Cheoy Lee Lost Off NC

[captain]

Originally Posted by Wayfarersloop

Then they apparently count on the insurance company to compensate them for their 'loss'.

Yes, I see it all now, people venture across the oceans, place their lives completely at risk, plan and wait for storms, and cagedly lose precious possessions-- all a ruse, in hopes of collecting insurance monies equal to their original expenditures.

I was saying the previous owner didn't disclose the problems with the boat...not your silly, sarcastic portrayal of what was said.

[btrayfors]

captain,

What you have said is potentially illuminating and important. I wish I could give it more credence, but you only have two posts on this board so far, and your profile lacks any kind of identification whatsoever.

Further, your posts lack any name or other information which might hint at your credibility. Is it too much to ask that you identify yourself better?

I, for one, am VERY interested in the issue of Lazy Jack's seacocks, since I own a 28-year old Cheoy Lee built sloop. That said, I was intrigued and disappointed by the new owner's "descriptions" as she, admitedly, was a novice, and much of what was said was not very helpful in understanding exactly what happened and, especially, what the loose chainplates had to do with the "thru-hull" failure.

Bill
WA6CCA
USCG Licensed Captain for over 30 years

[Wayfarersloop]

To clear up the order of my comment on this forum the above post is directed at forum user NOT SURE, as I am certain he is not.

[clausont]

Originally Posted by nowbythebay

I had a dream and I am not giving up. I'm understanding that we "sailors" may all be dreamers in a way.
Susan

__________________

14-12-2009, 13:05	#80
Not Sure Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: the golden state Boat: pilot cutter Posts: 289	Originally Posted by Wayfarersloop Then they apparently count on the insurance company to compensate them for their 'loss'. Yes, I see it all now, people venture across the oceans, place their lives completely at risk, plan and wait for storms, and cagedly lose precious possessions-- all a ruse, in hopes of collecting insurance monies equal to their original expenditures. Well, if the 'Lazy Jack' is any indication of the 'norm', that is exactly what appears to have happened (nothwithstanding the 'ruse' part and 'lose precious possessions' part, which would be up to the insurance company to decide). How else can _you_ explain it? By the by, I'm sure that there are other surveys out there if the boat had been for sale for a year or so. It also would be somewhat surprising if the owner or owner's insurance company had not commissioned a survey sometime in the recent past....as would it be surprising if the previous surveys neglected to mention that the throughhulls/seacocks apparently were ancient ....and that apparently the boat was only 'Bristol finish' cosmetically.

14-12-2009, 13:12	#81
s/v Necessity Registered User Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 12	Regarding Bills quandary regarding the through hull failures. I would say that the only real solution is regular maintenance and inspection and replacement. And that there is probably little more to be learned from your sister ships failure. So if you've checked yours lately, not much to worry, and if you haven't EVER checked, them, then that's the real solution. If yours are the original (28 year old parts) then perhaps they are due for replacement, and that's the lesson to be learned. You are probably wonderin the exact nature of the failure, but that would be a red herring. You need to be concerned with EVERY ASPECT of that 28 year old fitting

14-12-2009, 13:14	#82
Not Sure Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: the golden state Boat: pilot cutter Posts: 289	Originally Posted by Wayfarersloop in hopes of collecting insurance monies equal to their original expenditures. Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance; (1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale). (2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used. (3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and (4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?). That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times.

14-12-2009, 13:18	#83
btrayfors Eternal Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,046 Images: 4	s/v Necessity, Absolutely right. I agree with you on all points. But I AM curious as to the exact nature of the failure as reported, since I couldn't make any sense of the description and subsequent clarifications. I have seen a lot of Cheoy Lee's, and have visited their factory in Hong Kong several times over the years. Generally, their hull construction (including thru-hulls) is pretty good, notwithstanding the other areas where they have been "challenged" (like leaks, homemade metal fittings, etc.). And, I don't believe I have ever heard of the flange of a thru-hull just popping off. Bill

14-12-2009, 13:26	#84
Not Sure Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: the golden state Boat: pilot cutter Posts: 289	Originally Posted by s/v Necessity Regarding Bills quandary regarding the through hull failures. I would say that the only real solution is regular maintenance and inspection and replacement. And that there is probably little more to be learned from your sister ships failure. So if you've checked yours lately, not much to worry, and if you haven't EVER checked, them, then that's the real solution. If yours are the original (28 year old parts) then perhaps they are due for replacement, and that's the lesson to be learned. You are probably wonderin the exact nature of the failure, but that would be a red herring. You need to be concerned with EVERY ASPECT of that 28 year old fitting The bad part of this is, my throughhulls didn't really 'look' bad at all (other than looking old). It wasn't until I scraped at the old bedding compound on the inside of the hull (which turned to powder), and put a wrench on them that their true condition (loose, with hose clamps ready to fall off and held together by crud only), became apparent. Scary, actually.

