# New Tartan and C&C Shoppers Boat Show Show Checklist



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

Hello,

First of all, thank you all for your continued support. The words of encouragement and advice are very much appreciated by Cindy and me. I am beginning to post what I wish someone had before we made the mistake of buying our C&C 121. I hope t will serve as a useful checklist for buyers as the potential purchase of these boats.


HULL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:

Tartan and C&C boats are all designed by Tim Jackett. I do not know Mr. Jacketts credentials in this area. A knowledgeable buyer should ask to see them in writing. A knowledgeable buyer should compare these credentials with those of other designers. Just because something looks good, doesn't mean it will sail well or is built well.

Tartan and C&C boats are all made using hull and deck molds. The Tartan 3700, 4100 and C&C 110 and 121 molds were originally designed and manufactured for use in making boats from more traditional polyester resin construction. The structures, when made with polyester, are much thicker than those from the new epoxy resin lamination. 

Why is this important? If the manufacturer switches an existing polyester construction set of molds to be used with epoxy construction with resulting thinner walls, there will be a lot of air space between these components when they are dry fit. A knowlegeable buyer should ask if the boat they are considering was designed to be manufactured in epoxy in the first place, with thinner panels, and that the molds were designed for these tolerances so that when components are dry fit, there are no air gaps.

Much has been said about how much "stronger and lighter" the new epoxy hulls are than the polyester builds. I can tell you that our epoxy boat keeps cracking and bends so much that the rudder binds. If these are traits of increased strength, I'd rather have a weaker one.

As to weight savings, in comparing epoxy to polyester, we were told that our hull would be 25% lighter than the same hull in polyester. The design weight of our boat is 14,100 lbs. We chose the optional shoal draft keel which added 600 lbs to the standard keel weight of 5,500 lbs. So the design weight of our boat is 14,700 lbs. When you take the keels out of the design weights, useful as the keel weights are well known as each one is stamped with the actual weight from Mars Metal, for comparing the weight of the rest of the boat, you learn some interesting stuff.

Desin weight without keel- Standard boat- 8,600 lbs
Design weight without keel- Our boat- 8,600 lbs.

US Sailing requires boats that want to do offshore racing to have scientific weight measurement as one measure of determining speed potential. Several C & C 121's have been weighed using this system. Below find two of these certificate weights compared:

2001 POLYESTER CONSTRUCTION STANDARD BOAT 17,224 lbs
standard keel.....................................................-5,500 lbs 
net weight without keel 11,724 lbs

2002 EPOXY CONSTRUCTION SHOAL KEEL BOAT 18,912 lbs
shoal keel......................................................... -6,100 lbs
net weight without keel 12,812 lbs


What does this tell you?

First, the designers weight goals are not able to be met in the actual manufacturing process... in the case of the standard boat it is 3,124 lbs heavier than designed or 36.3% heavier than the design weight without keel.

In the case of our boat, it is 4,212 lbs heavier than designed or 48.9% heavier than the design weight without keel.

This is an enormous miss for a supposed quality builder with refined manufacturing techniques. Or is it? When I informed them in early 2004 of this and politely told them they should probably change their advertised weights, they didn't, and to this day have not. It is advantageous to advertise stronger and lighter to an uneducated buyer. More advantageous would be to actually deliver it.

Second, our epoxy boat actually weighs 1,088 lbs MORE than the polyester sistership. WHERE IS THE 25% WEIGHT SAVINGS?

You would think that with all this extra structural weight, it might not crack and keep cracking!

They sure are "cooking up" something at NOVIS MARINE and Tartan and C&C Yachts of Annapolis, but in our case, it sure isn't stronger and lighter.

My plan is to attempt to publish one checklist item each day based on our direct and personal experience. 

Hope you all find this useful.

Best regards,

John M. Vito


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for the info John. I find it very strange that the epoxy boat would be heavier than the polyester sistership, given all other things being equal.


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

It is hard to get an apples to apples weight comparison, and as you say you were suprised the epoxy one wasn't lighter as we were.

The US Sailing Certified Measurers are very good at what they do. The certificates from US Sailing are available on all vessels measured for a nominal fee. I know many old and new Tartan and C&C boats have been measured.

All boats are measured dry, no fuel or water in tanks, all personal gear off boat....it is a very structured, computerized process and the output is a certificate that states weight as one of many measurements.

In todays computer driven world, we find it unbelievable that how something is designed for and what it actually weighs are so radically different.

We would understand a miss of up to 5%......stuff happens......but 46%?


----------



## MysticGringo (Oct 9, 2006)

John...

I had been dreaming of a C&C 121 for a while, and always said it was my dream boat... but your experience has made me reconsider that. Infact, it has taken the newer C&C's and Tartans off the lists without an extremely thorough checking out.

As for the weight differences... surely a few of these have been trucked around the country, and those have to be weighed. Anyway to get ahold of that information as a verification of the US Sailing information?

I wonder if there's a way to befriend someone in the manufacturing plant... and maybe getting some inside scoop. It sounds like you have done an excellent job of getting the info you can, but an insider would be useful.

Cars have a lemon law... don't boats have the same, or similar? Seems to me yours is the exact case for the reason the lemon law was made.

