Bummer !!!...Bite my tounge...
- Thread starter Capn Jack
- Start date
I would question the validity of such a rumor unless it was officially announced by the company. Rumors can be very unfair to a business. If there is a problem, I suspect that the dealers will be told when it is appropiate.
Hopefully we can avoid rumor mongering. Sorry to be blunt--that it is the way I feel. Lots of boat builders are having a rough time, but surviving.
Hopefully we can avoid rumor mongering. Sorry to be blunt--that it is the way I feel. Lots of boat builders are having a rough time, but surviving.
Chuckpacific
New member
Amen, Bob....
Sorry to be abrupt, but rumors can damage a company far beyond the reality. As I understand it, Fluid Marine is a company with no debt, which is well run, and can withstand the current down turn. It may be prudent to temporarily let empolyees go, or pull back production in both difficult economic times, and during a season when few boats are sold.
The boat show season is coming up after the first of the year. C Dory/Fluid Marine has a solid product line, which traditionally has great re-sale value, has a company who has stood behind the product--even for boats built before the current owners. Even in a recessionary times, dedicated boaters will continue to boat, and the C Dory represents a very viable, economical alternative to a trawler, an express cruiser, and for those who are getting out of sail, a pilot house boat. The line still appeals to the first time buyer and their family. As we see there is a product brand loyality, since many of us started with a minimal boat and then moved up in the product line.
I see only good things for Fluid Marine.
The boat show season is coming up after the first of the year. C Dory/Fluid Marine has a solid product line, which traditionally has great re-sale value, has a company who has stood behind the product--even for boats built before the current owners. Even in a recessionary times, dedicated boaters will continue to boat, and the C Dory represents a very viable, economical alternative to a trawler, an express cruiser, and for those who are getting out of sail, a pilot house boat. The line still appeals to the first time buyer and their family. As we see there is a product brand loyality, since many of us started with a minimal boat and then moved up in the product line.
I see only good things for Fluid Marine.
thataway":2hq1t9ii said:
I agree. I went through three express cruisers before realizing how terrific pilothouse boats are. Now that the Venture line is available, i.e. a "finished" C-Dory, the marketplace is wide open. If Fluid Marine were a stock company, I'd throw some $$ in their general direction.
-Greg
nookiechinookie
New member
I recently had an interaction with the new company concerning a repair needed to my Tomcat 24. The Tomcat had a crack on the transom where the hull mold was connected to the cap, which was clearly a flaw in the manufacturing process. Needless to say, water had entered the transom and rotted out the balsa core. In addition, C-Dory had used the boat as a demo boat and mounted the engines themselves. Well, they did a real poor job sealing the screw bolts, which allowed water intrusion and rotted the balsa core around the bolts; clearly it was an installation error.
I called Fluid marine and was basically told too bad because the hull had only a 5 year warranty (which expired in 2005). In addition, the Fluid Marine representative informed me that the problem occurred under C-Dory and there wasn't anything they could do. So, basically there was NO standing behind the C-Dory product and I was on my own.
I'll post photos of the repair when it is completed. I am also curious, what is the current warrenty on the Fluid Marine hulls? 5 years is not much; especially considering engines are now 5-7 years.
I called Fluid marine and was basically told too bad because the hull had only a 5 year warranty (which expired in 2005). In addition, the Fluid Marine representative informed me that the problem occurred under C-Dory and there wasn't anything they could do. So, basically there was NO standing behind the C-Dory product and I was on my own.
I'll post photos of the repair when it is completed. I am also curious, what is the current warrenty on the Fluid Marine hulls? 5 years is not much; especially considering engines are now 5-7 years.
matt_unique
New member
nookiechinookie":1g8dog7t said:
I hate to see anyone experience a warranty problem, I really do, but I don't follow your situation. If your boat came with a 5 year warranty, and it's a year 2000 boat, how are they not standing behind their product by refusing to pay for repairs in 2008?
The comment about it being a problem with C-Dory (and not Fluid Marine) is baffling though. The fastest way for them to loose owner loyalty and loose their shirts is to deny warranty claims on boats still in the warranty period purchased before they took over. Hopefully that does not come to fruition.
I am sorry to hear about your experience. The good news is it can be fixed, but of course it appears you will have to foot the bill. Hopefully the repairs will not be too costly.
Whoo--nookiechinookie--your story sounded familiar, so I looked your past posts in your profile: August 2007, apparently when you were in the process of buying this boat you wrote:
"My wife and recently had a C-Dory 24 TomCat surveyed which had some damage on the transom. The surveyor said it was not structural because he could slip a knife (without resistance) into the crack about 1 inch. I assume the transom is wood core on this vessel. I see no reason to not believe the surveyor, but wanted to know if anyone viewing this blog has heard of this problem or has an opinion about it? It will likely cost a few bucks to get the crack sealed. As of now it doesn't look like there is rot, although it is pretty tough to tell. The crack is located about 1 inch below the top of the transom by each motor. "
This was illustrated, and several people responded, including myself. I related what we had found in the C Dory 25, how I thought it should be properly repaired, and suggested at that time that you should contact C Dory, if the boat was less than 5 years old, since it could be a defect in manufacture.
