C Dory 25 transom

I made it clear at the first of any thread dealing with this boat I knew what I was getting into. But what has been the big surprise, is that the failures were caused by lack of proper bulding techniques. Yes, the boat was used hard (but not many hours--only 121 hours on the engine). Yes, the boat was left out with the cockpit uncovered in New York for at least two winters. (I believe it was shrink wrapped at least two winters).

To answer a couple of questions:
Best day asked about the screws on the transducer: They were put in with silicone. Silicone has no business being used under the water line.
The trim tabs were bedding with something else, and there was zero water intrustion in where these screws were.

I feel that it is proper to screw a "Starboard" piece (with come hatch cuts so that 5200 will stick) to the transom to allow the transducer screws to not be into the core, or to allow the screws to be moved. The Starboard screws will be into epoxy, where core material is replaced, so no water can get into the core--this is NOT a factory issue.


Journey On asks if there is anything which makes me think that hull #30 is unique in its problems--and my response is NO. I suspect that all of the boats built at this time had these problems. How is the load of the motor transfered to the hull?--With the plywood core (non marine grade) only comming to inside of the edge of the splash well, there is relitatively thin glass on each side of the wood which transfers the load. This glass can flex under some circumstances--the other "bracing" is where the transom ties into the corner of the splash well. Unfortunately this lacks sufficient, if any, glass, and is the reason that a number of the boats have cracks there (At first I thought that this, and the cracks in the foreward cockpit floor were just thick gel coat, and a sharp radius. Unfortunately this is not the case. The load of transom flexion (foreward pressure on the upper part of the transom) is taken to the corners of the splash well, as well as the glass only, and it will crack because of lack of reinforcement with glass. I don't think you are going to see motors fall off. But with time, this cracking may extend and become a major issue.

Many boats have an issue with the hull to deck joint at the transom--Grady Whites had this for some time (resolved in the 1990s). There should be glass tying the molds of the spash well (deck) and transom (hull). In this boat, was no glass over this area, and a crack developed (see the photos). This has now been fixed. Biaxial glass (multiple layers, with epoxy have filled the void at the top of the transom and sealed the core at the top. There has been glass to spread the load to the splash well both inside and outside of this structure, after the filler was ground away.

I appologize for not having interacted with Mr. Hoffman. I get the NMMA publication and didn't notice C Dory certification. The current web site does not show C Dory as certified (Please correct me if it is certified and cite when). I complained in June 2006 that there were a number of issues on the Tom Cat 255 which were not to ABYC standards. I was told that NMMA certification was expected in July 2006. I checked again several times and it was not certified by the end of 2006. Mr. Hoffman, I certainly hope I do not always have to wear a life jacket when boating!

To DrJohn: I would not call the boat a "damaged hull and neglected". If you look at the outside is is very nice looking. The hull took minimal compounding to bring to like new condition. The eyebrow and top will take a little more work, and reflects not being waxed or protected regularly. I made an assumption that the CD 25 was built to at least the standards which my 1992 CD 22 were built to. (probably a poor assumption) I have seen a number of CD 22 which have been far more abused and which have no problems. The problems were due to manufacturer defects. I discussed this boat with Bret Reynolds and have commented on his response in another thread.

The defects are not those of developement--they are just common boat building knowlege: Transom cores need to transmit the load to the sides of the boat, you should not attempt to bond hull to deck joints with filler and no glass (especially when tying together sides of a tansom) You must seal cores, you cannot put screws into cores which will have water on them, you must seal limber holes with epoxy. (Bostik and gel coat don't work) You can not leave voids in either balsa core or plywood core.

We will see what C Dory's final response is when we submit all photos after the work is done. The hull warantee is 5 years, but non transferable. After finding what I have, I have concerns about the boats which have aluminum tanks. I fear that these tanks may sit in water (unless the boat is kept covered).