Good luck, and I hope things begin to turn around.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

This is an interesting post and your sleuthing has uncovered that perhaps we as boat purchasers take far too much at face value from boat builders.

There is NO excuse 50 years after the introduction and widespread adaption of fibreglass as a recreational boat construction material to have discrepancies of this magnitude, nor boats that work unnecessarily in a seaway due to a lack of understanding (or an unwillingness to design and build properly) of the materials involved.

I have a 35 year old C&C design that you can criticize for the use of balsa core in the deck, but at no point has made me uneasy about the quality or strength of the hull itself. That something with the C&C name on it would prove to be of dubious, falsely stated or otherwise compromised construction would likely be a huge embarrassment to George Cuthbertson, still kicking in his late 80s.


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

As a gentle reminder to new readers: The problems with Tartan/C&C is with their newer boats and not anything built prior to their use of epoxy for the hull laminates. Older Tartans and older C&C's are quality boats (especially the ones designed by S&S) and should be considered apart from these newer boats.


----------



## Leon-T (Apr 30, 2001)

I had been considering the C&C 99 , no longer.


----------



## Gramp34 (Oct 5, 2006)

A couple minor things here:



121Guy said:


> Tartan and C&C boats are all designed by Tim Jackett. I do not know Mr. Jacketts credentials in this area. A knowledgeable buyer should ask to see them in writing. A knowledgeable buyer should compare these credentials with those of other designers.


A lot of sailboat design is science, but a lot is still art. I don't know of any designer who has produced only 'winners'. As for credentials, what specifically would you look for? An academic degree? Membership in a naval architecture society? Perhaps these things can speak to the designer's knowledge of the science involved, but I don't know what they can say about the skill on the art side.

As for design and construction quality, a CE certification on the boat means it has passed European standards. While I grant you these are a pretty low hurdle, they're about the only objective standards out there for pleasure craft. If a boat is certified, the designer must be technically competent.

Beyond this, what other measures can you apply to the designer's credentials?



> If the manufacturer switches an existing polyester construction set of molds to be used with epoxy construction with resulting thinner walls, there will be a lot of air space between these components when they are dry fit. A knowlegeable buyer should ask if the boat they are considering was designed to be manufactured in epoxy in the first place, with thinner panels, and that the molds were designed for these tolerances so that when components are dry fit, there are no air gaps.


I don't know what gaps you're talking about. I assume that since you're referring to the thinner hull skin, you mean gaps between the edges of the bulkheads (and other reinforcements such as stringers) and the hull skin.

If you're seeing gaps at these edges, it's actually a good thing. Bulkheads butted up against the hull create hard spots. The hull skin flexes as wave pressures change. If a bulkhead is hard against the skin, the skin can't flex there. It has to bend along this line. This puts extra stress on the skin and can lead to cracking.

Better practice is to leave a gap at the edge of the bulkheads and have the tabbing bridge this gap.

Technically, there is absolutely no difference between molds used for polyester and epoxy composites. Whether a mold was originally used with polyester or epoxy resins will tell you nothing about the boat that comes out of it.

What you point out about the weights of the different boats is very interesting. Tartan/C&C pay for most of the hull materials by the pound, and epoxy ain't cheap, so they should have a very good idea of what their boat weighs. They really should have some explanation for the discrepancy you've found.

If you want to pursue this, have you thought about asking the FTC and Ohio Attorney General to investigate possible deceptive advertising? Tartan/C&C emphasizes performance in their marketing. Performance is a function of weight, so if they are understating their weights they are misleading customers.

Good luck,

Tim


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

I have no specific comments about the Tartan/CC issue. However, Gramp34 said :

"If you're seeing gaps at these edges, it's actually a good thing. Bulkheads butted up against the hull create hard spots. The hull skin flexes as wave pressures change. If a bulkhead is hard against the skin, the skin can't flex there. It has to bend along this line. This puts extra stress on the skin and can lead to cracking.

"Better practice is to leave a gap at the edge of the bulkheads and have the tabbing bridge this gap. "

Gosh, that doesn't sound right to me. I have heard of placing high density foam between the outer edges of the bulkhead and the inner hull sides to reduce hard point loading, but I have never heard of intentionally leaving gaps between the bulkhead and hull in order to let the skin of the hull flex. My understanding of the purpose of the bulkheads is to make the hull more structurally rigid and prevent precisely that from happenning.


----------



## Tartan34C (Nov 21, 2006)

He is right but some of the detail is missing. The bulkheads don’t float but are held in a way that avoids hard spots that still lets you make the connection. There are many ways to do it and it’s up to the designer and builder to agree on how the boats should be built.
All the best,
Robert Gainer


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

7Psych-

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but there seem to be some serious quality control issues with the current Tartans and C&Cs. It seems that the current company is producing a product that they are not willing to stand behind, and that there are some serious problems with their QA procedures, as well as some serious questions about their published specifications.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

7Psych said:


> Geez........We ordered a new Tartan 3400 with expected delivery in November. We have our hull number, so I guess we are in the pipeline. However, after reading posts here and from other web-sites, are Tartans and C&C's really POS? If all theses criticisms of the boats are true, then why are they not being corrected especially if safety is involved. We have finally found the boat that meets all our needs and how discuraging to feel that we just spent thousands ordering a pile of #@%^%!!!
> 
> Not Happy in N.J.


