Nj Forclosure Bankruptcy Business by cii15704

VIEWS: 618 PAGES: 80

More Info
									To Those Reading This Thread. This thread is a shortened version of a Sailnet.com
thread that was placed off line on the sailnet forum. Fortunately nothing is every
gone on the internet. This version of the thread includes only those posts which
bring up NEW information or opinions in an effort to reduce the time it takes to
understand the issues at hand. The FULL version of the thread is also available for
those who wish to review the complete record.
All actual names and personal data as well as graphics have been removed but ALL
individual posts are otherwise complete. This is being provided in the interest of
allowing sailors to evaluate the facts and opinions on both sides of the discussion
and reach their own decisions while continuing to follow additional news on the
topic elsewhere.
Actual posts are in purple with post # and screen name and date appearing above
each post.

08-05-2007
camaraderie
Moderator

Prospective New/Recent Tartan Buyers Note

I have long been a fan of the quality of Tartan boats and know there are many happy Tartan Owners here
regularly...BUT...I just ran across some posts and a Blog that indicate there may be some real problems
with recent build quality AND the mfrs. willingness to stand behind the product.
I have no idea whether these claims are true or not, but they seem to be well documented and thought any
prospective buyers or 4 digit series Tartans ought to be aware of the controversy and make their own
decisions. Here's the blog with links to other stuff:

http://mako3700.blogspot.com/


 #3 08-06-2007
luckyjim


Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
I have long been a fan of the quality of Tartan boats and know there are many happy Tartan Owners here
regularly...BUT...I just ran across some posts and a Blog that indicate there may be some real problems
with recent build quality AND the mfrs. willingness to stand behind the product.
I have no idea whether these claims are true or not, but they seem to be well documented and thought any
prospective buyers or 4 digit series Tartans ought to be aware of the controversy and make their own
decisions. Here's the blog with links to other stuff:


100% verified, 100% researched. Data validated at all levels with owners. If you write to Tim Jackett from
the blog link, he will email you and ask you to send photos of your Tartan 3700 or he'll ask you to talk with
your dealer...looking in the area of the hull failure. Ask the guys that have done it! They are out there. Ask
the guys who went to TONE and get what they heard Tim say in a forum about the split hull case.


 #4 08-07-2007
T34C
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyjim
100% verified, 100% researched. Data validated at all levels with owners. If you write to Tim Jackett from
the blog link, he will email you and ask you to send photos of your Tartan 3700 or he'll ask you to talk with
your dealer...looking in the area of the hull failure. Ask the guys that have done it! They are out there. Ask
the guys who went to TONE and get what they heard Tim say in a forum about the split hull case.

By whom??

Very disturbing if all this is true. I am a little concerned with the tone (no pun intended) of the blog. It has a
bit of a sound of "the sky is falling" as if written by someone looking to sue... Oh wait. I will very
interested to see how Tartan handles this issue. I think their response is probably more important than the
issue itself.

Keep buying the ones with the "C" at the end!!!!!

 #9    08-07-2007
Cruisingdad
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingdog
Everyone knows that the ones beginning with a C are completely suspect... and only a madman would sail
on one.

I am not talking about "C" with Catamaran, I am talking about "C" with Catalina!!! That many posts and
you still don't know anything about a quality boat or a quality car (Alex's thread... bet you have not read my
reply).


ON ANOTHER NOTE
Let me just say right here, right now, for all the owners of Tartan: THEY BUILD A GOOD BOAT! Geez,
T34 is going to give me crap for that. I have recently been in an incident as the TE for Catalina where all
the owners started screaming foul play and this and that and it turned out to be nothing but rumors and a
hoax.

I am not saying this is nothing... I am not saying it is not. HOWEVER, remember what Cam said: it is
controversy... so be aware of it and do not panic over it. I cannot imagine them putting out anything but a
fine yacht and standing behind it. Just be aware of it and get the truth for yourself... but do be aware of it.

- CD


 #14 08-07-2007
luckyjim

Check back in the Sailinet archives for posts a few years ago by SoC. He had a C&C 110 (I heard maybe
more than one!) and read his comments about his experience with the new owners of
Fairport/Novis/Challenger. One post I found had something to do with the Dufour 40 vs a C&C. If only I
had read his notes before I entered the four-digit ownership nightmare! Check them out, they make for
really interesting reading (for those prepared to go through old threads.). The writing was on the wall in
2005! Medusa was singing loud.

In the "C" versus four-digit debate the answers seem pretty clear. The "C" crowd have solid boats built by
owners of the brand/company that truly cared about sailors an what it meant to be safe at sea. For all the
high-tech epoxy and epoxy/carbon moves, the four digits are sold through slick brochures off the history of
the company. Just look at the marketing and attend a TONE event and what do you get...history, history,
history. They are trading off the customer experience of yesteryear, because they can't hold up a JD Power-
type initial quality banner with what is leaving the factory today! Well, trading off history does not cut it
for long and that veneer is getting thin. If anything, through all the recent four digit nightmares the value of
the "C" boats has gone up, way UP. Further, I would say anyone that gets a 2-4 year old four digit will be
getting an great boat.

So "C" owners do not worry in the short term, your 'brand' just went up because it was not build under the
watch of the current owners. However, at the pace it is going watch out. The quality of systems installation
(fully corrected by the first owner!) and what people think of being treated like idiots by the company will
impact the name. The owner (no, not Tim Jackett!) needs to be thrown a customer service life-line today.

Why you may ask?

The answer is simple and worth repeating, the first owner went through hell and back and did all the QA
and rectification work the factory just does not do. Instead, the new boat owner puts in all the TLC and gets
it right and by the time it is right and they have spent way more time at the dock versus sailing they and
their spouses cannot stand to look at that four-digit Tartan a minute longer. So "C" owners, send an email to
Tim Jackett and Bill Ross (the real owner) and tell them to stop with the games, open the purse strings and
give people the dream they are peddling while supporting all clients with solid customer service. It's never
too late to do the right thing....

LJ


 #18 08-08-2007
luckyjim

Quote:
Originally Posted by T37Chef
These claims made by ____ are not conformed by a reputable source, just Internet blogs and such, so I
would take them with a grain of salt. All manufactures have constant issues to resolve.

Time will tell

Every person that provided data to the blog was verified as an owner, contacted by phone and all sources
are either current four-digit owners, dealers or staff of Novis Marine.

If you take the facts with a grain of salt then that is because you have not seen the emails, had the calls,
seen the photos, read the USCG reports etc. You cannot deny the 3700 that hull split while under way
unless you will also claim that the USCG fabricated data. (The link to the USCG report is out there!) So
there is at least one 3700 based in the NE that hull that split open while in moderate seas. For any owner
that is one Tartan too many that had clearly had the weakest point of it's hull/ rig systems placed on the
centerline of the hull laminate. Go see the pictures and ask yourself how on earth the laminate of any
modern production boat can fail so badly in 5'-6' seas going down the NJ coast. The rig did not come down,
the chain plates did not pull, but the hull did split open!

It is understandable you do not want to consider that the manufacturer of your boat is being tarnished, but
respectfully as an older Tartan boat owner you have not experienced what many four-digit owners go
through in the first 2 years of ownership. Sure there are some that sail-way fine, but the percentage with
major issues (electrical, rig, hull/deck joint, etc) is far too high and the response after the check has cleared
insufficient.

Take a look at the Yahoo! Tartan group, the Tartan Owners site and go back and look at the SoC reports
here in the SailNet archives . Go see the questions raised by Omega in recent weeks at the Tartan
Owner.org site and you will see it is not one blog...owners of new Tartans are ringing the quality and
customer service alarm bell all over the web...and not for the little stuff!
 #19 08-08-2007
 T34C
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyjim
Every person that provided data to the blog was verified as an owner, contacted by phone and all sources
are either current four-digit owners, dealers or staff of Novis Marine.

I have no doubt of that. I think the question raised by Chef- is: verified by whom? Verification by someone
with pending litigation against the company IS NOT a reputable source. (They may be reputable as a
person, but obviously biased.)

 #22 08-08-2007
camaraderie
Moderator

T34...you are correct of course about a biased point of view...but one must also accept that the company's
point of view may be equally biased. There is lots more here...including pics of boats and a coast guard
rescue report to indicate tha there have been problems rather than some internet urban myth. Offsetting this
is the happy experience of thousands of happy
Tartan owners...including many 4 digit boat owners I'm sure.
Now it is up to individual owners and prospective buyers to sort out the truth for themselves as little can be
done further here except to say "I'm right...you're wrong" unless someone at Tartan cares to chime in with
the "facts" as they see them.
I would caution Jim about pushing this issue too far in a public forum. You may indeed be right and have
all the facts...but it could still get quite expensive for you legally.



#26 08-08-2007
luckyjim

Quote:
Originally Posted by T34C
I totally agree. There is clearly an issue here. The only thing I find troublesome (about the blog and post) is
the inflamitory/accusitory (is that a word?) tone. I apreciate these issues being brought to our attention, I
just prefer my information in a more unbiased, unfiltered way.

Ditto again on the caution about the public forum. Could get really expensive defending yourself in a
counter suit.

This is America, right? Our youth are in Iraq under the banner of 'Freedom' and people here threaten me
with a possible lawsuit because a fellow American is exercising his right to Freedom of Speech about
potentially life threatening and serious product liability issues. Nobody has been defamed or slandered and
all facts are available for research by anyone. However I get the picture here. Save the resale values of the
boats in the market and to hell with a community sharing data pertaining to the safety of sailors at sea by
raising a legitimate flag about a system in which the hull centerline laminate has proven to become the
weakest point in the vessel to allow the boat to flood. Go for it, keep the values up and I'll bother you all no
more. Let me ask you this question as I leave:

If you set off on a passage from Annapolis to Bermuda and your new boat hull split from under you so that
you, your wife and young family had to abandon ship to a life raft because you're out of USCG range, how
would you feel afterward discovering that the manufacturer and other owners had in their possession prior
failure data that could have possibly prevented you abandoning ship and such an accident ever happening if
you would have checked your rig tension?
Do not bother answering. I am gone.

 #27 08-08-2007
Cruisingdad
Moderator

Jim,

I don't think anyone HERE would be the ones coming after you. It was a friendly comment to be carefull
what you say in a public forum.

I sent you another PM. Please read it.

- CD

 #28 08-08-2007
camaraderie
Moderator


Lucky... I was NOT threatening you in any way. I respect what you have done on your blogs. I was
CAUTIONING you to be careful how far you go in a friendly way to save you possible grief at the hands
of corporate lawyers.
I have friends whose lives were disrupted for 3 years and lots of $$ by such lawyers over a defective new
sailboat that the mfr. would not stand behind.
I also started this thread because I thought people should know about the issue. So...if I offended in any
way...sorry. I was trying to be helpful.



#29 08-08-2007
T34C

Jim- You're going from being a little high strung to just plain over reactive. (I cleaned up my original
thought) No one here, of all places, would do anything like what you are suggesting. My Tartan is 34 years
old. I think it has proven itself to be a sound hull by now, and I have no concern over any resale issues. In
fact I immeadiatly emailed the blog link to a friend with a 2007 T3700 to make sure he WAS informed
about this issue. What CD-, Cam-, and myself were suggesting is what is called CYA in the corporate
world. If after we all gave you a friendly suggestion you want to run your mouth about anything, have at it.
I know I don't care. It was only a suggestion that may benefit you.

This is certainly a forum for information just such as this. You do however sometimes have to temper your
words a bit to make sure the proper message is getting out. Other wise you make statements like, "I don't
like Crapalinas" and God only knows what will happen!!! ( Just kidding CD- )


#33 08-09-2007
Pamlicotraveler

Quote:
Originally Posted by T37Chef
That said, I am suspect of the author, if anything, just the tone the author takes. It will be interesting to hear
what comes of all this, hopefully all good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T34C
The only thing I find troublesome (about the blog and post) is the inflamitory/accusitory (is that a word?)
tone. I apreciate these issues being brought to our attention, I just prefer my information in a more
unbiased, unfiltered way.

Not that it should matter, but I am a fan of Tartan boats and have owned 2 previously.

I have been reading this thread and others on the internet about these Tartan topics with interest and am
really not happy seeing the Sailnet poster retreat out of fear of a lawsuit. And from what I have read he is
just telling his story. If he is emotional about it, given the facts as he presents them, I can understand it.
When Tartan owners say they are "suspect of the author" and don't like his "tone", I am troubled. At the
same time others are telling him he is risking legal action - What is the guy supposed to do? Suffer in
silence and let others experience the same risks? If this forum becomes an "I love my boat" forum it will
not be worth reading.

If the problems encountered are valid then I would say Tartan (Novis) is the one with the greater legal risk.
For a statement to be defamatory it must be presented as fact and proven to be false. What in the world
have any of you seen that matches that condition?

As SD stated the internet is "the great leveler". But it can't be a leveler if we are all afraid of the legal
consequence of speaking about problems we encounter, can it? You KNOW Tartan representatives have
read these threads, and if they haven't they aren't very closely monitoring the buzz on the street. They are
free to respond and to correct any innaccurate presentations of the facts. The fact that they blamed a
laminate failure on rigging tension is symptomatic of someone wanting a problem to go away. Without
some owners speaking out this strategy might have worked.

If the laminate and saildrive problems are universal risks to new Tartan owners, the concept of admitting it
and allowing it to become a warranty item could be prohibitively expensive. We all understand that. And
maybe the purse strings aren't as long as people expect. That could set the company back significantly.

My point is to encourage people to post and inform other potential buyers. Don't lie, don't spread false
rumors, but by all means tell your story. The Tartan owners should try not to let their vested interest in their
resale values cause them to cast aspersion on the poster out of instinct. Regardless of how these problems
get resolved, it wouldn't have any impact on the value of your boats. Silencing the messenger will be of no
benefit to you.

 #35 08-09-2007
Cruisingdad
Luckyjim
Pamlico and all,

I have had several conversations with luckyjim. I feel that he posted his replys with what he thought was
right and was truly trying to help. As the reality of what he says hurts him as much or more than anyone
else, I feel we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I am not agreeing with him or dissagreeing. I cannot independently verify what he is saying. I will say that
he appears genuine.

- CD

 #39     08-09-2007
Yado

“Google “boat manufacturer's name and problem” and you'll learn that every boat has something wrong
with it…” Someone wrote something like that here in sailnet in early July.
So, in July I put it to the test: I looked up Sabre 386 and Tartan 3700.
Sabre 386 I found zero problems.
Tartan 3700: I read about problems along with the 3400 and 4100.
My “Tone” is neutral on this:
-I looked at 2 post 2001 Tartans (3400 and 3700) whose owners were selling because the factory did not
address their warranty issues to their satisfaction. This confirmed what I had heard from brokers (who I
didn't completely believe and were dumped by Tartan when they took possession of their brokerages) that
some owners were not happy with how Tartan dealt with, or didn't deal with, their warranty issues.
-What really got my attention was the following: A broker still with Tartan as of last year suggested that the
better 3700s were built before 2001/2002.
-When I first looked at mako3700.blogspot he had the pictures up of a degraded saildrive. I was interested
in the saildrive because I had recently been told that they would degrade quickly and that proper grounding
was most important.
-The pictures were apparently removed in a deal made with Tartan: You remove the pictures and we'll work
with you on the repair. I wish I had taken a screen shot but I was surprised when I went back to see that
they were removed.
-This issue has been discussed at great length at tartansailing@ yahoogroups. com.
I like the newer Tartan designs but there is enough information available to make me wary, especially for
what they cost. Tartan seems to have been weaned from the ranks of finer yachts, not quite as utilitarian as
a Catalina or Beneteau (fine yachts both), but in my opinion nowhere near the value of the even finer and
even more expensive Sabre 386, with which it used to be somewhat comparable.

#44 08-21-2007
T37Chef

An update on this debate, posted on the Tartan Owners forum at:
http://www.tartanowners.org/phorum/r...&i=2105&t=2105

Cut from the forum...

Author:
Date: 08-21-07 11:47

I am the owner of a 2005 Tartan 3700, the boat that has been the subject of discussion regarding the
damage that occurred to its hull during delivery from New York to Annapolis last winter. There have been
several inaccurate references to this situation that I wish to correct with this posting.

In the late Fall of 2006, my dealer, Tartan C&C of Annapolis, arranged for the delivery of my boat to their
location for various warranty and customer service issues. While in transit, the boat experienced problems
with certain areas of the hull laminate. Upon arrival in port, the Tartan staff was notified of the problem. At
their expense, they promptly sent a truck to pick up the boat and return it to their Ohio factory for repair.

We then began the process of notifying the various insurance companies, and making claims under each
policy. The insurance companies denied liability for various reasons. To Tartan’s credit, they did not await
the outcome of the insurance claims, but rather took the initiative and repaired the boat at their expense
over the winter. They have returned the boat to me, and have sent their customer service manager to my
home port to re-commission the boat at their expense. I have inspected the boat and am satisfied that Tartan
has done a great job in fixing my boat.

Since the problem with the hull laminate was experienced during the winter season, an accurate diagnosis is
pretty difficult. However, I am aware that Tim Jackett, Tartan’s Chief Operating Officer, has inspected the
3700s produced both before and after my boat, and reports that there are no similar issues with those boats.

I have noticed that others have sought to use the problems that I experienced with my boat to serve their
separate interests. Particularly, I am aware that the owner of another Tartan 3700 has made frequent
reference to my boat in various internet communications. I do not share those remarks, and wish to
disassociate myself from that owner’s remarks. Tartan has done a very good job for me which I appreciate.
Now I’ll go back to enjoying my Tartan 3700.

Who knows


#56 08-23-2007
T34C

Some additional information on the original topic: I spoke to a LONG time Tartan dealer this week.
(FORMER DEALER) They recently dropped the Tartan line because "Tartan's service was unable to live
up to (their) companies standards." They reported that Tartan hasn't been doing a very good job of
addressing issues that come up with customers boats.

Take it for what it is worth, but I for one was very disapointed to hear this coming from a very reputable
large dealer that had carried Tartan boats for a long time. (They also sell Valiant and Grand Banks, among
a couple others.)

  #57 08-23-2007
 T37Chef
I sent an email to Tartan mentioning this thread and perhaps they would want to comment...nothing yet, but
I'm not holding my breath either.


 #70 08-25-2007
Rockter

With the boat hull failed, with a big laminate failure, relative movement between the failed pieces, how the
hell does the manufacturer know that the rig was over-tensioned?????? Did they judge that from the
backstay and forestay bottle screw positions or something?

As engineers (one here) we are to avoid snap judgements. That one puzzles me.

Damn it, I'd like to think that my Union double-ender could not do that. The rig is a bit slack... I think I'll
leave it. I have seen her getting beaten sensless in a big sea, and her forestay sagging rhythmically as the
sea curls the bow upward. That load is likely to be worse than overtensioning, surely?, and it will be cyclic.

Speak now Tartan, or the guessng will go on, and on....


#73 08-25-2007
southerncross31

There was a guy in my yard this past winter with a Tartan 30. It had broken free from it's mooring and
washed up onto the rocks. The bow was smashed up from the top to bottom and you could practically climb
through the hole. So here was a good chance to check out the hulls....what did we see? Lots and lots of
DRY (no resin) cloth. It was uniformly white with no signs of resin! I asked the fiberglass expert who was
fixing it, if it could have been caused by hydrauylisis (MS). He said no...he had never seen anything (over
such a large area) like it and the cloth had NEVER been wet out by resin. He ground back further from the
hole and still found a lot of dry cloth! This is not opinion, or personal judgement, i saw it with my own
eyes! It might have been an isolated incident......who knows?


 #74 08-25-2007
sailingdog
How old was this Tartan 30. If it was an older boat, it may say nothing about current manufacturing
processes... if it was a recent boat, it says nothing about how the boats were previously constructed.
However, in either case, it is rather worrying. I'm glad I don't have a Tartan...

#75 08-31-2007
Pamlicotraveler

Read this post from a C&C owner about a conversation an owner had with Tim Jackett... I thought it was
interesting...There is a lot of noise about Tartan/ C&C issues right now and you really hear nothing from
the company. I am wondering what is going on there, but it might not be good.

>>>>I do not know if the receipt of this report, our communication on the
list or other factors caused Tim Jackett to contact me by telephone
today, but I was glad to hear from him.

Here are the highlights from my notes of the conversation:

He told me that he had received my warranty request and was calling
to discuss a plan he had come up with to fix our boat. I heard him
explain that "there was no way they would pay 27K to fix the boat,
that he did not agree with the findings in Jon's report and estimate,
that they wanted to sever their relationship with us as that would be
best for all of us and that his plan was to have us bear the cost of
shipping the boat to the Ohio factory where they would repair the
boat and then offer it for sale through their dealer network. Tim
explained that the current market value of our boat was between 200
and 220 K and that we would receive whatever sale proceeds there
were, whenever the boat sold".

Several things kind of hit me all at once and I raised them with
him. What happened to our written replacement contract in which you
valued our boat as a trade in at $262K? "That's not going to
happen". If you want to sever ties with us why not just write us a
check for what you previously offered, why tie us into whatever your
repair plan is? "That's not going to happen. We need to sell your
boat to get this done." How can you take exception with Jon's
findings when you haven't seen the boat yourself? "We see this type
of stuff all the time". Don't you think a next step might be for you
to send someone to look at the boat before you disagree with yet
another expert's findings? "Look John, we know how this boat was
constructed, your experts don't. We worked with SP to develop this
stuff, our experts are better than yours". Why does your plan to fix
our boat include selling it? "That's something I know I can sell
internally". Perhaps you should inspect the boat, it might lead you
to change your opinion. "We will not pay 27K to fix the boat". So
let me get this straight...You are completely backing away from your
previous written contract with us to replace the boat, you are
refusing to pay yet another qualified contractor to fix the boat
under warranty, which although inconvenient, would not disrupt our
sailing time, you are coupling your factory fix offer with us having
to pay to get the boat there as well as having to sell it, and this
plan is in our best interest? "John, that is what I know I can get
accomplished internally". Perhaps you should come look at the boat,
then you might change your mind. "Perhaps that is a good next step.
I'll have to check my schedule and get back to you." Tim, you are
welcome to look at the boat but my sense is that it will only lead to
more disagreement, you disagreed with my latest expert already,
without seeing it, right? "I'll chesk my schedule and get back to
you". Tim, please put whatever your plan is in writing and make sure
someone with authority to hold the company to it signs it. Your
credibility with me is shot as the previous things you put in writing
haven't happened. "OK John, I'll do that".>>>>>>>

#79 08-31-2007
TSteele65

This guy (Jackett) is quibbling over $27K? Unless the company is bleeding cash, this makes no sense. The
impact of negative publicity and/or the cancellation of prospective orders in light of this issue could easily
cost him ten-fold.


 #81 08-31-2007
luckyjim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockter
"...As for this drivel about being "something I can sell internally"...????.... I hope you had a tape running on
that one....pass the sick bag somebody, quick.

Rockter,

One note on Tim Jackett. He is without doubt the figure head and personally has it all to play for. Yes, the
amounts are really small in the grand scheme of things. Tim Jackett is Tartan and C&C. However, I doubt
he is the real management problem as he has no ability to control the company. The owner is the little man
behind the curtain pulling the levers to create the nightmare world some have to live in. Let's give Tim the
benefit of the doubt that he's trying, but remember he's impotent to control his and the company's destiny
unless he can make the money flow to customer service and clear up real issues. Now if he is a 50/50
owner, then that is a different story.

   #84 09-01-2007
luckyjim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockter
....He is fronting for this dreadful situation, and an owner with a boat worth nearly a quarter of a million
dollary is being driven to the wall.....

Tim and Andy Drumm, the service manager, are fronting all the time doing and all they can to fend of a hit
to the cash-flow of the company. I believe Andy tries hard for clients.

#87    09-06-2007
luckyjim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockter
What does Andy Drumm say about it then?

I have no idea today. In the past he provided a lot of data and on a tour of the factory could not have been a
better, or more informative host to tell me how the boats are really made. In his defense, Fairport is a very
small place and I doubt there are that many jobs around that part of the world. It offers a paycheck!
 #90 09-09-2007
7Psych
Gezz.........And I just ordered a 3400 which will be delivered in November! From what I am reading,
perhaps this was NOT a good move??? No????