Questions I have today are: are the CD 25 Transoms marine grade plywood, encapsulated in Epoxy, or totally encapsulated in glass, with no voids, and are all holes in the wooden transom core sealed with EPOXY?
Does the wood core go properly from side to side on the transom?
Is there a void in the bottom balsa core at the aft end of the bottom?
What is the laminate schedule of the cockpit floor?
Are any screws put into the inner layer of the boat's bottom balsa core?
Are all holes in any balsa cored area routed back and sealed with epoxy?
Are all electrical, plumbing and fuel specs up to ABYC standards?
Are all aluminum tanks set on plastic strips, with 5200, so that they will not sit in bilge water?

My next post will deal with further steps in the repair and what further we found.
 
OK, Today's updates. Yesterday we had considered injecting thickened epoxy thru about a dozen screw holes drilled at the lowest part of the transom. When we drilled these holes, there was water all along the void between where the core stopped and the glass of the transom (the core did not come to where this glass lapped up for the transom.) Because of this water, we elected to cut about 3/4 of an inch (slightly less than the thickness of the 1" balsa, so we did not disturb the upper layer of the hull bottom. We dried this out with heat lamps. One photo shows the port side of the transom, and there is a void about 3/8" wide in the balsa core (this should have been filled) and was full of water. The trailer was raised again, and all water drained and evaporated. After this was dry, the transom was feathered about 6 to 1 ratio for the new glass layers. The void was filled with solid glass and resin, including the void in the core, as far as we could reach, and the place where there was a polyester filler.
Then glass was laid around the bottom (about 2" and up the transom about 3"--to bring the transom back to slightly more than origional thickness--the place where the transducer was before is filled with solid glass, and is where the Starboard block will be screwed in place.

The upper repairs were finalized and filled with glass, inside and out. The finish coat is setting up tonight and will be formed/sprayed in the AM.

My closest friend (a sail maker, 500,000 miles at sea, built 6 boats, and at least as knowlegable as I am on boat building) came by the boat when I was home eating lunch. He had seen the boat when I first brought it down, but after looking at the transom, commented that that was the worst quality control he had seen in any boat. Again, I realize this is a 2003 boat, maybe #30 was not enough to get it right.

On the plus sides: we have all of the rewiring, including the windlass, separate electronics circuit, Link 1000, and most of the "goodies" finished.
So as soon as the glass work is done, and the final compounding finished the engine goes to the shop for a good check and we go for a ride! Should be early next week--well before I go to Cleveland....
 
Nicely said Iggy. These manufacturing errors could cost someone their life if the transom have gave way at the wrong time. It is a major safety concern that should be addressed by the factory. If their is any doubt about the construction of transoms during a certain period C-Dory should offer to have them inspected and/or repaired.

Bill
 
I don't believe that you are going to find transoms falling off. But I do believe that if there are cracks in the corners between the transom and splash pan, and cracks in the top of the transom, as my boat has, they need to be repaired.

The real issue is the 5 year non transferable warantee. I am fully prepared to pay for my boat. I feel the factory has responsibility. There are some 25's which are at or at least near the end of this warantee peroid and some have been sold to a second owner. The question is how are they to be repaired--especially if the factory is not looking directly at the problem?

The factory has been aware of the transom problem on this boat for at least a few months, and was made aware of the deck problem when I purchased the boat (althought it was mentioned in the survey material which was posted on this site).
 
Bob has raised excellent questions and I'm sure there will be more.

I'd like to have assurance within the next few days that C-Dory will directly address these questions on this forum. I realize this may require significant research by C-Dory and that there may be different answers pertinent to different time periods.

In my opinion this would best be addressed as a two phased effort. The first phase is letting us know which, if any, conditions are applicable to which boats. The second phase would address remediation. The response to questions should be posted as the information becomes available.

Just addressing Bob's questions may be a significant challenge for C-Dory. They must be addressed as completely as possible before the topic of remediation is broached.

Bill Moseley
Edgewater, MD
 
Bob, in 2005 C-Dory redesigned the transom/scupper area. Could you recommend how one would find out if any structural changes were made in the transom itself? Who at the factory would know about the design? I also note that there seems to be more problems in the transom now than when you were discussing it in your other thread as in the following quote: "I had 3 experts on fiberglass repair look at the transom and all agree that there is no major problem." Is this true?