Before being too concerned, I will point point out that this has not been reported on all T's... but appears (with appears being the very operative - there are two sides to every story) on some select 4 digits. There may be hundreds of happy 4 digit owners too. I think prudence should be exercised in any large purchase, so I do suggest doing your home work with the concerns that have been expressed here and elsewhere.

Please review this thread:

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35760&highlight=tartan

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

7Psych-

I'd highly recommend getting a good survey of the new boat before you finalize the purchase. Given the current atmosphere regarding Tartan and the issues that some of their newer boats have been having, it would be a prudent measure to take.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

7psych... I am not an alarmist on this issue either and you probably have an an excellent chance of receiving the level of quality in the finished product that you signed on for. 
Given the recent issue regarding failures and willingness of Tartan to deal with customer issues, I do think it would be prudent to get a survey of the entire boat with specific attention to the problem areas that have been pointed out...before you make your final payment and take delivery. 
Good luck with the process and I hope you get the boat of your dreams!


----------



## Gramp34 (Oct 5, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> Gosh, that doesn't sound right to me. I have heard of placing high density foam between the outer edges of the bulkhead and the inner hull sides to reduce hard point loading, but I have never heard of intentionally leaving gaps between the bulkhead and hull in order to let the skin of the hull flex. My understanding of the purpose of the bulkheads is to make the hull more structurally rigid and prevent precisely that from happenning.


Yes, I didn't explain things fully.

The bulkheads are tabbed in, which means fiberglass is applied to both sides of the corner formed by the bulkhead and the hull. Here's a figure from the U.S. Coast Guard:










Federal regulations require bulkheads in small passenger vessels "be landed in some kind of foam or other elastomeric support as shown in Figure 2-3 above." (What the figure calls the "bonding angle" is what is usually called tabbing.)

It's good practice for pleasure boats, too. Usually builders use a foam strip or a putty that serves a dual purpose. First it eliminates a hard spot. Second, the fiberglass tabbing works better if the corner isn't sharp, so the filler material provides a nice transition in the corner.

Once the tabbing is in and cured, there's no more purpose to this filler material. It doesn't carry any load. The tabbing carries all the load.

The original post mentioned gaps in construction due to thinner hull laminates. The only place I could think of would be around bulkheads. Even if the gap around the bulkhead does increase, it shouldn't have any effect because you don't want tight bulkheads, anyway.

Cheers,

Tim


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

camaraderie said:


> 7psych... I am not an alarmist on this issue either and you probably have an an excellent chance of receiving the level of quality in the finished product that you signed on for.
> Given the recent issue regarding failures and willingness of Tartan to deal with customer issues, I do think it would be prudent to get a survey of the entire boat with specific attention to the problem areas that have been pointed out...before you make your final payment and take delivery.
> Good luck with the process and I hope you get the boat of your dreams!


You know, I have said this before, and will say it again, but I fear that if the issues that have been raised about the hull on the 4'Digits are true, then I fail to see how a survey will help. Maybe if the king of all surveyors was there he might have some vague reccomedation... but even then... I just hesitate thinking a survey will help. How will sounding the hull help a lamination/epoxy issue? It seems to me that these are failures that show up with use - which will not be the case on a pre-purchase survey. The one exception would be the tiller binding under heavy backstay tension. But is it binding under normal? I doubt a surveyor will torque that stay down to check to see that.

Am I wrong in these assumptions? I have no doubt they are following ABYC and the systems (most of which are through vendors anyways) are in order. THe issue as I understand it (if there even is one) is the hull and its strength and it ability to stand up to even modest offshore use without failure.

How would a survey point this out? Am I wrong in this?

- CD

PS ANother thing I want to point out is that I am in no way saying anything bad about these boats. DONT GET ME INVOLVED IN THIS... (smile). I have always liked Tartans. I am merely pointing out concerns that have been brought up on this site and elsewhere.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

CD...I agree that the hull issue may be undetectable at survey...but I haven't seen the Tartan board going crazy with lots of cases of split hulls...what have we evidence of so far...1 or 2 over 4 or 5 years of production? Indeed, even if the problem is denied by Tartan...my guess is they have taken pains at the factory to insure THAT issue does not arise again. I am more concerned with the penny-pinching attitude I am hearing about from the company. My own experience says that when companies start penny-pinching that it shows up in worker satisfaction which leads to quality issues and it also means you have to fight for he little things that ARE under warranty. Better to have a survey and find that poorly bonded thru hull or forgotten hose clamp then have to deal with the consequences down the road. On a 6 figure boat...it is small insurance to pay for some peace of mind.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Tim,

Thank you very much for that helpful explanation. I guess I misunderstood your initial post. I think we may have been saying the same thing, but you explained it more expertly. Great visual. If we could take this to another thread I'd be interested to discuss the notion that the hull is supposed to flex (is there some way to extract this portion of the thread and move it to a new one?)

