I have had so many people e-mailing for updates -- I have some news -- I have not posted in several months due to the fact I have grown very tired of this entire mess. As you know I filled suit against Luhrs around the first of May 07 because of the numerous problems with this model.
In October -- Luhrs went to court in Martin County and said the boat had a ride problem.They claimed the ride problem was the result of poor workmanship done on the tunnel recall, and they needed another chance to do the recall.. As you remember I first took the boat to Luhrs in Oct 06 for this tunnel modification. A second attempt was made by Luhrs in March of 07 at Seminole Boat Yard to correct this same problem as well. The judge decided they sould be given 30 days to "test" the boat. They picked the boat up in October for another trip to the factory for sea trial. Below are the results of this
October 19, 2007
Sea Trial Luhrs 41 Convertible LHRPC119H405
St Augustine
Occupants:
Trip 1 October 18, 2007
1. Kevin Read, Engineering Manager
2. Jack Ingram, Customer Service Manager
Trip 2 October 19, 2007
1. Kevin Read, Engineering Manager
2. Doug Sisk, Electrical Engineer
Two Sea Trials were conducted on Luhrs 41 CV #119 on Wednesday October 18th and 19th after being hauled and inspected at the Luhrs facility in St Augustine, Florida. Several reports of dynamic instability have been reported by Marine Surveyors and the Owner, Tom Logan. This vessel has been Sea Tried previously by Luhrs Engineering and Customer Service. This report is on record in Luhrs Engineering Department.
When the boat was hauled, inspection of the hull revealed that both trim tabs were missing most likely due to backing down with the trim tabs deployed. The tabs were replaced before the vessel was returned to the water. Tunnel extensions were added per Luhrs direction at SAMS although the workmanship was less than adequate on the port tunnel since there is a considerable hook in the tunnel which could be responsible for some of the port side dynamic roll. It should also be noted that there was no measurable rocker at the transom per the install procedure. Also, scum line measurements indicate a static port list of nearly 1 degree or 2” freeboard difference from side to side at the transom corner. A 150 pound aftermarket ice maker had been installed outboard on the port side of the lazarette which is partially responsible for the static list. This list is exacerbated by the fact that the ice machine feeds the port side transom fish box (hard plumbed) which could result in a several hundred pound, port side list. The previous sea trial report indicates that a slight static list of Ľ” was measured at the transom indicating a weight shift or addition since that sea trial.
When the vessel was returned to the water, the static list was observed to be a total difference in freeboard at the transom of 1-1/2” from side to side. Sea trial 1 did not incorporate the use of any ballast to measure any dynamic roll characteristics. The standard Luhrs procedure for testing of this nature employs the use of a digital level to indicate actual heel angles accurate to .1 degree. Heel angles, trim angles and speed are recorded at 1000, 1500, 1800, 2000 RPM and WOT (Wide Open Throttle). The sea trial was conducted in the Intracoastal Waterway with slight breeze and flat calm water.
Static list: .7 degrees
DIRECTION: WITH CURRENT
RPM Speed (knots) Trim (degrees) Heel (degrees)
1000 8.6 1.9 1.2 to port
1500 12.3 6.5 1.2 to port
1800 18.6 8.0 2.0 to port
2000 22.9 7.0 3.8 to port
2360 (WOT) 28.8 5.6 5.5 to port
DIRECTION: AGAINST CURRENT
RPM Speed (knots) Trim (degrees) Heel (degrees)
1000 8.2 2.1 1.4 to port
1500 11.4 6.9 0.8 to port
1800 18.0 8.0 1.1 to port
2000 22.4 6.9 2.4 to port
2360 (WOT) 28.5 5.6 4.3 to port
The vessel was retuned to the dock and 250 pounds of lead ballast was added to the starboard aft corner of the vessel to counter the static list.
Sea Trial 2
October 19, 2007
Intracoastal Waterway, slight breeze, flat calm water.
DIRECTION: AGAINST CURRENT
RPM Speed (knots) Trim (degrees) Heel (degrees)
1000 7.8 1.9 0.0
1500 10.9 7.7 0.0
1800 17.7 7.9 1.5 to port
2000 22.7 6.7 1.9 to port
2360 (WOT) 27.6 5.7 3.7 to port
DIRECTION: WITH CURRENT
RPM Speed (knots) Trim (degrees) Heel (degrees)
1000 9.4 1.9 0.0
1500 12.2 6.7 0.0
1800 19.3 7.9 0.0
2000 23 6.9 1.0
2360 (WOT) 30 5.8 3.7
Recommendation
Since addition of the ballast reduced static list and dynamic roll without sacrificing any speed, the ballast should be permanently fixed in the starboard aft corner of the lazarette. The port tunnel should be faired and gauged per tunnel jigs provided by Luhrs Engineering to Customer Service. The rocker should be installed as per the Luhrs SOP 8.23.06.
