VIDEO - Sunk Bertram Discussion

Also 6', I've notice that most bridge boats built today give very little view of more than a few feet of the bow from a seated position. Just the way it is. I once had a client that wanted me to teach his 12 year old to drive his 43' Ocean so he could sit in the cockpit chauffeured. I had to explain to him that, although I could teach him how to operate the boat, 'you do realize that he can't see a thing with his 4' something body'.
When I referenced not noticing I was thinking more along the lines of a feel or sound or noticing things during the previous days and especially nights while dockside such as doors not fitting, creeks, etc. It just seems that a catastrophic failure like that might have shown some tell tales prior to it happening in those mild sea conditions.

That's one of the weak points of glass and especially carbon fiber construction, it can hide a multitude of "sins" and the failure mode tends to be catastrophic. That hard docking last year can grow microfractures and catastrophically fail tomorrow when they have spread to critical limits or junctures.

I've owned small boats for years, the biggest and latest one being a 5.2 Metre Galea - solid glass roving and built like a tank.

Most of my knowledge of larger boats comes from yachtsurvey.com, and my general engineering background. I'm not a fan of cores so I'll spare any comments I have about the particular construction of this Bertram, but I have a question that hasn't been answered and applies to most boats today.

How can it be acceptable to build a boat (any boat) that sustains hidden damage by hitting a dock too hard?

It's a common feature of boating - you have a boat, the water, the dock. They touch, bump, bang, hit - are we all supposed to treat our boats like they never touch a dock? So my puzzlement is in the 'blame' of a dock-hit that may have caused the hull to weaken enough to start failing - my question is - how can that situation ever be acceptable?

I.e. should we not just reject any boat that cannot be docked without sustaining invisible damage? Dents are fine - you can see those - it's the damage you cannot that worries me!

That leaves any buyer in a difficult situation: To reject any used (or new) boat that can be damaged in this way (because with the best will in the world most boats will have bumped into the dock several times) or just buy ones that will not be damaged (steel, solid glass etc). I'm not saying all buyers would be this strict - but I would.

It certainly redefines 'fit for purpose' to include 'fit to dock'

They're pretty aren't they? That's what sells today. Everything is disposable today. Why not boats?

Because we are lazy and cheap. It's not a flaw in design, it's a flaw in material. It's known and accepted because it requires less frequent maintenance. That's what we trade for, fumes forever and a primary failure mode of "catastophic" so we don't have to do anything for a while. We like feeling confident in plastics, we hate wood though because it requires care, and a good bit of it. On the other hand, I used to sail a boat built in 1846 that still had most all of her original timber and most of the hull still had its original copper rivets and was sailing with a COI in the late1980s. We live in a turnkey society.

Here is an interesting story from 2005...

Apparently a Bertram 510 sold as new had been run aground and repaired. The buyers were not told.

Sale spawns multi-million dollar suits
By KONRAD SUROWIEC
Staff Writer
July 5, 2005

CENTREVILLE — The sale of a million-dollar yacht has spawned a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a Kent Island boat dealer and a lawsuit against the Carroll County man who bought the boat.

Sir Sarge LLC filed a civil complaint in Queen Anne’s County Circuit Court in September 2004 against Chesapeake Atlantic Yacht Sales LLC, North Atlantic Marine Group LLC, Thomas Pumpelly, Jamie Pumpelly, Tyler Terry, and Joseph Longobardi. The Pumpellys are principals in North Atlantic Marine Group, which is the successor business to Chesapeake Atlantic Yacht Sales. Terry and Longobardi were employees of Chesapeake Atlantic Yacht Sales at the time Sir Sarge bought the boat.

Joseph Medved of Hampstead is a principal in Sir Sarge LLC, which bought a 2002 50-foot Bertram 510 yacht on Oct. 22, 2002 from Chesapeake Yacht Sales. The suit alleges the dealer said the yacht was new, not used, but the boat had actually been damaged and repaired.

The serial number on the starboard engine didn’t match the serial number on the sales paperwork because the original engine had a cracked block and was replaced in August 2002.