Now I'll butt out so we don't get this thread too far off-track.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

I have been considering a 115. I ws talking to the dealer the other day, they have heard of 1 ea, a 115 and 3700 with issues. Some of it was manufacturing, some of it is the owner of the boat. Of course teh dealer i going to say thing to aleviate my fears. BUT, at the same time, with all things one reads on forums, one needs to attempt to wade as best they can thru the muck and mier, and figure out what is really true, vs not true, and somewhere in the middle. 

For 7psych, i would not lose any sleep over your purchase. Even wit hearing and seeing things on here, I am not worried about comparing the 115 to other brands and models I'm considering. Unless of course, there is some major they are going BK.........then they are out the door.

marty


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

And as I have mentioned in other post, *until a* *neutral source investigates the claims and publishes their findings*, one should take the claims with a grain of salt.

BTW...anyone read the article in this issue of Practical Sailor on cored hulls, they mention Tartan/C&C


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

T37, any way to access those articles without subscribing?

Thanks,
Freeman


----------



## T37Chef (Oct 9, 2006)

You could wait until I am finished and I can send you my copy  

But seriously, I am not sure, but they do have a website but I have never searched it...someone here sure has and will let us know...come on SD.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

T37Chef said:


> And as I have mentioned in other post, *until a* *neutral source investigates the claims and publishes their findings*, one should take the claims with a grain of salt.
> 
> BTW...anyone read the article in this issue of Practical Sailor on cored hulls, they mention Tartan/C&C


Funny you mention that T37. I was going to bring that up here!! I thought it was a well written article and explained well. Def worth reading.

- CD


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

Hi,

We are the folks with the problematic epoxy 121.

I'd like to make several points here and hope those in progress of purchasing a boat from this company who seem conflicted will take them to heart.

There are several owners who have had problems. There are also many owners who are very happy with their purchase. Of interest to those on this list who believe in free speech is that the "problem owners" have been banned from the tartansailing group at yahoo. Those that are happy owners and the company do not want these problems talked about in the light of day. I'm happy Sailnet is in the free speech business!

We have had to sue the manufacturer and dealer to get them to fix our boat and honor their contract with us.

We tried all we could to work with them and then have Boat US try to work with them to no avail.

Here is our advice based on our direct experience:

If you are lusting after one of their products.....go for it! But not before hiring a surveyor who can use one of the new machines that can examine a hull for voids and dry layup. They work like a thermal imaging machine. Hopefully, the imaging will reveal a great layup but if it doesn't reject it. If you accept a problem boat you will be headed down the same road as us and I do not wish that on anyone.

You are buying a performance product advertised as the "strongest, lightest, stiffest production boat". In order to substantiate those claims, one would need to know....how strong, how light and how stiff.....and as compared to what?

Your boat will perform only as well as these statements are reality. If it is weaker, heavier or less stiff than reported, you may not be happy.

To make these statements become reality, one would expect state of the art process control in every aspect of manufacturing. Those in manufacturing on this list know well of ISO 9002 and the like. Take a hard look at the factory and speak to the people in charge of quality control. 

Given the adherence to strict manufacturing process control, the boat should at minimum have a detailed build book and lamination schedule. Get this in advance of production and before accepting the boat, have your accreddited marine surveyor match what is written down with what is actually built. Hopefully, there will be no issues. If there are, do not accept the boat. 

Take a hard look at the warranty and go through it with your surveyor. What problems are you likely to have, will they be covered, is the warranty comprehensive or is there a lot of wiggle room and legal wordsmithing? Who will you rely on to do this work?

The company has many company owned stores. The factory has a management interest in these. They seem to be migrating away from indirect or independent distributors. If you are buying from one of the in house dealers, make sure you understand who their bosses are and how their bread is buttered. In our case, we would rather have dealt with independant distribution where the distributor can be a customer advocate in the event of a conflict. There are many benefits of direct distribution, most for the company, but some for the consumer as being quasi empolyees of the factory should translate into better overall communications and support. In our case it did not. 

I'd be happy to provide more of our direct experiences should anyone want to ask.

Good luck to all,

John


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

Once again, I have to say, shaking my head, "Incredible."

- CD


----------



## max-on (Mar 30, 2004)

If purchasing, I would also carefully review your agreement, and whether it provides for inspection and sea trail upon delivery, what type of inspections, upon what findings can the buyer reject the boat and a full refund issued, and what the remedies are if the buyer discovers the boat is not built according to specification. The more of your money the builder has prior to delivery and your acceptance, the less leverage you will have. Where is your deposit, is it with an escrow agent with a written escrow agreement, or is Tartan/C&C, especially if they own the dealships, holding the money. Again, on a $200-300k purchase, the deposit can be significant.


----------



## cardiacpaul (Jun 20, 2006)

I'm not forming an opinion one way or the other but a QC director at Texas Inst. had this to say about ISO and they're "damn policies"

"lets say you make potato chips, so in order to get the ISO blessing, you have to document every procedure, including plan B, and plan C, and don't forget to include all of the locations for the placement of the volumes where these procedures are kept."

Now at the end of the production line, theres a big ass hammer smashing every one of these potato chips to smithereens where they're swept by floor brush into bags, sealed and sent on thier way. As long as that procedure is fully documented, you've got your ISO seal. All is right with the world, you're a quality manufacturer of potato chips."
"And you pay ISO for the privilege"


----------



## huguley3 (May 7, 2007)

I agree totally about ISO. It does not matter that your process/procedure is complete crap as long as it is well documented and reproducible. 

