Hulls should be be permanently attached to their decks - not with self tapping screws alone.

scoflaw said:

the fiberglass is not being screwed into, The screw head is seated into the SS rub rail and the threads are into the plywood strip inside. The upper and lower fiberglass shoebox are sandwiched between the 2.

Click to expand...

On my boat that just holds the rub rail on. Underneath the rub rail is a whole separate set of screws screwing the topside to the hull. The bottom side has a thick material glassed into the hull that I also assumed was wood. That's what the screws hold into. But I'm not just going to take a single message board posters word for it that it's some kind of unacceptable composite material. Maybe a former Sea Ray employee can post and tell us for sure what that material is and why it was selected.

Its astonishing how many commenters are defending a culture where accountants are the designers of large vessels and we end up with self tapping screws holding giant yachts together as a result, ha ha. Its sad that the last remaining "skepticism" existing in many people is not directed to giant corporations who are clearly getting over by cutting corners but instead directed at a person critiquing these poor corporate decisions which give us less sea worthy vessels.

I've noticed that American's sense of what quality even means any more is a rare occurrence so I won't hold my breath expecting a standing ovation for stating the obvious about such quality standards. But for those who understand what I am talking about wink wink, cheers.

And for the naysayers - Best of luck should you be caught in a nasty storm and brush into bulkheads.

funseeker said:

Its astonishing how many commenters are defending a culture where accountants are the designers of large vessels and we end up with self tapping screws holding giant yachts together as a result, ha ha. Its sad that the last remaining "skepticism" existing in many people is not directed to giant corporations who are clearly getting over by cutting corners but instead directed at a person critiquing these poor corporate decisions which give us less sea worthy vessels.

I've noticed that American's sense of what quality even means any more is a rare occurrence so I won't hold my breath expecting a standing ovation for stating the obvious about such quality standards. But for those who understand what I am talking about wink wink, cheers.

And for the naysayers - Best of luck should you be caught in a nasty storm and brush into bulkheads.

Click to expand...

If you are talking to me I'm not defending anything. Facts and questions. That's what's in my posts. Here's another fact. My boat has been offshore for a large part of its 19 year life. There is not one compromised spot in the hull to deck joint. I've had just about all of the rubrail off over the last few years and inspected it. So "less seaworthy" may be true compared to another boat. But that doesn't necessarily mean "not good enough".

ZZ13 said:

On my boat that just holds the rub rail on. Underneath the rub rail is a whole separate set of screws screwing the topside to the hull. The bottom side has a thick material glassed into the hull that I also assumed was wood. That's what the screws hold into. But I'm not just going to take a single message board posters word for it that it's some kind of unacceptable composite material. Maybe a former Sea Ray employee can post and tell us for sure what that material is and why it was selected.

Click to expand...

Good for you, don't take the thoroughly sound engineering principles word for it because I am not a Sea Ray employee. I hope you are aware that most of the Sea Ray employees whom you are seeking advice from have probably returned to their farms in Mexico and you will have to brush up on your Spanish to get their vital opinions you seek. Just sayin'.

Brunswick employs mostly high turnover rate cheap unskilled labor to build their boats. That is a well known fact. And what I said it the article and will repeat here is that regardless of the designs which are usually fine, the problems occur during the manufacturing phase which is mostly by unskilled low paid high turnover rate employees. But the problem of screws being used to join these large vessels occurs right smack in the ACCOUNTING department where most of ALL problems occur.

Best of Luck!

I'm not having a problem, never had. I go over them rub rail screws once a year.

fun seeker, got any photo's or any horrific evidence that the "sky is falling " ?

ZZ13 said:

If you are talking to me I'm not defending anything. Facts and questions. That's what's in my posts. Here's another fact. My boat has been offshore for a large part of its 19 year life. There is not one compromised spot in the hull to deck joint. I've had just about all of the rubrail off over the last few years and inspected it. So "less seaworthy" may be true compared to another boat. But that doesn't necessarily mean "not good enough".

Click to expand...