14-12-2009, 13:31	#85
Not Sure Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: the golden state Boat: pilot cutter Posts: 289	Originally Posted by btrayfors s/v Necessity, Absolutely right. I agree with you on all points. And, I don't believe I have ever heard of the flange of a thru-hull just popping off. Bill I've seen similar old brass fittings simply 'fall off' when touched, with the break happening where the (thin) threads join the (much thicker) body of the casting. They can split almost all the way around and just be held on by a sliver of metal. That's just one way that they could fail catastrophically.

14-12-2009, 13:34	#86
Fishman_Tx Registered User   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Beeville, Tx. Boat: 1969 Morgan 40 Cruising Ketch "Lady Catherine II", 1973 Bristol 34 - "Our Baby"(RIP), Catalina 22 Posts: 876 Images: 12	Originally Posted by Not Sure Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance; (1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale). (2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used. (3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and (4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?). That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times. Good God, people. I seriously doubt it's a conspiracy to get everybody paid at the insurer's and, therefore the insured's, expense. Don't you think the lady's been through enough without more sh*t from you? I'd be surprised if she ever posted again... __________________ Fish "Behind every great man there is a woman, rolling her eyes." But not for long! Now she's gone! and peace and tranquility reign forever! 1969 Morgan 40 Cruising Ketch

14-12-2009, 13:42	#87
Wayfarersloop Registered User Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Baltimore Boat: Allmand, 31' sloop Posts: 8	Originally Posted by Not Sure Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance; (1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale). (2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used. (3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and (4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?). That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times. Have you ever gone down on ship in a storm at sea? Have you ever been in the ocean? If you think putting your life and four others at risk is worth $80k, and that that is a "sizeable" amount of money then I feel sorry for you.

14-12-2009, 13:49	#88
Kefaa Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Eastern PA Boat: Island Packet 31 (35'), Black Squirrel Posts: 239	I have to say, this one turned ugly fairly quick and I am not sure why. That is truly rare and why I like this forum. As for who gets money out of this - the current owner is the least likely. I am not a surveyor but I find that most are trying hard to be fair. Wet spots on the deck? 2 year old boat - bad. 35 year old boat - define "bad"? Is either a deception? The broker collected a fee for negotiating a trade. Was there a trade? Yes. Was it a successful transaction - Yes. Should they reveal what they know about a boat? Know or suspect? I have yet to meet one that has not strongly recommended a survey and to pick my own surveyor. Do we want to get to a point where inspections for sales are required by the broker and the owner accepts resolving the issues? Personally, I say yes, but I am unwilling to accept that a surveyor paid for by the seller may feel a conflict of interest - even if none exists. The former owner did collect the selling price, and they probably did not reveal all the ugly sides of the boat - if they saw them. As many have made the point - seacock maintenance is a pain when it comes to inspection and ensuring they are operational. The lesson here is that you do need a surveyor because the current owner may be an idiot or considers maintenance refilling the fuel tanks. The owner who will file an insurance claim. I am unsure what insurance companies you have worked with in the past, but if I was a betting man, they are in for a world of hurt. The great escape clause on most marine insurance is the ability for a reasonable person to have seen the loss in advance, and having done nothing to correct it, are unlikely to get paid. For this reason alone Susan should remain silent. Say nothing else about what happened, she thought happened, she thought someone said might happen. This forum is going to be used against her claim. She only stands to hurt her ability to collect. Bad things happen even when people do the right things. Mainly because knowing what may go wrong and what will are NOT the same thing. A thousand things could have gone wrong - as real as a rogue wave or strange as a whale strike. That rigging that looked great, snaps from a casting flaw. We do want to understand what happened - if only in self interest. I am going to reinspect the through hulls and chain plates this winter on this story alone. Would I have anyways? Maybe - but probably not, I just did it. But now I know that visual, in the water, inspection is less than optimal. But didn't I know that already? Sure - but when the neighbor's house burns down from a Christmas tree - we have to check our own. __________________

14-12-2009, 14:29	#89
janes brunk Registered User   Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2	we know what happened. the boat sank.

