Myth that all old sailboats were overbuilt

[JonnyBoats]

There seems to be this myth that all fiberglass boats from the 1960s were "massively overbuilt". While many have extremely strong hulls, clearly there was some junk produced back then, just as there is today.

With respect to hull strength, which "classic plastic" boats are best for offshore work?

[Tim]

It might be better to say that the older boats were "thickly built"--and in most cases, the laminates are indeed very thick, up to 1-1/2", depending on the boat. However, the laminates tend to be extremely resin-rich, which in the end is a weaker laminate than one of today's more sophisticated systems. Also, the loose-weave bi-directional (90-degree) woven roving used is less strong for its weight than newer fabrics.

I don't think there are necessarily any "best" plastic classics for offshore work, based solely on laminates. All the boats seem to have variations in their build quality and thickness over the course of their production, and there are so many other factors at hand in choosing the best boat for any individual that it would be near impossible to generalize so.

I think each boat should be inspected for its own merits, as far as structure goes. This might be an instance (referring to an older thread) where a survey could be of great value. As to the rest of the things that might make a good offshore boat, many are too subjective and individual.

There is plenty of junk from the 60s, no doubt about it. Our beloved Tritons hang on the line, frankly. Fortunately, they have well-engineered hulls that require less in the way of internal support to retain their strength and shape. If they relied on the internal work, we'd all be in trouble.

As a "blank canvas" in a small, full-keeled boat, though, Tritons are tough to beat.

[bcooke]

Have any of you literally heard of older fiberglass boats breaking up at sea? Rig failures seem pretty common, broken rudders for sure, but sinkings from hull ruptures is something I have never come across. I have heard of a few stories like "Hey gee whiz, this hull is really flexing... let's slow down a bit" but I have never heard of anything serious in fiberglass. Then again, the ones that go to the bottom don't leave much of a story behind, only survivors tell stories.

Actually, one of the worst I heard was of a Contessa 32 developing a crack in the bow. Now Contessa 32's are supposed to be one of the best small offshore sailboats (if you believe in that sort of thing) but I think I heard this one was built for the Great Lakes and was a little thinner than most. The sailor slowed down and layed in a couple layers of cloth on the inside and lived to tell the tale.

As for Tritons, yes they are the volkswagon beatles of the sea and suspect to be sure (as they all are - people that go to sea in small boats... any boats ...are crazy anyway!) but the good news is that none to my knowledge have broken up at sea. That is at least heartening. I do remember hearing about one that sank but it was apparently under tow for dubious reasons. Anyone know of a real (no dock/towing/maintenance/idiotic and totally preventable) Triton sinking?

Now you are going to make me wonder if I should rebuild my bulkheads while I have the interior apart... Maybe add in those watertight compartments like on Atom. Where does it all end?...

-Britton

[Rachel]

Hi Britton,

I know of one Triton that sank - I think out in the Pacific towards Hawaii. The story is on the National Triton page - and I was going to provide a link, but that site won't load for me right now. I think its name was something like "Puffin," or "Pelican."

IIRC they weren't sure what happened - maybe they hit a container or somehow holed the hull. They were rescued and it literally sank out from under them. Yikes. I used to lie awake sometimes on night watch, morbidly imagining a container ripping into the hull right next to my head. Of course that sounds kind of weird sitting here in daylight typing, but there's something really fantastical about "rushing" through the dark ocean at 6 knots in the middle of the night - and no headlights either :-)

I also met a pair of circumnavigators - you might have read their story in Latitude 38 or elsewhere. Two friends who took two years out of their lives and circumnavigated on their Ericson 39, "Maverick." They went west-about from San Franciso, and when they were their on way to the Caribbean - mid ocean - a side-to-side "smile" opened up in their hull; literally a crack right the way across, all below the water line.

They were able to keep from sinking and got to the Eastern Caribbean where they hauled and fixed it, but it was pretty amazing. I met up with them in San Diego when they were almost home.

Of course that's a fin-keel of some sort, so not the same as a Triton - and I believe the crack was just ahead of the keel protrusion, so obviously a stress point. Not sure what year the boat was, but probably mid-70s, I'd guess. Other than that (!), they really liked the boat on their trip; it belonged to one of them from before.

--- Rachel

[george]

I think an Alberg 30 would be good choice too.

Jean-du-Sud took a serious whipping in the Pacific (flipped and demasted in waves that looked like mountains) and lost its mast, but righted itself and never had hull or rudder problems. The owner alleges if he had gotten beefier chainplates he probably would not have lost his mast.

And he claimed to have made the boat unsinkable by making airtight bulkheads.