 #91 09-09-2007
Tartan34C
The attached note was posted by Tim Jackett of Tartan on the Yahoo Tartan group. There is an active
discussion about this issue and he is now participating and addressing questions.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

John,

As promised, we are providing a written response to the warranty
claim that you have presented regarding your C&C 121. The response
is being posted here, because we have little doubt that edited
portions of it would find its way to this site, and frankly, we
wanted it seen by this owners group in its entirety as opposed to a
filtered version. To our Tartan owners on this site, we have stated
in the past that we felt that this site was an excellent opportunity
for owners to share there experiences and offer advice to fellow
owners and that it was not a forum that we would use for our
communications. The dialog on this site during recent weeks has
changed our view on this and as necessary we will offer commentary on
discussions, when we feel that our perspective is of benefit to all
owners. However, please also understand that we do not monitor the
exchanges on this site on a daily basis, so if you post a question
and do not receive a response from us, you will be better served to
make a direct contact at the factory or through our website FAQ
section.

As background information for the group, John's 121 was built in 2001
and delivered to the Chicago boat show in 2002. He is just
completing his 6th sailing season with the boat. He currently has 3
claims that have been presented to us in the form of a repair quote
by a fiberglass technician. At 6 years in age, the warranty coverage
available on the boat is under the provisions of the hull structure
warranty. If the claim were valid, the remedy suggested by the owner
was to either repurchase the boat or supply a new one. We denied the
claim based on our review of the information supplied, specifically;
repair quotes and photos of the exterior of the boat. We were asked
to review the claim further, and we requested additional photos
depicting not only the exterior of the boat but also interior photos
that supported that there was evidence of a structural deficiency in
the boat. No such photos were supplied and we maintained our opinion
that there was not a structural issue with the boat and therefore the
claim was not valid. The opinion was based on our knowledge of the
boat's construction details and the information supplied with the
claim. During this review, John had continued to request that we
send a factory representative to the boat to inspect it, although we
were satisfied that there was not a structural issue with the boat; I
agreed to inspect the boat personally. That inspection took place
yesterday morning and the following represents my findings.
Claim #1;
Blisters in the non-skid areas of the deck, particularly around the
mast on the housetop. The repair technician's opinion indicates that
the deck may be delaminating and that the blisters are deep in the
laminate because there is no evidence of gel coat crazing around
them. It was his opinion that these represented a structural
deficiency in the deck laminate. It has also been claimed that they
appear in the morning and seem to dissipate as the sun heats the
deck. The repair technician has supplied a quote to grind these
bumps until he finds voids, fill and fair the repairs and refinish
the deck non-skid. His quote for this work was approximately $5,600.

We have maintained that the bumps in the non-skid are an accurate
imprint of the non-skid pattern that exists on our deck tooling for
the 121. Prior to visiting the boat, I had the 121 deck mold opened
to allow an inspection of its non-skid surfaces. I was able to map
out the locations of small dimples that exist in our mold. After a
thorough inspection of John's 121, I can confirm with 100% certainty
that each bump that was evident on his deck is an exact replication
of our deck mold and not the result of a laminate infirmity. While
visiting the boat, John pointed out what he felt was a new crease
that had just appeared at the forward edge of the housetop hatch over
the forward cabin and felt that this represented new evidence of
problems with the deck. This crease represents the transition
between the housetop and the house front, it too is clearly evident
in our tooling, it exists in every 121 built and is not an indication
of anything other than the shape of the house front meeting the
housetop.

Claims #2/#3;
Several gel coat crazes in and around the swim platform area of the
transom and two vertical crazes on the starboard hull side. Again,
the repair technician maintains that these gel coat crazes represent
a structural deficiency and further that the laminate is insufficient
and that the transom area is under built. Additionally, the claim
states that the rudder binds when the backstay is loaded.

First, yes there are 4 or 5 gel coat crazes on the transom and hull.
We do not deny that fact. Gel coat crazes are, unfortunately,
something that have existed in molded FRP parts from day one of
building boats from this material. Because of this fact, boat
builders do not offer a warranty against their occurrence, we'd love
it if they didn't happen, but they do. The structure of an FRP
laminate is in the fiber reinforcements that are laid into the mold
after the gel coat is applied. Gel coat has no reinforcements in it
and is quite brittle. The normal flexing of a sailboat can cause a
gel coat craze, however a craze alone is not evidence of a structural
issue, that is why we had requested photos from inside the boat that
would support the claim that there was some structural deficiency.
None were supplied. During my visit yesterday, I thoroughly inspected
the inside laminate surfaces, bulkhead and stringer glass tabbing,
glued bulkhead joints to the deck and interior liner looking for some
indication that the boat was in any way showing signs of structural
damage. None were found. All bulkhead attachments were sound and
tight, risers and stringers were well bonded, not a single glass tab
showed evidence of stress and the inside laminate showed no evidence
of working or stress. Similarly, the interior hull liner showed no
signs of stress or damage.

The gel coat crazes that I saw on the boat yesterday are very similar
in nature to some that we have seen previously. In conjunction with
our suppliers and a polymer science professor from Case Western
Reserve University, we have closely examined cross section samples of
this type of gel coat craze. These examinations conclusively reveal
that the extent of the crack is through the gel coat and in the case
of an epoxy laminate such as the 121 through the tie coat and it
stops at the first fiber line of the structural glass laminate. We
are certain that while cosmetically bothersome, the gel coat crazes
on the 121 are just that, cosmetic.

With regard to the rudder binding, the post is tight in its bearings
and yes under load sailboats flex, I suggest that either the bearings
be honed out for additional clearance or they be replaced with a set
with greater tolerance. This will accommodate the normal flexing
that happens in the stern when the boat is under load.

In closing on the gel coat/hull concerns, the 121 hull laminate and
interior structural components were designed to meet the American
Bureau of Shipping scantling requirements for Offshore Sailing
Yachts, those standards include the laminate schedule and the
structural framing in the boat. 121s have done extensive offshore
racing included the Victoria to Maui race and have performed well and
held up well to the experience. Your 121 is fit for the same use.

Based on our inspection, we are certain that these 3 claims are not
valid. The repair technician that supplied the opinion that these
were structural issues is quite simply, wrong. The opinion was
presented without knowledge of our laminate schedules, apparently
without a structural inspection of the interior (if there had been
one, it would have been recognized that there are no signs of
structural deficiencies) and without contacting the factory to see if
there was some reason for the deck non-skid imperfections. We are
forwarding his quote and statements to our attorneys to advise us on
what actions we may take to protect the reputation of our brands.

John, in our discussion last week, you asked for a written proposal
from us on this situation. This is it, sail your boat, cruise your
boat, race your boat, do the 100th Mac race next season, we hope you
do well, but if the erroneous reports that you received from the
repair techs won't allow you to get comfortable with the boat, then
sell it. If we can agree that the price paid for the boat is the
total of the market value of the Tartan 33 (what it sold for) that
you traded plus the cash paid plus a reasonable amount for additional
equipment that you have added, the total is something very close to
what the current resale value is for a 2002 121. You will have used
the boat for 6 seasons and can walk away with all or nearly all of
the money paid for it.

Our apologies to the Tartan owners for such a long report, however,
given the nature of this claim and the attention that it has gained,
we feel it is necessary to fully explain our position.
Tim Jackett


#93 09-09-2007
kd3pc
tartan decision
Thanks Robert for posting that response

As I seldom heard anything bad about Tartan/C&C, I went back and read the whole thread, as well as some
stuff on the Tartan/C&C site.

Looks like a second side to the story...6 year old boat, used with some wear marks and a bit of crazing. Not
wanting to start a row, but why would anyone expect Tartan/C&C pay to repair or replace the boat? Or any
other builder for that matter....the hull warranty is pretty cut and dry with Tartan and at least
Beneteau...Other wise these manufacturers would be paying for deep peels, bottoms, blasting and the rest.

What you are asking is for the "best practices" in every boat company to warrant "cosmetic" flaws.
Generally this has been passed on to every user or the company will simply cease to be....

We as a society have gotten pretty bad about someone else "making us whole" or taking care of us.

I have crewed on Tartans and C&C boats going back to the 70's and have owned Beneteaus, Cals and now
a Sabre. I don't know John, but looks like he (and his techs) are either ignorant of FRP, got some bad
technical advice or, some poor talent to make his case. The Tartan's have ALWAYS been good quality.

There is a LOT of poor knowledge (and the experts to go with them) about FRP/Fiberglass/Composites no
matter what their makeup and application (cars, planes, airplanes, cycles, etc).

I would suggest listen to Tim, or carry the boat to Pearson or some other expert lab and be prepared to
spend some bucks. I just can't see where Tim is out of line, unless we are missing something major.

thanks

dave




 #95 09-09-2007
7Psych
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
...sounds like there is more than one side to this story! Pretty impressive response.

WOW....Well Done!! I feel better now re: my 3400 order....


#96 09-09-2007
max-on

C&C holds itself out as "the fastest, strongest, best-designed racer/cruisers ever built." (Quote from their
website). Should a hull be flexing to a point where the rudder is binding?

Minor Gelcoat crazing is one thing, but if the hull is flexing because you put the backstay on hard, which
would not be uncommon in a racer / cruiser, and it is sold to me as the best-designed and strongest ever
built, I would not expect the load to flex the hull for it to cause problems. Wasn't that the company's initial
position with the Tartan 3700 hull that split - the shrouds were too tight. I know hulls can flex, sometimes
cause leaky hatches, but I would not expect it from a brand that markets itself as Tartan / C&C does.
Hopefully for the other owners, this is a matter particular to this boat.

 #97 09-09-2007
Tartan34C
A combination of ignorance and enthusiasm can break almost anything. More then that, if they built the
boat to be idiot proof you wouldn’t want her because she would be so heavy that you wouldn’t get vary far
in a weekends sail.

I think you buy the style of boat that makes you happy and if that means a high tech construction then you
want to be careful and treat her right. If you want a WestSail then you can bounce her on some rocks and
add all the tension you want to the rig and sail into the sunset knowing your boat, while poorly handled and
badly tuned will survive anyway.
All the best,
Robert Gainer

#99 09-09-2007
camaraderie

7Psych and others...we've now heard from the management side of this dispute on ONE case. The owner
disagrees and will post again. I took the opportunity to visit the yahoo owners group board and there seem
to be a number of issues and complaints from owners. Perhaps this is natural...perhaps not.

If I were purchasing a new Tartan right now, I would arrange to have a SURVEY done on the boat before
taking final delivery and releasing the last of the funds. Chances are it will be a great boat...but given the
controversy a little prudence may be in order. Don't part with all your $$ until you are satisfied.

#102 09-10-2007
luckyjim
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7Psych
Gezz.........And I just ordered a 3400 which will be delivered in November! From what I am reading,
perhaps this was NOT a good move??? No????

NEVER part with a 'closing penny until you have the boat surveyed at delivery and ensure the boat is in
100% compliance with ABYC standards...and has an NMMA cert for compliance.


#106 09-10-2007
kd3pc


not a dealer or or work for Tartan
luckyjim

I am neither, just a prudent sailor...and I have been on the work end of a Tartan, you don't know what work
is until you buy a Thai made boat in 1978..pot metal sailcocks, "sail material" that won't pass
customs..."Pacific" something or other...

I would have no problem having any new boat surveyed, nor would I expect any new boat (or any boat) to
ever be problem free, for that matter. My 83 Sabre has fewer problems than a new boat and some gel coat
crazing...should they replace it? My 99 B 36CC had several "thin" spots in the side hull - do you think they
replaced the whole boat? Or even repaired it...it was cosmetic, no deal. Surveyed and all was fine with the
boat, does not mean that I was overly thrilled...new boat and all...
Had I not read the majority of the Tartan list, and come across the fellow who actually owned the "boat
show" boat and read his writing, I would not have posted. I would advise you to do so as well, as the reality
seems to be a bit different than what is represented here...

Kudos to Tartan/C&C and I stand behind that. IF it turns out I am wrong, so be it and I will freely stand
down...until then though, IMHO it is wrong to simply jump on the bandwagon.

dave

#109 09-10-2007
 T37Chef
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockter
What point is that?
You mean the point you made to me in the PM you sent about the risk of legal action, the one you said
wasn't a threat?
Is that the point you are talking about?

I simply said that I felt you should be considerate of what the discussion was stared for by Camaraderie, to
inform buyers of a serious concern of new/recent Tartans, specifically a "3700" You have blown it way out
of proportion to include all Tartans ever built. What I was implying was your intent on "bashing" anything
to do with Tartan/C&C and that is simply wrong...and doing so could be considered irresponsible.

You also seem to forget or not understand that the blog by Mako3700 is just that... a blog. You and I cannot
confirm or deny anything of that blog. Until we hear all sides of the story, until a neutral source has
investigated the issues, I will keep a concerned eye as the facts come to life. It appears Tim Jacket is
willing to discuss the issues when possible and that will be helpful, however, still not a neutral source.

If you feel the need to do as you are doing, I cant stop you, have at it, people will make their own opinions,
hopefully based on the facts. So I will stop antagonizing you and let you do as you please...good luck!

Oh...and of course I have particular interest in this topic/thread as I own a Tartan 37C...and damn proud
too!

#110 09-10-2007
luckyjim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tartan34C
I said,
...I am interested in the technical aspects of sailing, building and design, not in personal attacks or clever
wording to give illusionary weight to a post.
Robert Gainer

Robert, I suspect, but like you don't know 100%, that John is not an idiot. I think you'll find that my earlier
posts re the 'technical aspects...of building and design' are directly on point. I have been 100% focused on
the build process and directly on safety for all sailors. I have been there asking key questions. When the
earlier posts discussed rig tension, structural integrity etc I was on it hunting for the truth between a 'he
said-she said'. I remain focused on that and there are no personal attacks. If it came across that way to you it
is because it seemed to me that you were blaming John for the issues on his boat. I think you'll see more
issues along the lines of the split hull and John's boat that go to the 'technical aspects' of these boats and the
processes used (design and build). I have seen both sets of photos and while the factory is saying that John's
boat only has surface cracks and the split hull was a 'one-off' I think you'll find that there are common
issues that as I have said all along must be investigated. I do not believe from seeing the photos that John's
issues are cosmetic and that his experts should be dismissed as easily as they have been! There are others
out there that have the same structural issues in the same area of the hull forward of the mast beyond John
and the 3700 that split. I can understand why Mr Jackett has done what he has done, but I suggest that you
and everyone keep a very open mind on the topic until all the data comes out. There is no clever wording or
illusion and while I know you do not like me voicing the concerns, I think you'll see in the end that while
you don't like my delivery the message of safety first and informing the customer proactively will be
important.

LJ

#112 09-10-2007
 Cruisingdad

I feel obligated to chime in here for a moment.

First, regarding the survey, I have serious doubts that it would show a design flaw similar to the ones that
have been described. I am not saying a survey cannot find some design flaws, but many more of those
would only show up in use, I am afraid. As I have owned 4 new boats, I will tell you that they ALL had
problems. It is a function of everything being turned on the first time. Things will fail in the first 30 days...
I can almost promise you they will. However, the hull and boat in general will be spotless. Finding design
flaws could be very difficult/impossible in many instances.

Also, tempers often get heated when discussing these subjects. An even keel would be appreciated by all
and may help to facilitate this conversation to some reasonable conclusion. The internet is the great
equalizer. However, I would urge everyone to focus on facts and make reasonable decisions from there.

For the record, I have always liked Tartans. They are good boats. However, all manufactureres undergo
problems. I was racking my brain while writing this trying to think of a single exception. Is this a real
issue? Is it isolated? Has it blown out of proportion? Is it a larger problem?

THose are the decision each reader must make for themselves. Please keep an open mind for both view
points... please.

- CD


#118 09-10-2007
Pamlicotraveler

121's post (separate thread) explains his experience and view of the whole situation very well. This one
probably will head for the courts and both sides will have their experts - Is it a blister or is it in the mold?
Are they cracks or are they crazing? It's unfortunate, but I don't see this one being resolved amicably, and it
would seem the company has a LOT to lose by going to court.

All I can say is that I amazed by the way the company has handled the whole thing. This C&C problem
alone has been damning. But keep in mind this is not related to the Mako blog for the 2005 Tartan 3700 or
JimB's split hull Tartan. So this company has a world of problems. This is not one person's bad experience.
The fact that it took forever for a company representative to make any public comment is in itself a
symptom of a problem.

 #119 09-10-2007
camaraderie
Moderator

C&C 121 Owners Reply to Factory Post
John has asked me to help him post his message here since the system apparently will not accept it. Note
that the opinions and/or facts expressed below are his and not necessarily mine!

All,
First off, although we are very disappointed, this is the type of
response Cindy and I expected. After all, even though we didn't
cause any of the over 100, well documented manufacturing defects in
our boat, it does cost warranty dollars to fix them. The company
views us not as a long term valued client, but instead as a cost
center. The mistake they made, and are continuing to make, is to
advertise a best in class, high quality product with a comprehensive
long term warranty that, because of the way their products are
designed, constructed and how its parts and components are selected
and sourced will require the use of many of those warranty dollars
now and into the future.

The mistake we made is to take the companies written and spoken words
at their intended meaning. We thought, as many of you seemed to,
that the investment of roughly a quarter of a million dollars to get
your dream boat, with all the stuff the glossy brochures and their
people say, topped off with the protection of a comprehensive long
term warranty was a good bargain. That is exactly the place this
company's marketing proposition wants to take you. That is why we
mortgaged our home to make this purchase. In our direct experience,
they have not delivered on their end of this bargain.

Now on to Mr. Jackett's words:

We are experienced boat owners and accomplished sailboat racers. We
have been sailing and racing together, beginning in small one designs
and moving up every so often to our previous boat, a Tartan 33, which
we owned for 17 years, for over 30 years. We negotiated for the
purchase of our C & C 121 for several months before the 2002 Strictly
Sail Show. We cooperated with the manufacturer and their dealer,
Tartan CC of Annapolis, for the company to use the vessel in that
boat show for their internal marketing reasons. We are not some go to
the boat show and buy the pretty boat people. In fact, we had been
in the market for used boats for quite some time and had done our
share of research.

All of the problems we continue to have with the boat are not new
ones. Nor were they the type of problems that people with our
background and experience could have anticipated or expected from
this manufacturer. They have been occurring since the boat was new
and are getting worse. The company is well aware of this, as they
have been well documented. Mr. Jackett's attempt to categorize this
as having occurred during Cindy and my sixth season is false and
misleading.

In this writing, I will not specifically address our history with the
boat except as it relates to the known current problems.

Hull Cracking: The boat has had many, many cracks in the bottom, hull
sides and transom since new. The company has previously hired
several outside contractors and sent their own factory crew to repair
these. Each time the cracks were ground out, the areas on either
side faired away and either a structural repair or epoxy fill was
made, depending on the severity, and then primer and paint applied.
None of these cracks were gel coat crazing as each was deep and
several extended into the laminate. These repairs occurred over each
year of our ownership and seem to never end. The current cracks are
the same as these were. The company, although the warranty claims
and approval process was made very difficult for us, paid for the
repair of all these previous cracks. Why they have elected to stop
doing so at this time is a question you will have to ask them. Our
position on this is simple: when you hold yourself out as being the
best built production boat in the world, the boat hull should not
crack and continue to crack, period.

Many of you have asked why does the boat continue to crack? Mr.
Jackett had previously explained to Cindy and me that, "When we built
the boats in your timeframe, we used a tie binder between the epoxy
laminate and the paint. This tie binder has different elastic
properties than the laminate and is prone to cracking. We no longer
use this system because of all the problems we had with it." We
were interested to read Mr. Jackett's response to others on this list
regarding what appear to be new processes which started after our
boat was built. In fact, none of the cracks on our boat were caused
for the reasons he gives. When we looked at some of the crack
repairs in progress that did not extend into the laminate, the
workers showed us how by lifting the edge of the crack with a
penknife, large sections of this tie binder separated from the
laminate. The reason for this separation was poor preparation of the
surfaces and incompatibility of the tie binder with the epoxy. The
factory did not take the time to prepare the surfaces correctly and
seemingly was experimenting with the materials on our hull. Mr.
Jackett knows the difference between why our boat continues to crack
and surface gel coat crazing. He has seen much more of this than
just on our boat. Our dealer, Mike Titgmeyer of Tartan CC of
Annapolis, corroborated this tie binder failure as he had seen it on
several other boats. There is a reason Mr. Jackett attempts to
categorize these cracks as gel crazes when in fact they are not: gel
crazes are not covered in the comprehensive warranty and to an
uninformed customer, this game may work.

Several of the cracks, when ground away, were found to be structural
as dry laminate was found beneath them. Especially troubling to
Cindy and I was that some of the cracks found on the hull bottom, and
which were repaired by a contractor the company hired over the last
two seasons are in the same location as the well known Tartan 3700
split hull. It is not a comforting thing to know that, as Mr.
Jackett explained, "Our hull was built on the same production line,
out of the same materials, by the same craftsman as the Tartan
3700".

This February, when quizzed by Cindy and me at the Chicago Strictly
Sail Boat Show during the company's replacement contract discussions
with us, we asked Mr. Jackett the following question: "How can we be
sure we won't have the same cracking and transom weakness problems
with the new one?" He replied to Cindy and me, "We learned that the
hull panels weren't stiff enough and flexed too much shortly after we
built your boat. We now use a denser and stiffer CoreCell and a
beefier overall epoxy lamination. This makes the hull flex a lot
less so you won't have the bending and flexing which leads to the
cracking, overall a much stronger boat ". When we purchased the
boat, we were not advised that ours was an experimental model. Had we
been, we would never have purchased her. The current cracks will
cost many thousands of dollars to fix. Mr. Jackett and the company
refuse to fix them.

Here below is the company's current glossy brochure marketing
proposition on their hull:
"


• Hull construction is a vacuum-bagged, wet-preg epoxy,
unidirectional "E" glass, and CoreCell core laminate locally
reinforced with carbon fiber. The hull is postcured to 145 degrees
• The incredible adhesion properties of epoxy eliminates all chopped
strand mat from the structural hull laminate schedule. Chopped strand
mat is the cheapest, heaviest, and weakest component that dominates
conventional polyester hull construction
• Pound-for-pound a post-cured epoxy resin laminate is far stronger
than any polyester resin laminate
• The oven post-curing process maximizes the physical properties of
the laminate and minimizes future post-cure cosmetic blemishes
characteristically seen in conventional polyester laminates
• Hull cosmetics are also enhanced by the extremely low shrinkage of
epoxy resin vs. polyester resin (1% vs 7%) and the reduction in
overall resin content thus eliminating or reducing post-cure hull
distortions found in conventional polyester laminates
• The vacuum-bagging process and strict resin control through use of
resin impregnators produces a hull laminate with 65% glass
reinforcement content. The industry norm for polyester resin hull
laminates is 25% glass content, this produces a stronger yet lighter
hull
• CoreCell closed cell linear polymer foam coring is used for maximum
impact resistance, stiffness, strength, and light weight. The cored
hull also offers superior hull insulating properties, both thermal
and acoustical
• The laminate in the keel area is reinforced with multiple plies of
high-tensile carbon-fiber unidirectional reinforcements
• Premium grade gelcoat provides superior gloss, fade resistance, and
resistance to surface crazing
• Interior is completely painted out for enhanced cosmetics and to
seal interior laminate surfaces
• Hull is backed by industry-leading, non-prorated, transferable 15-
year no blister, hull structure warranty"


Deck Blisters: Mr. Jackett's deck blister explanation is comical.
One would be led to believe that the factory must be remolding our
deck every so often without our knowledge. If the blistering was
caused by an imperfection in the mold, that imperfection would have
been seen when the boat was new, and should appear on other boats for
which the deck mold was used. It should be constant. In the case of
our boat, we first started noticing the blisters six months after
taking delivery. We were told not to worry, "It's cosmetic." They
began spreading to large areas of the deck and continue to. They are
in 15 separate areas on both the coach roof and side decks at this
time. These are not small imperfections as Mr. Jackett wrote. They
look much like osmotic blisters on boat bottoms. Had the boat deck
looked like this when new, we would not have accepted it, nor would
any of you. It may also be of interest to you to know that Mr.
Jackett took three pencil rubbings out of the 15 blistered areas.
When I asked him if he was going to do the rest, he said he had all
he needed. I wonder if he just remembered where the other twelve
areas were when he matched them against the deck mold as he claims.
Of further interest is that other 121 decks, which were made with the
same mold, do not seem to have these issues. Fixing the deck will
cost many thousands of dollars. Mr. Jackett and the company refuse
to fix it. Our position on this is clear, when you hold yourself up
as being the best production boat builder in the world, the boat deck
should not blister.