SOX is a lot of the same IMHO but not quite as bad. With SOX there is some accountability so its in the interest of the responsible people to have a decent policy.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

121guy,

While the unhappy owners have been banned from the Tarten yahoo list. is it also possible, assuming you are one of the banned.......that you have been banned etc due to the lawsuit more than anything? On another forum I moderate on, just as large or larger than this one, lawsuits/mediation issues/attorney involved etc are deleted as to keep that forum owner etc out of the lawsuit as far as slander from the manufacture, assuming the manufacture wins etc. Altho that forum allows the poster to continue to post etc, they are just not allowed to discuss the lawsuit etc. I would think that you could/still be able to post at that site assuming the suit is not brought up. but then again, what do I or others really know anyway.

marty


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

You could be right. I don't know. What I do know is that there are three groups of generally very nice folks on that board.....a group of happy older Tartan owners, a group of happy Fairport/ Novis Tartan and C&C owners and an unhappy group of Fairport/ Novis Tartan and C&C owners.

My hopes in posting there was to get the group, as a whole, to learn from our experience and pressure the manufacturer and dealer to solve our issues through the Boat US mediation process, which some here have recommended as an impartial third party, in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit. There was a groundswell of support from many on that board and we thank them all. 

We think that we were stiflled for no other reason than many disatisfied owners were coming out of the woodwork about their issues and the manufacturer and first group didn't like that and pressured the list owner.

One only needs to look at Yachtworld and the number of late model Tartan and C&C boats there are for sale. Why are so many people selling one to five year old boats? For us, this was a rest of our sailing lifetime boat as it was not a trivial purchase. Perhaps we are unique in that regard, but many I've talked with share that view. There are many more folks in that third category and sharing information derived from direct ownership experience should be valuable to all parties. If my business was boat manufacturing, I'd for sure want to know why such a large group of owners wasn't happy.....but that's me.


----------



## Gramp34 (Oct 5, 2006)

JohnRPollard said:


> If we could take this to another thread I'd be interested to discuss the notion that the hull is supposed to flex (is there some way to extract this portion of the thread and move it to a new one?)


Hi John,

There's not enough to make another thread, so I'll just put a quick note here.

It's not that we want the hull to flex, the problem is that all materials deform under load. You can make a hull skin thicker, or support it with more structure to cut down the flexing, but these options add weight and cost. There's always a trade-off. Some degree of flexing is going to happen so it needs to be accommodated as best as possible.

Imagine you want to break a stick. You take it in your hands and flex it across the middle of your thigh, or across a pointy part of your kneecap. I'll bet it'll break across your kneecap with less flex than across your thigh. The sharper bend on your hard kneecap concentrates the stress in the stick, causing it to break sooner.

Same thing happens in hull skins. Given the skin is going to flex under the pressure of waves, how can you support it with as little stress concentration as possible? Putting a gap between the bulkhead and skin and using fiberglass tabbing lets the connection 'give' more and reduce the stress concentration.

Cheers,

Tim


----------



## 7Psych (Aug 28, 2007)

Under what conditions is the hull flexing? Flat water, wind 10-15 kts, or a short chop, waves 2-3ft, and winds 15-25?


----------



## 121Guy (May 6, 2007)

What is below is how the manufacturer describes some of their structural idealogy. Most of the hull is supported by this interior grid. The bulkheads are secondary. This is why the tolerances between the parts is so critical.


Structural fiberglass longitudinal and athwartship grid bonded to hull and deck, utilizing high-strength epoxy adhesives and Plexus methylmethacrylate adhesives providing superior structural bonding of key components vs. conventional production construction techniques.

• Aerospace adhesive technology used in the attachment of internal furnishings to further stiffen the overall structure

• Bulkheads and risers are pressure laminate or cherry-faced plywood

Below please find one of my experts inspection report and estimate to fix the current problems. This should shed some light on the flexing issues.


NEW HOLLAND MARINE GROUP, INC.
722 PARK AVENUE
HOLLAND, MICHIGAN 49423

August 27, 2007

Bill Ross, CEO
Tim Jackett, COO
Andrew Drumm, Warranty Manager

Novis Marine (Formerly Fairport Yachts, Ltd)
1920 Fairport Nursery Rd, Fairport Harbor, OH 44077-4482 


Mike Titgmeyer, Manager
Tartan C&C of Annapolis
312 Third St, Annapolis, MD 21403

New Holland Marine Group, Inc. was contacted by John and Cindy Vito to analyze and provide a repair estimate for the problems they are experiencing on their C&C 121. The following are my findings and conclusions:

