|
|
Subject: Re: [world-cruising] Fiberglass or Steel
JAXAshby@XXX.XXX
Date: Mon May 12 2003 - 11:40:44 EDT
In the event that you are in fact *not* scared witless by sea dragons, let me
address each point in turn. (if you are, as it appears, scared there is not
much to be said other than wear kevlar armor stuffed with foam, plus SOS
suspenders, plus dual 406 EPIRB's, a signaling mirror anytime you stray from
the dock.)
In a message dated 5/12/2003 10:24:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
capella@XXX.XXX writes:
> JAXAshby@XXX.XXX wrote:
>
> >capella, your prejudices are coloring your "facts".
>
> As are yours.
>
> >
> >The statement stands, _generally speaking_ steel boats (we are talking of
> >recreational sailboats here) are build *much* stronger than glass boats.
>
> No. The statement is wrong, and your re-assertion of it a a fact does not
> make it so. The strength of any boat is a function of the *builder* and
> the
> *builder's construction standards* more so than the material.
cappy, cappy, cappy. stay on the subject if you will. Now listen up and pay
attention. Pound for pound glass is stronger than steel, and cold-molded is
stronger yet, and glass covered plywood even strong. HOWEVER, because there
is a certain _minimum_ thickness of steel plate that can be effectively
welded under more or less normal conditions ---> a boat built of steel <---
will be OVERbuilt relative to normal need. (Incidently, this also makes
steel boats typically heavier glass boats) *IF* one wanted to make a glass
boat **just as strong** one could by just adding lots more glass. The
resulting glass boat weighing the same as the steel boat would be stronger
than the steel boat. HOWEVER _generally speaking_ (recall that that has the
discussion from Moment One) put a typical glass boat along side a typical
steel boat of the same size and the steel boat will be much stronger. This
holds true _generally speaking_ until one gets up to boats of maybe 60 some
feet.
Argue all you want that the "builder" (your word) determines the strength of
the boat, but the fact remains that a "builder" in steel is limited to what
he can effectively weld, and thus his boat will be stronger than the
"builder" who choses glass, unless that glass "builder" spends a very lot of
money on extra glass, and more exta glass and more extra glass.
>
> >>That has *nothing* to do with strength of construction.
> >
> >So?
>
> Because your assertion is that the materials used by the builder defines
> the
> boat's strength.
I made no such assertion. Pay attention when you read.
>
> >If money is less important, you can get a >custom-built metal boat from a
> >>reputable builder.
> >
> >If money is MORE important, you can get a custom-built metal boat from a
> >reputable builder for faaaaaaaaaar less than you can get a custom-built
> glass
> >boat from a reputable builder. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut, the discussion is the
> >price of a same quality used steel sailboat as compared to a same quality
> >used glass sailboat, and under that criteria the steel boat costs much,
> much,
> >much, much less.
>
> Amazing how many custom-built fiberglass boats are out there. Must be a
> bunch of idiots who spend so much money when they could have a stronger and
> cheaper boat made of steel. Those rich folks must be pretty stupid, eh?
don't confuse the word "custom-built" with custom built. Production boats
builders -- particularly builders of higher end boats -- will arrange the
interior furniture to the buyers desires and then call the boat
"custom-built". One-off glass boats are rare, and most I've seen look
terrible even from a quarter mile away.
btw, a steel boat will also be heavier than a same quality, same size glass
boat. This can be an important factor in areas with lighter winds. In
addition, a steel boat will typically have a lower LPS than the same design
done in glass, which in turn will have a lower LPS than the same design done
in plywood.
In fact, pound for pound a plywood boat is the strongest boat the typical
used boat buyer might find. I've only seen three plywood cruising boats in
my life, and each was built specifically for its strength in the context of
crossing oceans. Each boat went for peanuts on the used market. And the
owner of each wass thrilled with his purchase.
>
> >
> >The discussion plainly stated that a potential buyer become knowledgeable
> >enough to know those items regarding a steel boat _without_ professional
> >surveyor assistance. The discussion plainly stated that same quality
> boats
> >-- steel and glass -- are being compared. The discussion also plainly
> stated
> >that low quality steel boats can live on for decades while low quality
> glass
> >boats are dumpsterized decades earlier.
>
> Wow. You don't believe in surveyors either!
Not many people do.
How do you expect the average > buyer to get so educated, when most quality
> surveyors have decades of boating experience behind them (as do most
> manufacturers, but not home-builders)?
BOO!! The sea dragons gonna git ya, cappy.
> >
> >>In order to keep them seaworthy, steel boats require *more* attention and
> >>*more* maintenance than fiberglass.
> >
> >Not true. Not true at all. What is true that steel boat require more
> >attention to stay looking good.