Here below is the company's current glossy brochure marketing
proposition on their deck:



• Deck is a balanced composite laminate utilizing vinylester resin,
uni-directional "E"-glass reinforcement, and high strength/stiffness
Baltek premium AL 600 balsa coring
• Our custom resin infusion process creates the best resin to glass
reinforcement ratio possible resulting in the stiffest, lightest,
strongest deck in production boatbuilding
• Deck is locally reinforced at high load areas with additional plies
of bi-directional "E"-glass reinforcement
• White, light gray, or white/sandstone and white/gray two-tone decks
with patterned non-skid are available
• Premium grade gelcoat provides superior gloss, resistance to
fading, and resistance to crazing
• Deck coring windows are located at all hardware installations to
maintain the watertight integrity of the deck coring
• Molded in aluminum backing plates on all highly loaded deck hardware
• Hull to deck joint is secured with 1/4-20 stainless machine screws
installed on 4" centers through the full-length 6061 T6 aluminum
backing plate imbedded in the hull flange. This method exceeds the
recommended installation requirements of the ABS scantling for
offshore sailing yachts.
• Hull to deck joint is sealed with 3M 5200 adhesive sealant
• Composite light RTM match-molded deck locker hatches assure strict
thickness controls allowing accurate gasket seal of cockpit openings.
Conventional construction uses single-sided moldings with painted raw
fiberglass underside.
• Double lifeline gate at transom
• Instrument pod integrated onto coach roof with convenient wire
chase for instrument installations or additions

Transom Weakness: The factory hired an outside contractor to perform
structural reinforcement to our transom in 2003. This reinforcement
did not fix the problems and now the transom is worse than ever. In
hindsight, that reinforcement plan, designed by Mr. Jackett and
communicated by fax to the company's contractor was a cheap and dirty
solution, not a permanent fix. Just to be clear, it is not acceptable
for the transom to bend so much when the backstay is on to bind the
rudder. Cindy and I must have missed that feature in the glossy
brochure, as Mr. Jackett seems to infer that this is normal in his
boats. The transom on our boat is equipped with two chain plates for
the split backstay. These chain plates are thru bolted on the
transom. When the adjuster is lightly tightened the transom flexes
so much that cracks have formed between these chain plates. The
upper rudder bearing, which is attached to the transom cap moves so
much the rudder stock binds. The transom cap is so deformed that the
transom no longer sheds water. Fixing the transom will cost many
thousands of dollars. Mr. Jackett and the company refuse to fix it.
Our position on this is clear, when you hold yourself up as the
world's best production boat builder these things should not happen
to a boat transom and steering system.

Early this year, because of the boats problematic history, and
instead of honoring, our ongoing warranty claims, the company wrote,
and we accepted, a replacement offer for a new boat. We agreed on a
cash difference of $3,400 plus the trade in value the company offered
of $262,000 for the old boat. The new boat was to be delivered and
the old one taken back to the factory for re-manufacturing. We felt
great about this as Cindy and I felt that finally, the company was
trying to do the right thing and that our problem boat would be fixed
correctly so the next owner would not suffer as we did. We also
learned that we were being treated by the company as others were.
The company entered into a similar trade in and exchange program for
a C & C 121 named Jalacor which was manufactured right before ours.
This boat had a similar, but not as bad warranty history as ours. We
understand that the dealer advocated for the customer in this case.

The company then refused to honor this written replacement contract,
leaving us with a broken boat and no plan from the company to fix
it. The company refused to further discuss fixing the boat so we
went to Boat US Consumer Protection and wrote the company a final
demand letter. We were advised by Boat US to get an expert to look
at the boat and write a report. We hired a renowned composites
expert. His expertise and technological prowess with the same
materials our boat was built with were impressive to us, as was his
many years of experience working with these materials. I understand
that Mr. Jackett is a designer but I do not know his credentials in
the engineering and construction of CoreCell and epoxy laminated
panels. Our expert asked the company for a materials list and layup
schedules for our hull, once again in writing. He received nothing
from the company. I am happy to read Mr. Jackett's words about all
the standards our boat may be designed and constructed to meet. Our
expert wanted to compare the actual construction of our boat to what
the design intended as well as to the standards Mr. Jackett alludes
to. I will now ask on his behalf again for a materials list and a
lamination schedule and the build book for our boat. I'd also
challenge Mr. Jackett to post that materials list, lamination
schedule and build book on this forum. We would be comforted to
know, if in fact, the engineering intentions made it into the final
product.

As we left the warranty process because of the replacement contract,
we did not have a current repair estimate to fix the problems. We
were told it would be fixed by the factory after our new boat was
delivered. It is very difficult at this time, in the market area we
are in, for a consumer to find a contractor to work with the
manufacturer. Based on the slow payment history and other problems
the two previous outside contractors the company hired to fix our
boat, neither desires to work further with the company unless it is
on a cash basis. We were lucky enough, after several attempts, to
obtain both a second report on the boat's problems and an estimate
for the repairs. The gentlemen who did these is a well known
composites expert to Novis as his company is a custom boat builder
and repair facility who has used Novis carbon spars in some of his
boats. On Lake Michigan, he is "the guy" that fixes the big
composite race boats when they need it, his reputation and references
are excellent and he agreed to work directly with the company to fix
the boat's current known problems. He is so good at what he does that
international race boat owners, like Transpac 52's, have their boats
trucked to his shop for repairs. His quote of $27,000, which in our
opinion was reasonable considering the scope and complexity of the
work to fix the known current issues with the boat has now been
rejected by the company without so much as a phone call to him.

It is not in our best interest to find fault with our boat. We were
disturbed to read what the experts wrote about the issues. We are
troubled that the company tries, even after all this, to continue to
challenge these reports. As the boat's designer, as well as its
manufacturer, and thus where we lay the blame for these problems, I
hope it is clear to you that Mr. Jackett, the Chief Operating Officer
of the company, has a vested position in his explanations. We are
also tired of listening to the advice of our broker, Mike Titgmeyer
of Tartan CC of Annapolis which was, "Let's just hope that it stops
cracking and settles in." Mike was intimately involved in the
company's replacement contract with us and he has told me that he is
personally embarrassed by the company's actions.

Now here we are. Three great boatyards, an accredited marine
surveyor and two composites experts have all agreed that the deck has
problems, the boat flexes too much, and thus cracks and that the
transom build and overall construction of the rear of the boat is too
light for the loads of this size vessel. Contrary to what Mr. Jackett
says, all spent a great deal of time on the vessel and all inspected
the interior of the rear of the vessel and all watched the transom
move around and the rudder bind, and all reached the same
conclusion. Mr. Jackett now disagrees, although he was happy to
previously explain the problems in words that sound very much like
our experts when he was placating Cindy and me about the design and
construction improvements in the current boats over how ours was
made, and now seeks to paint a far different picture for you.

As for Cindy and I, the company has never apologized to us for
building a boat, which they acknowledge, has had more warranty issues
than any other in their history, nor did they apologize for reneging
on the replacement contract, even though we were willing to give them
several chances to make this right. Each of our short seasons has
been compromised dealing with construction, design and quality
issues. This is not what we signed up for. Mr. Jackett's solution
to all this gives us a choice: pay for the continuing quality and
build deficiencies yourself or just sell the boat. That's a great
result for the company, no cost to honor the warranty on our boat, no
cost to honor our contract to build us a new one that doesn't keep
breaking. Walk away from the problems created by building what they
did. In short, OK John and Cindy, we want to transfer all of our
problems onto you.....so that you can transfer them to the next poor
folks down the line. Nice people.

We are off to our attorney and will most likely take the now
unavoidable step of suing the company and its representatives for,
among other things, all the broken promises.

It has cost us a great deal in time and money in the simple quest to
get what the company advertises and what we paid for. The company
has one final chance to make this right and avoid putting our
families back against the wall and force us to sue. Perhaps someone
from the company will read this and take the opportunity to ride in
on their white horse and make this end well, perhaps not. Even
after how the company and its people have treated us we hold no ill
will toward it or its people. We are willing to forgive them even
now. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone is entitled to a second
chance.

In response to Mr. Jackett's threats about protecting the company's
brands, we have this to offer:

PROTECT YOUR CUSTOMER FIRST AND THE BRAND WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF.

To those of you out there considering one of the company's products
we offer:

CAVEAT EMPTOR.

Our specific advice is to get a pre purchase survey done by an
accredited marine surveyor equipped with one of the new machines that
can determine the quality of the hull and deck construction without
breaching it. Obtain the build book, materials list and lamination
schedule on your hull. Obtain a parts list of every component the
manufacturer will be adding to the vessel from other suppliers. Have
the surveyor, and you, match all of these documents against the
industry standards and specifications such as from the ABYC and the
ABS as well as the specifications published by the component
manufacturers, and go from there. This will be expensive but in our
view well worth the investment. Part of your process should be to
speak with owners of the vessel you are considering. Have your
attorney read through your purchase contract as well as the warranty
documents and make sure you fully understand what they both say. You
should also speak with independent repair facilities about their
experiences with the boats and manufacturer you are considering.
Although the dealers at the company owned stores may be well
intentioned, they have an inherent bias toward the manufacturer. It
is hard for that style of distribution to permit consumer advocacy,
when there is conflict, if they are beholding to the people that make
the boats. There are a great many of us out there that have and will
continue to speak honestly and frankly about our experiences. After
all, a company that claims to build the best production boats in the
world shouldn't have anything to hide.
And finally, to all reading this, we apologize about the length of
this post and thank you for your kind words and thoughtful
suggestions. We are not going away anytime soon and are working on
additional venues to tell our story.


Best regards,

John and Cindy Vito


  #122 09-11-2007
luckyjim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pamlicotraveler
.....But keep in mind this is not related to the Mako blog for the 2005 Tartan 3700 or JimB's split hull
Tartan.....

Sorry to correct you Pamlicotraveler but this is related to the Tartan 3700 that split off the NJ coast less
than 12 months ago.

The Tartan 3700 owned by Jim B. that split was made in the same factory and suffered damage in the same
areas of the hull that the 121 boat. Moreover, it failed in exactly the same region of the hull (forward of the
mast, below waterline) that another 3700 some 30+ hulls away from the 3700 split hull that failed. The
earlier with over 100 3'+ cracks in the gelcoat. The 121 owners tells me that that the same mold was used
for all three boats. Look for the FredZ post on SA and you'll see his rant on Novis after he reported the
100+ cracks. How is it that three hulls from allegedly the same mold all have failed or showed more than
'cosmetic' failures in the same region of the hull below the waterline? All are epoxy hulls.

LJ

#124    09-11-2007
121Guy
Just a Note to set the record straight.

Thanks for all the encouragement here and all the back channel words of kindness. I've followed the posts
this am and just wanted to make one small correction in what someone else said. My understanding is that
the 121 hull mold is not identical to the Tartan 3700. They are two different molds. The commonality
between the boats is that they were both designed by Tim Jackett. I believe the 121 was drawn in 1998. I do
not know the exact draw date of the Tartan 3700, but believe it to be earler. Both boats are built by the
same company, Fairport / Novis. Both boats were originally designed to be built from polyester laminate
construction and each was for the early portions of each boats run. The construction method for both boats
was changed to the company's epoxy lamination sometime iduring the production runs. Both boats were
made on the same assembly line by the same assembly crews. Finally, based on our experience and on what
has been reported about the Tartan 3700 hull's with problems, both boats seem to have hull cracking issues.

 #128      09-11-2007
luckyjim
Quote:
Originally Posted by T34C
Why is that anyone capable of seeing that there are two sides to this story ''must work for Tartan''??? By
this logic Jim- should we assume by your continued insistence that the manufacture has screwed-upthat you
must work for Catalina and are having trouble selling boats?
34C, you are right to pick up on that point. It was a late Sunday night post and was meant to be taken
tongue-in-cheek and ha, ha type line. Reading it again I can see why that it would not come across that
way.

I don't work in the business at all. Just a consumer.


 #130 09-11-2007
121Guy

Sailingdog and others,

I have been in contact with several owners of both newer (epoxy) Tartan's and C&C's with various
problems. I do know of one Tartan 4100 on Lake Michigan that had a large void on the bottom just forward
of the keel. I'm sure that was a polyester boat and I think it is a 1999 or 2000 model. I've heard from other
owners of polyseter boats that have told me of similar voids but I do not know those owners personally.


#142 09-11-2007
T37Chef

Over 6000 views


With over 6000 views of this thread, Novis, Fairport, Tartan, C&C, are way overdue for comment IMO

 #145 09-12-2007
121Guy
Just a follow up to the Giu posts about mediation. We went to Boat US Consumer Protection earlier this
year when the manufacturer stopped communicating with us. They have a mediation service available to
their 650,000 members. The mediation service is in conjunction with the NMMA (National Marine
Manufacturers Association) and is called the Better Boat Program. Novis Marine, in the person of their
Cheif Executive Officer, an attorney named Bill Ross, refused to communicate with the Boat US
representatives. You can find out more about the program by contacting Raymond Rose at Boat US.

When the manufacturer won't participate in a program put together by their industry trade association as
well as the largest consumer boating organization in the world, I asked why. Mr Rose has never before had
this happen and to this date cannot get Mr. Ross to respond to him.

#151   11-26-2007
max-on

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyjim
"We are not afraid to entrust the American yacht buyer with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien
philosophies, real customer experiences and competitive values. For a modern boat manufacturer that is
afraid to let its market judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a boat manufacturer that is afraid
of its current and potential client base." For more on today's Novis vs client legal news, go to
http://mako3700.blogspot.com/

Luckyjim, what are the causes of action of the suit; can you post the complaint?

 #152    11-27-2007
cardiacpaul

I swear I'm not an idiot... a bit cranky, sure, a little out of sorts/ yea, off my feed, youbetcha...
but a little while ago, I said...

heavy sigh.
I've got no dog in this hunt.

Ater having been both a plaintiff and a defendant, as well as an "expert" witness for both sides of various
cases, let me offer this tidbit.

No good will ever come of this suit.

The defendants have legal firms on retainer that defend them.
The defendants insurance companies have legal firms that defend them.

This will boil down to a "my expert more believeable than your expert" case, IF it ever hits the inside of a
courtroom.
You are talking YEARS. (reference the class action lawsuit regarding Uniflite, and the settlement that
BARRED PARTICIPANTS FROM SPEAKING ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT)

You are opening yourself up to FAR more troubles if you continue to voice your, and your "experts"
opinions without viable substantiation.

If your attorney hasn't said "shut up, sit down and let me work my magic," I'd fire the stupid putz and find
me one that did. Unless of course he plans on defending you after all of this comes to a big pile of nothing
and novis, tartan, whomever decides to go after you, your kids, your dog, your house, your newspaper
subscription assets. (unless you own nothing.
Scenario 1
Side A)
All of my experts say this boat is a POS. This has been posted on no less than 375 internet boards saying
so... these posts have been read or responded to by no less than 175,000 people. There, take that....

Side B) Our experts say this boat is not a POS, and it's decided in our favor... So, in light of all of the
uninformed personal decisions that have been made to post this "information", our company has been
harmed, we must be made whole.

Scenario 2)
Side A)
All of my experts say this boat is a POS. Its been decided that this boat is a POS, I want to be made whole...

Side B) Appeal. Another 5 years.
Fast forward 5 years...
Ok, heres a check for the boat and for your lawyers fees, you want it, heres the gag order... Oops, geez,
heres all these old threads damaging our reputation. This isn't a class action, this is ONE boat, one plaintiff,
one owner. Hmm, Judge what do we do about that?

Like I said, I don't give a rats patootie how this shakes out, but if you want cash in your pocket, if it were
me, I'd shut the hell up until the gavel drops for the last time.


then I said....

We are getting one side of this story, we do not know what "the company" has, or has not done, will or will
not do, has or has not said... why is that?
Because there is pending litigation!!!!!!!!

We do know what the plaintiff has said the defendant has done, but other than that, we really know diddly
squat.
it has absolutely nothing to do with malicious, true, or untrue.

It has to do with pending litigation. period. Whats "right" doesn't enter into the equasion all that much
either.
the bottom line is, if this thing turns even half way sour for the owners of the boat, and I (as the owners of
the company) have even "perceived" damages, I wouldn't hesitate for a new york minute to run them thru
the grinder. Knowing full well that it would probably "damage" whatever "reputation" the company has left
wouldn't bother an attorney in the least. At that point, it DOES become personal for a privately held
company.

What you have to remember, is all of these claims are in a legal sense "pending" at best, unproven at worst.

I'm NOT saying the guy doesn't have a claim, I don't know, and I don't really care.

No one should be silenced by the legal system, I'm saying try your best not to shoot off your own foot in
the process.
feel free to poke me with a pointy stick, but, I told ya so, now, pull up your big girl panties and deal with it.

 #154 11-27-2007
blt2ski

I would like to know when the two that are in lawsuits are not shut up here permently, if they do not cease
and desist regarding these lawsuits. That they are not shut up, seems to me, to put sailnet in a bind, ala
Novis going after them, especially if they, ie Novis wins in the end! then there will be no more sailnet, and
the parent will be potentially down the drain too!

Just my $.02 on the subject, for what it is worth these days. .02 euros is probably a better investment!

marty

 #155 11-27-2007
sailingdog

blt2ski-

I don't believe sailnet can be held responsible for what its users post, since it has no control over what they
say and it is essentially a public forum. Sailnet would be responsible for removing the offending material
once it has been notified by the offended parties to do so, but has no responsibility otherwise.


 #157 11-27-2007
 max-on
Quote:
Originally Posted by T34C
This is one of my posts from the 3rd page of this thread after both Cam- and CD- advised unluckyjim- that
maybe he should temper his comments in such a public forum. He then got nasty about free speech and
people here trying to silence him. All I can say now is, HHAAAAAAA! What goes around, comes around.
Don't say you weren't warned.

I read the post on the blog, I hope LuckyJim understands from his attorney that the US Constitution
freedom of speach provisions will not provide to him a defense against Novis/Fairport/C&C/Tartan, as I
understand them to be private companies.

#160 11-28-2007
 max-on
Cardiacpaul, I will not even comment, as from the direction this matter is going, I'm waiting for all of us to
be served with a subpoena. He has been silent, maybe they hit him with a restraining order.

Sailingdog, I was commenting on his repeated reference in his blog to his right to freedom of speech; this
constitutional right is not relevant to his matter with the builder.


 #169   12-27-2007
camaraderie
Moderator

I've recently been made aware of a link on the Tartan site in which Tim Jackett addresses many of the
issues raised in this thread from hull failures to Yanmar saildrives. I am including it below in the interest of
airing both sides of the story. Links to this interview and 3 others like it are at the end.
*************

Q. In the summer of 2007, there were a lot of rumors circulating on the Internet about problems with Tartan
and C&C boats.

JACKETT: Yes. Frankly we were caught a bit off guard by that, too.

Q. So what was driving it?

JACKETT: It's not so much a matter of WHAT was driving it, but rather WHO was driving it. Near as we
can tell, the ruckus was largely created by two owners who we felt were making unreasonable and
excessive warranty claims. It looks to us like they were attempting to pressure Novis Marine into resolving
their claims the way they wanted to by creating a very negative impression of the company.

Q. Okay, let's come back to that. The most serious accusation made was one of a hull failure in a Tartan
3700.

JACKETT: Yes. Interestingly, neither of the people driving the negative campaign had issues related in any
way to the 3700 in question. But let me talk about that particular boat.

It was built in 2005. The 3700has been one of the most successful boats in Tartan's history. We've built
nearly 150 3700s and many have extensive offshore cruising and racing under their keels.

This particular boat was being delivered by a professional crew when it began taking on water. The crew
called the Coast Guard, which took it in tow - and then a commercial tow company took over and brought
the boat in. The boat was immediately hauled out and a fracture was found along the midline, ahead of the
keel.

We had the boat de-commissioned and trucked it to our plant in Ohio for an extensive analysis. We
discovered some interesting things.

Now, I don't want to suggest that the event wasn't serious. It was very serious.That said, the rumor mill
suggests that this was a sudden and catastrophic event. In fact, it was neither.

You might recall that during the time period that boat was built, we'd lay up one half of the hull, let it
partially cure at room ambient temperature, rotate the mold and build the other half, with extensive overlap
between the two sides. It's a pretty standard way of building composite boats. (For a link to how the boats
are built, CLICK HERE) There was a defect in the lay up of this particular 3700. The overlap was not as
wide as it should have been. This led to a gradual, progressive delamination in the overlap area.
All of this may have been aggravated by an all-too-common rig tuning technique that can greatly over-
tension a rig. What it consists of is tensioning the leeward shrouds while the boat is sailing and the rig is
under load to take any slack out. On the next tack, obviously, the shrouds that were previously to
windward, but which are now to leeward, appear loose, so THOSE get tightened. And so on.If the process
is repeated from tack to tack, it can bottom out the rigging adjustment and cause compression loads far in
excess of those normally experienced in normal tuning and sailing. We specifically warn against this
technique in all of our owners' manuals. Our crew in Annapolis, which was the first to see the boat when it
came in, noticed that the shroud turnbuckles were two-blocked.

This type of failure simply doesn't happen spontaneously. If you know what to look for - and where to look
- you can see telltale signs of a progressive delamination on any composite boat. You see deformation, you
see failing interior finishes, structural tabbing, and there are other signs that something is happening. We
actually found marine growth inside the crack - and that simply couldn't have happened if the failure had
been spontaneous.

The area that had the problem on this 3700 wasn't easy to see; owners rarely get down on the cabin sole and
scope out what's happening in the bilges.Nor do we expect them to. But when we examined the boat, we
found that the warning signs of that impending failure had been there for quite some time.

Needless to say, we repaired that boat, reimbursed the owner for his expenses and returned it to him; he's
happy with the result and we're all relieved that the situation wasn't more serious than it was. And I've
personally inspected roughly half a dozen boats built at the same time, and none of them have any issues.

I'm confident that what happened with this particular boat was an isolated situation, but I'm also aware that
because of the rumor mill there are a lot of owners who are concerned. To that end, we're notifying owners
of 3700s built in that era to contact their dealers so we can arrange an inspection. We've advised the dealers
how to examine and photograph the overlap area, and they'll send these photos to us for analysis. If we see
anything even remotely out of the ordinary we'll conduct a more detailed check of the boat.And if we
discover anything going on, we'll fix it - of course.

hull
Q. So why all the buzz about other hulls with serious structural issues?

JACKETT: As I mentioned, this is largely being driven by two individuals. One of these people had an
early C&C with the tie-coated gelcoat we discussed when we talked about construction (for more
information on the constuction process CLICK HERE). We fixed his gelcoat but he's somehow managed to
convince himself that the gelcoat cracks extend into the laminate. I've completely inspected his boat, and
that's simply not the case - his boat is fine. There was also an early epoxy 3700, again with the tie coat, that
developed a fair amount of gelcoat crazing in the area where the laminate schedule made the transition
from solid glass to foam core. But these were strictly cosmetic, and as far as we know, the only case of a
significant structural issue was on the one 3700 we just talked about.

Interestingly enough, the guy who has been most active in the 'dirty laundry' campaign hasn't even had
gelcoat issues. He's had problems with his saildrive. These problems weren't our fault, but we've tried to
take care of him anyway.

The other thing that's interesting is that the guys who were making all the noise both told us that they'd be
very happy if Novis Marine simply gave them new or bigger boats! Now, you can call that whatever you
want, but if I actually had serious concerns about the safety of a particular boat builder, the last thing I'd
want would be another boat from the same builder.