By the way, lets leave personal comments about C-Dory personnel out of this conversation. Those I've talked to have all been reasonable and committed. They inherited a design and are trying to work with it. Also, trying to build boats and to sell them as a dealer are incompatible tasks, unless you're going to build a very small volume. It was a smart move to concentrate on building only. Hopefully they can now work on problems like these, if it hasn't already been fixed.

Boris
 
The initial comments refered to the core of the transom--ie where the motor bolts--and we all agreed that the core was not damaged nor had water in it--which was surprising. When the core is damaged or dis=integrated the entire transom would have to be cut out--leaving either the inner or outer skin intact. In the 25 (either the pre or post redesign (which I am aware of) the outer skin would have to be removed. The core removed, and new core replaced.

What we did find was that the cracks in the corners extended all of the way thru the laminate--both sides. That there were voids on each side of the wooden core. That there was non marine plywood used (voids in the laminates). As I opened up the area where the transducer was, there was water (not surprised) and some small Amount of rotten core. What we didn't not expect was that the balsa did not come all of the way to the back of the boat. The bottom was laid up first, then the plywood was placed on the transom in the mold. But the balsa was short comming to all of the way to the aft fiberglass layer. There was also a 1/2" + void on top of the wooden core. What may have happened, is that water which came in the top of the transom cracks may have worked its way all of the way to the bottom balas--this seems unlikely, because there is susposed to be at least a layer of mat between the balsa core and the place where the plwyood sits down on the core. We have filled any of this from below and tomarrow will inspect (as best as possiable from the inside. To find the above damage we had to open the top of the transom, first grinding down thru the cracks. We electred to do the cockpit floor first to give a good stable platform to work from on the inside.

As far as the new boats. I would look into the doors on the each side of the aft bulkhead which go into the lazarette (area under the splashwell.)
You should be able to see the bulge in the center (area which is under th) e top of the transom). This will have layers of woven roving and mat on the inside. It will then sweep back at the edge of the wood--and you can see how far the wood goes. It is possiable that the wood goes all of the way across the transom--but it may not. It is almost impossiable to replace this because of limited space, from the inside. I probably would just re-inforce the corners with several laysers of biaxial or mat and roving in the corners of the spash well and transom, on the under side.
I might also put on several more layers of mat and roving on the inside of the transom, toward the sides, from the wood. You might also put more core material in ther--lay a layer of mat, after grinding down, and then a layer of 3/4" marine plywood, and then several more layers of mat and roving--or Biaxial--with epoxy. This is what we are doing basically.

I don't think I would tear into the top of the transom, unless a crack forms. Hopefully the factory will tell us how the factory is made currently. Hopefully re-assure us that there is adequate core, with marine grade ply.
 
Deja Vu.

Haven’t we had similar threads from many of the same players about the same issues before. The only difference is now we have a CC owner fanning the flames.

Bob is a big boy and knew that he was potentially buying a problem boat, when he purchased the Frequent Sea. Most members on this site knew there could be major problems with that boat. Bob took a gamble when he bought the boat and I don’t know that it was necessarily a bad decision on his part. He has the knowledge and ability to fix it.

I would suggest anyone concerned about their boat, have a survey done and if a problem is found due to poor manufacturing techniques, they contact the factory for a remedy. The factory has stood behind their boats in the past. There is no reason to believe they will not do so now.
________
Dave dlt.gif
 
This is true so far - Brent authorized the replacement of the non-functional little cockpit drains / scuppers, and repair of the cracks in the corner of the transom. I had the work done at Lake Union Sea Ray in Fife, and already reported I was very pleased with the quality of the service there. I am concerned that there were cracks in the corner of the transom at all of course. Maybe at Bellingham somebody who understands what Bob was saying we should look for could poke their head under our splash well and tell me what they see.
oldgrowth":1nk5wy1c said:

The factory has stood behind their boats in the past. There is no reason to believe they will not do so now.
________
Dave dlt.gif
Click to expand...
 
I disagree for two reasons.