I was very specific in my article. I did not describe these screws failing during the many cocktail outings that characterize the bulk of Sea Ray owners experiences with their vessels. I described the many failures which occur when the cocktails are no where to be seen, only hurricane force gales slamming that boat into a dock or other object. It is during these events when such failures become very immediately obvious and present themselves with the same sort of failures. (elongated and failed screw holes and bent screws no longer performing their function and portions of the shoebox joint ripped off taking with it portions of the upper and lower panels they join. That is real, that happens. And if you should have seen this being on the Atlantic seaboard. I have seen this failure over and over and over again.

But the recommendations I am suggesting are very much in line with proper marine engineering and thats what the article was about. Its was not about whether screws were "good enough". It was about what is correct marine engineering. And screwing together large yachts is very definitely not a sound marine engineering practice. Fiberglass is not made for screws - its not recommended. These are just facts about materials science - theres no point in debating facts.

scoflaw said:

I'm not having a problem, never had. I go over them rub rail screws once a year.

fun seeker, got any photo's or any horrific evidence that the "sky is falling " ?

Click to expand...

Why do you "go over them rub rail screws once a year" ?

@funseeker, what's your angle here? You're a new member and with essentially your first posts you've decided to stir up a shitstorm regarding Sea Ray construction. You framed the not as, "what do people think about this - is this a problem", but rather an authoritative tone declaring Sea Ray boats are ticking time bomb crap cans. And with no history or reputation of being an qualified authority on anything.

Sea Rays are production boats. They are designed to a certain point of quality, for a certain price. That's a given and fold here know that. Are they perfect specimen of ideal marine engineering? No. But they have generally been high quality boats.

The CSR community is friendly, supportive, and great wealth of knowledge on Sea Rays. It also respects new and valid sources of information. They way you've entered this community is to kick in the door, drop a turd in the punchbowl and piss on everyone's shoes. And then wonder why people aren't welcoming you as a savior.

funseeker said:

Good for you, don't take the thoroughly sound engineering principles word for it because I am not a Sea Ray employee. I hope you are aware that most of the Sea Ray employees whom you are seeking advice from have probably returned to their farms in Mexico and you will have to brush up on your Spanish to get their vital opinions you seek. Just sayin'.

Brunswick employs mostly high turnover rate cheap unskilled labor to build their boats. That is a well known fact. And what I said it the article and will repeat here is that regardless of the designs which are usually fine, the problems occur during the manufacturing phase which is mostly by unskilled low paid high turnover rate employees. But the problem of screws being used to join these large vessels occurs right smack in the ACCOUNTING department where most of ALL problems occur.

Best of Luck!

Click to expand...

What "article" and where is it published? Also, if you don't mind. Where can we find the information that substantiates your claim that it is a "fact" that "Brunswick employs mostly high turnover rate cheap unskilled labor to build their boats"?

It is starting to sound like another troll has shown up offering us his "wisdom". Anytime I see an early post that is pages long it gives me the feeling that it won't end well.

Perhaps if the OP would actually read other threads he might have the opportunity to learn something new from CSR. In the absence of that it just turns into another troll arguing about screws and how he "feels" about things.

funseeker said:

I was very specific in my article. I did not describe these screws failing during the many cocktail outings that characterize the bulk of Sea Ray owners experiences with their vessels. I described the many failures which occur when the cocktails are no where to be seen

Click to expand...

Don't know you, don't really care, but you just joined the Cocktail Cruise club with that boat. If you are running balls to the wall, you won't own it long. NOBODY has that much gas money.
Relax, and enjoy the collective experience here. Not so much knowledge, but we can spot a trend and share the solutions. Thanks for your insight on hull to deck joinery. Your point is made. Namaste.

Oh yeah, my uncle was stage 2 of Apollo, and I have been involved with Space Shuttle, Space Station, Mars 2020, and HLS. you can figure that one out. Doesn't make me any smarter when it comes to Sea Rays. Just more tolerant of how to make a Sunseeker experience without building a Sunseeker.

b_arrington said:

@funseeker, what's your angle here? You're a new member and with essentially your first posts you've decided to stir up a shitstorm regarding Sea Ray construction. You framed the not as, "what do people think about this - is this a problem", but rather an authoritative tone declaring Sea Ray boats are ticking time bomb crap cans. And with no history or reputation of being an qualified authority on anything.

