Why was this published?
 

I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic

Why was this published?
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic


Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

Why was this published?
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:59:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic


Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

Not sure, it's just a "feeling." Seems they were upfront and did okay
by the buyer. And I think this type of defect happens to other boats,
but doesn't get publicized, hence my question here.
I don't know anything about Chaparral quality.

--Vic

Why was this published?
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:59:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic

Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

Not sure, it's just a "feeling." Seems they were upfront and did okay
by the buyer. And I think this type of defect happens to other boats,
but doesn't get publicized, hence my question here.
I don't know anything about Chaparral quality.

Which marine/naval architect engineered sticking a couple of bolt holes
in the side of a boat's hull to attach a manufacturers name plate.

Why was this published?
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:32:20 -0500, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:59:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic

Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

Not sure, it's just a "feeling." Seems they were upfront and did okay
by the buyer. And I think this type of defect happens to other boats,
but doesn't get publicized, hence my question here.
I don't know anything about Chaparral quality.

Which marine/naval architect engineered sticking a couple of bolt holes
in the side of a boat's hull to attach a manufacturers name plate.

Chaparral? I'm not sure of the purpose of those pictured bolts.
Outside of a drain plug and *maybe* a bait box, through-hulls always
seem to me like a bad idea on a small boat, but maybe that's just me.

--Vic

Why was this published?
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:32:20 -0500, BAR wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 20:59:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic
Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

Not sure, it's just a "feeling." Seems they were upfront and did okay
by the buyer. And I think this type of defect happens to other boats,
but doesn't get publicized, hence my question here.
I don't know anything about Chaparral quality.
Which marine/naval architect engineered sticking a couple of bolt holes
in the side of a boat's hull to attach a manufacturers name plate.

Chaparral? I'm not sure of the purpose of those pictured bolts.
Outside of a drain plug and *maybe* a bait box, through-hulls always
seem to me like a bad idea on a small boat, but maybe that's just me.

--Vic


Those bolts seem well above the waterline.

As for through-hulls, they obviously need to be installed correctly and
then checked for leaks the first time a boat is launched and thereafter.

The three outboard boat dealers I have dealt with the last 15 years
insisted upon "delivering" the boats they sell to their customers in the
water. Each time, I recall, the first thing the delivering mechanic did
once the boat was splashed was to lift the deck covers and make sure the
boat was not leaking anywhere. Then the mechanic filled a bucket with
water and poured it into the bilge to make sure the bilge pump was working.

At TriState, where I bought my Parkers, the boats were first tank-tested
on the dealer's premises. This is done mainly to adjust the new engine,
but the bilges are opened up, too, to check for any sort of leaks.
TriState has a large, drive-in test tank and big-time hydraulic trailers
to handle boats up to 40' long.

Why was this published?
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:28:07 -0500, HK wrote:



Those bolts seem well above the waterline.

Yeah, but the picture of the supposed "culprit" though-hull appeared
to be well above the waterline too. Something seems to be missing
here.

As for through-hulls, they obviously need to be installed correctly and
then checked for leaks the first time a boat is launched and thereafter.

The three outboard boat dealers I have dealt with the last 15 years
insisted upon "delivering" the boats they sell to their customers in the
water. Each time, I recall, the first thing the delivering mechanic did
once the boat was splashed was to lift the deck covers and make sure the
boat was not leaking anywhere. Then the mechanic filled a bucket with
water and poured it into the bilge to make sure the bilge pump was working.

At TriState, where I bought my Parkers, the boats were first tank-tested
on the dealer's premises. This is done mainly to adjust the new engine,
but the bilges are opened up, too, to check for any sort of leaks.
TriState has a large, drive-in test tank and big-time hydraulic trailers
to handle boats up to 40' long.

How many below or near waterline through-hulls do you have in the
Parker?

--Vic

Why was this published?
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:28:07 -0500, HK wrote:


Those bolts seem well above the waterline.

Yeah, but the picture of the supposed "culprit" though-hull appeared
to be well above the waterline too. Something seems to be missing
here.

As for through-hulls, they obviously need to be installed correctly and
then checked for leaks the first time a boat is launched and thereafter.