Has anyone ever seen the film "Around the World with Jean-du-Sud"? I looks like it would be eye-opening, or at least cure one's wanderlust.

[Tim]

Has anyone ever seen the film "Around the World with Jean-du-Sud"? I looks like it would be eye-opening, or at least cure one's wanderlust.

I have heard that film is quite interesting. I have sometimes considered buying a copy, but have never gotten around to it.

Have any of you literally heard of older fiberglass boats breaking up at sea? ...

Britton brings up a good point that we have all been remiss in forgetting to mention. There are indeed very few, if any, cases documented where pure structural weakness caused a boat to come to grief in this way. Usually, there is a chain of events that leads to the foundering, often started in motion by collisions with debris or sea life; these cases don't count because the reason the boat sank was because of the collision. Likewise cases where boats founder because of ingress of water from heavy seas, which might have broken some portion of the deck open.

Any sailor heading to sea ought to be prepared to deal with a cracked area that opens up for one reason or another; stemming a flow of water like this should be within the realm.

There are too many cases of ruptured through hulls or hoses that cause a boat to go down. Frankly, I have little sympathy for these sailors; problems that could have been prevented, or fixed, by proper preparation don't count in my book either.

It's mostly in the extreme offshore races where you hear of large panel sections of the hull flexing in and out; these boats, of course, are built as lightly as possible, and the failure of one small section can cause a disaster.

I think there's a propensity to worry too much about the disaster cases, which leads to a lack of focus on what might be really important.

Thanks, Britton.

[dasein668]

maybe they hit a container or somehow holed the hull.

I was going to offer this example as a case wherein a fiberglass boat might sink due to the hull "failing" but I think few if any fiberglass (or wood, for that matter) boats would hold up well to a direct impact with a container... Yikes.

[Rachel]

Just to clarify,

I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't offering up my examples to show up any weaknesses in Tritons or other boats of the type.

It's just that Britton posed the question, so I thought I would mention the ones I knew of. But I absolutely agree that a container breaking through the hull can't really classify said hull as "flimsy" or weak in any way. Likewise if there are owner-oversights in maintenance.

We saw a half-submerged ... thing - it looked like a giant commercial freezer floating just before we turned up into the Gulf of Panama. Just a corner was was out of the water and had a sea-bird perched on it. But see it at night? No way. We shuddered to think that we'd been zooming along at 7 knots through the pitch black night just a few hours earlier. Yikes.

--- Rachel

[Tony]

It wasn't a triton, but I recall a boat (newer design, I think) in a Lat 38 article sometime last year off of baja that had the deck literally come off the hull...I believe it seperated completely at the hull to deck flange, then the boat basically folded up and sank.

[Tim]

Now, when Young America folded in half several years ago sailing over a 2' wave, THAT's a pure hull failure! High-tech, lightly built America's Cup boat, so it still doesn't meet our general criteria, though.

[Tony G]

I've watched it so many times I had to put it on a DVD. We have long winters here and I have no heat in the shop. It really was Yves' film that got me started loving Carl's lines, but, I still tell the Mrs. that it's all Tim's fault. She believes it and, for the most part, I'm off the hook! Thanks Tim, I owe you. Tony G

[JonnyBoats]

Getting back to the hulls: I understand that the hull is just one of many, many things that is important.

Am I wrong in assuming that most other things can be replaced or upgraded (other than the basic design) while a weak hull will always be a weak hull? In other words things like spars, standing and running rigging etc are things that are likely to need replacement anyway on a 40+ year old boat, and thus can be upgraded in the rplacement process.

Also in compairing different boat models (Triton vs Bristol 27 for example) is variation in hull quality and or streingth primarly a function of the model or of the particular hull number within the model?

Finally is the quality of the hull something a good marine survey can be reasonably expected to reveal?

[Tim]

I wouldn't choose to start with a known "weak" hull. Given the number of good boats out there, there's simply no reason. That said, many "weak" hulls could be improved and strengthened if one cared to. By "weak" hull, in this instance I mean an inadequately supported fiberglass laminate. Boats with inherently poor quality of lamination technique aren't worth considering under any circumstance.

One could add glassed-in stiffeners, such as transverse or longitudinal stringers, or additional bulkheads to any hull to minimize the unsupported spans. You can turn a piece of paper mache (excuse me...papi?r mach?) into a strong structure if you added enough stiffening material. Of course, there's a logical and practical limit to this. Many boats with molded interior liners don't even have glassed-in bulkheads; the bulkheads are screwed into molded slots in the liner. Boats like this could be strengthened simply by tabbing the bulkheads to the hull and deck. However, the liner technique is fine for coastal cruising boats. There's no need for an offshore boat unless you are truly heading offshore.

