Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

IIRC there are 2 conflicting posts as to running gear damage. If that's the bouy, I'd have to go with the "no damage" version.

Wish I could agree, but I've seen similar. The bow strike does little to the buoy then drives it under. It comes up to meet the prop (and that does look like a prop cut. Much of the running gear damage (if any) could come from the boat's impact with the bottom. Nothing definitive here though; just more for the attorneys to debate at $400+ an hour. What was hit may be left an open question. Whether it was a hit or delamination shouldn't be as complicated once the videos are analyzed.

I'll see your 26 and raise you one.

OK - why don't one of you genius's go out and run the buoy over with your battleships and test it - I'll pay for prop recon - since there is no way a 300lb buoy with heavy duty CHAIN could ever damage a fiberglass boat / running gear at 25 + knots - I'll even polish out your hull "scratches" - any takers? -

Question - why are most commercial boat's steel?

Why not let investigation / inspections take there course? Don't you have gifts to wrap? Beers to consume?

OnThePins, firstly welcome.

and ill take u up on the offer, can someone supply me with a 630...?

of course its going to do some damage to the boat, but sink it... shouldnt there be some kind of water tight bulkheads, etc to save her...? also, 'that' buoy may not even be 'the' buoy...

also its been over a month, has anyone got more 'facts' to go off, bar the boat sank?

now, where's my beer...? (just lightening the mood)

84, Give it another day and we should have more details.

CaptTom, all is good. i think some members are getting a little itchy to see the vid and the pics. cheers

far

hi all,

can someone please confirm weather Bertram's hulls are vacuum bagged or not...? cheers

far

" Hand-laid strand mat, multiple knitted fabrics and multi-directional fiber orientations create a structurally superior composite. This composite not only provides the highly desired lower center of gravity, it also aids in the long-term durability of each Bertram hull. In fact, all high-stress areas, such as the chines and keel, are overlapped and utilize several layers of unidirectional S-glass for superior stiffness and strength."

Because it's cheap and sturdy and will give a 25 year life span.

In the 'For What It's Worth' department...

The 63 (18'1" beam) was begat from the 60 (17'11" beam); the 60 hulls were solid glass, hence no need for vacuum bagging, and it would be unusual for a builder to change the lamination schedule: if it ain't broke, don't fix it [my opinion, no facts to back this up ]. However, the '90s saw Bertram under the ownership of Investcorp, then the Verazzi Group, then Ferretti in 1999. A lot could have happened during that decade.

The 70 was begat from the 67 (and the 63 & 67/70 are totally different designs), which was a totally new Ferretti design. Acccording to the notes I took at the Bertram factory (70 Enclosed Bridge YF review) listening to Jose Millan, who ran the Prototype Shop, here's the build for the hull:

Solid bottom, with hullsides above the waterline vacuum bagged divinycell core. Keel area incorporates 30+ layers in the lamination sequence, plus high density foam [the Bertram literature omits mention of this foam]. Knytex. Corecell PVC vacuum bagged structural bulkheads. Honeycomb partition bulkheads. Hull thickness ~1 1/4" near the stringers. Stringers are HD foam with unidirectional E-glass on the crowns. Web frames utilize unidirectional layups.

Actually this is going to be very interesting. I called the factory yesterday and they were pretty mums about it, very understandable approach. They actually were very polite and as best as they could informative.

Coming from the Spanish Caribbs my family and I have enjoyed Bertram products dating a few decades back. Starting with the venerable 31 all the way to the legendary 54. Being the faithful to the product was seriously considering getting back on sportfishing on one.

Remember gents even Ferrari make a lemon here and there. (The lord knows, I am familiar with that scenario). Would hate to go to brand H.tt (lol they are great boats). By the way new to yachtforums.

Out goes the buoy theory. (IMO / YMMV)

Thank you Carl for your coverage on this and bringing the images to the community. Images speak more words than anything else this topic has brought us through the prior weeks [opinionated] debate.

Hope this is not the un-glorious end of Bertram

IMHO that looks like the bow was impacted high and pealed back. Not good for the captain. No matter what was hit it wasn't submerged. I can envision it being impaled by the mast on the buoy. The stern damage looks like it may have happened from the boat (structure weakened) coming to the bottom stern first. That would also account for minimal damage to the buoy.
Just an opinion.

Thank you, well done, now we have information. My bet, this is a two fold problem, the bouy shown was not involved. Where that boat came apart would have been too high while running to hit anything but the radar reflector on it. The boat in it's life as a demonstrator has seen a hard docking, probably a couple, but probably nothing more than that boats hull should be able to handle. That's what started the real weakening of a poorly built hull. I would suspect, but not be able to conclude (maybe a lab could) is too much MEKP and/or excessive humidity factors were involved when the layup was done. That's where I would be investigating, probably both factors apply. Get the lay up dates and location and check the weather conditions for the day, cool and damp? Send the materials off to a lab and see what they can see....

The actual failure though may have started years ago. All your composite resins will develop shatter cracks at impact sites. In a properly engineered and executed layup these fractures will remain local in an impact that leaves little to no visible exterior damage as typically, gelcoat is more brittle than the layup matrix. However, there are factors in the manufacturing process which can alter that reality where the matrix is excessively brittle which will allow the microfractures to migrate grow and join between multiple failed impact zones. The transom probably developed its issue when a captain 2 years ago backed it into something, but not hard enough to do visible damage. These same manufacturing issues also account for delamination issues that were prevelent around the boat. I'm guessing between 400 & 700 hrs on the boat. That's about the time in typical use that these issues become apparent.

The owner will get a new boat out of this, of that I no longer have a doubt. He was not delivered a vessel able to meet the typical usage requirements and to accepted standards. All the damages leading here started before the sales contract was signed making this a warranty or invalid contract of the vessel not being delivered in condition to do the job it was designed and sold to do.

If the captain had took 10 minutes to read the dec page, (you don't need to read the whole policy, just the declarations page, it gives you all the info one needs to determine if the voyage has proper insurance in place) he could have informed someone and had the condition rectified and this would all just be a set of negotiations between 2 insurance companies and the owner would have another boat in the works by now. I don't think the captain of this trip has the responsibility for the damage, I do find him to have failed in his duties. A captains primary duty is to shield the owner from liability. Unless he advised the owner it was uninsured for the voyage and the owner ordered the sailing anyway, he failed in his duty to the owner. Even if he was running the boat under Marine Max's orders it still applies to them. It was a mistake, but the destruction of this vessel is not his fault. Hopefully he learns from this to check this on future prevoyages. I also hope that those who argued "I never check that!" reconsider. You are a professional, earn your pay.