1-	The transom area of the vessel appears to be inadequately engineered to support the loads of a vessel of this size. When minimal pressure is applied to the backstay cylinder (approx. 1000psi) movement of the transom in the area of the backstay foundations can be detected. Structural cracking is also evident in this area and across the step region of the transom. Movement of these cracks is evident when the backstay pressure is increased and decreased. An additional anomaly which occurs during increased backstay pressure is the binding of the rudder shaft. It appears as the backstay is increased or when the vessel is moving through a seaway the dynamic loadings on the backstay cause the rudder shaft to bind and release. The upper and lower rudder bearings appear to be inadequately supported structurally. During inspection of the transom area it was observed the core to solid glass transition of the hull laminate is a significant distance forward of the hull transom edge creating a large unsupported solid glass region. It is our experience that this solid glass region if inadequately supported will be significantly less stiff and encounter abnormal flexing. We have found that it is advantageous to minimize the size of an uncored area and carry the core transition as close to a structural support or design edge as possible. In addition, it is always better to taper this core transition with as shallow a slope as possible. This will prevent any stress loading in the transition which could cause a hinge point in the composite panel. It was also noted that there is a lack of longitudinal support in the aft transom region. Longitudinal support should be carried through the vessel back to the transom to prevent the vessel from bending and flexing under normal backstay loadings and sailing conditions. This large uncored area coupled with the lack of longitudinal support in this area contributes directly to the anomalies we are detecting in transom area. The transom region needs to have structural support framing added longitudinally to the hull and into the region of the transom which supports the backstay foundations. In addition, the rudder bearing system needs additional framing vertically, athwartships and longitudinally. 

2-	During the inspection of the vessel two vertical structural cracks were detected on
the starboard hull side extending vertically between the sheer and waterline. These cracks were not caused from age or normal use of the vessel. The cracks appear to extend through the cosmetic coating through the gelcoat and into the surface of the structural laminate. These areas should be analyzed in detail to determine their depth and what structural action is necessary to correct and prevent propagation of the problem. In order to blend and complete the repair to a finish that meets the customer’s expectations it will be necessary to repaint the starboard side of the vessel.

3-	A large number of blister type bumps were detected on the cabin house aft of the mast in the non-skid. These anomalies appear to grow as the deck heats up and dissipate as the deck cools. They appear to have a subtle difference in sound when tapped out but appear to be deeper than the gel and skin coat layer. There is no surface cracking or crazing at this time. This observation coupled with their soundings indicates from our experience their origin is in the structural layers of the composite. These areas should be opened up and repaired before they propagate into a major problem. In order to blend and complete the repair to a finish that meets the customer’s expectations it will be necessary to non-skid the complete cabin top.

The estimated costs to repair the problems described above are as follows:

1-	Engineer and install structural laminates/framing to support the 
backstay loads and rudder system.
LABOR 132.00 hrs @ $75/hr 9900.00
MATERIALS 1200.00


2-	Grind, repair, and blend starboard hull cracks. Repaint starboard 
side of vessel. It is noted that it is necessary to repaint only the blue 
area at this time.
LABOR 66.00 hrs @$75/hr 4950.00
MATERIALS 625.00

3-	Grind, repair, and blend cabin top blisters. Re-skid complete cabin 
top to match.
LABOR 67.50 hrs @ $75/hr 5062.50
MATERIALS 437.50

4- De-rig, inside heated storage, rig and commission vessel in spring.
DE-RIGGING LABOR 8.25 hrs @ $75/hr 618.75
MAST HOIST 150.00
INSIDE HEATED STORAGE 520sg ft @ 7.25/sq.ft. 3770.00
RIG & COMMISSION 12.25 hrs @ $75/hr 918.75
MAST HOIST 150.00
SUBTOTAL $27,782.50
TAX 135.75
TOTAL ESTIMATE $27,918.25

This is only an estimate and costs could increase due to the nature of undetected damage. Any unforeseen damage and costs will be approved before proceeding with the repair.

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact me at 616-836-6847.

Regards,
Jon Easley
New Holland Marine Group, Inc.


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

I can see why you're pissed off, frankly.


----------



## luckyjim (Jun 2, 2007)

blt2ski said:


> 121guy,
> 
> While the unhappy owners have been banned from the Tarten yahoo list. is it also possible, assuming you are one of the banned.......that you have been banned etc due to the lawsuit more than anything? On another forum I moderate on, just as large or larger than this one, lawsuits/mediation issues/attorney involved etc are deleted as to keep that forum owner etc out of the lawsuit as far as slander from the manufacture, assuming the manufacture wins etc. Altho that forum allows the poster to continue to post etc, they are just not allowed to discuss the lawsuit etc. I would think that you could/still be able to post at that site assuming the suit is not brought up. but then again, what do I or others really know anyway.
> 
> marty


Marty,

You make some good points. I am also another Novis product owner (a 2005 Tartan 3700) and have filed a lawsuit against the company, the dealer and Yanmar USA. I too was banned at exactly the same time as 121 Guy. Others attempting to post messages that are in any way negative about Novis products are 'filtered out'. It is a total lock out if one raises 'issues' and questions the conduct of the manufacturer. Both 121 Guy and myself have since been threatened by the company for raising legitimate _questions_ about the _processes_, _management_ etc. In the last week they have attempted to strong arm and threatened to sue 121 Guy in some retaliatory manner for simply going to the courts just to get what he paid for and what was marketed, or committed to. For what? Telling the truth and putting the case out on the groups!

Can you think of any other yacht manufacturer that has gone to such lengths to bully owners that have spent over $300,000 on their products from discussing safety and build issues when all other avenues (the company, BoatUS, NMMA, USCG, ABYC, NTSB, etc) have failed to get the manufacturer to simply stand behind their product and do the right thing? Can you think of any other manufacturer that would so frustrate and enrage their clients that their clients are forced to turn to the market and either ask for help, or flag to others that they too must undertake serious commercial due diligence before purchase?

