Bertram 630 Sportfish Sinks?

You are assuming that there was a good bond and the material condition was as intended. I think material/construction inadequacy is the first link in this chain of events.

I am sorry my friend but you are wrong. I would be willing to bet that if the crew had gone down below in the forward stateroom hours before the final failure they would have witnessed both sides of the hull flexing inward where the deck and hull meet and most likely a stateroom in disarray.

Quite possible had any of that been visible behind all the trim and coverings. Forward stateroom is almost always in disarray when underway. The only thing that makes me question that would be the noise the failed joint would have been making, but perhaps it wasn't enough to make it to the flybridge.

That lightly glued and screwed up crap would have fallen down like nothing. I will bet that if you spoke with the captain and crew they probably had not been down off the bridge for hours before the implosion.

I view these materials used in boat construction as semi rigid materials not rigid materials. Impact shockwaves should not transmit very far from origin. The possibility of this boat having a hard docking is very prominent but an impact should not have transmited damage to other areas that were not near the epicenter. If your are talking about bulk head tabbing breaking free then i can see that but we are talking about the area of the salon which without the strength of the deck has way to much flexability.
B.S. aside I think someone overlooked the structural importance of the deck/ hull joint including the surveyor.

Think about the geometry for a moment and which directions the materials maintain their rigidity the best. When I push in on the middle of a flat surface bowing it, I will either stretch the material, or force the edges closer together. Fiberglass is very resistant to this type of stretching so it will pull in the edges. The bottom edge is bonded/molded into the keel line which is pretty massive and rigid. The top edge is typically mechanically connected to the deck structure. The edge of the deck structure is typically a molded and increased mass area to maintain rigidity there. Something has to give, and the give will be in the deck to hull edge joint because it is the weakest point.

Exactly. We have seen hull to deck joints separated from fairly minor impacts on the smaller boats. A hard docking or smack of a wave on that large flat area could certainly push the hull "in" while the deck and rubrail stay "out". This could be repaired over without fixing the joint or, I have seen them flex and go back into place but they are now no longer bonded.
All guesswork of course but... No bulkheads in the area, description and evidence of the sides of the bow "caving in", and the deck lifted off......
Hull to deck joint failure and water getting under the deck fits all of this.

I understand that for every action there is a reaction. If I push in one area it will pull on another. And the most likely place for this to occur is the deck/ hull joint. I would think that something like this would have to occur on both sides for the deck to be loose enough. Unless there is evidence of a tearing effect from port side moving towards the starboard. I thought I had seen a straight break point on the upsweep of the helm.

Capmj, spoken like a true salesman. In the real world, investments tend to go up in value over time, unlike boats which virtually always go down in value over time. It's called Depreciation and it can be the most expensive part of owning a boat.

I suggest if you want credibility around here, lay off the sales pitch and sit back and watch. There's a lot to learn from this topic.

Did I miss a previous comment? This adds an interesting twist (the hard dock hit) why do you like this theory over the simple analogy that what happened with Certifiable (a delam) happened again but went unnoticed, then after additional pounding (maybe at higher speeds) caused the destruction, to include but not limited to the separation of the deck. I am trying to confirm the possibility that the hull construction of the 630 is not much different or thicker than the 360 or 390 Bertram by comparison, yet the forces exerted and horsepower added exceeded the engineered hull construction and design of a much larger and faster boat. I.e.; is it possible that Bertram in the quest for higher speeds, has over time added larger engines without due consideration to the “breaking point” of the hull. The pressures exerted at 40 knots are far more than just the 50% added net speed (over 25-27 knots) would indicate. I am not trying to “salvage” the value of the 360-510 series of Bertram’s, just trying to grasp a reason for the two failures documented, and how as an owner we ever have peace of mind again. (I know, buy a Hatteras)

Actually, I brought it up right after I saw the first pictures. I think it because of the mode of failure, the hull on the port side tore away in a straight line right about the height the average floating dock will come to on it. This is not the first boat to have developed a crack in that area, I've fixed several over the years. Luckily though the cracks are usually found before catastrophic failure. This one went catastrophic because multiple failures came together and then a force was applied (like happens when you surf down the face of one wave and the bow digs into the next before it starts climbing) that the structure weakened on multiple fronts could no longer hold against, and the thing failed.

Notice the mode of failure on the other delams, they just peeled off a layer as undamaged delams typically do because that is the nature of delamination to not transfer damage to the layer it delaminated from. This was damaged through the core even.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4893/85814699.png

Sorry had a problem loading the picture.

This is what the inside of a custom built 65 Carolina boat looks like.Now not only notice all the framing that is there but most importantly look at the flat panels at every one of them that ties the deck and the hull together.There is a reason for that,That is the single most important connection in that forward section of the hull for it to remain rigid.

I was just as proud when I joined the Bertram team, but I knew of ethical improprieties and fortunately bailed ship - and that was before the 63's were built.

Cr*p like that is what gives brokers a bad name.

Judy

Sandwich "Boat" Drop Test

Thought I would share what is possible with properly designed and constructed lightweight sandwich construction....

Schat-Harding FF1200 50 meter /180 ft drop

My biggest problem with Hennys idea of the boat having been previously damaged in the area down the port side by the waterline and this causing ultimate hull failure is this.
If that did indeed happen that side the port and the port side only should have been the only area that caved in when the boat took its final dive into the wave.

The the clean breakoff point is not because it was previously damaged it is a result of that was the strongest point in that area to resist the folding in of the bow and thus that is where the two panels decided to leave each other.

Hey not trying to fight or be a bully just trying to educate thats all.

in the spirit of this important statement, can someone direct me to some reading material on the internet related to boat building or the anatomy of a fishing vessel. the terminology sometimes used in this thread is beyond my domain and I'd like to learn something after reading 70+ pages.

I really think this thread has seen it's better days and I still vote to close it out.

End

Ditto

I second that. The more I read the less I know! Or should I say, the more I realise there is a LOT more to learn about the type of build of the boat I am about to buy.
I hate to think of my wife or one of my sons in the salon or cabin when something like this happens. Also believe talking to guys from the racing sport has a lot of benefit, no one would have seen more catostrophic failures and build innovations than these gents.

It could have been damaged on the port side, possibly and it kept cracking where core meets solid glass of the hull, and after the deck joint failed. Who knows.

Notice how the hull that is supposed to be solid glass is totally intact, and the hull has all come apart about in the area the coring supposedly starts. I do agree with the deck bond failing and not enough structural support in the bow area nor thickness of glass, leading to the catastrophic events more then anything...... transom could have been broken off from air escaping deck hatches ripping the floor to transom bond, then water pressure escaping from deck hatches pushing the transom off........

Is the transom really relevant in this discussion? With the amount of extensive structural damage up front, wouldn't the entire boat (transom included) therefore be compromised?

The only aspect of any relevance regarding the transom (to me) would be what it looked like BEFORE it went down, either by the Captain's account, or from those of the F/V Pacifics that were "first on scene."