2017 G23 Coastal Manufacture Defect

[DocPhil]

Sounds like his good intent happened over the last 6 months. This thread is the result of poor follow through by Nautique and his dealer.

Whats with the people on this site always defending Nautique and jumping down the throats of owners that have clearly been mistreated. If this guy custom ordered a $150k boat and it’s got a defect then Nautique should dam well be fixing it.

So you have heard one side of the story and just assume that the OP has the best of intent? Snippets of the whole story on a boat forum. That he has been lied to and mistreated by Nautique and his dealer? Are you in any form of management position? Would you ever make an HR decision with one side of the story? No. There are usually 3 or 4 sides to every story.

I have seen enough of these threads to know that we are only getting a tiny fraction of what happened.

You assume positive intent of the OP. I assume positive intent of the dealer and Nautique. Truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I think it is equally ridiculous to believe that this person who has blasted a reputable company on social media has positive intent. But that's just me.

[Kenv]

I see a strange animal face in the second picture...creepy

Baby Cheeta......lol

[NautiqueJeff]

I have to agree with the Doc. Generally speaking, Nautique normally doesn't get into posting on these forums, especially in a situation like this. Let's look at what we can see from this post though.

1. This boat has a spider crack in the gelcoat in a flat, solid piece of the structure.
2. It looks like it was very likely the result of an impact to the gelcoat, based on the style of cracking we can see. Normally a gelcoat crack resulting from a manufacturing defect may appear as a crack starting at a corner or other tight point in the boat design, or possibly where something is mounted to the hull or deck.
3. Gelcoat cracks from impacts are generally not covered under warranty, since generally speaking, they are not manufacturing defects.
4. Even though this is not something normally covered under warranty, it appears that Nautique made an exception for this person, and had one of their dealers attempt a repair.
5. The owner is not happy with the repair, but none of us have seen the results that he is unhappy with. The picture posted of the repair is not clear.

My feeling is that if what I believe to be true is true (that this is an impact crack), Nautique has gone above and beyond to remedy the situation, since this normally isn't a warranty repair in the first place.

Without further information, like what specifically Nautique has told the original poster since the repair was made, along with clear pictures of the repair, it is difficult to determine what's really going on here. Has Nautique offered to have the shop that completed the repair redo their work? If that's unacceptable, have they offered to have someone else complete the repair? Something just doesn't sit right with me here. This is a $200-$300 repair. That's the same price as a tank of gas in this boat. There has to be more to this story.

[Wayward]

1000% What Jeff said......

sorry, but it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to determine that spider crack is from an impact. It’s clear as crystal.

The only possibility that I can think of, is that the impact happened before delivery, but that doesn’t seem to be the story. Either way, it looks like Nautique had stepped up, when they shouldn’t have had to, and the warranty covered repair got botched..... at which point, the customer wants Nautique to pay for a repair again, when they technically shouldn’t have had to pay for it in the first place. I don’t blame them for not wanting to....

besides that, if the repair is substandard...... it is the repair shops responsibility to fix it, NOT Nautiques responsibility.

[Blamey]

The big problem with this post and why several ppl are not siding with the OP is because the situation is poorly communicated. From the first two posts I had no idea what he was complaining about.

The picture of the crack appears to be from an impact of some kind. OP refutes this but doesn't provide any details of how this occurred so we remain sceptical. There was also some vague mention of using paint instead of gel and that the dealer did additional damage but again no details provided.


This is the internet and we are going to judge this based in the info provided, which from what I have read the OP hasn't done. If he wants us to side with him we would need additional details.


In reality poor communication doesn't mean the OP is wrong but it's all we have to go on.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[lionel]

Hold my bottle of beer, whoops I dropped it...