Sea Rays are production boats. They are designed to a certain point of quality, for a certain price. That's a given and fold here know that. Are they perfect specimen of ideal marine engineering? No. But they have generally been high quality boats.

The CSR community is friendly, supportive, and great wealth of knowledge on Sea Rays. It also respects new and valid sources of information. They way you've entered this community is to kick in the door, drop a turd in the punchbowl and piss on everyone's shoes. And then wonder why people aren't welcoming you as a savior.

Click to expand...

What's my angle here? ha ha. No angle, just rather neutral recommendations of superior construction techniques, nothing more nothing less. As for describing me as a "new member" with the claim that I have "stirred a shitstorm" and am "pissing on everyone" if you read my original post, you will see that your characterization is flatly false.

The original post is a rather mild, neutral sounding recommendation which did not not target Sea Ray specifically nor did I even mention the name Sea Ray. Also please point out where I claimed that Sea Rays are "Ticking Time Bomb Crap Cans." I said nothing of the sort - so again you are making claims that are not based on reality. The original post is rather a mild, neutral recommendation of proper boat building techniques, nothing more - no shitstorms, no turds, no pissing on people, no ticking time bombs anywhere to be seen - just solid engineering principles.

As for your claim that I was trying to be authoritative, that's another false characterization, some commenters found it helpful and agreed with my original post, so please just speak for yourself and not for me or the rest of this group, that would be wrong. Would it be better if I presented this technical information in a less clear (less authoritatively as you describe) and instead via a wishy washy presentation, would that suit you better?

The original post is a clearly written case study and examination of a problem (that a few have even confirmed on this very thread) and it is a recommendation which basically conforms to known marine engineering principles and known properties of FRP so if there is any authoritative sources it would be from people like David Pascoe and others who actually are considered by many professionals as quite authoritative indeed. (rip) These standards that I have described are accepted engineering principles. (screws don't do well in fiberglass - there's no argument there - (well there is actually from a few trolls here but in the world of engineering there is no argument there, none). These standards are accepted standards- obviously not by all in the case of many on this thread and by many production boat builders, but in the world of engineering these are accepted principles.

Nothing I have said is untrue, its just basic neutral facts. No kicking down doors, no dropping of turds, no pissing on "everyone" - just recommendations of proper marine construction principles.

That's the friendliest gesture that a person on such a forum can do, to provide useful facts and back them up with useful information and that is what I did - and that is what the "repair" section is for. If there was any "turds dropped" they came in the form of statements such as Sea Rays being "the Gold Standard" (I mean, come on) - Or claims that vastly experienced yacht surveyors like David Pascoe are somehow cranks whose opinion doesn't matter. If you then mistake my correction of such false statements as me "dropping turds" and "pissing on everyone" then that's your characterization - but it's a false one.

The question is: "What is YOUR angle here, actually? I know what mine was. Mine was to promote sound boatbuilding techniques and to nudge to the best of my effort both owners and manufacturers towards more seaworthy vessels. If a reader reading this someday requests that the factory performs this proper joining then this post will have served its original function. Too bad this excellent original post was polluted by useless and sloppily chosen language such as yours and others - I mean your response is the one loaded with all kinds of "Turds" my friend - literally. Your post has "turds in punchbowls" and "pissing on people" and "ticking time bombs" and statements pulling rank, jeez man, please stick to the topic and provide only useful input.

Read my original post and then re-read your response and see for yourself which one reeks.

Its called - chronology - if you read the chronology of this thread you will see that in fact my more frank explanations from me were RESPONSES to the trolling which never should have accompanied the original post which was a solid and information rich post. Trolls who for some odd reason became the champions of improper construction techniques (on a thread that I dedicated to proper boatbuilding techniques) and I simply pointed that out.

If there was any turds dropped it was by you and others who have provided ZERO information, are oddly championing substandard practices, and making ad hominem attacks - yikes.

