and gas all up and down the river. There are a few floating logs and other debris (docks, etc.) remaining in the water from the hurricanes so be very watchful for these obstacles. I wouldn't let them keep you out of the water because they are few and far between. It's just that you need to be aware that they are there. Lake George can, until the afternoon, be dangerously foggy. Also, as explained to me on this board, be aware of the weather because these shallow lakes generate waves with short wave lengths and they really rock the boat. We lodged at the Black Water Inn in Astor, Fla., for 18 bucks and at Porky's (yes, Porky's) for 10 bucks. Only problem at these places is that they are watering holes and you'll be listening to bar music and bar patrons (and have them looking at you and your boat) until about midnight. Find an anchorage and avoid these places unless you have a wife who insists on a real restroom and some time off of the boat.
Two last bits of advice - be prepared to be boarded and inspected, don't violate the no wake speed when in no wake zones, and watch out for speed boats operated by drinkers. I guess that goes without saying.
Dealer's response and my response thereto
Here is the dealer's initial response:
I have looked over the info you sent me and forwarded same to MacGregor. I am truly sorry you are having any problems. We have been doing MacGregors for 15 years and never had a ballast tank structural problem that was bad enough to replace a boat. Voids are a common place issue on fiberglass boats (not just MacGregor but all the boats we represent) but they are not a structural problem especially in the ballast tank area. I have had tank leaks in both Hunters and Catalinas and have successfully had them fixed. I know that this is a pain in the a** but I will help you get thru it and see that you are happy. I am not in charge of decision making for MacGregor in regard to warranty issues. They tell me what they will do or not do and I try to carry it out so that everyone is happy. Bill is in charge and has more knowledge about MacGregors than anyone.
I have a really really good fiberglass man down here, but like all of us, he is way behind because of the hurricanes. However, he is the best one to look at the boat and decide what the nature of the repair should be.
If you can bring the boat to us (anytime is fine) we will get on it asap. Our schedule is as follows. Gone Monday the 22 on boat delivery, leave Tuesday for Thanksgiving holiday, return Monday the 29, working on hurricane boats till Dec 14 then closing till Jan 3rd. If it is possible to arrange your schedule to bring the boat to our yard as soon as possible after Nov. 29, we will make arrangements for the boat to be looked at immediately and move forward from there.
Sorry for going on and on. I know this seems bad and is very inconvenient for you . However, we have a lot of experience with boats and fiberglass and we will make every effort to get this issue fixed satisfactorily for all involved.
HERE IS MY ALREADY-SENT RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
Thanks for your prompt response. A number of people who know a lot about boat materials and design have already disagreed that (1) voids in the ballast tank don't affect structural integrity, and (2) that voids are commonplace. I obviously don't have the first clue as to whether you are right or they are right. I do understand, however, that the answer probably depends on the extent and numerosity of the voids, such that they and you could be correct. I gather from your email below that you have had Mac tank leaks from voids in the past?
Secondly, I am surprised that MacGregor's pressurized water test didn't cause them to discover and rectify these leaks prior to shipping the boat off to you. That really makes me wonder about quality control issues at the factory. The very first time we filled the tank, it leaked. These voids and the resulting leaks should have shown up at the plant and I'm sure that you agree (though I'm not asking you to state your view one way or the other on that).
This weekend, I found more voids (not yet leaking but probably just a matter of time). I cannot help but wonder whether there are additional voids in locations that one cannot see from the storage areas (parts of the tank that cannot be accessed and visually inspected). How are you going to confirm that there aren't similar voids in those areas? I would think that infrared or other appropriate testing would be required. Fixing the known leaks does nothing with regard to all of the other possible voids lurking out there, in my humble opinion.
If MacGregor is in charge of making warranty decisions, how will they know from California whether or not the tank is structurally sound and, accordingly, whether or not patch work will be sufficient? Will they rely on what you tell them? If so, are you (or your fiberglass connection) qualified to pass on the structural integrity of the tank? I don't ask that to be rude in any way, but rather to learn how this is going to be decided and to make sure that my safety and the safety of future crew members is not in jeopardy. I believe that all parties involved would want to know and are entitled to know from a certified professional (surveyor?) whether or not the tank is sound and subject to repair. Otherwise, I cannot conceive of how Mac can, from afar, make an informed and correct warranty decision. This is certainly not a case in which it would be appropriate simply to patch up the known and obvious voids. This is a case that requires, for the sake of satisfying the warranty and ensuring the safety of those who dare to climb aboard, a determination that (1) there are not any other voids anywhere in the tank and (2) that patchwork repairs will be sufficient because (3) there is no structural problem with the tank. Are you a marine surveyor who can make these determinations for us? Who will guarantee that there are not voids elsewhere? I am going to insist on such a guarantee or I will reject the boat as defective.