Q. You mentioned saildrives...? There've been some online grumbles about those, too.

JACKETT: Saildrives have some distinct advantages over older-style shaft and prop arrangements. They
provide better performance both under power, and they create less drag when the boat is under sail. They
have proved to be smoother and quieter with improved power delivered to the boat both in forward and
reverse gears.

We started using saildrives when we introduced the C&C 110 about ten years ago. We used Volvo
saildrives in those, and over time we started incorporating Volvo saildrives in all of our models. We never
had corrosion issues with them.

Several years ago, we were approached by Yanmar. Yanmar is obviously well-known in the marine engine
field, and a company like Novis Marine that's producing several hundred high-quality sailing yachts a year
is going to be an attractive customer prospect. They came in with a big sales pitch, and we switched.

The saildrives that were problematic for Tartan owners were all Yanmars. We had a number of owners of
these units contact us that they were seeing excessive corrosion on these units.

We build hulls, decks, interior fixtures and cabinetry, rudders, masts and some of the booms. We do not
make engines, sails, winches, steering gear, plumbing fixtures, stainless for stanchions or pulpits, and that
sort of thing. We spec them, buy them and install them. But we don't make them, and the suppliers we use
are supposed to honor the warranties for them if there's a problem with their products.

Now, in the case of these saildrive units, we've replaced roughly a dozen - at our cost, because Yanmar for
some reason refused to honor the warranty. We had metallurgical studies done of these units and believe
that there was an error in the alloys on some of them that led to excessive corrosion. We have been told that
other boat builders have experienced the same problem with these same saildrive units. We're trying to
recover from Yanmar, but in the meantime we've replaced roughly a dozen sail drive units and have
assisted owners with others. And we've gone back to using Volvo as standard equipment.

Q. Some have suggested that the electrical isolation of the powerplants and saildrives on these vessels was
incorrect, and that's the reason they corroded.

JACKETT: That's not the case. These units were installed per the manufacturer's specifications. And it's
also important to note that only these specific units have had issues with excessive corrosion. Other
Yanmar models have not.And I know of no issues with significant saildrive corrosion since we made the
switch back to Volvo.

Q. Every now and then, even before the '07 allegations cropped up, you'd hear periodic grumbling from
owners who said that they had warranty issues that they couldn't get resolved, or that they were having
trouble getting dealers to fix their problems. Can you talk about that?

JACKETT: Sure. People who buy Tartan and C&C boats are serious sailors. For many, however, the boat
they buy from us is the first truly new boat they've ever owned.

Now, let's face it:new boats aren't cheap - particularly when you're purchasing upscale brands such as
Tartan and C&C. If you've never bought a brand new boat before, you naturally expect everything to be
perfect, right out of the box.

Perfection is certainly the goal. But frankly, it's an unrealistic expectation that everything on a sailboat -
which, after all, is a complex series of systems, working together - is going to perform flawlessly from the
moment it first gets splashed. Let me give you an example. A head door that fits perfectly in the plant
might bind a little once the boat is actually floating, simply because the pressures on the hull are different
in the water than they were when the boat was sitting in its cradle at the plant. And, of course, the damper
environment causes the wood to swell a bit. That kind of thing is a common type of warranty issue for us,
and it's easy to fix, but it's an annoyance for an owner until it's done.

It takes time to get a new boat dialed in. That's why the dealer commissioning process is so important, and
why working with your dealer to identify and correct any issues as they appear is essential. One of our most
vocal critics refused the dealer commissioning process, deciding instead to commission the boat himself
and save the commissioning costs. That's certainly his right, of course, but had he let the dealer commission
the boat he probably would've been a lot happier. Dealer commissioning catches and fixes any issues with a
new boat before the owner is even aware of them, and minor issues that crop up in the first season can
easily be addressed.

Q. But what about people who DO let the dealers commission their boats, and then have issues?

JACKETT: Many of the warranty issues we address in that first year or two are related to systems provided
by third parties and installed either at the plant or at the dealership, such as electrical, plumbing or
hydraulic components. We do our best to fix those as quickly as we can, because any downtime for a new
owner is understandably upsetting - doubly so if it's a gorgeous day and you're the only one left on the
dock.

I'm not going to say that our promptness with warranty work in the past has always been flawless in all
locations. The length of time it takes to solve a given warranty issue is really dependent on the issue itself.
Most things that come up are straightforward and with a good local dealer, they are handled quickly with
little inconvenience to the owner. Correction of a more complex issue is often subject to the dealer's ability
to locate and contract an appropriate craftsman and get the required work on their schedule or in some
cases to schedule a factory technician to make the service trip.

We have many dealers that have done a great job of after-the-sale service, and a lot of happy customers.
We also have a handful of owners that didn't get the level of service they hoped for or expected. I feel badly
about that, and I think it's important to know that were aware of this, and that we've been working to
address it through implementation of regional service centers in the larger markets. We're continuing to
work closely with the dealers that have been successful with service and internally here at the factory.
Equally important to our efforts to address the issues in the field has been our efforts to further improve the
quality of the boats leaving the factory. The boats we're building now are the best we've ever done.

Where we've had our biggest issues with managing warranty issues, quite frankly, is in a handful of
locations where Novis has terminated a relationship with a specific dealer. That's happened several times
and it's created problems both for the owners and for us.

Q. Why were those relationships terminated?

JACKETT: We own and operate many of our dealerships but a lot more are independent brokerages who
enter into dealership agreements with us. When we enter into these agreements, we create mutually
acceptable sales targets, guidelines for promoting our brands and goals for follow-up service. We've got
some terrific long-term relationships with some wonderful dealerships.

We've also had several dealerships that weren't performing as expected. For example, there was one that
we'd been working with for a long time, and we were providing a lot of marketing and promotional support
to them, and then we discovered that when prospective customers walked in to discuss our boats, their sales
team would start pushing another brand altogether. Obviously, that's not a desirable situation. We always
look to make established dealer relations work. But we have terminated relationships with dealerships that
weren't working out the way we thought they should.

Now obviously, if you're in the process of buying a Tartan or C&C from a local dealer and that dealer stops
carrying the brands, you're going to find commissioning and warranty work tougher to arrange. We had one
customer in eastern Connecticut, for example, that this happened to. We sent a commissioning crew from
the factory to his location and spent a week setting up the boat. But as I mentioned, it does take time to get
a boat fully dialed in. And he was a long way from another dealership that could assume responsibility for
any necessary tweaking. We got his issues ironed out, but it took time; it's hard to manage service issues in
Connecticut from Ohio.

We've come up with a new program that should help support dealers and customers who keep their boats in
areas some distance away from a dealership. We're creating a team of full-time mobile field representatives.
These technicians will handle new boat commissioning and will be able to make minor warranty
adjustments on the spot and will stock a good supply of standard parts. They'll be able to provide dealers
with parts and they'll work directly with owners. And they'll be able to come directly to an owner's boat,
rather than having an owner deliver their boat to a dealership.

We think this is going to be a wonderful program, and we think it will really help with customer service
issues. As far as I know, this is the first field rep program of its type in the entire US boatbuilding industry.
We hope to have the program up and running by Spring in '08 with service/commissioning technicians
located in many of the major North American sailing regions.

http://tartanyachts.com/article/arti...c-9a634bb58efa

also see: http://tartanyachts.com/article/arti...7-2b15055c0ebf for the reasons behind the reported gel coat
issues.
Other interviews: http://tartanyachts.com/article/arti...5-3006b24766a1

 #170     01-22-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Once again...developing news. Novis (parent of Tartan/C&C) has been sold. Implications unclear for
present and future Tartan and C&C owners. Details & discussion here:
http://www.sailnet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40043

 #182 01-23-2008
Cruisingdad
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tartan30#526Howl
Halekai and Alaska, in that these posts have been moved from another thread on another forum, you might
be unaware of some of the content on this thread. Please check out the previous page on this thread.
Camaraderie crossposted something from the Tartan website that's relevant to this discussion. The
assumptions that Novis blamed the owner of a boat for a hull crack or tried to deny coverage is simply not
true.

Disclosure in accordance with Sailnet policy: I do occasional contract work for Novis Marine.

THANK YOU!!!!! DISCLOSURE!! HONESTY!!!! That gets you a whole lot of credit in my book. Thank
you again.

Please add marine contractor (novis as it may be neccessary) into your signature. I do NOT discourage
participation from those with a vested interst in the marine industry. In fact, I encourage it. Just be upfront,
as you have done. Thank you again.

- CD

  #187 01-23-2008
stm
I was told by someone at a Tartan dealership that the Tartan 3700 owner that is envolved in the lawsuit has
a history of new boat problems. I was told that he threatened Beneteau on a previous boat and got them to
buy it back. Could be he had two lemons. Could be he is a customer from hell. Could be the broker is
rationalizing with trumped up lies. Point is, don't believe all the xxx you see on the blogs.

Last edited by camaraderie : 01-23-2008 at 05:58 PM. Reason: language
#188    01-23-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

STM...could be a lot things and until the multiple lawsuits from multiple customers are settled...we won't
know the truth. Since there are gag orders on the participants, they can't respond to such attacks like the
anonymous broker you mentioned so it is best that we wait for the courts to decide where to apportion
blame.

 #189    01-23-2008
mr_lucky

Thanks CD!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad
FOR THE RECORD:

It appears that Luckyjim and Mr. Lucky that posted this are NOT the same people.

I hope that helps to clear up some matters here.

- CD

I am, indeed, NOT Luckyjim. These unfounded assumptions are tiresome. As I posted in the Novis sale
thread in response to T34C, I AM Mr. Lucky. As Popeye would say, "I yam what I yam, and that's all that I
yam" and y'all will have to live with it.


#195 04-14-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

WARNING: TO PROSPECTIVE New TARTAN/C&C BUYERS

Tartan/Novis Marine's former lawyers have filed for non-payment of invoices in the amount of around
$200k AND asked the judge to step in pre-emptively and attach the assets of Novis and the new company
Grand River.
These documents are filed in Cayahuga County Ohio by the law firm Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur
LLP as case Number 08CV 647213...Judge John D. Sutula presiding on 3/18/2008.

In the public court document the lawyers state that Novis' liabilities appear to exceed their assets and
further state that the asset transfer is either deliberate fraud or an effort to avoid paying legitimate creditors.
******
Novis/Grand River has posted NOTHING on their site in 90 days regarding the sale or how existing owners
claims and future warranty issues will be handled.
I have tried to remain neutral on these issues and continue to invite a response from the company...but this
latest development is most concerning and should be a HUGE warning flag to any prospective buyer or
anyone with a boat currently under construction there.
I have pdf copies of the court documents available for anyone who wishes to reviews them but have no way
of hosting them on line. Just PM me with your e-mail and I will forward them if you need to see them.

#198    04-14-2008
 max-on
It usually is 'not good' if you stop paying the lawyers! What would be more interesting to learn is what
work was being done to generate the $200k in fees and the circumstances where the firm would allow that
size payable, especially during an asset sale. I do not know the annual revenue for Tartan/C&C but I would
speculate a $200k legal bill is not a usual item in the budget for a boat builder.


 #199 04-14-2008
wolfmt

I'm not going to suggest that a prospective buyer shouldn't inquire about this lawsuit before commiting to
the purchase of a new boat but I thought it would be helpful to point out that there may be a benign
explanation (at least as far as the new owners are concerned) for the lawsuit described below. Given that
this transaction was structured as a sale of assets, in all liklihood, many of the company's liabilities,
including legal fees, were probably left behind in the company selling its assets. I would venture a guess
that the seller has not satisfied those liabilities and its creditors are now looking for any source to satisfy
those liabilities, including the assets of the purchaser. One of the arguments a creditor might make to
support a case that the purchaser should be responsible for its obligations is to allege that the seller was
insolvent at the time of the asset sale and that the sale was a fraudulent transfer under applicable bankrupty
law. There are probably a number of other arguments to be made as well but they all address the same
point: how does a creditor make the purchaser liable for the seller's obligations when the purchaser and
seller expressly agreed that those obligations should remain obligations of the seller. Again, I'm not
suggesting that prospective buyers shouldn't inform themselves, I'm only suggesting that there are
explanations that don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that one shouldn't purchase a boat from the new
company.

#202 04-15-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Wolf..."One of the arguments a creditor might make to support a case that the purchaser should be
responsible for its obligations is to allege that the seller was insolvent at the time of the asset sale and that
the sale was a fraudulent transfer under applicable bankrupty law."
Your instincts are correct...that is one of the arguments made.

The fees of nearly 200k were actually dozens of invoices starting in 2003 and continuing to Sept. 2007
PRIOR to any sale work. Billing was actually 300k but 100k was paid by Novis and last paymen was in
12/2006. So...9 months of work without any payment of invoices...outstanding balances dating further back
than that...and no payments after work stopped between Sept. and last month when the suit was filed.

As to my advice to extreme caution...since the palintiff, if successful, will take seize control of all of the
assets of the company...I think my advice is prudent. If you're having a $500k boat built...you sure don't
want some lawyer in Ohio taking your$100k down payment...you want your boat built.

#204       04-15-2008
 sailingdog

Cam asked me to post the two PDF files he sent me regarding Tartan's current legal troubles.

The complaint PDF file can be seen here http://www.adriftatsea.com/files/ComplaintTartan.pdf
The motion PDF file can be seen here. http://www.adriftatsea.com/files/MotionTartan.pdf

  #205 04-15-2008
 Pamlicotraveler
It's interesting how this whole transaction seemed sudden and somewhat fishy coming as it did, right on the
heels of all the disussions here, and elsewhere, about the alleged quality lapses.
The complaint by the old lawyers to get their $174,236.87 makes it look like the whole thing may have
been a sham transaction.

From the complaint:

"Thus, Novis Marine is not paying its debts as they become due. Novis Marine also appears to have debts
that exceed its assets....Novis Marine has now announced has announced that it is now in the process of
selling all of its assets....Novis Marine's counsel has stated that the transfer is now complete. However, the
transfer apparently excludes a transfer of the liabilities....This is either a fraudulent transfer or an attempt to
avoid paying PWMA and Novis Marine's other creditors."

The most interesting line was this:

"Significantly, the law firm which is currently representing Novis Marine in various litigation matters is
also the same firm which recently prepared and filed the articles of incorporation for the entity purchasing
the assets."

If that is true, then the whole deal could be considered a sham. Just how did Mr. J. Hunter Banbury (new
CEO) and Grand River get involved in this transaction if they happened to use the same lawyer.

I still think they were about the classiest boats I saw in Annapolis at the boat show. They look like the best
production boats around. But if the hull splits, who cares? They have a slick ad in one of the rags this
month. It was a nice full page ad and makes Tartan look like the boat to buy.

 #214 04-16-2008
Cruisingdad
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBanbury
Good Afternoon,

I am Hunter Banbury, the investment group of which I am the principal is acquiring the Tartan and C&C
businesses. We have an extremely successful track record of acquiring manufacturing companies with great
brands. We then grow them through delivering great quality products and satisfying customers. We will be
operating under the acquired name of Grand River Composites. I wanted to take this opportunity to respond
to the previous posts about Grand River Composites involvement in the acquisition of the Tartan and C&C
brands.

The dispute between Novis and this law firm has nothing to do with my investment group and the new
company. While I don't know the details Novis' attorneys will deal with this dispute. The law firms claims
against us are completely without merit and we are confident we will be dismissed from their conflict. To
impune our name is naive, uninformed and defamatory.

Our goal is to make the transition from the previous owner to ourselves as smooth as possible for Tartan
and C&C customers. We will be honoring customer deposits, taking care of uncontested issues of previous
boat owners, and employing 160 people making great quality boats. Tartan and C&C are one of the most
prestigous and highest quality brands in the world. The new ownership has the capital and management
expertise to build the company into one of the strongest international boat builders. We will be expanding
the products, including a new C&C 131 and building a 60 foot Tartan. Additionally we will be building
carbon fiber spars and accessories for OEM and retail customers alike.

When our transaction is complete I look forward to building each of you a great boat. Until then, don't base
your opinions on innuendos.

Thank You for your time and the opportunity to give my two cents worth.

Hunter Banbury
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions and issues on this board, Hunter.

- CD

#216 04-16-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Thank you Hunter for coming on an giving your view. I think everyone here would like nothing better than
a new and revitalized Tartan/C&C that builds great boats and takes care of its' customers. Nevertheless,
there remain some very real concerns for anyone considering one of your products today.
Exhibit #1:
http://www.adriftatsea.com/files/MotionTartan.pdf

See post above for complete document.

While your confidence that this motion will not survive is appreciated...it does call for the seizure of all
Novis assets...including the ones that were transferred to you. I don't think I would want MY assets
involved in this dispute until resolved or unless they were in some way LEGALLY sheltered from any
outcome of this action. Can you advise the group WHEN we may get a legal decision rendered on this
action?

Your statement on taking care of existing owners of Tartan/C&C products is certainly a step in the right
direction but it is a bit ambigous. Is it your intent and do you assume the obligation to honor valid and
legitimate claims under the warranties issued to Tartan and C&C owners by Novis? A statement on your
websites to that effect would certainly make existing owners feel a lot better about the "transfer of assets"
to Grand River.

Thanks again for coming on the board and giving us an update. We look forward to further information and
wish you well in your new endeavor.

#217 04-16-2008
Sailormann
Quote:
Good Afternoon,

I am Hunter Banbury, the investment group of which I am the principal is acquiring the Tartan and C&C
businesses.

Good afternoon. Thank you for stopping by.
Quote:
We have an extremely successful track record of acquiring manufacturing companies with great brands.

Can you let us know which these are ?
Quote:
We then grow them through delivering great quality products and satisfying customers.

This is a good business model - much more successful in the long term than the "act surprised and do
nothing" format so many folks seem to be tending toward these days.
Quote:
We will be operating under the acquired name of Grand River Composites.

I am assuming from this that the reason you are buying assets rather than simply purchasing Novis Marine
us to avoid acquiring their current liabilities. It appears that there are some very irate people out there, in
addition to a law firm, who have done business with Novis and feel that they have been taken advantage of.
I think you might find it worthwhile to try to determine the cost to your new firm of fighting the claims
from owners, and the claim of a law firm that can afford to do its own work for free for the next ten years,
and the cost of the PR, advertising, promotion and sales incentives that you are going to have to pay for in
order to counteract the significant amount of antipathy that exists in the market towards the brands. I think
you should then compare this to the cost of providing satisfaction to the current claimants, and you should
attempt to value the goodwill that behaving in a responsible and professional manner would generate in
both the short and the long term.

I think you'll find that it's much cheaper over time to bite the bullet, do the right thing and then move ahead.

In a nutshell, there is a lot of ill will floating around out there. The financial maneuvering that you are
executing right now, in order to free the company of its liabilities is only going to add to that.

It's great that you took the time to visit this forum and your comments and promises are certainly
encouraging, but from my perspective the way you are proceeding is at odds with the information you are
posting.

If you want to set things right, buy the company, take care of the problems and move on. Otherwise, I don't
think your company is going to survive. The economy is not in great shape right now. Your market is
getting smaller, and will continue to do so for a while. You can't afford to be carrying a whole lot of
baggage, because there are too many companies out there that don't have a reputation for poor customer
support. The few that will be buying new boats in North America over the next couple of years are going to
be cautious.


Quote:
I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the previous posts about Grand River Composites
involvement in the acquisition of the Tartan and C&C brands.

Quote:
The dispute between Novis and this law firm has nothing to do with my investment group and the new
company. While I don't know the details Novis' attorneys will deal with this dispute. The law firms claims
against us are completely without merit and we are confident we will be dismissed from their conflict. To
impune our name is naive, uninformed and defamatory.

I believe you meant to type "impugn" rather than "impune"


Quote:
Our goal is to make the transition from the previous owner to ourselves as smooth as possible for Tartan
and C&C customers. We will be honoring customer deposits, taking care of uncontested issues of previous
boat owners, and employing 160 people making great quality boats. Tartan and C&C are one of the most
prestigous and highest quality brands in the world. The new ownership has the capital and management
expertise to build the company into one of the strongest international boat builders. We will be expanding
the products, including a new C&C 131 and building a 60 foot Tartan. Additionally we will be building
carbon fiber spars and accessories for OEM and retail customers alike.

We sincerely hope so. You have two iconic brands and the entire sailing community wants nothing more
than for them to return to what they used to be.


Quote:
When our transaction is complete I look forward to building each of you a great boat. Until then, don't base
your opinions on innuendos.
My opinion is not based on innuendo. About 5 years ago, an acquaintance who was fairly new to sailing
contacted C&C to find out about an issue he was having with one of the original Canadian boats. He was
rudely told that no information was available. No reason for it - the man is one of the mildest mannered
people you could ever hope to meet.

That was the first. There were other instances that would be mentioned in conversation from time to time.
Then the posts on the internet started - not only here but on other forums as well. TOo many of them for it
to be innuendo, rumour or other such stuff.

Where there is smoke there is (usually) fire. And even if you believe that your firm is 100% in the right,
you do whatever it takes to prevent people from going away angry. To do otherwise costs so much that you
will always come up short in the end. Do you think the major retailers accept returns because it's profitable
??? They take things back because if they don't, people will be speaking ill of them all over the place.


Quote:
Thank You for your time and the opportunity to give my two cents worth.

Likewise. I sincerely want you to take the company and make it right, and produce great boats, and perhaps
I would be interested in buying one in a couple of years, but I must tell you that the "acquiring assets"
seems to me to be an attempt to circumvent the responsibilities of the company.

From our perspectives, it appears that Novis made a mess of things. The ethical thing to do is clean up the
mess.

#219 04-16-2008
 max-on
Quote:
Originally Posted by WH115
speculating novis was LLC therefore a partnership so only way to dissolve is sell assets at fair market value
and pay taxes, secured creditors, and then creditors .standard. don't believe a corporation or another llc can
partner in an llc. just people. if the assets were at fair market and the lawyers were not secured in any assets
there is no case for a claim.

my warrantee straddles the deal. i'll know in 4 weeks they back the warrantee.

No, and what?


#223 04-18-2008
 sailingdog

In case you're interested, from an earlier press release:


Quote:
Novis Marine Announces Change in Ownership
--
Jan 22, 2008Novis Marine Ltd., announced today that it has entered into a definitive agreement for the sale
of its assets and those of several affiliated companies to Grand River Investments, a private equity group
based in Cleveland.

Novis Marine manufactures the highly successful Tartan and C&C sailboat brands, and also builds carbon-
fiber yacht spars under the Novis Spars brand.
"It's been tremendously rewarding to be responsible for some of the finest yachts built in North America,"
said Bill Ross, who has led the company for nearly 20 years. "But it's time to turn my attention to some
other opportunities."

Grand River Investments appointed J. Hunter Banbury to the position of president and CEO of the
company. In anticipation of closing, Banbury has already assumed those roles at Novis Marine.

Banbury said that the Grand River group plans to make a multimillion dollar investment into the company's
product line and marketing programs.

"This company produces yachts of exceptional quality," Banbury said, "and it's ready for both product line
expansion and dramatic growth in international sales."

Novis Marine will continue to move upmarket with its Tartan line of cruising boats, offering a 60' model
and possibly a 57' model. For competitive sailors, the company will continue upgrades to the C&C line and
explore the open-class racing market.

The company also plans to expand its presence in the carbon fiber component market, providing spars to
other boatbuilders and creating new products.

Tim Jackett, Novis Marine's chief operating officer and chief designer, will continue with the company in
his current role. Ross will remain with the company during the transition.

Banbury holds MBA and law degrees from Cornell University. Previously, he was a senior executive for a
private equity firm that specialized in complex manufacturing, serving as CEO in several of that company's
holdings. The firm grew from $300 million to $3 billion in assets during his tenure.

Under Ross's leadership, Novis Marine became the first U.S. production boat manufacturer to employ
epoxy-based laminates throughout its entire product line, and the first to build its own carbon fiber spars.
The company also rebuilt the C&C yacht brand to become one of the top race/cruise yacht brands in North
America.

 #224 05-02-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

This just in:
Novis/Tartan lost a lawsuit to JPMorgan/Chase in Ohio court yesterday. The judgement was for $500,000!!
The court entered a lien against the company.
Mr. Banbury...comments?