First, from what I've been reading on these threads, it isn't clear how many of the types of problems Bob has found would become apparent via a survey. If I recall, Frequent Sea had been surveyed and flags were raised but problems of the extent Bob has found were not cited as having been found. Is a survey going to be able to determine whether or not an aluminum fuel tank is sitting on plastic strips? From what I can see, the tank isn't accessible without removing the cockpit deck. On a CD-25 there are a lot of inaccessible areas.

Second, if there are some systemic problems, why should each of us have to be surveyed separately to reveal them (assuming they would show up in a survey)? The aluminum fuel tank is again the clearest example. Even assuming a survey can determine whether it's going to be sitting in water, why should each of us have to pay $20-$25/foot to learn the answer when the factory already has that information?

Just my opinion,

Bill
Edgewater, MD
 
"Sunshine Boy"? That's what a pm has claimed me to be: blindly protecting the C-Dory company whose "faceless employees don't care about their customers". Well, here's some of my experience with those terrible people:

1 - I ordered a boat, but got involved in a divorce thing and could not take posession as I had planned. Those terrible C-Dory ppl let me delay delivery.

2 - I got into a financial bind from the divorce and had to delay delivery again. Once again those terrible C-Dory ppl let me delay delivery.

3 - C-Dory came out with the Ranger 25 tug and I asked to have my order transferred to an R25 tug instead of the TomCat. Those terrible C-Dory ppl said they just wanted me to be happy and transferred the order to a C-Ranger 25.

4 - Re-evaluation of the MidWest availability of Diesel convinced me I could not easily use a C-Ranger in this area. Again, those terrible C-Dory ppl said they'd transfer my order back to a TomCat if that would make me happy.

5 - I asked to take initial delivery of the boat at Edmonds Marina so I could have a once in a lifetime cruise in my own new boat in Puget Sound and the San Juans over Christmas, 2006. Those terrible C-Dory ppl delivered the boat to Edmonds Marina in time for me to have all the electronics and accessories installed on time for my Christmas Cruise.

6 - In order to cruise legallly, I had to arrange title and registration in Oklahoma thru C-Dory prior to the actual delivery of the boat. Those terrible C-Dory ppl worked to expedite that remote registration process, which was quite an ordeal since Oklahoma requires notarized affadavits of origin, attesting to engine, boat and trailer VIN certification.

7 - There were some problems with my boat, from my perspective: Note, this is "anecdotal":

a -I had ordered 4 batteries, but there were only 3 (I was only charged for 3). Those terrible C-Dory ppl installed a 4th battery at no charge to me.

b - The drain to the livewell was located an inch or so above the tank bottom, so fetid water collected there. Those terrible C-Dory ppl removed the livewell and replaced it with a new model with no drainage problems - at no charge to me.

c - The Starboard windshield wiper banged on the window frame during storms and flipped out of function. Those terrible C-Dory ppl installed a new one at no charge to me.

d - Some tubing exhaust connector on the Wallas had fallen loose (we were in a storm with 35 K winds gusting to 55K, so the boat got a workout). Those terrible C-Dory ppl re-installed the connector at no charge to me.

8 - While at the factory having the above work done, some items I had left on the boat went missing. I mentioned it to the factory. Those terrible C-Dory ppl sent me a check for the missing items.

9 - After delivery to Oklahoma, I discovered that one battery location impeded the easy clearing of the raw water strainer. Those terrible C-Dory ppl asked me to get if fixed locally and send them the bill.

Soooooo.... it's hard for me to be a dark and stormy, gloomy, "non-sunshine" type of person when it comes to C-Dory.

I'd buy any of their models tomorrow!

A very satisfied customer, John


ps, I'll post some more perspectives on this topic later....not enough time now.
 
Not to stir the pot, unfortunately it will a little: what did Lake Union Sea Ray do? If they just repaired the gel coat, and there are structural problems deeper which caused the cracking, the gel coat will crack again, and there is the potential for water intrusion. Questions I would ask, include how deep was the crack "V" ed out? What was under the crack (filler, structural glass, just resin?)? When the repair was made, was multiplayered, structural glass laid back in? Was the inside of the transom re-inforced? Was the cap removed from the transom? What did the area under this look like? Photo 122 in the Thataway Album (second on page 6) shows how the crack in the corner goes from the area foreward of the cap to the top of the transom, and is actually a fault between the foreward molding of the splash pan at the transom, and the plywood core of the transom. The concern is that water can get into the transom thru this crack-- fortunately in our case, there is no water intrusion. One cannot assume that this will not happen in other boats.