Solid fiberglass hulls tend to flex in larger unsupported areas; this is called oilcanning. Extensive oilcanning can, over time, weaken the laminate and cause delamination. In general terms, the thicker the solid laminate, the less oilcanning there will be for a given span. This is where some of the older plastic classics excel. In addition to thick solid laminates, which are inherently more resistant to oilcanning, the shapely hull forms add significant strength as well, when compared with flatter, wider sections.

Thicker means less flex; this is why cored structures work. When properly built, a cored structure adds significant thickness to the overall structure, but is stiffer (because of the I-beam-like design) and lighter than a solid laminate of similar overall thickness. I think cored structures are just fine, as long as they are carefully built to high standards. Sadly, many cored boats (hull and/or deck) were not, and still are not. While repairing a cored deck structure is now commonplace and within the reach of most owners, repairs to a cored hull would be more challenging. For the types of boats we usually discuss here, it's not an issue, of course.

Thin doesn't necessarily mean weak, or unworthy; laminates can now be much thinner and actually be stronger than the older, resin-heavy laminates. That said, a thinner hull might be less impact-resistant than a thicker one. Some amount of flexing is normal and unavoidable for solid hulls. Fiberglass can withstand extended periods of what I would call "normal flexibility" without any detrimental effect on the overall structure. I don't have any data on what might be considered acceptable versus unacceptable flexing, other than what practical knowledge and experience has taught me. In some cases, thin is a measure of poor build quality and skimping on materials. There are plenty of junky boats like that out there. None of them are on my list of boats worth restoring anyway.

I think this hull discussion underscores one of the earlier threads about what makes a certain boat more of a restoration candidate than others. Given the extent to which most aspects of these boats might require rebuilding or restoration (i.e. systems, decks, mechanicals, rigging...), one needs the deck stacked as much in their favor as possible. That's why it perhaps makes more sense to begin with a boat with some generally respected hull build characteristics, so that you at least know one structural aspect that you can count on.

Each boat, regardless of builder, production number, or anything else, is, in the end, its own entity that requires approval or disapproval based on its own merits. I don't believe in generalities, in general. ;<)

I've noted significant differences in how various Tritons are put together, for example, but all of the ones I have seen are still good, solid boats (at least hull-wise, that is). You never know if one boat was built on a Friday morning, perhaps (day after payday...hung over employees in the early morning?). Or maybe it was built fresh on a Tuesday morning. Since all of us have our good and bad days, performance-wise, you have to expect certain variations in execution or quality in any product. Hopefully, there was enough quality control at the production company to prevent any truly bad apples, but you still never know what you might find.

Can a survey be reasonably expected to determine the quality of the hull? Absolutely...within reason. A survey is not a magic trick, and is, at best, a description of the surveyor's educated, informed, and experienced opinion of what he sees during the course of the survey. Two surveyors doing the same boat in the same day might even come away with completely different observations. It's that subjective, yes.

Still, any reasonable surveyor should be able to determine the general quality of the hull, in terms of its overall structural suitability. Major issues are normally abundantly clear to a surveyor. Determining any more than that is not within the scope of a typical survey, and would require invasive testing in the form of core samples and laboratory testing to determine the makeup, thickness, and character of the laminate. Expecting absolute answers and guarantees from any survey is simply not in the cards. There is only so much that anyone can tell from a typical survey; however, the survey is still comprehensive and instructive, and usually quite telling in its findings.

[JonnyBoats]

Thanks Tim, lets see if I understand.

If one wanted to restore an old boat from the 1960s era (solid hull, no liner) and planned to gut it before starting rebuilding, one should:

1) Get it surveyed before starting to make sure the hull is worth working on. The survey should reveal things like previous hull damage, improper repairs, bad layups (resin starved areas etc.)

2) Once the projet boat is purchased and gutted and immediately before restoration have the surveyor return to "double check" and inspect any areas he might have had trouble accessing in the first survey due to bulkheads, cabinets etc. restricting access.

3) Should it be determined that the hull should be "beefed up" in certain areas, it would be quite possible to do so at this point prior to adding cabinets, bulkheads, equipment etc.

[Rachel]

I'll be interested in what Tim says about surveyors pointing out the following:

bad layups (resin starved areas etc.)

I've only had two professional surveys done, and besides mentioning how 1960s boats were "relatively thick"- or something like that - they didn't say much about layups, or possible resin-starved spots.

I had to press them a bit just to comment on things like tabbing quality.

That being said, my feeling was that one of them was pretty worthless, but the other was a good surveyor, who just wasn't willing to comment on things he couldn't ascertain for sure.

