Home   |  Message Board   |  Information   |  Classifieds   |  Features   |  Video  |  Boat Reviews  |  Boat DIY
Lund tyee transom problems - Page 4 - Walleye Message Central
Walleye Message Central

Go Back   Walleye Message Central > Boats, Motors, Electronics and Trailers > Boats

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-12-2021, 04:56 PM
lakedog lakedog is offline
Keeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrain View Post
What happened in these years was that the EPA mandated a change and Lund had to start doing their transoms differently. The process they chose to follow was not the best. Of course you don't get that feedback immediately so there was a span of years, late 90's to mid 2000's, where the transom quality suffered.
Also the question was asked why they didn't seal the wood. It comes down to that it is too labor intensive and material cost is too high.
Could Lund have done a better job, sure but they still build a great boat. They are not the only boats that suffer from wood rot either. Wood will rot no matter what. A good, rebuilt wood transom will last 20 years. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a good condition, late model used Lund. If transom does go bad ,replace with composite and never look back.
I would love to know the actual story surrounding the wood and what specifically was used.

For what a new fishing boat costs the argument that "it was tool labor intensive and that the material was too expensive" is utter nonsense. I think they either thought what they were doing was somehow correct from an engineering perspective (dubious), or didn't think sealing the cap would matter (likely).

I replaced my transom about five years ago in a manner consistent with what I would consider to be standard marine construction. In effect, epoxy coated marine grade plywood with polyurethane sealant at the cap and through-hull penetrations. It wasn't cheap, but in the grand scheme of life not staggeringly expensive either. I've probably spent more to date on electronics. I have had zero issues with the repair after many hours on the water.

This is a polarizing topic that seems to arise again and again. It is in my opinion neither "not an issue at all" nor is it the proverbial "end of the world." When considering a used boat I would simply check the transom carefully and use the issue for the sake of negotiation. If you know what you're buying the costs can easily be accounted for. I like boat despite the issue and would consider buying another one.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #32  
Old 01-12-2021, 11:57 PM
ltrain's Avatar
ltrain ltrain is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 2,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakedog View Post
I would love to know the actual story surrounding the wood and what specifically was used.

For what a new fishing boat costs the argument that "it was tool labor intensive and that the material was too expensive" is utter nonsense. I think they either thought what they were doing was somehow correct from an engineering perspective (dubious), or didn't think sealing the cap would matter (likely).

I replaced my transom about five years ago in a manner consistent with what I would consider to be standard marine construction. In effect, epoxy coated marine grade plywood with polyurethane sealant at the cap and through-hull penetrations. It wasn't cheap, but in the grand scheme of life not staggeringly expensive either. I've probably spent more to date on electronics. I have had zero issues with the repair after many hours on the water.

This is a polarizing topic that seems to arise again and again. It is in my opinion neither "not an issue at all" nor is it the proverbial "end of the world." When considering a used boat I would simply check the transom carefully and use the issue for the sake of negotiation. If you know what you're buying the costs can easily be accounted for. I like boat despite the issue and would consider buying another one.
In regards to EPA, from what I recall is that laws were changed on how you could dispose of wood treated with arsenic and basically the arsenic treated wood was phased out. So the transom wood was no longer treated. This lead to Lund having to do things a different way with different materials. There were a few bumps in the road and transoms from that time period of late 90's to mid 2000's suffered.

If you think that labor and material cost are utter nonsense then I don't think you really understand how the bottom line and profits are generated. If you get the product done the most efficiently and with the least amount of material cost then you have the most profit. If you think Lund is going to put several coats of epoxy on a transom waiting days for it to dry in between then you're crazy. I know for a fact they just cut out plywood and slapped it in there.

You redid your transom the correct way because you will be using it. Don't assume that's how manufacturers made theirs. Lund did not use epoxy to coat nor did they seal the cap and I'm not too sure they even sealed the thru fittings.

All that being said I don't think a bad transom is a deal breaker if you're aware of it before you purchase. I bought both of my Lunds with bad transoms and I negotiated that into the price. There is allot I liked about my boats and I understand wood eventually rots and I didn't mind addressing it. After the repairs were done I had the peace of mind knowing that the boat was solid for many years to come.
__________________
2021 Angler Qwest 822 Pro Fish n Cruise
2005 Yamaha f150
2020 Tohatsu 9.9 efi w/Trollmaster
Minn kota 72" 112lb 36v Terrova
Simrad nss evo2 12
BG Zeus2 12
Lowrance HDS 12 gen2
Lowrance point 1
Simrad is40
Sonarhub
Lowrance 3d
2 Cannon tracks
2 Cannon electric downriggers
2 Highseas quad rod trees
6 Bert's ratcheting rod holders
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-13-2021, 08:17 AM
lakedog lakedog is offline
Keeper
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: MN
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrain View Post
In regards to EPA, from what I recall is that laws were changed on how you could dispose of wood treated with arsenic and basically the arsenic treated wood was phased out. So the transom wood was no longer treated. This lead to Lund having to do things a different way with different materials. There were a few bumps in the road and transoms from that time period of late 90's to mid 2000's suffered.