It's looking bleak on repair dates. I don't want the boat to sit under the sun for what looks like a multi-week or even multi-month period. Once you have responded to the above lingering concerns that I have, I'll give you a call about coordinating repair dates. I'd rather have an appointment with someone and deliver it the day before the appointment, if at all possible. Based on your schedule, you won't even have an opportunity to deal with this until January 2005. I'd rather wait with my boat in covered, dry storage (it is in a warehouse) than in an open, South Florida, coastal yard.
Please forward this to MacGregor, if you don't mind. Thanks again for your prompt response and I appreciate your help. I don't mean to be annoying or rude in any way by this email and hope that no offense is taken. You are a great businessman and dealer and this ain't personal. In fact, I am not even upset about this. I just want it taken care of properly, so that no one gets hurt at sea down the road, myself included. I apologize for the length of this email! Talk to you soon.
Chip
Well, Mac Board Members, any opinions on this exchange of correspondence? I am not too thrilled with the prospects.
Chip
I have looked over the info you sent me and forwarded same to MacGregor. I am truly sorry you are having any problems. We have been doing MacGregors for 15 years and never had a ballast tank structural problem that was bad enough to replace a boat. Voids are a common place issue on fiberglass boats (not just MacGregor but all the boats we represent) but they are not a structural problem especially in the ballast tank area. I have had tank leaks in both Hunters and Catalinas and have successfully had them fixed. I know that this is a pain in the a** but I will help you get thru it and see that you are happy. I am not in charge of decision making for MacGregor in regard to warranty issues. They tell me what they will do or not do and I try to carry it out so that everyone is happy. Bill is in charge and has more knowledge about MacGregors than anyone.
I have a really really good fiberglass man down here, but like all of us, he is way behind because of the hurricanes. However, he is the best one to look at the boat and decide what the nature of the repair should be.
If you can bring the boat to us (anytime is fine) we will get on it asap. Our schedule is as follows. Gone Monday the 22 on boat delivery, leave Tuesday for Thanksgiving holiday, return Monday the 29, working on hurricane boats till Dec 14 then closing till Jan 3rd. If it is possible to arrange your schedule to bring the boat to our yard as soon as possible after Nov. 29, we will make arrangements for the boat to be looked at immediately and move forward from there.
Sorry for going on and on. I know this seems bad and is very inconvenient for you . However, we have a lot of experience with boats and fiberglass and we will make every effort to get this issue fixed satisfactorily for all involved.
HERE IS MY ALREADY-SENT RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
Thanks for your prompt response. A number of people who know a lot about boat materials and design have already disagreed that (1) voids in the ballast tank don't affect structural integrity, and (2) that voids are commonplace. I obviously don't have the first clue as to whether you are right or they are right. I do understand, however, that the answer probably depends on the extent and numerosity of the voids, such that they and you could be correct. I gather from your email below that you have had Mac tank leaks from voids in the past?
Secondly, I am surprised that MacGregor's pressurized water test didn't cause them to discover and rectify these leaks prior to shipping the boat off to you. That really makes me wonder about quality control issues at the factory. The very first time we filled the tank, it leaked. These voids and the resulting leaks should have shown up at the plant and I'm sure that you agree (though I'm not asking you to state your view one way or the other on that).
This weekend, I found more voids (not yet leaking but probably just a matter of time). I cannot help but wonder whether there are additional voids in locations that one cannot see from the storage areas (parts of the tank that cannot be accessed and visually inspected). How are you going to confirm that there aren't similar voids in those areas? I would think that infrared or other appropriate testing would be required. Fixing the known leaks does nothing with regard to all of the other possible voids lurking out there, in my humble opinion.
If MacGregor is in charge of making warranty decisions, how will they know from California whether or not the tank is structurally sound and, accordingly, whether or not patch work will be sufficient? Will they rely on what you tell them? If so, are you (or your fiberglass connection) qualified to pass on the structural integrity of the tank? I don't ask that to be rude in any way, but rather to learn how this is going to be decided and to make sure that my safety and the safety of future crew members is not in jeopardy. I believe that all parties involved would want to know and are entitled to know from a certified professional (surveyor?) whether or not the tank is sound and subject to repair. Otherwise, I cannot conceive of how Mac can, from afar, make an informed and correct warranty decision. This is certainly not a case in which it would be appropriate simply to patch up the known and obvious voids. This is a case that requires, for the sake of satisfying the warranty and ensuring the safety of those who dare to climb aboard, a determination that (1) there are not any other voids anywhere in the tank and (2) that patchwork repairs will be sufficient because (3) there is no structural problem with the tank. Are you a marine surveyor who can make these determinations for us? Who will guarantee that there are not voids elsewhere? I am going to insist on such a guarantee or I will reject the boat as defective.