The three outboard boat dealers I have dealt with the last 15 years
insisted upon "delivering" the boats they sell to their customers in the
water. Each time, I recall, the first thing the delivering mechanic did
once the boat was splashed was to lift the deck covers and make sure the
boat was not leaking anywhere. Then the mechanic filled a bucket with
water and poured it into the bilge to make sure the bilge pump was working.

At TriState, where I bought my Parkers, the boats were first tank-tested
on the dealer's premises. This is done mainly to adjust the new engine,
but the bilges are opened up, too, to check for any sort of leaks.
TriState has a large, drive-in test tank and big-time hydraulic trailers
to handle boats up to 40' long.

How many below or near waterline through-hulls do you have in the
Parker?

--Vic


This is from memory...


Below the waterline

Livewell water inlet, through bronze pickup and valve, one.

Fishfinder transducer, one.

Bilge drain out the bottom of the transom, one.


The cockpit scuppers are well above the waterline.

The livewell drain is also well above the waterline.

The two bilge pumps drain well above the waterline.



I'm pretty sure that is it.

Why was this published?
 

HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:28:07 -0500, HK wrote:


Those bolts seem well above the waterline.

Yeah, but the picture of the supposed "culprit" though-hull appeared
to be well above the waterline too. Something seems to be missing
here.

As for through-hulls, they obviously need to be installed correctly
and then checked for leaks the first time a boat is launched and
thereafter.

The three outboard boat dealers I have dealt with the last 15 years
insisted upon "delivering" the boats they sell to their customers in
the water. Each time, I recall, the first thing the delivering
mechanic did once the boat was splashed was to lift the deck covers
and make sure the boat was not leaking anywhere. Then the mechanic
filled a bucket with water and poured it into the bilge to make sure
the bilge pump was working.

At TriState, where I bought my Parkers, the boats were first
tank-tested on the dealer's premises. This is done mainly to adjust
the new engine, but the bilges are opened up, too, to check for any
sort of leaks. TriState has a large, drive-in test tank and big-time
hydraulic trailers to handle boats up to 40' long.

How many below or near waterline through-hulls do you have in the
Parker?

--Vic


This is from memory...


Below the waterline

Livewell water inlet, through bronze pickup and valve, one.

Fishfinder transducer, one.

Bilge drain out the bottom of the transom, one.


The cockpit scuppers are well above the waterline.

The livewell drain is also well above the waterline.

The two bilge pumps drain well above the waterline.



I'm pretty sure that is it.

Didn't Parker punch a couple of holes in each side of the hull to put
the Parker name plate on each side of the hull?

I still can't believe that Chaparral does that to their boats.

Why was this published?
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:28:07 -0500, HK wrote:


Those bolts seem well above the waterline.

Yeah, but the picture of the supposed "culprit" though-hull appeared
to be well above the waterline too. Something seems to be missing
here.

As for through-hulls, they obviously need to be installed correctly
and then checked for leaks the first time a boat is launched and
thereafter.

The three outboard boat dealers I have dealt with the last 15 years
insisted upon "delivering" the boats they sell to their customers in
the water. Each time, I recall, the first thing the delivering
mechanic did once the boat was splashed was to lift the deck covers
and make sure the boat was not leaking anywhere. Then the mechanic
filled a bucket with water and poured it into the bilge to make sure
the bilge pump was working.

At TriState, where I bought my Parkers, the boats were first
tank-tested on the dealer's premises. This is done mainly to adjust
the new engine, but the bilges are opened up, too, to check for any
sort of leaks. TriState has a large, drive-in test tank and big-time
hydraulic trailers to handle boats up to 40' long.

How many below or near waterline through-hulls do you have in the
Parker?

--Vic


This is from memory...


Below the waterline

Livewell water inlet, through bronze pickup and valve, one.

Fishfinder transducer, one.

Bilge drain out the bottom of the transom, one.


The cockpit scuppers are well above the waterline.

The livewell drain is also well above the waterline.

The two bilge pumps drain well above the waterline.



I'm pretty sure that is it.

Didn't Parker punch a couple of holes in each side of the hull to put
the Parker name plate on each side of the hull?

I still can't believe that Chaparral does that to their boats.



Parker uses a fancy "3D" raised decal on the hullsides. No holes - stickum.

Why was this published?
 