If you think that labor and material cost are utter nonsense then I don't think you really understand how the bottom line and profits are generated. If you get the product done the most efficiently and with the least amount of material cost then you have the most profit. If you think Lund is going to put several coats of epoxy on a transom waiting days for it to dry in between then you're crazy. I know for a fact they just cut out plywood and slapped it in there.
That's an interesting point about the arsenic in plywood. Thanks for sharing that. Some time ago another member of the forum suggested it was an issue with material scrap, but didn't add that detail.

I am very familiar with how production costs are accounted for and disagree that it is all about the bottom line. It is in my opinion a balance of risk trade off and value which can be a delicate dance. Customer expectations may demand a different approach for "premium products" vs. those which are a commodity. Lund is not on the cheap end of the scale, at least when it comes to aluminum boats.

The cost of replacing my transom which included removal of the existing transom (complicated) replacement materials and profit for a small shop was less than $3000. This would establish an insanely conservative estimate on the cost premium of "doing it right." More than likely the cost to lund for additional sealant, epoxy and marine grade wood (versus whatever they're using) is probably on the order of $500. There would be some additional set up and perhaps labor, but a lot of it could be done in parallel with other manufacturing steps. It's a matter of logistics. ~1% or less of MSRP to deal with a serious reliability problem is not prohibitive.

My best guess is that knowing what we know today, Lund would have implemented this change without much thought. More than likely it wasn't considered or at worst they felt that they were the victims of the EPA and that somehow indemnified their actions. Later on, once the problems were realized, implementing changes would have been a thinly veiled admission of guilt that might arise in litigation. Who knows? My expectation is that the damage to their reputation and sales in recent years directly related to this issue has been far more costly than it would have been to simply address the change in materials on day one. It's water under the bridge at this point.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-13-2021, 09:13 AM
ltrain's Avatar
ltrain ltrain is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 2,392
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lakedog View Post
That's an interesting point about the arsenic in plywood. Thanks for sharing that. Some time ago another member of the forum suggested it was an issue with material scrap, but didn't add that detail.

I am very familiar with how production costs are accounted for and disagree that it is all about the bottom line. It is in my opinion a balance of risk trade off and value which can be a delicate dance. Customer expectations may demand a different approach for "premium products" vs. those which are a commodity. Lund is not on the cheap end of the scale, at least when it comes to aluminum boats.

The cost of replacing my transom which included removal of the existing transom (complicated) replacement materials and profit for a small shop was less than $3000. This would establish an insanely conservative estimate on the cost premium of "doing it right." More than likely the cost to lund for additional sealant, epoxy and marine grade wood (versus whatever they're using) is probably on the order of $500. There would be some additional set up and perhaps labor, but a lot of it could be done in parallel with other manufacturing steps. It's a matter of logistics. ~1% or less of MSRP to deal with a serious reliability problem is not prohibitive.

My best guess is that knowing what we know today, Lund would have implemented this change without much thought. More than likely it wasn't considered or at worst they felt that they were the victims of the EPA and that somehow indemnified their actions. Later on, once the problems were realized, implementing changes would have been a thinly veiled admission of guilt that might arise in litigation. Who knows? My expectation is that the damage to their reputation and sales in recent years directly related to this issue has been far more costly than it would have been to simply address the change in materials on day one. It's water under the bridge at this point.
Good post, appreciate the well thought out reply. I definitely do agree that Lund would probably love to have a do over card and do it right from the start. Like you said, water under the bridge now and with the recent move to composites ,Lunds transom problems should be a thing of the past.
__________________
2021 Angler Qwest 822 Pro Fish n Cruise
2005 Yamaha f150
2020 Tohatsu 9.9 efi w/Trollmaster
Minn kota 72" 112lb 36v Terrova
Simrad nss evo2 12
BG Zeus2 12
Lowrance HDS 12 gen2
Lowrance point 1
Simrad is40
Sonarhub
Lowrance 3d
2 Cannon tracks
2 Cannon electric downriggers
2 Highseas quad rod trees
6 Bert's ratcheting rod holders
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-13-2021, 11:37 AM
MarkG MarkG is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N. Illinois
Posts: 2,997
Default

Just some perspective...??? ..

There is so much focus on the "material" that is used, other issues are being ignored. Marine plywood (sealed with epoxies or not) has been used for transoms for decades and decades, mostly able to last through the useful life of most boats. I have been boating for over 40 years, owned many brands of boats, both premium and budget, all wood transoms never an issue. Unlikely that Lund (neither through ignorance or on purpose) used treated materials that would have had adverse chemical reactions with aluminum.