14-12-2009, 20:15	#90
peterfynn Registered User   Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Llamedos is our home Boat: Catalac 12M - Llamedos Posts: 15	I joined this group tonight and have read all the way through this thread. I notice a particular thing that worries me. I purchased and lived aboard a Newporter 40 (wooden) ketch for three years. When I inspected the "seacocks" they consisted of brass ball valves with a pipe thread attached to a brass through hull fitting with a straight thread. About 3 or 4 threads were all that held the things together. They were all replaced with bronze seacocks properly installed and bedded in compound. A proper seacock is made of bronze - NEVER allow brass fittings on a boat. A proper seacock has parallel or straight threads in both parts so that the fitting can be bedded properly and torqued to the proper torque. Brass is a mixture of copper and zinc. Bronze is a mixture of copper and tin. The zinc in brass will disappear and leave you with swiss cheese. This is why we use sacrificial zincs on boats. The zinc in the brass is sacrificial. Finally, all through hulls should be doubly clamped. Susan, I am truly sorry for your loss. We are about to purchase our home on the water and I will thoroughly check the through hulls. Peter

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Wayfarersloop

Then they apparently count on the insurance company to compensate them for their 'loss'.

Yes, I see it all now, people venture across the oceans, place their lives completely at risk, plan and wait for storms, and cagedly lose precious possessions-- all a ruse, in hopes of collecting insurance monies equal to their original expenditures.

Well, if the 'Lazy Jack' is any indication of the 'norm', that is exactly what appears to have happened (nothwithstanding the 'ruse' part and 'lose precious possessions' part, which would be up to the insurance company to decide).

How else can _you_ explain it?

By the by, I'm sure that there are other surveys out there if the boat had been for sale for a year or so. It also would be somewhat surprising if the owner or owner's insurance company had not commissioned a survey sometime in the recent past....as would it be surprising if the previous surveys neglected to mention that the throughhulls/seacocks apparently were ancient ....and that apparently the boat was only 'Bristol finish' cosmetically.

[s/v Necessity]

Regarding Bills quandary regarding the through hull failures. I would say that the only real solution is regular maintenance and inspection and replacement. And that there is probably little more to be learned from your sister ships failure. So if you've checked yours lately, not much to worry, and if you haven't EVER checked, them, then that's the real solution. If yours are the original (28 year old parts) then perhaps they are due for replacement, and that's the lesson to be learned. You are probably wonderin the exact nature of the failure, but that would be a red herring. You need to be concerned with EVERY ASPECT of that 28 year old fitting

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by Wayfarersloop

in hopes of collecting insurance monies equal to their original expenditures.

Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance;
(1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale).
(2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used.
(3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and
(4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?).

That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times.

[btrayfors]

s/v Necessity,

Absolutely right. I agree with you on all points.

But I AM curious as to the exact nature of the failure as reported, since I couldn't make any sense of the description and subsequent clarifications.

I have seen a lot of Cheoy Lee's, and have visited their factory in Hong Kong several times over the years. Generally, their hull construction (including thru-hulls) is pretty good, notwithstanding the other areas where they have been "challenged" (like leaks, homemade metal fittings, etc.).

And, I don't believe I have ever heard of the flange of a thru-hull just popping off.

Bill

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by s/v Necessity

Regarding Bills quandary regarding the through hull failures. I would say that the only real solution is regular maintenance and inspection and replacement. And that there is probably little more to be learned from your sister ships failure. So if you've checked yours lately, not much to worry, and if you haven't EVER checked, them, then that's the real solution. If yours are the original (28 year old parts) then perhaps they are due for replacement, and that's the lesson to be learned. You are probably wonderin the exact nature of the failure, but that would be a red herring. You need to be concerned with EVERY ASPECT of that 28 year old fitting

The bad part of this is, my throughhulls didn't really 'look' bad at all (other than looking old). It wasn't until I scraped at the old bedding compound on the inside of the hull (which turned to powder), and put a wrench on them that their true condition (loose, with hose clamps ready to fall off and held together by crud only), became apparent. Scary, actually.

[Not Sure]

Originally Posted by btrayfors

s/v Necessity,

Absolutely right. I agree with you on all points.
And, I don't believe I have ever heard of the flange of a thru-hull just popping off.