“Defendants failed to inform plaintiff that the Bertram 510 had been run aground prior to August 2002 causing the cracked engine block and also causing extensive damage to the props, prop shafts, hull, rudders, rudder shafts and starboard engine and transmission,” the suit said.

Sir Sarge asked the court to award the plaintiff $1 million on two counts: $500,000 for fraud and $500,000 for violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Thomas Pumpelly filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the six defendants. Circuit Judge Thomas G. Ross issued a memorandum opinion and order Jan. 28, 2005, denying the motion.

The defendants in the original suit sued Medved on April 5. The third-party complaint said Chesapeake Atlantic Yacht Sales was a factory-authorized dealer for the Bertram line of fishing boats. The third party complaint said the Bertram yacht sold to Medved had been in the dealer’s inventory for almost a year, had been in numerous boat shows, had accumulated 88 hours of use (indicated by the boat’s hour meters), and sustained general wear and tear from its boat show and marketing activities.

“Chesapeake was willing to sell the vessel and take an extraordinary loss in return for Medved conducting and relying on his own inspection of the vessel, and accepting the vessel ‘as-is’ (subject, however, to manufacturer’s warranties),” said the third party complaint.

The third party complaint said Chesapeake Atlantic Yacht Sales sold the Bertram 510 to Medved for $959,000. The list price for the boat was $1.3 million The third party suit said the sale price to Medved was $120,000 below what the dealer paid for the boat.

The six defendants in the original suit (and plaintiffs in the third-party complaint) asked the court to award the defendants more than $500,000. The third-party complaint asked for $100,525 for breach of contract; $400,000 (plus $200,000 a year) for breach of contract; $19,340.19 for fraud; and expenses for attorneys fees for violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

Sir Sarge LLC filed an amended complaint on April 8, seeking $3.5 million on three counts: $1.5 million for fraud; $500,000 for violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act; and $1.5 million for civil conspiracy.

And here is the other side's version. Not changing the topic here. Just thought this story could be relevant.

Always two sides ;-)

I am really getting to this late in response, but this since thread is still alive and I have to comment.

What's interesting is that the author of this article KONRAD SUROWIEC, of the Star Democrat newspaper, recieved this information from a press release prepared by the plaintiff's attoryney. There was second article written a month later that told another side of the story. Don't forget guys, in criminal cases, you are innocent until proven guilty. In civil cases, there must be a proponderence of proof to prove that something happened. I wouldn't comment on anything unless I knew all the facts, which I do.

This is part of the public record: The boat was a new boat. A year in the dealer's possesion, it had been run to five major boat shows, sea trialed and shown, but was still a new boat. It's not like there's $1.35 million dollar demos. Bertam was had built 12 510's at the time.

The engine was replaced under warranty due to a manufacturer's casting flaw on the MAN 1050. The work was performed four months prior to the boat being purchased, it had 50 hours on by the time it was sold. The buyer was not initially told since there was no material defect in the motor, nor was the dealer required to by law. They should have told the buyer though. It shouldn't have been a big deal. The motors had the full 5 years of MAN warranty on them, as well as Bertram's full warranty.
Do you know if every little part, gauge, pump, even motor was original from the "new" boat you bought from a dealer. Remember the 2000-2001 Optimax's? Many of these motors blew up them the dealers first sea trialed them. Mercury provided a new motor to be installed, the someday somebody bought the boat with those new motors. Is there a problem with that?

Did you know that the boat was surveyed two times? Did you know that in it's first survey (post sale mind you), the boat was inspected and was considered to be in excellent condition with no damage whatsoever. Did you know that the boat was surveyed a month and a half AFTER (and now 40 some hours later in the buyers posession) and was found to show extensive damage from a grounding! Hmmmmm.

I want so much to go on, but I'm really restraining about this frivious waste of a lawsuit. The lawyers love it though. $$$.