I don't know how the transom on the 2005 boats was made. But unless the technique of hull and transom molding was changed when they chanced the cockpit floor molding (which is definately a step in the right direction), then the under lying problem is still there.

The survey on the Frequent Sea, revealed The external cracks, and the cap (black plastic covering over the transom) was loose, so that the longer crack was visiable. What was not visiable was that there was no glass bridging the two moldings (transom and splash pan)--and only filler/gel coat holding the top together, and that there was lots of filler and resin at the corner where the crack was. The crack occured where there was only one layer of mat and one layer of roving--not strong enough to take the load exerted by the motor. I have done a sketch, and also have some annotated photos, which I will post later today. I realize that without looking directly at the transom and having an explaination that unless you are a boat builder this is hard to understand. I applogize for not making this clearer.

Also when we first looked at the transom, we sounded it out, as well as pulled some screws--the only obvious problem was with the transducer--which is common. Until we cut into the transom we didn't realize that there was a void between the bottom core, where it butted to the transom and glass of the exterior layer of the transom, where water was trapping. Normal survey techniques would not determine this void, nor unless the surveyor was looking specifically from the inside for the extent of the wood core, would he recognize that it does not go adequately beyond the edges of the splash pan.

IR imaging probably would have determined some of these problems, but there are only a hand full of surveyors who use this technique because of the expense of the cameras ($30,000 +/-). We have developed some ultrasonic devices which will look at cores--but when there is pure water or pure resin (a situation we have not run into during our testing)--it is likely that the Ultra sound will not show the defect. This leaves destructive testing--and not a good choice. So unless a crack shows up, I would not do anything. If a crack appears, it has to be traced to its depth and cause. The cap should be removed and the top of the transom checked.

We also found cracks on both sides of the cockpit deck foreward--there the glass was very thin (as we noted on all of the floor)--and these were leaking also. Problem is the laminate is too thin. We re-inforced these areas from the outside.
 
Ok, now in answer to the PM's jumping on me for even 'implying' that the CD25, the subject of this thread, was "neglected and damaged":

If you have hail damage on your roof, and do not protect it afterward, nor have timely evaluation and repair done, you are going to suffer far deeper, more severe damage to the underlying structure than you would, had the defect been protected.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Bob's experience, knowledge and diligence when it comes to boats, period - any facet of them. I do not doubt any of the statements, or photos describing construction and water damage.

I am saying that I think most C-Brats and other responsible boat owners would have protected, evaluated, reported and arranged repair for such defects in a more timely manner. That would have reduced the depth and width and severity of water damage to underlying structures.

Relating to the thought that someone at C-Dory knows exactly what defects and exactly when such defects occurred in the manufacturing process, that is pure bunk to me. There may be a cluster here or there, but no need to belabor this point. I really feel everyone up there is trying to put out a good product.

Now, where is the step by step breakdown of the Honda recalls? (outboards, generators, motorcycles) ... the Cummins diesel recalls (Dodges, motorhomes, etc.) .... the Grand Banks fixes? ...the Ford Superduty electical problems. .... the Monaco Coach (motorhomes) suspension problems? The Nissan recalls? The Chevy pickup recalls? and so on? Is this all some gigantic plan to cause us all grief?


Or, is this just LIFE - REALITY? Nothing is perfect. Having a manufacturer willing and anxious to make the customer happy is a pretty good deal.


Basically, I am just trying to put this all into reasonable perspective. How many C-Dory boats have suffered problems like this? In all the history I've been able to see, there are about three.

Reading this thread, you'd think 90% of C-Dory's products are junk. That is simply not true. My guess is they're somewhere around the 98-99% success rate - and willing to backup any misfires that may occur.