Then on Sept 2nd you wrote: "Yes we bought the boat! Very excited. C-Dory offered to help with the repair."
You have a date of 2000 of build of your boat, if I am correct, this was under two owners of "C Dory" prior--Fluid Marine has only owned the company less than one year. Five year is fairly generous in the marine industry--and it is rare that more than the first owner is covered. Not sure what the age of the engines have to do with the hull warantee--but engine warantee is only occasionally more than 3 years--and I have never heard of an 8 year engine warantee. There are a few hulls waranteed for as much as 10 years, but this is very rare.
Add in that you purchased a boat over a year ago, with a known defect, said that C Dory said they would help with the repair--and now complain that the current owners are not standing behind the boat! None of us want to have problems with the boats, but I think that your criticism is unwaranted. If the boat was 4 years old, and you were the original owner--then I believe that you would have a case. It sounds as if your beef, if any, is with the Reynolds, not Fluid Marine!
"My wife and recently had a C-Dory 24 TomCat surveyed which had some damage on the transom. The surveyor said it was not structural because he could slip a knife (without resistance) into the crack about 1 inch. I assume the transom is wood core on this vessel. I see no reason to not believe the surveyor, but wanted to know if anyone viewing this blog has heard of this problem or has an opinion about it? It will likely cost a few bucks to get the crack sealed. As of now it doesn't look like there is rot, although it is pretty tough to tell. The crack is located about 1 inch below the top of the transom by each motor. "
This was illustrated, and several people responded, including myself. I related what we had found in the C Dory 25, how I thought it should be properly repaired, and suggested at that time that you should contact C Dory, if the boat was less than 5 years old, since it could be a defect in manufacture.
Then on Sept 2nd you wrote: "Yes we bought the boat! Very excited. C-Dory offered to help with the repair."
You have a date of 2000 of build of your boat, if I am correct, this was under two owners of "C Dory" prior--Fluid Marine has only owned the company less than one year. Five year is fairly generous in the marine industry--and it is rare that more than the first owner is covered. Not sure what the age of the engines have to do with the hull warantee--but engine warantee is only occasionally more than 3 years--and I have never heard of an 8 year engine warantee. There are a few hulls waranteed for as much as 10 years, but this is very rare.
Add in that you purchased a boat over a year ago, with a known defect, said that C Dory said they would help with the repair--and now complain that the current owners are not standing behind the boat! None of us want to have problems with the boats, but I think that your criticism is unwaranted. If the boat was 4 years old, and you were the original owner--then I believe that you would have a case. It sounds as if your beef, if any, is with the Reynolds, not Fluid Marine!
Jack in Alaska
New member
"Man-up" nookie chinookie. This one is on you as Thataway explained. It is NOT always someone elses problem.
nookiechinookie
New member
I figured my post would ruffle a few feathers, but I would hope this forum wouldn't castigate someone for describing an interaction with Fluid Marine
Bob, I really appreciated your advice and as a result we were informed when bought the boat, so we knew the worst case situation was possible. The forum helped inform us about the problem and other attributes about the boat made us decide on the purchase.
My engine comment: My only point with the engine warranty is that some engine manufactures have at least a 5 year warranty, with some 7 years (our e-tec for example). It is just interesting that the engine warranties may outlast hull warranties. That is my only point and a minor one at that.
Ok now onto my post:
First: Since the conversation was about the new ownership, I posted my experience with Fluid Marine, which was much different than my interaction with C-Dory.
Second: I want to clarify the boat was not still on warranty. One of the previous posts sounded confused whether they were honoring past warranties. I cannot speak to this, but they have no legal obligation to help me and I understand this.
Third: My main point was the response I got from Fluid was much different than when I talked to the old C-Dory owners. I was surprised by the lack of interest from the company concerning the issues; especially given my previous conversation with them when they were C-Dory. It seemed like the old C-Dory (Reynolds?) were very helpful when we called and were more than willing to stand behind the product line or at least offer some assistance. Maybe it was just my situation and the fact they had no legal responsibility for my situation (but neither did the old C-Dory).
Fourth. As I read the post on this forum I keep reading how the company stands behind their boats, even if they are older boats. My latest encounter was different from this viewpoint and different from the old company.
Finally, I am going to post my experience with the Tomcat because it was a manufacturing issue. As we were digging into the boat we found some interesting things, much along the same line as Bob found. Other folks should know this is something to watch for when buying these older boats.
The folks that are doing the repairs and reinstalling the engines have been wonderful to work with and I have no doubt it will be a professional job. So if anyone is in Juneau and needs a reference to a good fiberglass guy and engine guy, send me a message. In the end we'll end up with a better product.
It is too bad the previous owner did not take advantage of the warranty because I suspect the problem has been ongoing!!