Recorded by: Kevin Read, Luhrs Engineering Manager
***NOTE TO FUTURE LUHRS BUYERS****
Do not purchase ice makers for you boats --and beware of any other brands(Viking, Bertram, etc) that have 150 lb ice machines in them --ALSO If you have any friends on a fishing trip with you that outweigh other fisherman by 150 lbs or more --LEAVE THEM AT HOME --it may cause your boat to heal over
As you can see the boat clearly had a problem.This was not the only problem -- I have attached the survey report given to Luhrs at pick up of the boat
3rd Mate Unlimited
Maritime Research, Investigations, Claims, Surveys and Adjustments
Dane C Fleming O: 954-636-5383
1754 NE 17th St. C: 561-312-2998
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33305
captdane@msn.com
October 9, 2007
SUMMARY
I have inspected the 41’ Luhrs convertible, “Miss Sunshine II” hull id # LHRPC119H405 owned by Mr. Thomas Logan. The vessel was located in slip 56 at the Jupiter Yacht Club, in Jupiter Florida. Mr. Logan has complained, and is extremely concerned of several different deficiencies found in his vessel and has requested an inspection. Mr. Logan’s chief complaint has been the ride and stability of the vessel. When the vessel is running at its normal cruise speed the vessel has a tendency to take on an 8 to 10 degree list to Port. The list can be reduced with the use of the trim tabs, but then the vessel takes on a bow riding and very “squirrelly” bow steer characteristic. Along with the maneuverability and steering issues, Mr. Logan noted that he has had problems with the Carbon monoxide detectors, the alignment of the running gear, issues with the steering gear, problems with the generator, and problems with the vessels air conditioning system. A large portion of the problems have been addressed in previous reports provided by Seaworthy Services, Inc., Calhoun and Company, and Kerwin Naval Architects Inc. Mr. Logan has also mentioned several other issues that he had that were not found upon my inspection, due to the fact that he has had them corrected prior to inspection.
EXEMPTIONS
1. All air handlers have some direct access to the engine room and its fumes, thus creating a potential Carbon Monoxide rich living and sleeping environment. All hoses, electrical wiring, and plumbing that enter the engine room must be sealed. Prove that the engine compartment and lazzaret compartments are sealed from living and sleeping quarters. It is apparent that the engine room is not isolated, as described in the May 8th 2007 Seaworthy Services reports.
2. The Fire suppression system is given power with the engine room blowers, and main engine starts. This system must be wired separately, but cut power to the Main engines and blowers when the extinguisher is discharged
3. Provide a mechanical remote discharge pull for the fixed fire suppression system
4. The engine room ventilation system has no way of being shut off in the event of a fire, and would render the suppression system almost useless.
5. The fuel system is inadequate that all fuel suctions from both the forward and aft tanks are taken from the bottom of the tank. This allows for the immediate suction of all the debris, and water that would settle in the bottom of the tank. All pickups from the tanks should be on the top of the tank with pick up tubes going into the tank from the top down to approximately 1 to 2” above the bottom of the tank.
6. There is a fuel leak on one of the vent lines on the top of the aft fuel tank
7. There is a fuel leak on the bottom of the sight gauge on the forward tank.
8. The main fuel supply line from the FWD tank leading to the AFT fuel tank is laying in the bilge and in bilge water.
9. All seacocks were found to be frozen or very difficult to move, they should all be freed up and move freely.
10. The starboard Main engine seacock and crash valve, do not have handles
11. There is a substantial crack in the hull under the Port shaft log, and there is evidence of water seepage. These areas need to be addressed when the vessel is out of the water to see if structural damage has been done.
12. There are cracks in the area under the STB shaft log. These areas need to be addressed when the vessel is out of the water to see if structural damage has been done.
13. There substantial cracks found in the transverse stringers forward and aft of the STB tunnel. Provide an appropriate fix, and re-enforcement.
14. The bolts that secure the struts to the hull in the tunnel area should have double nuts
15. The bolts that secure the rudder posts to the hull should have double nuts.
16. The steering ram positioning should be relocated so that the rudders get equal swing radius in each direction. The rudder movement is limited when steering to STB
17. Provide proper battery boxes for all batteries. Batteries should be in self contained boxes with lids, and properly secured.