The bigger disappointment to see and hear about, (for me,as I have owned 3 Lunds for extended periods,including manufacture years that were SUPPOSED to have been be the issue , but I never did have a wood transom issue) is the declined or inconsistent quality of workmanship. Why does ANY wood rot? Water and moisture. Why is THIS happening? Poorly sealed caps and scuppers. Poor quality motor rigging, allowing moisture into the transom,etc etc. People have tried to ID what years have had the problems. Seems they cannot because it's more about the inconsistent quality of workmanship than the materials. Composites will certainly help or eliminate a rotted transom if water gets in,and is a welcome advance, but in my opinion it was more about workmanship allowing for the moisture breach to begin with.
-

Last edited by MarkG; 01-13-2021 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-13-2021, 05:59 PM
T Mac's Avatar
T Mac T Mac is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Broadwater County, Montana.
Posts: 9,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrain View Post
In regards to EPA, from what I recall is that laws were changed on how you could dispose of wood treated with arsenic and basically the arsenic treated wood was phased out. So the transom wood was no longer treated. This lead to Lund having to do things a different way with different materials. There were a few bumps in the road and transoms from that time period of late 90's to mid 2000's suffered.
.
Correct. In the late 90's (as I recall 1996)The Lund factory learned they could no longer dispose of any scraps of the the type of marine wood they had been using for for decades... due to new Minnesota EPA rules.
So they had to change.

Keep in mind, Lund was owned by Irwin Jacos (GENMAR) at the time and the transon warranry was 10 years to the original owner.. and the transoms, for the most part weren't experincing issues.. Then came the sale to Brunswick until 2004. (2005 Model year building just about ready to commence)
In 2006 (Begining of 2007 model year) Lund changed to a marine grade wood... paid to have scraps shipped out of state, ...and bumped up the warranty to lifetime for Original owners. Issues were believed to be solved . Very low incidence ..even after a few years of use forvthe vast majority...Then Lund started the composite project with much testing ... and eventually found a set up with the sought after correct attributes... and the confidence to start selling it..

Hind sight is great... but when you build something and probems don't show up consistently and when they do ...they don't show up until some years after it was built ....it isn't an easy thing to fix with the snap of your

Last edited by T Mac; 01-13-2021 at 06:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-14-2021, 05:46 AM
Welder guy Welder guy is offline
Minnow
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 9
Default

So I should pass on looking at a 2016 tyee??
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-14-2021, 09:02 AM
Bobby Winds's Avatar
Bobby Winds Bobby Winds is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WNY
Posts: 10,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Welder guy View Post
So I should pass on looking at a 2016 tyee??
IF that the boat you want do a through-all inspection and TAKE IT FOR A RIDE then if you're satisfied make the purchase.

Or take the worries out of your purchase and get a Polar Kraft.........I have NOT heard one word about Polar Kraft having transom concerns.

Good Luck,
Bob
__________________
2015 Polar Kraft Frontier 179WT
2015 E-TEC 90 HO
2015 Trailmaster trailer
Lowrance HDS7 Gen 2 Touch unit networked to a LMS 520c
Lowrance Engine Interface cable
Minn Kota Power Drive V2 US2 now with i-Pilot
Custom designed and built rod holders
Custom designed and built down rigger platforms
All towed with my Trusty G2 '07 Toyota Tundra
G O
B I L L S
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 01-14-2021, 03:26 PM
Shellback's Avatar
Shellback Shellback is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Wagontown, PA, USA.
Posts: 7,860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Winds View Post
IF that the boat you want do a through-all inspection and TAKE IT FOR A RIDE then if you're satisfied make the purchase.

Or take the worries out of your purchase and get a Polar Kraft.........I have NOT heard one word about Polar Kraft having transom concerns.

Good Luck,
Bob
Better bite your tongue, you know what happened when kept bagging about Etecs. Ya want Polar Kraft to fold too? LOL! GO RAVENS!
__________________
2013 Lund Alaskan 1600 Honda 50HP tiller
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-14-2021, 03:44 PM
Bobby Winds's Avatar
Bobby Winds Bobby Winds is offline
Wallhanger
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WNY
Posts: 10,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shellback View Post
Better bite your tongue, you know what happened when kept bagging about Etecs. Ya want Polar Kraft to fold too? LOL! GO RAVENS!
LOL...................GOOD ONE........but I already have one so Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't Care....


G O
B I L L S
__________________
2015 Polar Kraft Frontier 179WT
2015 E-TEC 90 HO
2015 Trailmaster trailer
Lowrance HDS7 Gen 2 Touch unit networked to a LMS 520c
Lowrance Engine Interface cable
Minn Kota Power Drive V2 US2 now with i-Pilot
Custom designed and built rod holders
Custom designed and built down rigger platforms
All towed with my Trusty G2 '07 Toyota Tundra
G O
B I L L S
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.