This is a repair and maintenance forum my friend - please keep to the subject of proper repair and maintenance techniques and and leave the pissing contests and turds in punchbowls for your backyard barbecue. If clear (as you call, authoritative) recommendations of proper boatbuilding techniques rankles you so much - just ignore the post, why get into pissing contests? if you have better information regarding the topic please present it, if you don't, why not just move onto a topic where you can be of use? But coming here with the kind of language you came here with is a waste.

And as for this assertion that I'm the "new kid on the block" and that I should watch my step is laughable. This ain't the siege of Constantinople dude, or the fall of the Ottoman Turks, or the rise of the Hapsburg empire where longstanding dynasties reign supreme - it's an online forum for a boat brand man, pardon me if I forgot to genuflect to your almighty "long timer-ness" who joined in 2007, and I, the impudent pretender (the young Turk) compared to your great and high rank, came eons later (in 2013)

I beg your pardon, your majesty, for daring to present basic engineering principles (in a forum designed for that) which has disturbed the halcyon quiescence of this great body of "support and friendliness" as you describe. (not from you though right? Because I dared to present information in a clear manner which did not meet your standards of not sounding "authoritative")

Is that better? Your Majesty?

Warmest

PlayDate said:

It is starting to sound like another troll has shown up offering us his "wisdom". Anytime I see an early post that is pages long it gives me the feeling that it won't end well.

Perhaps if the OP would actually read other threads he might have the opportunity to learn something new from CSR. In the absence of that it just turns into another troll arguing about screws and how he "feels" about things.

Click to expand...

Troll? no. You're a troll, ha ha. Definitely.
"Anytime I see an early post that is pages long it gives me the feeling that it won't end well." - You're probably spending too much time on the Sea Ray forum, go out and get some fresh air man.

"Perhaps if the OP would actually read other threads he might have the opportunity to learn something new from CSR" I did and have and if you read some of the comments fully agreeing with me I have also provided useful information for others, (just not trolls like you perhaps)

Happy Motoring!

(and remember: next time you purchase a new vessel, request that some sort of methacrylate, polyurethane, urethane, or tabbing be performed at this hull to deck junction - your hurricane stricken vessel (should that ever occur) will thank you.)

Funseeker - The financial component of yacht manufacturing is and always has been a counter-component to quality control and best engineering practice. There is and always will be a battle between engineering, production, and cost control. This is true in all mass production of boats. Sea Ray is no different especially in the latter years of the Brunswick owned boat production where engineering decisions and product quality was usurped by corporate bean counting. This, in my opinion, is what tanked Sea Ray Yachts. However, your general demonization of the brand is unfounded with a tinge of an ax to grind.
Now from a purely technical aspect the deck to hull joint is a critical joint but difficult and costly joint to manufacture and assemble. This is not to say that a series of Sheetmetal screws is the sole solution to holding the joint together. You must also consider that adhesive technology did not mature to a capability as primary structural bonding until the mid 2000's so it is unfair to criticize retroactively. So, lets look at the joint as it is laid up in the hull and deck molds; In both halves the joint is the layup not to the mold surfaces, consequently, there is an inconsistent profile (see the below picture of my boat's deck to hull joint). Up until recently with the advent of large machining centers, there has been no reasonable means to machine the mating surfaces for a full contact fit both in the horizontal and vertical aspects of a shoebox configuration. It is this uneven mating joint that a modern structural adhesive would be best suited. In fact, with the proper use of these modern adhesives there is really no need for a mechanical fastening component; automobile and aerospace structures are moving from welding, riveting, and bolting to adhesives for example. Much has been said about vacuum bagging during layup and this technology corrects much of the joint profile issues but again a later technology with respect to boat mass production. Let's take a look at the hull to deck joint of my 52DB as just last month we had the rub rail off the boat to re-caulk the joint as an argument to a "poor joint design"; The fit-up of the joint is overall poor due to the inconsistency in the mating surfaces however the two halves were mechanically fastened using 1/4" machine bolts with fender washers and locking nuts on the inside of the joint and the layup is on average 1/2" thick; the fasteners are spaced approximately every 16 inches. Secondly, the inside of the joint was tabbed to the best extent possible however due to the installations before the two halves were joined like mufflers and fuel tanks, tabbing is probably not 100 percent of the joint area. I can see no evidence of a bonding agent however there is adhesive for the bridge and cockpit composite components where visual access is available so I would assume there is adhesive in the hull to deck joint; it just can't be seen. So, from a structural aspect as you are primarily concerned I would say, at least from the construction of my boat, that there are no issues with the joint and structural strength of the assembly. Now, that's not to say that there are no issues with water leaks as the craftsmanship and product used in caulking the joint is poor on my boat and the reason we pulled the rub rail off and prepared and re-caulked the joint with 3M 5200. In the last pictures are shown a 52DB during the manufacturing process and view of the hull mating joint before and after manual trimming and grinding.