>
> Wow. You're beginning to scare me.
You've already told us you scare easily. No need to repeat it again.
Not only do you demonstrate a lack of > understanding of steel, it's clear you
> haven't even attempted to learn.
Your fear of the sea and your lack of understanding in no way proves my lack
of knowledge.
> >
> >As Rick pointed out, steel boats rust >from the inside out. Corrosion
> begins
> >>at the weld points. Every weld should be inspected routinely and
> >>protected. Note that *no* protection is permanent.
> >
> >So? You expect that glass boats can be ignored in their day-by-day,
> >year-by-year use?
>
> In the areas of interior welds, yes. Absolutely. Do glass boats need some
> inspections. Sure. But not to the extent that is required by steel.
don't go offshore, cappy. you trust glass boats more than is warrented.
> >
> >Unfortunately, most steel boats have ribs that are completely >
> inaccessible,
> >>as home-builders don't think of inspection requirements.
> >
> >How is this different from the interior pan arrangement used by production
> >glass boat builders for the last three decades?
>
> Fiberglass doesn't rust.
but keel bolts do, and fiberglass is damaged in a grounding, and weakens due
to flexing in rougher than normal seas, and is often assembled by unskilled
workers unable to speak English and using chopper guns, and is made too thin
to cut costs, and rots the core of structural parts of decks and cored hulls,
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Interior pans on fiberglass boats made building fiberglass boats cheaper and
make fixing fiberglass boat expensive. Out of sight, out of mind maybe for
you cappy, but do remember that the hull on a boat is the only thing that
keeps the water out. If you can't see both sides of the hull you have no
idea what is happening on the side you can't see. glass or steel, same same.
> >
> >btw, a steel boat that can not be thoroughly inspected without removing
> the
> >interior is not a boat that should be considered for purchase. That
> *some*
> >steel boats are built that way does not condemn those that are not.
>
> Most are not.
Bull.
How many have you seen that are?
A few dozen.
I've seen none, and I've > looked at scores, both home built and production
> (including Van de Stadt, which you reference later).
you talk like a surveryor (of powerboats) cappy. I kinda suggest you put
your glasses on next steel boat you look at. btw cappy, of those "scores" of
steel boats you've looked at, how many had cement in the bilge? What's your
opinion on cement in the bilge?
> >
> >The availability of solid repairs to steel boats is one of the reasons you
> >see so many decades old steel boats -- even poorly constructed steel
> boats.
> >Old glass boats usually are not worth the effort to repair structural
> >problems in the boat.
>
> Actually, I've seen many glass boats that are 30-40 years old.
the vast, vast, vast majority of glass boats built prior to 1970 have long
since been dumpsterized.
I cannot > remember seeing a solitary home-built steel recreational boat of
> that age.
Old age will do that to you, cappy. The memory is the second thing to be
lost.
> Most home-built steel sailboats seem to self-destruct somewhere between
> 10-20 years; it's rare to see one older.
So you say.
I have visited some third-world > countries where steel work boats are kept
> afloat for longer times, but they're not used for passagemaking.
cappy, now you've stretched yourself to the point of making up quotes.
Remember that a New York Times reporter was recently fired for doing that
very same thing.
> >
> >btw, the impact that puts a hole in a glass boat small enough to repair
> with
> >the stuff in a "small drawer" (your words) merely scratches the steel
> boat,
> >which keeps on sailing. The impact that puts a glass boat out of
> commission
> >for months often leaves the steel boat merely scratched up, or maybe
> dented a
> >bit, and the boat sails on, repairs to be made when convenient.
>
> I've seen steel boats with weld failures that fully disabled the
> boat...failures that occurred while sailing on a "normal" day.
No you haven't. A steel boat with welding
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad it would fail on a "normal" sailing
day would have sunk the moment it was first put in the water. In fact, I
personally have NEVER heard of a weld failing on a recreational sailboat (and
I have seen some trash), though one factory did at one point weld just one
side of the seam and other builders thought that imprudent. (That builder is
out of business and was, as I recall, in Vancouver)
And I've b> een fiberglass boats that get disabled in equally mild conditions.
> There
> are no guarantees. The point of my comments was that fiberglass boats that
> incur damage in some remote area are not abandoned. They're repaired and
> sailed on.
You might want to take a look at how many glass boats are NOT repaired in the
aftermath of a storm hitting a harbor.
> >
> >>
> >>But the bottom line (at least for me) is this. The oceans are not filled
> >>with semi-submerged containers waiting for a boat to sink. Nor are they
> >>filled with pirates waiting for sailors to kill. Almost every boat built
> >>is
> >>strong enough to cross an ocean; the weak link is the crew.