Ok, one more. The boat was soooo bad right? Well he took it back to Bertram to repair the damage. The bill was a little over $4000. Not too much on a boat that retailed for $1,350,000. And, this is the kicker. The boat was sold to it's second owner (who did also survey it) for.....$250,000 more than the first owner paid for it.

Aggrivation from poor service, the rumour mill and being a first time boat buyer aren't
reasons to sue.

And the final judgement was...?

I was wondering the same thing...
Look at this. We may have to wait a very long time to get the answer on the 63 situation..

Believe it or not the case continues. How is that for fast justice?

Doc No./Seq No.:323/0File Date:02/16/2010Close Date:02/16/2010Decisionocument Name:OrderORDERED, that the case is removed from teh Court's docket of February 16, 2010 and rescheduled for 03/08/10 @ 1:30pm. (ROSS) True copies mailed to James Freeman ESQ, Christopher Drummond ESQ, David Gregory ESQ, David Clinnin ESQ, and Robert Bryne ESQ.

Hi,

This is the reason the line- "All parts used in the construction and outfitting of this vessel by the builder and or his sub contractors must be new and fit for purpose" goes into every spec I write or review.

Force of heavy green water

I am reminded of seeing huge sections of steel bows of commercial ships that were simply RIPPED off in rogue sea incidents. If mother ocean can tear steal, then a few sheets of glass and resin are nothing to tear apart. The Compression cracks just below the gaping hole on the foredeck void seems to point to a heavy loaded blunt force rather than crushing.

I remember a 115' Benetti that had the deck and hull seam separate because the well deck forward didn't allow water to drain fast enough from freeing ports. But this is just an open deck so the bow must have either plunged or was hit head first by a rogue wave. Head first is most likely as the green water that would come rushing down the deck would hit the transom with great force and could effectively tear the entire transom off under the force of a heavy green water moving at even medium speed if heavy enough.

Speculation makes me wonder what the removed section of decking looks like if there are sheared tabbing seams on it as well or was there crushing?

here is a link to the Norwegian Dream with a steel hull that was hit by a rogue wave...

http://********.com/maritime/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/norweigian-dream-bow.jpg

and the Wilstar is attached as a file.

How did the shipping containers get on the bow?????????

They fell off the container ship that Norwegian Dream collided with and landed there.
Rogue wave ?
Edit...Nano is perhaps remembering Norwegian Spirit (thanks Google), which was hit by a rogue wave.

I suppose the original 'Certifiable' 630 was fixed and is somewhere else? I just thought that if it was renamed and sold as the 'Absolutely' it might explain quite a bit - has anyone seen the old Certifiable since?

Awesome video. BTW - it takes some downloading (33Mb) but it really transported me to the scene, loved watching that.

On the down side I saw a lot of core material either broken or not stuck very well all over the place, it seemed to be a space filler rather than adding any strength, and there were a lot of single axis glass strands floating about unsupported, shouldn't they be embedded inside resin? Is that a peeled bi-axial sheet? (assuming bi-axial = 2 x single direction layed at different directions). What happened to that nice thick strong woven glass cloth I used to see in boats?? I'm sure it would be miles stronger as a woven sheet.

I also saw chop-strand in there too - not my favourite. Never understood why builders want to hide the tell tale ripple of quality that woven cloth imparts to the hull - it's kinda the opposite of using naked carbon fibre to show off a good material! I'd buy a woven glass boat over a chopped boat any day.

Also I'm a bit lost by the thinness of the GRP and the lack of bracing etc, I guess it must have been much stronger as a closed structure and convex shape. Maybe the video just makes it look thin - does anyone know how thick the inner and outer skins are, and what's the longest unsupported length? Also do cored panels still have any strength when they are curved?

While I'm sure they are still better than many I still find it a shame that Ferretti do not build their boats as well as Bertram did, (sticking a Bertram badge on a boat does not make it a Bertram IMO, any more than putting a BMW badge on a Daewoo makes it a BMW), I have to agree with others here that it's their customer service that scares me off the most.

That one really is within their control!

Carl???????????

But the little Bi@tch cam across so nice

Far

Send her an e-mail and let us know how it works out.