Jezze, you ask someone for the time and they tell you how to build a watch.

We have been down this road before. Trolls take great pleasure from arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with them......it is the fuel that keeps them posting long and wordy missives on how they are right and everyone else is wrong. The Troll shifts to personal attacks and insults when challenged to "amp up" the dialog. I moderate another large forum and these folks follow the same pattern every single time.

Personally, I think it is a mental disorder that shows up from time to time on a lot of internet forums where the poster really isn't interested in being part of a community. They simply want to argue why they are right and use any references possible to support their theories. In some cases, what they say can add value but the all users see are the insults and derogatory comments.
Eventually they go away or are banned from the site which causes them to move onto another forum where they repeat the same story.

TTMott did a great job of explaining and showing the affected joined areas and how they should be addressed. That should be the end of it.....but experience tells me it won't be.

Don’t feed the troll. I’d guess it’s one of the same trolls we dealt with years ago on this forum .

PlayDate said:

We have been down this road before. Trolls take great pleasure from arguing with anyone who doesn't agree with them......it is the fuel that keeps them posting long and wordy missives on how they are right and everyone else is wrong. The Troll shifts to personal attacks and insults when challenged to "amp up" the dialog. I moderate another large forum and these folks follow the same pattern every single time.

Personally, I think it is a mental disorder that shows up from time to time on a lot of internet forums where the poster really isn't interested in being part of a community. They simply want to argue why they are right and use any references possible to support their theories. In some cases, what they say can add value but the all users see are the insults and derogatory comments.
Eventually they go away or are banned from the site which causes them to move onto another forum where they repeat the same story.

TTMott did a great job of explaining and showing the affected joined areas and how they should be addressed. That should be the end of it.....but experience tells me it won't be.

Click to expand...

Yea a mental condition, ha ha, for calling people out on their useless and counterproductive comments.
You’re just not happy that you said things that were patently stupid and wrong and I pointed that out. It's not a mental disorder to point out that someone is polluting an informative thread with completely false and idiotic nonsense like you did.

You actually said:

1) “quoting others and expressing your thoughts is not the same as actually building boats and taking them apart…”

This was incorrect, I’ve been designing, building and repairing boats since I was 13. Next.

2) “Sea Ray has been building boats for a long time and has long been considered the gold standard for the size boats they produced”

ha ha, I don’t even need to comment further on this one, your comment speaks for itself. Next

3) "I would take any Sea Ray engineer's decisions over what David Pascoe wrote. Why? Because Sea Ray had to stand behind their product. David just complained on the web and walked away. Additionally, David was a Surveyor not a marine engineer which aligns him more closely with being a professional critic."

You sound like someone who is clueless. please stop with this utter nonsense. Next.

4) "Are you a marine engineer?"

As if basic engineering principles can only be expressed by a marine engineer???


You are clueless man. Please stop… You’re the troll dude because your “information” is literally worthless. If you don’t have a technical contribution to a thread it’s probably best to not resort to name calling and other fallacious comments. Just stick to the topic. And as for being a part of a community, sure it's great, except when people like you pollute the good info with the kind of "fanboy" mentality which doesn't belong in a repair forum. Your "advise" is UTTERLY USELESS dude. completely and totally useless. Please refrain from name calling and stick to the topic.

Air O'Nautical said:

Don’t feed the troll. I’d guess it’s one of the same trolls we dealt with years ago on this forum .

Click to expand...

No - you're a troll, stick to the topic or refrain from posting please.