VIDEO - Sunk Bertram Discussion

I am not totally familiar with the bert layout . Is there an entry into the engineroom from the lower forward cabin area. If not there would be just a small amount of water entering thru various wire routes.The pumps would be still connected thru the automatic detection and the batteries were still dry so why would it go down so fast . What is the access thru the salon floor like? I can;t believe it sunk right away thats all.

Like dive on the wreck for a couple of helm chairs....

With all the talk of salvers tearing off the transom, did anybody notice that no lines are hanging off it. It most likely just broke off from the entire weight of the boat coming down on it. That's really a red herring though as what matters here is that it appears that the boat came apart. It may have happened from hitting the buoy or stuffing the bow, grabbing a chain or whatever. The bottom line is that the boat came apart. A 63' sport fish should chug through 20' seas and come home. I look forward to hearing from the party's experts and lawyers. This is going to stay interesting for a while.

I think where Bertram missed the boat is that as an experienced boat owner I really don't care if the Captain did hit that buoy. My gut tells me that the buoy should not have caused that much damage even if he turned around and hit it again for good measure. Sink the boat sure - but not destroy it. Destroyed on the bottom by a storm? Maybe but the hull is still there and experts will be able to tell if the hull was constructed properly. They should have been proactive in salvaging the boat and having an independent lab(s) test the structure to see what caused the failure. They are going to spend that much in legal costs anyway - even if they are "proven" right. Now they have a lawsuit with discovery which is going to bring out every single case of structural damage on other boats. Also any defects they had to repair or replace boats for. That all may or may not become public but the USCG and NTSB may be forced to start an investigation as well. It's just not the way to run a quality company with a history of quality products.

Occam's razor, the "took under tow" is no where near the simplest solution, and considering it was on the bottom and videoed transomless before it had been cherry picked for fishing gear and seats supports that. That the transom came off while it bounced tail first along the bottom for a mile and a half in a storm, that passes the test. Although, it doesn't matter how the transom damage was done, it is subsequent damage to the initial catastrophic event. Its debate here is a distraction.

Your statement requires the assumption that there is a watertight bulkhead in front of the engine room. Do you know that to be true? I am unaware. Since the vessel sank in 10 minutes, I doubt it, or it was compromised during the failure event.

The whole Bouy thing is so proposterous . There is no way that boat ran over that bouy ,The damage on that flimsy little radar deflector would be obvious.

Also i have nailed a 300 pound floating can at 55 mph with a offshoreboat.I thought the damage woukd be ungodly. Truth is the vee shape of any boat is going to veer the bouy off so quickly that there will be very little damage.

The idea of the thing being speared also nuts ,1 in a zillion chance and than that flimsy reflector would be inside of the boat, Sorry not a chance.

After looking at the layout i see that the fuel tank lies just behind the engineroom bulkhead so that rules out any point of entry.Most boats i have been on in this category would virtaully be watertight in the engineroom other than water flowing in thru the salon hatches in the floor.Any penetrations in that bulkhead would also be allowing sound to pass forward to the cabin area.

Most likely the flooding of the engineroom was done by what usaully brings these guys down. The fresh air vents in the sides of the hull. The pumps were probaly still running but as the boat settled more and more on the nose ithe pumps were sucking air .

Yeah, but you also have the cockpit hatches. These boats are not required to be designed or built with damage stability, so that means if you lose your forward bouyancy, there is no supposition that the water won't go over the top of the next bulkhead. Also considering the look of the forward bulkhead joint, I have no confidence that the next bulkhead joint wasn't also compromised in the initial shockwave that rolled through the hull..

Yes it is almost completely water-tight with the exception of a wiring chase or two up high. The fuel tank makes up the foward bulkhead of the engine room and it is a solid wall across the front, and if I remember correctly even the bilge is sealed.

That forward engine bulkhead is the #1 structural component of that boat.I would assume that was properly constructed and bonded with more than just a little bit of tabbing like the other bulkheads.
Does a Bertram have a molded inliner in the engine room ? If it does this might have been a point of water intrusion between the hull and innerliner . I am not sayng the engineroom was totaly watertight just that there would be just a few small areas for water to enter. The aft cockpit hatches would flood if the boat was sitting stern down but i think it was most likely bobbing nose into the wind with the carnage of the incident holding it into the waves and wind. Waves than washed over and thru the salon and into the cockpit where the water started entering thru the hatches also.

I have watched the video 30 times. I wish i could pause it to see some areas better. But i truly believe somebody try to put a line on her and pull it stern 1st.

I consider this the most likely scenario and was what I was referring to. The shockwave that rolled back in the initial failure event was pretty powerful. It would not surprise me that a structural joint perpendicular to the shockwaves direction of travel to be compromised, especially if the joint was chemically compromised already.

I agree,

I just think it floated long enough that somebody attempted to tow it the transom area met its demise just as i described.That transom was severed at the corners. If somebody had attempted to hook onto under water to the stern cleats and move it the cleats and hawse pipes would be the only thing missing.

Also after reviewing the footage of the helm area this damage is not connected with the stuffing of the bow. This is simply the hinged instrument console having worked its way out of its connections and just lying on the helm.Not a big deal.

how long does it take to download, I seem to be having problems

It's a flash video format, so it should start streaming pretty quickly.

Tommymonza, you sound like you know your ****. Last guy who spoke like you got chased off the forum...

The forward engine room bulkhead is the centerline fuel tank.

Product liability has sunk companies before. Reaction to product liability has also cemented companies' good names and made them more popular than ever.

Bertram has chosen the wrong long-term reaction in my opinion. This will be far worse than a mea culpa and bringing in the same model boats from the same era and reassuring their owners as to the integrity of their own hulls..

Ferretti Group could also sell some product if they did it right. They produce new hulls and arrange to salvage the majority of interior and systems out of the old units and offer an "upgrade" they could make a small profit on while offering current owners peace of mind at less than the cost of a new boat, and a way around the value hit (potentially complete unsellable/salvage value hit) of unupgraded boats. The old man loses nothing because he wasn't in charge back then, and works to help brand customers out of a bad situation someone else created. It's just being played stupidly, but then, that's not unexpected.