So what does "our" surveyor think about this? :-)

--- Rachel[/quote]

[dasein668]

I think "our" surveyor hates making generalizations llike this! As he frequently points out, a survey is no "magic bullet" for seeing all possible ills, and in our litigous-minded society, making any comment can come back to bite one in the butt.

A surveyor can only observe what is observeable, and make educated guesses (which most surveyors don't want to actually write down, due to the aforementioned litigousness [sic]) based on previous or general knowledge/experience etc.

My survey (which Tim did) was excellent, but at times suggested further investigation was warrented, or referred me to a specialist (ie sailmaker, engine mechanic). And rightfully so. And the survey wasn't perfect, as Tim would be the first to admit, I'm sure. There were some interesting things I found after I started pulling the boat apart, but they were things that couldn't reasonably be expected to be found in a general survey?even one taking 3 or 4 hours, like he spent on our boat. And there were things that weren't nearly as bad as he made them sound in the survey, but again, how much can one really tell from a survey without possibly invasive/destructive testing? Ref. litigousness again?better to be overly cautious, perhaps, then otherwise...

[Tim]

It's not really in the scope of a normal survey to comment on build quality, what the design is like, suitability of the boat for a certain task, and so forth. Surveyors, as generalists, are to provide commentary on their objective observations of the boat as seen at the time of the survey--nothing more, nothing less.

Such commentary is necessarily limited to those areas that are visible to the naked eye. As such, it's unlikely that there could be too much discussion of such things as resin-starved laminate, other than that which is readily apparent. In some cases, however, it is immediately obvious that, for example, the laminate is indeed dry and fibrous, and such observations would generally be included.

Tabbing, where observed, is inspected during the course of a survey, but mainly for signs of damage or separation. It is more or less impossible to comment on whether the tabbing is suitable for the job or not; the general opinion might be that if the tabbing has survived 30 or 40 years intact, then it must be suitable for the job at hand. But it's tough to comment much beyond that without opening the door to trouble.

A surveyors personal opinions of the boat may be of value, but, frankly most surveyors would not be able to provide such opinions, lest they come back to haunt them later. Verbal discussions are, in a litigeous society, just as damaging as the written word today. For this reason, surveyors tend to leave their frank opinions about the boat's overall build quality, design, looks, etc. to themselves, other than that which can be directly observed and reported.

Surveyors, unfortunately, must practice CYA before anything else. Our lawsuit-addicted society just does so much harm to this business, and many other businesses at well. With the general public en masse seemingly unwilling to accept the smallest amount of personal responsibility for their actions, the items they purchase, or the use of said items, tradesmen like marine surveyors are forced to take the safe route, to avoid going out on a limb with an opinion. This leads to the more vague reporting style commonly seen today. The surveyor must carefully construct all written observations in such a way as to clearly state what was seen and what was not seen.

The nature of boat construction prohibits direct inspection of many areas, such as hull or deck cores, inner laminates, and, in many boats, any of the interior of the hull or deck, thanks to full liners and complex cabinetry. It's a sad state of affairs when a survey has, in many respects, become so overly concerned with playing it safe that it can hardly state anything of value. Alas, this is how it is today. Surveyors should not--cannot--comment on that which they can not observe.

Surveyors surely dislike many of the boats for which they are hired to survey, but these sorts of opinions have no place in a professional setting, and you should never be informed that a surveyor dislikes "your" boat. I also believe that a surveyor should never "condemn" a boat, or pass/fail; the purpose of a survey is to lay out the factual, observed information for the buyer or other client to see and make their own decision.

John, I wouldn't bother with the second survey (or inspection) in your hypothetical scenario. And I would only recommend the initial survey, in a known project boat, if you yourself were uncomfortable with making the determination about the hull's condition on your own, and wanted a second opinion or a reality check. In most cases, you'll end up needing a survey before the boat is launched, if you want insurance.

Now. I'm happy to continue to answer basic survey-related questions here. However, I come to this forum as a boatowner, boat restorer, builder, general boat nut, and sailor. If my overall experience is heightened by the resources and knowledge afforded by being a surveyor, then I am happy to pass that along as applicable, as I always attempt to do.

However, I am uncomfortable in using this forum as a discussion board for my own business as a surveyor. I have never included links to my company from my personal websites, and don't intend to begin. I believe that there is a vast separation between the two, and would like to maintain that separation. The two mes are entirely different. While I try to bring my skills learned working on boats to the survey site, which I find highly applicable to the sort of surveys that I usually do, I similarly try to avoid bringing survey-type stuff to the personal side. I find that translates badly, myself.

Therefore, I would appreciate all consideration in helping me maintain a professional distance as I deem appropriate. This forum is about boatbuilding and restoration, and sailing those boats. Let's keep it there!

Trust me...it's way more fun than survey talk! :<)

[JonnyBoats]

Thanks Tim. I totally respect your desire to keep your survey side of the house seperate from this forum.

[Zane Krajancic]

Thicker means less flex; this is why cored structures work. When properly built, a cored structure adds significant thickness to the overall structure, but is stiffer (because of the I-beam-like design) and lighter than a solid laminate of similar overall thickness. I think cored structures are just fine, as long as they are carefully built to high standards. Sadly, many cored boats (hull and/or deck) were not, and still are not. While repairing a cored deck structure is now commonplace and within the reach of most owners, repairs to a cored hull would be more challenging. For the types of boats we usually discuss here, it's not an issue, of course.

Not having a background in boatbuilding of any sort you should take what I am about to say with a grain of salt .......................... it took me a good while to understand that my boat is essentially a glass boat with a cored structure of wood, and if properly built is every bit as strong as other boatbuilding methods. My Frances is a cedar strip core, with reasonably heavy tri-axial glass cladding inside and outside the hull. There are no Frames or Stringers in my Hull.

I was going to glass in all sorts of stringers and frames to the existing hull of my boat thinking it would be a wise thing to do - but a strong proponent of this "Sheatstrip" construction is Tom MacNaughton, whom took Lindsay Lord's methods and adapted them - and he advised me that bar, say, a couple of full length bilge-stringers to protect in case of a grounding - it would be a big, big mistake to go glassing in any other longitutinal or transverse "strengthening" at all beacuse it just adds unecessary weight, makes no sense engineering wise, and will just make your boat slower. While the "bonding" in of the interior furniture does add to transverse strenght, the Hull would be strong enough on its own with this sort of construction - if properly built.
My boat will displace 6800 lbs in coastal crusing trim, and my Displacement/Length ratio is 316. I guess I am going to find out sooner or later just how strong my Hull is when a finally get her launched and sailing! Then the proof will be in the pudding.

He conceded that a GRP "Good Old Boat" is an entirely different beast, and some of the hulls of so called "massively built" Glass Fibre "Good Old Boats" have seriously "floppy" hulls and are in dire need of internal strengthening before they should be considered as a serious offshore boat.
In fact, Tom told me that built to the correct scantling rules, a sheath-strip/glassed boat is actually stronger than a all FRP boat. Now I don't think he was referring to "point impact" here, rather a boats ability to slam to windward for hours without breaking up.

In fact I remember reading somewhere that a heck of a lot of so called "Offshore Cruisers" (the boats, not the people) would not take the stress of bashing to weather in 20-25 knots for 24 hours. Would be great to Sail off the wind everywhere, but not a reality methinks. In fact I remember reading Webb Chiles account of his first attempt at Cape Horn where the hull of his Ericson 35' cracked and he had to abort the attempt.

Again. I stress, that I speak from no authority at all on this subject. I have never been offshore, and I am in the beginners stage of learning all about goops, glues, epoxys etc so that I can alter the interior of my boat to a more practical liveaboard layout. But, I am just repeating what a kind and experienced Naval Architect advised me on FRP and "Cored" FRP construction.

[bcooke]

In fact, Tom told me that built to the correct scantling rules, a sheath-strip/glassed boat is actually stronger than a all FRP boat

I think the Gougeon (?) brothers say the same thing in their book. They base that claim on the fact that wood fibers are less effected by cyclic stress than glass fibers. I think I am right is saying glass fibers are a little stronger initially but weaken at a faster rate with repeated flexing. Now by repeated flexing we are talking about tens of millions of cycles and the real difference in strength between wood and glass fibers probably is not that great anyway so I think the best choice of materials comes down to personal convenience.

And I definitely wouldn't be spending too much time stiffening my hull unless I had a known problem or significant experience to suggest stiffening might be needed. You can drive yourself crazy developing/designing/building the "ultimate" offshore cruiser. Especially, since the concept probably doesn't exist- everything is a tradeoff- and really, 99.9 percent of the boats cruising out there are no where near "ultimate cruiser" status. Just sail the boat and she will tell you what she needs.

In fact I remember reading somewhere that a heck of a lot of so called "Offshore Cruisers" (the boats, not the people) would not take the stress of bashing to weather in 20-25 knots for 24 hours.

I am not sure what kind of boats we are talking about here but I would say most boats could take that kind of treatment but I guess that would depend greatly on wave heights/periods and other conditions. Usually it is the people not the boat that wants to shorten sail first but maybe there are more heroes out there than I thought. Now if it was an O'Day "offshore" boat....

-Britton