Vic Smith wrote in
:

http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

"“But, in order to get the replacement boat Chaparral wanted me
to sign a release saying that I would not disclose what had
happened,” Isabelle told us. “Everybody around here knows what
happened to the boat.”"

Sleazy *******s, ain't they? Reminds me of my experience with
Sea Ray of Charleston over my new 1997 Sea Rayder F16XR2 jetboat.

One of Sea Ray of Charleston's spies reading rec.boats kissed ass
and told them what I thought of Sea Ray's shoddy boats and sleazy
construction on rec.boats. The big cheeze met me at the door to
say that if I didn't stop telling my story of the FUEL FLOODING
when the 3/4" gas hose in the 3" bulkhead clamps fell off the
5/16" hose barb in the engine, in spite of Sea Ray's putting TWO
hoseclamps on it, flooding my hull with the inboard engine
running in the Ashley River soon after I got it, a life-
threatening condition, they were going to refuse to service my
Sea Ray boat because I didn't buy it from them (at retail), which
is true.

I told him to shove his Sea Ray of Charleston and Sea Ray's whole
island up his ass and walked out for the last time. As you may
have guessed, I will never buy another Brunswick product of any
sort. His service manager looked astonished at him as he said
it.

I can see more sleazy *******s in the boat business have floated
to the top with this one.....and tried to hide it...of course.

Larry
--
Yet another chopper gun company bites the dust.....

Why was this published?
 

Gene Kearns wrote in
:

One wonders if the "used boat" was sold with full disclosure.....
I
suspect not.....



I wonder if the new owner had to sign a disclosure form...??

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Why was this published?
 

Larry wrote:
...

Larry

Your story reminded me of the often debated scenario I've had with some
fellow boaters. Is it better to buy a big name, well-known brand for
future re-sale value, or a not so well known, hopefully well made boat?
As with most boaters, over time your mind and preferences change and
ou start getting 'foot-itis' in either direction. We are currently
considering trading down in size & draft to better suit the style
fishing we do probably 90% of the time.

I guess it ultimately depends on the quality of the craftmanship and the
potential buyer pool, but I have heard arguments for both sides of the
debate.

Why was this published?
 

DownTime wrote:
Larry wrote:
...

Larry

Your story reminded me of the often debated scenario I've had with some
fellow boaters. Is it better to buy a big name, well-known brand for
future re-sale value, or a not so well known, hopefully well made boat?
As with most boaters, over time your mind and preferences change and
ou start getting 'foot-itis' in either direction. We are currently
considering trading down in size & draft to better suit the style
fishing we do probably 90% of the time.

I guess it ultimately depends on the quality of the craftmanship and the
potential buyer pool, but I have heard arguments for both sides of the
debate.

Yugo

Why was this published?
 

On Dec 5, 2:21 pm, Vic Smith wrote:
I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic

"...We asked Ellis what happened to the boat that sank. "The dealer
pickled the engine and we redid the upholstery," he said. "We fixed
the boat up and put it on the stock list and sold it to one of our
dealers as a used boat."

Oh CRIPES! Tha't like buying a "flood" vehicle as a pre-owned
"program" car! new boat at discounted "used" price, with limited
warrenty. One or two years later, the wiring is crapped and wierd
stuff starts happening. With a car you can at least run the VIN and
see if ti's been wrecked or not. But this was in-house mfg. insurance,
Iwould assume, so it would stay hushed. I can understand that they
actually bought the boat back fromt he guy so the mfg. owns it, then
can do with it as they please, but it seems really kind of underhanded
that they sneaked a flood boat in on some poor sap. I doubt if the
company disclosed any "past history" to the future suc..(OOPS!)
"client" either. It'll probably be on ebay in the next 5 years, that
is if not sooner.

Why was this published?
 

DownTime wrote in
:

I guess it ultimately depends on the quality of the
craftmanship and the
potential buyer pool, but I have heard arguments for both sides
of the
debate.



The other problem I see on the docks is they buy such wonderful
quality, at some massive price tag, they're afraid to USE it!
Case in point, there's two really beautiful Hinckley jet boats at
City Marina that we hardly ever see out of their slips. These
people have cheaper boats and take them because they don't want
to scratch a helm that cost $80K to build.

I think that's stupid. It's a BOAT....not a valuable work of
ART! They get into so much prestige they're afraid to walk on
it!

Larry
--
Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you
you're downloads threaten their networks......
.....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?
http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v

Why was this published?
 

The other problem I see on the docks is they buy such wonderful
quality, at some massive price tag, they're afraid to USE it!
Case in point, there's two really beautiful Hinckley jet boats at
City Marina that we hardly ever see out of their slips. These
people have cheaper boats and take them because they don't want
to scratch a helm that cost $80K to build.

I think that's stupid. It's a BOAT....not a valuable work of
ART! They get into so much prestige they're afraid to walk on
it!

Larry

Larry,in that typeof a situation, it really does make one wonder

"who owns who"?

Why was this published?
 

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 04:27:18 +0000, Larry wrote:

I think that's stupid. It's a BOAT....not a valuable work of
ART!

Those Hinkleys are a work of art. The people who can afford them have
lots of choices about what to do with their time.

Why was this published?
 

"Larry" wrote in message
...

One of Sea Ray of Charleston's spies reading rec.boats kissed ass
and told them what I thought of Sea Ray's shoddy boats and sleazy
construction on rec.boats. The big cheeze met me at the door to
say that if I didn't stop telling my story of the FUEL FLOODING
when the 3/4" gas hose in the 3" bulkhead clamps fell off the
5/16" hose barb in the engine, in spite of Sea Ray's putting TWO
hoseclamps on it, flooding my hull with the inboard engine
running in the Ashley River soon after I got it, a life-
threatening condition, they were going to refuse to service my
Sea Ray boat because I didn't buy it from them (at retail), which
is true.

I told him to shove his Sea Ray of Charleston and Sea Ray's whole
island up his ass and walked out for the last time. As you may
have guessed, I will never buy another Brunswick product of any
sort. His service manager looked astonished at him as he said
it.



Damn.

This makes me want to send a case of beer to the dealer I go to. They treat
me like gold, and I'm probably their least profitable customer.

Why was this published?
 

On Dec 5, 12:59�pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message

...

I get Boattest e-mails, and though I found this interesting, I can't
quite figure out the intent. �Seems a bit unfair to Chaparral, but at
the same time I appreciate this type of article for the "what can go
wrong" aspect.
http://www.boattest.com/Resources/vi...spx?NewsID=608

--Vic

Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

The only perspective really presented is the p-o'd buyer's. All too
often
a buyer with a gripe isn't satisfied when a company bends over
backwards to make the situation right and demands that the dealer or
manufacturer bend over forward....and like it.

Devil's advocate:

1. Guy buys a new boat.
2. Boat runs fine and with no problems at all for 2-3 days.
3. Boat mysteriously sinks at the dock due to a loose (ned?) thru hull
4. Customer immediately offers to "settle" by accepting the next model
up the line as a susbstitute.............

DING DINGDINGDING alarm bell going off, at least for me.

Even the p-o'd buyer admits that he was given the next available
identical new boat as a replacement, the manufacturer paid all the
expenses involved with rasing his original boat, and even paid him a
day's wages for his time and trouble. He is upset because the factory
didn't actually say "sorry". I wonder if he would have been OK with
the factory saying "sorry", but taking none of the other steps to
remedy the situation?

Why was this published?
 

I think the Co and the dealer did right. i wouldn't have expected
groveling from the CEO, though. But i also wouldn't want freebie caps
and t-shirts either. I don't wear clothing that advertises for
companies. but the extra canvass was cool! I think they did right. it
was a misfortunate incident, but it does happen and I think they
reacted accordingly. But I'm still wondering about the flood boat
being sold as "used" part of the deal...

Chuck Gould wrote:

Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

The only perspective really presented is the p-o'd buyer's. All too
often
a buyer with a gripe isn't satisfied when a company bends over
backwards to make the situation right and demands that the dealer or
manufacturer bend over forward....and like it.

Devil's advocate:

1. Guy buys a new boat.
2. Boat runs fine and with no problems at all for 2-3 days.
3. Boat mysteriously sinks at the dock due to a loose (ned?) thru hull
4. Customer immediately offers to "settle" by accepting the next model
up the line as a susbstitute.............

DING DINGDINGDING alarm bell going off, at least for me.

Even the p-o'd buyer admits that he was given the next available
identical new boat as a replacement, the manufacturer paid all the
expenses involved with rasing his original boat, and even paid him a
day's wages for his time and trouble. He is upset because the factory
didn't actually say "sorry". I wonder if he would have been OK with
the factory saying "sorry", but taking none of the other steps to
remedy the situation?

Why was this published?
 

"Tim" wrote
I'm still wondering about the flood boat
being sold as "used" part of the deal...

Is this particular boat really comparable to a flooded car? Looks to me like
it was partially submerged in a relatively clean lake for less than a day.
Just sayin'.

Why was this published?
 

Ernest Scribbler wrote:
"Tim" wrote
I'm still wondering about the flood boat
being sold as "used" part of the deal...

Is this particular boat really comparable to a flooded car? Looks to me like
it was partially submerged in a relatively clean lake for less than a day.
Just sayin'.

I'm considering the electrical stuff being compromised Sure! they may
have cleaned the boat up and installed new interior, but theres places
that water has gotten into that hasn't manifested itself...yet.

Thats the way I see it.

I wonder what kind of dealer "warrenty" (if any) will it have?

Why was this published?
 

On Dec 6, 11:28�am, Tim wrote:
I think the Co and the dealer did right. i wouldn't have expected
groveling from the CEO, though. But i also wouldn't want freebie caps
and t-shirts either. I don't wear clothing that advertises for
companies. but the extra canvass was cool! I think they did right. it
was a misfortunate incident, but it does happen and I think they
reacted accordingly. But I'm still wondering about the flood boat
being sold as "used" part of the deal...



Chuck Gould wrote:

Unfair to Chaparral? Why?

The only perspective really presented is the p-o'd buyer's. All too
often
a buyer with a gripe isn't satisfied when a company bends over
backwards to make the situation right and demands that the dealer or
manufacturer bend over forward....and like it.

Devil's advocate:

1. Guy buys a new boat.
2. Boat runs fine and with no problems at all for 2-3 days.
3. Boat mysteriously sinks at the dock due to a loose (ned?) thru hull
4. Customer immediately offers to "settle" by accepting the next model
up the line as a susbstitute.............

DING DINGDINGDING � alarm bell going off, at least for me.

Even the p-o'd buyer admits that he was given the next available
identical new boat as a replacement, the manufacturer paid all the
expenses involved with rasing his original boat, and even paid him a
day's wages for his time and trouble. He is upset because the factory
didn't actually say "sorry". I wonder if he would have been OK with
the factory saying "sorry", but taking none of the other steps to
remedy the situation?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have no probelm with the resale of the original boat, provided the
history of the vessel is disclosed. A fully informed buyer has the
right to make his or her own decision regarding the marketability and
value of the recovered boat. If I were selling that boat, I'd disclose
the history, and price it accordingly. I would likewise recommend
that the buyer employ a surveyor and rely on that person's report when
making a final determination of condition or suitability for purchase-
a step that protects the dealer as much as it does the buyer. If an
independent surveyor fails to find anything wrong with the boat and if
the dealer has truly and fully disclosed what he knows about the boat
it's pretty tough for a consumer to come back on the dealer a year or
two after the fact and say "You lied about this, tried to hide that,
etc."

The dealer also needs to be protected against claims from subsequent
owners. Party A is fully informed by the dealer. He buys the salvage
boat at 50% off retail, runs it and enjoys if for a summer, then sells
it to party B for a handsome profit.
Within a few months of the purchase, party B begins to realize that
there is evidence of a prior sinking and his attorney calls Party A to
raise heck. What's Party A going to say? "You're kidding! I just
bought that boat a few months earlier from XYZ Marine, and they never
told me a thing about that! I will swear that it never sank while I
owned it....."

Ultimately, the dealer will need a very simply worded, definite and
specific disclosure, signed by the buyer, in his sales file. Something
like: "Purchaser acknowleges that XYZ Marine has disclosed this 20XX
model 21-foot Pileknocker was partially or entirely submerged on
August 5, 20XX. With full knowledge of that incident and in
consideration of a negotiated discount in price Purchaser agrees to
purchase the vessel as is, where is, and without recourse of any kind
through XYZ Marine. XYZ Marine suggested that Purchaser employ a
surveyor to assess the condition and suitability of this vessel, and
Purchaser is not relying upon any statement made by XYZ Marine or any
representative regarding condition or suitability of this vessel"