How many skis have been completly sank? How many have been found?

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

so what this thread is saying that if someone sinks a 3 year old hull, its the fault of the builder, not the rider??

I've had this problem from the beginning and have tried to get it resolved to no avail. I knew it had issues and I chose to ride it, but that still doesn't change the fact that it was ed up from the beginning and Steve never gave me any solutions to my problem. Steve is just BSing here about giving me a new hull if I had asked him for it, trying to make himself look like a superstar!!!! (You know what I mean, Steve!)

I never even intended to put any stickers on my ski except the reg numbers until Ratti called and asked if he could ride it in the PCB Competition. The Wednesday before that is when I did it. And for the record Steve, I didn't go out of my way and pay a bunch of money to have it done. My sign guy is super cool and did the whole ski for free. I just wanted it to look good since I knew Ratti could make that thing fly. I also installed the drain plugs just before the comp. Had I known I would have installed nose foam, too.

Steve, why won't you answer me? All you're doing now is answering the few people here who seem to be on your side. We can end this now with a post here, a PM, or a phone call with an offer from you to help me out. Otherwise the flogging will continue until I am out of breath.

 

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

no i'm pretty sure what this thread is getting at is that MAYBE....JUST MAYBE....the hull builder should have swallowed his pride, and fixed the inferior product he built in the first place, when the issue first came around. back when the hull was only but a couple months old. then the purchaser would have most likely still had his hull 3 years later, cause the back corner of the tray would have been bobbing just out of the water....instead the hull builder wants to cry out his vagina about a funny decal the unsatisfied purchaser put on the ski he paid top dollar for and got taken to the cleaners cause from day one it was of sub par quality to what was originally ordered and paid for.

Touche'

 

[stanton]

thats bs. the owner has to take the responsibility here, i cant think of anything else in the world where that kind of service is given. this boat was obviously extremely well used and stuff happens. say it was refoamed 3 years ago, u think it would still be floating now? yea right! at this point in a hulls life its the owners responsibility to keep it nice. if everything came with ridiculous insurance policies no business would ever succeed! at what point is it morally correct to take it upon yourself to keep your stuff nice? right away i say!! if the manufacture hooks you up ANY more after the initial transaction you should consider yourself extremely lucky.

 

[McDog]

What kind of "helping out" are you asking for? Some sort of a discount or a free new hull? Just curious.

 

[ATS_Aaron]

Well, everyone else is getting in here, so why not me. I am a total outsider, have never seen the hull and don't know either party.

Does Steve need to be held accountable for his action (or lack thereof) in building a hull that can withstand being submerged?

The question is not clear to me. What damage to the hull was specific to being submerged? I will assume that you refer to the hull taking on water pretty much immediately after purchase. If that assumption is correct, then YES.

Does Steve need to be accountable for the gel coat situation?

YES.

Does Steve need to be held accountable for my hull sinking?

NO.

Does Steve need to be accountable for not installing drain plugs on my ski?

If you originally ordered it with drain plugs then YES...for about 30 days. But seriously 3 years later your knew the hull was water logged and you didn't take the 2 minutes it takes to install drain plugs...so NO.

Does Steve need to be held accountable for not advising customers that in order for his products not to sink that they need additional foam in the nose because the gunwhale foam is not adaquate?

Again, that depends - was the hull sold as a finished ski or a bare hull. If it was a bare hull then the general assumption from all the builders I know is that you are going to swap all the hardware from a Superjet - since nose foam is standard on all Superjets then it's logical for all hull builders to assume you will be installing your own nose foam from your superjet. On top of that you still don't know for sure that water logged foam + good nose foam = floating ski.

To me (and I think all X members) it comes down to time: You knew the hull was waterlogged, heck you stickered it on the side of the ski. Instead of installing drains yourself (a 2 minute job that costs <$2 depending on how you chose to do it) you kept riding it. At that point it's my opinion that you assumed all risks in losing the ski.

That still leaves the gelcoat issues that has been pretty established. Waterfreak knows the quality sucked and seems to know that you are owed for that damage. However, he feels the bad advertising in the form of the sticker on your ski damaged him back..but since that ski is 20,000 leagues under the sea that should be a dead issue at this point.

So it's my opinion that Waterfreak does NOT owe you an entire new hull, however he does owe you for the repair costs of fixing the gel coat and possibly the cost of re-foaming and resealing the hull. It's up to Waterfreak to throw out an amount and decide if that is a credit towards a new hull, hood, parts or just a cash payout in the form of hush-money. Personally I'd pay the cash since I doubt pair-a-dice wants to do business with Waterfreak ever again and vice-versa.

Aaron

 

[ATS_Aaron]

I also installed the drain plugs just before the comp.

How often were you draining the ski? Was it drained just before the fateful last ride?

 

[steve-uk]

if there was a problem from day one, why wouldnt the hull have been taken back to the manufacturer.

unfortunatley in todays world if there is a problem, and you know it you have to get it addressed there and then, if you dont and decided to keep on using a "defective" product then three years later it sinks... cest la vie

if i bought a hull and had problems id be on the door step of the manufacturer camping out until it was resolved

the thing here is that obvioulsy dice and steve know what atually went down, and obvioulsy have their own perspective

in the business world though, if you have a defect you have to report it and have it dealt with, if you continue to use the product then any warranty is null and void, this went on for 3 years, most manufacturers in the jet ski world dont even have a 12 month warranty, tbm has 60 days.

