VIDEO - Sunk Bertram Discussion

Great idea but you are talking at least a 100 grand for a hull and deck at cost than another 50 grand for labor to switch it all over .Add another 50 for rewiring and plumbing that can not be salvaged and another 50 for transportation and misc and you are at 250 per a hull.Most likely it couldn't be done for that but still a chunk of change per a boat for Ferretti to come up with plus the lack of boats going out and space to build them since the facilities would be tied up with rebuilds.

So you're saying $750k for repairing/replacing three boats (Absolutely, Cerifiable, and potentially one other full replacement) is worth more than destroying a company with a fantastic reputation and a significant presence in the yacht building industry? How many boats sold would cover the cost of boats repaired vs. selling no new boats and liquidating the facility?

No no, Ferretti isn't giving this away, they are selling it (at least offering) at 7.5% margin.

250 a hull sounds cheap
I would add another 100
but that still might be cheaper than the alternative and the owners would at least get an 010 hull number.....
not likely anyway at this point from the looks of it.
on the other thread it is starting to look like AA Mabru has quite a bit to do with building these boats, possibly including lamination, but not sure about the hull itself....
it would be interesting to know if the layup had been subbed out "to the a/c contractors" as had been mentioned by Shazam? earlier.....
looks like that is not as far fetched as it sounded....
it would be interesting to know who actually laid up that hull.

What company they were on the payroll for doesn't much matter though....

It does when you have a warranty issue and the parent company has to warranty it, yet the sub-contracter doesn't have the funds to cover it........and then who's responsible for what issues, and what part of the build problems.......

The manufacturer is always the one responsible to the consumer for his sub contractors. They were the ones who chose them. The manufacturer can sue subcontractor under the terms of their contract, and typically, in order to be awarded the contract, and even typically as a condition of bidding, they will have to have E&O and liability insurance for the work they perform.

No i am not saying this . I just see it unlikely of the Ferritti group to have the common sense to do this as they have already tried to ignore these major problems. As far as the 250 figure i believe that could easily be on the barely do able low end.

What is the weight on the 63 ? I keep hearing 90 thousand but i don't see where it is,definately not in the layup. That is a huge weight for a modern built composite boat.

With that I have no argument. I agree also that $250k should be doable, but you'd have to ship it to China to keep the labor rates down on the salvaging. I think it can be done in the US or Europe for $450k though, and that would still be a "bargain" when compared to the value hit those boats are going to take at this point, not to mention peace of mind.

Then you have a lot of added costs. Compensating the owners for loss of use of their vessel for 6 months or so. Cost of destroying old vessels. Costs of transferring a lot of custom items that were added by owners (interiors, towers, electronics, fishing gear etc.) Fixing any issues with equipment the old boats had. Having to work out the new boat bugs again. Then you have a lot of ******* boats on the market with old engines and equipment and new hulls......and a factory that cannot be used to make new boats to make income because you're full of warranty replacements. The lack of new boat sales would be the biggest killer. A lot of issues in the grand scheme of things

How many boats are we talking about? Are the production lines running at capacity? There is no "loss of use" compensation.

Hemming, you keep mentioning product liability insurance, e&o insurance etc. What makes you think such coverage is present? I sincerely doubt the company in question has such coverage, I suspect they're "self insured".

Also, there is no way most of the equipment, joinery, rigging would survive being transplanted from one hull to another therefore making that arguement moot.

About 30% of the joinery work at most would be economicaly unrecoverable, the rest is screw in/out. Machinery is all recoverable.

If they are self 'insured' then there is still 'insurance' in place. Considering there is most likely bank financing involved somewhere I think it most likely there is outside insurance involved.

When you start talking about replacing a line of boats what's to stop the public pressure machine from demanding the same for all models? I think the result of that action is painfully obvious. The results of the tests on the samples taken by the divers hasn't been made public yet, so they have hope. Even if the tests work against Bertram they're still only talking about one boat. Drawing the line at the first boat and making that owner fight for it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint. They'll suffer for a period during a time when all boat builders are suffering anyway.
In the mean time I think it would pay the owners of all cored hulls (not just Bertram) to have a hull survey done (and I'd rather have the surveyor on my payroll than the builder's). Then they can submit individual warranty claims which would (hopefully) solve their problems while possibly leaving the company solvent.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

If a Toyota Prius from model year 2005-2009 has severe braking problems (which is the case) do Corolla, Camry, and Sequoia owners line up demanding new brakes? Or new cars?

You're being absurd, and to what end?

I agree with this. It seems like there is really no other good way out for Bertram. If they "did the right thing" on this boat, it could just spread the problem to the whole line and not really get them anywhere. This could explain why they are fighting it so hard. What a nightmare. I really feel for Bertram in this situation. However, it took decades of hard work to establish the Bertram name. Owning it should carry the responsibility of maintaining that level of quality. Otherwise the value of the name "delaminates"....
The name that someone paid so much for loses value then too. There is no free lunch. Every company makes mistakes and can put out a turkey once in a while but if you catch it in time and take care of things.....
I could be wrong but I think i saw somewhere that they build 60 of these. Is that correct? That seems like a lot.
Sorry for the ramble but this whole thing just bothers me in so many different ways....

Loss of use is not a compensated expense in product recalls the way it is in lemon law litigation. In certain instances, consumers will get replacement products immediately (no loss of use), loaner equipment (no loss of use) or the repairs are effected during a downtime or season when products would go unused (no loss of use).

Going immediately to the worst case scenario is unrealistic. When going from A to Z, you're ignoring 24 other letters along the way.

Fighting and finding out that the whole line has issues means now not only are the boats worthless, but so is the business. If the problems exist in the whole line, then knowing the builder is going to fight every owner means now the owners not only have a boat they can't necessarily trust, but a builder who will not stand behind their product. That myopic fight will result in a buying public that won't want a single thing turned out by that factory under that name again.

Would you buy a car that came with no warranty and whose dealer/manufacturer said fsck you when the body panels blew off the first time you took it on the highway?

You can't talk your way out of what you behaved your way into. Bertram has to, by hook or by crook, make real efforts to examine the boats in this series to determine the truth behind the delamination issues. If nothing else, good faith in action retains the goodwill value of the brand name.

OK, my first post regarding this. I don't really understand how this subject matter is significant enough to generate 100 pages of posts. Bertram used to make solid boats and built its reputation on that. Bertram was purchased by Ferretti and construction got lighter and this is what happens. Like with Riva, I have a client who purchased a 44 Rivarama whose hull fell apart after 50 hours. Survey showed the hull was improperly laminated, laid up too quickly and had huge pockets of air all over the place. Client was given another Rivarama which fell apart on delivery. Client was finally given his money back. I also had a deal fall through on a 52 Rivale because the humidity readings were way too high on a 2-year old hull which had spent 3 months on dry prior to the survey. Finally, another client with a 59 Mercurius also had delamination problems. And just like Bertram, Riva used to build solid boats.

So I'm sorry but my experience is that once Ferretti gets involved, the product looks prettier than ever but build quality where it really matters takes a dump.

So I'm not very surprised by what happened to this Bertram, I just find it sad for the brand but am happy at the same time that loss was only material.