Here is the link to the court judgement:
https://phoenix.lakecountyohio.gov/pa/pa_cp.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?55688261


 #231 05-03-2008
BlandingFarm

I have heard that Hunter Banbury is not moving forward with the deal. That was as of last Monday.


#233 05-05-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gramp34
"Sale of assets" is different than sale of the company. Tartan's former law firm is also suing them for
$174K in unpaid bills. The lawyers' theory is that all of the assets, but none of the liabliities of Novis
Marine have been transferred to Grand River Investments to put them out of reach of creditors.
JPMorgan/Chase, no doubt, is one of these creditors.

So, OK, a great boat manufacturer is dead, but maybe a not-so-great boat manufacturer is still in business.

MBA-lawyer, indeed.

Cheers,

Tim

You don't get to sell assets to avoid debts and obligations fraudulently. GrandRiver may not sign the final
papers or they may renegotiate the price...but the assets of Tartan/Novis will be attached by the courts in
the amount of the decisions wherever they may reside. A quick look at their former lawyers brief asks for
the assets of Novis AND GrandRiver to be seized. I would imagine Chase will be asking the same.

#235 (permalink)        05-05-2008 - [add post to favorites]
WilliamRoss
Novis Marine Sale

Dear Tartan and C&C Owners:

I am Bill Ross, the president of Novis Marine, Ltd.

Having been informed by the Tartan and C&C staff and several Tartan and C&C owners that this site has
been the subject of many inaccurate and misleading postings, I thought it useful to provide a comment on
the status of the sale of Novis Marine and the future of Tartan and C&C.

During our stewardship of the Tartan and C&C brands, the business has grown ten-fold. There are few, if
any, sailboat companies that have enjoyed this degree of sustained growth. In our view, this growth was
largely due to the investment that we made in technology and design. That has made the difference. Our
journey in technology began in 2001 when we developed a new laminate design for our hulls that
incorporated an epoxy resin system. As most of you know, epoxy resins have long been used in high-end
performance boats, but were cost-prohibitive for production sailboats. We firmly believed then and now,
that the development of advanced composites for sailboat hulls and decks was critical to building a sailboat
that would offer better performance and value for both the cruising and racing sailor. As a product of our
collaboration with High Modulus, the world's leading composite engineering firm in New Zealand, we
developed a hull laminate that offered dramatically greater strength, stiffness, and osmotic resistance, but
was much lighter than existing polyester composites. We then tackled the next constraint to better sailboat
design; the rig. We believed then as now that there is no reason, other than financial considerations, to build
a boat with an alloy spar system. It just makes no sense. So we bought a carbon fiber spar company and
moved it to our Conneaut, Ohio factory in 2003 and proceeded to develop manufacturing and tooling
systems that could produce high quality carbon fiber spars for a production sailboat. Again, after
collaboration with the world's leading spar designers, we began equipping all of our Tartan and C&C
models with the highest quality carbon fiber spar systems as standard equipment. We then tackled the
challenge of a user-friendly boom, and came up with a newly designed pocket boom that takes the work our
of mainsail handling. And along the way, we designed Boat-of-the-Year winning models year after year,
including the Tartan 4300 which was the Overall Boat Of The Year for 2007. That didn't happen by
accident.

Now the time has come to pass the wand on to new investors who will take the company to the next level
of growth. Novis Marine has been sold to an investor group that consists of people dedicated to the further
growth and development of Tartan and C&C. They are committed to making the necessary investment to
continue the advancement in technology and design that has been the mantra of the Tartan and C&C brands
for 48 years. Some on this site have questioned the nature of the transaction as being in the nature of an
asset sale. Those who are familiar with methods of selling of a business know that there are generally two
methods; a sale of stock or a sale of assets. By far, the most common method is the asset sale method. It
happens every day.

As an element of this transitional process, Novis has contested various claims that have "come out of the
woodwork" by several past suppliers. And lawyers are practiced at presenting creative and novel claims to
advance the interests of their clients, and, in certain cases, themselves. That's how the system works. Novis
will deal with those items in due course.

Now a word about the misuse of this and other sailing sites by those seeking to advance their own separate
agenda rather than advance the interests of Tartan and C&C owners. It is not difficult to identify those
parties. They comment with anonymity, are not owners of Tartan or C&C boats, and have other reasons,
including coersion and, quite frankly, extortion, as their purpose. The reader should treat those
commentaries accordingly.


In conclusion, the Tartan and C&C business have been leaders in the sailboat industry for 48 years. That
won't change. You'll see new designs with better technology at the future boat shows, and, hopefully, on
the water with you at the helm.

Bill Ross


 #236 05-05-2008
camaraderie
Moderator


Mr. Ross...you have provided a fine history of everything Tartan has been rightly famous for and why they
have been held in high regard over the years.
But you have not answered the questions raised in this thread.
1. Why have your own former lawyers sued you for non-payment and asked the court to seize the assets of
Novis and Grand River. This is not a rumor, the court documents are posted on this forum and rely on the
sworn statements of your former lawyers.
2. Why have your bankers (Chase/JPMorgan) sued for $500K and won. Again, not a rumor...the court
documents are here on line.
3. What is the status of Tartan and C&C warranties on boats sold over the last few years? Does the
obligation to honor those warranties transfer to the new owner or not and why is there continuing refusal to
state whether existing warranties will be honored?

Furthermore...this thread started some time ago with a debate over quality control and the complaints of a
few Novis customers that legitimate issues under warranty were not being addressed properly. I think that
is a legitimate issue but when it became apparent that there were TWO sides to that story and it had gone to
the courts, we made it clear that we would not allow sailnet to continue to be used as a platform for the
argument. Several attempts at posting with new screen names etc. resulted in bans.

So...I have tried to remain neutral throughout this thread, and let the courts be the arbiter of truth.
You claim that basically everything said about Novis is the result of self-interested suppliers and
individuals and that these claims will be dealt with in "due course". It seems as though we are being asked
to believe your version of events and disregard multiple other parties. I would say that you have some "self-
interest" in promoting your views as well. Some REAL answers to my first 3 points by you and/or Mr.
Banbury would go a long way answering the concerns raised by the recent court actions and your asset sale.
For the record. I have never owned a Tartan or C&C product but have always admired them. I have NO
agenda other than getting to the truth about what is going on for my own curiosity and for the benefit of our
membership.


 #241 05-06-2008
Gramp34

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamRoss
Dear Tartan and C&C Owners:

<... ad copy snipped ...>

Those who are familiar with methods of selling of a business know that there are generally two methods; a
sale of stock or a sale of assets. By far, the most common method is the asset sale method. It happens every
day.

As an element of this transitional process, Novis has contested various claims that have "come out of the
woodwork" by several past suppliers. And lawyers are practiced at presenting creative and novel claims to
advance the interests of their clients, and, in certain cases, themselves. That's how the system works. Novis
will deal with those items in due course.

It turns out that Lake County Ohio court records can be searched at
https://phoenix.lakecountyohio.gov/pa/pa_cp.urd/PAMW6500
Search on Novis and Tartan as the Company Name. Quite a list comes up.

Looking at the open Judgment Liens we get:

OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION: $88,433.15 filed 01/29/2007
Composites One LLC: $100,000 from 07/01/2007
OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMPENSATION: $9,439.08 filed 06/28/2007
SAGE, MICHAEL: $20,000 from 10/11/2007
SAGE, MICHAEL: $30,000 from 10/11/2007
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK: $500,218.03 from 04/24/2008

Those are unpaid judgments already rendered by the court.

As for claims "coming out of the woodwork", the Composites One case started 10/24/2006

You say "Novis has contested various claims", but perhaps I'm not reading the court information right. For
instance, in DILTZ, SEAN R vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD:

04/22/2008 Certified Mail 7160 3901 9845 5325 5418 to Novis Marine returned to sender, (unclaimed) and
filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Slipski, Copy filed.
In SAGE, MICHAEL vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD

03/26/2008 Certified Mail rr# 71603901984553250833 to Novis Marine LTD returned and filed.Refused.
Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed.
Followed the next day by:

03/27/2008 JOURNAL ENTRY FILED: This entry is dated as of March 24,2008. This courts entry dated
March 12,2008,which was the result of a confession on a cognovit note, is hereby clarified to establish that
plaintiff is to recover of defandants the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND and 00/100 DOLLARS
(20,000.00). IT IS SO ORDERED. vol. 1749 pg. 807
It looks like Tartan has been refusing delivery of court summons, and in the second example it appears your
lack of response has led to a default judgement against Novis. Is this what you mean by "contesting"
claims?

Frankly, it's puzzling to me when you say "sale of assets" is the normal way to sell businesses, and I guess
you're trying to imply this sale of assets isn't to evade creditors, but why are none of these registered liens
being paid from the proceeds of the sale?

These court records also make me wonder that if Tartan/C&C won't accept a court summons, what chance
does a customer have of getting your attention if there is a problem?


Quote:
Now a word about the misuse of this and other sailing sites by those seeking to advance their own separate
agenda rather than advance the interests of Tartan and C&C owners. It is not difficult to identify those
parties. They comment with anonymity, are not owners of Tartan or C&C boats, and have other reasons,
including coersion and, quite frankly, extortion, as their purpose. The reader should treat those
commentaries accordingly.

You believe people who don't own Tartan or C&C boats are trying to coerce and extort you?

Good luck,

Tim

  #245    05-28-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Found this on the Tartan Website dated 5/8/08 by Tim Jackett:

Question: How does the recently announced sale of the company affect claims for boats purchased and
delivered prior to the transaction?
Jackett: The new company is committed to all owners of Tartan and C&C yachts and will continue to
support the warranty for boats that predate the sale. All claims are being reviewed and administered
through our dealers and by Andy Drumm on an uninterrupted basis. While there has been speculation by
non Tartan and C&C owners on some of the sailing chat sites regarding this issue, our owners who have
had recent claims know that their claims are being processed in our normal manner. Current Tartan and
C&C owners are our greatest asset. We plan to increase our communications with them on service,
technical information and other areas of common interest in the future and to not only provide continuous
but improved support for all their boats.
***************************

This is the first public statement regarding how the new company (Grand River) will be handling existing
warranty claims and as such is good news for current model owners.
Are there any members here that have actually had an in warranty issue that arose after the sale handled by
the company?

 #246     05-28-2008
blt2ski

While "NOT" and owner, I was at the Seattle NOOD races racing on a 115. On board the local dealer
owned and raced boat was Tim friday, and thru Sunday was there warrenty person. I did not catch his
name, but there were some gelcoat issues with this boat I was on. He did seem to want to take care of the
issues etc. I was next to them as the conversation was going on etc. He did ask for a few things, such as
back written issues etc with dealer, pictures so he could then work with upper folks to deal with issue and
"get it fixed etc on C&C's nickel" for lack of better way to put it.

There were two boats total with a cotter pin that broke on the boom, causing us to not finish the 2nd race
sat and miss the third entirely(actually one of a couple of issues, others not break down oriented, crew
screw ups etc). Another boat also had the pin broke and missing, they found it at the end of the day at the
dock, after finding out what our issue was. Initially owners were told they were the only one with this pin
breaking, but........... He fixed with a stainless steel bolt and lock nut. There will not be an issue with a 2 bit
cotter pin breaking in 30 knots with the two of them on board like the first time, and in 15'ish knot winds as
we were that day. Having a boom fall down/off is not fun!

This couple along with another owner, were glad to see someone gone from this position, as he was not the
best person to deal with. This new guy seemed to be more in tune with what should happen with warranty
issues. I am also recalling that this fellow had been with the company in other production places for a few
yrs.

I am recalling they said Tim and the new warranty fellow mentioned that any warranty issues would be
handled from a night before NOOD party too, along with dealer saying things would be handled etc.

beyond this, I will not say much, as I am obviously not privy to what will happen later etc at this time. I
may have said more than I should. This is what is happened that day etc for that boat at that time when I
was there!

marty


#249    05-28-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

One puzzling fact about the "announcement" I cited above is that Jackett is identified as COO of NOVIS
Marine. The new company is Grand River Composites. I am questioning if the "deal" is done yet and if he
is speaking for the new owners or simply saying Novis will honor its warranties?
Time will tell...meanwhile it would be interesting to hear from Tartan 00 series owners who have recently
dealt with the warranty department.
While several owner "warranty claim" lawsuits have yet to come to court to be tried on the facts, the larger
issue in my mind is the continued viability of the company given the judgments against the company in the
last few months and the claims about viability made by their former lawyers in their request for seizure. No
easy or early answers on this it seems as the court fights drag on.

#250 05-28-2008
max-on

It is amazing that after acknowledging the 'speculation' posts on the web, that the announcements continue
to be vague and without substance. That is the art of a skilled drafter, to write something where from a
casual read you think you know what it says, but upon careful examination of the language, it really does
not say anything. Cam, I think you point is valid.

 #251 05-28-2008
camaraderie

Max...Thanks...nice to have the thoughts of a real lawyer on the subject rather than just my gut feel.

 #253     05-29-2008
camaraderie
Moderator
Good post Gringo...nothing to apologize for.
As I see it, we don't really have any proof yet that Tartan or C&C built any bad boats. We have some
owners with visible proof that some boats have severe damage that they claim is a build/warranty problem.
And we have Novis' assertion that it is not due to a build problem and is not a warranty issue. They are set
to fight it out in court this fall and then we can all make some final judgments on that subject based on the
courts review of the facts and the available documents.
The real question of the moment is the financial status of whichever company it is that actually owns the
tartan/c&c brands right now. If the owners who are suing Tartan ultimately prevail in court...it would be a
hollow victory if there is nothing left of the company to pay the claims with. I believe the financial issues
will become clear well before the court dates in the fall but we've all been waiting since January for some
real answers so it is hard to continue to be patient when brands so many sailors love are in a "legal limbo".


 #255 05-30-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

I've been reminded that my statement:
"we don't really have any proof yet that Tartan or C&C built any bad boats"
is factually incorrect. To set the record stright..Jackett DID admit that one 3700 hull failed due to a poor
construction layup overlap and claimed that overly aggressive rig tensioning was a contributing factor. This
boat is repaired and back with the original owner and is NOT part of any current lawsuits. Jackett also
admitted non structural issues with gelcoat crazing and Yanmar saildrives (blaming yanmar for that issue).
The link to his interview on all of this is here:
C&C Yachts Model - Interview with Tim Jackett - Part 3 - Quality and Warranty Issues
http://www.c-cyachts.com/article/article_view.aspx?UID=f546ea10-c825-4931-92ca-e834c17f4aa1

Tartan/C&C does dispute the build failure claims of the court cases which are pending and while there are
plenty of claims and counter claims...it will be for the court to decide the facts.
Interestingly...the four parts of this Jackett interview can no longer be accessed from the brand sites
themselves...only via a google search. Fortunately...the internet never forgets!


 #256 06-01-2008
Carlsbad

Tartan quality

There are many thousands of Tartans and C&C's on the water. The two lawsuits that this thread mentions
seem to me to be pretty small stuff. One is by a guy who has a bad saildrive unit, and says that it's not his
fault. Yanmar says that he didn't maintain the unit properly. Of course, he says that he did. The other
lawsuit is apparently by some guy that wants a new C&C in exchange for his old one that has some gelcoat
crazing. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

I've had two Tartans and intend to buy another one when I can afford it. They are great boats.

 #257     06-01-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Carlsbad...I suggest you read the thread and the links again if you think this is just about two customers
with axes to grind.
If you had the $$ right now...would you be handing over a deposit to Tartan? If so...what do you know that
their former lawyers and Chase/JPMorgan don't?
 #258 06-01-2008
Carlsbad

Camaraderie:

I have researched the Tartan 4300 very carefully over the past 9 months since it is the boat that I intend to
buy. And I have been an observer of Sailnet and other sites concerning Tartan for some time. I have talked
to numerous Tartan owners about their recent experiences with warranty cliams, deposits, deliveries and
their experience with Tartan. I only recently decided to post because what I hear from Tartan owners and
what I see posted on this site is quite different.


 #259 06-01-2008
camaraderie
Moderator


Carlsbad...Forget the opinions on whether they build good boats or provide good service for the moment.
Certainly the overwhelming majority of the boats they have built have happy owners including those of
recent years. Their record on warranty claims recently is not so clear but is certainly a matter of opinion.
Set all that aside and think about the investment in a 4300.
What have you to say about the lawsuits from their former lawyers who claim Tartan is insolvent and the
$500K judgement in favor of their bankers? The links to each of those suits and judgements are in this
thread and are not a matter of opinion but of fact. There are also a number of other lawsuits linked and
pending or negative judgements rendered that have nothing to do with the boats themselves.
Does this give you confidence to put your money down?

  #260 06-01-2008
 Giulietta
If you guys ever believe me, listen to me now.... I have a saying in this.

I actually saw the C&C 121 in question last weekend..

All I have to say is these guys, TARTAN, NOVIS, C&C whatever they are this week, played VERY
VERY VERY foul...SHAME SHAME....

What they did is BULL S**T...I SAW the frekking boat, OK???

I swear...the level of finish is just BS (makes a Bavaria look like a SWAN)....flaws
everywhere...EVERYWHERE... lack of core in the rear by almost a foot before welding to the transom.., I
could push the hull half way thru the side in by almost a 1/4 of an inch...memebers here at sailnet saw me
do it..In case you don't believe me..kinda when you push a mud guard in a cheap car..

That boat is pretty and all, and gorgeus and well equiped....but its full of cracks...CRACKS that go from the
toe rail all the way down to the water line 25 OF THEM!!!! All around the boat!!

I saw the "repair" at the back stay..the cracked transom..where they just glued a square of fiberglass around
it..The guy can't even pull his backstay (which is now a fixed one)..

The ruder is just BS...a tiny tune with no cross beams at all, only a foot long!!! and the finish..good
lord...chucks of badly cut wood glassed to the boat, inside the lockers...BAD BAD craftsmanship....(at least
the one I saw)..

TARTAN C&C NOVIS Whatever they are this month SHOULD BE HANG HIGH AND DRY!!!!!!

They have absolutely no right in this...
I SAW THE DAMN BOAT...

And believe me..as soon as I have some time..expect a large post from, me on what I found!!!

Damn if I don't do it

TARTAN C&C whatever you are now..SHAME ON YOU!!!! SHAME......I will tell what I saw all over
Europe...believe me...

I now have something to say, as I saw with both eyes God gave me....

Cam....you wouldn't believe the crap I saw....terrible

These guys wouldn't last a week in Europe....they would be toated...

BUYER BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!

word of Giu!!!

 #262    06-02-2008
camaraderie

Hey...we got a new one...Ullman Sails just filed suit on 5/27.
https://phoenix.lakecountyohio.gov/pa/pa_cp.urd/pamw2000.o_case_sum?1694574

...and Fryburg Door (cabinet maker) just jumped into the suit with their former lawyers.
Case #CV-08-647213
http://cpdocket.cp.cuyahogacounty.us/TOS.aspx


#263      06-02-2008
Giulietta

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
The other lawsuit is apparently by some guy that wants a new C&C in exchange for his old one that has
some gelcoat crazing. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

with all due respect...you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...I saw this boat, in the water,
with my eyes...not thru email, net or other means..I saw it, I went inside, and I touched the thing. OK?

I never met the guy..I was near it last saturday when I sailed with friends and saw the boat because I found
it very very pretty...approached to look at it and could see the cracks from a distance of 2 meters..then the
owner showed up, and while we talked about stuff the story was told to me and I saw the boat...

ANY and I mean ANY boat maker (from Hunter to Swan)...with an ounce of decency and commercial
interest, would never allow this to have happened. I really doubt CAtalina or even Jeanneau would allow
this to happen...we're not talking about a second hand piece of crap built in 1967..its a modern state of the
art design meant to sail hard and fast...shouldn't under no circunstances be falling appart like that...and what
I saw I never saw in 37 years sailing.

Even if the guy drove the boat into a wall it would not crack like that...the cracks at the transom are not gel
coat craze...It's real...

No one is saying they are bad boats, or Tartan is bad...
The boat I saw, a C&C 121 I wouldn't want even if the guy gave it to me...and even if the owner couldn't
drive and hit every bridge from his marina to the water it would not crack like that..

THAT IS BUILD DEFFICIENCY y friend, not me badmouthing anyone or Tartan ot C&C..it's what I
saw....

 #266   06-02-2008
ehmanta

I hope for the best

All,
As a classic Tartan owner, I hope for the best with Tartan/C&C, but the ouija board spells a grim future for
the company. It will take a miracle for them to pull out of this tail spin, it's possible but it'll take some$$$.
First and foremost Tartan needs to make public all of the goodwill that they are working on to satisfy all
creditors, warranties, attorneys and anyone else that are owed something. A positive public image goes a
long way to promote the brand. Secondly, they have to figure out a way to sell boats in a very conservative
economy.....people are spending too much to fill up their SUV's and don't have much leftover to buy an
expensive luxury.
I would hate to see such a famed brand go down because of mis-management, poor construction and bad
PR

 #267 06-02-2008
 Pamlicotraveler
First, you heard it from Giu....and you know they don't want to be toated. But seriously G - great
eyewitness description.


Quote:
These guys wouldn't last a week in Europe....they would be toated...

What a fascinating story to see develop. My youth was spent on my Dad's Tartans - 26 & 30 and just a few
years ago I seriously considered them one of the quality builders and considered buying a new one. They
had the goal of "advancing the art of yacht construction" - with Carbon Fiber, Epoxy, modern engineering,
great looks... They had the mojo. But despite their marketing skills, what a disasterous job of maintaining
goodwill the current owners have done. They took a great brand (and as much with C&C I am sure) and
made it appear they were building on the brand. But in the process they were treating customers like
detritus in the way of their mission.

Cam...the interview from the C&C site you linked to says "part 3." It is a fascinating interview. Where are
the other parts? I went to the C&C home page and couldn't even find this part of the interview. I would love
to read the others, and it doesn't look like they make it easy to find it.

But this part really makes him and the company look bad. He is really talking down to EVERYONE and
BLAMING everyone. He admits a problem but then blames everyone else in the chain.

He admits problems:

Quote:
There was a defect in the lay up of this particular 3700. The overlap was not as wide as it should have been.
This led to a gradual, progressive delamination in the overlap area.....

He blames the owners:

Quote:
Near as we can tell, the ruckus was largely created by two owners who we felt were making unreasonable
and excessive warranty claims....
All of this may have been aggravated by an all-too-common rig tuning technique that can greatly over-
tension a rig.....
Interestingly enough, the guy who has been most active in the 'dirty laundry' campaign hasn't even had
gelcoat issues. He's had problems with his saildrive.

He blames Yanmar for the saildrive issues:

Quote:
The saildrives that were problematic for Tartan owners were all Yanmars. We had a number of owners of
these units contact us that they were seeing excessive corrosion on these units......These problems weren't
our fault, but we've tried to take care of him anyway.....The saildrives that were problematic for Tartan
owners were all Yanmars...I know of no issues with significant saildrive corrosion since we made the
switch back to Volvo....Yanmar for some reason refused to honor the warranty. We had metallurgical
studies done of these units and believe that there was an error in the alloys on some of them that led to
excessive corrosion.

He blames the Dealer Network, including one "long time" dealer:

Quote:
That's why the dealer commissioning process is so important, and why working with your dealer to identify
and correct any issues as they appear is essential....We've also had several dealerships that weren't
performing as expected. For example, there was one that we'd been working with for a long time, and we
were providing a lot of marketing and promotional support to them, and then we discovered that when
prospective customers walked in to discuss our boats, their sales team would start pushing another brand
altogether.

And he blames the manufacturers of the parts of the boat and says the problems with those items are not a
warranty issue for them to be concerned about.

Quote:
We do not make engines, sails, winches, steering gear, plumbing fixtures, stainless for stanchions or
pulpits, and that sort of thing. We spec them, buy them and install them. But we don't make them, and the
suppliers we use are supposed to honor the warranties for them if there's a problem with their products.

Can you imagine not warrantying the plumbing fixtures etc?

Carlsbad...you must be joking. You need to be VERY careful with your money. Go buy a classic Tartan,
they are great boats....but I would be careful about jumping into this mess. If you could find the right
surveyor, and it would have to be a dang good one - one who knew what the real issues are with these
boats, it might be a good time to "bottomfish" and look at some of the ones built in the past few years. The
reputation is probably creating a glut of eager sellers who will eagerly accept your lowest offer. Just don't
involve yourself with the company or expect anything from them.