Sure read contracts, but fully investigate the personalities and do a Larry David look in the eyes of the people that call the shots. I sure wish I would have done to see what I am now up against. I sure wish I would have interviewed the component suppliers too as what I am finding out now paints a whole new picture too.


----------



## Gramp34 (Oct 5, 2006)

7Psych said:


> Under what conditions is the hull flexing? Flat water, wind 10-15 kts, or a short chop, waves 2-3ft, and winds 15-25?


Yep, yep, yep, yep and yep. 

When the boat is on land, the weight of the hull is sitting on the keel and flexes things one way. In the water the weight of the keel is suspended by the hull and it flexes another way. (The door to the head on my boat tightens up when it's on the hard.) This is why engine to prop shaft final alignment should be done in the water.

When heeled there's more water pressing against the leeward side, so it flexes inward some. Change tacks and that side sees less water pressure so it flexes out.

Tighten the rigging and the hull flexes (e.g., as with the fellow who's rudder binds when the backstay is tightened). Change tacks and the shroud tension increases on the windward side and drops on the leeward side, changing the flex in the hull.

As waves go by the amount of water pressing against the hull changes, and the hull flexes.

The worst case (other than hitting solid things, I guess  ) is when you're slamming into waves. Lightly built boats can "oilcan" -- the hull skin will pop in and out like the lid on an oilcan.

All the flexing, except for the oilcanning, is a completely normal part of a boat's life. The flexing does fatigue the hull, damaging the fiberglass at the microscopic level and causing the strength of the fiberglass to drop off. If you hear someone say an older racing boat has gone "soft", this is what they mean. Except for lightly built racing boats that have been worked hard, I wouldn't be concerned.

If you want to get into real detail, there's a technical paper that studied this issue and compared two J/24s. The "high mileage" boat was a 1984 model in a sailing school that was estimated to have been sailed for 11,300 hours. They measured the hull stiffness had decreased 18% from new due to all the flexing the boat had been subjected to in its life. The "low mileage" boat was built in 1981 and its hull stiffness had dropped by just 4% over its life.

Hulls flex with the amount of load you put on them. The more the load, the more the flex. If you're slamming into waves hard enough to loosen fillings, you'll probably be able to see the flex with the naked eye.  Otherwise, it happens, but it's not a problem.

Cheers,

Tim


----------



## ehmanta (Sep 12, 2006)

As a classic Tartan owner, I read these posts with quite a bit of sadness that a beloved company is not supporting their product as they should. I am also saddened by the building of a boat that is teetering on the edge of performance vs. cruising to the point where the hull is flexing beyond structural limits. I would prefer a more stoutly built boat that is a half a knot slower and is overbuilt than one that is subjected to the stress of flexing. Now it will be argued that all boats flex, this may be true, but some will flex beyond reason.
Some boat builders out there have come to understand the relation to the customer and supporting their product, namely Catalina (for you C.D.)and Island Packet, where the profit will come if the customer is happy and the customer will buy from them again when it's time to upgrade. Tartan HAD this, but if the relationships continue to become contentious, I am afraid Tartan will cease to exist, for they will run out of people willing to risk 300-400k for a PAST reputation.
Tartan has nice designs and innovative building techniques, they just need a little lesson on customer relations.


----------



## blt2ski (May 5, 2005)

Jim,

I am sorry about the issues you and 121guy are having with novus etc. Not a fun thing for me to see, as the 115 is a boat spouse and I are interested in for various and sundry reasons. 

My initial question, ie the banning etc, I was thinking it may not have been anything other than by allowing you to post, you could bear the brunt of a manufacture suing you in return for false slander etc. That is what they may be trying to get you two to stop doing on sites like this in the mean time while your trials are going on. While bringing up the issues and letting it get out is a good thing, just be careful of the slander issue where it could come back an haunt the two of you at a later date. 

i am not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that saying too many bd/wrong things on forums like this can lead to you being sued. A local email list provider did not like someone at one time implying about an issue, that was probably a wrong imply, but the person made a claim "said person was probably drunk" where in canada where the list is provded from, lists as such have been successfully sued for slander or some such thing. he did not want to get into a suit as such.

i could see in the future, sites as this, and the other I moderate on, shutting down threads like this, just to keep the potential for lawsuits against them in check. 