It's looking bleak on repair dates. I don't want the boat to sit under the sun for what looks like a multi-week or even multi-month period. Once you have responded to the above lingering concerns that I have, I'll give you a call about coordinating repair dates. I'd rather have an appointment with someone and deliver it the day before the appointment, if at all possible. Based on your schedule, you won't even have an opportunity to deal with this until January 2005. I'd rather wait with my boat in covered, dry storage (it is in a warehouse) than in an open, South Florida, coastal yard.
Please forward this to MacGregor, if you don't mind. Thanks again for your prompt response and I appreciate your help. I don't mean to be annoying or rude in any way by this email and hope that no offense is taken. You are a great businessman and dealer and this ain't personal. In fact, I am not even upset about this. I just want it taken care of properly, so that no one gets hurt at sea down the road, myself included. I apologize for the length of this email! Talk to you soon.
Chip
Well, Mac Board Members, any opinions on this exchange of correspondence? I am not too thrilled with the prospects.
Chip
-
Chip Hindes
- Admiral
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:13 am
- Location: West Sand Lake, NY '01X, "Nextboat" 50HP Tohatsu
This is the first I heard about this 24 hour pressurized ballast tank test. Does anyone know if it is a fact or a figment of somebody's imagination? If it's not a standard test, then....
If it is, I believe we can be absolutely certain that, when it takes place, the boat had not been stressed any more than being lifted out of the mold, and onto the trailer. Under the assumption that any such leaks should have been clearly visible to any inspector who was not blind, we would then conclude that they were not present following the test.
I suppose we could then surmise that the stress of shipping, trailering, and launching were what opened up the cracks. Whether they are a structural problem or not would depend on their nature which would require a thorough inspection, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevent. Even absent the potential for structural failure, the leaks by themselves witll require considerable effort to repair.
I've not looked into the bilges of an M, but Unless it's quite a lot different than the X, a considerable fraction of the ballast tank and the tank to hull joints are in locations where access is limited. They are not even visible let alone easily accesible, and major repairs couldn't be accomplished without first cutting out major portions of the inner pan. So either I'm missing something or the dealer is blowing smoke when he says these are frequently and/or easiliy repaired.
I'm assuming every day you have to wait is a day you're not able to sail your new boat, so I'm completely baffled by the dealer's lackdaisical attitude about scheduling. Exactly how long does he expect you to put up with a brand new, $20K plus boat that doesn't float? He needs to work this into your schedule, not vice versa; if it meant sending somebody to your home, marina or wherever else to inspect the boat within the next few days, he ought to be doing it.
I think if anything, your response was perhaps too reasoned and too polite, though certainly it's a lot easier for me to say this than it is for you to actually do it. Ultimately, this will probably have to be resolved through the dealer, so it's up to you to determine just how nasty you need to get in order for him to take it seriously. I wish you well and please do keep us informed as to progress.
If it is, I believe we can be absolutely certain that, when it takes place, the boat had not been stressed any more than being lifted out of the mold, and onto the trailer. Under the assumption that any such leaks should have been clearly visible to any inspector who was not blind, we would then conclude that they were not present following the test.
I suppose we could then surmise that the stress of shipping, trailering, and launching were what opened up the cracks. Whether they are a structural problem or not would depend on their nature which would require a thorough inspection, but I'm not sure it's particularly relevent. Even absent the potential for structural failure, the leaks by themselves witll require considerable effort to repair.
I've not looked into the bilges of an M, but Unless it's quite a lot different than the X, a considerable fraction of the ballast tank and the tank to hull joints are in locations where access is limited. They are not even visible let alone easily accesible, and major repairs couldn't be accomplished without first cutting out major portions of the inner pan. So either I'm missing something or the dealer is blowing smoke when he says these are frequently and/or easiliy repaired.
I'm assuming every day you have to wait is a day you're not able to sail your new boat, so I'm completely baffled by the dealer's lackdaisical attitude about scheduling. Exactly how long does he expect you to put up with a brand new, $20K plus boat that doesn't float? He needs to work this into your schedule, not vice versa; if it meant sending somebody to your home, marina or wherever else to inspect the boat within the next few days, he ought to be doing it.
I think if anything, your response was perhaps too reasoned and too polite, though certainly it's a lot easier for me to say this than it is for you to actually do it. Ultimately, this will probably have to be resolved through the dealer, so it's up to you to determine just how nasty you need to get in order for him to take it seriously. I wish you well and please do keep us informed as to progress.
-
Mark Prouty
- Admiral
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:52 am
- Location: Madison, WI Former MacGregor 26X Owner
.Chip's Dealer wrote:If you can bring the boat to us (anytime is fine) we will get on it asap. Our schedule is as follows. Gone Monday the 22 on boat delivery, leave Tuesday for Thanksgiving holiday, return Monday the 29, working on hurricane boats till Dec 14 then closing till Jan 3rd. If it is possible to arrange your schedule to bring the boat to our yard as soon as possible after Nov. 29, we will make arrangements for the boat to be looked at immediately and move forward from there.