  #268 06-02-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator
Pamlico...here are the links you requested to each part of Jackett's interviews. It appears that both Tartan
and C&C have removed all links to these on their websites but fortunately google will still retrieve them.:

Interview with Tim Jackett Part One
http://www.scyachtsales.com/articlelive/articles/29/1/Interview-with-Tim-Jackett-Part-One/Page1.html

Interview with Tim Jackett Part Two
http://www.scyachtsales.com/articlelive/articles/30/1/Interview-with-Tim-Jackett-Part-Two/Page1.html

C&C Yachts Location - Interview with Tim Jackett - Part 3 - Quality and Warranty Issues
http://www.c-cyachts.com/article/article_view.aspx?UID=f546ea10-c825-4931-92ca-e834c17f4aa1

Tartan Yachts Warranty Inquiries - Interview with Tim Jackett - Part 4 - Spars and Other Improvements
http://www.tartanyachts.com/article/article_view.aspx?UID=293816c5-f8a5-4f7b-ad5a-2f0e001ca6f1


#271 06-03-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator


Pam/Max...You're welcome. The most telling statement of all in the interviews I think was this regarding
the C&C:
"As I mentioned, this, (negative internet buzz),is largely being driven by two individuals. One of these
people had an early C&C with the tie-coated gelcoat we discussed when we talked about construction (for
more information on the constuction process CLICK HERE). We fixed his gelcoat but he's somehow
managed to convince himself that the gelcoat cracks extend into the laminate. I've completely inspected his
boat, and that's simply not the case - his boat is fine.

In one fell swoop he passes the blame to the individual owners and pooh poohs the problems with the C&C
as gelcoat only. "We fixed his gelcoat"..."His boat is fine"...How does that square with what Giu (and
others) saw with his own eyes this weekend and reported above?
Remember that paragraph as you read the rest of what he has to say.

#278 08-07-2008
 camaraderie

Carlsbad...see response below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
I plan to buy a new Tartan 4300 soon.
So you have confidence in both the construction and the company despite the data above...or are you
waiting for the financial side to sort itself out?

There is no reasonable debate remaining on this subject. Laminates using a vacuum-bagged, infusion
process and epoxy resins are superior in every way.
If you read Jackett's own interviews parts 2 & 3 above you will see that many problems have been
encountered in building epoxy hulls and significant changes in techniques hav been made over the 6 years
or so that epoxy hulls have been built by them. There are at least three hulls with more than what Jackett
calls cosmetic (and what Giu calls a horror) problems and 2 of these cases are in court with adjudication
scheduled for the fall. Epoxy may have many superior attributes as a material...but BUILDING a boat out
of it is clearly no simple task. Personally I prefer not to invest my life savings being part of an ongoing
experiment.


There is only one reason that other builders don't convert to epoxy; it is much more expensive. They simply
don't want to make the investment.
There are builders with much pricier boats than Tartan and reputations that are also higher that have not
switched to epoxy and likely this is for the reasons stated above. They cut no corners in building the
lightest and toughest hulls they can and money is no object...but they don't use epoxy. Seems like they
aren't as convinced as you.
The suggestion that epoxy laminates experience greater distortion when painted in darker colors is
unsupported by fact and simply untrue.
See Jacketts interview part two on the steps Tartan has had to take to insure no print through. Epoxy as a
material requires special steps to insure high heat hulls are not affected. In fairness...print through on dark
color hulls can also be a problem on standard FRP boats. I HAVE a dark blue hull boat and I am NOT
convinced that the stability to 180 degrees (that Jackett quotes) is all that is needed in a tropic sun. The hull
gets too hot to touch.


Regarding carbon spars, they are 50% lighter than alloy, but stronger and stiffer. Removing weight from
aloft clearly improves sailing motion and stability. Carbon spars are easily repaired by someone
experienced in fiberglass repairs.
Oh really... a carbon spar that is hit by lightning is easily repaired? Gimme a break...the whole thing must
be replaced if he heat causes structural delamination. THAT doesn't happen on an aluminum mast. Carbon
can e a real plus in many ways but I would never have it on a cruising boat going out of the country. Read
this from a Naval Architect on another forum:
"Also, when carbon fiber masts get hit by lightning, they don't explode! Being intimately involved in the
design and construction of carbon fiber masts for nearly 30 years, I keep a tally of stories of carbon fiber
masts that have been hit by lightning, and these almost always come from first-hand accounts. I have
advised surveyors and insurance companies on lightning-struck carbon fiber masts. A lightning strike will
damage a carbon fiber mast permanently, certainly, and it may fall down as a result of the ensuing burn-out
damage, but carbon fiber masts certainly do not explode when struck by lightning. I have never heard of
that happening."
Eric W. Sponberg
Naval Architect
St. Augustine, FL
          (904) 460-9494

Again...I have NO problem with people buyingboats with carbon masts as in their situation, the benefits
may outweigh the disadvantages but lets not deny the issue exists.

#280 08-07-2008
Gramp34

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
There is no reasonable debate remaining on this subject. Laminates using a vacuum-bagged, infusion
process and epoxy resins are superior in every way.

Australia One, vacuum-bagged epoxy carbon-fiber hull in 1995:

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="320" width="400"
data="http://www.tribormat.fr/public/img/flvplayer.swf?autoStart=false&amp;file=http://www.tribormat.fr/
public/img/team/oneaustralia.flv"><param
value="http://www.tribormat.fr/public/img/flvplayer.swf?autoStart=false&amp;file=http://www.tribormat.f
r/public/img/team/oneaustralia.flv" name="movie" /><param value="high" name="quality" /><param
value="#ffffff" name="bgcolor" /></object>

Perhaps there's some room for unreasonable debate?

Technically, infused laminates have higher glass to resin ratios than open molded laminates. This gives
them higher specific strength, but strength is almost never the problem in recreational boat hulls; stiffness
is. Stiffness increases with the third power of thickness, and for a given amount of glass, infused panels are
thinner, making them less stiff than open molded panels. Because glass is more dense than resin, more
glass is needed to bring up the thickness of the infused panel. So infused laminates of equal stiffness end up
heavier than laminates made by open molding.
I learned this, by the way, at a presentation given last year by Richard Downs-Honey, CEO of High
Modulus of New Zealand (as you say "the world's premier composite engineering firm" and designer of the
Tartan laminates).

Infused vs. open molded, epoxy vs. vinylester vs. polyester resins, glass vs. carbon-fiber vs. aramid
reinforcements, etc., are all design decisions and all involve trade-offs. Regardless of what a particular
builder's salesmen would like you to believe, there is no one "best" way to make a hull.


#287 08-07-2008
 sailingdog

Obviously in complete denial of the reality of Tartan's current situation. The key words from this post are in
bold. While there may not have been very many problems, the ones that seem to have surfaced are not in
any way minor or easy to resolve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
This site has a few non-Tartan owners making uninformed comment on Tartan boats. I have been a Tartan
owner for many years, and admittedly, very true blue. That's because I know the boats. Tartan/C&C have
built more than 300 epoxy boats with almost no problems. I have attended lots of Tartan owner events,
and spoken with many owners about their experience with their boats. It is hard to find an owner group so
informed and convinced of the quality of their boats. Regarding epoxy v. polyester resin systems, there is
just no longer any room for debate on the subject. Poly resins are 1960's technology.

Tartan is the Mercedes of sailboats.

 #289 08-07-2008
Carlsbad

As a current Tartan owner, and prospective buyer of a Tartan 4300, I have spent countless hours
researching these boats. I'm not in "denial", but rather simply a careful and thoughtful buyer. I've been to
the Tartan factory on three occasions in the last year and 1/2 and watched these hand-built boats being
made. It's very impressive.

Tartan/C&C have over 8,000 boats on the water. Some complaints are expected. Overwhelmingly,
however, the many Tartan owners that I have talked with love their boats. Including me.

 #290 08-08-2008
sailingdog

While Tartan/C&C may have over 8,000 boats on the water, how many of the people with the "modern"
epoxy boats are there, and how many of them are complaining... might want to think about that... and
whether that percentage of problems is higher or lower than that of the "older" technology boats.

#292 08-08-2008
 sailingdog

Doesn't answer my question. How many people with Epoxy boats have a serious complaint about their
boat. How does that compare with the number of people having a serious complaint about their *ester-resin
boats? My guess would be that the epoxy number is far higher percentage wise. If that is the case... then I'd
have to say that Tartan is still on the steep part of the learning curve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
I have talked to the factory people about this during my visits there. I recall that they indicated that they
have delivered over 300 epoxy boats.
 #295    08-09-2008
Carlsbad

Dear Marty,

I have spent a great deal of time looking into the quality of the Tartan/C&C laminates since I am preparing
to buy a Tartan 4300. Unlike the other commentators on this site, I have now visited the factory on 4
occasions, including yesterday. I have also talked with countless Tartan owners as well. I'm just tired of
reading uninformed comments on this site.

The suggestion that Tartan is having some difficulty with its manufacturing process just not true. To the
contrary, it is state-of-the-art and produces an excellent product.

I visited the factory again yesterday to look at a 4300. I asked about Sailing Dog's remark that there are
more problems with epoxy boats than the poly boats that were built 7-8 years ago. Their engineers said that
the epoxy boats have almost no problems due to the much higher strength, water-resistant characteristics,
and general durability of the laminate.

 #296 08-10-2008
monteh

Camaraderie says: "But it is also evident that the production type building of epoxy boats presents a real
challenge and we have evidence in Jacketts (Tartan/C&C) own statements that significant changes had to
be made during production due to unsatisfactory results with prior methods. "

In response to that statement they went from a pre-preg/ oven bake approach to infusion/no bake. In
Jacketts words, they did this for environmental reasons and safer working conditions for those doing the
building. Not because the pre-pregs were failing them.

Nice spin tactic though.



 #297 08-10-2008
camaraderie

monteh ...your post and others was moved by me since it was off topic for the thread it was on and properly
belongs hereon the Tartan thread.

In response I would say :
1. I made NO statement about going from oven baked to air dryed.
2. There are several other comments made by Jackett about changes made to get things to hold better in the
layup + issues of timing.
3. Let's face it... Jackett DID admit that one 3700 hull failed due to a poor construction layup overlap and
claimed that overly aggressive rig tensioning was a contributing factor. Jackett also admitted non structural
issues with gelcoat crazing due to bonding issues. Again...I have no particular expertise in glass or epoxy
layup technology. I am only repeating what Jackett said himself in the above links.
4. Therefore, I think the quote you object to in your post #296 is quite a reasonable statement.
5. Since I have not mentioned pre-preg or ovens anywhere and you have attempted to put words in my
mouth I am thinking that any spin tactics are yours alone.
All I said was that building with epoxy presents a real challenge and how anyone reading Jacketts 4 part
interview could think otherwise is beyond me.
***************
I know you love your boat and it is everything you hoped it would be.
I have a good friend with a 4100 that I see daily and it is a great boat and he is equally happy. My guess is
that well over 90% of the "00" series boats produced have no problems. Whether it is 90% of 99%, I don't
know and I'm hoping the trials will settle the scope of the issue and where the blame properly lies.

 #298 08-10-2008
Carlsbad

Cam,
You should not be moving our postings as you see fit. The topic is epoxy v. plastic construction, and that's
what we have been discussing. Since Tartan/C&C is the only builder that incorporates this process for all of
their production, naturally Tartan/C&C is frequently mentioned in these postings. But the topic is epoxy
laminates. So please return these postings to the right thread.

Of course, the real reason that you moved these postings to the this thread is so you could bash Tartan. You
again made reference to one Tartan 3700 out of over 150 built to date. That boat has been the subject of
several postings on this and other sites. Of course, you failed to mention that the owner has publicly stated
that Tartan did a great job in servicing his boat's problem, and that he is very pleased.

You acknowledge that you have no expertise in composite construction and processes, yet you continue to
give inaccurate and misleading remarks.

And, of course, you close with reference to "trials" that have nothing to do with epoxy construction.

I suggest that you visit the Tartan/C&C factory like many of us Tartan owners have, and acquaint yourself
with what they are doing before making further uninformed commentary.

Now, please return these posts to the thread where they belong.


 #299 08-10-2008
camaraderie

I moved all posts which focused on TARTAN to this thread because the RULES of the other forum are that
it is construction techniques and materials that are to be discussed NOT Brands. Maybe you should read the
rules...and leave the moderating to me.

#300 08-10-2008
Carlsbad


I have read the RULES. The topic of discussion was, and is, composite construction, and particularly epoxy
v. polyester resins. It is a very relevant topic to sailboat design and construction. It also happens to be the
method of construction that is used by Tartan/C&C. But that does not change the topic.

This IS NOT a discussion of brands, but rather technology. These posts obviously belong on the sailboat
design and construction section. "Moderators" are not czars. Please return the postings where they belong.


Carlsbad

 #301 08-10-2008
monteh

Cam - I brought up pre-preg and ovens because that was the "significant change". I wanted to help you on
what the significant change was and why it was done.
I also piped in because I find boat engineering very interesting. Especially the new build practices. It's
pretty neat that we have boat companies like Novis and J Boat that are pioneering those practices on a
production level.

We can agree that working with epoxy resin is more difficult than poly/vinal. Maybe we differ on whether
or not Novis is doing a good job. I think they are and hopefully they can stay in business.


 #304 08-10-2008
sailingdog

Bls2Ski-

If you read what I wrote, I'm not bashing all epoxy boats, and have seen some very solid and well-built
boats made using epoxy... I just said that the mass production of them, as done by Tartan/C&C has left
something to be desired. My understanding is that about 30 owners of Tartan/C&C epoxy type boats are
having serious issues that are currently being negotiated or in litigation with the company.

 #305   08-10-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Dawg...I moved your post to the Tartan thread since it focused again on Tartan building. The boat building
thread is not for discussion of specific brands.

I also cannot allow your unsubstantiated claim of 30 boats with serious issues to stand unchallenged. I think
we should stick to verifiable facts here and not innuendos and rumours passed along in back channels. I
have not seen anything close to that number of problems reported anywhere including on any of the tartan
owners mail lists or forums here or elsewhere or on any of the other sailing boards. I think you should
either delete that claim or back it up.

#309     08-12-2008
 administrator
Administrator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlsbad
Tartan/C&C have made over 300 boats with epoxy resin systems.

How do you know this?
Do you work for Tartan/C&C?

EDIT: Moved byCam

 #310      08-12-2008
blt2ski

Administrator,

I thought we were keeping the questions like yours to the other thread?

But to answer your questions, carlsbad does NOT work for C&C, nor do I.

BUT, hull #76 of the C&C 115 series is for sale locally in seattle new, I beliive ALL 115's have been epoxy
hulls. Hull # 144 in the Tatan 3700 series is for sale also in Seattle, not sure how many of the 3700's have
been epoxy, but lets for discussion purposes say all, that is now over 200 just tween the 115's and 3700, this
does not include the 99's, 110's or 121's in the C&C line. It appears that over 70 3400's which I also believe
are all epoxy hulls have also been built and shipped. This does not include the 3500, which is discontinued,
but not all were epoxy, just the last few, 4100's also.

I do feel that carlsbads comment re "over 300 hulls with epoxy resin systems" have been built just using the
hull #s that are for sale at the local tartan/C&C dealer's add and online info.

The one I do not feel is correct all this, is SD's over 30 bad epoxy hulls from Novis. 2 or 3 are known to
exist for sure via lawsuits etc.

Marty

PS,
cam, if you feel the need to move this to the other thread, please do so!

EDIT - moved by Cam

#312      08-13-2008
 sailingdog

My information is based on e-mails I've received in correspondence with several of the owners or former
owners of Tartan/C&C epoxy-laminate boats. Whether that number is high or not I can't say for certainty,
but given the severity of the problems that have occurred, something is definitely wrong with at least some
of the boats.

 #317     08-14-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Tartan/Novis/C&C legal update

Now West Marine is suing Novis/Tartan/Grand River. The list continues to grow.

Open (or closed with open liens) cases (excluding workers comp cases with open judgements in excess of
$150k):
08CV001716 ULLMAN SAILS CLEVELAND INC vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD 5/27/08 filed. Amount
unkown open case.
08JL000164 COMPOSITES ONE LLC vs . NOVIS COMPOSITES LTD $100,000k judicial lien still open
from 1/17/08
08CV000845 SAGE, MICHAEL vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD EAL judgement of $20k granted in
March....open. Ross ordered to appear before court on 9/19 to answer all questions.
<input name="CASE_STATUS_BAR.PROFILE.CRTV" value=" 07CV003662 NESTER SALES LLC vs .
NOVIS MARINE LTD EAL" type="hidden">
07CV003662 NESTER SALES LLC vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD EAL pre-trial hearings held...case goes to
trial Oct 19 amount unknown
08JL001931 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD et al PHM judgement for 500k
on 5/1/08 still open.AND 05/28/200certified Mail 7160 3901 9845 5326 9279 to William J. Ross, returned
to sender unclaimed and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed.
The above may all be accessed as public records here:
https://phoenix.lakecountyohio.gov/pa/pa_cp.urd/PAMW6500
Also in Cuyahoga County:
CJISWEBNET Disclaimer CV-08-647213 PORTER, WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR vs. NOVIS
MARINE LTD. ETAL will come for pre-trial hearing on 8/20. This is Novis' old attorneys suing them for
approx. $200k in unpaid bills.

Then finally we also have the "quality suits" by John Vito and Gaven Stener which should hit court finally
this fall.
EDIT: I am reminded that there is still an open judgement of $234k from January on customer warranty
claims in Iowa. Tague vs. Novis Case # 06571LACV050350 accessible here: Iowa Courts Online Search
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame

That is nearly $1 million in OPEN judgments against Novis + all the cases pending.
*********************************************

I wonder if one of the lawyers on line here can explain to me how these judgments of hundreds of
thousands of dollars remain open without the company assets being seized for non payment? Is this
normal? Does more legal action need to be taken to collect?

In any event...it should be a busy fall for their lawyers.


 #320 08-14-2008
camaraderie

Bubb...I don't know...the suit was just filed (8/11) and it ain't in small claims court so I assume West has
some unpaid invoices from Novice that they couldn't collect. Don't forget West has their Port Supply
wholesale operation for commercial accounts. No amount shown on the initial papers so we just have to
wait and see.
Just had a thought...maybe it isn't just the epoxy that makes Tartans more expensive...they're paying West
Marine prices!!

 #324 08-18-2008
camaraderie
Moderator


Well that is good to hear in terms of no rash of problems. How do they feel about the sale of assets and the
loss of warranty coverage?

On another related note...another lawsuit filed today by Ashland Inc. ...no details yet but case in Ohio is
08CV002643 ASHLAND INC vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD. Anyone know what Ashland does for Novis?

 #326     08-18-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Jody...the hull warranty is 15 years non-pro-rated AND transferrable so ALL "00" series owners would
STILL be legally covered IF the assets AND liabilities of Novis had been sold to Grand River. Since only
the assets were sold...there is no LEGALLY REQUIRED coverage by Grand River unless and until the
new company commits to that in writing instead of making vague promises that cannot be enforced under
law. That is what I am asking about.
PRE-epoxy Tartans are not at issue here.

#328 08-19-2008
Gramp34

Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
On another related note...another lawsuit filed today by Ashland Inc. ...no details yet but case in Ohio is
08CV002643 ASHLAND INC vs . NOVIS MARINE LTD. Anyone know what Ashland does for Novis?

Ashland is a major supplier of composite materials: resins, glassfiber, gelcoat, etc.
Composites One is another major composite materials supplier. They filed suit against Novis on
04/27/2006 (case 06CV000965) and received the $100,000 judgement on 01/16/2008.

 #329 09-07-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

More news...seems like the factory property where the new Tartan is being built will undergo forclosure
procedures. Seems like $283K in back taxes are unpaid.
Broad & Jackson is a company formed SOLELY to own the property and collect the rent from Novis....and
Larry Ousky is the President.
The Star Beacon; Ashtabula, Ohio - Conneaut plans to foreclose on local business
http://www.starbeacon.com/local/local_story_247005528.html

For anyone interested in heavy reading. Here is the court decision referenced. It is a fine example of how to
delay, defer, deny and demur using the law to stretch out the consequences of an action. You can see all the
cross links and tie ins in the details of the decision. Here's a snippet...

"In 2002, CTI Audio, Inc., f.k.a. Conneaut Technologies Inc. (“CTI”), owned
the subject property. Omnitronics leased one of the modern buildings from CTI. William J. Ross was the
president of CTI and Lawrence J. Ousky was the president of Omnitronics."
********
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/11/2008/2008-ohio-4299.pdf

...and the beat goes on.

#335 09-08-2008
Gramp34

I bought a box of old Practical Sailor magazines and have been reading through them. I got deja-vu all over
again last night. Here's some of "Special Report - When Deals Go Bad" from July 1, 1997:


Quote:
Warranty Issues
For the most part, a new boat warranty is a straightforward, uncomplicated document that describes what is
covered by the manufacturer and delineates the responsibilities of manufacturer and dealer when problems
occur.

Unfortunately, in some cases a warranty may be worth less than the paper on which it is written, as Ken
Salamon discovered after experiencing a serious problem with his Tartan 372.

Following the first season (1993) sailing his new boat, he discovered electrolysis on the keel, as evidenced
by paint and fairing on the center of the fin flaking off to expose bare, corroded metal. Salamon paid to
have the keel refaired and coated.

A year later, after experiencing the same problem, he wrote to Tartan of his suspicions that the boat's
electrical system was poorly grounded.

At the suggestion of Tartan Vice-President Tim Jackett, an electrical survey of the boat and surrounding
marina was conducted but results were inconclusive, so Salamon hired a marine corrosion consultant to
check out the wiring system.

In the consultant's report to Salamon, he described "...a ground system made up of #10 solid bare copper
wires connecting keel, all aluminum tanks, and engine wired as two circuits, tanks and tank and keel to
engine. Whenever contact between the two bare copper ground wires touched in the bilge the -4.6DC volt
potential could be read on the keel bolt."

A similar problem existed with the boat's stereo system and VHF radio, so the VHF antenna was grounding
to the mast and then to the keel.

On August 29, 1995, Salamon submitted a warranty claim to Tartan in the amount of $2,378; Jackett
responded on October 24 that the claim had been approved and submitted to the accounting department for
payment.

However, when payments were not forthcoming four months later, Salamon pressed the issue with Jackett,
whose response was that the company was experiencing cash flow problems and needed additional time.
Tartan made two payments of $500.

Matters deteriorated further when Salamon pressed Jackett for payment in June, 1996, and he encountered a
change in Jackett's tone. He was informed by letter that the company that had manufactured his boat and
issued the warranty, NavStar Marine Company, was no longer in business, having been reorganized as
Tartan Yachts, Inc., in October 1993. The new owner, Polk Industries, an investment company, therefore
disavowed responsibility for warranty work because only the assets of NavStar had been purchased.

In a letter to Salamon's attorney dated June 26, Jackett wrote, "...the company no longer felt compelled to
continue its effort and rescinded its reimbursement offer."

The crux of the matter, Jackett told PS, was that Salamon became impatient and threatened legal action.

"What began as a good will effort to support the owner of a Tartan sailboat as we had done many times
before had become a dispute," he said.

So Salamon sued Tartan Yachts in Maryland District Court in November, 1996, and was awarded a
judgment of $2,446. At this writing, Salamon has been unable to collect his damages.

One could argue that Jackett could have been more forthright about the company's financial condition, or
disclosed that his efforts were of a goodwill nature.

However, Salamon strikes a resonant chord when he says that, before buying another boat, he will search
financial database services, particularly Dunn and Bradstreet, to determine a company's financial position
before proceeding.

"If I were in the market now, I would question everyone from the president of the company to anyone who
has purchased that particular boat," he said.

and later in the article:


Quote:
One of the major problems is the inability to secure accurate financial information about builders. The
stock of publicly traded companies is in the public domain. But most boat builders, like C&C and Tartan,
are privately held companies, and taking a peek a their financial records is impossible.