18. Head blower vent, discharges directly into the lazarett compartment, allowing direct egress of toxic fumes and vapors into the living areas.
19. There was a considerable amount of water leaking from the STB corner bolt of the hard top on the fly bridge. Given the amount of water dripping out, during the time of inspection, I speculate on the amount of water in the hard top. Any water found in the hard top will greatly affect the vessels stability by raising its center of gravity.
20. Horn was found not to work
21. The FWD mast head/anchor light would not stay in the upright position The stern light was found not to work
22. The wires that run from the anchor windlass need to run thru the collision bulkhead via watertight connections.
23. It was reported by the dock master that the CO alarms were found to be going off at several different times.
24. Seal the two holes that are cut in the forward bulkhead of the engine room, they are visible under the salon steps. They are only covered over with the sound proofing material.
25. The dryer vents into the engine room. The dry exhaust should be vented overboard and not into the engine room, which allows fumes to re-enter the living areas when dryer is not in use. Re-direct dryer vent overboard
26. Crack on the “stringer cover” of the forward outboard port engine. The stringer cover makes for an aesthetic engine room, but raises questions as to what is going on structurally underneath of “stringer covers”.
27. The hull to deck joint of the vessel was found to be secured with screws. Several of the screws noted were to have either missed the hull joint, or very close to the hull joint and raises the question of enough structural integrity of a vessel of this size and length. The hull to deck joint would be more structural and substantial if the joint was thru-bolted and at a uniform position regarding the hull to deck joint.
28. The air intakes for the engine room via the lazarette compartment are found under the port and starboard covering boards in the cockpit. There is no baffle system to prevent water and spray from entering the compartment. The lazzaret and engine compartments did have excessive signs of corrosion and salt residue found for a vessel of its age.
29. The engine blower system is found to be totally useless, and the air discharge hose is not directed anywhere. Direct exhaust blower to where it is actually effective.
30. The forward fuel tank’s fills and information is completely inacceible. Make fills and information accessible
31. The forward engine room bilge, A/C compressor and forward fuel shut off area are inaccessible, and should have easy access to these areas. Provide proper access.
32. In the engine room there are signs of smoke residue on the overhead and bulkheads.
33. Provide support for the electrical end of the generator. It is not supported and appears to be sagging. Support electrical end of generator.
34. Provide chafing gear to STB main engine raw water line. It is chaffing on the bottom of the generator.
35. Insulate and provide a better condensation pan for the cockpit freezer. It was found to be dripping on the generator
36. Properly secure the two loose wires found on the generator
37. Check A/C compressor, and service as necessary. The compressor was found to be icing up with minimal usage. Mr. Logan had stated that he has had numerous problems with the A/C system and that the system loses its charge whenever the vessel is underway.
38. The spreader lights in the hard top were both found to have water in them, and the port light does not work. Fix source of water leak and prove.
39. The shore power cord would not retract, and the fitting was found pulled out. Re-secure fitting, and repair cable master
40. The engine room lights over the STB engine did not work
41. Central vacuum system did not work
42. Was not able to get the Main salon entertainment center to work
43. Several lights in the living areas were found not working
44. The transom door latch is missing
45. Both cockpit deck boxes were found to have water in them, and the STB deck box was found leaking into the lazzaret compartment
46. The STB sea strainers bonding wire is found to be loose
47. The remote windlass control on the bridge does not work in the up position.
48. The anchor pulpit roller mount is found to be bent. Straighten and re-secure
49. Provide a protective cover for the electrical panel on the forward port bulkhead of the lazzarett compartment to prevent water intrusion
50. Find source of water dripping under the central vacuum, seal and prove
51. The fly bridge a/c has broken several of its mounts. Resecure
52. Provide a proper battery box for the Fly-bridge battery and secure
53. Excessive corrosion was found on the fly-bridge electronics and electrical connections. Provide better protection of connections and electronics
54. Remove forward grating in Engine room to provide proper access to fuel shut off, and forward bilge and other machinery
55. Water leaks were found in the overhead of the aft, port side engine room. Find source of leak and seal.
CONCLUSIONS
Numbers 1 thru 27 are either recommendations, or requirements that need to be addressed as per A.B.Y.C. standards, the CFR’s Chapters 33, 46, and or 49, and the 72 Colregs, or are of great structural concern. The issues raised in 1-27 must be corrected as per the regulation/recommendations standards. The 6 most critical areas that need to be addressed are the vessels dynamic instability (list, and bow steering), the air handler/engine room access, and the fire extinguishing system, the carbon monoxide detectors, the fuel system, and structural cracks. It is recommended that the fixes for all 6 issues be addressed with the engineers, surveyors and or mechanics that have issued reports to ensure that the proposed fixes are properly addressed as per the regulation/recommendation standards. Items 28 thru 55 are general safety issues, and or items that were found not to be functional and should be corrected.