Doing nothing on your boat til Jan 3rd!
Chip,
Sorry about your problems but I am fascinated by this issue because of what I went through. I recently went through a problem remotely similar. A dealer incorrectly installed my 115 Suzuki and I had to get the transom repaired (I'm taking him to small claims court). It was repaired at The Boat Body Shop.
The person who did the repairs was very knowledgeable and did a good job. The problem is that he was in a similar situation that you dealer's repair person is in; he was exceptionally busy. He kept promising me dates for completion that he never made. I think he intended to make these dates but just couldn't find the time and was having trouble finding good help. My boat was finally fixed two months after it was initially promised and that was after me hounding for completion dates. It took three months total to get the job done. It is costing you. If you're making payments, your paying for something you don't have. If the boat is paid, the money you have in the boat could be working somewhere else.
I would appreciate it if someone could post the MacGregor warranty. After reading the warranty, we would be in a better position to determine your course of action. If it reads anything to the effect that a problem like this would allow for a new boat, I'd insist on the new boat. From my experience, you are in for a long and frustrating time if you have to get the boat repaired and might never be confident in the repairs.
Last edited by Mark Prouty on Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Things have unfortunately taken a turn for the worst, as my latest correspondence with the dealer indicates below:
I just talked to Bill at MacGregor and he was very short with me and seemingly bothered by my call. That is extremely unfortunate and now I am upset. He went so far as to state twice that what I have described is "unreasonable" and isn't going to get solved over the phone. I told him that I am well aware that it won't get solved over the phone and that I just wanted to know what the process is for a claim like this. How dare he describe my own description as unreasonable? A leaking ballast tank is a very serious issue and he should show a little more concern and respect, if nothing else, especially since I was very polite to him and since we (my WIFE and I) learned about the leaks the hard and dangerous way - out on the water in a storm. PENDING AN INSPECTION TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND EXTENT OF LEAKS THROUGHOUT THE BALLAST TANK, CONSIDER THIS BOAT IS HEREBY REJECTED AS DEFECTIVE. IT WILL NOT BE PUT ON THE WATER OR USED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO TRANSPORT TO A CERTIFIED SURVEYOR. Based on the unacceptable reaction of MacGregor, I am going to incur the considerable expense of an independent examination by a licensed surveyor. If the surveyor points to structural weakness or pervasive problems of any kind, I will demand a replacement boat and take appropriate legal action for any failure to meet that demand. If, instead, the surveyor concludes that the tank is sound and the leaks are subject to patchwork repair, I will tender the boat to you for those repairs and will re-accept the boat once the repairs are made. If you are unable to make such repairs seasonably, then we will have to work something out for the time that I am unable to use and enjoy the boat.
As soon as testing has been completed, I will forward the results to you. This is a very unfortunate development and I am very disappointed in MacGregor's reaction which, by the way, has nothing to do with you or your business. Please forward this correspondence to MacGregor, preferrably to Bill and his superior(s). Thanks.
I just talked to Bill at MacGregor and he was very short with me and seemingly bothered by my call. That is extremely unfortunate and now I am upset. He went so far as to state twice that what I have described is "unreasonable" and isn't going to get solved over the phone. I told him that I am well aware that it won't get solved over the phone and that I just wanted to know what the process is for a claim like this. How dare he describe my own description as unreasonable? A leaking ballast tank is a very serious issue and he should show a little more concern and respect, if nothing else, especially since I was very polite to him and since we (my WIFE and I) learned about the leaks the hard and dangerous way - out on the water in a storm. PENDING AN INSPECTION TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND EXTENT OF LEAKS THROUGHOUT THE BALLAST TANK, CONSIDER THIS BOAT IS HEREBY REJECTED AS DEFECTIVE. IT WILL NOT BE PUT ON THE WATER OR USED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO TRANSPORT TO A CERTIFIED SURVEYOR. Based on the unacceptable reaction of MacGregor, I am going to incur the considerable expense of an independent examination by a licensed surveyor. If the surveyor points to structural weakness or pervasive problems of any kind, I will demand a replacement boat and take appropriate legal action for any failure to meet that demand. If, instead, the surveyor concludes that the tank is sound and the leaks are subject to patchwork repair, I will tender the boat to you for those repairs and will re-accept the boat once the repairs are made. If you are unable to make such repairs seasonably, then we will have to work something out for the time that I am unable to use and enjoy the boat.
As soon as testing has been completed, I will forward the results to you. This is a very unfortunate development and I am very disappointed in MacGregor's reaction which, by the way, has nothing to do with you or your business. Please forward this correspondence to MacGregor, preferrably to Bill and his superior(s). Thanks.