Salamon says that if he had checked the D&B on Tartan before buying his boat, "I would have seen how
many judgments they had against them. I did this in retrospect and found that Tartan had five pages of
unsatisfied judgments for a variety of minor amounts."


#337 09-08-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by max-on
He questioned Cam's authoriti, that is the result!

Actually...just to keep the record straight...it had nothing to do with anything he said to me...but I am all
powerful!!
***************
As to the 1997 case...that was, in fairness, before Ross and Novis bought the company and before the
Epoxy hull issue BUT the main point is why I started this thread...to warn potential buyers to do extensive
research and protect their assets accordingly and to provide a place where actual facts may be found and
linked so they can make up their own minds. The abandonment of present warranty holders with the sale of
assets only to Grand River is a distinct possibility as they have no legal obligation to pay for warranties
backed by another corporate entity. I wonder if any of them will show up for the boat shows and if the
industry press will do anything other than fawn over the boats.

EDIT: Correction...Ross bought the company in the late 80's and so was a part of the 1997 issues as well as
the current ones.

#339 09-09-2008
sailaway21

According to the advert in the Sailing World magazine I received today the Tartan 5300 will debut at the
Newport Boat Show later this month.

#340 09-09-2008
max-on

I guess the questions are: what company built it, what company is selling it (not broker, the owner), and
what company is warranting it.

 #344    09-11-2008
mikehoyt
Cam

My best friends sold their 1974 C&C25 and bought C&C99 hull 95 over a year ago. I sailed on this boat
last weekend and there have been no problems of any note and seems to be a very well built boat - is both
carbon mast and epoxy hull. they have no complaints.

In reading some of the back pages of this thread I could just see my friend responding in almost the exact
words of the member that was banned. My friend started reading about the C&C99 when they first came
out and as he loves epoxy in all things this was his dream boat.

Not sure how he convinced his wife to shell to allow him to shell out the money but it is a great boat with
no problems. As he would have replied in much the same manner as our banned member may I ask why
this member was banned (no not the same person - we are in Nova Scotia, Canada not Jacksonville, Fla). I
did not see anything in these posts that appeared to be the sort of abuse I would deem justifies banning
from this site

Respectively

Mike
Nut Case
J27 #150
(no not a Tartan but they certainly look to be lovely boats)
 #345   09-11-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Mike...as I said. He was not banned for ANYTHING he posted publicly.

#347 09-11-2008
T37Chef

FWIW...
Picasa Web Albums
http://picasaweb.google.com/jeffrey.lennox/Tartan5300Hull1BuildProgressPhotos?authkey=lHE47AeUyF0
#

#348    09-22-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Latest Updates On Tartan/Novis/GrandRiver...

1. Tartan showed their new 5300 at Newport. There and elsewhere Tim Jackett identified himself as COO
of "Tartan C&C Yachts"...not NOVIS OR GRAND RIVER.
2. Tartan C&C Yachts is a NEW company established last December in the State of Ohio around the same
time Grand River was formed. This new company is still headed by W. Ross. It is NOT clear what the
relationship is to Novis or Grand River.
3. The new Private OWNER of the 5300 has stated that his PAYMENTS all went to NOVIS...not Grand
River. It seems apparent that the Grand River deal never happened and J.Hunter Banbury has no
relationship with Novis.
4. In Cuyahoga county court today Novis' former lawyers (Who are suing for past due billings of around
$200K) asked the court to appoint a RECIEVER for Novis AND a settlement conference has been
scheduled for 10/22. It appears as if the lawyers intend to get paid.

 #349     09-22-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Here's one I really like. West Marine is suing Novis as noted above and has named every iteration of the
company they can think of. Here is the result of them trying to serve notice per court requirements...notice
any similarities?
09/08/2008
Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0149 to Novis Marine Ltd c/o Larry Ousky Stat Agent returned to
sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed.

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0149 to Novis Marine Ltd c/o Larry Ousky Stat Agent returned to
sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed."

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0125 to Fairport Yachts Ltd c/o William J. Ross Stat Agent
returned to sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0125 to Fairport Yachts Ltd c/o William J. Ross Stat Agent
returned to sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed."

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0132 to Grand River Composites Inc. c/o Greg D. Seeley Stat
Agent returned to sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed.
Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0132 to Grand River Composites Inc. c/o Greg D. Seeley Stat
Agent returned to sender (unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0156 to Tartan C & C of Ohio Ltd. c/o William J Ross Stat Agent
returned to sender( unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0156 to Tartan C & C of Ohio Ltd. c/o William J Ross Stat Agent
returned to sender( unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed."

Certified Mail rr# 7160 3901 9845 5330 0163 to Tartan C & C Yachts Inc. c/o William J Ross Stat Agent
returned to sender( unclaimed) and filed. Notice of failure of service issued to atty. Copy filed.

KIND of a contrast with Ross's et.al's claims here that they would stand and fight these frivilous lawsuits.
They won't even accept their registered mail!!

#357 10-03-2008
 camaraderie
Moderator

Word on the street is that Tartan/C&C SanDiego dealership resigned his T/C&C dealership this week and
that ROSS has taken over the dealership and hired one of the agents as the new manager. How he has the
$$ to do this when he "can't" pay the judgments against him/Novis is anyone's guess...but this seems to
confirm that he is indeed in control and that the Grand River Deal did not go through.

 #360     10-03-2008
sailingdog

Keep in mind that the recent deals involving the sale of Tartan/C&C/Novis...or whatever name they're
operating under now are ASSETS ONLY...meaning that anyone who bought a boat in the last few years
has no warranty support on a boat that is supposed to have a FIFTEEN YEAR warranty, since the warranty
liability won't pass to the new owners..
Quote:
Originally Posted by monteh
Keep in mind, no boat manufacturer likes warranty claims. If your expectation is that a new boat be perfect
out the gate I wouldn't recommend buying a new boat. Your expectation should be that the manufacturer
will fix the warranty claims and that has been my experience with Tartan.



 #361 10-03-2008
monteh

I can only speak from my experience with Tartan but I had warranty claims after the sale of the company
and they were honored. One was a cosmetic fix of the deck nonskid that totaled $12k.

So, in my case, the sale of the company had no effect on my warranty. I was very happy about that because
I too raised an eyebrow when I heard about the sale.


 #362     10-03-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Monteh...could you be more specific about dates for your warranty claims? Was this recent or a few years
ago? Who did you deal with for the repairs? Novis, Fairport, GrandRiver...someone else?
Dawg...as I said...I don't believe the Grand River deal ever went through so I believe NOVIS still carries
the legal obligation to honor warranties UNLESS there was some sort of un-reported sale of the company
to the new Ross entity called Tartan/C&C Yachts Inc. which was established in December. Who
knows...and Tartan ain't talking!

 #363     10-03-2008
monteh

Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
Monteh...could you be more specific about dates for your warranty claims? Was this recent or a few years
ago? Who did you deal with for the repairs? Novis, Fairport, GrandRiver...someone else?

Dawg...as I said...I don't believe the Grand River deal ever went through so I believe NOVIS still carries
the legal obligation to honor warranties UNLESS there was some sort of un-reported sale of the company
to the new Ross entity called Tartan/C&C Yachts Inc. which was established in December. Who
knows...and Tartan ain't talking!

I took delivery of the boat in April of '06 and had no issues getting Tartan to back my, one year, warranty
claims.

It was in Oct of '07 that I wrote Tartan asking them to fix a cosmetic issue with my nonskid. Tartan and the
dealer were going back and forth, and by Jan of '08 I was scheduled for a Feb repair. They agreed to put the
boat in a shed, have the entire nonskid painted with new Awlgirp at a cost upwards of $12k billed to
Tartan. The work was completed in Februrary of '08.

As far as I know I was dealing with Novis but I'm not in touch with name legalities. The people I worked
directly with was my dealer and Tim Jacket himself. I emailed Tim personnaly. He replied back quickly
and was very responsive to my requests. I was pleasantly surprised.

#365 10-04-2008
BlandingFarm

Novis Sale

The Grand River / Novis Sale is no more. Hunter Banbury pulled out of the deal due to too many things
going on with Novis. Ross is still looking for a buyer.

 #368    10-06-2008
BlandingFarm

Hunter Banbury

I spoke to Hunter personally. NO DEAL

 #369 10-06-2008
camaraderie
Moderator

Thanks...did he elaborate on why or what is really going on at Novis?

 #370 10-06-2008
BlandingFarm

He only said "Too much going on and that Bill Ross is now looking for new buyers"
#372      4 Weeks Ago
 camaraderie
Moderator

Since the Annapolis Boat Show is now starting and some of you and prospective Tartan/C&C buyers will
be there, I'd like to ask some of you to stop by the Tartan display and see if you can get answers to any or
all of the following questions from Ross or Jackett or whoever is there representing the company.
1. Has there been any construction change to Tartan boats in the last 18 months? I am hearing Vinylester is
now being used. Is this true and new and how does the EPOXY fit in compared to before? What differences
does this make in the strength of the boat, the weight of the boat and the price of the boat? Does the new
5300 use the same construction as the rest of the line?

2.If I buy a new Tartan...what company actually builds it? What company do I pay my money to? What
company supplies my warranty? If the companies assets are sold as WAS planned...what happens to my
warranty? What happened with the Grand River Investments deal? Is the money set aside to fund my
warranty? What options exist to protect my monetary investment while my boat is being built?

3. Why has Tartan not paid the nearly 1 million dollars in judgements against it? Why do West Marine,
Ullman Sails, Yanmar, & Ashland Resins, your suppliers, all have suits against you?

If you get answers from any company principals on any of the above, I'd appreciate your posting them here.
Thanks!

 #376   4 Weeks Ago
JohnRPollard

On an impulse, I played hookey today and snuck out to the Boatshow. Tartan/C&C was well represented by
quite a number of boats. I don't know how many of them were brand new, but at least several of them were.

I wasn't in the mood for interrogating anybody with Cam's list of questions, and I didn't see any of the
company principals anyway. I did ask one of the brokers aboard the 4300 whether they had switched back
to vinylester. He said "NO", the hulls are still all epoxy.

I actually like many of these designs. The interiors are nicely done, and I especially like the CCR rig -- it
would work well for how we sail. More builders should offer it.

The only general observation I have to add is that I was not overly impressed with the deck gelcoat/paint
work. I saw quite a few mild imperfections. Compared to the Sabre I went to next, and even to the Pacific
Seacraft boats (which are just coming back into production by a new builder), it was not on par.

 #377 4 Weeks Ago
410056

I was active a few years ago with this group under the old Sailnet, and dropped out due to many reasons –
some of which were related to “experts” who didn’t own Tartans and posted excessively. Never looked
back at Sailnet until a couple of days ago when told there is a Tartan list again (which appears to be very
lightly used), and this forum with all sorts of new and even more non-Tartan owning “experts” talking
about Tartans. So, I’ve read several postings in this forum and find it almost comical what these non-Tartan
owners are writing, with great authority and conviction, of course. Except it is not comical when erroneous
statements and opinion get taken as fact by the gullible. And the non-Tartan owning moderator of this
forum is even the moderator of the Tartan forum. Interesting. This forum can be a case study of how the
power of the Internet can turn opinion or falsehood into fact to the uniformed. Oh, who am I? Owner of
5300 01, and former owner of 4100 56.
Getting more on topic, Camaraderie and Sailingdog (another non-Tartan owner) seem to imply that all
details of a privately held company should be made public. Huh? That doesn’t happen. Not mine. Not most.
Sailingdog says with great authority that an asset sale has invalidated warrantees and owners have been left
out to dry. Our moderator, Camaraderie, in August (Post 324) asked a question about how owners felt
about losing warrantee coverage. That loss has not happened, despite whether or not they would have a
legal right to do so. False statements with great authority. Inexcusable, especially from our “impartial”
moderator. Right.

Litigation? Not going to touch that one. Unfortunately, most or many suits are frivolous these days that get
settled because it is cheaper than fighting them. Right or wrong doesn’t matter any more.

Two actual Tartan owners, Monteh and Carlsbad, have been criticized for posting their positive experience
and opinions with perceived arrogance. Carlsbad was even banned apparently for some offline comments.
Yes, it really sucks when actual owner experience gets in the way of your opinion. They even bashed the
magazines for positive comments in reviews.

Tommays (Post 350) pastes some photos from my photo sharing site that Tim Jackett asked if they could
link to. First photo has a posted caption about China. You don’t know what you are looking at. The blue
material on the deck is painted on to protect it during construction. It was getting near the end of
construction and some was wearing off. All hatches are covered in cardboard to protect them. All fittings
are covered in tape to protect them. Dorade guards are covered to protect them. All that protection does not
make a pretty photo – don’t think that is important. The fan keeps workers cooler down below. Second
photo shows the hull being lifted out of the mold in winter. So it goes – guys in Ohio can handle being
outside for a few minutes. (Note that this is not their main manufacturing building which is in Fairport
Harbor.) Third photo has a caption about dust control and building a high tech laminate. Not sure how you
can tie dust control to a photo of equipment inside the stick-built boat. They need tools, saws, etc. to build
it. Lamination was not going on. The poster didn’t bother to paste in a photo of the lamination process with
the vacuum bagging. Boating building is a dirty dusty process. When the dirt and dust is an issue, as with
lamination and painting, the work is performed in a protected location. Giulietta (Post 351) agrees. A stick-
built boat is not in an assembly line like the high volume production manufacturers, where almost
everything is built offsite and put into a liner. Tommays in Post 374 talks about Tartan moving to another
building. There was no move. They build a couple of models in the mast operation location due to the main
factory being too busy. In addition, they have been keeping these stick-built boats under one roof as that is
a different skill set.

Sailingdog (Post 358) says it isn’t very likely that new boats will be completed soon. Again, people can say
whatever they feel like on the Internet, with no factual basis. I’ve been at the factory several times this year.
Very busy, and boats heading out to destinations around the world. In the past few months I have had the
pleasure to meet and get to know many of their skilled craftsmen and women. They are also very
community oriented, contracting items like mattresses and raised panel doors to Amish families/businesses.
Post 368, he says there is no warrantee coverage. Wrong again. Enough said.

The vinylester rumor. (Post 372). Yes, another false one. Epoxy hulls folks.

In case the non-Tartan owner folks on this forum care, the 5300 was observed by many in Annapolis as the
best and most impressive boat in that class at the show. (Based on several overheard comments.) A very
successful show for Tartan, despite the economy. Tim Jackett’s designs are fast, stiff and solid. On the
offshore trip down to MD from CT, we were sailing on a reach (with the Code Zero reacher out) at 7 to 8
knots in 8 to 9 knot of true wind. Not bad.

I’ve been contacted by a couple of people in the past few months (the second one just last week), clearly
misrepresenting themselves trying to fish for information. I am now quite sure it has been one or more of
these non-Tartan owners on this forum, including the “impartial” moderator, given that he quotes me in a
post.
I’m sure that since I’m another happy owner (and have been so for 8 plus years of Tartan ownership), I’ll
be roundly criticized by the non-Tartan folks here as being arrogant and opinionated, or ignoring their
“facts”. So it goes. Another owner with direct Tartan experience that does not line up with those with none.
As if their comments are not even more arrogant and opinionated. The Internet. Got to love it. Have fun.
Go sailing. Everything in their business and life in general is not so sinister.


 #379      4 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator Join Date: May 2002
Location: NC
Posts: 11,756
Country:
Rep Power: 9


410056...For the record...I have NEVER spoken to you...nor did I ask anyone to call you or speak to you.
Do you deny the quote?...if so...I will retract it if you tell me who you DID pay the $$ to. Did you get a
written warranty from the same company or a different one?

I wish you well with your boat and thank you for clarifying the construction details as NO Vinylester and
All Epoxy. I see no reason to doubt you...but I do admit to thinking about telling you to get a core sample
when doing your through hulls a few weeks back. If you are sure...no problem. As I stated, it was a
rumour...but one from an industry source...not someone here.

As to Monteh and Carlsbad. You will note that I have NEVER criticized Monteh and I recently thanked
him for providing his recent warranty experience. You have NO idea what happened with Carlsbad and if I
told you, YOU would be appalled.

As to the WARRANTY. Tartan announced a SALE of ASSETS to GRAND RIVER and has NOT YET
announced that sale did not go through. IF the sale HAD gone through...prior warranties WOULD have
been legally void and I was here trying to FIGHT for CURRENT owners rights and trying to get Tartan or
Grand River to make a statement that the new company would honor the legal terms of the prior companys
warranty. They refused to do that... and it now turns out that they are legally responsible ANYWAY
because the sale never went through so they couldn't transfer the assets. Those are the FACTS despite how
you characterize it as bias.

As to the lawsuits. You can try to spin those any way you like...they didn't settle the vast majority...they
have judgement LIENS against them nearly $1M..AND...they AREN"T BEING PAID!!!...With more big
bucks suits in the pipeline.

As to the rest of your post. I am not going to bother arguing. The facts are here in detail with links. Anyone
reading this thread from start to finish can draw their own conclusions. Most of this thread is not about
problem boats...it is about problems with the company as documented.

BTW...you keep calling me "impartial" smirk smirk. There is no requirement here for me to be impartial. I
once was impartial on this thread if you actually read it from the beginning. I no longer am. I am now quite
opinionated and I freely admit it so you can take your snarkiness and stuff it.

I'll let the others defend their own statements and actions on this thread.

You have chosen to ignore the legitimate issues with the company (whichever one it is this week) . Hope
that works out to be a good decision for you. The 5300 is indeed a gorgeous boat and I DO sincerely hope
she gives you many years of enjoyment.
You may feel free to continue to post here and refute any facts or opinions as you see fit and make any case
you want for the brand. Just lose the attitude as I don't have to put up with that.
***************

#381      4 Weeks Ago
410056

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailormann
I appreciate the info. Have you had any service done by the manufacturer under their warranty program ? If
so, how did the process go for you ?


Sailormann - Owner the 4100 7 years. Only warrantee work (minimal) was early on, and fully addressed.
BTW, those few issues were systems, not what Tartan built. 5300 - Still being commissioned, but a few
Hull 1 related changes (improvements) are on the list for being implemented without hesitation. In fact,
some were at Tartan's suggestion from observations during commissioning. Again, no hesitation by them.
Very responsive.


 #383     4 Weeks Ago
camaraderie

On the legal front...a New Jersey Court has awarded Mack Boring Yanmar their full claim against Novis
and Novis asked the court to drop their countersuit. Mack Boring has asked the court to NOT allow the
dropping of the countersuit in order to allow them to dig into Novis's finances with Grand River on
discovery so they can find where the $$ is. No decision yet by the court on that yet...but once again...there
was NO SETTLEMENT and full damages claimed were assessed by the court.
I have the pdf document from the court available should anyone wish to inspect it. Just send a PM.

 #389   4 Weeks Ago
sailhog


410056:
You are utterly and completely full of it. If you think Camaradarie is in some way biased, read his opening
post on this thread. Here it is:

I have long been a fan of the quality of Tartan boats and know there are many happy Tartan Owners here
regularly...BUT...I just ran across some posts and a Blog that indicate there may be some real problems
with recent build quality AND the mfrs. willingness to stand behind the product.
I have no idea whether these claims are true or not, but they seem to be well documented and thought any
prospective buyers or 4 digit series Tartans ought to be aware of the controversy and make their own
decisions. Here's the blog with links to other stuff:Tartan and C&C Boats

Far from being partial, I don't see where Camaradarie has a dog in this fight. You, on the other hand, do.
You have a vested financial interest in the Tartan name, and yet you accuse others of some sort of unfair
bias... Go figure.

If you want to defend Tartan, you should do so. If you think information posted on this thread is incorrect,
you should correct it.

#397 3 Weeks Ago
wolfmt
For whatever it is worth, I started consulting a handful of websites such as Sailnet a couple of years ago in
connection with my research and ultimate purchase of a new-to-me Tartan 34C. Each of the sites I consult
has its strengths and weaknesses. Sailnet’s strength, in my view, is its high level of activity and breadth of
experience and knowledge across a variety of subject matters. Sailnet’s weakness, in my view, is the over-
the-top assertiveness and aggressiveness of some of its posters, particularly its more active posters. This
thread provides some great examples. Some posts are intelligent and informative. Some posts, including
many posts by Sailnet’s most active posters, appear to be uninformed and inflammatory. While I don’t
pretend to understand all of the facts underlying complaints regarding Tartan’s ownership, I have to
chuckle every time I see a poster extol the evils of acquisitions structured as asset sales, a very legitimate
and routine approach to effecting mergers & acquisitions. We all need to bear in mind that very little in life
is as it appears. Opinions, advice and other posts should reflect that fact. Otherwise, users like me will
leave this site in search of less bloviating and more intelligent discussions of the issues that face sailors.

Mike
s/v Liberty
Chicago, Illinois

 #398     3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator

Well Mike...we will see whether the courts agree with you shortly about the INTENT of the attempted asset
sale being legal...or simply a way to hide assets and walk away fraudulently from legitimate liabilities.
There are a bunch of people already out there with a million bucks worth of judgments that they can't get
paid on. How is THAT not what it seems to be? If you want to pm me with your e-mail address, I'll send
you the MackBoring submission to the court which may prove instructive. The court has yet to rule on this
one since it was just submitted...but I'll be happy to place a bet on the outcome with ya.
By the way...how many posts does one have to have before qualifying for your generic smear?

 #399     3 Weeks Ago
sailortjk1

Cam, I am wondering if you have the full list of pending cases filled and if so if you could post them all. (or
is it somewhere in this thread already) (I have no interset in this other than curiosity)

 #400        3 Weeks Ago
 Giulietta
 Have a look here guys...I spent my pm reading this...CLICK
http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=79292&hl=vinylester

looks like if it smells like a duck..walks like a duck and swims like a duck...IT's NOT A DUCK...

Cam..if this is not allowed, just delete it....OK?



 #401 3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie

TJK1...well I don't have all of them in one place handy at the moment but if you go here and type in
NOVIS for the company you will see all the court cases in their home county. Any case number with a JL
is an open judgement lien. All the CV's are civil suits and you can click on them to see who is suing novis.
There are 8 open judgements and 7 open suits there and in reviewing ALL the decided cases, there has not
been one decided in Novis' favor. https://phoenix.lakecountyohio.gov/pa/pa_cp.urd/PAMW6500
In addition to these cases, what I know about are:
1. Their former lawyers suit in Cuyahoga County which comes up next Turesday for hearing pn settlement
and putting a receiver in place for the company.
2. The MackBoring Suit in New Jersey noted above.
3. Two present owners suits in Texas an Michigan for major warranty claims and/or consumer fraud which
have not yet come to trial.

I am not including workman's compensation or other employment related suits....and of course there is the
foreclosure on the land where the 5300 "factory" is that Ousky owns and Novis/Ross rents but is
threatening to close.
I think that is the major stuff but I will try to put together a more pristine list when I have a bit more time.

#402      3 Weeks Ago
monteh

Good post 410056, you nailed it. You owned a 4100 and upgraded. I owned a 3400 and plan on upgrading
to a larger Tartan. Those workers in Ohio should be proud of the product they build. Tartan and C&Cs are
fine boats.

What is important here is that all the sailnet readers see this thread and understand the facts from actual
Tartan owners, especially from a build quality and warranty services stand point.

My experience was a very good one and I plan on doing it all over again soon (in spite of what the non-
Tartan owners are telling me what to do.)


 #403 3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator


Giu...your link is fine but I would not post that speculation here. It has been denied that vinylester is being
used by the new 5300 owner so without some proof that it is being used, the arguments should not be made
here. It would be helpful to this issue if 410056 knew exactly which resin and company was used on his
boat and would post it here so we could put the rumours to rest. It is clear that tartan/novis had to switch
resin companies a couple of times. You can either believe Tartan/Jackett on the reasons or the resin
companies who have filed suit and won in one case while the other is pending. The question is who is
supplying them now, and what is the exact resin being used. Tartan still says Epoxy and so does
410056...so I am not going to allow claims of anything else stand unchallenged without proof.

