Yacht Thruster failure

[Waterford]

About a year ago, I ordered a Yacht Thruster e-Thrust to push the stern of my Nordic Tug 37 around. I know of two others in the NT community who had done the same with good results. I was not so lucky.



Within a few months of installation, the thruster slowed stopped while returning to dock after a short trip. I’d used the thruster to leave the dock and it worked fine just a few hours earlier. After the obvious check of batteries, fuses and continuity, I contacted Yacht Thruster.



A tech at Yacht Thruster requested a variety of photos and tests. I was able to reach below my swim step to confirm that the prop was turning freely. My mechanic performed further tests and followed suggestions from the vendor but with no success. Haulout and replacement was the remaining option.



Due to some family needs and committed travel, we postponed the replacement till this fall. On the hard, the thruster prop still spun freely, but there were a few small barnacles in the tunnel. In compliance with the warranty procedure, I paid $5k to ship a new unit out from Florida plus a few hundred to FedEx. The $5K would be refunded if the original unit was found to be defective. The new motor worked perfectly and I returned the broken motor to the vendor.



The old motor was disassembled and inspected by a Yacht Thruster tech and I was informed that the unit was not defective, but that I was at fault. Their claim was that a barnacle had grown in the tunnel, jammed the prop, and that repeated power to the unit had burned it up. Since they are the final decider in the process, I’m out $5K for the motor plus an additional ~$2K for shipping, haulout and labor.



Of course, I cannot prove that the prop spun freely during the trouble shooting process, or that the tunnel was barnacle-free at the time of failure. However, I do believe that Yacht Thruster uses their warranty process as a revenue stream. I also question the quality of a thruster motor that, by their claim, can be destroyed by a barnacle.



Your mileage may vary.



-Doug Ford

“Waterford”

 

[Comodave]

$5K for the motor??? My whole thrusters only cost $4,500 each. $2K for shipping is absurd, where do you live to get that shipping cost? Wow, I think you got ripped off…

 

[BruceK]

I`m puzzled that if all YT received was the motor, how could they determine a barnacle was the culprit. Maybe they had other information, like from the local tech who fitted the new motor. Even so, 5K for a new motor sounds extraordinary, but it seems that was an accepted arrangement. As to the other 2K, it`s not just for shipping, it includes haulout and motor replacement labour.
Shouldn`t there be an overload switch which could trigger to save the motor? Was the tunnel antifouled at the original installation,, it should have been, by the installer? I hope the new one brings better luck.

 

[CharlieO.]

It seems like there should been breaker that tripped or shear pin that sheared before the motor fried due to obstruction.

 

[DavidM]

Some thoughts on this situation:

I have had barnacles build up in the thruster tunnel, but it would take a heavy infestation to block the impeller. Routine bottom cleaning should have kept this from happening.

The shear pin would not break if barnacles built up and locked the rotor. They would only break if it were turning and something locked up the impeller. The same thing may be true of the circuit breaker. If it were wired with 2/0 or 4/0 wire and the breaker sized to protect the wire not the motor, it might pass enough current not to trip if the impeller were locked.

The manufacturer got the motor, hooked it up to power and they claimed it ran just fine. Did the owner do the same thing before he sent it to them?

I see a lot of fault on the part of the owner here. The manufacturer could be lying, but the owner had an opportunity to check the motor and he apparently didn’t.

So….

David

 

[SteveK]

How did the barnacle grow inside the motor, or the exact spot on movable parts to prevent the starting of turning?
Once the motor is spinning at speed surely it would chew up a barnacle. I just do not believe one barnacle caused this. Maybe 10, or 100 after attaching and fully growing in numbers to prevent a start of revolution and frying the motor.

 

[CharlieO.]

So what happened to the returned motor? Did they send it back to you?

 

[luna]

Some thoughts on this situation:

The manufacturer got the motor, hooked it up to power and they claimed it ran just fine. Did the owner do the same thing before he sent it to them?

I see a lot of fault on the part of the owner here. The manufacturer could be lying, but the owner had an opportunity to check the motor and he apparently didn’t.

So….

David

Perhaps I'm wrong here but I don't see where the OP said that once in the hands of Yacht Thruster the motor ran fine.

I do see where the OP said that Yacht Thrusters position (perhaps based on the pictures) was that a barnacle had in effect jammed the prop so it would not spin and that repeated power to the unit, burned it up.

The OP worded the warranty replacement process as if in order to make a warranty claim you first have to pay for a replacement part and then later on you get to live with whatever warranty determination was made by Yacht Thruster who at that point holds all of the cards. Not surprisingly they likely have few successful warranty claims.
Is this really their policy?
Why could you not just return the failed part and wait for their determination? It's not like you have just disabled a working thruster, as it failed long ago.
At that point you still have options as to where your money is spent.

 

[Comodave]

Some thoughts on this situation:

I have had barnacles build up in the thruster tunnel, but it would take a heavy infestation to block the impeller. Routine bottom cleaning should have kept this from happening.

The shear pin would not break if barnacles built up and locked the rotor. They would only break if it were turning and something locked up the impeller. The same thing may be true of the circuit breaker. If it were wired with 2/0 or 4/0 wire and the breaker sized to protect the wire not the motor, it might pass enough current not to trip if the impeller were locked.

The manufacturer got the motor, hooked it up to power and they claimed it ran just fine. Did the owner do the same thing before he sent it to them?

I see a lot of fault on the part of the owner here. The manufacturer could be lying, but the owner had an opportunity to check the motor and he apparently didn’t.

So….

David

No, they said the motor was burned up. How they could determine the cause of the motor burning up is what I don’t understand. They said it was essentially abuse by the owner. How can they determine that instead of the motor just burning up?

 

[tiltrider1]

I’m not sure if we have the whole story.

It is a very standard procedure to send in an item for warranty. It is also very standard to ask for a deposit on sending out a new unit before receiving the warranty unit. I am confused as to why the warranty claim wasn’t just sent in for evaluation. I can only surmise that OP couldn’t imagine the warranty being denied and opted to have a new unit expedited before the old unit was sent in.

I find it impossible for a single barnacle to be responsible for the motor failure. Who would design something that couldn’t handle such an extremely common event?

This whole story just doesn’t add up. Not picking a side here, either OP is not telling the whole story or Yacht Thrusters is practicing corporate fraud. I will watch with my eyes wide open.

 

[more]

take lawyer.