Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

ALL of the evidence.

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer. In a civil court, it's the preponderance of the evidence... not criminal law where it requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

If all it takes is a light strike on a small buoy to virtually explode a 63' boat into shards and shrapnel, what will happen when it hits something substantial? Are we to believe any boat from this line is safe if this is accepted as a standard consequence of a rather unremarkable collision? This is why there is zero credibility to Bertram's story.

If the buoy punctured the boat below the waterline, and the buoy stands 6' tall in normal conditions, how did the bow, or rather the waterline, get more than 6' out of the water in relatively calm conditions? I'd like to hear your support for believing such a claim.

Not to mention the transom being torn off.

Ummmm, the waterline wasn't where the initial damage occured. It happened up high forward where it would have been pierced by the poll, or exploded from impacting a wave or just fell apart from being built poorly. Even in a civil court the trier wants to hear ALL of the evidence. It's the level of proof that is different.

It must have been hit by a Japanese whaler...

*****

So if it was pierced by the pole of the buoy, how come none of the reflectors up high on the pole shows the least bit of bending or marring from impact?

Why is a light gouge on the plastic at the base of the pole indicated in the pictures to be the point of strike that caused the catastrophic damage to the boat, rather than the pole itself as you keep trying to suggest? Speculation on your part?


If such a strike caused so massive an amount of damage, can you imagine the carnage if the boat should have bounced a fender off a piling? It would have leveled boats three docks away!

It is absolutely speculation on my part. I don't know the answer which is why I'm awaiting word from those who have ALL the evidence. Guess what folks, it's perfectly fine to say "I don't know". It's fine to say "it looks like this or that to me". It's wrong to call for putting people out of work and trying to destroy companies based on only that.

I think that's the main concern here.

I've read the same posts you've read, and haven't yet seen anyone calling for this to happen.

If -> Then is not the same as what you're implying. Nobody wants to see anyone out of work. My point is that lack of information (withholding evidence) will lead to exactly that situation faster than putting forth honest information which allows people to make well reasoned statements.

And I bet that all parties involved will do exactly that as soon as they have reached their conclusion. We're in an age when we no longer expect instant answers. We demand them. Sometimes things take time and you just have to wait for answers. There is a captain, a mate, an owner, a manufacturer, a dealership and possibly multiple insurance companies and each has lawyers. There is a lot involved here. Talking off the top of their heads would not help anybody. Let's give everybody a break here and wait before condemning.

That sounds very reasonable.
I heard the owner bought a replacement 63, the same year and needs a captain to run it down to FL. Would you like the delivery capt job for that trip? After all, we don't have all the facts yet. Maybe we will after it arrives.... Watch out for those yellow buoys, they are really tough.

(sarcasm intended, no offense intended)

Or, a good friend is looking at buying one, what would u say to him?

The boating industry is already shedding jobs by the thousands. I certainly don't want the folks at Bertram to lose any. I am a huge Bertram fan and even just bought one. But don't you think this incident and the preceding similar one should raise some red flags until someone does explain what happened and these boats are determined safe? At least Bertram could have some sort of campaign to check out the other boats made the same way.

I am fascinated by this discussion and am also waiting for more facts but I doubt that is what you will get once the lawyers get a hold of this. The Captains version of this event is what I wish we had right now.

Well Said!!

More than likely there will not be any new info until the court has come to a decision.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-2:2009cv02979/case_id-171094/

and here come the lawyers.

i'm not a SF owner (and least not yet), i own a tender for one, a 31' contender. and i know nothing of how boats are manufactured, but i sure have learned a lot about hull manufacturing after reading in detail the 40+ pages of this thread. so thank you all for the tutorial.

it would seem that bertram would have to find a balance (or walk the tightrope alluded to in an earlier post) between making public pronouncements to satisfy past, current and future bertram owners (a laudable corporate goal) and making public statements that could be used in court by an adverse party as an "admission against interest" (i am not a trial attorney, i do deals) or other pronouncements that could jeopardize them in this or in future litigation. they are not going to come out and say we have delamination because of faulty work, that would be corporate suicide and unrealistic. most of us in bertram's position would be advised to do the same and we would do so voluntarily.

i checked the docket in this case and an amended complaint was filed on December 23, 2009. a response to it would be due soon and it and other documents filed in the case might reveal more facts.

however, i am fairly certain bertram is putting a lot of pressure on its insurer to settle the litigation (are they self-insured or not? anybody know?) and my hunch is that this will get settled soon, leaving more questions than answers for those interested in what really happened here.

this has been great reading.

The only thing I've condemned, and continue to condemn, is the lack and failure of a significant and strong public relations team.

That may be my industry bias speaking, but silence is all to often (in this day and age of demanding instant answers) the worst reaction. Lawyers be dam*ed, they will be the only ones getting rich no matter how the problem is addressed or not addressed. Preserving the reputation of the builder is achieved by timely and truthful dissemination of information.

you are right, just because they should be careful as to what they say, doesnt mean they should not say anything at all. it doesnt seem they are handling that aspect very well.

what was bertram's reaction when they other "alleged" delamination occurred? were they as silent?

Well, people with a bit more knowledge and experience than you are looking at the evidence and weighing the future of the company against the future of lives at risk. A boat building company that builds a junk product and then won't make it right, well, do they deserve to be allowed to continue putting lives in danger?

Bertram could easily settle this by forcing the salvage, but they have seen what we have seen, and there is no way they want that boat to come up for laboratory examination.

Silence

Agree with both NYCAP & Seafarer (see my earlier posts on "Silence".
If nothing else, Bertram should be contacting all Ferreti era Bertram buyers & explain and share "genuine" information & start a support system because whichever way this turns, the worst affected indviduals are the owners. Try selling a boat today is hard enough, now imagine it is a Bertram. Is there anything this forum of many talents and professions can do for them beside debate the issue?
As for Bertram or Ferrittis attitude fact is in any production process you rely on many variables, staff, skills, raw product, quality control etc etc and MISTAKES always happen, its how you react to these that make a company like Viking, Hatteras ( I hope) etc.
Denial & silence (lawyers advice or not) will kill the company like alcohol will kill the denying alcoholic. How much respect would we have for Myers giving us the facts?
One question for the knowledgeable: Bertram goes "under" or is sold. What happens to owners of dud boats?

They're screwed. Warranties don't survive reorganization. The new manufacturer could offer replacements at a good value while still making a profit as a very good idea, especially if they use the gear out of the old boat, however there is no obligation to.