#405 3 Weeks Ago
wolfmt

The point of my post was that we all need to be careful to post to what we know and qualify what we don't
know. Too often, I find speculation posted as fact on Sailnet and this thread has numerous examples of
such instances. In this regard, in my last post, I cited the numerous posts in this thread about the inherently
nefarious nature of asset sale transactions. This is a theme that runs throughout this thread from very early
on. Unfortunately, it is an assertion with no basis in fact. An asset sale transaction is a perfectly legitimate
and quite popular way to structure these types of transactions. Now, it may well be that fraud will be found
to be involved in the Tartan/Novis matter, however, no conclusions can rightfully be made solely based
upon the fact that the transaction was structured as an asset sale. This is just but one example of posters
passing off speculation and conjecture as fact.

Turning to the moderator’s response to my last post, I can only say that I’m disappointed. I would have
thought that we’d all have an interest in tamping down unsubstantiated speculation and focusing on facts.
Apparently, that message was lost upon the moderator. Furthermore, and possibly more problematic, was
the very aggressive and confrontational nature of the moderator’s post. This is exactly the type of post that I
referred to in my prior post and, in my view, detracts from the Sailnet community.

If I can figure out how to do it, I plan to remove myself from the board. Given that the value of my
contributions is apparently based upon the number of posts I’ve made, I know this will be of no
consequence. You would be wise to consider, however, whether my views are anomalous or whether others
may stay away from Sailnet because of concerns similar to my own.

Mike
s/v Liberty
Chicago

 #406   3 Weeks Ago
tommays


The Mack Boring could be of intrest if it over the 12 or so saildrives tartan claims they had to eat

 #407      3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator

Tommays...the court papers filed by Boring this week say that Tartan showed only 1 failed drive in their
countersuit and had no testimony or witnesses to back up any other claims. Tartan has tried to withdraw
their countersuit.
The suit that Boring has won against Tartain was for non-payment for engines received by Tartan.

 #408      3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator

Hey Mike...glad you figured out that I MEANT to be aggressive! That's how I respond to those who quietly
and generically slander a group of people when they don't have the guts to confront them individually and
specifically in the topic when those people are the heart and soul of this forum.

You said:
Sailnet’s weakness, in my view, is the over-the-top assertiveness and aggressiveness of some of its posters,
particularly its more active posters....Some posts, including many posts by Sailnet’s most active posters,
appear to be uninformed and inflammatory....Otherwise, users like me will leave this site in search of less
bloviating and more intelligent discussions of the issues that face sailors

If you think we "most active posters" are gonna sit quietly by and listen to that passive aggressive crap you
can guess again. If you can't deal with it there's lots of boring places to go.


#410 3 Weeks Ago
410056

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailingdog
Personally, I think 410056 is a Tartan Troll who is in complete denial about what Tartan's current legal
problems are and the state of the company.


Well, last I looked I'm not a troll. Just someone who has purchased two new Tartan's in the past 8 years,
who has visited both factories, who has gotten to know various build crews, knows Tim Jackett as on
outstanding navel architect, etc... Maybe it is just me, but I think that gives me just a bit more credibility
than many who post endlessly on the subjects in this thread.

By the way, the last thing a potential new business owner would want to do is to skip out on prior
warranties, even if they have the legal right to under an asset sale. Nice to see others post along those lines.
The only time you usually see that is after an bankruptcy and assets are being sold off. I experienced that
with Ericson years ago. Ericson went out of business. Tartan has a strong order sheet despite the economy.

BTW, I was on the boat today during a test sail for a magazine reviewer. She is one great light air boat
(which often is not the case compared to the competition often with larger price tags). 5 to 6 knots of boat
speed in 6 to 7 knots of true wind with the reacher out. But I shouldn't be surprised in a Tim Jackett
designed yacht.

#412      3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by 410056
Well, last I looked I'm not a troll. Just someone who has purchased two new Tartan's in the past 8 years,
who has visited both factories, who has gotten to know various build crews, knows Tim Jackett as on
outstanding navel architect, etc... Maybe it is just me, but I think that gives me just a bit more credibility
than many who post endlessly on the subjects in this thread.

By the way, the last thing a potential new business owner would want to do is to skip out on prior
warranties, even if they have the legal right to under an asset sale. Nice to see others post along those lines.
The only time you usually see that is after an bankruptcy and assets are being sold off. I experienced that
with Ericson years ago. Ericson went out of business. Tartan has a strong order sheet despite the economy.

BTW, I was on the boat today during a test sail for a magazine reviewer. She is one great light air boat
(which often is not the case compared to the competition often with larger price tags). 5 to 6 knots of boat
speed in 6 to 7 knots of true wind with the reacher out. But I shouldn't be surprised in a Tim Jackett
designed yacht.

I see you are avoiding answering the questions I've asked. No problem.

As to the warranty issue...if you would read the posts on this thread you would see that Ross and Jackett
refused to state that they would honor the terms of all warranties after the Grand River sale. This is not
speculation...you are right...that is what SMART companies would do. The point is that they and J Hunter
Banbury were on this thread and refused to put in writing that they would honor the terms of Novis's
warranties to owners prior to the sale. They made nice marketing noises about taking care of prior owners
but would NOT accept the legal responsibility. Of course the widely announced sale did not go through so
the issue is now moot...but it DOES speak to their concern for customers.

In my opinion...you prove nothing simply by being an owner. Indeed one might suggest that having spent a
million bucks, that you are biased to see that your investment is protected. I've stated here several times that
I have a good friend who has a 4100...and it is a PERFECT boat that he loves. I'm sure 95 or more out of a
hundred Tartan owners feel the same way. He nevertheless can differentiate between his BOAT and the
COMPANY and he says this thread confirms a lot of what the dealer who sold him his new Tartan told him
recently.
Making very fine boats for ALMOST all customers does Tartan a perfect company.
Mr. Teague who had warranty claims on TWO Tartan 3700's had to take Tartan to court where he was
awarded 234k by an Ohio court. My guess is that he does not feel the same way as you do about Tartan's
willingness to stand behind their warranty. He was a two boat owner too.
If all you can do is cheerlead based on the quality of your two boats, that's fine and factual from your own
experience. I just don't know how you can be so blind as to deny the other stuff going on.
More questions which probably won't be answered:
Did you actually read this thread before committing to the purchase of your new boat or were you surprised
to read it later?
Did you protect your investment somehow while the boat was being built or simply give Tartan the deposit
and subsequent payments without protection?

 #413 3 Weeks Ago
410056
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRPollard
Congrats on your new boat. You must be pretty excited. Did you get the CCR rig (is it even offered on the
5300?) Got any photos?

I saw your boat at the show but didn't go aboard. The 3400-4300 are more in our range.

How does the deck gelcoat look on your boat? As I mentioned in a previous post, I saw more than a few
minor cosmetic imperfections in the decks of the boats I was aboard -- wavy gelcoat and not-so-perfectly
painted two-tone deck paint. Nothing terrible, not show-stopping, but somewhat surprising all the same.


John - The 5300 is not fully CCR (working jib is not self tacking), but has the reacher and working jib.
Reacher we did is Code Zero cloth at 150%, and working jib is 105%. The reacher is an amazingly nice sail
in a wide range of wind angles.

The color in the non-skid is gelcoat, not paint. Our gelcoat is just fine.

Thanks for asking.


#414 3 Weeks Ago
T37Chef

WOW! 41,000+ views of this thread and still going! WOW!

 #416      3 Weeks Ago
410056
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
In my opinion...you prove nothing simply by being an owner. Indeed one might suggest that having spent a
million bucks, that you are biased to see that your investment is protected.

If all you can do is cheerlead based on the quality of your two boats, that's fine and factual from your own
experience. I just don't know how you can be so blind as to deny the other stuff going on.
More questions which probably won't be answered:
Did you actually read this thread before committing to the purchase of your new boat or were you surprised
to read it later?
Did you protect your investment somehow while the boat was being built or simply give Tartan the deposit
and subsequent payments without protection?

Your ego is quite remarkable. To state that an actual owner who has actually worked with the company and
their customer service doesn't give that person a better basis in this forum is, frankly, odd. Ah, but you got
me to bite again. First, I would never expect ANY company to use Sailnet, yes SAILNET, as a forum to
state company policy - especially in response to the tone of this thread where pretty much all comments by
me and others not in line with your views are being taken as uniformed, biased, blind, wrong, only saying it
to protect investments, etc... You are correct, we are all just ignorant bumpling idiots. Likewise, I will not
address your questions you seem to think I should answer that are related to my business deal - it is, as they
say, none of your damn business. Rest assured, it was a proper deal and contract, as anyone would do with
any boat builder.

Last, nothing on Sailnet forums surprises me. I saw it when we first had our 4100. It's not new. Also, no
company is perfect, all have to deal with dissatisfied customers - my business, car manufacturers, and
probably even your business whatever you do. I don't, and I bet you don't, handle your customer service
needs or concerns through Internet chat forums! Forums like this can simply blow them out of proportion,
and appear to make issues more widespread than reality. This is especially true when propagated by people
not involved with the situation, nor have an understanding of both sides of the situation (nor should they
since they are not directly involved).

I won't take medical advice from people passionately posting very convincing sounding opinion on Internet
chat forums. I think the average new boat buyers do the same with this topic. Medical question based on
Internet reading? - discuss with the doctor to your satisfaction. A potential customer with a question based
on Internet reading? - discuss with the company to your satisfaction. Meanwhile, the Internet postings in
this thread will go on and on with a life of their own.


 #417      3 Weeks Ago
410056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giulietta
410056

Did some digging here on sailnet and remember what brand my my stuff was Most supplied by Ashland
and Diab..

Thanks

Sorry, thought you got your answer. The core is CoreCell. Don't know the brand of epoxy. Laminate
consulting was provided by High Modulus in New Zealand.

 #420     3 Weeks Ago
Cruisingdad
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by 410056
Your ego is quite remarkable. To state that an actual owner who has actually worked with the company and
their customer service doesn't give that person a better basis in this forum is, frankly, odd. Ah, but you got
me to bite again. First, I would never expect ANY company to use Sailnet, yes SAILNET, as a forum to
state company policy - especially in response to the tone of this thread where pretty much all comments by
me and others not in line with your views are being taken as uniformed, biased, blind, wrong, only saying it
to protect investments, etc... You are correct, we are all just ignorant bumpling idiots. Likewise, I will not
address your questions you seem to think I should answer that are related to my business deal - it is, as they
say, none of your damn business. Rest assured, it was a proper deal and contract, as anyone would do with
any boat builder.

Last, nothing on Sailnet forums surprises me. I saw it when we first had our 4100. It's not new. Also, no
company is perfect, all have to deal with dissatisfied customers - my business, car manufacturers, and
probably even your business whatever you do. I don't, and I bet you don't, handle your customer service
needs or concerns through Internet chat forums! Forums like this can simply blow them out of proportion,
and appear to make issues more widespread than reality. This is especially true when propagated by people
not involved with the situation, nor have an understanding of both sides of the situation (nor should they
since they are not directly involved).

I won't take medical advice from people passionately posting very convincing sounding opinion on Internet
chat forums. I think the average new boat buyers do the same with this topic. Medical question based on
Internet reading? - discuss with the doctor to your satisfaction. A potential customer with a question based
on Internet reading? - discuss with the company to your satisfaction. Meanwhile, the Internet postings in
this thread will go on and on with a life of their own.



Who are you again? You sure you are not in some way connected to Tartan??

Let's see readers... let's get this straight:

On one side, we have Cam. Cam has been a memeber of this forum for many years. He owns a Tayana, and
has owned many other boats. He has cruised extensively. He has spent enormous amounts of his time
online ONLY TO HELP OTHER SAILORS. He spends most of his time answering questions and helping
out - and has done so long before the start of this thread. Many of you have met him and had dinner with
him and his wife. Many of us call him on the phone and discuss technical issues. In essense, Cam has no
hidden agenda here. He has learned many disturbing facts about a boat builder and has brought them to
light. And are you ready for this, 410XXwhatever, he has been just as quick to ban people on BOTH sides
of the issue on this thread if they crossed the line. THat includes the previous owners of these boats that do
not sing the same praises blind you do.

Now we have you. You have contributed to nothing else on this site. You have ridiculed someone that
gives freely of himself and his time to make this a good place for information. You have poked fun at
Sailingdog who could care less about monhulls and is a big contributer here. You have ignored and poked
fun at Giulietta who has no agenda and could care less about Tartan. You have been quick to make fun of
our forum and 'internet chat sites' as a bad source for information.

So ask yourselves, readers, who has more credibility??


Quote:
Your ego is quite remarkable. To state that an actual owner who has actually worked with the company and
their customer service doesn't give that person a better basis in this forum is, frankly, odd. Ah, but you got
me to bite again.

Yeah, well, look at your ego. You know everything about Tartan, eh? You dismiss everything they are
doing as good business??? Give me a break. The courts dissagree. I guess their ego is remarkable too.


Quote:
First, I would never expect ANY company to use Sailnet, yes SAILNET, as a forum to state company
policy

Of course not. Who would want this type of public information available about their company to
prospective customers??? I suppose they are not putting it on their flyers, huh? I suppose they are not
putting these disclosures at the bottom of the contract before you drop them 20% of a 1,000,000 boat - huh?
You are right. They are smart business men.


Quote:
I won't take medical advice from people passionately posting very convincing sounding opinion on Internet
chat forums.
Oh yeah? SO if there was a lot of Medical Malpractice cases against a physician, and it was all over these
'internet chat forums', you would not listen to it? You would go ahead and go under open heart surgery? If
there were a lot of people complaining about how bad a doctor was on an internet chat forum - you would
not listen? Bull-oney. There are countless physicians out there and other choices. You would go elsewhere.
Give me a break.


Quote:
Forums like this can simply blow them out of proportion, and appear to make issues more widespread than
reality.

No, Mr Tartan Owner, forum like this make people informed. That is it. Good reviews, bad reviews - etc,
make an informed buyer. I would certainly want to know about this before I bought a Tartan. And since I
must assume Tartan does not sit you down to discuss it before you give them a $200,000 check as a
deposit, where else would you get it??


Quote:
This is especially true when propagated by people not involved with the situation, nor have an
understanding of both sides of the situation (nor should they since they are not directly involved).

Propagated?? Propagated!!!??? You mean brought in the open?? You mean keep your noses out of our
business? Know your place, shut your face?? Is that what you are saying?? I guess I should not help people
out on Catalina purchases? Or Valiant purchases? Or help them with cruising destinations? Or help them
with maintenance issues? Sorry. I don't see the world like that. We are here to help and lend a hand. That is
what sailors do. That is why we participate in these 'internet chat rooms'. We try to help. And part of that
helping means keeping sailors informed about negative issues that might affect them - from Hurricanes to
companies in difficulty.


Quote:
I won't take medical advice from people passionately posting very convincing sounding opinion on Internet
chat forums. I think the average new boat buyers do the same with this topic. Medical question based on
Internet reading? - discuss with the doctor to your satisfaction. A potential customer with a question based
on Internet reading? - discuss with the company to your satisfaction. Meanwhile, the Internet postings in
this thread will go on and on with a life of their own.

I think this is a wonderful example and thank you for helping me to use it as such. You go right ahead and
trust your doctor. No need for a second opinion or to discuss his surgery with other patients or check out his
credentialing (if you know what that is). You can trust your doctor to tell you he is currently being sued by
many customers for Medical Malpractice. Now, know your place and shut your face. Oh yeah... discuss
your purchase with the builders. Be sure that they will tell you everything that is going on. And just so you
know, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you. Trust me. I would never lie,
because I told you so.

 #421      3 Weeks Ago
Cruisingdad
Moderator

Oh yeah, 410whatever, I have stayed out of this thread as I think Cam has done an outstanding job of
playing the middle to both sides. Plus, I don't have the time for it. But let's get something straight: since you
have so little faith in 'internet chat sites', Cam, Sailingdog, Giulietta, or anyone else that has something
negative to say about your beloved boat builder, you do not have to come. Move on, Baby. Going to Sailing
Anarchy where they are all nice. It is not as if you are contributing anything here anyways with all 7 posts.
No loss. And if you cannot find a way to be nice without being a jerk and snobby to those whose only role
is to openly discuss the matters, I will press the "GOODBYE" button and your participation here will be
limited to reading it.

Strike one. There will not be a number two. I promise.

And for anyone else that is reading this, I dont care if you love Tartan or hate them. I dont care if you are
an owner that is suiing them or an owner with a 5100 being built. We do not care about dissenting opinions.
We don't care about arguments. We DO care about being nice and thoughtful in how you respond. If
410WHATEVER gets banned or leaves, it is not because of anything other than his attitude and rudeness.
The decision to get along or move on is totally up to him/her.

- CD

 #422   3 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator


410056...your own words...
Except it is not comical when erroneous statements and opinion get taken as fact by the gullible.

The vinylester rumor. (Post 372). Yes, another false one. Epoxy hulls folks.
Which I accepted as truthful when you posted it. Now today you post:
Don't know the brand of epoxy.
If you don't know the brand...then you don't know enough about it to verify that is IS epoxy and not
vinylester/epoxy. Perhaps you don't know enough about your boats construction to be reliable. Perhaps you
just accepted Novis' description. Doesn't really matter since pv/epoxy is fine for construction too...it is just
not epoxy...but it appears that the rumour from industry sources cannot be put to bed by you. You might
wanna check that out with Mr. Jackett.
*********
First, I would never expect ANY company to use Sailnet, yes SAILNET, as a forum to state company
policy
I would not expect Tartan to use sailnet to state policy either. I would expect them to use their own website
and Tartan Owners associations to state their policy. For TWO months after their announced transfer of
assets they did NOT do so...and still have never done so. So...when we challenged that here and they
responded on this thread with marketing blurbs instead of a statement that they would honor all prior
warranties...THAT is a big deal.
**********************
Well, last I looked I'm not a troll. Just someone who has purchased two new Tartan's in the past 8
years, who has visited both factories, who has gotten to know various build crews, knows Tim Jackett
as on outstanding navel architect, etc...
Hmmmm...again you bring so much credibility to your posts. Tim Jackett is NOT a navel architect. His
education was at the Cleveland Art Institute which offers no such training.
He is not a NAVAL architect either.

So far, all you have added to this forum by way of defending Tartan/Novis is:
1. You have owned two boats. They both appear to be great boats.
2. They are good people and working with you well to resolve any issues.
3. We are all mis-informed and over the top internet trolls despite the many factual links to court cases
where their KEY vendors, their own former lawyers, their main bankers and several other owners problems
in getting their warranty problems resolved.

************************

When YOU post some facts other than "I'm a happy customer" then you might have some credibility.
#427      3 Weeks Ago
 T37Chef
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
Oh yeah...by the way...I found another customer case today which is pending in NJ district court. The
Lorenzo's are suing Novis for poor construction standards in their boats cleats which allegedly pulled out
and set their boat adrift and left it badly damaged. They are suing for the value of the boat + costs &
attorneys fees. Case #06-cv-05409-JLL-CCC
The boat is a 2004 Tartan 3700 named Radiance.
Credibility of the complaint, as always, will be determined by the court.


Umm sounds fishy, they probably just overtightened the bolts which caused the backing plates to fail

#439      3 Weeks Ago
 Cruisingdad
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
jrp...here's the boat.


Gorgeous boat.

 #446       3 Weeks Ago
410056

Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
410056...your own words...
[b]
When YOU post some facts other than "I'm a happy customer" then you might have some credibility.

Okay, the boat was two months behind schedule. I'm sincerely sorry I can't offer first hand experience that
supports the opinions of the fairly small core group who are posting on this thread. Nor is it inappropriate
that I make those statements.


#449       3 Weeks Ago
410056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruisingdad
I think this is a wonderful example and thank you for helping me to use it as such. You go right ahead and
trust your doctor. No need for a second opinion or to discuss his surgery with other patients or check out his
credentialing (if you know what that is). You can trust your doctor to tell you he is currently being sued by
many customers for Medical Malpractice. Now, know your place and shut your face. Oh yeah... discuss
your purchase with the builders. Be sure that they will tell you everything that is going on. And just so you
know, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I would like to sell you. Trust me. I would never lie,
because I told you so.

In your sentence by sentence analysis of my post (wow), you imply my view is that things you read on the
Internet should be ignored. Never said that, never implied that. I said to take the information you read, then
go elsewhere to determine the level of accuracy of what you read. That is what I do, anyway, and assume
most folks do.
#458 3 Weeks Ago
 Cruisingdad
Moderator

Quote:
Originally Posted by 410056
Nice graphic, Cruisingdad. While the graphic is creative (really), nothing in this thread causes me any
stress, and it is not because of blind loyalty. I've already posted why I have been a very happy Tartan owner
for 8 plus years that I am well networked with other owners, so won't fill up space here. And I didn't just
stumble across this thread. Just decided to jump in after seeing some other owners get bashed.

This is a place where we come to talk about sailing (and off topic too, but that is another story). It is a great
place to discuss all types of things that affect us. We have no hidden agendas. We have no problem with
opposite opinions. That is what makes it fun.

Do not judge us by one thread. There is a lot more going on in this thread than meets the eye. Don't assume
that everything you read on this thread is everything that has happened. As I said before, we have no hidden
agenda and I am very happy you have had a very good experience with Tartan. That is what needs to come
out to. We want to hear about that as will other sailors that may be interested in their boats. But also don't
discount what you read here - whether you like it or not.

I hope you stick around and contribute here. I hope you can play an active part. You have a lot you can give
back to the community. You can also be a sounding board for others with questions on Tartans as that is
obviously a boat you know well.

- CD

#460        2 Weeks Ago
 camaraderie
Moderator

Just a little update on legal matters:
The lawyers suit was postponed for 2 weeks to Nov. 5th but the court ordered Novis/Tartan to deliver all
documents by 10/29. The hearing on 11/5 will be to rule on receivership for the company.

Ullman Sails suit has been scheduled for trial at the end of Feb 2009. We have a while to wait on that one.
Ashland resins suit is in the discovery phase with interrogetories and demands for production of documents
served.
West Marine suit shows no progress as delivery of documents has been impossible so far. Re-delivery of
summons and complaint done on 9/29 but no results or further actions reported.

 #463       2 Weeks Ago
camaraderie
Moderator


I don't think that is the case Mike...and it would be a shame if it becomes true. I think a more likely
outcome is a bankruptcy/sale or liquidation sale of the company to someone who recognizes the value of
the brands and will be clear of the unpaid debts and free to start fresh...assuming the receiver is appointed
which is not at all certain.
Of course that would leave those with boats under construction and those with warranties out in the
cold...but even in a liquidation a phoenix can rise from the ashes...witness Pacific Seacraft.
Given the number and amount of judgement leins and pending suits, it is hard to see a good outcome in this
for anyone...present management, those with leins/suits, employees or customers past and present.
#464       2 Weeks Ago
T34C


Quote:
Originally Posted by camaraderie
I don't think that is the case Mike...and it would be a shame if it becomes true. I think a more likely
outcome is a bankruptcy/sale or liquidation sale of the company to someone who recognizes the value of
the brands and will be clear of the unpaid debts and free to start fresh...assuming the receiver is appointed
which is not at all certain.
Of course that would leave those with boats under construction and those with warranties out in the
cold...but even in a liquidation a phoenix can rise from the ashes...witness Pacific Seacraft.
Given the number and amount of judgement leins and pending suits, it is hard to see a good outcome in this
for anyone...present management, those with leins/suits, employees or customers past and present.

Cam- You have exactly outlined why I think anyone currently buying a boat from them is nuts! Buying
something from a company that could go Chapter 11 anytime is a little like playing musical chairs. Sooner
or later the music is going to stop and someone (or more likely several) will be left standing with nothing to
show for their deposit monies. It's likely to happen and the company is NOT going to give you any warning
before it does happens.

I personally got burned by this same type of thing twice in the past year. Once was with a store credit for
Sharper Image that I now have no use for, and the other (and far worse) was with a new house my wife and
I were building. We knew the builder had had financial issues, but were assured that it was now behind
them, they had restructured, and the developement we were building in was the primary focus for the
company. The house was 65% finished when they filed for chapter 11. We are still waiting to find out from
the courts if we will ever get any of our money back.

At this point in the last week of October 2008, sailnet.com pulled this thread off line.

								
To top