Bob, I really appreciated your advice and as a result we were informed when bought the boat, so we knew the worst case situation was possible. The forum helped inform us about the problem and other attributes about the boat made us decide on the purchase.
My engine comment: My only point with the engine warranty is that some engine manufactures have at least a 5 year warranty, with some 7 years (our e-tec for example). It is just interesting that the engine warranties may outlast hull warranties. That is my only point and a minor one at that.
Ok now onto my post:
First: Since the conversation was about the new ownership, I posted my experience with Fluid Marine, which was much different than my interaction with C-Dory.
Second: I want to clarify the boat was not still on warranty. One of the previous posts sounded confused whether they were honoring past warranties. I cannot speak to this, but they have no legal obligation to help me and I understand this.
Third: My main point was the response I got from Fluid was much different than when I talked to the old C-Dory owners. I was surprised by the lack of interest from the company concerning the issues; especially given my previous conversation with them when they were C-Dory. It seemed like the old C-Dory (Reynolds?) were very helpful when we called and were more than willing to stand behind the product line or at least offer some assistance. Maybe it was just my situation and the fact they had no legal responsibility for my situation (but neither did the old C-Dory).
Fourth. As I read the post on this forum I keep reading how the company stands behind their boats, even if they are older boats. My latest encounter was different from this viewpoint and different from the old company.
Finally, I am going to post my experience with the Tomcat because it was a manufacturing issue. As we were digging into the boat we found some interesting things, much along the same line as Bob found. Other folks should know this is something to watch for when buying these older boats.
The folks that are doing the repairs and reinstalling the engines have been wonderful to work with and I have no doubt it will be a professional job. So if anyone is in Juneau and needs a reference to a good fiberglass guy and engine guy, send me a message. In the end we'll end up with a better product.
It is too bad the previous owner did not take advantage of the warranty because I suspect the problem has been ongoing!!
I'm in agreement with the others, that Fluid Marine shouldn't be held accountable for this given the boat's age.
However, your feedback here during the repair process really is encouraged. Responsibility is only one part of the equation; many here, myself included, would like to see and hear about your progress.
Don't be shy - post away.
However, your feedback here during the repair process really is encouraged. Responsibility is only one part of the equation; many here, myself included, would like to see and hear about your progress.
Don't be shy - post away.
Just curious if anyone knows why they cancelled yesterday's Fall Meeting: Tour of C-Dory/Fluid Marine *** Sorry, the November 22nd Meeting has been CANCELLED **** with the Society of Boat and Yacht Designers (other than what is stated on the web-site: http://sbyd.org/fallmtg
Nookiechinookie, thank you for the explaination. Did you start the repair when the Reynolds still owned the company? If so, I would certainly contact Rich Finley and explain the situation.
I hope that you have taken photos of what you found and what was done. I find that photos are very helpful to others in determing what the defect was and how to repair it. Unfortunately many glass technicians do not understand what needs to be done--it sounds as if yours does.
My guess is that there was no or miminal fiberglass bridging the hull to deck joint over the transom. The C Dories have a very good hull to deck joint, which is glassed over, but in this case, there is no way to get to the underside of the joint--and it would have to be glassed on the exterior. Looking at the 25, it is puzzling as to why glass was not used, since a lot of filler was used, and probably hand faired, so it does not make a lot of sense--but that is in older boats.
Actually the repair itself is not that difficult--if there is no transom damage--but it does require cosmetics, including fairing and gel coat matching.
I hope that you have taken photos of what you found and what was done. I find that photos are very helpful to others in determing what the defect was and how to repair it. Unfortunately many glass technicians do not understand what needs to be done--it sounds as if yours does.
My guess is that there was no or miminal fiberglass bridging the hull to deck joint over the transom. The C Dories have a very good hull to deck joint, which is glassed over, but in this case, there is no way to get to the underside of the joint--and it would have to be glassed on the exterior. Looking at the 25, it is puzzling as to why glass was not used, since a lot of filler was used, and probably hand faired, so it does not make a lot of sense--but that is in older boats.
Actually the repair itself is not that difficult--if there is no transom damage--but it does require cosmetics, including fairing and gel coat matching.
nookiechinookie
New member
I don't want to Hijack this thread, but in brief, a crack occurred right along where the hull mold is joined to the top mold. There was no filler between the balsa core and the top mold, thus leaving unsupported glass on the transom. I am unsure why they did not fill it, but that was the case. We also did a burn test on the glass and it was a little under strength, so on the repair we boosted up the strength of the glass. The guy doing the repairs is the owner of Blackfeather Boats.
We replaced the entire port side of the transom and areas around the engine bolts on the starboard side with a non-balsa material (polyethylene) that Blackfeather uses in their boats. It is not a wood material and thus will never rot. Finally, we filled the gaps.
We replaced the entire port side of the transom and areas around the engine bolts on the starboard side with a non-balsa material (polyethylene) that Blackfeather uses in their boats. It is not a wood material and thus will never rot. Finally, we filled the gaps.