I do wish you two the best for getting the boats fixed in a proper manner etc. 

marty


----------



## bestfriend (Sep 26, 2006)

While I can't speak about the boats in question here, I can relate the story to several other objects made from different materials. The first are surfboards. Long standing traditions in fiberglass builds is to use a polyester resin. Recently, epoxy has been introduced. This does several things for the surfboard. Makes it float higher in the water, makes it more stiff, makes it more difficult to ding and break it. The preference of pro surfers these days is to have a thin, stiff board. They are more responsive, and lighter, but they break very easily(the ones made of polyester resin especially). Boards made of epoxy have a higher breaking point, but when they break, it is catastrophic and without warning and unrepairable. Polyester resin fiberglass is designed to flex, for good reason. You want some flex for control, comfort, etc., but not too much, or it becomes mushy and unresponsive. The same can be said for your boat, no? In our FD we use wooden ladders for all the same reason. When they are going to break, they give us warning, they flex, creak, crack, etc. Aluminum ladders just have catastrophic failure with no warning(and they conduct electricity). I have surfed on both types of boards and do not like the epoxy at all. However they are good for travel and the longboards are good for very small waves, because the board is more buoyant. All that being said, I would surf on it, but I would not sail on it. I can swim to shore from my surfboard. One more thing, the predicted epoxy board craze did not catch on. After reading what I have on this thread, I hope the epoxy sailboat does not either.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

> i am not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that saying too many bd/wrong things on forums like this can lead to you being sued.


Slander or libel issues arise where information is erroneous or unsubstantiated. While it is conceivable that an irate manufacturer could threaten a website with a suit, the posts that I have read here have not yet crossed the line. My impression of them is that the OP's have related a set of circumstances that they are encountering.

There is a fair amount of information freely available on the internet regarding NOVIS MARINE, the parent company of C&C and Tartan...

For instance:

from http://www.bwc.state.oh.us/employer/brochureware/lapsed/lapsedlist.asp



> _Top lapsed employers
> 
> The reason for posting this list is to actively fulfill our mission by educating and informing all stakeholders in Ohio's workers' compensation system of their rights and responsibilities, compiling and monitoring system data and holding parties accountable for meeting their obligations.
> 
> ...


from http://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-new_jersey/court-njdce/judge-Thompson/



> _June 28, 2007
> #9 MARINE TOWING & SALVAGE, INC. v. S/V BLUE HERON, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, FURNITURE, SAILS, and EQUIPMENT, ETC, IN REM et al NJ Thompson Marine Admiralty
> Plaintiff: #9 MARINE TOWING & SALVAGE, INC.; Defendant: S/V BLUE HERON, HER TACKLE, APPAREL, FURNITURE, SAILS, and EQUIPMENT, ETC, IN REM, JAMES A BRENNAN, CATHERINE BRENNAN, NOVIS MARINE, LTD., TARTAN C&C YACHTS OF ANNAPOLIS, LLC. and others...
> 
> ...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

BTW, the standard for libel or slander, at least in the United States, is one of legal actual malice—actual malice means that the information provided was provided with a reckless disregard for its veracity or was known to be substantially untrue. Any first-hand personal account of a situation is probably protected by the qualified defense of truth, provided the first-hand account gives full disclosure of the events. The best defense against libel/slander is qualified privilege, which is generally not a defense available to private citizens... Qualified privilege is usually a defense used by journalists.  

If one has taken time to verify or substantiate the information, then it is very unlikely that a case for libel or slander could be made. However, even if the information is completely verified and true, you can still be sued for slander or libel and rack up fairly large court costs defending yourself.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

It is a sad state of affairs in this country of ours when a man or woman fears to speak their mind for the reprocussion of being seriously sued. Yes, the days of torture and imprisonment may be over, but it is sad that many people (myself included) have warned these two members that by offering what they feel are fair, true, and stern warnings to othes, they could face prosecution.

- CD


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

CD-

They can't face prosecution, which implies criminal activity, but could face a civil lawsuit.... Libeling or slandering a company is not considered a criminal action as a general rule... it is a civil action.


----------



## Cruisingdad (Jul 21, 2006)

sailingdog said:


> CD-
> 
> They can't face prosecution, which implies criminal activity, but could face a civil lawsuit.... Libeling or slandering a company is not considered a criminal action as a general rule... it is a civil action.


Proseution, persecution, civil lawsuit: different names for the same thing, IMHO.


----------



## luckyjim (Jun 2, 2007)

This is great data and clearly Novis has to have quite a litigation budget to work the Federal and State lawsuits...keeping one or more attorney's very busy, I'm sure.

from http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-njdce/case_no-2:2006cv02692/case_id-190233/

Does anyone have any data on the Mack Boring case? The dates are very interesting. Mack Boring was the sole distributor of Yanmar engine and sail drive power plants to Novis. It was around this time that Yanmar was replaced by Volvo as Novis' provider. The reason given was that the Volvo sail drive was technically superior....

Thanks


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I am an ex dealer and I'm glad to see that this is finally seeing the light of day. I see the priniciple is out and an equity firm has bought Novis. Can't be long until the end..I hope so. They owe me plenty. Sorry for Tim though, he is a great and talented guy. I'm so far away from the industry now that this is amusing to me, but I have many stories to tell.


----------



## starlightventure (Apr 26, 2009)

*Yep Yep and Yep AGAIN.*

[Years ago the master full Gougeon Brothers did extensive studies and test procedures 
on fiber glass fatigue. My memory, a bit foggy, I seem to recall that they set up a machine to bend material back and forth for long periods of time, and then mechanically measure the loss in stiffness. I think wood fiber held up to the fatigue test much better than synthetic fibers. But with the wave of fiber glass boats coming, their information was lost in a tidal wave of the oncoming resins, glasses and molds, of the mass produced boat building industry, like a flee surfing on a toothpick at the Waimea Nationals.

Yep.


----------