Even the company i work for, which is a big mutli national, only has a 12 month warranty, this covers bad workmanship and defective materials, but if you have a problem it is the users resposibility to get the goods back to us, we then assess the product, if it is a warranty claim its fixed, if not we give a quote on the repair. If you carry on using the part then the warranty is null and void.

 

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

thats bs. the owner has to take the responsibility here, i cant think of anything else in the world where that kind of service is given. this boat was obviously extremely well used and stuff happens. say it was refoamed 3 years ago, u think it would still be floating now? yea right! at this point in a hulls life its the owners responsibility to keep it nice. if everything came with ridiculous insurance policies no business would ever succeed! at what point is it morally correct to take it upon yourself to keep your stuff nice? right away i say!! if the manufacture hooks you up ANY more after the initial transaction you should consider yourself extremely lucky.

You obviously don't know me or my situation, because the hull was barely used by most standards. And I guarantee you if I did the refoam three years ago, it would have been floating to this day. I would have fixed everything that was causing it to leak in the first place. I'm not riding in big surf like you Westcoast guys and I haven't ridden much at all in the last two years---only TWICE in 2009, in fact. If the ski would have been tight to begin with, I wouldn't harbor as much animosity as I do, but it wasn't and Steve knows it wasn't.

At what point is it morally and ethically correct for a business owner to do the right thing for a customer?

 

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

What kind of "helping out" are you asking for? Some sort of a discount or a free new hull? Just curious.

That's just me being sarcastic. Steve would have never offered me anything as he implies here. I know him too well.

Anything that he offered would be a surprise to me, to be completely honest.

 

[stanton]

i see, you did not take it upon yourself to fix your boat after the mfg essentially told you your on your own. im very sorry to hear about your loss, but you knew the risks you were taking. hopefully everyone can learn from your mistakes.

 

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

How often were you draining the ski? Was it drained just before the fateful last ride?

It was drained after every ride, so yes---it was drained from last Saturday's ride and sunk on Sunday afternoon after being on the water for about four hours.

 

[ger87410]

Whenever I buy a bike, I always replace all fluids and carefully inspect absolutely everything for damage and excessive wear. Anything found is fixed before the bike ever meets the road. That goes double for skis. If the ski breaks while you're out on the water, you're completely screwed. Any defects should be addressed before riding, IMO. Until the defects are fixed, nobody should be riding it. If the defects could (even remotely) result in the loss of something that costs a few thousand or cause injury, it's probably worth taking the time to make the 8-10 hour trip and try to get retribution for the trip if it mean all that much to you. It's a CYA move, if nothing else.

 

[GIL]

The sad truth about this thread is that it has been REAL informative and if I had to guess has probaly changed some opinions.

 

[steve-uk]

The sad truth about this thread is that it has been REAL informative and if I had to guess has probaly changed some opinions.

really?

 

[GIL]

really?

really....

 

[steve-uk]

oh.. i must have missed it.. my bad

 

[WFO Speedracer]

What I am saying is do the right thing, at the least I would think he is still entitled to a discount on a new properly assembled hull equal to what it would have cost you in time and materials to fix his boat at a point when it could have actually been fixed.

You would think with a market as small as the one you are working in and with as much competition as you have that it would have been in your bestinterest to have made sure either the boat was right before it left (the most preferable option) or that the boat was fixed after the problems were found, not doing anything to fix the problem or satisfy the customer is what led to this thread.

I sold a 1993 Seadoo SP to a lady once, I gave her a 90 day warranty, the woman had a complaint that the ski was not running right but in almost three months time she could not find time bring it back and leave it to be worked on. She had the ski somewhere around 88-89 days and she did find the time to bring it back for a refund, I gave her that refund.

The next day I looked at the ski, the spark plug boots were swollen up to about twice their normal size, I put on another set of spark plug boots and test rode the ski, I sold the ski the following week for more than I sold it for the first time.

I know I have seen numerous offers from Chick to you to make this right, from what I can tell thus far you have jokingly laughed it off,not really concerned about it, not much laughing going on right now though for some reason.

 

[RoyalFlush@PCB]

I know I have seen numerous offers from Chick to you to make this right, from what I can tell thus far you have jokingly laughed it off,not really concerned about it, not much laughing going on right now though for some reason.

Thank You, Terry...

 

[waterfreak]

Ok , I dugh up his invoice and saw that I charged him $200 for the red color option. I will gladly refund him the cost of it. (what's your paypal Chick?)

When he address the gelcoat issue, I had offered Chick to bring me the ski and would would get it painted for him at no cost.
Although I didn't mention re foaming the ski, I would of done it for free had he brought me the ski to fix. I would of even turfed it free too because of his troubles . But the fact of the matteris that he never did and decided to ride it the way it was for 3 years.Unfortunetly, it sunk to the bottom of the gulf... and now he wants to address the problem!

You know Terry, I'm all about helping my customers. I'm sure you ask anybody that had issues with my hood and other items that I make and they will tell you that I took care of it, whether I fixed it or replaced it I always stood behind it.
I don't have a written warranty or disclaimer and maybe that's my own stupidity. Has they say" lesson learned"

Now, don't all you guys have something to do this Memorial day...like BBQ-ing or something!

 

[KR]

I could only read one page but this thread served a great purpose for me and hopefully to others. Most of us put all that we have into these boats and this thread can serve as a great reminder or a notice that we can loose these boats so easily. And then that $2k, $5k, $12k investment can be gone forever.

So everyone, check your foam!

:wiggle: