[hellosailor]

I don't know, Dave. I once made the mistake of lossening a turnbuckle the wrong way, and it parted like a rifle shot. No damage to the lightly built J/boat it was attached to, though.

I can't see that it should be POSSIBLE to tighten shrouds enough to damage the hull, I would expect the shroud or the turnbuckle to fail--by design--before the hull could be damaged by it.

Then again the name "BendyTeau" comes to mind.<G> But that's from the stays, not the shrouds. The engineers and the jury will figure out the truth behind the Tartan story. When you are dealing with retail goods and retail customers of any kind, there's no telling WHAT they're going to do with your product. considering the number of mars missions that have failed--and the credentials of the folks who have engineered them--I wouldn't be surprised if a sailboat had an engineering failure.

Or, if a customer overtightened something until something broke. Just a tad unfortunate if that was the HULL.

 

[hellosailor]

Is that article online or only in print?

 

[hellosailor]

cam-
"Tartan "makes good"
Tartan invets owners to tartan hulls 58 - 110 (3700). 2002 - 2007 for free inspection. Repairs will be made at no expense to owners if defects are found."

ROFL. I suspect that under federal warranty laws they are legally liable for manufacturing defects, especially concealed defects, and consequential damages of those defects. A catastrophic hull failure could involve several deaths, with the value on one death being around $2-3 million dollars (generally used by the FAA). Free inspection? They should be scared ****less of any hull that they can't inspect, in order to make sure there are no other time bombs out there.

But then again, as so many articles on "Why the recession?" are starting to say, finance and management types looking to make a buck (as opposed to establishing a long-term business with long-term goals) may just need to be banned. (Sure, easy.<G>)