> >
> >Actually, the weak link is that hard stuff around the sides of the oceans.
> >That and the fact that virtually every last cruising boat eventually hits
> >that hard stuff. Some cruisers are more comfortable with a stronger boat
> >between them and the hard stuff out there.
>
> Clearly, while you own a boat, you've never made a passage.
I made one last month, and am making another week after next.
And equally > foolish is your comment that all cruisers eventually run
> aground. Perhaps a ourse in navigation might help.
Really? How precious your thought that cruisers don't run aground. *Clearly*
it is you who has never made a passage. Indeed, it seems you've also not
talked to many who have.
btw, about two months ago a Westsail 32 (a massively overbuilt glass boat)
was sunk of Mexico when it hit an uncharted rock at sea.
> >
> >If your boat is >not capable of keeping the crew comfortable and safe, you
> >>will not have a successful passage. When selecting a boat for
> >>passagemaking, the *first*
> >>criteria should be if that boat has a history of successful passages.
> >
> >Nah.
> >
> >If it >does not - and I include in that category every home-built boat -
> you
> >>should
> >>either eliminate it or very carefully examine it for your intended use.
> >
> >
> >No, not I should, but rather *you* should, for that is what you are
> >comfortable with. Me, I'm comfortable with my knowledge of boats and my
> >ability to inspect them. I'm also comfortable with the lower price of a
> >steel boat of the same quality as a glass boat.
>
> Fortunately, no one I care about will ever go sailing with you.
Fortunately me, no doubt.
Your > knowledge is somewhat lacking, and I for one would not entrust my life
> to
> your knowledge, as demonstrated in this exchange.
cappy, *you* are the guy who feels comfortable going "out there" and having
no clue whatsoever what the inside of your glass hull looks like (indeed, if
you put even a 1/2" hole in the hull of your boat you would sink because you
can't see where the water is coming from (a 1/2" hole three feet below the
waterline will take on a LOT of water in a very short hurry).
> >
> >btw, I currently own a glass boat simply because that was the boat that
> was
> >available to me when I wanted to buy. Somewhat later, a steel boat (home
> >built) stopped in my boatyard for a couple hours one Sunday. The owner
> >wished to sell the boat as it was bigger (40 feet) than he wished to sail.
> I
> >took the guy's name and number and called him back that winter. The boat
> was
> >sold to a couple who later became friends of mine. That couple is
> cruising
> >right now and have been Maine to the Caribbean and back twice.
>
> Since cheap steel boats are available all over the world, I'm surprised you
> couldn't find a bargain before you bought your glass boat. With your
> extensive knowledge, I can't believe you settled for glass. :-/
I bought my current boat 10 years ago and under pressure from a then
girlfriend, and I bought a boat fine for Long Island Sound, the area I do
much of my sailing. My next boat will be glass or steel or aluminum or
cold-molded or glass over plywood or recently built wood boat chosen for
maximum utility for my dollar spent.
> >
> >For the price of your Valiant, you could have bought a Van de Stadt 48
> with
> >palacial interior and had a hundred grand left over.
>
> Then someone would have had to pay me to take the Van de Stadt 48 off their
> hands. FWIW, I *love* that boat and it's design...one of the best. But
> comparably outfitted, it is still far more expensive than a new Valiant 42,
> and about the same as a new Valiant 50 (I've checked!). And again, this
> boat is professionally built. I have no argument whatsoever with
> professionally built steel (or aluminum) boats. The risk - as I said
> before
> - is in buying the construction standards of a hobbyist.
Comparing a glass Roberts 42 with a Hinckley is comparing a Boy Scout plywood
kayak to a kevlar racing kayak. Not a valid comparison.
A valid comparison for used sailboats is $. In other words, how much
seaworthiness/seagoing comfort/space/performance does one get for the
specific amount of money to be spent. I personally know a guy who paid
$12,000 for a 50 foot steel boat that had crossed the North Atlantic starting
in Russia where it was built in a back yard. The boat is industrial strength
tough, and looked it. NObody anchored close to that boat. The current owner
is putting in a very, very nice interior -- including a rather nice
fireplace with ceramic backing -- and making the deck look a little less like
a battleship. He has so much space on deck he has room for two (2) 20 foot
dinghies. He figures he will have less than $30k into his 50 foot,
go-anywhere boat.
I had my eyes on a VdS 37 sitting on the hard for several years (owner
overseas) but the bastard returned and set off on his boat for parts unknown.
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Bryan (KB3HMZ)
> "Capella" Valiant 40 #158
> Annapolis, MD
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> world-cruising-unsubscribe@XXX.XXX
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/YoVfrB/XP.FAA/uetFAA/A1TolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
world-cruising-unsubscribe@XXX.XXX
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|