Originally Posted by boristhebold
And it broke down round ireland.
The term 'Hull has only 80 hours use' is an interesting one, I bet some legal expert could argue that the Hull of a boat has a primary purpose which would be be to displace water so that it floats according to the rules of physics then surely that hull has had far more hours of use than 80 hours if you think about how many hours of use it has had in keeping water displaced so as to hold the entire boat floating on water even if stationary.
Come on chaps any legal experts out there.
Discuss in 100 words.
Displace water... ...interesting... ...so if its planing rather than displacing you don't count the hours
Hours on engines makes sense. Hours on hulls? Or miles on hulls?
But are you counting the hours trailering across a corner of Ireland?
Originally Posted by Chris Caton
think it's a touch more than artistic license Paul, even if a brand new engine has been fitted the rest of the kit has been well used to say the least,
The electronics in the ad says new. Has he had to replace them post Ireland?
Mind you the advert says "full 5 year boat warranty plus engine and electronic warranty". Is that some crafty wording too? Does that mean:
5 year hull (?+ tubes?) warranty
5 year engine warranty
5 year electronic warranty
or does it mean:
5 year hull warranty
Standard Yamaha Engine Warranty
Standard 1 or 2 year electronic warranty
Originally Posted by paulbrown22
Whilst I shan't comment on the rest, pretty much every boat has broken down at some point for whatever reason! Do you really expect to be told about every incident with a flat battery, blocked fuel filter, air in fuel system, lack of fuel, snapped control cables, etc. of a used boat, however new or under warranty it is?
Unless it was a significant issue that caused the breakdown and required serious effort/changes to resolve, surely it's just part of boating!
No and we have been told it was a relatively minor issue that caused it but it did result in a tow from the RNLI and a helicopter. So while it wasn't a gear box failure the fact they changed the engine after only 80hours makes me wonder if there was more to it than we've been told...
Originally Posted by exmouthskipper
The Editor seems to think it is ok to fabricate (for fear of using a stronger word) the facts or at least endorse them in his own magazine. It didn't end well for Mazda, Ribeye will be losing face as will the magazine I feel. We aren't all stupid (well I have my moments)
I suspect there will be small print someplace that says the magazine is not responsible for content from its advertisers. I know you guys will all say HMS knows the history and so is complicit. Not sure what HMS gains from any false advertising though.