In addittion to my time with no boat I have the following cost associated with this POS
Cost of Repairs
6 months dock rent while at Luhrs (10/06 -1/07) $4,800.00
and Seminole Boat Yard (1/07 thru 4/07)
Allied Marine Survey $1,030.00
Kerwin Naval Architects $1,677.90
Seaworty Services bill as of 3/29/07
--- see attached -- $13,908.52
Seaworth Services final bill $20,879.67
-- see attached --
Seminole Boat Yard -- March Storage $2,559.20
--- see attached --
gas for trip to St Augistine
300 gallons each way @ $ 3.00/gallon $1,800.00
Generator to Luhrs $7,650.00
Gulfstream Marine Air $1,454.00
-- see attached --
Gulfstream Marine Air 848.38
Seaworthy Services $426.00
TOTAL REPAIR BILLS (prior to lawsuit) $57,033.67
Additional money owed
Micheal J McHale
May 07 invoice $1,507.50
July 18 invoice $6,854.38
Sep 12 invoice $3,298.80
Oct 10 Invoice $3,415.21
November 16 Invoice $2,365.78
December 10 Invoice $1,530
Repots and Naval Architects
Kerwin Naval Architects (July) $1,792.90
Kerwin Naval Architect (November) $675
Kerwin Naval Architect (November) $1,687.50
Dane C Flemming (July) $1,558
Dane C Flemming (October) $155.45
Alan Gilber Naval Architect (July) $491.75
Calhoun and Co (April 2007) $1,800
Dane C Flemming (December) $2,033.00
C3 Services (Damaged Flexiteck Floor) $420
Total paid after Lawsuit $29,585.27
Total spent due to defective Boat $86,618.94
Luhrs has this to say
Januar1v8 .2008
Thomas Logan v. Luhrs Corporation
07 -7 3 5CA ( I 9th Circuit)
TeLrpsoNE(9 0+) 367 -870 0
Trrrr-ax (904) 367 -87 88
Michael J. McHale, Esq.
Michael J. McHale. P.A.
1925 N. E. Ricou Terrace
Jensen Beach, Florida 34957
Re:
Case No.:
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Dear Michael:
I have been told that Mr. Logan's boat is ready for inspection and pickup. Let me know when Dane Flemming is available and I will schedule a mutually convenient time for the inspection. Following the inspection and acknowledgment of the boat's condition, the boat will be returned to Mr. Logan.
On the settlement issue, your January 4 ,2008 letter states that 'Judicial intervention" was required to address deficiencies in the vessel. My review of the letters exchanged between Pete Sokol and you do not supporty our statement. Mr. Sokol requested authorization to sea trial the vessel and review Mr. Logan's complaints with the vessel but those requests were refused and Mr. Sokol was
told that Luhrs would have a chance to sea trial the vessel during the discovery phase of the lawsuit
(see letters dated May 3 1,2007 , June 6, 2007 and June 7, 2007). I seriously doubt that the Court will award attorney's fees to your client in this case. The only claim for fees is under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The fee provision under that Act is discretionary and not even considered unless a violation of the Act is proven. I do not believe you will be able to prove a violation of the Act.
Luhrs proposed paying Mr. Logan $ 23,438.87 in exchangef or a full general release and dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs and attorney's fees. This offer was made despite the fact that Luhrs will be asserting a counter claim if Luhrs is required to answer the amended complaint. Luhrs can certainly press this counterclaim but would rather resolve the lawsuit in an amicable manner.
Provided the boat is accepted back and your client makesa more reasonable claim, Luhrs may increase its settlement proposal. Luhrs may also be willing to offer a one year warranty on any true warranty work that Luhrs has made to the vessel. In the event that a settlement is concluded, your client would maintain the balance of the five year limited hull warranty. Luhrs would also exchange mutual general releases with your client that would also cover your client's son.
Very truly yours,
MICHAEL S. DREWS
MSD/kwd
*** IF YOU WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE THIS --- BUY A LUHRS MARINE GROUP PRODUCT****
I have not had use of this boat since October 8 2006 when the boat was first delivered to Luhrs because of the problems.
Luhrs 41 update -- VERY LONG (for those that asked) 