Bill

I've seen similar old brass fittings simply 'fall off' when touched, with the break happening where the (thin) threads join the (much thicker) body of the casting. They can split almost all the way around and just be held on by a sliver of metal. That's just one way that they could fail catastrophically.

[Fishman_Tx]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance;
(1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale).
(2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used.
(3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and
(4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?).

That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times.

Good God, people. I seriously doubt it's a conspiracy to get everybody paid at the insurer's and, therefore the insured's, expense. Don't you think the lady's been through enough without more sh*t from you? I'd be surprised if she ever posted again...

[Wayfarersloop]

Originally Posted by Not Sure

Well, let's see who would normally get paid in such a circumstance;
(1) The surveyor who said that the boat was in excellent shape would collect a fee, (and possibly a kickback from any potential sale).
(2) The broker would collect a fee (+ percentage?) if one was used.
(3) The former owner would collect the selling price ($80k?), and
(4) the new owner would collect the insurance claim ($80k?).

That's a sizable amount of money being bandied about in these economic times.

Have you ever gone down on ship in a storm at sea?

Have you ever been in the ocean?

If you think putting your life and four others at risk is worth $80k, and that that is a "sizeable" amount of money then I feel sorry for you.

[Kefaa]

I have to say, this one turned ugly fairly quick and I am not sure why. That is truly rare and why I like this forum.

As for who gets money out of this - the current owner is the least likely.

I am not a surveyor but I find that most are trying hard to be fair. Wet spots on the deck? 2 year old boat - bad. 35 year old boat - define "bad"? Is either a deception?

The broker collected a fee for negotiating a trade. Was there a trade? Yes. Was it a successful transaction - Yes. Should they reveal what they know about a boat? Know or suspect? I have yet to meet one that has not strongly recommended a survey and to pick my own surveyor.

Do we want to get to a point where inspections for sales are required by the broker and the owner accepts resolving the issues? Personally, I say yes, but I am unwilling to accept that a surveyor paid for by the seller may feel a conflict of interest - even if none exists.

The former owner did collect the selling price, and they probably did not reveal all the ugly sides of the boat - if they saw them. As many have made the point - seacock maintenance is a pain when it comes to inspection and ensuring they are operational. The lesson here is that you do need a surveyor because the current owner may be an idiot or considers maintenance refilling the fuel tanks.

The owner who will file an insurance claim. I am unsure what insurance companies you have worked with in the past, but if I was a betting man, they are in for a world of hurt. The great escape clause on most marine insurance is the ability for a reasonable person to have seen the loss in advance, and having done nothing to correct it, are unlikely to get paid. For this reason alone Susan should remain silent. Say nothing else about what happened, she thought happened, she thought someone said might happen. This forum is going to be used against her claim. She only stands to hurt her ability to collect.

Bad things happen even when people do the right things. Mainly because knowing what may go wrong and what will are NOT the same thing. A thousand things could have gone wrong - as real as a rogue wave or strange as a whale strike. That rigging that looked great, snaps from a casting flaw.

We do want to understand what happened - if only in self interest. I am going to reinspect the through hulls and chain plates this winter on this story alone. Would I have anyways? Maybe - but probably not, I just did it. But now I know that visual, in the water, inspection is less than optimal. But didn't I know that already? Sure - but when the neighbor's house burns down from a Christmas tree - we have to check our own.

[janes brunk]

we know what happened. the boat sank.

[peterfynn]

I joined this group tonight and have read all the way through this thread. I notice a particular thing that worries me. I purchased and lived aboard a Newporter 40 (wooden) ketch for three years. When I inspected the "seacocks" they consisted of brass ball valves with a pipe thread attached to a brass through hull fitting with a straight thread. About 3 or 4 threads were all that held the things together. They were all replaced with bronze seacocks properly installed and bedded in compound.
A proper seacock is made of bronze - NEVER allow brass fittings on a boat. A proper seacock has parallel or straight threads in both parts so that the fitting can be bedded properly and torqued to the proper torque.
Brass is a mixture of copper and zinc. Bronze is a mixture of copper and tin. The zinc in brass will disappear and leave you with swiss cheese. This is why we use sacrificial zincs on boats. The zinc in the brass is sacrificial.
Finally, all through hulls should be doubly clamped.
Susan, I am truly sorry for your loss. We are about to purchase our home on the water and I will thoroughly check the through hulls.
Peter