John
 
FWIW, since I used the phrase "an army of nameless, faceless production workers" - and that is exactly what I observed in 2005 at the Auburn factory, under extreme pressure to churn the boats out, unlike what I observed in 2003 at the Kent factory - I want to make it clear that I did NOT PM Dr. John!


drjohn71a":2i7kzh6z said:
"Sunshine Boy"? That's what a pm has claimed me to be: blindly protecting the C-Dory company whose "faceless employees don't care about their customers".
Click to expand...
 
I've been mostly a lurker here for some time. I don't have a C-Dory yet, but it's certainly a boat I've been considering for the future.

I have to say, however, that these quality and design issues are of great concern to me. But perhaps a greater concern to me has been the response in this thread from the factory folks. Instead of acknowledging that there are significant design and quality problems with this particular boat in question, and possibly other CD25s as well, the response from the factory is "we build great boats." C-Dory hasn't even acknowledged that they didn't build this particular transom correctly.

My faith in the C-Dory Marine Group will be restored when they 1) acknowledge that some CD25s have design and quality control problems in the transom, 2) identify the hull numbers in question, and 3) present a plan to evaluate and fix those hulls. That would demonstrate that they actually are standing behind their boats.

Self congratulatory marketing speak like this:
We have a fantastic team of skilled craftsmen that take great pride in what they do. Our product is of the highest quality and we consistently beat industry warranty averages. In fact, our dealers comment on how well our boats arrive at their stores, unlike other quality boat brands they carry.
Click to expand...
in the face of unambiguous, serious problems doesn't help. It gives the appearance that you are trying to blow smoke up our skirts. The transom on this CD25 was not designed or built correctly.

Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Latham, you've got a problem. It certainly appears that your company built some CD25s with very bad transoms. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to step up to the plate and fix them? Are you going to simply continue to say that "you build great and boats and you stand behind them" while doing nothing? Or are you going to admit that you have a problem and step up to the plate?
 
Dear mysterious "M1911",


If any C-Dory owners, or prospective owners have a serious concern about this topic, they should communicate directly with the factory.

Direct communication to the factory is the best way to solve anyone's individual hull problems, or concerns with possible hull problems.

In the modern world, Doctors, Dentists, Retailers, and yes, Manufacturers, simply cannot make broad sweeping statements, nor negotiations in public forums such as this.

If a prospective buyer is concerned about the current manufacturing process, he/she should let the factory/dealer know of his/her concerns. How about asking for a tour of the current manufacturing process? How about asking to what extent Dr. Bob's concerns about these cockpit, transom construction techniques are being answered?

Maybe you could even stipulate on the purchase contract, that the boat must meet certain standards.

Personally, I 'd prefer a more open world of discussion, but we need to understand the reality of today's liability issues.

John
 
The lack of a transferable warrantee is not particularly impressive. You would hope that in the face of a design defect, a fix would be available to all owners.

Is the CD-25 the first design from the new owners? Do the CD-25s built by CDO differ significantly from the six earlier 25's?

Lots of companies design products with flaws. I think my current F-150 can catch fire due to a bad ignition switch. But, there is a recall out and I just have to get the truck over there.

Let's not talk about about Searay and limber holes "sealed" with, well, crap. And Wellcraft. And Bayliner with stringer designs that defy logic, let alone engineering. So, where does C-Dory fit into the list of companies that make mistakes? Top of the line customer service?

That is to be determined.

Mike
 
Dear mysterious "M1911",
Click to expand...
Mysterious in what way?

In the modern world, Doctors, Dentists, Retailers, and yes, Manufacturers, simply cannot make broad sweeping statements, nor negotiations in public forums such as this.
Click to expand...
Auto manufacturers regularly recall vehicles. They regularly specify the VIN numbers of the vehicles affected by the recalls.

Many now recommend that doctors should apologize for mistakes. Turns out that apologizing often heads off lawsuits. Imagine that. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ice_suits/

C-Dory knows (or should know) if the design of the CD25 transom was faulty. They should know when it changed. The only reason for them not to "make broad sweeping statements" would be if they decide not to fix the problems.
 
Back
Top